View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

A Review of Children First and Keeping Safe Training in Ireland: Implications for the Future

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: A Review of Children First and Keeping Safe Training in Ireland: Implications for the Future
Language: English
Authors: Devaney, Carmel, McGregor, Caroline
Source: Child Care in Practice. 2016 22(2):166-182.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Program Evaluation, Training, Program Effectiveness, Child Welfare, Child Safety, Well Being, Surveys, Interviews, Questionnaires, Social Work, Mixed Methods Research, Allied Health Personnel
Geographic Terms: Ireland
DOI: 10.1080/13575279.2015.1027175
ISSN: 1357-5279
Abstract: The aim of this paper is to report on the evaluation of two standardised training programmes provided by the statutory children and family service in the Republic of Ireland in 2012. This involved an evaluation of Children First Basic Level Training, which was delivered to all staff employed in the statutory services, and Keeping Safe, Basic Level Training, which was delivered externally to those working with children and families in voluntary and community services. The objectives of this review were: to determine the perceived need of all participants on both training programmes; to establish the relevance of the training programmes "vis-à-vis" the participants work practice; to evaluate whether both training programmes have met their stated aims; and to establish the necessary components of a training programme to inform future development. This retrospective review was conducted using mixed methods. The findings show that, in the main, the needs of the respondents were met by the training. Most respondents agreed that the training met its aims and was relevant. Valuable suggestions were made regarding development for the future. However, due to an unexpectedly low response rate to the research, the low sample size has meant that we cannot deduce that the mostly positive results are representative of participants in the training programmes as a whole. However, while not a reliable representation of the whole trainee population, the findings are nonetheless illustrative and instructive as a guide within this complex and important field for the development of future training. It is concluded that given the ongoing challenge of protecting children from abuse and neglect, the findings will inform a renewed commitment to ongoing development of generic training as well as the development of more advanced methods of evaluation, and increased engagement of training participants in the research process.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 20
Entry Date: 2016
Accession Number: EJ1104282
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwGx7kbfMu52mJz0brGwNuKJAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDECb0pQeeL2owHJlqgIBEICBmotbMsk8YUPJXQ8WN6pdCOLz8GzHb_Iey5wIukBx8GIUCVt03R3gPYtVNxFewTENdG5as26dEkwMwxYKaE5VvoKzmfT7lOeFsIvImmSIaUzto0bxA8sKxL3ZiWiCihqjQObgxLqyHLMs-IBR094mXdkh-7PBTQZbfo20EByjOFcszp65dcO-HhbmaRA7i0skBfS045dG73VWQhg=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0116200151;j2301apr.16;2019Mar06.12:47;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0116200151-1">A Review of Children First and Keeping Safe Training in Ireland: Implications for the Future. </title> <p>The aim of this paper is to report on the evaluation of two standardised training programmes provided by the statutory children and family service in the Republic of Ireland in 2012. This involved an evaluation of Children First Basic Level Training, which was delivered to all staff employed in the statutory services, and Keeping Safe, Basic Level Training, which was delivered externally to those working with children and families in voluntary and community services. The objectives of this review were: to determine the perceived need of all participants on both training programmes; to establish the relevance of the training programmes vis-à-vis the participants work practice; to evaluate whether both training programmes have met their stated aims; and to establish the necessary components of a training programme to inform future development. This retrospective review was conducted using mixed methods. The findings show that, in the main, the needs of the respondents were met by the training. Most respondents agreed that the training met its aims and was relevant. Valuable suggestions were made regarding development for the future. However, due to an unexpectedly low response rate to the research, the low sample size has meant that we cannot deduce that the mostly positive results are representative of participants in the training programmes as a whole. However, while not a reliable representation of the whole trainee population, the findings are nonetheless illustrative and instructive as a guide within this complex and important field for the development of future training. It is concluded that given the ongoing challenge of protecting children from abuse and neglect, the findings will inform a renewed commitment to ongoing development of generic training as well as the development of more advanced methods of evaluation, and increased engagement of training participants in the research process.</p> <p>Keywords: Training; Inter-agency; Child protection and welfare; Education; Practice</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-2">Introduction</hd> <p>In Ireland, as elsewhere, the need for continuous professional development and training for practitioners in children and families services is reiterated in childcare inquiries and research reports on an ongoing basis (McGuinness, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref1">13</reflink>]; Munro, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref2">14</reflink>]; Roscommon Child Care Case, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref3">16</reflink>]; The Kennedy Report, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref4">19</reflink>]). Buckley ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref5">3</reflink>]) asserts that practitioner skills and competencies must be regularly updated to ensure that best practice informs interventions with children and families. The central importance of basic knowledge about child welfare and protection for all personnel involved with children and families has been long recognised and provided for through Children First Guidance and subsequent training since 1999.</p> <p>This paper is based on two standardised training programmes provided by former Health Service Executive (HSE) personnel (now TUSLA, the Child and Family Agency): Children First Basic Level Training, which was delivered internally by Workforce Development Training Officers; and Keeping Safe, also basic level training, which was delivered externally by Children First Information and Advice Officers to those working with children and families in voluntary and community services. A review of these training programmes was commissioned in 2012. The specific objectives were as follows:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> to determine the perceived need of all participants in the Children First Basic Level Training and Keeping Safe training programmes with regard to child protection and welfare training;</item> <p></p> <item> to establish the relevance of the training programmes <emph>vis-à-vis</emph> the participants work practice;</item> <p></p> <item> to evaluate whether both training programmes have met their stated aims, including an impact on inter-agency relationships; and</item> <p></p> <item> to establish the necessary components of a child protection and welfare training programme to inform future development.</item> </ulist> <p>The aim of this paper is to communicate the main findings from the study and to highlight implications for future training, including the method of evaluating it. Since the study was conducted, TUSLA, the Child and Family Agency has taken over responsibility for the delivery of child protection and welfare services in Ireland (from January 2014), replacing the child protection and welfare service provided by the HSE. As part of its remit, TUSLA, the Child and Family Agency is responsible for ensuring all disciplines working directly or indirectly with children to receive responsive and effective training in child protection. The discussion and conclusion are written with this major organisational change in mind, with an emphasis on learning from this study for the development of a revised child protection training programme and the establishment of effective measures for evaluation for future research.</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-3">Background to the Child Protection Training</hd> <p>The Children First Basic Level Training programme is based on Children First National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref6">7</reflink>]) and the Child Protection and Welfare Practice Handbook (HSE, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref7">11</reflink>]). It has two overall aims:</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> to improve services to children and families through increased understanding of child protection and welfare; and</item> <p></p> <item> to enhance inter-professional and interagency cooperation.</item> </ulist> <p>All new and existing Child and Family Agency and HSE staff whose roles involve regular direct or indirect contact with children and families and have not received Children First Basic Level Training previously are required to attend this one-day training. In line with the expectation of Children First Guidance, Basic Level Training has been designed to be delivered on a multidisciplinary inter-agency basis so that the key learning that takes place results from discussion and the sharing of knowledge, experience and perspectives across disciplines and services. The training highlights the importance of child protection as everyone's concern (HSE, [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>]), while at the same time underpinning the importance of clarity of role and responsibilities. The training aims to prepare staff to be alert to child protection issues and to the need for keeping the focus on children when in contact with them.[<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref9">1</reflink>]</p> <p>The Keeping Safe training is a related but separate programme that has been provided to voluntary and community organisations since 2002. In line with the expectation of Children First National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref10">7</reflink>]), the Keeping Safe programme seeks to support organisations in promoting the general welfare, health and development and safety of children, adopting and consistently applying a safe and clearly defined method of recruiting and selecting staff and volunteers, developing guidance and procedures for staff and volunteers who may have reasonable grounds of concern about the safety and welfare of children, and identifying a designated person to act as a liaison with outside agencies and as a resource to any staff member or volunteer who has child protection and welfare concerns. It has four main aims: to raise awareness of child protection issues and reporting procedures; to assist organisers of activities to explore all aspects of safety and general welfare of children and young people; to identify ways of creating an inclusive environment whilst working with children and young people; and to explore issues of recruitment, selection and management of staff and volunteers.[<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref11">2</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-4">Literature Review</hd> <p>Interestingly, there is not significant literature on the evaluation of inter-agency and inter-professional child protection training. Joint training, however, has been shown to help practitioners from different disciplines to develop common skills, form new relationships and to create a common language (Stone & Rixon, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref12">18</reflink>]). Dolan, Canavan, and Pinkerton ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref13">9</reflink>]) note that one of the core tasks of professional training is to ensure that wide populations of workers who interface with families have the necessary up-to-date knowledge and skills to meet need.</p> <p>Literature from the general field of evaluation highlights the various dimensions to training evaluation in terms of impact on individuals (e.g. cognitive, self-efficacy and goal orientation) and organisations (outcomes, productivity, transferability of learning and impact of training on practice). The most effective strategies are argued to centre around four principles: the concepts to be learnt; the knowledge, skills, and attitudes to be developed; the opportunity to practice skills; and the opportunity to provide feedback after the training (Salas & Cannon-Bowers, [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref14">17</reflink>], p. 481). Pre-training conditions are also important, with studies showing that the way training is presented to the participants and their previous experiences can have an impact on their learning outcomes. Equally, post-training conditions in terms of evaluation of training and transfer of learning are likewise significant. A distinction needs to be made between the effectiveness of training—which is mostly a macro-organisational concern (asking the question: "has the training improved practice?")—and evaluation of training—which is more micro-focused and concerned with what has been learned and perceptions of its usefulness, impact and relevance (e.g. questions such as "has the training increased my perceived confidence and competence?"). Indeed, as Phillips ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref15">15</reflink>]) shows, the number of considerations when evaluating training and its outcomes are quite immense. In 1996 he adapted the well-known four-level model of evaluation by Kirkpatrick ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref16">12</reflink>]), which measures reaction, behaviour, learning and results, to add a fifth consideration: return on investment.</p> <p>In child protection training specifically, while much excellent training exists, there remains a limited evidence-based approach to its implementation and measures of effectiveness. One of the biggest reviews of child protection training that took place in England in 2010 (Carpenter, Hackett, Patsios, & Szilassy, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref17">4</reflink>]) is especially useful and informative in this regard. Citing the only substantial systematic review of training and procedural evaluation in child protection (i.e., Carter, Bannon, Limbert, Docherty, & Barlow, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref18">5</reflink>]), the review's authors conclude that:</p> <p>in contrast to a substantial number of studies of inter-professional education and training in health and social care for adults (Barr, Koppel, Reeves, Hammick, & Freeth, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref19">2</reflink>]; Freeth, Hammick, Koppel, Reeves, & Barr, [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref20">10</reflink>]; Zwarenstein, Reeves, & Perrier, [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref21">20</reflink>]), the evidence base for inter-professional and interagency training for safeguarding children is decidedly thin. (Carpenter et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref22">4</reflink>], p. 5)</p> <p>Carpenter et al. ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref23">4</reflink>]) propose a number of systematic methods that indicate best practice in this regard. They focused on four core areas influenced by Kirkpatrick's model referred to above. In particular, they researched: attitudes to inter-professional learning; knowledge of the topics covered; attitudes to children and family work; and inter-disciplinary practice and self-efficacy.</p> <p>As detailed in the following section, this research focused specifically on the perceived need for training and relevance thereof in enhancing understanding. The literature discussed above and the findings from this study point to the need for development of more sophisticated and in-depth evaluations that measure both outcomes and perceived usefulness and efficacy. This point will be returned to in the Conclusion.</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-5">Methodology</hd> <p>This review was conducted using mixed methods of survey and interview to explore the experience of a group of participants on child protection and welfare training during a particular period of time. The study was a retrospective review of the child protection training with a sample group of participants who had attended the training during the specific time frame selected. The sample included all statutory service providers in Ireland as listed in Children First: National Guidance for the Protection and Welfare of Children (Department of Children and Youth Affairs, [<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]) and all sectors who participate in the Keeping Safe training (pre-school, early years, young people, disability, social inclusion, faith-based groups and others). The Workforce Development Training Officers and Children First Information and Advice Officers were also included in the sample. Training participants and Training/Information and Advice Officers were then randomly selected to participate in this review. An anonymous questionnaire was administered to all participants and followed up by a one-to-one telephone interview with consenting participants. Questionnaires and interview schedules were tailored to each specific training programme. Respondents were asked a range of retrospective questions relating to their perceived need for child protection and welfare training, their experience of participating in the training, their view on the relevance of the training to their role (at the time of receiving the training and subsequently), and on the impact of the training. Information was also sought from the Workforce Development Training Officers and Children First Information and Advice Officers on their view of the needs of specific target groups and the associated model to meet this need.</p> <p>All interviews were transcribed in full. These verbal data alongside documentary and observational data were input into the computer-assisted qualitative data analysis software package <emph>Nvivo</emph>. Thematic content analysis was then carried out on the data based on the aims and objectives of the review process. The survey data were analysed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS). Basic frequencies and percentages were used to describe the quantitative findings. These data were analysed in line with the aims of the review with specific question areas on each module of the training programmes.</p> <p>With regard to ethical considerations, this is a review of a training programme so full ethical approval was not required from the relevant research ethics committee. The main ethical issue that required consideration concerned the identification of participants in the training programmes. At the time of their attendance at the training programme, participants were not asked for permission to share their contact details with an external agency (in this instance, the researchers). To overcome this issue, the (then) HSE (now TUSLA, the Child and Family Agency) agreed to administer the questionnaire to all attendees in the Children First Basic Level Training programme where contact details were available internally. The Children First Information and Advice Officers contacted all attendees at the Keeping Safe training and requested they opt out of the review process if they did not want their contact details passed to the researchers.</p> <p>It must be acknowledged from the outset that there were limitations to this review of child protection training. The first limitation concerns the length of time since participants participated in the training programme, which was the result of practical challenges with regard to establishing access to the full sample and the need to process this via the individual advice officers as explained above. This meant that over a year had passed from when participants had attended the training to the administration of the survey and subsequent interviews. As it is expected that the learning accrued should have a long-lasting impact on participants' practice, it was decided worthwhile to ascertain the retrospective views of this group over this time frame. It is noted that, ideally, evaluation over the course of the training, including pre, post and 6-month follow-up, would have enhanced our ability to assess the impact of the training in a more in-depth way.</p> <p>The second limitation is the absence of pre-training data relating to the sample population, and the third limitation is the reliance in the review on the perceptions of the respondents only. This means that the findings are based only on reported views of trainees and trainers, which are necessarily subjective and lacking the benefit of other datasets to triangulate the findings and add greater depth to the conclusions to be drawn.</p> <p>The final and most significant limitation concerns the overall response rate, which was considerably lower than expected. The overall response rate for the Children First Basic Level Training questionnaire was 19%, and the rate was 13% for the Keeping Safe training questionnaire. Moreover, the response from personnel directly involved in child and family services (social work; family support workers and childcare workers) was notably lower at between 1% and 4%. This means that despite a careful design aimed at providing a representative overview, the final sample was a non-representable sample of the overall training population. It cannot therefore be determined whether the mostly positive responses from respondents as shown below were limited to the minority who responded rather than the 80+% who did not.</p> <p>While the low response rate in particular was disappointing and such a small sample size could not be deemed generalisable or representative from a quantitative perspective, the themes and findings emerging from this study involving 185 trainees are nonetheless extremely relevant and useful because they provide some indicative quantitative data. Interviews with 11 trainers and 21 trainees also provided rich illustrative qualitative evidence of participants' and trainer's views and experience of both training programmes. The findings are especially informative as to how the training can continue to be improved and adapted in light of the wider context of change within child and family services. The need for further research that builds on this illustrative study is emphasised in the Discussion and Conclusion with this key concern in mind</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-6">Participant Profile</hd> <p>The following sections provide a breakdown of the participant profile by training programme.</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-7">Children First Participants (Quantitative)</hd> <p>A total of 112 participants completed and returned the Review of the Children First Basic Level Training questionnaire. Forty-nine (44%) participants indicated that they have been employed in their current role for greater than 10 years, 30 (26.8%) for six to 10 years, 18 (16%) for three to five years and 11 (9.8%) indicated being employed for less than three years (four respondents did not indicate the duration they had been in their current role). Just over one-quarter (30 participants) of participants were from the nursing profession; occupational therapists (12 participants), public health nurses (nine participants) and speech and language therapists (nine participants) were the next most popular professions among survey participants. The response from personnel directly involved in child and family services (social work; family support workers and childcare workers) was notably lower at between 1% and 4%. Figure 1 displays a breakdown of participant's professions by percentage.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1 Participants' Professions.</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-8">Children First Participants (Qualitative)</hd> <p>Interviews took place with seven randomly selected Workforce Development Training Officers and nine participants in the training programme. In total, 14 participants in the training programme consented to participating in the interview and nine were interviewed.</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-9">Keeping Safe Participants (Quantitative)</hd> <p>A total of 73 people responded to the Keeping Safe questionnaire survey. Of those who responded, 30 participants were in management positions, 32 were "workers", seven were volunteers and three were self-employed. Seventeen (23%) participants indicated that they have been in their current role for greater than 10 years, 23 (31%) for six to 10 years, 21 (29%) for three to five years and 11 (15%) indicated being employed for less than three years.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref25">3</reflink>]</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-10">Keeping Safe Participants (Qualitative)</hd> <p>Interviews took place with four randomly selected Children First Information and Advice Officers and with 12 participants in the Keeping Safe training programme. Fourteen participants in the Keeping Safe training consented to participate in the interview process; however, two of these interviews did not proceed.</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-11">Findings</hd> <p>This section provides an overview of some of the core findings emerging from the review of Children First and Keeping Safe respectively. A review of the overall findings in the context of the research objectives is then provided. The discussion that follows focuses on the key messages and learning to be derived from this study, which can inform future discussions and planning for the future. (See Devaney & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref26">8</reflink>] for a fuller report on findings and recommendations).</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-12">Overview of Main Results from Children First Basic Training</hd> <p>Looking specifically at Children First Basic Training, the majority of respondents indicated that the training had met their learning needs and was relevant to their role. Respondents were asked to evaluate each specific module delivered with regard to how it enhanced their level of understanding and their perceived relevance of the module to their role. Regarding understanding, most respondents gave a rating of "excellent" or "good". As shown in Table 1, the module which rated lowest in terms of understanding was "Relevant legislation and policies" (62.6% rated it excellent or good) and the highest was "Issues involved in confidentiality and exchanging information" (80.4%). Table 2 also shows that the majority of respondents found the training to have high or good relevance to their role, ranging from 72.4% for "Relevant legislation and policies" to 81.3% for "How to work effectively together".</p> <p>Table 1 Understanding of Children First Basic Level Training Topics</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Topic areas</td><td>Excellent understanding (%)</td><td>Good understanding (%)</td><td>Total (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Relevant legislation and policies</td><td char=".">18.8</td><td char=".">43.8</td><td char=".">62.6</td></tr><tr><td>Roles and responsibilities in relation to child protection and welfare</td><td char=".">49.1</td><td char=".">30.4</td><td char=".">79.5</td></tr><tr><td>The categories and definitions of child abuse</td><td char=".">44.6</td><td char=".">33</td><td char=".">77.6</td></tr><tr><td>The signs and symptoms of child abuse</td><td char=".">42.9</td><td char=".">28.6</td><td char=".">71.5</td></tr><tr><td>How to recognise child abuse</td><td char=".">30.4</td><td char=".">45.5</td><td char=".">75.9</td></tr><tr><td>The risk factors in child protection</td><td char=".">29.5</td><td char=".">40.2</td><td char=".">69.7</td></tr><tr><td>How to respond to concerns about children</td><td char=".">38.4</td><td char=".">41.1</td><td char=".">79.5</td></tr><tr><td>How to report concerns about children and your role afterwards</td><td char=".">42.9</td><td char=".">33.9</td><td char=".">76.8</td></tr><tr><td>Issues involved in confidentiality and exchanging information</td><td char=".">51.8</td><td char=".">28.6</td><td char=".">80.4</td></tr><tr><td>The benefits of agencies and disciplines working together</td><td char=".">51.8</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">76.8</td></tr><tr><td>How to work effectively together</td><td char=".">38.4</td><td char=".">35.7</td><td char=".">74.1</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2 Relevance of Children First Basic Level Training modules in terms of participants' specific role</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Topic areas</td><td>High relevance (%)</td><td>Good relevance (%)</td><td>Total (%)</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Principles of best practice in child protection and welfare</td><td char=".">44.6</td><td char=".">30.4</td><td char=".">75</td></tr><tr><td>Relevant legislation and policies</td><td char=".">43.8</td><td char=".">28.6</td><td char=".">72.4</td></tr><tr><td>Roles and responsibilities in relation to child protection and welfare</td><td char=".">58.9</td><td char=".">24.1</td><td char=".">83</td></tr><tr><td>The categories and definitions of child abuse</td><td char=".">51.8</td><td char=".">24.1</td><td char=".">75.9</td></tr><tr><td>The signs and symptoms of child abuse</td><td char=".">56.3</td><td char=".">20.5</td><td char=".">76.8</td></tr><tr><td>How to recognise child abuse</td><td char=".">53.6</td><td char=".">25</td><td char=".">78.6</td></tr><tr><td>The risk factors in child protection</td><td char=".">48.2</td><td char=".">25.9</td><td char=".">74.1</td></tr><tr><td>How to respond to concerns about children</td><td char=".">55.4</td><td char=".">24.1</td><td char=".">79.5</td></tr><tr><td>How to report concerns about children and your role afterwards</td><td char=".">56.3</td><td char=".">24.1</td><td char=".">80.4</td></tr><tr><td>Issues involved in confidentiality and exchanging information</td><td char=".">59.8</td><td char=".">18.8</td><td char=".">78.6</td></tr><tr><td>The benefits of agencies and disciplines working together</td><td char=".">63.4</td><td char=".">17</td><td char=".">80.4</td></tr><tr><td>How to work effectively together</td><td char=".">63.4</td><td char=".">17.9</td><td char=".">81.3</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Respondents also proffered their view on the extent to which the two main aims of the Children First Training were achieved. Two-thirds of survey respondents indicated the Children First Basic Level Training programme had achieved its aim of improving services to children and families through increased understanding of child protection and welfare (42% positive and 24.1% most positive). In the qualitative responses, many trainees pointed to their greater awareness and understanding of child protection and welfare procedures, and also outlined the practical application of the knowledge gained and some of the benefits for them in their roles. For example, according to an eating disorder therapist, the training programme:</p> <p>... gave an in-depth view of the issues and the pathways to refer so that the needs of children are identified and met.</p> <p>To a public health nurse the programme was:</p> <p>... very comprehensive and logical, gave clear information on roles and responsibilities of health professionals.</p> <p>Clarity regarding the appropriate procedures when respondents have child protection concerns were among the most commonly identified reason for improvements in capacities to manage risk to children. Participant comments included the following:</p> <p>I have a better awareness of signs and symptoms of neglect or abuse and of reporting concerns. (Health promotion officer)</p> <p>... better understanding of referral pathways, out of hours services and social work department. (Public health nurse)</p> <p>Interviews with the Workforce Development Training Officers also confirmed a perception that the training was successful in helping candidates to improve services to children through increased understanding of child protection and welfare. Increased knowledge of child protection was considered to be especially significant:</p> <p>I think people now are confident in saying "I'm a professional, I have no choice but to pass this on, social workers will make an assessment and see what help your family needs to deal with this issue. (Training Officer 1)</p> <p>With regard to the second aim of enhancing inter-professional and interagency cooperation, in general the training was also welcomed and found to be of value for the majority of participants. In particular, increased understandings of respective roles and the opportunity to learn together were emphasised.</p> <p>Similarly, most respondents indicated that following the training they were more familiar with their professional responsibility to manage risk to children. Several commented they had benefitted from the training programme because now they had:</p> <p>... better understanding of reporting responsibilities, signs and symptoms of child abuse and personal risks of working with children. (Public health nurse)</p> <p>... understanding of my duty and responsibilities to children and how to communicate effectively any concerns to appropriate people and agencies in a confidential and respectful manner. (Ward clerk)</p> <p>Many respondents mentioned the value of learning about multi-agency working:</p> <p>... the best thing about the whole thing was just the fact that you're meeting other people from different professions. I found that very good that you were getting all different people with different aspects and I found those discussions very interesting looking at it from all different angles. (Training participant)</p> <p>Training officers also emphasised this point and reiterated the importance of a shared sense of responsibility to protect children:</p> <p>... we all work within our own domains to get familiar with our territory but we also have to get out of our comfort zones from time to time and take a look at where people are coming from, and their roles. I suppose there would be a good emphasis on that on the day because no one of us can do this on our own. (Training Officer 3)</p> <p>However, some respondents found that the broad inter-professional and inter-agency nature of the training resulted in some of the training not being specific enough. For example, one participant commented that more time was required in order to "tease out some of the problems or questions" concerning child protection provoked by having a diverse audience.</p> <p>It is notable that respondents were also slightly less positive in their rating of the aim of "enhancing inter-professional and interagency co-operation" being met than the first aim of the programme (increased understanding). As shown in Table 1, only 41% rated this as positive or very positive. One-third (32%) rated somewhat showing mixed thoughts about the aim, while 13% rated this aim as negative or most negative. As reflected in the qualitative feedback and the interviews, when rated negatively the main reason expressed was that although intended to have a broad disciplinary make-up, the training was, at times, dominated by (then) HSE staff and/or large groups of one profession.</p> <p>The need for more emphasis on the interface between statutory and voluntary organisations in relation to reporting of child abuse concerns was also referred to in the interviews. For example, one Training Officer felt that for the programme "to be open and inclusive" and achieve its child protection goals, more participants from the voluntary and community sectors need to be included.</p> <p>It is of significance to note that although that there were mixed views on how this aim was met, when it came to rating the modules relating to inter-professional practice the feedback was overwhelmingly very positive. This finding suggests that participants recognise the importance of inter-agency and inter-professional working and they consequently rated the modules very high. Yet they show a critical awareness that this element of inter-agency and inter-professional practice can be one of the most challenging to achieve effectively.</p> <p>Generally, the majority of respondents found that the training resulted in their being better equipped to manage risk. In particular, respondents attributed this to the increased understanding of their roles and responsibility and greater clarity around procedure:</p> <p>I never understood really about neglect, I thought I did but it really emphasised neglect. I would always have thought physical, psychological, emotional, but how to spot neglect in a child; you know, underweight, inappropriate clothing, it pricked my ears about that. (Training participant)</p> <p>One area where respondents reported less confidence was in relation to their role after a report of concern.</p> <p>Overall, the research findings indicate that respondents, both Training Officers and trainees, had broadly positive perceptions of the Children First Basic Level Training programme in terms of its impact:</p> <p>I think it made people aware that they have the responsibility, it made people more open to the fact that this happens, how to recognise it, that it needs to be reported and how to do this. (Training participant)</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-13">Overview of Results of Evaluation Keeping Safe Training</hd> <p>The vast majority of respondents agreed that all four aims of the training had been met. They particularly emphasised: increased awareness and clarity of child protection procedure and responsibility; the value of how the programme assisted them in developing child protection policies in their agencies to create an inclusive environment for children; and knowledge about police vetting procedures for appointment of staff and volunteers. Comments such as the following are representative:</p> <p>... we knew exactly in the organisation who to report concerns to and who in turn they are reported to.</p> <p>... there was very good delivery and input from participants concerning the importance of procedures underpinning policies to create a safe environment.</p> <p>... it answered all questions, common situations and broadened knowledge of child safety and what to watch out for.</p> <p>It gave me greater understanding and awareness of policies and procedures that need to be in place to protect children and staff.</p> <p>Indeed, as indicated in Table 3, the course material overall was very highly rated, with 84% describing the content as "just right". A small number of respondents (four participants) commented that they would have preferred the training material to be more detailed in its treatment of child abuse and its aftermath, indicating an interest in more advanced training to follow the basic-level inputs:</p> <p>... there are still a lot of grey areas in relation to therapeutic work, retrospective work and domestic violence.</p> <p>... it was vague on how it works, would have liked more information on working with abused children, how to listen to them and some role playing in doing this.</p> <p>Table 3 Rate Keeping Safe Course Material According to Specific Role</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Course material specific to role</td><td>Frequency</td><td>Percentage</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Just right</td><td char=".">61</td><td char=".">83.6</td></tr><tr><td>Too detailed</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5.5</td></tr><tr><td>Not detailed enough</td><td char=".">3</td><td char=".">4.1</td></tr><tr><td>Don't know</td><td char=".">1</td><td char=".">1.4</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">69</td><td char=".">94.5</td></tr><tr><td>Missing</td><td char=".">4</td><td char=".">5.5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">73</td><td char=".">100.0</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Moving on to perceived understanding, the ratings for how the modules improved understanding in each of the main areas covered are presented in Table 4. The highest rating of excellent understanding was for the area of understanding benefits of working together. Confidence in creating an inclusive and safe environment for children with a disability was also high amongst respondents. The vast majority of respondents indicated that they had a good or excellent understanding of child protection (90%) and of supports available (81%). A majority also reported a good or excellent understanding of legislation and policy, although some respondents did comment that it could have been made more accessible. In qualitative feedback, the value of the need to engage with other agencies and disciplines was reinforced. As one respondent put it:</p> <p>I am not alone trying to understand child protection. I am now part of a group who have child protection knowledge as a tool which I must link into and work with.</p> <p>The particular importance of relationships between statutory and voluntary bodies was also emphasised, as captured in the following quote from an interview:</p> <p>... what needs to be in Keeping Safe is how the voluntary and statutory agencies can co-operate best. I suppose part of the dilemma of voluntary agencies is that they come into contact with families perhaps quicker than the statutory agencies. When statutory agencies come into contact with families it's probably a crisis at that stage whereas voluntary agencies can see it emerging. (Training participant)</p> <p>Table 4 Rating of How Keeping Safe Training Improved Understanding in Relation to Each of the Aims of the Programme</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr><td>Rating</td><td>Policy/ legislation</td><td>Safe management</td><td>Anti-bullying code</td><td>Planning residential activity</td><td>Working together with other agencies/disciplines</td><td>Including children with disability</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Excellent</td><td char=".">39.7</td><td char=".">52.1</td><td char=".">36.4</td><td char=".">31.5</td><td char=".">65.8</td><td char=".">46.6</td></tr><tr><td>Good</td><td char=".">39.7</td><td char=".">26.0</td><td char=".">24.7</td><td char=".">24.7</td><td char=".">20.5</td><td char=".">38.4</td></tr><tr><td>Moderate</td><td char=".">9.6</td><td char=".">13.7</td><td char=".">16.4</td><td char=".">16.4</td><td char=".">8.2</td><td char=".">6.8</td></tr><tr><td>Little</td><td char=".">5.5</td><td char=".">2.7</td><td char=".">12.3</td><td char=".">8.2</td><td char=".">1.4</td><td char=".">2.7</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td char=".">1.4</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">4.1</td><td char=".">0</td><td char=".">0</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td char=".">95.9</td><td char=".">94.5</td><td char=".">91.8</td><td char=".">84.9</td><td char=".">95.9</td><td char=".">94.5</td></tr><tr><td>No answer</td><td char=".">4.1</td><td char=".">5.5</td><td char=".">8.2</td><td char=".">5.1</td><td char=".">4.1</td><td char=".">5.5</td></tr><tr><td>Total</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>overall</td><td char=".">100</td><td char=".">100</td><td char=".">100</td><td char=".">100</td><td char=".">100</td><td char=".">100</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>As in the case of Children First Basic Level Training, training and advice officers did note the limitation of the generic training in terms of its scope or depth. This did not, however, come up in the respondent's comments, who seemed overall to find the training comprehensive and appropriate. The main area identified by a small number of respondents for improvement, as also reflected in findings from Children First Basic Level Training, was the need to have more training on what to do in the aftermath of a concern being reported.</p> <p>Regarding their utilisation of their knowledge, respondents found that the knowledge of risk assessment helped them to develop codes of behaviour and the majority (78.1%) responded "good" or "excellent" to the question "do you have a full understanding of the key factors in ensuring safe management of practice?" Very positive outcomes are also indicated in relation to respondents' understanding of risk, their roles and responsibilities, how to report concerns about child abuse and processes for information sharing and maintaining confidentiality.</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-14">Review of Overall Objectives</hd> <p>Overall, the review indicated that respondents and trainers were mostly satisfied with the Children First Basic Level Training and the Keeping Safe training and considered it very relevant and appropriate to their needs. Some areas for improvement and further development were also recommended, as detailed below. In sum, the main findings for the four objectives of the evaluation can be summarised as follows.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> <emph>Objective 1: to determine the perceived need of all respondents on the Children First Basic Level Training and the Keeping Safe training programmes with regard to child protection and welfare training</emph>. The evaluation confirmed that, for respondents, both programmes met their needs overall. However, this was less the case for those involved in child protection and welfare practice on a day-to-day basis. A clear distinction has emerged between the need for basic and advanced training for practitioners involved in varying levels of child protection and welfare practice, which needs to be considered in the future. Also, while most respondents did not specifically refer to the need for "refresher courses" to integrate learning, this is a need identified by the trainers.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Objective 2: to establish the relevance of the current child protection and welfare training programmes</emph> vis-à-vis <emph>the participants' work practice</emph>. The evaluation confirmed that, for respondents, the training from both programmes was found to be relevant overall. As in the case of Objective 1, the rating for this was higher for those with less experience of child protection and welfare in their practice. Keeping Safe training participants were especially positive about the relevance for their practice. In particular, most Keeping Safe participants reported increased confidence in dealing with concerns about risk and increased understanding of their roles, which is a very important and significant outcome.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Objective 3: to evaluate whether both programmes have met their stated aims, including an impact on inter-agency relationships.</emph> On the whole, the evaluation confirmed that, for the respondents, the training achieves its aims for the most part. The Keeping Safe training respondents were especially positive about the benefits of the training, indicating the crucial importance of this to those who may not have accessed this knowledge previously in their roles/own training and/or experience. The more experienced the respondents were, the less relevant the training became. The findings show that for both Children First Basic Level Training and Keeping Safe training, the benefits of inter-agency and inter-professional working together was widely recognised by those who responded. At the same time, the inevitable limitations of this form of training were also acknowledged and the need for more advanced training for experienced practitioners, in particular, was identified. The data from Children First Basic Level Training survey also highlight the need to continue to develop the training to maximise learning around areas such as role boundaries and interfacing between voluntary and statutory organisations.</item> <p></p> <item> <emph>Objective 4: to establish the necessary components of a child protection and welfare training programme.</emph> It is clear that this is a generic inter-agency/inter-professional programme and this was well understood by the participants who responded. The basic-level nature of the programme was most positively commented on by the Keeping Safe respondents. While also generally positive, Children First participants questioned more strongly how the basic training can meet the diverse needs of the different disciplines. The need for advanced programmes for those with more experience, or a revision of the training to incorporate their experience more into the process of the training has been identified. Specific content areas that need to be updated in the training to take account of the new Child and Family Agency were identified. Generally, it was recommended that the contemporary context of child welfare and protection could also be reflected better with more emphasis on cultural diversity; the impact of social disadvantage and marginalisation of children and families; and protecting children in the virtual (Internet and social media) as well as the real-world context in future revisions.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0116200151-15">Discussion</hd> <p>As indicated in the findings summary, it can be concluded that the needs of the respondents were mostly met by the training. Most respondents also agreed that the training met its aims and was relevant. Valuable suggestions were made regarding necessary components of child protection training programme development for the future. Given the low sample size, however, we cannot deduce that the mostly positive results are representative of participants as a whole. It is possible, for example, that it was those who were most satisfied with the training who decided to participate. Therefore, as discussed earlier, the findings cannot be used reliably as representative of the trainee population. Nonetheless, they are illustrative and instructive as a guide within this complex and important field for the development of future training within the new organisational context of TUSLA, the Child and Family Agency.</p> <p>A number of recommendations emerged from this study for the specific attention of the commissioners (see Devaney & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref27">8</reflink>]), although during the process of publication of the report, the structures for children and family services changed significantly. Indeed, in light of this rapid pace of change, the report offered a post-script at publication stage which recommended that, in light of such change, "new training should be developed as one common programme rather than as two separate basic level training modules" ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref28">8</reflink>], p. 100). This has meant that some of the specific recommendations for improvement of the training programmes themselves have now been bypassed by the development of a single programme. However, the core learning from the study remains pertinent. In the foreword of the report (Devaney & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref29">8</reflink>]) the two key messages from the research that were identified as central for planning for future programmes were the importance of inter-professional and inter-agency training and the need to be attentive to the "pitch of the training (Harrison, 2014 cited in Devaney & McGregor, [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref30">8</reflink>], Preface, p. 5). With regard to progressing inter-professional and inter-agency training, this study is particularly useful in showing the value placed, by those who responded, on the opportunity to learn about different roles and responsibilities. This is reflected in the high ratings of the modules on the benefits of agencies working together and how to do this effectively. Suggestions in the qualitative responses about increased emphasis on learning around role boundaries and relationships between statutory and voluntary organisations are worthy of attention in future planning. The question of whether the training in fact improves actual inter-professional and inter-agency cooperation in practice cannot be answered through the data from this study. Nor can we say that the inter-agency/professional nature of the training is necessarily the best way to carry out generic child protection training. This is not just because of the sample issues but due to the sheer complexity of establishing this connection (see, e.g., Carpenter et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref31">4</reflink>]).</p> <p>Taking the second core message from the research—the "pitch" of the training—we can illuminate one particular dimension of this challenge; how to get the balance between ensuring all agencies and professionals who carry responsibilities for child protection under Children First are aware of and understanding of each other's roles and meeting the specific targeted needs of a vast array of interests represented within the statutory and voluntary services. This research shows that the training was most positively evaluated by Keeping Safe respondents who would be furthest away from the day-to-day business of identifying and responding to child abuse and neglect. The level of engagement with the research was lowest amongst those most close to the day-to-day business of child protection. We do not know why the response rate was so low for social workers, family support workers and childcare workers in particular, but one might deduce that there is less of a connection to this basic training given that this is part of their core day-to-day business and would be a compulsory component of their professional training prior to coming into practice in the first place. Also, some of the qualitative comments allude to the fact that those who are most involved in the business see the level of training as too basic. The need for advanced training is most likely to be of benefit but how one develops basic and advanced training should be approached cautiously, especially with regard to keeping a focus on what the core aims of a generic child protection training programme should be. For example, while the importance of advanced training comes through in this research, it should be noted that each agency/professional group has its own advanced training programmes specific to their roles, which continue to be developed and expanded in the context of continuing professional development and internal training programmes.</p> <p>The current context of change is also a crucial fact to consider. For example, the current implementation of the Prevention, Partnership and Family Support Strategy for TUSLA, the Child and Family Agency is based on the premise of a coherent approach across the whole range of agencies and professionals involved in the life of a child and their family. An essential element of that cohesion and partnership is to ensure the protection and welfare of children as the shared responsibility that it is, as set down in Children First and Keeping Safe. Such cohesive partnership as is envisaged requires many dimensions to be successful, and the development of one coherent training programme for all persons involved should aim to contribute to achieving this important goal. Yet the question of how best to deliver such a training programme to a wide-ranging set of participants must be explored in more depth.</p> <p>To inform this, further research seems urgent because the difficulty of evaluating the impact and effectiveness of training is well established (see, e.g., Carpenter et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref32">4</reflink>]; Barr, Hammick, Koppel, & Reeves, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref33">1</reflink>]). It is agreed in such evaluations, however, that attention to the environment of training, the different roles and perceptions of participants and the "pitch" of the training are especially important. Carpenter et al. concluded their substantial study of safeguarding inter-professional and inter-agency training with recognition of an urgent need for standardisation of evaluation of training that is rigorous and seeks to take into account the range of variables that impact on training outcomes. To this end, one of their recommendations is that measures should be developed to establish pre-training and post-training outcomes (Carpenter et al., [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref34">4</reflink>], p. 167). They also encourage the identification of specific foci for study, such as the level of knowledge acquired, attitudinal changes and sense of self-efficacy. Likewise, Phillips ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref35">15</reflink>]) sets out a detailed set of ideal requirements for evaluation to ensure maximum accuracy and impact of evaluation of training, which again emphasises the importance of staged evaluation to enable a more accurate review process. One definitive conclusion we can draw from this study is the clear benefit of developing future evaluative research taking into account the considerations set out above.</p> <hd id="AN0116200151-16">Conclusion</hd> <p>In this paper, we have provided an overview and discussion of findings from a review of two generic child protection training programmes in Ireland that, in the near future, are expected to become one programme within the relatively new Child and Family Agency, TUSLA. We have highlighted important learning points for future research design in this field. The design itself had many positive features including careful geographic sampling and the use of a mixed-methods approach to gain breadth and depth of findings. The qualitative aspect of the research has produced rich and insightful data, some reported here and substantially more reported in the original report of the study. For the future, we would emphasise in particular the importance of developing staged evaluation before and after training to determine more effectively the impact of training on those who participated. The need for particular attention to engaging the participants in a timely manner in such research is highlighted. A method that more systematically sought to test both outcomes and perceived usefulness and efficacy would produce more instructive results (see, e.g., Coogan & Lauster, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref36">6</reflink>]).</p> <p>Notwithstanding such acknowledged limits, the findings have provided interesting and important insights into the strengths and limits of the generic child protection training that can inform future planning, and the discussion should contribute to further critical discussion on how best to ensure that all those who share responsibility for child protection are best trained in this important task. While we do not know how the other 80+% participants responded to the training, it remains a welcome outcome to note that for those who did, most of them have reported increased knowledge, awareness, confidence and perceived ability to identify, understand and respond to concerns about abuse and neglect of children. It is concluded that given the ongoing challenge of protecting children from abuse and neglect, the findings will inform a renewed commitment to ongoing development of generic training as well as the development of more advanced methods of evaluation, and increased engagement of training participants in the research process</p> <ref id="AN0116200151-17"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref9" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The modules covered in the training include the following: principles of best practice in child protection and welfare;relevant legislation and policies;roles and responsibilities in relation to child protection and welfare;the categories and definitions of child abuse;the signs and symptoms of child abuse;how to recognise child abuse;the risk factors in child protection;how to respond to concerns about children;how to report concerns about children and your role afterwards;issues involved in confidentiality and exchanging information;the benefits of agencies and disciplines working together; andhow to work effectively together.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref11" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Modules covered in this training programme include the following: child protection and welfare legislation and policies;responding to child abuse concerns, reporting procedures and supports available in relation to child protection and welfare;understanding the categories, definitions of, and signs and symptoms of child abuse;how to recognise abuse and the risk factors in child protection; risk assessment;the safe management of activities;codes of behaviour and anti-bullying codes; andInteragency and interdisciplinary working.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref5" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> One respondent did not indicate the duration they had being in their current role.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0116200151-18"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Barr, H., Hammick, M., Koppel, I., & Reeves, S. (1999). Evaluating inter-professional education: Two systematic reviews for health and social care. British Educational Research Journal, 25, 533–544. doi:0141-1926/99/040533-12</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Barr, H., Koppel, I., Reeves, S., Hammick, M., & Freeth, D. (2005). Effective inter-professional education: Argument, assumption and evidence. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Buckley, H. (2000). Interagency co-operation in Irish child protection work. Journal of Child Centered Practice, 6, 9–17. doi: 10.1080/13575270008413190</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref17" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Carpenter, J., Hackett, S., Patsios, D., & Szilassy E. (2010). Outcomes of inter-agency training to safeguard children. Bristol: University of Bristol.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref18" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Carter, Y., Bannon M., Limbert, C., Docherty, A., & Barlow, J. (2006). Improving child protection: A systematic review of training and procedural interventions. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 9, 740–743. doi:10.1136/adc.2005.092007</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref36" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Coogan, D., & Lauster, E. (2015, January 28–29). Ending cycles of escalation & developing respectful relationships—The non violent resistance response to child to parent violence. Paper presented at the Child to Parent Violence: European Perspectives International Conference, University of Brighton, UK.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref6" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Department of Children and Youth Affairs. (2011). Children first: National guidance for the protection and welfare of children. Dublin: Government Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref26" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Devaney, C., & McGregor, C. (2014). Review of the Children First Basic Level Training and Keeping Safe Training Programmes. Galway: UNESCO Child and Family Centre, NUI.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref13" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Dolan, P., Canavan, J., & Pinkerton, J. (Eds.). (2006). Family support as reflective practice. London: Jessica Kingsley.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Freeth, D., Hammick, M., Koppel, I., Reeves, S., & Barr, H. (2002). A critical review of evaluations of inter-professional education. Higher Education Authority, London: King's College.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Health Service Executive. (2011). Child protection and welfare practice handbook. Dublin: Health Service Executive.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kirkpatrick, D. L. (1994). Evaluating training programmes. San Francisco, CA: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McGuinness, C. (1993). Report of the Kilkenny Incest Investigation. Dublin: Government Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Munro, E. (2011). The Munro Review of Child Protection interim report: The child's journey. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from <ulink href="http://www.education.gov.uk/munroreviewparttwo">www.education.gov.uk/munroreviewparttwo</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Phillips, J. J. (1997). Handbook of training, evaluation and measurement methods (3rd ed.). London: Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Roscommon Child Care Case. (2010). Report of the inquiry team to the Health Service Executive. Dublin: The Stationery Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Salas, E., & Cannon-Bowers, J. (2001). The science of training: A decade review of progress. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 471–499. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.471</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Stone, B., & Rixon, A. (2008). Towards integrated working. In P. Foley & A. Rixon (Eds.), Changing Children's Services: Working and Learning Together (pp. 49–92). Bristol: Policy Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> The Kennedy Report. (1970). Reformatory and school system report. Dublin: Stationery Office.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Zwarenstein, M., Reeves, S., & Perrier, L. (2005). Effectiveness of pre-licensure inter-professional education and post-licensure collaborative interventions. Journal of Inter-professional Care, 3, 148–165. doi:10.1080/13561820500082800</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Carmel Devaney and Caroline McGregor</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref21"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1104282
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: A Review of Children First and Keeping Safe Training in Ireland: Implications for the Future
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Devaney%2C+Carmel%22">Devaney, Carmel</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22McGregor%2C+Caroline%22">McGregor, Caroline</searchLink>
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Child+Care+in+Practice%22"><i>Child Care in Practice</i></searchLink>. 2016 22(2):166-182.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Evaluation%22">Program Evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Training%22">Training</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Program+Effectiveness%22">Program Effectiveness</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Welfare%22">Child Welfare</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Child+Safety%22">Child Safety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Well+Being%22">Well Being</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Surveys%22">Surveys</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Interviews%22">Interviews</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Questionnaires%22">Questionnaires</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Social+Work%22">Social Work</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Mixed+Methods+Research%22">Mixed Methods Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Allied+Health+Personnel%22">Allied Health Personnel</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Ireland%22">Ireland</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13575279.2015.1027175
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1357-5279
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: The aim of this paper is to report on the evaluation of two standardised training programmes provided by the statutory children and family service in the Republic of Ireland in 2012. This involved an evaluation of Children First Basic Level Training, which was delivered to all staff employed in the statutory services, and Keeping Safe, Basic Level Training, which was delivered externally to those working with children and families in voluntary and community services. The objectives of this review were: to determine the perceived need of all participants on both training programmes; to establish the relevance of the training programmes "vis-à-vis" the participants work practice; to evaluate whether both training programmes have met their stated aims; and to establish the necessary components of a training programme to inform future development. This retrospective review was conducted using mixed methods. The findings show that, in the main, the needs of the respondents were met by the training. Most respondents agreed that the training met its aims and was relevant. Valuable suggestions were made regarding development for the future. However, due to an unexpectedly low response rate to the research, the low sample size has meant that we cannot deduce that the mostly positive results are representative of participants in the training programmes as a whole. However, while not a reliable representation of the whole trainee population, the findings are nonetheless illustrative and instructive as a guide within this complex and important field for the development of future training. It is concluded that given the ongoing challenge of protecting children from abuse and neglect, the findings will inform a renewed commitment to ongoing development of generic training as well as the development of more advanced methods of evaluation, and increased engagement of training participants in the research process.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 20
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1104282
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1104282
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13575279.2015.1027175
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 166
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Evaluation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Training
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Program Effectiveness
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Welfare
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Child Safety
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Well Being
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Surveys
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Interviews
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Questionnaires
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Social Work
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Mixed Methods Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Allied Health Personnel
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Ireland
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: A Review of Children First and Keeping Safe Training in Ireland: Implications for the Future
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Devaney, Carmel
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: McGregor, Caroline
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1357-5279
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 22
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Child Care in Practice
              Type: main
ResultId 1