Mellan rättslig reglering och professionell logik
– att hantera orosanmälningar om våld i barnavården
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.3384/SVT.2023.30.1.4463Nyckelord:
child protection, referrals, violence, discretion, social worker, legal systemAbstract
Between legal regulations and professional logic - dealing with reports of violence in child protection
This article analyses and discusses social workers’ perspectives on dealing with referrals concerning suspected violence and abuse in child protection within a legal setting guided by mandatory reports and mandatory child welfare investigations when children have been exposed to, or witnessed, violence in close relationships. The study is based on six group interviews with 15 social workers from six different municipalities of varying sizes. The analysis is based on professional theory and theories on discretion, with a focus on how social workers reason about their discretionary space and what strategies they use to cope with possible ethical and legal dilemmas in practice. Three main themes emerged in the analysis: social workers’ strategies within a limited discretionary space, unwarranted referrals, and a low threshold into social services but a high threshold for interventions. The study shows that most social workers consider themselves to have discretion to independently assess information on suspected violence in reports and to assess whether a child welfare investigation ought to be initiated or not. However, they also could feel a need to formally initiate a child investigation, and immediately close it after one meeting, as a strategy to correspond to legal demands. Social workers experienced a risk-oriented approach amongst other professionals, resulting in a mechanical approach to mandatory reporting, where referrals did not necessarily correspond to any actual concern for the child from the reporter. The social worker’s own possibilities to provide interventions was often perceived to be blocked if parents did not give their consent. The study shows and discusses how legal regulations urging professional action in vaguely defined situations must also provide necessary discretionary space for professional assessment to avoid, or cope with, ethical dilemmas related to the legal framework.
Nedladdningar
Referenser
Blichner, L. & Molander, A. (2008). Mapping juridification. European Law Journal, 14(1), 36–54.
Braun, V. & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101.
Broadhurst, K., Hall, C., Wastell, D. & White, S. & Pithouse, A. (2010). Risk, instrumentalism and the humane project in social work: identifying the informal logics of risk management in children's statutory services. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(4), 1046–1064.
Bryman, A. (2018). Samhällsvetenskapliga metoder (3 uppl.). Liber.
Calder, G. (2020). Discretion as ethical practice. I: T. Evans & P. Hupe (red.), Discretion and the quest for controlled freedom. Palgrave MacMillan.
Christiansen, Ø., Skaale Havnen, K. J., Iversen, A. C., Fylkesnes, M. K., Lauritzen, C., Nygård, R. H. & Vis, S. A. (2019). Barnevernets undersøkelsesarbeid: fra bekymring til beslutning: når barnevernet undersøker, delrapport 4. RKBU Nord.
Cocozza, M. (2007). The parenting of society: a study of child protection in Sweden: from report to support. Institutionen för klinisk och experimentell medicin, Linköpings universitet.
Dahlberg, H., Khoo, E. & Skoog, V. (2022). Making sense of mandatory reporting: a qualitative study of reporting practices from the perspectives of schools and child welfare services in Sweden. Social Sciences, 11(7), 273.
Devaney, J. & Spratt, T. (2009). Child abuse as a complex and wicked problem: reflecting on policy developments in the United Kingdom in working with children and families with multiple problems. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(6), 635–641.
Ds 2022:18 Straffansvar för psykiskt våld.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking rights seriously. Harvard University Press.
Evans, T. & Harris, J. (2004). Street-level bureaucracy, social work and the (exaggerated) deaths of discretion. The British Journal of Social Work, 34(6), 871–889.
Evetts, J. (2009). New professionalism and new public management: changes continuities and consequences. Comparative Sociology, 8, 247–266.
Freidson, E. (2001). Professionalism: the third logic. Polity Press.
Gillingham, P. & Humphreys, C. (2010). Child protection practitioners and decision-making tools: observations and reflections from the front line. The British Journal of Social Work, 40(8), 2598–2616.
Hardy, M. (2017). In defence of actuarialism: interrogating the logic of risk in social work practice. Journal of Social Work Practice, 31(4), 395–410.
Heggdalsvik, I., Rød, P. & Heggen, K. (2018). Decision‐making in child welfare services: professional discretion versus standardized templates. Child & Family Social Work, 23(3), 522–529.
Heimer, M., Näsman, E. & Palme, J. (2018). Vulnerable children's rights to participation, protection, and provision: the process of defining the problem in Swedish child and family welfare. Child & Family Social Work, 23(2), 316–323.
Holt, S., Buckley, H. & Whelan, S. (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: a review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 797–801.
HSLF-FS 2022:3. Socialstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd om våld i nära relationer.
Hupe, P. (2013). Dimensions of discretion: specifying the object of street-level bureaucracy research. dms – der moderne staat – Zeitschrift für Public Policy, Recht und Management, 6(2), 425–440.
Janson, S., Jernbro, C. & Långberg, B. (2011). Kroppslig bestraffning och annan kränkning av barn i Sverige: en nationell kartläggning. Karlstad universitet, Stiftelsen Allmänna Barnhuset.
Jernbro, C. & Jansson, S. (2017). Våld mot barn 2016: en nationell kartläggning. Allmänna barnhuset.
Järkestig Berggren, U., Melin Emilsson, U. & Bergman, A. (2019). Strategies of austerity used in needs assessments for personal assistance: changing Swedish social policy for persons with disabilities. European Journal of Social Work, 24(3), 380–392.
Kalin, T., Persdotter, B., Gerdner, A. & Ahlgren, T. (2022). How do child welfare referrals in Sweden match children's self-reporting of severe exposure? Child & Family Social Work, 27(2), 100–111.
Kantor, G. & Little, L. (2003). Defining the boundaries of child neglect: when does domestic violence equate with parental failure to protect. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(4), 338–355.
Kvist, T., Wickström, A., Miglis, I. & Dahllöf, G. (2014). The dilemma of reporting child maltreatment in pediatric dentistry. European Journal of Oral Sciences, 122(5), 332–338.
Leviner, P. (2011). Rättsliga dilemman i socialtjänstens barnskyddsarbete. Jure.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-level bureaucracy: dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.
Markström, A. & Münger, A. (2018). The decision whether to report on children exposed to domestic violence: perceptions and experiences of teachers and school health staff. Nordic Social Work Research, 8(1), 22–35.
Molander, A. (2016). Discretion in the welfare state: social rights and professional judgment. Routledge.
Morgan, D. L. (2010). Reconsidering the role of interaction in analyzing and reporting focus groups. Qualitative Health Research, 20(5), 718–722.
Munro, E. (2019). Decision‐making under uncertainty in child protection, creating a just and learning culture. Child & Family Social Work, 24(1), 123–130.
Münger, A. & Markström, A. (2018). Recognition and identification of children in preschool and school who are exposed to domestic violence. Education Inquiry, 9(3), 299–315.
Münger, A. & Mattsson, T. (2020). ”The needs of the child have been met”: preliminary assessments regarding domestic violence in Swedish child protections services. Nordic Journal of Social Work Research, 10(2), 100–113.
Oberfield, Z. W. (2010). Rule following and discretion at government’s frontlines: continuity and change during organization socialization. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(4), 735–55.
Ohnstad, B. & Gudheim, Y (2019). Meldeplikt til barnevernet: er det nok å være bekymret? Ordskifte forlag.
Ohnstad, B., Sønderskov, M. & Ødegaard, T. (2021). Urettmessige meldinger til barnevernet: en utilstrekkelig påaktet rettssikkerhetsproblematikk. Fontene forskning, 14(1), 32–44.
Ponnert, L. (2007). Mellan klient och rättssystem: tvångsvård av barn och unga ur socialsekreterares perspektiv. Lunds universitet, Socialhögskolan.
Ponnert, L. & Johansson, S. (2018). Juridification and standardisation: two legal dimensions influencing contemporary child protection. The British Journal of Social Work, 48(7), 2020–2037.
Prop. 2012/13:10 Stärkt stöd och skydd för barn och unga.
Rittel, H. & Webber, M. (1973). Dilemmas in a general theory of planning. Policy Sciences, 4, 155–169.
Skillmark, M. & Oscarsson, L. (2020). Applying standardisation tools in social work practice from the perspectives of social workers, managers, and politicians: a Swedish case study. European Journal of Social Work, 23(2), 265–276.
Sletten, M. (2022). Proceduralisation of decision-making processes: a case study of child welfare practice. Nordic Social Work Research, Online publication June 2022, 1–14.
Sletten, M. & Bjørkquist, C. (2021). Professionals’ tinkering with standardised tools: dynamics involving actors and tools in child welfare practices. European Journal of Social Work, 24(5), 749–760.
SOSFS 2014:4. Socialstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd om våld i nära relationer.
Socialstyrelsen (2016). Våld: handbok om socialtjänstens och hälso- och sjukvårdens arbete med våld i nära relationer.
Socialstyrelsen (2019). Anmälningar om barn som far illa eller misstänks fara illa. Nationell kartläggning 2018.
Socialstyrelsen (2021a). Fördjupad uppföljning av Socialstyrelsens föreskrifter och allmänna råd (SOSFS2014:4) om våld i nära relationer: analys av behov av revidering av vissa delar av SOSFS 2014:4.
Socialstyrelsen (2021b). Konsekvensutredning: förslag till nya föreskrifter och allmänna råd om våld i nära relationer.
Svärd, V. (2017). ”Why don’t they report?” Hospital personnel working with children at risk. Child Care in Practice, 23(4), 342–355,
Vyvey, E., Roose, R., De Wilde, L. & Roets, G. (2014). Dealing with risk in child and family social work: from an anxious to a reflexive professional? Social Sciences, 3(4), 758–770.
Webb, S. A. (2001). Some considerations on the validity of evidence-based practice in social work. The British Journal of Social Work, 31(1), 57–79.
WHO (2002). World report on violence and health: summary.
Wiklund, S. (2006). Den kommunala barnavården: om anmälningar, organisation och utfall. Institutionen för socialt arbete, Stockholms universitet.
Östberg, F. (2010). Bedömningar och beslut: från anmälan till insats i den sociala barnvården. Institutionen för socialt arbete, Stockholms universitet.
Överlien, C. (2017). ”Do you want to do some arm wrestling?”: children’s strategies when experiencing domestic violence and the meaning of age. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2), 680–688.
Downloads
Publicerad
Referera så här
Nummer
Sektion
Licens
Copyright (c) 2023 Lina Ponnert
Det här verket är licensierat under en Creative Commons Erkännande 4.0 Internationell-licens.
Allt material i Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift publiceras sedan 2022 (Vol 28 Nr 2) med omedelbar öppen tillgång (open access), under Creative Commons-licensen CC BY 4.0. Upphovsrätten till innehållet tillhör respektive författare.
Allt innehåll i tidskriften är fritt tillgängligt utan kostnad och får fritt läsas, laddas ned, kopieras, delas, skrivas ut och länkas. När innehållet används måste författare, källa och licens anges. Författaren kan fritt göra sin publicerade text tillgänglig på institutionella och internetbaserade arkiv, exempelvis sitt lärosätes digitala arkiv eller andra tjänster för detta.
Inga publiceringsavgifter tas ut vid publicering i Socialvetenskaplig tidskrift.
