Determining interventions for vulnerable families: the nature of disagreement and consensus-seeking

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.

ABSTRAKT

Denna artikel baseras på en studie som undersökte processen att bestämma och komma överens om insatser till utsatta familjer, utifrån socialarbetares perspektiv. Tidigare forskning har visar att dessa processer ofta leder till oenigheter mellan involverade aktörer. Denna studie undersökte dessa konflikters karaktär och olika strategier socialarbetare använder för att nå konsensus om den kommande insatsen. Det empiriska fallet är socialtjänstens individ- och familjeomsorg. En mixed-metod ansats användes, vilken kombinerar en nationell enkät med fokusgrupper och individuella intervjuer i tre kommuner. Resultaten visar på stor variation när det gäller oenigheternas utbredning, där vissa kommuner beskriver sig ha en hög frekvens av oenighet, majoriteten en mellannivå, och en liten andel beskriver sig själva som relativt konfliktfria. Den kvalitativa analysen fann fem huvudsakliga orsaker till oenighet: interventionens genomförbarhet, problemdefinitionen, kostnader, upphandlingskontrakt och externa intressen. När det gäller strategier för att nå konsensus så rapporterade socialarbetarna fem huvudsakliga strategier: anpassa interventionen, socialarbetare och klienter accepterar varandras förslag, socialarbetaren förbättrar sina argument, acceptera klientens förslag och att underbygga förslaget med forskning.

KEYWORDS:

• Intervention
• negotiation
• decision making

NYCKELORD:

• intervention
• förhandlingar
• beslutsfattande

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Vetenskapsrådet: [Grant Number 2014-1577].

Notes on contributors

Filip Wollter

Filip Wollter, PhD, is a social worker and scholar who, in his research, has focused on interventions for vulnerable families. He has also explored group and community work in vulnerable neighborhoods and interventions to youth at-risk for lifestyle criminality. Much scholarly attention has been given to the reasoning underpinning interventions and strategies for change.