Professionalism (professional versus unprofessional): The panels in the study operated with varying degrees of professionalism. While some were extremely formal in their manner and processes, others adopted a very casual approach, with some panel members behaving in an unregulated manner and some chairs being over-familiar with presenters or dominating the meeting rather than facilitating discussion.

Scrutiny (good quality assurance/scrutiny versus a conveyor belt/rubber stamping of recommendations): It was clear from the study that all panel members had prepared adequately, read the relevant paperwork and had a good sense of their quality assurance role. Only one panel appeared to be ‘rubber-stamping’ rather than questioning carers appropriately. However, the study also found that the process of panel recommendation-making varies with a number of factors, such as who comprises the panel, the chairing style, the time of the meeting, the timeframes allotted per case, the relationship between the independent chair and the panel and the quality of the paperwork presented.

Risk of intrinsic bias A key theme of this study, therefore, relates to the fact that human beings are fundamentally judgemental and that unconscious bias operates not only at an individual level among panel members but also at a group level where the desire to achieve group unanimity overrides individual freedom. This ‘groupthink’, whether at an individual or group level, is obviously undesirable as it can, and often does, lead to flawed panel decisions. For example, there is considerable research into court hearings that shows how individual members of juries often make up their minds at the start of the trial before hearing all the evidence and are not acting as objectively as the legal process ideally requires. All of this calls into question the anti-discriminatory values and practices of those working in the care sector and highlights failures to recognise the issue. As things stand, the qualification for contributing to a fostering or adoption panel is the individual’s personal or professional experience – but this is of little use if individuals are not self-aware in terms of their own prejudices. The question is therefore: what can be done to promote such self-awareness and combat unconscious bias?

It was this concern that inspired the author to develop an awareness process called ‘Effective Personal and Professional Judgement (EPPJ)’. This enables panel members to be more conscious of their own biases and thus help them make non-discriminatory recommendations.

Effective Personal and Professional Judgement The starting point in developing EPPJ was the recognition that the notion of being non-judgemental is a fallacy. The aim then becomes to support, empower and educate people to be consciously aware of unconscious biases in making professional judgements so that they can be significantly more effective in undertaking their role and function. Thus, one of the central aims of the study was to understand what it means to be ‘conscious’, acknowledging that two types of awareness create this consciousness: (1) self-awareness of one’s internal processes and bias, and (2) the external processes of the professional world and systems. The theory generated from the research maintains