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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | The British journal of social work 2004-06, Vol.34 (4), p.531-540 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |