How do child welfare workers perceive intimate partner violence and mandatory reporting?
The child welfare service is centrally positioned for detecting, reporting and preventing IPV, but there is limited empirical knowledge concerning how the service handles IPV cases or of social workers’ awareness of mandatory reporting of IPV.
From the left: Silje Louise Dahl, Kjartan Leer-Salvesen and Malene Øvrelid. Photo: Volda University College. Right: Solveig Karin Bø Vatnar. Photo: Molde University College.
The child welfare service is centrally positioned for detecting, reporting and preventing IPV, but there is limited empirical knowledge concerning how the service handles IPV cases or of social workers’ awareness of mandatory reporting of IPV.
Using qualitative interviews, we explored how CWS workers in Norway described their discretionary space and mandatory obligations towards adults subjected to IPV. Our findings indicate an inexpedient interplay between understandings of professional mandate and individual responsibility and local routines and organisation, and insufficient knowledge about IPV and mandatory reporting among child welfare workers.
We suggest that a reframing of child welfare workers’ understanding of their discretionary space is needed to ensure that their individual responsibility towards adults subjected to IPV is understood as part of their mandate. This reframing presupposes structural efforts, such as formal training. We propose further investigations concerning how local organisation and routines either facilitate or interfere with systematic and thorough handling of IPV in families with which the municipal CWS meets.
In the article Child welfare workers’ perceptions of IPV and mandatory reporting in Norway, published in the journal Child & Family Social Work, you can further explore perceptions that may contribute to limiting mandatory reporting. Authors are Silje Louise Dahl, Kjartan Leer-Salvesen, Malene Øvrelid & Solveig Karin Bø Vatnar.
