Content uploaded by Johanna Sundqvist
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Johanna Sundqvist on Jan 13, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cesw20
Download by: [Umeå University Library] Date: 16 September 2015, At: 07:21
European Journal of Social Work
ISSN: 1369-1457 (Print) 1468-2664 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cesw20
Collaboration patterns among Swedish
professionals in the repatriation of
unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children:
an explorative study
Johanna Sundqvist, Kenneth Ögren, Mojgan Padyab & Mehdi Ghazinour
To cite this article: Johanna Sundqvist, Kenneth Ögren, Mojgan Padyab & Mehdi Ghazinour
(2015): Collaboration patterns among Swedish professionals in the repatriation of
unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children: an explorative study, European Journal of
Social Work, DOI: 10.1080/13691457.2015.1082981
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1082981
Published online: 14 Sep 2015.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
Collaboration patterns among Swedish professionals in the repatriation of
unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children: an explorative study
Samverkansmönster bland svenska professionella aktörer i arbetet med
ensamkommande asylsökande flyktingbarns återvändande: En explorativ
studie
Johanna Sundqvist
a,b
*, Kenneth Ögren
c
, Mojgan Padyab
c
and Mehdi Ghazinour
b,c
a
Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine, Epidemiology and Global Health Unit,
Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden;
b
Basic Training Programme for Police Officers, Umeå
University, Umeå, Sweden;
c
Department of Social Work, Umeå University, Umeå, Sweden
This study explores patterns of collaboration between Swedish professionals
involved in the repatriation of unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children.
A qualitative case study methodology was used. Semi-structured interviews were
conducted with a total of 20 statutory social workers, social workers at care
homes, police officers, Swedish Migration Board officers, and legal guardians. A
thematic approach was used to analyse the data. The results showed low levels of
collaboration among the professionals and the use of different strategies by the
professionals to manage their work tasks. Patterns were found among the
professionals: some tended to isolate themselves from interaction and acted on
the basis of personal preference, and others tended to behave sensitively,
withdraw, and become passive observers rather than active partners in the
repatriation process. These behaviours made it difficult for the relevant
professionals to employ dignity and efficiency in the repatriation of
unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children.
Keywords: collaboration; Sweden; repatriation; unaccompanied children; refugee
children
Denna studie undersöker svenska aktörers samverkansmönster i arbetet med
ensamkommande asylsökande flyktingbarn som ska återvända. Kvalitativ metod
har använts. Semistrukturerade intervjuer har genomförts med totalt tjugo
socialsekreterare som arbetar med ensamkommande flyktingbarn, personal vid
hem för vård och boende, poliser, handläggare på Migrationsverket och gode
män. En tematisk analysmetod har använts. Resultatet visade låg nivå av
samverkan mellan aktörerna och att de använde sig av olika strategier för att
hantera sina arbetsuppgifter. Varierande samverkansmönster kunde ses: vissa
tenderade att isolera sig från att interagera med andra aktörer och agerade
utifrån personliga preferenser, andra tenderade att bete sig känslomässigt, dra sig
undan och bli passiva observatörer snarare än aktiva deltagare i
återvändandeprocessen. Dessa beteenden gjorde det svårt för aktörerna att både
praktisera ett värdigt och effektivt arbete gällande de ensamkommande
asylsökande flyktingbarnen som skulle återvända.
Sökord: samverkan; Sverige; repatriering; ensamkommande barn; flyktingbarn
© 2015 Taylor & Francis
*Corresponding author. Email: johanna.sundqvist@umu.se
European Journal of Social Work, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2015.1082981
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
Introduction
War, armed conflicts, and political persecution send thousands of people fleeing every
day around the world. Many of these people are children under 18 years who are sep-
arated from parents and other relatives and who become unaccompanied refugee chil-
dren (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees [UNHCR], 2005). The
UNHCR has estimated that there are approximately 34,300 unaccompanied refugee
children worldwide (2015). Sweden and Germany registered one third of all unaccom-
panied refugee children asylum applications in 2014. The countries in the European
Union (EU) have agreed on a common migration policy that includes unaccompanied
refugee children, who are seen as an especially vulnerable group (Directive 2008/115/
EC). Part of the migration policy concerns asylum seekers who are not considered in
need of protection or who have other reasons to stay. These people have the opportu-
nity for a dignified return to their home countries or to a transit country. When repa-
triation involves an unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee child, several authority
actors become involved and must collaborate to preserve the child’s dignity. This
article examines how Swedish professionals address challenges in collaboration in
repatriation processes concerning unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children.
This issue is highly relevant because Sweden is one of the European countries that
has received the greatest number of refugees over the years. In 2014, approximately
7000 unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children came to Sweden. In 2015,
more than 8000 unaccompanied refugee children are expected to seek asylum in
Sweden (Swedish Migration Board [SMB], 2015a). With large numbers of refugees
received, repatriation also rises. In 2014, 26% of unaccompanied asylum-seeking
refugee children were not granted asylum (SMB, 2015b). When an unaccompanied
asylum-seeking refugee child repatriates, either to his or her home country or to a
transit country, the Swedish workers involved must consider two different demands.
The first demand requires dignified repatriation, which is incorporated into the
EU’s Return Directive (Directive 2008/115/EC) to Swedish Aliens Act (SFS,
2005:716). The second demand, directed at the SMB and the police authority, requires
that the repatriation process be conducted efficiently, which means that a higher
number of repatriation cases must be processed (Swedish Government, 2014a,
2014b). The fact that the same professionals have different and seemingly contradic-
tory requirements places high demands on the involved collaborators.
Four types of professionals collaborate in the Swedish child repatriation process.
Social services care homes (HVB, which is the Swedish acronym for Hem för vård
och boende), and the Board of Legal Guardians are both operated on a municipal
level. The police and the SMB, in contrast, are state operated. These professionals
are involved in different stages of the repatriation process. For instance, the police
are engaged only in cases in which a person is unwilling to cooperate in the repatria-
tion procedure. In such a scenario, the SMB refers the case to the border police for
enforcement (SFS, 2005:716).
One study from the UK on collaboration between police officers and social
workers in the reception of unaccompanied children found that the collaborators cri-
ticised each other’s work and that the children suffered the consequences by not
receiving the help they needed (Westwood, 2012). In the context of studying unac-
companied asylum-seeking refugee children, relatively little research has focused
on collaboration.
2J. Sundqvist et al.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
Therefore, this study aims to explore the patterns of collaboration between
Swedish authorities in the repatriation process. We believe that the knowledge gener-
ated by this investigation might provide insight to researchers, policy-makers, and
practitioners to help foster understanding of how the patterns of collaboration
affect the futures of unaccompanied asylum-seeking children.
The next section describes the Swedish asylum process, followed by a theoretical
presentation of the concept of collaboration.
The asylum process in a Swedish context
The SMB has the overall responsibility for unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee
children. SMB employees are responsible for receiving and reviewing applications
for asylum and, where appropriate, conducting age assessments, investigating the
child’s family members during the asylum period, and managing the practical repa-
triation arrangements for children who are not granted a residence permit.
When a child arrives alone in Sweden, a legal guardian (in Swedish, ‘god man’)is
appointed by the Board of Legal Guardians in the municipality where the child
resides. The legal guardian, who can be a layperson, is the custodian responsible for
the child’s personal circumstances and manages the child’s affairs throughout the
asylum process (SFS, 1994:137). In the repatriation process, the legal guardian sup-
ports the child in an eventual appeal and manages the communication with the SMB.
According to the Social Services Act (SFS, 2001:453), social services have the ulti-
mate responsibility for providing support to all individuals in need, including unac-
companied asylum-seeking refugee children residing in a municipality. Throughout
the asylum process, social services, and thus the statutory social workers who work
with the children, follow up on unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children.
They have close contact with the care homes and the legal guardians. In the repatria-
tion process, statutory social workers are responsible for the unaccompanied asylum-
seeking refugee children until their last moments before leaving the country. The social
services in the municipality are responsible for the children’s living arrangements.
Most unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children live in care homes at the begin-
ning of their stay in Sweden. Care homes can be operated by a municipality, a non-
governmental organisation, or a private owner and are inspected by the Health and
Social Care Inspectorate, a state agency. In a care home, the child has one or more
contact persons (social workers at the care homes) responsible for the child’s daily
living arrangements, schooling, healthcare needs, and nutrition. The contact
person’s interventions are governed by documents that are the responsibility of the
statutory social worker, who follows up on the child. The child remains at the care
home until the day he or she repatriates.
In Sweden, an asylum-seeking child must leave the country if such a decision has
been made by the SMB. Negative migration case outcomes can be appealed in the
Migration Court (in Swedish, Migrationsdomstolen). If a dispensation review is
granted, a case may even reach the final legal court, the Migration Court of Appeal
(Migrationsöverdomstolen).
When a final decision is made, one of the following scenarios often occurs:
(1) The child cooperates and accepts the repatriation. A repatriation decision may
not be enforced unless it is established that the childwill be received by a family
European Journal of Social Work 3
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
member, a nominated guardian, or a reception unit that is well suited to take
care of children (SFS, 2005:716).
(2) The child refuses to cooperate and will not return voluntarily. In this case, the
SMB submits the enforcement case to the police (SFS, 2005:716).
Because Sweden ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC; United
Nations General Assembly, 2013), the country must consider children’s perspectives in
every decision involving children. The portal section of CRC is, for example, included
in the Social Services Act (SFS, 2001:453) and the Aliens Act (SFS, 2005:716). The
CRC itself is not a law in Sweden. Thus, if a conflict occurs between the CRC and
national law, the latter prevails. The portal section of the CRC states that in all
actions concerning children, including public and private social welfare, institutions,
courts of law, administrative authorities, and legislation, the child’s best interest
must be the primary consideration. Furthermore, the CRC underscores that every
child has the right to live, survive, and develop. It also emphasises that every child
should be treated with respect and judged without discrimination.
The concept of collaboration
Previous studies have shown that there is no clear or unambiguous definition of collab-
oration. Even in various governmental publications, different concepts and meanings
are used (Johansson, 2008; Mallander, 1998). In the report Psychiatric Clinic in Ängel-
holm (1982), Berggren examined collaboration by focusing on the character of collab-
oration and the degree of integration between collaborating workers. Danermark and
Kullberg (1999) distinguished three levels of collaboration: structural, organisational,
and individual. Abrahamsson and Rosenthal (1995) divided collaboration into two
parts: the first, interdisciplinary collaboration, spans professional boundaries, and
the second, inter-organisational collaboration, spans organisational boundaries.
Horwath and Morrison (2007,2011)defined five types of collaboration: communi-
cation, or talking to each other, is the easiest form; cooperation involves more
enhanced cooperation on a case-by-case basis; coordination involves coordinating
efforts in a more formalised way; coalition occurs when organisations retain their
peculiarities, such as working on shared premises; and integration means that organ-
isations intend to create a new identity together. Horwath and Morrison (2007)
present communication as the lowest level of collaboration and integration as the
highest level. Low-level collaboration is authority focused and is characterised by
working towards different targets and goals, whereas high-level communication
focuses on services and is collaboration oriented. Furthermore, the authors emphasise
the importance of clear agreement on the structure of collaboration to achieve separ-
ation between different responsibilities. To define patterns and describe different types
of collaboration, we use Horwath and Morrison’sdefinition of collaboration as the
theoretical framework for this study. Our choice is based on their work with vulnerable
children.
Research on collaboration can be divided into two categories. One category indi-
cates the difficulty of collaboration (Johnson, Zorn, Kai Yung Tam, Lamontage, &
Johnson, 2003; Sandfort, 1999), and the second indicates how organisations can
achieve benefits from collaboration (Boklund, 1995; Danermark & Kullberg, 1999;
Darlington, Feeney, & Rixon, 2005). A lack of information on available services
4J. Sundqvist et al.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
and a lack of knowledge about the role of other workers have been reported as barriers
to initiating and maintaining collaborative work (Johnson et al., 2003). Sandfort
(1999) found that if there are strong disagreements between collaboration partners,
all information about and interactions with the other authority are perceived in a
way that amplifies the unwillingness of the professionals to collaborate.
To achieve an effective collaborative relationship, it is important to respect and
positively regard the other collaborators (Darlington et al., 2005). Previous studies
have identified factors that promote collaboration from a Swedish perspective.
Examples of success factors include a common starting point and frame of reference,
common methods of developing collaboration, careful discussion of objectives, prin-
ciples, and ethics before beginning collaboration (Danermark & Kullberg, 1999),
and the ability to understand each other and the various assignments (Boklund,
1995). A commonly held opinion is that collaboration is a necessity that produces
better outcomes compared with non-collaborative situations. Swedish national legis-
lation—for instance, the Social Services Act (SFS, 2001:453) and the government
bill strengthening protection for children in vulnerable situations (2002/03:53)—
states that social services have a responsibility to collaborate with all involved
actors. However, Bergmark and Lundström (2005) argue that collaboration consumes
time and energy, and research showing that the advantages outweigh the disadvan-
tages has been insufficient.
Methods
Study design and setting
To explore the repatriation phenomenon, we used a qualitative case study approach.
Yin (2009) describes a case study as an empirical inquiry, in which the focus is on a
contemporary phenomenon within its context in addition to understanding the
boundaries between such phenomena. It is therefore suitable for studying complex
social phenomena. This approach helps us to understand the complexity of the collab-
oration between professionals engaged in repatriation processes. We conducted 20
face-to-face interviews from May to August 2013. The participants were recruited
from social service organisations, care homes, the police authority, the SMB, and
the legal guardian administration, all of whom were involved in the repatriation of
unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children. The study took place in a middle-
sized to large municipality in Sweden with a population of more than 100,000. All
five types of workers were represented in the studied municipality. Since 2007, the
city in which the data were collected has developed a refugee reception system
through which unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children are resettled and
await a final decision regarding their permit applications. This situation made it poss-
ible to recruit participants who had worked with unaccompanied refugee children with
or without a permit. Ethical issues related to this research project were reviewed and
approved by the Regional Ethical Review Board at Umeå University, Dn 2014/
69-31Ö.
Sample and data collection
All staff members from statutory social service organisations, border police officers,
and officers at the SMB were included in the case study. A convenience sample was
European Journal of Social Work 5
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
chosen from among legal guardians and social workers at care homes. Statutory social
workers, social workers at care homes, police officers, officers at the SMB, and legal
guardians from one selected municipality in Sweden participated in the study. Four
statutory social workers, 5 police officers, 2 SMB officers, 30 social workers at care
homes, and 14 legal guardians were working with unaccompanied refugee children
at the time of the research project.
To collect data from the statutory social workers, the first author contacted a senior
officer at the social service organisation to explain the aim and purpose of the study.
Permission was obtained from the senior officer to contact all statutory social workers
to inform them about the study—specifically, the study’s aim, voluntary nature, and
assurances of confidentiality—and to gauge interest in participating. The same pro-
cedure was performed when collecting data from border police officers and SMB offi-
cers. Our sample, based on the case study, consisted of all four statutory social workers
(three women and one man) with an average work experience of three year, all five
border police officers (one woman and four men) with an average work experience
of two years, and both SMB officers (one woman and one man) with an average
work experience of five and a half years.
All social workers at care homes and legal guardians were emailed a letter that
explained the aim, voluntary nature, and confidentiality of the study. The sample con-
sisted of six social workers at care homes (four women and two men) with an average
work experience of four and a half years and three legal guardians (two women and
one man) with an average of six years of experience with unaccompanied asylum-
seeking refugee children The semi-structured interviews were divided into four
sections: the participant’s background, experience with the repatriation of refugee
children, guidelines and policies, and collaboration within the repatriation process.
Each section included a number of questions, and all interviews included the same
questions. With permission from the participants, the interviews were audio recorded
and transcribed. The average time of the interviews was approximately one hour.
Data analysis
All transcribed interviews were manually interpreted, structured, and compressed by
thematic analysis, in which the intention was to search for patterns in the data.
There are two different types of approaches in thematic analysis, inductive and deduc-
tive (Braun & Clarke, 2006). Deductive analysis (theory driven) refers to themes based
on existing theories. Inductive analysis involves identifying themes that are based on
what transpires in the data (i.e. themes identified during the analysis). Thematic analy-
sis can combine both inductive and deductive approaches. Most of our themes were
predetermined based on Horwath and Morrison’s(2007,2011)five types of collabor-
ation. The five themes were communication, cooperation, coordination, coalition, and
integration. During the analysis, new themes arose from the empirical material,
adding an inductive component to the analysis. In the inductive part of the analysis,
we followed Braun and Clarke’s(2006) recommendations for thematic analysis. We
initially became familiar with the data with a process-directed approach, that is,
reading and re-reading the transcribed interviews. After we understood the data
better, we generated initial codes, or sub-themes, which identified data points accord-
ing to the researcher. Third, using a mind map, we searched for themes paired with
each researcher. In step four, we compared our sub-themes and themes in several
6J. Sundqvist et al.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
meetings where we discussed and reflected on our findings. These discussions and
reflections generated the following themes pertaining to the professionals’behaviour
patterns in the repatriation process, namely, teamwork patterns, isolated patterns,
and sensitive patterns (Table 1).
Trustworthiness
The trustworthiness of a qualitative study is essential for transparency and for reflect-
ing on the effectiveness of the sample design, data collection, and analysis in addres-
sing the research questions (Dahlgren, Emmelin, & Winkvist, 2007). In this study, the
prolonged working experience of three of the researchers—the first, second, and last
authors—made it possible to obtain a broad understanding of the experiences of
the workers engaged in the repatriation process. In addition, investigator triangulation
was applied through continuous negotiations and discussions in the research group
about the preliminary findings. The research group represents different areas of exper-
tise and cultural understanding, which allowed us to understand and evaluate the find-
ings from different angles. The first and second authors are native Swedish researchers
and social workers with experience working with vulnerable people within the field of
social work in Sweden. The third and fourth authors are Swedish-Iranian researchers.
The fourth author is a social worker with experience with asylum-seeking refugees in
the mental health and public health fields and experience in multicultural social work
settings.
Results
Communication level
The majority of the participants’statements related to the communication level of col-
laboration in terms of existing and non-existing communication between workers
involved in the repatriation process of unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee
children.
All of the statutory social workers spoke about ‘receiving information’when
describing their communication with other workers. Their communication with care
homes was characterised by reading the children’s client files. The general opinion
Table 1. Overview of sub-themes and themes.
Sub-themes Themes
Compromises within the collaboration Teamwork patterns
Understanding each other’s roles
Help each other in repatriation work
Feeling lonely in repatriation work
Distancing themselves in repatriation work Isolated patterns
Make their own decisions in repatriation work
Criticizing other actors
Uncertainty about each other’s roles Sensitive patterns
Role bordering
European Journal of Social Work 7
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
of the statutory social workers was that their practical work with the returnees was
functional, but they wanted to have more connections with the other professionals.
Social workers at care homes and legal guardians received information about when
and how the border police were going to receive a child for repatriation, but they could
not reveal this information to the child. In one such case, a social worker expressed the
feeling of being a ‘traitor’.
It is almost better not to know. Because then you can truly say that we did not know this
was going on. When we know, then you feel like you have been lying and knew about this,
but said nothing …. [Social worker at a care home]
All SMB workers held the view that they only needed some information to manage
their work, mostly from legal guardians and, in some cases, from the border police.
Furthermore, one SMB worker did not think that they were obligated to contact
other workers after the asylum decision was made. This SMB worker argued that
because the unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children came with their legal
guardians to receive the asylum decision, the legal guardians could spread the word
if they wanted other workers to know about the decision.
I feel that the SMB’s role is to work with the legal guardian. The legal guardian is the one
who will monitor the young person’s interests, and if the legal guardian thinks that the
municipality should know that they received a negative decision, then the legal guardian
has to say it [to the municipality] …. [Staff at SMB]
Another SMB worker also thought that the secrecy that existed between the involved
workers was intended to protect the child and therefore was important to maintain.
Based on this person’s experience, the SMB worker believed that it was best for children
to have as few persons involved as possible. In practice, this meant that other workers
were sometimes not informed regarding when the return trip would occur.
It may be difficult for the person [the child] to be handed over to the police, and the person
may not want that information to be held by someone else …. [Staff at SMB]
The majority of the border police mentioned the importance of informing other
workers about where they were in the enforcement process so that everyone would
know what was happening. One of them also mentioned the importance of the
other workers having general knowledge of the border police work.
It can get a little difficult, and that means we may not tell everyone [workers] about what
we intend to do. Many times it’s because then we cannot get the person to be enforced. It
is important that we have this structure that we’ve talked to everyone about, so that you
know when this is happening …. [Border police]
Cooperation level
At the cooperation level, more than half of the statutory social worker group believed
that like-minded thinking was one way to achieve successful collaboration with the
other workers.
8J. Sundqvist et al.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
It feels good, the times you’ve talked together about some things and you were thinking
reasonably similar …. [Statutory social worker]
One SMB staff also spoke, from the perspective of experience, about the merits of
sharing thoughts and actions with other workers:
The longer a municipality has been receiving unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee
children, the more experienced they are …. [Staff at SMB]
One border police, in contrast, did not believe that different ways of thinking about
roles presented an obstacle to collaboration.
No, we’re thinking in different ways. We should reasonably do that…. [Border police]
One social worker at care homes mentioned the importance of structuring the work
they shared with the legal guardians from the outset so that everyone knew their roles.
One legal guardian held a similar opinion:
We simply make up our plans and write down who is responsible for the different things
…. [Legal guardian]
The majority of border police officers were clear that their assignment demanded a
high level of cooperation to make the enforcement process dignified for the child. One
border police officer gave an example of a time when he gathered everyone involved
around a table:
I wanted everyone’s [the authorities’and the child’s] voice to be given considerable weight
somewhere …. [Border police]
Coordination level
Few statements were identified on the coordination level for all workers. Half of the
statutory social workers group said that they wanted to have more exchange at the
coordination level, but they were uncertain who was responsible for that type of col-
laboration and how to make it happen. At one previous meeting, a group of represen-
tatives from different fields had discussed issues concerning unaccompanied asylum-
seeking refugee children:
We actually talked about that we would like to resume it [coordination] …. [Statutory
social worker]
One border police noted that their collaboration at the coordination level started at
a personal level but that it was at a functional level several years later:
It is probably the case that it is based on function. So I feel, even though perhaps it
was at the individual level from the beginning, it has evolved to function …. [Border
police]
European Journal of Social Work 9
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
Coalition and integration
We could not find anyone who mentioned any examples from these two levels of
collaboration.
In the following section, we present the results from the three different collabor-
ation patterns we identified from the data: teamwork patterns, isolated patterns, and
sensitive patterns.
Teamwork patterns
One social worker at care homes mentioned that compromise was necessary to create a
sense of teamwork in the workplace:
It is hard work as well. They [statutory social workers] have said what they thought not
has been working out from our side, and we have done the same thing. Then, we have
made something good out of it …. [Social worker at the care home]
All of the workers mentioned the importance of understanding each other’s roles
for successful collaboration. If legal guardians understand why border police officers
do not reveal when they are going to pick up a child prior to repatriation, then the
guardians may realise that doing otherwise would place the legal guardian into an
uncomfortable situation in which he or she must make the decision to either reveal
that the child will soon be repatriated or remain silent and feel like a traitor.
It may be a high demand to insist that one should be quiet, too. Then, it’s just as good that
we are not talking, because then there will be no confidence crisis between them [the legal
guardian and the child] …. [Border police]
Isolated patterns
All workers mentioned feeling lonely in their roles working with unaccompanied asylum-
seeking refugee children. Half of the statutory social workers felt lonely if they had an
opinion about the children’s wellbeing that opposed other workers’opinions. The
other half of the statutory social workers mentioned feeling that they lacked a
common mission in their work with unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children.
Both SMB officers also mentioned feeling lonely in their role. Their focus inthe repatria-
tion process involved giving unaccompanied children the opportunity to reunite with
their parents. However, they did not think that the other workers had the same approach.
All legal guardians also expressed feelings of loneliness in their role as the child’s
voice in the asylum process:
It can be quite [an] exposed [situation] to be a legal guardian …. [Legal guardian]
The majority of the border police officers also mentioned loneliness. They were
seen as a threat not only by the unaccompanied child but also by other authorities.
All social workers from care homes described their role as distancing themselves
from the SMB. If they had contact with the SMB, then a child might think that the
care home workers could influence the SMB’s asylum decision. Therefore, the social
workers wanted the legal guardians to be that contact.
10 J. Sundqvist et al.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
It was not the thought that we should have contact with the SMB. The times we had it, it
was an exception because the legal guardian was not available …. [Social worker at the
care home]
A few social workers at care homes and legal guardians felt that collaboration was
impaired when other government authorities determined the course of action:
You feel compelled to participate, but you are trying to not make it easy for them [border
police] …. [Legal guardian]
When collaboration does not occur, legal guardians have the right to take control
of the situation. Their role provides them with broad discretion to make decisions in
the interest of the child. For instance, legal guardians can move a child from a
care home that they consider negative for the child despite the objections of social
services.
Sensitive patterns
The statutory social workers’criticism was mostly directed towards what they per-
ceived to be wrong decisions by the SMB and inappropriate behaviour from the
border police and legal guardians. Often, their criticism pertained to actions that
made the process less dignified for the child:
We also talked to some legal guardians specifically. Youhave to be an adult as well. Every-
thing the child wants and thinks does not always have to be the best for the child. [Stat-
utory social worker]
A few statutory social workers said that they felt a difficult-to-define uncertainty as
to how they should collaborate with other professionals:
I think it is clear who does what in the different processes. But it may not be …. [Statutory
social worker]
One statutory social worker and a legal guardian also mentioned the importance of
not interfering with other authorities’assignments and remaining within the bound-
aries of their roles.
I assume my responsibilities and have not taken it as my responsibility to care about how
the police do their job, for example. I must assume that they do their job, and they will
assume that I’m doing mine …. [Statutory social worker]
No, I will not hasten or do something; they can work and then get in touch …. [Legal
guardian]
Discussion
The aim of the present study was to explore the patterns of collaboration between
various Swedish authorities and administration (the social services, including the
European Journal of Social Work 11
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
care homes, the police authority, the SMB, and the board of legal guardians) in the
repatriation process of unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children. Our findings
revealed several levels of collaboration and three types of working patterns: teamwork,
isolation, and sensitivity.
Levels of collaboration
The workers described different needs for collaboration within their roles in the repa-
triation process. Most of the collaboration took place at the two lowest levels of col-
laboration: communication and cooperation. The SMB staff, who have relatively little
contact with the involved children, generally indicated less of a need for collaboration
than the other workers. The statutory social workers saw a need for stronger collabor-
ation, but they seemed to be unable to implement collaboration, even though regu-
lations (Governmental bill, 2002/03:53) have given them the overall responsibility
for collaboration in this area. The border police officers expressed their need for
close collaboration with other workers to keep the enforcement process as dignified
as possible for the child. Their collaborative work was mostly discussed at the
cooperation and coordination levels. Based on the different levels of collaboration
defined by Horwath and Morrison (2007), the statements of the participants in our
study exemplified a rather low level of collaboration, which could be interpreted as
indicating their authority-focused collaboration. This study found no examples of col-
laboration at the integration or coalition levels. One possible explanation for this
result, as expressed by the statutory social workers, is that the workers do not have
knowledge regarding how to collaborate closely. In a study of child protection pro-
fessionals, Darlington and Feeney (2008) showed that the professionals themselves
called for improved communication, an enhanced knowledge base for collaborators,
and adequate resources for managing a higher level of collaboration. A US study of
workers involved in refugee and child welfare services identified a critical lack of com-
munication and coordination between the involved workers, despite the staff’s beliefs
in the benefits of collaboration (Morland, Dunean, Hoebing, Kirsehke, & Sehmidt,
2005). Darlington et al. (2005) found that inter-organisational collaboration had
benefits, such as reduced anxiety, for both vulnerable children and professionals.
Patterns of collaboration
Our findings suggest three types of working patterns in professionals engaged in the
repatriation of unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children: teamwork, isolation,
and sensitivity. All professionals involved in repatriation aimed to consider the chil-
dren’s best interest; this was their main reason for collaboration. However, conflicting
demands from the government—to perform the repatriation process both efficiently
and with dignity (SFS, 2005:716; Swedish Government, 2014a,2014b)—made it dif-
ficult to meet the requirements of the CRC (United Nations General Assembly,
2013). In a Swedish study of children’s case workers at the SMB, Ottosson, Eastmond,
and Schierenbeck (2013) found that despite the authority’s promotion of children’s
rights, children tended to be placed in the margins of daily organisational practice.
The strategies of isolated and sensitive professionals created reduced collaboration
compared to what might occur between professionals with a teamwork-focused
agenda, who would be more likely to act in the child’s best interest.
12 J. Sundqvist et al.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
The teamwork pattern is characterised by professionals who understand the differ-
ent roles in the repatriation process, are willing to compromise for the sake of collab-
oration, and are helpful to the collaborating workers in the repatriation process. These
professionals have a collaborative perspective, according to Horwath and Morrison
(2007). The presence of a common mission, common collaborating methods, an
understanding of each other and the various assignments, and a positive attitude
towards other collaborators are success factors in collaboration (Boklund, 1995;
Danermark & Kullberg, 1999; Darlington et al., 2005). The strength of teamwork-
focused professionals is their motivation to collaborate with other professionals
involved in the children’s repatriation. This can be seen as an example of what the
Swedish Aliens Act calls ‘a dignified return’(SFS, 2005:716). A challenge for this
type of professional is the time necessary for collaboration (Sheehan, Paed-Erbrederis,
& McLoughlin, 2000).
The isolated pattern is characterised by professionals who distance themselves in
the repatriation process, feel lonely, and make decisions despite other workers’objec-
tions. They are lonely in the repatriation process. According to Horwath and Morrison
(2007), the pattern of this type of professional represents authority-focused collabor-
ation because it is more important for them to execute their own decisions than to
negotiate with other workers. Maynard-Moody and Musheno (2003) note the ten-
dency of these professionals to define themselves based on their identification with
the person they are helping, which affects their behaviour. Isolated professionals
may be important people for the child because they fight for the child’s rights, but
they also fight against other collaborators rather than working with them. The chal-
lenge for this type of professional may be that different workers operate with different
knowledge bases, discourses, and conceptual frameworks, which may lead to misun-
derstanding and disagreement in communication and joint decision-making (Davis,
2012). This strategy impairs professionals’ability to collaborate to meet the child’s
needs when their focus is on authority (Horwath & Morrison, 2007; Ziviani, Darling-
ton, Feeney, Meredith, & Head, 2013).
The sensitive pattern is characterised by professionals who criticise other workers
in the repatriation process. They are uncertain of the other workers’roles, and they
want to maintain the boundaries of their role by not interfering with the work of
others. They are passive observers rather than active participants in the repatriation
process. Sandfort (1999) showed that strong disagreements between collaboration
partners reduce the willingness to collaborate. Westwood (2012) found that people
involved in work with unaccompanied children criticised the work of others in colla-
borative situations.
Conclusions
Even though all professionals involved in working with unaccompanied asylum-
seeking refugee children agreed on their main task—making the repatriation
process as dignified as possible for the child—our findings showed that their collabor-
ations were conspicuously low. These findings should be interpreted in light of unac-
companied refugee children’s vulnerable situation. In particular, what impact does low
collaboration between workers have on unaccompanied refugee children, knowing
that they are exposed to an extreme situation while living under asylum seeker
status? From this point of view, and with regards to the CRC, our conclusion is that
European Journal of Social Work 13
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
the Swedish government’s demands to both be ‘efficient’and make the repatriation
‘dignified’for the child have resulted in difficulties.
As we have seen, repatriation processes are complex, and the government has not
yet provided any systematic review of this work. This has led to disorganised patterns
characterised by professionals acting outside of their own framework in the collabor-
ation process of repatriating unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children.
There is little knowledge about the repatriation of unaccompanied asylum-seeking
refugee children, both in terms of the repatriation process itself and in terms of the pro-
fessionals engaged in that process. In this study, we have started to shed light on this
issue, but further research is necessary. One research direction could involve deepening
the understanding of how child repatriation professionals perceive their general
mental health and how they cope with their work tasks. Another direction could
involve listening to one essential involved party that is seldom consulted: the children
themselves. Further research could give these children a voice to tell their own story
about the repatriation experience.
Finally, the strength of our study lies in the application of the case study method,
which enabled us to explore a complex social phenomenon. However, there are some
limitations worth mentioning in this study.
Our results are based on a single case study examining collaboration patterns of
professionals in the repatriation of unaccompanied asylum-seeking refugee children
in the context of one single municipality. Conducting this study in several municipa-
lities might have yielded a different pattern of collaboration.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Funding
This work was supported by the European Return Fund [grant number R16-209-1-01].
Notes on contributors
Johanna Sundqvist is a Ph.D. student at Department of Public Health and Clinical Medicine,
Epidemiology and Global Health Unit at Umeå University. She is also involved in projects
within Basic Training Programme for Police Officers. She has a Bachelor degree in Social
work and have been working with vulnerable adolescents for 10 years.
Kenneth Ögren is a Senior lecturer at the Department of Social Work, Umeå University. He has
a Bachelor degree in Social work and is a Phd in medical science. His thesis deals with the history
of psychosurgery in Sweden 1947 to 1958 with special respect to lobotomy performed at a State
Mental Hospital in northern Sweden.
Mojgan Padyab is a Statistician, MPH, and researcher at Department of Social Work, Umeå
University. She obtained her doctorate in Social work from Umeå University with research
about client violence toward Iranian Social Workers.
Mehdi Ghazinour is Professor of Social Work, licensed psychotherapist and clinical supervisor.
He is also Director of the Research Program for Basic Training Programme for Police Officers at
Umeå University. He obtained his doctorate on stress, trauma and resilience in Medical Faculty,
Department of Psychiatry, Umeå University.
14 J. Sundqvist et al.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
References
Abrahamsson, J., & Rosenthal, B. (1995). Interdisciplinary and inter-organizational collabor-
ation. In R. Edwards (Ed.), Encyclopedia of social work (19th ed., pp. 1479–1489). Silver
Spring, MD: National Association of Social Workers.
Bergmark, Å., & Lundström, T. (2005). Med förenade krafter? Om individ och familjeomsor-
gens samverkan med andra myndigheter [Joint strengths? On the collaboration between per-
sonnel social services and other authorities]. Socionomens Forskningssupplement,17,1–20.
Boklund, A. (1995). Olikheter som berikar?—möjligheter och hinder i samarbetet mellan
socialtjänstens äldre-och handikappomsorg, barnomsorg samt individ-och familjeomsorg
[Enriching dissimilarities? Co-operation within the local social services in Sweden]
(Doctoral thesis). Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in
Psychology,3(2), 77–101. doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa
Dahlgren, L., Emmelin, M., & Winkvist, A. (2007). A Qualitative methodology for international
public health. Umeå: Epidemiology and Public Health Sciences, Department of Public Health
and Clinical Medicine, Umeå University.
Danermark, B., & Kullberg, C. (1999). Samverkan: Välfärdsstatens nya arbetsform
[Collaboration: The welfare state’s new work form]. Lund: Studentlitteratur.
Darlington, Y., & Feeney, A. J. (2008). Collaboration between mental health and child protec-
tion services: Professionals’perceptions of best practice. Children and Youth Services Review,
30, 187–198. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.09.005
Darlington, Y., Feeney, A. J., & Rixon, K. (2005). Interagency collaboration between child pro-
tection and mental health services: Practices, attitudes and barriers. Child Abuse & Neglect,
29, 1085–1098. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.04.005
Davis, C. (2012). Statewide interagency collaboration. Washington, DC: Technical Assistance
Partnership for Child and Family Mental Health.
Directive 2008/115/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on
common standards and procedures in Member States for returning illegally staying third-
country nationals. Strasbourg: European Union.
Governmental bill. (2002/03:53). Stärkt skydd för barn i utsatta situationer m.m [Strengthening
protection for children in vulnerable situations, etc.]. Stockholm: Ministry of Health and
Social Affairs.
Horwath, J., & Morrison, T. (2007). Collaboration, integration and change in children’s services:
Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse and Neglect,31,55–69. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.
2006.01.007
Horwath, J., & Morrison, T. (2011). Effective inter-agency collaboration to safeguard children:
Rising to the challenge through collective development. Children and Youth Services Review,
33, 368–375. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2010.10.002
Johansson, S. (2008). Myndighetssamverkan i barnahus—organisering, innehåll och process.
Delrapport 4 i utvärderingen av nationell försöksverksamhet med barnahus 2006–2007
[Authority collaboration in Barnahus—organisation, content, and process. Interim report 4
of the evaluation of the national pilot project with Barnahus 2006–2007]. Lund: Media-
Tryck Sociologen.
Johnson, L. J., Zorn, D., Kai Yung Tam, B., Lamontage, M., & Johnson, S. A. (2003).
Stakeholders’views of factors that impact successful interagency collaboration. Exeptional
Children,69(2), 195–209.
Mallander, O. (1998). Samverkan [Collaboration]. In V. Denvall, & T. Jacobson (Eds.),
Vardagsbegrepp i Socialt arbete—Ideologi, teori och praktik [Everyday Concepts in Social
Work—Ideology, Theory and Practice] (pp. 133–155). Stockholm: Norstedts Juridik.
Maynard-Moody, S., & Musheno, M. (2003). Cops, teachers, counsellors: Studies from the front
lines of public services. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Morland, L., Dunean, J., Hoebing, J., Kirsehke, J., & Sehmidt, L. (2005). Bridging refugee youth
and children’s services: A case study of cross-service training. Child Welfare,84(5), 791–812.
Ottosson, L., Eastmond, M., & Schierenbeck, I. (2013). Safeguarding a child perspective in
asylum reception: Dilemmas of children’s case workers in Sweden. Journal of Refugee
Studies,26(2), 247–264. doi:10.1093/jrs/fes024
European Journal of Social Work 15
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
Psychiatric Clinic in Ängelholm. (1982). Psykiatriska kliniken i Ängelholm [Psychiatric Clinic in
Ängelholm]. Stockholm: Spri.
Sandfort, J. (1999). The structural impediments to human service collaboration: Examining
welfare reform at the front lines. Social Services Review,73(3), 314–339. doi:10.1086/514426
SFS [Swedish Statute Book]. (1994:137). Lag om mottagande av asylsökande m.fl[Swedish
Reception of Asylum Seekers and Others Act]. Stockholm: Ministry of Justice.
SFS [Swedish Statute Book]. (2001:453). Socialtjänstlag [Social Services Act]. Stockholm:
Ministry of Health and Social Affairs.
SFS [Swedish Statute Book]. (2005:716). Utlänningslag [Aliens Act]. Stockholm: Ministry of
Justice.
Sheehan, R., Paed-Erbrederis, C., & McLoughlin, A. (2000). The ICARUS project: Implications
for children with adult relatives under stress. Clayton: Department of Social Work, Monash
University.
Swedish Government. (2014a). Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2014 avseende Migrationsverket
[Appropriation direction for the year 2014 regarding Swedish Migration Board].
Stockholm: Ministry of Justice.
Swedish Government. (2014b). Regleringsbrev för budgetåret 2014 avseende Rikspolisstyrelsen
och övriga myndigheter inom polisorganisationen [Appropriation direction for the year 2014
regarding the National Police and other authorities in the police organization]. Stockholm:
Ministry of Justice.
Swedish Migration Board. (2015a). Verksamhets- och kostnadsprognos februari 2015 [Operational
and cost forecast Februari 2015]. Retrieved from http://www.migrationsverket.se/download/18.
39a9cd9514a346077211b3c/1422960339762/Migrationsverkets+februariprognos+P2-15.pdf
Swedish Migration Board. (2015b). Aktuellt om ensamkommande barn och ungdomar [News on
unaccompanied children and adolescents]. Retrieved from /18.39a9cd9514a34607721145c/
1421757337506/Aktuellt_om_ januari_2015.pdf
United Nations General Assembly. (2013). Convention on the rights of the child. Retrieved from
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/ProfessionalInterest/crc.pdf
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2005). Refugee status determination—
Identifying who is a refugee. Geneva: Author.
United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. (2015). Global trends. Forced displacement in
2014. (UNHCR, Ed., and Trans.). Geneva: Author.
Westwood, L. J. (2012). Constructing risk and avoiding need: Findings from interviews with
social workers and police officers involved in safeguarding work with migrant children.
Child Abuse Review,21, 349–361. doi:10.1002/car.2202
Yin, R. K. (2009). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). London: Sage.
Ziviani, J., Darlington, Y., Feeney, R., Meredith, P., & Head, B. (2013). Children with disabil-
ities in out-of-home care: Perspectives on organisational collaborations. Children and Youth
Services Review,35(5), 797–805. doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2013.02.003
16 J. Sundqvist et al.
Downloaded by [Umeå University Library] at 07:21 16 September 2015
