IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/cysrev/v82y2017icp214-221.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

“You won't take away my children!” families' participation in child protection. Lessons since a best practice

Author

Listed:
  • Serbati, Sara

Abstract

Users' participation in Child and Family Social Work is widely acknowledged as a central and hard-to-reach issue for successful and effective intervention. The article considers a methodological proposal in pursuing participation, called Participative and Transformative Evaluation (PTE) that uses instruments and data as a means of reflection and negotiation between all the actors involved, in order to justify choices and make decisions. The PTE is realised inside the Programme of Intervention for Prevention of Institutionalization (P.I.P.P.I.), involving 144 child care and protection cases (198 children) in nine Italian cities, in order to prevent out-of-home child placement and reduce child neglect. Inside the P.I.P.P.I. a series of case studies were developed to achieve an in-depth understanding of the effective processes undertaken by participants with families. The case selected for this article has been chosen because it reflects a best practice in using the PTE as well as the participation path and is undertaken following the indications of the Critical Best Practice. It allowed an in-depth understanding of the mother's and professionals' viewpoints about what built the success in their practice. During the discussion three components are considered: the technical solutions offered by research or science (technical components) become meaningful when participants not only apply them, but act upon them, building, internally, the meanings to be enacted (internal component). In the case study this came about through dialogue between people, and through negotiation and reflection on competence, visions and values (communicative component).

Suggested Citation

  • 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.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:82:y:2017:i:c:p:214-221
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.032
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0190740917304826
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.08.032?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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. 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.
    2. Houston, Stan, 2014. "Meta-theoretical paradigms underpinning risk in child welfare: Towards a position of methodological pragmatism," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 55-60.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. 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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. Di Qi & Shiyou Wu, 2020. "How Good Are Child Vulnerability Assessment Tools in China?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-12, July.
    5. 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.
    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. 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.
    8. 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.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:82:y:2017:i:c:p:214-221. 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.