Full Te ms & Condi ions o access and use can be ound a
h p://www. and online.com/ac ion/jou nalIn o ma ion?jou nalCode=wasw21
Download by: [Tampe e Uni e si y] Da e: 03 No embe 2016, A : 05:13
Human Se ice O ganiza ions: Managemen , Leade ship
& Go e nance
ISSN: 2330-3131 (P in ) 2330-314X (Online) Jou nal homepage: h p://www. and online.com/loi/wasw21
Time, Ins i u ional Suppo , and Quali y o
Decision Making in Child P o ec ion: A C oss-
Coun y Analysis
Jill Be ick, Jona han Dickens, Ta ja Pösö & Ma i Ski enes
To ci e his a icle: Jill Be ick, Jona han Dickens, Ta ja Pösö & Ma i Ski enes (2016) Time,
Ins i u ional Suppo , and Quali y o Decision Making in Child P o ec ion: A C oss-Coun y
Analysis, Human Se ice O ganiza ions: Managemen , Leade ship & Go e nance, 40:5,
451-468, DOI: 10.1080/23303131.2016.1159637
To link o his a icle: h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1080/23303131.2016.1159637
© 2016 Jill Be ick, Jona han Dickens, Ta ja
Pösö, and Ma i Ski enes
Published online: 14 Ap 2016.
Submi you a icle o his jou nal
A icle iews: 511
View ela ed a icles
View C ossma k da a
Time, Ins i u ional Suppo , and Quali y o Decision Making in
Child P o ec ion: A C oss-Coun y Analysis
Jill Be ick
a
, Jona han Dickens
b
, Ta ja Pösö
c
, and Ma i Ski enes
d
a
School o Social Wel a e, Uni e si y o Cali o nia–Be keley, Be keley, Cali o nia, USA;
b
School o Social Wo k, Eas
Anglia Uni e si y, No wich, UK;
c
School o Social Sciences and Humani ies, Uni e si y o Tampe e, Tampe e, Finland;
d
Depa men o Adminis a ion and O ganiza ion Theo y, Uni e si y o Be gen, Be gen, No way
ABSTRACT
This pape examines pe cep ions o ime and ins i u ional suppo o
decision making and s a con idence in he ul ima e decisions made—
examining di e ences and simila i ies be ween and wi hin he se ice-
o ien ed No dic coun ies ( ep esen ed by No way and Finland) and he
isk-o ien ed Anglo-Ame ican coun ies ( ep esen ed by England and
Cali o nia). The s udy iden i ies a high deg ee o wo k p essu e ac oss all
he coun ies, lines o p edominan ly e ical ins i u ional suppo and
ela i ely high con idence in decisions. Finland s ands ou wi h highe
pe cei ed wo k p essu e and wi h a ho izon al suppo line, whe eas
England s ands ou wi h wo ke s ha ing a lowe deg ee o con idence in
hei own and o he s’decisions.
KEYWORDS
Child p o ec ion; decision
making; suppo ; ime
p essu e; wo ke expe iences
S a e in ol emen in amily li e is equen ly amed as suppo i e o pa en s’ igh s and obliga ions o ea
hei child en. Financial assis ance, p o ec i e labels on medica ion, o compulso y educa ion migh all be
iewed as suppo i e o pa en s’e o s o help hei child en g ow and h i e (Suga man, 2008). Unde
some ci cums ances, howe e , s a e ac o s place limi s on pa en s. When pa en s, hemsel es, a e seen as
unsa e, mos mode n wel a e s a es ha e sys ems in place o espond. In he mos ex eme cases, he S a e
may sepa a e child en om hei pa en s empo a ily o pe manen ly. When S a es engage wi h amily li e
such ha child en a e placed in ou -o -home ca e, he s akes a e high. Decisions ega ding pa en -child
sepa a ion, ypically ecommended by a child p o ec ion wo ke in a s a e agency and app o ed by a judge
(c . Bu ns e al., o hcoming; Gilbe , Pa on, & Ski enes, 2011), mus be o he highes quali y and ully
jus i ied. The esea ch li e a u e ells us li le abou he ac ual quali y o decision making ela ed o child
emo al in child p o ec ion sys ems. Ample e idence now exis s ela ing o he de e mina ion o isk o
u u e mal ea men (see, e.g., Johnson, Clancy, & Bas ian, 2015), bu whe he a decision o in olun a ily
sepa a e a child om his o he pa en is “ igh ”o “w ong”is, in pa , no ma i e, based upon he alues
and s anda ds es ablished in a local o s a e ju isdic ion. In ins ances o ex eme and imminen dange o
he child, he “ igh ”decision migh be mo e widely accep ed, hough whe he and how s a measu e
ex eme o imminen ci cums ances is s ill highly con es ed (Bai d & Wagne , 2000; Gamb ill & Shlonsky,
2000). Absen an objec i e indica o o “accu acy”in he con ex o child emo al, o he ac o s such as ime
o delibe a ion, ins i u ional suppo , and accoun abili y can p o ide a con ex o easoned assessmen s.
How s a make decisions is a mo e commonly s udied phenomenon in he s ee -le el-bu eau-
c acy li e a u e. Some ha e aised ques ions abou child wel a e s a ’s incomple e e iew o e idence
and a gumen s and he po en ial o biased in o ma ion ga he ing (e.g., Mun o, 1999, 2008). O he
signals om he ield sugges sys em challenges such as lack o quali ied s a and high u no e ,
which may lea e decision make s excessi ely dependen upon al e na i e sou ces o in o ma ion and
CONTACT Ma i Ski enes [email p o ec ed] Uni e si y o Be gen, Depa men o Adminis a ion and O ganiza ion
Theo y, Ch is iesga e 17, 5020 Be gen, No way.
© 2016 Jill Be ick, Jona han Dickens, Ta ja Pösö, and Ma i Ski enes
This is an Open Access a icle dis ibu ed unde he e ms o he C ea i e Commons A ibu ion License (h p://c ea i ecommons.o g/licenses/by/4.0/),
which pe mi s un es ic ed use, dis ibu ion, and ep oduc ion in any medium, p o ided he o iginal wo k is p ope ly ci ed. The mo al igh s o he
named au ho (s) ha e been asse ed.
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE
2016, VOL. 40, NO. 5, 451–468
h p://dx.doi.o g/10.1080/23303131.2016.1159637
insu icien ly p epa ed o engage in sound decision making (O´Sulli an 2011). Rela edly, la ge
caseloads, epo ed in many Eu opean coun ies and an endemic p oblem in many US s a es, ha e
been linked wi h poo child wel a e ou comes (Uni ed S a es Depa men o Heal h and Human
Se ices, 2004; Wagne , Johnson, & Healy, 2009); in pa icula , conce ns ha e been aised ha la ge
caseloads educe s a ime wi h indi idual amilies, he eby comp omising he quali y o impo an
child wel a e decisions (US GAO, 2003). In hese highly consequen ial ci cums ances, oo li le ime
may comp omise he amoun and adequacy o in o ma ion a ailable, hough how much ime is
su icien o in o ma ion ga he ing has no been e ealed in he li e a u e. In ac , li le in o ma ion
is a ailable in he published li e a u e a he desc ip i e le el o cha ac e ize he amoun o ime
a ailable o decision making in mos o he s a es ep esen ed he e.
In his pape we examine he pe cep ions o child p o ec ion wo ke s in he Uni ed Kingdom
(England), Finland, No way, and he Uni ed S a es (Cali o nia) ega ding he ime a ailable o
delibe a ion, ins i u ional suppo , and con idence in he quali y o decision making ela ing o child
emo al. We a e unable o assess he quali y o he ul ima e decisions made, in pa because he
ou come o in e es (e.g., child mal ea men e sus comp omised child well-being) a ies g ea ly
ac oss ou ou -coun y con ex ; he goal ins ead is o pu sue ques ions ha shed a b igh e ligh on
he compa a i e wel a e s a es in which child p o ec ion sys ems a e nes ed and o lea n om he
simila i ies and di e ences e ealed in he indings.
The pape is based on da a om an online su ey o 772 child p o ec ion wo ke s expe ienced in
p epa ing ca e o de p epa a ions as pa o hei wo k a a child p o ec ion agency. Gilbe and
associa es ha e elsewhe e ou lined he simila i ies and di e ences be ween hese coun ies (2011)
and ha e cha ac e ized Finland and No way b oadly as amily se ice o ien ed and England and he
Uni ed S a es as child p o ec ion o ien ed, hough hese o me ly s a k dis inc ions (Gilbe , 1997)
may be blending o e ime. England, in pa icula , seems o be some hing o a hyb id, wi h amily
suppo se ices deli e ed wi hin a child p o ec ion ocus. We use he e m child p o ec ion wo ke s
ac oss he coun ies, e en hough each may use di e en e ms o desc ibe on line s a in hei
child wel a e sys em. We e e o ca e o de p epa a ions o indica e he s a p ac ices ela ed o
decision making ha esul in an applica ion o cou o an in olun a y emo al. The policy
amewo k shaping hese ou s a e sys ems o decisions in ca e o de cases a e cha ac e ized
elsewhe e (Be ick, Pecko e , Pösö, & Ski enes, 2015).
In he ollowing sec ion we p esen o he esea ch ela ing o ime, ins i u ional suppo , and
decision-making quali y ollowed by a p esen a ion o he ou sys em con ex s and he hypo heses
we de i e abou he h ee esea ch hemes. Me hods and Findings sec ions come nex , and he pape
ends wi h a discussion and a b ie conclusion.
Time, ins i u ional suppo , and quali y in bu eauc a ic con ex s
Legisla ion ha de ines he h eshold o in olun a y in e en ion shapes how and when child
p o ec ion wo ke s in e ac wi h a child and his o he amily (e.g., Benbenish y, Osmo, & Gold,
2003; K iz & Ski enes, 2013,2014; Ski enes & S enbe g, 2013). The legal sys em also has an impac
on child p o ec ion wo ke s’decision making and h esholds o ca e o de s and se s a ame o
which wo ke s mus be esponsi e (Dickens, 2006; Hawkins, 2002). Rega dless o he legal
equi emen s o a esponse, child p o ec ion s a ha e long aised conce ns abou he p essu es
on he ime hey ha e a ailable o decision making and he consequences o o e - and unde -
in ol emen (e.g., in England, Mun o, 2011). Mo e ecen li e a u e has also highligh ed he
impo ance o imely decision making om he pe spec i e o he child. Uni ed S a es and
English schola s in pa icula (e.g., Ba hole , 1999; Be ick, Ba h, Needell, & Jonson-Reid, 1998;
B own & Wa d, 2013) ha e u ged ea lie disco e y o se ious child mal ea men and mo e swi
and decisi e ac ion o espond o child and amily conce ns. Child p o ec ion s a ha e a icula ed
he nega i e consequences ha can be all child en when delays in decision making comp omise
child en’s heal h o well-being (e.g., Becke , McKeigue, & Taylo , 2007).
452 J. BERRICK ET AL.
In ime-p essed agency en i onmen s, esea ch shows ha s a o en de elop s a egies o
managing excessi e demands (Smi h & Dono an, 2003; Mun o, 1998, 2011); whe he hese s a egies
esul in comp omised decisions o amilies may be a conce n. Ce ainly gi en he complex and
unique cha ac e is ics ha many child wel a e se ice use s b ing o p ac ice, he challenge o
ensu ing equi able and consis en decisions be ween and ac oss cases may be especially di icul .
In some ju isdic ions, an emphasis on eam decision making is used as an ins i u ional s a egy o
ensu e g ea e uni o mi y o decisions ac oss cases; in o he se ings, assessmen ools a e used
inc easingly o help shape uni o m decisions (C ea, 2010); elsewhe e, some combina ion o eam-
based and s anda dized measu es may be employed. In sho , in ime-cons ained en i onmen s,
child p o ec ion s a need ins i u ional suppo o easoned decision making. Such suppo may
ake he o m o o ganiza ional s uc u es and/o emo ional sca olding upon which s a can ely
(Mille & Fishe , 1992) and be held accoun able.
Accoun abili y is a cen al conce n in child p o ec ion in pa because o he g a i y and
consequences o hese public ac o s’decisions; he powe in e play be ween child p o ec ion s a
and he ypically ma ginalized popula ions se ed by child wel a e; and he con es ed na u e o
in e en ions in o he p i a e sphe e. Accoun abili y is commonly used as a s anda d o good
go e nance (Bo ens, 2007) and includes concep s such as anspa ency, legi imacy, us wo hiness,
esponsi eness, and jus ice (Bo ens, 2007; Mulgan, 2000). Acco ding o Bo ens (2007), accoun -
abili y is “a ela ionship be ween an ac o and a o um, in which he ac o has an obliga ion o
explain and o jus i y his o he conduc , he o um can pose ques ions and pass judgemen , and he
ac o may ace consequences”(p. 450). Ac o s may be indi iduals o o ganiza ions. In mode n
democ acies he e a e ypically mul iple, ins i u ionalized accoun abili y mechanisms. In an analysis
o he policy s uc u es guiding decision making in child p o ec ion in he ou coun ies unde
s udy, Be ick e al. (2015) iden i ied he ole o he public-adminis a i e and p o essional accoun -
abili y domains. A he sys em and o ganiza ional le els he au ho s iden i ied an audi ing app oach
o moni o he quali y o ca e o de s (e.g., Cali o nia, No way, England) and a he indi idual le el a
legisla ed emphasis on se ice use s’, social wo k colleagues’, and manage s’con ol (e.g., Finland,
No way and England). Depending on he sys em con ex , he s uc u e o accoun abili y mechanisms
and ins i u ional suppo can be e ical o ho izon al (Lindbe g, 2013).
Fou coun y con ex s o decision making
Child p o ec ion wo ke s’expe iences as decision make s ega ding ca e o de p epa a ions a e
shaped by he ins i u ional amewo k in which hey a e employed. Case-wo ke s’decisions on
indi idual child en a e in luenced by mac o-elemen s such as he legal, wel a e s a e and child
wel a e sys ems (Benbenish y e al., 2015; Du y & Collins, 2010; Smi h & Dono an, 2003); his
in e sec ion is he ocus o his s udy. In a amily se ice o ien ed sys em (e.g., Finland and No way
and, o a deg ee, England), child p o ec ion wo ke s ypically ha e long-s anding ela ionships
wo king wi h amilies ha may las o e mon hs o yea s. Thei goal, o p omo e child well-being,
allows hem and o he mul ip o essional s a o ack amilies’p og ess o e ime; decision making
ela ing o ca e o de s may he e o e un old g adually. Finland elies on a nego ia ion p ocess in
collabo a ion wi h cowo ke s, child en, and pa en s o de e mine an app op ia e decision; No way
elies on eam leade s and eam manage s o e iew decision making (Be ick, Dickens, Pösö, &
Ski enes, in p ess). In a child p o ec ion sys em such as he Uni ed S a es (mo e speci ically,
Cali o nia, he si e o his s udy) and England (dominan ly), decision making is mo e hea ily
weigh ed owa d no ions o isk and sa e y. High h esholds o s a e in ol emen may dic a e
u gency in decision making and e ical p ocesses o con i ming decisions. These igh s-o ien ed
sys ems ensu e ha all pa ies ha e legal ep esen a ion; in England, laye s o mul iple p ocedu es
a e manda ed o ensu e quali y con ol ac oss cases, and, as a as possible, o di e cases om cou
ac ion; in Cali o nia, use o e idence-in o med isk-assessmen ools a e employed o he same
pu pose (Be ick e al., in p ess). We expec indings om his s udy o align such ha wo ke s in
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 453
Finland and No way will o e somewha simila esponses ega ding ime, suppo , and assessmen s
o quali y decision making, and hei pe spec i es will di e om wo ke s in England and Cali o nia,
whose esponses will also b oadly align.
In o de o examine how child p o ec ion s a in e p e and expe ience he o mal amewo ks
wi hin which hey wo k, we examined h ee impo an dimensions o decision making including
ime, ins i u ional suppo , and pe cei ed quali y. Gi en he child wel a e sys ems wi hin which ou
esponden s we e si ua ed, we an icipa ed ha s a om Cali o nia would eel he p ess o ime mos
acu ely compa ed o hei in e na ional pee s. Cali o nia and England, as ela i ely eac i e sys ems
wi h high h esholds o assessing isk and ha m, we e expec ed o impose mo e ex eme ime
demands and o use e ical s uc u es o suppo and accoun abili y o au ho ize decisions.
P edic ing wo ke s’likely pe cep ions o he quali y o hei wo k was no a s aigh o wa d p ocess.
Highly p ocedu alized sys ems, such as England’s, o sys ems wi h s anda dized-decision-making
ools, such as Cali o nia’s, could aise con idence (decision making based on ou inized p ocesses) o
weaken i (decision making p i ileging p ocesses o e p o essional skill and knowledge). Wo ke s’
esponses could be in luenced by many ac o s, including o ganiza ional, p o essional, and socie al
suppo o social wo ke s who engage in child p o ec ion. In England, whe e such social suppo
ends o oscilla e, o en depending on he la es public scandal (Bu le & D ake o d, 2005), i has
long been ecognized ha he p oli e a ion o p ocedu es does no gua an ee immuni y o s a i
hings go w ong (Howe, 1992; Mun o, 2011; Pa on, 2014).
Finnish and No wegian esponses we e expec ed o align and o show s a pe cep ions o
su icien ime o decision making and ample ins i u ional suppo due o he leng h o he
p ocesses, he na u e o hei se ice-o ien ed sys ems, and hei eam-based app oaches. We
an icipa ed ha he au ho iza ion o ca e o de applica ions would be ela i ely ho izon al com-
pa ed o England and Cali o nia, and hough i likely ha s a om Finland and No way would eel
con idence in he quali y o hei and hei cowo ke s’decisions due o a high deg ee o p o essional
disc e ion and he a ious ins i u ional suppo s a ailable o hei decisions.
Me hods
Findings p esen ed he e come om a la ge s udy unded by he No wegian Resea ch Council
ela ing o decision making in child p o ec ion in England, Finland, No way, and Cali o nia. The
s udy includes a sample o 772 child p o ec ion wo ke s wi h expe ience wi h ca e o de p ocesses
who comple ed an online su ey including ques ions abou ime, accoun abili y, and he quali y
dimensions o decisions. Child wel a e wo ke s can be challenging o ec ui o s udy due o
conside able wo k p essu es and high caseloads. In addi ion, i is no possible o ge access o child
wel a e wo ke s wi h s a u o y du ies in a simila way in he s udied coun ies due o he di e en
ways o o ganizing and p o iding child wel a e se ices. As such, we de eloped a ec ui men
app oach cus omized o each coun y con ex . All subjec s we e con ac ed ia email and asked o
comple e an online su ey accessed ia an elec onic link. In No way, esea che s we e gi en email
access o he wo ke union (“Felles-o ganisasjonen”(FO)) o all child p o ec ion membe s
(app oxima ely 1,500), yielding a esponse a e o 30%. In Finland, he ade union o p o es-
sionals wo king in social wel a e (Talen ia) dis ibu ed he email. T ade union membe ship is high
in Finland, howe e , he associa ion does no ca ego ize membe ship by ype o employmen . I is
es ima ed ha he e a e abou 2,700 social wo ke s in he Finnish municipali ies; only some o
hem wo k in child wel a e (Män ä i- an de Kuip, 2015). Howe e , hei numbe is no exac ly
known. As such, we canno s a e he numbe o social wo ke s employed in child wel a e who
migh ha e been in i ed o pa icipa e and he e o e canno calcula e a esponse a e. In England,
he su ey was ini ially dis ibu ed ia wo ep esen a i e bodies o social wo ke s, he B i ish
Associa ion o Social Wo ke s (BASW) and he College o Social Wo k (TCSW). These a e no
ade unions, and social wo ke s a e no equi ed o be membe s o ei he . Bo h o ganiza ions also
includesocialwo ke s omadul ca ese ices.Due oalimi ed esponse om hiss a egy,an
454 J. BERRICK ET AL.

al e na i e ec ui men s a egy ia snowball sampling was employed. Social wo ke s on he
con ac lis o he School o Social Wo k a he Uni e si y Eas Anglia we e con ac ed and asked
o comple e he ques ionnai e and/o o wa d he message o colleagues who migh be in e es ed.
The ewas heo e o a£10shopping ouche o he i s 50 ocomple e heques ionnai e.We
a e unable o calcula e a esponse a e as he numbe o po en ial s udy subjec s who we e in i ed
o pa icipa e is unknown. In Cali o nia, 10 Bay A ea coun ies pa icipa ed in he s udy. All
eme gency esponse and dependency in es iga ions social wo k s a we e sen an email om
esea che s, dis ibu ed by hei agency manage . The email included he s udy in i a ion and a
link o he online su ey (n= 260). Responden s we e o e ed a US$20 g oce y gi ca d. Nine y-
eigh (38%) social wo ke s esponded.
O he o al 1,020 in o man s who esponded o he su ey, 772 had expe ience wi h ca e o de
p epa a ions and hus we e eligible o he s udy. The o al numbe s o esponden s om each
coun y we e 367 om No way, 208 om Finland, 102 om England, and 84 om he Uni ed S a es.
Fu he de ails abou he da a ma e ial and he p ocess can be ob ained a he ollowing web add ess:
h p://www.uib.no/admo g/85747/su ey-ma e ial#.
Responden s had wo ked in he ield o child p o ec ion o an a e age o 5–9 yea s, hough he
English esponden s had wo ked in i o he sho es a e age du a ion a 1–4yea s.Responden s om
No way and England we e, on a e age, younge (bo h 31–40) han hei pee s in Finland and
Cali o nia (bo h 41–50). The la ge majo i y o esponden s om Cali o nia (91%) possessed a mas e ’s
deg ee in social wo k. In Finland, 65% had an MA deg ee (sugges ing ha upwa ds o 35% o
esponden s in Finland we e unquali ied empo a y wo ke s since hey lacked he MA deg ee)
1
;in
England, 57% had an MA deg ee; and in No way, 9% had an MA deg ee. The la ge majo i y o
esponden s ac oss all ou coun ies we e emale, hough in England, 36% o esponden s we e male.
Among all child en’s se ices s a in England, 15% a e male (Depa men o Educa ion, 2013), so he
gende dis ibu ion in his su ey is no ably di e en om he coun y a e age.
The online su ey was answe ed be ween Feb ua y 2014 and June 2014. The su ey ook app oxi-
ma ely 8–12 minu es o answe . The p ojec was pee e iewed as pa o he applica ion p ocess o
unding om he No wegian Resea ch Council, and e hical app o als we e con i med in each coun y
acco ding o na ional o uni e si y-based equi emen s. The su ey ques ions we e i s de eloped in
B i ish English by he ou esea che s so ha hey we e ele an in each child wel a e sys em. The
ques ions we e hen ansla ed in o Finnish, No wegian, and U.S. e ms. The ansla ions in o No wegian
and Finnish we e con olled by an independen sou ce. The su ey was es ed by a small g oup o social
wo ke s in each coun y o asce ain ha he ques ions and he igne es we e ealis ic in each coun y.
S udy pa icipan s we e p esen ed wi h he ollowing case igne e:
You a e wo king wi h a boy—Alex—who is 5 yea s old and whose amily has ecei ed in-home se ices o e a
pe iod o ime. The case includes pa en al subs ance abuse, p e ious domes ic iolence, and gene al neglec .
The ci cums ances o he case ha e de e io a ed ecen ly o such an ex en ha you a e conce ned ha he boy’s
isk o ha m is high. You a e s a ing p epa a ions o ca e o de p oceedings wi h a iew o emo ing Alex
om his pa en s, and you ha e an in e iew wi h he pa en s o in o m hem abou his. The pa en s a e
opposing a emo al o Alex.
The su ey included ques ions pe aining o ime: “Gi en he ci cums ances a you wo kplace,
would you ha e su icien ime in he case o Alex o unde ake all he p epa a ions o cou o you
sa is ac ion?”Answe ca ego ies we e yes (coded 1), no (coded 2), and I don´ know (coded missing).
Th oughou he analysis we examine whe he he e a e sys ema ic di e ences be ween he wo ke s
who pe cei e hey ha e su icien ime e sus hose who do no . We also asked: “App oxima ely how
long would you spend on he ollowing p ocesses (based on you expe ience wi h simila cases).”The
1
We a e awa e ha “ empo a y”and “wo king in he sys em o 5–7 yea s, on a e age,”a e con adic o y. Howe e , in he Finnish
sys em one can wo k as a social wo ke wi hou he p ope quali ica ions o 2 yea s wi hin one municipali y and hen go o
ano he municipali y and wo k o an addi ional 2 yea s, and so on. The wo d unquali ied hus has a ce ain meaning and he
wo d empo a y, ano he meaning, bo h ele an o he Finnish con ex .
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 455
answe al e na i es we e (1) om he ime you in o med he pa en s ha i may be necessa y o
emo e he child un il a decision is made o emo e him and (2) om he ime he decision o
emo e is made un il he cou epo is due in cou . An o dinal scale is p esen ed wi h alues
anging om 24 hou s o 61+ weeks. The alue “can´ say”is coded as missing, and he emaining
da a a e ea ed as o dinal a iables wi h he ollowing coding: 24 hou s (1), 48 hou s (2), 72 hou s
(3), 96 hou s (4), 5 days (5), 6 days (6), 1 week (7), 2 weeks (8), 3 weeks (9), 4–6 weeks (10),
7–9 weeks (11) con inuing up o 58–60 weeks (28), 61+ weeks (29).
Thesu eyalsoincluded woques ionspe aining o ins i u ional suppo and accoun abili y:
“Who au ho izes you decision o emo e a child?”and “Who ho oughly assesses he quali y o
you wo k and decision making in child emo al?”The answe al e na i es we e “no one,”
“cowo ke s,”“supe iso ,”“senio manage ,”“agency lawye ,”“independen sou ce,”“in e disci-
plina y eam,”“pa en s o he child,”“child,”and “o he .”Responden s could selec all ha
applied. Cowo ke s, in e disciplina y eam, pa en s, and child we e conside ed ho izon al sou ces
o ins i u ional suppo ; supe iso , senio manage , and agency lawye we e deemed e ical.
The e we e h ee ques ions pe aining o he wo ke ’s pe cei ed quali y o decisions made: “Based
on you expe ience in he las 12 mon hs, how con iden do you eel in he quali y o (1) he decisions
you make . . ., (2) he decisions you colleagues make . . ., and (3) he decisions you manage s make on
cases conce ning cou o de ed emo als?”Answe al e na i es we e gi en on a Like scale, om e y
skep ical, coded as 1, o highly con iden , coded as 5.
We also examined he impac o caseload, assessed wi h he ques ion: “Wha is you caseload
oday, measu ed by numbe o child en?”Caseload, measu ed by numbe o child en lis ed in a ange,
was con e ed in o an o dinal a iable: 1–3 child en coded as 1, 4–6 child en coded as 2, 7–9
child en coded as 3, 10–12 child en coded as 4, and so on o 99+ child en coded as 34. The gende
a iable was coded in o a dicho omous a iable wi h he alues emale (0) and male (1). Fo hese
analyses he educa ion a iable was ecoded om a se o dummy a iables in o a ca ego ical a iable
consis ing o h ee alues; BA (1), MA (2), PhD (3), whe e he alue “O he ”was coded as missing.
Wo k expe ience was measu ed na owly as he esponden ’s expe ience as a child wel a e wo ke ,
asking, How many yea s ha e you wo ked as a child wel a e wo ke , and was coded as ollows: Less
han 1 yea (1), 1–4 yea s (2), 5–9 yea s (3), 10–14 yea s (4) and 15+ yea s (5).
We used SPSS o examine desc ip i e s a is ics, co ela ions, and mean compa ison es s. We
also used he da a ool Zigne o assess le els o signi icance, based on a clus e sample and use o a
wo-sided es . In he pape we epo on signi ican di e ences o p < .01 (= ***) and p < .05 (= **),
well awa e ha p < .05 is on he ma gin o wha is ele an o epo . An appendix ha is pos ed
online as supplemen a y ma e ial p o ides he a ious analyses in de ail
2
.
Findings
Time o decision making
Didwo ke sindica e heywouldha esu icien ime op epa eAlex’sc
ase o hei sa is ac ion?
Compa ed o s a in he o he coun ies, a signi ican ly smalle p opo ion (p < .01) o Finnish
s a indica ed ha hey would ha e su icien ime o p epa e he desc ibed ca e o de case (see
Table 1. Gi en he ci cums ances a you wo kplace, would you ha e su icien ime in he case o Alex o unde ake all he
p epa a ions o cou o you sa is ac ion? Responses by coun y, Pe cen age and n. N = 756.
Finland No way England Cali o nia
%(N)%(N)%(N)%(N)
Yes 23.56 (49) 37.19 (135) 51.55 (50) 43.18 (38)
No 68.27 (142) 46.28 (168) 45.36 (44) 48.86 (43)
I don’ know 8.17 (17) 16.53 (60) 3.09 (3) 7.95 (7)
To al 100 (208) 100 (363) 100 (97) 100 (88)
2
h ps://w3.uib.no/nb/admo g/85747/su ey-ma e ial#appendixes- o-a icles.
456 J. BERRICK ET AL.
Table 1,c .Table A1 in Appendix). Less han one-qua e o child p o ec ion wo ke s in Finland
hough ha hey would ha e enough ime. Somewha mo e han one- hi d o No wegian wo ke s
el as hough hey would ha e enough ime, gi en he con ex o hei wo kplace; abou wo- i hs
o Cali o nia wo ke s indica ed ha ime would be su icien in hei wo k con ex , and abou one-
hal o English s a el he same.
How much ime would wo ke s spend on p epa ing ha case? Al hough a smalle p opo ion o
Finns and No wegians indica ed ha hey would ha e enough ime o p epa e his case o ca e o de
p oceedings, hey ne e heless appea ed o spend mo e ime on he wo k han s a in England and
Cali o nia (see Table 2). Examining he median alues we ind ha hal o he wo ke s in England and
Cali o nia an icipa ed hey would spend 48 hou s o less (Cali o nia) o 96 hou s o less (England)
om he ime hey old he pa en s ha hey we e s a ing p epa a ions o a ca e o de applica ion o
he ime he inal decision was made. Wo ke s in Finland and No way would spend much mo e ime;
mo e han hal o he s a an icipa ed hey would spend 3 weeks (Finland) and 4–6 weeks (No way).
These di e ences be ween he No dic coun ies and Cali o nia and England we e s a is ically signi i-
can (p < .01) (c . Table A2 in Appendix).
3
Simila s a is ically signi ican indings a e e iden o he
ime be ween de e mining ha a ca e o de applica ion was necessa y and when hey would ile hei
applica ion in cou (p < .01) (see Table 2 c . Table A3 in Appendix). Abou hal o he Finnish and
No wegian wo ke s indica ed ha hey would spend be ween 4 and 6 weeks on his p ocess, whe eas
abou hal he s a in England and Cali o nia would spend 5 days o less.
Examining he ela ionship be ween wo ke s indica ing whe he hey do o do no ha e
su icien ime o p epa e he Alex case o hei sa is ac ion, we ind ha , in gene al, hose
whospen less imeon hecasewe emo elikely oindica e ha heyhadsu icien ime o
decision making. This app oached signi icance o he No wegians (p < .10) and o he Finns
(p < .05). Tables A4 and A5, p o ided in he appendix, display mean and median, compa isons,
and wo- ail es s.
Table 2. O e iew o he ime wo ke s an icipa e hey would spend: A. F om he ime you in o med he pa en s ha i may be
necessa y o emo e Alex un il a decision is made o emo e he child? B. F om he ime he decision o emo e is made un il he
cou epo is due in cou ? Mean, median, SD, and N. (“Can´ Say”coded as missing). Highes N= 653.
Coun y
A. Time spen , om he ime you in o med he
pa en s ha i may be necessa y o emo e Alex
B. Time spen , om he ime he decision o
emo e is made un il he epo is due in cou
Finland Mean 8.36 8.70
Median 9 (3 weeks) 10 (4–6 weeks)
SD 3.423 2.691
N 180 166
No way Mean 8.82 9.30
Median 10 (4–6 weeks) 10.00 (4–6 weeks)
SD 3.958 2.778
N 298 325
England Mean 5.18 5.80
Median 4.00 (96 hou s) 5.00 (5 days)
SD 4.217 3.029
N89 84
Cali o nia Mean 2.98 2.90
Median 2.00 (48 hou s) 2.00 (48 hou s)
SD 3.928 2.061
N66 78
To al Mean 7.57 7.93 s
Median 8.00 (2 weeks) 9.00 (3 weeks)
SD 4.319 3.469
N 633 653
3
Abou one-qua e o s a in Cali o nia could no espond o he ques ion, whe eas abou 17%–18% in No way said he same and
11%–12% said he same in Finland and England.
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 457
Al hough he exac meaning o a “caseload”in child wel a e is a con es ed opic (Child Wel a e
In o ma ion Ga eway, 2010; Yama ani, Engel, & Spjeldnes, 2009), we amed he ques ion o s a
using he wo ding “you caseload oday, measu ed by numbe o child en.”We ind ha he Finns
had he highes caseloads, wi h a median o 46–48 child en; whe eas s a in he o he coun ies had
caseloads less han hal he size (see Table 3). Analyzing he ela ionship be ween wo ke s’caseload
and hei pe cep ions o he su iciency o ime, we ind one signi ican di e ence: Finns who
indica ed hey had su icien ime had ewe child en o whom hey we e esponsible (p < .01).
(Table B1 and B2, p o ided in he appendix, shows mean and median esponses, mean compa isons,
and wo- ail es s.)
Ins i u ional suppo o decision making
Child p o ec ion s a do no make decisions wi hou he au ho iza ion o o he s wi hin o
associa ed wi h hei agency. When asked, “Who au ho izes you decision o pu sue a ca e o de ?”
all o he esponden s indica ed ha someone else was in ol ed (see Table 4). Supe iso s o
senio manage s we e no ed by he la ge majo i y o all esponden s (Cali o nia, 88%, and
No way, 90%), hough English and Finnish s a we e somewha less likely o indica e ha
supe iso s o senio manage s au ho ized hese decisions (70% and 69%, espec i ely). Beyond
supe iso s and manage s, o he s we e also no ed as in ol ed in hese au ho iza ions. Finland’s
s a we emo elikely hans a ino he coun ies o indica e ha hei pee s and/o amily
membe s (i.e., he child o he pa en (s)) would be in ol ed in au ho izing hei decisions. Abou
one-qua e o Finnish s a (28%) indica ed ha cowo ke s would be in ol ed; only abou 5% o
esponden s in No way and England and i ually none o he Cali o nia s a indica ed ha
cowo ke s would ha e such au ho i y. The Finns we e also mo e likely o e idence hei eam-
based decision-making p ocesses, as 19% indica ed ha mul i/in e disciplina y eams would be
in ol ed in au ho izing he decision. This was also he case among abou one- i h o he
Cali o nia s a (22%). And inally, he legalis ic app oach o he English and Cali o nia sys ems
we e e iden as esponden s no ed he in ol emen o a o neys in au ho izing decisions o
Table 3. Wha is you caseload oday measu ed by numbe o child en? N= 735.
Finland No way England Cali o nia
Median 16 7 7 7
(Numbe o child en) (46–48) (19–21) (19–21) (19–21)
N201 347 98 89
Table 4. Who au ho izes you decision o emo e a child? (Au ho ize) who ho oughly assesses he quali y o you wo k? (Assess)
(Responden s may selec mul iple answe s), Pe cen and N.
Finland % (N) No way % (N) England % (N) Cali o nia % (N)
Au ho ize Assess Au ho ize Assess Au ho ize Assess Au ho ize Assess
No one 2 (4) 23.5 (49) 0.5 (1)5(19)2(2)3(3)1(1) 4.5 (4)
Cowo ke 27.5 (57) 46.5 (97) 4.5 (17) 24.5 (91)5(5)8(8)0(0)1(1)
Supe iso 69 (143)60(125)35(128)65(240) 35.5 (36)49(50)88(79)92(82)
Senio manage 35 (72) 18.5 (38)90(333) 63.5 (234) 70.5 (72)54(55) 35.5 (32)29(26)
Agency lawye 4.35 (9) 7.21 (15) 9.76 (36) 28.8 (160) 40.2 (41) 42.2 (43) 18.9 (17) 22.5 (20)
Independen sou ce 0.5 (1)0(0)0.3 (1) 1.1 (4) 6.9 (7) 9.8 (10)0(0)0(0)
Mul i/in e disciplina y eam 18.8 (39) 6.3 (13) 2.4 (9) 2.2 (8) 2.9 (3)1(1) 22.2 (20) 5.6 (5)
Pa en s o he child 8.2 (17) 8.7 (18) 0.8 (3) 1.9 (7)0(0)1(1) 5.6 (5) 1.1 (1)
Child 7.5 (16) 3 (6) 0.5 (2) 0.5 (2)1(1)0(0) 3.5 (3)0(0)
O he 1 (2) 2 (4) 2 (8) 3.5 (13)1(1)5(5)30(27)11(10)
N=207 208 369 368 102 102 90 89
458 J. BERRICK ET AL.
Table B1. F equencies (N), mean and median alues on ques ion: Wha is you caseload oday, measu ed by numbe o child en?
Ca ego ized by su icien (yes) and no su icien ime (no).
Yes No
England Mean 7.33 7.86
Median 7.00 7.00
N=4643
Finland Mean 12.79 17.27
Median 14.00 17.00
N= 48 137
No way Mean 6.69 7.20
Median 6.00 7.00
N= 122 161
Cali o nia Mean 7.39 9.55
Median 6.5 7.00
N=3842
To al Mean 8.06 11.14
Median 7.00 383
N= 254 9.00
Table A5. Two- ailed independen samples - es o signi ican di e ences be ween means in “yes”and “no”g oup o ques ions A
and B. Repo ing p alues and le el o signi icance: p< .01 = ***, p< .05 = **, and p< 0.1 = *.
A: Time spen , om in o ming he pa en s o he
possibili y un il decision is made. Yes/No
B: Time spen , om decision abou sending applica ion
un il he applica ion is sen . Yes/No
England 0.060* 0.146
Finland 0.034** 0.915
No way 0.116 0.098*
Cali o nia 0.549 0.775
To al 0.092* 0.003***
Table A4. F equencies (N), mean and median alues ca ego ized pe coun y on he pe cep ion o ha ing (yes) o no ha ing (no)
su icien ime compa ed o he ime used o make a decision abou (A) Going o cou , and (B) P epa ing and sending he case o
cou . Values: 24 hou s (1), 48 hou s (2), 72 hou s (3), 96 hou s (4), 5 days (5), 6 days (6), 1 week (7), 2 weeks (8), 3 weeks (9),
4–6 weeks (10), 7–9 weeks (11), 10–12 weeks (12), 13–15 weeks (13), 16–18 weeks (14), 19–21 weeks (15), 22–24 weeks (16),
25–27 weeks (17), 20–30 weeks (18), 31–33 weeks, 34–36 weeks (20), 37–39 weeks (21), 40–42 weeks (22), 43–45 weeks (23),
46–48 weeks (24), 49–51 weeks (25), 52–54 weeks (26), 55–57 weeks (27), 58–60 weeks (28), 61+ weeks (29).
Yes No
A: Time spen , om
in o ming he pa en s o
he possibili y un il
decision is made
B: Time spen , om
decision abou sending
applica ion un il he
applica ion is sen
A: Time spen , om
in o ming he pa en s o
he possibili y un il
decision is made
B: Time spen , om
decision abou sending
applica ion un il he
applica ion is sen
England Mean 4.43 5.28 6.44 6.28
Median 4.00 5.00 7.00 7.00
N=49393439
Finland Mean 7.43 8.70 8.70 8.75
Median 9.00 9.00 9.00 10.00
N= 44 43 123 112
No way Mean 9.25 8.91 8.44 9.48
Median 10.00 9.00 10.00 10.00
N= 105 114 146 153
Cali o nia Mean 3.37 2.61 2.73 2.74
Median 1.00 2.0 2.00 2.00
N=27363335
To al Mean 7.14 7.28 7.77 8.18
Median 8.00 8.00 8.00 9.00
N= 225 232 336 339
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 465

Table C1. F equencies (N) and pe cen o ques ion: How con iden do you eel in he quali y o he decisions you (A), you
colleagues (B) o you manage (C) make on cases abou seeking ca e o de s in cou ?
Finland No way England Cali o nia To al
%(n)%(n)%(n)%(n)%(n)
(A) The decisions you make on cases
abou seeking ca e o de s in cou
Highly
con iden
40.89 (83) 38.48 (142) 17 (17) 47.78 (43) 37.4 (285)
Con iden 45.32 (92) 56.1 (207) 42 (42) 45.56 (41) 50.13 (382)
Nei he
con iden
no skep ical
10.84 (22) 4.34 (16) 21 (21) 4.44 (4) 8.27 (63)
Skep ical 2.46 (5) 0.81 (3) 17 (17) 2.22 (2) 3.54 (27)
Ve y skep ical 0.49 (1) 0.27 (1) 3 (3) 0 (0) 0.66 (5)
To al 100 (203) 100 (369) 100 (100) 100 (90) 100 (762)
(B) The decisions you colleagues make on
cases abou seeking ca e o de s in cou ?
Highly
con iden
31.22 (64) 27.64 (102) 6 (6) 11.11 (10) 23.82 (182)
Con iden 49.76 (102) 61.25 (226) 35 (35) 50 (45) 53.4 (408)
Nei he
con iden
no skep ical
12.68 (26) 8.94 (33) 46 (46) 31.11 (28) 17.41 (133)
Skep ical 4.88 (10) 2.17 (8) 10 (10) 5.56 (5) 4.32 (33)
Ve y skep ical 1.46 (3) 0 (0) 3 (3) 2.22 (2) 1.05 (8)
To al 100 (205) 100 (369) 100 (100) 100 (90) 100 (764)
(C) The decisions you manage s make on
seeking ca e o de s in cou ?
Highly
con iden
35.64 (72) 32.88 (121) 14.29 (14) 20 (18) 29.68 (225)
Con iden 42.57 (86) 57.61 (212) 26.53 (26) 48.89 (44) 48.55 (368)
Nei he
con iden
no skep ical
14.36 (29) 7.07 (26) 31.63 (31) 22.22 (20) 13.98 (106)
Skep ical 5.94 (12) 2.17 (8) 24.49 (24) 8.89 (8) 6.86 (52)
Ve y skep ical 1.49 (3) 0.27 (1) 3.06 (3) 0 (0) 0.92 (7)
To al 100 (202) 100 (368) 100 (98) 100 (90) 100 (758)
Table C2. Two- ailed independen samples es o signi ican di e ences in mean esponses o ques ions on con idence in
decision making (A, B, and C) be ween coun ies. Repo ing p alues and le el o signi icance: p< .01 = ***, p< .05 = **, and
p< 0.1 = *.
Finland and
England
Finland
and
No way
Finland and
Cali o nia
and
Cali o nia
and
Cali o nia
No way and
Cali o nia
(A) The decisions you make on cases abou
seeking ca e o de s in cou
0.000 0.205 0.110 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.335
(B) The decisions you colleagues make on cases
abou seeking ca e o de s in cou ?
0.000*** 0.156 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.012** 0.000***
(C) The decisions you manage s make on
seeking ca e o de s in cou ?
0.000*** 0.037** 0.032** 0.000*** 0.000*** 0.000***
Table B2. Two- ailed independen samples es o signi ican di e ences be ween means in “yes”and “no”g oup o ques ion
abou su icien ime o mean alues on ques ion: Wha is you caseload oday, measu ed by numbe o child en? Repo ing p
alues and le el o signi icance: p< .01 = ***, p< .05 = **, and p< 0.1 = *.
Wha is you caseload oday, measu ed by numbe o child en? Yes/No
England 0.554
Finland 0.000***
No way 0.244
Cali o nia 0.105
To al 0.000***
466 J. BERRICK ET AL.
Table C3. Response mean on con idence in decision making ques ions (A, B and C), ca ego ized by ha ing su icien ime (yes) o
no (no). Values: 1 = Ve y skep ical, 2 = Skep ical, 3 = Nei he con iden no skep ical, 4 = Con iden , 5 = Highly con iden .
England Finland No way Cali o nia To al
Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No
(A) The decisions you make on cases abou seeking ca e o de s in
cou
3.15 3.98 4.60 4.14 4.37 4.29 4.50 4.30 4.21 4.20
(B) The decisions you colleagues make on cases abou seeking
ca e o de s in cou ?
3.17 3.44 4.20 3.98 4.20 4.06 3.89 3.40 3.97 3.89
(C) The decisions you manage s make on seeking ca e o de s in
cou ?
3.02 3.48 4.24 3.98 4.29 4.10 4.13 3.49 4.03 3.92
Table C4. Two- ailed independen samples es o signi ican di e ences be ween means in “yes”and “no”g oup o ques ion
abou su icien ime ca ego ized on ques ions conside ing con idence in decision making pe coun y. Repo ing p alues and
le el o signi icance: p< .01 = ***, p< .05 = **, and p< 0.1 = *.
The decisions you make on cases
abou seeking ca e o de s in cou
The decisions you colleagues make on
cases abou seeking ca e o de s in cou
The decisions you manage s
make on seeking ca e o de s in
cou
Yes/No Yes/No Yes/No
England 0.000*** 0.124 0.046**
Finland 0.000*** 0.122 0.087*
No way 0.209 0.073* 0.017**
Cali o nia 0.208 0.008*** 0.001***
To al 0.866 0.209 0.126
Table D1. Co ela ion be ween backg ound a iables and con idence in he decisions you (A), you colleagues (B) o you manage
(C) make on cases abou seeking ca e o de s in cou using Kendall’s Tau B and Kendall’s Tau C co ela ion es s. Repo ing
Kendall’s Tau B and C co ela ion coe icien s and le el o signi icance: p< .01 = ***, p< .05 = **, and p< 0.1 = *.
Finland
ABC
Wo k expe ience child wel a e −0.014 −0.016 0.010
Educa ion −0.030 −0.009 0.005
Caseload 0.058 0.033 0.015
NORWAY
Wo k expe ience child wel a e 0.014 0.003 −0.033
Educa ion 0.054** −0.029 0.011
Caseload 0.044 0.039 0.025
ENGLAND
Wo k expe ience child wel a e 0.328*** 0.019 0.166*
Educa ion −0.216*** −0.113 −0.268***
Caseload 0.124 −0.175** −0.007
CALIFORNIA
Wo k expe ience child wel a e 0.238*** 0.080 0.043
Educa ion 0.080 0.064 0.052
Caseload 0.037 0.163* 0.060
HUMAN SERVICE ORGANIZATIONS: MANAGEMENT, LEADERSHIP & GOVERNANCE 467
Table D2. F equencies (N), mean and median alues on ques ions on con idence in decisions you (A), you colleagues (B) o You
manage (C) make on cases abou seeking ca e o de s in cou , ca ego ized by educa ional le el and coun y.
BA MA PhD
ABCABCABC
Finland Mean 4.27 4.00 3.94 4.22 4.02 4.06 1.00 1.00 1.00
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
N= 37 36 36 127 130 127 1 1 1
No way Mean 4.29 4.16 4.20 4.53 4.00 4.25 5.00 4.00 4.00
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 4.00
N= 333 333 332 32 32 32 1 1 1
England Mean 3.87 3.44 3.67 3.35 3.31 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.50 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
N= 393939525250 3 3 3
Cali o nia Mean 4.00 4.00 4.33 4.38 3.56 3.73 4.80 4.40 4.60
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 5.00 4.00 5.00
N= 3 3 3 82 82 82 5 5 5
To al Mean 4.25 4.07 4.13 4.14 3.76 3.81 3.90 3.60 3.70
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.50 4.00 4.00
N= 412 411 410 293 296 291 10 10 10
Table D3. F equencies (N), mean and median alues on ques ions on con idence abou he decisions you (A), you colleagues (B)
o you manage (C) make on cases abou seeking ca e o de s in cou , ca ego ized by gende and coun y.
Female Male
ABCABC
Finland Mean 4.23 4.08 4.06 4.29 3.57 3.79
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
N= 188 191 187 14 14 14
No way Mean 4.32 4.15 4.21 4.29 4.03 4.11
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
N= 333 333 332 35 35 35
England Mean 3.79 3.43 3.44 3.10 3.13 2.90
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 3.00 3.00 3.00
N= 676766313130
Cali o nia Mean 4.39 3.63 3.82 4.36 3.55 3.64
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
N= 797979111111
To al Mean 4.25 4.00 4.05 3.89 3.59 3.60
Median 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00 4.00
N= 667 670 664 91 91 90
Table D4. Independen samples es o signi ican di e ences in gende mean esponses o ques ions on con idence abou he
decisions you (A), you colleagues (B) o you manage (C) make on cases abou seeking ca e o de s in cou ? Repo ing p alues
and le el o signi icance: p< .01 = ***, p< .05 = **, and p< 0.1 = *.
Ques ion Finland No way England Cali o nia
Signi icance di e ence male/ emale mean esponse A 0.793 0.768 0.001*** 0.897
B 0.036** 0.287 0.063* 0.749
C 0.283 0.414 0.015** 0.506
468 J. BERRICK ET AL.