Suchergebnisse

Cover -- Half Title -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Dedication -- Table of Contents -- List of illustrations -- Acknowledgements -- Common abbreviations -- Introduction: what is in this book and who should use it -- Methodology: the study on which this book is based -- Literature review -- Case file reviews -- Qualitative interviews -- Part I Setting the scene -- 1 Defining and understanding the client group - who are ethnic minorities and what do they characteristically have in common? -- Definitive characteristics of ethnic minorities -- Cultural characteristics ethnic minorities typically have in common -- Non-cultural characteristics ethnic minorities typically have in common -- 2 The theoretical backdrop - why is it important to work effectively with ethnic minorities and across cultures in Western child protection systems? -- Introduction: culturally appropriate assessment tools and accuracy -- Cultural absolutism - a risk of institutional racism -- Cultural relativism - a risk to child safety -- Comparing and resolving 'cultural absolutism' versus 'cultural relativism' -- Implementing child-centred practice effectively with ethnic minority families -- Part II Practice issues -- 3 Frequency of maltreatment - what are the most common types of abuse and neglect reported across cultures and what is their effect on children? -- Primary and secondary types of abuse and neglect reported across cultures -- Co-morbidity: number of secondary types of maltreatment -- The effect of abuse and neglect on children -- 4 Culture and maltreatment - are physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, inadequate supervision and neglect of basic needs related to culture? -- Physical abuse -- Sexual abuse -- Emotional abuse -- Inadequate supervision -- Neglect of basic needs

One unexpected finding from the postdoctoral fellowship I conducted on the needs and experiences of ethnic minority families in the New South Wales (NSW) child protection system in Australia, was that reports of inadequate supervision seemed high compared to their Anglo-Australian counterparts. The aim of this article was to explore this finding further. This article argues that cultural differences between individualist and collectivist cultures (which families from ethnic minority backgrounds tend to be) contribute to the differential rates of prevalence in reports of neglect. Specifically, the greater role of extended family and community in sharing parenting responsibilities (and thus the inferred reduced care from primary caregivers) and the responsibility levels of children at younger ages (and thus the inferred lack of capacity to self-care) may be contributing to reports of neglect in families from collectivist backgrounds. However, this article also argues that collectivist values that influence what is seen to be adequate parental supervision are not, in the main, harmful (especially if it is the only report for a family) because they do not normalize or perpetuate risk of harm to children. The sample size in this study is small and so caution should be exercised. Nevertheless, this article highlights that caseworkers should be careful not to mislabel the behaviours of parents from collectivist backgrounds as neglectful, because to do so is to use one standard of parenting by which to judge all families and the problems with an absolutist approach to child protection are well known indeed.

AbstractLittle empirical research has been conducted in Australia on what constitutes as effective practice with interpreters in child protection matters. This study aimed to address this gap. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 29 non–English‐speaking background (NESB) client families and 17 child protection caseworkers (as part of a larger study). Four examples of good practice (e.g. accurate translation) and 14 examples of ineffective practice emerged. The examples of poor practice were consequently grouped as issues with: (i) interpreters (e.g. inaccurate translation); (ii) caseworkers (e.g. insufficient time); (iii) NESB families (e.g. refusing to use an interpreter); and (iv) resources (e.g. insufficient face‐to‐face interpreters). As expected, the results largely replicate the (scant) national and international literature, indicating that features of good practice, and barriers to them, are similar across multicultural countries. This paper does however argue that training for interpreters dealing in such sensitive matters and training for caseworkers on working effectively with interpreters seem to be at the heart of good practice. This study is significant because it draws on the richness of data that qualitative methods offer to identify the full range of relevant variables and provide empirical support for principles of good practice.

The year 2020 is like no other. The Covid-19 pandemic spread across the world, and with it shone a spotlight on long entrenched social inequalities and associated differences in our abilities to 'socially distance' and prepare for and endure enforced 'lockdowns'. As Xafis (2020) puts it, those most affected by the pandemic "are individuals and groups routinely disadvantaged by the social injustice created by the misdistribution of power, money, and resources" (p. 1). Differences in health and disability status, ability to access care, occupational status, wealth, education, housing, food security, and cultural background, have all been attributed to differences in coronavirus mortality and morbidity rates (Xafis, 2020).