This study employs a vignette survey method to examine and compare how child protection workers in Norway, England and the United States (California) assess the risk level for an infant subjected to neglect by a mother with a possible intellectual disability (ID). The research objectives are; first, to establish whether the assessment of risk level varies between countries, and second, to compare the justifications workers give for their assessment.
Parents with an ID or borderline ID and their children are a particularly vulnerable group that, although small, is disproportionately represented in child welfare. Studies from several countries show children of ID parents are more likely to grow up in foster care compared to children in the general population.
The study examines how 297 child protection workers react to a vignette with clear indicators of infant neglect (Norway n=102, England n=97, U.S. n=98.). Workers rated risk on a five-point scale, from very low risk to very high risk. They were then asked to provide an open ended answer to what case specifics were important to their risk assessment. The open-ended answers were then subject to a qualitative analysis, to establish risk justification categories, that could then be compared across countries.
Which dimensions of the case do workers focus on? Is parental ID an independent reason for concern, or are they more concerned with parental behaviour? Do they consider the child’s vulnerabilities? Finally, do workers consider potential aid from the family network?
The three countries have different child welfare orientations: Norway is a family-service and child-focused system, California is a child-protection system, and England is a child-protection system with some family-service characteristics. There are also differences in the countries’ applied assessment tools. Norwegian workers rely on their professional discretion in assessments. California employs a strict actuarial assessment tool, whereas England uses a consensus-based Assessment Framework. These central differences lead us to expect important cross-country differences in how workers assess and justify risk. If this is the case, we ask whether the differences are due to differing views or approaches to working with parents with an ID, whether the tools function to focus workers’ attention on certain dimensions of cases, and whether there may be wider systemic differences in welfare orientation that may provide plausible explanations.
Key findings show that workers across all countries agree that this is a high-risk case. However, reasons behind the assessments vary across countries. Californians display a greater range and more uniform reasoning compared to the English and Norwegians, and pay more attention to mother’s cognitive functioning, and child age and health. English and Norwegians are generally more similar, but Norwegians pay very little attention to social and environmental factors and the English are less attentive to the mother’s cognitive functioning.
Two primary conclusions can be drawn from this study: First, the combination of parental ID and infant neglect generates a uniform response of serious risk. This indicates that some types of neglect may be more universally accepted as cause for concern.
Second, despite similarity in risk assessment, there are clear differences among countries in how workers justify risk. It is likely that U.S. child protection’s emphasis on averting risk is triggered by child age, health issues, when combined with the caretaker’s poor parenting skills and an intellectual disability. These factors are emphasized in the assessment tool employed by Californians.
Our findings support earlier studies that find that parental ID and concern about neglect are red flags to workers. This result is indicated by the strong emphasis on the mother’s abilities shown by workers from all three countries and the relatively weaker focus on the child’s particular vulnerabilities.
Assessment and decision making in child welfare , Other topics
