Child protective workers’ reflections on principles underpinning the assessment of children in need: The case of Estonia

Abstract

This article presents the findings of a small-scale, qualitative study that included 20 child protective workers from different regions in Estonia. The research question guiding this study was as follows: What principles underpin child protective workers’ assessment activities in cases with child protection concerns? The respondents provided examples of assessment principles through in-depth semi-structured interviews. The results indicate that workers’ assessments are adopted from a deficit view rather than from the needs and possibilities. The majority of the participants underscored the importance of child involvement and partnership in the decision-making process; nevertheless, their case reflections showed that only five of them included the child in the assessment.

Keywords

Assessment child protective worker children in need Estonia principles reflection

Introduction

The number of children in need of care has increased in recent years in Estonia (Statistics Estonia, 2015) – 1529 children without parental care in need of assistance were registered in 2007 (this represents 0.6% of the total population of children in 2007). In 2012 and 2014, the number of such children was 2808 and 3556 respectively (this represents 1.5% of the total population of children in 2013). According to the Republic of Estonia Child Protection Act (1992), a child in need is defined as a child whose security, development and well-being are not ensured.

Addressing the needs of vulnerable children is one of the challenges in child protection (Mainstone, 2014), underscoring the importance of accurate assessments and decision-making. Over the past decade, emphasis has been placed on the assessment of children in need and their families (Toros et al., 2014; Horwath, 2011; Millar and Corby, 2006). Furthermore, the literature indicates trends and reforms in the assessment, including relations between the practitioner and the client in the assessment process (Darlington et al., 2010; Farrell et al., 2012). One of the important aspects related to the assessment includes the value base of practitioners – namely, their principles – which are affecting the practitioner–client interaction and therefore assessment process. However, relatively little knowledge and data exist about child protective workers’ assessment practices concerning children in need in Estonia.

The aim of this article is to present and discuss the empirical results on Estonian child protective workers’ principles, which underpin their assessment activities in cases with child protection concerns. To provide context for the study, this article provides an overview of the literature related to the trends and reforms in the assessment, child welfare and assessment practice in Estonia. The main findings are discussed, and practice implications and recommendations for future research are outlined.

Research context: Framework for the assessment

Child protective workers take an active part in carrying out practices and making decisions that affect the everyday lives of children (Benbenishty et al., 2015; Graham, 2011). The increasing number of children in need indicates additional cases of assessment for child protective workers. During the assessment process, the needs of children and their families are identified, including factors that may contribute to risk and support well-being, and necessary resources provided (Baldwin and Harrison, 1994; Smithgall et al., 2015; Teater, 2010; Tomlinson, 2008).

The value base of practitioners and perceptions of their clients is a crucial aspect of the assessment process (Coulshed and Orme, 2006). The assessment of children in need and their families incorporates values and ethics of social work, understanding the purpose of the assessment and knowledge of theoretical models guiding the assessment process. A number of authors have stressed the significant shift in the relationship between state agencies and families, with families increasingly being considered as partners in the decision-making process (Devaney, 2008; Healy, 2005; Mainstone, 2014). In practice, the child-centred approach has become increasingly dominant, as it takes into account the needs of the child, stemming from the child’s interests when making decisions about the child, including active involvement of the child and his or her family in the assessment process (Casas, 2011; Dillon et al., 2015; Leeson, 2007; Sinclair, 2004; Warshak, 2003). This concept involves a shift in power relations towards greater equality between practitioners and children in how practice is conceptualised and carried out (Fern, 2012).

In addition, awareness that strengthening a child’s family is the most effective way to help them has increased in recent years. In social work literature there has been a great deal of discussion about assessment, mainly based on two paradigms: the traditional deficit-based and the strength-based assessment (Cohen, 1999; Douglas et al., 2014; Rice and Girvin, 2010). Practitioners have started to challenge the traditional views with the strength-based approach, originating from the resilience and capabilities of individuals. There is an increasing amount of research indicating that strength-based practice is likely to elicit collaboration and interaction between the client and the practitioner (Early and GlenMaye, 2000; MacArthur et al., 2011; Oliver, 2012). These are child-friendly principles and approaches, resulting in a more comprehensive assessment and facilitating practitioners to respond positively to the needs of the children in the child protection system.

Munro (2005) looks to the past with the term blame culture, which indicates blaming the parents for the misery of children. Blaming results in the unintended consequence of alienating families from a system designed to protect children and strengthen families (Antle et al., 2008). Therefore, it is crucial to conceptualise the assessment as being about promoting the interests and well-being of children and families rather than focusing narrowly on the perceived inadequacies of parents (Baldwin and Harrison, 1994). Professionals need to be aware of the role of values, and how values of a specific intervention may conflict with their personal or professional values, the values of parents and/or those of other professionals (Hopman et al., 2014: 1540).

Child welfare assessment in Estonia

Child welfare is a relatively new phenomenon in Estonia; the child welfare system has gradually developed along with the development of the social work profession since 1991, when Estonia regained its independence (Kiik and Sirotkina, 2005). The comprehensive social policy system in the former Soviet Union countries was intended to satisfy the basic needs of food, housing, health and educational services (Haavio-Mannila, 1992). In general, social work was not recognised during the Soviet era (Tulva, 1996). The Strategy of Children and Families 2012–2020 (2011) points out that during the first 20 years after the Soviet era, the focus was placed on dealing with the consequences, which tended to lead to an increase in problems. The present-day child welfare system is built upon prevention and early intervention, aimed at guaranteeing an improvement in the well-being of children and families and in their quality of living (Poopuu, 2013).

The definition of social work today in Estonia is adopted from the global definition of emphasising social change, the empowerment of people and enhancing their well-being (see IASSW, 2014). The Estonian Social Welfare Act (1995) defines a social worker as ‘a person with higher education and appropriate professional training’. However, the Estonian government does not regulate the professional practice of social work (DiNitto and Toros, 2015). Furthermore, local governments are stated to be autonomous and there are not enough measures to steer local authorities towards this requirement (The National Audit Office of Estonia, 2013).

At the local level, the rural municipality and city governments (n = 215) are responsible for the organisation of child welfare and the creation of an environment that supports the development of the child (Reinomägi et al., 2013). Child protective workers in the local government have a duty to respond to children in need, including undertaking assessments and making decisions (The Social Welfare Act, 1995). However, only 38 per cent of all local governments have a separate child protective worker and one-fifth of children in Estonia live in local government units that do not have a child protective worker (The National Audit Office of Estonia, 2013). Most urban areas have child protective workers, and most rural areas have a social worker working with all the client groups, including children and families. According to a recent study (Tender et al., 2013), 49 per cent of child protective workers have acquired social work education, while 15 per cent of workers have not acquired higher education at all. In practice, a person without social work education can officially work and be named as a social worker or child protective worker (Toros, 2011).

The Strategy of Children and Families 2012–2020 (2011) indicates that the knowledge and skills of Estonian child protective workers, including assessment-related activities, are inadequate and their large workloads make working effectively difficult. Saar (2013) states that assessment is considered to be difficult in Estonia as there is no common understanding of principles and framework for the assessment. Furthermore, there has been little focus on child and family assessments until recent years, including research. There is no common regulation for the assessment of children in need. Although the Ministry of Social Affairs initiated the development of the child and family assessment guide (Selg, 2009) to support child protective workers and other welfare professionals to conduct assessments, it is not incorporated into legislation; neither is it commonly understood among practitioners or found to be useful in practice, as it is seen as too complex and bureaucratic (Toros, 2011, 2012).

There is practically no supervision of the decisions made by the local authority in the organisation of a child’s life. According to the National Audit Office of Estonia (2013), the state has not imposed adequate rules on child welfare and child protection, and local authorities have been left with too much room for decision-making.

The Strategy of Children and Families 2012–2020 (2011) refers to the fact that child welfare in Estonia focuses primarily on alleviating the symptoms of various problems, while not much attention is paid to dealing with the root causes of the problems. Studies indicate similar findings – child protective workers have a reputation of being in a ‘punishing role’, looking for evidence of harm to the child, as the focus is on deficits and failure, sometimes acting as ‘systems of control’ (Toros, 2012; Lai, 2009). Some local governments continue to refer to the child protective worker as the ‘child protection inspector’ (in Estonian lastekaitseinspektor); this implies that an element of investigation and coercion is involved with regard to this role. Another study states that child protective workers in Estonia have adopted the adult’s perspective of the child, and workers’ greater focus in the assessment process is on parents’ needs and vulnerabilities rather than the children’s (Toros, 2013). Some experts question child protective workers’ values and understanding about child welfare and assessment work, referring to the possibility that the lack of early noticing, comprehensive assessment and timely intervention means that more children are separated from their families and placed in substitute care than should be done in a modern society that supports families with children (The Strategy of Children and Families 2012–2020, 2011).

Research method

Setting

The research question guiding this qualitative study is as follows: What principles underpin child protective workers’ assessment activities in cases with child protection concerns? In order to answer the research question, a qualitative study was undertaken of a subsample of 20 child protective workers culled from a larger quantitative study (n = 143), conducted in 2006 to obtain an overall picture of the situation of children and families in need in Estonia, including child protection assessment (see Lai, 2009). For the quantitative study, a self-administered questionnaire was carried out in Estonia among child protective workers working in local governments. In total, 202 copies of the survey were distributed to the child protective workers, from which 143 questionnaires were returned, representing a response rate of 72 per cent. This article reports on the findings of the smaller qualitative research study (see Toros, 2011), focusing particularly on the workers’ assessment principles.

Participants

The study included 20 child protective workers from different regions in Estonia. Maximum variation sampling was chosen for the study; it is the process of deliberately selecting a heterogeneous sample and observing commonalities in their experiences (Patton, 1990). This method was utilised to recruit a diverse sample with variation in four domains: region (rural and urban), years of employment, history of social work education and job title. Child protective workers who matched the sampling criteria for interviewing were selected and contacted. At the time of contact, and if respondents gave their verbal consent, an appropriate time for the interview was set. In total, 27 potential respondents were contacted by phone; 7 of them refused to participate in the study, thus yielding a final sample of 20. All participants were responsible for the assessment of child protection cases working in the local government.

The age of participants ranged from 25 to 61 years, with an average age of 44 years (standard deviation (SD) = 10.21) The length of their child protection work experience ranged from 1 to 19 years, with a mean of 10.95 years (SD = 5.615). Two participants claimed to have 19 years of experience working with children and families, although this profession did not officially exist in Estonia during the Soviet era. However, the nature of their work seemed to incorporate some level of social work, for example, working in an orphanage or a nursing home as a caretaker. The number of ‘active’ cases at the time of the interview ranged from 0 to 38 cases, with a mean of 11.53 cases (SD = 10.100). Thirteen participants had completed social work studies and seven participants had not studied the social work profession. Participants without social work education had studied professions such as veterinary medicine, pedagogy, health protection, medicine and domestic studies. Two child protective workers had not acquired higher education.

Study design

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with the participants using an interview framework that was developed prior to the interviews, constructed following a thorough literature search (e.g. Coulshed and Orme, 2006; Department of Health, 2000; Fargion, 2007; Gambrill and Shlonsky, 2001) and an earlier survey study conducted by the author in 2006 (see Lai, 2009). Each interview began with a discussion of the purpose of the study and included the collection of demographic data. The interview framework consisted of six main themes, 38 questions in total: case vignette based on the hypothetical case of a child with bruises (n = 2), case reflection – a recent case in the participant’s assessment practice (n = 8), assessment principles (n = 9), assessment approaches (n = 8), challenges related to conducting assessments (n = 5) and the need for training and support (n = 6). Generally, the cases involved parental alcohol abuse, parent mental health deterioration, physical abuse and neglect. Child protective workers provided examples of one to three real-life cases (in total, n = 33). This article does not use all interview data; the reported findings relate solely to the assessment principles.

Interviews were conducted between May and June 2011. All data collection was carried out personally by the author, travelling to each participant for data collection. Participants were not compensated for their involvement in the study. In the process of data collection, confidentiality and anonymity of information regarding records and study participants were considered. All interviews were audio recorded with participants’ permission and later transcribed verbatim. The interviews lasted between 47 and 136 minutes (mean = 76 minutes).

Data analysis

The transcribed interviews were analysed using the principles of content analysis, informed primarily by Padgett (2008), consisting of unitising, categorising and pattern search. As the number of participants was reasonably small, transcripts were manually coded using Microsoft Word processing software. Reliability of the data analysis was enhanced by two researchers conducting the data analysis. Coding involved repeated readings of the transcripts to discover the patterns in order to code the data into potential meaning units for labels. After the transcripts were read independently and the initial labels were compiled, the author met with a colleague to discuss the findings to establish a list of labels. Labels were compared and refined, and listed under the existing labels or new labels; as a result, initial themes were established. Themes were continually challenged and checked against the original transcripts, and similar labels were grouped for themes/categories. The themes were then reviewed again, and the specifics of each theme were further refined, combining labels or developing further within themes/categories. In part, the labels contained the words participants used repeatedly. Consistency in the common labels and themes was achieved by reaching consensus.

Member checking was utilised – five participants selected randomly were re-contacted to ensure that their responses were accurately captured and interpreted. All five of the respondents confirmed their original answers. Use of quotations has been made to illustrate the connections between raw data and the conclusions drawn. As this study explores the experiences related to the assessment principles, a precise numerical representation of responses has not been provided (Rubin and Babbie, 2008). Nevertheless, themes and labels are presented in an order that approximates their relative frequency in the data (see Table 1).

Table 1.

Assessment principles: themes, labels and examples.

Traditional approach: emphasis on deficits: ‘… if they (parents) admit their mistakes I take it as the first step towards the change’ (Participant 11); expert-centred principle: incompetent child, incompetent parent/family, e.g.: ‘… if you talk and they don’t understand then there is not much outcome expected from them (parents) … I know better if and how …’ (Participant 14); authoritative perspective: hierarchical relations, taking control, indirect assessment, blaming, evidence collecting, confrontation, e.g.: ‘I collect the information from other specialists then while making home visits I have something in my back pocket to show that they have done something wrong …’ (Participant 12).

Family-oriented perspective: inclusion, partnership, understanding, building a relationship, e.g.: ‘I need objective information so I include the family in the assessment from the beginning’ (Participant 2), ‘… punishing approach does not work … understanding is key critical during an assessment …’ (Participant 19).

Strengths perspective: positive expectations; resources, e.g.: ‘… every person has some kind of strengths and resources …’ (Participant 9), ‘… I believe that clients have done the best they can in their difficult situation …’ (Participant 4).

Child-centred approach: child’s inclusion, child’s wishes, children’s needs in focus, e.g.: ‘I always want to hear the child’s wishes … what she/he wants’ (Participant 19).

Note: Themes are in bold and labels are in italic font.

The interviews and analyses were conducted in Estonian, and afterwards the final report was written in English. To ensure confidentiality, identifying details of the participants, including location or identifying details of other individuals or agencies, were edited during transcription and replaced with descriptive labels such as (participant), or (organisation). After the transcription of interviews, audio-files were deleted as promised to the participants. Access to the data documents was available only for the author. The co-researcher who helped with the data analysis analysed the data where all the identifiable data were removed.

Results

Participants reflected on a number of themes related to the principles of child protection assessment in the context of their daily activities, from which four primary themes are presented here: traditional approach, family-oriented perspective, strengths perspective and child-centred approach. Some responses contained several principles (see Table 1).

The findings indicate that workers’ assessments are adopted from a deficit view rather than from that of needs and possibilities. Half of the child protective workers emphasised the importance of establishing a trusting relationship with the family based on partnership. Nevertheless, the study included participants who valued worker–client mutual interactions, engaging with the family to seek an understanding of the situation. The majority of the participants underscored the importance of child involvement and partnership in the decision-making process; nevertheless, their case reflections showed that only five of them included the child in the assessment. Participants with solution-focused training were more likely to focus on clients’ strengths and resources. Each of the primary themes is described below.

Traditional approach

Participants’ responses demonstrate that the principles underpinning their assessments of children in need are related more to a traditional approach, including expert-centred and authoritative perspectives rather than a child-centred, family-oriented or strength-based approach. The majority of child protective workers (n = 14) were focused more on the problems, failures and deficits of clients and parental incompetencies, and acted in an authoritative manner – searching for the guilty party in the assessment rather than providing assistance and support for the child and family. The nature of the responses indicated a tendency to not only view families in terms of their weaknesses, but also establish and maintain hierarchical relations with them, taking control, blaming and confronting. Furthermore, respondents believed that they knew what was best for the clients better than the clients themselves. Several workers’ (n = 7) interviews reflected the idea that families have to change without any motivational support from the social services, also admitting their mistakes, as five child protective workers emphasised. As one child protective worker reported: ‘when the mother has shown that she is cooperative and she is admitting her mistakes and she works with herself, then you start working with them’ (Participant 3). These five participants related their role in the assessment mainly with making decisions for the family. Most of the participants (n = 9) who used a deficit-based approach did not notice positive changes in their clients’ lives.

Family-oriented perspective

Nine of 20 child protective workers discussed the importance of establishing a trusting relationship based on partnership and engaging with the family to seek an understanding of the situation for the purpose of providing assistance. Others did not consider the involvement of the family important, due to three main reasons: (1) they believed that families do not understand their mistakes, (2) they doubted whether the involvement of the family would give any different outcome and (3) they indicated the lack of motivation of families and aggressiveness of parents. These workers tended to practice a traditional deficit-based approach. Seven of the nine workers who had described working to engage families in their case reports noticed improvements in their clients’ abilities to provide safe and stable environments for their children.

Strengths perspective

Fewer child protective workers (n = 6) were working with the family’s own strengths and resources, to motivate the clients for the change. Five of these six participants had studied the solution-focused approach. Responses suggested that a strength-based approach was considered to elicit more efficient collaboration – workers who reported having trusting relationships with families were also those who indicated more positive outcomes. Three workers pointed out that a strength-based approach decreases the possibility of blaming parents for their situation.

Child-centred approach

As reported in Table 1, the majority of workers have adopted an approach whereby the child’s perspective is derived from their own views – practitioner as the expert (n = 15); the workers formed opinions of the child and his or her needs without relating to or directly involving the child. Several participants indicated that in practice the obstacle for including the child is his or her age, the crucial age being 10 years, below which it seems impossible to include the child as the child is not mature enough. However, none of these 14 workers could give examples of cases where they had talked directly to a child older than 10 years. Sixteen of the 20 participants underscored the importance of child involvement in the assessment and decision-making process in theory, yet the research results indicate that only five child protective workers included children directly in the assessment process; others assessed the situation of the child more indirectly, mainly through their own views or those of parents and other professionals. Participants’ reasons for not including the child in the assessment were connected to a lack of skills and time due to their high workload and burnout. The word ‘child-centredness’ was mentioned by two child protection workers, both only once throughout the interviews. Data show that among the five child protective workers who included the child in their assessment, four had social work education and also training in the solution-focused approach.

Discussion

Participants’ responses in this study suggest that several principles and values are of concern in conducting holistic assessments – traditional approach, including adopting authoritative and expert-centred approaches with families, and a lack of child-centred principles. The child protective workers’ assessment principles that were demonstrated are similar to those seen in other studies in Estonia (Toros, 2011, 2012; Toros et al., 2013), indicating that child protective workers have an authoritative-oriented focus in their work; the workers’ greater focus is on parents’ needs and vulnerabilities rather than the children’s; and child inclusion is not often applied in practice.

International practice indicates that practitioners have started to challenge traditional views with the strength-based approach years ago, originating from the resilience and capacities of their clients rather than their deficits (Graybeal, 2001; Yip, 2006). As mentioned in the literature review, there is growing evidence that a strength-based practice is likely to elicit collaboration between the client and the practitioner; for example, the Kemp et al. (2014) study provides empirical findings that support the link between parents’ willingness to engage in services and the use of strength-based interventions. In this study, the findings imply that the majority of participants who used a traditional deficit-based approach did not notice positive changes in their clients’ lives, whereas workers who emanated from strengths and capabilities and engaged with families reported they noticed improvements in their clients’ abilities to provide safe and stable environments for their children. The social worker–service user relationship is viewed as a central and key component of bringing about change (Farrell et al., 2012; Morris and Connolly, 2012). The emphasis on deficits is less empowering (Saleebey, 2006; Yip, 2006), and therefore fewer positive changes for the best interests of the child take place; moreover, it causes parents to feel self-defensive and guilty (Antle et al., 2008), which may act as an obstacle for cooperation/partnership. The lack of cooperation may lead to insufficient assessment, including decision-making. It is important to act authoritatively at times, as child protective workers are making decisions about interventions, including the potential removal of the child. In general, the change in social work and child protection requires a reciprocal respectful relationship and support, and belief in the ability to change; therefore, in order to build a trustful relationship with the family, the child protective worker needs to, at times, be less authoritative and more collaborative.

Parton (2009) emphasises the importance of ‘rebalancing’ or ‘refocusing’ (p. 716) the essential principles of a child welfare approach in which policy and practice should be driven by an emphasis on partnership, participation, prevention, family support and keeping coercive interventions to a minimum. The study included participants who valued worker–client mutual interactions; nevertheless, the involvement of the family was found to be complicated, which can be related to an authoritarian, deficit-based approach, as the cases reflected. Munro (2004) has suggested that social workers need to shift from an assessment process which focuses on revealing the truth, to an assessment process which focuses on understanding the client’s situation. This is applicable to Estonian child protection practices with children and families (Toros, 2011; The Strategy of Children and Families 2012–2020, 2011).

Understanding the client’s situation can only transpire with the inclusion of the client. As these kinds of ‘partnership’ initiatives have become more widespread, the literature has tended to presume that increased inclusion of clients in child protection practice is both feasible and desirable (see Darlington et al., 2010). Although the principle of child-centredness is increasingly emphasised in social work and child protection (see Fern, 2014; Kriẑ and Skivenes, 2012), findings of this study indicate that the child’s perspective originates largely from the experts, from their understandings and views about what is best for the child – they exclude the child from the assessment process. Moreover, the child under 10 years of age is not deemed competent enough to voice his or her opinions and views. At the same time, being older does not place the child automatically in the role of a subject, either. In practice, older children were not included directly in the assessment either. Van Bijleveld et al. (2014) also found in their study that case managers considered that young children are incapable of overseeing the situation, estimating its level of severity or deciding what is needed.

Estonian child protective workers related time constraints and their lack of skills as the most serious obstacles to including children in the assessment process. These findings underscore the importance of professional training of the workers and child participation being incorporated into the Child Protection Act. Furthermore, findings may suggest a possible link between child inclusion and social work education, as workers who included the child in their assessment had, generally, education in social work. Therefore, the findings suggest that professional social work training provides the skills and knowledge to conduct comprehensive assessments, which is the basis for making decisions on whether a child is in need of protection and assistance or not.

Nevertheless, discussions about finding effective ways to empower clients towards a positive change, including the assessment framework and principles underpinning the assessment, have been initiated in Estonia, emphasising the need to conduct relevant studies on current practice and to analyse best practices from neighbouring countries (Toros, 2011; Toros et al., 2013). The Strategy of Children and Families 2012–2020 (2011) points out the Swedish assessment model (Children’s needs in focus, BBIC) as the potential model for Estonia to adapt and implement. The purpose of this model is to strengthen the participation and influence of children, improve cooperation with the child’s parents and wider family, and create a structure and system in assessments so that the work done can be followed up more easily (Hultman et al., 2013; Socialstyrelsen, 2012).

The findings of the study indicate a need to find new ways to follow more child and family-friendly principles to empower families through developing respectful and effective relationships, in order to achieve positive change and ensure the well-being of children. As Patterson (1983) stated years ago, ‘it is not the child who is vulnerable or invulnerable, it is rather the system in which the child resides’ (p. 260).

Conclusion

Practitioners’ principles and professional values may be considered as a reflection of the organisation of the child protection system in the country – it adopts a rather traditional, hierarchical approach and focuses less on capabilities and resources with little inclusion of family or child perspectives. Although the majority of the participants underscored the importance of child involvement and partnership in the decision-making process, their case reflections showed that most of them did not include the child in the assessment. Findings of this article imply that it is time for Estonian child protective workers to re-evaluate their principles related to the assessment of children in need, in order to protect and safeguard children in the manner that they deserve. Quality of assessment can be ensured through training (e.g. solution-focused training, skills for interviewing children and families, building rapport, dealing with aggressive clients), supervision and continuing professional development. Additionally, as there is no structured assessment process for child welfare workers, structural changes are needed. It is imperative to develop a common assessment framework incorporated into legislation and to implement training in Estonia in order to increase child protective workers’ competencies to conduct consistently comprehensive assessments.

In terms of future research, more investigation is necessary to better understand how professional values may impact the organisation of the child protection system, as well as clients’ experiences and views on the assessment process, including the collaboration and support of a worker.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article.

Author biography

Karmen Toros is Associate Professor in Institute of Social Work, University of Tallinn. She is actively involved in social work education and training of child protection workers. Her research focuses on child welfare and protection, child-centred approach and strengths-perspective in child protection practice and is particularly interested in assessment of child well-being.

References

Antle

B.F.

Barbee

A.P.

Christensen

D.N.

Martin

M.H.

(2008) ‘Solution-Based Casework in Child Welfare: Preliminary Evaluation Research’, Journal of Public Child Welfare 2(2): 197–227.

Baldwin

Harrison

(1994) ‘Supporting “Children in Need” – The Role of the Social Worker’, in David

(ed.) Working Together for Young Children: Multi-Professionalism in Action, pp. 104–18. London; New York: Routledge.

Benbenishty

Davidson-Arad

López

Devaney

Spratt

Koopmans

Knorth

E.J.

Witteman

C.L.M.

Del Vall

J.F.

Hayes

(2015) ‘Decision Making in Child Protection: An International Comparative Study on Maltreatment Substantiation, Risk Assessment and Interventions Recommendations, and the Role of Professionals’ Child Welfare Attitudes’, Child Abuse & Neglect. Epub ahead of print 29 April. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015.

Casas

(2011) ‘Subjective Social Indicators and Child and Adolescent Well-Being’, Child Indicators Research 4: 555–75.

Cohen

B.Z.

(1999) ‘Intervention and Supervision in Strengths-Based Social Work Practice’, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services 80: 460–6.

Coulshed

Orme

(2006) Social Work Practice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Darlington

Healy

Feeney

J.A.

(2010) ‘Approaches to Assessment and Intervention across Four Types of Child and Family Welfare Services’, Children and Youth Services Review 32: 356–64.

Department of Health. (2000) Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families. London: The Stationery Office.

Devaney

(2008) ‘Inter-Professional Working in Child Protection with Families with Long-Term and Complex Needs’, Child Abuse Review 17: 242–61.

10.

Dillon

Greenop

Hills

(2015) ‘Participation in Child Protection: A Small-Scale Qualitative Study’, Qualitative Social Work. Epub ahead of print 9 April. DOI: 10.1177/1473325015578946.

11.

DiNitto

D.M.

Toros

(2015) ‘Sotsiaalöö eriala õppest Ameerika Ühendriikides’, Sotsiaaltöö 3: 3–8.

12.

Douglas

E.M.

McCarthy

S.C.

Serino

P.A.

(2014) ‘Does a Social Work Degree Predict Practice Orientation? Measuring Strengths-Based Practice among Child Welfare Workers with the Strengths-Based Practices Inventory-Provider Version’, Journal of Social Work Education 50: 219–33.

13.

Early

T.J.

GlenMaye

L.F.

(2000) ‘Valuing Families: Social Work Practice with Families from a Strengths Perspective’, Social Work 45: 118–30.

14.

Fargion

(2007) ‘Synergies and Tensions in Child Protection and Parent Support: Insights from the Italian Case’, Available online at: http://www.asu.edu/distinguishedprofessor/haskell/images/haskell07.pdf (accessed 17 February 2011).

15.

Farrell

A.F.

Luján

M.L.

Britner

P.A.

Randall

K.G.

Goodrich

S.A.

(2012) ‘I Am Part of Every Decision’: Client Perceptions of Engagement within a Supportive Housing Child Welfare Programme’, Child and Family Social Work 17: 254–64.

16.

Fern

(2012) ‘Child-Directed Social Work Practice: Findings from an Action Research Study Conducted in Iceland’, British Journal of Social Work. Epub ahead of print 10 July. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcs099.

17.

Fern

(2014) ‘Child-Directed Social Work Practice: Findings from an Action Research Study Conducted in Iceland’, British Journal of Social Work 44: 1110–28.

18.

Gambrill

Shlonsky

(2001) ‘The Need for Comprehensive Risk Management Systems in Child Welfare’, Children and Youth Services Review 23(1): 79–107.

19.

Graham

(2011) ‘Changing Paradigms and Conditions of Childhood: Implications for the Social Professions and Social Work’, British Journal of Social Work 41: 1532–47.

20.

Graybeal

(2001) ‘Strengths-Based Social Work Assessment: Transforming the Dominant Paradigm’, Families in Society: The Journal of Contemporary Human Services 82: 233–42.

21.

Haavio-Mannila

(1992) Work, Family and Well-Being in Five North- and East-European Capitals. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia.

22.

Healy

(2005) Social Work Theories in Context: Creating Frameworks for Practice. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

23.

Hopman

De Winter

Koops

(2014) ‘Values and Youth Care Interventions: The Case of Triple P’, British Journal of Social Work 44: 1526–44.

24.

Horwath

(2011) ‘See the Practitioner, see the Child: The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families Ten Years On’, British Journal of Social Work 41: 1070–87.

25.

Hultman

Alm

Cederborg

A.-C.

Magnusson

K.F.

(2013) ‘Vulnerable Children’s Health as Described in Investigations of Reported Children’, Child and Family Social Work 18: 117–28.

26.

IASSW (2014) ‘Global Definition of Social Work’, Available online at: http://www.iassw-aiets.org/ (accessed 8 May 2015).

27.

Kemp

S.P.

Marcenko

M.O.

Lyons

S.J.

Kruzich

J.M.

(2014) ‘Strength-Based Practice and Parental Engagement in Child Welfare Services: An Empirical Examination’, Children and Youth Services Review 47: 27–35.

28.

Kiik

Sirotkina

(2005) ‘The Development of Social Work as a Specialty and the Profession in Estonia’, Social Work and Society International Online Journal 3(1). Available online at: http://www.socwork.net/sws/article/view/213/473 (accessed 7 May 2015).

29.

Kriẑ

Skivenes

(2012) ‘Child-Centric or Family Focused? A Study of Child Welfare Workers’ Perceptions of Ethnic Minority Children in England and Norway’, Child & Family Social Work 17: 448–57.

30.

Lai

(2009) ‘Child Welfare in Estonia: New Challenges and Directions in Policy and Practice’, in Sandu

(ed.) European Societies in Transition. Social Development and Social Work, pp. 117–130. Berlin: Lit-Verlag.

31.

Lai

(2009) ‘The Contextual Demands of Children and Families in Contemporary Estonia: Toward Policy Reformation’, in Isley

Karing

Kerulis

(eds) Research, Planning and Policy: Emerging Trends in Baltic and Nordic Lifelong Learning, pp. 41–52. Tampere: Juvenes Print.

32.

Leeson

(2007) ‘My Life in Care: Experiences of Non-Participation in Decision Making Processes’, Child and Family Social Work 12: 268–77.

33.

MacArthur

Rawana

E.P.

Brownlee

(2011) ‘Implementation of a Strengths-Based Approach in the Practice of Child and Youth Care’, Relational Child & Youth Care Practice 24(3): 616.

34.

Mainstone

(2014) Mastering Whole Family Assessment in Social Work: Balancing the Needs of Children, Adults and Their Families. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.

35.

Millar

Corby

(2006) ‘The Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and Their Families – A Basis for a “Therapeutic” Encounter?’, British Journal of Social Work 36(6): 887–99.

36.

Morris

Connolly

(2012) ‘Family Decision Making in Child Welfare: Challenges in Developing a Knowledge Base for Practice’, Child Abuse Review 21: 41–52.

37.

Munro

(2004) ‘A Simpler Way to Understand the Results of Risk Assessment Instruments’, Children and Youth Services Review 26: 873–83.

38.

Munro

(2005) ‘Improving Practice: Child Protection as a Systems Problem’, Children and Youth Services Review 27: 375–91.

39.

Oliver

(2012) ‘What Does Strengths-Based Practice Mean for Relationships between Child Protection Workers and Their Mandated Adult Clients?’, Relational Child & Youth Care Practice 25(4): 5–12.

40.

Padgett

D.K.

(2008) Qualitative Methods in Social Work Research. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

41.

Parton

(2009) ‘Challenges to Practice and Knowledge in Child Welfare Social Work: From the “Social” to the “Informational”?’, Children and Youth Services Review 31: 715–21.

42.

Patterson

G.R.

(1983) ‘Stress: A Change Agent for Family Process’, in Garmezy

Rutter

(eds) Stress, Coping, and Development in Children, pp. 235–64. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company.

43.

Patton

(1990) Qualitative Evaluation and Research Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

44.

Poopuu

(2013) ‘Lastekaitseseaduse eelnõu koostamise käik’, Sotsiaaltöö 6: 16–9.

45.

Reinomägi

Sinisaar

Toros

Kutsar

(2013) ‘Introduction: Children’s Rights and Well-Being’, in Kutsar

(ed.) Child Well-Being, pp. 10–2. Tallinn: Statistics Estonia.

46.

Rice

Girvin

(2010) ‘Using a Strengths-Based Perspective to Change Perceptions: An Exploratory Study’, The Journal of Baccalaureate Social Work 15(2): 1–16.

47.

Rubin

Babbie

E.R.

(2008) Research Methods for Social Work. Belmont, CA: Thomson, Brooks/Cole.

48.

Saar

(2013) ‘Lapse heaolu hindamise uuring’, Sotsiaaltöö 3: 32–6.

49.

Saleebey

(2006) ‘The Strengths Approach to Practice’, in Saleebey

(ed.) The Strengths Perspective in Social Work Practice, pp. 77–92. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

50.

Selg

(2009) ‘Lapse ja perekonna hindamise juhend’, Available online at: http://sm.ee/sites/default/files/content-editors/Lapsed_ja_pered/lapse_ja_perekonna_hindamine_2009.pdf (accessed 11 October 2014).

51.

Sinclair

(2004) ‘Participation in Practice: Making It Meaningful, Effective and Sustainable’, Children & Society 18: 106–18.

52.

Smithgall

Jarpe-Ratner

Gnedko-Berry

Mason

(2015) ‘Developing and Testing a Framework for Evaluating the Quality of Comprehensive Family Assessment in Child Welfare’, Child Abuse & Neglect 44: 194–206.

53.

Socialstyrelsen (2012) ‘Child Welfare in a State of Change: Final report from the BBIC Project’, Available online at: http://www.socialstyrelsen.se/publikationer2012/child-welfare-in-a-state-of-change-final-report-from-the-bbic-project/Documents/BBIC%20project_summary.pdf (accessed May 7 2015).

54.

Statistics Estonia (2015) ‘Children without Parental Care in Need of Assistance’, Available online at: http://pub.stat.ee/px-web.2001/Database/Sotsiaalelu/databasetree.asp (accessed 10 August 2015).

55.

Teater

(2010) An Introduction to Applying Social Work Theories and Methods. Maidenhead: Open University Press.

56.

Tender

Männik

Gabrielsen

Fredriksson

Valma

Toros

Kähari

Olju

(2013) Lastekaitse korralduse uuendamise alusanalüüs. Tallinn: AS PricewaterhouseCoopers Advisors.

57.

The National Audit Office of Estonia (2013) ‘Laste hoolekande korraldus valdades ja linnades’, Available online at: http://www.eatl.ee/wp/wp-content/uploads/RKTR_2272_2-1.4_2038_001-2.pdf (accessed 6 May 2015).

58.

The Republic of Estonia Child Protection Act (1992) ‘RT 1992, 28, 370’, Available online at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/741888?leiaKehtiv (accessed 14 April 2014).

59.

The Social Welfare Act (1995) ‘RT I 1995, 21, 323’. Available online at: https://www.riigiteataja.ee/akt/12851852?leiaKehtiv (accessed 15 April 2014).

60.

The Strategy of Children and Families 2012–2020 (2011) Available online at: http://valitsus.ee/et/valitsus/arengukavad/Peresobralik-riik/laste-ja-perede-arengukava-2012-2020 (accessed 14 June 2013).

61.

Tomlinson

(2008) ‘Assessing the Needs of Traumatized Children to Improve Outcomes’, Journal of Social Work Practice 22: 359–74.

62.

Toros

(2011) Assessment of Child Well-Being: Child Protection Practice in Estonia. Tallinn: Tallinn University.

63.

Toros

(2012) ‘Child Protection Assessment Practices in Estonia’, Social Policy and Social Work in Transition 3(1): 25–49.

64.

Toros

Tiko

Saia

(2013) ‘Child-centered Approach in the Context of the Assessment of Children in Need: Reflections of Child Protection Workers in Estonia’, Children and Youth Services Review 35(6): 1015–1022.

65.

Toros

Valma

Tiko

(2014) ‘Interpretation of the Principle of “Child’s Best Interests” in the Context of Inter-Parental Child Custody Disputes: Case of Estonia’, Journal of Social Welfare and Human Rights 2(1): 289–303.

66.

Tulva

(1996) Eesti sotsiaaltöö ajas ja muutumises. Tallinn: Tallinna Pedagoogikaülikooli Kirjastus.

67.

Van Bijleveld

G.G.

Dedding

C.W.M.

Bunders-Aelen

J.F.G.

(2014) ‘Seeing Eye to Eye or Not? Young People’s and Child Protection Workers’ Perspectives on Children’s Participation within the Dutch Child Protection and Welfare Services’, Children and Youth Services Review 47: 253–9.

68.

Warshak

R.A.

(2003) ‘Payoffs and Pitfalls of Listening to Children’, Family Relations 52(4): 373–84.

69.

Yip

K.S.

(2006) ‘A Strengths Perspective in Working with an Adolescent with Self-Cutting Behaviors’, Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 23: 134–46.