Paper
How evidence based is the assessment of Intimate Partner Violence in child protection risk assessments? A cross national comparison
- issue: Issue 3 / 2008
- authors: Mary Ann Forgey, Mary Allen, Johna Hansen
- keywords: Usa, welfare, child
- views: 4521
- downloaded: 0
- download pdf (65 Kb)
abstract
Background. Child welfare practitioners in many countries now have increased responsibility for assessing intimate partner violence as part of their child risk assessment duties. This expansion of responsibility has come in response to the findings of high levels of co-occurrence of child abuse/neglect and intimate partner violence, as well as the mounting research evidence concerning the emotional harm inflicted on children who witness intimate partner violence (Edelson, 1999; O'Leary, 2000). A a large body of research knowledge about the patterns, risk factors and consequences of intimate partner violence has also accumulated that needs to be integrated into the assessment of IPV (Forgey, 1999). It is not known to what extent child welfare practitioners are integrating this IPV research knowledge into their risk assessment process. Given their expanded responsibility to "assess intimate partner violence", understanding the "evidence-base" of child protection workers' assessments of intimate partner violence is critical.
Study Description. This cross national study explored the extent to which front line child protection practitioners are integrating current intimate partner violence research knowledge into the child risk assessment process. The study employed a focus group format co-led by the investigators. A total of five focus groups were conducted, two in New York City, two in Yonkers, NY and one in Dublin, Ireland. One of the focus groups in New York City and one of the focus groups in Yonkers was made up of participants with master degrees in social work (MSW). All of the Irish focus group participants had MSWs. A detailed protocol was developed by the investigators and used for all five groups. Participants were asked what areas they deemed critical to explore about intimate partner violence (IPV); why they explored this content; how they explored it; and the role this information played in their case formulation and intervention planning process. Research-based knowledge about patterns, risk factors and consequences of IPV not explored in the assessment process was also examined, along with the practitioner's rationale(s) for this lack of exploration.
Findings. Preliminary results from the focus groups conducted in Ireland and in New York indicate that a wide range of IPV content is being explored but explicit research knowledge about intimate partner violence patterns, consequences or risk/protective factors is not a major influence on what content gets explored in the risk assessment process. Furthermore, standardized risk assessment instruments such as scales or indexes were not referenced by any of the participants as a data gathering method. The content explored by the Irish MSW group and the Yonkers MSW group was the most influenced by research than the other groups but only to a small extent. Both the Irish MSW and Yonkers MSW group referenced research as an influence in their exploration of: the severity of the IPV including the extent of injuries sustained; the extent of violence experienced in the family of origin; and the signs and symptoms of emotional impact exhibited by child witnesses.
Practice wisdom rather than research was identified as the major influence on what IPV related content was explored in the child risk assessment process. Relying so heavily however, on practice experience alone to inform what content gets explored may explain why some key researched based content areas such as adult sexual abuse within IPV and the direction of the IPV (unilateral vs. bi-directional) were not explored routinely as part of the risk assessment process.
Other influences identified included statutes/regulations, MSW education, personal/ cultural background, the socio-political context and organizational culture. The Irish practitioners were influenced by their MSW education to a much greater extent than the Yonkers and New York City MSW participants. In particular, the social justice content of the MSW degree had greater influence on the Irish practitioners' assessment process and appeared to explain their increased attention to environmental factors in the calculation of risk. The statutory/regulatory influence was strongest for the New York City participants, most likely due to the adoption of a detailed assessment protocol within the agency that must be completed on every case. Major qualitative differences were found in organizational culture, particularly between the New York City and Irish participants. The New York City focus group participants described a more hierarchical, top down management structure. The Irish focus group participants described a more bottom up decision making process in which they had more control over what IPV content to explore in their assessment of risk. These organizational differences may explain some of the other influence differences among the groups.
Results from this study provide increased understanding from the practitioner's perspective about the reality of the research to practice transfer process and the other influences that appear to be driving the practice of child risk assessment in relation to the witnessing of IPV.
Recommendations. To Policy: In order to increase the research to practice transfer, how each of these identified influences can support or impede this transfer process must be understood. The successful implementation of strategies/tools to strengthen the research to practice transfer in the assessment process (e.g. evidence based practice guidelines/protocols, use of standardized scales) will require the development of strategies that fit the particular agency's influence framework.
To Professionals: A more conscious understanding by child welfare professionals themselves of 1) the extent to which research knowledge influences their assessment process and 2) what other influences impact their assessment process is needed. The practitioner's own understanding of their own influence framework is a critical first step in strengthening the research to practice transfer process.
To Research: Further research is needed to verify the "influence framework" found in this study. More understanding is needed as to how the "influence framework" may vary in different practice settings and the implications of this variation on the research to practice transfer process.
Key references
Edelson, J. (1999). Children's witnessing of adult domestic violence. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14(5), 839-870.
Forgey, M. A. (1999). Social work assessment in intimate partner violence; Integrating the empirical knowledge base. Journal of Applied Social Sciences, 24(1), 3-16.
O'Leary, K. D., Smith Slep, A. M. & O'Leary, S. (2000). Co-occurrence of partner and parent aggression: Research and treatment implications. Behavior Therapy, 31, 631-648.
Contacts: Mary Ann Forgey, Ph.D., LCSW, Fordham University Graduate School of Social Work, 113 West 60th Street, New York, NY 10023, E-mail: forgey@fordham.edu, home 212-636-6642.