Dimensions for argument and variability in child protection decision-making

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to analyse the arguments presented by 181 professionals in the child protection system of the Basque Country (Spain) to justify their decisions regarding the implementation of measures related to family preservation or separation. The implementation of a case vignette demonstrated variability in professional decision-making, with 62% of professionals choosing family preservation and 38% opting for family separation. A series of argument categories which can be used by most professionals when making decisions are extracted from analysis of the content. However, in spite of using similar types of arguments, the professionals differed in the importance they attributed to such criteria and their interpretations. Differences in decision thresholds were directly related to professionals' beliefs regarding the benefits of the interventions analysed. To reduce this variability, reflecting on these beliefs and analysing the effectiveness of interventions in child protection to incorporate evidence of professional judgement are recommended. The present study, on the one hand, identifies the argument categories used to justify decisions and, on the other, analyses the existing variability when interpreting these categories.

Analyzing decision-maker’s justifications of care orders for newborn children: equal and individualized treatment

“…Despite these similarities, there is variance in the reasoning of the decision-makers – they come to differing conclusions when diving deep into individual cases, and they provide the individual treatment they are obliged to provide, paying attention to the peculiarities and specifics of the case. A similar pattern was found by Mosteiro, Beloki, Sobremonte, and Rodríguez ( 2018 ) in their vignette study of Spanish child protection professionals; similar arguments were included, but the professionals differed in their assessment. My findings suggest that both equal treatment (similarity in what is relevant) and individual treatment (assessing case factors specific to the case) are upheld in the treatment of these similar, but not identical, cases.…”

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

“…La investigación que se presenta forma parte de una investigación más amplia realizada en 2015 en la Comunidad Autónoma del País Vasco sobre los factores determinantes de la variabilidad en la toma de decisiones en protección infantil (Mosteiro, 2015). Se ha optado por una metodología cuantitativa a través de un cuestionario de actitudes y creencias y por la aplicación de una metodología de viñetas (Taylor, 2006) basada en la descripción de un caso sobre el que se pide una decisión.…”

“…La investigación sobre la variabilidad se ha centrado en dos de las decisiones más complejas: la valoración del riesgo (Arruabarrena y De Paúl, 2011;Snyder y Newberger, 1986;Sullivan, Whitehead, Leschied, Chiodo, y Hurley, 2008) y la decisión de intervención (Benbenishty et al, 2015;Davidson-Arad y Benbenishty, 2008, 2016Gold, Benbenishty y Osmo, 2001;Molina, 2012;Molina, Palacios, y Jiménez-Morago, 2019;Mosteiro, 2015;Mosteiro, Beloki, Sobremonte y Rodríguez, 2018;Sieracki, 2010). En todas ellas, se ha encontrado que los juicios y las decisiones difieren a pesar de referirse a un mismo caso de intervención.…”

Professional Practice in Child Protection and the Child's Right to Participate

“…A crucial part of the assessment process includes critical analysis -analysing children's care, their needs, the nature and level of risk and harm, deciding whether the child is in need, and providing support to address those needs (Firmin, 2020). Mosteiro et al (2018) similarly conclude that more challenging than data collection is the process of analysing and interpreting the data for a holistic understanding of the situation.…”