Gatekeeping in child welfare: A comparative study of intake decisionmaking by social workers in Canada and Sweden

Child Welfare

Volumn 82, Issue 5, 2003, Pages 507-525

  Khoo, Evelyn G ^a   Hyvönen, Ulf ^b   Nygren, Lennart ^a  

^a UMEÅ UNIVERSITY   (Sweden)

^b Umea Research and Development Unit   (Sweden)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; CANADA; CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; FEMALE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; MALE; ORGANIZATION; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT REFERRAL; SOCIAL WORK; STANDARD; SWEDEN;

ADULT; CANADA; CHILD; CHILD WELFARE; DECISION MAKING, ORGANIZATIONAL; FEMALE; FOCUS GROUPS; GATEKEEPING; HUMANS; MALE; SOCIAL WORK; SWEDEN;

EID: 17644443730     PISSN: 00094021     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Bearup, R. S., & Palusci, V. J. (1999). Improving child welfare through a children's ombudsman. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23, 449-457.
2. Campbell, M. L., & Gregor, F. (2002). A primer in doing institutional ethnography. Aurora, Canada: Garamond.
3. Dawson, S. (1996). Analysing organizations (3rd ed.). New York: Palgrave.
4. DeVault, M. L., & McCoy, L. (2002). Institutional ethnography: Using interviews to investigate ruling relations. In J. F. Gubrium & J. A. Holstein (Eds.), Handbook of interview research (pp. 751-776). London: Sage.
5. Downing, J., & Wells, S. J. (1990). Gatekeeping in child protective services: A survey of screening policies. Child Welfare, 69, 357-370.
6. Drury-Hudson, J. (1999). Decision making in child protection: The use of theoretical, empirical, and procedural knowledge by novices and experts and implications for fieldwork placement. British Journal of Social Work, 29, 147-169.
7. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
8. Fallon, B. (1999). Outcomes literature survey: A preliminary review for the Client Out-comes in Child Welfare project. In J. Thompson & B. Fallon (Eds.), The first Canadian roundtable on child welfare outcomes (pp. 65-84). Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
9. Government of Ontario. (1997). Risk assessment model for child protection in Ontario. Ontario, Canada: Ministry of Community and Social Services.
10. Healey, K. (1998). Participation and child protection: The importance of context. British Journal of Social Work, 28, 897-914.
11. Hessle, S., & Vinnerljung, B. (1999). Child Welfare in Sweden - An overview (Vol. 15). Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm Studies in Social Work.
12. Hill, M., Stafford, A., & Green Lister, P. (Eds.). (2002). International perspectives on child protection. Edinburgh, Scotland: Scottish Executive.
13. Jegeby, U. (1993). Att bedöma en social situation. Tillämpning av vinjettmetoden [To judge a social situation. Application of the vignette method] (No. 3). Stockholm, Sweden: Centrum för Utvärdering av Socialt Arbete.
14. Jones, R. (1996). Decision making in child protection. British Journal of Social Work, 26, 509-522.
15. Karski, R. L. (1999). Key decisions in child protective services: Report investigation and court referral. Children and Youth Services Review, 21, 643-656.
16. Khoo, E. G., Hyvönen, U., & Nygren, L. (2002). Child welfare or child protection: Uncovering Swedish and Canadian orientations to social intervention in child maltreatment. Qualitative Social Work, 1, 451-471.
17. Krueger, R. A. (1994). Focus groups: A practical guide for applied research. London: Sage.
18. Lightman, E. S., & Riches, G. (2000). From modest rights to commodification in Canada's welfare state. European Journal of Social Work, 3, 179-190.
19. Longlade, P. (1999). Evaluating child homicide inquests as a learning process: A social constructionist analysis of a Canadian experience. Child and Youth Services Review, 21, 295-310.
20. Mintzberg, H. (1993). Structure in fives: Designing effective organizations. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
21. Morgan, D. L. (1997). Focus groups as qualitative research (Vol. 16). London: Sage.
22. Ontario Assocation of Children's Aid Societies. (2001). What is a Children's Aid Society? Available from http://www.oacas.org.
23. Östberg, F., Wahlander, E., & Milton, P. (2002). Barnavårdsutredningar i sex kommuner - En vinjettstudie [Child welfare investigations in six communes - A vignette study] (No. 3). Stockholm, Sweden: CUS-skrift 2000:3.
24. Scott, D. (1998). A qualitative study of social work assessment in cases of alleged child abuse. British Journal of Social Work, 28, 73-88.
25. Socialstyrelsen. (2000). Dartingtonprojektet: En försöksverksamhet för att stärka och utveckla familjevården [The Dartington Project: A pilot study to strengthen and develop family foster care]. Stockholm, Sweden: Socialstyrelsen, SoS-rapport 2000:2.
26. SoS-rapport. (1998). Anmälan, utredning, insats [Report, investigation, action] (No. 4). Stockholm, Sweden: Socialstyrelsen.
27. Soydan, H. (1995). A cross-cultural comparison of how social workers in Sweden and England assess a migrant family. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 4, 85-93.
28. Soydan, H., & Stål, R. (1994). How to use the vignette technique in cross-cultural social work research. Scandinavian Journal of Social Welfare, 3, 75-80.
29. Spratt, T. (2000). Decision making by senior social workers at the point of first referral. British Journal of Social Work, 30, 597-618.
30. Swift, K. J. (1995). Manufacturing bad mothers. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
31. Swift, K. J. (1997). Canada: Trends and issues in child welfare. In N. Gilbert (Ed.), Combatting child abuse: International perspectives and trends (pp. 38-71). London: Oxford University Press.
32. Wells, S. J., Fluke, J. D., & Hendricks Brown, C. (1995). The decision to investigate: Child protection practice in 12 local agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 523-546.
33. Wilson, J., & While, A. E. (1998). Methodological issues surrounding the use of vignettes in qualitative research. Journal of Interprofessional Care, 22(1), 79-87.