Placement in a foster family by child welfare services is a crucial decision in the trajectory of a child. Nevertheless, the strategies and procedures underlying the decision to remove a child from his/her family for placement in foster care remain little studied. Based on 39 semi-directed individual interviews with social workers from child welfare services, the current study aims at highlighting how social workers come to the decision to remove a child from parental care, and how they choose a foster family.
Findings
The thematic analysis of the qualitative data collected reveals that four main components were raised by social workers to explain how they make their decisions regarding placement and what are the considerations associated with this process: (1) Professional consensus and collaboration, (2) Clinical and legal guidelines, (3) Risk assessment and clinical judgment, and (4) Personality and values of the social worker. The results of this study show that decisions surrounding the removal of a child from his/her family and the choice of a foster family are the result of multiples factors and strategies involving the social worker and other collaborating professionals, as well as their legal and administrative context.
Application
The findings suggest that additional efforts could be made in child protection organizations and agencies in order to develop supportive measures that take into account the collective and interactional aspect of the decision-making process regarding placement in foster care.
Arad-DavidsonB.BenbenishtyR. (2008).
The role of workers’ attitudes and parent and child wishes in child protection workers’ assessments and recommendation regarding removal and reunification. Children and Youth Services Review,
30(1), 107–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.07.003
2.
BaumannD.FlukeJ. D.DalgeishL.KernH. (2014). The Decision Making Ecology. In ShlonskyA.BenbenishtyR. (Eds), From evidence to outcomes in child welfare: An international reader (1st ed., pp. 463–476).
Oxford University Press.
3.
BeckettC.McKeigueB.TaylorH. (2007).
Coming to conclusions: Social workers’ perceptions of the decision-making process in care proceedings. Child & Family Social Work,
12(1), 54–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00437.x
4.
BenbenishtyR.Davidson-AradB.LópezM.DevaneyJ.SprattT.KoopmansC.KnorthE. J.WittemanC. L. M.Del ValleJ. F. ,&HayesD. (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 & Neglect,
49, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015
5.
BenbenishtyR.OsmoR.GoldN. (2003).
Rationales provided for risk assessments and for recommended interventions in child protection: A comparison between Canadian and Israeli professionals. The British Journal of Social Work,
33(2), 137–155. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/33.2.137
BritnerP. A.MosslerD. G. (2002).
Professionals’ decision-making about out-of-home placements following instance of child abuse. Child Abuse & Neglect,
26(4), 317–332. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-2134(02)00311-3
8.
CarvalhoJ. M. S.DelgadoP.BenbenishtyR.Davidson-AradB.PintoV. (2018).
Professional judgements and decisions on placement in foster care and reunification in Portugal. European Journal of Social Work,
21(2), 296–310. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691457.2017.1291494
9.
ChorK. H. B.McClellandG. M.WeinerD. A.JordanN.LyonsJ. S. (2013).
Patterns of out-of-home placement decision-making in child welfare.Child Abuse & Neglect,
37(10), 871–882. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2013.04.016
10.
ChristiansenO.AnderssenN. (2010).
From concerned to convinced: Reaching decision about out-of-home care in Norwegian Child Welfare Services. Child and Family Social Work,
15(1), 31–40. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2009.00635.x
11.
DarlingtonY.HealyK.FeeneyJ. (2010).
Approaches to assessment and intervention across four types of child and family welfare services. Children and Youth Services Review,
32(3), 356–364. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2009.10.005
12.
DelgadoP.PintoV. S.CarvalhoJ. M. S. (2017).
Attitudes and decision-making in the child protection system: A comparison of students and professionals. Kriminologija & Socijalna Integracija,
25(2), 2–14. https://hrcak.srce.hr/191655
13.
DickensJ.BerrickJ.PösöT.SkivenesM. (2017).
Social workers and independent experts in child protection decision making: Messages from an intercountry comparative study. British Journal of Social Work,
47(4), 1024–1042. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcw064
14.
DuffyJ.CollinsM. (2010).
Macro impacts on caseworker decision-making in child welfare: A cross-national comparison. European Journal of Social Work,
13(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/13691450903135618
15.
EnoshG.Bayer-TopilskyT. (2015).
Reasoning and bias: Heuristics in safety assessment and placement decisions for children at risk. British Journal of Social Work,
45(6), 1771–1787. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct213
16.
FeredayJ.Muir-CochraneE. (2006).
Demonstrating rigor using thematic analysis: A hybrid approach of inductive and deductive coding and theme development. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,
5(1), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/160940690600500107
17.
FlukeJ. D.BaumannD. J.DalgeishL.KernH. (2014). Decisions to protect children: A Decision-Making Ecology. In KorbinJ. E.KrugmanR. D. (Eds), Handbook of child maltreatment (pp. 463–472).
Springer.
18.
FlukeJ. D.CorwinT. W.HollinsheadD. M.MaherE. J. (2016).
Family preservation or child safety? Associations between child welfare workers’ experience, position, and perspectives. Children and Youth Services Review,
69, 210–218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.08.012
19.
FontS. A.Maguire-JackK. (2015).
Decision-making in Child Protective Services: Influences at multiple levels of the social ecology.Child Abuse & Neglect,
47, 70–82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.005
20.
GoldN.BenbenishtyR.OsmoR. (2001).
A comparative study of risk assessments and recommended interventions in Canada and Israel. Child Abuse & Neglect,
25(5), 607–622. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0145-2134(01)00228-9
21.
GolkarH. (2013).
Groupthink principles and fundamentals in organizations. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business,
5(8), 225–240. https://www.semanticscholar.org/
22.
GrahamJ. C.DettlaffA. J.BaumannD. J.FlukeJ. D. (2015).
The Decision Making Ecology of placing a child into foster care: A structural equation model.Child Abuse & Neglect,
49, 12–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.020
23.
HardestyM. (2015).
Epistemological binds and ethical dilemmas in frontline child welfare practice. Social Service Review,
89(3), 455–498. https://doi.org/10.1086/682880
24.
HélieS.PoirierM. A.EspositoT.TurcotteD. (2017).
Placement stability, cumulative time in care, and permanency: Using administrative data from CPS to track placement trajectories. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health,
14(11), 1405. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14111405
25.
HollowsA.NelsonP. (2006).
Equity and pragmatism in judgement‐making about the placement of sibling groups. Child & Family Social Work,
11(4), 307–315. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2006.00410.x
26.
JanisI. L. (1982). Groupthink: Psychological studies of policy decisions and fiasces.
Houghton Mifflin.
27.
KeddellE. (2017).
Comparing risk-averse and risk-friendly practitioners in child welfare decision-making: A mixed methods study. Journal of Social Work Practice,
31(4), 411–429. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650533.2017.1394822
MunroE. (2018). Decision‐making under uncertainty in child protection: Creating a just and learning culture. Child & Family Social Work. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12589
O’ConnorL.LeonardK. (2014).
Decision making in children and families social work: The practitioners’s voice. British Journal of Social Work,
44(7), 1805–1822. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct051
33.
PećnikN.BrunnbergE. (2006).
Professionals’ characteristics, victim’s gender, and case assessments as predictors of professional judgments in child protection. Review of Psychology,
12(2), 133–146. https://hrcak.srce.hr/2317
34.
PlattD.TurneyD. (2014).
Making threshold decisions in child protection: A conceptual analysis. British Journal of Social Work,
44(6), 1472–1490. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bct007
35.
PösöT.LaaksoR. (2016).
Matching children and substitute homes: Some theoretical and empirical notions. Child & Family Social Work,
21(3), 307–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12144
36.
RegehrC.BogoM.ShlonskyA.LeBlancV. (2010).
Confidence and professional judgment in assessing children’s risk of abuse. Research on Social Work Practice,
20(6), 621–628. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049731510368050
37.
Roesch-MarshA. (2018).
Professional relationships and decision making in social work: Lessons from a Scottish case study of secure accommodation decision making. Qualitative Social Work,
17(3), 405–422. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473325016680285
38.
ShlonskyA.WagnerD. (2005).
The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management. Children and Youth Services Review,
27(4), 409–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.007
39.
SierackiJ. H.FullerA. K.LeonS. C.BaiG. J.BryantF. (2015).
The role of race, socioeconomic status, and System of Care services in placement decision-making. Children and Youth Services Review,
50, 3–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.12.013
40.
SinclairI.WilsonK. (2003).
Matches and mismatches: The contribution of carers and children to the success of foster placements. British Journal of Social Work,
33(7), 871–884. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/33.7.871
41.
SmithC.FlukeJ.FallonB.MishnaF.PierceB. D. (2018).
Child welfare organizations: Do specialization and service integration impact placement decisions?Child Abuse & Neglect,
76, 573–582. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.032
42.
SprattT.DevaneyJ.HayesD. (2015).
In and out of home care decisions: The influence of confirmation bias in developing decision supportive reasoning.Child Abuse & Neglect,
49, 76–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.01.015
43.
SullivanC.WhiteheadP. C.LeschiedA. W.ChiodoD.HurleyD. (2008).
Perception of risk among child protection workers. Children and Youth Services Review,
30(7), 699–704. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.010
44.
TrocméN.EspositoT.NuttonJ.RosserV.FallonB. (2019). Child welfare services in Canada. In Merkel-HolguinL.FlukeJ. D.KrugmanR. D. (Eds), National systems of child protection (pp. 27–50).
Springer.
45.
WaldM. S.WoolvertonM. (1990).
Risk assessment: The emperor’s new clothes?Child Welfare,
69(6), 483–511. https://web-b-ebscohost-com
46.
WhittakerA. (2018).
How do child-protection practitioners make decisions in real-life situations? Lessons from the psychology of decision making. The British Journal of Social Work,
48(7), 1967–1984. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcx145
47.
ZeijlmansK.LópezM.GrietensH.KnorthE. J. (2017).
Matching children with foster carers: A literature review. Children and Youth Services Review,
73, 257–265. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.12.017
48.
ZeijlmansK.LópezM.GrietensH.KnorthE. J. (2018).
“Nothing goes as planned”: Practitioners reflect on matching children and foster families. Child & Family Social Work,
23(3), 458–465. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12437
