Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter

vol.13 no.1 Summer 2005

---

---

In this Issue

• Editorial / Daryl Higgins HTML | PDF (155K)
• 'But the parent is trying ...' / Carolyn Cousins HTML | PDF (132K)
• Downloads of Child Abuse Prevention Issues from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse website HTML | PDF (65K)
• Update: National Child Protection Clearinghouse website / Susan Fooks HTML | PDF (64K)
• Foster carers' adult attachment styles / Rosamund Thorpe and Marie Caltabiano HTML | PDF (305K)
• Towards a national approach for suitability checks / Netty Horton HTML | PDF (107K)
• Reframing public discourse on child abuse in Australia / Adam Foster HTML | PDF (197K)
• Victorian Aboriginal Community Child Abuse Conference / Leah Bromfield, Nick Richardson and Daryl Higgins HTML | PDF (308K)
• Contact House, Queensland / Fred Gravestock HTML | PDF (194K)
• Risk management and insurance: things every child welfare organisation should know! / Tim Sparkes HTML | PDF (92K)
• Commissions for children and young people: comparing state and territory statutory bodies for protecting the rights and interests of children / Natalie Kenney and Allison Tait HTML | PDF (250K)
• Conferences and Events / Susan Fooks PDF (73K)
  For the latest conferences refer to the current listing.
• Literature highlights / Joan Kelleher PDF (156K)

---

Editorial

Daryl Higgins

Welcome to the first Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter for 2005. This is the first publication released by the National Child Protection Clearinghouse since changing from a half-yearly to a quarterly publication schedule for Newsletters and Issues papers. The Newsletter will now be released in February and August. The Issues papers will be published in May and November. The Newsletter contains a variety of valuable contributions from researchers, practitioners and policy makers, including:

• problems for workers in adult-focused drug and alcohol services in seeing children and responding to child abuse and neglect (Carolyn Cousins);
• national priorities for child abuse prevention - whether the focus of the media, community and government highlights the needs of Australia's most vulnerable children and families (Adam Foster);
• highlights from the recent Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect held in Melbourne, 6-8 October (Leah Bromfield, Nick Richardson and Daryl Higgins)
• a comparison of advocacy models for protecting the rights and interests of children from each state and territory (Natalie Kenney and Allison Tait);
• more highlights from the recent ISPCAN 15th International Congress held in Brisbane, 19-22 September 2004, including the relationship between attachment style and successful fostering (Rosamund Thorpe and Marie Caltabiano) and a national program for creating child-safe organisation (Netty Horton);
• Service Profile: Contact House, Abused Children's Trust, Brisbane, Qld (Fred Gravestock);
• incorporating the voice and perspective of young people into the development and implementation of national programs funded under the National Mental Health Strategy and the National Suicide Prevention Strategy (Dyanna Smith-McCue, National Youth Participation Strategy); and finally,
• how to manage risk in organisations involved with children (Tim Sparkes).

NCPC Activities is a new regular feature in the newsletter, in which we will summarise the professional development and keynote addresses National Child Protection Clearinghouse staff provide to stakeholders. It will include information on how you can access this information (for example, PowerPoint presentations, handouts) for use in your organisation.

Popularity of website publications

The website has continued to receive heavy, and increased usage. From July to September 2004, there were 75,618 downloads of NCPC publications. The website has recently been completely revamped, and has been given a vibrant design and appearance. In addition, we are expanding the capacity of our web interface, with plans to add a new feature were users will be able to search for material organised by topics.

In the table below, the number of web downloads for each of the Issues papers for (a) the previous financial year (2003-4); and (b) the past quarter (July-Sept 2004) are listed. By far, the most commonly accessed document continues to be the 1998 paper by Mullen and Fleming on the long-term effects of sexual abuse - accounting for about one-third of all download requests.

Establishment of the NCPC Reference Group

In order to enhance stakeholder input and feedback regarding existing services and identify possible new services - and means to enhance existing service delivery - we are establishing a Reference Group of experts and key stakeholders. The inaugural meeting of the NCPC Reference Group was held on December 10, 2004. Individuals who were invited to join the Reference Group - and who all agreed to take part - are:

• Evan Lewis - Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services (Early Childhood and Communities)
• David Hazlehurst - Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services (Family and Children's Policy)
• John Cheshire - state/territory child protection department (Victorian Department of Human Services)
• Adam Foster - national peak body (NAPCAN - National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect) Annette Jackson - small community agency (Berry Street Victoria)
• Julian Pocock and Muriel Bamblett - Indigenous representatives (SNAICC - Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care)
• Ann Kemeny - representative of culturally and linguistically diverse communities (Humanitarian Settlement, Australian Government Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs)
• Melanie Heenan - Coordinator, ACSSA - Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault
• Judy Cashmore - expert in out-of-home care research (Faculty of Law, University of Sydney)
• Dorothy Scott - expert in child protection research (Chair of Child Protection, Department of Social Work, University of Adelaide)
• Daryl Higgins - Manager, National Child Protection Clearinghouse

The creation of this Reference Group is a critical step forward in improving the focus and quality of the research and dissemination activities of the Clearinghouse.

Appointment of Writer/Editor

From a field of over 60 applicants, we are pleased to announce that Ms Ellen Fish has been appointed as a writer/editor and to assist with publications and communications strategies. Ellen will work three days per week for the Clearinghouse, and will also spend two days per week working for the rest of the Institute on similar tasks. Ellen comes to us with a strong background in social work practice, as well as experience in writing and editing publications and assisting with communications and publicity for the Stronger Families Learning Exchange, funded by the Australian Government's Department of Family and Community Services. We warmly welcome Ellen to the Clearinghouse team, and look forward to her contribution to our work.

Back to top

---

'But the parent is trying ...'

Carolyn Cousins

For adults with substance misuse issues who are also parents, one of the greatest fears that comes with accessing support services is that their parenting capacity may be called into question. Many of these parents' own childhoods were characterised by victimisation and trauma, and sometimes this history is a contributing factor to their substance misuse. Many of these parents have also had significant obstacles to face in their adult lives, obstacles they have survived with strength and creativity. Yet these issues can impact on their ability to care adequately for their children.

The aim in this article is to highlight the difficulties adult-focused drug and alcohol workers experience when faced with clients who are also parents. Specifically, this paper entails:

• a brief outline of the extent of the problem and some of the complexities associated with child maltreatment that may prevent drug and alcohol workers from identifying children at risk of abuse or neglect (for example, lack of parental intent, absence of immediate effects);
• a discussion of the difficulty for professionals working in adult-focused services to be aware of the needs of children;
• a discussion of what is 'good enough' parenting and the problems in identifying when progress is not being made quickly enough to meet the needs of the child; and
• finally, a discussion of some of the personal reactions of drug and alcohol workers that can prevent them from recognising child maltreatment and the needs of children.

Extent of the problem

Hayden (2004) reported that a recent US child welfare study showed parental substance misuse was seen as one of the most important contributors to, and predictors, of child abuse with between 50 and 80 per cent of all parents known to the welfare system having substance misuse problems. Hayden's own UK study found the rate of parental substance abuse to be 30 per cent. The situation is similar in Australia: of the 159, 643 child protection reports received in NSW during 2001/2002, concerns about adult carer problems (including substance abuse by adult carers) accounted for 45.5 per cent (Scott 2002).

Parental intent

Scott (2002) highlighted that while parents with substance use or other problems constitute the majority of child protection cases in Australia, few of these cases actually involve harm as a result of intent to injure or through violence. Often substance using parents express the desire to change to meet their children's needs, and many can and do. It is especially hard for workers to act upon the effects of parental substance misuse on children when parents do not intend to harm their children and are making some attempts to change. In our service's experience however, it is often the case that change is unrealistic or parents are unwilling to make the necessary changes.

When the effects of maltreatment are not immediately apparent

Some forms of abuse are actually harder for workers to see. Our experience has been that frequently, the impact of neglect, emotional abuse and exposure to domestic violence on children is not immediately apparent. Children's coping mechanisms can mask the effects and the absence of immediate effects may prevent practitioners in adult-focused services from identifying that abuse or neglect is an issue within the family. This is of particular relevance for workers in adult drug and alcohol services, as neglect, emotional abuse and exposure to domestic violence are more frequently associated with parental substance misuse than physical and sexual abuse (for example, Hayden 2004).

The sometimes competing needs of child and adult clients

In situations where there is some risk of child maltreatment, adult-focused workers (such as those from drug and alcohol, mental health or a range of family support services) may struggle to identify who is the focus of their work - whether it is the adult, the child or both. Laws and policy for the mandatory reporting of child maltreatment require workers to be able to prioritise the child's need for protection above the needs of the adult client. This involves being able to have empathy and concern for the parent (who may also be a victim), but also to be able to recognise the effects on the child and advocate for children as the most vulnerable members of the family (Fleck-Henderson 2000).

Killen (1996) suggests that over identification with the adult caregiver can reduce the ability for drug and alcohol workers to recognise the potentially harmful impact of adult behaviour on their children and a failure to report children at risk of harm often results. Killen (1996) outlined a number of reasons why adult-focused workers may minimise or overlook serious concerns about the standard of care provided to children:

• an understanding of the parent's current feelings of inadequacy, pain and hopelessness, and an awareness of the parent's background, which often involves experiences of child abuse and domestic violence;
• a fear that the client will be unfairly judged/stigmatised by child protection services; identification that can occur where practitioners project onto parents their own feelings about what they believe parents should feel toward their children. It can lead to plans and goals that have little to do with either the parents' potential or the child's needs;
• workers rarely actually see the children, therefore many of the risks to the child are actually inferred due to the behaviours of the adult; and
• children may learn that they are to look after, and even protect adults. Often children will tell professionals what they want to hear. This is often referred to as 'parentification' and may be considered to be a form of child maltreatment in itself.

What is 'good enough'?

Family welfare practitioners are well aware that more often than not, that they are looking for an adequate standard of parental care, not an optimal one. However there is no agreed standard about what is 'good enough' parenting. Defining a given situation as child abuse tends to fall more into the moral rather than the technological domain (Clark as cited in Hodge 1996). Decisions have a subjective selective element and are often made on a case-by-case basis, and while this allows room for clinical judgment, it can leave workers feeling very vulnerable and uncertain when they know these decisions are life changing for others. Another dilemma is that the harm is usually a future harm, rather than immediately visible. There are few practical or agreed tools for assessing the adequacy of parenting.

The misuse of drugs and alcohol by a parent does not necessarily mean a child is at risk.

Our service has found that women who have drug and/or alcohol issues, in particular, often have their mothering practices intensely scrutinised from the minute they become pregnant. Within a range of antenatal and early childhood services there appears to be a highly stereotypical perception of the 'junkie mother'. All practitioners need to be careful not to unquestioningly subscribe to stereotypes that may result in struggling families being 'expected to reach higher standards than other families' (Beckett 2003, p. 174). Where there are concerns, parents do need to be given the opportunity to improve their parenting ability and level of care.

When is progress not quick enough?

When we have invested a lot of time working with parents, seeing some progress, hoping for more, it can be very hard to acknowledge that things are either not changing, or not progressing fast enough to adequately meet the needs of children. There can be a sense that we have failed as workers.

Decisions about progress are particularly difficult in cases of chronic neglect cases that are characterised by an unremitting low-level of care. As Dubowitz (1994) stated, the term 'abuse' connotes a ring of urgency that 'neglect' does not and the effects of neglect are usually not as obvious.

We also need to be careful we are not being confused by the illusion of change. Sometimes, in our own hope to see things improve, we can focus on improvements that are not actually about change for the child. This can also be a form of collusion - where the worker and the parent know deep down they cannot do it, but no one is prepared to shatter the dream.

Personal reactions to the work and its effects

The emotional challenge of working with parents who express a desire to change, but do not follow through, or where change does not occur within a quick enough time frame, is very real for workers. It is understandable we sometimes shy away from making tough decisions. As Killen (1996) noted, we work in a highly emotionally charged field, and as professionals we have to find ways to both function and survive. Copan and colleagues (1991, as cited in Killen, 1996) identified a range of feelings that seemed to interfere with effective service delivery from workers including:

• anxieties about being physically harmed by angry parents;
• the serious nature of the effects of a decision;
• a need for emotional gratification from clients;
• denial or projection of responsibility;
• feeling totally responsible for what happens to families; and
• ambivalent feelings towards clients.

Conclusion

It would be much simpler if someone was able to come up with a quick and easy test that would tell us if children were suffering 'too much' in any given situation. As hard as it can be to witness the struggles of some parents attempting to change their situations, ultimately if a parent won't change, can't change, or it will take too long, then the needs of the most vulnerable family members, the children, have to be prioritised. The short and long term effects matter, whether there is intent to harm or not. Parents do need to be given a chance to improve their situation, but workers need to continually ask the key questions: what is their capacity for change, and will it be fast enough? Workers also need to give themselves permission to say 'enough is enough'.

Back to top

---

Downloads of Child Abuse Prevention Issues from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse website

Number of downloads
Issue number	Year published	Child Abuse Prevention Issues title:	2003-04	Jul-Sep 2004
1	1994	Child abuse and neglect: incidence and prevention	5,448	964
2	1994	Domestic violence as a form of child abuse	17,698	4,090
3	1994	Child abuse prevention: US parent enhancement programs	3,228	360
4	1995	Spotlight on child neglect	7,804	752
5	1995	Update on child sexual abuse	4,889	891
6	1996	Intergenerational transmission of child maltreatment	2,714	391
7	1996	Child maltreatment and disability	3,525	965
8	1997	Emotional abuse	16,274	2,833
9	1998	Long-term effects of child sexual abuse	69,510	14,033
10	1998	Valuing parent education	5,340	950
11	1999	Community-based approaches in preventing maltreatment	8,420	1,331
12	2000	Evaluating prevention programs	5,734	1,041
13	2000	Exploring family violence: links between maltreatment and domestic violence	9,077	1,562
14	2001	Child abuse and the media	11,463	2,555
15	2001	Child abuse and the Internet	9,889	2,240
16	2002	The role of mass media in community education	12,157	1,716
17	2003	Preventing child abuse: changes to family support	8,795	1,746
18	2003	Accessibility issues in child abuse prevention services	2,069	526
19	2003	Child abuse and neglect in Indigenous communities	4,333	1,398
20	2004	Child welfare approaches for Indigenous communities: International perspectives (published July 2004)		1,331

Back to top

---

Update: National Child Protection Clearinghouse website

Susan Fooks

The National Child Protection Clearinghouse (NCPC) is an information, advisory and research unit which focuses on the prevention of child abuse and neglect and associated family violence. Providing information via the Internet is one of the features of the NCPC. The NCPC site features material on:

• publications (National Child Abuse Prevention Newsletters, Issues and Discussion papers, key research reports, staff publications and presentations, resource sheets, and AIFS annual reports);
• information resources (bibliographies, child protection statistics, curriculum and training materials, videos on child protection and the AIFS library catalogue);
• getting help (practical advice on topics such as how to obtain a police check or report an incidence of child abuse in your state/territory; counselling services and internet safety);
• upcoming Australian and international conferences and seminars;
• child abuse prevention links (links to other relevant services and organisations); and
• information on how to contact the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, join the mailing list to receive National Child Protection Clearinghouse publications, the childprotect email discussion list, and the Australian Institute of Family Studies library.

In keeping with current Australian Government practices, the website of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse was completely revised in June 2004. As well as a 'new look' and Government branding, additions to the site included a new series of Resource Sheets compiled by Clearinghouse staff. These will be revised and added to over time. To date there are six resource sheets (available in both HTML and PDF format):

• Child abuse statistics
• The economic costs of abuse
• Mandatory reporting of child abuse
• Fatal child abuse
• Evaluating child abuse prevention programs
• What is child abuse?

Another major revision to the website has been to combine the Links and Organisations pages. These links have a geographic bias to Australia, but also contain key international sites.

A new initiative currently underway will allow users to access materials on the NCPC website by topics. Material on the website (for example, research articles, Issues Papers, Resource Sheets, links to key sites) will be classified into the following topic areas:

• types of child maltreatment and their impact;
• risk and protective factors for child maltreatment;
• who abuses children;
• child abuse prevention and intervention; and
• out-of-home care.

We anticipate that you will be able to view information organised under these topic headings from March 2005.

To view the website go to: www.aifs.gov.au

Back to top

---

Foster carers' adult attachment styles

Rosamund Thorpe and Marie Caltabiano

It was hypothesised that those foster carers with secure attachment (an expectation that difficult feelings can be tolerated and understood, and an ability to be attentive to their own children's needs; Kaniuk, Steele, and Hodges 2004) or with earned secure attachment (people who have had experiences of loss or trauma and who have been able to resolve their feelings about this, putting it in context so that they can move on in their lives; Kaniuk et al. 2004) status would be better able to cope with the challenges of caring for children who had been abused and neglected, or had attachment difficulties.

The Attachment Style Questionnaire (Feeney, Noller, and Hanrahan 1994) was used to assess foster carers' attachment styles in the following areas: confidence; discomfort with closeness; relationships as secondary; need for approval; and preoccupation.

Study aims

• To assess the adult attachment styles of foster carers
• To explore the relationship between adult attachment style and foster caring role performance
• To explore the relationship between adult attachment style, role performance, and carers' own childhood experiences (forthcoming)

Background literature

Attachment

• According to attachment theory, close relationships in adulthood are viewed as originating in childhood relationships with parents or caregivers.
• Responsiveness of the adult attachment figure to the child's calls for attention and protection leads to 'secure' attachment. The nature of the relationship between infant and caregiver over time, leads the child to form a mental representation of the infant-caregiver relationship (that is, a working model of attachment). This working model of attachment shapes how the person comes to view the self and others' responsiveness to emotional needs, evolving into an attachment style that the person carries into adulthood (Bowlby 1973; Hazan and Shaver 1987).
• Research on infants temporarily separated from their mothers identified three types of attachment style: secure, avoidant and anxious (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters and Wall 1978). These three attachment styles have been found to reflect adult intimate relationships (Hazan and Shaver 1987).
• Bartholomew (1990) has proposed that adult attachments are defined by positive and negative views of the self and others: secure, preoccupied, dismissing and fearful.
• Attachment in adults has been measured through the Adult Attachment Interview (George, Kaplan and Main 1984) or self-report instruments such as the Parental Bonding Instrument (Parker, Tupling and Brown 1979) and the Intimate Bonds Measure (Wilhelm and Parker 1988); or self-report prototypes of attachment style (Bartholomew and Horowitz 1991; Hazan and Shaver 1987).
• In the current study, attachment in adults was measured using the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ; Feeney, Noller and Hanrahan 1994), which comprises five sub-scales: confidence, discomfort with closeness, relationships as secondary, need for approval, or preoccupation. Each sub-scale represents a dimension central to adult attachment. Each item is scored on a 6-point response scale ranging from totally agree to totally disagree.
• The five scales of the ASQ have been shown to have adequate internal consistency, with Cronbach's alpha coefficients ranging from .76 to .84; and 10-week retest reliability coefficients ranging from .67 to .78 (Feeney, Noller, and Hanrahan 1994). Feeney and her colleagues also reported significant associations between the ASQ scales and measures of attachment styles (secure, avoidant, and anxious/ambivalent), as well as meaningful links with measures of personality and family functioning. Thus, the reliability, construct, and criterion validity data, and the ease of administration, make the ASQ a useful instrument for measuring adult attachment.

Foster carers' own childhood experiences

• The crucial difference between good and less good foster carers was whether there had been resolution of unhappy childhood experiences (that is, that compensatory or healing experiences had occurred; Jenkins 1965).
• Where foster carers had unhappy childhoods, this was sometimes but not always, related to good foster caring (Kay 1966).
• Successful female foster carers identified with deprived children because of their own unhappy childhood experiences, though this finding may have been distorted by the fact that the carers, by definition, were successful as they were all long-term carers (Dando and Minty 1987).
• Successful adoptive mothers had secure or 'earned secure' attachment status (Kaniuk et al. 2004).
• Those foster carers who have not had healing experiences may be less likely to have 'secure' or 'earned secure' attachment in adulthood. Foster carers with insecure adult attachment may encourage dependence in their foster children, but may not respond appropriately to children's needs (Kaniuk et al. 2004).
• Kaniuk and colleagues (2004) proposed that an adult's attachment history, their current attachment status and evidence of resolution of past loses are fundamental to the assessment of their capability to be adoptive parents.

Method

The interviews explored the: attachment styles of foster carers (using the Attachment Style Questionnaire); role performance as assessed by senior foster care professionals in the region; and life experiences leading to secure or earned secure adult attachment (results relating to this area of inquiry were not included in preliminary analyses, but will be forthcoming).

Carer role performance was rated in three areas: understanding and acceptance of the foster caring role agreed by the Queensland Department of Families (QDOF)¹ and Foster Care Queensland (FCQ)²; provision of basic child care; and provision of additional care needed by foster children.

Carer role performance in the three areas described above was rated using the following classification coding: A for very good performance in this area; B for good performance in this area; or C for reservations concerning performance.

Sample

This study assessed the adult attachment styles of over 100 male and female foster carers of children who have been abused and neglected in the Mackay/Whitsunday region of Queensland.

The sample comprised 115 foster carers of children who had been abused and neglected in the Mackay/Whitsunday region (60 per cent response rate). Seventy-one of the foster carers interviewed were female and 44 were males. In 76 of the 115 foster caring families one carer was interviewed. In the remaining 39 foster caring families both carers were interviewed. Of the 115 foster carers interviewed, 95 were currently caring for a child and 18 were not currently fostering. The sample was drawn from several different foster care agencies and services, specifically:

• 74 foster caring families were attached to nongovernment shared care agencies;
• 23 carers were fostering through the Mackay Aboriginal and Alternative Foster Care Service; and
• 18 of the participants were government carers.

Results

Aim 1: To assess the adult attachment styles of foster carers

Technique: Foster carer attachment style was assessed using the Adult Attachment Style Questionnaire. Agreement was calculated by combining responses to three of the points on the six point rating scale: totally agree; strongly agree; and slightly agree.The other three points on the rating scale are three similar levels of disagreement.

Findings: The attachment styles of foster cares in this sample are described in Table 1.

Aim 2: To explore the relationship between adult attachment style and foster caring role performance (that is, does attachment style predict role performance or does role performance predict attachment style?)

Table 1.       Attachment style questionnaire

Confidence	Per cent agreement
Overall I am a worthwhile person	99.1
I am easier to get to know than most people	86.0
I feel confident that other people will be there for me when I need them	81.6
I find it relatively easy to get close to other people	75.4
I feel confident about relating to others	82.5
If something is bothering me, others are generally aware and concerned	79.0
I am confident that other people will like and respect me.	84.3
I often worry that I do not really fit in with other people	25.4
Discomfort
I prefer to depend on myself rather than other people	88.6
I prefer to keep to myself	62.3
I find it hard to trust other people	45.7
I find it difficult to depend on others	50.9
I find it easy to trust others	57.0
I feel comfortable depending on other people	41.3
I worry about people getting too close	26.3
I have mixed feelings about being close to others.	36.9
While I want to get close to others, I feel uneasy about it	35.1
Other people have their own problems, so I don't bother them with mine	59.7
Relationships as secondary
To ask for help is to admit that you're a failure	19.3
People's worth should be judged by what they achieve	32.5
Achieving things is more important than building relationships	10.6
Doing your best is more important than getting on with others	35.9
If you've got a job to do, you should do it no matter who gets hurt	15.7
My relationships with others are generally superficial	14.9
I am too busy with other activities to put much time into relationships	14.9
Need for approval
It's important to me that others like me	50.8
It's important to me to avoid doing things that others won't like	57.9
I find it hard to make a decision unless I know what other people think	28.9
Sometimes I think I am no good at all	26.4
I worry that I won't measure up to other people	35.1
I wonder why people would want to be involved with me	21.9
When I talk over my problems with others, I generally feel ashamed or foolish	29.8
Preoccupation
I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like	31.6
I worry that others won't care about me as much as I care about them	23.0
It's very important to me to have a close relationship	82.4
I worry a lot about my relationships	29.8
I wonder how I would cope without someone to love me	43.0
I often feel left out or alone	25.4
I get frustrated when others are not available when I need them	55.3
Other people often disappoint me	43.9

Techniques: The sample was divided into three groups on the basis of foster carer role performance classifications: foster carers rated as having a very good role performance; foster carers rated as having a good role performance; and foster carers for whom the interviewer had reservations concerning their role performance.

Discriminant function analyses were performed to predict foster care role performance using the five dimensions of adult attachment (as measured by the Attachment Style Questionnaire) as the predictor. To confirm the discriminant function analysis findings, a one-way ANOVA was performed to see if there were differences between groups of foster carers (defined by foster carer role performance) on each of the adult attachment styles.

Findings: Attachment styles in foster carers did not distinguish between groups categorised based on foster carer role performance (that is, attachment style did not predict foster carer role performance). There were no differences between foster carer groups on any of the attachment styles, further supporting the discriminant function analysis findings.

Aim 3: To explore the relationship between adult attachment style, role performance, and carers' own childhood experiences Findings: Further analyses are to be undertaken on life experiences in relation to role performance (forthcoming).

Summary of findings to date

• The five dimensions of the Attachment Style Questionnaire did not discriminate between groups of foster carers based on assessed role performance.
• There was no group differences between groups on confidence, discomfort with closeness, relationships as secondary, need for approval, or preoccupation.

The Attachment Style Questionnaire (Feeney, Noller and Hanrahan 1994) therefore does not appear to be useful, at least as a primary tool in the assessment of foster carers.While it can give some indication of attachment styles, and may thus be of use as a preliminary tool, it does not provide an in depth exploration of foster carers' resolution of their own life experiences which may be gained through interview techniques.Further analyses of the research will examine data gathered on foster carers' own life experiences with a view to assessing the following issues:

• whether selection of foster carers should include a focus on the carer's own childhood;
• whether it is desirable to select carers who have secure or earned secure attachment styles; and
• whether it is desirable to provide good support to carers who have unresolved childhood issues.

Back to top

---

Towards a national approach for suitability checks

Netty Horton

Thousands of organisations across Australia take on responsibility for children and young people on a regular basis. Numerous activities and supports are provided by a vast range of agencies including: community groups, welfare services, sporting bodies, youth clubs, church associations and special interest groups. All of these organisations have one thing in common. By offering services to children and young people they are trusted to provide a safe environment. In particular, the community assumes that this environment will be free of child abuse.

Sadly, this is not always the case. As media reports have highlighted, child abusers have been able to infiltrate well meaning and reputable community organisations gaining access to vulnerable children. For example, police data compiled in Victoria between 1988-1996 showed that more than 20 per cent of recorded child sex offenders (in cases involving two or more victims) used community based organisations such as welfare, youth, church and sporting groups, to gain access to their victims.

What can you do to make your organisation safer?

Unfortunately there is no one simple step that will totally protect your organisation. However, there is good news! There are many things that your organisation can do to make it less desirable to someone who is seeking to abuse children and young people. For a start there are basics such as getting a police check on all paid and volunteer staff. Although only about five per cent of recorded sex offenders have police records, carrying out these checks will at least deter some people from accessing your organisation. Secondly, and most importantly, organisations can make sure that they develop a Child Protection Policy. This should cover areas such as recruitment and selection of staff, and stipulate how your organisation operates on a daily basis with clear guidelines about how staff should act and the policy and procedures which will operate within the organisation.

How can your organisation develop a comprehensive child protection policy?

The even better news is that help is at hand! The Australian Council for Children and Youth Organisations (ACCYO) has developed the first phase of an accreditation process for organisations providing services to children and young people which involves the conduct of suitability (police) checks for staff and volunteers and the development of a comprehensive child protection policy followed up by an external audit.

Even if your organisation already has police checks and a child protection policy in place, it is good to know that you can formalise these processes and have them recognised at a national level. Thanks to Commonwealth Government and philanthropic foundation funding, this training and accreditation process will be made available to participating organisations across Australia over the next 12 months. This first stage accreditation process includes:

• an orientation and initial training session to provide information and assistance to organisations to develop or reassess their child protection policy according to the 'Choose With Care' model developed by Child Wise;
• a follow-up process to check progress with implementation and share the learning;
• self-assessment phase;
• external audit and accreditation phase to verify that policies and procedures are in practice;
• ongoing support from ACCYO; and
• recognition of your efforts through a formal certificate from ACCYO after successful completion of an independent audit carried out by La Trobe University.

The Australian Council for Children and Youth Organisations

The Australian Council for Children and Youth Organisations is an initiative of some of Australia's leading philanthropic trusts and foundations in partnership with community services organisations, the police, magistrates and the judiciary.

To find out more about ACCYO Training and Accreditation contact:
ACCYO, 196 Williams Road, Toorak 3142
Website: www.accyo.org.au Telephone: 03 9804 8521

Back to top

---

Reframing public discourse on child abuse in Australia

Adam Foster

In the last twelve months NAPCAN has monitored and analysed nearly 800 Australian media articles related to child abuse and neglect. More than fifty per cent of these articles focused upon child sexual abuse. Child pornography in particular has become a focal point for the Australian media. Thus, the Australian discourse, influenced by the media, has been engaged primarily in the issue of child sexual abuse, and more specifically internet paedophilia (child pornography). This focus of concern and interest has generated a response from government.

On Father's Day last year (2004) NAPCAN received a call from the Prime Minister's Office advising that thirty million dollars was to be invested into child protection. The funds were to go to a specialist Federal Police unit to tackle internet paedophilia. To the government's credit this response was instigated in advance of Operation Auxin becoming public in October 2004.

This indicates our public discourse is successfully influencing government to respond. Issues of internet safety for children are relatively recent to the public arena, and we now have a substantial investment into policing in this area. State and territory Ministers have agreed to a national register of paedophiles and several have implemented, or are tightening, their internet safety legislation. But should child sexual abuse, and internet paedophilia in particular, be the number one priority in child abuse prevention?

Our public attention has been somewhat misdirected towards child sexual abuse and internet paedophilia resulting in a lack of attention towards high priority areas, including (a) other forms of child maltreatment that are more prevalent, and (b) children who are at a greater of risk of experiencing child maltreatment as a consequence of structural inequity and social disadvantage (for example, Indigenous children and children living in poverty).

Of the 40,000 children officially recorded as having been 'harmed' in the last year, 43 per cent suffered physical abuse, 36 per cent suffered neglect, 11 per cent experienced emotional maltreatment, and ten per cent were sexually abused (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW] 2004).

Child sexual abuse is an undeniably heinous offence and tends to be more shocking to the community than any other type of child abuse. However, research has demonstrated that the trauma experienced by child victims of physical abuse can be just as severe as that suffered by victims of child sexual abuse (Waterworth and Richardson 2002) and child physical abuse is more than four times more likely to occur than sexual abuse (AIHW 2004). What are the consequences for our children's wellbeing when public discourse (and public funding) is so heavily focused on child sexual abuse?

Public discourse has not devoted enough attention to children who are at a greater of risk of experiencing child maltreatment as a consequence of structural inequity and social disadvantage. There were 40,000 substantiated (proven) incidents of child maltreatment in the last year; this is double the level of a decade ago (AIHW 2004). More sobering is the incidence of child maltreatment in our Indigenous communities. Indigenous children are, on average, six times more likely to experience child maltreatment than other children living in Australia (AIHW 2004).

While obesity for seven to 15 year olds has tripled for boys and quadrupled for girls in the last decade, the most common form of maltreatment experienced by Indigenous children is neglect (AIHW 2003). This is indicative of the stark differences between children growing up in Indigenous communities and children growing up in other parts of Australia. In 2001, Indigenous people represented 2.3 per cent of the Australian population. However, 50 per cent of Australia's homeless were Indigenous people. Indigenous unemployment was 20 per cent, compared to 7.2 per cent for non-Indigenous people, and 14 per cent of Indigenous jobs were with Community Development Employment Projects (AIHW 2003). These data provide some insight into the root causes of child neglect in Australia's Indigenous communities.

Nearly one in five Australian children under 14 years of age live in a household where no one is employed and nearly one in six children live in poverty (AIHW 2003). Unfortunately, the public focus has rarely been on the broad context of child abuse and neglect in Australia (for example, poverty, structural inequity). The focus in the media on child sexual abuse and internet paedophilia frames child abuse as something that is perpetrated by strangers. This fails to reflect the large scale of child abuse (40,000 substantiations in 2002-03), or that parents and caregivers - not strangers - are most likely to be the perpetrators (AIHW 2004). Unless public discourse shifts our responses will continue to miss the mark.

Practitioners in children's welfare concur that the underlying causes of child abuse include: poverty, social isolation, inadequate services, substance abuse, racism, parental stress, violence, poor parenting skills, and the lack of a future to live for.

How are we able to reduce and prevent child abuse if our efforts largely deal with the consequences of the problem rather than its root causes? This is not to say that investing in policing and protection isn't a good thing. Rather, unless we simultaneously address the root causes we cannot expect the problem to reduce.

On a positive note, in the last two years every state or territory in Australia (except Tasmania) has undertaken, concluded, or commenced a review of their child protection systems. Each review has resulted in sweeping recommendations and significant additional investments.

Research has shown that every dollar invested in prevention generates a seven dollar saving on future welfare costs (Barnett 1993; Zigler and Styfco 1996). What can we reasonably expect as a return on these new investments by the federal government into policing and protection in the area of internet paedophilia?

In the NAPCAN audit of media reports related to child abuse and neglect, child sexual abuse was the focus in more than 50 per cent of the media pieces. The next most common topic in the public domain was the incident in which Steve Irwin exposed his baby to a crocodile. Steve Irwin's conduct was problematic, but focusing on it misses the bigger picture. Arguably, focusing on perceived 'perpetrators' of neglect or abuse of children provides a scapegoat and allows community members to avoid taking responsibility in the every day situations where we can all make a difference.

There is another side to child abuse that does receive significant public attention - it's impact. Terrorism, violence, and crime are significant concerns for Australians today. Australia's National Crime Prevention Program identified preventing child abuse and neglect as 'a key element of crime prevention' (Attorney-General's Department 2004). Given that the impact of child abuse is costing us five billion dollars per year, preventing abuse will also make us economically richer (Keatsdale Management Consultants 2003).

It is interesting to note that in the same period of media monitoring, NAPCAN observed that less than four per cent of articles concerned solutions and preventative strategies for children's wellbeing. The focus is on the abuser not the abusive context. The emphasis is on the end result, or abuse, not the contributing stressors on the family and community that contributed to the abuse occurring. Why is our public discourse so different from the reality of most children experiencing maltreatment? Unless we find ways to reframe our public discourse we cannot expect investment into addressing the root causes (for example, poverty, social isolation, poor parenting skills).

In the most complicated situations, the poorest communities, the most socially marginalised, and the most violent places, substantial effort is required to turn things around - people, time, money, and knowledge.

We are faced with a grave problem. Our jails, unemployment queues, hospital wards, and counselling suites are filled with children who grew up with abuse. We must commit to two struggles at the one time - to heal the children and adults already harmed and protect the children just now being born. Only this way can we turn around this tide of harm.

Protecting children is everybody's business. There are 375 adults in Australia for every child that is officially recorded as 'abused'. Can 375 adults join together to keep one child safe, fed, and loved?

What can we do in our lives to live a bit more cheaply to alleviate poverty for a child? What can the business community do to create employment for their parents? What can we do to be a friend for a child or parent and cut down their stress? Our childcare workers are paid an average of 14 dollars per hour - less than garden nursery workers, waiters, and garbage collectors (Connors, 2003). How can we better value the importance of those directly responsible for children?

Together we need to explore how can we broaden the public discourse to explore the full breadth of the problem of child abuse and how we can prevent it.

Back to top

---

Victorian Aboriginal Community Child Abuse Conference

Leah Bromfield, Nick Richardson and Daryl Higgins

The first Victorian Aboriginal Community Child Abuse Conference, Families are Forever BUILD THEM STRONG! was held in Melbourne 6-8 October 2004. The conference was a forum for discussing best practice to reduce the disproportionate number of Aboriginal children removed from their families as a result of child abuse and neglect with a particular emphasis on enhancing culturally-relevant services for Aboriginal children and families. The conference was hosted by the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA), which has provided an Aboriginal community controlled and operated Aboriginal child and family welfare service in Victoria since 1977.

The theme of the conference, Families are Forever BUILD THEM STRONG! reflected a family- and community- centred approach to reducing child maltreatment in Indigenous communities. Specifically, the conference theme recognised that the best way of preventing child maltreatment was to 'build' strong families. A wide range of Victorian organisations were represented.

Leah Bromfield, Nick Richardson and Daryl Higgins represented the National Child Protection Clearinghouse and provide summaries of some of the presentations they attended.

WEDNESDAY'S PROGRAM

The Wednesday program included: a welcome from the traditional owners of the land on which the conference was held; the official opening of the conference by the Victorian Minister for Community Services, The Honourable Sheryl Garbutt, MP; dance and song performances; keynote addresses; workshops; a panel session; and an example of best practice.

The keynote addresses were presented by:

• Alf Bamblett (CEO, Victorian Aboriginal Community Services Association Limited) who discussed the state of child protection as it pertains to the Aboriginal community in Victoria;
• Muriel Bamblett (CEO, Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency) who provided an overview of the current status of Aboriginal children, youth and families in Victoria; and
• Kim Peake (Department of Humans Services) who described the proposed changes to the Victorian Children and Young Persons Act 1989.

A panel session explored the role of partnerships between Aboriginal organisations, mainstream organisations and government agencies in building strong Aboriginal families. Desley Thompson and Larissa Walker from Remote Area Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Care (RAATSIC) described their model for working with families in an example of best practice. Concurrent workshop sessions were also held.

The Impact of Current Changes in Aboriginal Affairs on the Child and Family Sector

Presentation by Alf Bamblett, CEO, Victorian Aboriginal Community Services Association Limited.
Summarised by Leah Bromfield.

We have all heard the saying, 'Our children are our future'. We need to remember that our children are both our today and our future. If the current rate of abuse and neglect is an indicator of what is to come, then the future of our children is dire. In addressing the needs of children and the high prevalence of child abuse and neglect, the Aboriginal community needs to consider where we were, where we are now, and where we want to be.

Where we were

The things that have happened to Aboriginal people in the past have established where we are now. Some of the key things that have shaped where the Abriginal community is now include:

Aboriginal Protection Act 1869 (Vic)

This document made Victoria the first colony to enact a comprehensive scheme to regulate the lives of Aboriginal people. This Act gave powers to the Board for the Protection of Aborigines enabling them to control Aboriginal people's lives to an extraordinary degree, including: regulation of residence, employment, marriage, social life and other aspects of daily life.

Aboriginal Protection Act 1886 (Vic)

In 1886, in a further Act (known as the 'half-caste act'), Victoria also initiated a policy of removing Aboriginal people of mixed descent from the Aboriginal stations or reserves to merge into white society. Children were also removed for compulsory apprenticeships and domestic labour.

Aborigines Act 1957 (Vic)

The Aborigines Act 1957, which also created a new Aborigines Welfare Board, was a return to the spirit of the Aboriginal Protection Act 1886 in effecting the assimilation of Aborignal people, except those of full blood. This was the equivalent of cultural genocide.

Commonwealth Senate Select Committee on Aboriginal Voting Rights (1961)

This Act endorsed in principle the proposal that all Aboriginal and part Aborignal people should be given the federal franchise and the same rights and privileges (including recognition of Aboriginal customs and beliefs) as white Australians. The spirit of this principle resonates through the current political and policy push. However, the same access and opportunity will only be achieved when policy is backed up by resourcing. The current partnerships approach is a process of 'playing catch up' for the Aboriginal community.

Where we are now

Our children

Many young Aboriginal people lack the experience and awareness to enable them to develop healthy adult relationships. This is particularly concerning given the disproportionate number of young people in Aboriginal communities. Currently, 60 per cent of the Aboriginal population is under 25 years and 40 per cent is under 15 years of age. Based on where we are now, our children are going to inherit a world in which their future is worse than their present. We need to educate and support young people to develop healthy relationships as adults.

Our services

Demand will always exceed supply. Aboriginal services are under funded compared to mainstream agencies. Aboriginal communities need to start running family support as a business. This might involve employing people who are currently running mainstream programs to come out to the communities and share their knowledge to reduce the current dependency culture.

Out-of-home care

Communities are crying out for the responsibility to care for our children. Currently there are 500 children in out-of-home care. However, Aboriginal services are only funded to provide approximately 100 out-of-home places in Aboriginal care. This means that approximately 80 per cent of Aboriginal children removed from the care of their parents are being placed outside their communities and cultures. We need to resource the Aboriginal community to be able to take responsibility for the care of Aboriginal children removed from their parents.

Where we want to be

Child abuse and neglect is a problem for Aboriginal communities. 'Sharing' does not mean that we share abuse or neglect. We need to share the responsibility for the nurturing, safety and care of our children (not just meeting their material needs). We need to know our history; however we need to work out how to address the problems of today to protect our children's future.

There has been a shift in the Victorian government's approach to Aboriginal people. The government is now saying that they want Aboriginal communities to be involved in decisions that affect them. The current proposed reforms to the Victorian Children and Young Persons Act 1989 provide the legislative framework for self-determination by Aboriginal people. However, Aboriginal services must be adequately resourced in order to achieve self-determination. Aboriginal organisations are badly under-funded. Governments have a legal responsibility to meet the needs of the Aboriginal community. Aboriginal people need to influence policy to ensure that Aboriginal communities receive the resources and services they need. To enable them to effectively lobby for funding, Aboriginal communities need to foster relationships with government to develop the right attitudes among policy makers and legislators.

Aboriginal young people might choose to follow a traditional path, or they might choose to be different - either choice is fine. As a community, Aboriginal people need to make sure that Aboriginal young people have the opportunities to enable them to make that choice.

Child abuse and neglect is not a part of Aboriginal culture. If we say 'our children are our future' we need to live it to ensure a better future for a children. At the same time, we need to make sure that in working for the future we remember that children have needs today.

THURSDAY'S PROGRAM

The Thusday program included: keynote addresses; workshops; a panel session; and an example of best practice.

The keynote addresses were presented by:

• Esme Bamblett (Neenan Multimedia Consulting) who discussed the challenges for indigenous children and young people to maintain their Aboriginal identity;
• Annette Jackson (Research Manager, Berry Street, Take Two Program) discussed the relationship between child maltreatment and trauma; and
• Janet Hammill presented data from a study by Lorian Hayes on Feotal Alcohol Syndrome in Queensland in the context of children at risk in Indigenous communities.

The focus of the panel session was the importance of community in taking responsibility for Aboriginal child and family welfare. In an example of best practice, Ray Ahmat provided an overview of the Rumbalara Family Decision Making Project (based in Shepparton, Victoria). Concurrent workshop sessions were also held.

Trauma, Abuse and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Communities.

Address by Annette Jackson, Research Manager, Berry Street 'Take Two'
Summarised by Daryl Higgins.

Trauma refers to an event that overcomes our ability to cope. The trauma caused by events such as war and disaster is very similar to the impact of child abuse and neglect; however it is harder to visualise the impact of child abuse and neglect on children.

Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) has been described as the failure of time to heal wounds (Van der Kolk and McFarlane 1996). A key theme for sufferers of PTSD is memory; sufferers want to banish the atrocities from their consciousness (Herman 1981), but experience traumatic memories that result in the individual reliving the event as though it were happening to them again.

After World War I, as a community, we were able to 'forget' the trauma of war; however during the Vietnam War, exposure was unrelenting and we could not forget. The media continually brought the war home and war veterans' experiences of 'shell shock' resulted in an acknowledgement of the impact of war on the mental state of some individuals. However the most common sufferers of PTSD disorders are not men in war, but women and children in family life.

There is a difference between 'trauma' and 'PTSD'. PTSD is a mental health diagnosis made when an individual exhibits specific symptomatology following exposure to a traumatising event. However there are some problems with the original trauma theory underlying PTSD diagnoses: it assumes trauma is a single, discreet incident and fails to incorporate situations in which there is no 'after trauma' because the traumatising events or environment is on-going.

The children exposed to child abuse and neglect may have complex PTSD (not yet an official diagnosis), the symptoms of which include: memory dissociation; physical symptoms without medical explanation; character changes; and changes in systems of meaning.

Therefore it may be more helpful to talk about 'traumatisation' rather than PTSD. Trauma affects the whole person (mind, spirit, body, relationships). When 'fight-or-flight' is not possible (that is, the individual cannot escape) the impulse does not get turned off, however endorphins are released to numb the body. This process of disconnection is referred to as dissociation (Herman 1981; Van der Kolk and McFarlane 1996). Research has shown that trauma has a lasting impact on the brain. Children do not need to experience a blow to the head to be affected by child abuse and neglect. Trauma theory explains many of the behaviours we see in child protection populations, including multigenerational trauma.

Australia's Indigenous people have suffered multiple traumas, including cultural and spiritual genocide through the process of colonisation and the 'stolen generations'. The impact of these multiple repeated traumatising events 'doesn't go away' (HREOC 1997 p. 178).

For recovery from transgenerational effects of trauma in Indigenous Australians, Atkinson (2002) outlined the following essential elements that children need.

Children need: to be safe and feel secure where they are living (that is, restoring power); support for their families in assisting them to feel safe and secure; opportunities to develop relationships; hope and belief in themselves and those around them; positive sense of identity, belonging and connectedness; an understanding of what happened to them; and their culture and customs to be valued, as this helps to link them to supportive groups and explain what has happened.

It is difficult for culture to be the strong resilience-promoting or protective factor that it can be when the culture itself has been 'traumatised' (Atkinson 2002).

References for this paper include:

Atkinson, J. (2002), Trauma trails recreating song lines: The transgenerational effects of trauma in Indigenous Australia. Spinifex Press.

Herman, J. (1981), Father-daughter incest. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.

Van der Kolk, B. A. and Mcfarlane, A. C. (1996), 'The black hole of trauma', Traumatic stress: The effects of overwhelming experience on mind, body, and society. Guildford Press, New York.

FRIDAY'S PROGRAM

The Friday program included: a keynote address; interactive workshops; a plenary session; and the closing message by the Victorian Minister for Aged Care and Aboriginal Affairs, the Hononable Gavin Jennings, MP.

In the keynote addresses, Gillian Callister, Director of Child Protection and Juvenile Justice, Victorian Department of Family and Community Services, discussed the ways in which curent child protection legislaitve reforms can provide a more integrated response to the needs of Aboriginal families and communities.

Two interactive workshops were held:

• Legislation/Policy: This workshop aimed to develop and collate recommendations to ensure that reforms to the legisalative/policy framework are responsive to the issues of Aboriginal child and family welfare.
• Service Delivery/Practice: This workship aimed to develop and collate recommendations for culturally appropriate interventions that will assist Aboriginal families to make positive changes.

A panel session was held to receive and respond to the recommendations that resulted from the interactive workshops. The panel consisted of: Fay Carter, Aboriginal Community Elders Service and Conference Patron; Toby O'Connor, Advocate for Children in Care, and Peter Allen, Under Secreatary, Policy and Strategic Projects, Victorian Government of Department of Human Services; and Peter Quick, Director, Victoria State Office, Commonwealth Department of Family Community Services.

Interactive workshop: Legislation/Policy

Presenters: Julian Pocock, Coordinator, Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care; Alf Bamblett, CEO, Victorian Aboriginal Community Services Association Limited; and Jeannie McIntyre, Victorian Department of Human Services
Summarised by Nick Richardson.

The Victorian Government is undertaking a major review of the state's child protection and family support services with the aim of creating a more holistic approach to the wellbeing and protection of children by placing them at the centre of a coordinated set of service responses.

A major concern in this reform process is to address the over representation of Aboriginal children in child protection and placement and to improve the health and well being of Aboriginal children and young people. Child and family services need to be redesigned to provide a more integrated response to the needs of Aboriginal families and communities. With more than half of the Aboriginal population in Victoria aged 25 years and under, there has never been a more appropriate time to do this.

The Victorian government recognises the importance for there to be consultation with the Aboriginal community before reforms are made. This workshop was designed to identify and develop recommendations that had emerged from the conference for legislation and policy reform to create an appropriate government response to the issues of Aboriginal child and family welfare. It was intended that discussion would provide feedback from delegates for attending state and Commonwealth government representatives. Julian Pocock, Coordinator of the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care, SNAICC, provided a summary of suggestions for possible areas of legislative and policy reform that emanated from the three days of the conference. These include:

• Recognition of the prevailing impact of past policies of child removal, economic, political and social discrimination;
• Objectives that seek to make community wide reparations for past injustices based on the principles of self determination, self management, family based decision making with shared community responsibility for the welfare of Aboriginal children;
• A state-wide Aboriginal child welfare and development commission/council to take responsibility for advising the government and the Victorian community on the success (or otherwise) of the legislation, policy and service arrangements in meeting the objectives of the new act;
• Recognition that the healthy development of Aboriginal children is dependent upon effective nurturing and care in the early years and cultural identity (these concepts are mutually reinforcing and dependent rather than issues to trade off against each other);
• Mechanisms for reducing over representation of Aboriginal children and young people in all parts of the child protection system (addressing the current rate of Aboriginal child removal and the placement of these children with non-Indigenous carers);
• Recognition of the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle through its inclusion in legislation, with provisions for the independent monitoring of compliance and targets for improvements in compliance (currently the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle is a policy of the Victorian Department of Human Services, but is not yet legislated);
• Provisions that prohibit the placement of Aboriginal children in out-of-home or permanency planning outcomes where the child's cultural identity is placed at risk;
• Mechanisms for family based decision making in relation to the operation of the legislation supported by a framework of well resourced Aboriginal community based agencies;
• Permanency planning and development of a model of foster care that is based on shared responsibility for the long-term care of children with no permanent severing of ties to the birth family (foster care that is appropriate to Aboriginal family structures, dynamics and kinship systems);
• Guardianship that is shared between the Department of Human Services and agencies;
• Provisions for the development and funding of early intervention and family support programs and services accessible to all Aboriginal families with mechanisms for independent monitoring and reporting on the development of these programs and the level of access to services for families;
• Details on the role, rights and responsibilities of recognised agencies and the obligation of Ministers to provide adequate resourcing for their functions;
• Provisions that allow for the development of culturally appropriate risk assessment frameworks;
• Separate and distinct child welfare interventions in response to child abuse or child neglect; and
• Establishing benchmarks for all state government services to ensure their planning takes account of the high proportion of Aboriginal people under the age of 30 years (70 per cent).

The recommendations identified and developed in the policy/legislation workshop were presented to the conference attendees and to a panel comprising representatives of the Victorian Government Department of Human Services and Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services at the afternoon Plenary Session.

Back to top

---

Contact House, Queensland

Fred Gravestock

Contact House, operated by the Abused Child Trust, is a child and family centre that provides therapy and support interventions for children and young people (0-18 years) at risk of significant harm. Contact House operates in three locations in Queensland: Brisbane (Wooloowin), Townsville and the Gold Coast. Each centre uses the same framework for its service delivery, though several modifications were made to account for the location.

To reduce the risk of harm to children, Contact House utilises the specialised skills of a multidisciplinary team which follows a child centred, family focused approach that values individual's strengths and empowers families. The goals of all Contact House activities relate to ensuring that the child: is safe from abuse and neglect; receives interventions to facilitate ongoing development; receives positive and nurturing parenting; and has a supportive family environment.

Parents and children are referred to Contact House from a range of sources, including: Families, Youth and Community Care Queensland; private general practitioners; paediatricians and psychologists; Queensland Police - Child Abuse Section; Children's Hospitals; other health and welfare agencies; and family self-referrals. In 2001, Contact House Wooloowin alone helped 97 families, representing 234 children.

The Queensland Department of Child Safety, Queensland Department of Health, the Commonwealth Special Education, Non-Schools Organisation, and the Abused Child Trust provide funding for Contact House. This means that all interventions are provided to families free of charge. These interventions include therapy, pre-school, and family aide programs.

1. Therapy program

   Evidence-based interventions are provided that address the specific needs of children and parents. The therapeutic interventions aim to resolve issues that promote destructive thinking, feeling and behaviour associated with abuse and neglect. Families are encouraged to develop effective interaction skills and individuals to develop the ability to take responsibility for their own behaviour. Interventions are multi-disciplinary and include a social worker, counsellor, psychologist, occupational therapist, and speech pathologist.

   Child-focused interventions include:

   • individual counselling (usually play therapy); and
   • intellectual, emotional and developmental assessment and intervention.

   Interventions that focus specifically on parents include:

   • training in child behaviour management;
   • general parenting matters (including child development, budgeting, nutrition);
   • individual counselling to assist in resolving the adult's own issues;
   • anger and stress management; and
   • couple counselling or family therapy.
2. Preschool program

   The Preschool in Brisbane provides an educational and therapeutic environment addressing the emotional and developmental needs of children experiencing abuse and neglect.

   The key objectives of the preschool program are to: assess each child's current level of functioning and implement an individualised education plan; provide a safe, non-threatening and nurturing environment that encourages exploration and learning; address developmental delays through the provision of structured therapeutic activities; and ensure the appropriate transition of each child into a regular childcare or schooling environment.

   Using the expertise of the Early Childhood Teacher, Occupational Therapist, Speech Pathologist and Educational Psychologist, individual plans are developed for each child. These focus on specific areas of vulnerability, including: socialisation and play; motor skills and co-ordination; behaviour (self care); and language (pre-academic skills).

3. Family aide program

   The Family Aide Program engages volunteers from the local community to work with and support families utilising the services of Contact House. The family aides provide home-based practical and emotional support to families experiencing difficulties in parenting and family life.

Philosophical framework

There are five philosophies that form the foundation for professional service delivery. These are outlined below:

1. Child protection is the primary focus of all therapy

   The child developmental needs (cognitive, emotional, social & physical) are emphasised and staff must accept that the safety and protection of the child are paramount. It is essential that all staff, volunteers and, most importantly, parents have a clear and explicit understanding that the agency staff have a responsibility to report suspected incidents of maltreatment and that the parents will be informed of this if this action is undertaken. There may be cases where the extreme risk to the child precludes the sharing of this information with the parents.

2. Therapy has a strong family orientation with a multidisciplinary approach

   Interventions are provided within a family systems model: all family members are considered essential participants in the planning, decision-making and implementation of the treatment program and reviews wherever possible. The biological parents are, and always will be, a significant part of the child's life.

   Where appropriate, staff will attempt to work with the biological parents, including those cases where the child is with alternate caregivers or where the biological parents have relinquished their parenting rights. Programs operate within a multi-disciplinary team model where there may be crossover between disciplines regarding tasks and roles. It is essential that staff are suitably qualified and experienced, and in particular, have the ability to work in a team.

3. The client (child, parent, & foster parent) is always valued

   Therapy is based on the specific and individual needs of the client. The client (child, parent, and foster parent) is always valued. Realistic goals are set in collaboration with the client, who participates in case planning; families have a clear understanding of the intervention process. The environment at Contact House is non-judgemental and culturally sensitive.

4. Accountability in work

   The Centre's staff accept accountability for and supervision in their work. All interventions are accurately and chronologically recorded within the case filing system. Guidelines for confidentiality are followed at all times.

5. Partnership with other agencies and the community

   The Centre operates in direct liaison with other relevant agencies involved with the child and/or the family and uses community resources, particularly those within the immediate vicinity of the Centre, or within the family's home community. Staff may also undertake home visits or visit other community or statutory agencies in assessment, treatment and review phases of the family's involvement with the Program.

Program evaluation

An independent evaluation of Contact House was conducted by Dr Monika Henderson (Henderson Associates, 2001), with the outcomes published in August 2001. The evaluation was comprehensive and used both quantitative and qualitative measures. It drew on a wide range of information sources, including: staff interviews and workshops; client surveys; consultations with referral agencies such as Department of Families; representatives of the funding bodies and Trust's Board of Management; and analysis of agency statistics, client information databases, and protection history information held by the Department of Families.

The process included a benchmarking exercise of relative performance comparison with six agencies in Queensland, Victoria and NSW, identified as providing similar types of services to a comparable target population. The evaluation was also informed by a targeted literature review and the outcomes of recent Australian and international developments in the field, such as the UK Quality Protects program.

The results of the evaluation highlighted the uniqueness of the multidisciplinary approach to the treatment of child abuse and neglect taken by Contact House, and how such an approach is consistent with world's best practice. The effectiveness of the service was demonstrated by significantly lowers rates of notifications to the Department of Families for families following successful intervention by the Contact House staff. Further, both clients and staff from referring agencies reported high levels of satisfaction with the service with external agencies commenting on the high degree of professionalism of Contact House staff.

* * *

The Abused Child Trust was the State Winner (Queensland) in 2003 for Children and Families Services in the Australian Volunteer Awards conducted by the National Australia Bank.

The Abused Child Trust received a 'Highly Commended' award in the Excellence Category in the National Child Abuse Prevention Awards (1999) provided by the National Council for the Prevention of Child Abuse.

The Abused Child Trust was the inaugural winner of the Albert and Rose Hingley Services of Excellence Award for Children's Services (1995).

Reference

Henderson Associates (2001), Evaluation of the Contact House Program, Abused Child Trust, Brisbane.

Back to top

---

Risk management and insurance: things every child welfare organisation should know!

Tim Sparkes

Where are we now?

Over the past three years organisations in Australia have experienced considerable difficulty in accessing liability insurance. Government, child welfare organisations and the public are demanding access to more affordable liability insurance; however, in response, insurers argue that they are constrained in reducing premiums given the current level of risk and are requesting appropriate risk management practices from organisations.

Risk management solutions enable insurers to move forward by being able to offer premium discounts to their insureds thus meeting Government demands for insurance premium relief.

What is risk and risk management?

According to the recently revised Risk Management Standard issued by Standards Australia (2004, p. 87), 'Risk' and 'Risk Management' is defined as follows:

'Risk is the chance of something happening that will have an impact upon objectives. It is measured in terms of consequences and likelihood';

'Risk management is the culture, processes and structures that are directed towards realising potential opportunities whilst managing adverse effects'.

Why is risk management important?

Risk management is important for child welfare organisations as it can:

• reduce the likelihood of child injuries/mishaps;
• enable a child welfare organisation to demonstrate due diligence;

How to manage risk:

Risk management strategies may include training for managers, staff and volunteers of a child welfare organisation in the following areas:

• bullying awareness;
• age appropriate activities;
• protocols for contact with children;
• training and supervision for employees;
• safety education for parents and children;
• protocols for responding to child abuse allegations;
• staff handbook defining child protection policies/guidelines; and
• pre-employment screening - background and reference checks.

Risks faced by child welfare organisations

Some of the risks that may be faced by Child Welfare Organisations include:

• Allegations of wrongful employment practices;
• Child injuries (e.g., sexual abuse by an employee);
• Recruitment challenges (e.g., screening employees);
• Unfavourable publicity or harm to reputation and credibility;
• Allegations of wrongdoing, including misuse of charitable funds (i.e., fraud); and
• Volunteer/staff/customer injuries - Actual harm versus perception about risk.

Further information

The following bodies provide services for organisations to assist them in dealing with the risks of child abuse occurring within their organisations:

Gallagher Solutions 61 2 8243 0908 1800 991 099 tim_sparkes@ajg.com www.cares.org.au

Child Wise Australia, Choose With Care 1800 991 099 ecpat@ecpat.org www.ecpat.org/projects/choose_with_care.html

Cunnart Associates 519-451-7603 cunnartassociates@sympatico.ca www.cunnart.com

Australian Council for Children and Youth Organisations 61 3 9804 8521 info@accyo.org.au www.accyo.org.au/about_us.htm

Back to top

---

Commissions for children and young people: comparing state and territory statutory bodies for protecting the rights and interests of children

Natalie Kenney and Allison Tait

When Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) in 1990, a commitment was made to protecting and ensuring children's rights. The Convention protects children's rights by setting basic standards in health care, education and legal, civil and social services. The Convention provides a guide for signatory states, including Australia, to develop and undertake all actions and policies in the light of the best interests of the child.

But how far have we come in the last 14 years to ensuring that all Australian children and young people benefit from the principles outlined in the CROC?

Australia has initiated a number of approaches to safeguard the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and to ensure that the voices of children and young people are heard. However, while these developments are positive there is inconsistency in the approaches of the states and territories in the ratification of the convention (Australian Parliament Joint Standing Committee on Treaties 1998). There is a need for better co-ordination and legislative consistency between the states and territories to ensure that all Australian children and young people have equal representation, as outlined in the CROC, regardless of where they live. There is also a need for an integrated national framework to provide focus and co-ordination to ensure the rights, interests and wellbeing of all children and young people are met at both a state and national level.

Each state and territory in Australia has an Office of Youth Affairs or an equivalent, responsible for coordinating policies that affect young people. These Offices also often act as a monitoring mechanism for young people, alongside the respective Ombudsmen. However, their responsibility usually extends only to young people aged 12 to 25 years. The interests of children aged below 12 years are generally not wellcatered for within government.

While some states have taken steps to further address children's and young people's issues by establishing statutory bodies, others have not done so.

Queensland has established the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian, while New South Wales has the Commission for Children and Young People and Tasmania has a Commissioner for Children. Each has been established as an independent statutory body to monitor the wellbeing of children and young people and to advocate for their rights. In addition, in May 2004, Western Australia announced it will establish a new Children's Commission in 2005 (Government of Western Australia, 2004). Commissions for children and young people: Comparing state and territory statutory bodies for protecting the rights and interests of children highlight the need for consistency in state/territory approaches for safeguarding the rights and interests of children South Australia, NT and ACT have yet to set up independent statutory bodies to safeguard children and young people's interests and to ensure the voices of all children and young people are heard. [Editor's note: NT currently has draft legislation for the establishment of a Children's Commissioner].

Queensland

The Queensland Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian was the first child-focused Commission to be established in the country. It was initially created in 1996 as the Children's Commission. However, the Commission's roles and functions were significantly altered following legislative review and state wide consultations, with the introduction of the Commission for Children and Young People Act 2000 in 2001. This Act provides for one of the most empowered Children's Commissions in the world, with added functions to promote and protect the rights, interests and wellbeing of all Queenslanders under the age of 18 more effectively (Queensland Commission for Children and Young People 2004).

The Commission's main functions include: advocating for the rights, interests and wellbeing of children and young people; employment screening of certain categories of child-related employment; a state-wide Community Visitor program to provide advocacy and support services to children and young people in out-of-home care; receiving, seeking to resolve and investigating complaints about the delivery of services provided to children and young people; promoting, monitoring and reviewing laws, policies and practices that impact on children and young people; and conducting research into issues affecting children and young people.

As a result of a recent Crime and Misconduct Commission report, Protecting Children: An inquiry into abuse of children in foster care (Queensland Crime and Misconduct Commission 2004), the Commission for Children and Young People and Child Guardian Act 2000 has been amended to enhance the systemic monitoring function of the Commission, allowing a more focused oversight of Queensland's child protection system, including:

• systemic monitoring of the child protection system across the Department of Child Safety and the non-government sector, including monitoring decisions to bring children into the system, the services provided while in care and the decision to reunite children with their families;
• the ability to appeal decisions to the Children Services Tribunal for review;
• extending the Community Visitor program to all children in alternative care, such as foster care and other residential services, to ensure children receive an acceptable standard of care;
• establishment of a statutory Child Death Case Review Committee to coordinate and monitor child death reviews of children who have come into contact with the child protection system in the previous three years prior to their death;
• a register of deaths of all children in Queensland and broader research into strategies to reduce or remove risk factors associated with preventable child deaths; and
• providing an annual report to be tabled in Parliament regarding child deaths.

The amendments to the Act have established the Queensland Commissioner as Child Guardian, with responsibility to oversee the services provided and decisions made regarding children by the newly established Department of Child Safety.

New South Wales

As with the Queensland Commission, the New South Wales Commission for Children and Young People aims to initiate and influence broad, positive change for children and young people by working with government and non-government agencies on laws, policies, practices and services that affect children and young people (NSW Commission for Children and Young People 2000). The New South Wales Commission, established under the Commission for Children and Young People Act 1998, also conducts employment screening for people in child-related employment, has a child death register and a research function. However, unlike Queensland, it does not have the power to investigate individual complaints relating to the delivery of services provided for children.

Although the Queensland Commissioner for Children and Young People has acquired the role of Child Guardian, New South Wales has a separate Office of the Children's Guardian (NSW Office of the Children's Guardian 2004). It is an independent organisation which reports directly to the Minister for Community Services, and was set up to promote the best interests and rights of children and young people in out-of-home care.

Tasmania

In Tasmania, the role of Commissioner for Children was created under the Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act 1997, which came into force in July 2000 (Ambikapathy 2001). As in Queensland, the Commissioner takes complaints from individual children and attempts to resolve them. However, the Tasmanian Commission is not responsible for employment screening of people in child-related employment.

Victoria

In December 2004, in association with reforms to Child Protective Services, the government announced that it would create the position of Child Safety Commissioner to better protect children at risk (Victorian Department of Human Services 2004). It also appointed the Community Services Minister as Victoria's first Minister for Children, and will establish an Office for Children within the Department of Human Services for which the Minister will be responsible. Victoria has also created the position of Advocate for Children in Care, who was appointed in March 2004. The Advocate covers children protected by the state living away from their family home, including those in foster care and has a responsibility for ensuring a robust complaint system for the Department of Human Services and service organisations for concerns raised about the care of such children (Gough 2004). The position is also based in the Department of Human Services. Both the Child Safety Commissioner and Advocate for Children in Care will report to the government (that is, the Minister for Children), rather than Parliament.

Various organisations in Victoria such as the Law Institute of Victoria, the Australian Childhood Foundation, Youth Affairs Council of Victoria and the Victorian Council of Social Services have been critical of the steps taken by the Victorian government. These organisations believe that there remains a need for the government to establish an independent Children and Young People's Commission with the necessary statutory powers needed to protect all children and young people (Tomazin 2004; Youth Affairs Council of Victoria, 2004; Victorian Council of Social Services 2004).

South Australia

In South Australia, the establishment of an independent Commissioner for Children and Young People was one of the key recommendations of a recent government report into child protection, Our best investment: A state plan to protect and advance the interests of children (Layton 2003). As in Queensland, the South Australian model proposed that the Commissioner have the ability to: be an advocate for children and young people; conduct inquiries; promote awareness of the rights of children and young people; influence law, policy and practices; intervene in legal cases involving the rights of children and young people at the systemic level; initiate test cases or support legal actions on behalf of children and young people; and conduct research.

Although a Commissioner has not yet been established, the South Australian government recently appointed a Guardian for Children and Young People (South Australian Department of Families and Communities 2004). The South Australian Guardian also has the role of advocate for all children and young people by providing advice to the Minister for Families and Communities on whether the needs and interests of children are being met. The Guardian will therefore ensure that child protection and alternative care systems, and other government services such as health and education, are child-focused and work to improve the well being of all children. However, unlike the Queensland Commission, the Guardian will not receive and investigate complaints, conduct research, and there is no screening function for child-related employment.

Western Australia

In May 2004, Western Australia announced that it would establish a new Children's Commission to protect vulnerable children (Government of Western Australia, 2004). A model focussed on the needs of Western Australian children and young people is currently being developed and will broadly encompass areas including monitoring and research. The Commission may also be responsible for regulation and other child protection mechanisms, including a screening function for child-related employment, a Child Death Review Committee and an Advisory Council on the Prevention of Deaths of Young People. The Western Australian Commission is expected to be established in 2005.

National

In recent years there have been calls by a range of groups, including the Federal Opposition, to establish a National Commissioner for Children and Young People. A proposal was put forward by Federal Labor MP, Nicola Roxon, in a Private Member's Bill in 2003 (Parliament of Australia, 2003) and was part of the Labor Party's election platform for 2004 (Australian Labour Party, 2004). It was proposed that a National Commissioner would take on a broader children's advocacy and leadership role than those of the statebased organisations. This would include providing leadership within and between governments; developing a National Code to ensure that all organisations have procedures in place to prevent child abuse and handle complaints; and co-ordinating national criminal history screening for child-related employment. At present the Private Member's Bill is no longer before parliament (Parliament of Australia 2005), however the establishment of a National Commissioner for Children and Young People remains a Labor Party policy (Hon. Nicola Roxon MP, 2005, pers.comm., 6 January).

Although the Australian Government has not established a National Commissioner for Children, its representatives point out that the Commonwealth Constitution places primary responsibility for children's matters with state and territory governments (The Office of the Hon. Sussan Ley, Parliamentary Secretary for Children, 2005, pers.comm., 11 January). At the same time, however, the Australian Government's recognition of the importance of the rights and wellbeing of children is reflected in its development of a National Agenda for Early Childhood, which aims to better coordinate early intervention and prevention approaches to ensure all children have the best possible start to life. The Australian Government is also working collaboratively with states and territories on a number of initiatives to improve the consistency and collaboration between jurisdictions in the area of child welfare, such as the National Framework for Creating Safe Environments for Children (covering procedures for the screening of people who work with children); the National Plan for Foster Children, Young People and their Carers; and the Australian National Child Offender Register (ANCOR).

Many child welfare advocates maintain that until the position of an independent National Commissioner for Children is created that will advocate for the welfare of children and young people in all states and territories, there will remain significant disparities in the treatment of children and young people in Australia. The establishment of an independent National commissioner would ensure the implementation of the United Nations Conventions on the Rights of the Child at all levels of government.

Back to top