2.12 Child protection

Key messages

• The majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) children are being raised in safe environments. However, First Nations children are over-represented in all aspects of the child protection system, reflecting a history of colonisation and trauma which has impacted parents and communities. In responding to situations in which First Nations children are at risk, all states and territories have adopted the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle, which aims to enhance and preserve the connection of First Nations children to family and community, as well as their sense of identity and culture.
• Over the period from 2017–18 to 2021–22, there was no clear trend in the rate of substantiated maltreatments among First Nations children (aged under 18), with rates ranged between 38.7 per 1,000 children in 2017–18 to 39.8 per 1,000 children in 2021–22. There was also no significant change in the rate of substantiated maltreatments for non-Indigenous children, nor in the gap between these rates.
• Over the period from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022, the rate of First Nations children on care and protection orders increased from 62.3 to 71.9 per 1,000 children. Over the same period, the rate for non-Indigenous children remained consistent at 6.8 per 1,000 children.
• At 30 June 2022, 43% of children in out-of-home care were First Nations children (19,432 of 45,356, where Indigenous status was known). Of the First Nations children in out-of-home care, almost one-third (6,185 or 31.8%) were placed with First Nations relatives or kin.
• The reasons for the over-representation of First Nations children in child protection and out-of-home care systems are complex and include intergenerational trauma from previous separations from family and culture, and the legacy of past policies of forced removal.
• Between 2017–18 and 2021–22, the rate of out-of-home care among First Nations children increased from 52.1 to 56.8 per 1,000 children, while the change in the rate among non-Indigenous children was statistically non-significant.
• Almost two-thirds (64% or 2,600) of the 4,055 First Nations children who were under some type of youth justice supervision during 2020–21 came into contact with the child protection system in the 5 years prior.
• Out-of-home care is viewed as an intervention of last resort, and the preference is always for children to be reunited with their natural parents if possible. Many children can be safely reunited with their families when their families receive appropriate supports and interventions. In 2020–21, 16% of 10,266 First Nations children aged 0–17 in out-of-home care (excluding children on long-term guardianship orders) were reunified during the year. Of 1,537 First Nations children aged 0–16 who were reunified with family during 2019–20, 84% did not return to out-of-home care within 12 months.

Why is it important?

The majority of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (First Nations) children are being raised in safe environments, where their parents are teaching them to be active contributors to family and community life (Lohoar et al. 2014). Interactions with the child protection system for First Nations children should be contextualised within the history of colonialism and systemic racism that First Nations communities have experienced, including considerable trauma in the form of dispossession of land, removal of children, family separation and displacement, and loss of culture (The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1997). The consequences of these removal policies have long-term effects, including social, physical and psychological affects for those directly involved, as well as for their families and communities (Atkinson 2013). Child protection issues continue to be very significant for the First Nations population; the history of trauma and related stressors has impacted parents, their children, and communities. Issues such as substance abuse, poverty and family violence are also key factors in driving the contact of First Nations children with the child protection system (AHRC 2015; de Bortoli et al. 2015). Empowering First Nations communities through self-determination and tailored welfare services can repair historical harm and promote control of First Nations communities over their destiny (The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1997).

Experience of maltreatment (physical, emotional and psychological abuse, neglect, sexual abuse and witnessing family violence) during childhood has serious and long-term effects on social and emotional wellbeing and health (Emerson et al. 2015). Exposure to trauma, neglect and experience of out-of-home care is associated with suicidal behaviour (Atkinson 2013; Robinson et al. 2011). Children and young people who have been abused or neglected are also at greater risk of engaging in criminal activity and of entering the youth justice system (AIHW 2019a).

In responding to situations in which First Nations children are at risk, all states and territories have adopted the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle (ATSICPP). The fundamental goal of the principle is to enhance and preserve First Nations children’s connection to family and community, and their sense of identity and culture. The principle recognises the importance of connections to family, community, culture and Country in child and family legislation, policy and practice, and emphasises the importance of self-determination in supporting and maintaining those connections (Burton et al. 2018). Where First Nations children are removed from their family, the principle requires the following order of preference for their placement to be followed: with First Nations relatives or extended family members, or other relatives or extended family members; with First Nations members of the child’s community; with First Nations family-based carers; a non-Indigenous carer or in a residential setting (SNAICC 2019). Barriers to this principle include a shortage of foster and kinship carers, issues of support for kinship carers and inconsistency in child protection decision-making (Arney et al. 2015; Kiraly & Humphreys 2016).

The National Agreement on Closing the Gap (the National Agreement) was developed in partnership between Australian governments and the Coalition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Peak Organisations. The National Agreement has been built around 4 Priority Reforms that have been directly informed by First Nations people. These reforms are central to the National Agreement and will change the way governments work with First Nations people, including through working in partnership and sharing decision making, building the Aboriginal community-controlled sector, transforming government organisations, and improving and sharing access to data and information to enable informed decision making by First Nations communities. The National Agreement has identified the importance of reducing the number of First Nations children in out-of-home care. To support this outcome the National Agreement specifically outlines the following target to direct policy attention and monitor progress:

• Target 12: By 2031, reduce the rate of over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (0–17 years old) in out-of-home care by 45 per cent.

The National Agreement has identified the number and proportion of First Nations children in out-of-home care as a key driver of this trend. Further, rates of First Nations children entering out-of-home care and receiving protection orders (where family violence is indicated) has been identified as a key driver of outcome 13 (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and households are safe).

For the latest data on the Closing the Gap targets, see the Closing the Gap Information Repository.

In Australia, state and territory governments are responsible for statutory child protection. All jurisdictions have legislative requirements on the mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse. In Australia, child protection functions are undertaken at the state and territory level of government. Each jurisdiction has its own legislation, policies and practices in relation to child protection (AIHW 2019a, 2019c; Guthridge et al. 2014). Relevant departments support vulnerable children:

• who have been, or are at risk of being abused, neglected, or otherwise harmed, and
• whose parents are unable to provide adequate care or protection (AIHW 2023b).

Nationally, in 2021–22, 57,975 First Nations children came into contact with the child protection system – corresponding to a rate of 170 per 1, 000 First Nations children receiving child protection services (Table 2.12-1). This includes children who were subjects of investigation for alleged maltreatment, were on care and protection orders and/or were in out-of-home care (see Box 2.12.1).

Table 2.12-1 Number and rate (per 1,000 children) of First Nations children in the child protection system, by state and territory

State and territory	Children receiving child protection services, 2021–22	Children who were the subjects of substantiated maltreatment, 2021–22	Children placed on care and protection orders, 30 June 2022	Children in out-of-home care, 30 June 2022
Number
New South Wales	18,589	5,209	8,447	6,661
Victoria	7,545	2,032	3,432	2,595
Queensland	14,416	2,274	5,982	4,508
Western Australia	7,523	1,759	3,292	2,565
South Australia	3,298	822	1,820	1,705
Tasmania	750(a)	133	513	391(a)
Australian Capital Territory	611	100	279	216
Northern Territory	5,243	1,224	845	791
Total	57,975	13,553	24,610	19,432
Rate (per 1,000 children)
New South Wales	160.9	45.1	72.7	57.3
Victoria	299.7	80.7	135.2	102.2
Queensland	144.8	22.8	59.7	45.0
Western Australia	181.7	42.5	79.1	61.6
South Australia	180.3	44.9	98.9	92.7
Tasmania	63.9(b)	11.3	43.6(b)	33.2(a)
Australian Capital Territory	202.1	33.1	91.4	70.8
Northern Territory	205.8	48.0	33.2	31.1
Total	170.4	39.8	71.9	56.8

(a) Tasmania data exclude children not under care and protection orders placed with relatives for whom a financial contribution is made under the Supported Extended Family or Relatives Allowance programs. Tasmania is not able to include children in care where a financial payment was offered but was declined by the carer meaning Tasmania’s data may be lower than would be the case if the counting rule was strictly applied.

(b) Due to issues with the recording of order status, Tasmanian data for care and protection orders should be interpreted with caution.

Notes

1.     In Tasmania, the reliability of these data is affected by the proportion of children with an unknown Indigenous status at investigation.

2.     Data presented in this table are not comparable across jurisdictions due to differences in the way jurisdictions collect and report data on notifications, investigations, and substantiations.

3.     For ‘during the year’ data (2021–22), each child is counted only once, even if a child had multiple occurrences of the event during the year. For 30 June data, counts include each distinct person for whom the event of interest was ongoing at the end of the financial year.

Source: Tables D2.12.3, D2.12.7, D2.12.12, and (AIHW 2023b): Table S2.3. AIHW Child Protection Collection 2021–22.

 

Substantiated maltreatments

Notifications, investigations, and substantiations are the entry point for children into the child protection system. These components are sequential:

• an initial notification of alleged child maltreatment is made to a child protection department (notifications)
• if the notification meets the threshold for further action, an investigation of the alleged maltreatment is conducted (substantiations)
• the investigation ends with a substantiation decision about whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a child has been, is being, or is at risk or significant risk of being, maltreated (substantiated maltreatments).

This section relates to substantiated maltreatments.

Nationally, in 2021–22, there were 13,553 First Nations children who were the subjects of substantiated maltreatments (40 per 1,000 children), meaning an investigation has determined there is reasonable cause to believe that a child has been, is being, or is at significant risk of being maltreated.

Of the 13,553 substantiated maltreatments for First Nations children aged 0–17:

•          2,341 (17.3%) were for children aged under 1 (including unborn children)
•          3,351 (24.7%) were for children aged 1–4
•          3,526 (26.0%) were for children aged 5–9
•          3,240 (23.9%) were for children aged 10–14
•          1,057 (7.8%) were for children aged 15–17 (Figure 2.12.1, Table D2.12.2).

First Nations children who were the subject of substantiations tended to be younger than non-Indigenous children, with 42% aged under 5, compared with 32% of non-Indigenous children aged under 5 (Table D2.12.2).

Although the processes that each state and territory use to protect children are broadly similar, there are some important differences between jurisdictions’ legislation, child protection policies and practices that should be taken into account when making cross-jurisdiction comparisons (AIHW 2019d). Noting that comparisons should be made with care, the rate across jurisdictions of First Nations children who were the subject of maltreatments ranged from 11 per 1,000 children (in Tasmania) to 81 per 1,000 children (in Victoria) (Table D2.12.3).

Nationally, in 2021–22, among First Nations children who were the subject of substantiated maltreatment, the most common primary type of maltreatment was emotional abuse, reported for 50.2% (6,809) of substantiated notifications, followed by neglect (4,051 or 29.9%). Physical abuse was the primary type of maltreatment for 12.8% of substantiated notifications for First Nations children (1,733), and sexual abuse was the primary type of maltreatment for 6.8% (924 children) (Figure 2.12.1, Table D2.12.4).

Figure 2.12.1: First Nations children who were the subjects of substantiated maltreatments, by primary type of maltreatment, and by age group, 2021–22

Source: Tables D2.12.4 and D2.12.2. AIHW Child Protection Collection 2021–22.

Care and protection orders

Care and protection orders are legal orders or arrangements that give child protection departments partial or full responsibility for a child’s welfare (AIHW 2022a). Children are placed on care and protection orders if they have been seriously harmed, are at risk or significant risk of harm or there are no other care options. In most cases this occurs following a maltreatment notification, and orders can be made to remove children from unsafe environments immediately.

Nationally, at 30 June 2022, 24,610 First Nations children were on care and protection orders. This corresponds to a rate of 72 per 1,000 children. At 30 June 2022, 20% of First Nations children on care and protection orders were aged under 5, 29% were aged 5–9, 32% aged 10–14, and 18% were aged 15–17 (Figure 2.12.2, Table D2.12.6).

Of the 24,610 First Nations children who were on care and protection orders, 70% (17,343) were on finalised guardianship or custody orders, 15% (3,796) were on finalised third-party parental responsibility orders and 11% (2,741) were on interim or temporary orders (Figure 2.12.2, Table D2.12.8).

Figure 2.12.2: First Nations children on care and protection orders, by type of care and protection order, and by age group, 30 June 2022

Source: Table D2.12.6 and D2.12.8. AIHW Child Protection Collection 2021–22.

There are different types of orders available across jurisdictions, and different policies and practices putting them into effect, so care should be taken when making comparisons across jurisdictions. Noting this, across jurisdictions, rates of care and protection orders ranged from 33 per 1,000 children (in the Northern Territory) to 135 per 1,000 children (in Victoria) (Table D2.12.7).

At 30 June 2022, finalised guardianship or custody orders were the most common type of all care and protection orders across all jurisdictions, ranging between 57% (in Victoria) to 92% (in the Northern Territory) (Table D2.12.8).

Of First Nations children who were the subject of substantiations in 2020–21, 25% (3,923) were subsequently placed on a care and protection order within 12 months. This differed across the jurisdictions, ranging from 9% in the Northern Territory to 44% in Victoria (Table D2.12.16).

Out-of-home care

A nationally consistent definition for out-of-home care was implemented in 2018–19 (AIHW 2023b). Out-of-home care is overnight care for children aged under 18 who are unable to live with their families due to child safety concerns. This includes placements approved by the department responsible for child protection for which there is ongoing case management and financial payment (including where a financial payment has been offered but has been declined by the carer). Out-of-home care includes legal (court-ordered) and voluntary placements, as well as placements made for the purpose of providing respite for parents and/or carers.

At 30 June 2022, there were 19,432 First Nations children in out-of-home care, corresponding to a rate of 57 per 1,000 children. Rates of out-of-home care for First Nations children varied by jurisdiction, ranging from 31 per 1,000 children (in the Northern Territory) to 102 per 1,000 children (in Victoria) (Table D2.12.12).

Among First Nations children in out-of-home care at 30 June 2022, 8,667 (45%) children had been continuously in care for 5 years or more, 5,202 (27%) for between 2 and 5 years, 2,556 (13%) for between 1 and 2 years, and 3,007 (15%) for under a year (AIHW 2023b).

The purpose of the ATSICPP is to ensure First Nations children remain connected to their family, community, culture, and Country (AIHW 2023b). In accordance with the ATSICPP, 63.1% (12,258) of the 19,432 First Nations children in out-of-home care at 30 June 2022, were living with First Nations or non-Indigenous relatives or kin or other First Nations caregivers. Of these, almost one-third (31.8% or 6,185) were placed with First Nations relatives or kin, 4,282 (22%) were with non-Indigenous relatives or kin, and 1,791 (9%) were placed with other First Nations caregivers (Figure 2.12.3, Table D2.12.13).

Figure 2.12.3: First Nations children in out-of-home care, by relationship to carer, 30 June 2022

Note: 'In another care arrangement' includes children living with non-Indigenous carers who are not relatives or kin, in residential care, in family group homes and children living independently.

Source: Table D2.12.13. AIHW Child Protection Collection 2021–22.

Across jurisdictions, at 30 June 2022, the proportion of First Nations children in out-of-home care who were placed with a First Nations relative or kin ranged from 12% (in Tasmania) to 43% (in the Australian Capital Territory) (Table D2.12.13).

Cultural support plans include details such as the child’s cultural background and actions taken to maintain their connection to culture (AIHW 2022b). Legislation in each state and territory determines whether children are required to have cultural support plans.

At 30 June 2021, about 17,285 First Nations children in out-of-home care were required to have a current, documented and approved cultural support plan – of these, 73% had a plan in place (AIHW 2022b).

Reunification is a planned process of safely enabling a child to return to their birth parents, family or former guardian. For First Nations children, this can mean potentially re-establishing the closest possible connection to their family, community and culture, especially for those children who were placed with non-Indigenous carers who are not relatives or kin. Successful reunification can be measured by looking at whether the child had returned to out-of-home care within a specific period after a reunification had taken place.

In 2020–21, when excluding children on long-term guardianship orders from the total number of First Nations children in out-of-home care, 16% of the 10,266 First Nations children aged 0–17 in out-of-home care were reunified during the year. Of 1,537 First Nations children aged 0–16 who were reunified with family during 2019–20, 84% did not return to out-of-home care within 12 months (AIHW 2022b).

Youth justice supervision and prior contact with the child protection system

During 2020–21, 4,055 First Nations young people aged 10–17 were under some type of youth justice supervision. Of these, about two-thirds (64% or 2,600) came into contact with the child protection system during the 5-year period from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021. Of First Nations males (3,118) and females (936) aged 10–17 who were under supervision during 2020–21, a higher proportion of females (77% or 718) than males (60%, 1,882) came into contact with the child protection system (AIHW 2022c).

Comparisons with non-Indigenous Australians

In 2021–22, 57,975 First Nations children and 111,982 non-Indigenous children received child protection services. First Nations children were about 8 times as likely as non-Indigenous children to receive child protection services (170 per 1,000 First Nations children and 21 per 1,000 non-Indigenous children, respectively) (Table D2.12.1).

Of 44,059 children with known Indigenous status who were the subjects of substantiations of notifications received during 2021–22, 31% (13,553) were First Nations children and 69% (30,506) were non-Indigenous children. Considered as a population rate, substantiated maltreatments were 7 times as high for First Nations children as for non-Indigenous children (39.8 compared with 5.7 per 1,000 children) (Table D2.12.3).

At 30 June 2022, of 61,111 children on care and protection orders for whom Indigenous status was known, 40% (24,610) were First Nations children and 60% (36,501) were non-Indigenous children. Population rates of care and protection orders were 11 times as high for First Nations children as for non-Indigenous children (71.9 compared with 6.8 per 1,000 children) (Table D2.12.7).

At 30 June 2022, of 45,356 children in out-of-home care for whom Indigenous status was known, 43% (19,432) were First Nations children and 57% (25,924) were non-Indigenous children. The rate of out-of-home care among First Nations children was 12 times as high as for non-Indigenous children (56.8 compared with 4.8 per 1,000 children) (Table D2.12.12).

Changes over time

The data used to measure trends in substantiated maltreatments, care and protection orders and out-of-home care are drawn from the Child Protection National Minimum Data Set (CP NMDS). Data are presented for a 5-year period, as changes in state and territory legislation, policy/practice and information management systems reduce the ability to accurately compare data over longer periods. Changes over time in substantiated maltreatments, out-of-home care, and care and protection orders are shown in Figure 2.12.4.

Note that increases in substantiated maltreatments do not necessarily reflect an increase in abuse, neglect or harm, but could indicate an increase in community awareness, a greater willingness to report suspected cases for investigation or changes to the legislation and definitions (AIC 2005). Increases could also reflect changes in laws, policies or child protection practices (for example, changes relating to mandatory reporting and increased access and availability of services) (SCRGSP 2016).

Child protection processes may have been affected due to measures put in place as part of government responses to COVID-19 during 2020 and 2021 (including travel bans/restrictions, lockdowns limiting non-urgent face-to-face work, remote learning for students and quarantine requirements). However, the long-term impact of COVID-19 on child protection processes and on the annual data are still unknown (AIHW 2023b).

Nationally, over the period from 2017–18 to 2021–22, the rate of substantiated maltreatments among First Nations children showed no clear trend, ranging from 38.7 per 1,000 children in 2017–18 to 39.8 per 1,000 children in 2021–22. There was also no significant change in the rate of substantiated maltreatments for non-Indigenous children, nor in the gap between these rates (Table D2.12.1).

Across jurisdictions, there was no statistically significant change in substantiated maltreatments for First Nations children in any jurisdiction except South Australia, where rates of First Nations children who were the subjects of substantiated maltreatments increased from 29.2 to 44.9 per 1,000 children over the period 2017–18 to 2021–22 (Table D2.12.5).

Nationally, over the period from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022, the rate of First Nations children on care and protection orders increased from 62.3 to 71.9 per 1,000 children. Over the same period, the rate for non-Indigenous children remained consistent at 6.8 per 1,000 children. The gap between First Nations and non-Indigenous children on care and protection orders increased from a rate difference of 55.5 per 1,000 children in 30 June 2018 to 65.1 per 1,000 children in 30 June 2022 (Table D2.12.11).

Over the period from 30 June 2018 to 30 June 2022, rates of care and protection orders increased for First Nations children in most jurisdictions, the exceptions being the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory. Among First Nations children, the largest relative increase in rates was in South Australia (40%), followed by Queensland (37%) (Table D2.12.11).

Nationally, between 2017–18 and 2021–22, the rate of out-of-home care among First Nations children increased from 52.1 to 56.8 per 1,000 children, while there was no significant change in the rate among non-Indigenous children. Over this time, the gap between First Nations and non-Indigenous children increased from a rate difference of 47.1 to 52.0 per 1,000 children (Table D2.12.1).

Between 2017–18 and 2021–22, the rate of children who were admitted to out-of-home care was generally higher than the rate of those discharged in all years except 2021–22 when the admission and discharge rates were similar (12.0 and 12.3 per 1,000 children, respectively). There was no apparent trend in the rate of First Nations children admitted to out-of-home care between 2017–18 and 2021–22 (with rates ranging between 11.6 and 12.0 per 1,000 children). The discharge rate increased slightly from 10.2 to 12.3 per 1,000 children between 2017–18 and 2021–22 (AIHW 2023b).

Figure 2.12.4: Children in different components of the child protection system, 2017–18 to 2021–22

Note: Children who were the subject of a notification of maltreatment do not count as a contact with the child protection system until an investigation is undertaken.

Source: Table D2.12.1. AIHW Child protection Collection 2017–18 to 2021–22.

Over-representation of First Nations children

The reasons for the over-representation of First Nations children in child protection and out-of-home care systems are complex and include intergenerational trauma from previous separations from family and culture and the legacy of past policies of forced removal (AIHW 2019c).

The Family Matters Report 2019 highlights the increasing over-representation of First Nations children in out-of-home care and their under-representation in services that could respond and prevent entry to out-of-home care. Past failures in government policies have been attributed to the lack of robust community governance and meaningful First Nations community participation. Child protection notifications are multifaceted, encompassing poverty, housing issues, lack of access to quality, culturally safe services, family violence, substance abuse, and mental health challenges for First Nations communities. These factors are intertwined with structural disadvantages and historical trauma (Family Matters 2019).

In March 2022, the Australian Human Rights Commission published the National Anti-Racism Framework Scoping Report 2022. The report describes the exploitation of First Nations children in the first days of Australia’s colonisation and the advent of the ‘protectionist legislation’ by the early 1900s which facilitated and justified the forced removal of First Nations children throughout the country. These laws and policies were the beginnings of the Stolen Generation, the effects of which are still felt today, with high rates of First Nations children continuing to be removed from their families through the child protection system (Australian Human Rights Commission 2022). While the motivations and methods of contemporary child protection differ from those historical practices, concerns about systemic biases, including potential unsubstantiated removals, highlight an ongoing issue of racial disparity. The current figures on First Nations children being removed from their families under child protection laws are at a higher rate than the forced removals during the period of the Stolen Generations (Australian Human Rights Commission 2022).

The AIHW published two reports on the outcomes and experiences of the Stolen Generations and potential intergenerational effects on children. The first report presented findings from comparisons of Stolen Generation members and their descendants to First Nations people who were not removed from their families. Stolen Generation descendants were: twice as likely to have experienced discrimination in the preceding 12 months; 1.9 times as likely to have experienced violence; 1.6 times as likely to be in poor health; 1.5 times as likely to have been arrested by police in the past five years; 1.4 times as likely to have low levels of trust in the general community, and 1.3 times as likely to report poor mental health (AIHW 2018). The other report examined the health and wellbeing outcomes for First Nations children aged under 15 who lived in households with members of the Stolen Generations. The AIHW report indicated that those children are 4.5 times as likely to have missed school without permission in the last 12 months; 1.6 times as likely to have poor self-assessed health; and 1.6 times as likely to live in a household with cash-flow problems in the last 12 months (AIHW 2019b).  

Family violence is often categorised as ‘emotional abuse’. An inquiry in Victoria has found that family violence, in combination with parental alcohol and/or drug abuse, is the leading cause of First Nations children’s entry into out-of-home care. This inquiry examined the circumstances of 980 First Nations children in out-of-home care. Of the First Nations children reviewed, 88% were impacted by family violence and 87% were affected by a parent with alcohol or substance abuse issues (Commission for Children and Young People 2016).

In 2020, a report critically evaluated the state of healthcare for First Nations children in out-of-home care, highlighting their over-representation and the urgent need for a health care model aligned with the National Clinical Assessment Framework for Children and Young People in Out-of-home Care's minimum standards. The report emphasised the necessity of self-determination and First Nations-led approaches in policy and program development for these children. The report recommends a national strategy to implement health care reforms, including the development of health indicators, integration of medical and mental health services, and enhancement of electronic health record systems. It also underscores the importance of capacity building within First Nations organisations to develop culturally appropriate care models and stresses the need for effective collaboration between health and child protection sectors. The report concludes with a focus on investing in prevention and early intervention to improve health outcomes for First Nations children in out-of-home care, alongside other vulnerable children within the child protection system, thereby aiming for a comprehensive, culturally sensitive, and effective healthcare model (Kennedy 2020).

Children and young people who have been abused or neglected are at greater risk of engaging in criminal activity and of entering the youth justice system. Using data from the child protection and youth justice supervision linked data collection, the AIHW identified more than one-half (53%) of young people under youth justice supervision during 2020–21 had an interaction with the child protection system over the previous five years. Almost one-third (30%) were the subject of a substantiated notification for abuse or neglect. First Nations young people under youth justice supervision were more likely than non-Indigenous young people to have had an interaction with the child protection system. Almost 2 in 3 (64%) First Nations young people under youth justice supervision during 2020–21 had also received child protection services in the 5 years from 1 July 2016 to 30 June 2021. This compares with just under one-half (46%) of non-Indigenous young people (AIHW 2022c). First Nations young people aged 10–17 were about 19 times as likely as their non-Indigenous counterparts to be under supervision on an average day (AIHW 2023a).

Research studies on child maltreatment

A multiagency data-linkage study to inform a public health response to child protection in the Northern Territory was a collaborative effort between the Menzies School of Health Research and Northern Territory Government departments. The study focused on the early years of a child's life, emphasising the importance of prevention and early intervention to protect vulnerable children. The primary objectives of the study were to investigate the pattern of contact with the child protection system from birth to age 5, explore the link between perinatal characteristics and child maltreatment of infants, and examine the relationship between a child's exposure to maltreatment and their readiness for school at age 5. The study cohort consisted of 2,503 children (1,194 Aboriginal and 1,309 non-Aboriginal) born in the Northern Territory between 2009 and 2010. The findings revealed a high contact rate (53%) of Northern Territory Aboriginal children with child protection services, with neglect being the predominant maltreatment type (49.8%). Several maternal risk factors were associated with increased risk of maltreatment among Aboriginal children who were exposed to maternal risk factors compared with other Aboriginal children who were not subject to these same maternal risks in the study. For example, maternal alcohol consumption during pregnancy increased the risk of: maltreatment by 2.31 times; low birth weight by 2.05 times; and smoking during pregnancy by 1.56 times. The study also found that children with a history of maltreatment were more likely to be developmentally vulnerable at school entry. The study highlights the need for targeted interventions and policies to support vulnerable children, especially those with identified risk factors, to ensure their healthy development and school readiness. Differences in service contact patterns among children suggest the need for tailored responses. The observed geographical disparities in child maltreatment in the Northern Territory emphasises the importance of place-based strategies. The link between maltreatment and school readiness calls for early educational support. The study also identifies the importance of future research to explore maltreatment predictors and their long-term impacts, promoting integrated approaches to improve social outcomes for NT children (He et al. 2019).

The first wave of data for the Australian Child Maltreatment Study (ACMS) was released on 3 April 2023. Whilst the results do not provide specific estimates for First Nations people, they highlight that child maltreatment is endemic and common across the Australian population (Haslam et al. 2023). Amongst 8,503 Australian participants aged over 16, the prevalence of child maltreatment is significantly higher than previous data has suggested, with nearly 2 in 3 (62.2%) Australians experiencing at least one form of child maltreatment. Across the population, the study identified high prevalence of physical abuse (32.0%), sexual abuse (28.5%), emotional abuse (30.9%), and exposure to domestic violence (39.6%). Neglect was less prevalent (8.9%).

The ACMS shows that child maltreatment has profound effects on future mental health outcomes. Nearly one-half (48%) of those who experienced maltreatment have a mental health disorder, more than double the rate of those who have not experienced maltreatment.

Another research study using the ACMS aimed to determine the prevalence of multi-type child maltreatment in Australia, defined as the experience of 2 or more types of maltreatment, such as physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, or exposure to certain adverse situations. The findings revealed that 62.2% of participants experienced one or more types of child maltreatment; specifically, 22.8% reporting single-type maltreatment, and 39.4% reporting multi-type maltreatment (2–5 types). The study highlights the significance of multi-type maltreatment in Australia, with the research suggesting that exposure to multi-type maltreatment may offset declines in individual maltreatment types. While there might be a reduction in individual types of maltreatment due to advances in policy, education, and healthy parenting, the prevalence of multi-type maltreatment remains concerning. The study also emphasises the need for health practitioners and mental health service providers to consider multi-type maltreatment during clinical assessments and interventions. It is considered vital to provide trauma-informed therapeutic services tailored to address the complexities of multi-type maltreatment. Furthermore, public health policies should prioritise prevention services or strategies that specifically target multi-type child maltreatment. The study also underscores the importance of continuous research to monitor the prevalence of multi-type maltreatment and assess the effectiveness of implemented policies and prevention efforts (Higgins et al. 2023).

To date, the eSafety Commissioner has undertaken a suite of research on technology-facilitated abuse (TFA) in order to address gaps in the evidence for at-risk or marginalised groups. One small study explored the experiences of 12 First Nations women in remote and regional areas, with a particular focus on different types of experiences, the cultural sensitivities which surround this abuse, and how women can best be supported (Brown et al. 2021). This research found that the experiences of TFA among First Nations women living in remote and regional areas are widespread and diverse, as technology brings both risks to safety and also benefits to enhance safety. First Nations women experienced TFA most commonly from a current or former male partner in the context of intimate partner violence and coercive control. There were also experiences of lateral violence from women and racist violence. Forms of TFA included threats, harassment, monitoring, stalking, and impersonation. Some women reported feeling affected and victimised by online racist abuse which affected their wellbeing and sense of security in the town. The research found that the impacts of TFA on women who participated in the study were serious and long lasting. It also identified a general lack of awareness about TFA among both First Nations women and frontline workers in the 3 different regional and remote locations in Australia: Central Australia, remote Western Australia and regional New South Wales. This highlighted how raising awareness of TFA in appropriate ways is a critical and important avenue to prevention.

Systemic injustices

The Yoorrook Justice Commission was established in Victoria to address systemic injustices faced by First Nations people in sectors like child protection and criminal justice. Yoorrook’s work to achieve truth, understanding and transformation prioritises and centres First Nations peoples’ voices, experiences, cultural and human rights, and their right to self-determination.

In evidence provided to the Yoorrook Justice Commission, the Victorian Government recognised that more than half of unborn child protection notifications made against First Nations families were unsubstantiated, with racism being a contributing factor. Despite acknowledgments of systemic racism and calls for change, the colonial systems perpetuating these injustices remain unchanged (Hunter 2023). Yoorrook has released a report advocating for transformative reforms in these systems.

In 2022, Yoorrook launched an inquiry into the Victorian child protection and criminal justice systems prompted by evidence it had received about the injustice experienced by First Nations people. Yoorrook employed a comprehensive methodology to gather evidence and insights to produce the Yoorrook for Justice report. This involved receiving direct evidence through 33 submissions from organisations and 88 submissions from individuals; 12 roundtables across Victoria with experts, people working in the criminal justice and child protection systems and people affected by these systems; and 84 witnesses across 27 days of hearings. This evidence was then thematically analysed to develop key themes and lines of inquiry. Yoorrook also received more than 4,000 documents from the Victorian Government in response to Notices to Produce. Yoorrook examined evidence from previous major inquiries and subsequent actions to inform its findings and recommendations.

The Yoorrook report identifies how First Nations people have historically faced systemic injustices, including dispossession, child removal, and criminalisation, rooted in colonial policies and practices. These actions have led to enduring issues such as intergenerational trauma, over-representation in the child protection and criminal justice systems, and systemic racism. The ongoing lack of understanding and accountability by the state government perpetuates these challenges, underscoring the need for transformative change (Yoorrook Justice Commission 2023).

Interventions, programs, and evaluations for child and family support

Two systematic reviews published in 2023 identified the complexities and challenges in understanding the effects of trauma on parents and their parenting. Janse van Rensburg et al. (2023) highlighted the inconsistencies in the relationship between childhood maltreatment and Parental Reflective Function (PRF), with some studies indicating a significant association while others did not (Janse van Rensburg et al. 2023). Jones et al. (2023) emphasised the potential benefits of various interventions for parents with complex post-traumatic stress disorder (CPTSD) or a history of maltreatment, yet the evidence remains largely uncertain, pointing to a significant gap in high-quality research (Jones et al. 2023).

A comprehensive evaluation of the Intensive Family Support Service (IFSS), established by the Department of Social Services (DSS), was conducted to assess its appropriateness, efficiency, and effectiveness. This evaluation employed a mixed-methods approach, encompassing interviews with IFSS staff, families, and stakeholders, online surveys, and activity data. Key findings from the evaluation revealed that First Nations communities were not initially engaged in the IFSS design, leading to a need for significant adaptation by IFSS providers. Locally designed tools and bi‑cultural teams emerged as vital for enhancing cultural appropriateness and family engagement. In reference to efficiency, the evaluation noted the importance of clear referral pathways, the impact of high staff turnover, and the significance of strategic relationships. In terms of effectiveness, building trust was identified as a crucial aspect. The IFSS has benefited the broader community, but there remains a notable lack of outcomes data. Despite this, positive outcomes were reported by various stakeholders, with some IFSS providers even developing their own outcome measurement tools (Social Compass 2020).

DSS provided a comprehensive response to the IFSS evaluation, emphasising the importance of strong cultural governance in service delivery. It also recognised the pivotal role of bi-cultural teams in enhancing the IFSS’ effectiveness. DSS acknowledged several challenges, including high staff turnover, the initial lack of a comprehensive needs analysis, and difficulties in data collection which led to an absence of relevant outcomes data. However, despite these challenges, there was a positive perception among stakeholders regarding the incremental benefits IFSS brings to children and families. Future opportunities were identified regarding the potential to refine the IFSS through collaborative efforts and to create a more cohesive and integrated family support system. Communication strategies and stakeholder engagement were identified as crucial elements in this redesign process. In order to drive a step change (rather than incremental improvements) in services, DSS partnered with the Australian Centre for Child Protection (ACCP) to spearhead the redesign of the IFSS (Social Compass 2020).

In November 2021, DSS commenced the Children and Family Intensive Support Program, which incorporated the feedback and advice received from the IFSS evaluation and review process. This redesigned program has the aim of ensuring that each funded service provider (11 of 12 providers are Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations) has the support and flexibility to provide services that respond to the particular needs of their community.

Australia’s National Research Organisation for Women’s Safety (ANROWS) was established under the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–2022 with a remit that includes leading efforts to build the research base on prevention and response to domestic and family violence and sexual assault, nationally. ANROWS has identified children and young people as a priority topic in Australia’s National Research Agenda to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2020–2022 (ANRA). ANROWS has been delivering research on the prevalence and impact of family, domestic and sexual violence (FDSV) on children and young people, including research on service system responses and culturally designed frameworks to address the needs of First Nations children exposed to FDSV. Two recent examples are below:

• New Ways for Our Families: Designing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural practice framework and system responses to address the impacts of domestic and family violence on children and young people (Morgan et al. 2022). This report contains a literature review that reflects the current state of knowledge, confirming that the experience of domestic and family violence (DFV) in childhood is resulting in negative outcomes for First Nations children that are carried into adulthood. It also found that the voices of First Nations children who come to the attention of child protection systems due to DFV are generally absent. Further, current system responses fail to keep children emotionally and culturally safe, and instead cause further harm. The practice framework presents a child-centred, trauma-informed, strengths and evidence-based approach to provide guidance to practitioners and policy makers to holistically respond to First Nations children’s experiences of DFV and thereby increase safety for them and their communities. The research was locally based and culturally safe, engaging community-based researchers across eight Queensland Family Wellbeing Services locations in regional and remote locations.
• You can’t pour from an empty cup: Strengthening our service and systems responses for First Nations children and young people who experience domestic and family violence (Morgan et al. 2023). The second report, ‘You can’t pour from an empty cup’ further unpacks the harms caused by systems and presents the findings from a series of research cycles conducted with community members, practitioners, and other stakeholders, including people with lived experience. Key recommendations from this research include the need for significant system wide changes for policy and practice that elevate the voices of First Nations communities, including reframing child protection systems to be child and family wellbeing focused and ensure effective resourcing is provided for First Nations children to receive support.

Understanding and addressing the underlying causes that lead to children being at risk of child abuse is essential if sustainable change is to occur (McIntosh & Phillips 2002; SCRGSP 2016). First Nations children continue to be subject to higher rates of child protection substantiations. The long-term impact of child abuse is difficult to predict, as consideration needs to be given to many factors, including the type and duration of the abuse, family structure and support, and types of intervention. However, there is universal recognition that preventing child abuse as opposed to dealing with it after it has occurred, is optimum.

The ACMS is Australia’s first nationally representative study capturing prevalence data for each of the five types of child abuse and neglect (physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, neglect, and exposure to family and domestic violence). This includes identifying the nature of the abuse and the age at which it occurs, as well as associated long-term mental and physical health impacts. Under the National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–2030, the Australian Government has committed $22.4 million for the development of Wave 2 of the ACMS. In 2023, the National Office for Child Safety commissioned the ACMS team to conduct a scoping study for the second wave of the ACMS to identify a gold standard methodology that will capture prevalence estimates for First Nations people and other priority groups. The ACMS team will work with First Nations stakeholders to co-design a methodology which is culturally and trauma aware.

In late 2021, the Australian Government announced Blue Knot Foundation and its consortium partners, the Australian Childhood Foundation and The Healing Foundation, as the successful supplier to establish and deliver the National Centre for Action on Child Sexual Abuse (National Centre). This follows the previous Australian Government’s announcement in March 2019 of a one-off budget commitment of $22.5 million over five years. The National Centre is an independent organisation that aims to raise awareness and reduce stigma for victims and survivors, build workforce capability to respond to child sexual abuse, and develop better intervention and service models through research and evaluation.

The National Centre’s Five-Year Strategic Plan Here for Change and the first round of research projects were announced in June 2023, starting a committed journey for the National Centre to transform the way that child sexual abuse is understood and responded to in Australia. The three founding organisations (Blue Knot Foundation, Australian Childhood Foundation, and The Healing Foundation) are nationally recognised leaders in complex trauma and collectively have extensive experience delivering support that will meet the needs of adult victims and survivors, children and young people, and First Nations people.

Moving forward, policy initiatives targeting prevention and early intervention programs to reduce the number of children entering child protection systems should be prioritised. Primary prevention includes initiatives such as universal access to services, and activities and programs with a whole-of-community focus, while early intervention encompasses family support services targeted at families that may be experiencing difficulty in caring for children. Statutory intervention (for children and families where maltreatment has been identified) aims to ensure safety, appropriate care and prevent harm from re-occurring (AHRC 2019; Family Matters 2019).

Informed by rigorous research and practice evidence, the Replanting the Birthing Trees project by the Melbourne School of Population and Global Health offers a comprehensive approach to address the significant impact of trauma on First Nations parents. Emphasising the need for applied evidence, the project is grounded in the traditional concept of a Birthing Tree, aiming to recreate safe and sacred spaces for First Nations women. Through its 6 holistic streams, the project seeks to provide resources, support frameworks, culturally safe assessments and workforce development, ultimately aiming to enhance the wellbeing of First Nations parents and their children during the pivotal first 2,000 days of life.

Maintaining a connection to family, community and culture is particularly important given the historical experiences of First Nations families. However, evidence shows that there are barriers to maintaining this connection, including a shortage of First Nations carers and resources to accommodate First Nations children needing to be placed in out-of-home care (Arney et al. 2015). More support is necessary to strengthen and ensure the successful implementation of the ATSICPP. Out-of-home care is viewed as an intervention of last resort, and the preference is always for children to be reunited with their natural parents if possible. Many children can be safely reunited with their families when their families receive appropriate supports and interventions.

All governments agree that all children and young people in Australia have the right to grow up safe, connected and supported in their family, community, and culture. They also agree that they have the right to grow up in an environment that enables them to reach their full potential.

The Australian Government acknowledges the leadership role First Nations people have played in the development of the National Plan to End Violence against Women and Children 2022–2032 (the National Plan) in consultation with two advisory bodies, the National Plan Advisory Group and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Advisory Council on family, domestic and sexual violence. The National Plan is the overarching national policy framework that will guide actions towards ending violence against women and children over the next 10 years (Australian Government 2023). The National Plan recognises children as victims in their own right, and that childhood experiences of violence can have long-term and ongoing impacts, including physical and mental health impacts among others. The National Plan identifies actions to prevent and address violence against children in each of the four domains, from prevention through to recovery and healing. To support these actions, the National Plan is clearly aligned with two key initiatives that aim to improve outcomes for children:

•  Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021–2031 (‘Safe and Supported’), the successor plan to the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020; and
•          National Strategy to Prevent and Respond to Child Sexual Abuse 2021–2030.

The Australian Government, state and territory governments, First Nations representatives and the non-government sector are working together through ‘Safe and Supported’ towards the shared goal of making significant and sustained progress in reducing the rate of child abuse and neglect and its intergenerational impacts. This includes emotional abuse, the most common primary type of abuse or neglect substantiated through child protection investigations. Children affected by exposure to family violence are included in this category.

‘Safe and Supported’ sets out a 10-year strategy to improve the lives of children, young people and families experiencing disadvantage or who are vulnerable to abuse and neglect. It will drive change through collective effort across governments and sectors that impact the safety and wellbeing of children and young people. ‘Safe and Supported’ focuses on delivering real outcomes through better coordination with other programs and supporting families to keep their children and young people safe. It focuses on areas where there is the biggest need to have the greatest impact and avoid duplication. Most importantly, it will have close linkages with the National Plan, recognising that the 2 issues are closely intertwined at all levels. ‘Safe and Supported’ is being implemented through 2 sets of Action Plans, including Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-specific Action Plans. The first 2 Action Plans – Safe and Supported: First Action Plan 2023–2026 and Safe and Supported: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander First Action Plan 2023–2026 were launched on 31 January 2023.

For the first time, First Nations people have their own specific Action Plan, which sets out actions and activities to address the over-representation of First Nations children in child protection systems. It also responds to the National Agreement on Closing the Gap Target 12 (By 2031, reduce the rate of over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (0–17 years old) in out-of-home care by 45 per cent). The ongoing impacts of colonisation and racism, including intergenerational trauma experienced by members of the Stolen Generations, drive the over-representation of First Nations children across all stages of the child protection system.

Importantly, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Action Plan commits to progressive systems transformation that has First Nations self-determination at its centre, and to implementing the ATSICPP to the standard of ‘Active Efforts’. Both of the ‘Safe and Supported’ Action Plans also commit to a national approach or strategy for a sustainable and skilled children and family services workforce.

In 2022, SNAICC - National Voice for our Children, the national peak Aboriginal Community‑Controlled Organisation in the child services sector, was engaged by DSS to conduct stage one of 'Stronger Aboriginal Community-Controlled Organisations (ACCOs), Stronger Families'. The first stage of Stronger ACCOs, Stronger Families, was to identify existing knowledge and consult with ACCOs on their strengths, needs, barriers and opportunities for accessing DSS funding and delivering Families and Children related programs. ACCOs deliver services using a holistic model of care resulting in better health and wellbeing outcomes for First Nations children and families. They are accountable to their communities and thus deliver high quality, responsive, and culturally safe services, and their position as a preferred provider in their communities ensures higher levels of engagement with service users. Underpinning all the key consultation findings was the need for self-determination and community control to be at the centre of funding and service design.

The challenges and needs of the ACCO sector can only be addressed through community-led solutions, and it is through the ACCO sector that the best outcomes can be achieved for First Nations children and families (SNAICC 2022). Continuing the partnership between SNAICC and DSS, the Stronger ACCOs, Stronger Families Part 2 project aims to strengthen genuine partnerships between non-Indigenous organisations and ACCOs in the delivery of programs. The project will run in two tranches. Tranche 1 is partnering with a number of Leading Regions sites where a non-Indigenous organisation is partnered or are seeking to partner with ACCOs to strengthen those partnerships and collect learnings. Tranche 2 will look to implement these learnings to further providers.

The policy context is at Policies and strategies.

References

• AHRC (Australian Human Rights Commission) 2015. The Social Justice and Native Title Report 2015. Sydney: AHRC.
• AHRC 2019. Children's Rights Report 2019-In Their Own Right: Children's Rights in Australia.
• AIC (Australian Institute of Criminology) 2005. Children on care and protection orders in Australia. Canberra: AIC.
• AIHW (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare) 2018. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Stolen Generations and descendants: numbers, demographic characteristics and selected outcomes. Canberra: AIHW.
• AIHW 2019a. Young people in child protection and under youth justice supervision 1 July 2014 to 30 June 2018. Canberra: AIHW.
• AIHW 2019b. Children living in households with members of the Stolen Generations. Cat. no. IHW 214. Canberra: AIHW.
• AIHW 2019c. Youth justice in Australia 2017–18. Canberra: AIHW.
• AIHW 2019d. Child protection Australia: 2017–18. Canberra: AIHW.
• AIHW 2022a. Child protection Australia 2020–21. Canberra: AIHW.
• AIHW 2022b. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle indicators. Canberra.
• AIHW 2022c. Young people under youth justice supervision and their interaction with the child protection system 2020–21. Canberra: AIHW, Australian Government.
• AIHW 2023a. Youth justice in Australia 2021-22. Canberra: AIHW.
• AIHW 2023b. Child protection Australia 2021–22. Canberra: AIHW.
• Arney F, Iannos M, Chong A, McDougall S & Parkinson S 2015. Enhancing the implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle: Policy and practice considerations. Canberra: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Atkinson J 2013. Trauma-informed services and trauma-specific care for Indigenous Australian children. Closing the Gap Clearinghouse. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare & Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• Australian Government 2023. Australian Government Response to the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Social Policy and Legal ffairs Report: Inquiry into family, domestic and sexual violence. Australian Government.
• Australian Human Rights Commission 2022. National anti-racism framework scoping report 2022. New South Wales: Australian Human Rights Commission.
• Brown C, Yap M, Thomassin A, Murray M & Yu E 2021. ‘Can I just share my story?' Experiences of technology-facilitated abuse among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women from regional and remote areas. Canberra: Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research, Australian National University.
• Burton J, Young J, Jayakody N, Ruggiero E & Thwaites R 2018. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle: A guide to support implementation. The Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC).
• Commission for Children and Young People 2016. ‘Always was, always will be Koori children’: Systemic inquiry into services provided to Aboriginal children and young people in out- of-home care in Victoria. Melbourne: Commission for Children and Young People.
• de Bortoli L, Coles J & Dolan M 2015. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in child protection: A sample from the Victorian Children’s Court. Journal of Social Work 15:186-206.
• Emerson L, Fox S & Smith C 2015. Good Beginnings: Getting it right in the early years Melbourne: The Lowitja Institute.
• Family Matters 2019. The Family Matters Report 2019: Measuring trends to turn the tide on the over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care in Australia.
• Guthridge SL, Ryan P, Condon JR, Moss JR & Lynch J 2014. Trends in hospital admissions for conditions associated with child maltreatment, Northern Territory, 1999-2010. The Medical Journal of Australia 201:162-6.
• Haslam D, Mathews B, Pacella R, Scott J, Finkelhor D, Higgins D et al. 2023. The prevalence and impact of child maltreatment in Australia: Findings from the Australian Child Maltreatment Study: Brief Report. Queensland University of Technology: Australian Child Maltreatment Study.
• He V, Guthridge S & Leckning B 2019. From Birth to Five: A multiagency data-linkage study to inform a public health response to child protection in the Northern Territory. . Darwin: Menzies School of Health Research.
• Higgins DJ, Mathews B, Pacella R, Scott JG, Finkelhor D, Meinck F et al. 2023. The prevalence and nature of multi‐type child maltreatment in Australia. The Medical Journal of Australia 218:S19-S25.
• Hunter S-A 2023. Pregnant Aboriginal women are living in fear due to Victoria's unborn child protectionnotifications.
• Janse van Rensburg E, Woolard A, Hill NTM, Reid C, Milroy H, Ohan JL et al. 2023. The effect of childhood maltreatment on adult survivors’ parental reflective function, and attachment of their children: A systematic review. Development and Psychopathology:1-15.
• Jones KA, Freijah I, Brennan SE, McKenzie JE, Bright TM, Fiolet R et al. 2023. Interventions from pregnancy to two years after birth for parents experiencing complex post‐traumatic stress disorder and/or with childhood experience of maltreatment. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.
• Kennedy N 2020. Improving the Health of Aboriginal Children in Out-of-Home Care.
• Kiraly M & Humphreys C 2016. ‘It's about the whole family’: family contact for children in kinship care. Child & Family Social Work 21:228-39.
• Lohoar S, Butera N & Kennedy E 2014. Strengths of Australian Aboriginal cultural practices in family life and child rearing. Canberra: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
• McIntosh G & Phillips J 2002. Who's Looking after the Kids? An Overview of Child Abuse and Child Protection in Australia.
• Morgan G, Butler C, French R, Creamer T, Hillan L, Ruggiero E et al. 2023. You can’t pour from an empty cup: Strengthening our service and systems responses for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people who experience domestic and family violence New South Wales: ANROWS.
• Morgan G, Butler C, French R, Creamer T, Hillan L, Ruggiero E et al. 2022. New ways for our families. Designing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander cultural practice framework and system responses to address the impacts of domestic and family violence on children and young people. New South Wales: ANROWS.
• Robinson G, Silburn S & Leckning B 2011. Suicide of Children and Youth in the NT 2006-2010: Public Release Report for the Child Deaths Review and Prevention Committee. Darwin: Menzies SHR.
• SCRGSP (Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision) 2016. Overcoming Indigenous disadvantage: Key indicators 2016. Canberra: Productivity Commission.
• SNAICC (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care) 2019. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle: a guide to support implementation. Viewed 11 September. 
• SNAICC 2022. Stronger ACCOS, stronger families. Final report.

• Social Compass 2020. Evaluation of the Intensive Family Support Service for the Department of Social Services by Wunan Foundation trading as Social Compass, March 2020. 

• The Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission 1997. Bringing them Home: Report of the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from Their Families. Sydney: HREOC.
• Yoorrook Justice Commission 2023. Yoorrook for Justice: Report into Victoria’s Child Protection and Criminal Justice Systems.