Growing up protected?
Swiss child protection and its children
Andreas Jud , Ph.D.
, Peter Voll
Montreal, January 19, 2008
Realised with the aid of the Swiss National Science Foundation,
Research Program 52: Childhood, Youth, and Intergenerational
Relationships in a Changing Society

Content
1. Introduction: child protection in Switzerland
2. Theory: decision making under uncertainty
3. The research project: design, methods
4. Results
5. Conclusions
Slide 2, January 19, 2011

Some notes on Switzerland
Slide 3, January 19, 2011

CP in Switzerland: Stakeholders
Voluntary services
Mental health services,
Family services and counselling
Tutelary child protection
Tutelary authorities, child protective services
Penal authorities
Police forces, criminal courts, agencies of prosecution
Specialized organizations
Child protection teams, victim aid agencies, private specialized agencies
Slide 4, January 19, 2011

CP in Switzerland: Legal basis
Art 307
Art 308
Appropriate measures to protect the child
Educational assistance
- Advice and practical support
- Monitor access
- Parental custody may be restricted accordingly
Determining paternity Art 309
Art 310 Withdrawal of children from parental care
Art 311/312 Withdrawal of parental custody
Slide 5, January 19, 2011

Frequency of child protection orders 2004
25,000
19,273
20,000
15,000
10,000
5,000
,0
1,956 art. 307
4,021
1,671 art. 308 art. 309 art. 310 child protection order according to Swiss CC
,264 art. 311 / 312
Slide 6, January 19, 2011

Institutions and procedures
Slide 7, January 19, 2011

Institutions and procedures
Slide 8, January 19, 2011

Theory: decision-making under uncertainty
- Two possibly conflicting objectives
- the welfare of the child (his/her future development)
- the parents’ rights
- Incomplete information on
- the future development of the child
- conditions of action (esp. parental behaviour)
- results of action
 Decisions of services and authorities are
- decisions under risk
- based on evaluations of values/objectives and probabilities
Slide 9, January 19, 2011

Methods
- Analysis of dossiers opened from 1994 to 2002, stratified random sample within four different institutional settings (N=164)
- Survey by mailed questionnaire chairpersons of tutelary authority and CP-Services
(stratified random sample, N=399)
- Case studies two interviews with parents, professionals and authority members, in the first 18 months of an order instituted in 2004 (8 cases)
Slide 10, January 19, 2011

Survey
Results: Whose risk?
Parents' cooperation affecting withdrawal-decisions (vignette study)
Social Services Tutelary Authorities
Non-Cooperation Cooperation
TCP, survey, weighted data
Slide 11, January 19, 2011
Non-Cooperation Cooperation

Survey
Results: Risk and experience
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
59
41
0-5
18
6-19 20-48
Number of ongoing child protection orders
Slide 12, January 19, 2011
10 more than 48

Analysis of dossiers
Sampling
Language /
Type of authority
Professional /
Judicial
Lay people /
Administrative
German
„Stadt“
„Land“
French
„Ville“
„Campagne“
164 cases in four different Settings, stratified by legal base
Slide 13, January 19, 2011

Analysis of dossiers
Data Structure
Parents
Situation / child
Professionals
Other
Persons
Institution
Orders
Dossiers
Documents Events
Slide 14, January 19, 2011

Analysis of Dossiers
Sample: Demographics
- 89 boys and 75 girls
- Mean age of 7 years for enactement of first child protection order
- 46% of children with one or both parents foreign nationals
- At the time of referral 26% of children lived with both parents, 62% with a single parent and 12% (already) out-of-home
Slide 15, January 19, 2011

Analysis of dossiers
Results: Situations of endangerment
15%
6%
3%
5%
71%
Neglect
Physical abuse
Sexual abuse
Conflicts of autonomy
Parental conflicts / IPV weighted data
Slide 16, January 19, 2011

Analysis of dossiers
Numbers of professionals involved
A total of 3,089 professionals are mentionend in the dossiers on the 164 cases (M d
= 15 professionals).
The number of professionals is correlated with:
- intrusiveness of child protection order
- number of caregiver risks mentioned
- number of victim‘s behavioural difficulties
- the setting
Slide 18, January 19, 2011

Analysis of dossiers
Results: Growing up protected?
Slide 19, January 19, 2011

Analysis of dossiers
Results: Growing up protected?
Slide 20, January 19, 2011
1000 1500
Days after institution of measure

Analysis of dossiers
Results: The work of removing a measure
-1 -1 0 0 1 1 2 2 3 3 4 4
Slide 21, January 19, 2011
-3 -3 -2 -2 -1 -1 0 0

Conclusions
1. Professionals in different positions evaluate the same risk differently ...
2. ... according to the risk they run.
3. Talking about risk evaluation in child protection implies talking about the evaluator.
4. Decisions occur everywhere – they are as important at the end as they are at the beginning!
Slide 23, January 19, 2011

Slide 25, January 19, 2011