ALECOMM

History of Child Protection in South Australia

Details

Category: History of Child Protection

Created: Monday, 31 March 2008 00:45

Written by Hon EP Mullighan - Children in State Care - Commission of Inquiry

The Government has placed children in State care into foster care since the 19th century. Children were boarded out, as the foster care system was known originally, with families from the early 1850s under arrangements made by the Destitute Board.1 In the 1860s a group of concerned citizens began to lobby for children to be placed in family homes rather than institutions.2 This campaign led to the formation of the Boarding-out Society in 1872 ‘for the supervision of the children when placed out’.3

This system of foster care was formalised in 1872 when the South Australian Parliament passed a Bill allowing any child who had been committed to a reformatory or industrial school to be placed out with a family until the age of 12, with a government subsidy paid to the family.4 From 13, children could be ‘licensed for service’ until they reached 16 if female or 18 if male.5

Concern that children who were boarded out were being exploited as unpaid labour led to a State inquiry. The findings of the 1883–85 Way Commission led to the establishment of the State Children’s Council (SCC) in 1886.6 The SCC licensed ‘fit and proper’ people to care for children under the age of two years and licensed foster parents to whom older children in State care were placed out or apprenticed. The SCC had powers regarding complaints against foster parents, the removal of a child from a foster placement and for regular inspections of placements.

Both the SCC and its successor from 1927, the Children’s Welfare and Public Relief Board (CWPRB), believed that
placement in a family environment rather than an institution better prepared children for adult life. The CWPRB stated in 1938 that boarding out was still its preferred option for most children in State care: ‘A substitute home and parents is believed by the Board to be preferable to any institution’.8 Boarding out also saved the government the cost of staffing and maintaining residential institutions.

However, concerns that children were being exploited persisted. In 1926, for example, the department defended the boarding out system, noting that inspectors attempted ‘in every way to make friends with [children], win their confidence, and directly and indirectly gain a full insight into their school progress, home duties, pleasures and interests’.9 Children were also encouraged to communicate with police officers, clergymen, schoolmasters, or any other suitable person if any issue arose between inspections.10 However, the department controlled parents’ access to children in foster placements. Parents could not contact their children directly and could only see them by arrangement at the department’s offices.11

Efforts to protect children from exploitation continued over the decades. In the 1930s, the department’s inspectors reportedly regularly visited children placed with licensed foster parents. The inspectors also visited the schools these children attended and inspected the homes of people applying to care for children in State care. The role of inspectors was to ensure that younger foster children were not being overworked and that those placed out for service were working satisfactorily, receiving wages regularly and had adequate leisure hours.12 In addition to information from inspectors the department received reports from other sources such as schools and local governing authorities.13

By 1940 the department had initiated a procedure whereby children were visited within a month of a placement starting.14 In 1954, the CWPRB secretary stated that increased supervision of the 300 children in foster care (from a total of 1215 State children), had ensured that they were boarded out ‘only to good foster parents’.15 However, historical records between the 1930s and 1950s reveal that some children were still placed in unsatisfactory homes or in placements where foster parents were guilty of exploitation.16

Housing shortages post-war and into the 1950s reduced available placements. However the newly created Department of Social Welfare reiterated its commitment to foster care in 1965: ‘For more than 100 years in South Australia children under State care have been placed individually in suitable private foster homes ... The Department believes that most children are best cared for as members of a family group.’17 The Social Welfare Act 1926–1965 introduced several protective measures relating to foster care. The Act increased the penalty for ill-treating, injuring, or neglecting a child in State care and for a foster parent who transferred the care of a child to another person without the consent of the director of Social Welfare.18 Whereas in the past members of voluntary visiting committees could inspect placements, the new Act stipulated that only officers of the department could do inspections.19

After the passing of Social Welfare Act the department focused on preventing family breakdowns to reduce the need to remove children from their homes, especially for
13 ibid., p. 12.
14 CWPRB annual report 1940, p. 5.
long periods. The aim was to use short-term respite or emergency foster care, which allowed children to be placed back with their families as soon as possible. This policy shift resulted in greater demand for foster care, particularly short-term care.20 During the late 1960s, 87 per cent of children in State care were placed into foster homes, however the department remarked on the continuing shortage of foster carers.21 When the new Department of Social Welfare and Aboriginal Affairs assumed responsibility for Aboriginal communities in 1970, it identified a shortage of culturally appropriate placements for Aboriginal children.22

The needs of foster carers received increasing attention in the 1970s. The department had welcomed the creation in 1969 of the Foster Parents’ Association, which provided a forum for carers to exchange information and provide mutual support.23 The department stated in 1971 that training would assist foster carers to ‘develop their understanding of the problems that the neglected child’s experiences produce’.24 It initiated its first 12-week pilot training program, based on foster parents and social workers working in tandem to improve standards..25 However, annual reports from the 1970s show that the shortage of available placements and the limited amount of foster care training remained areas of concern.26

In 1972 the new Department for Community Welfare decentralised its services by designating metropolitan and country regions. In each region district offices assumed responsibility for foster placements so that placements were handled at the local level, thereby increasing ‘the immediacy of foster placing’.27

In 1973 the government worked with a non-government provider to develop the first Emergency Foster Care (EFC) scheme, which initially provided emergency foster accommodation from overnight to up to three months for any child or young person under 18.28

By 1979 the scheme was working with 120 approved foster-parents supported by two placement officers and two clerical officers. The service found emergency placements for more than 40 children a month and was regarded as ‘an effective alternative to residential care’.29 The department brought the scheme under the supervision of the Residential Child Care Advisory Committee (RCCAC) and it was funded under contract between the Minister of Community Welfare and the non-government service provider.30

This contract allowed the program to be ‘conducted primarily but not exclusively for children up to the age of 12 who require foster care (up to a maximum period of three months)’.31

By the end of the 1970s the department had increased subsidies and training for foster carers and developed procedures for the placement and monitoring of children in foster care.32 It supported the establishment of the Aboriginal Child Care Agency, which recruited and supported Aboriginal foster families and ensured the culturally appropriate placement of Aboriginal children unable to live with their birth families.33 The department also introduced the Intensive Neighbourhood Care (INC) scheme to provide ‘family’ style care for young offenders. Under this scheme, children were placed with families that had received specialised training in dealing with young offenders.34 However in 1979 a senior member of the department highlighted issues of continuing concern, including assessment, selection and training of carers, professional support for foster parents, carer support and the needs of children with disabilities. The departmental officer noted: ‘I feel that it is true to say that foster care has been undertaken on an ad hoc basis without any evident precision or consistency’.35
At this time the department was working in tandem with 800 approved foster families caring for nearly 1000 children. More than half of those were children under the official care and control of the Minister.36 In the following decade the department increasingly outsourced foster care to non-government providers. It licensed and approved non-government agencies to perform assessments of foster parent applications and issued revised procedures relating to foster care that addressed the involvement of non-government agencies in this process.37

In the early 1980s, the foster care system received closer attention. The Residential Child Care and Support Advisory Committee (RCCSAC, successor to the RCCAC) was established and raised concerns about the unsuitable placement of children in foster care because of the lack of vacancies in residential care, which it linked to foster placement breakdowns.38 The department examined emergency foster care, respite care, temporary foster care and long-term care. It found that short-term care was effective but required increased monitoring to ensure that there was ‘no unplanned drift from Emergency Foster Care into longer term care’.39 In addition, long-term care was not being carefully planned or scrutinised, which resulted in multiple placements and a lack of permanency and stability for children. The Children’s Interest Bureau (CIB) reiterated these concerns, noting that the demand for emergency foster care was increasing, while children in long-term care were ‘being moved too frequently’ among placements.40 At a meeting of the CIB, the deputy director-general of the department stated that she was ‘appalled at the number of children who have been in a number of placements’.41 A departmental report from 1987 stated:

There is a growing recognition that the system of care is itself ‘abusive’ because of the number of placements the child can have, the failure to deal with problems facing the child and the subjection of children to physical and sexual abuse.42

Reviews undertaken in the early 1990s spurred the department to entrench its outsourcing of foster care in the latter part of the decade. In 1997 a program for planning, purchasing and delivering alternative care services was implemented and foster care services were put out for competitive tender.43 In 1999 an evaluation of the alternative care services outsourced through this program revealed ‘significant difficulties’.44 A growing demand for placements was not matched by an increase in carers. Instead there was a decline in carer numbers and limited residential care alternatives. The evaluation report noted: ‘The scarcity of appropriate placements meant that it was impossible to match placements to children’s needs leading to placement breakdowns and instability for children.’45

Criticisms of departmental policies regarding foster care continue to the present. For example, an article written in 2001 by an academic working in the field of social administration and social work criticised the outsourcing of foster care through competitive tender. He suggested that outsourcing—part of a national policy of minimal government intervention and the result of reductions in funding to the public sector—was flawed.46 The article cites tension between department social workers and contracted foster care agencies and a ‘burdensome and frustrating amount of paperwork’ brought about by foster care referral procedures. The article also argued that departmental district centre workers lacked an understanding of the problems faced by foster-carers.47 The author referred to a ‘decimation of residential care’ in the 1980s and 1990s. This led to a nationwide reliance on foster care, with South Australia depending on foster care more than any other State. The scarcity of placements for children with behavioural problems and those with disabilities was endemic.48

The 2003 Layton review of child protection in South Australia acknowledged the problems in the alternative care system.49 Layton concluded that competitive tendering, referred to as the ‘funder-purchaser-provider’ model, was incompatible with the provision of welfare services and had resulted in ‘significant mistrust’. She recommended that the system ‘be modified’ to allow for ‘realistic quality participation by an expanded number of alternative service providers’, along with a definite system of ‘prescribing and monitoring’ their performance.50

In 2004 the Government responded to the Layton report with its Keeping them safe policy agenda.51 The 2004 agenda and its follow-up in 2006, Keeping them safe – in our care acknowledged the need for stability and security for children in foster care and the demands on carers.52

At 30 June 2007, 47 per cent of children in State care were in foster care.53 Evidence to the Inquiry indicates that the department has considerable difficulty in recruiting and retaining foster carers.54

Summary of foster care allegations
The Inquiry heard evidence from 103 people (72 females, 31 males) who alleged they were sexually abused while in State care and placed in foster care. A further nine people are included in this report as, due to the unavailability of records and/or the historical actions of the Aborigines Protection Board (APB) in removing Aboriginal children contrary to legislation (see page 14), the Inquiry was unable to properly determine whether they were in State care.

The allegations included acts of gross indecency, acts to gratify prurient interest, indecent assault, bestiality and oral, vaginal, digital and anal intercourse and rape. The alleged perpetrators were foster fathers, foster mothers, foster sons, other fostered boys, boarders, relatives of the foster parents and outsiders, including friends of the foster family, a teacher, taxi driver, camp worker, student social worker, police officer, priest, neighbours and strangers.

51 DFC, Keeping them safe – the SA Government’s child protection reform program, 2004.
52 DFC, Keeping them safe – in our care: draft for consultation, ‘New directions action plan’, Sep. 2006.
53 Guardian for Children and Young People annual report, 2006–07, p. 7, viewed at <http://www.gcyp.sa.gov.au> This includes 1791 children and young people under the guardianship or custody of the Minister and 90 children and young people on interim and temporary orders.
54 Discussed in chapter 4.1 of this report.

39 ibid., 20 Dec. 1984.
40 SRSA GRS 8780/4, Children’s Interest Bureau (CIB), File 17: Minutes July 24, 1985, CIB minutes from planning day, Aug. 14, 1985.
41 ibid.
42 DCW, DCW Policy and practice papers: issues in public welfare, Eddie Le Sueur (ed), vol. 1, Aug. 1990, p. 6, Dianne Schneider, ‘Intervention on behalf of families and children’ (extracted from DCW Program Planning Unit, Intervention on behalf of families and children: Substitute care and planning for permanence, Sep. 1987).
43 DFACS, A policy for the planning, purchasing and delivery of alternative care services in South Australia, 1996.
44 Des Semple and Assoc., Review of alternative care in South Australia, discussion paper, Nov. 2001, p. 5, summary of findings of Department of Human Services, Alternative care 1999 evaluation report.
45 Semple, p. 5.
46 J Barber, ‘The slow demise of foster care in South Australia’, Journal of Social Policy no. 30 (1), 2001, p. 3.
47 Barber, pp. 4–8.
48 Barber, pp. 8–9, quoting H Bath, ‘Out-of-home care in Australia: a State by State comparison’, Children Australia no. 19, 1994, pp. 4–10.
49 Department of Human Services (DHS) 2003, Our best investment: a State plan to protect and advance the interests of children, report prepared by Robyn Layton QC, DHS, Adelaide, 2003.
50 ibid., ch. 11, p. 5, recommendation 65.

28 SRSA GRS 4164/1, Apr.–June 1978, Report on Emergency Foster Care scheme included in report on minutes of meeting re future developments and funding of EFC scheme, June 15 1978.
29 SRSA GRS 4164/1/48, File 20/13/4, RCCAC secretary to deputy-director general, 4 Sep. 1978.
30 The Association of Professional and Business Men of the Seventh Day Adventist Church was the non-government operator of EFC. GRS 4164/1/48, File 20/13/4, RCCAC secretary to deputy director-general, 4 Sep. 1978.
31 SRSA GRS 714/1, July–Sep. 1978, agreement between the Minister of Community Welfare and the Association of Professional and Business Men (SA) Inc, clause 2.
32 Standard Procedure no. 514, which covered foster care, was first developed in 1973. See DFC, An overview of past and current practice: a brief history of State involvement in the care of children and young people in South Australia (Dr Susan Marsden, consultant historian), Sep. 2006, p. 27. The 1973 document has not been located among archival records of the department. Also see SRSA GRS 11012/1/48, Community Welfare Work Standard Procedures, Standard Procedure no. 514, 17 Jan. 1978.
33 DCW annual report 1979, p. 24.
34 CWPRB annual report 1963, p. 4; DCW annual report 1979, p. 34, and 1982, p. 6.
35 SRSA GRS 714/1, Mar–May 1979, RCCAC secretary to chairman, March 22, 1979.
36 DCW annual report 1979, p. 24.
37 By 1981–82, two voluntary foster care agencies had been approved and licensed, the Adelaide Central Mission and the Catholic Family Welfare Bureau, and by 1983 this had risen to seven agencies. SRSA GRS 4164/1, branch head circular no. 1154, acceptance of a non-statutory agency as an agency suitable to assess foster-parent applications, Mar–May 1979; DCW annual report 1981–82, p. 29, and 1982–83, p. 27; Substitute care: standards of practice South Australia (1987).
38 SRSA GRS 4164/15/P, File 20/020/26, RCCSAC minutes, Feb. 16, 1984.

15 SRSA GRG 29/6/1947/456, Preventative work and assistance to outside people. Voluntary supervision of children other than State wards, ‘Foster children in S.A. “well supervised”’, Sunday Advertiser, 31 July 1954; CWPRB annual report 1954, p. 14.
16 See CWPRB minutes, vol. 10, (minute 455), 1 Aug. 1935; vol. 14, (minute 842), 15 Apr. 1943; vol. 16, (minute 1193), 5 Oct. 1950; vol. 17, (minute 1306), 11 Dec. 1952.
17 DCW annual report 1966, p. 11.
18 See Maintenance Act 1926–1937, s. 142, and as amended in Maintenance Act Amendment Act 1965, ss. 141–2.
19 See Maintenance Act 1926–1937, ss. 147–9 and as amended in Maintenance Act Amendment Act 1965, s. 147.
20 DSW annual report 1969, p. 9.
21 ibid., 1967, p. 4; 1968, p. 4; 1966, p. 11.
22 DSWAA annual report 1971, p. 8.
23 DSW annual report 1969, p. 9.
24 ibid., p. 9.
25 DCW annual report 1972, p. 14; 1973, p. 36.
26 DCW annual report 1972, p. 14; 1973, p. 36.
27 ibid., 1972, pp. 5, 14.

1 CM Davey, Children and their law-makers. A social-historical survey of the growth and development from 1836 to 1950 of South Australian laws relating to children, Griffen Press, Adelaide, 1956, p. 2; and Brian Dickey, Rations, residence, resources: A history of social welfare in South Australia since 1836, Wakefield Press, Adelaide, 1986, p. 53.
2 SA Register, 2 Aug. 1856, cited in Davey, p. 2; South Australia, Parliament 1885, Royal Commission to report on the Destitute Persons Act 1881, second and final report, (Way Commission), Parl. Paper 4, no. 228, pt II ‘Children under the care of the government’, para. 80.
3 Way, pt II, para. 80.
4 Destitute Persons Relief Act and Industrial and Reformatory Schools Act 1872, pt III, s. 59.
5 Way, pt II, para. 57.
6 Way had two main concerns: that the Destitute Board increasingly used the demand for children in the community as a reason not to pay subsidy to families and the absence of official inspections of placements, pt II, para. 74.
7 State Children Act 1895, ss. 52–79.
8 CWPRB annual report 1938, p. 3.
9 SCC minutes and CWPRB minutes, vol. 6, (minute 856), July 9, 1926.
10 ibid.
11 CWPRB minutes, vol. 15, (minute 1066), 19 Feb. 1948; vol. 16, (minute 1232) July 12 1951.

Source : http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/83541/20080421-1221/mullighaninquiry/CISC%20-%20Complete.pdf