A National Survey on Perceptions of How Child Protection Authorities Work 2010: The Perspective of Third Parties Preliminary Findings Occasional Paper 16

A National Survey on Perceptions of How Child Protection Authorities Work 2010: The Perspective of Third Parties Preliminary Findings Occasional Paper 16
of 118
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Related Documents
    A National Survey on Perceptions of How Child Protection Authorities Work 2010: The Perspective of Third Parties Preliminary Findings Mary Ivec, Valerie Braithwaite and Monika Reinhart Occasional Paper 16 February 2011  A National Survey on Perceptions of How Child Protection Authorities Work 2010: he Perspective of hird PartiesPreli!inary "indin#s"e$ruary 2011Prepared $y%ary &vec' (alerie )raithwaite * %onika +einhart +e#ulatory &nstitutions Network Australian National ,niversityCan$erra+e#Net -ccasional Paper No. 1/  © Regulatory Institutions Network, ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, Australian National University 20 National !i"rary of Australia Cataloguing#in#Pu"lication entryAuthor$Ivec, %ary&'itle$A national survey on (erce(tions of how child (rotection authorities work 200$ the  (ers(ective of third (arties&)electronic resource*$ (reli+inary findings  %ary Ivec, -alerie .raithwaite, %onika Reinhart& I/.N$10033024e(u"5/u"6ects$Child welfare##Australia##Pu"lic o(inion&Child welfare##Political as(ects##Australia&7ther AuthorsContri"utors$.raithwaite, -& A& 4-alerie A&5, 8#Reinhart, %onika&Australian National University& Regulatory Institutions Network 9ewey Nu+"er$3:2&1:0;  Disclaimer 'his article has "een written as (art of a series of (u"lications issued fro+ the Regulatory Institutions Network& 'he views contained in this article are re(resentative of the authors only and not of the Australian National University or any funding (artner&  'a"le of Contents .ackground and 7verview22/urvey22& %ethodology22&2 Partici(ants32&3 9escri(tion of sa+(le in ter+s of social#de+ogra(hic varia"les including ta"les and gra(hs "y state, age, education and occu(ation33<eadline Results13&Regulatory A((roach13&& Regulatory A((roach$ /urvey (artici(ants= views on how child  (rotection authorities should engage with the co++unity if they are to achieve their goals13&2Regulatory Practice03&2& Regulatory Practice$ /urvey (artici(ants= views on what statutory child (rotection authorities do well and not so well03&2&2 Regulatory Practice of 'hird Parties$ /urvey (artici(ants= views on usefulness of >third (arties= 4e&g& defined as so+eone related or unrelated to the fa+ily "ut who is trusted "y the fa+ily523&3Relationshi( %anage+ent33&3& Relationshi( %anage+ent$ /urvey (artici(ants= views a"out trust in and engage+ent with child (rotection authorities33&3&2 Relationshi( %anage+ent$ ?hat survey (artici(ants think a"out the actions of child (rotection authorities in intervening, hel(ing and linking fa+ilies to resources;3&3&3 Relationshi( %anage+ent$ <ow third (arties (erceive their own treat+ent "y child (rotection authorities83&3&; Relationshi( %anage+ent$ /urvey (artici(ants= (erce(tions of the integrity and (rocedural 6ustice shown "y child (rotection authorities when engaging with (arents, fa+ilies and the co++unity:3&;/tandards Perfor+ance 3&;& /tandards Perfor+ance$ /urvey (artici(ants= re(ort card on the child (rotection syste+ @ <ow well is the syste+ acting on the  (rinci(les for "est (ractice as outlined in the National Child Protection ra+eworkB3&;&2 /tandards Perfor+ance$ Re(ort card on the child (rotection syste+ @ ?hat are (erceived as "eing the +a6or o"stacles to +aking (rogress on the (rinci(les of the National Child Protection ra+eworkB203&8%otivational Postures223&8& %otivational Postures$ /urvey (artici(ants= "eliefs a"out and attitudes towards the child (rotection syste+ @ <ow survey  (artici(ants a((roach authorities in their current 6o"22;'a"les$ /u++ary descri(tion of res(onses to survey uestions288Dra(hs for res(onses to the survey uestions38:E+ail Invitation and Infor+ation /heet to Partici(ants, Fuestionnaire31References8 1  1Background and Overview 'his re(ort is "ased on a survey of ;21 (eo(le fro+ all Australian states and territories who logged on to an ANU we" survey and answered 21 uestions a"out the way in which child  (rotection syste+s across Australia are o(erating& 'hose invited to (artici(ate had worked alongside child (rotection authorities and were contacted through nu+erous e+ail networks that the researchers were a"le to access either directly or indirectly through colleagues& /now"alling was encouraged, with (artici(ants invited to widen the we" of (eo(le included in the survey& 'he focus of the survey was on govern+ent child (rotection agencies G how well is govern+ent doing in overseeing the child (rotection syste+ and how well does govern+ent work with third (arties 4including other govern+ent agencies such as (olice5 to ensure that children are "eing cared for& 'he results reflect syste+atic criticis+ with the way in which child (rotection agencies are connecting to others who occu(y (rofessional roles, to fa+ilies and to carers& Het there is no evidence that those res(onding to the survey did not share the sa+e "elief that child (rotection agencies had very i+(ortant work to do& 'hey si+(ly  "elieved that child (rotection agencies needed a different way of doing things and needed to work +ore with other agencies and grou(s who could offer assistance& 'hose doing the 6udging in this survey are third (arties G doctors, lawyers, teachers, (olice, and welfare and health workers with 12 of res(ondents covered "y +andatory re(orting legislation& 'he average nu+"er of years res(ondents worked alongside child (rotection agencies was  years& 'heir average age was ;; years, 1 were wo+an and across all res(ondents 10 had a university degree& 'he sa+(le co+(rised 30 res(ondents who identified as A"srcinal& No clai+s can "e +ade a"out the re(resentativeness of this sa+(le  "ecause of how it was recruited& 'he consistency of res(onses, however, "oth uantitative and ualitative suggest that the views of this sa+(le of third (arties should "e taken seriously and used to foster a range of local de"ates on how child (rotection authorities +ay work with co++unities "etter& Confidence in the findings can "e taken fro+ the si+ilarity of the results with the conclusions of +any of the recent re(orts on the (rovision of care for children who are a"used or neglected in this country 4.a+"lett, .ath and Rose"y 200J %ullighan 200J ?ood 200J ord 2001J ?ild and Anderson 2001J Cri+e and %isconduct Co++ission 200;J -ardon 200;5& ?hat this re(ort adds is an understanding of how (eo(le in the field are thinking a"out child (rotection G where are the (oints of controversy and how +ight they "e addressed so that the syste+ can continue to evolve in +ore (ositive directions& 2Survey 2.1Methodology A self re(ort we" survey +ethodology was utilised for this study& 'he survey ran fro+ e"ruary to August 200& A total of 20 state+entsuestions (lus  uestions reuesting free teKt res(onses +ade u( the survey& Fuantitative data were used for the statistical analyses  (resented in this re(ort& Fualitative analyses of the free teKt res(onses will "e the su"6ect of a second re(ort scheduled for co+(letion "y the end of Lune 20& 2
Related Search
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks