Comprehensiveness ofChildProtection Practice Frameworks · 2018. 6. 5. · of child protection frameworks as a whole; both in terms of the comprehensiveness of frameworks and the

AssessingtheQualityandComprehensivenessofChildProtection

PracticeFrameworks

SAMANTHAFINAN,LEAHBROMFIELD,TIMMOOREANDFIONAARNEY

AREPORTTOTHE

AUSTRALIANCHILDREN’SCOMMISSIONERSANDGUARDIANS

2018

2

AUTHORS

SamanthaFinan-ResearchAssistant,AustralianCentreforChildProtection,UniSA

ProfessorLeahBromfield-Co-Director,AustralianCentreforChildProtection,UniSA

ProfessorFionaArney-Co-Director,AustralianCentreforChildProtection,UniSA

TimMoore-DeputyDirector,AustralianCentreforChildProtection,UniSA

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

TheauthorsacknowledgetheAustralianChildren’sCommissionersandGuardianswho

fundedthisresearchandprovidedfeedbackonthefindings.Theauthorsparticularlythank

ColinPettit,TrishHeath,andNatalieHall,(WACommissionerforChildrenandYoung

People)fortheirsupportguidanceandinvaluablefeedback.Finally,theauthorsgratefully

acknowledgetheinputoftheExpertPanelmemberswhogavegenerouslyoftheirtimein

reviewingandreflectingonthisresearch-theirinputwasinvaluable.

SUGGESTEDCITATION

Finan,S.,Bromfield,L.,Moore,T.,&Arney,F.(2018).Assessingthequalityand

comprehensivenessofchildprotectionpracticeframeworks.Adelaide:AustralianCentrefor

ChildProtection,UniversityofSouthAustralia.

copyright©AustralianCentreforChildProtection,UniversityofSouthAustralia

3

Contents

Executivesummary..................................................................................................................4

1.Backgroundandmethodology.............................................................................................9

2.Thecoredomains...............................................................................................................20

3.Analysisandfindings..........................................................................................................31

4.benchmarkingpracticeframeworks:Aminimumstandards............................................43

References..............................................................................................................................49

Appendix1.Descriptionoftheframeworks..........................................................................59

Appendix2.Expertpanelmembersandaffiliations..............................................................75

Appendix3.Expertpanelreviewsummary............................................................................77

4

EXECUTIVESUMMARY

InquiriesintoAustralianchildprotectionsystemsoverthelasttwodecadeshaveconsistently

highlightedissuesofinadequateworkforcecapacityandpoorqualityofpracticeanddecision

making (see review;McDougall et al., 2016).One of the key reforms used by systems to

address these issues include the implementation of an overarching practice framework.

However,despitethesereforms,therehasbeenaconcerningincreaseintherateofchildren

withsubstantiations,oncareandprotectionordersandinout-of-homecare.Furthermore,

more recent inquiries suggest that despite the implementation of practice frameworks,

concernsaboutpracticeissueshaveatbestcontinuedunabated(e.g.TheLifeTheyDeserve;NylandReport,2016).

Inaddition,researchconductedworldwidehasidentifiedseverallimitationsofthepractice

modelsandframeworksthathavebeendesignedtoincreasepractitionercompetence.With

little academic literature to guide the development of practice frameworks, or to help

policymakers,practitionersandoversightbodiesinidentifyingwhetherspecificapproaches

arefitforpurposeandconsistentwithbestevidence,theproblemofinadequateworkforce

capacityandpoorqualityofpracticeanddecisionmakingseemsdestinedtocontinue.

Theprojectobjectiveistodevelopabenchmarkingtoolidentifyingthecoredomainsofchild

protection practice frameworks and a procedure for assessing the extent to which the

approachwithineachcomponentreflectsgoodpracticebasedonbestavailableevidence.

Forthepurposesofthisreport,theauthorsdescribeachildprotectionpracticeframeworkas

outliningthevaluesandprinciplesandanapproachtoworkingwithchildrenandfamiliesthat

hasbeenappliedtothewholeofthecontinuumofchildprotectionpractice.

Method

Documentationregardingeightframeworksformedtheprimarydatasourceforthisproject.

Theprojectcomprisedaniterativedesignconsistingof5stages:

1. Identifying the frameworks - comprising an environmental scan to identify relevant

frameworksandprimarydocumentsourcing.

2.Developing the framework summaries – comprising of the coding frame development,

extraction of information from primary source documents and development of narrative

summaries.

3.Analysis-programsummarieswerethenanalysedforcross-cuttingthemes,strengthsand

limitations.Stages1-3werepresentedinadraftprojectreport.

4.Expertpanelreview -AdraftprojectreportdocumentingStages1-3waspresentedina

seriesofmeetingswiththeprojectexpertpanel.Thepanelheldwithwiderangingexpertise

andprovidedfeedbackonthecoredomainsanddiscussionandcritiqueoftheapproaches

5

describedwithineachcomponent.Themesemergingfromexpertpanelconsultationswere

summarised.

5.Reviewandrevise-Thecoredomainsandcritiquewererevisedbasedonthefeedback

fromtheexpertpanelmeetings.Informedbytheexpertpaneldiscussions,aprocedurewas

developedforassessingtheextenttowhichtheapproachwithineachcomponentreflects

goodpracticebasedonbestavailableevidence.

Findings

Theeight-identifiedchildprotectionpracticeframeworkswerehighlyvariableinthetypeand

amountofdocumentedinformation.However,fromtheavailableinformationwewereable

toderiveacommonsetofcoredomains.Theidentificationofthesecoredomainsprovidesa

preliminary benchmark for what the common domains of a child protection practice

frameworkmightcomprise.Creatingprogramsummariesoftheeightpracticeframeworks

usingthesecoredomainsprovidesamechanismforhighlevelcomparisonacrossframeworks

andabaselevelmeansforassessmentoftheframeworks’comprehensiveness.

Feedbackfromtheexpertpanelresultedinonlyafewrelativelyminorrevisionstothecore

domainsthathadbeenidentifiedinStages1-3.Thedomainofstakeholderengagementin

frameworkdevelopmentwasaddedandtheculturalcompetencedomainwasbroadenedto

refertodiversitymoregenerally.Noconcernswereraisedthrougheithertheprojectteam’s

analysis or the expert panel feedback regarding the core domains per se (i.e. that anoverarchingchildprotectionpracticeframeworkoughttocompriseofspecifiedprinciples,

theories,diversityprovisions,workforcedevelopment, toolsandpracticeapproaches).On

thisbasis,wehaveconcludedthatwehadbeenabletoarriveataconsensusregardingthe

coredomainsthatoughttobeaddressedwithinachildprotectionpracticeframework.

Thesecoredomainsofachildprotectionpracticeframeworkinclude:

1.Foundationalunderpinnings-whichinclude(a)thefoundationalprinciplesand(b)foundingtheoriesthatguidepracticeand(c)competenceinworkingwithdiversity.

2.Workforcequalificationsand training -which includes (a) the requisite childprotectionframeworkspecific training, (b)any requiredpre-requisitequalificationsandexperienceofpractitionersand(c)skillsandknowledgewhichwillbebuiltonthrough in-servicetrainingandprofessionaldevelopment.

3.Tools,approachesandpracticalguidelines-whichincludes(a)practicalguidelinesabout‘how’toworkwithfamiliesandthetoolsandapproachestoworkwithfamiliesincludingboth

the tools or approaches specifically designed to facilitate child participation and tools,approachesandguidelinestoevaluateevidence.

4.Implementation-whichincludes(a)stakeholderinvolvementinframeworkdevelopment,(b)theimplementationapproachadoptedand(c)theimplementationapproachevaluations.

6

5.Outcomesforchildren,families,practitionersandsystems-whichdiscussesboththe(a)intendedoutcomesand(b)reportedoutcomesevaluationevidence.

Whiletheexpertpanelendorsedthecoredomains,theydidnotesomeconcernaboutthe

qualityofthepracticeguidanceincludedintheframeworks,identifyingsignificantgapsand

limitations.

Fourparticulargapsandlimitationsemergedfromtheprojectteam’sanalysisinstage3.

1.Alackofconsistencyandemphasisonframeworksbeingchild-centred.

Alackofconsistencywasfoundintheprinciplesunderpinningtheframeworkaswellasin

theframeworks’intendedandreportedoutcomes.Forexample,mostoftheframeworksdid

notidentifyanychild-centredorchild-inclusiveoutcomesorKPIs.Instead,outcomestended

toemphasiseparentalandpractitionersatisfactionordecreasingexpenditure.Thiswasof

particularinterestgiventhatensuringthebestinterestsofthechildistypicallytheprimary

principleinlegislationgoverningchildprotection.

2.A lack of specification regarding the qualifications, experience, knowledge or skillsrequiredineffectivechildprotectionpractice.

This review found that frameworks generally did not provide guidance as to what skills,

knowledgeorexperiencemightenhancechildprotectionpractice.Forexample,frameworks

mightpromoteaworkingunderstandingofchilddevelopment,impactsoftrauma,dynamics

ofperpetration,andidentifyingabuseandneglect.Only4outofeightframeworksidentified

pre-requisitequalificationsorexperience.Thesamenumberofframeworkseitherincluded,

nominatedorrecognisedtheneedforcomplementarytraining.Statementsinsomeofthe

frameworksthatsuggestedthatpractitionersdidnotneedadditionaltrainingbeyondthat

providedwithintheframework,wasdeeplyconcerningasitappearedtoactivelydiscourage

practitionersfromparticipatinginothertrainingandprofessionaldevelopmentactivities.

3.Alackofspecifictools,skillsandtechniquesforeachaspectofpractice.

Itiswidelyacknowledgedthatdifferentskills,techniquesandtoolsarerequired,toworkwith

childrenandfamilies,acrossthechildprotectionprocess.Pre-requisiteskills,techniquesand

toolsmighthelpinformandimproveintake,investigations,casemanagement,Out-of-Home

Care,andreunification.However,noneoftheframeworksidentifiedorprovidedguidanceon

theskills,techniquesandtoolsrequiredforthedifferentareasofchildprotectionpractice.

4.Lackofevidencebasedapproacheswithinframeworks.

Fourof the coredomains assess theextent towhich frameworkshaveanevidence-base.

Unfortunately,our reviewfoundthat therewasa limitedevidencebaseunderpinningthe

frameworks. Of greater concern, there was evaluative evidence to suggest that the

applicationoftheframeworkswas,insomecases,havingnegativeandcontraryoutcomes

(e.g.whereentriesofchildrenintocareincreased).Furthermore,acursoryassessmentofthe

7

modelspromotedintheframeworks(forexample,solution-basedbrieftherapy)highlighted

thattheywereoftennotdevelopedforthepopulationsorchildprotectionpracticesbeing

utilised.

Expert Panel Findings

Expertpanelfeedbackandconsultationsbothendorsedtheprojectteam’smethodologyand

findings,andprovidedadditionalcritiqueofthecontentandapproachesencapsulated(and

notencapsulated)within thecoredomainsof thepractice frameworks.Themesemerging

regardingcoredomainscontentfromtheexpertpanelconsultationsaresummarisedbelow.

Theexpertscommentedfirstandforemostontheoverwhelminglyconcerningpicturethat

thedraft reportpresented. Expertpanel concerns lay inbothwhatwasmissing from the

frameworks,aswellastheaccuracyandhelpfulnessofthecontentincludedinmanyofthe

domains.

Theexpertpanelalsosuggestedthattheframeworksreviewedcouldbeconsideredtoconsist

ofseveralframeworkspertainingtodifferentlevelsofpractice(i.e.organisational,workforce

and interventionspecific)andthatall levelsofpracticeneedtobeconsidered inorder to

adequately and effectively incorporate the content required across core domains. It was

suggestedthattheseframeworksneedtocontainexplicitpracticeguidanceanddemonstrate

howtodevelopcontentexpertiseforpractitioners.Thisguidancemightrelatetothemultiple

key challenges facing families, including domestic family violence, alcohol and substance

misuseandmentalhealthconcerns.Childprotectiondepartmentsmayneedtobereadyand

willingtoworkwithframeworkdeveloperstoensureallcoredomainsandstagesofthechild

protectionprocessareadequatelyaddressed.Additionally,theyneedaprocessforensuring

thatcontentisevidencebased.

Expertpanelistsbelievedthatgoodqualityframeworksneededtoincludecontentfromeach

ofthedomainsbutalsostressedthatthiscontentneededtobeofhighquality.Theywere

therefore skepticalabouta reviewof frameworksbasedsolelyonwhetherdomainswere

includedandadvocatedamorecomprehensivebenchmarkofquality.Benchmarkingneeded

toincorporatebothcomprehensivenessintermsofdomainscovered,andqualityintermsof

domaincontent.Forexample,aframeworkmaymentionculturalcompetencybutprovideno

contentonthisorhowtoachievethis.

Implications

Thisreportandsubsequentexpertpanelreviewprovidesaconcerningpictureforthestate

of child protection frameworks as a whole; both in terms of the comprehensiveness of

frameworksandtheappropriatenessofframeworkcontentandapproaches.

Comprehensiveness

Theimplicationsofthisreportpertaintothewaythatchildprotectionpracticeframeworks

aremarketedas aone-size-fits all approach to childprotectionpracticeandhighlight the

8

importanceofchildprotectiondepartmentsensuringthatallcoredomainsareadequately

coveredintheirservice.

Wewouldarguethatchildprotectiondepartmentscouldusethecoredomainsidentifiedin

thisreporttobuildontheircurrentframeworksandincludeandstrengthencontentonall

domains.

Thecurrentcoredomainsprovideabase levelchecklist fortheassessmentoftherelative

comprehensivenessofachildprotectionframeworkareasthatmayneedtobesupplemented

orfurtherdeveloped.

Conclusions

Furtherworkisrequiredtostrengthenthecomprehensivenessofchildprotectionpractice

frameworks,including:

1. Thedevelopmentofaprocessormethodtoascertainthebestavailableevidencefor

eachoftheidentifiedcoredomains.

2. Applyingthisprocesstoeachoftheidentifiedcoredomainswithaviewtousingthe

best available evidence to set minimum requirements in each domain through

implementation.

3. Developingabenchmarkingtoolforchildprotectionframeworksthatcombinesthe

coredomainsidentifiedinthisproject(comprehensiveness)andbestpracticewithin

domains(contentandapproach).

These steps would provide an integrated approach to ensuring child protection practice

guidanceforinterventionsisevidencebasedandhighquality.Thefinalsectionofthisreport

recommends a benchmarking tool which can be used to assess child protection practice

frameworksagainstaminimumstandardtosupportbestpractice(seechapter4).

9

1.BACKGROUNDANDMETHODOLOGY

InquiriesintoAustralianchildprotectionsystemsoverthelasttwodecadeshaveconsistently

highlightedissuesofoverwhelmingdemand,inadequateworkforcecapacityandpoorquality

ofpracticeanddecisionmaking(McDougalletal.,2016).Oneofthekeystrategiesusedby

child protection departments to increase workforce capacity and enhance practice and

decisionmakinghasbeentoimplementanoverarchingpracticeframeworkwhichprovides

underpinning principles and/or theories, tools and approaches to guide child protection

practiceacrosstheorganisation.Aframeworkincludesadescriptionof‘valuesandprinciples

thatunderlieapproaches toworkingwith childrenand families’ (ChildWelfarePolicyand

PracticeGroup,2008,p.2).Frameworksalsoprovideguidanceonthetechniquesconsidered

fundamentaltotheentiretyofchildprotectionpractice.Examplesofframeworkscurrently

inuseincludeStructuredDecisionMaking,SignsofSafety,SolutionBasedPractice,Critical

Reflection, and Core Competencies in the National Qualifications Framework (TAFE

curriculum). In all, across Australia, seven child protection frameworks have been

implementedindifferentjurisdictionssince2007.

Despitetheimplementationofchildprotectionpracticeframeworks,concernaboutpractice

issues have at best continued unabated (e.g. The Life They Deserve; Nyland Report,2016).Research inAustralia andoverseashas identified several limitationsof thepractice

models and frameworks that have been designed to increase practitioner competence

(Gillingham, 2017; Salveron, Bromfield & Arney, 2015). However, there is little academic

literature that guides the development of practice frameworks, or to help policymakers,

practitioners and oversight bodies in identifying whether specific approaches are fit for

purpose(inthiscase,withinthediversefunctionsofchildprotectionpractice)andconsistent

withbestevidence.Thedevelopmentofabenchmarkingtool forchildprotectionpractice

frameworkscould:

• Assist in the identificationandassessmentof existing frameworks andapproaches

regardingtheextenttowhichtheyarefitforpurpose;

• Guide thedevelopmentof new,or adaptationof existing childprotectionpractice

frameworks;and

• Provideatoolforusebymonitoringandoversightbodies.

TheAustralianChildren’sCommissionersandGuardiansGroupcommissionedthiswork.

1.1 Objectives

This project aimed to develop a benchmarking tool identifying the core domains of child

protection practice frameworks and a procedure for assessing the extent to which the

approachwithineachcomponentreflectsgoodpracticebasedonbestavailableevidence.

1.2 Method 1.2.1Design

10

Thisprojectusedaniterativedesignwherefindingsaredesignedtoberevisitedandrevised

throughoutvariousstagesoftheproject.Thisprocessallowedforfurtherin-depthanalysis

andgreatertransparency(Dixon-Woods,2011),whichaimedtobringtheresearcherscloser

toidentifyingfinalcoredomainsandkeyconsiderationswitheachiteration.

1.2.3Procedure

This project included several steps (each is discussed in detail below): (1) identifying the

frameworks,(2)developingtheframeworksummaries,(3)analysis,(4)expertpanelreview

and(5)reviewandrevision.

1.2.3.1Identifyingtheframeworks

The identification of the child protection practice frameworks comprised both an

environmental scan to identify relevant frameworks andprimarydocument sourcing. The

environmentalscanincludedreviewingeachAustralianchildprotectiondepartmentwebsite

andagooglesearchforadditionalframeworksusedinternationally.Thegooglesearchwas

completedusingtheterms‘childprotection’or‘childwelfare’and‘framework’or‘approach’.

Thissearchwascompletedbetweenthe10thand24thofAugustof2017,usingthefollowing

frameworkdefinition.

Forthepurposeofthisreport,theauthorsdefinedachildprotectionpracticeframeworkas

outliningthevaluesandprinciplesandanapproachtoworkingwithchildrenandfamiliesthat

hasbeenapplied to thewholeof the continuumof childprotectionpractice. This review

excludes those frameworks that are described solely as risk assessment frameworks e.g.

SafeguardingChildrenAssessmentandAnalysisFramework(SAAF,Macdonaldetal.,2017)or

frameworks that are self-described to be discrete to one aspect of the child protection

process, e.g. Sanctuary (Bloom, 2015) or Children and Residential Experiences: Creating

ConditionsforChange(CARE,Holdenetal.,2014),modelswhicharespecifictoout-of-home

care. For a risk assessment or amodel of care to be included in the review it had to be

mentionedwithinalargerframeworkasatoolorapproachthatmakesupthegreaterwhole

ofthechildprotectionpracticeframework.

A broad range of child protection models and frameworks were discovered during the

environmentalscanofpubliclyavailableliterature.Initially,15frameworks(nineAustralian

frameworks 1 and seven international frameworks) were identified through the

environmentalscan.Table1providesasummaryoftheframeworks,thestateorjurisdiction

in which it is currently implemented, the self-descriptions that identify them as a child

protectionpracticeframeworkandthejustificationforinclusionorexclusionforthepurposes

ofthisreport.Eachofthese15frameworksaredescribedindetailinAppendix1.

1TheAustralianCapitalTerritorydoesnotcurrentlyhaveachildprotectionpracticeframeworktowhichthey

adhere.

11

Table 1: Summary of framework descriptions as described by framework developers or

implementers

Framework StateorJurisdiction

Self-description Justificationforinclusionorexclusion

BestInterestsCasePracticeModel(seepp.51)

Victoria “TheBestInterestsFramework”

“Designedtoinformandsupport

professionalpracticeinfamilyservices,

childprotectionandplacementand

supportservices,themodelaimsto

achievesuccessfuloutcomesfor

childrenandtheirfamilies”(Miller,

2012)

BestInterestsCasePracticeModel

outlinesthevaluesandprinciplesandan

approachtoworkingwithchildrenand

familiesacrossthechildprotection

continuum,thuswasincludedinanalysis.

ChildSafetyPracticeFramework(seepp.52)

Tasmania ‘…newmodelofchildprotectionthat

willprovidegreaterback-upand

supporttoworkers…’

(DepartmentofHealthandHuman

Services,2016)

ChildSafetyPracticewasexcludedasin

allbutnameitappearedtobeidentical

toSignsofSafety

CoreCompetencies(VetTraining)(seepp.52)

AustraliaWide ‘Thisqualificationreflectstheroleof

childprotectionworkerswhoprovide

specialistservicestoclientswith

complexanddiverseneeds,andactasa

resourceforotherworkers’(Australian

Government,2015a)

CoreCompetenciesVettraining

documentation,providesguidanceon

pre-requisitetrainingforsocialworkers,

whichistaughtintrainingorganisations

(TAFE).Thesedocumentdoesnot

provideinformationonvalues,principles

andwaysofworkingthuswasexcluded

fromthisreport.However,itisusedas

anexampleofalternativeapproachesto

childprotectionpractice.

FamilyCentredPractice(seepp.54)

International ‘Family-centeredpracticeisawayof

workingwithfamilies…acrossservice

systemstoenhancetheircapacityto

careforandprotecttheirchildren’

‘…keyelementsoffamily-centered

practiceandprovidesoverarching

strategiesforfamily-centeredcasework

practiceacrosschildwelfareservice

systems…’

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/fa

mcentered/

Excludedduetolimitedcohesive,

publicallyavailableinformation

IntegratedServiceSystem(seepp.55)

NewZealand ‘theNewZealandpracticeframework…’

(Connolly,2009) TheIntegratedServiceSystemoutlines

thevaluesandprinciplesandan




PracticeFirst(seepp.55)

NewSouthWales ‘FamilyandCommunityServices(FACS)

developedPracticeFirstasamodelfor

childprotectionservicedelivery’(Family

&communityServices,2015)

PracticeFirstoutlinesthevaluesand

principlesandanapproachtoworking

withchildrenandfamiliesacrossthe

childprotectioncontinuum,thuswas

includedinanalysis.

PracticewithPurpose(seepp.57)

Northern

Territory Thepracticewithpurposedocument

includes:foundations,standardsand

approaches

(DepartmentofChildrenandFamilies,

2014a)

Excludedduetolimitedpublically

availableinformation

12

ReclaimingSocialWork(seep.57)

England ReclaimingSocialWorkmodelutilises

systematicorganisationchangein

workingwithchildrenandfamiliesin

statutorychildprotectionsettings

(Goodman&Trowler,2012)

ReclaimingSocialWorkoutlinesthe

valuesandprinciplesandanapproachto

workingwithchildrenandfamiliesacross

thechildprotectioncontinuum,thuswas

includedinanalysis.

Scotland’sNationalFramework(seepp.58)

Scotland ‘TheNationalGuidanceforChild

ProtectioninScotland…providesaclear

definitionofwhatabuseisaswellas

expectationsforallthoseworkingwith

childrenandyoungpeopleregarding

identifyingandactingonchild

protectionconcerns.’(Scottish

Government,2010)

Scotland’sNationalFrameworkoutlines

thevaluesandprinciplesandan




SignsofSafety(seepp.61)

Western Australia

SignsofSafetyis‘asolutionandsafety

orientationapproachtochildprotection

casework’

(Turnell&Edwards,1999)

SignsofSafetyoutlinesthevaluesand




includedinanalysis.

SolutionBasedCasework(seepp.61)

SouthAustralia,

Australia ‘ChildWelfarePracticeModel:SBCisan

evidence-informedcaseworkpractice

model’

http://www.solutionbasedcasework.co

m/

SolutionBasedCaseworkoutlinesthe

valuesandprinciplesandanapproachto

workingwithchildrenandfamiliesacross

thechildprotectioncontinuum,thuswas

includedinanalysis.

StrengtheningFamiliesApproach:AProtectiveFactorsFramework(seepp.63)

USA ‘StrengtheningFamiliesintooneofthe

mostwidelyrecognizedapproachesto

childabuseandneglectprevention…’

‘Thefiveprotectivefactorsatthe

foundationofStrengtheningFamilies

alsoofferaframeworkforchangesat

thesystems,policyandpracticelevel…’

(CenterfortheStudyofSocialPolicy,

2015)

TheStrengtheningFamiliesapproach

couldbeconsideredbothapractice

frameworkasitprovidespractitioners

anddepartmentswithacase

managementsystem,andapracticetool

thatisusedinconjunctionwithapractice

framework.Duetoitmostcommonly

beingusedintheUSAasatoolin

additiontoapracticeframeworkithas

beenexcludedfromfurtheranalysis.

StrengtheningFamilies,ProtectingChildren(seepp.63)

Queensland,

Australia Strengtheningfamilies,protecting

childrenisa‘frameworkforpractice’

(DepartmentofCommunities,Child

SafetyandDisabilityServices,2015)

StrengtheningFamilies,Protecting

Childrenoutlinesthevaluesand




includedinanalysis.

StructuredDecisionMakingApproachtoCaseWork(SDM,seepp.64)

South Australia Queensland, Tasmania, New South Wales, Northern Terrritory, New Zealand

‘StructuredDecisionMakingcase

managementsystem’

‘TheSDMmodelincorporatesasetof

evidence-basedassessmenttoolsand

decisionguidelines’

(Children’sResearchCenter,2008)

TheSDMapproachcouldbeconsidered

bothapracticeframeworkasitprovides

practitionersanddepartmentswitha

casemanagementsystem,andapractice

toolthatisusedinconjunctionwitha

practiceframework.InAustralia,SDMis

usedasasuiteoftoolsthatareused

alongsideapracticeframeworkandthus

wasexcludedfromthepractice

frameworkreview.Howeveritis

discussedin2.9Tools,approachesand

practiceguidelines.

13

TitleIV-E(seepp.65)

USA ‘…supportingbothstafftrainingandthe

opportunityforcurrentandprospective

employeestoearnBSWandMSW

degrees.Usingthesefederalfundsto

supportsocialworkeducationhasbeen

instrumentalineducatinganew

generationofsocialworkerstopursue

childwelfarecareers.’

(SocialWorkPolicyInstitute,2012)

TitleIV-Eisafundingdocumentthat

providesguidanceonpre-requisite

trainingforsocialworkers,for

departmentsandtrainingorganisations

(suchasuniversities).Thisdocument

doesnotprovideinformationonvalues,

principlesandwaysofworkingthuswas

excludedfromthisreport.However,itis

usedasanexampleofalternative

approachestochildprotectionpractice.

Posttheidentificationofchildprotectionpracticeframeworkstheidentificationofprimary

sourceswasconducted.Thissearchincludedconductinganextensiveinternetsearchusing

peerreviewedandgreyliteraturetoidentifyprimarydocuments,reportsandpolicyresources

regarding identified national and international frameworks. The reviewed literature was

identified through searching 1) national departmentwebsites for reports of state specific

child protection frameworks, 2) child protection framework websites (such as

www.signsofsafety.net),and3)databases(e.g.googlescholarandPsychINFO).Thisreview

wasconductedbetweenthe24thofAugustandthe8thofSeptemberof2017.

Throughtheidentificationofprimarysources,itwasdiscoveredthatsomeframeworksdid

not provide enough publicly accessible information to be included in the extractions. In

addition,therewassomeoverlapintheframeworksbeingusedinAustralianStates.Assuch,

these duplicate frameworks were not included in the extractions. Of the 15 frameworks

identified, two frameworks were excluded from the in-depth extractions due to limited

publiclyaccessibleinformation(PracticewithPurposeandFamilyCentredPractice)andone

due to it being based very clearly on another included framework (Child Safety Practice

appearedtobeidenticaltoSignsofSafetyinallbutname).Afurthertwoframeworkswere

excludedduetotheuseoftheseframeworksaspartofawiderchildprotectionframework

(SDM,StrengtheningFamiliesApproach:AProtectiveFactorsFramework).Finally,theCore

Competencies(VetTraining)andTitle IV-Ewhereexcludedfromthemainanalysisbutare

presentedinsection3.2.1ofthisreporttoprovideanexampleofanalternativeapproachto

childprotectionpractice.Therefore8 frameworkswereused in subsequent stagesof this

project.

1.2.3.2Developingtheframeworksummaries

The development of the framework summaries consisted of several stages including; (1)

developing a coding framework, (2) extraction of information from primary source

documentsand(3)developmentofnarrativesummaries.Thepeerreviewandgreyliterature

foreach frameworkwasreviewedandcodedusinga frameworkbasedsynthesismethod.

Frameworkbased synthesis is amethod for synthesisingqualitativedata (Barnett-Page&

Thomas, 2009; Dixon-Woods, 2011). This method is orientated towards applied policy

questions,suchasthecurrentresearch,wherewearelookingtodevelopanunderstanding

ofthecurrentlyusedpracticeframeworksandifthosespecificapproachesarefitforpurpose

14

and/orconsistentwithbestevidence(Barnett-Page&Thomas,2009;Dixon-Woods,2011).

Theframeworkbasedsynthesismethodologyusesanaprioriframework(developedinthis

project through immersion in frameworkmaterials and team discussions) to extract and

synthesisefindings(Barnett-Page&Thomas,2009).Aprioriframeworkcanbereorganised

anddevelopedasdataisextractedandsynthesisedandassuchcanbeseenasaniterative

approach(Barnett-Page&Thomas,2009).Thismethodwasenactedinthisprojectthrough

thedevelopmentofaninitialcodingstructurefromtheinitialdescriptionofeachframework

(AppendixA) and team reflection anddiscussion. This initial coding structure included14

potentialcoredomainsofchildprotectionframeworks:

1. Foundationalprinciples

2. Foundationaltheoreticalandpracticalbases

3. Culturalconsiderations

4. Pre-requisitequalificationsandexperienceofpractitioners

5. Frameworkspecifictraining

6. In-servicetrainingandprofessionaldevelopment

7. Toolsandapproaches

8. Outcomesspecifictothedevelopmentandtestingoftoolsandapproaches

9. Implementation

10. Implementationapproacheffectiveness

11. Outcomesforchildren,familiesandpractitioners:Intendedoutcomes

12. Outcomesforchildren,familiesandpractitioners:Reportedoutcomesevidencefrom

evaluations

13. Evaluationandmonitoringoftheframeworkasawhole:Intendedoutcomes

14. Evaluationandmonitoringoftheframeworkasawhole:Reportedoutcomes

evidencefromevaluations

Eachofthesecoredomainsarefurtherbrokendownintomorespecificcodesthatcanbe

used to extract key information from all documentation on each framework. This coding

matrix has been translated into aworking ‘child protection framework coding’ document

15

whichwillbeusedforallextractions.Asummaryofthecoredomainsandsubsequentspecific

codesiscontainedinTable2below.

16

Table2:Codingframework

CoreDomains Informationextracted Subthemes Examples

FoundationalPrinciples Principleasstatedin

framework,referenceif

evidence-based

N/A Partnershipor“familyand

communityconnection”

Foundationaltheoriesandpracticalbasis

Theoriesandpracticebasis

asstatedinframework,

referenceifevidence-based

N/A Solution-basedtherapy

Culturalconsiderations Typeofcultural

considerationsandhow

staffcreateculturallysafe

practices

Typeofcultural

considerations:cultural

safety,considerationof

culturalneed,cultural

input/governance

Considerationofcultural

need:usingAboriginalchild

placementprinciples

Pre-requisiteQualificationsandexperienceofpractitioners

Anylistedpre-requisite

qualificationsorexperience

requiredbypractitionersto

undertakeCPwork

N/A Allpractitionersareat

minimumrequiredtoholda

diplomainchildprotection

Frameworkspecifictraining Typeofcontentexpertise Typesofcontentexpertise:

embeddeddevelopment,

management/engagement

anticipated,

training/compulsory

training,contentblindand

contenteroding

Practitionerscompleteda5

daytrainingexercise

In-Servicetrainingandprofessionaldevelopment

Typeofin-servicetraining

anddoesitbuildon

framework

N/A Practitionerscompleteda2

daytrainingexercisein

traumainformedcare

Toolsandapproaches Nameoftool,ifstageor

decisionspecific,reference

ifevidence-based

N/A Structureddecisionmaking

isadecisionspecificsuiteof

tools

Outcomesevidenceforevaluationsofspecifictoolsandapproaches

Nameoftool,ifstageor

decisionspecific,outcome

ofevaluation

N/A Structureddecisionmaking

wasseentoreducethe

numberofchildreninOOHC

Implementationdrivers Typeofimplementation

driver,ifmodel,dataor

caselead

Typesofdrivers:

competency,organisation

andleadership

Competencydrivers:the

typesoftraining,coaching

andfidelityassessments

ImplementationApproachEffectiveness

Nameofimplementation

approach,ifapplicable,

effectivenessandwhat

measureswhereusedto

determineeffectiveness

N/A Implementationwas

effectiveduetoreductionin

recidivisminSBCcases

Outcomesforchildren,familiesandpractitioners:Intendedoutcomes

Typeofoutcome Typesofoutcome:child,

family,practitionersChildspecificoutcome:

Reductioninnumberof

childreninout-of-home

care

17

Outcomesforchildren,familiesandpractitioners:Reported

Typeofoutcome Typesofoutcome:child,

family,practitionersOutcomeresultasreported

intexte.g.increased

numberofchildreninout-

of-homecareover2year

period

Evaluationandmonitoringoftheframeworkasawhole:Intendedoutcomes

Typeofevaluationand

monitoringTypeofevaluation:case

level,arealevel,statelevel,

countrylevel

Stateleveloutcome:

reductioninreoffendingor

reoccurringmaltreatment

Evaluationandmonitoringoftheframeworkasawhole:Reported

Typeofevaluationand

monitoringTypeofevaluation:case

level,arealevel,statelevel,

countrylevel

Outcomeresultasreported

intexte.g.reductionin

reoffendingorreoccurring

maltreatmentover6month

period

Note:Ifinformationifunabletobefoundoracodeisnotapplicablefortheindividualframework,thiswillbemarkedin

thecodingdocumentusingNP=InformationNotProvidedandNA=NotApplicable.

Throughtheiterativeprocessofcodingeachframework,providinganalysisandcritique,this

codingframeworkwasamendedtoincludethefollowingelevencoredomains;

1. Stakeholderinvolvementinframeworkdevelopment

2. Foundationalprinciples

3. Foundationaltheories

4. Practicalguidelines

5. Competence in working with diversity (including cultural competence, CALD and

disability)

6. Frameworkspecifictraining

7. Pre-requisitequalificationsandexperienceofpractitioners

8. In-servicetrainingandprofessionaldevelopment

9. Toolsandapproaches

a. Toolsorapproachesused

b. Tools or approaches specifically designed to facilitate child participation in

decisionsaffectingthem

c. Tools,approachesandguidelinesevaluationevidence

18

10. FrameworkImplementation

a. Implementationapproach

b. Implementationapproachevaluationevidence

11. Outcomesforchildren,families,practitionersandsystems

a. Intendedoutcomes

b. Reportedoutcomesevaluationevidence

Afterthedevelopmentoftheinitialcodingstructureeachindividualframeworkwascoded

separately.Todeterminewhichchildprotectionframeworktobeginwith,itwasdetermined

thattheresearcherswouldrankframeworksbytheamountofpubliclyavailableinformation

andstartwiththeframeworksthathavethemostpubliclyavailableinformation.Adocument

hierarchywas also used to decidewhich of the documents collected through the review

wouldbeusedincodingandinwhatorder.Thefollowingdocumenthierarchywasapplied:

1. PracticeFrameworkReport

2. Reports, book chapters or other materials developed by the practice frameworks

initialdeveloper

3. PracticeFrameworksdevelopers’website

4. Empirical literature published by practice framework’s developer pertaining to

frameworkdevelopment

5. Empiricalliteraturepublishedonimplementationoroutcomesofpracticeframework

6. Annual report for department containing information on implementation or

outcomesofpracticeframework

An individual extraction document was used for each framework. These extraction

documents provided a large level of detail including examples of each core domain as

extracted from the framework documentation, which are referenced accordingly. These

extractiondocumentsareavailablefromtheauthorsuponrequest.

Finally, extraction documents were used to create narrative summaries of each of the

frameworks, using the core domains as a consistent organising framework to enable

comparability. Framework summaries individually describing each of the frameworks are

presentedinAppendix1.

19

1.2.3.3Analysis

After creating narrative summaries for each practice framework, the analysis of these

frameworksoccurred.Thisanalysisusedboththenarrativesummariesandlargerextraction

documentationforeachframeworkandfocusedonthediscoveryofcross-cuttingthemesand

core domains (see section 2 of the report). The strengths and limitations of both the

individual frameworksandframeworksasawholewerethenanalysedanddescribed(see

section3ofthereport).ThisanalysiswasconductedinconsultationwithAustralianCentre

forChildProtection(ACCP)supervisorsanddisagreementsdealtwiththroughsmallgroup

discussions.Thisanalysisendedintheestablishmentofthedraftreportwhichwasprovided

totheexpertpanel.

1.2.3.4ExpertPanelConsultation

Thefourthstageofthisresearchincludedtheassemblyofanexpertpanel.Theexpertpanel

providedfurthercriticalanalysisandexaminationoftheidentifiedchildprotectionpractice

frameworks and core domains. The expert panel included members of the following

categories: academics, child protection clinicians, cultural experts in working with both

AboriginalandTorresStraitIslanders,RefugeesandMigrantgroups(seeappendix2forpanel

members). The Australian Centre for Child Protection provided a list of proposed panel

memberstotheAustralianChildren’sCommissionersandGuardiansinNovember2017.This

listwasaddedtoandapprovedbytheAustralianChildren’sCommissionersandGuardians.

TheproposedpanelmemberswherethenapproachedviaemailandletterduringFebruary

andMarch2018andaskedtoparticipant inoneofthreepanelmeetings.Thesemeetings

tooktakeplaceviateleconferenceorinperson(dependingonpanelmembers’location)in

FebruaryandMarchof2018.Thepanelmemberswereaskedtoreviewstages1-3(which

werepresentedinadraftprojectreport)andprovidefeedbackonboththecurrentdomains

andpotentialadditionaldomainsthathadnotbeencapturedviatheextractionmethods;and

to alsoprovide commenton theaccuracy and fairnessof theproject team’s analysis and

critiquealongwithobservedgapsinthisanalysis.

SummaryofthemesemergingfromtheexpertpanelconsultationsarepresentedinAppendix

3.

1.2.3.5ReviewandRevise

The final part of this project was to review and revise the core domains and practice

frameworkcritiquebasedonfeedbackfromtheexpertpanelmeetings.Allthepartsofthe

mainbodyofthereportincludingcoredomains,analysisandconclusionswereupdatedin

lightofexpertpanelconsultations.

20

2.THECOREDOMAINS

In this section of the report, eight frameworks are presented as described in publicly

accessibledocumentationagainsteachofthecoredomains.Throughaniterativeprocessa

coding frame was formed comprising 11 core domains for child protection practice

frameworks. Each of these core domains are defined below, followed by a descriptive

discussionofeachcoredomain.Thissectionshouldbetreatedasareferencesection.Analysis

of the relative strengths, limitations, cumulative effects and gaps across and within

frameworksarepresentedinSection3:AnalysisandFindings.

1.Stakeholderinvolvementinframeworkdevelopment

Thetypeandextentofstakeholderengagementduring thedevelopmental stagesofeach

childprotectionpracticeframeworkwerecoded.Stakeholders included;children, families,

practitioners,policymakersandexternalorganisationsthatmayprovidereferralstoandfrom

the child protectiondepartment, other providers, legal practitioners andmembers of the

judiciary,adultsurvivorsofchildmaltreatment,childprotectionsystemsandoutofhome

care.

2.Foundationalprinciples

Foundationalpracticeprinciplesincludeasetoffundamentalassumptionsanddesiredvalues

for both organisations and individual practitioners to uphold (Child Welfare Policy and

Practice Group, 2008). These principles provide the ambitions of best practice and guide

practicedecisions forbothchildprotectionagenciesandpractitionerswhenworkingwith

childrenandfamilies.

3.Foundingtheories

Theoriesunderpinningtheframeworkswereidentified.Thesegenerallycontainaconsistent

set of ideas and assumptions that assist the practitioners in adhering to the practice

frameworkprinciplesorforuseduringdecisionmaking(Nutbeam,Harris&Wise,2010).

4.PracticalGuidelines

Practiceguidelinesprovidedirectionsthatarespecifictoachildprotectionframeworkbased

ontheoverarchingtheories(i.e.,theyhavebeencreatedbytheframework’sdevelopersto

furtherguidepractitioners).

5.Competenceinworkingwithdiversity

Detailabouthowpractitionersworkwithdiversitywerereviewed.Diversityisdefinedbythe

DiversityCouncilofAustralia (2018)as ‘all of thedifferencesbetweenpeople inhow theyidentifyinrelationtotheir;age,caringresponsibilities,culturalbackground,disability,gender,

21

Indigenousbackground,sexualorientationandsocio-economicbackground’.Forthepurposeof this project, datawas extracted under competence inworkingwith diversity and / or

diversepopulationgroupsincluding(butnotlimitedto);AboriginalorTorresStraitIslanders

and/orCulturallyandLinguisticallyDiversepeople (CALD)and/orpersonswithadisability

and/oramentalhealthproblem.

6.Frameworkspecifictraining

Thereviewattemptedtoidentifywhatpractitionertrainingwasrequiredtobecompletedby

the child protection framework implementers and/or creators before a departmentmay

becomeaccreditedintheframework.Thisalsoincludesbothmandatoryandrecommended

training forpractitionersby the implementersand/or creators that is specific to the child

protectionframework.

7.Pre-requisitequalificationsandexperienceofpractitioners

Detail aboutminimumqualificationswas reviewed, includingbothpreviousexperienceof

practitionersandthepre-requisitequalifications included inanationallyor internationally

recognised sequence of courses that result in a degree being awarded to the participant

(McCormack&McCance,2006).Completionofthesequalificationswouldberequiredfora

persontoworkasachildprotectionpractitioner.

8.In-servicetrainingandprofessionaldevelopment

The review also considered ongoing training requirements that are recommended by the

framework that requires the practitioner to learn about a topic that is deemed essential

knowledge, but is not specific to the framework itself (e.g. child development, trauma

impacts,dynamicsofabuseandneglect).

9.Tools,approachesandpracticeguidelines

TheChildWelfarePolicyandPracticeGroup(2008)reportsthatframeworks‘maydescribespecificapproachesandtechniquesconsideredfundamentaltoachievingdesiredoutcomes’(p. 2). For the current study this refers to the guiding principles, tools, instruments and

assessmentsthatachildprotectionframeworksuggestsshouldbeusedwithchildrenand

familiesoverthecourseofthechildprotectionprocess(e.g.ThreeHouses).Thisalsorefers

to any documentation, reports and/or peer reviewed literature that pertains to the

effectivenessandevidencebaseofaparticular toolorapproachwithina framework.This

coredomainisdividedintofourparts;

• 9.aPracticalguidelines.

• 9.bToolsorapproachesused.

22

• 9.c Tools or approaches specifically designed to facilitate child participation in

decisionsaffectingthem.

• 9.dTools,approachesandguidelinesevaluationevidence.

10.FrameworkImplementation

Theimplementationprocessreferstoacollectionofplannedandintentionalactivitiesthat

aimtoembedtheframeworkpracticeswithinanorganisation(Fixsen,etal.,2009;Mitchell,

2011).Thisalso includesanydocumentation,reportsand/orpeerreviewed literaturethat

pertainstotheeffectivenessandevidencebaseofthe implementationapproachtakenby

departmentsand/orsuggestedbyframeworkdevelopers.Thiscoredomain isdivided into

twoparts;

• 10.aImplementationapproach.

• 10.bImplementationapproachevaluationevidence.

11.Outcomesforchildren,families,practitionersandsystems

Thisincludestheoutcomesforchildren,families,practitionersandthewidersystemthatare

intended or assumed to occur through the implementation and ongoing use of the child

protectionframework(e.g.parentsatisfaction).Thisalsoincludestheoutcomesforchildren,

families, practitioners and systems that are measured and subsequently reported in any

documentation,reportsand/orpeerreviewedliterature.

• 11.aIntendedoutcomes.

• 11.bReportedoutcomesevaluationevidence.

Eachofthe11coredomainsarepresentedbelowastheyaredescribedinpubliclyavailable

childprotectionpracticeframeworkdocumentation.

23

FINDINGS:

2.1 Stakeholder involvement in framework development

Stakeholderengagementduringthedevelopmentandimplementationofthechildprotection

practiceframeworkswasseldomindicated.Onlyoneframeworkreportedbeingdeveloped

inconjunctionwithpractitionersanddepartments,whilenoframeworksreportconsulting

withand/orworkingwithchildren,familiesandexternalagenciesduringthedevelopmentof

thechildprotectionpracticeframework.SignsofSafetywasco-authoredbyapractitioner

andmanager from theWestern Australian child protection department and pilotedwith

practitioners(Turnell&Edwards,1999).Itisalsoworthnotingthatseveraloftheframeworks

were developed by senior practitioners with executive roles within child protection

departments (e.g. Best InterestsCasePracticeModel, Practice First andReclaiming Social

Work), however theextent towhich the frameworkdevelopers consulted andengageda

broadercorpusoffrontlinepractitionerswithintheagencyisnotreported.

2.2 Foundational principles

All eight of the frameworks provided information on practice principles. Commonly,

frameworksreportedfoundationalprinciplessuchasworkingrelationshipswithfamiliesand

professionals(n=7),valuingandrespectingothersanddiversity(n=7),beingchild-andfamily-

centred(n=4),andusingreflectivepracticeorprofessionaljudgement(n=4).

Manyofthefoundationalprinciplesincludedvaluesthatcouldbeupheldbyboththechild

protectiondepartmentandpractitioners.Thesevalues included: fosteringchildsafetyand

wellbeing;managingrisk;practicingreflectivepractice;encouragingprofessionaljudgement;

andvaluingandrespectingothersanddiversity. Interestingly,onlyfourframeworksnoted

beingeitherchild-orfamily-centredasakeypracticeprinciplewithonlytwoframeworks(Best

Interests CasePracticeModel and Strengthening Families, ProtectingChildren) containing

principlesspecifictohavingthechild’sbestinterestatthecentreofpractice.Child-centred

childprotectionpractice,isdefinedinthisreportas;practicethathasthechildandhisorher

needs,wishesandbest interestsat itscore (D'cruzandStagnitti,2008;RaceandO'Keefe,

2017).Thisincludes;recognisingcriticaltime-framesinchildhoodandadolescence,including

early in the life of the child and early in the life of the problem; taking into account the

individual child’s strengths and knowledge; providing children and young people with

appropriate opportunities to participate in decision-making which affect them; and

promotingacollaborativeapproach(Barnes,2017;WinkworthandMcArthur,2006).

Inaddition,acrossallframeworkslimitedinformationwassuppliedabouthowpractitioners

andchildprotectiondepartments1)canperformdutiesinamannerconsistentwithbeing

child-orfamily-centredand2)measurethisperformance.

24

2.3 Founding theories

Alleightframeworkshighlightedimportantpre-existingtheoriesandprovidedpractitioners

withadditionalpracticeguidelines.Theoriesmentionedbythechildprotectionframeworks

included: child and family development; ecological; resilience; trauma; and attachment

theories. Theories such as relationship-based practice (n=5) were commonly cited as

underpinning child protection frameworks. Fewer frameworks discussed developmental

(n=3)ortrauma(n=1)theory.Thesetheorieswereseldomexplainedindetailandoftendid

notincludereferencesforpractitionerstoacquiremoreinformation,whichissurprisinggiven

the nature of the work and that the frameworks were designed specifically for child

protection practice. The exception was the Best Interests Case Practice Model, which

provided references (such as Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, 1975) and offered

additionalinformationintheformofcomprehensiveevidence-informedpracticeresources

on child development and trauma, cumulative harm, families withmultiple and complex

needsandworkingwithfamilieswhereanadultisviolent,etc.

2.4 Practical Guidelines

Practicalguidelineswerespecifictothechildprotectionframeworkandwerehighlyvariable.

All eight frameworks mentioned practice guidelines, with the majority focusing on

assessment and case management (n=6). Meanwhile, others highlighted how to engage

families(n=2)and/orworkinteams(n=2).TherewerealsoreferencestoSolutionFocused

Brief Therapy and other strengths-based approaches (n=6). It was anticipated that these

guidelineswouldoperationalisethefoundingprinciplesandprovideaguideforpractitioners

to understand different types of practice. However, the degree to which the guidelines

providedoperationalisedinstructionvariedsignificantly.

ThemostcommonlymentionedpracticalguidelinesincludedreferencestoSolutionFocused

BriefTherapyandotherstrengths-basedapproaches.Theframeworks,ingeneral,hadafocus

on discovering families’ strengths, which is a core component of Solution-Focused Brief

Therapy(deShazer,1985).Thiswasdemonstratedthroughthelanguagethatwascommonly

usedincluding;‘recognisethatallfamilieshavesignsofsafety’(Turnell&Edwards,1999p.30–

32), ‘focusing on creating small change’ (Turnell & Edwards, 1999 p.30–32), ‘detailing

attendedsolutions,identifyingmomentsofsuccessandencouragingtheuseofunderutilized

resources’ (Christensen, 1999 p.7) and the provision of reminders for practitioners to

‘reinforceandbalancetheperspectivesthroughoutthework’throughaskingquestionssuch

as‘howaredecisionslinkedtofamilystrengthsandresources?’(Connolly,2007pp.833–835).

Other practical guidelines tended to focus on giving practitioners a brief overview of the

important guidelines for assessment and case management. For example, Practice First

encouragesholisticassessmentsandfamilywork,collaborationandcriticalreflection(Office

oftheSeniorPractitioner,2011),whileScotland’sNationalFrameworkexplicitlystatesthat

‘assessmentsshouldbeappropriate,proportionateandtimely’andshoulduse‘observations

andrecordings’(ScottishGovernment,2010p.1).Whilegivingbothanoverviewandnoting

timely and holistic assessments are important, practical guidelines often offeredminimal

25

information to guide practitioners in how to conduct the assessments in a holistic,

appropriateandtimelyfashion.

2.5 Competence in working with diversity

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families are over-represented in child protection

(Australia Institute for Health and Welfare, 2017). However, many of the frameworks

providednodetailtodemonstratehowservicesensurethatculturallyappropriateandsafe

investigationsandinterventionsaredeliveredtoAboriginalclients.Sevenframeworkseither

mentioned being ‘culturally responsive’ (Connolly, 2007) or included emphasis on

practitioners having ‘cultural competence’ (Department of Communities, Child Safety and

Disability Services 2015; Miller, 2012; NSW Department of Community Services, 2009).

However, few of these frameworks went into further detail as to how practitioners and

statutory organisations ensure cultural competency and safety. Two exceptions to this

includedPracticeFirstandBest InterestsCasePracticeModel.Both frameworksprovided

moredetail intheformof‘waysofworking’manualsspecificallyforAboriginalandTorres

StraitIslanderchildrenandfamilies(NSWDepartmentofCommunityServices,2009;Miller,

2012).ThesemanualsprovidedguidanceonworkingwiththewiderAboriginalcommunity

andhighlighted the significanthistorical, languageandculturaldifferences that shouldbe

consideredinordertoprovideculturallyrelevantpractice.

The same pattern emerged for other diverse populations. Limited to no informationwas

providedforpractitionersworkingwithfamiliesfromCALDbackgrounds,orwithfamiliesin

which parents or children had intellectual and physical disabilities. Three frameworks

provided some information. This included Scotland’s National Framework referring to

diversityinclients(i.e.CALDstatus,disabilityandmentalhealthproblems)asbothindicators

ofpotentialriskofmaltreatmentandadiversitydimensionrequiringpractitionerstochange

theirengagementstrategies(ScottishGovernment,2010),butthisframeworkdidnotprovide

practitionerswithwaystochangeengagementstrategiesforthispopulation.Finally,while

theBest InterestsCasePracticeModelprovidespractitionerswithapractice resource for

workingwithfamilieswithmultipleandcomplexneeds,thefocusisontheseproblemsasrisk

factorsandnotasdiversitydimensionsrequiringdifferentformsofengagement(Bromfield,

Sutherland&Parker,2012).

2.6 Framework specific training

Seven frameworksdiscussed the framework specific training required fororganisations to

becomeaccreditedintheframework.Ofthesesevenframeworks,sixincludedsomeformof

inductionprocessand/oramulti-daytrainingworkshopduringthe implementationphase.

Forexample,theSignsofSafetyframeworkrequiredpractitionerstoparticipateintwo-day

training and ‘practice leader facilitators’ to partake in five-day training that teaches

practitionersabouttheSignsofSafetyapproachandSolutionFocusedBriefTherapy(Turnell,

2012; Turnell & Edwards, 1999). Four frameworks provided practitioners with a website

where theycouldaccessadditional informationspecific to the frameworks (Best Interests

CasePracticeModel,IntegratedServiceSystem,SignsofSafety,,andStrengtheningFamilies,

26

ProtectingChildren).Thesewebsitescontainfurtherinformation,intheformof‘factsheets’

or‘practiceresources’forthepractitionertoread.Thesewebsitesdonotprovideadditional

onlinetrainingorboostersessions.

2.7 Pre-requisite qualifications and experience of practitioners

Half of the child protection frameworks did not stipulate or recommend minimum

qualificationsand/orexperiencerequiredbypractitionerstobeeligibleand/ortoequipthem

towork inchildprotectionspecificworkplaces.Two frameworks requiredpractitioners to

havecompletedasocialworkspecifictertiarydegree(ReclaimingSocialWorkandSolution

Based Casework). Three frameworks listed several prerequisite skills sets required by

practitioners.Theseincludedsoundprofessionaljudgement(Connolly&Smith,2010;Miller,

2012), engagement skills (Goodman & Trowler, 2012), and skills in implementing

interventions(Goodman&Trowler,2012).

2.8 In-service training and professional development

Frameworksprovided limited informationordetailaboutprofessionaldevelopment inthe

coreknowledgeandskillsrequiredtousetheframeworkandwhetherthiswasprovidedas

partof,orsupplementaryto,theframework.Interestingly,forsevenframeworksnocontent

wasprovidedonwhereandwhenadditionaltrainingmayoccur.Twoframeworksprovided

noinformationaboutadditionaltrainingbutdidprovidewebsitesforself-directedreading

materials on topics such as developmental theory, working with children and culturally

appropriateengagement.

The Best Interests Case Practice Model was the only framework that provided specific

informationonthein-servicedevelopmentandtraininggiventonewpractitionersinaddition

toeitherpre-requisite trainingor training touse the frameworks.TheBest InterestsCase

Practice Model used a blended learning model: Beginning Practice Orientation Program

(McPherson&Barnett,2006).Theprogramhassixcomponents:newpractitioner learning

guide,guideforsupervisors,three(4day)practiceclinics,onlinee-learning,buddyormentor

programme and follow-up modules/training sessions (McPherson & Barnett, 2006). The

practiceclinicsfocuson:skillsinworkingwithIndigenousAustralians;workingwithchildren

andfamilies;childabuse;trauma;childdevelopment;andpartnershipapproachestoworking

withfamiliesandlegalrequirements(McPherson&Barnett,2006).

2.9 Tools, approaches and practice guidelines

Themostcommonstagesofthechildprotectionprocesswheretoolsweresuggestedforuse

includedinitialassessment(n=8),engagement(n=4)andplanning(n=8).Practitionerswere

encouragedtouseriskassessmenttoolssuchasStructuredDecisionMaking(n=3)andoruse

tools developed specifically for each individual framework (n=4) during the assessment

process.Inaddition,afewframeworkssuggesteditemssuchasgenograms(n=2),ecomaps

(n=2),specificquestioningtechniques(n=3)andtheuseofappreciativeinquiry(n=1)during

assessmentswith families. Engagement tools, specifically for engaging children, generally

included those developed by the Signs of Safety founders, such as Three Houses (n=2).

27

Alternative strategies includedor suggestedusing listening skills andnormalising stressful

situationswithoutnormalisingthemaltreatment(n=4).Aftercompletingtheassessmentand

duringtheplanningstagespractitionersareencouragedtouseadditionalprotocolsandplans

suchas the Signsof SafetyPlan (n=5), SMARTGoals (n=2) and case consultation (n=1) to

developaplanforfamilies.

Practitionersareprovidedwithlimitedguidanceinregardstothetypesofinterventions(n=4)

thatcouldbeusedwithfamiliestoassisttheminachievingthecareplangoals.Interventions

thatwerereferredtowereattimesvague.Forexample,ReclaimingSocialWorksuggeststhat

practitionersuse‘sociallearningtheoryforbehaviourinterventions’withfamilies(Goodman

&Trowler,2012)butdidnotexplainsociallearningtheoryorgiveexamplesfrompractice.

Only one framework (Best Interests Case Practice Model) provided information on how

practitionerswould review the goals and outcomes of the care plan. Best Interests Case

PracticeModelsuggeststhattheuseofpromptingviatheBestInterestQuestionswouldallowpractitionerstodevelopanunderstandingofwhetherthegoalssetarebeingachieved(Miller,

2012),howeverthisdoesnotconstituteanevidence-basedintervention.Sevenframeworks

alsolistedtoolsthatmaybeusedacrossthechildprotectionprocesscontinuum,forexample,

familygroupconferencing(n=3),differentformsofgroupsupervisionandcaseconsultation

(n=5),theemploymentofadministrationstaff(n=2),andusingculturallyresponsivepractice

(n=1).

In addition to limited guidance in the latter stages of child protection practice, limited

researchhasbeenconductedonthespecifictoolsandapproacheslistedbyeachframework.

Onlyfourframeworkshavecompletedanypreliminaryresearch.Twoframeworks,Signsof

SafetyandReclaimingSocialWork,havecollectedqualitativeinformationfrompractitioners

andparentsusing the tools. This information suggests they couldbehelpful in increasing

parent engagement and understanding (Cross, Hubbard&Munro, 2010; Nelson-Dusek&

Rothe,2015).VanZyletal.(2014)completedacasefilereviewofSolutionBasedCasework

(SBC)cases,revealingthe16practitionerbehavioursthatarethemostpredictiveofoutcomes

ofsafety,permanencyandwell-being.Interestingly,whiletheyareafocusofSBC,manyof

thesebehavioursarenotuniquetoSBC.Identifiedbehavioursmightincludetheinvolvement

of parents and other important communitymembers in the different stages of the child

protectionprocess,documentationofassessment,andgoalsandprogress(orlackthereof)

towardgoalsandhomevisitation.BehavioursthatwerespecifictoSBCincludedtheemphasis

ondocumentingthesequenceofevents,familydevelopmentalstagesandindividualadult

patternsofbehaviour(VanZyletal.,2014).

2.10 Framework implementation

Of the seven frameworks that reported on implementation approaches, only three

frameworks mentioned specific implementation approaches or tools: 7-s framework

(ReclaimingSocialWork),GettingtoOutcomes(SBC)andContinuousQualityImprovement

(StrengtheningFamilies,ProtectingChildren).Therewasthenlimiteddiscussiononhowto

use these implementation approaches within a jurisdiction. The other four frameworks

discussed certain aspects of implementation such as: training and supervision (n=4);

28

involvement of management and practice leaders (n=3); additional assistance from the

framework developers (n=1); the importance of setting goals/outcomes (n=3); and the

integrationoftheframeworkintopre-existingpractice(n=3).TheBestInterestsCasePractice

Modeldidnotprovideanypubliclyavailabledocumentationreportingontheimplementation

oftheframeworkinVictoria.

Although most authors provided some information about what would be required to

successfullyimplementtheframework,itwasgenerallybrief.Forexample,frameworksmight

onlyprovideashort statement like ‘takingawholeoforganisationapproach’ (Connolly&

Smith,2010p.12)or ‘thismodel isbeing integrated intoexistingpractice’ (Center for the

StudyofSocialPolicy,2015p.7).Thesestatementsdonotprovideenoughinformationforthe

implementation tobeassessedand replicated. Inaddition, thereappears tobea levelof

uncertainty,amongbothpractitionersandmanagers,duringtheimplementationprocess.For

example,Skrypeketal. (2010)reportedthat,duetouncertaintyforsupervisorsaboutthe

department’slong-termsupportofSignsofSafety,somesupervisorsdidnotfullyengagein

theimplementationofthenewframework.

Furthermore, it is widely recognised that conducting research and evaluation into

implementation effectiveness can provide organisations with a greater understanding of

what implementationapproach isrequired.Unfortunately,only four frameworksprovided

anyinformationonpreviousimplementationeffectiveness,withthreeframeworksproviding

publiclyaccessiblereports(Antleetal.,2009;Antleetal.,2010;Salveronetal.,2014;Wade

et al., 2009). TheChildren’sBureauprovided funding, in2000, for a report intoTitle IV-E

implementation, however, this report was never publicly released (Social Work Policy

Institute,2012).

SBC provides the most published articles in regards to implementation effectiveness,

specificallybasedonthedifferenttypesoftrainingreceivedbypractitioners.Thisresearch

foundthatmorecomprehensivetrainingledtopractitionersbeingmoreadherentwiththe

SBCModelasdemonstratedthroughacase file review(Antleetal.,2008)andthat these

practitionersusedcorrectproceduresforassessmentandcaseplanning(Antleetal.,2009).

However,practitionersstillstruggledwhenundertakingpermanency-relatedcaseplanning

skills(Antleetal.,2009).ItisimportanttonotethatAntleetal.(2008)alsofoundpractitioners

significantly differed on their scores regarding adherence to the SBC model across the

different types of child protection concerns. Cases involving physical or sexual abuse had

significantlyloweradherencescores.

OtherframeworksforwhichimplementationresearchhasbeenconductedincludeSignsof

SafetyandPracticeFirst,howeverinbothoftheseexamplesimplementationtheorieswere

appliedposthoctounderstandingwhathadbeendone.Salveronetal.(2014)suggestthat

the implementation of Signs of Safety appealed to the natural champions of social work

practice within the child protection department. However, there were also concerns

surrounding problematic data systems and an internal departmental focus, which

compromisedthesuccessoftheimplementationprocess.Finally,Wadeetal.(2009)provided

a comprehensive report of Practice First concluding; overall there were many reported

29

inconsistenciesinthetypeoftrainingreceivedandpractitioners’readinesstostartusingthe

framework,whichmayhaveaffectedtheeffectivenessoftheframework-intendedoutcomes

specificallyaroundchildabuseandneglect.

2.11 Outcomes for children, families practitioners and systems

Mostoftheframeworks(n=7)providedspecificintendedoutcomesthatcouldpotentiallybe

measured and reported on. Five frameworks reported that safety of childrenwas of the

utmost importance, with permanency (n=3) and wellbeing (n=4) of children also being

reportedasanintendedoutcomeoftheframework.Forfamilies,therewasafocusonparent-

practitionerrelationshipsandincreasingparents’engagement(n=3).Sixoftheframeworks

reported practitioner skills and confidence were important, along with increasing

practitioners’ satisfaction and thus decreasing turnover (n=4). In addition, decreasing

administration tasks for practitioners (n=2) also featured as an intended outcome. The

remaining framework (Best Interests Case Practice Model) provided a short and general

statementaboutthebestinterestprinciplesbutdidnotprovidefurtherinformationabout

what ‘positive outcomes for children’ could be: ‘The Best Interests principles provide

guidanceonhowtopromotepositiveoutcomesforchildrenwhoarevulnerableasaresultof

theirfamilies’circumstances,dynamicsandsocialisolation’(DepartmentofHumanServices,

2007). Of the Five frameworks that described intended system outcomes, four included

outcomes,suchassystemandorganizationalculturalimprovement,leadingtoadecreaseinfunding

requirements. Other intended outcomes included: reduced recidivism (i.e. reoffending or

reoccurringmaltreatment)andre-reporting(n=2);reductioninthenumberofchildreninout-

of-home care (n=3); and decreased assessment and casemanagement timelines,with an

increase in quality (n=1). No further information was reported about these intended

outcomes.

Althoughalltheframeworksprovidesomeindicationoftheirintendedoutcomes,onlythree

frameworks(ReclaimingSocialWork,SignsofSafety,SBC)providedanyreportsonoutcomes

either as part of government-funded publications or peer-reviewed literature. Only one

framework had publicly accessible research conductedwith children. The Signs of Safety

researchreportsontwosmallsamplesofchildrenwhoquantitativelyandqualitativelyreport

ontheirunderstandingandsatisfactionwiththechildprotectionsystem(Finan,Salveron&

Bromfield,2016;Baginskyetal.,2017).Mostchildrenreportedhavingpositiverelationships

withtheirpractitionerbuthadmixedfeelingsaboutandalimitedunderstandingoftheSigns

ofSafetymodel(Finanetal.,2016;Baginskyetal.,2017).

Parent and practitioners process measures were most commonly reported with three

frameworksreportingonparentengagementandinvolvementintheassessmentandcase

planning/management stages and two frameworks reporting on parent-practitioner

relationshipandsatisfaction.BothSignsofSafetyandSBCreported increases inallparent

outcomesthroughbothcasefilereviewsandsurvey/interviewswithparentsdirectly(Dubov

etal.,2015;Bunn,2013;Baginskyetal.,2017).WhileReclaimingSocialWorkalsoreported

increased parent satisfaction through both parent (Cross et al., 2010) and practitioners’

ratings (Forrester et al., 2013). Reported practitioner outcomes included: practitioner

30

retention/turnover (n=2); skill sets (n=3); job satisfaction (n=3); contact with outside

organisations(n=1);andadministrativeburden(n=1).Threeframeworksdescribedincreases

inpractitionerjobsatisfactionandskillssets(Crossetal.2010,WillisandLeung2004;Bunn

2013).However,ReclaimingSocialWorkfoundpractitioners’satisfactiondidnotequatetoa

reductioninpractitionersstresslevels(Crossetal.,2010).Meanwhile,Salveronetal.(2014)

foundthattherewasasmallpositiverelationshipbetweenpractitioner’sskillsandconfidence

inSignsofSafetypracticeandtheirprofessionalpractice,roleclarityandautonomy.Rothe,

Nelson-Dusek&Skrypek(2013)alsoreportedthatmanyexternalstakeholdershadongoing

concernsaboutSignsofSafetypractitioners’abilitytomanagechronicneglectcases,maintain

rigourandremainobjectiveinidentifyingconcernsaboutparents.

In regards to systembased reportedoutcomes,manyof the frameworks suggested some

positiveshort-termoutcomeswhencomparingthejurisdiction’sout-of-homecareplacement

(Antleetal.,2008;Crossetal.,2010),recidivism(Antleetal.,2009)andplacementstability

(Antleetal.,2012;Crossetal.,2010)tothenationalaverage.Meanwhile,otherframework

evaluationssuchasthosebyWadeetal.(2016)suggestthatoutcomes,suchasreferralsto

familycourt,numberofchildreninout-of-homecareandre-reportsdidnotdifferpre-and-

postimplementation.Salveronetal.(2015)provideapre/post-evaluationofSignsofSafety.

OverallSalveronetal’sresearchfoundthatmostofthehypothesisedimprovedoutcomesfor

children and families were not supported. For example, the number of children in care,

number of days between case closure and re-notification and re-substantiation rates all

increasedpost-implementationofSignsofSafety.

31

3.ANALYSISANDFINDINGS

In this section of the report, an analysis of relative strengths, limitations and cumulative

effectsandgapsacrossandwithin frameworks ispresented.Toassist in thisanalysis, the

project teamcategorised the11coredomains into fivecategories.Thesecategorieswere

developed through an iterative and intuitive process, whereby domains with similar or

crossover information were grouped. This process allowed for more in-depth analysis

particularlyandtheconsiderationofcumulativeorinter-relatedissuesacrossdomains.The

11coredomainsarelistedbycategorybelow:

Foundationalunderpinnings• Foundationalprinciples

• FoundingTheories

• Competenceinworkingwithdiversity

Workforcetrainingandsupervision• Frameworkspecifictraining

• Pre-requisitequalificationsandexperienceofpractitioners

• In-servicetrainingandprofessionaldevelopment

Tools,approachesandpracticalguidelines• Practicalguidelines

• Toolsandapproachesandevidence

Implementation• Stakeholderinvolvementinframeworkdevelopment(addedfollowingexpertpanel

feedback,notpartoforiginalextractionandsummarydevelopment)

• Implementationapproachandevidence

Outcomesforchildren,families,practitionersandsystems• Intendedoutcomesandevidence

Asummaryofthestrengths,limitationsandgapsofeachoftheframeworksbycoredomain

categoryarepresentinTable3.

32

Table3:Summaryofextracteddataandlimitationsforeachcoredomain.

CoreDomains Summary Limitations

FoundationalUnderpinnings

Principles Commonprinciples:working

relationships,usingreflective

practice,professionaljudgement

Notallframeworksprovidedbeing

child-and-family-centredasa

principle.

TheoriesFocuson:Relationship-based

PracticeDevelopmentalandtrauma-

informedmissing

Workingwithdiversity

Severalframeworksmentioned

culturalcompetency,few

mentionedotherdiverse

populations

Onlyafewprovidedguidanceon

howtobecompetentwhenworking

withdiversepopulations

Training

Pre-requisite Soundprofessionaljudgement

identifiedasnecessary

Limitedinformationonthetypeof

requiredknowledge,skillsand

experience

FrameworkInformationabouttheframeworkis

beingsuppliedduring

implementationLimitedinformationaboutwhat

frameworktrainingcontains

In-serviceBestInterestsCasePracticeModel

istheonlyframeworkproviding

detailedin-servicetraining

Limitedtonocontentwasbeing

providedforin-servicetraining/

professionaldevelopment

Toolsandapproaches

PracticalGuidelines

FocusonSolution-FocusedBrief

TherapyLimitedguidelinesreongoingwork

withfamiliesandchildren

Toolsandapproaches

Thefocuswasonthe'frontend'of

practice,i.e.assessment,

engagementandplanning

Limitedcontenton1)interventions

and2)workingwithdiversegroups

includingengagingwithchildren

Effectiveness Preliminaryevidenceisstartingto

emergeforsomespecifictoolsManyframeworkshavenoevidence

basefortoolsused

Implementation

ApproachThreeframeworksdiscussed

specificimplementationapproaches

Limitedinformationwasprovidedon

howchildprotectiondepartments

preparedandcompleted

implementation

Effectiveness

Someimplementation

effectiveness,i.e.specific

frameworktrainingshownto

increasepractitioners’skills.

Somenegativeoutcomesarebeing

reportedforclientspost

implementation

Outcomesforchildren,families,practitionersand

systems

IntendedAlmostallprovidedinformationof

theintendedoutcomesandmany

ofthesewherechildfocused

outcomes

Notallprovidedachildoutcomeof

increasedsafety.Otherframeworks

focusedonparentsatisfaction,

fundingandbudgets.

33

CoreDomains Summary Limitations

Evaluations

Lessthanhalfofframeworkshave

somepubliclyavailableevidence.

Systemevidenceprovidedmixed

results;someframeworksprovided

short-termbenefits

Onlyoneprovidedchildoutcome

data,othersfocusedonparentand

practitionersoutcomes.Limited

evidenceoflongtermbenefits

3.1 Foundational underpinnings

Thefoundationalunderpinningsofachildprotectionframeworkwereconsideredtobethe

principles,theoriesandthediversityguidance,whicharetobefollowedbyboththechild

protection departments and the individual practitioner. Eight frameworks stated their

principlesandtheories,whilesevenmadementionofculturalcompetencies.

Whilepracticeframeworksprovidepractitionersandorganisationswithsomefoundational

principlesimportanttotheworkofchildprotection,specificguidanceonhowapractitioner

might conduct their work to reflect these principles was under-developed within the

principlesandpracticeguidance,toolsandapproaches.Forexample,frameworkscommonly

reportedgoodworkingrelationshipswithallinvolvedinthechild’scareasbeingimportant,

butsuppliedlimitedinformationonwhatconstitutesa‘goodworkingrelationship’orpractice

strategiesforachievingthisoutcome.Itisthereforeassumedthatitislargelylefttoindividual

practitioners or implementing jurisdictions to operationalise how these principles are

realised.

In order to be assured thebest interests of the child areparamount (commonly the first

principle of child protection legislation), child protection practice must be child-centred.

However,onlyfiveframeworksindicatedthattheywereeitherchild-orfamily-centredintheir

key practice principles. Only two frameworks (Best Interests Case Practice Model and

StrengtheningFamilies,ProtectingChildren)containedprinciplesspecifictohavingthechild’s

bestinterestatthecentreofpractice.Theoveralllackofemphasisonchild-centredpractice

may leadto limitations inbothmakingdecisions forchildrenand involvingchildren inthe

decision-makingprocess.

Somewhatsurprisingly,therewaslittletonoreferencetotheframeworksandtheoriesthe

ACCP, along with the expert panel, would consider of most proximal relevance to child

maltreatment, such as parenting capacity, attachment theories, dynamics of both

perpetrationandvictimisation,traumaandchilddevelopment.Overall,thelackofevidence

wasconsideredtobeasignificantlimitationoftheunderpinningprinciples.Furtherworkis

requiredtodeterminetheunderpinningtheoriesandprinciplesthatwouldconstitutebest

practice.

Frameworkswereassessedacross fourareasofpracticeessential toculturalcompetency:

cultural safety, considerations of cultural need, cultural consultation/input, and cultural

34

governance.However,theextractionsdemonstratedthatmanyframeworksonlymentioned

arequirementthatpractitionersbeculturallycompetentwithnospecificprovisionsforwhat

thismeantinpractice.Thisrepresentsahighriskofpracticesreflectingculturalblindnessor

pre-competence. Cultural blindness can be defined as ‘The belief that service or helping

approachestraditionallyusedbythedominantcultureareuniversallyapplicableregardless

ofraceorculture’(VictorianAboriginalChildCareAgency,2010).Culturalpre-competenceis

‘the desire to deliver quality services and a commitment to diversity indicated by hiring

minority practitioners, induction training and recruiting minority members for agency

leadership,butlackinginformationonhowtomaximisethesecapacities’(VictorianAboriginal

Child Care Agency, 2010). Given the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander children in child protection services, the lack of specificity on how cultural

competence is attained is assessed as a significant limitation of the practice frameworks

reviewed.

Even fewer frameworks included guidance for practice with other diverse populations.

Limited to no information was provided for practitioners working with CALD families or

familieswithintellectualandphysicaldisabilities.Oftheframeworksthatdidprovidesome

informationitwasmostlybriefandnotspecific.Giventhelikelihoodofpractitionersbeing

requiredtoengageandworkwithfamiliesexperiencingdiversitythiswasalsoassessedasa

significantlimitationofthepracticeframeworksreviewed.

3.2 Workforce training and supervision

Thetypeandnatureofpractitionerknowledge,skillsandexperiencerequiredforeffective

childprotectionpracticewasasignificantomissioninthemajorityofpracticeframeworks.

Three different types of training were described in the frameworks: the pre-requisite

qualifications required by practitioners (n=2); the training provided that is specific to the

frameworkandaccreditation(n=7);andanyin-servicetrainingorprofessionaldevelopment

providedforpractitioners(n=1).

Thepre-andpost-employmenttrainingthatpractitionersreceivehasbeenrecognisedasan

essentialfactorinthedevelopmentofexpertise(Balen&Masson,2008).Whenlookingatthe

three core domains that focus on training and professional development as a whole, a

concerningpictureemerges.While it ispositivethatmanypractitionersareprovidedwith

framework-specifictraining,inmanyframeworksthereisnoexpectationthatapractitioner

hasreceivedanyaccreditedtrainingspecifictosocialworkorchildprotectionpractice(e.g.

childdevelopment,dynamicsofabuse,parenting)priortorecruitment.Furthermore,inthe

majority of frameworks, in-service training is not stipulated for either beginning or

experienced professionals. This could lead to critical gaps in the principles/values

underpinningchildprotectionpractice,andthecontentexpertise,skillsandcapabilitiesof

practitionerswhoareworkingwithhighlyvulnerablechildrenandfamiliesonissuesofchild

safety.Salveronetal.(2015)documentsconcernsintheimplementationofSignsofSafety,

intheWesternAustraliancontext,asaconsequenceofthelimitedtrainingandsignificance

placedonotherbodiesofknowledgesuchaschilddevelopmentandsocialworkindecision-

makingaboutchildren'ssafety.

35

Additionally, expert panelmembers reported concern about the limited degree towhich

professionalsupervisionwas identifiedwithinthepracticeframeworkdocumentation.The

supervisionofpractitionersinconjunctionwithadequatetrainingandongoingdevelopment

willleadtomorehighlyskilledpractitioners,whoareequippedtointerveneeffectivelywith

families.Healyandcolleagues(2009)alsosuggestedthatincreasingskillsetscouldleadtoa

reduction in practitioner turn-over. Finally, expert panel discussions highlighted the risks

inherent ina lackofknowledgeandskillsspecific tochildmaltreatment,combinedwitha

focuson strengths. Therewasa concern that this combinationcould contribute tooverly

optimisticpracticeortherapeuticcollusionwithparents.

Analternativeapproach

While it is currently popular in Australian child protection departments to introduce

overarchingpracticeframeworkstoguidepractitioner’swaysofworkingwithfamilies,there

isanalternative.Competency-based frameworks focusonpreparingpractitioners towork

with families through on- and off-site training at teaching institutions. For example, the

NationalCoreCompetenciesFrameworkincludesanumberofcertificatesanddegreesthat

are studies at TAFE’s across the country (Australian Government, 2015a; 2015b). These

courses are different to those of a socialwork bachelor degree or a community services

certificateas they include teachingstudentswhat is considered thecorecompetenciesof

childprotectionpracticebytheAustralianQualificationsFramework.Anotherexampleofa

competency-based framework is the USA’s Title IV-E. Title IV-E is a funding model that

providesfundingforbothcurrentpractitionersandfuturepractitioners’fundstocomplete

trainingonwhatthegovernmentconsiderstobethecoretopicsprovided.However,thereis

an assumption that practitioners were taught only the underlying need to conduct

assessmentand interventionswith familiesbut the ‘howtodo’ theseactivitieswouldbe

providedby thedepartment theywerehiredby (Children’sBureau, 8.1HTitle IV-E). The

topics considered core in competency-based frameworks included; communication,

administrative tasks, theories and therapies, statutory environment, assessment and case

management, supervisionofotherworkers, risk factors, and theengagementof children,

families and other diverse populations (Australian Government, 2015a; 2015b, Children’s

Bureau,8.1HTitleIV-E).

3.3 Tools, approaches and practice guidelines

Alleightframeworksprovidedsomedocumentationofthetypesoftoolsandapproachesto

beusedwithchildrenandfamiliesaspartoftheframework;andfordifferentstagesofthe

childprotectionprocess.Thetoolsandapproachesarevaried intheirpurpose,withsome

focusingonengagingparentsandchildren;assessment;planning;intervention;andreviewof

outcomes.Only fourof the frameworks’ toolsandapproachesaresupportedbyempirical

studies.While all eight frameworks provided information on the practical principles that

operationalisehowpractitionersusethesetoolstoworkwithchildrenandfamiliestherewas

alargefocusonassessmentandcasemanagementandnotmanyguidelinesortoolsforthe

latterstagesofthechildprotectionprocess.

36

Thetypeoftoolsandapproachesthatarecommonlylistedbyframeworksforroutineuseby

practitionersappeartobestructuredtowardtheearlierstagesofthechildprotectionprocess

(seeFigure1).Althoughitisimportantforthepractitionertohavetoolsthatwillallowthem

toeffectivelyassessandinvestigateallegations,itisjustasimportantforpractitionerstohave

waysofworkingwithfamiliestowardchange.Thisaspectofworkingtowardchangeappears

tobelimitedormissinginseveralframeworks.Therealsoappearstobeverylittlefocuson

toolsforthelaterstagesofchildprotectionengagementinwhichachildhasbeenremoved.

Finally,thereislimitedevidencetosuggestthatthecurrentlyusedtoolsandapproachesare

effective, even for the earlier stages of the child protection process for which they are

designed,astheyarelargelyyettobeevaluated.

Someofthemorecontemporaryresearchthathasbeenconductedonbetter-knowntools,

suchasStructuredDecisionMaking(whichincludesascreeningtoolwhichwasempirically

validated) suggests that structuring practitioners’ ways of working with families around

specific reporting toolsmay undermine the development of expertise by child protection

practitioners(Gillingham&Humphreys,2010).Similartothetrainingcoredomain, ifchild

protectionpractitionersarenotprovidedwithevaluatedtoolsandapproaches,alongwith

specifictrainingonhowtousethesetoolswithsoundprofessionaljudgement,thiscouldlead

toade-skillingofpractitioners.GillinghamandHumphrey(2010)alsofoundthatpractitioners

werenottrainedinthecorrectuseofthetoolsasintendedbytheirdevelopers.

Therewasalsoalimitedvarietyoftoolsandapproachesthatpractitionerscouldusewhen

workingtoengagechildrenandyoungpeopleindecisionspertainingtothem.Threeoftwelve

frameworksdiscussedutilisingtheSignsofSafetysuiteoftoolsincluding;theThreeHouses,

WizardandFairyTool,andWordsandPicturesaswaysofengagingchildrenandyoungpeople

inthechildprotectionprocess(Connolly&Smith2010;DepartmentofCommunities,Child

SafetyandDisabilityServices,2015;Turnell,2012).WiththeUnitedNationsConventionon

the Rights of the Child (1989) stipulating that children should be involved in decisions

pertainingtothem,thelackoftoolsandapproachestoengagechildrenindecisionsisalarge

gapinalmostallchildprotectionframeworks.

Itwasanticipatedthatpracticeguidancewouldoperationalisethefoundingprinciplesand

theories to provide practitioners with overarching ways to engage and intervene with

families,potentiallycomplementedbytoolsorapproachestoguidespecificstagesofpractice

ordecisions.However,thedegreetowhichthepracticeguidelinesprovidedspecificguidance

wasvaried.Manyframeworksprovidedvaguereferencestoconductingholisticandfamily

centredassessmentswithoutprovidingdetailaboutwhattheseassessmentsmightlooklike.

OneofthemostfrequentlycitedtheoreticalframeworkswasSolutionFocusedBriefTherapy

(SFBT).SolutionBasedCasework,SignsofSafetyandtheIntegratedServiceSystemareall

underpinnedbySFBT.SFBTplacesafocusonbuildingthestrengthsofanindividualorfamily

tofindsolutionsforspecificproblems.Thistherapyistypicallyshortinlength(withsingleor

a few number of sessions) and is actively focused on the present rather than taking a

comprehensive history. Additionally, the evidence-base for SFBT focuses largely on

addictions. The ACCP recently completed a systematic literature search for research

37

pertainingtotheuseofSFBTwiththechildprotectionpopulation.Of14studiesreviewedon

SFBTinchildprotectionsettings,nonereportedonthereductionofchildabuseandneglect

post-familyengagement.

The applicability of a therapeutic approach designed to be brief as the foundation for

intervention with children and families involved with child protection is also concerning.

Lambert,HansenandFinch’s2001researchsuggeststhat50percentofclientsrequireatleast

21 sessionsofactive interventionbeforea clinically significant change inmentalhealth is

seen.Ascomplexitiesincrease,thenumberofrequiredsessionsalsoincreases.Thissuggests

that the adaptation of a brief therapy to a child protection context must be carefully

consideredasabrieftherapymodalitymaynotworkfortheclientcomplexitybeingseenby

childprotectiondepartments.

38

Figure1:SummaryoftheChildProtectionFrameworksthatContainInformationabouttheElementsoftheChildProtectionProcess

Intake Engagement

ISS,ScotlandNational,SoS,SFPC

Investigation(assessment)

BestInterestsISS,PracticeFirst,ReclaimingSocialWork,ScotlandNational,SoS,SBC,SFPC,

Substantiation Removal Out-of-homecare Reunification

CasePlanning(Goals)

BestInterests,,ISS,ReclaimingSocialWork,ScotlandNational,SoS,SBC,SFPC

CaseManagement

BestInterests,,ReclaimingSocialWork,ScotlandNational,SBC,SFPC

Review

BestInterests,ScotlandNational

Intervention

ReclaimingSocialWork

Referralstootherservices

ProvisionofGeneralCaseManagement

BestInterests,,ISS,ReclaimingSocialWork,ScotlandNational,SoS,SBC,,SFPC,

SpecificCaseManagementActivities

Notes:ISS:IntegratedServiceSystem,SoS:SignsofSafety,SFPC:StrengtheningFamilies,ProtectingChildren,

39

3.4 Implementation

Thereisagrowingbodyofresearchthatsuggestseffectiveanddeliberateimplementationisimportantinordertodevelopeffectivepractice(Durlack&DuPre,2008).Although,elevenoftheframeworksprovidedsomecommentontheirimplementationandtrainingpracticesforchildprotectiondepartments,thisinformationwasvariedinthedepthandbreadththatis required allow for adequate replication. Further only four report any evidence ofimplementationeffectiveness.

Many of the reviewed frameworks provided limited information on the process andassessmentof their implementation,and this included limited informationonstakeholderengagement (including children, families and practitioners). Expert panel discussionshighlightedthatstakeholderengagementbefore,duringandafterimplementationwouldbeimportant, particularly with other organisations that work with the child protectiondepartmentandwithfamilies(e.g.alcoholandsubstanceuseandmentalhealthservices).Inaddition,researchconductedontheimplementationofpracticeframeworksalsoindicatedthat implementation was often inconsistent, with many barriers preventing effectiveimplementation.There is someemergingevidencethat,whenwell implemented,practiceframeworksdemonstrateanincreaseinpractitionerframework-specificskillsets.Thereis,however, limited information on whether there are increases in practitioners’ overallexpertise,skillsandcapabilitiesand,indeed,ifaframework-specificskillsetincreaseschildsafety.ThesefindingsalsoneedtobereadwithcautionasSBCimplementationappearedtobelesseffectiveforfamiliesandchildrenwherephysicalorsexualabusewasoccurring.Giventhatphysicalabuseandsexualabuseaccountfor18percentand12percentrespectivelyofthereasonsforsubstantiationsnationallyfrom2015–2016(AustralianInstituteofHealth&Welfare,2016),theindicationthatSBCmaynotbeappropriateinthesecasesisaconcern.

3.5 Outcomes and evaluation and monitoring, for children, families and practitioners

Theoutcomesandtheevaluationandmonitoringdomainshavebeencombinedinthisreporttominimiseduplicationintheanalysis.Frameworksreportedonseveraldifferenttypesofoutcomes, including individual children, families and practitioner-based outcomes.Encouragingly,all frameworks listedeithertheir intendedoutcomesortheoutcomestheyhoped to achieve once the framework was implemented. However, five of the eightframeworks did not provide either any publicly accessible reports that measured theattainment rates for the intended outcomes. Of the three frameworks that providedevidence,onlyoneframeworkprovidedpreliminarydataonchildoutcomes,withtheotherthree focusing on parent satisfaction and engagement or practitioners’ satisfaction andretention.

Evaluationofoverall frameworks included intendedandreportedsystem-basedoutcomesthataremorelikelytobemeasuredthroughconductingcasefilereviewsorusingpopulation-based statistics of, for example, the number of children in out-of-home care. Only six

40

frameworksreportedanyintendedoutcomes,whilefourframeworksprovidedinformationonreportedoutcomesthroughgovernment-fundedreportsorpeer-reviewedliterature.

Manyoftheresearchreportsandarticleslistedintheframeworksrelatedtothiscoredomaincanbeconsideredtohaveseverallimitationstotheirfindings.Firstly,thereislimitedlarge-scale reporting on outcomes, such as child safety and wellbeing, using quantifiable andreplicablemethods.Thisgenerallyincludesshortfollow-upperiods,whichmaynotallowthelengthoftimeneededtoaccuratelyreflectwhatchangesareoccurringineachjurisdiction.Bunn(2013)suggeststhatjurisdictionsshouldnotexpecttoseeoutcomesforupwardsoftwoto three years. However, some research evaluations only collect 6-month follow-up data(Antleetal.,2009).

Secondly,manyoftheevaluationswereconductedbypractitionerswhomayhaveavestedinterest in thedevelopmentof the framework. This is not to suggest that the research isbiased, but rather, as D’Cruz and Jones (2013) and Gillingham (2017) suggest, thesubjectivitiesofaresearchteammayaffecttheoverallresearchprocess.Thismayoccur,forexample, through the framing of the research questions, methodologies employed orinterpretationofresults.

Concerningly,many of the framework evaluations have not included improved safety forchildrenasaKPI.Thosethathaveincludediteitherdidnotprovideasufficientsamplesizetosupportreliabledata,haveprovidedequivocalresultsorhaveidentifiedthattheframeworkwascontra-indicated(i.e.havingtheoppositeeffecttothatintended).Implementingtheseframeworks at scale without rigorous evaluation showing the framework can deliver thefundamentaloutcomeofincreasedchildsafetyispotentiallyharmfulforchildren.

3.6 Implications

Thisreportandsubsequentexpertpanelreviewprovidesaconcerningpictureforthestateof child protection frameworks as a whole; both in terms of the comprehensiveness offrameworksandtheappropriatenessofframeworkcontentandapproaches.

Comprehensiveness

Theimplicationsofthisreportpertaintothewaythatchildprotectionpracticeframeworksaremarketedasaone-size-fits-allapproachtochildprotectionpracticeandtheimportanceofchildprotectiondepartmentsensuring thatall coredomainsareadequatelycovered intheirservice.

Notonechildprotectionpracticeframeworkreviewedcontainedadequateinformationonallcoredomainsacrossallstagesofchildprotectionpractice.However,developersoftenarereportedtobeabletoadequatelyprovidethisservice.Thismarketingofoneframeworkforallchildprotectionpracticemayneedtobemodified.Instead,childprotectiondepartmentscouldusethecoredomainsdevelopedinthisreportto(1)buildontheircurrentframeworkstoprovidecontentonalldomainsand/or(2)beguidedaboutwhichcoredomainsneedtobedevelopedbythedepartmentitself.

41

Further,expertpaneldiscussionssuggestedtheframeworksreviewedcouldbeconsideredtoconsistofseveraldifferentframeworkspertainingtodifferentlevelsofpractice,including;

1. The ‘Organisational’ level, frameworks that discuss values and principles expectedwithinanorganisation.

2. ‘Workforce’ based frameworks provide detailed information on the types of pre-requisite skills, knowledge and experience required and/or further areas forprofessionaldevelopmentandsupervision.

3. ‘Intervention’specificframeworksprovidepractitionerswiththetypesoftoolsandapproaches tobeusedwith childrenand families andhow touse these tools andapproaches.Frameworkdevelopersneedtoprovideclearguidancetoorganisationswith regard to which level or levels their framework encapsulates in order fororganisationstobeabletodeterminewhethertheframeworkisfitfortheirpurposeand/or requires supplementation. This is particularly important as practice andintervention approaches can vary significantly for different parts of the childprotectionprocess.Forexample,intakeandassessmenttoolsandapproacheswouldvary fromfamilygroupconferencingand/or residential care toolsandapproaches,thusmayrequireseparateframeworks.

Thecurrentcoredomainsprovideabase levelchecklist fortheassessmentoftherelativecomprehensivenessofachildprotectionframework;andtheextenttowhichthisframeworkmayneedtobesupplementedorfurtherdeveloped.

Contentandapproach

Gaps in the currently implemented frameworks (e.g. child-centred, workforce pre-qualification, knowledge or experience requirements, lack of practice guidance tooperationaliseprinciplesandtheoriesforrespondingtocommonfamilyproblems)combinedwith limited evidence for existing content (e.g. Solution Focused Brief Therapy) creates aconcerning picture that child protection practice frameworksmay be limiting rather thanenhancingchildprotectionpractice.

Aprocedure is required to sit alongside the coredomains thatwouldprovide frameworkdevelopers, departments and oversight bodies with the assurance that the content andapproachesprescribedwithineachcomponentofachildprotectionpracticeframework isbased on the best available contemporary evidence. Integrating the core domains, thebenchmarking tool and a quality assurance proceduremay help to enhance practice andimproveoutcomesforourmostvulnerablechildrenandfamilies.

3.7 Conclusions

In order to strengthen the comprehensiveness, content and approach of child protectionpracticeframeworks,toaddressissuesdiscussedabove,furtherworkisrequiredincluding:

42

1. Thedevelopmentofaprocessormethodtoascertainthebestavailableevidenceforeachoftheidentifiedcoredomains.

2. Applyingthisprocesstoeachoftheidentifiedcoredomainswithaviewtousingthebest available evidence to set minimum requirements in each domain throughimplementation.

3. Developabenchmarkingtoolforchildprotectionframeworksthatcombinesthecoredomains identified in this project (comprehensiveness) and best practice withindomains(contentandapproach).

These steps would provide an integrated approach to ensuring child protection practiceguidanceforinterventionswithoutmostvulnerablechildrenandfamiliesareevidencebasedandhighquality.

Threekeypointsareevidentfromtheframeworkreview.Firstly,therearesignificantgapsand limitations in the dominant child protection practice frameworks currently beingimplemented in theAustralianand internationalcontexts.Secondly,abenchmarkingtooland quality assurance procedure could be used to inform framework selection anddevelopmentbychildprotectiondepartmentsorformonitoringagainstminimumstandardsbyregulatoryandoversightbodies.

Finally,thisprojecthighlightedthestrengthofengagingwithexpertsandfoundevidencethatend-user engagement in the development of frameworks can be invaluable. ACCPwouldrecommend that developers of frameworks might consider how to better engagestakeholders (including practitioners, partners, experts, parents, carers and children andyoungpeople)inthedesign,implementationandreviewofframeworks.

43

4.BENCHMARKINGPRACTICEFRAMEWORKS:AMINIMUMSTANDARD

Childprotectionpracticeframeworkscontinuetobedevelopedandadopted.Highqualityevaluationswhichexaminebothoutcomeandimplementationarenecessarytobuildanevidencebasethatwillhelptoascertainwhetherframework-basedapproachestopracticeenhancementofferbenefitsovercompetency-based or otter approaches in equipping practitioners to carry out their work. In theinterim,itisessentialthatwecanbeassuredthattheframeworkmeetsaminimumstandardandisnotdesignedinsuchawaythatitsimplementationcouldpredictablyhavenoornegativeimpact.

Thisprojectidentifiedandproposeselevencoredomainsthatneedtobeaddressedinachildprotectionpracticeframework.Italsoconcludedthatbenchmarkingonlytothepresenceorabsence of these domains would not provide necessary assurances regarding theappropriatenessoftheapproachadoptedwithineachdomainorof itsalignmentwiththeevidence-base.

Indevelopingameansofassessingwhether theapproachtakenwithineachcoredomainmeetsaminimumstandard,itisrecommendedthataprogramlogicandevidencematchingapproach be adopted. The ACCP’s Target Group to Outcomes methodology is one suchapproach,whichhasbeenappliedtomorethan100programsandservicesinthechildabusepreventionandchildprotectionsectors.

TheTargetGrouptoOutcomesassessmentisinformedbytherelativelyconsistentfindinginresearchregardingtheimportanceofawellalignedprogramtheory(Segal,Opie&Dalziel,2012).Forexample,Segal,OpieandDalziel’s(2012)reviewofinfanthomevisitingprogramsandtheirsuccessinpreventing child abuse and neglect found that positive outcomes/program success (i.e. astatisticallysignificantpositiveeffect)wasdependentonthedegreeofalignmentbetweenfourkeyelements:(I)Anexplicitprogramobjectivewiththepreventionofchildabuseandneglectasaprimaryorsecondaryaim;(ii)Theintendedtargetpopulation;(iii)Atheoryofchange;and(iv)Programcomponents/activities.

When all elements were, present and aligned, programs were found to be successful,howeverwhen only some elementswere present or therewas amismatch between keyelements, programs were only 60% successful in preventing child abuse and neglect.Soberingly,of theprograms inwhich these fourelementswerenot identified,noneweresuccessful.

TheACCP’sTargetGrouptoOutcomesassessmentincorporatesanassessmentofwhetheraprogram,service,intervention,policyorpracticehasaclearlydefinedtargetgroup,outcomesandprogramactivities:andtheextenttowhichthesearelogicallyalignedandtheworkforceisadequatelyqualified/preparedtoprovidethepracticeasintended.Additionally,theACCPsTarget Group to Outcomes assessment includes an ‘evidence matching’ assessment todeterminewhetherthenominatedprogram,intervention,policyorpracticehaspreviouslybeenfoundtobeeffectivefortheidentifiedtargetingachievingtheintendedoutcomes.

44

Thissectionofthereportprovidesabenchmarkingmethodologyincorporatingcoredomain;programlogicandevidencematchingassessmentwhichcanbeusedtoqualityassurechildprotectionpracticeframeworkstoaminimumstandard.

The benchmarking approach could be utilised for assessing and taking a continuousimprovementapproachtoexistingpracticeframeworks:orwhenselectingaframework.Thebenchmarkingapproachcouldbeutilisedbyeitherframeworkdevelopers,childprotectionserviceswhohaveor are considering adopting anexternally developed framework; or byregulatoryandoversightbodieswantingtoassuredthatpracticeintheirjurisdictionadherestoaminimumstandard.

Figure2presentsanoverviewofthismethodology.

45

Figure2.Minimumstandardbenchmarkingapproach

Process for each core domain

Identification of core domains

• Identify core domains

Documenting approaches within core domains

•e.g. what assessment tools, case management approach •Target group/s •Activities and strategies •Aims and intended outcomes •Who provides practice (what are their qualifications, how are they prepared for the role) •Rationale (how/why approach adopted)

Rapid evidence assessment

•Aims/ Objectives •Target group •Activities/ Approaches • Intensity and duration (if applicable) •Minimum workforce requirements

Assessment

•Assess core domain approach matched to evidence-based program components

46

4.1 Identification of core domains

Thus, the first stage of minimum standard benchmarking is to assess the framework todeterminewhethertherearedocumentedapproachesforeachoftheelevencoredomains:

Foundationalunderpinnings1. Foundationalprinciples2. FoundingTheories3. Competenceinworkingwithdiversity

Workforcetrainingandsupervision4. Frameworkspecifictraining5. Pre-requisitequalificationsandexperienceofpractitioners6. In-servicetrainingandprofessionaldevelopment

Tools,approachesandpracticalguidelines7. Practicalguidelines8. Toolsandapproachesandevidence

Implementation9. Stakeholderinvolvementinframeworkdevelopment(addedfollowingexpertpanel

feedback,notpartoforiginalextractionandsummarydevelopment)10. Implementationapproachandevidence

Outcomesforchildren,families,practitionersandsystems11. Intendedoutcomesandevidence

If the framework does not contain information and documentation for each of the coredomainsitisrecommendedtheframeworkbefurtherrefinedbytheframeworkdeveloper;orthemissingdomainssupplementedwithinternalpolicies,proceduresorpracticeguidancebytheframeworkimplementor.

Insomecases,itmaybethatanapproachhasbeendeterminedforthecoredomain,buthasnotbeenadequatelydocumented;alternately itmaybe thatanapproachunder thecoredomainhasnotbeendevelopedorformalised.

4.2 Documenting approaches within core domains

Eachoftheapproaches,ineachofthecoredomainsidentifiedinStage1tobefullydocumentedintermsofthe

1.Targetgroup-thetargetgroupincludesinformationonthecharacteristicsandneedsofpopulationtheapproachistargeting(e.g.childrensuspectedtobeexperiencingabuseandtheircaregivers,childrenincare).

2.Activitiesandstrategies-thisincludesthecharacteristicsorcomponentsofeachapproachwithinacoredomain,e.g.documentationofassessmenttools,orthefrequency,duration,andintensityoftheapproachandintendedinteractionswithchildrenandfamilies:definingcoretheoriesorpracticeorientationsandhowthesearetranslatedintopolicyandpractice)

47

3.Aimsandintendedoutcomes-thisincludesboththeaimsoftheprogramandtheoutcomesor change thatwilloccurasa resultofusing theseapproacheswithchildrenand families(short,mediumandlong-termoutcomesandcontingentassumptionswhereapplicable)

4. The rationale for the adoption of each approach - this includes the how and why (ifavailable)eachapproachwasadoptedwithinthatcoredomain.Forexample,environmentalscan identifyingtheapproachasbeingused inanothercomparableserviceor jurisdiction:reviewofevidence identifyingtheapproachaseffectiveorpromising;serviceuserand/orprofessionalconsultation identifyingtheapproachasdesirable;combinationofanyof theabove.

5.Theworkforce(professional,para-professionalorvolunteer)whoundertakethepracticeandthepriorqualifications,experienceandinserviceworkforcetraininganddevelopmentrequiredforthemtoundertakethepractice.

4.3 Rapid evidence assessment

Followingidentificationofapproacheswithineachdomaintheseapproachesmaybegroupedwithotherlikeapproaches(e.g.trauma-informedpractices,Riskassessmenttools,orclientengagementstrategies),forthepurposeofcompletingevidencematching.Rapidevidenceassessments of international literature should be conducted through a series of rapidliteraturereviews(see,Ganann,Ciliska&Thomas,2010).Thepurposeofthesereviewsistodeterminetheevidencebaseofsimilarapproachestothosebeingassessed.Iftheapproachissupportedbytheevidenceaseffectivesimilarinformationshouldbeextracted,including:

1.Targetgroup,

2.Activities(i.e.programcomponentsandapproaches)includingintensityanddurationofserviceprovisionand,

3.Aims/objectives

4.workforcequalificationsand/ordevelopmentrequiredtofacilitatetheapproach.

Evidence assessments should include a search for, and critical review of national andinternationalsystematicreviews,meta-analyses,andsinglestudyevaluationsofprograms,practices,policiesorinterventionscomparabletotheidentifiedapproach.Rigorousqualityassessmentprocessesshouldbeapplied(e.g.,theAMSTAR)toensurethequalityofevidenceinthe literature ishigh,withsystematicreviewsandexperimentalandquasi-experimentalevaluationsgiventhemostweight.

4.4 Assessment

Finally,theassessmentcomprisesalogicmodelandevidencematchingassessment

Logicmodelassessment-wastheapproachadequatelydocumented;dothetargetgroup,activitiesandoutcomesalign(e.g.doesthepracticeapplytoallchildrenandfamiliesacross

48

thecontinuumofchildprotectioninvolvementoraretheretimesitwouldbeinappropriate):andaretheevidenceadequatelypreparedandsupportedtoprovidethepracticeasintended.

Evidencematchingassessment-comparingtheframeworkapproachesineachcoredomaintoitsmatchedevidence-basedprogramcomponentsorapproaches.Evidencematchingwillincludeanyidentifiedevaluationsofthespecificapproaches,aswellasmatchingagainsttheinternational literature for the approach type and/or the components (i.e. the activitiesundertaken).

Itisrecommendedthatthepossibleassessmentoutcomesinclude:

1.Supported:frameworkapproachiswelldocumented,hasanadequatelogic,andsharesthecharacteristicsofevidence-basedapproaches

2.Provisionallysupported:frameworkapproachiswelldocumented,hasanadequatelogic,and has been effective for different target groups/outcomes; but has been adapted forcurrentframeworkwithhighqualityevaluationunderway.

3.Provisionallysupported:frameworkapproachiswelldocumented,hasanadequatelogic;itisanewlydeveloped,nevertestedapproach,butthereisanappropriatedevelopmentandevaluationprocessunderway.

4.Not supported: framework approach is poorlydocumented, and/orhas a flawed logic,and/ordoesnotalignwiththecharacteristicsofevidence-basedapproaches,anddoesnotmeeteitheroftheprovisionallysupportedcriteria.

On thebasis of this definition child protectiondepartments and regulatory andoversightbodiescanassessthefitforpurposeandmakerecommendationsaboutthedis-continuedorcontinueduseof certainapproacheswithin coredomains. Thisprocesswill alsoallow forcontinuedreviewingandmonitoringandensureaminimumstandardwithinchildprotectionpractice; that there are no practices being implemented that are known to be contra-indicatedbyevidenceorwheresuccessisimprobable.

49

REFERENCES

ANTA–seeAustralianNationalTrainingAuthority.

Antle,B.,Barbee,A.,Christensen,D.&Martin,M.(2008).Solution-basedcaseworkinchild

welfare:Preliminaryevaluationresearch.JournalofPublicChildWelfare,2(2),197–

227.

Antle,B.,Barbee,A.,Christensen,D.&Sullivan,D.(2009).Thepreventionofchild

maltreatmentrecidivismthroughtheSolution-basedCaseworkmodelofchild

welfarepractice.ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,31,1346–1351.

Antle,B.,Christensen,D.,vanZyl,M.,Barbee,A.(2012).TheimpactoftheSolutionBased

Casework(SBC)practicemodelonfederaloutcomesinpublicchildwelfare.Child

AbuseandNeglect,36,342–353.

AustralianGovernment.(2015a).CHC81215GraduateCertificateinStatutoryChild

Protection.RetrievedfromCommunityServicesandHealthIndustrySkillsCouncil.

AustralianGovernment.(2015b).CHC50313DiplomaofChild,YouthandFamily

Intervention.RetrievedfromCommunityServicesandHealthIndustrySkillsCouncil.

AustralianInstituteofHealthandWelfare2017.ChildprotectionAustralia2015–16.ChildWelfareSeriesno.66.Cat.no.CWS60.Canberra:AIHW.

AustralianNationalTrainingAuthority(ANTA).(1999).CommunityServicesTrainingPackage

(CHC99):ChildProtection/JuvenileJustice/StatutorySupervisionNational

CompetencyStandards.Retrievedfrom:

<https://training.gov.au/TrainingComponentFiles/NTIS/CHC99_6.pdf>.

Baginsky,M.,Moriarty,J.,Manthorpe,J.,Beecham,J.&Hickman,B.(2017).Evaluationof

SignsofSafetyin10pilots:Researchreport.Retrievedfrom:

<https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/signs-of-safety-practice-in-

childrens-services-an-evaluation>.

50

BalenR.&Masson,H.(2008).TheVictoriaClimbiecase:Socialworkeducationforpractice

inchildrenandfamilies'workbeforeandsince.ChildandFamilySocialWork,13,

2008,121–32.

BarnesV.(2017)Child-CentredSocialWork:TheoryandPractice:Palgrave.

Barnett-Page,E.&Thomas,J.(2009).Methodsforthesynthesisofqualitativeresearch:A

criticalreview.BMCMedicalResearchMethodology,9(59).

Bloom.S.L.(2005),TheSanctuaryModelofOrganisationalChangeforChildren’sResidential

Treatment,TherapeuticCommunity:TheInternationalJournalforTherapeuticand

SupportiveOrganisations26(1):65-81

Bromfield,L.,Higgins,D.,Osborn,A,Panozzo,S.,&Richardson,N.(2005).Out-Of-Home

CareinAustralia:MessagesfromResearch,NationalChildProtectionClearinghouse,

June2005

Bromfield,L.,Sutherland,K.&Parker,R.(2012).Familieswithmultipleandcomplexneeds:

Bestinterestscasepracticemodel,specialistpracticeresource.Retrievedfrom

http://www.cpmanual.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Families%20with%20multiple%2

0%26%20complex%20needs%20specialist%20resource%203016%20.pdf

Browne,C.(2016).Thestrengtheningfamiliesapproachandprotectivefactorsframework:A

pathwaytohealthdevelopmentandwellbeing.InC.Shario&C.Browne(eds).

Innovativeapproachestosupportingfamiliesofyoungerchildren.USA:Springer.

Bunn,A.(2013).SignsofSafetyinEngland:AnNSPCCcommissionedreportontheSignsof

Safetymodelinchildprotection.Retrievedfrom:<www.nspcc.org.uk>.

CenterfortheStudyofSocialPolicy.(2015).IntroductiontoStrengtheningFamilies:A

protectivefactorsframeworkpresentation.Retrievedfrom:

<https://www.cssp.org/reform/strengtheningfamilies/2015/StrengtheningFamilies1

01.pdf>.

51

Children’sBureau.8.1HTitleIV-E,administrationfunctions/costs,training.Retrievedfrom:

<https://www.acf.hhs.gov/cwpm/programs/cb/laws_policies/laws/cwpm/policy_ds

p.jsp?citID=116>.

ChildProtectionSystemsRoyalCommission.(2016).Thelifetheydeserve:ChildProtection

SystemsRoyalCommissionReport,Volume1:SummaryandReport,Governmentof

SouthAustralia.

Children’sResearchCenter.(2008).Thestructureddecisionmakingmodel:Anevidence-

basedapproachtohumanservices.Retrievedfrom:

<http://www.nccdglobal.org/sites/default/files/publication_pdf/2008_sdm_book.pd

f>.

ChildWelfarePolicyandPracticeGroup.(2008).Retrievedfrom

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/reform/approaches/practicemo

dels/

Christensen,D.&Todahl,J.(1999).Solutionbasedcasework:Caseplanningtoreducerisk.

JournalofFamilySocialWork,3(4),3-24.

Connolly,M.(2007).PracticeFrameworks:Conceptualmapstoguideinterventioninchild

welfare.BritishJournalofSocialWork,37,825-837.

Connolly,M.(2009).Practiceframeworks:Conceptualmapstoguideinterventionsinchild

welfare.BritishJournalofSocialWork,37.Doi:10.1093/blsw/bc1049

Connolly,M.&Smith,R.(2010).Reformingchildwelfare:Anintegratedapproach.Child

Welfare,89(3).

Cross,S.,Hubbard,A.&Murno,E.(2010).Reclaimingsocialwork:Londonboroughof

Hackneychildrenandyoungpeople’sservices.Part1:IndependentEvaluation.

London,UK:LondonSchoolofEconomicsandPoliticalScience.

CSSP.Theresearchbehindstrengtheningfamilies.Retrievedfrom:

<https://www.cssp.org/reform/strengtheningfamilies/2014/ResearchBehindStrengtheningF

amilies.pdf>.

52

CSSP.Thepathwaytoimprovedoutcomesforchildrenandfamilies:StrengtheningFamilies

ProtectiveFrameworklogicmodel.Retrievedfrom:

<https://www.cssp.org/reform/strengtheningfamilies/2014/SFLogicModel.jpg>.

D’Cruz,H.&Jones,M.(2013).Socialworkresearchinpractice:Ethicalandpoliticalcontexts.

London,UK:Sage.

D'cruzHandStagnittiK.(2008)Reconstructingchildwelfarethroughparticipatoryandchild-

centredprofessionalpractice:aconceptualapproach.Child&FamilySocialWork13:

156-165.

DepartmentofChildrenandFamilies.(2014a).PracticeFramework:PracticewithPurpose.

Retrievedfrom:

<https://territoryfamilies.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/234045/practice-

framework.pdf>.

DepartmentofChildrenandFamilies.(2014b).Standardsofprofessionalpractice:Practice

withPurpose.Retrievedfrom:

<https://territoryfamilies.nt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/234046/standards-of-

professional-practice.pdf>.

DepartmentofCommunities,ChildSafetyandDisabilityServices.(2015).Strengthening

families:Protectingchildren.Frameworkforpractice:Foundationalelements.

Retrievedfrom:<https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/childsafety/practice-

manual/framework-pr-elements.pdf>.

DepartmentforEducationandChildDevelopment.(2014).FamiliesSAserviceplan.

Retrievedfrom:<https://www.childprotection.sa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net916/f/families-sa-

service-plan.pdf>.

DepartmentforHealthandHumanServices.(2016).Redesignofchildprotectionservices

Tasmania:‘Strongfamilies–safekids’.Retrievedfrom

http://www.dhhs.tas.gov.au/children/strongfamilies-safekids

53

DepartmentofHumanServices.(2007).Thebestinterestsframeworkforvulnerablechildren

andyouth.Retrievedfrom:

<http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/449213/the-best-interests-

framework-for-vulnerable-children-and-youth.pdf>.

DepartmentofHumanServices.(2012).Protectingchildren,changinglives:Anewwayof

working.Retrievedfrom:

<http://www.nwhn.net.au/admin/file/content101/c6/cyf_protecting_children_changing_liv

es_new_way_of_working_1112.pdf>.

deShazer,S.(1985).Keystosolutioninbrieftherapy.NewYork:W.W.Norton.

DiversityCouncilAustralia.(2018).Diversity&inclusionexplained.Retrievedfrom

https://www.dca.org.au/di-planning/getting-started-di/diversity-inclusion-explained

Dixon-Woods,M.(2011).Usingframework-basedsynthesisforconductingreviewsof

qualitativestudies.BMCMedicine.9(39).Doi:10.1186/1741-7015-9-39.

Dubov,V.,Goodman,D.,Mahmood,R.,Howe,J.&Appleton,P.(2015).SignsofSafety(SoS):

Year1implementationevaluationreport.Toronto:ChildWelfareInstitute,Children’s

AidSocietyofToronto.

Durlack,J.&DuPre,E.(2008).Implementationmatters:Areviewofresearchonthe

influenceofimplementationonprogramoutcomesandthefactorsaffecting

implementation.AmericanJournalofCommunityPsychology,41,327–350.

Epley,P.,Summars,J.&Turbull,A.(2010).Characteristicsandtrendsinfamily-centered

conceptualizations.JournalofFamilySocialWork,13(3),269-285.

FamilyandCommunityServices.(2015).PracticeFirst.Retrievedfrom

https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/reforms/children,-young-people-and-

families/practice-first.

FamilyandCommunityServices.(2011).CareandProtectionPracticeFramework:Improving

children’sliveseveryday.Retrievedfrom:

54

<https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0017/332243/PRACTICE_FRAMEWORK.p

df>.

Finan,S.,Salveron,M.&Bromfield,L.(2016).‘Listentome’:Exploringchildren’s

participationduringchildprotectionassessment.Communities,ChildrenandFamilies

Australia,10(1),pp27–44.

Fixsen,D.,Blasé,K.,Naoom,S.&Wallace,F.(2009).Coreimplementationcomponents.

ResearchonSocialWorkPractice,19,531–540.

Forrester,D.,Westlake,D.,McCann,M.,Thurnham,A.,Shefer,G.,Glynn,G.&Killian,M.

(2013).Reclaimingsocialwork?Anevaluationofsystemicunitsasanapproachto

deliveringchildren’sservices.Luton,UK:UniversityofBedfordshireandTilda

GoldbergCentreforSocialWorkandSocialCare.

Ganann,R.,CiliskaD.&Thomas,H.(2010).Expeditingsystematicreviews:Methodsand

implicationsofrapidreviews.ImplementationScience,5(56)retrievedfrom

https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-5-56

Gillingham,P.(2017).Evaluationofpracticeframeworksforsocialworkwithchildrenand

families:Exploringthechallenges.JournalofPublicChildWelfare,

doi:10.1080/15548732.2017.1392391.

Gillingham,P.&Humphreys,C.(2010).ChildProtectionPractitionersandDecision-Making

Tools:ObservationsandReflectionsfromtheFrontLine,TheBritishJournalofSocial

Work,40(8),2598–2616,doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcp155.

Goodman,S.&Trowler,S.(eds).(2012).Socialworkreclaimed:Innovativeframeworksfor

childandfamilysocialworkpractice,London:JessicaKingsleyPublishers.

GovernmentofWesternAustralia,DepartmentforChildProtection.(2011a).SignsofSafety

asthedepartmentforchildprotection’schildprotectionpracticeframework.

Retrievedfrom:

<https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/Resources/Documents/Policies%20and%20Frameworks/Signs

OfSafetyPolicy.pdf>.

55

GovernmentofWesternAustralia,DepartmentforChildProtection.(2011b).TheSignsof

Safetychildprotectionpracticeframework.Retrievedfrom:

<https://www.dcp.wa.gov.au/Resources/Documents/Policies%20and%20Frameworks/Signs

OfSafetyFramework2011.pdf>.

Healy,K.,Meagher,G.,&Cullin,J.(2009).Retainingnovicestobecomeexpertchild

protectionpractitioners:Creatingcareerpathwaysindirectpractice.TheBritish

JournalofSocialWork,39(2),299-317,

Holden,M.J.,Anglin,J.,Nunno,M.A.,&Izzo,C.(2014).Engagingthetotaltherapeutic

residentialcareprograminaprocessofqualityimprovement:Learningfromthe

CAREmodel.InJ.Whittaker,F.delValle,&l.Holmes(Eds.),Therapeuticresidential

careforchildrenandyouth:Developingevidence-basedinternationalpractice.

London,UK:JessicaKinsgleyPublishers.

McCormack,B.&McCance,T.(2006).Developmentofaframeworkforperson-centred

nursing.Nursingtheoryandconceptdevelopmentoranalysis,56(5),472-9.

McPherson,L.&Barnett,M.(2006).BeginningPracticeinchildprotection:Ablended

learningapproach.SocialWorkEducation,25(2),192–198.

Miller,R.(2012).BestInterestscasepracticemodel:Summaryguide.Retrievedfrom:

<http://www.cpmanual.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/Best%20interests%20case%20practice

%20model%20summary%20guide%202012%203002.pdf>.

Mitchell,P.F.(2011).Evidence-basedpracticeinreal-worldservicesforyoungpeoplewith

complexneeds:Newopportunitiessuggestedbyrecentimplementationscience.

ChildrenandYouthServicesReview,33,207–216.

Macdonald,G.,Lewis,J.,Ghate,D.,Gardner,E.,AdamsC.&Kelly,G.(2017).Evaluationof

theSafeguardingChildrenAssessmentandAnalysisFramework(SAAF):Research

Report.DepartmentofEducation

56

McDougall,S.,Parkinson,S.,Lewig,K.&Arney,F.(2016).Theimplementationof

recommendationsmadebyindependentchildprotectioninquiriesinSouthAustralia.

Adelaide:AustralianCentreforChildProtection.

Moore,T.,Samnders,V.,&mcArthur.,M.(2011).Championingchoice-lessonslearnedfrom

childrenandyoungpeopleaboutresearchandtheirinvolvement.ChildIndicators

Research,4(2),249-267.

NationalResourceCenterforPermanencyandFamilyConnections.(2014).Family-Centered

Practiceandpracticemodels.Retrievedfrom:

<http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/socwork/nrcfcpp/info_services/family-centered-

practice.html>.

Nelson-Dusek,S.&Rothe,M.(2015).Doessafetyplanningendureaftercaseclosure?Apilot

studyontheeffectivenessofSignsofSafetyinfourMinnesotacounties.St.Paul,MN:

WilderResearch.Retrievedfrom:<http://www.wilder.org/Wilder-

Research/Publications/Studies/Forms/Study/docsethomepage.aspx?ID=925&RootFo

lder=%2FWilder-Research%2FPublications%2FStudies%2FSigns%20of%20Safety>.

NSWDepartmentofCommunityServices(AboriginalServicesBranchinconsultationwith

theAboriginalReferenceGroup).(2009).WorkingwithAboriginalPeopleand

communities:Apracticeresource.Retrievedfrom:

<http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0017/321308/working_with_a

boriginal.pdf>.

Nutbeam,D.,Harris,E.&Wise,M.(2010).Theoryinanutshell:Apracticalguidetohealth

promotiontheories.(3rdEdn).Sydney,Australia:TheMcGraw-HillCompanies,

OfficeoftheSeniorPractitioner.(2011).CareandProtection;PracticeStandards.Retrieved

from:

<https://www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0018/332244/practice_standards.pdf>.

RaceTandO'KeefeR.(2017)Child-CentredPractice:AHandbookforSocialWork:Palgrave.

57

Rothe,M.,Nelson-Dusek,S.andSkrypek,M.(2013).Innovationsinchildprotectionservices

inMinnesota–researchchronicleofCarverandOlmstedCounties.St.Paul,MN:

WilderResearch.Retrievedfrom:<www.wilder.org/Wilder-

Research/Publications/Studies/Forms/Study/docsethomepage.aspx?ID=925&RootFolder=%

2FWilder-Research%2FPublications%2FStudies%2FSigns%20of%20Safety>.

Rushton,A.&Nathan,J.(1996).TheSupervisionofChildProtectionWork,TheBritish

JournalofSocialWork,26(3),Pages357–374,

https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjsw.a011100

Parker,S(2011).Whatisthepartneringforsafetyapproach?Retrievedfrom:

<https://www.partneringforsafety.com/overview-of-pfs.html>.

Salveron,M.,Bromfield,L.&Arney,F.(2015).Childprotectionpathwaysstudy:Comparing

outcomesforchildrenpreandpostimplementationoftheSignsofSafetychild

protectionpracticeframeworkinWesternAustralia.Presentation:BritishAssociation

forthePreventionandStudyofChildAbuseandNeglectConference,12–15April.

Salveron,M.,Bromfield,L.,Arney,F.&Kewig,K.(2017).UnderstandingSignsofSafety:

Challengesandlessonslearntfromtheimplementationofachildprotectionpractice

frameworktoimproveoutcomesforchildren.Manuscriptsubmittedforpublication.

Salveron,M.,Finan,S.&Bromfield,L.(2013).WhyWait?:Engagingwithchildrenandyoung

peopleinchildprotectionresearchtoinformpractice.DevelopingPractice,37.

Salveron,M.,Lewig,K.&Bromfield,L.(2014).WellbeingandprofessionalpracticeinWA

childprotectionpractitioners:AnexploratorystudyofSignsofSafetypractice.

Presentation:WesternAustralianSignsofSafetyGatheringConference,11–13

November.

Segal,L.,Opie,R.S.,&Dalziel,K.(2012).Theory!Themissinglinkinunderstandingthe

performanceofneonate/infanthome-visitingprogramstopreventchild

maltreatment:Asystematicreview.TheMilbankQuarterly,90(1),47-106.

58

ScottishGovernment.(2010).Gettingitrightforeverychildpracticemodel.Retrievedfrom:

<http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2010/05/27095736/4>.

SocialWorkPolicyInstitute.(2012).Educatingsocialworkersforchildwelfarepractice:The

statusofusingTitleIV-EfundingtosupportBSW&MSWeducation:PolicyBrief.

Retrievedfrom:<http://www.socialworkpolicy.org/wp-

content/uploads/2013/01/SWPI-IVE-Policy-Brief.pdf>.

Skrypek,M.,Otteson,C.&Owen,G.(2010).SignsofSafetyinMinnesota.St.Paul,MN:

WilderResearch.Retrievedfrom:<http://www.wilder.org/Wilder-

Research/Publications/Studies/Forms/Study/docsethomepage.aspx?ID=925&RootFo

lder=%2FWilder-Research%2FPublications%2FStudies%2FSigns%20of%20Safety>.

WinkworthGandMcArthurM.(2006)Being‘childcentred’inchildprotection:Whatdoesitmean?ChildrenAustralia31:13-21.

59

APPENDIX1.DESCRIPTIONOFTHEFRAMEWORKS

A.1.1 Best Interests Case Practice Model

TheBestInterestsCasePracticeModelwasimplementedinVictoriain2012.Thisframeworkemphasises four processes: relationship building, engagement, partnership, andempowerment. For each of these processes, evidence-based theories are presented tofurtherpromotepractitionersworkingwithBest Interestsprinciples.Forexample,achild-focusedandfamily-centredapproachunderpinstheprocessofrelationshipbuilding.Otherkey theories and elements include practice that is ecological and systemic, culturallycompetent, developmentally and trauma-informed, gender-aware, based on professionaljudgement,strengths-based,andoutcomefocused.

There are four stages of practicewithin the Best Interests Case PracticeModel includinginformationgathering,analysisandplanning,action,andreviewingoutcomes.Foreachofthesestages,toolshavebeendevelopedtoassistpractitioners.Thesetoolsincludethechildand family snapshot, the family snapshot and the analysis and risk assessment snapshot(Miller,2012).Specialistpracticeresourcesforthefollowingtopicshavealsobeendevelopedto further assist practitioners: cumulative harm; infants and their families; children withproblemsexualbehavioursandtheirfamilies;adolescentswithsexuallyabusivebehaviours;childrenandtheirfamilies;andfamilieswithmultipleandcomplexneeds.

New practitioners receive intensive professional development in the form of a 17-dayprogram,BeginningPracticeinChildProtectionProgram.BeginningPracticeisaprogramofstudy which uses multi-modal learning resources, interactive skills-based clinics andworkplacelearningopportunities(McPherson&Barnett,2006).Thisprogramisprescriptive,allocating when and where each section of training (practice clinics), e-learning andsupervisionshouldoccur.Practiceclinicsincludeinformationaboutorganisationalcontexts,comprehensive risk assessments, child protection practice and process and legal practice(McPhersonandBarnett,2006).Theseclinicsaredispersedthroughthefirstsevenweeksina role. Practitioners use one vignette family throughout the process to allow for casemanagementskillstoprogress(McPherson&Barnett,2006).

ItisnotclearhowtheBestInterestsCasePracticeModelwasimplementedwithinthechildprotectiondepartment.IntheProtectingChildren,ChangingLives:ANewWayofWorkingreport(DepartmentofHumanServices,2012),itissuggestedthatthenewBestInterestsCasePracticeModelwouldtakeeffectimmediately.Italsosuggeststhatthisnewmodeltargetsfourkeyareasofaction:valuingthework,developingtheprofessional;moresupportfor,andsupervision of, frontline practitioners;more practitioners,withmore experience,workingdirectlywith children and families; and reducing the statutory and administrative burden(DepartmentofHumanServices,2012).

60

A.1.2 Child Safety Practice Framework (not included due to duplication with Signs of Safety)

TheTasmanianDepartmentofChildandYouthServiceshas integratedtheSignsofSafetyframework(asdescribedin2.10)withpreviouspracticestobecometheChildSafetyPracticeFramework.However, at this stage, the researchershavebeenunable to locate theChildSafetyPracticeFramework.Inaddition,thereportsthatwerelocatedbythisproject(StrongFamilies–SafeKids:ImplementationPlan2016–2020andRedesignofChildProtectionServicesTasmania: ‘Strong Families–Safe Kids’) did not provide further details on the principles,concepts,componentsorimplementationofSignsofSafety.

A.1.3 Core Competencies

TheNationalCompetencyStandardsareastatementwhich includes:theskills,knowledgeandattributesthatapractitionerrequirestocompleteajobintheareaofchildprotection(ANTA,1999).Thesecompetencieshavebeendevelopedthroughmappingtheroleofachildprotection practitioner by the Community Services and Health Training Australia and theAustralianNationalTrainingAuthority.Thesestandardscoverallpractitionersworkingwithchildren,youngpeopleandfamilies insecondaryandtertiary interventionwithafocusoncaring,protectiveneedsorthejusticesystem(ANTA,1999).Thesestandardsareusedbythevocationalsectortocreatecertificates1to4,diplomasandadvanceddiplomasthatprovidepractitioners with the necessary qualifications and competencies to complete their jobeffectively.

Allcompetencystandardshavefiveparts:1)theunitofcompetencyorskill;2)theelementsortasksthatmakeupthecompetency;3)theperformancecriteria;4)thevariablestoassistin understanding the competency; and 5) the evidence to guide assessment of thecompetency(ANTA,1999).FortheCommunityServicestrainingpackage,therearetwotypesof competencies that practitioners are required to complete. The first is the ‘commoncompetencies’,whicharethecompetenciesthatallpractitionersinallareasofcommunityservices are required to have. These include Advocacy, Administrations, Assessment andWorkplaceTraining,CommunityDevelopment,CaseManagement,Casework Intervention,Communication, Client Service, Information Management, Networking, OrganisationalManagement,PolicyandResearch,andWorkingwithGroups(ANTA,1999).

Inaddition,thereare16competenciesspecifictoworkingintheareasofchildprotection,juvenilejusticeandstatutorysupervision.Theseinclude:

• Workingwithinlegislativeandethicalrequirements.

• Supportingtherightsandsafetyofchildrenwithindutyofcarerequirements.

• ActingasaWitness,Operatewithinastatutoryenvironment.

• Preparingforcourtprocesses.

61

• Providingprotectiveservice.

• Facilitatingcourtorders.

• Providingsupervisionandsecurity.

• Establishingcareandprotectionforpeopleinsituationsofspecificneed.

• Providingprimarycare.

• Undertakingcaremanagementarisingfromcourtorders.

• Providingforcareandprotectionofclientsinspecificneed.

• Coordinatingworkintegratingstatutoryrequirementsandresponsivities.

• Managingandinterpretingstatutoryrequirementsandresponsibilities.

• Developingprotocolsforoperatingwithinastatutoryenvironment(ANTA,1999).

To complement these competencies, there is a list of key elements included in thatcompetency.Thisincludestheperformancecriteriapractitionerswillbemarkedagainst,therangeofvariablesthatcouldbeincludedineachperformancecriteriaandevidencethatcanbe used as a guide. For example, the competency ‘work within legislative and ethicalrequirements’includesthefollowingelements:1)workingwithinethicalandlegalguideline;2) supporting and safeguarding the interests and rights of the child; 3) supporting andsafeguardingthesafetyofthechild;and4)reportingindicationsofpossibleabuse.Fortheelementof‘workwithinethicalandlegalguidelines,’thereareseveralperformancecriteria,variablesandevidence.SeeTableA1for theseelements (ANTA,1999;seep20–51forallcompetencybasedelements).

62

TableA1:Element,PerformanceCriteria,RangeofVariablesandEvidenceexamplefor‘Workwithinlegislativeandethicalrequirements’competency(abbreviatedfromANTA,1999p.23)

Element PerformanceCriteria RangeofVariables Evidence

1)Workwithinethicalandlegalguidelines

1)lawfulinstructionsandregulationsarecompliedwith2)organisationalresourcesandthoseofthechildareusedforthepurposeintended3)fair,promptandconsistentperformanceofdutiesisappliedtowardallchildrenandotherworkers

Lawfulinstructionsmayinclude:restrainingorders,custodyorders,licensingauthorities,organisationalsupervisor,courtsoflaw

Underpinningknowledgeforlawfulinstructionsmayinclude:legislativerequirements,statementofrights,forexample,theUNConvention,commonriskstochild’ssafety,organisationalguidelinesandpolicies

ThesecompetenciesarethenusedtomakeupthedifferentunitstaughtacrosscertificatesanddiplomaswithintheTAFEsystem.Thenumberofcompulsoryorelectivecompetencieswilldependonthelevelandprimarypurposeofthedegree.Forexample,CertificateIII inCommunity Services (Child Protection/Juvenile Justice/Statutory Supervision) CHC30499containsonecompulsoryunitforthechildprotectionspecificcompetencies(Operatewithinastatutoryenvironment)andsevencompulsoryunitsfromthegeneralcompetencies,alongwithseveralelectivesfrombothsetsofcompetencies.

A.1.4 Family-Centred Practice (not included due to limited available information)

Family-Centred Practice is a framework which is used across service systems in USA toenhancethefamily’sabilitytocareforandprotecttheirchildren.Thisframeworkisbasedonthebeliefthatthebestplaceforchildrentogrowupisintheirfamilyoforiginandthebestway to ensure a child’s safety is through supporting and strengthening families. The fouressential components of Family-Centred Practice are: 1) the family unit is the focus ofattention;2)strengtheningthecapacityoffamiliestofunctioneffectivelyisemphasised;3)families are engaged in the design of policies, services and program evaluations; and 4)families are linkedwithmore comprehensive, diverse and community-based networks ofsupportservices(NationalResourceCenterforPermanencyandFamilyConnections,2014).

The implementation drivers of Family-Centred Practice are leadership, competency andorganisation (Watson,2011).Epley,SummersandTurnbull (2010)note thatwhileFamily-CentredPracticeisconsideredbestpracticeforservicedelivery,whatFamily-CentredPracticelooks like in practice, the tools and techniques commonly used, and its overarchingframeworkremainsunclear.ThismeansthateachjurisdictionimplementingFamily-Centred

63

Practiceisessentiallycreatinganewframeworkwhichwillbedifferentineachjurisdiction.Thismakesitdifficulttodescribethetoolsandtechniquesusedwithfamilies.

A.1.5 Integrated Service System

Connolly and Smith (2010) developed the Integrated Service System for implementationwithinNewZealand’schildprotectionsystem.Althoughnotsubsequentlyimplemented,itisstilluseful to reviewthis integratedapproachtochildprotection.This framework ischild-centred, family-led, culturally responsive and is both strengths- and evidence-based(Connolly, 2009). This framework was developed in consultation with key informantsincludingchildprotectionpractitionersandseniormanagers.

TheIntegratedServiceSystemusesseveralpreviouslydevelopedtoolsasaframeworkforassessment;thisincludesactuarialandclinicalassessmentandStructuredDecisionMakingtools(Connolly,2009).Inaddition,thesystemtrainspractitionerstouse‘practicetriggers’acrossthethreestagesofpractice:1)engagementandassessment;2)seekingsolutions;3)securing safety and belonging. These practice triggers include a list of questions that thepractitionercanaskthemselves inrelationtoeachcase(Connolly,2009).Anexampleofachild-centredpracticetriggerfortheengagementandassessmentstageis:‘arewethinkingaboutthewholechild:safety,securityandwellbeing?’(Connolly,2009,p.18.Seepaperforfulllist).

The 2010 paper suggests that if the Integrated Service Systemhad been implemented, a‘wholeoforganisation’approachwouldhavebeenused(Connolly&Smith,2010).Thiswouldmeanthatseniorpractitionerswouldbetrainedinthenewsystemandleadthetopdowntrainingwiththeirchildprotectionpractitioners.Supervisionwouldalsohavebeenusedtocontinuetoimprovepractitioners’skills inusingthenewpracticetriggers.Theanticipatedoutcomesidentifiedforthisframeworkinclude:tosecuresafety;topromotestabilityofcare;and to restore or improve well-being (Connolly, 2009). Due to this system not beingimplemented,thereisnoavailableevidencethatmeasurestheseorotheroutcomes.

A.1.6 Practice First

PracticeFirstisamodeldevelopedbytheSeniorPractitionerinNewSouthWalesin2011.This service delivery model was developed with the aim of changing practice culture toimproveoutcomesforchildrenatrisk.Itincorporatesasetoftenprinciplestoguidepractice,groupedbythefourprinciplesoftheNSWCommunityServicesCareandProtectionPracticeFramework.Theseare:

1. Wekeepchildrenandyoungpeopleatthecentreofourpracticewithfamilies

Principle1:Ethicsandvaluesareintegraltogoodpractice.

Principle2:Familieshavearighttorespect.

2. Werespectcultureandcontext

64

Principle3:Anappreciationofcontextstrengthenspractice.

Principle4:Languageimpactsonpractice.

3. Weusecontemporaryskillsandknowledgeinaworkculturethatsharesrisk

Principle5:Goodpracticeisbuiltonbothknowledgeandskills.

Principle6:Practitionersdobestinaculturethatfosterslearning,hopeandcuriosity.

Principle7:Reflectionleadstobetteroutcomes.

Principle8:Sharingofriskleadstobetterdecisionmaking.

4. Webuildrelationshipstocreatechange

Principle9:Thequalityoftherelationshipsmakesasignificantimpactoneffectiveness.

Principle10:Relationshipshaveacascadeeffect.

(FamilyandCommunityServices,2011;Wadeetal.,2016)

These practice principles and the overall delivery model have been developed throughreviewing existing systems, practice frameworks and theories. This includes StructuredDecisionMaking,Motivational Interviewing,Minnesota’sDifferentialResponseModel, theMunroReport,KariKillen’s(Norway)workonneglect,relationship-basedpractice,andtheThreeHousesTool,withanemphasisonprinciplesalignedwithstrengths-basedandsolution-focusedwork(Wadeetal.,2016).

The Practice First model addresses assessment, and decisionmaking across the areas ofpreservationcasework,theremovalofchildrenandsubsequentcourtwork,therestorationofchildren,andchildreninout-of-homecare(Wadeetal.,2016).Toassistpractitionerswiththeirwork,asetoftenpracticestandardshavebeenreleased.Theseare:

1. Practiceleadership;

2. Relationship-basedpractice;

3. Holisticassessmentandfamilywork;

4. Collaboration;

5. Criticalreflection;

6. CulturallyresponsivepracticewithAboriginalcommunities;

7. Culturallyresponsivepracticewithdiversecommunities;

8. Practiceexpertise;

65

9. Sharingrisk;

10. Documentationincasework(OfficeoftheSeniorPractitioner,2011).

Eachofthesestandardssetsoutkeyexpectationstogetherwithreflectivepracticepromptsand questions that could be used to seek feedback from others, including families andchildren(OfficeoftheSeniorPractitioner,2011).Practitionersaresupportedthroughgroupsupervision sessions and can use tools such as critical reflection and structured decisionmaking (Family and Community Services, 2011). Emphasis is placed on retention andsatisfaction of practitioners through collaboration, shared management of risk andcontinuouslearning(FamilyandCommunityServices,2011).

TheimplementationofPracticeFirstwasrolledoutin24sitesacrossNSWandsubsequentlyreviewed by Wade et al. (2016). This Wade and colleagues report does not detail howimplementationoccurredthrougheachofthe24sites.OneoftheaimsofPracticeFirstwastoreducetheadministrativeburdenplacedonpractitioners,increasedsafetyforchildrenandfamilies(FamilyandCommunityServices,2015)andincreasedpractitionersatisfactionandretention(Wadeetal.,2016).

A.1.7 Practice with Purpose (not included due to limited available information)

In 2014 the Department of Children and Families in the Northern Territory developed apracticeframeworkcalledPracticewithPurposewhichisfurtherdescribedintheStandardsof Professional Practice document. Within these documents, the practice approach isreported to be child-centred, family-led, strengths and solutions focused, culturallyresponsive and competent, team-based and collaborative, and inclusive and transparent(DepartmentofChildrenandFamilies,2014a).

ThepracticeframeworkmakesmentionofusingtoolssuchastheStructuredDecisionMakingtools including: Screening Criteria, Response Priority Assessment, Safety Assessment, RiskAssessment,FamilyStrengthsandNeedsAssessment,RiskRe-Assessment,andtheAboriginalChildPlacementPrinciple(DepartmentofChildrenandFamilies,2014a;2014b).Careplansarerequiredforeverychildandneedtoincludeatleastthefollowinginformation:thechild’sholistic needs; the planned, responsive measures to address those needs and definedtimeframes; and decisions about the daily care and control of the child (Department ofChildrenandFamilies,2014b).

Noinformationcouldbesourcedontheimplementationofthisframework.OutcomesofthePracticewithPurposeframeworkarereportedtoinclude:protectingchildrenfromharmandincreasingtheirsafetyandwellbeing;supportingandimprovingthewellbeingofchildreninout of home care; and providing parenting and family support to minimise harm andstrengthencapacity(DepartmentofChildrenandFamilies,2014a).

66

A.1.8 Reclaiming Social Work

TheReclaiming SocialWorkmodel, also knownas theHackneymodel,wasdevelopedbyGoodmanandTrowlerin2008forusewithintheEnglishchildprotectionsystem.ThismodelrecommendsasystemicorganisationalchangeapproachinworkingwithchildrenandfamiliesinchildprotectionsettingsandisalsoknownastheSystemicUnitModel(Forrester,etal.,2013).Itparticularlyfocusesontheuseofmultidisciplinarysocialworkunitswhichsharetheriskandthecasemanagementofallthecurrentclientsandcaseswithintheunit(Goodman&Trowler,2012).Inthismodel,familiesareallocatedtoaconsultantsocialworkerwhoisresponsible for a small unit of practitioners who collectively work the case. The otherpractitionerscommonly includeaqualifiedsocialworker,achildpractitioner(whomayormay not be a qualified social worker, unit coordinators (administrative support), and aclinician (qualified systemic therapist) (Forrester et al., 2013). The units are informed bysystemictheoryandrelatetothefamilysystemasawholeratherthansinglingoutcertainfamilymembers.

Forresteretal. identifiedsixcorefeaturesoftheReclaimingSocialWorkmodel:1)sharedwork;2)quantityand3)qualityofcasediscussion;4)sharedsystemicapproach;5)roleofunitco-coordinatorotherroles;and6)skillsdevelopment.TheReclaimingSocialWorkmodelemphasisessystemicandsociallearningprinciplesandencouragestheirpractitionerstotakeexternal trainingcourseson thesecomponents rather thanproviding in-house training. Inaddition,GoodmanandTrowler(2012)statethatReclaimingSocialWorkisprescriptiveandhasspecificinterventionmodelsinwhicheachpractitioneristrained.ReclaimingSocialWorkusestwotypesofgroupsupervisionmodelstoassistinsharingriskandincreasingpractitionercompetencies. The first involves each unit holding weekly meetings where every case isdiscussed. The second is a Weekly Resource Panel (including the assistant director,consultants,headsofservice,andtheprincipal lawyer).Thesemeetingshearcaseswherechild removalmaybenecessary toensure coordinatedcareplanshavebeencreatedandfollowed(Goodman&Trowler,2012).

The intendedoutcomesof theReclaimingSocialWorkmodel include increasingchildren’ssafety,reducingtheneedforout-of-homecare,andlimitingtheroleoftheStatewithinfamilysystems(Goodman&Trowler,2012).

A.1.9 Scotland’s National Framework

TheNational Framework for Child Protection, Learning andDevelopment in Scotland is acompetency-basedframeworkthatemphasisestheneedfortheworkforcetobeadequatelytrainedtopromotethewell-beingofchildrenandyoungpeople,protectthemfromharmandimprovetheiroutcomes(TheScottishGovernment,2012).TheframeworkdrawsontheUNConventionontheRightsoftheChildandthechild-focused,strengthsandresilience-basedapproaches.

ThisframeworkusesthreedefinitionsofdifferentpartsoftheScottishworkforcethatmaycomeintocontactwithchildrenandyoungpeopleincluding:1)‘generalcontact’,referringto

67

allpractitionersinworkplaceswheretheymaycomeintocontactwithchildrenorfamilies(suchashospitals);2) ‘specificcontact’, referring to thosewhocarryoutdirectworkwithchildren,youngpeopleorotherfamilymembers(suchasschools);and3)‘intensivecontact’,referringtothosewhohaveaspecificallydesignatedresponsibilityforchildprotectionissuesaspartoftheirrole(suchaschildprotectionpractitioners).(TheScottishGovernment,2010).

Allthreegroupsofprofessionalsareexpectedtoundertakesomeleveloftraininginlinewiththe framework’s competencies to ensure a multidisciplinary approach is taken to childprotection. Each of these competencies is divided into core competencies, keyknowledge/skills, and additional skills and knowledge (The Scottish Government, 2010).Thesecompetencies increaseandbecomemorespecific to thechildprotectionsystemaspractitionersmovebetween‘generalcontact’and‘intensivecontact’.ExamplesofthisareprovidedinTableA2.Practitionerswillalsomakeuseofthe‘Well-beingWheel”,“MyWorldTriangle” and the “Resilience/Risk Vulnerability Matrix” when working with children andfamiliesanddevelopingcaseplansandactions(ScottishGovernment,2010).

68

TableA2:examplesofcorecompetenciesforeachsectionoftheworkforce(adaptedfromTheScottishGovernment,2012,seep.17–24foradetailedlist)

Workforce CoreCompetencies

Generalcontact Recognisewheretheremaybeconcernsaboutachild’swell-being.

Knowtheprocedureandtakeappropriateaction.

Specificcontact Protectandpromotethewell-beingofchildrenandyoungpeople.

Accessallrelevantaspectsoflocalchildprotectionprocedures.

Contributetoidentifyingandimplementingpotentialinterventions

Intensivecontact Changestolegislationaffectingchildrenandyoungpeople(includingchangestothebenefitssystem).

Theimportanceofaprotectiveenvironmentandsecureattachmentsforchildrenandyoungpeople,aswellasotherprotectivefactors.

Healthychildandadolescentdevelopment,includingtheeffectsofadversefactorsanddifferenttypesofabuse/neglectondevelopmentandbehaviour.

Therangeofinterventionsavailablefromtheirownandotheragencies.

Thewayinwhichchildrenandyoungpeople,andotherfamilymemberswillbeinvolvedinchildprotectionprocesses.

Theissues/implicationsofworkwithdangerous,difficulttoengageorevasivefamilies.

Inregardsto implementation, theframework isnotprescriptive.Rather, itdiscusseswayspractitionerscouldbesupported togain thecompetencies required.This includes: formaltraining run both internally and externally (attendance at events and groups; shadowing;reflectivelearningandcriticalreflection;actionlearning;peerreview;networking;cascadinglearning; and learning and development through supervision [The Scottish Government,2010]).Italsosuggestskeyrolesandresponsibilitiesinthedevelopmentandpromotionofappropriatelearninganddevelopmentopportunitiesandensuringthatthesetakeplace.Thisincludes roles and responsibilities for child protection committees, single agencies,professional bodies and services, chief officers and other organisational leaders, andindividualpractitioners(TheScottishGovernment,2012).

69

Finally, the framework discusses the potential ways an organisation could evaluate theirtraining andworkforce skills set but does not suggest a national evaluation. The desiredoutcomesinclude:enhancingpractice;promotingprofessionalcompetenceandconfidence;and, ultimately, helping keep children and young people safe (The Scottish Government,2010).

A.1.10 Signs of Safety

TheSignsofSafetyframeworkisbasedonasolutionorientatedapproach(Turnell&Murphy,2014) and is underpinned by three core principles. These are: (1) constructive workingrelationships; (2) thinking critically and fostering a stance of inquiry (using appreciativeinquiry methods); and (3) landing grand aspirations in everyday practice, (that is,documentation of good practice is a key to learning) (Government ofWestern Australia,DepartmentforChildProtection,2011a;Turnell&Murphy,2014).

Practitioners who are practicing Signs of Safety use a specific set of practice tools andprocesses to engage in partnerships with families. These tools include; a Signs of Safetycomprehensiveriskassessmentandanassessmentandplanningprotocol.Assessmenttoolsareusedtodetermine:(1)whatsupportsareneededforfamiliestocarefortheirchildren;(2)whetherthereissufficientsafetyforthechildtostaywithinthefamilies;(3)whetherthesituationissodangerousthatthechildmustberemoved;and(4)ifthechildisinthecareofthesystem,whetherthereisenoughsafetyforthechildtoreturnhome.Whenworkingwithchildrenpractitionerscanuse;theThreeHousesTool,Fairy/WizardTool,WordsandPicturesExplanations,andWordsandPicturesSafetyPlanstofacilitateengagement(GovernmentofWesternAustralia,DepartmentforChildProtection,2011b;Turnell&Murphy,2014).Thesetools are recommended for use throughout the child protection process (Government ofWesternAustralia,DepartmentforChildProtection,2011b;Turnell&Murphy,2014).

SignsofSafetywasimplementedinWesternAustraliabetween2008and2013.DuringthistimeemphasiswasplacedonbothtrainingpractitionersandalsousingPracticeLeaderswhocontinue to assist practitioners to develop their skills (Government ofWestern Australia,DepartmentforChildProtection,2011b).Thisleadershipwasfosteredthroughongoinggroupsessionswith practitioners to establish, consolidate and refine the use of Signs of Safetymapping and appreciative inquiry methods. Individual supervision sessions are alsoencouraged,withafocusonmappingcurrentcasesusingtheSignsofSafetyassessmentandplanningtools

Thestate-wideimplementationofSignsofSafetyaimedtoinfluencethefollowingoutcomemeasures:decreasethenumberandrateofchildrenenteringcare,re-substantiationrates,while looking to increase proportion of safety and wellbeing assessments, worker jobsatisfaction, descriptions of good practice by families and front-line practitioners (seeevaluation:Salveronetal.,2015;Salveronetal.,submitted).

70

A.1.11 Solution-Based Casework

Solution-Based Casework (SBC) is a child protection framework which is based on threetheoreticalmodels: (1) family developmental theory; (2) solution-focused theory; and (3)relapsepreventiontheory(CBTtheory) (Christensen&Todahl,1998).FromthesetheoriesSBChasthreebasicassumptions:

(1) families encounter commondevelopmental challenges; (2) dangerous behavioroccurs within the context of everyday life and, consequently, case planning forpreventionmustbedirectlytiedtothoseevents;and(3)caseplanningmustbethereinforcement and development of situation-specific relapse prevention skills(Christensen&Todahl,1998p.5).

SBC uses a partnership approach with families while targeting high-risk behaviours andfocusingonrelapseprevention(Christensen&Todahl,1998).Thispartnershipapproach isexecuted through practitioners being encouraged to use a solution-focused approach tobuildingrapportwiththefamilyduringtheassessmentandcaseworkprocesses.Questionsabout specific incidences and a detailed understanding of risk is assessed usingdevelopmental theory.Thisassessmentwill focusonhowthemaltreatmentoccurredandpotential solutionswhichare specific to the family context.During the casemanagementstage practitioners work with families using the four steps of relapse prevention: (1)recognitionofpatterns;(2)learningthedetailsofhigh-riskpatterns;(3)practicingsmallstepstoward change; and (4) creating a relapse prevention plan or case management plan(Christensen&Todahl,1998).Practitionersaresuppliedtoolsfromtherelapsepreventionliterature such as scaling, time-orientated questions, and ways to talk to families aboutcreating a plan to avoid, interrupt or escape high-risk situations. Finally, during thedevelopmentofthecaseplan,SBCadvocatesforplansthatdetailspecificskillsthatthefamilyand/orparentsarerequiredtodevelopinordertoterminatechildprotectionsupport(forexample,parentswillknowthetypicalsituationsthatleadtolossofcontrolandtheirphysicalcuesorearlywarningsigns).SouthAustraliahaspairedSBCwithStructuredDecisionMakingtools,whichweredevelopedbytheChildren’sResearchCenter(DepartmentforEducationandChildDevelopment,2014).Thesetoolsareusedduringtheintake,assessmentandcaseplanningstagestoassistpractitionerstomakedecisionsabouttheresponserequired.

WhenachildprotectionagencyimplementsSBC,itissuggestedthattheyusetheGettingtoOutcomes(GTO)model(Barbeeetal.,2010).TheGTOmodelsuggeststhatimplementationworksbestwhenusingaresults-basedaccountabilityapproachtochange.Itusesaten-stepapproachtoimplementation,whichfocusesonidentificationoftheneeds,andgoalsoftheorganisation, while using evidence-based practices, assessing organisation capacities,programfidelity,andconductingoutcomeevaluations(Barbeeetal.,2010).Inaddition,Antleetal. (2009)demonstrated thatprovidingpractitioner’s in-classroom trainingand trainingreinforcement(thatis,insupervision,demonstrationsandfeedback)yieldsahigherleveloftransferofskillsthantrainingaloneornotraining.Thus,in-classroomtrainingandtrainingreinforcementareimportantaspectswhenimplementingSBC.

71

TheproposedoutcomesofSBCincludethedevelopmentofacaseplanthattargetsdangerousbehaviours and reduces chances of parental relapse (Christensen & Todahl, 1998).Additionally,ChristensenandTodahl(1998)believethattheeffectivenessoftherelationshipbetweenclinicianandfamilycanbemeasuredthroughthecognitiveandbehaviouralskillslearnedbyparentstopreventreoccurrence.

Note that the description of SBC and its implementation is drawn from internationalliterature.ItisnotknowntheextenttowhichthisreflectstheoperationorimplementationofSBCintheSouthAustraliancontext.

A.1.12 Strengthening Families Approach: A Protective Factors Framework

The Center for the Study of Social Policy (CSSP) has created the ‘Strengthening FamiliesapproachaProtectiveFactorsFramework’foruseinUSA,whichisconnectedtothefollowingfoundationalprinciples: the two-generational approach;biologyof stress; strengths-basedperspective; cultural competence and humility; and resilience theory (Browne, 2016). Inaddition,theStrengtheningFamiliesApproachhasfivecoreprotectivefactorsthatinfluencepractice.Theseincludeparentalresilience,socialconnections,knowledgeofparentingandchilddevelopment,thesocialandemotionalcompetenceofchildren,andconcretesupportintimesofneed(Browne,2016).

Duringimplementation,CSSPprovidesplanning,technicalassistanceandtraining(CSSP,theresearchbehindstrengtheningfamilies).Thismodelallowsdepartmentstodevelopstrategiesand structures for implementation that are appropriate for their unique policies andenvironments. It is also important that an inter-disciplinary leadership team is developed(CSSP,theresearchbehindstrengtheningfamilies).ThisteamparticipatesinwebinarsaboutStrengthening Families implementation and then feeds this back to the rest of thedepartmental teams. Practitioners at all levels are required to complete training on childwelfare practice models, caseworker training, supervision and training on the specificassessmentformsusedinStrengtheningFamilies(CSSP,theresearchbehindstrengtheningfamilies).

CSSPdefinewtheoutcomesoftheimplementationoftheStrengtheningFamiliesProtectiveFactorsFrameworkintheirlogicmodel.Theseinclude:strengthenedfamilies,optimalchilddevelopmentandreducedlikelihoodofchildabuseandneglect(CSSP,logicmodel).

A.1.13 Strengthening Families, Protecting Children

TheStrengtheningFamiliesandProtectingChildrenFrameworkisdevelopedinconjunctionwiththeNCCDChildren’sResearchCenterandSPConsultancy.Thisframeworkvalues:familyand community connection; participation; partnership; cultural integrity; strengths andsolutions;fairness;andcuriosityandlearning(DepartmentofCommunities,ChildSafetyandDisabilityServices,2015).TheStrengtheningFamilies,ProtectingChildrenframeworkstemsfrom the Partnering for Safety Approach which uses tools, techniques and theoreticalunderpinnings from Solution-Focused Brief therapy, Narrative Theory, Strengths-Basedpractice,Family-CentredPractice,theSignsofSafetyApproach,theResolutionsApproach,

72

Response-based practice, Motivational Interviewing, Family Group Decision making andAppreciativeInquiry(Parker,2011).Inaddition,itusestheStructuredDecisionMakingtools,developedbytheChildren’sResearchCenterandprinciplestoguidepractice.

TheDepartmentofCommunities,ChildSafetyandDisabilitiesServicesinQueenslandusesasuiteoftoolsacrossthestagesofthechildprotectionprocessincluding:1)engagement;2)assessment;3)planning;and4)process.Thetoolsusedarelistedinthebelow:

1. Engagement: Solution-focused inquiry, theThreeHouses, theFamilyRoadmap,theFutureHouse,theImmediateStory,Fostercarerprofile

2. Assessment: Collaborative assessment and planning framework, StructuredDecisionMaking(SDM)system,Thesafecontacttool

3. Planning: Circles of Safety and Support, the SafetyHouse, The Safety PlanningFramework,Child-and-family-centredsafetyplans

4. Process: Appreciative inquiry, Enhanced intake, Regular group supervision andcase consultation, Strengthened family groupmeetings, EnhancedpartnershipswithNGO’s, partner agencies and the courts, Continuous quality improvementefforts

ThePartnering forSafety frameworksuggestsusingthe latest research in implementationscience along with action learning, reflective practice, appreciative inquiry and qualitysupervisiontosupportskilldevelopmenttoimplementandcontinuetoextendonthegoodpractice arising from the Partnering for Safety framework. The Strengthening Families,ProtectingChildren’sframeworkreportstheoutcomesofimplementingthisframeworkarethesameastheDepartmentofCommunities,ChildSafetyandDisabilityServices‘BesthopesforQueensland’schildrenandfamilies’project.These includethesafety,well-beingandasenseofbelongingforchildrenandyoungpeople.Noevidencereportingpotentialoutcomeshasbeenproducedatthistime.

A.1.14 Structured Decision Making Approach to Case Work

The StructuredDecisionMaking (SDM)Approach to casework is a set of evidence-basedassessment tools and decision guidelines designed to support and guide practitioners’decision-makinginrelationtochildprotection(Children’sResearchCenter,2008).DevelopedbytheNationalCouncilonCrimeandDelinquencyChildren’sResearchCenterinCalifornia,theSDMsuiteoftoolscoverstheentirechildprotectionprocessfromintake,assessment,intervention, removal and reunification.Ateach stageSDMsuggests tools that areeitherevidence-basedandvalidatedtoolorconsensusbased(Children’sResearchCenter,2008).

TheSDMmodelhasfourprinciplesincluding;

73

1. Decisionscanbesignificantlyimprovedwhentheyarestructuredappropriately;thatis,specificcriteriamustbeconsideredforeverycasebyeveryworkerthroughhighlystructuredassessmentprocedures.

2. Thesystemmustbecomprehensive,helpingagenciesachievetheirmandatedgoalsofsafety,well-beingandpermanency.

3. Prioritiesgiventocasesmustcorresponddirectlytotheresultsoftheassessmentprocess.Expectationsofpractitionersmustbeclearlydefinedandpracticestandardsmustbereadilymeasurable.

4. Virtuallyeverythinganagencydoes,fromprovidingservicestoanindividualcasetobudgetingfortreatmentresources,isaresponsetotheassessmentprocess(Children’sResearchCenter,2008,p.3).

TheChildren’sResearchCentresuggeststhatimplementationofthetoolsiscoordinatedwithajurisdiction-specificvalidationofthetools.Thisgenerallyincludesvalidationoftheevidence-basedRiskAssessmenttool,whichisthemostcommonlyusedoftheSDMtools.ThesevalidationsareavailableviatheChildren’sResearchCentrewebsite.Theobjectivesofthesetoolsinclude;theintroductionofstructure,increaseconsistencyandvalidityatcriticaldecisionpoints,targetthemostatriskfamiliesandinformagency-widemonitoringandbudgeting.Whilethegoalsofthisframeworkinclude;reducingsubsequentharmtochildrenandreducetimetopermanency(Children’sResearchCentre,2008).

A.1.15 Title IV-E

TheTitleIV-EchildwelfaretrainingprogramisapartnershipbetweenUSstatechildwelfareagencies and social work education programs to strengthen the child welfare workforce(SocialWorkPolicyInstitute,2012).ThisfundingallowsprospectiveandcurrentchildwelfareworkerstoundertakeaBachelororMastersofSocialWorkdegree,whichisfundedbythechildwelfareagencies. Inreturnprospectiveemployeesarerequiredtoworkforthechildwelfareagencyforacertainperiod.

ThereisahighlevelofflexibilitywithintheTitleIV-Eprogramasthefundinghasbeensetuptoallowthecreationofdifferentpartnershipmodelsbasedonthemultiplevariationsofchildwelfareagenciesandsocialworkeducationprogramswithineachstate.TheseprogramsarerequiredtocontaintrainingonthefollowingtopicstobeeligibleforTitleIV-Efunding:

• Social work practice, such as Family-Centred Practice and social work methodsincludinginterviewingandassessment;

• Culturalcompetencyrelatedtochildrenandfamilies;

• TitleIV-Epoliciesandprocedures;

• Childabuseandneglectissues;

74

• Permanencyplanning;

• Generalsubstanceabuse,domesticviolence,andmentalhealthissues;

• Effectsofseparation,griefandloss,childdevelopment,andvisitation;

• Communicationskillsrequiredtoworkwithchildrenandfamilies;

• Activitiesdesignedtopreserve,strengthen,andreunifythefamily, ifthetrainingisnotrelatedtoprovidingtreatmentorservices;

• RiskAssessments;

• Ethicstraining;

• Contractnegotiation,monitoringorvoucherprocessingrelatedtotheIV-Eprogram;

• Adoption and Foster Care Analysis and Reporting System (AFCARS), State-wideAutomatedChild;

• WelfareInformationSystem(SACWIS)orotherchildwelfareautomatedsystem;

• Independentlivingandtheissuesconfrontingadolescents.

Trainingonreferralstoservices,nothowtoperformtheservice.(Children’sBureau,81HTitleIV-E)

AnexampleofthetypeofprograminwhichstudentsandcurrentchildwelfarepractitionerscouldenroltoreceivethisfundingisthePublicChildWelfareCertificationProgramfromtheUniversityofKentucky.ThiscertificateisincludedinalltheState’sBachelorofSocialWorkprograms.

75

APPENDIX2.EXPERTPANELMEMBERSANDAFFILIATIONS

ExpertPanelMembers Affiliations

ProfessorMoragMcArthur InstituteofChildProtectionStudies,AustralianCatholicUniversity,ACT

ProfessorBobLonne AdjunctProfessor,PublicHealthandSocialWork,QueenslandUniversityofTechnology,QLD

AssociateProfessorMariaHarries

SocialWorkandSocialPolicy,TheUniversityofWesternAustralia,WA(hasexperienceworkinginTASandwiththeFamilyInclusionNetwork)

ProfessorSharonDawe SchoolofAppliedPsychology,GriffithUniversity,QLD

DrPhilipGillingham SchoolofNursing,MidwiferyandSocialWork,UniversityofQueensland,QLD

MartinCalder CalderTraining&ConsultancyLimited,UK

MsKarenMenzies IndigenousEducationandResearch(SocialWork),UniversityofNewcastle,NSW

ProfessorGwynnythLlewellyn Director,CentreforDisabilityResearchandPolicy,SydneyUniversity

PaulaHayden SocialWorkerinChildProtectionandOutofHomeCare,NSW

StephanieFielder RegionalPracticeLeader,DepartmentofChildSafety,YouthandWomen,QLD

DrRobynMiller CurrentChiefExecutiveOfficerofMacKillopFamilyServices,PreviousPrincipalPractitionerfortheChildProtectionandFamilyServicesattheDepartmentofHumanServices,VIC

NatalieHall PrincipalPolicyOfficerfortheCommissionerforChildrenandYoungPeople,WA

JamieLee RelationshipsAustralia,SouthAustralia

76

AssociateProfessorSusanHiller

DeanofResearch(Operations)HealthSciencesDivisionalOffice,UniversityofSouthAustralia

77

APPENDIX3.EXPERTPANELREVIEWSUMMARY

Asafinaliterativestep,theaimoftheconsultationwiththeexpertpanelwastoverifyandrefinethecoredomains.Panelmembersreviewedtheevidencesummariesandanalysisanddiscussedwhatwasmissingalongwithanyotherinformationtheyperceivedasrelevant.SeeAppendix2foralistofexpertpanelmembers(experts)andtheiraffiliationsandexperience.

A.3.1 General comments about the domains and report

Expertsreportedthatgenerallythereportappearedcomprehensiveandwellpresented.Theexperts commented on the overwhelmingly concerning picture that this report presents.Expertsreportedthattheirconcernslieinboththe‘gaps’orwhatismissingfrommanyofthepresented framework, as well as questioning the effectiveness, evidence-base andassumptionsbehindtheinclusionofthecontentofmanyofthedomains.Thisincludedthefollowingaspects:

A.3.1.1Children’ssafetyandwellbeing

Children’s safety and wellbeing was not a commonly reported outcome for the practiceframeworksimplementation.Thisisdespitechildprotectionpracticebeingreportedlyaimingtoincreasechildsafetyandwellbeing.Someexpertssuggestedthatratesofchildrenbeingremovedandplacedinoutofhomecaremaybeservingdepartmentsasaproxyoutcomeforchildsafetyandwellbeing.Thisproxyoutcomecausessomeconcern,firstly,thenumbersofchildrenbeingplacedinout-of-homecarehavebeenontheriseforoveradecade(AustralianInstituteofHealthandWelfare,2017).Secondly,bothresearch(seereview;Bromfieldetal.,2005)andsenateinquiries(see;TheSenateInquiryintoOutofHomeCare,2015)thathavelookedatchildren’ssafetyandwellbeingonceincarehaveconsistentlyreportedpoorhealth,education,behaviourandmentalhealthoutcomes.Thissuggeststhatchildreninout-of-homecaredoesnotequatetosafetyandwellbeinginchildren.

A.3.1.2Stakeholderengagement

Manyexperts reportedsurpriseat the lackof stakeholderengagement (children,parents,families,practitionersandexternalagencies)bothinthedevelopmentofthechildprotectionpracticeframeworksandinthereportingofoutcomes.Thisisdespiteframeworksreportedlybeingchild-centredandfamily-focused.Thereisawealthofemergingevidencethatsuggeststhatchildrenaresafelyableandwillingtobebothincludedinresearch(Salveronetal.,2013)aboutthembutalsoparticipateindevelopingtools,approachesandtechniqueswhichpertaintothem(Moore,Sanders&McArthur,2011).Inaddition,manyexpertsreportedthatexternalagencies,suchas,drugandalcohol,educationandmentalhealthservicesareimportantinthecaseplanningandmanagementforchildrenandfamiliesworkingwiththedepartmentbutdonotfeatureinanyofthechildprotectionpracticeframeworks.Theseagenciesandpartnersarealsoimportantinthedevelopmentoftools,approachesandreferralpathwaysthatleadtoincreasedchildsafetyandwellbeing.

A.3.1.3Guidanceforpractitioners

78

Expertscommentedonthechroniclackofguidanceforpractitionersabout“howtodotheirwork”intermsofhowtopracticeinawaythatisinlinewiththefoundationalprinciplesandhowtousethesuggestedtheoriestoolsandtechniques.Itwassuggestedbyseveralexpertsthat some of this information could be contained in organisations’ specific policies andproceduresdocuments.However,therewasanacknowledgementthatifthiswasthecase,atminimumthechildprotectionpracticeframeworksshouldprovide1)evidenceofthisand2)providelinkswithintheframeworkdocumentationtowherepractitionerscouldsourcethisinformation.

Inadditiontothelackofguidanceforpractitioners,expertsreportedconcernoverthelimitedinformationpertainingtoworkforcedevelopment.Expertsbelievedthatskills thatrequireongoingdevelopment,suchasreflectivepracticeandcriticalthinking,needtobetaughtanddevelopedthroughoutapractitioner’s timeatadepartment.Theexpertpanelwasof theviewthat it istheabilityofpractitionerstoreflectandthinkcriticallyaboutasituation, inaddition tousingassessment tools andapproaches, thatwill lead tobetterdecisions andoutcomesbeingmadeforchildren.

A.3.1.4Implementation

Finally, experts were concerned about the limited use of evidence-based models ofimplementation.Onlythreeframeworksdemonstratedtheuseofanimplementationmodelwhen instigating a new child protectionpractice framework in a jurisdiction. Experts alsowondered if the child protection frameworks reviewed in the reportwork in isolation orunisonwithexistingpoliciesandpractices.Iftheyworkinunison,thereneedstobeevidenceof suggested implementation techniques that can assure all workwithin the departmentfollowed both new and pre-existing policies. With the growing body of research intoimplementation practices in recent years, there is now widespread recognition of theimportanceofgoodimplementation(Durlack&DuPre,2008).Thelackofacknowledgementand advice to implement new practice frameworks within existing practice could behamperingthepotentialeffectivenessoftheframeworks.

A.3.2 Domains not captured in review

Whileappreciating themethodologyused in this report,expertscautionedtheuseof thecurrentlyusedchildprotectionframeworksasthesolesourcetodevelopacomprehensivelistofalldomainsacrossallstagesofchildprotectionpractice,giventhelargepracticegapsidentified.Thus,expertsprovidedanadditionaldomainandadditionalcontentforinclusioninthecurrentdomains,thesearediscussedbelow.Theyareanadditionaldomaintoincludestakeholders and integration with non-statutory agencies, and widening the culturalcompetencydomain to include all formsof diversity. These additionshavebeenmade insection2and3ofthisreport.Expertsalsoreportedthattheroleofsupervisionshouldbereportedintheworkforcetrainingsection.

A.3.2.1Stakeholders’perspectivesandintegrationwithnon-statutoryagencies

79

Further to experts’ concerns about the limited engagement of stakeholders in all coredomains,itwasrecommendedthatanadditionaldomainbeaddedtoaddressthisgap.Thisdomainhasadualaim.Firstly itsuggests thatstakeholders,suchaschildren, familiesandnon-statutoryagencies,shouldbeconsultedduringthedevelopmentandimplementationofthepracticeframeworks.Secondly,ithighlightstheimportanceofongoingdevelopmentofreferral pathways, care team meetings and information-sharing in order to assist non-statutoryagenciestoworkwithchildrenandfamilieseffectively.Thisisimportantasitwaswidelyacknowledgedbytheexpertsthattherearemanyotherservicesworkingwithfamiliesduringandafterachildprotectioninvestigation.Theseservicesprovideadditionalsupportforfamiliesandhopefullycanhelpdecreasethelikelihoodofreoccurrenceofmaltreatment,butthissupportmaybehamperedbylimitedcaseconferencingandinformationsharingwithdepartments.

A.3.2.2Culturalcompetency

Expert panelmembers reported that in addition topoor cultural competency throughoutmanyoftheframeworks,therewasalsoalackofinformationbeingprovidedtopractitionersabouthowtoworkwithotherdiversepopulations.Someofthediversepopulationsnotedbytheexpertpanelinclude;AboriginalandTorresStraitIslander,CALDpopulations,peoplewithdisabilities,mentalhealth concernsand substanceuseandmisuse issues.Panelmembersbelieved that frameworks need to avoid thinking about children and families as ahomogenousgroup.Rather, thediversitywithin thispopulationneeds tobeaddressed inboththewaypractitionersworkwithfamiliesandthetoolsandapproachesbeingdeveloped.Thus,itwassuggestedthattheculturalcompetencycoredomainbechangedtoreflectthediversityofthispopulationandbetermed;“CompetencytoWorkwithDiversePopulations”.

A.3.2.3Workforcetrainingandsupervision

Expertsreportedthat,whiletraininginallthreeofthecoredomainsrelatedtotrainingareimportant, practitioners working in this field also require comprehensive support andsupervision. While supervision was mentioned in some frameworks, the purpose andprovision of supervision was often not clear. Supervision has been documented in theresearchliteraturetobeanimportantfactorinbothincreasingpractitioners’knowledgeandskillsandpractitioners’retention(Healy,Meagher,&Cullin,2009;Rushton&Nathan,1996).Supervision that encourages evidence-based clinical judgement, increasing practitioner’scriticalreflectionandpracticeweresuggestedbythepanelaspotentialwaystocontinuetoincreaseprofessionalpractice.

A.3.3 Child protection practice frameworks

The researchers where encouraged by the expert panels to complete a more in-depthdiscussion of what is classified as a child protection practice framework. This discussionconcludedwiththeACCPdevelopingamorein-depthdefinitionofachildprotectionpracticeframework,whichisincludedinthereportmethodology;

Forthepurposeofthisreport,theauthorsdefinedachildprotectionpracticeframeworkasoutliningthevaluesandprinciplesandanapproachtoworkingwithchildrenandfamiliesthat

80

hasbeenappliedtothewholeofthecontinuumofchildprotectionpractice.Thisdefinitionexcludes those frameworks that aredescribed solely as risk assessmente.g. SafeguardingChildrenAssessmentandAnalysisFramework(SAAF,Macdonaldetal.,2017)orframeworksthat are self-described to be discrete to one aspect of the child protection process, e.g.Sanctuary (Bloom, 2015) or Children and Residential Experiences: Creating Conditions forChange(CARE,Holdenetal.,2014)modelswhicharespecifictoout-of-homecare.Forariskassessmentoramodelofcaretobeincludedinthereviewitmustbementionedwithinalarger framework as a tool or approach that makes up the greater whole of the childprotectionpracticeframework.”

Through discussion with the expert panel members and further analysis it has beendeterminedthatthereis,currently,nooneframeworkthatcansupportalltherequiredcoredomainsdiscussedinthisreport.Infact,theframeworksreviewedcouldbeconsideredtobemadeofseveraldifferentlevelsincluding;

1. ‘Organisational’andworkattheentiresystemlevel.Thiswouldincludeframeworksthatdiscussvaluesandprinciplesexpectedwithinanorganisation.

2. ‘Workforce’ based and provide detailed information on the types of pre-requisiteskills, knowledge and experience required and/or further areas for professionaldevelopmentandsupervision.

3. ‘Intervention’specific,whichwouldprovidepractitionerswiththetypesoftoolsandapproaches tobeusedwith childrenand families andhow touse these tools andapproaches.

Therefore,frameworkdevelopersneedprovideclearguidancetoorganisationswithregardtowhichlevelorlevelstheirframeworkisbased.Inaddition,organisationsandframeworkdevelopers need to be prepared toworkwith one ormore frameworkswhichwould benestedinsideeachotherinordertodevelopaneffectivesystemwhichwouldincludeallcoredomainslistedinthisreport.