Comparing Culturally and Linguistically

Diverse (CALD), Indigenous and Anglo Saxon

families in the child protection system (CPS)

Pooja Sawrikar and Ilan KatzACWA Conference, Sydney Convention Centre

2-4 August 2010

The authors acknowledge Community Services (CS) NSW and the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) for funding this research. This paper expresses the views of the authors only and not of CS or SPRC.

BACKGROUND

• 2007: CS co-funded a three-year study to explore culturally appropriate service delivery for CALD families in the CPS

• CALD: originate from non-English speaking backgrounds (NESB)

• 2008: CS’ Multicultural Services Unit (MSU) estimated that 15% of children in the CPS speak a Language Other Than English (LOTE) • Increases to 20% after adjusting for the large over-representation of Indigenous children• Nearly on par with their representation in the general population at 24% (ABS, 2007)

• National and international research on migrant/minority ethnic families in the CPS is not extensive• “Culturally competent practice is fundamental in child protection (and) one might expect a

well developed literature on the subject … In fact, the literature is surprisingly small” (Welbourne, 2002, p. 345)

METHOD

• Three stages:

1. Stage 1: Literature review

2. Stage 2: Case file review

3. Stage 3: Interviews with CALD families in the CPS, and CS caseworkers and case managers with CALD clients

METHOD (cont’d)

Cultural Group N Randomly selected case files

CALD groups

1. Chinese 20

2. Lebanese 20

3. Pacific Islander (Samoan and Tongan) 20

4. Vietnamese 20

Comparison groups

5. Indigenous 20

6. Anglo Saxon 20

TOTAL 120

10 x CS Community Service Centres (CSCs)

Cross-cultural comparison important because: 1. ‘Culture’ is an issue for all groups, and2. Contextualises the experience of all groups

Sample characteristics

CHARACTERISTIC CATEGORIES

Number of volumes per case

Range = 1-17 Mean = 3.3

Place in CPS CP: 57% OOHC: 10% BF: 4% Restoration: 5% Closed: 24%

Sex 62 of 120 (51.7%) male

Age of child Range = 1-19 Mean = 11.7

Country of birth (COB) Australia: 57 of 120 (48%)

Not stated: 41 of 120 (34%)

Mixed race Chinese: n = 2; Pacific Islander: n = 5; Indigenous: n = 3

Lebanese, Vietnamese, and Anglo Saxon: n = 0

Language Lebanese: “Arabic” recorded in 13 of 20 case files (65%)

Vietnamese: “Vietnamese” recorded in 13 of 20 (65%)

Pacific Islander: “Samoan” or “Tongan” recorded in 5 of 20 (25%)

Chinese: “Cantonese”, “Mandarin”, or “Chinese” recorded in 16 of 20 (80%)

Religion 10 of 25 (8.3%) Christian (other than Catholic)

8 of 25 (6.7%) Muslim

4 of 25 (3.3%) Catholic

2 of 25 (1.7%) Buddhist

1 of 25 (0.8%) No religion

AIMS

1. Types of abuse and neglect reported

2. Types of issues reported

3. Types of strengths reported

4. Types of issues children and families reported with CS

5. Types of assistance CS provided and examples of (culturally) appropriate and inappropriate practice

6. Personal, organisational, or institutional barriers to culturally appropriate practice

1. TYPES OF ABUSE AND NEGLECT

• Three possible types of abuse:1. Physical2. Sexual3. Emotional

• Three possible types of neglect :1. Inadequate supervision2. Neglect of basic needs (e.g. housing, food, etc)3. Neglect of education

• Primary type: Most frequently occurring type, or current type if several, relatively equally occurring types were reported

Primary type of abuse and neglect

4050

5540

40

55

Primary type of abuse and neglect (cont’d)

• Physical abuse may be common in CALD groups because physical discipline is considered culturally acceptable• CP laws in country of origin not as vigilantly monitored, even if

government has ratified the UN CRC

• Sexual abuse is NOT common in Indigenous and Anglo Saxon children because it is culturally acceptable• For something to be ‘cultural’, it has to be acceptable, not just common• More likely related to:

1. Inter-generational transmission of abuse, and/or2. Better reporting on sexual abuse cases because of longer

representation in the CPS than CALD

Secondary types of abuse and neglect

• Secondary types: All types of abuse or neglect reported in a case file not categorised as the primary type

Co-morbidity of abuse and neglect

• Co-morbidity: Number of different types of abuse or neglect reported

1. ‘No co-morbidity’: only 1 type of abuse or neglect reported

2. ‘Some co-morbidity’: 2 or 3 different types of abuse or neglect reported

3. ‘High co-morbidity’: 4 to 6 different types of abuse or neglect reported

Co-morbidity of abuse and neglect (cont’d)

Co-morbidity of abuse and neglect (cont’d)

• Two possibilities:

1. Accurate: • Anglo Saxon, Indigenous, and Pacific Islander children tend to

experience 2-6 different types of abuse or neglect, and • Vietnamese, Chinese and Lebanese children tend to experience 1-

3 different types, or

2. Reporting bias: • Because of their smaller representation, caseworkers have less

exposure to individual variation among CALD groups• In turn, they may be less systematic about the different types of

abuse or neglect they report on for CALD families, or give disproportionate attention to stereotypically-consistent types of abuse (e.g. physical abuse)

2. TYPES OF ISSUES

1. Cultural issues:• Gender issues• Family privacy

2. Migratory (or acculturative) issues:• Language issues

• Especially Vietnamese• Lack of family support/social isolation• Intergenerational conflict (related to acculturative stress)• Financial issues (related to migration stress)

3. Generalist issues:• Domestic violence (DV)• Mental health (MH) issues in the carer• Alcohol or drug (AOD) issues• Homelessness and housing needs• Intergenerational conflict (related to developmental stress)• Financial issues (not related to migration stress)

3. TYPES OF STRENGTHS

1. Willingness to engage with DoCS or other services• Important to acknowledge because breaching cultural norm of family privacy difficult

2. Availability of extended family and community support• Esp. Lebanese, Vietnamese, and Pacific Islander (inc. church groups) groups• But ... family and community support not always (readily) available, and may be withdrawn if

‘family name’ tarnished by knowledge in the community that DoCS is involved• Always assure CALD families of confidentiality expect as required by law• E.g. with ethnically matched caseworkers and interpreters

3. Preservation of cultural heritage• Important source of strength: offers sense of group belonging• Also noted in Indigenous case files

4. Personal development of resilience• E.g. coping with uncertainty or stress through experience of trauma or hardship • Especially refugees, but applicable to children and families of all cultural groups• Important not under-estimate of over-look this strength for all children and families

5. Demonstration of secure attachment behaviours• Fewer examples noted in CALD case files; more common in Anglo Saxon files

• May indicate a tendency toward a psychological analysis c.f. cultural analysis?

4. TYPES OF ISSUES FAMILIES REPORT

WITH CS

1. Cross-cultural similarities (as expected):• Issues with children being removed, and• Reports of negative experiences in the foster care system

2. Cross-cultural differences:• CALD families less aware of CS’ role and statutory power

5. TYPES OF ASSISTANCE CS PROVIDES

• Most common, and equally provided, types across all six groups:1. Financial assistance, and2. Referrals to appropriate external services

• Important finding: because it demonstrates cross-cultural equity in tangible service provision or the outcomes of intervention

• But ... Cross-cultural equity in service provision may be compromised by the intangible process of implementing the intervention

EXAMPLES OF CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE

PRACTICE

• Several examples (n = 67) of culturally appropriate practice were identified across the CALD case files

• Grouped into three possible types:

1. Consultation with multicultural caseworkers

2. Culturally appropriate analysis

3. Culturally sensitive engagement

EXAMPLES OF CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE

PRACTICE (cont’d)

1. Consultation with multicultural caseworkers

• “[The] Mandarin CW consulted advised that it is not a cultural practice for parents to hide a divorce and marriage from their children, and described this behaviour as “strange” ... The [Child] was frequently physically punished for unsatisfactory academic work ... The CW said that if the father used to be a lawyer he would have had a relatively high status in China and then he lost it when he came here ... If this is the case the only thing he could resolve to would be to place expectations on the child ... It may be frustration so the child doesn’t have the life he has now ... [In regards to the] Chinese punishment (standing naked reciting dictionary) – the CW stated that this is not cultural at all. She explained that Chinese people do not stand naked in the home. It is not acceptable because culturally, they are more conservative people. She explained that it would be an insult, to put the shame on someone and make them work harder” [CHN 13]

EXAMPLES OF CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE

PRACTICE (cont’d)

2. Culturally appropriate analysis

• “Mother appeared not to know how the system and agencies would work ... Mother was strongly advised not to be ashamed, and to seek financial assistance from Dept Housing and local agencies that may be able to assist with food vouchers ... Mother was embarrassed and very grateful for the assistance with groceries” [LEB 2]

EXAMPLES OF CULTURALLY APPROPRIATE

PRACTICE (cont’d)

3. Culturally sensitive engagement

• “Throughout the conversation [child]’s mother was crying and sobbing and sounded very distressed. I offered to organise a Vietnamese caseworker to speak to the mother and while initially she declined this offer, she eventually agreed. Following the conversation with the Vietnamese CW, a decision was made to contact the mental health team and for caseworkers to attend the mother’s home to assess situation further” [VIE 10]

EXAMPLES OF CULTURALLY INAPPROPRIATE

PRACTICE

• Only a small number of examples (n = 9) of culturally inappropriate practice were identified in the CALD case files

• Grouped into three possible types:

1. Over-intervention

2. Failure to meet or understand cultural needs

3. Culturally inappropriate practice

EXAMPLES OF CULTURALLY INAPPROPRIATE

PRACTICE

1. Over-intervention

• Defined as: the perceived excessive intrusion by CS in terms of quantity, but not in terms of the nature (or quality) of the intervention• Thus, can occur in all families, regardless of cultural background

• Only one example identified across all 120 case files:

• “[Child] indicated that DoCS is overdoing it. They are caring parents and not just because of the Dept’s involvement” [CHN 4]

EXAMPLES OF CULTURALLY INAPPROPRIATE

PRACTICE (cont’d)

2. Failure to meet or understand cultural needs

• Defined as: the failure to provide or use a service that would be culturally appropriate. Thus, pertains to quality, and not quantity, of service • As this was the most common type, it indicates that (an unintentional)

lack of cultural awareness is the main issue

• An example:

• “They exchanged hellos, no hugs and kisses” [CHN 15]

EXAMPLES OF CULTURALLY INAPPROPRIATE

PRACTICE (cont’d)

3. Culturally inappropriate practice

• Defined as: the provision of a service that is culturally inappropriate. Thus, it also pertains to quality, and not quantity, of service.

• This occurs if a cultural context not relevant to the child is used.• E.g. when caseworkers attempt to change cultural norms or values underpinning

harmful behaviours instead of focusing on the harmful behaviour itself

• Only one example across the 80 CALD case files:• “The parents and DG [Director General] shall consult with the principal ... about the

appropriate amount of academic activities outside of school hours, and the parents shall not pressure [child] to engage in a level of study outside that advised ... The parents agree to use their best endeavours to facilitate a sporting activity for [child] to attend after school or on a weekend ... ” [CHN 15]

6. PERSONAL BARRIERS TO CULTURALLY

APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

1. Families who required an interpreter but refused one

2. Time-intensive cost in the use of interpreters

3. Lack of willingness to engage with CS or other services

4. CALD caseworkers over-identifying with their CALD families

6. ORGANISATIONAL BARRIERS TO CULTURALLY

APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

1. Staff shortages

• Affects all groups equally

6. INSTITUTIONAL BARRIERS TO CULTURALLY

APPROPRIATE PRACTICE

1. Inconsistent coding of ethnicity• Recommended: “Child is of [ethnicity] background”

• Ethnicity: race, culture, language, and religion (O’Hagan, 1999)• Example: “Child is of Lebanese, collectivist (or first generation), Arabic-

speaking, and Christian background”

2. Cultural issues are not the same as language issues• E.g. “Cultural issues: Mandarin interpreter required”

3. Culture as important for CALD as it is for ATSI• E.g. “Cultural issues: Not Indigenous” or “N/A”

1. Not all issues for CALD families are cultural • Issues may be: Cultural, Migration-related, or Generalist

2. Cross-cultural equity in service provision depends on outcomes and process of intervention

• Outcomes (e.g. financial assistance and referrals) can be the same for all families• Process should be tailored to account for unique (cultural) differences• Examples of tailoring the process: assess the (personal and cultural) strengths of CALD

families; be sensitive to their lack of awareness about DoCS and CP generally; consult with multicultural, bilingual, or CALD caseworkers; receive training to increase cultural awareness; and engage sensitively and respectfully with CALD families

3. Increasing cross-cultural equity requires:a. Acknowledgment that cultural issues are as important for CALD as they are for ATSI

• And that they are not reducible to language issuesb. Acknowledgement of intra-group variation so that their needs and experiences are not

stereotyped• And that each CALD family is as unique as each Anglo Saxon family

Dr Pooja Sawrikarp.sawrikar@unsw.edu.au

CONCLUSION: TAKE HOME MESSAGES