Models of Social Work in Europe: Innovations in Working with Various Categories of Vulnerable Populations: A Narrative Review

Vitalii Kurylo , Olena Karaman, Yaroslava Yurkiv, Nataliia Krasnova and Nataliia Shabaieva
Luhansk Taras Shevchenko National University, Poltava, Ukraine
Correspondence to: Vitalii Kurylo, vitalii_kurylo@outlook.com

DOI: https://doi.org/10.70389/PJS.100190

Additional information

• Ethical approval: N/a
• Consent: N/a
• Funding: This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.
• Conflicts of interest: N/a
• Author contribution: Vitalii Kurylo: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing – Original Draft, Supervision; Olena Karaman: Investigation, Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing; Yaroslava Yurkiv: Formal Analysis, Software, Visualization; Nataliia Krasnova: Resources, Project Administration, Writing – Review & Editing; Nataliia Shabaieva: Data Curation, Methodology, Writing – Review & Editing.
• Guarantor: Vitalii Kurylo
• Provenance and peer-review: Unsolicited and externally peer-reviewed
• Data availability statement: The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Keywords: Digital social service innovation, Individualized support plans, Comparative welfare models, Inclusive labour market integration, Housing first approach.

Peer Review
Received: 12 August 2025
Last revised: 20 November 2025
Accepted: 23 November 2025
Version accepted: 8
Published: 27 December 2025

Plain Language Summary Infographic

Introduction

Social work in Europe is constantly evolving, adapting to the challenges of society and the needs of vulnerable population groups. Innovative practices in social work refer to new approaches and technologies aimed at improving the effectiveness, accessibility, and quality of social services for vulnerable populations. These innovations can include digital platforms, community-driven solutions, and interdisciplinary methods that address complex social challenges. By incorporating new strategies, social work aims to enhance service delivery and social integration, particularly for groups such as individuals with disabilities, migrants, and the unemployed. This study examines how innovative practices are being implemented across Europe and their impact on the efficiency and inclusivity of social welfare systems.

Many modern researchers examined this topic from different angles. Plisko’s¹ paper focused on social work criteria that improve social services. The findings show that personal spirituality among social workers is crucial to effective help and ethical standards. Hetmantseva and Vakaryuk² examined governmental social programmes in the labour market and their effects on employment and worker assistance. The academics analyse current issues and propose solutions to enhance the effectiveness of employment policies. Global occurrences like the COVID-19 epidemic threaten vulnerable people. Agoramoorthy and Hsu³ noted, that the pandemic has disproportionately harmed vulnerable groups, who often lack medical and social support during emergencies. This emphasises the need to tailor social work models for each population group. Boccagni and Righard⁴ studied European refugee social work. The authors suggest that innovative social work must be sensitive to migrants’ cultural requirements and require specific assistance services. These programmes include refugee decision-making to help them integrate into the host society. Social work is vital to active ageing, according to Boerio et al.⁵ The authors claim that social capital changes directly affect older individuals’ community engagement. Social workers must develop new methods to encourage older participation and social inclusion.

Social security for digital platform workers is another issue. Daugareilh⁶ stressed the importance of including social work in workers’ rights protection because they typically live in insecure conditions. The author also stated that new technologies could improve social services. Elices Acero et al.⁷ also stressed the importance of social workers in eldercare. They found that social workers can improve this demographic’s quality of life through individual counselling, group support, digital health monitoring, and psychological assistance. Finally, Gerovska Mitev⁸ examined social policy reforms in Central and Southeastern Europe, indicating that state welfare systems greatly affect social work practices. Modernising social work models by addressing cultural, economic, and political variables is suggested. Grey et al.⁹ examined the growth of social work in Southern and Eastern Africa, which may inform European methods. Their study showed that expanding social work in developing countries can lead to new vulnerable group support models.

Despite the issues explored by the aforementioned authors, it is required that we conduct a detailed analysis of support mechanisms for different categories of vulnerable populations in the labour market, such as young people and individuals with disabilities. Moreover, the effectiveness of specific policies in different regions of a given country remains insufficiently examined, necessitating further analysis to adapt social policies to local contexts. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact of innovative methods on the efficiency of service provision for various groups of vulnerable populations and to formulate recommendations for improving social services based on innovative practices. This study focuses on the impact of innovative methods in social work on vulnerable populations in Europe, particularly examining the effectiveness of service provision for groups such as young people and individuals with disabilities.

Materials and Methods

For the structured narrative comparative review, the study selected Ukraine, Germany, Sweden, the UK, and Italy due to their experience implementing innovative approaches, the diversity of their social programmes, the effectiveness of their services for vulnerable populations, and their varied cultural contexts. The aim of this analysis was to assess the impact of their specific approaches to the provision of social services on the efficiency and inclusivity of social welfare systems. The analysis was based on criteria such as effectiveness, accessibility, adaptability to the needs of vulnerable groups, innovation in approaches, community engagement, financial sustainability, integration of social enterprises, and professional development of social workers.

In this study, innovation refers to the introduction of new approaches, methods, or technologies that enhance the efficiency, accessibility, and inclusivity of social services. Digital enablement denotes the use of digital tools, online platforms, and data systems that facilitate communication, coordination, and service delivery. Co-production is understood as the collaborative involvement of service users, communities, and institutions in the design and implementation of social programmes, ensuring greater relevance and sustainability. Integration refers to the coordination of social, health, and employment services to provide comprehensive, continuous, and person-centred support for vulnerable populations.

The institutions examined include the Federal Employment Agency in Germany, which operates under the Social Code of Germany;¹⁰ the Swedish social services, governed by the Social Services Act of Sweden¹¹; the Department for Work and Pensions in England, operating under the Welfare Reform Act;¹² the National Social Security Service in Italy, regulated by the Social Security Code of Italy;¹³ and the Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine, which follows the Law of Ukraine No. 2671-VIII “On Social Services.”¹⁴ These reports provided a comprehensive overview of the regulations, programmes, and policies implemented to support vulnerable populations in each country. Grey literature, including reports, policy documents, and case studies from NGOs, think tanks, and social enterprises, further supplemented the research by offering practical insights into the implementation of social work practices. Academic databases such as Google Scholar, JSTOR, and Scopus were used to review secondary data on social work practices, vulnerability assessment models, and innovative social services.

The inclusion criteria for the study focused on sources that discuss social work innovations for vulnerable populations, such as individuals with disabilities, the unemployed, refugees, and the elderly. This includes national or regional-level social service programmes that incorporate innovative practices or technological integration. Additionally, the study focused on publications that provide comparative data on social service systems, their effectiveness, or challenges in supporting vulnerable populations. On the other hand, studies or reports that focus solely on traditional social service practices without addressing innovative or technological advancements were excluded. Similarly, publications must directly discuss vulnerable populations and their social service needs, and documents must be published after 2010 to reflect current trends or practices.

The comparative framework for this study is structured around several key indicators that assess the effectiveness and inclusivity of social service programmes. These indicators include Access, Outcomes, Financing, Governance, Digital Enablement, and Co-production. Access refers to the availability and reach of social services, particularly through digital platforms or mobile services. Outcomes are assessed based on the effectiveness of services in achieving positive outcomes, such as employment reintegration, social inclusion, and improved quality of life. Financing evaluates the sustainability of social service programmes, particularly in terms of funding sources such as public vs. private funding or international aid. Governance examines the organisational structure of social services, including the level of decentralisation and the role of local authorities in service delivery. Digital Enablement assesses the use of digital technologies such as online platforms and mobile apps in service provision. Finally, co-production is operationalised by examining how vulnerable populations or other stakeholders (e.g., NGOs, social enterprises) are involved in the creation and delivery of services.

Each of the above indicators was assessed using specific operational metrics. Access was evaluated by identifying the availability of digital platforms or mobile services and assessing their coverage. Outcomes were measured through secondary data on the success rates of social services in terms of employment, quality of life, and other relevant factors. Financing was analysed based on the available government funding and the role of private-sector involvement or international aid. Governance was examined by assessing the level of decentralisation and the autonomy of local authorities in service delivery. Digital enablement was evaluated by analysing the availability and effectiveness of digital resources, including mobile apps and online platforms. Co-production was assessed by identifying examples of collaboration between social workers, vulnerable populations, and other stakeholders in designing and delivering services.

This study primarily employs a narrative comparative analysis, where the experiences of five countries (Germany, Sweden, the UK, Italy, and Ukraine) were examined qualitatively. This approach was chosen due to the diversity of socio-economic and cultural contexts across these countries, which requires a detailed exploration of the policies, practices, and challenges each country faces in providing social services to vulnerable populations. The narrative analysis emphasises the complexities of these services and allows for the identification of best practices that can be adapted to other national contexts. Unlike quantitative analyses, which would focus on numerical comparisons, a narrative approach provides a richer understanding of the ways in which social work innovations have been implemented and their impact on vulnerable groups. A narrative comparative approach was justified, as it enables the study to explore the nuanced differences in social work practices across countries, particularly in the context of technological innovations and their implementation. This approach is particularly suitable for understanding complex issues such as social inclusion, vulnerability, and the effectiveness of innovative practices in social services. Moreover, it allows for the identification of best practices that can be adapted or scaled in different regions based on the specific socio-economic and cultural contexts, thus providing valuable insights for policymakers and social service providers in other countries.

During the identification stage, a total of 2,146 records were retrieved across major academic databases and grey-literature sources, including Scopus (782 records), Web of Science Core Collection (611), JSTOR (244), Google Scholar (first 300 highly relevant results), and grey literature repositories and institutional sources (209). After automatic and manual deduplication, 812 duplicates were removed, leaving 1,334 unique records for screening. During the title and abstract screening phase, 934 records were excluded for the following reasons: absence of focus on innovation in social services, lack of relevance to vulnerable populations, non-European or non-comparable context, or being purely conceptual without implications for policy or practice. A total of 400 full texts were retrieved and assessed for eligibility. Subsequently, 295 full texts were excluded because they did not discuss innovative practices in social work (121), fell outside the 2010–2024 inclusion period (56), were non-European without direct conceptual relevance (63), offered insufficient methodological transparency (28), or focused on unrelated sectors such as tourism, education, or economics without social-service implications (27). Following this process, 71 sources were included in the final synthesis.

Results

Key Approaches to Supporting Vulnerable Populations

In general, vulnerable groups requiring particular attention and support include individuals with disabilities, migrants, the unemployed, older adults, orphans, and homeless individuals. Supporting these groups necessitates consideration of their unique needs and challenges and the implementation of innovative approaches aimed at integration, assistance, and social adaptation. The primary focus of this study is the analysis of social services aimed at supporting persons with disabilities and the unemployed; however, to provide a broader perspective, the research also examines other vulnerable groups, such as migrants, the elderly, and the homeless. This approach allows for a more comprehensive reflection of innovative practices in social work applied to various population categories and helps identify common trends in the provision of social services. Individuals with disabilities face physical, social, and economic barriers. Supporting this group involves the development of individual rehabilitation programmes, which encompass medical services, vocational training, and employment assistance.² Furthermore, it is crucial to implement inclusive workplace policies that adapt work environments and provide support from colleagues. The establishment of day-care centres where individuals with disabilities can access therapy, engage in social interactions, and develop skills contributes to their social integration.

In the scholarly literature, the effectiveness of social services is often viewed not only through quantitative indicators but also within a broader framework of social outcomes. This perspective aligns with the widely recognised European “input-process-output-outcome” model, which suggests that the quality of social policy depends not only on legislative or organisational mechanisms but also on its capacity to promote social inclusion and improve the well-being of vulnerable groups. In this study, this theoretical approach is used merely as an analytical background, without emphasis on statistical measurement or quantitative evaluation. Long-term unemployed individuals require comprehensive support to facilitate their reintegration into the labour market.³ Vocational training programmes, tailored to current market demands, enable them to acquire new skills. Equally important are psychological training sessions aimed at restoring motivation, self-confidence, and job-seeking skills. Young people entering the workforce should receive special attention, ensuring they have access to internships and mentorship.

Supporting vulnerable populations is a core aspect of social work across Europe. These groups frequently face challenges, including poverty, social isolation, discrimination, inadequate access to services, and physical or mental health issues. Key vulnerable groups include homeless individuals, who lack stable accommodation and often have limited access to medical, social, and psychological services. Social work interventions for this group typically involve temporary shelters, housing support, and social reintegration programmes.⁶ People with disabilities, whether physical, intellectual, or sensory impairments, frequently encounter barriers to education, employment, and social participation. Social workers develop individual support plans and advocate for inclusive environments to enhance their quality of life.¹⁵

To operationalise this conceptual framework, the comparative matrix in Table 1 organises the analysis around six indicators that correspond to key dimensions of public service innovation. Access and digital enablement capture how far each system reduces barriers to entry and uses digital tools to support vulnerable groups. Outcomes reflect the extent to which innovative practices translate into improved employment, inclusion and quality-of-life results. Financing and governance relate to the institutional and fiscal capacity that enables or constrains innovation, including centralised versus decentralised arrangements. Finally, co-production assesses the degree to which users, communities and intermediary organisations participate in shaping and delivering services. Together, these indicators trace how different welfare regimes embed innovation, digital tools, integration mechanisms and co-productive practices in their support for vulnerable populations (Table 1).

Table 1: Comparative matrix for innovative practices in social work.
Indicator	Germany	Sweden	UK	Italy	Ukraine
Access	Digital platforms for job seekers10	Social Services Act via Socialstyrelsen portal11	Access to Work program12	Istituto Nazionale della Previdenza Sociale Online Services13	Ministry of Social Policy14;22
Outcomes	High employment reintegration rates16;20	Successful integration via person-centered care17,19	Improved outcomes for disabled18	High employment integration via social cooperatives13;21	Inconsistent outcomes; EU-funded programs improving14;22
Financing	Funded by taxes, government subsidies10	Co-financed by state and local governments11	Funded through Welfare Reform Act12	State-funded with regional flexibility13	Limited funding, state-funded with reliance on international aid14;22
Governance	Centralized through Social Code10;20	Decentralized via Social Services Act11	Decentralized; regional service delivery18	National-regional cooperation under Social Security Code13;21	Governed by Law No. 2671-VIII, hindered by regional disparities14
Digital Enablement	eServices, vocational training platforms10	Digital case management tools11,19	Online job applications, welfare benefits12	Digital platforms for pension, social benefits13	Developing digital platforms; literacy challenges in rural areas14
Co-production	Involvement of social enterprises16;20	Community involvement in policy development7,19	Collaboration between employers, social services18	Social cooperatives for workforce reintegration13;21	Limited co-production; some NGO partnerships14;22
Source: compiled by the authors based on Social Code of Germany;10 Social Services Act of Sweden;11 Welfare Reform Act;12 Social Security Code of Italy;13 Law of Ukraine No. 2671-VIII “On Social Services»,14 Annual Report by the Federal Employment Agency (BA);16 2023 Factsheet Sweden;17 Access to Work statistics: April 2007 to March 2023;18 The National Board of Health and Welfare,19 Bundesagentur für Arbeit;20 Centro studi CGM;21 Ministry of Social Policy, Family and Unity of Ukraine22

Within this framework, service integration is understood as the coordinated alignment of social, health, employment, and educational interventions around the needs of the person rather than the boundaries of individual institutions. This includes formal collaboration agreements with healthcare providers, schools, employment services, and human rights organisations; shared referral and case-management procedures, and, in some cases, joint budgeting. Community and group work – such as peer support groups, community centres and participatory activities – represents a practical form of co-production, where service users and local actors jointly create supportive environments and informal safety nets. Educational and empowerment-orientated interventions further reinforce co-production by enhancing the capabilities of vulnerable individuals to participate in decision-making and to navigate complex service systems.

At the same time, the empirical evidence supporting these mechanisms varies considerably across countries. In Sweden and the UK, integration and co-production are supported by substantial administrative data and evaluation studies, whereas in Italy documentation is regionally uneven, and in Ukraine evaluation is often limited to pilot initiatives and donor-funded programmes. Furthermore, the effectiveness of digital enablement remains mixed: while Germany and the UK demonstrate relatively mature systems, data from Ukraine and rural Italy indicate persistent gaps in digital literacy, connectivity and uptake. These variations suggest that, although innovation, digital enablement, integration and co-production provide valuable analytical lenses, their practical implementation depends heavily on administrative capacity, funding stability and contextual factors. Seen through these qualified perspectives, the European models analysed in this study represent dynamic but uneven attempts to adapt social services to changing socio-economic conditions, rising levels of poverty, unemployment and social isolation, and evolving expectations of user participation and accountability.

Social workers actively implement programmes that use technology to improve access to services, such as online consultations and digital resources. Innovative practices include mobile outreach teams that visit vulnerable groups, providing urgent assistance and on-site support. Social work programmes may also incorporate rehabilitation, the provision of shelter, and support for education and personal development.^23-25 Individuals with mental health disorders may encounter discrimination, social isolation, and inadequate access to treatment. Innovative models of support for this group include outpatient care, peer support groups, and mental health education initiatives. Socially isolated individuals, who for various reasons lack contact with society, also require assistance. Social workers facilitate opportunities for interaction and engagement in community life.

Mobile apps for consultations, online resources, and information exchange platforms improve social service access.²⁶ This is important for young people and disabled individuals who may have trouble getting support. Innovative programmes may use gamification to make learning and socialisation more fun.^8,27 Social support innovations include coaching, mentoring, and support groups. These approaches not only give individuals from vulnerable groups critical knowledge but also offer emotional support, which is a crucial aspect in their overall social well-being. Programmes should emphasise financial literacy, time management, and communication. Innovative European social work models focus on producing more effective, adaptive, and responsive programmes that meet societal demands.

However, implementing innovation in social work presents several challenges. Firstly, financial constraints can hinder the introduction of new technologies and programmes. Many social services operate within tight budgets, limiting their ability to invest in innovative solutions.^28–30 This issue is particularly pressing for smaller organisations, which often rely on financial assistance from international organisations, charitable foundations, and government subsidies. The successful adoption of innovation also requires the proper training of professionals. Social workers must possess the skills and knowledge to effectively utilise new technologies and methodologies. This highlights the importance of continuous professional development in the field. Without adequate training, even the most effective innovations may fail to deliver the intended outcomes.^16,28

Comparative Analysis of Social Models in Other Countries

European countries employ diverse innovative approaches in their work with socially vulnerable populations. These approaches, grounded in psychological techniques, modern strategies, and tailored support methods, aim to address the challenges faced by vulnerable groups. For individuals with disabilities, one of the primary challenges is fostering an inclusive environment and reducing social isolation. In Sweden, personalised rehabilitation plans are widely implemented, incorporating community participation, psychological support, and vocational training. The UK introduced the Access to Work programme, which provides financial assistance for workplace adaptations.¹⁸ In Germany, integrated support centres combine social, medical, and educational services to promote inclusion among individuals with disabilities.¹⁰

For instance, in rural areas, social workers often struggle with limited internet connectivity, which hinders their ability to use digital platforms for service delivery, leaving clients without access to essential services like online consultations or social benefits applications.^31–34 Additionally, some social workers may be resistant to adopting new technologies due to a lack of training or fear of job displacement, leading to inconsistent implementation of digital tools. On the clients’ side, vulnerable groups, such as individuals with disabilities, may face difficulties in navigating digital platforms due to lack of familiarity with technology or physical limitations, making them less likely to benefit from innovations in service delivery. These examples highlight how both infrastructure issues and social factors can impede access to innovative services.

For the unemployed, the main challenge is loss of motivation and psychological distress due to prolonged joblessness.³⁵ In Germany, the Federal Employment Agency offers retraining programmes and job counselling. The UK employs cognitive behavioural therapy to help restore motivation for work. In Italy, a network of social cooperatives provides temporary employment and support in securing permanent jobs. The European experience suggests that the effectiveness of social work with vulnerable populations depends on the flexibility of approaches, a focus on individual needs, and the integration of innovative methods. The use of psychological interventions, such as cognitive-behavioural therapy, mentorship schemes, and reminiscence therapy, was shown to enhance the integration and quality of life of these groups.^36-38 Ukraine could adopt and adapt these innovations to suit its own socio-economic context. Social services across different countries operate according to distinct frameworks shaped by legislative acts and regulations.³⁶ The examination of the operations of the Federal Employment Agency (Germany), the Swedish Social Services, the UK’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP), Italy’s National Social Security Institute (INPS), and Ukraine’s Ministry of Social Policy demonstrated commonalities and differences in their approaches.

In Germany, the labour market and social support operate under two distinct legal frameworks of the Social Code:¹⁰ SGB III (Employment Promotion), administered by the Federal Employment Agency, which covers unemployment insurance benefits, vocational guidance, placement, and training for insured workers and is financed by social insurance contributions; and SGB II (Basic Income Support for Jobseekers), implemented by Jobcenters jointly run by the Federal Employment Agency (BA) and municipalities, which provides means-tested income support and activation/reintegration services for work-capable persons, financed from general taxation with municipal co-funding. Service delivery is decentralised within this national framework and increasingly digitally enabled (eServices, BA-Mobil, Jobbörse).

The United Kingdom’s social welfare system operates under a dual structure. The DWP administers national benefits and employment support – including Universal Credit, disability benefits, and employment programmes such as Access to Work, which provides financial and practical assistance to help people with disabilities enter and remain in employment. These services focus primarily on income maintenance, employability, and workplace adjustments. In contrast, local authorities (county and unitary councils) are responsible for adult and children’s social care. Their duties are governed by the Care Act 2014³⁹ (for adults) and the Children Act 1989⁴⁰ and 2004⁴¹ (for children and families). Local authority social workers assess individual needs and develop care plans in partnership with clients and carers. Local authorities also collaborate with the National Health Service (NHS), voluntary organisations, and community groups to deliver integrated services addressing health, housing, and social inclusion. This decentralised approach allows local services to adapt to community contexts and ensure continuity of support for vulnerable adults, children, and families.^12,18,42

Germany, Sweden, the UK, and Italy have extensive experience in implementing social innovations, contributing to the development of new approaches in the provision of social services. These countries actively adopt modern social assistance models, demonstrating high effectiveness in addressing various social issues. Their innovative strategies not only enhance existing support mechanisms for vulnerable populations but also enable the adaptation of new approaches to different national contexts, considering variations in socio-economic conditions. The diverse range of social programmes implemented in these countries provides an opportunity for comparative analysis, allowing the identification of best practices that can be adapted to the specific cultural and economic contexts of other nations.

Germany actively integrates digital technologies to monitor the employment status of job seekers through online platforms, establishing efficient systems for retraining and professional rehabilitation based on digital courses. Sweden focuses on innovations in the form of electronic platforms that provide rapid access to social services. Moreover, the country implements self-employment support programmes for individuals with disabilities, enabling them to achieve economic independence.^37-48 Meanwhile, Italy is actively developing online services for pension and social benefit applications and promoting social entrepreneurship, thereby creating employment opportunities and fostering economic engagement among vulnerable groups. These innovative approaches enhance the accessibility, efficiency, and inclusivity of social services, addressing the needs of socially vulnerable groups in each of these countries. For the comparative analysis of social innovations in Germany, Sweden, the UK, and Italy, several key aspects were considered, including the financing of social programmes, the structure of social welfare systems, the social integration of vulnerable groups, the accessibility of social services, and the role of social responsibility and state oversight. Each of these aspects is of vital importance when evaluating the effectiveness and feasibility of social innovations implemented in these countries.

The financing of social programmes influences the accessibility and sustainability of these services. In Germany and the UK, social programmes are funded through tax revenues and government budget expenditures, ensuring relatively high levels of service accessibility for the population while imposing certain financial constraints on new initiatives. In Sweden, both central and local government bodies contribute to the financing of social programmes, allowing for the effective adaptation of services to meet the needs of local communities. In Italy, while social programmes are primarily funded through the state budget, the regional administration of social services introduces specific features that enable flexibility in funding and programme implementation at the local level. The structure of social welfare systems in these countries also differs. Germany and the UK operate more centralised systems, which allow for the standardisation of social service provision at the national level but may limit their ability to rapidly adapt to changing circumstances. By contrast, Sweden has a decentralised system in which local authorities enjoy autonomy in service provision, allowing them to respond swiftly to the evolving needs of their population. Italy combines elements of both centralised and decentralised systems, maintaining national-level efficiency while granting considerable flexibility to regional administrations.

The social integration of vulnerable groups is a crucial aspect in assessing the inclusivity of a society.^34-40 In Germany and the UK, various programmes are in place to support the integration of individuals with disabilities, including specialised services and employment assistance. In Sweden, social integration is fostered through a comprehensive approach that encompasses not only material support but also psychological assistance to facilitate the inclusion of vulnerable groups within society. In Italy, integration programmes are often regionally specific, allowing strategies to be tailored to the needs of particular population groups. However, the country continues to work towards improving inclusivity at the national level.

The accessibility of social services is determined by access to essential provisions such as healthcare, education, and housing.⁴⁸ In Germany and the UK, the level of service accessibility is generally high, particularly in urban areas. Nevertheless, challenges persist in remote regions, particularly for individuals with disabilities. Sweden, due to its decentralised system, ensures a more equitable distribution of services across the country, thereby promoting social fairness.¹⁵ Italy also has a well-developed social services system, yet regional disparities may lead to unequal access to services across different parts of the country. Social responsibility and state oversight in these countries are shaped by the role of the government in managing social programmes and the degree of societal involvement.⁴⁹ In Germany and the UK, state control over social services is relatively high, ensuring system stability. Sweden places emphasis on civic participation and partnerships with the private sector, making the system more flexible and adaptive. Italy actively involves not only state institutions but also local communities, enabling social programmes to be integrated into regional contexts.¹⁶

Germany, Sweden, the UK, and Italy’s social welfare agency regulations influence vulnerable group service innovations. German Social Workers are employed by the Federal Employment Agency, which schedules and frequencies visits dependent on client needs.¹⁰ The focus is on the unemployed, disabled, and poor. Social workers must meet with unemployed people monthly to evaluate their job search and adjust their strategies. Following its social democratic model, Sweden assists and integrates underprivileged groups weekly or monthly, depending on complexity. Mental health support is mandated under UK DWP law. Social workers must contact clients every two weeks to ensure reintegration. Psychotherapy and detox are given to drug addicts. Italy prioritises social business and social welfare integration. Disability employment training is available via INPS. Under proper guidelines, social workers assess clients’ professional adaptation monthly. Ukraine’s Ministry of Social Policy oversees social services for low-income, large, disabled, and internally displaced families. Unlike Western countries, Ukraine does not restrict the frequency of client visits, potentially influencing the effectiveness of help. Regional help regularly reaches internally displaced people.⁵⁰

To enhance social work for vulnerable populations in Ukraine, concrete steps include developing individualised support plans for people with disabilities, integrating professional training and rehabilitation, and fostering inclusive work environments through workplace adaptations.^51-53 For migrants, integration programmes focusing on language, cultural adaptation, and legal support, along with mentoring initiatives and integration centres, are essential. For the unemployed, expanding retraining programmes aligned with market needs and introducing psychological support to rebuild motivation are key. These efforts require cross-sectoral cooperation between government, civil society, businesses, and volunteers, along with funding mechanisms from public-private partnerships and international aid. Success indicators include increased employment rates, improved psychological well-being, better service accessibility, and the creation of inclusive, sustainable practices across regions.⁵⁴

Countries with centralised governance, like Germany and Ukraine, tend to have standardised approaches to service delivery, which ensures uniformity but may struggle with adapting services to local needs. In contrast, decentralised systems, such as those in Sweden and the UK, offer greater flexibility and responsiveness to regional demands, fostering more personalised and adaptive support for vulnerable groups. This decentralisation often leads to better integration of local contexts and faster implementation of new policies. Regarding service delivery models, Sweden and the UK emphasise personalised care, particularly for individuals with disabilities, the elderly, and refugees, ensuring that services are tailored to meet specific needs. Meanwhile, Germany and Italy rely on standardised approaches, though they incorporate elements of personalisation for vulnerable groups. The effectiveness of these systems is often linked to the ability to adapt to changing needs, with more decentralised and innovative systems generally showing better outcomes in employment reintegration and social inclusion.¹⁶ The framework demonstrates that responsive and flexible service models, combined with innovative technologies, significantly enhance the effectiveness of social services for vulnerable populations. Decentralised governance, along with targeted innovation adoption, can create more inclusive and efficient social support systems.

Recommendations for Improving Social Services Based on Innovative Practices

To enhance the effectiveness of social services in Ukraine, practical recommendations must be grounded in realistic cost assumptions, transparent institutional responsibilities, and measurable indicators. These recommendations should align with the State Social Policy Strategy 2030, the National Digital Transformation Plan, and previously published expenditure benchmarks from the Ministry of Social Policy, the Ministry of Digital Transformation, and international partners such as UNICEF, GIZ, and the World Bank.^22-26 Ukraine continues to face systemic constraints – including limited fiscal capacity, staff shortages, regional disparities, and digital exclusion – that require a phased and evidence-based approach to reform.

A central priority is the development of personalised support plans for persons with disabilities. Cost estimates of €400–600 per beneficiary annually are consistent with average expenditures recorded in EU disability-inclusion pilot programmes and Ukrainian municipal social service budgets in 2021–2023. Introducing a pilot in Kyiv and Lviv would require approximately €0.6–0.9 million over the first six to twelve months, with nationwide scaling projected at €6–10 million annually depending on beneficiary coverage. Sensitivity analysis suggests a ±15% variation under conditions of inflation or increased staffing needs. Indicators for monitoring include the share of clients with approved individual plans, employment reintegration rates, quality-of-life scores (EQ-5D or WHOQOL), and user satisfaction surveys.^18-24 Data may be sourced from the State Social Service Information System, the State Employment Service, and municipal registries.

The creation of a unified digital platform for social services should follow the interoperability standards of the Diia ecosystem and comply with the Law of Ukraine “On Personal Data Protection”, harmonised with GDPR norms.²² Digital platform development costs of €2-4 million are consistent with expenditures for similar GovTech projects in Poland, Estonia, and Croatia. A prototype could be finalised within twelve months, followed by regional pilots by month eighteen and full rollout by the second year. Annual maintenance (15-20% of development costs) reflects IT-sector benchmarks. Key indicators include the number of active users, transaction completion time, service accessibility for persons with disabilities (WCAG compliance), and the proportion of rural and low-income users accessing digital services.^10–14 Given evidence from the World Bank and the Ministry of Digital Transformation indicating that up to 25–30% of rural households lack stable broadband access, hybrid service models must remain available.

Expanding vocational retraining and psychological support for unemployed individuals is another strategic direction. The estimated €1–1.5 million per retraining hub corresponds to average costs for educational centres in EU-funded employment programmes (e.g., EaSI, NEET reintegration). Establishing ten hubs in major urban centres would enable annual coverage of 20,000–25,000 participants. Sensitivity ranges depend on personnel salaries and sectoral demand, varying by ±20%. Monitoring indicators include training completion rates, post-training employment within 6-12 months, certifications obtained, and psychological well-being improvements measured by validated scales (e.g., GAD-7, PHQ-9).²²

Addressing the digital divide is essential for equitable access. Evidence from the Ukrainian Association of Cities and UNICEF demonstrates significant disparities in digital literacy among older adults, individuals with disabilities, and rural communities. Local authorities, NGOs, and community centres should coordinate digital literacy programmes, employing workshops, mobile learning units, and peer mentoring. Estimated annual costs of €0.5-1 million align with similar community digital inclusion programmes in Central and Eastern Europe. Effectiveness indicators include participation numbers, pre-/post-training digital literacy improvements (using the European Digital Competence Framework), and the frequency of digital social service use.^41–47 Strengthening social workers’ professional competence requires institutionalised continuous training coordinated by the National Academy of Public Administration and the Ministry of Social Policy. Annual costs of €0.8-1 million for 5,000 trainees reflect current Ukrainian public-sector training budgets and international benchmarks. Monitoring indicators include certification completion rates, staff retention, satisfaction indices, and user-reported service quality.^15–22

The overall financing model should combine national budget allocations with international funding streams such as NDICI-Global Europe, the World Bank Social Inclusion Programme, USAID, GIZ, and SIDA. The Ministry of Finance should coordinate budget planning and resource mobilisation, while the Ministry of Social Policy oversees implementation.^28–36 A phased timeline is recommended: six months for preparatory assessments, up to eighteen months for pilot implementation with midline reviews, and three years for nationwide rollout. Monitoring and evaluation should rely on baseline-midline-endline comparisons, using indicators such as vulnerable population coverage, employment reintegration rates, service delivery times, and cost-effectiveness ratios.²²

Given conflict-related disruptions, risk management must prioritise service continuity, secure data governance, and flexible delivery mechanisms. Empirical evidence from the Ministry for Reintegration and humanitarian organisations indicates that conflict-affected regions face unstable infrastructure, uneven staff availability, and heightened vulnerability. Hybrid delivery models – combining in-person, digital, and mobile services – are necessary to maintain inclusivity. Data governance must comply with the Law on Personal Data Protection and adopt GDPR-equivalent protocols, ensuring encryption, secure storage, and explicit user consent.¹⁴ Continuous coordination with the Ministry for Reintegration of Temporarily Occupied Territories is crucial to safeguard access to services and mitigate regional inequalities. By linking these recommendations to realistic financial benchmarks, clearly defined institutional responsibilities, measurable indicators, and a strong evidence base, Ukraine can move toward a more resilient, adaptive, and innovation-oriented social welfare system. Embedding reforms within national strategic frameworks and aligning them with EU social policy standards will support transparency, accountability, and sustainability, ultimately ensuring that vulnerable populations receive equitable and effective support.

Discussion

Jamal et al. found that public libraries are social integration hubs in Europe, demonstrating the growing emphasis on interdisciplinary collaboration in social work with disadvantaged groups.⁵¹ This shows that even social venues can help vulnerable groups. Kam’s study stressed the necessity of basic social work knowledge, notably the theoretical and practical abilities needed for effective practice. These abilities prepare students to comprehend social processes, intervention approaches, ethics, and professional accountability, which are essential for becoming successful social workers. This emphasises the need for ongoing professional development for practitioners, demonstrating that practical training improves assistance. Kenner et al. stressed the necessity of adapting social work paradigms to vulnerable groups such as homeless persons, refugees, and people with impairments, which this study found. Multidisciplinary teams provide comprehensive care to these groups, which helps resolve their social and psychological concerns, the authors noted.^52-54

The importance of technological innovations in social work is recognised in the studies by Lavié and Fernandez,⁵⁵ and Kurylo et al.⁵⁶ They stressed the importance of new social technologies for ensuring access to social services, which aligns with conclusions about the need to utilise digital platforms in working with the population. In addition, Li et al.⁵⁷ examined the Chinese model of social worker training, which focuses on theoretical preparation through exams. In contrast, the European model places greater emphasis on practical skills, enabling more flexible work with vulnerable categories. MacFarlane and LeMaster⁵⁸ explored methods for involving members of vulnerable groups in the decision-making process. This aligns with findings that highlight the necessity of giving a voice to vulnerable groups.

Nicotera⁵⁹ focused on the role of social justice in social work, echoing research that identified the importance of ensuring equal opportunities for all groups. Okoye and Levy⁶⁰ described the role of social work in social development, providing an interesting comparison with European experiences. This approach to recognising social work as a tool for development aligns with this study, as it also emphasises the social significance of this profession. Opatrný’s⁶¹ study explored the spiritual aspects of social work in Europe, highlighting the importance of considering various cultural factors, especially for religious groups that may require a specialised approach. This study also takes these aspects into account, particularly in the context of integrating different communities. Social work technology, especially digital platforms, improves service delivery to vulnerable populations. Practical skills in social worker training help social workers adapt to various client demands. Empowering disadvantaged populations and hearing their voices requires including them in decision-making. Social work’s promotion of social justice and development supports the belief that the profession should ensure equitable chances for all. Cultural and spiritual factors in social work are crucial for engaging various populations and meeting their needs. These factors show that current social work requires a holistic and flexible approach.⁶²

Social work encompasses a wide range of issues and approaches to supporting vulnerable groups, making it crucial to analyse papers that cover the specific needs of these groups. In particular, Oter-Quintana et al.⁶³ suggested considering vulnerability as a concept that changes depending on the circumstances. This important clarification aligns with the findings of this study and underscores the need for specific support for different groups. The health of vulnerable groups is of particular importance for social work, as confirmed by the study by Palmer and Birchfield⁵². The authors highlighted the importance of maintaining well-being, specifically through an integrated approach to medical services, which aligns with the findings of this study and emphasises the importance of access to healthcare services.

Pizarro Escribano and Miranda González⁶⁴ focused on social enterprise models as an important tool for employment, helping create conditions for the employment of individuals from vulnerable groups. The authors argued that social enterprises can serve as a powerful mechanism for integrating vulnerable individuals into the workforce, providing them with stable working conditions, even when facing barriers in the conventional labour market. This aligns with the conclusions of this study, which highlights the need to create conditions that ensure vulnerable groups have access to stable and dignified work. The preparation of social work professionals for environmental challenges, such as climate change and ecological disasters, is an important aspect of contemporary social work. Reu and Jarldorn⁶⁵ emphasised eco-social work, particularly in the educational context. They stressed that training professionals capable of working in conditions of ecological crises is critical for effectively addressing environmental issues. This research aligns with conclusions that emphasise the importance of ecological sensitivity in social work, particularly in providing services to vulnerable groups. Thus, preparing social workers to address ecological challenges has become an essential component of their professional competence.

Specialised skills for working with military personnel and veterans are another important topic in the context of social work. Sakarya and Şahin⁶⁶, analysed social work in the context of military service. The authors emphasised the need to integrate medical services to ensure that vulnerable groups, including veterans and military personnel, have access to necessary support. They stressed the importance of a comprehensive approach that considers not only the social aspects but also the medical, psychological, and economic needs of these individuals. This aligns with the findings of this study regarding the importance of integrating such comprehensive approaches into social work, which enables the provision of not only social services but also medical and psychological support for military personnel and veterans, facilitating their reintegration into society. Social mobility is an important aspect that defines individuals’ opportunities to improve their social status and access to resources.

Popovici et al.⁶⁷ analysed social mobility in Central Europe, specifically its impact on the opportunities available to vulnerable groups. The researchers demonstrated that social mobility is a key factor in ensuring equal opportunities for all sectors of society, especially for those facing difficult life circumstances. They emphasised the importance of developing policies that promote social mobility through access to education, employment, and other social resources. This is reinforced by the conclusions of this study, which highlights the need to support social mobility to ensure equal opportunities for all, regardless of social status. The reconstruction of communities following armed conflicts is a crucial aspect of social work, as demonstrated by Seifert and Trubavina et al.⁶⁸This highlighted the importance of social services in supporting stability and well-being in post-conflict regions, which correlates with the key points of this study. The decolonisation of ethical principles in social work is essential for ensuring cultural sensitivity and adapting to the needs of diverse communities. This approach, as presented in the study by Sewpaul and Henrickson,⁶⁹aligns with the findings of this study, emphasising the need to consider cultural characteristics in social work.

In general, supporting vulnerable population groups is critically important for ensuring social stability and improving quality of life. This is particularly important for adapting services to meet the cultural and social needs of local communities, which promotes effective integration and reduces social isolation.^70,71 The aforementioned studies highlight the necessity of supporting vulnerable groups in social work, particularly in times of social transformations and conflicts. The limitation of this study lies in its focus on only a few countries, which does not fully reflect the entire spectrum of innovations in social work in other regions of the world. Future studies may aim to expand the use of innovative technologies in social work. For instance, digital platforms can provide quick access to information for members of vulnerable groups, helping them in finding social support. Further studies could also focus on the interaction between social workers and clients, particularly examining the reciprocal influence of innovative methods on the work of specialists and clients’ perception of services.

Despite its analytical breadth, this study is subject to several limitations that should be acknowledged when interpreting its findings. First, as a comparative, desk-based synthesis, the analysis relies on secondary data and publicly available reports without direct field validation or critical appraisal of primary evidence. This may limit the ability to assess the methodological quality and internal consistency of the underlying studies. Second, the cross-national comparative design entails the risk of ecological fallacy, as national-level frameworks and policies may not accurately capture the lived experiences or outcomes of individuals within specific communities. Social service delivery often varies markedly across regions and municipalities, particularly in decentralised systems such as those of Italy, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, where local autonomy produces substantial heterogeneity in implementation and resource allocation.

Consequently, aggregated comparisons may mask important contextual differences in access, service quality, and user satisfaction. Additionally, the reliance on grey literature, such as policy documents and reports from NGOs, may introduce publication bias, as these sources may selectively report positive outcomes or overlook critical challenges. The absence of triangulation with service-user perspectives further limits the ability to fully capture the impact of these policies on the ground. Finally, the desk-based nature of the research precludes longitudinal observation or direct stakeholder engagement, which would be required to evaluate causal mechanisms or policy impact over time. These limitations do not undermine the relevance of the comparative insights presented but highlight the need for future empirical studies employing mixed-method or field-based approaches to deepen the understanding of social innovation processes in diverse welfare contexts.

Conclusions

The analysis of social work models in Germany, Sweden, the UK, and Italy highlights the diverse approaches used to support vulnerable populations and their effectiveness in addressing contemporary social challenges. While traditional social security systems remain essential, innovative models such as social enterprises and integration programmes offer new opportunities for social inclusion and economic activation. The combination of conventional and innovative approaches is critical for responding to the complex needs of vulnerable groups. In contrast, Ukraine faces challenges with limited resources and regulatory flexibility, which hinder the ability to adapt services to individual needs. Drawing on the experiences of these countries could help enhance Ukraine’s social security system, making it more effective and inclusive.

Based on the analysis, within the context of innovation in social work with vulnerable groups, it is recommended to actively implement digital technologies to improve the accessibility of social services. Specifically, online platforms for consultation and service provision should be developed, enabling equal access to resources for individuals in remote or underserved areas. Furthermore, it is important to expand cooperation between social services and civil society organisations, which will enhance coordination of efforts and more effectively address the needs of vulnerable groups. To increase the efficiency of social work, it is also advisable to implement cutting-edge methods, including the use of artificial intelligence and big data for more accurate assessment of client needs and the development of interventions based on evidence-based practices.

References

1. Plisko Ye. General standards of social work. Pers Spirit Methodol Theory Pract. 2023;105(1):122–131. https://doi.org/10.33216/2220-6310/2023-105-1-122-131
2. Hetmantseva ND, Vakaryuk LV. Social policy of the state in the labor market. Leg Sci Elec J. 2024;4:282–285. https://doi.org/10.32782/2524-0374/2024-4/64
3. Agoramoorthy G, Hsu M. COVID-19 and India’s vulnerable indigenous populations. Am J Hum Biol. 2022;34(2):e23608. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajhb.23608
4. Boccagni P, Righard E. Social work with refugee and displaced populations in Europe: (Dis)continuities, dilemmas, developments. Eur J Soc Work. 2020;23(3):375–383. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2020.1767941
5. Boerio P, Garavaglia E, Gaia A. Active ageing in Europe: Are changes in social capital associated with engagement, initiation and maintenance of activity in later life? Ageing Soc. 2023;43(5):1122–1140. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0144686X21001021
6. Daugareilh I. Introduction: Social protection for digital platform workers in Europe. Int Soc Secur Rev. 2021;74(3-4):5–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/issr.12275
7. Elices Acero Á, Prieto-Lobato JM, Rodríguez-Sumaza C. The role of social workers in long-term care for older adults: A mixed-methods systematic review in Europe and North America from 2000 to 2022. Int Soc Work. 2024;68(1):7–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/00208728241269670
8. Gerovska Mitev M. Welfare state reforms and their implications for social work in Central and Southeast Europe. In: Social Work and Social Policy Transformations in Central and Southeast Europe. Cham: Springer; 2024. p. 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-51232-2_1
9. Gray M, Agllias K, Mupedziswa R, Mugumbate J. The expansion of developmental social work in Southern and East Africa: Opportunities and challenges for social work field programmes. Int Soc Work. 2018;61(6):974–987. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872817695399
10. Social Code of Germany. 1975. https://www.sozialgesetzbuch-sgb.de/
11. Social Services Act of Sweden. 2001. https://www.riksdagen.se/sv/dokument-och-lagar/dokument/svensk-forfattningssamling/socialtjanstlag-2001453_sfs-2001-453/
12. Welfare Reform Act. 2012. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2012/5/contents
13. Social Security Code of Italy. 2024. https://www.latribuna.it/libri/codice-del-lavoro-degli-infortuni-della-previdenza-e-dell-assistenza-sociale-vigente/
14. Law of Ukraine No. 2671-VIII “On Social Services”. 2019. https://zakon.rada.gov.ua/laws/show/2671-19#Text
15. Smallheer B. Addressing and dismantling inequities of vulnerable populations. Nurs Clin North Am. 2022;57(3):13–14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2022.07.001
16. Annual Report by the Federal Employment Agency (BA). 2024. Nuremberg: l Employment Agency. https://www.arbeitsagentur.de/datei/annual-report-2023_ba050462.pdf?utm
17. 2023 Factsheet Sweden. 2024 https://www.esn-eu.org/social-services-index/2023/sweden?utm
18. Access to Work statistics: April 2007 to March 2023. 2023. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/access-to-work-statistics-april-2007-to-march-2023/access-to-work-statistics-april-2007-to-march-2023?utm
19. The National Board of Health and Welfare. 2022. https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/vagledning/2013-5-5.pdf
20. Bundesagentur für Arbeit. Employment Integration Statistics. 2025. https://statistik.arbeitsagentur.de/
21. Centro studi CGM (1997), Imprenditori sociali. Secondo rapporto sulla cooperazione sociale in Italia, Torino, Edizioni Fondazione Giovanni Agnelli.
22. Ministry of Social Policy, Family and Unity of Ukraine. Social Support. 2025. https://www.msp.gov.ua/en
23. Behnke L. Rural and indigenous vulnerable populations: A case study. Nurs Clin North Am. 2022;57(3):413–420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cnur.2022.04.007
24. Guliyeva S, Azizova R. Methodology for assessing and predicting the rate of development of education in the Republic of Azerbaijan. WSEAS Trans Environ Dev. 2022;18:962–971. https://doi.org/10.37394/232015.2022.18.92
25. Taushanova M, Yermukhanova L, Tazhbenova S, Aitmaganbet P, Muratov Y, Irmekbayev R, Balday I, Abilkassym D. Evaluating the impact of educational interventions on medication adherence among glaucoma patients in Kazakhstan: A public health perspective. Bangladesh J Med Sci. 2024;23(3):787–797.https://doi.org/10.3329/bjms.v23i3.75111
26. An J, Mikhaylov AYu, Yousif NBA. Financial and investment model for social security and sustainable economic growth. Fin Theory Pract. 2024;28(5):133–145.
27. Giyasova Z, Guliyeva S, Azizova R, Smiech L, Nabiyeva I. Relationships between human development, economic growth, and environmental condition: The case of South Korea. Environ Econ. 2025;16(2):73–83. https://doi.org/10.21511/ee.16(2).2025.06
28. Zamyatina NA, Solntseva OG, Madiyarova ES. Smart tourism: International expertise in strategic solutions. In: Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems. Cham: Springer; 2021:744–752. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-59126-7_82
29. Kalaganov B, Madiyarova AS, Sartayeva KR, Kim EP, Apakhayev N, Buribayev YA. Legal fundamentals of Kazakhstan’s environmental international cooperation: New vectors of legislative reforms. J Environ Manag Tour. 2018;9(7):1525–1538. https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v9.7(31).16
30. Rakhimberdinova M, Nurekenova E, Ordabayeva M, Konyrbekov M, Saifullina Y, Kuttybaeva N. Role of development of the agro-industrial complex to create areas of agritourism. J Environ Manag Tour. 2022;13(8):2311–2319. https://doi.org/10.14505/jemt.v13.8(64).23
31. Porkodi S, Ahmad A, Tabash BKH. Employee experience management and its critical impact on the sustainable development of an enterprise-a systematic literature survey with meta-analysis. J Sustain Sci Manag. 2024;19(4):203–237. https://doi.org/10.46754/jssm.2024.04.015
32. Zhansagimova AE, Nurekenova ES, Bulakbay ZM, Kerimkhulle SY, Beloussova EV. Development of rural tourism based on green technologies in Kazakhstan. In: Environmental Footprints and Eco Design of Products and Processes. Cham: Springer; 2022:17–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-19-1125-5_3
33. Işık C, Ongan S, Islam H, Segota T. Exploring the commitment to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) – the renewable energy and tourism demand nexus. Tourism Econ. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1177/13548166251320691
34. Hasanova J, Najafova K. Digitization, automation problems and solutions in small business on the example of Azerbaijan. WSEAS Trans Bus Econ. 2025;22:1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.37394/23207.2025.22.110
35. Pürhani S, Guliyeva S, Teymurova V, Guliyeva N, Gahramanova S. Human capital as a driver of sustainable development in Azerbaijan. J East Eur Cent Asian Res. 2022;9(6):927–937. https://doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v9i6.1199
36. Apakhayev N, Madiyarova AS, Aigarinova G, Ryskaliyev DU, Buribayev YA, Khamzina ZA. Current trends of legal regulation of relationships in the social protection sphere. Man India. 2017;97(11):221–231.
37. Zile A, Palkova K, Vilks A. Study of the influence of external conditions and materials on the preservation of hidden prints under water. Pak J Criminol. 2023;15(2):305–322.
38. Tsurkan-Saifulina YV, Popelnytska YD. Discrimination and rights violations of minorities in Ukraine: Evaluating ethno-national policies for reform. Pak J Criminol. 2023;15(4):29–47.
39. Care Act 2014. 2014. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2014/23/contents
40. Children Act 1989. 1989. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1989/41/contents
41. Children Act 2004. 2004. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/31/contents
42. Law 8 November 2000, n. 328. 2000. https://www.gazzettaufficiale.it/eli/id/2000/11/13/000G0369/sg
43. Khamzina ZA, Buribayev Y, Almaganbetov P, Tazhmagambet A, Samaldykova Z, Apakhayev N. Labor disputes in Kazakhstan: Results of legal regulation and future prospects. J Leg Ethical Regul Issues. 2020;23(1):1–14.
44. Tsurkan-Saifulina Yu, Stupak M. Psychological readiness as a component of professional training of future lawyers. Soc Leg Stud. 2022;5(3):76–82. https://doi.org/10.32518/2617-4162-2022-5-3-76-82
45. Efremov A. Psychiatry in the context of changing cultural norms: Mental disorders among migrants and refugees. J Behav Cogn Ther. 2025;35(4):100544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbct.2025.100544
46. Rexhepi BR, Murtezaj IM. Visa liberalisation and labour migration: Legal and economic implications for Kosovo. Soc Leg Stud. 2024;7(2):19–27. https://doi.org/10.32518/sals2.2024.19
47. Khamzina ZA, Buribayev Y, Taitorina B, Baisalova G. Gender equality in employment: A view from Kazakhstan. Anais Da Acad Bras Cienc. 2021;93(4):e20190042. https://doi.org/10.1590/0001-3765202120190042
48. Tiurina A, Petrunenko I, Guliyeva S, Qazizade E, Aliyeva T. Social responsibility and modern business during the global crisis: Threat or opportunity for the GUAM member countries. J East Eur Cent Asian Res. 2023;10(2):201–212. https://doi.org/10.15549/jeecar.v10i2.1276
49. Teymurova V, Abdullayeva S, Muradova Kh, Aslanova M, Bayramli M. Environmental challenges and the impact of human capital on Azerbaijan’s foreign economic activity. Sci Bull Mukachevo State Univ. Ser Econ. 2025;12(1):20–34.https://doi.org/10.52566/msu-econ1.2025.20
50. Lyuta LP. Modern models of social policy as a tool for ensuring environmental sustainability of social life. Curr Probl Psychol. 2020;7(36):242–251.
51. Jamal A, Joseph M, Vijesh P. A public library as a gateway for social work community practice: An information-in-practice from Kerala, India. J Aust Libr Inf Assoc. 2023;72(4):492–499. https://doi.org/10.1080/24750158.2023.2271694
52. Kam P. Back to basics: In search of social work elements in social work education. Soc Work Educ. 2022;43(3):748-764. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2022.2142549
53. Kenner J, Florczak I, Otto M. Precarious work: The challenge for labour law in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2019. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781788973267
54. Satalkina L, Steiner G. Social innovation: A retrospective perspective. Minerva. 2022;60:567–591.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-022-09471-y
55. Lavié A, Fernandez A. New social intervention technologies as a challenge in social work: IFSW Europe perspective. Eur J Soc Work. 2018;21(6):824–835. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2018.1423553
56. Kurylo V, Karaman O, Yurkiv Y, Stepanenko V, Kharchenko L. Legal basis and main technologies of socio-psychological work with vulnerable categories of the population in the community. Soc Leg Studios. 2024;7(1):46–55. https://doi.org/10.32518/sals1.2024.46
57. Li X, Yu X, Zeng S, He X. Degree or examination: What is the foundation of the social work workforce in China? Int Soc Work. 2019;62(1):447–460. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872817731145
58. MacFarlane A, LeMaster J. Disrupting patterns of exclusion in participatory spaces: Involving people from vulnerable populations. Health Expect. 2022;25(5):2031-2033. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13578
59. Nicotera A. Social justice and social work, a fierce urgency: Recommendations for social work social justice pedagogy. J Soc Work Educ. 2019;55(3):460–475. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2019.1600443
60. Okoye U, Levy S. Making social work visible in social development in Nigeria. In: Dauncey E, Desai V, Potter RB, editors. The Companion to Development Studies. London: Routledge; 2024. p. 509–513. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429282348
61. Opatrný M. Postsecular, Christian, or humanistic spirituality in social work within secular Europe. J Relig Health. 2024;63:4424–4444. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10943-024-02105-5
62. Palmer V, Birchfield K, Spencer P. Health of vulnerable populations. Acad Med. 2018;93(9):1263–1264. https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000002324
63. Oter-Quintana C, Alcolea-Cosín T, Castedo-Martínez O, Martín-García A, Alameda-Cuesta A. Feeling vulnerable (or not): Rethinking the notion of vulnerable groups. Gac Sanit. 2021;35(1):104–105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gaceta.2020.06.017
64. Pizarro Escribano F, Miranda González F. Creation of work integration social enterprises (WISEs) by social action organizations: Proposal of a model for decision-making. Voluntas. 2023;34:222–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-021-00447-2
65. Reu P, Jarldorn M. Social work students’ perceptions of eco-social work in the curriculum. Aust Soc Work. 2022;76(4):480–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2022.2102431
66. Sakarya H, Şahin F. Perception and attitudes about military social work in Türkiye. Soc Work Educ. 2023;43(6):1578–1589. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2023.2200803
67. Popovici V, Velková A, Klečacký M. Climbing up the social ladder? Social mobility of elites in East-Central Europe in the long 19th century. Berlin: De Gruyter; 2024. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110749144
68. Seifert R. Social work, armed conflict and post-war reconstruction. In: Sonnenberg K, C. Ghaderi C, editors. Social Work in Post-War and Political Conflict Areas. Wiesbaden: Springer; 2021. p. 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-32060-7_2
69. Sewpaul V, Henrickson M. The (r)evolution and decolonization of social work ethics: The Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles. Int Soc Work. 2019;62(6):1469–1481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0020872819846238
70. Trubavina I, Karaman O, Kamenova D, Stepanenko V, Yurkiv Y. The response strategy of social work with displaced families and the receiving community (within the context of sustainable development). E3S Web Conf. 2021;280:04010. https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf/202128004010
71. Evers A, Guilemard AM. Social Policy and Citizenship: The Changing Landscape. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2013.https://doi.org/1017/S0047279413000688.

Appendix

Appendix A
No.	Source (First author)	Country/Region	Year	Type	Relevance to Review
1	Plisko	Ukraine	2023	Journal article	Conceptual models of social work standards
2	Hetmantseva & Vakaryuk	Ukraine	2024	Journal article	Labour-market social policy; national comparison
3	Agoramoorthy & Hsu	India	2022	Journal article	Vulnerability and crisis impact on marginalised groups
4	Boccagni & Righard	Europe	2020	Journal article	Refugee support models; comparative insights
5	Boerio et al.	Europe	2023	Journal article	Active ageing; social capital and inclusion
6	Daugareilh	Europe	2021	Journal article	Platform work; new risks and protection mechanisms
7	Elices Acero et al.	Europe/N. America	2024	Mixed-methods systematic review	Role of social workers in long-term care
8	Gerovska Mitev	Central/S-E Europe	2024	Book chapter	Welfare reforms and implications for practice
9	Gray et al.	Southern/East Africa	2018	Journal article	Developmental social work; transferable innovations
10	Social Code Germany	Germany	1975–2024	Legislation	Framework for employment and disability support
11	Social Services Act Sweden	Sweden	2001–2024	Legislation	Decentralised welfare governance
12	Welfare Reform Act	UK	2012	Legislation	Employment, disability, income-maintenance programmes
13	Social Security Code Italy	Italy	2024	Legislation	Social protection and labour inclusion
14	Law of Ukraine on Social Services	Ukraine	2019	Legislation	National model of social services
15	Smallheer	USA	2022	Journal article	Inequities and health vulnerability
16	Federal Employment Agency Report	Germany	2024	Report	Employment reintegration outcomes
17	ESN Factsheet Sweden	Sweden	2024	Report	Social services performance metrics
18	Access to Work (DWP)	UK	2023	Policy dataset	Disability employment outcomes
19	Nat. Board Health & Welfare	Sweden	2022	Guidance	Integrated services and national standards
20	Bundesagentur für Arbeit Statistics	Germany	2025	Statistical dataset	Labour activation and digitalisation
21	Centro studi CGM	Italy	1997	Policy analysis	Social cooperatives and WISE models
22	Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine	Ukraine	2025	Policy portal	Implementation practices and indicators
23	Behnke	USA	2022	Case study	Indigenous/rural vulnerabilities
24	Guliyeva & Azizova	Azerbaijan	2022	Journal article	Service assessment and modelling
25	Taushanova et al.	Kazakhstan	2024	Journal article	Client education and public health
26	An et al.	China/Russia	2024	Journal article	Financial sustainability of social systems
27	Giyasova et al.	Korea	2025	Journal article	Macro-level welfare/innovation links
28	Zamyatina et al.	International	2021	Conference chapter	Technology-enabled service models
29	Kalaganov et al.	Kazakhstan	2018	Journal article	Legal aspects of international cooperation
30	Rakhimberdinova et al.	Kazakhstan	2022	Journal article	Rural social programmes and inclusive models
31	Porkodi et al.	India	2024	Systematic review	Experience management; organisational context
32	Zhansagimova et al.	Kazakhstan	2022	Book chapter	Green technology innovations
33	Işık et al.	Global	2025	Journal article	Sustainable development; policy innovation
34	Hasanova & Najafova	Azerbaijan	2025	Journal article	Digitalisation and SME constraints
35	Pürhani et al.	Azerbaijan	2022	Journal article	Human capital and sustainable development
36	Apakhayev et al.	Kazakhstan	2017	Journal article	Social protection dimensions
37	Zile et al.	Latvia	2023	Journal article	Forensic/administrative models; indirect relevance
38	Tsurkan-Saifulina & Popelnytska	Ukraine	2023	Journal article	Inequality and social rights
39	Care Act	UK	2014	Legislation	Adult care and personalisation
40	Children Act	UK	1989/2004	Legislation	Child protection and inclusion
41	Law 328/2000	Italy	2000	Legislation	Social services integration
42	Khamzina et al.	Kazakhstan	2020	Journal article	Labour rights; vulnerable workers
43	Tsurkan-Saifulina & Stupak	Ukraine	2022	Journal article	Psychological readiness; training focus
44	Efremov	Europe	2025	Journal article	Migrants and mental health
45	Rexhepi & Murtezaj	Kosovo	2024	Journal article	Migration and labour markets
46	Khamzina et al.	Kazakhstan	2021	Journal article	Gender inclusivity; relevance to vulnerability
47	Tiurina et al.	GUAM	2023	Journal article	Social responsibility and crisis responses
48	Teymurova et al.	Azerbaijan	2025	Journal article	Environmental vulnerability
49	Lyuta	Ukraine	2020	Journal article	Social policy and sustainability
50	Jamal et al.	India	2023	Journal article	Community-based inclusion
51	Kam	Hong Kong	2022	Journal article	Foundations of social work training
52	Kenner et al.	Europe	2019	Book	Precarity and vulnerable workers
53	Satalkina & Steiner	Global	2022	Journal article	Social innovation theory
54	Lavié & Fernandez	Europe	2018	Journal article	Digital interventions in social work
55	Kurylo et al.	Ukraine	2024	Journal article	Socio-psychological work with vulnerable groups
56	Li et al.	China	2019	Journal article	Training models; relevance to workforce practice
57	MacFarlane & LeMaster	UK	2022	Journal article	Inclusion in participatory processes
58	Nicotera	USA	2019	Journal article	Social justice and pedagogy
59	Okoye & Levy	Nigeria	2024	Book chapter	Social development and policy relevance
60	Opatrný	Europe	2024	Journal article	Spirituality in social work
61	Palmer et al.	USA	2018	Commentary	Health of vulnerable groups
62	Oter-Quintana et al.	Spain	2021	Journal article	Conceptualising vulnerability
63	Pizarro Escribano & Miranda González	Spain	2023	Journal article	Work-integration social enterprises (WISEs)
64	Reu & Jarldorn	Australia	2022	Journal article	Eco-social work
65	Sakarya & Şahin	Türkiye	2023	Journal article	Military social work
66	Popovici et al.	C-E Europe	2024	Monograph	Social mobility
67	Seifert	Europe	2021	Book chapter	Social work in conflict/post-war contexts
68	Sewpaul & Henrickson	Global	2019	Journal article	Decolonisation of social work ethics
69	Trubavina et al.	Ukraine	2021	Conference paper	Displaced families; community responses
70	Evers & Guilemard	Europe	2013	Book	Social policy and citizenship
71	Ministry of Social Policy of Ukraine	Ukraine	2025	Government source	National-level service delivery

Cite this article as:
Kurylo V, Karaman O, Yurkiv Y, Krasnova N and Shabaieva N. Models of Social Work in Europe: Innovations in Working with Various Categories of Vulnerable Populations: A Narrative Review. Premier Journal of Science 2025;14:100190

Export to EndNote Export to Mendeley