Risk assessment approaches in child protection
June 2024
This resource sheet is provided as a guide only. It is up to date with current state and territory risk assessment in child protection policies and frameworks at the time of publication. Individuals are encouraged to contact the relevant department to clarify requirements in their jurisdiction or in relation to legislation.
Overview
This resource sheet summarises risk assessment approaches used by child protection practitioners to assess whether a child is at risk of future maltreatment and to determine whether further investigation or intervention is necessary. It provides information on commonly used risk assessment instruments, discusses some of the strengths and weaknesses of actuarial and consensus-based risk assessment approaches and provides information on risk assessment frameworks or tools used by states and territories in Australia. This resource is for child protection practitioners and practitioners or service providers who work with children and families who have had, or may have future, contact with child protection.
Glossary
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| Construct validity | The degree to which a tool or instrument effectively measures or predicts the chosen definition of child maltreatment (Lätsch et al., 2021) |
| False negative | Where a high-risk case is incorrectly assessed as being a low-risk case (De Bortoli et al., 2017) |
| False positive | Where a low-risk case is incorrectly assessed as being a high-risk case (De Bortoli et al., 2017) |
| Guided professional judgement | Professional judgement guided by legislation, policy, procedures, practice guidance and tools in the workplace (Department of Families, Fairness and Housing [DFFH], 2021) |
| Indicative validity | The degree to which a tool points to opportunities for intervention and helps predict future risk to a child under different intervention scenarios (Lätsch et al., 2021) |
| Instruments | In the context of this resource, ‘risk assessment instruments’ are tools to collect or organise information that help professionals assess the risk of child maltreatment to aid a decision (Vial et al., 2020). |
| Inter-rater reliability | A measure of the consistency and agreement between 2 or more people using the same instrument(s)/tool(s) in their assessment of the same situation (Mickelson et al., 2017) |
| Practice wisdom | The knowledge and skills gained through experience working with children, families and professionals, and insight into how this combines with other knowledge and wisdom, such as that gained from study, training and critical reflection (DFFH, 2021) |
| Predictive validity | The level of accuracy in classifying risk levels (Lätsch et al., 2021) |
| Professional judgement | How people incorporate consideration of their formal knowledge, values, practice wisdom, emotional awareness and reasoning skills in professional decision making (DFFH, 2021) |
| True negative | Where a low-risk case is correctly assessed as a low-risk case (De Bortoli et al., 2017) |
| True positive | Where a high-risk case is correctly assessed as a high-risk case (De Bortoli et al., 2017) |
Child protection is an area of public law where authorities may intervene in family settings because of an allegation of harm or significant risk of harm to a child (Titterton, 2017). In Australia, state and territory governments are responsible for statutory child protection. This includes overseeing the risk assessment processes that child protection practitioners use to determine whether a report of concern about a child requires further investigation, and what (if any) service or level of intervention is appropriate (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2023). Risk assessment in child protection is conducted during the processes of notification (when a report about known or suspected child abuse or neglect is made to a department responsible for child protection) and investigation.
This resource sheet is intended for use by child protection practitioners and other practitioners or service providers who work with children and families who have had, or may have, contact with child protection services. It is divided into 2 parts:
- Part 1:
- summarises the different risk assessment approaches used to assess whether children are at risk of child abuse or neglect
- outlines the strengths and weaknesses of 2 commonly used risk assessment approaches
- summarises factors that can influence the effectiveness of risk assessments in child protection practice
- discusses some considerations for risk assessments when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and culturally and linguistically diverse children and families.
- Part 2:
- lists risk assessment frameworks/tools used across the states and territories.
1. Risk assessments in practice
Risk assessment approaches
Risk assessment approaches provide child protection practitioners with practical frameworks and tools to determine future risk levels of child abuse or neglect and to support complex decision making about appropriate services or interventions to best protect children from abuse and neglect (Vial et al., 2020). There are several approaches to risk assessment in child protection. ‘Actuarial approaches’ and ‘consensus-based approaches’ are 2 of the most common approaches to risk assessment (De Bortoli et al., 2017; Mendoza et al., 2016; van der Put et al., 2017). More recent approaches include structured professional judgement (De Bortoli et al., 2017) and the Signs of Safety framework (Gaskin, 2017). We describe these approaches to risk assessment below.
It is important to note that there is currently no single approach to risk assessment in child protection that is considered best practice. The evidence base on signs or risk factors of child abuse and neglect needs further research and there is a lack of empirical evidence supporting the use of one approach over another (Gaskin, 2017; Turnell & Murphy, 2017). Further research on all risk assessment approaches in various contexts would help determine the strengths and weaknesses of each approach and what may work best in which context.
Actuarial approaches
An actuarial risk assessment is a standardised tool that predicts the likelihood of future child abuse or neglect by using instruments containing empirically derived and statistically significant predictor variables (items) related to child maltreatment (De Bortoli et al., 2017; Mendoza et al., 2016; Mickelson et al., 2017; van der Put et al., 2017; Vial et al., 2020). These items are typically organised into 2 subscales: risk of future neglect and risk of future abuse. Practitioners score items individually and then use these scores to assign an overall risk category of low, medium or high. Risk categories determine whether further investigation or intervention is required to protect the child (Mickelson et al., 2017). Practitioners may draw on professional experience to override assessment scores and increase the risk category by one level, if they feel the scored risk level is too low (Department for Child Protection, 2021).
The Structured Decision Making (SDM) tool is an example of an actuarial risk assessment instrument that is used in Australian child protection, specifically in New South Wales (An Introduction to the Structured Decision Making System), Queensland (Child Safety Practice Manual) (Gaskin, 2017) and South Australia (Initial risk assessment policy and procedures manual). Table 1 summarises some of the main strengths and weaknesses of actuarial risk assessment instruments.
Table 1: Strengths and weaknesses of actuarial approaches
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| Standardised tools provide a clear format and structure for practitioners to follow. This can ensure important questions are included by all assessors (Lätsch et al., 2021). | Effective implementation of standardised tools is reliant on practitioner skill and experience (Alexander et al., 2023). |
| The use of statistically derived items aims to increase objectivity and minimise bias in assessment (Alexander et al., 2023; De Bortoli et al., 2017). | The tools can be inflexible with including professional judgement in decision making about risk and intervention and may not consider child- or family-specific circumstances that can alter risk (De Bortoli et al., 2017; Mendoza et al., 2016). |
| The use of objective, empirically derived tools and items aims to improve the consistency, equity and accuracy of decision making (Alexander et al., 2023). | May lack indicative validity, i.e. the degree to which a tool points to opportunities for intervention, and have limited capacity to identify appropriate interventions or determine what the risk level may be with an intervention (Lätsch et al., 2021) |
| There is some evidence that actuarial tools, such as the SDM, achieve higher predictive validity than consensus-based tools. This can increase practitioner confidence that they are identifying true negative and true positive risk classifications (van der Put et al., 2017). | Some practitioners feel that actuarial approaches are too strict and process-oriented and may be overly reductive. This can lead to false positive and false negative risk classifications (Maslen & Hamilton, 2020). |
Consensus-based approaches
Consensus-based risk assessments aim to identify factors that underlie and perpetuate child abuse and neglect and to consider future risk levels if appropriate interventions are implemented (Mendoza et al., 2016). They aim to bridge the gap between unstructured decision making and actuarial decision making.
A consensus-based approach to risk assessment has 2 key elements. Firstly, risk assessment instruments are developed through a consensus process with social work practitioners who draw on child maltreatment literature, empirical evidence and their professional expertise to identify themes and characteristics that predict the future risk of child maltreatment (De Bortoli et al., 2017; van der Put et al., 2017; Vial et al., 2020). Secondly, child protection workers draw on their professional judgement to assess instrument items. This guides their overall risk assessment and decision making about appropriate interventions.
Mickelson and colleagues (2017) have summarised the 2 main strategies used to make decisions about the future risk to a child in a consensus-based approach:
- Individual consensus-derived items guide practitioners to consider risk factors but the final decisions as to the overall level of risk is left to the practitioner’s discretion.
- As with actuarial tools, the scores of consensus-derived items are tallied, and families are assigned a risk level based on the overall score.
Consensus-based risk assessments will often incorporate a strengths-based approach that aims to identify qualities or strategies a family has that support the caregiver(s) to protect a child and reduce future risks of abuse or neglect (Mendoza et al., 2016; van der Put et al., 2017).
Table 2 summarises some of the strengths and weaknesses of consensus-based assessment approaches.
Table 2: Strengths and weaknesses of consensus-based approaches
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
| More flexibility to include case-specific information, which allows for a holistic and comprehensive assessment of risk (compared to actuarial approaches) (De Bortoli et al., 2017). | Relies heavily on the practitioner’s ability to apply empirical knowledge with practice information. This may be challenging for less experienced practitioners (De Bortoli et al., 2017). |
| More flexibility in adapting assessments to suit local or individual contexts compared to actuarial approaches (De Bortoli et al., 2017; Mendoza et al., 2016) | Lack of consistency in structure of instruments and the types and quantity of variables used (Mendoza et al., 2016) |
| Supports practitioners to use practice wisdom, professional experience and intuition in decisions about risk levels (Mendoza et al., 2016). | May result in inconsistency in interpretation due to overreliance on professional discretion (De Bortoli et al., 2017) |
| Recognises the importance of dynamic, causal and case-specific risk factors that can help identify specific circumstances likely to trigger abuse and support decision making around modifications or interventions that can reduce future risk of abuse (De Bortoli et al., 2017; Mickelson et al., 2017). | Critical decisions may be influenced by personal opinions and bias due to consensus-based approaches being more subjective than actuarial approaches (Mendoza et al., 2016). |
| Focuses on identifying appropriate intervention plans as well as assessing risk levels (Turnell & Murphy, 2017). | Historically, consensus-based instruments have performed poorly in evaluations of predictive validity and interrater reliability (Mendoza et al., 2016; White & Walsh, 2006). There is a lack of current evidence to determine whether this has improved. |
Structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach
Many current risk assessment practices mandated by Australian states and territories (refer to Part 2) incorporate elements of both actuarial and consensus-based approaches. This aligns with what has been called a structured professional judgement (SPJ) approach (De Bortoli et al., 2017).
An SPJ approach includes evidence-based risk factors and decision-making guidelines to standardise assessments and inform professional judgement (De Bortoli et al., 2017). SPJ approaches were developed to overcome the observed weaknesses in actuarial and consensus-based approaches (De Bortoli et al., 2017; Gaskin, 2017). Specifically, SPJ approaches facilitate greater inclusion of individual, family and dynamic factors that can impact risk of abuse, while also considering static risk factors and providing a structure or format for practitioners to follow (De Bortoli et al., 2017).
The SAFER children framework, mandated for use in child protection risk assessment in Victoria, is an example of a risk assessment approach aligned with an SPJ approach. The SAFER children framework is described as a guided professional judgement approach. It comprises structured, statistically derived tools that draw on the professional experience of child protection workers to develop an overall assessment of future risk to the child and support decision making around intervention and safety planning (DFFH, 2021). To date, SPJ approaches have been more commonly used in domestic violence risk assessments in Australia then in child protection (De Bortoli et al., 2017).
Signs of Safety framework
The Signs of Safety framework is a fourth approach to risk assessment in child protection. The Signs of Safety framework was developed to balance the focus of traditional risk assessments (e.g. static risk assessment items in actuarial assessments) with efforts to develop safe environments for children (Gaskin, 2017). This approach is described as a process of creating a map of circumstances surrounding a vulnerable child from which to assess future risk and appropriate interventions (Turnell & Murphy, 2017). It has a greater focus on working with families, and drawing on family strengths, resources and competencies, than other risk assessment approaches (Gaskin, 2017).
Signs of Safety provides practitioners with 4 domains to explore (Gaskin, 2017):
- Past harm, future danger, complicating factors (What are we worried about?)
- Existing strengths and safety (What’s working well?)
- Future safety (What needs to happen?)
- Judgement (using a 0–10 scale, where 10 means there is enough safety for child protection authorities to close the case and 0 means it is certain the child will be (re)abused).
The Signs of Safety framework is currently mandated for use in child protection risk assessment in the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
Factors to consider when conducting risk assessments
This section summarises the factors that can influence the effectiveness of risk assessments in child protection practice. These factors can be broadly categorised as relating to ‘internal qualities’ or ‘external/ecological requirements’ of risk assessment. ‘Internal qualities’ are the attributes of a test that enable practitioners to evaluate the effectiveness and trustworthiness of a tool. The ‘external or ecological requirements’ refer to how well the tool works in a specific organisation, system or social environment (Lätsch et al., 2021). Some important factors relevant to the internal qualities and external/ecological requirements of the risk assessment instruments are summarised below.
Internal qualities: risk assessments
Internal qualities of risk assessments relate to the quality and effectiveness of the risk assessment instruments and tools (and are independent of the organisational context). Important factors to consider include:
- the quality and availability of data that can/will be collected (Mickelson et al., 2017). This can include:
- if/how the data will appropriately inform safety and risk
- whether the data collection is culturally informed
- if/how bias may influence the collection or interpretation of data
- the adequacy of the tools for the context in which it is to be applied (Latsch et al., 2021). For example:
- Do the definitions of child abuse and neglect provided by the tool match legal and institutional norms and/or what caregivers, children and practitioners define as child abuse and neglect?
To support a child protection system that is informed by evidence-based practice, risk assessment instruments and tools should also be subject to regular and rigorous testing and evaluation (Mendoza et al., 2016).
External factors: practitioner and organisational characteristics
In addition to the internal qualities of risk assessment tools, external (or ecological) factors can also influence how useful or effective a risk assessment will be for a specific practitioner or organisation.
For example, some practitioner-level characteristics that can influence whether a risk assessment tool or process is effective include:
- whether the tool makes sense to practitioners and/or if they are receptive to using it (Latsch et al., 2021)
- if a tool is easy to use in the intended way (Lätsch et al., 2021)
- practitioner attitudes and beliefs, particularly about child maltreatment, and family and domestic violence. An individual’s attitudes and beliefs can introduce bias and influence scoring and interpretation in risk assessment (Alexander et al., 2023).
- practitioners’ understanding of racial and ethnic disproportionality and disparity in the child protection system (Feely & Bosk, 2021). Bias with potential for error in risk assessments can be introduced when decision making is not based on ‘true’ risk but on assumptions associated with race or ethnicity.
- practitioner experience and skill. These can affect relationships and communication with children and families and this can impact assessment scores and decisions (Alexander et al., 2023).
Organisations can minimise the risk of individual practitioner-level factors influencing risk assessment outcomes by investing in support, training and quality supervision of child protection workers (Alexander et al., 2023). This can help to:
- ensure that practitioner knowledge, attitude and beliefs align with organisational values, reflect current evidence and increase empathic understanding about risks relating to child abuse and neglect
- support practitioners to reflect with colleagues about their practice and suggested interventions and support them to make critical decisions in challenging circumstances.
Additional considerations
It is essential that risk assessment processes operate equitably across different groups (Jenkins, 2021). Inequity in risk assessment can arise when tools fail to consider cultural differences or if there is systematic bias built into the tools or scoring – for example, if the way risk categories are defined in a tool systematically disadvantages children and families of particular socio-economic or cultural backgrounds (Jenkins, 2021).
Current risk assessment approaches have been criticised for disadvantaging children and families from vulnerable communities by using risk assessment tools that have not been developed or tested in culturally relevant contexts (Mendoza et al., 2016; Mickelson et al., 2017). This means that risk assessments may not adequately address or recognise case- or context-specific needs or circumstances that may impact future levels of risk to a child.
Below we discuss some considerations for risk assessments when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families and culturally and linguistically diverse children and families.
Risk assessment when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are over-represented in child protection services and out-of-home care (OOHC) (Jenkins, 2021). It is essential that practitioners responding to child protection reports concerning Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are supported and trained in culturally safe risk assessment practice (Finan et al., 2018). Risk assessment processes and interventions must be culturally appropriate, and recognise the importance of connection to family, community and culture on child wellbeing, as reflected in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle. SNAICC provide a comprehensive overview of Child Protection Information and services in Australia.
Child protection practice, in most Australian jurisdictions, includes some guidelines to support practitioners to conduct risk assessments with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families in ways that are culturally appropriate (refer to Part 2 below). This may include consideration of unique or additional factors or needs that can impact people’s participation in, or the outcomes of, risk assessments. However, current risk assessment practice has been criticised for not providing sufficient detail about how practitioners and organisations should ensure cultural competency and safety when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families (Finan et al., 2018).
Risk assessment when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds
Some children and families from culturally diverse backgrounds may have sought asylum or have been refugees, which may mean that they have experienced living with hardship, war, violence and persecution, and may be living with the impacts of trauma (Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2019). Other experiences may also include human rights violations, forced dislocation, loss or separation from family members, racism and discrimination.
Child protection practitioners working with children and families from diverse cultural backgrounds must constantly reflect upon their own practice and implement culturally safe practices in all aspects of child protection interventions including risk assessment (Department of the Premier and Cabinet, 2019). When working with marginalised cultural groups, any risk assessment instrument or procedure should have the scope to account for the wider structural forces that may be contributing to parental or familial problems (Strega, 2009).
Some Australian jurisdictions include broad guidelines or principles for working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds (refer to Part 2 below). However, specific or detailed frameworks supporting culturally safe practice and guidance around unique or additional needs are lacking (Finan et al., 2018).
2. Risk assessment frameworks/tools used across states and territories
This section provides information for each Australian state and territory on:
- the responsible body for child protection in each state and territory
- mandated risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) used in each state and territory
- frameworks or considerations specific to working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or culturally and linguistically diverse children and families in child protection (where they are available).
It is important to note that not all the tools adapted by states and territories fit neatly into the approaches described above and some may combine different approaches.
Australian Capital Territory
| Responsible body for child protection | ACT Child and Youth Protection Services |
| Risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) | The CYPS Case Management Framework is used to reach professional decisions about risk to a child based on the probability and consequences of abuse, neglect or exposure to family violence. Risk assessment is a crucial component of this framework and includes the following elements:
|
| Considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families | CYPS Case Management Framework includes information on culturally responsive practice with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. |
| Considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds | No additional information is publicly available. |
New South Wales
| Responsible body for child protection | Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) |
| Risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) | Child protection practitioners use the Structured Decision Making (SDM) assessment framework and suite of tools to assess the safety of and risk to children. There are some specific circumstances where a professional judgement tool, called the Alternate Assessment is used, such as when the child is in out-of-home care. Documents detailing specific frameworks and tools included in NSW child protection risk assessment include:
|
| Considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families |
DCJ is currently developing options to co-design an alternative Risk Assessment in partnership with the Ministerial Aboriginal Partnership (MAP) group to better reflect the unique needs, experiences, risks and strengths of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families. |
| Considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds |
|
Northern Territory
| Responsible body for child protection | Department of Territory Families, Housing and Communities |
| Risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) | Signs of Safety in the NT is an evolving approach to child protection casework that focuses on practices, tools and methods aimed at making a meaningful difference for professionals and families facing complex problems of child abuse. The Signs of Safety approach is a strengths-based approach that focuses on working with families. It provides principles, disciplines and fit-for-purpose tools that equip practitioners and supervisors to build and increase safety for children. There are 3 core principles:
The Signs of Safety Comprehensive Briefing Paper outlines the principles, history of the approach, signs of safety assessment and planning, theory of change and implementation. |
| Considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families | Aboriginal Cultural Security Framework: an overarching framework that informs all work with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and children. It recognises Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultures are a strength and sets a framework for embedding culturally safe and responsive practice. Aboriginal Practice Leadership Framework: This contains a commitment to Aboriginal staff being at the centre of the Signs of Safety implementation. This framework operationalises the Territory Families Aboriginal Cultural Security Framework for Signs of Safety implementation and casework roles. |
| Considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds | No additional information is publicly available. |
Queensland
| Responsible body for child protection | Department of Child Safety, Seniors and Disability Services (Child Safety) |
| Risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) | Child protection practitioners use the Structured Decision Making (SDM) tool in conjunction with professional judgement and knowledge of legislation, policies and procedures to facilitate decision making about child protection. The following documents relate to risk assessment processes and frameworks: Child Safety Practice Manual: The Queensland Government’s Child Safety Practice Manual outlines child protection procedures, including assessing a child's need for protection. Investigate and assess: This is used to investigate and assess allegations that a child has been significantly harmed or is at risk of significant harm (or that an unborn child will be at risk of significant harm after birth); to assess a child’s need for protection; and to record the outcome of the investigation and assessment. It includes the Practice Guide: Assess harm and risk of harm, which sets out the key concepts relevant to risk assessment, and a 4-stage process for undertaking an assessment of harm and risk of harm. The Strengthening Families Protecting Children Framework for Practice provides a template for child protection work in Queensland, and includes practice principles and guidelines for engagement, assessment, planning and process. |
| Considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families | The Child Safety Policy outlines considerations for investigating and assessing allegations of harm when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families. The Child Safety Practice Manual states that decisions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children made under the Child Protection Act 1999 must ensure active efforts are made to apply the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle. Practice Guide: Assess harm and risk of harm includes information about cultural factors to consider in risk assessment. The Strengthening Families Protecting Children Framework for Practice includes values and principles about cultural integrity and cultural knowledge. |
| Considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds | No additional information is publicly available. |
South Australia
| Responsible body for child protection | Department for Child Protection (DCP) |
| Risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) | DCP Practice Approach is an integrated approach to support staff and other stakeholders to work together to ensure safety and positive outcomes for children and young people. The Practice Approach focuses on skilful assessment, timely intervention and collaborative practice. Information and guidance on principles; foundational theories and knowledge; and tools, processes and practice guidelines are included in the DCP Practical Approach summary guide. Further information is included in the DCP Practice Principles, which are used to guide practice, inform policy and guidance, and support reflective practice. Initial Risk Assessment for Abuse and Neglect Policy and Procedures Manual: includes 2 indices:
Items on each index are included based on their statistical relationship to subsequent neglect and/or subsequent abuse. The DCP Manual of Practice– Intake, investigation and assessment chapter provides guidance to support a robust investigation process to inform an assessment of a child or young person’s future risk of harm. |
| Considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families | The DCP Practice Approach and DCP Practice Principles include information on cultural considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families. This includes the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle and Aboriginal Cultural Identity Support Tool (ACIST). These practice papers and frameworks also provide in-depth guidance for specific areas of practice: |
| Considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds | The DCP Practice Approach and DCP Practice Principles include information on cultural considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, including the CALD Identity Support Tool (CALD IST). This practice paper provides in-depth guidance for specific areas of practice: |
Tasmania
| Responsible body for child protection | Department for Education, Children and Young People (DECYP) |
| Risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) | Resources and/or tools outlining specific risk assessment approaches for child protection workers in Tasmania are not publicly available at the time of writing this resource. |
| Considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families | No additional information is publicly available. At the time of writing, the DECYP was in the process of developing procedures and practice prompts, and working with Aboriginal community organisations, to appropriately inform cultural practices, guidelines and frameworks. The associated documentation is not yet available for public release. |
| Considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds | No additional information is publicly available. |
Victoria
| Responsible body for child protection | Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH) |
| Risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) | SAFER children framework guide: The SAFER children framework is centred on 5 practice activities of risk assessment:
This framework has a focus on professional judgement (reasoning skills, formal knowledge, values, practice wisdom, emotional awareness). These activities are summarised in here. The SAFER children framework embeds the Multi-Agency Risk Assessment and Management Framework (MARAM) to identify, assess and respond to family violence risk. |
| Considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families | The SAFER children framework includes considerations for Aboriginal cultural safety and self-determination. There is no other information publicly available. |
| Considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds | No additional information is publicly available. |
Western Australia
| Responsible body for child protection | Department of Communities |
| Risk assessment framework(s)/tool(s) | The Signs of Safety – Child Protection Practice Framework forms the basis of the WA Child Protection Framework and underpins all child protection assessment work. It is a relationship-grounded, safety-driven approach to mapping risks and safety in child protection. Chapter 6 of the framework informs the risk assessment process. Supporting documents include:
|
| Considerations when working with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families | The frameworks and tools above are applied to all children and families in WA. They include requirements to consult with specialist Aboriginal Practice Leaders (APLs) for cultural guidance. Additionally, the Aboriginal Services and Practice Framework builds on and informs the review, development and implementation of services, policies and practice when working with Aboriginal children, families and communities. Guidance for child protection workers when conducting a Child Safety Investigation, including guidance for culturally responsive practice with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families, is available here: Culturally responsive practice in SCI |
| Considerations when working with children and families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds | The frameworks and tools above are applied to all children and families in WA. Guidance for child protection workers when conducting a Child Safety Investigation, including guidance for culturally responsive practice with culturally and linguistically diverse children and families, is available here: Culturally responsive practice in SCI |
References
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2023). Child Protection Australia 2021–22 (Cat. No. CWS 92). Canberra: AIHW.
Alexander, K., Humphreys, C., Wise, S., & Zhou, A. (2023). The attitudes and beliefs of the child protection workforce and why they matter to children who live with violence. Child & Family Social Work, 28(1), 210–221. doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12954
De Bortoli, L., Ogloff, J., Coles, J., & Dolan, M. (2017). Towards best practice: Combining evidence‐based research, structured assessment and professional judgement. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2), 660–669.
Department of Families, Fairness and Housing (DFFH). (2021). SAFER children framework guide: The five practice activities of risk assessment in child protection. Canberra: DFFH.
Feely, M., & Bosk, E. A. (2021). That which is essential has been made invisible: The need to bring a structural risk perspective to reduce racial disproportionality in child welfare. Race and Social Problems, 13(1), 49–62. doi.org/10.1007/s12552-021-09313-8
Finan, S., Bromfield, L., Arney, F., & Moore, T. P. (2018). Assessing the quality and comprehensiveness of child protection practice frameworks. Adelaide: Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia.
Gaskin, C. (2017). Best practice in child protection risk assessment. Prepared for the Department of Health and Human Service, State of Victoria.
Jenkins, B. Q. (2021). Measuring the equity of risk assessment instruments used in child protection. Children and Youth Services Review, 131, 106266. doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.106266
Lätsch, D. C., Voll, P., Jung, R., & Jud, A. (2021). Evaluating assessment tools in child protection: A conceptual framework of internal and ecological requirements. Child Abuse Review, 30(6), 508–519.
Maslen, S., & Hamilton, S. L. (2020). ‘Can you sleep tonight knowing that child is going to be safe?’: Australian community organisation risk work in child protection practice. Health, Risk & Society, 22(5–6), 346–361. doi.org/10.1080/13698575.2020.1828303
Mendoza, N. S., Rose, R. A., Geiger, J. M., & Cash, S. J. (2016). Risk assessment with actuarial and clinical methods: Measurement and evidence-based practice. Child Abuse & Neglect, 61, 1–12. doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2016.09.004
Mickelson, N., LaLiberte, T., & Piescher, K. (2017). Assessing risk: A comparison of tools for child welfare practice with Indigenous families. St. Paul, MN: Center for Advanced Studies in Child Welfare, University of Minnesota. cascw. umn. edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Risk-Assessment_ FinalReport. pdf
Department for Child Protection. ( 2021). Initial risk assessment for abuse and neglect: Policy and procedures manual. Adelaide: South Australian Government.
Department of the Premier and Cabinet. (2019). Foundational theories and knowledge: Working with cultural diversity. Practice Paper. Adelaide: South Australian Government.
Strega, S. (2009). Anti-oppressive approaches to assessment, risk assessment and file recording. In J. Carrière & S. Strega (Eds.). Walking this path together: Anti-racist and anti-oppressive child welfare practice, pp. 142–154. Fernwood Publishing.
Titterton, A. (2017). Indigenous access to family law in Australia and caring for Indigenous children. UNSW Law Journal, 40, 146.
Turnell, A., & Murphy, T. (2017). Signs of safety: A comprehensive briefing paper (4th Edition). Resolutions Consultancy.
van der Put, C. E., Assink, M., & Boekhout van Solinge, N. F. (2017). Predicting child maltreatment: A meta-analysis of the predictive validity of risk assessment instruments. Child Abuse & Neglect, 73, 71–88. doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2017.09.016
Vial, A., Assink, M., Stams, G. J. J. M., & van der Put, C. (2020). Safety assessment in child welfare: A comparison of instruments. Children and Youth Services Review, 108, 104555. doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.104555
White, A., & Walsh, P. (2006). Risk assessment in child welfare: An issues paper. Ashfield, NSW: Centre for Parenting and Research.
This paper was updated by Dr Pragya Gartoulla and Kylie Butler from the Child Family Community Australia (CFCA) information exchange at the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS). The previous edition was updated in 2016 by Adam Dean, CFCA Project Officer.
Featured image: © gettyimages/M-image