The main objective for CPS-WORLD is to test the boundaries and core components of the Global Typology of Child Protection (Berrick, Gilbert el al., 2023) that aims to result in a more comprehensive understanding of comparative child protection states.
Societies are at an intersection when it comes to how children are treated and how their rights are respected. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child of 1989 (CRC) is universally ratified,[1] and has amplified and strengthened the place of the world’s 2.2 billion children in the societal discourse about inclusion, dignity and respect. The progress achieved in the 20th century and since, has resulted in new sensitivities about human rights across the globe, with increased recognition of marginalised groups in society. Among these developments, the rights of children have increasingly become a direct concern of the state (Archard 2004; Shapiro 1999; Skivenes 2002; 2011). These considerations about children’s rights and the growing role of the state’s protection of these rights, are embodied in the CRC´s four core articles: Non-discrimination (Article 2); ensure children’s survival and development (Article 6); the opportunity to participate in decisions concerning them (Article 12); and, the child´s best interest standard should be applied in all state actions concerning children (Article 3). Governments’ interpretation of these principles, and how they choose (or are able) to respect and protect children´s rights, in general, varies a great deal across the world (Clarke et al 2020; KidsRight Index 2020).
Article 19 in the CRC is clear: Governments have a responsibility to have a child protection system, with associated obligations to intervene if parents are unwilling or unable to care for their child. Within child protection,[2] the cross-country variation is great (Berrick, Gilbert & Skivenes, 2023). As the discourse of children’s rights ascends, normative notions of the traditional relationship between the family and the state are disrupted. Children, nested in families, are both independent and dependent actors; the state’s intervention in families on behalf of children, therefore, has the potential to problematize and question a core institution in society. Further, state actions on behalf of children can be extremely consequential for families. When parents are unable or unwilling to perform their parental obligations, the state—through its child protection system–can undertake invasive interventions to curtail or even terminate parental rights and responsibilities.[3] To secure children´s best interests, the state might place children in foster homes or residential units, or let another family adopt the child. Child protection systems, which are the empirical focus of CPS-WORLD, represent an immensely strong state power that simultaneously secures and challenges individual freedom and the privacy and autonomy of family life (Shapiro, 1999). Articulating a single, legitimate interpretation of the principle of the child’s best interest in intrusive state interventions is hardly straightforward; standardized notions about how children should be cared for vary across time and place. Child protection systems are often contested and criticized, and because of the competing priorities at stake to both protect children and preserve families, it is often difficult to discern if the nature of government intervention is appropriate. In spite of the weighty implications of child protection for family life and individuals’ rights, the system and practices are understudied, empirically and theoretically (Berger & Slack, 2021).
Child protection is an interdisciplinary field with multiple professionals involved. Typically, there will be social workers as the frontline professionals, judges as the authoritative decision maker, and politicians (and people) as the legislators. With a research team consisting of three academic disciplines – political science, social work, and law – CPS-WORLD has the core expertise and tools for researching child protection and its systems across the globe.
CPS-WORLD offers the potential to bring new knowledge with far reaching implications for the academy and for vulnerable families across the globe. The project also has practical importance. A gradient-based typology with specific, identifiable characteristics can serve as a guidepost for public policymakers interested in aspiring to, or adjusting their current system approach over time.
Research ethics
Project data collection is registered in RETTE, University of Bergen’s research ethics registry.
RETTE contains information from the following sources:
- Self-completed project information from researchers and students. Student assignments and research projects that are not covered by the obligation to consult with the Data Protection Officer can be registered directly in RETTE. Student and PhD projects must be confirmed by the supervisor.
- Research projects evaluated by NSD. Scientific research that includes sensitive personal data has an legal obligation to seek the advice of the Data Protection Officer. UiB has an agreement with NSD to give advice on data protection, to ensure compliance with this obligation. The project is imported into RETTE from NSD after assessment.
- Health research projects that have research ethics approval from REK. Project information is obtained from Cristin to RETTE, and researchers must supplement information required by the privacy regulations (projects are imported daily).
Registration numbers:
The survey part of the project is registered in Rette (F2828).
- ID: R3259 (Survey on attitudes to welfare and family (41C))
- ID: R2828 (Welfare, Family, Child’s Rights and Child Protection in OECD Countries)
Project period
2023-2029
Funding
Research Council of Norway
University of Bergen
Research team
Marit Skivenes (PI)
Jill Berrick
Siri Gloppen
Karl Harald Søvig
Jørn Øyrehagen Sunde
Mathea Loen
Hege Stein Helland
Advisory board
Neil Gilbert
Rami Benbenishty
Andrea Castagnola
Andras Jakab
Jayna Kothari
Alexander Cappelen
Bertil Tungodden
Internal worksite
Internal Worksite: CPS-WORLD Project – Centre for Research on Discretion and Paternalism (DIPA)
This project has received funding from the Research Council of Norway and University of Bergen under the Research Programme Large-scale Interdisciplinary Researcher Project (Fellesløft IV) (grant no. 324966).
Disclaimer: Publications from the project reflects only the authors’ views and the funding agency is not responsible for any use that may be made of the information contained therein.
[1] The USA has not ratified the CRC; although the USA is committed to the principles of the CRC.
[2] The term child protection characterises public systems that are responsible for children at risk of harm or neglect from their caregivers or who may be at risk of harm to themselves or others. These may be referred to as child welfare systems.
[3] In child protection cases it is typically the courts or other decision-making bodies that make decisions in the most intrusive interventions. Unless otherwise specified, the proposal uses the term ”courts” to include both the strict traditional courts (e.g. district courts, appeal courts) and court-like, decision-making bodies (e.g. county boards, Magistrate courts, Tribunals).