Abstract
This study was aimed at evaluating current implementation of child protection policy and
family strengthening approaches, which are being used as strategies to effectively address the
challenge of child abuse and neglect (CAN) in countries with different approaches and levels
of social, economic and welfare systems development. Zimbabwe prioritises family
strengthening and community-based interventions while South Africa and the United Kingdom
have statutory child protection approaches as dominant modes of intervention. However,
statutory child protection approaches are individualistic, reactive and do not offer supports and
interventions needed by children and families before abuse and neglect is experienced. By
using a qualitative multiple case study design, similarities and differences about what is
happening in child and family welfare agencies in different country contexts were explored.
This was crucial in understanding the common factors associated with successful policy
implementation and in learning how more integrated and holistic approaches to CAN, namely,
family and community strengthening approaches may be accelerated. An implementation
science approach that understands successful implementation as an interplay of practitioner,
organisational and contextual level influences was adopted, hence the research objectives and
themes were clustered around these dimensions. Thirty research participants from three child
welfare agencies (ten per country) were purposively selected and interviewed from a
population of managers, frontline practitioners and service users. Also, country specific child
protection policies and relevant implementation documents from each agency were analysed.
Thematic analysis was used to make sense of both data from key informant interviews and
document analysis.
Findings highlight that, although all three countries are attempting to effectively respond to
CAN by more or less prioritising similar implementation aspects, there are significant
differences and nuances in their approaches and that country specific conditions influence the
success of policy implementation. At practitioner level, the study found that, first, staff
selection and recruitment are crucial in ensuring that organisations have appropriate personnel
who are qualified, experienced and skilled to deliver interventions. However, all agencies are
experiencing challenges in this regard and support is needed to select staff who are innovative
and adaptable. Second, the study found that staff training needs to develop and integrate
appropriate family strengthening and community empowering content. In terms of supervision,
the study found that national level policies in South Africa and the UK guided implementation
ii
at agency level although this varied depending on agency specific characteristics. Although
practitioners had access to different types of supervision which all varied in terms of
consistency and quality, formal supervision tended to be managerial and task focused. Instead,
staff valued informal peer support. However, less formal ways of learning such as mentoring
and coaching were not adequately prioritised and funded across all three countries. Staff
performance management systems are being used as strategies for improving practice and
achieving organisational goals, although such systems differed in levels of development,
consistency and efficiency. However, across the board, staff had a negative attitude towards
performance management since it emphasised compliance, accountability and output data
instead of focusing on practitioner innovations, implementation challenges and improving the
quality of service delivery.
Key findings at organisational level indicated that service users, partner agencies, frontline
practitioners and supervisors/line managers are not adequately involved in knowledge and
information exchange with decision makers in the organisations. The exception was the case
of Zimbabwe where staff at all levels were involved in strategic planning and the agency had
a more informal and less bureaucratic structure and communication style. However, service
users across the board selected interventions from those already predetermined by the agency
and the state. User participation in programme planning and evaluation was therefore limited
except in cases where family strengthening services had been offered as in Zimbabwe and the
UK. The study found no evidence of standard tools to elicit service user feedback, hence it was
not being used in decision making or organisational learning. Also, frontline workers did not
consistently seek feedback from other agencies that they were partnering with in service
provision. The implementation of programme monitoring and evaluation (M&E) varied across
agencies and they all had different M&E systems which were however used for reporting to
various stakeholders such as the state and donors. The study found that M&E data is not used
effectively to inform practitioner and organisational learning and thus practitioners did not
value M&E. Findings on contextual factors highlighted that, although external influences and
structural factors are attributed to CAN, interventions continue to frame CAN as flaws within
the family and community. However, resource shortages impact service delivery in particular,
early help, preventative family strengthening interventions and staff support. Further,
government ideologies, a lack of political will and inadequate state support impact service
delivery. Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic increased the demand for services and negatively
impacted social service systems. The pandemic had a similar impact on staff and service users. Agency adaptation varied across countries and was much slower in Zimbabwe and South
Africa. The study concludes by making key recommendations in relation to legislation and
policy, practice, and further research directions.