Coming to conclusions: social workers’ perceptions of the decision‐making process in care proceedings

Abstract

This study reports on an analysis of the transcripts of four focus groups involving social workers from four English social work teams working with children and families. In the groups, social workers discussed the process of coming to a decision in care proceedings (where decisions are made about the future care of a child where there are concerns about the care provided in the family of origin). It explores how social workers described themselves coming to conclusions about cases, and how they perceive the courts as doing so. Noting the need in such important proceedings both for thoroughness and for speed (for delay is likely to be harmful to children in need of a secure home), the authors consider ways in which decision‐making might be distorted or delayed and discuss the perception of the social workers that some kinds of evidence are under‐ or overvalued by the courts. The authors conclude that, while it may seem that there is a trade‐off between thoroughness and speed, this is not always the case and that factors that cause poor decision‐making can also cause delay.

The decision of out-of-home placement in residential care after parental neglect: Empirically testing a psychosocial model

“…147/99), but also shows that the level of risk/danger attributed to the neglect case was not consensual between participants and, thus, supports the complexity usually attributed to decision making toward this type of maltreatment cases (Beckett et al, 2007;Dickens, 2007). Secondly, it was demonstrated that, in decision making concerning neglect cases, the effect of risk assessment do not occurs directly on worker's intention to propose the residential care placement, but is rather mediated by worker's evaluation of that social response (i.e.…”

“…This result, thus, indicates the presence of opposite forces in worker's judgment: one that favors the immediate positive effect of residential care to child protection keeping her away from the current source of danger (positive effect on intention); and another one that focus on residential care long-term effects for the child (negative effect as a result of the mediating role of Attitude). Therefore, the study proves the presence of a conflict in worker's judgment over a neglect case, and thus supports the presence of dilemmas and ambivalence that has been attributed to decision making over neglect cases, but until now without statistical confirmation (Beckett et al, 2007;Dickens, 2007). Furthermore, the results of this study demonstrate that the conflict does not occur between the value of the child and the value of the family as is usually thought (Besharov, 1985;Dickens, 2007;Goldstein et al, 1996), but rather within the value of the child, i.e.…”

“…The application of the 'psychosocial model of residential care placement' in this study revealed and supported the complexity and effort specifically involved in residential care placement decision in the context of a parental neglect case (Beckett et al, 2007;Dickens, 2007). The complexity in this study was evident in the: presence of multiple factors from different nature (emotional, experiential, cognitive, value-laden and normative); presence of conflict and ambivalence; presence of feelings and emotions; and in the presence of social influence processes that affect the emotional, attitudinal and motivational components of worker's judgment.…”

“…The decision to keep a child in the family or to put her in out-of-home placement -following a case of parental maltreatment -has been characterized as complex, ambiguous and full of errors and uncertainty, especially in parental neglect cases (Beckett et al, 2007;Dickens, 2007;Rodrigues, 2012;Stowman & Donohue, 2005).…”

Who decides? The decision-making process of juvenile judges concerning minors with mental disorders

“…Previous research partially followed this advice by examining the perspectives of juvenile judges (Brannen, Salekin, Zapf, Kubak, & DeCoster, 2006;Franssens, Put, & Deklerck, 2010;Grimshaw & Pratt, 1985;Martyn & Levine, 1998;Nuytiens, Christiaens, & Eliaerts, 2005;Sanborn, 1996;Sheehan, 2001) and other actors involved in judicial procedures (Banach, 1998;Beckett, McKeigue, & Taylor, 2007;Britner & Mossler, 2002;Gilbert, Mahieu, Goedseels, & Ravier, 2012;Mears, 1998;Rodriguez et al, 2009). 1 However, similar to traditional sentencing research, these studies focused on which legal and/or extralegal factors were considered important by the actors in the decisionmaking process, and not on the interactions between these actors.…”