Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:19:55.284Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Inclusive Child Protection Practice: The Need for Rigorous Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2014

Russell M.F. Hawkins
Russell M.F. Hawkins*
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, James Cook University
*
address for correspondence: Professor Russell M.F. Hawkins, Department of Psychology, James Cook University, McGregor Road, Cairns QLD 4870. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Historical and current child protection practice in Australia has been subject to severe criticism, yet in spite of a persuasive case for an alternative family inclusive form of child protection practice – something that offers the potential for improved client outcomes and improved worker job satisfaction – the model is not yet in widespread use. An international review of promising innovations in child protection, including examples of programmes from Australia, resulted in a list of eight identified trends. Common to all of these trends was evidence that good-quality evaluation had contributed to their recognition. If family inclusive practice is to gain greater acceptance, especially by bureaucrats, policy makers and holders of the purse strings, sophisticated forms of programme evaluation will be required. Such evaluations might emphasise practice-based research where researchers and frontline practitioners work together on all aspects of evaluation, including the initial design stage. While gold-standard randomised controlled trials may be included, methodological pluralism should allow inclusion of alternative approaches, such as realist evaluation and the involvement of practice research networks. The use of external evaluators might be usefully replaced with greater reliance on evaluation partnerships between evaluation experts (researchers) and frontline agency staff. Follow-up systematic reviews and meta-analyses might then allow the development of evidence-based arguments for change. Some Australian programmes have shown how rigorous evaluation practices have underpinned success and this evaluation focus could be emulated.

Keywords

evaluationfamily inclusivechild protection
Type
Special Section: Moving beyond protection: Inclusiveness and families
Information
Children Australia , Volume 39 , Issue 2 , June 2014 , pp. 81 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © The Authors 2014 

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

Aarons, G., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38 (1), 4–23.Google Scholar
Alderson, P., Bunn, F., Lefebvre, C., Li, W. P., Li, L., Roberts, I., & Schierhout, G. (2002). Human albumin solution for resuscitation and volume expansion in critically ill patients. Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews(1), CD001208. doi: 10.1002/14651858.cd001208Google Scholar
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2013). Child abuse and neglect statistics. Retrieved from http://www.aifs.gov.au/cfca/pubs/factsheets/a142086/Google Scholar
Barkham, M., Hardy, G. E., & Mellor-Clark, J. (Eds.). (2010). Developing and delivering practice-based evidence: A guide for the psychological therapies. New York: Wiley-Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedetti, G. (2012). Innovations in the field of child abuse and neglect prevention: A review of the literature. Chicago: Chapin Hall at the University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Briggs, F., & Hawkins, R. M. F. (1997). Child protection: A guide for teachers and early childhood professionals. Sydney: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Broadhurst, K., Holt, K., & Doherty, P. (2012). Accomplishing parental engagement in child protection practice? A qualitative analysis of parent–professional interaction in pre-proceedings work under the Public Law Outline. Qualitative Social Work, 11 (5), 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Calam, R., Sanders, M. R., Miller, C., Sadhnani, V., & Carmont, S.-A. (2008). Can technology and the media help reduce dysfunctional parenting and increase engagement with preventative parenting interventions? Child Maltreatment, 13 (4), 347–361.Google Scholar
Castonguay, L. G., Locke, B. D., & Hayes, J. A. (2011). The Center for Collegiate Mental Health: An example of a practice-research network in university counseling centers. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 25 (2), 105–119.Google Scholar
Chagnon, F., Pouliot, L., Malo, C., Gervais, M.-J., & Pigeon, M.-E. (2010). Comparison of determinants of research knowledge utilization by practitioners and administrators in the field of child and family social services. Implementation Science, 5 (1), 41.Google Scholar
Fisher, P. A., Kim, H. K., & Pears, K. C. (2009). Effects of multidimensional treatment foster care for preschoolers (MTFC-P) on reducing permanent placement failures among children with placement instability. Children and Youth Services Review, 31, 541–546.Google Scholar
Gearing, R. E., El-Bassel, N., Ghesquiere, A., Baldwin, S., Gillies, J., & Ngeow, E. (2011). Major ingredients of fidelity: A review and scientific guide to improving quality of intervention research implementation. Clinical Psychology Review, 31 (1), 79–88.Google Scholar
Gillingham, P., & Humphreys, C. (2010). Child protection practitioners and decision-making tools: Observations and reflections from the front line. British Journal of Social Work, 40 (8), 2598–2616.Google Scholar
Hansen, P., & Ainsworth, F. (2013). Australian child protection services: A game without end. International Journal of Social Welfare, 22 (1), 104–110.Google Scholar
Hawkins, R. (2013). Protecting children from sexual abuse. InPsych, 35 (5), 16–17.Google Scholar
Hoeijmakers, M., Harting, J., & Jansen, M. (2013). Academic Collaborative Centre Limburg: A platform for knowledge transfer and exchange in public health policy, research and practice? Health Policy, 111 (2), 175–183.Google Scholar
Hughes, J., Chau, S., & Poff, D. C. (2011). ‘They’re not my favourite people’: What mothers who have experienced intimate partner violence say about involvement in the child protection system. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (7), 1084–1089.Google Scholar
Jabaley, J., Lutzker, J., Whitaker, D., & Self-Brown, S. (2011). Using iPhones to enhance and reduce face-to-face home safety sessions within SafeCare: An evidence-based child maltreatment prevention program. Journal of Family Violence, 26 (5), 377–385.Google Scholar
Jones, R. (2013). Serious case reviews have become too costly and complex: Reviews should help child protection, not disrupt it. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2013/jul/25/serious-case-reviews-costly-complexGoogle Scholar
Kaye, S., & Osteen, P. J. (2011). Developing and validating measures for child welfare agencies to self-monitor fidelity to a child safety intervention. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (11), 2146–2151.Google Scholar
Kazdin, A. E. (2008). Evidence-based treatment and practice: New opportunities to bridge clinical research and practice, enhance the knowledge base, and improve patient care. American Psychologist, 63 (3), 146–159.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Keane, M., Guest, A., & Padbury, J. (2013). A balancing act: A family perspective to sibling sexual abuse. Child Abuse Review, 22 (4), 246–254.Google Scholar
Klingner, J., Boardman, A., & McMaster, K. (2013). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79 (2), 195–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leve, L. D., Fisher, P. A., & Chamberlain, P. (2009). Multidimensional treatment foster care as a preventive intervention to promote resiliency among youth in the child welfare system. Journal of Personality, 77 (6), 1869–1902.Google Scholar
Long, C. (2014). Child protection: Critics of serious case reviews are missing the point: Reviews are a valuable learning tool – but the lessons need to be effectively communicated to time-pressed social workers. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2014/jan/07/child-protection-critics-serious-case-reviewsGoogle Scholar
Lonne, B., Parton, N., Thomson, J., & Harrie, M. (2009). Reforming child protection. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mazzucchelli, T. G., & Sanders, M. R. (2010). Facilitating practitioner flexibility within an empirically supported intervention: Lessons from a system of parenting support. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 17 (3), 238–252.Google Scholar
Mitchell, F., Lunt, N., & Shaw, I. (2010). Practitioner research in social work: A knowledge review. Evidence & Policy: A Journal of Research, Debate and Practice, 6 (1), 7–31.Google Scholar
Murphy, R. A. (2010). Multi-system responses in the context of child maltreatment and intimate partner violence. Child Abuse and Neglect, 34 (8), 555–557.Google Scholar
O’Connor, C., Laszewski, A., Hammel, J., & Durkin, M. S. (2011). Using portable computers in home visits: Effects on programs, data quality, home visitors and caregivers. Children and Youth Services Review, 33 (7), 1318–1324.Google Scholar
Parsons, S., Charman, T., Faulkner, R., Ragan, J., Wallace, S., & Wittemeyer, K. (2013). Commentary – bridging the research and practice gap in autism: The importance of creating research partnerships with schools. Autism, 17 (3), 268–280.Google Scholar
Pawson, R., & Tilley, N. (1998). Caring communities, paradigm polemics, design debates. Evaluation, 4 (1), 79–90.Google Scholar
Pinto, R. M., Wall, M. M., & Spector, A. Y. (2014). Modeling the structure of partnership between researchers and front-line service providers: Strengthening collaborative public health research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 8 (1), 83–106.Google Scholar
Sanders, M. R., Baker, S., & Turner, K. M. (2012). A randomized controlled trial evaluating the efficacy of Triple P Online with parents of children with early-onset conduct problems. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50 (11), 675–684.Google Scholar
Sanders, M. R., & Murphy-Brennan, M. (2010). Creating conditions for success beyond the professional training environment. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 17 (1), 31–35.Google Scholar
Sanders, M. R., Ralph, A., Sofronoff, K., Gardiner, P., Thompson, R., Dwyer, S., & Bidwell, K. (2008). ‘Every family’: A population approach to reducing behavioral and emotional problems in children making the transition to school. Journal of Primary Prevention, 29 (3), 197–222.Google Scholar
Scott, D., Arney, F., & Vimpani, G. (2010). Think child, think family, think community. In Arney, F. & Scott, D. (Eds.), Working with vulnerable families: A partnership approach (pp. 7–27). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, R., & Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J. (2011). Accumulating evidence for parent–child interaction therapy in the prevention of child maltreatment. Child Development, 82 (1), 177–192.Google Scholar
Thorpe, R. (2008). Family inclusion in child protection practice: Building bridges in working with (not against) families. Communities, Children and Families Australia, 3 (1), 4–18.Google Scholar
Tomison, A. M. (2000). Evaluating child abuse prevention programs. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.Google Scholar
Victorian Government Department of Human Services. (2011). Child protection workforce: The case for change. Retrieved from http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/644814/child-protection-workforce-the-case-for-change-2011.pdfGoogle Scholar
Victorian Law Reform Commission. (2010). Protection Applications in the Children's Court: Final Report. Retrieved from http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/projects/child-protection/protection-applications-childrens-court-final-reportGoogle Scholar
Wallerstein, N., & Duran, B. (2010). Community-based participatory research contributions to intervention research: The intersection of science and practice to improve health equity. American Journal of Public Health, 100 (S1), S40–S46.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Watzlawick, P., Weakland, J., & Fisch, R. (1974). Change: Principles of problem formulation and problem resolution. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
Wood, B. K., Drogan, R. R., & Janney, D. M. (2013). Early childhood practitioner involvement in functional behavioral assessment and function-based interventions: A literature review. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. doi: 10.1177/0271121413489736Google Scholar