Child Maltreatment and the Child Welfare System as Environmental Factors in the International Classification of Functioning

The WHO defines child maltreatment as any form of neglect, exploitation, and physical, emotional, or sexual abuse, committed against children under the age of 18. Youth involved in the child welfare system report more maltreatment experiences and environmental turbulence (e.g., number of moves, caseworkers), placing them at greater risk for poorer physical and mental health. The International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF) provides a framework to describe health conditions and severity of disabilities for an individual and/or group in the context of environmental factors. The Maltreatment and Adolescent Pathways (MAP) study is a longitudinal study, assessing self-reports on variables (e.g., child maltreatment history, trauma symptoms, dating violence, and substance use) of youth in an urban child protection service system. This study focuses on 11 of the 24 MAP publications that pertain to health and functioning, which can be considered applicable to the ICF framework, following established linking rules. The purpose of this study is to analyze these MAP sub-studies, with maltreatment and involvement in the child welfare system as environmental factors that impact the functioning of child welfare-involved youth. Findings indicate significant relationships across environmental factors (i.e., child maltreatment histories, child welfare system involvement), health conditions (i.e., trauma symptomatology, psychological distress, intellectual disabilities), and functioning problems (i.e., substance use, adolescent dating violence, sexual risk-taking, coping motives, sleep problems). The interrelated nature of these factors in the MAP sub-studies suggests the value of the ICF model to a holistic health view of use to practitioners supporting system-involved youth, clarifying unattended environmental factors in guiding service provision for foster care and/or maltreated youth.

Deconstructing bias: The decision-making process among child protective service workers in Chile

Worldwide, there has been a push toward reforming or abolishing child welfare systems because of systemic bias against families. Few studies have examined the role of bias in decision-making processes among child welfare practitioners, especially in child welfare systems in processes of change/reform. This qualitative study utilized discussion groups with child welfare teams to examine how professionals navigated the decision-making process in cases of child maltreatment. A grounded theory analysis revealed that professionals deconstruct macro, mezzo, and micro biases as they make decisions. Implications for global social work, such as self-reflection and structural changes, and for future research are explored.

Kinship Care

A relative caregiver (commonly called a kinship caregiver) is rearing about 10 percent of children in the United States. While relative caregivers are typically a child’s grandparent, they can also be other relatives (e.g., aunts, uncles, siblings, cousins) or fictive kin (e.g., godparents). The most prevalent care arrangement is classified as informal, denoting an agreement voluntarily brokered between a child’s parent and relative caregivers. However, more commonly discussed in the literature is formal care, where a public child welfare entity has intervened in establishing safeguards for a child, resulting in court action that designates a child a ward of the state and authorizes placement with a relative caregiver. This dichotomous classification involves more nuanced typologies when considering the voluntary versus involuntary nature of agreements and the public versus private auspices under which they fall. For example, a child could be in an informal, private kinship care arrangement brokered by a public child welfare entity. Such distinctions are important not just for classification but because they are often associated with differential levels of support, financial provisions, public oversight, and outcomes (e.g., child well-being, permanency). While typologies vary, there are common reasons why children come to be reared by relatives, including child maltreatment, parental incarceration, physical or mental illness, addiction, death, or abandonment. For children removed from parental care for maltreatment, placement with kin tends to be preferred for most public child welfare agencies. Demographically, Black and Native children are most likely to be reared by kin. Caregivers tend to be women, unmarried, of color, and economically disadvantaged, with an average age of fifty. Kinship caregiver experiences differ, but most report satisfaction with the role and a sense of self-efficacy from ensuring that their relative’s child is safe, nurtured, feels loved, and remains connected to family. Although kinship care is considered a protective factor because children experience more favorable outcomes (e.g., stability) than their counterparts do, many caregivers report being under resourced and experiencing high stress levels. Likewise, many kinship caregivers lack knowledge and direction about legal issues, resources, and pathways to support. Safeguarding children and promoting their well-being is of paramount interest to those involved in kinship care. More recent research and state and federal laws recognize that to advance child well-being, financial provisions, services, and supports must be in place for children and caregivers. Despite significant gains in the past twenty years, the literature, well-supported programs and interventions, and policy related to kinship care remains inchoate.

What Counts as Evidence in Child Welfare Research?

In this commentary, we respond to Barth, R. P., Berrick, J. D., Garcia, A. R., Drake, B., Jonson-Reid, M., Gyouroko, J. R., and Greeson, J. K. P. (2021). Research to consider while effectively re-designing child welfare services. Research on Social Work Practice. https://doi.org/10.1177/10497315211050000 and critique their premise that Western-based research with population-level administrative data is the best and only valid evidence on which to base child welfare policy and practice changes. We offer an alternative viewpoint on what forms of evidence should be brought to bear as we consider re-envisioning the child welfare system, highlighting the importance of lived experience and the need to consider the evidence regarding all marginalized racial and ethnic groups. We argue that evidence should represent the perspectives of those with lived experience and that collaborative child welfare research can strengthen the validity of analyses and interpretations. We hold that Barth et al. ask and answer the wrong questions. We press for deeper critical reflection, a more nuanced intersectional lens, and urgent action to address structural and institutional racism in the child welfare system.

Do the Child Welfare and Protection Services Involve Children in Cases With Parental Mental Health Problems? A Norwegian Case-File Study

Background: Parental mental health problems is a common source of concern reported to child welfare and protection services (CWPS). In this study we explored to what extent the child was invited to participate in the investigation process. We aimed to study: (a) what was the current practice in the child protection service in Norway when the CWPS received a report of concern about children whose parents were affected by mental health problems or substance abuse, (b) to what extent were children involved and consulted, (c) which factors predicted the decision to involve the children, and (d) in cases in which conversations with children were conducted: what was the main content of the conversations.Method: The study was a cross-sectional case file study (N = 1,123). Data were collected retrospectively from case records in 16 different child protection agencies. The cases were randomly drawn from all referrals registered in the participating agencies. Differences in how investigations were conducted in cases with and without concerns about parental mental health were analyzed using t-tests and chi-square testes. Predictors of child involvement in cases with parental mental health problems (N = 324) were estimated by logistic regression analyses.Results: When the referral to the CWPS contained concerns about parental mental health, there were more consultations with parents, more frequent home visits and the investigation took longer to conclude. The children, however, were less likely to be involved. Children in such cases were consulted in 47.5% of cases. Predictors for involving the children in those cases were child age, concern about the child's emotional problems and if the child was known from previous referrals.Conclusion: In Norwegian child protection investigations, in which there were concerns about the parent's mental health, conversations with children were conducted to a significantly lower degree compared to cases where the child's problem was the main concern. In such cases, the CWPS workers have to overcome a threshold before they consult with the child. The threshold decreases with child age and when case worker already knows the child.