Frontline Workers’ Challenges in Hearing Children’s Voices in Family Support Services

Abstract

Research into children's voices continues to receive significant attention due to the limited progress made around the world in meeting Article 12 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child: the right to be heard and participate in decision making. However, there is a paucity of research providing insights into children's voices in family support services linked with the child protection system. This paper contributes new understandings into the everyday practice experiences of 46 frontline urban and regional practitioners working in family support services for UnitingCare, a nongovernment organisation in Queensland, Australia. Critical and interpretive research utilising WorldCafé focus groups reveals hearing children's voices is not occurring as an everyday practice. It identified four intersecting influences that prevent rights-based children's participation: program, conceptual, organisational, and direct practice issues. A sustained paradigm shift to protection with participation is needed to ensure children's voices are included as an everyday practice in family support services. IMPLICATIONS. Culture, program, organisation, and practice level challenges intersect to impede frontline family support services practitioners from hearing children's voices as an everyday practice. . A paradigm shift to "protection with participation", a culture that values children and their voices, alongside steadfast leadership are needed to embed a rights-based, child-inclusive approach in family support services as part of the care continuum.

Children’s participation in the child protection system: Are young people from poor families less likely to be heard?

“…This is apparently embedded in a more general preference of protection over participation and an aversion to risk: Workers strive to keep children safe and assume that the inclusion of children's own views in the decision-making process poses a risk because children are unable to make safe choices (Healy, 1998;McCarthy, 2016;Seim & Slettebø, 2017;van Bijleveld et al, 2015;van Bijleveld et al, 2020;Vis, Holtan, & Thomas, 2012). In addition, it is suggested that workers sometimes lack knowledge about children's rights (Stafford, Harkin, Rolfe, Morley & Burton, 2022;van Bijleveld et al, 2020) and that they may not have the necessary skills in communicating with children to facilitate their participation (Handley & Doyle, 2014;Križ & Skivenes, 2017;Križ & Roundtree-Swain, 2017;O'Reilly & Dolan, 2016;Pölkki, Vornanen, Pursiainen & Riikonen, 2012;Seim & Slettebø, 2017;van Bijleveld, Dedding & Bunders-Aelen, 2014). Moreover, there appears to be a lack of knowledge about child development (Handley & Doyle, 2014).…”

“…Thus, a parent-related variable (reluctance towards child participation) is intertwined with the worker-parent relationship. In addition, the worker-child relationship seems to matter: child participation may be more likely if the level of familiarity and trust between the worker and the child is higher (M. Bell, 2002;Cossar et al, 2016;Seim & Slettebø, 2017;Stafford et al, 2022;Strandbu, 2004;Vis et al, 2012). At the case level, there is some evidence that a more serious degree of risk (as evidenced, for example, in substantiated child abuse and neglect or domestic violence) makes it less likely for case workers to encourage child participation (Archard & Skivenes, 2009;Healy & Darlington, 2009;Seim & Slettebø, 2017;Vis & Thomas, 2009).…”

“…Moreover, there is evidence that children feel more encouraged to take an active part in the decision-making process if they have a trusted advocate by their side, which is something organizations may able to provide if the legal context allows for it (Dalrymple & Horan, 2008;Kennan, Brady, & Forkan, 2018). Finally, the organization's resources matter: According to several studies, participation becomes less likely if the workload of the professionals is higher, if there is a lack of financial resources allocated to participatory procedures, and/or if there is strong pressure to comply with time constraints (Barnes, 2012;Beckett, McKeigue & Taylor, 2007;Ogle, 2018;Pölkki et al, 2012;Stafford et al, 2022;van Bijleveld et al, 2015;Winter, 2009).…”

Can a Paradigm Shift from Risk Management to Critical Reflection Improve Child-Inclusive Practice?

“…A total of five WorldCafé workshops were held across two metropolitan and three regional locations. Practitioner experiences revealed four broad, intersecting barriers to child-inclusive practice, including conceptual, organisational, programmatic, and direct practice skills and resources [8]. While some pockets of child-inclusive practice were evident, indicating significant potential for expansion, there was an overall lack of intentional engagement with children as a consistent feature of practice across program sites.…”

“…According to Sinclair [6] (p. 329), this shift in thinking to value children's voices and participation has emerged from the coalescence of several developments: the demands for service user participation from the consumer movement; the promotion of a global children's rights agenda; and critical approaches to social science that contests the conception of children as 'incomplete adults'. However, despite these developments and a commitment on the part of practitioners to recognise children as competent social actors, it is widely acknowledged that meaningful child-inclusive practice has struggled to move beyond rhetorical practice (see for example [2,4,[6][7][8][9][10][11]). Holt [11] argues that this is because of the tension between the rights versus welfare debate-where children's participation is considered to over-burden them with adult-like responsibility, which risks their corresponding right to protection and threatens their experience of childhood.…”