The only avenue toward lasting protection of children except the extreme measure of permanently removing them from the home-depends on establishing a cooperative relationship between the parent(s) and caseworker. - Weakland and Jordan (1990:53)
No matter what the theoretical model by which one human being attempts to be of help to another, the most potent and dynamic power for influence lies in the relationship. - Pearlman (1972:l50)
In the author's experience, some of the 'family-based' practice models available in work with statutory child protection cases are problematic when it comes to assessing risk and safety. Moreover, this is particularly the case where in psychotherapeutic interventions, the assumption made by the worker is that the family is 'motivated to solve the problem, when they may not even accept that the problem exists' (Barber 1991:44).
This specifically applies where the roles male/s play in the family under
a child protection investigation are not completely known, thus resulting in
these males being defined as 'protectors and/or offenders' (Corby 1987). More
importantly, what we know from the literature about working with fathers or
father substitutes is that very little work was done with these individuals
in casework ( Corby 1993:65). Furthermore, child protection workers in child
death inquiries have been failing to engage fathers in casework and thus modifying
their abuse behaviours (Corby 1993).
This paper will attempt to describe a current practice model that the author
has found to be relevant for statutory family-based practice.
Over a number of years, there has been significant media attention here in Australia
and overseas that has raised awareness of children who are maltreated. The maltreatment
of these children by a male father substitute in the household was a major concern
(Armytage and Reeves 1990:131).
The most documented and best known child death in Australia where this has
occurred is the case of Daniel Valerio. After many months of being exposed to
constant physical abuse by his mother's de-facto husband, Daniel's injuries
resulted in his death at the age of two years (Weekend Australian 1994:22).
What was also significant in this case was that despite the involvement of more
than 21 professionals, the abuse continued to occur. Furthermore, while the
focus remained upon the adults in Daniel's life, it left him vulnerable to further
abuse. This led to an acceptance of the perpetrator's explanation and rationalisation
regarding the injury.
This phenomenon has been referred to as 'professional dangerousness'. Here,
three key devices contribute to underreporting of child abuse: the 'rule of
optimism', 'natural love' and 'cultural relativism' (Dale et al. 1986; Dingwell
et al. 1983). In addition, significant attention has been draw to the way 'systems'
operate in child protection work with families, and how these 'systems' can
also impede effective intervention (Morrison 1996; Howe 1992).
Whatever the process taking place in child protection cases, it is inherently
difficult for statutory workers to build partnerships with families under investigation.
Regardless of this inherent difficulty, the literature also informs statutory
social workers that families have responded better to investigations where there
is a direct effort to inform and consult the family (DOHSS 1985:30).
Therefore, the challenge is to rethink our work with families in statutory settings.
This is because while professionally we may aspire to ideals about 'cooperation
and empowerment', when faced with real risk situations for children, we must
act from a position of authority' (Scott and O'Neil 1996).
To re-think what we do 'to' rather than 'with' families under investigation
from 'welfare', we have to start from the position that working 'in' families
requires a more balanced practice. This practice begins from a stance that does
not include notions of deficits or shortcomings. Moreover, valuing families
in statutory practice would challenge the notion that child abuse is a pathological
problem affecting only a few families and which can be scientifically predicted
(Parson 1985:185).
Signs of Safety
Signs of Safety - A Safety and Solution Oriented Approach to Child Protection
Casework (Turnell and Edwards 1995) evolved from Solution Focused Brief
Therapy (de Shazer et al. 1988; Berg 1991; Lipchik 1988) and was influenced
by the work of Gregory Bateson and Milton Erickson. In Solution Focused Brief
Therapy, the focus is on reframing the problem, identifying exceptions to the
problem, and duplicating these conditions to facilitate the client to set achievable
goals (de Shazer 1988).
As a current practice model in use with statutory work with families, Signs
of Safety seeks to foster a cooperative relationship between workers and families,
particularly where the families perceive a threat to remove the child from the
home (Scott and O'Neil 1996:viii).
The basic premise of the Signs of Safety approach is 'to balance the equation'
by eliciting the family's perspective on competencies, existing safety and goals.
Signs of Safety also requests the statutory agency 'to be exact and explicit
on its own safety goals' (Turnell and Edwards 1997:3). This is a direct shift
from traditional child protection work where the focus was on an accurate and
concise 'risk assessment' only.
Signs of Safety does not negate the need for a thorough and sound 'risk assessment'
but rather requires the focus to also incorporate a 'safety assessment'. This
is likely to enhance a more purposeful relationship between the worker and the
family.
A key question that arises for most social workers in the child protection field
is where to after the 'risk assessment'? This is a common question, especially
where the investigation of risk has failed to produce enough evidence to warrant
the case remaining open. In the absence of a conversation about 'safety' within
the context of the family, we ultimately find ourselves with a situation based
solely around 'risk'.
The following case study demonstrates the application of the Signs of Safety
approach, and will hopefully highlight three of the 'major practice elements:
Position, Exceptions and Goals' (Turnell and Edwards 1997:4).
The family consists of a 25-year-old mother, Anne Smith, a 30-year-old father,
Bill Smith and their four children Skye (6), Dew (3), George (2) and Adam (7
months). The family can be described as 'blended' with Skye being a child from
another relationship. Skye has an older sister who is in the custody of her
biological father.
At the time of the referral, the family was residing in a disused commercial
building and living mainly in the basement cellar. The building is owned by
Mr Smith's mother and has been a major source of conflict for the family as
the Shire has declared the building unfit. Regardless of an eviction order,
the family so far has been able to stand its ground.
Early one afternoon, statutory workers from the district office received a telephone
call from the school principal. The allegation was that Skye had arrived at
school with unexplained physical injuries. Specifically, these were an infected
scald burn present on her chest and a bruise above her right eye. The principal
requested that the workers visit the school and investigate these injuries.
Workers interviewed Skye, who explained that she had spilt hot water down her
chest from a kettle while making her mother a cup of coffee one morning. The
bruise, caused by Mrs Smith becoming agitated with Skye when she complained
that the burn was hurting, was the result of a glass hitting her over the right
eye. Additional information was provided by the principal that Skye has often
arrived at school in a dirty state, and that Mr and Mrs Smith were unresponsive
to the school regarding welfare matters for Skye. This gave the workers the
impression that the school had long been anticipating this visit.
Here, then is the beginning of a 'risk assessment'. Careful attention needs
to occur at this point, because it is very easy to be overloaded with the saturation
of abuse and associated risk factors. Using the Signs of Safety approach, there
is a need to look at exceptions to the problem. Exception provides the
worker with knowledge about 'safety' (that is, when the problem does not occur).
In doing this, it assists the statutory worker to approach the family from a
more balanced position.
The first key element using Signs of Safety is to hear the story from each family
member and to elicit their position regarding the abuse or neglect. The
position refers to 'strongly held beliefs or values that inform the individual
regarding the abuse or neglect' (Turnell and Edwards 1997:3). On hearing the
complaint, Mr Smith was defensive. He stated his belief that the workers were
part of the Shire Council's attempt to evict the family. The workers emphasised
that their focus was on the allegations regarding Skye and appreciated his position
of wanting to keep his family together.
Listening to Mr and Mrs Smith's position, it became evident that the injuries
did occur and they were apologetic about the whole event. Without hesitation,
Mr Smith took the workers into the basement and showed them just how the injury
may have happened and pointed to the kettle on a speaker box. Mr Smith then
immediately removed the kettle from the speaker and placed it out of reach.
Mrs Smith said she did not mean to throw the glass at Skye; it was an accident.
She explained that while she was trying to feed Adam, Skye had been demanding
her attention for a glass of water. When she tried to pass the glass to Skye
it slipped through her hand and caused the injury. Mrs Smith's position on
the burn was that it was also an accident, and they had treated the injury using
a combination of Aloe Vera and Savlon. They did not feel the injury was serious
enough to take Skye to a general practitioner, and were keen to treat the wound
with natural remedies.
In summary, Mr and Mrs Smith's position on the abuse was that it was unacceptable and that normally they would make every effort to ensure their children were safe. In addition, they took steps to dress the wound and they had given some thought to medical attention, but felt it was not necessary.
Hence, a more balanced assessment of risk and safety was already beginning to emerge by simply listening to the family's particular position on the abuse or neglect issues. Once a discovery of the position regarding the abuse, it is necessary to look for exceptions to the abuse or neglect. In this case, this occurred by listening to what Mr and Mrs Smith said about the times when their behaviour is protective.
It was clear from the dialogue between Mr Smith and the workers that the cellar provided a mix of 'safety' and 'risk'. Mr Smith said he had been living in the cellar despite the council's disapproval. On observation, the cellar did contain potential hazards for small children. This was an agency and council position. There were a number of items including an unguarded pot belly stove and a 90 per cent stairwell without a gate at either end.
At this point, workers undertaking a traditional child protection investigation would have exited from the family with at a shopping list of 'problems' that would have, in turn, formed a very one-sided and negative view of the family (Berg 1991:23). The family as a result would have also confirmed its suspicions about 'welfare', and limited future opportunities for the agency to intervene other than in a statutory relationship.
Mr Smith said that subsequent to the visit by 'welfare' his children were safe and always supervised by himself or his spouse. Mr Smith had taken pride in his home and was, whenever the workers visited the premises, doing something to improve the living arrangements.
Consequently, there were exceptions to the abuse. Exceptions in the Signs of Safety approach refers to 'times when the abuse or neglect could have happened but did not occur' (Turnell and Edwards 1995). In taking the time to amplify the exceptions to the abuse or neglect, the worker is detailing safety and acknowledging what the family is already doing well. This is a good base for establishing a cooperative relationship between the worker and family.
In child protection work, Turnell and Edwards (1997) state that it is common practice for workers to make clear to the family what things in relation to the abuse or neglect will have to stop. Usually, a conversation with the family about how the abuse will stop, what will happen instead, and when both the family and worker will know, does not occur automatically.
Therefore, goal setting is a central element in the Signs of Safety approach because it provides direction for the case plan, and further underlines the importance of establishing a cooperative relationship between the parents and caseworker. In this case, the workers informed the family that they would need to return to the office. They explained to the family that to form a balanced assessment, they would need to think about all the information. Turnell and Edwards (1995:46) note that 'where workers devoted time to think about the family's situation, the family have appreciated and welcomed their presence'.
The challenge for the workers returning to the family was twofold: first, how to present to the family what the agency wanted in concrete and specific measurable behavioral terms; and second, to establish whether the family's goals overlap with the assessed provision of 'protection and safety'.
A situation where a preoccupation with 'safety' overrides the family's goals can be a pitfall. This is a common process in statutory practice, especially where the basis of the working relationship contains mistrust, thus giving rise to 'defensive practice' (Parson 1985). However, because there has already been a conversation about safety and risk with the family, it is more likely for the worker to avoid the trap of 'defensive practice'.
There were two specific safety goals for the agency regarding the Smith family. These were that the family move into safe accommodation while the renovations occur for the cellar, and that Skye (and the other children) were not at risk of future abuse. The family's three goals were that they wanted to remain on the premises, keep the family together, and to have their plans to build a house approved by the Shire Council.
After the assessment of risk and safety, which included agency and family goals, the worker made a judgement using the Safety and Context Scale. As child protection work is an emotionally hot practice with many variables, the scale is one way to give the family and worker some space in the process. As a tool, it provides the worker and family with a picture of where things are at present. Furthermore, it is a shared intervention between the family and worker rather than an invisible task done back at the office.
The Signs of Safety assessment for the Smith family was presented to them as a dynamic portrait of where they were currently, and where they would like to be in the future. Having done this, it was possible to rate the safety and context on a scale where 10 indicated that Skye's safety was certain and 0 where there was certain to be re-abuse. For the Smith family, the safety was a 6 and the context a 7. This scale was of great help to the family and worker, as the guarantee of complete safety would be unrealistic.
What began as a standard investigation of abuse turned into a situation where
the worker and family could meet to discuss and negotiate change. This began
with discussion on the condition of the dwelling, and the fact that the family
invited workers from the district office to return to the building on more than
one occasion exemplified the notion of cooperation.
On these visits, it was still necessary to deliver compliments and list
in concrete and specific terms work still required on the building. Cooperating
with the family's goals and not the abuse ( Turnell and Edwards 1995:5) was
a central feature of each visit. While the worker's role clearly was not as
a building inspector, it was still pointed out to the family that there were
items that posed a risk to the children.
In addition Mr Smith, being a builder by trade, was able to show the workers proudly the repairs done to the cellar. Although the family disagreed with the agency's goal of alternate accommodation, with assistance from the in-laws, the family did purchase a caravan to come to a compromise with the agency's goal. Furthermore, the worker was able to support the family in its submission of plans by writing a letter to the Shire Council, despite the fact that the agency could not provide direct legal assistance.
Moreover, no further reports were received by the agency in relation to the children's welfare. Despite the progress made by the family, it must be highlighted that this family could not be described as a 'success story', even though by using the Signs of Safety approach the child was able to remain at home. Indeed, there were many times where cooperation between the worker and family was tenuous and fraught with dilemmas. This included the substantiation of the abuse and subsequent register of Skye on the Child Protection Services Register.
In conclusion, applying the Signs of Safety approach in statutory casework the main objective is to establish a cooperative relationship. To some extent, this cooperative relationship was achieved between the worker/s and the Smith family by balancing out the 'safety' and 'risk' and looking for exceptions to the abuse or neglect.
Rarely in child welfare do we come across a 'happy ever after' stories and only time will tell if Signs of Safety was effective for the Smith family.
References
Armytage, P. and Reeves, C. (1990), 'Practice insights as revealed by child
death inquiries in Victoria and overseas', in Calvert, J. (ed.) The Practice
of Child Protection.
Barber, J. (1991), Beyond Casework, MacMillan, London.
Berg, I. (1991), Family Preservation A Brief Therapy Workbook, BT Press, London.
Corby, B. (1993), Child Abuse: Towards a Knowledge Base, Open University Press, Buckingham.
Dale, P. et al. (1986), Dangerous Families: Assessment and Treatment of Child Abuse, Routledge, London.
Department of Health and Social Security (1985), Social Work Decisions In Child Care: Recent Research Findings and their Implications, HMSO, London.
de Shazer, S. (1988), Clues, Investigating Solutions in Brief Therapy, WW Norton, New York.
Dingwell, R. et al. (1983), The Protection of Children: State Intervention and Family Life, Oxford, Blackwell.
Howe, D. (1992), 'Theories of helping, empowerment and participation', in Thoburn, J. (ed.) Practice - Involving Families in Child Protection, University of East Anglia, Norwich, p. 39.
Lipchik, E. (1988), 'Interviewing with a constructive ear', in Questions in Therapy, Dulwich Centre Newsletter, Special Edition.
Morrison, T. (1996), 'Partnership and collaboration: rhetoric and reality', in Child Abuse and Neglect, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 127-140.
Pearlman, H. (1972), 'The problem solving model in social casework' in Roberts, R. and Nee, R. (eds), Theory of Social Casework, University of Chicago, pp. 129-180.
Parton, N. (1985), The Politics of Child Abuse, Macmillan, London.
Scott, D. and O'Neil, D. (1996), Beyond Child Rescue: Developing Family Centred Practice at St Luke's, Allen and Unwin, Sydney, Australia.
Turnell, A. andEdwards, S. (1995), Signs Of Safety: A Safety and Solution Orientated Approach to Child Protection Casework - The Work Book, Centrecare, Perth WA.
Turnell, A. and Edwards, S. (1997), 'Aspiring to partnership: the Signs of Safety approach to child protection', in Child Abuse Review, vol. 6, pp. 1-12.
Weeks, P. (1994), 'Fatal inaction', in The Weekend Australian, February 12-13, p. 22.
Weakland, J. and Jordan, L. (1990), 'Working briefly with reluctant clients: child protection services as an example', in Family Therapy Case Studies, vol. 5, no. 2.
The move toward a new model of child protection in the UK and Australia (Tomison 1996) is based on an analysis of the current situation that is comprehensive and persuasive, but also somewhat one-dimensional. The author believes that child protection service providers should be cautious in interpreting the 1995 research from the UK with its strong emphasis on children's needs; that developments in the USA concerning safety and risk issues demand equal attention; and that child protection systems will only be enhanced if they embrace all three aspects of children's welfare: danger/safety, risk and needs. Finally, the author outlines the current application of this integrated approach to statutory child protection work in South Australia.
The Problem
Common themes emerging from recent analyses of child protection systems in the
1980s and 1990s are that:
First, there are signs that the relative reporting of different types of maltreatment is changing. Clearly, the public's perception of child abuse changes over time and reflects the evolution of community values and intermittent public scandals involving avoidable child deaths on the one hand (for example, Maria Colwell in the UK, Daniel Valerio in Melbourne, Elisa Izquierdo in New York), and overintrusive interventions on the other (for example, Cleveland and the Orkneys in the UK, Children of God in Victoria and NSW).
The 1980s saw a dramatic increase in the reporting of child sexual abuse, just as the 'discovery' of the 'battered child syndrome' led to increased reporting of physical abuse in earlier decades More recently, the growing awareness of the effects of family violence and substance abuse on children has led to increased reporting of neglect and emotional abuse. In South Australia, since 1992, reports of sexual abuse have not increased and physical abuse notifications have risen by 50 per cent, whereas reports of neglect have doubled and those of emotional abuse have risen almost four times.
Second, there is the issue of re-notification and its effect on the overall increase. Departments tend to focus on the number of notifications received in a given period rather than on the number of children being notified, and there may be significant increases in the former without equivalent rises in the latter if sufficient numbers of children are re-notified.
The issue of re-notifications has been documented on both sides of the Atlantic with Gibbons, Conroy and Bell (1995) reporting a 45 per cent re notification rate in the UK, and English (1994) finding lower but significant re-notification rates of over 30 per cent in the USA.
An unpublished study of re-notifications in South Australia (Giannakakos and
Hetherington 1996) revealed that the increase in re-notifications accounted
for almost the entire increase in total reports for 1994-96. First time notifications
rose by just 2 per cent while re-notifications increased 48 per cent. Moreover,
about 20 per cent of total notifications in 1995 were on children who were being
reported for at least the fifth time, and this proportion of the total was rising
yet more rapidly.
An in-depth analysis of reports received in a two-week period in 1996 with five
or more prior notifications (49 in all) revealed the majority were high risk
multiproblem families characterised by substance abuse, intermittent family
violence, significant instability and frequent short-term departmental intervention.
In this sample, some children had been notified as many as 20 times in the previous
five years. Surprisingly perhaps, there was no clear evidence of reports increasing
in severity/frequency where the department failed to respond, or becoming less
significant when the department intervened significantly. Indeed, the general
pattern was one of serious, intractable and complex family problems that were
largely immune to intervention. A significant and increasing number of such
families is likely to distort the apparent overall trend in maltreatment.
Casting the Net Too Wide?
Several recent researchers have concluded that statutory child protection services
have become overintrusive by investigating families where 'the harmful intent
of parents towards their children was not much in evidence; abuse was more a
question of failings, negligence or over zealous and inappropriate controls'
(Cleaver and Freeman 1995:138).
David Thorpe takes the argument one step further and postulates that child protection has become 'a means by which the private lives of those who struggle to bring up children in difficult conditions are made public and what is made public is more often than not a misrepresentation of what is required' (Thorpe 1994:202).
Gibbons, Conroy and Bell (1995:110) question not only the extent of investigation but also the outcomes of investigations for clients: 'on average some 6 out of every 7 children who entered the system at referral were filtered out of it without needing to be placed on a child protection register. In a high proportion, 44% of those actually investigated, the investigation led to no actions at all. There was no intervention to protect the child ... nor were any other family support services provided'.
The conclusion drawn by the Dartington Social Research Unit in summarising the UK research is that child protection systems should refocus on the issue of children's needs and the cumulative harm to children caused by destructive family environments (for example, high criticism, low warmth) rather than on the investigation of individual incidents of reported abuse (Bullock et al. 1995).
As Tomison (1996) points out, much of the current thinking on child protection advocates a 'family support' framework and aims at 'addressing family problems holistically'. This benign reframing of the task focuses squarely on needs and underplays the other roles of statutory child protection that may conflict with the partnership endeavour. Statutory child protection departments must ensure the safety of children in imminent danger and reduce the risk of future abuse to children, as well as addressing children's and families' needs.
In particular, there are two aspects of the proposed needs-based approach to child protection that require clarification. First, how should the system distinguish between reports requiring investigation and those requiring support? Second, how can the system ensure consistency (interrater reliability) between the assessments of workers making such distinctions?
If the uniform investigative response to child abuse reports is problematic, then a differential response to child maltreatment reports is surely the way of the future. However, such a system must operate within a conceptually sound assessment framework that has been researched and/or tested for its reliability and its predictive validity.
An Integrated Approach to Child Protection
Ultimately, the success or failure of a child protection system depends
on the level of resources, and its ability to target resources toward children
in immediate danger: those at highest risk and those in greatest need. The long
and difficult search for accurate assessment frameworks to assist agencies in
these tasks may be far from over, but there have been significant developments
in the last few years.
At the point of investigation, the safety assessment tool first developed in New York is now being used in several other large USA cities (Chicago, Detroit and Atlanta). Various states also use child needs and family needs assessment tools (Rhode Island and Michigan). A comprehensive child needs assessment framework has recently been adopted widely in the UK for children in alternative care (The Looking After Children Project, Ward 1995).
Risk assessment has been on the agenda in North America for a decade and a recent evaluation of the risk assessment models developed during the 1980s concluded: 'although the current level of predictive validity for the models evaluated would not allow for major dependence on them for case decision making, the research on actuarial models, such as those used in Alaska, Alameda County and Vermont, is somewhat encouraging (Lyons, Doueck and Wodarski 1996).
The 'structured decision making' model of child protection (Baird and Caskey 1995), currently adopted in Alaska, Georgia, Michigan and now being introduced in California, is a major advance on previous models as much for its elegant conceptual framework and user-friendliness as for its reliance on the most up-to-date research.
A three-year study on the predictive validity and interrater-reliability of three risk assessment systems is currently being undertaken in the USA and the reliability analysis has been completed. This shows that whereas the consensus risk assessment systems used in California and Washington achieved full agreement (100 per cent) between raters in less than one in six cases, the actuarial model used in Michigan achieved full agreement in almost 60 per cent of cases (Baird 1997).
In addition to developments in risk assessment, there is increasing interest in the USA in differential response models of child protection, including the diversion to community agencies of low-risk reports. Several differential response systems are currently being piloted, but the archetype of these initiatives is the alternative response system started nine years ago in Washington. Research in that state has convinced administrators that there is no significant additional risk involved in diverting low-risk notifications to specially funded community agencies.
'The data indicate that most families entering the system and classified as low risk do have problems, but the vast majority are not confirmed for child abuse/neglect' (English and Aubin 1991).
Whatever the state of the art, there is little doubt that formal assessment frameworks: (1) operationalise good casework practice; (2) provide a consistent basis for classification of cases into risk-related groups and thus, facilitate prioritisation; (3) can effectively serve as basis of worker training; and (4) can provide more readily accessible information in the case record (Cichinelli 1990).
There is also sufficient research evidence to suggest that without systematic frameworks, social workers are not especially skilled at distinguishing between abusing and non-abusing caregivers (Starr 1987) and are inclined to underestimate the dangers to children in families with whom they have had long-term involvement (Farmer and Owen 1995).
Researchers at the Chapin Hall Center for Children in Chicago (Ross et al.
1996) recently examined decision making on 70 serious child abuse cases by over
a hundred child protection workers and 30 'experts. They concluded that professional
decision making in child protection is inconsistent and unreliable: 'Extreme
cases are always easy, the test of a decision making process lies in the middle
cases. Such families are subject to the random draw that determines their caseworker
. . . families encountering different workers and experts would be systematically
dealt with quite differently.'
References
Baird, C. & Caskey, R. (1995), The Michigan Department of Social Services Structured Decision Making System: An Evaluation of its Impact on Child Protection Services, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, Madison, Wisconsin.
Baird, C. (1997), Child Abuse and Neglect: Improving Consistency in Decision Making, National Council on Crime and Delinquency, San Francisco, California.
Besharov, D. (1987), 'Contending with overblown expectations', in Public Welfare, Winter, vol. 45, no. 1.
Bullock, R. et al. (1995), Messages from Research, HMSO, London.
Cichinelli, L. (1990), 'Risk assessment; expectations, benefits and realities', in Tatara, T. (ed) 4th National Roundtable on CPS Risk Assessment (US), Summary of Highlights, American Humane Association, Colorado.
Cleaver, H. & Freeman, P. (1995), Parental Perspectives in Cases of Suspected Child Abuse, HMSO, London.
English, D. (1994), 'Risk assessment as a practice method in child protective services', in Child Welfare, vol. 73, no. 5.
English, D. & Aubin, S. (1991), Impact of Investigations Outcomes for Child Protective Services Cases Receiving Differential Levels of Service, NCCAN, Washington.
Farmer, E. & Owen, M. (1995), Child Protection Practice: Private Risks and Public Remedies: A Study of Decision Making, Intervention and Outcomes in Child Protection Work, HMSO, London.
Giannakakos, J. & Hetherington, T. (1996), Multiple Renotifications of Maltreatment, Department of Human Services, Adelaide, SA, (unpublished).
Gibbons, J., Conroy, S. & Bell, C. (1995), Operating the Child Protection System: A Study of Child Protection Practices in English Local Authorities, HMSO, London.
Hutchinson, E., Dattalo, P. & Rodwell, M. (1994), 'Reorganizing child protective services: protecting children and providing family support', in Children and Youth Services Review, vol. 16, no. 516.
Lyons, P., Doueck, H. & Wodearski, J. (1996), 'Risk assessment for child protective services: a review of the empirical literature on instrument performance', in Social Work Research, vol. 20, no. 3.
Rossi, P., Schuerman, J. & Budde, S. (1996), Understanding Child Maltreatment Decisions and Those who Make Them, Chapin Hall Center for Children, Chicago University.
Starr, R. (1987), 'Clinical judgement of abuse-proneness based on parent-child interactions', in Child Abuse and Neglect, vol. 11.
Thorpe, D. (1994), Evaluating Child Protection, Open University Press, Buckingham, UK.
Tomison, A. (1996), 'Child protection towards 2000', Child Abuse Prevention, vol. 4, no. 2, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
Ward, H. (ed.) (1995), Looking After Children: Research into Practice,
HMSO, London.
The unit's vision statement is: To live in a community where young people
and police have mutual understanding and respect for each other's rights, roles
and responsibilities.
The Video and Audio Taped Evidence Project (VATE) involves the video
recording of complainant statements rather than documenting the statement in
a written form. The process is available for children or mentally impaired persons
who have been witnesses to, or victims of, a sexual offence or an indictable
offence involving injury or threat of injury to a person. The process aims to
afford these witnesses better access to the criminal justice system, and reduce
the trauma associated with giving evidence.
Legislation allows that this statement may be later admitted as the evidence-in-chief in a court hearing. The witness must still be present to be cross-examined. However, it is possible to conduct this cross-examination via the remote witness facility (closed-circuit connection to a near by room).
Community Policing Squad members are the core group of police officers trained in conducting the statements. Statewide implementation is now complete with 29 permanent interview suites located at Community Policing Squad offices across the State.
The use of the statements as evidence-in-chief is being closely monitored by the VATE Project Team and, to date, four witnesses have had their evidence-in-chief led via video statements. All trials resulted in convictions. Video statements have been used as evidence at Magistrates' Court hearings, Children's Court (Criminal and Protection matters), Family Court of Australia and Crimes Compensation matters.
The VATE process allows a witness to demonstrate how an offence has occurred when they may not be able to describe the incident in words. It allows for the demeanour and size of the witness to be documented at the time of the complaint, and is an open and accountable method to document the complaint. The necessity for repeated interviewing by various professionals involved in a case is greatly reduced, and it is far quicker to record the evidence by this process.
For further information on police-youth issues contact the Youth Advisory
Unit, Level 6, Building A, Victoria Police Centre, 637 Flinders Street, Melbourne
Victoria 3005. Phone (03) 9247 6195 or (03) 9247 6191 (VATE Project); Fax (03)
9247 6188.
The Department of Human Services in South Australia is currently implementing
a major reform of its child protection service based on the introduction of
formal assessment instruments and a differential response system.
Analyses of departmental data conducted in 1996 showed clearly that the situation
in South Australia was comparable to that experienced by departments in other
Australian States and by those in the USA and UK. The differences were more
a matter of degree than kind. It seemed clear, for example, that most departments
were facing a reducing capacity to investigate notifications, inconsistent assessments
and responses to children in danger or at risk, and rising re-notification rates.
Main Goals of the Reform
The main goals of the reform are:
The major reform to the system embraces the research evidence from the UK, and the latest risk assessment model and differential response systems being developed in the USA. Several fundamental changes are being implemented:
Central Intake System
A central telephone intake team of skilled and experienced social workers was
established in April 1997 so all child abuse and neglect reports from across
the State are received at one location. The single 24-hour child protection
phone number provides easy access to notifiers, especially children and young
persons. The team utilises uses safety assessment and initial risk assessment
instruments to ensure consistency and accountability of assessments.
A central Aboriginal consultation and response team - Yaitya Tirramangkotti (Prevention People) - has been co-located with the telephone intake team. The Aboriginal team advises on the appropriateness of assessments on reported Aboriginal children and families, and ensures that a person with sufficient knowledge of Aboriginal kinship and culture is involved in all investigations from the outset.
Differential Response
To address the problems of overintrusion, the department is introducing a three-tier
response system that differentiates between children in immediate danger (tier
1), children at risk* (tier 2), and children primarily in need where the risk*
of future abuse is low (tier 3).
The Central Intake Teams identifies children in danger (tier 1 ) by using the safety assessment instrument and an immediate response is arranged, usually in conjunction with the specialised police and health units. Departmental standards and quality feedback measures ensure response times are kept to a minimum, and only skilled and experienced workers investigate tier 1 cases.
Tier 2 children are investigated along traditional departmental lines. Transparent processes for investigation and intervention have been introduced, including clearly defined exit points and the provision of written outcomes for all families investigated.
The tier 3 category is a new departure for child protection in Australia in that no visit to the family is made. Instead, the initial response to these cases is to contact the family (usually in writing) and invite them to a meeting to discuss the situation with a social worker.
The emphasis with tier 3 is on problem solving rather than investigating a reported incident. Departmental and family perceptions of the reported concerns are shared and community support sought where necessary. A pilot tier 3 diversionary program similar to Washington State's alternative response system is being developed and will be introduced in 1998.
The department retains the flexibility to adjust its response when developments occur in a family, or new information comes to light that indicates greater risk or safety issues.
Early results from the evaluation of the first six months of operation indicate that the central intake and differential response systems have led to a significant improvement in the proportion of immediate (that is, within 24 hours) responses made to children in danger (tier 1), from 60 per cent in February 1996 to 85 per cent in July-December 1997.
Closer Interagency Cooperation
The introduction of formalised interagency strategy discussions and professional
case discussions for high-risk cases and children in danger has resulted from
internal analysis of the department's procedures, and from the clear findings
of the recent UK research (Hallett 1995). These measures, which are being developed
in partnership with key staff from the police and health departments, are designed
to streamline investigations and enhance critical decision making.
In the majority of tier 1 cases, departmental staff are required to hold three way strategy discussions (in person or by phone link) with police investigators and child protection professionals from the Health Commission prior to the investigation (unless this jeopardises the child's safety). Participants in the strategy discussion exchange information and views about the report, clarify roles, and plan and coordinate the most effective investigation. Strategy discussions are also held on tier 2 investigations where staff propose to interview children prior to visiting their caregivers/parents.
Safety, Risk and Needs Assessment
As from November 1997, the formal use of standardised assessment instruments
in child protection has been included in standard procedures. Safety assessments
are completed on all tier 1 and 2 notifications. Risk and Needs assessments
are conducted on all cases where abuse has been confirmed.
The safety assessment tool was designed by the New York Department and Albany
University 10 years ago and has since been adopted by several other departments.
The tool contains 12 case characteristics, and identification of any one of
them indicates a child may be in imminent danger.
In South Australia, safety assessment is conducted in two stages: at intake, and after the initial investigative visits. The identification of a safety factor at intake is essentially a trigger for an immediate response. If the full assessment confirms the child is indeed in danger, the worker must then take steps to ensure the child's safety. This includes identifying those situations where the child is only safe because of the department's intervention; thus, providing a mechanism for ensuring continuing involvement in those critical situations.
The risk assessment instrument has been designed in conjunction with the Children's Research Center in Wisconsin. The South Australian instrument is based on extensive research into the characteristics of families where abuse/neglect was confirmed by FACS in 1995 and the link established between those characteristics and subsequent re-notifications of abuse or neglect.
It is, in other words, an actuarial tool for classifying families in terms of the likelihood of re-abuse. Four risk levels are identified:very high, high, moderate and low risk. Although a risk assessment of very high on a particular family does not necessarily mean a child in that family will be re abused, it does mean the child is 10 times more likely to be re-abused than a child in a family assessed as being low risk. Under the system now being introduced, workers are required to visit families more or less frequently depending on the level of risk that has been assessed.
The system allows for workers' professional judgement to override ratings derived from the instrument, but does not permit workers to ignore key situational indicators (such as severe substance abuse or family violence), or to close high-risk cases without a clear rationale.
Family needs/strengths assessment tools are being used in various USA states and we have drawn on their experience and knowledge in designing our own tool, once again with the help of the Children's Research Center.
'Needs' in this context refers to those family deficits and problems that have a direct bearing on the abuse/neglect suffered by the children in the family. The needs/strengths assessment tool focuses on family needs rather than children's needs so the behaviour and characteristics of the adults in the family become the focus of intervention, rather than the behaviour and characteristics of the child.
The family needs/strengths assessment tool is used: to establish the overall level of needs, thus establishing a baseline measurement for the future review of progress; and to identify up to three primary family needs which become the focus of the case management process.
Case Management
For all substantiated cases, a full risk and needs assessment is completed and
services are then targeted toward high risk/needs families. Where particular
risks and needs have been identified, workers are required to specify the interventions
and services necessary to address them as well as the availability of those
services.
Re-assessments of risk and family needs/strengths will be conducted every three months and prior to closure so the family's progress and risk level can be monitored.
The system also generates information for supervisors on the level and distribution of children at risk, family needs and resource deficiencies within department and in the wider community (at team, district centre and State levels).
Conclusion
The new South Australian child protection system aims to provide
an integrated solution to the problems facing the department, problems which
are currently found in most statutory child protection agencies. The system
addresses the safety, risk and needs/strengths of notified children and their
families. It provides consistent and reliable initial recording and assessment
through the introduction of a central intake system. Most importantly, it targets
investigative and intervention resources to serious cases in which children
are in immediate danger or at high risk of re-abuse, while providing a less
intrusive response to children and families whose priority need is access to
welfare services.
Note:
* 'Risk' in this context means 'assessed initial risk'. It refers to the likely
risk that the notified child will be abused or neglected in the future.
This likelihood is determined by the Central Intake Team using their professional
judgement and an initial risk assessment tool developed by consensus. The term
'risk assessment' used subsequently is much more specific and refers to the
likelihood that an abused child will be re-abused within 18 months. This
definition is the basis for the research that established the actuarial risk
assessment tool. The confusion in terms results from the separate development
of the differential response and intervention systems and will be resolved in
the future. In this article, I have used 'risk' to reflect assessed initial
risk as opposed to risk of re-abuse.
An information desk is staffed during office hours to answer queries related to child abuse by telephone, fax, mail, email, or in person. General queries are handled by the Family Information Centre, and requests for more specialised information are referred to the research advisor. Clearing House staff can draw on the extensive resources of the collection and databases, as well as external online and Internet services.
Staff respond to a variety of queries such as: networking - for example, how
to get in touch with another professional in a particular field; literature
searches; analysis/interpretation of issues; research methodology; procedures;
models - for example, intake procedures for child abuse agencies; evaluation
issues; client advocacy; and government policy.
The service is free to Clearing House members. To become a member, contact the
National Child Protection Clearing House, Australian Institute of Family Studies,
300 Queen Street, Melbourne Victoria 3000 Australia. Phone (03) 9214 7888. Fax
(03) 9214 7839. Email: margj@aifs.org.au
The National Child Protection Clearing House welcomes the submission for consideration of short articles (1000-2000 words) on child abuse prevention issues, and news items and details of initiatives, meetings, training courses and so on, for publication in the Newsletter. Publication will be subject to review by the Institute.
For further information contact: Judy Adams, phone (03) 9214 7812, or email
judy@aifs.org.au or Adam Tomison, email:
adamt@aifs.org.au
The format is similar to the first edition and comprises a searchable database of citations and abstracts with attached full text images. The publications contained on the new CD-ROM include journal articles, research and discussion papers, policy submissions, and fact sheets. We have retained and updated the journal titles on the first disk, and included a number of new titles. In addition, there is the full text of the Institute of Family Studies' Australian Family Profiles, an important demographic publication.
Publications from the National Child Protection Clearing House (issues and discussion papers on child abuse and neglect, and a national database of more than 600 programs to prevent abuse) are included on the CD-ROM.
The new Web links section provides a list of the most useful web sites for research and further information on programs. For users who are set up to browse the Internet, clicking on these links will take you straight to the selected sites.
Australian Family Resources on CD-ROM is published by the Australian
Institute of Family Studies in association with RMIT Publishing.
NCPC home |
© National Child Protection Clearinghouse Australian Institute of Family Studies, Level 20, 485 La Trobe Street, Melbourne Vic 3000. Tel: (03) 9214 7888. Fax: (03) 9214 7839. Web: www.aifs.gov.au/nch |
AIFS home |