Children’s rights organizations in Sweden and their relation to public child welfare

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a mapping of the Swedish children’s rights organizations (SCROs) and an analysis of how these organizations relate to public child welfare. SCROs represent a children’s rights discourse and are active as voice and service producers in the field of social work with vulnerable children. It can be presumed that SCROs affect public child welfare and by extension vulnerable children in need of support. This warrants a mapping of the SCROs and an examination of their organizational and professional space in regard to public child welfare. In total, 22 SCROs were found through internet searches (keywords e.g. ‘children’s rights’, ‘organization’, ‘association’ and ‘commitment’) and categorized based on a qualitative content analysis of the organizations’ websites. Seven SCROs operating on a domestic level are analysed in regard to their provided voice and service efforts. The findings suggest that there has been a growth in the number and activities of SCROs. Based on critical children’s rights studies and the concept of child rights governance, the ideological shift from child protection to children’s rights among these organizations is discussed. The rhetoric of SCROs implies a positioning of public child welfare as an ultimate duty bearer, while the organizations take on an expert role. Furthermore, SCROs appear to assume the role of child rights advocates. From a critical perspective, the children’s rights discourse brought forward by SCROs involves a juridification that risks to polarize the relation between children and public child welfare as well as undermining the legitimacy of public child welfare.

KEYWORDS:

• Children’s rights organiations
• critical children’s rights studies
• child rights governance

Introduction and aim

Over the last decades, Sweden has been identified as an example of a welfare state in transition. Traditionally, the country is associated with extensive state responsibility and universalistic public welfare services. However, since the 1990s the role of the state has changed and the field for private actors and civil society organizations (CSOs) has expanded (Lundberg 2017; Wijkström 2012).

In the last few years, a relatively new group of CSOs, the Swedish children’s rights organizations (SCROs) have engaged in the societal debate in Sweden, claiming to represent children and questioning the capacity of authorities, such as public child welfare (PCW), to comply with the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). With the ideological content of children’s rights, SCROs could be considered to both reflect and promote a children’s rights discourse. Furthermore, SCROs provide services aimed at vulnerable children – i.e. partially the same group of children that come into contact with PCW. Thus, SCROs could be considered to operate in the field of social work with vulnerable children as both voice- and service producers.

According to the Social Services Act (SoL) of 2001:453, the Swedish social services have the utmost responsibility to ensure that individuals, including children, receive the support and help they need. The Swedish social services are administered by local agencies in each of Sweden’s 290 municipalities. In these municipalities, social services are organized into departments, dealing with different areas, including PCW. PCW investigates and administers support and protection for children at risk at first hand on a voluntary but also at a compulsory basis. Support and protection efforts administered by PCW includes e.g. family support and out-of-home care (Cocozza and Hort 2011).

SCROs and their relation to PCW can be understood in the light of the Swedish political context and the discursive shift towards children’s rights at the end of the twentieth century. Sandin (2011) argues that changes in the state governance in regard to children’s issues must be considered against the backdrop of the economic and ideological crisis in Sweden in the 1990s. Since the post-war construction of the welfare state, the Swedish state has played a role as an implementer of general reforms, with the aim to improve the living conditions of children. PCW serves as an example of such reform. However, the state’s role in matters concerning children’s living conditions has evolved to emphasize children’s rights as a goal of social policy. Consequently, the responsibility for these issues was partially decentralized from the central state (i.e. the political) to local agencies (i.e. PCW) and their civil servants (Sandin 2011). One could argue that the shift in responsibility was further strengthened by the transition in the legal status of the CRC, from being ratified (in 1990) to being incorporated into Swedish law in 2020 (cf. Leviner 2018). Hence, Sandin (2011) claims that the increased emphasis on children’s rights has replaced a withdrawn central state, which also made room for CSOs in the field of children’s rights.

Thus, it can be assumed that the relationship between SCROs and PCW is affected by the children’s rights discourse. As producers of voice and service in the field of social work with vulnerable children, the SCROs could be expected to affect the social work of PCW. By extension, the relationship between SCROs and PCW could have consequences for children in need of support. This warrants an examination of the SCROs and their relation to PCW. The present study is an initial part of such an endeavour, aiming to map the field of SCROs. Furthermore, the purpose is to analyse the organizational and professional space of SCROs in relation to PCW. How do these organizations position themselves in regard to PCW, in terms of how they present their aims, programmes, and agency?

After an initial mapping of SCROs, seven organizations operating at a domestic level are analysed based on information from their websites. In this study, critical children’s rights studies and the theoretical concept of child rights governance (cf. Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019) serves as a framework to discuss the organizational and professional space for SCROs in relation to PCW. As an analytical tool, child rights governance enables a contextualization and problematization of the children’s rights discourse and its consequences (Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019).

The research field

There are several concepts used to describe organizations that are active in civil society. In this study, the term CSOs is used rather than ‘voluntary organizations’ or NGOs.

In recent decades, research on CSOs has dealt with new forms of organizations as well as changed roles of CSOs in relation to the central state and its citizens both in Sweden and internationally (cf. Lundberg 2017; Reuter, Wijkström, and Meyer 2014; Skocpol 2003; Wijkström 2012; Wijkström and Zimmer 2011). Due to the expansive public sector, rather than having a central mission as producers of welfare, CSOs in Sweden have traditionally been equated with member-based popular movements, closely connected to the central state (e.g. Lundström and Wijkström 1997; Reuter, Wijkström, and Meyer 2014; Wijkström 2012). Commonly, the popular movements have been considered to fulfil an important role in the democratic society, perceived to constitute the voice of the citizens and as watchdogs in relation to the central state and its agencies (e.g. Arvidson et al. 2018; Lundström and Wijkström 1997; Salamon and Anheier 1998; Wijkström and Zimmer 2011). However, during the economic and ideological crisis of the 1990s, there was an increased interest of CSOs as welfare service providers within the Swedish context (e.g. Lundström and Wijkström 1997). Furthermore, the organizational structures of CSOs underwent gradual transformations. Broadly, Wijkström (2011) describes a shift from member-based popular movements towards social enterprises functioning as both business and charity. The development corresponds to the American context where the shift has been described as a movement from member-based organizations towards professional advocacy organizations (cf. Skocpol 2003). Advocacy organizations have been characterized as originating in normative beliefs, working for social changes through lobbying for policy and institutional transformations in favour of the group they promote (Hudson 2001; Prakash and Gugerty 2010). In parallel to research on the changed forms of CSOs, scholars have problematized the normative, one-sided positive perception of CSOs, which characterizes much of the research. Instead, emphasis has been placed on the need to recognize the overarching purpose of CSOs, which is to disseminate and shape values and ideologies (cf. Reuter, Wijkström, and Meyer 2014).

Analytically, the activities of the CSOs have been conceptualized in terms of the provision of service and voice (Lundström and Wijkström 1997; Reuter, Wijkström, and Meyer 2014). While service simply refer to the more tangible services that the organizations offer, voice refers to the production of ideology for the interests of the group that the organization represents (Lundström and Wijkström 1997) – i.e. work with the purpose of influencing public opinion (Lundström 2001). Advocacy, a concept related to voice, refers to activities aimed at influencing political decision-making (cf. Reuter, Wijkström, and Meyer 2014). Furthermore, in a more general sense ‘advocating’ has been defined as ‘to give voice to’ (cf. Dalrymple 2003). In mainly Anglo-Saxon countries, there are children’s rights advocacy organizations, and children’s rights advocacy exists as a professional activity (cf. Bendo 2020; Dalrymple 2003; Litzelfelner and Petr 1997). The origin of children’s rights advocacy has been traced to the role of the CSOs during the negotiations on the CRC. Child rights advocates unite in the promotion of the CRC and its basic concepts such as the best interests of the child and child participation (Cantwell 2011). Child rights advocates function as representatives for children in relation to organized public support (Dalrymple 2003; Litzelfelner and Petr 1997). Although the term ‘advocacy’ has not been widely employed to describe the work of Swedish CSOs, it can be argued that the popular movements in Sweden have fostered a long-standing tradition of what could be considered advocacy work among these organizations (cf. Arvidson et al. 2018).

Research specifically targeting Swedish CSOs that focus on children is limited. Some studies adopt a historical perspective (Lundström 2001; Lundström and Wijkström 1997), while others focus on specific organizations, such as Rädda Barnen Sverige (Save the Children Sweden) (Grosse 2007; Lindkvist 2018; Sturfelt 2018) and Bris (Children’s Rights in Society) (Linblad 2012; Lundström 2001; Osvaldsson and Sköld 2018; Sköld and Osvaldsson Cromdal 2019). Additionally, at the turn of the millennium, a compilation of Swedish and Nordic research on voluntary social work, specifically focusing on children, was published by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare (2001).

Bris and Rädda Barnen Sverige were during the final decades of the 20th century the most prominent among the so-called child protection organizations. By representing a child protection discourse, they criticized the Swedish central state for not sufficiently intervening to protect children. However, as the child protection organizations were included in collaboration with the central state, the criticism diminished in strength. Through positioning themselves in a child protection discourse, these organizations gained legitimacy and power. In line with CSOs in Sweden generally, these organizations have been said to function as a complement but not a substitute to state responsibility (Lundström 2001).

Recently, Bris (Sköld and Osvaldsson Cromdal 2019) and Rädda Barnen Sverige (Lindkvist 2018; Sturfelt 2018) have adopted a discourse of rights (cf. Lindkvist 2018; Sturfelt 2018). The increased focus on children’s rights has been discussed as an adoption of a symbolic currency (of children’s rights) that gained influence in an international political context and which has created legitimacy for the organizations (Holzscheiter 2005; Lindkvist 2018; Sköld and Osvaldsson Cromdal 2019). Sköld and Osvaldsson Cromdal (2019), conclude that Bris’ criticism has shifted focus during the 21st century. From having been directed towards the central state, the criticism came to focus on welfare institutions and their lack of compliance with the CRC. Bris described the welfare institutions as both the cause of and the solution to children’s problems (Sköld and Osvaldsson Cromdal 2019).

Recently, a discussion has arisen among researchers about the children’s rights discourse evolving from a focus on implementation towards a struggle among actors to constitute a legitimate voice and representative of children (Josefsson et al. 2023). The present study connects to such a discussion from the perspective of Sweden. In the Swedish context, there is a lack of studies that discuss the development of CSOs in social work with vulnerable children. There is no comprehensive survey of SCROs in Sweden and no systematic study of how SCROs relate to PCW.

Theoretical perspective

The theoretical perspective of this study closely aligns with the findings of previous research. Critical children’s rights studies is an expanding field of research calling for a problematization and contextualization of the assertion of children’s rights (cf. Quennerstedt 2013; Reynaert et al. 2015). Children’s rights can be said to constitute the ideology of SCROs, and internationally, CSOs have been regarded as representatives of a children’s rights discourse (cf. Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019). In this study, critical children’s rights studies and the framing of the child rights discourse serves as a background for the analysis on how SCROs relate to PCW. Furthermore, the concept of child rights governance (Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019) is used as an analytical tool to conceptualize the organizational and professional space of SCROs in relation to PCW.

Critical children’s rights researchers have argued that the notion of children’s rights have reached a hegemonic status (Quennerstedt 2013) as it is equated with improvements for children and their living conditions. Hence, there is general consensus on children’s rights as something undeniably good and desirable (Quennerstedt 2013; Reynaert et al. 2015). Critical children’s rights scholars have identified a children’s rights discourse, that has come to dominate and shape all levels of society. The children’s rights discourse is characterized by certain normatively charged assumptions (Reynaert et al. 2015). Besides the central presumption that children’s rights mean improvements for children, children’s rights are understood as an objective goal that can be comprehended and applied at both a group and an individual level. Furthermore, there is a tendency to formulate the lack of children’s rights as a problem that precedes social problems and other perspectives on causes of children’s difficulties (Reynaert et al. 2015).

Critical children’s rights scholars have highlighted the vagueness and contextual dependence of concepts associated with the CRC. In line with this observation, they call for a nuanced and contextualized examination of the assertion of children’s rights, investigating the practical consequences for children (Reynaert et al. 2015). For example, the children’s rights discourse has been problematized as it is ultimately a legal perspective that tends to re-negotiate social issues in terms of law – that is a juridification. Such a juridification also affect social relations, e.g. between children and professionals. There is a potential risk that such an approach entails a polarization of social relations (cf. Reynaert, Bouverne-De Bie, and Vandevelde 2012).

Critical children’s rights scholars argue that the children’s rights discourse and the normative approach it represents have come to characterize society at large, including policymakers and research on children and childhood. Consequently, the CRC and children’s rights have evolved to constitute a standard for evaluations of institutions (Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019). Child rights governance has been advanced as a concept targeting how notions of children’s rights and actors associated with children’s rights have come to shape and govern society, e.g. institutions (Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019). Child rights governance encompasses four partially overlapping dimensions – temporality, spatiality, subjectivity, and normativity (Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019). In this study, these four dimensions are used to structure the discussion of the organizational and professional space of SCROs in relation to PCW.

Temporality highlights the importance of acknowledging that the concept of children’s rights evolved from earlier ideas about children’s needs. As such, temporality offers a historical perspective on the ideological message conveyed by SCROs. Spatiality directs attention to the importance of the place in understanding how children’s rights are interpreted and attributed meaning. In this study spatiality refers to SCROs addressing PCW with a children’s rights message. Thus, in this study, the place, i.e. the subject of child rights governance is PCW. Subjectivity refers to the impact of child rights governance on children’s subjectivities, identities, and relations. This dimension is briefly touched upon in this study due to the potentially changing role of the relationship between children and PCW. Normativity points to the moral and normative principles laden in child rights governance. Thus, power is embedded in the assertion of children’s rights (cf. Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019). In this study, normativity is actualized in how SCROs relate to PCW.

Method and material

The empirical material consists of the organizations’ descriptions of their activities on their websites. Presumedly, SCROs benefit from attention and therefore make themselves known in various contexts on the internet (e.g. Auger 2013; Saxton, Guo, and Brown 2007). As a first step, Google’s search engine was used to identify relevant organizations. A series of search terms and combinations of words in English and Swedish were used. For example, ‘children’s rights’, ‘the Convention on the Rights of the Child’ in combination with words such as ‘organisation’, ‘association’, ‘commitment’, ‘movement’, and ‘representative’.

Organizations active in Sweden at the date of the examination (August 2022) were included. If there are SCROs not active on the internet, these are considered peripheral and therefore excluded from this study. All found organizations with a connection to children (n = 59) were investigated in order to determine whether they call themselves a children’s rights organization (barnrättsorganisation). Organizations for children that might have children’s rights on their agenda but do not call themselves children’s rights organizations were excluded (n = 37). As the study is based on the organization’s own definition of its orientation, all organizations that refer to themselves as a children’s rights organizations were included in the study (n = 22). This approach limited the included organizations to those with a more overt children’s rights ideology and therefore could be considered the main representatives of a children’s rights discourse. Stiftelsen Allmänna Barnhuset (The Children’s Welfare Foundation Sweden), a state foundation, and Unga Örnars riksförbund (the National Confederation of Young Eagles), a social democratic youth organization, are examples of organizations that describe their work as based on the CRC. However, as these organizations do not refer to themselves as children’s rights organizations, they are excluded from this study. Furthermore, umbrella organizations such as Nätverket för Barnkonventionen (The Network for the Convention on the Rights of the Child) have been excluded since they bring together organizations and do not label themselves as children’s rights organizations. Some of the included organizations have been founded in Sweden but are mainly active in other countries, while others are national branches of an international organization.

The second step included a qualitative content analysis of the SCROs websites. The websites were considered the unit of analysis (a total of about 80,000 words) and were read using the four codes: year of establishment, focus area, recipient of the child rights message, and how the organisation relates to PCW. As the codes were based on the purpose of the study and formulated before the data was analysed, the analysis could be called a directed content analysis (cf. Hsieh and Shannon 2005) aimed at manifest content. A focus on manifest content implies a less in-depth interpretation compared to a focus on latent content (Graneheim and Lundman 2004). Relevant information was found under tabs ‘about us’ or ‘our work’. The analysis resulted in a categorization of the SCROs. The categorization indicates the level of operation and focus of the organizations. However, certain organizations partially transcend the boundaries of these categories, and the categorization should not be regarded as exhaustive. The websites were examined between August and November 2022. Since there is a risk that studies of web pages become obsolete if the information on the web pages is revised, images of web pages used in this study were saved.

As the focus of this investigation is SCROs’ relationship to PCW, a further analysis included only the SCROs with a broad focus, operating on a domestic level. SCROs work in several areas of society. Thus, SCROs’ activities relating to e.g. schools or the Migration Agency are not examined in this further analysis. The organizations in the selected category were explored through an investigation of the content of the organizations’ voice and service in relation to PCW. The organization’s voice requires a deeper analysis compared to service, which is a more tangible and descriptive category. Voice was analysed by selecting meaning-bearing units (cf. Graneheim and Lundman 2004) regarding PCW from the organizations’ websites. An overview of the content of the organizations’ voice and service is given using quotations from the organizations’ websites. The quotations, as well as some of the names of the organizations have been translated into English by the author.

Results

Mapping of the SCROs

In total, 22 SCROs were found. While some organizations were founded as children’s rights organizations, others adopted the designation at a later stage in their history. According to ‘Korp’, a corpus tool that is part of the Swedish National Language Bank, the first documented usage of the term ‘children’s rights organization’ (barnrättsorganisation) in Swedish text appeared in a parliamentary protocol in 1990. In this protocol, Bris and Rädda Barnen Sverige were referred to as children’s rights organizations.

Table 1. Categories of SCROs, August–November, 2022.

Category	Organisation	Est.
Multinational SCROs	UNICEF Sverige	1954
	Erikshjälpen	1967
	SOS Barnbyar Sverige	1972
	Ecpat	1990
	Barnfonden	1991
	PLAN International Sverige	1997
	World Childhood Foundation	1999
	Child Rights Eurasia	2019
Domestic, single-issue SCROs	Majblomman	1907
	Adoptionscentrum	1969
	Friends	1997
	Bufff	2001
	Treskablinoll	2017
	Porrfri barndom	2017
Domestic SCROs with a broad focus	Rädda Barnen Sverige	1919
	Räddningsmissionen	1952
	Bris	1971
	Maskrosbarn	2005
	Trygga Barnen	2010
	Barnrättsbyrån	2011
	Knas Hemma	2013
	Brinn för Barnen	2020

The eight multinational organizations identified (Table 1, first row) primarily operate in crisis and war zones, providing poverty relief, education, and healthcare. Some of these organizations are national branches of multinational organizations that partly operate on a domestic level e.g. World Childhood foundation and SOS Barnbyar Sverige (SOS Children’s Villages Sweden). UNICEF Sverige (UNICEF Sweden) stands out as it is a part of the UN; the Swedish branch of UNICEF links the global political level with the domestic level. For example, UNICEF Sverige coordinates Swedish civil society’s reporting to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child (UNICEF 2022a). UNICEF Sverige also advocates for certain issues on a domestic level that by extension affect PCW (e.g. the ratification of the Third Optional Protocol of the CRC) as well as a specialist training for social workers employed at PCW (UNICEF 2022b).

Other SCROs (n = 6) operate on a domestic level and mainly engage in one issue (Table 1, second row). For example, Majblomman (May Flower) targets child poverty in Sweden and Friends focuses on bullying. These domestic, single-issue SCROs, generally relate to organizations that are considered to have the most relevance for the issue that the organization is engaged in; for example, Friends mainly relates to Swedish schools. None of the organizations in this category focus on the PCW.

The third category, domestic organizations with a broad focus (Table 1, third row), includes organizations (n = 8) that engage in children’s rights in the Swedish society on a more general level compared to the domestic single-issue organizations. In particular two organizations in this category warrants a comment. Rädda Barnen operates on a multinational level. However, the organization’s local branch has been categorized as a domestic organization with a broad focus, due to the extensive commitment at the domestic level. Räddningsmissionen (The Rescue Mission) focuses on vulnerable people, adults as well as children and thus differs compared the other SCROs in the category. Furthermore, Räddningsmissionen claims the need for the organization itself to be characterized by children’s rights and do not direct their children’s rights message outwards (Räddningsmissionen 2022).

Considering the aim of the study, the following examination, focuses on the organizations in the category domestic SCROs with a broad focus. However, due to its distinctiveness, Räddningsmissionen has been excluded from the further analysis, resulting in seven remaining organizations. For the sake of simplicity, in the following, the term SCROs refers to these seven organizations in the category. Hence, Räddningsmissionen, organizations predominantly operating on an international level, as well as single-issue organizations are excluded from further examination.

Below, the organizations included are briefly presented followed by an examination of the voice and services provided by the organizations.

Particularities of the SCROs

The SCROs in the third category claim the need to improve children’s rights in Sweden and more or less explicitly convey this message to authorities such as PCW.

Rädda Barnen Sverige and Bris target vulnerable children in Sweden and the staff are both volunteers and professionals. Barnrättsbyrån (The child rights agency) and Brinn för barnen (Passionate about the Children) has a legal orientation and their target group can be described as children or their relatives who experience that they are not getting their rights met by authorities. While Barnrättsbyrån is a thoroughly professional organization staffed by employed professionals, Brinn för barnen was founded on social media and is run by volunteers. However, Brinn för barnen collaborates with child rights lawyers.

Maskrosbarn (Dandelion Children), Knas Hemma (Issues at Home), and Trygga Barnen (Safe Children) are aimed at children with experiences of specific psychosocial problems such as family members with substance abuse or mental illness. These organizations are to some degree run by people with their own experience of vulnerability. Knas Hemma, however, is a user organization for young people in residential care.

Voice and service of the organisations

Voice

All SCROs in the third category more or less explicitly carry out work aimed at influencing public opinion (voice), for example, on issues about PCW. The organizations use several platforms to present their message. Bris, Rädda Barnen Sverige, Barnrättsbyrån and Maskrosbarn publishes texts such as polemical articles and reports. Several organizations are active on social media, and some produce podcasts and organize events. Some of the organizations state on their websites that they respond to referrals regarding legislative proposals concerning, for example, PCW. Maskrosbarn and Barnrättsbyrån declare that they are invited to participate as experts in public inquiries. Maskrosbarn participated in a reference group at a government inquiry into the Social Services Act (Maskrosbarn 2022b), and Barnrättsbyrån is represented in an inquiry on children’s right to appeal (Barnrättsbyrån 2022). Furthermore, Rädda Barnen Sverige, Bris, Barnrättsbyrån and Maskrosbarn are part of a collaboration with the central state, the Children’s Rights Delegation (Swedish government 2021). Brinn för barnen, in collaboration with a branch of Trygga barnen (called Trygga vuxna), organizes a Children’s Rights Day, inviting politicians to attend. Additionally, Brinn för barnen arranges demonstrations outside PCW offices to protest against what they perceive as shortcomings in the work of PCW.

Regarding the content of the organizations’ voice in relation to PCW, the organizations could be said to more or less explicitly take the point of departure and unite in a criticism of authorities – i.e. PCW. For example, a post on the website of Barnrättsbyrån has the following heading:

When social services [PCW] don’t listen – stories from our brave young people (Barnrättsbyrån 2018).

The deficiencies are described as shortcomings in PCW in general and specifically the compliance with children’s rights and the CRC, with its basic principles such as the child’s best interest and participation:

In Sweden, there is an image that the Swedish safety net for children is functioning. That children can turn to e.g. social services [PCW] and get the help they need and are entitled to by law. However, the children we meet at Maskrosbarn speak of a system that is made by and for adults, where the child’s need for support is not allowed to rule and where their voices are neither heard nor taken seriously (Maskrosbarn 2022c).

Often organizations (as in the quotations above) legitimize their activities and their criticism of PCW by referring to their contact with children. This contact with children also forms the basis for an organization’s claim to represent the voice of children:

[Rädda Barnen Sverige] is the children’s voice in society. …

Rädda Barnen is always on the children’s side. (Save the children Sweden 2022a)

Nevertheless, PCW is sometimes portrayed as crucial and even life-determining for vulnerable children. For instance, Bris criticized a bill aimed at reforming social services that did not consider increased funding for the social services (Bris 2021). Such a statement can be said to nuance the criticism of PCW. As it highlights potentially inadequate conditions for PCW, the criticism could be considered to be at least in part directed to the central state. However, in the same text, Bris refers to their telephone helpline for children:

Calls to Bris from children about shortcomings in social services [PCW] are common, and in 2020 calls about social services have increased by as much as 40 percent (Bris 2021).

Rädda Barnen Sverige exhibits a similarly ambivalent attitude when commenting on a social media debate concerning PCW:

Despite the shortcomings we see within the social services [PCW], we want to underline the importance of continuing to report to the social services in the event of concern for a child – and work to ensure that the social services can fulfil their mission in the best possible way (Save the Children Sweden 2022a).

Brinn för barnen, however, has a comparatively harsh rhetoric. The organization calls for participation in demonstrations outside PCW offices.

… [to] draw attention to the shortcomings in social work education and of social services, we demand a change! Many of us wonder – how can it continue to look like this – year after year, report after report. Child life after child life (Brinn för barnen 2022).

The degree of criticism of PCW varies, however. Neither Knas hemma nor Trygga barnen uses voice as explicitly as the other organizations and their criticism can be said to be more implicit. Knas hemma has a neutral approach to PCW on its website. For example, the organization claims the need for participation for children in residential care but does not explicitly criticize PCW. Trygga Barnen does not express opinions about PCW on its website. However, both Trygga barnen and Knas hemma educate both children and professionals. Thus, these two organizations could be considered more oriented towards services in relation to PCW.

Service

All organizations deliver services aimed at vulnerable children and professionals (service). Services offered by the organizations largely correspond with and respond to the criticism and need for change presented in the work aimed at influencing public opinion (voice). The activities partly target the same group of children who come into contact with PCW. Thus, the services could be interpreted as a complement to services offered by PCW.

The majority of organizations offer psychosocial support to vulnerable children in groups or individually. This service includes not only telephone helplines or chat helplines, leisure activities, and camps but also supports groups for children in vulnerable situations.

The service Education of professionals (Table 2) refers to educational efforts such as lectures, workshops, and educational materials aimed at professionals such as staff within PCW. The educational initiatives concern, for example, children’s rights, participation, talking to vulnerable children, and experiences from the children the organization represents. In addition, several organizations offer lectures for children in schools or for children active in the organization or who are subject to support from the organization. The organization’s educational efforts could be said to relate to their identity as experts in the field of children’s rights:

Table 2. Services of SCROs, August–November, 2022.

	Service
	Psychosocial support to children	Education of professionals	Individual support in contact with PCW	Legal support
Bris	x	x
Rädda Barnen Sv.	x	x
Barnrättsbyrån			x	x
Brinn för barnen			x	x
Maskrosbarn	x	x	x
Knas Hemma	x	x
Trygga Barnen	x	x	x

We are experts in children’s rights and needs, and our long-term, sustainable working method produces results (Save the Children Sweden 2022b).

Individual support in contact with PCW (Table 2) refers to support for children in such contacts. These services are called children’s representatives or child ombudsmen:

A children’s representative can, for example, help you talk to social services [PCW], accompany you to meetings, and tell you what you are entitled to when you have contact with social services (Maskrosbarn 2022a).

Barnrättsbyrån is the only organization that explicitly states that they engage in ‘advocacy’ while supporting children in contact with professionals. This information is found in a report from the organization’s early years (Forsell, Kappfjell-Li, and Schiratzki 2015).

Barnrättsbyrån and Brinn för barnen provide legal support to children and their families – i.e. in relation to PCW. Furthermore, Barnrättsbyrån argues that since children cannot pursue their own legal processes, the organization has started providing legal counsel for children consisting of highly educated professionals in various fields to

… help children and young people pursue their case in court and gain access to the absolute best knowledge in children’s rights (Barnrättsbyrån 2020).

An issue promoted by the majority of the SCROs is the ratification of the third optional protocol of the CRC into Swedish law, which gives children and representatives of children the opportunity to petition the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child if they perceive that their rights according to the CRC have been violated (UNICEF 2019). It can be assumed that the SCROs intend to take on the role of representatives for children with the right to appeal to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child. The need for representatives advocating for children’s rights to address complaints to the committee aligns with the services offered by these organizations, which include legal support and assistance for children in relation to PCW.

Discussion

Introduction

This study maps the field of SCROs. The aim is to analyse the organizational and professional space of SCROs in relation to PCW; how SCROs position themselves in relation to PCW in terms of how they present their aims, programmes, and agency. The mapping resulted in the identification of 22 SCROs. Seven of these have been labelled as domestic organizations with a broad focus, which relate to PCW in terms of voice and/or service efforts. The other 15 organizations mainly focus on other issues, for example, international aid or specific issues such as bullying. The discussion that follows is structured around child rights governance conceptualized in four aspects: temporality or the historical changes of the CSOs in the field of vulnerable children; spatiality or the meaning of the place; normativity or the matter of power; and subjectivity or the shaping of identity and relationships (cf. Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019). The demarcation between the four dimensions, presented as headings, should not be perceived as categorical, as there is no distinct boundary between them. The findings are summarized in five points. Finally, possible consequences for social work with vulnerable children are briefly discussed.

Temporality

Firstly, it appears as if the SCROs have increased both in terms of numbers and activities compared to previous organizations in the field of vulnerable children (in research these are referred to as child protection organizations). Secondly, child protection organizations can be seen as predecessors to SCROs. The discursive shift regarding children (cf. Sandin 2011) is reflected in the ideology of these organizations, transitioning from a child protection to a children’s rights discourse. Similar to previous organizations that united with the central state in a child protection discourse, the majority of the SCROs have a close collaboration with the central state.

Spatiality

Thirdly, compared to previous CSOs in the field, there has been a shift in the subject of criticism. While child protection organizations directed their criticism at the central state, the SCROs mainly criticize the local state, e.g. PCW. This finding aligns with previous research on the organization Bris (cf. Sköld and Osvaldsson Cromdal 2019). However, the present study indicates that there are considerably more organizations expressing such criticism. The redirection of the organizations’ criticisms could be considered to be justified by the role of voice bearer and opinion leaders attributed to CSOs in a compact with the central state (cf. Reuter 2012). In addition, the redirection of criticism aligns with the shift in responsibility for compliance with the CRC from the central state to the local state, as implied by the incorporation of the CRC (cf. Leviner 2018). With the incorporation of the CRC, PCW has arguably become a focal point for child rights governance in Sweden. Nonetheless, paralleling the development of their predecessors, it can be speculated that the criticism of PCW will decrease as the SCROs enter into cooperation and agreements with PCW, for example, through procured services.

Normativity

The critique serves as a foundation for how the SCROs relate to PCW. This critique could be seen as the raison d’être for the SCROs. The SCROs promote a normative rhetoric of rights pertaining to vulnerable children. Referring to critical children’s rights studies, it is a narrative where the lack of rights precedes social problems (cf. Reynaert et al. 2015). When the children’s rights discourse is put forward on a local state level, it implies that the difficulties of vulnerable children originate in the lack of compliance with the CRC in authorities such as the PCW. In this sense, PCW is described not only as the cause of, but also the solution to children’s rights (or the lack of rights children’s rights). Thus, in summary, a fourth point is that the rhetoric implies a positioning of PCW as an ultimate duty bearer. However, it is an ultimate duty bearer without access to the symbolic currency of children’s rights (cf. Nylén 2021). This condition creates space for the SCROs as experts on children’s rights. As experts, the SCROs can, in parallel to previous CSOs, assume a role of compliment in relation to PCW.

Subjectivity

Similar to child protection organizations (Lundström 2001), the SCROs use their voice to strengthen the legitimacy of their service efforts and vice versa. However, the boundaries between voice and service seem blurred. For example, it is unclear whether lecturing on children’s rights aimed at children and professionals should be labelled as voice or service. Arguably child rights as governance or governmentality (cf. Holzscheiter, Josefsson, and Sandin 2019) are concepts that better capture the activities of the organizations. Education is the activity that most clearly can be perceived as a form of governmentality as it is about internalizing children’s rights as a governing principle. However, another way of conceptualizing the SCROs could be to see these as advocacy organizations that also perform service efforts.

An incorporation of the Third Optional Protocol of the CRC, an issue for which the SCROs are campaigning, justifies the role of SCROs as representatives of children. An incorporation would underline the need for these activities to be professionalized in the form of child rights advocates. Thus, an incorporation could be seen as a formalization of SCROs as representatives of children and their rights and the need for professional child rights advocates – i.e. a new professional group in the field of social work in Sweden. Ultimately, the SCROs could be considered to relate to PCW as child rights advocates. However, this new actor can be assumed to influence the relationship between the child and PCW. From a critical perspective, when SCROs are assigned the role of advocates and experts in relation to PCW, representing children and children’s rights as opposed to PWC (the duty bearer), there is a risk that the relationship between the child and PCW becomes polarized.

Consequences and summary

From a critical point of view, consequences of the rhetoric put forward by the SCROs could be discussed in terms of simplification, delegitimisation and polarization (cf. Reynaert, Bouverne-De Bie, and Vandevelde 2012 on the juridification and polarization implied in the children’s rights discourse).

Firstly, SCROs represent a discourse in which the needs of vulnerable children are understood in terms of legal rights. This can be seen as a juridification in the understanding of children’s vulnerability, children’s relationship to PCW and social work in this field. One possible risk is that such a juridification simplifies both the understanding of the difficulties of vulnerable children and the work of PCW. Secondly, a juridification of social work with children can be perceived as an expression of a lack of legitimacy for the public child welfare which otherwise maintains, and is supposed to guarantee support to vulnerable children and social interventions that protect children. Meanwhile, the juridification risks to further undermining the legitimacy of PCW by the positioning of PCW as a duty-bearer that is inevitably short of child rights currency. Intrinsic to this rhetoric is that children’s rights currency must be held by others – i.e. experts, the child rights advocates. Thirdly, the rhetoric of rights represented by the SCROs and the emergence of child rights advocates as a new professional group risk polarizing the relationship between children and PCW.

Therefore, it could be argued that the children’s rights discourse as advocated by the SCROs may complicate the social work with vulnerable children for PCW. This does not imply that children’s rights are insignificant or undesirable, nor does it suggest that there are no shortcomings in PCW’ work or that the services provided by the SCROs are not necessary. However, it is possible to question if this discourse solely has positive effects on the life situation of vulnerable children, to the extent that it risks undermining the legitimacy of PCW among the public, parents and children.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Additional information

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship and publication of this article.