A Look into Child Welfare Cases: Risk and Re-reports in the Context of Intimate Partner Violence
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Child welfare services receive a large proportion of referrals due to concerns about child exposure to intimate partner violence (CEIPV). Fathers, cohabitating and non-cohabitating boyfriends, and stepfathers are disproportionately the perpetrators of CEIPV. Assessment of CEIPV within child welfare services does not include an examination of IPV-specific risk factors found to predict recidivism and dangerous violence in other public sectors. The objectives of my dissertation were to: (1) Describe the profiles and characteristics of fathers and determine what is known about child and IPV risk among fathers transferred to ongoing services following verified CEIPV; (2) Examine whether level of risk was associated with child welfare workers’ decisions on level of involvement with fathers as part of ongoing services; (3) Examine which case characteristics were associated with a new report that was investigated and verified (i.e., verified re-report) by child welfare within two years of transfer to ongoing services, and (4) Determine whether IPV-specific risk factors predicted verified re-reports relative to the risk factors commonly assessed by child welfare. The sample included 231 cases verified for father-perpetrated CEIPV. Results confirmed the presence of moderate to high numbers of IPV-specific risk factors in verified cases of CEIPV; however, cumulative IPV risk did not predict level of worker involvement with fathers. Cumulative child risk significantly predicted worker level of involvement, such that higher risk predicted less worker involvement with fathers. At the bivariate level, fathers’ living status (i.e., whether or not he lived with a child) was negatively associated with cumulative child risk, such that more risk was related to fathers not living with their child. Examining outcomes over two years found that 22.5% of families received a verified re-report to child welfare services, with most re-reported for verified CEIPV. Surprisingly, IPV risk level was not associated with verified re-reports for cases involved in ongoing services. Given the overrepresentation of racialized minorities in the child welfare system, follow-up exploratory analyses were conducted to examine possible differences between race groups on what predicts workers’ involvement and verified re-reports to child welfare. The implications of this study and future directions are discussed, with the overarching suggestion that valid risk assessment tools are needed to help direct practice to meet the safety needs of diverse children and mothers facing IPV.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,012 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».