IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jscscx/v9y2020i7p118-d381923.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Good Are Child Vulnerability Assessment Tools in China?

Author

Listed:
  • Di Qi

    (Department of Sociology, School of Public Administration, Hohai University, Nanjing 211100, China)

  • Shiyou Wu

    (School of Social Work, Arizona State University, Pheonix, AZ 85004, USA)

Abstract

Accurately assessing children’s vulnerabilities and needs is important for child service delivery in social work. In China, different agencies (including international non-governmental organizations, government sectors and social organizations) utilize different tools for assessing children’s needs. However, the advantages and disadvantages of these tools have been rarely discussed, leaving their quality and effectiveness unknown. As a result, it is difficult to realize the goal of improving the well-being of Chinese children. This paper contributes to existing knowledge through the use of semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders of different types of agencies, along with an in-depth exploration, analysis and comparison of their practical assessment tools.

Suggested Citation

  • Di Qi & Shiyou Wu, 2020. "How Good Are Child Vulnerability Assessment Tools in China?," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-12, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jscscx:v:9:y:2020:i:7:p:118-:d:381923
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/7/118/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/9/7/118/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    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. Rosanbalm, Katie D. & Snyder, Elizabeth H. & Lawrence, C. Nicole & Coleman, Kanisha & Frey, Joseph J. & van den Ende, Johanna B. & Dodge, Kenneth A., 2016. "Child wellbeing assessment in child welfare: A review of four measures," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 1-16.
    3. 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.
    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. Storhaug, Anita Skårstad, 2023. "The decision-making ecology of child welfare emergency placements," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    3. Herring, David J., 2009. "Fathers and child maltreatment: A research agenda based on evolutionary theory and behavioral biology research," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(8), pages 935-945, August.
    4. 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.
    5. Schwalbe, Craig, 2004. "Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(6), pages 561-576, June.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. Jifei Fan & Daopeng Wang & Ping Liu & Jiaming Xu, 2024. "Research on the Prediction of Sustainable Safety Production in Building Construction Based on Text Data," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-21, June.
    11. 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.
    12. Butcher, Rebecca L. & Jankowski, M. Kay & Slade, Eric D., 2020. "The costs of implementing and sustaining a trauma and mental health screening tool in a state child welfare system," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    13. Schwartz, David R. & Kaufman, Adam B. & Schwartz, Ira M., 2004. "Computational intelligence techniques for risk assessment and decision support," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 26(11), pages 1081-1095, November.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. Verbist, A. Nathan & Winters, Andrew M. & Collins-Camargo, Crystal & Antle, Becky F., 2020. "Standardized assessment domains as predictors of prescription of trauma-focused treatment for youth in out-of-home care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C).
    17. Ryan, Scott & Wiles, Debra & Cash, Scottye & Siebert, Carl, 2005. "Risk assessments: empirically supported or values driven?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(2), pages 213-225, February.
    18. Kelly, Cara & Thornton, Anthony & Anthony, Elizabeth K. & Krysik, Judy, 2021. "“Love. Stability. Boundaries.” Kinship perspectives of social-emotional well-being of youth residing in out-of-home care," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 127(C).
    19. 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.
    20. 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.

    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:gam:jscscx:v:9:y:2020:i:7:p:118-:d:381923. 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: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    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.