Comparing Risk-Averse and Risk-Friendly Practitioners in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Mixed Methods Study

Abstract

Variable decisions are a persistent problem in child welfare decision-making. This article reports on the findings of a study of variability drivers in Aotearoa New Zealand. Using a mixed methods ecological approach, it compares ‘risk-averse’ and ‘risk friendly’ practitioners (n = 67 child welfare social workers). The study found the risk-averse group contained more non-governmental child welfare workers, but there were no other demographic differences. Risk-averse respondents were more certain of their conclusions even when little information was provided, and rated the children’s safety lower. The risk-averse group estimated more harm to children over time, if there was no intervention. Both groups described risk and safety factors similarly, but despite this shared knowledge base, risk and safety level perceptions still differed. When explaining problem causes the risk-averse group focused on the past trauma histories of parents, whereas the risk-friendly group focused more on issues in the present. This pattern suggests practitioners conceptualise the meaning and weighting of risk factors differently, with some having a ‘developmental lifespan- futurist’ orientation as opposed to a ‘welfare/needs-presentist’ orientation. Implications for practice are discussed.

Keywords:

• decision-making
• child welfare
• vignettes
• risk
• abuse

Acknowledgements

Thanks to Dr. Ian Hyslop and Meran Campbell-Hood, University of Auckland for their helpful contributions on this project.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Emily Keddell

Emily Keddell is a senior lecturer in Social Work at the University of Otago, Dunedin, Aotearoa New Zealand. Her research interests include understanding risk, decision-making and inequalities in child welfare. [email: [email protected]]