Social workers are on a daily basis faced with difficult decisions in assessing risk of harm to children. The process requires appropriate competencies, and relevant and validated methods to ensure legal compliance. Risk assessments, knowledge of risk and protective factors, and the interplay between these factors, have been the focus in the development of procedures within social child and youth care since the implementation of Barns Behov i Centrum (BBIC) in 2006. Ahead of the revision of BBIC 2015, the evidence base was strengthened further, and the risk- need- and responsivity principles were introduced to support analysis and assessment processes.Taking a bio-ecological perspective, the purpose of this study has been to examine types of risk and protective factors identified in investigations of girls and boys aged 13-17 years, and how these are weighed in the social secretary's analysis and assessment of the child's needs according to the risk- need- and responsivity principles.The study is based on a thematic analysis of 30 decision-making documents according to BBIC, and the findings of the analysis are further illustrated with descriptive statistics.The findings highlight that analyses and assessments lack a holistic perspective of the development of children vis-à-vis parental abilities and other factors in the family and environment, and that a predominant proportion of identified risk- and protective factors are attributed to the youth in question. The findings also show that the risk- need- and responsivity principles are not drawn upon in analyses and assessments as intended.Conclusions: • Investigations of the youths’ needs have been conducted with a narrow focus on the child's development in the BBIC triangle, which means that the assessment ofneeds is constructed on the basis that the youths’ primarily are responsible for their own situation. • In the absence of a thorough implementation of the revised BBIC, a separate praxis with regard to the principles of risk- needs- and responsivity seems to have emerged, which in turn may hinder legal compliance in the assessment of childrens’ needs.