Search

ABSTRACT Restoring children from out‐of‐home care (OOHC) to their families is the preferred outcome for all children removed by child protection services, yet little is known about how restoration processes are experienced by families and services supporting them. This paper provides important insights about Aboriginal child restoration from 40 practitioners and stakeholders at a community forum led by Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations in regional New South Wales (NSW), Australia. This is one component of larger Aboriginal‐led research, which investigates child protection experiences and pathways to successful restoration in NSW and the data source for this paper. The community forum explored the issues for families navigating family preservation, OOHC and restoration within child protection and legal systems. Findings include the need for a continuum of support for families throughout their engagement with child protection systems and crucially following the removal of their children. Barriers to effective restoration practice included a lack of access to meaningful and ongoing preservation services, insufficient cultural care planning and family finding efforts that are often too late, the pressure on services to support families without adequate capabilities or enough resourcing, the lack of transparency and the complexities in navigating the restoration process, and the lack of culturally informed support for children and their families while children are in care. Implications for policy and practice are discussed. This paper contributes to understanding practice, processes and barriers for restoration, particularly focused on the perspectives of Aboriginal families and communities, with potential insights for practice within Australia and internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

ABSTRACT Supervision is integral to social work practice; however, how it operates in day‐to‐day practice remains poorly understood. Existing research mainly comprises quantitative and qualitative accounts of social workers' and supervisors' experiences of supervision. More recently, a small number of studies examining the content of supervision have added to our understanding of what happens in supervision. However, supervisory interactions outside formal supervision have received scant empirical attention. This paper draws on an ethnographic study of four social work teams in England, exploring how formal and informal case discussion supports social workers' sensemaking. Data comprised observations of case talk in the office space (n = 21) and group case discussions (n = 2), recordings of one‐to‐one supervision (n = 17) and semi‐structured interviews (n = 22). Findings highlighted the importance of space in how social workers perceived and engaged with supervision. Supervisory spaces involve the interaction of physical, thinking and emotional spaces to create spaces that are supportive, task‐focused and reflective. Moreover, these supervisory spaces are not confined to formal one‐to‐one supervision or to the dyadic supervisor–supervisee relationship. This raises questions for how child protection social workers can be best supported, across diverse supervisory spaces and relationships, to ensure their practice is effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Social workers routinely make judgements and decisions as part of their everyday practice. The nature and quality of these can have a significant and long‐lasting impact on the children and families concerned. In this paper, we present an analysis of more than 20 000 judgements (n = 21 193) made by social workers (n = 586) in relation to case vignettes, based on a series of anonymized referrals (n = 12) to social services in England. We do so to ascertain how accurately the social workers were able to predict subsequent actions, events and outcomes, and to calculate the ratio of true positives to false positives at various decision thresholds. We find that the social workers' predictions were more accurate than chance in relation to all but one of the referrals, albeit at the cost of a high rate of false positive errors. We consider these findings in relation to what appears to be a general lowering of the threshold for child protection interventions in England in recent years and in relation to who suffers the injustice of false positive errors in child and family social work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]