Permitir a ciudadanos sufragar sin credencial para votar o cuyo nombre no aparezca en la lista nominal de electores

Within a critical paradigm, the emphasis on different interests in society is outlined as important in social policy, research and practice (Morris, 2006). This implies that different stakeholders have different perspectives and interests towards a phenomenon such as assessments in child protection. Critical Realism follows this emphasis on different and conflicting interests as an influential force in society (Danemark et al., 2002). One of the contributions of a Critical realist perspective, from my point of view, is its practical orientation; what works for whom in what circumstances? As we have seen in this study, the social workers and parents stress different aspects of the assessment process. It is important to bear in mind how the families often consist of several family members, not always with coincident perspectives, opinions and needs (Kildedal et al., 2011:164 ; Samsonsen, 2009). Children’s perspectives on assessment are not part of this study (see methodological reflections for elaborations), so the following section discusses the social workers’ and the parents’ perspectives on assessment. However, it is very important to stress that “the best interest of the child” should be at the centre of every decision, and this can lead to situations of serious disagreement between social workers and parents.

85

6.3.1 The social workers perspectives on assessments

The main findings regarding assessment frameworks from the social workers’ perspective showed that social workers in Norway and England experienced differences in the levels of professional judgment and structure in their

assessment framework/model. Social workers in Norway presented

professional judgement as a core element of assessing in child protection, but looked for more structured ways of achieving good judgments. Reflective thinking in assessment was viewed as very important with regard to decision making by all the social workers interviewed. This process of reflective thinking was linked to colleague support and formal supervision. In Norway, the social workers linked the concepts of professional judgment and reflectivity together, and viewed them as a total “package” in the individual tailored approach to assessment. In England, the social workers’ experiences regarding the room for reflectivity differed more between offices, but was nevertheless highlighted as a key component when exercising professional judgement in assessment.

With regard to the question of what a fruitful assessment would look like, the group of Norwegian social workers highlighted the need for structures that work, for example, good computer systems. Still, they were afraid of more structure leading to more bureaucracy with the result that they would have more paperwork and less time to spend with families. These missing structures from the social workers’ perspectives appeared to be mirrored in the reports I studied. All the English reports followed a similar structure according to information sources and themes, following the setup of the CAF, were quite similar in length and had to choose a case direction based on a common range of recommendations. The Norwegian reports, by contrast, appeared very differently; they differed in length and thoroughness as well as

86

in topic and structure and seemed to be based on how the individual social workers chose to write the report. While the group of social workers in England was proud of their triangle model for assessment and the general thoroughness in the system, they longed for more trust to use professional judgement in assessment, and more resources to meet the families’ needs after assessing. They felt overwhelmed by the procedures accompanying assessment, especially the time needed, and they seemed frustrated about the “box ticking mentality” fragmenting the flow of professional judgement in the reports. The findings from the reports, showed that professional judgements were “saved” to the end of the report, in a specific section called “summary and analysis”. This seemed to amplify the separation of information and reflectivity with regard to the information present. The group of English social workers also emphasized the fear with regard to cultures of blame, feeling the need for “covering their backs” with structures and procedures, linking this to the need for trusting the ability of social workers to use professional judgement in assessment. The need to be trusted was found in the way several of the interviewed social workers presented a more “open assessment” as an ideal situation, especially with regard to less proceduralised reporting systems. Based on the empirical material, heavy caseloads and long working hours seemed to characterise the situation for the social workers in England to a larger extent than for the Norwegian social workers, with the paradox that all the Norwegian social workers underlined the need for smaller caseloads and only one of the English participant emphasized the need for more resources in terms of staff.

6.3.2 Parents’ perspectives on assessment

87

in both countries talked more about feelings than about framework and procedures. There were similarities between the two groups of parents in their experiences of assessment. The empirical material showed how they first and foremost experienced strong emotions such as anxiety and frustration in the assessment process. From parents` perspectives, the formal powers of the system to intervene appeared somehow interlinked with the approaches of the social workers involved, which imply professional judgement as an influential factor in assessment. The parents in both countries told stories of how a change of social worker had altered the assessment process either in a negative or positive direction. Since assessment represents a duality between help and control, parents might wonder whether the social worker is a friend or an opponent. This gives rise to emotions such as fear, despair and anger (Thrana & Fauske, 2014). In this way, assessment is potentially a very stressful situation for families regardless of the national context. This duality seems to be a basic dilemma in assessment, and this tension cannot be easily removed or solved because of the different perspectives of the parties involved. However, the social workers set the agenda, both by prioritizing the topics at stake, and by requiring the parents to express their own views and opinions. This underlines the asymmetric power relationship (Midjo, 2010). Resistance from parents to social workers` definitions of the situation tends to increase the level of friction in negotiations (ibid.). In this study, the parents talked about the relational aspect of assessment as important to both process and outcome. The professional judgements in assessment seemed to be either the most difficult part of assessment giving raise to extreme emotions such as fear and anxiety, or the gateways to helpful decisions and tailored services. The findings from this study support the notion of power as relational (Nissen et al., 2007).

88

contexts, some differences were identified in the way social work was acted out according to the national assessment framework and policy context. The English framework and procedures seemed to provide clarity with regard to

process and power within the system. The Norwegian framework,

characterized by room for professional judgment and individual tailoring, and accompanied by more resources, seemed to enable helpful decisions from a family perspective. However, this heavy reliance on relationships using professional judgment might also be viewed as source of informal power. From the parents` perspective, it seems of major importance to address the emotional aspects, as well as having clarity of purpose and process in assessment. In addition, it seems that both formal and informal powers needs to be communicated and taken into account by the social workers involved. Last, but not least from the parents’ perspectives, good quality services in terms of proper interventions to meet the complex needs of the families seem to be of major importance in order for the parents to believe that fruitful changes are a possible outcome of assessment.