The reasoning and conditions underpinning intervention design: a social worker perspective

References

• Alm, M. 2015. “När Kunskap Ska Styra – Om Organisatoriska Och Professionella Villkor För Kunskapsstyrning Inom Missbruksvården.” Doctoral. Linköping: Linköping University.
   Google Scholar
• Bannink, D., F. Six, and E. Wijk. 2015. “Bureaucratic, Market or Professional Control?” In Understanding Street-level Bureaucracy, edited by P. Hupe, M. Hill, and A. Buffat, 203–225. Bristol University: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bergmark, A., and P. Karlsson. 2012. “Implementing Guidelines for Substance Abuse Treatment: A Critical Discussion of Knowledge to Practice.” Nordic Studies of Alcohol and Drugs 29 (3): 253–265. doi:10.2478/v10199-012-0017-8.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bloor, M., J. Frankland, M. Thomas, and K. Robson. 2001. Focus Groups in Social Research. London: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Brodkin, E. 2012. “Reflections on Street-Level Bureaucracy: Past, Present, and Future.” Public Administration Review 72 (6): 940–949. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2012.02657.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Clarke, J. 2013. “In Search of Ordinary People: The Problematic Politics of Popular Participation.” Communication, Culture & Critique 6 (2): 208–226. doi:10.1111/cccr.12011.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Craig, P. 2012. Administrative Law. 7th ed. London: Sweet & Maxwell.
   Google Scholar
• Evans, T., and J. Harris. 2004. “Street-Level Bureaucracy, Social Work and the (Exaggerated) Death of Discretion.” The British Journal of Social Work 34 (6): 871–895. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bch106.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forkby, T., S. Höjer, and A. Liljegren. 2014. “Questions of Control in Child Protection Decision Making.” Journal of Social Work 15 (5): 537–557. doi:10.1177/1468017314552051.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garrow, E., and Y. Hasenfeld. 2016. “When Professional Power Fails: A Power Relations Perspective.” Social Service Review 90 (3): 371–401. doi:10.1086/688620.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goodrick, E., and T. Reay. 2011. “Constellations of Institutional Logics: Changes in the Professional Work of Pharmacists.” Work and Occupations 38 (3): 372–416. doi:10.1177/0730888411406824.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hagenaars, J., and A. McCutcheon, Eds. 2002. Applied Latent Class Analysis. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Healy, K. 2014. Social Work Theories in Context: Creating Frameworks for Practice. 2nd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Hodgson, D., L. Watts, and D. Chung. 2019. “Understanding and Improving Discretionary Judgment and Decision-making in Child Protection Practice: Towards a Whole-of-system Policy Evaluation.” Social Work & Social Sciences Review 20 (1): 109–127. doi:10.1921/swssr.v20i1.1136.
   Google Scholar
• Hood, C. 1991. “A Public Management for All Seasons.” Public Administration 69 (1): 3–9. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9299.1991.tb00779.x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh, H., and S. Shannon. 2005. “Three Approaches to Qualitative Content Analysis.” Qualitative Health Research 15 (9): 1277–1288. doi:10.1177/1049732305276687.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hupe, P., and M. Hill. 2019. “Discretion in the Policy Process.” In Discretion and the Quest for Controlled Freedom, edited by P. Evans and P. Hupe. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Lipsky, M. 2010. Street-level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
   Google Scholar
• Mascini, P. 2019. “Discretion from a Legal Perspective.” In Discretion and the Quest for Controlled Freedom, edited by T. Evans and P. Hupe. London, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• McNamee, S., and D. M. Hosking. 2013. Research and Social Change. A Relational Constructionist Approach. New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. 1979. Om Socialtjänsten. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. 1999. Socialtjänst I Utveckling. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. 2001. Ny Socialtjänstlag. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Ministry of Health and Social Affairs. 2008. Evidensbaserad Praktik Inom Socialtjänsten - till Nytta För Brukaren. Stockholm, Sweden.
   Google Scholar
• Molander, A., and L. Terum. 2008. Profesjonsstudier. Oslo: Universitetsforlaget.
   Google Scholar
• Needham, C. 2011. Personalising Public Services: Understanding the Personalisation Narrative. Bristol, England: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Parker, A., and J. Tritter. 2006. “Focus Group Method and Methodology: Current Practice and Recent Debate.” International Journal of Research & Method in Education 29 (1): 23–37. doi:10.1080/01406720500537304.
   Google Scholar
• Rosen, A., and E. Proctor. 2003. Developing Practice Guidelines for Social Work Interventions: Issues, Methods and Research Agenda. New York: Columbia University Press.
   Google Scholar
• SFS. 2001. Social Services Act. 620.
   Google Scholar
• SFS. 2017. Local Government Act. 725.
   Google Scholar
• The National Board of Health and Welfare. 2004. För En Kunskapsbaserad Socialtjänst. Redovisning Av Ett Regeringsuppdrag Åren 2001–2003. Stockholm: Socialstyrelsen.
   Google Scholar
• The National Board of Health and Welfare. 2011. Ledningssystem För Systematiskt Kvalitetsarbete. Stockholm: National Board of Health and Welfare.
   Google Scholar
• Wagenaar, H. 2019. “Discretion and Street-level Practice.” In Discretion and the Quest for Controlled Freedom,259–279. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Wooditch, A., L. Duhaime, and K. Meyer. 2016. “Street-level Discretion and Organizational Effectiveness in Probation Services.” Federal Probation 80 (1): 39–44.
   Google Scholar