‘Normalizing the Novel’: How Is Culture Addressed in Child Protection Work With Ethnic-Minority Families in Australia?

ABSTRACT

To address the need for empirical evidence on how culture is and should be addressed in child protection work in Australia to ensure equity in service delivery, this study reviewed 120 case files of children from ethnic-minority, Aboriginal, and Anglo backgrounds and conducted 46 qualitative interviews with ethnic-minority client families and the caseworkers who service them. Overall, the results indicated that the issue of culture for ethnic-minority families receives less consideration than it does for Aboriginal families and more than it does for Anglo families, indicating that cross-cultural parity is yet to be achieved. To ensure equity in service delivery, it is important that culture is neither overlooked nor used to essentialize the needs and experiences of ethnic-minority families; balancing the amount of attention that culture receives in child protection work may help “normalize the novel”—that is, reduce the use of cultural stereotypes without reducing the significance of cultural factors in child protection work with culturally nonmainstream families. Mandatory consultation with “multicultural” caseworkers may help get the balance right and warrants future research.

KEYWORDS:

• Child protection
• cultural competency
• ethnic minority
• cross-cultural parity
• stereotypes
• child abuse and neglect

Notes

1. In NSW, the child protection system is inclusive of open cases as well as those in out-of-home care.

2. Only Aboriginal families were included in the study to help homogenize this sample; that is, Torres Strait Islanders were not included because these are two distinct indigenous groups in Australia. Also, the proportion of Aboriginal families significantly exceeds the proportion of those of Torres Strait Islander background.

3. Secondary Assessment Stage 2 “Judgment and Decision” (SAS2 J&D) is not complete until SAS2 and J&D records are approved by the casework manager or other delegated officer and occur when there has been a decision to make face-to-face contact with the child or young person and the family to assess safety, welfare, and well-being and determine the need for protective action by FaCS (Sawrikar, 2011a).

4. Only 18 of 20 Lebanese-background case files had adequate data to determine the primary type of abuse of neglect. In 9 of these 18 cases (50%), physical abuse was deemed the primary type.

5. Only 19 of 20 Pacific Islander-background case files had adequate data to determine the primary type of abuse of neglect. In 11 of these 19 cases (58%), physical abuse was deemed the primary type.

6. All names from research participants have been removed to protect their confidentiality. Also, unless otherwise stated, the interviewee is female.

7. In NSW, the law forbids any form of physical chastisement that leaves a mark, involves an implement, or involves striking a child on the head.

8. Department of Community Services. Since 2010, the department is referred to as Family and Community Services (FaCS).

9. The term “culturally and linguistically diverse” (CALD) is used synonymously with NESB in the Australian social policy literature (Sawrikar & Katz, 2009).