The Efficacy of a Child Protection Training Program on the Historical Welfare Context and Aboriginal Trauma

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on the findings from a study exploring the efficacy of a training program for child protection practitioners. The training aimed to improve understanding of the sociohistorical context that underpins interactions between the welfare system and Aboriginal communities, the impact of past and present child protection laws, and the importance of trauma theory to guide practice when working with Aboriginal families. A pre–post survey design study was conducted. Findings demonstrated the preferred theoretical approach to practice was guided by attachment theory. No participant listed trauma theory as guiding their work with Aboriginal families. The study found the lack of skills and knowledge deficit of trauma-informed principles and the limited understanding of trauma theories can be and should be addressed in vocational training. As a result of the training, participants’ knowledge about trauma significantly improved, as did their understanding of key concepts such as the difference between past and current welfare laws, assimilation, intergenerational trauma and trauma-related behaviours. Findings point to the need for high quality training in entry-level and professional development for welfare practitioners to support best practice in working with Aboriginal families, and the importance of rigorous evaluation of training to ensure that it is impactful.

IMPLICATIONS

• Welfare practitioners do not necessarily understand trauma theory and trauma-informed practice and do not understand the impact of trauma on Indigenous Australians.

• Mandatory in-service training about the past and ongoing traumatic impact of previous child welfare system laws, must be provided to welfare practitioners.

• Trauma theory needs to guide child protection practice when working with Aboriginal families.

KEYWORDS:

• Child Protection Training
• Aboriginal
• Assimilation
• Trauma
• Historical Child Welfare Context

Disclosure Statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).