Interagency Working in Child Protection and Domestic Violence

O’Leary, Patrick; Young, Amy; Wilde, Tracy; Tsantefski, Menka

doi:10.1080/0312407x.2017.1422773

Cited by 25 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…All participants, except for the two rural service providers, spoke of the lack of collaboration between statutory government services and nongovernment agencies. Consistent with previous literature about improving collaborations across the service interface of DV and child protection (Laing et al, 2018;Mennicke et al, 2019;O'Leary et al, 2018), the participants suggested that women-focused and child-focused services have competing interests because one service is voluntary and the other is statutory. They highlighted that legislative requirements and crisis responses made it difficult for social workers to work in the best interests of women and their children, often distributing power back into the hands of the male perpetrator of violence.…”

Section: Implications For Feminist Social Worksupporting

confidence: 60%

“…A content analysis of 13 publications from the United States, Australia, and the UK (from 1880s to 2010) has traced commonalities in how DV is constructed and responded to by child protection workers, which includes ignoring perpetrators, judging mothers, and advocating for child removal as the solution (Humphreys & Absler, 2011). Previous qualitative studies in Queensland, Australia, have included the perspectives of child protection, DV, criminal justice, and welfare and generic workers about risk, accountability, leadership, and jurisdictional issues in child protection (CP) and DV service collaboration (O'Leary et al, 2018), reinforcing the need for child protection workers to better understand the dynamic of DV (Douglas & Walsh, 2010). A common theme in social work research on child protection and/or DV relates to service collaboration barriers, highlighting different organizational mandates (Zannettino & McLaren, 2014) and how women as mothers are rendered invisible in these collaborative efforts (Davies & Krane, 2006).…”

Section: Child Protection and Dv: Everyone's Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Statutory child protection services have coercive power and this threat of coercion is ever present, even when the most experienced worker is aiming to empower and be supportive of mothers (Johnson & Sullivan, 2008). This coercive power can be experienced by mothers as replicating the power imbalance that is present in their abusive relationship (Bourassa et al, 2008;Douglas & Walsh, 2010;Humphreys, 2008;Humphreys & Absler, 2011;O'Leary et al, 2018).…”

Section: Mother Blamementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Removal of Children in Domestic Violence: Widening Service Provider Perspectives

Cramp

Zufferey

2020

Affilia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A range of service providers support mothers and children who are experiencing domestic violence (DV). However, research tends to focus on the role of service providers in child protection services and DV services. This potentially excludes valuable insights from a wider range of nongovernment service providers on the systemic issues that mothers experiencing DV and child separation may experience. This research explored the perspectives of 16 different nongovernment service providers about working with women who have had their children removed while experiencing DV. The study used an intersectional feminist approach that highlighted intersecting gendered and racialized power relations in service responses functioning to reinforce multiple dimensions of disadvantage. The study found that mother blame was a pervasive issue both within and outside of child protection services. Service providers described the challenges of navigating a system that revictimizes women, with particular impacts for Aboriginal and culturally diverse mothers. The findings reinforced the importance of preventing mother blame, holding perpetrators of DV more accountable, and improving collaboration across services and for more flexible responses to women living with violence.

show abstract

Section: Implications For Feminist Social Worksupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Child Protection and Dv: Everyone's Responsibilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Mother Blamementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Removal of Children in Domestic Violence: Widening Service Provider Perspectives

Cramp

Zufferey

2020

Affilia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Szilassy et al (2015) argue that institutional empathy precedes communication and agency leaders can facilitate cooperative engagement by bringing their frontline workers together to understand better one another's roles. However, recent research (O'Leary et al, 2018) has found that supervisors, ostensibly members of agency leadership, are more open to IPV-child welfare collaborations than frontline workers.…”

Section: Rise: a Conceptual Model Of Frontline Ipv Collaborationmentioning

confidence: 99%

RISE Up: Facilitating Frontline Responder Collaboration on Co-Occurring Child Welfare and Intimate Partner Violence Cases

Langenderfer-Magruder

Olson

Wilke

et al. 2019

J Interpers Violence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Intimate partner violence (IPV) services are necessary in numerous human service systems, requiring responders (e.g., victim services, law enforcement, social service providers) to collaborate with one another to best meet the needs of their respective clients. Child welfare workers, in particular, carry caseloads with a high prevalence of IPV, yet have reported significant barriers to successful collaboration with other responder roles, such as tension regarding who is the primary client (i.e., the IPV victim or the child). This study explores the qualitative responses of child welfare workers in Florida to understand their collaboration experiences, focusing specifically on their perceptions of facilitative factors of collaboration. Data were collected in Wave 4 of the Florida Study of Professionals for Safe Families, an ongoing longitudinal study of turnover among newly hired child welfare workers. Participants in child welfare and health and human services roles were asked to provide a response to the open-ended item: "What

show abstract

“…In addition, there has been a bourgeoning of research, which has resulted in increasingly sophisticated understandings of different kinds of abuse, including physical abuse (Kempe et al 1962;Pfohl 1977), sexual abuse (Ferguson 2004;Finkelhor 1980), domestic violence (O'Leary et al 2018;Perry et al 1995), and neglect (Stoltenborgh et al 2013). Similarly, increasing research on trauma and trauma impacts have influenced the understanding of, and focus on, abuse and neglect and treatment responses (Wiseman et al 2019).…”

Section: Systemic Problems At the Front Doormentioning

confidence: 99%

The “Front Door” to Child Protection—Issues and Innovations

Lonne

Russ

Harrison

et al. 2020

Int. Journal on Child Malt.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How children and families get access to services and supports is critical to the provision of timely help and protective interventions. In this article, the major findings of the front door policies, processes, and practices used across 25 jurisdictions in developed countries are described and assessed. The use and outcomes of actuarial and consensusbased tools to assess risk of harm are examined, and the systemic limitations of such are explored including the potential for misapplication of the tools. Key issues and trends are identified including the increasing use of practice frameworks used in conjunction with risk assessment tools, the development of culturally safe approaches to practice, and the use of differential response to address relational problems such as service user hostility and referrals to community-based supports. The growing use of public health approaches to prevention was identified along with reform agendas to address the difficult task of building system communication, collaboration, and integration. The need for greater use of community development approaches to mobilize informal support networks for struggling families and communities is proposed. Because there are no "off-the-shelf panaceas" available, the importance of jurisdictions ensuring that system changes are undertaken with consideration of their local context and needs is highlighted by these developments. Keywords Child protection. Child protection systems. Public health In this article, we examine a critically important aspect of contemporary statutory child protection-the "front door" policies, processes and practices used to gather, assess and collate information about children and families, and determine whether or not their situation warrants further detailed assessment, intervention, or referral. Front door practices establish whether the authority of the state is to be used to examine children's safety within the privacy of their family as well as to explore their eligibility for

show abstract

Interagency Working in Child Protection and Domestic Violence

Cited by 25 publications

References 15 publications

The Removal of Children in Domestic Violence: Widening Service Provider Perspectives

The Removal of Children in Domestic Violence: Widening Service Provider Perspectives

RISE Up: Facilitating Frontline Responder Collaboration on Co-Occurring Child Welfare and Intimate Partner Violence Cases

The “Front Door” to Child Protection—Issues and Innovations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About