IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v66y2018icp141-146.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A systematic scoping review of parental satisfaction with child protection services

Author

Listed:
  • Tilbury, Clare
  • Ramsay, Sylvia

Abstract

Obtaining parent views on child protection services is an essential part of evaluating service quality and effectiveness. It also promotes the principles of listening to parents and involving them in decision-making. The present review analysed published research that investigated parental perspectives on the child protection services they received. It identified 52 studies published between 2000 and 2016 on parent satisfaction. Most used qualitative methods, and eight standardised survey instruments were used in quantitative studies. Factors related to parent satisfaction or dissatisfaction related to the attitudes and skills of workers, the interventions provided, and aspects of the child protection system. The body of research provides guidance for policymakers and practitioners about strategies to measure and improve client satisfaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Tilbury, Clare & Ramsay, Sylvia, 2018. "A systematic scoping review of parental satisfaction with child protection services," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 141-146.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:66:y:2018:i:c:p:141-146
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.10.010
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718917301064
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2017.10.010?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kemp, Susan P. & Marcenko, Maureen O. & Lyons, Sandra J. & Kruzich, Jean M., 2014. "Strength-based practice and parental engagement in child welfare services: An empirical examination," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 47(P1), pages 27-35.
    2. Haynes-Lawrence, Darbi, 2008. "Home visitors' perceptions of teen mothers: Using qualitative research to explore labeling theory," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(12), pages 1386-1394, December.
    3. Mundy, Crystal L. & Neufeld, Amanda N. & Wells, Susan J., 2016. "A culturally relevant measure of client satisfaction in child welfare services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-189.
    4. Ayala-Nunes, Lara & Jiménez, Lucía & Hidalgo, Victoria & Jesus, Saul, 2014. "Family feedback in Child Welfare Services: A systematic review of measures," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 299-306.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Tuuli-Brit Vaga & Dagmar Kutsar, 2022. "Client Agency in Child Protection Work in Estonia: Clients’ Perspectives," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 15(5), pages 1793-1820, October.
    2. Saar-Heiman, Yuval, 2023. "Power with and power over: Social workers’ reflections on their use of power when talking with parents about child welfare concerns," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 145(C).
    3. Jacob Clark & Euan MacLennan, 2023. "Measuring Experience of Inpatient Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS)," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(11), pages 1-10, May.
    4. Lawarée, Justin & Jacob, Steve & Ouimet, Mathieu, 2020. "A scoping review of knowledge syntheses in the field of evaluation across four decades of practice," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    5. Bjørknes, Ragnhild & Ortiz-Barreda, Gaby, 2021. "Are the voices of parents heard? A scoping review of satisfaction in parenting programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tuuli-Brit Vaga & Dagmar Kutsar, 2022. "Client Agency in Child Protection Work in Estonia: Clients’ Perspectives," Child Indicators Research, Springer;The International Society of Child Indicators (ISCI), vol. 15(5), pages 1793-1820, October.
    2. Williams, Annie & Reed, Hayley & Rees, Gwyther & Segrott, Jeremy, 2018. "Improving relationship–based practice, practitioner confidence and family engagement skills through restorative approach training," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 93(C), pages 170-177.
    3. Venables, Jemma, 2019. "Practitioner perspectives on implementing an alternative response in statutory child protection: The role of local practice context and leadership teams in shaping practice," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 107(C).
    4. Diana N. Teixeira & Isabel Narciso & Margarida R. Henriques, 2022. "Driving for Success in Family Reunification—Professionals’ Views on Intervention," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(24), pages 1-20, December.
    5. Balsells, Maria Àngels & Pastor, Crescencia & Mateos, Ainoa & Vaquero, Eduard & Urrea, Aida, 2015. "Exploring the needs of parents for achieving reunification: The views of foster children, birth family and social workers in Spain," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 159-166.
    6. Garcia, Antonio R. & DeNard, Christina & Ohene, Serena & Morones, Seth M. & Connaughton, Clare, 2018. "“I am more than my past”: Parents' attitudes and perceptions of the Positive Parenting Program in Child Welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 286-297.
    7. Medina, Antonio & Beyebach, Mark & García, Felipe E., 2022. "Effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of a solution-focused intervention in child protection services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 143(C).
    8. Tatiana Casado & Joan Albert Riera & Josefa Cardona, 2020. "Social Work with Families in Special Distress: Collaborative Practices," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-24, July.
    9. Damiani-Taraba, Gissele & Dumbrill, Gary & Gladstone, James & Koster, Andrew & Leslie, Bruce & Charles, Michelle, 2017. "The evolving relationship between casework skills, engagement, and positive case outcomes in child protection: A structural equation model," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 79(C), pages 456-462.
    10. Toros, Karmen & DiNitto, Diana Maria & Tiko, Anne, 2018. "Family engagement in the child welfare system: A scoping review," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 88(C), pages 598-607.
    11. Charest-Belzile, Dorothée & Drapeau, Sylvie & Ivers, Hans, 2020. "Parental engagement in child protection services: A multidimensional, longitudinal and interactive framework," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    12. Bjørknes, Ragnhild & Ortiz-Barreda, Gaby, 2021. "Are the voices of parents heard? A scoping review of satisfaction in parenting programs," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    13. Arbeiter, Ere & Toros, Karmen, 2017. "Participatory discourse: Engagement in the context of child protection assessment practices from the perspectives of child protection workers, parents and children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 17-27.
    14. Dolbin-MacNab, Megan L. & Smith, Gregory C. & Hayslip, Bert, 2022. "The role of social services in reunified custodial grandfamilies," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 132(C).
    15. Rita dos Santos & Anita Burgund Isakov & Cátia Martins & Ana Pereira Antunes & Nevenka Zegarac & Cristina Nunes, 2024. "Professional Skills in Family Support: A Systematic Review," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 13(3), pages 1-36, March.
    16. Ahn, Haksoon & Keyser, Daniel & Hayward-Everson, R. Anna, 2016. "A multi-level analysis of individual and agency effects on implementation of family-centered practice in child welfare," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 11-18.
    17. Mundy, Crystal L. & Neufeld, Amanda N. & Wells, Susan J., 2016. "A culturally relevant measure of client satisfaction in child welfare services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 177-189.
    18. Claire Mason & Danny Taggart & Karen Broadhurst, 2020. "Parental Non-Engagement within Child Protection Services—How Can Understandings of Complex Trauma and Epistemic Trust Help?," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(4), pages 1-21, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:66:y:2018:i:c:p:141-146. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.