• Summary
• Downloads
• Explanatory Notes
• Related Information
• Past Releases

Statutory child protection services are the responsibility of the community services departments in each state or territory. Children who come into contact with the community services departments for protective reasons include those:

• who have been abused, neglected or otherwise harmed; and/or
• whose parents cannot provide adequate care or protection.

Children who are seen to be in need of protection can come to the attention of child protection authorities through a report by an individual (professional or member of the community), an organisation, or by the children themselves. These reports are assessed by the child protection agencies, and in cases where there is a risk of harm to the child or evidence of abuse or neglect, are classified as a notification. Most notifications are then investigated and classified as either ‘substantiated’ (that is, child abuse and neglect, or the risk of harm, are confirmed) or ‘not substantiated’, depending on the degree of risk, or actual harm, to the child. A range of services may then be provided to the child and the child’s family.

In more serious cases, the department may also apply to the relevant court (usually a special children’s court) to place a child under a care and protection order. Care and protection orders vary between jurisdictions but can provide for a supervisory role for the department, or the temporary or permanent transfer of legal guardianship to the department. The issuing of a care and protection order is often a legal requirement if a child is to be placed in out-of-home care. This option can be used to protect the child from further harm, where there is family conflict and ‘time out’ is needed (commonly known as ‘respite care’) and/or where parents are ill or unable to care for the child.

The three areas of child protection services for which national data are collected are:

• child protection notifications, investigations and substantiations;
• children under care and protection orders
• children in out-of-home care.

Substantiation notifications

The rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children entering the child protection system are higher than the rates for other children. In 2003-04, the rate of Indigenous children in substantiations was higher in all states and territories except New South Wales, for which data could not be provided, and Tasmania. In Victoria, the rate was nearly ten times higher, while in Western Australia and South Australia, the rate for Indigenous children was eight times the rate of other children (table 11.2). The reasons behind the over-representation of Indigenous children in child protection substantiations are complex but may include intergenerational effects of previous separations from family and culture, and poor socioeconomic status (HREOC 1997).

11.2 Children who were the subject of a child protection substantiation(a), by Indigenous status - 2003-04
	Number of children			Rate per 1,000 children(b)
	Indigenous	Other(c)	Total	Indigenous	Other(c)	Total	Rate ratio(d)
New South Wales(e)	na	na	na	na	na	na	na
Victoria	700	6 323	7 023	57.7	5.9	6.4	9.8
Queensland	1 192	11 481	12 673	20.8	13.6	14.0	1.5
South Australia	441	1 499	1 940	39.9	4.7	5.9	8.4
Western Australia	322	599	921	11.2	1.4	2.0	8.0
Tasmania(f)	12	317	329	1.6	3.1	3.0	0.5
Northern Territory	375	116	491	16.2	3.5	8.7	4.7
Australian Capital Territory	44	441	485	25.3	6.2	6.7	4.1
na not available
(a) Children aged 0-16 years.
(b) Based on ABS 'low series' population projections.
(c) Includes children for whom Indigenous status was not stated.
(d) The rate for Indigenous children divided by the rate for other children.
(e) No data available due to the ongoing implementation of the data system.
(f) Data should be interpreted with caution since few child protection workers recorded Indigenous status at the time of the substantiation.
AIHW 2005d

Substantiation cases are classified into one of the following four categories depending on the main type of abuse or neglect that has occurred: physical abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse, or neglect. It is not always clear what type of abuse, neglect or harm has occurred, and how a substantiation is classified varies according to the policies and practices of the different jurisdictions.

The pattern of substantiated abuse and neglect for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children differs from the pattern for other children. In 2003-04, Indigenous children were much more likely to be the subject of a substantiation of neglect than other children. For example, in Western Australia 43% of Indigenous children in substantiated cases were the subject of a substantiation of neglect, compared with 27% of other children. In the Northern Territory the corresponding percentages were 40% and 26% respectively.

It is important to note that these variations in the distribution of types of abuse or neglect across jurisdictions are likely to be the result of differences in what is classified as a substantiation as well as differences in the types of incidents that are substantiated. In Western Australia a relatively high proportion of substantiations were classified as either ‘physical abuse’ or ‘sexual abuse’, as the child protection data from that state includes only child abuse cases; cases which require a family support response (predominantly neglect and emotional abuse matters) are dealt with and counted separately.

Victoria, on the other hand, had a relatively high proportion of substantiations that were classified as ‘emotional abuse’, probably reflecting that jurisdiction’s greater focus on emotional abuse concerns. Similarly, the high proportion of substantiations classified as ‘neglect’ in Queensland reflects the policies in that state which focus on identifying the protective needs of a child and assessing whether parents have protected the child from harm or risk of harm.

Care and protection orders

In jurisdictions for which data were available, the rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children being placed under care and protection orders varied considerably by jurisdiction, ranging from 9 per 1,000 children in the Northern Territory to 45 per 1,000 in Victoria (table 11.3). The variations between jurisdictions are likely to reflect the differences in child protection policies and in the types of orders available in each state and territory (AIHW 2005d).

In jurisdictions for which data were available, the rate of Indigenous children under orders was higher than the rate for other children. In Victoria, the rate for Indigenous children was 11 times the rate of other children, and in Western Australia the rate was around eight times that of other children.

11.3 Children under care and protection orders, by Indigenous status and state/territory - 30 June 2004
	Number of children		Rate per 1,000 children(a)
	Indigenous	Other(b)	Indigenous	Other(b)	Rate ratio(c)
New South Wales(d)	na	na	na	na	na
Victoria	574	4 677	44.7	4.1	11.0
Queensland	1 146	3 804	18.9	4.2	4.5
South Australia	275	1 180	23.5	3.5	6.7
Western Australia	583	1 056	19.2	2.3	8.3
Tasmania	83	551	10.2	5.0	2.0
Northern Territory	230	115	9.4	2.2	4.3
Australian Capital Territory	53	300	28.7	5.2	5.5
na not available
(a) Based on the ABS 'low series' population projections.
(b) Includes children for whom Indigenous status was not stated.
(c) The rate for Indigenous children divided by the rate for other children.
(d) No data available due to the ongoing implementation of the data system.
AIHW 2005d

Out-of-home care

At 30 June 2004, there were 5,059 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care. The rate of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children being placed in out-of-home care was around seven times the rate for other Australian children. In all jurisdictions there were higher rates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care than other children (table 11.4). In Victoria, the rate of Indigenous children in out-of-home care was nearly 13 times the rate for other children, and in New South Wales the rate of Indigenous children was nearly nine times that for other children.

11.4 Children in out-of-home care, by Indigenous status and state/territory - 30 June 2004
	Number of children		Rate per 1,000 children(a)
	Indigenous	Other(b)	Indigenous	Other(b)	Rate ratio(c)
New South Wales	2 459	6 686	38.7	4.4	8.9
Victoria	531	3 778	41.4	3.3	12.5
Queensland	958	3 455	15.8	3.8	4.1
South Australia	236	968	20.2	2.9	7.0
Western Australia	587	1 094	19.3	2.4	8.0
Tasmania	55	432	6.7	3.9	1.7
Northern Territory	175	83	7.2	1.6	4.6
Australian Capital Territory	58	240	31.4	4.2	7.5
Total	5 059	16 736	23.7	3.6	6.5
(a) Based on 'low series' ABS population projections.
(b) Includes children for whom Indigenous status was not stated.
(c) The rate for Indigenous children divided by the rate for other children.
AIHW 2005d

Indigenous status of caregivers

One of the most significant changes in child welfare policy in relation to Indigenous children was the introduction of the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle (box 11.5). The Principle is based on the premise that Aboriginal children are better cared for in Aboriginal families and communities. All jurisdictions have adopted the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle in either legislation or policy.

11.5 The Aboriginal Child Placement Principle

11.6 Indigenous children in out-of-home care(a), by relationship to care-giver and placement - 30 June 2004
		NSW(b)	Vic.	Qld	SA	WA	Tas.	NT	ACT
Number
Placed in accordance with the Principle
	Indigenous relative/kin	na	98	326	37	282	3	67	26
	Other Indigenous caregiver	na	117	236	131	127	3	53	5
	Other relative/kin	na	81	42	15	33	13	na	3
	Indigenous residential care	na	12	3	-	28	-	-	1
	Total	na	308	607	183	470	19	120	35
Not placed in accordance with the Principle
	Other caregiver	na	155	351	51	77	28	55	18
	Other residential care	na	36	-	2	33	-	-	5
	Total	na	191	351	53	110	28	55	23
Total		na	499	958	236	580	47	175	58
Proportion
Placed in accordance with the Principle
	Indigenous relative/kin	na	20	34	16	49	6	38	45
	Other Indigenous caregiver	na	23	25	56	22	6	30	9
	Other relative/kin	na	16	4	6	6	28	na	5
	Indigenous residential care	na	2	-	-	5	-	-	2
	Total	na	62	63	78	81	40	69	60
Not placed in accordance with the Principle
	Other caregiver	na	31	37	22	13	60	31	31
	Other residential care	na	7	-	1	6	-	-	9
	Total	na	38	37	22	19	60	31	40
Total		na	100	100	100	100	100	100	100
- nil or rounded to zero (including null cells)
na not available
(a) Excludes Indigenous children who were living independently or whose living arrangements were unknown.
(b) No data available due to issues surrounding the ongoing implementation of the data system.
AIHW 2004a