Do we really protect children? Evaluating child protection measures in two meta-analyses

• This review examined developmental outcomes of children in child protection. • As primary studies differed in control conditions, two meta -analyses were conducted. • Protected children had less favourable outcomes than their general population peers. • Outcomes resembled those of at-risk peers in alternative (non-judicial) care. • Child protection efforts may stabilise, but not improve, developmental outcomes. Child maltreatment is a global issue that has been extensively studied due to its profound and long-lasting impact on children’s well-being. To protect children from maltreatment, juvenile courts can impose child protection measures. But do these intrusive measures actually improve developmental outcomes for children? This review seeks to address this question by conducting two separate meta -analyses. The first synthesised studies compared children under child protection to children from the general population (7 studies, 56 effect sizes), whereas the second synthesised studies compared children under child protection to children from similar at-risk populations that did not receive the same protection (8 studies, 21 effect sizes). The results showed that children under child protection scored on average less favourably across developmental outcomes than children from the general population ( d = −0.78, p < 0.001), and even less favourably as parental mental health problems increased. Also, effect sizes were more negative for children’s psychopathology ( d = −0.94, p < 0.001) than for outcomes related to life achievements ( d = −0.34; n.s . ). However, on average, children under protection did not differ from children in similar at-risk populations ( d = 0.05, p = 0.739). It is concluded that, although child protection measures are intended to ensure a child’s safety, our findings provide no indication that they lead to improved developmental outcomes when comparing children under protection with those from the general and at-risk populations. Future rigorous research is needed to better understand the true impact of child protection on children’s development.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Children and Youth Services Review
Published
2025-11-04
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2025.108657
Primary Topic
Child Abuse and Trauma
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Do we really protect children? Evaluating child protection measures in two meta-analyses

Inge B. Wissink, M. van Nieuwenhuijzen, Tessel Sterenborg, Mark Assink
Children and Youth Services Review
Child Abuse and Trauma
article

Do we really protect children? Evaluating child protection measures in two meta-analyses

Inge B. Wissink, M. van Nieuwenhuijzen, Tessel Sterenborg, Mark Assink
article en

Abstract

• This review examined developmental outcomes of children in child protection. • As primary studies differed in control conditions, two meta -analyses were conducted. • Protected children had less favourable outcomes than their general population peers. • Outcomes resembled those of at-risk peers in alternative (non-judicial) care. • Child protection efforts may stabilise, but not improve, developmental outcomes. Child maltreatment is a global issue that has been extensively studied due to its profound and long-lasting impact on children’s well-being. To protect children from maltreatment, juvenile courts can impose child protection measures. But do these intrusive measures actually improve developmental outcomes for children? This review seeks to address this question by conducting two separate meta -analyses. The first synthesised studies compared children under child protection to children from the general population (7 studies, 56 effect sizes), whereas the second synthesised studies compared children under child protection to children from similar at-risk populations that did not receive the same protection (8 studies, 21 effect sizes). The results showed that children under child protection scored on average less favourably across developmental outcomes than children from the general population ( d = −0.78, p < 0.001), and even less favourably as parental mental health problems increased. Also, effect sizes were more negative for children’s psychopathology ( d = −0.94, p < 0.001) than for outcomes related to life achievements ( d = −0.34; n.s . ). However, on average, children under protection did not differ from children in similar at-risk populations ( d = 0.05, p = 0.739). It is concluded that, although child protection measures are intended to ensure a child’s safety, our findings provide no indication that they lead to improved developmental outcomes when comparing children under protection with those from the general and at-risk populations. Future rigorous research is needed to better understand the true impact of child protection on children’s development.

Children and Youth Services ReviewVol. 180
Utrecht University (NL), Netherlands Youth Institute (NL), GGD Amsterdam (NL), University of Amsterdam (NL)
Openalex Percentile: Top 56%
Child Abuse and Trauma
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.