Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
3.1
1.7
Journals
Societies
Special Issues
Child Protection and Child Welfare
share announcement

Child Protection and Child Welfare

A special issue of Societies (ISSN 2075-4698).

Deadline for manuscript submissions: closed (31 December 2021) | Viewed by 38640

Special Issue Editor

Dr. Ian Kelvin Hyslop

E-Mail Website
Guest Editor
Department of Education and Social Work, University of Auckland, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
Interests: social work; social exclusion, child protection

Special Issue Information

Dear Colleagues,

This special edition of the open access journal Societies (ISSN 2075-4698) is concerned with the interface between child welfare and child protection. In Anglophone countries, child protection systems are at something of a crossroads. The template for child protection has changed little since the 1960s, and there is significant debate internationally over the need for a paradigm shift. Furthermore, the targeting of problem families as the source of social ills connects with liberal politics, the capitalist social form, and the eugenic populationist approaches to poverty that emerged in the late nineteenth century.

Recent research has delivered clear evidence that the notify, detect and assess model of statutory child protection delivers unequal outcomes in terms of gender, class and racial bias in societies characterized by social and economic inequality. State care during the latter half of the twentieth century delivered a damaging legacy that continues to echo in the present. These disturbing patterns beg critical questions about the design of child welfare services, including the way that authority is distributed between the state and communities of interest, the balance between support services and coercive intervention, and the relationship with wider policies of economic distribution and community empowerment. The future of policy and practice will also be impacted by the intervention possibilities that arise from the analysis of population datasets and the use and abuse of algorithmic governance.

Child welfare and child protection initiatives are politically located and contested. Globally, systems of child protection are developing in response to local and regional needs and changing perceptions about children’s rights during a period of rapid social and economic change, including the suffering and insecurity generated by the COVID-19 pandemic. The construction—or reconstruction—of child protection systems in this context potentially provides an opportunity to learn from the past and opens the possibility for progressive research-informed development. This should provoke wider debate about the nature and function of social work in relation to child wellbeing, including the role of the profession in responding to individual needs and systemic disadvantages.

Contributors are invited to submit research-based articles and/or academic commentary pieces between 4000 and 6000 words in length that address some of the questions arising from the above and begin to explore fresh visions in the design of child welfare and child protection practice in national and/or global contexts.

The contributions must follow one of the three categories (article/review/conceptual paper) of papers for the journal and address the topic of the Special Issue.

Dr. Ian Kelvin Hyslop
Guest Editor

Manuscript Submission Information

Manuscripts should be submitted online at www.mdpi.com by registering and logging in to this website. Once you are registered, click here to go to the submission form. Manuscripts can be submitted until the deadline. All submissions that pass pre-check are peer-reviewed. Accepted papers will be published continuously in the journal (as soon as accepted) and will be listed together on the special issue website. Research articles, review articles as well as conceptual papers are invited. For planned papers, a title and short abstract (about 100 words) can be sent to the Editorial Office for announcement on this website.

Submitted manuscripts should not have been published previously, nor be under consideration for publication elsewhere (except conference proceedings papers). All manuscripts are thoroughly refereed through a double-blind peer-review process. A guide for authors and other relevant information for submission of manuscripts is available on the Instructions for Authors page. Societies is an international peer-reviewed open access monthly journal published by MDPI.

Please visit the Instructions for Authors page before submitting a manuscript. The Article Processing Charge (APC) for publication in this open access journal is 1400 CHF (Swiss Francs). Submitted papers should be well formatted and use good English. Authors may use MDPI's English editing service prior to publication or during author revisions.

Keywords

  • child welfare
  • child protection
  • inequality
  • poverty
  • surveillance
  • intervention
  • children’s rights

Benefits of Publishing in a Special Issue

  • Ease of navigation: Grouping papers by topic helps scholars navigate broad scope journals more efficiently.
  • Greater discoverability: Special Issues support the reach and impact of scientific research. Articles in Special Issues are more discoverable and cited more frequently.
  • Expansion of research network: Special Issues facilitate connections among authors, fostering scientific collaborations.
  • External promotion: Articles in Special Issues are often promoted through the journal's social media, increasing their visibility.
  • e-Book format: Special Issues with more than 10 articles can be published as dedicated e-books, ensuring wide and rapid dissemination.

Further information on MDPI's Special Issue polices can be found here.

Published Papers (8 papers)

Download All Papers
Order results
Result details
Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:

Research

Jump to: Other

15 pages, 294 KiB  
Article
Structures of Oppression in the U.S. Child Welfare System: Reflections on Administrative Barriers to Equity
by Lisa Merkel-Holguin, Ida Drury, Colleen Gibley-Reed, Adrian Lara, Maleeka Jihad, Krystal Grint and Kendall Marlowe
Societies 2022, 12(1), 26; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12010026 - 14 Feb 2022
Cited by 17 | Viewed by 11833
Abstract
In the United States, child welfare reform efforts have dominated three decades of landscape. With glimmers of systemic promise and innumerable individual success stories, data suggest insufficient improvements, resulting in calls for transformation and even abolition. In this article, the authors illustrate structures [...] Read more.
In the United States, child welfare reform efforts have dominated three decades of landscape. With glimmers of systemic promise and innumerable individual success stories, data suggest insufficient improvements, resulting in calls for transformation and even abolition. In this article, the authors illustrate structures of oppression that bolster the system’s tentacles, in regulating family life, contributing to racial disparities, reinforcing economic hardships, and supporting policies of family separation. Some of the structures take the form of practices, policies, laws or regulations. Individually and collectively, these structures may serve to oppress and harm those that the child welfare system intends to help. In this article, we include mandated reporting, substantiation decisions, central registries, decision-making processes, background checks, ongoing service delivery frameworks, conservative interpretations of confidentiality statutes, and how immigration status interplays with child welfare. Each of these structures could warrant an individual article, delving into the inner workings of how each oppresses families and the professionals who work with them. We also recognize that there are other structures of oppression that this article will not address. We encourage other scholars to not only continue the identification of oppressive structures, but to also work collaboratively, to generate solutions that dismantle these mechanisms that continue to perpetuate harm and unnecessary family separation. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Child Protection and Child Welfare)
19 pages, 773 KiB  
Article
More Money, More Problems? Addressing the Funding Conditions Required for Rights-Based Child Welfare Services in England
by Calum J. R. Webb
Societies 2022, 12(1), 9; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12010009 - 6 Jan 2022
Cited by 9 | Viewed by 3235
Abstract
Policymakers and academics continue to debate the criteria used in formulas to allocate funding to children’s services, but few studies have considered how well the results of these formulas align with rights-based entitlements and commitments after implementation. This research measured correspondence between local [...] Read more.
Policymakers and academics continue to debate the criteria used in formulas to allocate funding to children’s services, but few studies have considered how well the results of these formulas align with rights-based entitlements and commitments after implementation. This research measured correspondence between local authority spending per child and levels of income deprivation, special educational needs, and child development from 2011–2019 to assess the extent to which funding matches local authorities’ statutory responsibilities to provide support to children ‘in need’ under the Children Act 1989. There was weak and worsening correspondence between funding and needs, especially for preventative services. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Child Protection and Child Welfare)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

17 pages, 295 KiB  
Article
Can a Paradigm Shift from Risk Management to Critical Reflection Improve Child-Inclusive Practice?
by Christine Morley, Joanne Clarke, Chez Leggatt-Cook and Donna Shkalla
Societies 2022, 12(1), 1; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12010001 - 22 Dec 2021
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 4138
Abstract
Child protection systems within Anglophone countries have been increasingly dominated by neoliberal managerial, risk-dominant paradigms over the past three decades. Assumed to deliver a cost-effective strategy to increase the safety of children, there are many ways this paradigmatic combination systematically undermines child welfare, [...] Read more.
Child protection systems within Anglophone countries have been increasingly dominated by neoliberal managerial, risk-dominant paradigms over the past three decades. Assumed to deliver a cost-effective strategy to increase the safety of children, there are many ways this paradigmatic combination systematically undermines child welfare, participation, and well-being. This paper specifically focuses on the ways that risk assessment, neoliberal, and managerial discourses have infiltrated practice and operate to silence and exclude children’s voices. It draws on two case studies to showcase key findings of a comprehensive, state-wide research project called Empowering Children’s Voices, which was initiated by UnitingCare, a non-government organisation within Queensland, Australia, and conducted in partnership with researchers from Queensland University of Technology. It will be argued that a paradigm shift towards a critically reflective reinterpretation of risk can be far more effective at promoting child-inclusive practice and establishing children’s empowered voices as a protective factor against harm. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Child Protection and Child Welfare)
18 pages, 296 KiB  
Article
Protection of Immigrant Children and Youth at Risk: Experiences and Strategies of Social Integration in Portugal
by Inês Casquilho-Martins and Thais Matela
Societies 2021, 11(4), 122; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11040122 - 1 Oct 2021
Viewed by 2223
Abstract
Over the years, social projects and programmes in Portugal have resulted in actions and outcomes to improve the integration and social inclusion of immigrant children and young people in socially vulnerable territories. This article aims to analyse the intervention experiences of teams with [...] Read more.
Over the years, social projects and programmes in Portugal have resulted in actions and outcomes to improve the integration and social inclusion of immigrant children and young people in socially vulnerable territories. This article aims to analyse the intervention experiences of teams with immigrant children and young people at risk. The developed study focused on a qualitative approach through the systematisation of measures to protect the rights of immigrant children and young people in Portugal. Semi-structured interviews were also carried out with professionals working in multidisciplinary teams intervening with immigrant children and young people. The results allow the identification of strategies and intervention methods with a positive impact on social integration supported by collaborative and participatory methodologies, but also highlight limitations such as cultural and linguistic barriers, and lack of children’s participation. Thus, it becomes fundamental to value the central role of children and young people in promoting and guaranteeing their rights. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Child Protection and Child Welfare)
21 pages, 325 KiB  
Article
Social Representations of Children and Parents in Parliamentary-Committee Debates about the Inclusion of Child Psychological Maltreatment in the Quebec Youth Protection Act
by Nathalie Plante and Lilian Negura
Societies 2021, 11(3), 114; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11030114 - 18 Sep 2021
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 2445
Abstract
Child psychological maltreatment (CPM) was incorporated into the Quebec Youth Protection Act (YPA) in 2006. At that time, various civil-society actors were invited to present to Parliament their views on these legislative changes. The objective of this article is to document the social [...] Read more.
Child psychological maltreatment (CPM) was incorporated into the Quebec Youth Protection Act (YPA) in 2006. At that time, various civil-society actors were invited to present to Parliament their views on these legislative changes. The objective of this article is to document the social representations mobilized by the stakeholders in the parliamentary committee in relation to the inclusion of CPM in the Quebec YPA. After explaining our research objectives, questions, and methodology, we will discuss our results, in particular about the distinctive nature of children as a representational object. This specificity will be analyzed in order to better understand the type of communication it generates and the corresponding hegemonic representation of parents. Specifically, implications related to the representational dynamics identified are discussed in relation to our collective capacity (or incapacity) to debate sensitive issues such as child abuse. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Child Protection and Child Welfare)

Other

Jump to: Research

19 pages, 679 KiB  
Concept Paper
Mechanisms of Inequity: The Impact of Instrumental Biases in the Child Protection System
by Emily Keddell
Societies 2022, 12(3), 83; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12030083 - 24 May 2022
Cited by 7 | Viewed by 4580
Abstract
The structural risk perspective conceptualizes the causes of inequities in child protection system contact as unequal exposure to the structural causes of child abuse risk, combined with biases in the responses of child welfare workers and reporters. This conceptual article proposes a third [...] Read more.
The structural risk perspective conceptualizes the causes of inequities in child protection system contact as unequal exposure to the structural causes of child abuse risk, combined with biases in the responses of child welfare workers and reporters. This conceptual article proposes a third mechanism of inequity: instrumental biases. It is proposed that instrumental biases operate as a third group of mechanisms that inequitably increase the involvement of some groups and not others. Instrumental biases operate through institutional structures, interpretive concepts and risk proxies that affect how risk is coded and becomes attached to particular people. Against the background of the notify-investigate model that creates poor conditions for decision making, and shapes institutional structures, instrumental biases include the miscalibration of the demand and supply of services (an institutional cause); family-specific surveillance bias and a reliance on prior case histories (a risk proxy cause); widening legal definitions of serious harm (an interpretive concept cause); and complex responses to intimate partner violence that minimize theories of IPV and the social context it occurs within (concept and risk proxy causes). It is argued that within the decision-making context of the child protection system, how services are structured and risk becomes codified has disproportionate impacts on some communities compared to others. Examples from Aotearoa New Zealand, with reference to Māori and people living in high-deprivation areas, are used to illustrate these concepts. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Child Protection and Child Welfare)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

11 pages, 246 KiB  
Concept Paper
Changed for the Better: The Modifiable Maltreatment Factors Framework
by Megan Feely
Societies 2022, 12(1), 21; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc12010021 - 9 Feb 2022
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2809
Abstract
Rates of child maltreatment in the U.S. have been relatively stagnant since the 1990s. This lack of progress suggests that prevention efforts, which have primarily focused on individual behaviors, have been unsuccessful. Building on existing research, this conceptual paper identifies the need to [...] Read more.
Rates of child maltreatment in the U.S. have been relatively stagnant since the 1990s. This lack of progress suggests that prevention efforts, which have primarily focused on individual behaviors, have been unsuccessful. Building on existing research, this conceptual paper identifies the need to refocus prevention efforts on changeable and causal risk factors. The Modifiable Maltreatment Factors (MMF), a new framework to classify risk factors for maltreatment, is introduced. Use of the MMF in social work education and child protective services work could increase the understanding of macro factors in child maltreatment and the possibilities of policy change and community organizing in maltreatment prevention. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Child Protection and Child Welfare)
13 pages, 598 KiB  
Concept Paper
The “Undeserving” Narrative in Child and Family Social Work and How It Is Perpetuated by “Progressive Neoliberalism”: Ideas for Social Work Education
by Jane Fenton
Societies 2021, 11(4), 123; https://doi.org/10.3390/soc11040123 - 8 Oct 2021
Cited by 4 | Viewed by 5392
Abstract
“Progressive neoliberalism” is the current hegemonic approach to understanding social justice in Western liberal democracies. “Progressive neoliberalism” also resurrects the “deserving” vs. “undeserving” narrative that can lead to punitive and pathologising approaches to poor and unemployed people—the demographic comprising the majority of child [...] Read more.
“Progressive neoliberalism” is the current hegemonic approach to understanding social justice in Western liberal democracies. “Progressive neoliberalism” also resurrects the “deserving” vs. “undeserving” narrative that can lead to punitive and pathologising approaches to poor and unemployed people—the demographic comprising the majority of child and family social work service users. Indeed, research suggests that social workers’ attitudes towards families in poverty are strikingly congruent with “progressive neoliberalism.” This article suggests that generational changes and the particular form of group-based identity, postmodern social justice ideology often taught in social work education have unwittingly conspired to create this concerning picture. This article suggests that the resurrection of radical social work, with attention to economic inequality, is one way to counteract this trend. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Child Protection and Child Welfare)
►▼ Show Figures

Figure 1

Show export options expand_more Show export options expand_less
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
 
Displaying articles 1-8
Back to TopTop