An outcomes framework for Child Youth and Family

Pathfinder Workshop 5

17 April 2002

The selection of specific objectives and related outcome indicators is not a neutral technical exercise, but reflects fundamental views about the objectives of child welfare (Fallon and Trocme, 1998)

New Directions

• Follow-on from Mick Brown report• 3 key goals

– to become a joined-up agency that is outcomes-focused, strengths-based and client-centred

– build allicances with communities– take a regional approach to the delivery

of services• 8 projects which have outcomes-related

thinking included within them

The Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989• To advance the well-being of

families and the well-being of children and young people as members of families, whanau, hapu, iwi and family groups

Key principles

• that families and whanau should participate in decisions regarding their CYP, and that their views should be taken into account

• that the relationship between a CYP and their family/whanau should be maintained and strengthened

• that decisions should take into account the welfare of the CYP and the stability of their family/whanau

CYF overview

• Information to promote public awareness of and prevent child abuse and neglect

• Statutory care and protection and youth justice services to children, young people and their families

• The development and funding of community services

• Adoption services

Activity Overview

• 26,000 notifications of abuse and neglect

• 22,000 investigations• provide (post-Court and post-FGC)

social work services to more than 6,000 C&P and 1,200 YJ clients

• work with more than 900 community service providers

International research

• Research literature from 1970s, drawing on a range of disciplines

• Associated with change in social work practice

Complexity

• Long-term vs short-term outcomes• Tensions between:

– supporting families and ensuring child safety

– child protection and emotional well-being

– supporting families and ensuring community safety

– restorative justice vs accountability for offending

“The greatest challenge in developing an outcomes framework in child welfare is finding a framework that integrates and balances the principles of child protection, child well-being and child and family support” (Trocme, MacLaurin and Fallon, 1998)

Outcome domains

• Wellbeing• Safety• Family Functioning• Cultural and Spiritual identity• Permanence and stability• Client satisfaction

International comparisons

• Canada - Federal Client Outcomes in Child Welfare Project– Child safety– Child Functioning– Permanence and continuity of

care– Family and Community support

International comparisons

• Britain - (Farmer, 1997)– Child Protection– Child physical, emotional and

intellectual development– Family functioning

International comparisons

• Kansas State Government– Protection (safety)– Permanency– Child well-being– Client satisfaction

International comparisons

• US - American Humane Association– Safety– Permanence– Improvements in functioning and

well-being

Child, Youth and Family Youth Justice Strategy Goal

Reduce the Rate and Severity of Child and Youth Re-offending

Reduce the Rate and Severity of Child and Youth Re-offending (low risk)

• Child and youth offenders are held accountable for their offending

• Victims are satisfied that a restorative justice process has occurred

• Child and youth offenders do not progress to the more formal part of the youth justice system

• Families/whanau are able to deal with offending by their own children and young people

Success Criteria (low risk)

• Child and youth offenders do not re-offend

• Plans reflects the level of offending, and tasks are completed in a timely manner

• Victims express their satisfaction with the process

• Families/whanau are able to identify how they will manage their children and young people

Performance Measures

• Plans clearly identify sanctions for offending

• No referrals are received by Child, Youth and Family for a youth justice FGC

• Families/whanau are advised of the supports that are available to assist them

• Regular surveys of victims are carried out

Reduce the Rate and Severity of Child and Youth Re-offending (med

risk)

• Child and youth offenders are held accountable for their offending

• Victims are satisfied that a restorative justice process has occurred

• Child and youth offenders do not appear in the Youth Court

• Families/whanau are able to deal with offending by their own children and young people

Success Criteria (med risk)

• The rate and severity of re-offending ceases or is reduced

• Plans reflect the level of offending, and tasks are completed in a timely manner

• Plan content reflects rehabilitation aspects as required

• Victims express their satisfaction with the process• Families/whanau are able to identify how they will

manage their children and young people

Performance Measures (med risk)

• Plans clearly identify sanctions for offending

• Referral for other FGCs are for offences of a less serious nature or repeat offending is less regular

• No referrals for a Court Directed FGC are received by Child, Youth and Family

• Families/whanau are advised of the supports that are available to assist them

• Regular surveys of victims are carried out