Important Risk Factors in Home-Removal Decisions: Social Caseworker Perceptions
- 195 Downloads
The current study identified factors that played a significant role in decisions to separate a child from his/her primary caretakers for 51 social service caseworkers. Participants rated and ranked the importance of 35 child risk/well-being factors used in recent child separation dispositions. Results indicated that boundary setting with a perpetrator of abuse and parental motivation played a significant role in decision-making. These preliminary findings suggest the need to prioritize services aimed at the promotion of the non-maltreating parent’s limit setting with the perpetrator of abuse, as well as caretaker motivation/cooperation.
KeywordsMaltreatment Family risk factors Caseworker perceptions.
The authors would like to acknowledge the Citadel Foundation, who provided a grant for this research project.
- Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. P. L. 96–272, 94 Stat. 500Google Scholar
- Barth, R.P. (1998). Theories guiding home-based intensive family preservation services. In J. Whitaker, J. Kinney, E. Tracy, & C. Booths (Eds.), Improving practice technology for work with high risk families: Lessons from the “Homebuilders” Social Work Education Project (Monograph No. 6, pp. 91–113). Seattle: University of Washington, Center for Social Welfare ResearchGoogle Scholar
- Barth, R.P. (August, 2002). National survey of child and adolescent well-being (NSCAW): The USA’s first probability study of children investigated for abuse and neglect. Paper presented at the Victimization of Children and Youth International Research Conference. Portsmouth, New HampshireGoogle Scholar
- California Welfare and Institutions Code. Welfare and Institution Code 361.5. Retrieved July 18, 2002, from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/index.htmlGoogle Scholar
- DeRoma, V.M., Lane, H., & Kessler, M.L. (2000). Family separation and reunification decision-making assessment. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
- Family Preservation and Family Support Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103–66, 13711–13716, 107 Stat. 312, 649–658Google Scholar
- Family Resource Center’s Network. Resource for families and communities: Family development matrix. Retrieved March 8, 2000, from http://www.monterey.edu/academic/c...atrix/exmi/rfc_matrixrev022000.htmGoogle Scholar
- Gelles R.J. (1993). Family reunification/family preservation: Are children really being protected? Journal of Interpersonal Violence 8:577–562Google Scholar
- Jones J.F., Stevenson K.M., Leung P., Cheung K.M. (1995). Call to competence: Child protective services training and evaluation. Association for Protecting Children, Englewood, COGoogle Scholar
- Kantor, G.K. (August, 2002a). Panel overview presented at the Victimization of Children and Youth International Research Conference. Portsmouth: New HampshireGoogle Scholar
- Kantor, G.K. (August, 2002b). Parental substance abuse and child maltreatment: Evaluation results from the NH IV-E Waiver Project. Paper presented at the Victimization of Children and Youth International Research Conference. Portsmouth: New HampshireGoogle Scholar
- Kaufman, J. (August, 2002). Permanency planning for children: The Connecticut Model. Paper presented at the Victimization of Children and Youth International Research Conference. Portsmouth, New HampshireGoogle Scholar
- US Department of Health and Human Services: Child maltreatment 2001: Summary of key findings. Retrieved on May 24, 2003, from http://www.calib.com/nccanch/pubs/factsheets/canstats.cfmGoogle Scholar
- US Department of Health and Human Service. (2003). National study of child protective services: Systems and reform efforts. Retrieved on September 26, 2003, from http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/CPS-status03/index.htmGoogle Scholar
- Young B.C. (2000) The role of the children’s services bureau in family reunification Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 11:570–575Google Scholar