Assessment Issues faced by Child Protection Investigation Officers working with families from Cultur

1
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)

2
Introduction

• Australias 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).
  

3
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.

4
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)

5
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).

6
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 childs ability to
  disclose and led to her subsequent death. Lord
  Laming (2003) recommended that where a Childs
  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.

7
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).

8
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)

9
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

10
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.

11
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 childs family,
  Section 5 (g) (11) states
  
• The childs need to maintain family and social
  contacts and ethnic and cultural identity must be
  taken into account.
  

12
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).

13
Aims of the Study

• Explore Assessment Issues faced by CSOs when
  working with CALD families
  
• Explore the level of knowledge, training
  experience of CSOs
  
• Explore the level of cultural competence of
  CSOs
  
• Use of Interpreters
• Structural barriers faced by CSOs in ensuring
  cultural sensitive practice with CALD families
  

14
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.
  

15
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 (N66) 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

16
The number of respondents per Child Safety
Service Centers.

• Name of CSSC Number of Respondents (N)
• Inala 13
• Loganlea 5
• Logan Central 5Woodridge 5
• Brisbane Logan West Zonal IA Backlog team 6
• Browns Plains Beaudesert 13
• Goodna 6
• Ipswich North South 11
• Stones Corner 3

17
Population Demographics (N66)

• Gender (N)
  Age (N)
  
• Male 12
  21-25 years 26
  
• Female 54 26-30
  years 14
  
  31-40years 15
  
  41-49 years 5
  
  (N6 missing data, no
  response)
• Experience in working in Child Protection (N)
• Less than 12 months 23 35
• 12 month or more 43 65

18
Cultural Background of Respondents
19
RESULTS
20
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 (n23) and those with
  more than 12 months experience (n24), x2 (1)
  10.64, pfor this statistical analysis.

21
Level of Preparedness for Cross Cultural Child
Protection Issues
22
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 (n23) and those with
  more than 12 months experience (n24) and
  respondents level of opportunity to learn about
  different CALD communities within their service
  area x2 (2) 7.641, pwas used for this statistical analysis.

23
The level of frequency respondents with working
with CALD families
24
Result

• The second section of CCCPS assessed the agency
  (Department of Child Safety) perspective and how
  the agency valued culture and diversity.
  

25
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.

26
Cultural Competence of Respondents

• The third section of the CCCPS explored how CSOs
  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.

27
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.

28
The effectiveness of Interpreter/Translator
Services

• The findings indicated that only 44 (n20) 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.

29
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.
  

30
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.

31
Limitations of the Study

• The sample was comprised of CSOs working in the
  investigation and assessment teams.
  
• The sample comprised of only CSOs 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 (N66) 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.

32
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 Carers 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)
  

33
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

34
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.

35
Questions Answers

• or Feedback