Child abuse & neglect · 2026
Caregiver perceptions of a child welfare-based unconditional cash assistance program: A qualitative study.
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Lyons Abram J, Al-Zouabi Ihsan, Edwards Frank, Brown Ryan, Thompson Allison, Castro Amy, West Stacia, Bouchelle Zoe
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Poverty-related needs are associated with child welfare involvement. Unconditional cash transfers are one mechanism to address these conditions, yet few child welfare systems have examined impacts for caregivers and families. We conducted a qualitative study within a randomized controlled trial to assess perceptions of, and the perceived impact of, a child welfare-based unconditional cash assistance program.
METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 caregivers randomized to the trial's treatment arm. The intervention consisted of $500 monthly unconditional cash transfers for 1 year. Interviews probed impressions of the cash assistance program and the perceived impact of the intervention. Interviews were coded using inductive and deductive approaches to identify emergent themes and alignment with prior research.
RESULTS: Many caregivers viewed the cash assistance program skeptically, worrying it might be a means of additional surveillance, but their experiences in the program were ultimately positive. Caregivers valued the cash being flexible, easier to access than other benefits, and allowing families to identify and address their most urgent needs on their own. Caregivers reported that cash assistance reduced financial stress, helped them meet basic needs, supported health, enabled safer childcare, and increased time spent with their children. Several felt the cash assistance could have prevented their CPS involvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Unconditional cash transfers may be a positive, trust-building, and preventive intervention for families referred to CPS for poverty-related needs.
METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 40 caregivers randomized to the trial's treatment arm. The intervention consisted of $500 monthly unconditional cash transfers for 1 year. Interviews probed impressions of the cash assistance program and the perceived impact of the intervention. Interviews were coded using inductive and deductive approaches to identify emergent themes and alignment with prior research.
RESULTS: Many caregivers viewed the cash assistance program skeptically, worrying it might be a means of additional surveillance, but their experiences in the program were ultimately positive. Caregivers valued the cash being flexible, easier to access than other benefits, and allowing families to identify and address their most urgent needs on their own. Caregivers reported that cash assistance reduced financial stress, helped them meet basic needs, supported health, enabled safer childcare, and increased time spent with their children. Several felt the cash assistance could have prevented their CPS involvement.
CONCLUSIONS: Unconditional cash transfers may be a positive, trust-building, and preventive intervention for families referred to CPS for poverty-related needs.