Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:16:28.972Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision Making in Child and Family Welfare: The Role of Tools and Practice Frameworks

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 February 2017

Philip Gillingham ,
Paul Harnett ,
Karen Healy ,
Debby Lynch  and
Marion Tower
Philip Gillingham*
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Paul Harnett
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Karen Healy
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Debby Lynch
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Marion Tower
Affiliation:
School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
*
addresses for correspondence: Dr Philip Gillingham, Senior Lecturer in Social Work, School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, the findings of research that had, as one aim, the exploration of the role of decision-making tools and practice frameworks in supporting the decision making of practitioners working with children and families in non-government agencies in Queensland are presented. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 frontline practitioners in three agencies in five different locations. A general finding was that practitioners used a range of different tools and frameworks and found them supportive. The pertinence of these findings is discussed in relation to recent developments in the provision of services for children and families in Queensland, namely the new funding of non-government agencies to provide early intervention supportive services to children and families and the implementation of a single practice framework to guide practice across the sector. Areas for future research in Queensland are identified to further investigate the role of tools in frontline practice with children and families and which may also contribute to debates more broadly about the development and implementation of practice frameworks to support practitioners.

Keywords

child welfaredecision makingpractice frameworksdecision-making tools
Type
Articles
Information
Children Australia , Volume 42 , Issue 1 , March 2017 , pp. 49 - 56
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s) 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Alston, M., & Bowles, W. (2012). Research for social workers: An introduction to methods (3rd ed). St. Leonards, NSW: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Benbenishty, R., Davidson-Arad, B., Lopez, M., Devaney, J., Spratt, T., . . . & Hayes, D. (2015). Decision making in child protection: An international comparative study on maltreatment substantiation, risk assessment and interventions recommendations, and the role of professionals’ child welfare attitudes. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 63–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bradt, L., Roets, G., Roose, R., Rosseel, Y., & Bouverne-De Bie, M. (2015). Poverty and decision making in child welfare and protection: Deepening the bias–need debate. British Journal of Social Work, 45 (7), 2161–2175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2), 77–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadhurst, K., Wastell, D., White, S., Hall, C., Peckover, S. & Davey, D. (2010). Performing “initial assessment”: Identifying the latent conditions for error at the front-door of local authority children's services. British Journal of Social Work, 40 (2), 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmody, T. (2013). Taking responsibility: A roadmap for queensland child protection. Brisbane: Queensland Government.Google Scholar
Chang, J., Rhee, S., & Weaver, D. (2006). Characteristics of child abuse in immigrant Korean families and correlates of placement decisions. Child Abuse and Neglect, 30, 881–891.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cheers, D., Fernandez, E., Morwitzer, J., & Tregeagle, S. (2011). Guided practice in Australia: Research, implementation, and child and family perspectives on looking after children and the assessment framework. In Kufeldt, K., & McKenzie, B. (Eds.), Child welfare: Connecting research, policy and practice (pp. 487–500). Waterloo: Wilfred Laurier University Press.Google Scholar
CMC (2004). Protecting children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. Queensland: Crime and Misconduct Commission.Google Scholar
Davidson-Arad, B., & Benbenishty, R. (2010). Contribution of child protection workers’ attitudes to their risk assessments and intervention recommendations: A study in Israel. Health and Social Care in the Community, 18, 1–9.Google Scholar
DCCSDS (2016). Working better with families in the child protection system. Department of Communities, Child Safety and Disability Services, Queensland Government, Brisbane. Retrieved from https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/gateway/reform-and-renewal/child-and-family/working-better-with-families-in-the-child-protection-system.Google Scholar
DCCSDS (2016). Strengthening families/protecting children framework for practice. Retrieved from https://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/childsafety/practice-manual/framework-pr-tools.pdf.Google Scholar
De Bortolli, L., & Dolan, M. (2015). Decision making in social work with families and children: Developing decision-aids compatible with cognition. British Journal of Social Work, 45 (7), 2142–2160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Drury-Hudson, J. (1999). Decision making in child protection: The use of theoretical, empirical and procedural knowledge by novices and experts and implications for fieldwork placement. British Journal of Social Work, 29, 147–169.Google Scholar
Enosh, G., & Bayer-Topilsky, T. (2015). Reasoning and bias: Heuristics in safety assessment and placement decisions for children at risk. British Journal of Social Work, 45 (6), 1771–1787.Google Scholar
Flin, R., O'Connor, P., & Crichton, M. (2008). Safety at the sharp end: A guide to non-technical skills. Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Font, S. A., & McGuire, J. (2015). Decision-making in child protective services: Influences at multiple levels of the social ecology. Child Abuse and Neglect, 49, 50–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gillingham, P. (2006). Risk assessment in child protection: Problem rather than solution? Australian Social Work, 59 (1), 86–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gillingham, P. (2009a). The use of assessment tools in child protection: An ethnomethodological study. PhD thesis. University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/4337.Google Scholar
Gillingham, P. (2009b). Practitioner perspectives on the family risk evaluation tool: An aide to decision making or ‘just another form to fill in’? Developing Practice: The Child, Family and Youth Work Journal, 23 (4), 46–55.Google Scholar
Gillingham, P. (2013). The development of electronic information systems for the future: Practitioners, “embodied structures” and “technologies-in-practice”. British Journal of Social Work, 43, 430–445.Google Scholar
Gillingham, P. (2016). The use of electronic information systems to guide practice in social welfare agencies: The perspectives of practitioners as end users. Practice: Social Work in Action, 28 (5), 357–352.Google Scholar
Gillingham, P. & Humphreys, C. (2010). Child protection practitioners and decision making tools: Observations and reflections from the frontline. British Journal of Social Work, 40 (8), 2598–2616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graham, J. C., Detlaff, A. J., Bauman, D. J., & Fluke, J. (2015). The decision making ecology of placing a child into foster care: A structural equation model. Child Abuse & Neglect, 49, 12–23.Google Scholar
Høybye-Mortensen, M. (2015). Decision-making tools and their influence on caseworkers' room for discretion. British Journal of Social Work, 45 (2), 600–615. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct144 Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2014). The story of Baby P: Setting the record straight. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Keddell, E. (2013). Beyond care versus control: Decision-making discourses and their functions in child protection social work. (Thesis, Doctor of Philosophy). University of Otago. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/10523/3886.Google Scholar
Keddell, E. (2014). Theorising the signs of safety approach to child protection social work: Positioning, codes and power. Children and Youth Services Review, 47 (1), 70–77.Google Scholar
Mildon, R., & Shlonsky, A. (2011). Bridge over troubled water: Using implementation science to facilitate effective services in child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 753–756.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Munro, E., Turnell, A., & Murphy, T. (2016). Signs of safety. Retrieved from http://www.signsofsafety.net/signs-of-safety/.Google Scholar
Reder, P., Duncan, S., & Gray, M. (1993). Beyond blame: Child abuse tragedies revisited. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rycus, J. S., & Hughes, R. C. (2003). Issues in risk assessment in child protective Services. American Center for Child Welfare, Centre for Child Welfare Policy, Ohio.Google Scholar
Saltiel, D. (2015). Observing front line decision making in child protection. British Journal of Social Work, Advance Access published December 18, 2015, 1–16.Google Scholar
Schwalbe, C. (2004). Re-visioning risk assessment for human service decision making. Children and Youth Services Review, 26, 561–576.Google Scholar
Scott, D. (2002). Adding meaning to measurement: The value of qualitative methods in research practice. British Journal of Social Work, 32 (7), 923–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stanley, T., & Mills, R. (2014). ‘Signs of Safety’ practice at the health and children's social care interface. Practice: Social Work in Action, 26 (1), 23–36.Google Scholar
Whitney, D., & Trosten-Bloom, A. (2010). The power of appreciative inquiry: A practical guide to positive change (2nd ed). San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.Google Scholar
Wittenstrom, K., Baumann, J., Fluke, J., Graham, J. C., & James, J. (2015). The impact of drugs, infants, single mothers, and relatives on reunification: A decision-making ecology approach. Child Abuse and Neglect, 49, 86–96.Google Scholar