Assessments of foreign language-speaking children’s well-being in Finland: a frame analysis of child welfare and family service supervisors’ accounts

ABSTRACT

This article examines accounts given by child welfare and family service supervisors about the assessment of foreign language–speaking children’s well-being following the receipt of a child protection notification or other referral. The data in this study consist of 17 interviews with supervisors across Finland conducted in 2021 and 2022. Using frame analysis, we identified four frames that represent multiple ways of describing assessment work with foreign language–speaking families. First, we identified and named three frames that emphasize special features of this work, which were language, culture and integration. In addition, we identified and named a universality frame, within which supervisors brought up general features of child welfare and assessment. Within this frame, interview participants expressed that, despite many differences, assessment practices are similar for everyone. Using different frames, the supervisors described their job from various perspectives and reflected upon the practical issues they face during the assessment process.

KEYWORDS:

• Child welfare services
• family services
• assessment
• foreign language–speaking children
• Finland

Introduction

Migration to Finland has been increasing, especially since the 1990s. At the end of 1985, around 13,000 persons speaking a foreign language¹ as their mother tongue lived in Finland. At the end of 2021, this number climbed to 458,000. Thus, in the last 36 years, the foreign language–speaking population has increased 35-fold, representing 8.3% of the entire population in 2022 (Statistics Finland 2022). According to estimates by the Association of Finnish Municipalities (2020), the foreign language–speaking population will double by 2040. Increased migration means that the number of foreign language–speaking (or multilingual) clients in social services has also grown and will continue to grow substantially in the future.

In Finland, residence permit holders are granted the same formal rights to municipal services and social benefits as Finnish citizens (Based Social Security Legislation 1573/1993), but previous studies demonstrated that clients with migrant backgrounds face several challenges in finding social services, contacting those services and using them because of a fragmented service system, unclear and insufficient service information and the lack of a shared language with officials (e.g. Buchert 2015; Heino and Lillrank 2022; Turtiainen 2012).

Regardless of the increasing number of migrants in recent decades, research on diversity in the context of child welfare remains lacking in Finland as well as in other countries (see Anis and Turtiainen 2021; Kananoja, Lavikainen, and Oranen 2013; Skivens et al. 2015; Turtiainen and Hiitola 2019). Assessment work with foreign language–speaking clients remains an especially understudied subject. In Finland, there are no systematically collected statistics available on the linguistic or ethnic backgrounds of clients in child welfare. However, the growing number of foreign language–speaking clients in child welfare, particularly in the metropolitan area, has been a topic discussed in the media (Sanomat 2018; Yle 2019) and documented in reports by metropolitan area city officials (City of Helsinki 2020). In addition, the Child Welfare Act (417/2007) states that a child’s linguistic, cultural and religious background should be taken into account during child welfare measures and in the assessment of a child’s best interest. However, we have found no research on how these guidelines are implemented in practice.

In this article, we focus on the ways in which supervisors working in child welfare services and family services speak about the assessment of foreign language–speaking children’s well-being. Our research question is as follows: What frames do supervisors use when they speak about the assessment of foreign language–speaking children’s well-being? Our data in this study consist of interviews with 17 supervisors who work in child welfare or family services and who are responsible for assessments. We focus our attention on the assessment of a child’s well-being after receiving a child protection notification or other referral, since this is a critical moment defining the support and services with which the child and their family will be provided (Jaakola 2020).

We analyse our data using frame analysis proposed by Goffman (1974), which allows for the investigation of multiple ways of understanding different situations. We lean on Goffman’s (1974) definition of frames as societally defined ways to interpret phenomena, containing normative expectations and guiding people’s actions based on those interpretations and expectations. Members of certain societies and communities usually have shared definitions of certain phenomena, which they reproduce or change in societal encounters using various frames (Goffman 1981).

In an institutional context, such as child welfare services or early childhood education, professionals use certain frames to uphold and standardize professional practices and ensure the continuity of those particular practices (Puroila 2002). Thus, in frame analysis, the focus is not on individual personal experiences, but rather on societally shared interpretations of different phenomena (Moore, Jasper, and Gillespie 2011). As such, elaborating upon different frames is meaningful, since framing affects the ways social workers encounter foreign language–speaking families.

Supervisors in child welfare and family services have significant knowledge of the nature of assessment practices, rendering their viewpoints important. The ways in which the assessment of foreign language–speaking clients is framed brings forward supervisors’ perceptions about diversity and how current assessment practices are justified. Thus, socially constructed frames have concrete consequences for the encounters and practices of social work.

In this article, we first introduce approaches towards diversity used in Finland, as well as the practices and research regarding the assessment of children’s well-being. We then elaborate upon and describe the frame analysis we employed in this study. This is followed by a description of our data and methods. Finally, we present and discuss the results and findings from our research.

Approaches towards diversity in Finland

Under Finnish social policy and social work, societal membership among migrants has been primarily approached through the concepts of integration, culture, language and racism. Finnish integration policy was formulated in the 1990s, when, as stated above, migration gradually began increasing (Päivärinne 2002). The first legislative act on integration was introduced in 1999 (the Act on the Integration of Immigrants and Reception of Asylum Seekers 493/1999), which defined the services and benefits to which migrants were entitled and the responsibilities of various authorities in promoting integration. Integration became a concept primarily used to describe the process during which migrants were expected to learn Finnish or Swedish, learn Finnish culture and values, find employment and pay taxes. Because authorities’ roles in measuring and defining integration remained central, integration processes were imbued with varying degrees of obligation (Kerkkänen 2008). Social workers are among those officials who support the integration of their migrant-background clients. The ways in which social work with migrants is organized or whether there are separate services for migrants varies across municipalities. In general, foreign language – speaking inhabitants with residence permits use the same social services as the majority population, and support for integration takes place within those services (Karinen et al. 2020).

In addition, culture is employed in public and policy discourse as well as social work practices in Finland as a way to deal with different phenomena related to migration and diversity (Heino and Jäppinen 2022). Here, the focus lies on the perceived differences between cultures and how to become aware of, understand and overcome these differences (Hiitola and Peltola 2018; Huttunen, Löytty, and Rastas 2005). Within traditional cultural or multicultural perspectives, culture is generally viewed as static and with clear boundaries, whereby individuals from specific national backgrounds are perceived as sharing similar cultural values and patterns of behaviour (Dervin and Keihäs 2013). In the context of social work, the concept of cultural sensitivity has also been widely used (e.g.; Finnish Institute for Health and Welfare 2022; Katisko 2016). This concept includes understanding the Finnish culture along with respecting and understanding other cultures.

Similarly, language and interpretation are practical matters of social work encounters regulated by legislation. According to the Language Act (2003/423) and the Administrative Procedure Act (2003/434), clients have a right to use their own language, and authorities are obligated to organize interpretation services. While language is a central factor affecting communication, only few studies have examined interpretation in the context of child welfare. According to Viljanmaa (2020), the role of the interpreter is crucial in child welfare services, because parents often experience intense emotions during service encounters and many issues are difficult to understand.

Finally, racism is discussed in social work practice and research as a form of discrimination that clients experience within Finnish society and against which social workers can support clients (e.g. Anis 2008). In recent years, the necessity of social workers reflecting upon their own race-related attitudes has also been highlighted (e.g. Elfving Ström 2021). However, the concept of race is not widely used in Finnish social work. According to Keskinen (2016) and Leinonen and Toivanen (2014), in Finland and other Nordic countries, individuals are defined as non-white through a racializing process; but, instead of explicitly bringing up the question of race, they are referred to as ‘immigrants’ or ‘foreigners’. This can be perceived as an unwillingness to reflect upon current hierarchies. While avoiding direct talk on race, culturalisation and racialization may be used to justify and naturalize ethnic inequalities, as Eliassi (2017) points out in his analysis of Swedish social work.

Other perspectives on diversity, such as intersectionality, are not widely used in social work practice (Heino 2023). However, intersectionality is visible, particularly in political and academic discussions in Finland. In 2020, the Finnish government published a new equality programme for 2020–2023. The key concept in the programme is intersectional feminism (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health 2020). Intersectionality explores the complexity of social locations by simultaneously examining various hierarchical social relationships, such as gender, sexuality, class, race and age, and how these work in mutually reinforcing and, at times, contradictory ways to produce specific social locations (Crenshaw 1989). After 2019, intersectionality as a separate perspective also became explicitly visible in the social work curricula of different universities in the form of dedicated courses (Heino et al. 2022). Nevertheless, research remains lacking on whether this perspective is visible in social work practice.

Assessment in child welfare and family services

The assessment of a child’s well-being is regulated by the Social Welfare Act (1301/2014) and the . The process of assessment begins within seven working days after a social worker receives a child welfare notification or referral about the need for an assessment. The assessment should be implemented within three months. It is organized in different was within specific municipalities across Finland and can be implemented either via child welfare services or family services. The overriding principle in this assessment is the child’s best interests (. Thus, during the assessment, a social worker evaluates risks and protective factors affecting a child’s well-being. The process includes collecting available information about the child’s and family’s situations, their living conditions, their close relationships as well as the custodians’ capacity to take care of the child. Finnish child welfare services are family-oriented, whereby, during the assessment process, the social worker works with the entire family.

An assessment can lead to various outcomes: it can serve as the starting point of a child becoming a client of child protection or it can lead to other support services offered to the child and family without the child becoming a client of child protection. An assessment can also lead to a decision that there is no need to offer any support measures to a family. Thus, the assessment process has features of both support and control. Notably, the amount of information available about a child’s situation varies in different cases and can be conflicting or insufficient. The task of a social worker is to form an accurate picture of the situation and make an informed decision, which can be quite challenging. These decisions are affected by social workers’ skills and values, as well as organizational guidelines and societal norms (Helm 2011; Horwath 2007) Lamponen (2022) has described the assessment of a child’s well-being as a complicated cognitive, social and institutional process in which different forms of knowledge are employed. These forms include intuitive, factual, experimental and affective types of knowledge. This is an important notion, which brings up the constructive nature of an assessment.

There are very few studies on how an assessment is implemented in child welfare when dealing with different minority populations. It is also impossible to claim anything universal about diversity and assessment in child welfare, such as societal contexts, migration history, legislation and child welfare institutions. Moreover, practices differ across countries, whereby the results of studies from one context are not necessarily transferrable to another. However, previous studies suggest that there are differences in how families belonging to a majority population and those belonging to minorities are assessed, which we elaborate upon next.

In previous studies, diversity in child welfare has been approached using a range of concepts, such as ethnicity, race, indigeneity and minority. In the United States, where statistics exist based on children’s race, it is possible to see that African American children are overrepresented in the child welfare system (Briggs et al. 2022; Dettlaff and Boyd 2020). Discussions of this topic have focused on whether the disproportionality of African American children is caused by poverty, one predictor of maltreatment (e.g. Barth et al. 2022) or if it is substantially driven by the biases of institutions and authorities (Briggs et al. 2022; Dettlaff et al. 2011). More specific to our research, a cohort study among children born in Finland in 1997 found that those children who had at least one parent born abroad were placed into out-of-home care twice as often as children whose parents were born in Finland (Rask et al. 2020).

A study conducted in Denmark, Germany, Sweden, the USA (Texas) and the UK showed that social workers in child welfare reported leaning towards a universalistic approach to child welfare when working with ethnic minority families, while they also attributed problems among minority families to cultural factors (Williams and Soydan 2005). Studies from New Zealand (Keddel and Hyslop 2019) and Australia (Collings et al. 2018) showed that child welfare workers perceived indigenous families as creating higher risks for children than did majority families. Interestingly, according to previous studies (e.g. Keddel and Hyslop 2019; Williams and Soydan 2005), child welfare workers do not consider structural factors associated with ethnicity as contributing to the minority families’ social problems and focus instead on individual factors within the family.

Data and methods

This study is part of a larger research project called ‘Child welfare as a child’s best interest?’. The ex ante ethical evaluation of the research project was approved by the Ethical Committee of the Ethical Committee of the University of Tampere. All of the employer organizations of the interview participants granted their official permission to participate. In addition, we adhered to the guidelines of the Finnish National Board on Research Integrity throughout our research (TENK 2019).

Seventeen supervisors working in child welfare services and family services were interviewed for this study, either via telephone or Microsoft Teams, between September 2021 and January 2022. The interview participants were supervisors working in child welfare services and family services who lead assessments of children’s well-being. Participants worked in 12 municipalities and five joint municipal authorities located across Finland. One of the interviewees was male while all others were female. The interviewees had work experience in their current position as a supervisor responsible for assessments from 1 to 10 years, with an average of 3 years. They had worked as a social worker from 5 to 37 years, for an average of 19 years among all participants, meaning that most had substantial experience in social work practice. All interviews were conducted in Finnish, which the interviewees spoke fluently. We have withheld more specific information about the age or background of participants to ensure their anonymity. Participation in the study was completed voluntary. We obtained informed consent from all interview participants, and their anonymity was carefully addressed at all stages of the study. The total duration of the interviews was 20 hours and 55 minutes, resulting in 179 pages of transcribed data.

We used a semi-structured thematic interview method, whereby we asked similar questions about the assessment of a child’s well-being and covered the same themes with all interview participants. Interviews included a larger battery of questions about how an assessment is organized and implemented. In total, seven specific questions about the assessment of a foreign language – speaking children’s well-being and about cooperation with foreign language–speaking families formed one theme. First, one question focused on how the families’ diversity influences the assessment, while five other questions focused more on language and interpretation issues. One question dealt with the similarities of assessments among all families. Specific questions may have influenced the frames interview participants used in their responses, possibly representing a limitation to our study. More open-ended questions or providing a general theme to the participants could allow them more space to create their own definitions. Yet, even though most questions were about language, interview participants choose to speak about other themes, such as integration and cultural issues. This suggests that participants made own choices in the use of frames.

Analysis

In this study, we ask, ‘What frames do supervisors use when they speak about the assessment of foreign language – speaking children’s well-being?’

We analysed our data using the frame analysis of Goffman (1974), which allowed us to recognize the different angles and approaches supervisors used in their accounts. We implemented our analysis in four steps. First, we identified and categorized the most common topics about which the interview participants spoke. During this stage, we identified six topics, consisting of language, culture, migration, integration, legislation and equality. Next, we examined those topics more closely and combined them based upon how often they appeared in the data. During the third stage of analysis, we identified and named frames which highlighted specific features of working with foreign language – speaking clients as well as frames that highlighted the universal nature of child welfare and assessment. As a result of our study, we identified the language, culture, integration and universality frames. According to Goffman (1974), there are multiple layers or conflictual features within and between frames. Speakers can use different frames simultaneously or move between frames within a single conversation, choosing and changing the factors to which they devote their attention. During the last stage of our analysis, we looked more closely at the tensions between and within frames. We will explain these tensions in the sections that follow. Throughout our analysis, we use quotes from participants to illustrate our interpretations more clearly.

It is important to note that during assessment social workers usually meet with the child, but they also work closely with the child’s parents or other custodians as well as with the network present in the child’s everyday life. In our data, this meant that interview participants usually approached working with the parents or custodians and working with the child as part of the same process and did not distinguish between working with the child or with adults. Officially, a child is not a client of child welfare services during the assessment process, since the decision regarding whether services are needed results from the assessment. Regardless of the legal status of clientship, most interview participants used the concept of client in this context, which we understand to mean that, during the process of assessment of a child’s well-being, the child and their family are considered clients of an assessment. For this reason, we too use the concept of client in this study.

Frames used by supervisors when discussing the assessment of foreign language – speaking children’s well-being

Language frame

In their accounts interview participants focused on communication with foreign language – speaking clients, in which language plays a crucial role. Communication included face-to-face meetings with interpreters and translations of different documents that social workers wrote based on the child’s situation. According to participants, interpretation and translation services are widely used, child welfare services have established practices for using language services and it is clear that if a client’s mother tongue is not Finnish or Swedish an interpreter should be present.

The social worker is the one who orders an interpreter and makes the final evaluation about whether an interpreter will be invited to the meeting, but clients’ wishes about whether they prefer to have an interpreter are also considered. Most participants described interpretation as a legal protection measure for both the client and the social worker. Firstly, it ensures that clients understand the rights, obligations and issues agreed upon with social workers. Secondly, it was presented as a practice that legally protects the social worker, because through interpretation the social worker can receive clear and valid information about the child’s and family’s situations and use that information in the assessment and decision-making processes.

Participants described it as problematic when a client categorically refuses to use an interpreter for various reasons. This could be, for example, a situation in which a client speaks a rare language and refuses to use an interpreter because the interpreter is from the same minority community and, thus, the client did not trust that all conversations would remain confidential. Other reasons revolved around a client’s sense of shame or desire to use Finnish with authorities even if they were not proficient in it.

It is not that we do not have resources, that we are not allowed to use an interpreter. It is more about clients. Sometimes, I’ve had to have long conversations with clients and make several attempts to make the client trust my view that we need an interpreter for their situation.

(Interview 3)

Another participant mentioned that one reason for using interpreters was that an assessment in child welfare is emotionally demanding work, since social workers are intervening in the private sphere of the family and their task is to ‘evaluate family relations and the everyday life of families’, which can be a sensitive topic for parents. In this situation, the profound understanding of both parties was described as particularly important:

Yes, our premise is that this kind of work is emotional, demanding, efficient and regulated by legislation. With this kind of work, the client has a right to be heard in their mother tongue, so that the conversation will not be shallow.

(Interview 1)

Participants described language as a means to understand clients as well as make themselves understood, but they also highlighted the importance of clients’ understanding child welfare practices and its aims. Particularly in the metropolitan area, where a large portion of Finland’s foreign language – speaking population lives, brochures about child welfare services and assessment forms were translated into several foreign languages. In the municipalities in which those materials were not translated, participants said that they always explained those issues through an interpreter to new clients. In addition, summaries of the assessment were translated and/or were discussed during a service encounter with the help of an interpreter if the social worker sensed that the client might not understand the text in Finnish.

Of course, if the client does not understand the decision that they receive, then, yes, we will go through it with them — with an interpreter, if necessary. Certainly, clients need to understand what the decision was. We do not just make and give the decision in Finnish, which the client does not understand.

(Interview 8)

While interpretation and translation services were widely used and a mostly well-functioning part of routine practice, participants described how interpreter-mediated communication contain the possibility of misunderstandings. This can lead to the social worker being left with insufficient or invalid information about a child’s situation:

Of course, it is different when you meet the client with an interpreter. The thing is that information comes second hand. Variety also exists in the professional skills of interpreters. And when the language is rare, it is hard to evaluate the quality of interpretation. There have also been misunderstandings. It affects the child’s situation if the child or the family are understood incorrectly or if the level of interpretation is insufficient.

(Interview 11)

Interpretation always affects interaction given that a dialogue becomes a trialogue and speech is filtered through an interpreter. This is an important issue in child welfare services, because discussions often concern sensitive topics (Viljanmaa 2020). Participants recognized the need to be aware of the possible difficulties that interpreter-mediated communication brings to their interactions. Tensions visible in the language frame existed between the client’s right to interpreters, the client’s wishes to avoid interpreters for various reasons and a supervisor’s professional need to involve interpreters. Interpretations and translations were highlighted both as important and inevitably parts of practice and as something that may negatively impact an interaction.

Cultural frame

We recognized and named the second frame as the cultural frame. In this frame, the focus lay on factors related to a child’s background which resulted in the need for an intervention from child welfare services. Participants approached the concept of culture from the point of view that clients’ cultures are different from Finnish culture. When describing this, participants used concepts such as ‘cultural differences’ and a ‘clash of cultures’. These alleged differences included views about a child’s upbringing and development and religious and/or collective practices considered harmful to a child, such as female genital mutilation, other issues related to gender inequality and nonmedical understandings of mental illness. Differences between cultures were presented as a self-evident factor, as illustrated in the following:

I think that I do not want to discriminate anyone in any way or be racist. But, in my opinion, we cannot exclude the fact that when people come from different cultures … I really am not generalising that, for example, the child would be abused because they come from a specific culture. But, there is clash of cultures for sure. Obviously, if I were to move to another country, I would have problems adapting, including problems with combining my own background with the practices of the new country. This is an additional factor in this job.

(Interview 1)

Using the concept of cultural differences, participants described different cultural practices that can cause harm to a child based on Finnish understandings or practices which are illegal in Finland. Social workers had to address such practices, since in some cases they were mentioned in a child welfare notification or social workers noticed them during an assessment. Participants approached culture from the point of view of socialization, which was difficult, if not possible, to change.

These cultural differences are so big. In some countries, people are so used to thinking that the male is the head of the family. And that women’s positions are somehow different than in Finnish society. … And as for discipline, we have to discuss a great deal about what Finnish legislation says about corporal punishment. In some countries, it is allowed and even accepted and may even be considered the only way to act. So, in a way, it takes a lot of work, and, sometimes, this task is impossible.

(Interview 13)

In addition to practices considered harmful to a child, participants described a cultural phenomenon whereby some of their clients originate from countries in which child protection services either do not exist or have different functions and procedures than those which exist in Finland. Thus, Finnish child welfare services are unfamiliar to foreign-language families and, for most parents, it is difficult to accept that a social worker can intervene in family life. ‘Migrant clients, those who come from other cultures … do not have knowledge of these things; they are confused. They think, “This is my family, and no one can say anything about my family’s internal affairs”’ (Interview 5).

Because of the above-mentioned difficulties, approaching culture during the assessment process was described as an ‘art form’, resulting in a great number of mutual questions and discussions with families. According to participants, discussions about the Finnish legislation and research knowledge about child development are commonly relied upon, such that social workers must spend a great deal of time understanding the client’s perspectives and explaining their own views to the client. Participants described that, even though their job is to make sure Finnish laws are followed, it is important that the social worker is also interested in their clients’ cultures and shows a genuine understanding of it, thereby establishing an atmosphere of mutual respect, making cooperation easier.

Overall, the cultural frame emphasizes cultural differences and encourages looking at individuals and families in light of their cultures. Within this frame, different phenomena such as a child’s upbringing, gender inequalities, knowledge of legislation and differences in social policy between countries are defined as cultural features and related to a client’s background. Furthermore, this frame is based on generalizations about a foreign language – speaking population’s relationship to culture, whereby cultures are understood as static and homogenous and the frame does not take into account that individuals can have individual relationships to their cultural background and to Finnish culture as well (Heino and Jäppinen 2022). Notably, such a perspective assigns responsibility for the problems foreign language – speaking populations face to their cultural background and shifts the focus from structural problems within society, such as those related to racism or insufficient social services (Banting and Kymlicka 2006) or other individual problems. Importantly, persistent talk regarding alleged cultural differences and sticking to them as a prism through which client’s situations are viewed can also serve as justification to pronounce racializing stereotypes as acceptable, thereby naturalizing them (Eliassi 2017).

Integration frame

The integration frame focuses on the family’s relations with Finnish society. In this frame, assessment is defined as both an intervention in a situation that possibly hampers a child’s well-being and as a supportive measure that promotes an entire family’s integration into Finnish society. Supporting integration was described as crucially important for families newly arrived to Finland and for those who are not familiar with Finnish society and services:

I think that the first years of the integration process are quite important. And during that time, assessment probably affects integration. I think that our workers are doing a lot of integration work in addition to assessments. They are explaining what we officials do and what child welfare services are.

(Interview 3)

By integration work, interview participants meant explaining Finnish legislation and practices around child protection services to parents, providing information about a child’s development and factors that affect a child’s well-being, as well as provided advice for a child’s upbringing. Supporting integration also included familiarizing families with other family services and with the use of interpreters. If an assessment was completed with a newly arrived family, participants described it as an important phase of building trust with Finnish officials and services. They claimed that if the first experience with the welfare service system was positive, it would ease cooperation later. In this way, supporting families’ integration during assessment was presented as having a holistic aim to further support a child’s well-being in future.

Interestingly, participants presented child welfare notifications about a foreign language – speaking child whose parents had lived in Finland for a longer period as a sign of an unsuccessful integration. As such, they stated that the parents’ integration process had not succeeded and that such families needed special support in their integration.

When we are dependent on the use of interpreters and teach people about Finnish society, it takes twice as much time as usual. And it demands, that, for example, if a first-generation migrant family comes to us, and their integration process has gone on a bit… Often, their integration process is insufficient. And they do not have sufficient language skills or understanding or they have trauma in their background or other issues.

(Interview 12)

As this example shows, the parents’ so-called ‘insufficient integration’ was presented as a factor hampering a child’s well-being. Insufficient integration was portrayed as an insufficiency in Finnish language skills and insufficient knowledge about Finnish society. This example also emphasizes the firm interconnection seen between language learning and integration. Supporting clients’ integration during the assessment process was described as a demanding task that requires additional time and special skills from the social worker.

Of course, there are workers who have been working more with migrants. It is possible that work is divided that way. If a migrant becomes a client of a social work team, then a certain social worker is more likely to take them as a client than the other social workers are. And it can be good that there is specialisation in these migrant-related issues and in diversity in general.

(Interview 2)

When talking about the specific features of working with foreign language – speaking clients or migrant clients, participants ultimately constructed a dichotomy of ‘regular’, Finnish-speaking clients and ‘different’, foreign language – speaking clients who require special measures to become integrated into Finnish society. This kind of dichotomy is problematic. It not only defines the label of foreign language – speaking clients as ‘difficult’, which can be seen as a form of racism (Anis 2008), but also produces a false picture of Finnish-speaking clients as a homogenous group. Moreover, portraying work with foreign language – speaking clients as a ‘specialization’ of one team member, or even a separate service unit, tends to excuse other professionals or service units from developing their skills and adjusting their practices for work with clients with diverse backgrounds.

The integration frame relies on the notion that foreign language – speaking individuals need to fulfil certain criteria to become members of Finnish society. In practice, integration includes learning the Finnish language and learning everyday practices as well as obtaining employment, and in many ways entertains the idea of becoming similar to the majority population (Huttunen, Löytty, and Rastas 2005; Saukkonen 2013). This frame also links parents’ integration to children’s well-being and a possible need for child protection. Thus, so-called unintegrated parents are presented not only as incomplete members of Finnish society, but also as possibly incomplete or incompetent parents.

Universality frame

In the universality frame, focus is on assessment practices that are the same for all clients regardless of their mother tongue and background. Firstly, participants pointed out that access to child welfare services and assessment are the same for all children and families, and that a social worker reacts the same to all child welfare notifications or referrals such that ‘no child is left without help’.

Secondly, legislation was described as applying equally to all clients, such that all children have equal rights and that the child welfare services’ primary task is to ensure that those rights are respected and implemented for all families. Legislation was presented as a standard assessment process, including meeting with both parents and the child and establishing timeframes for assessment.

The starting point, of course, is that the official assesses these things according to Finnish legislation. And, among others, abuse, violence and things related to the neglect of a child are handled according to Finnish legislation. Then, we make an announcement to the police and do other things. Of course, our aim is that the action against a child’s development comes to an end and that the parents understand, among other things, that this is not allowed. Probably, the most important thing is that Finnish law is the primary guide and we need to have practices. We cannot modify our actions according to the situation too much. The process is exactly the same, the deadlines are the same and the legislation is the same.

(Interview 2)

Universality was also attached to the similar treatment of all clients and presented as equality in the sense that equal treatment diminishes the likelihood of discrimination. In general, encountering foreign language – speaking clients was described as including features common to working with any client, such as aiming for a shared understanding and goals. While working with foreign language – speaking clients was described as having special features in the frames we presented above, participants attempted to ensure that the way social workers speak to such clients is similar in the sense that it is respectful:

In our discussions, they [foreign language–speaking clients] are not different in any special way. [We don’t] feel that they are somehow particularly challenging or anything.

(Interview 6)

It is also noteworthy that despite that participants described foreign language – speaking families being different in the sense of language, culture and integration, they also paid attention to those universal factors that affects a child’s well-being and used the same evaluation methods with all families.

The process is similar, and we use the same assessment framework. The starting point is the same as are the factors that we focus on. There is no difference if the client speaks a foreign language or Finnish.

(Interview 11)

Thus, the universality frame reinforces the idea of viewing all clients as equal and adhering to the ideal of universal practices as a good fit for all, which has a strong tradition in the Finnish welfare state. As Keskinen (2011, 2012) stated, universalist frames like this may also have paradoxical effects. While such understandings can function as a counterforce to other frames that emphasize differences, they may also hinder discussion about how to take into account the diversity of clients. More importantly perhaps, it may leave foreign language – speaking families to struggle with a system that does not consider their specific needs.

Conclusions and discussion

In this study, we asked which frames supervisors of child welfare and family services use when speaking about the assessment process of foreign language–speaking children’s well-being. We approached frames as socially defined ways to interpret phenomena and act based upon those interpretations. As a result of our study, we identified and named three frames that highlight the specific features of working with foreign language–speaking clients, which were language, culture and integration. Meanwhile, one additional frame, the universality frame, highlighted the generalized nature of child welfare services. This disparity among frames means that participants expanded upon the special issues related to the assessment of foreign language–speaking clients much more than they did the universal features of an assessment of a child’s well-being.

Participants focused their discussions on communication with foreign language–speaking clients using the language frame. In addition, they discussed the background of a child and the factors that promoted concern for a child’s well-being using the cultural frame, while their discussion of the family’s relationship to Finnish society relied on the integration frame. Finally, in the universality frame, the focus was on child welfare as a system, which was represented as a fair and equitable system in which each family is treated equally.

As stated at the beginning of this article, language, culture and integration are perspectives used in social work in Finland (e.g. Heino and Jäppinen 2022). Our results indicate that this is the case in the assessment of a child’s well-being. As Puroila (2002) stated, the frames used by professionals in a particular institutional context standardize and uphold specific practices.

Notably, participants attached cultural differences to foreign language – speaking clients and, in some cases, justified the need for an intervention as a failure of parents’ integration as migrants. Cultural explanations can be problematic, especially if they create stereotypes and prevent recognition of other complex factors, such as class, race, health and their intersections, as impacting a family’s situation. Integration measures in Finland target personal development, such as learning the Finnish language, societal practices and norms. Thus, responsibility for such a so-called failure of integration falls on the migrants themselves, and factors such as structural racism embedded in institutions remain unexamined.

Bringing forward universalistic features of assessment and the sameness of clients can serve as a means of ensuring equal treatment across clients, while simultaneously limiting the possibility of noticing and discussing oppressive factors within social services as well as the hierarchical positions invisible fences between different groups (Gullestad 2002; Keskinen 2012). A critical examination of current and established frames used in child welfare service would require time, resources and practical tools for social workers and their supervisors.

There are visible tensions as well as similarities within and between frames. In the language frame, visible tensions lay between the client’s right to an interpreter, a client’s wish to avoid interpreters for various reasons and a supervisor’s professional need to involve interpreters. In both the cultural and integration frames, the background of a child’s parents and the difference in the relationship to the majority population were described as creating problems for a child’s well-being. The universality frame seems, on the one hand, to serve as a clear contradiction with other frames, especially the cultural frame where foreign language–speaking families are presented as different in relation to majority families. On the other hand, the universality frame parallels other frames, since it highlights the notion that even though foreign language–speaking families are quite different in comparison to majority families, child welfare and family services provide everyone with equal services and treatment regardless of their background. Thus, neither of these frames invites a reflection of current practices.

Our results mirror the results from previous studies about the assessment of minority families where social workers used cultural explanations to describe problems that minority families faced while not considering structural factors such as racism in influencing families (Keddel and Hyslop 2019; Williams and Soydan 2005). This can be perceived as an unwillingness to critically examine current hierarchies. An urgent need exists to unpack those institutionalized racial attitudes, patterns of thinking and processes which continue in the name of benevolent discussions of cultural differences and their overarching role in social work with minority families. As Eliassi (2017) states, avoiding direct talk on race and racialization may serve to justify and naturalize ethnic inequalities.

According to our interpretation, concepts and perspectives related to diversity are currently in motion and undergoing shifts at various levels – in political discussions, in social work research and in social work practices. As Goffman (1974) stated, frames stand in direct relation to action, since they guide people to focus on particular features of phenomena and leave some features in the background. In the case of assessments in child welfare, frames have direct consequences since they guide social workers’ decision-making in practice. As Lamponen (2022) states, assessment is a constructive process in which a social worker uses various types of knowledge, such as intuitive, factual, experimental and affective knowledge. Therefore, social workers should be aware of the perspectives they employ to build their interpretations during the assessment of a child’s well-being as well as the consequences of those interpretations.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Additional information

Funding

The work was supported by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, Finland .

Notes

1. By foreign language speakers, we mean persons whose mother tongue is a language other than Finnish, Swedish or Sámi. We chose to use the concept of foreign language – speaking clients because language is a concrete factor that influences interactions between clients and social workers, yet we acknowledge that other factors, such as migration, are often related to it as well. We also recognize that many of these foreign language speakers are multilingual. At the same time, we recognize that encountering clients who cannot use Finnish, Swedish or Sámi is a permanent feature of the Finnish welfare services, and every professional should be prepared to face it.