Developing Safety and Risk Assessment Tools and Training Materials

Abstract

Purpose:

This article presents the results of a two-phase dialogue between social work practitioners and researchers regarding the development and implementation of safety and risk assessment tools and training materials for social workers in the South African context.

Methods:

The first phase of the dialogue included interviews with 81 professionals to determine current practices in safety and risk assessment, resulting in the development of assessment tools and training materials. The second phase involved dialogue with 13 social workers who attended a workshop on the developed safety and risk assessment tools and who were able to implement the tools in practice.

Results:

A need for uniform safety and risk assessment tools and procedures was identified, and encouraging evidence indicated the effectiveness of the developed tools.

Discussion:

Constructive dialogue between practice and research was instrumental in developing and implementing safety and risk assessment tools and training materials for the South African context.

Keywords

dialogue safety and risk assessment child protection child at risk social work training

All children have the right to be protected against any form of harm, abuse, neglect, and exploitation. This is specified in the U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights, 1989), the African Charter (Secretary General of the African Union, 1990), and in Section 28 (1)(d) of The Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (1996). South Africa’s commitment to uphold these rights of children and to legislate for the prevention, early intervention, statutory response, care and protection of children in order for them to develop to their full potential is also stipulated in the Children’s Act (38 of 2005).

Effective assessment can be regarded as the first step in the protection of children at risk against any form of harm. Although the assessment of child protection risks is a critical skill that social service providers, particularly social workers, must have, the global reality indicates that safety and risk assessment for child protection often vary among different role players in the field (Mackinnon, 1998).

Background

Child maltreatment is a complex issue that is internationally recognized as a serious public health, human rights, and legal and social issue. The concept of maltreatment can be summarized as all forms of physical and/or emotional ill-treatment, sexual abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, or commercial or other exploitation, resulting in actual or potential harm to the child’s health, survival, and development of dignity in the context of a relationship of responsibility, trust, or power (World Health Organisation & International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, 2006). In addition, the National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators (2009, p. 7) defines maltreatment as “an act, failure to act, or pattern of behavior on the part of the caregiver that results in death or physical, medical, sexual, or emotional harm or presents imminent threat of harm to a child.” These descriptions confirm that maltreatment includes all types of abuse, neglect, and exploitation as well as various levels of severity of harm that a person can inflict on a child.

In the context of this research, the child at risk is regarded as a child exposed to risk factors that could lead to him or her being found as a child in need of care and protection (The Children’s Act 38 of 2005, section 150). A child in need of care and protection is a “child whose social functioning, as well as physical, psychological and emotional development is impeded by neglect or abuse, or lack of exercising control by the parent or guardian” (Terminology Committee for Social Work, 1995, p. 9). These children are exposed to circumstances that can be harmful for the child and prevent the child from optimally achieving his or her developmental milestones (Gil, 2006). To protect the child at risk against potential harm, designated social workers (Children’s Act 38 of 2005) should conduct a thorough professional assessment.

The South African Children’s Act (38 of 2005) stipulates that a child who is suspected to be exposed to any form of maltreatment should be referred to a designated social worker to confirm whether the child is in need of care and protection. To make a verified decision that supports the best interests of the child, the social worker needs to conduct a thorough assessment. Assessment can be defined as a process and a product. As a process, assessment involves the gathering, analyzing and synthesizing of information to provide a concise picture of people’s needs and strengths, within their unique circumstances. As a product, assessment results in an actual formulation or statement regarding the nature of a person’s circumstances and other related factors at a given time (Hepworth, Rooney, Rooney, Strom-Gottfried, & Larsen, 2006). In the context of child protection, the assessment process involves an initial and a core assessment phase, which correlates with the two main types of assessment, namely, safety and risk assessment. The initial phase, namely, safety assessment, has to do with concerns over the possibility of immediate harm or danger to the child. It focuses on maltreatment that has just happened, is happening at present, or is imminent. The aim of the safety assessment is to ensure the immediate safety of the child. The second phase, namely, core assessment, focuses on risk assessment that deals with the likelihood or probability that child maltreatment will occur or reoccur at some time in the future (Department of Social Services, Missouri, 2004; Ministry of Children and Youth Services, 2007; Pretorius, Mblokazi, Hlaise, & Jacklin, 2012; Rycus & Hughes, 2003).

Risk assessment consists of two major methods of assessment, namely, actuarial and consensus-based assessment (Munro, 2007; Price-Robertson & Bromfield, 2011; University of California at Berkeley, 2005). Actuarial assessment “…uses statistical procedures to identify and weigh factors that predict future maltreatment” while consensus-based assessment “…emphasises a more comprehensive assessment of risk,” which may also predict future maltreatment (University of California at Berkeley, 2005, p. 2). Although both of these assessment methods focus on risks with regard to child protection, the actuarial method makes use of scoring to predict the likelihood of child maltreatment in order for the social worker to prioritize cases according to the levels of risk involved and available resources. Consensus-based assessment, on the other hand, provides information, which is based on in-depth exploration and reasoning that underlies decision making by the social worker. This reasoning is based on theories and research literature on child maltreatment, as well as on the opinion of expert practitioners, hence the term “consensus-based.” This kind of assessment is more flexible, incorporates more items, and provides more information, and is linked to an intervention plan for children and their families in order to reduce risk (Price-Robertson & Bromfield, 2011). Both methods have an equally important place in the field of child protection. Due to the difference in focus, actuarial and consensus-based risk assessment can be utilized independently, as well as complementary to each other.

A theoretical foundation forms the basis for the way a social worker will think about people and problems and how he or she will respond to persons and problems. Therefore, it is important for social workers to know how a theoretical foundation influences their decision making in analyzing human functioning processes (Parrot, 2003). In the context of safety and risk assessment, a theoretical framework guides the social worker to make assumptions based on the analyzed data collected during the assessment process. Based on international literature on safety and risk assessment, theoretical frameworks focusing on capacity for growth and development, a holistic approach to the reciprocal influence between persons and their environment, the reinforcement of strengths and capacities that already exist in people, and respect for self-actualization and self-determination of people were identified as most relevant to this study. These aspects are embedded in the following four theoretical foundations, which underpinned the development of the safety and risk assessment tools and training materials: the developmental approach (Department of Social Development, 2006; Dutschke, 2008), the ecological systems approach (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003; Hepworth et al., 2006; Maguire, 2002; Zastrow, 2003; Zide & Gray, 2001), the strengths perspective (Hepworth, Rooney, & Larsen, 2003; Miley, O’Melia, & Du Bois, 2007; Zastrow, 2003), and the person-child-centered approach (Carmichael, 2006; Grobler & Schenck, 2009; Merry, 2002; Tudor, Keemar, Tudor, Valentine, & Worrall, 2004). These theoretical foundations are reflected in the Framework for the Assessment of Children at Risk (Department of Health, 2000).

A uniform framework for gathering and analyzing information about children and their families supports a systematic approach to assess whether a child is in need of care. Such a framework provides a conceptual map for a holistic assessment of children in need and their families and should, without exception, focus on the following three domains: the developmental needs of the child, the capacities of parents/caregivers to respond appropriately to these needs, and the impact of the wider family and environmental factors on parenting capacity and children (Department of Health, 2000; London Safeguarding Children Board, 2010; Sayer, 2008; Wilson, Ruch, Lymbery, & Cooper, 2008). Each domain has a number of dimensions that the social worker should explore together with the child and the family (Wilson et al., 2008). In practice, it implies a holistic approach that involves all role players relevant to the assessment, including the alleged perpetrator/perpetrators of suspected maltreatment of a child.

The South African Context

Children constitutes 37.6% of the total population of South Africa (Statistics South Africa, 2011). The South African society is characterized by a number of social challenges that could put children at risk for maltreatment. These include, among others, poverty, unemployment, HIV and AIDS, orphanhood, and child-headed households (Human Sciences Research Council, 2014; National Planning Commission, 2011; Statistics South Africa, 2011).

As research into the extent and scope of child maltreatment in South Africa is still limited and fragmented, the full extent of child maltreatment in the country is not known (Department of Social Development, 2010). This is confirmed by Booyens, Beukman, and Bezuidenhout (2013), who highlighted that official crime statistics do not always reflect the full picture of crimes that have been committed. Reported child maltreatment cases could therefore only be a fraction of the real incidence.

Service providers within the South African social welfare field created different assessment tools and protocols utilized in the protection of children exposed to child maltreatment. However, these safety and risk assessment tools varied to such an extent that inconsistent assessment practices among professionals limited effective service delivery to these children and negatively affected collaboration between professionals. In response to this problem in practice, an urgent need was identified to promote a more consistent approach to safety and risk assessment for social workers in the South African child protection field (Department of Social Development, 2010). In order to enhance a consistent approach, the goal of this study was first to develop uniform safety and risk assessment tools and training materials for social workers based on an in-depth dialogue between practice and research, and second to evaluate the effectiveness of the implementation of the newly developed tools and training materials in a diverse geographical area, based on qualitative feedback from the practitioners. Such assessment tools and training materials could empower professionals in the social service delivery field, promote more uniform assessment practices, and enhance professional accountability, regarding the protection of children and their families. Furthermore, it would promote the application of the principle of “the best interests of the child” as highlighted in the Children’s Act (38 of 2005).

Safety and Risk Assessment Tools and Training Materials

Based on a situational analysis involving dialogue with professionals in the field of child protection as well as an extensive national and international literature review, the authors developed three assessment tools for the South African context. A safety assessment tool was developed for utilization in the initial assessment phase of the assessment process. For the core assessment phase, two risk assessment tools were developed, namely, the actuarial risk assessment tool and the consensus-based assessment tool.

The purpose of the safety assessment tool was to determine the level of immediate danger to the child, that is, the child’s present conditions and interventions that will be needed to ensure the child’s immediate safety (Ministry of Children and Youth Services, 2007). Safety assessment starts at the first face-to-face contact with the child and family and is done independently for each child in the family. A case can be closed after the safety assessment has been finalized and the information collected confirmed that maltreatment has clearly not occurred. If maltreatment is suspected or confirmed, a risk assessment will follow on the safety assessment.

As indicated earlier, risk assessment can be conducted through actuarial and consensus-based assessment. The actuarial risk assessment tool involves a scored objective procedure to determine the presence of risk factors to predict which children are at the highest risk of referral to child protection services. Furthermore, it assists social workers to prioritize cases in the light of limited resources (Munro, 2007; Price-Robertson & Bromfield, 2011). An actuarial risk assessment is conducted for each individual family and enables the social worker to start building a holistic picture of a specific case. After an actuarial assessment has been conducted, the social worker proceeds with a consensus-based assessment.

The purpose of the consensus-based risk assessment tool is to gain a comprehensive understanding of an individual child or family in order to ascertain their service needs. It is more flexible and provides in-depth information gathering for assessment of risk, based on the domains and dimensions of the Assessment Framework (Department of Health, 2000). A consensus-based assessment is linked to a case plan, compiled in collaboration with the child/children and family involved, to reduce risks. It further supports the social worker to structure information, including the reasoning underlying decision making for report writing purposes (Price-Robertson & Bromfield, 2011; University of California at Berkeley, 2005).

The individual and combined use of the three assessment tools helps the social worker to form a comprehensive and detailed picture of the child at risk, the parenting/caregiver capacities, as well as family and environmental factors that are relevant in assessing maltreatment.

The Present Study

The goal of this article is to report on the results of the dialogue between practitioners and researchers that resulted in the development and implementation of the new safety and risk assessment tools for South Africa. This dialogue was conducted in two phases. The focus of the first phase was to determine current practices in safety and risk assessment in South Africa, while the second phase was to evaluate the implementation of the newly developed tools in practice after a 4-day training workshop. The dialogue in both phases was explorative and qualitative in nature and embedded in a collective case study design. This design was used, as the researchers chose a number of cases (participants) for each phase so that comparisons could be made between cases and concepts (Fouché & Schurinck, 2011). The two phases were guided by the following research questions, respectively:

Research Question 1: What are the current practices in safety and risk assessment in South Africa?

Research Question 2: What are the participants’ experiences of the implementation of the newly developed safety and risk assessment tools in practice?

Methodology

Phase 1: Exploration of Current Safety and Risk Assessment Practices and Development of the Assessment Tools

To explore the current safety and risk assessment practices, data were collected by using semistructured interviews with a sample of participants selected by means of purposive and snowball sampling techniques (Strydom & Delport, 2011). A sample of 81 participants was selected according to the following criteria: (1) all participants should be practitioners in the field of child protection in South Africa and should be specifically involved in the assessment of child abuse, neglect, and exploitation and (2) should represent all nine provinces in South Africa. The sample included 55 social workers, 3 psychologists, 19 legal professionals, 2 South African Police officers, and 2 health professionals. Semistructured interviews, guided by a semistructured interview schedule (Greeff, 2011), allowed the participants to share detailed information about their current assessment practices. The information collected through the semistructured interviews was thematically analyzed (Braun & Clarke, 2006).

Apart from the dialogue with practitioners, document analysis based on national, regional, and international documents related to safety and risk assessment in the field of child protection was utilized in order to identify core elements in existing safety and risk assessment tools and training materials. The rationale of analyzing these documents was to understand the substantive content and meanings in the specific context in which it was formulated and implemented (Richie & Lewis, 2003). The information collected by means of document analysis was analyzed by utilizing content analysis (Strydom & Delport, 2011).

The information collected from the semistructured interviews and the document analysis was used to develop the safety and risk assessment tools and relevant training materials.

Phase 2: Evaluation of the Effectiveness of the Safety and Risk Assessment Tools

The goal of this phase was to evaluate the effectiveness of the newly developed safety and risk assessment tools and training materials in a diverse geographical area (urban, peri-urban, and rural) in the South African child protection context. Designated social workers from the Department of Social Development and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in Mpumalanga province were selected for the sample by means of purposive sampling based on the following sampling criteria:

Designated social workers employed by the Department of Social Development and NGO’s in Mpumalanga;

Designated social workers who currently deliver services in the child protection field;

Designated social workers who represent, respectively, urban, peri-urban, and rural areas in Mpumalanga.

Designated social workers who would be able to attend the training, implement the safety and risk assessment tools in practice for a period of 2 months, and attend a follow-up feedback session.

Dialogue between the researchers and 13 participants (practitioners) took place 2 months after the 4-day training session. The focus of the dialogue was on the participants’ experiences of the implementation of the safety and risk assessment tools in practice. Qualitative data were collected by utilizing a focus group interview as well as written narratives provided by the participants. The data that were collected by means of these two methods were analyzed thematically.

The trustworthiness of the qualitative information was ensured by triangulation (Glesne, 2006) by utilizing multiple methods of data collection as well as multiple informants. Furthermore, member checking was implemented by clarifying information with the participants and by peer reviewing through consultation among the coresearchers (Lietz, Langer, & Furman, 2006). The ethical considerations of confidentiality, informed consent, and voluntary participation were upheld.

Research Findings

Research findings will be discussed according to the two main phases of the research study. The findings specifically relate to the data collected during the direct dialogue between the practitioners and the researchers.

Phase 1: Exploration Current of Safety and Risk Assessment Practices: Findings From the Semistructured Interviews

The dialogue in this phase of the study involved personal interviews with 81 participants. Four main themes with subthemes were identified relating to current assessment practices in the South African context.

Theme 1: The concepts related to assessment

Participants were unfamiliar with some of the concepts related to safety and risk assessment, for example, the concepts “safety and risk assessment” as well as “actuarial assessment” and “consensus-based assessment.” Participants showed awareness of the importance of a common understanding of relevant concepts, as a lack thereof could lead to confusion and hamper them to use assessment as “a vehicle through which they share information with other professionals.” Assessment is based on an intersectoral approach (Hepworth et al., 2006; Zastrow, 2003) and a common understanding of the basic concepts in safety and risk assessment would enable professionals to communicate in a uniform language.

Theme 2: The focus of assessment

Participants referred to assessment as “crucial,” “essential,” and “critical” to serve the best interests of the child. The social worker needs to follow a holistic approach to assessment and look at the interrelatedness between personal, family, and environmental factors related to a specific case (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). Although this fact was supported by the findings of the study, where participants voiced the importance of looking at the “totality of the child” during safety and risk assessment, it appeared that a holistic approach was often overlooked in practice. Holistic assessment is conducted on the principle of engaging the entire family and child as partners in the assessment process (Department of Health, 2000). Only a limited number of participants showed appreciation for considering the child’s “frame of reference” as part of a holistic assessment.

Theme 3: Theoretical foundation for assessment

Although the importance of a theoretical foundation for professionals to explain their findings during the assessment of a child at risk is highlighted by Prochaska and Norcross (2003), participants in this study showed a lack of awareness of the importance of a sound theoretical foundation for assessment. Some participants referred to certain theoretical approaches, for example, “the ecological,” “systems,” “the person-centered,” “behavior,” “gestalt” theories, but they confirmed that they did not apply it during safety and risk assessment practice. Parrot (2003) emphasizes the importance that social workers should be aware of how a theoretical foundation influences their decision making during assessment.

Theme 4: Assessment tools and procedures

This theme focuses on different aspects (subthemes) regarding assessment procedures and assessment tools. The most prominent subthemes were the following:

Subtheme 4.1: Need for uniform assessment tools and procedures

Nearly all the participants expressed a strong need for uniform assessment tools and procedures, as they were of the opinion that it would enhance the quality of safety and risk assessment of children. Uniform assessment tools and procedures were also necessary to improve communication among professionals on a multidisciplinary level. Furthermore, participants voiced an eagerness to engage in processes to improve safety and risk assessment practices.

Subtheme 4.2: Confusion regarding concepts related to assessment tools and procedures

Based on the results of this investigation, there seemed to be confusion regarding the meaning of different concepts related to assessment tools and procedures in practice. The majority of the participants were not able to distinguish between the correct meaning of an assessment tool, assessment procedures, assessment techniques, and protocol involved during the assessment process. Some of these participants regarded assessment procedures/protocol as an assessment tool, while others viewed assessment techniques, questionnaires, and checklists as their assessment tools. This confusion was evidenced in the fact that the participants experienced difficulty to give a clear answer or description of assessment procedures or tools, which they used in practice. Again, participants expressed a positive view toward clarity and uniformity regarding a “common assessment language” among professionals.

Subtheme 4.3: Lack of formal assessment procedures

Some of the participants, who indicated that they did follow a specific procedure during the assessment process, were not able to share it in detail, as it was not described in a formal document. However, they mentioned that the content of such procedures was based on the “standards of the child protection services” and/or the “content of the Children’s Act.” Although many participants indicated that they implemented assessment within a limited number of sessions, others emphasized that it is not possible to determine the exact number of sessions during the assessment process. Assessment is thus not a once-off event but is an ongoing process focusing on continuous consideration of information relevant to the context in which the assessment takes place (Hepworth et al., 2006). The participants proposed that “the [assessment] process should be determined by the child and situation” and should “…follow the child’s process.”

According to the participants, the lack of formal assessment procedures complicated child-at-risk cases, as professionals involved tended to have conflicting practice procedures, which negatively affected collaboration between professionals and could lead to competition, conflict, and mistrust.

Subtheme 4.4: Availability of assessment tools

The investigation found that few formal safety and risk assessment tools existed in the South African context. Some documents that were presented by the participants as examples of assessment tools were rather assessment procedures, protocol, or techniques, which professionals used to facilitate the assessment process. It needs to be mentioned that a few participants did not provide examples of existing assessment tools due to internal policies of the organizations.

Based on the findings of the semistructured interviews and document analysis, the authors developed the safety and risk assessment tools and training materials for the South African context. The effectiveness of these materials was subsequently empirically tested, as discussed in Phase 2 subsequently.

Phase 2: Testing of the newly developed safety and risk assessment tools and training materials

Qualitative Results

The qualitative findings will be discussed according to the three data collection methods, namely, focus group interviewing, written narratives, and the open-ended questions in the questionnaire.

Focus group interview

One focus group interview was conducted with 13 participants representing the Department of Social Development in rural, peri-urban, and urban offices during the final follow-up session of the research. The purpose of the focus group interview was to get feedback from the participants regarding their experiences of the implementation of the developed safety and risk assessment tools over a period of 2 months. The interview was guided by a focus group interview schedule, and the findings are discussed according to the following seven themes:

Theme 1: Experiences of the implementation of the safety assessment tool

Most of the participants indicated that the content of the safety assessment tool supported them to do a thorough exploration of the child’s circumstances to arrive at a decision whether the child is safe or unsafe. Furthermore, it gave direction to the participants to substantiate these decisions, empowered them as professionals, and enhanced the quality of report writing. Ministry of Children and Youth Services (2007) echoes these experiences by indicating that the safety assessment tool guides the social worker at critical decision points, regarding the immediate safety of the child. The following quotes verify the participants’ experiences:

“Help to make a decision”

“To defend ourselves in court”

“It gives good direction to report writing”

“It brings back professionalism”

“To do quality work.”

Theme 2: Experiences of the implementation of the actuarial risk assessment tool

The majority of the participants indicated that the tool helped them to prioritize their caseloads and therefore focus on quality services to those who needed it most. This is confirmed by Price-Robertson and Bromfield (2011), who indicated that the goal of actuarial risk assessment is to score risk according to relevant risk levels and, based on the urgency of the case, prioritize the case in relation to others on the social worker’s caseload. Due to the fact that the participants were not familiar with actuarial risk assessment, they noted that they would need to read more on the phenomena of abuse, neglect, and exploitation in order to utilize the tool optimally. Furthermore, the participants highlighted the need to be thoroughly familiar with the descriptors that explain the indicators in the actuarial assessment tool.

The following quotations support this theme:

…it helps you to prioritize cases

…looking differently to quality instead of quantity (of cases)

…You need to go back to definitions and theory. It forced you to start reading.

Theme 3: Experiences of the implementation of the consensus-based risk assessment tool

Because of the limited time that was allocated to the implementation of the three different assessment tools, some of the participants indicated that they did not implement the consensus-based tool. As a result, these participants felt uncertain about the effectiveness of this tool. However, the participants who did implement the consensus-based assessment tool indicated that it gave structure to the social worker and supervisor to explore the total context of the family and/or child. Both Sayer (2008) and Wilson, Ruch, Lymbery, and Cooper (2008) point to the value of the framework that forms the basis of the consensus-based assessment tool, in providing a conceptual map for a holistic assessment. The following excerpts from the transcripts attest to this:

I feel uncertain…

It helps to explore all dimensions

We know now that we do not explore as much…

It helped me…also helped my supervisor to look now at other factors.

Theme 4: Experiences of the implementation of the assessment process

The participants confirmed that a clear and structured process is of utmost importance to do a proper assessment of a family/child(ren). They indicated that all the steps in the assessment process, which starts with the first contact, needed to be followed and that the social worker needed to be patient during the assessment in order to get the bigger picture of the context of the family and child(ren) at risk. Emphasis was also placed on the fact that although the assessment process is time consuming, it supported the professional person not to make decisions on assumptions, but rather analyze information to understand it properly. These views support the fact that assessment is a process of gathering, analyzing and synthesising information to provide a concise picture of the case, starting during the first face-to-face contact with the child and family (Hepworth et al., 2006; Pretorius et al., 2012). The participants’ experiences were encapsulated in the following words:

Need to be patient

Need to follow all the steps

Looking at bigger picture…realise many factors which contribute to abuse…more factors that I am previously aware off

Info gathered…you come up with something that is concrete

Need to analyse properly…cannot assume…cannot generalise

Not only ticking off…must analyse and understand

Time consuming, but it is worthwhile.

Theme 5: The influence of the assessment process on professional accountability

Although the exposure to the newly developed assessment tools and training materials created some form of anxiety, the participants indicated clearly that the tools and assessment process would enhance the professional standards of service delivery. Such evidence-based practice is supported by Barker in Delport and De Vos (2011) who rightfully argue that scientific knowledge guides professional judgement and effective interventions. Participants had no doubt that the assessment process, which was based on a scientific framework, supported them to be more accountable and responsible during the decision-making process, regarding the safety of a child. The participants who were supervisors indicated that they would also be more able to support their staff to be accountable. The following quotes verify the participants’ views:

It will assist the social worker to bring back professionalism…to do quality work

…standards will be very good

Help to feel responsible towards family in terms of identifying their capacity

I can hold my staff more accountable.

Theme 6: The influence of the assessment process on professional report writing

The participants confirmed that the utilization of the assessment tools and implementation of the assessment process gave direction to report writing. According to them, it enhanced the quality of report writing, as reports were now based on facts, which contributed to professional confidence and accountability. Structuring of information due to the utilization of the assessment tools enhanced the accountability and professional standards of report writing (DePanfilis & Salus, 2003). The following excerpts confirm the information:

Reports are based on facts and empirical research

Give confidence to social workers

It gave good direction to report writing

When I told my colleagues about the report, they were impressed.

Theme 7: Suggestions regarding the content of the training materials

As the assessment tools and training materials were totally new to the participants, their main suggestion was that more training in the implementation of the tools and assessment process would be needed. This had to include the training of not only social workers in the field but also their supervisors. Only then, the service rendering to children and their families would be enhanced. Quotations in support of these views are as follows:

Supervisors need training to train social workers

I as supervisor need the information…It gives the supervisor confidence.

Written narratives

During the 1-day feedback session, the participants were asked to write a narrative on their experiences regarding the implementation of the assessment tools and learning materials. The authors received 12 written narratives from the participants. Based on thematic analysis of the content of the narratives, the authors identified the following three themes:

Theme 1: Knowledge level of participants

The majority of the participants indicated that the training in safety and risk assessment was “an eye opener” to them. The training sessions made them aware of the fact that they did not have the required knowledge to do a proper assessment of children at risk. To confirm the latter, they postulated that in the past, they tended not doing in-depth assessments of children at risk, but instead made “quick decisions,” which would not always “benefit the child.” Thus, they would often remove children without sufficient substantiation. Some of the participants confirmed that the training sensitized them to such an extent that they started to follow a more “holistic approach” instead of being “judgmental.” One of the participants mentioned that he or she came to the insight of how important it was that a social worker needed to focus on the “capacities of the caregivers” and not only on the “presenting problems.” Without doubt, it made the participants aware of the importance to think in a more critical manner. With reference to this assumption, one of the participants summarized it as follows:

It added value to my cases and made me think critically before I came to a conclusion.

The majority of the participants referred to the fact that the training and the utilization of the safety and risk assessment tools enhanced the quality of their service rendering, which added value to their professionalism as social workers. One of the participants formulated this experience as follows:

Being part of the training has brought back professionalism to me.

Others framed this experience as bringing back quality in service rendering instead of focusing primarily on the quantity of cases dealt with. The training would support the social worker to make more “informed decisions” during the assessment of children at risk.

Theme 2: Attitude of participants

Some of the participants acknowledged the fact that they did not always act in the “best interests of the child” during the handling of cases where maltreatment was suspected. They often removed children without understanding the total context of which the child formed part of. This attitude mirrored the urgency to take responsibility to make decisions that will add more value to the child’s quality of life. One of the participants summarized this attitude as follows: “If you complete the assessment and use the tools correctly, you will make a decision that will be in the best interests of the child.” Participants also realized the importance of rather following a child-centered approach during safety and risk assessment. Tudor, Keemar, Tudor, Valentine, and Worrall (2004) postulate that, as no one else have had the experiences of these children, the children would be the only ones who could provide their specific view of the world. The following quote confirms this statement:

I know that it is very important for any assessment concerning a child to be child-centred.

Furthermore, it seemed as if the training and utilization of the assessment tools inspired some of the participants to bring back the passion to make a difference in people’s lives, as evident in the following statement:

Mostly for me, I think the tool is going to revive the spirit of being a social worker.

Theme 3: Challenges experienced by participants

The majority of participants experienced the newly developed safety and risk assessment tools as time consuming. This experience might be due to the fact that the participants were unfamiliar with the safety and risk assessment tools. It could be postulated that greater familiarity with the theory and implementation of the tools will address this challenge over the longer term.

The fact that not all supervisors attended the training sessions, created some form of anxiety for participants to be successful in the implementation of the safety and risk assessment tools and training materials. One of the participants verbalized his or her fear as follows:

The fact that my supervisor was not attending…she is unable to guide me properly and to give me advice.

The successful implementation of the tools required a paradigm shift for the participants regarding their approach to the assessment of children at risk. The following excerpts confirm this challenge:

…challenge for me will be, coming out of my comfort zone

…now I find myself looking at all situations with a different eye.

As a result of the above challenges, participants suggested that follow-up training sessions should be presented for the successful implementation of the safety and risk assessment tools.

Discussion and Applications to Social Work

The study was executed in two phases linked to the two research questions. The first research question regarding the current practices in safety and risk assessment in South Africa was successfully explored by interviewing 81 participants in the field of child protection.

From the results, it became evident that there was confusion among the participants regarding concepts related to safety and risk assessment. This confusion was seen as hampering communication between professionals involved in the field of child protection. Clarity in terms of communication during the assessment process is crucial due to the critical role that assessment plays in serving the best interests of the child. Therefore, social workers who work in the field of child protection should have consensus about the meaning of the relevant concepts related to safety and risk assessment.

The results provided evidence that participants appreciated a holistic approach to assessment, but that it was not always demonstrated in practice. The focus on including the child in the assessment process was especially neglected. Assessment should follow a holistic approach, which focuses on the interrelatedness between the developmental needs of the child, parenting capacity, and the influence of the family and environmental factors, as reflected in the three domains of the assessment framework. This implies that the total context of the child at risk should be taken into account during the assessment process and that care should be taken to ensure the child’s participation as a basic right.

Practitioners further showed a lack of awareness of the role of a theoretical framework underlying assessment practices. A theoretical framework will influence the manner in which social workers conduct an assessment and make decisions based on the assessment. Thus, in order to execute safety and risk assessment in an accountable manner, social workers should base their analysis of information about the functioning of the child, family, and relevant systems on a sound theoretical foundation. They should also be explicitly aware of how a theoretical foundation will influence the way a social worker will think about people and problems and how he or she will respond to persons and problems.

The absence of uniform assessment tools and procedures guided by a clear assessment framework became evident during the investigation. The availability of uniform assessment tools and procedures could minimize confusion about the meaning of relevant concepts as well as conflicting practice procedures during the process of safety and risk assessment. It is recommended that there should be greater uniformity in assessment practices in order to enhance professionalism and the accountability of social workers in the field of child protection. An assessment framework serves as a conceptual map that assists the social worker to conduct a holistic assessment of children at risk. The assessment framework used in this study is derived from international evidence based practice. It is recommended that social workers use this framework during safety and risk assessment, as it provides a structure for systematic gathering and analysis of information about the child at risk and his or her environment.

In the development of the safety and risk assessment tools and training materials for the South African context, the researchers recognized the fact that certain evidence-based practices regarding safety and risk assessment are globally relevant to the field of child protection. Scientific knowledge that is available in the global arena was utilized to develop the safety and risk assessment tools and training materials for the South African context.

The experiences of the participants regarding the implementation of the newly developed safety and risk assessment tools in practice formed the second phase of the research and provided answers to the second research question in this study.

Although the small number of participants in the second phase of the study can be regarded as a limitation, valuable information was obtained about the implementation of the safety and risk assessment tools and the assessment process in practice. Feedback on the safety and actuarial risk assessment tools indicated that the safety assessment tool enhanced participants’ ability to make substantiated decisions on the immediate safety of the child, while the actuarial assessment tool enabled them to prioritize cases on their caseloads. The findings pointed to the value of the safety assessment tool when social workers have to make critical decisions about the immediate safety of the child. The actuarial assessment tool assisted the social worker to do professional planning to prioritize cases in which children were regarded as being most at risk.

Due to the limited time frame of the study, the full picture of the implementation of the consensus-based assessment tool could not be obtained, which can be regarded as a limitation to the study. Despite this fact, participants acknowledged how this tool could help them to conduct a holistic assessment by taking into account all domains and dimensions that form part of the assessment framework.

Although the assessment process was regarded as time consuming, the participants felt that the process could help social workers to do a comprehensive safety and risk assessment, which would without doubt enhance their professional accountability. The utilization of the assessment tools and process was also found to improve the structuring and quality of report writing.

The results of the study confirmed the concerns of the National Department of Social Development that resulted in the research being conducted and point to several implications for social work practice.

First, social workers working in the child protection field in South Africa need to follow uniform safety and risk assessment practices. Uniformity is needed in terms of concepts, assessment tools, and assessment procedures in order to enhance quality service delivery to children at risk. In practice, it will ensure that all children at risk have access to equal levels of quality child protection services.

Second, the study confirmed the importance of dialogue between practitioners and researchers to improve social service delivery. In this study, practitioner-researcher dialogue led to the identification of certain gaps in service delivery in the field of child protection, which should be further researched. Furthermore, the dialogue provided a good example of the importance of social workers’ collaboration with professionals in related disciplines, including psychologists, legal professionals, educators, and police officials.

Third, as most of the content of the newly developed assessment tools and training materials were unfamiliar to the majority of the participants in this study, it became evident that training to practitioners should be provided on a continuous basis to ensure the sustainability of transferring the newly acquired knowledge of safety and risk assessment into practice.

Finally, this study gave direction for social work education in South Africa. This implies that training on safety and risk assessment of children at risk should be incorporated into the undergraduate curricula for social work education. On postgraduate level, topics related to safety and risk assessment of children at risk could form focus areas for further research, which has the potential to contribute to the knowledge and skills base in the field of child protection.

Footnotes

Authors’ Note

This article was previously presented at the third International Conference on Social Work Practice and Research, June 9–11, 2014, Hunter College School of Social Work, New York City. It was invited and accepted by the editor.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by funding from UNICEF, South Africa, and USAid.

References

Booyens

Beukman

Bezuidenhout

(2013). The nature and extent of child and youth misbehaviour in South Africa. In Bezuidenhout

(Ed.), Child and youth misbehaviour in South Africa. A holistic approach (pp. 31–67). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

Braun

Clarke

(2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77–101.

Carmichael

(2006). Play therapy: An introduction. Uppersaddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Delport

C. S. L.

De Vos

A. S.

(2011). Professional research and professional practice. In De Vos

A. S.

Strydom

Fouché

C. B.

Delport

C. S. L.

(Eds.), Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions (pp. 45–60). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

Delport

C. S. L.

Strydom

(2011). Information collection: Document study and secondary analysis. In De Vos

A. S.

Strydom

Fouché

C. B.

Delport

C. S. L.

(Eds.), Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions (pp. 376–388). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

DePanfilis

Salus

M. K.

(2003). Child protective services: A guide for caseworkers. Washington, DC: US Department of Health and Human Services.

Department of Health. (2000). Framework for the assessment of children and their families. London, England: Crown. Retrieved from http//:www.dh.gov.uk

Department of Social Development. (2006). Service delivery model for developmental social services. Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printers.

Department of Social Development. (2010). National policy framework and strategic plan for the prevention and management of child abuse, neglect and exploitation. Retrieved from http://www.pmg.org.za

10.

Department of Social Services, Missouri. (2004). Child welfare manual: Assessment versus risk assessment. Retreived from http//:www.dss.mo.gov/cd/info/cwmanual

11.

Dutschke

(2008). Developmental social welfare policies and childrens’ right to social services. In Proudlock

Dutschke

Jamieson

Monson

Smith

(Eds.), South African child guage 2007/2008. Cape Town, South Africa: Children’s Institute, University of Cape Town.

12.

Fouché

C. B.

Schurink

(2011). Qualitative research designs. In De Vos

A. S.

Strydom

Fouché

C. B.

Delport

C. S. L.

(Eds.), Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions (pp. 307–327). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

13.

Gil

(2006). Helping abused and traumatized children: Integrating directive and non-directive approaches. New York, NY: Guildford Press.

14.

Glesne

(2006). Becoming qualitative researchers. An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.

15.

Greeff

(2011). Information collection: Interviewing. In De Vos

A. S.

Strydom

Fouché

C. B.

Delport

C. S. L.

(Eds.), Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions (pp. 341–374). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

16.

Grobler

Schenck

(2009). Person-centred facilitation. Process, theory and practice. Cape Town, South Africa: Oxford University Press.

17.

Hepworth

D. H.

Rooney

R. H.

Larsen

(2003). Direct social work practice. Theory and skills. Toronto, Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

18.

Hepworth

D. H.

Rooney

R. H.

Rooney

G. D.

Strom-Gottfried

Larsen

(2006). Direct social work practice: Theory and skills. Toronto, Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

19.

Human Sciences Research Council. (2014). South African national HIV prevalence, incidence and behaviour survey, 2012. Cape Town, South Africa: HSRC Press.

20.

Ivankova

N. V.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2007). Foundations and approaches to mixed methods research. In Maree

(Ed.), First steps in research (pp. 254–278). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

21.

Lietz

C. A.

Langer

C. L.

Furman

(2006). Establishing trustworthiness in qualitative research in social work. Qualitative Social Work, 5, 441–458.

22.

London Safeguarding Children Board. (2010). London child protection procedures. London, England.

23.

Mackinnon

L. K.

(1998). Trust and betrayal in the treatment of child abuse. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

24.

Maguire

(2002). Clinical social work. Beyond generalist practice with individuals, groups and families. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

25.

Merry

(2002). Learning and being in person-centred counselling: A textbook for discovering theory and developing practice. Herefordshire, UK: Bath Press.

26.

Miley

K. K.

O’Melia

Du Bois

(2007). Generalist social work practice: An empowering approach. Boston, MA: Pearson.

27.

Ministry of Children and Youth Services. (2007). Ontario child protection tools manual. A companion to the child protection standards in Ontario. Ontario, Canada: Queen’s Printer for Ontario.

28.

Munro

(2007). Effective child protection. London, England: Sage Publications.

29.

National Association of Public Child Welfare Administrators. (2009). A framework for safety in child welfare. Washington, DC: American Public Human Services Association.

30.

National Planning Commission. (2011). National development plan 2030: Our future – make it work. Benoni, South Africa: Sherino Printers.

31.

Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights. (1989). Convention on the rights of the child, UN general assembly resolution 44/25. Geneva, Switzerland: United Nations.

32.

Parrot

(2003). Counselling and psychotherapy. Melbourne, Australia: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

33.

Pretorius

Mblokazi

A. J.

Hlaise

K. K.

Jacklin

(2012). Child abuse. Guidelines and applications for primary health care practitioners. Cape Town, South Africa: Juta.

34.

Price-Robertson

Bromfield

(2011). Risk assessment in child protection. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved from www.aifs.gov.au

35.

Prochaska

J. O.

Norcross

J. C.

(2003). Systems of psychotherapy: A transtheoretical analysis. Toronto, Canada: Thomson Brooks/Cole.

36.

Republic of South Africa. (1996). Constitution of the republic of South Africa, Act No. 108 of 1996. Retrieved from www.gov.za/documents/constitution/1996/a108-96

37.

Republic of South Africa. (2005). Children’s act, 38 of 2005. Government Gazette, 493(28944). Pretoria, South Africa: Government Printers.

38.

Richie

Lewis

(2003). Qualitative research practice: A guide for social science students and researchers. London, England: Sage.

39.

Rycus

J. S.

Hughes

R. C.

(2003). Issues in risk assessment in child protective services. Colombus, OH: North American Resource Centre for Child Welfare.

40.

Sayer

(2008). Critical practice in working with children. London, England: Palgrave/MacMillan.

41.

Secretary General of the African Union. (1990). African charter on the rights and welfare of the child. OAU Resolution 21.8/49. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: OAU.

42.

Statistics South Africa. (2011). Survey of activities of young people, 2010. Retrieved from http//:beta2statssa.gov.za/publications/

43.

Strydom

Delport

C. S. L.

(2011). Sampling and pilot study in qualitative research. In De Vos

A. S.

Strydom

Fouché

C. B.

Delport

C. S. L.

(Eds.), Research at grass roots: For the social sciences and human service professions (pp. 390–396). Pretoria, South Africa: Van Schaik Publishers.

44.

Terminology Committee for Social Work. (1995). New dictionary of social work. Cape Town, South Africa: CTP Book Printers (Pty) Ltd.

45.

Tudor

L. E.

Keemar

Tudor

Valentine

Worrall

(2004). The person-centred approach: A contemporary introduction. London, England: Palgrave-MacMillan.

46.

University of California at Berkeley. (2005). Risk and safety assessment in child welfare: Instrument comparisons. Retrieved from http//:www.bassc.net

47.

Wilson

Ruch

Lymberry

Cooper

(2008). Social work. An introduction to contemporary practice. London, England: Pearson Longman.

48.

World Health Organisation & International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. (2006). Preventing child maltreatment: A guide to taking action and generating evidence. Geneva, Switzerland: WHO Press.

49.

Zastrow

C. H.

(2003). The practice of social work: Applications of generalist and advanced content. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

50.

Zide

M. R.

Gray

S. W.

(2001). Psychopathology. A competency-based assessment model for social workers. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.