Community professionals and reporting to child protection services

Introduction

The formal system of child protection is almost totally reliant on the identification of children in need of protection by the general public and especially professionals who come into contact with children. Despite the rapid move in child protection departments towards a formalised risk assessment process, there is, as yet, little understanding about how community professionals make the decisions about initiating protective services for a child. There is even less understanding as to how this interface between the community professional and the protection department impacts on the child. An outline of the paper is given below.

The study

This research was funded through a Collaborative Research Grant made available by the Australian Research Council Collaborative Research Grants and Australians Against Child Abuse. The information was obtained from a sample of 52 professionals, from a range of disciplines in different settings, who have contact with children. While the results cannot be generalized to the total population of community professionals in Victoria, they raise a number of critical issues for the current child protection system.

Decision-making about abuse

The majority of respondents (75%) found it complex or difficult to determine if child abuse had occurred. There was considerable variation in how respondents evaluated risk in five hypothetical case studies provided to them for analysis. In general, the greater the perceived risk to a child, the more likely the respondents would be to report the child to DHS. However, 42% of the professionals studied stated they would not report a child whom they had judged as being at ‘considerable’ risk and 12% would not report a child whom they had judged to be at ‘extreme’ risk. Many professionals stated they would take alternative action on behalf of the child. It is clear that risk is a confusing and fraught concept upon which to base evaluative and decision-making frameworks in the area of child protection reporting, investigation and outcomes. If it is to be used, much needed research is required to ensure that such frameworks are used in ways that promote the safety and ongoing welfare of children.

Reluctance to report

The study showed that few professionals found the decision about whether or not to report a child to be straightforward, 63% finding this decision to be difficult or complex. Being a mandated professional did not make the decision any easier. Indeed, 29% of the community professionals were incorrect or uncertain about their reporting obligations. For many, the decision was based on a range of factors which included expectations about the outcome for the child, factors relating to the child’s family, such as cultural factors and fear of parental response, and factors associated with the professional’s work.

The source of information about the abusive event influenced reporting behaviour, some informants being viewed as less reliable. The most important influences on the decision to report were the perpetrator’s access to the child, the functioning of the primary caregiver, the nature of the parent/child interaction and the type and severity of the abuse and neglect. At the same time, respondents continued contact (of varying intensity and length) with 39% of the children following the report to DHS. These study findings suggest that there are major differences between the concerns and expectations of community professionals and actions subsequently taken by the DHS.

Uncertainity about outcomes for children

For 88% of respondents, their decision about whether or not to report a child was influenced by their view of the anticipated outcomes for the child. Respondents were confident that abuse had occurred in nearly all the 66 reports they described making to DHS in the 12 months prior to participating in the research. For half of the cases, respondents identified at least one positive outcome for the child and family from the report. However, while the respondents believed that most reports were investigated, they had knowledge of clear substantiation in only 38% of these reports. The report to DHS marked the end of contact between the child and the respondent in 61% of cases in this sample. When asked about their knowledge of the children after the report was made, the respondents were unsure about the child’s situation in approximately half of the reports. Of the remaining children, they knew that 17% of them had been re-abused and believed that one-third were still at risk.

Conclusions

Clearly, community professionals take seriously their responsibility to protect children from abuse. However, they require support to make decisions about abuse. Information about what they should consider to be abuse is imperative. Knowledge about the way the child protection system works will also assist in raising their confidence about identifying and reporting cases of child abuse. Clearer guidelines would also benefit the child by facilitating his or her referral directly to an agency to receive intervention in situations where the DHS does not view the child as an appropriate referral. The department would also benefit from a reduction in investigations they are unlikely to accept. The paper will make a number of recommendations to facilitate the reporting process and improve the outcome for the abused child.

Selected references

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2001). Child Protection Australia: 1999-00. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Tucci, J., Goddard, C.R., Saunders, B., & Stanley, J. (1998). Agenda for Change — Solutions to Problems in Australian Child Protection Systems. Australians Against Child Abuse and Child Abuse and Family Violence Research Unit, Monash University, Melbourne.

Zellman, G.L. (1992) ‘The Impact of Case Characteristics on Child Abuse Reporting Decisions.’ Child Abuse & Neglect, 16:57-74.

Return to Conference papers and presentations

Australian Institute of Family Studies, Level 20, 485 La Trobe Street, Melbourne Vic 3000, Australia.
Tel: (03) 9214 7888. Fax: (03) 9214 7839. URL: http://www.aifs.gov.au/

Copyright, privacy, disclaimer | Site map