The heuristic divergence between community reporters and child protection agencies: Negotiating risk amidst shifting sands

Abstract

BackgroundChildren 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. ObjectiveTo examine the decision reasoning and processes of community (non-governmental organisation) workers that underpin reports to statutory services. Participants and settingParticipants are non-governmental organisation (NGO) workers in Aotearoa New Zealand. MethodsThe 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. ResultsMost 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. ConclusionsThe 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.