Rethinking child protection strategy: evaluating research findings and numeric data to challenge whether current intervention strategy is justified.

关于儿童保护和保障的传统思维认为，虐待儿童可以被发现和治疗，并通过强有力的评估在很大程度上根除。根据儿童死亡事件而进行的公开调查和严重案件审查得出的结论被视为应该采取哪些措施来“加强”该系统以防止进一步死亡和根除虐待儿童的权威声明。这些建议贯穿实践，影响到成为社会工作评估对象的家庭。重要的是，这些家庭中的绝大多数并没有虐待他们的孩子，许多家庭只是要求支持服务。事实证明，这一政策不仅在防止进一步死亡方面无效，而且还造成了大量数据和官僚作风。它使大量家庭陷入该系统，他们向第三部门机构寻求帮助，以应对评估做法的不利后果。尽管如此，在学术研究和政府政策中，越来越多的侵入性和长期评估被认为是最佳做法。该项目质疑当前评估实践是否适合或适合目的的范式。这个项目建立在博士已经完成的工作，一个较小的资助项目，同行评审的文章（正在进行中）和专著（正在进行中），以产生分析，提供一个创造性的和新颖的分析，挑战公认的思维。项目负责人已经完成了该项目的基础工作，包括确定和采购样本数据。该项目考虑了四个相互关联的研究不足的调查领域，所有这些领域都在挑战该领域公认的思维和实践方面具有变革性：(1)对公共调查和严肃案例审查结果进行荟萃分析，以评估建议及其采纳的趋势。将对吸收的后果进行分析，同时对使用从统计上罕见的案例中推断出来的后见之明结论作为适用于所有社会工作评估的政策基础提出批评；(2)趋势分析，以确定与社会工作评估结果有关的知识现状；（三）对评估结果的影响评估；(4)一项统计评估，质疑风险评估在社会工作评估中作为预测和诊断援助的使用，因为这种方法固有的假阳性和假阴性非常普遍。这些元素以前都没有被详细研究过，也没有一起研究过。简而言之，这是一个重要而非传统的批评。该分析将提供对数据的唯一全面分析，并将从根本上和批判性地质疑该范式是否可以客观地证明该行业所涉及的财务和资源成本是合理的。该项目具有变革性，因为它提出了一种独特的方法和分析，可以从根本上改变社会科学几个领域的公认思维。该项目背后的思想及其在质疑既定政策方面的批判性方法将创造新的见解和问题，这些见解和问题有可能从根本上改变政策。该项目旨在利用三角测量的可靠方法，就其是否会被接受为方法上有效而言，这些方法本身并不存在风险。变革的因素和风险发生在新的研究问题和对范式的挑战中。考虑到项目的争议性，以及项目结果将在该领域的思考和辩论方面具有开创性的意图，该项目旨在使用现有数据，从而最大限度地减少可能导致项目成功完成问题的方法问题（如谈判权限）。项目的这一方面被认为是最重要的，并将确保项目是可实现的。

Conventional thinking in relation to child protection and safeguarding takes as an axiom that child abuse can be detected and treated, and largely eradicated through robust assessment. Conclusions from public inquiries and serious case reviews set up in light of child fatalities are treated as an authoritative statement of what should be done to 'strengthen' the system to prevent further fatalities and eradicate child abuse. The recommendations cascade through practice and affect families who become the subjects of social work assessment. Importantly, the vast majority of these families have not abused their children and many are simply requesting support services. This policy has proved not only ineffective in preventing further fatalities but has caused a flood of data and bureaucracy. It has enmeshed a large number of families into the system who turn to third sector organisations for help in to cope with the adverse consequences of assessment practices. Despite this, increasingly intrusive and prolonged assessment is considered in academic research and government policy to be best practice. This project questions the paradigm that current assessment practice is appropriate or fit for purpose.This project builds on work already completed in a doctorate, a smaller funded project peer reviewed articles (in progress) and a monograph (in progress) to produce analysis that draws offers a creative and novel analysis that challenges accepted thinking. The groundwork for this project has already been completed by the PI including identifying and sourcing sample data. The project considers four, linked under-researched areas of investigation, all of which are transformative in challenging accepted thinking and practice in the area: (1) A meta-analysis of public inquiry and serious case review findings to assess trends in recommendations and their uptake. Analysis of the consequences of uptake will be undertaken together with a critique of the use of hindsight conclusions extrapolated from statistically rare cases as a basis for policy applied to all social work assessment; (2) A trend analysis to ascertain the current state of knowledge in relation to the outcome of social work assessment; (3) An impact assessment of the outcome of assessment; and (4) A statistical evaluation to question the use of risk assessment as a predictive and a diagnostic aid in social work assessment given the high prevalence of false positives and false negatives inherent in this approach.None of these elements have been examined in detail before, and not together. In short this is an important and unconventional critique. This analysis will provide the only comprehensive analysis of the data and will radically and critically question whether the paradigm can objectively be demonstrated to justify the financial and resource cost involved in the industry.The project is transformative as it proposes a unique approach and analysis which could radically change accepted thinking across several areas of social science. The thinking behind the project and its critical approach in questioning aspects of an entrenched policy will create new insights and questions that have the potential to radically alter policy. The project is designed to utilise sound methodologies that are triangulated and are not, in themselves, risky in terms of whether they will be accepted as methodologically valid. The transformative element and risk occurs in the novel research question and challenge to the paradigm. Given the controversial nature of the project and the intention that the results will be ground breaking in relation to thinking and debate in the area the project is designed to use available data, thereby minimising methodological issues (such as negotiating access) that could cause problems for successful completion of the project. This aspect of the project is considered paramount and will ensure the project is achievable.