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 andtheir families involved with statutory child protection systems. These alternatives focus ondeveloping partnerships with families in order to promote children’s safety and well-beingwithin their homes. The form that alternative pathways take varies by jurisdiction.In Queensland (Australia), where this study takes place, the State Government hasidentified the use of parental agreements to be the least intrusive option available to thechild protection authority when a child has been substantiated, via a full investigation, as inneed of protection. These agreements are known as ‘Intervention with ParentalAgreement’ (IPA) and allow for the statutory authority to work in partnership with familiesto address child protection concerns, without the use of a court order. Little is known abouthow 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 statutorychild protection, using the example of IPA. The study has a key focus on proceduraljustice, that is the quality of treatment that people receive from an authority duringdecision-making processes (Tyler, 2006). Using a two-phase, qualitative methodology thestudy explores the perspectives of practitioners and parents involved in IPA practice.Phase one involved semi-structured interviews with 33 practitioners from the Queenslandchild protection authority, tertiary family support services and a service responsible forproviding cultural guidance in cases that involve Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderfamilies. Phase two of the study involved semi-structured interviews with four parents. Theinterviews captured their unique experience of being subject to IPA, with a focus on theirprocedural justice judgements.The findings of the study indicate that the crisis-driven nature of statutory child protectionin conjunction with the dominance of a risk-adverse culture is perceived by practitioners tobe a barrier to collaborative practice. However, the local office culture within branch officesof the child protection authority and relationship-driven models of practice were found tofacilitate collaboration in IPA practice.In particular, the nature and quality of three key partnerships of practice was found toshape how IPA practice occurred. These partnerships are: intra-agency partnerships,particularly those between statutory officers at the branch office level; inter-agency partnerships; and those between practitioners and parents. The findings highlight thateach of these partnerships are characterised by hierarchical relationships between thedifferent stakeholders. Within all three of these partnerships, procedural justice emergedas an important factor for facilitating positive and collaborative working partnerships. Thisdemonstrated that procedurally fair treatment is important to both parents and practitionersduring IPA practice.All of the practitioners believed that they enact procedural justice in their IPA practice.However, factors that facilitate and inhibit the enactment of procedural justice were alsoidentified. In particular, the statutory context was identified as a constraining force on theprovision of procedural justice. The four parent stories of being subject to IPA werepunctuated by a perceived lack of influence over decisions, limited information aboutdecisions and a lack of transparency regarding the process and expectations associatedwith IPA.This thesis makes a contribution to knowledge about collaborative practice in statutorychild protection by incorporating the perspectives of practitioners and parents involved inIPA practice. It also extends understandings of procedural justice by exploring the factorsthat facilitate and inhibit the ability of practitioners to enact procedural justice during IPA.The findings of this study provide insights into how factors related to IPA practice can bechallenged, changed or utilised in order to enhance collaboration. Central to theserecommendations for policy and practice is recognition of the need for a greater focus onrelationship-driven models of practice that are underpinned by procedural justice tenets.