Child protection is considered an appropriate government responsibility, but interventions into the family are also some of the most consequential for states. This study examines the normative basis for limiting parents' freedom by exploring public attitudes about a child's safety in the context of increasing risk. Using a randomized survey, we test the causal relationship between levels of risk and parental restrictions on representative samples in Norway and CA, US (n = 2148) - different welfare state and child protection models. Findings suggest that the public supports restricting parental freedom under conditions of risk and that severity of risk is taken into consideration. A majority favour restricting parental freedom under conditions of risk to the child; a minority resist restricting freedom, regardless of risk, and about one-third to one-half of respondents favour temporarily suspending parents' rights by separating children to foster care. Residents of Norway are half as likely to support unrestricted parenting, regardless of risk, and are 1.5 as likely to endorse restricted parenting. Norwegians are also 20% less likely to support separating a child from his parent compared to US respondents. The study has implications for system design based on popular notions about parents' freedom and family privacy.

Although there is an expansive literature on public attitudes towards the welfare state, we know comparatively little about public attitudes toward child protection. Gauging public opinion about the state's role in protecting children is complicated by the contested ideas that underlie the field. Child protection lies at the nexus between competing values about state obligations to allow unfettered parental freedom or to permit constraints on some parental behaviors. At issue is also the notion of balancing the individual rights of the parties involved: parents and children. Similar to the larger welfare state literature, public attitudes about child protection may be shaped by core human values. This study includes representative samples of the public in Norway and California (n = 2148), countries that are commonly viewed as representative of social democratic and liberal welfare state regimes. Respondents reviewed a vignette portraying a child at risk of harm and were asked a series of questions to gauge whether and/or how the state might constrain the parent's behavior, questions pertaining to the rights of children, and their views about core human values. Findings indicate that residents of Norway were more likely to favor the values of security and equal rights, and Californians more likely to favor the value of self-direction. Contrary to the larger body of welfare state literature which suggests that human values help explain public attitudes about welfare provisions, in general, this study did not find that human values generally explained differences in country attitudes toward constrained parenting or toward children's rights. Findings offer an exploratory first step in expanding notions about child protection as nested in welfare states.

The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) is a widely accepted human rights document and has relevance for child protection policy. This study employs an experimental design with representative samples from Norway and California (USA) to test public perceptions of children's rights in child protection. The countries have welfare states and child protection contexts that differ, and their histories contrast with regard to the UNCRC. Results show that increased severity of risk to a child does not correspond with increased weight on children’s rights. However, residents of Norway are more likely to embrace a children's rights orientation, and participants in California are more likely to accept a parents’ rights perspective. Demographics such as immigrant status and age account for some of these differences. The study contributes to the literature on children's rights and the role of the state in aligning public policy with public attitudes about children.

Initial child welfare screening decisions, traditionally made by an individual worker, determine if a family will receive further intervention by child protective services. A multi-disciplinary team (MDT) decision-making approach for child welfare referrals aims to provide a more thorough assessment of needs and strengths and to connect families to appropriate community-based providers. This study examined 159 child welfare referrals handled by MDTs compared to 331 referrals handled via the traditional screening approach. The study used a pseudo randomization procedure to assign referrals to the study conditions: Referrals logged on 2.5 days of the week were assigned to the treatment group; all others were assigned to the comparison group. Referrals handled by an MDT were more than four times as likely as those not handled by an MDT to be referred to community-based organizations (OR = 4.32, p < .001). There were no statistically significant differences in families' engagement with community-based organizations or child welfare outcomes. MDTs are a promising step in the initial process of connecting families to services, although they did not affect this study's longer-term outcomes.

High-quality implementation is important for preventive intervention effectiveness. Although this implies fidelity to a practice model, some adaptation may be inevitable or even advantageous in routine practice settings. In order to organize the study of adaptation and its effect on intervention outcomes, scholars have proposed various adaptation taxonomies. This paper examines how four published taxonomies retrospectively classify adaptations: the Ecological Validity Framework (EVF; Bernal et al. in J Abnorm Child Psychol 23(1):67-82, 1995), the Hybrid Prevention Program Model (HPPM; Castro et al. in Prev Sci 5(1):41-45, 2004. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:PREV.0000013980.12412.cd ), the Moore et al. (J Prim Prev 34(3):147-161, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10935-013-0303-6 ) taxonomy, and the Stirman et al. (Implement Sci 8:65, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-65 ) taxonomy. We used these taxonomies to classify teacher-reported adaptations made during the implementation of TOOLBOX™, a social emotional learning program implemented in 11 elementary schools during the 2014-2015 academic year. Post-implementation, 271 teachers and staff responded to an online survey that included questions about adaptation, yielding 98 adaptation descriptions provided by 42 respondents. Four raters used each taxonomy to try to classify these descriptions. We assessed the extent to which raters agreed they could classify the descriptions using each taxonomy (coverage), as well as the extent to which raters agreed on the subcategory they assigned (clarity). Results indicated variance among taxonomies, and tensions between the ideals of coverage and clarity emerged. Further studies of adaptation taxonomies as coding instruments may improve their performance, helping scholars more consistently assess adaptations and their effects on preventive intervention outcomes.