از گفتمان های در حال تکامل تا روش های رویه ای جدید در خشونت خانگی و خدمات حفاظت از کودکان
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|36154||2008||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||7309 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Children and Youth Services Review, Volume 30, Issue 6, June 2008, Pages 689–698
This article examines the evolution of the discourse surrounding domestic violence (DV), explores how that discourse intersects with public child welfare (PCW), and makes some suggestions for improving the quality and consistency of services for families involved with these systems in both the United States and Canada. In particular, the discourse at the intersection of the two systems has focused on whether or not children's exposure to DV is maltreatment and, further, if it warrants placement in foster care. Within the PCW system itself, data seem to point to divisions in worker beliefs over what circumstances necessitate removal of children and what solutions should be pursued in order to achieve permanence. Legislation and courts have spoken to this complex issue. Given the tension and new developments in the field, this article proposes that harm reduction (HR), evidence-based practice (EBP), and differential response (DR) approaches can bring the two systems together in order to better serve families.
Both the child welfare (CW) and domestic violence (DV) systems assume a primary victim protection mandate: the former is charged with protecting children from further maltreatment at the hands of their caregivers (usually birth parents), the latter with preventing primarily women from further victimization at the hands of an abusive partner. Given that these sectors often serve the same clients and have a common mandate to promote the well being of families, one would presume the sectors would work closely and collaboratively. Yet a deeply entrenched history of “isolationist” and “protectionist” tendencies in each sector, and across two countries – the United States and Canada – has resulted in persistent tensions and conflicts between the two (Beeman, Hagemeister, & Edleson, 1999). This insularity undoubtedly has contributed to services that are fragmented and may not meet the multiple and complex needs of families. This paper will show that the number of rigorous evaluation studies focusing on such services is fairly limited. Divisions within the public child welfare (PCW) sector 3 compound the divisions between the sectors. Given the tension and new developments in the field, this article proposes that harm reduction (HR), evidence-based practice (EBP), and differential response (DR) approaches can bring the two systems together in order to better serve families.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
We believe that one avenue for easing tensions between child welfare and DV lies in the bridge that can be created between the two systems by using an HR approach for families affected by DV. The HR approach can potentially reduce risk to the child (a goal of CPS) while reducing adult victim risk and preventing victim blaming (goals of DV advocates) (Moles, 2008). Either system would be hard-pressed to argue against these values and goals, and could readily agree to them as shared goals (Moles, 2008). HR can be implemented using an EBP approach, and there is no reason it cannot be adapted to a wide range of problems. Utilizing HR in an EBP context holds the promise of working with families at their own starting point and facilitating their movement along a continuum of safety, while utilizing the best possible evidence to non-judgmentally offer options and evaluate change. While it may be argued that HR is a limited framework because of its emphasis on problems located at the individual level, it does have the potential to effectively deal with violence in families in immediate crisis, while efforts to redress structural problems at macro levels can be simultaneously carried out by existing DV agencies. Evaluating the effectiveness of services and determining which are most appropriate for which client, are challenges facing DV and CPS workers and their respective systems, especially given the internal and inter-sectorial tensions highlighted in this paper. Although the HR philosophy cannot independently address these challenges, its critical value is in the expansion of the range of acceptable outcomes on the path to achieving greater safety. In this context, the adoption of an EBP framework can help ease internal disparities and tensions such as those we described between the adoption hawks and the guardianship doves. Utilizing EBP, both groups can come together over crucial service decisions, both at the practice and policy levels. As mentioned previously, the DV field is already showing evidence of experimenting with HR approaches (Brown, 1997 and Haggerty and Goodman, 2002). We speculate that HR has the potential to address issues of gender in a more equal fashion. For example, if more custodial fathers come into the child welfare system as abused partners, this approach would be suitable for dealing with such situations. Ideally, HR approaches would be best implemented across both sectors forming the basis of a common language and providing a reference point for workers from each. We also believe that a DR approach improves a community's ability to keep children safe. It does this in two ways. First, it can be considered an early and more meaningful response to allegations of DV, before difficulties escalate to the point of harm. Second, it moves from the one size fits all approach by recognizing that situations involving safety questions do vary, they require an individual assessment, and they may be more responsive to processes other than a mandatory government investigation (Schene et al., 2005). Importantly, such an approach may already be working as measured in these five key areas: child safety, strengthening families, cost effectiveness, family satisfaction, and county staff satisfaction (Sawyer and Lohrbach, 2005, Schene et al., 2005 and Waldfogel, in press). Taking rigid and unbending positions both in violence and our reaction to violence can be dangerous and may keep us from understanding how flexible and potentially less intrusive responses may be just what families need. Consistent with evidence-based practice, services must be tailored to the individual families we meet and the range of services offered must include consideration of interventions that have been found to be effective. This does not preclude the ongoing and indispensable efforts to change the structural antecedents of violence in working toward the prevention of domestic violence. They just may not be one and the same.