Decolonising Out of home care (OOHC) in australia
Modern social welfare shares an abundance to ascertain from its turbulent colonial history. The ferocity of a timeline of colonial practices and dogmas constructing the criminalisation of Indigenous peoples, dispossession, genocide and assimilation has been extensively argued by historians, clearly stated in key national inquires and acknowledged publicly by former Prime Minister Paul Keating in his Redfern Speech (1992) followed by heavily anticipated “national apology” from former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd (2008). As Aboriginal and Torres Stait Islander children have found themselves coming increasingly in contact with out of home care (OOHC) systems, not only has Australia had to challenge colonialism as a legacy, but been forced to question the limitations of its abilities in properly administering fair justice and intervention for Australia’s First Nations. Assessing the needs or best interests of Indigenous children from a westernised perspective, however, is not able to ascertain the fortification of rights for First Nation children and youth to maintain connection to culture. The premise of this article, therefore, will be addressing the concern of what it means to dismantle the crisis of the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander youth in OOHC, and the decolonisation of Australia from a lens of culture competence. Furthermore, its focus will be to highlight the challenges and obstacles service providers face when working amongst Indigenous peoples in OOHC and child protection contexts in a constantly and reforming social world. A holistic and ecological approach to foster cultural competence and connection, therefore, is absolutely paramount to the dismantlement of our colonial world and henceforth broken social welfare systems.
As a non-indigenous Australian, I am neither justified or practised to speak on the weight or significance of fair justice for First Nation populations. As a human rights advocate, however, I nonetheless recognise the need to conceptually engage with the dismantlement of colonial practices and its paramount importance to the decolonisation of Australia’s social justice systems.
The current discourse of OOHC, particularly in response to the emergency of over-representation of First Nation people, and ‘decolonising justice’ for Indigenous populations is growing in currency. As according to Blagg (2008), in order to critically conceptualise the current relations between OOHC institutions and First Nation people, such institutions must be illustrated in the context of its history. Additionally, those same institutions must develop the skill to conceptualise and then dismantle the contributions they make to safeguarding, execution and enforcement of colonial power.
Australian Policy and Legislation in Context
Conceptualising the impact of modern policy approaches directly related to Torres Strait Islander children and youth in out-of-home care demands an understanding of political context and historical legislative actions that have moulded approaches to Indigenous welfare, particularly with children, over a course of time. Traditionally, Australia’s legislative actions have been built on concepts of segregation, exclusion, marginalisation and inclusion with conditions for Indigenous and First Nation peoples (Murphy, 2013). Throughout the later stages of the nineteenth century, the majority of policy and legislative papers created and infiltrated based on protectionist agendas towards Indigenous peoples, a regime that recognised their role as “soothing the drying pillow” of the Aboriginal race which was soon to be extinct (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997, p. 23). “Culture Genocide”, as a term, has been utilised in the past to refer to a multitude of measures and strategies used to overpower Indigenous culture throughout the years of the Stolen Generation (Connolly & Ward, 2008). Whilst “genocide” traditionally would imply the deliberately/intentionally murder of a mass of people from one collective group, it should be argued that “cultural genocide” is also the involvement of a deliberate endeavour to eliminate the traditions, customs and culture of any specific cultural group. After all, “the ultimate purpose of removal was to control the production of Indigenous people” (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, 1997, pg 25). There are remarkably few Indigenous populations that have not been touched or effected by the repercussion of trauma from Stolen Generations. A large percentage of parents of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children we see in out-of-home care were children/grandchildren of the Stolen Generations (Bamblett & Lewis, 2007), a core concern that provide evidence for the intergenerational ripple effects of previous policies surrounding child protection on modern and emerging Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples.
Current Data
The over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out of home care (OOHC) is thoroughly documented and heavily presented in current demonstrative data provided by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Over the past decade, the prevalence of Indigenous children in OOHC as grown significantly. During 2018–19, 170,200 (30 per 1,000) Australian children received child protection services (investigation, care and protection order and/or were in out-of-home care). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were 8 times as likely as non-Indigenous children to have received child protection services. Children from geographically remote areas were more likely to be the subject of a substantiation, or be in out-of-home care than those from major cities. At 30 June 2019, of the approximately 44,900 children in out-of-home care, 92% were in home-based care. Most of the children in out-of-home care (95%) were on care and protection orders and 67% had been continuously in out-of-home care for 2 years or more.
Rates of OOHC Amongst Indigenous Communities
In 2018–19, 51,500 Indigenous children received child protection services, a rate of 156 per 1,000 Indigenous children—an increase from 134 per 1,000 in 2014–15.
12,600 Indigenous children were the subject of a substantiation in 2018–19. The most common type of substantiated abuse was emotional abuse (47%) followed by neglect (31%).
At 30 June 2019, 21,900 Indigenous children were on care and protection orders. Of these children, 70% (15,300) were on guardianship or custody orders.
1 in 18 Indigenous children (around 18,000) were in out-of-home care at 30 June 2019, two-thirds (64%) of whom were living with relatives, kin or other Indigenous caregivers.
Indigenous children continue to be over-represented among children receiving child protection services, including for substantiated child abuse and neglect, children on care and protection orders and children in out-of-home care.
Based on data from 6 jurisdictions, 84% of Indigenous children who exited out-of-home care to a permanency outcome in 2017–18 did not return to care within 12 months.
Indigenous Over Representation
Indigenous over-representation, however, is not a crisis unique nor limited to Australian boarders; New Zealand and North America are also combating similar concerns with their own Indigenous populations and their presence in OOHC programs (Atwool, 2016; Cram, Gulliver, Ota & Wilson, 2015). As argued by Tilbury (2015), a complex tapestry of past and present individual, micro, macro, meso systematic factors have largely attributed to the over-representation of Indigenous children in welfare systems.
Arguably, overrepresentation is one of the many consequences of the persistent effects of colonisation which has resulted in institutional racism, scarce of cultural awareness, as well as bias in statutory systems, coupled with an alarming web of indigenous socioeconomic disadvantage (Tilbury, 2015). Funston & Herring (2016) argue that the growing rates of Indigenous children in out of home care, which are tantamount with the numbers seen throughout the years of Stolen Generations, is predicative of an increasingly darker discourse in Australia’s history. Based upon policies of assimilation, the horrific events that stemmed from colonisation were born from a purpose designed to eradicate Indigenous culture, and thus, serves as indication of the devastating shock westernised interventions can have on First Nation communities. Deeply rooted socioeconomic disadvantage has risen the need for early intervention and prevention services in aims of reducing Indigenous overrepresentation in OOHC systems (Funston & Herring, 2016; SNAICC, 2016). Early intervention and prevention, however, are methods that fail to address or shield the cultural rights of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children currently residing in out of home care.
Colonialism and ‘Social Contracting’
Service providers and other NGO’s continuously advocate and lobby for legal, political, social and economic direction that combines initiatives of self-determination in Indigenous communities with decolonising state-administered OOHC institutions and systems. The current discourse of ‘self-determination’, however, does not suggest nor demand for the creation of independence or separation of mainstream justice systems in Australia, but rather a dialogue that “speaks to Aboriginal aspirations for a renewed social contract between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia.” (Blagg, 2008 pg 189) reflexivity on what decolonisation means for First Nation peoples.
The purpose of this article, therefore, is not to prescribe a form of ‘social contract’ as a foundation for decolonising Australian OOHC systems, nor is its purpose to construct a version of social contract that is inclusive of operations or initiatives designed for social justice. The concern of pursuing social contracting or concepts similar to is how closely it adheres to previously implicated European Enlightenment traditions of philosophy that fostered a stagiest or theatrical view of our colonial history. This, when used in conjunction with the epistemology of racial elitism, which placed Europeans as superior to First Nation “savages”, the concept of social contracting provided Europeans with defence and reasoning for colonial expansion as a natural historical course. A response to theory of decolonisation, therefore, must be mindful of its scholarly and intellectual inheritance, particularly in relation to the conceptual remanence of colonial rationality.
Human Rights, Policy and OOHC.
International frameworks including the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People 2007 (United Nations, 2008), and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989 (United Nations, 1989), have largely guided child protection legislation and systems in Australia. Particularly in child protection systems, these frameworks, are centred around the priority and safeguard of the best securities for each child in OOHC, including their right to contact with family and culture. As espoused by the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007, the significance of self-determination amongst Indigenous communities and populations is paramount to the protection of their cultural, economic and social matter that have a daily impact on their lives (United Nations, 2008). By doing this, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007 endeavours to ascertain that past cultural brutalities, inclusive of the forcible removable of children during the Stolen Generations, are certainly not echoed in future.
Legislation involving child protection in Australia, currently, is a State and Territory responsibility. Some outlines, however, such as the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009—2020, overlook all state territories and guide some consistence throughout the nation (Department of Social Services (DSS), 2015). The position of the National Framework shares an overarching philosophy that the welfare and security of children is secured and ascertained throughout the implementation of early intervention strategies and preventative measures/services that nurtures and strengthens families (DSS, 2015). When applied to Indigenous children, similar strategies and approaches should be implemented to strengthen community capacity and family units to construct an agenda dedicated to reducing the over-representation of Indigenous children in OOHC (DSS, 2015).
Connection to Culture
Also applying to First Nation children and youth in care is the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Protection Principle (ATSICPP). The fundamental premise of the ATSICPP aims to protect the right of cultural connection for Indigenous children. To achieve this, ATSICPP prioritises placement with community members or indigenous families when children enter OOHC (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC), 2017). A strict hierarchy of placement exists under the ATSIPCC, clearly outlining that children should only be placed in a non-indigenous family carer as a measure of last resort and only when the endeavour to source an appropriate indigenous placement has not been successful. Furthermore, non-indigenous placements “must ensure the maintenance of the child’s culture and identity through contact with the child’s community” (Commission for Children and Young People (CCYP), 2016, pg 35). Critically, from a social work lens there are some clear discrepancies that could threaten the success of this initiative. Firstly, systematic concerns such as a lack of Indigenous carers available for OOHC children are troublesome barriers. Secondly, largely differing values and beliefs from non-indigenous care providers and Indigenous children may cause conflict in the application of ATSICPP (Baidai, Mendes & Saunders, 2017; Mendes et al, 2016). By adopting an Indigenous approach, workers and agencies would prioritise conceptualising the importance of cultural connection, family and community as integral components to and primary needs of Indigenous children in OOHC. A westernised lens, however, would only recognise such needs as one of many concerns and facets to address. Westernised belief systems pose threat of agencies as well as workers giving ATSICPP strategies and guidelines less priority over other concerns such as; immediacy to the child’s schooling or other support service providers over their proximity to Indigenous community groups or family.
Whilst the majority of placements of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out of home care are amongst non-indigenous carers is indicative of a calling for louder emphasis on cultural connection, fewer than 50% of children with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander heritage have contact with the parent’s community (CCYP, 2016). Additionally, fifty percent of all non-indigenous carers have had no training in regards to cultural awareness, therefore ill-equipped to nurture a child’s connection to, heritage/culture and community (CCYP, 2016). This is of grave concern as a plethora of emerging studies has evidenced that in comparison to non-indigenous care leavers, Indigenous children leaving OOHC are less likely to return to their family of origin upon exit. As argued by Mendes et al (2016), children in care are at significant threat of being further removed from culture if the appropriate reforms protecting the cultural rights of Indigenous populations is not suitably enacted.
permanent placements
Permanency planning has been broadly introduced across both international and national jurisdictions, that is, the procedure of searching for long-term family systems/units for children who are no longer in contact with their biological parents, nor do the biological parents have any legal guardianship of said children (Gueinzius & Hillel, 2014; Stangeland & Walsh, 2013). Permanency planning has been based upon a Western lens of stability in family units, and thus its cultural relevance when applied to Indigenous cases has been heavily scrutinised (de Finney & di Tomasso, 2015). Whilst core objectives such as finding a surrogate nuclear family are at the centre point of permanency planning, other attachment figures and biological family members tend to be neglected when along the selection processes. Alongside the decision-making procedures, permanent placement also leaves room for lapse of error as it overlooks the importance of cultural connection in children and youth of OOHC. Fejo-King (2015), a notable Indigenous-Australian academic and author, is a memorable advocate for strong cultural identity and community connectedness as integral sources of resilience in Indigenous youth and children. Through adopting a cultural lens, strong cultural networks and familial relationships should be included in permanency planning process in addition to its current standards of procedure.
Generally, children of Indigenous decent who have been raised within their community have developed bond of attachment with more than on adult (Lohoar, Butera & Kennedy, 2014). In OOHC, however, what is given priority is the attachment to the primary carer relationship and its stability. Whilst is cannot go without saying that Indigenous children in OOHC are needing of sturdy and rolling attachments to their primary care workers, there is an urgent calling for placement stability to be reframed to value the stability of culture, identity and biological family connections as it does primary carer relations (Sephton & Morgan, 2012). As a consequence of this not being achieved, permanent care order is not sufficient enough to nurture connection to community, family and culture that Indigenous children all need in order to feel healthy, well and safe.
It is argued that connection to culture is an integral primary need of First Nation children in out-of-home care, and thus, must be more appropriately fostered by child protection systems. A calling for a revise and reform of approaches and policies involving Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in OOHC is undoubtedly necessary. What is needed is a radical shift from previous oppressive discourse to one that fosters and prioritises connection to culture with an acute attention to children’s familiar relations.
Recomendations
The most effective and helpful practice with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in OOHC should integrate cultural-competency training with all workers employed directly with Indigenous children in care; and increase of funding to enhance the collaboration, co-design and consultation between Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations and other non-indigenous NGO’s and government agencies; the endeavour to search and recruit for culturally competent carers; and a shift of focus onto continuous strengthening and facilitation of relationships amongst biological family relationships for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders in OOHC.
The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Protection Principle and the way that it is operationalised needs to be improved by child protection systems, the preservation of family relationships needs to be prioritised, and culturally competent workers and carers need to be ascertained for Indigenous children in care. Prioritising a focus of family networks for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in OOHC will not only radically improve connection to culture, but also grown possibilities and prospects of reunification. This can be achieved by supporting Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders families to further develop healthy, sturdy and resilient relationships with their children in, which in turn can ultimately contribute to a decrease in the presence of First Nation children in out-of-home care.
Conclusion
Our nation is currently in the midst of a child protection crisis, with the overrepresentation of First Nation children in OOHC illustrating sincere concerns for the rising of a second Stolen Generation. Public awareness and acknowledging the importance of connection to culture amongst Indigenous children in OOHC is constantly growing.
We now recognise culture to be integral to health, wellbeing and development amongst First Nation children. Connection to culture, however, is endangered when Indigenous children are entered into out of home care, with poor compliance of cultural competence policies and frameworks designed to foster Indigenous heritage often defied by workers residing in child protection programs. For a multitude of reasons listed, the number of Indigenous children that depend on non-indigenous workers/carers who are void of any form of cultural competence of proficiency necessary in providing for Indigenous children’s cultural needs is alarmingly high. It is beyond necessitous for connection to culture to be recognised as an integral need for children in OOHC, and this is not something that can be appropriately measured by vehicles such as exiting performance targets.
The idea of family needs to be recognised as a central hub of cultural connection by child protection facilitators, programs, NGO’s and government agencies. Furthermore, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children need to feel attached and united with community and family to be connected with their culture. Western conceptualisation of permanency, however, pose as the largest threat of family connection in Indigenous communities, and thus, a child’s capability to foster a connection to community, culture and family. Relationships amongst families need to be prioritised amongst the potential radicalisation of protection reforms, not only to develop a child’s connection to culture, but to serve as a crutch for the development of opportunities for reunification. Most effective practice with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander in OOHC needs to ascertain that carers as well as workers are adequately competent when working with diverse cultures; that the concept of culture and its importance is acknowledged as primary issue of children in care; the relationship, co-design, collaboration and cooperation of non-indigenous NGO’s/ government agencies and ACCO’s is prioritised and improved; and finally, that the conceptualisation of family is recognised as relevant to the growth and development of strengthened connected to culture and cultural identity. In order to achieve these objectives a National Commissioner for Indigenous Children and Young People in out-of-home care might provide effective and efficient oversight, monitoring and direction to grow and steer culturally-responsive practice with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in present and emerging populations.
References
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2007). Child Protection Australia, 2005–06. Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2017). Child Protection Australia, 2015–2016. Retrieved from http://www.aihw.gov.au
Atwool, N. (2016). Journeys of exclusion: Unpacking the experience of adolescent care leavers in New Zealand. In P. Mendes, & P. Snow (Eds.), Young people transitioning from out of home care: International research, policy and practice (pp. 309–328). London: Palgrave Macmillan.
Baidawi, S., Mendes, P., & Saunders, B. J. (2017). The complexities of cultural support planning for Indigenous children in and leaving out-of-home care: The views of service providers in Victoria, Australia. Child & Family Social Work, 22(2), 731–740. doi:10.1111/cfs.12289
Bamblett, M., & Lewis, P. (2007). Detoxifying the child and family welfare system for Australian Indigenous peoples: Self-determination, rights and culture as the critical tools. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 3(3), 43–56.
Commission for Children and Young People. (2016). “Always was, always will be Koori children”: Systemic inquiry into services provided to Aboriginal children and young people in out-of-home care in Victoria. Retrieved from http://www.ccyp.vic.gov.au
Connolly, M., & Ward, T. (2008). Morals, rights and practice in the human services: Effective and fair decision-making in health, social care and criminal justice. London: Jessica KingsleyPublishers.
Cram, F., Gulliver, P., Ota, R., & Wilson, M. (2015). Understanding overrepresentation of Indigenous children in child welfare data: An application of the drake risk and bias models. Child Maltreatment, 20(3), 170–182. doi:10.1177/1077559515580392
de Finney, S., & di Tomasso, L. (2015). Creating places of belonging: Expanding notions of permanency with Indigenous youth in care. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 10(1), 63–85.
Department of Social Services. (2015). Driving change: Intervening early, national framework for protecting Australia’s children 2009-2020. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.
Fejo-King, C. (2015). Why warriors live. In C. Fejo-King, & J. Poona (Eds.), Emerging from the margins: First Australians’ perspectives of social work (pp. 5–36). Canberra: Magpie Goose Publishing.
Funston, L., & Herring, S. (2016). When will the Stolen Generations end? A qualitative critical exploration of contemporary “child protection” practices in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities. Sexual Abuse in Australia & New Zealand, 7(1), 51–58.
Gueinzius, A. T., & Hillel, J. (2014). Permanency best practices for Minnesota’s foster care youth. William Mitchell Law Review, 40(3), 1083–1114.
Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission. (1997). Bringing them home: National inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families. Retrieved from https://www.humanrights.gov.au
Lohoar, S., Butera, N., & Kennedy, E. (2014). Strengths of Australian Aboriginal cultural practices in family life and child rearing. Retrieved from http://www.aifs.gov.au
McDowall, J. J. (2016). Connection to culture by Indigenous children and young people in out-of-home care in Australia. Communities, Children and Families Australia, 10(1), 5–26.
Mendes, P., Saunders, B., & Baidawi, S. (2016). Indigenous care leavers in Victoria: Final report. Retrieved from https://www.lmcf.org.au/
Murphy, J. (2013). Conditional inclusion: Aborigines and welfare rights in Australia, 1900– 47. Australian Historical Studies, 44, 206–226. doi:10.1080/1031461X.2013.79170
Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC). (2016). The Family Matters report: Measuring trends to turn the tide on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child safety and removal. Retrieved from http://www.snaicc.org.au
Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC). (2017). Understanding and applying the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle. Retrieved from http://www.snaicc.org.au
Sephton, R., & Morgan, G. (2012). Envisaging a new model of stability for Aboriginal children. Australian Journal of Adoption, 6(1), 1–6.
Stangeland, J., & Walsh, C. (2013). Defining permanency for Aboriginal youth in care. First Peoples Child & Family Review, 8(2), 24–39.
Tilbury, C. (2015). Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families in Australia: Poverty and child welfare involvement. In E. Fernandez, A. Zeira, T. Vecchiato, & C. Canali (Eds.), Theoretical and empirical insights into child and family poverty: Cross national perspectives (pp. 273–284). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
United Nations. (1989). United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child 1989. Retrieved from http://www.ohchr.org
United Nations. (2008). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples 2007. Retrieved from http://www.un.org