From investigation to collaboration: Practitioner perspectives on the transition phase of parental agreements

Children and Youth Services Review 52 (2015) 9–16

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

From investigation to collaboration: Practitioner perspectives on the transition phase of parental agreements Jemma Venables ⁎, Karen Healy, Gai Harrison University of Queensland, Australia

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 11 December 2014 Received in revised form 19 February 2015 Accepted 19 February 2015 Available online 27 February 2015 Keywords: Child abuse Differential response Parent agreement Family support

a b s t r a c t Internationally there is a growing trend to implement alternative pathways within statutory child protection. This trend has emerged in response to burgeoning pressures on statutory child protection authorities and research highlighting the potentially negative impact of intrusive interventions on families. There is great diversity in the types of alternative pathways that have been implemented across jurisdictions. Differential response and parental agreements are two examples of alternative pathways that can be enacted for cases that warrant ongoing intervention. Whilst sharing commonalities such as providing supportive responses and working collaboratively with parents to avoid children going into out-of-home care, these two approaches have a significant difference in their implementation. Differential response allows families to be linked with supportive interventions without the prerequisite of a full child protection investigation. In contrast, in many jurisdictions, including Queensland (Australia) where this study takes place, the implementation of parental agreements occurs after the investigation has occurred. As such parents are expected to transition from being investigated to being a collaborative partner in addressing child protection concerns. In this paper, we report on a study into the use of parental agreements, known in Queensland as “Intervention with Parental Agreement” (IPA) and focus on this transition phase. Drawing on interviews with 25 practitioners we highlight the factors that impact this critical stage of IPA practice and identify factors that facilitate and inhibit a successful transition from investigation to collaboration. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Internationally there is a growing trend to prioritise the implementation of alternative pathways within a statutory child protection context in order to provide families with supportive responses and collaborative partnerships in order to avoid children going into out-ofhome care (Marshall, Charles, Kendrick, & Pakalniskiene, 2010). The strategies utilised to achieve this goal vary substantially between jurisdictions. Two prominent examples of these strategies are differential response and parental agreements. Differential response is generally characterised as being a legislated alternative pathway that circumvents formal child protection interventions. Conversely, parental agreements may be introduced as a less intrusive intervention option after a formal investigation has occurred. Whilst these two approaches share some common principles and aims the presence of a formal investigation in parental agreement signifies a substantial difference in implementation when compared to differential response. In Queensland (Australia), where this study takes place, the statutory child protection authority legislates for the use of parental agreements in an effort to secure the

⁎ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (J. Venables).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.02.007 0190-7409/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

well-being and safety of ‘at-risk’ children within the family home. These agreements, known as “Intervention with Parental Agreement” (IPA) are the focus of this paper. Whilst aiming to reduce the impact of statutory intervention, Queensland's use of parental agreements only occurs after a full investigation as occurred, rather than constituting an alternative to investigation. As a result, parents and practitioners are required to navigate a transition from the parent being considered as an involuntary subject of an investigation to being represented as a ‘voluntary’ partner in the intervention. This paper focuses on practitioner perspectives on the transition phase of IPA work, where a parent's role changes from being the subject of an investigation to a ‘voluntary’ partner in the change process. These workers' perspectives provide valuable insight into the challenges and opportunities that exist at this crucial phase of work with families. Illuminating the strategies practitioners use to manage the transition from investigation to collaboration allows for a better understanding of how this shapes their engagement and work with families. The first section of this paper examines the evolution of parental involvement in child protection practice. This is followed by an overview of parental engagement in the investigation and assessment process. The next section provides an overview of the study and its findings. In light of these findings and other supporting literature, the concluding section considers the critical role of practitioners in

10

J. Venables et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 52 (2015) 9–16

negotiating the transition from investigation to collaboration and what factors promote a successful transition. 1.1. Parental involvement in child protection practice Responses to child maltreatment are often conceptualised as two opposing orientations: child protection and family support. A child protection orientation is generally characterised as a legalistic and forensic approach whilst a family support orientation is considered to be more focused on therapeutic intervention into family life (Gilbert, 2012). In Australia, a child protection rather than family support orientation places significant emphasis on evidence gathering, as this is what provides the legal basis for statutory intervention (Harris, 2011). Consequently investigation, assessment and monitoring take precedence over the provision of support to families, resulting in an adversarial relationship between parents and the State (Freymond & Cameron, 2006). Many child protection authorities, including the responsible government department in Queensland, have adopted legalistic, bureaucratic and forensically orientated policies and processes focused on managing risk (Gillingham, 2006; Higgins & Katz, 2008; Lonne, Parton, Thomson, & Harries, 2009). Multiple studies of parental perspectives on child protection authorities indicate that regulatory actions of this nature are experienced in a negative way (Dale, 2004; Dumbrill, 2006; Scott, 2009). In recognition that a focus on investigation, risk and coercive intervention in child protection work is likely to result in negative outcomes for families, two important concepts have emerged in child protection policy and legislation internationally: family participation (Munro, 2011) and the implementation of less intrusive and more supportive interventions (Carmody, 2013). In some jurisdiction alternative pathways that avoid forensic interventions, known as differential response, have been introduced. However, in other jurisdictions strategies such as parental agreements, which have the aim of working collaboratively with families to identify and address the issues impacting on child safety may only be implemented after an investigation. Less intrusive responses for dealing with cases warranting further intervention by statutory child protection authorities have been implemented across jurisdictions internationally (Kaplan & Merkel-Holguin, 2008; Lonne et al., 2009). There is considerable variation in the implementation of parental agreements both within and between countries due to the unique, social, political and cultural traditions in which they were developed (Kaplan & Merkel-Holguin, 2008). In Queensland the Government has specifically identified IPA as a strategy to keep children safe using the least intrusive methods (Department of Communities, 2012). An IPA allows the child protection authority to provide ongoing intervention and support to a family without a court order (CPA 1999). In order to be categorised as an IPA case an assessment of the family must substantiate that there is a ‘child in need of protection’ (CPA 1999). The parent(s) or carers with whom the child resides must also be assessed as ‘able and willing to work with the [statutory child protection authority] to meet the child's protection and care needs’ (Child Protection Act 1999 s51ZBc(i)). Children often remain in the home during an IPA. Both in Australia and internationally the implementation of parental agreement and other participatory practices has been criticised on the basis that they have been simply ‘added-on’ to systems that essentially remain top-down and adversarial with a primary focus on managing risk (for example, see Burford, 2009; Freymond & Cameron, 2006; Harris, 2011). In one Canadian study, parents reported that they felt powerless regardless of whether or not child protection interventions were the result of parental agreements or court orders (Dumbrill, 2006). Practitioners have similarly reflected on the difficulties in working collaboratively with parents when their primary focus is risk management (Lonne et al., 2009). A further criticism of parental agreements is that they may be used in ways outside of policy

intentions, such as for the purpose of gathering further evidence, limiting parent access to legal representation, or to avoid financial and time costs associated with court proceedings (Walsh & Douglas, 2011). Understanding the impact and implication of implementing parental agreements after an investigation is largely unexplored in the literature. Despite the limited understanding of the factors that facilitate successful, voluntary parental agreements after an investigation occurs, there is a large body of literature regarding the impact of investigation on parents and the strategies that workers can utilise to enhance working relationships. These will now be discussed within the context of parental engagement during child protection investigations. 1.2. Understanding parent engagement Both Australian and international studies have identified common parental responses to child protection investigations such as feelings of powerlessness, fear, intimidation and stigma (Buckley, Carr, & Whelan, 2011; Dale, 2004; Dumbrill, 2010; Harris & Gosnell, 2012; Turney, 2012). As a result, parents often reluctantly comply with proposed ‘voluntary’ interventions for fear of escalation to more coercive interventions (Dale, 2004; Dumbrill, 2010; Healy, Darlington, & Yellowlees, 2012; Walsh & Douglas, 2011). This fear is not unfounded, with studies showing that workers escalate pressure on families to secure cooperation through the use of threats, persuasion and temporary assessment orders (Bell, 1996; Corby, Millar, & Young, 1996; Scott, 1996). Harris (2012) argues that focusing on parental compliance with assessment and monitoring has negative implications for how responsive services can be to individual family needs. These assessment processes tend to focus on parental failings rather than strengths and position parents as subjects to be monitored rather than partners in the change process (Harris, 2011; Turnell & Edwards, 1999). In an Australian study of the experience of parents following their first child protection investigation, it was found that low levels of trust ensued with 45% of respondents indicating that the investigation process had made them less trusting of the child protection authority (Harris & Gosnell, 2012). This distrust has implications for parent's compliance with child protection agencies. A Canadian study found that when parents felt that the child protection authority was using power over them rather than supporting them, they were more likely to ‘play the game’ by feigning cooperation or openly opposing workers (Dumbrill, 2006). In contrast, parents who felt supported during the intervention subsequently worked collaboratively with the child protection authority. Accordingly, assessment practices and interventions that diminish parental autonomy may alienate families, preventing their active and willing engagement in change (Harnett & Day, 2008). This does not refute that selected families may require some form of compulsion to engage in child protection interventions; but rather highlights the importance of the manner in which they are engaged (Trotter, 2015). Building a trusting relationship with parents prior to conducting an assessment was found by Fargion (2012) to be an important facilitative condition for working with parents in child protection. Worker skill and qualities have been frequently cited in the literature as crucial for establishing meaningful working relationships with parents (e.g. Dale, 2004; Howe, 2010; Maiter, Palmer, & Manji, 2006; Spratt & Callan, 2004). Empathy, a non-judgemental attitude and a belief in parental capacity for change coupled with skills in role clarification and eliciting parent perspectives are recognised as factors conducive to building good working relationships with parents (Cleaver, Nicholson, Tarr, & Cleaver, 2007; Forrester, Kershaw, Moss, & Hughes, 2008; Keddel, 2011). Yet, despite a large body of literature supporting the need for relationship-based models of child protection practice, little is known about how workers manage the transition from investigation to a collaborative partnership with parents, which in turn shapes their future work with families. Accordingly, our study sought to illuminate the challenges that practitioners face as well as the strategies they use to negotiate the transition from investigation to collaboration.

J. Venables et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 52 (2015) 9–16

2. Method This paper reports on stage one of a three stage qualitative study into Intervention with Parental Agreement which commenced in 2012. The three stages are: interviews with practitioners (stage one); interviews with service users (stage two); and a study of intervention with parental agreement in practice (stage three). The project is funded by the Australian Research Council, the Queensland child protection authority (Department of Communities, Child Safety & Disability Services) and a non-government community support and advocacy service (Micah Projects). Stage one of the project explored practitioner perspectives and experiences of the transition phase of IPA work. In the beginning phase of an IPA, the practitioner's orientation shifts from seeing parents as the subject of an investigation to working with them as ‘voluntary’ partners in addressing identified child protection concerns. This stage of the study sought to identify: (a) the challenges faced by practitioners in transitioning from investigation to collaboration with families under an IPA; and (b) the strategies they use when working with IPA cases to manage the transition from investigation to collaboration. 2.1. Participants and recruitment A total of twenty-five practitioners were recruited from the project's two industry partners: Department of Communities, Child Safety & Disability Services and Micah Projects. As well as being industry partners these two groups represent key stakeholders in the IPA process; the statutory child protection authority and a non-government organisation that can be enlisted to provide therapeutic intervention and support. The eighteen participants from the Queensland Child Protection authority were drawn from four different branch offices from both metropolitan and rural areas. The seven participants from the nongovernment community support and advocacy organisations (which we will refer to as the “NGO”) were drawn from the metropolitan area only. To be eligible for the study, participants were required to: possess a tertiary qualification in social work or a related field; be currently

11

employed by one of the industry partners; and have experience in implementing at least three IPA cases. The research team consulted with the research officers from both industry partners to identify suitable sites. The Child Protection Authority's research officer identified four service centres (branch offices) and provided the research team with the service centre manager's contact details. Service centre managers were responsible for identifying which members of their team met the selection criteria and for providing their details to the research team. Eligible participants were then contacted by the research team, and an interview was arranged with those interested in taking part in the study. This recruitment strategy was mirrored for the NGO, with the agency's research officer providing the research team with the names and contact details of staff members who met the selection criteria. Of the practitioners approached, two were unable to participate in the study due to being unavailable at the time: one from the Child Protection Authority and the other from the NGO. Table 1 summarises the characteristics of the twenty-five respondents. From Table 1 it can be seen that respondents were drawn from both regional and metropolitan settings, had diverse disciplinary backgrounds and a wide range of experience in working with IPA cases. Respondents also occupied a variety of different roles, ranging from frontline work with families to more senior management positions. Interviews were conducted with thirteen frontline workers: nine statutory child protection workers and four family support workers from the NGO. These practitioners work directly with families to address their identified concerns in order to reduce the risk of abuse and neglect. Seven respondents, four from the Child Protection Authority, and three from the NGO, were team leaders. The role of a team leader is to provide guidance, instruction and direction to the team of people working with families. As part of this role team leaders may also attend IPA meetings and be involved in decisions pertaining to these families. Three respondents from the Child Protection Authority were Senior Practitioners, who are responsible for providing education and supervision to staff in order to inform best practice within statutory child protection. The final two respondents were managers of child

Table 1 Participant characteristics. Sector

Geographical location

Office

Role

IPA experience

Disciplinary background

Participant code

Government—Department of Child Safety Services

Metropolitan

Child Safety Service Centre 1

Child protection worker

20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases Less than 5 cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 10–20 cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 10–20 cases 20+ cases 20+ cases 5 cases 20+ cases 10–20 cases 10–20 cases

Human Services Social Work Psychology Social Work Social Work Social Work Community Work Social Science & Human Services Human Services Social Work Social Science Behavioural Science Social Science & Human Services Social Work Social Work Arts (Psychology) Social Work PhD Psychology Graduate Certificate Social Work Diploma Human Services Social Science & Human Services Social Work Human Services Human Services

CPW1-Gvt CPW2-Gvt CPW3-Gvt CPW4-Gvt Man1-Gvt SP1-Gvt TL1-Gvt CPW5-Gvt TL2-Gvt CPW6-Gvt CPW7-Gvt SP2-Gvt TL3-Gvt CPW8-Gvt CPW9-Gvt Man2-Gvt SP3-Gvt TL4-Gvt FSW1-NGO FSW2-NGO FSW3-NGO FSW4-NGO TL5-NGO TL6-NGO TL7-NGO

Child Safety Service Centre 2 Child Safety Service Centre 3

Regional

Non-government

Metropolitan

Child Safety Service Centre 4

Manager Senior practitioner Team leader Child protection worker Team leader Child protection worker Senior practitioner Team leader Child protection worker Manager Senior practitioner Team leader Family support worker

Team leader

12

J. Venables et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 52 (2015) 9–16

safety service centres (branch offices) with the responsibility of overseeing child protection practice within their delegation. 2.2. Data collection Data collection occurred between June and September 2012. An interview guide was developed by the research team in consultation with the industry partners. Questions focused on: (a) respondents' experience in working with IPAs; (b) their perceptions regarding when IPAs were an appropriate intervention; (c) the phases involved in working with families on an IPA; and (d) factors related to successful and unsuccessful implementation of IPAs. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with all participants at their worksites. The interviews were digitally recorded and then transcribed. 2.3. Analysis Interview transcripts were entered into NVivo, a qualitative software programme (QSR International Pty Ltd). This facilitated ongoing comparison between responses and the exploration of patterns, links, interrelationships and divergences within the data set. Thematic analysis was utilised and the coding frame included themes related to the processes and events involved in the ‘transition’ phase of IPA work from investigation and assessment to collaboration with parents to address identified concerns. Thus, the coding process also sought to identify the factors that practitioners perceived to contribute to challenges and opportunities in managing this transition and engaging with parents. 3. Findings This paper focuses on practitioner perspectives on the transition phase of IPA work, where a parent's role changes from being the subject of an investigation to a ‘collaborator’ in the change process. Three key events were common across the participants' accounts of the transition phase: (1) securing agreement from the parent for an IPA following the completion of an investigation into the child protection concerns; (2) a handover process from the Investigation and Assessment team to the team responsible for ongoing IPA work; and (3) holding a family group meeting at which a case plan could be developed to guide the ongoing intervention. In discussing the transition phase of IPA practice, respondents identified that factors related to parents, practitioners and timing impacted upon how successfully the transition from investigation of parents, to collaboration with parents occurred. The four key factors identified were: 1) parental motivation for agreeing to the IPA; 2) the engagement of parents by the investigation and assessment team; 3) parent understanding of the IPA process; and 4) the timing of actions within the IPA handover process. These will now be discussed. 3.1. Parent motivation for agreeing to the IPA In discussing why parents provided agreement to working under an IPA, participants identified two key motivating factors: 1) fear; and 2) insight into and responsibility for the child protection concerns. As one respondent stated: ‘the families that do agree are the ones who either acknowledge they do need help, or they feel that if they don't work with us an order might be taken’—CPW4 All participants, except for two Department workers cited parental fear as the key factor that motivated parents to agree to an IPA. Respondents reported that parents provided agreement for the IPA due to a fear of the consequences if they did not. The consequences of not providing

agreement were conceptualised by respondents as a fear of the use of court orders and/or the removal of children. The prevalence of fear as a motivator for providing agreement was recognised by a small group of participants from the NGO to be more elevated for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. ‘So I think even that history with Indigenous people, I think, is a real, can be a real barrier for people with the history of the stolen generations. Probably with any big, powerful Government department getting involved in people's lives’—FSW4-NGO This excerpt illustrates not only the power of the Department, but also the impact of past policies and disempowering interactions between Indigenous Australians and Government organisations on people's current experiences of working with statutory child protection agencies. This legacy of past policies is important when we consider the overrepresentation of Indigenous Australian families within the child protection system. Within the Australian context Indigenous children are ten times more likely to be in out-of-home care than their non-Indigenous counterparts (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2012). Both Department and NGO workers also highlighted that whilst fear could be motivator for parents to provide agreement, it also functioned as a barrier to collaborative working relationships later in the IPA process. This was reportedly due to parents agreeing with Department requests and viewpoints in order to maintain custody of their children: Most families don't actually agree there is really a problem, most families don't agree to work with the Department. They more put up with what they have to in order to keep the children. So for them they're doing risk management as much as we are. For them the risk is having the kids removed, for us it's the kids remaining in the home’—CPW8 As illustrated by the above excerpt some Department staff acknowledged that parents may not be providing agreement to interventions due to having insight/taking responsibility for the child protection concerns. However, this view of parent cooperation being used as a strategy by parents to avoid the removal of their children was more frequently outlined by NGO workers. ‘The families that I've seen that have the best outcomes with child safety are particularly co-operative. If they are skilled at being able to develop relationships with CSOs [child protection workers] and to play a game, things work well for them’—TL7NGO Conceptualising parents as ‘playing the game’ highlights the powerful nature of the Department and recognition by parents that compliance with the authority would lead to better outcomes for them. This finding is congruent with the international literature and the concept of disguised compliance (see Dumbrill, 2006). It was highlighted by respondents that whilst parents may provide their agreement for an IPA, they may demonstrate resistance later in the IPA process via a lack of engagement and/or avoidance techniques. This being said, respondents from both the Department and NGO identified that some parents provided their agreement due to identifying that intervention and support would be beneficial to help address concerns within their family. Whilst respondents reported that parents usually provided their agreement for an IPA, there was a small proportion of parents who would resist and refuse to work with the Department under an IPA. As one worker stated: ‘I think where you see more affluent or system savvy people, quite often they will decide they are going to call bluff—‘I don't need your involvement, you're not going to do anything anyway’—TL5NGO

J. Venables et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 52 (2015) 9–16

This excerpt illustrates the perception that parents with greater resources may be more able to assert themselves during IPA negotiations. Factors such as a greater understanding of the child protection system, strong communication and social skills, as well as greater access to resources, such as legal representation, were reported as tools utilised by parents to resist the Department's suggestion of an IPA.

13

3.2.1. Strategies for repairing relationships post investigation The workers responsible for ongoing IPA work reported that they needed to employ strategies to rebuild relationships and re-engage parents, in order to facilitate a collaborative partnership for the ongoing IPA work. The strategies employed by the workers varied, but two commonly used approaches were: 1) to spend more time with parents in an attempt to rebuild relationships:

3.2. The impact of investigation on how parents are engaged A second key theme that was identified related to how parents were engaged during the investigation and transition into IPA work. Factors related to the statutory child protection authority as well as the skills and attitudes of individual workers responsible for the investigation and proposition of an IPA had implications for the manner in which parents engaged with the transition to IPA. ‘IPAs are a great idea in theory. I think where they fall down is in the practice of them. I think IPAs often get used as the short end of the stick, rather than actually being seen as what I think the intention or hope is. Which is about it being a partnership and a plan of support. So in theory it's about saying well, “the parent's given consent, and it's their agreement”. But in reality, how much? What are your options if you say no?’—FSW2 As illustrated by this excerpt, the participant indicated that whilst the intention of IPA was to work in a less intrusive and coercive manner with parents, the institutional logic of the Department often acted as a barrier to this. The majority of respondents from both the Department and NGO agreed that there was often a disjuncture between the policy intention of building collaborative partnerships and reality of IPA practice. Respondents suggested that whilst the aim of IPA might be to engage parents through assessment and the provision of support, the reality of practice is often more characterised by investigation and intervention. The predominant reason for this disjuncture identified was that power was often used over parents during this phase of IPA work due to the forensic and investigatory focus. ‘The level of engagement we have at the IA [investigation and assessment] level… whether or not we have seen our IA [investigation and assessment] work through a therapeutic lens, which often we don't. We see it through a forensic lens’—Man1-Gvt Here the manager highlights the dominance of a forensic approach to investigating child protection concerns. Most respondents reported that parents' experience of a forensic child protection investigation was negative and had contributed to parental fear, resentment and disempowerment. The way investigative workers approached their role and interactions with parents emerged as a potential barrier to forming positive and collaborative working relationships post investigation. ‘We [IPA workers] do find sometimes, and it can be difficult for the IA [investigation and assessment] team, they do have to tackle some really challenging issues with families that they've known for about two minutes, but we find that we are kind of having to patch up relationships in the first month’—TL2-Gvt Here the respondent recognises that the organisational and legislative requirement for the investigation and assessment worker to investigate and substantiate the child protection concerns impacted working relationships with parents. Several Department respondents mirrored this sentiment by identifying that they experienced ruptured relationships with parents following the handover from the investigation and assessment team to the ongoing IPA team.

‘and that can take time, its repairing first, then building trust again. These parents need to trust us and we need to have some sort of trust in that partnership, but it can all fall apart, right at the front end’—TL3-Gvt And/or 2) to reiterate the distinction between the investigation team and those responsible for ongoing IPA work: ‘they [IPA worker] are usually introduced by the IA [investigation and assessment] worker, so it's a bit of a clear, “We're finished now” kind of thing and here's the [new] worker”—TL1-Gvt Respondents identified that that this delineation between teams and workers was made in order to signal a shift from investigatory work to ongoing intervention. The intention of making this distinction was to establish a new way of interacting with the parent and forging more collaborative partnerships. Another factor that was found to mediate how parents were engaged was the skills of the individual investigation workers, as illustrated by the excerpts below. That's also very much in the engagement skills of the CSOs [child protection worker] that do the IA [investigation and assessment]. How the assistance and help is sold to the family, can have a critical impact on whether they see that as a hopeful thing: “We can get some help” or whether they [parents] see it as “These jackboot people, just trying to force me to do something”. It's a very skilled area for that transition’—Man2-Gvt Consistent with previous studies (Forrester et al., 2008; Trotter, 2004) both Department and NGO workers alike reported that it took a skilled investigation and assessment worker to effectively manage their dual role of conducting an investigation whilst still maintaining a working relationship that would facilitate a transition to a working, collaborative partnership under an IPA. The majority of participants identified the worker's approach to sharing information about IPA purpose and processes with parents to be one of the most important skills in achieving this. Interestingly, the language used by the Department and NGO workers to explain this skill was very different. Within the Department, the focus was on how workers ‘sold’ the IPA to parents: It depends on your level of expertise on ‘selling it’ to the family’—CPW9Gv ‘Selling it’ was described as the worker's ability to promote the benefits or services parents would get access to if they agreed to the IPA. Conversely, the NGO workers were more likely to speak about the communication skills required to explain the process and implications of an IPA to parents in a manner which helped them understand what they were agreeing to. ‘It often comes down to the individual skills and commitment to good process of the actual worker involved, the CSO [child protection worker]. There are some fantastic practitioners out there who actively attend to making sure that the people that they are

14

J. Venables et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 52 (2015) 9–16

working with understand what the process is, what the implications are and unpack all that beautifully.’—TL5-NGO These quotes highlight the importance not only of the engagement skills of an investigation worker, but also the importance of being able to accurately and clearly explain to parents what is meant by, and involved in, an IPA. The majority of participants identified that the worker's approach and ability to share information about the IPA purpose and processes with parents was one of the most important skills for engaging parents in a manner that would result in collaborative working relationships post investigation. The impact of parental understanding of IPAs on the transition phase will now be discussed. 3.3. Parent understanding of IPA purpose and processes A third key theme evident in the data was the impact of the level of understanding that parents had regarding the IPA purpose and process on the transition phase. Respondents suggested that a lack of parental understanding regarding the reasons and processes associated with an IPA were linked to challenges later in the process when the case was handed over from the investigation and assessment team to the IPA team for ongoing intervention. ‘It's about the parents having that understanding, that's where it's going to be not successful. If they don't understand that an IPA is about their engagement with us, their willingness to work with us. That's the big words for IPA, that parents are willing and able, and they come from the Act’.—CPW1-Gvt This excerpt highlights the nuance within the child protection legislation that requires parents engaged in an IPA to be ‘able and willing to work’ with the Department to address the child protection concerns without a court order. The barriers to parental understanding had two sources: child protection workers' explanation of the IPA process may be confused due to inherent tensions arising from seeking a ‘voluntary’ agreement in the context of statutory child protection and second, the parents' issues can present limitations in their understanding the IPA process. Turning first to confusion over the child protection workers explanation of the IPA, we note that several respondents from both the Department and NGO highlighted that confusion arose when IPAs were touted as ‘voluntary’ interventions, yet were also a legislated intervention. Respondents highlighted challenges arising from poor or inaccurate communication by investigative officers of the nature of an intervention with parent agreement. As one respondent stated: ‘There's been a few examples, [investigation and assessment] officers will say, “Yep, you'll sign up to an IPA”, but not actually say step by step, it will involve developing a case plan, there will be an officer coming to your house once a week. So yeah—if they [parents] don't have a clear picture of that it can be quite hard for them to engage in the IPA as well. Knowledge is power’—CPS6-Gvt This excerpt speaks to the importance of parents not only being informed about what they are agreeing to, but also to the importance of them understanding the processes, expectations and consequences so that they were more able to engage collaboratively with the IPA process. Respondents noted that poor understanding of the IPA process was later linked to parents trying to withdraw their agreement without understanding that doing so could lead to an escalation of the type of intervention used by the Department to address the child protection concerns. Parents' concerns and issues also contributed to barriers to the achievement of a mutual understanding of IPA for both practitioners and families. Whilst respondents identified that investigation workers

often did explain the reasons and process to parents, there were barriers to parents being able to fully understand the information. Parent feelings of fear and being overwhelmed by the investigation process and involvement of the Department, were cited as factors that could impede understanding of the IPA purpose and process: ‘they may know they have signed something or somebody has told them, but often that level of confusion for the women is a common experience’—TL5-NGO Whilst these sentiments were voiced by both groups of participants they were more frequently expressed by NGO workers, who stated that they often heard parents express confusion and uncertainty regarding what was occurring to them and what was expected of them moving forward under an IPA. Parent literacy levels, mental health and drug use were also cited as barriers to parents fully understanding what they were agreeing to. In recognition of this respondents, such as the one below, highlighted the importance of worker skill in providing parents with information in a manner that was accessible: ‘It's about making sure that the parents are on the same page. So I might need to adjust my communication skills to meet or match their education levels of their level of understanding’.—CPW1Gvt In regards to facilitating parent understanding of the IPA purpose and process, the strategies suggested by respondents varied. Concepts such as avoiding jargon and using clear language; using symbols and flow charts; involving an NGO to support families and to explain processes; and frequent, ongoing conversations with parents about what was involved were put forward as mechanisms to mitigate this challenge. Spending more time building trust and rapport with families was also cited as an important strategy, as this would allow parents more opportunity to understand Department concerns, whilst also providing investigation and assessment workers with a greater understanding of parent context and needs. This is congruent with findings from other international studies that highlight the importance of the engagement process (e.g. Fargion, 2012). 3.4. Handover timeframes The fourth key theme that impacted the transition phase of IPA work was the temporal dimension related to the handover from investigation to ongoing IPA work. Delays in this handover process were frequently cited as a challenge in the transition from the investigation to a collaborative partnership. In regards to this challenge once respondent commented: ‘Sometimes it could be a two to three month period of time and from that, families sitting here waiting for child safety to get this up and running and then you rock up and say, “Hi I'm Anna* and I'm ready to work”, and they go “where have you been?” I think of it as a bit of a train and you lose your momentum and then you've got to spend one or two more home visits to even get them going on that’—CPW6-Gvt Time delays were generally attributed to workload issues and administration requirements for completing assessment tools and handover protocols. A delay in the handover process was reported to have negative implications for engaging parents, building rapport and reiterating the requirement for ongoing intervention. Respondents indicated that a delay in handover from the investigation to ongoing IPA team can result in parents retracting their agreement due to no

J. Venables et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 52 (2015) 9–16

longer being at ‘crisis point’. Some Department workers highlighted that this ‘crisis point’ was often a motivating factor for parents to agree to an IPA, and as such the opportunity to work with families needed to be grasped as quickly as possible in order to facilitate collaborative working relationships. Other workers indicated that parents sometimes interpreted the delay as an indication that the Department did not need to be involved and that they had ‘gone away’ as illustrated by this Department worker's comment: ‘But if we lose that momentum she [parent] loses the fact that we are serious about this and have really serious concerns and she doesn't take it seriously’—CPW5-Gvt This fracturing of relationship and misunderstanding of the Department's requirement to be involved meant that IPA workers often had to spend extra time rebuilding relationships and reengaging parents, or face the decision of whether or not to make a new child protection notification due to a lack of parent engagement. In an attempt to mitigate the negative impacts of time delay Department respondents identified several strategies. Respondents frequently identified being flexible regarding roles and responsibilities during the IPA process. Strategies relating to role flexibility included members of the investigation and assessment team and/or IPA team performing tasks that were not usually the responsibility of their role/team, or completing tasks in a different order to what generally occurred. Examples include investigation workers commencing the ongoing intervention and making referrals to services prior to the official handover; the investigation team ‘holding’ the case and maintaining engagement with the family until the IPA team had capacity to receive the case; and the IPA worker visiting the family prior to the official handover in order to begin building rapport. These strategies all had the common goal of trying to limit the amount of no-contact time that tended to occur during the handover process. When strategies such as these were not enacted and time delays occurred, workers spoke of the need for alternative strategies to reengage and rebuild relationships with parents. 4. Discussion This study highlights the importance of a holistic approach to child protection practice in which each phase of involvement is recognised as shaping families' willingness to engage collaboratively with us to achieve positive change. The findings provide support for the use of differential pathways in child protection practice due to the negative impact of forensic investigations as a gateway into support child protection interventions. The findings provide insight into important factors that should be considered by jurisdictions considering the inclusion of less intrusive and more collaborative interventions into their statutory child protection legislation and practice. First, from the outset child protection workers should opt for the least intrusive means needed to secure the child's safety and wellbeing. In Queensland, the State in which our study was conducted, the pathway to the Intervention with Parent Agreement is preceded by a forensic investigation. For many parents the experience of a forensic investigation contributes to a negative view of the child protection agency and a reluctance to collaborate with them. A recent State Inquiry has recommended that the service system be redesigned to introduce a bona fide differential response that allows families to be referred directly for support services without first being subject to a forensic investigation (Carmody, 2013). The findings of our study support this recommendation, due to the fact that parents and practitioners find it difficult to manage the transition from investigation to collaborative partnerships. The willingness of families to engage with this more voluntary system is yet to be tested. The skill of the worker in

15

persuading families of the need for intervention will be vital in the absence of statutory agency compulsion for such interventions (Reimer, 2013). It is also likely that families engaged in this way will be less fearful and more open in their engagement with the worker. At this point, it is unclear whether those who refuse services will be referred back to the statutory system where escalation to more intrusive forms of intervention may occur. On the basis of our findings, we suggest that referral for forensic investigation should be considered cautiously otherwise the new system will reproduce the dynamics identified in this study; namely, that parents' reluctantly ‘collaborate’ out of fear of statutory invention rather than because they have come to recognise the need for intervention. Second, if a child protection investigation is required its should be conducted in a manner that promotes family engagement in decision-making. Our findings suggest that a poorly managed initial investigation that induces fear or distrust creates a barrier to securing families' participation in later intervention processes. The relationship building skills of the investigation worker are important and have implications for the success of parent–Department partnerships under an IPA. This finding is consistent with international literature regarding the critical and crucial nature of worker skill, especially in relation to managing a dual care/control role (Trotter, 2015). Third, transparency and timeliness in the introduction of supportive interventions by statutory child protection agencies are critical to their success. Our findings suggest that families are more likely to actively collaborate in intervention plans to secure the safety and well-being of the children when they understand the parameters of the interventions including the consequences of non-participation. Thus, whilst the parents' willingness to collaborate may still be strongly influenced by the child protection system and their power, there is transparency about this power and the consequences associated with this. We found also that the initial notification of child protection concerns could spark a positive crisis on the lives of families by identifying the need for change. Families are more likely to take advantage of the differential response offered at this point of crisis and may lose motivation should the offer of support be delayed. The other key message to come from the findings was the importance of understanding the client context in terms of power differentials, stressors, abilities and needs. The client context was found to have implications for parent understandings of the IPA process and purpose, their motivation for providing agreement for IPA, and their ability and intentions to engage collaboratively with the Department under an IPA. While fear may initially motivate families to engage with services, it is not a useful basis for collaboration. The worker needs to be skilled at developing the family's insight into the child protection risks in their current situation and to build a trusting relationship so that these risks can be addressed collaboratively (Reimer, 2013). A limitation of this study was that none of the respondents were members of the investigation team. As such future research should focus on capturing the voice of the workers responsible for investigating parents and transitioning them to the working partnerships. This being said, the information gleaned from the respondents provided great insight into the flow on effects and implications of the investigation phase on the transition into IPA work. 5. Conclusion Working to keep children safe in their families is consistent with the human rights of the child to be cared by their family, as far as possible, and the obligations of governments to support families to realise their responsibilities to their children (UNCRC, 1986). Whilst the introduction of participatory interventions such as parental agreements is a step towards more supportive and collaborative interventions with families to protect children, a greater shift away from systems founded on forensic investigations is needed. This shift does not represent a

16

J. Venables et al. / Children and Youth Services Review 52 (2015) 9–16

denial that a level of compulsion may be required in order for some families to engage in child protection interventions. Instead it highlights the importance of relationship-based, collaborative and supportive practice interventions in securing the safety and well-being of children. In this paper, we have examined some barriers to the achievement of collaboration with families at risk of child abuse and neglect and we have identified how these obstacles might be overcome. We consider that working collaboratively with families offers much promise for ensuring that these families have the best chance possible of providing a safe and nurturing environment for their children. Acknowledgements We gratefully acknowledge the Australian Research Council (Grant number LP110200423), the Queensland Government—Department of Communities and Micah Projects. We also acknowledge Dr Fiona Bosly who assisted with data collection. References Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2012). Child Protection Australia 2010–11. Child Welfare Series No. 53. Cat. No. CWS 41. Canberra: AIHW. Bell, M. (1996). An account of the experiences of 51 families involved in an initial child protection conference. Child & Family Social Work, 1, 43–55. Buckley, H., Carr, N., & Whelan, S. (2011). Like walking on eggshells: Service user views and expectations of the child protection system. Child & Family Social Work, 16(1), 101–110. Burford, G. (2009). Who's regulating whom? Challenges to families looking after their children. Communities, Children and Families Australia, 4(1), 24–30. Carmody, T. (2013). Taking responsibility: A roadmap for Queensland child protection. Brisbane: Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry. Cleaver, H., Nicholson, D., Tarr, S., & Cleaver, D. (2007). Child protection, domestic violence and parental substance misuse: Family experiences and effective practice. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Corby, B., Millar, M., & Young, L. (1996). Parental participation in child protection work: Rethinking the rhetoric. British Journal of Social Work, 26, 475–492. Dale, P. (2004). Like fish in a bowl: Parents' perceptions of child protection services. Child Abuse Review, 13, 137–157. Department of Communities (2012). Intervention with parental agreement. Retrieved 6 December 2012, 2012, from http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/ childsafety/about-us/our-performance/ongoing-intervention-phase/interventionwith-parental-agreement Dumbrill, G. (2006). Parental experience of child protection intervention: A qualitative study. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30, 27–37. Dumbrill, G.C. (2010). Power and child protection: The need for a child welfare service users' union or association. Australian Social Work, 63(2), 194–206. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/03124071003717655. Fargion, S. (2012). Synergies and tensions in child protection and family support: Policy lines and practitioners' cultures. Child and Family Social Work, 19(1), 24–33. Forrester, D., Kershaw, S., Moss, H., & Hughes, L. (2008). Communication skills in child protection: How do social workers talk to parents? Child & Family Social Work, 13, 41–51. Freymond, N., & Cameron, G. (2006). Understanding international comparisons of child protection, family service and community caring systems of child and family welfare. In N. Freymond, & G. Cameron (Eds.), Towards systems of child & family welfare:

International comparisons of child protection family service & community caring systems. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Gilbert, N. (2012). A comparative study of child welfare systems: Abstract orientations and concrete reulsts. Children and Youth Services Review, 34(3), 532–536. Gillingham, P. (2006). Risk assessment in child protection: Problem rather than solution? Australian Social Work, 59(1), 86–98. Harnett, P., & Day, C. (2008). Developing pathways to assist parents to exit the child protection system in Australia. Clinical Psychologist, 12(3), 79–85. Harris, N. (2011). Does responsive regulation offer an alternative? Questioning the role of formalistic assessment in child protection investigations. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1383–1403. Harris (2012). Assessment: When does it help and when does it hinder? Parent experiences of the assessment process. Child & Family Social Work, 17, 180–191. Harris, N., & Gosnell, L. (2012). From the perspective of parents: Interviews following a child protection investigation—Preliminary findings. Occasional Paper, 18, ANU: Regulatory Institutions Network. Healy, K., Darlington, Y., & Yellowlees, J. (2012). Family participation in child protection practice: An observational study of family group meetings. Child & Family Social Work, 17, 1–12. Higgins, D., & Katz, I. (2008). Enhancing service systems for protecting children: Promoting child wellbeing and child protection reform in Australia. Family Matters, 80, 43–50. Howe, D. (2010). The safety of children and the parent–worker relationship in cases of child abuse and neglect. Child Abuse Review, 19(5), 330–341. Kaplan, C., & Merkel-Holguin, L. (2008). Another look at the national study on differential response in child welfare. Protecting Children, 23(1&2), 5–21. Keddel, E. (2011). Reasoning processes in child protection decision making: Negotiating moral minefields and risky relationships. British Journal of Social Work, 41, 1251–1270. Lonne, B., Parton, N., Thomson, J., & Harries, M. (2009). Reforming child protection. Abingdon: Routledge. Maiter, S., Palmer, S., & Manji, S. (2006). Strengthening worker–client relationships in child protective services. Qualitative Social Work, 5(2), 167–186. Marshall, S., Charles, G., Kendrick, K., & Pakalniskiene, V. (2010). Comparing differential responses within child protective services: A longitudinal examination. Child Welfare, 89(3), 57–77. Munro, E. (2011). The Munro review of child protection final report. London: Department of Education. Reimer, E. (2013). The relationship between family support workers and families where child neglect is a concern. In F. Arney, & D. Scott (Eds.), Working with vulnerable families (pp. 142–159) (2nd ed.). Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Scott, D. (1996). Parental experiences in cases of child sexual abuse: A qualitative study. Child & Family Social Work, 1(2), 107–114. Scott, D. (2009). Regulatory principles and reforming possibilities in child protection: What might be in the best interests of children? Communities, Children and Families Australia, 4(1), 65–70. Spratt, T., & Callan, J. (2004). Parents' views on social work interventions in child welfare cases. British Journal of Social Work, 34(2), 199–224. Trotter, C. (2004). Helping Abused Children and their Families. Crows Nest: Allen and Unwin. Trotter, T. (2015). Working with involuntary clients: A guide to best practice. Crows Nest: Allen & Unwin. Turnell, A., & Edwards, S. (1999). Signs of safety: A solution and safety oriented approach to child protection casework. New York: Norton. Turney, D. (2012). A relationship-based approach to engaging involuntary clients: The contribution of recognition theory. Child & Family Social Work, 17(2), 149–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2206.2012.00830.x. United Nations (1986). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. http://www.unicef.org/crc/ (19 November, 2014) Walsh, T., & Douglas, H. (2011). Lawyers, advocacy and child protection. Melbourne University Law Review, 35, 621–650.