International approaches to child protection : What can Australia learn? Rhys Price-Robertson, Leah Bromfield and Alister Lamont
By: Price-Robertson, Rhys.
Contributor(s): Bromfield, Leah | Lamont, Alister.
Material type: ArticleSeries: CFCA paper.Publisher: Melbourne, Vic. : Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2014Description: electronic document (12 pages); PDF file: 726.50 KB.Subject(s): CHILD PROTECTION | INTERNATIONAL COMPARISON | AUSTRALIA | EUROPE | UNITED KINGDOM | UNITED STATESOnline resources: Click here to access online CFCA paper no. 23, 2014Summary: Key messages: ◾One way in which policy-makers can reflect critically on Australia's child protection systems is to develop knowledge of the ways in which different jurisdictions around the world structure and conduct child protection services, and consider how this knowledge may be relevant to the Australian context. ◾It is often argued that there are two broad orientations to child protection: the "child protection" orientation (evident in Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom) and the "family service" orientation (of many European countries, including Belgium, Sweden and Denmark). ◾Attempts to respond to rising demand have seen countries that have traditionally possessed a child protection orientation (e.g., Australia) increasingly move towards a family service orientation. ◾A third orientation to child protection has been employed by "child-focused community-based groups", which have emerged in emergency, transitional and developmental contexts, most notably in Africa and Asia. ◾As country-level service systems are embedded in complex cultural, social and historical contexts, it is not always possible to determine whether different approaches are "evidence-based", "promising" or "untested". However, it is possible to identify the strengths and limitations of each service model, as well as their potential applicability to the Australian context. (from the website)Item type | Current location | Call number | Status | Date due | Barcode |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Access online | Family Violence library | Online | Available | ON14080154 |
CFCA paper no. 23, 2014
Key messages:
◾One way in which policy-makers can reflect critically on Australia's child protection systems is to develop knowledge of the ways in which different jurisdictions around the world structure and conduct child protection services, and consider how this knowledge may be relevant to the Australian context.
◾It is often argued that there are two broad orientations to child protection: the "child protection" orientation (evident in Australia, the United States, and the United Kingdom) and the "family service" orientation (of many European countries, including Belgium, Sweden and Denmark).
◾Attempts to respond to rising demand have seen countries that have traditionally possessed a child protection orientation (e.g., Australia) increasingly move towards a family service orientation.
◾A third orientation to child protection has been employed by "child-focused community-based groups", which have emerged in emergency, transitional and developmental contexts, most notably in Africa and Asia.
◾As country-level service systems are embedded in complex cultural, social and historical contexts, it is not always possible to determine whether different approaches are "evidence-based", "promising" or "untested". However, it is possible to identify the strengths and limitations of each service model, as well as their potential applicability to the Australian context.
(from the website)