- Home |
- About Us |
- Contact Us |
- Site Map |
vol.12 no.2 Spring 2004
Published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies
ISSN 1447-0039 (Print); 1447-0047 (Online)
Editor and Manager, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Daryl Higgins
Newsletter compiled by Leah Bromfield, Senior Research Officer, and Nick Richardson, Research Officer
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 (452K) or in sections as listed below. You will need an Acrobat Reader which is free from the Adobe Systems Web site .
In this Issue
Welcome to the second Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter for 2004, produced by the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
In addition to our regular columns, in this edition we are pleased to feature: an overview of the proposed reforms to Victorian child protection legislation, policy and programs, by Leah Bromfield; reflections and highlights from the ISCPAN 15th International Congress held in Brisbane in September 2004, by Nick Richardson, Daryl Higgins and Thomas Feeny; and a review of the Australian Senate's report on abuse in institutional care, by Nick Richardson. Also featured are other reports, overviews, profiles, and a book review.
In the previous newsletter, a number of staffing changes at the National Child Protection Clearinghouse this year were outlined. We are very grateful to Dr Adam Tomison who had been at the Institute for nine years and made an enormous contribution to the Clearinghouse and the field of child abuse prevention, as well as to Dr Janet Stanley and Ms Katie Kovacs for their valued contributions. We wish them well in their future endeavours.
The Clearinghouse now has three full-time research staff: Dr Daryl Higgins (Senior Research Fellow and Manager of the Clearinghouse), Ms Leah Bromfield (Senior Research Officer), and Mr Nicholas Richardson (Research Officer).
Daryl Higgins: Prior to joining the Institute in August this year, I was a Senior Lecturer in the School of Psychology at Deakin University. My PhD focused on the topic of 'multi-type maltreatment' and it examined the overlap between the various forms of child abuse and neglect and their relationship to psychological adjustment problems in the immediate and long term. I have been researching and publishing on topics related to child abuse, neglect and family violence for almost 12 years, and have also worked as a therapist in private practice.
Leah Bromfield joined the Clearinghouse in September 2004. Leah is nearing completion of her PhD on the topic of chronic child maltreatment in statutory child protection services, comparing factors associated with chronic and isolated child maltreatment cases. Previously, Leah was Research Coordinator at Barwon Health's Paediatric and Adolescent Support Service where she undertook research on the impact of a child's chronic illness/disability on parents. Leah also has experience in crisis counselling and has previously been employed in the capacity of telephone counsellor for Lifeline and counsellor/advocate for the Barwon Centre Against Sexual Assault crisis response team.
Nick Richardson has been with the Clearinghouse since March 2004. He had previously been working at the Australian Institute of Family Studies as a researcher with the Australian Temperament Project as part of a collaborative venture with Crime Prevention Victoria (exploring a range of issues around adolescent antisocial behaviour). Nick has a background in psychology, and is well-versed on the issues of child abuse and other family violence.
The team will soon be joined by a writer/editor who will assist with communications, such as production of our newsletters and editing issues papers and other publications. In addition, we draw on the time and expertise of a number of the Institute's library staff to assist in conducting our research, as well as answering queries from the public for resources.
For further information about staff, see the Who's Who page in this newsletter, or check out the 'staff profile' page on the Institute's website.
In his departing editorial, Adam Tomison noted that from modest beginnings, the National Child Protection Clearinghouse has developed into a centre for excellence with a national and international reputation in the field of child abuse prevention and child protection. We are excited about the prospects for the Clearinghouse, and keen to make sure that the services we provide are meeting your needs. Please feel free to provide feedback about the Newsletter, Issues Papers and other materials such as the Resource Sheets being progressively published on the web (email feedback to: ncpc@aifs.gov.au).
As well as our usual publications, under the current contract (2004- 2007), the Clearinghouse will be focusing on several specific research projects concerning: Indigenous out-of-home care and the safety of children; the national research agenda for mainstream and Indigenous foster care; and policies, procedures and evidence-based guidelines for creating and maintaining child-safe organisations. Keep an eye out for future publications and reports on these topics in the months ahead. In consultation with the Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services, we will also be appointing a Reference Group of experts to enhance stakeholder input and feedback regarding existing services, and to assist with identifying possible new services, or ways to enhance existing service delivery.
We would like to remind readers that the Clearinghouse welcomes contributions to its Newsletter. Authors can submit articles that describe current initiatives or policies, discuss aspects of child abuse and neglect, or highlight issues in preventing, or responding to, child abuse and neglect. As part of a recent overview of our policies and procedures, a few small changes have been introduced to our general publication guidelines, as well as the posting of guidelines for the e-discussion list hosted by the Clearinghouse: childprotect. The revised guidelines are now posted on the web. However, please feel free to phone or email us to discuss your potential contribution, or to provide feedback.
Finally, on a personal note, I am very pleased to be part of National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, and look forward to being of service to you all through the publications and resources we provide, and value your feedback and contributions as we work to make our society safer for children and young people.
It is estimated that 500,000 Australians experienced childhood care in an institution or out-of-home environment in the past century. Children were placed in care for many reasons including being orphaned, being born to a single mother, being mistreated or neglected, family dislocation, domestic violence, family poverty, and parents' inability to cope with their children often as a result of some form of crisis or hardship. Many of these children did not receive adequate care, affection and nurturing, and often children experienced physical, sexual and emotional abuse while in care.
On 30 August 2004, the Australian Government Senate Community Affairs Committee tabled in parliament the findings of the first of two reports examining Australians' experiences and treatment in institutional and out-of-home care.
The report came about after years of lobbying from the many thousands of adults who had experienced abuse and neglect while in such care. The impetus for the inquiry also arose from the release of the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report Bringing them home (HREOC 1997), which focused on the 'stolen generations' of Indigenous children, and the more recent Senate Community Affairs Committee report Lost Innocents (2001) inquiring into the care of unaccompanied child migrants. The report was seen as an acknowledgement that other Australians who experienced institutional or outof- home care also deserve recognition and access to services as a result of their experiences.
The Senate referred matters to the Senate Committee, including:
The Committee invited submissions from state and federal government departments and other interested organisations and individuals. A total of 440 public submissions and 174 confidential submissions were received. Survivors of child abuse in institutional care who provided submissions came from all states and territories in Australia and experienced care spanning a period from the 1920s to the 1990s. A large volume of these submissions outlined highly personal and emotional accounts of traumatic childhood experiences of institutional care, which often constituted physical and emotional abuse.
Due to the broad scope of the terms of reference and magnitude of the evidence received, the Committee decided to produce two reports on this inquiry. The first report, released in August 2004, included background information on the role of governments, churches and other institutions in placing children in care, the treatment of children in care, and the long-term effects of experiences while in care. The issues of responsibility, acknowledgement and reparation were also canvassed, as were issues relating to the provision of services for care leavers that are critical in ensuring that they can improve their quality of life.
The Committee will produce a second report by December 2004 (subject to the resumption of Parliament after the election) to cover remaining matters in the terms of reference including foster care, children with physical and mental disabilities in care, and other contemporary issues of child welfare and child protection.
A total of 39 recommendations were made by the Committee, the most important of which are summarised below:
Statements of an acknowledgement and apology
Addressing legal barriers
National reparation fund
Internal church redress processes
Royal Commission
Location, preservation, recording and access to records
Provision of support services
Research
Many survivors of childhood abuse in institutional care took the opportunity to provide accounts of their experiences in institutional care to the Committee. Given the trauma associated with their experiences, recounting memories of institutional care often proved to be very challenging for the survivors. The eventual tabling of the report to Parliament was met with much emotion from the survivors as well as the senators from the Committee.
Currently, the federal and state/territory governments and non-government organisations are considering the recommendations of the first report; however, legislative changes are not likely to take place until after the release of the second report in December 2004. Some states such as Tasmania and South Australia are conducting their own inquiries into abuse of wards of the state (Kelton 2004; Stedman 2004) and will consider the findings of the Senate Committee report alongside the reports from these inquiries.
The Uniting Church and the Salvation Army are among the first organisations to have issued a formal apology to those who experienced abuse while in the care of their agencies (Wroe 2004). Others apologies are expected to follow.
A summary of the second report of the inquiry into Australians' experiences and treatment in institutional and out-of-home care will be placed in a future edition of the Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter.
References
Australian Government Senate Community Affairs Committee (2001), Lost innocents: Righting the record, a report on child migration, Commonwealth of Australia. Canberra. Available at: www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/child_migrat/report/contents.htm
Australian Government Senate Community Affairs Committee (2004), Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who experienced institutional or out-of-care as children, Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra. Available at: www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/clac_ctte/inst_care/index.htm
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission [HREOC] (1997), Bringing them home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families, Commonwealth of Australia, Sydney.
Kelton, G. (2004), 'Inquiry into state ward sex abuse "is flawed"', The Adelaide Advertiser, 10 September, p. 26.
Stedman, M. (2004), 'Greens want apology to Tasmanian abuse victims', Launceston Examiner, 1 September, p. 10.
Wroe, D. (2004), 'Abused children's report draws tears', The Age, 31 August, p. 3.
The 15th ISPCAN International Congress on Child Abuse and Neglect, Working Together for a Child Safe World, was held in Brisbane on 19-22 September 2004. The aim of the congress was to encourage the exchange of professional information and practices, so that professionals and communities can forge effective responses to the complex problems of abuse and neglect.
The theme and title of the conference, 'working together for a child safe world', reflected a commitment to creating a world where children are free from all forms of abuse and exploitation by adults and other children and young people. 'Working together' recognised that abuse and neglect are complex problems that call for the mobilisation of many kinds of skills and resources.
More than 1,100 delegates from more than 70 countries attended the conference. Delegates included many children and young people whose involvement provided a perspective of those who experience maltreatment. A wide range of organisations was represented. Daryl Higgins and Nick Richardson represented the National Child Protection Clearinghouse and took the opportunity to attend presentations and to meet with Australian and international policy makers, practitioners working with 'at risk' or abused children and their families, and researchers in the field of child abuse prevention.
Nick Richardson and Daryl Higgins, along with Thomas Feeney, Advocacy Officer for the Consortium of Street Children, provide summaries of some of the presentations they attended.
Presenter: Geraldine MacDonald (Commission for Social Care Inspection, UK)
In recent years, there has been a drive for policy makers and practitioners in the field of child protection to consider evidence when designing interventions in child maltreatment prevention. However, while 'evidence-based practice' has secured a hold in professional parlance, according to MacDonald, its potential as a means for improving decision-making in child protection is in danger of being seriously undermined.
MacDonald defined evidence-based practice as an approach to decision-making that is transparent, accountable, and based on a careful consideration of the most compelling current evidence about the effects of interventions on the welfare of individuals, groups and communities. Reflecting the dominant consensus in field, MacDonald provided some striking examples to demonstrate that randomised control trials provide the strongest evidence of effectiveness.
Despite the popularity of describing their practices as 'evidence-based', MacDonald drew attention to the failure of those conducting child abuse prevention and intervention efforts actually to use evidence-based practices. There is little consensus about 'what should count as evidence' and often evidence-based practice has meant reaching for one or more single research studies to support particular interventions.
MacDonald also highlighted some common problems encountered in using evidence-based approaches: failure to identify all relevant studies (through publication bias towards 'positive' results, limited access, and a reliance on studies published in English); preferential appraisal of included studies; positional bias (for example, experts have vested interest); lack of transparency and explicitness; and the use of research that is past its use-by date.
To avoid these problems, MacDonald emphasised that we need to ensure that the findings of single randomised control studies should be considered in the context of other relevant research and in the context of other equally legitimate influences on decision-making for program designers (for example, organisational capacity and community context of program). We also need to conduct systematic reviews in which all primary studies are identified, appraised and summarised according to explicit and reproducible methodology (as many reviews of the literature are ad hoc).
The key issue is to be transparent in showing conclusions have been formed using the material available. This will then hopefully reduce the likelihood of policy-makers being misled by biases or lack of information. Many researchers today use the term 'systematic' as a means of providing their work with spurious respectability - Mac- Donald warned the audience to not fall into this trap!
MacDonald suggests that we need to: move beyond basing decisions on single studies; recognise that methodology matters; make evidence more easily available and accessible; and provide appropriate training on evidence-based decision-making at qualifying and post-qualifying levels. Kul Gautam, Deputy Executive Director, UNICEF, delivers his keynote address. Mike Reynolds, Minister for Child Safety, Queensland, with children at opening ceremony.
For more information about systematic reviews or evidence-based decision-making refer to the website of the Cochrane Collaboration - an international non-profit and independent organisation that produces and disseminates systematic reviews of social interventions and promotes the search for evidence in the form of clinical trials of interventions. See: www.cochrane.org
Presenter: Debaroh Daro (Chapin Hall Centre for Children, University of Chicago)
Daro outlined three strategic reform paths that have emerged recently in the United States child welfare system. Empirical support for any of these evaluations is limited; however, preliminary evaluations suggest that each offers an opportunity to afford all children greater protection and agencies more efficient use of resources.
Dual response systems
The varying levels of risk presented by children reported for maltreatment underscore the logic of dual response systems. Serious cases that pose immediate threats to a child's safety may require legalistic and intrusive investigations. However, reports stemming from a parent's lack of resources may best be addressed by a more supportive response. To address these differences, several states in the United States have instituted a dual track response system that offers safety assessments and service options as opposed to investigations for those reports deemed less serious.
The implementation of dual track response systems in both Missouri and Minnesota has created opportunities for child welfare workers to establish stronger relationships with families at risk and to improve consistency of care. The reforms allowed managers to rethink staff allocations and offer new ways to distribute caseloads. The process also may assist workers in becoming more familiar with local service options and therefore place them in a stronger position to provide families with more appropriate referrals. A greater array of services may also be placed within the reach of more families facing significant parenting challenges. As such, the dual track response system transforms the reporting system from a purely investigative tool to one that serves as an early warning device to flag families in need of help.
However, there is a risk that families receiving these alternative interventions may not actually pose a high risk for future serious abuse or re-reporting. Early findings suggest that dual track response systems may not alter the proportion of cases likely to return to the child welfare system over time.
Geographic location of workers
A number of child welfare agencies are experimenting with locating their staff within community agencies such as school and family resource centres. The logic of this approach is to reduce the barriers between residents and formal service providers and create an environment in which families feel more comfortable drawing on public services for general support. In theory, this allows interventions to be more compatible with a family's culture and normative standards of child well being. Also, if located in schools, health clinics or community-based agencies, child welfare services become less stigmatising so parents facing particular challenges might be more willing to request assistance earlier.
Placing child welfare workers in community agencies broadens the reach of child welfare beyond families who are the subject of a specific child abuse report. Child welfare workers placed in community agency settings confirm that the strategy results in improved relationships with other health and human services, greater accessibility to services for families at risk, and more informed referral decisions with respect to families that are involved in reportable maltreatment.
The ultimate impact of such strategies, however, remains unclear. Despite the perceived benefits of out-placing staff, child welfare managers struggle with a number of logistical and institutional barriers in implementation (for example, supervision of frontline staff located in multiple satellite offices; the cost of equipping local community agencies to provide support to child welfare investigators or caseworkers).
Establishing community partnerships
The concept of 'community partnerships' calls for a transformation from a single response agency to a system of shared responsibility and mutual support. This reflects a recognition that child protection is brought about by a community operating formally and informally to protect children. Thus, reform is directed not at a single agency but rather at a community and culture with the aim of building collective responsibility, and reciprocity and mutual support between individuals and institutions.
The community partnership concept brings together all levels of government, community agencies and local residents in collectively implementing strategies for supporting families. Community partnership is rooted in a number of practical and theoretical considerations. The most powerful theories for explaining human behaviour and child abuse have drawn on the interdependency of the individual, family and social context (Belsky 1980; Brofenbrenner 1979). Evidence is mounting that residents in local communities can collectively provide strong support to children and parents and that such support reduces the incidence of violence (Garbarino and Sherman 1980; Korbin and Coulton 1997).
However, it remains unclear if (and how) community partnerships can build greater social relationships and civic behaviour within communities that lack this type of give-and-take. New thinking is needed with respect to designing a broad range of activities generally not considered part of the child welfare agency mission (for example, community celebrations, community meetings, outreach to specific families in an area). In addition, a stronger conceptual framework is needed to incorporate more targeted strategies into a universal system of support for all parents.
The presentation provided by Deborah Daro was based on her paper: Daro, D. (2004), Before substantiation: The role for child welfare agencies in preventing maltreatment, Chapin Hall Center for Children, University of Chicago. Available at: www.jcpr.org/wp/wpdownload.cfm?pdflink=wpfiles/daro.pdf
Presenters: Paulo Pinheiro (UN Independent Expert for VAC study, Brazil); Amaya Gillespie (UNICEF, Geneva); Desmond Runyan (University of North Carolina, USA); and Gopalan Balagopal (UNICEF, USA)
This session was to introduce those not already aware of the United Nations Study on Violence against Children currently in progress. The presenters raised the following key points.
The purpose of the study is to inform the development of international and national prevention and treatment strategies for all forms of violence against children. The study aims to provide an in-depth summary of the extent to which children are exposed to violence in their homes, their communities and in their schools (but does not include conflict/war as this was covered by the 1996 Graca Machel Study on the Impact of Armed Conflict on Children).
The involvement of UNICEF, WHO and UNHCR in the Violence Against Children study will aim to bring together key ideas, paradigms and languages from a range of professional fields including children's rights, public health and human rights in general.
The study has been severely constrained by the limited support available. It has become evident that funding (provided by UNICEF, the World Health Organisation, and the United Nations) will not support the study conducting any new surveys or research with children.
Violence against children is still not prominent enough on the international agenda of governments and nongovernment organisations. It is hoped that the study, when finally completed in 2006, will rectify this by creating dialogue across and within both 'developed' and 'developing' countries. In this sense, the process of collating information and involving national and international non-government organisations in the Violence against Children study is as important as the final report itself. The report will be presented to the General Assembly in order to increase the commitment of the United Nations and member states.
The violence of terrorism currently has a high profile, but its effects on children in various social, cultural and economic ways is still largely unexplored and is unlikely to be so without even greater collaboration with non-government organisations and practitioners in the field.
The participation of local, national and international organisations is critical in ensuring that the findings accurately capture and portray violence against children in all its diverse and idiosyncratic forms, and to also ensure that the recommendations are accurate and practical at the grassroots level.
The committee charged with carrying out the study are still in the process of discussing the best possible methods of initiating children's participation in the research, but acknowledge that the findings should be made accessible to both children and adults as far as possible.
The importance of knowing what doesn't work with regard to tackling violence against children is as critical as eliciting what does work, but preliminary research suggests that the issue of violence is still significantly underreported - particularly in terms of the prevalence of less extreme/publicised forms.
Those interested in learning more about the Violence Against Children study are encouraged to review the descriptive material available on a special website established for the project: www.unhchr.ch/html/menu2/6/crc/study.htm
Presenters: Barry Nurcombe, Peter Marrington, Peta Lilley
Nurcombe and colleagues presented a number of papers on the Queensland Sexual Abuse Treatment study. This project is one of the few (if not the only) of its kind in Australia to have been evaluated using a randomised control methodology.
Aim: To compare the effectiveness of cognitive behaviour therapy and family therapy in the community treatment of sexually abused children. It was hypothesised that cognitive behaviour therapy would be more effective than family therapy because it was designed to directly address the trauma of sexual abuse by the use of specific therapeutic techniques.
Method: Children aged 6-16 years who were victims of substantiated sexual abuse (89 children) were randomly assigned to the two treatments and tested at baseline, the end of treatment (18 weeks) and 52 weeks. Domains that were assessed included: parental psychopathology; the child's social competence and general symptomology; dissociation; posttraumatic symptomology; anxiety; depression; sleep disturbance; attitudes to self, others and the abuse; attachment; and self-esteem.
Results: Both cognitive behaviour therapy and family therapy produced significant improvement in child posttraumatic stress symptoms, depression, aggression, dissociation, avoidant coping, and general psychopathology. There was no evidence that cognitive behaviour therapy was more effective than family therapy. Neither treatment was effective in regard to providing benefits for mothers' mental health and family cohesion.
For further information about the Queensland Sexual Abuse Treatment study see the website: www.psychiatry.uq.edu.au/csa/ Nurcombe, B., Wooding, S., Marrington, P., Bickman, L. & Roberts, G. (2000), 'Child Sexual Abuse II: Treatment', Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, vol. 34, pp. 92-97.
Abuse in the church is an ongoing subject of discussion in the wider community, and there is a need to provide assistance, education and preventative measures within the church to address the problem of child abuse.
To facilitate this, last year the New South Wales Assembly of the Presbyterian Church of Australia approved the formation of a Child Protection Unit within Presbyterian Social Services. At this year's General Assembly of Australia, the Director of the Child Protection Unit was co-opted by the Presbyterian Church in other states and territories to assist with the development of a national approach to child protection issues in the church.
The Child Protection Unit commenced on 23 February 2004 to enable the church to better respond to allegations of child abuse within the church (both past and present), to develop child abuse prevention measures and to support adult survivors of child abuse. The role of the Child Protection Unit is to establish processes, provide a point of contact between a variety of people both inside and outside the church, deal with stressful situations that need to be handled with procedural fairness and sensitivity, comply with legal obligations, and provide support for individuals dealing with difficult issues within an organisation.
Specifically the Child Protection Unit provides:
The first task has been to review all existing procedures for responding to allegations of child abuse within the church in order to assess their appropriateness and to produce one easy-to-access document for church congregations. Material is also being produced to let people know who to contact if they wish to make an allegation or have a problem concerning child abuse within the church where we may be able to provide assistance. The focus is on education, prevention and assistance.
The church has established a process to deal with allegations, a training program, and an abuse prevention accreditation program. Over the next twelve months the Child Protection Unit will be developing strategies designed to support offenders or those at risk of offending in order to prevent child abuse, while acknowledging the overriding obligation to ensure the ongoing safety of children and young people and to work within statutory frameworks for notification. During the same period the Child Protection Unit will be developing strategies for helping and supporting adult survivors of child abuse.
The Child Protection Unit is committed to providing all congregations, organisations and committees within the Presbyterian Church in New South Wales with the best possible support, advice and resources in relation to this important issue.
All enquiries and complaints in regard to child protection matters within the Presbyterian Church should be marked 'Confidential' and directed to Elizabeth McClean, Director, Child Protection Unit, Presbyterian Social Services, 168 Chalmers Street, Surry Hills, NSW 2010. Or via email (emcclean@pcnsw.org.au). Or by phone (02) 9690 9324.
Individuals who have current concerns for the safety, welfare or wellbeing for a child or young person living in New South Wales may also contact the DoCS Helpline on 132 111 for the cost of a local call, 24 hours a day, seven days a week.
In 2002, the Victorian Government began the process of reviewing the state's statutory child protection service. The review differentiated itself from previous reviews that have focused on 'the existing legislative and broad policy frameworks' and instead 'takes a more fundamental look at the appropriateness of the legislative, policy and program frameworks that determine the directions and boundaries of current policy and program responses' (Allen Consulting Group 2003, p. vi, emphasis in original).
The review was conducted in three stages comprising an initial report, community consultation and publication of a reform agenda. The first stage broadly examined: (a) the effectiveness of the Victorian child protection system for meeting the goal for which it was designed; (b) the effectiveness of Victoria's child protection service for meeting the current needs of vulnerable children and families (taking into account the social changes that have occurred since the implementation of the Children and Young Persons Act in 1989); and (c) the merits of the child protection versus the family service orientation to responding to child maltreatment at a global level.
The findings from this stage of the review were published in September 2003 in a report prepared by the Allen Consulting Group titled, 'Protecting children: The child protection outcomes project'. The report identified several potential areas for reform in the form of broad policy options.
The second stage of the review was a consultation process undertaken by a government appointed panel chaired by Mr Peter Kirby. (Mr Kirby has worked extensively with Corrections Victoria and has chaired reviews into Suicide and Self Harm in Victoria's Prisons and The Management and Operation of Victoria's Private Prisons.) The consultation took place between October 2003 and February 2004. The panel found broad agreement for the reform directions proposed in the child protection outcomes project.
The findings from this consultation process were published in April 2004 in a report prepared by the consultation panel titled The report of the panel to oversee the consultation on Protecting children: The child protection outcomes project (Frieberg, Kirby and Ward 2004). The consensus from the child protection outcomes project and consultation process was that 'the most effective response to support vulnerable families and protect children from harm involves an integrated, unified, broad-based system of service which aims to promote child wellbeing and protect children' (p. 1).
In September 2004, the Victorian Government Department of Human Services released the third stage of the review process, a report titled 'Protecting children: Ten priorities for children's wellbeing and safety in Victoria: Technical options paper' (Victorian Government 2004). The report outlines the reforms proposed for Victoria's child protection service, the Children's and Young Persons Act 1989, the Community Services Act 1970, and the Children's court in ten key areas, which are referred to in the report as 'key components'.
A selection of the specific options put forward under each of the ten key components are presented here in order to provide readers with a broad overview of the intent and nature of the proposed Victorian reforms. Readers wanting further detail can access a full copy of the technical options paper in PDF format at: www.dhs.vic.gov.au/protectingchildren
A cohesive policy and legislative framework
Problem: Currently there is a split between the child protection emergency intervention and provision of community services (for example, adult mental health or drug and alcohol services).
Recommendation: To develop a unifying policy framework formalising the process for jointly agreed goals, responsibilities and outcome measures. This would require a new Act for the children's and family service system consolidating the Children and Young Persons Act and the Community Services Act.
Specific options:
Enhanced strategic management of the service system
Problem: A lack of formal quality control measures and a lack of an integrated response between services exists.
Recommendation: A series of recommendations were made to overcome the identified problem, including: regulation prescribing minimum standards for service provision; development of a strategic plan explicitly linking the goals and priorities of different types and levels of service; forward-planned research and practice based learning; providing an advocate in children's care; legislating for continuous quality improvement (for example, accreditation); strengthening pre-employment screening; and legislating for a government administrator in instances where non-government organisations have failed to achieve minimum standards.
Specific options:
Reduced Aboriginal over-representation in child protection and alternative care systems; strengthening of self-management and an increased range of culturally-specific supports and services
Problem: Aboriginal services require a holistic approach that includes the community in problem solving. Aboriginal communities require culturally relevant policies and programs rather than ad hoc amendments to current policies and programs working within the broader community.
Recommendation: Legislate for culturally relevant policies and programs which empower Aboriginal communities to take part in decision-making and interventions impacting on children and families.
Specific options:
A service system that supports earlier intervention and prevention
Problem: The current system provides a crisis response, however families experience complex problems, which if not addressed may lead to chronic child maltreatment.
Recommendations: Promote early intervention and long-term work with families and where necessary amend the current legislative, service and policy frameworks to facilitate this.
Specific options:
A differentiated range of service responses which form a service system
Problem: To meet the complex and differing needs of families, a wide range of services are required to be delivered across the state on the basis of need.
Recommendation: Clarify and redefine roles and responsibilities within the service system and implement new processes and structures so that services work together more effectively and better connect vulnerable children and families to appropriate services and supports.
Specific options:
Information sharing in an integrated system of children's and family services
Problem: A new Act consolidating the Children's and Young Persons Act and the Community Services Act will require technical amendments to existing legislation to allow for the sharing of information between service providers without breaching privacy clauses currently contained within the Children's and Young Persons Act, the Information Privacy Act or the Health Records Act. New legislation will assign part of the responsibility for receiving and assessing information regarding the protection of children to community service organisations. Notifiers to community service organisations will require identity protection on par with that provided to notifiers to child protection services within the Children's and Young Persons Act.
Recommendation: Legislate to protect the identity of the notifier to child protection services and to community service organisations. Legislate to allow for information sharing between defined classes of people. Inform the parent and young person about information collected, except where to do so would put the child at risk.
Specific options:
Enhanced Child Protection practice and out-of-home care services
Problem: In order to provide integrated children's and family services, Child Protection will need to retain its emergency response role, and expand its responsibility to provide consultancy, case planning and case management to community services involved in the provision of children's and family services.
Recommendation: Redesign Child Protection to enable it to retain its emergency response role but to also offer advice and consultancy services to families with complex entrenched problems and to have a stronger focus on the cumulative effect of child maltreatment.
Specific options:
The Family Division of the Children's Court and alternative dispute resolution models
Problem: The current system offers little flexibility for working with complex families long-term. It is difficult to achieve safety for the child within an adversarial environment and is more likely to be perceived by parents as intrusive rather than supportive. There has been a significant increase in the number of interim accommodation orders while awaiting a Children's Court outcome. This has resource implications for the Department of Human Services and may adversely affect the child.
Recommendation: Legislate for court diversion and alternate dispute resolution. Legislate for timely and efficient response by the children's court. Allow magistrates to make enquiries into evidence.
Specific options:
Enhanced stability for children
Problem: The negative impact of the cycle of removal and reunification on children's development and attachment. Children may be damaged more by insecure placement than by the original problem that brought about their removal and placement into care.
Recommendation: Simultaneous planning for permanent care and reunification; if timelines for reunification goals are not being achieved, transfer to permanent care plan.
Specific options:
Meeting the needs of young people, including those leaving care
Problem: Reforms to the current legislation will also impact upon young people whose needs are different from those of families with younger children. There is a need to involve young people in decision-making. However, there are also some young people at such high levels of risk that intervention must be imposed for their own safety.
Recommendation: Amend the current legislation, policy and service framework to provide Child Protection greater flexibility in responding to the needs of young people.
Specific options:
The Victorian government is undertaking further consultation in relation to the specific options outlined and intends to introduce new legislation into the Parliament in 2005. Service development and system redesign are proposed for implementation over the next three to five years.
References
Allen Consulting Group (2003), Protecting children: The child protection outcomes project, Allen Consulting Group, Melbourne.
Victorian Government (2004), Protecting children: Ten priorities for children's wellbeing and safety in Victoria: Technical options paper, Community Care Division, Victorian Government Department of Human Services, Melbourne.
Frieberg, A., Kirby, P. & Ward, L. (2004), Report of the panel to oversee the consultation on protecting children: The child protection outcomes project, Victorian Government Department of Human Services, Melbourne.
Sing & Grow is a prevention and early intervention music therapy program that has been provided by Playgroup Queensland since July 2001. It is currently funded by the Australian Government until 2007. The project is based in Brisbane and provides services across South-East Queensland as well as some regional areas. The project is managed and presented by tertiary trained and qualified Registered Music Therapists.
Families with children aged three years or younger are referred to programs by local community organisations and other service providers with whom collaborative partnerships have been established. Many families with identified risk factors participate in programs including: adolescent parents, families with disabilities, parents with mental health challenges (including substance abuse), families identified as low socio-economic status or socially isolated, non-English speaking families, Indigenous families, and families experiencing, or at-risk of, domestic violence or child abuse and neglect.
Program accessibility is enhanced by the selection of local community settings within a ten-minute drive of participating families' homes (for example, community centres, play groups, church halls). Venues are selected that are close to public transport, and in some cases partner organisations have been engaged to pick up families who do not have access to a car.
Registered Music Therapists provide a group music therapy program over ten weeks to families with the aim of improving child development outcomes, enhancing parent-child interactions, empowering parents to develop their parenting skills, and promoting and supporting social support networks for families. Strategies used include the positive modelling of interaction skills (for example, taking turns to use instruments to teach sharing), the provision of an at-home resource for families to use (such as the Sing & Grow take-home CD and companion booklet), and the ongoing development of exit strategies for families to ensure that further support is provided as required (for example, through playgroups, community networking).
A maximum of ten families participate in each group and each session is approximately one hour in length. Each session begins with a 'hello song' and ends with a 'good-bye song'. During the session children and parents take part in action songs, instrumental play, dancing, and quiet time with relaxation music.
The Sing & Grow program uses music therapy to enhance child development directly - for example, action songs and dance to develop fine and gross motor skills, singing to develop language skills. However, every aspect of the program is also designed to model to parents how they can facilitate their child's development through music (for example, quiet time with relaxation music to facilitate bonding and closeness between parents and children). Families are provided with a free copy of the Sing & Grow CD and companion booklet that are designed to reinforce the program goals. The CD and companion booklet was designed by Sing & Grow music therapists for families to take home and use. The CD contains music exercises and the booklet guides parents to use the CD at home and reinforces why it is important to do these exercises with young children.
The program comprises ten sessions, however few families attend every session, and families can acquire the basic skills taught in the program within five sessions. However, families who attend more than five sessions receive enhanced benefits from the program's reinforcement, and families who attend one or two sessions may still obtain some benefits from participation.
Sing & Grow is grounded in attachment theory and the belief that secure relationships with caregivers formed and maintained in early childhood will act as a buffer against other stressors impacting on families, and will promote long-term emotional and developmental health and wellbeing in children. The program is strongly informed by strengths-based and empowerment frameworks.
Strengths-based techniques facilitate the family's identification of their own parenting and relational strengths. Positive feedback, modelling and facilitation promote and build upon parenting skills by expanding upon existing strengths, building self-confidence and providing practical and achievable measures for improvement. This strategy has proven particularly effective for young parents who have previously experienced services that may focus primarily on their weaknesses.
The Sing & Grow program uses intervention based on an empowerment model and so has been successful in engaging those hard to reach families due to the non-threatening setting created. This has been demonstrated in groups where parents who have had their children taken into care, have been abused, are currently living in a violent household and/or have mental health difficulties, have actively and successfully participated, learnt new parenting skills and reported feeling closer to their children.
The use of this empowerment framework is in strong contrast to the welfare model of care. Many parents who have experienced the welfare model of care are often resistant to engaging in any further intervention services, particularly if implemented by professionals associated with the welfare model. However, by using empowering and strengths-based music therapy techniques, intervention becomes implicit, rather than explicit and hence, is non-threatening and accessible to all families.
Each group music therapy program is thoroughly evaluated using three methods. First, each Registered Music Therapist conducting groups documents weekly clinical observations relating to the specific objectives developed for the group. Second, parents are invited to complete baseline and post-intervention self-report questionnaires. Three, one or two families from each group are randomly selected to complete a follow-up phone survey one to three months following the close of the program. This survey relates specifically to the use of the at-home CD resource provided. Results of all three evaluation methods are collated for each group and then further synthesised to reflect the outcomes for the whole project. The findings from the program evaluations undertaken for the first three years of the project are presented below.
Attendance statistics are not calculated for families who attend all ten sessions, as this is considered an unrealistic expectation of the program participants. Families are deemed to have successfully completed the program if they attend five sessions.
Clinical observations documented by Registered Music Therapists indicate that the majority of participating families made marked improvements in all established goal areas as shown below:
Rather than being based on any one specific piece of empirical research (there is little in this area), the development of Sing & Grow has been informed by local and international music therapy and social work literature describing work with vulnerable families. The program is also grounded in contemporary and emerging literature from the areas of child development, attachment theory, family therapy, social capital, risk and protective factors, and resilience. Regularly updated literature reviews allow for continued revision and integration of current theory, research and practice into the program.
The program has developed several collaborative service relationships over the past three years with both existing and emerging services working with at-risk families. It is anticipated that these existing partnerships will be maintained and further relationships developed through the formation of reference groups consisting of clients, key stakeholders, and representatives from other service providers. These reference groups will be used to inform the future development of the program and will be instrumental in the ongoing use of action research principles. The regular meetings of these groups will also provide opportunities for partner service providers to increase their own networks and will be a vehicle for the broad dissemination of information regarding the service and the active seeking of priority referrals. Reference group meetings also provide a vehicle for bringing together the many stakeholders who play an active role in supporting at-risk families.
Sing & Grow received a 'Highly Commended' award in the Community Development, Capacity Building & Strengthening (Family Services) section of the 2003 National Child Protection Awards.
The Sing & Grow Program is currently provided by Playgroup Queensland. For further information on the Sing & Grow Project contact: Kate Williams (kwilliams@playgroupqld.com.au) or Vicky Abad (vabad@playgroupqld.com.au) Phone: (07) 3368 2622. Fax: (07) 3367 2522.
The Women's Safety After Separation project launched its national website on 7 June 2004 in Adelaide. This is a new website providing information for women and workers assisting women escaping abuse and violence. The address of the website is: www.wsas.here.ws
The website provides a web-based resource with downloadable materials, references and links in relation to domestic violence, child protection, family law, protection orders, research and web-links, such as: emergency contact numbers, tips for women escaping violence (for example, escape plans, what to take), background information on the nature of family violence, information for women from Indigenous and non-English-speaking backgrounds, and information about the legal system.
The website is being widely publicised. Brochures, stickers and posters have been mailed out to women's organisations, family court registries, and legal centres. In addition, the website is being publicised through a press release to media outlets, and notices in relevant publications (such as this newsletter). The extent to which the website is being used will be monitored through measures such as the number of 'hits', and the content will be evaluated based on feedback from users and updated accordingly.
The website was funded by the Australian Government's Office of Status of Women and auspiced by the National Council of Single Mothers and their Children and the Australian Coalition of Women Against Violence. It aims to provide information to women facing separation, particularly where there is violence and abuse. We hope this information will help women to negotiate safety for themselves and their children. However, we acknowledge that there needs to be important changes in how domestic violence, child protection and family law issues are dealt with to improve the safety of women and children.
Currently, women face many problems when escaping domestic violence and child abuse - for example, continuing violence, the high cost of legal action, health risks arising from exposure to violence and abuse, anxiety and depression. The research indicates that survivors of violence and abuse begin recovery when their exposure to danger has stopped and they are able to re-establish safety (Rendell, Rathus and Lynch 2000). The seriousness of the risk to the safety of women and children is not always recognised in matters in the Family Court involving allegations of violence and abuse. Research confirms that abuse and violence of women and children can continue post-separation (Brown, Sheehan, Frederico and Hewitt 2001; Rhoades, Graycar and Harrison 1999). Women who are continually being re-exposed to danger both directly, and through their children, are placed in the difficult position of being unable to focus on recovery and safety (Rendell et al. 2000).
Resources and approaches need to be further developed and made accessible to improve responses to the needs of women and their children when subjected to violence and abuse. The website is an important component of this.
The National Abuse Free Contact Campaign has been developed in partnership with the Women's Safety After Separation project. Supported by a coalition of interested groups, individuals and organisations, this campaign seeks to address the issues that women and their children face when escaping violence and abuse.
References
Brown, T., Sheehan, R., Frederico, M. & Hewitt, L. (2001), Resolving family violence to children: Family violence and family court research program, Monash University, Melbourne.
Rendell, K., Rathus, Z. &Lynch, A. (2000), An unacceptable risk, Women's Legal Service Inc, Brisbane.
Rhoades, H., Graycar, R. &Harrison, M. (1999), The Family Law Reform Act 1995: Can changing legislation change legal culture, legal practice and community expectations? Interim report, University of Sydney, Sydney.
For further information on the Women's Safety After Separation Project contact: Marie Hume (Coordinator) or Heather Joy (Project worker), NCSMC Torrens Building, 220 Victoria Square, Adelaide SA 5000. Phone (08) 8226 2505. Email: marie@ncsmc.org.au or heather@ncsmc.org.au
In his book, Child protection: An introduction, Chris Beckett, an academic teacher and social worker with 18 years experience in child protection fieldwork, presents a broad overview of the field of child protection, with the insight of someone who has actually been there.
The text is organised into four parts, each comprising three chapters. The author takes the reader on a journey, describing the modern child protection system, and the nature, causes and context of child maltreatment, and concludes with a discussion of the dilemmas inherent in the modern child protection system. Implied rather than stated throughout the text is a critique of the conditions in which child protection social workers practice and cautionary lessons for the experienced practitioner.
In Part 1, Beckett describes and discusses the role of child protection social workers in reference to the child protection system operating in England and Wales. The author has been careful in his reference to the English and Welsh child protection systems, and all but the introduction to Chapter 2 is applicable to models of child protection operating in other countries.
In the latter half of Chapter 2, Beckett provides an insightful discussion on child protection interventions, suggesting that the core work of the child protection social worker is setting goals and ground rules for parents and, where possible, providing practical assistance. He argues that it is difficult for the child protection social worker to provide therapy due to both limited resources and the complexities of the relationship between client and child protection social worker. However, the author believes 'there is a danger that, in the absence of 'therapeutic' alternatives, child protection social workers will resort more and more to the courts as a means of stopping the abuse of children' (p. 39).
In Chapter 3, Beckett further cautions child protection social workers about getting caught up in the bureaucratic process: 'One point that is frequently forgotten is that arrangements such as case conferences and so on, are a means to an end, not ends in themselves' (p. 58). What is appealing about Beckett's discussion of the role of the child protection social worker is the way in which he portrayed workers throughout the text as humans whose decisions may not always be right, but whose motives are good. In this context, the discussion of common pitfalls is unlikely to invoke a defensive reaction and is a refreshing change to the portrayal of child protection workers in the media.
Part 2 is a discussion of the nature and consequences of child maltreatment. Chapters 4 and 6, in particular, are useful and engaging. The author presents the legislative definitions of physical abuse, neglect, sexual abuse and emotional abuse and argues that the witnessing of family violence by children should be an additional category of abuse. He goes on to discuss how a child protection social worker might identify each type of maltreatment and the signs that maltreatment might be occurring.
In Chapter 6 he discusses the different types of harm (physical, emotional and psychological) a child may experience as a result of each type of maltreatment, as well as the relationship between the degree of harm and the context of the maltreatment, and the cumulative harm of chronic maltreatment. Part 2 provides practical assistance to the beginning child protection social worker (or other professionals who have regular contact with children) on the identification of maltreatment and the assessment of its impact on the child.
In Part 3, Beckett describes the causes and contexts of child maltreatment. In Chapter 7, he discusses the predictors of maltreatment and proposes a model of vertical and horizontal stressors. He proposes three patterns of maltreatment: (a) pre-meditated abuse, (b) stress-related abuse and neglect, and (c) competence- related abuse and neglect. In addition, abuse by children is also discussed.
Chapters 8 and 9 cover parental substance abuse and learning difficulties and the ways and contexts in which these conditions can result in harm to children. The author reminds practitioners that 'it is possible to be a very nice person and still not be a competent parent' (p. 158), and that 'it is very important that struggling families are not expected to reach higher standards than other families' (p. 174).
Part 4 addresses three specific problems and dilemmas for child protection social workers: (a) child maltreatment in the context of poverty (where child protection intervention can do little to resolve the underlying problems for parents); (b) abusive systems (where the systemic structure, not the people within the system, is abusive); and (c) the impossible expectations placed on child protection social workers.
Some of the points Beckett makes are mentioned in passing earlier in the text, but in Part 4 he devotes more time to the discussion of each problem or dilemma. It is interesting that he chose to finish the text with a chapter titled, 'The Limits of Possibility' in which he proposes that expecting child protection workers to prevent parents from ever harming their children is unrealistic and creates a culture of fear and defensiveness in child protection social workers. As a consequence of the culture of fear and defensiveness, child protection services have high rates of staff sickness, poor staff retention, and difficulties in recruitment. This can result in things getting worse rather than better for children and families.
The author argues that child protection workers operate with limited resources and try to prioritise between several risky cases at a time. He reminds readers that 'risk assessment itself involves taking a risk of being wrong' (p. 235), and concludes that 'child protection work would be more able to help more children and more families if we were honest about its limitations' (p. 243).
The text is organised in such way as to enable the reader to pick it up and read a chapter or section of interest. In fact, I would recommend not reading the book cover-to-cover, as when read in this way, some sections (particularly in Part III) are repetitious. Within each chapter of the text are exercises designed to assist the reader to understand the ramifications of their decisions and the tensions within the role of child protection social worker. These exercises do not need to be completed, but do need to be read as they are integrated with the text.
The text is primarily targeted at social workers embarking on a career in child protection. However other professionals who have regular contact with children (e.g., teachers, psychologists or general practitioners) could benefit from the author's very practical approach to identifying and responding to suspected child maltreatment. The text also has some useful lessons for the experienced practitioner, prompting them to reflect on their practice. In addition to being a useful resource in itself, this text could be used successfully in a classroom setting with social work students or as a professional development tool for new and experienced child protection social workers.