Opening speach by Odd Anders With , Deputy Minister ("Statssekretær") of Children and Family Affairs

Child Welfare in Norway – Challenges in a New Century

7 ^th> EUSARF Congress , 11 ^th> –14 ^th> September 2002 Trondheim
"Revitalising Residential and Foster Care: New Horizons in the 21 ^st> Century"

Dear participants!

During this congress, many highly qualified presenters will talk about their experiences and research from many European countries or other parts of the world. When preparing this presentation, I soon found out that the number of sub-topics are too complex and many to be included in an introduction. My own knowledge is mostly about the recent development in Norway, and I will therefore frequently use the situation in Norway as a frame of reference. I shall talk about topics which I hope will be of interest across national borders and which do not presuppose knowledge of national legislation and social structure.

My presentation is divided into two main parts. First I will talk about child welfare policies and values in general. In the second half, I will speak specifically about foster care and residential care.

The present Norwegian Child Welfare Act is from 1992. The effects of this Act have been evaluated. In 2000, an official Committee issued a report on Norwegian Child Welfare Services. As a following up of the aforementioned evaluation and committee report, the Ministry issued a report to Parliament about Child Welfare in July this year ("Stortingsmelding nr. 40 (2001-2002) Om barnevernet"). I think that much of what we have written about basic values and challenges is relevant in an international as well as a national context.

Some important challenges for the Child Welfare Services

Increased efforts to implement preventive measures for children and families at an early stage of problem development

When child welfare services are needed, the best help children can get will be help given to their families – in most cases.Today, professionals are becoming increasingly aware of the needs to focus upon all aspects of the situation under which families live and to stimulate the latent recourses of families. Although such models of understanding are quite common, changes in attitudes, turning of old habits and not least training in use of new methods are required. By new methods, the Ministry refers to for example Home Start, Marte Meo, Family Group Conferences, Parents Management Training, Multi Systemic Therapy (mentioned later in this presentation). The city where this congress is located, has been one of the pioneers as regards trying out such new methods. Expressed in a simplified manner, new approaches to family include that child welfare services spend more time and effort in dialogue with children and families about problems and possible solutions. A more family and user oriented child welfare service, is also in harmony with the declaration which constitutes the basis of the present Government. Better prevention will result in more well–functioning families and fewer cases of neglect, abuse and behavioural problems. In the long run, increased recourses spent on prevention will in addition be economically efficient, since fewer expensive measures such as placements in institutions will be required. When saying this, I must simultaneously underline that the consideration of the child’s best interest is basic for the child welfare services. Children who suffer from abuse or grave neglect by their family, and these children need to be protected here and now.

Better co-ordination of measures for children and young people in need of public assistance

Primary and secondary prevention measures for children are organised in different manners in different countries. Claiming that one model is the right one for all regions and countries would be premature. Nevertheless, I think one agency must function as a co-ordinator, in order to facilitate communication between the agencies involved and thereby providing assistance before problems escalate. In Norway, there are several reasons for letting the child welfare services do such functions. According to our Child Welfare Act, the Child Welfare Services shall collaborate closely with other public agencies and voluntary organisations. Many children and families who receive child welfare measures, do also need help and assistance from other agencies. The child welfare service shall help to ensure that children’s interests are protected also by these public agencies. Municipal child welfare services performing the roles of co-ordinator and initiator, will also be active and visible services. In Norway local autonomy is an important normative and legal value, and the municipalities decide to a large extent themselves how to organise local services.

Local political involvement in child and youth policies and child welfare policies

Participants from some countries may view the important role of local politicians as almost self-evident. Others may be sceptical towards mixing politics and professional child welfare. I have no intention of involving politicians in detailed discussions and decisions about child abuse and neglect cases. My concern is that without mandatory political committees, child welfare is in danger of becoming rather invisible at the local political agenda. Both formally and ethically, politicians are responsible for the child welfare and the child and youth policies of the municipalities. Particularly general measures for children and young people and preventive measures may be improved by becoming visible and debated issues. Compared to casework with children and families, preventive measures are to a larger extent political issues in which lay people can play an active role in planning.

More legitimate child welfare services

Almost by the nature of their task, child welfare services can not expect to become very popular services. A more realistic goal is a respected child welfare service, viewed as legitimate among children and parents who are users of its services as well as partners from other agencies and people in general. To be estimated in such a way, I think these services must communicate as clearly and openly as possible about its values and roles, and the principles of its decisions and measures. The double role of providing help and control is basic. In Norway, we have discussed if dividing the tasks of help and control between different organisation is a good solution. Seen from my point of view, coping with this double role must be a part of the professional identity of child welfare personnel. Child welfare services with high competence as regards preventive and family based activities, do not loose their legitimacy because involuntary measures are necessary in some cases.

Co-ordinated and high quality specialist services

By the specialist services of the child welfare sector, I am referring to the functions the county municipalities are responsible for. The county municipalities are "responsible for recruitment of and mediation of foster homes, and for ensuring that foster parents receive the requisite training and general guidance" (Child Welfare Act, Section 2-2, third paragraph). The county municipalities are also in charge of child welfare institutions. A lot of children and young people who are placed outside home, are also in need of other specialist services. Several different agencies are in charge of providing such services.

The responsibility for hospitals and mental health services was transferred from the county municipalities to the state at the beginning of this year. In a Report to Parliament in July this year, the Government has proposed also to transfer the county municipal child welfare (and family guidance) tasks to state agencies. The Government is convinced that this administrative reform will stimulate co-operation between agencies to ensure that measures are tailor-made to the problems and needs of children and young people.

Foster and Residential Care – cornerstones of the Child Welfare Services

As I have said before, there are many ways of reducing the needs for placing children out of home. In a speech about child welfare in general, I would have elaborated this point much more in detail. Ranked by frequency, different in-home measures are the cornerstones of Norwegian child welfare services. However, there are several cornerstone, and services for children and young with the most severe problems deserve high attention. Keeping the length of my speech in mind, I will therefore turn to the main theme of this congress.

According to the latest available statistics (from Statistics Norway) nearly 26 000 children under the age of 18 received child welfare measures at the close of 2001. Compared to the total population, 23 children out of 1000 under age received some assistance, most of them at home. About 5 250 children were under protective care, and among these around 4 500 were in foster homes, around 480 in children’s or youth homes and the rest in living/working collectives, institutions for alcoholics and drug addicts or psychiatric institutions. Children under protective care, have been placed outside of home pursuant to a care order by a County Social Welfare Board.

Children are also placed out of home as assistance measures. This means in short that the child welfare service and the parents agree about the placement, the case in not handled by the County Social Welfare Board and the parents are still in care of their children. At the close of 2001 around 1 600 children were placed in foster homes and around 740 children were placed in children’s homes or youth homes as assistance measures. A bit misleadingly such measures are often called voluntary placements , opposed to "involuntary" placement by the County Social Welfare Board. Compared to other countries, the percentage of involuntary placement of home in Norway may therefore seem high. However, in many cases, care orders are fully accepted by the involved children as well as their parents.

Foster Care

Foster care is the most frequently used kind of protective care in Norway, and has been so for many years. Based on research and common values, the authorities try to provide a place to live for children which resembles a biological family as much as possible. We refer to the adults in the new homes as foster parents and are thereby underlining the very specific role expectations of this kind of paid activity.

In Norway, we differentiate between 2 or 3 kinds of foster homes. Ordinary foster homes are most frequently used. Reinforced foster are, generally speaking, used for children and young people with particular needs and/or grave problems. Specific qualifications and experience is therefore needed for becoming a foster parent in a reinforced foster home. In relation to reinforced foster homes, the authorities may presuppose that one of the foster parents stay at home for a period of time and pay them extra for doing so.

Most children are placed in foster homes outside of their family. In addition, a substantial number ( nearly 1200 by the end of 2001) foster children are placed in foster homes within the family. Family in this context may be grandparents, uncles and aunts etc. In some countries, the child welfare services are mandated by law to seek for foster parents within the family or social network, before placing a child in the home of "strangers". The Ministry has considered if a similar provision should be introduced in Norwegian legislation. There may be several reasons for choosing foster homes which are not a part of the family or network. Family members or persons in a family’s social network do not necessarily have the qualities required for foster families. Close relations between the biological family and the foster homes is a fertile soil for loyalty conflicts and double roles which may be too difficult to cope with for some foster parents. In short, general principles in favour of family placements are valid for individuals if such placements also serve the best interest of the child.

Persons selected as foster parents shall have a : "—special aptitude for giving children a good and secure home, and be capable of discharging the task of fostering in accordance with the preconditions laid down concerning the duration of the placement" (Child Welfare Act, section 4-22, third paragraph). Foster homes must in addition to being good caregivers, by co-operate constructively with the child welfare services and in most cases also with the biological parents (provided that children and parents are entitled to access one another). They must also learn to cope with the fact that their foster children in most cases will live with them for a relatively short period of time.

To recruit foster homes for older children have been difficult. As far as I know, this is not a particular Norwegian challenge. The county municipalities adjusted their recruitment measures in line with their different local needs and conditions. The county municipalities have also established a common web-site containing information about foster care. This kind of information is also provided by the organisations of Norwegian foster homes, which is an important co-operation partner for central as well as regional authorities.

When recruiting foster homes, matching the needs of the children and the qualifications of the foster parents is essential. What the necessary qualifications are, must be evaluated in each individual case. The specific needs of foster children may be related to for example disabilities, ethnicity or the particular traumatic experiences children have been exposed to.

One sub topic of this congress is preventing child abuse in residential and foster care. I would like to mention that following a law amendment in 1999, applicants for positions in child welfare services, child welfare institutions and foster parents, shall submit a police certificate. The police certificate shall show whether the person in question has been charged with, indicted for, fined for or convicted of violations of certain sections in the chapter on sex crimes in the Criminal Code. (This includes sex with a person below the age of consent, misuse of professional position for sexual purposes, incest, possession of child pornography etc.) Any person who has been fined or convicted for such a violation, is precluded from performing such functions or work as described in the Child Welfare Act (section 6-10). There are similar provisions for personnel in kindergartens / nursery schools and in primary education.

In itself, the police certificate provision does not protect children sufficiently from neither sexual nor other kinds of abuse. Protecting children in foster homes and residential care, does in addition require selection and training, procedures and supervision arrangements. While saying this, I will strongly underline that there are of course many other reasons for training foster parents, supervising foster homes and children’s homes and establishing quality control procedures in institutions.

All county municipalities co-operate concerning the implementation of the recruitment and training programme PRIDE. PRIDE is an abbreviation for Parents, Resources, Information, Development, Education. I assume many of you are familiar with this programme, but will nonetheless describe it shortly. PRIDE was developed at the University of New York. This programme is divided into two main parts. The first part, provide child welfare personnel and potential foster parents with a solid framework for deciding whether a couple is suited to become foster parents or not. The second part is for established foster parents, and aims at providing them with knowledge needed to perform their tasks as foster parents. So far, the feed-back from both foster parents and child welfare personnel have been positive concerning the effects of PRIDE.

The municipality where the foster home is located, is responsible for following up the foster child, and for providing advice and guidance to the foster parents. One major challenge in this respect, is to ensure that all foster homes get the kind of assistance they need when they need it.

Pursuant to the Child Welfare Act, the child welfare service shall appoint a supervisor for children in foster homes. This supervisor must be independent both in relation to the child welfare services and the foster parents. Supervisors shall visit each foster home at least four times every year.

Unless otherwise provided, children and parents are entitled to access one another. When a care order has been made, the county social welfare board shall decide the extent of access. This board may also decide that other persons than the parents shall have right of access to the child. However, in the best interest of the child the board may decide that there shall be no access and even that the parents shall not know the child’s new address. In Norway, there has been a tendency during the last decade towards letting children under protective care meet their parents more frequently and for longer periods of time. The extent to which this tendency can be ascribed to new research results or changing values is debatable. As far as I know, scientific studies indicate that the benefits of frequent contact between children and parents depend upon a number of circumstances. The opinions of children and young people should be listened to and be taken into consideration. Decision makers must heed the uniqueness of each child and family, and at the same time bear in mind more general research results and values. I regard it as valuable in itself, if children can have contact with and have updated knowledge about their parents. In Norway, the Ministry has underlined the need for improved measures as regards following up the parents whose children have been placed out of home. I assume that there are experiences from other countries, which can be useful in this respect.

Residential care

At the end of 2001, about 1800 children and young people in Norway lived in institutions administered by the county municipalities. This includes all types of residential care : protective care, placement out of home as assistance and placement out of home pursuant to the so-called "behavioural problem" sections of the Child Welfare Act. Among these 1800 persons, a bit more than one hundred were young adults between the age of 18-22 who received after-care in institutions. More than half of the other children and young people in residential care, were in the age group 14- 17 years (1 065). A bit more boys than girls live in institutions.

The majority of children in residential care (1225) at the close of last year, were in children’s homes or youth homes. There are some combined children’s and youth homes, but most such institutions are separate children’s homes (often sub-divided by age) or separate youth homes. Some institutions are specific "acute" ward institutions. Acute ward institutions receive children and youth pursuant to temporary care orders in crises.

Institutions for children and parents differ from other institutions by the fact that children and parents are not separated. Most of these children are babies or pre-school children. Said in a very simplified manner, parents learn how to become better parents in these institutions. The name previously used, maternity homes, still describes their inhabitants more accurately than a non-gendered term. The number of inhabitants in these homes was only around 200 by the end of 2001. Nevertheless, in a family based child welfare service, I regard such institutions as measures fitted to this century.

By international standards, Norwegian child welfare institutions are small. Between around four to thirty children live in each institution. Larger institutions are divided into departments. Departments where more than eight children live are rare. I can see no other than economic reasons for having larger institutions. The duration of placements in residential care is also relatively low in Norway.

For some children and young people a mix of foster care and residential care in the best solution. They may for example live certain days of the week in a foster home and the rest in an institution. If the foster home is not able to cope with the behaviour or traumas of the child, the care plan regarding accommodation can be adjusted for a short time period.

To learn more about when and how residential care is the best solution is a challenge in all countries. Looking at the programme, I see that such topics will be dealt with later during this congress. In a forthcoming report financed by Norwegian and Swedish authorities, what we know from research on this matter is summarised and analysed.

It is the opinion of Norwegian authorities, that there are still needs for residential care. I shall be very brief about the subject of who may need residential care. Residential care may be the best measure in cases of for example expected short-term placement. Teenagers may not cope with or wish to establish new family like relations in a foster home. Residential care units provide better opportunities for structured and intensive professional care than foster families do.

The residential care for young people with severe behavioural problems, has been a frequently discussed topic in Norway for several years. According to most research results, positive effects of residential care for this target group are rare. The Ministry’s policy is that residential care for this group should only be used in a limited extent. Residential care for this group should be a part of a holistic care and treatment arrangement, and only be used when the probability of positive results are based on scientific indications.

The introduction of methods to prevent the needs of residential care for young people with severe behavioural problems, has been in important element of our national policy since 1999. We have been focusing on implementing the use of the research based and intervention methods Parents Management Training and Multisystemic Treatment in all county municipalities. These family and community based methods were developed in the USA. The introduction of these methods in Norway is being closely monitored to ensure that appropriate cultural adaptations are made. Those of you who are interested in further information about our experiences in this respect, may look at the web-sites of the Norwegian Behavioural Project : www.atferd.uio.no/english

New horizons and learning from other countries

I have mentioned some examples of methods developed in other countries, which are being adapted and tried out in Norway. Diffusion of methods, training manuals or elements of legislation are the most visible results of the benefits of in international perspective.

The most usual form of learning from other countries is probably by reading scientific articles and books. Web-sites facilitate the accessibility to knowledge and experience gained in other countries. We have probably just seen the beginning of the potential possibilities for interactive communication through the Internet. As an example of international networks within the field of child protection and children’s rights, in the IT network about Children at Risk between the nations who are members of the Council of Baltic Sea States ( www.childcentre.baltinfo.org .

International seminars do often make participants think once again about what we take for granted. They provide us with opportunities to discuss research results, practical experiences, legislation and values related to child welfare.

For the benefit of children who need protection and your own personal and professional insight, I wish you all a successful congress!