Ulf Hyvönen

Child Welfare or Child Protection Uncovering Swedish and Canadian Orientations to Social Intervention in Child Maltreatment

This article details our findings from focus groups with social workers in Sweden and Canada illuminating similarities and differences in the process of social intervention in child mal-treatment. We identified six categories that form the bases for hypothesizing different orientations of child welfare and child protection: Gate Keeping; Skills in Context; Client Identity; Decision Points; Compulsion; and Measures. We analysed participants’ descriptions and uncovered how these descriptions of social intervention in child maltreatment connect to model orientations in both countries. In Swedish child welfare, there is a greater readiness to intervene with more resources and measures, intervention is assessment driven and focuses on family preservation. In Canadian child protection, only the most needy children are eligible for a limited range of services, intervention is structure driven and more narrowly focused on protection and permanency planning. The implications of these findings to social work are discussed.

The Travelling Idea of Looking After Children: Conditions for moulding a systematic approach in child welfare into three national contexts—Australia, Canada and Sweden

Abstract Looking After Children (LAC) is an approach (care philosophy and working tools) used to assess the psycho-social development of children being cared for by child welfare agencies. It is an international initiative that was developed in England and then travelled and was translated into other contexts, most notably Australia, Canada and Sweden. This paper presents findings from an open-ended question in a survey distributed to social workers and managers using LAC and “cousin” systems in these countries. We asked respondents what advice they would give to others considering implementing these systems. Our qualitative content analyses showed that, regardless of the context, the 257 respondents gave voice to programmatic/normative arguments, reflecting mainly positive attitudes to the systems. However, managers and social workers voiced different arguments in their favour. Managers voiced normative arguments favouring the underlying principles, whereas social workers from all three countries identified the dual needs to remain flexible and to recognise the limitations of the systems, especially at the operational level. Results offer insights into approaches to change management in different contexts.