Search

Siblings are key actors in the social network of young people in care. This paper explores young people's perceptions of changes in the quality of sibling relationships and the pathways relationships follow during the transition from the biological family into care. A thematic analysis of interviews with young Norwegian people (n = 25) in care showed that, in the biological family, sibling relationships are characterized by alliances, parentification, conflicts or nonexistence. After admission to child welfare services care, sibling relationships developed along multiple pathways. Their sibling relationships reshaped into either close and supportive, conflictual or completely broken relationships. Sibling relationships were dynamic, complex, with the pathway, and its impact on well‐being, being unique to each young person. Sibling relationship quality in the biological home did not predict relationship quality after admission to child welfare services. The implications for social worker practice are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Children placed in residential care are significantly over‐represented in youth justice systems. Drawing on interviews and focus groups with service providers, this exploratory study examines practice factors that impact on the criminalization of this group of children across multiple services and systems, including in the residential care environment, police, lawyers, courts and youth justice systems, as well as multi‐systems practice with this group in one Australian state. Positive outcomes were observed for children in residential care where well‐functioning care teams existed, as well as for children in therapeutic residential care settings. However, clear limitations were identified across all phases of children's youth justice system involvement, including placement with offending peers, the criminalization of behaviours of concern, greater use of remand and detention, limited support to navigate legal and youth justice processes, challenges to service collaboration, and limited applicability of sentencing considerations. The findings indicate a pervasive level of systemic disadvantage for this group of children, and imply that a holistic strategy underpinned by affirmative action across several systems will be necessary to address the ongoing criminalization of children in residential care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Vague programme descriptions are known to impede implementation and evaluation. Yet social work change programmes often fail to describe in detail how they aim to provide better outcomes for children and families. This study focused on the Systemic Practice Model (SPM), which is a Finnish adaptation of Reclaiming Social Work, a practice model developed in England. The SPM aims to deliver systemic practice in children's social care and has recently been widely disseminated across Finland. However, research has found both considerable variation in its delivery and a lack of clarity about what it is. This study, applying realist evaluation, aimed to formulate a programme theory based on the perceptions of key informants (n = 12) involved in the national development and dissemination of the SPM during the period 2017–2019. The analysis yielded three core components (a systemic team, systemic weekly meetings, and systemic practice) and two context‐mechanism‐outcome (CMO) configurations, which represent causal chains of the SPM. The findings should enable its quality implementation and meaningful outcome and process evaluation. The findings will also aid organizations and practitioners both to identify changes required in their service provision and prevent adverse effects. This programme theory should be tested and refined with empirical data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Child‐welfare practices transformed drastically in 2020 after governments instituted quarantining and social‐distancing measures. Child visitation, mental health evaluations and treatment, and court hearings either ceased or only accessible via information communication technologies (ICTs). Peer‐reviewed published scholarship about technology use in child welfare is limited to voluntary, supplemental contexts and insufficient to understand the nuanced effects of this transition on vulnerable populations. We used a critical case study ethnography to name this phenomenon, 'pandemic practice', and describe how case‐management challenges were compounded and/or masked by pandemic practice. Mandatory ICT use in case management contributed to injustices for some families in the child‐welfare system, including children spending extended time in foster care, families receiving superficial treatment services and irreparable harm to timely case progression. We used technology adoption theory and technological capital framework to identify and understand the complexities of pandemic practice beyond a simple digital divide perspective. We present a hierarchy of technological capital necessary to participate in pandemic practice, suggestions to create sufficient capital and implications for policy and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article describes the benefits of monthly family team meetings for parents involved with child welfare. Findings are shared from semi-structured, qualitative interviews conducted with 17 parents whose children had been placed in substitute care. While much of the scholarship on family meetings focuses on opportunities for family voice, this study found that parents received multiple benefits from meetings including, but not limited to, the opportunity for input into decision-making. Specifically, parents appreciated receiving information and feedback, encouragement, and a range of other supports from members of the team. Meetings also facilitated communication and improved the coordination of services and other efforts by team members. Notably, parents reported that regular meetings helped to hold caseworkers and other providers accountable regarding their activities and duties related to the case, often resulting in better follow through. Parents and their advocates were also able to use meetings to push child welfare to respond in a timely way to parents' progress. These findings should be viewed as preliminary evidence of how a particular model of family meetings might work and thereby expand our understanding of what family team decision meetings can do to improve parents' experiences and child welfare outcomes more generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]