Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter

vol. 17 no. 1, 2009

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 (764 KB) 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

Editorial

Happy New Year and welcome to the first edition of the Clearinghouse Newsletter for 2009. The Clearinghouse is excited to announce the return of the NCPC Non-Government Organisation Library Membership Scheme. If you are an employee of a non-government organisation, you are eligible to become a member of the Clearinghouse library. Library membership is free and entitles you to borrow books, reports and audiovisual materials from the Institute's library, and have up to 25 articles photocopied per year from journals held in its collection.

This edition of the Newsletter contains several interesting articles, including:

We hope you enjoy this edition of the Newsletter and we welcome your thoughts or comments.

Australian statutory child protection data: 2007-08 update

Prue Holzer

In January 2009, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) released Child Protection Australia 2007-08, its annual report on statutory child protection activity across Australia (AIHW, 2009). This article begins with an overview of the Australian statutory child protection landscape, and then provides a summary of key child protection data trends for 2007-08, as reported by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Child protection data trends over the past 10 years are also considered. The article concludes with a discussion of developments planned for the national child protection data collection in the near future.

The Australian statutory child protection landscape

In Australia, state and territory governments exercise sole responsibility for the administration and operation of child protection services. As a result, there are eight different Acts of Parliament providing for the operation of child protection services, as many government departments responsible for the administration of child protection services, and multiple policy and practice frameworks guiding the way in which services are delivered (Bromfield & Higgins, 2005; Bromfield & Holzer, 2008; Holzer & Bromfield, 2008). However, while there are differences in the procedures and legislation guiding the provision of services to children and families who come into contact with the child protection systems of each state and territory, the core activities undertaken by child protection practitioners are more similar than different (Bromfield & Higgins, 2005).

For example, reports to a child protection department of suspected abuse or neglect might lead to the recording of a notification in relation to a child. If the matters/events reported do not meet the threshold for recording a notification, a "child concern" report or a "family support" referral may be made. On recording a notification, departmental intake workers then determine whether the content of a notification requires investigation or whether the notification is best dealt with by other means. Through an investigation, a departmental worker determines whether or not a notification is substantiated (meaning that sufficient evidence has been found to determine that a child is in need of protection). When a child is the subject of a substantiated notification, he or she may be placed on a care and protection order and/or in out-of-home care (AIHW, 2009).

Each financial year, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's Child Protection Australia series reports on child protection activity in these main areas: child protection notifications, investigations and substantiations; children on care and protection orders; children in out-of-home care; and children and families provided with intensive family support services (AIHW, 2009). The following section summarises the main national data trends in 2007-08. For a detailed discussion of differences across jurisdictions in reported rates of statutory activity, see Holzer and Bromfield (2008).

Key message: While there are eight different child protection systems across Australia, all jurisdictions provide data against nationally reported indicators (e.g., notifications, investigations, substantiations, children on orders, and children in out-of-home care).

Child protection activity in 2007-08

Notifications, investigations and substantiations

Over the past several decades, child protection activity has increased in Australia and other countries with a comparable approach to protecting children (Holzer & Bromfield, 2008). In particular, "front-end" activity (i.e., notifications, investigations and substantiations) have exhibited pronounced increases over time.

In this article, total figures recorded during a financial year are used for notifications, investigations and substantiations. In 2007-08, there were 317,526 child protection notifications recorded nationally, which is an increase of 3% from the number of notifications recorded in 2006-07 (309,448 notifications), and a 207% increase on the number of notifications recorded in 1998-99 (103,302 notifications) (AIHW, 2009).

While the number of notifications increased, the increase observed between 2006-07 and 2007-08 was not as great as that observed between previous reporting periods. In fact, the increase observed between 2006-07 and 2007-08 is the smallest national increase recorded for total notifications over the past 10 years. Figure 1 illustrates the trends in total notifications recorded across Australia from 1998-99 to 2007-08. Table 1 contains the numbers plotted in Figure 1.

Key message: In 2007-08, there were 317,526 child protection notifications recorded across Australia.

Figure 1: Total number of notifications, investigations and substantiations across Australia from 1998-99 to 2007-08, and total number of children on orders and in out-of-home care at 30 June 1999 to 2008.

Figure 1: Total number of notifications, investigations and substantiations across Australia from 1998-99 to 2007-08, and total number of children on orders and in out-of-home care at 30 June 1999 to 2008.

Source: AIHW (2009)

Notes: (a) The Northern Territory could not provide substantiation data in 1998-99. (b) Due to the implementation of a new information management system, New South Wales could not provide data for investigations, substantiations or children on orders in 2003-04. (c) Due to the implementation of a new information management system, Queensland was unable to provide investigation data in 2006-07.

Table 1: Total number of notifications, investigations and substantiations across Australia from 1998-99 to 2007-08, and total number of children on orders and in out-of-home care at 30 June 1999 to 2008.
 
Total notifications
Total finalised investigations
Total substantiations
Children on orders
Children in OOHC
1998-99
103,302
50,009
(a)
17,881
15,674
1999-00
107,134
47,007
24,732
19,262
16,923
2000-01
115,471
66,265
27,367
19,917
18,241
2001-02
137,938
80,371
30,473
20,557
18,880
2002-03
198,355
95,382
40,416
22,130
20,297
2003-04
219,384
(b)
(b)
(b)
21,795
2004-05
252,831
121,292
46,154
25,065
23,695
2005-06
266,745
137,829
55,921
27,188
25,454
2006-07
309,448
(c)
60,230
29,641
28,379
2007-08
317,526
148,824
55,120
34,279
31,166

Source: AIHW (2009)

Notes: (a) The Northern Territory could not provide substantiation data in 1998-99. (b) Due to the implementation of a new information management system, New South Wales could not provide data for investigations, substantiations or children on orders in 2003-04. (c) Due to the implementation of a new information management system, Queensland was unable to provide investigation data in 2006-07.

A child may be the subject of more than one notification - in 2007-08, the 317,526 notifications recorded during the financial year concerned 195,387 children. Nationally, notifications were most commonly received by members of the police force, followed by school personnel, and hospital/health centre staff (AIHW, 2009).

The number of total finalised investigations also increased in 2007-08, with 148,824 total finalised investigations recorded across Australia (AIHW, 2009). Due to the implementation of a new information management system, Queensland was not able to provide data on the number of finalised investigations in 2006-07, thus a national total could not be calculated for the 2006-07 financial year. However, the 2007-08 figure is an increase of 8% on the number of total finalised investigations recorded in 2005-06 (137,829), and a 198% increase on the number of total finalised investigations recorded in 1998-99 (50,009) (see Figure 1).

Key message: There were 148,824 total finalised investigations recorded across Australia in 2007-08.

The pattern for total substantiations in 2007-08 differed from the pattern observed for notifications and investigations. The total number of substantiations (of notifications received in 2007-08) across Australia was 55,120. This is an 8% decrease on the number of substantiations recorded in the previous financial year (60,230). However, as can be seen from Figure 1, overall, the number of total substantiations increased between 1999-00 and 2007-08 (by approximately 123%). As the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009) observed, further years' data are necessary to determine whether the decrease in 2007-08 will be a continuing pattern.

Key message: The total number of substantiations (of notifications received in 2007-08) across Australia was 55,120. This was an 8% decrease on the number of substantiations recorded in the previous financial year.

Substantiations of notifications received during a financial year are categorised as being one of the four main abuse types: (1) emotional abuse; (2) physical abuse; (3) sexual abuse; and (4) neglect. The matter(s) that give rise to a notification may point to more that one abuse type. Where this is the case, the abuse or neglect recorded for national reporting purposes is the abuse type departmental workers consider most harmful to the child (see AIHW, 2009, p. 25, for a discussion). In addition, where a child is the subject of more than one substantiated notification within the year, and the substantiations relate to different abuse types, it is the first substantiation decision that is reported nationally (AIHW, 2009). The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare reported that:

Children on orders and in out-of-home care

Whereas figures provided for notifications, investigations and substantiations were for totals reached during the financial year, figures provided in this article for children on orders and in out-of-home care are a point-in-time picture of the number of children on orders or in care at the end of the financial year (i.e., 30 June). Figures for 30 June capture children who are on an order or who remain in care from a previous financial year, as well as children who became the subject of an order or entered into care during the most recent financial year (see Holzer & Bromfield, 2008 for a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of point-in-time versus admissions and discharges data).

Interestingly, the largest data movements observed in 2007-08 (compared to 2006-07) occurred in the number of children on orders and in out-of-home care. At 30 June 2008, there were 34,279 children on a care and protection order. This is an increase of 16% on the previous year (at 30 June 2007, there were 29,641 children on a care and protection order). This figure encompasses children on a variety of orders, each of which involve different levels of state intervention, with interim and temporary orders being the least intrusive, and guardianship/custody orders being the most intrusive (AIHW, 2009). The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009) reported that:

Key message: At 30 June 2008, there were 34,279 children on a care and protection order.

At 30 June 2008, there were 31,166 children in out-of-home care. This is an increase of 10% on the year prior (at 30 June 2007 there were 28,379 children in out-of-home care). This figure encompasses children who are in a variety of care settings, including foster care, kinship care and residential care. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2009) reported that:

Key message: At 30 June 2008, there were 31,166 children in out-of-home care.

Proposed developments for the national child protection data collection

Currently the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare receives data from Australian jurisdictions in aggregate form (i.e., the data are added and grouped into total figures for various indicators). The latest edition of Child Protection Australia explains that the method of collecting national child protection data is in the process of changing. It is expected that in the next few years, data will be provided in unit record form from all states and territories (i.e., the data will not be aggregated into totals, but instead will be provided as records related to individual "units" - in this case, individual children). At present, data dictionaries that would support the new reporting framework are being piloted.

The inclusion of unit record data in the national child protection data collection would allow data analysis at a more "micro" level (e.g., it would be possible to anonymously track individual children over time, or track a sub-group of children from a local government area over time) (National Centre for Education Statistics [NCES], 1998). Such data could give us the ability to track the progress and outcomes of individual children through the child protection system, for example, from substantiation, to removal into out-of-home care, through to reunification or permanent placement. In short, a national collection of unit record data would provide greater flexibility to examine relationships among variables and re-aggregate data for macro-level analysis as desired (NCES, 1998). A national data collection based on unit record data is an exciting possibility for researchers, policy makers and practitioners alike, as the depth of analysis that can be performed using such data would give us greater insight into the effectiveness of the policies and programs that are offered to vulnerable children and families who come into contact with the child protection system.

Conclusion

With the exception of total substantiations, all headline statutory child protection indicators increased during the 2007-08 reporting period. However, the increases observed in front-line indicators (i.e., notifications and investigations) between 2006-07 and 2007-08 were more modest than the increases observed between 2005-06 and 2006-07. The greatest increases in statutory data in 2007-08 occurred in the number of children on orders and in out-of-home care.

There are a number of possible explanations for the trends observed in child protection data, including broad social changes that have brought about an expansion of the scope of what constitutes child protection, and legislative and policy changes - such as the introduction and expansion of mandatory reporting requirements - both of which have increased statutory child protection activity. At the same time, the development of new models of responding to vulnerable children and families, such as the provision of prevention and early intervention services, and diversionary strategies to steer children and families from the statutory arm of child protection have served to stem the growth of statutory activity in some jurisdictions. A detailed discussion of these issues is beyond the scope of this article. However, readers are encouraged to access other Clearinghouse resources, particularly the recently released NCPASS Comparability of Child Protection Data: Project Report (Holzer & Bromfield, 2008), which provides a detailed examination of statutory child protection data trends and related issues.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2009). Child protection Australia 2007-08. Canberra, ACT: Author.

Bromfield, L. M., & Higgins, D. J. (2005). National comparison of child protection systems (Child Abuse Prevention Issues No. 22). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse. Retrieved 22 January 2009, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues22/issues22.html

Bromfield, L. M., & Holzer, P. J. (2008). A national approach for child protection: Project report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved 22 January 2009, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/cdsmac/cdsmac.pdf

Holzer, P. J., & Bromfield, L. M. (2008). NCPASS comparability of child protection data: Project report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved 22 January 2009, from: http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/ncpass/ncpass.pdf

National Centre for Education Statistics. (1998). Unit record versus aggregate data: Perspectives on postsecondary education data collection, retention and release. Washington, DC: Author.

At the time of writing, Prue Holzer was a Senior Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Prue is now a Senior Analyst with the Productivity Commission.

The Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection in NSW: Community services consultation forum

Libby McCalman

In November 2007, the Hon. James Wood AO QC was appointed by the NSW Government as Commissioner to conduct the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in New South Wales. On 24 November 2008, Justice Wood made public his report detailing the findings of the Inquiry and making 111 recommendations.

The NSW Government released its response to the report in early March. On 28 January 2009, approximately 125 community services representatives gathered in Sydney for a consultation forum, to enable the sector to examine recommendations outlined in Justice James Wood's Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in NSW. The forum was convened by the Association of Children's Welfare Agencies (ACWA) in partnership with NSW Family Services Inc. (FamS) and the Aboriginal Child, Family and Community Care State Secretariat (AbSec). The aim of the forum was to gather sector input, which the forum organisers hope will be considered by the NSW Government when shaping their response to the Wood report.

NSW Minister for Community Services, Linda Burney, opened the forum with an update on the steps her government is taking towards implementing Justice Wood's recommendations. Jenny Mason, Director General, Department of Community Services (DoCS), outlined her views on the challenges the sector may face along the way.

ACWA unveiled the four priorities it sees as essential for Justice Wood's recommended reforms to be achieved. They are:

  1. Building a system that focuses on child wellbeing, not just child protection.
  2. Changing legislation so only children at "risk of significant harm" would have to be reported to a statutory authority.
  3. Developing an integrated services model that focuses on prevention and early intervention and on providing families and children in need with adequate support services to address their needs and prevent the removal of children.
  4. Shifting resources from DoCS to other government departments and the non-government sector, including Aboriginal organisations, to enable them to cater for a greater number of families and children.

ACWA believes the order in which the recommendations will be implemented, combined with a strong level of government commitment and investment is crucial for successful reform.

As part of its response to the Wood report, ACWA is running the "Child Protection: It's Time for ACTION" campaign. As part of the campaign, ACWA is urging the government to continue to consult closely with the non-government sector throughout all stages of the reform process and to ensure Justice Wood's report is implemented as a whole (with the exception of recommendation 18.2b, income management). Given some of the reforms may take several years to implement, ACWA is seeking a long-term commitment to the framework from both sides of politics. In addition, ACWA believes cultural change to reflect the fact that child protection is a collective problem requiring a collective solution must be considered a prerequisite for reform. It is also calling on the NSW Government to collaborate with the Australian Government and its non-government partners on developing the National Child Protection Framework and, once developed, ensure it is implemented in NSW.

ACWA hopes to gather strong support for Justice Wood's Report - at community, sector and state levels - through its "Child Protection: It's Time for Action" campaign. ACWA CEO Andrew McCallum urged forum representatives to "talk the process up" whenever the opportunity arises and to spread the word by writing to their local media outlets, Members of Parliament and those who support their organisations.

To find out more about the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection in NSW and to access the report, go to: www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/cpsinquiry or, to see the NSW Government response to the recommendations, titled Keep Them Safe: A Shared Approach to Child Wellbeing, visit: www.community.nsw.gov.au/about_us/keep_them_safe.html

For more information about the ACWA coordinated community services response to the Wood report or to support the "Child Protection: It's Time for Action" campaign, go to: www.acwa.asn.au/wood_commission.html

Libby McCalman is a Communications Officer with the Association for Childrens Welfare Agencies, NSW.

The Looking After Children Data Outcomes Project

Sarah Wise

This article discusses an Australian Institute of Family Studies project recently completed for the Victorian Department of Human Services. The project was designed to explore the potential of using Assessment and Action Records, used in the Looking After Children approach, to produce better information and planning for children living in out-of-home care. As well as developing a database for the analysis of Assessment and Action Records data, this project produced a detailed picture of the developmental experiences of a large group of children currently living in out-of-home care in Victoria with placement support.

Introduction

Although a main aim of out-of-home care services is to improve child welfare, research studies have consistently indicated that looked-after children have poorer outcomes than children in the general community (Barber & Delfabbro, 2004; Sawyer, Carbone, Searle, & Robinson, 2007). Although child outcomes are confounded by pre-placement experiences and other factors, careful monitoring of children's developmental progress can assist services to understand how well they are meeting their objectives for children, and where innovations in program delivery may be required. However, in Australia, little data are routinely collected on the characteristics of children in care, their experiences during placement, and the services provided for them. This may be due in part to the considerable administrative, ethical and financial barriers to collecting data on the out-of-home care population.

Since 1996-97, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) has published national data on children on care and protection orders from administrative datasets in the Child Welfare Series (AIHW, 2002). However, these data are very limited and tend to focus on inputs and key descriptors and do not contain information about child outcomes. These types of data do not permit assessment of the effectiveness of interventions, nor do they permit the identification of significant factors that may have contributed to a particular outcome that can then be used to inform practice and policy (Wise, 2003). Moreover, within the non-government sector, there is great variation in the capacities, skills and resources of individual agencies to collect, analyse and review outcome data.

In order to develop a sustainable system of outcomes monitoring, the Victorian Department of Human Services has plans to build the Looking After Children materials into its Client Relationship Information System for Service Providers (CRISSP). This would provide electronic information on key client status variables for monitoring outcomes.

The Looking After Children approach

The Looking After Children materials (UK Department of Health, 1995) include a series of schedules known as Assessment and Action Records (Parker, Ward, Jackson, Aldgate, & Wedge, 1991). The Assessment and Action Records assess whether caregivers in out-of-home care are providing children with the sort of experiences research suggests are essential to ensure normal psychological development. Assessment focuses on seven developmental dimensions: health, education, identity, family and social relationships, social presentation, emotional and behavioural development, and self-care skills. The Assessment and Action Records were also originally designed as research instruments to gain more consistency in the evaluation of child outcomes and to identify where service improvements can be made and how to better allocate resources.

Key message: Assessment and Action Records are designed to assess whether caregivers in out-of-home care are providing children with the sort of experiences research suggests are essential to ensure normal psychological development and to incorporate what is known about "good parenting" into casework practice.

Several studies have used Looking After Children schedules to examine the needs and experiences of children in public care (e.g., Bailey, Thoburn, & Wakeham, 2002; Brandon, Lewis, Thoburn, & Way, 1999; Thoburn, Norford, & Rashid, 2000; Ward & Skuse, 2002), including studies conducted in Australia (e.g., Fernandez, 2006). Therefore, some information is available on ways of using Looking After Children to produce data on research cohorts. From a service provision perspective, however, the Assessment and Action Records are almost exclusively used as a best-practice instrument to assess individual child needs and outcomes in order to create/revise the child's annual plan of care. The Canadian province of Ontario is one exception to this, where the Assessment and Action Records have been adapted and fully implemented as an instrument for outcomes monitoring (Flynn, Ghazal, Legault, Vandermeulen, & Petrick, 2004). However, there is very little published information available about the use of the schedules as monitoring tools to collect data on whole groups of children (see, for example, Skuse, Macdonald, & Ward, 2001).

Key message: The Assessment and Action Records were originally designed as research instruments to gain more consistency in the evaluation of child outcomes and to identify where service improvements can be made and how to better allocate resources. However, the Assessment and Action Records are almost exclusively used as a best-practice instrument to assess individual child needs and outcomes in order to create/revise the child's annual plan of care.

The Looking After Children Outcomes Data Project

In Victoria, Looking After Children has been introduced as a practice tool to guide the routine assessment of the developmental needs of children in foster and residential care, and to stimulate provision of services and inputs in response to identified needs (see Champion & Burke, 2006). The overarching purpose of this project was to examine the potential for using the Assessment and Action Records as an outcomes assessment tool to produce better information and planning on children currently in care, and to feed into the development of aggregate data for management and policy purposes in the future. The services of the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) were engaged to develop an electronic database of all the items of information recorded on the Assessment and Action Records and to conduct analyses on a select item set.

The project analysed Assessment and Action Records that had been completed for children in the care of community service organisations since 1 July 2006 for children under 5 years of age, and since 1 January 2006 for children aged 5 years and above, provided the child had been in care for at least three months. Community service organisations were also asked to complete and attach a brief survey to each individual Assessment and Action Record, which provided important background information about the child and their placement in out-of-home care. Children were not identifiable in any of the information provided by community service organisations.

The researchers identified a pool of 29 Assessment and Action Record measures that would provide a good picture of the experiences and development of children across the age spectrum and each of the seven developmental domains.

Sample characteristics

The final sample comprised 614 children and young people across all eight Department of Human Services regions in Victoria. This represented approximately 56% of the children and young people for whom an Assessment and Action Record had been completed, and, drawing on Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2008) statistics, approximately one-eighth of all children and young people in out-of-home care in Victoria at 30 June 2007. Although the extent to which the current sample can be generalised to children from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander backgrounds and culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds is uncertain, the children concerned were reasonably representative of children in the out-of-home care population in relation to special health and education needs. Approximately one-quarter of the sample had an ongoing health condition, and more than one-half of children aged 3-17 years had either a developmental delay (3-4 years) or a learning difficulty (5-17 years). Further, approximately 40% of the total sample had either already seen a mental health professional or were on a waiting list. Children were accommodated in a mixture of home-based care, residential care and lead tenant arrangements, with home-based care being the predominant type, covering approximately 80% of children in the sample.

Findings from the analysis

The 29 Assessment and Action Record-based measures that were identified for analysis and reporting ranged across the seven developmental dimensions covered by the Assessment and Action Records. Five measures were drawn from items in the Health section; 3 measures from items in the Education section; 4 measures from items in the Identity section; 6 measures from items in the Family and Social Relationships section; 4 measures from items in the Social Presentation section; 5 measures from items in the Emotional and Behavioural Development section; and 2 measures from items in the Self-care section.

Three sets of analyses were performed for each measure. The first explored data on the sample as a whole; the second was to analyse findings across Assessment and Action Record outcomes measures at a regional level by care type (home-based, residential and lead tenant care), and by child gender and age; and the third type of analysis was to determine statistically which child and service factors were related to each Assessment and Action Record outcome.

There are a number of caveats on the conclusions that can be drawn from the current findings - relating to the generalisability of the sample and the validity and reliability of the Assessment and Action Record data. Despite these limitations, the research showed a number of positive outcomes for children, as well as many areas where the life experiences of children in care could be improved.

Key message: Analysis of the sample of Assessment and Action Record data indicated a number of positive results in relation to the developmental experiences of children in out-of-home care in Victoria. However, there were also many areas where the life experiences of children in care can be improved.

Health outcomes

Analysis of the total sample shows health objectives were met in 54.4% of cases (e.g., "The child/young person is normally well"). Some favourable findings included good health monitoring and a high proportion of very young children being fully immunised. Among children aged 10 years or more, 52% were classified as being at low risk for risky health behaviours (use of tobacco, illicit drugs and alcohol), although a relatively high proportion of children were classed as medium-risk (30.2%) and high-risk respectively (14.8%).

Education outcome

There were also good educational inputs for young children, such as book ownership and daily reading. However, education outcomes - measured by the attainment of education objectives - were poor across the age spectrum, especially for children aged 15 years and above and children in residential care. Although the data suggest that 42 children (7.14%) aged 10 years and above did not attend school, response rates were not high enough to reliably examine school absences, unscheduled school changes and assistance with homework for those children who were formally enrolled in school.

Identity outcomes

More than half of the identity objectives were met for just over half of the sample (55.0%). These aims included "The child/young person has a positive view of him/herself and his/her abilities", and "The child has knowledge of his/her family of origin".

In terms of identity development, life story books were being completed for 67% of children aged 0-14 years, and a considerably higher proportion in the case of very young children. There was also a relatively low frequency of teasing in the sample, although there was some variation on this measure in terms of age and placement type, with older children and children in residential care somewhat more likely to experience teasing. Finally, almost three-quarters of the sample could explain, or had been told, why they were in care. Unsurprisingly, scores on this measure increased across the age ranges and the older a child was, the more likely they were able to explain why they were in care.

Family and social relationships

A number of children were having difficulties in relation to their family and social relationships. There was also a clear trend for a decrease in the attainment of family and social relationships objectives for older children and children in residential and lead-tenant care. The mean number of carers that children had experienced in their lifetime was five, although there were several cases where this number was much higher. Moreover, approximately one-quarter of children did not have contact with any member of their birth family. There was also some suggestion in the data that remedial action may be necessary to increase children's contact with peers outside of the classroom, as only one-fifth (22%) of school-age children frequently saw their friends outside school. However, on measures of friendship and other sources of support, the results were more favourable. Almost three-quarters (72.9%) of the children had a special friend, and 68.5% were reported to have a supportive adult other than their carer/parent to whom they could turn in a crisis.

Social presentation outcomes

In slightly more than half (51.3%) of cases, all social presentation objectives were met. "Social presentation objectives" concern a child's appearance, behaviour and communication skills. There were significant age and gender differences observed on this measure - girls and children under three years of age were found to be more likely to meet all social presentation objects than other children. On measures of behaviour and communication, just a little more than half (55%) of children aged 5 years and above were able to appropriately adjust their behaviour and conversation in different social situations. In terms of access to suitable clothing, only 41.4% of the sample always had suitable clothes to wear. Finally, among children aged 10 years and above, 15.8% of carers felt the child did not appear well cared for.

Emotional and behavioural development outcomes

One or both of the emotional and behavioural functioning objectives, "The child is free of serious emotional and behavioural problems" and "The child is receiving effective treatment for all persistent problems", were met in approximately half (52.1%) of cases. However, there was a sharp fall in the attainment of one or both emotional and behavioural development objectives after the age of 2 years. Further, 21% of children aged 10 years and above had been cautioned or warned by the police, or charged with a criminal offence, within the last six months. Other findings suggest considerable variation in social relationships, concentration and behaviour, and anxiety aspects of emotional and behavioural functioning among children living in out-of-home care.

Self-care objectives

In relation to self-care skills, only one-third (35.6%) of the sample achieved the single objective for self-care, which was "The child/young person can function independently at a level appropriate to his/her age and ability".

Interpretation of findings and conclusions

Taken together, findings from the 29 Assessment and Action Record measures selected for analysis provide a detailed picture of the current sample of children in out-of-home care in Victoria and contribute to improving knowledge about the needs of children in out-of-home care for evaluation and planning purposes. There were a number of trends in the data that were consistent with other research findings. These included better outcomes for younger rather than older children, and for children in home-based care compared to residential care. For example, significantly better outcomes were observed for younger children in relation to immunisation status, risky health behaviour, illnesses/accidents, number of books has/owns, teased/picked on, number of main carers and life book being completed. Attainment of objectives across all seven health and wellbeing dimensions were also more likely for younger, rather than older children.

Key message: Findings from the Assessment and Action Record measures selected for analysis provide a detailed picture of the current sample of children in out-of-home care in Victoria and contribute to improving knowledge about the needs of children in out-of-home care for evaluation and planning purposes.

Children in residential care fared worse than children in home-based care in relation to immunisation status, risky health behaviour, attainment of education objectives, teased/picked on, attainment of family and social relationships objectives, number of main carers, relationships with others, anxiety and worries, and sees friends outside school. Children in residential/lead-tenant care were nine times more likely than children in home-based care to have been cautioned or warned by the police, or charged with a criminal offence, within the last six months. Children in home-based care were also approximately twelve times more likely to meet more than half the family and social relationships objectives than children in residential care. On balance, gender and regional location were relatively unimportant for the prediction of child progress.

There were also a number of lessons learned from the current project about how the reliability of the Assessment and Action Record data might be improved for outcomes monitoring purposes, including modifications to improve consistency in item content across the Assessment and Action Record formats and to enhance content validity. There is also the potential to include measures that are benchmarked to the general population, as well as to link Assessment and Action Record data to items from other Looking After Children forms in order to produce a more rounded understanding of the effectiveness of services and outcomes of placement in care. However, some further thought needs to be given to developing a sustainable means of assembling Assessment and Action Records from the regions in order not to overburden services and to ensure their ongoing commitment to the aggregation process.

Given the difficulty in collecting data on this population through other means (e.g., surveys), the potential to use Assessment and Action Record data collected through the course of everyday practice for a system of outcomes monitoring is a special opportunity that should be seized upon. What is now needed is commitment to establish an effective and truly collaborative system to collate, aggregate, analyse and disseminate Assessment and Action Record data as a vital scheme to assist out-of-home care services to function at their full potential. This should be undertaken in the true spirit of the Looking After Children approach, where responsibility for corporate parenting and children's futures is shared across the whole system.

Key message: Given the difficulty in collecting data on this population through other means (e.g., surveys), the potential to use Assessment and Action Record data collected through the course of everyday practice for a system of outcomes monitoring is a special opportunity that should be seized upon.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2002). Child protection Australia 2000-01 (Child Welfare Series No. 19; Cat. No. CWS 16). Canberra: Author.

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008). Child protection Australia 2006-07 (Child Welfare Series No. 43; Cat. No. CWS 31). Canberra: Author.

Bailey, S., Thoburn, J., & Wakeham, H. (2002). Using the "Looking After Children" dimensions to collect aggregate data on wellbeing. Child and Family Social Work, 7, 189-201.

Barber, J. G., & Delfabbro, P. H. (2004). Children in foster care. London: Taylor and Francis.

Brandon, M., Lewis, A., Thoburn, J., & Way, A. (1999). Safeguarding children with the Children Act 1989. London: HMSO.

Champion, R., & Burke, G. (2006). Implementing Looking After Children as a collaborative practice and policy framework in Victoria, Australia. In R. J. Flynn, P. M. Dudding, & J. G. Barber (Eds.), Promoting resilience in child welfare. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press.

Fernandez, E. (2006, August). Children's wellbeing in care: Evidence from a longitudinal examination of outcomes. Paper presented at the Association of Child Welfare Agencies Conference incorporating the 7th International Looking After Children Conference, "Positive futures: Achieving wellbeing for children and families", Sydney, NSW.

Flynn, R. J., Ghazal, H., Legault, L., Vandermeulen, G., & Petrick, S. (2004). Using general-population measures and norms to identify resilient outcomes among young people in care. Child and Family Social Work, 9, 65-79.

Parker, R., Ward, H., Jackson, S., Aldgate, J., & Wedge, P. (1991). Looking After Children: Assessing outcomes in child care. London: HMSO.

Sawyer, M. G., Carbone, J. A., Searle, A. K., & Robinson, P. (2007). The mental health and wellbeing of children and adolescents in home-based foster care. The Medical Journal of Australia, 186(4), 181-184.

Skuse, T., Macdonald, I., & Ward, H. (2001). Outcomes for Looked After Children: Third interim report to the Department of Health on Looking After Children. Transforming data into management information. Loughborough: Centre for Child and Family Research.

Thoburn, J., Norford, L., & Rashid, S. (2000). Permanent family placement for children of minority ethnic origin. London: Jessica Kingsley.

UK Department of Health. (1995). Looking After Children: Assessment and action records, essential information records, care plans, placement plans and review forms. London: HMSO.

Ward, H., & Skuse, T. (2002). Transforming data into management information, 1996-2001. Loughborough: Centre for Child and Family Research.

Wise, S. (2003). Using Looking After Children to create an Australian out of home care database. Children Australia, 28(2), 38-44.

At the time of writing, Sarah Wise was a Principal Research Fellow at the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Sarah is now General Manager, Research, Policy and Innovation at Anglicare Victoria.

Book review

Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice

Ron Haskins, Fred Wulczyn and Mary Bruce Webb (Eds). (2007). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Reviewed by Prue Holzer

The book Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice is a compilation of numerous authors' analyses of data derived from the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being (NSCAW). The survey is a longitudinal study of American children and families who have come to the attention of the child protection system and provides nationally representative longitudinal data based on first-hand reports from children, parents, and other caregivers, as well as reports from caseworkers, teachers, and data from administrative records. The study is designed to provide an evidence base to support service, program and policy planning (for further details, see www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/opre/abuse_neglect/nscaw/nscaw_overview.html#overview).

Comprising 14 chapters, this book considers a broad range of issues relevant to child protection practice. The chapters can be categorised as relating to three broad themes: (1) examining the problems and vulnerabilities that give rise to children and families having contact with the child protection system; (2) exploring the services and interventions provided to families who come into contact with the child protection system; and (3) analysing child outcomes following child protection intervention.

In Chapter 2, "Identifying Young Maltreated Children With Developmental Delays", Rosenberg, Smith, and Levinson report that 47% of the NSCAW sample of children less than 3 years of age possessed a developmental delay that would enable them to receive additional support services pursuant to US law. However, as few of these children had been identified as possessing a developmental delay (according to administrative records), the authors concluded that it was unlikely that they had been the recipients of such services. The authors stressed the need for improvements in the identification of children in the system with developmental delays in order that they are able to access much needed services. After all, children with disabilities and developmental delays demonstrate the most advantageous outcomes when they receive treatment early in life.

The authors of Chapter 3, "Intimate Partner Violence in the Child Welfare System", explain that there is relatively little empirical evidence of the extent to which families involved in the child protection system also experience intimate partner violence. However, in their analysis of the NSCAW data, Hazen, Connelly, Kelleher, Landsverk, and Barth found that approximately 45% of female caregivers in families involved in the child protection system had experienced partner violence in their lifetime, while nearly 30% of female caregivers had experienced partner violence in the past 12 months. The authors report that this figure was approximately twice the rate of the general population, and this was despite the fact that their assessment of intimate partner violence was limited to physical violence only (i.e., sexual and psychological violence were not included in their analysis). Intimate partner violence was correlated with major depression in the female caregiver. Children exposed to intimate partner violence experienced both externalising behaviour problems (e.g., inability to control temper, oppositional behaviour) and internalising behaviour problems (e.g., anxiety, fearfulness). Accordingly, the authors recommend the need for greater training of child protection staff in order that they are better able to recognise families in which there is intimate partner violence and refer such families to appropriate support services.

In Chapter 4, "Initial Construction of an Actuarial Risk Assessment Measure", Shlonsky describes the development of an actuarial risk assessment measure using NSCAW data. Focusing particularly on the ability of a risk assessment tool to determine when it is safe for a child to be left in his or her home rather than being placed into care, Shlonsky used one half of the NSCAW sample to build the desired risk assessment tool and the other half of the NSCAW sample to validate it. Although further testing and validation of Shlonsky's risk assessment tool is required, the early data reported in Chapter 4 are promising.

Chapter 5, "Building on Strengths", considers the utility of providing parent education as a child protection response. The authors of this chapter reviewed the evidence that exists with respect to parent education and behaviour training more generally. The authors conclude that there is considerable scope for supporting parents to make much needed changes by providing training and education in various parenting skill domains. In addition to NSCAW data, this chapter drew on data from the Caring for Children in Child Welfare (CCCW) study (a US study running as a companion to the NSCAW) to examine policies and practices pursuant to which parent education services are financed and implemented across the US. The authors found that, although approximately 90% of counties across the US stipulate that parent training is to be a part of case planning in the majority of cases, only about 40% of families actually received such training in the year following their referral to child protection and, even then, parent training was found to be delivered for only 15 hours or less (an amount, the authors argue, that is insufficient to effect change).

In the following chapter, Libby, Orton, Barth, and Burns consider the "Alcohol, Drug, and Mental Health Service Need for Caregivers and Children Involved with Child Welfare". The authors report that children with parents who possess mental health or substance abuse problems are at significantly greater risk of developing mental health problems themselves. On the basis of such findings, the authors argue that this subpopulation of parents would benefit from a variety of education and training interventions - firstly, services to address the mental health or substance abuse problem that they present with, and secondly, parenting education to enhance their parenting capacity. The topic of providing mental health services is again considered in Chapter 7, "Medicaid and Mental Health Care for Children in the Child Welfare System". Specifically, Chapter 7 addresses the way in which such services can be funded through the Medicaid/child welfare interface, and the influence of Medicaid policies on access to services for children in the child welfare system.

The theme of mental health and child protection is continued in Chapter 8. This chapter concerns "Systems Integration and Access to Mental Health Care". Based on their review of NSCAW data, Landsverk, Hurlburt, and Leslie conclude that as many as half of the children involved in the child welfare system have mental health problems that require treatment. Given the prevalence of mental health problems, the authors argue that children's mental health should be routinely assessed on admission, and that national guidelines should be developed concerning best practice in assessing children's mental health.

In Chapter 9, Wildfire, Barth and Green discuss "Predictors of Reunification". They explain that the "quest for permanency" begins once a child enters out-of-home care, whether permanency is sought by returning children to their home environment or by entering children into alternative living arrangements such as adoption. Reunification is, however, the most likely outcome of an out-of-home care placement. In this chapter, the authors consider the characteristics of children who are reunited with their biological families and how the actions of child welfare agencies and permanent caregivers influence the rate of reunification. The authors found that of the original NSCAW sample (N = 5,501), 1,568 had entered out-of-home care 18 months after coming into contact with the child protection system. A further 18 months after placement, approximately 30% of children who had entered out-of-home care had returned home. Given the influence previous studies have attributed to age as a predictor of reunification, the authors analysed the sample across six age groups. In short, the authors found that infants under the age of 7 months were the least likely to be reunified, while children older than 10 were the most likely. Some factors were significant for all age categories (e.g., history of family violence, placement type, etc.), while other factors were specific to age categories (e.g., frequency of contact with the mother was a significant predictor for children older than 10, but not for younger children). These findings led the authors to argue that child protection workers need to adopt strategies particular to a child's age when attempting reunification with a family.

Chapter 10 is also relevant to out-of-home care placements. This chapter concentrates on "Placement Stability and Early Behavioural Outcomes Among Children in Out-of-Home Care". A significant concern when children are placed in foster care is that of avoiding multiple placements and instability. Children who experience disruptions in care and multiple placements exhibit poorer outcomes than children who do not experience placement drift. The authors found that the mean number of placements for children in the National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being was 2.9 at 18 months after entering care. This figure increased to 3.2 by 36 months, with a range of 1-18 placements. Significantly, after three years in the study, 19% of children experienced more than 4 placements in foster care. Older children were more likely than younger children to have experienced placement instability (defined as a placement move within 18 months of entering out-of-home care), while placement stability over the first 18 months was a significant predictor of future stability in care. The authors also examined children's scores on a test of adaptive behaviour and found that children who scored in the normal range were more likely to achieve successful reunification or to achieve early stability in placement than were children who scored poorly on this measure. This suggests that children with behavioural problems experience greater difficulty obtaining stability in care than children without behavioural problems. In Chapter 11, Barth, Guo, Green, and McCrae examine the debate surrounding kinship care and non-kinship care (foster care). Specifically, the authors consider the ability of these placement types to provide a child with safety, permanency and wellbeing. In conducting their analysis, the authors employed a statistical technique that enabled them to partially control for selection bias by matching the characteristics of children in foster care (non-kinship care) with the characteristics of children in kinship care. In so doing, the authors found that differences observed between the groups when comparing the full sample were no longer present when using the matched pair technique (e.g., differences in the extent to which children in each care type improved in areas such as externalising behaviours). The authors note that this finding casts doubt on previous studies that have not employed such a statistical technique.

Kohl and Barth's analysis of the frequency of re-unification in Chapter 12, "Child Maltreatment Recurrence Among Children Remaining In-Home", provides ample evidence that children often remain at risk even after having been reported to child protection services. The authors found a high rate of re-reporting (nearly one-quarter of children reported to child protection services had been re-reported within 18 months). Several factors were found to be associated with a greater likelihood of re-reporting, including: age (younger children were more likely to be the subject of a re-report); the presence of family violence; prior involvement with the child protection system; and the presence of child behaviour problems. Kohl and Barth argue that these types of factors should be considered in the development of risk assessment tools. Further, these findings point to the need for sustained support services and parenting programs to address identified risk factors in the first instance.

In Chapter 13, Eckenrode, Izzo, and Smith consider "Physical Abuse and Adolescent Development", specifically the relationship between physical abuse and the occurrence of problem behaviours, psychosocial problems and academic functioning. The authors draw on reports of abuse from caseworkers, caregivers, and children. The authors noted that it was important to include a triangular approach to data collection as approximately one-third of physical abuse cases would have been missed had only one source of abuse reports been used. The authors found that as many as 40% of young people in the sample had been physically abused, and abuse was correlated with poor outcomes in each area under investigation (i.e., problem behaviours, psychosocial problems and academic functioning) even when controlling for children's gender, race/ethnicity, age, total family income, and the presence of other forms of maltreatment besides physical abuse. Eckenrode et al. found that children's own reports were the most highly correlated with adolescent outcomes compared to the reports of caseworkers and parents. This analysis demonstrates the importance of deriving data from multiple sources in order to ensure that accurate information is collected, and the importance of speaking with children to understand their experiences.

The final chapter by Webb, Frome, Harden, Baxter, Dowd, and Shin, is "Addressing the Educational Needs of Children in Child Welfare Services". The authors recognise that children in the child welfare system have a variety of special needs in relation to their academic functioning. Perinatal problems, maltreatment, and placement instability are just some of the factors that have been found to result in adverse developmental and academic outcomes. Many of the factors associated with poor educational achievement may exist prior to child protection involvement. However, policy developments have seen the prioritisation of holistic practice responses for children (i.e., taking into account a child's need for safety, but also for nurturance and an environment in which to thrive). Using two cognitive assessment techniques and two tests of socio-emotional behaviour (both of which were part of the NSCAW child assessment battery) the authors found that nearly 30% of the children in the sample met the study's criteria for needing special education services. However, less than 60% of these children received such services. These findings, together with the broader material contained in the book, point to a risk that the child protection system itself can neglect the needs of children and young people.

In summary, this book provides professionals in the child welfare sector with a wealth of information concerning many facets of child protection policy and practice, as well as a detailed examination of the antecedents and consequences of child abuse and neglect. The longitudinal study on which this book is based is unique and clearly provides authors with a comprehensive pool of data with which a variety of analyses can be performed. While researchers are able to access similar longitudinal child protection data through other studies (such as the five-site consortium LONGSCAN), the US National Survey of Child and Adolescent Well-Being can be distinguished due to its national longitudinal data set.

Some authors in Child Protection: Using Research to Improve Policy and Practice employed advanced statistical techniques in their analyses - the large, longitudinal and representative data collection allowed for this approach. However, the language used in the book remains accessible throughout, and the findings are relevant and applied. Although the data relate to US children and families, there are many similarities in the child protection systems of the US and Australia (e.g., mandatory reporting laws, state-based systems that investigate reports and make determinations about what to do if a child has been subjected to abuse or neglect, and a system of support services to help at risk and abusive families). The US child protection system also faces similar challenges as Australian systems; for example, a shortage of carers, limited prevention strategies, and difficulties attracting and retaining child protection staff. I would encourage professionals in the Australian child welfare sector to read this very stimulating book and consider the applicability of the discussions contained within it to policy and practice in an Australian context.

At the time of writing, Prue Holzer was a Senior Research Officer for the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies. Prue is now a Senior Analyst with the Productivity Commission.

Disclosing child abuse and neglect

A collection of books for children

Reviewed by Alister Lamont

In this article, Clearinghouse researcher Alister Lamont reviews five new children's books, recently added to the Institute's library collection, that aim to educate children about abuse and neglect and to assist children in disclosing abuse and neglect.

Children who have been abused or have witnessed abuse face enormous emotional challenges. Disclosing abuse to an adult is daunting and children may fear the repercussions of disclosure, such as not being believed or being blamed for their abuse. Children may also be grappling with conflicting emotions towards their perpetrator (Irenyi, 2007).

The Australian Institute of Family Studies library recently added five new children's books to its collection that aim to assist children in disclosing abuse and identifying inappropriate adult behaviour. The books are useful tools for educating children who have been abused or who are thought to have been the victim of abuse, and for increasing the awareness of all children regarding child abuse and neglect.

Research has shown that children's disclosures of abuse are rarely straightforward and are usually made indirectly. Children may hint that something is wrong or disclose abuse directly and then retract what they have said at a later date (Irenyi, 2007). For example, Sorensen and Snow (1991) found that 79% of disclosures of sexual abuse by children who had been the victims of confirmed instances of sexual abuse contained "denial or tentative features". This finding highlights that disclosure of abuse needs to be seen as a process rather than a one-off event (Sorensen & Snow, 1991).

For more information on responding to child disclosures, refer to the National Child Protection Clearinghouse's Practice Brief No. 2 (Irenyi, 2007).

Do You Have a Secret? by Jennifer Moore-Mallinos

The first book added to the collection, Do You Have a Secret? by Jennifer Moore-Mallinos, is designed to assist children in identifying what is a "good" secret to keep and what is a "bad" secret that should be shared with an adult. Complemented by lovely illustrations, the book provides examples of positive secrets, such as giving a friend a surprise party, playing hide-and-seek and sharing a secret handshake. Examples of bad secrets that should be shared with an adult include being punched or kicked at school and being touched "inappropriately" by an adult. The book concludes by determining that it is not OK to keep a bad secret and that telling a trusted grown up, such as a parent, is the right thing to do. Do You Have a Secret? reassures children that it is OK to tell an adult a secret that is hurtful or bad. However, the book could have been more explicit in describing "inappropriate" touching and could have provided more examples of bad secrets, such as parental violence.

Someone Hurt Me by Susan Cavaciuti

Inspired by the author's own experience of surviving trauma, Someone Hurt Me by Susan Cavaciuti features illustrations and an empathetic text designed to encourage abused children to address the emotional trauma brought about by abuse. The author herself describes the book as purely a "communication link to an abused child". The first half of the book encourages children to express different feelings that may arise when exposed to abuse by describing a common emotion with a short statement (e.g., "I feel angry - why did it happen to me?"). The second half of the book gives the reader hope by reassuring them that there are people who can help and they are not alone. The book contains clear messages and may be a helpful tool for carers and professionals who are working with abused children. A step-by-step guide on how to use the book effectively is provided at the end for parents and professionals working with abused children.

Inside Out: A Book About Me and My Feelings by Beth McNamara

Inside Out, illustrated by Ashley Wells, is the only Australian book of the five books added to the Institute's collection. Inside Out uses simple sketches with splashes of watercolour to convey troubled emotions. The sketches in the first half of the book are accompanied by a one-word emotion such as "sadness" or "loneliness". While the drawings have a childlike simplicity to them, the combination of the sketches being black and white with splashes of watercolour brings a complex and poignant feeling to the illustrations. The book offers feelings of hope in the second half by introducing positive images depicting "change", "relief" and "courage". In a similar way to Someone Hurt Me, the purpose of Inside Out seems to be to assist children in addressing the emotional turmoil that abuse brings. However, the text included in the book is very sparse and no connections are drawn between the different types of emotions in the book or between emotions and their causes. Therefore, adults may need to support children in using the book by providing further discussion and narrative in order to draw out its meaning.

Mia's Secret by Peter Ledwon and Marilyn Mets

In Mia's Secret, Mia and her teddy bear Tikki are regularly visited by a man who persuades her to play a special "secret game". Mia doesn't like the game and after several visits by the man she feels hurt and wonders when she can ever feel safe again. Mia had promised to keep the game a secret, yet when she realises that teddy Tikki had not promised to keep the secret, she is able to disclose the bad secret to her mum with her teddy's help. Tackling the confronting issue of child sexual abuse, the book succeeds in offering children reassurance that they too can disclose abuse. The book may also provide assistance by helping children identify dangerous situations. A criticism of the book is that it fails to identify who the perpetrator is. Research shows that child sexual abuse is most commonly perpetrated by a family member, family friend or someone known to the child, which can make disclosure more difficult for children (Conolly, 2003; Fergus & Keel, 2005). The book could have had greater impact had it addressed these complexities for children. However, overall the book encourages children not to keep "bad secrets", effectively explores the difficulties children face in disclosing abuse, and highlights how children need to feel safe in order to disclose.

I Don't Want to Go to Justin's House Anymore by Heather Klassen

The last book added to the library collection, I Don't Want to Go to Justin's House Anymore, is a story about the troubles a child can encounter when witnessing the abuse of a friend, and how difficult it can be to disclose such abuse to an adult. The story describes how a young boy attempts to communicate his concerns about going to his friend Justin's house because Justin's father physically and verbally abuses his son. The boy's mother dismisses his concerns as she interprets Justin's father's abuse as harmless yelling. However, once at Justin's home, the abuse reoccurs and this time the boy forces himself to call his mother to say he wants to go home early. After disclosing the extent of the abuse the boy witnesses in Justin's home, the story concludes with the boy's mother reassuring him that she will call "someone" to help Justin and his family. Featuring collaged illustrations, the book succeeds in demonstrating the difficulties children face in disclosing abuse (either witnessed or experienced) and it also demonstrates the difficulties parents face in recognising when a child is trying to disclose something important. It might have been helpful if the book had included advice for parents on what services they may contact if they are worried about a child. However, this may have been difficult due to differences in the services available to an international audience.

The five new children's books added to the Institute's library collection deal with difficult abuse issues. The books are likely to be of use to professionals who work with children, as well as school teachers and parents who would like to use such resources to open up discussion with children about these issues.

References

Cavaciuti, S. (2001). Someone hurt me. Bloomingdale: Enhancement Books.

Conolly, J. (2003). Silent victims: The families of sexually abused children. Paper presented at the Child Sexual Abuse: Justice Response or Alternative Resolution Conference convened by the Australian Institute of Criminology.

Fergus, L., & Keel, M. (2005). Adult victim/survivors of childhood sexual assault (ACCSA Wrap No. 1). Retrieved 22 January 2009, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/wrap/w1.html

Irenyi, M. (2007). Responding to children and young people's disclosures of abuse (NCPC Practice Brief No. 2). Retrieved 1 November 2007, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/brief/pb2/pb2.html

Klassen, H., & Jepson, B (Illus.). (1999). I don't want to go to Justin's anymore. Washington: Child and Family Press.

Ledwon, P., & Mets, M. (2006). Mia's secret. Toronto: Tundra Books.

Moore-Mallinos, J., & Fabrega, M. (Illus.). (2005). Do you have a secret? New York: Barron's Educational Series.

Sorensen, T., & Snow, B. (1991). How children tell: The process of disclosure in child sexual abuse. Child Welfare, 70, 3-15.

Wells, A. (2007). Inside out: A book about me and my feelings. Rooty Hill: Rosie's Place Publications.

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

Clearinghouse activities

National Child Protection Week Events

Launch

The Clearinghouse was excited to participate in a range of activities during National Child Protection Week, 7-13 September 2008. The National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect's (NAPCAN's) theme for National Child Protection Week in 2008 was "Children See, Children Do".

The Clearinghouse attended the Victorian launch of National Child Protection Week at Federation Square. It was a terrific occasion for people in the sector to celebrate the work performed for children and families throughout the year. The Clearinghouse congratulates the recipients of the Robin Clark Memorial Awards.

Fact sheet

In collaboration with NAPCAN, the Clearinghouse developed a fact sheet for National Child Protection Week, which provides an overview of child protection in Australia. The fact sheet defines child abuse and neglect, documents the extent of statutory child protection activity in Australia, and outlines steps that organisations and individuals can take to prevent child maltreatment. The fact sheet can be downloaded from the Clearinghouse website and the NAPCAN website (www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/fs1/fs1.html).

Seminar

To celebrate National Child Protection Week, the Australian Institute of Family Studies hosted a seminar presented by Professor Dorothy Scott, Director of the Australian Centre for Child Protection at the University of South Australia. Dorothy's presentation "Think Child, Think Family, Think Community: Building the Capacity of Adult Services to Respond to the Needs of Vulnerable Children", addressed major challenges in protecting children from abuse and neglect and explored new opportunities for building capacity in adult-focused services so that they can see, hear and respond to the needs of vulnerable children in the families they serve. Dorothy stressed that in the light of the draft National Child Protection Framework, there is a window of opportunity to pursue new strategies in working with children and families. Professor Scott delivered an overview of the Think Family initiative released by the UK Social Exclusion Taskforce. She identified exemplars of family-centred approaches in Australia and explored the potential for these practices and service principles to be applied in other settings. Professor Scott's article, "Think Child, Think Family: How Adult Specialist Services can Support Children at Risk of Abuse and Neglect", which is based on her National Child Protection Week seminar, will appear in the next issue of the Australian Institute of Family Studies flagship journal Family Matters (www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fammats.html). Dorothy's PowerPoint presentation and the audio from her seminar are available to download from the Institute's website (www.aifs.gov.au/institute/seminars/seminarpapers.html#scott).

Clearinghouse presentation to staff and guests of the Department of Human Services

During National Child Protection Week, Clearinghouse researcher Prue Holzer travelled to Ballarat to give a presentation to staff and guests of the Department of Human Services. Prue's presentation, "Research Use in Child Protection: What Does the Evidence Tell Us and to What Extent Are We Drawing Upon It?", examined the effectiveness of child abuse prevention programs (including, for example, personal safety programs, parent education programs, etc.) and the extent to which Australian child and family welfare practitioners are drawing on research to inform their work. Prue's presentation was based on existing Clearinghouse research, including:

Prue's presentation is available to download from the Clearinghouse website (www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/presentations.html).

Clearinghouse attendance at the National Foster Care Conference in Sydney

The National Foster Care Conference 2008, "Better Outcomes", was held in Sydney, New South Wales, 31 October to 2 November 2008. Clearinghouse researcher Claire Berlyn was fortunate to attend the conference and present a paper entitled "Stability in Long-Term Out-of-Home Care Arrangements". The aim of Claire's paper was to take an evidence-informed approach to sensitise professionals to issues surrounding stability for children and young people in long-term out-of-home care arrangements. Claire defined "stability" as the connection to a primary caregiver, family, school and friends, community and culture, and argued that stability, continuity and a measure of predictability in daily life, make children feel safe. Stable and caring relationships promote a sense of belonging and self-esteem in children. An absence of major change and upheaval facilitates connection to school, peers, community and culture. Claire considered the different theoretical approaches that influence our understanding of stability and provided an overview of research related to children's outcomes when there is placement instability. Claire concluded her presentation with tips and issues to consider in assisting children in care to achieve better stability. Claire's presentation can be downloaded from the Clearinghouse website (www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/presentations.html).

Corporal punishment seminar co-hosted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the National Child Protection Clearinghouse

On 11 December 2008, Associate Professor Judy Cashmore gave a seminar presentation entitled "Corporal Punishment of Children: Reforming the Law. The Whys and the Wherefores?" Judy holds a PhD in developmental psychology and a Masters degree in education. She is currently Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Sydney, as well as Honorary Research Associate, Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales, and Adjunct Professor at Southern Cross University. In this seminar, Judy discussed the way in which hitting children as a means of punishment is a complex, emotive and contentious issue. Judy provided an overview of research literature on the views of children and adults on the use of physical punishment. Judy emphasised that, while we have some idea of people's views of physical punishment, we have little information regarding the extent to which Australian parents actually use physical punishment as a means of disciplining children. However, research does indicate that parents who have used physical punishment would prefer not to have done so. Judy's presentation also considered the legal terrain in relation to physical punishment of children. She explained that an increasing number of countries, including our nearest neighbour New Zealand, have abolished the defence of reasonable chastisement. In so doing, Judy considered what Australia could learn from the New Zealand experience and that of other countries. Importantly, Judy stressed that legal reform in this area would need to be accompanied by public education to equip parents with additional disciplinary strategies, such as saying "no" to hitting is not the same as saying "no" to discipline.

At the conclusion of Judy's presentation, two further speakers considered the issue of physical punishment. Dr Bernadette Saunders (lecturer, Monash University) discussed children's views of physical punishment. Bernadette's presentation was based on her PhD research, which focused on legally sanctioned physical punishment of children, children's rights, and the intergenerational transmission of family violence. Bernadette drew on the direct quotes of children to illustrate their thoughts and views on this issue.

Ms Diana Smart (General Manager, Research, Australian Institute of Family Studies) concluded the seminar with a discussion of the prevalence of physical punishment and harsh parenting in two longitudinal research projects: (1) Growing Up in Australia: the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children; and (2) the Australian Temperament Project.

Audio and slides of the above presentations can be downloaded from the Institute website (www.aifs.gov.au/institute/seminars/seminars2008.html).