废除儿童福利的严重影响:通往支持与安全的另一条道路

IF 1.6 3区 社会学 Q2 FAMILY STUDIES
Antonio R. Garcia, Jill Duerr Berrick, Melissa Jonson-Reid, Richard P. Barth, John R. Gyourko, Patricia Kohl, Johanna K. P. Greeson, Brett Drake, Victoria Cook
{"title":"废除儿童福利的严重影响:通往支持与安全的另一条道路","authors":"Antonio R. Garcia,&nbsp;Jill Duerr Berrick,&nbsp;Melissa Jonson-Reid,&nbsp;Richard P. Barth,&nbsp;John R. Gyourko,&nbsp;Patricia Kohl,&nbsp;Johanna K. P. Greeson,&nbsp;Brett Drake,&nbsp;Victoria Cook","doi":"10.1111/cfs.13141","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Scholars and advocates are at odds about how to achieve higher levels of child safety and permanency. Calls for change include the recent upEND focus on eradication of child welfare services to a radical refocusing of the present system towards prevention/early intervention. To clarify the implications of reform over abolition, we seek to portray a future in which the abolition of child welfare has occurred, in juxtaposition to maintaining four core elements of established child maltreatment programmes around the world: (1) receiving and responding to community signals about the risk to children; (2) assessment of need coupled with a proportionate response; (3) rights protections to ensure fairness when placement outside the family is required; and (4) procedures for accountability and quality improvement. For each of these functions, we outline abolitionist advocates' positions and implications for children and parents. Across these elements, we delineate how assigning these responsibilities to communities, as suggested by upEND, would likely (1) exaggerate racial and economic inequities and (2) create structural barriers that would increase harm to children. We suggest several evidence-informed enhancements to practice, research and policy that would mitigate these inequities while also increasing safety and permanency.</p>","PeriodicalId":10025,"journal":{"name":"Child & Family Social Work","volume":"29 4","pages":"896-908"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The stark implications of abolishing child welfare: An alternative path towards support and safety\",\"authors\":\"Antonio R. Garcia,&nbsp;Jill Duerr Berrick,&nbsp;Melissa Jonson-Reid,&nbsp;Richard P. Barth,&nbsp;John R. Gyourko,&nbsp;Patricia Kohl,&nbsp;Johanna K. P. Greeson,&nbsp;Brett Drake,&nbsp;Victoria Cook\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/cfs.13141\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Scholars and advocates are at odds about how to achieve higher levels of child safety and permanency. Calls for change include the recent upEND focus on eradication of child welfare services to a radical refocusing of the present system towards prevention/early intervention. To clarify the implications of reform over abolition, we seek to portray a future in which the abolition of child welfare has occurred, in juxtaposition to maintaining four core elements of established child maltreatment programmes around the world: (1) receiving and responding to community signals about the risk to children; (2) assessment of need coupled with a proportionate response; (3) rights protections to ensure fairness when placement outside the family is required; and (4) procedures for accountability and quality improvement. For each of these functions, we outline abolitionist advocates' positions and implications for children and parents. Across these elements, we delineate how assigning these responsibilities to communities, as suggested by upEND, would likely (1) exaggerate racial and economic inequities and (2) create structural barriers that would increase harm to children. We suggest several evidence-informed enhancements to practice, research and policy that would mitigate these inequities while also increasing safety and permanency.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10025,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Child & Family Social Work\",\"volume\":\"29 4\",\"pages\":\"896-908\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-21\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Child & Family Social Work\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cfs.13141\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"FAMILY STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Child & Family Social Work","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/cfs.13141","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"FAMILY STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

学者和倡导者在如何实现更高水平的儿童安全和永久性方面存在分歧。要求改革的呼声包括最近对根除儿童福利服务的关注,以及从根本上调整现有系统的重点,转向预防/早期干预。为了阐明改革对废除儿童福利的影响,我们试图描绘一个废除儿童福利的未来,并将其与保持世界各地既定的虐待儿童计划的四个核心要素并列:(1) 接收和响应有关儿童风险的社区信号;(2) 评估需求并做出适度反应;(3) 权利保护,以确保在需要进行家庭外安置时的公平性;(4) 问责和质量改进程序。对于每项功能,我们都概述了废除论者的立场以及对儿童和家长的影响。在这些要素中,我们阐述了将这些责任分配给社区(如 upEND 所建议的那样)将如何(1)夸大种族和经济不平等,以及(2)制造结构性障碍,从而增加对儿童的伤害。我们建议对实践、研究和政策进行一些有实证依据的改进,以减轻这些不平等现象,同时提高安全性和永久性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The stark implications of abolishing child welfare: An alternative path towards support and safety

Scholars and advocates are at odds about how to achieve higher levels of child safety and permanency. Calls for change include the recent upEND focus on eradication of child welfare services to a radical refocusing of the present system towards prevention/early intervention. To clarify the implications of reform over abolition, we seek to portray a future in which the abolition of child welfare has occurred, in juxtaposition to maintaining four core elements of established child maltreatment programmes around the world: (1) receiving and responding to community signals about the risk to children; (2) assessment of need coupled with a proportionate response; (3) rights protections to ensure fairness when placement outside the family is required; and (4) procedures for accountability and quality improvement. For each of these functions, we outline abolitionist advocates' positions and implications for children and parents. Across these elements, we delineate how assigning these responsibilities to communities, as suggested by upEND, would likely (1) exaggerate racial and economic inequities and (2) create structural barriers that would increase harm to children. We suggest several evidence-informed enhancements to practice, research and policy that would mitigate these inequities while also increasing safety and permanency.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
5.90%
发文量
92
期刊介绍: Child and Family Social Work provides a forum where researchers, practitioners, policy-makers and managers in the field of child and family social work exchange knowledge, increase understanding and develop notions of good practice. In its promotion of research and practice, which is both disciplined and articulate, the Journal is dedicated to advancing the wellbeing and welfare of children and their families throughout the world. Child and Family Social Work publishes original and distinguished contributions on matters of research, theory, policy and practice in the field of social work with children and their families. The Journal gives international definition to the discipline and practice of child and family social work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信