How childcare providers interpret "reasonable suspicion" of child abuse

- Background Childcare providers are often “first responders” for suspected child abuse, and how they understand the concept of “reasonable suspicion” will influence their decisions regarding which warning signs warrant reporting. - Objective The purpose of this study was to investigate how childcare providers interpret the threshold for reporting suspected abuse, and to consider the implications of these findings for professional training and development. - Method A convenience sample of 355 childcare providers completed the Reasonable Suspicion of Child Abuse survey to quantify what likelihood of child abuse constitutes “reasonable suspicion.” Responses were examined for internal consistency, evidence of a group standard, and associations with professional and personal demographics. - Results On a Rank Order Scale, responses for what constitutes “reasonable suspicion” ranged from requiring that abuse be “the” most likely cause (8 %) of an injury, to the second most likely (9 %), third (18 %), fourth (18 %), to even the seventh (8 %) or eighth (5 %) most likely cause of an injury. On a numerical probability scale, 21 % of respondents indicated that “abuse” would need to be ≥83 % likely before reasonable suspicion existed; 40 % stated that a likelihood between 53–82 % was needed; 27 % identified the necessary likelihood between 33–52 %; and 12 % set a threshold between 1–32 %. - Conclusions The present finding that no consensus exists for interpreting “reasonable suspicion” suggests that a broadly accepted interpretive framework is needed in order to help prepare childcare providers to know when to report suspected abuse.

Drug and alcohol testing results 2001 annual report.

Statistics on employees returned to duty and results of return-to-duty tests and follow-up tests are presented separately from results of the other four test types because return-to-duty tests and follow-up tests represent a different segment of the test population and not all employers offer rehabilitation.

On the communal analysis suspicion scoring for identity crime in streaming credit applications

This paper describes a rapid technique: communal analysis suspicion scoring (CASS), for generating numeric suspicion scores on streaming credit applications based on implicit links to each other, over both time and space. CASS includes pair-wise communal scoring of identifier attributes for applications, definition of categories of suspiciousness for application-pairs, the incorporation of temporal and spatial weights, and smoothed k-wise scoring of multiple linked application-pairs. Results on mining several hundred thousand real credit applications demonstrate that CASS reduces false alarm rates while maintaining reasonable hit rates. CASS is scalable for this large data sample, and can rapidly detect early symptoms of identity crime. In addition, new insights have been observed from the relationships between applications.

Reasonable adjustment and the assessment of students with disabilities: Australian legal issues and trends

Student assessment is particularly important, and particularly controversial, because it is the means by which student achievement is determined. Reasonable adjustment to student assessment is of equal importance as the means of ensuring the mitigation, or even elimination, of disability related barriers to the demonstration of student achievement. The significance of reasonable adjustment is obvious in the later years of secondary school, and in the tertiary sector, because failure to adjust assessment may be asserted as the reason a student did not achieve as well as anticipated or as the reason a student was excluded from a course and, as a result, from future study and employment opportunities. Even in the early years of schooling, however, assessment and its management are a critical issue for staff and students, especially in an education system like Australia’s with an ever increasing emphasis on national benchmarks testing. This paper will explain the legislation which underpins the right to reasonable adjustment in education in Australian schools. It will give examples of the kinds of adjustment which may be made to promote equality of opportunity in the area of assessment. It will also consider some of the controversies which have confronted, or which, it may be speculated, are likely to confront Australian education institutions as they work towards compliance with reasonable adjustment laws.

Reasonable adjustments in assessment : putting law and policy into practice in Australia

The Australian Disability Standards for Education 2005 (Cth) require education providers to make reasonable adjustments in educational assessment so that students with disability can participate on the same basis as other students and be able to demonstrate what they know and can do. Reasonableness is governed by a determination of the balance of interests, benefits and detriment to the parties involved. The Standards require providers to consult with students and associates on adjustments, although guidance on how consultation should occur and how the views of students and associates are to be taken into account is vague. In this article, we identify three principles to be considered in order to put appropriate and effective reasonable adjustments in assessment into practice. While Australian law and assessment contexts are used to examine intentions, expectations and practices in educational assessment for students with disability, we argue that these three principles must be considered in any national education system to ensure equitable assessment practices and achieve equitable educational inclusion for students with disability.

The assessment of students with disabilities : the Australian law as to reasonable adjustment and academic integrity

This paper explains the legislation which underpins the right to reasonable adjustment in education for students with disabilities in Australian schools. It gives examples of the kinds of adjustment which may be made to promote equality of opportunity in the area of assessment. It also considers how the law has constructed the border between reasonable adjustment and academic integrity.

Arguing the Autopsy : mutual suspicion, jurisdictional confusion and the socially marginal

Vulnerable and marginalised populations are not only over-represented in the criminal justice system, but also in civil jurisdictions like the coronial system. Moreover, many of the personnel who deal with criminal matters, especially in rural and regional areas, are also those who manage the coronial death investigation. This movement back and forth between civil and criminal jurisdictions is difficult for the both professional personnel and the families, but especially for those families who may also have had dealings with these personnel in the criminal justice system, or who present as suspicious due to larger historical and global issues. While coronial legislation now allows families to raise cultural and religious concerns about the process, particularly to do with the autopsy of their loved one, this also requires them to identify themselves to police at the initial stage of the death investigation. This paper, part of a larger body of work on autopsy decision making, discusses the ways in which this information is gathered by police, how it is communicated through the system, the ways in which families are supported through the process, and the difficulties that ensue.

The consequences of not taking reasonable steps to obtain finance

In Hauff v Miller [2013] QCA 48 the Queensland Court of Appeal considered an issue that has not previously arisen at appellate level. The case concerned the interaction of the well-known subject to finance clause and other standard contractual provisions...

Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 - reasonable excuse for delay in giving notice under s37

The decisions in Perdis v The Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 555, Miller v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 558 and Piper v the Nominal Defendant [2003] QCA 557 were handed down contemporaneously by the Queensland Court of Appeal on December 15 2003. They consider important issues as to the construction of key provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld)

Compensation for logdment of caveat without reasonable cause

This article examines s130 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) in detail, and includes an analysis of authorities which have interpreted comparable provisions in other Australian jurisdictions and in New Zealand. Its purpose is to provide a comprehensive guide as to the circumstances in which the court may now be expected to award compensation in respect of the lodgment or continuance of a caveat in Queensland. Finally, the author considers whether the changes which have been embodied in s130 may now be regarded as providing adequate protection for persons who suffer damage as a result of the lodgment or continuance of a caveat which cannot ultimately be sustained.