Doing The Right Thing:

(Re) Considering risk assessment and safety planning in child protection work with domestic violence cases

Angelique Jenney, MSW, PhD.Director, Family Violence Services,

Child Development InstituteAssistant Professor (Status-Only)

Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social WorkUniversity of TorontoBASPCAN Conference

April 13th, 2015

Rationale for Study Increased recognition of Child Exposure to Domestic Violence

(CEDV) as a child protection issues has led to large numbers of DV cases on Child Protection Services (CPS) caseloads which don’t fit with current approaches to child maltreatment investigations

Concept of safety in assessing risk is pervasive in the violence against women and child protection fields, but remains poorly understood

Little is known about how mothers that are abused by their intimate partners and are involved with CPS perceive their level of risk and need for safety for both themselves and their children

Little is known about how women’s perceptions compare to those of professionals working to assist them

Research Questions1) How are women’s narratives of domestic

violence, expressed within the context of an investigation, translated into CPS workers’ assessments of risk and need for safety planning?

2) How do CPS workers’ and women’s experiences of the risk assessment and safety planning process interact to influence the course of intervention?

Theoretical Framework

Knowledge and action are socially constructed:

Social Constructionism (Charmaz, 2008; Hacking, 1999) Reality is constructed under particular conditions

Social Interactionism (Blumer, 1969) Humans act on the basis of meanings things have for them Meanings derive from social interactions with others Meanings are managed through an interpretive process

Just Practice Framework (Finn & Jacobsen, 2003) Examines social issues through the lens of meaning,

context, history, power & possibility

Method: Grounded Theory Methodology (GTM)

Compliments the epistemological basis of the research questions, which focus on the interaction between worker and client experiences in determining case formulations

Compliments feminist research principles about participant expertise, the value of subjective experience and the relational context of knowledge (Wuest, 1995)

Constructivist GTM (Charmaz, 2000, 2008) is an evolution of method to account for the social construction of experience but core components, such as coding, constant comparison and the use of memos remain unchanged

Study Design andData Collection

Combination of two studies:

1) Differential Response Model in Child Protection cases involving Domestic Violence (DRDV) (Alaggia, Gadalla, & Shlonsky, 2010) for which I served as a research assistant during my doctoral studies;

2) For Whose Own Good (4WOG) designed by myself as a doctoral candidate to explore the process of risk assessment and safety planning with child protection workers specific to cases of domestic violence.

*I was able to contribute my own research questions to each interview guide to obtain the relevant data

Differential Response in Domestic Violence Cases

Quantitative data collection (e.g., client demographics and details of file openings, closings and classifications) collected November 2007 - April 2008 from all the cases investigated by Child Protection Services (CPS) in five child welfare agencies in Ontario to examine trajectory of DV cases under the DR model

Qualitative data collection (11 former clients of the same five child welfare agencies were recruited to participate in individual interviews about their experiences of being investigated due to domestic violence concerns)

For Whose Own Good? (4WOG):

The Construction of Risk and Safety in Domestic Violence Cases within Child Protection Services

17 CPS workers (representation from each participating CPS agency) were recruited 12 individual interviews and 1 focus group (5 participants)

Interview guide probed the process of interaction in risk assessment and safety planning processes from the worker’s point of view and elicited information about various materials/resources workers used to inform practice or to give to women as part of intervention

Material data (e.g., risk assessments/handouts/service brochures) were used in triangulation, to contextualize what individuals said about tools or approaches to safety planning or referrals for clients

Description of SampleDRDV(CPS client

participants)

11 participants self-identified as having been investigated by CPS for DV within past 5 years

All closed files & currently safe

Various ways of entry into the CPS system, including police report, education system, VAW services (e.g., shelter), public health, self-referral

Range of >1 yr to 5+ yrs involvement

Diverse backgrounds, with majority of participants (8) on social assistance, earning less than $25,000 annually, (5) had a College/University education

4WOG (CPS Worker Participants)

17 participants (12 females and 5 males) from 5 CPS agencies

Majority had more than 6 years in the field (12) none with >3 years experience

Range of educational levels, BA (3), BSW (8), CYW (1), and MSW (5) and work experiences

52% had not received formal domestic violence/woman abuse training

Of those who received training 41% had received training in both risk assessment and safety planning

Sample and RecruitmentDRDV(CPS client

participants)

Initially participants were contacted directly by CPS agency and offered the opportunity to participate in the study;

Subsequently a flyer posted in VAW agencies with confidential voice mail was used - participants contacted the researcher and were screened for the study criteria

Criteria were particularly strict and created a fundamental challenge to study participation (investigation had to be solely because of DV)

4WOG (CPS Worker Participants)

Advertisements were posted via email within the same five CPS agencies that were targeted for the larger DRDV research

Interested participants contacted researcher and interview scheduled

Snowballing

One location held an organized staff focus group to facilitate participation

Data Management and Analysis

the principal investigator conducted the focus group and interviews which were audio-taped, transcribed and coded initially by hand then using NVivo 8

to increase transcript accuracy, all meetings were audio-taped using two separate cassette recorders -each interview was transcribed from the recording of one cassette and double-checked for accuracy using the second recording

close involvement by the researcher in all aspects of data collection and management is considered desirable in terms of familiarity and closeness to the data, which enriches the data analysis process

Analysis Transcription as method (notes/memos during

transcription)

Coding and constant comparison

Writing as methodfield notes, memosmethodological journal, documenting all actions taken

and decisions made exposure to relevant materials that prompted thoughts

about my data (e.g., workshops attended, literature read)

reflexive journal continual writing is one of many methods of achieving

trustworthiness in the data

Strategies for RigorQualitative research does not strive to make generalizations to a larger population; but rather “to generate new insights” (Mohr, Fantuzzo, & Abdul-Kabir, 2001, p. 89).

Trustworthiness: Credibility, Transferability, Dependability and Confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)

prolonged engagement triangulation negative case analysis member checking peer support/debriefing audit trail

Thematic Findings

Doing the Right

Thing

Getting the

Picture

Getting Connected

Getting Through

Getting Out

Getting the

History

Getting the

Story

Getting the

Message

UnderstandImpact on Children

DevelopSafety Plans

Managing Contact with Abuser

Being Set Adrift and Living with Risk

Core Category: Doing The Right Thing

Workers and clients held a similar set of beliefs about the social construction/collective representation of woman abuse and the work of child protection that directly influenced the process of intervention

Concept of ‘doing the right thing’ presented itself in all interviews and provides an over-arching theme for understanding the research problem. This theme implies that there is a perceived ‘right way’ of understanding and addressing domestic violence cases within child protection work. The core category contains four sub-categories:

‘Getting the Picture’ of the situation at hand; ‘Getting Connected’ in terms of worker-client relationship; ‘Getting through’ in terms of worker and client both feeling

that they had some impact on the process (and each other); ‘Getting out,’ ending abusive relationships and closing CPS

files.

Getting The PictureGetting Involved, Getting the History and Getting the Story: Assessing the Impact of Abuse and Risk of Re-Involvement

This subcategory illustrates how CPS workers and clients interact in the process of investigation; with each trying to assess the risk of CPS involvement (and potential for re-involvement) from their own perspective. These interactions take place within a process of questions and answers that build a narrative for both worker and client.

“How do we really know?… you get a snapshot of these people’s lives, you get a bit of information, you see the clients a couple of times. I think I’d be irresponsible to say that there’s been times I haven’t missed risk.” (Worker #3)

“I don’t have any magic, I can tell you that.”

“Part of our jobs is to get as much information as you can right? … I’ve got 30 days to put it together – do I close this? … it has to do with how you assess the situation - actually the questions you ask, the information you get, the responses you get … So you weigh all those things but you’re going by your gut feelings, your skills, experiences, I don’t know what else – I don’t have any magic, I can tell you that.” (Worker #10)

“I mean I can’t entirely blame them because I didn’t tell them the truth, right? …as soon as I admit to something they now have to go through a process, and if that had happened? Then it wouldn’t have been ‘is he going to kill me?” it probably would have been ‘he would have killed me’ so like, I’m not going to risk my life just, just so that they can have the truth. As awful as that sounds, my life is more important to me than their paperwork.” (Client #1)

Getting ConnectedHow workers and clients experience relationship as part of the process of intervention.

This sub-category developed out of any reference made to the relationships between worker and client as critical to intervention. It includes understanding the perspective of clients and making an effort to connect or relate on a certain level in order to achieve cooperation or success for the intervention; to get women to ‘do the right thing.’

“Well in domestic violence I find that its always the relationship that we have with the client, with the mom in this case - the stronger our relationship with the mom and the more we can understand her world through her eyes instead of imposing our view, we get them more on board. Once we can get that trust, then we can work together.” (Worker #11)

Getting ThroughUnderstanding the Impact on Children, Developing Safety Plans, and Managing Contact with the Abusive Partner

This sub-category encompasses how CPS workers view the need to educate clients about the dynamics of woman abuse and the impact on children in order to influence them to ‘do the right thing’ (acknowledging the impact of abuse and planning for safety). It is also about how women try to get through to workers what they need from them to assist them in dealing with the abuse they have experienced, survive and move on.

“To let them know that we need to be on the same page, me being the parent I have the talent, we have to be on the same page or this relationship is not gonna work as a parent, and a client, as a client and an agency.”(Client#11)

“... and she been burying it in my head to understand…”

“she’s doing a hard job, and she’s telling me what she think is right. It is left for me to take it or leave it. But she was trying her best. She give me the best advice she could… if wasn’t for Children Aid I wouldn’t get to understand and see my life the way I’m seeing it right now (Client #6)

“Communication is a very big key in a relationship. I’ve looked [CPS agency] as a relationship, professional and personal, because I needed their support and I needed to actually show them that I can do the things that I needed to do.” (Client #11)

“…with our agency and our mandate we have no choice but to get more intrusive and we have to pretty much stay involved if we feel there’s a risk. ..I just had a really bad one - she just was not getting it, not leaving, and you know, doing what we wanted her to do - so we had to go for a supervision order so you know we do have to kind of - we don’t want to threaten them with court but… it ultimately could come to that.” (FG Participant #3)

Getting Out Following through as the Ending of Relationships and the Closing of Cases

This illustrates the theme whereby clients are considered successful upon having ended abusive relationships and whereby CPS workers are considered successful when they close the case.

“With someone like that – who wants help from us and has everything kind of set out like what she wants to do and she’s constantly talking about how she wants her kids to be safe. How she doesn’t want the husband to be there… I will close something like that. Because mom obviously is not going to try to put the kids at risk because she’s worried about her own safety and she doesn’t want him around. And she’s called me to tell me he’s come around, she’s called the police when he comes around so - she’s following through. So we might close someone like that. But the more serious ones, no.” (Worker #5)

Discussion/ConclusionsConsidering the Impact of Discourse on Current

Approaches to Practice collective representations, stock victim ideology & formula stories

Defining the Problem of Woman Abuse within Child Protection Work – differentiating the approach to DV cases – reconsidering risk assessment approach

Therapeutic Relationship in CPS Practice with DV Cases: Risk, Safety and Relationships (safety as process not event)

Loss of Professional Involvement: File Closure and the Sense of Being Set Adrift

Silences in the Data: The Needs of Children and the Absence of Fathers

Limitations Volunteer participants may have unique perspectives

Particular location and distinct nature of the various CPS agencies involved, would not support generalizations

Principal researcher’s ‘insider’ access and perspective may have influenced the interviews

Participants may have attempted to present themselves well, thereby potentially altering the actual recollections of these experiences (Lindhorst & Padgett, 2005)

Client participants were no longer experiencing abuse or CPS involvement which may indicate significantly different views and experiences than women still involved in such relationships (Varcoe & Irwin, 2004)

Implications for Practice Consider the impact of dominant discourse on current approaches

and what this may mean for best practice (leaving vs starting where the client is at)

Re-emphasize the importance of therapeutic relationships in child protection practice, and provide additional resources for CPS workers to engage in longer term relationships with families experiencing domestic violence

Consider differentiating DV cases from other forms of child maltreatment, such as expanding the narrow view of what constitutes change (such as leaving) to incorporate more pragmatic solutions to improving the safety of women and children (such as engaging with men to end abusive behaviours)

Consider the silences in the current data set, that of assessing and addressing the needs of children exposed to violence and the absence of work with abusive fathers

Recommendations for Practice

To recognize complexity of risk assessment and safety planning and work with DV cases more collaboratively which would require: Increased resources to facilitate relationship

building (or at least community referrals in the DR approach)

Additional training of workers and supervisors on:Evaluating riskThe complexity of safety planningImpact on childrenEngagement with fathers/perpetrator accountability

AcknowledgementsThis research was partially funded by a grant from the Social Sciences Humanities Research Council (SSHRC).

A special thank you to all the women and workers who gave of themselves to support this work.

Invaluable members of my doctoral committee:

Faye Mishna, PhDDean & Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social WorkMargaret & Wallace McCain Family Chair in Child & FamilyUniversity of Toronto

Ramona Alaggia, MSW PhD, Associate Professor, Factor-Inwentash Chair in Children’s Mental Health, University of Toronto

Katreena Scott, PhD, C. Psych.Associate Professor and SCCP Program ChairCanada Research Chair in Family Violence Prevention and InterventionUniversity of Toronto 

Thank YouQuestions?