A Childless Child Protective Service? the Place of Child Wellbeing in Child Protective Service Work

Purpose:

The Administration on Children, Youth, and Families has called attention to the importance of expanding Child Protective Service (CPS) work to focus on child wellbeing in addition to child safety. However, very little is known about how, if at all, CPS workers incorporate issues related to child wellbeing into their routine practice. This study examines how Child Protective Service (CPS) workers consider child wellbeing in their decision-making about neglect cases. Neglect cases are an important site for investigation because there is little agreement about what constitutes the need for intervention. The purpose of this study is to provide insight into casework to inform policy and practice.

Methods:

Data from this study draws from participant observation and 66 semi-structured interviews with CPS workers in two states. Interviews were audio-taped and transcribed with analysis conducted in accordance with the principles of grounded theory. Using Nvivo 10, interviews were coded thematically by a research team to uncover how CPS workers considered child wellbeing in their case decision-making.

Findings:

Findings demonstrate that CPS workers used parent centered definitions of neglect when making child welfare decisions. Case assessments rarely included relational measures, evaluations of the parent-child relationship, or considerations of child wellbeing. The child welfare investigation began with a concern about the child but evolved to focus almost exclusively on the parent(s). CPS workers descriptions of their cases included detailed accounts of the caregiver but little information about the children and adolescents at the center of their investigations. When child wellbeing was a central factor in case decision-making, it was almost exclusively for infants and young children. Issues related to wellbeing were less likely to be considered for adolescents who suffered from neglect.  CPS workers reported that they often did not consider wellbeing in these cases because adolescents were able to “take care of themselves” or because they were close to adulthood with relatively few good options for placement.  In the latter scenario, home placement was deemed to be the best solution.

Implications:

These findings raise serious questions about CPS’s ability to consider broader concepts of child and adolescent wellbeing in case investigations.By evaluating neglect based on whether a parent has failed to provide appropriate care, a parent-centered approach renders the child’s experience and their wellbeing secondary to the performance of parenting.  In order to include child wellbeing in case decision-making, child welfare policy must shift towards an ecological framework. An ecological framework forms the basis for a child-centered standard where neglect is defined by whether a child’s basic needs are met not on what the parent has done or has failed to provide.  Finally, the wellbeing of adolescents should not be ignored simply because there are fewer good options. Instead practice and policy must find a way to meet the needs of adolescents as well as young children. Including child wellbeing in CPS work represents a grand challenge for social work.