Published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies
ISSN 1447-0039 (Print); 1447-0047 (Online)
Coordinator : Judy Adams
Contact the Australian Institute of Family Studies for a copy of this newsletter, or access articles as listed below in HTML or PDF* format. The full newsletter can be downloaded in PDF format (size=1500K) or in sections as listed below. You will need an Acrobat Reader which is free from the Adobe Systems Web site.
In this Issue
KATIE KOVACS provides a brief overview of some of the recent changes to family law, enacted to protect children and their caregivers from violence, and to make court process more efficient, and outcomes more satisfactory.
Domestic violence is often raised as an issue in Family Court proceedings with respect to determining children's residence and contact arrangements.1 This is likely to be related to the fact that compared with couples whose marriages are ongoing, couples whose marriages end are more likely to have experienced domestic violence2 at some stage of their relationship or as a result of post-separation negotiations (Sheehan and Smyth 2000).
These findings, combined with an increased recognition of the harm caused by children's witnessing of domestic violence, and the potential for ongoing violent acts between estranged intimate partners, has resulted in a demand for courts to take greater account of domestic violence when determining these matters.
This issue has come to the fore in response to evidence, in both Australian and New Zealand Family Court matters, that despite concerns for the safety of the resident parent and the child, the courts have ruled to grant contact to violent non-resident parents where the children are the subject of residence and contact disputes (Kaye 1996).
This article aims to provide a brief overview of some of the changes to family law in Australia and New Zealand that have been enacted to protect children and their caregivers from violence, and to make court process more efficient, and outcomes more satisfactory.
In June 1996, the existing Family Law Act (1975) of Australia was revised by the introduction of the Family Law Reform Act (1995). The Reform Act was developed partly in response to findings by the Australian Law Reform Commission (1994) that violence was not always being taken into account in residence and contact decisions.
The reforms mean that in any determination of the best interests of the child in residence or contact disputes, judges must consider a number of factors including:
The reforms also broadened the definition of domestic violence to encompass not only physically violent acts or threats but also 'other forms of abusive behaviour . . . [Such as] fear and intimidation' (Sheehan and Smyth 2000: 108). Other non-legislative changes which occurred alongside the reforms included 'the establishment of a register of state/territory protection orders to which judges . . . have access' (Behrens 1996: 36).
Much has been written about both the positive and negative impacts of this law reform (see Armstrong 2001: Behrens 1996: Hall 2000: Rhoades, Graycar and Harrison 2001). As Chisholm (2001: 12) states, 'it has probably had a cascade of interacting consequences, some good, some bad' and we can't yet 'say precisely what they are'. While the Act clearly states that domestic violence is a relevant factor in residence and contact decisions, what has not been outlined is how it should be taken into account (Parkinson 1996).
Research by Rhoades, Graycar and Harrison (2001) found that despite being intended to provide better protection for children and their caregivers, the changes may have resulted in an increased reluctance by judges to refuse contact to a parent. It has been suggested that this occurs because 'the violence provisions seem to have been outweighed in practice by the general statement of the child's right to contact' (Dewar and Parker 1999: 104). This apparent reluctance illustrates the conflict inherent in the Act which requires the court to ensure the rights of the child to contact with both parents and also to protect the child from child abuse both direct and witnessed (Nicholson 1999). In 1998, in a further bid to improve the Family Court's response to child residence and contact disputes where there were allegations of child abuse, the Melbourne Family Court introduced the Magellan Pilot Project. The project aimed to 'improve outcomes and reduce delays in the children's matters, particularly those in which children may be at risk' (Nicholson and Harrison 2000). It involved 100 cases filed in either the Melbourne or Dandenong registries where 'serious sexual or physical abuse allegations have been raised'.
Since the Pilot only involved cases where the allegations of abuse have arisen in an affidavit, in a statement to the court, in an interview, or by a staff member who was mandated to report, cases where children had witnessed domestic violence between their parents (commonly defined as emotional abuse or psychological harm) did not meet the criteria for inclusion. Further, since abuse is not defined in the Family Law Act 1975, there is no statutory obligation for court officials to make a report although they may choose to make a notification to child protection services without risking liability or breaching professional ethics.3
Brown, Sheehan, Frederico and Hewitt (2001) recently evaluated this project and found it to be an 'outstanding success' (p. V). The authors state that: 'Project Magellan's pilot program provided more rapid, less costly and longer lasting resolutions of disputes in the cases that were selected into the program. There were fewer changes in residence and contact for the children and fewer children suffered extreme emotional distress. The program attracted wide support from the legal practitioners, from professional staff in the participating organisations and from the parents.' (P. 89)
Due, in part, to these positive findings, the Family Court of Western Australia introduced a sister project in late 2001, one which explicitly addresses the issue of children's witnessing of domestic violence. Based on the Magellan Project, the Columbus Pilot Project is an early intervention approach for cases in the Family Court where allegations of child abuse or domestic violence have been made and there are concerns for the safety of the child. Unlike Magellan project, the Columbus project ensures that 'children who have witnessed domestic violence between their parents and [where] that violence has been assessed as posing a significant emotional and physical risk' were specifically catered for and addressed as a separate issue for intervention and case management (Draft of the Columbus Project Pilot, Family Court of Western Australia, unpublished).
Like Australia, New Zealand has also introduced innovate legislative reform in residence and contact disputes in response to concerns for the safety of children who live with domestic violence. The reforms mean that in residence and contact disputes where a parent has used violence against a child or spouse, residence or unsupervised contact with the child will not be given to the violent parent unless the court can be satisfied that the child would be safe during contact periods.
Originally recommended in 1990, the reforms were not introduced until 1995 in response to a Ministerial Inquiry into the murder of three young Wanganui girls by their father. The father had been given interim residence of the children even though the Family Court had previously granted the mother a protection order4 and a current application for a further protection order was before the Court.
In response to the Ministerial Inquiry, a new Domestic Violence Act was introduced and amendments were made to several other Acts (Guardianship Act, Family Proceedings Act, and the Legal Services Act). One key change brought about by the law reform process was the broadening of the definition of 'domestic violence' so that it encompassed both the variety of intimate relationships common in western society, and the many forms of violence that may occur in relationships. Thus, the Act incorporated violent behaviour occurring in gay and lesbian relationships, by members of extended families, biological parents who have not lived together, along with other culturally-recognised family groupings and close personal relationships.
Under this legislation, 'domestic violence' refers not only to physical violence but also sexual violence, psychological abuse - including threats, intimidation, harassment, damage to property, and causing or allowing a child to witness physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a family member. The adoption of this broader definition was seen as a means of ensuring that the range of behaviours often used by violent perpetrators, particularly power and control tactics, were acknowledged as domestic violence. The Act has subsequently formed the basis of attempts to educate the judiciary about domestic violence. Judges are now required to explicitly consider controlling behaviours and other 'non-violent' acts within the context of a continuum of violence, whereas previously such behaviour may have been trivialised or minimised as what may have been seen as 'minor incidents'.
The reforms have also attempted to address problems associated with violence related to parental separation by acknowledging that: 'The end of a relationship all too often does not mean the end of violence between parents. In the short term it frequently marks an escalation in the violence' (Freckelton 1995: 141). The new legislation also offers protection for the new partners of previously abused adult victims. Further, the new legislation also increased penalties for perpetrators who breach protection orders. Those who make three breaches within three years are liable for two years in prison. The breaches do not have to be all against the same person for the penalties to apply. Another important change was the introduction of firearm confiscation and firearm license suspension as standard conditions of protection orders.
With regard to child residence and contact disputes, the legislative changes prioritise the safety of the children as the primary consideration. The law clearly states that the court should not give residence or unsupervised access to a parent who has used violence against the child in question, another child in the family, or against the other parent in the proceedings unless it can be satisfied that the child will be safe while the violent party has residence or contact with the child. Section 16B(5) of the Guardianship Act sets out the criteria that are to be used in determining child safety issues. These criteria include: the nature and seriousness of violence; recency and frequency of the violence; likelihood of further violence; the physical and emotional harm caused to the child; the other parent's opinion of the safety of the child; and the child's wishes. The Act also stipulates that the court imposes conditions that will protect the other parent if parent-child contact is given to the violent partner. The period surrounding a child being picked up for contact and/or being returned to the resident parent, times where the opportunity for violence is high, is explicitly incorporated into the Act.
Busch and Robertson (2000) provided the first assessment of the impact of the changes on court practice. Positive impacts of the legislative changes included that many judges had moved to using a broader definition of domestic violence and were considering the experience and impact of psychological violence when determining the safety of children. It was noted that many judges were also looking at violent perpetrators' control tactics within the context of power and violence. Thus, as the authors' note, previous conceptions of domestic violence appeared to have 'given way to an analysis which more closely reflects women's realities' (p. 276). Other positive impacts of the legislation included an increase in the range and number of supervised contact services being available and the formation of the New Zealand Association of Children's Supervised Access. Currently, however, there is no direct government funding of supervised access in New Zealand.
As with any legislative change, there appear to have been some teething problems. While it was found that progress had been made, a number of concerns have been raised. First, Busch and Robertson (2000) found evidence suggesting that some judges continued to trivialise acts of violence and engaged in 'victim blaming'. Second, there has been a lack of clarity regarding supervised contact (Chetwin, Knaggs and Young 1999). In some cases it has been found that 'supervised' contact has been actually supervised by the resident parent herself, posing a threat to the safety of that parent and the child. Further, supervised contact was found to be unpopular with Maori families in particular, who were less likely to use this option. It has been suggested that this was because such families were alienated by supervised contact in unfamiliar and culturally-inappropriate locations that excluded other family and community members.
Third, highlighting the balancing act confronted by judges and others faced with ensuring the protection of children, Freckelton (1995: 139) has argued that the reforms may not be in the 'best interests' of the children, as predictions of dangerousness 'in the legal process has been distinguished by error and an increasing tendency . . . Toward overprediction'. That is, while acknowledging that it is certainly not in the interest of a child to have contact with a parent who is likely to become violent, Freckelton contends that the judiciary has become too focused on the potential for violence, resulting in the unnecessary denial of parent-child contact.
Freckelton (1995: 150) notes that there should be recognition that 'by and large it is in a child's best interest to have meaningful contact with both parents', and suggests that the prediction of dangerousness should be based upon 'realistic and contextually relevant factors'. Freckelton sees the New Zealand legislation as dangerous as it places on the violent partner the onus of proving that the child will be safe in his (or her) care and questions whether this 'is an onus that realistically the parent will ever be in a position to discharge'. On this issue, Freckleton points out that the word of a violent partner who claims to have changed is unlikely to be believed, and the impossibility for the perpetrator to prove that a rehabilitation program attended has been successful.
While it may be that in some cases, judges will err on the side of caution and prevent parent-child contact in order to ensure a child's safety, it should be reiterated that the law reform was undertaken because the judiciary was failing to protect children and custodial parents.
The changes made to both Australian and New Zealand Family Law are positive steps in ensuring that courts consider the safety of children and their caregivers when determining whether parents with a history of violence should be given residence or contact.
While the New Zealand legislation clearly talks about how the existence of domestic violence should be handled in such matters, Australian law is less clear and there is some evidence to suggest that reforms designed to offer increased protection are actually having the opposite effect. In light of these problems, the introduction of the Magellan and Columbus projects provide great opportunities to enhance future Family Court matters and provide better outcomes for abused parents and their children.
Armstrong, S. (2001), 'We told you so . . . Women's legal groups and the Family Law Reform Act 1995', Australian Journal of Family Law, vol.15, no. 2, pp. 129-154.
Australian Law Reform Commission (1994), 'Equality before the law: Justice for women', Report, no. 69, Part I, at p. 180
Behrens, J. (1996), 'Ending the silence, but . . . Family Violence under the Family Law Reform Act 1995', Australian Journal of Family Law, vol. 10, pp. 35-47.
Brown, T., Sheehan, R., Frederico, M. And Hewitt, L. (2001), 'Resolving family violence to children: The evaluation of Project Magellan, a pilot project for managing Family Court residence and contact disputes when allegations of child abuse have been made', Family Court of Australia, Sydney.
Busch, R. And Robertson, N. (2000), 'Innovative approaches to child custody and domestic violence in New Zealand: The effects of law reform on the discourses of battering', Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, vol. 3, no.1, pp. 269-299.
Chetwin, A., Knaggs, T. And Young, Te Wairere Ahiahi, P. (1999), 'The domestic violence legislation and child access in New Zealand', Ministry of Justice, Wellington.
Chisholm, R. (2001), 'Reforming custody law: Recent Australian experience', Third World Congress in Family Law and the Rights of Children and Youth, Bath, United Kingdom.
Dewar, J. And Parker, S. (1999), 'The impact of the new Part VII Family Law Act 1975, Australian Journal of Family Law, vol. 9, no. 1, pp. 96-116.
Family Court of Western Australia (undated draft), 'The Columbus Pilot Project'.
Freckelton, I. (1995), 'Custody and access disputation and the prediction of children's safety: A dangerous initiative', Psychiatry, Psychology and Law, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 139-154.
Hall, J. (2000), 'The Family Law Reform Act 1995: Living up to expectations?', Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre Newsletter, no. 4, pp. 11-13.
Johnson, M. (1995) 'Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of violence against women', Journal of Marriage and the Family, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 283-294.
Kaye, M. (1996), 'Domestic violence, residence and contact', Child and Family Law Quarterly, vol. 8, no. 4, pp. 285-296.
Laing, L. (2000), 'Progress, trends and challenges in Australian responses to domestic violence', Issues Paper no. 1, Australian Domestic Violence Clearinghouse, Canberra.
Nicholson, A. Hon Chief (1999), 'Court management of cases involving child abuse allegations', Keynote address to the 7th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Perth.
Nicholson, A. Hon Chief and Harrison, M. (2000), Melbourne University Law Review, MULR 30.
Parkinson, P. (1996), Family Law, Children and Domestic Violence, Office of Women's Policy, Occasional Paper No 9, Darwin, Northern Territory.
Rhoades, H., Graycar, R., And Harrison, M. (2001), 'The Family Law Reform Act 1995: The first three years', Australian Family Lawyer, vol. 15, no. 1, Autumn, pp. 1-7.
Sheehan, G. And Smyth, B. (2000), 'Spousal violence and postseparation financial outcomes', Australian Journal of Family Law, vol. 14, no. 2, July, pp. 102-118.
1 Prior to June 1996, the Family Law Act 1975 (Commonwealth of Australia) used the terms 'custody' and 'access' rather than 'residence' and 'contact'. New Zealand, on the other hand, still uses this terminology. A residence order is made in favour of the person with whom the child will live (formerly 'custody') while a contact order is made in favour of a person with whom the child is to have contact (formerly 'access'). The Australian terminology is used throughout this paper.
2 In this paper (unless otherwise specified) 'domestic violence' refers to the violence occurring between persons who are, or who have been, in an intimate relationship. It is generally acknowledged that domestic violence includes physical and sexual violence, threats and intimidation, emotional and social abuse and economic deprivation (Laing 2000). For more detailed discussions about the types of domestic violence see Sheehan and Smyth (2000) and Johnson (1995).
3 The cases that were selected for the pilot were then handled by a team of two judges, with a registrar and two counsellors. These cases were placed in a special mention list within a fortnight of their identification and at the first mention before a judge: a legal representative for the child is appointed, an order is made for the prompt production of a thorough report by the investigating child welfare authority, and the investigating authority's file is subpoenaed to arrive at court several days before the next mention in six weeks time. At the second mention the court makes sure that the parties have complied with the previous orders and requests a Court Counsellor to prepare a family report, which must be available within seven weeks to allow three weeks consideration before the pre-hearing conference. This conference (10 weeks after the second mention) is conducted by the registrar and the counsellor and allows a further settlement opportunity, if no resolution occurs directions are made for the hearing between 6-20 weeks later (Nicholson 1999: 1).
4 A protection order is granted by the court when it is satisfied that the offender has used domestic violence against the applicant and the provision of the order is necessary for their protection. Under the order the offender can not abuse, threaten, loiter near, follow or make any other contact with the victim.
The relevant Australian Acts are the Family Law Act 1975 and The Family Law Reform Act 1995. These can be accessed from http://www.austlii.edu.au/
The relevant New Zealand Acts are the Domestic Violence Act 1995, and the amended Guardianship Act, Family Proceedings Act and the Legal Services Act. New Zealand Legislation can be accessed from: http://rangi.Knowledge-basket.Co.Nz/gpacts/actlists.Html
For a full discussion of the Bristol Murder case and the Ministerial Inquiry that followed, see Busch and Robertson (1994), 'I didn't know just how far you could fight: Contextualising the Bristol Inquiry', Waikato Law Review, vol. 41.
The full report of recommendations made prior to the Bristol Inquiry see Busch, R., Robertson, N. And Lapsley, H. (1992), Protection from family violence: A study of protection orders under the Domestic Protection Act, Victims Task Force, Wellington.
Katie Kovacs is the Project Officer of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.The author is grateful to Wendy Parker and Bruce Smyth for their comments and advice on earlier drafts of this paper.
Families Australia is a newly established national peak body, funded through the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, that aims to represent the interests of families, young people and children in Australia.
The founding members of Families Australia are the Association of Services Supporting Australia's Families, Australian Foster Care Association, and Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia. With the first board consisting of representatives from these organisations, as well as the Secretariat for National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC), Families Australia has exciting potential to pursue issues such as child abuse prevention on a national level. A Working Group was established from the three founding members and SNAICC which now form an interim Board that will operate until the first Annual General Meeting (due to take place in the later half of 2002).
Families Australia is keen to be representative of the sector, and to this end general and associate membership will be open to organisations and people interested in the field of family policy. It is hoped that at the first Annual General Meeting of Families Australia, the new Board will be elected from people nominated by a wide-ranging membership of organisations with an interest in the impact of policy, services and practices on families and children.
Families Australia is committed to ensuring that its policy focus is as broad as possible and includes policies which impact on families, young people and children nationally. Its focus will also include policies related to non-government organisations that support families and/or children and young people. This broad focus is perceived to be very important given the diversity of family forms in Australia today, the significance of extended families to the health and well being of families, and the complexities of the current split of responsibilities between Commonwealth and State/Territory Governments.
The main objectives of Families Australia are:
Any individual or organisation interested in becoming a member of Families Australia or who would like to obtain further information, can contact Families Australia Executive Officer, Anne Marie Mioche on (02) 6262 5705 or 0408 64 5443; or email: amioche@familiesaustralia.org.au
The Australian Fathers Day Council, proudly supported by NIVEA, has begun the search for 'Australia's Favourite Dad'. The Council is inviting nominations from the public for a famous Australian who deserves recognition for his dedication to his own children or children in the community. According to the Chairman of the Council, Maurice Newman AC: 'The aim of the search is to increase awareness of the importance of the father in the family and recognise their unique contribution to a child's development and wellbeing.'
The 2001 Australian Father of the Year, Jim Rafter, was chosen for his efforts in raising his nine children with his wife Jocelyn. 'Recognising the importance of fathers is more important in today's society than ever before, ' he said. 'We live in a world with changing values and I believe a healthy society is dependant on a solid family tradition.'
The Australian Father of the Year Award is a fundraising event for the Shepherd Centre. In 1991, Dr Bruce Shepherd AM, was named Father of the Year in recognition of his role in raising two profoundly deaf children and his subsequent founding of the Shepherd Centre in 1971. Today, with limited government funding, the Centre provides its world class Early Intervention Program free of charge for families with deaf and hearing impaired children.
Again in 2002 the Australian Father's Day Council is delighted to be working in partnership with NIVEA, a brand well known for its support and encouragement of traditional family values. As the award is a celebration of the important role of fathers in children's lives, NIVEA also believes this deserves prominent recognition in our society for the benefit of the whole community.
Nominations close on Monday 5 August, and the announcement of the 2002 Australian Father of the Year will be made at the annual Fathers Day Luncheon on 23 August 2002 at Darling Harbour in Sydney.
Past Fathers of the Year have included: Dr Bruce Shepherd, Sir James Hardy, Mark Taylor, John Howard, Khamal, Slim Dusty, Steve Biddulph, and Jim Rafter.
Send nominations to Australian Father of the Year, PO Box 871, Strawberry Hills, NSW 2012. For more information contact Karly Robinson, Special Events Coordinator at the Shepherd Centre. Phone: (02) 9351 7905. Fax: (02) 9351 7880.
Parents with a Disability and the NSW Children's Court
by David McConnell, Gwynnyth Llewellyn and Luisa Ferronato
The Family Support and Service Project,
The University of Sydney, August 20001
Reviewed by Katie Kovacs
In the last decade there has been a continuation of a 30-year trend towards the deinstitutionalisation of people with disabilities, together with a shift to more firmly establish the rights of people with disabilities in society. As a result, increasing numbers of adults with disabilities are living outside of institutional settings, forming relationships, marrying and having children (Tomison 1996).
For some time there has been evidence of an association between being a parent with a disability - and particularly parents with an intellectual disability or psychiatric illness - and higher rates of identified child abuse and neglect (Tomison 1996). Unfortunately, little research has explicitly explored or delineated some of the reasons for this association, the families' greater involvement with statutory child protection services, and the consequences for parents and their children.
One of the first investigations of the experiences and outcomes achieved by parents with a disability involved in child protection care proceedings in an Australian jurisdiction was completed in August 2000 by David McConnell, Gwynnyth Llewellyn and Luisa Ferronato at the University of Sydney. Their research, described in a report entitled Parents with a Disability and the NSW Children's Court, was based around a study of the prevalence of parents with a disability appearing before the New South Wales Children's Court in child protection matters.
The researchers examined the outcomes for the children and parents in each case in order to determine whether parents with a disability were treated differently from other parents before the Court.
For the purposes of the study, McConnell, Llewellyn and Ferronato defined parents with a disability as 'those with an identified impairment documented in the court file' which included those with intellectual disabilities, psychiatric disabilities, physical disabilities, and sensory disabilities.
Specifically, the authors (p. 5) Define an intellectual disability as one which has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or psychologist and includes those with 'borderline; intellectual disabilities'. Parents with a psychiatric disability were defined as having a mental disorder that has been ''diagnosed by a psychiatrist for example - psychotic, mood, anxiety and personality disorders'. Parents with a physical disability were defined as 'including those with an acquired brain injury or other physical disability that is permanent or likely to be permanent'. The study considered parents with sensory disabilities to include those 'with a significant vision or hearing impairment that is permanent or likely to be permanent and is not likely to be corrected or compensated for by technological aids'.
In order to obtain a full picture of the outcomes achieved for parents with disabilities in care and protection proceedings, McConnell and colleagues adopted a multi-method approach to data collection. This included a review of court files, interviews and focus groups with magistrates, legal representatives and child protection workers, as well as courtroom observations of care proceedings. It should be noted that the views of parents with a disability and their children are noticeably absent from this report. It could be suggested that their inclusion would have further strengthened the report. However, the authors acknowledge this limitation and offer methodological and ethical justifications for their decision not to interview this group.
The files of all 407 case care and protection cases finalised at the Campsie and Cobham Children's Courts over a nine-month period were reviewed and a case database created which included information about each case, such as family characteristics, case characteristics and court details and history.
Additional information was collected via focus groups and interviews with several groups of people in order to determine their views and experiences of parents with a disability who were involved in care proceedings. In total, eight specialist children's magistrates were interviewed and attended focus groups; 34 legal representatives who work in the Camden, Campsie or Cobham Children's Courts participated in an interview or focus group, as did 155 Department of Community Services (DoCS) (child protection) personnel from the Sydney Metropolitan area. All of the interviews and focus groups were audiotaped with participant permission and then transcribed for analysis.
The authors also conducted a series of courtroom observations over 35 days in the Campsie, Cobham and Camden Children's courts and these observations were made on Court list days as well as at contested hearings involving parents with and without a disability.
According to McConnell and colleagues, of the 407 care and protection proceedings finalised at Campsie and Cobham Children's Courts for the duration of the study, 80 per cent of cases were care applications, 14 per cent were variation applications and 6 per cent were rescission applications (request for a previous order to be revoked). Of the 407 cases, almost one quarter (24.3 Per cent) were identified as involving parents with a disability.
With regard to the care applications, 326 cases came before the court and of these, 14 per cent were initiated by a party other than DoCS while the remaining 87 per cent were initiated by DoCS. Parents with a disability featured in nearly one third (29.5 Per cent) of the DoCS care applications.
With regard to the cases where a parent or parents suffered from a disability, there was an over-representation of parents with an intellectual disability compared with general population estimates of incidence. Parents with an intellectual disability were substantially over-represented, featuring in 7.1 Per cent of all cases and 8.8 Per cent of cases initiated by DoCS. Similarly, parents with a psychiatric disability featured in 18.4 Per cent of all cases and 21.8 Per cent of DoCS-initiated cases. Further, there appeared to be an over-representation of single mothers in cases where parental disability was identified.
Comparing cases where a parent had a disability with other cases in the sample, a number of trends were apparent:
The findings of the study suggest that parents with a disability are over-represented in care proceedings. Alarge proportion of the children whose parents had an intellectual disability were subject to wardship orders and placed in out-of-home care. The outcomes for parents with psychiatric disabilities were less extreme, (provided substance abuse was not identified in the family), with the children of these parents subject to less intrusive orders such as a supervision order of limited duration, where the children remained at home.
McConnell and colleagues attempted to determine some of the situational or systemic reasons that might explain the associations.
Using the case data, focus groups and observational data, the authors were able to construct a detailed picture of some of the factors influencing DoCS child protection workers' decision to initiate care proceedings. They concluded that DoCS staff had three key questions in mind when assessing families: Is the child in immediate danger? Is the situation good enough for the child? Can the child's situation be improved and made good enough?
The authors suggested that with regard to these questions DoCS staff held quite pessimistic views about the parenting capacity of people with disabilities (as did other court personnel). The report found that 'parents with intellectual disability were often thought unable to manage parenting' (p. 22).
'DoCS workers may hold the empirically invalid and prejudicial presumption that mothers with a disability ipso facto are not capable of caring for their children' and that notification and removal of children is 'based on presumed incapacity rather than evidence that the chid is at risk' (p. 18).
The authors suggested that this 'pessimism' may be based on wider societal prejudices regarding the ability of parents with disabilities to care for their children. The report also suggested that DoCS staff were more pessimistic about the possibility for change in cases where parents with a disability had had long histories of involvement with DoCS and had shown little evidence of compliance or change previously. Analysis of information obtained in focus groups indicated that DoCS workers were likely to have less hope of affecting change and improving the situation for the child in cases that: involved newborn children where older siblings had been removed; where parents had long histories of mental illness or substance abuse; and where there was non-compliance with medication or treatment.
Perhaps not surprisingly, the DoCS worker interviews suggested that when parental disability was the only issue present in the family, the case was more 'manageable', whereas the presence of other issues in the home (such as substance abuse or domestic violence) was often the grounds for a more pessimistic view of the potential for change. It is also interesting to note that the study found some differences in DoCS workers' level of optimism for affecting change between parents with psychiatric disabilities and parents with intellectual disabilities. With regard to the former, DoCs workers saw it as easier to affect change with parents with psychiatric disabilities as they believed that 'care concerns can usually be resolved with appropriate medications'. However, they showed more pessimism in terms of affecting change with regard to parents with intellectual disabilities where there were no 'quick fix' solutions available for these families (p. 50).
Clearly, an objective and comprehensive protective assessment and case management plan should be undertaken for all cases. However, is the 'pessimism' or prejudice of DoCS workers somewhat justified by their experiences? The child protection research literature has produced evidence of an association between increased risk to a child in families where there is a history of maltreatment of siblings, and mental disorder and/or substance abuse. On the face of it therefore, the DoCS decision making criteria as reported above is perhaps understandable - at least in theory. The context of the decision making process sheds more light on how workers may take a pessimistic view of families where a parent has a disability.
A number of additional factors were also identified by DoCS staff as affecting their decision making. First, from the DoCS point of view, the most important factor in weighing up the possibility of an improvement in parenting versus the decision to initiate care proceedings was the degree of parental compliance or cooperation with workers. Information obtained from DoCS workers in the focus groups suggested that parental non-compliance was more often a problem with parents with psychiatric disabilities than with parents with intellectual disabilities, with strategies of non-compliance reported to include open hostility, threats of violence, non disclosure of information, non-cooperation with support services and nonparticipation in assessment. With regard to parents with an intellectual disability, DoCS workers stated that 'parents with intellectual disability frequently welcomed DoCS workers into their homes and enjoyed their visits' (p. 24).
Despite this, it was apparent from the data that parental resistance to DoCS interventions was actually the grounds for initiating more care applications for children of parents with intellectual disability (41.2 Per cent) than for children of parents with psychiatric disability (36 per cent).
Second, the availability and adequacy of support services for families where a parent had an intellectual disability was also a factor influencing DoCS hopes for change. Informal support provided by non-disabled partners or extended family was seen as a key protective factor. Often it was parents reported to be isolated or estranged from extended family members and other supports (many were identified in the case sample) who were more likely to lead to statutory proceedings before the Court.
Further, the lack of suitable professional supports for parents with an intellectual disability and a tendency toward the marginalisation of disabled parents in mainstream services was also identified as an issue impacting upon worker judgements. Funding restrictions were identified as making the provision of intensive and ongoing services for parents with disabilities impractical. The lack of available, suitable supports combined with limited specialist DoCS training and resources, were reported by many DoCS workers as impinging on their case management. The workers stated that they had limited training in working with parents with a disability, and limited time to carry out effective casework, making attempts at family preservation less possible. As Booth and Booth (1995: 31) suggest: 'Parents with learning difficulties do not easily fit into the service system. They straddle the divide between services for families and services for people with learning difficulties.'
While McConnell and colleagues suggest that some workers held stereotypical views about parents with intellectual disabilities, it is unclear as to the extent of these views (the report used terms such as 'widespread' rather than providing specific figures). It seemed that the conclusions drawn by the authors focused quite heavily on the perceived impact of child protection workers' stereotypical beliefs about parents with a disability. They suggest that these stereotypical views reflect 'widespread community attitudes toward people with a disability' and as a result 'pessimism permeates the thinking of all involved about the hope of effecting change with parents with a disability' (p. 83).
In this author's opinion, the lack of suitable support services available for parents with a disability can combine with DoCS workers' prejudicial view of the potential for parental learning or change. However, it could also be argued that the perceived 'pessimism' or stereotypical views of DoCS staff, while unfortunate, may have a basis in the realities of child protection work where there is reported to be a lack of well resourced support options, and thus, a more pessimistic prognosis for families in the long term. Perhaps, then, the main message here is that a lack of effective alternatives, in combination with limited training, may reduce professional objectivity and hamper the attempts of DoCS child protection workers to keep children safe from harm, yet maintaining them in the family unit.
In addition to addressing the need for services, a focus on encouraging more cross-sectoral work between disability workers and child protection workers or the introduction of specialised disability training for a selection of DoCS workers from each geographical region, would seem to offer a way of achieving a better outcome for parents, children and workers.
With regard to the experiences of parents with a disability in the Court system, McConnell and colleagues found that such parents were being marginalised by court processes, and noted that the Court experience often proved 'stress magnifying' which in itself could lead discriminatory practices based on disability status: 'Parents with psychiatric or intellectual disability were identified as being particularly disadvantaged by having to wait in crowds of anxious/angry people. The tension created undermines their mental state and subsequently effects their presentation in Court' (p. 54).
Other systemic issues were seen as being discriminatory. Parents with disabilities were usually represented by 'duty lawyers' provided (or funded) by legal aid, who had not met the client until the morning of their first day in Court. The lack of preparation time meant that lawyers expressed concerns about representing disabled parents in these cases because of the difficulty of determining how much of the proceedings that the parent understood, obtaining reliable instructions from the parent, the difficulty of explaining legal strategies to disabled parents in a way which they could understand and accept, and of gaining assistance from the parents to scrutinise DoCS evidence.
Further, it was found that expert psychiatric and/or psychological reports were often used in care proceedings where there was a parental disability. The reports were used to provide 'a diagnosis as an explanatory framework for the behaviour of parents and children' and to provide a prognosis of future parenting capacity (p. 74). A highly significant relationship between expert opinion and outcome was found, with a negative report significantly affecting the decision to place a child on a supervision or wardship order. The authors suggest that this may result from an undue emphasis on a diagnosticprognostic assessment, which has little relevance when assessing parenting performance as it can not provide 'an adequate explanation of parenting deficiencies (where these exist) or a valid prediction of parenting potential' (p. 84).
Finally, the authors found that individual Magistrates presiding over the cases did not significantly affect care outcomes (minimal individual differences in decision making). However, they did find that, similar to child protection personnel, court personnel held stereotypical views about people with disabilities. Some of these beliefs included a perception that all people with intellectual disabilities should be objects of pity, charity and are 'eternal children' who are dependent and 'incapable of taking responsibility for their children, or of developing and learning the skills necessary to do so' (p. 83).
In order to address the concerns raised in this study and to ensure fair and equitable treatment for families where a parent has a disability, McConnell, Llewellyn and Ferronato identified five main areas for action.
The authors recommended that the New South Wales Attorney General's Department should consult with the Senior Magistrate of the Children's Court and court personnel in order to review the environment, court procedures and processes to ensure that parents with disabilities are given the accessibility they are entitled to under the Disability Discrimination Act (1992) and the Anti- Discrimination Act 1997 (NSW).
Further, a number of court-based support strategies should be employed to ensure a non-discriminatory environment for parents with disabilities. These could include:
The development of a joint training model such that child protection and Court personnel can be informed and educated on 'up-to-date empirical research and the broad range of community experiences of parents with a disability'(McConnell et al. 2001:V).
A professional development module should be developed on disabilities and parenting for child protection workers and assistant managers by DoCS. Such training should focus on empirical research on parental disability, and the inappropriate use of risk assessment as a proxy measure of parenting performance as well as appropriate measures of identifying parenting performance in relation to identified concerns. DoCS staff should also receive training on appropriate methods of identifying parents' support needs and suitable services and supports to assist parents overcome concerns and ensure the safety and wellbeing of their child.
Magistrates should be informed of the limitations of using clinical diagnoses with regard to current and future parenting performance and of more valid alternative measures.
Acknowledging the clear need for support services (specialist or generic) for parents with a disability, the authors recommended that the New South Wales Attorney General's Department should address this shortfall by looking at available research and expertise on the most effective forms of support services for disabled parents and then develop or modify current services to fulfil this need. Information about the availability of services should also be widely disseminated to court personnel.
McConnell and colleagues' study has raised a number of important issues concerning the difficulties faced by parents with a disability who are involved in child protection care proceedings. Their report outlines how the court environment and child protection assessment and procedures can be extremely stressful and confusing for parents with a disability. It highlights the disturbing fact that often these parents may not fully understand what is occurring in the Court and/or may have no real 'voice' in the proceedings. As a consequence, there appears to be an increased likelihood that the parents' views are not accurately represented and that the reality of the family's situation may not be fairly documented. This may lead to the Court's failure in some circumstances to make decisions truly in the best interest of the child, removing a child from her/his family when appropriate family support may produce a reasonable outcome.
Given the increase in the number of people with disabilities becoming parents it is vital that accurate, comprehensive assessments are undertaken as a means of ensuring fair and equitable treatment of such parents. The recommendations the authors have produced, if implemented, would go some way towards ensuring disability issues are properly considered by child protection personnel, and improve parents' accessibility to the Court.
However, the authors' findings and interpretations also cause some concern. First, although it is implied to some extent, they focus their discussions on the needs and experiences of parents with a disability, with little mention of the needs of the child to adequate care and protection. For example, while the report notes that parents with disabilities are very visible and are therefore more likely to be scrutinised by DoCS staff, there is no discussion of the factors that may result in more parents with a disability abusing or neglecting their children. While a full discussion of these issues may have been outside the scope of this report, some acknowledgment would have been useful for contextual purposes.
It is acknowledged that the rights of these parents are extremely important, and that the majority of parents with a disability may be able to care adequately for their children. However, it should also be clearly acknowledged that there will also be a proportion of families who will require some form of external support to rear their children, and other families where the children will need to be removed in order to ensure they are adequately cared for or protected. Thus, while this author would agree with McConnell and colleagues regarding the need for more accurate assessment of each family's ability to care for a child, and a 'fair go' for parents with a disability in the court system, it must be remembered that the primary objective must be to ensure that children are safe and appropriately cared for.
Often the child and family's needs will intersect, but in care proceedings which result from a clear risk of future harm 'the mother's wish for autonomy in caring for her children and the best interests of the children need to be balanced' (Glaun and Brown 1999: 96). With specific regard to parents with a disability, 'when reflecting upon the vulnerability of the child versus the vulnerability of a person with intellectual disability, it is clear that the child's vulnerability is greater' (Honey 1992: 2).
Second, the authors concluded that the case management decision making processes of DoCS child protection workers were strongly driven by misinformation and prejudicial beliefs about people with disabilities, and that the risk assessments made by these staff may be unreliable and discriminatory. This author would support McConnell and colleagues' recommendation for regular training for court and child protection workers on the issues associated with working with a variety of 'at risk' populations, such as parents with disabilities. However, McConnell et al. Appear to pay inadequate attention to how these beliefs may be reinforced or shaped by the realities of modern child protection work.
Ideally, the best outcome in many of the cases described in the report may have been the provision of intensive and ongoing support services to parents with a disability rather than the removal of the children. As Rosenberg and McTate (1982: 37) state: 'Our society has made a commitment to the rights of [parents with a disability] and to maintaining the integrity of families. Such a commitment implies that we must provide the services that are needed to make this goal a reality.' Unfortunately, the specialist and/or long-term services needed to work with families where a parent has a disability are often not available. Such services (specialist or generic) that are available often have to be rationed at a time when the number of families requiring assistance continues to grow (Tomison 1996).
Thus, in a climate where resources are scarce or non-existent, child protection workers will at times have to take statutory action to protect children because there are no appropriate support options available. This is clearly less than ideal for children and parents, but it is a reality of current practice. It is therefore important that the impact of the realities of child protection work, and the conditions that will lead to less-thanideal decision making, (and their impact on the formation of stereotypical beliefs), be more clearly recognised.
Finally, although parents with disabilities make up a substantial proportion of care and protection proceedings brought to the Children's Court by DoCS, there has been little systematic research carried out in this area. The work of McConnell, Llewellyn and Ferronato is therefore extremely important as it is one of the first pieces of research in Australia to conduct an in-depth exploration of the experiences of families and professionals working in this area. The authors offer some important and timely recommendations for improving the procedures and quality of outcomes to ensure that these families, and their children, are given the best possible chances to thrive.
Booth, T. & Booth, W. (1995), 'Unto us a child is born: the trials and rewards of parenthood for people with learning difficulties', Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 25-39.
Glaun, D. & Brown, P. (1999), 'Motherhood, intellectual disability and child protection: characteristics of a court sample', Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 95-105.
Honey, K. (1992), 'Parents with an intellectual disability', Social Biology Resources Centre, vol. 6, no. 4. McConnell, D., Llewellyn, G. & Ferronato, L. (2000), Parents with a Disability and the NSW Children's Court: The Family Support and Services Project, The University of Sydney, Sydney.
Rosenberg, S. & McTate, G. (1982), 'Intellectually handicapped mothers: problems and prospects', Children Today, pp. 24-27.
Tomison, A.M. (1996), Child Maltreatment and Disability, Issues Paper no. 7, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
1 This research was funded by the Law Foundation of New South Wales General Grants Scheme and was conducted over 18 months from January 1998 to July 1999. The Report can be downloaded online at http://www.ot.cchs.usyd.edu.au/projects/fssp/stream1_complete_07.html
Katie Kovacs is the Project Officer working in the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
The Purple Ribbon Project, began in the Gold Coast area in 1994, aims to establish the month of July nationally each year as 'Purple Ribbon Month'. During the month people are asked to wear a small purple ribbon as a protest against the extent of child abuse in our community. The colour purple was chosen as it is a spiritual hue signifying compassion.
Throughout the month, organisations in the community are encouraged to run or participate in events which will help educate people and break the silence about child abuse. The Wyong Council in New South Wales has used its staff and facilities to create signs for display in council buildings and has provided financial support for the purchase of purple ribbon and pins for distribution to citizens. The local hospital pink ladies have used their spare time to cut and pin thousands of ribbons, and the council conducts seminars, workshops, hypotheticals and forums on the issue of child abuse throughout the shire.
For the last three years, adult survivors of child abuse have compiled a survivors' book of poetry which has been published by Wyong Council, and thy have also prepared and updated a list of local therapists who work with adult and child survivors of child abuse. The local media participates also, with articles and information about events broadcast, televised or published regularly throughout the month.
Public support has grown in the six years the project has been running and, while the ribbons are free, the increasing amount of donations and feedback received each year is evidence of the concern the public feels about this long hidden issue. The campaign has won awards for Wyong Council at local government conferences, where it has been recognised as a potent way of bringing the shame of child abuse to public attention.
In July 2000, the project was adopted by a number of other councils in New South Wales. The aim is to have the project recognised on a national level, as only by breaking the silence on child abuse will we be able to fight and eliminate this evil in our society. To this end, in April 2000, I approached all Federal Members of Parliament and Senators and as a result the Purple Ribbon Project was observed in Canberra as Purple Ribbon Day on 28 June, as Parliament is in recess during July. All Adjournment speeches that day from both parties were about child abuse and six Members (three Labor and three Liberal) have subsequently formed 'Parliamentarians Against Child Abuse' - a bipartisan organisation dedicated to raising awareness of child abuse and working to address the issues which are of paramount importance in protecting our children, now and in the future.
While acceptance of Purple Ribbon Month by many councils in New South Wales is a good start, it is our intention to continue to work towards the project being adopted annually on a national level.
Purple Ribbon Month serves a worthwhile purpose in helping to raise awareness of the effects and extent of child abuse in our community. It makes it possible for participation to be at a 'grass roots level', involving everyone in the community from the Mayor to the smallest children in kindergarten, as well as the mums and dads at home. The feedback we have received has always been very positive with many people stating that 'this should have happened years ago'!
I would like to encourage people to approach their local councils or form their own committees to observe Purple Ribbon Month actively in their areas, and let it be known that the community will no longer tolerate this crime being perpetrated on our children.
For more information about Purple Ribbon Month contact Jan Watson at watson@fastlink.com.au or at PO Box 524, Wyong, New South Wales 2259.
One of the projects run in Purple Ribbon month is the Revealing Images program which run by Advocates for the Survivors of Child Abuse (ASCA), a national organisation for survivors of abuse. The program, which was steered by myself and Jill Darville commenced with a grant from the Wollongong City Council which enabled the establishment of separate art workshops for men and women. The workshops were offered at no cost to survivors of child abuse and were publicly advertised. Criteria for participation was based on personal interest alone with individuals with little or no artistic experience being the focus of groups. The workshops were facilitated by local artists Jasmine Hurst, Susan Levy and John Marsh, and culminated in he official launch of Revealing Images.
The final works produced in the workshops were then displayed at the Wollongong City Art Gallery throughout Purple Ribbon Month. The gallery generously donates time and space, allocating the exhibition as a primary part of gallery events during the year. Displaying the art works of survivors of child abuse became an integral part of the campaign in raising community awareness. Personal experiences were highlighted and those adults carrying the effects of trauma were given the opportunity and space to tell their stories.
The growth of Revealing Images has been propelled by the acclaim its artworks have received from community members with over 800 people attending the exhibition launch in 2001. The most notable part of the evening were the reactions from the artists themselves who had expressed a part of themselves and their experiences through photography, painting, models, computer generated art and mixed media.
The positive response from the community was not only rewarding for participants, but also served as an acknowledgment of the experience and impact of physical, sexual and psychological abuse, and domestic violence in children and adults. The diversity of materials used by the artists reflected the multitude of these experiences. Rather than being an expose of the horrors of child abuse, the exhibition was a celebration of the strengths and courage of the individuals who chose to speak out in evocative visual landscapes, and continue to survive.
The guest book for the 2001 event was saturated with praise for the artists and the integrity of a regional art gallery that could support such important work. The exhibition gave the community a view of a side of life that is so often shunned by our society and reminded many that these too are the voices of children who cannot yet name the horrors of their abuse. These images are those that so many children will know as they struggle to cope in adult life. For the participants, the images also confirmed the extent of abuse and it gave those who have suffered alone, the knowledge that there are many who can walk with them. Individuals suddenly found solace, support and unconditional understanding that in many cases could not otherwise be found.
Artwok produced by this year's Revealing Images was again displayed at Wollongong City Art Gallery. I have emerged from this year's program as an orgainser and participant with an enormous sense of pride in this initiative, and in the courage of those who gave it a go - those who, in connecting with others, have touched a part of themselves forever scarred by experience and memory. It is my hope that this initiative will go on and the images that are revealed will send a message out to the silenced, and set someone free.
To find out more about Revealing Images, contact Kerrie Moynihan at kaptain@hotmail.com
In 2002, the National Child Protection Clearinghouse is attempting to encourage agencies running child abuse prevention programs to write a short piece about the programs they are running and their experiences of being involved in those programs. As a result of a mail-out to agencies on our Clearinghouse mailing list, and a flier placed on the Clearinghouse web page, we have received information from several agencies, including the three listed below.
If your agency is conducting a child abuse prevention program or service and is interested in making a contribution to future Clearinghouse Newsletters, then we would be delighted to hear from you.
80 Kedron Park Rd, Wooloowin, Queensland 4030.
Phone: (07) 3857 8866.
The Abused Child Trust was established in Brisbane in 1986 by interested human service professionals and community members. The purpose was to advocate for the needs of children, provide therapy services where none had previously existed, and to create child-supportive communities, by being the leading provider of services for the prevention of child abuse and neglect throughout Queensland. The Trust receives 53 per cent of its funding from the State and Commonwealth Governments, and fundraises the rest of the funding which totals 1.25 Million dollars.
Contact House is a multidisciplinary intervention service which has been provided to families in Wooloowin (North of Brisbane) since 1990. The trust commenced a part-time counselling service on the Gold Coast in 1999, based in Pacific Fair Shopping Centre. The trust opened a Contact House service in Townsville in April 2002 after receiving funding from the Department of Families. Contact House is a child protection agency providing therapy, education, health and support intervention for children aged 0-8 years at risk of significant harm. Clients are referred from a number of sources including the Department of Families, Royal Children's Hospital, other community agencies, and via self referrals.
The service at Contact House works with 75 children (from approximately 35 families) at any one time. Due to the complex nature of these problems, the children remain associated with Contact House for extended periods of time (average of 15 months). During 2001, staff at Contact House - Wooloowin provided over 2850 hours of intervention services to 175 children from 73 families. Services are conducted at the Contact House Centre as well as on a home visitation basis, with all services provided free of charge to clients. Service include:
In mid 2001, Dr Monika Henderson conducted a comprehensive evaluation of Contact House - Wooloowin. The results highlighted the uniqueness of the multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of child abuse and neglect taken by Contact House, and how such an approach was consistent with the world's best practice. The report also emphasised the effectiveness of the service, with subsequent rates of notifications to the Department of Families decreasing significantly for families who had received intervention from Contact House. Moreover, both clients and referring agents reported high levels of satisfaction with the service, and external agencies commented on the high degree of professionalism of Contact House staff.
1 Jenner Court, Mildura, Victoria 3500.
Phone: (03) 5033 1786.
The Personal Safety Success Training (PSST) program is a resource offered to children between the ages of 7-12 years as a preventative measure against abuse. The program assists in promoting and teaching protective behaviours to children and is used widely in the Northern and Southern Mallee Region and borders of New South Wales. The delivery of the program is assisted by funding from the Mildura Rural City Council School Focused Youth Services.
The philosophies behind the Protective Behaviors Program are: children own their bodies and minds; children have the right to set their own boundaries and decide who, when and where their body is touched; children have the right to say 'no' to any unwanted or unsafe touching; children must be informed of potential dangers including abuse and taught protective measures to ensure their personal safety; and sexual abuse is never the child's fault.
Protective behaviours education primarily focuses on prevention and is required because we cannot be with our children every minute of the day. The Program teaches children to trust their intuitions, acknowledge their feelings and act on them. The program also aims to raise the child's awareness of potentially dangerous situations and teaches them coping skills to deal with all forms of difficult situations including abuse. The program also gives children and adults permission to talk.
The PSST program is based on the fundamental beliefs: 'We all have the right to feel safe all the time'; and 'Nothing is so awful we can't tell someone about it.'
The program discusses general safety, including problem solving exercises followed by introducing student to concepts such as: early warming signs, personal space, boundaries, body ownership, safe/unsafe touches, sexual abuse, safety strategies, safe/unsafe secrets, tricks, threats and bribes, assertive training, safety on the internet, friendships and networks. Even the most safety conscious child cannot always avoid abusive situations; however, children who are well prepared are more likely to tell if abuse has occurred - and this is the child's best defence. The PSST program teaches children skills coupled with actions that they can take to ensure their personal safety.
After parents, teachers spend more time with children than any other adult; young children place a great deal of trust in their teachers and look to them when they feel unsafe. Therefore, through the PSST program teachers are trained to observe changes in the appearance and progress of individual children. Teachers are encouraged to be sensitive to the fact that students in their class may have experienced abusive situations, directly or indirectly.
The PSST program aims to inform and enlighten rather than frighten children, and is conducted in a positive learning environment. The response from schools has been very positive and children have a wonderful time participating in the program. From January 2000 - June 2001, a total of 436 children attended the program at 12 different primary schools in the Northern and Southern Mallee Region. The Mallee Sexual Assault Unit aims to expand the program across all schools in the Mallee / New South Wales border regions.
PO Box 1625, Orange, New South Wales 2800.
Phone: (04) 27 427 416.
Interrelate Children's Contact Centres provide a supervised contact and changeover/ changeback service for families unable to resolve conflict around contact visits, following separation. The Centres are safe, well resourced and child focused facilities, staffed by sensitive and qualified professionals.
The philosophy of Interrelate Centres is 'To uphold the right of children to contact with their non-residential parent/guardian in a physically and emotionally safe environment'. This is achieved by ensuring that Centres have a unique child focus, where the program runs independently for children without gathering information for the court. The Centres enable a consistent pattern of contact between children and parents through staff facilitated practices. Staff ensure that parents acknowledge their responsibilities as carers; make sure parents behave respectfully and appropriately toward each other whilst in the company of their children; and discourage disrespectful talk about the other parent.
As a result of Commonwealth funding in 1995, ten Changeover Centres were established in capital cities with funding released in 2000 to establish Contact Centres in country regions. An evaluation of Centres was carried out between 1997-1999 and through this children expressed their delight in being able to see their non-resident parent while having present an adult they could trust. They also liked being allowed to enjoy their parent while being well supported in a safe environment.
Interrelate acknowledges the anger and frustration of parents and encourages referrals to other services for dealing with the issues that arise following separation. Staff support the movement of families away from Supervised Contact/Changeover/ Changeback to self management.
The admission process is formal, and appointments are necessary with all clients being interview and asked to sign a Service Agreement. Acceptance of clients is determined by staff according to their suitability and the level of demand on the service. Fees are set on a sliding scale.
This list was developed in response to queries from readers of the Clearinghouse Newsletter who were interested in finding out about professional development or training courses available for workers in the child protection/child welfare area. Information about these courses has been obtained from a variety of sources and was correct at the time of printing.To find out more about particular courses, please contact the respective providers.
Compiled by Katie Kovacs
Caseworker Development Course
Provider: Learning and Development Branch
NSW Department of Community Services
Phone: (02) 9692 7107
All new Caseworkers are employed centrally. They are employed at the start of the training calendar, and are placed in a group and stay with that same group throughout the Course. Topics covered include: Effective Interagency Relationships, Interactive Skills, Case Management, Legal and Statutory Responsibilities, Child Protection Dynamics, Assessing Risk of Harm, Cultural Awareness, Gathering Evidence, Working with Aboriginal Children and Families, Out of Home Care, Alcohol and other Drugs, Mental Health Issues, Responding to Domestic Violence and Building Relationships with Children, Young People and Carers.
Child Sexual Assault - Core Training
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 3 days
Cost: $300
Date: 10-12 September 2002 (Sydney)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This workshop will explore the core issues surrounding the sexual abuse of children. It will assist workers to fulfil the core responsibilities of recognising and reporting suspected cases of child sexual assault and to develop strategies to respond to children and non offending parents when sexual abuse is disclosed.
Domestic Violence and Child Protection
Issues and Dilemmas
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 2 days
Cost: $200
Date: 18 and 29 September 2002 (Sydney)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This workshop provides a holistic approach to responding to issues of domestic violence and child protection. In particular, case management practices will be promoted that challenge offender actions and provide for the safety and well being of women and children. The dynamics of domestic violence will be explored and restraints theory will be examined in order to understand offender thinking and how this is manifested.
Babyhood Matters
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $100
Date: 26 November 2002 (Sydney)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This course provides a solid introduction to the topic of infant mental health. It explores key issues such as the importance infancy plays in a person's developing mental health. The course examines research findings from the fields of psychology, biology and anthropology. The course also examines the question of what an infant needs from a caregiver for optimal development. There will be a mixture of learning activities including presentation by the facilitator, small group work and video presentations.
Establishing a Volunteer Home Visiting Program
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $100
Date: 16 October 2002 (Westmead)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
The Hills Family Centre developed the extra hands volunteer home visiting program six years ago in order to expand the support that could be offered to families in the Baulkham Hills Shire. As the State Government rolls out its Families First Strategies, many agencies have tendered or are tendering for funds to develop programs, one of which is to establish Volunteer Home Visiting Programs to support parents of young children. This workshop is for managers and coordinators who are interested in establishing a Volunteer Home Visiting Program.
Using Fairytales as Therapy with Children
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $100
Date: 19 August 2002 (Sydney)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This one day workshop will examine the use of fairytales as a means of therapy in assisting children to deal with loss and trauma. Participants will be exposed to ways of supporting and facilitating a child's exploration, awareness and expression of trauma/traumatic feelings through the use of fairytales. The benefits of using fairytales and the potential of their use in situations relating to death and dying, sexual assault, domestic violence and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder will be discussed. This workshop is practical and encourages participation and creativity.
Managing Aggressive and Violent Behaviour
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 2 days
Cost: $200
Dates: 15-16 August 2002 (Newcastle); 28-29
October 2002 (Penrith); 4-5 November 2002 (Penrith)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This two day workshop will enable participants to understand what factors may lead to aggressive and violent behaviour of clients. It will outline appropriate violence prevention, diffusion and post trauma support techniques and enable you to formulate and implement effective strategies for change in order to make your workplace safer for yourselves and your clients. The two days will cover: self-awareness and management skills, knowledge of causes and types of violence, intervention skills, including evasive self-defence, prevention and post trauma support skills, analysis and recording skills, organisational change strategies, legal, ethical and moral issues in violence management and dealing with clients with special needs.
Evaluating your Service Part 1
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $110
Date: 2 September 2002 (Kiama)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This course answers questions such as: What is evaluation? How can you approach evaluation in human services? How do you know something worthwhile is happening in your service? What are the key evaluation concepts and language (eg aims, objectives, strategies, efficiency, effectiveness, adequacy, appropriateness, outcomes, performance indicators, benchmarks, TQM)? What mix of evaluation model and tools are useful in community organisations (for example, service plans, questionnaires, case studies, focus groups)? This one day workshop is a prerequisite for Evaluating Your Service - Part 2. By attending this workshop, participants will develop an approach to evaluation that is appropriate for human services and identify what needs to be done to have good evaluation mechanisms in place in their service.
Evaluating Your Service Part 2
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 2 days
Cost: $220
Date: 16-17 September 2002 (Kiama)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
Do you want to evaluate your service? What do you do? Except for a brief theoretical introduction (a recap on Evaluating Your Service Part 1) this two day workshop will be practical. Participants will work on: what evaluation are you doing in your organisation?; What evaluation strategies would be useful to have in place in your organisation?; What tools are needed to implement the strategies?: Developing the tools needed. This will be a practical workshop and you should only come if you are ready to work on the practicalities of what you want done in your organisation eg. Developing evaluation plans, focus groups, databases, questionnaire design, case studies, graphical presentation of information, consultation processes, measuring social capital, etc. This workshop will get participants a long way down the path of putting evaluation strategies in place in their organisations.
Preventing Staff Burnout
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $110
Date: 1 November 2002 (Sydney)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This workshop clearly identifies the difference between stress, exhaustion, depression and burnout and provides managers with the skills and strategies to identify and reduce their prevalence in the workplace. As employees struggle to meet performance targets with declining resources, stress becomes a prominent concern. Positive stress is an essential creative element. It can be channelled and used as the means to change. It can create opportunities through which personal development can be achieved. However, if not managed, it can also lead to exhaustion, burnout and depression. This essential workshop deals with ways of preventing one of the most serious dilemmas confronting management today.
Supervision: How and Why?
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 2 days
Cost: $220
Date: 26-27 August 2002 (Canberra); 21-22 October 2002 (Westmead)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This two day training program is designed to provide managers and supervisors with a conceptual understanding of models of professional supervision and to develop their skills in individual and team supervision. This program requires participants to reflect on their own work as supervisors and to focus on the administrative supportive and developmental functions of supervision through the training exercises. The course will cover: issues of accountability and responsibility in supervision; importance of supervision in relation to assessment and decisionmaking; factors necessary for supervision to be effective; processes involved in the establishment and maintenance of supervisory relationships; problem-solving strategies regarding motivating staff, dealing with conflict, handling confrontation, etc; methods for monitoring the effectiveness of supervision.
Case Management in Out-of-Home Care
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 2 days
Cost: $200
Date: 12-13 August 2002 (Sydney)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
Are you so caught up in the minute details of a case you simply don't have the time to sit back and look at the bigger picture? Do you feel as though no sooner have you dealt with one crisis than another one is looming? This course is about identifying and finding the right mix of the skills and knowledge required for effective case management. It will explore the skills of engaging the key players in the case management process and looking at how effective case management can best meet the needs of clients. Some of the issues to be addressed are:; Preparing and implementing case plans; Understanding the purpose and process of case conferences and case reviews; Finding the right mix of assertiveness, self determination and negotiation; Prioritising and time framing key tasks; Building better relationships with stakeholders; and Record keeping. The workshop will inform participants of changes to case reviews and related practices as required by the new Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.
What's New in Out-Of-Home Care?
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $20 (limit 2 persons per agency)
Dates: 31 July 2002 (Sydney); 29 November 2002 (Westmead)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
The 2002 proclamation of the out-of-home care chapters of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act brings never-seen-before changes to the way outof- home care services are delivered to children and young people in NSW. The purpose of these changes is to create a high standard in the provision of out-ofhome care and to clarify the roles and responsibilities of all parties involved. The Act sets in place clear guidelines for planning, record keeping and reviewing a child/young person's life, and what kind of information different parties should have access to. Asignificant shift in the working relationship between nongovernment designated agencies and the Department of Community Services will occur as the Children's Guardian takes over the function of monitoring and reviewing the placement of children and young persons in out-of-home care.
Bad Kids or Hurt Kids? Strategies for Working with Young People
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 2 days
Cost: $200
Date: 21-22 October 2002 (Penrith)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This workshop will examine the nature of the helping relationship and strategies that can be used by those working with marginalised young people. The workshop is designed to facilitate skills which promote effective communication and the development of supportive, respectful, professional helping relationships with young people. Participants will learn strategies for working with angry, distressed, self-harming or suicidal young people, those with mental health issues and those who have substance abuse issues. There will be the opportunities for workers to look at obstacles and to apply appropriate strategies with clients in a variety of settings. Role plays and discussion of case studies will be used to identify areas of difficulty and examine practical strategies that help clients and protect workers.
Working with Schools and Connecting Communities
Provider: Centre for Community Welfare Training
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $100
Date: 16 October 2002 (Sydney)
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Website: www.acwa.asn.au/CCWT
This workshop will examine the real issues that confront out-of-school workers who attempt to put 'policy into practice' and work with schools. Barriers to implementation and their causes, including participant's own experiences will be looked at. In discussing the educational paradigm and variable factors that differentiate schools, participants will learn the best ways to address their own particular issues and how to best overcome them. Abetter understanding of the education paradigm and how it works will assist many outside organisations in attempts to work with schools. Examining methodologies, they can better develop relationships where they can work with, rather than feel that they are working against teachers and schools.
Basic Counselling Skills - Part 1
Provider: Bankstown Community College (NSW)
Duration: 3 hours x 8 weeks (6.30-9.30 pm)
Cost: $190
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (02) 9793 8155
Website: www.bankstowncommunitycollege.nsw.edu.au
This course will teach participants introductory counselling skills for use in community and workplace settings. It will also teach participants to establish a counselling environment, interview people effectively, maintain accurate records and adhere to professional ethics. A Student workbook will be provided. Participants must purchase a textbook (about $45) and do homework and regular assessment tasks.
Basic Counselling Skills - Part 2
Provider: Bankstown Community College (NSW)
Duration: 7 hours x 4 weeks (9.30-5.00 pm)
Cost: $190
Date: Second semester (contact provider)
Phone: (02) 9793 8155
Website: www.bankstowncommunitycollege.nsw.edu.au
This course will teach participants to classify problem behaviours and use therapeutic intervention techniques derived from models such as Behavioural, Rogerian, Gestalt, Rational and Transactional. This course will covers grief counselling and crisis counselling covering issues such as suicide, domestic violence, sexual assault and mental illness. This course will also discuss workplace counselling including employment interviews, performance reviews and job dismissals. A textbook purchase is required (about $70) and regular homework will be set. A half day workshop will also run as decided by the group. Participants in this course must have completed the Part 1 course or equivalent.
Courses in Supervision
Provider: Interrelate
Duration: 120 hours (distance education and weekend workshop)
Cost: $650
Date: Course starts in September 2002 (contact provider)
Phone: (02) 9764 2466
The aim of this course is to train counsellors in the theory and practice of clinical supervision. Comprehensive readings covering broad theoretical aspects and intensive experiential weekend workshop, ensures that practitioners develop relevant skills and knowledge.
Facilitation of Men's Groups
Provider: Interrelate
Duration: 65 hours distance education (3-day experiential component and online
facility)
Cost: $350
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (02) 9764 2466
This course provides the opportunity for leaders to be exposed to the latest techniques and theories of working with men. A landmark initiative, based on current research, this course is highly recommended for those working with men in a leadership role.
Child Protection Training and Development Unit
Provider: Department of Human Services
Cost: Free
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (03) 9616 2991; (03) 9616 2866; (03) 9616 2992
The following courses will be run by the Unit for child protection staff at all levels within the protective services program. Places in programs are also available to regional placement and support staff, adoptions and permanent care, court advocacy unit and secure welfare staff. Some courses may have vacancies for community services organisation staff, which can be discussed with the course coordinators of individual courses. Courses run include: Induction, Violence in Families, Court Skills and Processes, Induction, Victorian Risk Framework for Supervisors and Managers, Working with Families for better outcomes, Effective Conflict Management., Transition to Supervisor, Working with Cultural Diversity, Kinship Care Placement, Engaging and Interviewing and Supporting Staff Effectively.
Managing Community Service Organisations
Provider: RMIT
Duration: 1 Semester
Cost: $1333
Date: Contact provider
Phone: 1800 067 117
Website: http://www.rmit.edu.au/shortcourses/
This course assists participants develop frameworks and skills for organisational analysis and personal action. The lectures will cover; theoretical frameworks and paradigms in organisational theory; a critical and action orientated perspective on organisational analysis; understanding the development of organisations and their structures, culture, purpose and primary task; social perspectives on organisations and organisational change; and unconscious processes in organisations.
How to Get the Best out of Your Volunteers
Provider: Victorian University of Technology
Duration: 1 evening, 6.00 pm-9.30 pm
Cost: $70
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (03) 9284 7920
Do you want to motivate, encourage and guide your team of volunteers successfully? Then this course is for you. At the end of the course participants will have gained skills to develop a team of committed volunteers whose contributions will be invaluable. Participants will also gain skills that will enable them to ensure that the volunteering experience is invaluable to the volunteers themselves.
Best Practice In Volunteer Management
Provider: Volunteering Victoria
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $66 members, $88 non-members
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (03) 9650 8868
Email: volunteer@infoxchange.net.au
This one-day workshop will examine a 'best practice' approach to volunteer management, looking specifically at the origin and key principles of best practice, a step by step process for applying a 'best practice' approach to volunteer management, how to benchmark an organisation's volunteer management practices against those of other organisations, how to assess an organisation's volunteer management practices and how to develop an action plan to improve volunteer management practices.
Using Stories to Heal: Narrative Therapy with Children, Young People
and Families who Experience Abuse
Provider: Australians Against Child Abuse
Duration: 2 days
Cost: $230
Date: 5-6 December 2002
Phone: (03) 9874 3922
Email: jmitchell@aaca.com.au
Website: www.aaca.netlink.com.au/
Stories are powerful meaning making strategies for children, young people and their families. This two day workshop offers the opportunity for participants to examine how personal life stories are influenced by abuse and family violence, the emergence of identity through stories, how stories can be used to heal and techniques for encouraging storytelling in therapy with children, young people and their families. The workshop will focus on ways to appreciate the principles of respect, transition and commitment in assisting in recovery from abuse related trauma. Through discussion of participants' own cases and series of exercises and role plays, participants will have the opportunity to practice this approach.
Responding to Sibling Abuse: Charting Unexplored Territory
Provider: Australians Against Child Abuse
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $120
Date: 9 August 2002
Phone: (03) 9874 3922
Email: jmitchell@aaca.com.au
Website: www.aaca.netlink.com.au/
Children who have been abused by their siblings experience a range of difficulties. This workshop will examine the structural responses required to support children in this situation as well as issues practitioners confront in working with the children's parents and other siblings. It will draw on recent literature and research on the area as well as offer the opportunity to develop specific skills in assessing the impact of sibling abuse.
Working with Families where a Young Person is Engaging in Violent
and Aggressive Behaviour
Provider: Australians Against Child Abuse
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $120
Date: 30 August 2002
Phone: (03) 9874 3922
Email: jmitchell@aaca.com.au
Website: www.aaca.netlink.com.au/
There are many families who present to clinical services who are at a loss to know what to do with an adolescent in their family who is displaying violent and aggressive behaviour. The result sometimes being that the young person is excluded from the family home. This workshop will promote the ability of participants to understand these behaviours and intervene in these families.
Developing Helping Conversations with Children who have Experienced
Abuse and Neglect and their Parents
Provider: Australians Against Child Abuse
Cost: $230
Duration: 2 days
Date: 17-18 October 2002
Phone: (03) 9874 3922
Email: jmitchell@aaca.com.au
Website: www.aaca.netlink.com.au/
This two-day workshop will explore the consequences of abuse and family violence on the development of a child's sense of self, relationships, confidence and abilities. Participants will have the opportunity to develop enhanced skills in working with children who have experienced abuse and trauma and explore strategies to engage participants in the child's recovery. This workshop will enhance participants' skills, knowledge and understanding in communicating with and responding to children who have experienced abuse or family violence. Participants will have the opportunity to examine the impact of abuse on the parent/s and parent-child relationship and explore ways to promote the parents' ability to better understand their child's experience and develop positive ways to support and communicate with their child.
Working Therapeutically with Parents whose Children have been Abused
Provider: Australians Against Child Abuse
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $120
Date: 27 November 2002
Phone: (03) 9874 3922
Email: jmitchell@aaca.com.au
Website: www.aaca.netlink.com.au/
This workshop will assist participants to explore their work with parents of children who have experienced abuse and the philosophies and assumptions that underpin this work. Using a child centred approach, this workshop will explore the importance of understanding the needs of parents. There will be a focus on the emotional needs of parents and appreciating the vulnerabilities of parents with their own history of abuse. Different psychotherapeutic theories of engaging and working with parents will be drawn upon throughout this workshop.
Adolescent Counselling
Provider: Professional Development Institute- Monash University
Duration: 10 weeks x 3 hours (Churchill, Clayton and Warragul)
Costs:$ 765
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (03) 9905 2618
This course aims to meet the needs of the community in the area of adolescent counselling by providing participants with the appropriate knowledge, skills and attitudes required to provide support and guidance to young people with whom they are in contact with. Personnel providing counselling are not always fully prepared for the traumatic and often highly sensitive nature of the information they receive in their emerging role as both confidantes and mentors. The course has been designed to provide practical counselling skills which best meet the special needs of adolescents, within a framework of various community support networks and within the context of professional and ethical consideration.
School Welfare Leadership Program
Provider: Professional Development Institute- Monash University
Duration: 24 hours over 8 weeks (classes in the evenings)
Cost: Contact provider
Date: Semester 2 (contact provider)
Phone: (03) 9905 2618
This course aims to assist schools to develop effective student welfare support structures and processes. At the end of the course, each participating school will have reviewed its current policies and practices and have developed a comprehensive School Welfare Plan.
Introduction to Mental Health
Provider: SCOPE Victoria
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $88
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (03) 9536 4213
This course assists participants to develop an understanding of mental health,
to learn how to access relevant services, how to assist individuals with mental
health issues and what to do in a crisis, dealing with myths and to gain an
understanding of specific psychiatric conditions.
Introduction to Counselling
Provider: SCOPE Victoria
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $88
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (03) 9536 4213
This Program assists participants to develop effective communication strategies, support clients to communicate effectively, develop active listening techniques, clarify messages, interview effectively, learn about the counselling process and explore and clarify personal issues.
Supporting Clients with Disabilities Manage Loss and Grief
Provider: SCOPE Victoria
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $88
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (03) 9536 4213
This course offers participants with an overview of grief and loss as it relates to individuals with disabilities. The course aims to give participants an understanding of the grief process.
Certificate IV Coordination of Volunteers
Provider: Volunteering Queensland
Duration: 4 days
Cost: $350 members $450 non members
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (07) 3002 7600
Website: www.volunteeringqueensland.org.au/education2.html
This course is designed to provide participants with the knowledge and skills necessary to successfully coordinate volunteers. The course consists of 6 units; Plan and Develop a Volunteer Program; Recruitment and Selection of Volunteers; Orientate and Train Volunteers; Supervise and Support Volunteers; Motivate and recognise Volunteers; Evaluation and Quality Management of a Volunteer Program.
Volunteer Management Essentials
Provider: Volunteering Queensland
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $60 members, $80 non members
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (07) 3002 7600
Website: www.volunteeringqueensland.org.au/education2.html
This workshop is designed for participants who are initiating or developing a volunteer program; want to review and update volunteer management skills; or for new volunteer coordinators. This workshop develops the skills and frameworks vital to healthy and effective work with volunteers.
Introduction to Submission Writing
Provider: Volunteering Queensland
Duration: 1 day
Cost: $60 members, $80 non members
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (07) 3002 7600
Website:www.volunteeringqueensland.org.au/education2.html
This is a practical workshop that focuses upon the fundamental steps in planning, writing and presenting funding submissions: develop funding project ideas: identify appropriate sources of funding; address funding guidelines and applications; discuss project evaluation and reporting requirements.
Certificate IV Coordination of Volunteers
Provider: Volunteering WA
Duration: 4 days (9.15 am-4.00 pm)
Cost: member agencies $330, non member agencies $550
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (08) 9021 5552
The only Certificate IV level qualification of its type in WA, this course offers the coordinators or managers of volunteers the opportunity to gain national accreditation in achieving the skills and competencies required for effective management of volunteers and volunteer programs. The course utilises a flexible delivery process and includes both 'off' and 'on the job' learning. There are six modules to be completed: Plan and Develop a Volunteer Program; Recruitment and Selection of Volunteers; Orientate and Train Volunteers; Supervise and Support Volunteers; Motivate and recognise Volunteers and Evaluation and Quality Management of a Volunteer Program.
Introduction to Mental Health
Provider: Social Options Austra
lia Duration: Half day (9.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $77
Date: 4 November 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
This is an intensive introductory workshop for those dealing with people with mental health issues. Participants can be workers with contact with the public on a daily basis, or those with clients with a particular mental health concern who would like to improve their understanding and skills to enhance customer service. This workshop gives an overview of mental health issues, systems and referral networks, practical tips and input from a consumer team who will provide participants with information first hand.
Legal Aspects of Mental Health
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Two hours (9.00 am-11.00 am)
Cost: $40
Date: 19 August 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
This course is for participants dealing with people with mental health issues and who want to know more about the legislative framework. This workshop gives an overview of relevant legislation and how it fits into systems and referral networks. It offers a practical approach to the Disability Discrimination Act, Mental Health Act, Guardianship and Administration Acts and the role of various authorities such as the Office of the Public Advocate and the Ombudsman and services such as Mental Health Services, Management Assessment Panel and doctors.
Mental Health Plus
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Half day (9.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $77
Date: 18 November 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
This course is open to people who have already attended our course 'Introduction to Mental Health' at any time over the past two years. A refresher of skills and knowledge previously learned is followed by sessions on legal issues in mental health, case management, accountability, confidentiality and boundaries of responsibility. Participants are required to bring a case study for group discussion.
Complaints Handling
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Half day (9.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $77 ($109 with handbook)
Dates:12 August 2002; 21 October 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
This popular course examines the importance of training in complaints handling for the human services; key questions about complaints in an organisation; how to make an organisation complaints friendly; developing a complaints policy; and integrating complaints into an organisation's daily practice. It also teaches practical complaints handling skills.
Dealing with Difficult Situations and People
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Half day (9.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $77
Date: 9 September 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
This is an intensive workshop aimed at those who find themselves dealing with difficult customers and difficult situations. It offers 'a hands on' approach with practical tips, exercises and discussion which can be put to work as soon as the workshop is over. Participants can bring difficult situations to the workshop for discussion, analysis and action.
Conflict Resolution in the Human Services
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Half day (9.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $77
Date: 22 July 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
This workshop is full of techniques on how to achieve the win-win solution that can be found in situations where people see things differently and hold different views. Using examples from the Human Services, this course will explore how conflict arises, how difference can be valued and solutions found to most problems.
How to Facilitate Really Successful Meetings
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Half day (9.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $77
Date: 26 August 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
Meetings have been called the 'heart of teamwork', and play an important part in team building and the successful achievement of our organisational goals. As well as covering what goes wrong at meetings, and the results of poor meeting leadership, the workshop will show how to lead a successful and participative meeting. Practical ideas will be presented on encouraging participation, managing the group process and getting to consensus and closure.
Balancing Management and Leadership
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Half day (9.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $77
Date: 25 November 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
Being a leader and being a manager require different skills and a different head set. This practical program will explore the differences between leadership and management and is designed for those people who are aspiring to leadership and or have managerial responsibilities and want to bring others with them.
Building Teams
Provider: Social Options Australi
a Duration: Half day (9.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $77
Date: 29 October 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
A group of people working together is not a team - turning people into teams and getting them working to complement and support one another is a skill. This workshop will help team leaders and people wanting to be team leaders with practical strategies and skills.
Using Program Logic to Plan or Evaluate Your Program
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Full day
Cost: $143 includes lunch
Date: 5 August 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
Program Logic is a simple yet rigorous tool which can be used either as a planning tool for a program or as tool for planning an evaluation. Participants will be lead through the process of using program logic through examples and will then work with their own material to begin producing their own planning or evaluation tool.
Planning a Program Evaluation
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Full day
Cost: $143 includes lunch
Date: 23 September 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
This course will take participants through the process of planning an evaluation. It will also examine some of the critical issues of evaluation including different types of evaluation; different models; various methodologies; outcome measurement; qualitative and quantitative approaches and statistics for evaluation.
Designing Questionnaires
Provider: Social Options Australia
Duration: Full day
Cost: $143 includes lunch
Date: 14 October 2002; 2 December 2002
Phone: (08) 8326 8033
Email: info@soa.com.au
This is a new course which examines the theory and practice of designing questionnaires by human service organisations. These questionnaires could be for use in evaluation, research or customer feedback. This course will examine the common principles and approaches which underlie good questionnaires
Motivating Volunteers through Rewards, Recognition and Support: The
Best Ways to Ensure Volunteers are Fulfilled and Valued
Providers: Volunteering South Australia
Duration: Half day (10.00 am-1.00 pm)
Cost: $80
Date: 19 September 2002
Phone: (08) 8221 7177
Webpage: http://www.volunteeringsa.org.au
This course aims to provide participants with practical knowledge and skills to maximise volunteer enthusiasm, commitment and retention. Upon completion participants will have: awareness of the power of recognition and support as a means of validating and motivating volunteers, a model for understanding the motivational interests and needs of volunteers, explored a system of rewards based on motivational needs, knowledge of rules for recognition, a range of inexpensive ideas for recognition and tips for improving motivation and an understanding of the 'work climate' in relation to motivation and retention .
Developing Leadership and Team Volunteering Skills: Optimising Paid
and Unpaid Staff Relations
Providers: Volunteering South Australia
Duration: 1 day (10.00 am-3.30 pm)
Cost: $140
Date: 28 November 2002
Phone: (08) 8221 7177
Webpage: http://www.volunteeringsa.org.au
This course aims to provide participants with the opportunity to develop their leadership skills to inspire and guide volunteers toward a team effort. Upon completion participants will have: a model for going into situations as a team leader, identified the qualities and skills of good volunteer leaders, explored and identified their own leadership style, assessed key coordinating and linking skills that assist volunteers to work as a team, challenged a range of myths about teamwork and developed methods for identifying and developing leadership in volunteers.
Child Protection Training
Provider: Department of Health and Welfare
Cost: Free
Date: Contact provider
Phone: (08) 8999 2400 ask for FACS Education and Training Coordinator
The Northern Territory has two FACS trainers and while most programs are run for FACS staff only, some programs are open to other welfare workers or interested professionals. Courses run include: Introduction to Child Protection, Life Story Work in Alternative Care, Case Management for FACS, Strategies for effective Communication, Introduction to Substitute Care, Alcohol and Other Drugs Implications for Welfare Workers and Report Writing. Katie Kovacs is Project Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
In the Firing Line: Violence and Power in Child Protection Work
Janet Stanley and Chris Goddard
John Wiley & Sons, UK, January 2002
Reviewed by Joe Tucci
If you are one of the many professionals who have been confronted by violent clients, it is important to read this new book by Janet Stanley and Chris Goddard. First, you will experience a sense of relief that the authors have managed an open and honest examination of how violence is an intrinsic part of the practice of child protection. Second, you will nod furiously as you identify with the level of violence related by workers in the field. Finally, you may be challenged enough from the conclusions drawn by the authors to adjust your view about how such exposure to violence affects your decision-making.
In reading the book, you will note the authors' legitimate claim that while inquiries into the deaths of children from abuse have preoccupied health and welfare professions and the media for nearly three decades, little attention has been given to the effectiveness of protective services, where a child has not died but has been severely abused. As such, In the Firing Line offers theoretical developments and research findings in a number of areas relevant to the failure of state child protection systems to protect children from re-abuse.
Significantly, the authors vividly demonstrate that for many children, abuse dir