Australian Journal of Social Issues最新文献

Mental health systems are built on imperfect foundations. Rather than reflect the “dark old days” of psychiatry, mental health systems, still, commit wide-spread breaches of mental health and human rights laws. During such time, mental health regulators have failed to adequately enforce mental health laws and respond to harms in ways that are transparent and include the community. The Victorian mental health system, with the Mental Health Complaints Commissioner as the principal regulator, provides a case-in-point. Following a Royal Commission into Victoria's Mental Health System, the state government will dissolve the current regulator and establish a new Mental Health and Wellbeing Commission, with enhanced powers. This paper argues that this new regulator should adopt a more conscious implementation of restorative justice and responsive regulation, termed here restorative and responsive regulation. Of particular value is the use of restorative practices such as conferences and an augmenting of sentencing circles within a broader responsive regulatory framework.

In this article, we respond to commentary by Patrick Parkinson on our research into allegations of child sexual abuse in the Family Court of Australia (both published in AJSI, vol 56, 2021). Parkinson's primary focus was on two of our key findings: (a) that the child was deemed to be at an unacceptable risk of harm in only 12 per cent of fully contested cases; and (b) that in only 14 per cent of the fully contested cases were the allegations coded as being believed. Parkinson suggested that the fully contested cases are disproportionately those in which police, child protection department staff or independent evaluators have been unable to reach a clear view; and that typically these cases involve children under 7 years old. He concluded that the Family Court was in the “too hard basket” of the child protection system and that our findings were not necessarily indicative of systemic failure. We think both suggestions, as well as the “too hard basket” conclusion, are problematic and explain why. Parkinson's comments have stimulated us to reflect on how Australian family courts are managing this important and complex area of decision-making and what changes may be required into the future.

This paper reflects on whether and how the World Health Organization (WHO) inspires age-friendly policymaking across different levels of government. This is done via a case study in which we analyse the policies of Australia's three-tiered federated government system against the WHO's eight core age-friendly cities domains. Findings suggest that membership of the Global Network of Age-Friendly Cities and Communities did not appear to overtly inspire the development of age-friendly policies across Australian governments. Content analysis shows there is an overwhelming policy focus on care and support services, with little attention to cultural diversity. This reflects an outdated portrayal of debilitation in later life and a lack of recognition of how diverse circumstances impact the ageing process and corresponding support needs. Our findings also reveal the challenges of a three-tiered federated system, where varying financial and authoritative capacities have influenced how different governments acknowledge and respond to population ageing. Notably, local governments—the main level of implementation targeted by the WHO—are invariably constrained in developing their own age-friendly policies and may opt to adopt those of higher levels of government instead. These challenges will likely impact other resource-limited governments in responding to the needs of their emerging ageing populations.

While permanency planning has long been a feature of child protection policy and practice in Australia (Tilbury & Osmond, 2006), the concept has gained greater prominence in recent years through nationally coordinated efforts and legislative changes. Permanency planning is defined by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) as the ‘processes used by state and territory departments responsible for child protection to achieve a stable long-term care arrangement (which can be broadly grouped as reunification, third-party parental responsibility orders, long-term finalised guardianship/custody/care, and adoption)’ (2021b, p. 90). A central priority of the last National Framework for Protecting Australia's Children Fourth Action Plan (2018–2020) was ‘support[ing] better permanency options including…to reduce state guardianship for children who cannot be safely reunified with their families within a reasonable timeframe’ (Department of Social Services [DSS], 2019, p. 24).¹ Over the last 5–10 years, states and territories have modified their child protection legislation to incorporate a range of legal orders, permanency hierarchies, and timeframes for decision-making about permanency options. These changes also appear in policy guidance.

‘Permanency’ is a term used in out-of-home care services to convey different ways of belonging, through emotionally connected and stable relationships, a secure home and a right to one's culture (Wright & Collings, 2021). Multiple dimensions of permanency are highlighted in the literature (Sanchez, 2004). Relational permanency is conceptualised as the emotional connection between the child and their caregiver, including dimensions of caregiver commitment, child's sense of belonging and caregiver's support for on-going relationships with birth family (Pérez, 2017). Others hold a broader view of relational permanency as encompassing the child's set of enduring, lifelong relationships with family members and other caring adults, including ‘at least one adult who will provide a permanent, parentlike connection for that youth’ (Jones & Laliberte, 2013, p. 509). Physical permanency (also described as ecological permanency) is associated with a stable residence where the child has an on-going home, with consistency in their other ecological contexts (e.g. schools, neighbourhood and religious communities) and the norms that govern daily living (Stott & Gustavsson, 2010). Legal permanency highlights legal recognition of the relationship between the child and their caregiver/s, with associated parental responsibilities, signifying that the ‘state’ is no longer the child's legal guardian. This legal relationship may be achieved through reunification with a parent; third-party permanency orders vesting parental authority to age 18 with kin or fost

The Australian disability workforce has grown, and there is compelling evidence that peer work has a number of valuable impacts. Despite these apparent opportunities, there continue to be high levels of unemployment among people with disability and failure to draw on the assets of people with disability in Australian workplaces. To understand these ostensible missed opportunities, this study examined the ways in which lived experience was described as an asset in disability workforce recruitment. Advertisements for positions in New South Wales, Australia, that referred to lived experience or peer work and disability were collected over a 3-month period. Through a process of content analysis, we found that there were more employment opportunities for people with lived experience of mental illness than for other types of disability. Community engagement was a key function, and peer workers were described as complementary to professionals. Recruitment processes for lived experience jobs were not necessarily accessible. We recommend systemic reforms to facilitate recognition of lived experience as a valuable criterion for disability sector employment and to harness the benefits of a disability peer workforce.

School closures across Australia in response to COVID-19 have persisted since 2020, with rising mental health problems in children and adolescents, alongside rising negative family health and socioeconomic outcomes. Further, some children and young people who were already experiencing disadvantage pre-pandemic may be at heightened risk of poorer educational outcomes. Therefore, the aim of this study was to conduct a systematic review of the literature to identify the factors for poorer educational outcomes that may be exacerbated by COVID-19 amongst disadvantaged school students. Key development stages of disadvantage were identified: young children who started school behind, older students already at risk of disengagement from school and children and young people who have had contact with the child protection system. Five databases were systematically searched, across two search periods. A total of 69 Australian, peer-reviewed articles, published in 2005–2021, examining risk factors for poor educational outcomes for children attending school met the inclusion criteria and were included in final analyses. Our findings provide evidence of key risk factors that make these populations susceptible to worsening outcomes resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic, and of the critical importance of ongoing research to guide policy and practice support for these at-risk groups.

A policy norm enshrined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities 2006 reflected in Australia's National Disability Insurance Scheme is for people with psychosocial and other disabilities to have choice and control over their lives and not to live in institutional settings. In Australia, private congregate care settings remain in most states and territories, yet are not recognised as institutional settings in policy or academic literature. This recognition is long overdue and is the focus of this article. The article reports on findings from an ethnographic study in a type of private congregate care setting in Victoria—supported residential services (SRS). Adopting criteria adopted by Davies (1989) from Goffman's notion of “total institution,” observations and interviews with 12 residents with psychosocial disability are analysed. These settings are found to meet many of the criteria for total institution. This finding has two critical implications for policy and practice. First, the extent to which institutionalisation in SRS impacts on the choices residents are able to make. Second, the extent to which independent support and advocacy are needed to ensure residents can exercise choice and control over their lives to find pathways out of SRS.

Changes in the working, study and social lives of emerging adults due to the COVID-19 pandemic have led to greater need for external supports. Many who lived independently may have sought that support by returning to live with parents. This study identifies factors associated with returns made between 2019 and 2020. It describes supports needed and obtained, relationships between parents and their resident emerging adults and identifies correlates of poor coping and high psychological distress. Data from the Longitudinal Surveys of Australian Youth and the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children were used and showed half of the emerging adults who moved did so due to COVID-19 restrictions. Loss of work and increased need for emotional and financial support were key drivers of moves. Nineteen per cent who returned found spending more time with family difficult and over half did not have their support needs fully met, increasing their odds of poor coping at that time (OR = 2.9, 4.3, respectively) and subsequent psychological distress (OR = 6.0). Families were an important source of support but could not necessarily mitigate all challenges; for some emerging adults, returning to live with parents gave rise to additional difficulties which negatively affected mental health.

Young people tend to bear the brunt of adverse employment consequences of a crisis due mainly to the precarious nature of their job and their over-representation among jobseekers who are having to find employment when jobs are scarce. Using quarterly welfare payment data for the period 2019–2021 from the Department of Social Services, we noted a marked increase in the percentage of 16- to 21-year-olds who received youth allowance (other) payments. While a greater proportion of Indigenous youth than non-Indigenous youth received the payments from 2019 to 2021, the gap widened following the outbreak of the pandemic. Further, applying regression analysis to data from the 2019 and 2020 waves of the 2015 Cohort of the Longitudinal Study of Australian Youth (LSAY), we find no statistically significant change in individual-level labour force status between 2019 and 2020. However, pandemic-induced labour market crises appear to have been associated with reduced work hours, heightened career concerns and sustained nonemployment, where potential impacts are larger among traditionally vulnerable youth groups such as female, Indigenous and overseas-born young persons. The study highlights the need for recognising the intersectionality of youth and other forms of identity (such as gender, Indigenous status and nativity) while designing labour market policies.

While many Australians agree with the need for COVID-19 restrictions and lockdowns, a vocal minority of citizens loudly voice opposition to government restrictions, characterised as impositions on 'free speech' and impacting the Australian economy. National data from the 2020/21 Australian Survey of Social and Attitudes and Tasmanian survey data enable an examination of those who support or oppose health initiatives aimed at minimising the impact of the pandemic. The majority of Australians believed government imposed restrictions were 'about right', although women were more likely than men to be concerned about the health implications of COVID-19. Tasmanian data show that controlling for social background, those who prioritise the economy are less likely than those concerned about the health implications of COVID-19 to wear masks in public, less likely to be tested in case they have to self-isolate, less likely to check in, and less likely to be vaccinated. Alternatively, higher trust in university research, and trust in scientists as a source of information about COVID-19 was positively associated with attitudes and behaviour designed to reduce the transmission of COVID-19.