Commission Website: National Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention
Archived
You are in an archived section of the website. This information may not be current.
This page was first created in December, 2012
Click here to return to the Submission Index
Submission to the National
Inquiry into Children in Immigration Detention from
Uniting Care
Burnside
Summary
The adequacy and effectiveness of the policies, agreements, laws, rules
and practices governing children in immigration detention or child asylum
seekers and refugees residing in the community after a period of detention
The impact of detention on the well being, health and development of
children, including their long-term development
The additional measures and safeguards which may be required to protect
the human rights and best interests of child asylum seekers and refugees
residing in the community after a period of detention
Catching the wave: the significance of early childhood parenting and
education programs in the Australian context
Why Are Early Childhood Programs Important?
Action required to ensure that quality child care and Early Childhood
Services are available
What sorts of programs are needed?
Executive
Summary
UnitingCare Burnside
(Burnside) is an agency of the Synod of the Uniting Church in NSW working
with disadvantaged children, young people and families. Through services
such as family support and family centres, out-of-home care for children
and young people, educational support and development, Burnside aims to
protect children from abuse and neglect, breaking cycles of disadvantage
and improving life opportunities. Burnside's Social Justice and Research
Program undertakes policy analysis and advocacy on issues impacting on
children, young people and families.
Burnside has a long
history of involvement in issues relating to children and young people
who are refugees. Burnside has also developed a proposal to offer care
and accommodation for up to 20 young people (over 14 years in the case
of the submission) who have been released from Immigration Detention Centres
(IDC's). This proposal has been submitted to the Department of Immigration
and Multicultural Affairs and the NSW Department of Community Services.
Conditions in Detention
The exposure of
children and young people to the harsh conditions, including inhumane
and degrading treatment inside IDC's is a real and significant concern.
It appears from
the evidence presented to Burnside and others, that there is little distinction
within camps between the treatment of children, young people and adults.
Given that children and unaccompanied minors in particular are under the
Guardianship of the Minister for Immigration and are entitled to special
protection under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, their continuing
exposure to these conditions is inappropriate and unreasonable.
It is Burnside's
conviction exercise of appropriate Guardianship of children in detention
would result in the release of children with their families (where present)
into the community after a short, time limited period for health checks
and processing. This would remove children from harmful and long lasting
effects of detention. Appropriate program supports for children and their
families should be developed and adequately funded to support their release
into the community.
In order to ensure
that unaccompanied minors receive the appropriate special protection they
are entitled to under international law they must be released into the
community. There should be appropriate programs for care and accommodation
that offer a range of options including foster care, group care or community
placements that meet children and young people's educational and developmental
needs. It is vital that an agreement is brokered between the Commonwealth
and the States regarding appropriate funding and responsibility of funding
such programs.
Inhumane and degrading treatment
Evidence from children
who have been in detention shows that they have been exposed to inhumane
and degrading treatment including:
- being placed in
rooms alone, with no support under surveillance as a response to self
harm
- not receiving
appropriate medical response to illness/injury
- being referred
to by number (not a name) at all times
- being discouraged
from communicating with people from other language or cultural groups
- being denied the
opportunity to ask question or seek legal advice regarding visa processing
- receiving little
or no information about progress of visa applications
- no consistent
approach to the release of detainees within a reasonable timeframe after
TPV's had been granted.
There must be
immediate cessation of such practices and children should be immediately
removed from environments where such practices are perpetrated.
Health
Early Experience
Information on brain
development and the importance of early experience has become part of
the accepted wisdom on policy and planning in relation to children and
young people in Australia at both state and federal levels (see for example,
the development of the Families First Program in NSW). There is an urgent
need for this information to be integrated into policy and procedures
in relation to children in detention, particularly given the strong evidence
of children's exposure to ongoing trauma while in detention.
There are compelling
reasons to ensure that children are not exposed to ongoing trauma and
stress that will impact on the way they function, possible for the rest
of their life. Detention clearly exposes children to ongoing trauma. The
most appropriate way to ensure that children are not exposed to such trauma
is for children and their families to be released into appropriate accommodation
and housing in the community after time limited use of detention for health
and other checks.
Children's experience of trauma
There is a need to
respond to children's past experiences of trauma, grief and loss as well
as new experience of stress or distress through creating an environment
that will decrease the likelihood of long-term effects of trauma. It is
difficult to see at this time how this kind of environment could be created
in IDC's.
Response to children's mental
health needs
It is clear from
the research that the population of children who are currently held in
detention in Australia may well require proactive health services as a
result of their prior experiences. Some children's difficulties with communication
(either because of language, development etc) mean that unless there is
a proactive approach to addressing health issues these may be undetected
and thus untreated. This is the case for both unaccompanied minors and
children who are in detention with their parents.
Being in detention
has negative effects on for children's mental health and potentially creates
a long-term impact on their mental well being. A proactive response to
children's mental health needs is critical for ensuring that children
are cared for appropriately while they are the responsibly of the Australian
government, through the Guardianship of the Minister for Immigration.
This is our responsibility under the UN Convention on the Rights of the
Child (UNCROC).
Parenting and
Children's Wellbeing in Detention
Based on descriptions
of life in detention told to Burnside, combined with public reports of
people's experiences of detention, it is possible to conclude that detention
is deleterious for parenting and therefore has long lasting negative effects
on children's wellbeing.
Education
It is clear that
the education actually received by children in detention falls well short
the basic framework in UNCROC and is clearly short of the education enjoyed
by children in the broader Australian community. It is of interest to
note that under NSW law, children are required to attend school between
the ages of 6 and 15 years.
The lack of educational
programs available in detention has the capacity to have a life long effect
of children's learning and educational achievement.
Early Childhood Education
Access to early childhood
education (for example structured pre-school programs) has also emerged
as a concern for children in detention.
Participation in
a range of structured early education activities as their counterparts
in the general Australia would have positive flow on benefits for children's
health and well being.
Legal & Administrative
Arrangements
Children in detention
require a legal and service framework to ensure their rights are protected,
that they are protected from harm and receive appropriate services to
reduce the long term effects of negative experiences. Unaccompanied minors
are a particularly vulnerable group in the child detainee population and
require a specific response while in detention and on release into the
community.
At a minimum, children
in detention require access to consistent legal frameworks available to
the broader community. In NSW that includes:
- compulsory attendance
at school for children of 6 years to 15 years under the Education Act
(1990)
- appropriate mental
health responses and protections under the Mental Health Act (1990)
- complaints processes
under the Ombudsman Act (1974)
- care and protection
under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.
In the current absence
of such protection, children continue to be at significant risk of current
harm and long term negative effects. The legal Guardian of children in
detention (the Minister for Immigration) must act in the interim to ensure
that children in detention receive the appropriate care and protection
they require.
Temporary Protection Visas
The use of Temporary
Protection visas is of particular concern for unaccompanied minors. Young
people say they feel frightened to return home, but unable to get on with
establishing a life in Australia. This adds to their distress.
Under the law relating
to TPV's, young people are not permitted to study full-time, or they lose
access to the Special Benefit, which is their primary source of income.
This appears to be assiduously applied by Centrelink. The reasoning behind
this decision is unclear. Denying young people access to education clearly
goes against the spirit of the UNCROC and discriminates against young
people on the basis of their legal status.
Recommendations
1. Children in detention
should be released in the community with their families (where present)
after a short, time limited period for health checks and processing.
1.1 Appropriate
program supports for children and their families should be developed
and adequately funded to support their release into the community.
1.2 In order
to ensure that unaccompanied minors receive the appropriate special
protection they are entitled to under international law they must be
released into the community. There should be appropriate programs for
care and accommodation that offer a range of options including foster
care, group care or community placements that meet children and young
people's educational and developmental needs. It is vital that an agreement
is brokered between the Commonwealth and the States regarding appropriate
funding and responsibility of funding such programs.
2. Being in detention
has negative effects on for children's mental health and potentially creates
a long-term impact on their mental well being.. A proactive response to
children's mental health needs is critical for ensuring that children
are cared for appropriately while they are the responsibly of the Australian
government, through the Guardianship of the Minister for Immigration.
3. Children must
have access to primary, secondary and vocational education at the same
level as other children in Australia whilst in detention and on their
release as is their right under the UNCROC.
4. Structured
pre school programs must be made available to children in detention immediately
in order to address children's social and developmental needs.
5. Children in detention
require access to consistent legal frameworks available to the broader
community. In NSW that includes:
- compulsory attendance
at school for children of 6 years to 15 years under the Education Act
(1990)
- appropriate mental
health responses and protections under the Mental Health Act (1990)
- complaints processes
under the Ombudsman Act (1974)
- care and protection
under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.
6. The use of TPV's
for children, particularly unaccompanied minors is inappropriate and must
be ceased.
6.1 All restrictions
on access to full time education for children and young people released
from detention on TPV's must be lifted.
Introduction
UnitingCare Burnside
(Burnside) is an agency of the Synod of the Uniting Church in NSW working
with disadvantaged children, young people and families. Through services
such as family support and family centres, out-of-home care for children
and young people, educational support and development, Burnside aims to
protect children from abuse and neglect, breaking cycles of disadvantage
and improving life opportunities. Burnside's Social Justice and Research
Program undertakes policy analysis and advocacy on issues impacting on
children, young people and families.
Burnside has a long
history of involvement in issues relating to children and young people
who are refugees. Most recently our services have had contact with a number
of young people who were unaccompanied minors released from immigration
detention on Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs). Burnside has developed
a proposal to offer care and accommodation for up to 20 young people (over
14 years in the case of the submission) in similar situations who have
been released from Immigration Detention Centres (IDCs). This proposal
has been submitted to the Federal and the New South Wales governments.
In 1983 Burnside
implemented a program to resettle 28 Khmer young people (average age 16
years plus) who were unaccompanied minors from refugee camps on the Thai-Cambodian
border. The Khmer Program provided accommodation or accommodation assistance,
intensive support in the initial years and ongoing support for young people
as they reached adulthood (Plant 1988).
Our experience, both
in the 1980's and more recently, has given us an insight into some of
the issues experienced by children and young people who are refugees,
particularly the vulnerable group of unaccompanied refugee minors. While
the nature of cross national migration has shifted, and with it the ethnicity
and cultural backgrounds of the refugees arriving in Australia, the common
experience of being a refugee, seeking asylum and being left without the
support of parents or other adults remains relevant.
Burnside also has
a more general interest in the rights, welfare and well being of children,
young people and their families. Burnside has a strong commitment to advocating
on issues that are particularly relevant to children, young people and
their families who are affected by disadvantage. Children and young people
in detention are a uniquely disadvantaged group in Australia. Not only
have they experienced the trauma of fleeing their country of origin and
undertaking a dangerous journey to Australia, but they have been detained
without charge, face an uncertain future and conditions that have been
shown by at least two independent inquiries (Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission 1998 and Commonwealth Ombudsman 2001) to be of serious concern.
This submission
will deal with aspects of the following Terms of Reference of the Inquiry:
1. The adequacy
and effectiveness of the policies, agreements, laws, rules and practices
governing children in immigration detention or child asylum seekers
and refugees residing in the community after a period of detention.
2. The impact
of detention on the well being, health and development of children including
their long-term development.
3. The additional
measures and safeguards which may be required to protect the human rights
and best interests of child asylum seekers and refugees residing in
the community after a period of detention.
Some young people
[1] who were previously in detention and who have since
been in contact with Burnside services agreed to share their experience
of detention in an interview with a Burnside staff member (with the assistance
of an interpreter). Their stories highlight clearly the problems with
immigration detention in its current form and are pointers to areas which
need to be addressed immediately. The young people spoke to Burnside on
the condition of anonymity. Therefore names, dates and other identifying
information have been removed or changed. The young people gave their
permission for the transcripts of the interview to be used in Burnside's
submission to this Inquiry.
1. The
adequacy and effectiveness of the policies, agreements, laws, rules and
practices governing children in immigration detention or child asylum
seekers and refugees residing in the community after a period of detention
1.1 The conditions
under which children are detained
They (the other
young people in the room) are very close to you (he hunches up to show
how cramped the room was), you can't move... it's all so hot and there's
no tree, so we can't go outside.
Spending my
time (was) very hard, it was long time there. Nine months there,, very
hard spending my time because it is boring, no possibility for us. There
was not very much to do, Just breakfast time, lunchtime, and dinnertime
and there were one-hours/two hours we could just play soccer. That's
it.
Young people who
spoke to Burnside have clearly stated that the conditions in detention
centres in Australia are not positive for children. This seems particularly
true of the newer IDC's, which are based in remote areas of Australia,
have little contact with the broader Australian community and are subject
to extreme heat and cold.
The young people
highlight that, particularly for unaccompanied minors, there is a lack
of focus on the differing needs of children and young people in detention
from adults. Their evidence shows that while (in the case of unaccompanied
minors) they may be separated in sleeping arrangements from single adults,
they are subject to the same harsh rules and conditions as adults. This
means that there is little or no protection for such children and young
people from further traumatic events such as self-harming behaviour by
other detainees, being placed in isolation rooms [2]
or the crushing and debilitating boredom of having no regular, consistently
available and structured education and recreation programs.
The whole condition
in the camp is really, really bad, people are really stressed. Those
people they are there for a long time they get really agitated. They
used to come to restaurant [3] for example a
guy sits there for a while and then he gets really upset , mentally
sick and he just pulls the chair and throws it away and causes lots
of fight and scaredness between people - young people, children - because
the restaurant it (is)for everybody, everybody is there.
Young people also
talk about the creation of an environment of fear and intimidation in
the detention centres because of the unaddressed incidents of self-harm,
the lack of separation between groups and the overwhelming despair, particularly
of adult detainees.
Question: So
people are actually scared of one another?
Yes, exactly.
And each time people they go to the restaurant for lunch, dinner, they
are always cautious and careful because something might come up
There is extensive
research to suggest that young refugees are a particularly vulnerable
group in the refugee population and the need to craft appropriate responses
to their needs is critical to a humane response. A review of the literature
relating to the mental health of young people of refugee background highlights
the key issues for young people.
Some of the key
issues raised in the literature include the psychiatric and psychological
effect of refugee experiences, the impact of being a refugee on young
people's development and functioning and the impact of the refugee experience
on the family. A number of groups are mentioned consistently in the literature
as having particular vulnerabilities, including unaccompanied minors and
young women. (Bevan 2000, p. 35)
The exposure of children
and young people to the harsh conditions inside IDC's is a real and significant
concern. It appears from the evidence presented to Burnside and others,
that there is little distinction with in camps between the treatment of
children, young people, young people on their own and adults. Given that
children and unaccompanied minors in particular are under the guardianship
of the Minister for Immigration and are entitled to special protection
under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, their continuing exposure
to these conditions seems inappropriate and unreasonable. As we will discuss
in relation to children's health and development, there are compelling
reasons to ensure that children are not exposed to ongoing trauma and
stress that will impact on the way they function, possibly for the rest
of their life.
1.2 Rules and
day to day operations in detention centres
The young people
interviewed by Burnside said that there were two types of what they called
'camps' in the remote IDC where they had been detained for up to 9 months.
They said that in one 'camp', the people had very restricted movement
and could not go outside, and in the second (what they called the 'free
camp') there was the 'restaurant' and a yard for exercise.
There are two
sections (to the IDC). The section where you can move around has a big
'L' space, a bit like a yard or something, they call it like a 'free'
camp. The other section which was interview time was just like a very
small room. There is no place to move around or anything like that.
It's that they take you to interview and bring you back to kind of room.
One young person
said that they were in the first 'camp' for 25 days, until after the second
interview with Department of Immigration (DIMA) officers. Then they were
moved to the second part of the detention centre, where there were dining
and recreation areas.
The young person
described conditions in the first camp thus:
This is not
a good place very close. No place to play and it's very bad situation
for 25 days.
Young people who
have been in detention report that while they were in detention that they
were unsure of the rules, found it hard to establish consistency in approach
in detention and processing and release of detainees and believed that
they were not given correct information about their rights.
Nobody knew
what their real right was. Just like people, they knew they had to go
to interviews, certain amount of interviews should be done and after
that, people assumed that whoever came first should go first. But sometimes
after they did interviews with people about twenty, twenty five people
at the one day, and some of them they release in twelve days, ten days
but they kept the rest for two months, three months, four months. We
did not understand the reason for that and that caused lots of tension
with us because we knew we had been accepted we knew basic rights. We
knew we had to go to interview we had to get the visa to be able to
go out, things like that. But the timing we did not really understand,
why some people go to ten days but the rest of us we didn't. We asked
for lawyer, some legal aid but they didn't really pay attention, they
didn't say no or yes. They just said we didn't have time today or we
do this in the future or next week. And that delay time caused lots
of tension with people.
They commented
that in relation to day to day conditions that:
- there was little
variety in the food available:
you can't
get every kind of food you want, so we can't get it, we didn't have
a good choice.
- there was a
one to two hour period each day where the detainees were able to play
(eg soccer) and this could be arbitrarily cancelled by detention centre
staff:
we can't play every time - like two/one hour we should play.
So the police [4] say (you) should go to your
room.
- detainees were
discouraged from asking questions about rules or restrictions:
Ifyou ask why, you told "shut up, no 'why?'
- there was no
regular, meaningful education programs in the detention centre:
There is one day if you want the teacher gives you a paper if you
want is leaning some words, that's all .
1.3 The use of
cruel or inhumane treatment
Article 37 of the
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child includes that state parties shall
ensure that:
- No child shall
be subjected to torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment
- Every child deprived
of liberty shall be treated with humanity and respect for the inherent
dignity of the human person, and in a manner which takes into account
the needs of persons of his or her age .
1.3.1 Inappropriate
response to self-harm
One young person
told Burnside of his experience of a room that he called 'India', which
seemed to be a room used for the solitary containment of detainees who
had exhibited problem behaviours. The second person who shared their story
with Burnside and was in detention with the young person concerned, corroborated
the details about 'India'.
The young person
said that he was put in the solitary room after he had harmed himself.
He says that he was denied appropriate medical care for his injuries and
was punished for the self-harm by being placed in the room he called 'India'
for 5 days. He describes his experience of this in detail.
Question: So
you were by yourself in that room for five days?
There was
a camera in the corner.
Question: How
big was the room?
Smaller than
this room (motioning to room we were in -about 3x4 metres). Camera
there, there is no chair to sit down. This is for punishment, there
is just a small hole for bit of light coming and all around is the
camera.
Question: Did
they explain why you were being kept in that room?
They wanted
me to say why I did hurt myself. They just kept asking why I hurt
myself. I said I was in pain, I went to the medical and ask
for tablets for pain killer and sleeping and they just kept ignoring
me.
Question: Did
you get treatment? Did someone treat the wounds?
She just cleaned
the blood and put on a patch of gauze, that's it. When you are in
the India room if you eat and you behave they let you go. If you don't
they just keep you there for longer. There were people there longer
time than five days, six days.
If you behave
after a few days they come and take you out. If you don't they keep
you there for longer time. This was kind of like a mental game for
me. I saw an Iranian guy - he was there about twenty days refusing
to eat and they used to, police used to come and force him to eat
and give him some kind of food injection for not eating.
This information
points to very serious breaches of the UN Convention on the Rights of
the Child in Australian IDC's.
1.3.2 Lack of
appropriate medical care
The lack of medical
care highlighted in the above case for children in detention must be of
serious concern. The young person concerned was denied appropriate medical
care for pain from previous injuries, and appropriate medical care for
injuries caused by self-harm. He was also denied medical treatment for
his obviously distressed and agitated mental health state.
It is clear from
his story that the pain resulting from his previously acquired injuries
was exacerbated by lack of exercise and normal movement while in the IDC.
The lack of appropriate attention to his distress in the IDC, combined
with his feelings of fear, powerlessness and rage, may have created the
conditions where he began to harm himself.
Thus it seems that
the actual process of detention could be directly responsible for the
conditions that created his distress and the mental health issues that
resulted in his self-harming behaviour. This is clearly unacceptable treatment
of children, both in relation to UNCROC and in relation to what would
be considered acceptable behaviour in the wider Australian community (including
appropriate responses to children and young people in other forms of detention,
such as Juvenile Detention).
It is interesting
to note, that in NSW, if a child is at risk of harm experienced by a child
as a result of a care giver's failure to provide appropriate medical treatment,
under state care and protection legislation (Children and Young Persons
(Care and Protection) Act 1998), a health professional or other person
encountering the young person in the course of their professional work,
would be required to report the matter to the Department of Community
Services. Under the Mental Health Act 1993 in NSW, such response to self-harming
behaviour would also be seen as inappropriate.
The Department of
Juvenile Justice Centres in NSW policy The Management of Suicide and
Self-harm in Juvenile Justice Centres includes a set of principles
that underlies appropriate responses to attempted suicide and self-harm
by children and young people in detention. These have been in place since
1999 and some of the more general (non centre specific) principles include:
- All acts of self-harm,
including all suicidal threats and gestures, must be taken seriously.
- All acts of self-harm
require an immediate and appropriate response.
- Knowledge of self-harming
/ suicidal behaviour must be covered in competency-based training and
in performance review processes. All direct care staff (permanent, temporary,
casual) must be trained in suicide awareness and suicide prevention,
and be aware of:
(i) the factors,
crises and events that may predispose or place a juvenile at risk
of suicide or self-harm;
(ii) the various
indicators of suicide risk.
- Direct care staff
must be trained in behaviour management techniques, critical incident
responses, and first-aid and resuscitation techniques so they can respond
effectively to any self-harm incidents. Appropriate resource manuals
and other materials must be provided by the centre manager to all unit
staff.
- At the time of
admission, standardised screening procedures must be used to help assess
the risk of suicide and self-harm, and other health and related issues.
These procedures must be carried out sensitively and in such a way as
to ensure the confidentiality of the information.
- Supervision, security,
management procedures and case co-ordination must be focused on the
effective prevention of suicide and self-harm tendencies.
- Where risk is
identified, a psychological assessment must be carried out to assess
the need for counselling, hospitalisation, or other support from suitably
experienced or qualified personnel.
- Identified suicidal
or self-harming clients must be provided with closer supervision, additional
support services, and special accommodation arrangements as necessary.
- There must be
constant monitoring and regular review of the physical environment of
Juvenile Justice Centres to assist in the prevention of suicide and
self-harm(NSW Department of Juvenile Justice, 1999).
Based on these principles,
it is clear that a young person detained in a Juvenile Justice Centre
who attempted to self-harm would receive a very different response to
a young person detained in an IDC. The focus on support and identification
and management of risk would ensure a more positive outcome in the situation
of the young person who shared their experiences with Burnside. Should
detention of children and young people continue to be a part of Australia's
response, then a more adequate approach to children at risk of suicide
and self-harm must be implemented.
1.3.3 Denial of
name
Question: Do
they call you by name?
First young person:
No, no just number. Like my number was 759. [5]
They call me 759, that's all. Not name.
Second young
person: Yes they call you number. 452 my number.
Question: What
was that like being called a number?
Apart from
the humane aspect of it you feel really lonely when they call you
with number because you are used to your name, people communicate
with you with your name, when they call you with the number you feel
really lonely, you feel you are just a number, nobody.
Children in detention,
like adults, are called only by number by staff of IDCs. This is dehumanising
treatment and unacceptable under the UN Convention of Children's Rights.
Article 8(1) of the Convention states that:
State parties
must undertake to respect the right of the child to preserve his or her
identity, including nationality, name and family relations as recognised
by law without unlawful interference.
1.3.4 Denial of
contact with other detainees
Young people who
had been in detention told Burnside that they had been preventing from
attempting to speak with other detainees who were of a different language
or cultural background.
1.3.5 Lack of
information about visa processing and legal assistance.
Question: You
talked a bit about your visa application. Were you kept informed about
the progress of your visa application while you were in detention?
There is no
discussion, no talk about what condition or which state of processing
you are in. Its just like interview, you go to your room and
the person you are dealing with is your case officer and the case
officer and the case officer you don't see them until they need
you again. That's it.
Young people talked
about the lack of information about the status of their applications for
refugee status. They reported that they had been denied the opportunity
to seek legal assistance and to ask questions of their Case Officer regarding
the processing of their application. The young people reported that this
lack of information caused them and the other detainees high levels of
distress.
One young person
was informed that he had been granted a TPV, but was kept in detention
for a further two and a half months, without explanation. There was no
consistent approach to the release of detainees, causing further anxiety,
depression and distress.
1.4 Current legal
and administrative arrangements regarding children in detention and on
their release
Burnside has developed
a proposal to provide care and accommodation for unaccompanied refugee
minors on their release from detention. In the course of developing and
progressing this proposal, we have liaised with relevant state authorities
and sought information about both the role of the Department of Community
Services (DoCS) in making contact with children and young people in detention
(including reporting or investigating reports of children at risk of harm
under the relevant state legislation) and the processes by which unaccompanied
minors might be referred and accommodated within our program.
From our discussion
with DoCS we understand that there are unresolved issues of legal and
administrative jurisdiction that are capable of having a negative impact
on children in detention.
Our understanding
of the role of DoCS and process of exit for unaccompanied minors is as
follows:
- DoCS do not regularly
receive or investigate reports of children at risk in the Villawood
IDC, although they may investigate some matters.
- NSW care and protection
legislation is not accepted by the Commonwealth as having jurisdiction
in Villawood IDC.
- When unaccompanied
minors (under 18 years) are discharged from an IDC, they automatically
come under the parental responsibility of the relevant state Minister.
- Should an unaccompanied
minor move interstate after their release, parental responsibility is
transferred to the relevant state Minister in that state.
However we have also
become aware that:
- there appears
to be no consistent administrative approach to reporting and investigating
allegations of risk of harm relating to children in detention;
- there appears
to be no process for ensuring that a young person receives services
upon their release;
- there is no coherent
program for care and accommodation of unaccompanied minors on release
and no agreements between the states and the Commonwealth in relation
to how such care and accommodation would be funded;
- there appears
to be no formal process of ensuring that appropriate care plans are
developed before or on the young persons release from detention;
- there appears
to be no formal process for notifying relevant state Ministers and departments
about the arrival of unaccompanied minors, unless they come to the department's
attention through other channels or where a referral for immediate accommodation
is received.
Our understanding
of the current situation then, is that there is little legal or administrative
protections for children while in detention and few (if any) processes
to support them on their release. Basic communications and agreements
between the Commonwealth and the states do not appear to be functional.
Unaccompanied minors appear to have no clear, consistent pathways to access
services, care or accommodation. There is little commitment to a programatic
response to the care and accommodation needs of unaccompanied minors.
There appears to be no allocated funding to meet the ongoing care and
accommodation needs of unaccompanied minors.
Other aspects of
this submission have highlighted the lack of protections and services
available to children in detention because state legislation is not accepted
as having jurisdiction in IDCs. In NSW, some of these include:
- compulsory attendance
at school for children aged 6 to 15 years under the Education Act 1990;
- appropriate mental
health responses and protections under the Mental Health Act 1990;
- complaints processes
under the Ombudsman Act 1974;
- care and protection
under the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998.
The capacity of adult
detainees to advocate on behalf of children is limited as a result of:
- their reduced
control over the environment to which children are exposed,
- their own experience
of trauma and poor mental health
- and their own
lack of access to legal assistance.
A matter of urgency
is the amendment of the jurisdiction of people detained in IDC's to allow
them access to the appropriate state legal jurisdiction.
This is important
for children in detention because they are particularly vulnerable as
a result of:
- their age;
- lack of legal
representation;
- past exposure
to traumatic experience; and
- ongoing exposure
to traumatic experience.
Children in detention
require a legal and service framework to ensure their rights are protected,
that they are protected from harm and that they receive appropriate services
to reduce the long term effects of negative experiences. Unaccompanied
minors are a particularly vulnerable group in the child detainee population
and require a specific response while in detention and on release into
the community.
With the current
absence of such protection, children continue to be at significant risk
of current harm and long term negative effects. The legal guardian of
children in detention (the Minister for Immigration) must act in the interim
to ensure that children in detention receive the appropriate care and
protection they require.
It is Burnside's
conviction the exercise of appropriate Guardianship of children in detention
would result in the release of children with their families (where present)
into the community after a short, time limited period for health checks
and processing. This would remove children from harmful and long lasting
effects of detention. Appropriate program supports for children and their
families should be developed and adequately funded to support their release
into the community.
In order to ensure
that unaccompanied minors receive the appropriate special protection they
are entitled to under international law, they must be released into the
community. There should be appropriate programs for care and accommodation
that offer a range of options including foster care, group care or community
placements that meet children and young people's educational and developmental
needs. It is vital that an agreement is brokered between the Commonwealth
and the States regarding appropriate funding and responsibility for funding
of these programs.
2. The
impact of detention on the well being, health and development of children,
including their long-term development
2.1 The importance
of early experience
There is compelling
evidence emerging internationally about the importance of the early years
in children's lives and in early intervention on issues that may impact
on their health and well being (such as mental health, abuse or neglect).
The importance of this information is not diminished when it is considered
in relation to children in detention. If anything, the information we
have about brain development and other impacts of early traumatic experiences
is even more crucial for children who are refugees or seeking refuge.
The first and most
compelling reason for ensuring that vulnerable children are supported
is a moral one. All children have inherent value and worth. Therefore
all children have the right to be loved and nurtured as part of the human
community and to live their lives free of abuse and neglect. Abuse and
neglect and other forms of disadvantage diminish those rights. A necessary
corollary of this conviction is that parents and families must be have
access to the support necessary to enable them to care for their children
to the best of their abilities. The general community cannot abdicate
its responsibility to ensure that the worth of all children is protected.
The value of children should be a fundamental principle of the society
that is demonstrated through its policies and practices.
One of the pre-eminent
researchers in brain development has made the case most clearly for early
intervention to prevent child abuse and neglect. His research shows that
abuse and neglect changes the way a child's brain develops, forever altering
the possibilities of a child's life:
Of course, children
'get over it' - they have no choice. Children are not resilient, children
are malleable. In the process of getting over it, elements of their true
emotional, behavioural, cognitive and social potential are diminished
- some percentage of capacity is lost, a piece of the child is lost forever.
(Perry et al, 1995: 13)
This submission
has already made mention of the identification of children who are refugees
as a vulnerable group in relation to mental health issues. For infants
and very young children in particular, previous and continued exposure
to trauma will have an impact on the way their brain develops its response
to stimuli in the long term, as research by Perry et al (1995) and others
have shown. This is because the brain develops in response to experience
(Burnside 1999):
With appropriate
nurture, attention and stimulation in a predictable and consistent way,
the infant's brain will develop towards optimum levels. However, traumatic
experience or a lack of the right sort of experience at critical periods
can actually change the structure and functioning of the brain. (Burnside
1999: p20)
Information on brain
development and the importance of early experience has become part of
the accepted wisdom on policy and planning for children and young people
in Australia at both state and federal levels (see for example, the development
of the Families First Program in NSW and the Stronger Families and Communities
Strategy from the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services).
There is an urgent need for this information to be integrated into policy
and procedures in relation to children in detention, particularly given
the evidence (both first hand accounts and in Sultan and O'Sullivan's
(2001) participant observer account) about children's exposure to ongoing
trauma,
2.2 Mental health
and long-term affects of detention
There is considerable
support in literature for the thesis that children growing up in or exposed
to long periods in refugee camps experience chronic stress and ongoing
mental health effects such as depression and anxiety (Bevan 2000). While
there are clear distinctions in the experience of children in refugee
camps and those in Australian IDCs, the experiences of children in refugee
camps are instructive. In addition, the work of Sultan and O'Sullivan
(2001) highlights the stressors, such as adult detainees practising self-harm,
that children are regularly exposed to in the Villawood IDC. They observed
of a range of psychological disturbances evident in children in the centre:
separation
anxiety, disruptive conduct, nocturnal enuresis, sleep disturbances,
nightmares and night terrors, sleepwalking and impaired cognitive development,.
At the most severe end of the spectrum, a number of children have displayed
profound symptoms of psychological distress, including mutism, stereotypic
behaviours, and refusal to eat or drink. Children of parents who reach
the tertiary depressive stage appear to be particularly vulnerable...
(Sultan and O'Sullivan 2001:p5)
In comment in relation
to this account, Steel and Silove (2001) highlight concerns about the
ongoing impact of psychological symptoms developed as a result of the
experience of detention. They raise the concern that for those asylum
seekers who are released into the community, there is a possibility that
the psychological symptoms that were a response to the detention environment,
or symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) that were exacerbated
as a result of detention, may have an adverse impact on those individual's
process of acculturation. The international literature relating to impact
of prior mental health issues on the settlement experiences of children
and young people supports this proposition. Research and clinical reflection
on the experience of young refugees in Australia clearly highlights the
impact of ongoing mental health issues on children and young people's
experience of school and home environments (for example Rice et al 1993).
This perspective
on children's experience of detention strongly points to the need to respond
to children's past experiences of trauma, grief and loss as well as new
experience of stress or distress through creating an environment that
will decrease the likelihood of long term effects of trauma. It is difficult
to see at this time how this kind of environment could be created in IDC's.
One of the people
that hurt themselves was me. Because I had an operation in (country
of origin) on my (part of body) and (it) was hurting a lot for
a few weeks. One night I was asking them to do something to let me go
or do exercise ..I need to see a doctor. And they said you are not here
permanently, you are temporary - we can't do anything, you have to wait.
And after I have my visa they do not let me go for two and a half months
and I just kept going to them and asking and asking all the time my
(part of body) was hurting so much, I was not sleeping much and I was
really distressed and really, really in anger I took a razor and I was
cutting myself.
Nobody came
to see what was happening. I went to the medical room, I went to the
nurse and nurse says, what's happening and I said my knee is hurting
and I showed my knee with the blood there and she calls the police and
police came and took me to the small room, we called that room India.
It's just a dark room, very small dark room and they kept me there for
about five days. Then after five days I was crying and I tell them I
don't hurt myself please let me go.
The experiences of
young people interviewed by Burnside, along with Sultan and O'Sullivan's
(2001) participant observer's account of the experiences of detainees
in Villawood IDC suggest that the current situation in IDC's in Australia
exacerbates the long term impacts of recent or past traumatic experiences.
In fact the lack of appropriate services, use of inappropriate punishment
responses, such as isolation, would contribute to increasing the long-term
effect of such experiences on children's well being and overall functioning.
It is clear from
the research that the population of children who are currently held in
detention in Australia may well require proactive health services as a
result of their prior experiences. Some children's difficulties with communication
(either because of language, development etc) mean that unless there is
a proactive approach to addressing health issues these may be undetected
and thus untreated. This is the case for both unaccompanied minors and
children who are in detention with their parents.
2.3 Parenting
and children's well being in detention
It is instructive
to consider the findings by Mollica et al (1990) in their work with children
in refugee camps on the Thai Cambodian border. They found that for children
with their parents, parents underestimated the impact of a range of experiences
of the children when compared with the children's self report on a range
of questions related to traumatic experiences and ongoing impacts. They
also found very high responses from parents on self report checklists
related to their own experience of traumatic experiences and ongoing impacts.
Sultan and O'Sullivan
(2001) also found parental mental state has an effect on children's mental
health. This is consistent with broader literature on transgenerational
effects of torture and trauma experiences, which shows that there is often
a disturbing confluence in the trauma symptoms of parents and those of
children (Bevan 2000).
In work produced
by the Commonwealth Attorney General's Department on Crime Prevention
and social support, family risk factors for negative child behaviours
included:
- Psychiatric disorder,
especially depression
- Single parents
- Antisocial models
- Violence and disharmony
- Disorganised family
environments
- Father absence
- Long term parental
unemployment
- Poor supervision
and monitoring
- Low involvement
in child's activities
- Neglect (Commonwealth
Attorney General's Department 1999).
These risk factors
almost describe the IDC environment. Where families are not free to make
decisions about the way in which their children are parented because of
the environment in detention (for example, times of meals, involvement
in education or other activities), there are clear risks for children.
The needs of children
that arise because of their parent's experiences are not being dealt with
in detention. As discussed earlier in this submission, the lack of attention
paid to the distinct needs of children in detention in relation to accommodation,
education, protection from disturbing behaviour etc. are not being met.
It is clear that parent's ability to proactively meet their children's
needs may be compromised by their own mental state and there are few (if
any) structures in place to ensure that these issues receive appropriate
attention.
The descriptions
of life in detention told to Burnside are consistent with public reports
of people's experiences of detention and it is possible to conclude that
detention is deleterious for parenting and therefore has long lasting
negative effects on children's well being.
2.4 Education
There is one
day (when) if you want the teacher gives you a paper if you want is
leaning some words, that's all
They did not
explain exactly what it was about. If they had explained like it was
a special class the rules and everything the people would understand
but it was just in one hour, two three papers sometimes. Maybe three
days a week for just one hour.
2.4.1 Access to
primary, high school and vocational education
Evidence from children
and young people in detention suggests that their access to education
in detention was fragmented, insubstantial, unstructured and would not
reflect the educational programs and opportunities available to other
children in the community.
Article 28(1) of
the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child sets out the basic rights
to education that should be available to all children, regardless of their
citizenship status, including:
- compulsory, free
primary school education;
- encourage the
development of different forms of secondary education, including general
and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every
child and take appropriate measures such as the introduction of free
education and offering financial assistance in case of need;
- make higher education
accessible to all on the basis of capacity by every appropriate means;
- make educational
and vocational information and guidance available and accessible to
all children;
- take measures
to encourage regular attendance at schools and the reduction of drop-out
rates.
I wanted to
study English, like grammar that we can get English, speak English like
school like children for young people so everybody wanted to study.
Everyone had a problem they did not have a serious class, only one day
someone talking about Australia.
It is clear that
the education actually received by children in detention falls well short
the basic framework in UNCROC and is clearly short of the education enjoyed
by children in the broader Australian community. Under NSW law, children
are required to attend school until they are 15 years old.
The impact of this
lack of educational opportunities is particularly stark for children in
detention centres. Literature on the educational experiences of children
who are refugees shows that as a result of the refugee experience, they
have experienced disrupted schooling and long breaks between school attendance
(Bevan 2000). Research has also shown that this experience of interrupted
and limited educational opportunities, in combination with trauma related
symptoms and distress can negatively impacts on their learning experience
after resettlement (Rice et al 1993). Therefore, the lack of educational
programs available in detention has the capacity to have a life long effect
on children's learning and educational achievement.
2.4.2 Early childhood
education
Access to early childhood
education (for example structured pre-school programs) has also emerged
as a concern for children in detention. Early childhood education has
been identified internationally as one of the important ways of optimising
the early years and providing appropriate opportunities for children to
develop the building blocks for literacy and numeracy and social skills
(Burnside 2001) It has also been shown to be particularly helpful for
children from disadvantaged families (Burnside 2001). Burnside has extensively
researched the benefits of early education for children and found that
the international literature supports the benefits for children in cognitive
and school readiness outcomes for children of access to structured early
childhood education programs (Burnside 2001). Outcomes from early childhood
programs targeted at children who experience disadvantage are also impressive
(Burnside 2001). [6]
Pre-school age children
in detention should have the same opportunity to participate in a range
of activities as their counterparts in the general Australia. The positive
flow on benefits for their health and well being in having access to a
range of play and learning environments, and the correlating negative
impacts of missing those opportunities, are compelling arguments for such
access.
3.
The additional measures and safeguards which may be required to protect
the human rights and best interests of child asylum seekers and refugees
residing in the community after a period of detention
Question: When
young people such as yourselves get out of detention what sort of help
do they need?
When we come
outside from detention centre we can't . before I can't
speak English, before I come out. So we need to like, education to
help our direction to go to school, to somewhere else, to different
food, different way, different situation. When I come to here (where
now living) and I go outside and I can't do it, I lose the ways, everywhere
(laughs). I can't find my house.
And when I
go to school I not understand the teachers and she said why didn't
you do your homework and I said . I can't say something that's
why I can't speak English. So the first time people come to outside
they really need the help to explain very clearly.
3.1 Appropriate
arrangements for unaccompanied minors on release from detention
As outlined in section
1.4 of this submission, Burnside has some concerns that there is an inadequate
response to the release of unaccompanied minors from detention. Our concerns
relate primarily to:
- the lack of appropriate
planning for young people's release in to the community, including appropriate
care and accommodation options;
- the lack of funded
programs to achieve appropriate planning for care and accommodations;
- the lack of communication
between state and Commonwealth government departments in relation to
children released from detention and their needs;
- lack of agreement
between state and federal governments in relation to responsibility
for funding appropriate care and accommodation options.
It has come to our
attention that unaccompanied minors released from detention on TPVs have
had to independently access care and accommodation, often crossing states
to find appropriate options. We are informed that young people receive
little or no formal support on release and only find places to live, educational
assistance through their own informal networks formed in detention.
3.2 Issues relating
to Temporary Protection Visas
People need
first permanent visa because they want to see family .. I want
to see my mother and brother but its not possible because my visa is
temporary or the government is change the law, they saying we should
go back (to country of origin). But it is not, the situation is not
good .not safe I think. I heard from news everything and Internet
and there is no security. Not safe. There is no safety I think.
The government (Australian) is saying you should go back .there
is safe for you and I think that is wrong. They should ask the people,
if you have problem in (country of origin), you should be able get permanent
visa.
The use of Temporary
Protection Visas is of particular concern for unaccompanied minors. Young
people say they feel frightened to return home, but unable to get on with
establishing a life in Australia. This adds to their distress.
Young people who
spoke with Burnside emphasised their desire to get education and find
work. Their focus is on learning English and other skills to become part
of a community. However having a TPV strongly undermines their attempts
at joining the broader community, as their future remains uncertain.
we feel
really lonely here because we don't know what will happen to us. We
want to study, we want to concentrate and have a normal life but it's
very impossible, because we are anxious every day. They might say your
visa is expired you have to go back and we know condition over there
is not suitable, not a good condition for living.
It would be
good if they would tell us if we are going to get it (permanent visa)
or not now. If I am going to stay here for two years I want to work
or study or something like that but this uncertain condition is really
annoying, its really bothering because we can't focus on anything. Choosing
education or work .because we don't have a permanent visa we can't
really work, we don't have work permission and also studying, we don't
know where they are going because after two years studying in Australia
there education here is different to (country of origin) and we don't
know what will happen. It is really uncertain future and that causes
lots of anxiety so I can't decide what should I do now. If
I study it will be good for me for my future. If not study, if they
say, it is not possible to stay here for you after two years .so
I should work but my family there is no one to help them so it is all
the responsibility for it belongs to me
3.2.1
Access to education
Centrelink called
me last week said .. 'you study full time?' I said yes. He said 'if
your study continue full time your special benefit will be stopped'.
I said why, he said 'it's the law'.
They said you
cannot study full time. If you study full time I stop your money. I
don't have any money to eat something or go somewhere else, I don't
have any money to get the ticket .. It is not a good rights for
humans that they say you cannot study anymore. Its not good rights like
not equal rights. They say if it is temporary visa you can't study more.
Young people who
spoke with Burnside emphasised their desire to get education and find
work. Their focus is on learning English and other skills and gaining
employment.
Under the law relating
to TPVs, young people are not permitted to study full-time, or they lose
access to the Special Benefit which is their primary source of income.
This appears to be assiduously applied by Centrelink. The reasoning behind
this decision is unclear.
It has also come
to our attention that there are further restrictions on study options
for people, including young people on Temporary Visas. It is our understanding
that besides studying English at TAFE Institutions, people on TPV's have
no other access to government funded post- school educational options.
Denying young people
access to education clearly goes against the spirit of the UN Convention
on the Rights of the Child and discriminates against young people on the
basis of their legal status.
References
Bevan, K. (2000).
Young people, culture, migration and mental health: A review of the literature,
in Bashir, M. and Bennett, D. (Eds.) (2000) Deeper Dimensions - culture,
youth and mental health. Sydney: NSW Transcultural Mental Health Centre.
(2001), Catching the Wave: the significance of early childhood parenting
and education programs in the Australian context. Burnside: Sydney.
Burnside (1999).
Images of Children: Background Paper. Burnside: Sydney.
Commonwealth Attorney-General's
Department, (1999). Pathways to prevention: Developmental and early
intervention approaches to crime in Australia. National Crime Prevention,
Attorney-General's Department: Canberra.
Commonwealth Ombudsman
(2001). Report of an own motion investigation into the Department of
Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' immigration detention centres.
Commonwealth Ombudsman: Canberra.
Human Rights and
Equal Opportunity Commission (1998). Those who've come across the seas:
The reports of the Commission's Inquiry into the detention of unauthorised
arrivals. HREOC: Canberra.
Mollica,R., Donelan,
K., Tor, S., Lavelle, J., Elias, C., Frankel, M., Bennet,D. & Belndon,
R. (1990). Repatriation and Disability: A community Study of Health,
Mental Health and Social Functioning of the Khmer Residents of Site Two.
Volume 2: Khmer Children (12 - 13 Years of Age). Harvard School of
Public Health: Harvard.
NSW Department of
Juvenile Justice (1999). The Management of Suicide and Self-harm in
Juvenile Justice Centres. Department of Juvenile Justice: Sydney.
Perry, B. D., Pollard,
R., Blakely, T., Baker, W., Vigilante, D. (1995) Childhood trauma, the
neurobiology of adaption and 'use-dependent' development of the brain:
how 'states' become 'traits'. Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol.
16, No 4: 271-291.
Plant, R. (1988).
A New Life: an historical evaluation of Burnside's Khmer unaccompanied
minors resettlement program. Burnside: Sydney.
Rice, P., Rice, A.,
Dhamarak, P. (1993). 'Some day when my health is good ' The experiences
of young South-East Asian refugees in Australian schools. Youth Studies
Australia, 12, 39 - 44.
Steel, Z. and Silove,
D. (2001). The mental health implications of detaining asylum seekers.
Medical Journal of Australia 2001; 175: 596 - 599.
Sultan, A. and O'Sullivan,
K. (2001). Psychological disturbances in asylum seekers held in long term
detention: a participant-observer account. Medical Journal of Australia
2001; 175: 593 - 596.
The term young people in this submission refers to children over the age
of 12, but under the age of 18 years. We have used both the terms "children"
and "young people" to highlight to diverse needs of people aged
under 18 years in detention, ie the needs of a child of 3 years differ
markedly from one of 12 years and again from one of 16 years.
This issue is dealt with in detail in section 1.3.
The people interviewed always called the dining room at the detention
centre 'the restaurant'.
The young people interviewed consistently referred to detention centre
staff as the 'police'. It is unclear as to whether this reflects a belief
that the ACM security staff were representatives of the Australian police
or is an effect of the translation.
Numbers have been altered to protect the young people's identity.
See attached paper: Catching the Wave for a more detailed discussion of
early childhood education and intervention programs.
Uniting Care
Burnside
Catching
the wave: the
significance of early childhood parenting and education programs in the
Australian context
October 2001
© UnitingCare
Burnside
Why Are Early Childhood Programs Important?
Action required to ensure that quality child care and Early Childhood
Services are available
What sorts of programs are needed?
The current wave
of enthusiasm for early childhood support and prevention programs reflects
a growing awareness that if we are to build a healthy society and prevent
the damaging consequences of social inequality it will be best to start
early. This enthusiasm is apparent across a range of players: policy makers,
government departments charged with delivering human services and a broad
spectrum of non -government community and welfare agencies. There appears
to be an impressive consensus about the value of early intervention although
there remains considerable debate about how services should be funded,
targeted and delivered. The danger is that the goodwill and rhetoric for
early intervention will not be matched by the resources or decision making
structures that enable it to happen with sufficient mass to be most effective.
This paper expresses UnitingCare Burnside's argument for much greater
attention to early childhood services, particularly services focused on
enriching parenting and children's early education in disadvantaged communities.
Drawing from research it highlights some reasons for a greater focus on
early childhood parenting and education programs, identifies some of the
actions that will be required to make programs more widely available and
describes some characteristics of the most effective programs.
Why Are Early Childhood Programs Important?
There are at least
five good reasons for a greater emphasis on good early childhood programs
for disadvantaged children and families.
1.1 New evidence
of the impact of the early years on a child's development
New evidence from
research into brain development has underlined the significance of a child's
early years in laying the foundation for almost every aspect of human
development. This includes not only cognitive and linguistic capabilities
but also a child's social and emotional capabilities and capacity for
self regulation (McCain and Mustard, 1999). Brain development is directly
shaped by the child's environment, particularly the nutrition, care and
attention they receive from parents and other primary caregivers. Children
who experience nurturing, secure and responsive relationships with parents
and other carers will develop towards their full potential. Without such
relationships healthy development is disrupted and children are more likely
to develop learning, emotional and/or behavioural problems that can be
severe and long lasting (Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000). There are two key
implications here. The first is that good early childhood programs that
also influence how parents relate to their children can greatly improve
outcomes for children's behaviour, learning and health throughout life.
The second is that, given the cumulative impact of early experience, the
earlier in a child's life that programs begin the better the outcomes
may be. However, none of this should be taken to suggest that the die
is cast in the early years and that later interventions are futile.
While it is true
that the brain continues to develop into adulthood and that there are
many later opportunities where timely support and intervention can lead
to positive change (Cashmore, 2001), the research into early brain development
underscores the need for early intervention. It is during the early years
that we are confident that efforts to redress the impact of disadvantage
and support caregiving can be of most benefit.
1.2 The links
between poverty, educational disadvantage and other negative outcomes
Longitudinal research
has revealed a common set of risk factors for major social problems such
as child abuse and neglect, mental illness, juvenile delinquency, suicidal
behaviour, drug abuse, behaviour problems and school failure (National
Crime Prevention 1999; Scott, 2000). These factors operate at the level
of individual, the family, local community and society. Poverty appears
as a particularly significant influence on many risk factors at each level.
For example, poverty is clearly associated with negative health outcomes,
lower school achievement, disrupted parenting and higher rates of child
abuse and neglect (Burnside, 1999). The consequences of these negative
outcomes often persist throughout life.
Early childhood programs
that address multiple risk factors can have a significant impact. As a
form of social support they act as a buffer to the impact of risk factors.
In addition, early childhood services can supplement the care offered
by parents as well as facilitating parents in developing skills that will
better contribute to their children's development.
1.3 The persistence
of child poverty in Australia
Despite some improvement
in the last decade there are still too many children living in poverty
in Australia. Research by Harding and Szukalska (The Smith Family, 2000)
shows that 732 000 Australian children (14.9% or one in seven) were living
in poverty in 1999. When housing costs are taken into account the number
of children living in poverty may be even higher - up to one-in-five (McClelland,
2000). The majority of these children live in single parent households
or households where one or both parents is unemployed (Harding and Szukalska,
1998).
Another important
factor is the trend towards greater locational disadvantage (Gregory and
Hunter, 1996). That is, disadvantage in Australia is becoming more concentrated
in particular communities and neighbourhoods. One implication is that
such neighbourhoods may require intensive and tailored interventions to
turn around a negative community momentum (Garbarino and Kostelny, 1992).
1.4 Inadequate
access of poorer families to quality child care and other early childhood
services
Use of various forms
of child care has increased dramatically since the mid 1970's (McIntosh,
1998). However, partly due to a lack of systematic data collection and
partly to due to the diversity of child care types and combinations of
care across states it is not easy to give a definitive picture of child
care and early education service usage in Australia. Consequently, questions
as to who is using early childhood services, the types of services being
utilised and the amount of time children spend in programs are not fully
answered. What is clear is that there exists a persistent relationship
between child care usage and family income. Research by Jamrozik and Sweeney
(1996) found that the extent of both formal and informal childcare use
was positively related to income - the higher the income the greater the
use of child care.
Affordability and
accessibility of child care to low income groups continues to be a problem.
A study by the Brotherhood of St Laurence found that the affordability
of child care had deteriorated between 1992 and 1997 and that Childcare
Assistance (fee relief) had not kept pace with fee increases over the
same period (Tasker & Siemon, 1998). At Recently there has been dramatic
underspending in the budget for child care subsidies ($150 million less
than forecast in 1997/98) suggesting a strong decline in use by low income
families (Siemon and Ford, 1999). The Australian report to the OECD Review
of Early Childhood Education and Care notes a decline in overall attendance
and a loss of low income families at long day care centres between 1995-1999,
with affordability being one suggested reason for the trend. While the
Federal Government's new Child Care Benefit may reduce costs to some extent,
the issue of affordability remains an impediment to greater access to
care especially for low income families (Moyle, 2001).
1.5 The effectiveness
of quality child care and early childhood services in producing positive
outcomes
Perhaps the most
important reason for an increased investment in early childhood services
is the evidence of the difference that such programs can make. This section
draws from a number of reviews of intervention studies of early parenting
and education support programs (NCP, 1999; Powell, 1996; Barnett, 1995,
Boocock, 1995; Bowes, 2000).
Although often discussed
collectively there is in fact a great variety of early childhood programs
which differ according to their goals and delivery strategies (Gomby et
al, 1995). However, within this range there are common program elements
- these include parent support, parent training, access to resources,
child care/preschool and child skills training. Some programs are centre-based,
others emphasise home visits and many involve some combination of the
two. For the purposes of this paper we will distinguish between the outcomes
of universal pre school services and more targeted early parenting and
education support programs. The latter often originate as small scale,
multi component, demonstration projects though some models have been implemented
more broadly eg the Head Start Program in the United States. Some of these
programs begin in infancy while others commence during the pre-school
years.
Outcomes of Universal
Pre-school Services
Boocock (1995) has
reviewed studies from 13 nations and found that well established pre-school
services have positive effects especially for more disadvantaged children.
These include an
increase in school readiness and improvements in cognitive development
and academic performance. However Boocock and others (Powell, 1996) caution
that these improvements narrow, but do not close, the achievement gap
between low income and more advantaged children.
Outcomes of Targeted
Programs
While cognitive gains
tend to be short term the range of long term benefits that has emerged
is impressive. For programs that begin in infancy these include for children:
better school attendance; less disruptive and impulsive behaviour; higher
literacy and reduced need for special education services. The few studies
that kept data on crime also showed a reduction in delinquency. A number
of programs also showed reduced incidence of child abuse and neglect.
Some programs demonstrated significant outcomes for parents with participants
reporting more positive and nurturing attitudes to children, greater confidence
as parents and adoption of less punitive approaches to discipline. Other
programs demonstrated positive health effects and improvements in parent's
own education and employment with reduced welfare utilisation.
Programs that focused
on the pre-school years have produced similar very positive results. These
included for children: sizeable and persistent effects in reading and
maths; better social adjustment; reduced grade retention and special education;
improved high school graduation and; a reduction in delinquency. Importantly,
several programs resulted in parents being more likely to be involved
with activities at their child's school. This involvement included taking
part in parent-teacher interviews, attending classroom activities and
initiating contact with classroom teachers. This is significant, as it
is indicative of the parent's increased commitment to and expectation
of the child's education. Such expectation and commitment appears to be
an important underlying factor associated with school achievement (Zappala
and Considine, 2001; Zubrick et al, 1997; NCP, 1999).
Quality early childhood
programs alone will not completely eradicate the destructive consequences
of poverty. But they can narrow the gap in educational attainment, reduce
the likelihood of other social problems and provide disadvantaged children
with a more solid platform from which to grow.
Taken together, the
above points provide more than sufficient grounds for an increased investment
in early childhood services. However, to bring this about and to address
the access and affordability issues of low income families, significant
changes are necessary.
Action required to ensure that quality child care and Early Childhood
Services are available
What follows are
some general directions that Burnside believes should characterise the
development of early childhood services in Australia.
We must re-conceive
quality early childhood programs as a critical investment in the development
of children and in the development of the nation. Shonkoff and Phillips
argue in their influential book, From Neurons to Neighbourhoods (2000),
that any review of early childhood policy must satisfy two complimentary
agendas. The first has to do with how knowledge about early childhood
development can maximise citizens' capabilities and thus ensure the social
and economic vitality of the nation. The second asks how the nation, its
policies and practices, can protect and nurture the well being and dignity
of all children and their right to develop whatever potential they possess.
This should be seen as an objective in its own right, regardless of broader
benefit to the nation. Both agendas are deserving of our active concern.
The former has appeared briefly in the underdeveloped discussion around
Australia as a knowledge nation: the latter has raised barely a murmur.
The focus of early
childhood services must be national, comprehensive and integrated. Development
of a national framework has been supported by a variety of groups (ACOSS,
1999; Economic Planning Advisory Commission, 1996). More recently the
report to the OECD Review into Early Childhood Education and Care has
called for a clear national vision for children in Australia that includes
the formulation of a framework for early childhood education and care
policy and practice (Press and Hayes, 2000). Burnside supports that call.
A first step would be for the Commonwealth Government to initiate a National
Summit on Early Childhood Education and Care with representatives from
all levels of government, the school system, child care organisations,
community groups and welfare agencies.
New systems and structures
are necessary to facilitate a comprehensive approach to early childhood
services. A new system will be marked by collaboration by all who provide
services to children and families, including government departments, community
agencies, private providers and voluntary organisations. Such collaboration
will need to be genuine rather than tokenistic in order to be effective.
Structures that facilitate such decision making are needed at the national,
regional and local levels (Vimpani, 1999). In this process, local community
culture and needs must be taken into account. Broad parameters and key
elements of programs may be set by policy bodies but it is up to local
decision makers how these will be applied in their own situation. The
place management approach may well offer a helpful model here (Latham,
1996).
A commitment to an
integrated program of early childhood services must be sustained over
time. The research shows that the positive results from quality early
childhood programs take time to unfold. This creates a tension with the
short term needs of government policy development constrained by 3-4 year
electoral cycles. Ideally we need bi-partisan political support for an
early childhood investment strategy over at least three terms of government.
There now seems enough consensus about the necessity and efficacy of early
childhood services across the political spectrum for this to be a possibility.
A long-term policy
would need to be supported by substantial funding from government. Recent
figures show that Australia ranks 15th out of 19 OECD nations according
to expenditure on pre-school education. In 1998 Australia spent 0.1% of
Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on pre-school education compared to the OECD
average of 0.4% (Considine et al, 2001). The influential Early Years report
argued that a comprehensive system of early child development and parenting
centres should be regarded as important as investments in school education
and post secondary education (McCain and Mustard, 1999). Yet in Australia
there is an apparent huge disparity between spending on the early years
and later education. In 1998-1999 total government expenditure on early
childhood education and care was $1.4 billion. By comparison spending
by State and Territory governments on school education amounted to $14.7
billion (SCRCSSP, 2000). One idea is to raise additional funds through
a 'children's futures levy' similar to the operation of the Medicare levy.
All taxpayers would make some contribution with higher income earners
contributing more.
More intensive support
must be directed to the most disadvantaged communities. Given the work
on locational disadvantage, and the evidence about the accumulation of
risk factors increasing the likelihood of a range of social problems,
intensive support is vital for the most vulnerable communities. Programs
in these communities should be made universally available to all community
members. This avoids the stigma that may be associated with participating
in support services and ensures that the a broad cross section of the
community has a stake in early parenting and education services. However,
early childhood parenting and education programs are not a panacea for
poorer communities. They can help families and communities deal with the
constraints and pressures imposed by poverty and other disadvantage. But
they must be complimented by stimulus to local economies, maintenance
of community infrastructure, income support policies and development of
later education and employment opportunities.
Research and evaluation
should accompany and inform program development. There is a general lack
of rigorous research in the area of early intervention (NCP, 1999). Much
of what we do know about effective early childhood services is based on
overseas research and models. Good research and evaluation of early intervention
services in the Australian context is therefore essential. However, we
know enough to commence programs now, making sure that rigorous evaluation
is built in alongside service provision. The most useful evaluations should
be both quantitative, including the identification of some uniform outcome
measures (Repucci et al, 1997) and qualitative, including rich descriptions
of programs that will allow us to understand better some of the underlying
mechanisms that make interventions effective (Scott, 1997).
What sorts of programs are needed?
In the light of the
research into early intervention and the issues in the current Australian
context what sorts of programs are needed?
Firstly, early childhood
parenting and education programs for families with young children must
be expanded. Many child and family agencies throughout Australia have
developed innovative, early intervention and family support programs that
address the needs of very vulnerable families and communities. However,
the impact of such programs is weakened by a lack of critical mass, a
short life span (programs that begin as pilots but do not go on) and lack
of common process and outcome measures that help us determine and compare
the benefits of different programs.
In developing the
early childhood sector in our own context we can learn from research into
overseas programs. Although there will always be debate about what works
(and why) there seems to be a developing consensus regarding the characteristics
of programs that have the best outcomes. (Vimpani, 1999; Repucci et al
1997; NCP, 1999; Shonkoff and Phillips, 2000).
Research findings
indicate that the most effective programs:
Have Multiple Components
The most effective services have multiple components directed to well
defined objectives. This is important in order to address specific and
multiple risk factors that influence outcomes. Although the emphasis differs
from service to service most programs offer some combination of practical
and emotional support for parents, parent training and child care, child
training and educational support. Home visiting is seen as a key means
of delivering many of these elements (NCP, 1999). Several commentators
have also highlighted the importance of child initiated learning and play
based problem solving as an important program component (McCain and Mustard,
1999; NCP, 1999; Yoshikawa, 1995).
Combine family focused
and child focused elements It is clear that the child focused programs
benefit children more than adults and that the family focused programs
benefit adults more than children (Gomby et al, 1995). Gains in child
outcomes are unlikely unless programs have an emphasis on child development
input (Powell, 1996: Gomby et al, 1995). Programs that rely on indirect
methods (attempting to influence the child through parents) have some
of the weakest results in child outcomes. At the same time the child focussed
educational enrichment programs which have produced the most substantial
outcomes combine centre based services for children with significant parent
involvement, through home visits, classroom participation or parent groups
(NCP, 1999; Yoshikawa, 2000). This is important to support parent skills
and learning in the home environment.
Maintain program
integrity As mentioned previously some of the strongest and most stringently
evaluated programs have been relatively small- scale model programs. It
is reasonable to ask whether such programs achieve similar results when
implemented on a larger scale. Barnett (1995) in his review of targeted
early education programs found that positive effects reported were somewhat
larger in the small scale demonstration projects compared to the large
scale public programs (such as Head Start). Importantly, Barnett considered
this a result of, not any deficit in the nature of the large scale programs
themselves, but a lack of sufficient funding of the larger programs which
resulted in a lowering of program quality (larger classes, fewer and less
qualified staff, poorer supervision) and intensity. Barnett emphasised
that the research supported the view that large scale programs could produce
the cognitive and social benefits for disadvantaged children, providing
program quality and integrity was maintained.
Start early There
are good reasons for staring early. Family functioning outcomes are better
for programs that commence early, even before birth. Starting early also
avoids the stigma of joining a program after a problem has developed.
Starting early is also important for the more child focussed programs.
Although good educational and other outcomes are achieved with pre school
programs, evidence on brain development suggests that beginning services
in infancy is likely to generate even larger effects than waiting till
a year or so before school (Barnett, 1995: Yoshikawa, 1995).
Are intensive While
it is not possible to be completely prescriptive about program intensity
there are strong indications from research that better outcomes are associated
with programs of greater intensity. The most effective home visiting programs
have a duration of at least two years (NCP, 1999). Parents at higher risk
have been shown to benefit more from longer term intensive visitation
(Wolfe et al, 1995). In his survey, Yoshikawa, (1995) found that programs
which produced positive outcomes for both parents and children included
25-60 home visits, occurring from weekly to monthly. The most effective
early educational programs ranged from half day to full day sessions usually
four or five days a week. Writing about Centre based child focussed programs
Gomby et al (1995) recommend that in the light of many mothers entering
the workforce out of economic necessity or government mandate, full day,
full year programs should be the norm.
Maintain Quality
Quality is an essential characteristic of the most effective childcare,
preschool and other child focused programs. The most positive outcomes
are from programs with adequate child/staff ratios, relatively small group
sizes and where staff are professionally trained (Powell, 1996). Powell
notes that this type of program quality is unlikely to be maintained when
parents are positioned purely as consumers of program services: "...
low income parents in particular are unable to afford the type of quality
that researchers have identified as key to achieving persistent benefits'
(p.96).
Another essential
aspect of quality is the maintenance of well trained child care staff
for early childhood services. Anecdotal evidence suggests that there is
a constant stream of staff leaving children's services owing to prevailing
salary levels and conditions within the sector. It is apparent that an
undervaluing of the early years is reflected in an undervaluing of those
who work with children. Attention must be given to issues like salary
and career structure if this drain is to be avoided and program quality
safeguarded. An investment in early childhood will be hampered unless
there is a corresponding investment in greater skills, compensation, and
benefits for child care professionals (Phillips, 2000).
Secondly, quality
preschool/long day care programs should be further developed and made
more accessible and affordable, particularly to low-income families. Access
to childcare should no longer be based primarily on participation in the
workforce. As Harris and Hayes (1999) note, having parent's employment
status as the main criteria for access to child care represents a 'defacto
disinvestment' in meeting the needs of the most vulnerable families. In
particular, the 20 hour cap on child care fee relief for non working parents
should be removed.
Quality is an essential
characteristic for both long day care and pre-school programs. The most
positive outcomes are associated with services that maintain adequate
staff/child ratios, have relatively small group sizes and professionally
trained staff (Powell, 1996). Other key components of effective pre school
services for disadvantaged families include:
- A focus on cognitive
enrichment that incorporates child initiated learning (especially play
based problem solving) and growth in responsibility.
- Family involvement
in the program.
- Combining parent
training programs with child training-to support parenting skills and
learning in the home environment (NCP, 1999).
Burnside supports
the graded provision of subsidised quality long day care and preschool
services. A start would be to ensure that every three and four year old
child in Australia received at least one day per week free care in a quality
pre-school or long day care centre. Children from low income families
should receive two days free care. This level of universal provision would
allow all families with children to have a stake in quality childcare.
Long day care and
pre-school centres also provide an excellent location for other family
support type services. As centres are perceived as supportive places and
non-stigmatising they provide an ideal setting for other types of parent
education, home visiting and child skills training programs. They are
also well placed to influence the important transition to the school environment
(NCP, 1999). The 'hub and spoke' model of early child development and
parenting centres currently being developed in Ontario, Canada, could
provide very useful guidance here (McCain & Mustard, 1999).
There is good evidence
that early childhood services can greatly improve the outcomes for children
and families in learning, behaviour and health. A substantially increased
investment in early childhood services is in the interests of all parties:
children, parents, community, schools, industry and Government. Individual
children have the right to develop their full potential regardless of
the circumstances into which they are born. Parents need support to fulfil
the vital role of bringing up healthy children. The general community
is concerned about children's well being. They also want to know that
distressing and costly problems such as child abuse and juvenile crime
can be prevented. Schools are the recipients of the graduates of both
child care and early parenting and are therefore key stakeholders in the
debate about quality and provision of early childhood services. Industry
is concerned to have a competent and capable workforce able to respond
to the changing demands of the global economy. Finally, governments have
an interest in the well being of all citizens and in policy and programs
that will be effective and cost efficient.
A new wave of enthusiasm
for early childhood programs is evident within government, health and
community sectors. There have been some welcome policy initiatives, program
development and resourcing of new and remodelled services on the basis
of knowledge about the effectiveness of early intervention. The danger
is that we will settle for too little and fail to realise the potential
of early childhood services. The challenge is to find the will, the resources
and the methods to create a system of early childhood services that makes
a significant difference to the most vulnerable families as well as having
benefit for all Australians.
References
Australian Council
of Social Service (ACOSS), (1999) Budget 99: making good the promise,
ACOSS paper No. 9, ACOSS, Sydney.
Barnett, S. W. (1995)
'Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Cognitive and School
Outcomes', The Future of Children, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp 25-50.
Boocock, S. (1995)
'Early Childhood Programs in Other nations: Goals and Outcomes', The Future
of Children, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 94-114.
Bowes, J. (2000)
'Parent's response to parent education and support programs' National
Child Protection Clearing House Newsletter Vol. 8 No. 2 Summer pp. 12-21.
Burnside, (1999)
Images of Children, UnitingCare Burnside, Sydney.
Cashmore, J. (2001)
'Early Experience and Brain Development', National Child Protection Clearinghouse
Newsletter, Vol. 9, No. 1, Winter, pp. 6-9.
Considine, M., Marginson,
S., Sheehan, P. & Kumnick, M. (2001) The Comparative Performance of
Australia as a Knowledge Nation: Report to the Chifley Research Centre,
Chifley Research Centre, Melbourne.
Economic Planning
Advisory Commission, (1996) Future Child Care Provision in Australia:
Child Care Task Force Interim Report, Australian Government Publishing
Service, Canberra.
Garbarino, J. &
Kostelny K. (1992) 'Child Maltreatment as a Community problem', Child
Abuse and Neglect, Vol. 16, No. $, pp. 455-464.
Gomby, D., Larner,
M., Stevenson, C., Lewit, E. & Behrman, R. (1995) 'Long-Term Outcomes
of Early Childhood Programs: Analysis and Recommendations', The Future
of Children, Vol. 5, No. 3., pp. 6-24.
Gregory, B. &
Hunter, B. (1996) 'Increasing Regional Inequality and the Decline of Manufacturing'
in Sheehan, P. et al (eds) Dialogues on Australia's Future, VUT, Melbourne.
Harding, A. &
Szukalska, A. (1998) A Portrait of Child Poverty In Australia in 1995-96,
Paper presented at the 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference,
Melbourne, 26 November 1998.
Harding, A. &
Szukalska, A. (2000) Financial Disadvantage in Australia - 1999, The Smith
Family, Camperdown.
Harris, E. &
Hayes, A. (1999) 'Responding to the needs of disadvantaged children and
their families: Rethinking priorities for children's services', Paper
presented to the Executive, Australian Early Childhood Association, May,
in Darwin.
Jamrozik, A. &
Sweeney, T. (1996) Children and Society: The Family, State and Social
Parenthood, MacMillan Education Australia, Melbourne.
Latham, M. (1996)
'Making Welfare Work', Policy, Vol. 12, No. 3, Spring.
McCain, M. N. &
Mustard, J. F. (1999) Reversing the real brain drain: The Early Years
Study Final Report, Toronto, Government of Ontario.
McClelland, A, (2000)
'No child ' Child Poverty in Australia, Brotherhood of St Laurence,
Melbourne.
McIntosh, G. (1998)
Childcare in Australia: current provision and recent developments, Available
URL: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bp/1997-98, Accessed April 24,
1998.
Moyle, H. (2001)
'Trends in the Affordability of Childcare Services' Rattler, 59, Spring,
pp. 24-26.
National Crime Prevention
(1999) Pathways to Prevention: Developmental and early intervention approaches
to crime in Australia, Commonwealth Attorney General's Department, Canberra.
Powell, D. (1996)
'Do Early Childhood Programs make a Lasting Difference to Children and
Families?' Paper presented at Child and Family Policy Conference, University
of Otago, New Zealand, July 10-13, 1996.
Press, F. & Hayes,
A. (2000) OECD Thematic Review of early Childhood Education and Care Policy:
Australian Background Report, Commonwealth Government of Australia, Canberra.
Repucci, N. D., Britner,
P. A. & Woolard, J. L. (1997) Preventing Child Abuse and Neglect Through
Parent Education, Paul H Brookes, Sydney.
Scott, D. (1997)
'Home Visiting: An Australian Perspective', Children Australia, Vol.22,
No. 3, pp. 10-16.
Scott, D. (2000)
'Embracing what works: Building communities that strengthen families',
Children Australia, Vol. 25, No 2, pp. 4-9.
Steering Committee
for the Review of Commonwealth/State Service Provision (SCRCSSP) (2000a)
Report on Government Services 2000: part F13 & 13a Children's services,
Canberra: AusInfo.
Siemon, D. &
Ford, G. (1999) 'Improving child care subsidies', Brotherhood Comment,
Sep, pp. 10-11.
Shonkoff, J. &
Phillips, D. A. (eds) (2000) From Neurons to Neighbourhoods: The Science
of Early Development, National Academy Press, Washington DC.
Szukalska, A. &
Harding A., (1998) 'A portrait of child poverty in Australia in 1995-96',
Paper presented at 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference,
Melbourne, November 26.
Tasker, G. &
Siemon, D. (1998) Is child care affordable? Pressures on families and
their use of formal long day care, Brotherhood of St Laurence and Community
Child Care, Melbourne.
Vimpani, G. (1999)
'The First Three Years- Setting a Course for Life', Childrenz Issues,
Vol. 3, No. 2, pp. 7-12.
Wolfe, D A., Repucci,
N D. & Hart, S. (1995) 'Child Abuse Prevention: Knowledge and Priorities',
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 24, Suppl., pp. 5-22.
Yoshikawa, H. (1995)
'Long-Term Effects of Early Childhood Programs on Social Outcomes and
Delinquency', The Future of Children, Vol. 5, No. 3, pp. 51-75.
Zappala, G. &
Considine, G. (2001) Educational performance among school students from
financially disadvantaged backgrounds, The Smith Family, Camperdown.
Zubrick, S. R., Silburn,
s. R., Gurrin, L., Teoh, H., Shephers, C., Carlton, J. & Lawrence,
D. (1997) Western Australian Child Health Survey: Education, Health and
Competence, Australian Bureau of Statistics and the TVW Telethon Institute
for Child Health Research, Perth.
Last
Updated 9 January 2003.