I think you're making an unwarranted assumption here: that if a notification was not investigated by child protection services, that's because it didn't merit investigation (and was therefore the product of madness, malice, or paranoia). As you'll see if you run your eye over that second link, that isn't the case.
Firstly, child protection services fail to investigate all notifications which merit it. This is in the papers all the time, especially when incompetence, beauracy, or just simple lack of staff and resources results in a child's death.
Secondly, as I mentioned, a large number of genuine notifications are dealt with in ways other than investigation. Also, some notifications cannot be investigated. As a footnote in the AIHW report states: "'No investigation possible/no action' includes notifications where there were no grounds for an investigation or insufficient information was available to undertake an investigation. It may also include some cases that were referred on or where advice was given which cannot be disaggregated from cases with insufficient reason to investigate."
Thirdly, the definition of "notification" and "investigation" actually varies from state to state: as the AIHW report notes, "In Victoria, for example, the definition of a notification is very broad and may include family issues that are responded to without the need for a formal investigation process." So in Victoria, only 34% of notifications were investigated, while in WA, 96% were.
So, while the figures don't suggest a crazy system in which innocents are hounded on flimsy evidence, neither do they support the idea that family members, teachers, police, and doctors and nurses are inventing or imagining cases of abuse.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-07-29 05:17 am (UTC)Firstly, child protection services fail to investigate all notifications which merit it. This is in the papers all the time, especially when incompetence, beauracy, or just simple lack of staff and resources results in a child's death.
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/parlment/hansart.nsf/V3Key/LC20030701046
http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/dead-two-children-the-system-failed.php
Secondly, as I mentioned, a large number of genuine notifications are dealt with in ways other than investigation. Also, some notifications cannot be investigated. As a footnote in the AIHW report states: "'No investigation possible/no action' includes notifications where there were no grounds for an investigation or insufficient information was available to undertake an investigation. It may also include some cases that were referred on or where advice was given which cannot be disaggregated from cases with insufficient reason to investigate."
Thirdly, the definition of "notification" and "investigation" actually varies from state to state: as the AIHW report notes, "In Victoria, for example, the definition of a notification is very broad and may include family issues that are responded to without the need for a formal investigation process." So in Victoria, only 34% of notifications were investigated, while in WA, 96% were.
So, while the figures don't suggest a crazy system in which innocents are hounded on flimsy evidence, neither do they support the idea that family members, teachers, police, and doctors and nurses are inventing or imagining cases of abuse.