Child Protection in the Context of a Network of Family Service Providers: An Examination of Service Provider Activities and Needs to Prevent Child Abuse in Windsor-Essex

Background and Purpose: Within the ecological model of child abuse prevention, there is limited research portrayal on the organizational network(s) of protective adults and practitioners. More specifically, the collaborative and individual response strategies used within service provision agencies have not been isolated according to variables that measure the social attitudes, responsiveness, and the suitability between prevention program demands and the capacity for school-based interventions. To anticipate community organization and collaborative abuse prevention readiness, this paper has examined how predictable and manageable internal (agency) and external (community) resources and public education opportunities are for the family and child service workers. In classifying individual perceptions on the orientation and adherence to preventative interventions within the duty to report mandate, service learning gaps and opportunities were confidently demonstrated as a resource in a partnership context.

Methods: Secondary data analysis was completed on over 80 cross-sectional survey responses as part of a survey conducted to interpret the attitudes and characteristic feelings of family service providers. Participants were recruited via an electronic mail list of family and child service providers in Windsor-Essex. Only participants whose responses were confidentially obtained in the cross-sectional survey were included in this secondary data analysis. This random sample of interdisciplinary-sector participants responded to five semi-structured questions requesting individual insight into their respective organizational and personal working role, experience, knowledge of, and initiatives regarding child abuse prevention. Survey responses were transcribed and coded using SPSS, while factor analysis identified the degree of correlation for each question set of the multi-sector responses. Scale analysis was used to obtain minimum to maximum levels of response agreement across the data set.

Findings: Analysis of data informed on the professional development strategies and challenges in the delivery of child welfare services. Certain service delivery struggles were disproportionately experienced by school educators, while prevention responsibility was predominately expressed as the domain of child protection workers. Respondents expressed discordance and serious concern in the lack of consistency in concurrent and continuous abuse assessment education, and in detached awareness on delivering age and culturally appropriate prevention support.  Study findings further identify that with fluctuating child welfare obligations, first-respondent provider constraints in coordinating response efforts were influenced without consistently reinforced response strategies in place to organize agency-specific prevention training and public education planning. This reflected frustration in the imminent accountability and unstable organization of community preventative interventions along the care continuum compels to evaluate whether a fair distribution in the service delivery system exists to ensure the preservation of the well-being of children within the community.

Conclusion: Findings highlight the strategic importance of collaborative and informative response prevention efforts, strategy development priorities, family engagement factors, and the inconsistencies in formalized training during fluctuating child welfare obligations and constraints. Considering the multifaceted role of school educators in child abuse prevention, the qualitative response analysis guides to facilitate discussion and develop a shared platform for subsequent analysis and contribution to service delivery aspects and to the intricate role of child welfare workers within a professional development network.