(Re) Considering risk assessment and safety planning in child protection work with domestic violence cases. Angelique Jenney, MSW, PhD. Director, F family Violence Services, Child Development Institute Asst Prof (Status-Only) Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work University of Toronto

1. Doing The Right Thing:
(Re) Considering risk assessment and safety planning in child
protection work with domestic violence cases
Angelique Jenney, MSW, PhD.
Director, Family Violence Services,
Child Development Institute
Assistant Professor (Status-Only)
Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work
University of Toronto
BASPCAN Conference
April 13th, 2015

2. Rationale for Study
 Increased recognition of Child Exposure to Domestic Violence
(CEDV) as a child protection issues has led to large numbers of
DV cases on Child Protection Services (CPS) caseloads which
don’t fit with current approaches to child maltreatment
investigations
 Concept of safety in assessing risk is pervasive in the violence
against women and child protection fields, but remains poorly
understood
 Little is known about how mothers that are abused by their
intimate partners and are involved with CPS perceive their level of
risk and need for safety for both themselves and their children
 Little is known about how women’s perceptions compare to those
of professionals working to assist them

3. Research Questions
1) How are women’s narratives of domestic violence,
expressed within the context of an investigation,
translated into CPS workers’ assessments of risk and
need for safety planning?
2) How do CPS workers’ and women’s experiences of
the risk assessment and safety planning process
interact to influence the course of intervention?

4. Theoretical Framework
Knowledge and action are socially constructed:
 Social Constructionism (Charmaz, 2008; Hacking, 1999)
 Reality is constructed under particular conditions
 Social Interactionism (Blumer, 1969)
 Humans act on the basis of meanings things have for them
 Meanings derive from social interactions with others
 Meanings are managed through an interpretive process
 Just Practice Framework (Finn & Jacobsen, 2003)
 Examines social issues through the lens of meaning, context,
history, power & possibility

5. Method: Grounded Theory
Methodology (GTM)
 Compliments the epistemological basis of the research
questions, which focus on the interaction between worker
and client experiences in determining case formulations
 Compliments feminist research principles about participant
expertise, the value of subjective experience and the
relational context of knowledge (Wuest, 1995)
 Constructivist GTM (Charmaz, 2000, 2008) is an evolution of
method to account for the social construction of experience
but core components, such as coding, constant comparison
and the use of memos remain unchanged

6. Study Design and
Data Collection
Combination of two studies:
1) Differential Response Model in Child Protection cases
involving Domestic Violence (DRDV) (Alaggia, Gadalla, &
Shlonsky, 2010) for which I served as a research assistant
during my doctoral studies;
2) For Whose Own Good (4WOG) designed by myself as a
doctoral candidate to explore the process of risk
assessment and safety planning with child protection
workers specific to cases of domestic violence.
*I was able to contribute my own research questions to each
interview guide to obtain the relevant data

7. Differential Response in
Domestic Violence Cases
 Quantitative data collection (e.g., client demographics
and details of file openings, closings and
classifications) collected November 2007 - April 2008
from all the cases investigated by Child Protection
Services (CPS) in five child welfare agencies in Ontario
to examine trajectory of DV cases under the DR model
 Qualitative data collection (11 former clients of the
same five child welfare agencies were recruited to
participate in individual interviews about their
experiences of being investigated due to domestic
violence concerns)

8. For Whose Own Good? (4WOG):
The Construction of Risk and Safety in Domestic Violence
Cases within Child Protection Services
 17 CPS workers (representation from each
participating CPS agency) were recruited
 12 individual interviews and 1 focus group (5 participants)
 Interview guide probed the process of interaction in risk
assessment and safety planning processes from the
worker’s point of view and elicited information about
various materials/resources workers used to inform
practice or to give to women as part of intervention
 Material data (e.g., risk assessments/handouts/service
brochures) were used in triangulation, to contextualize
what individuals said about tools or approaches to
safety planning or referrals for clients

9. Description of Sample
DRDV
(CPS client participants)
 11 participants self-identified as having
been investigated by CPS for DV within
past 5 years
 All closed files & currently safe
 Various ways of entry into the CPS
system, including police report,
education system, VAW services (e.g.,
shelter), public health, self-referral
 Range of >1 yr to 5+ yrs involvement
 Diverse backgrounds, with majority of
participants (8) on social assistance,
earning less than $25,000 annually, (5)
had a College/University education
4WOG
(CPS Worker Participants)
 17 participants (12 females and 5 males)
from 5 CPS agencies
 Majority had more than 6 years in the
field (12) none with >3 years experience
 Range of educational levels, BA (3),
BSW (8), CYW (1), and MSW (5) and
work experiences
 52% had not received formal domestic
violence/woman abuse training
 Of those who received training 41% had
received training in both risk assessment
and safety planning

10. Sample and Recruitment
DRDV
(CPS client participants)
 Initially participants were contacted
directly by CPS agency and offered the
opportunity to participate in the study;
 Subsequently a flyer posted in VAW
agencies with confidential voice mail
was used - participants contacted the
researcher and were screened for the
study criteria
 Criteria were particularly strict and
created a fundamental challenge to
study participation (investigation had to
be solely because of DV)
4WOG
(CPS Worker Participants)
 Advertisements were posted
via email within the same five
CPS agencies that were
targeted for the larger DRDV
research
 Interested participants
contacted researcher and
interview scheduled
 Snowballing
 One location held an
organized staff focus group to
facilitate participation

11. Data Management and
Analysis
 the principal investigator conducted the focus group and
interviews which were audio-taped, transcribed and coded
initially by hand then using NVivo 8
 to increase transcript accuracy, all meetings were audio-
taped using two separate cassette recorders -each interview
was transcribed from the recording of one cassette and
double-checked for accuracy using the second recording
 close involvement by the researcher in all aspects of data
collection and management is considered desirable in terms
of familiarity and closeness to the data, which enriches the
data analysis process

12. Analysis
 Transcription as method (notes/memos during transcription)
 Coding and constant comparison
 Writing as method
 field notes, memos
 methodological journal, documenting all actions taken and
decisions made
 exposure to relevant materials that prompted thoughts about
my data (e.g., workshops attended, literature read)
 reflexive journal
 continual writing is one of many methods of achieving
trustworthiness in the data

13. Strategies for Rigor
Qualitative research does not strive to make
generalizations to a larger population; but rather “to
generate new insights” (Mohr, Fantuzzo, & Abdul-Kabir, 2001, p.
89).
Trustworthiness: Credibility, Transferability, Dependability and
Confirmability (Lincoln & Guba, 1985)
 prolonged engagement
 triangulation
 negative case analysis
 member checking
 peer support/debriefing
 audit trail

14. Thematic Findings
Doing the
Right
Thing
Getting
the
Picture
Getting
Connected
Getting
Through
Getting
Out
Getting
the
History
Getting
the Story
Getting
the
Message
Understand
Impact on
Children
Develop
Safety
Plans Managing
Contact with
Abuser
Being Set
Adrift and
Living with
Risk

15. Core Category:
Doing The Right Thing
Workers and clients held a similar set of beliefs about the social
construction/collective representation of woman abuse and the work of child
protection that directly influenced the process of intervention
Concept of ‘doing the right thing’ presented itself in all interviews and
provides an over-arching theme for understanding the research problem.
This theme implies that there is a perceived ‘right way’ of understanding and
addressing domestic violence cases within child protection work. The core
category contains four sub-categories:
 ‘Getting the Picture’ of the situation at hand;
 ‘Getting Connected’ in terms of worker-client relationship;
 ‘Getting through’ in terms of worker and client both feeling that they
had some impact on the process (and each other);
 ‘Getting out,’ ending abusive relationships and closing CPS files.

16. Getting The Picture
Getting Involved, Getting the History and Getting the Story:
Assessing the Impact of Abuse and Risk of Re-Involvement
This subcategory illustrates how CPS workers and clients
interact in the process of investigation; with each trying to assess
the risk of CPS involvement (and potential for re-involvement)
from their own perspective. These interactions take place within
a process of questions and answers that build a narrative for
both worker and client.
“How do we really know?… you get a snapshot of these
people’s lives, you get a bit of information, you see the clients
a couple of times. I think I’d be irresponsible to say that there’s
been times I haven’t missed risk.” (Worker #3)

17. “I don’t have any magic,
I can tell you that.”
“Part of our jobs is to get as much information as you can right? …
I’ve got 30 days to put it together – do I close this? … it has to do
with how you assess the situation - actually the questions you ask,
the information you get, the responses you get … So you weigh
all those things but you’re going by your gut feelings, your skills,
experiences, I don’t know what else – I don’t have any magic, I
can tell you that.” (Worker #10)
“I mean I can’t entirely blame them because I didn’t tell them the
truth, right? …as soon as I admit to something they now have to
go through a process, and if that had happened? Then it wouldn’t
have been ‘is he going to kill me?” it probably would have been ‘he
would have killed me’ so like, I’m not going to risk my life just, just
so that they can have the truth. As awful as that sounds, my life is
more important to me than their paperwork.” (Client #1)

18. Getting Connected
How workers and clients experience relationship as part of the
process of intervention.
This sub-category developed out of any reference made to the relationships
between worker and client as critical to intervention. It includes
understanding the perspective of clients and making an effort to connect or
relate on a certain level in order to achieve cooperation or success for the
intervention; to get women to ‘do the right thing.’
“Well in domestic violence I find that its always the relationship that we
have with the client, with the mom in this case - the stronger our
relationship with the mom and the more we can understand her world
through her eyes instead of imposing our view, we get them more on
board. Once we can get that trust, then we can work together.” (Worker
#11)

19. Getting Through
Understanding the Impact on Children, Developing Safety Plans, and
Managing Contact with the Abusive Partner
This sub-category encompasses how CPS workers view the need to
educate clients about the dynamics of woman abuse and the impact
on children in order to influence them to ‘do the right thing’
(acknowledging the impact of abuse and planning for safety). It is
also about how women try to get through to workers what they need
from them to assist them in dealing with the abuse they have
experienced, survive and move on.
“To let them know that we need to be on the same page, me being the
parent I have the talent, we have to be on the same page or this
relationship is not gonna work as a parent, and a client, as a client
and an agency.”(Client#11)

20. “... and she been burying it in my head
to understand…”
“she’s doing a hard job, and she’s telling me what she think is right. It is
left for me to take it or leave it. But she was trying her best. She give me
the best advice she could… if wasn’t for Children Aid I wouldn’t get to
understand and see my life the way I’m seeing it right now (Client #6)
“Communication is a very big key in a relationship. I’ve looked [CPS
agency] as a relationship, professional and personal, because I needed
their support and I needed to actually show them that I can do the things
that I needed to do.” (Client #11)
“…with our agency and our mandate we have no choice but to get more
intrusive and we have to pretty much stay involved if we feel there’s a
risk. ..I just had a really bad one - she just was not getting it, not leaving,
and you know, doing what we wanted her to do - so we had to go for a
supervision order so you know we do have to kind of - we don’t want to
threaten them with court but… it ultimately could come to that.” (FG
Participant #3)

21. Getting Out
Following through as the Ending of Relationships and the Closing of
Cases
This illustrates the theme whereby clients are considered successful
upon having ended abusive relationships and whereby CPS workers
are considered successful when they close the case.
“With someone like that – who wants help from us and has everything
kind of set out like what she wants to do and she’s constantly talking
about how she wants her kids to be safe. How she doesn’t want the
husband to be there… I will close something like that. Because mom
obviously is not going to try to put the kids at risk because she’s
worried about her own safety and she doesn’t want him around. And
she’s called me to tell me he’s come around, she’s called the police
when he comes around so - she’s following through. So we might
close someone like that. But the more serious ones, no.” (Worker #5)

22. Discussion/Conclusions
 Considering the Impact of Discourse on Current
Approaches to Practice
 collective representations, stock victim ideology & formula stories
 Defining the Problem of Woman Abuse within Child
Protection Work – differentiating the approach to DV
cases – reconsidering risk assessment approach
 Therapeutic Relationship in CPS Practice with DV
Cases: Risk, Safety and Relationships (safety as
process not event)
 Loss of Professional Involvement: File Closure and the
Sense of Being Set Adrift
 Silences in the Data: The Needs of Children and the
Absence of Fathers

23. Limitations
 Volunteer participants may have unique perspectives
 Particular location and distinct nature of the various CPS agencies
involved, would not support generalizations
 Principal researcher’s ‘insider’ access and perspective may have
influenced the interviews
 Participants may have attempted to present themselves well, thereby
potentially altering the actual recollections of these experiences (Lindhorst
& Padgett, 2005)
 Client participants were no longer experiencing abuse or CPS
involvement which may indicate significantly different views and
experiences than women still involved in such relationships (Varcoe &
Irwin, 2004)

24. Implications for Practice
 Consider the impact of dominant discourse on current approaches
and what this may mean for best practice (leaving vs starting where
the client is at)
 Re-emphasize the importance of therapeutic relationships in child
protection practice, and provide additional resources for CPS workers
to engage in longer term relationships with families experiencing
domestic violence
 Consider differentiating DV cases from other forms of child
maltreatment, such as expanding the narrow view of what constitutes
change (such as leaving) to incorporate more pragmatic solutions to
improving the safety of women and children (such as engaging with
men to end abusive behaviours)
 Consider the silences in the current data set, that of assessing and
addressing the needs of children exposed to violence and the
absence of work with abusive fathers

25. Recommendations for
Practice
 To recognize complexity of risk assessment and safety
planning and work with DV cases more collaboratively
which would require:
 Increased resources to facilitate relationship building (or
at least community referrals in the DR approach)
 Additional training of workers and supervisors on:
 Evaluating risk
 The complexity of safety planning
 Impact on children
 Engagement with fathers/perpetrator accountability

26. Acknowledgements
This research was partially funded by a grant from the Social Sciences Humanities
Research Council (SSHRC).
A special thank you to all the women and workers who gave of themselves to support
this work.
Invaluable members of my doctoral committee:
Faye Mishna, PhD
Dean & Professor, Factor-Inwentash Faculty of Social Work
Margaret & Wallace McCain Family Chair in Child & Family
University of Toronto
Ramona Alaggia, MSW PhD,
Associate Professor, Factor-Inwentash Chair in Children’s Mental Health,
University of Toronto
Katreena Scott, PhD, C. Psych.
Associate Professor and SCCP Program Chair
Canada Research Chair in Family Violence Prevention and Intervention
University of Toronto

27. Thank You
 Questions?