Introduction
Daly (Reference Daly2015: 599) describes parenting support as ‘a set of (service and other) activities oriented towards improving how parents approach and execute their role as parents and to increasing parents’ child-rearing resources (including information, knowledge, skills, and social support) and competencies.’ In many countries, parenting support has existed as a policy intervention for many decades (Ramaekers and Suissa, Reference Ramaekers and Suissa2012), as is the case in Norway (Danielsen et al., Reference Danielsen, Ludvigsen and Mühleisen2012). Structured parenting support programmesFootnote 1, however, are a rather recent phenomenon in the Nordic context (Lundqvist, Reference Lundqvist2015).
In Norway, structured parental guidance was introduced as a policy intervention in 1995, with the launch of the government's ‘Parental Guidance Programme’ (Foreldreveiledningsprogrammet, also referred to as ICDP; Barne- og familiedepartementet, 1997). The Parental Guidance Programme is supposedly ‘universal’, meaning that it is ‘offered to all parents who want it, without any preconditions that the families have any difficulties or are at risk of developing it’ (Eng et al., Reference Eng, Ertesvåg, Frønes and Kjøbli2017: 26; see also Bråten and Sønsterudbråten, Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016). Since the end of the 1990s, the Norwegian Government has also supported other universal parental guidance programmes that are not part of their own Parental Guidance Programme, such as Circle of Security (COS) and Incredible Years (IY).
The universal provision of parenting support is seen to be particular to Norway (and other Nordic countries) (Glavin and Schaffer, Reference Glavin and Schaffer2014; see also Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues, 2012; Eng et al., Reference Eng, Ertesvåg, Frønes and Kjøbli2017). In the UK for instance, parenting support is offered to specifically targeted groups and comes into play following signs of a certain kind of risk or if a ‘problem’ has occurred (Gillies, Reference Gillies2005; Lee, Reference Lee2014). Most previous research into what parenting support is, and what it seeks to achieve, has been developed from observations of parenting support policies in countries whose social policies are considered to be very different from the Nordic countries (Esping-Andersen, Reference Esping-Andersen1990; Nordic Centre for Welfare and Social Issues, 2012, 2013).
A considerable share of the literature analysing parenting support policies in the international social science community is occupied with problematising the common practice of offering parenting support only to specific, targeted groups, and the implications following from this practice (Gillies, Reference Gillies2005; Faircloth et al., Reference Faircloth, Hoffman and Layne2013; Lee, Reference Lee2014). For instance, it is argued in this body of literature that parenting support policies are shaped by middle-class norms and practices (through the professionalisation of parenting: Furedi, Reference Furedi2008), and there is concern that the aim of the policies is to encourage working-class parents to behave in middle-class ways (Klett-Davies, Reference Klett-Davies2010; Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson, Reference Holloway and Pimlott-Wilson2014). Further discussion concerns the risk that highlighting parenting and parenting support leads to a lack of recognition that parenting practices are affected by social and economic factors such as poverty, worklessness, lack of qualifications, poor health, and insufficient housing (since they mitigate against families’ wellbeing and parents’ time and capacity) (Cruddas, Reference Cruddas and Klett-Davies2010). There is a risk of individualising social problems, thus marginalised parents may be stigmatised and made accountable for the disadvantages to which society has exposed them, based on a false, ‘individualistic’ interpretation of the problem (Churchill and Clarke, Reference Churchill and Clarke2009; Macvarish, Reference Macvarish and Lee2014).
However, since parenting support in Norway is offered universally – targeting all parents equally with the same kinds of interventions – one might presume that those issues raised in the literature would be irrelevant to the Norwegian context; however, a recent nation-wide study commissioned by the Norwegian Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family Affairs (Wesseltoft-Rao et al., Reference Wesseltoft-Rao, Holt and Helland2017) indicates that this is not the case. The study was tasked with identifying where, how, and by whom parental guidance initiatives are offered. Although there are many methodological problems with this study, which are also addressed by the authors themselves, one finding is particularly interesting: that, in the majority of cases, parents who had participated in universal parental guidance programmes had been selected according to certain criteria (associated with ‘risk’) (Wesseltoft-Rao et al., Reference Wesseltoft-Rao, Holt and Helland2017: 43). Thus, the intervention had not been offered to all parents, but instead had targeted particular individuals for recruitment to the course.
The previous call for further research into the implementation of parenting support (Bråten and Sønsterudbråten, Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016: 9) was not satiated but instead made more urgent by the subsequent findings of the 2017 study. Thus, the present study seeks to help address this identified knowledge gap (as opposed to simply presuming that the declared universal coverage of the policy corresponds with its practice). Further insights into what is actually provided in parenting support – and to whom – will improve the understanding and analysis of parenting support in the Norwegian context, and of what it seeks to achieve (Daly, Reference Daly2015).
There is generally little social science research from Norway that would help in understanding and assessing what parenting support represents in the Norwegian context, what it seeks to achieve. The field of research on parenting support is still dominated by the ‘psy-disciplines’ (psychiatrists, psychotherapists, pedagogues, psychologists, etc.) (Andenæs, Reference Andenæs2005; Madsen, Reference Madsen, Kroken and Madsen2016; Klein and Mills, Reference Klein and Mills2017). Their perspectives and research interests address issues and questions other than those raised here (see the Review Article: Sundsbø, Reference Sundsbø2018). Despite the generally limited literature, several highly relevant studies have informed the research presented here.
Firstly, some contributions have focused specifically on the content and normative grounds of parenting support programmes that are currently implemented in Norway (Danielsen and Mühleisen, Reference Danielsen and Mühleisen2009; Danielsen et al., Reference Danielsen, Ludvigsen and Mühleisen2012; Erstad, Reference Erstad2015). These also discuss how such interventions may affect and modify parents’ understandings and practices regarding their roles as parents (ibid.). Secondly, the study conducted by Bråten and Sønsterudbråten (Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016) provides a profound analysis of Norwegian parenting support policies and how they have developed and changed since the 1940s. That study also contains a rich presentation of the structured parenting support programmes that are currently supported and implemented in Norway, and a highly interesting discussion about their claimed ‘effects’. Furthermore, some contributions discuss how the welfare state acts (through the norms and practices carried out by its ‘street-level-bureaucrats’ (Lipsky, Reference Lipsky2010)) as a hegemonic power, defining what is a ‘good’ or ‘right’ way of parenting (Hagelund, Reference Hagelund and Grillo2008; Hennum, Reference Hennum2010; Andenæs, Reference Andenæs2012; Hennum, Reference Hennum2014; Hollekim et al., Reference Hollekim, Anderssen and Daniel2016; Fylkesnes et al., Reference Fylkesnes, Iversen and Nygren2017). Moreover, contemporary research on welfare state reforms, and the observation of an ongoing shift of responsibilities from the state toward its citizens (Leira, Reference Leira, Ellingsæter and Leira2004; Ellingsæter and Leira, Reference Ellingsæter and Leira2006; Ervik and Kildal, Reference Ervik, Kildal, Nilssen, Kildal and Ervik2015) is also relevant, in order to contextualise the policy or to develop and test hypotheses on what parental guidance is and what it seeks to achieve.
Operationalisation of research questions and methods
A review of the relevant Norwegian and international literature on the provision of parenting support shows an urgent demand for more knowledge about whether and how government investments in universal parenting support programmes reach out to parents (Bråten and Sønsterudbråten, Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016). This article presents the findings of an investigation into two research questions. Firstly, are all parents (in Norway) actually offered participation in a structured parenting support intervention, as the policy claims? Secondly, which interventions are parents offered, and which considerations or rationalities underlie the choice of a specific kind of intervention? In order to collect information on this, I conducted a case study in a borough of Bergen (Norway's second largest city), and observed the provision of universal parenting support services there over a period of two years (2015–2017). My focus was on exploring the offer of parenting support services, where the services were carried out, by whom, and to identify the participating parents (level of education, socioeconomic situation, and whether they and their parents were born in Norway), including how they were recruited to participate in the intervention. The case study also involved the acquisition and analysis of relevant documents (advertisements, project applications and project reports, budgets, etc.). In addition to these observational and mapping activities at the local level, I conducted semi-structured, qualitative interviews with all involved stakeholders at both the national and local levels, comprising: high-level policy makers and experts with influence on the policy (n = 8), national and local bureaucrats (n = 5), local leaders (n = 7), practitioners who provide parenting support (n = 25), and parents who had participated in a parenting support intervention (n = 50).
Within the context of the present study and the main research questions, the major considerations are the mapping of the offered services, and their funding sources, providing institutions, and participants. The data sets utilised in this mapping exercise originate from different sources. This was done in order to double-check or fill any gaps in the collected information. For instance, information on how the provided parenting support services were financed (municipal funding/department, national funding/department or other) was collected from documents I was provided access to, as well as through the interviews.
The comprehensive nature of the study revealed many interesting aspects and findings that are also relevant to addressing the question of what parenting support policies in Norway are / seek to achieve. Some of these are beyond the scope of the present article, and will be presented in other, forthcoming publications.
Parenting support in Norway: why a universal approach?
Structured parenting support in Norway is presented as a universal offer because it has been politically framed and promoted as a (health) preventative measure. The information brochure that describes the content and legitimacy of the programme presents it as a ‘health promoting and preventive programme’ (Barne-, ungdoms-og familiedirektoratet, 2015). The brochure states further: ‘The aim of the programme is to prevent psychosocial problems among children and youth through supporting and strengthening the parents and other care givers in their care giving role’ (ibid.).
The vantage point is the assumption that the parent–child relationship determines the child's future development. This assumption is to be found in practically all policy documents (Barne- og familiedepartementet and Sosial- og helsedepartementet, 1995; Barne-, likestillings- og inkluderingsdepartementet, 2014) and guidebooks for practitioners, produced by advisors from the ‘psy-disciplines’ (Misvær and Lagerløv, Reference Misvær and Lagerløv2013; Eng et al., Reference Eng, Ertesvåg, Frønes and Kjøbli2017). This assumption, which Furedi (Reference Furedi2008) calls (the myth of) ‘parental determinism’ is the vantage point – and at the same time the main argument – presented to justify the government's investment in parenting support. The core idea is that, due to this ‘parental determinism’, the development of psycho-social illnesses among children can be prevented, if parenting support is provided universally, and before any indication of problematic child development occurs.
Those experts who were closely involved in shaping the programme (prof. Karsten Hundeide, prof. Henning Rye, and others) had worked for years to convince the government to provide parental guidance to all parents (interview with Rye and other contemporary witnesses). In 1995, with the launch of the Parental Guidance Programme as a universal parenting support programme, they presumed to have reached a breakthrough (interview material referred to above).
Not provided for all
A broad (universal and non-indicative) implementation of the government's own Parental Guidance Programme, was however, never realised. In the first years after it was launched, only a few districts actually implemented it, despite broad political support: One interviewee, who witnessed the developments, stated, ‘After a few years, the Parental Guidance Programme was declared dead’. Towards the late 1990s, other programmes seeking to ‘improve’ parental behaviour and/or ‘problematic’ child conduct were imported and expanded in NorwayFootnote 2, and received public funding. In 2005, the government announced a revitalisation of the Parental Guidance Programme. Since then, different ministries of the central government and other central state institutions (e.g. The Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs (Bufdir); The Directorate of Integration and Diversity (IMDi) and The Health Directorate) have provided funding for different parental guidance programmes (for an overview, see Rambøll, 2013; Bråten and Sønsterudbråten, Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016; Wesseltoft-Rao et al., Reference Wesseltoft-Rao, Holt and Helland2017). During the last two decades, however, parental guidance initiatives in Norway have to a large degree been focused on behavioural problems among children (Rambøll, 2013: 32). Sherr et al. (Reference Sherr, Skar, Clucas, Tetzchner and Hundeide2011: 22) state that parental guidance programmes have traditionally targeted specific groups, whereas few programmes have addressed caregivers in general. This was also confirmed in a letter from the three national departments who cooperated in revitalising the Parental Guidance Programme in 2007, where it is stated that, between 1995 and 2005, parental guidance had not yet been established as a universal health-promoting and early prevention measure (Bufdir, 2007). However, this was intended to change with increasing investment in the programme from 2005 onwards (ibid.).
The current funding structure and the financial and human resources available to provide parenting support indicate that the service is not yet offered to all parents. The Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family Affairs, and other national government institutions offer some financial funding, which NGOs and local authorities can apply for, to conduct parental guidance activities. However, it is reportedly difficult to obtain these resources due to strong competition (from interviews with public administrators). Moreover, the funding is only provided for a limited period (up to four years), the total amount that can be provided is rather low, and this reduces the scale on which it can be provided. Furthermore, funding for parental guidance (particularly from national government institutions) is increasingly provided in relation to specific themes or societal challenges, such as ‘radicalisation and violent extremism’, ‘violence in close relationships’ or ‘families in poverty’, which makes the intervention applicable to some groups but excludes the majority of parents (Own translation. See, for instance, Barne- og likestillingsdepartementet, 2016–2017: 82).
During the case study interviews, practitioners raised the subject of – and expressed frustration about – a lack of resources for the universal implementation of structured parenting support (see further below). There is a connection between this frustration and the increased focus on providing parental guidance in relation to, for instance, poverty and radicalisation. As a representative of the Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family Affairs explains, centralised funding is considered as additional resources directed toward a specified problem. Generally, the interviewee explained, the responsibility for implementing and providing parental guidance lies with the local municipalities. However, in legal terms, this is defined as a ‘voluntary’ task for them. Thus, in order for parental guidance to be established (permanently and universally), the municipalities need to be able and willing to define and prioritise it in their budgetsFootnote 3.
Some regions and municipalities in Norway do provide parental guidance as a non-indicative and universal measure, for instance through offering all first-time parents participation in a baby-programme (part of the Incredible Years programme). However, there are considerable differences in whether the various regional and municipal bodies offer parental guidance, the groups they target, and which programme they offer (ICDP-based, COS, or others) (Rambøll, 2013; Bråten and Sønsterudbråten, Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016; Wesseltoft-Rao et al., Reference Wesseltoft-Rao, Holt and Helland2017). The most recent report concludes that the implementation of parental guidance in Norway has been fragmented and non-systematic (Wesseltoft-Rao et al., Reference Wesseltoft-Rao, Holt and Helland2017). This is predominantly attributed to limited national government resources for parental guidance activities, and a lack of prioritisation at the local level.
Case study insights
The area selected for the case study is an average-sized borough of Bergen with around forty-thousand inhabitants (www.bergen.kommune.no). The area is considered as particularly interesting for a case study because it has a mixed population that includes both very resourceful inhabitants and those lacking important resources. The borough has the highest proportion of ‘non-Western’ immigrants in Bergen (Høydahl, Reference Høydahl2014). Given the high social mix and different types of housing, the share of ‘non-Western’ immigrants varies between 15 and 30 per cent in the different statistical zones of the borough (Høydahl, Reference Høydahl2014; Bergen Kommune, Reference Kommune2016). Due to the borough's particular demography and its clusters of very different socioeconomic settings for its inhabitants, the area was considered appropriate for investigating the implementation and provision of parenting support policies to a diverse population.
As shown in Table 1, the major service providers comprise the Well Child Clinics (WCCs), the two local municipality institutions in the area, where almost all parents come for regular health check-ups with their babies and (young) children. WCCs are obliged to provide parental guidance during consultations; however, due to their many other tasks and obligations, this is difficult to realise (as reported by the interviewed WCC nurses). In this specific area of Bergen, the nurses explained that they organise several of the regular consultations as group consultations, in order to find some time for counselling, but primarily because it provides opportunities for parents to support and advise each other. However, these parent groups are only offered to those who speak fluent Norwegian.
Table 1 Parental guidance offers and providers in Bergen (after Lundquist, 2015)
From 2014, and for four years (until the end of 2017) the local WCCs have received a small budget for structured parental guidance from the Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family Affairs (as the only institution in Bergen). Twice a year, the WCCs offer an ICDP course in Norwegian language (in 2017 there was an extra course), led by two WCC nurses. The nurses report that recruitment can be challenging, as they can only offer the course during day-time, and only parents who are visiting the WCCs during the recruitment period can be offered the course. This implies, for instance, that parents in full-time employment, if they are not on parental leave, cannot participate in the course. When a parental guidance course is planned, it is not announced openly and made visible to all parents; rather, potential participants are invited discretely by the WCC nurses (the WCCs once made a poster announcement visible at the WCC). In cooperation with each other, the WCC nurses suggest and offer the parental guidance course to parents who they assume will benefit (most) from it, or who are particularly interestedFootnote 4 in the issues in which the course provides training. The number of course participants varies, but is usually between five and eight, and the parents have different social and ethno-cultural backgrounds (nurse interviews).
Since the WCCs also want to offer parental guidance to those minority parents who only speak or understand a little Norwegian, the WCCs have applied for external funding from IMDi and the municipality in order to arrange ICDP courses that are specifically adapted to the minority groups (ICDP minority version Footnote 5). With support from the local municipality's Department for School and Kindergarten, they obtained additional funding for this purpose. This funding stems from a budget for ‘activisation and recruitment measures’, and funds part-time positions for representatives from the migrant communities who have obtained an ICDP minority version certificate.
The open preschools present another arena where parental guidance is offered. There are three such preschools in this area of the city, where parents can come to spend their day together with their babies or young children (before they attend a regular kindergarten). However, only one of these (the kindergarten run by the NGO Church City Mission of Bergen) provides structured parental guidance. The NGO has its own parental guidance employee (funded by a private foundation), who has previous work experience as a WCC nurse. Every second week, they present a certain topic and invite parents to discuss their experiences and thoughts on this issue. This open kindergarten is located in a social housing area. At least 50 per cent of the participants visiting this institution and the ‘parents’ half an hour’ are unemployed; with little formal education; lacking fluency in Norwegian; and refer to themselves as housewives temporarily staying at home to raise their (preschool age) children, but express aspirations to work and educate themselves in the near future. The other 50 per cent of visitors are parents who live in the surrounding area, with high formal education and paid jobs, and who visit the kindergarten only while they are on parental leave. During the interviews, parents from this group (majority population background) stated that they visit this particular kindergarten because they appreciate the social and ethnic mix in the group – for themselves and their children/ babies.
In the same building where this open kindergarten is located, the Church City Mission arranges parental guidance through initiatives titled Empo and Veiviserkurs. While Empo is an open drop-in meeting place for immigrant women (a ‘multicultural resource centre’), Veiviserkurs is a ‘closed’ course for immigrant women who have been invited to participate by the Church City Mission's employees. Parental guidance in these settings can be summarised as the provision of information regarding the rights and duties associated with the parental role in Norwegian society; and stimulation and encouragement to discuss and reflect upon their own parenting practices and challenges.
The Church City Mission also arranges COS interventions, which are held in their city centre location, but for which participants are recruited from their activities in the case study area. The COS intervention is announced as an offer to parents who feel that they ‘struggle with their role as parents’ (CCM website). From the interviews with participants and group leaders, I learned that many of the parents participating in the COS intervention had themselves experienced particularly difficult childhoods.
Finally, the Child Welfare Service in the local area offers structured parental guidance for parents among their clientele, and since it is claimed to be a non-indicative and voluntary service (for parents who are registered in their system), it is included in the case study. The employees at the Child Welfare Services’ Family Guidance Centre have COS or IY-certification, and offer this structured programme to parents either in groups or individually. During the fieldwork period, IY as a group intervention (in a ‘simplified’ version) was only offered to immigrant parents in the presence of translators, while COS was offered to parents individually.
Discussion
The Bergen case study confirms the existence of a presumed (Bråten and Sønsterudbråten, Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016; Wesseltoft-Rao et al., Reference Wesseltoft-Rao, Holt and Helland2017) gap between the declared and actual coverage of structured parenting support interventions in Norway. The mapping of the services provided in the borough shows that only some – and far from ‘all’ – parents are offered participation in a structured parenting support programme. The main reason for this gap is obviously cost pressure and high expectations of quality to the services (Barne-, ungdoms-og familiedirektoratet, 2017). There is hardly any financial support for implementing structured parenting programmes on a universal basis.
The Directorate for Children, Youth and Family Affairs declares in its global strategy for the period 2017–2020 (Barne-, ungdoms-og familiedirektoratet, 2017) that it will only prioritise and support those measures that have been shown to provide socioeconomic value for society (Barne-, ungdoms-og familiedirektoratet, 2017: 5). A problematic side of this is that the impact of universal parenting support programmes is difficult to measure, since its presumed effect is prevention, and not change (Bråten and Sønsterudbråten, Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016). The demand for an ‘evidence-based policy’ forces the authorities to cut down on those activities that lack ‘documented effects’Footnote 6. Consequently, the remaining interventions (those deemed more worthy of support) include those targeting groups with low initial scores for parameters such as ‘Parent-Child Activity’, ‘Positive Discipline’, ‘Parenting Strategy’, ‘Child Management’, and ‘Engagement with the Child’. These groups are more likely to receive parenting support interventions, since it has been stated that their participation in such programmes has had ‘positive effects’, thus changing their parenting (Sherr et al., Reference Sherr, Skar, Clucas, Tetzchner and Hundeide2014).
A discussion between Trommald (director of the Directorate for Children, Youth, and Family Affairs) and a journalist from the national Newspaper Klassekampen shows how the Directorate has downscaled its engagement for preventative parenting support in recent years. It begins with an article in which Wold (Reference Wold2016) refers to a statement made by Trommald in 2015, that ‘modern parenting is too complex to let it be based on intuition and reflex’. Wold asks: ‘Why aren't there public parenting courses in attachment, child management, and regulation?’ The following week, Trommald (Reference Trommald2016) responded with the headline: ‘We Want To Help Parents’. She explains that ‘the authorities’ have invested in strengthening parents in their role since the 1990s, through the Parental Guidance Programme, which is among her Directorate's responsibilities. She continues by stating that ‘today's service offer to parents is to a large extent provided through the municipality, and this is why there is a difference between what parents in Norway are offered’ (ibid). With these claims, Trommald indicates that the provision of structured parenting support as a universal service has been dropped at the Directorate level and left up to the municipalities to facilitate.
Instead, as the further content of Trommald's newspaper article shows, the Directorate, representing the national authority, has turned its focus towards appealing to parents to look for advice and train themselves (Danielsen et al., Reference Danielsen, Ludvigsen and Mühleisen2012), which is a much cheaper way of conducting preventive work, than to provide parenting support courses. The service the Directorate offers to the broad mass of parents who are not in particular need of help is reduced to providing parents with access to the information needed to improve themselves. This becomes evident in how Trommald continues, by explaining what the offer to (the broad mass of) parents now consists of: ‘. . .we have launched the website foreldrehverdag.no. Here, parents can sit at home in their own living room and find quality-checked information about how they can understand their child and strengthen their relationship’ (ibid.). There are striking parallels here, to the changes in parenting support policies in the Netherlands, which Knijn and Hopman (Reference Knijn and Hopman2015) describe as a ‘current shift in focus towards “self-strength” and “do-it-yourself”[parenting which] places much responsibility on the parents themselves, their social networks and the professionals working with parents’ (ibid.: 653).
Conclusion
Bråten and Sønsterudbråten (Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016) and Ellingsæter and Leira (Reference Ellingsæter and Leira2004) state that, in recent years, parental guidance policies in Norway have become more targeted and less universal. The lack of universal implementation of structured parenting support, as found in the case study, seems to express the consequence of this policy shift in the field of parenting support.
While psy-experts (some of whom were closely involved in shaping the Parental Guidance Programme) argue that the broad implementation of structured parenting support programmes is important (Sherr et al., Reference Sherr, Skar, Clucas, Tetzchner and Hundeide2011), the national government has maintained a focus on interventions that can produce documented outcomes.
Although structured parenting support is still presented as a universal intervention, there is very little investment in parenting support as a preventative measure. Parents who are capable of doing so are expected to take over the task of prevention work themselves (Familie-, kultur- og administrasjonskomiteen, 2003–2004; see also (Barne- og likestillingsdepartementet, 2017–2018). Why then are offers of structured parenting support still promoted as ‘universal’, and as an offer to ‘all’ parents? One explanation could be that this ‘universal’ label is important to prevent parents feeling stigmatised if they are offered parenting support. These interventions seek to ‘strengthen’ parents; to do so, it is important that participants do not consider themselves as having failed as parents. This aspect was brought up in many of the interviews with WCC nurses (not presented here).
The findings and analysis presented in this article show that the discussions within the research literature, which are based on parenting support policies in other countries, are also highly relevant to the Norwegian context. Those discussions are of great value for further urgently needed research, especially on the implications of providing parenting support in Norway. For instance, what is the consequence of the observation that only certain groups are offered the more intense form of parenting support (i.e. in a structured parenting programme)? Is it that these groups are put under more pressure (than those who are not invited to a course) to adapt their parenting to the current idea(l) of a ‘good’ parent (see Introduction: Sundsbø and Sihvonen, Reference Sundsbø and Sihvonen2018)? Or could it be that these particular groups experience the intervention as an empowerment that gives them better opportunities to participate in the society on a more equal basis (Sundsbø, forthcoming)? As stated by, for instance, Daly (Reference Daly2015), parenting support is multi-dimensional and has the capacity to play host to varying objectives (ibid.: 606; see also the contribution from Littmarck et al., Reference Littmarck, Lind and Sandin2018). Another aspect that deserves more attention is the observation that the majority of the parents who receive parenting support services are women (see Table 1; Bråten and Sønsterudbråten, Reference Bråten and Sønsterudbråten2016: 15). Does this have any consequences, not only for parent–child relationships, but also for gender equality and women's opportunities (see Gíslason and Símonardóttir, Reference Gíslason and Símonardóttir2018)? As for the provision of parenting support in Norway, we are only at the beginning of understanding what this policy is, and its effects within society.
