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

Abstract

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...