IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v33y2011i6p894-900.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The crucial role played by social outrage in efforts to reform child protective services

Author

Listed:
  • Jagannathan, Radha
  • Camasso, Michael J.

Abstract

In this paper, we question the widely, if tacitly, held perspective that exceptional and immensely publicized instances of child abuse and neglect offer little guidance or understanding in improving the efficacy of child protective services (CPS). Using insights from Carl Jung, Max Weber and Henry Mintzberg, we argue that not only do such archetypical cases and the attendant moral outrage serve as catalysts for legislative and judicial actions; they also motivate structural and procedural changes in CPS operations. We propose extending to CPS a risk model commonly considered in the fields of environmental science, food safety and chemical engineering, where risk is conceptualized as a function of both technical hazard and moral outrage. We point out, however, that unlike in these non-CPS fields where the typical response is to 'manage' outrage via public education or public relations campaigns and to allow outrage to influence only the more immediate and exceptional decisions following an outrageous event, in the CPS field where children are the focal point, exceptional decision processes also seep into routine decision making by necessity. We term our proposed enhanced risk model the Socially Outraged Risk Expression (SORE). We conclude with recommendations for an empirical test of SORE.

Suggested Citation

  • Jagannathan, Radha & Camasso, Michael J., 2011. "The crucial role played by social outrage in efforts to reform child protective services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(6), pages 894-900, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:33:y:2011:i:6:p:894-900
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190-7409(11)00004-1
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Roger E. Kasperson, 1986. "Six Propositions on Public Participation and Their Relevance for Risk Communication," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 6(3), pages 275-281, September.
    2. Lennart Sjöberg, 2000. "Factors in Risk Perception," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 20(1), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Ross Sandler & David Schoenbrod, 2003. "Book Review: Democracy by Decree: What Happens When Courts Run Government," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 23(1), pages 155-158, Spring/Su.
    4. Sheila B. Kamerman & Michelle Neuman & Jane Waldfogel & Jeanne Brooks-Gunn, 2003. "Social Policies, Family Types and Child Outcomes in Selected OECD Countries," OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers 6, OECD Publishing.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. de Haan, Irene & Connolly, Marie, 2014. "Another Pandora's box? Some pros and cons of predictive risk modeling," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 86-91.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Nicolás C. Bronfman & Luis Abdón Cifuentes & Michael L. deKay & Henry H. Willis, 2007. "Accounting for Variation in the Explanatory Power of the Psychometric Paradigm: The Effects of Aggregation and Focus," Journal of Risk Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(4), pages 527-554, June.
    2. Mouctar Sow & Myriam De Spiegelaere & Marie-France Raynault, 2021. "Risk of Low Birth Weight According to Household Composition in Brussels and Montreal: Do Income Support Policies Variations Explain the Differences Observed between Both Regions?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(15), pages 1-16, July.
    3. Michalis Diakakis & Dimitris G. Damigos & Andreas Kallioras, 2020. "Identification of Patterns and Influential Factors on Civil Protection Personnel Opinions and Views on Different Aspects of Flood Risk Management: The Case of Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(14), pages 1-20, July.
    4. Gu, Qianxin & Chen, Yang & Pody, Robert & Cheng, Rong & Zheng, Xiang & Zhang, Zhenxing, 2015. "Public perception and acceptability toward reclaimed water in Tianjin," Resources, Conservation & Recycling, Elsevier, vol. 104(PA), pages 291-299.
    5. Parker Hevron, 2018. "Judicialization and Its Effects: Experiments as a Way Forward," Laws, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-21, May.
    6. Branden B. Johnson, 1993. "“The Mental Model” Meets “The Planning Process”: Wrestling with Risk Communication Research and Practice," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(1), pages 5-8, February.
    7. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:3:p:513-546 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Watson, Dorothy & Maître, Bertrand & Whelan, Christopher T., 2012. "Work and Poverty in Ireland: An Analysis of CSO Survey on Income and Living Conditions 2004-2010," Research Series, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI), number BKMNEXT226.
    9. Peter M. Sandman & Paul M. Miller & Branden B. Johnson & Neil D. Weinstein, 1993. "Agency Communication, Community Outrage, and Perception of Risk: Three Simulation Experiments," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 13(6), pages 585-598, December.
    10. Hye Kyung Kim & Yungwook Kim, 2019. "Risk Information Seeking and Processing About Particulate Air Pollution in South Korea: The Roles of Cultural Worldview," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 39(5), pages 1071-1087, May.
    11. B. J. M. Ale, 2005. "Tolerable or Acceptable: A Comparison of Risk Regulation in the United Kingdom and in the Netherlands," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 231-241, April.
    12. Tianlong Yu & Hao Yang & Xiaowei Luo & Yifeng Jiang & Xiang Wu & Jingqi Gao, 2021. "Scientometric Analysis of Disaster Risk Perception: 2000–2020," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(24), pages 1-19, December.
    13. S. A. Mashi & A. I. Inkani & Oghenejeabor Obaro & A. S. Asanarimam, 2020. "Community perception, response and adaptation strategies towards flood risk in a traditional African city," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 103(2), pages 1727-1759, September.
    14. Yang, Ya Ling, 2020. "Comparison of public perception and risk management decisions of aircraft noise near Taoyuan and Kaohsiung International Airports," Journal of Air Transport Management, Elsevier, vol. 85(C).
    15. Jantsje M. Mol & W. J. Wouter Botzen & Julia E. Blasch & Hans de Moel, 2020. "Insights into Flood Risk Misperceptions of Homeowners in the Dutch River Delta," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(7), pages 1450-1468, July.
    16. Henry H. Willis & Michael L. DeKay & Baruch Fischhoff & M. Granger Morgan, 2005. "Aggregate, Disaggregate, and Hybrid Analyses of Ecological Risk Perceptions," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(2), pages 405-428, April.
    17. Hannah Eboh & Courtney Gallaher & Thomas Pingel & Walker Ashley, 2021. "Risk perception in small island developing states: a case study in the Commonwealth of Dominica," Natural Hazards: Journal of the International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, Springer;International Society for the Prevention and Mitigation of Natural Hazards, vol. 105(1), pages 889-914, January.
    18. Noam Tarshish, 2021. "Do ‘child‐friendly’ countries contribute to child satisfaction? A comparative study of OECD countries," International Journal of Social Welfare, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 30(1), pages 72-83, January.
    19. Mei‐Chih Meg Tseng & Yi‐Ping Lin & Fu‐Chang Hu & Tsun‐Jen Cheng, 2013. "Risks Perception of Electromagnetic Fields in Taiwan: The Influence of Psychopathology and the Degree of Sensitivity to Electromagnetic Fields," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(11), pages 2002-2012, November.
    20. Nina Veflen & Joachim Scholderer & Solveig Langsrud, 2020. "Situated Food Safety Risk and the Influence of Social Norms," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 40(5), pages 1092-1110, May.
    21. Johanna Catherine Maclean & John Buckell & Joachim Marti, 2019. "Information Source and Cigarettes: Experimental Evidence on the Messenger Effect," NBER Working Papers 25632, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:33:y:2011:i:6:p:894-900. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.