La variabilitat en la presa de decisions entre professionals de protecció infantilel rol que juguen les seves característiques personals

  1. Amaia Mosteiro Pascual 1
  2. Emma Sobremonte de Mendicuti 1
  3. Arantxa Rodriguez-Berrio 1
  1. 1 Universitat de Deusto, España
Revista:
RTS: Revista de treball social

ISSN: 0212-7210,  2339-6385

Año de publicación: 2019

Número: 215

Páginas: 33-52

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.32061/RTS2019.215.02 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: RTS: Revista de treball social

Resumen

La variabilidad en la toma de decisiones en protección infantil está recibiendo cada vez más atención en el Trabajo Social. Este artículo presenta los hallazgos de un estudio cuantitativo que se ha realizado con profesionales de protección infantil en la comunidad autónoma del País Vasco. El objetivo es analizar la variabilidad en la toma de decisiones en protección infantil en función de las características personales de los profesionales que intervienen en dichos casos. El estudio ha explorado a través de la metodología de viñetas si la decisión de separar o preservar a la persona menor de edad en su familia está relacionada con variables sociodemográficas y vivenciales y con la titulación y experiencia profesional. Partiendo de la hipótesis de la existencia de variabilidad entre profesionales a la hora de decidir si implementar una medida de preservación familiar o una de separación, este estudio ha encontrado diferencias significativas en la decisión en función de la experiencia profesional, de la edad y del hecho de ser padre o madre. En otras variables, los resultados sugieren la importancia de otros factores como el contexto organizacional desde donde se interviene.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • 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
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet