Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-16T16:07:33.559Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Family Inclusive practice in child welfare: report of a Churchill Fellowship study tour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2019

Jessica Cocks Open the ORCID record for Jessica Cocks [Opens in a new window]
Jessica Cocks*
Affiliation:
Life Without Barriers, Newcastle, Australia School of Social Work, University of Newcastle, Newcastle, Australia Winston Churchill Memorial Trust, Canberra, Australia
*
Author for correspondence: Jessica Cocks, Email: jessica.cocks@lwb.org.au
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Drawing on the findings of a Churchill Fellowship study tour, this article discusses the need to expand our understanding of family engagement and, in particular, to implement Family Inclusive practice in Australian child welfare, both to increase reunification and to improve outcomes for children who do not return home. I argue for this expansion through the integration of six key elements of Family Inclusive practice drawing on examples of practice and innovation from my study tour. This article commences with a discussion of the literature in support of family engagement and Family Inclusive practice. It is argued that we need to embrace an approach to Family Inclusive practice that acknowledges and addresses power imbalances, is contextualised and goes beyond relationships between workers and families. An exploration of the six elements of Family Inclusive practice follows, contributing to the understanding and practical application of Family Inclusive practice, with reference to initiatives in several countries visited during my study tour as well as to the literature more broadly. If these elements are integrated into child welfare practice and policy, they will contribute to Family Inclusive practice in the interests of children in Australia.

Keywords

family inclusionfamily engagementchild welfarereunificationpermanence
Type
Articles
Information
Children Australia , Volume 44 , Issue 4 , December 2019 , pp. 202 - 211
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aboriginal Children in Care Working Group. (2015). Aboriginal children in care. A report to Canada’s Premiers. Retrieved from https://fncaringsociety.com/sites/default/files/Aboriginal%20Children%20in%20Care%20Report%20%28July%202015%29.pdf Google Scholar
Action Research Partners (2017). Parent legal representation evaluation Project with New York University School of Law. Information Sheet provided directly by Action Research Partners, prepared on behalf of New York University School of Law and Casey Family Programs, New York.Google Scholar
Ainsworth, F., & Berger, J. (2014). Family inclusive child protection practice: The history of the Family Inclusion Network and beyond. Children Australia, 39(2), 60–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ankersmit, L. (2016). The reunification partnership: Engaging birth parents and foster carers as collaborators in restoration casework. Australian Social Work, 69(3), 273–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2019). Child protection Australia, 2017–18. Canberra: Australian Government.Google Scholar
Benn, C. (1976). A new developmental model for social work. In Boas, P. & Crawley, J. (Eds.), Social work in Australia (pp. 71–81). Melbourne: Australia International Press.Google Scholar
Berrick, J., Young, E., Cohen, E., & Anthony, E. (2011). I am the face of success: Peer mentors in child welfare. Child and Family Social Work, 16, 179–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Biehal, N. (2014). A sense of belonging: Meanings of family and home in long term foster care. British Journal of Social Work, 44, 955–971.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boddy, J. (2013). Understanding permanence for looked after children: A review of research for the Care Inquiry. London: The Care Inquiry.Google Scholar
Boel-Studt, S. M., & Landsman, M. J. (2017). Mixed methods study of the effectiveness of intensive family finding services with youth in congregate care. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 11(2), 190–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyle, C. (2017). What is the impact of birth family contact on children in adoption and long term foster care: A systematic review. Child and Family Social Work, 22, 22–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broadhurst, K., & Mason, C. (2017). Birth parents and the collateral consequences of court-ordered child removal: Towards a comprehensive framework. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 31, 41–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bronx Defenders Office. (2019). Family defence. A description of the multi-disciplinary model of family defence in New York City. Retrieved from https://www.bronxdefenders.org/our-work/family-defense-practice/ Google Scholar
Brown, D. J. (2006). Working the system: Re-thinking the institutionally organized role of mothers and the reduction of “risk” in child protection. Social Problems, 53(3), 352–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Sparks, T., & Bos, E. (2014). Inequalities in child welfare intervention rates: The intersection of deprivation and identity. Child and Family Social Work, 21(4), 452–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capacity Building Center for the States. (2016). Family empowerment implementation manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Children’s Bureau.Google Scholar
Casey Family Programs. (2018). Casey 2018 excellence for children awards. Retrieved from https://www.casey.org/ceca-2018/ Google Scholar
Cashmore, J., & Paxman, M. (2006). Predicting after-care outcomes: The importance of felt security. Child and Family Social Work, 11, 232–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Centre for Family Representation. (2017). “CFR at a Glance” Information Sheet for clients and the community provided directly by CFR staff, New York. Similar information is Retrieved from http://www.cfrny.org/ Google Scholar
Child Welfare Information Gateway. (2011). Family reunification: What the evidence shows. Washington, DC: Children’s Bureau.Google Scholar
Cocks, J. (2018). “‘If a community values its children, it must cherish their parents’”: Family inclusion initiatives in child welfare. Canberra: Winston Churchill Memorial Trust. Retrieved from https://www.churchilltrust.com.au/fellows/detail/4104/Jessica+Cocks Google Scholar
Delfabbro, P., Barber, J., & Cooper, L. (2002). The role of parental contact in substitute care. Journal of Social Service Research, 28(3), 19–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Department of Human Services. (2007). The best interest’s framework for vulnerable children and youth. Retrieved from https://providers.dhhs.vic.gov.au/best-interests-framework-vulnerable-children-and-youth-pdf Google Scholar
Family Matters. (2018). The family matters report. Perth: SNAICC. Retrieved from http://www.familymatters.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Family-Matters-Report-2018.pdf Google Scholar
Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., & Mills, S. (2018). The role of the social worker in adoption. Ethics and human rights: An enquiry. Birmingham: British Association of Social Workers. Retrieved from https://www.basw.co.uk/media/news/2018/jan/basw-unveils-adoption-enquiry-report-and-key-findings Google Scholar
Fernandez, E. (2018). Research overview: Reunification as pathway to permanence – Challenges and opportunities. Paper presented at the Parenting Capacity and Working with Birth Parents Forum and shared with the author, 5th and 6th April, 2018. Sydney: Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies.Google Scholar
Fernandez, E., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2010). Reunification in Australia: Insights from South Australia and New South Wales. In Fernandez, E. & Barth, H. P. (Eds.), How does foster care work? London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.Google Scholar
Fernandez, E., & Lee, J. (2013). Accomplishing family reunification for children in care: An Australian study. Children and Youth Services Review, 35, 1374–1384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fidler, L. (2018). In Limbo: Exploring income and housing barriers for reunifying Tasmanian families. Hobart: Social Action Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania.Google Scholar
Finan, S., Bromfield, L., Arney, F., & Moore, T. (2018). Assessing the quality and comprehensiveness of child protection practice frameworks. Adelaide: Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia.Google Scholar
Furrer, C., & Rockhill, A. (2017). Parent engagement through anti oppressive practice. Presentation at the International Conference on Innovations in Family Engagement, Kempe Centre and shared with the author. Colorado: University of Colorado, held at Vail, 17–20 October, 2017.Google Scholar
Gerber, L., Pang, Y., Ross, T., Guggenheim, M., Pecora, P., & Miller, J. (2019). Effects of an interdisciplinary approach to parental representation in child welfare. Children and Youth Services Review, 102, 42–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gritter, J. (2009). Hospitious adoption. Arlington, VA: Child Welfare League of America.Google Scholar
Guggenheim, M. (2005). What’s wrong with children’s rights? Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gupta, A., & Featherstone, B. (2019). On hope, loss, anger and the spaces in between: Reflections on living with /in adoption and the role of the social worker. Child and Family Social Work. Advanced Online Publication. doi:10.1111/cfs.12674 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hackworth, N., Matthews, J., Westrupp, E., Nguyen, C., Phan, T., Scicluna, A., … Nicholson, J. (2018). What influences parental engagement in early intervention? Parent, program and community predictors of enrolment, retention and involvement. Prevention Science, 19(7), 880–893.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harries, M. (2008). The experiences of parents and families of children and young people in care. Perth: Anglicare WA and the Family Inclusion Network of WA.Google Scholar
Hinton, T. (2013). Parents in the child protection system. Hobart: Social Action and Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania.Google Scholar
Hinton, T. (2018). Breaking the cycle: Supporting Tasmanian parents to prevent recurrent child removal. Hobart: Social Action Research Centre, Anglicare Tasmania.Google Scholar
Holman, B. (1983). Resourceful friends: Skills in community social work. London: The Children’s Society.Google Scholar
Huefner, J., Pick, R., Smith, G., Stevens, A., & Mason, A. (2015). Parental involvement in residential care: Distance, frequency of contact and youth outcomes. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 24(5), 1481–1489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izzo, C. V., Smith, E. G., Holden, M. J., Norton-Barker, C. I., Nunno, M. A., & Sellers, E. D. (2016). Preventing behavioural incidents in residential child care: Efficacy of a setting based program model. Prevention Science, 17(5), 554–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, S., Marcenko, M., Hoagwood, K., & Vesneski, W. (2009). Engaging parents in child welfare services: Bridging family needs and child welfare mandates. Child Welfare, 88(1), 101–126.Google ScholarPubMed
Ketteringham, E., Cremer, S., & Becker, C. (2016). Healthy mothers, health babies: A reproductive justice response to the womb to foster care pipeline. The City University of New York Law Review, 20(1), 77–125.Google Scholar
Lalayants, M. (2014). Parent representation model in child safety conferences. Child Welfare, 92(5), 107–136.Google Scholar
Libesman, T. (2015). Decolonising Indigenous child welfare: Comparative perspectives. Abingdon: Oxon Routledge.Google Scholar
Lovatt, H. (2015). Unravelling foster care and finding family support. PhD Thesis, James Cook University, Australia.Google Scholar
Marsh, C., Browne, J., Taylor, J., & Davis, D. (2017). Characteristics and outcomes of newborns who entered into care (EIC) within 7 days of birth in NSW, Australia. Children and Youth Services Review, 81, 261–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermid, S., Baker, C., Lawson, D., & Holmes, L. (2016). The evaluation of the Mockingbird Family Model. Final evaluation report. Children’s Social Care Innovation programme evaluation 04. London: Loughborough University, Department of Education.Google Scholar
Mendes, P., Johnson, G., & Moslehuddin, B. (2012). Young people transitioning from out of home care and relationships with families of origin: An examination of three recent Australian studies. Child Care in Practice, 18(4), 357–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, T. G. (2017). Authentic engagement: The nature and role of the relationship at the heart of effective practice. In Keynote address at ARACY Parent Engagement Conference: Maximising every child’s potential, Melbourne, 7th June.Google Scholar
Morris, K., Mason, W., Bywaters, P., Featherstone, B., Daniel, B., Brady, G., … Webb, C. (2018). Social work, poverty and child welfare interventions. Child and Family Social Work, 23(3), 1–9.Google Scholar
Morrison, A., McCartan, C., Davidson, G., & Bunting, L. (2018). Anti-poverty practice framework for social work in Northern Ireland. Department of Health.Google Scholar
Neil, E., Cossar, J., Jones, C., Lorgelly, P., & Young, J. (2011). Supporting direct contact after adoption. London: BAAF.Google Scholar
Norwegian Ministry for Children & Family Affairs. (2017). Follow up of parents who have lost custody of their children. Oslo: Barne-ungdons-org-familiesdirectoratet.Google Scholar
Office of the Senior Practitioner. (2011). Care and protection: Practice standards. Retrieved from www.facs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/file/0018/332244/practice_standards.pdf Google Scholar
Open Adoption & Family Services. (2016). OAFS 2016 Appeal Letter. Portland. Retrieved from http://www.openadopt.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-appeal-print-version-SINGLE-PAGES.pdf Google Scholar
Parenting Research Centre. (2017). Engagement of birth parents involved in the child protection system: A scoping review of frameworks, policies, and practice guides. Melbourne, Australia. Report prepared for the NSW Department of Family and Community Services.Google Scholar
Raissian, K., & Bullinger, L. (2016). Money matters: Does the minimum wage affect child maltreatment rates? Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 60–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reimer, E. (2013). Relationship based practice with families where child neglect is an issue: Putting relationship development under the microscope. Australian Social Work, 66(3), 455–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rise. (2019). Collaboration is our key – How parents in Washington State are changing hearts, minds and laws. The power of parent advocacy, Rise Magazine, 35, 5 New York City.Google Scholar
Roberts, Y, O’Brien, K., & Pecora, P (2017). Supporting lifelong families. Ensuring long lasting permanency and wellbeing. Baltimore: Casey Family Programs.Google Scholar
Ross, N., Cocks, J., Johnston, L., & Stoker, L. (2017). ‘No voice, no opinion, nothing’: Parent experiences when children are removed and placed in care. Research report. Newcastle, Australia: Life Without Barriers and the University of Newcastle.Google Scholar
Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse. (2017). Making Institutions Child Safe. Volume 6 of the Final Report, Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/making-institutions-child-safe Google Scholar
Ruch, G., Turney, D., & Ward, A. (Eds.). (2010). Relationship-based social work: Getting to the heart of practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Ryan, D., Harris, G., Brown, D., Houston, D., Livingston Smith, S., & Howard, J. (2011). Open adoptions in child welfare: Social worker and foster parent attitudes. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 5(4), 445–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Salveron, M., Bromfield, L., & Arney, F. (2015). Child protection pathways study: Comparing outcomes for children pre and post implementation of the signs of safety child protection practice framework in Western Australia. British Association for the Prevention and Study of Child Abuse and Neglect Conference, University of Edinburgh, 12–15 April.Google Scholar
Samuels, G. (2008). A reason, a season or a lifetime: Relational permanence among young adults with foster care backgrounds. Chicago: Chapin Hall Centre for children, University of Chicago.Google Scholar
Sanchez, R. (2004). Youth perspectives of permanency. Oakland: California Permanency for Youth Project.Google Scholar
Schreiber, J., Fuller, T., & Paceley, M. (2013). Engagement in child protective services: Parent perception of worker skills. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(4), 707–715.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, R., & Broadhurst, K. (2011). Contact between children in out of home placements and their family and friends networks: A research review. Child and Family Social Work, 16, 298–309.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sheehan, L., Forrester, D., Kemp, A., O’Donnell, C., Addis, S., Nurmatov, U., … El Banna, A. (2018). Signs of Safety: Findings from a mixed methods systematic review focussed on reducing the need for children to be in care. Cardiff, UK: The What Works Centre, for children in social care.Google Scholar
Slettebo, T. (2013). Partnership with parents of children in care: A study of collective user participation in child protection services. British Journal of Social Work, 43, 579–595.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smithson, R., & Gibson, M. (2017). Less than human: A qualitative study into the experiences of parents involved in the child protection system. Child and Family Social Work, 22(2), 565–574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SNAICC, A National Voice for our Children. (2017). Family matters report, SNAICC – National voice for our children. Perth: The University of Melbourne, Griffith University, and Save the Children.Google Scholar
Summers, A., Duarte, C., Wood, S.M., & Bohannan, T.L. (2013). Parents for parents outcome evaluation. Additional examination of case outcome and racial differences. Reno, Nevada: National Council for Juvenile and Family Court Judges.Google Scholar
Syrstad, E., & Slettebo, T. (2019). To understand the incomprehensible: A qualitative study of parent’s challenges after child removal and their experiences with support services. Child and Family Social Work. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1111/cfs.12662 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Australian Centre for Social Innovation. (2012). Family by family evaluation report. Adelaide: Community Matters Pty Ltd.Google Scholar
The Australian Centre for Social Innovation. (2019). Co parenthood – foundational evidence. Retrieved from https://www.tacsi.org.au/work/co-parenthood/ Google Scholar
Thorpe, R. (2008). Family inclusion in child protection practice: Building bridges in working with (not against) families. Communities, Families and Children Australia, 3(1), 4–18.Google Scholar
Thorpe, R., & Ramsden, K. (2014). Resourceful friends: An invaluable dimension in family inclusive child protection practice. Children Australia, 39(2), 65–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tobis, D. (2013). From Pariahs to Partners. How parents and their allies changed New York City’s child welfare system. New York City: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
UN General Assembly . (1989). Convention on the rights of the child. United Nations Treaty Series, vol. 1577. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au/convention-rights-child Google Scholar
Verass, S. (2017). The women fighting against a rising tide of indigenous child removals. National Indigenous TV. Retrieved from https://www.sbs.com.au/nitv/feature/women-fighting-against-rising-tide-indigenous-child-removals Google Scholar
Western Australian Department of Child Protection. (2011). The signs of safety child protection practice framework. Retrieved from www.dcp.wa.gov.au Google Scholar
Yatchmenoff, D. (2005). Measuring client engagement from the client’s perspective in non-voluntary child protective services. Research on Social Work Practice, 15(2), 84–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zabern, A., & Bouteyre, E. (2018). Leading protective factors for children living out of home: A literature review. Child and Family Social Work, 23, 324–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar