Social workers all around the world work with families and family complexity in their everyday practice. In this article, we present findings from a cross-national study exploring how social workers in child welfare conceptualise ‘family’, and how they relate to ‘family’ in their practice. Data presented is taken from focus groups with twenty-eight social workers from Chile, Mexico and Norway. The findings reveal that in Chilean, Mexican, and Norwegian social work, the conceptualisation of family has expanded over time, acknowledging various family forms and displays, and an increased orientation towards networks regardless of biological ties. However, differences were found, particularly in the way professionals view extended family, perspectives on family intervention, and the position of children in the family. Practical implications will be discussed.

Poor outcomes and several complaints to the judicial system against residential services for children have triggered a deep review of the Chilean child welfare services, particularly in relation to family reunification. This paper offers strategic guidelines to improve alternative care for children younger than six years of age, who are under protective measures. To define such guidelines, a case study was developed based on current models of residential services and foster home programs, which included local (Chile) and international evidence; also this research includes original empirical data collected through focus groups and interviews with key stakeholders of these programs in Chile and in two countries with advanced social services for children (Sweden and Italy). Findings refer to a structural need for reforming social services for Chilean children. Such reform should involve appropriate legislation to guarantee the rights of children and families; a substantial budgetary review leading to an increase in spending; and boosting professional specialization; and raising the capacity for offering integrated services.

Child welfare services around the world deal with families and family complexities. The study from Chile, Lithuania and Norway explores how social workers define family and more specific the position of extended families within child welfare and thus indicate contextual differences and similarities. In the data collection, five focus groups were included: one Lithuanian (eight participants), two Chilean (with two and two participants) and two Norwegian groups (with seven and eight participants). The analysis reveals significant and thematic differences and similarities between the countries related to the fluid and varied concept of family. The results also show variations across contexts in which families that are targeted by the services, the involvement of children and nuclear and extended family members. A dilemma between children’s need to keep family bonds and the states responsibility to protect children, can be exemplified with the position of the extended family. We can identity a difference between Norway, with comprehensive state involvement that can be framed as they are dealing with a public family, and both Chile and Lithuania, which put more of an emphasis on problem-solving within families, and thus look at the family as more of a private sphere.

This article compares social work in countries representing four different welfare regimes: Chile, the Republic of Ireland (refer to elsewhere as ‘Ireland’), Lithuania and Sweden. The aim is to examine how social workers in different contexts refer to families’ complex needs, how contextual factors influence social workers’ positions and actions, and how they make sense of their work. Social workers in 15 focus groups, 4 per country except for Chile with 3, were interviewed about their conceptions of ‘family’, ‘families with complex needs’, and reasoning about interventions in relation to a fictitious complex case vignette. The understanding of complex needs appears relatively individualized in Chile and Lithuania, while contextual factors were more pronounced in the Irish and Swedish material. Chile, exemplifying a familialized family policy regime, reflects a poverty-compensatory social worker role that also supports familial reproduction; Ireland, a partly de-familialized regime, reflects a supportive and risk-reactive role; Lithuania, a re-familialized regime reflects a patriarchal risk-reducing role and Sweden, a de-familialized policy regime, reflects a rights-oriented and technocratic role. Welfare regimes shape different social work practice contexts. However, to some extent, social workers around the world share a common work ethos in how they, for the best interest of the people they work with, deal with the cross-pressure from social problems and political-ideological priorities.

The analyses of the contesting moment social work faces in the United Kingdom bring to discussion many claims that appear familiar to the context and performance of social work in Chile. This note compares the UK assessment of social work education and professional practice with Chilean social work, concluding that rising demand, high vacancy rates and reliance on agency staff, quality of recruits and training, and low status of the profession are issues shared by both countries, raising the question of how to improve international standards of the profession.