Understanding Decisions about Child Maltreatment

Rossi, Peter H.; Schuerman, John R.; Budde, Stephen

doi:10.1177/0193841x9902300601

Cited by 92 publications

(58 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Reliability issues with clinical decision-making became especially salient following research conducted in the late 1980s and 1990s that suggested that case decisions were highly dependent on which worker a family received and the larger institutional context in which the case was processed, and less dependent on the seemingly objective facts of the case (Stein and Rzepnicki 1983;Rossi et al 1999;Lindsey 1992). Further, research demonstrated little connection between the criteria CPS workers used to make a judgment and established risk factors related to re-abuse (Baird and Wagner 2000;Gambrill and Shlonsky 2001).…”

Section: Structuring Child Welfare Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardizing Biases: Selection Devices and the Quantification of Race

Hirschman¹,

Bosk²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:Racial inequality persists despite major advances in formal, legal equality. Scholars and policymakers argue that individual biases (both explicit and implicit) combine with subjective organizational decision-making practices to perpetuate racial inequality. The standardization of decision-making offers a potential solution, promising to eliminate the subjectivity that biases consequential decisions. We ask, under what conditions may standardization reduce racial inequality? Drawing on research in science studies and law and society, we argue that standardization must be understood as a heterogeneous practice capable of producing very different outcomes depending on the details of the standard and the organizational infrastructure surrounding its use. We compare "selection devices" -simple quantified tools for making allocation decisions -in undergraduate admissions and child welfare to highlight the complex relationships between race and standardization. Child welfare agencies adopted a colorblind actuarial device that attempted to predict which children were most at risk, and then make decisions based on those predictions. In contrast, the University of Michigan's points system explicitly considered and valued race, with the goal of increasing minority student enrollments in the context of promoting student body diversity. Comparing these cases demonstrates how actuarial standardization practices, including those adopted with the intention of reducing racial inequality, tend to reinforce an unequal status quo by ideologically reconfiguring mutable social structures into immutable individual risk factors. In contrast, non-actuarial practices that explicitly promote racial equality are vulnerable to political challenges, as they violate norms of colorblindness and cannot be defended in terms of their predictive validity.Acknowledgements:

show abstract

Section: Structuring Child Welfare Decisionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardizing Biases: Selection Devices and the Quantification of Race

Hirschman¹,

Bosk²

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, Rossi, Schuerman and Budde (1999) found that the characteristics of the case worker do not affect the placement decision (e.g. their background and work experience), and so excluding this variable from the analysis does not alter the results.…”

Section: Many Explanatory Variablesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of serious case reviews and anti-racist practice

Bhatti‐Sinclair¹,

Price²

Social Work in a Diverse Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Placing a child in out-of-home care is one of the most important decisions made by professionals in the child care system, with substantial social, psychological, educational, medical and economic consequences. This paper considers the challenges and difficulties of building statistical models of this decision by reviewing the available international evidence. Despite the large number of empirical investigations over a fifty year period, a consensus on the variables associated with this decision is hard to identify. In addition, the individual models have low explanatory and predictive power and should not be relied on to make placement decisions. A number of reasons for this poor performance are offered, and some ways forwards suggested. This paper also aims to facilitate the emergence of a coherent and integrated international literature from the disconnected and fragmented empirical studies. Rather than one placement problem, there are many slightly different problems, and therefore it is expected that a number of related sub-literatures will emerge, each concentrating on a particular definition of the placement problem.

show abstract

“…Research done by Wood et al (2001) shows that the concept of QoL emerged in an attempt to recognise and understand the importance of the impact of health care interventions on people. Impact is defined as 'the effects of an intervention that can be attributed uniquely to it' (Rossi et al, 1999). An important tool to measure QoL is 'the World Health Organisation's Quality of Life Tool' (WHOQoL), using a quantitative approach (Yadav, 2010).…”

Section: Assessing the Impact Of The Cbr Programmementioning

confidence: 99%