Role type, risk perceptions and judgements in child welfare: A mixed methods vignette study

Role type, risk perceptions and judgements in child welfare: A mixed methods vignette study Variable outcomes when family characteristics are similar are a problem in child welfare systems. Perceptions of risk and safety can vary widely, resulting in lack of consistency in practise and professional conflicts. This article reports on a mixed methods study that used an ecological approach to understanding variability in child welfare decision-making. Phase one of the study used a staged online vignette-based survey to compare statutory and non-governmental organization (NGO) child welfare practitioners' perceptions of risk, safety, and harm over time (n = 67), and key decisions such as when to substantiate. The survey also elicited qualitative responses about their conceptualisation of risk factors, safety factors, plan goals, knowledge bases and practice responses. Role type shapes differences in perceptions of the levels of risk, safety, substantiation and future harm. Statutory workers perceived present and future risk levels as lower than NGO workers, safety higher, and substantiated later. Both groups defined risk factors and safety factors at stages one and two in similar ways, and identified similar knowledge bases they would use in practice. Differences in safety constructions, practise responses and goals occurred at later stages. These findings suggest that despite broad similarities in knowledge bases, perceptions of the level of risk can still differ. This may be explained by the ‘situated role’ of the practitioner in relation to their position on the prevention – intervention continuum. Implications for theory, practice and research are discussed. http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Children and Youth Services Review Elsevier

Role type, risk perceptions and judgements in child welfare: A mixed methods vignette study

Loading next page...
 
/lp/elsevier/role-type-risk-perceptions-and-judgements-in-child-welfare-a-mixed-74gtkBffm3
Publisher
Elsevier
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd
ISSN
0190-7409
eISSN
1873-7765
D.O.I.
10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.017
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Variable outcomes when family characteristics are similar are a problem in child welfare systems. Perceptions of risk and safety can vary widely, resulting in lack of consistency in practise and professional conflicts. This article reports on a mixed methods study that used an ecological approach to understanding variability in child welfare decision-making. Phase one of the study used a staged online vignette-based survey to compare statutory and non-governmental organization (NGO) child welfare practitioners' perceptions of risk, safety, and harm over time (n = 67), and key decisions such as when to substantiate. The survey also elicited qualitative responses about their conceptualisation of risk factors, safety factors, plan goals, knowledge bases and practice responses. Role type shapes differences in perceptions of the levels of risk, safety, substantiation and future harm. Statutory workers perceived present and future risk levels as lower than NGO workers, safety higher, and substantiated later. Both groups defined risk factors and safety factors at stages one and two in similar ways, and identified similar knowledge bases they would use in practice. Differences in safety constructions, practise responses and goals occurred at later stages. These findings suggest that despite broad similarities in knowledge bases, perceptions of the level of risk can still differ. This may be explained by the ‘situated role’ of the practitioner in relation to their position on the prevention – intervention continuum. Implications for theory, practice and research are discussed.

Journal

Children and Youth Services ReviewElsevier

Published: Apr 1, 2018

References

You’re reading a free preview. Subscribe to read the entire article.


DeepDyve is your
personal research library

It’s your single place to instantly
discover and read the research
that matters to you.

Enjoy affordable access to
over 12 million articles from more than
10,000 peer-reviewed journals.

All for just $49/month

Explore the DeepDyve Library

Unlimited reading

Read as many articles as you need. Full articles with original layout, charts and figures. Read online, from anywhere.

Stay up to date

Keep up with your field with Personalized Recommendations and Follow Journals to get automatic updates.

Organize your research

It’s easy to organize your research with our built-in tools.

Your journals are on DeepDyve

Read from thousands of the leading scholarly journals from SpringerNature, Elsevier, Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford University Press and more.

All the latest content is available, no embargo periods.

See the journals in your area

DeepDyve Freelancer

DeepDyve Pro

Price
FREE
$49/month

$360/year
Save searches from
Google Scholar,
PubMed
Create lists to
organize your research
Export lists, citations
Read DeepDyve articles
Abstract access only
Unlimited access to over
18 million full-text articles
Print
20 pages/month
PDF Discount
20% off