Working Around the Child: Preventing Gaps Between Services
Updated: Oct 14
Written by Tanyah Cain, Cain MindSYNC, in collaboration with Folket vs. Barnevernet.
Purpose and position: This article argues for a substantial need for research into lived experience. Research gaps must prompt closer scrutiny of child welfare practice; they must not be used to dismiss children’s and parents’ accounts. Intrusive decisions and substantial resource use demand better knowledge about the decision-making basis, adapted support and actual outcomes. Experiences shared with FvsB help formulate questions to investigate; they are not presented as representative prevalence estimates.
The practical question is where children and families experience gaps between assessment, promised support and the help actually delivered. We need to examine relevant alternative explanations, suitable adaptations and whether intervention changes life for the better.
At the heart of it
AI-generated illustration. The image does not depict a real event.
A child may be involved with several services at once. Cooperation works best when responsibility, goals, and information-sharing are clear—and when the child and family do not have to act as messengers between adults.
When responsibility is shared
Child welfare, school, health care, and other services may each see a different part of a child’s life. Without an overview, support can be delayed or duplicated. Norway’s Official Report 2023:7 describes the risk of fragmented services when several agencies share partial responsibility. It is a system-level analysis, not evidence that every multi-agency case fails. Cooperation must also respect confidentiality and the child’s rights. The family should know what information is shared, with whom, and why. A shared plan is useful only if it states who will do what, by when, and how the child will be heard.
A simple structure for cooperation
Agree on one coordinator or clear point of contact. Set a small number of concrete goals with the child and family. Assign an owner and deadline to every action. Review progress briefly and regularly, and update the plan when circumstances change. Parents and young people may ask for a written overview of who is responsible for school, health, contact, and follow-up.
Evidence note
Public reviews identify coordination as a recurring system issue. They support clear responsibility and lawful information-sharing, but do not provide an effect size for any one model.
Comments