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
approachtoworkingwithchildrenand
familiesacrossthechildprotection
continuum,thuswasincludedinanalysis.
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
approachtoworkingwithchildrenand
familiesacrossthechildprotection
continuum,thuswasincludedinanalysis.
SignsofSafety(seepp.61)
Western Australia
SignsofSafetyis‘asolutionandsafety
orientationapproachtochildprotection
casework’
(Turnell&Edwards,1999)
SignsofSafetyoutlinesthevaluesand
principlesandanapproachtoworking
withchildrenandfamiliesacrossthe
childprotectioncontinuum,thuswas
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
principlesandanapproachtoworking
withchildrenandfamiliesacrossthe
childprotectioncontinuum,thuswas
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.