IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v32y2010i3p356-364.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Approaches to assessment and intervention across four types of child and family welfare services

Author

Listed:
  • Darlington, Yvonne
  • Healy, Karen
  • Feeney, Judith A.

Abstract

Professionals in many contexts confront situations where children have been harmed or are at risk of harm. These include health, mental health, disability, and education, as well as a complex array of child and family welfare services. This paper focuses on the perspectives of workers within four child and family welfare service types: statutory child protection, domestic violence, family support, and intensive family support. As part of a broader study on participatory decision-making, 21 practitioners from two sites in Queensland, Australia, discussed their assessment and proposed intervention in relation to a vignette description of a family situation involving chronic neglect, substance abuse and domestic violence. This discussion was conducted in the context of an in-depth interview with each practitioner. Practitioners from all service types identified this as a high-risk case, and generally nominated similar environmental, parent-related and child-related issues. Further, their proposed response comprised a constellation of actions incorporating assessment of harm to the children, engaging family support services, attending to the needs of parents, and building a relationship with the parents. This commonality is of particular interest, given the complexity of the child and family welfare sector and the different roles played by different organisations. Building on these findings, we consider implications for the development of sector-wide approaches to risk assessment and for training of child protection professionals across a range of agency types.

Suggested Citation

  • Darlington, Yvonne & Healy, Karen & Feeney, Judith A., 2010. "Approaches to assessment and intervention across four types of child and family welfare services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 356-364, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:32:y:2010:i:3:p:356-364
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190-7409(09)00271-0
    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. Gambrill, Eileen & Shlonsky, Aron, 2000. "Risk assessment in context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 22(11-12), pages 813-837.
    2. Colombo, A. & Bendelow, G. & Fulford, B. & Williams, S., 2003. "Evaluating the influence of implicit models of mental disorder on processes of shared decision making within community-based multi-disciplinary teams," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 56(7), pages 1557-1570, April.
    3. Munro, Eileen, 2005. "Improving practice: Child protection as a systems problem," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 375-391, April.
    4. Darlington, Yvonne & Feeney, Judith A., 2008. "Collaboration between mental health and child protection services: Professionals' perceptions of best practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 187-198, February.
    5. Osmo, Rujla & Benbenishty, Rami, 2004. "Children at risk: rationales for risk assessments and interventions," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(12), pages 1155-1173, December.
    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.
    2. Emily Keddell, 2014. "Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, November.
    3. Darlington, Yvonne & Healy, Karen & Yellowlees, Josephine & Bosly, Fiona, 2012. "Parents' perceptions of their participation in mandated family group meetings," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(2), pages 331-337.
    4. Serbati, Sara, 2017. "“You won't take away my children!” families' participation in child protection. Lessons since a best practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 214-221.
    5. Toros, Karmen & DiNitto, Diana Maria & Tiko, Anne, 2018. "Family engagement in the child welfare system: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 598-607.
    6. Darlington, Yvonne & Healy, Karen & Feeney, Judith A., 2010. "Challenges in implementing participatory practice in child protection: A contingency approach," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(7), pages 1020-1027, July.
    7. Platt, Dendy & Riches, Katie, 2016. "Assessing parental capacity to change: The missing jigsaw piece in the assessment of a child's welfare?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 141-148.
    8. Di Qi & Shiyou Wu, 2020. "How Good Are Child Vulnerability Assessment Tools in China?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-12, July.
    9. Toros, Karmen & Tiko, Anne & Saia, Koidu, 2013. "Child-centered approach in the context of the assessment of children in need: Reflections of child protection workers in Estonia," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 35(6), pages 1015-1022.

    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. Mason, Robin & Du Mont, Janice & Paterson, Maeve & Hyman, Ilene, 2018. "Experiences of child protection workers in collaborating with adult mental health providers: An exploratory study from Ontario, Canada," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 86(C), pages 271-276.
    2. Greenhalgh, Joanne & Flynn, Rob & Long, Andrew F. & Tyson, Sarah, 2008. "Tacit and encoded knowledge in the use of standardised outcome measures in multidisciplinary team decision making: A case study of in-patient neurorehabilitation," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 67(1), pages 183-194, July.
    3. Storhaug, Anita Skårstad, 2023. "The decision-making ecology of child welfare emergency placements," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. McBeath, Bowen & Briggs, Harold E. & Aisenberg, Eugene, 2009. "The role of child welfare managers in promoting agency performance through experimentation," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 112-118, January.
    5. van der Put, Claudia E. & Assink, Mark & Stams, Geert Jan J.M., 2016. "Predicting relapse of problematic child-rearing situations," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 61(C), pages 288-295.
    6. Emily Keddell, 2019. "Algorithmic Justice in Child Protection: Statistical Fairness, Social Justice and the Implications for Practice," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(10), pages 1-22, October.
    7. Balsells, M. Ángeles & Fuentes-Peláez, Nuria & Pastor, Crescencia, 2017. "Listening to the voices of children in decision-making: A challenge for the child protection system in Spain," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 418-425.
    8. McGuier, Elizabeth A. & Feldman, Jamie & Bay, Mikele & Ascione, Sue & Tatum, Mary & Salas, Eduardo & Kolko, David J., 2023. "Improving teamwork in multidisciplinary cross-sector teams: Adaption and pilot testing of a team training for Child Advocacy Center teams," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 153(C).
    9. Perkins, Daniel F. & Feinberg, Mark E. & Greenberg, Mark T. & Johnson, Lesley E. & Chilenski, Sarah Meyer & Mincemoyer, Claudia C. & Spoth, Richard L., 2011. "Team factors that predict to sustainability indicators for community-based prevention teams," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 283-291, August.
    10. Shlonsky, Aron & Wagner, Dennis, 2005. "The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an evidence-based practice framework in CPS case management," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 409-427, April.
    11. Gambrill, Eileen D., 2005. "Decision making in child welfare: Errors and their context," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(4), pages 347-352, April.
    12. Emily Keddell, 2014. "Current Debates on Variability in Child Welfare Decision-Making: A Selected Literature Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 3(4), pages 1-25, November.
    13. Alberth, Lars & Bühler-Niederberger, Doris, 2015. "Invisible children? Professional bricolage in child protection," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 57(C), pages 149-158.
    14. Shook, Jeffrey J. & Sarri, Rosemary C., 2007. "Structured decision making in juvenile justice: Judges' and probation officers' perceptions and use," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(10), pages 1335-1351, October.
    15. Robichaud, Marie-Joëlle & Pullen Sansfaçon, Annie & Poirier, Marie-Andrée, 2020. "Decision making at substantiation in cases involving racialized families: Child protection workers’ perceptions of influential factors," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 110(C).
    16. Molina, A. & Palacios, J. & Jiménez-Morago, J.M., 2019. "Do more severe incidents lead to more drastic decisions? A study of professional child protection decision making in Spain," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    17. Wells, Rebecca & Jinnett, Kimberly & Alexander, Jeffrey & Lichtenstein, Richard & Liu, Dawei & Zazzali, James L., 2006. "Team leadership and patient outcomes in US psychiatric treatment settings," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 62(8), pages 1840-1852, April.
    18. Wells, Rebecca & Jolles, Mónica Pérez & Chuang, Emmeline & McBeath, Bowen & Collins-Camargo, Crystal, 2014. "Trends in local public child welfare agencies 1999–2009," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 93-100.
    19. Michael J. Camasso & Radha Jagannathan, 2013. "Decision Making in Child Protective Services: A Risky Business?," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 33(9), pages 1636-1649, September.
    20. Arad-Davidzon, Bilhah & Benbenishty, Rami, 2008. "The role of workers' attitudes and parent and child wishes in child protection workers' assessments and recommendation regarding removal and reunification," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 107-121, January.

    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:32:y:2010:i:3:p:356-364. 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.