Integrating Human Rights, Cultural Competence, and Intersectionality in Social Work Education: Addressing Child Protection and Inconsistencies

Abstract: This paper explores the integration of human rights and cultural competence within social work education, with a specific focus on child protection practices in Australia. Using insights from the comparative analysis of social work education in Austria and Australia, the paper examines how the integration of universal human rights frameworks and cultural competence training can enhance child protection services. However, the inconsistencies across jurisdictions in Australia and the application of Western-centric models highlight the challenges of achieving effective and equitable social work practices. The article critiques the potential dangers of reinforcing ethnocentric ideologies, underlining the need for culturally sensitive, locally-informed approaches that prioritise intersectionality and community engagement. Recommendations include adopting a more inclusive curriculum, increasing early intervention services, and developing national standards for consistent application across all states. By recognising and addressing these complexities, Australia can move towards a child protection system that is more equitable, culturally responsive, and effective.

Keywords: Child protection, cultural competence, social work education, Australia, inconsistency, human rights, intersectionality, ethnocentrism, early intervention, national standards

Introduction Child protection is a fundamental aspect of social welfare, aiming to safeguard children from abuse, neglect, and exploitation. In Australia, the child protection system is managed by state and territory governments, resulting in inconsistencies across jurisdictions. These disparities are particularly evident when addressing the needs of marginalised communities, such as Australian First Nations children, children with disabilities, and those from culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) backgrounds (Bromfield & Higgins, 2005). The need for a more integrated and consistent approach to social work education is evident, as current practices often fail to balance the triple mandate of state regulation, professional ethics, and client-centred services.

This paper will explore the integration of human rights and cultural competence in social work education, using insights from a comparative study of Austria and Australia. It will analyse how inconsistencies in the application of social work education frameworks in Australia impact child protection, particularly in relation to cultural competence, early intervention, and intersectionality. It will also examine the dangers of reinforcing ethnocentric ideologies and offer recommendations for a more inclusive and equitable approach to social work practices.

Challenges and Inconsistencies in Child Protection in Australia In Australia, the fragmented approach to child protection has led to significant challenges, including the inconsistent application of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle (ATSICPP), varying levels of support for children with disabilities, and a lack of cultural competence when engaging with CaLD families (Bromfield & Higgins, 2005). For example, while the ATSICPP is designed to maintain cultural ties for First Nations children in out-of-home care, its inconsistent application across states often results in children being placed with non-Indigenous carers, severing their connection to their culture and community (Bamblett et al., 2021). This issue highlights the broader need for a national standard that ensures equitable and culturally appropriate care for all children, regardless of location.

Additionally, children with disabilities face significant challenges within the current system due to inconsistent service provision across jurisdictions. For instance, families in rural and remote areas may struggle to access the early intervention programmes that are more readily available in urban centres (AIHW, 2020). Such disparities can lead to higher rates of child removal, not because of parental neglect but due to a lack of support services. The inconsistent application of policies and varying levels of cultural competence among social workers further exacerbate these issues, especially when dealing with CaLD families who may face misunderstandings and biases due to cultural differences (Dudgeon et al., 2017).

Integration of Human Rights and Cultural Competence The article "Bridging Human Rights and Social Work Education: The Triple Mandate in Austrian and Australian Teaching Contexts" by du Plessis-Schneider (2024) offers insights into how social work education can integrate human rights and cultural competence. It highlights the importance of addressing the inconsistencies between theoretical frameworks and practical application, noting that while social work curricula may cover human rights principles, practitioners often need help to apply these in practice, especially when state regulations conflict with client rights. This is particularly relevant in the Australian context, where the need for consistent national standards creates gaps in service provision and care (Bromfield & Sutherland, 2012).

The article further emphasises the need for mandatory cultural competence training, suggesting that social workers be equipped with the skills to understand and respect diverse cultural contexts. In Australia, this would involve recognising Indigenous knowledge systems and understanding the unique challenges faced by CaLD and First Nations communities. By promoting cultural competence, social workers can make informed decisions that are culturally sensitive, reducing the likelihood of unnecessary interventions based on cultural misunderstandings (Child Family Community Australia, 2020).

Intersectionality in Social Work Education Intersectionality is a critical concept in social work, referring to the overlapping and interacting aspects of a person's identity, such as race, ethnicity, gender, disability, and socio-economic status (Crenshaw, 1989). In child protection, understanding these intersecting identities is essential, as a single characteristic does not define children. The article by du Plessis-Schneider (2024) stresses that social workers must be aware of how multiple aspects of identity can create unique challenges, particularly for those belonging to multiple marginalised groups. For example, an Indigenous child with a disability may face barriers related to both their disability and their cultural identity, necessitating a more tailored approach to care (Bamblett et al., 2012).

The failure to adopt an intersectional approach in social work education and practice can lead to gaps in service delivery, where the complex realities of clients are not fully recognised. To address this, the article recommends an integrated curriculum that teaches social workers to see clients as individuals with complex, overlapping identities. In Australia, incorporating intersectionality into child protection practices could help improve support for children from CaLD backgrounds who may face both language barriers and socio-economic disadvantages, as well as Indigenous children who may experience systemic racism alongside other challenges.

Ethnocentrism and Its Dangers in Social Work One of the potential dangers of articles like du Plessis-Schneider’s is the risk of reinforcing ethnocentric ideologies. While advocating for the integration of human rights frameworks and cultural competence, there is a danger of imposing Western-centric norms on non-Western communities, leading to a perception that these standards are superior (Bromfield & Higgins, 2005). This can marginalise local practices and values, particularly in non-Western or Indigenous settings. For instance, the assumption that universal human rights can be uniformly applied may overlook the cultural and historical contexts that shape how communities understand and implement care.

To avoid this, social work education must be grounded in cultural relativism, where practices are understood within their cultural contexts rather than judged against a universal standard. It is also essential to engage Indigenous leaders and local communities in the creation of social work curricula, ensuring that training reflects the realities of those it intends to serve (Moore et al., 2017). Such an inclusive approach helps build trust and respect for local traditions, fostering collaboration rather than imposition.

Recommendations for Improving Child Protection in Australia To address the inconsistencies in child protection and the potential for reinforcing ethnocentrism, the following recommendations are proposed:

1. Develop National Standards for Consistency: Establishing uniform national standards can ensure that principles like the ATSICPP are applied consistently across all states, providing culturally appropriate care that maintains the cultural ties of Australian First Nations children (SNAICC, 2019). These standards should also include clear guidelines for supporting children with disabilities and promoting cultural competence among social workers.
2. Mandatory Cultural Competence Training: Integrate comprehensive cultural competence training into social work education, focusing on Indigenous knowledge systems, CaLD family structures, and local community engagement. This training should equip social workers to navigate cultural complexities and reduce biases, ensuring more equitable care (Child Family Community Australia, 2020).
3. Early Intervention and Holistic Support: Increase funding for early intervention programmes that address the root causes of family instability, such as housing, healthcare, and mental health support. This can prevent the need for more intrusive child protection measures and keep families together whenever possible (AIHW, 2020).
4. Promote Intersectionality in Curriculum: Integrate an intersectional approach into social work education to help practitioners understand how various aspects of identity interact to create unique needs and challenges. This would improve support for children from diverse backgrounds and reduce the risk of discrimination based on multiple marginalised identities (Crenshaw, 1989; Bamblett et al., 2012).
5. Collaborate with Local and Indigenous Communities: Engage directly with local leaders and community members to ensure that social work practices reflect local values and cultural practices. This collaboration is essential in Australia, where understanding Indigenous perspectives and traditional care practices is essential for effective child protection (Moore et al., 2017).

Conclusion Inconsistent social work education and child protection practices across Australia have led to significant challenges, particularly for marginalised communities. Integrating human rights, cultural competence, and intersectionality into social work education can help bridge these gaps, but caution must be taken to avoid reinforcing ethnocentric ideologies. By adopting a more inclusive and context-sensitive approach, Australia can develop a child protection system that is equitable, culturally responsive, and effective in meeting the diverse needs of all children. Such reforms would not only address current failures but also pave the way for a more holistic and integrated model of care that prioritises local knowledge and community engagement.

References

Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). (2020). Child protection Australia 2018–19. AIHW. https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/child-protection-australia-2018-19

Bamblett, M., Bath, H., & Roseby, R. (2012). Growing them strong, together: Promoting the safety and wellbeing of the Northern Territory’s children. Northern Territory Government.

Bamblett, M., Harrison, J., & Bath, H. (2021). Cultural identity and child protection in Australia: Reflections on practice and policy. Australian Social Work, 74(3), 285–297. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2021.1888862

Bromfield, L., & Higgins, D. (2005). National comparison of child protection systems. Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/publications/national-comparison-child-protection-systems

Bromfield, L., & Sutherland, K. (2012). Supporting vulnerable families: National standards for out-of-home care in Australia. Australian Institute of Family Studies.

Child Family Community Australia. (2020). Cultural competence in child protection. Australian Institute of Family Studies. https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/cultural-competence-child-protection

Crenshaw, K. (1989). Demarginalizing the intersection of race and sex: A Black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory, and antiracist politics. University of Chicago Legal Forum, 1989(1), 139–167. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclf/vol1989/iss1/8

Dudgeon, P., Milroy, H., & Walker, R. (Eds.). (2017). Working together: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander mental health and wellbeing principles and practice (2nd ed.). Commonwealth of Australia.

Du Plessis-Schneider, S. (2024). Bridging human rights and social work education: The triple mandate in Austrian and Australian teaching contexts. [Title of Journal or Publisher, if available].

Gonzalez-Mena, J. (2015). Diversity in early care and education: Honoring differences (6th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.

Moore, T., McArthur, M., Noble-Carr, D., & Harcourt, D. (2017). Lessons from children about child protection. Institute of Child Protection Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2017.1409782

Morrison, Z., Williams, S., & Moore, D. (2021). Developing cultural competence: Lessons from the field. Journal of Social Work Education, 57(4), 584–597. https://doi.org/10.1080/10437797.2020.1837929

Sawrikar, P., & Katz, I. (2018). Barriers to accessing child protection services for culturally and linguistically diverse (CaLD) families in Australia. Journal of Family Studies, 24(1), 37–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/13229400.2017.1379009

Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care (SNAICC). (2019). Family matters report 2019. SNAICC. https://www.familymatters.org.au/report-2019/

United Nations. (2006). Convention on the rights of persons with disabilities. United Nations. https://www.un.org/development/desa/disabilities/convention-on-the-rights-of-persons-with-disabilities.html