Mapping local policy approaches to child neglect assessment practice and use of tools in England

IF 0.9 4区 社会学 Q3 FAMILY STUDIES Child Abuse Review Pub Date : 2023-07-19 DOI:10.1002/car.2842
Monica Duman, Sarah Bekaert, Alison Cocks, Jane V. Appleton
{"title":"Mapping local policy approaches to child neglect assessment practice and use of tools in England","authors":"Monica Duman,&nbsp;Sarah Bekaert,&nbsp;Alison Cocks,&nbsp;Jane V. Appleton","doi":"10.1002/car.2842","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Child neglect has devastating enduring consequences for children and its identification and assessment remains challenging for practitioners. In England, assessment tools and standardised measures have been incorporated in welfare and safeguarding practice to help practitioners' critical observation and analysis and improve their assessments of risk. However, the picture regarding child neglect assessment practice trends on the ground remains unknown. This mapping exercise aimed to, firstly, provide an overview of the approaches to neglect practice and neglect assessment tools promoted by Local Safeguarding Children Partnerships (LSCPs) across England, and secondly, provide a brief examination of the types of tools advocated. An email survey was sent to the safeguarding leads or chairs of LSCPs in England (<i>n</i> = 121). Forty-two valid responses were received (34.7%). Almost all participating LSCPs had a Neglect Strategy in place and recommended the use of tools and chronologies when working with neglect. Eighteen individual neglect tools were reported with only two of these having undergone psychometric testing. The findings affirm that the use of tools or instruments with low or no testing for psychometric properties continues to be widespread in children's social care and welfare practice in England. Implications and recommendations for practice, policy and future research are discussed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47371,"journal":{"name":"Child Abuse Review","volume":"33 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/car.2842","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child Abuse Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/car.2842","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Child neglect has devastating enduring consequences for children and its identification and assessment remains challenging for practitioners. In England, assessment tools and standardised measures have been incorporated in welfare and safeguarding practice to help practitioners' critical observation and analysis and improve their assessments of risk. However, the picture regarding child neglect assessment practice trends on the ground remains unknown. This mapping exercise aimed to, firstly, provide an overview of the approaches to neglect practice and neglect assessment tools promoted by Local Safeguarding Children Partnerships (LSCPs) across England, and secondly, provide a brief examination of the types of tools advocated. An email survey was sent to the safeguarding leads or chairs of LSCPs in England (n = 121). Forty-two valid responses were received (34.7%). Almost all participating LSCPs had a Neglect Strategy in place and recommended the use of tools and chronologies when working with neglect. Eighteen individual neglect tools were reported with only two of these having undergone psychometric testing. The findings affirm that the use of tools or instruments with low or no testing for psychometric properties continues to be widespread in children's social care and welfare practice in England. Implications and recommendations for practice, policy and future research are discussed.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
绘制英格兰儿童忽视评估实践和工具使用的地方政策方法
儿童被忽视会给儿童带来灾难性的持久后果,而对从业人员来说,识别和评估儿童被忽视仍然具有挑战性。在英格兰,评估工具和标准化措施已被纳入福利和保障实践中,以帮助从业人员进行批判性观察和分析,并改进他们对风险的评估。然而,有关儿童忽视评估实践趋势的实际情况仍不得而知。这项摸底调查的目的首先是概述英格兰地方儿童保护合作组织(LSCPs)所提倡的忽视实践方法和忽视评估工具,其次是简要考察所提倡的工具类型。我们通过电子邮件向英格兰地方保护儿童合作组织(LSCPs)的保护负责人或主席发送了一份调查问卷(n = 121)。共收到 42 份有效回复(34.7%)。几乎所有参与调查的地方社会保护委员会都制定了 "忽视策略",并建议在处理忽视问题时使用工具和年表。共报告了 18 种个别的忽视工具,其中只有两种经过了心理测试。调查结果表明,在英格兰的儿童社会关怀和福利实践中,使用心理测量属性测试较低或未经测试的工具或手段的现象仍然很普遍。本文讨论了对实践、政策和未来研究的影响和建议。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Child Abuse Review
Child Abuse Review Multiple-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.20%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Child Abuse Review provides a forum for all professionals working in the field of child protection, giving them access to the latest research findings, practice developments, training initiatives and policy issues. The Journal"s remit includes all forms of maltreatment, whether they occur inside or outside the family environment. Papers are written in a style appropriate for a multidisciplinary audience and those from outside Britain are welcomed. The Journal maintains a practice orientated focus and authors of research papers are encouraged to examine and discuss implications for practitioners.
期刊最新文献
An analysis of child safeguarding cases managed by National Governing Bodies of sport across England and Wales The intersection of child protection and healthcare: Paediatric social admissions Proactive and reactive sibling aggression and their mediating effects on the relationship between exposure to parental violence and adulthood intimate partner violence perpetration Does money motivate prospective foster parents? Are responses from high vs. low-income towns different? Evidence from Google advertising A thematic analysis of the involvement of children and families in Child Safeguarding Practice Reviews in England
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1