Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-hfldf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-04T00:25:56.963Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Continuous family assessment: How are you going? How are you going now?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Marianne Berry  and
Scottye J. Cash
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Working with children and families experiencing child maltreatment requires that a practitioner understand the family: their risks, their needs, their strengths, and the goals of the intervention. Therefore, many of the tools and training topics that support this work focus on family and child assessment. The purposes of a thorough assessment are to understand the immediate circumstances so that children are protected, and interventions are relevant to the child and family's circumstances and events. This paper presents a new assessment tool that is ecologically oriented, empirically based, and able to provide a continuous assessment of the child and family that can chart improvements and declines over the life of a case.

Keywords

assessmentstrengths
Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 34 , Issue 1 , 2009 , pp. 47 - 53
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baird, C. & Wagner, D. (2000) ‘The relative validity of actuarial and consensus-based risk assessment systems’, Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 839–871.Google Scholar
Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T. & Johnson, W. (1999) ‘Risk assessment in child protective services: Consensus and actuarial model reliability’, Child Welfare, 78, 723–748.Google Scholar
Barth, R.P. & Jonson-Reid, M. (2000) ‘Outcomes after child welfare services: Implications for the design of performance measures’. Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 763–787.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berry, M. (1994) Keeping families together. New York, NY: Garland Publishers.Google Scholar
Berry, M., Cash, S.J. & Mathiesen, S. (2003) ‘Validation of the Strengths and Stressors Tracking Measure’, Child Welfare, 82, 923–948.Google Scholar
Berry, M., Bussey, M. & Cash, S.J. (2001) ‘Evaluation in dynamic environment: Assessing change when nothing is constant’, (pp. 286–319), in Walton, E., Sandau-Beckler, P. & Mannes, M. (eds), Balancing Family-Centered Services and Child Well-Being, New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Berry, M., McCauley, K. & Lansing, T (2007) ‘Permanency through group work: A pilot intensive reunification program’, Child and Adolescent Social Work, 24(5), 477–493.Google Scholar
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development: Experiments by nature and design, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Camasso, M. & Jagannathan, R. (2000) ‘Modeling the reliability and predictive validity of risk assessment in child protective services’, Children & Youth Services Review, 22, 873–896.Google Scholar
Cash, S.J. & Berry, M. (2003) ‘Measuring service delivery in a placement prevention program: An application to an ecological model’, Administration in Social Work, 27, 65–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cash, S.J. & Berry, M. (2002) ‘Family characteristics and child welfare services: Does assessment drive service provision?’, Families in Society, 83, 499–507.Google Scholar
Cash, S.J. (2001) ‘Risk assessment in child welfare: The art and science’, Children & Youth Services Review, 23, 811–830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chorpita, B.F., Bernstein, A. & Daleiden, E.L. (2008) ‘The Research Network on Youth Mental Health’, Administration Policy Mental Health, 35, 114–123.Google Scholar
DePanfilis, D. & Zuravin, S.J. (2002) ‘The effect of services on the recurrence of maltreatment’, Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 187–205.Google Scholar
DePanfilis, D. & Zuravin, S.J. (2001) ‘Assessing risk to determine the need for services’, Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 3–20.Google Scholar
Fluke, J., Edwards, M., Bussey, M., Wells, S. & Johnson, W. (2001) ‘Reducing recurrence in child protective services: Impact of a targeted safety protocol’, Child Maltreatment, 6, 207–218.Google Scholar
Fraser, M.W., Pecora, P.J. & Haapala, D.A. (1991) Families in crisis: The impact of family preservation services, New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fuller, T.L., Wells, S.J. & Cotton, E.E. (2001) ‘Predictors of maltreatment recurrence at two milestones in the life of a case’, Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 49–78.Google Scholar
Gambrill, E. & Shlonsky, A. (2000) isk assessment in context, Children and Youth Services Review, 22, 813–837.Google Scholar
Halpern, R. (1997) ‘Good practice with multiply-vulnerable young families: Challenges and principles’, Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 253–275.Google Scholar
Inkelas, M. & Halfon, N. (1997) ‘Recidivism in child protective services’, Children and Youth Services Review, 19, 139–161.Google Scholar
Lambert, M. (2005) ‘Emerging methods for providing clinicians with timely feedback on treatment effectiveness: An introduction’, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 141–144.Google Scholar
Lambert, M., Harmon, C., Slade, K., Whipple, J. & Hawkins, E. (2005) ‘Providing feedback to psychotherapists on their patients' progress: Clinical results and practice suggestions’, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 165–174.Google Scholar
Lambert, M.J., Whipple, J.L., Hawkins, E.J., Vermeersch, D.A., Nielsen, S.L. & Smart, D.W. (2003) ‘Is it time for clinicians to routinely track patient outcomes? A meta-analysis’, Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 10, 288–301.Google Scholar
Leschied, A.W., Chiodo, D., Whitehead, P.C., Hurley, D. & Marshall, L. (2003) ‘The empirical basis of risk assessment in child welfare: The accuracy of risk assessment and clinical judgment’, Child Welfare, 82, 527–540.Google Scholar
Lyle, C.G. & Graham, E. (2000) ‘Looks can be deceiving: Using a risk assessment instrument to evaluate the outcomes of child protection services’, Children and Youth Services Review, 22(11), 935–949.Google Scholar
Millar, A., Simeone, R.S. & Carnevale, J.T. (2001) ‘Logic models: A systems tool for performance management’, Evaluation and Program Planning, 24, 73–81.Google Scholar
Munro, E. (2004) ‘A simpler way to understand the results of risk assessment instruments’, Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 877–887.Google Scholar
Pecora, P.J., Seelig, W.R., Zirps, F.A. & Davis, S.M. (eds) (1996) Quality improvement and evaluation in child and family services: Managing into the next century, Washington, DC: Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
Pecora, P.J., Fraser, M.W., Nelson, K.E., McCroskey, J. & Meezan, W. (1995) Evaluating family-based services. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Reed-Ashcraft, K., Kirk, R.S. & Fraser, M.W. (2001) ‘The reliability and validity of the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale’, Research on Social Work Practice, 11(4), 503–520.Google Scholar
Rittner, B. (2002) ‘The use of risk assessment instruments in child protective services case planning closures’, Children and Youth Sendees Review, 24, 189–207.Google Scholar
Sapyta, J., Reimer, M. & Bickman, L. (2005) ‘Feedback to clinicians: Theory, research, and practice’, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 61, 145–153.Google Scholar
Schwalbe, C. (2004) ‘Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making’, Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 561–576.Google Scholar
Shlonsky, A. & Wagner, D. (2005) ‘The next step: Integrating actuarial risk assessment and clinical judgment into an knowledge-based practice framework in CPS case management’, Children and Youth Services Review, 27, 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlonsky, A. & Gambrill, E. (2001) ‘The assessment and management of risk in child welfare services’, Children and Youth Services Review, 23, 1–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Staff, I. & Fein, E. (1994) ‘Inside the black box: An exploration of service delivery in a family reunification program’, Child Welfare, 73, 195–211.Google Scholar