Children and Youth Services Review 107 (2019) 104547

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Do more severe incidents lead to more drastic decisions? A study of T

professional child protection decision making in Spain
⁎
A. Molinaa, , J. Palaciosb, J.M. Jiménez-Moragob
a
Child Protection Service, Cádiz, Spain
b
Universidad de Sevilla, Spain

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In the field of child protection, decision-making is a very complex task involving professionals with distinct
Child maltreatment qualifications, working in diverse sectors of the system (from social services to the courts) and incidents that vary
Assessment in the type and seriousness of suspected maltreatment. Decisions made at the various levels of the child pro-
Decision making tection system encounter frequent disagreements. In an attempt to better understand differences in the assess-
Professional bias
ment of suspected child maltreatment and the protection measure taken, and using vignettes involving neglect,
physical and sexual abuse, four professional sectors that are typically involved in child protection cases in Spain
were analyzed: local social services, emergency residential units, specialized child protection professionals and
judges. The sample was comprised of 84 professionals. The results showed that the correlation between the
severity of the assessment and the intensity of the action taken was significant, but only moderate. The reason
may lay in the differences between the various professional sectors (more than in the professionals’ qualifica-
tions) and in the scant use, in the decision making process, of the available professional tools, such as checklists
of indicators and professional protocols.

1. Introduction
In their everyday work, child protection professionals are forced to
make choices amidst what Baumann, Dalgleish, Fluke, and Kern (2011)
have aptly called “the decision-making ecology”. Some of the compo-
nents of this ecology are more abstract and ideological, such as the
tension between family preservation versus child protection orienta-
tions (Fargion, 2014; Spratt, 2001). In this article, our interest centers
in more immediate issues related to risk assessment and the subsequent
actions taken by child protection professionals. If these tasks are diffi-
cult by nature, the complexity increases when considering the diversity
of professionals involved and the different levels in decision making
(Horwath & Morrison, 2007). In an attempt to better understand the
child protection professionals’ decision-making process in Spain, and
using the traditional vignettes approach, our study explores the as-
sessment of severity and the intensity of the action taken by various
professionals in three child maltreatment situations. Child protection
regulation and practice in Spain is the macro-system of our ecology.
The Spanish protection system is very similar to the rest of con-
tinental European systems and has evolved in recent years, following
Gilbert, Parton, and Skivenes (2011) terminology, from child protection
to a family service and child’s development orientation system. In
Spain, as in many other countries, local social services are the primary
resource to detect and assess cases of suspected child maltreatment, as
well as to initiate the intervention. The local social services are in
charge of risk families, however when a family’s situation is so serious
that measures might be taken to remove the child from their home, they
are required to send a report to Child Protection Services, which has the
final decision and the legal authority to remove a child from their
parents (legal abandonment situation). In these cases, the child is place
in emergency residential or family foster care and a new assessment
takes place. Although there has been a considerable increase in family
foster care in recent years, a high percentage of children continue to be
placed in residential units (Observatorio de la Infancia, 2018).
Spanish law limits the court’s involvement child protection deci-
sion-making, especially since 2015 (Ley 26/2015). However, when a
family contests the child removal decision, the case is sent to the court
for a final decision. In some instances, the judicial decision may involve
the children returning from the foster family or residential unit back to
their homes (Palacios & Amorós, 2006 or Molina, 2012 for a summary
description). Therefore, due to the decisive nature of the evaluations, a
high level of consensus by all teams (local social services, child pro-
tection services or residential units) as well as the courts is funda-
mental. Except at the court level where decisions are made directly by a

⁎
Corresponding author at: Plaza Asdrúbal s.n., 11008 Cádiz, Spain.
E-mail addresses: ajose.molina@juntadeandalucia.es (A. Molina), jp@us.es (J. Palacios), morago@us.es (J.M. Jiménez-Morago).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104547
Received 17 June 2019; Received in revised form 9 October 2019; Accepted 10 October 2019
Available online 28 October 2019
0190-7409/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
A. Molina, et al.
judge, all other professional sectors include multi-disciplinary teams
involving both psychologists and social workers.
Although child maltreatment indicator checklists and professional
manuals have been developed to aid decision making (Junta de
Andalucía, 2004, 2007), conflicting views and disagreements between
professionals are not infrequent (Arruabarrena & De Paúl, 2011). As
some authors have indicated (Benbenishty et al., 2015), training of
professionals in the use of guides and manuals mainly focused on risk
assessment of cases is not enough. In addition, professionals must be
aware of their personal attitudes, as well as other organizational and
contextual factors that affect decision making (Arad-Davidzon &
Benbenishty, 2008; Bartelink et al., 2018; Baumann et al., 2011;
Benbenishty et al., 2015). In a recent study, Keddell and Hyslop (2018)
found that professionals working for NGOs perceive a greater risk than
those working in government organizations and, despite broad simila-
rities in knowledge base, perceptions of risk level can still differ.
However, data from Font and Maguire-Jack (2015) indicate that agency
factors contributed less to the probability of removal decisions among
substantiated maltreatment cases, though the agencies’ time resources
and constraints on decision-making did have some influence.
According to DePanfilis and Girvin (2005), most research in this
field has explored the influence of professional and personal variables,
the characteristics of the individual case at issue and the professional
resources available. A selective review of the main research findings
regarding these four issues (with special attention to the first, more
relevant in our research) will help to set the frame for our empirical
study.
Regarding the diversity of professionals involved, research has
analyzed the differences between child protection professional sectors.
Britner and Mossler (2002) showed that social workers and mental
health professionals focused more on the severity and the pattern of
abuse, while judges were more concerned with the likelihood of re-
current abuse. Similarly, studying children’s removal from home,
Mandel, Lehman, and Yuille (1995) found differences between social
workers and the police, with social workers considering the factors of
the case in a more critical manner. In Spain, Arruabarrena and De Paúl
(2012) also highlighted the frequent lack of agreement between local
service professionals and those in the upper administrative level of
child protection.
These professionals also differ in terms of their years of experience.
According to Sullivan, Whitehead, Leschied, Chiodo, and Hurley
(2008), inexperienced social workers may be more prone to over-esti-
mate risk, increasing the number of children in care. Grimaldi, Pérez-
Padilla, Garrido, and Lorence (2019) obtained similar results, showing
that even when using the same Child Well-Being Scales (Magura &
Moses, 1986), less experienced Spanish professionals gave a more ne-
gative appraisal of families. However, Mandel, Lehman, and Yuille
(1994) found no differences between experienced professionals and
undergraduate students in their level of agreement with the child re-
moval intervention.
Concerning individual or collaborative decision-making, although
Nouwen, Decuyper, and Put (2012) point out that collaborative deci-
sions improve individual decisions, the study carried out in Spain by
Arruabarena (2010) found a slight improvement in teams’ assessment,
however the differences were not statistically significant.
Research has also explored the role of more personal variables.
Ashton (2004) analyzed the influence of personal characteristics such as
age, gender, parenthood, mother’s education, father’s education, col-
lege major, ethnicity, and immigrant status, with only the two latter
variables having a significant effect on reporting maltreatment cases. In
their study of professional decision making in Spain, Arruabarrena and
De Paúl (2011) found no effect of personal variables such as gender,
age, being a parent, marital status, or career specialization. The same
was true in Garrido and Grimaldi (2009).
Finally, biases in professional reasoning when analyzing child
maltreatment incidents deserve consideration. In her important work,
2
Children and Youth Services Review 107 (2019) 104547
Munro (1999, 2005, 2011) identified two main errors in the assessment
of incidents: the use of intuitive reasoning, biased towards what is more
vivid, concrete and emotive and the reluctance to change one’s mind
once a first conclusion had been reached.
The second area of interest identified by DePanfilis and Girvin
(2005) was the characteristics of the individual case. A good example of
this is the research by Wells and her colleagues (Wells, Downing, &
Fluke, 1991; Wells, Fluke, & Brown, 1995) showing that cases involving
physical injury or multiple types of physical abuse with more severe
injury tended to receive more attention and be assessed as more serious
than other types of maltreatment with no physical secuelae. Similarly,
Finkelhor (1994) pointed out that instances of child sexual abuse may
receive more intensive investigation than other types of maltreatment.
Finally, the third area of research concerns the availability of re-
sources to assist professionals with their decisions. As Munro (2005)
pointed out, it is not only the availability, but also the use that pro-
fessionals make of the existing resources. To mention just one study,
Kang and Poertner (2006) showed limited agreement when assessing
vignette cases among professionals using the same evaluation protocol.
Moreover, their final judgments about the level of case intervention
were independent of the risk factors identified or their perceived levels
of risk, perhaps because they based their judgments on previous ex-
periences or personal values more than on the available information or
the indications of the evaluation protocol.
With this research background, we approached the decision making
process of child protection professionals in Spain. We were intrigued by
the frequent disagreements seen among the many professionals in-
volved. Using a vignettes approach involving three different types of
abuse (neglect, physical abuse, sexual abuse) and four different pro-
fessional sectors (social services, residential units, child protection,
judges), we decided to test five main hypotheses:
The professionals’ personal variables (gender, age, married status,
being parents…) are not expected to influence their assessment for
abuse or the severity and intensity of their decisions. However, the
professionals’ qualifications (social workers, psychologists or
judges) and the specific sector where each worked (local social
services, residential units, child protection and courts) are expected
to be more relevant.
We expect more professional agreement in cases involving physical
and sexual abuse than in those involving neglect.
We also expect a good level of correlation between the severity of
the case and the intensity of the subsequent decision; cases assessed
as less severe would lead to less intense decisions (for instance, fa-
mily preservation and parental support) while cases considered
more severe would lead to more drastic decisions (for instance, child
removal).
Based on our knowledge of the field and previous literature, we
expect that the protection measure taken would be influenced both
by the severity of the incident and the professional sector involved
(for example, when faced with the same incident, local social work
professionals would be more inclined to take more drastic decisions
than professionals in the upper layer of child protection).
Although child maltreatment indicators and professional protocols
are available, we expect to see limited use of them, with decisions
relying more upon personal experience and knowledge, and on in-
tuitive reasoning.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
The professionals participating in this study came from the four
sectors usually involved in child protection cases in Spain: these are
social services, who generally make the first assessment of the case and
initiate the intervention; emergency residential units, where children
A. Molina, et al. Children and Youth Services Review 107 (2019) 104547

are very often placed when separated from their parents; child pro- summarized description of the vignettes. The full version of vignettes is
tection services, who assess the case to officially establish the protective available in Molina, 2012). The three vignettes were selected from real
measures; and finally, members of the judicial system, who make a final cases of CPS after a pilot study and correspond to cases of neglect,
decision when the previous ones have been contested. In Spain, social physical abuse and sexual abuse. These types of maltreatment were
services operate at a local or municipal level, while the rest of the in- included to represent some of the most typical situations faced by
stances (residential units, child protection services, family courts) op- professionals. All three situations present the same family structure
erate at a provincial level. In our case, all professionals involved were (two-parent family), with no other ethnic nor socio-economic in-
working in the province of Cádiz, in Sourthern Spain. formation.
Of the 69 professionals working on cases in local social services, 24 For each vignette the main type of maltreatment or abuse was to be
answered and returned their questionnaires, although one was not valid firstly identified. The possible options included physical abuse, psy-
due to too many unanswered questions; the response rate represents chological or emotional abuse, physical neglect, emotional neglect and
33% of the total. Of the six emergency residential units existing in the sexual abuse. The severity of the abuse—mild, moderate or severe—was
province, two were selected (one private and another public manage- then to be identified in each vignette. This was followed by indicating
ment) as they best represented the existing diversity. Of the 30 pro- the intensity of the protective measure for each case, with four response
fessionals working there, 24 answers were received, which represents options: 1. Minimal (the child remains in the family; intervention seeks
80%. Of the 27 Child Protection Service professionals, 100% answered greater parental involvement and providing support through parenting
the survey. Finally, 10 of the 14 components (71%) of the judicial programs), 2. Low (the child remains in the family home with inter-
system involved in child protection cases in the province responded. ventions involving more control, such as frequent visits from profes-
The total sample included 84 professionals. sionals, participation in training or therapeutic activities…), 3. Intense
Half the sample (48.8%) was at least 40 years of age and 56% had (separation from the family, with the prospect of return if the parents
more than three years of professional experience. Most (86.9%) were attain certain goals) and 4. Drastic (immediate separation without any
women, with 70% being married, and 48% had children. With regards initial prospect of returning to the family).
to academic qualifications, all members of the judicial system were law Participants were then asked about aspects or factors they had
graduates. Half of the social service and child protection service pro- considered when proposing the indicated intervention/s for each
fessionals were psychologists, while the other half were social workers, vignette. They were requested to indicate if their assessment of severity
as is the most common in Spain (see Table 1). Of the professionals and the intensity of the measure proposed were based on the specific
working at the emergency residential units, their training was more details of the incident described in the vignette, on the harm caused to
heterogeneous and divided among psychologists, social workers and the child, on the behavior of the caregivers or on other reasons (cir-
social educators. cumstances, extended family …). Finally, the professionals were asked
about the resources they usually used to solve cases such as those de-
2.2. Measures scribed in the vignettes. These resources were chosen freely by re-
spondents (open answers).
We used the vignette method typically used for this type of study
(Arruabarrena & De Paúl, 2011; Ashton, 2004; Britner & Mossler, 2002; 2.3. Procedure
Kang & Poertner, 2006; Mandel et al., 1994; Portwood, 1998; Sullivan
et al., 2008). Each vignette describes a situation in which a child is The package containing the vignettes and questionnaires was
involved who is suffering some type of maltreatment or abuse by end of mailed to the participants, providing them with the possibility of sol-
the parents (see Appendix 1 online Supplementary material, for a ving any doubt that might arise by email or phone (see Molina, 2012 for
questionnaire and complete vignettes). Participants were asked to
Table 1 complete the questionnaire individually. The questions were quite di-
Profile of participating professionals. rect, and hardly posed doubts for the contributors. The study package
Professionals characteristics (N = 84)
was sent by Child Protection Service.
Regarding to data analysis, the first step will be analyze the re-
Qualification lationship between personal variables and variables referring to type of
Psychology 23 (27.4%) abuse, its severity and the intensity of the decision. The same procedure
Social Work 25 (29.7%)
Law Graduate 14 (16.7%)
will be followed studying the relationship of these variables within the
Social Education 18 (21.4%) professional sector. Secondly, the correlation between the severity of
Others 4 (4.8%) abuse and the intensity of the decision will be analyzed. Thirdly, using
Sector two-way ANOVA, the influence of the severity of abuse, as well as the
Child Protection Service 27 (32.1%)
influence of the professional sector, on the intensity of the proposed
Local Social Services 23 (27.4%)
Emergency residential units 24 (28.6%) measure will be explored for each vignette. Finally, we will conclude
Judges 10 (11.9%) with a descriptive analysis of the main types of indicators that profes-
Sex sionals employ to assess the severity of maltreatment and intensity of
Women 73 (86.9%) proposed measures in the three vignettes.
Men 11 (13.1%)
Age
< 40 years 43 (51.2%) 3. Results
> 40 years 41 (48.8%)
Years of experience No significant relationships were obtained in type of abuse, severity
< 3 years 24 (28.6%)
assessment, and decision about the intervention in the three vignettes
> 3 years 60 (71.4%)
Marital status with regards to gender, age, whether the participant was a parent or
Married 57 (67.8%) not, and the years of professional experience. Likewise, the professional
Unmarried 23 (27.4%) qualification (social worker, psychologist, judge) was not relevant in
Others 4 (4.8%) any of the vignettes regarding type of abuse, severity assessment or
Children
intensity of intervention proposed. However, the professional sector
Childless 44 (52.4%)
One or more children 40 (47.6%) variable (local social services, residential units, specialized child pro-
tection services, family court) showed a variety of significant

3
A. Molina, et al.
relationships with several variables. Therefore, later analysis will
maintain this as a main variable in order to analyze its relationships
with the type of abuse, the severity attributed to the case and the in-
tensity of the interventions.
We were interested in the correlations between the level of severity
attributed to the case and the intensity of the proposed protective
measures. In the neglect vignette, the correlation between both vari-
ables was r = 0.31 (p < . 01); in the physical abuse vignette, r = 0.36
(p < .001); in the sexual abuse vignette, r = 0.28 (p < .05). Thus, the
correlations were all significant, but moderate. The explained variance
of the correlations was 9.6% for first vignette, 13% for the second, and
8% for the last.
Previously, we indicated that the professional sector variable
showed significant differences with regards to the various variables.
When identifying the type of maltreatment, there was a notable
unanimity in the vignettes referring to physical and sexual abuse; more
than 90% of the professionals, independently of their professional
sector, coincided in their identification. Nevertheless, there was greater
disparity when identifying the maltreatment shown in the neglect
vignette; in this regard, 40% of the subjects identified physical neglect,
while 60% identified emotional neglect. The Chi-square analysis
showed that 85% of the child protection professionals and 80% of
judges identified emotional neglect, while 74% of local social service
professionals and almost half of emergency residential unit profes-
sionals (42%) identified physical neglect, χ2(3, N = 84) = 19.31,
p < .001, Cramer’s V = 0.48. Thus, the case of neglect seemed to show
a greater diversity of interpretations than physical or sexual abuse.
Using one-way ANOVA, the relationship between the professional
sector and the level of severity of the maltreatment (1 = mild
2 = moderate, 3 = severe) and the intensity of the protective measures
(1 = Minimal, 2 = Low, 3 = Intense and 4 = Drastic) was analyzed.
When it came to the severity of maltreatment, no significant differences
were observed between the groups based on the professional sector
(p = .176 for neglect, p = .129 for physical abuse and p = .709 for
sexual abuse). Table 2 shows the mean and the standard deviations for
the assessment of severity depending on the professional sector.
When it came to the intensity of the decision taken, the professional
sector did not show significant differences in the case of the vignette for
neglect, F(3,79) = 1.12, p = .343, while significant differences were
seen in the cases of physical abuse, F(3, 79) = 4.37, p < .01, and
sexual abuse, F(3, 77) = 5.62, p < .01. The post-hoc analysis using
Scheffé’s test showed that in the case of physical abuse, the differences
appeared among local social services, emergency residential units and
child protection professionals; it was these latter who proposed less
intensive intervention measures (M = 2.81, SD = 0.98), while the
strictest intervention measures were imposed by local social service
professionals (M = 3.65, SD = 0.57). Emergency residential unit pro-
fessionals held an intermediate position (M = 2.92, SD = 0.97). In the
case of sexual abuse, the decision by child protection professionals
(M = 3.15, SD = 0.73) differed significantly from that of emergency
residential unit professionals (M = 3.71, SD = 0.62) and those from
local social services (M = 3.86, SD = 0.36), with no significant differ-
ences between these two latter. Therefore, it can be deduced that in
these two cases, the intervention measures imposed by child protection
Table 2
For each type of maltreatment, mean (and standard deviation) for severity of abuse and the intensity of the protective measure based on the professional sector.
Neglect
Severity Intensity
Local Social Services 2.74 (0.45) 3.13 (0.69)
Emergency Residential Units 2.79 (0.51) 3.48 (0.78)
Child Protection 2.92 (0.27) 3.12 (0.77)
Judges 3.00 (0.00) 3.10 (0.88)
Note: Within each type of maltreatment (columns), the groups with the same superscript (a,b) have means significantly different at p < .05.
4
Children and Youth Services Review 107 (2019) 104547
professionals are less forceful, while the most demanding measures
were implemented by local social services. On the other hand, profes-
sionals from the court showed no significant differences from any of the
other groups, and those from emergency residential units were in a
similar situation or closer to the reactions of local social services. Thus,
the greatest contrast appeared between local social service profes-
sionals, who tended to impose more drastic measures, and child pro-
tection professionals, who tended towards more cautious decisions.
Finally, for each of the vignettes, a two-way ANOVA was used to
analyze the decision making intensity depending on both the degree of
severity and the professional sector. The results were significant for all
three types of maltreatment. With regards to the vignette for neglect, a
main effect was found for the severity of the maltreatment on the in-
tensity of the proposed intervention F(1,74) = 11,40, p < .001, with a
medium effect size (η2 = 0.13), without the professional sector, F
(3,74) = 1.46, p = .232, or its interaction with the severity of the
evaluation, F(2,74) = 0.91, p = .405, reaching significance. The var-
iance explained by the model was 17%. Also, in the case of the vignette
for physical abuse, a main effect was found for the estimated severity, F
(2, 66) = 3,33, p < .05, with a small effect size (η2 = 0.09), without
the professional sector, F(3,66) = 1.40, p = .250, nor its interaction
with the severity, F(3,66) = 0.75, p = 2.527, reaching significance. For
this second vignette (physical abuse), the variance explained by the
model was 26%. Although the professional sector failed to be sig-
nificant in this vignette, analysis of estimated marginal means based on
the professional sector indicate that all professional sectors, except the
judges, showed a certain degree of proportionality between the degree
of severity and the intensity of the proposed measure (the greater the
severity, the more drastic the decision), although child protection
professionals were the ones who showed greater proportionality. A
graph and table with estimated marginal means for this vignette is
presented in Appendix 2 (online Supplementary material).
Thirdly, in the case of the sexual abuse vignettes, main effects were
found both for the professional sector, F(3,62) = 5.01, p < .01, with a
medium effect size (η2 = 0.19), as well as its interaction with the de-
gree of severity, F(3,62) = 3.00, p < .05, with a medium effect size
(η2 = 0.13), without the level of severity alone being significant, F
(2,62) = 2.65, p = .078. In this case, the variance explained by the
model was 36%. The estimated marginal means in this vignette showed
that, independent from the estimated severity, the intensity of the de-
cision was maximum in the case of local social services and emergency
residential unit professionals, while there was greater proportionality in
the case of child protection services and, to a lesser degree, the judges.
A graph and table with estimated marginal means for this vignette can
be seen in Appendix 2 (online Supplementary material).
Respondents were asked to indicate on what factors they based their
assessments and decisions. As can be observed in Table 3, it was only in
the vignette regarding neglect that the consideration of harm to the
child was taken into account to the same extent as the incident de-
scribed, which was the determining factor in the cases of physical and
sexual abuse. The analysis of the relation between these arguments and
the proposed intensity of the intervention showed that the most drastic
interventions were significantly related to assessments based on the
incident described (not in the harm to the child), both in the case of
Physical Abuse Sexual Abuse
Severity Intensity Severity Intensity
a.b.
2.86 (0.35) 3.65 (0.57) 2.90 (0.44) 3.86 (0.36)a.
2.91 (0.29) 2.92 (0.97)a. 2.96 (0.21) 3.71 (0.62)b.
2.61 (0.66) 2.81 (0.98)b. 2.83 (0.49) 3.15 (0.73)a.b.
2.71 (0.49) 3.00 (0.94) 2.83 (0.41) 3.40 (0.84)
A. Molina, et al.
Table 3
Percentage (and number) of subjects who use various indicators to assess the
severity of maltreatment and the intensity of subsequent decision in three
vignettes.
Indicator
Incident Damage Characteristics Others Total
in the to child of caregiver
vignette
1. Neglect 34 (27) 32 (26) 11 (9) 23 (19) 100 (81)
2. Physical abuse 67 (52) 19 (15) 5 (4) 9 (7) 100 (78)
3. Sexual abuse 71 (56) 19 (15) 6 (5) 4 (3) 100 (79)
neglect, χ2(12, N = 80) = 41.041, p < .001, as well as physical abuse,
χ2(12, N = 78) = 61.485, p < .001 and sexual abuse χ2(6,
N = 77) = 12.828, p < .05.
Regarding the use of tools or techniques in their standard profes-
sional decision-making process, it was noteworthy that only 12 out of
the 84 subjects mentioned the use of a specific professional tool: one
mentioned the Child Well-Being Scales (Magura & Moses, 1986), two
that they used the official Child Protection Indicator System, and nine
mentioned specific intervention manuals developed for each of the
professional sectors. No statistically significant differences were found
between the use of any instrument and the assessment of the severity or
intensity of intervention. Thus, it would seem that rather than de-
pending upon a system of indicators or assessment scales, most of the
decisions are essentially made by paying attention to the specific in-
cident; and more than using the available protocols, personal judgment
is used in the assessment and the measures taken in response to the
incidents.
4. Discussion
Regarding our first hypothesis, as expected, personal variables did
not play any relevant role, which confirms previous research
(Arruabarrena & De Paúl, 2011; Ashton, 2004; Garrido & Grimaldi,
2009). In our data, while the professionals’ qualification (social worker,
social educators, psychologist, judge) did not play a significant role, as
expected, with regards type of abuse, severity assessment and intensity
of intervention, the professional sector (local social services, residential
units, CPS and judge) was significant for several of these aspects. The
comparison with previous studies is not easy here. In the research
carried out in other countries and showing the role of the professional
sector (Britner & Mossler, 2002; Mandel et al., 1995) each sector was
integrated by a single professional profile (social workers, mental
health professionals, police officers…). But in our case, each profes-
sional sector (except for judges) consists of professionals with varying
qualifications, as all teams include a social worker and a psychologist.
In this regard, our data are similar to other study carried out in Spain by
Arruabarrena and De Paúl (2011), with differences related to the pro-
fessional sector, not to the individual’s qualifications. Therefore, it is
interesting that, when it comes to assessment and decision making, the
professional sector seems to be more relevant than the professional
discipline.
Our second hypothesis anticipated more professional agreement in
cases involving physical and sexual abuse than in the case involving
neglect. Our results confirmed this as far as the identification of type of
abuse is concerned. This is probably related to the higher visibility of
the first two types of abuse mentioned (Finkelhor, 1994; Wells et al.,
1991, 1995). But it probably has to do with what Stokes and Taylor
(2014) described as the definitional ambiguities and a lack of consensus
regarding the exact conditions that constitute child neglect.
However, the differences based on type of abuse were non-sig-
nificant for any of our vignettes in the assessment of severity, or in the
intensity of the action taken in the case of the first vignette. In fact, it
5
Children and Youth Services Review 107 (2019) 104547
seems that the main differences were observed comparing sexual abuse
with the other two types. While in the case of neglect and physical
abuse it was the severity of the incident that predicted the action taken,
in the case of sexual abuse, it was the interaction between seriousness
and the professional sector. Perhaps sexual abuse evokes more im-
mediate and stronger reactions than other types of maltreatment, at
least in certain professional sectors.
In our third hypothesis, we expected a high level of concordance
between the severity of the case and the intensity level of the sub-
sequent decision. Although our data have shown both aspects to be
correlated, the correlation was lower than expected. Other results in our
study help understand why this may occur. On the one hand, while in
our one-way ANOVAs there were no significant differences between
varying professional sectors in the assessment of seriousness, there were
significant differences in the actions taken, with professionals at local
social services favoring more drastic decisions than their colleagues
working at child protection services, thus confirming our third hy-
pothesis. This was particularly clear in the factorial ANOVA for the
sexual abuse vignette. Thus, while professionals in child protection
services and in the courts showed a higher proportionality between
assessed severity and intensity of the decision made, those working in
local social services and emergency residential units favored more
drastic decisions even when the assessment of seriousness was low.
Some of our results seem to allude to the sometimes difficult com-
munication between the various professional sectors. Thus, child pro-
tection professionals (and judges) would argue that their colleagues at
local social services have no proportionality in their decisions, always
being inclined towards more drastic decisions. In turn, social service
professionals (and those working at emergency residential units) would
be surprised to see their colleagues in child protection (or the court
judges) considering cases as only mild or moderately severity incidents
that they consider to be quite serious, which is especially true in the
vignette of sexual abuse. It is likely that the inclination of child pro-
tection professionals towards more moderate measures has to do with
their role in the protection system. They are the ones who make deci-
sions involving separating the child from the birth family, but they are
also the ones who implement those decisions. The removal of a child
involves considerable emotional burden for all those involved, in-
cluding the professionals. Moreover, these professionals are affected by
changes in child protection policies (Benbenishty et al., 2015; Munro,
2005). In Spain, at present, family preservation is clearly favoured over
separation, so child protection professionals avoid separation as a first
choice. Similarly, judges are aware of the lengthy and uncertain pro-
cedures when legal actions are taken, and perhaps they also tend to
moderate and graduate their intervention decisions.
On the other hand, social service professionals who work directly
with children and families, might be more aware of the limitations in
the parents and harm in the child, and are perhaps more skeptical about
the efficacy of family preservation attempts, which is consistent with
previous findings in Spain (Benbenishty et al., 2015). Finally, profes-
sionals working at child residential units might be especially sensitive
to the effects of abuse on the children they see and be more inclined
towards more immediate and drastic decisions. In addition, since they
are not involved in the separation decision, it could be easier for them
to think of separation as a first alternative.
Although our research has not studied the attitudes and values of
professionals, our data seems to indicate that professionals are divided
between those who were more favorable to separation and those who
were more favorable to the child remaining with their family, a pro-
fessional situation similar to the one described by Arad-Davidzon and
Benbenishty (2008) or to the attitudes toward placement found by
Bartelink et al. (2018). These disagreements and inconsistencies have a
clear impact on the way child protection is perceived and on the re-
sponse given to children and families. Changing this situation would
imply improvements in knowledge and communication among profes-
sionals of different services, as well as creating networking structures
A. Molina, et al.
and making the professionals aware of personal and organizational
factors influencing their decisions (Arad-Davidzon & Benbenishty,
2008).
Our final hypothesis predicting the scant use of the available lists of
indicators, protocols and manuals for child welfare professionals was
fully confirmed by professionals from all sectors when asked about their
daily work. It was very astonishing to see that only one professional
used the Child Well-Being Scales, or that only a clear minority would
resort to the available tools designated for their use. This, together with
the fact that decisions tend to be based on the characteristics of the
incident, with less consideration of the harm to the child or parents’
characteristics, seem to confirm the professionals’ tendency to focus
their attention in what is more vivid, concrete and emotive, as de-
scribed by Munro (1999, 2005, 2011). It is likely, as this same author
points out, that the low use of instruments is closely related to the
working conditions of these professionals: an excessive number of cases,
a lack of time, incomplete teams, [high] professional turnover and
quickly-made decisions.
Unfortunately, the child’s separation from their family depends on
the specific professional who makes the decision (Shuerman, Rossi, &
Budde, 1999). A possible solution to the obvious lack of consistency, as
Arruabarrena and De Paúl (2011) point out, would be that all profes-
sionals, regardless of their specific sector, receive the same training and
use the same assessment instruments. The implementation of unified
assessment instruments that guide professionals in consensual decision-
making, as well as adequate training in their use, seems to be very
necessary. Likewise, since judges have to supervise the decisions made
by other professionals, they must also understand these instruments and
know how to interpret the assessments.
In summary, our results seem to illustrate the complexity of pro-
fessional assessment and decision making in cases of child maltreat-
ment and neglect. Although, of course, all professionals pay attention to
the severity of the incidents they evaluate, the correspondence between
this and the action taken is more limited than expected, due, in part, to
the differences between the various professional sectors involved.
5. Limitations
Two of the main limitations of this study concern sample and
measures. While the other professional groups in our sample could be
considered to be well represented, the participation of professionals
working at local social services was lower than desirable. Perhaps they
saw this exercise as pure theory and did not perceive the utility or in-
terest of the study. Also, since the study package was sent by Child
Protection Service perhaps they perceived this as a control over their
work and they chose not to participate. In any case, more effort should
have been invested to obtain a better rate of response. The number of
judges was also low, but in this case they were an acceptable re-
presentation of their professional sector, as 10 out of 14 responded.
As for the vignettes, although they worked reasonably well, perhaps
the level of severity of the descriptions was too similar from one
vignette to another. In a pilot study we used more vignettes, including a
more balanced description of severity. But the research package was
considered to be too “heavy” by many professionals, so we tried to
minimize the number of vignettes, with those finally selected referring
to instances compatible with abuse, all based in real cases of abuse. No
differences were observed between the professional groups in the as-
sessment of seriousness in the three vignettes, and this is probably re-
lated to the fact that the incidents were always compatible with mod-
erate or severe cases of maltreatment. It is interesting, though, that
even with this limitation, the vignettes served well the purposes of this
study.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
6
Children and Youth Services Review 107 (2019) 104547
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influ-
ence the work reported in this paper.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104547.
References
Arad-Davidzon, B., & Benbenishty, R. (2008). The role of workers’ attitudes and parent
and child wishes in child protection workers’ assessments and recommendation re-
garding removal and reunification. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 107–121.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.07.003.
Arruabarena, M. I. (2010). Gravedad de las situaciones de desprotección infantil: Criterios
para su evaluación. [Severity of situations of child protection: Evaluation guidelines].
(Doctoral dissertation). Universidad del País Vasco. San Sebastián.
Arruabarrena, M. I., & De Paúl, J. (2011). Valoración de la gravedad de las situaciones de
desprotección infantil por los profesionales de los Servicios de Protección Infantil
[Assessment of seriousness of maltreatment incidents by professionals of Child
Protection Services]. Psicothema, 23, 642–647.
Arruabarrena, M. I., & De Paúl, J. (2012). Improving accuracy and consistency in child
maltreatment severity assessment in child protection services in Spain: New set of
criteria to help caseworkers in substantiation decisions. Children and Youth Service
Review, 34, 666–674. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2011.12.011.
Ashton, V. (2004). The effect of personal characteristics on reporting child maltreatment.
Child Abuse and Neglect, 28, 985–997. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2004.03.
012.
Bartelink, C., Knorth, E. J., LóLópez, M., Koopmans, C., Berge, I. J., Witteman, C., &
Yperen, T. A. (2018). Reasons for placement decision in a case of suspected child
abuse: The role of reasoning, work experience and attitudes in decision-making. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 83, 129–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2018.06.013.
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. (2015). Decision making in child protection: An international comparative
study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions re-
commendations, and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 49, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.03.015.
Britner, P., & Mossler, D. (2002). Professionals' decision-making about out-of-home pla-
cements following instances of child abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 26, 317–332.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(02)00311-3.
DePanfilis, D., & Girvin, H. (2005). Investigating child maltreatment in out-of-home care:
Barriers to effective decision-making. Children and Youth Services Review, 27,
353–374. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.11.010.
Fargion, S. (2014). Synergies and tensions in child protection and parent support: Policy
lines and practitioners cultures. Child and Family Social Work, 19, 24–33. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00877.x.
Finkelhor, D. (1994). Current Information on the scope and nature of child sexual abuse.
The Future of Children, 4, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.2307/1602522.
Font, S. A., & Maguire-Jack, K. (2015). Decision-making in child protective services:
Influences at multiple levels of the social ecology. Child Abuse and Neglect, 47, 70–82.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2015.02.005.
Garrido, M., & Grimaldi, V. M. (2009). Evaluación de riesgo psicosocial en familias con
menores [Evaluating psycho-social risk in families with young children]. Sevilla:
Consejería para la Igualdad y Bienestar Social.
Gilbert, N., Parton, N., & Skivenes, M. (2011). Child protection systems: International trends
and orientations. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Grimaldi, V. M., Pérez-Padilla, J., Garrido, M., & Lorence, B. (2019). Assessment and
decision-making in child protective services: Risk situations kept-at-home versus out-
of-home care. Child Indicators Research, 12, 1611–1628. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12187-018-9600-1.
Horwath, J., & Morrison, T. (2007). Collaboration, integration, and change in children’s
services: Critical issues and key ingredients. Child Abuse and Neglect, (vol. 31, pp.
55–69). doi:.
Junta de Andalucía (2004). Sistema de Información sobre Maltrato Infantil de Andalucía
[Andalusian Child Abuse Information System]. Sevilla: Consejería para la Igualdad y
Bienestar Social. (Retrieved from < https://www.observatoriodelainfancia.es/
ficherosoia/documentos/3294_d_SIMIA_Procedimiento_de_Actuaci%C3%B3n_
20120604.pdf) > .
Junta de Andalucía (2007). Manual de referencia de los Equipos de Tratamiento Familiar
[Family Treatment Teams Reference Manual]. Sevilla: Consejería para la Igualdad y
Bienestar Social. (Retrieved from: < https://www.observatoriodelainfancia.es/
ficherosoia/documentos/2862_d_MANUAL_EETTFF_NOVIEMBRE_2007.pdf) > .
Kang, H.-A., & Poertner, J. (2006). Inter-rater reliability of the Illinois Structured Decision
Support Protocol. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 679–689. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
chiabu.2005.12.004.
Keddell, E., & Hyslop, I. (2018). Role type, risk perceptions and judgement in child
welfare: A mixed methods vignette study. Children and Youth Services Review, 87,
130–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2018.02.017.
Ley 26/2015. Ley de 28 de julio de modificación del sistema de protección a la infancia y
adolescencia. [Law 26/2015 of July 28 on the modification of children and ado-
lescents system of the protection]. Boletín Oficial del Estado n° 180 de 29 de julio de
A. Molina, et al.
2015. Madrid. (Retrieved from: < https://www.boe.es/eli/es/l/2015/07/28/26/
con >).
Magura, S., & Moses, B. S. (1986). Outcome measures for child welfare services. Washington,
D.C.: Child Welfare League of America.
Mandel, D., Lehman, D., & Yuille, J. (1994). Should this child be removed from home?
Hypothesis generation and information seeking as predictors of case decisions. Child
Abuse and Neglect, 18, 1051–1062. https://doi.org/10.1016/0145-2134(94)90131-7.
Mandel, D. R., Lehman, D. R., & Yuille, J. C. (1995). Reasoning about the removal of a
child from home: A comparison of police officers and social workers. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 25, 906–921. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1995.
tb02652.x.
Molina, A. (2012). Toma de decisiones profesionales en el sistema de protección a la
infancia. [Professional Decision Making in Child Protection System].Sevilla: Junta de
Andalucía. Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social. (Retrieved from: < https://www.
observatoriodelainfancia.es/ficherosoia/documentos/3586_d_Toma_decisiones_
20120620.pdf >).
Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Abuse and
Neglect, 23, 745–758. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(99)00053-8.
Munro, E. (2005). Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem. Children
and Youth Services Review, 27, 375–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2004.
11.006.
Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection. A child-centred system. London:
Department of Education.
Nouwen, E., Decuyper, S., & Put, J. (2012). Team decision making in child welfare.
Children and Youth Service Review, 34, 2100–2116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2012.07.006.
Observatorio de la Infancia (2018). Boletín de datos estadísticos de medidas de protección
Children and Youth Services Review 107 (2019) 104547
a la infancia. Número 20. Datos 2017 [Statistical data bulletin of child protection
measures. Number 20. 2017 data]. Madrid: Ministerio de Sanidad, Servicios Sociales
e Igualdad, Gobierno de España. (Retrieved from < https://www.mscbs.gob.es/ssi/
familiasInfancia/Infancia/pdf/Boletin_20_DEFINITIVO.pdf >).
Palacios, J., & Amorós, P. (2006). Recent changes in adoption and fostering in Spain.
British Journal of Social Work, 36, 921–935. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bch363.
Portwood, S. G. (1998). The impact of individuals’ characteristics and experiences on
their definitions of child maltreatment. Child Abuse and Neglect, 22, 437–452. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0145-2134(98)00008-8.
Shuerman, J., Rossi, P. H., & Budde, S. (1999). Decisions on placement and family pre-
servation. Agreement and targeting. Evaluation Review, 23, 599–618. https://doi.org/
10.1177/0193841X9902300602.
Spratt, T. (2001). The influence of child protection orientation on child welfare practice.
British Journal of Social Work, 31, 933–954. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/31.6.933.
Stokes, J., & Taylor, J. (2014). Does type of harm matter? A factorial survey examining
the influence of child neglect on child protection decision-making. Child Care in
Practice, 20, 383–398. https://doi.org/10.1080/13575279.2014.905456.
Sullivan, C., Whitehead, P., Leschied, A., Chiodo, D., & Hurley, D. (2008). Perception of
risk among child protection workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 699–704.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.11.010.
Wells, S. J., Downing, J., & Fluke, J. (1991). Responding to reports of child abuse and
neglect. Children and Youth Services Review, 15, 63–72. https://doi.org/10.1300/
J024v15n02_04.
Wells, S. J., Fluke, J. D., & Brown, C. H. (1995). The decision to investigate: CPS practice
in twelve local agencies. Children and Youth Services Review, 17, 523–546. https://doi.
org/10.1016/0190-7409(95)00037-D.