Introduction

This paper provides a synopsis and critique of research relating to the theme of building safe and supportive families and communities for children, as identified through the Protecting Australia's Children Research Audit (1995-2010) (the Audit; McDonald, Higgins, valentine, & Lamont, 2011).¹ This theme is reflected in "Supporting Outcome 1: Children Live in Safe and Supportive Families and Communities", outlined in the report Protecting Children is Everyone's Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children 2009-20 ("National Framework"; Council of Australian Governments [COAG], 2009). Projects included in the Audit are analysed here in greater depth to identify key issues and research gaps. The analysis will provide a pointer to priorities for the delivery and planning of services that support children and families.

The Protecting Australia's Children Research Audit (1995-2010) (McDonald et al., 2011) sought to identify, describe and disseminate information about Australian research projects and program evaluations during the period 1995-2010 on topics relating to the protection of children. The scope of the topics reflects the six supporting outcomes outlined in the National Framework (see Box 1).

The specific aims of the audit were to identify:

• research projects (published and unpublished) undertaken in Australia between 1995-2010 on topics of relevance to the National Framework (COAG, 2009);
• outcomes and progress since the Audit of Australian Out-of-Home Care Research (Cashmore & Ainsworth, 2004) and the National Audit of Australian Child Protection Research 1995-2004 (Higgins, Adams, Bromfield, Richardson, & Aldana, 2005);
• gaps, duplication and areas for development in relation to the outcomes and national priorities identified in the National Framework; and
• priorities for future research and data collection on the basis of the audit results, outcomes of the Towards a National Agenda forum (October 2009) and priorities identified in the National Framework.²

The Audit included a total of 1,359 projects. From this, the project team identified 1,239 projects as relating to one or more of the six supporting outcomes in the National Framework (McDonald et al., 2011).³ This paper seeks to review all the available publications arising from the projects identified in the Audit related to Supporting Outcome 1: Children Live in Safe and Supportive Families and Communities. A review that looks at projects with a preventative focus supports the National Framework and extends knowledge in highlighting prevention and early intervention as the desired strategies in reducing the vulnerability of families.

A universal prevention approach

The tertiary-level child protection system in Australia is overburdened as a result of high rates of child protection notifications and substantiations, children in out-of-home care, and a shortage of foster carers and child protection workers. In acknowledgement of this, all sectors of government and community organisations have agreed on the need to enhance primary prevention strategies and services (Allen Consulting Group, 2009). In order to reduce this burden, child protection needs to evolve from a response-to-risk approach to a broader notion of "child wellbeing", with a focus on family support, child abuse and neglect prevention and early intervention programs (Higgins & Katz, 2008).

A focus on primary prevention is further supported by research that demonstrates the value and significance of early intervention and comprehensive approaches involving a range of child and family welfare sectors to produce positive outcomes for children. The concept of child wellbeing demands a holistic approach that would integrate the three levels of the public health model of service delivery - primary, secondary and tertiary - into broader social issues and service systems (Higgins & Katz, 2008).⁴ This broader social context covers a range of related issues such as public health, housing and homelessness, education, domestic violence, substance abuse, early childhood, employment, family law, family relationship services and Indigenous health and social services.

The need for prevention and early intervention is also highlighted by the fact that child maltreatment is often a recurring issue in families, sometimes becoming chronic with multiple adverse events contributing to repeated abuse (Bromfield, Gillingham, & Higgins, 2007). The likelihood of abuse and neglect leading to negative physical, cognitive, psychological, behavioural and social consequences in adulthood (Lamont, 2010) also underlines the importance of prevention.

Community attitudes and awareness of child safety

How much research has been done in this area?

Ten of the 22 publications reviewed for this report addressed the broad themes of community attitudes towards child safety and the need for programs to raise awareness regarding issues relating to the safety of children. The projects in this category include community education programs for parents, children and professionals, and multi-modal campaigns with a preventative focus (see Table 1).

What is the quality of the evidence base?

Two of the studies reviewed were literature reviews with search methodologies appropriate for the content and scope of the studies (Hunt & Walsh, 2011; Horsfall et al., 2010). From the large sample of literature that was evaluated, the researchers selected a limited number of articles and/or projects for detailed review.

Five of the ten projects adopted a mixed methods approach with both qualitative and quantitative methodologies with the survey of a sufficient sample size (n = 250 to 1,500) to answer the proposed research questions. Of these, two surveys were confined to NSW (Corrigall et al., 2006; NAPCAN, 1995) and one to Tasmania (Tucci et al., 2004). These projects, however, employed a representative and large sample that enhanced the generalisability of findings. Another project was a national evaluation of NAPCAN's programs (Keys Young, 2000), which included a well-designed survey of a selected, relevant sample of organisations, service providers, staff and parents and discussion groups with parents. This survey had a broader evidence base with participants from the six Australian states ensuring that views of a broad range of the clients were captured. Tucci et al.'s (2006) project aimed to study community attitudes and awareness regarding child abuse and child protection through a survey of adults in six Australian states.

Evaluation of the "Zero Tolerance" campaign was mainly qualitative, based on the feedback received from the participant organisations and the community agencies that took part in the campaign, and reported on the use of materials, activities and events producing a small but relevant data set for the evaluation (Mugford, 1996). The campaign was based in South Australia and used posters and other promotional aids to raise public awareness on violence against women and children.

Two of the projects were critical analyses of existing programs; Carmody's (1999) analysis of Project Axis, a project to enhance awareness of paedophile activity, was confined to Queensland and relied on literature search, interviews with survivors of child sexual abuse, and submissions from organisations. The sample size, though small due to the sensitive nature of the inquiry (n = 720), led to findings that have wider social relevance being from an area of little systematic research. Briggs and Hawkins (1996) compared school-based child safety awareness programs through an analysis of literature and previous survey results.

What do we know from the research on community attitudes and awareness?

There are three key issues emerging from the literature in relation to community attitudes and awareness of child safety. These are summarised below.

Safety of children not perceived as a major community issue

The research about community attitudes and awareness of child safety suggests that the general community does not see the safety of children as a significant community issue. Research studies from 2004-06 highlighted an urgent need to raise the issue of child abuse prevention as a matter of public concern and promote an understanding of its impact on children, families and the community (Goddard et al., 2004). A survey of adults in six Australian states compiled a priority list of issues and concerns and it emerged that child abuse was a lesser concern than the cost of petrol and problems with public transport and roads, and was thirteenth on a list of community issues dominated by health, education, burglary, environment, terrorism and personal safety (Tucci et al., 2006). There seems to be a lack of knowledge of what constitutes abuse and this in turn has led to a significant underestimation of the problem. Parents also reported a lack of confidence to respond to child safety issues. Similar concerns were echoed in a survey of 1,500 adults in New South Wales (Corrigall et al., 2006). People did not think they had a responsibility or a role to play in child safety and protection, with only 2% of respondents mentioning anything about child protection. However, the research also established that even if people have a basic awareness of the importance of child protection and a willingness to be involved, this is not always translated into action; there is a need to address the large gap between perceptions and personal actions.

The need for education

Research also highlights the need for awareness programs for parents and the general community on important issues related to the safety of children. Provision of information for parents on child safety issues and risk factors such as gender, age, family characteristics, and educational programs for children are perceived to be an effective way to build confidence and prevent abuse. Parents' engagement with children, both in the home setting and through school-based programs, is seen as crucial to the success of prevention programs, as parents are often the first and major source of information for children (Hunt & Walsh, 2011). A review of literature relating to child sexual abuse prevention concluded that parents accept and agree with the idea that prevention should be taught in schools with content covering how to say no, to report abuse, and to know their right not to be touched in uncomfortable ways. The review advocated a comprehensive prevention approach, including primary, secondary and tertiary programs to effect a substantial and sustained change through reducing the risk factors and building protective behaviours. Findings from Project Axis on paedophile activity in Queensland indicated the need for increased levels of community awareness on child safety (Carmody, 1999). Similar concerns - lack of awareness, appropriate education and training, a skilled workforce, tracking of community attitudes, the need for inclusion of prevention education in the school curricula - are emphasised in other studies as well (Briggs & Hawkins, 1996; Goddard et al., 2004).

Community awareness campaigns

Evaluation of existing campaigns point to the efficacy of such programs in creating awareness and enhancing community-wide efforts to prevent child abuse. The evaluation of NAPCAN's programs demonstrated the value of community education, with 78% of the survey respondents agreeing that the education materials had the potential to positively affect attitudes and behaviour (Keys Young, 2000). The materials were considered effective in raising and reinforcing positive parenting messages.

Initiatives such as the National Child Protection Week and media campaigns were also recognised as a valuable activity for raising awareness about child abuse and child abuse prevention, by providing an effective and regular focus for prevention efforts (NAPCAN, 1995). Targeted campaigns (e.g., "It's Not Ok to Shake Babies") were found to be effective as they used multiple forms of transmission such as print, radio and television, and therefore had the potential to reach a wider cross-section of the community (NAPCAN, 1995).

The South Australian Health Commission's "Zero Tolerance" campaign to raise community awareness about violence against women was an initiative to change perceptions and attitudes. The effectiveness of the campaign was demonstrated through the positive response from the community to the domestic violence action groups, which were set up through the campaign (Mugford, 1996). The success of the campaign was attributed to a number of reasons. The materials were developed based on market research covering a wide cross-section of the population, which helped create a sense of personal relevancy. More significantly, the campaign involved all domestic violence action groups in the state as well as major community agencies, and included a comprehensive kit to get the message across to all age groups (Mugford, 1996).

An analysis of social marketing campaigns by Horsfall et al. (2010) argued that the effectiveness of social marketing campaigns is enhanced when they complement other prevention initiatives. To optimise future campaigns, Horsfall et al. recommended:

• assessing the needs of the target audience;
• pairing mass media with a community level strategy;
• aligning campaigns with support services; and
• a comprehensive evaluation.

The success of the community awareness campaigns reviewed provides reinforcement of the importance and effectiveness of campaigns in addressing child protection issues. They also provide indicators for the design of future campaigns and programs.

Child-friendly communities

How much research has been done in this area?

Six studies were reviewed that critically looked at government and community involvement and initiatives to create child-friendly family and social contexts. One of the studies was a comparative policy analysis of six key reform agendas relating to children and young people (Heylar et al., 2009). Two studies looked at the rationale for including children's voice in decisions affecting them, while the other three studies seek to highlight the community's role through identifying support factors, holistic models for early intervention and evaluating a community development program (See Table 3).

What is the quality of the evidence base?

The available publications were all qualitative studies and therefore limited in both scope and generalisability of findings. However, they provide critical analyses and evaluations of specific programs enabling the identification of key factors in the creation of child-friendly communities. Further quantitative or mixed-methods research that captures a broad cross-section of the community would enable a more thorough debate of the issues in child safety and wellbeing.

What do we know from research on making communities safe for children?

The policy context

The policy context of the child welfare reforms in Australia is critically reviewed by Helyar et al. (2009) through an analysis of the major reform agendas relating to children and young people announced in 2009. The premise for the review is the observation that timely, relevant and integrated services enable possibilities and transformations to build individual and community capacities (Helyar et al., 2009). The review compared the Australian Government's key reform agendas and conducted a thorough analysis of how each agenda augmented the wider social inclusion principles. The analysis called for greater social inclusion and integration of the outcomes of the reform agendas into program planning and delivery. A number of recommendations were put forward to achieve this, including:

• improved cross-jurisdictional alignment of priorities, action and implementation mechanisms;
• needs-based, strengths-based and locally relevant approaches;
• developing an investigative and holistic approach to prevention and response;
• more participatory child protection systems;
• improved data collection and dissemination and sharing of information;
• extension of programs for young people;
• developing a properly skilled workforce; and
• better allocation of resources.

Community involvement and capacity building

Addressing and preventing adverse social situations is a necessary precondition for creating safe communities, due to the impact of issues such as poverty, domestic violence and unemployment (Wise, 1999). This requires building resilience through fostering positive connections between family and the community, providing community-based support for families, and enhancing social networks. Research also suggests that it is not the presence of risks, such as poverty, but the state of social exclusion that accompanies them, that results in negative outcomes for children and families (Wise, 1999).

Community capacity building through locally relevant holistic programs and small-scale initiatives that seek to concurrently address a range of causative factors is the focus of Blakester's (2006) study. Insufficient community involvement and lack of strong professional partnerships between the various community service sectors were identified as common barriers to the effectiveness of child abuse and neglect prevention strategies. The outcomes of the "Shared Action" community development project in Bendigo, Victoria, demonstrated the significance of a sense of the community in ensuring the safety and enhancing the wellbeing of children (Gardner, 2002). Opportunities for participation in the community were seen to create positive values and attitudes and connectedness that impacted on the safety of children.

Children's participation

A literature review of children's participation in research and decision-making concluded that research on children tends to focus on adult's generalised views of children's needs (Hoffman-Ekstein et al., 2008). The review also found that participation of children in research and decision-making in issues concerning them, including care options, was important to create and sustain networks and relationships of trust and reciprocity between children and parents and other caregivers. Hoffman-Ekstein et al. advocated developing a research framework that incorporates the views and experiences of children.

In an earlier study, a collaborative model for children's participation, in the context of children in care, was outlined and evaluated by Mason and Urquhart (2001). This collaborative model acknowledges children as social actors with the competence to contribute to decisions and research regarding them. It was anticipated and partly demonstrated through the initial stage of the project that the model had the potential to address social justice issues and provide more effective and timely responses to children's needs.

Implications for future research

Community attitudes and engagement

Only a limited number of projects in the Audit explored issues relating to making families and communities safe and supportive for children. There were comparatively few projects dealing with related issues such as community education about child abuse and neglect, parenting, child development and children's needs (McDonald et al., 2011). The National Framework recognised the importance of community education and involvement to influence attitudes and beliefs about child abuse and neglect (COAG, 2009). The National Research Agenda for Protecting Children 2011-2014 (the "National Research Agenda"; FaHCSIA with the National Framework Implementation Working Group [NFIWG], 2011), a priority project under the National Framework, also identifies "community attitudes and engagement" (p. 7) as an area of inquiry under the research theme of prevention. There is a broad acknowledgement of the need for further research in the role of communities in ensuring safety of children.

Parenting

There is overwhelming acceptance of the role and involvement of parents in ensuring the success of prevention programs, as they are often the major source of information for children and involvement is a way to ensure that they have adequate support and are not at risk of abusing or neglecting their children. Parental surveys revealed that majority of parents lacked specific knowledge and the confidence, vocabulary, and resources to inform their children of the risks they might have to face in different situations. There is need for a good evidence base to inform practice on a number of issues that parents perceived as challenges, and that may lead to inaction by parents, including:

• long-held attitudes and beliefs that influence perceptions of violence and abuse and impact on the way children are disciplined in families;
• the challenge for child protection systems to recognise the need to protect children and the need to respect parental rights (Corrigall et al., 2006);
• a greater sense of what constitutes abuse - abuse within the family not always perceived as an issue; and
• the level of trust parents have in their children's stories and reports of abuse.

Participation of children

In the context of creating safe and supportive families and communities for children, the National Framework highlighted the need to uphold children's right to participate in decisions that affect them (COAG, 2009). The Audit contains very little research in this area. There is a clear need for more participatory research involving children to enhance our knowledge of their needs and how children contribute to and benefit from social connections. Children are known to have little input into decisions involving them in the care and protection systems (Higgins & Katz, 2008). For example, a very low proportion of projects in the Audit addressed the issue of children's participation in decisions regarding child protection, juvenile justice, family court and out-of-home care (McDonald et al., 2011). The prevailing adultist views of seeing children as passive recipients need to be confronted through further research focused on developing the evidence base to support child-inclusive practices.

Family support services

The National Framework in its strategies for Supporting Outcome 1 identified the need to strengthen the capacity of families to support children. Provision of improved community programs and family support services forms part of the plan to implement this strategy (COAG, 2009). In his review of the progress and challenges of the National Framework, Babington (2011) pointed out the need for identifying priority areas with greater precision and the allocation of resources to support them. In his view, there needs to be social marketing campaigns and more extensive family support programs to address the specific needs of families and children.

The National Framework places a high priority on coordinated service delivery where there is a strengthening of partnership between government and non-government agencies and between various sectors in program planning and service delivery. This review indicates a need for further research on ways to achieve an effective level of collaboration - collaboration between various community service sectors and agencies that would improve the processes and help to deliver services in a timely and efficient manner to produce the best outcomes for children and families.

Population groups

The National Research Agenda states the need to research specific population groups as they may have differing cultural, developmental, care and protection needs. Some of the groups mentioned include Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, people from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, children with a disability, infants, adolescents, children of care leavers and young parents (FaHCSIA with NFIWG, 2011). This review also brings out the paucity of research with these groups. There are very few studies included in the Audit and none in this review that looked at issues relating to some of these specific groups. These are areas for further research as capacity building for these groups may require specialised approaches.

References

• Allen Consulting Group. (2009). Inverting the pyramid: Enhancing systems for protecting children. Melbourne: Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth.
• Australian Government. (2008). Social inclusion principles for Australia. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from <www.socialinclusion.gov.au/sites/www.socialinclusion.gov.au/files/publications/pdf/SIPrincilpes.pdf>
• Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2011). Child protection Australia 2009-10 (Child Welfare Series No.51). Canberra: AIHW.
• Babington, B. (2011). National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children: Perspectives on progress and challenges. Family Matters, 89, 11-20.
• Barlow, J., & Calam, R. (2011). A public health approach to safeguarding in the 21st Century. Child Abuse Review, 20, 238-255.
• Benson, B. A., & Hartz, A. J. (2000). A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. The New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1878-1886.
• Blakester, A. (2006). Practical child abuse and neglect prevention: A community responsibility and professional partnership. Child Abuse Prevention Newsletter, 14(2), 2-10.
• Briggs, F., & Hawkins, M. F. (1996). To what extent can child protection programs keep children safe? In N. J. Taylor, and A. B. Smith (Eds). Investing in children: Primary prevention strategies. Proceedings of the Children's Issues Centre Inaugural Child and Family Policy Conference 10-13 July 1996 (pp. 45-66). Dunedin, NZ: Children's Issues Centre,.
• Bromfield, L. M., Gillingham, P., & Higgins, D. J. (2007). Cumulative harm and chronic child maltreatment. Developing Practice, 19, 34-42.
• Brown, T. (2010). What about the children? Parenting post separation and divorce. Melbourne: Family Life.
• Carmody, T. (1999, June). Project Axis. Paper presented at the Children and Crime: Victims and Offenders Conference, Australian Institute of Criminology, Brisbane.
• Cashmore, J. A., & Ainsworth, F. (2004). Audit of Australian out-of-home care research. Sydney: Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia, Association of Child Welfare Agencies.
• Concato, J., Shah, N. & Horwitz, R. I. (2000). Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs. The New England Journal of Medicine, 342, 1887-1892.
• Conroy, S., McArthur, M., & Butler, K. (2009). Connecting Canberra's inner north: Evaluation of the North Canberra C4C Initiative. Canberra: Institute of Child Protection Studies, ACU.
• Corrigall, D., Grealy, C., Rintoul, D., & Schwartzkoff, J. (2006). Spotlight on safety: Community attitudes to child protection, foster care and parenting. Sydney: New South Wales Department of Community Services.
• Council of Australian Governments. (2009). Protecting children is everyone's business: National framework for protecting Australia's children 2009-2020. Canberra: COAG.
• Flynn, C., & Hewitt, L. (2007). Community Bubs Program: Evaluation report. Melbourne: Family Life.
• Gardner, F. (2002). Shared action: Stronger communities, safer children. Children Australia, 27(2), 23-28.
• Helyar, S., Woodruff, J., Bevan, K., Adamson, E., Skattebol, J., valentine, k. et al. (2009). Because children and families matter delivering on the national reform agenda. Dickson, ACT: UnitingCare Australia.
• Higgins, D., Adams, R., Bromfield, L., Richardson, N., & Aldana, M. (2005). National audit of Australian child protection research 1995-2004. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Higgins, D., & Katz, I. (2008). Enhancing service systems for protecting children: Promoting child wellbeing and child protection reform in Australia. Family Matters, 80, Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies, 43-50.
• Hoffmann-Ekstein, J., Michaux, A., Bessell, S., Mason, J., Watson, E., & Fox, M. (2008). Children's agency in communities: A review of literature and the policy and practice context. ARACY/ARC NHMRC Research Network Seed Funded Collaboration.
• Horsfall, B., Bromfield, L. M., & McDonald, M. (2010). Are social marketing campaigns effective in preventing child abuse and neglect? (NCPC Issues No. 32). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Hunt, R., & Walsh, K. M. (2011). Parents' views about child sexual abuse prevention education: A systematic review. Australasian Journal of Early Childhood, 36(2), 63-76.
• Hunter, C. (2011). Defining the public health model for the child welfare services context (NCPC Resource Sheet). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Keys Young. (2000). Evaluation of NAPCAN: Final report. Milsons Point, NSW: Keys Young.
• Lamont, A. (2010). Effects of child abuse and neglect for adult survivors (NCPC Resource Sheet). Melbourne: National Child Protection Clearinghouse, Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Mason, J., & Urquhart, R. (2001). Developing a model for participation by children in research on decision making. Children Australia, 26(4), 16-21.
• McDonald, M. (2011). Demonstrating community-wide outcomes: Exploring the issues for child and family services (CAFCA Practice Sheet). Melbourne: Australia Institute of Family Studies
• McDonald, M., Higgins, D., valentine, k., & Lamont, A. (2011). Protecting Australia's children research audit (1995-2010): Final report. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Mugford, K. (1996). Zero Tolerance: Violence against women and children. Creating awareness in the community of violence against women and children: Evaluation report. Adelaide, SA: South Australian Health Commission.
• National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect. (1995). Evaluation report: 'It's Not OK to Shake Babies' national campaign. Sydney, NSW: NAPCAN.
• Sanders, M. (2008). Triple P-Positive Parenting Program as a public health approach to strengthening parenting. Journal of Family Psychology, 22(3), 506-517.
• Sheather, (2009). Communities for Children Raymond Terrace and Karuah: Local evaluation report. Newcastle, NSW: The Family Action Centre, University of Newcastle.
• Tucci, J., Goddard, C., & Mitchell, J. (2004). Do not turn away: Tracking Tasmanian community attitudes about child abuse and child protection (No. 0958041172). Ringwood, Vic: Australian Childhood Foundation and the National Research Centre for the Prevention of Child Abuse.
• Tucci, J., Mitchell, J., & Goddard, C. (2005). The changing face of parenting: Exploring the attitudes of parents in contemporary Australia. Ringwood, Vic: Australian Childhood Foundation.
• Tucci, J., Mitchell, J. & Goddard, C. (2006). Out of sight, out of mind: Community attitudes about child abuse and child protection in Australia. Ringwood, Vic: Australian Childhood Foundation.
• Vinson, T. (2007). Dropping off the edge: The distribution of disadvantage in Australia. Richmond, Vic: Jesuit Social Services:
• Wise, S. (1999). Creating a "child-friendly" social environment: A strategy to reclaim our children from risk? Retrieved from <www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/wise.html>.