Presentation made by Emily Keddell and Ian Hyslop to a conference on 'Decision-making, assessment, risk and evidence' in Belfast, Ireland.

1. LIVING ON THE EDGE:
SOCIAL WORKER'S REASONING ABOUT 'CUSP'
DECISIONS IN CHILD PROTECTION PRACTICE
EMILY KEDDELL, University of Otago,
Aotearoa NEW ZEALAND
IAN HYSLOP, University of Auckland,
Aotearoa NEW ZEALAND

2. KEY THEORETICAL CONCEPTS
• Decision-making ecology and continuum
(Baumann)
• Variability as a justice issue (Keddell)
• Professional discretion at ‘tipping points’ as
part of what it is to be a ‘professional’ (Kettle
and Nyathi, following Lipsky)
• Naturalistic sense-making rather than a
technical rational ‘threshold’ (Platt & Turney)
• Decision-making can be ‘supervised’ or
‘supported’ (Falcolner & Shardlow)

3. CUSPS AND THRESHOLDS = IMPORTANT
NOTIONS
“While social workers and managers clearly invoked a threshold
or line for compulsory action, their discussions demonstrated a
range of factors about why it was not always easy to identify
when this line had been crossed”
(Doherty, 2016, p.698)
Cusp decisions relate to thresholds for increasing or decreasing
statutory intervention, therefore are a key aspect of
understanding decision variability

4. THE DECISION-MAKING CONTINUUM?
Decisio
ns to
notify
Decisio
n to
investig
ate
Decisio
n to do
a child
and
family
assess
ment
Decisio
n on
interve
ntion
type –
back to
NGO or
stay
with
stat
services
Decisio
n on
family
hui or
formal
legal
interve
ntion
Decisio
n to go
to FWA
or FGC
Decisio
n on
removal
Decisio
n on
type of
alternat
ive care
Decisio
n on if
and
when to
reunify

6. RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Primary research questions:
•Does decision variability exist in child welfare in
ANZ?
•What influences decision variability in the ANZ
context?
Decision-making ecology approach + little prior
research = broad exploratory ecological methods
Macro inequalities – a large quantitative study not

7. PHASE TWO
Qualitative interviews and focus groups at three statutory sites:
• Site 1: Urban, mixed class area, mostly Pakeha staff, Pakeha plus
multicultural clients.
• Site 2: Urban, high deprivation, mostly Maori and Pacific clients
and staff.
• Site 3: Semi-rural site spread across several small
socioeconomically diverse towns, mostly Pakeha staff and clients.

8. PHASE TWO ASKED SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
RELATING TO CUSPS/THRESHOLDS
• When a case is ‘on the cusp’ between going to an FGC or not,
what factors, to you, would mean it should or shouldn’t go?
Give examples.
• What are the significant aspects of a case that would mean
children would definitely be removed? Give examples.
• When compared to other offices, how does your threshold for
different decision points compare? Why do you think this is?
• Also asked about “any unwritten rules at this office?”

9. WHY DOES A SOCIAL WORKER MAKE A
REFERRAL FOR A FAMILY GROUP
CONFERENCE?
• Why is this a key decision? = it reflects that a social worker has ‘formed a
belief’
• Conversely, a Family whanau agreement is where there is no ‘belief’
• “A social worker is required to make a referral for family group conference
upon forming a belief that a child or young person is in need of care and/or
protection. That belief can be on the basis of one or more of the grounds
specified in s14(1) of the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (with the exception of
s14(1)(ba) and/or (e)). The referral for family group conference should
include each ground under section 14(1) that is relevant so that each of
mokopuna’s needs can be considered and addressed.” (Oranga Tamariki,
2018)
• An FGC can result in just a ‘plan’, or court orders for care. Both are court
enforced, but if care is pursued, an FGC must be held.

10. PHASE TWO PARTICIPANTS
Interviews Total interviews Focus groups
Site 1: 4 swers, 1
seniorsw, 1 team
leader, 1 FGC
coord
7 2
Site 2: 7 sw, 2
supervisors, 1
practice leader, 2
FGC coords
12 2
Site 3 4 swers, 1 senior,
1 supervisor
6 2
25 6

11. KEY THEMES FOR BOTH FGC AND REMOVAL
•Case and family factors
•Site/institutional factors

12. FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE DECISION
THEMES – CASE FACTORS
• Child factors – age, (young) views, do they feel
supported?
• Concern type and seriousness – clear injury, sexual
abuse, shaken baby, these are ‘no brainers’ – but
more difficult when these are not present.
• Family perceived response – no acknowledgement that
something has ‘gone wrong’, no parent acting
protectively (especially women)

13. FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE DECISION
THEMES – CASE FACTORS
• History of the family – lots of NFAs, ongoing
notifications, previous children removed, FGC used to
impose seriousness or as a last resort if other
interventions haven’t worked when new notification
comes in.
• Levels of support and surveillance - who is in and
around the family, what kinds of support do they have
(can seem similar but different levels of support will
lead to different responses)

14. SERIOUSNESS PLUS ‘ACKNOWLEDGEMENT’
S3Int1 SUP “I think the seriousness of the abuse is probably one
of the things that we would be considering. We would be
considering whether this is a family that have acknowledged that
something had gone wrong and that they wanted to make
changes. There might be a family that you could work with in you
know at least an intervention. Or it may be one that you still go
ahead and have the family group conference for but you don’t go
to court and get court orders, you make a family group
conference plan.”

15. FAMILY HISTORY AND FGC AS
‘STICK’
S1Int 4 SW “History again is just something that
keeps coming back, you know if the child’s
getting exposed to the same thing over and over
again it’s like actually no, we’re going to a
family group conference. You know it’s a higher
level, it’s a bigger stick so to speak and it kind
of cements it a bit more for the family. Hey
actually look guys this is serious, it needs to
stop.”

16. FAMILY HISTORY AND RESPONSE
S1Int2 SW “Family whanau agreement, the thing that really
dictates whether or not I feel it fits family whanau is the family’s
willingness to engage in a safety plan…So if I feel this family is
capable of coming up with a plan and sticking to it with minor
monitoring, easy. They need to know that we’re watching, and
they need to actually make some changes.. But if I don’t feel like
that (FGC) is my first port of call for this family, then I’ll give that
a go first. And I know that I can always go to FGC if that doesn’t
work out … And often with FGC because it is legislated, it’s that
little bit of extra security.”

17. VARIABILITY OF SUPPORTS – MONITORING
HELPS LOWER RISK PERCEPTION
“ Say I’ve got two exact same situations, but one of
them’s got just say one grandma involved and maybe a
kindy, but the other one’s got four grandparents, several
aunts and uncles, kindy, school, GP, community agency
then I’m more likely to just close that and walk away
because actually there’s enough eyes in there to see
what’s going on” S1Int4 SW

18. FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE DECISION
THEMES – INSTITUTIONAL AND SITE
FACTORS
• Resource factors – do we have time to go to FGC?
• Collaboration and negotiation with others – supervisors and
managers have a big role, no decisions made alone, some use of
the ‘consult tool’, supervisors help reduce risk aversion and
anxiety for those ‘below’
• Site differences in process - some have pre-FGC meeting, whereas
at others the SW is encouraged to ‘form a belief’ then justify it to
their supervisor (collaborative v adversarial-legal)

19. FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE DECISION THEMES –
THE ROLE OF SUPERVISORS IN CUSP
MANAGEMENT
“When I first started this job I tended to look ahead
and what if this happens, and what if that, but (TL)
is really good at bringing you back and saying well
you’ve the here and now, you can’t predict the
future so. Which is really important but yeah, hard
to do as well…(because) that’s what the media
wants us to do, you know the public” S1Int1 SW

20. FAMILY GROUP CONFERENCE DECISION THEMES –
THE ROLE OF SUPERVISORS IN CUSP
MANAGEMENT
“Have you tried the FWA first? A: Not necessarily, but often that is
the case. That was kind of the message I was given by my PL
when I had a case come in, that I immediately wanted to take to
FGC, immediately. And it is actually an FGC now, but she said to
me…try this first, we’ve got some good things going here, you
know we really shouldn’t be jumping in to the nth degree if you
don’t need to do that right now …But yeah if you can get the
family buy in, FWA can work really well”. S1Int2 SW

21. COLLABORATIVE NATURE OF DECISIONS –
SOME THROUGH FORMAL USE OF ‘CASE
CONSULTS’
S3 Int2 SW “Generally in collaboration with your supervisor, having a
case consult - so bringing in not just your other workers in the office
but key parties that are involved with the family, so you might have a
professionals consult …Twice usually, once at the initial onset to
make decisions and then once again past FGC - if you’re looking at
doing anything, returning them home, taking a child into care, there
should be consultations so that it’s a - yeah, collaborative thinking.
Two people can’t decide yes that child needs to come into care, it
takes more than that.”
• Collaboration for big decisions helps spread responsibility and

22. SITE SPECIFIC PROCESS: ADVERSARIAL-
LEGAL OR COLLABORATIVE?
B:...and then I justified it to my supervisor, convince her that this needs to go
to FGC and then ok, if that is your belief and then prepare all the, you know the
Tuituia, make the FGC referral and that will go to the FGC and then when you go
to the consult you’re justifying why it needs to go to FGC so it’s you know,
you’re defending your views....whereas, on the other side, on my other process
which I prefer, you will make the decision as a team, where your supervisor is
there, a group of senior practitioners, FGC co-ordinator and the social worker,
where all of those people will throw questions at you and challenge your belief
and you, you know, your perspective view on that case. ...and then …you will
make a decision as a group so you’re not deciding in isolation about yourself,
but here you need to defend by yourself...it’s totally different aye (laugh).
A: Yeah yes yes and would the system in (other site) …what would be the
obstacles to having that system here?

23. SITE CULTURES – FAMILY ENGAGEMENT
CAN ‘HEAD OFF’ FGC
“R: Okay, so in comparison to those other (regional) offices do you
think this office tends to not go down the FGC path because people
- they make a call earlier on that supports will be enough? Is that
what it is?
P: I think so, I think there’s probably a bit more trust in this site in
family’s abilities than in other sites. And they probably try to work a
wee bit harder with - yeah I think they do … They try to work
harder with the family to get buy in I think. Like I’ve - when I was
working in (another regional city), there were cases that had gone
to FGC and there hadn’t really been much engagement at all really.
…with the family. Whereas I know that wouldn’t happen here
…we’ve got a bit more trust”. S3 Int3 SW.

24. SITE CULTURES - WORKLOAD
“…do you think you’re roughly the same as other sites
or do you think there are some differences in some of
those decision points?
P: I think yeah it’s - I’d have to say that you know it’s
dependent on how much work comes through the door
…- and so some of our organisations, they will be very
reactive so you will find that there might be
inconsistencies in this threshold because they’re
needing to kind of stop the workload coming in, so then

25. FGC SUMMARY
• SO FGC cusp decisions reflect case factors relating to abuse
type and seriousness, repeat notifications, the failure of less
intrusive interventions, and if the family are perceived as
‘acknowledging’ or not.
• FCG decisions are the outcome of social negotiations and
processes at site offices. Practitioners are affected by senior
management who decide about thresholds, driven by
capacity concerns and differences in the construction of the
threshold. This may differ between more/less experienced

26. FGC SUMMARY
•Different sites have different processes – some
more individual ‘pitching’ to supervisors once
‘belief’ is formed, others more collaborative.
Process interacts with capacity.
•Some sites may have more ‘trust’ in families
than others, leading to more engagement and
less intervention

27. RETHINKING AGENCY – NETWORKED
DECISIONS
• The DM ecological approach accepts that complex interlocking
factors across the ecological environment shape decision
outcomes
• Decisions do rely on sense-making that emanates from the
organisational context (Platt & Turney)
• We contend these sense-making strategies are shaped by social
negotiations within social work sites that reflect managerial
hierarchies designed to spread and manage risk, especially for
more junior practitioners. One practice influencing this is the use
of group decision tools such as ‘consult tools’.

28. • Adding to this are site specific factors such as values relating to
attitudes towards family preservation and engagement, workload
and capacity issues, and whether adversarial-legal or
collaborative decision-making processes are used.
• The perceived compliance, engagement, and recorded family
history of families remain key issues in cusp decision-making.
• In these ways, professional discretion is ‘networked’ rather than
individual, both in culture and process

29. WANT TO CHAT ABOUT IT?
• Emily.keddell@otago.ac.nz @EmilyK100
• i.hyslop@auckland.ac.nz

30. REFERENCES
• Baumann, D. J., Dalgleish, L., Fluke, J., & Kern, H. (2011). The decision-making ecology. Washington, DC: American Humane Association.
• Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., . . . Hayes, D. (2016). Decision making in child
protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations,
and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015
• De Bortoli, L., & Dolan, M. (2014). Decision making in social work with families and children: Developing decision-aids compatible with
cognition. British Journal of Social Work. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcu087
• Dickens, J., Howell, D., Thoburn, J., & Schofield, G. (2007). Children starting to be looked after by local authorities in england: An
analysis of inter-authority variation and case-centred decision making. British Journal of Social Work(37), 597 - 617.
• Doherty, P. (2016). Child protection threshold talk and ambivalent case formulations in ‘borderline’ care proceedings cases. Qualitative
Social Work, 1 - 19 doi: DOI: 10.1177/1473325016640062
• Falconer, R. and S. M. Shardlow (2018). Comparing child protection decision-making in England and Finland: supervised or supported
judgement?" Journal of Social Work Practice 32(2): 111-124.
• Fleming, P., Biggart, L., & Beckett, C. (2014). Effects of professional experience on child maltreatment risk assessments: A comparison of
students and qualified social workers. British Journal of Social Work. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bcu090
• Fluke, J. D., Chabot, M., Fallon, B., MacLaurin, B., & Blackstock, C. (2010). Placement decisions and disparities among aboriginal groups:
An application of the decision making ecology through multi-level analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 34(1), 57-69. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2009.08.009
• Fluke Family preservation or child safety? Associations between child welfare workers' experience, position, and perspectives, Child and
Youth Services Review, 69: 210 – 218.

31. • Graham, J. C., Dettlaff, A. J., Baumann, D. J., & Fluke, J. (2015). The decision making ecology of placing a
child into foster care: A structural equation model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 12 - 23.
• Hogarth, R. (2002). Deciding analytically or trusting your intuition? The advantages and
disadvantages of analytic and intuitive thought. Barcelona, Spain: Departament
d’Economia i Empresa, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
• Kemshall, H. (2010). Risk rationalities in contemporary social work practice. British
Journal of Social Work, 40, 1247 - 1262.
• Keddell, E. (2014). Current debates on variability in child welfare decision-making: A
selected literature review. Social Sciences, 3(4), 916 - 940. doi:
doi:10.3390/socsci3040916
• Keddell, E. (2014). Weighing it up: family maintenance and children’s best interests
discourses in child protection decision-making, Child & Family Social Work 21(4): 512 -
520.
• Keddell, E. and I. Hyslop (2016). First findings from phase one of the Child Welfare
Decision-Making Variability Project: Research briefing paper. Dunedin, University of
Otago.
• Keddell, E. (2017). Interpreting children’s best interests: Needs, attachment and decision-
making. Journal of Social Work. 17(3): 324 - 342.doi: 10.1177/1468017316644694
• Keddell, E. (2017). Comparing Risk-Averse and Risk-Friendly Practitioners in Child
Welfare Decision-Making: A Mixed Methods Study, Journal of Social Work Practice 31(4):
411-429.

32. • Keddell, E. & Hyslop, I (2018) Decision differences in child welfare: what difference does role
type make? Children and Youth Services Review.
• Kettle, M. (2015). The tipping point: Fateful moments in child protection. Child & Family
Social Work, n/a-n/a. doi: 10.1111/cfs.12253
• Lipshitz, R., Klein, G., Orasanu, J., & Salas, E. (2001). Focus article: Taking stock of
naturalistic decision making. Journal of behavioural decision making, 14, 331 - 352.
• Lonne, B., Harries, M., & Lantz, S. (2013). Workforce development: A pathway to reforming
child protection systems in australia. British Journal of Social Work, 43(8), 1630-1648. doi:
10.1093/bjsw/bcs064
• Nyathi, N. (2018). Child protection decision-making: social workers’ perceptions. Journal of
Social Work Practice 32(2): 189-203.
• Platt, D., & Turney, D. (2014). Making threshold decisions in child protection: A conceptual
analysis. British Journal of Social Work, 44(6), 1472-1490. doi: 10.1093/bjsw/bct007
• J.R. Williams, L. Merkel-Holguin, H. Allan, E.J. Maher, J. Fluke, D. Hollinshead Factors
associated with staff perceptions of the effectiveness of family group conferences Journal of
the Society for Social Work and Research, 6 (3) (2015), pp. 343–366