IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v87y2018icp130-139.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Role type, risk perceptions and judgements in child welfare: A mixed methods vignette study

Author

Listed:
  • Keddell, Emily
  • Hyslop, Ian

Abstract

Variable outcomes when family characteristics are similar are a problem in child welfare systems. Perceptions of risk and safety can vary widely, resulting in lack of consistency in practise and professional conflicts. This article reports on a mixed methods study that used an ecological approach to understanding variability in child welfare decision-making. Phase one of the study used a staged online vignette-based survey to compare statutory and non-governmental organization (NGO) child welfare practitioners' perceptions of risk, safety, and harm over time (n = 67), and key decisions such as when to substantiate. The survey also elicited qualitative responses about their conceptualisation of risk factors, safety factors, plan goals, knowledge bases and practice responses. Role type shapes differences in perceptions of the levels of risk, safety, substantiation and future harm. Statutory workers perceived present and future risk levels as lower than NGO workers, safety higher, and substantiated later. Both groups defined risk factors and safety factors at stages one and two in similar ways, and identified similar knowledge bases they would use in practice. Differences in safety constructions, practise responses and goals occurred at later stages. These findings suggest that despite broad similarities in knowledge bases, perceptions of the level of risk can still differ. This may be explained by the ‘situated role’ of the practitioner in relation to their position on the prevention – intervention continuum. Implications for theory, practice and research are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Keddell, Emily & Hyslop, Ian, 2018. "Role type, risk perceptions and judgements in child welfare: A mixed methods vignette study," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 130-139.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:87:y:2018:i:c:p:130-139
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740917309076
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.017?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Fluke, John D. & Corwin, Tyler W. & Hollinshead, Dana M. & Maher, Erin J., 2016. "Family preservation or child safety? Associations between child welfare workers' experience, position, and perspectives," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 210-218.
    2. Emily Keddell, 2014. "Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, November.
    3. Bywaters, Paul & Brady, Geraldine & Sparks, Tim & Bos, Elizabeth & Bunting, Lisa & Daniel, Brigid & Featherstone, Brid & Morris, Kate & Scourfield, Jonathan, 2015. "Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: Explaining the ‘inverse intervention law’," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 98-105.
    4. Arruabarrena, Ignacia & De Paúl, Joaquín, 2012. "Improving accuracy and consistency in child maltreatment severity assessment in child protection services in Spain: New set of criteria to help caseworkers in substantiation decisions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(4), pages 666-674.
    5. Križ, Katrin & Skivenes, Marit, 2013. "Systemic differences in views on risk: A comparative case vignette study of risk assessment in England, Norway and the United States (California)," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(11), pages 1862-1870.
    6. Font, Sarah A. & Berger, Lawrence M. & Slack, Kristen S., 2012. "Examining racial disproportionality in child protective services case decisions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(11), pages 2188-2200.
    7. Munro, Eileen, 2005. "Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 375-391, April.
    8. Keddell, Emily, 2014. "Theorising the signs of safety approach to child protection social work: Positioning, codes and power," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 70-77.
    9. Robin Hogarth, 2002. "Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantadges and disadvantadges of analytic and intuitive thought," Economics Working Papers 654, Department of Economics and Business, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
    10. Dettlaff, Alan J. & Rivaux, Stephanie L. & Baumann, Donald J. & Fluke, John D. & Rycraft, Joan R. & James, Joyce, 2011. "Disentangling substantiation: The influence of race, income, and risk on the substantiation decision in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(9), pages 1630-1637, September.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Robichaud, Marie-Joëlle & Pullen Sansfaçon, Annie & Poirier, Marie-Andrée, 2020. "Decision making at substantiation in cases involving racialized families: Child protection workers’ perceptions of influential factors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    2. Smith, Brenda D. & Pressley, Tracy D., 2019. "Do surprisingly low child maltreatment rates in rural southern counties reflect lower rates of substantiation?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    3. Molina, A. & Palacios, J. & Jiménez-Morago, J.M., 2019. "Do more severe incidents lead to more drastic decisions? A study of professional child protection decision making in Spain," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Emily Keddell, 2014. "Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, November.
    2. Keddell, Emily & Davie, Gabrielle & Barson, Dave, 2019. "Child protection inequalities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Social gradient and the ‘inverse intervention law’," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 104(C), pages 1-1.
    3. Robichaud, Marie-Joëlle & Pullen Sansfaçon, Annie & Poirier, Marie-Andrée, 2020. "Decision making at substantiation in cases involving racialized families: Child protection workers’ perceptions of influential factors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    4. McLaughlin, Michael & Jonson-Reid, Melissa, 2017. "The relationship between child welfare financing, screening, and substantiation," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 407-412.
    5. Emily Keddell, 2019. "Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-22, October.
    6. Kahn, Nicholas E. & Hansen, Mary Eschelbach, 2017. "Measuring racial disparities in foster care placement: A case study of Texas," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 213-226.
    7. Smith, Brenda D. & Pressley, Tracy D., 2019. "Do surprisingly low child maltreatment rates in rural southern counties reflect lower rates of substantiation?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    8. Stephens, Tricia & Kuerbis, Alexis & Pisciotta, Caterina & Morgenstern, Jon, 2020. "Underexamined points of vulnerability for black mothers in the child welfare system: The role of number of births, age of first use of substances and criminal justice involvement," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    9. Allan, Heather & Harlaar, Nicole & Hollinshead, Dana & Drury, Ida & Merkel-Holguin, Lisa, 2017. "The impact of worker and agency characteristics on FGC referrals in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 229-237.
    10. Keddell, Emily & Cleaver, Kerri & Fitzmaurice, Luke, 2021. "The perspectives of community-based practitioners on preventing baby removals : Addressing legitimate and illegitimate factors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    11. Sinha, Vandna & Ellenbogen, Stephen & Trocmé, Nico, 2013. "Substantiating neglect of first nations and non-aboriginal children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(12), pages 2080-2090.
    12. Alex James & Jeanette McLeod & Shaun Hendy & Kip Marks & Delia Rusu & Syen Nik & Michael J Plank, 2019. "Using family network data in child protection services," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(10), pages 1-14, October.
    13. Molina, A. & Palacios, J. & Jiménez-Morago, J.M., 2019. "Do more severe incidents lead to more drastic decisions? A study of professional child protection decision making in Spain," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    14. Ahn, Haksoon & Xu, Yanfeng & Williams, Kimberly A. & Parks-Bourn, Kimberly & Williams, Syreeta & Conway, Denise, 2022. "Family team decision meeting and child welfare service disparities: The influence of race and poverty," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    15. Emily Keddell & Gabrielle Davie, 2018. "Inequalities and Child Protection System Contact in Aotearoa New Zealand: Developing a Conceptual Framework and Research Agenda," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 7(6), pages 1-14, June.
    16. Kearney, Aubrey D. & Wilson, Elisabeth S. & Hollinshead, Dana M. & Poletika, Michael & Kestian, Heather H. & Stigdon, Terry J. & Miller, Eric A. & Fluke, John D., 2023. "Child welfare triage: Use of screening threshold analysis to evaluate intake decision-making," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 144(C).
    17. de Haan, Irene & Connolly, Marie, 2014. "Another Pandora's box? Some pros and cons of predictive risk modeling," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 86-91.
    18. Simon, James David & D'Andrade, Amy & Hsu, Hsun-Ta, 2021. "The intersection of child welfare services and public assistance: An analysis of dual-system involvement and successful family preservation completion on a maltreatment re-report," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    19. Emily Keddell, 2022. "Mechanisms of Inequity: The Impact of Instrumental Biases in the Child Protection System," Societies, MDPI, vol. 12(3), pages 1-19, May.
    20. Boatswain-Kyte, Alicia & Esposito, Tonino & Trocmé, Nico & Boatswain-Kyte, Alicia, 2020. "A longitudinal jurisdictional study of Black children reported to child protection services in Quebec, Canada," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:87:y:2018:i:c:p:130-139. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.