IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this article

Who gets services and who does not? Multi-level approach to the decision for ongoing child welfare or referral to specialized services

Listed author(s):
  • Jud, A.
  • Fallon, B.
  • Trocmé, N.
Registered author(s):

    Surprisingly little is known on the decisions to provide services after a report is investigated. To fill this gap the study aims at identifying factors associated with the decision to provide ongoing child welfare services or to refer to specialized services following the investigation of the report. A multi-level analysis was applied to a representative sample of 15,980 investigations nested within 111 agencies throughout Canada. In almost 60% of cases some type of service was offered. Several case characteristics indicating a need for support such as having child or caregiver functioning issues, few social supports, teen parenting and low socioeconomic status were significantly associated with the odds of receiving services. Being identified with any type of substantiated or suspected maltreatment increased the likelihood of services compared to other types and unsubstantiated investigations. The impact of risk investigations on service referrals was striking. Caregiver and household concerns seem to drive decisions as much as if not more as substantiation status yielding further support for the implementation of an alternative response track beside the investigative track. Although there was remarkable variation in service referral rates between agencies, factors accounting for that difference remained largely unexplained.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    File URL:
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Children and Youth Services Review.

    Volume (Year): 34 (2012)
    Issue (Month): 5 ()
    Pages: 983-988

    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:34:y:2012:i:5:p:983-988
    DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2012.01.030
    Contact details of provider: Web page:

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    in new window

    1. Drake, Brett & Lee, Sang Moo & Jonson-Reid, Melissa, 2009. "Race and child maltreatment reporting: Are Blacks overrepresented?," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(3), pages 309-316, March.
    2. Palusci, Vincent J., 2011. "Risk factors and services for child maltreatment among infants and young children," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(8), pages 1374-1382, August.
    3. Kim, Hansung & Chenot, David & Ji, Juye, 2011. "Racial/ethnic disparity in child welfare systems: A longitudinal study utilizing the Disparity Index (DI)," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 33(7), pages 1234-1244, July.
    4. DePanfilis, Diane & Zuravin, Susan J., 2001. "Assessing risk to determine the need for services," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 23(1), pages 3-20, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:cysrev:v:34:y:2012:i:5:p:983-988. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

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

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.