¿Separación o preservación familiar?Las actitudes y creencias como fuentes de evidencia para la toma de decisiones en organizaciones de protección infantil

  1. Mosteiro Pascual, Amaia 1
  2. Sobremonte de Mendicuti, Emma 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Deusto, Bilbao
Revue:
Alternativas: Cuadernos de Trabajo Social

ISSN: 1133-0473,  1989-9971

Année de publication: 2022

Número: 29

Pages: 335-358

Type: Article

DOI: 10.14198/ALTERN.21200 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openRUA editor

D'autres publications dans: Alternativas: Cuadernos de Trabajo Social

Résumé

Introduction. Child-protection measures are complex decisions to make, especially in the case of possibly separating children from their biological families. Unsurprisingly, the question of decision-making is recurringly addressed in practice and in the scientific literature. In this light, the issue of professional decision-making variability has received much attention, leading to the need to understand how and on what basis judgements and intervention recommendations are made. Methodology. The aim of this study was to analyse the variability of the decisions made by child protection professionals in the Basque Country regarding family preservation or separation measures. A quantitative methodology was followed to study the professionals’ attitudes and beliefs as well as the organisational contexts of the decisions. A total of 204 responses were obtained from professionals working in different organisations, both in the public and private sectors. Results. Some variability was found in the professional decisions made based on the vignette proposed, and significant differences were observed in terms of attitudes towards the protection system, beliefs about the risk of intervention alternatives, and the organisational context. Discussion. Choices were related to personal attitudes and the perceived risks or benefits in each case. Thus, professionals who opted for family preservation displayed more favourable attitudes towards this measure and perceived a lower level of risk than professionals who opted for separation. There was also a tendency to homogenise decisions in some organisational contexts, especially in community social services, where there was almost no variability in the decisions made. Conclusions. Each professional judgement and decision are subject to a personal and organisational assessment filter, and this filter is a source of evidence as well as of theoretical and technical knowledge. To reduce decision-making variability, it is necessary to focus on personal variables which must be addressed in training and professional supervision settings. It is thus important to conduct further research on judgements and intervention decisions in organisational contexts in order to understand the role of the vision and mission of organisations in professional practice.

Références bibliographiques

  • Arruabarrena, I. & De Paúl, J. (2011). Valoración de la gravedad de las situaciones de desprotección infantil por los profesionales de protección infantil. Psicothema, 23(4), 642-647. Recuperado de https://www.psicothema.com/pdf/3935.pdf
  • Baron, J. (2004). Normative models of judgment and decision making. En D. Koehler & N. Harvey, Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 19-36). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470752937.ch2
  • Baumann, D., Dalgleish, L., Fluke, J. & Kern, H. (2011). The decision-making ecology. . Washington: American Humane Association.
  • Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., Knorth, E.J., Witterman, C.L.M., del Valle, J.F. & Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protection: an international comparative study on maltreatment and substantation, risk assessment and intervention recommendations, and the role of professional´s child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 63-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015
  • Benbenishty, R., Osmo, J., Gold, N. (2003). Rationales provided for risk assessment recommended: a comparison between canadian and Israel professionals. British Journal of Social Work, 33(2), 137-155. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/33.2.137
  • Briar, S. (1963). Clinical judgment in foster care placement. Child Welfare, 42(4), 161-169. Recuperado de https://www.jstor.org/stable/45399182
  • Calder, M. (2008). Organisational dangerousness: causes, consequences and correctives. En M. Calder (Ed.), Contemporary risk assessment in safeguarding children (pp. 119-165). Lyme Regis: Russell House Publishing.
  • Carson, D. & Bain, A. (2008). Professional risk and working with people. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
  • Chateauneuf, D., Poirirer, M.A. & Pagé, G. (2021). Decision-making in foster care: A view on the dynamic and collective nature of the process. Journal of Social Work, 21(4), 730-752. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017320928825
  • Davidson-Arad, B. & Benbenishty, R. (2008). The role of workers´attitudes and parent and child wishes in child protection workers´assessments and recommendation regarding removal and reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(1), 107-121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.07.003
  • Davidson-Arad, B. & Benbenishty, R. (2010). Contribution of child protection workers´attitudes to their risk assessments and intervention recomendation: a study in Israel. Health and Social Care in the community, 18(1), 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2524.2009.00868.x
  • Davidson-Arad, B. & Benbenishty, R. (2016). Child Welfare attitudes, risk assessments and intervention recomendations: the role of professional expertise. British Journal of Social Work, 46(1), 186-203. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcu110
  • De Haan, W., Van Berkel, S., Van der Asdonk, S., Finkenauer, C., Forder, C., Van Ijzendoorn, M., Schuengel, C. & Alink, L. (2019). Out-of-home placement decisions: How individual characteristics of professionals are reflected in deciding about child protection cases. Developmental Child Welfare, 1(4), 312–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/2516103219887974
  • Font, S. & Maguire-Jack, K. (2015). Decision making in child protective services: influences at multiple levels of the social ecology. Child Abuse & Neglect, 47, 70-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.005
  • Gambrill, E. (2005). Decision making in child welfare:errors and their context. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(4), 347-352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.12.005
  • Gillingham, P. & Humphreys, C. (2010). Child protection practitioners and decision-making tools: observations and reflections from the front line. British Journal of Social work, 40(8), 2598-2616. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcp155
  • Gold, N., Benbenishty, R. & Osmo, J. (2001). A comparative study of risk assessment and recommended interventions in Canada and Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25(5), 607-622. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(01)00228-9
  • Goldstein, W. (2004). Social judgment theory: appliying and extending Brunswik's probabilistic functionalism. En D. Koehler, & N. Harvey (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of judgment and decision making (pp. 37-61). Oxford: Blackwell Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470752937.ch3
  • Helm, D. (2010). Making sense of child and family assessment. How to interpret children´s needs. Philadelphia: Jessika Kingsley Publishers.
  • Hollinshead, D., Currie, D., Kroll, K., Wolf, S., Monahan-Price, K. & Fluke, J. (2021). Associations Between Case, Staff, and Agency Characteristics and the Decision to Place a Child in Out-of-Home Care. International Journal on Child Maltreatment, 4, 325–347. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42448-021-00083-9
  • Kahneman, D. (2013). Pensar rápido, pensar despacio. Barcelona: DeBolsillo.
  • Keddell, E. (2014). Current debates on variability in Child Welfare decision-making: a selected literature review. Social Sciences, 3(4), 916-940. https://doi.org/10.3390/socsci3040916
  • Keddell, E. (2017). Comparing Risk-Averse and Risk-Friendly Practitioners in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Mixed Methods Study. Journal of Social Work Practice, 31(5), 411-429. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2017.1394822
  • Keddel, E. & Hyslop, I. (2019). Networked Decisions: Decision-Making Thresholds in Child Protection. The British Journal of Social Work, 50(7), 1961–1980. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcz131
  • Kemshall, H., Wilkinson, B. & Baker, K. (2013). Working with risk. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Lindsey, D. (1992). Reliability of the foster care placement decision: a review. Research on social work practice, 2(1), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973159200200106
  • Lyle, C. & Graham, E. (2000). Looks Can Be Deceiving: Using a Risk Assessment Instrument to Evaluate the Outcomes of Child Protection Services. Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11-12), 935-949. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190-7409(00)00119-5
  • Molina, A. (2012). Toma de decisiones profesionales en el Sistema de Protección Infantil. Granada: Junta de Andalucía. Recuperado de: https://www.observatoriodelainfancia.es/oia/esp/documentos_ficha.aspx?id=3586
  • Molina, A., Palacios, J. & Jiménez-Morago, J. (2019). Do more severe incidents lead to more drastic decisions? A study pf professional child protection decision making in Spain. Children an Youth Services Review, 107, 104547. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104547
  • Mosteiro, A. (2015). La toma de decisiones en protección infantil: el caso de la CAPV. Tesis doctoral no publicada. Bilbao: Universidad de Deusto.
  • Mosteiro, A., Beloki, U., Sobremonte, E. & Rodríguez, A. (2018). Dimensions for argument and variability in child protection decision making. Journal of Social Work Practice, 32(2), 169-187. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2018.1439459
  • Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse & Neglect, 23(8), 745-758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00053-8
  • Munro, E. (2010). Conflating risk: implications for accurate risk prediction in child welfare services. Health, Risk & Society, 12(2), 119-130. https://doi.org/10.1080/13698571003632411
  • Rossi, P., Schuerman, J. & Budde, S. (1999). Understanding decisions about child maltreatment. Evaluating Review, 23(6), 579-598. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9902300601
  • Rosen, A. (1994). Knowledge use in direct practice. Social Service Review, 68(4), 561-577. https://doi.org/10.1086/604084
  • Sieracki, J. (2010). In whose best interest? Using and experimental vignette to asses factors influencing placement decisions in child welfare. Doctoral Dissertation. Chicago: Loyola University. Recuperado de https://www.proquest.com/docview/502128547?pq-origsite=gscholar&fromopenview=true
  • Smith, B. & Donovan, S. (2003). Child welfare practice in organizational and institutional context. Social Service Review, 77(4), 541-563. https://doi.org/10.1086/378328
  • Snyder, J. & Newberger, E. (1986). Consensus and differences among hospital professionals in evaluating child maltreatment. Violence and victims, 1(2), 125-139. https://doi.org/10.1891/0886-6708.1.2.125
  • Spratt, T., Devaney, J. & Hayes, D. (2015). In and out of home care decisions: The influence of confirmation bias in developing decision supportive reasoning. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 76-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.01.015
  • Sullivan, C., Whitehead, P., Leschied, A., Chiodo, D. & Hurley, D. (2008). Perception of risk among child protection workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(7), 699-704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.010
  • Taylor, B. (2006). Factorial surveys using vignettes to study professional judgement. British Journal of Social Work, 36(7), 1187-1207. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch345
  • Vargas, R., Lavergne, C. & Poirier, M-A., (2022). How collective interactions and institutional logics influence permanency planning in child protection in Quebec. Child Abuse & Neglect, 130, 105180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2021.105180
  • Wells, S., Fluke, J. & Brown, H. (1995). The decision to investigate: child protection practice in 12 local agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 17(4), 523-546. https://doi.org/10.1016/0190-7409(95)00037-D
  • Wilson, S. (2009). Leading practice improvement in front line child protection. British Journal of Social Work, 39(1), 64-80. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcm093
  • Wolf, S. (2011). Personal motivation and child protection decision-making: the role of regulatory focus. Columbia: Columbia University.
La source de données: Dialnet