000 03549nab a22003497a 4500
999 _c8589
_d8589
005 20250625151656.0
008 240321s2024 -nz|| |||| 00| 0 eng d
040 _aAFVC
100 _aKeddell, Emily
_94218
245 _aThe heuristic divergence between community reporters and child protection agencies :
_bnegotiating risk amidst shifting sands
_cEmily Keddell, Sarah Colhoun, Pauline Norris and Esther Willing
260 _bElsevier,
_c2024
500 _aChildren and Youth Services Review, 2024, 159: 107532
520 _aackground Children enter the statutory part of ‘notify-investigate’ child protection systems via the reports of others, combined with acceptance by the statutory agency. This key nexus determines entry or deflection from statutory child protection services. Objective To examine the decision reasoning and processes of community (non-governmental organisation) workers that underpin reports to statutory services. Participants and setting Participants are non-governmental organisation (NGO) workers in Aotearoa New Zealand. Methods The methods are focus groups, interviews and a ‘think – aloud’ vignette-based protocol, used to elicit reporting decision rationales and experiences. Theoretical concepts of heuristics, institutional co-responsibility, and policy change are used to explore the study findings. Results Most cases are reported only after NGO workers ‘build a picture’ in the context of relationships with families and efforts to address risks. Reporting is a last resort option and occurs after ‘tipping point’ changes in the balance of protective and risk factors. Participants note a rising threshold and changes to the criteria for report acceptance by Oranga Tamariki (the statutory agency) in recent years, due to changing policy aims, abuse definitions, an ‘add value’ principle, and workload pressures. This heuristic change results in many reports not accepted or acted on, leading to frustration, anxiety, and ethical ambivalence for NGO workers. Conclusions The rising threshold and ‘adding value’ principle while aimed at collective responsibility to family issues, is perceived by NGO workers as a deflection heuristic by Oranga Tamariki. In their view, it is applied too broadly, acts as a blunt tool that does not account for differences in role and power, and is used to deflect risk responsibility. Implications for children and whānau, (extended families) the possibilities for ‘co-responsibility’, ethical reasoning, and the data generated by reports are discussed. (Authors' abstract). Record #8589
610 _aOranga Tamariki, Ministry for Children
_97316
650 _aCHILD PROTECTION
_9118
650 _aCHILD WELFARE
_9124
650 _aDATA ANALYSIS
_9181
650 _aFAMILIES
_9238
650 _aINTERVENTION
_9326
650 4 _aRISK MANAGEMENT
_9506
650 4 _aSOCIAL SERVICES
_9555
650 4 _aSUPPORT SERVICES
_9591
651 4 _aNEW ZEALAND
_92588
700 _aColhoun, Sarah
_912761
700 _aNorris, Pauline
_912762
700 _aWilling, Esther
_912384
773 0 _tChildren and Youth Services Review, 2024, 159: 107532
830 _aChildren and Youth Services Review
_94699
856 _uhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107532
_zDOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2024.107532 (Open access)
856 _uhttps://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/516149/community-groups-feel-ignored-by-oranga-tamariki-study
_yRead elated news item, RNZ, 9 May 2024
942 _2ddc
_cARTICLE
_hnews126