Search

This paper reports an Australian project designed to simultaneously explore and capacity build professional practice when working at the intersection of parental mental health and/or problematic substance use and domestic violence (DV). Data from this paper are derived from two main sources: observations and ethnographic notes obtained during 28 Community of Practice (CoP) meetings and semi‐structured interviews with 28 CoP participants. Participants were front‐line workers from a range of government and non‐government organizations providing services to families experiencing DV across three Australian states who participated in The STACY Project: Safe and Together Addressing ComplexitY. Thematic analysis was employed to examine the research questions: How do professionals and organizations understand and respond to families experiencing DV, parental mental health difficulties and problematic substance use issues? How did practitioners report participation in the STACY Project reorienting professional practice with families experiencing DV, parental mental health difficulties, and substance misuse issues? This paper reports workers' exploration of practice implications. The research found that 'domestic violence blind' practice has become entrenched at the intersections of child protection, substance misuse and mental health problems, but a shared framework could bring practitioners from diverse sectors together to generate new ways of working with these complex problems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Little empirical research has been conducted in Australia on what constitutes as effective practice with interpreters in child protection matters. This study aimed to address this gap. Qualitative interviews were conducted with 29 non–English‐speaking background (NESB) client families and 17 child protection caseworkers (as part of a larger study). Four examples of good practice (e.g. accurate translation) and 14 examples of ineffective practice emerged. The examples of poor practice were consequently grouped as issues with: (i) interpreters (e.g. inaccurate translation); (ii) caseworkers (e.g. insufficient time); (iii) NESB families (e.g. refusing to use an interpreter); and (iv) resources (e.g. insufficient face‐to‐face interpreters). As expected, the results largely replicate the (scant) national and international literature, indicating that features of good practice, and barriers to them, are similar across multicultural countries. This paper does however argue that training for interpreters dealing in such sensitive matters and training for caseworkers on working effectively with interpreters seem to be at the heart of good practice. This study is significant because it draws on the richness of data that qualitative methods offer to identify the full range of relevant variables and provide empirical support for principles of good practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]