| Summary: | The aim of this study was to examine how professionals within Swedish child and youth department of social services reason regarding the establishment of a police report when they suspect that children have been exposed to violence. The aim of this study was also to examine if the professionals' experience that an established police report tends to influence their ongoing social investigations in any way. A thematic analysis was conducted based on six qualitative semi structured interviews with professionals working within the child and youth department of social services from two different workplaces. The empirical data was analyzed in relation to previous research regarding the topic of the study and selected theories. The theories that formed the basis for the analysis were Lipsky’s Street-Level Bureaucracy and Normative ethics in terms of Consequence ethics, Duty-based ethics and Situational ethics which are derived from various philosophers. The results of the study show that the professionals when they consider whether a police report should be filed or not reason about several different factors, making their assessments complex and difficult to describe in generalized terms. Some factors described as influencing their assessments are the degree of clarity in the received information, the severity of the suspected violence and the child's age and ability to tell about what they have experienced. The professionals also reason about possible consequences a police report may result in, in both positive and negative sense, which also influence their assessments. When making these assessments the professionals possess a relatively high degree of discretion using mainly consequence ethics and situational ethics. Further the result show that the ongoing social investigations are significantly affected by an established police report. The impact consists of difficulties in establishing a good alliance with the family and having to deal with the parents’ trauma. The social investigation is also affected by the parallel ongoing police process, because of the existing confidentiality during the preliminary police investigation.
|
|---|
