A Study of Engagement in Neighborhood-Based Child Welfare Services

Altman, Julie Cooper

doi:10.1177/1049731507309825

Cited by 61 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, Gladstone and colleagues (2014, p.56) suggest that engagement has been conceptualised in a variety of ways in the literature including 'involvement' (Randolph, Fincham & Radey, 2009); 'collaboration' (Altman, 2008);…”

Section: Defining Participation and Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies have shown that due to fear of the system and recognition of the potential consequences, parents may attempt to hide their ambivalence about intervention, by behaviourally presenting as if they are participating (Corby, Millar, & Young, 1996). However, instead of active engagement, this behaviour may reflect superficial or disguised compliance as parents try to avoid being labelled as non-compliant or failing to taking responsibility (Altman, 2008;Damman, 2014;Ghaffar, Manby, & Race, 2012;Littell & Tajima, 2000;Sykes;Yatchmenoff, 2005) or to prevent escalation of the intervention (Ivec et al, 2012;Littell & Tajima, 2000;Dumbrill, 2006;Venables et al, 2015;Yatchmenoff, 2005).…”

Section: Defining Participation and Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There is widespread international evidence that demonstrates that parents experience child protection systems as inflexible, punitive, frightening and powerful (Altman, 2008;Ghaffar et al, 2012;Sykes, 2011). Part of this perception may be due to parents not instigating contact but instead being subject to investigation by a service they perceive to have limitless power, including the power to remove their children (Ayón, Aisenberg, & Erera, 2010;Dumbrill, 2006).…”

Section: Factors That Impact Parent Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The lack of responsiveness to parent context is further compounded by the fact that parents are often too fearful to present alternative perceptions to those proposed by practitioners, as they do not want to be considered as non-compliant (Altman, 2008;Ghaffar et al, 2012). An inability to express alternative understandings may be exacerbated for parents who are less articulate or those that experience learning difficulties (Holland, 2000;Booth & Booth, 2005).…”

Section: Factors That Impact Parent Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These negative attitudes are associated with punitive approaches to practice and have implications for the manner in which practitioners utilise their power and engage with parents. Several studies have shown that workers may use coercive and punitive strategies to coerce clients, leveraging parent fears to secure compliance with both assessment processes and intervention plans (Altman, 2008;Bell, 1996;Corby et al, 1996;Harris, 2011;Križ et al, 2012 ). Similarly, studies from the USA have shown that case plans are often used to test parent motivation rather than to document the services necessary to address the needs and concerns (Altman, 2008;Smith, 2008).…”

Section: Factors That Impact Parent Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Collaborative practice in statutory in child protection practice: Parental agreements and procedural justice

Venables¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Internationally, there is a growing trend to introduce alternative pathways for children and their families involved with statutory child protection systems. These alternatives focus on developing partnerships with families in order to promote children's safety and well-being within their homes. The form that alternative pathways take varies by jurisdiction.In Queensland (Australia), where this study takes place, the State Government has identified the use of parental agreements to be the least intrusive option available to the child protection authority when a child has been substantiated, via a full investigation, as in need of protection. These agreements are known as 'Intervention with Parental Agreement' (IPA) and allow for the statutory authority to work in partnership with families to address child protection concerns, without the use of a court order. Little is known about how IPA occurs and the extent to which its collaborative ethos is realised in practice.This study aims to provide a detailed understanding of collaborative practice in statutory child protection, using the example of IPA. The study has a key focus on procedural justice, that is the quality of treatment that people receive from an authority during decision-making processes (Tyler, 2006). Using a two-phase, qualitative methodology the study explores the perspectives of practitioners and parents involved in IPA practice.Phase one involved semi-structured interviews with 33 practitioners from the Queensland child protection authority, tertiary family support services and a service responsible for providing cultural guidance in cases that involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. Phase two of the study involved semi-structured interviews with four parents. The interviews captured their unique experience of being subject to IPA, with a focus on their procedural justice judgements.The findings of the study indicate that the crisis-driven nature of statutory child protection in conjunction with the dominance of a risk-adverse culture is perceived by practitioners to be a barrier to collaborative practice. However, the local office culture within branch offices of the child protection authority and relationship-driven models of practice were found to facilitate collaboration in IPA practice.In particular, the nature and quality of three key partnerships of practice was found to shape how IPA practice occurred. These partnerships are: intra-agency partnerships, particularly those between statutory officers at the branch office level; inter-agency 2 partnerships; and those between practitioners and parents. The findings highlight that each of these partnerships are characterised by hierarchical relationships between the different stakeholders. Within all three of these partnerships, procedural justice emerged as an important factor for facilitating positive and collaborative working partnerships. This demonstrated that procedurally fair treatment is important to both parents and practitioners during IPA practice.All of the p...

show abstract

Section: Defining Participation and Engagementmentioning

confidence: 99%