Reentry into Out-of-Home Care: Implications of Child Welfare Workers' Assessments of Risk and Safety.
Reentry into Out-of-Home Care: Implications of Child Welfare Workers' Assessments of Risk and Safety.
复制标题
重新进入户外护理：儿童福利工作者风险和安全评估的影响。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2012
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Melissa Correia
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
M. Wells;Melissa Correia
这项纵向分析研究了 2001 年至 2007 年间进入寄养儿童和青少年重返寄养的预测因素。来自一个州的三个行政数据来源（Chapin Hall 儿童中心纵向档案、国家虐待和忽视儿童数据系统以及结构化决策）用于评估儿童保护服务工作人员的风险和安全评估决策是否可以预测重新进入寄养。考克斯回归模型确定了这一时期与再入相关的特征。调查结果表明，当前的忽视评估、养育技能问题、改善养育的动机、安全评估决定、停留时间、经证实的指控和未经证实的指控与重新入境的可能性有关。结果表明，儿童福利系统可以更有效地利用评估工具为家庭提供所需的服务。关键词：虐待儿童；寄养；风险评估；安全评估；结构化决策 ********** 当社会工作者和其他儿童福利专业人员将受虐待的儿童和青少年与父母团聚时，我们期望已知的风险已被最小化，并且家庭是安全的。家庭团聚的决定越来越依赖于儿童福利工作者对虐待风险和家庭安全的看法。然而，很少有人研究社会工作者的评估是否可以预测儿童福利结果，例如重新接受护理。自 1997 年通过《收养和安全家庭法案》（ASFA）以来（H.R. 867, 1991），儿童福利机构被要求通过家庭保护、限时团聚努力以及在团聚不可能时通过终止父母争吵以及促进收养和支持等方式，为儿童寻求更及时的永久性（美国儿童福利联盟，1997 年）。在通过提供服务促进家庭团聚的同时，ASFA 将父母与孩子团聚的时间从 18 个月减少到 12 个月。 ASFA 还要求制定与及时实现永久性相关的绩效指标和成果衡量标准。这些政策和实践的变化，以及用于评估国家表现的结果衡量标准，导致在儿童因虐待而被带离家中后，加大力度迅速使家庭团聚。人们普遍认为，在某些情况下，这些团聚努力并不成功，儿童在返回与父母同住后重新接受家庭外护理。为了保护儿童免受随后的虐待并标准化评估实践，许多州已经实施了基于经验的评估工具，用于儿童福利实践。文献综述 儿童福利决策 儿童福利和少年司法机构越来越多地采用评估工具作为决策工具（DePanfilis & Scannapieco，1994；Krysik & LeCroy，2002；Shook & Sarri，2007）。在儿童福利机构中，这些工具通常侧重于家庭层面的风险和环境因素，而在少年司法环境中，它们用于评估个人行为（Shook＆Sarri，2007）。文献表明这些工具可用于衡量或预测病例结果（Lyle & Graham，2000），但很少有实证研究以这种方式使用评估工具。相反，与这些评估工具相关的文献主要研究了四个领域：（1）评估风险和安全所需的定义（DePanfilis & Scannapieco，1994；English & Pecora，1994）； (2)具体决策系统的实施(Doueck, English, DePanfilis, & Moote, 1993; K. Johnson, Wagner, Scharenbrock, & Healy, 2006); (3) 与使用现有工具和模型有关的挑战，包括仪器的可靠性和有效性（Baird & Wagner, 2000；Baird, Wagner, Healy, & Johnson, 1999；Baumann, Law, Sheets, Reid, & Graham, 2005, 2006；Camasso & Jagannathan, 2000；Dorsey, Mustillo, Farmer, & Elbogen， 2008；英语和格雷厄姆，2000；甘布里尔和什隆斯基，2000；
This longitudinal analysis examined predictors of reentry to foster care among children and youths who entered foster care between 2001 and 2007. Three sources of administrative data (Chapin Hall Center for Children longitudinal files, National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System, and structured decision making) from one state were used to assess whether Child Protective Services workers' risk and safety assessment decisions are predictive of reentry into foster care. Cox regression modeling identified characteristics associated with reentry during this period. Findings suggest that current neglect assessment, problems with parenting skills, motivation to improve parenting, safety assessment decision, length of stay, substantiated allegations, and unsubstantiated allegations were associated with likelihood of reentry. The results suggest that child welfare systems could more effectively use assessment tools to match families with needed services. KEY WORDS: child maltreatment; foster care; risk assessment; safety assessment; structured decision making ********** When social workers and other child welfare professionals reunify maltreated children and adolescents with their parents, it is with the expectation that known risks have been minimized and that homes are safe. Decisions to reunify families increasingly rely on child welfare workers' perceptions of both risk of maltreatment and household safety. However, there has been little examination of whether social workers' assessments are predictive of child welfare outcomes such as reentry into care. Since passage of the Adoption and Safe Families Act (ASFA) in 1997 (H.R. 867, 1991), child welfare agencies have been required to seek more timely permanency for children through family preservation, time-limited reunification efforts, and, when reunification was not possible, through termination of parental fights and adoption promotion and support (Child Welfare League of America, 1997). While promoting family reunification through the provision of services, ASFA reduced the amount of time parents have to reunify with their children from 18 months to 12 months. ASFA also required the development of performance indicators and outcome measures related to the achievement of timely permanency. These changes in policy and practice, and the outcome measures used to evaluate state performance, have led to increased efforts to quickly reunify families after a child has been removed from a home due to child maltreatment. There is general consensus that in some cases, these reunification efforts are unsuccessful and children reenter out-of-home care after being returned to live with their parents. In an effort to protect children from subsequent maltreatment and to standardize assessment practices, many states have implemented empirically based assessment tools for use in child welfare practice. LITERATURE REVIEW Decision Making in Child Welfare Increasingly, child welfare and juvenile justice agencies are adopting assessment instruments as decision-making tools (DePanfilis & Scannapieco, 1994; Krysik & LeCroy, 2002; Shook & Sarri, 2007). In child welfare agencies, these tools generally focus on family-level risk and environmental factors, whereas in juvenile justice settings, they are used to assess individual behavior (Shook & Sarri, 2007). Literature has suggested that these tools can be used to measure or predict case outcomes (Lyle & Graham, 2000), but there have been few empirical studies using assessment instruments in this manner. Rather, the literature related to these assessment tools has largely examined four domains: (1) definitions required for assessing risk and safety (DePanfilis & Scannapieco, 1994; English & Pecora, 1994); (2) implementation of specific decision-making systems (Doueck, English, DePanfilis, & Moote, 1993; K. Johnson, Wagner, Scharenbrock, & Healy, 2006); (3) challenges related to the use of existing tools and models, including reliability and validity of instruments (Baird & Wagner, 2000; Baird, Wagner, Healy, & Johnson, 1999; Baumann, Law, Sheets, Reid, & Graham, 2005, 2006; Camasso & Jagannathan, 2000; Dorsey, Mustillo, Farmer, & Elbogen, 2008; English & Graham, 2000; Gambrill & Shlonsky, 2000; W. …
影响因子：
4.8
作者：
Dorsey, Shannon;Mustillo, Sarah A.;Elbogen, Eric
通讯作者：
Elbogen, Eric