The Heart of Our Nation
The Heart of Our Nation
Towards A National Commitment to Caring for Children and Young People
August 1997
Prepared by the
ACSWC Secretariat
INTRODUCTION
In the Christian view, our treatment of children becomes a measure of our fidelity to the Lord himself.
Pope John Paul II, 1990
The care and protection of children is the aim of all child welfare legislation, policy and practice in Australia. This aim is accepted by the community at large, yet the means of achieving this is an ideological battlefield. No aspect of our social structure is more important, nor more contentious, than deciding how to ensure all Australian children are adequately cared for.
This Discussion Paper reviews the provision of care to children in Australia. The particular area of care under consideration is substitute care of children. Substitute care services recognise that not all children can live with their birth parents all of the time. For varying reasons and for varying periods of time some children require a substitute care environment. Throughout the Discussion Paper these services will be referred to as 'substitute care services' and will include services which are known in some States and Territories as 'alternate care' or 'out-of-home care'.
While this Paper is focussing on substitute care it will become clear that the role and operation of these services are closely linked to a range of other social policy areas. These range from statutory child protection services through to income support for families. If we as a nation are to adequately care for our children we must establish a coordinated and integrated policy framework.
It will be argued that the Commonwealth Government should take the lead in developing a coherent policy for all children, particularly children who cannot live with their families. These children are the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our community. They should be at the top of our nation's priority list. However, as this Discussion Paper will argue, all too often these children's lives are a sad tale of disruption and chaos in a system which is supposed to be in their best interests. These services have always been the domain of the States and Territories, however as with other areas of social policy, a joint approach by Commonwealth and State and Territory Governments has the potential to enhance the legislation, policy and practice and create a service delivery environment which meets the needs of every child.
This Discussion Paper reviews these services as an area of social policy. Social policy as the study of the role of the state in relation to the welfare of its citizens (Hill, 1996). Therefore any review of social policy must give attention to how the state became involved and why it remains involved in the provision of social services. More broadly social policy includes government and non-government policies which maintain or change social relationships within society (Jones 1993; p.54).
The Discussion Paper seeks to examine when, why and how the institution of the state is involved in substitute care. This necessitates reviewing the origins of these services and what factors influenced the development of this social policy area. It is important to look at the historical forces which shaped the nature of these services in order to point to some future directions. It will become apparent that the basis for establishing and maintaining substitute care services in the past has been shifting. From this perspective it is argued that a new approach is needed, one which more adequately recognises the vital links between supporting families and the care and protection of children.
The aims of this Discussion Paper are fivefold.
1. To provide a philosophical basis for providing substitute care services.
2. To review the historical provision of these services.
3. To examine the current provision of substitute care services.
4. To highlight some the current deficiencies.
5. To propose some potential policy and legislative frameworks.
The assumption underlying the Discussion Paper is that substitute care as an area of social policy is in need of reform. In spite of increased insight and awareness about the needs and rights of children, and in spite of the fact that many organisations are providing innovative and high quality services, the system of substitute care continues to fail a considerable number. It appears the debates about institutional versus home based care, government versus non-government services and intervention versus family autonomy, have been on the agenda for the past 100 years, without satisfactory resolution. The ongoing reviews and restructures of state welfare departments is evidence of the contested nature of child welfare services.
The way child welfare services are operating around Australia requires a paradigm shift, a reorientation of our thinking about child welfare which places the needs and rights of children as the primary focus. The shift in the way we ought to be approaching the care of children in Australia can be summarised by Figure 1.
Figure 1: Shifting the Paradigm of Australia's Child Welfare Services
SECTION ONE - THE POLICY CONTEXT
No government can love a child and no policy can substitute for a family's care. But at the same time, a government can either support or undermine families as they cope with the moral, social and economic stress of caring for children.
Hillary Clinton, 1996
1.1 PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS
Decisions on how to ensure children are protected and cared for raise a number of ideological debates. These debates centre around the relationship between families, the community and the state. Substitute care services reflect the complexities and contradictions apparent in state involvement in family life. By their very nature child welfare interventions contradict the liberal values inherent in a pluralist society.
The private sphere of family is supposed to be free from outside interference especially from the state. Yet, child welfare interventions are by definition intrusive in the lives of some families, to the point in some cases of replacing the family. This tension has always been a source of controversy, with arguments ranging from the state being viewed as too intrusive to claims that the state has often neglected its responsibilities and left children in abusive situations. There are of course examples to back up both claims. This is the fundamental difficulty in developing an effective child welfare system. The system must minimise the deleterious effects of statutory intervention, whilst ensuring that every child's right to a loving and nurturing environment is being upheld.
It is important then to establish a set of principles which can provide a framework to assess legislation, policy and practice which relate to children. These principles are derived from Catholic Social Teaching and they also reflect the developmental framework and implementation of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1990).
The Primacy of Human Dignity
All children have an intrinsic human dignity. Age is no barrier to humanness. This dignity demands that all children be treated with respect and that all interventions in relation to children seek to maximise their well-being. Children do not create the problems of their parents nor are they responsible for the confusions of our society. Children are often the victims of those problems and confusions.
The Role of Society as the Protector of Human Dignity
The human dignity of all children must be valued and protected at all times. Governments at the federal and state level, acting on behalf of society, have a primary role to both enable institutions such as the family carry out their care of family members, and also as the monitor of 'protective practices' in relation to all who undertake the care of children.
The Rights of Children to be Active Participants
Children must be enabled to participate, in accord with their developmental stage, in all aspects of family life and, in those activities of society which affect their lives.
Children always have the right to participate in those decision-making processes which directly affect them. This includes determining arrangements which may substitute for their own family life. In cases where their age or disability make personal participation difficult, children's advocates must always be provided for them.
The Priority of Distributive Justice
Distributive justice demands that all human beings, but especially children who experience social and economic disadvantage, be given access to a greater share of the resources available within our society.
The priority of distributive justice demands that those who are experience such disadvantage in our society be treated with positive discrimination. This principle can be articulated as a preferential option for those who are powerless or who have less power or control in relation to their life situation.
The Promotion of Adequate Access to Resources in Accord with Need
All Australians have a right to access a level of resources that enables him/her to live in accordance with their intrinsic human dignity.
Children have special needs. These include needs related to affection, physical, emotional and psychological well-being, education, etc. Due to their age and their stage of development, children are often unable to articulate their needs. This inability to articulate is often exaggerated in the wake of trauma, abuse or neglect. This principle demands that mechanisms be put in place to accurately articulate the rights of children and uphold these rights and to assess the needs of children and to ensure that they have access to services which will adequately meet those assessed needs.
The shared responsibility for ensuring these principles are implemented lies with families, the community and government. None of these groups in society can abrogate their responsibility to children.
1.2 CHILDREN - WHOSE RESPONSIBILITY?
Before examining the details of the past and present provision of substitute care services to children in Australia, it is important to clarify where responsibility for the provision of these services lies. This is particularly important in the current climate of a reducing public sector and a greater reliance on the market as the organising force in society. This issue is raised at this point not in terms of assessing funding arrangements, but in order to confirm the principle of who is ultimately responsible for ensuring the care and protection of children.
Responsibility for the welfare of children is primarily entrusted to their parents. This is a strong emphasis in Catholic Social Teaching which recognises that the family is the first and vital cell of society. The importance of family is also recognised in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
Recognising that the child, for the full and harmonious development of his or her personality, should grow up in a family environment, in an atmosphere of happiness, love and understanding.
(Convention on the Rights of the Child, 1989; Preamble)
The State has a role in ensuring families are in a position to carry out these responsibilities. This support must be regarded by society firstly as a collective concern and secondly as an investment in future generations which holds direct benefit for the whole of the community. The state should not deprive families of their rightful activities, however the state must always seek to maximise those conditions most likely to assist families and individuals fulfil their responsibilities to one another and realise their own potential.
The state also has the responsibility of ensuring children are safe and well cared for, and if a family cannot, or will not, adequately care for their child or children, then the State must ensure an alternative care environment. This responsibility was articulated in the Principles outlined above and is clearly stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 20 of the Convention states:
1. A child temporarily or permanently deprived of his or her family environment or in whose own best interests cannot be allowed to remain in that environment, shall be entitled to special protection and assistance by the State.
2. State parties shall in accordance with their national laws ensure alternative care for such a child.
3. Such care could include, inter alia, foster placement, kafalah of Islamic Law, adoption or if necessary placement in a suitable institutions for the care of children. When considering solutions, due regard shall be paid to the desirability of continuity in a child's upbringing and to the child's ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic background.
A further burden of responsibility for the care and protection of children lies with the community. Community includes the range of non-government services and organisations which provide support and assistance to individuals and families. In relation to the care and protection of children, the community is often viewed as a mediating force between the state and families. Non-government organisations (NGOs) do not have the 'big brother' image of the state, yet they can and do intervene in the lives of children and families. NGOs have a long history in providing substitute care services and many State and Territory governments are increasing their reliance on NGOs to provide these services. Whilst there are concerns about how the relationship between NGOs and the state is structured and experienced in practice, as a principle, the Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission strongly supports the active and ongoing involvement of NGOs in service provision to children and their families.
The overall responsibility for planning, monitoring and funding of services must remain with the State. The Commonwealth has recognised this responsibility by ratifying the Convention on the Rights of the Child. The challenge then remains as to what is the most effective way to carry out this responsibility.
Australia must resist any attempts to reduce the government's and the community's responsibilities to children as such moves are being advocated in other social democracies. For example, during the 1996 United States Presidential Election campaign, the Republican candidate, Bob Dole responded to the ideas of the First Lady, Mrs Hilary Clinton, who in her book entitled It Takes a Village, stresses the need for a community response to addressing the needs of children, by claiming that [i]t doesn't take a village to raise a child, it takes a mom and a dad.
The Australian Catholic Social Welfare Commission challenges the notion that families should be left entirely to their own devices. Catholic Social Teaching clearly state that families are the first and vital units in society (Apostolicam Actuositatem, 1965; n.11). At the same time it also places great importance on the need for the state to actively support families to carry out their role (Familiaris Consortio, 1982; n.45). If we as a nation are to establish a framework for supporting children the response must come from the state, the community and from families.
1.3 DEFINITIONS OF SUBSTITUTE CARE
Substitute care is part of a broader range of child welfare services. Child welfare services focus on the conditions of children and their families and on improving or providing substitutes for functions parents have difficulty in performing.
The primary responsibility for child welfare services in Australia rests with State and Territory governments. Each State and Territory has its own legal and administrative structures that address the needs of children and their families. The Commonwealth became involved in the area through the National Child Protection Council which was established in 1991. The National Child Abuse Prevention Strategy was released in 1993 and involved community education, research and developing support networks.
Child welfare encompasses a broad range of activities, including child protection, family support and children in substitute care. It is generally agreed that it is in the best interests of the child to live with their families. Child welfare experts emphasise the value of preventative and rehabilitative services aimed to help families stay together whenever possible, and stress the need to limit the duration of foster care placements by returning children to their homes whenever appropriate and finding permanent living arrangements for children who cannot be returned home. This philosophy is expressed in the policy documents of service providers. For example, Centacare Catholic Community Services Sydney, states in its Substitute Care Policy,
2.2 Centacare is committed to the view that the child's family is the best environment for the promotion of a child's development and that every effort must be made to ensure that the child remains living with his/her own family. All possible ways of maintaining families intact in the community should be explored before considering separating children from their families.
2.3 Preservation of the family is not to be pursued at all costs. If the family unit is harmful to the welfare of individual family members, particularly the child, then alternatives must be considered. The well-being of the child is of prime importance.
(1996, p.4)
Substitute care is provided when families are unable to, or have been deemed unsuitable to care for their children. Definitions of substitute care services are based on both legal and welfare precepts. Some children enter substitute care without requiring legal sanction and through voluntary placements. More formal intervention from the state is considered necessary for some children and they be placed under a relevant care and protection order. Children between the ages of 0-17 years fall under care and protection legislation. Young people in the 14-17 year age group do enter the care system, however services for this age group also come from the Commonwealth in the form of income support or in the joint Commonwealth/State Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP).
Substitute care is often defined as part of a continuum of services which fall under the child welfare banner. Since the 1960s the focus of child welfare interventions has increasingly been the prevention, detection and treatment of child abuse. Substitute care is used as part of a preventative strategy or as temporary measure, and in the most extreme cases as a substitute for the child's own family. It is difficult to define substitute care without reference to child protection and family support services. These are all part of a continuum of services which aim to ensure the adequate care and protection of children. In this regard, policy reform in substitute care must be linked to reforms in these other areas.
Legal Definitions
From a legal perspective, the responsibility for child welfare resides with the States and Territories. This is as a result of the division of powers between the Commonwealth and the States contained in the Australian Constitution. Each State and Territory has developed its own child welfare legislation¹. This legislation provides the parameters for state intervention into the lives of families.
Care and protection orders are made in situations where a child is being or is likely to be abused or neglected, if the child is abandoned, if adequate provision is not being made for the child's care or if their is an irretrievable breakdown between the child and her/his parent or parents (Angus, Dunn & Moyle, 1996b; p.1). Orders fall into two main categories: Guardianship Orders and Non-Guardianship Orders. A Guardianship Order is the more severe form of care and protection order and removes the legal responsibility for that child from the parents and places it with the relevant government body. This is commonly known as a 'wardship order'. Children under a Guardianship Order require some form of substitute care.
A Non-Guardianship order gives the appropriate welfare department responsibility for a child's care and protection. This may be necessary as a result of a family crisis such as an illness, or there may be concerns about the child's protection which requires monitoring and intervention. Children under a Non-Guardianship order may be placed in substitute care until the circumstances which led to the order being made are addressed. Families can also place their children in care under a voluntary order. This is often because of a family crisis or when a family seeks some extra support or assistance.
The specific orders available vary according to the legislation in each state and territory. The legislative basis for children entering substitute care is provided by the statutes, however for the majority of children, their entry to care is initiated through welfare structures.
Welfare Definitions
Policy decisions on substitute care for children are made by the relevant child welfare departments in each state and territory. These decisions have the greatest impact on the situation of children in care. It is within the welfare department that decisions are made about types of care, availability of care and standards of care.
Prior to a child's case being presented to the Children's Court it is likely that there have been a number of welfare interventions by the government department or a non government organisation, or both. The most common forms of substitute care are:
- Temporary/Crisis Care
Temporary care is often used in situations where the child will be restored to his/her family, however the child and/or their family may require some extra support. There are a number of different types of temporary care. Temporary care may take the form of short-term or temporary foster care, respite care or a short-term or temporary placement in a small out of home residential setting. Families who are experiencing a crisis may access temporary care for the duration of the crisis period.
- Short/Medium Term Care
This form of care is often used where there is a plan to restore the child to their family. A child could be in this form of care for up to twelve months and often involves other services which may support the child and their birth family under a restoration plan.
- Permanent Care
In situations where there is no possibility of the child remaining with or returning to his/her family, permanent care of the child outside the family is arranged. The family can retain guardianship of the child and can still be involved in major decision-making for the child eg. schooling, religious practice, sporting activities etc.
Full guardianship can sometimes be given to the State or Territory Minister for Welfare or his/her delegate (ie. the Director of the welfare department). Permanent care may take the form of long term placement in a foster family or in an institutional setting.
- Adoption
When it is in the interests of the child that a placement be made on a permanent basis, adoption may be arranged. Adoption involves the birth family and the state forgoing legal guardianship of the child. This invokes a permanent change in the legal status of the child.
However, part of an Adoption Order may include an 'access' provision whereby the birth parents retain some decision making authority in respect to the child. For example in the case of 'special needs' adoption for children with special needs (eg. disabilities, older children) the child's birth family forgoes legal guardianship of the child in specific areas but retains a say in the other areas of the child's life.
As mentioned in the above definitions, the most common types of care are foster care, family group homes and small residential units. In recent times there has also been a greater emphasis on kinship or related care which involves placing children in the care of a relative and which in some cases is supervised by a non-government agency or a government department.
SECTION TWO - IDENTIFYING 'THE PROBLEM'
...the object of critical social theory can then become not only 'the state' or 'middle class professionals', but also how and why particular social institutions have cruelty and injustice built into their walls, as well as, perhaps most importantly, what is it about the rest of us that allowed and continues to allow those cruelties and injustices in the construction of childhood to exist.
Van Krieken, 1991, p.145
There is a widespread feeling within the child welfare sector that the current system of care and protection of children is in 'crisis'. The Police Royal Commission in NSW has heightened public awareness of plight of many children, particularly children who are supposed to be under the care of the state. In Victoria, a recent Auditor-General's report (Victorian Auditor-General, July 1996) outlined a number of deficiencies in that state's child welfare system. The recent Inquiry by the Law Reform Commission and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission into Children and the Legal Process has also highlighted what is described in the report as, the appalling state of care and protection systems in Australia (A Matter of Priority, 1997; p.5). Workers in the field talk of over-work and under-resourcing. There are many stories of children and young people who have suffered in a system which is supposed to care and protect them.
In order to contribute to debates about reforming substitute care policy, it is essential to identify what it is that's going wrong in the current system. This section attempts to do that. The section begins with an historical overview of the development of substitute care services to children in Australia. This is followed by a review of the current substitute care systems operating in Australia. As this area of public policy is currently exclusively with the States, it is worthwhile highlighting the common problems and the common pressures each State and Territory Government is facing in developing and implementing substitute care policies that are responsive to the contemporary needs of children.
2.1 FROM RESCUE TO RIGHTS
Future reforms in substitute care services must be grounded in past experiences. A review of the development of child welfare services in Australia over the last 200 years provides an understanding of the relationship between children, their families and the state.
Political, social and economic factors have affected this relationship and defined the nature of the services provided. Placing children in alternative accommodation was the first role of child welfare in Australia. Initiatives specialising in child protection and family support were introduced long after substitute care had been established. Whilst the responsibility for child welfare has always been with the States and Territories an overview of the historical development of substitute care reveals that certain trends have been common to all jurisdictions.
Colonial Australia
As with many of Australia's institutions, the origins of child welfare services are based on the British tradition. The philosophy and practice of the British Poor Laws provided the basis for the development of child welfare in colonial Australia. The philosophy of the early child welfare proponents was based on a moral crusade. Children of poor and itinerant parents needed 'rescuing' from their family. 'Rescuing the rising generation' was the task of government run as well as volunteer operated institutions. The aim of these institutions was to properly socialise these children as the supposedly immoral example set by their parents was likely to produce deviant behaviour in their children and the only way to change the behaviour of the lower orders was to separate the children from their families (Van Krieken, 1991; p.57).
In early colonial Australia the impetus for establishing institutions for children was the large numbers of children who were abandoned or destitute. The nature of the British settlement of Australia resulted in a fairly unstable social structure. There were significant numbers of children born who were 'illegitimate' and concerns were raised about children who did not have an identified father. This left many women with children they were unable to support. Van Krieken argues the fact that these children were visible in large numbers was not sufficient reason for action by the colonial elite (1991, p.51). Leaders in the colony became convinced that these children needed to be trained to be good and productive workers and that the best way to achieve this was through orphanages. Thus, the motivation was also based on economic and political imperatives.
Rescuing the Rising Generation
In the late 1890s concerns were raised about the quality of care within institutions as well as the cost. Reformers were concerned about the conditions in the institutions and the deleterious effects of these conditions on the goal of rescuing these children. The movement against institutions was supported by English visitors, Rosumond Hill and Caroline Davenport, who crusaded their opposition in the colonial states and successfully campaigned against the use of 'the barracks' in England (Dickey, 1987; p.59).
In New South Wales the State Children's Relief Act 1881, established boarding out of children, an early form of contemporary foster care, as the preferred type of care for dependent children (Jamrozik & Sweeney, 1996; p.94). Boarding out was also established in South Australia, Victoria and Tasmania around that same time. As Van Krieken states (1991, p.73), The argument for de-institutionalisation was a complex mixture of political economy, child development theory and administrative commonsense; it would be cheaper and would better reform the children. Whilst there was a preference shown at this time for family based care, institutions still operated primarily by church based agencies.
Van Kriekan points to economic changes which made boarding out possible. This period saw an increase in the standard of living of working class families. These families were in an enhanced financial position and thus were able to foster children. Working class families were and continue to be the main providers of foster care. Their economic position is an important factor in their ability to provide this care.
This period of the late 1880s also saw the increased involvement of the state in society. This was generally accepted as a good thing and state intervention in family life was seen a legitimate way to create a better society. The bureaucratic power of the various government departments grew at this time. There was an increasing emphasis on family life as well as increasing intervention by the state into families.
The Scientific Era
The early twentieth century saw another change in the provision of child welfare services with more emphasis being placed on the affect of a child's environment on their development. This resulted in the establishment of specific departments for child welfare and the introduction of children's courts and the concept of probation. Probation provides for a child to remain in his/her family on the undertaking that the family receive assistance to deal with the issue which resulted in the child coming before the court.
The other significant development was the provision of financial support to mothers. This began by providing the fostering allowance to mothers to assist with raising their children. With the advent of probation, supervised care was provided in return for a subsidy or outdoor relief for the mother. This began to replace foster family arrangements as the dominant mode of child welfare provision and in the form of Commonwealth single parent benefits, still does (Dickey, 1987; p.97). This period evidenced the move away from sheer poverty as the force driving children to welfare agencies. The regulation of childhood began to take place within families rather than without. (Van Krieken, 1991; p.138)
The 1950s and 60s witnessed a swing back to institutional care for children. The cause of this trend as a combination of the increased numbers of children and also mounting public concern about threats to the social order. (Jamrozik & Sweeney, 1996; p.96).
It can be seen by looking at the development of substitute care services in Australia, that policy decisions are based on political, economic and social imperatives. These services did not simply develop in response to the needs of children, nor simply to increased professional knowledge. The nature and construction of these services is directly related to the prevailing ideology of the family and the state, the needs of the economy and the political environment in which decisions were made.
The Rediscovery of Poverty
The late 1960s and the early 1970s witnessed a shift in the assumptions underlying substitute care services. This period saw an increasing concern for the effects of poverty and inequality on families. There was a greater emphasis on the structural causes of disadvantage rather than focussing on individual pathology. Overcoming economic disadvantage was seen as reducing the pressures on families that might lead to a need for substitute care. Empowering families through skills training and community development, rather than removing their children, was seen as a complementary strategy to address welfare problems. (Jamrozik & Sweeney, 1996; p.97)
Politically this was a time of rapid change. The election of the Whitlam government in 1972 brought with it a fundamental change in the role of the Commonwealth. Whitlam believed in a strong central government and the Commonwealth, under his leadership, became more involved in health, education and welfare. During this time the Commonwealth funded an initiative entitled, 'Alternatives to Residential Care Program', and attempted to improve the skills of children in institutions through the 'Children in Institutions Program' which was funded by the Commonwealth Schools Commission (Jamrozik & Sweeney, 1996; p.97). Overall during this period, there was a level of optimism about the possibility of the state actively redistributing the goods of society in order to alleviate poverty. This was a big shift from the underlying philosophy of the Poor Laws, upon which much of the preceding social policy had been based. The state's authority over families was viewed in a less overt way and the emphasis was on support for children and families.
This optimism was short lived. Throughout the 1970s there was increasing pressure placed on government budgets with high rates of unemployment caused by prolonged recession and high inflation. The Fraser Government which was elected in 1975, had a different philosophy about the appropriate role of government vis-a-vis intervening in the lives of families, and dealt with this crisis by a program of reducing this role. While resources were reduced, there remained a fear of state intervention which was coupled with a growing awareness, emanating from the clinical literature, of the negative aspects of removing children from their families.
This period witnessed a huge reduction in the number of children in care. For example, in 1972 the total number of Australian children in care was estimated at 26,846. By 1982 the national figure was 16,395 and by 1985 the number had dropped to 12,308. (Boss, Edwards & Pitman, 1996; p.46)
The Battered Child
Child welfare services in the late 1970s began to focus more and more on child abuse. The work of Henry Kempe and others from the medical profession helped identify the 'battered child syndrome'. The public outcry resulting from this focus resulted in States placing an increased emphasis on child protection. Welfare departments began to focus on procedures for identifying and notifying potentially 'dangerous families', where children may be 'at risk' of abuse and/or neglect (see Jamrozik & Sweeney, 1996 and Thorpe, 1994). Developments in this era were again based on scientific/professional assessments which attempted to identify when children were in danger. The focus of child welfare shifted to the detection and treatment of child abuse.
In the years which have followed, the detection of child abuse has remained the primary focus of statutory welfare agencies. Current approaches to child welfare seek to strengthen families to lessen the likelihood of abuse/neglect and to minimise the need for substitute care.
2.2 CURRENT TRENDS
Since the early 1980s a number of significant trends in the provision of substitute care services to children can be identified. These trends have developed in response to economic, political and social pressures experienced by society and governments.
There is no doubt that these pressures have had an impact upon each State and Territory which have attempted to keep pace with these pressures through the implementation of reviews and amendments to substitute care legislation, policy and practice. During this period it is apparent that the focus on child protection has continued to dominate each State's child welfare concerns. All States and Territories, with the exception of Western Australia have introduced or are introducing mandatory reporting of child abuse and/or neglect².
The number of notifications of abuse and/or neglect have risen dramatically in recent years, from 42,468 nationwide in 1988-89 to 76,954 in 1994-95. The number of those notifications cases assessed as substantiated or 'child at risk' has increased from 21,447 to 33,411, over the same period representing an increase of 56 percent (Angus & Hall 1996; p.10).
However, the increase in substantiated or 'child at risk' notifications has not been matched with a commensurate increase in legal orders. Table 1 indicates that over the four year period from 1991 to 1995 the total number of children under Guardianship Orders in Australia has in fact decreased by 311. Reference to this data indicates that the national trend is not consistent across all the Australian State and Territories.
Table 1: Children Under Guardianship Orders - 30 June 1991 and 30 June 1995
|
Year |
NSW |
VIC |
QLD |
WA |
SA |
TAS |
ACT |
NT |
Australia |
|
1991 |
2, 174 |
2, 238 |
2, 706 |
706 |
995 |
373 |
29 |
88 |
9, 309 |
|
1995 |
2, 659 |
1, 506 |
2, 656 |
711 |
998 |
322 |
35 |
111 |
8, 998 |
Source: Angus, Dunn & Moyle, 1996; p.27
At the same time, the number of children under Non-guardianship Orders has increased by 709 as illustrated by Table 2. This is an overall increase in total orders of only three percent.
Table 2: Children Under Non-guardianship Orders - 30 June 1991 and 30 June 1995
|
Year |
NSW |
VIC |
QLDa |
WAb |
SA |
TASc |
ACTd |
NT |
Australia |
|
1991 |
927 |
1, 572 |
2, 706 |
N/A |
280 |
225 |
38 |
8 |
3, 371 |
|
1995 |
1, 672 |
1, 601 |
2, 656 |
N/A |
187 |
139 |
180 |
26 |
4, 080 |
a Queensland children under both guardianship and non-guardianship orders are shown only under guardianship orders.
b Western Australia does not place children under non-guardianship orders for care and protection.
c In Tasmania prior to 1994-95, children in voluntary respite care but not under a legal order were included under non- guardianship orders.
d In the Australian Capital Territory, the increase in the number of non-guardianship orders for 1994-95 is due to an improved data collection system and new procedures.
Source: Angus, Dunn and Moyle, 1996; p.27
The statistical trends contained in the above tables lend support to four main trends in substitute care which have been identified by Cashmore & Castell-McGregor (1996). These are:
1. A trend towards a reduction in the numbers of children admitted to guardianship.
2. A trend towards non-guardianship orders and short term guardianship orders.
3. An increase in the age of children taken into care, with the largest cohort for children in care in Australia currently being 12 to 17 years of age.
4. The shift away from residential or group home care towards foster care. This has been accompanied by a shift from departmental provision of care towards the use of non-government agencies as service providers.
These trends can be seen as strong evidence of a contemporary emphasis in substitute care on family preservation. State welfare departments are reluctant to take the step of placing children in long term care and will seek other strategies until removal becomes the only option. This means guardianship is sought as a last resort and short term care orders are used in an attempt to deal with the problem which resulted in the child or children being removed in the first place, in the hope that restoration can occur.
Substitute care is now seen less as a legal intervention and more as a welfare tool. Children are no longer removed in order to be rescued. Removal is now used as part of a longer term strategy which seeks to eventually reunite the child with the family.
These trends appear to be moves in the right direction, particularly in light of some of the historical practices discussed above and the principles outlined at the start of the paper. Children should be with their families if that is possible, parents should receive support and assistance to enable them to resume care of their children. If children must be in care, a family environment is surely the preferred option.
However, further analysis of these trends gives rise to some concerns about their effect in the political and economic context. There are three important questions to ask when examining these trends. First, how have these trends been manifested in each of the States and Territories? Secondly why have theses trends occurred and thirdly what has been their effect of these trends on children in care?
2.3 TRENDS IN SUBSTITUTE CARE ACROSS AUSTRALIAN STATES AND TERRITORIES
One of the difficulties in undertaking a national perspective on substitute care is the lack of consistent data collection across the States and Territories. The Institute of Health and Welfare publish a yearly report outlining the numbers of children under care and protection orders around Australia. In 1995 the Steering Committee for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision (SCRCSSP) produced a report, Government Service Provision, which presented outcome focussed data on a range on Commonwealth and State services.
The second in this series of reports was released in February 1997. Substitute care included among these services. The authors concluded with respect to substitute care systems operating in the States/Territories, that there was a lack of information which could be utilised at this point in time. The main gaps identified were the degree to which goals for children were realised on exit from care and the costs of delivering services.
In the 1997 report substitute care is termed, 'supported placements' and, once again, the authors note the lack of consistent data. In response to the report, each State and Territory has since made a commitment to collecting future data using the new framework developed by the Steering Committee.
The first two trends in substitute care defined by Cashmore and Castell-McGregor relate to the reduction of Guardianship Orders, the increased use of Non-Guardianship Orders and the decrease in the length of orders. According to figures released by the Institute of Health and Welfare (1996), there were 13,078 children under a Care and Protection Order in Australia at June 1995. Of these, 8,998 were under a guardianship order and 4,080 were under a non-guardianship order.
As evidenced by Table 3 (see over), the majority of children under a guardianship order are living in an alternative care environment, with foster care being the most common. Whereas, over half of the children under a non-guardianship order are living with their parents.
Table 3: Placement Types of Children Under Care and Protection Orders at 30 June 1995
|
Placement Type |
Guardianship Order |
Non-Guardianship Order |
|
Foster care |
5693 |
1210 |
|
Parent/Relative |
1199 |
2278 |
|
Residential Child Care |
1089 |
321 |
|
Residential Care |
26 |
24 |
|
Corrective Establishment |
61 |
10 |
|
Other |
930 |
237 |
|
Total |
8998 |
6678 |
Source: Angus, Dunn and Moyle, 1996; p.10
When these figures are broken down by State and Territory, a number of differences become apparent.
Table 4: Placement Type of Children Under Guardianship Orders by State and Territory
|
Placement |
NSW |
VIC |
QLD |
WA |
SA |
TAS |
ACT |
NT |
|
Foster Care |
1786 |
839 |
1653 |
526 |
605 |
198 |
28 |
58 |
|
Parent/Relative |
323 |
111 |
452 |
85 |
175 |
19 |
2 |
32 |
|
Residential Child Care |
247 |
496 |
189 |
68 |
23 |
57 |
2 |
7 |
|
Residential Care |
5 |
3 |
14 |
- |
- |
1 |
- |
3 |
|
Corrective Establishment |
6 |
6 |
30 |
4 |
9 |
4 |
- |
2 |
|
Other* |
292 |
51 |
318 |
28 |
186 |
43 |
3 |
9 |
|
Total |
2367 |
1506 |
2656 |
711 |
998 |
322 |
35 |
111 |
* Includes children living with other adults, unauthorised absence and living independently.
Source: Angus, Dunn and Moylel, 1996; p.20
New South Wales and Queensland have the highest overall number of guardianship orders. In Victoria one third of children under guardianship orders are living in residential care. Whilst these figures provide valuable information about the numbers of children in substitute care it must be remembered that some children are placed in care on a voluntary basis (eg. in respite care) and would not be covered by the above data.
The Report on Government Service Provision (SCRCSSP, 1995) did include figures from some States which incorporated children who are in care but not under any order, however Some states have not collected these figures in the past.
The most recent child welfare statistics released by the Institute of Health and Welfare (1996) included information on out-of-home placements. This information is set out in Table 5 below. The figures include placements where a financial payment is made and as such may include placement with relatives where a payment is made. The figures include both legal orders and voluntary placements, with the exception of Queensland and the Northern Territory where data on children in substitute care only includes covered by a legal order.
Table 5: Children and Youth Aged 0-17 Years in Out-of-home Care by State and Territory at 30 June 1996
|
|
NSW |
VIC |
QLD |
WA |
SA |
TAS |
ACT |
NT |
|
No. of Children in Care |
5 437 |
3 385 |
2 110* |
1 206 |
1 064 |
508 |
181 |
88* |
|
Rate per 1000 Children |
3.5 |
3 |
2.4 |
2.6 |
3 |
4 |
2.3 |
1.6 |
* These figures under-represent the 'in care' population as they only include children under legal orders.
Source: AIHW, 1996; p.6
This data indicates that a child in Tasmania is almost twice as likely to be in care than a child in the Australian Capital Territory. Similar results were found by Bath (1994) who undertook a study of the 1993 data from States and Territories in an attempt to determine some differences between jurisdictions. Bath notes that possible explanations for the differences in rates of placement could lie in socio-economic differences, as it is well known that demographic factors such as poverty are related to numbers in care. However, he also notes that this is not an adequate explanation for the existence of high rates in South Australia and Tasmania. The differences are most likely to relate to the differing emphasis in legislation and policy from state to state.
Other data collected for the Report on Service Provision highlighted the important role of non-government organisations in providing substitute care services. The SCRCSSP estimates that NGOs compromise 35 percent of government substitute care expenditure (Report on Government Service Provision, 1995; p.575). This varies between states. In New South Wales actual expenditure on non-government services was about 25 percent of the alternative care budget. In Victoria, the non-government sector is the major service provider, representing 68percent of the total alternative care budget in 1994/95. In Western Australia, NGOs accounted for about 30percent of total expenditure for the care of children in 1992/93. Of this amount, government contributed 90percent of funding to the work undertaken by the NGOs. (SCRCSSP, 1995; p.575)
These differences are related to different legislation, policy and practice in each of the States and Territories. Some differences relate to particular characteristics of particular domains. For example services in the Northern Territory are primarily run by the government. This is largely because non-government agencies are few and far between in the Northern Territory. The above figures indicate that while each jurisdiction has followed the broad trends, some have moved down that track with more determination than others.
2.4 DISCUSSION
A number of States and Territories have been reviewing the care and protection legislation in recent years in order to address some emerging issues. Outlined below are some particular reforms in legislation and policy initiated by a number of Australia States.
Victoria
In Victoria a review of their legislation led to The Children and Young Persons Act 1989. The Act was an attempt to move away from coercive legal interventions which resulted in children being placed under guardianship orders. The focus was on protecting the rights of children to be with their families whilst still offering protection from harm. As seen in Table 1 the number of children under guardianship orders was reduced and there was a slight increase in the number of children under non-guardianship orders.
It is important to consider however that mandatory reporting was introduced in Victoria in 1993/94. Notifications of child abuse rose from 17,981 in 1990/91 to 26,622 in 1993/94. There was however no commensurate increase in orders, there was in fact a decrease. In an ideal world it could be argued that these cases were dealt with much more appropriately through family support services, however the evidence indicates that this was not the case. A report released by the Victorian Auditor General in June 1996 highlighted a number of deficiencies in the Victorian child welfare system. The report included instances of delays in inquiries, of children being sent back to violent homes or being kept by the department in conditions where they were suffering preventable harm.
It is apparent that there has been a concerted effort in Victoria to reduce the number of children living in residential care. In the Report on Service Provision (1995), the Victorian Department detailed the significant service re-development which was undertaken in 1993-95 to redistribute the imbalance from funding high cost residential services to lower cost home based care. (p.610)
New South Wales
In New South Wales there has been quite a significant increase in children under orders (refer Tables 1 and 2). The majority of this increase was in Non-Guardianship Orders, although Guardianship Orders did rise slightly. In the New South Wales Department of Community Services document, Strategic Directions for Child Protection (1996), the Department notes an increase of 56 percent in child protection notifications between 1990/91 and 1993/94. Such an increase has placed pressure on the numbers of protective orders made. There has been an attempt in New South Wales to make these orders less coercive by drastically increasing the use of non-guardianship orders.
In New South Wales, the structure of service provision has been changing since the Report to the Minister for Health and Community Services from the Committee Established to Review Substitute Care Services in NSW, was released in 1992 (this report is known as the 'Usher Report'). The implementation of the report's major recommendations has resulted in the closure of large government run institutions which have been replaced by smaller, localised services run by the non-government sector. There has been an overall shift to using non-government services providers for substitute care. The latest policy documents indicate a dual service provision role between NGOs and the Department with placement options to be developed in the non-government sector 'where feasible and possible within budget parameters' (Strategic Directions for Substitute Care Program, 1996; p.7).
Other policy priorities in New South Wales include:
1. Implementation of a statewide planning model for future services and the development of area substitute care plans.
2. Increased focus on case planning which aims to improve outcomes for children in care or leaving care.
3. The development of policy and practice documents such as standards, assessment and decision making.
New South Wales is also currently undertaking a review of their care and protection legislation.
Western Australia
The proposed new legislation in Western Australia (1996) reflects the trend towards more emphasis on parental responsibility. The legislation proposes offers of support and assistance to parents who are experiencing difficulties in the care of their children. Coercive statutory intervention in the lives of families would only proceed when parents fail to use the services and the safety of children is at significant risk. (Department of Family and Children's Services, 1996; p.3)
The policy direction in substitute care in Western Australia is towards funding services which provide placement and support services that focus on reuniting children with their families. The Department's Annual Report 1995/96 notes the need to develop options for young people with behavioural and emotional difficulties.
There is also a review underway which aims to develop a more suitable range of supported care services around the State.
South Australia
South Australia is also undertaking a major re-development of their provision of substitute care services. A draft plan has been developed which incorporates providing services which are flexible and tailored to meeting the needs of children and their families. The plan proposes a resource distribution model which acknowledges the disproportionate number of Aboriginal children and their families in this service system. (Family and Community Services, Annual Report, 1996; p.37)
Remaining States and Territories
Queensland, Tasmania, the Northern Territory and the Australian Capital Territory are all following the trend towards less coercive intervention, greater emphasis on family reunification and greater family involvement in decision making. A substantial number of children in Tasmania are in children's homes which are funded by the Department and run by NGOs. Department officials indicated in conversation that whilst there are no definite plans to move towards a greater emphasis on family based care, this is likely to occur in the future. Queensland policy development is focussed on shared care arrangements, which focus more on individual needs and family involvement.
2.5 WHY HAVE THESE TRENDS OCCURRED?
In the historical analysis it became clear that decisions on substitute care policy are based on the political and economic context of the times. The four trends outlined by Cashmore and Castell- McGregor above have not simply evolved due to greater knowledge and awareness, but have similarly been based on pressures experienced by each state and territory government. Pressures on government budgets, declining public sector and increased community concern about child abuse are some of the forces which have shaped substitute care policy in recent times.
Economic and Political Factors
The prevailing ideologies which Australian governments have brought to the governance and administration of the public service and their respective communities have undergone some major changes in recent years. The dominance of neo-classical economics over the past two decades has resulted in a reduced role for government and for the bureaucracy. 'Big government' is regarded as too intrusive into the lives of individuals, families and business, and big bureaucracies are considered too cumbersome to be able to respond to the requirements of a national economy. Neo-classical economics is based on a belief in market forces as the most efficient way of distributing resources within society.
There is general acceptance from all sides of politics that economic growth is the key to improving the well-being of the community. For economic growth to occur nations must improve their competitiveness. The key to achieving this competitiveness is in using a nation's resources more efficiently in the production of goods and services.
This economic theory places great emphasis on freedom, both individual freedom and the freedom of the market. The bureaucratic model of big government is being dismantled as a result of arguments that it is economically inefficient in its use of resources. The increasing emphasis on economic efficiency, or getting more value for each dollar of government expenditure, will have an impact on all sectors of Australia's economy, including the community social services sector.
The reduction in the government's bureaucracy has occurred at all levels of government in Australia. As state governments have little revenue raising power, they are largely reliant on the Commonwealth for their expenditure needs. State governments are largely responsible for program delivery in the community services area and as such they have 'felt the pinch' of cutbacks imposed by successive Commonwealth Governments and have been downsizing their public sector in response. This downsizing has been occurring in all States and Territories.
What is the impact of the significant downsizing of governments on substitute care services?
The answer to that question is more complex than simply just asserting that a reduction in the public sector means a reduction in service provision. The States and Territories still have a legal obligation to ensure the care and protection of children and they have been seeking ways of fulfilling this obligation whilst still reducing costs. There a general perception in the field that reducing costs is the most important driving force in any reforms of substitute care systems undertaken by State/Territory Community Service Departments. This is reflected in a comment made recently by a well known children's advocate who stated, the paramount role of Director-Generals of Community Services Departments is no longer the care and protection of the children under their guardianship, but as fiscal managers (O'Reilly, 1997).
A further pressure on all state governments is the impact of community concern which accompanies regular media coverage of those instances where the state's failure to provide adequate care and protection for a child results in the child's misfortune or death. Political decisions are often made in response to this outrage.
There are a number of examples of individual cases which have led to major new policy decisions. One of the most well known cases was that of Daniel Valerio from Victoria, who was killed by his mother's de facto husband. Daniel's death caused outrage in the general community. A daily Melbourne newspaper conducted a campaign highlighting Daniel's story and the failure of the child protection system to prevent his death. This campaign led to the introduction of mandatory reporting in Victoria and put pressure on other States and Territories which had not introduced this policy to do the same.
Recent reports emanating from the Police Royal Commission in New SouthWales uncovering paedophilia networks have similarly highlighted deficiencies in the system of care and protection. In 1993, a string of child deaths in New South Wales understandably raised community concern about how we as a society failed to protect these children. In Queensland there have been a number of tragic cases in recent times. An article in The Sun Herald (8/12/96) outlined the story of a young boy who by all accounts had been mistreated by his mothers de facto husband on an ongoing basis, and was eventually killed by him. The article raised questions about why the State department did not respond appropriately before it was too late.
In the shifting ground of economic, political and social influences the community's expectations about the ability of statutory bodies to ensure the safety of all children has been increased, at the same time as governments are containing or reducing their expenditure. This is a classic example of social policy attempting to match social values whilst being tempered by economic and political constraints.
2.6 THE RESPONSES OF GOVERNMENTS
The dilemma facing all state and territory governments is how to develop a child welfare system which is effective and efficient given the lack of general commitment by governments to provide adequate finances and other resources to this area. The trends outlined above fit neatly into the State and Territory governments economic agenda. Maintaining children in the care of their parents and other relatives, utilising foster care rather than residential care, represent potential areas of savings for cash strapped governments. The commitment of Australian governments to the well-being of Australia's children must be questioned when their record on responding to child abuse is considered.
The introduction of mandatory reporting of child abuse in most Australian States and Territories has resulted in an increase in the number of notifications to which welfare departments have needed to respond and has consequently placed greater strain on already tight resources. This has limited the scope for increasing resources in substitute care, as well as requiring new methods of response which are quick, cost effective and responsive to the needs of children 'at risk'. Most states have found this very difficult to achieve and it has resulted in a sense of 'crisis' in child welfare.
Throughout Australia, and indeed across the social democracies of the western world, child protection services are struggling to cope with ever increasing numbers of reports of suspected child maltreatment. Often these referrals are inappropriately labelled child mistreatment when they involve families who do not necessarily mistreat their child but who have more generic problems, such as financial or housing difficulties, a disabled care giver or suffering from serious stress. (Tomlinson, 1996)
The difficulties in having to deal with large numbers of reports and the recognition that many of the families who cases of mistreatment are unsubstantiated may still require some support, has led a number of Australian states and territories to consider new models of child protection (op. cit., p.1).
Under this new approach, cases are no longer seen in purely child protection terms. Rather individual cases can be viewed in the overall context in which the alleged abuse has occurred, informed by a comprehensive assessment of the family. The balance between child protection and the role of family support is altered such that child protection no longer drives the system but becomes merely one important facet in an overall welfare assessment. The potential danger within the family is assessed, and if there is evidence of actual or potential risk, they may be referred for family support (op. cit., p.1).
If the assessment concludes that there is potential danger for the child, they may be placed in substitute care. In most cases this will initially be for a short time in order to address the issue which resulted in removal.
Liddell and Goddard have identified this trend in Victoria (1995, p.104). They highlight the difficulties facing governments who philosophically believe in smaller government and less expenditure, yet must carry out their legislated responsibilities and respond to community concern. In Victoria this has resulted in an increase in resources for child protection which has been directed to initial investigations rather than long term work and follow-up. As they state,
Foster care services have increased, but residential care has been wound back to a very minor role. Short-term family support services have increased. It seems, though, that the long term aim of service policy is to focus on the most serious cases via strategies which are short-term and cost-efficient and which will save money over time.
The introduction of initiatives such as Family Preservation Schemes are also seen as a way of preventing placement and providing services to families in an intensive short term way. Family preservation services are designed to provide short term intensive support to families where children have been identified as at risk of removal. Early evaluations of these programs which have been operating in South Australia, Queensland, Western Australia and New South Wales, indicate that they may be effective in preventing placement. A comprehensive evaluation report undertaken by Centacare Catholic Family Services in Adelaide showed that for the 12 months of the evaluation, 193 children from 138 families were at risk of out-of-home placement when referred to the Agency's Family Preservation Program. Of these 193 only 14 children were placed in substitute care.
There have also been some concerns raised about the assumptions underlying family preservation services. Some well known child advocates have raised concerns about the danger of an emphasis on family preservation leading to children remaining in unsafe homes (Castell-McGregor, 1992). Richard Gelles, formerly an advocate for family preservation services in the USA, has recently released a book in which he criticises the over emphasis on family preservation in the USA. He believes there is a trend in the USA to keep all families together no matter what their history or circumstances which often leaves children in very vulnerable situations. The David of the book's title was killed under such circumstances.
Whilst these trends may, at a policy level, be congruent with professional and community expectations about children and families, the implementation of these policies is flawed due to economic and political pressures. Similar issues face the child welfare field in Great Britain. The British Government's Children's Act 1989 emphasised the need to support families rather than placing them under surveillance. The Act provided for a wide spectrum of services for children and their families. Packman and Jordan (1991) described it as a quantum leap from the old restricted notions of prevention to a more positive outreaching duty of support for children and families (p.323). Section 17 (1) of the Children's Act 1989 states
It shall be the general duty of every local authority (a) to safeguard and promote the welfare of children within their area who are in need, and (b) so far as is consistent with that duty, to promote the upbringing of such children by their families, by providing a range and level of services appropriate to those children's needs.
The Act clearly promotes the role of social service departments as much more than surveillance and investigation of child abuse, but as actively providing support services to children and their families.
Unfortunately in Britain the reality of implementing the Act has not lived up to expectations. It appears one of the main problems has been the lack of resources provided for family support services. Colton, Drury and Williams (1995) place these difficulties in the context of trying to implement the collectivist philosophy of the Children Act in a residualist society (p.727). Jack and Stepney (1995) note that the new methods of funding social services are aimed at cost containment, marketisation and a 'further residualisation of the public service' (p.35). They argue that this has resulted in a reduction in generalist family support services and an increase in specialist services. Thus, contrary to the spirit of the Children Act, children 'in need' find themselves having to be defined as being at risk of 'significant harm' before they receive any services at all. (op. cit.)
The British Children Act 1989, perhaps inevitably reflects rather than resolves many of the inherent contradictions of the social policy framework for children and their families developed during the past decade. It places questionable reliance on the disease model of child abuse, using the assessment of risk from 'significant harm' as a means of identifying 'dangerous' individuals or families whilst preventing unwarranted intrusion into the lives of the majority. This approach sits uneasily alongside the provision of support services for families with children 'in need'. Pressure for social workers to do something about child abuse, and the government's continuing ideological and economic objections to funding universal services, which actively support family functioning, mean that most of the available resources continue to be devoted to investigation and surveillance strategies, in the name of child protection.
(Jack & Stepney, 1995; p.34)
In Victoria the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 was developed on similar principles to the equivalent Act in Great Britain. The Victorian Act promoted the role of the state in supporting children and families. The Act was an attempt to move away from court wardship and legal intervention in cases where children and their families were experiencing difficulties due to poverty, illness or stress. The Act promoted voluntary access to support services. As Carney (1994) notes this was a vast improvement from the previous legislation which was both resource intensive and stigmatising.
However, the implementation of the Act has again not lived up to expectations. According to Carney one of the groups adversely affected by these developments were young people who would have previously been the responsibility of the state but who under the new legislation were left to access support services. Unfortunately these services were not available and this has resulted in what Green (1993) termed 'voluntary homelessness'. This does not mean there should be a return to the old model of wardship, as Carney states [i]t is totally unacceptable for social policy to present as Buckley's choice; a choice between the quite unpalatable 'court wardship' model and the barely less unpalatable option of leaving young people to fend for themselves, with a little assistance from services for the homeless. (1994, p.8)
This concern is repeated around Australia as all States and Territories have abolished status offences under which young people were 'charged' for being homeless or 'at risk'. As Carney notes it is unacceptable to go back to this model, however it is also unacceptable to leave young people without any assistance. The key is finding a balance between a young person's civil liberties and the community's responsibility to provide them with care and protection. This is an ongoing debate for the community at large.
In terms of policy development a number of points should be made. These changes in child welfare policy correspond with the value society places on families. They reinforce the importance of children being with their families. However, the effectiveness of these developments is dependent on an overall policy framework which includes universal family support services, well resourced and highly skilled staff to undertake family assessments and high quality, accessible and flexible substitute care options. The key to policy reform lies in developing a framework which can more adequately provide these services keeping in mind the political and economic pressures.
2.7 HOW DOES SUBSTITUTE CARE POLICY IMPACT ON CHILDREN?
Surely the most important test for any substitute care policy is how it impacts on the children it is designed to care for. Again, this is an area where outcomes related data is difficult to establish. It is both difficult to define and to collect.
The Report on Government Service Provision (1995), included a section on the quality of substitute care, however data is limited due to data collection systems which are individually maintained by the States/Territories. Some data is kept on maltreatment whilst in care, however this data is not consistent and is complicated by the range of placements options which include residential care through to supervised parental care. The report provides an initial indicator framework. The report notes the need to develop outcome indicators for substitute care which are based on reasons for entry to care. The data at this stage is minimal and limited due to differences in the legislative policy environment and the mix and nature of the services. (p.587)
There is however, plenty of anecdotal evidence which indicates the experience of many children in care is a negative one. In a recent statement made by the Australian Association of Young People in Care (AAYPIC), it was asserted that seven out of 10 young people in the current care system continue to be abused by that system, and that 25 percent had suffered sexual abuse (The Sydney Morning Herald, 29/3/96, p.5). This abuse includes systems abuse, whereby the system itself, as opposed to the foster carers or residential workers, fails to provide a high standard of care and protection.
AAYPIC recently published the document, Every Childhood Lasts a Lifetime (Owen, 1996). This book told the stories of 15 people who had been in the substitute care system for the last 40 years. The stories tell of the often tragic lives of these children prior to entry to the care system and it also highlights the continuing plight many of them faced once in the system.
Other evidence of the inadequacies of the current care system are found in individual state reviews and reports. Early last year, the New South Wales Department of Community Services released a report it had commissioned on a longitudinal study of wards leaving care (Cashmore & Paxman, 1996). The study found that the experiences of children whilst in care had a significant effect on their transition from wardship. Some of the key factors included:
a) the stability and continuity of their placement,
b) the extent to which the children and young people were kept informed of the reasons for entry to care,
c) the extent and frequency of birth family contact, and
d) the importance of maintaining an ongoing and trusting relationship with a worker.
As previously noted, Cashmore and Castell McGregor have identified the effects on children of the four trends they defined (op. cit., p.125). Placing children in care is viewed as a last resort. Family support and preservation is considered the first option. Such strategies receive widespread support, however the lack of early support programs combined with the reluctance to place children in care often means children who are placed in care are older and more emotionally disturbed. Older children are more difficult to place in foster care than younger children and they are often more difficult to manage, thus requiring foster carers with a high level of skill and commitment. Whilst such carers certainly exist, there has been little increase in remuneration, status, recognition or training.
There is also a shortage of carers particularly for adolescents and emotionally disturbed children. The availability of a small pool of carers means appropriate placements are less likely to occur which increases the risk of placement breakdown. As Cashmore and Castell-McGregor have highlighted, breakdowns can be very detrimental to a child's development (op. cit., p.126). Economic pressures facing families also have an effect on foster carer recruitment and therefore the ability of the state and NGOs to provide children with foster care placements.
Foster carers have historically come from the working and lower-middle classes. This group in society has been facing increasing economic strain as a result of wage restraint, economic recessions and global economic cycles. The Director of a Victorian NGO commented that these factors had contributed to a reduced numbers of families expressing an interest in providing foster care. This pressure has also coincided with an increased emphasis on foster care as the preferred placement for most children. Thus the need for foster care placements has increased at the same time as the pool of carers has decreased.
Whilst the use of shorter Orders is designed to ensure legal review of cases and prevent children getting lost in the system, Cashmore and Castell-McGregor have argued that this may lead to the unintended consequence of a feeling of impermanence in placements.
Standards of Care
There have been some recent developments in producing standards for substitute care services on a national basis. The development of the National Out-of-Home Care Standards (1996) originated from a proposal by the Substitute Care Sub-Committee of the Council of Social Welfare Ministers and the Standing Committee of Community Services and Income Security Administrators.
Developing standards is an important element in best practice principles and have been developed for a range of community services including for disability services and for services to people with a mental illness. The National Out-of-Home Care Standards (1996) provide a core set of baseline standards. These standards are designed to apply to both government and non-government services and aim to meet the needs of each child, young person and family including those with special needs, eg. Aboriginal children, children from a non-English speaking background and children in rural and remote areas. Who are these national standards aimed at and what do they hope to achieve?
The target group is children, young people and their family who as a result of abuse, neglect or family support needs require placement away from home. These children or young people may be placed on a voluntary basis or subject to a statutory order. The outcomes of the document will provide a framework for consistent standards across Australian States and Territories, consolidation of national and international best practice and provide a base for mutual recognition and approval. The standards have a primary focus of ensuring results for each child/young person and their family, is consistent with the principles and objects of State/Territory legislation. The standards are developed to sit within the context of the broad funding and service agreement between the agencies and the relevant government departments.
(1996, p.5)
The national standards are divided into the following nine areas:
1. Case Management
2. Services Access
3. Exit Procedures
4. Decision Making and Choice
5. Privacy and Dignity
6. Participation and Integration
7. Complaints and Disputes
8. Service Management
9. Direct Care-giver Approval and Support.
Each area is further divided into three components:
(a) Purpose;
(b) National Standard; and,
(c) Supporting Standards.
The development of these standards are an important initiative in that they provide a mechanism by which some uniformity between the States and Territories can be achieved. They will also provide some 'in principle' policy and operational standards which can be applied to the way children and young people in care should be treated.
However, at this time there are some concerns with the structure and operation of the national standards. To begin with, the standards are very broad. Consequently it is difficult to quantify the extent to which they are being adhered to. For example, in Section 1 - Case Management, the Supporting Standard No. 1.7 states [t]hat all agency activities will promote the integrity and dignity of the child/young person and their family. Such standards may benefit from a more detailed 'fleshing out', in order to demonstrate how authorities can meet this standard and to allow for monitoring of their adherence to the standards.
A gap in the areas covered by the standards is the need for a 'review of placement' standard. Whilst review is mentioned under the Case Management section (Item 1.6), the importance of reviews are so fundamental to ensuring the child's needs and rights are met it should be included as a separate section. Access to independent, well resourced and regular review processes is a vital element of any implementation of substitute care reform.
A number of the standards relate specifically to agency policy. However, there appears to be no mechanism in place to monitor, review or sanction agencies which do not satisfactorily meet the standards. Hence, it is ultimately the responsibility of each State and Territory welfare department to implement the standards in their jurisdiction.
2.8 WHAT IS 'THE PROBLEM'?
Identifying areas for reform in substitute care legislation, policy and practice appear to fall into two categories. The first is consideration of the circumstances surrounding children entering care and the second is their experience once they are in the system.
Political and economic pressures are facing all State and Territory Governments which continue to balance the need to develop a substitute care system which more adequately meets the community's expectations against the need to contain increases in Budget expenditure. In recent years this need to keep in check any major increase of the public sector in the area of child welfare in a climate of fiscal restraint has led to State and Territory Governments placing an emphasis on the 'child protection' component of child welfare. This is very much a minimalist approach to intervention as well as expenditure. The idea is that if families which are potentially 'dangerous' are recognised, then intensive support systems can be put in place before children come to harm.
Governments would be aware that this approach actually produces a double benefit for themselves. On the one hand it has the benefit of reducing the state's expenditure on universal family support services. On the other hand it prevents unwarranted state intrusion into family life - a benefit that many citizens would welcome because they hold the views that 'big government' is 'bad government' and that governments do not have a legitimate role to interfere in the lives of families. Of course the problem with this approach, as we are regularly reminded, is that some children may be left in vulnerable situations for longer periods of time. If these children are then placed in care they are often more emotionally and behaviourally disturbed and it is thus more difficult to find a suitable and stable placement.
Other trends include the greater use of home based and kinship care. These alternatives are less resource intensive than traditional residential care, and can ideally provide a more 'normalised' environment for children. Kinship care in particular appears to be an attractive option as it maintains family ties and may be less resource intensive. However, there is currently very little data about the use, effectiveness or cost of this form of substitute care in Australia.
From a national perspective one obvious concern about the present substitute care systems operating in Australia is the lack of uniformity across the country. This lack of uniformity is clearly evidenced by