School and Child Protection Services Professionals’ Views on the school’s Mission and Responsibilities for Children Living with Domestic Violence – Tensions and Gaps

In Sweden, child abuse and neglect are prohibited by law. In addition, Sweden outlawed (as the first country in the world) all corporal punishment of children in 1979. (Jernbro 2015). All welfare institutions and schools in Sweden have a legal responsibility to identify and report if they suspect that a child is maltreated in some way. However, the largest role in investigating, protecting and supporting children living with domestic violence falls on the CPS; as does the responsibility to intervene when needed. Thus, the support of children living with child abuse is one of the Swedish school’s missions, even if the school’s main role is education. This means that it is important that school and the CPS cooperate about children in need of protection (cf. Banks et al. 2008). According to the Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800), the school has two main missions; the pedagogic mission is to ensure that children acquire knowledge and skills in various subjects, while the psychosocial mission is to ensure that they acquire social and democratic skills. This mission includes identifying and supporting children in need, with a focus on social and health issues (SFS 2001:453; SFS 2010:800; Backlund 2007). The professionals in Swedish schools must deal with the two main missions It is necessary in certain cases to set priorities, which occurs in negotiation between the various actors. All professions in school have different tasks. They have different points of departure and are governed by different logical frameworks: the participants in the school health teams (SHTs) (the school nurse, school psychologist and doctor), for example, work according to a health-based logic; school counsellors work according to a psychosocial logic, and teachers work according to a pedagogic logic (Backlund 2007). The Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800) requires that the SHT staff work primarily with prevention and health promotion, and support students in striving to reach the goals of the education (Backlund 2007). Programs and interventions intended for pupils living with this form of abuse are currently not available, although it will be possible to use a new program, trauma-informed care, for the needs of this group.

In addition, Swedish Education Act (SFS 2010:800) and curricula (Skolverket 2011) state that school principals, teachers and professionals in the school health teams must report and make an expression of concern to the CPS if they know or suspect child abuse to be occurring. This provision includes situations where children are living with domestic violence. Schools have a responsibility to cooperate with the child protection services when necessary (SFS 2001:453). At the same time, several confidentiality regulations apply to both the CPS and schools. Confidentiality may be violated between the various institutions, if the parents agree to this (SFS 2009:400).

From a social constructionist point of view, organizations such as the child protection services and schools are social structures constructed by individuals and groups to reach specific goals as articulated in related policy documents (Lipsky 1980). The goals are often formulated by the State, and expressed in laws, regulations and curricula, but are not always clearly articulated how these policy instruments are to be used in practice. Furthermore, schools and the CPS can be understood in terms of what Lipsky (1980) calls street-level bureaucracies. These different institutions with their different goals and responsibilities are characterized by their professionals, who meet and support citizens (children, parents, etc.) in different matters. Specifically, the main task of street-level bureaucrats or experts is to create the conditions required for some kind of change for individuals such as learning, social development or personal development. It is often the intention that professionals in such organizations are to collaborate within and between the organizations, even if both organizations and their professionals may be governed by different resource availabilities and jurisdictional boundaries. However, the boundaries are not always clear-cut, and the possibilities to act and the decisions about who does what and why are often blurred. This may cause tensions, for instance when it comes to professionals in school health teams. As a consequence, various professional groups compete, but also compromise, about how to interpret and fulfill the goals and mandates of schools (Backlund 2007; Backlund et al. 2017; Bruno 2016). Competition and compromise occur also regarding responsibility. Sometimes different definitions of the problem or different organizational and other principles compel the various stakeholders to negotiate in order to support a child living with domestic violence.

This article uses the concept of “domains” related to domestic violence. This approach can involve an analysis of how policies and practices can be divided into different domains with respect to domestic violence: ‘domestic violence’, ‘visitation and contact’ (Eriksson and Hester 2001), ‘child protection’ (Hester 2004, 2011), ‘immigration’ (Humphreys et al. 2006), and ‘mental health/support/treatment’ (Eriksson 2007). Eriksson et al. (2013a) state that these different policy domains “are shaped by different ways of framing the problem of intimate violence”. The school – or “education”, as Eriksson et al. (2013a:88) express it – has also been defined as one such domain. In this case, the school becomes an arena for identifying children living with domestic violence and in this way, the school is an important actor in the child protection process or in the family law proceedings (e.g. custody). It is seldom that this leads to conflict where the principles and ideas of the two institutions meet, and the mission of the school becomes subordinate to the CPS. The discourse of the domains is constructed relative to different contextual factors of time and space (the institutions, professions, legislation, etc.). We use here the concept of “domains” as a tool to study the discourses used in relation to children living with domestic violence in a school context. However, we will elaborate how the professionals in school understand this form of abuse governed by formal (legislation, directives and assignments) as well as informal (tradition, interpretations and ideologies), institutional logic. The domain concept becomes particularly interesting when the school is connected to another domain and organization: the CPS. The concept of domains can contribute to showing how domestic violence can be interpreted and handled in the school domain, and reveals which discourses are used when constructing the phenomena within the domain and between domains.

Professionals within schools expressed uncertainty about their role and responsibility towards children living with violence in the private domain outside of school. All focus group participants stated that the issue of domestic violence is not responded to as a matter of practice and that they never or seldom have discussed the problem within the framework of school. The participants were therefore challenged during the focus groups to reveal how they think and act when meeting pupils who are living with this form of child abuse. The discussion among participating professionals about the mission and responsibility of the school, both when identifying violence and when managing the children’s needs for care, protection and support, appeared to vacillate between different forms of responsibility. The focus groups also discussed whether the issue of domestic violence is included within the mission (pedagogic and/or psychosocial) of the school or not.

School psychologist: They [the teachers] focus too much on setting a diagnosis, even though we say that it is the pupil’s needs that determine the adaptations and support that they need in school. Even so, they can still say ‘Well, we’ve done all we can so now we should refer the pupil [to a psychologist]. We’ve done our best.’ This thing that they put a lot of responsibility onto the pupil instead of onto themselves. It is this that is dangerous.

As reflected in the above quote, the school psychologists asserted that it is the teachers who are most eager that the pupil be examined, and that the children be given a diagnosis. The readiness to place a diagnosis can be seen also in cases where it is previously known that violence occurs in the home, such as, for example, pupils who live under protected identity (hidden from one parent) with one parent. One school counsellor stated:

We know that they come from families in which the parent has been the object of violence. I would say that there’s so much that concerns violence, and that it’s really important to remind the teachers that when they come to our school health team that we’re dealing with the symptoms, /…/ it’s so easy to decide that the children should be examined.

In this excerpt the counsellor points at the phenomenon that the teachers mostly focus on the symptoms rather than its underlying reason. A school psychologist who at the time of the interview, was working in the social services with the follow up of school results, reflected about her previous failure to understand how common violence in the home is, as she explains in this next quote: “I couldn’t imagine how common it is. It happens all the time”. Nor, as the next quote illustrates, had she been able to see the coupling with the children’s learning difficulties.

I can see this now, when I follow the same children. You see, I go back and read about them and see how ideas about them have changed through the years, how the child health service has suggested autism, and so you consider ADHD and the child is placed with a foster family, and then suddenly the child’s abilities become excellent, s/he starts to cope with language, and you have to start excluding one diagnosis after another.

Here the psychologist points out that the professionals, and particularly the teachers, want the problem to lie with the pupil, instead of putting the focus on the family and learning situations. This is associated with the fact that resources are coupled with diagnosis, but in the case of children facing problems with maltreatment, the question of whether the problem lies with the children becomes interesting in other ways. Participating professional asserted that there was insufficient knowledge about how this form of child abuse can be identified, and about the ways available to the school to deal with the needs of the pupils. They claimed that the symptoms and behaviour of the pupils are rather interpreted based on a frame of reference that is familiar to the professionals. The participants asserted that the social mission takes second place to the psychological and pedagogic mission, and measures are taken to remove obstacles to learning and gaining knowledge, targeted on the individual pupil. The focus groups with professionals from the SHT, and those with social workers from the CPS, stated that it is the teachers who principally push the idea of examining the pupils, or discuss other problems that move the focus from the teachers’ own responsibilities. The teachers, in response, pointed out that it is difficult for them to carry out the pedagogic mission if they do not receive the support and help from the SHT and CPS to which they are entitled. At the same time, the focus groups argued that the distribution of responsibility is unclear, and it is unclear which mission forms the basis for action. They suggested that this applies not only to all school organizations, but also the school system in its entirety. It could therefore be argued that the way in which the professionals understand the mission of the school can have consequences for how they act in relation to children living with domestic violence.

The findings from the focus groups identified that the professionals in schools (except school counsellors) are not very familiar with discussing and handling children living with domestic violence. This was also true, to a certain extent, for the CPS social workers. In all the focus groups, the informants expressed on an intellectual level a clear opinion of what is meant. When the facilitator asked the participants at the beginning of each focus group discussion to explain how they understand the phenomenon “children living with domestic violence”, all participants expressed themselves in the same way: It is a case of a child seeing, hearing and witnessing someone being abused in the family. They described it as a form of child abuse. They also stated that they were aware that domestic violence is a severe problem in many families. Despite that knowledge and standpoint, however, they feel that there appeared to be a gap between theory and practice – how to respond to this problem in schools. When the facilitator posed the question directly whether living with domestic violence is child abuse, only the school counsellors clearly responded affirmatively. One school counsellor stated that “to live under the circumstances of latent violence is to be abused”. Another counsellor stated “They don’t get hit, but they live with this horror/.../. To be a witness, I think it is the same. It is as scary as being exposed yourself. /.../ It is psychological abuse.”

However, in focus groups with other school professionals, only some individuals initially expressed themselves in the same (or similar) way as the school counsellors. These professionals stated clearly that living with domestic violence is child abuse. The discussions on this theme were otherwise characterised by vacillation and insecurity about how to understand living with domestic violence. In general, the participants confronted each other with different understandings and explanations of how this problem can be seen and acknowledged.

School nurse 1: It is not the girl. It is the parents who have problems between them, so it is another situation.

Facilitator: You don’t think she is exposed to child abuse?

School nurse 1: No, I don’t think so.

School nurse 2: The girl?

School nurse 3: Not physically, she isn’t beaten.

Then the fourth nurse said: “But it is a kind of abuse, to see and experience child abuse, it is,” and explained that she thinks it is psychological child abuse. This part of the discussion ended with all agreeing that a girl who witnesses her parents’ violence is affected by child abuse, and that it is “serious that she has been witnessing violence”. The participants took different standpoints, gave different answers, and/or reflected differently on the issue. In some cases, the response was rapid, without reflection, while in other cases it was more considered. Professionals in all focus groups, except for school counsellors, seemed to need to elaborate and present different versions of what can be thought and said about this problem.

A significant finding of the work presented here is that child abuse is understood to be synonymous with physical abuse. One teacher used the term “real violence” when she compared different forms of problems that a child may be affected by in a family context. In the focus groups, the professionals were asked to talk about their own experiences of students affected by living with domestic violence. Very often, they started to give examples of children who had been physically abused. A school nurse recalled: “I remember that I met a girl or siblings whose father hit them very hard. He grabbed their arms very violently and their faces and so on. I define that as violence. In this case we made a report.” In this quotation, the school nurse, when asked about witnessing the parents’ violence against each other, gave an example of a child who had been directly physically abused. This pattern led the facilitator to confront the focus group with a direct question at the end of the focus group: Are being physically abused and witnessing another being physically abused equal?

Teacher A: Is it the same? [living with domestic violence and experiencing physical abuse].

Facilitator: Do you think that?

Teacher B: I can think that. But, it is two different things. I think that you can suffer in the

same way. I think it should be correct to consider it as the same.

Facilitator: Do you think, if you are honest, that you would react in the same way [if you

became aware of it]?

Teacher B: No.

Teacher A: No.

Teacher B: I think it is much worse to be beaten than to witness.

Teacher A: Yes.

During the discussion, it appeared that the participants were uncertain and reluctant to take a stand on the issue. Teacher B first answered that she thinks that is the same but then, in the same sequence, said that it is different. The quotation shows that they thought that it is much worse to be beaten than to witness domestic violence. This kind of discussion was typical for their talk: even though the participants considered living with violence to be serious and were aware that the children suffer, they found it difficult to equate the seriousness or to talk about it in terms of child abuse.

In some of the focus groups (school counsellors, CPS social workers and school psychologists), the participants stated that it is important to understand that children who live with domestic violence live under threat and in constant fear. CPS social workers stated that living with domestic violence is a broad concept and that the situation may be complex. This may contribute to their uncertainty. The CPS social workers found it difficult to define the difference between quarrel and violence. There appeared to be no clear guidelines on when the CPS should act and start an investigation into the family.

It wasn’t surprising that the school counsellors and CPS social workers were presented as more secure in their understanding, knowledge and expressions about this form of abuse. This form of knowledge about social problems is a part of their education and often a part of practical training. However, in the focus groups with the CPS social workers, they expressed themselves differently from members of school counsellor groups. The social workers from the CPS avoided the concepts of “living with domestic violence” and “child abuse”. The CPS social workers first reacted with silence when asked whether living with domestic violence is equal to child abuse, and they did not use the concept “child abuse” at any time during the focus groups. Instead they used the concepts “victim of crime” and “victim”, when they talked about children living with domestic violence.

The findings so far have illustrated that ideas about the mission of the school with respect to domestic violence vary. What was unquestioned, however, was the responsibility of the school to file an expression of concern with the CPS when it suspects that a child is at risk. Independently of whether the mission of the school was described as principally pedagogic or psychosocial, it was generally agreed that legislation and policy guidance must be followed. However, the participants expressed that they felt that it was not equally clear how this is to be carried out in practice, and who has the responsibility to act. The various groups of professionals disagreed about this. One focus group of school nurses emphasised that it must be the teacher who takes the principal responsibility, while the SHT may provide assistance in this.

School nurse 1: The right person or the right profession must own the case, they must be in charge to start with, that’s what I think.

Facilitator: So who owns the case?

School nurse 1: In the beginning, I do/.../There’s to be communication between, it depends on how serious it is, but the teacher-pupil-parent or guardian. I can’t see any other way to do it

All group members: Yes.

School nurse 2: But as soon as they take it up with the school nurse or pass the case to the school health teams, it belongs to someone else.

School nurse 3: Our case, together.

School nurse 1: Quite right.

School nurse 2: But I think it’s very important /.../that the teacher remains involved, because if they are not, they let the matter drop completely and think: ‘Now she’s looking after it, and I don’t have to worry about it.’ [All group members: murmur agreement]. But you have to remember that the teacher is the person that the pupil has most contact with.

This discussion between the school nurses demonstrates a pattern that was evident across all focus groups in all focus groups with members who were part of the SHT. These professionals stated that it is not the SHT that in the first place “owns the case”: they consider that the responsibility and the work of filing an expression of concern lies with the teachers, who are the ones who know the pupil. Professionals in the SHT suggested that teachers are not eager to take responsibility, but wanted the pupil’s case to be handled within the framework of the SHT.

In the focus groups of teachers, however, it became clear that teachers considered it obvious that cases dealing with these difficult issues must be handled by professionals who have training and expertise, i.e. the SHT. From their standpoint, teachers were critical that they do not receive sufficient support from those who they consider to have the principal responsibility in these matters, i.e. the management and the SHT. They stated that they also experienced it as unclear within the organisation, how these questions should be managed. This opinion was shared by all professionals, independently of which school or municipality they were working in. They stated that it is unclear what happens in such cases within the school: for example, what happens when a teacher has informed someone in the SHT or school principal about his or her concerns. One teacher, however, explained that she had not herself enquired whether an expression of concern had been filed with the CPS or if any other measure had been taken after she passed information to the SHT. The teacher justified the decision not to follow up on what had happened for the pupil by stating that she no longer had responsibility. The teacher did not know who now had overall responsibility for the pupil, nor why she had not received any further information. Such narratives – that there are uncertainties concerning the procedures associated with cases and expressions of concern – emerged in all focus groups with several scenarios of the routines around filing expressions of concern and how the distribution of responsibility is carried out in different schools, described. One of the school counsellors outlined how in her school the teacher must file an expression of concern if it is suspected that children are living with domestic violence, because “It would just be weird” if she filed an expression of concern without even having met the child. She believed that it is the teacher who has knowledge about the child and the situation, and who has seen, heard and “knows the child properly”. In another school, it was asserted that it is usually the school counsellor that files expressions of concern together with the teacher. She stated: “We usually do it, together with the teachers. It’s terribly distressing for them. They think it’s really unpleasant. And it’s their name that is given in the text, but I’m responsible for filing the expression of concern”. In a third school, the school counsellor was described as responsible for the complete process. The school counsellor stated that they found the process of collecting and evaluating (information), and writing the expression of concern, particularly difficult when it concerns violence. In the following extract, the school counsellor described the process, and talked about the challenges that arise when the school counsellor takes over a case from the teacher.

School counsellor 2: But this whole thing with violence is not that easy. It’s a case of collecting facts that you can pass on in some way and that are credible when you file the expression of concern.

Facilitator: So how do you manage this?

School counsellor 3: Situations, concrete situations.

School counsellor 2: Yes. And writing things down. And really checking things with several other people. Not just one, maybe, but checking in more detail that it’s true, this, what’s going on. Because you may not have any relationship at all with the child in question, but you just get him or her passed to you. /.../

School counsellor 1: I feel that I really want to be on firm ground here.

The counsellors stated that they found it problematic when they lack knowledge and a relationship with the child. All school counsellors in the focus groups stated that they have, at one time or another taken over a case from another member of the school personnel. The school counsellor may have received the task at an SHT meeting, but it was most common that a teacher approached the counsellor directly and asked for help. As such, it was considered it to be difficult to take over somebody else’s case and to receive information only at second hand. The school counsellors, however, emphasised that they are aware of the importance that background information is available for social services to consider when an expression of concern is filed. The school counsellors however, wanted to be “on firm ground”, and wanted to avoid filing an ungrounded expression of concern.

The CPS social workers considered it to be part of the school’s mission and responsibility to work with the CPS to identify problems, and then pass the case onwards by filing an expression of concern. They considered the role of the school to be important, because – even though it concerns the situation in the home and during the children’s leisure time – it is in school that the children can be found. They pointed out that is the professionals who work in the school, therefore, who have the best opportunities to identify problems with domestic violence. They consider it to be the task of these professionals, if they have any suspicions, to report the pupil to the CPS. Participating social services professionals however, stated that few expressions of concern are filed from schools, that this is particularly the case when it comes to living with domestic violence. It is their expressed experience that most expressions of concern filed with the CPS come from school principals, and they considered this to be an unsatisfactory situation. It was their opinion that teachers should be responsible for filing the expressions of concern because it is the teachers who have the information and meet the child.

At the same time, they stated that the teachers had a certain understanding that filing an expression of concern may involve conflicts with the parents, which may damage the relationship with the pupil. What they could not understand, however, were situations where no-one among the school personnel expresses concerns to social services. They stated that the school often justifies this by saying that the CPS won’t do anything anyway, and there are high expectations on what the CPS can achieve. One social worker stated: “When you reach this stage, it’s almost as if you have to wonder: What can we do for these families?”

Emerging with clarity from the analysis of the focus group discussions, was the commitment of the participating professionals to respond to the needs of the children in their classroom, independently of the involvement of the CPS and their lack of faith in the CPS. What the teachers experienced as difficult was to set a limit for what is included in their professional task and what is to be passed on to the SHT, but, as one teacher put it: “Is it better that I do something? I don’t know.” The teachers used expressions such as to “have a responsibility as an adult”, and they expressed the belief that they have a responsibility in their professional role to “be there for the children, to stand as a form of stability/adult presence”. They were also clear, however, that as teachers they should not be “the one who drives the process forwards”. The teachers also believed, however, as did school nurses, that it is the school counsellors who have best knowledge on how to support these children in school through counselling.

School nurse 2: Right – it’s not our job.

School nurse 1: The school counsellor should have those talks – not us./---/Of course, we talk to the children all the time, with the pupils, but the counsellor should be the one to hold regular consultations, check how the week has been, check what’s happening next week.

In this excerpt above the nurses point at the need for regular consultations and support from the counsellors. The school counsellors also expressed the belief that children facing these issues require a great deal of support, and that their task is to support and understand the children’s situation.

The professionals described that they have room for manoeuvre, which they use in different ways. There are, however, points of contact that all professions seem to have in common. In practice, the professionals argued that they act more on the basis of what they themselves say is a feeling, than from expertise and knowledge about domestic violence.

One factor that the professionals regarded as particularly difficult when working with these issues, and that can be seen as an obstacle to collaboration, is the question of confidentiality. One teacher said:

As teacher, I don’t have to know everything, but I should be told what I need to know such that I can deal with this child in day-to-day life, because I’m the one who does so!

So, yes, it’s a real pain if you don’t know anything or feel that way, because then you feel really compromised when things happen because then it’s like: “I should be able to deal with the case but I can’t, because I don’t know”.

All participating teachers highlighted the importance of removing some parts of the limits to confidentiality in order to be able to help the children. Only a few of the participants were aware that of them knew that parents can, when requested, allow school personnel to be given access to confidential material. When the focus group of CPS social workers was asked how often the members ask parents whether the confidentiality can be lifted in order to let the school know what is happening at the social services, the replies differed. Some of them expressed that they always have referral meetings, in which the institutions involved join together to draw up an individual plan for the child. Other CPS social workers stated that they never use the possibility of breaching confidentiality, since the school does not request this.

However, a certain room for manoeuvre seemed to be available, both concerning how much the schools’ professionals have a right to know, and concerning the possibility of breaching confidentiality between government agencies with the consent of the parents. How this room for manoeuvre is used in practice differs: it is clear that certain social workers do not view confidentiality as an obstacle, and that they use the opportunities that the legislation provides. It is also clear that the individual social worker determines to a large extent the conditions under which the case proceeds, and in this way determines the degree of collaboration.