- Home |
- About Us |
- Contact Us |
- Site Map |
vol. 16 no. 1, 2008
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 (667 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
In October 2007, several hundred practitioners and policy professionals from government and non-government agencies, as well as students and researchers gathered on the Gold Coast for the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect (ACCAN). A strong theme that emerged from the conference - especially the keynote addresses - was the critical challenges emerging in child protection as a result of system overload. This was brought home most strongly when, in response to a question, Professor Dorothy Scott (Director, Australian Centre for Child Protection) drew a parallel between the experience of out-of-home care for some children and admitting a child into a "dirty hospital". She argued that you would only admit a child to the "dirty hospital" if they were so seriously ill that they would die without treatment. Over the past several months we have seen several high-profile tragedies taking place in child protection across Australia.
What is emerging is a groundswell of concern from governments and opinion leaders suggesting that child welfare systems having to manage ever-increasing reports and substantiations are unsustainable - perhaps even dangerous (Scott, 2006). In 2006-07, there were 309,517 notifications to child protection services in Australia, 58,563 of which were substantiated (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2008). It is likely that, without support for their families, many of the children who were the subject of those reports would experience poor outcomes. However, the fact that the majority of reports are not substantiated means that in most cases the state does not need to coercively intervene to protect children in vulnerable families (Bromfield, Holzer, & Penhaligon, 2007). It is worth questioning why most people make a report to child protection: is it because they think the state needs to coercively intervene to protect the child, or are they seeing child protection as a central referral point and gateway to services for vulnerable children and families?
It is important for the sustainability of the child welfare sector and ultimately for the wellbeing of children and families that governments and senior policy professionals heed the messages regarding the need for change within welfare services. However, after hearing some of the responses to these messages at the ACCAN conference on the Gold Coast, I started wondering what impact hearing these messages has on child protection practitioners at the coalface. How do we maintain morale and the level of commitment being demonstrated by the many service providers doing the best they can within the current system? In highlighting the lack of sustainability within the current system do we inadvertently deny practitioners the right to celebrate the many good outcomes?
In addition to cautions about the current state of "the system", presentations at the ACCAN conference also held messages of hope, which highlighted the power of the individual to make a positive difference.
For example, Professor Scott's keynote address included an important theme about practice - the issue of therapeutic relationships. Professor Scott presented research by Lambert (1992) regarding the relative contribution of different factors in psychotherapy outcomes, which showed that the therapeutic relationship contributed to 30% of change, compared with only 15% for the specific intervention technique. This finding can be applied to child protection services and suggests that the relationship between statutory child protection workers and families may have a greater impact on children's outcomes than the structure of the service system. Others at the conference also highlighted the importance of relationships. Casey (a young care leaver), who assisted Julie McCrossin as MC for the conference, talked about the difference one person made for her as a young person growing up in care. Teresa Scott and Jenny Osmond suggested that, in a risk-averse environment, professionals were less likely to work positively and engage with cultural strengths. Fiona Arney, who presented a program evaluation, reported that, according to parents, the characteristics of the staff were what made the program successful. In a keynote address, Marie Connelly (Chief Social Worker, Child, Youth and Family, New Zealand) noted that, due to the proceduralised nature of child protection, staff had limited autonomy; however, she argued that they still had a large degree of autonomy about their relationships with families and how to engage them.
There were two equally important messages to take from the ACCAN conference: there is a need for top-down change in the structure of child welfare services within Australia; however, there is also a need to encourage and acknowledge the difference individual practitioners can make from the ground up through relationships based on "empathy, respect, genuineness, and optimism" (Scott, 2007). In highlighting the need for systemic change, we need to be careful not to diminish the impact that can be made by the individual.
I hope you enjoy this edition of our Newsletter, which comes out to you along with a new Issues paper written by Australian researcher Professor Sharon Dawe. The Issues paper explores the principles of good practice for working with families in which parents have a substance abuse problem. The Issues paper ties in nicely with the discussion I have presented here regarding the need to acknowledge and recognise the importance of relationships in working with vulnerable children and families.
The Newsletter itself includes new data on child protection activity in Australia from the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; book reviews; information about the Family Inclusion Network; a reflection on the publication Remember Me, which commemorates the 10th anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report; and highlights from several conferences and forums, including a family violence, Indigenous research and foster care training forum. Happy reading!
Dr Leah Bromfield
Manager, National Child Protection Clearinghouse
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008). Child protection Australia 2006-07. Canberra: Author.
Bromfield, L. M., Holzer, P. J., & Penhaligon, D. (2007). International approaches to child protection: How is Australia positioned? Paper presented at the A National Child Protection Week forum jointly hosted by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and the Australian Institute of Family Studies, Canberra. Retrieved 5 March 2008, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/diary.html
Lambert, M. J. (1992). Psychotherapy outcome research: Implications for integrative and eclectical therapists. In J. C. Norcross & M. R. Goldfried (Eds.), Handbook of psychotherapy integration (pp. 94-129). New York: Basic Books.
Scott, D. (2006). Towards a public health model of child protection in Australia. Communities, Children and Families Australia, 1(1), 9-16.
Scott, D. (2007). Child protection: Finding the way forward. Paper presented at the Eleventh Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect, Brisbane. Retrieved 5 March 2008, from http://www.ccm.com.au/accan/content/papers/01DorothyScott.pdf
"The number of children requiring protections continued to rise in 2006-07"
In Australia, child protection is a state and territory government responsibility, and child safety and wellbeing issues are increasingly being recognised by governments as a core policy area. Community awareness of child protection issues has also been increasing, particularly in light of a number of inquiries into child protection services that have generated media and public interest in this area.
Child Protection Australia is published annually by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) to inform both governments and the community on the activity of departments responsible for child protection across Australia. This article summarises key findings from the latest report in the series, Child Protection Australia 2006-07.
Although there are differences between states and territories that affect the comparability of child protection data, the main stages of the process are broadly similar across jurisdictions.
Incidents or suspected cases of child abuse and neglect are usually reported to government departments. Reports most frequently come from health or welfare professionals, teachers or the police (who, in some jurisdictions, are mandated to report such matters).
Reports of suspected abuse or neglect can lead to the matter being dealt with as a family support issue (whereupon services or information will be provided) or as a child protection notification. Departments then determine if a notification requires an investigation or is better dealt with by other means, such as referral to other organisations or family support services. If an investigation is carried out, the outcome can be a substantiation, meaning that the investigating authority concludes that the child has been, is being or is likely to be abused, neglected or otherwise harmed. Substantiations can (but do not always) lead to a child being placed on a care and protection order and/or in out-of-home care. In some jurisdictions, children can also be placed on a care and protection order or in out-of-home care for other reasons, such as when the parent(s) are unable to care for a child due to illness, disability, incarceration or death.
Over the last few years, what is defined as child abuse or neglect has widened in some jurisdictions (e.g., in Tasmania, legislation defining "a child in need of protection" was amended in 2004 to include children affected by domestic violence). Broader definitions of what legally constitutes "a child in need of protection" may have led to an increase in notifications, investigations and substantiations. A rise in the number of children requiring protection, a greater community awareness of child abuse and neglect issues, and changes in child protection policies and practices may also be contributing factors to such increases.
On the other hand, many jurisdictions have introduced alternative responses (e.g. family support services) for the less serious incidents, which assist in containing the rise in the number of notifications, investigations and substantiations.
With the many differences in the way each state or territory handles and reports child protection issues, one must interpret relevant statistical information with caution. But, on balance, the evidence in Child Protection Australia 2006-07 suggests that, nationally, substantiations and the number and rates of children under care and protection orders and children in out-of-home care are rising. Despite data limitations, the available evidence shows very clearly that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are over-represented in all of these areas.
As noted above, the numbers of notifications of child abuse or neglect, and subsequent investigations and substantiations, are on the rise in Australia.
The number of children under care and protection orders continues to rise nationally. However, there are substantial differences between the states and territories.
The number of children in out-of-home care at 30 June has risen each year over the last 11 years.
In the future, it is hoped that new developments in the data, such as the ability to determine the pathways of children through child protection services, will enable the Child Protection Australia series to contain even more information of both policy and public interest.
Child Protection Australia 2006-07 was released on 23 January 2008 and is available as a free download from the AIHW website: www.aihw.gov.au
Child Protection Australia is prepared by the Children, Youth and Families Unit at the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. For more information about the report or the child protection data, contact Cynthia Kim, Head of the Children, Youth and Families Unit at the AIHW (02 6244 1213).
Professionals in the child protection and domestic violence fields agree there is an urgent need to respond to, and minimise, the negative impacts of domestic violence on children. In order to protect children from domestic violence - that is violence between partners - it is essential that services across the welfare spectrum work together to address these issues in a coordinated and collaborative way.
With this goal in mind, the Victorian Government Department of Human Services, supported by the Department for Victorian Communities and the Domestic Violence and Incest Resource Centre presented the Integrated Family Violence Services practice forum.
The forum brought together experts from the child and family welfare sector, including domestic violence and child protection services staff, policy and government workers, and professionals working in the legal sector, to discuss critical issues and develop new directions and ways of working together to minimise the prevalence and impact of domestic violence on children and young people. As a sign of hope regarding awareness within the sector of domestic violence and the need to work together to better support families, the forum was attended by more than 700 participants.
The forum commenced with Joy Murphy Wandin, an Aboriginal Elder of the Wurundjeri people, conducting a Welcome to Country ceremony. Joy was followed by the Hon. Lisa Neville, MP, Minister for Children, Victoria, who officially opened the forum. The Hon. Jacinta Allen, MP, Minister for Women's Affairs, Victoria, closed the day's events.
The forum featured a number of keynote speakers, including:
The keynote speakers resoundingly reinforced the urgent need to develop effective strategies to protect children from the damaging and often long-term impacts of domestic violence, and highlighted the importance of perpetrators, who are mostly men, taking responsibility and being held accountable for their own violence.
Cathy Humphries cited statistics showing that, although domestic violence is perpetrated by both men and women, women are the victims in the vast majority of cases, and are significantly more likely to suffer serious injury and be subject to more incidents of violence than men.
Robyn Miller and Julie Boffa highlighted the need for men to be held accountable for their behaviour by services such as child protection and the court system, and for men to take responsibility for their behaviour rather than women being held accountable for ensuring children are not placed at risk of exposure to domestic violence.
Mark Glasson and Arina Aonia discussed the findings of their research project that reviewed procedures in the domestic violence, child protection and legislative fields to assess the safety of women who reported being victims of domestic violence, service responses to domestic violence reports, and the accountability of these responses. The presenters also interviewed staff who were considered to be doing their jobs well and who adhered to the policies and procedures of their organisation. The purpose of interviewing these staff members was to determine whether, based on the experience of these workers, their practice enhanced the safety of women who were victims of domestic violence. The researchers found that workers did not have the autonomy to choose how to intervene with families. Instead, clients were "fitted" into processes that aligned with the role and services for which the organisation was funded. The administrative processes prescribed ways of thinking about practice in child protection and law enforcement.
Following presentations from each keynote speaker, six concurrent workshops, facilitated by an expert panel, were held on topics including:
A summary is presented below of the views put forward by the panel speakers in the child protection and family violence workshop.
Shane Wilson (Child Protection Domain Manager, Intake, Investigation Community Partnerships, North and West Region) talked about changes to child welfare reform in Victoria, in particular the Children, Youth and Families Act 2005, which was implemented on 21 April 2007. A significant change is that the new legislation permits notifications to be made on unborn infants, rather than waiting until the birth of the child. The capacity for services to work with families to address issues prior to the child's birth allows for preventative and proactive interventions, such as linking parents to anger management and assessment services before the newborn arrives. Previously, a notification could not be made until the child was born and this sometimes led to child protection workers attending the hospital to discuss protection concerns with mothers upon the delivery of their baby.
Another significant legislative change is a three-week Temporary Assessment Order (TAO) that can be issued when a family refuses to work with professionals to address family violence issues. The new act also allows police to apply for an Intervention Order on behalf of a child. This legal innovation reduces the pressure on mothers to take responsibility for their partner's violence by having to take out an Intervention Order against them, and instead makes fathers accountable for their own violent behaviour. Child protection professionals are also having an increased presence in Family Court proceedings, either by responding to requests by court staff or family members to attend hearings, or by attending on their own initiative, which allows child protection professionals to have input into Family Court proceedings to ensure the safety of children in violent households.
Shane highlighted differences in perceptions of risk between services relating to domestic violence issues. For example, child protection sees the separation of a couple as a de-escalation of risk because one of the parents will leave the family home, thereby reducing the children's exposure to violence; whereas police see separation as an escalation of risk because most women are at increased risk during separation due to reprisals from their violent partners for leaving the relationship. A major problem for parents and professionals is how to mitigate risk for children when a couple separates. After separation, men are often given unsupervised access with their children, which makes ensuring their safety difficult. Shane pointed out that it is hard to be both a bad (i.e., violent) partner and good dad, because the father's violence toward the child's mother also has a negative effect on the children. However, he sees this dichotomy as a trap the child protection system has fallen into - assuming that the father's violence can be separated out from the broader family dynamics - and argues that this approach undermines the mother. He points out that fathers often have a sense of over-entitlement and an egocentric attitude toward their abusing behaviour, using excuses such as "she made me" act in a violent manner.
Noel Macnamara (Manager, Child and Family Services, Hume Region) spoke about the shifting emphasis in child protection and domestic violence services from family relationships to the impact of domestic violence on children. Noel also reiterated the importance of holding men accountable for their violent behaviour, arguing that, traditionally, men have been seen as playing an insignificant role in child welfare, and mothers have been the focus of intervention in most circumstances. Mothers with violent partners have, at times, been placed by authorities in the untenable positions of monitoring their children's contact with their fathers and protecting them from harm. Mothers therefore have often been blamed for family problems, while men remain invisible. One of the explanations for the misplacement of accountability, Noel believes, is that child protection workers may be reluctant to engage fathers because the system is often staffed by inexperienced female workers who may feel threatened by violent men or find the men unwilling to engage with workers. Workers then often try to engage the mother in intervention strategies to manage the father's behaviour, for example, by encouraging the mother to persuade him to attend anger management classes. Noel stated there had been a failure of the system to hold men accountable, responsible and visible at every stage in the child protection process.
However, with the focus shifting to ensuring the safety of children, there is an opportunity to look across disciplines for solutions by bringing together services to address the complex problems these families face, such as mental health issues, housing and marginalisation. Further, Noel argued that we need to understand the child's experiences, or the "child's view", and consider the cumulative impact of harm to children in a home characterised by family violence.
Karen Sutherland (Manager, Child Protection Gippsland Region) talked about the effects on children of exposure to various forms and degrees of family violence, in terms of cognitive, behavioural and emotional problems. How children react to domestic violence can place them at risk, particularly in relation to physical violence. For example, whether they respond to domestic violence by intervening, distracting the offender, or distancing themselves from the violence will determine the degree to which they may place themselves at risk. Children exposed to domestic violence are also vulnerable to using physical and verbal aggression themselves, and there is an increased risk they will become perpetrators of physical or sexual abuse when they are adults. Children also have a tendency to blame themselves when conflict involves them, such as when parents argue about the child.
Factors that protect children include professionals establishing safety by: identifying which parent is the offending and non-offending parent; engaging the non-offending parent in a constructive, non-blaming way; being mindful of the impact of violence and trauma on the mother; and clarifying issues of responsibility for the violence. For the mother, they need to assess her capacity to protect while not blaming her, and for the father, they need to assess his capacity to take responsibility for his violence while also including him in a safety plan.
Professionals could also gather information such as the nature of the violence, the history and pattern of the violence, and the nature of the child's relationships with others, such as teachers and peers at school, extended family and significant others. Important assessment questions include: Does the non-offending parent have the capacity to ensure the safety of the children? Do they understand the impacts of family violence on children? Do they have a history of acting protectively? What enabled them to act protectively and what got in the way?
Child protection workers need to consider the complexity of the relationships between the offending and non-offending parent, which is often characterised by love as well as violence. There is also the need to assess the child and determine what the child's experience has been, the meaning of the experience for them, how they understand the experience of violence and how the child has responded to the violence. Finally, an assessment of the offender is central to any work to understand and minimise domestic violence. A challenge for child protection services is to train workers about victims, children, how the offender works and operates, and how to engage them in treatment, as well as encouraging the offender to take responsibility for their behaviour.
Kylie Laidlaw (DHS Project Officer, In Home Support for Aboriginal Families) talked about Indigenous children and an approach to working with Aboriginal families. Kylie drew three overlapping circles to indicate the nexus at which child protection work can protect Indigenous families. One circle encompassed new legal practice in responses to changes in the Act, the second circle comprised local Aboriginal knowledge, and the third circle incorporated the broader service system. The circles can support good practice as follows.
Kylie advised that good practice starts at intake, by identifying Aboriginal children and then advising the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA) and consulting with them regarding case planning directions. Culturally competent child protection responses include Aboriginal family decision-making; and if a protective or intervention order is taken out, statutory services working with Lakidjeka to ensure the child/ren's safety. This would also include Aboriginal family decision-making, working in accordance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle and developing a cultural support plan for the child. Kylie highlighted the importance of non-Indigenous workers receiving generalist training about working with Indigenous families at the Child Protection Services' Beginning Practice training for new workers, as well as more specific Cultural Respect training.
Kylie advised that each Aboriginal organisation has its own way of working, based on their own cultural stories, knowledge and connection with land. Further, Aboriginal people place more emphasis on family ties and on extended family and community connections, and there are expectations attached to those obligations that need to be considered when working with Indigenous families.
Another important consideration when working with Indigenous families is having an understanding of the widespread impact of the past welfare practice of removing children from their families, referred to as the Stolen Generations. One in 5 families were directly affected by removal policies, and others argue that every Aboriginal family has been affected to some degree by this policy. This has led to Aboriginal people experiencing fear and trauma in response to child protection issues, and having negative responses to contemporary child protection processes. While Kylie pointed out that basing current attitudes on past welfare practices is not always reasonable, they nevertheless often lead to low engagement with child protection services out of fear for what will happen. For many Aboriginal people, the fear of welfare intervention is greater than living in a violent relationship.
Kylie provided some useful good practice tips for professionals when working with Indigenous families:
Kylie advised that the best way of working with Indigenous families is by fully utilising Aboriginal workers in the service sector. She said that people know what Indigenous services are available, and the Indigenous personnel who are available in non-Indigenous services. Kylie believes that having Indigenous positions in mainstream services for discrete developmental stages of the child, as well as for specific issues, would enhance outcomes for children.
The workshop provided a valuable opportunity for participants to broaden their understanding of the complex nature of the impact of domestic violence on family members. The range of presenters and workshops gave participants the opportunity to gain deeper insights into how they can work in more holistic ways to protect children from the harmful effects of domestic violence. By sharing knowledge and skills, practitioners from both sectors can work together to strengthen families and enhance outcomes for children who are affected by domestic violence.
At the time of writing, Dr Jenny Higgins was a Research Officer at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
National Child Protection Week, which occurs in the first week of September each year, is an important annual event for the child welfare sector.
National Child Protection Week 2007 took place a few months after the publication of the Northern Territory Government's Little Children are Sacred report, and amid a heightened community awareness about child abuse and neglect. NAPCAN estimates that there were approximately 6,000 community events and activities held around the country, with a significant percentage concentrating on community education. Organisers of community events reported significant outcomes achieved through the events in terms of increased public awareness of and education about child abuse and neglect, and of the promotion of the idea of a child-friendly community and community responsibility. Major events included the National Launch in Darwin, state and territory launches, Bravehearts' White Balloon Day (Break the Silence About Child Sexual Abuse), the inaugural Stomp It Carnival, (Stand Up and Stomp Out Child Abuse), and the launch of the 2008 Child Friendly Challenge: Make Your Street Child Friendly, at the annual Fatherhood Festival (Pete Kennedy, NAPCAN Communications Manager, 2008, 17 January, personal communication).
Events attended by National Child Protection Clearinghouse staff include: the Victorian Launch of National Child Protection Week; a Celebrating Good Practice forum; and a seminar co-hosted by the Australian Institute of Family Studies and the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare in Canberra.
Staff attended the Victorian Government state launch of National Child Protection Week and the Robin Clark Memorial Award ceremony and lecture. Clearinghouse staff were pleased to be part of an event that celebrates the contributions made by professionals in the sector. We were delighted to recognise the efforts of award winners in the "Making a difference with children, young people, and families" and "Inspirational leadership in the field" categories.
Lisa Abbott, Senior Case Manager, Youth Justice, Southern Metropolitan Region, Department of Human Services (DHS). Lisa was awarded for her exceptional client-focused case management in the lives of young people on Youth Justice orders. Lisa is also a member of the delivery team for CREATE, which provides support services to high-risk young people residing in care.
Joy Stewart, Manager, Cullity Unit (Young Women's Unit), Parkville Youth Residential Centre, DHS. Joy has served the Victorian Youth Justice system for 20 years, primarily working with young female offenders aged from 12 to 21 years.
Walda Blow, Manager of Margaret Tucker Hostel for Girls. Walda was highly commended in this category for her contribution in managing the Margaret Tucker Hostel over the past 15 years.
Mick Naughton, Manager, Family Services, Children, Youth and Families, DHS. Mick is credited as an architect of major reform in Victoria's child and family services sector. Mick has led several groundbreaking improvements focused on early intervention. In 2007, Mick's sustained effort over several years culminated in a number of achievements, including the establishment of the first Child and Family Information, Referral and Support Teams (Child FIRST); and the development of a best interests case practice model.
Paul Linossier, CEO, MacKillop Family Services. As CEO of MacKillop Family Services, Paul has overseen a complex time of change. He also takes a leadership role in several influential groups, including on the Board of the Victorian Council of Social Service and at the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare.
Clearinghouse staff also attended the Victorian Government's Office for Children Celebrating Good Practice forum. Dr Leah Bromfield (Manager, National Child Protection Clearinghouse) spoke at the forum, launching the Cumulative Harm Specialist Practice Guide with Robyn Miller (Senior Practitioner, Office for Children); both Leah and Robyn are authors of the Practice Guide.
The Australian Institute of Family Studies co-hosted a forum in Canberra with the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare to recognise National Child Protection Week. The forum was supported by NAPCAN ACT. Dr Leah Bromfield (NCPC), Prue Holzer (NCPC) and Diedre Penhaligon (AIHW) presented a paper titled "International approaches to child protection: How is Australia positioned?" (available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/diary).
Acknowledgments: Thanks to Pete Kennedy (Communications Manager at NAPCAN).
Prue Holzer is a Senior Research Officer with the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
In July 2007, the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare hosted a forum to develop carer recruitment strategies involving all foster care services across Victoria. Forum attendees included staff from the Victorian Department of Human Services' placement and support units, as well as representatives from non-government placement agencies throughout the state. The forum included presentations and workshops in relation to carer recruitment. In this article, the findings from two of the papers presented at the forum are discussed:
The Centre has developed the Foster Care Communication and Recruitment Strategy to strengthen their approach to carer recruitment and retention, and redress the shortage of foster carers across Victoria. As part of the strategy, consultants from SuccessWorks were engaged by the Centre to undertake preliminary research into the current status of foster care in Victoria, including factors affecting the placement of children, and incentives and deterrents to wanting to become or remain a foster carer. SuccessWorks director Dr Tricia Szirom and colleague John McDougall gave a presentation on their findings titled "Foster Care Communication and Recruitment Strategy". Some of Tricia and John's findings include the following.
SuccessWorks consultants will also work closely with sector staff over the next year to implement the Best Practice Engagement Project (see below), which is a strategy for trialling and implementing effective ways of recruiting new carers. They will also develop new promotional materials in order to achieve their aim of enhancing carer recruitment and retention. For more information about SuccessWorks go to: www.success-works.com.au
A significant initiative of the recruitment strategy will be to implement the Best Practice Engagement Project (BPEP). The Best Practice Engagement Project is a 12-month project involving ongoing collaboration and communication between foster care services in Victoria to identify and test potentially good practice ideas in foster care recruitment and retention. The process is facilitated at both statewide and local levels, with regional areas forming teams comprising key members from local foster care agencies and departments, who will meet on a regular basis to suggest practice ideas that can then be tested in the field. Statewide and regional forums will be held on a regular basis to enable teams to share information with each other about their own practice innovations.
The Best Practice Engagement Project's strategy is based on a method for achieving systems change initiated by health care and child welfare organisations in the US, known as the Breakthrough Series Collaborative. The Breakthrough Series Collaborative works on the principle of rapidly testing ideas, strategies and tools on a small scale in pilot sites, then sharing learnings from the tests with other teams using a dedicated Internet site, phone conferences and meetings. The most successful tools and strategies are then introduced into other regions. Ideally, the Breakthrough Series Collaborative leads to broad-ranging and sustainable practice improvements.
A pioneer of the Breakthrough Series Collaborative in the family welfare field is Casey Family Programs, whose head office is located in Seattle, Washington. Casey Family Programs have implemented a range of innovations in the sector using the Breakthrough Series Collaborative approach. Innovations are implemented from the ground up by staff who do the day-to-day work. This approach, which leads to small increments of change, differs from the systemic change necessary for bureaucratic structures.
Over the 18 months it can take to complete a project, participants attend three learning sessions - two-day meetings where teams from all regions or jurisdictions come together to exchange ideas and plan small-scale tests of change to be implemented throughout their region. Teams are persuaded to only plan tasks that can easily be accomplished in a short timeframe, and encapsulate this idea with the slogan, "What can you do by next Tuesday?"
Facilitators from the service lead the teams, while faculty members mentor and guide them throughout the planning and testing of ideas for practice improvements, and the implementation of the most successful strategies. The teams test small-scale change through a "Plan, Do, Study, Act" cycle. This cycle provides a model for implementing and testing small-scale ideas for practice improvement in an efficient, timely way.
In order to test an idea for practice improvements, the Breakthrough Series Collaborative teams follow a number of steps:
Information from the tests are shared via a dedicated Internet site, which enables teams to test each other's successful ideas in their own regions.
Casey Family Programs have developed a range of successful strategies using the Breakthrough Series Collaborative model, and have published reports at the conclusion of each Breakthrough Series Collaborative to describe the successful strategies and lessons learned from the strategies. This information is available on their website at: www.casey.org/Resources/Projects/BSC
The Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare's forum provided an exciting opportunity for participants to update their knowledge on the state of foster care recruitment in Victoria, and presented an innovative model for exploring new recruitment strategies and sharing information about what works with a network of statewide professionals in the sector.
At the time of writing, Dr Jenny Higgins was a Research Officer at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
In October 2007, the first national Family Inclusion Network Roundtable was held in Brisbane. The Family Inclusion Network aims to "ensure parents and family members have access to the information, support and advocacy they require to actively and equitably participate in the child protection process".
The report Family Inclusion in Child Protection Practice: Supporting Families Stronger Futures was launched at the roundtable. This project was funded by the Queensland Department of Child Safety and undertaken by FIN Queensland. The report's authors were Mark Cary, Chris Klease, Jane Thomson, Ros Thorpe and Karyn Walsh. I include here selected excerpts from the report that describe the rationale for parent-inclusive practice in child protection.
In recent years, there have been horror stories provided in the media of appalling instances of child abuse. Such instances are reprehensible and deserve society's strongest condemnation. As a group, parents of children removed into care have been typecast as cruel and uncaring, utterly undeserving of sympathy or support. However, there is evidence to support the claim that the vast majority of cases bear little resemblance to the few that hit the headlines (Scott, 2006).
Many more children enter care through neglect and minor instances, or risk, of maltreatment rather than severe abuse. Research further indicates that such neglect and maltreatment is closely related to poverty, ill health, disability, domestic violence, indigeneity, young parenthood or problematic substance use: that is, conditions which could be alleviated by investment in preventive social policy initiatives aimed at providing support for vulnerable families and communities including, in particular, Aboriginal communities (Thomson & Thorpe, 2003).
Parents who lose their children into care not only experience profound loss, but many also suffer from extreme powerlessness in relation to the child protection system of government departments, non-government agencies and children's courts (Thorpe & Thomson, 2004).
Partnership with parents is fundamental regardless of difficulties such as age, gender, disability, mental health status, socio-economic status or criminal record.
(excerpts from pp. 1-2)
Delegates, including service providers, policy professionals, researchers and parents attended the roundtable from across Australia. At present, there is a FIN Queensland, and FIN WA (both of which are in their relative infancy). There is also a dedicated group committed to starting up a FIN NSW. In addition to these groups, supporters and those interested in the work of FIN were also invited to the roundtable. This was a working meeting, the aim of which was to combine to identify a shared vision and action plan for facilitating parent inclusiveness, and the role of FIN in progressing this agenda.
The roundtable really challenged me to think more about what I can do as an individual to facilitate parent-inclusive child protection practice in my day-to-day role.
Dr Leah Bromfield is the Manager of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies
On 13 February 2008, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd addressed the Australian Parliament with this apology to Australia's Indigenous peoples:
To the Stolen Generations, I say the following: as Prime Minister of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the Government of Australia, I am sorry. On behalf of the Parliament of Australia, I am sorry. And I offer you this apology without qualification. We apologise for the hurt, the pain and suffering we, the Parliament, have caused you by the laws that previous parliaments have enacted. We apologise for the indignity, the degradation and the humiliation these laws embodied. We offer this apology to the mothers, the fathers, the brothers, the sisters, the families and the communities whose lives were ripped apart by the actions of successive governments under successive parliaments.
The apology was supported by both sides of Parliament. For the full text of the speeches given by Prime Minister Rudd and opposition leader the Hon. Brendan Nelson, go to: www.aph.gov.au/hansard/reps/dailys/dr130208.pdf
In September 2007, I was fortunate to attend the SNAICC (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care) conference in Adelaide. The conference comprised an eclectic mix of research papers, success stories from the field, and some lighter sessions, such as the session showing several short films and clips made about and for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and singing with Aunty Wendy, along with interesting and challenging keynote addresses. The conference dinner is also worth mentioning for the enthusiasm with which delegates (myself included) hit the dance floor!
What had the greatest impact for me though, was not something that I heard, but a booklet included in our conference pack. "Remember Me": Commemorating the Tenth Anniversary of the Bringing Them Home Report was published by SNAICC and contains a series of essays from people with knowledge, expertise and experience of the national inquiry documented in the Bringing Them Home report. They share their reflections on the ten years since the release of the inquiry and their thoughts and hopes for the future. In this piece, I share with you quotes from these essays that particularly resonated with me.
In the first essay, Julian Pocock (SNAICC Executive Officer) pointedly wrote:
My family, like any I suppose, places importance on telling the truth. When we do something wrong telling the truth and saying sorry helps us heal and move on. Bringing Them Home was where the truth of the nation's history was told. The 1997 Reconciliation Convention was our opportunity to connect with truth and reconciliation - an opportunity lost.
However, he also shared with us - in relation to the 1997 Australian Reconciliation Convention, when delegates turned their back on then Prime Minister John Howard - this personal reflection:
Reflecting back I have some regret for turning my back, as it's probably better to look at the faces of those we have some disagreement with if we are serious about reconciliation.
Muriel Bamblett (SNAICC Chairperson) highlighted problems with the way in which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander initiatives were funded historically, and later described the economies of traditional Indigenous communities:
It was a time when Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community controlled organisations such as SNAICC and its members established and flourished ... Unfortunately self-determination was poorly resourced, with little thought put into building the capacity of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to exercise their self-determination.
Traditional Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander households and communities had a very different economy to the one which dominates all our lives today. In general terms it would be fair to say that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander economies were holistic - politics, law, culture, land and economic activity merged with a spiritual dimension to maintain life in community. Each person had their rights and responsibilities. The economic was not separated from the spiritual. Work was a spiritual act, subject to ancient laws and traditions established by the creator spirits, and not just an economic act of survival. Traditional economies also had another feature different from economies of today - there was no poverty.
Muriel closed her essay with both a vision and a challenge for the future:
If we are truly to be a nation ... we need to stand together black and white in respectful listening, in the small glimmering candle-light of hope - not only for the Stolen Generations, not only for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, but for who we want to be as a nation.
In his essay, Brian Butler (former Chairperson, SNAICC) melded his personal story and reflections with his role in calling for the national inquiry, demonstrating the way in which the impact of the Stolen Generations is interwoven with the lived experiences of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people:
My earliest memories of this issue, which I only much later rationalised as connected to the policy of removing children, was when we were told as adolescents, in early puberty, chasing girls that we should be careful who we went after. No explanations were given. My experience of being sent down to Adelaide with other young boys of my mob ... to St Francis' House meant I too experienced some of the hardship of separation. I know now that I am a product of the assimilation policies of those times.
The inquiry lifted the lid on a part of our history that non-Indigenous people only talked about in whispers.
Bringing Them Home was a good start that set off social and cultural developments that are beginning to make a real difference in the lives of many people. We had great hopes for the Inquiry, but with a paltry budget and indifferent governments it was not going to meet our expectations. Nevertheless, the issue is now household knowledge and no longer the "blank spot" in Australia's history.
There are many other stories and essays and issues in the booklet. "Remember Me": Commemorating the Tenth Anniversary of the Bringing Them Home Report is well worth reading and highlights that, while the national inquiry and the release of Bringing Them Home was an important event in Australia's history, we still have a long road to travel to achieve equality of opportunity for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
SNAICC. (2007). "Remember me": Commemorating the tenth anniversary of the Bringing Them Home report. Melbourne: Author. Retrieved 6 March 2008, from http://www.snaicc.asn.au/_uploads/rsfil/00022.pdf
Dr Leah Bromfield is the Manager of the National Child Protection Clearinghouse at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
In October 2007, the Australian Foster Care Association Inc. (AFCA) held their annual National Foster Care Conference in the Docklands precinct of Melbourne. The conference was an exciting three days of exchanging ideas and celebrating the theme "Fostering Change".
Dr Mel Irenyi, from the Clearinghouse, attended the conference and presented a paper at the conference titled, "Child Maltreatment in Organisations: Risk Management and Strategies for Prevention", which is based on Child Abuse Prevention Issues paper no. 25 (available from www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/issues/issues25/issues25.html).
Foster carers, representatives of agencies and government departments, child protection workers, researchers and students from around Australia made up the list of more than 400 delegates. The delegates made the most of the opportunity to hear top-level speakers on a range of topics. Among the many keynote speakers were:
The delegates were also able to choose from an abundance of workshops conducted over the weekend. Workshop topics included carer recruitment and retention; developing optimistic thinking skills and resilience in children in care; and predictors of placement stability.
Realistic financial support for carers was a continuing theme throughout the conference and was a core issue identified in the National Policy Workshop conducted by AFCA president, Bev Orr. Other issues identified in the National Policy Workshop included uncertainty around the impact on foster carers of "welfare-to-work" legislation and the over-representation of Indigenous children in out-of-home care. The theme of financial support for carers was continued by Marilyn McHugh, Research Scholar at the University of New South Wales Social Policy Research Centre. In 2002, Marilyn reported on her research into the direct and indirect costs to carers of fostering. At the conference in 2007, she outlined the states' responses in a talk titled, "In or Out of Step: The States' Response to the Foster Care Estimates".
Delegates heard that state responses had varied markedly. The smallest percentage rise in the weekly subsidy was 11% for a child aged 0-3 years in New South Wales (from $174 to $193). The largest percentage increase in the weekly subsidy was 144% (from $84 to $185) for a child aged 0-1 years in Queensland, bringing them in line with the 2007 Foster Care Estimate of $186 per week for a child aged 0-1 years. The state responses resulted in more comparative subsidies across states and territories, but differences are still apparent. Marilyn stated the research showed four important rationales for a National Framework of Carer Payments. These were:
A particular conference highlight was the screening of segments from a DVD created by the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA). The DVD featured Indigenous children speaking about the meaning the Aboriginal flag has for them and messages they would give to other Indigenous children. Other workshops also addressed issues related to Indigenous children in out-of-home care, which was a recurrent theme throughout the conference. Some of the other workshop topics included improving educational outcomes for Indigenous children and youth in care; and support for non-Indigenous carers of Indigenous children in care. These built on a keynote address by Muriel Bamblett, the Chief Executive Officer of VACCA. Also of note was a moving panel session with Indigenous natural parents of children in care. The panel discussed culture, beliefs and working together towards the best outcomes for children and young people.
The conference was an opportunity to exchange ideas and information about foster care and to develop networks. But it was also a chance to celebrate excellence in foster care. At the conference dinner, 44 people were acknowledged with National Recognition Awards. The awards commended outstanding service to foster care and were based on criteria that included a minimum of 20 years of fostering, and certification from foster care agencies. The 44 award recipients had between them accumulated a total of 656 years of fostering. Conference organisers made particular note of Victoria's Marg and Joe Pawsey, who have fostered for 44 years.
At the time of writing Dr Mel Irenyi was a Research Officer at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
In August 2007, the Centre for Research on Community and Children's Services' (CROCCS) held its annual conference in Airley Beach, Queensland. The theme of the conference was "Overcoming Violence and Poverty". The conference attracts a dedicated group of practitioners and researchers each year who are committed to engaging in productive and empowering work with communities and children's services. This informative and rewarding conference, being smaller than most, creates an intimate environment in which professionals get to know each another and share information about their work.
Keynote speakers included Professor June Thoburn, Emeritus Professor of Social Work in the UK, who was awarded the CBE in 2002 for her services to the sector. June's presentation, titled "Out-of-Home Care as a Response to Family Violence: Some Lessons From a Cross-National Study", provided findings from 13 developed countries on out-of-home placement as a response to family violence. June discussed the issue of capacity of the out-of-home placements to meet the children's needs within the care system. She concluded that governments need to be cautious when importing interventions that have been successful in one country into another, as the characteristics of children coming into care in each country vary, as do data collection processes. In order for policy makers to be well-informed, data collection should include information about which sorts of children are coming into care, the area they are from, their ethnicity and age group. These data can inform what sort of services are needed and what sort of interventions would be most appropriate to enhance outcomes for children in out of-home-care.
Professor Cathy Humphries, the Alfred Felton Chair of Child and Family Welfare at the University of Melbourne, presented the keynote address on the second day, titled "Tackling Domestic and Family Violence: Balancing Aspirations and Action". Cathy discussed the findings of a project to build the mother-child relationship for families affected by domestic violence. She highlighted statistics that show that the perpetrators of domestic violence, particularly severe and ongoing violence, are usually husbands or male partners. Violence and abuse in the home, therefore, is also an attack on the mother-child relationship when the adult victim is the child's mother. Cathy urged policy makers and family support workers to recognise this dynamic and work towards rebuilding and strengthening this important and vulnerable relationship. The project produced a resource called Talking to My Mum: A Picture Workbook for Workers - Mothers and Children Affected by Domestic Abuse (Humphreys, Mullender, Thiara, & Skamballis, 2006) that family support workers can use with mothers and children who have been victims of abuse.
On the final day, Michelle Moss, recipient of the 2006 Carmel Daveson Bursary Award, gave a keynote address on her therapeutic work with Indigenous children in foster care, titled "A Different Identity: An Exploration of Identity for Children in Foster Care". Her presentation featured an analysis of drawings by children in care, contrasted with children not in care. The findings of Michelle's study reveal that children in care fare worse in terms of sense of self, self-esteem and sense of connectedness compared to their peers not in care, even when parents of children living at home were unavailable and inconsistent. Michelle is currently a Team Leader with the Regional Placement Unit at Family and Children's Services in Darwin.
Dr Jenny Higgins from the National Child Protection Clearinghouse also presented at the conference the findings of her research project on supporting carers and Indigenous children in care. The presentation, titled "Promising Practices in the Assessment: Training and Support of Indigenous Carers and Indigenous Young People in Care - Findings From a National Study" is available on the NCPC website (www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/presentations/diary.html). The findings from this study have also been published in four booklets available at: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/booklets/menu.html. There are also seven summary papers that are user-friendly outputs from an earlier phase of the project, available at: www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/reports/promisingpractices/summarypapers/menu.html
Humphreys, C., Mullender, A., Thiara, R.K., & Skamballis, A. (2006). Talking to my mum: A picture workbook for workers. Mothers and children affected by domestic abuse. London: Jessica Kingsley Publications.
At the time of writing, Dr Jenny Higgins was a Research Officer at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.
SideStreet Counselling Service has produced a handy resource to help workers respond to young people's disclosures of sexual abuse. An invaluable tool, it responds to the many complex issues attached to disclosure - from the emotional to the legal - and incorporates all relevant perspectives.
The disclosure of sexual abuse by a young person can be a traumatic and fraught experience. In disclosing, the young person must overcome possible threats, fears of numerous repercussions and shame to reveal what has often been a closely guarded secret for some time. But the event can also be challenging for the listener, and workers can experience distress or vicarious trauma (Morrison, 2007), so supportive resources are invaluable.
A booklet that is rich in information and advice and is founded on the first-hand knowledge of those in the field can be an important aid to workers in their support of children and young people. The specific topic, audience and practice-based approach of Ending Silence (SideStreet Counselling Service, 2007) sets it apart from other more generalised resources (for example, Irenyi, 2007; Queensland Department of Communities, 2004). Its size and design make it attractive and easy to use, with key messages highlighted by dynamic graphics. This is powerfully demonstrated when the booklet opens to the centre pages to reveal the message:
Remember the perpetrator is always 100% responsible. (p. 11)
This message is printed in large text in the centre of the page on a striking white graphic. No other message is more important to impart when a child discloses sexual abuse, and Ending Silence ensures the message is made loud and clear.
Although compact, the booklet does not only deal with the subject of disclosure. It first addresses some fundamental information about child sexual abuse. By incorporating the basics of child sexual abuse - its definition, myths surrounding it, perpetrator tactics, and its effects - the booklet is helpful for even the newest of workers in the field. Complex messages are conveyed simply and clearly. For example:
Young people who have experienced sexual abuse, and their family and friends, often struggle to understand why and how sexual abuse comes to happen. The actual sexual contact is a part of a larger process that the perpetrator engages the child/young person in. (p. 12)
Just as useful is the fundamental nature of information about disclosure. Sections such as "How young people may disclose" and "Worries and concerns young people may have about disclosing" tackle basic but critical concepts. The booklet explains that disclosures are not always made in a straightforward manner but instead might be made indirectly, for example, through conversational reference to related issues.
Workers are also encouraged to create opportunities for young people to disclose their experience of sexual abuse. The book lists simple suggestions for creating safe environments that let children and young people know they can talk about sexual abuse. Some of the suggestions include:
Often booklets of this type focus on suggestions about what to do to support and help children and young people. Ending Silence balances its list of helpful actions with a clear list of what is also unhelpful. While such a list might seem redundant, the clear statements can potentially help workers consider actions and attitudes they might not have identified as unhelpful. For example, it is important that workers do not ask why the young person did not tell earlier, do not take charge of a young person's decisions and do not ask for specific details of the abuse.
There are many aspects of Ending Silence that make it a valuable resource. One in particular is the support it provides for workers. Factual information about mandatory notification relevant to South Australia is included, as well as ways to support young people through the mandatory notification process. However, the section that talks about "Worker issues" tackles some of the more complex matters relevant to workers and speaks from a peer perspective. Many of the issues are summed up with the introductory paragraph:
For workers responding to sexual abuse there may be many difficulties or concerns. The stories of abuse can be hard to hear and we can experience pressure to "get it right". A common concern we hear is that workers don't want to open a "can of worms". However, for most young people who have experienced abuse the "can of worms" is already open but nobody knows that the problems they are facing relate to the abuse. (p. 20)
Some of the common concerns reported by workers include:
The messages for workers demonstrate that potential difficulties encountered by an individual are likely to be experienced widely across the welfare sector. This, on its own, is helpful for workers to learn about or be reminded of. However, the booklet goes on to list specific actions that workers can take to help counter challenges faced by working with young people who have disclosed sexual abuse. Singled out from the list of suggestions is the core support message for workers: If you are struggling with how to respond, don't push on hoping for the best - seek out support.
Ending Silence would be a helpful resource for any agency that deals with vulnerable children and young people. It is brief and easy to use. Key messages are simple to identify and powerful. What would have potentially been more powerful, however, would be the inclusion of the words of children and young people themselves. Such direct messages could reinforce to workers the importance of what they do and the difference their simple act of listening and believing makes to the lives of vulnerable children and young people.
Irenyi, M. (2007). Responding to children and young people's disclosures of abuse (NCPC Practice Brief 2). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies. Retrieved 1 November 2007, from http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/brief/pb2/pb2.html
Morrison, Z. (2007). "Feeling heavy": Vicarious trauma and other issues facing those who work in the sexual assault field (ACCSA Wrap No. 4). Retrieved 1 November 2007, from: http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/pubs/wrap/w4.html
Queensland Department of Communities. (2004). Responding to suspicion or disclosure of child sexual abuse. Brisbane: Author.
SideStreet Counselling Service. (2007). Ending silence: Responding to you people who have disclosed sexual abuse. Adelaide: UnitingCare Wesley.
At the time of writing, Dr Mel Irenyi was a Research Officer at the Australian Institute of Family Studies.