ABSTRACT

This article is based on a study that explored how social workers report the casework process of designing interventions for vulnerable families. Previous research has indicated that these processes often lead to disagreements between the involved actors, and the study explored the nature of these disagreements and various strategies used to reach consensus about the forthcoming intervention. The empirical case study was conducted through child welfare investigation units in Sweden. The analysis found five main causes of disagreements: intervention feasibility, problem formulation, costs, procurement contracts and external interests. In relation to strategies for establishing consensus, social workers reported five main strategies for seeking consensus: intervention adaptation, social workers and clients accepting each other’s proposals, reinforced arguments through peer support, accepting the client´s proposal and providing research support. Using theory on street-level workers’ use of discretionary power, the analysis indicates that social workers should first assume the role of a citizen agent where interventions are designed with the focus on client needs while rules and policy are relatively insignificant, followed by assuming the role of a state agent where they argue for the desired intervention that fits the bureaucratic context.

摘要

本文基于一项研究，该研究探讨了社会工作者如何报告为弱势家庭设计干预措施的个案工作过程。先前的研究表明，这些过程通常会导致相关参与者之间的分歧，该研究探讨了这些分歧的性质以及用于就即将进行的干预达成共识的各种策略。实证案例研究是通过瑞典的儿童福利调查单位进行的。分析发现分歧的五个主要原因：干预可行性、问题制定、成本、采购合同和外部利益。关于建立共识的策略，社会工作者报告了寻求共识的五种主要策略：干预适应、社会工作者和案主接受彼此的建议、通过同行支持、接受客户的建议和提供研究支持来加强论点。运用街头工作者使用自由裁量权的理论，分析表明，社会工作者应首先承担公民代理人的角色，在干预措施的设计重点是客户需求，而规则和政策相对无关紧要时，然后假设国家代理人的角色，他们主张适合官僚环境的理想干预。