Short-term follow-up of children at risk: comparison of the quality of life of children removed from home and children remaining at home.

OBJECTIVE: To follow up the well-being of children at risk after a decision on their removal was made. METHOD: Social workers assessed the quality of life (QOL) of three groups of children (n = 92): children they had decided to keep at home, children whom they had removed to alternative care, and children who remained at home despite the decision to remove them. This is a prospective study, in which assessments were made at two points of time: first when the workers began to consider whether or not to remove the child, and again 6 months later. RESULTS: The findings show that even though the QOL of the children in the three groups was similarly low at the first measure, it differed in the second. The QOL of the children who were removed from home had improved, that of the children who remained at home in accord with the workers' decisions remained roughly the same, and that of the children for whom the decision to remove was not implemented declined. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that children at risk may fare better in terms of QOL in alternative placement than at home, and highlight the high price paid by children for whom a decision to remove them from home is not implemented. Further research, however, is required, taking into consideration the interventions and services that the children and their families received in the different settings.

Why social workers do not implement decisions to remove children at risk from home.

OBJECTIVES: The study explores why social workers do not always implement their decisions to remove children at risk from their homes. METHOD: Social workers in Israel filled out questionnaires for 96 children at risk at two points of time: when they began to consider whether or not to remove the child, they completed questionnaires tapping their own, the parents', and the children's features. Six months later, they reported their decision, whether or not they had carried it out, and if not, why not. RESULTS: Some 21% of the workers' decisions were not implemented, almost all of them decisions to remove. The main reasons given were the objections of the parents and/or the child. Decisions were implemented for all the children whose mothers were alcohol or drug addicts. Implementation was lower for older children, children who were uncooperative with the social worker, and for children whose parents were uncooperative. It was also lower among experienced workers than novices. CONCLUSIONS: Further study is required to examine the generalizability of these findings to other countries, to understand better the reasons for the non-implementation, and to follow-up on the consequences of the non-implementation.