Deliberating decision-making: The role of digital technologies in current and future practices in child and family welfare services

Abstract
Background and purpose:
This study investigates how vulnerable families experience involvement in decision-making with digital technologies in Denmark's child and family welfare services (CFWS). While Denmark is recognized as a leader in digitalization and CFWS has been considered a case that needed attention (Nirmalarajan & Høybye-Mortensen, 2023), top-down strategies may not always support deliberation in social work. This presentation explores how social workers and service users experience digital technologies in decision-making processes from a bottom-up perspective, focusing on two cases: 1) DUBU, which integrates the Assessment Framework/Integrated Children’s System, and 2) a predictive risk model (PRM) tested in a sandbox environment.

Methods:
The research, part of a Ph.D. project, is based on a multiple case study using participatory practice research (Uggerhøj, 2018). The first case is based on qualitative approaches with including future workshops (5, N =22 and interviews with families (23, N =26). The latter case is based on workshops with social workers in a sandbox experiment (5, N = 28) and a questionnaire (N = 273).

Findings:
Using a deliberative democracy framework (Anderson, 2010), the study emphasizes ‘political equality’ and the risk of ‘epistemic injustice’ (Fricker, 2007; Nirmalarajan & Hansen, 2024) for marginalized service users. Some families describe decision-making as a “black box,” making it difficult to contribute with their knowledge. Structured decision-making tools like the Assessment Framework/Integrated Children’s system and PRM may lack cultural adaptation, leading to potential biases against marginalized groups, such as refugees or those with mental illness (Killick, 2023; Saar-Heiman & Gupta, 2020). This raises concerns about what knowledge is prioritized in these processes (Chor et al., 2012; Suna & Medaglia, 2019; Kuziemski & Misuraca, 2020; Jørgensen & Nissen, 2022).


Conclusion:
In Denmark, while it is legally required to involve families and provide explanations, understanding how decision-support tools like DUBU or PRM influence decisions can be challenging, as transparency for social workers may differ from that of children, youth, and families (Keddel, 2023). Digitalization in child and family welfare services has recently gained increased attention in research in social work (Gillingham, 2016). Given this is the case in this study, caution is needed on how we can unbox the “black box” in decision-making and involve service users based on democratic values, that also prioritize service users’ worldviews in decision-making. Recognizing how different stakeholders make sense of and attribute meaning to decision-support tools, often reflecting their worldviews (Latour, 1993), highlights the interplay between professional judgment and digital technologies, functioning as a ‘cyborg’ (Haraway, 2013), which informs decision-making processes.