Transcript PowerPoint template (blue/red)

Assessment Issues faced by Child Protection
Investigation Officers working with families from
Culturally And Linguistically Diverse Communities:
An Australian Exploratory Study By
Ms Jatinder Kaur
M. Soc, B.A. (Psy)
Introduction
Australia’s population is increasingly becoming more diverse,
whereby the ABS reported in 2001:
17% (603, 800) of Queensland's population was born overseas;
7.4% (261, 297) were born in a Non-English Speaking Country.
In South East Qld there is high proportion of CALD communities
whereby the highest proportion of overseas born residents resided:
Logan (24.9%), Brisbane (22.7%) and Gold Coast (24.5%).
Increase in Number of Child Protection Notifications
The number of child protection notifications has doubled over the
last six years in Australia:
107, 134 notifications in 1999-2000;
252, 831 notification in 2004-05
(Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, 2006)
However this report does not reflect the number of children from
CALD background who entered the child protection system across
Australia.
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD):
is commonly used to describe people who have a
cultural heritage different from that of the majority of people from
the dominant Anglo-Australian culture (Department of Child Safety
Practice Paper-Working with CALD families, 2006)
‘Culture’ is defined as:
“an integrated pattern of human behaviour that includes thoughts,
communications, actions, customs, beliefs, values and institutions
of racial, ethnic, religious or social group”
(Cross, Bazron, Dennis & Isaacs, 1989)
Linguistic Diversity
Australia is one of the most linguistically diverse countries in the
world where some 200 languages are spoken. Inevitably
Professionals working in child protection authorities will come into
contact with families from CALD backgrounds.
The co-existence of multiple languages has been commonly cited
as language barriers to communication with CALD families
(Harrison, 2006).
Communicating with immigrant and refugee families is difficult as
those individuals display; mistrust of authority, fear of exposure,
past experiences of oppression as barriers to access services
(Segal & Maydas, 2005).
Use of Interpreters
Not all CALD families would require an interpreter, the practitioner
would need to determine the level of English comprehension and
understanding of the CALD family.
The failure to recognise the importance of language identity was
highlighted in the Victoria Climbie Inquiry in the U.K. whereby this
failure was found to compromise a child’s ability to disclose and led
to her subsequent death. Lord Laming (2003) recommended that
where a Child’s first language is not English they must have access
to an interpreter when there are child welfare concerns.
Chand (2005) argued that it is vital for interpreters to be
appropriately trained in the concepts associated with child
maltreatment and neglect when used by child protection authorities.
Assessment Framework encompassing Culture
Interpreting differing standards of child rearing practices for CALD
communities that are from diverse racial, ethnic and religious
background is complex and difficult (Koromoa, Lynch & Kinnair,
2002).
The practitioner has to distinguish between whether abuse meets
the definition of child abuse or whether to attribute it to unfamiliar
child rearing practices for that family.
There is a need to ensure that assessments allow for cultural,
social, political and economic factors when determining child abuse
has occurred or not. And to ensure that there is not an imbalance of
CALD families to Anglo families in the child Protection system
(Fontes, 2005; Cohen, 2003).
Implications of Binarism for child protection practice with CALD families
There is debate in the literature where there is tendency to use
contradictory approaches when intervening with CALD families.
Both of these approaches are discussed:
1.The Heavy Handed Approach with CALD families:
CALD families being subjected to ethnocentric bias;
Oppressive statutory interventions;
Over representation of CALD families in Care;
E.G. In USA there is over representation of African American,
Native American and Latin American children in comparison to
percentage of population (US Dept of Health & Human Services,
2002)
Implications of Binarism for child protection practice with CALD families
2. The Reluctance to Intervene with CALD families:
Research from the UK has shown that:
Workers frequently pathologising and stereotyping CALD
families;
Workers over relying on cultural explanations for abuse & neglect;
Failure to accommodate the diversity within ethnic minorities
Child Protection In Queensland
In Queensland the rate of children aged 0-16 years who were
subject of child protection substantiation in 2004-05 was 14.1 per
1,000 investigated cases (AIHW, 2006)
Following two separate inquiries Forde Inquiry (1999) and CMC
Inquiry (2003), the Queensland Government brought in new
legislation Child Protection Act, 1999 and new Department of Child
Safety.
The Department of Child Safety has implemented all 110 CMC
recommendations as part of the reform of the Queensland Child
Protection System. The Department is now proceeding in new
phase of development of the CP system in Queensland.
Cultural Provision in CPA 1999
In developing the Child Protection Act, 1999, a number of
provisions relating to culture were included:
Section 5 (e) (i) states:
Actions taken while in the best interests of the child, maintain family
relationships and are supportive of individual rights and ethnic,
religious and cultural identity or values.
If the child is removed from child’s family, Section 5 (g) (11) states:
The child’s need to maintain family and social contacts and ethnic
and cultural identity must be taken into account.
Cultural Competency in Child Protection
Cross cultural competence infers that an individual or an organization is
able to work effectively with people from CALD backgrounds (Department
of Child Safety Practice Paper-Working with CALD Clients, 2006).
Cultural competence also has a political and activist component in
promoting empowerment and inclusion of culturally diverse professionals
in decision-making positions (Korbin, 2002).
Aims of the Study
Explore Assessment Issues faced by CSO’s when working with CALD
families
Explore the level of knowledge, training & experience of CSO’s
Explore the level of cultural competence of CSO’s
Use of Interpreters
Structural barriers faced by CSO’s in ensuring cultural sensitive practice
with CALD families
Cross Cultural Child Protection Survey (CCCPS) 2007
Currently there was no instrument in the research literature which
assessed cross cultural competency in the child protection context.
The author designed and developed the Cross Cultural Child Protection
Survey (CCCPS) 2007
The CCCPS incorporated McPhatter (1997) Cultural Competence
Attainment Model. This model incorporates the following areas of:
Self Awareness;
Acquiring Knowledge
Developing Cross-Cultural Skills,
as essential skills in developing cultural competence and culturally
effectiveness when working with CALD families.
Participants
The CCCPS was administered to Child Safety Officers (CSO) and Team
Leaders (TL) who worked in the investigation and assessment teams (IA)
and a total of (N=66) completed the survey. Data collection occurred in
November and December in 2006.
A non-random purposive sample was chosen to pilot the Cross Cultural
Child Protection Survey (CCCPS).
The investigation and assessments role was selected as it is the first point
of contact families have with child protection authorities
The number of respondents per Child Safety Service Centers.
Name of CSSC
Number of Respondents (N)
Inala
13
Loganlea
5
Logan Central
5
Woodridge
5
Brisbane Logan West Zonal IA Backlog team
6
Browns Plains & Beaudesert
13
Goodna
6
Ipswich North & South
11
Stones Corner
3
Population Demographics (N=66)
Gender (N)
Male 12
Female 54
Age
(N)
21-25 years
26
26-30 years
14
31-40years
15
41-49 years
5
(N=6 missing data, no response)
Experience in working in Child Protection
Less than 12 months
12 month or more
(N)
23
43
%
35%
65%
Cultural Background of Respondents
Cultural background of respondents Number
ATSI
ANGLO
CALD/NESB
European
Other
RESULTS
Comparison of the Different Training Completed
Yes
60
53
No
The number of respondents
50
40
37
Completion of DCHS
Cultural Awareness
Training
Yes
34
31
30
29
No
20
13
Completion of Training in
CALD Awareness
10
0
Number
Completion of Training by Child
Safety Officers
Yes
No
Results-Statistical significance
A Chi-square test revealed statistical significance between the number of
CSO who had completed CSO training and their length of experience with
the Department CSO who had less than 12 months experience (n=23) and
those with more than 12 months experience (n=24), x2 (1) =10.64,
p<0.001. An alpha level of 0.01 was used for this statistical analysis.
Level of Preparedness for Cross Cultural Child Protection Issues
Level of Preparedness for Cross Cultural CP
Issues
Level of Preparedness
by formal training for
cross cultural CP
Issues
Not at all
A Little
Unsure
Quite
Very
Level of Preparedness for Cross Cultural Child Protection Issues
A Chi-square test revealed statistical significant relationship between CSO
who had less than 12 months experience (n=23) and those with more than
12 months experience (n=24) and respondents level of opportunity to learn
about different CALD communities within their service area x2 (2) =7.641,
p<.05. An alpha level of 0.5 was used for this statistical analysis.
The level of frequency respondents with working with CALD
families
18
12
11
11
10
Never
or
e
gh
t
w
ee
k
or
m
fo
rtn
i
a
a
O
nc
e
O
nc
e
O
nc
e
a
t im
m
on
th
es
Few times
Fe
w
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
N
ev
er
No of Respondents
Frequency of working with CALD families
Frequency
Once a month
Once a fortnight
Once a week or more
Result
The second section of CCCPS assessed the agency (Department of
Child Safety) perspective and how the agency valued culture and diversity.
Does DCHS respect Cultural Diversity of its staff
YES
NO
Unsure
Response to whether Department respects cultural diversity of its
staff
Department considers the following concepts:
(a) Language; (b) Race; (c) Ethnicity ;( d) Customs and (e) Family
Structure in its service delivery when working with CALD families.
The findings indicated that the majority of the respondents believed that
the Department does consider the following cultural factors of; language,
race, ethnicity, customs and family structure in its service delivery with
CALD families.
20% of respondents indicated that they did not believe that the Department
considered language, race, ethnicity, customs and family structure in its
service delivery with CALD families.
Cultural Competence of Respondents
The third section of the CCCPS explored how CSO’s conducted their
service delivery, case planning and assessment when working with CALD
families.
Predominantly (80%) of CSOs indicated that they either “all” or “most of
the time” were culturally competent in their assessments, service delivery
and case planning when working with CALD families.
Use of Interpreters
The fourth section of the CCCPS explored the use of interpreters and their
effectiveness when working with CALD families.
Results indicate that 70% (combined all of the time & most of the time) of
respondents use an interpreter or translator service when working with
CALD families.
The effectiveness of Interpreter/Translator Services
The findings indicated that only 44% (n=20) the interpreter service was
effective/very effective.
Comments included:
“Not always necessary-Interpreters have no CP experiences which is
good-remain impartial” and
“When available are very effective”.
Other comments indicated that the interpreter service was not effective:
“Not provide info on cultural issues impacting on family”
“Questioned their professionalism in providing neutral service and not
summarizing content of conversation according to their own interpretation”.
Discussion
This study identified key concerns in the provision of child protection
practice, policy and service delivery when working with CALD families in
the Queensland child protection system.
These include the need:
For child safety officers to have the opportunity to attend training;
The development of cross cultural competence training specific to child
protection,
The need for interpreters to be familiar with child protection terminology
and issues, the need for more CALD-specific services,
Printed fact sheets for CSOs regarding specific cultural communities to
their Child Safety Service Centre.
Need for government and non-government agencies to ensure CALD is
recognised as a separate demographic group.
What contributes to Culturally Insensitive Practice
The majority of the respondents in this study found the following factors
attributed to culturally insensitive practice in child protection:
Lack of understanding of person's culture, beliefs, customs, cultural
awareness;
Lack of understanding;
Lack of knowledge on family supports, dynamics within CALD families;
Not building responsive relationships;
Lack of use of interpreters;
Not offering culturally appropriate follow-up services to CALD families.
Limitations of the Study
The sample was comprised of CSO’s working in the investigation and
assessment teams.
The sample comprised of only CSO’s who work in the Queensland Child
Protection system;
In Australia each state has its own legislation, policies and procedures in
relation to child protection;
The small sample size (N=66) did not allow for further inferential statistics
to be performed with this sample;
The CCCPS is a self report instrument and there are issues with self
reported bias which would need to be addressed.
Department Initiatives on CALD Issues
Department of Child Safety Multicultural Action Plan 2006-07
•Increasing information on Interpreter & Translation Services
•Exploring staff to become accredited interpreters
•Increasing Number of CALD Carer’s through NGO sector ECCQ
•Development of cross-cultural CP training
•Increase staff diversity
•Strengthening the Non Government Sector
Department of Child Safety Practice Paper-Working with CALD
families (2006)
Future Research-PhD Proposal with UQ
Currently the Author is working on a PhD proposal to look at further
development of the Cross Cultural Child Protection Survey (CCCPS) and
assess for reliability and validity.
To administer the CCCPS to a larger sample within Department of Child
Safety to include CSSC outside of South East Qld
To replicate this study with other states across Australia that have high a
CALD population.
Other Areas:
Research from CALD families perspective on how they are dealt with CP
authorities;
Research into perceptions of Use of Interpreter process & ensuring
families rights and views are included when engaging with CP authorities
Acknowledgement & Thanks
Queensland Department of Child Safety who provided in-principle for the
Research project and support to interview Departmental staff.
Thanks to all the participants who completed the survey.
Rachel Robinson and Dr. Stephen Lake who supported and assisted the
author in getting the research approval and ensuring that the author had
access and opportunity to interview participants.
Dr Karen Healy who supervised the author throughout the Research
Project and guided her through this task.
Colleagues Andrew Haslem, Gregory Shuttlewood and Stacey Allerton
who provided guidance, support and inspiration throughout this project.
Thanks to my husband and children who gave me time, space and
understanding in completing this project.
Questions & Answers
or Feedback