|
De Paul & |
The Child |
1. Counsellor/ |
Case co- |
The home |
Not stat∣ |
|
Arruabarrena |
Protection Services (CPS) |
therapist 2. Social worker |
ordinators - direct and |
visitor had the | |
|
Evaluation of WOE: Low One group pre/ |
in the creation |
- home visitors I workers, 3. Teacher/ 4. Psychologist 5. Unspecified/ |
treatment for Home visitors Case co- They supervise |
families. But not a lot |
≡d The action/
activity was the
creation of a
new program
to introduce
co-ordination
within Child
Protection
Services (CPS).
(a) Workers could refer families to the
treatment program.
(b) "worker only made referrals
to the program when CPS (Child
protection services) substantiated the
maltreatment or the high-risk situation
and parents agreed to participate
in the treatment. In some cases,
parental rights had been temporarily
suspended, and children were in out-
of-home care.” (p 419)
"The researchers excluded cases of
interfamilial child sexual parents
with severe drug problems or severe
psychiatric disorders, and families in
which there was no parental figure
with at least minimal intellectual
skills.” (p 419)
(c) Parents had to agree to the
treatment to participate in the
treatment.
"Worker offered participation in the
treatment to some of these parents as
a way to achieve family reunification”
(p148)
+ Antisocial
behaviours
+ Behaviour
problems
+ Family I peer
outcomes
+ Child abuse
+ Parenting/
child role,
family/child
capacity
+ Mental
health and
wellbeing
+ Loneliness
+ Depression
No perception
outcomes
(d) Gipuzkoa county, Spain