| Literature DB >> 34311560 |
Kristen Lwin1, Joanne Filippelli2, Barbara Fallon2, Jason King2, Nico Trocmé3.
Abstract
Child welfare workers aim to promote the well-being and safety of children and are the link between the child welfare system and families. Families served by the child welfare system should expect similar service based on clinical factors, not based on their caseworker's characteristics. Using secondary data analyses of the most recent Canadian Incidence Study of Reported Child Abuse and Neglect (CIS-2008) and multilevel modeling, this study examines whether child welfare worker characteristics, such as education level and field, age, and experience predict their perception of the risk of future maltreatment. A total of 1729 case-level investigations and 419 child welfare workers were included in this study. Several one-level logistic regression and two-level logistic regression analyses were run. The best-fit model suggests that caseworkers with a Master's degree, more than 2 years of experience, and more than 18 cases were significantly more likely to perceive risk of future maltreatment. Further, the interaction between degree level and age also significantly predicted the perception of risk of future maltreatment. Results suggest that the perception of risk of future maltreatment may be influenced by caseworker factors, thus service to families may differ based on caseworker characteristics.Entities:
Keywords: caseworker characteristics; child welfare worker; risk of future maltreatment
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34311560 PMCID: PMC9465501 DOI: 10.1177/10775595211031460
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Child Maltreat ISSN: 1077-5595
Description of Variables.
| Variable | Definition | Value |
|---|---|---|
| Case characteristics | ||
| Child age | Age dichotomized into 5 years or younger and older than 5 | 0 five or younger |
| Child gender | Gender | 0 female |
| Child functioning | Functioning issues either confirmed or suspected: (e.g., depression/anxiety/withdrawal; suicidal thoughts; self-harming behavior; ADD/ADHD; attachment issues; and aggression) | 0 no functioning issues |
| Caregiver age | Age of caregiver in years. Variable divided at median | 0 younger than 21 |
| Caregiver ethnicity | Caregiver ethnicity | 0 white |
| Caregiver relationship status | Single caregiver or more than one caregiver in the home | 0 more than one caregiver |
| Caregiver risk factors | Caregiver risk factors (e.g., drug or alcohol use, mental health issues, and cognitive functioning issue) | 0 none noted |
| Caregiver social support | Primary caregiver has few social supports | 0 not noted |
| Caregiver cooperation | Caregiver cooperation with the child welfare investigation | 0 not cooperative |
| Household finances | Household regularly runs out of money | 0 not noted |
| Previous involvement | Caregiver previous involvement with child welfare (as a parent) | 0 no involvement |
| Referral source | Professional source (e.g., teachers) or non-professional source (e.g., neighbor) | 0 not professional source |
| Worker characteristics | ||
| Social work education | Worker field of completed education | 0 other than social work |
| Education level | Worker level of completed education | 0 bachelor |
| Experience | Years of child welfare experience, recoded into three dichotomous variables, based on variable distribution | 0 less than two |
| Age | Worker age. Variable divided at median | 0 34 or younger |
| Ethnicity | Worker ethnicity. “Not white” category is a combination of ethnicities (e.g., Black, Latin American, and Aboriginal) | 0 white |
| Position | Position recoded into three dichotomous variables | 0 not Intake |
| Caseload | Caseload at time of data collection. Recoded into three dichotomous variables based on variable distribution | 0 0–9 cases |
| Training | Number of child protection trainings attended in career. Recoded into three dichotomous variables based on variable distribution | 0 0–6 |
Two-Level Logistic Regression.
| Model 1 | Model 2 | Model 3 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Empty model | Single-level model | Full two-level model | Two-level model with interaction | |
| Coefficient (SE) | Coefficient (SE) | Coefficient (SE) | Coefficient (SE) | |
| Intercept | −1.21 (.07)*** | −1.27 (.05)*** | −2.60 (.85)** | −3.09 (.69)*** |
| Level 1 – Child and caregiver characteristics | ||||
| Child age | −.88 (.15)*** | −1.32 (.22)*** | −1.28 (.22)*** | |
| Child function | .76 (.12)*** | .98 (.18)*** | .95 (.17)*** | |
| Child gender | .05 (.12) | −.32 (.17) | ||
| Caregiver age | −.40 (.23) | −.77 (.34)* | −.76 (.34)* | |
| Caregiver functioning | 1.04 (.14)*** | 1.65 (.21)*** | 1.62 (.21)*** | |
| Caregiver supports | .97 (.12)*** | 1.16 (.19)*** | 1.15 (.19)*** | |
| Runs out of money | .77 (.16)*** | 1.17 (.26)*** | 1.20 (.25)*** | |
| Previous openings | .77 (.14)*** | 1.06 (.21)*** | 1.00 (.21)*** | |
| Caregiver cooperation | −.68 (.25)*** | −1.04 (.36)** | −1.01 (.35)** | |
| Caregiver relationship | .07 (.12) | −.11 (.17) | ||
| Caregiver ethnicity | .04 (.13) | .06 (.22) | ||
| Referral source | .10 (.12) | .16 (.19) | ||
| Level 2 – Worker characteristics | ||||
| Degree field | −.37 (.26) | −.39 (.26) | ||
| Degree level | .65 (.38) | 1.42 (.51)*** | ||
| Experience 1 | .57 (.34) | .59 (.27)∗ | ||
| Experience 2 | −.27 (.40) | |||
| Experience 3 | .38 (.39) | |||
| Age | −.67 (.28)∗ | .77 (.68) | ||
| Ethnicity | −.35 (.33) | −.19 (.33) | ||
| Position 1 | .74 (.70) | .41 (.25) | ||
| Position 2 | −.24 (.86) | |||
| Position 3 | .59 (.72) | |||
| Caseload 1 | −.43 (.33) | −.43 (.28) | ||
| Caseload 2 | −.27 (.33) | |||
| Caseload 3 | .79 (.34)* | .65 (.28)* | ||
| Training 1 | .21 (.34) | |||
| Training 2 | −.23 (.30) | |||
| Training 3 | .35 (.34) | .24 (.29) | ||
| Level x age | −1.60 (.73)* | |||
| Model fit | ||||
| AIC | 2929.62 | 1395.25 | 1380.00
| |
| BIC | 2938.46 | 1516.39 | 1460.76
| |
Note. *p < .05, **p < .001, ***p < .005.
aAIC & BIC model tests found Model three compared to Model 2 significantly better.
Figure 1.Significant interaction between worker age and education level.