Modifying children's court care plans to acknowledge poverty and disadvantage

This think piece suggests that Children's Court Care Plans should include a new section that documents poverty and social disadvantage, especially of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, when they are under investigation for child abuse and neglect. New South Wales in Australia is used as the exemplar state, but this suggestion may find an echo elsewhere.

Points for practitioners

• As a general proposition social and economic circumstances should be considered in addition to parental dysfunction in child protection proceedings in Children's court.
• Care Plans prepared for hearings in the NSW Children's Court, often developed in response to serious harm report investigations, currently do not contain information about parents' poverty and social disadvantage and hence decontextualise family living circumstances.
• Consistent with international evidence, Care Plans should require information about parents' socioeconomic situation, including social disadvantage of residential neighbourhood, status and cost of household tenancy, and household income.
• Taking account of social and economic circumstances has the potential to generate savings in out-of-home care that can be re-allocated to support services to reduce poverty and social disadvantage and thereby reduce the need for removal of children from parental care.

     

Issue opacity and sustainability standard effectiveness

Many voluntary sustainability standards govern opaque environmental and social issues, which are difficult to understand and address. Extant studies show mixed evidence around the effectiveness of such standards. We develop a theoretical framework that relates different degrees and types of opacity to standard effectiveness. Systemic opacity results from issues embedded in complex, diverse, and dynamic settings, whereas behavioral opacity stems from human challenges in interpreting and acting upon focal issues. Rigid sustainability standards, oriented toward compliance, are effective for addressing issues that are transparent or enshrouded by behavioral opacity, but are counterproductive for issues with systemic opacity. The trade-off between rigidity and flexibility leads to optimal effectiveness when standards governing systemically and behaviorally opaque issues are moderately rigid. Our ideas are illustrated with two leading sustainability standards in the fisheries and real estate sectors, which effectively address transparent issues but show limited success when facing opacity. We conclude that unpacking issue opacity is instrumental in designing and implementing more effective sustainability standards.