“It's the Only System We've Got”

V. Copeland
{"title":"“It's the Only System We've Got”","authors":"V. Copeland","doi":"10.52214/cjrl.v11i3.8740","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Front-line public “Child Welfare” caseworkers, also known as emergency response or investigative caseworkers, play a significant role in the “Child Welfare” system. Placed in an intermediary role within the system, investigative caseworkers are tasked with making critical decisions while attempting to advocate for families and uphold the system’s policies. To understand the caseworker decision-making processes more in-depth, a qualitative study was conducted with eighteen investigative caseworkers in four different counties. The guiding research question of the current study was: “What impacts the decisionmaking processes in which child protective service workers investigate and substantiate referred cases of child maltreatment?” Findings revealed several nuances and extensive complexities in how workers navigated often contradictory roles within the system. Important emerging themes include caseworkers’ use of surveillance during investigation and multi-institution partnership indecision-making processes. This Comment discusses the ways in which caseworkers react to and navigate ambiguity and parental resistance during investigations, lending an often-overlooked exploration into various nuances within the decision-making apparatus. Understanding nuances in the complex web of decision-making and information-gathering may lead to novel ways of thinking about how the “Child Welfare” system addresses child protection.","PeriodicalId":212657,"journal":{"name":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Columbia Journal of Race and Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.52214/cjrl.v11i3.8740","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Front-line public “Child Welfare” caseworkers, also known as emergency response or investigative caseworkers, play a significant role in the “Child Welfare” system. Placed in an intermediary role within the system, investigative caseworkers are tasked with making critical decisions while attempting to advocate for families and uphold the system’s policies. To understand the caseworker decision-making processes more in-depth, a qualitative study was conducted with eighteen investigative caseworkers in four different counties. The guiding research question of the current study was: “What impacts the decisionmaking processes in which child protective service workers investigate and substantiate referred cases of child maltreatment?” Findings revealed several nuances and extensive complexities in how workers navigated often contradictory roles within the system. Important emerging themes include caseworkers’ use of surveillance during investigation and multi-institution partnership indecision-making processes. This Comment discusses the ways in which caseworkers react to and navigate ambiguity and parental resistance during investigations, lending an often-overlooked exploration into various nuances within the decision-making apparatus. Understanding nuances in the complex web of decision-making and information-gathering may lead to novel ways of thinking about how the “Child Welfare” system addresses child protection.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“这是我们唯一拥有的系统”
一线公共“儿童福利”个案工作者,也被称为应急或调查个案工作者,在“儿童福利”制度中发挥着重要作用。调查案件工作者在系统中扮演中介角色,他们的任务是在试图为家庭辩护和维护系统政策的同时做出关键决定。为了更深入地了解个案工作者的决策过程,我们对四个不同县的18名调查个案工作者进行了定性研究。当前研究的指导研究问题是:“什么影响了儿童保护服务工作者调查和证实转诊儿童虐待案件的决策过程?”调查结果揭示了工人如何在系统中经常相互矛盾的角色中导航的一些细微差别和广泛的复杂性。重要的新主题包括个案工作者在调查过程中使用监督和决策过程中的多机构伙伴关系。本评论讨论了个案工作者在调查过程中如何应对和应对模糊性和父母的抵制,对决策机制中的各种细微差别进行了经常被忽视的探索。了解决策和信息收集的复杂网络中的细微差别可能会导致思考“儿童福利”系统如何解决儿童保护问题的新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
PRISON LABOR AND THE FAIR LABOR STANDARDS ACT: RESOLVING THE CIRCUIT SPLIT ON WHETHER INCARCERATED WORKERS ARE ENTITLED TO THE FEDERAL MINIMUM WAGE AREN’T I A WOMAN DESERVING OF JUSTICE? RESTRUCTURING VAWA’S FUNDING STRUCTURE TO CREATE RACIAL AND GENDER EQUITY Reconstruction's Lessons Black Boarding Academies as a Prudential Reparation Building a Guaranteed Income to End the "Child Welfare" System
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1