Findings and Insights from the Survey Among Child Protection Officers Working in Association With the “Lawyer of My Own” Service

Background

The “Lawyer of My Own” Service (hereinafter: LOMO) offered by the Legal Aid Administration (LAA) at the Ministry of Justice was established in 2014 in view of the recommendations of the Committee for the Evaluation of the Basic Rights of Children and the Law and Their Implementation by Legislation, chaired by Justice Saviona Rotlevy. LOMO provides independent legal representation services for minors in civil proceedings.

A program for the development of an ongoing outcomes measurement system designed to evaluate the effectiveness of the work done by LOMO and the continual improvement of its work practices was launched five years following the LOMO establishment at the initiative of the Ministry of Justice. As part of the program, the survey presented in this report was conducted two years later. The program has been conducted in partnership with the Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute and funded with the assistance of JDC-Ashalim.

As part of the legal representation services for minors, the lawyers assigned to LOMO work in association with social workers acting under the Youth (Care and Supervision) Law, court-appointed social workers, and social workers acting under the Adoption of Children Law, (jointly labelled hereinafter: child protection officers) who specialize in child care and protection cases. Analysis of preliminary interviews conducted by the study team indicates that good work relations with the child protection officers are essential for implementing outputs and achieving the desired outcomes of the legal representation services for minors. It was thus decided to conduct two separate surveys to evaluate the collaboration between the lawyers and the child protection officers assigned to LOMO: a survey among the lawyers assigned to LOMO [1] and the survey presented in this report, conducted among the child protection officers working in association with the lawyers assigned to LOMO.

Goal

The goal of the survey presented in this report was to examine the work interfaces between the child protection officers and the lawyers assigned to LOMO (hereinafter: the lawyers) as follows:

  • To examine the attitudes of the child protection officers about child participation and the work done by LOMO.
  • To examine the work practices of the child protection officers vis-à-vis the lawyers and their perceptions regarding their work interfaces with the lawyers.

Method

An online survey based on a self-administered questionnaire distributed among 1,291 child protection officers – 700 social workers acting under the Youth (Care and Supervision) Law, 557 court-appointed social workers, and 34 social workers from the Child Welfare Services (Adoption Services).

The link to the questionnaire was sent to the interviewees by the supervisors of the child protection officers. The survey was conducted as an unmanaged survey[2], so that targeted reminders could not be sent to those who did not fill out the questionnaire to improve the response rate.

Key Findings

  • Attitudes of the child protection officers about LOMO and the legal representation services for minors:
  • Attitudes about LOMO:
  • 61% of the respondents said that LOMO was an essential service and that it was doing a good job.
  • 40% of the respondents noted that while LOMO was an essential service, far-reaching changes were called for in the service.
  • Attitudes about the impact of the legal representation services for minors on the minor’s interests:
  • 42% of the respondents rated it as positive while 50% rated it as mixed.
  • Attitudes of the child protection officers about the work practices vis-à-vis the lawyers:
  • 58% of the respondents believe that the lawyers understand the division of roles and responsibilities with the child protection officers.
  • 36% of the respondents said that the lawyers intervened on issues under their professional responsibility.
  • 57% of the respondents reported that the judges gave precedence to the lawyers’ arguments over their arguments.
  • Work interfaces with the lawyers – attitudes versus actual practices:
  • Regularly informing and updating each other on specific child care and protection cases:
  • Reported high level of collaboration in informing and updating each other on an ongoing basis (60% – 75%).
  • Reported medium-high level of collaboration on particular issues regarding specific child care and protection cases (43% – 79%).
  • Reported very low level of collaboration on issues unrelated to specific child care and protection cases (11% – 17%).
  • Knowledge and information and their impact on the work interfaces with the lawyers:
  • 86% of the respondents received no official information or guidance on LOMO and attended no formal meetings with LOMO officials.
  • 70% of the respondents reported that they had no knowledge or information or had just basic knowledge and information about LOMO.
  • 58% of the respondents reported that the lawyers had inadequate knowledge about the social work aspect of child care and protection.
  • The more extensive the practical work experience and direct collaboration between the child protection officers and the lawyers, the better their work relations and the higher their mutual trust level.
  • The more comprehensive the formally initiated work interfaces between the child protection officers and the lawyers, the more extensive their collaboration on the systemic level (beyond specific child care and protection cases).
  • The more extensive the knowledge, information, and tools required for work with LOMO in possession of the child protection officers, the more extensive their reported collaboration with LOMO lawyers on all levels of their collaborative work.
  • The broader the lawyers’ knowledge about the social work aspect of child care and protection, as reported by the child protection officers, the more extensive the reported collaboration between the child protection officers and LOMO lawyers, on all levels of their collaborative work.

Recommendations

  • Provide the child protection officers with information and systematic guidance on LOMO and the work with the lawyers.
  • Schedule formal introductory meetings and initiate opportunities for discussion between the child protection officers and the lawyers.
  • Define more clearly the division of roles and responsibilities between the child protection officers and the lawyers.
  • Inform each legally represented minor of the complementary roles of the child protection officer and the lawyer.
  • Highlight issues related to the social work aspect of child care and protection in the lawyers ongoing training and enrichment studies, specifically danger and risk situations, child care, child development and psychology, and the roles and areas of responsibility of the child protection officers.

[1] Teper, Y. & Arazi, T. (2021). Findings and Insights from the Survey Among Lawyers Assigned to the “Lawyer of My Own” Service. The Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. (Hebrew)

[2] An online survey accessed via a non-personal link.


Citing suggestion: Teper, Y., Sarver, M. &  Arazi, T. (2022). Findings and Insights from the Survey Among Child Protection Officers Working in Association With the “Lawyer of My Own” Service. S-210-22. Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute. (Hebrew)