Responding to child abuse and neglect in Australia - Australian ...

P O L I C Y A N A LY S I S Responding to child abuse and neglect in Australia A joint submission to the Australian Government responding to Australia’s children: Safe and Well - a National framework for protecting Australia’s children 30 June 2008

Professor Chris Goddard Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia and Dr Joe Tucci Australian Childhood Foundation

Responding to child abuse and neglect in Australia

Australian Childhood Foundation PO Box 525 Ringwood Vic 3134 T (03) 9874 3922 F (03) 9874 7922 www.childhood.org.au

Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia Monash University Building 1 270 Ferntree Gully Road Notting Hill VIC 3168 Phone: (03) 8575 2235 www.capra.monash.org

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S

2


3

About the authors Professor Chris Goddard is Director of Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia in the Faculty of Medicine Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University. He has published widely in academic journals and writes regularly for the broader media. His latest book, The Truth is Longer than a Lie: Children’s experiences of abuse and professional intervention (with Dr Neerosh Mudaly) was published by Jessica Kingsley in the UK and US, and was favourably reviewed around the world. Further research at CAPRA is being undertaken into child homicide, and into listening to children’s feedback about therapeutic and support services. He can be contacted by email at [email protected]. Dr Joe Tucci is the Chief Executive Officer of the Australian Childhood Foundation. He is a social worker and registered psychologist. He has extensive experience in child protection, child and family therapy and child welfare research over the past two decades. He has completed a doctoral thesis exploring the issues of child emotional and psychological abuse. He is an Honorary Research Fellow with the Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences at Monash University. He is a former member of the Australian Council for Children and Parenting. He can be contacted by email at [email protected].

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


4

Australian Childhood Foundation The Australian Childhood Foundation is an independent children’s charity working in a number of ways to prevent child abuse and reduce the harm it causes to children, families and the community. »» Specialist Trauma Counselling. We provide a range of specialist counselling services for children and young people affected by abuse and for their families. »» Therapeutic care programs. We provide a range of therapeutic care programs within residential and foster care settings. »» Advocacy for children. We speak out for effective protective and support services for children and young people. All our programs affirm the importance of children. »» Education. We provide community and professional education, consultancy and debriefing programs. These programs aim to improve responses to children and young people who have experienced or are at risk of abuse, family violence and neglect. »» Child abuse prevention programs. We run nationally recognised child abuse prevention programs that seek to decrease the incidence of child abuse and raise awareness about how to stop it even before it starts. »» Inspiring and supporting parents. We provide ongoing parenting education seminars and easily accessible resources to strengthen the ability of parents to raise happy and confident children. »» Research. In partnership with Monash University, we have established Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia to research the problem of child abuse and identify constructive solutions.

The Australian Childhood Foundation won the 1998 National and State Violence Prevention Awards for its efforts to prevent child abuse. In 2005, it was awarded the National Child Protection Award by the Australian Government. The Australian Childhood Foundation relies on the support of the community to enable it to continue its programs and services.

Australian Childhood Foundation PO Box 525 Ringwood Vic 3134 T (03) 9874 3922 F (03) 9874 7922 www.childhood.org.au

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


5

Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia, Monash University Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia is a unique collaboration between a world-class university and a national child welfare organisation. It has been established as a joint initiative between the School of Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, Nursing and Health Sciences, Monash University and the Australian Childhood Foundation. The aim of Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia (CAPRA) is to provide evidence-based advice to governments and community based organizations to inform the development of effective policies and practices aimed at dramatically reducing the incidence of child abuse, neglect and murder. CAPRA is currently undertaking research in Australia and overseas. This research includes studies into child homicide, “serious” abuse, therapeutic responses to child abuse, chronic child neglect, the connection between child abuse and parental substance abuse, child abuse and domestic violence, the needs of children and young people leaving care, child abuse and poverty, child protection policy and legislation analysis, physical punishment of children, and the prevention of child abuse. Recent publications include: Frederick, J. Goddard, C. Tucci, J. & Liddell, M. (2008). Submission to the Special Commission into Child Protection Services in New South Wales. 2008. Mudaly, N. & Goddard, C (2006). The Truth is Longer than a Lie: Children’s experiences of Abuse and Professional Interventions. Jessica Kingsley: London and Philadelphia. Flaherty, N.& Goddard, C. (2008). Child neglect and the Little Children are Sacred report, Children Australia. Vol 33 (i): 5-11. Saunders, B. J. & Goddard, C. (2007). The Importance of Listening to Children: A Qualitative Study on the Use of Parental Physical Punishment in Childhood in Australia, Social Development Issues. Vol 29 (3): 33-46. Frederick, J. & Goddard, C. (2007). Exploring the Relationship between Poverty, Childhood Adversity and Child Abuse from the Perspective of Adulthood, Child Abuse Review. Vol 16 (5): 323-341.

Enquiries about the work of CAPRA can be made through the following contact. Professor Chris Goddard Director Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia Monash University Building 1, 270 Ferntree Gully Road Notting Hill VIC 3168

Email: [email protected] Phone: (03) 8575 2235 www.capra.monash.org

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


Introduction The Federal Government is to be congratulated on the release of the discussion paper Australia’s children: safe and well in May, 2008. Our response to this document is based on a belief that the paper will prove to be a significant milestone in the development of a safer and healthier Australia for all children. It is our view that the discussion paper, although well-intended, is too narrow in its focus and too limited in terms of the breadth of it proposals. Our response to the discussion paper is written from a strong value-based perspective about the position of children in our society. This perspective is based in part on the values that underpin the work of our respective organisations, and have been developed from those outlined by Stanley & Goddard (2002: 3-4). In summary, we believe that the majority of cases of child abuse, neglect and murder are preventable, and that the rights of the child are as important as the rights of the parents. Every child has the right to live in an environment that fosters his or her physical, emotional, social, educational and spiritual development. From a child protection perspective, this entails stopping abuse and neglect when it has occurred, and preventing future abuse and neglect from occurring. This also entails ensuring that every child is provided with a sense of security and attachment, and the basic essentials including education and suitable accommodation. Child abuse and neglect are complex issues. For this reason, protective services for children must be transparent and accountable. These services must include programs that serve to repair the emotional and psychological harms that abuse and neglect inflict.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S

6


7

Partial analyses offer incomplete solutions The welfare paradigm provides only a partial understanding of the causes of child abuse and neglect. As a consequence, it will never adequately protect all children. The ways in which the causes of child abuse and neglect are defined dictate the responses that are provided to children. According to Goddard (1994): …Every development in knowledge of the problem of child abuse has been accompanied by disagreements about definitions to be used, the incidence of the problem, theoretical approaches to causation, the perpetrators of abuse, the effects on victims, efficient approaches to practice, the adequacy of child protection policies, and the appropriateness of methodologies chosen to ascertain the ‘truth’ about all of the above (p. 9)... The welfare paradigm explains child abuse and neglect as an outcome of societal structures of inequity that cause stress and hardship to the most economically and socially disconnected groups within the community. In line with this explanatory frame, child abuse and neglect can be prevented by providing greater financial resources to families, including welfare benefits and child care resources. It also emphasises programs which identify vulnerable children early in order to offer them and/or their parents forms of support, typically parenting education, community engagement and developmental assistance. These efforts are critical to improving the overall health and well being of children. However, they will only partially prevent child abuse and neglect. In fact, child abuse and neglect are also significant contributors to poverty in later life (Frederick & Goddard, 2007). This welfare paradigm is unable to explain the causes of child sexual abuse. It is also limited in its capacity to explain the chronic neglect of children (for example, Flaherty & Goddard, 2008). It also has little relevance to understanding the cycle of intimate partner violence within families. Finally, it only partially explains the causes of psychological and physical abuse of children. Other explanatory paradigms need to be included if effective public policy is to be developed that protects children from abuse and neglect.

Child abuse and neglect are inconsistently and partially defined in public policy. As a consequence, child protection responses are not comprehensive. The lack of uniform definitions of child abuse and neglect in jurisdictions throughout Australia contribute to an incoherent public policy approach to child protection. The national child protection data released by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare highlight how different states and territories report, investigate and substantiate cases of child abuse and neglect. For example, rates of substantiated abuse varied from 2.4 per 1000 children in Western Australia to 9.3 per 1000 children in the Northern Territory (AIHW, 2008a). Similarly, there is wide variation in how definitions are applied to prove reports of abuse and neglect (AIHW, 2008a). For example, emotional abuse was the most common type of substantiated abuse in New South Wales, Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and the Australian Capital ranging between 40% and 52% of all substantiations. In contrast, neglect was the most common type of substantiated abuse in Western Australia and Tasmania (42% and 39% respectively), and physical abuse in the Northern Territory (35%). Even though the evidence base now clearly associates the experiences of children forced to live with intimate partner violence as a form of child abuse, only New South Wales has a consistent approach to including it in child protection data. Responses to the physical punishment of children have also been fragmented (Saunders & Goddard, 2007).

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


8

It is also true that definitions are applied as separate types, without due recognition that child abuse and neglect often co-exist (Stanley & Goddard, 2004).There is an overemphasis on identifying, reporting and proving specific types of abuse, in contrast to focusing on how the child’s development and well-being is adversely affected by neglect, abuse and trauma. The consequence is that public policy is developed which addresses single categories of abuse independently to one another rather than generating strategies which reflect the complexity of the actual experience of harm of children.

The legislative principles of minimal intervention and family preservation are only partially compatible. As a consequence, child protection systems are skewed towards family support, family reunification and family preservation. Practices in most states are underpinned by the principle of minimal intervention, which provides the context in which practice and decision-making are conducted. This principle is not consistent with avoiding episodic intervention, nor with achieving stability planning or family reunification. It is more consistent with cost saving, with no evidence that it achieves the goal of protecting children. Minimal intervention is built into child protection legislation. It is inconsistent with the objective to protect children from harm. The interpretation of child protection legislation by Children’s Courts tends to be conservative and biased towards family preservation. It leads to chronic short term decision making in which the concept of risk replaces the concept of harm. Therefore the focus swings to how to support parents to decrease the risk of abuse occurring again. Child protection workers are then bound to implement plans that give parents almost limitless opportunities to change before decisive action is taken. For example, a recent South Australian Coronial Inquest into the case of Elizjah Lyden-Baker tragically has illustrated this point clearly. The Coroner commented that the SA Children’s Protection Act ‘places a significant emphasis upon the need to maintain a family relationship around children the subject of investigation’ and he gained the clear impression that in this case it was very unlikely that an order would be obtained for the removal of Elizjah ‘under the Children’s Protection Act as it stands at present.’ (South Australia Finding of Inquest, 2008:6). He went on to state: …In my opinion it is extraordinary that the Act would not permit the ready removal from the custody and guardianship of the mother of a child born in the appalling circumstances confronting Elizjah, born on a footpath with an addiction to the drugs thoughtlessly consumed by her mother during a pregnancy marked by a total failure to look after the interests of her unborn child…(South Australia Finding of Inquest, 2008:8). These are systems built on false optimism and that are dangerous for children. Indeed, rather than being “risk averse” as is often claimed, these systems are frequently “risk blind”. There is insufficient evidence to suggest that interweaving a family support response to reports of child abuse and neglect is an effective policy platform for protecting children. It has the very real potential to further minimize perceptions of violence against children, re-interpreting children’s experiences of violation as family dysfunction. Family support services have limited expertise in intervening to stop violence. There is no reliable research which shows that secondary prevention strategies of parent education and support are effective in changing entrenched patterns of parental violence against or neglect of children.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


It is critical that future public policy development should focus on children’s needs for ongoing protection from violence and neglect, rehabilitation, and stability. A complete policy paradigm is required that is able to place children’s needs at the core of decision-making and be able to adequately deal with the complexity of child protection function.

The available data about child abuse and neglect in Australia is partial and incomplete. As a consequence, public policy in relation to child protection lacks the guidance of an effective evidence base. Public policy development in relation to child protection is haunted by a complete lack of reliable national data. To give examples from the latest AIHW report: …It is not possible to calculate the exact proportion of children who were the subject of more than one notification or substantiation… While these data would be available… they are not collected nationally….(AIHW 2008a:25). Year after year, there are the disclaimers to “interpret relevant statistical information with caution” (AIHW 2008a:x). It is difficult to see how data can be relevant if it is not “strictly comparable” (AIHW 2008a:13). This year, once again, the AIHW stressed that the data “should not be used to measure the performance of one jurisdiction relative to another” (AIHW 2008a:13). Similarly, in its recent report, AIHW (2008b) concluded that it would be invaluable to track the movement of children and young people between juvenile justice, homeless and child protection systems. However, they found that whilst data for juvenile justice and SAAP services are currently available in a reliable form, child protection data is not. There is no way of estimating the number of children who die from abuse and neglect each year. Each state and territory runs a different system for reviewing child deaths related to child abuse and neglect. There is no reliable Australia prevalence data in relation child abuse and neglect. There is little means by which estimates of child abuse and neglect rates are increasing or decreasing in Australia. There is also no reliable data about other forms of exploitation and harm to children, including extra-familial sexual abuse, child pornography, bullying or abuse of children by carers and/or individuals with responsibilities for children in organizations or institutions. There has been a lack of independent research both allowed and supported into child protection. Queensland is the only state which has specified a program and a structure to promote independent research into reforms of its child protection system. The limitations on research also restrict the capacity to build a local knowledge base to inform public policy in this area (Liddell et al, 2006). There has been very little research into whether child protection intervention is effective, whether protective workers feel supported or isolated, or into organizational support in relation to protective services (Stanley & Goddard, 2002).

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S

9


10

Child protection systems are partially configured. As a consequence, child protection is not integrated with other critical service systems. The configuration of the child protection system is typically defined using the lens of the welfare paradigm and routinely is limited at its core to statutory child protection services, schools and family welfare organizations. Services which are considered to be more peripheral are early childhood, health, police, juvenile justice, domestic violence, housing, financial assistance and disability support. At a policy level, child protection is only partially integrated within a framework that specifies the co-ordination of all interactive elements of these service systems to effectively protect children. Co-ordinating government endeavours is difficult enough in itself without these extra impediments. The Queensland Government changes in this respect have been the most wide reaching, including the establishment of senior child protection policy advisers in each government department and the prioritization of ongoing joint meetings at various intergovernmental levels including Ministers and Department Secretaries (Liddell et al, 2006). Typically, it is also clear that child protection programs within each jurisdiction work in the main part as separate entities, preventing the sharing of information across state and territory boundaries. There is no national mechanism for registering children who have been or are at risk of abuse and neglect. The recent introduction of national and state privacy legislation appears to have had an adverse impact on child protection practice. Anecdotal evidence suggests that privacy legislation has introduced major obstacles to the effective sharing of information about children amongst health, education, statutory child protection and other critical services. Information sharing is a recognised foundation of child protection practice that is under threat by the unforeseen consequences of privacy and confidentiality requirements.

There is insufficient attention paid to ensuring that child protection practice is culturally sensitive and protective of children. As we have pointed out in previous reports (Liddell, et al. 2006), little is known in the Australian context about the interaction of culture and child abuse. Legislation around the country consistently exhorts child protection systems to be sensitive to culture, but there is no legal guidance and little practical knowledge about what this does or might mean. One of the few exceptions – sometimes in child protection legislation but frequently in broader criminal law – specifically addresses and criminalises female genital mutilation. In general our laws and policies are vague about how culture should be addressed (Liddell & Liddell, 2000). A major challenge is to conduct more research into this area and construct more sensitive and meaningful programs of intervention.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


11

There are no child protection standards. As a consequence, there is no way of evaluating child protection outcomes and reviewing systemic performance. Only one state system (Queensland) has publicly published a series of indicators against which it will evaluate its performance. There are no national uniform sets of standards covering the key elements of child protection practice. As a result, the quality of child protection intervention varies widely from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. For example, the threshold for action by child protection has progressively increased. Last year, thousands of child abuse reports were never investigated. The application of different operational standards has resulted in 100% of notifications being investigated in Queensland while only 29% of notifications in Victoria were deemed worthy of investigation (AIHW, 2008a). Similarly, renotification rates of children previously notified to child protection can be as high as 62%. National standards for operational practice are essential in measuring decision making drift for children who have experienced or at risk of abuse and neglect. Examples of standards include the period of time between notification and investigation, protocols for prioritizing the urgency of investigations, assessed level of harm requiring minimum statutory intervention, protocols for notification of police, protocols for notification of education system and the period of time before a court outcome needs to be finalized. Research has consistently demonstrated that it is imperative that the application of standards for communicating with and collaborating professionals involved in a child’s life is a critical prerequisite to effective protection. All too often there are failures in such communication leaving children further vulnerable to trauma (Goddard, Saunders, Stanley & Tucci, 2004). The lack of national standards in relation to child protection intervention means that there is no agreement on means to evaluate the performance of child protection systems in achieving its mission.

Alternative care for children removed from their families is inadequately resourced, partially conceptualised and poorly supported. As a consequence, children and young people are not provided with stable and secure experiences of care. The out of home care system for abused children is in crisis with major problems in all jurisdictions. If children are not to be ‘shoehorned’ into placements, but placed where they are safe and well cared for, then an ample supply of good placements is necessary (Liddell et al. 2006). The inadequate support provided to ‘kith and kin’ placements has frequently led to placements ‘on the cheap’ which fail a large number of children (Liddell et al. 2006). Furthermore, multiple placements and caseworker turnover within the system increase the isolation and disconnection (Davies, 2004). In Victoria, an audit of children removed from their families and placed in state care due to abuse and neglect found that they were moved, on average, between five different carers during any one period of care within the system (Davies, 2002). According to Rosenfeld et al. (1997), available studies indicate that children in care have extensive mental health needs. In a review of a number of studies of children in care, Arcelus et al. (1999) noted that almost one-third of the children studied had clinically significant mental health problems. Despite these significant problems, few children in care receive the counselling, regular developmental assessments and other supportive services that they need (Arcelus et al. 1999; Goddard, 2000; Rosenfeld et al. 1997).

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


12

There are insufficient accommodation options for children. There has been an over emphasis on foster care. Carers continue to be inadequately trained to undertake the increasingly complex role of supporting children with significant trauma in their backgrounds. Their role in the child protection system is still defined peripherally, and their views are rarely incorporated into case planning. There needs to be far greater emphasis on ensuring stability for children affected by parental incapacity to change. Children’s development cannot be held hostage to parental incapacity to change. Time limits for change need to be imposed on parents. If parents are unable or unwilling to make changes within a specified time period, children’s needs for stability should become a priority. Greater emphasis needs to be given to planning for permanency earlier in children’s lives who are removed from their families for their own protection. State child protection systems should more vigorously pursue options for the adoption of children who have been in and out of home care for longer than two years. It is extraordinary that over 28,000 children were in care in 2007 and yet fewer than 200 were adopted (AIHW, 2008c). For older children and young people, educational residential care must be reviewed and renewed. The move to introduce therapeutic care programs in some state jurisdictions offer a real opportunity for cultural and operational reform of the out of home care service system. The Australian Childhood Foundation is increasingly recognized for its innovation in developing and delivering a continuum of effective Therapeutic Care Programs for children who live in the out of home care system and have experienced abuse related trauma and disrupted attachment histories. The Therapeutic Care Programs extend across a range of age groups and placement settings, including foster care, congregate care and adolescent residential services. For example, the TRACK (Treatment and Care for Kids) Program is an integrated therapeutic model of placement and support seeking to improve outcomes for children under the age of 12 years with substantial and complex needs arising from chronic traumatisation and neglect. The TRACK program seeks to achieve improved outcomes for eligible children through the provision of safe, contained and supportive home based placements and improved access to specialist treatment services. As part of TRACK, the Australian Childhood Foundation provides a comprehensive training program to caregivers and staff, in addition to a consultant to the carers and professionals involved in the care and support of the child. In the 2005 independent evaluation of the TRACK Program, Success Works found that: …The TRACK Program effectively demonstrates the essential components of ‘therapeutic foster care’, marrying the contribution of trauma and attachment theories to practices within a home based care setting. The centrality of the carer’s role in care planning and treatment further confirms the program’s adherence to current best practice standards in therapeutic fostering. The training and secondary consultation provided by the program coupled with the intensive casework and support are clearly essential in maintaining placement stability and are highly valued by foster carers… (Success Works, 2005). The inclusion of reforms to the out of home care system in a national framework for child protection is critical. However, limiting its inclusion to resourcing the support needs of foster carers offers an extremely limited solution. Improving the experiences of children who have to be placed away from their family for their own protection will only be achieved through a planned and integrated suite of initiatives that resource change at every level of the system.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


13

The support and recovery needs of children who have experienced abuse and neglect are partially recognized and understood. As a consequence, there is a fragmented approach to resourcing therapeutic trauma services for abused and neglected children. Left unrecognised and untreated, trauma related to abuse and family violence is cumulative in its impact. Multiple early victimisation significantly increases the likelihood of children and young people experiencing a range of negative emotional, psychological and behavioural manifestations which further restrain developmental resolution and identity formation (Rossman & Rosenberg, 1998; Tucci, Mitchell, Goddard & De Bortolli, 2005). The research on the neurobiology of trauma continues to provide clear evidence about the changes in brain physiology and architecture arising from experiences of child abuse and neglect (De Bellis, 2001, 2002; De Bellis et al, 1999a, 1999b; Gunnar & Cheetham, 2003; Gunnar & Quevedo, 2007; Kendall-Tackett, 2002, 2005; Lehmann, 2000; Metger et al 2005; Perry, 2003, 2005; Perry et al, 2002; Solomon & Heide, 2005; Schore, 2001, 2002, 2003; Southwick et al, 2005). Children themselves have begun to emerge as an important source of information and feedback in understanding the impact of trauma on their development and well being (Mudaly & Goddard, 2006). Children and young people affected by abuse and family violence often require specialist therapeutic services to assist their recovery from the trauma associated with such experiences. Working alongside and in collaboration with the statutory child protection service, police, the out-of-home care system and family violence services, an effective therapeutic response provides immediate physical and psychological assessment and treatment and is followed by planned intervention strategies which identify and meet the needs of children and young people within their family and/or care context. An integrated system of specialist therapeutic services for children and young people who have been traumatised by sexual, physical and psychological abuse will enhance their safety plans and improve outcomes for recovery. The immediate and long term costs of child abuse and family violence are well documented at the individual, familial and societal levels. Studies have consistently shown that child abuse is a major contributing factor in the development of a range of downstream social and health concerns such as mental illness, drug and alcohol addiction, crime and homelessness. Yet, as pointed out by Tucci et al (2005), extremely limited specialist resources are available in most jurisdictions which assist child victims of sexual, physical and emotional abuse recover from the trauma of their experiences and improve their psychological and emotional well-being. Indeed, accessing specialist counseling for children who have suffered abuse and neglect is currently a lottery based on where a child lives.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


14

The prevention of child abuse and neglect is partially framed and inadequately prioritised. As a consequence, the last national child abuse prevention strategy in Australia was formulated in 1990. It is over 25 years since Australia last had a national child abuse prevention strategy. It was developed by the now defunct National Child Protection Council. It defined three tiers of child abuse prevention and clearly identified initiatives and outcomes for each of these tiers. It included community awareness campaigns, the introduction of legal reforms to protect children from physical abuse, targeted early intervention programs with vulnerable families and tertiary focused services aimed at ensuring that the re-abuse of children did not occur. However, the national strategy failed to gain any impetus as a result of a lack of commonwealth and state government attention. As a result, the prevention of child abuse is poorly conceptualised. Many federally funded programs are counted as child abuse prevention initiatives when they are really at best child health and well being enhancement activities. Community recognition and understanding of the problem of child abuse and neglect and their subsequent willingness to act to protect children or support families remains elusive (Tucci, Mitchell & Goddard, 2003, 2006a). There is also a failure to understand that the principles of prevention applied in the field of adult health do not simply transfer to the prevention of child abuse and neglect where children are acted upon rather than actors (De Bortoli & Goddard, in preparation). The restoration of a national child abuse prevention strategy must become a priority for all levels of government in Australia. This national prevention strategy must include measures which enable early and sustained support for parents, community awareness campaigns about child abuse and community engagement, violence prevention programs, as well as law reform in relation to the physical punishment of children as recommended from the research by Saunders and Goddard (2007) and Tucci, Mitchell and Goddard (2006b).

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


15

A national framework for child protection is a major opportunity for complete reform In June, 2007, Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia and the Australian Childhood Foundation released a 12-point action plan (Tucci & Goddard, 2007) to address child abuse as a national emergency for all Australian communities. Our position on this has not changed: child abuse is a national emergency and it requires a national response. In order for it to be effective as a driver of reform, a national framework for child protection cannot be limited to inadequate and partial analyses of current problems. The topics included in the Australian Government discussion paper will not on their own achieve improved outcomes for children who have experienced or are at risk of abuse and neglect. A final national framework should act as a comprehensive 10 year blueprint guiding the implementation of a concerted vision that will enhance the safety of Australian children. In order to achieve this, the framework should include the following elements.

Define roles and responsibilities of governments. »» Delineate the role of the Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments in relation to child protection. »» Set, measure and report on annual government expenditure targets to achieve a sustained increase in investment across all levels of child protection. »» Establish and evaluate the role of a National Children’s Commissioner reporting to Federal Parliament, with matching positions reporting to their parliaments in every State and Territory.

Establish a comprehensive evidence based national model for understanding and responding to child abuse and neglect. »» Develop a public policy framework that does not only rely on a welfare paradigm as the exclusive explanatory frame, but also incorporates child abuse and neglect as a violation of children’s rights, as a crime, and as an impaired health outcome. »» Adopt a child-centred policy for child protection which refocuses the system to meet the needs of children who have experienced abuse and neglect incorporating the scientific evidence on the neurobiology of trauma. »» Develop, fund and implement a national network of specialist therapeutic services to facilitate the recovery of children from their experiences of abuse and neglect related trauma as the basis for improving their developmental outcomes.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


Deliver justice to children and young people who have been abused and neglected. »» Develop, implement and evaluate uniform national criminal legislation that strengthens the criminal justice system response to child abuse and neglect. »» Establish national standards which recognise the need for strong joint police and child protection action in relation to child abuse and neglect. »» Extend the policy of regulating child welfare payments made to parents in order to ensure that resources are available to prioritise the specific needs of children who have experienced or are at significant risk of abuse and neglect.

Achieve greater uniformity and consistency in child protection responses. »» Implement a uniform national system of child protection utilizing a common legislative basis and operating with articulated and universally applied definitions of child abuse. »» Develop the capacity to collect and analyze reliable data about child abuse and child protection nationally. »» Configure child protection systems so that they are better integrated with other key areas of government responsibility. »» Ensure better co-ordination of child protection responses across jurisdictions, utilizing the establishment of a new national “children at risk register” for the sharing of information. »» Establish national standards for all operational aspects of child protection intervention as a benchmark for improving outcomes for children and to be used as key performance indicators to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of child protection systems across jurisdictions.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S

16


Develop a comprehensive plan to improve the stability and quality of experiences of children in out of home care. »» Establish national standards for all operational aspects of out of home care service delivery as a benchmark for improving outcomes for children and to be used as key performance indicators to evaluate the quality and effectiveness of out of home care systems across jurisdictions. »» Develop, fund and implement a national approach to reforming out of home care services to embed core therapeutic elements underpinned by the science of neurobiology and child development. »» Develop, implement and evaluate uniform national legislation that enshrines the principles of placement stability and concurrent permanency planning for all children on statutory child protection orders living in out of home care. »» Set, measure and report on annual government expenditure targets to achieve a sustained increase in investment across all placement alternatives for children, including foster care, residential care, extended family care and adoption.

Build an Australian evidence base to guide reform and innovation. »» Develop and fund the implementation of a national child abuse and child protection research plan that builds an Australian evidence base. At an extremely conservative estimate, Australia spends several billion dollars each year on the problem of child abuse. It is extraordinary that virtually nothing is spent on research and evaluation.

Conceptualise, develop and implement a stronger emphasis on prevention. »» Develop and fund the implementation of a comprehensive national child abuse prevention strategy for Australian children. »» Establish a framework for measuring and reporting the impact of public policy on reducing the prevalence of child abuse and neglect.

Implement accountability and quality improvement mechanisms as the basis for sustained child protection reform. »» Establish a National Child Protection Inspectorate to inspect, audit and review all aspects of State and Territory child protection services and out-of-home care. This Inspectorate should be responsible to the Federal Minister and publish annual reports on outcomes of state and territory child protection systems. »» Develop, fund and implement a national system for identifying, reviewing and reporting on the circumstances leading up to the death of all children as a result of abuse and neglect or under suspicious circumstances.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S

17


Implement a fully-informed child protection workforce strategy »» Develop, implement and evaluate a long term strategy for interdisciplinary training, recruitment and retention of a child welfare/child protection workforce. »» Fund capacity building workforce training initiatives for current child welfare/child protection and related disciplines to promote core knowledge of the neurobiology of trauma and child development. »» Develop and monitor national standards in relation to support and supervision of child protection staff that is reflective of the complexity and challenges of child protection practice, including violence towards child protection workers.

A national framework is meaningless without a national taskforce to resource its implementation. »» Establish a national taskforce reporting to the Australian Government with a focus on driving child protection reform and responsibility for oversight of the national framework.

Achieve equal outcomes in all areas for indigenous children. »» Establish an integrated national framework (encompassing all of the measures recommended in the submission) which achieves equal outcomes for indigenous children. »» Develop accurate benchmarking that enables the transparent evaluation of all strategies in relation to their outcomes for indigenous children.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S

18


19

Conclusion It is an extraordinary indictment of Australian society that, to date, it has been impossible to agree on any semblance of a uniform national approach to one of our most serious – and expensive - problems. Providing comprehensive, consistent and integrated services to children, young people and their families will not only assist in preventing abuse and neglect but will also reduce the incidence of downstream problems. These further problems, including youth homelessness, youth suicide, drug abuse, mental health problems, further violence in the community and in families, affect us all. Attempting to prevent child abuse and neglect requires the cooperation of a range of services and professionals. Just as in responding to abuse once it has occurred, workers must work cooperatively, and share information. Many of the disagreements arise over uncertainties over who is regarded as the primary client or patient. Too often, children’s voices have been silenced, children’s needs disregarded, as adults compete to express their views. Federal Government action in providing a comprehensive and integrated national approach to every aspect of child abuse and neglect as outlined will provide urgently needed leadership in a complex field.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


20

References Arcelus, J., Bellerby, T. & Vostanis, P. (1999). A mental-health service for young people in the care of the local authority. Clinical Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 4: 233-245. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008a). Child Protection Australia 2006–07. Canberra: AIHW. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008b). Linking SAAP, child protection and juvenile justice data collections - A feasibility study. Canberra: AIHW. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2008c). Adoptions Australia 2006–07. Canberra: AIHW. Bedi, G. & Goddard, C. (2007). Intimate partner violence: What are the impacts on children? Australian Psychologist. 42: 66-77. Davies, D. (2004). Child development: A practitioner’s guide (Second Edition). New York: Guilford Press. Davies, J. (2002). State wards’ itinerant lives of abuse. The Age. 27 July. De Bellis, M. D. (2001). Developmental traumatology: The psychobiological development of maltreated children and its implications for research, treatment, and policy. Development and Psychopathology. 13: 539-64. De Bellis, M. D. (2002). Developmental traumatology: A contributory mechanism for alcohol and substance use disorders. Psycho endocrinology. 27: 155-70. De Bellis, M. D., Baum, A., Birmaher, B., Keshavan, M., Eccard, C., Boring, A., Jenkins, F. & Ryan, N. (1999a). Developmental traumatology part I: Biological stress systems. Biological Psychiatry. 45: 1259-70. De Bellis, M. D., Keshavan, M., Clark, D., Casey, B., Giedd, J., Boring, A., Frustaci, K. & Ryan, N.. (1999b). Developmental traumatology Part II: Brain development. Biological Psychiatry. 45: 1271-84. De Bortoli, L. & Goddard, C. (in preparation) Understanding the prevention of child abuse and neglect. Frederick, J. & Goddard, C. (2007). Exploring the Relationship between Poverty, Childhood Adversity and Child Abuse from the Perspective of Adulthood, Child Abuse Review. Vol 16 (5): 323-341. Goddard, C. (1996). Child abuse and child protection: A guide for health, education and welfare workers. South Melbourne: Churchill Livingstone. Goddard, C. (2000). The neglectful state. The Age, 26 October. Goddard, C., Saunders, B., Stanley, J. & Tucci, J. (2002). A Study in Confusion: Factors which affect the decisions of community professionals when reporting child abuse and neglect. Melbourne: National Research Centre for the Prevention of Child Abuse/Australian Childhood Foundation. Gunnar, M. R., & C. L. Cheatham. (2003). Brain and behavior interface: Stress and the developing brain. Infant Mental Health Journal. 24: 195-211. Gunnar, M & Quevodo, K. (2007). The neurobiology of stress and development. Annual Review of Psychology. 58, 145173. Kendall-Tackett, K. (2002). The health effects of childhood abuse: Four pathways by which abuse can influence health. Child Abuse and Neglect. 26: 715-29.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


21

Kendall-Tackett, K. (2005). Exciting discoveries on the health effects of family violence: Where we are, where we need to go. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 20, no. 1: 251-57. Lehmann, P. (2000). Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and child witnesses to mother-assault: A summary and review. Children and Youth Services Review, 22: 275-306. Liddell, M., Donegan, T., Goddard, C. & Tucci, J. (2006). The state of child protection: Australian child welfare and child protection developments 2005. Melbourne: National Research Centre for the Prevention of Child Abuse/ Australian Childhood Foundation. Liddell, M. & Liddell, M. (2000). Homogenising Australia’s Child Protection Laws: Will the Cream Still Rise to the Top? Children Australia, 25, 2: 10-15. Metzger, L., Gilbertson, M. & Orr, S. (2005). Electrophysiology of PTSD. In J. Vasterling and C. Brewin (Eds.), Neuropsychology of PTSD: Biological, Cognitive and Clinical Perspectives, 83-104. New York: The Guilford Press. Mudaly, N. & Goddard, C. (2006). The Truth is Longer than a Lie: Children’s Experiences of Abuse and Professional Interventions. London: Jessica Kingsley. National Child Protection Council (1990). Preventing Child Abuse: A National Strategy. National Child Protection Council, Canberra. Perry, B. (2003). Effects of Traumatic Events on Children. Houston, Texas: Child Trauma Academy. Perry, B. (2006). Applying principles of neurodevelopment to clinical work with maltreated and traumatised children: The neurosequential model of therapeutics. In N. Boyd Webb (Ed.), Working with Traumatised Youth in Child Welfare. New York: The Guilford Press. Perry, B. D., K. Colwell, and S. Schick. (2002). Neglect in childhood. Encyclopedia of Crime and Punishment, 1: 192-96. Rosenfeld, A., Pilowsky, D., Fine, P., Thorpe, M., Fein, E., Simms, M., Halfon, N., Irwin, M., Alfaro, J., Saletsky, R.& Nickman, S. (1997). Foster care: An update. Journal of American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 36: 448-457. Rossman, B., & M. S. Rosenberg. (1998). The multiple victimisation of children: Incidence and conceptual issues. In Multiple Victimisation of Children: Conceptual, Developmental, Research, and Treatment Issues. Eds. B. Rossman, and M. S. Rosenberg, 1-6. New York: Haworth Maltreatment and Trauma Press. Saunders, B. J. & Goddard, C. (2007). The Importance of Listening to Children: A Qualitative Study on the Use of Parental Physical Punishment in Childhood in Australia, Social Development Issues. Vol 29 (3): 33-46. Schore, A. N. (2001). The effects of early relational trauma on right brain development, affect regulation and infant mental health. Infant Mental Health Journa., 22: 201-69. Schore, A. N. (2002). Dysregulation of the right brain: A fundamental mechanism of traumatic attachment and the psychopathogenesis of posttraumatic stress disorder. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatr. 36: 9-30. Schore, A.N. (2003). Early relational trauma, disorganised attachment, and the development of a predisposition to violence. In Healing Trauma: Attachment, Mind, Body and Brain. Eds. M. F. Solomon, and D. J. Siegel, 107-67. New York: W.W. Norton and Company. Solomon, E. P., & K. M. Heide. (2005). The Biology of Trauma. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 20: 51-60.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S


22

South Australia Finding of Inquest (2008). Findings in the matter of Elizajah Monique Ivy Lyden-Baker. http://www.courts. sa.gov.au/courts/coroner/findings/finding_2008/lyden-baker.finding.htm. (Accessed 14/2/2008). Southwick, S., Rassmusson, A., Barron, J. & Arnsten, A. (2005). Neurobiological and neurocognitive alteration in PTSD: A focus on Norepinephrin, Serotnin and the HPA Axis. In J. Vasterling and C. Brewin (Eds.), Neuropsychology of PTSD: Biological, Cognitive and Clinical Perspectives, 27-58. New York: The Guilford Press. Stanley, J. & Goddard, C. (2002). In the Firing Line: Violence and Power in Child Protection Work. Chichester: Wiley. Stanley, J. & Goddard, C. (2004). Multiple forms of violence and other criminal activities as an indicator of severe child maltreatment. Child Abuse Review. 13: 246-62. Successworks (2005). Evaluation of the TRACK Program. Report commissioned by the Department of Human Services, Victoria. Tucci, J. & Goddard, C. (2007). 12 point action plan to address child abuse as a national emergency for all Australian communities. Melbourne: National Research Centre for the Prevention of Child Abuse/Australian Childhood Foundation. Tucci, J., Mitchell, J. & Goddard, C. R. (2003). Tolerating Violence Against Children - Community Attitudes about Child Abuse. Melbourne: Australian Childhood Foundation and Child Abuse and Family Violence Research Unit, Monash University. Tucci, J., Mitchell, J. & Goddard, C. R. (2006a). Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Tracking Community Attitudes about Child Abuse and Child Protection. Melbourne: Australian Childhood Foundation and the National Research Centre for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Monash University. Tucci, J., Mitchell, J. & Goddard, C. R. (2006b). Crossing the Line: Making the case for changing Australian laws about the physical punishment of children. Melbourne: Australian Childhood Foundation and the National Research Centre for the Prevention of Child Abuse, Monash University. Tucci, J., Mitchell, J., Goddard, C.R., & De Bortoli, L. (2005). Safe and Sound Services for Children and Young People in Tasmania: Recommending a best practice model for children and young people who experience family violence. A Report for Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services. Australian Childhood Foundation, Melbourne.

P O L I C Y

A N A LY S I S