Out of home care in Norway and Sweden – similar and different

Abstract

An overview of the current situation in the out-of-home care in Norway and Sweden is presented in this article; also the development in later years is described and discussed. Socially, politically and culturally there are few differences between Norway and Sweden. Child protection and out-of-home placement of children and young people are integrated parts in the welfare state that are shared by the Nordic countries. It is a model that builds on principles of universalism and decommodification of social rights. The welfare model presupposes high public legitimacy for a high level of social expenditure. However the idea of marketization and privatization has also affected the welfare model in Sweden and Norway. Although there are more similarities than differences between the two countries' child protection systems, the article discusses some differences, for example the after care services, new groups of children and young people in the out-of-home care, like young unaccompanied asylum seekers. There are also some differences when it comes to privatization, the introduction of evidence-based methods in the child protection system and the tension between general and residual services for children and young people in the child protection system.

Emotional kinship care and neutral non‐kinship care — the struggle between discourses

“…; Backe‐Hansen et al . ). In relation to the results of this study, planned moves can also be understood as the result of different discourses regarding foster care guiding decision‐making as the case proceeds over time.…”

“…In this paper, kinship care is used to describe foster care provided by relatives or friends of the family, and non‐kinship care refers to foster care in a family previously unknown to the child (Backe‐Hansen et al . ).…”

Networking Enforced–Comparing Social Services'Collaborative Rationales across Different Welfare Regimes

“…From the 1990s onwards, private actors have attained a stronger position, more so than in other service areas (Backe‐Hansen et al . ). In this regard, concerning staff employed by private care institutions and public child protection agencies, statistics show that the former employ 2,000 agents, as opposed to 7,500 in the public sector (Statistics Norway ) .…”

Implementing the Nordic Barnahus Model: Characteristics and Local Adaptions

“…In Norway, for example, a more family service-oriented system has resulted in a strong growth in the number of children who receive some kind of services from the child welfare system, thus increasing the potential to identify children in need of support at an earlier stage and to work more preventively. The increase in cases reaching the child welfare system has, in turn, been discussed in relation to the potential risk of developing a child welfare system with fewer resources left for children at greater risk, by contributing more to the general level of welfare than addressing children and families with more serious dysfunctions (Backe-Hansen et al 2013;cf. Ponnert 2015).…”

“…This includes, for instance, whether child welfare is being regulated and organised as an independent body (as, for example, in Norway), or as part of a municipality's general social services system (as, for example, in Sweden). Being a specialised service may imply more targeted services (Backe-Hansen et al 2013), but may also imply a risk of fragmentation in relation to dealing with social issues within the family. It may also affect the implementation of the Barnahus model in different ways, as several of the contributions in this book will illustrate.…”