The Prevention of Child Abuse

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Explaining the Advocacy Plans
Critique
Recommendations for Advocacy Plans
Conclusion
References

Introduction

Available literature demonstrates that effective advocacy plans and policies are of immense importance in addressing the dynamics of child abuse within the school context (Barett, Lester, & Durham, 2011). This paper explains how two schools advocate for children regarding the prevention of child abuse, before providing a critique of the advocacy plans and outlining several recommendations for optimal outcomes.

Explaining the Advocacy Plans

From the interview conducted with the school administrator of the local elementary school (K3) and the director of a local preschool (birth to pre-K), it is clear that both institutions have some advocacy plans for the prevention of child abuse. The advocacy plans in the local elementary school include routine lectures and counseling sessions that aim to provide K3 students with the capacity to identity child abuse instances and seek assistance from teachers, church leaders, community leaders, parents, guardians, and significant others.

As part of the elementary schools advocacy program against child abuse, parents and guardians are also invited to open day seminars to receive education on child abuse and neglect, solving family and marital issues, dealing with physically and mentally abused children, and preventing the reappearance of child abuse within the family.

The advocacy plans in the local preschool include using illustrations placed at strategic locations within the school to encourage young children to share their problems with teachers and expose abusive relationships in the family or school. The preschool also undertakes child/parent counseling, family-based support and home-visiting programs to prevent child abuse through family strengthening; however, these programs experience myriad challenges including lack of community support and inadequate funding.

Critique

Drawing from this explanation, it can be argued that the schools have taken a proactive stand in pursuing an ethical responsibility of advocating for the prevention of child abuse.

However, according to the Child Welfare League of America (CWLA), the advocacy plans of these schools are not thorough due to absence of other advocacy dynamics that relate specifically to child abuse, such as social support for abused children, healthy growth and development, child rights, racial prejudices and child abuse, and sexual identity issues in child welfare (CWLA, 2013).

It may not be enough to give lectures and counseling sessions aimed at identifying child abuse instances, as such an orientation does not identify the root causes of child abuse. However, disseminating knowledge and information on how cultural, identity, and racial considerations impact child abuse in the American society may be instrumental in designing effective prevention and advocacy approaches (National Childrens Advocacy Center, 2014).

Additionally, the advocacy plans of the two schools do not demonstrate how they identify the unmet needs of children and how they take actions to substantially change the conditions that lead to the problem of child abuse (Barett et al., 2011). The successful identification of unmet needs is critical in designing effective prevention strategies for child abuse.

Lastly, the advocacy plans of the two schools address the identification of abused children in home or school environments but fail to provide benchmarks that could be used by teachers and other relevant players in recognizing trauma or abuse in home or classroom contexts (Bell, Limberg, & Robinson, 2013).

Recommendations for Advocacy Plans

As demonstrated in the literature, effective advocacy efforts dealing with child abuse must have the capacity to address the cultural, racial, and identity considerations that come into play to cause child maltreatment (Cyr, Michael, & Dumais, 2013; Maiter & Stalker, 2011); identify the childs unmet needs and provide viable solutions and action plans to meet these needs (Barett et al., 2011); and provide quantifiable benchmarks that could be used by activists and other interested parties in recognizing, preventing, and treating child trauma and abuse in home or school (Bell et al., 2013). The successful identification of these unmet needs, in my view, is instrumental in the development of focused approaches to prevent child abuse.

Additionally, the schools might improve their child abuse advocacy plans by desisting from focusing on two points of interaction (child and patient/guardian) and rolling out advocacy interventions at the individual student level, the school and community level, and the broader public arena (Barett et al., 2011, p. 88).

Such a predisposition, in my view, not only provides various avenues through which information and knowledge on child abuse prevention can be shared, but also encourages the conceptualization and internalization of a bigger frame of reference on the challenges, limitations, and inequities that are often faced by abused children.

Knowledge of these challenges, limitations, and inequalities will assist school administrators and counselors to develop and implement empowerment focused interventions that not only foster the progression of healthy interpersonal and conflict management competencies (Bamba, 2010; Barett et al., 2011), but also outline a greater responsibility for the relevant parties to identify and address the prevention strategies associated with childhood trauma and abuse (Bell et al., 2013).

Conclusion

Overall, there is need for the two schools to incorporate the discussed improvements in their advocacy plans for the prevention of child abuse to effectively deal with this phenomenon that is affecting millions of children in the United States and abroad.

Although these schools have some advocacy plans for child abuse prevention (e.g., routine lectures and counseling sessions, open day seminars for parents and guardians, family support and home-visiting programs), they need to include advocacy plans on a whole range of factors (e.g., addressing cultural and identity considerations in child maltreatment, identifying unmet needs and providing quantifiable benchmarks to recognize and prevent child abuse) to achieve successful outcomes.

References

Bamba, S. (2010). The experiences and perspectives of Japanese substitute caregivers and maltreated children: A cultural-developmental approach to child welfare practice. Social Work, 55(2), 127-137.

Barett, K.M., Lester, S.V., & Durham, J.C. (2011). Child maltreatment and the advocacy role of professional school counselors. Journal of School Action in Counseling and Psychology, 3(2), 85-102.

Bell, H., Limberg, D., & Robinson, E. (2013). Recognizing trauma in the classroom: A practical guide for educators. Childhood Education, 89(3), 139-145.

CWLA. (2013). Advocacy center. Web.

Cyr, C., Michael, G., & Dumais, M. (2013). Child maltreatment as a global phenomenon: From Trauma to prevention. International Journal of Psychology, 48(2), 141-148.

Maiter, S., & Stalker, C. (2011). South Asian immigrants experience of child protection services: Are we recognizing strengths and resilience. Child & Family Social Work, 16(2), 138-148.

National Childrens Advocacy Center. (2014). Victim advocacy training November 4-6, 2014.

Click Here To Order Now!