Melanie Shepard
and Michael Raschick, How Child Welfare Workers Assess and Intervene Around
Issues of Domestic Violence, 4 Child Maltreatment 148 (1999).
Research shows
a close connection between domestic violence and child maltreatment.
In recent years,
there has been an increased recognition of this by child
welfare professionals.
However, little empirical work has been done on
the actual
assessments and interventions of frontline child welfare workers
in relationship
to domestic violence. Through surveying public child welfare
workers in
a Midwestern community, this article examines these issues.
Child welfare
agencies have always had involvement with families experiencing
domestic violence.
However, child welfare workers have typically not viewed
domestic violence
intervention as the primary focus of their work (Gordon,
1988; McKay,1994).
In recent years, there has been a growing body of research
documenting
that child abuse and domestic violence (primarily violence
against women
by their male partners) frequently coexist in the same households
(Bowker, Arbitell,
& McFerron,1988; Stacey & Shupe, 1983; Stark & Flitcraft,
1988; Straus,
1983). Increasingly, it is being recognized that child welfare
workers must
address domestic violence issues in their caseloads to effectively
intervene to
improve the well-being and safety of children. Innovative
training programs
are being developed across the country to enhance child
welfare workers'
sensitivity to domestic violence issues and increase their
knowledge and
skills for effective intervention (Aron & Olson,1997). Although
the response
of the child welfare system has been widely viewed as inadequate
(Echlin &
Marshall, 1995), there has been little study of what child protection
services (CPS)
workers actually do when working with these families. The
study will
examine how CPS workers assess and intervene in cases of domestic
violence.
The Problem
Research indicates
that the number of children between the ages of 3 and
17 who witness
domestic violence ranges from 3.3 million to 10 million
(Wolfe, 1997,
p.137). This poses a potential threat to the welfare of children
in two ways.
One relates to the fact that domestic violence and child abuse
frequently
coexist, and the severity of wife beating seems predictive of
the severity
of child maltreatment. In a survey of 1,000 women, Bowker
et al. (1988)
found that 70% of battered women who had children reported
that their
children had also been abused. Bowker et al. also found that
the more injurious
the domestic violence, the more serious was the child
abuse. In their
large scale nationwide study of family violence, Straus,
Gelles, and
Steinmetz (1980) reported that the highest rates of child abuse
were in families
experiencing the greatest amount of domestic violence.
About 77% of
children in families with domestic violence had been abused
at some point
in their lifetime. In a later analysis of this data, Straus
(1983) found
that "only fathers who frequently abused their wives have
elevated rates
of frequently abusing their children." The findings differed
for mothers
in that "the rate of child abuse by those who have been beaten
is at least
double that of mothers whose husbands did not assault them"
(p. 219) .
In a survey of 542 women seen at two shelters for battered women,
45% reported
that their children had been physically abused or seriously
neglected.
Again, this study found that men who battered women more severely
were also more
likely to abuse their children (Stacey & Shupe, 1983).
The second
threat of domestic violence to children stems from the trauma
of children
witnessing domestic violence. There is some professional consensus
that child
witness is inherently abusive (see e.g., Echlin & Marshall,
1995). Wolfe
(1997) believes that witnessing most significantly involves
victims being
"traumatized by fear for themselves and their mothers" and
experiencing
"a painful sense of helplessness." Furthermore, they may "blame
themselves
for not preventing the violence or for causing it" (p. 137).
He cites 64
articles substantiating various types of damage done by child
witnessing
(see also Fantuzzo & Lindquist, 1989;Jaffe, Wolfe, & Wilson,
1990).
There has been
little research looking at the temporal order of domestic
violence and
child maltreatment when both have occurred (Edleson, 1999),
although this
issue could have important assessment implications. Although
domestic violence
seems to frequently precede child maltreatment, it is
possible that
it often follows it. If research finds that the order of
the two phenomena
is somewhat random, a possible explanation would be that
certain families
have a high propensity toward violence in whatever form
it may take.
In that case, the assessment challenge would be identifying
these families
before they exhibit either domestic violence or child maltreatment.
If child maltreatment
frequently precedes domestic violence, it could conceivably
be used to
help predict, and ultimately prevent, the latter from occurring.
The Role of
Child Protection Services
Not surprisingly,
recent studies have indicated that child welfare caseloads
include many
families who are also experiencing domestic violence. Child
protection
workers in Massachusetts reported that an average of 32% of
their cases
also involved domestic violence (Hangen as cited in Edleson,
1999). Caseworkers
identified 35 cases (28%) out of 125 as experiencing
domestic violence
using a domestic violence protocol in New York City (Magen,
Conroy, Hess,
Panciera, & Simon, 1995). Lapham and Johnson (1995), in a
secondary data
analysis done at the same location as the current study,
found that
domestic violence was identified in 39% of child welfare cases
opened in 1992.
They also found that in 57% of the cases where domestic
violence was
identified, the case files did not identify specific services
or referrals
to address it.
Magen and Conroy
(1997) found that 51.3% of women clients in the preventative,
neighborhoodbased
child welfare agencies they studied were victims of domestic
violence. Perhaps
more significant than the rate of incidence itself was
that "almost
three times more women reported being abused" in the study's
screening questionnaire
than had been identified in their referrals (p.
13). In rating
the screening protocol, 66% of the women said it was helpful
to be asked
questions about domestic violence, and they reported that "they
felt better
able to protect themselves or better able to protect their
child as a
result of having talked with their caseworker about domestic
violence"
(p. 10). Magen and Conroy concluded that their research strongly
substantiated
"the need for comprehensive assessment upon intake in child
welfare agencies"
(p. 13). It should be noted that the settings in this
study were
not child protection agencies, although they received many of
their referrals
from child protection.
Child protection
workers are mandated to give first priority to protecting
children. Domestic
violence may not be a problem that they routinely assess
when investigating
child abuse and neglect cases, and when it is identified,
they may not
view it as a priority for intervention. Magen et al. (1995)
reported that
most respondents in a voluntary sample of caseworkers, supervisors,
and administrators
"believe that their number one mandate is to protect
children and
question the role of identifying domestic violence in protecting
children"
(p. 1). McKay (1994) states that "child protection workers have
traditionally
viewed battering not as the primary target problem within
the family,
but as a symptom of an underlying problem" (p. 33).
Echlin and
Marshall (1995) describe the response of the child protection
system as inconsistent,
resulting in some child witnesses of woman abuse
being protected
and others not. They identify three major barriers to intervention:
lack of awareness
about the effects of woman abuse, an overwhelmed child
protection
system, and resistance by advocates for battered women to legislation
and to child
protection services. Some child protection workers may not
be sensitive
to the many obstacles that battered women face in escaping
a violent relationship.
Battered women's advocates have viewed child protection
workers as
unfairly penalizing women by removing children from their care
when they are
not viewed as providing adequate protection from an abusive
partner. On
the other hand, child welfare workers have seen advocates for
battered women
as ignoring the needs of the children. A fundamental division
has existed
in that the battered women's movement has focused on the empowerment
of women, whereas
child welfare has emphasized the safety and wellbeing
of children.
Further complicating this division are differences in philosophy
and structure.
Domestic violence services are typically provided in nonprofit
agencies, whereas
child welfare services have become institutionalized
in the public
sector. Effective intervention strategies that protect children,
but that do
not penalize battered women, are not readily available within
the current
service delivery system.
There are many
reasons why child protection should view domestic violence
as a priority
problem to be assessed in every case. Data indicate that
severe child
abuse is more likely to occur in homes where there is also
severe domestic
violence; this suggests that assessing domestic violence
is critical
in addressing safety issues. There are indications that child
deaths occur
more often in homes where there has been domestic violence.
There was a
documented family history of domestic violence in 55.6% of
child homicide
cases investigated in New York City between 1990 and 1993
(Child Fatality
Review Panel as cited in Magen et al., 1995). In addition
to issues around
safety, failure to address domestic violence issues may
result in unsuccessful
case outcomes. Hotaling, Straus, and Lincoln (1989)
report that
families experiencing child abuse and domestic violence had
higher rates
of child-to-parent violence, violence toward people outside
the family,
and police involvement. This suggests that child welfare workers
who work with
troubled youth may need to give more attention to helping
child witnesses
to cope with the effects of domestic violence. Davis and
Carlson (1987)
found that children in a battered women's shelter who were
also involved
with CPS had more adjustment problems than those who were
not.
The current
study examines the extent to which child welfare workers assess
for domestic
violence issues, with particular attention to issues of dangerousness.
Items to examine
dangerousness were based on a tool developed by Elliott
and Shepard
(1995). The latter resulted from a review of the research,
particularly
the work of Campbell (1995) and Saunders (1995), and practitioner
expertise.
The study also
explores the type of intervention provided by child welfare
workers when
domestic violence is identified. By exploring the kinds of
cases encountered
by child protection workers and the type of intervention
they provide,
it is hoped that more effective intervention strategies can
be developed.
Finally, the
study looks at the incidence of domestic violence in child
welfare caseloads
and the prevalence of different types of child welfare
issues in those
cases identified by workers as involving domestic violence.
THE STUDY SITE
Research was
done at the St. Louis County Social Service Department in
Duluth, Minnesota.
The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP), based
in Duluth,
has been a national leader in developing community services
to address
domestic abuse (Shepard, 1992b) . Not surprisingly, DAIP has
tried to sensitize
the local network of human services, including the county
department
of social services, to domestic violence issues. Reflective
of this, from
1994 to 1996, DAIP and St. Louis County Social Services cosponsored
an extensive
training program for county child welfare workers. This probably
increased many
workers' knowledge and skills in relation to domestic violence,
although its
impact has not yet been formally evaluated.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
This study
evaluated:
1. The incidence
and the prevalence of domestic violence in child welfare
cases
2. Basic assessment
questions child welfare workers ask to screen for the
possible presence
of domestic violence and-in cases that workers identify
as involving
domestic violence-risk factors they use to assess its level
of dangerousness
3. Interventions
child protection workers use in cases involving domestic
violence
POPULATION
AND SAMPLE
The population
consisted of 380 child welfare cases opened in 1996 in South
St. Louis County-which
primarily consists of the city of Duluth. Of those
380 cases,
106 were randomly chosen. After eliminating 11 cases because
they did not
involve any real contact between workers and their client
families, the
sample was reduced to 95 cases. Questionnaires were ultimately
completed on
74 of these 95 cases.
Although they
were not directly sampled, 40 of the 42 workers who had opened
cases in 1996
were included in the study, and 33 of these workers ultimately
completed questionnaires.
Of these, 19 had master's degrees-including 16
MSWs-and the
rest had bachelor's degrees. Twenty-seven had participated
in a specialized
training program on how to work with victims of domestic
abuse, which
was cosponsored by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project
and St. Louis
County Social Services.' We were satisfied with our 83% response
rate and believed
that it was representative of child welfare workers in
this county
agency.
There are limits
to the external generalizability of our results because
we had a relatively
small sample, and Duluth is not typical of much of
the rest of
the country, both because of its moderate size (82,000 people)
and its historically
progressive attitudes and institutions in the area
of domestic
violence. We do, however, feel that site-based, local research
has an important
role in gradually building the knowledge base-currently
in its infancy-relating
to the best interface between child protection
and domestic
violence services. In this context, our study should be considered
exploratory
and its conclusions regarding possible national trends to be
only suggestive.
A more complete story will be told only when there are
many more site-based
studies around the country.
METHOD
Workers were
given one questionnaire for each of the randomly selected
cases they
had opened in 1996. The questionnaire included both open- and
closedended
questions. Some questions directly elicited information about
characteristics
of families in the sample. For instance, workers were asked
whether they
believed that there was a significant risk of domestic violence
occurring (or
recurring) in each case under consideration. Other questions,
focusing on
assessment and intervention, were designed to determine the
extent to which
workers drew on current knowledge in the field of domestic
violence. Respondents
were provided with 28 risk factors for assessing
the severity
of domestic violence and asked which, if any, of the 28 they
had used to
assess dangerousness in the case under consideration. As mentioned
earlier, the
risk factors were based on a tool developed by Elliott and
Shepard (1995).
Respondents
also indicated which of 25 commonly used domestic violence
interventions
they used in those cases where domestic violence was identified
as an issue.
These items were developed by DAIP staff and community practitioners.
Neither of
the above two sets of questions were validated scales, and thus
data analysis
was focused on describing responses to individual questions
and general
patterns of responses between questions.
RESULTS
Incidence of
Domestic Violence in Sample and in Child Abuse and Child Neglect
Cases
Yes/no responses
indicated that, in 32% of the child welfare cases (24
out of 74),
workers believed that domestic violence had either already
occurred or
was at high risk of occurring. This compares with 39% identified
in the study
of cases opened in 1992 (Lapham &Johnson, 1995).
In 30% (6 out
of 20) of those cases where child abuse was addressed, domestic
violence was
identified as having occurred or being at high risk of occurring.
About 35% (6
out of 17) of cases where child neglect received attention
involved domestic
violence. The above data were overlapping because 7 families
experienced
both child abuse and child neglect. Of the 30 families who
received help
for child abuse and/or child neglect, 9 (30%) had a history
of domestic
violence or a high prognosis for this occurring.
Prevalence
of Child Abuse and Child Neglect in Cases Involving Domestic
Violence
Child abuse
was an issue in 25 % of those cases that workers identified
as involving
domestic violence (6 cases out of 24); and the same statistics
were true for
child neglect. Cases where child abuse and/or child neglect
was involved
accounted for 38% (9 cases out of 24) of families with domestic
violence. The
most prevalent child welfare problem in those families with
domestic violence-associated
with 71% of cases (17 of the 24) was "families
in crisis.
" This was not unexpected in view of the fact that families
in crisis was
by far the most frequently listed child welfare issue in
the overall
sample (identified 38 times out of the total 137 responses
to the question
asking what child welfare problems were addressed during
the course
of service provision) .
How Workers
Assessed the Presence and/or Severity of Domestic Violence
In 28 of the
74 cases (38%), workers directly asked the woman whether domestic
violence had
occurred. Later in the survey, workers included 19 of these
28 in the group
of 24 families they identified as either having experienced
domestic violence
in the past or being at high risk for this currently.
In four cases,
workers did not ask the woman whether domestic violence
had occurred
but did ask whether one partner had ever been hit, slapped,
pushed, kicked,
or choked by the other; and in one case, workers did not
raise either
of these two questions but asked whether one partner had ever
been afraid
of being hurt by the other. Thus, in 33 cases (45%), workers
asked at least
one of these three assessment questions. They asked all
three in 26
cases (35%).
The survey
provided workers with 28 specific types of risk factors commonly
used to assess
the severity of domestic violence (e.g., "Victim believed
that partner
might seriously injure or kill them."). Workers were asked
to describe
their use of each of the risk factors in relation to each of
the 24 cases
they identified as involving domestic violence. There were
four possible
response categories:
1. Workers
had used the risk factor to assess the severity of the domestic
violence and
found that it was applicable to the case
2. They had
used the risk factor to assess the severity of the domestic
violence and
found that it was not applicable to the case
3. They had
attempted to use the risk factor to assess the severity of
the domestic
violence but weren't able to determine whether or not the
risk factor
was satisfied
4. They had
not used the risk factor to assess the severity of domestic
violence in
that particular case The risk factors that workers most frequently
attempted to
assess (as determined by positive responses to one of the
first three
response categories) were:
1. Abuser seemed
obsessed or preoccupied with victim (workers attempted
to assess this
in 22 of the 24 cases)
2. Victim had
sought outside help for abuse (n= 21)
3. Victim seemed
isolated (n= 21)
4. Victim is
extremely protective of abuser (n = 20)
5. Victim had
attempted to leave abuser due to being abused (n= 20)
6. Abuser had
seriously injured victim (n= 19)
7. Abuser drank
excessively/had an alcohol problem (n= 19)
The assessment
risk factors that workers least frequently attempted to
assess were:
1. Abuser witnessed
the physical abuse of his mother by her husband/partner
(workers attempted
to assess this in 5 of the 24 cases)
2. Abuser was
abused as a child ( n = 7)
3. Abuser threatened
or assaulted an intervener (e.g., neighbor, police,
or child protection
worker) (n = 11)
4. Abuser had
threatened/attempted suicide (n = 12)
5. Victim had
been pressured/forced to have sex by abuser (n= 12)
6. Abuser showed
no remorse about abuse (n= 13)
7. Abuser had
history of violence toward others (n = 13)
Viewed together,
these two lists suggest that workers' assessments of severity
emphasized
victims' behaviors in reaction to the domestic abuse (e.g.,
whether or
not they had sought outside help for the abuse and whether they
seemed isolated),
as well as whether the victim had been seriously injured
by the perpetrator.
The histories and specific characteristics of perpetra
tors' patterns
of violence received relatively little attention.
Four risk factors
were assessed to be present in 10 or more cases:
1. Victim had
sought help outside for abuse (workers assessed this to be
present in
14 of the 24 cases)
2. Victim had
attempted to leave abuser due to being abused (n = 14)
3. Abuser drank
excessively/had an alcohol problem (n= 14)
4. Abuser seemed
obsessed or preoccupied with victim (n= 10)
Nine risk factors
were assessed to be absent in 10 or more cases:
1. Abuser had
seriously injured victim (workers assessed this to be absent
in 14 of the
24 cases)
2. Abuser had
injured or killed a pet (n= 14)
3. Assaults
had become more violent, brutal, or dangerous (n= 13)
4. Victim is
extremely protective of abuser (n = 13)
5. Abuser had
used a weapon against victim ( n = 13)
6. Abuser had
threatened to use a weapon against victim (n= 11)
7. Victim seemed
isolated (n = 11)
8. Assaults
had become more frequent (n= 10)
9. Abuser had
ready access to a gun (n= 10)
The above two
lists suggest that victims of domestic violence who came
to the attention
of our sample had generally experienced significant abuse.
Child welfare
workers indicated that, based on their knowledge of the situation,
most victims
had not yet been seriously injured, nor had their perpetrators
shown a pattern
of increasing violence (see No.s 1, 3, and 8 of the second
list) . However,
there were often warning signs of possible severe danger
ranging from
the perpetrator's drinking excessively to the victim's having
been concerned
enough about the violence to seek outside help and/or to
actually attempt
leaving the perpetrator (see the entirety of the first
list).2
How Workers
Intervened After Domestic Violence Was Identified as a Possible
Issue
Workers were
provided with a list of 25 commonly used interventions to
address domestic
violence. For each of the 24 cases that they had identified
as involving
domestic violence, they were asked whether they used a particular
intervention
(with Yes/No response categories used) . At least 1 of the
25 interventions
was used in 22 out of the 24 cases (92%).
Seven types
of interventions were used in 12 or more of the 24 cases:
1. Discussed
safety concerns (done by workers in 22 of the 24 cases)
2. Discussed
the dynamics of domestic violence with victim (n= 17)
3. Asked victim
if she were currently safe and (if not) where she could
go after your
meeting (n = 15)
4. Provided
information on calling the police ( n= 14)
5. Advised
victim whom to contact should a future emergency arise around
the domestic
violence (n= 13)
6. Discussed
a specific safety plan (n = 12)
7. Advised
that domestic abuse is a crime (n= 12)
Fifteen types
of interventions were mentioned seven or fewer times:
1. Arranged
transportation to a safe house (done by workers in 1 of the
24 cases)
2. Referred
to services available at DAIP (n= 1)
3. Made a "vulnerable
adult" referral to adult protection (n= 2)
4. Referred
to services available for kids of abuse victims (n= 2)
5. Removed
children for their protection ( n = 3)
6. Discussed
women's group (n = 3)
7. Arranged
to meet with victim and others to strategize for providing
protection
( n = 3)
8. Arranged
transportation to a shelter (n= 4)
9. Provided
written material on domestic violence (n = 4)
10. Referred
victim to a women's group (n = 4)
11. Directly
helped victim obtain an Order of Protection (n=5)
12. Referred
victim to a shelter (n = 6)
13. Discussed
services available at DAIP (n = 6)
14. Phoned
victim between appointments to check on safety (n= 7)
15. Discussed
services available for kids of abuse victims (n= 7)
The above interventions
data suggest that the child welfare workers in
our sample
focused on addressing victims' immediate safety issues. The
data do not
indicate, however, that they typically referred women and children
to specialized
domestic violence services (although they did "discuss shelter
services available
in Duluth" in 11 of the 24 cases).
The Use of
Child We fare Court Proceedings to Identify Patterns of Domestic
Violence
One specific
type of intervention that workers could conceivably have used
to address
domestic violence is raising the issue in child welfare court
proceedings,
ranging from child custody hearings to various types of child
in need of
protection or services (CHIPS) proceedings. For example, information
about the occurrence
of domestic violence could be used in court to help
substantiate
allegations of emotional abuse (mental injury in Minnesota)
or child neglect
(see, Minnesota Statutes, 1997; and Minnesota Department
of Human Services,
1997, p. 4) . Furthermore, a history of domestic violence
in a child's
home environment is relevant to determining the appropriate
custody arrangements
and visitation. Many women continue to experience
victimization
during contacts made as the result of child visitation (Shepard,
1992a). Supervised
visitation or other arrangements for the safe exchange
of children
for the purposes of visitation may need to be considered by
the court.
Domestic violence
was, however, not frequently mentioned in court in our
study. There
was at least one court proceeding in 28 of the 74 sample cases.
This included
14 of the 19 cases that workers had identified as being at
"significant
risk" for domestic violence. In only 5 of these 14 cases was
domestic violence
raised as an issue by social workers in a court proceeding.
All 5 included
an Order for Protection hearing. Two of the five also involved
child protection
assessment proceedings, and one of these two included
a temporary
out-of-home placement hearing as well (the questionnaire did
not determine
in which type of proceeding the issue of domestic violence
was raised
when youngsters were involved in various kinds of hearings).
DISCUSSION
The 32% incidence
of domestic violence in child welfare cases in this study
was consistent
with most previous research (exactly the same as in one
study and 4
percentage points higher than another). It was 7% lower than
the earlier
St. Louis County study, but our research was arguably methodologically
superior because
the 1992 study depended on researchers interpreting case
notes versus
directly questioning workers. The fact that about one third
of all child
welfare cases were identified as also involving domestic violence
reaffirms the
critical need, substantiated by past research, to ensure
that the child
welfare workers have the expertise, commitment, and resources
to effectively
assess and intervene around domestic violence.
The finding
that families in crisis accounted for 71% of those cases identified
by workers
as involving domestic violence (versus the 39% for child abuse
or neglect)
was somewhat unexpected and potentially significant. It may
reflect the
long-term psychosocial impact of domestic violence on children
and families,
as opposed to the more direct link between domestic violence
and violence
toward children. That is, domestic violence-even when it does
not lead to
child maltreatment-may result in children developing emotional
and/or behavioral
issues that culminate in child welfare intervention.
This would
be consistent with earlier cited research emphasizing the long-term
emotional impact
of domestic violence on children (keeping in mind Carlson's
1996 findings
that the most distressed children have been those who have
experienced
both domestic violence and child abuse) .
Results regarding
child welfare workers' assessments of domestic violence
were mixed.
It was encouraging to find that workers appeared to be sensitized
to various
typical reactions of victims to being abused, such as seeking
outside help.
However, it was disappointing that in only 38% of their cases
did workers
directly ask the woman whether domestic violence had occurred,
and only in
45% of their cases did they ask either this question or one
of two other
basic domestic violence-assessment questions -- whether the
woman or her
partner had ever been "hit, slapped, pushed, or choked by
the other"
or whether one of the partners had ever been "afraid of being
hurt by the
other." These results suggest that workers were not routinely
assessing the
history and/or current potential for domestic violence in
their child
welfare caseloads. This apparently incomplete assessment may
be the result
of an institutionalized belief identified by Magen et al.
(1995) in a
survey of child welfare professionals. These respondents believed
that the "number
one mandate [of child welfare agencies] is to protect
children"
and that addressing domestic violence is generally not central
to this mission
(Magen et al., 1995, p. 1). A related factor affecting
assessments
is that day-to-day work is heavily constrained by child welfare
laws and agency
standard operating procedures.
It should be
noted that the apparent deficiencies in assessing for domestic
violence may
be illusory. Some of the study's participants later told us
that asking
the specific questions provided by the study is frequently
not necessary
and would tend to be unduly intrusive. These workers instead
felt that they
could use their general family assessment skills to determine
the potential
for domestic violence.
As pointed
out earlier, a possible gap in assessing the dangerousness of
domestic violence
is workers' lack of attention to the specific characteristics
of perpetrators,
for instance, where he himself had been a victim of physical
abuse or his
parents' domestic violence as a child. Ironically, the lack
of attention
to the abuser's history of violence may suggest that the workers
focused on
the woman's responsibility to provide a safe environment for
her children,
rather than on the abuser's family obligations. Workers'
concentration
on women may also be related to the worker having more contact
with the victim
than the abuser. In any case, understanding abusers' histories
and patterns
of violence may be important in doing thorough family assessments
and in providing
family-based interventions-whether this involves family
reunification
or appropriate referrals for still-violent perpetrators.
In most case
situations, workers intervened in ways that seemed to address
immediate safety
concerns for victims. They did not identify the need to
refer most
families to specialized domestic violence services. Some possible
explanations
for this are institutional mandates that result in a disconnection
between the
mission of protecting children and the need to address domestic
violence, a
lack of knowledge about or dissatisfaction with domestic violence
services, and
the worker's assessment that these services were not needed.
One specific
and potentially powerful intervention seemed underused: that
of bringing
domestic violence to the attention of the judicial system through
the juvenile
court system. One implication of this is that judges may be
asked to make
decisions about the welfare of children without having critical
family information.
RECOMMENDATIONS
It is important
to train child welfare workers in the best practices of
domestic violence
assessment and intervention. Most basically, as Magen
et al. (1995)
emphasize, workers must learn to routinely assess for domestic
violence in
their child welfare caseloads (see also, Echlin & Marshall,
1995; Wolfe,
1997). The fact that this apparently was not occurring in
our study was
perhaps its most significant finding. Related to the need
to routinely
assess for domestic violence, workers must demonstrate an
awareness-in
both assessment and intervention-of how domestic violence
increases the
likelihood of child maltreatment occurring.
Training that
is provided by domestic violence experts needs to recognize
and sensitively
address the difficult situations faced by child protection
workers. Child
protection workers confront complex dilemmas when working
with families
that are experiencing domestic violence. Too often there
are no easy
answers for how to best ensure the safety of children when
their mothers
are victims of domestic violence.
Education and
training alone, however, will not be a panacea. This is suggested
by the fact
that the child welfare workers in this study were well-educated,
and many of
them had received specialized training in domestic violence.
Before workers
can adequately assess and intervene in cases involving domestic
violence, fundamental
structural changes in the child protection system
may need to
take place. This includes providing workers with both the mandate
and the resources-including
training-to do effective preventive family-based
treatment versus
continuing to have an excessively investigatory and/or
stopgap remedial
orientation.
Ultimately,
domestic violence advocates and child protection workers must
work together
to develop effective policies and treatment approaches that
protect children
without blaming mothers who have been victims of battering.
This may include
instituting policy reforms that hold domestic violence
offenders accountable
for the harm that is done to children. This study
suggests the
child welfare workers focused on victims' reaction to the
domestic violence,
rather than on the offender's violent behavior. Workers
may not have
access to adult male offenders, either because they are absent
from the home
or because workers have concerns about their own safety when
making contact
with them. Addressing these safety and access issues may
help to shift
the focus from the victim's actions to making the offender
accountable
for his violence.
CONCLUSION
This small,
site-based study suggests that even progressive child protection
agencies may
have difficulty doing thorough assessments and interventions
around domestic
violence issues. Interpreted in the context of current
professional
literature, our findings point to the need for domestic violence
training programs
for child welfare professionals that focus on the importance
of domestic
violence assessment, skill development, and the use of specialized
domestic violence
services. Furthermore, training must address the complexities
facing child
protection workers when confronted with domestic violence
issues. There
is also a need to consider fundamental structural changes
in the child
protection system. Ultimately, child welfare workers and domestic
violence agencies
must work together to develop intervention strategies
that provide
protection to both women and children and that hold batterers
accountable.
NOTES
1. The authors
have assessed the effectiveness of the training program
in aseparate
manuscript (see Raschick && Shepard, 1998).
2. The data
in these two lists are somewhat difficult to interpret because
they are partly
a function of how frequently workers used different assessment
risk-factor
criteria.
REFERENCES
Aron, L. Y,
& Olson, K K. (1997). Efforts by child welfare agencies to
address domestic
violence: The experiences of five communities. Washington,
DC: The Urban
Institute.
Bowker, L.
H., Arbitell, M., & McFerron,J. R (1988). On the relationship
between wife
beating and child abuse. In K. Yllo & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist
perspectives
on wife abuse (pp. 15S174). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Campbell, J.
(1995). Homicide of and by battered women. In J. Campbell
(Ed. ), Assessing
dangerousness ( pp. 96-111 ) . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Carlson, B.
E. (1996). Children of battered women: Research, programs,
and services.
In A. R Roberts (Ed.), Helping battered women (pp. 172-187).
New York: Oxford
University Press. Davis, L.V., & Carlson, B.E. (1987).
Observation
of spouse abuse: What happens to the children.Journal of Interpersonal
Violence, 2,
278-291.
Echlin, C.,
& Marshall, L. (1995). Child protection services for children
of battered
women. In E. Peled, P. G.Jaffe, &J. L. Edleson (Eds.) Ending
the cycle of
violence: Community responses to children of battered women
(pp. 170-183).
Thousand Oaks: Sage. Edleson,J. L. (1999). The overlap between
woman abuse
and child
abuse. Violence
Against Women, 5, 134-154. Elliott, B., & Shepard, M. (1995).
Assessing dangerousness.
Unpublished instrument.
Fantuzzo,J.,
& Lindquist, C. (1989) . The effects of observing conjugal
violence on
children: A review and analysis of research methodology. Journal
of Family Violence,
4(1), 77-93. Gordon, L. (1988). Heroes of their own
lives. New
York: Viking. Hotaling, G. T., Straus, M. A., & Lincoln, A.J.
(1989). Intrafamily
violence and crime and violence outside the family.
In L. Ohlin
& M. Tory (Eds.). Family violence (pp. 315-375). Chicago: University
of Chicago
Press.
Jaffe, P. G.,
Wolfe, D. A., & Wilson, S. K. (1990). Children of battered
women. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Lapham, A.,
& Johnson, A. (1995). Domestic abuse in child welfare cases.
Unpublished
master's research paper, University of Minnesota, Duluth.
Magen, R. H.,
& Conroy, K (1997). Domestic violence in child welfare preventative
services: Results
from an intake screening questionnaire. Paper presented
at the 5th
International Family Violence Research Conference, University
of New Hampshire,
Durham. Magen, R. H., Conroy, K, Hess, P. M., Panciera,
A., & Simon,
B. L. (1995). Evaluation of a protocol to identify battered
women during
investigations of child abuse and neglect. Paper presented
at the 4th
International Family Violence Research Conference, University
of New Hampshire,
Durham.
McKay, M. M.
(1994). The link between domestic violence and child abuse:
Assessment
and treatment considerations. Child Welfare, 73(1), 29-39.
Minnesota Department
of Human Services. (1997). What can Ido to prevent
harm to children:
A resource guide for mandated reporters. St. Paul: Minnesota
Department
of Human Services-Children's Services Division, Child Protective
Services. Minnesota
Statutes. (1997). Section 626.556: Reporting of Maltreat
ment of Minors.
Raschick, M.,
& Shepard, M. (1998). An assessment of the DAIP/SLCSSD domestic
violence training
program Unpublished
manuscript,
University of Minnesota, Duluth Department of Social Work.
Saunders, D.
(1995). Protection of wife assault. In J. Campbell (Ed.).
Assessing dangerousness
(pp. 6&95). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Shepard, M.
(1992a). Child-visiting and domestic abuse. Child Welfare,
71(4), 357-367.
Shepard, M.
( 1992b). Predicting batterer recidivism five years after community
intervention.
Journal of Family Violence, 7(3), 167-178.
Stacey, W.
A., & Shupe, A. ( 1983) . The family secret-domestic violence
in America
Boston: Beacon.
Stark, E.,
& Flitcraft, A. H. (1988). Women and children at risk: A feminist
perspective
in child abuse. International journal of Health Services, 18(1),
97-118.
Straus, M.
A. (1983). Ordinary violence, child abuse, and wifebeating:
What do they
have in common? In D. Finkelhor, R. J. Gelles, G. T. Hotaling,
& M. A.
Straus (Eds.), The dark side of families: Current family violence
research (pp.
213-234). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Straus, M.
A., Gelles, G. T., & Steinmetz, S. K (1980). Behind closed doors.
Garden City,
NY: Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Wolfe, D. (1997).
Children exposed to marital violence. In O. W. Barnett,
C. L. Miller-Perrin,
& R. D. Perrin (Eds.), Family violence across the
lifespan: An
introduction (pp. 133-158). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Authors' Note:
This article is based on a paper presented June 20, 1997,
at the Fifth
International Family Violence Research Conference in Durham,
New Hampshire.
The authors wish to thank the St. Louis County Department
of Social Services
and the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project of Duluth
for their integral
roles in completing the study.
Melanie Shepard,
Ph.D., LICSW, ACSW, is an associate professor and director
in the Department
of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Duluth. She
has practiced
in child welfare and domestic violence settings and has published
several articles
in the areas of domestic violence, social work education,
and evaluation
research.
Michael Raschick,
Ph.D., ACSW, is an associate professor and field coordinator
in the Department
of Social Work, University of Minnesota, Duluth. His
teaching and
research interests include child welfare, methods of advanced
generalist
practice, field education, and evaluation research.