Integrated-rights practice and partnerships with judicial services: towards a socio-legal practice?

S. Gibens, Johan Boxstaens, P. Vereecke
{"title":"Integrated-rights practice and partnerships with judicial services: towards a socio-legal practice?","authors":"S. Gibens, Johan Boxstaens, P. Vereecke","doi":"10.1080/09695958.2021.2014853","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT In Flanders, a renewed Decree on Local Social Policy (2018) introduced the concept of “Integrated-Rights Practice” (IRP). In brief, IRP aims to guarantee social rights by creating local interorganizational networks that foster generalist, pro-active, outreaching, strengths-based and participative social work interventions (Boost et al., 2018). In our paper, we will focus on an ongoing project in which IRP is applied to the specific field of socio-juridical practice in Antwerp. In this project, interorganizational collaboration between different social work services is expanded with partners from the field of justice (courts, lawyers, magistrates, …) in an effort to lower existing thresholds that impair access to justice and lead to non-take-up of rights. In order to evaluate this innovative practice, we use the CAIMeR-model developed by Blom and Morèn (2010). Guided by the theoretical structure of CAIMeR, we designed a methodological framework in which we combine structured direct observations and semi-structured interviews.","PeriodicalId":43893,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2021-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of the Legal Profession","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/09695958.2021.2014853","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT In Flanders, a renewed Decree on Local Social Policy (2018) introduced the concept of “Integrated-Rights Practice” (IRP). In brief, IRP aims to guarantee social rights by creating local interorganizational networks that foster generalist, pro-active, outreaching, strengths-based and participative social work interventions (Boost et al., 2018). In our paper, we will focus on an ongoing project in which IRP is applied to the specific field of socio-juridical practice in Antwerp. In this project, interorganizational collaboration between different social work services is expanded with partners from the field of justice (courts, lawyers, magistrates, …) in an effort to lower existing thresholds that impair access to justice and lead to non-take-up of rights. In order to evaluate this innovative practice, we use the CAIMeR-model developed by Blom and Morèn (2010). Guided by the theoretical structure of CAIMeR, we designed a methodological framework in which we combine structured direct observations and semi-structured interviews.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
综合权利实践和与司法服务的伙伴关系:走向社会法律实践?
在佛兰德斯,更新的地方社会政策法令(2018年)引入了“综合权利实践”(IRP)的概念。简而言之,IRP旨在通过创建本地组织间网络来保障社会权利,这些网络促进通才、积极主动、外展、基于优势和参与性的社会工作干预(Boost等人,2018)。在我们的论文中,我们将重点关注一个正在进行的项目,其中IRP应用于安特卫普社会法律实践的特定领域。在这个项目中,扩大了不同社会工作服务机构之间的组织间合作,与司法领域的合作伙伴(法院、律师、地方法官等)合作,努力降低妨碍诉诸司法和导致不行使权利的现有门槛。为了评估这一创新实践,我们使用了Blom和mor(2010)开发的caimer模型。在CAIMeR理论结构的指导下,我们设计了一个方法框架,其中我们结合了结构化的直接观察和半结构化的访谈。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
期刊最新文献
Silent boundaries: exploring the limits of legal confidentiality in Poland New professional spaces and trajectories: tracing the evolution of legal professionals – introduction to special issue The authority of the elders or the colonisers? Customary law and culture – which legal skills? Assessing law students in a GenAI world to create knowledgeable future lawyers Navigating the legal landscape: large language models and the hesitancy of legal professionals
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1