The Council's terms of reference are to:
The new Council replaces the National Child Protection Council and is primarily a non-government community-based advisory council, of which the majority, if not all, of the members are engaged with the primary care of families and children.
Council Membership
The Council has a membership of fourteen, consisting of ten non-government community
members, three state/territory government representatives, and one Commonwealth
government representative.
Community members
Professor Kim Oates AM MD, Chief Executive, the New Children's
Hospital in Westmead (New South Wales) (Chairman); Sister Phillipa Chapman,
Executive Director of Centacare (Tasmania); Dr George Blake, Senior Paediatrician,
Flinders Medical Centre (South Australia); Ms Julie Clark, Director of Counselling,
Kids Helpline (Queensland); Ms Dale Bagshaw, Member of the Family Services Council
and the Family Law Council (South Australia); Ms Gillian Horton-Hegarty, Family
Liaison Officer RAAF Base Tindal, Department of Defence (Northern Territory);
Ms Wendy Machin, President, Save the Children Fund of NSW (New South Wales);
Dr Sue Packer, Paediatrician, Child at Risk Assessment Unit, The Canberra
Hospital (Australian Capital Territory); Ms Jan Owen, National Director, Australian
Association of Young People In Care (AAYPIC) (Queensland); Ms Muriel Cadd, Chair,
Secretariat of the National Aboriginal & Islander Child Care (SNAICC) (Victoria).
State/territory government representatives
Ms Carmel Niland, Director General, Department of Community Services, New South
Wales; Mr Yehudi Blacher, Director, Youth and Family Services, Department of
Human Services,Victoria; Mr Robert Fisher, Director General, Family and Children's
Services, Western Australia.
Commonwealth Government representative
Ms Mary Murnane, Deputy Secretary, Commonwealth Department of Health and Family
Services, Canberra.
Council Agenda
The Council had its inaugural meeting on the 30 October 1997. It meets approximately every four months with the next meeting due in February 1999.
Initial issues examined by the Council included the recommendations of the NSW Wood Royal Commission Report on Paedophilia including what action would be appropriate in which the Commonwealth could take a lead and the feasibility of establishing an Office for Children to monitor and report on children's issues.
The Council had developed the following value statement:
'All children are valuable members of Australian society and have a right to a safe and loving environment free from abuse and neglect. Adults have a responsibility to ensure children's rights are respected and maintained.'The National Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse will consult widely and work towards improving public awareness of child abuse and neglect.
The Council's proposed workplan for the next twelve to eighteen months includes a national audit of current child abuse prevention activities, reviewing community education as a form of child abuse prevention, and looking at the effects of resilience in children and young people and its applicability to child abuse prevention. Priority topics for Council's research program includes indicators of good practice in child abuse prevention, research methodology in the evaluation of prevention programs as well as young people, and parents' perceptions of the child protection system.
Research Program
The Council recently selected eight research projects for funding. The projects have a particular focus on the evaluation of intervention programs and the evaluation of preventative programs. Projects include the evaluation of:
Council Awards
The Council is currently developing its inaugural Prevention of Child Abuse
Awards. These will be presented at the next Australasian Conference on Child
Abuse and Neglect in Perth in 1999. Further information regarding these awards
will be disseminated in early 1999.
Information Package
The Council is currently developing an information package on the Council and
its activities, as part of its Communication Strategy, which will be available
for distribution by the end of 1998.
Further Information
Further information on the National Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse
can be obtained from: The Secretariat, National Council for the Prevention of
Child Abuse, Family Services Branch (MDP 69), Department of Health and Family
Services, GPO Box 9848, Canberra ACT 2601. Phone (02) 6289 7530. Fax (02) 6289
3750.
The following evaluation, conducted by the Australian Institute of Family
Studies and Burgell Consulting on behalf of the Brimbank Community Health Service1,
is an attempt to evaluate a secondary prevention program taking into account
the complexities of real-life family support work and its effect on the evaluation
process.
In a previous article in this newsletter it was argued that throughout Australia
and across the western world, statutory child protection services were struggling
to cope with ever-increasing numbers of reports of suspected child maltreatment,
and that a substantial proportion of these reports were being inappropriately
labelled as allegations of child maltreatment by those who refer cases to child
protection services (Tomison 1996).
Often such cases involve families who are not maltreating their child but
have more general problems, such as financial or housing difficulties, an incapacitated
caregiver, or serious stress problems. Such cases may need assistance but do
not require statutory child protection intervention. Their labelling as cases
of child abuse or neglect further taxes generally limited child protection resources
(Clark 1995; Little 1995; Tomison 1996). In Australia, government departments
have responded to this situation by developing new, differentiated responses
to allegations of child maltreatment by child protection services in conjunction
with the implementation of various child abuse prevention programs. The aim
of the latter is to provide support to families prior to them developing serious
problems which require the use of secondary or tertiary prevention resources.
This article presents an overview of the findings of the evaluation of one such
secondary prevention program - the Brimbank Family Outreach Service - conducted
by the Australian Institute of Family Studies in partnership with Burgell Consulting
(Tomison, Burgell & Burgell 1998).2 The Service was developed as a twelve-month
pilot project located in the City of Brimbank in the western metropolitan region
of Melbourne, under the auspices of the Brimbank Community Health Service.
It was designed to provide support and advice to the 'at risk' families who were not currently identified as abusive, and to ameliorate their problems in order to prevent their becoming child protection clients and the need for the provision of significant family support resources. The model used by the Service is currently being implemented or 'mainstreamed' across Victoria as the Strengthening Families initiative.
Brimbank Family Outreach Service
As a primary care agency, Brimbank Family Outreach Service (the Service) was to assess child and family needs, develop a case plan, ensure appropriate services were put in place to address the family's needs, and, where possible, deflect people from the secondary and tertiary service sectors through early identification, early intervention and timely treatment. Alternatively, it was to ensure that the appropriate secondary and tertiary services were supplied when they were needed to a maximum result at minimum cost, and that the families were provided with professional follow-up after disengagement of the Service. In order to engage effectively with families and to work collaboratively with the family and other agencies, case practice was centred on child- centred family-focused practice3 and effective inter-agency coordination, collaboration and communication.
The roles of the Service included:
Client Profile
The City of Brimbank is a culturally diverse local government area located in
the outer northwest of the Melbourne metropolitan area. Socio-demographic profiles
have indicated that Brimbank and the western metropolitan region have generally
higher rates of a number of social problems, and poorer standards of health
and wellbeing, than the Melbourne metropolitan area and the state of Victoria
as a whole.
The target population included those children and their families from the City
of Brimbank for whom there were identified concerns in relation to family functioning,
parental discipline practices, child-rearing practices, and poverty and/or environmental
neglect, rather than actual harm or abuse of the children. Referrals were accepted
from families, service providers, protective workers and the community at large
in situations where there were concerns about family functioning. The families
of children for whom maltreatment had been substantiated in the context of a
current notification to Protective Services, or who were currently subject to
a protection order (that is, tertiary clients), were excluded.
In the twelve months in which the Service was in operation, 157 families were referred for assessment and case-planning. Referrals came predominantly from Protective Services, Brimbank Community Health Service, the education system, or from families who self-referred. As part of their various case management roles, staff from the Service referred families on to a wide range of practical and therapeutic services. These 157 families formed the population of cases from which this evaluation has drawn data on the Brimbank Family Outreach Service case management process.
The Research
The major design features of the evaluation were:
Family Feedback
Staff from the Service distributed approximately thirty family feedback questionnaires to those families visited more than once whose case was still open at the that time. Overall, fourteen questionnaires were returned; such a small sample did not allow the authors to make claims about how well the results could be generalised. However, the feedback that was provided was consistently very positive, with the majority of families rating the Service very positively across a number of dimensions. These included the clarity of explanation provided by the Service about why it had contacted the family and the role it could play; the degree families felt listened to and were able to talk about their issues; the level of respect and honesty the workers employed when working with the families. The family feedback also provided evidence that the Service had adhered to the principles of child-centred family-focused case practice, involving families in a partnership to resolve, or ameliorate, their issues or concerns.
Case Tracking
The case-tracking study was an attempt to capture the experience of the Brimbank Family Outreach Service via a sample of approximately fifty cases, with each case providing the perspectives of staff from the Service and at least one other professional who was involved with the case.
Overall, 100 questionnaires or structured interviews were collected from the staff of the Brimbank Family Outreach Service and the other agencies who participated in the case tracking. The cases that constitute the sample were collected on the basis that at least one of the agencies participating in the case tracking had had some form of professional contact with the family for which a worker involved with the case subsequently completed a tracking questionnaire outlining their case management experience.
It was clear that the Service had more than adequately fulfilled the tasks of case coordination and planning, and of developing solutions for 'at risk' families in a manner perceived by workers from other agencies and the families themselves as being very effective. Agencies reported that much of their contact with the Service was for the purposes of information exchange and professional consultation, to involve workers from the Service in a joint home visit, or as a result of accepting a referral from the Service and subsequently becoming involved in aspects of the management of a case.
The Service was perceived by other workers as:
Inter-agency Coordination and Collaboration
Using the results of the focus groups and the analysis of the wider service network (carried out via the survey of the local service resources and case management practice), a number of conclusions about the relationship between the Brimbank Family Outreach Service and the wider service network were reached.
First, it was concluded that the development and application of uniform inter-agency
intake and assessment measures for use by the various health, education and
counselling services who together constituted the local service network would
enhance the implementation of service models like the Service across both the
statutory and non-government sections of the local service network. Specifically,
the use of a common format for documenting intake, referral and assessment information
for all cases falling within the ambit of the Service's objectives would improve
inter agency communication and collaboration. Such a common format could supplement,
and be integrated with, existing procedures in agencies.
Second, based on the feedback obtained in the case-tracking and focus group
studies, it was apparent that the Service was able to strengthen the collaborative
linkages between relevant statutory and non-government services in Brimbank
in order to address the risk to children and families of significant harm of
child abuse or neglect. This function occurred in conjunction with direct service
provision and case-planning activities.
These findings were used to form the basis for the development of the inter agency Case Management Framework by Burgell Consulting. This was designed, in part, as a measure to assist the Service or similar agencies to exercise a bridging role between statutory government services and non-government agency networks. This framework was compatible with existing agency practice formats, acting as a supplement to established agency procedures and practices. It would provide an informed guide for colleague agencies when participating in cases requiring inter-agency case management.
Case Management Framework
The Case Management Framework, derived from consultation with representatives from the Service and other colleague agencies, was intended to form the basis for the statewide implementation of the Brimbank Family Outreach Service model as the Strengthening Families program. The framework incorporates a definition of case management and a statement of the principles and values underlying the framework.
Inter-agency work is divided into two distinct phases: first contact/intake/referral, where an emphasis is placed on working in collaboration or partnership with the client or family as part of child-centred family-focused practice; and implementation of the plan, which includes the development and management of the case plan; identification of cases that will involve ongoing case management and the involvement of professionals for this; and, finally, the evaluation of case planning and service provision.
The framework describes a number of protocols and work practices that would
enhance inter-agency collaboration.
Inter-agency communication
In order to enhance inter-agency communication, and the support and
advice that agencies in a service network can provide to each other, uniform
procedures and protocols are required. These should include provision for agencies
to be able to share case information with colleague agencies that are also involved
with the same client families - subject to the development of confidentiality
and information-sharing protocols, and undertaken after permission has been
sought from the family. Formal referral protocols are also recommended in order
to ensure that inter-agency referrals are made effectively in cases where there
are child abuse and associated family violence concerns.
Cross-cultural practice
The multicultural nature of the Brimbank community required that the Case
Management Framework reflect a cross-cultural approach to assessment and service
intervention, including an understanding of the role of culturally specific
factors in determining child abuse, the risk of abuse and the appropriate intervention.
It was recommended that the response to non-English-speaking families by the
Brimbank Family Outreach Service and the wider system could be improved. One
method identified was to enhance community development outreach to local ethnic
organisations and to train people in these organisations in order to build their
capacities to support non-English-speaking 'at risk' families and children.
Risk assessment
Active monitoring and regular review of child safety and an assessment of
the risk of child abuse should occur throughout all stages of the case management
process. Burgell Consulting concluded that the agencies and practitioners who
constitute the Brimbank service network required access to common risk and needs
assessment guidelines. Such tools may enhance intra-agency and inter-agency
observations, judgements, actions and record-keeping in cases involving child
abuse and associated family problems. The tools should be readily integrated
into primary service activities and the day-to-day responsibilities of all agencies
and practitioners.
Two other specific implementation issues were also identified. First, the
considerable time and resource demands placed on colleague services in order
to engage in the inter-agency collaboration and teamwork inherent in the Brimbank
Family Outreach Service model was not recognised in existing program funding
arrangements. Moreover, the outcome-based targets associated with program funding
for a number of the colleague agencies would need to be adjusted to embrace
objectives connected to the service model.
Second, the non-government agencies involved in the focus groups consistently
raised compulsory competitive tendering as a barrier to collective agency involvement
in the Brimbank Family Outreach Service concept. Practitioners and agencies
believed that the competitive aspects of service tendering detracted from collaboration
among agencies on day-to-day case management and service planning.
Recommendations
A series of recommendations were made in the context of the Service being implemented as the Strengthening Families initiative. These included:
This program evaluation demonstrated that the Brimbank Family Outreach Service played a significant, highly constructive role in the assessment and case management of 'at risk' families who did not require statutory intervention. In the past, such families have often not received the treatment or support they required to deal with their issues and/or to prevent the occurrence of child abuse and neglect.The Brimbank Family Outreach Service was able to develop and provide effective support for these client families, decreasing the probability of the families becoming abusive or entering the statutory child protection system.
In addition, the Service made a clear, positive impact on inter-agency communication
and coordination throughout the local service network. The Case Management Framework
that was developed should provide a basis for effective inter-agency work as
part of the Strengthening Families programs. It is reported that further work
refining the Case Management Framework is currently being undertaken by the
Department of Human Services prior to its application as part of Strengthening
Families.
Notes
1 In April 1998, Brimbank Community Health Services amalgamated with Westgate Community Health and Community Health Wyndham to form ISIS Primary Care.
2 A companion document, the Brimbank Research Report (Mackieson 1997) is available from the Department of Human Services (Western Metropolitan Region).
3 Child-centred, family-focused practice affirms the primary importance
of ensuring the safety and wellbeing of children, yet also recognises the mutual
significance of the child and family to each other, and promotes the importance
of service professionals developing a strengths-based partnership with client
families.
References
Clark, R. 1995, 'Child protection services in Victoria', Family Matters, no. 40, Autumn, pp. 22-3.
Little, M. 1995, 'Child protection or family support? Finding a balance', Family Matters, no. 40, Autumn, pp. 18-21.
Mackieson, P. 1997, Brimbank Family Outreach Program: A Research Report, Department of Human Services (Western Metropolitan Region), Melbourne.
Tomison, A. M. 1996, 'Child protection towards 2000: commentary', Child Abuse Prevention, vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 1-3.
Tomison, A. M., Burgell, R. & Burgell, D. 1998, An Evaluation of the Brimbank Family Outreach Service, Department of Human Services (Western Metropolitan Region), Melbourne.
Adam Tomison is Research Advisor to the National Child Protection
Clearing House, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
The Department of Human Services in South Australia recently implemented a
major reform of its child protection service, which was described in detail
in the National Child Protection Clearing House Newsletter, vol. 6, no.
1, Autumn 1998, pp. 5-9.
The main goals of the reform were:
Elements of the Reform
The reform had five main elements. These are described below.
Central intake system
A central telephone intake team (CIT) of skilled and experienced social workers
was established in April 1997 so that all child abuse and neglect reports from
across the state are received on a single 24-hour child abuse report telephone
line. A central Aboriginal consultation and response team - Yaitya Tirramangkotti
- was established at the same time.
Differential response
Between April and November 1997, the Department introduced a three-tier response
system to child protection notifications, differentiating between children in
immediate danger (tier 1), children at risk (tier 2), and children primarily
in need where the risk of future abuse is low (tier 3).
The emphasis with tier 3 is on problem-solving rather than investigating a reported incident. The traditional response of home visit and investigation is not adopted in these cases. Instead, the subject families are invited to meet with departmental staff so that the notification can be discussed, perceptions and views of the reported concerns shared and community and/or professional support sought where necessary.
Closer inter-agency cooperation
In November 1997, formal inter-agency strategy discussions with police investigators
and the Health Department's child protection service were introduced for tier
1 cases. Participants in the strategy discussion exchange information and views
about the report, clarify roles, and plan and coordinate the most effective
investigation. Strategy discussions are also held on tier 2 investigations where
departmental staff propose to interview children prior to visiting their caregivers/parents.
Safety assessment
From November 1997, the formal use of assessment instruments in child protection
has been included in standard procedures. Safety assessments are completed on
all tier 1 and 2 notifications.
In South Australia, safety assessment is conducted in two stages: at intake and after the initial investigative visits. The identification of a safety factor at intake is essentially a trigger for an immediate response. If the full assessment confirms that the child is indeed in danger, the worker must then take steps to ensure the child's safety.
Structured decision-making
The structured decision-making system was introduced in all district centres
between November 1997 and February 1998. Under this system, a full risk and
needs assessment is completed on all confirmed cases and services are then targeted
towards families where there is a very high or high risk of renotification and
reabuse. When priority family needs have been identified, workers are required
to specify the interventions and services necessary to address them as well
as the availability of those services. Reassessments of risk and family needs
and strengths are conducted every three months and prior to closure so that
the family's progress and risk level can be monitored.
The system generates information on the risk and needs profiles of those families where abuse or neglect has been confirmed, thus enabling management to identify resource and service requirements both within the Department and in government and funded sectors.
Initial Evaluation of the Reform
The initial evaluation of the above reform measures is based on the following:
The average rate of increase in notifications during the three years prior to the introduction of the central intake team was 8 per cent. The rate of increase in the first year after CIT (May 1997 to April 1998) was 18 per cent; that is, more than double the previous average rate.
Figure 1: CP Notification for 12-month periods May to April 1992-93 to 1997-98
Notifications on Aboriginal children have risen at about the same rate as in the previous year. There has been a slight decrease in the number of notifications on children from families with a non-English-speaking background, as in the previous year. Because of the small numbers it is not possible to deduce clear trends in relation to these categories of notification at this stage.
Notifications from mandated notifiers have increased to a greater extent than those from other notifiers; in particular, notifications from education and health professionals have increased by 30 per cent.
During consultations and implementation of the central intake system, some concerns were expressed that notifiers from country and remote areas might be reluctant to phone a central telephone line in Adelaide and might prefer to use their local networks. In reality, the opposite seems to have occurred. The increase in notifications from the metropolitan area has risen from an average of 9 per cent in the three years before CIT was introduced to 13 per cent in the year after. However, the increase in country areas has been more than fourfold, from an average of 5 per cent in the three previous years to 22 per cent in the year since the introduction of CIT. Indeed, in the most remote districts (more than 750 kilometres from Adelaide) the increase in notifications in the year post-CIT has been 30 per cent. Possible explanations for this significant increase in reporting from country districts include the introduction of a free call system, and the greater anonymity provided to notifiers by a central abuse report line.
Screening
Screening in child protection involves two separate decisions which may be taken concurrently or sequentially.
The first task for intake workers in South Australia who have received and recorded a child protection intake is to decide whether the reported concerns are appropriate and sufficiently serious to warrant a departmental response. If not, the notification is recorded (as 'notifier concern') but no further action is taken by the Department.
Criteria for such decisions typically include the following:
One of the major concerns in South Australia prior to the reform was the significant variation between district centres in the proportion of cases they screened in and out. In the twelve-month period prior to reform, the average screening-out rate was 30 per cent. However, five of the nineteen district centres in South Australia screened out less than 20 per cent of notifications whereas three screened out more than 40 per cent.
Significantly, there appeared to be an association between work pressure in district centres and their screening-out practices, with the busier district centres tending to screen out the highest proportion of cases and those with the least work pressure screening out the least.
In the twelve-month period following the introduction of the central intake system there have been four changes to the screening situation:
The picture is even clearer when those districts with high Aboriginal populations are excluded. In the year after CIT, four of the five districts where Aboriginal notifications accounted for more than a fifth of the total had screening-out rates of 20 per cent to 25 per cent. Thus the range of screening out in other districts was even narrower than that shown in the chart.
Excluding the districts with high Aboriginal notifications, the change in screening practice pre- and post- reform is as follows:
| Pre-reform May 96-April 97 % |
Post-reform May 97-April 98 % |
|
| Highest screened-out rate | 47 | 40 |
| Lowest screened-out rate | 15 | 29 |
The issue of consistency of decision-making has also been examined in terms of the tier classifications made by central intake team members.
Central intake workers are required to complete initial safety assessments and to assign tier classifications to each notification screened in for action. In a study conducted in May 1998, fifty vignettes of child protection intakes were created to serve as a basis for assessing the reliability of their tier classifications. The vignettes were based on a random sample of fifty actual notifications made in the second half of 1997 with added summaries of any prior relevant information recorded on CIS. Identifying materials (for example, the name of the intake worker) and the actual tier rating were removed.
Three groups of five central intake workers and a group of senior staff at CIT were then individually asked to read and assess the fifty vignettes. Workers were instructed to assign tiers to the cases they considered were clear cut and to indicate those cases on which they would consult with senior staff. Senior staff were simply instructed to rate all cases by tier. The final 'central intake tier ratings' were taken to be the workers' judgements on those cases they considered clear cut, combined with their senior's judgements in the unclear cases.
The consistency of tier decision-making was determined by the proportion of cases where four out of five (80 per cent of) 'central intake tier ratings' were the same. Results were compared with tier classifications made on the same fifty cases by five district centre senior staff; that is, staff who were among those responsible for prioritising child protection intakes before the introduction of central intake.
Whereas four out five district centre senior staff agreed on the tier rating in only 42 per cent of cases, this level of agreement at central intake was significantly higher, ranging from 60 per cent to 68 per cent of cases among the groups of workers.
Departmental Responses to Notifications
In the eight months from November 1997 to June 1998, 8 per cent of screened-in notifications were classified as tier 1, 63 per cent as tier 2, 23 per cent as tier 3 and 6 per cent as extra-familial abuse. Initial evaluation shows that the main impact of the central intake and differential response system has been improved response and investigation rates for the more serious notifications.
In order to provide a baseline measure prior to the child protection reform, a detailed analysis was conducted in 1996 of all child protection notifications received by the department in a two-week period in February of that year. Notifications were given tier classifications by the researchers using an initial risk assessment framework similar to that which has subsequently been followed by the central intake team. Departmental responses and investigation outcomes to the February 1996 intakes were examined in May 1996.
A similar analysis was then conducted on all notifications received in a comparable two-week period in February 1998, after full implementation of the reform, and once again outcomes were studied in May. This has enabled a direct comparison between responses, investigation and confirmed abuse rates under the previous system and since reform. (See figure 2.)
The main difference between the two is that whereas in 1996 only 60 per cent of cases rated tier 1 and 53 per cent of cases rated tier 2 were actually investigated, 80 per cent of tier 1s and 75 per cent of tier 2s were investigated in 1998. (An 'investigation' in these surveys was defined as a case where allegations were investigated by direct face-to-face contact with the subject family and where the outcome of the investigation was recorded on CIS.) This strongly suggests that the introduction of the central intake and differential response systems has significantly improved the targeting of scarce investigative resources towards the most dangerous cases. This is borne out by the fact that for tier 1 cases involving children under five years of age, the investigation rate in February 1998 was 95 per cent.
A summary of the findings of this comparative study are shown in Figure 2: Investigation rates in February 1996 and February 1998.
(The low investigation rate for tier 3 cases in February 1998 reflects the transition to a non-investigative response to those notifications. In the February 1998 analysis, families attended meetings with departmental workers in 50 per cent of tier 3 cases.)
CIS data for the period November 1997 to June 1998 shows that the investigation rates indicated in the February 1998 survey have been sustained. Over the entire eight month period, some 89 per cent of tier 1 cases and 79 per cent of tier 2 cases have been investigated. ('Investigation' in this instance refers to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare definition - outcome recorded plus investigations not yet finalised.)
Confirmed abuse rates have also increased under the new child protection system. Confirmed abuse was recorded in 38 per cent of tier 1 cases in the February 1998 survey compared with 35 per cent in February 1996. For the eight-month period from November 1997, confirmed abuse has been recorded in 46 per cent of tier 1 cases and 29 per cent of tier 2 cases.
Direct Contact with Notified Families
Arguably the most telling measure of departmental responses is the proportion of notifications where direct contact is made with the notified families. Prior to reform, this included all full investigations plus 'partial investigations' where there was a referral for services. Post-reform this includes all full investigations plus tier 3 cases where families actually attended the meetings to which they were invited.
Figure 3 shows the trends over the past five years in South Australia, both in total child protection notifications and in the number of notifications where direct contact was made. It can be seen that prior to the reform there was a general decline in direct contact cases and that the decline was accentuated when the rate of increase in total notifications rose. The net result of these trends was a steadily increasing gap between total notifications and those where direct contact was made. In the first year since reform, these trends have been reversed, with the 18 per cent rise in notifications being more than matched by a 24 per cent increase in the number of families contacted directly.
Figure 3: CP Notifications - total and direct
contact
(Figure 3 is based on comparative data for the six- month periods November to
April in each year because the operation of differential response systems at
district centre level was implemented at the end of October 1998.)
Intervention on Confirmed Abuse Cases
The structured decision-making system (SDM) for dealing with families where abuse/neglect has been confirmed was implemented in February 1998 and it will not be possible to fully evaluate outcomes until the rates of renotification and reabuse over eighteen-month periods both before and after that time can be compared.
However, the ability of SDM to generate critical management information by aggregating case data on the risks to children and family strengths and needs is already becoming apparent. Over the next year, detailed profiles of family characteristics for abusing/neglecting families and the services required to address family needs will become available district by district, and according to risk level.
A needs analysis of the first 184 families (all risk levels) dealt with under SDM shows the following breakdown of priority-identified family needs. It shows, for example, that mental health issues were considered a priority need in 128 (or 67 per cent) of the families where abuse had been confirmed. (See figure 4.)
Figure 4: Family needs profile based on first
184 family strengths/needs assessments, February-June 1998
Of course, the true value of this aggregate data becomes apparent when such
profiles can be produced for particular districts and subcategories of abusing/neglecting
families.
Conclusion
Although these preliminary findings are based on data for periods of between
six and twelve months only, there does appear to be sufficient indication that
the recent child protection reform in South Australia has improved responses
to children in danger and at serious risk by offering both a more consistent
and a more targeted approach. Further evaluation will be conducted on the structured
decision-making system next year.
Tim Heatherington is Manager, Child Protection Reform, Family
and Community Services, Adelaide, South Australia. This article is abridged
from an article supplied by the author.
Rae Waiter, Executive Director of Ngala Family Resource Centre, is Chair of the Council, and believes that it provides a great opportunity to improve coordination and cooperation between relevant government and non government organisations.
The Council held its inaugural meeting in May and is in the process of defining short- and long-term strategies. It has an annual budget of $150 000 with an additional $20 000 for establishment costs in its first year of operation.
The Council's terms of reference are to:
The strategy was released as part of a three-document package - the framework document was supported and informed by two further texts, both written on behalf of the New South Wales Child Protection Council by Adam Tomison, Research Advisor for the National Child Protection Clearing House, based at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Structural Barriers To Child Abuse Prevention
The first paper (Tomison 1997a) provides a comprehensive literature review
on the structural barriers to the prevention of child abuse and neglect in New
South Wales and nationally. It identifies some innovative approaches to prevention
which attempt to counter some of these structural barriers and to enhance the
health and wellbeing of children.
A number of themes run through the paper. The first is that effective child
abuse prevention depends on the adoption of holistic, cross-sectoral approaches
based on effective coordination, cooperation and communication between all levels
of government and between the government and the wider community.
The second is that children do not currently have access to means of exerting power, or of protecting themselves against their own vulnerability. They are restricted in the extent to which they can make decisions about their own lives. Therefore, the basis for any community-level action should be the promotion of child rights and the empowerment of children and young people.
The third theme is that there is a need to address the current lack of knowledge about the causes of child abuse and neglect and the failure to determine which prevention programs work, caused by the relative dearth of methodologically sound program evaluation research.
The fourth is that effective child abuse prevention requires changing societal
perceptions of children, gender and attitudes to violence. Any attempt to change
the current culture of violence will only be successful if the broader community
acknowledges the level of violence in society and takes responsibility for the
problem.
The fifth theme is that a focus on the promotion of children's health and wellbeing
is required. It has been argued that there is a need to move beyond traditional
child abuse prevention, which reflects a 'negative', problem-focused approach.
A number of programs have adopted a 'health promotion' approach, focusing on
the promotion of 'positive', life-enhancing strategies. Serious consideration
must therefore be given by professionals working in the child welfare and child
protection communities to the adoption of terminology and a focus that reflect
the promotion of health and wellbeing rather than the prevention of social ills.
In conclusion, placing structural barriers at the centre of any analysis of
child abuse prevention is crucial for understanding the constraints on prevention.
At the very least, identifying such barriers, in conjunction with a discussion
of various innovations in practice, raises community awareness of the relationship
between child maltreatment and other social forces and provides the professional
and wider communities with issues for further consideration when developing
prevention programs.
Prevention Programs Audit
The second paper (Tomison 1997b) presents the results of an audit of
existing NSW child abuse prevention programs focusing, in particular, on primary
and secondary prevention programs.
The audit was based on an assessment of 453 discrete NSW child abuse prevention programs gathered from the National Clearing House Child Abuse Prevention Programs database and the results of a statewide mailout and information campaign. For audit purposes, programs that could be classified by more than one program type, for example, as community education and as family support, were counted as separate items, giving a total of 615 program types for inclusion in the audit.
Analysis of the programs reflected the pattern found in previous national audits. Family support and community education programs predominated, and it was apparent that the majority of family support programs had adopted a family-focused approach to prevention - that is, the programs work with children and their families rather than with the child alone. Also apparent was a low number of offender programs that targeted 'at risk' young males and/or adult males who had a propensity to commit sexual or physical assault, reflecting the relatively recent development of interest in this field.
Some findings
First, many practitioners clearly did not distinguish between dealing with 'at risk' and abusive families (secondary versus tertiary prevention); consequently, many of the family support programs in the audit database dealt with families who had been abusive or neglectful in combination with those considered to be merely 'at risk' of maltreating a child. Thus, programs intended as secondary prevention initiatives were effectively secondary and tertiary prevention programs.
As a result, many agencies were able to devote significantly fewer resources
to secondary prevention and 'at risk' families as a result of the high demand
for services by tertiary clients referred by the Department of Community Services.
Second, an ongoing debate in the child welfare/family support community is whether
generalist programs able to encompass a variety of client needs be developed,
or whether special programs be produced for particular segments of the community.
What should be the balance between generalist and specialist programs?
There is evidence to suggest that generalist family support programs are appropriate
for some groups who may be 'at risk' of developing family problems such as child
maltreatment. For example, parents with a mental disorder and/or families where
a parent or child has a disability may benefit from generalist prevention programs,
provided that the program is flexible, the family's specific issues can be attended
to and resources are made available to provide long-term support where needed.
In contrast, prevention programs targeting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
people or people from non-English-speaking backgrounds need to be culturally
relevant in order to attract clients and successfully reduce the potential for
child maltreatment. In spite of clear examples of innovative practice in this
area, the audit suggested that the current number of NSW programs specifically
tailored for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people or people from non-English-speaking
backgrounds is quite low and needs to be addressed.
Third, it has been demonstrated that attempts that focus primarily on remedying
a single family problem are often not as effective as approaches that utilise
a multivariate, holistic approach. Programs adopting a holistic approach target
the influence of constellations of family factors and/or problems, often working
in collaboration with other services.
A clear example in this audit of a comprehensive, collaborative approach to
the prevention of child maltreatment is the finding that 56 per cent of all
family support programs (158 of 281) currently included in the audit database
incorporated some form of domestic violence prevention. That is, many programs
were involved in violence prevention rather than focusing only on the prevention
of child abuse or other forms of associated family violence, such as domestic
violence.
Fourth, the NSW community appeared to be reaping the benefits from the existing
network of child maltreatment committees spread across the state. Many of these
committees, such as the New South Wales Area Committees, local 'child at risk'
or child abuse prevention committees, and Department of Community Services subgroups,
were important vehicles for raising community awareness via the development
of information materials and training seminars for professionals and local community
groups.
The committees had a role in improving information-sharing and in encouraging
further collaborative prevention projects between agencies (and between regions)
already actively involved in prevention work, and appear to be ideally placed
to focus local resources (people and funds) and coordinate prevention activity
at a regional level. However, the audit also identified a need to enhance the
role of such bodies to educate agencies or groups not traditionally involved
in child abuse prevention.
The peak NSW child abuse prevention body is the NSW Child Protection Council. Not surprisingly, council initiatives covered the gamut of prevention activity across the state. It played an important role as the coordination centre to link and monitor prevention and intervention programs through the state's Area Committees and by providing forums for intrasectoral and intersectoral dialogue. Finally, the council had a role in promoting best practice in child abuse prevention, and monitoring government departments and agencies to determine their current work in the area of child abuse and neglect.
Overall, the findings of the audit indicated the development of a strong statewide base of child abuse prevention activity in New South Wales. Importantly, prevention initiatives were associated not only with large government departments or non-government agencies, but had been developed at the 'grass roots' level by community groups or small agencies, often with the assistance of local Area Committees. It was also clear that substantial progress has been made in modifying for Australian conditions concepts and programs developed overseas, resulting in the creation of a range of innovative programs.
It is hoped that the audit will act as a reference for both government and
non-government sectors in New South Wales and other Australian states and territories,
stimulating and shaping further child abuse prevention initiatives. The audit
process undertaken in New South Wales will form a benchmark for a subsequent
national audit, to be undertaken by the National Child Protection Clearing House
in the near future.
References
Tomison, A. 1997a, Overcoming Structural Barriers to the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, New South Wales Child Protection Council, Sydney.
Tomison, A. 1997b, Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect in NSW: Findings
from a State Audit, NSW Child Protection Council, Sydney.
How to obtain copies
Both texts by Tomison are available at a cost of $5 from the Australian Institute of Family Studies, or the NSW Child Protection Council, 447 Kent Street, Sydney NSW 2000. Phone (02) 9286 7276. Fax (02) 9286 7267. Email nswcpc@world.net. The framework is available from the Council for $10.
The complete documents can be read on the Institute's homepage at: http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs.html
Adam Tomison is Research Advisor to the National Child Protection
Clearing House, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
The Bill proposed that the Commission would have the following principal functions:
The Commission for Children and Young People will report to a joint parliamentary committee and will be headed by a commissioner, appointed for no more than two terms of three years each. The Bill provides for an eight-member expert advisory committee, comprising people with child-related expertise in the fields of health, education, child protection, child development, disabilities, the law, employment, sport or the arts. The resources of the New South Wales Child Protection Council (but not the Council itself) and the Child Death Review Team would move to the new Commission.
The full text of the Bill and the two related bills prohibiting employment for persons convicted of a serious sex offence against children and amending the Ombudsman Act 1974 and the Community Services (Complaints, Appeals and Monitoring) Act 1993 will be available on the Council's Internet home-page.
On 5 March 1998, the New South Wales Child Protection Council, together with the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies, the State Network of Young People in Care and the Youth Action and Policy Association, held a forum at the State Library to allow for public discussion and debate on the Green Paper and to assist agencies in the preparation of their submissions. The forum included presentations by Patrick Parkinson, Associate Professor of Law, University of Sydney; Dr Judy Cashmore, Chairperson, New South Wales Child Protection Council; and Andrew O'Brien and Vanessa Francis, State Network of Young People in Care.
Approximately ninety government and non-government organisations were represented at the forum - a clear indication of the level of interest in the Government's proposal to establish a Children's Commission in New South Wales.
A report of the forum, edited by Eithne O'Donovan, is available from the New
South Wales Child Protection Council. For the Council's submission about the
Commission, see the Council's home-page: www.acwa.asn.au/cpc
Permission was given by the New South Wales Child Protection Council to
reproduce this part of an article from Child Protection Council News, no.
20, July 1998, pp.1-2.
Leslie Gevers Community Management Services, a Perth-based consultancy group,
has been contracted to implement the project over a twelve-month period from
July 1998.
This is an important project for all services working with children and young
people affected by domestic violence as it will provide much-needed resources
to support services in their work. These will include:
The principal purpose of the project is to identify the nature and extent of criminal paedophilia in this state; its historical, sociological, cultural and other causes; the defining characteristics of offenders and their victims; and the past, present and likely future impact on Queensland society.
Its aim is to assess and prioritise relevant risks and develop better ways and means of dealing with them so that overall investigative outcomes, especially in relation to organised, serial or systematic offending, are significantly improved, and the incidence and impact of child sex offending within the state is minimised.
An important subsidiary purpose of the project is to increase the level of community awareness about who paedophiles are and how they operate. Accordingly, the project team will be taking a close look at and trying to answer some important questions:
This policy provides the basis for the development of similar guidelines for
groups and individuals who are mandated under the new legislation to report
concerns. The language and information is designed to emphasise that the care
and protection of children is a whole-of-community responsibility and that contact
with our intake team does not necessarily constitute a 'notification of abuse',
but rather the report of a concern and the commencement of a 'conversation'
that should include family members, other support networks and professionals.
Purpose of the Policy
The purpose of this policy is to ensure that:
This concept of shared responsibility is enshrined in the new Act. Caring for and protecting children in a way that increases their opportunity to grow up in a safe and stable environment is the fundamental object of this legislation. The principles of the Act reinforce the importance of offering support to families in crisis and working collaboratively with all concerned parties as the best means of reducing child abuse and neglect.
Within the Act, the Government has called on all adults to take steps to prevent the occurrence or persistence of abuse or neglect. More specifically,there are identified mandated reporters - prescribed persons - who must inform the Secretary of their knowledge, belief or suspicion of child abuse or neglect. The Tasmanian Government recognises that no one agency acting alone can effectively ensure that families receive the support they need to fulfil their primary responsibility for the care and protection of their children. The combined effort of all members of the community and all sectors of government is required to keep children safe.
Mandatory Reporting in Tasmania
It has been a policy of the Tasmanian Government since the introduction of the Child Protection Act in 1974 to require legally that members of certain professions within the community report suspected abuse or neglect of children to a statutory authority.
Initially this applied only to concerns about children up to the age of twelve, but in 1986 the Act was amended to apply to all children up to the age of seventeen. The new Act defines a child as a person under eighteen years of age and the mandatory reporting requirement extends to concerns about the abuse or neglect of any child under eighteen by a parent or other adult responsible for their care and protection.
The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997 includes an expanded list of prescribed persons; that is, those people in the community required or mandated by the Act to inform the appropriate authority of their knowledge, belief or suspicion that a child is suffering, has suffered or is likely to suffer abuse or neglect (part 3, section 13 [1]).
The decision by the Tasmanian Government to maintain and extend mandatory reporting follows the pattern of most other Australian states and territories. It also follows a period of community consultation and careful consideration of the issues by the parliamentary joint select committee established to oversee the development of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act.
The Act is based on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child
which was ratified by Australia in 1990. Mandating professionals to report suspected
child abuse and neglect in the Tasmanian community is an expression of the Government's
commitment to the Convention. It also recognises that children are vulnerable
and that they need special protection in law. The Act recognises that families
have the primary responsibility for the care and protection of their children,
but stresses that it is incumbent upon government to assist in supporting and
strengthening families to carry out this role.
Responsibility of All Adults to Report Child Abuse or Neglect
While mandated reporters have a legal responsibility to report, everyone has a moral responsibility to report their concern about suspected child abuse or neglect of children. This is made explicit in the provisions of the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act. In addition to identifying specific prescribed persons required to report, the Act (Part 3 section 13[1]) states that:
Child-Centred Family-Focused Practice in the Department of Community and Health Services
In line with national and international trends, practice in the area of child and family services in Tasmania is moving away from the child rescue model of intervention towards a more family-focused approach which perceives the client as the child within the family, within the community. It also acknowledges that children suffer harm as a result of many factors other than maltreatment by a parent or carer which is rightly classified as abuse.
A partnership approach between community members, statutory services and families, even where abuse is suspected, has been recognised through research as a vital factor in enhancing the wellbeing of children and protecting them from abuse and neglect in the long term. This is reflected both in the object and principles of the new legislation and in its explicit inclusion of family group conferencing as a technique for involving extended family members, community networks and support services in the planning for the care and protection of children at risk.
Object And Principles of the Act
The object and principles of the Act reflect a significant change in practice from a child rescue model (which tended to favour investigation of specific incidents, removal of children and placement out of home) to a proactive family- and community-focused approach where early intervention, support and resourcing of vulnerable families and family decision-making are emphasised.
The Act is concerned with providing a response before crises occur. To be successful, this approach depends on the establishment of a partnership between government agencies and other service providers. As practice is directed towards primary prevention, increased importance is placed on community education, training and support.
New service delivery directions in the Child, Youth and Family Support Division of the Department of Community and Health Services have included the introduction of new intake processes, the gradual increase in the adoption of family group conferencing and a focus on improved information-sharing, collaborative case management and advocacy for clients, especially children.
Scilla Weber from Tasmania's Service Development Unit, Child,Youth and Family
Support Division, has contributed to the development of the policy. Scilla
may be contacted at: sciller.weber@dchs.tas.gov.au
The Safety House Program is taught in schools and by members of the police
on school visits. Safety House education equips children with self-protection
strategies, with particular emphasis on their safety when travelling to and
from school. Parents can be involved by reinforcing the program and pointing
out local Safety Houses to their children.
Internet Access
The Child Safety Network of Australia Internet site, comprising Safety House Australia, the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect, Kids Help Line, the Scout Association of Australia, and the National Child Protection Clearing House, aims to provide families, children, teachers and other professionals with information that helps to prevent child abuse and neglect. The site draws together community organisations concerned with the safety of children and the special needs of children.
As the site becomes known as a useful resource, it is hoped that other organisations committed to the safety of children will become involved and help to develop an Internet directory of children's services, which in turn will provide help and information, particularly in relation to the prevention of child abuse.
This Web-site is an initiative of the Australian Scout Association, and
can be found at the following internet address:
http://www.childsafe.net.au/index.html
New Proposal
Safety House Australia proposes that personal safety and community security would be enhanced by an informal and voluntary network of national organisations that are involved in community development and security. Safety House is prepared to act as a clearing house for information about these organisations, and material sent to the Safety House office (125 Bathurst Street, Sydney NSW 2000, tel. 02 9262 3185) will be duplicated and forwarded to kindred organisations under the banner of 'Community Safety Network'.
Safety House publishes the following booklets on the Safety House Program, as well as a pamphlet for parents on the subject of bullying:
You can find the Safety House home-page at:
http://www.childsafe.net.au/SAFEHOUS/shhomep.htm
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 |
