Challenging poverty in families to protect children

This paper fits within the Conference theme regarding evaluating what counts in child protection practice and policy. It presents the outcomes of interviews with child protection workers in the MackayWhitsunday region of the Department of Families. Workers were interviewed regarding their understanding of the relevance of family poverty to child protection concerns. The results indicate that workers did indeed consider family poverty to be a key issue. The author notes that while this link has been long understood, it continues to be neglected as a practice concern. The author presents four major recommendations for improvement in the responses of statutory child protection departments to, so that we count poverty as an issue in families where children are harmed or at risk of harm. Introduction The theme of this Conference challenges us to evaluate what counts in the protection of children. ̊ Sorting out issues from the range of possibilities that confront us is a timely activity, especially when an evidence base for child protection intervention decisions is ̊ becoming increasingly sophisticated. ̊ In this paper I argue that poverty in families where child protection concerns exist remains a pressing issue for practitioners and researchers and that this requires attention. ̊ It fits with the conference focus and it presents recent research in the MackayWhitsunday region. The paper presents findings from a small study undertaken in Mackay. ̊ This study sought to explore the understandings of Family Services officers (FSO’s) regarding the influence of an understanding of poverty on their work with families. ̊ It appears from the literature that the link between child protection concerns and poverty is well understood and this literature is long standing (Jordan, 1974; Gordon, 1988; Callahan and Lumb, 1995; CAFWAA, 2002). The associative link between child protection concerns and poverty, although well accepted, is not incorporated into practice with families. The paper presents the results of a small scale qualitative study undertaken in the two North Queensland regional cities of Townsville and Mackay. The author undertook interviews with ten (10) Family Services officers (FSO s) in the Department of Families (DoF). Interviews revealed that FSO s agreed that family poverty is a stressor for child maltreatment. Participants differed in the extent to which they ascribed personal or societal responsibility for these family circumstances. The paper concludes with four recommendations to deal with family poverty in a child protection practice and policy context. The paper argues that more can and should be done to help children and families in this regard, to ensure that the role of poverty in child protection concerns is counted . The face of family poverty in contemporary Australia According to McCallum (2002, 3) Whichever way you measure it, the levels of poverty in Australia are unacceptable. Too many people confront a scarcity of resources that prevents their social and economic participation. They are on incomes too low to make ends meet, locked out of a job, living in communities with limited services and industry, unable to afford adequate housing, or in poor physical and mental health. In 2001, a Smith Family Report found family poverty to be widespread in Australia. The key findings of the Report in relation to children and families were as follows: • 14.9 percent of our children and 12.3 percent of our adults live in poverty • The rate of child poverty declined in the first half but rose sharply in the second half of the 1990 s • Sole parents remain the group most at risk of being in poverty (Harding, Lloyd and Greenwell 2001, 2). This paper was strongly criticized by Saunders (2002), on the grounds of methodological differences. While his critique is not central to the subject of this paper, Saunders concerns were substantial. However the Smith Family Report is the most recent review of family poverty nationally. In my own state, the Queensland Council of Social Service has implemented a Fair Queensland campaign in recognition of the fact that There is a growing gap between rich and poor. More and more working people live in poverty but at the same time executive salaries and bonuses are skyrocketing. (QCOSS, 2001) Additionally, in 1999, QCOSS commissioned a report into poverty in Queensland, where families were found to be a group vulnerable to poverty, due to the unique mix of pressures experienced at this stage of the life cycle. Literature on the link between child protection concerns and family poverty Poverty affecting children is very widespread in its impact (McClelland, 2000) and the existence of stressors described above can tip many parents over the edge into harming their children. The literature in relation to the link between child protection concerns and poverty is voluminous (Pelton, 1981, 1987; Gelles, 1992; Jordan, 1996; Tomison 1996a; Parton, 2002; CAFWAA, 2002). It is a long-standing literature (Gil, 1970; Jordan, 1974) and this point is very relevant to the issues in this paper. What has changed despite our knowledge? How is it that we continue to fail to count poverty as a factor in child maltreatment? Tregeagle (1985) examined the link between abuse, neglect and poverty. She noted a strong association and a professional resistance to using this knowledge. Gordon (1988) makes the point, crucial to this paper, that poverty does not cause child harm. The great majority of parents battling against poverty do not harm their children. Conversely, not all families in which children experience harm are families in poverty. Additionally, as Tomison (1996a) notes, the debate continues as to whether poverty is implicated in child maltreatment because it precipitates maltreatment, or whether it is due to greater scrutiny by public agencies that results in over reporting in relation to poor families. James (2000, 4) writes of poverty as a risk factor for child abuse. Risk factors are those elements which put children s safety, welfare or well being at risk. They do not necessarily lead to child abuse and neglect, but they make it more likely There appears to be an institutional blindness to the role played by poverty in the risk of children experiencing significant harm or being at risk of future significant harm by care givers. There is one issue among many that illustrates this blindness. Around Australia, there is considerable preoccupation with the over representation of indigenous children and young people in all stages of the child protection system. Indigenous children and young people are more likely to be subject to notification of concerns of maltreatment, more likely to have concerns substantiated, and more likely to be on child protection orders (SNAICC, 2002). Indigenous communities are chronically and drastically disadvantaged in contrast to the population as a whole. They are the poorest of the poor. As Elliott and Sultmann (2002, 14) state, this over representation appears to have its genesis in the lack of effective measures to address the broader social issues facing Indigenous families and communities . CAFWAA (2002, 36) goes further, stating that in relation to the over representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children Poverty and disadvantage are the major causes of child removal, not inappropriate parenting. This disadvantage contributes to a constellation of risk factors affecting indigenous children. This over representation will continue while there is no end to the poverty and disadvantage being experienced. A concentration on the over representation of indigenous children and young people without an appreciation of the underlying issues will perpetuate this blindness. Approach to the Study As I have argued in the preceding section, it appears to be very difficult to tackle poverty as a stressor in children experiencing harm or being at risk of harm, at a child protection practice level. I was interested to explore the understandings that child protection workers have of the links, and to interview them as to what they do in practice when they are engaged in child protection interventions with families. The approach adopted was qualitative. As I wanted to explore the practice experience of workers I considered it appropriate to choose a paradigm that allowed me to ask them. I therefore chose an interpretivist paradigm (Bryman, 2001). This paradigm was appropriate to the study design. It allowed me to understand the ways in which workers shaped their child protection practice in relation to their awareness of family poverty. As Bryman (2001, 264) notes, within this approach The stress is on the understanding of the social world through an examination of the interpretation of that world by its participants. May (1997, 38) describes the interpretivist paradigm as examination of The commonsense methods that people use in making sense of their social environments. I involved the Queensland Commission for Children and Young People in a supportive capacity and I believe this connection was crucial to my obtaining Departmental permission to proceed with the study. Once approval had been granted centrally in Brisbane, the two regional directors assisted me to make contact at North Queensland area office level in order to obtain participants for the study. I attended staff meetings of the Mackay, Townsville and Thuringowa area offices to brief staff about the project and this gave FSO s an opportunity to choose to be involved. I requested that staff initiate email contact with me if they were willing to participate. By proceeding in this way, individuals did not have to be identified as having volunteered to take part in the study, thereby ensuring confidentiality. I organised individual research interview appointments. I employed a qualitative interview approach. I interviewed ten (10) FSO s. Within DoF, people from a range of social science backgrounds are e