ConiversityAUSTRALIA

'Talking Fomilies'

Examining cultural differences in the role of family and community-level risk and protective factors on parental empowerment, informal

and formal help seeking

THE UNIVERSITY

OF QUEENSLAND

Full Report

AUSTRALIA

Prepared for:

Queensland Family and Child Commission (QFCC)

Prepared by:

Dr Silke Meyer, Central Queensland University (CQU)

Dr Rebecca Wickes, The University of Queensland (UQ)

Executive SummaryFor the purpose of this report we analyse data derived from the 201.5-201.6 Talking Families Survey,conducted by IPsos Australia. The Talking Families Survey captured experiences relating to parenting,coping, help seeking and engagement in a cultural Iy diverse sample. IPsos previously examined andreported a number of significant bivariate findings with regards to parental empowerment and efficacy,as well as help seeking (both formal and informal), amongst other outcome measures. Here, we focuson the parent subsample (n=,. 991. ). We build on the existing IPsos research by undertaking a series ofmultivariate analyses, with a particular focus on the role of domestic and family violence, communityand neighbourhood factors and cultural differences in parental empowerment and efficacy, help seekingand engagement. We examine the role of individual characteristics and risk factors along with family-and community-level risk and protective factors. Findings are generated for the overall parent sampleand an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-specific subsample of parents,

We observe a number of similarities between the overall and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandersubsample. These include the role of individual factors, such as financial hardship, which lowers parentalefficacy and empowerment for both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and nori- Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander parents, Connected ness to friends, family and neighbours on the other hand increasesparental efficacy and empowerment along with the likelihood of informal help seeking and formalengagement in both samples. These findings highlight the role of extended family and neighbourhoodlevel measures as protective factors; especially for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents' Despitethe accumulation of risk for many Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents, connected ness at thefamily and community level contributes substantially to greater parental efficacy and empowermentand encourages help seeking and engagement.

We are particularly interested in the role of domestic and family violence (hereafter DFV) in predictingparental engagement and empowerment in this survey sample. InterestingIy, it played a very small rolein explaining differences in our outcome measures. In the overall sample, the presence of DFV predictslower levels of parental empowerment and efficacy. However, once we control for informal support andneighbourhood social support variables, this relationship is no longer significant. This suggests that theeffect of DFV on parental efficacy and empowerment can be reduced by protective factors at the family,friends and community level. Further, the presence or absence of DFV does not predict parentalempowerment and help seeking in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subsample. Yet otherindividual, informal support and neighbourhood social support factors do strongly affect parentalempowerment, help seeking and engagement among parents, including those individuals who hadexperienced DFV.

We further examine the role of cultural connected ness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents'Findings derived from this sample highlight the importance of cultural connected ness for parentalefficacy and empowerment, informal parental help seeking and engagement with formal parentingservices. For respondents with a strong sense of cultural identity and/or those connected to country andengaging in cultural activities fared significantly better across all three outcome measures.

Contents

Execu tive Su in in a ry .................................................................................................................................... 2

M et h o d 0 10 gy ................................................................................................................................. 4I.

I . I Ta I ki rig Fa in ilies Su rvey ................................................................................................................. 4

I . 2 Fo c u s .............................................................................................................................................. 4

I . 3 Sa in p I e ........................................................................................................................................... 5

1.4 An a I ysi s .......................................................................................................................................... 6

1.5 Va ri a b I es ....................................................................................................................................... 6

Re s u Its ........................................................................................................................................... 7

2 .I Fi n dings r elatin g to t h e ove r all sa in PIe ....... .... .. ... . .. ........ . . ...... .. . . . .. . . . ......... . . . .. . . . .... .... ........... ....... . 8

2.1. ,. Factors influencing parental efficacy and empowerment measures (PE EM) .................... 8

2.12 Factors associated with informal (fainily/ friend) help seeking ......................................... 9

2.1.3 Factors associated with formal help seeking (in form of parenting education and/ orse rvi ces ) ....................................................................................................................................... I O

2.2 Differences observed for Abo riginal a rid Torres Strait Islander parents .................................... IT

2.2. I. Pa rental Efficacy a n d Ein POWe rine nt ( P E E M ) ..................................... ............................. 11.

2.2.2 Info rin al h elp see kin g . . . ........ .. . . . . .. . . .. . ... .. . .. . . . . . . ... . ...... ..... ... . ...... .... . . . . .. . . . ... ... .... ......... . ....... I2

2 . 2 . 3 Fo rin a I h el p seeki rig .......................................................................................................... I 3

S u in in a ry a rid I in PI i c a t i o n s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

3 . I Th e ro I e o f D FV ............................................................................................................................ I 5

3.2 Th e role of info rin al (fainily a n d frien d s) su ppo rt. ...................................................................... 15

3.3 Th e role of n eig h bo u rh o0 d so cia I su p p o rt ........... ...... . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . .... . . . . ... ...... ... .. .... . ... .... . . . . . .. ... . .... 16

3.4 Cultural Iy specific observations with regards to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people. . 16

Appendix I - Sam PIe information for overall sain PIe and AsTI Su bsain pie ............................................. 18

Appendix 2 - Detailed description of variables and analytical techniq ues. ............................................. 2 O

Appendix 3 -Tablel. . Ordinary least squares regression predicting parental efficacy and empowerment..................................................................................................................................................................

Appendix 4 - Table 2. Ordinary least squares regression predicting informal help-seeking behaviour. . 25

Appendix 5 -Table 3. Logistic regression models predicting formal help-seeking behaviour co = did riotseek h e I p a rid I = so ug ht h el p)................................................................................................................. 2 7

Appendix 6 -Table 4. Ordinary least squares regression for parental efficacy and empowerment scalefo r In dig e n o u s resp o n d e n ts o nly. ........... ...... . . . . . . . . ............. ...... ...... ..... . . . . ...... .... . . . . ..... . . . . . .... . ............ . . . ... . . 29

Appendix 7 - Table 5. Ordinary least squares regression for seeking informal parental support ........... 31.

Appendix 8 - Table 6. Bivariate analysis predicting formal parental help seeking. ................................. 32

Refe r e rice s ................................................................................................................................................ 3 3

2.

3.

I. MethodologyTalking Families Survey1.1

This research uses survey data from the Talking Families Campaign commissioned by the QueenslandFamily and Child Commission. For the purpose of this report we analyse data derived from the 201.5-201.6 Talking Families Survey, which was conducted by IPsos Australia with participants frommetropolitan, inner and outer regional areas, as well as remote to very remote areas in Queensland(IPsos Social Research, 201.6). The Talking Families Survey captured experiences relating to parenting,coping, help seeking and engagement in a cultural Iy diverse sample.

The quantitative survey was delivered online using a computer assisted self-administered questionnaire.In cases where individuals were unable to complete the survey online, they completed the survey inperson with the assistance of a trained interviewer. Participants were recruited through online surveypanels, random digit telephone sample, and face-to-face networking. Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander participants were recruited through local liaison officers at Winangali's Ngara Network. Adisproportionate stratified sample was used resulting in a diverse sample of Queensland respondents(IPsos Social Research, 2016). The survey ovensampled Aboriginal and forres Strait Islander individualsto reflect their disproportionate representation in the Child Protection System (Tilbury, 2009) and toenable separate and detailed analysis of this cohort.

IPsos previously examined and reported a number of significant bivariate findings with regards toparental empowerment and efficacy, as well as help seeking (both formal and informal), amongst otheroutcome measures (IPsos Social Research, 201.6). We build on the existing IPsos research by undertakinga series of multivariate analyses, with a particular focus on the role of domestic and family violence,community and neighbourhood factors and cultural differences in parental empowerment and efficacy,help seeking and engagement. We examine the role of individual characteristics and risk factors alongwith family- and community-level risk and protective factors. For the purpose of this report we generatefindings for the overall parent sample and an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander-specific subsample ofparents'

Focus

The focus of this research was to generate knowledge on parental help seeking and engagement. Inorder to do this, we examine a number of risk and protective factors that affect parents' perceptions ofefficacy and empowerment, along with their likelihood of seeking informal and formal support inrelation to parenting. We include the role of parental empowerment and efficacy because research hashighlighted its relevance in understanding and fostering parental engagement with different sourcessupport (Dempsey & Dunst, 2004; Mirines, Perry & Weiss, 201.4; Nachshen & Mirines, 2005; Vuorenmaa,Pera16, Halme, Kaunonen & Astedt-Kurki, 201.5). We are interested in whether differences in parentalempowerment and help-seeking behaviours are associated with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderstatus and speaking a language other than English. While we examine the role of various risk andprotective factors associated with our outcome variables from a theoretical perspective (i. e. parentalempowerment and help-seeking literature), we are particularly interested in the role of DFV and familyand neighbourhood/ community support and connected ness on these outcomes. Further, lookingspecifically to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents, we examine the extent to which culturalconnected ness influences parental empowerment and help-seeking behaviours for Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander parents' The following research questions guide our analysis:

Are there differences in parental efficacy and empowerment, informal and formal help seekingfor Indigenous and non-Indigenous participants and English language and non-English languagespeakers?

How do experiences of DFV influence parental efficacy and empowerment, informal and formalhelp seeking?

How does informal (family and friends) support influence parental efficacy and empowerment,informal and formal help seeking?

How do neighbourhood social support factors influence parental efficacy and empowerment,informal and formal help seeking?

How does cultural connected ness influence parental efficacy and empowerment and help-seeking behaviours for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents?

Sain PIeFor our analyses we use the parent subsample of the Talking Families Survey. This sample comprises1,991 participants who have a dependant under the age of 1.8 Years in their care, either part or all of thetime. Appendix I provides the characteristics of the sample. We also provide an in-depth analysis ofparental empowerment and help-seeking behaviours in the subsample of Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslanders (n-=510) specifically.

With regards to examining if and how findings around parental empowerment and efficacy, help seekingand engagement differ for Aboriginal and Torres Straitlslander parents we need to note some limitationsregarding the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parent subsample. From our examination of the SOCio-demographic characteristics of this subsample, it is clear that it is not representative of Australia's overallAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population. Ninety-six percent of the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander parents captured in the parent subsample reside in major cities with the remaining four percentresiding in inner and outer regional locations and only one respondent identifying as residing in a remotecommunity. This residential distribution therefore under-represents those residing in regional, rural andremote communities. Australian Census data for example shows that in 201.1. , only around one third(34.8%) of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people lived in major cities (Australian Bureau ofStatistics [ABS], 2013a).

Further, the subsample was not representative with regards to educational attainment. Nearly 70% ofthe Talking Families Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parent sample had at least completed year 1.2,compared to an average of nearly 25% in the overall population captured in the 2006 census data(Australia Human Rights Commission [AHRC], 2008). The current sample further shows anunder representation of single parent households in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subsample,with 39.4% reporting single parent status compared to around 75% in the overall population (AHRC,2008). Findings relating to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are therefore limited to thisparticular survey sample and cannot be generalised to the broader population'.

' Overall survey data used by IPsos in their report based on the full survey sample (N=4,261) was weighted. Dataused for this report has riot been weighted based on the fact that our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandersubsample is a non-random sample, which is not representative of the broader Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander population. From a methodological point of view, data can therefore riot be weighted because it doesnot allow the generation of generalizable characteristics within this non-random, non-representative sample.

Analysis1.4

We use step-wise regression models to examine the role of SOCio-demographic factors (step I. ),individual risk factors (step 2), family and friend support measures (step 3) and neighbourhood socialsupport measures (step 41 in understanding variation in parental efficacy and empowerment, informal(family and friend) support and formal help seeking (we define these measures in the next section). Wethen use the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parent subsample and consider the associationbetween connection to culture and our outcome variables. We note that the original sample is based on

probability and non-probability techniques, and although the nori-Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islandersample is largely representative of the population from which it is drawn this does not apply to theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sample. Any inferences from our analyses are therefore onlyattributable to the sample and not the wider population. For more details on the analytical techniquesand models, please refer to the technical appendix (Appendix 2).

Variables

Our variables are grouped into several categories: (,.) SOCio-demographic characteristics (includingAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander ancestry and Nori-English Speaking background); (2) individual riskfactors (including experiences of DFV); (3) family and friends support factors; and (4) neighbourhoodsocial support factors. Some of our SOCio-demographic variables arguably constitute risk factors from atheoretical point of view. These include single parent status, socio-economic status measured in form ofhardship and having a child with a disability. For the purpose of this analysis, their inclusion under oneor the other group of variables does not affect the overall outcome as they are entered in step I andmaintained throughout the models.

In our analyses, we consider the influence of these variables on the following dependent vonobles:

. Parental efficacy and empowerment measure (PEEM scale)

. Informal help seeking (from family and/ or friends in relation to parenting concerns)

. Formal help seeking (in form of parenting education and/ or parenting services)

Our predictor von@bles are as follows:

SOCio-demogrophic vonobles

. gender

. age

. single parent status

. financial hardship

Indigenous (Aboriginal and/ or Torres Strait Islander) status

. speaks (a language other than) English at home

. custody arrangement

. children with disability

. number of children

. education

. employment

(geographical) remoteness.

Individuolriskfoctors

. childhood trauma

. diagnosed mental illness

. stressful life events

. crime

. DFV

problem drinking (behaviour), and

difficulties coping with parenting role

.

.

Fomily ond/offfiendsupport

. family connections (frequency of contact with family),

family support (quality and availability), and

having special people/ a special support person in their life

Neighbourhoodsodolsupport

. perceived neighbourhood capacity

contact with neighbours

perceived neighbourhood parenting norms

For the properties and coding of each variable, please refer to the technical appendix (Appendix 2).

The correlations of all variables were below 0.50 and Variance Inflation analyses did not reveal any inultcollinearity in any of our analyses.

2. Results

Variables were entered into step-wise regression models (we used ordinary least square regression forPEEM and family/ friend support and logistic regression for seeking formal parenting education orsupport). In the first step, SOCio-demographic variables were entered, followed by individual risk factors,family support measures and neighbourhood social support measures. Only significant results arereported here. For a full overview of variables and their significant levels, please refer to the relevanttables provided in appendices 3 to 8.

Findings relating to the overall sampleIn our first set of analyses we examine differences in parental empowerment and efficacy, informal andformal help seeking for the overall parent sample (n=,. 991. ).

2.1. I Factors influencing pa ental efficacy an em owerment me asu es (PEEM)Of our SOCio-demographic variables, we find that women and those who are employed report higherlevels of parental efficacy and empowerment than men. Single parents and parents who have at leastone child with a disability on the other hand score lower on the parental efficacy and empowermentmeasures. This is in line with other findings on parental empowerment showing that the stressassociated with being a single parent and having a child with a disability can negatively affect parents'perceived levels of empowerment and efficacy (Nachshen, & Mirines, 2005; Vuorenmaa, Perala, Halme,N. , Kaunonen & Astedt-Kurki, 201.5). In addition, the presence of financial hardship is a strong predictorof lower PEEM scores. Parents who struggle to pay rent and cover their household expenses, for example,are less likely to feel empowered and effective in their parenting practices. As financial hardshipincreases, empowerment and efficacy continues to decrease.

With regards to cultural diversity, we find that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents as well asthose speaking a language other than English at home report higher levels of empowerment and efficacy.While cultural diversity and minority status have been associated with a number of risk factors alsorelevant to parental efficacy and empowerment (see for example Hill, 2006), bivariate and multivariateanalyses in our research show that compared to Anglo-Saxon Australians, Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander parents and parents from a nori-English speaking background report a higher sense of parentalefficacy and empowerment.

In the second step of the analysis for PEEM, we find that parents affected by DFV report lower parentalefficacy and empowerment. While the measure of DFV relates to the presence of DFV within thehousehold and does not identify whether the respondent is a victim or perpetrator, this observation isconsistent with other research findings. A number of studies show that DFV has a negative impact onparenting capacity and the parent-child relationship for both the abusive and non-abusive parent(Levendosky & Graham-Berman, 2001; Featherstone & Peckover, 2007). We further find that parentswho report they struggle to cope with everyday parenting report significantly lower levels of parentalempowerment and efficacy. Again we would expect this relationship as both measures are self-reportmeasures of perceived parental capacity and therefore likely to reflect similar perceptions.

In the third step we enter our family and friends support measures, including frequency of contact,quality and availability of contact and whether parents have a special person they can rely on in theirlife. All three factors are significant and predict higher levels of efficacy and empowerment. In addition,they mediate the role of gender, non-English speaking background and the presence of DFV: thesevariables are insignificant once family and friend support measures are accounted for, suggesting thataccess to informal support plays a greater role in predicting parental efficacy and empowerment thanindividual characteristics and risk factors. In other words, being connected with family and friends,having access to quality informal support and having a special person in one's life has the capacity toreduce the impact of risk factors, such as the presence of DFV for example.

In the last step of this analysis, we enter neighbourhood social support measures, including perceivedcommunity perceptions of parenting roles, regular visits with neighbours and neighbourhood capacity.All three variables are significant in predicting parental efficacy and empowerment. Thus even aftercontrolling for an individual's kinship ties, parents who are connected to their neighbourhoods, describetheir neighbourhood as close-knit, safe and supportive and believe that parents are not being

stigmatised within their community for seeking support, report significantly higher levels of parentalefficacy and empowerment.

2.1.2 Factors associated with informal (family/ friend) help seekingWe repeat the same four-step models to examine the association between our variables of interest andinformal parental help seeking. We find that women and younger parents are more likely to agree theyhave asked for help or support from friends, family and neighbours when compared to men and olderparents' This is true for parents with full custody of their children when compared to those with differentcustody arrangements. This finding suggests that parents with full custody arrangements mayexperience greater parenting concerns due to their full-time parent role and may therefore be morelikely to draw on family and friends for support. Parents living in regional and remote as opposed tometropolitan areas on the other hand were less likely to agree they would seek help from family andfriends. This last observation may in part be due to a certain level of isolation associated with living inouter regional and remote communities. Research suggests that people living in rural and remotecommunities are often somewhat isolated from informal and formal support sources, which can have anegative impact on help-seeking behaviours (Ragusa, 201.2).

In the next step we enter individual risk factors and find that parents with an accumulation of stressfullife events (such as changes in family formation, experiences of serious health concerns) are more likelyto report informal help seeking from family and friends. This indicates that parents in this sample mayrely on family and friends for support when experiencing challenging life events. Parents who feel theywould be stigmatised for seeking help are less likely to agree that they engaged in help seeking fromfamily and friends. Conversely, those who report higher levels of parental efficacy and empowermentare more likely to agree that they relied on family and friends for parenting-related support and advice.While this may seem counter-intuitive, it is not uncommon. Other studies reveal parental empowermentplays a significant role in parental help seeking with those feeling more empowered and effective in theirparenting also feeling more confident in seeking support if needed (Dendy, 201.2). Entering the individualrisk factors mediates the effect of gender and custody arrangements, meaning once we account forother individual risk factors, these SOCio-demographic characteristics no longer predict informal helpseeking.

In the third step we enter the family and friends support measures, including connected ness with familyand friends, access to quality support from family and friends and having a special person in one's life.Similar to our findings reported for parental empowerment and efficacy, all three informal supportvariables are significant and increase parents' agreement that they draw on family and friend supportwith regards to parenting concerns. The inclusion of these variables further mediate some of thepreviously significant SOCio-demographic characteristics. Thus having a variety of informal supportmechanisms in place may increase the likelihood of drawing on these resources, regardless of age andgeographic location. For those residing in outer regional and remote communities this finding highlightsthe importance of being connected to family and friends.

In the last step we enter the neighbourhood social support variables. In this model, only neighbourhoodcapacity predicts informal help seeking. Those who ascribe greater capacity to their neighbourhoods aremore likely to agree that they have asked for help or support from their informal networks.

21.3 Factors associated with formal help seeking ( n form of pare ting education and/ orservices)

In our last analyses using the full sample, we consider if there are differences in the predictors of formalparental help seeking when compared to informal parental help seeking. Again we enter our SOCio-demographic variables in the first step of the analysis. In contrast to our earlier analyses for informalhelp seeking, women are less likely to seek formal parental support than men in our sample. Financialhardship and having a child with a disability are also associated with higher odds of seeking formal helpon parenting related issues. While these factors can be associated with social stigma and isolation, theyalso indicate a greater need for support. It is therefore encouraging to see that those who have a childwith a disability and experience financial hardship in this sample (which are associated with lower PEEMscores) are more likely to make use of formal parental support. Both circumstances may also beassociated with a greater likelihood of being in contact with different types of (family) welfare services(Morris, 201.3). As a result, parents who experience financial hardship or have a child with a disabilitymay be connected within a service system that is likely to offer or refer to formal parental supportservices.

In the next step, we enter individual risk factors. A mental illness diagnosis, a criminal conviction andexperiencing an accumulation of stressful life events all increase parents' likelihood of engaging withformal parenting education and other support services. This is an important observation because itsuggests that those parents who are most vulnerable due to the presence of one or more risk factorsare also more likely to seek formal parental support. In part, this may have a similar underlyingexplanation as that of financial hardship. Those with substantial risk factors (e. g. crime, mental healthproblems) could be more likely to be engaged with statutory agencies (Morris, 2013), which in returnmay facilitate parental help seeking at a formal level.

In step three of our formal help-seeking model, we enter our informal support variables. Whenexamining these variables in relation to formal help seeking, only those with more frequent contact tofamily and friends (i. e. those who are more connected) are more likely to seek formal support. Theavailability and quality of informal support and whether parents have a special person in their life on theother hand has no significant influence on parent's formal help seeking.

In the last step we enter our neighbourhood social support variables and find that those who havefrequent contact with neighbours are also more likely to seek formal parental support. Interesting Iy, thislast variable mediates the role of informal connected ness. Once we control for the frequency ofneighbour contact, frequency of contact with family and friends is no longer significant. This suggeststhat connected ness at the neighbourhood level plays a greater role in predicting formal help seekingthan connected ness at the individual family/ friend level, at least for this sample.

Despite some observed differences in the role of informal support and connected ness for our threeoutcomes variables, overall findings presented in this report reveal that family and friends support alongwith neighbourhood social support play a key role in explaining parental efficacy and empowermentalong with formal and informal help seeking beyond the role of individual characteristics and risk factors.Particularly noteworthy are some of the mediating effects observed for the informal and communitysupport variables. These suggest that while individual characteristics and risk factors may individuallyaffect parental outcomes and engagement, it is the level of connected ness at the family andneighbourhood level that increases the likelihood of help seeking, even for those facing individual levelrisk factors. This is particularly relevant when we consider the differences in our outcome measuresattributable to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status or non-English speaking backgrounds. In thissample, what matters above and beyond these factors are connected ness with family, friends and one'sneighbourhood. Similarly interesting are the findings relating to DFV in our analyses. To start with, DFV

only affects parents' sense of efficacy and empowerment but not their help-seeking decisions andengagement in this sample. Further, where it negatively affects parental efficacy and empowerment,this impact is reduced once we control for family, friends and neighbourhood support factors.

Differences observed for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents2.2

One of the objectives of this research is to examine if and how some of the overall findings aroundparental empowerment and efficacy, help seeking and engagement differ for Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander parents' We therefore conduct the previously described analysis on the Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander parent subsample.

2.2. I Parental Efficacy and Empowerment (PEEM)In our first analysis, we examine the predictors of the PEEM score for the participants in the TalkingFamilies survey who identify as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander. We used the same analytic approachas with our first set of analyses. In the first step we enter our SOCio-demographic variables. Similar tothe overall sample findings, women in the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subsample reportedhigher levels of parental efficacy and empowerment. In addition, the number of children is significant.Women who have three children as opposed to one or two report lower efficacy and empowerment.However, the same relationship cannot be observed as number of children continues to increase. Inother words, having three children as opposed to one or two lowers parents' sense of empowermentand efficacy whereas having four or more children does not. While these findings need to be interpretedwith care given the non-representative sample from which these observations emerge, it is possible thatthe increase from having two to three children is a tipping point with regards to parental coping whereashaving more than three children may riot be. Number of children is only predictive in the Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander subsample. It does not contribute to explain parental empowerment and efficacyin the overall sample.

Similar to findings reported for the overall sample, increasing financial hardship significantly lowersparental efficacy and empowerment. In the subsample, we further observe that employment status hasan effect on parents' sense of efficacy and empowerment. Except for retired respondents, those withoutgainful employment (e. g. students, stay-at-home parents) reported lower PEEM scores.

In the second step we enter our individual risk factors. Similar to the findings observed for the overallmodel, parents who report they are struggling to cope with parental responsibilities on a weekly basisalso report a lower sense of efficacy and empowerment. In addition, we find that a mental illnessdiagnosis lowers parental efficacy and empowerment for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents,although this was not the case in the overall parent sample. Other research, however, identifies ageneral negative relationship between parental mental illness and parents' sense of efficacy andempowerment (see for example Dolman, lones & Howard, 2013). In addition, cultural Iy specific datashow that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are significantly more likely to suffer frompsychological distress (ABS, 201.3b; Australian Indigenous HealthlnfoNet, 201.5). Given the link betweenmental health and parental empowerment, especially for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanderrespondents in this sample, this over representation is particularly concerning.

With regards to DFV, we find no significant effect on parental efficacy and empowerment among theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parent subsample when accounting for other individualcharacteristics and risk factors. While this finding must be interpreted with caution due to the non-representative nature of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sample, it may suggest that the

presence of DFV is less important for parental efficacy and empowerment among Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander parents in comparison to other individual level characteristics and risk factors.

In the third step, we enter our family and friends support measures. Parents who are in frequent contactwith family and friends report higher PEEM scores. In addition, those who report higher levels ofaccessibility and quality for support from family and friends also report significantly higher PEEM scores.Availability of quality informal support is a key predictor in this model because it predicts the largestvariation in reported efficacy and empowerment at the bivariate level (,. 2.5%) of all variables tested inthis model. This observation is supported by other sources, which highlight the importance ofconnected ness to family and friends for social and emotional wellbeing, including parental wellbeing,among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Australian Indigenous HealthlnfoNet, 201.5).

In the next step we enter our neighbourhood social support measures and find that having regularcontact with one's neighbour(s) predicts a higher sense of parental efficacy and empowerment. Thisfinding is particularly interesting because it mediates the initial influence of other factors. Once weinclude contact with neighbours, other risk factors, including increasing number of children, a mentalillness diagnosis and struggling to cope with parental responsibilities are no longer significant. At leastfor this sample, connections with neighbours has a positive impact on parental efficacy andempowerment, perhaps even for those with a mental illness diagnosis or those struggling to cope intheir role as a parent. Recent contact with neighbours can therefore be seen as a protective factor forparental efficacy and empowerment.

In the last step we examine the role of parents' connection to country. We find that parents who reportthat they are living on homeland and parents who engaged in four or more cultural activities (such asfishing, hunting, traditional storytelling, attending cultural or spiritual ceremonies) within the monthprior to data collection report significantly higher levels of parental empowerment and efficacy. Thisfinding highlights the role of cultural engagement and connected ness in predicting better outcomes forAboriginal and Torres Strait islander parents with regards to parental efficacy and empowerment.

2.22 Informal help seekingIn our next analyses, we examine the factors associated with informal help seeking from family andfriends among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents' Similar to findings reported in the overallmodel, having full custody of their children is associated with a greater agreement that they have soughthelp from family, friends or neighbours. In addition, having three as opposed to one or two children alsoinfluences informal help seeking. This finding was not significant using the complete parental sample,thus it is possible that the association between seeking informal help and having more children is relatedto the role of extended family in raising children for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities.Research shows that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are more commonly being raised withthe support of an extended family network (Tilbury, 2009). Involving extended family in the raising ofchildren, especially in families with an increasing number of children, may therefore be interpreted asdrawing on family or friends for parental support in our sample.

In the next step we enter our individual risk factors and find that parents struggling to cope with theresponsibilities of parenting are more likely to agree that they have asked for informal help on parentingrelated matters. This is a noteworthy observation because in the previous model we note that strugglingto cope reduces parental empowerment and efficacy. Observing an increase in informal help seekingtherefore suggests that although people who struggle to cope feel less empowered and effective in theirparenting, they are not reluctant to draw on family and friends for support.

In the next step we enter our family and friends support measures and find that availability and qualityof family and friends support along with having a special person that can be trusted in one's life are allassociated with increased agreement that informal help was sought from family, friends and neighbours.

In the fourth step we enter our neighbourhood variables. Only perceptions of neighbourhood views ofhelp-seeking parents influence participants' agreement that they have sought support from family andfriends. Those who believe that help-seeking parents are seen as weak or incapable are less likely todisclose their need for support to family and friends.

In the last step we enter our measures around parents' connected ness to country. Here, cultural identity(i. e. identifying with a traditional family or language group) increases parents' likelihood of drawing onfamily and friends for support. This may mean that those who feel more cultural Iy connected are alsomore confident in relying on extended family for support. The role of cultural connected ness has beenraised in other research and is said to have a positive impact on the health and wellbeing of Aboriginaland Torres Strait Islander people (Gee, Dudgeon, Schultz, Hart & Kelly, 2014).

2.23 Fo al help seeki

For our examination of results on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents formal help seeking inform of parenting education and support services we present bivariate findings. Due to the substantiallevel of missing data on some of the variables of interest to us', we were not able to conduct multivariateanalyses without introducing further systematic bias into the sample. We discuss the results of thebivariate analyses in the same order as all other models, i. e. SOCio-demographic variables followed byindividual risk factors, followed by family and friends support measures, followed by neighbourhoodsocial support factors and concluded with factors specific to cultural connected ness. Bivariate resultsare presented in table 6 (see Appendix 8).

Looking first to the influence of the SOCio-demographic variables, similar to our other analyses, we findgender is significant at the bivariate level with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women almost twiceas likely as men to seek formal parental support. Education was also significant. Parents who hold auniversity qualification are nearly 3.5 times more likely to seek formal parental support than parentswho did riot complete grade, .2. However, respondents who finished grade, .2, or obtained a trade/TAFEqualification were not significantly different in their formal help seeking when compared to those whodid riot finish high school. That only university qualifications are significantly associated with formal helpseeking suggest that this group might have greater access to information about parental supportprograms and support services and may thus be more likely to access such services.

With regards to employment, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents who are unemployed aresignificantly less likely to seek formal parental support than those who are employed. Financial hardshipon the other hand appears to have no significant impact on the formal help-seeking decisions ofAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents' Number of children has no predictive ability on formalparental help seeking whereas having a child with a disability increases Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander parents' likelihood of formal help seeking more than two-fold. Observations made for the roleof having a child with a disability are in line with the positive relationship observed in the overall sample.Number of children is not significant in explaining formal parental help seeking in the overall sample buthas been associated with increased formal support seeking in other research (Redmond, Spoth &Trudeau, 2002).

' Variables of employment and education caused a sample size drop of almost 40% for this outcomes variable,which has substantial impact on statistical power of the model.

With regards to individual risk factors, experiences of childhood trauma are associated with greaterformal help seeking among parents, Those who had experienced the loss of a loved one, parental divorceor separation, a severe illness, childhood (sexual) abuse, and/or family contact with the child protectionsystem were almost twice as likely to engage with formal parenting education or support services asthose without reported childhood trauma. This observation may suggest that parents in our sub-samplewho share adverse childhood experiences are more attuned to the availability and potential benefits offormal parenting support services. However, these findings need to be interpreted with caution due tothe nature of this particular variable. Childhood trauma was captured as a dichotomous variable thatmeasures the absence or presence of childhood trauma rather than the absence, presence andaccumulation of traumatic events. Research on the presence of childhood trauma, however, alerts tothe compounding effects of an accumulation of traumatic events (Bellis, Lowey, Leckenby, Hughes &Harrison, 201.4; Nurius, Green, Logan-Greene & Bona, 201.5). This finding may be different if theproperties of the variable allowed us to distinguish between parents with single incident trauma andthose with an accumulation of childhood trauma events. None of the other individual risk factors

examined in the other models were significant in explaining formal parental help seeking amongAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents at the bivariate level. This includes, parental criminal ity,mental health problems, and DFV.

Of particular interest to us is the absence of predictive ability of DFV. Despite the over representation ofDFV in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities (Phillips & Vandenbroek, 20L4), DFV makes 00significant difference in parents' formal help seeking. Just over half (51%) of the Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander parent sample reported on here disclosed the presence of DFV in their household. Whileformal help seeking was slightly higher for those affected by DFV (24% compared to 1.8%), this differenceis not statistical Iy significant. This finding may be partly affected by the nature of the Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander parent subsample. While research shows that DFV frequently has an isolatingeffect on its victims, especially those of cultural minority status and affected by social marginal is at ion(Phillips & Vandenbroek, 2004), the level of marginal is at ion observed in this Aboriginal and for res StraitIslander subsample is not as severe as it is in the general Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander population.

We further examine the role of family and friends support measures in explaining formal parental helpseeking. Interesting Iy, none of the informal support measures (i. e. frequency, quality, and availability offamily and friends support or the presence of a special person in one's life) predicted formal help seeking.On the other hand, respondents in regular contact with their neighbours and those who perceive highlevels of neighbourhood capacity are 2.5 and 1.5 times more likely to engage in formal parenting supportservices respectively.

As with our analyses on parental efficacy and informal help seeking, using the Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander subsample of parents, we also examine the bivariate relationships between our measuresof cultural connected ness and formal parental help-seeking actions. Parents who identify with atraditional family or language group are almost 3 times more likely to engage in formal parental supportthan those who do not identify with their culture in the same way. Other measures of culturalconnected ness, including living on homeland and engaging in cultural events had no effect on parents'likelihood of seeking formal support. This suggests that in the context of this sample, formal parentalhelp seeking is predicted by cultural identity, however, these findings need to be interpreted withcaution due to the characteristics of the subsample. As discussed earlier, the majority of Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander respondents captured in this sample live in major cities rather than regional, ruralor remote communities. While connected ness to land has been identified as a protective factor forengagement, health and wellbeing among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people (Gee at a1,201.4),it may be less relevant to those residing in major cities and this variable might have a different effect onthe help seeking of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parents living in regional, rural and remote

communities, which are not captured in large enough numbers in this sample to draw any meaningfulconclusions from their help-seeking decisions.

3. Summary and ImplicationsIn this summary we focus on the key findings and their implications as they relate to our original researchquestions. Findings are therefore summarised under the following themes:

. The role of DFV with regards to parental efficacy and empowerment, informal and formal helpseeking

. The role of informal support (family and friends) with regards to parental efficacy andempowerment, informal and formal help seeking

. The role of neighbourhood social support factors with regards to parental efficacy andempowerment, informal and formal help seeking

CulturalIy specific observations with regards to Aboriginal and Torres Strait islander people

3.1 The role of DFV

The role of DFV was of particular interest to us, given its often isolating effect on victims, especially withregards to help seeking (Evans & Feder, 201.6; Meyer, 2012). InterestingIy, DFV plays a very small role inpredicting parental engagement and empowerment in this survey sample. In the overall sample, thepresence of DFV predictslower levels of parental empowerment and efficacy. However, once we controlfor informal support and neighbourhood social support variables, this relationship is no longer significant.This suggests that the effect of DFV on parental efficacy and empowerment can be mediated byprotective factors at the family, friends and community level. Those with strong connections to family,friends and neighbours experience significantly higher parental efficacy and empowerment. In addition,the presence or absence of DFV has no predictive power with regards to parental empowerment andhelp seeking in our Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subsample. While this may partly be due to thenature of this subsample (as alerted to in sections 2.4. I and 2.4.3) it may also suggest that even incommunities and populations exposed to disproportionately high levels of DFV, other individual,informal support and neighbourhood social support factors can act as protective factors to ensure theengagement and help seeking of parents, including those affected by DFV.

The challenge arising here is that a number of studies have highlighted the level of social isolationsuffered by many victims affected by DFV. In some instances perpetrators strategically isolate victimsfrom informal and formal support sources (Meyer, 201.2). In other instances, the shame and self-blameassociated with DFV simply prevents victims from disclosing these experiences (Evans & Feder, 2016).Increasing individual and community awareness and education around DFV, its complex nature and thechallenges associated with help seeking for many victims are therefore crucial factors in strengtheningconnected ness, engagement and help seeking of those affected by DFV (Meyer, 201.2).

The role of informal (family and friends) support3.2

In the context of our overall sample as well as the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subsample,informal family and friends support played a significant role in parents' empowerment and efficacy, helpseeking and engagement with formal parenting services; in many cases above and beyond theexplanations offered by SOCio-demographic variables and individual level risk factors. With regards to

parental efficacy and empowerment, being connected to family and friends mediated the negativeeffect of DFV, along with other individual level variables. Having a special person in one's life along withaccess to quality support by family and friends in general significantlyincreases parents' sense of efficacyand empowerment and their likelihood of seeking informal and to some extent formal support. In thecontext of this sample, this is true for the overall sample as well as the Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander subsample. This finding is important as it clearly points towards the role of family and friends inthe lives of parents, especially those experiencing a number of risk factors. Similar to the implicationsdiscussed around parental empowerment and efficacy, implications point towards the importance ofpublic and community awareness around social support, help seeking and parental risk and protectivefactors to build capacity for parents to become and remain engaged and connected.

3.3 The role of neighbourhood social supportIn our analyses, community social support factors were highly significant across all three outcomevariables. Recent contact with one's neighbours acted as a protective factor across a number of modelsand predicted an increase in parental empowerment and efficacy as well as engagement in formalparental support and education. These findings were observed for the overall sample as well as theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subsample, highlighting the importance of connected ness at theindividual neighbour level across cultural contexts. Given the positive impact observed for regularneighbour connected ness, implications point towards greater capacity building at the community level.It is important for people to understand the value of social connected ness at this level, especially incontemporary society with increasing levels of social disconnected ness and anonymity (10rgensen,Fallov & Knudsen, 201.1). Implications therefore point towards the role of community education,awareness raising and skill building to foster neighbourhood social support and strengthen individualresponses to improve outcomes for parents and their children (Reece, Staudt & Ogle, 201.4).

Cultural Iy specific observations with regards to Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander people

We note some interesting and significant findings regarding the experiences of Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander respondents. A number of similarities were observed between the overall and theAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander subsample. These include the role of individual factors, such asfinancial hardship, in lowering parental efficacy and empowerment. Connected ness to friends, familyand neighbours on the other hand increases parental efficacy and empowerment along with thelikelihood of informal help seeking and formal engagement. Findings observed in the Aboriginal andTorres Strait Islander subsample highlight the role of extended family and neighbourhood levelmeasures as protective factors. Despite the accumulation of risk for many Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander parents, connected ness at the family and community level contributes substantially to greaterparental efficacy and empowerment and encourages help seeking and engagement.

We were also interested in the role of cultural connected ness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander

parents' A number of studies have highlighted the positive effects of cultural connected ness onAboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people's health and wellbeing (Gee at a1,2014; Tsey at a1,20LO).Findings derived from this research support this growing body of literature. For this sample, culturalconnected ness is of significant importance for parental efficacy and empowerment, informal parentalhelp seeking and engagement with formal parenting services. For respondents with a strong sense ofcultural identity and/ or those connected to country and engaging in multiple cultural activities, such as

3.4

fishing, hunting, traditional storytelling, attending cultural or spiritual ceremonies fared significantlybetter across all three outcome variables.

Findings derived from the analysis of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parent subsample pointtowards the role of culturalIy specific education and capacity building at the community level. Illustratingto parents the benefits of connected ness at the general family and friends and community social supportlevel as well as a cultural level can have positive effects on parental help seeking and engagement. Inline with past research recommendations, community education and capacity building must take abottom up approach and be developed and implemented together with the relevant communities inorder to be effective (Cheers at a1,2006).

Appendixl - Sample information for overall sample and AsTI Subsample

Female

ATSl respondentsAe

S eaks En lishTotal number ofchildren

Single arentsFull custody ofchildren

Ed"c"iron

Did not completehi h school

Completed highschool

TAFE/Trade

ualification

Bachelor de co

Post graduateualifications

Em 10 merit

Em 10 ed

Retired/Pension

Home

Duties/Other

Student

Unem 10yedLives in in a'or city

No of Participants

1991

1990

1991

Overall Sample

1991

Mean9. '"

SD

62.48%

25.58%

35-45 years89.39%

2

(116)24.31%

87.39%

1946

1991

1897

327

325

Min

598

338

289

17.42%

1897

1248

82

409

17.31%

Max

31.86%

18.01

15.40

45

113

1991

65+

9

65.79

4.32

21.56

2.37

5.96

57.71%

Female

AgeS eaks En lish

Total number of

children

Sin to arents

Full custod of children

Ed"cairo"

Did not completehi h school

Completed highschool

TAFE Trade

ualification

Universityualifications

Bin 10 meni

Em 10 ed

Retired/Pension

Home

Duties Student Other

Unem 10 ed

Lives in in a'or cit

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Sample

MinMeanVoNo of ParticipantsSD

56.47%510

2535 ears510

88.24%459

510 2.39

(159)41,1900

78,820 o

488

510

410

161

90

104

55

39.27

18-2

425

203

39

1/5

21.95

25.37

Max

68

510

1341

65+

47.76

9.18

27.06

9

16.00

9627

Appendix 2 - Detailed description of variables and analytical techniques

Variables

De endent vonob/es: We examine the influences of parental efficacy and empowerment and seekinginformal and formal parenting assistance. Our first dependent variable is the Porent@IEmc@cy @ridEmpowerment Measure IPEEM). This is a 20 item scale that measures parent functioning, with a focuson caregivers' sense of control or capacity to engage confidently with the challenges of being a parent.This scale has robust psychometric properties in terms of reliability and validity (see Freiburg, Homel,& Branch, 201.4). Based on the current sample, the PEEM scale has high internal reliability (or = 0.94).Our second dependent variable captures informal help seeking and asks participants to agree ordisagree with the statement "I have asked for help or support from friends, family or neighbours" ifthey have asked for help or support from friends, family or neighbours. We recoded the responsecategories for this variable so that strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither agree nor disagree (3),agree (4) and strongly agree (5). Our final dependent variable measures parents' formal help seeking.This is a dichotomous variable where O indicates that parents have never sought support and ,.indicates that parents used a parenting support service or attended a parenting support educationprogram.

Sodo-demo ro hic control vonobles: In all our models we control for a range of SOCio-demographiccharacteristics that may influence reported parental efficacy and parental help seeking (Vuoreenma ata1,201.5). These include:

gender: This is a dichotomous variable where O = female; I = male.

age: This is ordinal variable with age ranges from 1.8-24 (coded as T) to 65+ (coded as 6)treated as a continuous variable in our analyses.

single parent: This is o dichotomous variable where O indicates that the respondent's partnerassists with parenting and I indicates the participant parents alone.

financialh@rdship: This is an ordinal scale of hardship ranging from O - no hardship to 6representing extreme hardship. In our analyses, we treat this as a continuous variable.

Indigenous (Aboriginal and/or Torres Str@it Islander} status: This is a dichotomous variablewhere O represents non indigenous heritage and I indicates an indigenous heritage.

speaks English @t home: This is a dichotomous variable where O = speaks English only and I =speaks a language other than English.

custody: This is a dichotomous variable where full custody = O and other custodyarrangements = I. .

children with disability: This is a dichotomous variable where O = no children with disabilityand I = at least I child with disability.

number of children: We treat this variable as a continuous variable in the analyses using theoverall sample, however, this variable did not respond as a linear variable in our analyses usingthe Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander parental subsample. For our analyses using thissample, we used a categorical variable where I. = I or 2 children, 2 = 3 children, 3 = 4 childrenand 4 = five or more children. One or two children was the reference category.

Education: This is a categorical variable where I = did not complete high school (referencecategory), 2 = completed high school, 3 = has trade certificate or attended TAFE, 4 = Bachelor'sdegree and 5=university qualifications. In our Indigenous analyses, due to small cell sizes, wereduced the response categories to four: I = did riot complete high school (referencecategory), 2 = completed high school, 3 = has trade certificate or attended TAFE, 4 = universityqualifications.

Employment: This is a categorical variable where I = employed (reference category), 2 =retired/pensioner, 3 = home duties 10ther, 4 students and 5 = unemployed. Due to small cellsizes in the Indigenous parental sample, we reduced these categories to four: I = employed(reference category), 2 = retired/pensioner, 3 = home duties/students/other and 4 =unemployed).

Remoteness: This is a categorical variable where I = lives in a major city (reference category),2 = inner regional, 3 = outer regional and 4 = remote.

Inchviduo/ risk octors: Empirical research demonstrates how a number of risk factors influenceparental empowerment, efficacy and help-seeking behaviour (Martorell & Blunt, 2006; Vuoreenma eta1,2015). In our analyses we include the following risk measures:

childhood trauma: This is a dichotomous variable where O indicates no trauma experienced asa child and I indicates the participant did experience trauma as a child),

didgnosed mental illness (a dichotomous variable where O indicates the participant has notbeen diagnosed mental illness and I. indicates the participant has received a diagnosis),

stressfulljfe events (this is an ordinal measure of serious life events ranging from O (no seriouslife events) to 5 (five or more serious life events),

crime (if a respondent was convicted of a crime they were given a score of I if not, they weregiven a score of O),

domestic violence (this is a single item that asks how frequently domestic violence occurs inthe household; treated as a continuous variable in the overall models (with scores rangingfrom I=never and 5=always). Due to small cell sizes in the Indigenous sample, for all theanalyses using the Indigenous parental subsample, we employ a dichotomous variable where Oindicates no domestic violence is present and I indicates domestic violence is present. due tosample size and associated statistical power and as a dichotomous variable for the Indigenoussubsample due to smaller sample size and in order to reflect distribution al properties ofresponses, and

problem drinking (this a categorical variable where I. = participants feel they should cut downon drinking, 2 = do not see their drinking as a problem and 3 = do not drink (this is thereference category)).

difficult to cope with being a porent orc@regiver: This is a categorical variable that asksrespondents to comment how frequently they have struggled with parenting in the last month(I = every day, 2 = several times a week, 3 = once a week, 4 = once a fortnight, 5 = once in the

last month and 6 = never (the reference category)).

Fomil fiend su ort: The degree of support and frequency of contacts with family and friends mightinfluence parental efficacy and empowerment and the willingness of participants to seek parentalsupport (Nachshen & Mirines, 2005; Vuorenmaa at a1,2015). We include three measures of personalsupport in our models. Connections represents a scale of 3 items that asks participants to indicate howmuch contact they have had with family and friends in the last week. The scale demonstrates soundreliability at alpha 0.66. Our next measure is fom"ysupport, which comprises a 1.0 item scale capturingthe availability and quality of family support. This scale is highly reliable at alpha 0.89. Our final scalecomprises 3 items that capture the availability of special peoplein the respondents' lives. This scaleishighly reliable at alpha 0.95.

Nei hbourhood SodolSu ort: A large body research suggests that the local neighbourhood hasconsequences for health, civic actions and victimisation (Mazerolle, Wickes MCBroom, 2010; Sampson,Raudenbush & Earls, 1997; Sampson, MCAdam, Maclndoe & Weffer-Elizond0,2005; Sampson,Morenoff & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). It is also possible that the neighbourhood context may influenceparental efficacy and encourage help-seeking behaviours of parenting related issues. In our study weinclude three variables that capture aspects of the neighbourhood. The first variable is perceivedneighbourhood capacity which is derived from 1.0 items and is strongly reliable at alpha 0.82. We alsoinclude a single item that depicts whether or not participants have visited with neighbours in the lastweek co = did not visit with neighbours and I = visited with neighbours). Finally, in our modelspredicting help-seeking behaviour, we included a scale that captures neighbourhoodp@renting norms.There are 4 items in this scale that ask participants to agree or disagree with statements aboutneighbours' willingness to access and engage with parental support services. This scale is highlyreliable at alpha 0.82.

^!9229: The literature suggests that stigma may strongly influence help-seeking behaviour (Overstreet& Quinn, 201.3). In our models that examine informal and formal help-seeking behaviour, we include ascale of perceived stigma. This measure is a scale of 1.9 items that ask respondents to indicate howothers perceive parents asking for support. This is a highly reliable scale (alpha = 0.97).

Connections to countr : For the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participants, we sought toexamine whether connections to country influence parental empowerment, efficacy, and help-seekingbehaviour. In separate analyses we examine the additional influence of the following variables:identity is a dichotomous measure of whether or not a participant identifies with clan, tribal(traditional family) or language group co = no and ,. = yes); homeland is a dichotomous variable thatasks respondents whether or not they live on their homeland co = no; I. = yes). Finally we include twocontinuous measures to capture the level of engagement with indigenous culture: cultural eventscaptures how many cultural events the participant has engaged in the last 1.2 months. It is adichotomous variable where O = I to 3 events and I. = four or more events (of note was that allparticipants in this sample had attended at least one cultural event in the past 1.2 months. Our culturalactivities reflects the number of cultural activities the participant has engaged in the last 12 months.This is a categorical variable where O = no activities, I = one to three activities, 2 = four to six activitiesand 3 = seven or more activities. No cultural activities is the reference category.

pp ridix 3 -T Ie I. Ordina yl a t quares regression predi ting p r ntalefficacy and empow rin ntModel2 Model 4Model3Modell

B (SE) B (SE)B (SE)B (SE)

Gender

Age

ATSl

English language

Number of children

Full custody

-4578

(1329)-0270

(0637)10/11

(1817)4988

(1944)0125

(0844)-0360

(1971)-11.031

(1638)-3.1 13

(1515)-3003

(0388)

Child with disability

Single parenting

Financial hardship

-5932

(1338)-0786

(0617)9649

(1837)5207

(1882).0123

(0842)0770

(1963)-7776

(1627).2278

(1501)-13/2

(0424)

Level of Education

(reference category is didnot complete high school)

Completed high school

-2290

(1220)-0031

(0556)4,589

(1676)2223

(1696)-0355

(0755)0746

(1759)-8123

(1459)-0160

(1359)-1449

(0381)

Trade certificate

Bachelor degree

Post graduate

-2434

(1190)-0463

(0544)4298

(1637)1774

(1653)-0327

(0737)1302

(1716).8005

(1422).0002

(1325)-1205

(0373)

Employment status (fulltime reference category)

0303

(2055)0002

(1856)-0.40 I

(2123)3632

(2196)

Retired/Pensioner

Home duties other

Student

-0371

(2039)0476

(1834)0276

(2071)40328

(2149)

Unemployed

Residential location (cityis reference category)

-3015

(3196)-460 I

(1602).1402

(3935)-61 16

(2795)

-1084

(1829)0517

(1644)-0812

(1862)2797

(1931)

Inner regional

Outer regional

Remote

-3398

(3160)-2557

(1563)-3540

(3725).4184

(2880)

Experienced childhoodtrauma

'12/1

(1782)0304

(1602)-1454

(1816)1996

(1884)

-1541

(1399)-6568

(2186)0296

(2745)

-2461

(2841)-1132

( I. 404)-2,982

(3349)-3790

(2581)

0833

(1340)5084

(2091)1203

(2624)

-3091

(2770)-1150

(1368)-2709

(3269)-3361

(2515)

-0764

(1201)-3014

(1877)2421

(2354)

.0670

(1290)-1021

(1158)

-0963

(1171)-2829

(1831)3339

(2294)

0-896

(1130)

Diagnosed mental illness

Stressful life events

Convicted of a crime

Frequency of domesticviolence

Problem drinking(reference category is donot drink)

Problem with drinking

No problem with drinking

-0632

(1442)0035

(0404)4224

(2589)-2065

(0910)

Difficult to cope withchild(ren) (referencecategory is never)

Every day

-0192

(1292)-0174

(0363)3827

0.323).1420

(0,818)

Several times a week

Once a week

Once a fortnight

-0830

(1630)0931

(1305)

Once in the last month

0186

(1261)-0062

(354)3906

(2270)-1162

(0799)

Refused to answer

Family/friendconnections

Family support

Has special person in life

-1561

(1462)0939

(1171)

-29,169

(3502)-18,599

(2302)-14,154

(2331)-9950

(2447)-4329

(1983)11/7

(1879)

Neighbourhood parentingnorms

***

Visits with neighbours

Neighbourhood capacity

-2098

(1427)0480

(1143)

***

-19,985

(3.172)-15,484

(2071)-11,658

(2093)-8704/77

2194312

-3827

(1779)0888

(1686)

***

Constant

***

***

*

R' 0105

Number of observations 1775

* = p <0.05 ** = p< 0.01 *** = p<0,001

***

9634

(3094)-15.912

(2021).11,634

(2042)-9000

(2139)'38/9

(1734)0629

(1644)

***

***

160,585

*

5024

(0832)9529

(0859)4344

(0736)

***

169,003

***

3762

(0823)8457

(0845)3721

(0721)2190

(0938)3177

(1062)5941

(1019)

***

***

0206

1667

108,756

0364

1667

89.376

(5364)

.397

667

Appendix 4

Gender

able 2 Ordinary I a t quares regression predi ting informal help seeking behaviouMODEL2MODEL I MODEL 4MODEL 3

B (SE) , B (SE)B (SE)B (SE)

Age

ATSl

English language

Number of children

-0166

(0054)-0056

(0026)0130

(0074)0002

(0078)0054

(0034)-0.164

(0080)0111(0066)

Full custody

Child with disability

Single parenting

**

Financial hardship

*

-0064

(0055)-0057

(0026)-001 I

(0077)-0042

(0078)0057

(0035)-0142

(0082)021 I

(0067)0028

(0062)0018

(0018)

Level of education

(reference category isdid not complete highschool)

P

Completed high school

-0020

(0061)-0.00 I

(0016)

*

0017

(0053)-0036

(0024)-0092

(0074)-0088

(0075)0044

(0034)-0.149

(0078)0162

(0064)0102

(0060)0006

(0017)

Trade certificate

Bachelor degree

P

Post graduate

Employment status(full time ref )

0007

(0053)-0043

(0024)-0084

(0074)-0093

(0074)0044

(0033)-0140

(0078)0.155

(0064)0104

(0059)-0008

(0017)

0081

(0083)0029

(0075)0028

(0086)0086

(0089)

Retired pensioner

P

Home duties other

Student

0117

(0084)0025

(0076)0095

(0086)0097

(0089)

Unemployed

Residential location

(city is the referencecategory)

-0025

(0128)-00 19

(0064)-0008

(0.162)-0141

(0113)

Inner regional

0095

(0081)0028

(0072)0073

(0082)0095

(0086)

Outer regional

Remote

-0099

(0132)-0180

(0064)-0063

(0157)-0090

(0119)

0091

(0080)0025

(0072)0052

(0082)0078

(0085)

-0044

(0056)-0239

(0088)-0231

(0111)

-0104

(0126)-0145

(0062)0011

(0150)-0098

(0114)

-0050

(0055)-0.172

(0087)-0229

(0109)

-0112

(0126)-0147

(0061)0026

(0150)-0089

(0113)

-0048

(0053)-0127

(0083)-0194

(0.104)

-0051

(0053)-0128

(0083)-0176

(0104)

Experienced childhoodtrauma

Diagnosed mentalillness

Stressful life events

Convicted of a crime

Frequency of domesticviolence

Problem drinking(reference category isdo not drink)

Problem with drinking

No problem withdrinking

0068

(0053)0,084

(0059)0042

(0038)-0041

(0107)0042

(0038)

Empowerment scale

Perceptions of stigma

Family/friendconnections

0042

(0051)0092

(0057)0034

(0016)-0009

(0102)0050

(0036)

Family/friend support

Has special person inlife

Neighbourhoodparenting normsVisits with neighbours

0.04 (0067)

0044

(0051)0098

(0056)0036

(0016)-0003

(0102)0048

(0036)

-0030

(0054)

Neighbourhoodcapacity

0009

(0001)-0181

(0031)

-2069Constant

R2 0029

1753N

* = p <0.05 ** = p< 0.01 *** = p<0,001

-0036

(0064)-0032

(0052)

0003

(0001)-0151

(0030)

-0048

(0064)-0040

(0051)

0111(0037) **

**

***

0242

(0040)0239

(0033)

0002

(0001).0121

(0030)

***

-3,355

0109

1646

*

0091

(0037)0225

(0039)0234

(0033)0074

(0042)0025

(0048)0146

(0047)

***

***

***

*

***

-4361

0190

1646

***

***

**

-4875

0201

1646

***

Appendix 5 Table 3. Logisti regre ion models predi ting formal helpek help and I = sought h IP)

MODEL I

OR SE

0508 (0079)1/29 (0079)1172 (0228)0861 (0192)1102 (0097)1/26 (0239)2590 (0397)1147 (0181)1156 (0046)

Gender

AgeATSl

English languageNumber of children

Full custodyChild with disabilitySingle parentingFinancial hardship

Level of education

Completed high schooTrade certificate

Bachelor degreePost graduate

Employment status (fultime ref )Retired pensionerHome duties otherStudent

Unemployed

***

MODEL 2

OR SE

0563 (0095)1133 (0084)1/13 (0240)0814 (0192)1080 (0104)1054 (0241)2,396 (0399)1038 (0176)1149 (0055)

0713 (0171)0988 (0202)1539 (0349)1535 (0361)

Residential information

(city ref )Inner regionalOuter regionalRemote

ekingb havi ur(O did not

**

MODEL 3

OR SE

0583 (0099)1135 (0085)1008 (0221)0769 (0183)1083 (0105)I. 055 (0242)2310 (0387)1027 (0176)1/30 (0055)

0970 (033)1035 (0176)1505 (0554)0570 (0209)

Experienced childhoodtrauma

Diagnosed mental illnessStressful life eventsConvicted of a crime

Frequency of domesticviolence

0779 (0200)0939 (0204)1674 (0401)1573 (0395)

**

MODEL4

OR SE

0569 (0098)1/19 (0084)0989 (0218)0741 (0178)1088 (0,106)1/13 (0256)2253 (0380)1036 (0178(1/30 (0056)

1302 (0197)0836 (0217)0980 (0031)

0811 (0305)I. 012 (0.182)1466 (0548)0523 (0207)

Problem drinking (nodrink ref )Problem with drinkingNo problem withdrinking

0741 (0192)0941 (0205)1592 (0385)15/4 (0383)

***

*

Empowerment scalePerceptions of stigmaFamily friendconnections

Family friend supportHas special person in lifeNeighbourhoodparenting norms

1270 (0199)0755 (0205)10/5 (0323)

0836 (0316)0999 (0.181)1407 (0531)0523 (0208)

0734 (0191)0926 (0203)1551 (0377)1496 (0381)

1/29 (0168)

1393 (0220)1/23 (0052)1831 (0527)1034 (0108)

1279 (0201)0768 (0210)1075 (0343)

0803 (0306)1.00 (0182)1364 (0521)0519 (0208)

1133 (0170)

1158 (0221)1102 (0171)

14/4 (0225)1/24 (0052)18/2 (0522)1044 (0110)

1286 (0204)0765 (0210)1/20 (0.360)

0997 (0003)0571 (0056)

1/22 (0169)

1147 (0221)1141 (0179)

1465 (0234)1/20 (0052)1721 (0.501)1038 (0110)

0993 (0003)0571 (0057)1270 (0143)

1230 (0150)0902 (0090)

1/16 (0216)1138 (0179)

*

***

*

0991 (0003)0589 (0060)1191 (0136)

1179 (0145)0903 (0091)1179 (0152)

Visits with neighboursNeighbourhood capacity

0077Constant

pseudo r2 0067

1775N

* = p <0.05 ** = p< 0.01, *** = p<0.001

0219

0099

1664

* 0164

0106

1664

1,588 (0,236)1021 (0144)

0121

0116

1664

28

Appendix 6 - Ta ble 4 Ord na y least sq uares regression for parental efficacy a rid empowerment scale for Indigenous respondent onlyMODEL I MODEL 4MODEL 3MODEL 2 MODEL 5

OR SEOR SE OR SEOR SE OR SE

-5897 (2962)-5397 (2855) -4019 (2799)-2959 (2828) '70/1 (2830)Gender

Number of children

3 children

4 children

5 or more children

Full custodyFinancial hardshipLevel of education

Completed high schoolTAFE/ Trade certificate

University QualificationsEmployment statusRetired/pensionerHome duties/other/student

UnemployedDiagnosed mental illnessFrequency of domestic violencDifficult to cope with childrenEvery daySeveral times a week

Once a week

Once a fortnightOnce in the last month

Refused to answer

Family/friend connectionsFamily/friend supportHas special person in lifeNeighbourhood parenting normVisits with neighboursNeighbourhood SCTATSl identityHomeland

Cultural events

Cultural activities

I-3 activities

8637 (3667)1469 (4/293819 (4395)-4992 (3172)-3924 (0744)

4881 (3506)-1103 (3400)-1453 (4169)

9502 (3725)0567 (4320)4195 (4649)-4302 (3324)-2384 (0850)

-9,995 (4847)-10,490 (3434)-11,563 (3929)

3,666 (3642)-0967 (3497)1324 (4318)

*

**

**

7679 (3491)-1790 (4092)3658 (4413)-1582 (3134)-2605 (0798)

-8749 (5045)-12,138 (3496)-11,305 (4241)-8908 (3366)-0509 (2831 )

1425 (3444)-0841 (3270)-0171 (4053)

-2923 (7655)-7,625 (5772)-15,229 (5836)-10,172 (5856)-2631 (4975)1626 (4819)

**

**

7486 (3461)-2259 (4035)4034 (4351)-0625 (3097)-2,582 (0786)

-6620 (4766)-10,287 (3296)-9734 (3996)-7319 (3163)1222 (2664)

**

1265 (3391)-1673 (3242)-1469 (4052)

-6249 (7171)-6,625 (5401)-9144 (5523)-8660 (5471)-2816 (4654)0914 (4517)4049 (1861)10/02 (2193)3,253 (1945)

-8565 (4745)-10,061 (3252).9875 (3918)-6,380 (3131)1453 (2637)

6611 (3414)-3230 (3948)2,896 (4261 )-2,033 (3028)-2,925 (0771)

1839 (3340)-2,228 (3205)-2167 (3994)

-7759 (7091)-6951 (5324)-8,453 (5447)-8828 (5385)-1968 (4580)2098 (4461)2332 (1898)9999 (2194)2,362 (1930)3150 (1927)7773 (2776)1729 (2789)

-8,559 (4627)-10,414 (3239)-9483 (3857)-5,848 (3046)0095 (2621)

-10,366 (7227)-9422 (5301)-9,885 (5405)-9626 (5322)-4145 (4,557)-0353 (4482)2,345 (1886)9,665 (2156)1625 (1905)2925 (1883)7033 (2740)1059 (2735)-0561 (3132)6531 (2632)-2791 (2997)

1645 (3096)

4-6 activities

7 or more activities

Constant

R2N

* = p <0.05 ** = p< 0.01, *** = p<0,001

1721/4 (3752)0136

378

174,723 (5582)01792

349

117,541 (9868)0293

348

104,542 (12,083)0324

348

8927 (4264)21,38395.803)

111,988 (11,834)03755

348

Appendix 7 Table

GenderNumber of children

3 children

4 children

5 or more children

Full custodyFinancial hardshipEmpowerment ScaleDifficult to cope with childrenEvery daySeveral times a week

Once a week

Once a fortnightOnce in the last month

Refused to answer

Family/friend connectionsFamily/friend supportHas special person in lifeNeighbourhood parenting normVisits with neighboursNeighbourhood SCTATSl identityCultural events

Cultural activities

I-3 activities

4-6 activities

7 or more activities

Constant

R2N

Ordinary least quares regress on or seeking Inf rinal parental up portMODEL 3MODEL 2MODEL I

B SEB SE B SE

-0045 (0074)-0103 (0075) -0007 (0071)

0207 (0103)0247 (0118)0329 (0119)-0324 (0091)0034 (0020)

*

*

**

0136 (0102)0225 (0116)0280 (0. I I6)-0297 (0090)0035 (0021)0006 (0001)

***

p 005, ** p 0.01 ***

0432 (0200)0389 (0156)0241 (0160)0404 (0169)0219 (0140)0063 (0132)

0167 (0098)0177 (0111)0264 (0112)-0257 (0087)0026 (0020)0002 (0001)

MODEL 4

B SE

-0008 (0072)

3704 (0071)00661

500

0,326 (0192)0,355 (0149)0280 (0153)0361 (0.162)0177 (0134)0013 (0126)0080 (0050)0229 (0059)0207 (0052)

P 0001

0145 (0098)0175 (0111)0277 (0. I 12)-0266 (0087)0027 (0020)0002 (0.00 I)

*** 2593 (0259)01230

500

MODEL 5

B SE

-0052 (0073)

0315 (0192)0384 (0149)0317 (0.154)0379 (0162)0200 (0.134)0052 (0127)0063 (0050)0243 (0059)0200 (0053)0124 (0052)-0034 (006)-0017 (0074)

*

0145 (0097)0216 (0. I I0)0,252 (0111)-0246 (0087)0021 (0020)0002 (0001)

**

***

***

1,525 (0291)0207

499

0288 (0193)0320 (0150)0274 (0152)0341 (0161)0126 (0134)0004 (0.128)0046 (0051 )0241 (0059)0185 (0053)O. I 19 (0051)-0078 (0076)-0017 (0073)0273 (0086)0124 (0084)

**

*

**

***

***

*

1250 (0332)0217

499

***

0085 (0084)-0055 (0120)-0158 (0161)

1246 (0334)0247

498

**

*

Appendix 8 - Table 6. Bivariate a nalysis predicting formal parental help seeking

Gender co =Female/ I = Mule)Disabled Child (0= NO I I =yes, IEducation (Did noi coinp/e/e reference category)Completed High SchoolTrade/TAFE Certificate

University QualificationsEmployment (Employed reference category)Retired/ Pension

Home duties/ Student/ Other

UnemployedChildhood trauma co= No/ I= yes)Empowennent ScoreVisit with neighbours (0= No/I=yes)Neighbourhood capacityATSI IdentityCultural Activity (IVo oc!tvity reference coregory)I -3 activities

4-7 activities

7 or more activities

B SE

0,515 (0,130)2,307 (0,700)

0,463 (0.197)0,928 (0,313)3,414 (1,173)

**

I. 020 (0442)0,935 (0275)0,382 (0,177)1,748 (0,454)1,010 (0,005)2,426 (0673)1,578 (0,346)2.81 0 (0,955)

**

pseudo r20,016

0,015

0,058

N

510

510

410

*

0,139

1,872 (0565)3,533 (1,223)0,230 (0,240

*

*

**

*

0,012

0,011

0,024

0,010

0,024

0,046

425

**

*

** *

4/9

510510

510

509

509

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (201.3a). Estimates of Aboriginal and Torres Strait IslanderAustralians, June 201.1,3238.0.55.001, retrieved from:htt : WWW. abs. ov. au ausstats abs .nsf inf 3238.0.55.001

Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) (2013b). Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander HealthSurvey: First Results, Australia, 201.2-13,4727.0.55.001, retrievedfrom: htt : WWW. abs. ov. au ausstats abs .nsf Looku 9F3C9BDE98B3C5F, .CA257C2F001.45721?o

endocument

Australian Human Rights Commission (AHRC) (2008). A statistical overview of Aboriginal and TorresStrait islander peoples in Australia: Social Justice Report 2008, AHRC. Retrieved from:htt s: WWW. humanri hts. ov. au ublications statistical-overview-abori in al-and-torres-strait-

islander- eo Ies-australia-social Australian Indigenous HealthlnfoNet (2015) Summory D/AustrolionInchgenous he @1th, 2014. Retrieved Iaccess datel from htt : WWW. healthinfonet. ecu. edu. au health-facts summar

Bellis, M. A. , Lowey, H. , Leckenby, N. , Hughes, K. , & Harrison, D. (2014). Adverse childhoodexperiences: retrospective study to determine their impact on adult health behaviours and healthoutcomes in a UK population. Journal Of Pubfic He @1th, 36(,.), 81-91.

Cheers, B. , Binell, M. , Coleman, H. , Gentle, I. , Miller, G. , Taylor, I. and Weetra, C. (2006). Familyviolence: An Australian Indigenous community tells its story, InternotionolSociolWork, 49 (1), 51-63.

Dempsey I. & Dunst C. J. (2004). Help-giving styles as a function of parent empowerment in familieswith a young child with a disability, Joumol of Inte"ectuol grid Developmento10isobility, 29(,.), 50-61. .

Evans, M. A. , & Feder, G. S. (2016). Help-seeking amongst women survivors of domestic violence: aqualitative study of pathways towards formal and informal support. He @1th Expectotions, 19(I), 62-73.

Featherstone, B. & Peckover, S. (2007). Letting them get away with it: Fathers, domestic violence andchild welfare, CriticolSodol Policy, 27(2), 181-202.

Gee, G. , Dudgeon, P. , Schultz, C. , Hart, A. , & Kelly, K. (2014). Aboriginal and for res Strait Islander socialand emotional wellbeing. In P. Dudgeon, H. Milroy, & R. Walker (Eds. ), Working together:Abortginolond Torres Stroit Ismnder meritolheolth ond wellbeing prindples ond proofice (pp. 55^8). Canberra:Commonwealth of Australia.

Hill, N. (2006). Disentangling ethnicity, SOCioeconomic status and parenting: Interactions, influencesand meaning. Vulneroble Children & Youth Studies, I(I), 114-124.

IPsos Social Research (2016) ToIking Fomifies Bosefine Coinpoign Bosefine Ruseorch: Detoiled Findingsond Technicol Report. Retrieved from htt

Jorgensen, A. , Fallov, M. A. & Knudsen, L. B. (2011). Global community, mobility and belonging, DonishJoumolof Geoinformotic ond Lond Monogement, 46, ,.,. 9, doi:htt : dx. doi. or 10,5278 OS. tka. v1.1.9i46.590.

Levendosky, A. A. & Graham-Berman, S. A. (2001). Parenting in battered women: The effects ofdomestic violence on women and their children, Joumol of Fomily Viblence, 1.6(2), 171-,. 92.

Martorell, G. A. , & Daphne Blunt, B. (2006). Maternal Variations in Stress Reactivity: Implications forHarsh Parenting Practices With Very Young Children. IOUmol of Fomily Psychology, 20(4), 641.

WWW fcc. Id. ov. au

Mazerolle, L. , Wickes, R. , & MCBroom, I. (2010). Community variations in violence: The role of socialties and collective efficacy in comparative context. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,47(,.), 3-30.

Meyer, S. (2012). Why women stay: a theoretical examination of rational choice and moral reasoningin the context of intimate partner violence, AUStrolion ond New ZeolondJoumol of Criminology, 45(2):1.79-193.

Mirines, P. , Perry, A. , & Weiss, I. A. (20, .5). Predictors of distress and well-being in parents of youngchildren with developmental delays and disabilities: the importance of parent perceptions. Joumol OfIntellectuolDisobil^ty Reseorch, 59(6), SSL-560.

Morris, K. (2013). Troubled families: vulnerable families' experiences of multiple service use. Child &Family Social Work, 1.8: 198-206.

Nachshen, J. S. , & Mirines, P. (2005). Empowerment in parents of school-aged children with andwithout developmental disabilities. Joumol of IntellectuolDisobi/^ty Reseorch, 49(L2), 889-904.

Over street, N. M. , & Quinn, D. M. (2013). The Intimate Partner Violence Stigmatization Model andBarriers to Help Seeking. BOSic & Applied SOCiol Psychology, 35(L), 009-122.

Paula, S. N. , Gree, S. , Logan-Greene, P. and Bona, S. (2015). Life course pathways of adverse childhoodexperiences towards adult psychological well-being: A stress process analysis, Child Abuse & Neglect,45, ,. 43-1.53.

Phillips & Vandenbroek (2014). Domestic, fomily ondsexuolvio/encein AUStrolio: on overview of theissues, Parliamentary Library Research Paper. Retrieved from:

htt

eT

Platt, D. (2012). Understanding parental engagement with child welfare services: an integrated model.Child & Fomily SOCiol Work, 17(2), ,. 38-148.

Ragusa, A. T. (2013). Rural Australian Women's Legal Help Seeking for Intimate Partner Violence:Women Intimate Partner Violence Victim Survivors' Perceptions of Criminal Justice Support Services.

Joumol Of Internersonol Violence, 28(4), 685-717.

Reece, C. , Staudt, M. , & Ogle, A. (2013). Lessons learned from a neighborhood-based collaboration toincrease parent engagement. School Community Joum01,23(2), 207-225.

Sampson, R. J. , Raudenbush, S. W. , & Earls, F. (L997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevelstudy of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 9L8-924.

Sampson, R. , MCAdam, D. , Maclndoe, H. , & Weffer-Elizondo, S. (2005). Civil Society Reconsidered: TheDurable Nature and Community Structure of Collective Civic Action. Amencon Joumol of

Sociology, 1/1(3), 673-71.4.

Sampson, R. , Morenoff, I. , & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing "Neighborhood Effects": SocialProcesses and New Directions in Research. Annuo/ Review of Sodology, 28,443-478.

Titbury, C. (2009). The ovenrepresentation of indigenous children in the Australian child welfaresystem, Internotionolloumol of SOCiol Work, 18(I), 57-64.

arlinfo. a h. ovau arllnfo download librar

e=a Iication df

rs ub 3447585 u load binar 3447585. df. fit

Tsey, K. , Whiteside, M. , Haswell-Elkins, M. , Bainbridge, R. , CadetJames, Y. , & Wilson, A. (2010).Empowerment and Indigenous Australian health: a synthesis of findings from Family Wellbeingformative research. He@1th & SOCiol Core In The Community, 18(2), 169-179.

Vuorenmaa, M. , Perala, M. L. , Halme, N. , Kaunonen, M. , & Astedt-Kurki, P. (20.5). Associationsbetween family characteristics and parental empowerment in the family, family service situations andthe family service system. Child: Core, He @1th ond Development. doi: 10,111, ./cch. 12267