Linking family engagement with a rights perspective: macro factors influencing practice

Abstract

While child welfare practitioners in many countries are struggling to develop methods of effective family engagement, they operate within different national and cultural contexts which influence, both positively and negatively, the ability to engage with families.Increasingly, international comparisons are necessary to further understanding of the development of social work practice. This is particularly necessary because most countries utilize international frameworks (such as the United National Convention on the Rights of the Child) to provide guidance in the development of policies, programs, and interventions. Each country (and locality) struggles to advance practice to be more effective and humane. Our paper offers a comparative analysis focused on familyoriented and rights-based frameworks of different countries. Based on a review of current national policies and a review of the literature regarding family based practices, we examine similarities and differences among four countries: the United Kingdom, Sweden, the United States, and South Korea. These countries were selected because they have some similarities (advanced industrialized democracies, professional social work, formal child protection systems) but have some differences in their social welfare systems (policies, specific practices, socio-cultural context). These differences can be 3 utilized to advance understanding regarding the promise and potential for family engagement strategies. We then discuss the utility of this comparison for theorybuilding in the arena of child care practice and conclude by identifying the challenges and limitations of this work.

Family Engagement in Child Welfare System-Level Change: A Review of Current Models

“…The Family First Act reflects this sentiment by prioritizing family placements and removing the long-standing financial incentive for foster placements rather than in home care. These efforts are also linked with a parent’s rights perspective (Duffy et al, 2016). Yet, complex child welfare systems are slow to change and have previously also prioritized family support through legislation.…”

Análisis de los marcos interpretativos de las políticas de infancia en Chile (2014-2018)

“…UU., Canadá, Inglaterra, Suecia, Finlandia, Dinamarca, Noruega, Bélgica y Holanda, distinguen tres tipos de sistemas de protección social: 1) focalizado en el niño, donde el Estado tiene una función tutelar ya que promueve el cuidado familiar o la adopción, y existe un reemplazo de la familia por el Estado en los casos en que sea necesario, con el fin de proporcionar bienestar a los niños, las niñas y adolescentes; 2) servicio familiar, sistema en el que las políticas de Estado se centran en el fortalecimiento de las familias y sus vínculos sociales a partir del acompañamiento psicosocial; y 3) desarrollo infantil, caracterizado por la relevancia que el Estado confiere a los mecanismos legales individuales para la protección de la infancia, sistema que se convierte en un ente fiscalizador. Las propuestas de políticas públicas que generan mayor consenso son aquellas que fortalecen las capacidades de las familias (Duffy et al, 2018), y son las familias más pobres, como establece Harris (2014), las que están vinculadas a los servicios de bienestar para familias y niños y a la política social en general.…”

Comparative Analysis of State Policymaking in Child Welfare: Explaining Policy Choices

“…There is general professional consensus of the need to move further towards developing a family orientation because a family-based orientation is both more humane and effective in the long run (Duffy, Collins, & Kim, 2016). Yet, high profile cases of child maltreatment, and particularly child deaths while under the supervision of the system, can push public attention toward emphasis on child protection.…”