1 / 19

Obstructions to Responsiveness in Child Protection

Obstructions to Responsiveness in Child Protection. Valerie Braithwaite. Powerpoint: http://vab.anu.edu.au/accn.ppt. “ It takes a village to raise a child ”. Why is the village not achieving its goals?. ●. 16 inquiries since 1997 (Ivec 2013)

matty
Download Presentation

Obstructions to Responsiveness in Child Protection

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Obstructions to Responsiveness in Child Protection Valerie Braithwaite Powerpoint: http://vab.anu.edu.au/accn.ppt

  2. “It takes a village to raise a child”

  3. Why is the village not achieving its goals? ● 16 inquiries since 1997 (Ivec 2013) Failure to effectively mobilize social, human,cultural and economic capital ●

  4. Hope Theory: From Individual Hope to Collective Hope (Snyder, Irving and Anderson 1991, Antonovsky 1972, Braithwaite 2004) Something to hope for: a desirable and practicable outcome Shared goals and values Social cooperation Institutional means for bringing change about Shared efficacy or a shared belief in capacity to create change ● ● ● ● ●

  5. National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020 Principles of the National Child Protection Framework are based on the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child ● Clash of philosophies Lack of cooperation Obstruction and Domination in Institutional Pathways ● ●

  6. Method  Web based survey of 427 people Contacted through a snow-ball sample of third parties working with child protection authorities and families Selected out 358 participants (84%) with intensive/modest contact with child protection authorities over a number of cases in the past two years

  7. Description of Survey Respondents 79% female, 73% graduates, 8% Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background, 13% spoke a language other than English at home, 80% born in Australia, 76% covered by mandatory reporting, 75% worked full time Average age was 44 years Average number of years working alongside child protection was 12 years Welfare workers 64% Police 14% Professionals in education, medicine, health, law 22% For full sample description and survey details, see Ivec et al (2011)

  8. Analyses Multi-item rating scales Histograms: Performance in implementing the National Child Protection Framework Philosophies of child protection work (law versus social work versus both) Cooperation with child protection authorities Obstruction-Domination from authorities Socio-demographic correlates: Age, sex, years working alongside child protection, NESB, ATSI, graduate, full-time work, mandatory reporting, field of work (police, welfare, medical, educational, legal professional) Correlation and Regression Models: Question: Who are the most demoralised with respect to performance on the National Child Protection Framework principles?

  9. Principles NCPF

  10. Philosophy

  11. Cooperation

  12. Domination

  13. Philosophy Cooperation Domination Perceived success implementing National Child Protection Framework

  14. Findings Implementation of Family Inclusion Principles on the NCPF Most discouraged were: Older respondents, women and welfare workers Respondents with a philosophy favouring family inclusion, persuasion and encouragement, and rule discretion Respondents with postures of resistance and game playing to authority Respondents who saw the main obstacles as absence of collective goals, faltering collective efficacy, responsiveness and leadership failure

  15. Findings Implementation of Family Inclusion Principles on the NCPF Most encouraged were: Younger respondents, men, police Respondents with a philosophy of firm enforcement and a punitive orientation Respondents who trusted child protection authority, believed in their integrity, and capitulated to child protection authority Respondents who saw the main obstacles as being staffing shortfalls and over-control

  16. Findings Implementation of Child-Focused Principles on the NCPF Most discouraged were: Women and welfare workers Respondents with a philosophy favouring family inclusion and rule discretion (weak) Respondents with postures of resistance and game playing to authority Respondents who saw the main obstacles as absence of collective goals, faltering collective efficacy, responsiveness and leadership failure

  17. Findings Implementation of Child-Focused Principles on the NCPF Most encouraged were: Men and police Respondents with a philosophy of firm enforcement (weak) Respondents who trusted child protection authority, believed in their integrity, and capitulated to child protection authority Respondents who saw the main obstacles as being staffing shortfalls and over-control

  18. Social cleavages affecting perceptions of implementation of the National Child Protection Framework Demographic: Women and welfare workers versus men and police Goals: Legal or welfare framework, Family inclusion Dissociation from authority: Trust, integrity, game playing Child protection authority: Victim or Oppressor?

More Related