A Framework to Inform Protective Support and Supportive Protection in Child Protection and Welfare Practice and Supervision
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The article provides a framework for understanding the role of the child protection/child welfare system and for improving child protection practice abd policy, using the Irish child protection system as a case study.
The framework brings together a range of different theoretical approaches including Bronfenbrenner's bio-ecological model, an adapted version of Hardiker's preventive practice model and social networking theory. Overall the model describes the psycho-social approach to social work which has been the underpinning philosophy behind social work theory since its inception in the early part of the 20th century, so the novelty here is to overlay this with a range of more recent theoretical stances. The article also argues strongly for better integration between child protection and family support, again a theme emphasized the literature for many decades.
The strength of the article is that it does provide a good summary of the key theories and also of the Irish child protection/family support system, including the system drivers and some of the key policy and practice challenges in the system.
The framework itself is pitched at quite a high level, so it is not always very clear how this could be applied in actual child protection practice or supervision. There are a number of 'motherhood' type statements which it is difficult to disagree with, but which don't add much information about actual policies or practices which should be implemented. For example on P 11 the collaborative leadership approach is describes as being based on "values of ‘we’ over ‘I’, value of the ‘other’ and a move from ego-leadership to eco-leadership." What does this mean in terms of what leaders could or should actually do?
Similarly the authors seem to be rather ambivalent about the role of advocacy and system change, on the one hand strongly advocating a focus on the exo-system as part of the framework but then claiming that social workers are not in a position to do this. The answer to this dilemma is Networking but again it is not all that clear what this involves, and in particular how it is different from what social workers do and have always done.
Overall the article would be greatly improved by providing some indication of how this framework could or should be implemented and how implementing this will be different from what is already being done in Ireland and elsewhere.
Author Response
Response to reviewers is provided in attached document
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
The authors propose an article that seems to be relevant for the Irish context. This article is an extension of previous work, and reflects an effort to connect practice with theoretical models, by returning back with practical implications. From the reviewer perspective, the paper covers a relevant topic for the audience of the journal.
From the reviewer perspective, there are not conceptual gaps in the manuscript. Nevertheless, concerning the workforce skills, in opinion of the reviewer the discussion on this topic could benefit if placing from a theoretical framework and framing in term of specific competencies.
Apart from this specific note, from a conceptual perspective, there are some pieces where no reference is provided in whole paragraphs. Because of the theoretical character of the paper, in opinion of this reviewer providing substantial references along the text could be enhanced.
From the method perspective, the article seems to follow a narrative review methodology, although the method is not described neither the approach of the review. Regardless the classification employed, in opinion of the reviewer the paper should be clear about the method used.
Concerning the writing style, it has been hard for the reviewer to follow the discourse of the paper; particularly the “setting the scene” would require more clarity. Maybe advancing the objective of the article would help, as the reader has to wait six paragraphs to know about the intention of the authors. Due the narrative perspective of the paper, being clear about the objectives from the very beginning would be useful, for a novel reader on the framework as the reviewer is. In opinion of this reviewer, the dualism “protective support and supportive protection” could be more deeply elaborated, even formulated in previous work, as this is a central piece of the authors framework.
There are innumerable typographical errors, which have increased the reading difficulty. Apart from reviewing those errors, it is recommended to introduce any acronym the first time is used (e.g., ACES).
This reviewer suggest to re-consider some of the keywords of the paper, as “the role of state” or “and community”, because there are doubts about the usefulness of these keywords for searching the paper.
As a final suggestion, practical implications could be extended because of the nature of the paper.
This reviewer thanks the authors the effort done in preparing the manuscript and encourage them to submit a reviewed version of the paper, as it covers a relevant topic in child welfare.
Author Response
Please see the response to reviewer comments attached
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
