IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v84y2018icp40-47.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Care order templates as institutional scripts in child protection: A cross-system analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Berrick, Jill Duerr
  • Dickens, Jonathan
  • Pösö, Tarja
  • Skivenes, Marit

Abstract

This article compares blank care order application templates used in four countries (England, Finland, Norway, and USA (California)), treating them as a vital part of the ‘institutional scripts’ that shape practice, and embody state principles of child protection. The templates are used when child protection agencies apply to court for a care order, usually to remove a child from the family home. The templates prescribe and shape the type of information and analysis that is required justify such an extreme level of state intervention in family life. They are a mechanism and a manifestation of the principles and the legislation of each child welfare system, and are able to cast light on issues that might otherwise remain unseen or unnoticed in cross-country comparisons. The analysis of the documents compares the language and form of the four blank templates, their inter-textuality, their readership, and authors. The analysis highlights the discretionary space allocated to social workers across countries and the state frameworks within which child protection efforts are embedded.

Suggested Citation

  • Berrick, Jill Duerr & Dickens, Jonathan & Pösö, Tarja & Skivenes, Marit, 2018. "Care order templates as institutional scripts in child protection: A cross-system analysis," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 84(C), pages 40-47.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:84:y:2018:i:c:p:40-47
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.11.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019074091730717X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.11.017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Peter Hupe & Aurélien Buffat, 2014. "A Public Service Gap: Capturing contexts in a comparative approach of street-level bureaucracy," Public Management Review, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 16(4), pages 548-569, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Stephan Dahmen, 2021. "Constructing the “Competent” Pupil: Optimizing Human Futures Through Testing?," Social Inclusion, Cogitatio Press, vol. 9(3), pages 347-360.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ahrum Chang, 2022. "A formal model of street-level bureaucracy," Rationality and Society, , vol. 34(1), pages 6-27, February.
    2. Shenghao Guo & Bo Wen & Natalie Wai‐Man Wong, 2022. "Handling in the frontline: A case study of “whistle gathering” in Beijing," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(2), pages 159-164, May.
    3. Changkun Cai & Qiyao Shen & Na Tang, 2022. "Do visiting monks give better sermons? “Street‐level bureaucrats from higher‐up” in targeted poverty alleviation in China," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 55-71, February.
    4. Mette Sønderskov & Rolf Rønning, 2021. "Public Service Logic: An Appropriate Recipe for Improving Serviceness in the Public Sector?," Administrative Sciences, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-15, June.
    5. Suzanne Rutz & Dinah Mathew & Paul Robben & Antoinette de Bont, 2017. "Enhancing responsiveness and consistency: Comparing the collective use of discretion and discretionary room at inspectorates in England and the Netherlands," Regulation & Governance, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 11(1), pages 81-94, March.
    6. Peltomaa, Juha & Hildén, Mikael & Huttunen, Suvi, 2016. "Translating institutional change - forest journals as diverse policy actors," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 172-180.
    7. Hyunkuk Lee, 2021. "Does the Medium Matter? Linking Citizens’ Use of Communication Platform for Information about Urban Policies to Decision to Trust in Local Government," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(5), pages 1-17, March.
    8. Sergio A. Campos & Rik Peeters, 2022. "Policy improvisation: How frontline workers cope with public service gaps in developing countries—The case of Mexico's Prospera program," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 22-32, February.
    9. Gabriela Lotta & Roberto Pires & Michael Hill & Marie Ostergaard Møller, 2022. "Recontextualizing street‐level bureaucracy in the developing world," Public Administration & Development, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 42(1), pages 3-10, February.
    10. Einat Lavee & Amit Kaplan, 2022. "Invisible work at work and the reproduction of gendered social service organizations," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 29(5), pages 1463-1480, September.
    11. Koen PR Bartels, 2018. "Collaborative dynamics in street level work: Working in and with communities to improve relationships and reduce deprivation," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(7), pages 1319-1337, November.
    12. Yue Wang & Honggen Zhu & Noshaba Aziz & Yu Liu, 2023. "Does Social Capital Improve the Effectiveness of Public Service? An Insight from Rural-to-Urban Migrants in China," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 165(2), pages 431-452, January.
    13. Carmine Bianchi & Robinson Salazar Rua, 2022. "A feedback view of behavioural distortions from perceived public service gaps at ‘street‐level’ policy implementation: The case of unintended outcomes in public schools," Systems Research and Behavioral Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 39(1), pages 63-84, January.
    14. Anita Heindlmaier, 2020. "‘Social Citizenship’ at the Street Level? EU Member State Administrations Setting a Firewall," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 58(5), pages 1252-1269, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:84:y:2018:i:c:p:40-47. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.