Negotiations with a risk assessment tool: Standardized decision-making in the United States and the deprofessionalization thesis

Abstract

Abstract This article focuses on the challenges of decision-making in child protection. Comparative studies show that standardized risk assessment tools predict future maltreatment more accurately than interpretative assessment. Despite a long tradition of research on statistical decision-making, few studies deal with how such instruments are used and integrated into professional decision-making practice, and – from a transnational perspective – how specific national regulations influence such instruments and decision-making at street level. The article discusses concerns about the fact that such classification systems might have a negative impact on professional discretion. Based on a materialist approach, it highlights the actual practice of professional decision-making under the conditions of the application of actuarial tools. Using data from an ethnographical study, a practice of negotiation can be shown between the social workers and the assessment tools. The idea is discussed that this negotiation practice can be interpreted neither as manipulation of the tools nor principally as a decline in discretion. The main argument developed in this article is that a highly standardized practice can activate reconstructive processes and can even lead to greater discretionary powers. This thesis is discussed on a professional and an organizational level. The article concludes with a discussion of evidence-based social work as a traveling concept between nations.