The role in cases of child maltreatment

Sub-study 3 investigated the role of German and Finnish SSW in an exemplary case of child maltreatment that indicated different forms of maltreatment, including sexual abuse, the failure to provide a child with adequate nutrition and hygiene and exposure to violent environments; the topics of sexual abuse and provision of adequate nutrition to children appeared to be highly relevant to identify the nature and role of SSW within the context of the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems.

Sexual abuse

Regarding the professional approach taken in the exemplary case of child maltreatment, the findings of sub-study 3 show that the participants from Germany perform a risk assessment, inform the responsible authorities in a second-order, and spend a long time working with the family. In contrast, the participants from Finland directly inform the responsible authorities.

While the professionals in Germany have the role of a risk assessor in such situations, the professionals in Finland have the role of a mandatory reporter.

Table 16 shows the roles of SSW in Germany and Finland concerning sexual abuse (see Table 16).

Table 16 The roles of SSW in Germany and Finland concerning sexual abuse.

Role of SSW Statements

GER Risk assessor • “[…] I would contact-, contact my supervisor because sexual abuse occurred. I would fill out an 8a document and would discuss the next steps with my supervisor.

Yeah” (G1).

• “[…] if one can see no, mhm, improvement or progress because, for example, you cannot reach the parents or you know that they are not willing to cooperate, then there is an extended risk assessment with an experienced expert [insoweit erfahrene Fachkraft] where there is another decision made whether or not there exists an endangerment in accordance with Section 8a of the SGB VIII and how to proceed with the case” (G3).

FIN Mandatory

reporter • “So, I would actually speak to Florian and say that, okay Daniel said that you were at that place and he showed you some kind of movies that made you feel uncomfortable. Can you tell me a little bit more about that. So, if Florian then says: Yeah, I was shown kind of naked things and then felt really uncomfortable. Then it´s clear, because that´s considered sexual abuse and breaking the child´s boundaries, sexual boundaries.

So, I would contact the-, the police social worker. And then see how to take things further from there and then make a child protection kind of- inform the child protection services. Say that this has happened” (F1).

• “And we have to remember that nowadays we don’t need any more to make the child protection. Because of the new law. The first one who notices that a child has a problem has to directly contact [the statutory authorities]” (F2).

As shown above, the German professionals have the role of a risk assessor;

they 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).

In contrast, the Finnish professionals have the role of a mandatory reporter;

they have the “duty to notify the municipal body responsible for social services without delay and notwithstanding confidentiality provisions” upon identifying that the welfare of a child must be investigated (CWA 417/2007, Section 25, subsection 1). Also, they have the duty to inform the police if they suspect an act that is punishable under Chapter 20 of the Criminal Code (39/1889; 766/2015) has taken place, such as child sexual abuse (CWA 417/2007, Section 25, subsection 3).

These differences in roles and interventions are traced back, in part, to different national preconditions, including welfare regime orientations, national legislation and culture; these findings align with the assumptions of several scholars that social work practice is shaped and constructed by country-specific contextual factors (see, e.g., Borrmann, Klassen & Spatscheck, 2007; Friesenhahn & Kniephoff-Knebel, 2011; Hämäläinen, 2014).

The German professional’s role and interventions conform with the underlying idea of the German conservative/corporatist welfare regime, which emphasises the direct relationship between the state and a family and only intervenes “when the family’s capacity to service its members is exhausted” (Esping-Andersen, 1990, p. 27; see also (Berggren & Trägårdh, 2010, p. 53). In addition, the German participants acted in the exemplary child maltreatment case as a “branch of the youth welfare department” in school by exercising their legally stipulated protection mandate (Lerch-Wolfrum &

Renges, 2014, p. 55).

In contrast, the Finnish role and intervention is in line with the underlying idea of the Finnish social-democratic welfare regime, which emphasises a direct relation between the state and individuals to prevent them from being subjected to another’s charity (Berggren & Trägårdh, 2010, p. 53).

Provision of a child with adequate nutrition

Concerning the provision of a child with adequate nutrition, the findings of sub-study 3 show that the school social workers from Germany developed several ideas to secure Florian’s provision with nutrition and, thereby, fulfilled different roles. In contrast, the school social workers from Finland did not react proactively to this part of the case vignette but only when prompted to answer. Thus, while the professionals in Germany fulfil the roles of an enabler, a liaison, and supporter, the professionals in Finland rely primarily on the Finnish social security system and have, therefore, the necessary time to spend on other urgent topics; however, in a situation in which a child is not provided with enough nutrition, the professionals do fulfil the role of a liaison. Table 17 shows the roles of SSW in Germany and Finland concerning the provision of adequate nutrition to a child (see Table 17).

Table 17 The roles of SSW in Germany and Finland concerning the provision of nutrition.

Role of SSW Statements

GER Enabler • “And additionally, eventually, [I would] generate an eating plan for the week with the boy and the parents or so. Or tell the boy what [packed] lunch) he can prepare the evening before if the parents are unable, that he can put it in the fridge and simply take it with him on the next day” (G2).

Liaison • “There exists this education and participation package;

one could see if one could find financial support there”

(G3).

• “Or through the parents’ council, there often exist possibilities, that there is– mhm, that there is there a budget, where children in difficult family circumstances– mhm, that they can then buy packed lunches” (G3).

• “Or, through the churches, there is also often a budget for families, that there– mhm, well, that there the pastors jointly buy something to eat with the families”

(G3).

• “And then maybe also for the Parents Hartz4 child allowance [Kindergeldzuschlag]. Of course, one has to see if that fits the situation if they are entitled” (G3).

• “So, when there is a snack bar [at school], then, I would suggest that the parents– they can give him money so that he can buy himself something” (G2).

• “There is also the possibility that he can participate in the school lunch. […] Then, there is, of course, the question of what his mother has for an income” (G1).

• “Well there is [at this particular school]– mhm, on Tuesdays, always– there, pupils cook for pupils. That normally costs the pupils €1.50” (G3).

• “[…] and then, for the children in the OGS [open all-day school], there is– mhm, catering. […] I think it costs €2 to €3” (G3).

Role of SSW Statements

Supporter • “Hmm- there are often, to mention one direct method, children that have more packed lunch with them than they eat” (G4).

• “Either to bring him food on my own, for breakfast.

On days when I am not here [at the school], or let’s see which teacher can– maybe it [the task to provide the child with nutrition] can be distributed [among different personnel]. The most important thing is that he gets something to eat” (G4).

• “Well, at our school we have a healthy breakfast each day. That is to say, fruit is available each day. So it would be possible to provide a child discreetly with- hmm a little bit more” (G1).

FIN No role

assignment • “School lunch is for free, for everyone, so […]” (F1).

• “Because if there is someone hungry, he always gets food. Nobody needs to be hungry at school” (F3).

Liaison • “[…] they (teacher) know a child that is really hungry at lunch; that’s usually that kind of indicator that the child hasn’t eaten breakfast. But in this case (vignette), the teacher, especially the class teacher, would have already spoken to the child and the family. And if they haven’t then my advice to the teacher would be to speak to the family first” (F1).

Accordingly, the German school social workers fulfilled different roles. In general, in the role of an enabler, while clients solve problems on their own, the aim of the social worker is “to help people organize to help themselves”

(Zastrow, 2009, p. 36). In accordance with this principle, the German professionals developed several ideas to enable the child and its family to help themselves by jointly developing eating plans or educating the child in how it can provide for itself; this finding is congruent with the results of other studies that one key role of SSW is to help people to help themselves (Kiviluoma, 2010, p. 24; referring to Hämäläinen, 2001, p. 61).

The professionals adopt a liaison role to connect clients with necessary resources in their schools and communities. Thus, the German participants suggested providing information concerning support possibilities and developed several ideas concerning whom to contact in order to financially support the child and its family, such as church, the parents’ council, and social services. This finding aligns with assertions by scholars that social work conveys human beings to organisations that provide them with relevant services (Bommes & Scherr, 2012, pp. 115–124).

Besides these two roles, the German professionals provided several ideas that indicate the role of a supporter; however, these supportive ideas are rather unprofessional. For example, the German participants suggested providing the child with breakfast themselves or sharing the task of provisioning a child with breakfast among teachers and themselves. In sum, all the roles applied represent reactive support for children and families.

In contrast, most of the statements provided by the Finnish school social workers cannot be assigned to a specific role; however, they clarify the proactive provision of all children with nutrition, which allows them to focus on other urgent areas. Nevertheless, one professional applied the role of a liaison in suggesting that the teacher contact the child’s parents if it had not already been done. Thus, similar to the role adopted in Germany SSW, the Finnish school social worker took on the role of a liaison to connect clients with necessary services and resources.

These differences in roles and service provision can be traced, in part, back to different national preconditions, including welfare regime orientations, national legislation and culture.

The German procedure, which includes predominately reactive, means-tested benefits, is in accordance with the German conservative/corporatist welfare regime in that “the state will only interfere when the family’s capacity to service its members is exhausted” (Esping-Andersen, 1990, p. 27). In 2015, parents had to make a financial contribution to school meals at more than 90%

of all-day schools (Studie zur Entwicklung von Ganztagsschulen-Konsortium [StEG-Konsortium], 2015, p. 80). Aware of this structural deficiency, the German professionals developed several partly unprofessional ideas to support a child in need and the family of that child.

An important related finding is that all German participants highlighted sexual abuse as the topic of top priority, with the exception of one participant who highlighted sexual abuse and the failure to provide Florian with adequate nutrition as equally important. Nevertheless, the German participants talked much more about the topic of nutrition, which is a finding that can be led back, in part, to the fact that schoolchildren in Germany are not provided with free school meals nationwide. Therefore, the participants were forced to develop several ideas to support the child, wherein the professionals applied different roles.

The Finnish system requires the provision of children with free school meals nationwide; this is in accordance with the Finnish social-democratic welfare regime, which follows the principles of universalism and generosity and maintains a vision of supporting human beings in maximising their potential (Kangas & Kvist, 2019, p. 126). Similarly, the Finnish school is described as a “miniature welfare state” that functions as a “centre for social welfare, health care and employment advice”, besides the school’s primary task of teaching (Jauhiainen, 1993; as cited in OECD, 1998, p. 17). The Finnish school system provides a broad range of services to all children. Here, the Finnish participants in this study were able to take action by “taking advantage of laws and social security”; SSW, like social work, is shaped by social legislation and its nature is “closely connected with the ideology of welfare universalism”

(Hämäläinen, Niemelä & Vornanen, 2010, pp. 44–47).

A noteworthy, related finding is that not all of the Finnish participants proactively reacted to this part of the vignette but did so only when prompted to answer. The answers were partly accompanied by smiles to themselves [schmunzeln], which was interpreted as meaning that free school meals were deeply rooted as a matter of course. This finding can be better understood by considering the Finnish context, where providing free meals in school has a long tradition (Hiilamo, 2008, p. 30); since 1948, free school meals are guaranteed for all children in compulsory education (Finnish National Board of Education, 2008, p. 2).

Concluding remarks

To conclude, the role of SSW in cases of sexual abuse and in the provision of nutrition to a child is related to the German and Finnish welfare regimes and child welfare systems. There exist different sources of social security in both countries: in Germany, the principle of subsidiarity is the dominant factor in the welfare mix (Lessenich, 1995, p. 57). Hence, the voluntary sector and non-public providers, including private households, are emphasised; in contrast, in Finland, “the state is the key provider of social security” based on the ideal of the “public responsibility for social security and welfare for all citizens”

(Niemelä & Hämäläinen, 2001, p. 8). In addition, the participating German and Finnish school social workers work strictly in conjunction with national child welfare legislation regarding processing child sexual abuse; thus, SSW in both countries is related to the legislative foundations and requirements of their respective child welfare systems.

This finding aligns with the systems theoretical perspectives, according to which a specific phenomenon, in this case SSW, must be viewed from a “networked and holistic perspective” and, thus, within its context (Barth, 2007, p. 235, this researcher’s translation) and with the ecological systems theoretical perspectives, which focus on the relations between persons and their environment (Bronfenbrenner, 1995, p. 623). Thus, these systemic perspectives support the explanation of the achieved findings within a greater context: the nature and role of SSW in Germany and Finland is interrelated with the respective welfare regime and child welfare system. Nevertheless, both welfare regimes and child welfare systems differ in several ways; these differences, in turn, have an influence on the nature and roles of SSW, as well as on how the professionals perceive their assigned roles within this context.

5.1.4 Work-related stressors while assessing children’s well-being