FINAL UPDATED TEMPLATE Case study analysis MSWPG7202 Berwick 2023
FINAL UPDATED TEMPLATE Case study analysis MSWPG7202 Berwick 2023
Word length for analysis sections: up to 1,000 words. Dot points.
ANALYSIS - Vulnerability of the child
Individual child characteristics and needs
Examples in Figure 12 (page 44); critical factors relating to ages and stages of development for analysis of childs vulnerability (page 45); Child Development and Trauma information - DFFH website based on evidence/examples from case study
Opportunity for harm
Analysis of future opportunity for harm (relating to individual child characteristics and needs, child within the context of family and community, and parental capacity to meet needs and address harm) based on evidence/examples from case study
Child within the context of family and community
Any factors of childs vulnerability, within the context of broader family and community based on evidence/examples from case study
Parental capacity to meet needs and address harm
Parental capacity to meet childs needs and address harm based on evidence/examples from case study (Examples in Figure 12, page 44)
ANALYSIS Severity of harm
Types of harm (section 162(1) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005) identify type of harm from the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 - Sect 162 (1) (a, b, c, d, e, f may identify one or more than one); and, indicators and justification of type of harm/s identified, based on specific case study evidence/examples
Pattern, history and cumulative see key points on page 46; identify any relevant factors relating to pattern or history of harm, and cumulative harm and neglect, based on specific case study evidence/examples
Individual child experience and impact of harm. For each type of harm identified (above) identify specific case study evidence/examples of the interplay between the childs vulnerability, and the type and severity of harm.
ANALYSIS Likelihood of harm
Factors that increase the likelihood that harm has occurred or is likely to occur again
Prior pattern and behaviour towards the child see key points on page 47-48
Attitudes and beliefs of the parents see key points on page 47-48
Contributing factors see key points on page 47-48
ANALYSIS Safety (further information pages 49-51)
Factors that decrease the likelihood that harm has occurred or is likely to occur again
Strengths positive aspects or attributes of the child, family, culture and community that do not necessarily reduce the risk of harm
Protection factors that provide protection are the aspects or attributes of the child, family, culture and community that have a moderating or mitigating effect on the risk of harm
Safety strengths demonstrated as protection over time
Word length for Judgement: 600 words total. Dot points.
JUDGEMENT Consequence of harm
Factors that increase the likelihood that harm has occurred or is likely to occur again
Judgement of level of harm (severe, significant, concerning, insufficient evidence) (identify your judgment level, and reasons based on the information presented in pages 53-55. Provide evidence drawn from the case study)
JUDGEMENT Probability of harm
Likelihood of harm and safety come together to make a judgement about probability of harm occurring or reoccurring
Judgement of the probability of harm (very likely, likely, unlikely) (identify the guiding descriptor you have determined, providing evidence drawn from the case study, based on the information presented in pages 56-57 of the guide)
Family violence and MARAM-aligned risk rating Evidence-based risk factors and MARAM risk (identify any risk factors you think are present, and provide a brief explanation of how you have determined your decision drawing on evidence from the case study)
Priority questions to address information gaps you think you need to fill, to engage in decision making
Word length: Total of 500 words (250 for child, 250 for parent). Dot points can be used
Question you would like to ask the child Question you would like to ask the parent
Question 1 Question 1
Information gap this question relates to Information gap this question relates to
Why you think you need to find out this information Why do you think you need to find out this information
How you will apply the information you acquire to your risk assessment How you will apply the information you acquire to your risk assessment
Formulating a Case Plan - Priority issues and SMART goals (see pages 76-77)
Word length: Total up to 300 words: each issue up to 25 words; each SMART Goal up to 75 words)
Issue 1 SMART Goal 1 Issue 2 SMART Goal 2 Issue 3 SMART Goal 3
Critical reflection. Critically reflect on how the child, and the parent, in the case study might feel when a social worker lets them know that concerns have been raised about the child/rens safety and well-being. Ensure that your reflection directly relates to the specific experiences and circumstances of this particular family, based on information provided in the case study. (Word length up to 400 words (200 words for child; 200 words for parent).
Critical reflection on childs perspective
Critical reflection on parents perspective
Total word length: 2,500 words
SAFER children framework guide
The five practice activities of risk assessment in child protection
Accessible
FILLIN "Type the protective marking" d OFFICIAL o * MERGEFORMAT OFFICIAL
To receive this document in another format, email Office of Professional Practice <officeofprofessionalpractice@dffh.vic.gov.au>.
Authorised and published by the Victorian Government, 1 Treasury Place, Melbourne.
State of Victoria, Australia, Department of Families, Fairness and Housing, October 2021.
In this document, Aboriginal refers to both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. Indigenous or Koori/Koorie is retained when part of the title of a report, program or quotation.
ISBN 978-1-76096-567-9 (pdf/online/MS word)
Available at Child Protection Manual <https://www.cpmanual.vic.gov.au/>.
(2106050)
Artwork title: Mand Yeann Lidj Gunnai/Kurnai Language Embrace a child
Artist: Dixon Patten
This artwork represents our responsibility to care and nurture our children.
It is our collective duty as a society to look after the most vulnerable in our community.
The centre flower motif represents fragility, innocence, beauty, thoughtfulness, stillness, and growth.
The U shaped symbols represent people coming together in a circle as equals to share, listen and reflect. Those yarns inform policy and understanding cultural needs.
Just like the SAFER children framework, the outer ripple sections depict ways of working with children and families that promote support, protection, and healing.
The various colours of the ripples represent the diversity within our community, honouring the various experiences, histories, and understandings of different people. However, the value of caring and looking after one another is the common thing that connects us all.
The larger figures on the outer honour our elders and their duty to enact and pass on ancestor knowledge. Caring for Country is at the centre of First Nations culture(s) and that includes the environments we find ourselves in. This teaches us that we are all accountable to one another as members of a community.
The patterns behind the elders represent knowledge exchange and a spiritual tether that connects our collective knowledge to each other and to past, present, and future.
Society has vast intersections, and we encounter and connect with people at various stages of their lifes journey with the feet representing this.
The outer circle shapes represent healing stones. There are many steps to a healed community and hopefully this encourages connection to self, to country, to each other.
The hands make the proclamation: I am here, I matter.
ForewordChild protection is one of the most rewarding helping professions. It is challenging and open to scrutiny, and we make a difference to children and families every day. Practitioners, leaders and managers
in child protection often make a long-term, and at times a lifetime commitment to working in this field. Our staff are our greatest asset as we focus on keeping children safe and at home with families whenever possible.
The SAFER children framework is designed to support the highly specialised, statutory role of child protection, guiding practitioners to identify and assess risk and to plan for the safety, development, needs and wellbeing of individual children within their family, culture and community.
It provides the structure for bringing together information in a way that makes sense of it while empowering practitioners, leaders and managers to use their professional judgement. It recognises that risk assessment and understanding risk is at the heart of statutory work with families.
Risk assessment is a combination of the art (knowledge, skills and professional judgement of practitioners, leaders and managers) and the science (the tools and practice guidance).
The approach seeks to achieve this purpose while working with families in a way that clearly articulates concerns and helps to identify strengths as building blocks to increased safety and reduced risk.
Supporting families with targeted, purposeful and collaborative case planning is essential to providing the best chance of sustained change, allowing children to grow up safe and strong at home.
As we introduce the SAFER children framework, and specifically the five practice activities of risk assessment in child protection, we signal this as part of a practice development journey. Consistent with the continuous learning that happens in the field of child protection, the SAFER children framework will continue to grow and develop, with the aim of increasing its use and applicability across the entire continuum of the program.
It is critical that the framework is grounded in contemporary research and literature. This means we must regularly review and update. Most importantly, the framework must make a difference to the work undertaken by you, our practitioners, leaders and managers, and have a positive impact on outcomes for children and families.
As you read through this resource, youll find reference to the work of Professor Eileen Munro. Professor Munro has influenced the way we think about decision making in child protection, including here in Victoria.
As we move forward with the SAFER children framework, it is vital that we examine when things go right as they mostly do.
Each year I am moved by the practice in our program and I trust that in your day-to-day work you take the time to celebrate your successes and those of your colleagues.
Thank you for the extraordinary work you do every day.
Tracy Beaton
Chief Practitioner and Executive Director Office of Professional Practice October 2021
Contents
TOC h z t "Heading 1,1,Heading 2,2" Foreword PAGEREF _Toc87445031 h 4SAFER children framework PAGEREF _Toc87445032 h 8Child protection role and mandate PAGEREF _Toc87445033 h 19Supporting our practice PAGEREF _Toc87445034 h 19Professional judgement PAGEREF _Toc87445035 h 26Five SAFER practice activities PAGEREF _Toc87445036 h 31Seek, share, sort and store information and evidence PAGEREF _Toc87445037 h 34Introduction to this practice activity PAGEREF _Toc87445038 h 34The components PAGEREF _Toc87445039 h 34Essential information categories PAGEREF _Toc87445040 h 35The difference between information and evidence PAGEREF _Toc87445041 h 38Seeking information and evidence PAGEREF _Toc87445042 h 38Sharing information and evidence PAGEREF _Toc87445043 h 42Sorting information and evidence PAGEREF _Toc87445044 h 43Storing information and evidence PAGEREF _Toc87445045 h 46Summing up practice principles PAGEREF _Toc87445046 h 48Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment PAGEREF _Toc87445047 h 49Introduction to this practice activity PAGEREF _Toc87445048 h 49Intake a different approach PAGEREF _Toc87445049 h 50The dimensions of analysis PAGEREF _Toc87445050 h 54The components of judgement PAGEREF _Toc87445051 h 65Decisions PAGEREF _Toc87445052 h 70Family violence determining the risk assessment PAGEREF _Toc87445053 h 75Summing up risk assessment PAGEREF _Toc87445054 h 76Formulate a case plan PAGEREF _Toc87445055 h 77Introduction to this practice activity PAGEREF _Toc87445056 h 77Formulating case plans legislative and policy requirements PAGEREF _Toc87445057 h 77Formulating other plans in child protection PAGEREF _Toc87445058 h 81Formulating case plans where there is family violence PAGEREF _Toc87445059 h 83Practice tools for formulating plans PAGEREF _Toc87445060 h 84Summing up formulating case plans PAGEREF _Toc87445061 h 88Enact the case plan PAGEREF _Toc87445062 h 90Introduction to this practice activity PAGEREF _Toc87445063 h 90Face-to-face contact PAGEREF _Toc87445064 h 92Recording contact PAGEREF _Toc87445065 h 92Care teams a critical element of enacting a case plan PAGEREF _Toc87445066 h 93Practice principles PAGEREF _Toc87445067 h 94Enacting plans at each phase PAGEREF _Toc87445068 h 95Summing up enacting case plans PAGEREF _Toc87445069 h 97Review the risk assessment PAGEREF _Toc87445070 h 99Introduction to this practice activity PAGEREF _Toc87445071 h 99Reviewing the components of judgement PAGEREF _Toc87445072 h 100Consequence of harm PAGEREF _Toc87445073 h 101Probability of harm PAGEREF _Toc87445074 h 102Summing up reviewing the risk assessment PAGEREF _Toc87445075 h 106Appendix: Background to the development PAGEREF _Toc87445076 h 108The SAFER children framework journey PAGEREF _Toc87445077 h 108The history of child protection risk assessment practice in Victoria PAGEREF _Toc87445078 h 109Research and literature supporting the SAFER children framework PAGEREF _Toc87445079 h 109References PAGEREF _Toc87445080 h 112Additional reading PAGEREF _Toc87445081 h 115
SAFER children frameworkThe SAFER children framework brings together components, some new and some existing, of child protection practice in Victoria. The framework confirms child protections ongoing commitment to a guided professional judgement approach to risk assessment and practice.
The SAFER children framework is specific to the role of child protection in Victoria, with a legislative mandate under the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA).
Figure 1: SAFER children framework: a guided professional judgement approach
[start figure description]
The five SAFER practice activities are:
Seek, share, sort and store information and evidence
Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment
Formulate a case plan
Enact the case plan
Review the risk assessment
Professional judgement:
Formal knowledge
Values
Emotional awareness
Practice wisdom
Reasoning skills
Supporting our practice:
Information sharing
MARAM
Supervision
Child Protection Manual
CRIS
Reflective practice
Best Interests Case Practice Model
Cultural safety and self-determination
Child protection role and mandate:
Family Violence Protection Act 2008
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005
Best interest principles
Decision-making principles
Principles for Aboriginal children
[end figure description]
At the centre of the framework are five practice activities of risk assessment. These are new and reflect contemporary thinking and evolving practice to enhance outcomes for vulnerable children and families.
This guide explains each of the layers of the SAFER children framework including:
the child protection role and mandate
supporting our practice
professional judgement
SAFER: the five practice activities.
It provides the technical detail about each of the five SAFER practice activities and how they combine with professional judgement to guide risk assessment and risk management. Figures 2 and 3 give an overview of how the five practice activities relate to each phase of child protection. Two of the activities relate to the intake phase, while all the practice activities relate to the remaining phases.
Figure 2: SAFER for intake phase
[start figure description]
SAFER: the practice activities of risk assessment in child protection for intake phase
Professional Judgement: Values, Emotional Awareness, Practice Wisdom, Formal Knowledge, Reasoning
Family violence informed: MARAM responsibilities are aligned and incorporated into practice activities
S: Seek, share, sort and store information and evidence
Evidence-informed essential information categories provide the lens to seek, share, sort and store information and evidence, focused on each child and their family within the legislative framework of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.
Seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information and evidence remains as an activity that is active across all phases of an intervention.
Seeking, sharing and sorting information and evidence provides a solid foundation for the complex task of analysis.
Seek, share, sort and store information within these essential Information categories
Individual child
Parent or caregiver
Family, community and environment
Strengths
Protection and safety
Harm
Family violence.
Share
Share information in a way that is consistent with legislative and policy requirements, confidentiality considerations and with clarity about how the information will be used
Share information with professionals to inform risk assessment and to support referrals for service provision.
Sort
Sorting information and evidence is the first step to understand and make sense of what is known about a child and familys situation.
Store
Practitioners, leaders and managers have a responsibility to meet requirements under the:
Public Records Act 1973 which sets out requirements for storing public records
Freedom of Information Act 1982 which provides the public with a right to apply for access to information held by the department about them or members of their family, including child protection files.
Effective seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information is important because the essential information categories are not the only repository of information. Case notes provide the chronology of casework with a child and family and build part of the life story of children known to child protection.
A: Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment
Within a guided professional judgement model, this practice activity provides structure to make sense of information and make a determination about the overall consequence and probability of harm. Once a determination is made, intake outcome decisions then follow.
This practice activity has two elements:
Judgement
Decisions
*MARAM risk levels are identified under probability and contribute to decisions.
Judgement
Within judgement, there are two components:
Consequence of harm
Probability of harm.
Consequence of harm
What is known about vulnerability of the child and the severity of harm to inform a judgement about impact on the child:
Severe
Significant
Concerning
Insufficient evidence of harm.
Probability of harm
What is known about likelihood of harm and safety to inform a judgement about the probability of harm occurring or recurring in the future:
Very Likely
Likely
Unlikely.
Decisions
Judgement informs decisions made in intake, considering the relationship between consequence of harm and probability of harm.
Intake outcome decision
Wellbeing report (including Wellbeing advice only) moves to closure
Protective intervention report as per section 162(1) of the CYFA moves to investigation
Therapeutic treatment report must proceed to investigation as per section 244 of the CYFA.
Investigation response classification decision
Two days
Fourteen days.
New information
Review judgement and possibly decision if new information and / or evidence is received whilst completing the intake risk assessment.
[end figure description]
Figure 3: SAFER the five practice activities for the phases of initial investigation, protective intervention, protective order and closure
[start figure description]
SAFER: the five practice activities of risk assessment for initial investigation, protective intervention, protective order and closure
Professional Judgement: Values, Emotional Awareness, Practice Wisdom, Formal Knowledge, Reasoning
Family violence informed: MARAM responsibilities are aligned and assessments incorporated into practice activities
S: Seek, share, sort and store information and evidence
Evidence-informed essential information categories provide the lens to seek, share, sort and store information and evidence, focused on each child and their family within the legislative framework of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005.
Seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information and evidence remains as an activity that is active across all phases of an intervention.
Seeking, sharing and sorting information and evidence provides a solid foundation for the complex task of analysis.
Seek, share, sort and store information within these essential information categories
Individual child
Parent or caregiver
Family, community and environment
Strengths
Protection and safety
Harm
Family violence.
Share
Share information in a way that is consistent with legislative and policy requirements, confidentiality considerations and with clarity about how the information will be used
Share information gathered with parents, children and young people to gain their perspective.
Sort
Sorting information and evidence is the first step to understand and make sense of what is known about a child and familys situation.
Store
Practitioners, leaders and managers have a responsibility to meet requirements under the:
Public Records Act 1973 which sets out requirements for storing public records
Freedom of Information Act 1982 which provides the public with a right to apply for access to information held by the department about them or members of their family, including child protection files.
Effective seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information is important because the essential information categories are not the only repository of information. Case notes provide the chronology of casework with a child and family and build part of the life story of children known to child protection.
A: Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment
Within a guided professional judgement model, Analysis provides the structure to make sense of information and make a determination about the overall consequence and probability of harm. Once a determination is made, decisions then follow.
This practice activity has three elements:
Analysis
Judgement
Decisions
*MARAM risk ratings are identified under probability and contribute to decisions.
Analysis
Within analysis, four dimensions come together as logical steps helping to make sense of information and evidence.
Vulnerability of the child
Individual child characteristics and needs
Opportunity for harm
Child within the context of family and community
Parental capacity to meet needs and address harm.
Severity of harm
Types of harm (section 162 of the CYFA)
Pattern, history and cumulative
Individual child experience and impact of harm.
Likelihood of harm
Factors that increase the likelihood that harm has occurred or is likely to occur again
Prior pattern and behaviour towards the child
Attitudes and beliefs of the parents
Contributing factors.
Safety
Factors that decrease the likelihood that harm has occurred or is likely to occur again
Current and future focused
Considers child, parental and community strengths.
Judgement
Within judgement, there are two components that bring together the dimensions of analysis to make overall judgements, or determination.
Consequence of harm
Vulnerability of the child and severity of harm come together to make a judgement about impact on the child:
Severe
Significant
Concerning
Insufficient evidence of harm.
Probability of harm
Likelihood of harm and safety come together to make a judgement about probability of harm occurring or reoccurring:
Very Likely
Likely
Unlikely.
Decisions are made as a result of the relationship between the consequence and probability of harm.
Risk assessment decisions are made at key points such intake, substantiation, court action and closure.
F: Formulate a case plan
Case plans must be developed in collaboration with children, families and the networks necessary to provide the widest possible assistance.
The interventions, goals and measurable outcomes must align directly with the risk assessment.
Case plans must consider the needs of individual children and parents or caregivers with goals and the interventions aligned with those individual needs.
Needs of the individual child/ren
Stability, safety, development
Physical, social, emotional, education, culture, health
Rights
Identity
Culture, community, connection.
Needs of parent or caregiver
Support
Treatment
Housing, health, social, economical
Culture, community, connection.
Case plan and actions table
Combined with the risk assessment, the case plan actions table must:
Clearly articulate the protective concerns
Identify the realistic permanency objective (section 167 of the CYFA)
Articulate what needs to change
Consider the consequence and probability of harm judgement, progression of tasks and any new information and evidence
Include the voice of the child
Create opportunity for the widest possible assistance to be provided
Identify realistic supports and services
Identify measurable outcomes
Align where relevant to the court order and disposition.
All the plans that exist for a child must align with the case plan, such as:
Cultural plans
Reunification plans
Looking After Children plans
Behaviour support plans
Safety plans
Care and placement plans.
E: Enact the case plan
The need to give the widest possible assistance to the parent and child as the fundamental societal unit to ensure intervention into that relationship is limited to that necessary to secure safety and wellbeing of the child (Section 10 (3) (a) of the CYFA).
The work of child protection should be proactive and purposeful. Remain focussed on enacting the goals of the case plan and other plans in place.
Case plan integration and actions table
The actions table accompanying the case plan is critical to enacting, monitoring and measuring progress towards addressing protective concerns and permanency objectives.
Care teams play a vital role in working collaboratively to put the best interests of children first, supporting their care and safety
Care teams must be in place for children in out of home care but can also be established when working voluntarily with a family
The Looking After Children framework considers childrens needs and outcomes in seven life areas which are critical as identified in outcomes research:
Health
Emotional and behavioural development
Education
Family and social relationships
Identity
Social presentation
Self-care skills.
Case plan practice principles
Child-centred
The child or young person is at the centre of all casework, actions and decisions
Client-centred work is grounded in the importance of rights, dignity, individual choice, empowerment and self-determination.
Relationship-focused
The quality of the relationship between the worker, children and families is key
Relationships must be built and maintained with children, young people, parents, caregivers, community and agency partners.
Strengths based
A strengths-based, solution-focused approach maximises collaboration to enact a plan
Finding, calling out and building on strengths within a family, creates hope and provides for the greatest chance of achieving safety.
Continuous review
Critical considerations for continuous review:
Keep the child at the centre of decision making
Actively use, monitor and measure outcomes using the actions table during home visits, care teams, family and professionals meetings
Seek and share information and evidence about the child within the context of their family and environment
New information and evidence should always prompt practitioners to consider whether the risk assessment is current or should be reviewed.
R: Review the risk assessment
Reviewing the risk assessment incorporates information from all practice activities:
S Seek, share, sort and store information and evidence
A Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment
F Formulate a case plan
E Enact the case plan.
Continuous review
Reviewing the risk assessment involves considering whether providing the widest possible assistance has created sufficient change to the extent that a child is no longer at risk of harm.
Reviewing the risk assessment
Reviewing the risk assessment involves re-visiting the two components of judgement. As a result of reviewing the relationship between consequence and probability of harm, new decisions may also be necessary.
New information
As case plans are proactively implemented, new information and evidence may trigger a review of the risk assessment, using the components of judgement.
Consequence of harm
Consider the previous consequence of harm judgement, case plan progression and any new information and evidence to review impact on the child.
Probability of harm
Reviewing the probability component involves weighing up increase (likelihood) and decrease (safety) to make an overall judgement about the probability of harm occurring or recurring.
Continuous review
Review progress against measurable outcomes in the case plan and actions table
If sufficient change is yet to be achieved, further action occurs within other practice activities and the risk assessment continues to be reviewed at key decision-making points.
Seeking, sharing, sorting and storing new information and evidence is a continuous activity
Review of risk assessment is a continuous activity
[end figure description]
Child protection role and mandateThe key component of the role and mandate of child protection is legislation, specifically the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA).
This Act gives practitioners three sets of guiding principles:
section 10 Best interests principles
section 11 Decision-making principles
section 12 Additional decision-making principles when working with Aboriginal children and their families.
The CYFA requires protective intervenors, when making decisions, to consider a childs rights as outlined in the Victorian Charter for Human Rights and Responsibilities 2006 and in line with the United Nations Convention on Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory.
Other key legislation framing the SAFER children framework includes:
Children Legislation Amendment (Information Sharing) Act 2018
Family Violence Protection Act 2008
Family Violence Prevention Amendment (Information Sharing) Act 2017
Privacy and Data Protection Act 2014.
Supporting our practiceA range of frameworks, practice models and best practice commitments support child protection practitioners. These are summarised below.
Best Interests Case Practice Model
The Best Interests Case Practice Model (BICPM) provides the model for practice and engagement with children and families in child protection and more broadly within the child and family services sector.
At the time of SAFER implementation, the BICPM remains as the overarching model of practice for child protection. However, the risk assessment activities will change. The five SAFER practice activities will replace the four BICPM assessment activities.
Over time, the practice resources associated with the BICPM will be updated. Until then, the four practice activities of the current BICPM are expanded to the five SAFER practice activities of SAFER and apply specifically to child protection practice (refer to Figure 4).
Figure 4: Practice activities: from BICPM to SAFER for child protection
[start figure description]
BICPM practice activities:
Information gathering
Analysis and planning
Action
Reviewing outcomes
SAFER practice activities:
Seek, share, sort and store information and evidence
Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment
Formulate a case plan
Enact the case plan
Review the risk assessment
[end figure description]
Aboriginal cultural safety and self-determination
Always was, always will be Aboriginal land. (NAIDOC Week 2020)
Good professional judgement must acknowledge the experience of Aboriginal people. It must guide our day-to-day practice in a way that is deeply respectful and culturally safe.
The shared vision of Wungurilwil Gapgapduir (Department of Health and Human Services 2018b), a commitment between the Aboriginal community, the child and family services sector and the Victorian Government is:
All Aboriginal children and young people are safe, resilient, thriving and living in culturally rich, strong Aboriginal families and communities.
Seven important principles in Wungurilwil Gapgapduir outline how child protection practitioners, as part of the Victorian Government, can work with the Aboriginal community and the child and family services sector to benefit Aboriginal children and families:
Aboriginal self-determination
Aboriginal culture and community
families are at the centre of raising children
respect
acknowledge strengths and celebrate success
trusted relationships driven by accountability
investment and resource equity.
Key resources to support these principles are:
Dhelk Dja: Safe Our Way strong culture, strong peoples, strong families 20182028 (Department of Health and Human Services 2018c). This Aboriginal-led Victorian agreement commits Aboriginal communities, Aboriginal services and government to work together and be accountable for ensuring that Aboriginal people, families and communities are stronger, safer, thriving and living free from family violence.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural safety framework (Department of Health and Human Services 2019). Cultural safety is a fundamental human right for all Aboriginal people including: the Aboriginal children and families who are reported to child protection; for our Aboriginal colleagues in Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and other agency partners; for our Aboriginal
practitioners, leaders and managers and all Aboriginal department staff; our Aboriginal communities for all Aboriginal people.
Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. Aboriginal self-determination is a fundamental right for Aboriginal children and families to have better outcomes. It is a human right and the law.
Child protection services are delivered in Victoria by the government and by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, who are authorised to take on responsibility for a childs case management and case plan, under Section 18 of the CYFA. .
Information sharing
The CYFA and other relevant legislation, permit the sharing of confidential information in particular circumstances.
In addition to provisions under the CYFA, prescribed organisations and services can share information with each other to promote childrens wellbeing and safety through the:
Child Information Sharing Scheme (CISS)
Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme (FVISS).
Using these schemes enables agencies to shift away from a focus on privacy, which in the past prevented seeking and sharing vital information, to a focus on safety.
Child protection manual
The manual provides practitioners, leaders and managers with policy, procedural and practice advice. The SAFER children framework does not replace the Child protection manual; it provides a foundation for the guidance. The manual includes SAFER children framework resources to support practice.
Client Relationship Information System
The Client Relationship Information System (CRIS) provides the technology to record the work that practitioners do with children and families. It is an information repository that holds part of the life story for all children and young people reported to child protection in Victoria.
Reflective practice
Stopping, pausing and reflecting is critical to effective child protection practice. Reflective practice focuses on critical analysis as a central way of thinking.
Supervision
Child protection is technically challenging, at times raw and emotionally taxing work. Practitioners, leaders and managers at all levels benefit from supervision. Supervision allows space to build knowledge, explore values, develop practice wisdom and examine emotional awareness while honing analytical and reasoning skills. It can create a positive flow-on effect to improved outcomes for vulnerable children and families.
Family violence in child protection practice
Family violence is a significant risk factor for many children reported to child protection. Family violence can have significant and serious consequences for individuals, families and communities.
Child protection is in a unique position as a statutory intervenor. Practitioners can engage with perpetrators as parents and hold them to account for their behaviour, understand each childs experience and work collaboratively with adult victim survivors.
In focusing on the immediate and future safety and risk issues for children as the highest priority, the risk and needs of the adult victim are also considered.
SAFER and MARAM
The Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM) includes the responsibilities within the Victorian service system to identify, assess and respond to family violence risk. Part 11 of the Family Violence Protection Act 2008 establishes the authorising environment for MARAM. Organisations that are authorised must align their policies, procedures, practice guidance and tools to MARAM. Child protection is an authorised organisation.
Under MARAM, organisations have responsibilities to identify how perpetrator behaviours have caused harm to the child and adult victim survivor. This includes undermining the victim survivors capacity to parent and the bond between the child and non-offending parent. Aligning to MARAM involves holding perpetrators to account for their violence and control, which enables services to focus on the use of violence rather than the victim survivors navigation of it.
There is the potential for tension because child protection considers the child as the primary client. SAFER embeds MARAM and provides strategies to manage this tension.
Child protection acknowledges that family violence is:
a violation of human rights
gendered violence (typically)
behaviour that reflects a pattern of coercion and control
prevalent in Australian society in all cultures and communities
not part of traditional Aboriginal culture
a key issue for Aboriginal children and families in contact with child protection and Aboriginal children entering care.
The SAFER five practice activities fully align to the requirements and responsibilities of MARAM. This means MARAM risk factors and risk ratings will be explicit within the overall assessment and identification of factors that provide protection and safety.
The SAFER five practice activities support effective practice by combining:
a trauma- and violence-informed response
a model that tilts practice towards a focus on the perpetrator
family violence informed risk assessment, risk management and safety planning
an intersectional lens.
SAFER and Tilting our Practice
The Office of Professional Practice commissioned a review of the literature on the intersection between family violence and child protection practice. This review informed the development of Tilting our Practice.
The review found four main areas critical to enhance the effectiveness of child protection practice in addressing family violence issues. These are:
focusing on the childrens experience
working collaboratively with the affected parent
attending to practitioner safety
focusing on perpetrator accountability (Department of Health and Human Services 2018).
Focusing on childrens experience
The trauma and cumulative harm caused by family violence can disrupt childrens development. Understanding each childs stage of development is critical to understanding the potential impact of family violence.
We must listen to children to understand their lived experience within their family. They often know best how they want to be supported and what will help with their physical and emotional safety.
Most children can understand and talk about their experience of violence and coercive control. Their perspectives often differ greatly from adults.
Listening to children requires practitioners to spend time with them, see the family from their perspective, and understand their coping strategies and role within the family.
Working together with the affected parent
A healthy bond between a child and the parent affected by family violence (often the mother) can offer protection that may increase safety. This bond and relationship should be strengthened by child protection wherever possible. Evidence suggests that children are safer when the affected parent is supported and safe.
Affected parents may resist trusting and engaging with services and may continue to live with or maintain contact with the perpetrator (often in an attempt to manage safety). It is important to build rapport and trust with the affected parent. This will help to understand the compounding factors and ways they attend to their own and their childrens safety and wellbeing.
The primary client for child protection is the child. The childs safety must always be the paramount consideration.
Attending to practitioner safety
Holding perpetrators to account for their behaviour involves engaging parents (often men) who are skilled at coercive control. When engaging with people who use violence, professionals must do so in a way that is safe and non-collusive. Safe, non-collusive practice will support the perpetrator to engage in the service. This enables services to have a more complete understanding of risk and offers opportunities to link the perpetrator to services that can provide stabilisation, reduce risk, and change their violent behaviour.
Practitioners own experiences of, or fear of violence, when working with perpetrators may inhibit effective practice. It is important to seek support and discuss with your supervisor if you believe you are unable to work effectively with perpetrators because of your safety concerns. You can seek support internally from colleagues with specialist family violence expertise or externally from specialist perpetrator intervention services.
Developing safety strategies, such as working with a more experienced practitioner, is key to increasing practitioners safety and enabling them to engage safely with the perpetrator. Each practitioner has different skills, knowledge and experience. Safety in practice must be looked at for each individual and for each case the practitioner is working with. Different types of family violence may trigger different levels of concern and confidence.
Tilting practice to focus on perpetrator accountability
Holding perpetrators to account involves engaging with them on taking responsibility for their behaviour, use of violence and parenting choices. It also involves working with other services to keep the perpetrator in view.
Understanding the perpetrators pattern and history is a key part of risk assessment. It involves seeking information and evidence of coercive control, violent behaviours and parenting practices that impact negatively on the children, including control and sabotage of the childs relationship with the affected parent.
The Tilting our Practice model supports family violenceinformed practice in child protection and is part of the SAFER children framework (Figure 5).
Figure 5: Tilting our Practice and the SAFER children framework
[start figure description]
Tilting our practice:
Focus on childrens experience
Attending to practitioner safety
Focus on perpetrator accountability
Working collaboratively with the affected parent
[end figure description]
Professional judgementProfessional judgement is about how our people use knowledge, skills and experience, how they bring their values and wisdom, how they manage their emotions and use their reasoning skills. The guided component is the legislation, policy, procedures, practice guidance and tools that help us do our work. Together they make up our approach a guided professional judgement approach to practice, risk assessment and risk management (Office of Professional Practice 2019).
Guided professional judgement in the Victorian child protection program is defined as:
Applying the five components of professional judgement, in a way that is guided by legislation, policies and procedures, to develop a professional opinion about harm, risk, safety and protection (Office of Professional Practice 2019).
Figure 6: The five components of professional judgement
[start figure description]
The sum of the parts that make up the whole (Office of Professional Practice 2019) are:
Reasoning skills
Formal knowledge
Values
Practice wisdom
Emotional awareness
[end figure description]
Values
The ethical frameworks, individual characteristics, resources, vulnerabilities and experiences of practitioners, leaders and managers in child protection.
Our values are individual, societal, and professional characteristics that we gain through life experiences. They are the ideas and beliefs that are important and particular to who we are. Decision making is easier when organisational values, workplace values and our own values align.
Our personal values are reflected in our practice and the decisions we make. We make better decisions if we can identify our personal values, what they mean for our practice, and the consequences when we incorporate them into decision making.
The department is committed to the seven core public sector values of responsiveness, integrity, impartiality, accountability, respect, leadership and human rights.
Emotional awareness
Self-awareness of the emotionally charged nature of child protection work and its impact, how to understand the behaviour of others including children and families, and the reaction and action that follow.
Child protection work is highly emotive (Munro 2020). We may feel elated and strong as we see the work we do positively change a childs circumstances. However, we are also witness to the abuse and neglect of children.
Professional practice means you can identify and understand your emotions, control them and be aware of how they influence relationships, practice and decision making.
Increasing our emotional intelligence (Goleman 1996) or emotional competency (Gambrill 2012) is one way to influence the emotional awareness component of knowledge, skills and professional judgement. It can help us understand and use emotions.
[Emotional intelligence] is not an end in itself; it is [a] means to enrich thinking, action, service delivery and outcomes (Morrison 2008).
Effectively managing your emotions (being emotionally regulated) is a priority personal attribute
of a child protection practitioner. The Child protection capability framework (March 2021) defines this as regulates emotions in the face of distressing and alarming circumstances to ensure the best outcomes are achieved for clients.
Enhancing emotional awareness requires ongoing effort. The Child protection capability framework highlights the need to attend to psychological health and wellbeing. You cannot be professionally available to children and families when you are emotionally overloaded. The deeper you understand and manage your emotional reaction, the healthier and more effective you will be.
Formal knowledge
Qualifications and training, understanding of legislation, policy, procedures and what is gained from the theories and research. Formal knowledge is gained from qualifications as well as continuous learning and professional development.
Child protection work requires us to build formal skills and knowledge. This knowledge base includes formal qualifications and must always be grounded in what is required and relevant to the role and mandate of Victorias child protection program.
Knowledge is helpful in making accurate inferences and includes content or topical knowledge (facts related to a domain and concepts that contribute to understanding clients and their characteristics and circumstances), procedural knowledge (how-to), and self-knowledge (such as awareness of personal assets and limited in decision making) (Gambrill 2012).
Our formal knowledge base evolves and expands through a continuous, curious and open approach to personal and professional development.
The Child protection capability framework lists ten areas of skills and knowledge required as a minimum in practice:
understands child development
identifies risks to children
understands the legislative and statutory framework
works confidently with families affected by drug or alcohol abuse
works confidently with families affected by family violence
works confidently with Aboriginal children and families
operates effectively in a fast-paced and changing environment
confidently prepares for court
communicates risk and risk-related concepts verbally
writes professionally and convincingly.
Effective interventions require much more than a good heart and a commitment to childrens welfare. It is exceptionally complex work that requires talented practitioners who have high level interpersonal skills and requisite knowledge and support (Lonne et al. 2010).
Reasoning skills
The ability to think and reflect critically on practice, reason from a basis of knowledge and balance intuition and analytical approaches to the way decisions are made.
Good reasoning is the responsibility of the whole agency, not just the individual. This creates a culture where challenging assessments and decisions is not seen as a personal criticism but an intellectual task that is morally necessary (Munro 2008a).
The literature about practice and decision making in child protection refers to two types of reasoning:
analytical a step-by-step, conscious, logically defensible process
intuitive a cognitive process that somehow produces an answer, solution or idea without the use of a conscious, logically defensible, step-by-step process (Hammond 1996).
The Child protection manual provides procedures and advice about what we need to do. Practitioners must refer to it often to guide their practice. However, the procedures in the manual dont replace the work we do to think critically, consider widely and gather evidence to support assessments.
In child protection practice, intuitive reasoning includes the open and curious development of hypotheses. It requires compassionate and broad weighing up of options and possible consequences. Intuitive thinking is a critical part of working in the complex and emotional world of child protection.
Critical thinking is key in both analytical and intuitive reasoning. To be clear in our thinking we need reflective space and support. We need to give ourselves permission to think analytically and intuitively, using frameworks like Kolbs experiential learning cycle in all areas of practice and decision making (Morrison 2005).
Child protection workers should be like detectives, not barristers. They [we] need to make a thorough search for the truth, with an open mind that considers different possibilities, and to test the conclusions they reach. Barristers, in contrast, are paid to defend one particular point of view, and use only the information that helps them do this (Munro 2020b).
Our work with children and families focuses on gathering and breaking down or testing information. When we engage families and assess risk, we bring our reasoning skills to the evidence we have gathered. We weigh up all the information and aim to present a clear picture of our thinking. It takes all our best thinking objective, fact-finding and intuition to create a clearly articulated risk assessment that is supported by the evidence to back up conclusions and assertions.
As practitioners working in a statutory framework, we seek facts and evidence, which can be considered deductive reasoning. We look for information, including what sits below the presenting problem,
to make sense of that information and make an informed decision. Once the sense is made, we need to be open to new information and evidence. We then use that information to inform our case planning and reduce risk to children and families. The making sense is difficult and takes more than one individual. Supervision, consultation and collaboration are key.
Practice wisdom
The knowledge and skills gained through experience in working with children, families and professionals, and insight into how this combines with other knowledge and wisdom, such as that gained from study, training and critical reflection.
Practice wisdom comes from many and varied experiences across different roles and work environments as well as life experience. It comes from doing something that provides a base to reflect and consider how that experience might inform current practice and decision making for a child and family.
Examples of practice wisdom relevant to practitioners, leaders and managers
Bearing witness to the experiences of trauma, abuse and neglect
Culturally safe practices that come from working directly with Aboriginal families and understanding the impact of colonisation
Hearing the experiences of children by understanding their presentation and behaviours
Receiving feedback from parents about how they experienced an intervention what worked and what could have been done better
Child protection experience in another state, territory or country
Systems and data experience across the child protection program
Experience in rural and metropolitan locations
Experience giving evidence in the Childrens Court and other jurisdictions
Working with parents who experience factors such as substance use, family violence, mental health, sexual abuse, intergenerational trauma or disability
Bringing our own life experiences to the work we do
Incorporating theories into our work.
Practice wisdom and appreciative inquiry
Practice wisdom in child protection gives us the opportunity to learn from what went well (successes) and what didnt go so well. When we treat experiences, including errors, as opportunities to learn and improve, we are developing practice wisdom (Munro 2008a).
Identifying, sharing and showcasing good practice also helps build practice wisdom. We can learn more valuable lessons from decisions with a good outcome than ones that result in harm or an undesirable outcome like loss. The techniques of appreciative inquiry help us to reflect on and build practice wisdom (Munro 2008a).
Experience, reflection and feedback
Developing practice wisdom in child protection requires three elements (Munro 2012): the experience; the ability to reflect on the experience; and feedback about how a case has progressed in the future.
It is through experience (and feedback) that we develop reasoning skills and build our practice wisdom.
To enhance practice wisdom, tools such as professional supervision, personal critical thinking and reflection, case consultations and discussions with our experienced colleagues, are necessary to create safety and reduce risk in the families we work with.
Creating time to bring our practice experiences into these reflective spaces will help us gain the most from the doing.
Five SAFER practice activitiesThe five practice activities are positioned within the broader context of statutory child protection practice and are central to the SAFER children framework (Figure 7).
Figure 7: The five practice activities of risk assessment in child protection
[start figure description]
SAFER The five practice activities:
Seek, share, sort and store information and evidence
Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment
Formulate a case plan
Enact the case plan
Review the risk assessment
[end figure description]
Building on the risk assessment approaches from past practice in Victoria, a revised and contemporary model to identify, assess, articulate and manage risk in child protection has been co-designed by the Office of Professional Practice with practitioners from across the state.
Developed by practitioners, for practitioners
This guide provides practitioners, leaders and managers with specific advice about how each practice activity can be considered at each point in an intervention with children and families. The Child protection manual is still the place to find specific policies, procedures and advice to support practice.
The practice activity objectives
The aim of the practice activities is to ensure:
child protection practitioners are guided about risk assessment and supported to combine the guidance with their knowledge, skills and professional judgement
practitioners have more clarity about safety and risk concerns and can talk about their assessment to children, families and professionals
casework with children and families is targeted and purposeful, with strengths identified as building blocks for increased protection and safety
quality and consistency of case recording and evidence that may be used in the Childrens Court is strengthened.
The five practice activities rely on the guided professional judgement approach of the SAFER children framework for identifying, assessing, articulating and mitigating risk.
Practitioners, leaders and managers use the tools and procedures available to them, along with their professional judgement, to inform practice, risk assessment and risk management of vulnerable children reported to child protection.
Information and evidence, formed according to evidence-based factors, are brought together in a guided way to clearly articulate the protective concerns, determine the risk assessment, and make a judgement about the consequence of harm and probability of harm occurring now and in the future.
The risk assessment will inform decisions. Where statutory intervention is required, the formulation activity helps develop a targeted case plan that considers the individual childs needs. This aims to decrease risk and increase safety.
The concepts within formulation can also be extended to support other planning, such as safety planning and investigation planning.
As the case plan is enacted, children and families are provided with the widest possible assistance, building on strengths and, where possible, identifying protection within families and communities that can provide for safety.
Progress towards the permanency objective is assessed as goals and tasks are monitored for outcomes.
A review of the risk assessment looks at planning, progress, change and outcomes. This considers if the consequence and probability of harm have decreased, and safety increased to an extent that there is no longer the need for child protection involvement.
If the review indicates that consequence and probability of harm have increased, or goals and tasks have not progressed, further statutory intervention may be warranted.
Complex judgements like risk assessments become easier to handle if they can be analysed into smaller stages. This means that information can be organised in a more accessible manner and be examined at each step, in turn, so it is more public and open to debate and review (Munro 2008).
Seek, share, sort and store information and evidenceIntroduction to this practice activityThis practice activity is used across the following phases:
intake
investigation
protective intervention
protective order
closure.
Seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information is key to building a picture of the child within the context of their family, culture and community. This assists in understanding the interplay of complex dynamics within a statutory child protection risk assessment.
This practice activity is dynamic across the continuum of child protection.
In seeking information, practitioners can be guided by the essential information categories described below.
This practice activity encourages practitioners to analyse and understand what the information held at a point in time means for the child or young person.
The componentsThe four seek, share, sort and store components are outlined below. Seeking information and evidence:
This starts in intake, when obtaining information from the reporter and other relevant professionals, and continues through the phases, when talking to children, families and their networks.
We do this by listening, questioning, clarifying, gathering and reviewing available material.
This is important because thorough, holistic risk assessments and the best decisions about child safety are not possible without knowing all the available and relevant information.
Case conferencing is a good example of seeking information from families and sharing information with professionals.
Sharing information and evidence:
We do this by clarifying with children, families and professionals to determine the validity
of information and evidence, and to ensure everyone understands the risk and safety issues.
This is important because services need to work together to: identify needs and risks; promote earlier, more effective intervention and integrated service delivery; and improve outcomes for children and families.
The Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA), Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme (FVISS) and Child Information Sharing Scheme (CISS) are good examples of mechanisms to seek and share information. The Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM) requires sharing of information to identify family violence-related risk and needs. It promotes earlier and more effective interventions and integrated service delivery linked to improved outcomes for children and families.
Sorting information and evidence:
We do this by sorting information within the evidence-based essential information categories and factors. This enables a structured approach to analysis.
This is important because the essential information categories build the picture of key information matched against evidence-based factors. This helps practitioners with the first step of analysis.
Storing information and evidence:
We do this by being diligent, targeted and purposeful in the way we write and record case notes on the childs file.
Case recording is important because it enables risk assessment and analysis. It provides the record of all the contacts and events relating to an intervention.
Some case notes must be recorded contemporaneously (at the time of the event, otherwise as soon as possible and within 24 hours).
Good case recording fulfils legislative responsibilities and legal accountabilities. Remember that case notes are documents that can be subpoenaed. They should be factual and not written subjectively.
Effective seeking, sharing, sorting and storing is important because the essential information categories are not the only source of information. Case notes provide the chronology of casework with a child and family and build part of the life story of children known to child protection.
Essential information categoriesPractitioners seek, share, sort and store information and evidence across seven essential information categories.
The essential information categories in the Client Relationship Information System (CRIS) replace the previous areas of concern, types of harm and actions leading to harm values. Also different is how facts and evidence to support why a factor is relevant are explained. The facts and evidence are provided succinctly.
Figure 8 shows the seven essential information categories. The categories in light purple contain evidence-based risk factors for adverse outcomes, as identified in a literature review by Gaskin Research (2017).
Figure 8: The seven essential information categories
[start figure description]
The seven essential information categories are:
harm
family violence
strengths
protection and safety
family, community and environment
individual child
parent or caregiver.
[end figure description]
The categories in dark purple are strengths, protection and safety. They allow practitioners, leaders and managers to take a strengths-based approach. They help identify strengths that may provide safety (strengths demonstrated as protection over time) or can be built on to create safety and protection. Using a strengths-based approach to find exceptions to harm provides insight into the harm and what was working in the family at the time of the exception. Identifying exceptions to harm can inform building blocks to safety.
Seeking and sharing information across these categories is not linear and doesnt happen in a specific order. Use professional curiosity to seek as much information about strengths and protection within a family as information about harm and risk.
The essential information categories are updated continuously and dynamically, as the child and family move through the phases of child protection intervention.
Provisions for information sharing allow professionals to seek and share information about child safety, wellbeing, and assessing and managing risk (CYFA, CISS, FVISS). The responsibility for child safety and wellbeing is, and should always be, a shared one with families, community service organisations and other agencies that provide services to vulnerable children and families.
An open and curious approach to seeking and sharing information supports:
balanced assessments grounded in well-founded, reliable and relevant information
assessments focused on risk factors, protective factors and evidence
consideration of all essential information categories and factors.
Family violence risk factors
The evidence-based factors under the family violence essential information category align to MARAM. These risk factors have been shown to be associated with family violence. Some factors are associated with a victim being killed or seriously injured and are easily identified in CRIS. The essential information categories of strengths and protection and safety support safety planning for child and adult victim survivors of family violence.
The evidence-based factors
The severe immediate and lifetime health and social consequences for the youngest members of society means there is a strong imperative to protect children from maltreatment. One of the central components of child protection is the recognition and mitigation of risk (Gaskin 2017).
The evidence-based factors within the essential information categories are circumstances, indicators, characteristics and considerations. These help practitioners to understand the probability of adverse outcomes for children reported to child protection. The strengths, protection and safety that may be present within children, parents and families help us understand if we can mitigate the risk of adverse outcomes.
How this information comes together to make a judgement around probability will become clearer under the Analyse the information and evidence to determine the risk assessment practice activity.
It is critical to understand that factors (circumstances, indicators, characteristics and considerations) can be:
static do not change or respond to intervention; for example, a criminal conviction is a static factor because it will not change
dynamic intermittent, responsive to intervention and can change over time; for example, drug and alcohol misuse, mental illness and family violence risk factors are dynamic factors that can affect or compromise a parents ability to provide safe care and meet their childs needs but can change in response to intervention
causal an action that directly leads to or causes harm; for example, not feeding a baby, resulting in failure to thrive, is an action by a parent that causes harm to the child.
Because information (factors) can change over the course of an intervention, it is critical to keep the essential information categories up to date.
The difference between information and evidenceIn the context of work in child protection, information and evidence have different meanings. The practice example below clarifies the definitions and what they mean in practice.
All evidence is also information, but not all information is evidence.
A practice example:
A report is received containing knowledge (a belief formed on reasonable grounds) from a person caring for a child that the child has been sexually abused (information).
At an interview with child protection, the child discloses being sexually abused by her father that morning and when she told her mother, she didnt believe her. The childs experience of harm was substantiated, and the child was found to be in need of protection, according to grounds under section 162(d) of the CYFA (the practitioner and team manager were satisfied on reasonable grounds that the child had been sexually abused and the parents did not protect) (evidence in child protection practice).
A protection application was issued by emergency care. Child protection presented evidence to the court in the form of the childs disclosure, a disclosure by a sibling who witnessed the abuse and an interview with the parents. The case was proven in the Childrens Court of Victoria (balance of probabilities the child was sexually abused, and the parents did not protect) according to section 162(d) (evidence in the Childrens Court of Victoria).
Victoria Police completed video and audio recorded evidence (VARE) of the child and charged the father with sexual penetration. A medical examination of the child was conducted, and the fathers DNA was matched to a sample taken. Police proceeded and the father was found guilty in the Magistrates Court (beyond reasonable doubt that he sexually abused the child). He was placed on the sexual offenders registry for life (evidence in the Victorian criminal jurisdiction).
Seeking information and evidenceSeeking information is a continual process as new information is incorporated with what is already known.
Key points seeking information and evidence
Seek information in intake that is relevant to the reported concerns. But also take a holistic view to understand the child and familys situation.
Seek to understand as much as possible about any child protection history (including interstate) for children and parents.
Seek information informed by current research and the formal knowledge component of professional judgement.
Where relevant and appropriate, seek information directly from children and families:
Seek direct information from the child, and all children in the home, by observing, listening and talking to them. Seek information from a holistic perspective, not just about reported protective concerns.
Seek direct information from the parents by listening, talking to and observing them and their interaction with the child.
Seek direct information from all adults in the home to understand the role they play in the childs life.
Seek the victim survivors self-assessment of their level of risk, fear and safety (where family violence is a concern).
Seek to understand as much about what is working well in the family and what is not working well.
Seek to understand exceptions to harm.
Seek and record the family history and complete a genogram.
If information is believed on reasonable grounds to be accurate, valid and reliable, then it could be considered evidence.
Practice guidance
Professional curiosity
When practitioners use professional curiosity to seek information, they put on hold assumptions about what might be happening. They adopt a true stance of not knowing. Curious practitioners in child protection never assume they know what is happening for a child and family. They seek to understand, always with an open mind. Professional curiosity is about being open to new information during any phase and at any point in a child protection intervention.
For intake practitioners who do not generally have direct involvement with children and families, professional curiosity and taking a stance of not knowing or making assumptions happens when interacting with reporters and professionals.
Professional curiosity helps practitioners to:
be respectfully critical about information, have an open mind and be respectfully uncertain
complete holistic risk assessments by taking a wide and open view to seeking information
focus on the lived experience of children
work with families where disguised compliance is a possibility (families who may appear to be cooperating or compliant)
always remain open to new information and the unexpected (in terms of harm and risk and strengths, protection and safety).
One way to apply professional curiosity when seeking information is to be as open as possible in asking questions. Families and professionals often regard open questions as less judgemental.
A simple way to understand closed and open questions is:
closed questions prompt a short and often quick response
open questions are gateways to conversation.
Practice note: Examples of open and closed questions
Closed questions can only prompt a yes/no response. For example:
Did your mum hit you with the broom?
Did you see your sister get hit on the face by your dad?
Open questions often begin with phrases such as Tell me about ... or words such as How or What and will require more than a one-word answer. They provide the opportunity to tell a story. For example:
What happens at home if you dont listen to your mum?
I wasnt at your house last night. Can you tell me everything that happened with your sister and dad?
Tell me about the last time you heard the child screaming next door.
Solution-focused enquiry
Solution-focused enquiry is a questioning approach or practice for speaking with and interviewing children and families. This approach helps understand motivation and capacity to change.
Using solution-focused enquiry can help you build collaborative working relationships with children and families that focus on strengths, protection and safety as much as harm and risk issues. This approach aims to bring about change wherever possible.
Practice note: Solution-focused enquiry
Scaling, miracle and exceptions questions focus on solutions when working directly with children and families and are most relevant from investigation onwards.
Scaling questions
Help practitioners understand the issues of risk and safety from the familys perspective and know more about what actions are necessary to achieve change. For example:
On a scale of one to ten, one being unsafe and ten being completely safe, where do you think things are at for your baby when you take drugs?
(repeat the parents response) What would need to happen to move your babys safety up on the scale from five to, say, a seven or eight?
On a scale of one to ten, one being really scared and ten being not scared at all, where are you when your dad is yelling at your mum and you can hear her crying?
(repeat the childs response) What would your dad or your mum need to do to make you a nine on the scale?
Miracle questions
A great way to help find out goals and a child or familys vision for how things might look different in the future. For example:
Think a year ahead, and all the problems you and your partner have with drug use are gone. What would life be like for you and the children? What might have been the challenges along the way?
If I had a magic wand and could take away all the things that are making your children unsafe, what would the future look like for you as a family? Where would you be? What would the children be doing and feeling?
Exceptions questions
Apply across all phases. In intake, they help to prompt information from reporters about a time when concerns may not have been present.
Help practitioners understand a time in the child and familys life when things were different (harm not occurring), or when harm could have happened to a child but didnt. For example:
Can you tell me about a time when you were not taking drugs every day? When was it?
What was different from then to now?
I noticed when looking at the child protection history that we didnt receive any reports for almost five years. What was happening for your family over those years? What is different now? What is the same?
Making direct observations
An important part of seeking information in the phases of investigation, protective intervention, protection order and closure, is to include information gathered through direct observations. This helps build the picture of a child and their experience outside of the risk and harm issues. It means including the voice of children who may not be able to verbalise due to age or other factors, such as disability. Practitioners observe children using all the five components of professional judgement: values, formal knowledge, emotional awareness, reasoning skills and practice wisdom.
Seeing and speaking with all children and young people as part of a child protection intervention is non-negotiable.
Practice note: Making direct observations
For Intake phase, asking professionals about their direct observations of the infant, the child, the parents and the environment in which they live, is useful. Asking them to describe the basis for their conclusions assists with forming a picture of the situation.
Noting how children develop is a key part of any assessment. The way these observations are then articulated assists the process of synthesising information. Any statement should be backed up with evidence. For example:
The child is meeting their developmental milestones is not adequate. A good example is: The child is meeting their developmental milestones. This was confirmed with the early childhood nurse who has been visiting him fortnightly since birth almost a year ago. The child was seen in the home walking between furniture, eating finger food and speaking sentences with four or five words.
Casework with infants (all phases from investigations onwards) must be through an infant- focused lens. Direct observations of infants should always include:
seeing where the infant sleeps, plays and eats
observing interaction between the infant and all adults and other children.
For first home visits or where there are current concerns, practitioners shouldnt be satisfied to see an infant in a cot or wrapped up in blankets. Use your engagement skills to respectfully ask parents to unwrap the infant or to explain the visit will need to continue when the infant wakes, so observations can be made.
Make direct observations of the home from the viewpoint of the children and young people who live there. Where an infant is involved in the intervention, practitioners might find it helpful to view the environment at the childs level. For example:
If the child is just learning to crawl, what is their experience navigating the floorings in the home?
It is not enough to say, The home is of minimal standard. A good example is: All rooms in the home were seen on [date]. The floors were clean, and the parents had installed locks on the low cupboards to prepare for the child pulling himself up on furniture. There were no hazards observed that pose a safety concern for the 10-month-old infant.
Direct observations that relate to Aboriginal children and families should:
always be culturally sensitive and informed
respect Aboriginal people and the historical context of harm caused while making observations with child safety in mind as the priority
be informed by cultural advice from the Aboriginal Child Specialist Support Service, Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and Aboriginal people themselves.
Sharing information and evidenceTo do their job well, child protection practitioners need to be able to exchange relevant information with professionals and other members of the childs extended family and community in a timely and effective manner. At the same time, it is important that the personal information of children, parents and other individuals is handled with respect and is not misused (Department of Health and Human Services 2018e).
Key points include:
Share information in a way that is consistent with legislative and policy requirements, together with confidentiality considerations. Be clear about how the information will be used.
Share information via the provisions in the CYFA, CISS and FVISS, and consistent with the responsibilities under MARAM. These allow information to be shared without consent where appropriate (such as related to the safety of a child, or risk posed by a perpetrator of family violence).
Share information gathered with parents to gain their views and to keep them up to date with work you are doing. For example, I can see by looking at your criminal record that you have been convicted of drug offences. Can you tell me what was happening for you at that time?.
Share information with parents that is gathered from speaking with children (if safe to do so) to help them understand the impact and the childs experience. For example, Johnny told us that he hides under the covers when you are shouting. I wonder if you have thought about how he feels when that happens?.
Share information about children and families with consent wherever possible, and where it is safe to do so.
Share information with children to gain their views and to keep them up to date with the work you are doing. For example, Ive spoken to your teacher and theyve told me that you love art but are not so keen on sport. What are the things you like best about school?.
Child protection is a prescribed information-sharing entity under CISS and FVISS. This makes sharing information simpler, and easier to understand and explain. The expansion of information sharing under these schemes, and the CYFA allow for effective assessment, management of family violence risk, and work to promote the wellbeing and safety of children.
Sorting information and evidenceSorting information and evidence is the first step in starting to understand and make sense of what is known about a child and familys situation.
Key points sorting information and evidence
Sort information and evidence according to the essential information categories and factors.
Sort information and reflect on where there may be gaps in information.
Sort new information, adding it to what is already known.
Sort information and think, Does this change my assessment?, Do I need to talk with my manager or supervisor before a decision is made?
The seven essential information categories are a repository for information and evidence. They provide a way of mapping key facts against evidence-based factors and bringing large amounts of information about children and families together to make sense of what it means in the context of statutory child protection practice.
Remember: The essential information categories contain the factors linked to adverse outcomes for children and young people (and the categories of strengths, protection and safety to avoid a problem-saturated approach). The factors help us understand the probability that harm has occurred, will occur or recur in the future.
Figure 9: Funnelling key information and evidence
[start figure description]
The following create a picture of what is known about a child and family:
Using the essential information category prompts to guide seeking and sharing
Seeking and sharing as much information and evidence as possible
Mapping information and evidence against the evidence-based factors
[end figure description]
Information, evidence and outcomes
Practitioners may use supporting information and evidence to articulate the known facts according to particular factors. When information is considered evidence, it can be used to confirm or disprove an allegation of harm.
Supporting information and evidence is used to map when what is known moves from being alleged (or reported) to:
verified (such as from a mandatory reporter so considered verified on its own merit)
confirmed (for example, after an interview)
unable to resolve (no information to confirm or disprove)
disproved (not confirmed)
unable to investigate (for example, the child has moved interstate prior to investigation).
Note: The outcomes values above are relevant only for use by practitioners from investigation phase onwards as in intake, all information is considered alleged or verified.
Supporting information and evidence should be short, sharp and factual (Table 1).
Table 1: Example of supporting information and evidence
Physical abuse Current Historical Outcome Supporting information and evidence
Physical assault x [blank cell] Alleged Child reported at school with a round blister to left arm
Physical assault x [blank cell] Verified Child reported (by nurse) at school with a round blister to left arm that looks like a cigarette burn
Physical assault x [blank cell] Confirmed Child seen by doctor [name] on [date] who confirmed the blister is consistent with a cigarette burn
Physical assault x [blank cell] Unable to resolve Child seen by doctor [name] on [date] who was unable to confirm if the blister was from a cigarette burn or school sores
Physical assault x [blank cell] Disproved Child seen by doctor [name] on [date] who diagnosed the blister as a school sore
Physical assault x [blank cell] Unable to investigate Child is no longer in Victorian jurisdiction having moved to NSW on [date]. Report made to child protection in NSW
Table 2 explains the information and evidence gathered (known as outcomes).
Table 2: Outcomes explained
Outcome Explanation
Alleged Uncorroborated and unconfirmed information (such as protective concerns reported to intake)
Verified Information corroborated or supported by another party or from a highly trusted source (such as mandatory reporter); suggests that the concern may be valid
Confirmed Evidence, such as practitioner observations, known facts or a professional source, that on the balance of probabilities the risk or information is valid or true
Disproved Evidence in the form of practitioner observations or known facts or a professional source that on the balance of probability the risk or
information is not valid or untrue. The view an allegation is disproved should be formed with caution
Unable to resolve No information to either confirm or disprove
Unable to investigate Unable to investigate for reasons such as the child is no longer within Victorian jurisdiction (noting obligations to report to the relevant jurisdiction) or the child and familys location is unknown
Remember: Good evidence in child protection is:
authentic trustworthy and genuine
valid well founded
reliable dependable and credible
current as recent as possible
significant relevant and important.
You can only complete a good-quality, thorough and holistic assessment of safety and risk in child protection with sufficient information. We always need to think about the information we have (including pattern and history to identify cumulative harm) and whether it is sufficient to make decisions. If not, we need to use our lens of curiosity to seek more, to ask more questions.
Storing information and evidenceCase recording or storing information is an important aspect of statutory child protection practice. Practitioners, leaders and managers have a responsibility to meet requirements of the:
Public Records Act 1973, which sets out requirements for storing public records
Freedom of Information Act 1982, which provides the public with a right to apply for access to information held by the department about them or members of their family, including child protection files.
Case notes in child protection hold part of the life story of everyone they are written about. When children become adults and seek to understand their experience (often in care), the diligence demonstrated by practitioners working with them around storing important information in case notes may make all the difference to filling gaps and helping with understanding.
Key points storing information and evidence
Always record case notes in accordance with privacy and freedom of information guidelines.
Only record relevant information. Before you case note, think Is it relevant?. You can use the actions table to provide purpose for visits/contact with a child and family, and guide case note recording. This makes reviewing progress much simpler.
Tell children, parents, families and professionals why you are collecting information and how it may be used, consistent with the role and mandate of child protection.
Only share stored information in accordance with the CYFA, CISS, FVISS and privacy laws. Remember that the Child protection manual is the source of truth around what information can be shared and when.
Always remember that information security is critical. Be diligent when storing information (for example, the way information may be stored in notebooks before case noting happens) to meet all requirements.
Think about the language used. How an interaction with a child and family as part of a statutory intervention is recorded is important. At all times, language must be respectful, factual and non- judgemental. Think What I am writing is part of a childs life story and they will read it one day. How will they feel when they read it?.
Do not use acronyms in case notes. If you must use an acronym, be consistent with the departments writing style guide (writing in full the first time, followed by the acronym in brackets and then use of the acronym from then on).
General case notes must always contain:
purpose and outcome
key issues discussed or arising from the casework
changes to risk assessment or decision making
action taken or required
where relevant, a reference to other information such as the paper file or electronic file
visibility of the child, their voice, views and wishes.
The Child protection manual contains current procedures and advice for practitioners, leaders and managers. Pay attention to what must be recorded or stored on the childs paper file.
Summing up practice principlesKeep in mind:
Seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information and evidence is ongoing. It starts from the time child protection receives a report until the intervention concludes and the case closes.
Dynamic factors and information can change quickly. Always follow up to check currency.
Information sharing legislation (such as CISS and FVISS) supports seeking and sharing relevant information about child safety and wellbeing.
Evidence is information that goes to confirm or disprove an allegation of harm against a child or young person. Definitions are important. Practitioners should not confuse what evidence means in usual child protection assessments versus what it means in the criminal jurisdiction. Simply, child protection works on the standard of proof being the balance of probabilities. The criminal jurisdiction works on beyond reasonable doubt.
Seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information and evidence provides a solid foundation for the complex task of analysis.
Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessmentIntroduction to this practice activityThis practice activity is used across the following phases:
intake
investigation
protective intervention
protective order
closure.
Post intake, this activity has three elements: analysis, judgement and decisions.
Analysis
Within analysis there are four dimensions of risk assessment practice that come together as logical steps. These help to make sense of information and evidence:
vulnerability of the child
severity of harm
likelihood of harm
safety.
Judgement
Within judgement there are two components that bring together the four dimensions of analysis to make a judgement (or determination):
consequence of harm
probability of harm.
Decisions
Judgement then informs decisions. Most often, the decisions made in child protection as a result of risk assessment are:
intake
substantiation
case planning
court applications and other court activity
closure.
Intake a different approachIn the intake phase, a different approach is taken to the Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment activity. This is because of the specific role of intake in receiving, registering and classifying reports.
The approach in intake involves two elements of the activity: judgement and decisions.
Intake practitioners use the judgement and decisions elements to make risk assessment determinations (Figure 10a). But they must understand how the whole activity operates.
The four dimensions of analysis inform the narrative within judgements. This includes, for example, writing about the childs vulnerability and severity of harm within the consequence of harm component of judgement.
Figure 10a: Intake judgement and decisions
[start figure description]
S
7 essential information categories and factors:
Individual child
Parent or caregiver
Family violence
Harm
Strengths
Protection and safety
Family, community and environment
A
Vulnerability of the child
Severity of harm
Likelihood of harm
Safety
Consequence of harm
Vulnerability of the child and severity of harm come together to make a judgement about impact on the child:
Severe
Significant
Concerning
Insufficient evidence of harm
Probability of harm
Likelihood of harm and safety come together to make a judgement about probability of harm occurring or reoccurring:
Very Likely
Likely
Unlikely
The MARAM assessment and risk rating informs the consequence and probability of harm judgement.
Decisions are made as a result of the relationship between the consequence and probability of harm.
[end figure description]
Professional judgement, knowledge and skills are applied at each step to make a professional opinion about a child or young persons safety and wellbeing.
The professional opinion developed through the process of this practice activity is considered determining a risk assessment.
Figure 10b: Post intake analysis, judgement and decisions within the SAFER context
[start figure description]
S
7 essential information categories and factors
Individual child
Parent or caregiver
Family violence
Harm
Strengths
Protection and safety
Family, community and environment
A
Vulnerability of the child
Individual child characteristics and needs
Opportunity for harm
Child within the context of family and community
Parental capacity to meet needs and address harm
Severity of harm
Types of harm (section 162 of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005)
Pattern, history and cumulative
Individual child experience and impact of harm
Likelihood of harm
Factors that increase the likelihood that harm has occurred or is likely to occur again
Prior pattern and behaviour towards the child
Attitudes and beliefs of the parents
Contributing factors
Safety
Factors that decrease the likelihood that harm has occurred or is likely to occur again
Current and future focused
Considers child, parental and community strengths
Consequence of harm
Vulnerability of the child and severity of harm come together to make a judgement about impact on the child:
Severe
Significant
Concerning
Insufficient evidence of harm
Probability of harm
Likelihood of harm and safety come together to make a judgement about probability of harm occurring or reoccurring:
Very Likely
Likely
Unlikely
The MARAM assessment and risk rating informs the consequence and probability of harm judgement.
Decisions are made as a result of the relationship between the consequence and probability of harm.
F: Formulate a case plan
E: Enact the case plan
R: Review the risk assessment
[end figure description]
Information and evidence from the essential information categories and factors link to the four dimensions of analysis. These link to the two components of judgement. And those link to key decisions about children and young people.
Key points intake
The risk assessment completed under this activity is a point in time. Vulnerable families are complex and their situations may change.
The structure of this activity post intake includes:
three elements of the activity (analysis, judgement and decisions)
four dimensions of analysis (vulnerability, severity, likelihood and safety)
two components of judgement (consequence and probability of harm) decisions.
Intake practitioners use only two elements judgement and decisions to determine the intake risk assessment.
Practitioners from investigation phase onwards use the risk assessment activity to keep judgement and decisions open to review.
The dimensions of analysisThere are four dimensions within analysis that help predict future risk of harm (Sigurdson and Reid 1990) (Figure 11).
Figure 11: The four dimensions of analysis
[start figure description]
The four dimensions of analysis are:
Vulnerability of the child
Severity of harm
Likelihood of harm
Safety
[end figure description]
Key points the dimensions of analysis
Analysis involves thinking about and bringing together what you know from seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information and evidence. It is a logical step that should deliver a clear and concise analysis.
Be mindful of not repeating or restating the facts; articulate what the facts mean for the individual child or young person.
A critical part of analysis is linking the information and evidence to your formal knowledge (for example, child development), reasoning skills and practice wisdom. This informs your professional opinion or judgement about risk to a child or young person.
Hypotheses are generated in this activity to be tested and reviewed. As new information and evidence is sought, new hypotheses should be generated.
Information and evidence are weighed up for significance in terms of each individual childs experience.
Language is key. As you write, think What does this mean for the child or young person?.
Practice note: The importance of hypotheses in child protection
A hypothesis is a testable proposition
Practitioners, leaders and managers are encouraged to question their judgement and invite an alternative this is good practice.
Supervision, reflection and consultation allow for a fresh set of eyes to test judgement.
Playing devils advocate is good practice and if done safely is a good approach to testing a plan or judgement.
The process of developing and testing hypotheses involves practitioners actively seeking information and evidence that might disprove the hypothesis, rather than seeking information and evidence to always confirm.
Analysis dimension 1: Vulnerability of the child
Who is the child in the context of their family, culture and community?
Links information and evidence from the essential information categories of:
child
parent and caregiver
family violence
family, community and environment.
This dimension looks at the characteristics of each individual child or young person in the context of their vulnerability to harm and the parental characteristics and capacity to meet the childs needs and address the issues of harm and safety.
Figure 12 illustrates the weighing up of vulnerability and parental capacity. Age, development and functioning are important factors that may point to increased vulnerability of the child.
Figure 12: Vulnerability of the child and parental capacity
[start figure description]
Vulnerabilities of the child:
6 month old, difficult birth, born 6 weeks premature
Severe disability, seizures
Complex medical needs, breathing difficulties, peg fed
Weekly specialist appointments, special liquid diet, susceptible to infection
Parental capacity to meet the childs needs:
Mother and father have a mild intellectual disability
Mother recently admitted to hospital due to substance overdose; father uses the same drugs
Parents attend some of the childs health appointments, but miss more than they attend
[end figure description]
When analysing a child or young persons vulnerability, it is important to think critically about ages and stages of development.
All infants, children and young people
The child or young persons individual developmental stage is important. Consider developmental milestones and specific developmental needs which, if not met, may impact on other factors.
Reliance on care from an adult and whether the child has specific care needs. For example, consider age (such as an infant who is fully reliant on a parent to meet their needs) or a complex medical issue or disability (requires a parent to administer medication or a certain level of medical care).
Factors such as disability that increases their vulnerability and reliance on care and assistance.
Infants
The younger the child, the more vulnerable they are to certain types of harm.
Infants have a higher level of need for basic care and are fully dependent on adults.
Critical periods of development happen in infancy.
Children
A child or young persons place in the sibling group may impact their individual vulnerability.
The childs functioning at day care, school and other environments.
Children may be more vulnerable in different environments.
The child or young persons relationship with siblings, peers, parents, family and others.
Indications the child or young person might be developing or have developed behavioural issues.
Young people
In older children, the accumulation of poor care or neglect can lead to an increase in risk-taking behaviour.
Young people may be at increased vulnerability due to factors such as suicide or self-harm.
The needs and increased vulnerability of young people at risk due to negative influences.
Young people may be of an age where they are more likely to take on adult behaviours.
Analysis dimension 2: Severity of harm
What is the childs experience of harm, past or current?
Links information and evidence from the essential information categories of:
child
harm
parent and caregiver
family violence.
This dimension looks at the relationship between the specific vulnerabilities of the child and the type and degree, or severity, of harm.
Analysis of severity relates entirely to the childs individual experience of the abuse and/or neglect that has caused harm.
Harm types are defined by section 162(1) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA) and set out under the essential information category of harm.
Key points
One or more types of harm may be present at any one time for individual children.
Varying severity within the one type of harm may be present at any one time for individual children.
The interplay between the childs vulnerability and the type and severity of harm is critical. Analysis may be easier if set out under headings, according to each child or young person.
Cumulative harm, and the severity of the childs experience, may not always be visible. For example, a child who is often held by a parent experiencing family violence but has no signs of physical injury.
Lower-level abuse and neglect may not be as visible but cumulatively can have a significant impact on a childs development.
Potential long-term effects must be considered in the context of cumulative harm and neglect.
The pattern or history of harm and any indicators it is escalating, chronic or episodic.
Patterns of harm are indicators of future harm.
Pay attention to the serious family violence risk factors consistent with the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM) and included in the family violence essential information category, in the analysis of severity and enacting actions to respond to and manage risk. These serious risk factors indicate risk of the victim being killed or almost killed. Practitioners must consider these serious risk factors for the adult victim survivor and the child/ren victim survivors.
The legal requirements in Victoria for defining a child in need of protection is a central consideration:
the child must have suffered or be likely to suffer harm
harm must be significant
the childs parents must not have protected the child, or be unlikely to protect the child, from harm of that type.
Analysis dimension 3: Likelihood of harm
What are the parental or carer characteristics that are associated with occurrences or recurrences of harm?
Links information and evidence from the essential information categories of:
harm
parent and caregiver
family violence
family, community and environment.
Likelihood of harm refers to the factors that increase the likelihood that harm has occurred or is likely to occur or recur in the future. This dimension is focused on the behaviours, abilities, action or inaction and attitudes of adults in the life of the child.
Any occurrence of maltreatment shows the adult is capable of this behaviour again (Sigurdson and Reid 1990, 1996).
Considering the factors within the essential information categories of harm, the likelihood of harm should be analysed against three key areas: prior pattern of behaviour, attitudes and beliefs about harm, and contributing factors.
Prior pattern of behaviour towards a child or young person
Past behaviour is one of the most accurate predictors of future behaviour.
Where past behaviour has resulted in harm to a child or young person, if sustained change is not evident, then the probability that harm will occur again is increased.
The number of times harm has occurred, and how recent, combined with consideration of the severity of harm, must be analysed.
Whether past interventions by child protection (including interstate child protection information) and involvement of services has been effective in decreasing risk and increasing safety and protection.
Attitudes and beliefs of the parent or caregiver about harm causing behaviour or actions
Whether a parent or carer thinks the behaviour or harm is justified or warranted.
Past attitude to behaviour and harm is an indicator of the probability that this attitude has not changed.
Any indicator from information and evidence that suggests a parent or carer blames the child for their behaviour and for the harm, increases the likelihood that the behaviour and harm will continue, unless something changes (for example, He deserved to be hit with the belt. He had been pushing our buttons all day with his naughtiness.).
Contributing factors
Information and evidence about multiple factors being present for a child and family increase the chance that harm is likely to happen again.
Analysis should consider multiple factors and their interaction. For example, family violence, parental substance use, parental mental illness, parental disability, intergenerational abuse, socioeconomic factors. Consider the need for a quicker response, consultation with a senior practice role or team manager or other actions in response to a potentially increased risk.
Capability and capacity are a consideration where parents or caregivers may have a contributing factor, such as a disability or complex health need, that impacts their capability to provide care and safety. Even the most appropriate and targeted intervention or support may not bring about change.
Cumulative harm is a key consideration. If contributing factors have been combined and present at some level over a period, it is likely that they will impact on the other areas of likelihood of harm. These include prior pattern and attitudes and beliefs.
Where cumulative harm is present and sufficient change has not been demonstrated, the likelihood of harm recurring in the future is significantly increased.
Figure 13: Factors that contribute to increased likelihood of harm occurring or recurring
[start figure description]
Prior pattern of behaviour towards a child or young person:
Past behaviour is a predictor of future behaviour. If harm has happened before there is a greater likelihood it will happen again
The number of times harm has happened, recency and severity increases likelihood
Attitudes and beliefs of the parent or caregiver about the harm causing behaviour or actions:
Parents who are disbelieving or unwilling to acknowledge or address issues of harm are at increased likelihood of future harm
Past attitude to harm, without sustained change increases likelihood
Contributing factors
Multiple contributing factors such as substance abuse, mental health, family violence contribute to a greater likelihood of harm
Persisting and cumulative concerns at a lower level may indicate increased likelihood of harm
[end figure description]
Analysis dimension 4: Safety
What are the factors present for the child and family that decrease the probability of harm and provide protection for the child or young person?
Links information and evidence from the essential information categories:
harm
strengths
protection and safety.
This dimension looks at the way strengths and factors of protection and safety can contribute to a decrease in the probability of harm occurring or recurring.
Assessments completed in child protection must be balanced and avoid a problem-saturated approach.
Some families have many strengths that are not enough to provide protection and mitigate the identified harm and risk issues. However, it is still important to identify these strengths as building blocks for potential protection and safety in the future. This can also help with building on and maintaining the relationship between children and parents.
The definitions of strengths, protection and safety are outlined below. It is important to understand the difference.
Strengths
Strengths are positive aspects or attributes of the child, family, culture and community that do not necessarily reduce the risk of harm.
A strength might be seen as an indicator, or motivator for change.
An example may be where parents who use methamphetamine start drug counselling. This is a positive indicator of motivation to change behaviour. However, it doesnt provide protection for a child in the absence of confirmed protective factors (such as a non-using parent or another protective adult who agrees to be with the child at all times).
A simple way of thinking about strengths is that they are the positive characteristics of children and families that in some way positively impact on the childs experience within their family, culture and community. Do not assume that a strength will automatically provide protection.
Protection
Factors that provide protection are the aspects or attributes of the child, family, culture and community that have a moderating or mitigating effect on the risk of harm.
Protection is an action-focused activity that is demonstrated.
There must be evidence of demonstrated actions by a parent or carer that either reduce or stop harm or exposure to harm, to be considered a protective factor. Perpetrator accountability is a key consideration where family violence is a concern.
Compliance is not a factor of protection. Think about this in the context of court order conditions. When assessing whether there has been sufficient change against the order conditions, there must be demonstrated action to reduce or stop harm occurring in the future.
Other examples of behaviour that do not automatically provide protection include:
a parent attending urine screening
a parent obtaining an IVO
a perpetrator of family violence attending a behaviour change program
a parent agreeing not to allow a child to be in the company of a registered sex offender
a child attending school or day care
a parent giving an undertaking.
It is also important to understand that factors of protection may be demonstrated but could be time- limited (for example, a victim survivor of family violence where the perpetrator is remanded but likely to be released on bail). Remand could be a time-limited protective factor, so child protection would need to see ongoing demonstrated action over time for the factor of protection to remain current.
Safety
Safety is strengths demonstrated as protection over time (Department of Human Services 1999).
Child protection has a responsibility to work with the affected parent and with other services to provide support and promote safety. This is in light of knowing that family violence is a behaviour (choice of the perpetrator) to dominate, cause fear, use coercive tactics and controlling behaviour to gain power and control over victims (adult and children victim survivors).
Another responsibility would be to hold the perpetrator to account for the behaviour causing risk and harm to the adult and children victim survivors. Keeping the perpetrator in view is one of the elements of risk management.
This includes:
proactively sharing risk-relevant information and providing referrals to other services to support the safety of the adult and child victim survivors
sharing information about perpetrator risk
providing referrals if appropriate to support the person using violence to address co-occurring needs and support stabilisation to reduce risk
ongoing review of risk assessment and management strategies.
If part of a safety plan is for a child to stay with a grandparent or family member, this could be considered time-limited protection. However, it would require verifying with the adults being relied on to provide protection. For example:
Are they fully aware of the issues of harm?
Do they understand the dynamics of family violence and not minimising or blaming the victim survivor for the behaviour of the perpetrator?
Can they provide safety for the child if under pressure and placed in a situation where their own son, daughter or family member wants to see the child?
Can they demonstrate they have provided safety for the child in the past?
Any identified factor of protection and safety must be checked and verified. Accepting without checking and verifying as far as possible may be placing the child or young person at further risk.
Figure 14: Factors that may contribute to safety and a decrease in the likelihood of harm occurring or recurring in the future
[start figure description]
Strengths:
Positive attributes within a child, parents and family that provide building blocks for increasing a child's safety
Parental strengths may be indicators of motivation to change and address the protective concerns
Protection:
Parents who have demonstrated action in beginning to address harm may show signs of being able to provide protection
Protection must be able to be sustained over time
Safety:
Factors of safety may be present outside of parental care but must also be action focused and demonstrated over time
Factors of safety must be directly linked to factors of harm. The identified safety must be able to mitigate specific concerns
[end figure description]
The components of judgementWhat is the interaction between the consequence of harm and the probability of it occurring or recurring in the future?
Judgement (or determination) is made in relation to individual children. This must give primary consideration to their specific needs and experience of family, culture and community.
The two components of judgement are consequence of harm and probability of harm (Figure 15). The relationship between these components is key to making an overall judgement and determining the level of risk according to the descriptors under each area.
Figure 15: The components of judgement
[start figure description]
The two components of judgement are:
Consequence of harm
Probability of harm
[end figure description]
Judgement (or determination) informs decisions, such as the decision to substantiate harm according to section 162 of the CYFA.
Figure 16: Weighing up consequence of harm and probability of harm
[start figure description]
Consequence of harm
Vulnerability of the child
Severity of harm
Probability of harm
Likelihood of harm
Safety
[end figure description]
Judgement component 1: Consequence of harm
What is the impact on the child or young person?
Links the analysis dimensions of:
vulnerability of the child
severity of harm.
This area pulls together the vulnerability and severity dimensions of analysis. It provides a rationale that supports the overall judgement made about the impact on the child.
The more permanent the impact of harm is, the greater the severity and consequence of harm judgement.
Guiding descriptors for the consequence of harm are:
severe harm
significant harm
concerning harm
insufficient evidence of harm.
The guidance below assists practitioners to make a consequence of harm judgement. This involves bringing together what is known about the impact of harm on the child, and the practitioners knowledge, skills and professional judgement.
Severe harm
The consequence of harm on a child or young person may be considered severe when:
the impact of harm has been determined as permanent by a professional, including child protection (for example, a child who has brain damage after being shaken)
the impact of harm is likely to have a permanent effect on the childs development (for example, injuries to a baby where actual impact may not be determined for several years until the child reaches an age or stage of development)
harm has been endured over a long period of time, and the child or young person will experience a lasting impact (for example, a child who has been diagnosed as failure to thrive due to neglect and will recover after a long period of medical intervention)
the impact of harm may not result in permanent impact on the child but involves a near-death experience (for example, a child who has been severely assaulted and almost died as a result and may make a full recovery).
The judgement of severe harm is likely to apply to only the most extreme cases of abuse, neglect and/or cumulative harm.
Significant harm
Significance must be defined in a way that is specific to the individual child or young persons experience. However, the following definition is relied on by child protection in Victoria.
Justice OBrien in the Supreme Court (Buckley vs CSV 1992) identified significant as:
more than trivial or insignificant, but need not be as high as serious and
(is) important or of consequence to the childs development
it need not have lasting or permanent effect, nor necessarily be treatable.
The last two points of this definition offer key guidance for practitioners as they think about the consequence of harm on the childs development, and the effects of harm both now and into the future.
The consequence of harm may be considered significant when:
the impact of harm has been determined by a professional, including child protection, to be detrimental to a child or young persons functioning and development (for example, a child who has suffered chronic neglect and a paediatrician determines the child will need significant therapy to reach developmental milestones)
the impact of harm will be important to a childs development in the short to medium term (for example, children who miss large amounts of school due to parental drug use)
the impact of harm is likely to have a detrimental effect on the childs development (for example, a newborn who has been exposed to drug and alcohol use in utero, where actual impact may not be known for several years until the child reaches an age or stage of development).
Concerning harm
The consequence of harm may be considered concerning when:
the impact of harm is isolated (for example, a child left unsupervised due to a communication breakdown between parents)
the impact of harm was immediate and since this time, the parents have acted to address the issues causing harm (for example, a child being exposed to a parents declining mental health and who since has taken steps to seek further support and treatment, and this has been confirmed by the treating doctor to have addressed the factors that caused the decline and impact on the child)
the impact of harm is unlikely to have a detrimental impact on the childs development (for example, a child who disclosed to a teacher they had been hit by a parent. Follow up confirmed this was a smack on the bottom with an open hand because the child had run on the road, had occurred once and that smacking the child is not the usual parenting practice).
Insufficient evidence of harm
This applies where, after follow up in intake or after a first home visit, there is insufficient evidence of concerns (at the severe, significant or concerning levels) for the safety and wellbeing of the child or young person subject to the report.
Judgement component 2: Probability of harm
Is the child more or less likely to be harmed now or in the future?
Links the analysis dimensions of:
likelihood of harm
safety.
This area is about pulling together the analysis dimensions of likelihood and safety, and providing a rationale that supports an overall judgement of the probability of harm.
The probability of harm judgement is a measure of the factors that increase (likelihood) and decrease (safety) the chance that harm will occur or recur.
People do things for a multiplicity of reasons. Understanding these reasons will improve our ability to predict future behaviour. In essence, if behaviour and/or attitudes remain constant over a range of possible contexts, it is highly probable that they will persist. Behaviour which has been consistent in the past through a series of scenarios will probably re-occur in the future. In addition, the greater the number of observed replications of the behaviour in different contexts, the greater the probability that the behaviour will be displayed in a context which has not been examined (Reid et al. 1995).
Weigh up the factors that increase and decrease harm occurring or recurring to make an overall judgement of probability.
Guiding descriptors for the probability of harm are:
very likely
likely
unlikely.
The guidance below helps practitioners make a probability of harm judgement. This includes bringing together factors that increase and decrease the chance of harm, and the practitioners knowledge, skills and professional judgement.
Very likely
Very likely may be considered as a judgement when:
factors of likelihood significantly outweigh factors of safety
no factors of protection can be identified (remembering strengths do not on their own provide protection and safety)
harm has been confirmed previously with no identified or sustained parental change
the threshold for unacceptable risk has been reached (indicating immediate safety concerns).
Likely
Likely may be considered as a judgement when:
factors of protection have been identified but not yet tested or demonstrated over a period that indicates they can mitigate the risks
a pattern of cumulative harm is identified
a pattern of increasing harm is identified (for example, low-level neglect that is now chronic)
on the balance of probabilities, harm is more likely to occur or recur than not.
Unlikely
Unlikely may be considered as a judgement when:
there are risk issues identified but at a level that does not warrant statutory protective intervention. In these circumstances, consider if the family would benefit from service support via a referral
there are multiple factors of protection in place that have been demonstrated over a period to mitigate against any risk factors
risk issues have been identified at a low level and the parents have taken action to prevent harm and promote the childs development
it is not impossible but unlikely that harm will occur or recur.
Family violence and MARAM-aligned risk rating
Seeking and sharing information and evidence about family violence is guided by risk assessment questions and evidence-based risk factors from MARAM. Sorting and storing the information then happens against evidence-informed factors within essential information categories. All the information and evidence held about a child and family, including family violence, is then considered within the context of the four dimensions of analysis.
Serious risk factors must be identified for adult and child victim survivors within consequence of harm wherever they are present.
The overall MARAM risk rating (for the adult and child victim survivors) is then identified and considered within probability of harm. This supports consistency of language when sharing information with partner agencies.
The overall MARAM risk rating then informs the overall SAFER probability of harm judgement, which then informs decisions, including the need to develop a safety plan. Where harm is substantiated and a case plan developed, the actions table must be clear about the goals and tasks required, and by when, to address the identified concerns.
DecisionsThe Child protection manual provides guidance on all the potential decisions that may be made during an intervention with a child and family.
Additional information is provided here about how this activity is used to inform the most common decisions made as part of risk assessment from investigation onwards:
intake decision making
substantiation decision making
protection application.
Intake decision making
To guide decisions about report classification and, for cases proceeding to investigation, the urgency of those cases, intake practitioners use the practice activities of:
seek, share, sort and store information and evidence
analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment.
Where children and young people have been known to child protection in Victoria prior to the current report, as part of reviewing the history, the intake practitioner reviews the previous activities
of formulating and enacting a plan and reviewing the risk assessment, as part of reviewing the history. Interstate history from another child protection jurisdiction must also be considered, as well as historical reports in the L17 portal.
In addition to the Child protection manual guidance about intake decision making, the following practice guidance connects the judgements made about consequence and probability of harm to outcomes.
Remember: SAFER is a guided professional judgement approach. The intake matrix and the consequence, probability and decisions matrix below are a guide only.
Intake matrix
When the consequence of harm is either severe or significant, and the probability of harm is either likely or very likely, then a decision to classify as a protective intervention report should be considered.
When the consequence of harm is severe, the decision to classify as a protective intervention report and progress the investigation as urgent (two day) should be considered, regardless of the probability of harm level.
For all other combinations that may involve either severe or significant and/or likely or very likely, the delegated decision-maker must record a clear rationale before closure in intake or where it is determined that a protective intervention report is not necessary. Recording a rationale for decision making, including how professional judgement is applied, is good practice.
Figure 17 is a consequence and probability of harm matrix, provided as a visual tool to support decision making in intake.
In child protection, good practice is making decisions based on a variety of considerations including the professional judgement of practitioners, leaders and managers.
Figure 17: Intake consequence and probability of harm matrix
[start figure description]
Practitioners need to assess the risk of harm by weighing up the probability of harm occurring (on a scale from unlikely, likely to very likely) against the potential consequences of harm (on a scale from insufficient evidence of harm to concerning to significant to severe).
[end figure description]
Substantiation decision making
If the consequence of harm judgement is rated as either severe or significant, and the probability likely or very likely, the child or young person is considered in need of protection, and the case is substantiated against the relevant grounds of section 162 of the CYFA.
When is a child in need of protection?
For the purposes of this Act a child is in need of protection if any of the following grounds exist
the child has been abandoned by their parents and after reasonable inquiries the parents cannot be found; and no other suitable person can be found who is willing and able to care for the child;
the childs parents are dead or incapacitated and there is no other suitable person willing and able to care for the child;
the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of physical injury and the childs parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child from harm of that type;
the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, significant harm as a result of sexual abuse and the childs parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child from harm of that type;
the child has suffered, or is likely to suffer, emotional or psychological harm of such a kind that the childs emotional or intellectual development is, or is likely to be, significantly damaged and the childs parents have not protected, or are unlikely to protect, the child from harm of that type;
the childs physical development or health has been, or is likely to be, significantly harmed and the childs parents have not provided, arranged or allowed the provision of, or are unlikely to provide, arrange or allow the provision of, basic care or effective medical, surgical or other remedial care.
For the purposes of subsections (1)(c) to (1)(f), harm may be constituted by a single act, omission or circumstance, or accumulate through a series of acts, omissions or circumstances.
For the purposes of subsection (1)(c), (d), (e) and (f)
the Court may find that a future state of affairs is likely even if the Court is not satisfied that the future state of affairs is more likely than not to happen;
the Court may find that a future state of affairs is unlikely even if the Court is not satisfied that the future state of affairs is more unlikely than not to happen.
Legal intervention
If the consequence of harm judgement is either severe or significant, and the probability very likely, the child or young person is considered in need of care and protection and legal intervention may be appropriate.
Decisions about the most appropriate application (for example, temporary assessment order, immediate removal by emergency care or a protection application by notice) should be made based on all the facts and circumstances. Refer also to the Child protection manual for advice.
Remember that the early legal advice approach best supports decision making.
There could be exceptional circumstances where the consequence of harm and the probability of harm judgements indicate legal intervention is necessary but other factors present provide an alternative.
In these circumstances, the judgement must include a clear rationale.
There are many other decision possibilities open to child protection outside of those listed. One example is the decision to apply for a temporary assessment order.
The Child protection manual remains the primary source of advice and procedures.
Consequence, probability and decisions matrix
The possible combinations of the two components of judgement, combined with the decisions of substantiation, closure and protection application, are guided by the matrix in Figure 18.
Figure 18: Consequence, probability and decisions matrix for investigation, protective intervention, protection order and closure phases
[start figure description]
Practitioners need to assess the risk of harm by weighing up the probability of harm occurring (on a scale from unlikely, likely to very likely) against the potential consequences of harm (on a scale from insufficient evidence of harm to concerning to significant to severe).
[end figure description]
Remember: The SAFER children framework is a guided professional model of risk assessment. Practitioners, leaders and managers must use their professional judgement when considering how the matrix is used in practice to inform decision making.
Practice note: The five components of professional judgement and their impact on decision making
Good practice in child protection involves being able to make decisions based on guidance (legislation, policies, procedures, practice guidance and tools that help you do the work) and professional judgement (formal knowledge, values, practice wisdom, emotional awareness and reasoning skills).
Together these make up the guided professional judgement approach to practice, risk assessment and risk management to which Victoria is committed.
Practitioners, leaders and managers should reflect on:
values the personal and professional experiences that people carry with them
emotional awareness the positive and negative emotions that are part of working in child protection
formal knowledge including gaps and strengths
reasoning skills the ability to think critically, be reflective and analytical and intuitive
practice wisdom including everything learnt in practice, from self, professionals and families.
Practice and decision making under uncertainty
Child protection is an environment of uncertainty. Munro (2018) reminds us of the reality of making decisions in conditions of uncertainty.
Making decisions is an essential responsibility in childrens services. Reluctance to do so can be harmful to children as this may result in case drift. A judgement has to be made about whether to seek further information to help you decide, but this has to be weighed against the needs of the child and family. Drift can leave a child in danger or in an insecure placement. It can have adverse effects on families who are anxiously waiting to hear what is going to happen. Faced with a difficult decision, it is tempting to wait for more information to help you, but in child protection work, timeliness relative to the childs needs matters so delaying in order to undertake more investigation may be detrimental.
The key message is that professional judgement guides judgements and decisions made in child protection. Being aware of the five components is a responsibility of all practitioners, leaders and managers.
Family violence determining the risk assessmentThe Child protection manual provides comprehensive and contemporary advice, informed by MARAM and Tilting our Practice, for working with children and families impacted by family violence.
This advice is the point of reference for practitioners who are encouraged to refresh knowledge wherever family violence is a suspected or identified concern.
Some principles for determining the risk assessment are:
Many family violence factors are dynamic and can change quickly. Remember that risk assessment is a point in time.
Family violence needs to remain visible as one of the risk (harm) factors that children are exposed to. To do this, practitioners must remain active and proactive in monitoring change or escalation to family violence risk factors. They must play a coordinated and collaborative role in the service system to keep risk in view and implement risk management strategies to increase safety for victim survivors. This ongoing review of risk must occur at every stage, including throughout the process of analysis and judgement.
Seek information from a variety of sources to inform your understanding of risk factors or other relevant information about a victims or perpetrators circumstances. This includes assessing the victim survivor, and requesting and sharing information as authorised under the CYFA and applicable information-sharing schemes.
Interpret information through an intersectional lens in assessing risk, and planning and implementing risk management strategies.
Child protection is a prescribed service and has responsibility to engage with perpetrators in safe, non-collusive ways. This must align with MARAM.
Understand family violence as a pattern of coercive control.
Victim survivors (adult and child) are good predictors of their own level of risk. Their experiences and self-assessed level of risk, fear and safety should always be included in the three elements of analysis, judgement and decisions.
Be aware of the five components of professional judgement and their impact on assessing risk to individual children affected by family violence. For example, ask yourself:
What is the formal knowledge needed to conclude the process of analysis and make a judgement (for example, Tilting our Practice and MARAM)?
Is previous involvement with a family impacted by family violence influencing decisions in this case?
Are personal values evident in the way the assessment of risk is articulated?
Has each childs experience been considered individually?
Always be alert to the presence of complicating and compounding factors, such as mental health, drug and alcohol issues, and disability, in addition to family violence. Where this is the case, analyse the interactions and consult with specialist roles if needed.
Referrals to support services are critical for all members of the family. Supporting people using violence with referrals to services to address co-occurring needs can support stabilisation, reduce risk and enable behaviour change.
Serious risk factors may increase the risk that a victim is killed or almost killed (indicators of lethality). Serious risk factors require an immediate response.
Summing up risk assessmentThis practice activity guides practitioners, leaders and managers to determine a risk assessment for a child or young person using the guided framework and professional judgement. The result is a professional opinion about whether a child has been harmed or is likely to be harmed in the future, and to what degree.
Our work with children and families focuses on the gathering and synthesis of information. When we work to engage families and assess risk, we bring our reasoning skills to the evidence we have gathered. We weigh up all the information and aim to present a clear picture of our thinking.
It takes all our best thinking objective, fact finding and intuition to create a clearly articulated risk assessment that is supported by the evidence to back up conclusions and assertions (Office of Professional Practice 2019).
Formulate a case planIntroduction to this practice activityThis practice activity is used across the following phases:
investigation
protective intervention
protective order
closure.
Case planning is a key child protection responsibility and a legislated obligation or responsibility of the Secretary.
Formulating a case plan must be derived from, and clearly address and connect to, the three elements of Analyse the information and evidence. We use these elements to determine the risk assessment activity (analysis, judgement and decisions). This connection is essential to fulfilling legislative obligations.
Case planning is not a meeting or an event; it is a collaborative and inclusive process.
Formulating case plans legislative and policy requirementsSection 166(1) of the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA) defines a case plan as a plan prepared by the Secretary for a child.
Section 168(1) further states that a case plan must be prepared in respect of a child if a protective intervener is satisfied on reasonable grounds that the child is in need of protection.
This means that a case plan must be prepared for all children where protective concerns have been substantiated (using the analysis, judgement and decisions elements of the Analyse the information and evidence to determine the risk assessment activity).
The case plan is a high-level plan. It sets out:
the permanency objective
significant decisions made about:
placement and contact
education, employment or childcare
health care
cultural support
developmental support
care and wellbeing arrangements for the child.
Case plans do not contain the detailed tasks required for the child or parent. Tasks and actions are created within the actions table. The actions table is not formally part of the case plan. However, its connection is critical to achieving the desired outcome or permanency objective.
Formulating a case plan in child protection must always be consistent with the Best Interests Principles and associated provisions of the CYFA.
CYFA:
section166 What is a case plan?
section 167 Permanency objective
section 168 Preparation of a case plan
section169 Review of a case plan
Best interests principles:
protect the child from harm
promote the childs rights
promote the childs development (considering age, stage of development, culture and gender)
Childrens rights:
Section 17(1) (2) of the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006 specifies that Every child has the right, without discrimination, to such protection as in his or her best interests and is needed by him or her by reason of being a child
The Charter for children in out-of-home care 2007
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 which specifies that fundamentally every child has a right to safety and wellbeing
Decision-making principles:
consult and collaborate, be fair and transparent, and assist children, families and significant others to meaningfully take part in plans and decisions
language is appropriate and cultural needs are supported
views must be taken directly into account
Additional decision-making principles for Aboriginal children:
Aboriginal self-management and self-determination are paramount considerations in any involvement with an Aboriginal child or family
involvement of the child, family, extended family and community in all decisions
consult with an Aboriginal agency, have family meetings convened by an Aboriginal Convenor and the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle.
... the need to give the widest possible protection and assistance to the parent and child as the fundamental group unit of society and to ensure that intervention into that relationship is limited to that necessary to secure the safety and wellbeing of the child. (section 10(3)(a) CYFA)
Case planning by agreement
Working with families by agreement to address protective concerns, where there is sufficient safety in place to mitigate harm and risk factors, is always preferred to seeking an order of the Childrens Court.
In these situations, formulating a case plan (accompanied by an actions table) is essential to supporting families to care for children safely at home. Engaging services, agencies and sector partners to provide the widest possible assistance to families must always be considered a principle of practice.
Case planning and court orders
The alignment of the identified permanency objective and an order of the Childrens Court is required by legislation. Aligning the two provides children and families with a clear understanding of the purpose and direction of child protections involvement.
The actions table is an essential companion to the case plan. It must always align with the conditions of a Childrens Court order. For example, if the court requires a parent to take part in a drug and alcohol program, this must be included in the actions table. Further detail might also be included to ensure the parent is clear about what is required of them, by when, who is responsible and who might provide them with support (such as transport or looking after a child).
The actions table is a live companion to the case plan and should be updated with any change. If a new action is added, a start date must also be recorded. As actions are completed, end dates must be recorded.
The actions table should always reflect the way risks are managed or mitigated. As with any risk management plan, the actions table should be shared with services engaged with the family. This supports a consistent understanding of risk and safety and a coordinated and consistent response to managing risk. For example, if the actions table records that a perpetrator of family violence is attending an alcohol and other drug program, sharing this information helps services keep the perpetrator in view and manage the risk they pose.
If the Childrens Court makes an order that is inconsistent with the permanency objective in a case plan, and there is no cause to appeal the decision, a new case plan with an aligned permanency objective must be formulated within timeframes.
Section 558(a) of the CYFA specifies that a disposition report must include the case plan, if any, prepared for the child. The case plan must have a permanency objective that aligns with the recommended order. Although the actions table is not required to be included with the court report, the court report must clearly outline the steps the department has taken to support children and families with the conditions of the order, and to achieve the identified permanency objective.
Case plan meetings
Case plans, actions tables and all associated plans may be developed through:
informal meetings and discussions
family-led decision making or Aboriginal family-led decision making
formal case plan meetings.
Regardless of the process, the child and family, significant kin, professionals, or carer if a child is living out of parental care, must be involved. Everyone must have an opportunity to provide input about the way forward.
Where family violence is a concern, the safety of adult and child victim survivors must be paramount. If safety is a concern, it is not appropriate to bring a perpetrator and adult or child victim survivor together for a formal case plan meeting.
Formal case plan meetings may be most appropriate when:
the parties cannot reach genuine agreement about how the family and the department will work together to protect and care for the child
there is a need to review the current case plan because genuine agreement cannot be reached
the child, family or a professional makes a request for a case plan meeting.
Remember:
Children must have a voice (age appropriate) in all decisions made about them or that affect them.
Case planning is not a meeting or an event; it is a process.
The Client Relationship Information System (CRIS) is not only a repository of information; it is part of a childs life story. All conversations and decisions made as part of formulating a case plan should be recorded in CRIS.
Key points case planning
Plans, including case plans, must always be formulated in collaboration with children, families and professionals.
The childs voice should be present in all plans. If the child is an infant or has a disability or complex medical need that limits how their voice can be captured, observations should be used to bring the childs experience to life in the plan.
If family violence is present, ensure consistency and linking with the safety plans in place for adult and child victim survivors, and the risk management plan for the person using violence. Examples of linking include sharing information with prescribed services that are involved with the family to ensure all plans reinforce each other. This supports protecting the safety of adult and child victim survivors, and collectively keeps perpetrator risk in view of the service system.
Identify all the plans that exist for a child and family. This enables all plans to be linked to the high- level case plan. It will provide consistency, avoid duplication, and simplify what can be a complex system of services for vulnerable children and families.
Once a plan, including case plans, are formulated, they must be shared with parents, caregivers, professionals and children and young people as appropriate.
Case plans must have a direct link to the risk assessment (thinking back to Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment activity).
Seeking, sharing, sorting and storing information and evidence continues as plans are formulated. Remember this activity is continuous across the life of a case in child protection. Consider new information and evidence, regardless of what stage formulating a case plan is at. Significant new information and evidence may trigger a review of the risk assessment (refer to review the risk assessment activity).
Case plans for children who are on an order higher than a family reunification order should also include a review of risk. This review will determine whether changes have occurred that may change the approach to the permanency objective for the child.
Formulating other plans in child protectionSome of the guidance under this practice activity is relevant to all roles across all phases in child protection, including when intake receives a report about a child who has previously been reported to child protection.
Much of the advice about best practice in formulating case plans can be extended to all the other important planning that occurs in child protection, as described below.
Intake
Planning for how contact will occur between a family and agencies, services and professionals to verify or seek information about the concerns identified in a report
Planning for how an intake case conference will be convened, who will attend, what will be discussed and the intended outcome
Planning to complete the intake phase by making referrals prior to closure
Investigation
Formulating an investigation plan that outlines the areas of focus, goals, tasks, responsibilities and timelines
Planning for worker safety on every visit
Formulating a safety plan that identifies protection for a child where immediate safety concerns exist during a visit
Formulating a case plan to address substantiated protective concerns
Protective intervention
Revising a case plan where changes have occurred, such as a change in disposition
Planning for case closure, including preparing for the final visit, communicating with services and the family and making referrals
Planning for childrens safety where there is family violence
Formulating a reunification plan for a child on a child care agreement or voluntary placement
Protection order
Working with an Aboriginal agency to develop a cultural plan for an Aboriginal child
Formulating a plan to work with a family where goals and tasks are identified for further action
Planning for case management activities, including contact with the childs family, joint planning with services and arranging specialist assessments
Formulating a reunification plan
Formulating a leaving care plan
Planning for case closure, including preparing for the final visit, communicating with services and the family and making referrals
Closure
Develop and implement exit plans that include the roles and responsibilities of services after child protection involvement for the continued protection and care of the child
Planning for increased intervention when a family is refusing engagement and there is evidence that suggests the consequence and probability of harm is increasing.
Formulating a plan for consulting with a practice colleague (practice leader, principal practitioner and others) is good practice across all phases. This includes, for example, children in contact with a sexual offender or cases involving a certain number of re-reports. Thinking about and planning for the discussion will offer the best opportunity for targeted advice and support.
Practice note: Linking risk assessment, case plans and all other plans necessary for a child and family
Always remember to:
clearly articulate the protective concerns
clearly articulate what needs to change
directly reference the risk assessment. For example: Sienna was hit on the face by her mother, causing a fractured cheek bone. The impact of this harm on Sienna is significant because she will need reconstructive surgery and is having nightmares of the abuse. For Sienna to be able to go home and be safe, her mother needs to demonstrate she has [outline the actions required]
identify the realistic permanency objective as specified in section 167 of the CYFA
include the voice of the child and consider their rights as paramount
identify realistic supports and services creating the widest possible assistance
ensure the permanency objective of the case plan aligns with the court order, if a protection application is necessary
develop plans with children and families (effective planning is not a desktop exercise)
understand the individual needs of children and parents at a deeper level, where harm has been substantiated and there will be ongoing child protection involvement
update the essential information categories with any new information and evidence that is gathered while plans are formulated
target investigation plans to the reported concerns and allow for professional curiosity, avoiding the risk of a narrowed risk assessment, for example, where reported concerns are about parental drug use, practitioners should always be open to, or more actively seek, information about the possibility of family violence risk factors
review plans being formulated for change formulating a plan (including case plans) is a point in time, so as new information or evidence comes to hand that changes the risk assessment (for example, a parent relapsing and using alcohol and drugs), the plan should be reviewed
share relevant updated information with other services involved (for example, if new family violence risk factors are identified, like access to a weapon, share that information with other services involved with the family).
Just because it isnt reported doesnt mean it isnt present.
The Child protection manual provides advice and procedures about specific activities and phases.
Formulating case plans where there is family violenceThe Child protection manual provides advice about working with children and families impacted by family violence. This advice should always be the point of reference for practitioners. Practitioners should refresh their knowledge wherever family violence is a suspected or identified concern.
Some principles related to planning are:
To inform planning, the violence from each childs perspective must be understood separately from the affected parent and perpetrator.
Safety planning must be undertaken:
where there is any level of risk identified, noting the plan will differ depending on the risk
in collaboration with the adult victim survivor and the child victim survivor if of an appropriate developmental age and stage.
Case plans should have clear and measurable outcomes (think SMART planning as explained in Figure 19) that focus on perpetrator behaviour and what needs to change to support safety.
Share information with other services to keep understanding of risk current and in view.
Gathering information from services about risk management interventions can support interventions that prioritise the safety of the victim survivors and work to hold the perpetrator to account.
Provide referrals to address co-occurring needs that support stabilisation and enable behaviour change.
Understand the role child protection plays in responding to risk in a coordinated and collaborative way in the service system.
Work collaboratively with the affected parent and children in developing strategies and plans to promote safety.
Safety plans should always be tailored to the circumstances and needs of the child and adult victim survivors in the family. Every family is different, so plans should not be cut and paste.
Safety plans may be individual and each child and adult victim survivor in the home may need a different tailored plan.
Safety plans are live documents and should be regularly reviewed and updated as circumstances change.
Safety planning where there is family violence is a critical aspect of risk management.
Document and update safety plans whenever there is a change to circumstances, information and evidence and risk ratings.
Adult and child victim safety is paramount. Always think about the appropriateness of sharing information (for example, ensuring a perpetrator does not have access to a victim survivors safety plan).
Remember:
Family violence factors are often dynamic and can change quickly, resulting in increased risk to the child, young person and adult victims safety. With new information, practitioners should update the essential information categories and review the risk assessment to determine if the judgement of the consequence and probability of harm have changed.
Practice tools for formulating plansSolution-focused enquiry: involving parents as part of the solution
Child protection practitioners should always support families to explore solutions and be involved in making decisions about their lives and the lives of their children. This is part of the legislative obligation as protective intervenors under the CYFA.
Practice note: Involving parents in a solution-focused approach
Return the focus to the parent or caregiver. Parents and caregivers may focus too much on the problem or what others should be doing. Questions like What could you do differently? or How will others know you have made changes? bring the emphasis back to the parent or caregivers responsibilities. Family violence-informed practice means we must consider the safety of adult and child victim survivors as a priority, to inform the level of involvement and ways to engage.
Always assume the possibility of change. Questions and statements to parents and caregivers should always reflect belief in their ability to find solutions and make changes.
Develop a picture of the future early in the involvement. What will life look like without harm/abuse or involvement of child protection? The future picture is powerful in shifting from the problem to the solution. Scaling, miracle and exceptions questions help develop the future picture.
Create or find overlap between what the parent or caregiver wants and what child protection wants and needs to happen. This approach is often powerful with parents who may be resistant. A common goal, such as wanting the children to stay at home, can help move from the problem to the solution. For example, So we both want the children to stay at home and be safe. What will you do now to ? Remember a person using violence may want to have an
ongoing relationship with the child, but due to their use of violence, the adult and/or child victim survivor may not feel safe to have an ongoing relationship. Safety of adult and child victim survivors is a priority.
Because our primary tool for change is language, through which we enhance clients motivation to look at their own behaviour and decide to change, paying attention to becoming artful at using language of change are important skills in child welfare (Berg and Kelly 2000).
SMART planning
Use the SMART mnemonic in Figure 19 to form targeted, purposeful and effective interventions, case plans, goals, tasks and all other plans in child protection.
Figure 19: Formulating SMART plans
[start figure description]
Specific Measurable Attainable Relevant Time bound
Specific goals and tasks must spell out exactly what is expected and why.
What needs to happen?
When does it need to happen?
Why does it need to happen?
Who is responsible for making it happen? Measurable goals allow for the ability to measure and evaluate progress.
How will we know it has happened? Attainable goals must be realistic and able to be achieved.
How can this (the goal) be achieved?
Areas of disagreement must be discussed and addressed for goals to be attainable. Relevant goals must be targeted, purposeful and directly linked to the risk assessment.
Does this (the goal) contribute to the childs safety and wellbeing?
Is the goal relevant to the protective concerns and risk assessment? Time bound goals allow for a clear understanding of when something is expected by.
When will this (the goal) happen by?
[end figure description]
Using SMART goals and task setting in child protection clarifies the expectations for everyone involved. This is important as it ensures that parents know the specifics and gives them the opportunity to address the protective concerns and sustain change. Parents using violence have a responsibility to engage with support to end their use of violence. There should be no doubt about what is being asked of parents.
Equally, agency partners who share responsibility for child safety and wellbeing should be clear about what is expected of them in supporting families. They should be aware of responsibilities through good information sharing about the risk assessment and risk management (as outlined in the actions table).
Practice note: SMART planning examples
The issue: Johnny has missed more than 50 school days this year. An example of a general goal:
The parents will meet the childs educational needs.
An example of a SMART goal:
Jim and Jo (the parents) will have Johnny at school by 9am each morning during school terms for the rest of the year, in clean school clothes and with a packed morning tea and lunch.
If Johnny cant come to school, Jim or Jo will call the school and Johnnys child protection practitioner by 9:30am to let them know why. School is important for Johnnys educational and social development. Johnny loves learning and spending time with his school friends
The issue: Johnnys parents need support with his daily care needs, like routines, cooking, washing and bathing.
An example of a general goal:
Jim and Jo (the parents) to attend parenting classes.
An example of a SMART goal:
Jim and Jo to attend the eight-week Caring for Kids parenting class at the community centre. Jim and Jo will start classes on 8 March. The classes will help Jim and Jo build good routines and learn new ways to play with Johnny and manage his behaviour when it gets challenging.
The issue: Jim uses marijuana every day, which affects his care of Johnny. An example of a general goal:
Jim to attend drug and alcohol counselling.
An example of a SMART goal:
Jim to attend weekly appointments with a counsellor at the community health centre, focusing on reducing his marijuana use. Jim will start his appointments from 8 March and will continue until the counsellor reports that Jim has reduced his use and has strategies to maintain the change. Reducing marijuana use is important so Jim can care for Johnny, help Jo take him to school each day, and do some of the washing and cooking.
Summing up formulating case plansThe information and evidence that has been synthesised within the four elements of analysis and the two components of judgement made about the consequence and probability of harm inform a targeted intervention strategy and purposeful case planning. Case planning connects to
all other planning, including safety planning, and aims to reduce risk and increase safety for children.
There is a link between this activity and others. For example, when new evidence is sought that changes the risk assessment, it may be necessary to formulate a new case plan so it remains targeted and purposeful for the child and family.
The case plan is for the child and should be individualised for each child in the family. Using simple and clear language in the plan and actions table will help keep plans child-centric and family-friendly.
Some plans, such as safety plans, must be live and updated as soon as new information emerges or the situation changes.
The Looking After Children Framework 2003 (LAC) domains help keep children and young people at the centre of formulating case plans and the related tasks and actions within the actions table. The domains are health, emotional behaviour, development, education, family, social and self-care skills.
Always remember: The plan is about the child or young persons safety and wellbeing; they must be at the centre of any plan created about them.
Enact the case planIntroduction to this practice activityThis practice activity is used across the following phases:
investigation
protective intervention
protective order
closure.
Working with the family, community and other professionals to enact the childs case plan is essential to achieve the identified permanency objective for the child in a sustainable way. Maintaining the momentum of protective intervention and achieving the required change requires active monitoring of the case plan, actions table and all other plans that support a child and family.
The plans enacted in child protection include:
home visit plan
investigation plan
worker safety plan
case plan
reunification plan
care and placement plan
safety plan
cultural plan
behaviour management or support plan.
Some plans, such as an investigation plan, are not optional. These are required by the procedures outlined in the Child protection manual. A case plan is required by legislation.
Every plan developed in child protection practice is different, so the process of enacting (putting in place, implementing or actioning) a plan will also be different. How a practitioner goes about doing the casework will depend on what is trying to be achieved (Figure 20).
Figure 20: Enact a case plan example of actions required from practitioners
[start figure description]
Different types of plans include:
Care and placement plans
Reunification plans
Cultural plans
Looking after children plans
Behaviour support plans
Safety plans
Common considerations
Build hope. Acknowledge success with the family
Motivate the family for positive change
Understand and monitor the impact of the case plan goals
Involve the child and family in the creation of all plans
Ask and reflect upon these questions:
Are things getting better for the child and family?
Is the child safer?
Consider the seven Looking After Children domains as a way of checking health, safety and wellbeing
Strengthen connection to culture
Connect with the child to understand and respond to their views and wishes
Coordinate your child protection work with the other services
[end figure description]
Face-to-face contactEnacting a case plan is not a desktop activity. Supporting, coordinating, partnering, advocating and monitoring the actions associated (as outlined in the actions table) with a case plan requires face-to-face contact (direct casework) with children and families.
Face-to-face contact with children and families provides the best opportunity for practitioners to engage in a way that supports good communication, effective seeking of information, and well-informed analysis, judgement and decisions.
Seeing children and families, as well as the networks supporting them, allows practitioners to use all their senses (sight, smell and sound) during the interactions.
Access to body language, eye contact, observing the way children respond to parents, facial expressions and the physical environment (such as the home where a child lives) cannot be replaced by other methods of communication and engagement.
Recording contactThe frequency of face-to-face contact that child protection practitioners will have with the child and family should be recorded and confirmed in the actions table, in the area, Contact between CP and client.
Factors that may assist with determining frequency (along with professional judgement) are:
overall consequence of harm and probability of harm
overall Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM) risk rating
identified permanency objective
safety and stability of the placement (living with parents, kinship or authorised foster care)
the number and effectiveness of services in place to support a child and family
additional support needs.
The Child protection manual provides advice about visiting requirements. Children in some circumstances, such as infants, may require a minimum visiting regime.
Face-to-face client visits (including the child/ren) should be recorded using the client visit case note in the Client Relationship Information System (CRIS). Remember that for child protection, the child/ren are the client.
Face-to-face contact is more than just seeing or sighting a child. This type of direct casework involves engaging, talking with and making observations of a child as part of enacting a case plan.
Care teams a critical element of enacting a case planFor children and young people subject to a Childrens Court order and living away from parents, care teams share responsibility for doing things that parents would do if a child was living at home.
However, the concept of a care team is not only relevant once a child has been removed. In fact, taking a care team approach earlier in an intervention (for example, when working voluntarily with a family) could work to prevent a child or young person entering care. Ideally, a care team around a child and family should be set up as soon as possible after substantiation.
Care teams dont have to be a big group of people, and meetings are not always necessary. It is essential that everyone involved in the care team is clear about their responsibilities to support the child and family, and communication channels are clear and open. Always communicate with members of a care team before closing a case. This communication should include clarity about roles and responsibilities after closure.
Practice note: Tips for setting up a care team when working voluntarily with a family
Parents or caregivers must always be central to a care team when working voluntarily.
Care teams can include:
children and young people (depending on age)
other significant caregivers
family, kin and community members
professionals involved with the children and/or parents
anyone involved in safety planning.
For some members, involvement may be time-limited. Others, such as significant family or informal supports who have a lifelong connection to the child, may have a lasting role, even after child protection is no longer involved.
Consider these points as principles for the team:
put the best interests of the child first and at the centre of all actions and decisions
listen to and consider the voice of children and young people, regardless of age
understand each others role and responsibilities in promoting the childs safety and wellbeing.
Be guided by the Looking After Children Framework 2003 (LAC) seven domains:
health
emotional and behavioural development
education
family and social relationships
identity (including cultural identity)
social presentation
self-care skills.
Practice principlesEnacting a plan can be:
a formal process (for example, where a case plan has been developed and must be implemented)
an informal process (for example, where a practitioner has developed a home visit plan with dot points to prompt discussion during the visit).
Regardless of the type of plan, some key practice principles apply. These are discussed below.
Be child-centred
The child or young person is the client of child protection and must be kept at the centre of all casework, actions and decisions.
Client-centred work is grounded in the importance of rights, dignity, individual choice, empowerment and self-determination.
Be relationship-focused
The key to effective work is the quality of the connection between the worker and client in a relationship that is the principle vehicle for change (Turnell and Edwards 1999).
In child protection, relationships must be built and maintained with a wide range of people including children, young people, parents, caregivers, community and agency partners.
Be strengths-based
A strengths-based approach maximises collaboration to enact a plan.
Finding, calling out and building on strengths within a family offers the greatest chance of achieving safety (remember, safety is strengths demonstrated as protection over time).
Key points practice principles
Implementing a case plan should always involve working with the family towards the permanency objective for the child or young person and addressing the protective concerns.
Working to a case plan by agreement with a family in a voluntary capacity is always preferable. Court action should be a last resort.
Any plan developed is put in place with parents, children, family and professionals to bring about and sustain change.
Use a care team approach to collaborate with all family members and professionals to keep the childs best interests at the centre of support and decision making.
Regardless of whether the child or young person is in care, the LAC domains (health, emotional behaviour, development, education, family, social and self-care skills) provide guidance for a care team to review and monitor the childs individual needs.
As plans are enacted, child protection must always continue to offer the widest possible assistance to the child and family.
Momentum, motivation and engagement are key ingredients for successfully enacting a plan and achieving the desired goals.
Under this practice activity, when completing assessments of the child or young person within their family, consider:
relationships with adults and other children
development, functioning and behaviour
family strengths and resources
needs
culture
willingness of adults to change and place the childs needs first.
Enacting plans at each phaseWhile this activity is specific to case planning, some of the principles and good practice indicators apply to other phases.
Enacting a plan should always be done in a way that is consistent with the purpose of the phase in which the case is being managed.
Intake
Enact the plan consistent with the purpose of intake and the responsibilities of the practitioner to:
engage the reporter
provide clear and accurate information about the child protection role and processes
gather and clarify information from the reporter about the nature and significance of their concerns
gather information from the reporter about the child and family, including whether the child is Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander
complete a search on CRIS for previous reports about the child or siblings
undertake an L17 portal search
conduct an initial assessment of risk and needs based on report details
open an electronic (and, if necessary, paper) file to record in detail the report, consultations and assessment
contact agencies, services and professionals that may be involved with the family where necessary to verify, corroborate or gather further information about the concerns in the report
consult with the Aboriginal Child Specialist Advice and Support Service where the child is Aboriginal
attend or convene an intake case conference, where required or appropriate
classify the report, in consultation with the team manager
advise professional reporters of the outcome of the report and actions to take if they have further or escalating concerns
complete the intake phase
provide advice to the reporter as appropriate
make referrals to Child FIRST/Orange Door or other relevant services as appropriate, where the case is to be closed
close the case or transfer to the investigation phase where required.
Investigation
Enact the investigation plan consistent with the purpose of the investigation and the responsibilities of practitioners in assessing the child and their circumstance to determine:
the extent and nature of the reported concerns or other concerns that are identified during the investigation, and whether the child needs protection
past and immediate risks to the child and the likelihood of future harm
the most appropriate response to meet the needs of the child
the most appropriate service response to assist the parents and family
if ongoing statutory intervention is required to meet the childs safety and developmental needs and provide them with permanency.
Protective intervention
Enact the plan consistent with the purpose of protective intervention and the responsibilities of practitioners in working with children, young people and families to:
commence and continue case planning while the case remains in this phase
implement the case plan by working with the family towards the permanency objective for the child and to address the protective concerns
work with the family by agreement, where the family is willing to cooperate, and it is assessed that there is a reasonable prospect of resolving protective concerns in a reasonable period of time (a court order is not required to support this intervention)
monitor the safety and development of the child and whether any court action is required
where court action is initiated, manage the process and administer the order as required
plan for safe contact between a child and parents where it is part of court conditions.
Protection order
Enact the plan consistent with the purpose of the protection order and responsibilities of practitioners in continuing to assess the child and their situation to:
reduce the level of risk to the child
promote the safety, wellbeing and positive development of the child
empower the family to function independently of statutory child protection intervention
achieve permanency for the child
prepare to end child protections involvement when the order expires
where the permanency objective is reunification, provide stable care for the child until the objective is achieved or changes
where the permanency objective is adoption, refer to the adoption program and provide stable care and case management as required until the objective is achieved
where the permanency objective is permanent or long-term out-of-home care, arrange enduring home-based care
support a child in residential care while continuing to work towards arranging home-based care wherever possible
prepare the young person for independent living where the case plan is not for reunification with family
plan for safe contact between a child and parents.
Closure
Enact the plan consistent with the purpose of closure to:
ensure links and collaborative community plans have been developed and are working to protect the child, promote their development and strengthen families
complete the child protection involvement with a child and family in a timely and appropriate way
ensure all final casework actions and tasks are completed.
Summing up enacting case plansWorking with the child, family, community and other professionals to enact the case plan is essential to achieving a sustainable permanency objective for the child.
The actions table is critical to enacting the case plan. It is a family-friendly document that can be used to discuss progress, or identify where further supports are needed to achieve goals.
Reviewing and updating the actions table does not require a review of the case plan. The actions table can and should be a live working document.
Case plans for children who are on an order higher than a family reunification order, should also include a review of risk to determine whether changes have occurred that may change the approach to the permanency objective for the child.
It is good practice to enact case plans in a collaborative and transparent way. This should involve all the relevant members of the network around the child and family. Childrens safety is a shared responsibility and through the process of enacting a case plan, the involvement of a network can provide solutions for safety and care that might not have been possible without involvement.
Effective care teams are an essential element of enacting a case plan. Care teams are required for children in care and should also be considered for families who are working with child protection by agreement.
Review the risk assessmentIntroduction to this practice activityThis practice activity is used across the following phases:
investigation
protective intervention
protective order
closure.
Review points provide opportunities to share progress with families and professionals, to outline the ongoing role of each professional, and to convey this in clear and simple language that can be understood by children and their parents or caregivers.
Reviewing the risk assessment considers information and evidence, analysis and planning undertaken in the other practice activities.
It also considers if providing the widest possible assistance to a family has created sufficient change to indicate the child is no longer at risk of significant harm.
Reviewing the risk assessment may happen at any point in an intervention and across all phases from investigation onwards. It should occur when there is:
a new report or allegation
new information or evidence that is considered significant
a new type of order made in the Childrens Court
a change in the childs case plan and permanency objective
at phase transition.
Reviewing the risk assessment is encouraged at other points, such as when:
a new child joins the family, a parent starts a new relationship, parents are separating or recently separated (this is a time of increased risk of family violence) or other adults start living in the home where the child lives
goals and tasks are complete or not complete within the set timeframe
there is a change in practitioner or team.
Key points reviewing the risk assessment
Step back and consider the information and evidence in case notes, assessments and other written material.
Update the essential information categories with new information or evidence from case notes and assessments. The essential information categories and the evidence-based factors are tools that help us understand information and the link to harm and risk.
Consider if parental change has occurred to a level that decreases consequence and probability of harm.
Consider if new information or evidence increases the consequence and probability of harm.
Reviewing the risk assessment is likely to happen many times throughout an intervention with a child and family.
Reviewing the components of judgementThe two components of judgement (consequence of harm and probability of harm) are used as the formal way of reviewing a risk assessment within the SAFER practice activities.
The two components of judgement incorporate the four dimensions of analysis: vulnerability of the child, likelihood of harm, severity of harm and safety (Figure 21).
Figure 21: Reviewing the components of judgement consequence of harm and probability of harm
[start figure description]
What has changed since the risk assessment was completed within the dimensions of:
Vulnerability of the child
Severity of harm
What has changed since the risk assessment was completed within the dimensions of:
Likelihood of harm
Safety
[end figure description]
Note: When reviewing the components of judgement, think about the impact on the child and factors that increase risk (likelihood) and decrease (safety) risk and harm occurring or recurring.
Figure 22 provides an example of incorporating new information to consider whether the overall judgements of consequence and probability of harm change.
Figure 22: The components of judgement used to review the risk assessment
[start figure description]
The two components of judgement used to review the risk assessment are:
Consequence of harm
Probability of harm
[end figure]
Consequence of harmWhen reviewing consequence of harm, consider the following prompts:
What has changed within vulnerability of the child and severity of harm? Remember this is how we make a determination about the consequence of harm.
Use the headings of vulnerability of the child and severity of harm as you write to help clarify what has changed since completing the risk assessment.
As under the initial judgement of the current risk assessment, this review is about the impact of harm on individual children.
As you think about severity of harm, consider whether there is new information or evidence that points to cumulative harm and neglect or helps understand more about the pattern and history of harm:
Is it escalating?
Is it chronic?
Is it episodic?
Reconsider the indicative descriptor from the previous judgement to incorporate what has changed within the dimensions of vulnerability of the child and severity of harm. The written rationale supports the overall consequence changing or remaining the same:
Severe
Significant
Concerning
Insufficient evidence of harm.
Is there new information or evidence about family violence? If serious risk factors have been identified, are they still present? If not previously identified, is there evidence they are now? Evidence- based family violence risk factors help determine new information and evidence, and information- sharing legislation (the Child Information Sharing System (CISS) and Family Violence Information Sharing Scheme (FVISS), and the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA) is used to seek and share information that relates to risk assessment and risk management.
The more permanent the impact of harm on the child, the greater the consequence of harm. New information, such as from a Victorian Forensic Paediatric Medical Service report, may take harm consequence from significant to severe, which should be considered with decision making about the permanency objective.
Probability of harmWhen reviewing probability of harm, consider the following prompts:
What has changed within likelihood of harm and safety? Remember this is how we determine the probability of harm (likelihood is about increase and safety is about decrease, whilst probability is weighing up increase and decrease to make an overall judgement).
This section of judgement aims to review whether a child is more or less likely to have been harmed or to be harmed in the future.
Use the headings of likelihood of harm and safety as you write to help clarify what has changed.
As you think about likelihood of harm, consider new information, evidence or outcomes against:
prior pattern of behaviour towards the child or young person
attitudes and beliefs of the parent or caregiver about harm causing behaviour or actions
contributing factors.
Reconsider the indicative descriptor from the previous judgement to incorporate what has changed within the dimensions of likelihood of harm and safety. The written rationale supports the overall consequence changing or staying the same:
Very likely
Likely
Unlikely.
Probability is primarily about parental or caregiver action or inaction to address protective concerns.
If in working with parents, further characteristics are identified (such as a substance use issue that was undisclosed) and the plan has not been effective in achieving the required change (not making progress in working with professionals for example), then the likelihood consideration within probability will increase. If plans in place to assist parents to work on protective concerns have been effective and there have been no further parental characteristics identified that increase risk, then the likelihood consideration within probability will decrease.
The definition of safety is strengths demonstrated as protection over time. We must be able to demonstrate any protection identified and how it is increasing safety for the child. It is acceptable to outline the attempts to increase protection that are not yet sufficient as this helps us understand what we can continue to build on. Usually, after we have worked with a family for a period of time, we can articulate more about strengths.
Where pattern and history of harm have been identified, this is a static factor (the history will always be the history) that will always influence increased probability (remember past is the best predictor of future). For these families, when reviewing the judgement of probability, we need to be able to clearly articulate: What has changed? How has it been demonstrated and over what period? And how this has provided for increased safety for a child if indicating that the overall probability has decreased. Be cautious about disguised compliance. Also be cautious about being overly optimistic about what a small amount of parental change means for child safety.
A note about the family violence and MARAM
Serious risk factors (linked to increased lethality) for adult and child victim survivors are identified within consequence of harm. Always go back to the essential information category of family violence to see whether new information and evidence should be recorded against an evidence-based factor. This is critical to a well-informed assessment.
The overall Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM) risk rating (for the adult and child victim survivors) must be reviewed or identified (if family violence wasnt identified in the previous risk assessment) within probability of harm. This supports consistency of language when sharing information with partner agencies.
The overall MARAM risk rating (reviewed or new) then informs the overall SAFER probability of harm judgement, which then informs decisions.
Relationship to other practice activities
Reviewing the risk assessment may trigger action in another practice activity. At times a review might mean additional activity in all five practice activities of the SAFER children framework.
Practice note: Review at phase transition points
Seek, share, sort and store information and evidence
Is there evidence in case notes that needs to be added to the essential information categories?
Has any information changed? Is more information needed? Are there outstanding questions?
Can another perspective be examined (who else might provide information about the child, such as services engaged with parents)?
Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment
Is the risk assessment current? Is it clear and logical?
Has the risk assessment been explained to the child, young person, family, colleagues, supervisors and other professionals? Have their views been sought?
Is it clear why we are doing what we are doing?
Is there a clear narrative about the child, their context and harm they have experienced?
Are the parents clear about their responsibility to maintain and promote their childs safety and wellbeing?
Formulating the case plan
Has the case plan been formulated with the child and family?
Does everyone named as essential to implementing the plan understand their responsibilities?
Has a strengths and solution focused approach been used to formulate the plan? Or is it deficit focused?
Is there evidence that the child, family and professionals have contributed to, and are accepting of, the plan?
Does the actions table set out clear tasks and goals? Are the goals and tasks SMART?
Are there plans for a child or family that have not been linked to a case plan? (Examples include a behaviour support plan, mental health plan, risk management plan for a person using violence, safety plan for an adult victim survivor or crisis response plan.)
Enacting the case plan
Is there an active and functioning care team?
Are the Looking After Children Framework 2003 (LAC) domains (health, emotional behaviour, development, education, family, social and self-care skills) being used to guide the care team, regardless of whether the child or young person is in care or with parents?
Is there evidence of reviewing the case plan according to the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA)?
Review the risk assessment
Has the plan addressed harm, risks and needs determined in the risk assessment?
Does the information and evidence held now change the consequence and probability of harm judgements?
Has there been consultation with specialist roles, as required according to the Child protection manual (for example, children in contact with sexual offenders, infant intensive response, a household member with a category A offence)?
Are there any concerns that in exercising professional judgement, the current risk assessment does not reflect the circumstances (for example, evidence of values statements that have influenced judgement)?
Reviewing the risk assessment at phase transition
A review of the risk assessment should be undertaken and endorsed on transition from one phase
to the next. The transition from one child protection practitioner or team to another can cause a loss of information, momentum and minimise identified risks. Transition from one phase to another, or from one practitioner to another, creates an opportunity to review whether the casework completed under the practice activities has contributed to effective interventions for children.
When transitioning from one phase to another, practitioners should always look to use the practice note above as a prompt for aspects of practice to be reviewed and then complete a review risk assessment.
Reviewing plans for effectiveness
Continuous improvement is an ongoing effort to refine practice. It is a way to check if the plan being enacted is addressing harm, risks and needs as determined in the risk assessment. Does it promote the safety and wellbeing needs of the child in a way that supports the autonomy of the family unit?
The process of reviewing the risk assessment should always encompass the following.
Reviewing the case plan:
Is targeted service activity being enacted?
Are the services effective?
Are they fully engaged with the goal to improve safety, promote development and wellbeing for the child?
Is the case progressing towards the permanency objective?
Determining if SMART goals are being met and risk has decreased for the child:
Are the goals still clear, targeted and measurable?
Did the family understand them?
Have different gains been made that can change the original goals?
Determining if specific goals and tasks are managing the risks and promoting safety, development and wellbeing as identified in the plans:
Even the most considered plans need review, and this is a legislative and policy requirement in Victoria.
Are specific intervention approaches to achieve safety outdated or not well adjusted for the family as time goes on?
Re-asserting the roles of those responsible for implementing the plan through tracking progress:
Are the people responsible for actions clear about their role?
Is making a real difference an important role for child protection practitioners?
Determining appropriate dates for reviewing the plan and evaluating its effectiveness:
You may choose to review some actions within a very short timeframe.
You may choose to monitor and review others over a longer period.
A flexible and responsive approach to reviewing plans will help reduce drift, and help practitioners and families stay focused on what needs to happen.
Determining methods for evaluating progress against planned goals and tasks:
Discussing and determining how you will know if a goal is met is crucial.
Creating SMART goals supports effective review, as it should be clear what needs to happen, by when and by whom.
Summing up reviewing the risk assessmentReview aims to determine whether providing the widest possible assistance to a child and family has created sufficient change to decrease the consequence and probability of harm.
The guidance in Analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment activity is also relevant to this practice activity.
Review is a continual process.
Updates to assessed levels of risk and the resulting plans to manage risk (such as actions tables and safety plans), need to be proactively shared with other services supporting all members of the family, in line with information-sharing legislation.
It is good practice to include children and families in the review process, being transparent about the consequence and probability of harm judgement, and using language that children and families can understand (be prepared for this, and avoid using jargon or abbreviations).
Reviewing the risk assessment leads practitioners and managers back to considering whether the decision (or decisions) made are the most appropriate and in the childs best interests.
Appendix: Background to the developmentThe SAFER children framework journeySince implementing the Best Interests Case Practice Model (BICPM) in 2010, the need for a strengthened approach to risk assessment has grown. We have seen this through good practice stories, feedback from practitioners, leaders and managers in child protection, case reviews and themes from the Commission for Children and Young People.
It is important that we support practitioners in every way possible as they undertake the complex work that is child protection practice. The Child protection workforce strategy 20212024 and the Victorian Auditor-Generals Office report into the mental health and wellbeing of child protection practitioners in Victoria confirmed this.
Providing an approach to risk assessment that includes more guidance to support analysis, critical thinking and decision making is an important support to the everyday work.
The Commission for Children and Young People highlights child death inquiry themes in each years annual report. These have influenced the development of the SAFER children framework and five practice activities.
In 201920, the child death inquiry themes were:
premature case closures
poor family violence risk assessments
adolescent mental health and cumulative harm
safe sleeping and discussion of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) risk factors
information sharing and interagency collaboration.
The five SAFER practice activities aim to address the themes in child protection practice that have been observed where children known to the program have died.
In September 2017, the Office of Professional Practice commissioned a literature review to inform development of a revised risk assessment framework for child protection in Victoria. The review concluded that combining empirical evidence, structured assessment and professional judgement is the best approach to risk assessment practice (Gaskin 2017). This conclusion aligns with that highlighted in the development of the Victorian Risk Framework (VRF) that no single model was found able to encompass the requirements of the field (Department of Human Services 1999).
From 2017, the Office of Professional Practice has collaborated with practitioners from across the state in a co-design approach. Designs have been tested and adapted along the way, with the intention of producing an approach to risk assessment that is best suited to the specific needs of the Victorian child protection context.
The SAFER children framework has evolved as a locally developed solution that draws from jurisdictions across Australia and internationally, rather than relying on one model or solution.
While the framework is specific to child protection practice, extensive consultation has occurred with sector partners, including community services organisations and Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, recognising the importance of partnerships in supporting vulnerable children and families. The concept that the safety and wellbeing of children is a shared responsibility has been central to the design.
The history of child protection risk assessment practice in VictoriaThe SAFER children framework and the five practice activities build on the thinking and concepts in the VRF.
The VRF allowed for a large degree of professional discretion and included the ability to look not only at-risk factors but also at the strengths, goals and needs of children and families.
While described as guided professional judgement, it was also a comprehensive consensus-based assessment. The VRF was similar to risk assessment models in several Australian jurisdictions including:
Tasmania (Tasmanian risk framework)
New South Wales (Secondary risk of harm assessment)
the Australian Capital Territory (Ongoing care and protection risk assessment)
Western Australia (Risk analysis and risk management framework).
BICPM 2010 and 2012 incorporated some aspects of VRF, providing practitioners with the practice stages of information gathering, analysis and planning, actions and reviewing outcomes as a way of focusing work with families on safety, stability and development. Since 2010, the BICPM has provided child protection with the framework for assessing risk and safety.
Research and literature supporting the SAFER children frameworkThe SAFER children framework is based on evidence gathered from research, individual and systemic reviews of practice and literature, and contemporary practice wisdom.
As the framework captures the broader context in which child protection operates, the research and literature behind the approach is vast.
The literature review
The review commissioned in 2017 made several recommendations for developing a revised approach in Victoria:
Given the current shortcomings of risk assessment instruments in child welfare, consideration should be given to using more than one approach to risk assessment. A practical solution would seem to be one that supports professional judgement supplemented by guidance on assessing risk (for example highlighting factors may be particularly pertinent to elevating or identifying risk) (Gaskin 2017).
The SAFER five practice activities of risk assessment in child protection have been developed consistent with the recommendations. Evidence-informed essential information categories and factors inform guided analysis, with the flexibility to use professional judgement, drawing on the knowledge, skills and expertise of practitioners who work with children and families every day.
Commentary on child protection practice: Professor Eileen Munro
Professor Eileen Munro (2002, 2005, 2019, 2020) has informed the thinking behind the refocus on the professional judgement of the child protection workforce. The concept of the five components of knowledge and skills that contribute to professional judgement has also played a part. Although several publications are referenced, Munros work has influenced child protection in Victoria for many years.
Munros visit to Victoria in late 2019 contributed significantly to the latter parts of development of SAFER.
Leading practice (Department of Human Services 2012c) is a resource guide for leaders and managers in child protection. Munros work heavily influenced the guide, having been drawn on as a key reference about the importance of professional judgement.
Victorian Risk Framework
The research thread has been pulled from the VRF, which combined major theories and research about risk assessment in child protection, particularly Brearly (1982), Dalgeish (1997), Hemsworth et al. (1997), Meddin (1985), Sigurdson et al. (1995), Sigurdson and Reid (1990), and Turnell and Edwards (1997, 1999).
The framework was informed by the core dimensions of risk assessment, vulnerability, severity, likelihood and safety, recognising that these dimensions were essential to achieve the goal of the risk assessment process. The Manitoba Risk Estimation System was used as the primary rationale for analysis within the VRF.
Best Interests Case Practice Model
The BICPM incorporated the VRF, drawing heavily on the prediction theory described by Reid et al. (1995). The model is underpinned by a strengths-based approach that assesses the risks, while building on protective factors to increase a childs safety. The work of Turnell and Edwards in Signs of safety (1999) was influential in avoiding a problem-saturated approach to risk assessment and risk management.
In 2021, the BICPM was under review. However, until such time as a revised version is produced, the theory-based practice approaches within the model continue to influence child protection practice. They are:
relationship based child-focused and family-centred
culturally competent
developmentally and trauma-informed
gender-aware and analytical
dynamic and responsive
professional judgement
strengths-based
outcome-focused
engage families
build partnerships
ecological approach.
The BICPM will always play a critical role in the SAFER children framework, now and in the future.
ReferencesCharter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006, No. 43 of 2006, Chief Parliamentary Counsel Victoria.
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, No. 96 of 2005, Chief Parliamentary Counsel Victoria.
Department of Health and Human Services 2020, Child Protection capability framework, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Families, Fairness and Housing 2021, Child protection capability framework user guide, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Health and Human Services 2018a, Child protection workforce strategy 20172020, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Health and Human Services 2018b, Wungurilwil Gapgapduir: Aboriginal Children and Families Agreement, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Health and Human Services 2018c, Dhelk Dja: Safe our way strong culture, strong peoples, strong families, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Health and Human Services 2018d, Family violence training for the child protection workforce, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Health and Human Services 2018e, Child protection manual, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Health and Human Services 2019, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural safety framework, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Human Services 1999, Victorian risk framework: a guided professional judgement approach to risk assessment in child protection, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Human Services 2012a, Best interests case practice model summary guide, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Human Services 2012b, Best interests case practice model, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Department of Human Services 2012c, Leading practice, a resource guide for child protection leaders, second edition, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Family Safety Victoria 2018, Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Gambrill E 2012, Critical thinking in clinical practice: improving the quality of judgments and decisions (third edition), John Wiley and Sons, Hoboken, New Jersey.
Gaskin C 2017, Best practice in child protection risk assessment, for Department of Health and Human Services by Gaskin Research, Melbourne.
Goleman D 1996, Emotional intelligence: Why it can matter more than IQ, Bloomsbury, London.
Hammond 1996, as cited in Munro, E, 1999, Common errors of reasoning in child protection work, Child Abuse and Neglect, vol. 23, no. 8,
pp. 745758.
Lonne R, Harries M, Featherstone B, Gray M 2010, Working ethically in children protection, (first edition), Routledge, London.
Morrison T 2005, Staff supervision in social care: making a real difference for staff and service users, Pavilion, Brighton.
Morrison T 2006, Emotional intelligence, emotion and social work: Context, characteristics, complications and contribution, British Journal of Social Work, reprinted in Morrison, 2009b.
Morrison T 2008, Understanding reflection, Teaching notes from module written for Leicester University.
Munro E 1999, Common errors of reasoning in child protection work, Child Abuse and Neglect, vol. 23, no. 8, pp. 746758.
Munro E 2002, Effective child protection (first edition), Sage, UK.
Munro E 2005, A systems approach to investigating child abuse deaths, British Journal of Social Work, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 531546.
Munro E 2008a, Effective child protection (second edition), Sage, UK.
Munro E 2020b, Effective child protection (third edition), Sage, UK.
Munro E 2008c, Improving reasoning in supervision, Social Work Now: the Practice Journal of Child, Youth and Family, no. 40, pp. 310.
Munro E 2011, The Munro Review of Child Protection: final report, a child-centred system. Department of Education, London, UK.
Munro E 2012, What is a systems approach? <www.education.gov.uk/munroreview>.Munro E 2018, Decision-making under uncertainty in child protection: Creating a just and learning culture, Child and Family Social Work, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 123130.
Office of Professional Practice 2019, SAFER children framework: supporting guided professional judgement for child protection practice in Victoria, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Reid G, Sigurdson E, Christianson-Wood J, Wright C 1995, In: Best interests case practice model summary guide, Department of Human Services, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne 2012.
Sigurdson E, Reid G 1996, The Manitoba risk estimation reference manual, version 4.8, Sigurdson, Reid and Associates Ltd, Manitoba.
Turnell A, Edwards S 1999, Signs of safety: a solution and safety-oriented approach to child protection casework, Norton, USA.
Victorian Government 2021, Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework, Melbourne, viewed 2 March 2021, <https://www. vic.gov.au/family-violence-multi-agency-risk- assessment-and-management>.
Victorian Public Sector Commission 2015, Code of conduct for Victorian public sector employees, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Additional readingBamblett M, Lewis P 2006, A vision for Koorie children and families: Embedding rights, embedding culture, Just Policy: A Journal of Australian Social Policy, no. 41, pp. 4246.
Barber J, Trocme N, Goodman D, Shlonsky A, Black T, Leslie B 2007, The reliability and predictive validity of consensus-based risk assessment, Centres of Excellence for Childrens Wellbeing, Canada.
Barlow J, Fisher J, Jones D 2012, Systemic review of models of analysing significant harm, Department for Education, Oxford University, UK.
Berg IK, Kelly S 2000, Building solutions in child protective services, WW Norton and Company, New York.
Bromfield L, Gillingham P, Higgins D 2007, Cumulative harm and chronic child maltreatment, Developing Practice: The Child and Family Social Work Journal, no. 19, pp. 3442.
Carroll M 2008, Supervision and transformational learning, Psychotherapy in Australia, vol. 14, no. 3, pp. 3845.
Covey S 2004, The 7 habits of highly effective people: Powerful lessons in personal change, Free Press, New York.
De Bortoli L 2014, Child removal in child protection practice: comparing structured professional judgement and actuarial risk assessment instruments, Centre for Forensic and Behavioural Science, School of Psychology and Psychiatry, Monash University, Melbourne.
De Bortoli L, Ogloff J, Coles J, Dolan M 2016, Towards best practice: Combining evidence- based research, structured assessment and professional judgement, Child and Family Social Work, vol. 22, no. 2, pp. 660669.
Dwyer J 2002, Promoting self-care through supervision: self-care audit and plan, unpublished workshop tools.
Finan S, Bromfield L, Arney F, Moore T 2018, Assessing the quality and comprehensiveness of child protection practice frameworks, Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia, Adelaide.
Gillingham P 2011, Decision-making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: are we just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes? Child and Family Social Work, no. 16, pp. 412421.
Goldstein H 1990, The knowledge base of social work practice: Theory, wisdom, analogue, or art? Families in society: The Journal of Contemporary Social Services, vol. 71, no. 1, 3243.
Hughes L, Pengelly P 1997, Staff supervision in a turbulent environment: Managing process and task in front-line services, Jessica Kingsley, London.
Lamont A, Price-Robertson R, Bromfield L 2010, Intake, investigation and assessment
background paper, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne 2010. In: Growing them strong, together: promoting the safety and wellbeing of the Northern Territorys children, Report of the Board of Northern Territory Government 2010, Inquiry into the Child Protection System in the Northern Territory 2010, Northern Territory Government, Darwin.
Price-Robertson R, Bromfield L 2011, Risk assessment in child protection, Resource sheet viewed 19 November 2019, <https://aifs.gov. au/cfca/publications/risk-assessment-child- protection>.
Rutter L, Brown K 2012, Critical thinking and professional judgement for social work, Sage Publications, London.
Victorian Auditor-Generals Office 2018, Maintaining the mental health of child protection practitioners, State Government of Victoria, Melbourne.
Wonnacott J 2012, Mastering social work supervision, Jessica Kingsley Press, UK.
Assessment Task 3 MSWPG7202 Social Work Practice with Children, Young People and Families
Students will conduct a case study analysis of a family where child protection concerns have been identified. Students will utilise the SAFER Children Framework Guide.
This case study analysis will be based on the case study of the Medina family (available by clicking on the link here, and on the Assessment Task Three section of the Moodle shell.
Students will write their case study analysis from the perspective of a social worker who is a member of a child protection intake team, where a notification has been made by the school principal.
You will base your analysis on the information that has been provided in the case study, and drawing from the SAFER Children Framework Guide and insights from course resources and seminar discussions/activities.
Due to the case study analysis nature of this assessment task, referencing is not required as the expectation is that the case study is presented in your own words. Please adhere to academic integrity standards.
The components of the case study are outlined below. A template has been provided (as a separate file in the Assessment Task Three section of the Moodle shell). Students are required to use the template.
Please ensure that the document you submit is a total of 9 pages (one page cover sheet, 8 pages following the format of the template). If you submit a document that is formatted in a way that presents challenges for marking (for example, the document is more than 9 pages long, and the tables are split across many pages) you will be required to reformat and resubmit.
The components of the case study analysis are as follows:
Utilising the SAFER Children Framework Guide (detailed information and examples provided in pages 39-64 of the Guide), students will analyse information and evidence to determine the risk assessment, addressing the elements of:
Analysis (vulnerability of the child; severity of harm; likelihood of harm; safety)
Judgment (consequence of harm; probability of harm (including family violence risk factors))
Identify a priority question to address information gaps you think you need to fill to engage in decision making
one question that you would like to ask the child in the case study
one question that you would like to ask the parent
For each question, identify:
what question you would ask;
what information gap this question relates to
why you think you need to find out this information
how you will apply the information you acquire to your risk assessment
Develop three priority issues and SMART goals, which you think should be central to the formulation of a case plan. These should align directly with the risk assessment, and take into account needs of the individual child and the needs of the parent/s or caregiver/s. (An example of the articulation of an issue, and a correlating SMART goal, is on page 77 of the Guide).
Critically reflect on how the child, and the parent/caregiver, in the case study might feel when a social worker lets them know that concerns have been raised about the child/rens safety and well-being. Ensure that your reflection relates to information provided in the case study.
