International approaches to child protection

International approaches to child protection

What can Australia learn?

Rhys Price-Robertson, Leah Bromfield and Alister Lamont

CFCA Paper No. 23 — July 2014
International approaches to child protection

The provision of child protection services varies considerably across the world. This paper offers a broad overview of some of the main approaches to child protection used internationally. Using examples from Canada, Sweden, Belgium and the Gaza Strip, it offers policy-makers the chance to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches, as well as how these examples might be used to inspire improvements within the Australian context.

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.

Leave a comment

Get the conversation started!

Authors and Acknowledgements

Rhys Price-Robertson is a Senior Research Officer in the Child Family Community Australia information exchange at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Associate Professor Leah Bromfield is the Deputy Director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection, and Alister Lamont is a Senior Communications Officer at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

The authors wish to acknowledge the valuable contributions of Cathryn Hunter and Ken Knight.

Publication details

CFCA Paper
No. 23
Published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, July 2014.
12 pp.
ISSN: 
2200-4106
ISBN: 
978-1-922038-54-8

Publication meta

We'd appreciate if you share with us how useful you found this paper and how you might use the information (such as forwarding it to a colleague, using it to inform training/policy/practice, or including information in a newsletter/bulletin).

Creative Commons - Attribution CC BYCopyright information

Need some help?

If you're having trouble finding the information or resources you need - we're here to help.

Ask us a question

CFCA news

Sign up to our email alert service for the latest news and updates

Subscribe