Worldwide, there has been a push toward reforming or abolishing child welfare systems because of systemic bias against families. Few studies have examined the role of bias in decision-making processes among child welfare practitioners, especially in child welfare systems in processes of change/reform. This qualitative study utilized discussion groups with child welfare teams to examine how professionals navigated the decision-making process in cases of child maltreatment. A grounded theory analysis revealed that professionals deconstruct macro, mezzo, and micro biases as they make decisions. Implications for global social work, such as self-reflection and structural changes, and for future research are explored.
AtzmullerCSteinerPM (2010) Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology6(3): 128–138.
2.
BarterCRenoldE (1999) The use of vignettes in qualitative research. Social Research Update25(9): 1–6.
3.
BenbenishtyRDavidson-AradBLópezM, et al. (2015) 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. Child Abuse & Neglect49: 63–75.
4.
BryantACharmazK (eds) (2007) The SAGE Handbook of Grounded Theory. London: SAGE.
5.
BurnsKPösöTSkivenesM (2017) Child Welfare Removals by the State: A Cross-Country Analysis of Decision-Making Systems. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
6.
BusseySRThompsonMXPoliandroE (2021) Leading the charge in addressing racism and bias: Implications for social work training and practice. Social Work Education. Epub ahead of print 3April. DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2021.1903414
7.
ChiovittiRFPiranN (2003) Rigour and grounded theory research. Journal of Advanced Nursing44(4): 427–435.
8.
ChowAYMLamDOBLeungGSM, et al. (2011) Promoting reflexivity among social work students: The development and evaluation of a programme. Social Work Education30(2): 141–156.
Collins-CamargoCMillarK (2010) The potential for a more clinical approach to child welfare supervision to promote practice and case outcomes: A qualitative study in four states. The Clinical Supervisor29(2): 164–187.
11.
Commission on Family (2014). Informe de la comision de familia constituida en investigadora para recabar informacion y determinar responsabilidades en las denuncias sobre hechos ilicitos ocurridos en hogares del servicio nacional de menores. Available at https://www.camara.cl/verDoc.aspx?prmTipo=SIAL&prmID=10254&formato=pdf (accessed on 5 January 2022)
12.
CooneyA (2011) Rigour and grounded theory. Nurse Researcher8(4): 17–22.
13.
DettlaffAJRycraftJR (2008) Deconstructing disproportionality: Views from multiple community stakeholders. Child Welfare87(2): 37–58.
14.
DettlaffAJWeberKPendletonM, et al. (2020) It is not a broken system, it is a system that needs to be broken: The upend movement to abolish the child welfare system. Journal of Public Child Welfare14(5): 500–517.
15.
DevadasUMSilongADIsmailIA (2011) The relevance of Glaserian and Straussian grounded theory approaches in researching human resource development. IPEDR11: 348–352.
16.
DillKBogoM (2009) Moving beyond the administrative: Supervisors’ perspectives on clinical supervision in child welfare. Journal of Public Child Welfare3(1): 87–105.
17.
DovidioJFFiskeST (2012) Under the radar: How unexamined biases in decision-making processes in clinical interactions can contribute to health care disparities. American Journal of Public Health102(5): 945–952.
18.
DrakeBJonson-ReidM (2014) Poverty and child maltreatment. In: KorbinJKrugmanR (eds) Handbook of Child Maltreatment. Dordrecht: Springer, pp. 131–148.
19.
DrakeBJolleyJMLanierP, et al. (2011) Racial bias in child protection? A comparison of competing explanations using national data. Pediatrics127(3): 471–478.
20.
DumbrillGC (2006) Parental experience of child protection intervention: A qualitative study. Child Abuse & Neglect30: 27–37.
21.
EisikovitsZKorenC (2010) Approaches to and outcomes of dyadic interview analysis. Qualitative Health Research20(12): 1642–1655.
EllingsenITStudsrodIMunoz-GuzmanC (2019) The child, the parents, the family and the state – Chile and Norway compared. Journal of Comparative Social Work14(1): 1–22.
FontSAMaguire-JackK (2015) Decision-making in child protective services: Influences at multiple levels of the social ecology. Child Abuse & Neglect47: 70–82.
26.
GlaserBG (1978) Advances in the Methodology of Grounded Theory. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
27.
GlaserBG (1992) Basics of Grounded Theory Analysis, Emergence Vs. Forcing. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.
28.
GlaserBG (2002) Conceptualization: On theory and theorizing using grounded theory analysis. Journal of Advanced Nursing35(5): 23–38.
29.
GlaserBG (2012) Stop. Write! Writing grounded theory. Grounded Theory Review: An International Journal11(1): 2–11.
30.
GlaserBGStraussAL (1967) The Discovery of Grounded Theory. New York: Aldine Publishing Co.
31.
HambrickEPBrawnerTWPerryBD (2019) Timing of early-life stress and the development of brain-related capacities. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience13:183.
32.
HarrisMSHackettW (2008) Decision points in child welfare: An action research model to address disproportionality. Children and Youth Services Review30(2): 199–215.
33.
HeathHCowleyS (2004) Developing a grounded theory approach: A comparison of Glaser and Strauss. International Journal of Nursing Studies41(2): 141–150.
34.
HwangJHopkinsKM (2015) A structural equation model of the effects of diversity characteristics and inclusion on organizational outcomes in the child welfare workforce. Children and Youth Services Review50: 44–52.
35.
KitzingerJ (1994) The methodology of focus groups: The importance of interaction between research participants. Sociology of Health Illness16(1): 103–121.
36.
LabonteR (2004) Social inclusion/exclusion: Dancing the dialectic. Health Promotion International19(1): 115–121.
37.
LaneWGDubowitzHFrickKD, et al. (2021) Cost effectiveness of SEEK: A primary care-based child maltreatment prevention model. Child Abuse & Neglect111: 104809.
38.
LevinsonJD (2007) Forgotten racial equality: Implicit bias, decision making, and misremembering. Duke Law Journal57: 345–424.
39.
LietzCA (2009) Critical theory as a framework for child welfare decision-making: Some possibilities. Journal of Public Child Welfare3(2): 190–206.
MarkovaGManolovaHHristovaM (2017) Child welfare reform in Bulgaria – from institutional to family-based community care: Engaging with families, children and colleagues?Journal of Intellectual Disability – Diagnosis and Treatment5(4): 130–136.
42.
MillerKMCahnKAnderson-NatheB, et al. (2013) Individual and systemic/structural bias in child welfare decision making: Implications for children and families of color. Children and Youth Services Review35: 1634–1642.
Muñoz-GuzmanCFischerCChiaE, et al. (2015) Child welfare in Chile: Learning from international experiences to improve family interventions. Social Sciences4: 219–238.
46.
NadalK (2011) The racial and ethnic microaggressions scale: Construction, reliability, and validity. Journal of Counseling Psychology58(4): 470–480.
47.
NonakaIToyamaR (2005) The theory of the knowledge-creating firm: Subjectivity, objectivity, and synthesis. Industrial and Corporate Change14(3): 419–436.
PeltonLH (2015) The continuing role of material factors in child maltreatment and placement. Child Abuse & Neglect41: 30–39.
50.
PhilipsDPonG (2018) Anti-black racism, bio-power, and governmentality: Deconstructing the suffering of black families involved with child welfare. Journal of Law & Social Policy28: 81.
51.
ProctorS (2011) Imp licit bias, attributions, and emotions in decisions about parents with intellectual disabilities by child protection workers. PhD thesis. Available at: https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/catalog/12302
52.
RaissianKMBullingerLR (2017) Money matters: Does the minimum wage affect child maltreatment rates?Children and Youth Services Review72: 60–70.
53.
RappaportJ (1981) In praise of paradox: A social policy of empowerment over prevention. American Journal of Community Psychology9(1): 1–25.
Reyes- QuilodranCMunoz-GuzmanCGuerra-AburtoL (2020) Family conceptions and social workers’ professional judgement in Chilean social child services. Social Work Education: The International Journal40(8): 1064-1080.
56.
RogersonCVPrescottDEHowardHG (2021) Teaching social work students the influence of explicit and implicit bias: Promoting ethical reflection in practice. Social Work Education. Epub ahead of print 3April. DOI: 10.1080/02615479.2021.1910652
57.
RosenDMcCallJGoodkindS (2017) Teaching critical self-reflection through the lens of cultural humility: An assignment in a social work diversity course. Social Work Education36(3): 289–298.
58.
RudmanLA (2004) Social justice in our minds, homes, and society: The nature, causes, and consequences of implicit bias. Social Justice Research17(2): 44–54.
59.
RyanJPGarnierPZyphurM, et al. (2006) Investigating the effects of caseworker characteristics in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review28(9): 993–1006.
60.
Servicio Nacional de Menores (SENAME) (2014a) Boletín temático niños/as y adolescentes primer trimestre 2014. Santiago, Chile: Departamento Planificación y Control de Gestión. Ministerio del Interior.
Servicio Nacional de Menores (SENAME) (2019) Anuario estadístico SENAME 2019. Santiago, Chile: SENAME.
63.
ShiremanJF (2015) Critical Issues in Child Welfare. New York: Columbia University Press.
64.
SmithWK (2009) A dynamic approach to managing contradictions. Industrial and Organizational Psychology2: 338–343.
65.
StraussACorbinJ (1998) Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory (2nd edn). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
66.
StudsrødIEllingsenITMuñoz-GuzmánC, et al. (2018) Conceptualisations of family and social work family practice in Chile, Mexico and Norway. Social Policy and Society17(4): 637–649.
67.
TerzievVArabskaE (2016) Process of deinstitutionalization of children at risk in Bulgaria. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences233: 287–291.
VinzantJC (1998) Where values collide: Motivation and role conflict in child and adult protective services. The American Review of Public Administration28(4): 347–366.
