Permanency Decisions in Child Welfare: A Qualitative Study

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q1 SOCIAL WORK British Journal of Social Work Pub Date : 2021-05-19 DOI:10.1093/BJSW/BCAB095
P. Mccafferty, J. Duffy, David Hayes
{"title":"Permanency Decisions in Child Welfare: A Qualitative Study","authors":"P. Mccafferty, J. Duffy, David Hayes","doi":"10.1093/BJSW/BCAB095","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n This article presents findings from an exploratory in-depth qualitative research project with seventeen child welfare professionals exploring their permanency decisions with regards to Looked after Children. Thinking aloud-protocols and semi-structured interviews, in conjunction with a specifically constructed vignette were used to explore the permanency decisions of child welfare workers. Findings from this innovative research suggest that different decisions were taken by participants based on viewing the same vignette. However, even though the decisions differed, they clustered around the more interventionist options with most favouring adoption and foster care despite viable alternatives offered. There was broad consistency related to the rationale for the decisions taken, but this did not translate into a consistent permanency option being chosen. Possible reasons to account for this are that the decisions were heuristically constructed, idiosyncratic to individual inclinations and influenced by factors other than the individual needs of the service user. The implications of this are that children and families do not get a consistent and reliable response to their permanency needs. We therefore recommend the greater use of structured decision-making tools in permanency decisions to increase their objectivity and consistency.","PeriodicalId":48259,"journal":{"name":"British Journal of Social Work","volume":"1 1","pages":"1-21"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1093/BJSW/BCAB095","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"British Journal of Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/BJSW/BCAB095","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIAL WORK","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

This article presents findings from an exploratory in-depth qualitative research project with seventeen child welfare professionals exploring their permanency decisions with regards to Looked after Children. Thinking aloud-protocols and semi-structured interviews, in conjunction with a specifically constructed vignette were used to explore the permanency decisions of child welfare workers. Findings from this innovative research suggest that different decisions were taken by participants based on viewing the same vignette. However, even though the decisions differed, they clustered around the more interventionist options with most favouring adoption and foster care despite viable alternatives offered. There was broad consistency related to the rationale for the decisions taken, but this did not translate into a consistent permanency option being chosen. Possible reasons to account for this are that the decisions were heuristically constructed, idiosyncratic to individual inclinations and influenced by factors other than the individual needs of the service user. The implications of this are that children and families do not get a consistent and reliable response to their permanency needs. We therefore recommend the greater use of structured decision-making tools in permanency decisions to increase their objectivity and consistency.
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
儿童福利中的永久性决策:一项定性研究
本文介绍了一个探索性的深入定性研究项目的研究结果,该项目由17名儿童福利专业人员探讨了他们在照顾儿童方面的长期决策。大声思考协议和半结构化访谈,结合专门构建的小插曲,被用来探索儿童福利工作者的永久性决定。这项创新研究的结果表明,参与者根据观看同一个小插曲做出了不同的决定。然而,尽管决定各不相同,但它们都集中在更具干预性的选择上,尽管提供了可行的替代方案,但最倾向于收养和寄养。在所作决定的理由方面有着广泛的一致性,但这并没有转化为选择一致的永久性选择。解释这一点的可能原因是,决策是启发式构建的,对个人倾向有特殊性,并受到服务用户个人需求以外的因素的影响。这意味着儿童和家庭无法对他们的长期需求做出一致和可靠的回应。因此,我们建议在永久性决策中更多地使用结构化决策工具,以提高其客观性和一致性。
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
CiteScore
3.00
自引率
22.20%
发文量
208
期刊介绍: Published for the British Association of Social Workers, this is the leading academic social work journal in the UK. It covers every aspect of social work, with papers reporting research, discussing practice, and examining principles and theories. It is read by social work educators, researchers, practitioners and managers who wish to keep up to date with theoretical and empirical developments in the field.
期刊最新文献
Walking aid training as a clinical competence in Canadian entry-to-practice professional academic programs. Re-Envisioning Field Education in Australian Social Work to Combat Placement Poverty: Students’, Educators’ and Practitioners’ Perceptions Can Social Workers Estimate the Likelihood of Future Actions and Events? A Forecasting Accuracy Study Role of Peer Support in Building Motivation to Change Addictive Behaviour An A–Z of Social Work Theory (1st Editions), Malcom Payne
×
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