Does BBIC make a difference? Structured assessment of child protection and support

Abstract

Assessments of children in need in Sweden have been criticized for inadequate investigation and documentation and for not allowing children enough participation. In an effort to achieve greater systematization and to make assessments more ‘child-centred’, the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare has sanctioned the development of BBIC (Children’s Needs in Focus). BBIC is inspired by the ‘Framework for Assessment of Children in Need’ used in England and Wales. In a study of BBIC in seven municipalities, method triangulation was used. A quantitative file study, evaluating written assessments, was complemented by a survey study and interviews with practitioners who conduct assessments. The results show improved, though uneven, illumination of the child’s needs in assessments and some improvement concerning the parents’ capacity to meet the child’s needs. More relevant information was also collected concerning the child’s family situation and environment, and there were more contacts made with collaborative partners. The results show clear tendencies to greater focus on the child. Social workers found that BBIC leads to better assessments, though at the expense of increased administration.

Keywords:

• children in need
• child protection
• assessment
• assessment framework
• child’s perspective

Acknowledgements

This study was conducted as an evaluation of a project coordinated by RD Northeast (FoU Nordost). The evaluation was financed by development funds from the Swedish state. We would especially like to thank the representatives of the social service in the local BBIC network for their input in designing the study.

Notes

1. BBIC stands for the Swedish title Barns Behov i Centrum.

2. Other authors have sometimes translated the Swedish term ‘utredning’ as ‘child protection investigation’. In this article, we use the English term ‘assessment’ to encompass both the investigative and ‘assessing’ or ‘judging’ phases of the BBIC-framework. This corresponds also to the terminology used in the English Assessment Framework.

3. The Social Services Act specifies that all assessments must be started ‘without delay’. In 2012, after this study had been completed, the law was amended to require that, when a referral is received, a judgment must be done of whether the child needs immediate protection. A decision on whether to do an assessment must be made within 14 days after the referral is received (SFS 2001:453 Social Services Act, Chapter 11, §1, amendment 2012:776, Chapter 11, §1a).

4. For a more complete account of this study, see RD Northeast (FoU Nordost) (Berg Eklundh and Matscheck 2012).

5. Several questions concerned the process of implementing BBIC, which is not primarily discussed in this article.

6. Results from the file study refer to the total group, except where results for age groups are specified.

7. All interview quotations are translated from the original Swedish by the first author.

8. The question suggested a number of alternatives and allowed for more than one answer.

9. Due to the small size of the selection, results of the file study follow-up were not tested for significance as compared to the main file study.