Child safety in policy: Who is being kept safe and from what?

Abstract

Keeping children safe from harm is a national policy priority in Australia. Extensive inquiries and reviews have highlighted institutions' persistent failures to respond ethically and appropriately to child abuse and its lifelong impacts on survivors. Policy efforts now reflect considerable emphasis on safeguarding children, including through the development of 'child safe' organisations. The realisation of these policy aspirations requires close attention to how 'child safe' is conceptualised and operationalised in different organisational contexts. Drawing on an analysis of policy in Australia and other international jurisdictions, namely New Zealand, the United Kingdom and Ireland, this article engages critically with the notion of 'child safe' in policy, to explore who is to be safe, from what and how, in organisational settings. The findings suggest emergent discourses of 'child safe' are bound up with particular constructions of both children and safety, reflect current social and political understandings and agendas, and have implications for organisations' approaches to safety. Ensuring the safety

Children and safety in Australian policy: Implications for organisations and practitioners

“…Two key constructions of children were evident in the policy, which broadly align with those identified in international jurisdictions Powell et al 2020. These constructions were focused on vulnerable children needing protection from harm (in 76.5% of Australian national and 87.2% of state and territory documents) and recognition of children’s rights, agency and capabilities (in 94.1% of Australian national and 84.6% of state and territory documents) (see Figure 1).…”

“…Conceptualisations of children in terms of vulnerability, agency and rights, along with understandings of safety, risk and protection, influence policy aims and, in turn, are reflected in their implementation and the cultural conditions that exist within organisations. While international policy comparisons are made elsewhere (Powell et al 2020), this article closely examines Australian policy to ascertain how child safety is understood, constructed and operationalised. The following questions guided this analysis: 2 How is children’s safety constructed in national, state and territory policies? Does the policy create the organisational culture necessary to support children’s safety and wellbeing? Does the policy promote compliance? …”

‘Warm Eyes’, ‘Warm Breath’, ‘Heart Warmth’: Using Aroha (Love) and Warmth to Reconceptualise and Work towards Best Interests in Child Protection

“…However, the journey related to child welfare and child protection since then, while witnessing some achievements in the countries in which we work, ANZ, Norway and Western Australia (WA), hope-filled child protection policy and practice is becoming little more than a chimera. In each of our countries, and indeed in much of the rest of Western child protection, efforts to retain inclusive, participatory, positive partnerships with families are met with challenges and oppositions (Kojan and Lonne 2012;Hyslop and Keddell 2018;Powell et al 2020). Times have changed, stresses on families have changed and the preparedness of society to sanction any other than parent-blaming responses seems now a figment of a long distance past.…”

Progressing children’s rights and participation: Utilising rights‐informed resources to guide policy and practice

“…While much social policy increasingly makes reference (implicitly or explicitly) to Article 12 of the UNCRC 3 and consultations with children and young people are argued by some to be routine practice (Byrne & Lundy, 2019), there appears to be considerably less focus on how policy aspirations are realised in different practice contexts. Recent research in different sector contexts in Australia, for example, shows that recognition of children's rights in policy is often “aspirational, transitory and tokenistic, rather than embedded” (Powell et al, 2020:31). Australian state and territory government department child protection policies, for example, often recognise children's rights to be protected from harm but rarely mention children's right to participate in matters that affect them (Powell et al, 2020).…”

“…Recent research in different sector contexts in Australia, for example, shows that recognition of children's rights in policy is often “aspirational, transitory and tokenistic, rather than embedded” (Powell et al, 2020:31). Australian state and territory government department child protection policies, for example, often recognise children's rights to be protected from harm but rarely mention children's right to participate in matters that affect them (Powell et al, 2020). The analysis by these authors suggests that countries with a policy landscape that privileges children's rights, participation and empowerment (e.g.…”