Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal

, Volume 23, Issue 3, pp 263–277 | Cite as

Important Risk Factors in Home-Removal Decisions: Social Caseworker Perceptions

  • Virginia M. DeRoma
  • Maria Lynn Kessler
  • Ryan McDaniel
  • Cesar M. Soto


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.


Maltreatment Family risk factors Caseworker perceptions. 



The authors would like to acknowledge the Citadel Foundation, who provided a grant for this research project.


  1. Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act of 1980. P. L. 96–272, 94 Stat. 500Google Scholar
  2. Arad B.D. (2001) The use of Shye’s Systematic Quality of Life Model in the examination of child protection officers’ decisions Social Indicators Research 56:1–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baird C., Wagner D., Healy T., Johnson K. (1999) Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability Child Welfare 78:723–748PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. California Welfare and Institutions Code. Welfare and Institution Code 361.5. Retrieved July 18, 2002, from Scholar
  7. Connell-Carrik K. (2003) A critical review of the empirical literature: Identifying correlates of child neglect Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 20:389–425CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. DePanfilis D., Zuravin S.J. (2001) Assessing risk to determine the need for services Child and Youth Review 23:3–20CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeRoma, V.M., Lane, H., & Kessler, M.L. (2000). Family separation and reunification decision-making assessment. Unpublished manuscriptGoogle Scholar
  10. English D.J., Marshall D.B., Stewart A.J. (2003) Effects of family violence on child behavior and health during early childhood Journal of Family Violence 18:43–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Family Preservation and Family Support Act of 1993, Pub. L. No. 103–66, 13711–13716, 107 Stat. 312, 649–658Google Scholar
  12. Family Resource Center’s Network. Resource for families and communities: Family development matrix. Retrieved March 8, 2000, from Scholar
  13. Fraser M.W., Walton E., Lewis R.E., Pecora P.J., Walton W.K. (1996) An experiment in family reunification: Correlates of outcomes at one-year follow-up Children and Youth Services Review 18:335–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folsom W.S., Christensen M.L., Avery L., Moore C. (2003) The co-occurrence of child abuse and domestic violence: An issue of service delivery for social service professionals Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal 20:375–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Gelles R.J. (1993). Family reunification/family preservation: Are children really being protected? Journal of Interpersonal Violence 8:577–562Google Scholar
  16. Gold N., Benbenishty R., Osmos R. (2001). A comparative study of risk assessments and recommended intervention in Canada and Israel Child Abuse and Neglect 25:607–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hamberger L. K., Guse C., Boerger J., Minsky D., Pape D., Folsom C. (2004). Evaluation of a health care provider training program to identify and stop partner violence programs Journal of Family Violence 19:1–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Howard M.O., Jenson J.M. (1999) Clinical practice guidelines: Should social work develop them? Research on Social Work 9:283–301CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 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
  20. Kantor, G.K. (August, 2002a). Panel overview presented at the Victimization of Children and Youth International Research Conference. Portsmouth: New HampshireGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Levendosky A.A., Huth-Bocks A., Semel M.A. (2002) Adolescent peer relationships and mental health functioning in homes with domestic violence Journal of Clinical and child Adolescent Psychology 31:206–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lindsey D. (1994). Family preservations and child protection: Striking a balance Children and Youth Services Review 16:279–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maluccio A., Pine B., Warsh R. (1994). Protecting children by preserving their families Children and Youth Services Review 16:295–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mcconnaughy E.A., Prochaska J.O., Velicer W.F. (1983) Stages of change in psychotherapy: Measurement and sample profiles Psychotherapy, Research, and Practice 20:368–375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mills L.G. (2002) Training children’s service workers in domestic violence assessment and intervention: Research findings and implications for practice Children and Youth Services Review 24:561–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Runyan D.K., Gould C.L., Trost D.C., Loda F.A. (1982). Determinants of foster care placement for the maltreated child Child Abuse and Neglect 6:343–350PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. US Department of Health and Human Services: Child maltreatment 2001: Summary of key findings. Retrieved on May 24, 2003, from Scholar
  30. US Department of Health and Human Service. (2003). National study of child protective services: Systems and reform efforts. Retrieved on September 26, 2003, from Scholar
  31. Wolock I., Sherman P., Feldman L.H., Metzger B. (2001) Child abuse and neglect referral patterns: A longitudinal study Children and Youth Services Review 23:21–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Young B.C. (2000) The role of the children’s services bureau in family reunification Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues 11:570–575Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Virginia M. DeRoma
    • 1
  • Maria Lynn Kessler
    • 2
  • Ryan McDaniel
    • 3
  • Cesar M. Soto
    • 4
  1. 1.Psychology DepartmentThe CitadelCharlestonUSA
  2. 2.Oregon Institute of TechnologyKlamath FallsUSA
  3. 3.New Hope for ChildrenCharlestonUSA
  4. 4.Municipal Defense of Children and AdolescentsChorrillosPeru

Personalised recommendations