Child welfare work involves investigating referrals to determine whether a child requires protection or support. In Sweden, the number of children referred to child welfare authorities has increased in recent years, but most children do not receive services. This article aims to enhance understanding of how child welfare representatives reason when determining client eligibility. The article is part of a longitudinal research programme following 2,123 children across eight Swedish child welfare authorities. The study draws on interviews with twenty-five unit managers and child welfare workers. To analyse the results, the study employs concepts that highlight how client eligibility is negotiated by modifying client demand, job conception, and client conception. The findings reveal that child welfare workers may modify client demand by addressing issues without providing services, modify job conception by either narrowing or broadening what is considered within the remit of child welfare, and modify client conception by focusing on motivated and receptive clients. These findings are discussed in the context of previous research and ongoing policy trends in Swedish child welfare.

  In recent decades, a new type of organisation—independent foster care agencies (IFAs)—has emerged in Sweden and other countries. These organisations operate outside the public sector, marking a significant shift in how foster care is provided. The presence of IFAs signifies the establishment of a foster care market, where responsibilities once managed by child welfare authorities are now outsourced. In this article, the position of IFAs in the Swedish foster care market is analysed. IFAs are viewed as intermediaries facilitating the provision of foster homes and often providing support to foster families. As IFAs primarily operate as for‐profit entities, they are analysed within the context of market dynamics and financial considerations in child welfare. The study is based on data from the state inspectorate, including a register of IFAs, framework agreements outlining the requirements for IFAs, and a national survey on IFAs, which includes social workers’ assessments of quality and costs. In Sweden, there were around 400 IFAs in 2024, ranging from large care corporations to small companies, frequently used by child welfare services. As for the services provided by IFAs, professionals hold mixed views, with some questioning their value for money. IFAs are an international phenomenon, and they have faced criticism for generating large profits from foster care services. The entrance of IFAs represents a form of radicalisation of the “love or money” dichotomy that has been a recurring theme in the foster care field.

Across most countries, child welfare involves complex investigative and decision-making processes to assess eligibility for services. This article analyses the sorting process from investigation to service allocation within Swedish child welfare. Data comes from a questionnaire completed by social workers, covering 2123 children across eight child welfare agencies. The findings are discussed in relation to the family service model and the legal and normative pressures it faces. Most children were filtered out without intervention; only one-third received services. The most common issues related to parental ability included abuse, domestic violence, neglect, and adult relational problems. For young children, neglect, abuse, and violence were key factors for receiving services, while for older children, behavioural problems were more prominent. However, child abuse was also common among older children. Interventions mainly focused on home-based support and were typically based on consent. We conclude that, while key elements of the Swedish family service model remain intact, it is increasingly challenged by growing referral volumes and heightened legal and normative demands, particularly concerning youth criminality and children at risk of abuse.

One premise for the organisation of residential care for youthis that staff are expected to relate to each young personindividually, but also to the group of young people as a whole.The relational interplay between staff and placed youths insecure unit care is fundamentally based on asymmetry, withinteractions taking place in a context of confinement. The aimhere is to explore how staff working in secure institutionalcare for youths in Sweden understand and describe theirrelationships with youth in terms that extend beyondprofessionalism, and especially their use of the familymetaphor. Fifty-three interviews with staff were analysed in atwo-step qualitative analysis, which generated three themesthat highlighted staff narratives focusing on descriptions ofparenting, sibling relationships, and closeness without usingthe family metaphor. One conclusion is that despite an overallshift away from the family metaphor, in the direction offraming residential care in professional terms, the familyconcept seems to sit quite well even in an environment withambitions to provide professional care. The family metaphormay not be the cornerstone of care, but it is eminentlypresent. 

This article explores how staff in Swedish secure care value and understand the rights of the children and young people in their care. To be a staff member in secure care means having a professional role that includes viewing and relating to young people as individual rights holders in a setting where care and treatment shall be provided to a group of young people. However, this occurs in an environment characterised by strong coercive and controlling elements. The study shows that the viewing and handling of children’s rights is dependent on various trade-offs that staff make. Negotiations about what should be seen as rights frequently take place, leading to tensions regarding children’s status as individual rights holders. The study adds knowledge about how staff describe the nature of these tensions in the daily life of secure care units. Implications for practice are discussed.

The field of residential care for children and youth in Sweden is fragmented; there is a diversity both in terms of ownership and in terms of therapeutic content. This article analyses how decisions regarding therapeutic content are made in residential care settings. The data consists of interviews with representatives of different types of residential care organisations. The results indicate that the field is impacted by different logics as well as multiple actors and environmental elements shaping the prerequisites for decisions about therapeutic content. Local managers have substantial discretion in deciding which models and treatments that should be used in their settings and they can in that capacity be viewed as key actors in the field. The decisions of managers are influenced by a mix of professional and market logics, but there are also some traces of a family logic. Signs of a professional logic can be discerned in claims about models and treatments viewed as evidence-based and/or locally evaluated, but such claims are also perceived as competitive on the market. A gap between descriptions of models and treatments and actual practice is acknowledged by managers and believed to be fuelled by procurement processes and market considerations.

In recent decades, Swedish out-of-home care has been criticised for a number of reasons. In this article, based on research and public debate, we discuss this criticism as well as the institutional responses that have been evoked. We use the concepts of risk, control and trust to structure the analysis, which outlines three core issues portrayed as problematic: a) certain principles of the Swedish child welfare system with relevance for the placement of children and adolescence, b) the quality of out-of-home care and c) the privatisation of out-of-home care and the possibility of generating profits on such services. The institutional response to the criticism has mainly been increased control measures, but the development is not uniform - trust and control-oriented responses are often combined. We conclude the article by relating Swedish out-of-home care to international child welfare trends, discussing the institutional responses and the implications for social work practice.

In what has become quite a turbulent quasi‐market for residential care for children and youth, providers now compete for public contracts. To create visibility and attract customers, many providers use marketing activities to project the desired impression of themselves to maintain or strengthen their market position. In this article, we analyse how companies that provide residential care for children manage the impressions they project on their websites and in advertisements. The results reveal that residential care providers use a range of impression management strategies to enhance their organizational image and to respond to potentially damaging or threatening images. The information providers choose to disclose leaves customers—in this case, the social workers responsible for choosing and purchasing care on behalf of clients—with rather limited opportunities to evaluate the quality of care. This is a significant problem considering other, more reliable, sources of information are difficult to access.

Few studies have investigated the privatisation of residential care for children and youth, and no studies have compared, mapped, and discussed the care markets that have developed in the Nordic countries. Here, we map and discuss the role of providers of residential care for children and youth in Denmark, Finland, Norway, and Sweden. In addition, we explore the driving forces behind the current situation in these countries. Although these countries have significant level of privatisation, they have several differences in terms of the participation of the public sector and how market shares are divided between, for example, for-profit companies and non-profit organisations. These differences are discussed as a result of the historical positions, for example, of non-profit organisations as well as differences in the way the countries adapted New Public Management and procurement regulations.