Child Safety Frameworks

by

Overview

This could arguably be the shortest report I’ve produced for this organization yet. If the question we are asking is if there are meaningful differences in national child safety frameworks across the US, Canada, and the UK, then the answer is simple: no.

More generally, of the nations considered here, Australia has the most comprehensive national framework by far. The other nations largely do not have comparable national frameworks. One could make the case that Canada has a somewhat similar framework, but it is over twenty years old and does not seem to have a particularly strong impact on national policy.

Needless to say, all four of the nations address child safety policies and principles at the federal level, and to varying degrees, the federal governments appear to collaborate with local governments, but none of those policies or procedures appear to be as comprehensive or coherent as is the case in Australia.

More specifically, given the topic, I was particularly focused on the implications of child safety policies for schools and school volunteers. Canada, the US, and the UK are strikingly similar in their school volunteer policies: volunteers who will be undertaking unsupervised work with children have to complete a criminal background check. The criminal background check is largely skewed towards identifying convictions for violent or sex offense crimes.

Both legally and in practice, a criminal background check is generally the only requirement for school volunteers. This is as true at the city and regional levels as it is at the federal level. I did identify a very limited amount of variation at the school district level in the United States, but that largely entailed that volunteers complete an additional, very short and simple training. This was unusual. Thus, volunteer requirements in the three countries are not typically more stringent for public schools than other institutions, and ultimately these volunteer policies are not very stringent at all.

Almost no attention at either the state or federal level is paid to online volunteering in any of the countries surveyed. I suspect this reflects the historical baggage of how child safety legislation has been understood in these countries. Using the US as an example, what we would recognize as modern child safety legislation only dates back to the 1960s and at that point only required that physicians identify and report cases of physical abuse. This emphasis on physical safety seems to continue through to today and is reflected in the troubling preoccupation in those policies with children’s physical—particularly sexual—safety. Beyond that, there is also a more general lag in legislation as it attempts to catch up with technological advances. Doubtless, there are other reasons as well.

The absence of policy in this case made me curious. Online tutoring and teaching are growing rapidly. This led me to wonder about the child safety policies of major online tutoring websites. They are quite limited. Some require background checks, some make background checks optional, and some don’t require background checks at all. I didn’t find any online tutoring/teaching platforms that mentioned providing child safety training for their educators.  Perhaps they do provide such training and simply don’t note that publicly.

Thus, at least in the nations considered here, child safety policy—particularly regarding online safety—is surprisingly underdeveloped. Furthermore, looking beyond matters of policy, almost no scholarly attention has been paid to child safety training for volunteers or for online education more generally. The scholarly literature echoes the policy arena in being heavily oriented towards the family, physical abuse, and sexual predation. It is not useful in this area.

Perhaps a more robust framework could be a legacy of your organization. It seems we need it. What would such a framework look like? While that’s certainly beyond the scope of this report, one interesting point I noticed was that the Australian framework seems to be more self-consciously directed towards encouraging child flourishing, while the other nations seemed to prioritize protecting children from physical threats (thus, the latter has more positive content in the sense of substance and implicit beliefs regarding human success rather than the simple avoidance of trauma or direct harm/exploitation).

Beyond that, I would say the YouTube policies were amongst the more comprehensive that I saw; they address issues like emotional safety, which was rarely if ever discussed in other comparable contexts. Beyond that, I can imagine a version of online training for child safety that would include more subtle forms of emotional discomfort such as might stem from multiple intelligences or neurodiversity.

In any case, in this report, I’ve broken down sources by nation (with online platforms treated as their own category). As always, I’ve prioritized specific citations or links while providing occasional notes.

US

Federal laws:

https://www.childwelfare.gov/topics/management/administration/requirements/laws/

  • As is often the case in the US, there does not appear to be a single overarching national framework. There are a few rudimentary federal laws that provide a foundation for how things can be done, and then everything is handled on the state level from that point
  • Themes:
    • Child protective services
    • Mandated reporting requirements     
      • In some cases, professionals are legally required to report possible cases of abuse; failure to do so can be a violation of the law
    • Legal background checks
    • DCFS

Appel, J., and Kim-Appel, D. (2006). Child maltreatment and domestic violence: Human services issues. Journal of Health and Human Services Administration, 29(2), 228-244

Asawa. L., Hansen, D., and Flood, M., (20808). Early childhood intervention programs:   Opportunities and challenges for preventing child maltreatment. Education and Treatment of Children, 31(1), 73-110

Besharov, D. (1990). Combating child abuse: Guidelines for cooperation between law      enforcement and child protective agencies. Family Law Quarterly, 24(3), 209-245

  • The US relies on a network of child protection agencies. These are often legally required to collaborate with law enforcement in cases of reasonable suspicion of abuse or neglect
  • Reports of possible abuse are first made to local child protective agencies, which investigate them to determine if the reports of abuse are credible. Legal charges can follow. A similar approach is taken by all of the nations in the study

Bryant, J., and Milsom, A. (2009). Child abuse reporting by school counselors. Professional        School Counseling, 9(1). 63-71

  • Child abuse legislation initially passed in 1963; focused on physicians and physical abuse
  • Child Abuse and Prevention Act (1974)
  • Mandatory reporting laws are now in place in every state
  • However, ambiguity in the law is an issue: definitions of “abuse” or “personal discretion” in such contexts are not clear

Bundy-Fazioli, K., Briar-Lawson, K., and Hardiman, E. (2009). A qualitative examination of       power  between child welfare workers and parents. The British Journal of Social Work, 39(8), 1447-1464

Dario, D., and Dodge, I. (2009). Creating community responsibility for child protection:   Possibilities and challenges. The Future of Children, 19(2), 67-93

Dawson, R., and Callahan, M. (2001). Risk assessment in child protection services. Canadian      Social Work Review, 18(1), 151-164

Devaney, J. (2009). Chronic child abuse: The characteristics and careers of children caught in      the child protection system. The British Journey of Social Work, 39(1), 24-45

Farmer, E., and M. (1998). Gender and the child protection process. The British Journal of           Social  Work 28(4), 545-564

Findlater, J and Kelly, S. (1999). Child protective services and domestic violence. The Future of  Children, 9(3), 84-96

Freisthler, B. (2013). Need for and access to supportive services in the child welfare system.        GeoJournal, 78(3), 429-441

Gillham, B., and Thompson, J. (2005). Child Safety: problem and prevention from preschool to   adolescence.Routledge

Kydd, J. (2003). Preventing child maltreatment: An integrated, multisectoral approach. Health     and Human Rights, 6(2), 34-63

Meysen, T. “Information, intervention, and assessment—Frameworks of child physical abuse      and neglect interventions in four countries” In (eds.) Hagemann-White, C., Kelly, L., and    Meysen, T. Interventions against child abuse and violence against women. Verlag Barbara Budrich

  • UK does not have mandatory reporting

Paulsen, M. (1966). The legal framework for child protection. Columbia Law Review 66(4), 679 717

Savirimuthu, J. (2012). Online Child Safety. Palgrave Macmillan

Schene, P. (1998). Past, present, and future of child protective services. The Future of Children,  8(1), 23-38

United States Federal Government. (November 28, 2022). Background checks: what you need     to know. https://childcare.gov/consumer-education/background-checks-what-you-

need-to-know

  • All adults with unsupervised access to young people must have a criminal background check done before working with students (volunteers doing supervised work do not require a background check)
  • This background check requires that the volunteer have their fingerprints taken and the results checked against the FBI database to recognize any past convictions for violent crimes or crimes targeting young people
  • This investigation also checks the National Sex Offender Registry to determine if the person has been convicted of a sexual offense
  • This is all required by federal law
  • There can be additional state requirements: for instance, Arlington, VA, Public Schools also requires participants undertake a mandatory sexual misconduct training; alternatively, Montgomery Schools in Maryland require that volunteers complete a training about child abuse reporting
  • Note that these supplemental training are again not common and are once more skewed towards physical abuse:
  • From what I can tell, US schools largely prioritize safety for in-person volunteering
  • They do not have specific policies for online volunteering

UK

Alfandari, R. and Taylor, B. (2021). ‘Community-based multi-professional child   protection decision making: Systemic narrative review.’ Child Abuse & Neglect,        123, January 2022. Available at:                  https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0145213421005019 .

Care Quality Commission. (2014). Review of health services for Children Looked After and          Safeguarding in Solihull. Available at:            https://www.cqc.org.uk/sites/default/files/20140501_clas_solihull_final_report.pdf

Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel (2022). National review into the murders of Arthur     Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson. (accessed 11/29/22).       https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/national-review-into-the-murders-of-arthur labinjo-hughes-and-star-hobson

  • Recent report that calls for greater integration across institutions and collaboration at the national level (p. 102); perhaps something like the Australian national framework would be useful for them as a model
  • Report does not mention the role of volunteers in schools; does emphasize the importance of child safety in schools in general

Department for Education (DfE) and Office of the Children’s Commissioner (2022).         Fundamental shift in children’s social care set out. (accessed November 29, 2022).         https://www.gov.uk/government/news/fundamental-shift-in-childrens-social-care-set        out 

Department for Education (DfE) and Office of the Children’s Commissioner (2022). Working     together to safeguard children . (accessed November 29, 2022).  https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children–2

High Speed Training. (November 29, 2022). Volunteer Roles in Schools: What are the     Requirements. https://www.highspeedtraining.co.uk/hub/volunteer-roles-in-schools/

  • Procedure for volunteering in a school looks quite similar to that of the US:
    • A background check is necessary for volunteering with children in an unsupervised capacity

Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) (2022). The report of the Independent        Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse. (Accessed 11/29/22).       https://www.iicsa.org.uk/document/report-independent-inquiry-child-sexual-abuse            october-2022-0

  • Report about child sexual assault in the UK
  • Calls for more consistent vetting of volunteers and increased training, but does not make clear exactly what that would mean
  • Quite a bit of concern regarding closed residential schools
  • In short, the UK operates in a fashion quite similar to that of the US: volunteers need to pass a background check, there is a list for people who may pose a threat to children (the US list is slightly broader in emphasizing sex offense more generally, though its effect is roughly the same), etc.

 

National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. (November 29, 2022). Child   Protection system in the UK. https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/child-protection-system

  • Each UK nation has its own internal framework, though they don’t appear to be dramatically different
    • Federal Department of Education is responsible for child protection (DCFS appears to be the US equivalent)
    • Collaborates with local partners:
      • Integrated care board (local community health groups)
      • Local police

 

Royal College of Nursing. (2019). Safeguarding children and young people: roles and competencies for healthcare staff. Available at:        https://www.rcn.org.uk/professional- development/publications/pub 007366#detailTab.

UK Government. (August 28, 2013). DBS barring referral guidance.  https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/dbs-referrals-guidance–2

·      UK list of people barred from working with children 

Wood, A. (2021). Wood Report: Sector expert review of new multi-agency safeguarding   arrangements. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/wood review-of- multi-agency-safeguarding-arrangements.

  • 2021 report that notes the need for increased reflection on online child safety policies

Canada

Government of Canada. Protecting our children. https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/cp    pm/crrc/dig/prot.html

  • A general child safety framework that was proposed over twenty years ago and doesn’t seem to be particularly active in terms of directing recent policy initiatives (Tonkin 2001)
  • The website does highlight does mention the need to screen volunteers working with children, but its work seems to stop at supporting “non-governmental organizations that work diligently and expertly to protect children”
  • As in the case of the US and UK, there is a national screening system that can help to identify convicted sex offenders (and thus prevent them from working with children).
  • The Canadian procedure looks very similar to that in the US and the UK: a focus on sexual abuse and potentially harmful child volunteers

Ottawa Network for Education. How to become a volunteer. https://onfe-rope.ca/our         work/ottawa-volunteers-in-education/how-to-become-a-volunteer/

Calgary Board of Education. Volunteer. https://www.cbe.ab.ca/get involved/volunteer/Pages/volunteer.aspx

  • The basic procedure for volunteering in Canada appears to be identical to that of the US and the UK: a police background check is completed and one is then free to volunteer

Tonkin, R. (2001). Youth and the National Children’s Agenda. Pediatric Child Health 6(4), 177  178

Canadian Centre for Child Protection. https://www.protectchildren.ca/en/

  • Canadian nonprofit that priortes protecting children

Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Sex Offender Management. https://www.rcmp   grc.gc.ca/en/sex-offender-management

Australia

Australian Government: Department of Social Services. Safe and supported: the National framework for protecting Australia’s Children 2021-2031. https://www.dss.gov.au/our      responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/protecting-australias-children

National Office for Child Safety. The National principles for child safe organizations.       https://www.childsafety.gov.au/resources/national-principles-child-safe-organisations

Child Safe Organizations. Practical tools for implementing the National Principles.           https://childsafe.humanrights.gov.au/tools-resources/practical-tools

Online

Corneet, C. (February 7, 2002). Safer internet day 2022: How Zoom works to protect kids online.            https://blog.zoom.us/safer-internet-day-2022/

  • Zoom is itself of course not an educational website per se, though it is commonly used for tutoring/online teaching
  • Has a dedicated team (the Trust and Safety team) to process and respond to reports of abuse and harm
  • Features user-blocking technology and the like

Google. Parent controls. https://safety.google/families/

  • Parental control features
  • Be Internet Awesome (teaching platform for helping children learn the basics of online safety)

Khan Academy. How does Khan Academy protect students under 13 years old?    https://www.khanacademy.org/khan-for-educators/resources/parents-mentors 1/privacy-and-security/a/how-does-khan-academy-protect-students-under-age-13

  • From what I can tell, the website doesn’t provide a lot of information regarding how they determine what constitutes acceptable content to post, though a quick review of their offerings makes clear that they largely seem to stick to traditional academic topics taught in seemingly uncontroversial ways
  • They have community guidelines and a policy for banning users who act inappropriately, though there doesn’t seem to be a policy for vetting users, Khan Academy restricts young users (under 13) from posting personal content or disclosing personal information
  • They seem to produce most of their videos in-house, so there is likely less concern about volunteer contributions to the content itself, though they apparently host message boards that might raise some questions (https//support.khanacademy.org/hc/en-us/articles/115002941867-What-are-Khan-Academy-s-Community-Guidelines)

Preply. https://preply.com/

  • Focus on language learning
  • Does not require a background; services are aimed at people over the age of 18

Princeton Review. https://www.princetonreview.com/corporate/careers/teacher     application      process

  • Does require a background check
  • Does not seem to require additional safety training beyond that

Skooli. https://www.skooli.com.

UNICEF. (2012). Child Safety Online: Global Challenges and Strategies.  https://www.unicef.org/media/66821/file/Child-Safety-Online.pdf

Varsity Tutors. https://www.varsitytutors.com/best-top-private-tutoring

  • Does require a background check; does not require additional training

Wyzant. Background Check Policy. https://support.wyzant.com/hc/en-us/articles/115002246146 Background-Check-Policy

  • Wyzant does not require that tutors have a background check, though it does offer them to users for a fee
  • Again, they are comparable to the background checks required of volunteer in schools
  • Does not require additional child safety training

YouTube. Child Safety Policy. https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801999?hl=en

  • Youtube policy is particularly robust, though I can’t speak to its use in practice
  • More concretely, it has age-restricted content, a censored YouTube kids channel (https://www.youtube.com/howyoutubeworks/our-commitments/fostering-child-safety/), and a procedure for users to report dangerous or unsafe content