Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T23:04:25.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The child protection case conference: Juggling rights, risks and responsibilities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 February 2016

Dorothy Scott ,
Jo Lindsay  and
Alun Jackson
Dorothy Scott
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052
Jo Lindsay
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052
Alun Jackson
Affiliation:
School of Social Work, University of Melbourne, Parkville, Victoria 3052
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This pilot study of child protection case conferences in a region of Melbourne highlights the dynamics of inter-organisational and inter–professional interaction. Data from direct observation of a small number of case conferences and focussed interviews with participants before and after each case conference, in addition to an interviewer administered questionnaire with professionals from agencies regularly participating in case conferences was analysed using manual and computerised methods. The findings relate to: parental attendance; interagency and interprofessional dynamics: case assessment focus; and worker anxiety about conflict. The management of conflict, the tension between the different purposes of case conferences, and the importance of the quality of leadership in case conferences, are discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
Children Australia , Volume 20 , Issue 1 , 1995 , pp. 4 - 12
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

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

Assael, H. (1969) Constructive role for interorganizational conflict. Administrative Science Quarterly, 14: 573–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ban, P. (1993) Family decision making - the model as practised in New Zealand and its relevance to Australia. Australian Social Work (in press).Google Scholar
Bisno, H. (1988) Managing conflict Newbury Park: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Campbell, L. (1987) Case planning in child and family welfare, Ph.D. Thesis. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Carney, T. (1989) A fresh approach to child protection practice and legislation in Australia, Child Abuse and Neglect, 13: 29–39.Google Scholar
Dingwall, R., Eekelaar, J. & Murray, T. (1983) The protection of children, state intervention and family life. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
DiStefano, T. (1984) Interorganizational conflict: a review of an emerging field, Human Relations, 37(5): 351–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emery, F. & Trist, E. (1965) The causal texture of organisational environments. Human Relations, 18(1): 1–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Farmer, E. (1993) The impact of child protection interventions: the experiences of parents and social workers. In Waterhouse, L. (ed) Child Abuse and Child Abusers: Protection and Prevention, Aberdeen: Research Highlights, (in press).Google Scholar
Fisher, R. & Ury, W. (1981) Getting to yes, London: Hutchinson.Google Scholar
Hallett, C. & Birchall, E. (1992a) Coordination and child protection: a review of the literature, Edinburgh: HMSO.Google Scholar
Hallett, C. & Birchall, E. (1992b) Working together in child protection: report of phase two, a survey of the experience and perceptions of six key professions, Stirling: University of Stirling Department of Applied Social Science.Google Scholar
Hallett, C. & Stevenson, O. (1980) Child abuse: aspects of interprofessional co-operation, London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Hudson, B. (1987) Collaboration in social welfare: a framework for analysis, Policy and Politics, 15(3): 175–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, D. & Tjosvold, D. (1989) Managing stress and anger in conflict. In Tjosvold, D. & Johnson, D. (eds) Productive conflict management. Minneapolis: Interaction Book Company.Google Scholar
King, C. (1971) Preventive child welfare, the feasibility of early intervention, M.A. Thesis. University of Melbourne.Google Scholar
Lewis, A. (1992) An overview of research into participation in child protection work. In Thoburn, J. (ed) Participation in Practice, Involving Families in Child Protection, Social Work Development Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich.Google Scholar
Litwak, E. & Hylton, L. (1962) Interorganizational analysis: a hypothesis on coordinating agencies. Administrative Science Quarterly, 6: 395–415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCallum, S. (1992) Participative case planning: a model for empowering practice in statutory child welfare. Children Australia, 17: 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Palazzolo, C. (1981) Small Groups, New York: D. Van Nostrand.Google Scholar
Psenicka, C & Rahim, M. (1989) Integrative and distributive dimensions of styles of handling interpersonal conflict and bargaining outcome. In Rahim, M. (ed) Managing conflict, an interdisciplinary approach. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
Richards, T. & Richards, L. (1990) Manual for mainframe nudist, a software system for qualitative data analysis on timesharing computers. Melbourne: Replee P/L.Google Scholar
Schmidt, S. & Kochan, T. (1972) Conflict: toward conceptual clarity. Administrative Science Quarterly, 17: 359–370 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tannen, D. (1990) You Just don't understand, women and men in conversation, Milsons Point: Random House.Google Scholar
Van Mannen, J. (1979) Qualitative methodology, Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.Google Scholar