Often such cases involve families who are not maltreating their child but have more generic problems, such as financial or housing difficulties, an incapacitated caregiver, or serious stress problems. Such cases may need assistance but do not require child protection intervention. Their labelling as cases of child abuse or neglect further taxes generally limited child protection resources.
The difficulties of having to deal with a large number of reports, and the recognition that many of the families in unsubstantiated maltreatment cases require support in order to deal with other social and financial problems, has led some Australian State and Territory governments to consider the adoption of a new model of child protection.
Under such an approach cases are no longer seen in purely child protection terms, but in the overall context in which the alleged abuse has occurred, informed by a comprehensive assessment of the family. Thus, the balance between child protection and the role of family support is altered such that child protection no longer drives the system but becomes merely one important facet in an overall welfare assessment.
Good practice and adequate protection thus both emerge from adopting a wider perspective on child protection which enables underlying problems in the family that may put a child 'at risk' or have a detrimental effect on the child's long-term welfare to be addressed.
Much of the current impetus for change has come from the United Kingdom, where a research program implemented by the Department of Health and coordinated by Dartington Social Research Unit, University of Bristol, produced a substantial amount of evidence about definitions of maltreatment, what happens to children and families caught up in the child protection system, and case outcomes. As a result, policy makers in the United Kingdom began to consider shifting the balance between child protection and other services for children in need.
The overall intention of the new approach is to prevent maltreatment and protect children by addressing family problems holistically. This is to be done in a way which promotes cooperation between workers and families, achieving greater levels of parental cooperation and, subsequently, a better outcome for children and families.
The benefits of such a system are that, ideally, families are not unduly stigmatised or traumatised by inappropriate or unnecessary protective investigations, and are therefore more likely to accept assistance. In addition, family problems can be comprehensively assessed and appropriate services put in place to address them. Such an approach can help prevent the development of maltreating behaviour, or ameliorate conditions detrimental to a child's long term development.
The new approach is currently being adopted in a number of local government areas in the United Kingdom, supported by staff of the Dartington unit. Facilitated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, senior staff from Dartington recently conducted a series of seminars for Australian governments to demonstrate their findings and discuss the relevance of the proposed approach for Australia.
The State Government of Western Australia has been one of the first Australian governments to adopt a 'family support' approach, developing the ideas proposed by the Dartington unit and others to produce a model that classifies cases into either a generic 'child concern report' or 'child maltreatment allegation' stream. All cases undergo full assessment, receiving supports where necessary, with each approach tailored to the family's problems.
In 1995, the West Australian Government set up a 'family support' model and piloted it in a number of regions. The new system is currently being implemented across the State. Under the West Australian approach, an experienced child protection worker decides at the time of report whether a case requires a protective assessment by the child protection team, designating it a 'child maltreatment allegation', or whether it can be managed as a 'child concern report' and thus referred to welfare services for assessment and the provision of services.
In this model, only severe incidents of maltreatment are initially referred to the child protection team: for example, where an illegal act has been committed, where there is evidence of severe or persistent harm, or where a significant history of child maltreatment in the family exists. The majority of cases are expected to be assessed as 'child concern reports', but regardless to which stream a case is assigned, appropriate services are provided.
The adoption of a 'family support' rather than 'forensic investigation' model of child protection should see a greatly expanded role for family support services, giving them a greater involvement in the assessment and treatment or support of children and families.
In addition, the model, if appropriately resourced, will enable agencies to regain prominence in child abuse prevention and the early detection of 'at risk' children, a role which many services have been unable to perform as substantially in the 1990s because of a lack of resources exacerbated by the high demands for services that accompanied the recession of the late 1980s and early 1990s.
However, the adoption of a 'family support' system may also have potentially negative consequences for children and families. If inadequate resources are put in place to enable agencies to cope with the demand for services, then families, particularly families labelled as having a generic welfare concern, are no more likely to receive support or amelioration of their problems than they would under the current 'forensic investigation' models of child protection.
Significantly, this situation occurring in combination with a system that streams cases would produce a substantial decrease in the number of official child maltreatment cases, given that many cases are labelled as a generic concern rather than as a child maltreatment allegation.
Overall then, with many cases no longer recorded as child maltreatment and a failure to increase family support resources, there is a danger that the incidence of child abuse and neglect is reduced by definition rather than by a reduction in actual maltreatment. It could therefore be argued that such a system would be a cosmetic reduction of concerns which, through inaction and the failure to provide adequate support, may contribute to the development of more serious familial problems, or the maltreatment of children in the long term.
Moreover, some researchers and practitioners have raised concerns that the new models may not adequately protect children because they focus too much on the family as a whole rather than being primarily concerned with the protection of the child. They fear that the primary role of the assessment and intervention process - ensuring children's safety - may not remain the priority in a system focused on family support as a whole. It is feared that with generic child concern cases in particular, family needs will be addressed at the expense of child protection.
The shift to 'family support' is perceived by some professionals as representing a shift towards family preservation, even in cases where this may be detrimental to the child. It is therefore vital that for families entering the child welfare system as a result of child maltreatment allegations, care is taken to ensure that the best interests of the child are not sacrificed when they conflict with the best interests of the family.
Finally, the interprofessional and interagency communication and coordination problems that have beset child protection systems since the rediscovery of child abuse in the 1960s, may be exacerbated by a 'family support' model. With child protection services reducing their role as primary or coordinating agencies, family support services will have greater responsibility for case coordination.
It is therefore of paramount importance that adequate means are put in place to ensure comprehensive interprofessional involvement in caseplan discussions, and that a formal interprofessional case conference structure is set up and adhered to. If not, it is likely that history will repeat itself, with cases slipping through cracks in the system or families being inadequately serviced.
Overall, it is clear that the current investigation-driven child protection systems operating across Australia and many other countries have not been the most effective means of dealing with child maltreatment and families at risk of becoming abusive.
The 'family support' model proposed in the United Kingdom and already implemented in one form in Western Australia does, in theory, offer a welcome return to the prevention of maltreatment and other family problems via the provision of adequate family supports.
Whether cases are streamed for assessment, as in Western Australia, or child protection workers are merely trained to conduct comprehensive assessments of all notifications regardless of how cases are labelled, the crux of any child protection system would appear to be the adequate resourcing of family support services such that families in need can receive appropriate counselling or support in a cooperative venture with welfare professionals. Without adequate resources, no system can expect to adequately protect children or enhance family welfare.
The Spring 1995 edition of the Clearing House Newsletter (vol.3, no.2) featured an assessment of two Australian Institute of Health and Welfare publications which provided a national summary of the various State and Territory statutory child protection service case loads during 1993 - 94, and the number of statutory clients placed on care and protection orders. Recently the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare released the fifth instalment of this ongoing program to provide national statistics on aspects of child abuse and neglect.
In the analysis of the 1993 - 94 statistics, it was noted that the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare was reliant on the data supplied by the various State and Territory child protection services. As a result of different policies and processes and data collection methodologies across the States and Territories, the national collection contains a number of 'gaps' or missing information.
Despite the limitations caused by these differences, through using the available data from the States and Territories, the authors have been able to incorporate a number of more specific analyses into the 1994 - 95 reports. Such analyses include a more detailed assessment of maltreaters and of family structure.
The report, with its focus on child abuse report statistics and substantiation rates, is a most useful summary providing a national perspective on the current state of child protection investigations in Australia. The report's findings are linked to previous reports for the years 1990 - 91, 1991 - 92, 1992 - 93 and 1993 - 94.
In 1994 - 95, State and Territory child protection departments received 76,954 allegations of suspected child abuse and neglect that were deemed to require investigation (termed 'reports'), an increase of 3 per cent over 1993 - 94.
Of these, assessment had been finalised in 67,918 cases, with 45 per cent of these (30,615 cases) being substantiated; that is, where there was reasonable cause to believe that the child had been suffering abuse or neglect. An additional 4 per cent (2,796 cases) were not substantiated but the child was assessed as being at risk. Together these cases represented a 7 per cent increase over 1993 - 94 statistics. The number of reports to child protection services in the four-year period 1990 - 91 to 1994 - 95 increased by 65 per cent. The number of cases 'substantiated' or classified as 'child at risk' increased by 72 per cent in the same period.
With the exception of Queensland and Tasmania, the individual States and Territories experienced rises in case substantiation rates. By far the greatest increase in the substantiations per population was reported in Victoria, where the substantiation rate rose from 2.1 to 6.7 per 1000 children. Angus and Hall noted that this was in part due to changes in the recording of 'substantiated' cases in Victoria. Prior to 1992 - 93 the Victorian data related to cases listed on the Child At Risk Register and were an underestimate of the number of substantiated cases.
Of the 30,615 cases substantiated across the nation, 29 per cent were classified as physical abuse, 28 per cent as emotional abuse, 16 per cent sexual abuse and 26 per cent as neglect. More boys than girls were represented in substantiated cases of physical abuse, emotional abuse and neglect. Females were victims in 76 per cent of sexual abuse cases. Children in the age group 13 to 14 years accounted for the highest proportion of substantiated child maltreatment cases.
The highest numbers of finalised cases were reported to protection services by friends and neighbours (16 per cent), parents (13 per cent), school personnel (15 per cent) and police (12 per cent). Reports received from the victim and most professionals produced substantiation rates above 50 per cent. Anonymous reports and those of friends or neighbours had substantiation rates of 26 per cent and 30 per cent respectively.
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) children accounted for 10 per cent of all substantiated cases, a significant overrepresentation given that they account for only 3 per cent of the population. ATSI children were particularly overrepresented in neglect cases (42 per cent, compared with 25 per cent for other children). In contrast, only 11 per cent of ATSI cases were reported to involve sexual abuse, compared with 17 per cent for other children. The rate of substantiated abuse for ATSI children was 19.1 per 1000 children aged 0 - 16 years, compared with a rate for other children of 5.6 per 1000 children.
New Analyses of National Statistics
Using the 1994 - 95 national statistics, Angus and Hall have produced a number of new analyses.
First, from data produced on the family type of children in finalised cases, it emerges that: 39 per cent of 13,518 substantiated cases from Victoria, Queensland, Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory involved children from single-mother families; 30 per cent involved two natural-parent families; 21 per cent involved other two-parent families, such as step-families; and 6 per cent involved single-father families. Thus, single-parent and other two-parent families (step-families) were overrepresented in sub-stantiated cases of child maltreatment.
Second, with regard to the identity of the maltreaters, in 57 per cent of substantiated cases no maltreater could be identified from the coded data provided by the States and Territories, seriously affecting the national data. However, in cases where it was coded, the majority of those believed responsible for maltreatment were the victim's natural parents (72 per cent), while other caregivers (defacto parent, foster parent, stepparent) accounted for 12 per cent. Angus and Hall also produced a breakdown of sex of maltreater and relationship to child victim, adding 'an extra dimension to data previously presented' (Angus and Hall 1996, p.22).
Data from Western Australia, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory, indicated that female parents were believed to be responsible by child protection workers for child maltreatment in the majority of cases overall (65 to 88 per cent), while males were overwhelmingly identified as maltreaters in sexual abuse cases.
Specifically, in Western Australian data, where maltreater data was available for 93 per cent of substantiated cases, males were believed to be responsible for 55 per cent of physical abuse cases, 52 per cent of emotional abuse cases and 94 per cent of sexual abuse cases; females were believed to be responsible for 88 per cent of neglect cases.
Overall, 65 per cent of parents believed to be responsible for child maltreatment were female, while three-quarters of other relatives (including other parents/guardians) were male. Such a finding is not unexpected, given that women are more likely to fulfil the caregiver role.
In data from the Australian Capital Territory, a female was believed to be responsible for maltreatment in 63 per cent of cases, particularly in cases of emotional abuse (77 per cent) and neglect (85 per cent). A male was believed to be responsible in 51 per cent of physical abuse and all sexual abuse cases. Males were also believed to be responsible in the majority of cases involving maltreaters who were not natural parents.
In the Northern Territory, females were believed to be responsible in 56 per cent of all cases where sex of maltreater was known, and in 88 per cent of neglect cases, where in almost all cases the female perpetrator was a natural parent. In 52 per cent of physical abuse cases and all sexual abuse cases, the alleged maltreater was male.
Conclusion
Overall, Angus and Hall have produced a useful summary of the national child abuse and neglect statistics. The value of their report has been boosted by the inclusion, where available, of data from the States and Territories on specific topics such as family structure and maltreater characteristics. Thus, in spite of the unavailability of a complete national picture, due to differences in data collection, reporting and so on between the various States and Territories, practitioners and researchers are able to gain some insight into more specific aspects of child abuse and neglect.
Finally, the inclusion of data for unsubstantiated cases should perhaps be considered in future reports where such information is available from the State and Territory child protection services. An analysis of the total number of reports, and comparisons of case demographics with the substantiated case data, would be of great interest.
The large variety of care and protection orders in use across the Australian States and Territories can be broadly categorised as guardianship and non-guardianship orders. Angus, Dunn and Moyle define a guardianship order as one in which a child is deemed to be a Ward of the State, with his or her legal guardianship becoming the sole responsibility of the State or Territory child protection/welfare department.
A non-guardianship order is defined as one where the Minister, Director or other official of the child protection/welfare department is given some responsibility for a child's welfare. This may include supervision, custody or accommodation arrangements.
Children are usually placed under guardianship or non-guardianship orders because of inadequate provision of care or protection by parents, such that the child is deemed to be at risk of suffering child abuse and neglect. However, orders may also be granted in cases of irreconcilable differences between the parent(s) and child.
Use of Care and Protection Orders
Guardianship orders are used in the more severe child maltreatment cases, when the family unit has irrevocably broken down, or where a breach of a non-guardianship order has occurred.
Non-guardianship orders are usually short-term in nature and may result in the placement of the subject child away from the family until circumstances permit their return. Children who have committed criminal offences may also be placed under protection orders; however, these cases have been excluded from this report in order to separate juvenile justice cases from cases involving the care of children.
At 30 June 1995, 13,078 children in Australia were under care and protection orders. Of these, 69 per cent were under guardianship orders, and 31 per cent under non-guardianship orders (such as a supervision order or a custody order), representing a rate of 2.8 per 1000 children aged from 0 to 17 years. The rate of care and protection orders had increased by 3 per cent in the four-year period 1991 - 95. However, there have been some significant state differences. For example, New South Wales experienced a 40 per cent increase, the Northern Territory, a 43 per cent increase, and Victoria, an 18 per cent decrease.
With regard to the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (ATSI) population, the overall number of care and protection orders was 14.7 per 1000 children aged 0 to 17 years, approximately six times higher than the 2.5 per 1000 children for other non-indigenous children.
The majority of children under care and protection orders were living in foster care (53 per cent) or were living with parents or relatives (27 per cent). Sixty-three per cent of those under guardianship orders resided in foster care; most children under non-guardianship orders lived with parents or other relatives (56 per cent).
Conclusion
As was noted in the review of the 1993 - 94 care and protection orders, 'Protecting children: the national picture', in the Spring 1995 issue of the Clearing House Newsletter, if the data were available, reports such as this would be enhanced by the inclusion of a breakdown of the reasons for the orders - that is, the type and specifics of the maltreatment that led to the protection application. In addition, a breakdown of maltreater identity by type of abuse, including an analysis of the sex of the maltreater by sex of the subject child such as that provided by Angus and Hall in their 1996 report, would also enhance our knowledge both of the state of child maltreatment and that of the child protection system in Australia.
The accompanying table based on an earlier summary produced in 1994 by Zabar and Angus and utilising the information presented in Angus and Hall (1996), provides a national picture of who is required to report suspected child maltreatment, the designated statutory bodies who receive the reports, the types of maltreatment which must be reported, and the legislation which applies in each State or Territory.
Two points arise from the table. First, Victoria adopted a phased implementation of mandatory reporting legislation in order to ensure adequate professional training for mandated professions. While police, doctors, nurses and teachers have been mandated, it was originally planned that psychologists, social workers, youth workers and other community and welfare workers would also be mandated. However, the significant increase in reports following the introduction of mandatory reporting and the resultant demands on services has led to a halt in mandating professionals for the present.
Second, as mentioned above, the Australian Capital Territory has moved to enact the mandatory reporting provision of the Children's Services Act 1986. Mandatory reporting is set to be introduced on 1 June 1997, with training for professionals currently under way. Mandatory reporting will initially be trialled in one region in order to determine the impact on services prior to full implementation.
In addition to mandatory reporting legislation, it is important to note that a number of States and Territories have departmental protocols or guidelines which require that specific professions report maltreatment.
In New South Wales, teachers are mandated to report sexual abuse but are also required by the Department of School Education to notify for cases of suspected physical and emotional abuse and neglect. The police and Department of Health workers are also required to report cases of child maltreatment. In Queensland, the Department of Education requires that teachers advise their principal of suspected child maltreatment concerns.
Finally, in Western Australia, which has no mandatory reporting, the referral of maltreatment concerns is facilitated by a number of reciprocal protocols negotiated between key government and non-government agencies. Community awareness programs and professional education are conducted to enhance people's ability to identify possible maltreatment and the actions which can be taken to prevent its recurrence.
References
Angus, G. and Hall, G. (1996), Child Abuse and Neglect Australia 1994 - 95, Child Welfare Series No.16, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra.
Zabar, P. and Angus, G. (1994), Child Abuse and Neglect: Reporting and Investigation Procedures in Australia 1994, Child Welfare Series No.8, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra.
MANDATORY REPORTING OF ABUSE, AUSTRALIA, JUNE 1996
| Reporting Act or mechanisms | Persons required to notify of abuse | Type of abuse to be reported | Recipient of notification |
| Commonwealth
Family Law Act 1975 |
Personnel of the Family Court |
all |
A prescribed welfare authority |
| Australian Capital Territory
Children's Services Act 1986 (mandatory reporting to be introduced June 1997)
|
Medical practitioners, dentists, registered nurses, police officers, teachers, school counsellors, public servants engaged primarily in child welfare work, child care workers in licensed centres |
Physical abuse or Sexual |
Family Services Branch, Children's, Youth and Family Services Bureau |
| New South Wales
Children (Care and Protection) Act 1987
|
Medical practitioners |
Physical abuse or neglect |
Department of Community Services |
| Child Welfare Act 1939 | Medical practitioners, school principals, deputy principals, teachers, school social workers, school psychologists | Sexual abuse | 'As above' |
| Northern Territory
Community Welfare Act 1983 |
Any person not being a member of the police force |
all |
Department of Health and Community Services |
| Victoria
Children and Young Persons Act 1989 |
Doctors, nurses, police officers, teachers |
Physical or sexual abuse |
Department of Human Services
|
| Queensland
Health Act Amendment Act 1980 |
Medical practitioners |
all |
Department of Health |
| South Australia
Children's Protection Act 1993 |
Medical practitioners, registered dentists, nurses, psychologists, pharmacists, teachers, teacher aides, preschool workers, police officers, probation officers, employees of agency providing health and welfare services to children, social worker in health services |
all |
Department for Family and Community Services |
| Tasmania
Child Protection Act 1974 Child Protection Order 1977 |
Probation officers, child welfare officers, welfare officers, persons holding boarding home or day nursery licences, school principals (including nursery schools, preschools), officers engaged primarily in welfare work, Education Department guidance officers, psychologists, social workers, medical practitioners, nurses |
all |
Child Protection Board Child Protection Unit, Department of Community and Health Services |
| Western Australia | No provision of mandatory reporting | nil | - |
'A proposed Plan of Action for the Prevention of Abuse and Neglect of Children with Disabilities', outlines eight Action Areas for priority, with Priority Actions recommended for implementation either by Commonwealth or State and Territory Governments.
For further information and copies of the Plan of Action contact:
Ms Ramanee Weearatne, phone (06) 289 3735, fax: (06) 289 4369, or write to: Family Services Branch, Department of Health and Family Services, GPO Box 9848, Canberra, ACT 2601. The Plan of Action is available free of charge.
NCPC home |
© National Child Protection Clearinghouse Australian Institute of Family Studies, Level 20, 485 La Trobe Street, Melbourne Vic 3000. Tel: (03) 9214 7888. Fax: (03) 9214 7839. Web: www.aifs.gov.au/nch |
AIFS home |