- Home |
- About Us |
- Contact Us |
- Site Map |
vol.15 no.1 2007
Published by the Australian Institute of Family Studies
ISSN 1447-0039 (Print); 1447-0047 (Online)
Manager, National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Leah Bromfield
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 (653 K) or in sections as listed below. You will need an Acrobat Reader which is free from the Adobe Systems website.
In this issue
For the latest conferences refer to the current listing
The National Child Protection Clearinghouse is a research information and advisory body funded by the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The Clearinghouse has been based at the Australian Institute of Family Studies since 1995. The National Child Protection Clearinghouse provides a range of services to policy makers, practitioners, researchers and the community. A brief summary of the services follows.
National Child Protection Clearinghouse publications aim to identify the key findings from research and the implications of these findings for the sector and to present the information in an accessible format. Publications include:
A new electronic publication series, Practice Briefs was launched in February. Practice Brief no. 1 is on the issue of young people who sexually abuse. A second new electronic publication series titled Policy Briefs is currently being developed. All Clearinghouse publications are free and can be downloaded from the Clearinghouse website (http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/pubs.html). Child Abuse Prevention Issues and Newsletters are also available in hard copy and are delivered quarterly. To join the Clearinghouse mailing list, go to: http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/join/nchmailform.html
The National Child Protection Clearinghouse information and advisory service includes a range of activities, such as attending and presenting at conferences or forums and participating in key groups. In addition, the information and advisory service includes the Help Desk and library service.
National Child Protection Clearinghouse Help Desk. Any person in Australia can contact the National Child Protection Clearinghouse Help Desk for information about research evidence in the areas of child abuse prevention and child protection. The Help Desk can be contacted via phone or email: (03) 9214 7888 or ncpc@aifs.gov.au
Library services. The Australian Institute of Family Studies holds an extensive collection of materials related to child abuse prevention, child protection and out-of-home care. Staff from non-government organisations can become a member of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse Library scheme for free. Others can access the Institute's library resources through inter-library loans. The Australian Institute of Family Studies library catalogue can be searched online (http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/ficservices.html). In addition, an Institute librarian can conduct literature searches for you on request. Contact: (03) 9214 7888 or ncpc@aifs.gov.au
As well as providing information through publications and the information and advisory service, the National Child Protection Clearinghouse has established and moderates childprotect, an email discussion list. Childprotect is designed for professionals working in the field of child abuse prevention and child protection and for other interested persons. It focuses on sharing research-related information and resources. To join childprotect, go to www.aifs.gov.au/nch/join/dlist.html
The National Child Protection Clearinghouse website is your gateway to accessing all of the services and resources provided by the Clearinghouse as well as additional information such as "Getting Help", "Conferences", and "Links" to other useful websites. Visit the National Child Protection Clearinghouse website at www.aifs.gov.au/nch
The Australian Institute of Family Studies, through the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, also undertakes child protection-related research, which is both commissioned and self-initiated. Recent examples include:
For more information, go to: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/research/menu.html
Evaluation of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse
In order to ensure that the needs of stakeholders are being met, the Australian Institute of Family Studies periodically reviews the effectiveness of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse in achieving its aims.
As part of this ongoing evaluation, we would like your opinion on how we are doing, and how we can better meet the needs of the child abuse prevention and child protection sectors.
The results will be analysed by an external consultant, Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro.
To have your say, complete the online survey at: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/research/evalsurvey2007.html. One from every 50 surveys returned will be randomly selected to win two movie vouchers.
Earlier this year, National Child Protection Clearinghouse Research Officer, Prue Holzer, met with Sally McBride, Take Two clinician from the Barwon South West region of Take Two in Victoria.
In this article, Prue describes the Take Two program and presents an edited excerpt of an interview with Sally, in which Sally discusses the nature of the work she performs, the clients she services, and a "typical" day at Take Two.
Take Two is a therapeutic service for children and young people who have been the victims of substantiated incidents of child maltreatment. Take Two provides specialist therapeutic services to children and their families and carers throughout Victoria via referral from statutory child protection services. Established by the Victorian Government in 2003, Take Two has offices in every Department of Human Services region throughout the state. The Victorian Government, through the Department of Human Services, funds Berry Street Victoria to implement the Take Two program in conjunction with the Austin Hospital Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service, La Trobe University Faculty of Health Science, and the Mindful Centre for Training and Research in Developmental Health (for further details visit http://www.berrystreet.org.au/index.cfm?p=2644&search=take%20two).
For a child to be eligible for admission to the Take Two program, he or she must have been the subject of a substantiated incident of child maltreatment (for example, physical abuse, sexual abuse, or neglect) as defined by Victorian law, and demonstrate (or be at risk of) behavioural and/or emotional disturbance. (For a discussion of the actions or outcomes from which children are in need of protection in the state of Victoria and in other states and territories, see Bromfield and Higgins, 2005).
Take Two works with children and families who are current child protection clients, or with a child and their family up to three months after statutory child protection service interventions have ceased. Take Two provides therapeutic services to a broad range of clients. The service works with children between the ages of 0 and 18 years who are living at home, with relatives or in out-of-home care. Take Two also works with children who have experienced various forms of abuse and neglect.
Children are identified and referred to the Take Two program via a standard referral procedure. Statutory personnel complete the Take Two Referral Tool, comprising two parts: the Harm Consequences and Assessment (Part 1) and the Referral Guide (Part 2). When a child is referred to the Take Two program, a clinician will perform an initial assessment of the child, their family and/or other support people in order to devise a therapeutic intervention plan. Once put in place, an intervention plan is continuously monitored by all involved and may be adapted or modified as required.
Take Two provides clinical and therapeutic services to children and young people who are contained in the Secure Welfare Service due to "substantial and immediate risk of harm" (Children and Young Persons Act 1989, Section 63). Children and young people referred to the Secure Welfare Service may be at risk of harm due to a number of factors, including sexual exploitation, substance abuse and mental health issues (such as risk of self-harm and suicide).
Children placed in Secure Welfare are aged between 10 and 17 years. Children placed in Secure Welfare can stay for up to 21 days at a time. However, the average length of stay is approximately eight to nine days. Although rare, a child or young person's length of stay can be increased to 42 days if deemed necessary.
There are two Secure Welfare units in the state of Victoria: one for young men and the other for young women. Senior child protection managers or Children's Court magistrates decide whether or not children and young people are placed in Secure Welfare. Once there, a child or young person's case manager decides whether or not to refer them to Take Two's Secure Welfare Service. When referred, a Take Two Secure Welfare clinician will perform an assessment of the child or young person. In order to inform decision making, case planning, and risk management, Secure Welfare clinicians may perform a range of clinical and systemic assessments (including a mental state examination and an emotional and/or cognitive assessment).
An important function of the clinical team at the Secure Welfare Service is to consult and liase with other professionals involved in a child or young person's care (such as other Take Two clinicians, community service organisations and other health professionals). In this way, pertinent information obtained during an assessment can be circulated and used to inform the decision making of other practitioners involved in caring for a child or young person.
Even though Secure Welfare is a relatively brief and crisis-oriented intervention, Take Two's involvement remains therapeutic and child-focused. Although the Take Two service at Secure Welfare may not always provide "traditional" therapeutic services, such as longer-term counselling, a therapeutic approach to clinical practice is maintained by providing an environment that is safe and stable. In this way, the Take Two Secure Welfare Service seeks to support staff at Secure Welfare units in providing security and containment for a child or young person at a time in their lives when there may be great uncertainty and upheaval. The Take Two Secure Welfare clinician's assessment and recommendations are often focused on how the child or young person's key networks and relationships (both within and external to Secure Welfare) can best provide protection and support in order to meet their emotional and mental health needs.
Take Two has an Aboriginal Team that provides direct service as well as training and consultation to other Take Two clinicians in order that all staff are able to work sensitively and effectively with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, families and carers. The Aboriginal Team is comprised of a clinician and a senior clinician, both of whom provide direct clinical assessments and interventions for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child protection clients. Take Two clients are referred to the Aboriginal Team via consultation between Take Two senior clinicians.
Since its inception, Take Two has been affiliated with La Trobe University's School of Social Work and Social Policy for research and evaluation purposes. Although still a relatively new program, Take Two released its first wave of evaluative data in 2004. Rather than providing data concerning the outcomes and effectiveness of the program, the inaugural evaluation provided data in relation to the breadth of the program's client group and the range of interventions used within the program (Jackson, 2005).
Data from Take Two's inaugural evaluation indicated that:
Data derived from the first wave of Take Two's evaluation also suggested the existence of intergenerational trauma, for example:
Early Take Two evaluative data also provided information on the types of consequences children experienced following child abuse and neglect. Children and young people referred to Take Two presented with a range of emotional and behavioural problems including:
Evaluative data also revealed that a large proportion of Take Two clients had experienced significant personal loss prior to entering the program. For example:
Take Two clients had also experienced a variety of living arrangements. Seventy-six per cent of Take Two clients were living in out-of-home care at the time they were referred to the program, and 89% of children had experienced at least one previous placement away from their parents prior to Take Two's involvement.
The majority of Take Two clients lived in residential care (including Secure Welfare) (27%); followed by other home-based care (24%); with one or both of their parents (22%); or with friends or relatives in kinship care arrangements (15%). The remainder lived in other arrangements, for example, one-on-one care or other forms of intensive specialised care (Jackson, 2005). Most children in out-of-home care live in home-based care (that is, foster or kinship care) (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2007). A greater than average number of Take Two clients live in residential care as part of the Take Two program is specifically targeted at residential care (that is, the Take Two Secure Welfare Service).
Evaluation of the Take Two program is a continuous process. Researchers affiliated with the program are collecting and analysing both qualitative and quantitative data to determine the efficacy of the program in addressing child trauma. Further evaluative data is to be released in the near future (Jackson, 2005).
The following section is an edited excerpt of Prue Holzer's interview with Take Two clinician Sally McBride.
Can you describe the Take Two program?
We work with children who are involved in the child protection system. Take Two offers an intensive therapeutic service to children when abuse and/or neglect have been substantiated.
What is your role at Take Two?
My role is as a clinician. Take Two staff come from different orientations: family therapy, psychotherapy, social work and psychiatric nursing to name a few. There is quite a multidisciplinary feel to the program. My background is in psychology and my graduate diploma is in Mental Health Sciences for children, adolescents and families. I worked as a children's counsellor in a domestic violence service for four years prior to joining Take Two.
What would a typical day comprise?
My days can be quite varied. I might spend some time conducting an assessment interview and possibly conducting a therapeutic session with a child. Given the systemic work we do, I often spend time making contact and liasing with people. This helps me to keep a child's network - and myself - up to date with what is happening in their life inside and outside of the therapy room. Therapeutic work in isolation is not really enough, so keeping myself in the loop through communication is essential.
Supervision is also an important feature of my work; catching up with my senior clinician is often a part of my day. In my team, I am fortunate to be able to walk into my supervisor's office and talk over things, ask for advice and consider ideas with her.
We also have an outreach capacity, meaning that we see children both on site in therapy rooms and outside of our workplace. A number of factors are considered when determining whether a child is seen in one of our rooms or whether we visit them. As an example, some adolescents may be reluctant to come and meet with a clinician on site. When you are trying to engage with young people you need to be flexible. Children and young people who have been in the "system" for a long time, or young people who have had a number of different workers already, may be reluctant to engage. At Take Two we see it as our responsibility to engage with the child or young person, not theirs. Therefore, I try to find creative and engaging ways of building rapport and establishing trust. The initial assessment of the child will also drive how and where a child is seen. Sometimes the predictability and consistency of the same therapy room each week can be important for children who have experienced really shattered and fragmented environments.
Starting at the beginning, can you tell me about how a child might be referred to your service?
The Department of Human Services makes referrals to the Take Two program, as we only work with child protection clients. Child protection workers fill out what is called a Referral Tool. At times, I have assisted child protection workers to complete the referral document. There is also a service provided by Take Two where clinicians visit the child protection departments in each region to consult with protective workers about the cases and/or the referral process. This is referred to as the Help Desk. Community service organisations can also refer to Take Two regarding child protection clients, but they need to do so via the Department of Human Services.
The Take Two Referral Tool is quite involved, and purposefully so, in order that a child's case is given considerable thought and deliberation. Once the Referral Tool has been completed, the document goes to the child protection manager, who meets on a regular basis with the Take Two senior clinician in their region. The case will be discussed to determine whether it should be referred to Take Two.
Could you describe the first point of contact Take Two has with the child?
The assessment process begins once a referral is accepted. Ideally the assessment process takes around six weeks; however, this can sometimes take longer for a number of different reasons. Where appropriate, we meet with the client's family, carers and school, as well as meeting with the young person. We use different kinds of assessment measures, including the Trauma Symptom Checklist for Children, the Social Network Map, and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Once an assessment is completed, an assessment report is sent back to the case manager at Child Protection, and to other relevant people. Where appropriate, a feedback session is also provided to the client concerning the contents of the report.
Therapeutic work commences after the assessment has taken place. Clinicians at Take Two provide different levels of therapeutic work. Sometimes therapy is comprised of individual work with the child. At other times, dyadic work is undertaken with the child and their mother, father or other carer (for example, foster carer). Take Two clinicians also incorporate family therapy where appropriate, care team meetings and support for carers.
Clinicians generally have a quota of eight cases at any one time: six of these cases will be longer-term clients, while the other two will be shorter-term clients. In the Barwon South West team, cases are allocated to clinicians according to staff availability and the particulars of the case.
Something that I have incorporated into the work I do - and a point that is stressed within the Take Two program - is the energy and time that needs to be given to a child's "system". By "system" I mean a child's family, social context, school context, foster care agency, carers and other workers involved with a child. We try to arrange for these people to meet regularly in what we call care team meetings. Through care team meetings, we attempt to bring a therapeutic mind to the system of care around a child. That is, we try to help the system to understand a child's behaviour in the context of trauma. We will also discuss ways of responding to or managing a child's behaviour and assist the system in decision-making.
Can you tell me about the types of maltreatment that children experience prior to being referred to your service?
When I think about the children I have on my caseload at the moment, you can almost tick every box in terms of the kinds of maltreatment they have experienced: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional trauma, exposure to domestic violence, and neglect. Some of the children I see have experienced enormous environmental neglect and deprivation in terms of their need for cognitive stimulation, affection and interaction with others. I wouldn't say that there is a particular maltreatment "type" that we see more than others - we see the whole spectrum really - and, sadly, a number of our clients have endured a combination of all of the above.
Can you describe how clinicians such as yourself devise a plan for working with a particular child/family?
Our initial assessment of a child will drive our intervention plan, in which we keep in mind both trauma and attachment theories. In addition, when we receive a referral from Child Protection, the referral will include desired outcomes. For example, Child Protection might hope that self-harming behaviours are reduced, or that a carer develops more effective strategies on how to manage their child's behaviour. Ultimately we are trying to enhance the emotional and behavioural functioning of these children, as well as increasing their safety and promoting their recovery from trauma. Basically, a child's presentation will dictate the interventions that I use. I think the therapeutic relationship itself is one of the most important interventions - even though you can't grasp, measure or quantify it. For some of the children I see, to be with a safe, non-abusing, attentive and available adult is quite a new experience.
Play is also a significant therapeutic tool that I use. Children communicate so much through their play, especially children who aren't very verbal or who don't have a good grasp of language. A lot of the children we see wouldn't even know how to label their own feelings. As an example, some children wouldn't be able to recognise that they feel upset in their stomachs, and that this feeling could be "worry". Basically, these children just don't have an emotional vocabulary; so to sit and talk about feelings is not appropriate. That's where play can be so useful. Someone once said to me that play is like a child's workbench; play is how they learn to navigate the world. This is a point that has really stayed with me in my work with children.
Can you describe the types of problems that a "typical" client might be experiencing?
That is a difficult question to answer as we see children with such varied experiences and who are displaying such complex behaviours. However, speaking in general terms, it is not unusual to see children and young people with depressive, dissociative or acting-out symptoms as a result of trauma. Children often come into our program when their emotional and/or behavioural difficulties have escalated to a point where their family and social system no longer feels able to manage.
I imagine that working in this area could be difficult at times on a personal level. Can you tell me how working with maltreated children impacts on you and what personal coping strategies you have for working in this sector?
I think that this is something I am still learning to do. In my studies, I remember learning about boundaries and maintaining a professional distance, so you know about these concepts in theory, or at least you have read about them and are familiar with them. But to be honest, I don't think anyone really understands what these things mean until you are in it, so to speak. That is, until you have your boundaries crossed and feel your heart being wrenched. It is then that you realise you probably got a little too close and you should speak with someone about it.
Personally, I find it helpful to have a senior clinician who is also available. If I have a really heavy session, even if I am out of the office, I can ring her and say I need to talk. Also, knowing that if I am stuck with something, I can ask. My colleagues are also really supportive. Basically, the staff at Take Two really respect the space, time and support that clinicians need. For balance, I also think that it is important to have things outside of work as well: exercise, friends and family.
I have also found it helpful to learn about myself, my body and how I react to things; knowing the early warning signs when things are getting a bit too much. Again, these are things that you learn the hard way. I have also found that I have needed to teach myself when it is and isn't appropriate to think about work. For example, if I find that I wake up thinking of a particular client or situation, I try to train myself that now is not the time. I think you have to be a bit disciplined with yourself. That said, although there are challenges to be faced in the work that we do at Take Two, I really enjoy it.
Prue Holzer and the staff of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse would like to sincerely thank Sally McBride, Annette Jackson, George Habib, and Ric Pawsey from the Take Two program for their support and assistance in writing this article.
If you would like to inform the National Child Protection Clearinghouse of the work you and/or your organisation are doing in the child protection sector, please contact the Clearinghouse on (03) 9214 7888 or ncpc@aifs.gov.au
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2007). Child Protection Australia 2005-06. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare.
Bromfield, L. M., & Higgins, D. J. (2005). National comparison of child protection systems. Child Abuse Prevention Issues, 22. Retrieved 6 February 2007, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues22/issues22.html
Jackson, A. (2005, October). Take Two: A partnership to develop a new therapeutic program for children who have experienced trauma and disrupted attachment due to child abuse and neglect. Paper presented at the World Conference on Prevention of Family Violence, Banff, Canada.
Prue Holzer is a Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
In August 2006, Leah Bromfield and Jenny Higgins of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse attended the Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies Conference held in Sydney from 14-16 August 2006. At the conference, Leah and Jenny presented a paper outlining barriers and promising solutions to the recruitment, assessment, training and support of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers and the provision of services to Indigenous young people in care. The findings are based on a national study that included professionals, carers and young people.
Keynote speakers at the conference included Professor Doek, Chairperson of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child; Professor Richard P. Barth, widely published author in the child welfare field and Dean and Professor at the University of Maryland, Baltimore; Muriel Bamblett, Yorta Yorta woman and Chief Executive Officer of the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency; and Tim Costello, Chief Executive of World Vision.
At this year's conference, Clearinghouse staff member Jenny Higgins attended the Indigenous conference stream. Her highlights included the following presentations:
On 3 September, the Minister for Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs, the Hon. Mal Brough, launched National Child Protection Week 2006, saying that the issues of child abuse and neglect were vitally important and could no longer be ignored.
This year's theme for National Child Protection Week was "Young visions for a child friendly Australia". One of the initiatives emerging from this theme was the "Capture a child friendly moment" campaign, in which people were asked to submit photos and images that represented child-friendly communities. To find out more, visit NAPCAN's website: www.napcan.org.au
On 5 September, the Hon. Sherryl Garbutt, MP, launched National Child Protection Week 2006 in Victoria. As we do every year, Clearinghouse staff attended the Victorian launch and provided a display board of Clearinghouse resources. The official launch was followed by the Robin Clark Memorial Lecture 2006, which was delivered by Robyn Miller, Principal Child Protection Practitioner, Department of Human Services. The formal proceedings closed with the announcement of the 2006 Robin Clark Memorial Awards. The awards were in two categories: Making a Difference, and Inspirational Leadership (see box inset below for details). The National Child Protection Clearinghouse would like to take this opportunity to congratulate all of the award winners.
As part of National Child Protection Week, the Clearinghouse seeks to engage with community-based organisations. This year, Dr Leah Bromfield provided a presentation to a Rotary Club in regional Victoria titled "Child abuse prevention: Everyone's responsibility".
National Child Protection Week is always an important event on the National Child Protection Clearinghouse's calendar - but even more so this year. In 2006, the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) became a founding NAPCAN National Child Protection Week Partner. Under this agreement, AIFS agreed to help support the promotion of National Child Protection Week, primarily through the National Child Protection Clearinghouse. The Clearinghouse has helped to promote National Child Protection Week through the Clearinghouse website, the Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter and childprotect, the email discussion list.
As a founding NAPCAN National Child Protection Week Partner, for the first time this year, the Australian Institute of Family Studies held a public seminar during National Child Protection Week. Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro presented a seminar titled, The multiple and complex needs of Australian children in out-of-home care and appropriate service responses, which was incorporated as part of the Institute's existing seminar series.
Dr Delfabbro is an Associate Professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Adelaide. In conjunction with Professor Jim Barber, he completed one of Australia's first detailed longitudinal studies into out-of-home care. The book Children in foster care, which is based on this research, was recently awarded the North American Pro Humanitate Literary Award for the best book in the area of child welfare.
Previous research by Barber and Delfabbro (2004) has indicated that approximately 15 to 20 per cent of young people in Australian out-of-home care have significant emotional and behavioural problems that often condemn them to a life of repeated placement instability and psychosocial harm. In the National Child Protection Week seminar, Associate Professor Delfabbro drew on several recent South Australian studies to examine the family background, placement history and psychosocial needs of children in out-of-home care, including the longitudinal tracking analysis of children in care, the national profile study of children with high support needs, and preliminary findings from recent projects. Associate Professor Delfabbro examined the origins of the multiple and complex needs of children in care and discussed how children who experience unstable care placements differ from those who achieve placement stability. Associate Professor Delfabbro concluded by providing a brief overview of appropriate service responses for children in out-of-home care, as well as discussing the implications of his work for current Australian out-of-home care policies. To access copies of his presentation and for more information on the seminar series, visit: www.aifs.gov.au/institute/seminars/seminarpapers.html
National Child Protection Week grows every year and is an excellent opportunity to alert the community to the problems associated with child abuse and neglect in order to promote child-friendly communities. National Child Protection Week also provides an opportunity to acknowledge the efforts of the dedicated professionals involved in helping to keep children safe.
John has been a foster carer for more than 50 children over the past 16 years. John is a residential care worker at Menzies Inc., and also a volunteer with the Australia Foster Care Association.
Faye has worked as a Maternal and Child Health nurse for the past 24 years. Faye works with many diverse families at the Fitzroy Centre in the City of Yarra, including traumatised and isolated families, such as newly arrived refugees.
Carol has been the program co-ordinator of Wanjana Lidj at the Ramahyuck and District Aboriginal Corporation since it began in 1998. Under Carol's guidance, the Wanjana Lidj program provides services that meet the varied and complex needs of local Aboriginal families.
Karen is the leader of the Frankston Adolescent Protective Team in the Department of Human Services' Southern Metropolitan Region. Karen has extensive experience across the child and family services sector, from mental health to family therapy.
Nola leads the Department of Human Services team responsible for the major program areas of the Office for Children and Disability services in the Barwon South West region. Nola has 30 years of experience in the child and family services sector, and has promoted reform in the area of family support services and foreshadowed changes that have now been adopted statewide.
[The Program is] about the values-led approach, the empowerment, inclusion, respect and community that have to be present in everything that we're doing. … I'm reluctant to call it a program model because it's actually a culture and a philosophy and a spirit.
Jo Cavanagh, CEO, Family Life
Robyn Parker from the Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse (see box) and Jenny Higgins from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse met with Family Life staff, Jo Cavanagh (CEO), Judy Latta (Community Relations Manager) and Alison Normanton, to talk about the programs and activities coordinated by Family Life. In this article, Jo Cavanagh talks about Family Life's Creating Capable Communities program and other programs offered by Family Life.
The Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse (AFRC) is a new clearinghouse based at the Australian Institute of Family Studies. It is an information and advisory service, with a focus on synthesising and disseminating current information on family relationships and support services. It facilitates networking and information exchange and highlights useful resources and issues of relevance to practitioners and policy makers. For more information or to access AFRC resources, go to www.aifs.gov.au/afrc
Family Life is a community-owned and managed family and youth service agency established in 1970 to provide services to the community, facilitate community connectedness and respond to the needs of people who are experiencing stress and are at risk of family breakdown. Family Life workers and volunteers help families in the Bayside suburbs of south-east Melbourne, with a particular focus on those residing in public housing neighbourhoods.
The agency provides programs for the whole community, as well as targeted programs to meet the needs of families facing specific challenges.
Family Life has been awarded the inaugural title of National Child Protection Week 2006 Child Friendly Community Champion. This award recognises Family Life for its work in building healthy, caring, capable communities that provide a safe and nurturing environment for children.
Family Life recognises the pressures and stresses on families and endeavours to strengthen families that are struggling and keep them in the community. The agency believes that self-esteem and social connectedness reduce social and economic isolation. Through the Creating Capable Communities program, the agency aims to create a whole-of-community culture that strengthens and empowers the community and its members.
The Creating Capable Communities Program is funded through the Australian Government's Stronger Families and Communities strategy. The goal of the Creating Capable Communities program is to build social networks and connections to create and promote a community that is safe, healthy and supportive of parents and their children.
All programs contribute something to Creating Capable Communities to make their service accessible to these residents and make them want to get involved.
Creating Capable Communities is reinforced by program strategies that bring the community together, such as the Breakfast Club (which provides breakfasts to children from disadvantaged backgrounds each morning) and the Men's Outreach Program (which organises activities for children and their fathers, such as sports days). For more information on the Breakfast Club, the Men's Outreach Program and Community Days, refer to Family Relationships Quarterly, No. 4, www.aifs.gov.au/afrc
Other programs, such as Community Bubs, benefit from the community support and neighbourhood connectedness generated by Creating Capable Communities. For a description of Community Bubs, see the box inset below.
The original idea for Creating Capable Communities followed a number of tragic events on a public housing estate, which led to an awareness that the Family Life agency needed to provide parenting support, counselling and other services to marginalised and isolated families in a community-inclusive way.
How it started was, in 1998 there were a number of deaths on one of the housing estates. Nobody thinks, 'the city of Bayside and public housing', but there are almost 1,200 households of public housing and they are increasingly marginalised because Bayside is identified for its affluence, not for having pockets of serious disadvantage. In 1998 we were part of the community debriefing for the women who had died. … Our job was to talk to the children … and try and understand what had happened. The workers spent a lot of time with the children [on the estates] and came away feeling the children's environment was like an urban war zone. Children talked about how if a siren went off, they raced home to make sure that it wasn't their parents. Kids were frightened to go outside to play. They were really unsafe in their neighbourhood.
Family Life workers recognised that their services at that time were not relevant to the marginalised and isolated members of the community, such as those residing on the housing estates. Staff sat down with parents and discussed what kind of services would be helpful to them:
It was a real wake-up call that we were providing services and they were saying, "Who are you?" They thought Family Life was like Child Protection and the police. So what we did was sat down with the parents and said, "What would you like? What would be helpful?" Which was really the start of our listening and empowerment model. How can we get alongside these people, earn their trust, give them what they need, respond to their needs, and out of that work in a way that is not always at the crisis end, so that they are strengthened in the planning of their lives, accessing resources, and getting what they need to achieve wellbeing. The parents said they actually needed something for the children to help them feel safe. So we had a little bucket of trust money and the first thing we did was run a puppet-making workshop with the children in the community centre, and it was all focused around safety and how to be safe. At first the parents sent the children along and by the third session they were saying, "That looks fun, we'd like you to do something for us".
The puppet-making workshop lead firstly to the Creating Capable Kids parenting program and then to the development of the Creating Capable Communities program, with strategies such as the Homework Club, Breakfast Club, Coffee'n'Chat, community activity days and barbecues, and then Community Bubs. The Men's Outreach Program has been an important related program for encouraging boys and dads to also get involved.
We were funded for three years for Creating Capable Communities, on the understanding that it was for three years only, with a sustainability plan in it, and we would build the integration of a range of other services to be involved in the program. We set up a reference group, including community health, local government, maternal and child health, Office of Housing, Child Protection, the police, etc. But the goal was to go back to the residents and keep building from one thing to the next, with our staff and with volunteers from the broader community, and with local service clubs and businesses contributing.
In developing the concept of a 'capable community', Family Life drew on an Indigenous community model. The model differs from the Western nuclear family model, which is more isolated and individualistic. The Indigenous community model involves broader community participation and connectedness between members, which in turn creates a more supportive and inclusive community environment where people share and are concerned for each other's wellbeing:
When I designed the Creating Capable Communities, I drew on the Indigenous understanding of culture and kinship relationships, because we were dealing with a very [culturally] mixed community where clearly the Western model of nuclear, separate families wasn't very relevant. … We needed to do things differently.
Family Life's core values of respect, empowerment, inclusion and community shape the way in which programs are developed and implemented. The Creating Capable Communities program embodies these values when working with clients in a number of ways:
Community involvement through a strong volunteer program is integral to Family Life's success. Volunteers, who are community members, act as the 'glue' that binds the community together. The program draws on a volunteer pool of 260 that includes parents and neighbours as well as personnel from local businesses and services:
Volunteers are important in terms of role-modelling parenting skills, being friends to really marginalised, isolated people, and helping everyone to join the community and be part of the community. … At the broad community level we try to include volunteers in everything that we do. We now have a community caring for families, children and young people. And that has implications for creating the bonds and bridges, which promote reciprocity. If we need something done it's: "Who can we ask? How can we use this opportunity to get someone involved, whether they're a corporate person or the lady who lives on the corner. How do we use this to give someone else a rewarding opportunity of participating and contributing?" With this way of thinking and acting we have maintained the volunteer origins of the agency with more volunteers than employed staff. We now have 50 staff and 260 volunteers.
The agency takes a "ground-up" approach to service development, rather than a "top-down" approach, where the agency is the expert and the community passive recipients. Staff consult with local community members in order to determine what type of programs are needed and how they should be implemented:
Every program has been developed because the residents have said, "This is something we need" and we've said, "How can we help with that?" … It's a real shift in working with the community, from saying, "We have these services for you, we can see what you need"; but you turn that around to the community informing us, and letting the community tell us what they need for change to happen. They actually know best; they can tell us what's needed and what would make a difference for them. That's the core of the Creating Capable Communities program and the Community Bubs program, which operates inside the caring community context: decisions are made in partnership with the residents and the parents.
Family Life offers services to the whole community, as well as targeted services to address specific needs. Services directed to the whole community enhance social inclusiveness, connectedness and support:
We try and have some services for the whole community, such as parenting programs, so that anyone in the community might feel they can use the agency in some way. This maintains and promotes the community ownership of the agency and our mission. And then we go to the focused programs, such as Creating Capable Communities, which is our targeted program out into the public housing estates. … I've had people say to me, "Why are you trying to provide services for any family in the community? Why don't you focus only on those most at risk?" The reason is that we need the whole community to value having Family Life as a safety net in the community, because this is a major source of our support, generosity and compassion for supporting families who are not doing well.
By providing services to the whole community, the community becomes a resource to members who may have greater needs:
With Creating Capable Communities we're talking about building trust in the neighbourhood out of a model of responding to needs to promote wellbeing. We believe in the residents, their strengths and their capacity to help each other. Then we sit inside the neighbourhood building some very targeted programs and strategies to get to the people who are least likely to get involved and may not knock on our door. In particular, through the neighbourhood network of activities and friendships, we are seeking to be introduced to isolated parents who need assertive support to help them get involved. We can then work with the parents to help them address stresses and difficulties to achieve their desire to do the best they can for their children, supported by friends and services in the neighbourhood. This is the origin of the Community Bubs program.
An important aspect of the agency's approach is making community resources available to neighbourhoods and involving neighbourhoods in broader community activities so people feel a sense of belonging and ownership in relation to community activities and services. One way they do this is by bringing services to the places and spaces where people live:
Part of our strategy was to make ourselves and our resources available in the neighbourhood so that people would become more confident to come out of the neighbourhood and into the community. Staff have run activities with other service providers, like going to the zoo, going to the local park, outings to local cafés, a whole range of activities. … We've tried to make ourselves available in a way that's relevant, and make ourselves the conduit for them to understand how the rest of the community works so that they can get the same resources and amenities that anyone else can use in the community. We found that parents in the high-need neighbourhoods did not see that those amenities and services are there for them. For example, we invited the library to come to the Homework Club, knowing that parents would not come with us as a group to the library, where they would feel self-conscious and possibly uncomfortable. So we needed the library to come to them first for parents to see their children enjoy the activities and learn about how to use the service [and] to become more confident to go out into the community to use the service. We supported the community health centre in a similar way in the early days of Creating Capable Communities, and they now have their own proactive program of community health days and services in the neighbourhoods.
By taking a strengths-based, empowerment approach to service delivery, individuals, families and neighbourhoods become the agent for change that is sustainable over the long term.
This is a sustainable change model. It's not about going in and fixing people; it's about a theory of change, where we seek a legacy of skills and impact from activities and services such that sustainability and self-sufficiency is part of the outcome. … People have skills and resources to get what they need when next faced with a problem or need. One of the most fundamental measures of change for us is, "Who do you know in the neighbourhood?" If someone has a crisis in the middle of the night, who wants to have the police or Child Protection after hours as your only source of support? Most of us would be able to knock on someone's door or call a friend. And that's one of the most important measures of change for us to identify, that isolation is reduced and parents have friends and neighbours to support them in caring for their children - including if they have a crisis in the middle of the night. That's the more Indigenous model of "Who's in our community?" and creating enough activities and opportunities for people to rub shoulders with one another to find out who they would like to know.
The Creating Capable Communities program has now been running for five years. The program has led to a significant reduction in crime on the Bayside housing estates. For example, the Bayside Neighbourhood Watch newsletter (Area 25) was able to report for September to October 2005 that "for the first time in 15 years no crimes were committed on the estate during the 2 month period".
The Creating Capable Communities was included in the action research program funded by the Australian Government for the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy and is participating in a further 12 month evaluation for 2007-8. The Community Bubs three-year pilot as been researched by Monash University and the final evaluation report will be available on Family Life's website from February 2007. Community Bubs parents reported a 90 per cent success rate in terms of families meeting their goals and objectives at personal and social, and bonding and attachment levels.
Community Bubs is another program initiative of Family Life that draws support from the Creating Capable Communities program. The program works on building trust with parents who have infants living in vulnerable circumstances in order to prevent statutory intervention. The Community Bubs program identifies parents with difficulties who have a range of complex needs. Staff work on the principle that any family facing physical, social and emotional challenges may only need one thing to shift for them to become vulnerable. It is therefore unreasonable to label a family "at risk for child abuse" because of the possibility of something going wrong.
The history of [Community Bubs] is that we were originally part of the Parenting Assessment and Skills Development service, which is a forensically based parenting program. It has all the right intentions for intensive screening to identify the parents who can improve their capacity to care safely for their infants, and identify those who need statutory involvement. We were providing the home-based part of the service and we really found the outcomes unsatisfactory in terms of offering people only 15 weeks of involvement. We felt we were building up their hopes and saying, "well done", but then the intensive service withdrew. A number of parents later had their children removed and placed in care. We actually saw the system as being part of the problem at that point rather than being part of the solution - we identified parents' strengths and capacities but didn't follow through to secure sustainable change. We discontinued our involvement in that program.
One of our benefactors at the time rang and asked the question, "Would you still want to run that program?" And I said, "Yes, but we'd do it very differently". We gave a two-page submission for the Community Bubs program, which was about offering at least 12 months support using the core model of the agency - an employed worker with volunteers working within the neighbourhood context. [We also drew on other programs] so that we could work holistically with these high-needs families with infants that had very complex situations that put them at risk for child protection involvement. We would get in there and work with them one step at time, but be building their community context and relationships, not just their parenting skills. It's then about what they learn from each other, not what they learn from us.
The Community Bubs program works closely with the local Child Protection service and specialist infant protective workers (SIPW). As an outcome of Community Bubs involvement, parents who rated 'high' on the child protection assessment tool have been able to maintain continuous care of their children. Where respite placements have been needed, parents have worked hard to stabilise the home environment and ensure their children return to their care.
Dr. Jenny Higgins is a Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Alexandra McIver provides a discussion of her work experience placement with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse and reflects on the information provided to school students about child abuse and neglect.
Prior to doing work experience at the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, I was not aware of the extent of child abuse. I had no idea that every three minutes a child is reported as being abused or neglected in Australia, or that child abuse rarely happens to a child only once. I never knew that one in four females and one in five males is sexually abused by the age of 18 (Australian Childhood Foundation, 2004). And it is strange that I wouldn't be aware of this because, as a teenager, research shows that these issues are one of the main concerns of my age group (Mission Australia, 2006).
According to the National Youth Survey 2005, physical and sexual abuse was the second most major concern for both males and females aged 15-19 years. The number one issue of concern for this age group was suicide and self-harm (Mission Australia, 2006).
This makes me wonder: if child abuse is one of the major concerns of young people, why don't we ever talk about it? In my experience, in the four years I have spent at Melbourne Girls' College, child abuse is a topic that is rarely spoken about.
Once, my teacher brought an article to an English class for discussion. It was about a church leader who had sexually abused children in his parish. As we read through the news article, it was probably the first time that my 22 classmates were silent. All of us were speechless. We were all in awe, and couldn't believe that situations like this actually occurred out in the world.
As we discussed the topic, the 22 of us all admitted that we hardly knew anything about child abuse. We didn't know where it could happen, or even what it is. The only reference I had encountered was in a book I was reading at the time, Perfect match, by Jodi Picoult (2002). In this novel, the story revolves around an incident of child sexual abuse within a church. And yet, we were 22 girls and most of us were 16 years old. According to the statistics, about five of us could have been exposed to some form of sexual abuse.
Learning about these figures and thinking about my class, made the issue more personal for me. I realised it could have happened to someone I know. It is the same for family violence. At the Clearinghouse I learned that even witnessing domestic violence is a form of child abuse. The statistics mean there is a chance that one or more of my friends is also living with this type of child abuse. However, none of us said a word: our lips were tightly shut.
It made me wonder why we don't talk about it more often or ask more questions. The book I was reading didn't have any answers to the questions my classmates and I had. And because we were in an English class, not a Health class, our teacher who brought in the article did not know the cold, hard facts. Our questions were left unanswered. Who could abuse a child? What are the types of child abuse? In what situations could children be abused? Are there symptoms of child abuse that we can see?
Maybe adults think we are too young to talk about and understand such complex issues. But I don't think we are. If the research shows we are worrying and concerned about child abuse, or that it could be happening to our friends and classmates, then I think we should be talking about it much more.
After one week of work experience at the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, I have found some of the answers I wanted. At first it was difficult taking in all the information and statistics from the research. It was a little overwhelming. But now I think the subject should be talked about more often.
When the research outcomes are published in the National Child Protection Clearinghouse Child Abuse Prevention Newsletters and Issues papers and when the researchers present papers at conferences, it is a great way to get information out into the public. But children and young people need to be targeted too, so we are informed and aware of child abuse and its effects.
Physical and sexual abuse is the second major concern for the young people. We (the young people) are uninformed on this issue, even though it worries us. There need to be pamphlets with statistics and information about child abuse given to all schools. There should even be guest speakers from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse and other organisations giving presentations on child abuse prevention in both primary and secondary schools. Getting the information to us and making us aware are the missing links within the issue of child abuse.
Australian Childhood Foundation. (2004). Stop child abuse: Myths and realities about child abuse. Retrieved 1 September 2005, from http://www.stopchildabuse.com.au
Mission Australia. (2006). National Youth Survey 2005: Rural and regional responses - Snapshot 2006. Retrieved 30 November 2006, link updated September 2008, http://www.missionaustralia.com.au/document-downloads/doc_download/12-national-youth-survey-2005-rural-and-regional-responses
Picoult, J. (2002). Perfect match. California: Pocket Books.
Alexandra McIver is a Year 11 student at Melbourne Girls' College, Richmond, Victoria, who completed a one-week work experience placement in 2006 at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, where she worked with staff from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse.
Mel Irenyi, Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, reviews a book by Neerosh Mudaly and Chris Goddard, published in 2006 and titled: The truth is longer than a lie: Children's experiences of abuse and professional interventions, London, Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
It can be a difficult but moving experience to hear empowered children speak candidly about past traumas. Clinical practitioner Neerosh Mudaly and researcher Chris Goddard combined 30 years of expertise in the field of child protection to present such an experience in their book The truth is longer than a lie: Children's experiences of abuse and professional interventions.
Set in an Australian context, but speaking to an international audience, the book is the report of a qualitative research project with children who have experienced abuse and neglect. The project includes interviews with children about their experiences of abuse and subsequent professional interventions. The book chapters are logically and thematically organised, with the heart of the book - the children's responses - bracketed by discussions of ethical and methodological issues and the research findings.
The chapter structure of the book follows a standard, but easily accessible, research report format. It begins by establishing the argument that, given the opportunity, children's voices offer a powerful insight into their own strengths and vulnerabilities in the face of abuse. Each chapter is headed by a quote from a child involved in the research - some are brief but poignantly incisive, while others take longer to come to their point, but make it with startling clarity:
I think people would be surprised if kids had the chance to talk … I mean … that's good that you're not getting the adults interviewed to see what they think, instead to get the kids interviewed from a kid's point of view. No one knows kids better than kids (11-year-old female) (p. 11).
Mudaly and Goddard draw largely from Australian and international research to argue compellingly that many children are neither seen nor heard in society, and as a result are largely unprotected. Two cases in particular will resonate with Australian audiences - that of the violent death of Daniel Valerio and that of an unidentified young woman whose stepfather, although convicted of repeatedly raping her as a young child, was permitted to cross-examine her during a civil trial. Both cases attracted significant publicity and public debate.
On the foundation of these two and other international examples, the authors make their case that children have historically been silenced through many mechanisms, including language and social myths. The evidence more than adequately supports the authors' logical conclusion that a remedy is required to the silencing of children. The authors go on to argue that children continue to be subjected to new forms of silencing, such as the detention of asylum seekers and the spread of Internet pornography. This argument is one that is not as strongly made, and appears to use the concept of children being 'silenced' to describe the denial of abuse and minimisation of its effects.
The best response to the silencing of children, according to Mudaly and Goddard is to utilise a child-centred practice, and in chapter 3 they identify the core components of this. These include: the environment in which the child is interviewed, the person working with the child, involving the child's family, play, refreshments and rituals, and communicating and engaging with the child. They also discuss techniques for eliciting information from children in research, engaging children, and the research environment. Their key message is that ensuring each of these elements is focused on the needs and comfort of the child leads to optimal research outcomes.
Research with children involves myriad ethical and methodological dilemmas. When the children have been abused and the research topic centres on their experiences of abuse, the potential exists for such issues to become even more fraught. The authors assert that there has been little discussion in research literature about the ethical issues of researching with children. In chapters 4 and 5, they offer an extensive exploration of the relevant issues and of their own methodology. Here, they address issues such as children's legal inability to give consent, the value of assent, the potential for retraumatisation, and the possibility of involving children as partners in research.
The title of the book suggests a focus entirely on the children's experiences. This, however, fails to do justice to the extensive discussion of research and practice issues that it contains. The discussion sets a solid framework for the centrepiece of the book: the responses of the children to the research questions.
Chapters 6, 7 and 8 are divided thematically and contain the children's views on abuse and its impact, making disclosures, abusers, non-offending parents, and the children's experiences of professional interventions. The responses of nine children, aged between 9 and 18, are presented and the chapters, at times, make for emotional reading. Particularly moving is the children's discussion of the abuse, as exemplified by one girl's words:
He grabbed me like that and he shoved me across the room and as he did that his fist went into the side of my head and it hurt. … I felt like he was going to hit me again or something (11-year-old female) (p. 82).
The sparse commentary and observation made by the authors in these chapters allows a focus on the children's own words. This underscores the authors' argument that not only should children be heard, but that when they are heard they are given the space to competently articulate their own experiences. Child protection workers and counsellors will be particularly drawn to the children's feedback. Even comments on the "system" in general reveal a surprising candour and insight:
As far as I am concerned, and sorry for saying this, but if you ask me … you know, the system is well and truly stuffed. Because like, you know, he could just get married or something and do the same thing (13-year-old male) (p. 107).
Chapter 9 places the children's responses within a theoretical framework that parallels their experiences with people who have been taken hostage. It is a thought-provoking discussion about the differing public responses to child abuse and hostage-taking. This chapter is also powerful because of the two case studies it presents in order to illustrate the application of hostage theory.
The remainder of the book deals with children's insights into their own vulnerability, the complex question of listening professionally to children's input, and potential ways forward. Here Mudaly and Goddard reassert that children's voices are central to the prevention of child abuse.
The central thesis of the book is summed up by the authors' contention that the voices of the children demonstrate their competence in understanding and articulating their own experiences, which in turn demonstrates the importance of listening to them to better understand the impact of child abuse and subsequent interventions. In order to do so, a child-centred world must be developed.
The book is easily accessible. It avoids jargon so that an interested layperson could easily engage with the ideas and, particularly, the words of the children. The stories, anecdotes and thoughts of the children who chose to participate in the research are powerful and are presented in a way that underscores both their simplicity and their depth. From the perspective of a researcher, this is one of the key attractions and the most engaging element of the book. The discussions of child-centred practice and of negotiating researching with children who have experienced abuse will be valuable to any person considering such issues in their work.
The only disappointing aspect about The truth is longer than a lie is its failure to address in-depth some important issues. Involving children in research is an important topic, and with the considerable experience of both authors, the subject has significant scope for discussion. A much deeper engagement with some of the contemporary debates would have been far more satisfying. Tensions between legislative requirements to include children in decision-making and the reality of practice are just one example of an area that could have been explored.
Additionally, many researchers have acknowledged the need to include children, but have encountered gate-keeping of access to abused and neglected children to be a barrier. For example, case workers may be reluctant to further burden already traumatised children, and hence limit the access of researchers. Such matters have been part of the public dialogue in the Australian research context in recent years (for examples see Delfabbro, Barber, & Bentham, 2002; and Mason, Falloon, Gibbons, Spense, & Scott, 2002) and a discussion in the context of the authors' research would have been valuable.
Overall, however, the book does serve as a vehicle for children's voices. That purpose, in itself, is worthwhile and that makes the book a useful and interesting contribution to the Australian landscape of child protection and research.
Delfabbro, P. H., Barber, J. G., & Bentham, Y. (2002). Children's satisfaction with out-of-home care in South Australia. Journal of Adolescence, 25, 523-533.
Mason, J., Falloon, J., Gibbons, L., Spense, N., & Scott, E. (2002). Understanding kinship care. Haymarket, New South Wales: NSW Association of Children's Welfare Agencies: University of Western Sydney.
Dr Mel Irenyi is a Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.