Child Welfare in Sweden - an overview

Sven Hessle & Bo Vinnerljung

Introduction

The universal social welfare state

Sweden has been described as a social welfare state from various theoretical points of view (Titmuss, 1974; Furniss & Tilton, 1977; Eriksson & Aberg, 1986; Gould, 1988; Spicker, 1988; Esping-Andersen, 1990; Cochrane & Clarke, 1993; Korpi & Paime, 1993). In addition to being committed to full employment - at least up until the 1990ies - and having a generous social insurance system as in the "social security state model" (Fumiss & Tilton, 1977)1, the social welfare state emphasises high quality living conditions through tax financed public services and environmental planning. The Scandinavian welfare state model is also characterised by a "universal approach" approach (directed to all, not to stigmatise the few) in opposite to a "residual approach". Everyone share the vast majority of benefits created by tax transfers sometime during their life span, without means tests.

Residual tendencies in the universal welfare system

Most of the national social insurance system, eg unemployment benefits and pensions, are based on individuals’ previous employment. The main exception is means tested economic assistance from local social services, a residual system with fresh roots in poverty relief. In the Social Services Law of 1980, this form of economic support was intended only to be temporary, a "social emergency relief'. Prevalence was stable for several decades, with around 6% of the adult population receiving this form of "welfare" annually (Tham, 1994). But in the last 15 years, the number of recipients has grown considerably. Means tested economic assistance is now the main source of income for large groups, eg young people with no education and recent immigrants, many of whom are more or less defacto excluded from ordinary jobs (Salonen, 1993; Ekberg & Andersson, 1995; Kamali, 1997). In other words, due to the post-industrial economic process, dependency on the residual components of the welfare state has become more widespread than anyone could imagine 20 years ago. These developments - paradox to the universal approach - have resulted in political confusion.

By historical tradition and organisational affiliation, Swedish Child Welfare is closely related to this residual section of the social welfare state, serving, supervising and disciplining the poor and the

excluded in the community. Like in most other countries, Swedish child welfare has never been able to "shed its poverty relief shell" (Sunesson, 1990).'

A brief description of the country[2]

Sweden is one of northern outposts of Europe, sharing land borders with Norway and Finland on the Scandinavian Peninsula at roughly the same latitude as Alaska. Journeying the entire length of the country, 1.600 kilometres, a traveller would experience great variations in climate, topography and vegetation, going from fertile plains in the south through large evergreen forests in mid-Sweden to barren mountains and marshlands in the arctic north. If this traveller bypassed the areas around the nations three major cities, he/she would rarely be crowded. The population density outside these metropolitan centres is among the lowest in Europe. Half of the nation's nine million inhabitants are concentrated in just 3 % of the country's area.

Roughly 1 8% of these nine millions have family roots outside Sweden, either by being foreign-born (10%) or having at least one non-native parent. Sweden was one of the most ethnically homogenous nations in Europe after the Second World War, but large-scale immigration during the 1960ies- 1990ies changed this forever. During a short period Sweden has become a multi-ethnic European nation. In the first two decades immigrants came mainly from southern Europe to work in the expanding industry but in the 1980ies and 1990ies most arrived as refugees, from repressive societies, war zones or other catastrophes in different parts of the whole world. In Malmoe, the country's third largest city, local statistics confirm this profound transformation: according to media reports, today 40% of the children under 18 years have some kind of immigrant background.

The industrial backbone of the Swedish post WWWII -wealth was eroded during the late 1980ies and the early 1990ies. Large sections of the industry were dismantled, and an estimated half a million jobs disappeared, counting all sectors of the economy. This process, in combination with a strong influx of refugee immigrants at the same time, resulted in dramatically changed unemployment figures. Whereas 3% unemployment was seen as highly alarming in the beginning of the 1980ies, official statistics ran as high as 8-12% in the first half of the 1990ies.[3]

Family policy[4]

Even during the economic recession in the early 1990ies with high unemployment, few Swedes questioned the fundamental goals of family policy:

1)to establish good condiditons for raising children,

2)to provide social security for families, and

3)to uphold the principle of the equal right of men and women to participate in life and work, while good child care is provided (see eg Kindlund, 1986)

Historical roots

Sweden's family policy should be understood within the broad context of a social policy that has its roots in the 18th century (Skoglund, 1992. But its modern socio-political framework, with the universalistic approach, dates back to the beginning of the 1930ies. Modern family policy was introduced in the beginning of the 1930ies at a time of deep economic recession. Because birth rates were very low, it was deemed necessary to improve conditions for families. In addition to the introduction of monthly child allowances, generous loans were given to newly married couples. The ideal of modern housing was promoted as a civil right rather than a privilege, and government subsidies were used to hasten the restructuring of the housing market.[5]

The reforms of the 1930ies and 1940ies reflected not just ambitions of material improvement, but also far reaching social engineering visions. Leading contemporary social scientist, like Alva and Gunmar Myrdahl, advocated science based social planning to set the everyday lives of Swedish families right (Hirdmand, 1989). Considering his close connections to the Social Democratic government, it is not totally without a factual base that Gunmar Myrdahl referred to Sweden as is "population laboratory" (quoted in ibid., 1989). The vision of fostering modern, rational Swedes included the use of eugenics to control economically wasteful growth among mentally and socially "inferior elements" in the population (Hirdman, 1989; Broberg & Tyden, 1991; see also Kock, 1996 for the history of sterilisation in Denmark).

Family policy today

Around 75% of Swedish children live in traditional nuclear families with birth parents (SCB:1994:2). But 50% are actually born out of wedlock, since many couples get legally married only after they have had their first child. Due to a high divorce rate, the probability of finding a child with divorced parents increases with age of the child. Among 17 year olds, one in every three has experienced divorce and is most likely living with his/her mother.

Social and medical support systems for parents and children were expanded radically during the decades after WWII. Today they include preventive services with free (or very inexpensive) health controls during pregnancy, prenatal and postnatal education programs, and regular health controls for children during the school years. The Swedish parental insurance system has gained international recognition, aiming at enabling both men and women to combine parenthood with employment. Parental insurance allows the mother or father to stay at home up to 360 days after the birth of the child, with 80% compensation for loss of income. Furthermore, parents have the right to stay home from work to care for a sick child in sum 60 days annually (per child under twelve years of age), with a cash benefit corresponding to 80% of their income. Labour laws secure parents employment unconditionally during absence for care of children and while using their parental benefits.

New reforms have been added more or less continually over the last decades, even during economic recession. An example: when the unemployment figure was an all time high in 1994, parliament passed a new law requiring every local municipality to provide family counselling. This suggests that family policy can make it to the top of the Swedish political agenda, even during "hard times".

But in other areas, tax financed benefits have been reduced. The municipalities are responsible for guaranteeing subsidised childcare for every child between one and six if parents are employed or studying. Since the overwhelming majority of parents work through their children's pre-school years, having access to childcare has become a necessity in everyday life. The formerly heavily subsidised high quality day care system - often regarded as a marvel by overseas visitors - has seen relatively big personnel cuts [6] and drops in the subsidy rate during the last ten years (e.g. Bjdrnstrom, 1996).

Gender notes

Women's participation in the labour force is among the highest in the world, 80% compared to 85% for Swedish men in 1995. A tax reform from the middle of the 1970s has been helpful in promoting female employment, conferring on married women the status of independent taxpayers. But the Swedish labour market has the same gender related segregation patterns as in many other countries. Women form the vast majority of employees in all "care sectors", e g nursing, childcare and social work. 30% work part-time, compared to 5% of the men. In national and local politics, 42-45% of representatives are women (parliament, local city councils etc.)[7]

Even though there is unanimous agreement in the public discourse that fathers should share child related responsibilities, males use parental benefits substantially less than women. Attitudes among employers and colleagues to fathers exercising their legal right to a longer leave of absence for child caring reasons are still ambivalent (Hwang et al, 1984; Haas & Hwang, 1994; Bjornstrom, 1996).

Defining/describing Swedish Child Welfare

The problem of defining practice

Defining practice is a precarious matter. What is child welfare, child protection, abuse, neglect - and what is not? The concepts are so imbedded in the legal, political and professional discourse, in everyday language, in cultural and time-related contexts etc., that attempts to define them in a more rigorous way frequently fail. This is so regardless whether one tries to define child abuse in a medical or sociological model (see eg Graham et al 1985; Finkelhor, 1986; Hutchinson, 1994; Rose & Meezan, 1997; Lagerberg, 1998). The concepts reflect norms of parental responsibility for adverse child experiences and for providing "good enough" standards of upbringing (Gough, 1993). Child welfare and child protection etc. are institutional organisations for state interventions when parents are not "good enough" (Levin, 1998). Law in combination with the political/professional discourse define the threshold of state interventions in families lives (see eg Donzelot, 1979; Dingwall et al, 1983a, 1983b; Harding, 1997). In other words, the social worker is also a moral worker (Hyden, 1996).

Not surprising, many studies have found wide cultural disagreement about what constitutes "abuse" and when/what interventions are acceptable (eg Giovanni & Beccera, 1979; Gray & Cosgrove, 1985; Noh Ann, 1994; Soydan, 1995; Maitra, 1996; Colton et al, 1997). Vignette-studies in different countries also suggest that there are considerable differences within cultures, even among child welfare professionals (Lindsey, 1992a; Christopherson, 1998; Ostberg et a, 1999).

Likewise, perceptions of "children's needs" and what is "in the best interest of the child" varies between cultures and maybe most strikingly within western societies over relatively short periods of time. Philanthropic societies in Britain sent children considered at risk for asocial development to residential and foster care in Australia and Canada as late as 1967, a practice that few would endorse today (Bean & Melville, 1989). Australia's policy of removing aboriginal children with some white descent, wholesale from their parents for life, continued until the late sixties. This practice was branded as "genocide" in a recent official inquiry (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997).[8]

All these ambiguities tend to lead the discussion into tautologies, eg parental behaviour becomes abusive when practitioners describe it as such (Dept of Health, 1995; Christopherson, 1998). The same line of reasoning can be applied to practice concepts like "children at risk' (Hessle, 1985; Andersson, 1993a; Vinnerljung, 1996a, 1997). Though many rightly abhor circular definitions, they are not totally without merit in social research. By describing child welfare practices as contextual, we are encouraged to continually study and review the basic norms and notions whereupon the legal political and professional discourse rests. Child welfare world history teaches us with clarity that this is necessary in a democratic, pluralist society.

Swedish child welfare according to the legislators

In consequence of this discussion, we have chosen to give an outline of child welfare as it is defined in Swedish law. The foundation is the legislator's interpretation of children's basic needs. The Children and Parents Code establishes that children have a right to care, security[9] and good upbringing. Furthermore, the law states that children should be treated with respect for their individuality. They may not be subjected to physical punishment or other degrading treatment. By legally giving children these "rights", the law also defines the responsibilities of parents (or other caretakers). At the same time, the State ascribes to itself the right to intervene if basic needs are not respected of fulfilled. Logically, it would follow that the state has an obligation to make sure that interventions lead to the needs being met, but this is less often discussed.

The equivalent of a child welfare law is found in the Social Services Act of 1980 (Sol) and the Care of Young Persons Act (LVU) from the same year. The latter regulates taking children and youth into care without consent from the parents or from children themselves, when aged 15 or more. The Social Services Act is a "frame law', regulating several areas of social support and interventions: economic assistance, pre school child care, care for the elderly and handicapped, care for substance abusers etc.

In reality, the organisation of child welfare is amorphous and differs from one local authority to another. In some towns there are specialised units within the Social Services, in others child welfare is part of the local school organisation or there are no specialised child welfare social workers at all. This is due to social services being the legal and financial responsibility of municipalities, local self governing entities with far reaching rights of taxing their citizens. As long as basic standards in the "frame law' are respected, local authorities have the right to organise their child welfare as it suits them.

Swedish child welfare legislation makes no strict distinction between child protection and youth justice. Asocial behaviour of young people under 20 is a child welfare problem, outside the realms of criminal justice. Neither are there organisational dividing lines between different means of intervention. Local authorities shall mainly work with social support to and in partnership with families, regardless of the age o the children or the reason for intervention. If support is not enough, care shall be used. The normal procedure is care with the consent of the families (eg 80% of all placements of teenagers; Vinnerljung et al, forthcoming). The social authorities cannot legally refrain from providing support or care, eg by referring to financial limitations.

Child welfare related duties of local social authorities are roughly, besides creating secure and good conditions for children in the community:

  • In partnership with families support children's personal, physical and social development
  • Monitor children who show signs of unfavourable development
  • In partnership with families makesure that children at risk get the protection and support they need, and - if it is deemed to be in the best interest of the child - place children in care outside their families.

Generally, Swedish child welfare has its main emphasis on social support and service, rather than on child protection (same as in Norway, see eg Clausen, 1998 ; Jonassen et al, 1997).

Definitions of child abuse and neglect in Swedish law

Swedish lawmakers have a stern attitude to physical abuse. Even minor physical punishment may be a reason for a court order. According to a handbook for application of the LVU-law, mental abuse is defined as cases where "the child is submitted to psychological suffering through systematically degrading behaviour, terror or depreciation" (Socialstyrelsen, 1997, p 26). Examples include chronic negative discrimination against one sibling. Other circumstances that may lead to a court order include children who are repeatedly told they are stupid, clumsy, ugly or worthless. Frequent threats of physical or other punishment may also constitute reasons for intervention (ibid.).

Exploitation mainly refers to sexual abuse but include cases where children are forced to do heavy labour. This criteria also applies to children who have "un-normal responsibilities in the home", eg children who have to look after an alcoholic parent (ibid.).