Advertisement

Child Indicators Research

, Volume 12, Issue 5, pp 1611–1628 | Cite as

Assessment and Decision-Making in Child Protective Services: Risk Situations Kept-at-Home Versus Out-of-Home Care

  • Victor Grimaldi
  • Javier Pérez-PadillaEmail author
  • Miguel Ángel Garrido
  • Bárbara Lorence
Article

Abstract

Family risk assessment is complex and constitutes one of the great challenges facing Child Protective Services (CPS). This paper attempts to provide CPS practitioners with scientifically rigorous and technically sensitive instruments to help them substantiate cases, and thereby support the decision-making process that determines the future of children in their families. A total of 641 at high risk families with children kept-at-home (n = 422) and out-of-home children (n = 219), were evaluated by CPS practitioners with the Child Well-Being Scales (CWBS; Magura and Moses 1986) in Spain. A logistic binomial regression analysis was performed to show that the CWBS are useful for identifying situations of out-of-home care compared to risk kept-at-home. The original scales explained 56% of the variability of both groups of families, and the percentage of correct classification was 88.12%. This demonstrated that the predictive capacity of this instrument in adverse situations is very high. In view of the results, different aspects of the assessment, decision-making and intervention processes with family CPS users are discussed.

Keywords

Child well-being scales Child protective services Decision-making process Risk-assessment Maltreatment-substantiation 

References

  1. Arruabarrena, M. I., & De Paúl, J. (2002). Evaluación de un programa de tratamiento para familias maltratantes y negligentes y familias alto-riesgo. Intervención Psicosocial, 11(2), 213–227.Google Scholar
  2. Azar, S. T., Stevenson, M. T., & Johnson, D. R. (2012). Intellectual disabilities and neglectful parenting: preliminary findings on the role of cognition in parenting risk. Journal of Mental Health Research in Intellectual Disabilities, 5(2), 94–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barlow, J., Fisher, J. D., & Jones, S. (2012). Systematic review of models of analyzing significant harm. Oxford: Oxford University.Google Scholar
  4. Baumann, D. J., Grigsby, C., Sheets, J., Reid, G., Graham, J. C., Robinson, D., Holoubek, J., Farris, J., & Jeffries, V. (2011). Concept guided risk assessment: promoting prediction and unverstanding. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(9), 1648–1657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baumann, D. J., Fluke, J. D., Dalgleish, L., & Kern, H. (2014). The decision making ecology. In A. Shlonsky & R. Benbenishty (Eds.), From evidence to outcomes in child welfare: An international reader. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Benavente Moreda, P. (2011). Riesgo, desamparo y acogimeinto de menores. Actuacción de la Administracción e intereses en juego. AFDUAM, 15, 15–62.Google Scholar
  7. Benbenishty, R., Osmo, R., & Gold, N. (2003). Rationales provided for risk assessments and for recommended interventions: a comparison between Canadianand Israeli professionals. British Journal of Social Work, 33(2), 137–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., López, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., Koopmans, C., Knorth, E. J., Witteman, C. L. M., del Valle, J. F., & Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protection: an international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes. Child Maltreatment & Neglect, 49, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brunnberg, E., & Pe’cnik, N. (2007). Assessment processes in social work with children at risk in Sweden and Croatia. International Journal of Social Welfare, 16(3), 231–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carranza, V. E. (2009). La creación de la alianza terapéutica en la Terapia Familiar. Apuntes de Psicología, 27(2–3), 247–259.Google Scholar
  11. Casady, M. A., & Lee, R. E. (2002). Environments of physically neglected children. Psychological Reports, 91(3), 711–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Cash, S. J., & Berry, M. (2003). The impact of family preservation services on child and family well-being. Journal of Social Service Research, 29(3), 1–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Courtney, M. E., McMurtry, S. L., Bost, N., Maldre, K., Power, P., & Zinn, A. (2002). An evaluation of Safety Service in Milwaukee County. Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  14. De Paúl, J., & Arruabarrena, M. I. (1999). Escalas de bienestar infantil. San Sebastián: Universidad del País Vasco.Google Scholar
  15. Dettlaff, A. J., Graham, J. C., Holzman, J., Baumann, D. J., & Fluke, J. D. (2015). Development of an instrument to understand the child protective services decision-making process, with a focus on placement decisions. Child Maltreatment & Neglect, 49, 24–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubowitz, H., Pitts, S. C., & Black, M. M. (2004). Measurement of three major subtypes of child neglect. Child Maltreatment, 9(4), 344–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Friedman, E., & Billick, S. B. (2015). Unintentional child neglect: literature review and observational study. Psychiatric Quarterly, 86(2), 253–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Gaudin, J. M., Polansky, N. A., & Kilpatrick, A. C. (1992). The child well-being scales: a field trial. Child Welfare: Journal of Policy, Practice, and Program, 71, 319–328.Google Scholar
  19. Gómez, I., Hódar, J. C., García, M. R., & Martínez, M. M. (2012). Intervención en valores con familias de riesgo social desde la Terapia de Aceptación y Compromiso. Análisis y Modificación de Conducta, 38, 39–58.Google Scholar
  20. Graham, J. C., Dettlaff, A. J., Baumann, D. J., & Fluke, J. D. (2015). The decision making ecology of placing a child into out-of-home care: a structural equation model. Child Maltreatment & Neglect, 49, 12–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Grimaldi-Puyana, V., Garrido-Fernández, M., & Jiménez-Morago, J. (2012). Child’s risk profiles and levels of intervention with families in the public system of social services. Annals of Psychology, 28(2), 515–523.Google Scholar
  22. Guillingham, P., & Humphreys, C. (2010). Child protection practioners and decision-making tools: observations and reflections from the front line. British Journal of Social Work, 40(8), 2598–2616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hidalgo, M. V., Jiménez, L., López-Verdugo, I., Lorence, B., & Sánchez, J. (2016). “Family education and support” program for families at psychosocial risk: The role of implementation process. Psychosocial Intervention, 25, 80–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindsey, D. (1992). Reliability of the out-of-home care placement decision: a review. Research on Social Work Practice, 2, 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Little, M., Axford, N., & Morpeht, L. (2004). Risk and protection in the context of services for children in need. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 105–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lopez, M., Fluque, J. D., Benbenishty, R., & Knorth, E. J. (2015). Commentary on decision-making and judgments in child maltreatment prevention and response: an overview. Child Maltreatment & Neglect, 49, 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Magura, S., & Moses, B. (1986). Outcome measures for child welfare services. Washington DC: Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
  28. McCroskey, J., & Meezan, W. (1997). Family preservation & family functioning. Annapolis: Child Welfare League of America Inc.Google Scholar
  29. Menéndez, S., Hidalgo, M. V., Lorence, B., & Pérez-Padilla. (2015). Assessing the level of risk of families supported by child and family protection services: Practitioners and mothers as informants. Journal of Social Work, 16(5), 595–609.Google Scholar
  30. Molina, A., & Martínez, C. (2016). VALÓRAME. Instrumento para la valoración de la gravedad de las situaciones de riesgo, desprotección y desamparo de la infancia y adolescencia en Andalucía (2nd ed.). Granada: Junta de Andalucía. Consejería de Igualdad, Salud y Políticas Sociales. Dirección General de Personas Mayores, Infancia y Familias.Google Scholar
  31. Munro, E. (1999). Common errors of reasoning in child protection work. Child Maltreatment and Neglect, 23(8), 745–758.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Munro, E. (2005). Improving practice: child protection as a systems problem. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(4), 375–391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Munro. (2011). The Munro review of child protection: Final report. A child-centred system. London: Stationery Office. Retrieved from http://www.education.gov.uk/publications.Google Scholar
  34. Naciones Unidas.-DECLARACIÓN DE LOS DERECHOS DEL NIÑO (1959, 20 de noviembre), Naciones Unidas.-Convención sobre los Derechos del Niño adoptada por la Asamblea General de las Naciones Unidas. Nueva York el, 20, 11–89.Google Scholar
  35. Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (1989). Convention on the Rights of the Child.Google Scholar
  36. Peña, D. (2002). Regresión y diseño de experimentos. Madrid: Alianza.Google Scholar
  37. Pollard, E., & Lee, P. (2003). Child well-being: a systematic review of the literature. Social Indicators Research, 61(1), 59–78.  https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021284215801. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Portwood, S. G. (1998). The impact of individuals’ characteristics and experiences on their definitions of child maltreatment. Child Maltreatment & Neglect, 22(5), 437–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pösö, T., & Laakso, R. (2014). Matching children and substitute homes: some theoretical and empirical notions. Child and Family Social Work, 21(3), 307–316.  https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rodenhiser, R. W., Chandy, J., & Ahmed, K. (1995). Intensive family preservation services: do they have any impact on family functioning? Journal of Family Strengths, 1(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  41. Rodrigo, M. J., Maiquez, M. L., Martín, J. C., & Byrne, S. (2008). Preservación familiar. Un enfoque positivo para la intervención con familias. Madrid: Pirámide.Google Scholar
  42. Rodrigues, L., Calheiros, M., & Pereira, C. (2015). The decision of out-of-home placement in residential care after parent neglect: Empirically testing a psychosocial model. Child Maltreatment & Neglect, 49, 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rolock, N., & Testa, M. (2005). Indicated child maltreatment and neglect reports: Is the investigation process racially biased? In D. Derezotes (Ed.), Race matters in child welfare: The overrepresentation of African American children in the system (pp. 119–130). Washington, DC: CWLA Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rycus, J. S., & Hughes, R. C. (2008). Assessing risk throughout the life of a child welfare case. In D. Lindsey & A. Shlonsky (Eds.), Child welfare research: Advances for practice and policy (pp. 201–213). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sandler, I. (2001). Quality and ecology of adversity as common mechanisms of risk and resilience. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 19–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Schwalbe, C. (2004). Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making. Children and Youth Services Review, 26(6), 561–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Serbati, S., Pivetti, M., & Gioga, G. (2015). Child well-being scales (CWBS) in the assessment of families and children in home-care intervention: An empirical study. Child & Family Social Work, 20(4), 446–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Spiel, C., & Strohmeier, D. (2012). Evidence-based practice and policy: when researchers, policy makers, and practitioners learn to work together. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 9, 150–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Stowman, S. A., & Donohue, B. (2005). Assessing child neglect: A review of standardized measures. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10(4), 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sullivan, C., Whitehead, P. C., Leschied, A. W., Chiodo, D., & Hurley, D. (2008). Perception of risk among child protection workers. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 699–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. United Nations General Assembly [UNGA] (1959). Publicity to be given to the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, Draft resolution. Archives of the United Nations General Assembly [AUNGA], Geneva, A_4249 Report of C-3, Annex 2.Google Scholar
  52. Vezina, A., & Bradet, R. (1992). Validation quebecoise dʼun inventaire mesurement le bien- ètre de lʼenfant. Science et Comportement, 22, 233–251.Google Scholar
  53. Walsh, C., Rolls, J., & Williams, R. (2015). Selecting and implementing evidence-based practices: A guide for child and family serving systems. San Diego: California Evidence-Based Clearinghouse for Child Welfare.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Victor Grimaldi
    • 1
  • Javier Pérez-Padilla
    • 2
    Email author
  • Miguel Ángel Garrido
    • 3
  • Bárbara Lorence
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Developmental and Educational PsychologyUniversity of SevilleSevillaSpain
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of JaenJaenSpain
  3. 3.Department of Personality, Assessment and Psychological TreatmentUniversity of SevilleSevillaSpain
  4. 4.Department of Social, Developmental and Educational PsychologyUniversity of HuelvaHuelvaSpain

Personalised recommendations