This paper examines Vial et al.'s (2020) comparative review of safety assessment instruments used in child welfare. It outlines how these tools identify immediate threats to children — including physical abuse, sexual abuse, neglect, domestic violence, and caregiver substance abuse — and distinguishes safety assessments from risk assessments. The paper also highlights variation among instruments in how they define "immediate safety" and evaluate emotional harm and caregiver mental health. The discussion underscores the value of using multiple instruments together to produce thorough and timely child welfare evaluations.
The article on safety assessments in child welfare by Vial et al. (2020) examines several types of instruments used to evaluate child safety. These tools help determine whether immediate action is needed to protect a child from serious harm. The study compares different safety assessment instruments, identifying the factors each one evaluates and how those factors contribute to classifying a situation as either "safe" or "unsafe."
Some of the common factors evaluated by these instruments include sexual abuse, physical violence, neglect, domestic violence, and substance abuse by caregivers — all of which pose an immediate threat to the child's well-being. How these factors are identified and weighted is central to determining whether a child is in immediate danger. In the case of safety assessments, instruments commonly examine the caregiver's behavior, the child's living conditions, and any immediate physical, sexual, or emotional threats (Vial et al., 2020).
One important finding from the review is the distinction between safety and risk assessments. Safety assessments focus on the child's immediate condition and whether any current threats of harm are present. Risk assessments, by contrast, look at the likelihood of future maltreatment. This distinction matters because child welfare professionals must be able to take timely action when a child is in immediate danger, separate from longer-term concerns about future risk.
"Inconsistent definitions of immediate threat across tools"
These tools share common elements, but they differ in their approach to defining immediate threats. This means that relying on more than one instrument may be beneficial when conducting a thorough evaluation. The variation among instruments highlights an ongoing need for standardization in child welfare safety assessment practice, while also recognizing the complexity of assessing immediate danger across diverse family contexts.
Vial, A., Assink, M., Stams, G. J. J., & van der Put, C. (2020). Safety assessment in child welfare: A comparison of instruments. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104555.
You’re 75% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.