Policy Landscape: Protecting Children as the Key Objective
Addressing the issue of child safety must be regarded as a necessity (World Health Organization, 2015). Herein lies the significance of the UNICEF Australia Child Protection Policy (ACPP) (UNICEF Australia, 2013). The identified policy is aimed at reducing the threats to which children are exposed in today’s contemporary environment (Bhoyar & Varma, 2017). The policy will be analyzed based on Bacchi’s framework, which implies assessing the representation of the problem and the associated issues. The policy can be defined as the regulation aimed at enhancing children’s safety and well-being.
Level and Budget
Given the policy is aimed at improving the well-being of all children across Australia, it was established at the national level. Nicole Breeze was the Director of Policy, which was approved by Tony Abbott, the Prime Minister, in 2013 (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2017). The policy has been supported actively by the Australian government (Ferguson, 2016). The budget of the policy has been growing, with a recent amount of $63,000,000 having been added (Nicholls, 2017). At present, the policy has allowed improving the child welfare levels by 6% (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2017).
State and Federal Policies
At present, there are no similar policies at the state or federal level, which can be viewed as a major problem (Government of Western Australia, 2013). The range of threats that can jeopardize a child’s well-being is continuing to increase (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2017). As such, the introduction of homogenous standards that can be executed at the state and federal levels should be deemed as essential (Government of Western Australia, 2013). The policy is currently at the implementation stage of the policy cycle (Government of Western Australia, 2013).
Perspectives
From a Social Democracy perspective, spending money on the specified issue is critical to children’s well-being and, therefore, is fully justified (Esping-Andersen, 2017). The application of a Socio-Democratic perspective is crucial since it helps focus on the necessity to overcome the challenges associated with the policy implementation (Merkel-Holguin, Hollinshead, Hahn, Casillas, & Fluke, 2015). From the Modernist standpoint, however, the opportunities for social control that the policy provides are barely noticeable (Petrovic, 2015). Thus, the policy cannot be deemed as neoliberal since it does not offer opportunities for rigid control to either the government or the private sector (Geoghegan & Powell, 2009).
Policy Cycle
Based on Althaus, Bridgman, and Davis’s framework, the policy is currently at the Evaluation stage (Government of Western Australia, 2013). While it has already been embedded in the Australian social, economic, and political environment, it needs to be adjusted to the changing landscape of the Australian society (Kemp, Marcenko, Lyons, & Kruzich, 2014).
Peak Bodies
In the Australian tradition, peak bodies were formed as a response to rights infringement experienced by particular demographics (Australian Government, 2016). At present, the peak bodies for child protection are represented in Australia by the Department of Social Services and organizations such as CREATE Foundation, Foster Care Queensland, Peakcare Queensland, Australian Association of Social Workers (ASWW), etc., address the issue of child labor and the associated concerns (Queensland Government, 2017; Peakcare Queensland, 2017). The specified bodies agree that the current child protection policy needs revisiting since it does not safeguard children from new threats associated with modern media and, therefore, may fail to provide children with safety (Peakcare Queensland, 2013).
Target Population and History
The policy refers to children as the key vulnerable population, yet it also stresses the importance of adult community members’ participation. The issue of child safety goes back to the discourse involving the safety of the children of indigenous Australian populations (Kemp, Marcenko, Lyons, & Kruzich, 2014; Ife & Tesoriero, 2006). The lack of connection with the rest of the community, the propensity toward discriminating indigenous populations in the Australian setting, and the absence of social efforts to increase indigenous Australian populations’ security can be viewed as major issues that prevented the problem from being addressed over the past few decades (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2017). According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2017), the history of the policy is firmly rooted in the necessity to provide care for vulnerable populations, in general, but especially children.
Policy Overview: Addressing the Issue of Child Safety
Implying that the safety of children must be a key issue for the Australian government and society, Australia Care and Protection of Children (ACPP) covers the issues that are linked to informational safety, the well-being of children as it pertains to their physical health, and especially the role that adults play in the protection of children. According to the key tenets of ACPP, it is the duty of every adult, and especially state officials, to intervene in cases where there is a possibility of a threat to a child’s safety, security, or health (UNICEF Australia, 2013).
When considering the issue from the perspective of Bacchi’s framework, one must acknowledge the lack of involvement among adults as one of the cornerstones of the problem’s existence. Although the importance of child welfare and well-being is well understood and regarded as important, people are still reluctant to take action when they see the policy being violated (Bacchi, 2009). Thus, a profound analysis of the factors that contribute to the escalation of the issue must be conducted.
The concern for the policy among the members of the Australian government arises from the recent increase in the levels of child abuse and neglect (Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2017). The assumptions of the government and its ideology can be traced to the vision and mission of the policy. The ideology behind the policy aligns with the principles based on which the Australian government makes decisions; particularly, the necessity to meet the needs of vulnerable populations is rendered clearly in the policy. The purpose of ACPP is to reduce the threat to children’s well-being, particularly, the instances of child abuse and neglect. A safe environment in which children are secure and where adults take responsibility to protect children can be regarded as the key element of the policy’s vision. The language is underpinned by the assumption that officials must focus on building a personal contact with the target demographic (Bacchi, 2009). The binaries of involvement and noninvolvement, empathy and indifference, and protection vs. abandonment, can be identified in the policy (Campbell, Wunungmurra, & Nyomba, 2007). The specified approach aligns with Bacchi’s principles of a policy being the representation of specific societal concerns (Bacchi, 2009).
The policy categorizes people as those that are willing to treat children as independent people with personalities and needs, as well as those that disregard children’s needs (Bacchi, 2009). The policy, therefore, is based on socio-democratic values and the concept of freedom that is linked to it. In particular, the recognition of children’s rights as citizens needs to be understood as the definitive characteristic of the policy that links it to socio-democratic ideas (UNICEF Australia, 2013).
Issue No. 1: Responsibility Sharing
The unwillingness of an average citizen to accept the responsibility for the well-being of children can be seen as one of the prime issues with which the policy is supposed to tackle (UNICEF Australia, 2013). According to policymakers, the increasingly high threat levels to which children are exposed in the contemporary environment are defined by the lack of engagement among adults (Shepherd, Delgado, & Paradies, 2018; Healy, Lundström, & Sallnas, 2011). In a recent Canberra Times issue, Burdon (2018) argues that the problem of child labor and abuse of child rights has been aggravating over the past few years. Similarly, Barrett and Barrett (2017) point to the fact that neglect toward children that have suffered from abuse is becoming a tendency in modern Australian society (Swann, 2017). The specified problem is linked directly to the problem regarding responsibility sharing since it implies that adults need to teach children to identify threats to their security and prevent them efficiently (Livingstone & Smith, 2014). However, the reluctance to become an active member of a community where the needs of children and their education are viewed as the key areas of focus should be deemed as a sign of problems with responsibility-sharing (Tilbury, Hughes, Bigby, & Osmond, 2017; Ife & Tesoriero, 2006).
By silencing the issue of responsibility sharing, i.e., people’s unwillingness to view the current issue of child safety as the consequence of their inaction, this is likely to lead to a massive aggravation of the current scenario (Government of Western Australia, 2013; Mandell, 2010). Therefore, it is strongly recommended to focus on the enhancement of the connection between community members (Healy et al., 2011; Tilbury et al., 2017; Burkett, 2001). The problem is aggravated by the fact that the shrinking levels of welfare affect the number of resources that the Australian government can use to enhance the security of children and reduce the threat of using modern media as the tools for recruiting children for illegal labor (Beker & Robin, 2014). The specified issue can be considered as neoliberal since it addresses the lack of control.
Issue No. 2: Over-Professionalization and Ordinary People
On the one hand, the idea of being focused on the professional issues to the maximum capacity can be deemed as very positive. Indeed, it could imply that one is fully aware of all the key issues and the range of techniques that can be used to address a particular issue (“Healthy Minds and Services Expo,” 2017). On the other hand, taken to the other extreme, over-professionalization may have a detrimental effect on one’s professional ethics (Valeau, 2014). The identified phenomenon is likely to cause one to dehumanize people and, therefore, view them merely as statistics (Reimer, 2017).
Thus, due to over-professionalization, people working for social services, where children can be provided with the required support and assistance, may fail to meet the needs of target demographics (Tilbury et al., 2017; Burkett, 2001). Failing to relate to target demographics on an emotional level, people become unable to sympathize with them and their problems (Swann, 2017). The resulting indifference is what determines the presence of a dilemma in modern society (Minto, Hornsey, Gillespie, Healy, & Jetten, 2016). Therefore, the introduction of a policy that will prompt a change in the current attitude among the members of the global society is essential (Groch, 2017; Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2018). The fact that the identified issue is silenced deprives the process of protecting children of its efficacy and leads to a gradual rise in the number of violations of children’s rights (Benjamin, 2016; Minto et al., 2016).
The effects of silencing the problem of over-professionalism are not only detrimental to the efforts of improving children’s well-being worldwide but also harmful to vulnerable populations themselves (Tilbury et al., 2017). The issue is also aggravated by the enhancement of neo-liberalism and its vision of the state as “a site for the application of market principles” (Parton, 2016) The issue can be considered as neoliberal since it addresses the absence of involvement.
Social Work Ethics: Steps to Take
By scrutinizing the AASW Code of Ethics, one will be able to prove that the issues regarding responsibility and over-professionalism are linked directly to the lack of an ethical foundation for the policy (Reimer, 2017; Owen & Westoby, 2011). Indeed, according to the AASW Code of Ethics published in 2010, professional integrity is viewed as a crucial component of any policy. This aspect of state policy is especially important to retain in a regulation that is supposed to address the needs of children and, thus, requires especially rigid quality and ethical standards (Australian Association of Social Workers, 2010).
Indeed, ethical standards and basic principles of morality form the backbone of any social work (Travis, Lizano, & Barak, 2015). Thus, reinforcing the specified concepts as the foundation for decision-making when it comes to addressing the problem of child abuse must be regarded as a necessity. For instance, it will be crucial to focus on enhancing the importance of fostering empathy among social workers (Campbell, Wunungmurra, & Nyomba, 2007). As stressed above, the lack of emotional connection with target demographics is regarded as one of the primary obstacles in managing the needs of children that have experienced neglect or abuse (Summersett-Ringgold, Jordan, Kisiel, Sax, & McClelland, 2017). Therefore, building a strategy that will help social workers develop empathy and develop an emotional connection with children is essential.
Transcending the Policy Constraints: Core Problem of Representation
Even though the policy under analysis was intended to serve a good cause, and its creation was guided by good intentions, it has several flaws that may jeopardize the efficacy of its implementation (Shepherd et al., 2018). The current constraints are defined primarily by the lack of motivation among the people that implement it (Livingstone & Smith, 2014). Therefore, it is necessary to develop a leadership framework that will ensure participants excel in their endeavors at improving the quality of children’s lives (Shepherd et al., 2018). This specified goal can be accomplished by reconsidering the current approach toward sustaining ethical standards. As a result, a rapid increase in the number of positive outcomes can be expected.
The failing elements of the policy can be tackled by introducing a set of rigid values to which people will feel inclined to adhere (UNICEF Australia, 2013). The specified effect can be achieved by placing a powerful emphasis on the vulnerability of children and the importance of defending their rights (Merkel-Holguin et al., 2015). As a result, a gradual drop in the instances of child abuse, neglect, or any scenario in which the well-being of a child is jeopardized, is expected.
References
Australian Association of Social Workers. (2010). Code of ethics. Web.
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2017). Child abuse and neglect statistics. Web.
Australian Institute of Family Studies. (2017). What is community development? Web.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2018). Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia, 2018. Web.
Bacchi, C. (2009). Introducing a ‘what’s the problem represented to be?’: Approach to policy analysis. Princeton, NJ: Pearson. Barrett, A., Barrett, J. (2017, June 16). How far can child protection agencies go to protect children? Canberra Times. Web.
Beker, J., & Robin, M. (2014). Assessing child maltreatment reports: The problem of false allegations. New York, NY: Routledge.
Benjamin, O. (2016). The power of professionalization. In Gendering Israel’s outsourcing (pp. 165-183). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.
Bhoyar, A., & Varma, R. (2017). GPS based real-time vehicle tracking system for kid’s safety using RFID and GSM. International Journal of Advance Research, Ideas and Innovations in Technology, 1(1), 290-292.
Burdon, D. (2018). ACT has highest rate of indigenous child care, protection reports in Australia.Canberra Times. Web.
Burkett, I. (2001). Traversing the swampy terrain of postmodern communities: Towards Theoretical revisioning of community development. European Journal of Social Work, 4(3), 233-246.
Campbell, D., Wunungmurra, P., & Nyomba, H. (2007). Starting where the people are: Lessons on community development from a remote aboriginal Australian setting. Community Development Journal, 42(2), pp. 151-166.
Campbell, D., Wunungmurra, P., & Nyomba, H. (2007). Starting where the people are: Lessons on community development from a remote aboriginal Australian setting. Community Development Journal, 42(2), pp. 151-166
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (2017). Child protection policy. Web.
Esping-Andersen, G. (2017). Politics against markets: The social democratic road to power. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Ferguson, H. (2016). What social workers do in performing child protection work: Evidence from research into face‐to‐face practice. Child & Family Social Work, 21(3), 283-294.
Geoghegan, M., & Powell, F. (2009). Community development and the contested politics of the late Modern Agora: Of, alongside or against Neoliberalism? Community Development Journal, 44(4), 430-447.
Government of Western Australia. (2013). Evaluation and the policy cycle. Web.
Groch, S. (2017). More Canberra kids in care as advocates call for community prevention.The Canberra Times. Web.
Healthy Minds and Services Expo. (2017). Web.
Healy, K., Lundström, T., & Sallnas, M. (2011). A comparison of out-of-home care for children and young people in Australia and Sweden: Worlds apart? Australian Social Work, 64(4), 416-431.
Ife, J., & Tesoriero, F. (2006). Community development (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Pearson Education Australia, Frenchs Forest.
Kemp, S. P., Marcenko, M. O., Lyons, S. J., & Kruzich, J. M. (2014). Strength-based practice and parental engagement in child welfare services: An empirical examination. Children and Youth Services Review, 47, 27-35.
Livingstone, S., & Smith, P. K. (2014). Annual research review: Harms experienced by child users of online and mobile technologies: The nature, prevalence and management of sexual and aggressive risks in the digital age. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 55(6), 635-654.
Mandell, J. (2010). Picnics, participation and power: Linking community building to social change. Community Development, 41(2), 269-282.
Merkel-Holguin, L., Hollinshead, D. M., Hahn, A. E., Casillas, K. L., & Fluke, J. D. (2015). The influence of differential response and other factors on parent perceptions of child protection involvement. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 18-31.
Minto, K., Hornsey, M. J., Gillespie, N., Healy, K., & Jetten, J. (2016). A social identity approach to understanding responses to child sexual abuse allegations. PLOS One, 11(4), 1-5.
Nicholls, S. (2017). NSW child protection receives $63m budget boost.The Sydney Mornign Herald. Web.
Owen, J. R., & Westoby, P. (2011). The structure of dialogic practice within developmental work. Community Development, 43(3), 306–319.
Parton, N. (2016). An ‘authoritarian neoliberal’ approach to child welfare and protection. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(2), 7-8.
Peakcare Queensland. (2013). PeakCare professional practice blog. Web.
Peakcare Queensland. (2017). Qld Child Safety September quarterly data plus Productivity Commission annual report released: what do the figures say? Web.
Petrovic, J. E. (2015). A post-liberal approach to language policy in education. New York, NY: Multilingual Matters.
Reimer, E. C. (2017). Leaving the door open for “tune ups”: Challenging notions of ending working relationships in family work. Child & Family Social Work, 22(4), 1357-1364.
Shepherd, S. M., Delgado, R. H., & Paradies, Y. (2018). Inter-relationships among cultural identity, discrimination, distress, agency, and safety among indigenous people in custody. International Journal of Forensic Mental Health, 1(1), 1-11.
Summersett-Ringgold, F., Jordan, N., Kisiel, C., Sax, R. M., & McClelland, G. (2017). Child strengths and placement stability among racial/ethnic minority youth in the child welfare system. Child Abuse & Neglect, 72(12), 561-572.
Tilbury, C., Hughes, M., Bigby, C., & Osmond, J. (2015). Social work research in the child protection field in Australia. British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 256-274.
Travis, D. J., Lizano, E. L., & Barak, M. E. (2015). ‘I’m so stressed!’: A longitudinal model of stress, burnout and engagement among social workers in child welfare settings. The British Journal of Social Work, 46(4), 1076-1095.
UNICEF Australia. (2013). Child protection policy. Web.
Valeau, P. J. (2014). Stages and pathways of development of nonprofit organizations: An integrative model. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 26(5), 1894-1919.
World Health Organization. (2015). Global status report on road safety 2015. Geneva: WHO.