JOURNAL ISSUE 15
Abuse and neglect in children's homes in the past - Implications for social work and social policy today
Associate Professor in Social Work
In 2001, several stories were published in Norwegian newspapers about severe abuse and neglect of children who had grown up in a specific children's home during the 1960s and 1970s. Several former residents had come forward and told about shocking conditions. Initially it was assumed that the incidents were isolated, but gradually more and more people who had been in residential care in institutions in the region came forward and told similar stories relating to their own childhood experiences.
Based on the publicity, the local authorities responsible decided to start an inquiry to gather reliable information about both the conditions in children's homes and special schools for children with behavioural problems during the period 19541-1980. The inquiry's findings were unambiguous: Several children had been victims of sexual abuse, severe corporal punishment and gross neglect. In some institutions the general living conditions had also been very poor (clothes, food, education, social contact, activities, etc). (The Bergen-Report 2003).
Assuming that the censurable conditions in institutions for children would have national application, a demand for a nationwide study was made. A national report on abuse and neglect in children's homes and special schools (1945-1980) was published in 2004, which stated that the conclusions from the Bergen inquiry were representative of most institutions throughout Norway (NOU 2004:23). This in turn led to former residents organizing themselves collectively and making demands for their backgrounds and experiences to be brought to light, and to establish systems for reparation and vindication.
In Norway, the organization of child protection services, including institutional care, was regionally based until a few years ago, and conducting further studies on the conditions in institutions was considered to be a regional responsibility. Since 2003, four regions in Norway have completed inquiries on the issue of child care institutions. The findings and main conclusions from all regional studies are correlative (The Bergen-Report 2003; The Oslo-Report 2005; The Rogaland-Report 2006; The Trondheim-Report 2007). In the present article I will present the material from one of the regional inquiries, namely Rogaland, where I was a member of the inquiry team. I will present some of the challenges, and the main findings and conclusions, and will also raise some questions to discuss the findings in the light of social justice and the responsibility for social work and social policy today.
In the following, the former residents of children's homes and special schools will be named 'children' even though they are adults today. The staff will be referred to as 'staff', 'carers' or 'adults'.
1 The Act on Child Protection was implemented in Norway in 1954 and was in force until 1993, when it was replaced by The Child Welfare Act (1992)
The Rogaland inquiry - figures and findings
The Rogaland inquiry was carried out during the period January 2005 - June 2006. The inquiry team was appointed by the County Governor and consisted of three persons with different professional backgrounds: a lawyer (team leader), a psychologist, and a social worker - all experienced persons with a high degree of professional legitimacy. In addition to the team, a secretariat of two full-time workers was established. The defined period of inquiry corresponded with the total period in force of the former Act on Child Protection, 1954-1993.
Generally in Norway there was great variation in institutions during the period under study. In the 1950s and 1960s most of the children's homes were rather big (30-60 children). In the late 1960s the number of children in each institution decreased to 10-15. The majority of the children's homes were run by NGOs, mostly religious organizations, while the special schools for children with behavioural problems were governmental institutions. Children in the special schools might be placed there either by the school authorities or by the child protection authorities. This means that some of the children had poor family support, which made them very vulnerable. Most of the children in children's homes came from families with different kinds of problems and were placed in residential care as a result of care orders. Very few of the children in care were orphans.
In Rogaland potential institutions for inquiry2 were 10 children's homes and 3 special schools for children with behavioural problems. Until 1980 all three special schools were for boys only; one of them was a primary school, the other two were secondary schools. The children's homes varied from the smallest one with 6 children to the largest with c.70 children at the most, organized in eight separate houses. One of the children's homes was owned by the municipality, while the others were owned by private religious or idealist organizations.
The inquiry's mandate was to explore whether children placed in care by the child protection authorities in the county had been victims of abuse and/or neglect in the institutions, and if so, to examine the institutions and child protection authorities' responsibility in this respect. Stories told by former residents and staff in the institutions who contacted the team formed the basis of the inquiry. The criteria for inclusion for institutional inquiry were that people who had lived or worked there contacted the team and told about non-regulation conditions. The inquiry team could also contact former employees within institutions or social services for interviews, but not children. Pursuant to the criteria for inclusion, a total of seven institutions were examined: four children's homes and three special schools.
Sources for data collection
There were three main sources for data collection: (1) interviews, (2) archives, and (3) relevant literature, for example on law, psychology, social pedagogy, and social work.
2 Institutions in the county during the period under study
A total of 157 persons were interviewed: 111 children and 46 former personnel from institutions or from the child protection services and authorities. The ages of the children ranged from mid-20s to c.70 years, and the majority were in the 40-60 years age group. The duration of time in residential care varied from a few months to the whole childhood. Most of the informants had lived in a children's home or special school for more than three years.
The interviews were conducted according to two interview guides: one for the children and one for staff. A minimum of two persons from the inquiry team was present during each interview and a written summary of the interview was signed both by the person interviewed and the interviewers. The average time for interviews was three hours; the shortest interview lasted for one hour, while the maximum interview time was six hours.
At the end of the interview all of the children were asked to state briefly the most important reason why they wanted to be interviewed. The overwhelming majority gave two main reasons:
- To contribute to social justice by highlighting what had happened in the institutions so that society could take responsibility.
- To contribute to preventing history repeating itself.
All available archives (institutional, local, regional, and national) were scrutinized, in the search for both institutional and individual information and documentation, such as protocols, reports, written routines, staff instructions, letters, applications, journals, etc., in other words, whatever could be of interest for documentation according to practice and quality standards. This was a challenging job, and yielded relatively poor results. Evidently, both routines for documentation and recording had been very insufficient.
The main challenge was to study and evaluate practices in retrospect, as far back as 50 years, taking into consideration the radical changes in society during the period since then regarding standard of living, children's upbringing and education, and professional competence and institutional standards. Legal regulations and professional literature on subjects such as child psychology, pedagogy, social policy, and children's upbringing relating to the different periods of time thus formed a necessary basis for understanding and analysing the data material.
Findings and conclusions
The empirical data gave grounds for general conclusions for two children's homes and one special school for children with behavioural problems. With regard to the other institutions included, it was stated that cases of irregularities had occurred, but the information was too limited and fragmented to allow generalizations to be drawn.
The special school was established in 1887 as an institution for boys with behavioural problems. In 1952 a new law on special education was introduced and the institution became a public school, at primary school level, for boys with behavioural problems. From the mid-1970s secondary school level was also included in the institution. Following general changes in the national school system there were also a number of minor changes in this institution, but the inquiry found them to have had poor consequences. The school was located on an otherwise uninhabited island, approximately 15 minutes by boat to the nearest city. The pupils lived in dormitories and came from all over the country. During school holidays, the institution was closed and the boys had to stay with their families or go to other institutions. In the 1950s there were 30-35 children at the school. The numbers attending were reduced to 24 during the 1960s and then further reduced to 16 during the 1970s. The institution was closed down in 1995. The data from interviewed children and staff relate to the period 1960-1991.3
The two children's homes were located in the city of Stavanger, the biggest city in the area. One of the institutions was owned privately by a religious organization, while the other was municipally owned. Both children's homes were dependent upon government funding and were subject to public regulations and standards, including standards relating to the qualifications of personnel.
The private institution was established in 1877. In the 1950s it was organized into eight separate houses (pavilions) in the same area, with one overall manager. Each house had its own staff and a manageress. In 1954 the institution was approved for 79 children: 9-10 in each house. The number of children varied during the mandate period, but until the 1970s the average number of children in residential care was 50-60. By 1976 this number had fallen to 29 and the number of houses had been reduced to four. The institution was closed down in 1987. The interviews covered the entire period under inquiry and involved 70 children, 17 previous employers, 2 members of the institutional board, and 3 'others' (neighbours, weekend families). Teachers and health personnel were interviewed, and seven children sent their stories in written form.
The publicly owned children's home was established in 1912 and still exists today. At most, 35 children lived there at any one time. This total decreased to 19 children in 1958 and later on to 12. Until the 1960s, all children were girls. The interviews cover the period 1943-1983 and included 14 children, 4 previous employers, and 5 members of the institutional board.
Data analysis and conclusions
The empirical data regarding quality of care is structured and presented in six categories: corporal punishment, insulting experience, sexual abuse, emotional care, daily care (practical), and inspection and follow-up by the child protection authorities. These categories are formed through examining combination of legal regulations,4 professional literature on care and children's upbringing, and knowledge gained from the two previous inquiries (The Bergen-Report 2003; The Oslo-Report 2005). A summary of the findings within each of these categories will provide the basis for the main conclusions.
3 Nine children and four previous employers were interviewed. Two children sent their stories in written form
4 Quality criteria mentioned in the regulations
Corporal punishment of children has been illegal in Norwegian institutions since 1954. Since early 1970s it has also been illegal for children living with their families to be punished physically. For this reason, it was suggestive and sad to find that corporal punishment was a central means for controlling the upbringing of children in children's homes even as late as the end of the 1970s. In many cases the punishment appeared to have been very severe and rude with respect to the children's behaviour and age. The punishment often came unexpectedly and was difficult to anticipate, especially for younger children. Corporal punishment was not found to have been of similar importance for the upbringing of children in special schools, but isolated instances occurred that merit criticism.
It is quite difficult to give a distinct and general definition of the term 'insulting experience'. In the study context, 'insulting experience' is defined through the perspectives of the children, by asking the children if they had experienced either situations or actions from their carers as insulting. The majority of the children told about such experiences. Many of them mentioned episodes related to punishment, for instance being punished corporally, naked, or being humiliated or made a fool of in front of the other children. Other examples included being forced to eat or being force-fed, being jeered at, i.e. in cases of bed-wetting or other problems involving urine or excrement, and also harassment of the child's biological family. In addition, some children found it insulting when their carers threatened that they would lose contact with their biological family if they did not behave well.
In one of the children's homes several children were sexually abused by staff or persons closely related to the institution (visitors, neighbours, week-end families, etc.). Cases of sexual abuse were reported as having occurred as recently as the early 1980s but most of the cases had occurred during the period 1965-1980. The majority of children who had been abused by adults were boys in the age group 4-12 years. The abuse was carried out by relatively few adults, both men and women. These persons were allowed to hold positions where they had close contact with children for years and they harmed a great number of children. Sexual abuse among the children was also relatively common in this children's home, especially by older boys towards younger girls, but also among the boys. Sexual abuse among the children was also quite common in the special school, but no cases of sexual abuse by adults were reported.
The emotional care was inadequate and at times totally lacking in all three institutions during the whole period under study. The feeling of always being seen as a group was conspicuous. Most of the children told about either very limited or no intimacy with adults. They had no memories of having been hugged, sitting on the knees of their carers, having been seen as individuals, or given positive feedback. The reported individual feedback was related to situations of yelling and punishment. One of the boys stated the following when he spoke of one of his carers: 'She was so heavy-handed; it always hurt when she touched me'. Even so, there are some honourable exceptions. Some children told about carers who had been warm and caring, but as the children recalled, these persons never stayed long at the institution.
Some of the children had been in residential care together with siblings, but the focus on and arrangements for contact between siblings were quite limited. In the children's home consisting of eight small houses, there were a lot of cases where siblings were placed in different houses and lost contact with each other. They did not even celebrate birthdays together.
Most of the children had the possibility to contact their biological family, most often by visiting them during weekends. Contact with the biological family is often seen as positive and important for children in residential care, but it is also important to reflect on how this can be achieved in the best interests of the child. Many children reported that there had been no regulations regarding the quality of such contact. Some of the children had parents who were involved in prostitution, or with severe drug problems. Cases of severe abuse when visiting biological family were reported.
The focus on interaction between the children was very limited, and led to bullying and harassment. Sexual abuse among the children is seen as a result of lack of care and supervision from the staff.
In the special school, it was quite thought-provoking to see how little effort was put into providing emotional care. Even though children as young as 9 years old were living in the school, the overall concern was with education and behaviour, with very few reflections on individual's need for emotional care.
Daily care (practical)
All informants were asked about daily life in the institutions, concerning, for example, food, clothing, school work, leisure time, and socialization. The general impression was that the financial resources had been very limited during most of the period under study. Food and clothing was basic, but nevertheless seemed to have been in accordance with the general standard. However, the social setting at mealtimes in the children's homes merits some criticism. Children were not allowed to help themselves to food; the carers decided which food and how much they should eat and the children had to empty their plates. This led to many conflicts during mealtimes, and as punishment children had to sit at their table for hours, or were served leftovers time and time again for days without being given anything else to eat. Children who arrived too late for a meal were not allowed to eat. As already described, there were also cases of force-feeding.
The follow-up on children's education and schoolwork was found to be very insufficient in the children's homes. One hour during the afternoon was reserved for homework, but with no follow-up from adults. It seems as though it was anticipated that these children would be 'losers'. One of the adults interviewed expressed this clearly: 'You know none of our children were very smart'. Stimulation and planning for the future were almost non-existent, and none of the children could remember being taught about these issues. Two children, who got good marks at school, told that they had to fight to be allowed to go into theoretic education.
As expected, follow-up on schoolwork was much better in the special schools. In contrast to the children's homes, schoolwork and educational questions were a main concern, depending on the aims of the institution where the children were placed.
Daily life for children in institutions seems to have been quite an isolating experience. The children living at the special school on an island with no other inhabitants only had each other to socialize with, both during school hours and leisure time. Some of them tried to attend organized activities, clubs, etc. in the city, but with little success. Being a child from a special school clearly was not the best basis on which to become friends with other children.
Further, even though the children's homes were located in ordinary residential areas, the possibilities for socializing with children in the neighbourhood were very limited. In the 1950s and partly in the 1960s both children's homes were surrounded by a tall fence. One of the institutions was fenced in until 1980. In the case of the other one, the fence was removed in mid-1960, but an invisible fence still seems to have remained around the institution. Apparently, very few children crossed the border between 'inside' and 'outside' spontaneously. Children from the outside did not visit inside the children's home boundaries and the children from inside only passed the boundary to go to school or when they had some business together with other children or adults from the children's home, such as shopping, visiting their family, attending religious meetings, etc.
Some of the children told that they wanted to attend organized leisure activities, such as sports clubs, scout associations, and bands. Most often, this was rejected and if they made any attempts to join then they had to stop quite soon after because it did not fit in with the institution's regulations (e.g. concerning mealtimes, pocket money, bed times, etc.). In effect, the possibility to participate in organized leisure-time activities was non-existent.
Inspection and follow-up by child protection authorities
Inspection and follow-up of the institution and the individual child were provided for by statute during the whole period under inquiry.
According to the regulations current at the time, institutions for children should be closely examined by the authorities to ensure sufficient quality of care. The local authorities were expected to visit each institution at least six times per year and to report to national authorities. Each child in residential care was to have their own social worker for planning and follow-up purposes. Authorities at county level were responsible for checking that both following up children and inspections and examinations of institutions were carried out and reported. There were some distinctions in administrative responsibility and routines for inspection in children's homes and special schools, but in principle the differences were unimportant. Both systems seemed acceptable and quite modern. Hence, it was surprising to recognize a big difference between the children's homes and the special schools in terms of institutional inspection. In the special schools, inspection was sufficient and well documented during the whole period, while in the children's homes severe deficiencies were found at all levels of authority for the entire period under inquiry; no evidence of inspection was found, neither in the interviews nor in the archives. When it comes to follow-up of the children, severe deficiencies in supervision were found in both kinds of institutions. Clearly, the system had not functioned at all well.
Based on the findings, the following main conclusions are drawn:5
- The requested standards of care for children living in residential care were thoroughly defined in the legal regulations as well as in specialist literature:
- Quality requests were comprehensive and ahead of their time.
- Detailed regulations and routines existed for contents, accomplishment and reporting of examination.
- For many children in residential care the care given was neither in accordance with legal standards nor professional standards. Especially, this is conspicuous for the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s.
- Inspection of children's homes and follow-up of the individual child in residential care by the child protection authorities were highly insufficient (non-existent). Especially, this is conspicuous for the 1960s and 1970s.
During the 18 months of inquiry, the team listened to many sad stories and heard many shocking accounts of inhuman behaviour from carers towards children. However, what affected the inquiry team most was the emotional poverty: the reported lack of love and intimacy, the deprivation of never being seen as an individual or a person but always as one of a group, of never receiving positive feedback, and the feeling of worthlessness and loneliness. This was experienced by every one of the children interviewed, even those who had contacted the team to give a positive account of growing up in a children's home.
5 Included institutions: two children's homes and one special school (primary level) for children with behavioural problems.
Methodological questions are closely discussed in the inquiry's report (The Rogaland-Report 2006). In this article, a few reflections on methodology are summarized, with regard to representativeness, credibility and validity.
As initially mentioned, interviews with people who have lived in children's homes or special schools for children with behavioural problems formed the most comprehensive and important part of the data material. It is difficult to give an unambiguous answer as to whether this material gives an accurate picture of the institutional care during the given time period. The selection of former residents as informants was based on those who wanted to be included actually volunteering. The inquiry was announced in the media and through relevant organizations. In the announcement it was stressed that the inquiry team wanted to document good as well as bad experiences. Everybody who volunteered was included. Coincidentally, local newspapers were focusing on abuse and neglect in institutions, which might have influenced the public opinion of the inquiry's mandate. This might have led to an uneven distribution between children with bad and good experiences. On the other hand, in general, we know that people who have experienced abuse find it very hard to talk about it, so again this could have led to low representation from this group (NOU 2004:23).
The interviewed children represented the total period under inquiry, but with a clear predominance relating to the 1960s and 1970s. There may be different explanations for this. Children from the 1950s are elderly today, and the children interviewed reported that many of their fellow residents were either dead or had severe health problems. Another explanation may be that the conditions in institutions actually had been relatively good during the 1950s. In 1980 there was a reorganization of the responsibility for placement of children in Norway. A new administrative level was established, the county municipality, with a mandate to administrate and coordinate foster homes and institutions for children without parental care. This may have had an influence on the quality of care given in institutions.
The expected number of children in the included institutions during differing periods of time was known in advance and the inquiry also gives a quite clear picture of the level of stability in the group of children in residential care. However, there are no facts about either the exact number of children during the period under study or how many of these have since died or were in too poor health to be included.
Very few of the staff volunteered to be interviewed. The inquiry team therefore had to invite staff representing different times within the period of time under study to come for an interview. Only three persons refused this request. All managers available were interviewed.6
The inquiry team considers the data material to be representative according to the mandate with respect to examining irregular practices. However, the material is not considered representative of the institutions in general for the total period under study.
6 Available, i.e. that they were alive and that it was ethically right to include them according to their health status.
Credibility and validity
The literature states that most people who report severe abuse are reliable (95%) (NOU 23:2004). This corresponds with the examination of the present study's material, and is strengthened by the fact that the same situations and incidents are described from different sources. For most of the informants the reported incidents happened far back in time. This might have had some influence with regard to their powers of recollection. The fact that some of the children had contact with a support group for former residents might have 'coloured' their memory. This was thematized in the interviews. There is also a risk that an incident might have been misunderstood when seen from a child's point of view. Therefore, interviewing staff from different periods of time in order to supply and complete the picture has been considered of great importance.
The anticipation of possible economic compensation for people who have experienced abuse and failure to provide care in children's homes and special schools has raised questions related to trustworthiness. Even if the inquiry team was not involved in this respect, there may be a risk that this influenced the narratives, though the general experience is that any influence is minor.
'Life afterwards': What the children told about their adult lives
As already mentioned, 111 children were interviewed. All children were asked how their lives had been after leaving the institution. The most striking information from this part of the interview process is that, without exception, all told about relational problems: problems with being emotionally close to another person, helplessness in dealing with close relationship, and problems in conflict solving (involving a partner, own children, friends, etc.). Many of them had been divorced one or more times. Most of the children told stories of shame, disgrace and emotional pain, especially those who had been in residential care due to a care order. Some of them had never spoken about their past to anyone, not even older children or parents-in-law (except perhaps to inform their partner), and they lived in constant fear of being disclosed. Even between some siblings who had lived in the same institution at the same time, talking about this period of life was taboo, and not something to speak about to other members of their biological family. The strong feeling of shame and disgrace seemed to be independent of how long they had been in residential care, but with some dependency on the reason why they lived there. The feeling of shame and disgrace seemed to be less paralysing for children who had been placed in care following the death of a parent.
For children who had been in care the lack of emotional care, the feeling that nobody cared about them or not being seen as an individual was reported to have caused most of the problems in their adult life. This was also valid for persons who had experienced sever physical and/or sexual abuse.
More than 60% of the children had received psychiatric treatment or had suffered from drug addiction in their adult lives. A total of two-thirds told that they did not manage an ordinary working life due to lack of social competence and that they lived on disability benefit as a consequence of psychiatric problems, anxiety or psycho-social problems. Some of the few who were working had their own business because, as they explained, they did not cope well with working together with others. The majority of those who were parents reported that it had been problematic to raise children because they did not know how to care or intervene. Some of the men had never managed or dared to establish their own family. Many of the women saw partnership or marriage as a resort and had entered into partnership and had had children at a very young age. In such cases, most of the women reported that they had been uncritical about men and consequently had found themselves in violent partnerships.
Findings in the light of social justice
A very sore point for all interviewed residents was that nobody had seen, listened to or believed them as children, even if many of them had tried to tell to social workers, teachers, police, health care workers, etc. when harm had been done to them. This strengthened their feeling of being worthless. This finding is similar to that from all other inquiries in Norway, but there are no reasons to believe that this is specific to Norwegian institutions only. We believe that abuse and neglect in institutions for children are a more global problem. To determine whether this is the case or not is probably dependent upon interest and the willingness to explore. Reflections on the findings from the Rogaland inquiry in the light of social justice are therefore considered to be of general interest.
One issue often raised is that the conditions for children in residential care would have been worse if they had grown up living with their biological families. Most of the interviewed children agreed that they had been removed from their parents. The claim was that they had not been taken properly care of afterwards. In the light of social justice it should be obvious that when a society takes on responsibility for a child it is obliged to offer sufficient care according to that particular child's needs. Comparison with insufficient biological families derails the discussion.
Social justice may be discussed in terms of equality and discrimination. Another question often raised is whether the children's problems are related to what happened in the institution in which they lived, or whether they were caused by their biological and/or social background, or possibly because they had been abandoned by their parents. These are difficult questions to answer, but nevertheless are important to raise because they also involve issues related to individual care. It has been well known for many years that children who are abandoned, abused or in other ways have experienced a deficit of parental care have special needs (Bowlby 1951; 1988). In general, children who are placed in children's homes or special schools will have fewer recourses and possibilities than the general population at a similar age, i.e. a limited social capital (Marthinsen 2003). For social work and social policy therefore, it is vital to strengthen the social capital in order to achieve equal opportunities. Consequently, the care for children in institutions must be a kind of 'best practice' and should not be compared with parental care which is evaluated to be insufficient or at the lower end of scale of sufficiency. Abuse and illegal behaviour is, of course, totally unacceptable.
It is well documented that several Norwegian children in residential care in the past have suffered heavily from failure of care and have also been victims of abuse (NOU 2004:23; The Bergen-Report 2003; The Oslo-Report 2005; The Rogaland-Report 2006; The Trondheim-Report 2007). It also seems to be well documented that this has had a major influence on these children's lives afterwards. As mentioned, the most severe abuse was carried out by relatively few members of staff (and others), but these people were allowed to continue working in the institutions for many years and harmed many children. The fact that there were no systems or routines in place to discover and stop abuse, neither within the institutions nor within the responsible supervisory authorities, merits severe criticism. Furthermore, when children or their biological family tried to report incidences they were dismissed, despite the regulations for this being clear.
A vital question is whether social work and social services today are responsible for their 'ancestor's sins'. According to the Norwegian system, legal responsibility is marked only by a very limited ex gratia payment; however, this is not only a question of legal obligations, it is also a question of morals and ethics. The failures cannot be undone, but today's social services can act on behalf of the former system and treat the affected children respectfully. Reparation and vindication are extremely important to enable the affected children to gain self-respect. Economic compensation is important as a symbol and may help in difficult social situations, but it is equally important to admit and recognize the children's experiences and accordingly act responsibly and ethically. Last, but not least, it is of great importance to learn from the consequences of previous experiences and do whatever possible to make sure that the history does not repeat its self . This includes ensuring that institutions for children are properly staffed and have the required level of competence, to develop open institutions with a focus on ethics, to develop good routines for inspection and supervision, both professional and administrative, and to always take seriously and examine situations when children or persons close to a child in care tell about irregular incidents.
Bowlby, J. (1951): Maternal Care and Mental Health. World Health Organization (WHO) Monograph Series No. 2. xxx.
Bowlby, J. (1988): A Secure Base. Routledge, London.
Marthinsen, E. (2003): Socialt arbeid og sosial kapital i et senmoderne barnevern. Doctoral Theses. NTNU, Trondheim.
NOU 2004:23 (2004): Barnehjem og spesialskoler under lupen. Nasjonal kartlegging av omsorgssvikt og overgrep i barneverninstitusjoner 1945 - 1980. [White Paper 2004:23 Orphanages and Special Schools Under the Magnifying Glass. National Examination of Deficit of Care and Abuse in Institutions for Children]. xxx.
The Trondheim-Report (2007): Omsorg og overgrep. Gransking av barnehjem, skolehjem og fosterhjem benyttet av Trondheim kommune fra 1930-Śrene til 180-Śrene. [Care and Abuse. Inquiry of Children's Homes, Special Schools and Foster Homes, Used by Trondheim Municipality for Placement of Children from the 1930s until the 1980s] (May 2007). xxx.
The Rogaland-Report (2006): Rapport fra granskingsutvalget for barneverninstitusjonar i Rogaland. [Report from the Inquiry of Institutions Used by the Child Welfare Services in Rogaland] (June 2006). xxx.
The Oslo-Report (2005): Rapport fra granskingsutvalget for barneverninstitusjonar i Oslo og Akershus. [Report from the Inquiry of Institutions Used by the Child Welfare Services in Oslo and Akershus] (December 2005). xxx.
The Bergen-Report (2003): Rapport fra granskingsutvalget for barneverninstitusjonar i Bergen. [Report from the Inquiry of Institutions Used by the Child Welfare Services in Bergen) (June 2003). xxx.
Norwegian Legislation and Administrative Regulations on Child Protection.
Back to Top
Copyright for the I.U.C. Journal of Social Work Theory and
Practice is owned by the Social Work Program, Department of
Social Relations and Services, Bemidji State University, Bemidji,
Minnesota, USA. One copy may be made (printed) for personal
use; teachers may make multiple copies for student use if
the copies are made available to students without charge.
Permission must be secured from the editors for sale of any
copies of articles or for any commercial use of the material
published in the Journal.