Variability in decision-making with regard to child protection is gaining traction in social work. This article presents the findings of a quantitative study carried out with child protection professionals in the Basque Country. The goal is to analyse variability in decision-making for child protection based on the personal characteristics of the professionals involved in such cases. Using a vignette methodology, the study explored whether the decision to keep a child with his family or separate him from them is related to socio-demographic and experience-based variables, and also to education and professional experience. Based on the hypothesis that there is variability among professionals when deciding whether to implement a family preservation or separation decision, this study has found significant differences in the decision based on professional experience, the age of professionals and whether or not they are a parent. For other variables, the results indicate that different factors are important, such as the organisational context in which professionals work.
Article
Variability in decision-making among child protection professionals: the role played by their personal characteristics
Download article (629.12 KB)Arruabarrena, I., y De Paúl, J. (2011). Valoración de la gravedad de las situaciones de desprotección infantil por los profesionales de protec- ción infantil. Psicothema, 23(4), 642-647.
Ashton, V. (2004). The effect of personal characteristics on reporting child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 28(9), 985-997. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.03.012
Banks, S. (1997). Ética y valores en el trabajo social. Barcelona, Espanya: Paidós.
Baumann, D., Dalgleish, L., Fluke, J., y Kern, H. (2011). The decisi- on-making ecology. Washington, DC, USA: American Humane Association.
Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., y Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protec- tion: An international comparative study on maltreatment substan- tiation, risk assessment and intervention recommendations, and the role of professional’s child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse and Neglect, 49, 63-75. DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015.
Benbenishty, R., y Davidson-Arad, B. (2012). A controlled study of placement and reuni cation decision in Israel. Presentat a EUSARF. Glasgow, RU.
Benbenishty, R., Osmo, J., y Gold, N. (2003). Rationales provided for risk assessment recommended: A comparison between Canadian and Is- raeli professionals. The British Journal of Social Work, 33(2), 137-155.
Britner, P., y Mossler, D. (2002). Professionals’ decision-making about out-of-home placements following instances of child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26(4), 317-332.
Burnett, B. (1993). The psychological abuse of latency age children: a survey. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17(4), 441-454.
Calder, M. (2008). Professional Dangerousness: causes and contempo- rary features. En M. Calder (Ed.), Contemporary risk assessment in safeguarding children (p. 61-96). Lyme Regis, RU: Russell House Publishing.
Cash, S. (2001). Risk assessment in child welfare: the art and science. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(11), 811-830. DOI:10.1016/S0190-7409(01)00162-1
Davidson-Arad, B., y Benbenishty, R. (2016). Child Welfare Attitudes, Risk Assessments and Intervention Recommendations: The Role of Professional Expertise. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(1), 186- 203. DOI:10.1093/bjsw/bcu110
Davidson-Arad, B., y Benbenishty, R. (2010). Contribution of child pro- tection workers ́attitudes to their risk assessments and intervention recommendations: a study in Israel. Health and Social Care, 18(1), 1-9. DOI:10.1111/j.1365-2524.2009.00868
Davidson-Arad, B., y Benbenishty, R. (2008). The role of workers’ attitu- des and parent and child wishes in child protection workers’ asses- sments and recommendation regarding removal and reuni cation. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(1), 107-121. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.07.003
Davidson-Arad, B., Englechin-Segal, D., Wozner, Y., y Gabriel, R. (2003). Why social workers do not implement decisions to remove children at risk from home. Child Abuse and Neglect, 27(6), 687-697. DOI:10.1016/S0145-2134(03)00106-6
Deisz, R., Doueck, H., George, N., y Levine, M. (1996). Reasonable cause: a qualitative study of mandated reporting. Child Abuse and Neglect, 20(4), 275-287. DOI:10.1016/0145-2134(96)00009-9
Devaney, J., Hayes, D., y Spratt, T. (2017. The In uences of Training and Experience in Removal and Reuni cation Decisions Involving Chil- dren at Risk ofMaltreatment: Detecting a ‘Beginner Dip’. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(8), 2364-2383. DOI:10.1093/bjsw/bcw175
Drury-Hudson, J. (1999). Decision making in child protection: the use of theorethical, empirical and procedural kwnoledge by novices and experts and implications for dielwork placements. The British Journal of Social Work, 29(1), 147-69.
Dukes, R., y Kean, R. (1989). An experimental study of gender and situa- tion in the perception and reportage of child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 13(3), 352-360.
Ericsson, K., y Chamess, N. (1994). Expert performance: its structure and acquisition. American Psychologist, 49(8), 725-747. DOI:10.1037/0003-066X.49.8.725
Fernandes do Santos, A. I. (2017). Decision-making processes in child abuse situations. (Tesi doctoral, Universitat do Minho, Braga. Portugal.) Recuperat de https://repositorium.sdum.uminho.pt/bits- tream/1822/48618/1/Ana%20Isabel%20Fernandes%20dos%20Santos. pdf.
Garrido, M., y Grimaldi, V. (2012). Evaluación del riesgo psicosocial en familias usuarias del Sistema Público de Servicios Sociales de Anda- lucía. Sevilla, Espanya: Junta d’Andalusia, Conselleria de Salut i Ben- estar Social, Agència de Serveis Socials i Dependència d’Andalusia.
Gold, N., Benbenishty, R., y Osmo, J. (2001). A comparative study of risk assessment and recommended interventions in Canada and Israel. Child Abuse and Neglect, 25(5), 607-622. DOI:10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00228-9
Helm, D., y Roesch-Marsh, A. (2017). The Ecology of Judgement: A Mo- del for Understanding and Improving Social Work Judgements. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(5), 1361-1376.
Jent, J., Eaton, C., Knickerbocker, L., Lambert, W., Merrick, M., y Dan- des, S. (2011). Multidisciplinary child protection decision making about physical abuse: determining substantiation thresholds and biases. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1673-1682. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.04.029
Keddell, E. (2014). Current debates on variability in Child Welfare decisi- on-making: a selected literature review. Social Sciences, 3(4), 916- 940. DOI:10.3390/socsci3040916
Keddell, E., y Hyslop, I. (2018). Role type, risk perceptions and judge- ments in child welfare: A mixed methods vignette study. Children and Youth Services Review, 87, 130-139. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.017
Kemshall, H., Wilkinson, B., y Baker, K. (2013). Working with risk. Cam- bridge, RU: Polity Press.
Klein, G. (1999). The sources of power. How people make decisions. Cambridge, RU: MIT Press.
Lwin, K., Fluke, J., Trocméc, N., Fallona, B., y Mishna, F. (2018). Ongoing child welfare services: Understanding the relationship of worker and organizational characteristics to service provision. Child Abuse and Neglect, 80, 324-334. DOI:10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.04.001
Mandel, D., Lehman, D., y Yuille, J. (1995). Reasoning about removal of a child from home: a comparison of policy of cers and social workers. Journal of Aplied Social Psychology, 25(10), 906-921. DOI:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.tb02652.x
Molina, A. (2012). Toma de decisiones profesionales en el Sistema de Pro- tección Infantil. Observatori de la Infància d’Andalusia, Conselleria de Salut i Benestar. Recuperat de: http://www.observatoriodelain- fancia.es/oia/esp/documentos_ cha.aspx?id=3586
Mosteriro, A., Beloqui, U., Sobremonte, E., y Rodriguez, A. (2018). Dimensions for argument and variability in child protection decision-making. Journal of Social Work Practice, 32(2),169-187. DOI:10.1080/02650533.2018.1439459
Mosteiro, A. (2015). La toma de decisiones en protección infantil. El caso de la comunidad autónoma del País Vasco. (Tesi doctoral, Universitat de Deusto, Bilbao.)
Parada, H., Barnoff, L., y Coleman, B. (2007). Negotiating “professional agency”: social work and decision-making within the Ontario Child Welfare System. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 34(4), 35-56
Pecnik, N., y Brunnberg, E. (2005). Professionals’ characteristics, victim’s gender, and case assessments as predictors of professional judgments in child protection. Review of Psychology, 12(2), 133-146.
Portwood, S. (1998). The impact of individuals’ characteristics and ex- periences on their de nitions of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22(5), 437-452. DOI:10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00008-8
Regehr, C., LeBlanc, V., Shlonsky, A., y Bogo, M. (2010). The in uence of clinicians’ previous trauma exposure on their assessment of child abuse risk. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 198(9), 614- 618. DOI:10.1097/NMD.0b013e3181ef349e
Roscoe, B. (1990). De ning child maltreatment: ratings of parental beha- viors. Adolescence, 25(99), 517-528.
Rossi, P., Schuerman, J., y Budde, S. (1999). Understanding decisions about child maltreatment. Evaluation Review, 23(6), 579-598. DOI:10.1177/0193841X9902300601
Ryan, J., Garnier, P., Zyphur, M., y Zhai, F. (2006). Investigating the effects of caseworkers characteristics in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 28(9), 993-1006. DOI:10.1016/j.childyouth.2005.10.013
Schuerman, J., Rossi, P., y Budde, S. (1999). Decision on placement and family preservation. Agreement and targeting. Evaluation Review, 25(6), 599-618. DOI:10.1177/0193841X9902300602
Sieracki, J. (2010). In whose best interest? Using an experimental vignet- te to assess factors in uencing placement decisions in child welfare. Chicago, EUA: Loyola University Chicago. Recuperat de http://ecom- mons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230ycontext=luc_diss
Snyder, J., y Newberger, E. (1986). Consensus and differences among hospitals professionals in evaluating child maltreatment. Violence and Victims, 1(2), 125-139.
Spratt, T., Devaney, J., y Hayes, D. (2015). In and out of home care decisions: The in uence of con rmation bias in developing decision
