Balancing equality and equity in decision-making practice: Using standardised tools in child welfare services

IF 2.4 2区 社会学 Q1 FAMILY STUDIES
Marina Snipsøyr Sletten , Ingunn Tollisen Ellingsen , Catharina Bjørkquist , Mónica López López
{"title":"Balancing equality and equity in decision-making practice: Using standardised tools in child welfare services","authors":"Marina Snipsøyr Sletten ,&nbsp;Ingunn Tollisen Ellingsen ,&nbsp;Catharina Bjørkquist ,&nbsp;Mónica López López","doi":"10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108206","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>There has been an increased use of standardised assessment tools in child welfare services, aiming to enhance the quality of decision-making and to ensure equality of practice. At the same time, standardisation has been criticised as undermining professional expertise and being unable to meet families’ individual needs. By focusing on the relationship between standardisation and professional practice, this paper examines how child welfare professionals balance principles of equity and equality in their assessments guided by a standardised tool. A qualitative design was chosen to explore these professionals’ knowledge perspectives and reflective practice when using a common standardised assessment tool in Norway. We used several qualitative data sources, including interviews, fieldwork and case documents from two local authorities. We interviewed 28 child welfare professionals, 22 case workers and six managers. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings show that professionals adhere to the standardised tool to ensure objective and equal practice but also exercise professional expertise and discretion to ensure a tailored and equitable practice. Finally, facilitating a “sharing culture” to exchange views on the content of the tool is considered important when adopting the standardised assessment tool into practice. We conclude that standardisation alone does not guarantee equal and equitable practices. The use of standardised tools must be combined with discretionary practices. This calls for a flexible practice with a broadened knowledge base and a sharing culture that fosters critical reflection among professionals.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48428,"journal":{"name":"Children and Youth Services Review","volume":"172 ","pages":"Article 108206"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Children and Youth Services Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740925000891","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

There has been an increased use of standardised assessment tools in child welfare services, aiming to enhance the quality of decision-making and to ensure equality of practice. At the same time, standardisation has been criticised as undermining professional expertise and being unable to meet families’ individual needs. By focusing on the relationship between standardisation and professional practice, this paper examines how child welfare professionals balance principles of equity and equality in their assessments guided by a standardised tool. A qualitative design was chosen to explore these professionals’ knowledge perspectives and reflective practice when using a common standardised assessment tool in Norway. We used several qualitative data sources, including interviews, fieldwork and case documents from two local authorities. We interviewed 28 child welfare professionals, 22 case workers and six managers. The data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. The findings show that professionals adhere to the standardised tool to ensure objective and equal practice but also exercise professional expertise and discretion to ensure a tailored and equitable practice. Finally, facilitating a “sharing culture” to exchange views on the content of the tool is considered important when adopting the standardised assessment tool into practice. We conclude that standardisation alone does not guarantee equal and equitable practices. The use of standardised tools must be combined with discretionary practices. This calls for a flexible practice with a broadened knowledge base and a sharing culture that fosters critical reflection among professionals.
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.10%
发文量
303
期刊介绍: Children and Youth Services Review is an interdisciplinary forum for critical scholarship regarding service programs for children and youth. The journal will publish full-length articles, current research and policy notes, and book reviews.
×
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
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
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 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信