Making Sense of Mandatory Reporting: A Qualitative Study of Reporting Practices from the Perspectives of Schools and Child Welfare Services in Sweden

Abstract

Schools play an important role in ensuring the well-being of children, although the process of mandatory reporting of concern for children is not widely understood. This qualitative focus group study investigated the process from the perspectives of school and child welfare service professionals. Using theories of human service organizations and professional discretion, we analyzed viewpoints on an individual duty being handled by an organization. We investigated the expectations that a report be simultaneously simple and value-free, while providing depth and clear examples of concerns. Finally, we investigated the views of the supportive and protective functions supposedly underlying the duty to report. The results indicated problems associated with a collective reporting process. Ambiguity in how information in a report is communicated may also contribute to a more problematic reporting process from schools and then in interpretations and the follow up reports made by social workers.

1. Introduction

The number of reports of child abuse and neglect is increasing both in Sweden and internationally, placing an increased burden on both the reporting organizations or professions and the child welfare services responsible for assessing the reports. Although there is no universal definition of child abuse and neglect and a broad acceptance of this social problem as “socially constructed”, varying over time and space (cf. Gelles 1975; Qiao and Xie 2017), public authorities and intergovernmental organizations have tried to set boundaries around its definition. For example, Article 19 of the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child proclaims that States Parties have a duty to protect children (from birth to age eighteen) from “all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child”. One mechanism used by some public authorities in an attempt to protect children is the application of mandatory reporting laws.

In Sweden, the number of reports received by child welfare services (CWS) rose from 140,000 in 2010 to 331,000 in 2018 (NBHW 2012, 2019). In an international context, schools are an important and frequent source of mandatory reports, although referrals from educators are often unsubstantiated (King and Scott 2013). At the same time, knowledge of the reasons for reporting or how reporting has taken place in Sweden has been limited primarily to national or regional studies, which form a significant part of the knowledge base (Lucas and Jernbro 2014; NBHW 2012; Wiklund 2006; Östberg 2010). We do know that, after the police, schools account for the largest number of reports and that schools are, in some local contexts, the most frequent source of reports to CWS (Cocozza et al. 2007; NBHW 2019; Åsbrink 2021). School staff are in a unique position in mandatory reporting, as almost all children are enrolled in school and school staff, through their daily contact, often over time, are particularly well placed to pay early attention to signs that children are in need or at risk (Crosson-Tower 2003; Zellman 1990). Although school staff are an increasingly common source of reports, international research on mandatory reporting dominates from the field of health care (Gilbert et al. 2009; Östberg 2010).

Further, in studies of mandatory reporting by schools, research has most often focused on the challenges faced by reporters, for example the ethics of reporting (Forsner et al. 2021) or on the challenges of determining whether certain concerns are reportable (Münger and Markström 2018). Although there is extensive knowledge about changes in legislation and recommendations that govern both the duty to report and the subsequent assessments carried out by CWS, we know less about how reporting practices by schools and subsequent preliminary assessments by CWS are carried out in practice. In this study, school reports and CWS preliminary assessments are seen as two linked processes that form part of an overall responsibility for vulnerable children. The starting point is that concerns about a child usually emerge over time and in interactions between multiple actors.

The purpose of this study was to deepen our understanding of school staff and social workers’ perceptions and expectations of their own and each other’s responsibilities in connection to the linked processes of mandatory reporting and the preliminary assessment of children reported to Swedish CWS. In the text that follows, we briefly describe the context of mandatory reporting in Sweden and present relevant previous research that has informed this study. We then describe our theoretical starting point and qualitative method used in our investigation. Thematic analyses are discussed and tied to relevance for practitioners both in schools and social work and nationally as well as internationally.

1.1. Linked Processes in Mandatory Reporting in Sweden

Although everyone in Sweden has a responsibility to report concerns for children to CWS, certain professionals are obliged to report immediately under Chapter 14, Section 1 of the Social Services Act if, in the course of their work, they become aware of or suspect child maltreatment (Social Services Act [SoL] 2001). A report may concern deficiencies in a child’s home environment and/or on concern for the child’s own behavior (Andersson and Sallnäs 2019; Prop. 2002/03:53). The law does not specify exactly what should be reported, as this depends on the child’s age, maturity, and other circumstances, but some guidance can be found in bills preceding legislation and in handbooks for professionals (Prop. 2002/03:53; Prop. 2012/13:10). It should be noted that in Sweden, the duty to report covers not only child abuse and neglect but also more diffuse concerns for child wellbeing.

1.1.1. Schools and Mandatory Reporting

As schools are important arenas for children’s development and it is usually here that a child’s vulnerability and school-related problems are brought to light, schools have a clear responsibility to protect children who are at risk of harm (Swedish National Agency for Education—SNAE 2021). This specific responsibility for vulnerable children needs to be understood in contrast to Sweden’s child welfare model, which oscillates between support and control (Khoo 2004; Wiklund 2006). The mission of professionals in schools is mainly regulated by the duty to report (cf. Chapter 14, Section 1 of the Social Services Act; Chapter 29, Section 13 of the Education Act). There are relatively few directives on how to report, but the duty to report is personal, cannot be delegated, and anyone who fails to report, despite the obligation, risks being held accountable for misconduct (Swedish Criminal Code 2021). Clear procedures regarding the responsibility for vulnerable children and reporting to CWS are highlighted and, when urgent, a report can be made by a person in a supervisory position (SNAE 2021). Reporting must be made immediately. If there is a risk of parents reacting with anger or threats, several people can sign a report. Furthermore, school principals should be observant of the employees’ need for supervision and support (NBHW 2014) in connection to reporting. It is recommended that parents be informed of a report being made, provided that the report is not about a concern of violence. Mandatory reports can be made in writing or orally; in the latter case, written documentation is recommended as a supplement (JO 2012).

1.1.2. CWS Preliminary Assessment

In schools, concerns can develop over time (years) or appear suddenly, while in CWS the preliminary assessment is statutory and must not exceed 14 days. This means that many of the concerns that lead to a preliminary assessment transpire in the school arena. The purpose of the preliminary assessment is to determine whether or not to open up a child welfare investigation and thus serves screening and gatekeeping functions within CWS (Kirton 2009). For example, concerns regarding violence must be opened to a child welfare investigation. A preliminary assessment may be carried out on the basis of the content of the report and any previous knowledge, but it may also involve contact with the child, the child’s custodial parent(s), and the person who made the report. If other contacts are needed, a child welfare investigation is considered to have begun (JO 1995:96). It is important that children and their parents receive relevant information and are motivated to receive support (NBHW 2015). One recommendation is that children, parents, and the person who reported be offered a joint meeting (Prop. 2012/13:10). Children should be involved by being given relevant information and the opportunity to express their views on the content of the report. However, home visits or repeated contacts with the family should not take place in the context of a preliminary assessment. Preliminary assessments may involve negotiating access to the child, for example, or the possibility of conducting meetings in difficult and emotionally stressful situations (Ferguson 2010; Munro 2019; Wilkins 2015). In spite of the limited time during which the assessment is conducted, many things can occur that have an impact on children, their parents, and the school staff, who have often borne their concerns for a long time. Thus, the preliminary assessment is, in practice, often a more substantial and complex process than official guidance would seem to indicate. It should be noted that, in the Swedish context, parents and children over the age of 15 years can apply for support from the CWS themselves. Such an application would immediately lead to a full investigation, and the preliminary assessment process would be bypassed.

1.2. Previous Research

Most countries in the Western world have legislated the mandatory reporting of child maltreatment, and this reporting has, in recent years, become an increasingly essential part of effective work with children and families (Kirton 2009). Whereas the effectiveness of mandatory reporting continues to be debated (cf. Mathews and Bross 2008; McTavish et al. 2017; Raz 2020), under the right conditions, the assessment may have a therapeutic value (Millar and Corby 2006) and be perceived by social workers as contributing to change for the child, the family, and their situation (Gegner 2009).

A reliable reporting process includes professionals who report and social workers who can identify those reports that describe child maltreatment (Cocozza et al. 2007). Identifying and managing children who are potentially at risk is a complex and multifaceted process (Zellman 1990). It involves several actors with different starting points. Making a report can be emotionally taxing, arousing fear, frustration, discomfort, despair, anger, and guilt (Kraft and Eriksson 2015). For the subject of a report, it may mean that they need to share personal and sensitive information, which can evoke conflicting emotions such as hope, fear, caring, dignity, and vulnerability. For the social worker, the task of handling reports is something that is much more of an everyday routine (Hasenfeld 2010).

In this often emotionally charged process, those involved navigate concepts that are sometimes vague and difficult to define. These concepts differ in CWS, nationally and internationally, as well as between legislation and local recommendations. Direct translations between languages are not always feasible, which can make international comparisons difficult and create conceptual slippage. Language use in child welfare has changed based on knowledge development (Rasmusson et al. 2010) but also over time and based on different cultural contexts (Aadnanes and Gulbrandsen 2017). Despite its unclear definition, the concept of a “child in need of services” permeates the entire reporting process in Sweden in that the person obliged to report is obliged to report precisely the suspicion or knowledge that makes them believe that there is a child in need of services (SoL chapter 14:1). Other concepts linked to the duty to report include the call to report “concerns” or “worry”, which is reflected in recommendations and practical guidance from municipalities, regions, and other authorities. Added to this are several appeals to report concerns for children “at risk of harm” (BRIS 2021; NBHW 2014; SNAE 2021; Vårdgivarguiden 2021) and from SNAE to report “fears” that a child may be at risk of harm (SNAE 2021).

Earlier research has shown that a school professionals’ propensity to report is influenced by many different factors, such as a feeling that reporting may exacerbate problems for the family (Webster et al. 2005), previous poor experiences with CWS (Kenny and McEachern 2002), or worry that reporting may affect their relationship with the family (Kraft and Eriksson 2015). Other factors may include a lack of support from the professionals’ own organization (Goebbels et al. 2008; Kenny 2004) or the increased workload arising from reporting (Webb and Vulliamy 2001).

There are problems in all parts of the reporting process, not just between detection and actual reporting (Gilbert et al. 2009). A report does not necessarily guarantee that a child will access protection or support (Cocozza et al. 2007). Conflicting perceptions between school and CWS professionals in a reporting situation can result in tensions both within and between organizations and professions (Münger and Markström 2018). Concerns about the negative consequences of a report can be overcome if some of the challenges that subsequently arise in collaboration between professionals can be addressed.

2. Theoretical Framework

This study was informed by theories of human service organizations and child welfare social work, highlighting tensions between support and protection in service provision. In the linked processes that were the focus of this study, there is an interaction between professionals in two organizations with different organizational logics. In both, professionals serve community members (children and their parents) or clients while serving the interests of their respective organizations (Lipsky 1980). Activities in these organizations also may be administrative and even impersonal, based on norms and values persisting within them (Johansson 2002). Thus, the professionals interacting in a child welfare reporting situation are also bearers of the ideas and traditions from the respective organizations. In the theoretical model (Figure 1) that we developed for this study, organizational fields (Hjortsjö 2005, p. 27) are supposed to collaborate even though the missions of schools and CWS are delimited upon separate legislation, regulatory frameworks, and models of thought (cf. Lindqvist 2000). In a reporting situation, various forms of interaction usually take place between school staff and social workers in different human service organizations, which are under political, bureaucratic, and legal control (Hasenfeld 2010; Johansson et al. 2015). Thus, the professionals interacting in a child welfare reporting situation are also bearers of the ideas and traditions from the respective organizations.

Professionals in schools and CWS have similar starting points in that they relate to a partially contradictory mission. School is a right but also a requirement in a compulsory education system (Chapter 7, Education Act 2010:800). The activities of CWS are supposed to be based on respect for the individual’s integrity and free will, while the possibility (or risk) of using coercive means is always present (Social Services Act, Chapter 1, Section 1; Care of Young Persons (Special Provisions) Act (LVU) SFS 1990). These kinds of contradictions are characteristic of organizations that in some way serve or treat people. They are seen as the symbol of a caring society with responsibility for the welfare and well-being of its citizens, while at the same time they are sometimes perceived as bureaucratic, rigid, intrusive, controlling, or wasteful (Hasenfeld 2010). The duty to report is seen as part of the controlling element of the child welfare system, and this ambivalence towards the CWS may thus be accentuated when reporting concerns about a child.

In the case of a report, schools and CWS have different tasks; the school must formulate and forward the report, and CWS must make an assessment and take a decision based on this report. Their different organizational contexts, however, shape and regulate the handling and approach to the reports of concern (Östberg et al. 2012).

The recurring balancing act of social work that is between help and control is often discussed in child welfare more in terms of protection and support (Gilbert 1997; Gilbert et al. 2011). Differences between protection and support rest, for example, in how the child’s problems are framed and understood, but also the type of relationship that can be established with the family when offering services. A support-oriented logic aims to establish partnerships with children and their parents, wherein consent and participation are key elements. The protection-oriented approach, on the other hand, involves a more adversarial relationship that aims to clarify whether the information in a mandatory report is accurate or not (Ibid). Research has shown that it is difficult for professionals to balance both perspectives simultaneously (Rasmusson et al. 2010; Wiklund 2006). The framework of the Swedish child welfare system largely governs and regulates the field of child maltreatment. This means that, when a report is made, professionals in schools, who themselves may represent different professions, also move to some extent into the sphere of social work. For example, within a school setting, there are often professional educators as well as nurses and school social workers. The meeting at this point of intersection between organizations—and often different professions—constitutes a critical moment where there is a risk of misunderstanding arising on multiple levels.

Professionals’ viewpoints regarding the duty to report, their respective mandates, and their own and the other’s organization may influence how a report is handled and ultimately experienced by the child and parents who are the subject of a report.

3. Materials and Methods

This focus group study was part of a larger mixed-methods research project investigating mandatory reporting by schools to CWS in Sweden; it investigates what concerns are reported by schools and how reporting takes place, what concerns are identified by CWS, and what happens as an outcome of the preliminary assessment. Respondents referred to as school staff in this study are teachers, special educators, school nurses, school social workers, and a principal from a primary school. Given that concerns usually emerge through the interaction of these professionals, the school focus groups included multiple professions in order to provide as comprehensive a picture of the reporting process as possible. At CWS, respondents are referred to as social workers. To promote an open climate of discussion, school staff and social workers were not mixed together in the focus groups, as this was deemed to risk the possibility of raising experiences of difficulties in cooperation between them. Persons with direct and personal experience of mandatory reporting were recruited from both organizations.

Focus groups were conducted with one or two moderators. A total of 21 social workers and 12 school employees from five small and medium-sized municipalities (8000 to 100,000 inhabitants) were interviewed. Work experience ranged from 2 to 35 years, with the majority having more than 10 years of experience working in schools or CWS. Two social workers had experience working in schools and vice versa. Among the school nurses, previous experience in health care was common. Three focus groups were carried out with school staff and four with CWS social workers. Each interview was approximately two hours in length.

The interview guide consisted of two parts: (a) thematic questions relating to reporting and mandatory reporting in general and (b) vignettes containing three fictitious reports. This paper reported only on the results of the thematic questions regarding mandatory reporting. In all of the focus groups, respondents talked about their own and their counterparts’ responsibilities in connection to mandatory reporting, focusing on how they perceive the reporting process to work and why. The interviews were semi-structured and the informants were given space to elaborate on the discussions that arose.

Analysis

A qualitative thematic analysis was carried out using Braun and Clarke’s (2006) approach. All interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. The interviews were read in their entirety by the project researchers. Coding was carried out to discover themes relevant to the study’s aims. The remaining analysis work was carried out jointly to check and challenge possible interpretations and increase consistency in coding. Based on the purpose of the sub-study, the material dealing with the mandatory reporting process was highlighted. The authors each conducted a separate analysis in which similarities and differences between and within the professions were analyzed thematically. The analyses were then compared to ensure the quality of the analysis. In the results of the article, clarifications in quotations are marked with square brackets and abbreviations with three points in round brackets. When the professional affiliation of the school staff was important for the results, this was indicated in the form of “school counsellor” or “school nurse”; in other cases, it was only indicated if the quotation was taken from school staff or a social worker. Although we carried out this study in a small number of Swedish municipalities and our research was interpretive and grounded in a social constructionist perspective (Holstein and Gubrium 2007), findings may have relevance in other jurisdictions with mandatory reporting legislation.

4. Results

4.1. A Collective Report

Mandatory reporting can be managed in different ways. Although the report is supposed to be an individual responsibility, guidelines recommend that organizations establish comprehensive procedures for doing so. This section describes the procedures in place in schools and how professionals understand and relate to them.

School staff stated that they have certain procedures in place when they need to make a report. However, in several responses, it was unclear whether mandatory reports were made in writing and the procedures for making these reports were both questioned and occasionally waived. One outstanding aspect of this procedure regards who is responsible for/signs a report. Both school staff and social workers reported that this is mainly performed by principals who took responsibility and signed off on reports on the basis of information from school staff. School staff described the reason for this as providing a signal of a united front towards parents:

“Above all we need to say [to the parents] that we at school, not that ‘I’ as the teacher has seen (…) This is the school’s responsibility.”

School staff explained the importance of the principal making the report based on the fact that the principal is the person responsible for all children. Although principals preferentially signed reports, school staff described internal negotiations leading to a principal’s signature on the report. Student health professionals were described as playing a vital role in supporting the process. School social workers and nurses were also identified as having the appropriate skills to support reporting, and they sometimes made these reports themselves, even though it went against established procedure:

“My principal wants teachers to turn to the principal or school social worker if they have different concerns about students so that they are involved when a report is written. That’s how it is, but I can write these reports myself.”

(School nurse)

Principals could also write reports on behalf of teachers or act as support when teachers themselves wanted to file a report, regardless of whether they had contact with the pupil in question. The same applies to contacts between school staff and parents in the event of a report. The expertise of the school social worker was deemed particularly appropriate for difficult conversations, but the social workers described that they occasionally shied away on the grounds that the person with the concern should be allowed to make the call. The social workers also stressed the importance of safeguarding their supportive role in schools:

“A teacher who writes from scratch. That’s what we want. We shouldn’t be some kind of intermediary, some kind of reporting stamp—school social worker. We should be in a supportive role.”

(School social worker)

The school nurses also believed that the situation surrounding a report involves different considerations linked to their own role. They discussed the confidentiality they are subject to and what this means in a reporting situation in relation to other staff. In addition to the legal confidentiality, other reasons for not sharing sensitive information with the principal or other staff at the school were also mentioned:

“If I’m a little afraid that the teachers will start to have preconceived notions about this student or I want them to treat the student the same as before because things are going well and I don’t want it to be messier than before, then I think maybe not everything needs to be raised to everyone.”

(School nurse)

Both school staff and social workers reported that the practice causes some problems. One reason for teachers themselves rarely making reports was described by both school staff and social workers as being linked to discomfort and the fact that close contact with children and their parents may be compromised. Social workers highlighted that this can be counterproductive:

“It’s not like parents don’t know that it was the teacher who handed over the information [in the report].”

(CWS social worker)

Another consequence they described was poor information transfer between schools and CWS. Social workers said that they simply cannot get hold of the right person and that if they call the principal, they do not get the correct information. Both school staff and social workers also referred to the legal aspect of the personal nature of the report, suggesting that this problematizes the practice of having a “general” reporter.

4.2. Communicating Concern and Ambiguity

How children and their parents understand both the reason for a report and the incentive of the reporter to make the report is of significance. In this section, we describe how professionals try to sort out what should be communicated to the family and how it can be done.

Both school staff and social workers considered the importance of word choice, as this was assumed to influence how children and parents would perceive the report. An inherent contradiction emerged between sometimes wanting to soften wording and sometimes demonstrating clarity and agency. On the one hand, one social worker argued about the difference between “concern” (”oro” in Swedish) and “suspicion” (”misstanke” in Swedish) and felt that there was a clearer caring and feeling in the word “concern”, while suspicion as a concept conveyed just suspicion. On the other hand, one school staff member stressed the importance of having the courage to “stand up” because reporting is an obligation. Both social workers and school staff alternated between these views.

Parents were central to the narratives of both school staff and social workers. Children, or contact with children, was relatively absent from both school staff and social workers’ narratives. School staff emphasized the importance of conveying that the decision to report is not dependent on individuals but that it is “we at the school” who report. Another important aspect was described as marking the school as neutral, and one school staff member stated that:

“I think it’s important that teachers speak to parents and explain that we are a neutral party here, that we have to do this.”

(School teacher)

Instead, in CWS social workers’ discussion of contacts they have with parents, it was central to emphasize that the school staff’s information represents one perspective, while the parents have the opportunity to share another. Prominent in CWS descriptions was their perception that school staff have difficulty with or sometimes avoid parental contact regarding reports. This, they believed, affects both the content of the report and the subsequent procedure where, for example, teachers want to provide information unofficially so as not to antagonize parents. Social workers emphasized the importance of schools engaging in dialogue with parents:

“This thing about talking, daring to confront parents. A lot can be solved by talking. Then of course it is really good to make a report but also to have a better relationship with parents and dare to meet with them.”

(CWS social worker)

In this situation, CWS social workers believed that an improved relationship between school staff and parents could, in some cases, prevent a report from being necessary. The reluctance of teachers to contact parents in the event of a report is touched upon but not as clearly described by school staff. Similar to the reasoning that the principal should be responsible for a report, school staff believe that it may feel better if the principal contacts the parents:

“It can feel reassuring for a teacher if the principal calls. It feels more like a joint decision by the school.”

4.3. Transferring One’s Views and Reading between Lines

A mandatory report is formulated in order to be interpreted and understood. At this stage, the report is passed on from school staff to the CWS social worker and thus changes its domicile from the school to the CWS. This section describes the professionals’ approaches to describing the ideal report, how they relate to each other, and the strategies they use to carry out their part of the task.

The school staff described that their primary aim is to transfer information in such a way that CWS would be able to understand the school’s perspective and view of the situation:

“You want to convey your view as clearly as possible to the reader. You write CWS, so that you can share the same views.”

(School teacher)

Although it is possible to describe one’s view of the situation, one of the school staff members said that they also want to convey the feeling, which is even more difficult. In order to formulate a complaint, school staff use different strategies such as trying to put themselves in the mind of the social worker in order to have a good reception of the complaint:

”Someone who works here writes really well. She knows what questions CWS [social workers] have in their heads. So, it’s good quality when she writes.”

(School teacher)

School staff also emphasized that they wanted to describe what they were worried about without evaluating what measures the school had taken or how the pupil was functioning at school in terms of (the child’s) school performance and attendance. In this way, they tried to avoid social workers getting bogged down in arguments about what the school has or has not done. The school’s own efforts were described on several occasions as being crucial in determining how they felt CWS would view the report. They believed that if they could not show that the school had made significant efforts to assist a child, the report would come back to them with no follow up. This seems plausible from the point of view that it is also highlighted by social workers who, in addition, also ask for information regarding parental contacts. A recurring question from the social workers was what kind of dialogue the school has with the parents. Furthermore, the social workers discussed how they try to read between the lines to interpret the information in the report and that they try to understand the wishes and attitude of the school staff. Social workers described that in the case of “diffuse” reports they would like to have more contact with school staff to “clarify” the situation. This is consistent with the desire of school staff for closer cooperation as a means of compensating for any shortcomings in the reports:

“If contact between CWS and the school is good, then you can think that maybe it’s not the end of the world if there is a bit missing here and there in a report.”

(CWS social worker)

Recurring concepts that are likely to be contradictory are used when school staff talk about the extent of reporting. Optimally, they said that a report should be simple and concise, while at the same time stating that both parental contacts and the situation of children at school should be described in detail. Social workers in turn stressed the importance of clarity, which seems to be mainly about exemplifying what the concerns are in order to avoid having to make their own interpretations:

“If we had received more information, we could have communicated this to the parents in a different way. Yes, we can read between the lines but we can’t make things up. It’s so easy for parents to deny things then.”

(CWS social worker)

Another difficulty CWS faces is trying to understand the reason why school staff perceive the situation as serious:

“A lot of times I think they have really, really big concerns but there are only two lines and then we think, what is this?”

(CWS social worker)

Both social workers and school staff mentioned that the quality of the report is related to who wrote it. While clarity and the importance of providing specific examples of what someone is concerned about were repeatedly described as important, social workers stressed that the most important thing is that the report is submitted. They argued that in the end it is better that they write diffusely than not at all. As a reason for vagueness, social workers mentioned a lack of knowledge on the part of school staff about the work of the child welfare services:

“It’s easy from our perspective so say that we want more, but I think the school in its role has too little knowledge of what we do with [reports] and what we need. So, they do their best; you don’t want to be too picky. Then there’s a risk they won’t make a report.”

(CWS social worker).

Other explanations discussed by social workers included, as mentioned earlier, that school staff may feel uncomfortable about conveying the basis for their concerns in writing. There was no discussion in the school staff narratives about whether consideration for children and parents influences the wording of their reports. Social workers, on the other hand, stated that they knew of school staff deliberately withholding important information because they did not want to stand by their concerns.

4.4. When Enough Concern Leads to a Report

When to report has been repeatedly discussed in legislation and practice. Both school staff and social workers reported that the propensity to report differs at the group level between schools and between school staff. There was an incongruity in the reasoning of both school staff and social workers regarding when to report. On the one hand, it was described that school staff should gather enough information so that they know what can be done in the school. On the other hand, it was stated that they should not make their own assessments but leave it to the child welfare services:

“You want to assess things first before you report, you want to have a lot of dialogue with the parents and so on. I [school staff] try to refer to the fact that we are not going to do a [child welfare] investigation or decide on anything.”

Neither school staff nor social workers described how they would reconcile these apparent contradictions. However, when school staff considered trying to find out more information, they would do so to see if a situation could be resolved by discussing it with the parents, getting a better picture of the situation that caused their concern, and reviewing whether the school had done enough to address the situation. School nurses described that they can be involved when teachers have concerns but were not sure how to manage a pupil’s coping with hygiene or the state of care at home. School nurses were expected to take the opportunity to talk to the child when the opportunity arises as a means of gathering more information.

From the social workers’ perspective, the school’s own investigations were described as troublesome in that they risked delaying CWS support to children in need. CWS social workers felt that the school’s gathering of more information was based on a misconception that the reporter should ensure that their concerns are well founded:

“Suspicion; you don’t need to know. [Thinking you need to know] keeps reports from being made. Teachers don’t know for sure (…) They want proof and they won’t get it for a very long time.”

Contradictory to this, social workers highlighted that school staff should obtain more information before making a report, not only for information purposes but to assess whether a report is necessary. For example, if the school had not contacted the parents, social workers argued that it may be premature to make a report on the basis that this could be a reasonable first step. The risk of making a report on the wrong grounds was also cited by school staff as a reason for delaying reporting. One social worker stated that there is rarely anything wrong with school staff’s knowledge of the issue, but that they have a fear of reporting something that is wrong. In their reasoning about what and when to report, school staff and social workers rarely used the legal term “suspicion or knowledge that a child is being harmed”. Most frequently, the term concern was used, but also words such as gut feeling and hunch. One social worker formulated what might initiate a report this way:

“Suspicion or you know, gut feeling, something that doesn’t feel right (…) It can go a long way if you have a feeling that something is not right It can be vague, like that word, ‘concern’.”

School staff and social workers are in different positions to take action depending on their roles within their respective organisations. In one case, social workers highlighted that whether a report is necessary is also linked to the ability of CWS to act. Regarding children who do not come to school and the parents who cannot be reached, social workers believe that it is difficult to get anywhere with such a report. In the context of a preliminary assessment, unannounced home visits should be avoided. One social worker believed that the school therefore had quite different possibilities than the child welfare services to go to the family’s home, contact a landlord, and take almost any action. Assumptions and comparisons between the different circumstances of professionals in the two organizations were ever present. The shortcomings of each system can lead to a sense of disempowerment:

“The child’s needs are great and the CWS capacity is small. The child maybe would need to see a social worker every day but gets to go to BUP [child and youth psychiatry] once every two weeks for 30 min (…) nothing happens. You can’t think about that, that frustration because if you did you would never make a report.”

(School staff)

5. Analysis and Discussion

5.1. When an Organization Takes over an Individual Duty to Report

In the Swedish context, mandatory reporting applies to children where there is or is suspected to be some kind of problem, including but also beyond the narrower definitional confines of child maltreatment. While secondary to the main educational mission of schools, mandatory reporting has become an important part of ensuring the fundamental values of schools, which include promoting the development of all children. The obligation to report is individual, but organizations have an overall responsibility, as they are required to establish clear procedures for the reporting process (Prop. 2012/13:10).

A predetermined structure for who is formally responsible for a report was prominent in this study. With a few exceptions, the duty to report was handled by the school as an organization, with the principal at the forefront and as the responsible signatory to the report. Support for having a person in a managerial position to make the report is found in procedural recommendations. However, it is emphasized that the responsibility for ensuring this remains with the reporter (SOU 2009:68). The findings of the study suggest that this procedure, although justified to some extent by school staff, can present dilemmas.

School staff risk being caught between organizational expectations/structures, legislation/recommendations, and their own professional stances/values. The formal structure, with the principal in charge, can be seen as an expression of the administrative, impersonal, and rational organization (Johansson 2002). School staff and social workers give different explanations, based on different organizational logics, as to why the principal is responsible for all reports. Social workers assumed it was a result of the unwillingness of school staff to take responsibility for reporting as individuals, while school staff emphasized presenting a united front, referring to the overall responsibility of the principal for all children. A consequence that emerges is that social workers face an organization, represented by the principal, which is distanced from the individual child. At the same time, the principal’s responsibility for all children in the school may challenge the duty of personal reporting and the confidentiality that governs certain professionals within the school. It is noteworthy that a previous sub-study has shown that documentation in both the report and pre-assessment is de-personalized to the extent that it is difficult to discern who has the concern and who then makes the assessment (Dahlberg et al. 2022).

School staff’s descriptions of mandatory reporting procedure also suggest that they are not just trying to meet the interests of their own organization. They also make an effort to meet the interests of the receiving organization, i.e., the CWS. This is performed, among other things, by trying to compile sufficient information, without crossing a line where they do too much, which could be interpreted as encroaching on CWS’s area of expertise. It is described as optimal to be able to provide a picture of the child’s situation through a report that can be understood and used as a basis for the CWS’s work. In their efforts, a school’s own organization’s resources should ideally be exhausted, which is seen as a guarantee that the issue will not be pushed back by CWS. This assumption is confirmed by the social workers.

This study shows that school staff’s handling of reports is largely described as bureaucratic and routine, leading to an expectation that the formal and statutory concept of child maltreatment would dominate descriptions of concern. Instead, the discourses that dominated reports by school staff reflected an emotional and individually borne notion of concern, a concern reflected in both school staff and social workers’ narratives. Normative assumptions are expressed in terms of the need for society, through CWS, to rescue children who are found to be in vulnerable situations or where a good enough upbringing may be lacking (Sundell et al. 2007). It is also in line with the fact that CWS primarily interacts with the citizen, in this case the child, based on their statutory authority and responsibility for children’s welfare (Hasenfeld 2010). According to what Lipsky (1980) refers to as “street-level bureaucracy”, school staff can be seen as professionals whose scope for action is influenced by the balancing act between the needs of the citizen/child and the interests of the organization, while taking into account legislation and their own professional beliefs. This study made visible the balancing act that school staff and social workers engage in when dilemmas and contradictions arise in the reporting process.

5.2. Support and Protection—Inherent Contradictions in the Purpose of Reporting

In an inquiry by the Swedish Government (SOU 2009:68), it was concluded that there is broad support for mandatory reporting. However, how professionals in different municipalities and organizations relate to the duty to report differs (Östberg et al. 2012). Proponents point out that it promotes early detection and shows that society takes the issue seriously, and thus it serves to support professionals in the decision to report (Drake and Jonson-Reid 2007). Critics argue that it overburdens the protection side of the child welfare system, drains resources from preventive work, and encourages professionals to refer “weak” cases (Melton 2005). This study confirmed the support for mandatory reporting but showed ambivalence about what reporting/mandatory reporting manifests. Both school staff and social workers move relatively indiscriminately on a sliding scale between a protection-oriented and a support-oriented approach.

In the context of social work, simultaneously balancing protection and support has been shown to be difficult (Khoo 2004). The results of this study revealed a contradiction in attempts to reconcile the approaches. Respondents speak, on the one hand, from a protection perspective, where mandatory reporting is described as a legal obligation. On the other hand, they try to find softer concepts in contact with the families concerned and emphasize the school as neutral and notification as free from evaluative formulations. This reasoning can be interpreted as an expression of an inherent contradiction regarding the dual nature of the duty to report. Legislation supports early detection in the prevention of child maltreatment, but in practice, the protection of already vulnerable children is emphasized. The school health service puts this duality into words. Mandatory reporting is contrasted with their function in the school as a support and preventive service. Based on their competences, specific responsibility to assist with mandatory reporting is also expected of them. The ambivalence is also evident in the social workers’ descriptions of parental relations, which involve simultaneously both confronting them about children’s vulnerabilities and trying to establish good relations with the parents. The consequences of these differing perceptions of what should be done, both internally and between professionals, can make it difficult to find consensual solutions and collaborate around a common concern for children.

A recurring argument for failure to report is that it makes the alliance with parents and children more difficult. Relationships based on trust and confidence are also at the core of human services organizations (Hasenfeld 2010). For the teacher, relationships with pupils and their parents are central, which may explain the co-existence of school professionals’ moral support for the legislation while relationships occasionally override the duty to report (Gallagher-Mackay 2014). Based on the findings of this study, one of the school’s dilemmas in a reporting situation appears to be precisely the need to safeguard sustaining relationships with children and parents where reporting is thought to put these relationships at risk—never mind the potential risk created to the child by not reporting. These different perspectives on reporting need to be made visible and understood in order to be managed by both school staff and social workers.

School staff and social workers have a shared responsibility for the well-being of children. Essentially, there is a general consensus that the duty to report is necessary but that it contains components that can put relationships on more shaky ground. The relationship between children, parents, and school staff can go from being supportive before a report to more problematic afterwards. Social work as a practice is relational and grounded in democratic and participatory principles. The need for sustaining relationships can make practice more complicated when it takes place at the nexus between making and receiving a report. Our hope is to bring these dilemmas and contradictions to light and thereby enhance the conditions for professionals to reflect more on how mandatory reports are made and managed between schools and child welfare services.