Managing Assessment. Quality Planning in Assessment Procedures of the Dutch Child Protection Board

The Child Welfare and Protection Board (CP), which plays a central role in Dutch child welfare is an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. The CP may present petitions to the juvenile court for their judgement regarding the custody or guardianship of children. The Board presents petitions concern...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:The British journal of social work 2004-06, Vol.34 (4), p.531-540
Hauptverfasser: van Nijnatten, Carolus, van den Ackerveken, Marielle, Ewals, Tinus
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 540
container_issue 4
container_start_page 531
container_title The British journal of social work
container_volume 34
creator van Nijnatten, Carolus
van den Ackerveken, Marielle
Ewals, Tinus
description The Child Welfare and Protection Board (CP), which plays a central role in Dutch child welfare is an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. The CP may present petitions to the juvenile court for their judgement regarding the custody or guardianship of children. The Board presents petitions concerning legal propositions for custody, suspension of the execution of custody, provisional guardianship, and dispossession and restriction of custody. These petitions are based on an investigation of the social conditions of the child and the family. In the past, the quality of these investigations has often been questioned, the main criticism being the lack of any systematic procedure and the strong intrusion of personal opinion. Nevertheless, social workers of the CP Board often regarded potential changes to these investigations with some apprehension because they feared the assessment procedures might lose their human character. More recently, the CP Board has experimented with a system of testing hypotheses in its assessment procedures. In this article, we present the results of an evaluation of this new procedure. The results are presented in the context of the recent debate, published in the British Journal of Social Work, between the advocates and opponents of making social work more scientifically rigorous.
doi_str_mv 10.1093/bjsw/bch064
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61451797</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>43772505</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>43772505</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-c3af50f3b8f149e57a9225ef5bac943dfa303adada69f383e6067c1ae4ce24e23</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkcFLHDEUxoNY6Gp76lkIHryU0ZdJMpk56rbWwooKFhYvIZN5cWc7O7FJBvW_76xTpHiRd3iH348PPj5CvjA4ZlDxk3odH09qu4JC7JAZE0WZ5QVf7pIZgJAZZ5B_JHsxrgFASWAzUl-a3ty3_T09jRFj3GCfjunNYLo2PdPrzvT9Frb9f5xeB2-xGQJG6h1NK6TfhmRXdL5qu2ZLE9rU-p6eeROaT-SDM13Ez__-Pvl1_v12fpEtrn78nJ8uMisUpMxy4yQ4XpeOiQqlMlWeS3SyNrYSvHGGAzfNeEXleMmxgEJZZlBYzAXmfJ8cTbkPwf8ZMCa9aaPFbuyAfoi6YEIyVal3RalAlarko3j4Rlz7IfRjCZ0DZ0KVIEfp6yTZ4GMM6PRDaDcmPGsGeruK3q6ip1VG-2Cy1zH58KoKrlQuX9Kyibcx4dMrN-G3LhRXUl8s7_Tl2fLm7rxa6Fv-FwMmmwY</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>203147805</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Managing Assessment. Quality Planning in Assessment Procedures of the Dutch Child Protection Board</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current)</source><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><creator>van Nijnatten, Carolus ; van den Ackerveken, Marielle ; Ewals, Tinus</creator><creatorcontrib>van Nijnatten, Carolus ; van den Ackerveken, Marielle ; Ewals, Tinus</creatorcontrib><description>The Child Welfare and Protection Board (CP), which plays a central role in Dutch child welfare is an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. The CP may present petitions to the juvenile court for their judgement regarding the custody or guardianship of children. The Board presents petitions concerning legal propositions for custody, suspension of the execution of custody, provisional guardianship, and dispossession and restriction of custody. These petitions are based on an investigation of the social conditions of the child and the family. In the past, the quality of these investigations has often been questioned, the main criticism being the lack of any systematic procedure and the strong intrusion of personal opinion. Nevertheless, social workers of the CP Board often regarded potential changes to these investigations with some apprehension because they feared the assessment procedures might lose their human character. More recently, the CP Board has experimented with a system of testing hypotheses in its assessment procedures. In this article, we present the results of an evaluation of this new procedure. The results are presented in the context of the recent debate, published in the British Journal of Social Work, between the advocates and opponents of making social work more scientifically rigorous.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0045-3102</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1468-263X</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1093/bjsw/bch064</identifier><identifier>CODEN: BJSWAS</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Oxford: Oxford University Press</publisher><subject>Assessment ; Child Custody ; Child rearing ; Child welfare ; Child Welfare Services ; Children ; Client satisfaction ; Dutch Child Protection Board ; Governing Boards ; Government Agencies ; Juvenile Courts ; Netherlands ; Personality traits ; Quality planning ; Scientific method ; Social environment ; Social sciences ; Social Work ; T tests ; The Child Welfare and Protection Board</subject><ispartof>The British journal of social work, 2004-06, Vol.34 (4), p.531-540</ispartof><rights>The British Association of Social Workers 2004</rights><rights>Copyright Oxford University Press(England) Jun 1, 2004</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-c3af50f3b8f149e57a9225ef5bac943dfa303adada69f383e6067c1ae4ce24e23</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43772505$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/43772505$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,27901,27902,30976,30977,33751,33752,57992,58225</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>van Nijnatten, Carolus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Ackerveken, Marielle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewals, Tinus</creatorcontrib><title>Managing Assessment. Quality Planning in Assessment Procedures of the Dutch Child Protection Board</title><title>The British journal of social work</title><addtitle>Br J Soc Work</addtitle><description>The Child Welfare and Protection Board (CP), which plays a central role in Dutch child welfare is an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. The CP may present petitions to the juvenile court for their judgement regarding the custody or guardianship of children. The Board presents petitions concerning legal propositions for custody, suspension of the execution of custody, provisional guardianship, and dispossession and restriction of custody. These petitions are based on an investigation of the social conditions of the child and the family. In the past, the quality of these investigations has often been questioned, the main criticism being the lack of any systematic procedure and the strong intrusion of personal opinion. Nevertheless, social workers of the CP Board often regarded potential changes to these investigations with some apprehension because they feared the assessment procedures might lose their human character. More recently, the CP Board has experimented with a system of testing hypotheses in its assessment procedures. In this article, we present the results of an evaluation of this new procedure. The results are presented in the context of the recent debate, published in the British Journal of Social Work, between the advocates and opponents of making social work more scientifically rigorous.</description><subject>Assessment</subject><subject>Child Custody</subject><subject>Child rearing</subject><subject>Child welfare</subject><subject>Child Welfare Services</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Client satisfaction</subject><subject>Dutch Child Protection Board</subject><subject>Governing Boards</subject><subject>Government Agencies</subject><subject>Juvenile Courts</subject><subject>Netherlands</subject><subject>Personality traits</subject><subject>Quality planning</subject><subject>Scientific method</subject><subject>Social environment</subject><subject>Social sciences</subject><subject>Social Work</subject><subject>T tests</subject><subject>The Child Welfare and Protection Board</subject><issn>0045-3102</issn><issn>1468-263X</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2004</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkcFLHDEUxoNY6Gp76lkIHryU0ZdJMpk56rbWwooKFhYvIZN5cWc7O7FJBvW_76xTpHiRd3iH348PPj5CvjA4ZlDxk3odH09qu4JC7JAZE0WZ5QVf7pIZgJAZZ5B_JHsxrgFASWAzUl-a3ty3_T09jRFj3GCfjunNYLo2PdPrzvT9Frb9f5xeB2-xGQJG6h1NK6TfhmRXdL5qu2ZLE9rU-p6eeROaT-SDM13Ez__-Pvl1_v12fpEtrn78nJ8uMisUpMxy4yQ4XpeOiQqlMlWeS3SyNrYSvHGGAzfNeEXleMmxgEJZZlBYzAXmfJ8cTbkPwf8ZMCa9aaPFbuyAfoi6YEIyVal3RalAlarko3j4Rlz7IfRjCZ0DZ0KVIEfp6yTZ4GMM6PRDaDcmPGsGeruK3q6ip1VG-2Cy1zH58KoKrlQuX9Kyibcx4dMrN-G3LhRXUl8s7_Tl2fLm7rxa6Fv-FwMmmwY</recordid><startdate>20040601</startdate><enddate>20040601</enddate><creator>van Nijnatten, Carolus</creator><creator>van den Ackerveken, Marielle</creator><creator>Ewals, Tinus</creator><general>Oxford University Press</general><general>Oxford Publishing Limited (England)</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U3</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20040601</creationdate><title>Managing Assessment. Quality Planning in Assessment Procedures of the Dutch Child Protection Board</title><author>van Nijnatten, Carolus ; van den Ackerveken, Marielle ; Ewals, Tinus</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c470t-c3af50f3b8f149e57a9225ef5bac943dfa303adada69f383e6067c1ae4ce24e23</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2004</creationdate><topic>Assessment</topic><topic>Child Custody</topic><topic>Child rearing</topic><topic>Child welfare</topic><topic>Child Welfare Services</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Client satisfaction</topic><topic>Dutch Child Protection Board</topic><topic>Governing Boards</topic><topic>Government Agencies</topic><topic>Juvenile Courts</topic><topic>Netherlands</topic><topic>Personality traits</topic><topic>Quality planning</topic><topic>Scientific method</topic><topic>Social environment</topic><topic>Social sciences</topic><topic>Social Work</topic><topic>T tests</topic><topic>The Child Welfare and Protection Board</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>van Nijnatten, Carolus</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>van den Ackerveken, Marielle</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ewals, Tinus</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Social Services Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><jtitle>The British journal of social work</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>van Nijnatten, Carolus</au><au>van den Ackerveken, Marielle</au><au>Ewals, Tinus</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Managing Assessment. Quality Planning in Assessment Procedures of the Dutch Child Protection Board</atitle><jtitle>The British journal of social work</jtitle><addtitle>Br J Soc Work</addtitle><date>2004-06-01</date><risdate>2004</risdate><volume>34</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>531</spage><epage>540</epage><pages>531-540</pages><issn>0045-3102</issn><eissn>1468-263X</eissn><coden>BJSWAS</coden><abstract>The Child Welfare and Protection Board (CP), which plays a central role in Dutch child welfare is an agency of the Dutch Ministry of Justice. The CP may present petitions to the juvenile court for their judgement regarding the custody or guardianship of children. The Board presents petitions concerning legal propositions for custody, suspension of the execution of custody, provisional guardianship, and dispossession and restriction of custody. These petitions are based on an investigation of the social conditions of the child and the family. In the past, the quality of these investigations has often been questioned, the main criticism being the lack of any systematic procedure and the strong intrusion of personal opinion. Nevertheless, social workers of the CP Board often regarded potential changes to these investigations with some apprehension because they feared the assessment procedures might lose their human character. More recently, the CP Board has experimented with a system of testing hypotheses in its assessment procedures. In this article, we present the results of an evaluation of this new procedure. The results are presented in the context of the recent debate, published in the British Journal of Social Work, between the advocates and opponents of making social work more scientifically rigorous.</abstract><cop>Oxford</cop><pub>Oxford University Press</pub><doi>10.1093/bjsw/bch064</doi><tpages>10</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0045-3102
ispartof The British journal of social work, 2004-06, Vol.34 (4), p.531-540
issn 0045-3102
1468-263X
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_61451797
source Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Jstor Complete Legacy; Oxford University Press Journals All Titles (1996-Current); Sociological Abstracts
subjects Assessment
Child Custody
Child rearing
Child welfare
Child Welfare Services
Children
Client satisfaction
Dutch Child Protection Board
Governing Boards
Government Agencies
Juvenile Courts
Netherlands
Personality traits
Quality planning
Scientific method
Social environment
Social sciences
Social Work
T tests
The Child Welfare and Protection Board
title Managing Assessment. Quality Planning in Assessment Procedures of the Dutch Child Protection Board
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-07T07%3A16%3A46IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Managing%20Assessment.%20Quality%20Planning%20in%20Assessment%20Procedures%20of%20the%20Dutch%20Child%20Protection%20Board&rft.jtitle=The%20British%20journal%20of%20social%20work&rft.au=van%20Nijnatten,%20Carolus&rft.date=2004-06-01&rft.volume=34&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=531&rft.epage=540&rft.pages=531-540&rft.issn=0045-3102&rft.eissn=1468-263X&rft.coden=BJSWAS&rft_id=info:doi/10.1093/bjsw/bch064&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E43772505%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=203147805&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=43772505&rfr_iscdi=true