- Home |
- About Us |
- Contact Us |
- Site Map |
vol.15 no.2 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 (954KB) 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
In the last edition of the Clearinghouse's Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter, we sent out an evaluation survey asking you to tell us how we were doing. I want to extend the warmest thanks from the Clearinghouse team to the great number of you who participated in the evaluation of the Clearinghouse by completing a survey, participating in a telephone interview or both. The evaluation was completed by Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro (University of Adelaide), and we have provided a summary of the results. The evaluation provided an opportunity for reflection for the Clearinghouse, and has helped us to identify what we are doing well, areas in which we can enhance services, and to consider suggestions from our stakeholders about other services that the Clearinghouse could provide. In due course the full evaluation, along with the Institute's response to the evaluation and recommendations made by Associate Professor Delfabbro, will be made available on the Clearinghouse website.
The National Child Protection Clearinghouse has been part of the Australian Institute of Family Studies since 1995. The Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaCSIA) funds the Institute to provide a number of services to the child and family welfare sector in Australia via the Clearinghouse. At the time of the evaluation, those services included: (1) the collection of information relevant to child abuse prevention, child protection, and out-of-home care; (2) the distribution of material to stakeholders (for example, researchers, policy makers and practitioners); (3) the production of high-quality publications that are accessible to a wide audience; (4) the completion of primary research and secondary literature reviews; and (5) the provision of an advisory or 'help desk' function to assist access to and application of research.
In 2007, the Institute contracted Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro from the School of Psychology at the University of Adelaide to conduct an independent evaluation of the Clearinghouse's performance. The evaluation comprised three parts. First, an analysis was undertaken of service use data for the Clearinghouse. Second, a detailed survey was sent to our mailing list (you!). Finally, comprehensive telephone interviews were undertaken with Clearinghouse service users, experts in the child and family welfare sector, the Clearinghouse Reference Group, and Clearinghouse staff.
An analysis of Clearinghouse service use data revealed significant levels of service use, and also substantial increases in service use over the past few years. For example, the Clearinghouse library collection increased from under 10,000 items in July 2004 to over 13,000 items in June 2007.
Helpdesk enquiries increased from approximately 60 per quarter in 2004 to consistently over 80 per quarter by 2006. Further, web 'hits' on the Clearinghouse website increased to over 350,000 hits per quarter. Finally, the number of subscribers to the email discussion list childprotect increased by 20% from July 2004 to June 2007.
One hundred and eighty-two responses were received to the evaluation survey distributed in the Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter 15(1). Respondents were from a wide and representative range of work areas, and from every Australian state and territory.
Respondents were asked to provide their views in relation to a range of Clearinghouse services including, for example, services they had used, and their level of satisfaction with such services. Data derived from the survey revealed that:
Telephone interviews were conducted with Clearinghouse service users, experts in the child and family welfare sector, members of the Clearinghouse Reference Group, and Clearinghouse staff. Interviewees were asked questions about the aims of the Clearinghouse and how well the Clearinghouse has been meeting identified objectives. The external evaluator reported the following findings:
On the basis of the evaluative data obtained through the surveys and interviews, the external evaluator made a series of recommendations regarding areas for future development. For example, Associate Professor Paul Delfabbro suggested that the Clearinghouse could: (a) make greater use of workshops and face-to-face forums to convey the key messages from research to frontline workers; (b) expand distribution and communication links with smaller non-government organisations; (c) provide greater attention to other content areas that have a strong relationship to child protection, such as domestic violence and substance abuse; and (d) engage in greater promotion of the Clearinghouse's primary research.
Overall, the evaluation revealed that service users are generally very satisfied with the nature and quality of information provided by the Clearinghouse. Although it was not an area specified in the evaluation, the evaluation reported that many participants praised the dedication of Clearinghouse staff, and the Clearinghouse's commitment to expanding the evidence-base in the areas of child and family welfare. The Clearinghouse and the Institute welcome the evaluator's findings. Subject to resource constraints, the suggestions regarding the future directions of the Clearinghouse present real opportunities for developing the Clearinghouse in ways that are most responsive to the needs of the sector.
Note: Further details on the full complement of Clearinghouse services can be found at www.aifs.gov.au/nch/ or by contacting the National Child Protection Clearinghouse on (03) 9214 7888
This summary of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse: Evaluation Report (Delfabbro & Borgas, 2007) was prepared by Prue Holzer, Research Officer at the Australian Institute of Family Studies, National Child Protection Clearinghouse.
References
Delfabbro, P.H., & Borgas, M. (2007). National Child Protection Clearinghouse: Evaluation Report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
In this article, Prue Holzer talks about a current research project the Clearinghouse is undertaking in conjunction with the Australian Centre for Child Protection, based at the University of South Australia. The Research Utilisation Project is concerned with the degree to which professionals in the child protection sector use research, and factors that facilitate research use by professionals working in child and family welfare. The article commences with a brief overview of the research utilisation literature, followed by an explanation of the method of the current project. The article concludes by discussing some of the early findings of the project and the implications such findings have for the sector.
The National Child Protection Clearinghouse is funded by the Australian Government to provide a range of services for policy-makers, practitioners, and other interested parties in the child protection field. In addition to providing the services for which we are funded, the Clearinghouse also undertakes contracted research. One such project currently being worked on, in conjunction with the Australian Centre for Child Protection, is the Research Utilisation Project.
The aim of the Research Utilisation Project is to facilitate research-informed policy and practice by identifying effective mechanisms for disseminating research to policy-makers and practitioners. A recent review of the research utilisation literature reported that there is a growing trend in policy and practice toward using research evidence in decision making (Lewig, Arney, & Scott, 2006). The trend toward greater research use has been attributed to: pressure for evidence concerning 'what works'; the need to justify funding for the implementation and/or continuation of programs and initiatives; and the need to make informed decisions to safeguard the welfare of children where there is the potential for harm (for example, during risk assessments) (Lewig et al., 2006).
Although research can and does play an important role in the human services, there is some debate as to the extent to which research actually informs policy and practice developments. For example, Lewig et al. (2006) argued that changes in policy and practice 'are rarely achieved as a direct result of research evidence' (p. 13). Researchers such as Shonkoff (2000) and Barratt (2003) have highlighted a range of barriers to explain this outcome. Shonkoff conceived of the research, policy and practice domains as three separate cultures. Furthermore, he argued that the cultural gaps between these communities inhibit communication and knowledge diffusion. On a similar note, Barratt maintained that the oral rather than empirical-based culture within the social services has led to a greater emphasis on decisionmaking based on practice experience rather than research evidence.
Barratt (2003) highlighted a number of other factors that may inhibit the use of research by professionals in the social services, such as: limited access to research (for example, not having internet access or subscriptions to relevant journals); an organisational or workplace environment that does not encourage continued learning; and personal or individual factors, including one's own values, beliefs and assumptions, and a lack of individual motivation. Barratt (2003) found these barriers to research use to be quite formidable. To this end, Lewig et al. (2006) contended that further research is required to investigate the barriers and facilitators of research use in the social services, in order to facilitate greater knowledge diffusion between research, policy and practice.
It is worth noting that an assumption underpinning existing research utilisation literature is that research is a useful and helpful addition to the professional sector. However, the researchers involved in the current project recognise that the usefulness of research will depend on both the quality of the research and its relevance to policy and practice.
The Research Utilisation Project was designed to explore the degree of research use by Australian professionals in the child and family welfare sector. Specifically, it was hoped that this project would shed light on the ways through which research use could be encouraged in the child protection sector. Towards this goal, a one-page survey was sent out in June 2006 to subscribers of Clearinghouse publications. This survey asked several questions of professionals in the sector such as: the degree to which they use research findings in their main role; the print sources they have used to access research in the past two years; how important research findings are to their main role; and their top three research priorities in the field of child abuse prevention, child protection, and out-of-home care. Respondents were also asked whether they would take part in a telephone interview.
We received 495 surveys from people working in the sector. Thirty-one survey responses were excluded from further analysis, as the respondents were not professionals working in the sector. Figure 1 illustrates the number of responses received from each jurisdiction (responses from each jurisdiction equate approximately with the jurisdiction's population), while Figure 2 documents the main roles or occupations of survey respondents.
Approximately half of the sample (47.8%, or 222 people) agreed to take part in a telephone interview. The telephone interview was designed as a mixed-methods research instrument, in that both quantitative and qualitative methodologies were used. To illustrate, quantitative questions were asked, such as 'To what extent do you access research in your current role?' Response options were provided on a five-point Likert scale where 1 equalled never, 2 equalled seldom, 3 equalled sometimes, 4 equalled often, and 5 equalled always. Qualitative or open-ended questions were also asked, such as 'How have you applied research in your current role?' and 'What would help you to access and apply research in your current role?' Respondents were at liberty to answer these questions in whatever fashion they chose.
The majority of participants (n = 27) who took part in a telephone interview had more than 10 years experience in the child protection field. In general respondents reported that they 'often' access research during the course of their work, and that they 'often' apply research during the course of their work. Similarly, respondents reported that their employer (for example, the statutory department in which they work) 'often' makes research available to them. The Clearinghouse and the Australian Centre for Child Protection are currently in the process of analysing the qualitative data collected during the telephone interviews. Although data analysis is still in its early days, some trends appear to be emerging from the data. For example, most interviewees reported that they had access to the materials required to conduct research (such as a computer, internet connection, and access to a library). Barriers to research use in our sample appear to relate to workload and workplace issues. Most (if not all) respondents reported that time constraints and the extent of their workload act as a pronounced barrier to research use. In addition, participants stressed the importance of reading and research as being legitimate forms of professional development. Finally, many respondents emphasised the need for management and colleagues to be supportive of research use, in order for their workplace to be conducive to accessing and applying research.
The Clearinghouse and the Centre would like to thank all those who took part in the study. We intend to complete data analysis in the coming months and make the results publicly available. We hope that the results of this project will assist the Clearinghouse, the Centre, and other researchers to communicate the findings of their research in the most accessible fashion for their intended audience. We also hope that this project identifies ways in which workplaces and the professionals within them can be encouraged to make decisions based on research evidence, and to provide working environments conducive to evidence-based practice.
References
Barratt, M. (2003). Organizational support for evidence-based practice within child and family social work: A collaborative study. Child and Family Social Work, 8, 143-150.
Lewig, K., Arney, F., & Scott, D. (2006). Closing the research-policy and research-practice gaps: Ideas for child and family services. Family Matters, 74, 12-19.
Shonkoff, J. (2000). Science, policy, and practice: Three cultures in search of a shared mission. Child Development, 71(1), 181-187.
Prue Holzer is a Senior Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies
In 2005, National Child Protection Clearinghouse staff conducted interviews and focus groups with professionals from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander agencies in order to identify strengths and barriers in the recruitment, assessment, training and support of carers, and support for young people in care (Higgins, Bromfield, & Richardson, 2005). The project was funded by the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs on behalf of the Australian Council for Children and Parenting (ACCAP). Professionals, carers and young people told us of barriers and gaps in program and service delivery, and identified ineffective practices such as culturally inappropriate assessment tools and training programs. The participants highlighted the need to develop more effective and culturally relevant recruitment, assessment and training strategies. Carers also told us they needed more support in a range of areas, such as dealing with state and territory child protection departments, and caring for children with increasingly complex needs. Young people told us they wanted more connection with their family and communities while they were in care. Importantly, the participants also identified examples of promising practice in the field, where effective and culturally relevant strategies have been developed to overcome barriers in these areas. ACCAP recognised the value of disseminating information on these promising programs and services to other agencies in the sector, and this awareness led to a second stage of the project.
In 2006, Nikki Butler from SNAICC (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care) and Jenny Higgins from the Clearinghouse conducted focus groups and interviews with professionals from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations who provide outstanding programs and services, in order to profile promising practices in out-of-home care. The organisations included in the second phase of the research project delivered a range of services. Some were regional hubs that served remote communities; some directed their services to meet the needs of families, and others supported the needs of carers or young people.
An important finding from the consultations was the overlapping nature of recruitment, assessment, training and support programs and services for enhancing outcomes for carers and young people. Examples include:
A common characteristic of the profiled organisations was that they took a 'ground up' rather than a 'top down' approach to service delivery by consulting with community leaders, and their service provision was driven by the ongoing needs of their communities, carers or young people. This was true for carer support programs, training programs, and programs that supported young people in care.
Professionals also told us of the importance to them of strengthening and empowering Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, and most programs we profiled incorporated strategies to achieve this. Professionals empowered communities, carers and young people by: advocating on their behalf; facilitating knowledge sharing by providing communities, carers and young people with knowledge and skills; and by building connections so carers and young people can benefit from shared experiences and a common purpose.
The successful organisations we profiled had similar management styles. They had strong leadership; were clear on what their core business was and operated within appropriate boundaries; and took a collaborative, teamwork approach with staff within a flat organisational structure. In these organisations staff felt valued, had autonomy over their program delivery, and had input into the organisation's decision-making processes.
Successful program managers and CEOs told us that developing strong relationships with external stakeholders was the key to getting the department or other agencies on board to fund or approve projects. Professionals told us that taking a confrontational or aggrieved approach rarely got them what they wanted. Instead, effective professionals armed themselves with facts or information when engaging in negotiations. This helped them achieve their goal of getting government departments and other agencies on board, and securing funding for new or ongoing projects.
An outcome of establishing effective relationships with stakeholders was that staff often became spokespeople for their organisation in the wider community. Through lobbying, advocacy and speaking at forums and meetings, staff of Indigenous organisations became known to external stakeholder groups, which in turn increased their profile and influence. This greatly benefits Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples by introducing more culturally appropriate ways of addressing child protection and out-of-home care issues, as well as bringing more cultural awareness into the mainstream Australian community.
SNAICC and the Clearinghouse will be conducting workshops to share the project findings with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander professionals working in the out-of-home care sector across Australia. The workshops will provide an opportunity to disseminate and discuss the findings from the project.
The following resources have been developed to describe barriers and facilitators in the recruitment, assessment, training and support of Indigenous carers, and the provision of services to Indigenous children and young people in care, and examples of promising practice in this area:
Bromfield, L. M., Higgins, J. R., Higgins, D. J., & Richardson, N. (2007). Why Is There a Shortage of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers? (Promising practices in out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers, Children, and Young People: Strengths and Barriers, Paper 1). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from www.aifs.gov. au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/summarypapers/menu.html
Bromfield, L. M., Higgins, J. R., Higgins, D. J., & Richardson, N. (2007) Barriers, Incentives and Strategies to Enhance Recruitment of Indigenous Carers. (Promising practices in out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers, Children, and Young People: Strengths and Barriers, Paper 2). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from www.aifs.gov. au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/summarypapers/menu.html
Bromfield, L. M., Higgins, J. R., Richardson. N., & Higgins, D. J. (2007). Why Standard Assessment Processes are Culturally Inappropriate. (Promising practices in out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers, Children, and Young People: Strengths and Barriers, Paper 3). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from www.aifs.gov. au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/summarypapers/menu.html
Higgins, D. J., Bromfield, L. M., Higgins J. R., & Richardson, N. (2007). Children with Complex Needs. (Promising practices in out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers, Children, and Young People: Strengths and Barriers, Paper 4). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/summarypapers/menu.html
Higgins, D. J., Bromfield, L. M., Higgins, J. R. & Richardson, N. (2007). Supporting Carers. (Promising practices in out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers, Children, and Young People: Strengths and Barriers, Paper 5). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/summarypapers/menu.html
Higgins, J. R., Higgins, D. J., Bromfield, L. M., & Richardson, N. (2007). Voices of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people in care. (Promising practices in out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers, Children, and Young People: Strengths and Barriers, Paper 6). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/summarypapers/menu.html
Richardson, N., Bromfield, L. M., Higgins, J. R., & Higgins, D. J. (2007). Training carers. (Promising practices in out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers, Children, and Young People: Strengths and Barriers, Paper 7). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/summarypapers/menu.html
Higgins, J. R., & Butler, N. (2007). Characteristics of promising out-of-home care programs and services. (Promising Practices in Out-of-Home Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers and Children, Booklet 1). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies in collaboration with the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care. Available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/booklets/menu.html
Higgins, J. R., & Butler, N. (2007). Assessing, training and recruiting Indigenous carers. (Promising Practices in Out-of-Home Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers and Children, Booklet 2). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies in collaboration with the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care. Available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/booklets/menu.html
Higgins, J. R., & Butler, N. (2007). Comprehensive support for carers and young people. (Promising Practices in Out-of-Home Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers and Children, Booklet 3). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies in collaboration with the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care. Available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/booklets/menu.html
Higgins, J. R., & Butler, N. (2007). Indigenous responses to child protection issues. (Promising Practices in Out-of-Home Care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Carers and Children, Booklet 4). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies in collaboration with the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care. Available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/booklets/menu.html
References
Higgins, D. J., Bromfield, L. M., & Richardson, N. (2005) Enhancing out-of-home care for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people. Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse. Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Dr Jenny Higgins is a researcher with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
A bright and engaging book for pre-and early readers makes a welcome contribution to children's protective behaviour literature. It opens the door for conversations between children and parents/carers about bodies and boundaries and paves the way for children to learn early messages about safety.
The dilemma of how to equip children with personal safety skills while not invoking fear is a familiar theme within child protection. Increasingly, discussions are turning to the balance between children's capacity for self-protection and adults' responsibilities to provide safe environments. Everyone's got a bottom is a recent edition to the Australian landscape of children's literature that is aimed at empowering children toward personal safety. As well as a useful tool for adults caring for children, its publication provides another opportunity for adults to consider the ways in which they protect children.
The sturdy publication is ideally suited for little hands and little eyes. Bright, full-page illustrations and large, simple text make it ideal bedtime material for pre-and early readers. Four-year-old Asha, who road-tested the book for us with her friend Lucy, was captivated by the bright colours and characters. Her mum, Elly, said she found the book a useful way to introduce the topic of personal safety with her daughter, and that the book managed to get some key messages across without invoking any fear. She found that because the book was fun, it held Asha's attention and she retained some of the messages, which then came up in later conversations.
A special section for parents/carers at the back of the book provides comprehensive additional information around child sexual abuse as well as further strategies to support children in becoming assertive. The basic message of this section is that children who receive positive messages about themselves and their sexuality, and who participate in a self-protection program that is reinforced at home, are less likely to experience sexual abuse.
The section for parents and carers is an important component of the book. Its messages are clear and concise: know the warning signs; give children information; talk to children about feelings, rules about touching, and telling; encourage assertiveness. The authors include a range of scenarios that parents can practise with children to help them identify potentially unsafe situations and how to avoid or escape them. However, the research is equivocal about the ability for personal safety programs to prevent child sexual abuse. Personal safety programs have been shown to encourage victims of abuse to make a disclosure. However, it is not clear whether increasing children's knowledge and skills in this area actually enables them to ward off potential perpetrators and thus prevent their own abuse.
The risk with child-focused messages, however, is that they can be perceived by parents and carers as 'silver-bullets' capable (in their own right) of keeping children safe from child sexual abuse. The oversimplification of messages about adult responsibility, and their placement (hidden away at the rear of the book with no pointers in early pages) are the only limitations of this handy little book.
Tucked away in the midst of the messages to parents/carers is the line: 'It is part of our role as adults to prevent child sexual abuse. Children are not responsible for their own safety.' While unequivocal in this statement, the message about children's limited capacity to protect themselves in the context of often complex and confusing dynamics is muted throughout the rest of the book. The dynamics that surround child sexual abuse are complex and multilayered. If the risk of child sexual abuse can escape the detection of protective adults, then children are even less likely to detect potential risk, let alone act upon it.
Everyone's got a bottom does attempt to deal on some level with the complexity of the subject. Jack is allowed to set boundaries around adults in his life, including his grandparents. In keeping with his catch-cry 'From our head to our toes, we can say what goes', Jack knows he can even tell another adult if the person wanting to do 'rude' things is someone he knows and likes. In reality, this is a difficult burden for a child if the person is a close family member or someone seemingly liked and welcomed by everyone else in the child's life. It also fails to account for the pressure perpetrators can place on children through fear or coercion.
The inclusion of more adult-oriented messages that underscore children's limited developmental capacity to protect themselves - even when equipped with protective behaviour strategies - would balance what is an otherwise excellent resource. Adults seeking to protect children can benefit from clear, direct messages such as 'Child sexual abusers are experts at confusing and confounding children' and 'Make sure children know you will always believe them if they tell'.
Dr Mel Irenyi is a research officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Everyone's got a bottom sits alongside other useful resources for parents, such as Dittos Keep Safe Adventure CD Rom and Parents Guide, reviewed in a previous edition of the Clearinghouse's Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter (Volume 13(2), 2005, p.24).
This article profiles a new approach to the prevention of child sexual abuse that has been developed in the United States over the last decade: the Stewards of Children program. The article explores the rationale for considering this new program and its potential usefulness in Australia. It then goes on to outline the key elements of the program, and feedback from some of those who have participated in the Stewards of Children training program.
Child sexual abuse is a hidden but significant social problem in Australia with serious detrimental impacts on individuals, relationships and society. In recent decades, there has been a range of responses to the problem of child sexual abuse with a view to drawing community attention to its occurrence, impact and prevention.
This article stems from two types of knowledge. The first is knowledge gained through my formal study of social work. The second is practice wisdom, developed through my experience working in the field. Practice wisdom is 'tacit knowledge that is inductively derived from cumulative observations and which leads to pattern recognition and responses by experienced practitioners' (Scott, 2005, slide 6). My perspective on child abuse prevention programs has been developed through research and program documentation, and my experience in working with maltreated children and the elderly.
It is estimated that one in four girls and one in six boys experience child sexual abuse (Finkelhor, 1994), and live with its impact on their emotional, physical and psychological wellbeing. Research points to a range of significant negative outcomes for children who experience sexual abuse, including adverse effects on academic performance, friendships, family relationships and physical health (Dubowitz, Black, Harrington, & Verschore, 1993).
Child abuse has occurred throughout history; however, the catalyst for modern approaches to child abuse was when Kempe and colleagues theorised the Battered Child Syndrome in the 1960s to characterise a clinical condition in young children who had received serious physical abuse, usually from a parent (Goddard, 1996). Discussion of child sexual abuse entered the professional and public domains in the mid-1980s (Bromfield, 2007) and is now the subject of widespread professional attention. Individuals, however, still contend with shame, which makes disclosing experiences of child sexual abuse difficult. For others, its emotional and controversial nature can make child sexual abuse difficult to identify.
Since the appearance of child sexual abuse on the public agenda, child welfare policy-makers and practitioners have endeavoured to develop ways of protecting children from sexual abuse. It is possible, however, to point to persuasive research that suggests limitations in some of these existing approaches. For example, Tomison and Poole (2000) identified personal safety programs as the most prevalent child sexual abuse prevention programs in Australia. However, personal safety programs target a single group: they focus on children rather than addressing adult responsibility for children's safety. A further limitation of approaches to child sexual abuse prevention in Australia is that there has been no large-scale community education programs aimed at the primary prevention of child sexual abuse.
Personal safety and protective behaviours programs are generally school-based prevention programs that aim to equip children with self-protection strategies through educating them in how their body responds to feeling unsafe, and their right to say no. They are designed to educate children to identify, and therefore protect themselves from, situations in which they are potentially at risk of harm. The theory is that, with knowledge, children are able to identify potential risks or to disclose abusive experiences. The protective behaviours program was originally an initiative that aimed to prevent child sexual abuse, but over time the program has been extended to incorporate other risks such as domestic violence and other forms of social violence such as harassment and bullying. However, the focus of personal safety programs remains largely on child sexual abuse.
Personal safety or protective behaviours programs are a major child sexual abuse prevention initiative identified by the Australian audit. The strategy accounts for 10% of current programs, and more than twothirds of the programs are based on the Protective Behaviours program (Tomison & Poole, 2000).
A review of the effectiveness of child abuse prevention programs by the National Child Protection Clearinghouse reported that personal safety programs can be effective in teaching children basic concepts and skills (e.g. good touch/bad touch) and are associated with an increase in disclosures. However, there is no evidence that personal safety programs are actually able to provide children with the knowledge and skills to avoid being abused (Bromfield & Holzer, 2006).
Furthermore, research has shown that some concepts were difficult for children to learn (e.g., it is not just strangers who abuse); and that programs using non-specific language to describe body parts can lead to confusion in young children about what the program is trying to tell them (Brennan, 2006; Briggs, 1991). Programs need to be tailored to the developmental needs of the child (Bromfield & Holzer, 2006). In relation to 'resistance strategies', some commentators have queried whether it is appropriate to expect children to protect themselves, and whether giving this type of message to children could lead them to feel guilt and shame if they were unable to protect themselves from abuse (Bromfield, 2007).
Community education aims to broaden community knowledge, to influence attitudes, and to change behaviours that contribute to child abuse. Such programs address the community as a whole, and include large-scale media campaigns, local information packages and resources, and training programs. Tomison and Poole (2000) found that while the general community is broadly aware of child maltreatment, there is a need to provide information on specific aspects of child abuse and neglect.
In Australia, there have been no large-scale community education programs that specifically target community awareness and the role of adults in preventing child sexual abuse. Professor Dorothy Scott (Director, Australian Centre for Child Protection) writes: 'There have been very few health-promotionstyle interventions in relation to child abuse and neglect in Australia, and those that have been tried have been short-lived (e.g. 'Don't Shake the Baby' campaigns) and not well evaluated' (Scott, 2006, p. 13). This view is consistent with the findings of Tomison and McGurk (1996) who argued that Australian community education programs needed to follow the trend set by the United States in re-targeting programs to provide the public with detailed knowledge of specific aspects of child abuse and neglect.
This overview of existing Australian approaches to child sexual abuse prevention suggests that there is room in Australia for broad-based community-education that is specifically designed to prevent child sexual abuse. This paper suggests that Australian child protection policy-makers, researchers and practitioners consider a new perspective that focuses on broad public education and information, and concentrates the responsibility for child sexual abuse prevention on adults.
In 1997, a small group of professionals in South Carolina, USA, established an organisation in response to escalating child sexual abuse statistics. The primary focus of this organisation, Darkness to Light, is the prevention of child sexual abuse (www.darkness2light.org/). It is a national non-profit community organisation, and its aims are:
The organisation's goals are encapsulated in the child abuse prevention program it has developed in collaboration with experts such as internationally recognised researcher, Professor David Finkelhor, called Stewards of Children.
Adult responsibility
The core philosophy of the Stewards of Children program is that adults must be wholly responsible for preventing child sexual abuse at every level of society. That is to say, adults should work politically to end child sexual abuse within society, and that adults should protect individual children within their families, friendship networks and communities.
Community interaction
Stewards of Children is committed to the belief that child sexual abuse has been treated as a taboo subject and that ongoing community information sharing (community interaction) is essential to uproot the social taboos that allow child sexual abuse to continue.
Action and resolve
In addition to community education about child sexual abuse, Stewards of Children asserts that adult responsibility needs to extend to implementing policies and practices that prevent child sexual abuse, and respond to it promptly if a child discloses. The organisation suggests that in order to be committed to such action, adults must resolve to overcome the discomfort, uncertainty or difficulty they may face when confronted by child sexual abuse.
The program is a sexual abuse prevention program that educates adults to recognise, prevent and respond responsibly to child sexual abuse. The program is comprehensive, and gives adults an overview of the complex nature of child sexual abuse. It utilises a seven-step approach and is appropriate for all adults, whether they work with child-focused organisations or are just concerned individuals. It aims to acknowledge the concerns and potential fears that adults might experience around issues of child sexual abuse, while educating them in the realities of its causes.
The participants
Darkness to Light is targeted at all adults within the community. The Stewards of Children program is a training program designed for organisations and corporations that serve children and youth.
The program
The two-and-a-half hour training program uses an interactive workbook that is used in conjunction with a DVD. The DVD features personal stories of child sexual abuse told by survivors, and training in recognising, preventing and responding to child sexual abuse. The program comprises seven steps, described below:
Step 1: Learn the facts. Understand the risks
Step 2: Minimise opportunity
Step 3: Talk about it
Step 4: Stay alert
Step 5: Make a plan
Step 6: Act on suspicions
Step 7: Get Involved
In the two years since the program has been running in the US, growth has been rapid. It was originally introduced in nine organisations based in South Carolina, USA, and the training is now available in thirty-four US states as well as Canada, Iceland, Spain, Peru and the Cayman Islands.
In evaluation data provided by the nine organisations that participated in the original pilot, the program was considered to have a significant influence on participants' knowledge and understanding of child sexual abuse (www.darkness2light.org/). Specifically it was said to impact on:
The participants' evaluation of their training was followed up two months after their training session and indicated a knowledge retention rate of over 90%. Further feedback also indicated an increase in behaviours aimed at the prevention of sexual abuse. Specifically, participants reported they were more likely to:
My experience as a social worker lead me to believe that child sexual abuse could be reduced if adults knew more about how to protect children. I then searched for a multifaceted program that could teach adults about the complexities of child sexual abuse specifically and I became aware of a gap in existing Australian programs (it is worth noting that there are Australian programs and organisations raising awareness about child abuse and neglect more broadly such as the Australian Childhood Foundation).
I then researched overseas and identified the Stewards of Children program as having the comprehensive characteristics I perceive as important for an effective child sexual abuse prevention program. Not only do adults learn about the complex nature of child sexual abuse, they also learn practical steps they can take to protect children. The program confronts the social misunderstandings and fears that surround child sexual abuse and empowers adults to take responsibility for the safety of children.
Because of its origins in the United States, the implementation of the Stewards of Children program in an Australian setting would, in all likelihood, require some linguistic and cultural changes. Such cosmetic changes, however, do not detract from the usefulness and relevance of the program.
Child sexual abuse is a hidden but significant social problem in Australia. The effects are significant and wide ranging for individuals, families and communities. Australian child protection professionals have developed child abuse prevention programs that stem from various perspectives. The Stewards of Children program, run by the Darkness to Light organisation, aims to be a comprehensive education program that places the responsibility for the prevention of child sexual abuse on adults.
References
Brennan, H. (2006). Ignorance is not innocence. Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter, 14(1), 17-20. Available at: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/newsletters/newsletters.html
Briggs, F. (1991). Child protection programs: Can they protect younger children? Early Child Development and Care, 67, 61-72.
Bromfield, L. M. (2007). Child protection in Australia: Current challenges and future directions. Paper presented at the Australasian College of Child and Family Protection Practitioners conference, Melbourne. Retrieved 26 July 2007, from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/diary.html.
Bromfield, L. M., & Holzer, P. J. (2006). Child abuse prevention: What works? Paper presented at the Australian Centre for Child Protection, University of South Australia: Seminar Series, Adelaide. Retrieved 26 July 2007, from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/diary.html.
Dubowitz, H., Black, M., Harrington, D., & Verschore, A. (1993). A follow up study of behaviour problems associated with child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 17(6) 743-754.
Finkelhor, D. (1994). The international epidemiology of child sexual abuse. Child Abuse and Neglect, 18, 409-417.
Goddard, C. (1996). Child abuse and child protection: A guide for health, education and welfare workers. Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone.
Scott, D. (2006). Towards a public health model of child protection in Australia. Communities, Children and Families Australia, 1(1), 9-16.
Scott, D. (2005, 23 November). Practice wisdom and how to capture it. Australian Research Alliance for Child and Youth, Adelaide University Retrieved 25 September, 2007, from www.unisa.edu.au/childprotection/documents/PP231105.pdf
Tomison, A., & McGurk, H. (1996). Preventing child abuse: A Discussion paper for the South Australian Department of Family and Community Services. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Tomison, A., & Poole, L. (2000). Preventing child abuse and neglect: Findings from an Australian audit of prevention programs. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Author biography
Vivien Resofsky has worked as a social worker for the Women's Domestic Violence Crisis Service, the Victorian Department of Human Services (Protective Worker) and Jewish Care Inc. (formerly JCS, Aged Care Service). Vivien is an accredited facilitator of the Stewards of Children program. She is currently using the program to train a range of different people working with children, and encourages existing organisations to adopt the training. It is her aim to launch the program nationally, and incorporate the Stewards of Children program in a new prevention of child sexual abuse initiative. Email: v.resofsky@iprimus.com.au
Acknowledgements
The author thanks Dr Mel Irenyi (Research Officer at the National Child Protection Clearinghouse) for her assistance in preparing this article for publication.
Good Practice in Child Protection is an introductory text for social work students and new practitioners working directly with children and their families in the child protection field. The book, written by a consortium of Australian academics and child protection trainers, aims to 'prepare and guide practitioners towards good practice through the combination of professional knowledge, values and skills' (p. 2) and provides a model of good practice to assist practitioners to achieve this.
The book is general in its approach, covering a broad range of practice situations from conducting risk and needs assessments with children and their families, to working with children in out-of-home care, and spans the spectrum of child protection services from early intervention to tertiary service provision. The book also touches on more complex material such as theoretical underpinnings of different practice approaches, as well as providing overviews of the different abuse types, risk and protective factors, and indicators of harm.
Each chapter offers students opportunities for 'practice reflection' by including case scenarios and questions for students to discuss and reflect on so they can develop insight into different practice approaches. Some chapters also include a 'focus on' text box that highlights specific issues common to child protection work, such as domestic violence or mental health, and discusses the implications for practice when working with children and families where these issues prevail.
Theory is a valuable tool in assisting the practitioner to understand child maltreatment and plan appropriate interventions. Two generic theoretical approaches: psychological theories, which situate child maltreatment as an individual problem of the abusing parent, and sociological theories, which highlight social disadvantage such as poverty as a causal factor in child maltreatment, and commonly elicit 'child rescue' and 'family support' responses respectively. Both these broad theoretical approaches fail to address the complex nature of child maltreatment, and overlook more micro-level understandings of causality.
While acknowledging that a range of targeted psychological or sociological theories (such as attachment theory) can provide valuable insights into how to address specific issues, on a broader level the authors argue that systems theory, a multidimensional theoretical approach combining psychological and sociological approaches, provides a more holistic way of understanding child maltreatment.
Systems theory incorporates both psychological and sociological understandings, and recognises that family members can be affected by a range of factors that may lead to child maltreatment. From this viewpoint a more complex analysis of child protection issues is required, as are more inclusive and multidisciplinary interventions when addressing child protection concerns. Systems theory is supported by two intervention strategies, community development, and a systems approach to addressing child maltreatment concerns. A systems approach recognises a range of impacts on a family and acknowledges that an impact on one part of the system (i.e., one family member) affects other parts of the system (i.e., other family members) as well. The aim of intervention using a systems approach is to:
achieve equilibrium between the individual and their social environment, helping people overcome tensions or the 'lack of fit' between their needs and the resources and capabilities available for meeting their needs (Tilbury, et al., 2007, p. 93).
The book advocates for critical practice as an effective way of working with families and professionals to achieve the best possible outcomes for children. The authors argue for critical child protection practice that is:
grounded in gaining command of the formal knowledge base, developing authentic and productive relationships with clients, and striving to bring about positive change at individual and/or community levels ... [including] the capacity to engage constructively with the world and to contribute to social justice, which is a crucial aspect of all human services work (Tilbury, et al., 2007, p. 15).
The authors promote critical practice as the cornerstone of good practice in child protection. They draw on the work of other writers on critical child protection practice to outline a model of critical practice that comprises three components: 'critical analysis', 'critical reflection' and 'critical action'.
Critical analysis involves:
Critical reflection involves:
Critical action involves:
By developing a critical practice approach, practitioners are able to work more effectively and collaboratively with children and families to address child protection concerns.
The authors argue that an outcomes (or 'positive change') focus with an emphasis on process (or 'how change is achieved') is necessary to bring about positive change in the lives of children and families. This requires using the best available knowledge about types of services and how they should be provided to meet identified needs. A strength of the outcomes approach is that it requires practitioners to positively engage with parents, take a child-centred, needs-based approach, be honest and transparent about concerns and assessments, and incorporate the multiple perspectives of parents, children and other professionals in child protection decisions. The authors highlight the distinction between client outcomes and professional outcomes (or objectives), which may be different. They argue that outcomes need to be discussed in collaboration with children and families, and caution against deciding on interventions based on service availability rather than client need.
The authors argue for interventions that are empirically validated as being effective in achieving positive outcomes for children and families. Using interventions that have been evaluated as effective maximises the constructive use of resources and gives practitioners some assurance that the intervention will achieve the intended outcome.
The book highlights the importance of incorporating the views of family members in child protection decisions affecting their children if effective outcomes are to be achieved. More recently, with increasing awareness of children's rights, it is now recognised as important to include the voices of children and young people in child protection processes that involve them - both to acknowledge the child and young person's right to be heard, as well as to gain their participation and cooperation in case planning processes. The involvement of families and children in decision-making is likely to enhance relationshipbuilding between clients and workers, creating an environment of 'working together' and breaking down entrenched views of child protection staff as 'the enemy'. Strong relationships enable workers to take a strengths-based rather than a 'deficits' approach to working with families, and processes such as family group conferencing provide the most appropriate environment for strengths to be explored.
Similarly, the authors argue for building collaborative relationships with professionals from other agencies, which is aided by clarification of individual roles, regular communication, remaining outcome focussed, and maintaining a focus on the best interests of the child.
A limitation of the text is its failure to engage with the pragmatic constraints that may limit protective workers' capacity to practice in the manner recommended by the authors. While the text is valuable in enhancing practitioners' knowledge of effective ways of working with families, the degree to which child protection workers have the capacity to realise these goals is questionable. Child protection workers' efforts are largely directed by their statutory role in ensuring parents meet court-ordered conditions (such as submitting drug screens, attending anger management courses, or leaving a violent partner). Practitioners are accountable to the court if the parent's capacity to meet the conditions has not been facilitated by the worker. While the conditions are aimed at improving outcomes for children, they may not be perceived as worthwhile to the parents who are expected to comply with workers in meeting conditions with which they may disagree.
The adversarial role workers are placed in when working with clients, who distrust them and perceive them as 'the enemy', can make collaborating with clients, who often have chaotic and crisis-driven lives, unrealistic. While this does not diminish the value of the practice methods promoted in the book, it highlights the structural overhaul needed to ensure child protection services are targeted towards client outcomes via the critical practice necessary to best achieve this. Within an environment of dire shortages of essential services such as counselling, even for the most urgent and serious cases, overwhelming case loads and administrative requirements, and a bureaucratic structure that itself is constrained by meeting departmental key performance indicators, child protection workers have limited agency in setting their own priorities and working in ways that are most likely to foster strong relationships and achieve effective outcomes. Non-government agency professionals are not as constrained and may have more opportunity to realise the practice goals promoted in the text.
Good Practice in Child Protection neatly links effective theory, critical practice and outcome-focused interventions together in a way that brings clarity and insight into child protection work, and enables helpful, productive, family-sensitive interventions that serve the best interests of the child.
Reference
Tilbury, C., Osmond, J., Wilson, S., & Clark, J. (2007). Good practice in child protection. Sydney: Pearson Education Australia.
Dr Jenny Higgins is a researcher for the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Part of the role of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse is networking, and the provision of information and advice. It is often difficult for Clearinghouse stakeholders to know what we are doing in this area. Below are descriptions of a selection of forums and events that Clearinghouse staff took part in over the past 12 months.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Childhood Outcomes Seminar.
On Friday, 8 December 2006, Clearinghouse staff member Jenny Higgins attended the second day of a two-day conference titled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Childhood Outcomes - Research and Evaluation. The conference was a collaborative effort between the Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC) and the Communities and Families Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies. The purpose of the conference was to provide ways of sharing information about early childhood research and evaluation in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander contexts, as well as to discuss ethical ways of conducting research and evaluation in Indigenous communities, and ongoing opportunities for collaboration between Indigenous and non- Indigenous researchers. The conference gave participants the opportunity to voice their views regarding research in Indigenous communities, past and present, and identify a way forward in striving for culturally sensitive, appropriate research with Indigenous communities in the future.
An overview of research regarding refugee child and family welfare.
On Tuesday, 6 February 2007, National Child Protection Clearinghouse Research Officer, Prue Holzer, presented a paper titled An overview of research regarding refugee child and family welfare to the Refugee Minors Program Reference Group, Department of Human Services, Victoria. To begin her presentation, Prue provided Reference Group members with an introduction to the work of the Clearinghouse, and an overview of the services the Clearinghouse provides to the child and family welfare sector. Drawing on the information repository of both the Clearinghouse and the wider Institute , Prue outlined the literature available in relation to child refugees, with a particular focus on unaccompanied humanitarian minor settlement. Following this, Prue provided a detailed analysis of several key research studies concerning the wellbeing of child refugees. To close, Prue discussed the gaps in the current body of knowledge regarding youth and unaccompanied minors, and opened discussion as to the sort of research that would be of benefit to the Refugee Minors Program, and particularly to the children whom this program strives to serve.
To download a copy of the presentation titled An overview of research regarding refugee child and family welfare, visit: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/diary.html
West Australian Ministerial Community Roundtable on Child Protection, Perth.
In March 2007, Dr Leah Bromfield attended and presented at the West Australian Ministerial Community Roundtable on Child Protection held in Perth, hosted by the Hon. Sue Ellery MLC, Minister for Child Protection; Communities; Women's Interests; Seniors and Volunteering.
The roundtable was reported as being
an historic event that brought together policy makers, researchers, consumers, advocates, government and non-government service providers, community representatives, and representatives of professional bodies, to focus on the vital role of protecting our children. The Roundtable provided a platform to hear a diverse range of views as well as presentations from an array of child protection experts and community representatives.
www.ministers.wa.gov.au/ellery/index.cfm?fuseaction=features.story&feature=roundtableChildProtection
The roundtable comprised several keynote speakers, including:
Several panels were also convened. One of the highlights among the panel discussions was the presentation by Associate Professor Colleen Hayward, Telethon Institute for Child Health Research. For more information about the roundtable, including copies of presentations by keynote speakers and panellists, go to www.ministers.wa.gov.au/ellery/index.cfm?fuseaction=features.story&feature=roundtableChildProtection
Delegation from the Malaysian University.
In March 2007, Dr Mel Irenyi attended a meeting with a visiting delegation from a Malaysian University. The meeting with Dr Nora Binti Abdul Hak and Associate Professor Dr Najibah Mohd Zain was attended by a number of researchers from the Australian Institute of Family Studies. The two academics from the International Islamic University, Malaysia, were visiting Australia to gather information about Family Law research. The University's Kulliyyah of Laws is establishing a Family Law Research Unit and Institute researchers shared information about relevant research projects and outcomes. Mel provided a number of Clearinghouse publications to the visiting academics and spoke about the structure and operations of the Clearinghouse, as well as the crossover between Family Law research and child protection issues.
Information dissemination: Lessons learned from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse.
In April 2007, Leah Bromfield and Susan Fooks made a presentation to a staff forum at the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, the peak body for non-government child welfare agencies in Victoria. The Centre was interested in identifying how new technologies are impacting on work practices and management decisions. The purpose of the forum was to highlight potential learnings about the practical experiences associated with the work of the Clearinghouse, set within the context of the issues associated with adoption of new technologies and communication platforms. Leah Bromfield, the Manager of the Clearinghouse, and Susan Fooks, the Web Officer, provided an overview of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, and then outlined different ways of reaching people, including traditional mechanisms of print publications, targeted distribution, email discussion groups and the web, both in terms of publishing information and acting as a clearinghouse, with links to other organisations also engaged in the area of child protection.
To download a copy of the presentation titled Lessons learned from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse, visit: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/diary.html
Clearinghouse staff attended the second national conference of the Australian College for Child and Family Protection Practitioners (ACCFPP) in Melbourne, 20-22 May, 2007. The Clearinghouse was represented by Prue Holzer, Mel Irenyi, and Leah Bromfield. Leah Bromfield also presented a research paper on current challenges and future directions of child protection in Australia.
The conference theme was 'Borders and Bridges', in acknowledgement of the challenges of working across agencies, states and systems, as well as the initiative involved in strengthening individuals, families and communities. It featured papers from a broad range of research and practice perspectives across Australia, and a small number of international papers. The keynote presenters were Ros Thorpe, Professor of Social Work and Community Welfare at James Cook University, and Robert Fitzgerald, AM, Commissioner with the Australian Government Productivity Commission. Professor Thorpe is currently Chief Investigator on a large research project on Foster Care and Foster Carers. Mr Fitzgerald is the former New South Wales Commissioner for Community and Disability Services.
Professor Thorpe spoke on Family Inclusion in Child Protection Practice: Building Bridges in Working With (not against) Families. Her paper focused on identifying ways in which renewed attention to family inclusion in child protection practice could be a key strategy for supporting and providing benefits for children, their families and communities. She also explored important components of inclusive practice, drawing on the documented experiences of parents whose children have been removed to out-of-home-care.
Mr Fitzgerald's keynote presentation addressed broad issues of social inequity and their intersection with community development and child protection. He noted the resurgence of the notion of 'deserving and undeserving citizens' within Australian society, and current trends toward blaming the poor for their own circumstances. He also commented on what he identified as the 'dubious' separation between child protection and community development, and questioned whether it is possible to ensure that in such circumstances child protection does not miss out on being resourced. Other conference highlights included Lauren Bourne's paper titled: Are family service workers the new child protection officers? The paper considered shifts in expectations of the role of family services workers in the face of the Victorian Children, Youth and Families Act (2005). Lauren explored the process of analysing the skills required of child protection practitioners, the development of new systems for case management and accountability, as well as the implementation of a new way of thinking and working in light of the new Act.
The plenary session presented by Elizabeth Fudge, Ruth Lange and Fiona Arney addressed another area of potentially conflicting interests across agencies in presenting experiences from, and the evaluation of, the Mental Health Liaison project. The project involved the secondment of a mental health nurse (Ruth Lange) to a child protection agency to support families in which parents and/or children experienced mental health issues. The project was embraced by all involved, and resulted in unanimous support from all respondents (child protection workers, mental health workers and clients) for the continuation of the project.
In summary, the two highlighted sessions and many other presentations explored differing aspects of the challenges involved and the innovation required to build 'Borders and Bridges' in child and family welfare practice. Conference organisers and delegates stated that the conference was a success, with more than twenty research papers presented, three workshops, and a number of plenary sessions.
In this article Jenny Higgins provides an overview of a recent forum on Parental Substance Abuse and Child Protection, outlining the views of key speakers and reviewing possible options to address the issue of parental substance misuse and its effects on children.
One in ten children have parents with a substance abuse problem - child protection is not the answer. - Forum participant
There just isn't a service system for parents. The whole world is closing in on them and [at a time when they are most likely to want to seek help] mandatory reporting is a huge disincentive to engagement. - Forum participant
Children whose parents have an alcohol or substance abuse problem are at heightened risk of experiencing child abuse or neglect, or inappropriate parenting as a consequence of their parents substance use or the environment in which this occurs; and may also suffer adverse affects as a consequence of their exposure to their parent's misuse of substances (Dawe et al., 2007).
On 25 June 2007, Odyssey House and the Australian Institute of Family Studies hosted a national forum titled Parental Substance Use and Child Protection. The National Child Protection Clearinghouse and the Australian Family Relationships Clearinghouse were the two areas within the Australian Institute of Family Studies who helped coordinate the forum. The forum was supported by the Australian Centre for Child Protection, Griffith University, the FADNET (the Family Alcohol and Drug Network) Conference, and the Australian Government Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. The forum was a very important and timely first step in bringing key people together with great expertise in the areas of substance misuse and child protection.
The purpose of the forum was to develop national guidelines and strategies to address the growing problem of parental substance misuse, and its often-devastating effects on children and families. The forum participants were experts from both the child abuse and substance misuse fields, including academics, policy makers and practitioners, all of whom shared the goal of finding effective ways to minimise the harmful impact of parental substance misuse on children and families.
Key presenters at the conference were: Dr Stefan Gruenert, CEO of Odyssey House Victoria; Professor Sharon Dawe from Griffith University, Queensland; Professor Dorothy Scott, director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection, South Australia; and international guest Dr David Best, co-author of the Hidden Harm report, from the University of Birmingham, England.
Dr Stefan Gruenert was the forum's first speaker, and his Welcome to Country included a moving commentary that when the traditional Aboriginal owners of the land on which the forum was held, the Wurundjeri people, welcomed visitors they would ask them not to harm the land, and not to harm the children of the land.
Dr Gruenert highlighted the emotive attention given by the media to issues of child abuse and family dysfunction, which in turn (mis)informs public opinion by polarising and sensationalising this complex and multifaceted social problem.
Professor Sharon Dawe spoke of how little we know about the prevalence of children exposed to substance misuse by parents, stating that processes designed to elicit information about a drug and/or alcohol user's history and behavioural patterns do not include questions about whether they have children or whether children live in their household, suggesting that children of drug and alcohol misusers are invisible in frameworks of assessment and treatment for their parents: 'Kids have not even made it onto the agenda.'
Professor Dawe suggested their absence may partly be due to a conflict for practitioners in taking a client-centred perspective and keeping the best interests of their clients (the parent) in mind, while also investigating the circumstances of the children in their client's care. Another explanation for the absence of children in frameworks of assessment and treatment of substance-misusing parents is the view that children 'don't notice' parental substance abuse, akin to the past belief that children 'didn't notice' domestic violence between adults. The assumption that children 'don't notice' substance abuse suggests that they are immune from its effects and not harmed by it. However, professionals are aware that children exposed to their parent's substance abuse have negative outcomes, including higher rates of behavioural problems and school failure, and possible future engagement in substance abuse themselves. Professor Dawe also pointed out that substance-misusing parents often have a traumatic emotional history that requires complex support and treatment in order for family functioning to improve.
Professor Dawe believes the best approach to intervention in families where substance misuse is a problem is to take a multisystemic approach that addresses the complex and varied problems many families face, and 'influence as many ecological events as possible'. Professor Dawe advised:
In a problematic family with a depressed mum, an ADHD kid and another child in foster care, where do you start in making a program that can affect all aspects of the children's lives?
A multisystemic approach would utilise resources from a range of services at different levels, including: the child's school (for counselling, and possibly after-school programs); treatment services for parents; family support; health care, and so on, with a single case manager to coordinate and facilitate service access and delivery. This approach is in contrast to the current focus on short-term, restricted and targeted service delivery, which often comprises intensive input at a particular time in the course of a family's life, yet does not effectively improve family functioning over the longer term.
Professor Dawe also highlighted the importance of using evidence- based intervention programs, as there are many program options for children and parents that have good intentions, but do not demonstrate effective outcomes when evaluated. Professor Dawe cited a number of programs that have demonstrated effectiveness in addressing both substance abuse and child protection issues, such as: Henggeler's Multisystemic Family Therapy; Luther and Suchman's Relational Psychotherapy; Catalano's Focus on Families; and Dawe & Hartnett's Parents Under Pressure program.
Professor Dorothy Scott was the forum's next speaker. She raised the concern that child protection systems have not achieved their intended aim of protecting children from harm, and are at risk of imploding under the weight of increasing, and alarmingly high, numbers of notifications and substantiations. Professor Scott asserted that: ' ... when a system is under pressure it can become a dangerous place for children.'
Professor Scott pointed out that one of the reasons for the high number of notifications relates to changes in reporting laws, but a key factor is the increase in, and inter-relatedness of, parental substance dependence, domestic violence, and parental mental illness. While alcohol abuse has long been a problem for families, in the past 30 years, drug use has increased dramatically to become a dominant feature in child protection cases. In order to address the intractable problem of substance abuse and child protection, Professor Scott highlights the need for evidence-informed approaches in three key areas: child protection assessment, family support, and out-ofhome care. Professor Scott cited evidence that positive psychotherapeutic outcomes can be attributed to: client and environmental factors (40%); the quality of the therapeutic relationship (30%); hope and expectancy of positive outcomes (15%); and the specific interview technique (15%) (Lambert, 1992). This evidence suggests that appropriate social support and an effective relationship with professionals can make a significant difference in improving outcomes for troubled families. It is important, therefore, to ensure that child protection assessments, family support services, and out-of-home care placements and plans, be conducted by appropriately-skilled people (such as maternal home visiting nurses, GPs, drug and alcohol specialist services, and NGO family support services) in a manner that allows for relationship- building and engagement, as well as context-sensitive, supportive intervention strategies. In order for such innovations to improve outcomes for children, adult-foccused professionals need to become more child-centred, and childfocused professionals need to become more parent-centred.
A significant barrier in achieving improved outcomes for families and children is collaboration between and within organisations, as well as problems at inter-professional, inter-personal, and intra-personal levels. Professor Scott identified the core problem in these areas, as well as suggesting possible solutions as follows:
Inter-organisational
Example of problem: Single-input services based on
categorical funding
Example of solution: Multi-input family-centred services
with flexible funding
Intra-organisational
Example of problem: Internal divisions managed by
needing a 'common enemy'
Example of solution: Inter-group consultant, staff
exchange, new leadership
Inter-professional
Example of problem: Different perspectives, unequal
power, and different modes of decisionmaking
and communication
Example of solution: Acknowledgement of differences,
respect for one another's expertise,
and agreement on process
Inter-personal
Example of problem: Conflict between individuals
Example of solution: Mediation by individuals or a third
party
Intra-personal
Example of problem: Strong defences (e.g., projection and
displacement) aroused due to high
anxiety that fuel tensions
Example of solution: Individual or group clinical supervision
Professor Scott also highlighted the need for innovative, inter-sectoral collaboration, which could be achieved by:
When an organisation wants to implement innovative approaches to address parental substance abuse and child protection issues there are many options to choose from. In order for the program to be successful, Professor Scott suggested that in choosing program interventions we first consider four questions: 'Is the program effective?' 'Is the program efficient?' 'Is the program transferable?' 'Is the program sustainable?'
Dr David Best, a UK epidemiologist, was the final key speaker for the day. Dr Best is co-author of the UK report Hidden Harm: Responding to the needs of children of problem drug users: The report of an Inquiry by the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs, which was published in 2003. Findings from the Hidden Harm report were based on survey data and follow-up phone calls with professionals in three areas: social services, maternity services and drug services. The Inquiry focused on the behaviour of drug-using parents and pregnant drug-users, and also gathered information about children of drug-using parents. (The report did not explore the use and effects of alcohol.)
Two key recommendations to come out of the survey include:
Dr Best also highlighted several key messages to come out of the Inquiry:
Dr Best talked about some of the recommendations and strategies put forward in Hidden Harm and discussed some of the factors that contributed to successes and failures in the adoption and implementation of these recommendations.
The harm minimisation approach has failed largely with drugs. It's failed because not enough money has gone into demand reduction. Supply reduction and harm reduction [have had an impact]. But demand reduction and treatment are what works. - Forum participant
The remainder of the forum focused on what approaches would best lead to the harm minimisation of children placed at risk from parental substance misuse. Participants divided into four working groups to consider and address four issues:
The forum resulted in several very promising outcomes:
References
Lambert, M.J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research: Implications for integrative and eclectical therapists. In Handbook of psychotherapy integration. Norcross, J.C., & Goldfried, M.R. (Eds.). New York: Basic Books, pp. 94-129.
Dr Jenny Higgins is a researcher with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.