Decision, risk and uncertainty. Withdrawal or reunification of children and young people in danger?

Paulo Delgado Ferreira, João M.S. Carvalho, Vânia S. Pinto, Teresa Martins

Abstract


This study aims to better understand what influences and determines decisions in contexts characterized by complexity and uncertainty, and contributes to the development of recommendations for practice. Based on the work of Davidson-Arad and Benbenishty (2008, 2010), we intended to understand how students from higher education, in scientific areas related to professions involved in decision making processes of children and young people at risk individual care plan, would decide in the presence of a specific case with different scenarios. Participated in the study 200 university students from different regions of Portugal. We used a factorial design (2×2) that involved a questionnaire vignette with four versions. The questionnaire describes the case of a child suspected of being a victim of violence and requires the students to make a decision about the kind of intervention that should be applied in that moment. In addition they must also decide, if the child was removed from her home, whether or not the child should be reunited with the biological family after two years. Among the key findings we highlight the fact that students recognized the risk posed to the child as suffering significant physical and emotional harm. Nevertheless, most decided in favour of an intervention with the biological family, avoiding the removal of the child from their life context. However, in the case of a decision favouring foster care, the majority of the students considered that the child should remain with the foster family when they were asked to reassess the case after two years. It is noted, with statistical significance, that the decision was influenced at first by the agreement or not of the mother to withdrawal and secondly by the child’s desire to be reunited or not with the birth family. We concluded that the development of professional evaluation criteria and decision making should be addressed by including in the curriculum of higher education programmes in the field of child protection, the study of the criteria for the withdrawal, the conditions for the reunification and the advantages of involving the child and the biological family in the intervention.


Keywords


welfare services; child abuse; risk assessment ;decision making; foster care

References


Baumann, D.J., Dalgleish, l., Fluke, J., & Kern, H. (2011). The decision-making ecology. Washington, DC: American Humane Association.

Baumann, D., Kern, H., & Fluke, J. (1997). Foundations of the decision making ecology and overview. In H., Kern, D.J., Baumann, & J. Fluke, (Eds.), Worker Improvements to the Decision and Outcome Model (WISDOM): The child welfare decision enhancement project (pp. 15-31). Washington, D.C.: The Children’s Bureau.

Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., lópez, M., Devaney, J., Hayes, D., Spratt, T., et al. (2014). Decision making in Child Protection: An International Comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, Risk Assessment and Interventions Recommendations, and the Role of Professionals’ Child Welfare Attitudes (Oral Presentation). EUsARF 2014, Copenhaga, Dinamarca.

Benbenishty, R., Osmo, R., & Gold, N. (2003). Rationales Provided for Risk Assessments and for Recommended Interventions in Child Protection: A Comparison between Canadian and Israeli Profissionals. British Journal of Social Work, 33, 137-155. DOI:10.1093/bjsw/33.2.137

Casas, F. (2010). Representaciones sociales que influyen en las politicas sociales de infancia y adolescencia en Europa. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 17(1), 15-28. DOI: 10.7179/psri_2010.17.02

Dalgleish, l. (1988). Decision-making in child abuse cases: Applications of social judgment theory and signal detection theory. In B. Brehmer & C.R.B. Joyce (Eds.), Human Judgment: The SJT view (pp. 71-95). North Holland: Elsevier.

Davidson-Arad, B., & Benbenishty, R. (2008). The role of workers’ attitudes and parent and child wishes in child protection workers’ assessments and recommendations regarding removal and reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 30(1), 107-121. DOI: 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 recommendations: a study in Israel. Health and Social Care in the Community, 18(1), 1-9. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2524.2009.00868.x

Delgado, P., Carvalho, J.M.S., & Pinto, V. S. (2014). Crescer em família: a permanência no Acolhimento Familiar. Pedagogía Social. Revista Interuniversitaria, 23(1), 123-150. DOI: 10.7179/psri_2014.23.06

Fluke, J. D., Chabot, M., Fallon, B., Maclaurin, B., & Blackstock, C. (2010). Placement decisions and disparities among aboriginal groups: An application of the decision-making ecology through multi-level analysis. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34, 57-69. DOI: 10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.08.009

Gambrill, E. (2008). Decision making in Child Welfare: constraints and potentials. In D. lindsey & A. shlonsky, Child Welfare Research (pp. 175-193). New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304961.003.0010

Gilbert, N., Parton, N., & skivenes, m. (2011). Child Proctetion Systems. New York: Oxford University Press.

Gold, N., Benbenishty, R., & Osmo, R. (2001). A comparative study of risk assessments and recommended interventions in Canada and Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect, 25, 607-622. DOI: 10.1016/s0145-2134(01)00228-9

Hardman, D. (2009). Judgment and decision making. Psychological perspectives. Chichester: BPs Blackwell.

Horwath, J. (2006). The missing assessment domain: Personal, professional and organizational factors influencing professional judgments when identifying and referring child neglect. British Journal of Social Work, 37(8), 1285-1303. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcl029

Instituto da segurança social (2014). Casa 2013. Relatório de caracterização anual da situação de acolhimento das crianças e jovens. lisboa: Instituto da segurança social.

lindsey, D., & Shlonsky, A. (2008). Closing reflections: future research directions and a new paradigm. In D. lindsey & A. shlonsky, Child Welfare Research (pp. 375-378). New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304961.003.0023

Munro, E. (2008a). Effective child protection. london: sage. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bcp069

Munro, E. (2008b). lessons from research on Decision making. In D. lindsey & A. shlonsky, Child Welfare Research (pp. 194-200). New York: Oxford University Press. DOI: 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195304961.003.0011

Regehr, C., Bogo, M., Shlonsky, A., & leBlanc, V. (2010). Confidence and professional judgment in assessing children’s risk of abuse. Research on social work practice, 20(6), 621-628. DOI: 10.1177/1049731510368050

Taylor, B. J. (2005). Factorial surveys: Using vignettes to study professional judgment. British Journal of Social Work, 36, 1187−1207. DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bch345

Taylor, B. J. (2013). Professional decision making and risk in social work. london: sage.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.7179/PSRI_2016.28.16

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


DOI: 10.7179/PSRI

 

    

Licencia Creative Commons

Este obra está bajo una Licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 3.0 España.

ISSN: 1139-1723

DOI: 10.7179/PSRI