Driving Child Protection Reform: Evidence or Ideology?

References

• Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of evidence-based implementation in public service sectors. Administration & Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38, 4–23. doi:10.1007/s10488-010-0327-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2007). Child protection Australia 2005–06. Canberra: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Australian Institute for Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2013). Child protection Australia 2011–12. Canberra: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, C., Wagner, D., Caskey, R., & Neuenfeldt, D. (1995). Structured decision making system: An evaluation of its impact on child protection services. Madison, WI: Children's Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Baird, C., Wagner, D., Healy, T., & Johnson, K. (1999). Reliability and validity of risk assessment in child protective services: A comparison of three systems. Madison, WI: Children's Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Blaug, R. (1995). Distortion of the face to face: Communicative reason and social work practice. British Journal of Social Work, 25, 423–439.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carmody. (2012 ongoing). Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry. The Hon. Tim Carmody, SC. Accessed August 2012 at http://www.childprotectioninquiry.qld.gov.au/
   Google Scholar
• Children's Research Center (CRC). (1999). The improvement of child protective services with structured decision making: The CRC model. Madison, WI: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Children's Research Center (CRC). (2008). The structured decision making model: An evidence-based approach to human services. Madison, WI: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC). (2004). Protecting children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care. Queensland: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Cummins. (2012). Report of the protecting Victoria's vulnerable children inquiry. Melbourne: State Government of Victoria.
   Google Scholar
• Department of Child Safety (DCS). (2007). Child protection Queensland 2005–06 performance report. Brisbane: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Eagleton, T. (1991). Ideology: An introduction. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Ferguson, H. (2004). Protecting children in time: Child abuse, child protection and the consequences of modernity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Forster, P. (2004). A Blueprint for implementing the recommendations of the January 2004 crime and misconduct commission report (2004). Brisbane: State Government of Queensland.
   Google Scholar
• Gardner, F. (2006). Working with human service organisations: Creating connections for practice. South Melbourne, VIC: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
   Google Scholar
• Gillingham, P. (2009a). The use of assessment tools in child protection: An ethnomethodological study. University of Melbourne. Retrieved from http://repository.unimelb.edu.au/10187/4337
   Google Scholar
• Gillingham, P. (2009b). Practitioner perspectives on the family risk evaluation tool: An aide to decision making or “just another form to fill in”? Developing Practice: The Child, Family and Youth Work Journal, 23(4), 46–55.
   Google Scholar
• Gillingham, P. (2011). Decision making tools and the development of expertise in child protection practitioners: Are we “just breeding workers who are good at ticking boxes”? Child and Family Social Work, 16, 412–421. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2206.2011.00756.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillingham, P., & Humphreys, C. (2010). Child protection practitioners and decision making tools: Observations and reflections from the frontline. British Journal of Social Work, 40, 2598–2616. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcp155
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, M., Plath, D., & Webb, S. A. (2009). Evidence-based social work: A critical stance. New York, NY: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Grundy, S. (1982). Three modes of action research. Curriculum Perspectives, 2, 23–24.
   Google Scholar
• Habermas, J. (1984). The theory of communicative action. Boston: Beacon Press.
   Google Scholar
• Harris, J. (2003). The social work business. London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Healy, K. (2009). A case of mistaken identity: The social welfare professions and new public management. Journal of Sociology, 45, 401–418. doi:10.1177/1440783309346476
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Henderson, J. (2005). Neo-liberalism, community care and Australian mental health policy. Health Sociology Review, 14, 242–254. doi:10.5172/hesr.14.3.242
   Google Scholar
• Howe, D. (1992). Child abuse and the bureaucratization of social work. The Sociological Review, 40, 491–508. doi:10.1111/j.1467-954X.1992.tb00399.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, W. (2004). Effectiveness of California's child welfare structured decision-making Model: A prospective study of the validity of the California family risk assessment. Madison, WI: Children's Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Johnson, W. (2011). The validity and utility of the California family risk assessment under practice conditions in the field: A prospective study. Child Abuse and Neglect, 35, 18–28. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2010.08.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Johnson, K., Wagner, D., & Wiebush, R. (2000). South Australia department of family and community services: Risk assessment revalidation study. Madison, WI: Children's Research Center.
   Google Scholar
• Jones, A., & May, J. (1992). Working in human services organisations: A critical introduction. London: Longman Cheshire.
   Google Scholar
• Lonne, B., & Thomson, J. (2005). Critical review of Queensland's crime and misconduct commission inquiry into abuse of children in foster care: Social work's contribution to reform. Australian Social Work, 58, 86–99. doi:10.1111/j.1447-0748.2005.00194.x
   Google Scholar
• Marston, G., & Watts, R. (2003). Tampering with the evidence: A critical appraisal of evidence- based policy making. The Drawing Board: An Australian Review of Public Affairs, 3, 143–163.
   Google Scholar
• Mildon, R., & Shlonsky, A. (2011). Bridge over troubled water: Using implementation science to facilitate effective services in child welfare. Child Abuse & Neglect, 35, 753–756. doi:10.1016/j.chiabu.2011.07.001
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• NT Government. (2010). Inquiry into the child protection system in Northern Territory: Report of the Board of Inquiry. Darwin: Northern Territory Government, Australia.
   Google Scholar
• Parton, N. (1991). Governing the family: Child care, child protection and the state. London: Macmillan.
   Google Scholar
• Pelton, L. (2008) Informing child welfare: The promise and limits of empirical research. In D. Lindsey & A. Shlonsky (Eds.), Child welfare research: Advances for policy and practice (pp. 25–48). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry (QCPI). (2013). Discussion paper (February 2013). Brisbane: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Sanderson, I. (2002). Evaluation, policy learning and evidence-based policy making. Public Administration, 80(1), 1–22. doi:10.1111/1467-9299.00292
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott, D., & Swain, S. (2002). Confronting cruelty: Historical perspectives on child protection in Australia. Melbourne: Melbourne University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Sen, A. (2002). Positional objectivity. In A. Sen (Ed.), Rationality and freedom (pp. 463–483). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shlonksy, A., & Stern, S. B. (2007). Reflections on the teaching of evidence-based practice in social work. Research on Social Work, 17, 603–611.
   Google Scholar
• Sinclair, T. (2005). Mad, bad or sad? Ideology, distorted communication and child abuse prevention. Journal of Sociology, 41, 227–246. doi:10.1177/1440783305057074
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Spratt, T., & Houston, S. (1999). Developing critical social work in theory and in practice: Child protection and communicative reason. Child and Family Social Work, 4, 315–324. doi:10.1046/j.1365-2206.1999.00130.x
   Google Scholar
• Stewart, A., & Thompson, C. (2004). Comparative evaluation of child protection assessment tools. Brisbane: Griffiths University.
   Google Scholar
• Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics of qualitative research: Grounded theory procedures and techniques. Newbury Park: Sage.
   Google Scholar
• Ten Have, P. (2002). The notion of member is at the heart of the matter: On the role of membership knowledge in ethnomethodological inquiry. Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 3, 2.
   Google Scholar
• Therborn, G. (1980). Power of ideology and the ideology of power. London: Verso.
   Google Scholar
• Tilbury, C. (2005). Child protection services in Queensland post-Forde Inquiry. Children Australia, 30(3), 10–16.
   Google Scholar
• Walker, R. (2000). Welfare policy: Tendering for evidence. In H. T. O. Davies, S. M. Nutley, & P. Smith (Eds.), What works? Evidence-based policy and practice in public services (pp. 141–166). Bristol: Policy Press.
   Google Scholar
• Wood, J. (2008). Report of the special commission of inquiry into child protection services in New South Wales. Retrieved December 1, 2008, from http://www.dpc.nsw.gov.au/publications/news/stories/special_commission_of_inquiry_into_child_protection_services_in_new_south_wales
   Google Scholar