Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter

vol.14 no.2 Winter 2006

Published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies
ISSN 1447-0039 (Print); 1447-0047 (Online)
Manager, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Daryl Higgins
Newsletter compiled by Ellen Fish

Contact the Australian Institute of Family Studies for a copy of this newsletter, or access articles as listed below in HTML or PDF format. The full newsletter can be downloaded in PDF format (352 K) or in sections as listed below. You will need an Acrobat Reader which is free from the Adobe Systems website.

In this Issue

Editorial

Welcome to the second Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter for 2006. This newsletter contains a variety of valuable contributions from researchers, practitioners and policy makers.

Our feature article highlights successful community-based child abuse prevention strategies that have been conducted with the assistance of NAPCAN. We also include a call from NAPCAN to get involved in this year's National Child Protection Week (3-9 September). The Australian Institute of Family Studies is proud to be a founding NAPCAN National Child Protection Week Partner. As part of National Child Protection Week, the Australian Institute of Family Studies is hosting a seminar on 'The multiple and complex needs of Australian children in out-of-home care and appropriate service responses' by Dr. Paul Delfabbro, from the School of Psychology at the University of Adelaide. Details are available from the Institute's web page www.aifs.gov.au/institute/seminars/seminars.html

Also in this edition, Dr Peter Dale's model for improving child protection practice (based on an analysis of assessment errors that may have contributed to the fatal outcomes for the infants concerned) is discussed. The US population trial of the Triple P Positive Parenting Program is described. The Victorian Children's Court Clinic is profiled, and an excerpt from the clinic's contribution to a 100-year time capsule to celebrate the centenary of the Children's Court is included. The role of the Australasian Statutory Child Protection Learning and Development Group is described. The newsletter also includes a profile of Play by the Rules - a unique website designed to assist in the prevention of, and developing responses to, inappropriate behaviour in sport and recreation.

Our most recent Issues paper, written by Prue Holzer, Jenny Higgins, Leah Bromfield, Nick Richardson and Daryl Higgins, discusses child abuse prevention programs and their evaluation and summarises the research evidence in relation to two specific child abuse prevention programs: parent education and home visiting. If you have just joined the Clearinghouse's mailing list, or want additional copies of Child Abuse Prevention Issues, No. 24 entitled 'The effectiveness of parent education and home visiting child maltreatment prevention programs', or any of our other publications, they are available for download at: http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/pubs.html

In addition to our Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter and Issues papers, the Clearinghouse produces a range of publications that are only available on the Clearinghouse website. In 2006, we will be publishing new Research, Policy and Practice Briefs. Research Briefs will describe findings from research undertaken by the Clearinghouse. The first two Research Briefs are already available and can be downloaded from: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/brief/menu.html. We also have an electronic series of Resource Sheets. All of the Clearinghouse's e-publications and hard copy publications are available online at: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/pubs.html

The Clearinghouse undertook several research projects in 2005, which have now been completed. To find out more about new research being undertaken by the Clearinghouse and to access full reports for completed research projects, visit the Clearinghouse website: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/research/menu.html

In addition to our regular mailing list, our Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter and Issues papers are now being sent to statutory child protection departments in every state and territory, as well as key community-based organisations. We think this makes the Child Abuse Prevention series one of the most effective publications in Australia for informing professionals in the child and family welfare area.

We look forward to keeping you informed with news and events from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse.

Dr Leah Bromfield
Assistant Manager National Child Protection Clearinghouse

Back to top

Practical child abuse and neglect prevention

Adam Blakester

In this paper, Adam Blakester explores the factors that have led to success in a number of promising Australian community initiatives where responsibility is being taken for the wellbeing of children and young people to prevent child abuse and neglect.

Since embarking on a holistic community development child abuse prevention strategy in 2004, the NAPCAN Foundation has learnt a great deal about the success factors of community-based primary prevention strategies.

Community participation is essential for successful primary prevention initiatives, as its members are best placed to know the community's strengths and aspirations, vulnerabilities and needs. Active community involvement is essential in developing genuine long-term capacity and sustainability. In fact, a common barrier to effective child abuse and neglect prevention strategies is insufficient community involvement, responsibility and ownership.

Prevention of child abuse and neglect is a whole-of-community responsibility and as part of that community members, professionals, service providers, agencies and local organisations need to work together in collaboration. The role for professionals in partnering with communities is to bring skills, resources and services to support the implementation of community-based solutions. When professionals learn from and support communities, the relationships created become powerful partnerships for change and enhancing positive outcomes for children.

The case for child abuse and neglect prevention

Thankfully, most Australian children grow up in a loving and caring family environment. However, child abuse and neglect continue to be among the most serious social problems Australia faces, given the number of children and young people affected and the complex and lasting impacts of the harm they experience.

Every year, for the last six years, every indicator of child abuse and neglect has increased - reports, substantiated (confirmed) cases, care and protection orders, and the number of children living in out-of-home care (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).

Today, a child protection report is made every two minutes - a rate that has more than doubled over the last four years. A child is substantiated as having, or being likely to have, suffered child abuse or neglect every 11 minutes, which was more than 34,000 individual children in 2004-05 alone (AIHW, 2006).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples are over-represented on each of the above indicators of child abuse and neglect. The arrival of Europeans in Australia brought foreign illnesses, such as influenza and smallpox, which have been estimated by some commentators to have caused the deaths of 20-30 per cent of the Indigenous population and have had lasting negative consequences for Indigenous peoples. The lasting impact of colonisation has contributed towards the over-representation of Indigenous peoples on indicators of child abuse and neglect. In the Bringing Them Home report, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission (HREOC) concluded that some of the underlying causes for the poor outcomes experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples and for the over-representation of Indigenous children in substantiated child maltreatment and out-of-home care rates were:

The economic cost of child abuse and neglect was estimated to be $5 billion in 2003 (Keatsdale, 2003), and a further $769 million in 2004 was determined to be the cost of family violence on children (Access Economics, 2004). In total, therefore, this estimated cost of child abuse and neglect is more than Australia's annual income from meat exports (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2005).

Given the size of the problem, and the psychological, emotional and physical damage that can result, child abuse and neglect represents one of the greatest barriers and threats to the wellbeing of Australian children, young people and the next generation of children and adults. It affects mental, emotional and physical health, levels of violence and crime, addiction, educational attainment and employment. The consequences can be lifelong and it has been found that the perpetration of violence and abuse can also be passed on to future generations (Tomison, 1996).

Australian state and territory government funding for child protection has increased in all jurisdictions over the last five years, with recurrent expenditure totalling $1.2 billion in 2004-2005 (Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2006). The Australian Government spent $4.2 million on child abuse prevention in the same period (Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services, 2005). However, preventing child abuse and neglect must be given much greater focus by Australian society. In a Michigan study investigating the costs of child abuse compared to the costs of child abuse prevention, the authors concluded that, while the incidence of abuse could not be reduced to zero, investments in prevention could be cost-effective, even if they achieve only modest reductions in abuse events (Caldwell, 1992). The US Perry Preschool study found an economic return to society of more than US$17 for every tax dollar invested in an early care and education program, and significant benefits in employment, earnings, home ownership and financial wealth (Schweinhart, 2004). These data show that, rather than responding after abuse or neglect has occurred, it is through child abuse prevention that we create potential for the greatest social and economic returns on our investment.

Case study 1

Windale: A child abuse prevention success

Windale, in the New South Wales Lake Macquarie region, was originally established as a suburb by the New South Wales Department of Housing. In 1999, Jesuit Social Services rated Windale as the most socially disadvantaged community in New South Wales (where community was defined by postcode areas). A comprehensive three-year community renewal process improved the situation.

Proving that preventing child abuse is possible, Windale moved from the worst 1 per cent in terms of child protection notifications in New South Wales in 1999 to the best 25 per cent in 2003. Windale achieved this outcome primarily through the establishment of a community centre attached to the local primary school. The community centre - known as the Alcazar Centre - was led by a community committee with broad representation. Programs initiated included:

Over time, Windale Primary School became a hub of the community, later being used as a blueprint for the Schools as Community Centres initiative across New South Wales. The Alcazar Centre was given an Award for Excellence by the Director General of the NSW Department of Education and Training.

Observations

The Windale community demonstrated that reducing and preventing child abuse and neglect is possible. In the same way the causes of abuse and neglect are complex and diverse, the solutions can be different to what we might expect. The positive community-based initiatives at Windale had a butterfly effect: small or seemingly insignificant steps are ultimately making a significant difference to the children of Windale.

Effective prevention

Primary prevention strategies are particularly aimed at preventing child abuse and neglect from occurring at all. To date, successes have been hampered by our relatively limited knowledge about wellbeing - the very goal we are seeking.

The 'eyeball' of prevention in Figure 1 distinguishes the three roles of prevention:

Figure 1 'Eyeball' of prevention

Figure 1. Eyeball of prevention

Source: Prilleltensky, Nelson, & Peirson, 2001, p. 13.

The 'ecological and hierarchical structure of wellness' shown in Figure 2 describes what we know is common sense: that the wellbeing and vulnerability of children is connected to the wellbeing and vulnerability of their parents, families, communities and society at large (Prilleltensky et al., 2001). Effective prevention strategies must promote wellness and reduce risks across every level of this ecology.

Figure 2 The ecological and hierarchical structure of wellness

Figure 2. The ecological and hierarchical structure of wellness

Source: Prilleltensky et al., 2001, p. 9.

This principle is well understood when dealing with an epidemic like Sydney's giardia outbreak. Treating patients alone could not solve the epidemic; the root causes had to be addressed (that is, the toxicants entering Sydney's water supply). However, child abuse and neglect is much more complex than a giardia outbreak; it is a social pandemic requiring adaptive solutions and social change (Scott, 2006). There is no single prescription, service, program or intervention that can stop child abuse and neglect; however, even small community-based strategies can aid in the prevention of child and abuse neglect.

The Oenpelli case study demonstrates an ecological approach to enhancing wellbeing.

Case study 2

Yingana project, Oenpelli, Arnhem Land: Enhancing wellbeing

In September 2003, the Oenpelli community of remote Arnhem Land in the Northern Territory was awarded a NAPCAN Foundation micro-grant. Bolstered by the support and resources at the disposal of NAPCAN's Northern Territory Office, the grant funded a facilitator and a project team comprised of five community elders (who were also mature-age students at the Northern Territory's Batchelor Institute of Tertiary Education) to produce a locally based prevention tool that was culturally appropriate for Bininj people (language group of Oenpelli).

The grant application read: "As traditional land owners living in isolation, Bininj people have many issues. We do not want our children removed and want to work in partnership with key people in promoting the protection of children and young mothers Bininj way ... It is a whole of community approach".

At that time, data showed that of the 156 children in Oenpelli's community a significant number (88) were experiencing symptoms of poor nutrition and failure to thrive, as follows:

Small children (stunted) 19
Underweight 43
Wasted (malnourished) 20
Anaemic (insufficient iron in the blood) 6

Child welfare agencies frequently intervened to remove children from their families and the community.

The Yingana project aimed to improve child nutrition and wellbeing, and decrease the number of child removals, by enhancing traditional parenting. In the first year of the project, the project team used the following strategies to enhance traditional Bininj mothering:

Each of these initiatives were applied both as the basis for parent education and forming a starting point for partnerships with local professionals, services and agencies. The community-based initiatives became an 'induction kit' for workers coming to Oenpelli, allowing them to begin building on what has already been achieved.

The Yingana project received the Vocational Education and Training Award for Excellence for 2005. Their Creation Mother CD-ROM is now on sale and proceeds will enable the team to fund future projects and child-friendly initiatives.

Observations

The Oenpelli community have developed and implemented a truly ecological approach to the wellbeing and safety of their children, with strategies on every level of the ecological and hierarchical structure of wellbeing:

Child level Improving nutrition and healthy mothers
Parent level Positive parenting messages
Community level Partnerships with elders and services
Societal level Respect for Indigenous culture and knowledge

This initiative was led entirely by the community. Yet, importantly, the team was able to access and use support from a range of professionals, including NAPCAN and the Batchelor Institute of Indigenous Tertiary Education.

This is only the beginning, and the team are continuing to expand on the work to create more resources for their community and to further their work preventing child abuse and neglect.

The project ably demonstrates the 'small beginnings' approach of community development-type work (producing a 'butterfly effect', as mentioned previously). It highlights the value of communities being supported (and respected) to take responsibility, rather than being forced to change. This active support enables active involvement, ownership and, ultimately, sustained capacity.

Cultural appropriateness is a further critical factor for the success of any prevention strategy, and is traditionally a particular challenge for Indigenous, and non-mainstream, child-friendly community initiatives. Yingana's incorporation of a traditional dreamtime story showing the importance of maternal health is culturally appropriate and respectfully demonstrates the value of the ancient wisdom of Indigenous people.

Windows to wellbeing

Both the Windale and Oenpelli projects demonstrate the clear purpose of reducing maltreatment and improving the wellbeing of children.

Primary prevention is effectively about the creation of wellness for children, families, communities and society as a whole. To reduce or eliminate maltreatment is not enough. To create sustainable child-friendly communities, we must create wellbeing while taking steps to reduce harm.

However, while our knowledge around child abuse and neglect is relatively extensive, our knowledge of what constitutes wellbeing (and how we can measure it) has only just begun being explored. A review of the Australian Bureau of Statistics (2005) information paper, titled Key issues relating to children and youth, highlights that the current data regarding children and wellbeing in Australia is largely harm- and problem-centric. The risk with harm- and problem-based wellbeing indicators is that wellbeing will be viewed as simply the absence of harm. In fact, wellbeing is much more than merely the absence of harm.

The Australia Institute's A manifesto for wellbeing states:

We need a set of national wellbeing accounts so that we can monitor our progress. They should report on the quality of work, the state of our communities, crime rates, our health, the strength of our relationships, and the state of the environment. Governments should be judged by how much our wellbeing improves, not by how much the economy expands (Hamilton, Eckersley, & Denniss, 2006).

Case study 3 describes a series of art-based workshops for children in Macarthur, New South Wales, and the importance young people place on social relationships in contributing to wellbeing.

Case study 3

Kid-friendly Macarthur

As part of National Child Protection Week 2005, NAPCAN embarked on an ambitious project to work with children and young people in south-west Sydney's Macarthur region to create their vision for a child- and youth-friendly community. A series of art-based workshops were facilitated by renowned Aboriginal artist Tex Skuthorpe. The workshops involved some 80 children and young people from a dozen schools, groups and services.

During the workshops, the children each produced a series of four paintings reflecting visions of how they would like their community to be in 100 years' time, for their great grandchildren. In recounting the stories of what their paintings meant, the children and young people stated (in order of importance) the qualities they believed were important (see table to the right).

Observations

Contrary to the views of many adults, children between the ages of 8 and 18 described an inclusive vision of the community they wanted to create for their great grandchildren. The underlying issue that can be observed in young people's responses under the areas of respect, multiculturalism and friendly spaces issues is the value placed on relationships. Thus we can conclude that the issue of most importance to children and young people was relationships with family, friends, teachers and the community. The next most important issue was the environment, both built and natural. The provision of services and having basic needs met was ranked last in young people's vision for the future.

The Macarthur work showed that children and young people viewed relationships as the highest priority for wellbeing. Positive outcomes for children and young people in areas such as education, health, safety and employment may be possible if we deliver sustained outcomes in the form of meaningful relationships for children and young people.

1. Respect respect each other, the environment, and ourselves
everyone equal
peace and loving
2. Multiculturalism all working and living together
no racism
3. Services access to health services
cheap public transport
more teachers and further education
life skills education
meaningful employment
stable services
4. Friendly spaces neighbourhood, shops, parks, youth facilities
healthy environment

 

The visions of wellbeing from NAPCAN's work in Macarthur were explored with service providers. Figure 3 depicts the comparison of their different priorities.

Figure 3 Comparison of Macarthur children's and service providers' priorities

Figure 3. Comparison of Macarthur children's and service providers' priorities

The children viewed relationships as the most important priority and goal and, while service providers recognised that relationships are the most important ingredient for wellbeing, they were arguably the most complex outcomes to demonstrate and measure.

As a result, service providers' focus was primarily on the delivery of services and needs, which are significantly easier to measure. However, if it is relationships rather than needs that are most important, the delivery of needs can be both an 'output' and an 'outcome'. While it is important to focus on meeting basic needs in the short-term, service providers must also recognise the importance of enhancing relationships in order to produce positive community change in the long term. What are required are holistic models of service delivery that recognise the primary importance of relationships.

This difference in priority between service providers and young people is a potential risk to the achievement of the key outcomes of wellbeing and safety of children and young people. Case study 4 clarifies what is being suggested as the way to deliver services, while prioritising the importance of relationships to children's wellbeing.

Case study 4

The difference relationships can make

The importance of relationships is generally accepted as a key element in children and adult's level of resiliency when confronted with crises and/or life stresses. For example, a social worker in Sydney had worked with a particular family for over a decade. During this time, the son of the family had become a teenager. One day, the social worker was feeling very low, struggling to find the strength and courage to face another session with the son, knowing just what he had survived over more than 10 years. The following conversation took place:

Worker: Can you tell me, how is it you have survived? What kept you going?

Boy: Every day, when I used to get on the bus to go to school, the bus driver used to ask me: "How's my little ray of sunshine today?" I knew then that I was someone; that I mattered.

Observations

At the same time the bus driver was fulfilling the required service of taking children from home to school and back again, the driver delivered a relationship (though probably never knowing the difference it made to the boy). The bus driver showed the boy he was valued and valuable. This was the real outcome.

Case studies 1 to 4 demonstrate practical initiatives and outcomes which are aligned with the indicators and qualities of community resilience and risk (depicted in Table 1). The risk and resilience indicators are drawn from a range of national Australian strategies and frameworks, including the:

Table 1: Community qualities for children's wellbeing and safety
Resilience Risk
Social connectedness Cultural norms concerning violence as an acceptable response to frustration
Respect for cultural diversity, identity and pride Social or cultural discrimination, including cultural ignorance
Available, accessible and appropriate services which respond effectively Media portrayal of violence
Existence of supportive social relationships and networks Social isolation; lack of infrastructure; housing and urban conditions (unhealthy cities)
Participation of children and families in community life and community groups Lack of support services
Family-friendly work environments and culture Socioeconomic disadvantage
Early identification and support for families and children at risk of poor outcomes Social norm of providing 'cures' rather than preventative support

The case studies demonstrate the practical ways communities can get involved to put these national strategies and frameworks into effect in their area.

Case study 5 demonstrates the development of a locally relevant action plan, and the establishment of partnerships with service providers and businesses to bring that action plan to life.

Case study 5

Building community responsibility

The Whitsunday Islands community in Queensland has actively participated in National Child Protection Week (NCPW) for many years. Inspired by the Child Friendly Challenges in NCPW 2005, they decided they wanted to keep prevention of child abuse and neglect on their agenda all year round.

In September 2005, a community action group was formed. Their main focus was on taking steps towards making the Whitsundays more child-friendly, including a partnership with the World Health Organization Safe Communities Project. To date, the group's actions have included:

Observations

With their purpose of improving wellbeing and reducing risks of harm, and their main resource being time and passion for children's wellbeing and welfare, the Whitsundays community has demonstrated the ability to develop a locally relevant action plan, and establish partnerships with service providers and business to bring their action plan to life. The involvement of children and young people has been central in all of their activities.

Conclusions

The lessons, case studies, anecdotes and models presented above demonstrate the early stages of how communities can, and are, taking responsibility for working to improve the wellbeing of children and young people and, in turn, helping to prevent child abuse and neglect.

The involvement of community has brought important knowledge to the table. In many cases, communities have created simple and meaningful plans that deliver an ecological approach to the dual objective of improving wellbeing and reducing risks of harm to children and young people.

The 'butterfly effect' metaphor has been used to describe the fact that, from the small and significant steps being taken, the potential is for big things to grow.

Three significant benefits of community responsibility were highlighted:

In closing, it is important to recognise the message given by communities taking responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of children - that we all have the ability to play a part in enhancing the wellbeing of children, families and communities. Indeed, when it comes to the mission of preventing child abuse and neglect before it starts, children's wellbeing and safety is everyone's business.

NAPCAN's five-step plan for a child-friendly Australia

A child-friendly Australia, free from harm, one community at a time:

1. Ask children and young people to create their vision for a child friendly community. Be creative!

2. Develop a simple plan of action, again working with the kids.

3. Form a group of local partners and other key stakeholders (checkout NAPCAN's Community Action Kit).

4. Begin the child-friendly journey.

5. Involve NAPCAN. We can promote your story and work, connect you with our network and partners and more...

References

Access Economics. (2004). The cost of domestic violence to the Australian economy: Part 1 & 2. Canberra: Office of the Status of Women.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). 2005 year book Australia. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2001). Child protection Australia 1999-00. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2002). Child protection Australia 2000-01. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2003). Child protection Australia 2001-02. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2004). Child protection Australia 2002-03. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2005). Child protection Australia 2003-04. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2006). Child protection Australia 2004-05. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2005). Information paper: Key issues relating to children and youth, 2005. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.

Australian Government Department of Family and Community Services. (2005). Department of Family and Community Services Annual Report. Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services.

Australian Government Productivity Commission. (2006). Report on Government Services 2006, Volume 2. Canberra: Australian Government Productivity Commission.

Caldwell, R. A. (1992). The costs of child abuse vs child abuse prevention: Michigan's experience. Michigan: Michigan Children's Trust Fund and Michigan State University.

Hamilton, C., Eckersley, R., & Denniss, R. (2006). A manifesto for wellbeing. The Australia Institute. Retrieved 23 June 2006, from http://www.wellbeingmanifesto.net/about.htm.

Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (1997). Bringing them home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families. Sydney: Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission.

Keatsdale. (2003). Report into the cost of child abuse and neglect in Australia. Albion, Qld: Queensland Kids First Foundation. Retreived from http://www.kidsfirst.com.au/page.php?partid=45.

Prilleltensky, I., Nelson, G., & Peirson, L. (2001). Promoting family wellness and preventing child maltreatment: Fundamental for thinking and action. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

Schweinhart, L. J. (2004). The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40: Summary conclusions and frequently asked questions. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Retrieved 4 July 2006 from http://www.highscope.org/Research/PerryProject/perrymain.htm.

Scott, D. (2006). Sowing the seeds of innovation in child protection. Paper presented at the 10th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect. Wellington, NZ. Retrieved 4 July 2006 from http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/accan/speakers/scott.shtml.

Tomison, A. (1996). Intergenerational transmission of maltreatment (Child Abuse Prevention Issues, No. 6). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse. Available from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues6/issues6.html.

Adam Blakester is the Executive Officer for the National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (NAPCAN) Foundation.

Back to top

The Australasian Statutory Child Protection Learning and Development Group

Leah M. Bromfield

The Australasian Statutory Child Protection Learning and Development Group (the Group) comprises representatives with learning and development responsibilities in every Australian state and territory, and New Zealand. In addition, there are representatives from the Australian Centre for Child Protection (at the University of South Australia) and the National Child Protection Clearinghouse (at the Australian Institute of Family Studies). The Group meets twice a year to:

Each meeting is hosted by a different jurisdiction. Historically, the Group arose because representatives from two of the larger jurisdictions (Victoria and New South Wales) saw the need for such a forum. These individuals were the drivers behind the initial meeting. The Group was originally a meeting of state and territory learning and development organisations and was held in conjunction with the Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect.

History of the Australasian Statutory Child Protection Learning and Development Group

In 1999, a Community Services Ministers' Advisory Council (CSMAC) working party investigating human resources and workforce planning issues consulted with the Group in relation to community services training packages and courses on child protection. A National Liasion Officer employed by the CSMAC Secretariat and reporting to the Chair of the Industry Skills Council worked closely with this group and others to develop a national competency set for child protection, youth and welfare workers. At a forum held in December 2001 with the National Liasion Officer, the Learning and Development Group expressed their concerns regarding the 'lumping' of youth and welfare workers into one broad groups and advised that three streams were needed: Youth Work and Juvenile Justice, Child Protection, and Child Care. As a result of such feedback the qualifications were revised to better reflect these streams. The national competencies for statutory child protection workers now form the basis of much of the in-house training provided to statutory child protection workers in Australia.

At the Brisbane meeting of the Group in September 2004 (held in conjunction with the 15th international congress of the International Society for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect (IPSCAN)), it was decided that the Group would restrict its membership to government agencies and to issues surrounding statutory child protection professional development. Draft terms of reference also emerged from the meeting.

In August 2005, at the Darwin meeting of the Group, the National Child Protection Clearinghouse and Australian Centre for Child Protection were formally included in the membership of the Group. At this meeting it was also determined that a mapping exercise would be completed to document the existing learning and development provisions in each state and territory to further facilitate information and resource sharing.

Outcomes of the group to date

The Group provides an invaluable opportunity to network, share information and benefit from the experiences of others. In addition, the Group has achieved some measurable outcomes, such as:

Preliminary findings from this project were presented at the Australian College of Child and Family Protection Practitioners Conference in Sydney in May 2006.

Future priorities for the Group include further articulation of the link between training, and recruitment and retention; for example, by providing staff with the opportunity to obtain university qualifications and through the development of exchange programs between Australian states and territories. The Group is also investigating the means by which it could promote or support relevant research.

Dr Leah Bromfield is a Research Fellow with the Australian Institute of Family Studies and Assistant Manager of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse. Dr Bromfield is a member of the Australasian Statutory Child Protection Learning and Development Group, representing the Clearinghouse.

Acknowledgements: The author acknowledges the input of past and present members of the Australasian Statutory Child Protection Learning and Development Group in providing the information for this piece.

Back to top

Conference highlights

Blossoming of Our Children, Kia Puawai Nga Tamariki

10th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect (14-16 February 2006)

Leah M. Bromfield

In February this year, Dr Daryl Higgins and Dr Leah Bromfield from the Clearinghouse attended the 10th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect in Wellington, New Zealand, where they gave three presentations. Copies of these papers can be downloaded from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse website http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/presentations.html

Highlights from the conference included the keynote addresses by:

Highlights within the concurrent sessions included:

The 10th Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect conference organisers have arranged for these and many more conference presentations to available for download at www.nzfvc.org.nz/accan/papers-presentations

Dr Leah Bromfield is a Research Fellow and the Assistant Manager of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Back to top

'Fine Judgements' workshop on understanding child protection errors

Jenny Higgins

In March 2006, Clearinghouse staff members, Prue Holzer and Jenny Higgins, attended a conference entitled 'Understanding Child Protection Errors: Fine Judgments', hosted by the Australian Childhood Foundation. The conference presenter, Dr Peter Dale, has worked in the field of child protection research, assessment and evaluation in the UK for the past 30 years. Most recently, Dr Dale reviewed case files to determine the causes of infant deaths in the UK. From this work he developed a model for improving child protection practice, based on an analysis of assessment errors that may have contributed to the fatal outcomes for the infants concerned.

Dr Dale acknowledged the difficult and challenging work child protection practitioners undertake, and argued that adverse outcomes are inevitable in the human services field due to "the inherent unpredictability of human behaviour". He stressed that all adverse outcomes for children are not necessarily due to child protection errors.

How child protection errors occur

Dr Dale has developed a model of four possible risk assessment outcomes following child protection interventions with infants. This model can assist practitioners in understanding how and why child protection errors occur. The four possible assessment outcomes are presented below in Table 1.

Table 1: Child protection assessment outcomes
True positive True negative
Abuse is detected
Risk is real
Child is protected		 No abuse
Risk is appropriately discounted
Enquiry is sensitive and proportionate
False positive False negative
No abuse
Risk is overestimated
Interventions are inappropriate or disproportionate
Family is harmed by inappropriate child protection interventions		 Abuse is undetected
Risk is underestimated
Interventions are absent/inadequate
Child is re-injured in context of inadequate child protection interventions

Child protection errors occur due to either a 'false negative' or a 'false positive' assessment of the child’s situation.

'False negatives' describe situations in which abuse is occurring, but is inaccurately assessed as not having occurred. The most common causes of false negative assessments are:

'False positives' describe situations in which abuse is not occurring, but is inaccurately assessed as having occurred.

False positive assessments also lead to negative outcomes for children when, for example, they are removed unnecessarily from their families. The most common causes of false positive errors include:

Reducing child protection errors

After outlining how child protection errors can occur, Dr Dale then discussed ways in which professionals can reduce child protection errors. Firstly, organisations need to recognise and record false positive and false negative errors, then develop specific policy and practice guidelines to reduce both. He also emphasised the importance of undertaking competent, rigorous assessments, which should be monitored and regulated at a management level. Secondly, practitioner skills and knowledge should be sufficient to assimilate complex information through competent observation, interviewing and analysis, ideally by taking a therapeutic approach that promotes positive change for the family.

Dr Dale stated that competent assessments can only be made by practitioners who have the ability to engage with distressed families in a respectful manner, while monitoring and regulating their own cognitive and emotional responses. Practitioners need to be cautious not to be influenced by their own personal life experiences, or by 'pet theories' that may dominate current thinking. Practitioners should generate and test hypotheses about possible risks and safety in relation to the child, and their assessment should emerge from this process. Dr Dale highlighted the value of independent assessments conducted by external experts or consultants, as these can offer insights about both the risks to the child in question and the role of the child protection service in responding to and managing the perceived risk.

In order to reduce child protection errors, Dr Dale has developed a model he refers to as the 'reasonableness-unreasonableness' dynamic between families and the child protection service. Dr Dale defines 'reasonableness' as appropriate behaviour in relation to the circumstances governing the situation.

When both parties take a 'reasonable' approach to addressing child protection concerns, an effective partnership develops. This partnership enables the family and the child protection service to resolve problems and come to a shared understanding regarding risk or the absence of risk in a given situation, thereby reducing the possibility of false positive or false negative assessments. A 'reasonable' professional approach involves:

While it is reasonable that parents may initially be shocked, upset, anxious or angry about the intervention, a reasonable professional response would be to take this into account and not make negative assessments of the family based on their initial reaction to the child protection investigation.

'Reasonableness' on the part of the family involves:

When either or both parties are unreasonable during child protection investigations, false positive or false negative assessments are more likely to occur, leading to poor outcomes for the family, and potentially fatal outcomes for the child. Whether families are reasonable or unreasonable, it is important for child practitioners to maintain a professional and reasonable approach in their work with families to facilitate the best outcomes for children and avoiding false positives and false negatives.

For more information on Dr Dale's work, refer to the following:

Dale, P., Green, R., & Fellows, R. (2005). Child protection assessment following serious injuries to infants: Fine judgments. England: Wiley & Sons.

Dale, P., Green, R., & Fellows, R. (2002). What really happened? Child protection case management of infants with serious injuries and discrepant parental explanations. London: NSPCC.

Dr Jenny Higgins is a Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Back to top

The Victorian Children's Court Clinic

Prue Holzer with an excerpt from Patricia Brown

During March of this year, Clearinghouse staff - Ellen Fish, Jenny Higgins, and Prue Holzer - visited the Melbourne Children's Court and the Victorian Children's Court Clinic. Ellen, Jenny, and Prue observed a contested court hearing concerning child protection matters. In addition, the Director of the Victorian Children's Court Clinic, Dr Patricia Brown, met with Ellen, Jenny, and Prue to discuss the role of the Clinic and the nature of the services provided to children and families referred by the courts. In the following article, Prue Holzer briefly outlines the work of the Victorian Children's Court Clinic and the establishment of the New South Wales Children's Court Clinic - a clinic based on the Victorian model. In addition, an edited excerpt of a paper written by Dr Brown to commemorate the Children Court's centenary is also included. Directions for accessing further information are provided at the conclusion of the article.

The Victorian Children's Court Clinic (the Clinic) is an independent body within the Department of Justice, Victoria. The Clinic's primary function is to conduct clinical assessments of children and families and, at times, provide treatment as requested by the Children's Courts throughout Victoria. The Clinic provides input to both the protective and criminal divisions of the Children's Court.

Philosophically, the Clinic's central focus is to ensure the wellbeing of the child and, where possible, the integrity of the family. To do this, the Clinic offers a systemic and family-centred service. In every case, be it a criminal or child protection proceeding, the Clinic is independent of all parties.

The Clinic's staff are well-qualified and experienced in the field of psychology or psychiatry. Many of the staff are specialists in working with, for example, particular age groups or particular clinical presentations. Thus, a specialist clinician is appointed to each case on the basis of who will 'best fit' the situation and provide the most effective assessment.

New South Wales established a similar service following the introduction of the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998, with Division 6 of the Act, 'Examination and assessment orders', pertaining to the role and functions of the Children's Court Clinic. However, the New South Wales model of operation differs somewhat from the Victorian Clinic. Rather than having a central metropolitan office where, effectively, all clients are seen for assessments (as in the Victorian model), the New South Wales model has a core team of staff located in Sydney and a number of accredited clinicians located across New South Wales. In addition, the New South Wales Clinic is only involved in child care and protection matters, not juvenile criminal matters.

On 21 April 2006, staff of the Victorian Children's Court Clinic commemorated the centenary of the Children's Court by contributing a paper for inclusion in the Court's 100-year time capsule; the following passage is an edited excerpt from this paper. In this excerpt, the Director of the Clinic, Dr Patricia Brown, discusses the history and operation of the Clinic, and the clients it has served for over 60 years.

I joined the Clinic in 1965 and in what follows I outline the work and development of the Clinic since that time. Although the Clinic was first established to perform clinical work with young offenders, my memory on joining the Clinic is of performing assessments of young people deemed to be "exposed to moral danger" in the 1960s and 1970s. Protection referrals escalated in the 1980s when the professional community was made sensitive to the hidden numbers of sexual abuse cases, and also later again after mandatory reporting of child abuse was introduced in Victoria in 1993.

When I first began as a young psychologist at the Clinic in 1965, the Court and the Clinic were each housed in Batman Avenue on the Yarra. The Clinic has since been relocated twice and is now co-located with the Children's Court in Little Lonsdale Street. At that time, the role of the psychologist was somewhat circumscribed - the psychologist's role was orchestrated and superintended by psychiatry. It depended on the beliefs of the psychiatric superintendent of the day as to the role of other disciplines and how flexibly they were permitted to operate.

In 1965, the psychiatric superintendent of the Clinic, Dr Gorman, largely required the psychologist to work as a mental technician with respect to assessments, giving a battery of psychological tests - intellectual and educational - and a pertinent (but time-constrained) interview, followed by a report to the psychiatrist. The nurse would weigh the child, measure his or her height and perform a basic health check. The social worker would look at housing, finances and an overview of the family's situation and then compile a report for the waiting psychiatrist. The psychiatrist would interview the child and parents and write an amalgamated report for the Court. Only psychiatrists and psychologists undertook follow-up treatment. The boundaries were regimented.

From the early 1980s to 1991, there was a questioning of whether the medical model and psychiatric team approach by the Clinic was applicable to the times. As a result of considerable debate, comments in the White Paper of the Carney Committee and a review of the Court Clinic in 1989, the Children's Court Clinic underwent significant change.

Change was implemented from 1 February 1992 and for the first time a psychologist was appointed as Director, who orchestrated the reforms. A small core of clinical and forensic psychologists became full-time staff, and multiple numbers of experts - in the main psychologists, but also psychiatrists - were employed sessionally according to the needs of the case. An individual practitioner model was established, with the Director matching the presenting problems to the expertise of the clinician engaged, but overseeing each report before its submission to the Court.

Significant controversy surrounded the departmental relocation of the Court Clinic in March 1993. The change was ostensibly occasioned by the amalgamation of health and community service departments by the incoming Kennett Liberal Government late in 1992. However, the Court Clinic, within this new mega-department, was in a short time strategically moved by Dr John Paterson, the department's chief public servant, to be directly under the Protective Services Division of this newly formed Department of Health and Community Services. The Children's Court Clinic was then effectively working for, and being paid by, the very people who were prosecuting protection matters in the Children's Court.

The conflict of interest, which would impact on the perception of the Clinic's independence of advice to the Court, was readily evident to the legal fraternity in Victoria. Thus, individuals and legal bodies appealed to the government and gave comment to the media repeatedly, until Premier Kennett, on remarking: "This matter will not go away", signed the Children's Court Clinic over to the Justice Department of Victoria, to begin 1 July 1994. Thus, the Clinic came to be placed under the Justice Department to continue to do assessments only by Children's Court or County Court of Appeal order. In addition, because the Clinic works exclusively for the magistrates and judges, and not for any party in the Court, the effect has been that it is seen to be independent in its advice and is accepted by the Court as an honest broker.

In recent times, added to the criminal and protection matters referred for assessment from the Children's Courts are matters under the Crimes (Family Violence) Act 1987. Also, magistrates in the (adult) Magistrate's Court on occasion refer child witnesses to the Clinic to establish their capacity for, and the clinical appropriateness of, their giving evidence in adult criminal cases. Further, in 2001 a drug program orchestrated by Dr Carmelo Scuderi commenced within the Clinic. Thus magistrates and judges could begin to refer drug-affected young offenders for specialist drug assessment and/or treatment. This program has been further extended to provide advice concerning the status and treatment of parents in protection matters who have drug problems and, if the protection matters are adjourned for the purpose, short-term drug treatment can be given.

In requests made of the Clinic, the Courts may ask discrete questions in their referrals or merely ask for a 'Clinic' appraisal, unspecified. The assessment undertaken, whether for the Criminal or Protective Division of the Court, is comprehensive to Court needs and takes into account research and clinical practice knowledge. Since the child's wellbeing is always the central focus, a nurturing of family life for the good of the child, where this is at all clinically reasonable, is also underscored in the Court Clinic's work.

In overview, the Children's Court Clinic in 2006 services all the Children's Courts across the State of Victoria, and in the financial year 2004-2005 undertook 925 assessments of young children and their families, 75 per cent being protection matters. The capacity for treatment has been retained, but exclusively short-term treatment, and for those cases where such input could potentially make a difference to what might be recommended at the end of a three-month interim order in protection matters or a four-month order in criminal matters. Those needing further treatment are generally referred on, with care.

To ensure that the clinical and forensic wisdom accumulated at the Clinic is available to students, the Clinic is also a teaching facility for psychology students in doctoral clinical and forensic courses. The Director also gives teaching input at four Victorian universities. Further, the Clinic facilitates research.

While for decades the Children's Court Clinic of Victoria was the only such clinic in Australia, there is now another, in New South Wales. In 1997, the Australian Law Reform Commission and Equal Opportunity Commission recommended in their Report No. 84 (Seen and heard: Priority for children in the legal process) that the Children's Court Clinic of Victoria be the prototype for other such clinics to be established in each state and territory. The Justice departments in the Australian Capital Territory, Western Australia and the Northern Territory have since expressed interest. The New South Wales Justice Department went further and applied to study the functioning of the Children's Court Clinic of Victoria in 2000 and, in 2001, began the New South Wales Children's Court Clinic. Although modelled on the Victorian clinic, the New South Wales clinic only deals with child protection matters. Dr Gwenda Schreiber, clinical psychologist, is its Director. A collaborative relationship has since grown between Australia's two children's court clinics.

At the time of writing there are only four known comprehensive children's court clinics in the world (the Douglas Inch Clinic in Glasgow, the Manhattan Children's Court Clinic in New York, the Children's Court Clinic in Melbourne and that in Sydney). It is understood that in the mid-west of the US clinics exclusively for young offenders are beginning to open. However, the Children's Court Clinic of Victoria is thought to be the oldest of the world's children's court clinics.

Further information

Victorian Children's Court Clinic, www.childrenscourt.vic.gov.au

New South Wales Children's Court Clinic, www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/ccc/ll_ccc.nsf/pages/ccc_index

Douglas Inch Clinic in Glasgow, http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/ggpct/Location/douglas.htm

Manhattan Children's Court Clinic in New York, www.nycourts.gov/courts/nyc/family/infobycounty.shtml

Prue Holzer is a Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Dr Patricia Brown is the Director of the Victorian Children's Court Clinic.

Acknowledgements: Ellen, Jenny, and Prue would like to thank Dr Patricia Brown and staff from the Victorian Children's Court Clinic for their time and assistance. In particular, the National Child Protection Clearinghouse would like to warmly thank Dr Patricia Brown for contributing her paper on the history of the Victorian Children's Court Clinic.

Back to top

National Child Protection Week

Building a child-friendly Australia

In the lead-up to National Child Protection Week, 3-9 September 2006, NAPCAN Foundation is calling on parents, carers, professional organisations and the wider Australian community to really get involved this year, and help prevent child abuse before it starts, by creating child-friendly communities.

This key event in the national calendar encourages all Australians to participate in a range of activities in order to promote the wellbeing and safety of all children. By raising public awareness about the problem of child abuse and neglect, the week inspires all members of the community to take action to prevent it, by helping to make their local community child-friendly.

A child-friendly community is one where children are valued, supported and respected. It may be a local street, a sporting club, a domestic environment or a public park. By giving children opportunities to reach their potential and be actively involved in decisions that affect their lives, a child-friendly community significantly reduces risk factors leading to child abuse and neglect, and so promotes child wellbeing and resilience.

Child abuse and neglect is a widespread problem in Australia, with 40,416 substantiations of abuse and/or neglect in 2004-2005; that is, one child substantiated every 11 minutes (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2006). Yet, a national study by the Australian Childhood Foundation, Out of sight - out of mind, has found that Australians are more concerned with rising petrol prices and public transport than the issue of child abuse and neglect (Tucci, Mitchell, & Goddard, 2006). For this reason, NAPCAN encourages Australians to take part in National Child Protection Week and collectively work together everyday to create a safer environment for children.

In 2005, approximately 250,000 Australians directly participated in at least one of the registered 2,500 community activities - a two-fold increase on 2004. Activities during the week included community breakfasts, information forums, fundraising events, community-building workshops and simple family fun days.

This year, NAPCAN is shifting focus to the children themselves by encouraging adults to give them the chance to freely express themselves, and play a part in making their local communities child-friendly. We believe that children really do have a good understanding and knowledge of what is meant by 'child-friendly' and that child-friendly communities can best be created by listening to, and acting upon, children's ideas.

As momentum grows towards National Child Protection Week, we have launched the Capture a Child-Friendly Moment Campaign. By encouraging people to send us photographs and stories of child-friendly moments, we are sharing them with the wider community on our website, and together are building a picture of how a child-friendly Australia can look. Capturing and sharing child-friendly moments also highlights how simple child-friendly communities are to create.

Capture a Child Friendly Moment

With your help, NAPCAN Foundation will continue to inspire all Australians to get involved in National Child Protection Week and take up the 'child-friendly challenge' by putting kids first and building a child-friendly Australia.

To register an event for National Child Protection Week or to find out more information, visit www.napcan.org.au or call (02) 9211 0224.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2006). Child Protection Australia 2004-05. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.

Tucci, J., Mitchell, J., & Goddard, C. (2006). Out of sight - out of mind: Community attitudes about child abuse and child protection in Australia. Melbourne: Australian Childhood Foundation & National Research Centre for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Monash University. Retrieved 27 June 2006 from http://www.childhood.org.au/downloads/2006%20Out%20of%20sight%20out%20of%20mind.pdf.

Back to top

Do you play by the rules? Child protection on the sport and recreation field

Sport and recreation should be fun, safe, fair and respectful - and for most people this is their experience. However, for some people sport is not enjoyable due to abuse and unfair treatment - by coaches, officials, other players and spectators.

In the past few years we have become increasingly aware of child abuse in the community, including in sport. While the focus on media reporting has been on child sex abuse, it is important to raise awareness about other forms of abuse and harassment that affect children.

Do any of the following seem familiar?

All of the above scenarios are inappropriate and disrespectful and should have no place in sport. Thankfully, the majority of people involved in school sport are competent, safe and ethical.

Young children must be able to participate in a sporting environment that is fun, safe and fair. Everyone has a responsibility for this, including teachers, coaches, officials, players, parents and spectators.

Play by the Rules (www.playbytherules.net.au) is a unique website that assists sporting clubs, schools and local councils to meet their risk management responsibilities around discrimination, harassment and child protection. The website provides practical information, resources and free online learning courses on how to prevent and deal with all forms of inappropriate behaviour in sport and recreation.

Recently, nine short video scenario's have been added to the website that provide practical examples of everyday issues facing sport, such as:

There are limited supplies of the videos on DVD available through Play by the Rules. The website is supported by the Australian Sports Commission, the federal Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission and all state and territory sport and recreation and anti-discrimination agencies. Visit www.playbytherules.net.au and see how it could help you and your sporting club, school or recreation centre.

For more information, contact Mary Duncan, Play by the Rules Program Officer, SA Office for Sport and Recreation, on 0401 122 362, or download information and resources from the website. Child Protection Project Officer was Penny Fisher, phone: 0412 009 529.

Back to top

Implementation of the Triple P Program at a population level

The US Triple P Program population trial

Prue Holzer

National Child Protection Clearinghouse Research Officer, Prue Holzer, recently attended a seminar hosted by the Centre for Adolescent Health in Victoria. The seminar was presented by Professor Ron Prinz and concerned the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program at the population level in the US. In this article, Prue describes the population trial and the content of the seminar. Details on how to access further information are provided at the end of the article.

The Centre for Adolescent Health in Victoria recently hosted a seminar concerning the implementation of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program at the population level in the US. During the seminar, Professor Prinz provided details of the five-year research project. Professor Prinz is one of two principal investigators in the Building Connections trial (the other being Professor Matthew Sanders from the University of Queensland). The trial, which commenced in 2003 and is funded by the US Centre for Disease Control, aims to evaluate the effectiveness of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program in reducing the prevalence of child maltreatment at the population level.

In beginning his address, Professor Prinz discussed the way clinical models of prevention and clinical trials or evaluations have dominated the child maltreatment field. However, Professor Prinz argued that clinical approaches have had relatively little impact in addressing the prevalence of child maltreatment. Thus, Professor Prinz contended that alternative approaches to preventing child maltreatment are required - approaches that achieve population outcomes. Towards this goal, Professor Prinz and colleagues received funding to launch a population-level trial of the Triple P Program in South Carolina.

Population trial. A population-level trial attempts to evaluate the effectiveness of a particular intervention on a largescale and under 'life-like' conditions. Rather than evaluating effectiveness in a clinical or 'lab-like' setting, a population-level trial implements an intervention in a whole community or region. The outcomes found in this community or region are compared to the outcomes of a community or region that does not receive the intervention. In this way, evaluators attempt to document the 'reallife' effectiveness of an intervention, despite not having been able to control for the possible effects of other life circumstances.

The Triple P program is a multi-level parent education program designed to reduce the occurrence of child maltreatment by enhancing competent parenting. The interventions offered through the program range from a universal media awareness campaign to more tailored one-on-one interventions with trained facilitators (for a description of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program, see Holzer, Higgins, Bromfield, Richardson, & Higgins, 2006). All levels of the program have been implemented in the Building Connections trial, and the Triple P interventions have been targeted toward families with children from birth to seven years of age.

The trial involves 18 counties in South Carolina, all with populations ranging between 50,000 and 175,000 people, and none of which have had prior exposure to the Triple P program. All 18 counties were randomly assigned to either the Triple P treatment group or the comparison group (counties in the comparison group only receive existing community services). Treatment and comparison groups were matched according to existing levels of 'key population indicators', including child protection service data (both the number of investigated and substantiated cases), child injuries (the number of hospitalisations and emergency room visits), and the number of children placed in out-of-home care.

Clinical trial. A clinical trial is a research study designed to answer specific questions about a particular intervention or approach (for example, how safe or effective a program is). Clinical trials are conducted under strict 'empirical' or scientific conditions in an attempt to test only the effect of the intervention, while controlling for other circumstances. While rigorous and well regarded as a scientific method of study, such approaches to evaluating the effectiveness of child maltreatment prevention programs are considered by some to be somewhat artificial.

In order to implement the Triple P program, developers of the Building Connections trial trained existing service providers (for example, doctors, nurses, social workers and early childhood educators) in how to implement the program. Existing service providers were trained in how to work with families according to the Triple P Program's underlying principles, namely parent agency and parent self-efficacy.

As the Building Connections trial is in its infancy, Professor Prinz was not yet able to provide detailed analyses concerning the effectiveness of the Triple P program in reducing child maltreatment at the population level. However, some measures have been collated and Professor Prinz concluded the session by discussing the lessons learnt thus far. Preliminary findings have shown that:

Professor Prinz indicated that the long-term aims of the trial are to provide a cost analysis of the program, an analysis of how to increase population penetration, and to ultimately unfold the results of the trial according to the key population indicators (child protection service data, child injuries and number of child placements in out-of-home care).

Discussion following Professor Prinz's presentation concerned methodological issues. For example, attendees asked Professor Prinz how the investigators are ensuring that service providers deliver the program consistently and according to its underlying principles. Other attendees raised the issue of whether the investigators are collating demographic information on the parents and families seeking the program's assistance. Collecting demographic information of this nature would enable the investigators to determine the sort of families the program is reaching (for example, to investigate, as one guest put it, whether the program is servicing the 'worried well' rather than those parents really in need of preventative interventions).

Professor Prinz responded to such queries by explaining that there are 'trade-offs' in trials at the population level which mean that it is not feasible for the investigative team to document whether service providers are implementing the Triple P program as outlined (although Professor Prinz noted that there is no evidence to suggest that service providers would not be implementing the program accordingly either). In addition, as the services provided to particular families are at the discretion of service providers, the investigative team have only limited access to demographic data and information concerning parent participation (for example, length of program involvement, attrition rates and so on). However, Professor Prinz argued that the investigative team have reason to believe that they are accessing the poorest families in the community, as the service providers trained at the outset of the program's implementation were already servicing those families most in need.

Professor Prinz's presentation was very interesting, particularly the aspects of his address that compared the strengths of population or macro-level trials with clinical trials. The work of Professor Prinz and his colleagues offers considerable promise given that it appears to be the first of its kind in evaluating the Triple P program on such a large scale. The Triple P program has already been the subject of considerable empirical evaluation at a clinical level (the results of which have been favourable), however, being able to document the effectiveness of the program throughout an entire community (for example, via a reduction in reports of child maltreatment to statutory authorities and so on), would bode well for the implementation of the program in other regions and geographical areas. Significantly, research such as the Building Connections trial will add another dimension to our awareness of the potential for prevention programs such as Triple P to effect change in the area of child maltreatment at the population level, thus improving outcomes for children.

Reference

Holzer, P. J., Higgins, J. R., Bromfield, L. M., Richardson, N., & Higgins, D. J. (2006). The effectiveness of parent education and home visiting child maltreatment prevention programs (Issues in Child Abuse Prevention No. 24). Available from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues24/issues24.html.

Details on the Building Connections trial, of which Professor Prinz is one of the principal investigators, are available at www.pfsc.uq.edu.au/01_about_us/International_research.html

Prue Holzer is a Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Back to top

National Child Protection Clearinghouse activities

Conferences and forums in which Clearinghouse staff have participated during the first six months of 2006 are detailed below. The resources that we prepare for conferences and forums are available free of charge. If you would like access to these resources, visit the Clearinghouse website at: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/presentations.html, or contact the National Child Protection Clearinghouse by telephone: (03) 9214 7888 or email: ncpc@aifs.gov.au

March

Child Safety: A Community Responsibility, Melbourne (7 March)

Jenny Higgins attended a forum at which Victorian Child Safety Commissioner, Bernie Geary, was the guest speaker. The forum was hosted by the Australian Institute for Primary Care and the Primary and Community Health Network. Mr Geary spoke of his 30-year commitment to working with vulnerable children and young people, beginning with his career as Victoria's first youth outreach worker, followed by 17 years of experience serving on the Youth Parole Board. Mr Geary was an executive with the St Vincent De Paul Society prior to his current appointment. In his current role, Mr Geary spoke of his commitment to providing a strong and independent voice for children and young people in Victoria.

Statutory Child Protection Learning and Development Group meeting, Canberra (9-10 March)

Leah Bromfield attended the bi-annual Statutory Child Protection Learning and Development Group meeting in Canberra. While in Canberra, Leah also visited with research staff at the Institute of Child Protection Studies at the Australian Catholic University.

Child Neglect Forum, Melbourne (27 March)

The Child Neglect Forum was hosted by the Victorian Parenting Centre and the University of South Australia's Australian Centre for Child Protection on 27 March. The Australian Institute of Family Studies National Child Protection Clearinghouse provided the location for the event. During the course of the day, there were three panel sessions, with stimulating and lively discussion about issues relating to child neglect, and suggestions were put forward about a research agenda. Leah Bromfield and Daryl Higgins from the Clearinghouse both participated in one of the three panel discussions. Clearinghouse staff, Prue Holzer, Jenny Higgins and Ellen Fish, also sat in as observers.

May

Out-of-Home Care Research Forum: From Research to Action (19 May)

Daryl Higgins and Leah Bromfield attended the national Out-of-Home Care Research Forum: From Research to Action and provided an overview of the Clearinghouse research report Out-of-home care in Australia: Messages from research. The forum was jointly convened by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the Community Services Ministers' Advisory Council, and the Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia. A small working party will draft a report based on the outcomes from this forum.

June

Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre's Family Law Forum (13 June)

Prue Holzer attended the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre's annual Family Law Forum: 'Now be reasonable: Preparing for the new family law system'. The forum was designed to introduce practitioners, researchers and other interested parties to the changes that will be made to the family law system following the commencement on 1 July 2006 of the new Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006.

National Child Protection Forum (27-28 June)

Daryl Higgins and Leah Bromfield attended the National Child Protection Forum and presented a paper titled: A national approach to child protection: How close are we? The Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs hosted the forum, which was held on 27-28 June 2006 in Melbourne. The forum was part of the Australian Government's response to the Senate Community Affairs References Committee report, Protecting vulnerable children: A national challenge. The primary outcome of the forum was a draft National Strategy for Child Protection.

Research updates

Over the past six months, Clearinghouse staff have met with researchers from key organisations to discuss current and future research, areas of potential duplication and potential partnerships. Organisations included: the Australian Catholic University Institute for Child Protection Studies, the New South Wales Department of Community Services Research Unit, the Take 2 Program, Berry Street Victoria, and the Australian Centre for Child Protection at the University of South Australia.