Intensive parenting and child welfare attitudes in residential care : predicting professionals’ reunification

Background: Residential childcare professionals play a pivotal role in decisions about whether a child should be reunified with their family of origin, yet their recommendations have received limited research attention. Studies show that child protection professionals often disagree when assessing identical child protection cases— posing ethical and legal concerns and reducing the accuracy of judgments. Kahneman et al. (2021) define such unwanted variability as ‘noise.’ Research suggests that a significant proportion of this variability originates at the level of caseworkers. While previous studies have explored professionals’ attitudes toward out-of-home care versus family preservation, as well as the influence of stereotypes, much of the variation in judgments remains unexplained. Qualitative studies indicate that professionals’ societally shaped images of families may influence decisionmaking. Research shows that child protection professionals tend to predominantly focus on mothers, often holding them accountable for perceived risks or harm to the child’s well-being. Emphasis is commonly placed on mothers’ demonstration of commitment to appropriate parenting styles. These findings suggest attitudes related to gender norms and parenting styles may shape professionals’ decisions. However, to our knowledge, this has not yet been studied using (experimental) quantitative methods, and the distribution of such attitudes among residential care professionals remains unknown. Objective: This study examines the extent of variability (‘noise’) in reunification recommendations made by residential childcare professionals. It also investigates whether professionals’ child welfare attitudes, and their views on parenting styles, and gender norms influence their recommendations. Method: An online experimental vignette survey study was conducted with residential care professionals in the German-speaking part of Switzerland. Participants were randomly assigned one of two vignettes describing a child protection case. In one, the mother demonstrates greater parental improvement; in the other, the father does. Participants rated the likelihood they would recommend reunification. Attitudes towards parenting styles and gender norms were measured using an adapted version of the Intensive Parenting Scale (Gauthier et al., 2021; Liss et al., 2012), which includes five dimensions: child-centred approach (belief that children should be the focal point of parental attention), focus on stimulation (importance of fostering development through activities), parental responsibility (obligation to prioritise children’s well-being), reliance on expert guidance (need for professional advice in parenting), and essentialism (belief that women are inherently better parents than men). Child welfare attitudes were measured using two subscales of the Child Welfare Attitudes Scale (Arad-Davidzon & Benbenishty, 2008): Attitudes towards (1) the ability of residential care to promote children’s development and well-being, and (2) reunification and optimal duration of alternative care of out-of-home placements. All 64 residential care units in the German-speaking part of Switzerland serving children of the age portrayed in the vignette were invited to participate by distributing the survey to their professionals. Conclusions/implications: Data collection has been completed (N = 226). Data analysis is currently ongoing. This study may identify new predictors of noise and examine the influence of professionals’ attitudes on reunification recommendations. Findings may inform training efforts to improve consistency and promote equity in child welfare decision-making.