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

Abstract

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.