Are We Still Stealing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children?

As National Reconciliation Week draws to a close, I'm struck by how much I've read lately about Australia's continuing stolen generations. There seems to be some sort of acceptance of the idea that governments across Australia are still stealing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families.

Andrew Solomon, for example, wrote a ridiculously confused and contradictory piece for the Guardian titled "The stolen generations: an unending disaster for Australia". His article is entirely ignorant of the many subtleties of child protection systems in Australia, and the complexities of this area of public policy. This shouldn't surprise, given he is writing from the Northern Hemisphere and has no background in this work.

A far more informed piece came from Debra Swan, who wrote an op-ed, also for the Guardian, on her experiences as an Aboriginal worker in the child protection system of New South Wales. Ms Swan's piece is certainly relevant, and shows a clear passion for Aboriginal families. But, in my opinion, it too ignores some of the incredible complexities of this policy area. I don't doubt, for one second, the veracity of Ms Swan's first hand experiences, but when at the front-line of this kind of work, it is easy to lose sight of the forest for the trees.

There is no continued stealing of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. There are child protection systems throughout our country that have grown into large, efficient and, importantly, isolated machines. These machines work very well (at what they do), and this results in some serious distortions in terms of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander overrepresentation.

Child protection is the domain of the states and territories. Each state and territory has its own legislation and administrative arrangements, and while there are some small differences, they all operate in largely the same way. Child protection authorities receive information about suspected child abuse and neglect, they investigate the matters that reach a certain threshold, and act accordingly. The outcome of an investigation is usually either: do nothing, offer the family some kind of support, or remove children from their familes. Removal is achieved by applying to a court for an order, and is usually intended to be a temporary measure, with the ultimate goal of, eventually, safely returning children home. While children are away from home, they are cared for either by approved family members, by foster carers or in some kind of institutional care, all of which falls into the umbrella of "out-of-home care".

Over the past couple of decades, child protection authorities have had their roles narrowed to these few tasks: receiving information, investigating, removing children, and providing out-of-home care. And they have become very good at doing it. The ascendancy of child safety awareness in the community, improved reporting pathways for schools, hospitals and police, as well as state of the art information systems, have all contributed to a massive widening of the net that child protection systems cast over our society. The bigger the net, the more matters are investigated, and the more families are subject to intervention.

While these forensic systems are incrediby effective in many respects, they aren't particularly good at achieving the most fundamental objective of child protection: protecting the best interests of children. Enshrined in the various pieces of state and territory child protection legislation are the principles that children are best cared for within their families, and every effort should be made to support families to care for their children before further intervention can be taken. However, these cold, investigative systems fail to provide vulnerable families with the support they need to keep their children safely at home, and they drive more and more children into expensive out-of-home care. This is especially true in relation to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, but, as I will argue, the problems facing this segment of our society are much more complex than how our child protection systems are designed.

There is no denying that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families are overrepresented in our child protection systems. A quick look at the out-of-home care numbers¹ shows how seriously this is the case.

Around 3% or less of Australia's population identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, yet more than 34% of children in out-of-home care are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. As shown below, the situation is worse in some states and territories than others.

Children in out-of-home care, by jurisdiction, by Indigenous status

And this is a problem that has been growing over time. Between 2004 and 2013, the proportion of children in out-of-home care who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander has grown from 23% to 34%.

Children in out-of-home care, 2004-2013, by indigenous status

The most alarming figures appear when we look at the rate of incidence of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children being in out-of-home care. In 2004, 3.7 in every 1,000 non-indigenous children were in out-of-home care, and this has since risen to 5.3 per 1,000. In 2004, 23.7 out of every 1,000 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were in out-of-home care. The number is now 56.9. This means that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are now ten times more likely to end up in out-of-home care than their non-indigenous counterparts. The graph below shows the striking difference.

Children in out-of-home care per 1,000 subject population, by indigenous status

So what is going on here? A quick look at the numbers would suggest that child protection authorities are simply continuing their former practices of stealing children away from their families on the basis of race, as occured from the early 1900s through to the 1970s. Or, at least, that there is some kind of systemic racism at work, which is unduly drawing too many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children into care.

In her article, Debra Swan certainly suggested that the practices of New South Wales authorities were not culturally sensitive enough. She writes that Aboriginal child rearing practices, communal parenting, transitory lifestyles and other common aspects of Aboriginal cultures are viewed negatively by child protection authorities, and result in biased assessments.

The basic data does not support this claim. In 2012-13, there were 161,437 notifications of suspected abuse and neglect to child protection authorities across Australia. Of these, around half (77,909) were investigated, and of those investigated, harm was substantiated around half of the time (38,991). There are only slight differences between the indigenous and non-indigenous populations: for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, harm was substantiated in 52% of investigations, and for non-indigenous children, it was 49%.

These numbers do not suggest systemic racism. They are very broad numbers, and further analysis, particularly on a state-by-state basis may reveal otherwise. But, broadly speaking, it seems that indigenous and non-indigenous families are treated the same in investigations.

What is happening here is that our state of the art child protection systems are simply dealing with the downstream effects of the chronic, multiple disadvantages facing Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families. The multiple disadvantages of indigenous peoples in Australia are well documented², including in education and training, child development, health, employment, housing, and community safety. So too is the overrepresentation of indigenous peoples in the criminal justice system, corrective service facilities, welfare systems, and in rates of domestic violence, drug and alcohol misuse and suicide. These are problems that are well beyond the reach of child protection systems to address. Many, if not all, of these problems require responses from a universal service system, before child protection concerns even arise. The best that a child protection system can hope to contribute is to (1) assess broad trends in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family needs, to advocate for the availability of effective and culturally appropriate universal and secondary services; (2) identify vulnerable families with specific support needs that an early intervention (family support) service system may assist with; and (3) as a last resort, make child protection interventions for children who cannot safely remain at home.

Governments around Australia are beginning to understand that the creation of isolated, forensic child protection systems, in the absense of genuine family support systems, have led to a massive increase in the use of last resort and maximum force (rather than minimal intervention) interventions, and a blow-out in expenditure on costly out-of-home care services. As evidence of this, see the graph below, which shows the expenditure patterns on the relevant service types.

Thankfully, this is beginning to turn around in some states and territories (as can be seen in the recent couple of years in the below graph). For example, the Queensland Government just this week announced an increase to the child safety budget of $406M over the next five years. This funding will go towards creating a new system that delivers better pathways to an enhanced family support service system. Over time, it is expected that the reforms will see more families supported earlier, less children requiring out-of-home care, and, in the long-term, savings for the government. It is a rare piece of welcome news from a government that has otherwise sought to de-fund community services and is attempting to solve other social problems (eg. youth crime, domestic violence) simply by imposing harsh penalties on people who genuinely need support.

Why the injection of funds, when we already waste so much on child protection and out-of-home care services? Basically, because it takes time to turn these ships around.

State and territory government real annual expenditure on child protection, out-of-home care, and family support services

While these reforms will directly benefit many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, it is not enough to stem the flood of their children coming into care. Many of these types of services still come too late for many families. Governments of all levels need to work harder to close the gaps that we all know are there. Particularly in Aboriginal communities around the country, where drug and alcohol abuse are rife; where employment is barely an option; where child mistreatment is common, governments need to do more to address these chronic problems. Otherwise, when child protection workers arrive, there is no option but to remove children from these harmful environments.

For those Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children that do enter care, it is important to note that plenty is done to keep children connected to their families and community. This is a clear distinction between the child protection policies of today and the shameful practices of the past:

• In most states and territories, when child protection authorities are making any signficant decisions about Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, there are legal requirements to consult with a recognised indigenous person or organisation.
• In the majority of cases of children are in out-of-home care, the court grants the child protection authorities temporary custody of the child, but their legal guardianship still remains with the parents. This is an important legal safeguard that preserves a family's right to exercise decision-making on signficant matters.
• Around half of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care are cared for by family members (see graph below). This is incredibly significant in promoting ongoing connections with a child's family, community and culture. Of the other half, who are not placed with kin, many are cared for by other members of the child's community or language group, or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander persons.

Proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children in out-of-home care placed with kin

We are a long way from the past practices of forcible removal on the basis of race. We have come a long way from policies of assimilation and annihilation. Unfortunately, many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, families and individuals are still dealing with the impacts of those policies and practices. And it is those impacts that are driving more and more of their children into the child protection system. This is not a continuation of the stolen generations, but it is a complex social issue that requires a much greater effort from governments across our land.

_____
¹All graphs here based on data from Productivity Commission Report on Government Services, chapter 15.
²Productivity Commission, 2012 Review of the Overcoming Indigenous Disadvantage: Key Indicators Report