The heuristic divergence between community reporters and child protection agencies
Negotiating risk amidst shifting sands
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 11333390 |
|---|---|
| Authors | E Keddell (0000-0002-7217-6561, University of Otago, corresponding author), Sarah Colhoun (University of Otago), Pauline Norris (0000-0003-1656-871X, University of Otago), Esther Willing (0000-0001-9554-8690, University of Otago) |
| Year | 2024 |
| Volume | 159 |
| Pages | 107532 |
| Publication date | 2024-04-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Children and Youth Services Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0190-7409 • E-ISSN: 1873-7765 |
| Publisher | Elsevier BV (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107532 |
| OpenAlex | W4392752739 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 42 |
Children enter the statutory part of ‘notify-investigate’ child protection systems via the reports of others, combined with acceptance by the statutory agency. This key nexus determines entry or deflection from statutory child protection services. To examine the decision reasoning and processes of community (non-governmental organisation) workers that underpin reports to statutory services. Participants are non-governmental organisation (NGO) workers in Aotearoa New Zealand. The methods are focus groups, interviews and a ‘think – aloud’ vignette-based protocol, used to elicit reporting decision rationales and experiences. Theoretical concepts of heuristics, institutional co-responsibility, and policy change are used to explore the study findings. Most cases are reported only after NGO workers ‘build a picture’ in the context of relationships with families and efforts to address risks. Reporting is a last resort option and occurs after ‘tipping point’ changes in the balance of protective and risk factors. Participants note a rising threshold and changes to the criteria for report acceptance by Oranga Tamariki (the statutory agency) in recent years, due to changing policy aims, abuse definitions, an ‘add value’ principle, and workload pressures. This heuristic change results in many reports not accepted or acted on, leading to frustration, anxiety, and ethical ambivalence for NGO workers. The rising threshold and ‘adding value’ principle while aimed at collective responsibility to family issues, is perceived by NGO workers as a deflection heuristic by Oranga Tamariki. In their view, it is applied too broadly, and acts as a blunt tool that does not account for differences in role and power, and was used to deflect risk responsibility. Implications for children and whānau, (extended families) the possibilities for ‘co-responsibility’, ethical reasoning, and the data generated by reports are discussed
Child protection · Political science · Public relations · Statutory law · Vignette · Child Abuse and Trauma · Homelessness and Social Issues · Law · Psychology · Social Psychology · Social Work Education and Practice
The Routledge Handbook of Research Methods in Applied Linguistics
Child Protection Systems
Mandated reporting
Decision making in child protection
Case Study Research
Meanings and expressions of co-responsibility
Mandatory Reporting “will Paralyze People” or “Without it, People Would not Report”
Public Health Models for Preventing Child Maltreatment
Who Owns Child Abuse
Mechanisms of Inequity
It is not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken
Group decision-making theories for child and family social work
Family support services buffer the effect of child welfare notifications on child removals
Synergies and tensions in child protection and parent support
Child welfare inequalities
Exploring drivers of demand for child protection services in an English local authority
Systemic differences in views on risk
Role type, risk perceptions and judgements in child welfare
Family preservation or child safety? Associations between child welfare workers' experience, position, and perspectives
Do more severe incidents lead to more drastic decisions? A study of professional child protection decision making in Spain
Networked Decisions
Observing Front Line Decision Making in Child Protection
Challenging the Pursuit of Criminalisation in an Era of Mass Incarceration
Heuristics in Professional Judgement
Permanency Decisions in Child Welfare
How Do Child-Protection Practitioners Make Decisions in Real-Life Situations? Lessons from the Psychology of Decision Making
Factorial Surveys
Screen, Ration and Churn
Applying critical realism in qualitative research
Heuristic Decision Making
The vulnerable child in neoliberal contexts
In Defence of Ordinary Help
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 2 |
| Citation span | 2024 - 2025 (2) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |