Frameworks
I have used two analytical frameworks to inform this project, the first was a comparative institutional model whereby I considered policy reforms in Australia and the effects of these in informing our own. The second framework I used was a public reflective equilibrium model[1]. I will discuss the comparative institutional model first; later I will briefly outline the reflective equilibrium model.
Given the magnitude of the topic, namely child protection policy reform, I have chosen to focus on one particular policy reform implemented across all CYFs offices in New Zealand. This reform has been shaped by comparable reforms conducted in Australia, notably in South Australia and Victoria. I have utilised a comparative institutional framework whereby I considered reforms conducted in these parts of Australia. I used these to determine whether similar reforms might prove successful in a New Zealand context.
South Australia has faced similar problems to those of New Zealand, after years of criticism of the current system and a referral rate of 28,000 children and young person’s per year[2] within a meagre population (1.5 million), the state acknowledged the system was no longer effective and something needed to change. That change generated five tangible policy reform targets in South Australia, these were:
- Support children and their families (of utmost importance);
- Provide effective and appropriate intervention;
- Reform current practices and working culture;
- Take a collaborative approach; and,
- Improve overall accountability[3].
Victoria, as with South Australia, had contextually similar policy problems with their child protection legislation. In reaction to these problems, the South Australian state-government conducted an exhaustive empirical study to gain a greater understanding of child abuse and neglect within the state. What they found was intuitive; reports of abuse and neglect were rising but were also becoming more complex. Despite the intuitiveness of the studies findings, they now had a robust data set and evidence to support policy amendments. In 2005, they passed new legislation, which notably included whole of government and integrated, co-ordinated community responses. A whole government response is characterised by a shared responsibility for child protection among all sectors and departments of government. The term ‘all government departments and organisations[4]’ was integrated into all child protection legislation, documentation, and its services. An integrated, co-ordinated community response simply demonstrates the need for community services and NGOs to assume a more central role in delivering child protection services within Victoria.
A public reflective equilibrium is a model that allows a flow of knowledge between researchers and research participants. Much of what has grounded my analysis and discussions is born from conversations and interviews I have conducted throughout the semester. In a reflective equilibrium you, the researcher, learn from your research participant and vice versa; it is a symbiotic relationship whereby dialogue generates the qualitative data and the researcher can then interpret that data as they see fit. One distinct limitation of this model is the temptation to ‘cherry-pick’ your data or misrepresent participant responses to better fit your desired outcome. In the face of this challenge, I have maintained transparency and the way I have chosen to interpret responses from participants is grounded in reputable theory.
Analysis and Findings
From the comparative analysis, I found that one crucial policy change has informed our own reform, this was the differentiation between a ‘child protection system’ and a ‘system for protecting children’. The two are different and this should be acknowledged in policy. The former, namely a ‘child protection system’, is a statutory system enacted by the state or government. The latter system consists of community groups, schools, hospitals, NGOs, neighbours, family, and friends – anyone who has contact with children and young persons. By differentiating between the two we can improve our responses to child abuse and neglect reports within our community and furthermore, a statutory ‘child protection system’ should become the final step in the chain; a last resort after other systematised intervention has been exhausted. What I concluded from the comparative analysis was that there are four key problems with current child protection services within New Zealand. These are:
- Huge referral rates (and rising), yet many children appear to fall-through-the-cracks.
- Overall, we, as a society, do not like change.
- Multitude of policies and tools but the problem seems to be worsening.
- Consider more-policy, more-welfare provision, more-this, and more-that to be the solution, when it might be part of the problem.
The following discussion demonstrates how one reform in particular has attempted to respond to these issues. As described in the current policy section above, in 2007 the Ministry of Social Development called for submissions to improve the efficacy of the CYPFA, one such submission was the development and implementation of a DRM[5]. Seven of the ninety-five submitters[6] supported the development and implementation of such a model. This suggestion proved successful and the DRM was piloted in two major CFYs offices in New Zealand in late 2008[7]. One of those offices was CYFs Onehunga and I conducted an interview with Barbara Thompson, the site manager, where I asked her several questions relating to the development and implementation of the DRM. The questions I asked can be found in Appendix One and herein I include only the generalised responses.
CFYs is the government organisation charged with protecting the needs of children, young persons, and their families. It has three branches of function the first is that of child protection as defined by the CYPFA[8]. The second function of CYFs is to provide legal advice within the youth sphere[9] and thirdly, as a funding body whereby community agencies can apply for monetary grants to promote child and youth development within the community.
The differential response model
Broadly speaking the DRM is a model by which CYFs can implement a collaborative approach to respond to reports of child neglect and abuse. When a referral is lodged at CYFs, by a social worker, law enforcement officer, or from the public, it goes to the primary contact centre. From there, CYFs contact the referred family to determine the risks or needs that family might have. Information gathering is crucial at this stage and this establishes what approach CYFs will take, whether they will intervene or simply refer the family onto other community services. A hypothetical example might make the process clearer. Consider family X; family X has a child who has been misbehaving at school and the school has notified CYFs because the problem has become greater than they have capacity for; furthermore, they suspect that there is some long-term dysfunction within the family unit. CFYs will get in touch with family X, perhaps visiting the home, to determine the level of dysfunction and assess the risks/needs of the child and the family. After this process is complete, CYFs determine that the family require a community service rather than institutional involvement. The DRM is a model that gives a structured and formalised pathway that refers families to service providers within their community, who can provide the assistance that family requires. The hypothetical best result is that family X are willing to engage with this service provider and receive personalised assistance ‘to help them to be safe, strong and thrive[10]’. Thus, we can consider the DRM to be a strategic approach to better assess the needs of children and their families, culminating in better outcomes for all.
There are three aims of the differential response model, as defined by the information for community service providers guidebook, these are:
- Families will receive services earlier and in a more co-ordinated way;
- More families will be supported through the child and family assessment, meaning fewer unnecessary investigations;
- Earlier intervention will mean families will be supported to care safely for their children, and less likely to need our services in the future[11].
The DRM was implemented across all CYFs sites in New Zealand in July 2009, so far it has been well received, although it is not without its limitations, which I consider now.
Limitations of the DRM
There are two distinct limitations of using a DRM; I will consider each in turn, acknowledging that is outside of the scope of this report to provide real solutions to these. The first limitation is not related specifically to the DRM itself; rather it is a problem that is pervasive throughout any child protection system. When referrals are lodged at CYFs, a social worker is given the task of responding to this, thus, there is a subjective aspect in determining and estimating risk with respect to child abuse and neglect. ‘What we understand to be a “risk” (or a hazard, threat, or danger) is a product of historically, socially, and politically contingent “ways of seeing”. [12]‘ In theory, the DRM generates a methodology by which the legitimacy of decisions are grounded; it provides social workers, who use the model, a method to affirm the decisions they make on a daily basis. Anecdotally, there is evidence to suggest that this is the case, as one social worker stated in a study on risk discourse conducted by Tony Stanley.
‘[The risk assessment] was helpful [in] confirming or affirming that you saw those risks.’
Another noted:
‘The [risk assessment] formalises things, [and] also gives you something to back up whatever assessment you’ve come to.[13]’
Despite the anecdotal evidence to the contrary, formalised risk assessment cannot overcome the problem of subjective decision-making entirely, although it is certainly better than having no formalised assessment at all. I will not discuss this limitation any further, noting simply that it exists[14]; I turn your attention to the second limitation of the DRM, one that is innate to it. After my discussion with Barbara Thompson, the site manger at CYFs Onehunga, I surmised that the DRM might be, in effect, a technocratic framework. A more formalised and structured system means more red tape, more reports to fill in, and more work for already stretched social workers whose skills are better used for contact time with the children they are employed to protect. This problem will be greatly reduced should the DRM achieve its aims; see discussion below, which outlines how we will determine the level of success of the DRM.
[1] J. Wolff & A. de-Shalit (2007)
[2] H. Buckley (2008)
[3] Ibid
[4] H. Buckley (2008)
[5] S. Waldegreave & F. Coy (2005)
[6] Report to the Ministry of Social Development (2007)
[7] H. Buckley (2008)
[8] See: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1989/0024/latest/whole.html
[9] This report considers youth justice to cover juveniles between the ages of 10-17 years.
[10] Differential Response Information for Community Service Providers: April 2009:3
[11] Ibid
[12] Lupton 1999:35
[13] As cited in T. Stanley (2007):168
[14] For full discussion on risk discourse with respect to the DRM see: T. Stanley (2007).
CLICK HERE TO VIEW NEXT SECTION
[13] As cited in T. Scott 2007:168
[14] For full discussion on risk discourse with respect to the DRM see: T. Scott 2007
should be T. Stanley (2007)