Understanding child neglect in Aboriginal families and communities in the context of trauma

Child neglect is a significant concern for Aboriginal families and communities both in Australia and internationally. Service responses to child neglect are largely informed by child neglect theories, which explain the nature and causes of child neglect. However, child neglect is a problem that is worsening for Aboriginal children, suggesting that these theories are not appropriate. This paper argues that to meet the needs of Aboriginal families and communities where there is child neglect, policy and practice needs to acknowledge and address the impact of trauma in shaping the lived experiences of Aboriginal people. International literature discusses the impact and consequence of historical trauma within Indigenous families and communities, and separately, child maltreatment theorists have discussed the ecological nature of child neglect. However, the literature and evidence‐base linking the two, child neglect and historical trauma in Indigenous contexts, are very scant. This paper aims to fill this gap and emphasize the importance of addressing child neglect within Aboriginal families and communities in the context of historical trauma. Although this paper focuses on the post‐colonial experiences of Aboriginal people in Australia, the arguments can extend to many Indigenous cultures universally where child welfare interventions have resulted in significant and ongoing trauma.     

To pee or not to pee: reconsidering the need for urinalysis

While urinalysis is used regularly as a tool to validate self-reported recent drug use, past research has been inconclusive in evaluating concordance between the two measures. In the current study, urinalysis results for cocaine and opiates are compared to self-reported three-day cocaine and opiate use with data collected through Houston's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program between 1990 and 1999. Separate analyses are conducted for each year during the decade. Kappa statistics indicate that the strength of agreement between the two drug use measures is consistent over time. These findings suggest that the need for urinalysis should be reconsidered.     

SOCIAL DRINKING VERSUS ADMINISTERING ALCOHOL

Alcohol consumption tends to make some people (unwillingly) tell the truth, hence social drinking can serve as a signal in social contact games. We provide empirical evidence which shows that social drinking can serve as a trust facilitating mechanism. Liver cirrhosis mortality and the rate of abstainers are used to construct a novel index of moderate alcohol consumption, which correlates with trust levels in a cross‐country analysis.(JEL L14, D82, D71)     

Comparing drug use between welfare-receiving arrestees and non-welfare-receiving arrestees

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) symbolized a comprehensive change to the nation's welfare system. Despite several provisions within PRWORA that focus on the use of illegal drugs, few studies have attempted to identify the prevalence of illegal drug use among welfare recipients. Moreover, no scholarly works have compared rates of drug use in welfare-receiving populations to those of non-welfare-receiving populations with an objective measure of drug use. In the current study, urine specimens were collected from 1,572 arrestees interviewed through Houston's Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) Program in 1999. Drug positive rates are compared between welfare-receiving arrestees (n = 116), non-welfare receiving arrestees living below the poverty level (n = 539), and non-welfare receiving arrestees living above the poverty level (n = 917). Welfare-receiving arrestees were more likely to be female, older, less educated, and to test positive for opiates and benzodiazepines than the other subgroups. Implications for welfare reform policy are discussed in light of the current findings.