Work-related stressors while assessing children’s well-being Sub-study 4 investigated work-related stressors of German and Finnish school

social workers while assessing children’s well-being. The findings reveal that all participants are confronted with several, although different, stressors depending on whether they have a child protection mandate (Germany) or not (Finland). While the German participants provided specific work-related

stressors, the Finnish participants provided more general stressors connected to their work. Figure 5 shows a CM illustrating the work-related stressors that were repeatedly named by the participants in connection with each other (see Figure 5).

Figure 5 A Code Map illustrating connected work-related stressors as identified in sub-study 4 (MAXQDA; figure from the accepted manuscript by Beck, Vornanen, Hämäläinen & Borrmann, in International Social Work, 27.01.2021).

In accordance, the German school social workers highlighted as the most significant work-related stressors their great responsibility associated with emotional distress but no decision-making power, as well as a lack of accessibility to, and timely reaction by, youth welfare departments and a too far-reaching scope of the parental right. In contrast, the Finnish school social workers identified a great workload connected with insufficient time and personnel resources.

Great responsibility associated with emotional distress but no decision-making power

The first work-related stressor can be, in part, understood against the background of national preconditions, including welfare regimes and national legislation.

As shown above, the German professionals are obligated to perform a risk assessment if they have credible information that the well-being of a child is at risk. Those employed by unattached or private providers must evaluate the risk together with the child involved, a specialist and the parents, if the protection of the child is not called into question. If parents are unwilling to accept the necessary support, or if these aids are not available, professionals are obligated to inform the youth welfare department (SGB VIII, Section 8a, subsection 4; see also Beck, 2017). Hence, German school social workers employed via a non-public provider must act as child protection workers without actually being child protection workers; thus, having a great responsibility associated with emotional distress but no decision-making power is perceived as an important work-related stressor by the German participants.

This finding aligns with the systems theoretical perspectives of this study, according to which a specific phenomenon must be viewed from a “networked and holistic perspective” and, hence, within its context (Barth, 2007, p. 235, this researcher’s translation). Thus, the role of German school social workers and the accompanying work-related stressors are interrelated with the welfare regime and child welfare system. In addition, this finding complies with the theoretical framework of the job demand-control model, assuming

that high-strain jobs that include high job demands and low decision-making power are most detrimental for an employee’s well-being (Karasek, 1979).

Lack of accessibility to, and timely reaction by youth welfare departments and a too far-reaching scope of the parental right

The second work-related stressor can be, in part, understood against the background of national preconditions, including welfare regimes and national legislation.

The German conservative/corporatist welfare regime highlights that “the state will only interfere when the family’s capacity to service its members is exhausted” (Esping-Andersen, 1990, p. 27). In addition, child endangerment is not about attaining the best outcome but preventing the worst outcome for a child (Kunkel, 2015, p. 11; pointing to a similar interpretation by the BVerfGE of 24.3.2014) and is not about equalising living conditions for all (Weilert, 2014, p. 388). Hence, parents define for themselves what is best for their child and this view may vary between parents and professionals (Bathke et al., 2019, p. 29–30). Due to this constitutional right, there is a great scope regarding the exercise of the parental right until repressive actions can be taken, which is perceived by the German professionals as too far-reaching and was experienced as a work-related stressor.

This finding complies with the findings of other research: social workers participating in a study reacted anxiously when they wanted to take a child into custody but knew that “child protection law and procedures would not support this intervention” (Hetherington, 2002, p. 22). Another study showed that professionals experience distress “when they are unable to practice their profession according to their moral code and [due to] the emotional burden related to this inability” (Mänttäri-van der Kuip, 2015, p. 86). Hence, the German school social workers participating in this study became stressed when they perceived the parental right as too far-reaching and the structural conditions as inadequate.

While differences are explained from a systems theoretical perspective and theoretical conclusions are essentially based on the interpretations of differences between the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child

welfare systems, professional ideology appeared as another important factor that could be investigated in further studies. This finding complies with scholars’ findings that social work is “not only determined at national level” (Eskelinen & Caswell, 2006, p. 498), but depends on structures, such as laws and cultures, including “reciprocal expectations of parents and the state about each other’s role in assuring the welfare of children” and the social workers’ professional ideologies, including theories, concepts and values of social workers (Hetherington, 2006, pp. 36-42).

Professional ideology is a concept that is subject to investigation in several disciplines such as medicine (Elliott, 1973). Accordingly, “professional ideology has a basis in the everyday experience that members of the same occupational group tend to think and behave in characteristic ways” (Elliott, 1973, p. 211), an assumption that is confirmed in several cross-national comparative studies in social work. For example, a cross-national study that compares commonalities and differences concerning the professional ideology of 781 social work graduates in Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Great Britain, Hong Kong, Hungary, Israel, the United States and Zimbabwe show a great similarity concerning the participants’ ideology, despite the fact that all graduates were professionally socialised in different national contexts (Weiss, 2005, p. 101). Another cross-national comparative study that investigates the assessment of families with children at risk by Italian and Nordic social workers shows differences concerning levels and types of interventions, but similarities regarding professionals’ lines of reasoning that may be traced back to “a common knowledge- and education base” (Guidi, Meeuwisse & Scaramuzzino, 2016, p. 19).

Similarly, in sub-study 4, the German school social workers came closer to a Nordic, child-centric perspective that views a child as a “separate entity in the family” (Forsberg, 2014, p. 180). While the nature and role of SSW in Germany and Finland is interrelated with the welfare regimes and child welfare systems, the findings of sub-study 4 indicate similarities regarding their views that may be, in part, traced back to professional ideology: hence, while the German school social workers act in conjunction with national child welfare legislation, against the background of the welfare regime, their views come closer to the Nordic perspective.

Great workload connected with insufficient time and personnel resources

The third work-related stressor can be, in part, understood against the background of national preconditions, including welfare regime orientation and national legislation.

Hence, school social workers in Finland must promote the well-being of individuals and the school community; this mirrors the central concern of the Finnish social-democratic welfare regime, which is to support all individuals regarding social and educational needs (Hagen & Tibbitts, 1994, p. 20), as well as to prevent social problems, among others, in the frame of psychosocial support services and health care in schools that comprise SSW (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health, 2006, pp. 4–17). Thus, while the Finnish school social workers are to work primarily preventively and to promote the well-being of the school community, sub-study 4 shows that the participants primarily intervene in individual situations due to the existence of severe and long-standing issues that are given priority before preventive work, despite having role clarity. Hence, the Finnish school social workers were fully aware of their role to work primarily preventively, but a great workload associated with insufficient time and personnel resources forced them to reprioritize their work; this situation led to work-related stress.

This complies with the job demands-resources model that suggests that job strain results from an imbalance of job demands and resources, referring to the physical, psychological, social and organisational aspects of a job (Bakker & Demerouti, 2007, p. 312). While it is suggested to allocate approx. 600 pupils per professional (Talentia, 2016), the Finnish participants serve at two to five schools, mostly have full-time positions (three of four) and are responsible for 1090 to 1563 pupils; therefore, the participants are forced to reprioritise their tasks. Hence, they primarily provide interventions rather than preventive services, a finding that complies with assumptions of scholars that note “the scarcity of resources” and “too large number of pupils per worker” (Rácz, 2008, p. 38; referring to Sipilä-Lähdekorpi, 2004, p. 115 and Jääskeläinen, 2004, p. 71). It also complies with the findings of another study that investigated the attitudes of social workers toward their work conditions

in Denmark, Finland, Norway and Sweden: it revealed a great time pressure that Finnish professionals in particular are confronted with: 45% of all Finnish respondents stated that “often, or fairly often, lack of time forced them to do a bad job” (Meeuwisse, Scaramuzzino & Swärd, 2011, p. 11). The Finnish participants in sub-study 4 shifted their priorities toward interventions in problematic situations, while trying to work as preventively as possible.

Concluding remarks

To conclude, the work-related stressors experienced by the German and Finnish school social workers in this study are strongly connected to the roles they have to fulfil against the background of welfare regimes and child welfare systems; hence, work-related stressors differ whether professionals have a child protection mandate (Germany) or not (Finland).

This overall finding aligns with the systems theoretical perspectives, according to which SSW must be viewed from a “networked and holistic perspective” and, thus, within its context (Barth, 2007, p. 235, this researcher’s translation), and the ecological systems theoretical perspectives that focus on the relations between a person and their environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 623). Thus, these systemic perspectives support the explanation of the achieved findings within a greater context: work-related stress arose when there were conflicts between legal requirements and professional values (Germany), as well as between legal requirements and insufficient resources to fulfil them (Finland). Thus, it shows that not only a setting itself, but also the way in which it is subjectively perceived, is of specific importance (Bronfenbrenner, 1979, p. 22). Therefore, both theoretical perspectives enable insight into the interrelations between SSW in Germany and Finland and the respective welfare regime and child welfare system, as well as into how school social workers perceive their assigned role in this context. Therewith associated, insight is enabled into the conflicts between these assigned roles and the subjective perceptions of these by school social workers.

Due to the small sample size, the findings of sub-study 4 are only indicative, not generalisable, and pertain only to the participating professionals. Further research is needed that focuses on work-related stressors experienced

by school social workers while assessing children’s well-being, specifically focusing on possible conflicts between national preconditions and legal requirements on the one hand, and professional values that may lead to work-related stress on the other.

5.2 CROSS-NATIONAL COMPARATIVE RESEARCH IN SCHOOL