Bearing witness between care and accountability: Credibility and defensibility in frontline child welfare judgment

This article examines how frontline child welfare social workers determine what counts as credible and defensible knowledge when care and institutional accountability pull in different directions. Drawing on five extended narrative accounts selected from a broader qualitative study of frontline child welfare social workers in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada, the article uses narrative inquiry as its methodology. A thematic narrative approach guided the analysis of the accounts, and Critical Race Theory (CRT) informed interpretation. Participants described how institutional requirements and documentation practices influenced their judgment in work with families already subject to institutional oversight. Their accounts illustrate how accountability demands set the terms for what becomes institutionally credible, what is treated as actionable, and who carries responsibility at the frontline. Interpretations of culturally grounded caregiving were also tied to prior system involvement and professional authority. For families already disproportionately represented within child welfare systems, these pressures can narrow relational and preventive possibilities, especially when decisions are expected to withstand later review. The article contributes to qualitative social work scholarship on accountability and discretion by explaining how institutional processes influence the credibility of knowledge and the defensibility of frontline judgment. It also considers how education, supervision, and policy can support relational judgment and culturally responsive care.