Chapter 6 Value for money outcomes of FRCs · PDF fileChapter 6 Value for money outcomes of...

The Allen Consulting Group 1

Chapter 6

Value for money outcomes of FRCs

This chapter examines the value for money outcomes of FRCs, drawing on sources including cost and activity data, business processes, client outcomes and court filing rate trends.

6.1 The value for money framework

Introduction of FRCs represented a significant financial investment by the Commonwealth, attracting over 50 per cent of funds allocated to the 2006 family law reforms ($75.9 million in 2012/13). As reported by the Auditor General:

Given the prominence of FRCs to the success of these broader reforms, effective performance measurement, monitoring and reporting on the FRC initiative is important.

Auditor General, 2011

However, the Auditor General found a range of variations, including between funding and client levels across FRCs that provided barriers to assessing whether individual FRCs were providing value for money. Further impediments were identified, including differences in the proportions of unregistered service users across organisations, creating concerns about data reliability, risks that service users are using services repeatedly and a shortage of information for FRCs with high proportions of unregistered service users. As such, a recommendation was made to:

undertake an assessment of the quality and integrity of cost and client data being provided by FRCs and use this information to inform an analysis of the value for money outcomes being delivered.

Auditor General, 2011

Adequacy of data and limitations on value for money analysis

Assessment of value for money in this chapter is subject to the same impediments identified by the Auditor General. The place-based case study process reaffirmed the challenges associated with current system wide data collection and performance measures to inform a value for money analysis. In addition there was concern expressed by FRCs that reliance on the FSP Data System alone did not allow for sufficient contextual examination of performance and value.

Other data collection and performance measure issues identified or confirmed through the place-based case study process include the following:

• variation in the recording of unregistered client attendances, and at times very high levels of unregistered service users (up to 48 per cent of total service users);

• possible under reporting of client characteristics or features, including employment status or CALD characteristics;

• inadequate recognition in the data on early intervention and community development activities;

• inadequate recognition in the data on issues or delays associated with FRC (FDR) efforts to engage successfully with the other party;


• limitations in current data capture for mediation outcomes, including practitioner input errors and instances where service users may be transferred between programs (for example, where FRC and RFDR services are co-located); and

• unsuccessful transmission of data between FRC case management systems and the FSP Data System and system changes that have created large variations in recorded data from year to year at some FRCs.

The Auditor General used the amount of recurrent funding per registered client as a proxy measure for value for money. However, in their response to the Auditor General’s report, FaHCSIA noted that there are factors other than lowest absolute or unit cost that determined the selection of FSP providers, and that value for money should go beyond a simple unit cost measure.

Components of the value for money framework

The approach taken in the research in assessing value for money recognises the inherent limitations to the data, and the need to look beyond cost of services to broader measures of how resources and inputs are successfully transformed into valued outcomes, which, in the case of FSP family law services can be broad ranging. For example, in a report by AIFS (Rush et al 2013 p.4) linkages between family and relationship services and a range of social and economic benefits are identified, including social and economic participation, improved productivity, greater social cohesion, reduced health spending, reduced delinquency and crime. These benefits were also recognised by Professor Parkinson:

The long-term benefits to children of a reduction in parental conflict over parenting arrangements, greater levels of father-child involvement, and the role the FRCs play in facilitating access to services that will prevent family breakdown, are all much harder to measure; but they are far from insignificant.

Parkinson 2013

Recognising the dynamic and wide ranging social costs and benefits associated with FRCs, a range of measures are employed by the research to examine value for money, drawing on qualitative and quantitative inputs to enable triangulation of information and enhance robustness of findings. These include:

• the costs associated with FRCs;

• examination of good practices in business processes;

• perspectives of service users gathered through the service user survey as well as client experiences gathered through the case study process; and

• trends in relation to court filing rates and parenting agreement outcomes.

6.2 FRC locations, activities and costs

A total of 33 organisations around Australia are funded under the FSP to provide FRC services. Between them, these organisations deliver services through 166 FRC service outlets, including a total of 71 services provided through outreach service outlets. As presented by the service map in Figure 5.1 below, the majority of services are concentrated around Australia’s major populations centres, with high service concentration across the eastern seaboard. Significant gaps exist across sparsely populated regions of the Northern Territory, Western Australia and the western part of Queensland.


Figure 6.1 FRC SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH SERVICE OUTLET LOCATIONS

Source: FOFMS data 2012/13

In 2011/12, FRCs received approximately $75.9 million total funding, which represented 50 per cent of funding for FSP family law services. As shown in Table 5.1, total funding levels were highest in New South Wales, followed by Victoria and Queensland. Total funding increased from $70 million in 2008/9 to $74.7 million in 2009/10, and has remained relatively constant since that time.

As presented in section 3.2, total activity trends for FRCs show activity levels peaking at 38,679 in 2009/10, falling to 33,518 in 2011/12. Linkages between these activity volumes and funding levels are not clear. Some feedback from service providers during the place-based case study process suggests that declines in activity volumes may, in part, be due to reporting rather than service changes. Activity levels may also be related to trends in the number of divorces, which peaked in 2009/10 (see Figure 5.2).


Table 6.1 FUNDING FOR FRCS BY STATE AND TERRITORY, 2008/09 TO 2011/12

State/ territory

FRC funding from AGD

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/121

ACT $1,191,384 $1,278,475 $1,296,373 $1,292,043

NSW $21,905,563 $23,506,860 $23,835,956 $24,042,084

NT $1,482,982 $1,591,388 $1,613,668 $1,608,278

QLD $14,725,898 $15,802,854 $16,024,094 $15,970,573

SA $5,298,509 $5,661,900 $5,741,167 $6,007,732

TAS $1,894,878 $2,033,394 $2,061,862 $2,054,975

VIC $15,799,169 $16,554,088 $17,191,446 $16,562,545

WA $7,721,979 $8,234,196 $7,886,318 $8,321,587

Total $70,020,364 $74,663,155 $75,650,882 $75,859,818 1 Funding agreements covering service delivery jointly in NSW, SA and VIC were split evenly between the relevant jurisdictions. Relationships

Australia Canberra & Region funding agreement for outreach, Goulburn and Murrumbidgee is reported in funding for ACT.

Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on funding data provided by FaHCSIA

Table 5.2 below sets out cost per activity for FRC, providing an indication of how much each service costs and how this is changing over time. The data shows a trend towards increasing costs per activity from 2009/10 to 2011/12, which may be influenced by the downward trend in service volumes since 2009/10. In 2011/12, average cost per activity ranged from $1,705 in South Australia to $3,598 in the Northern Territory, with a national average of $2,225. However, due to the data limitations discussed above, including inconsistencies in recording of activity information in the FSP Data System, this information should be interpreted with caution.

Table 6.2 ESTIMATED COST PER ACTIVITY FOR FRCS BY STATE AND TERRITORY, 2008/09 TO 2011/12

State/ territory

Estimated cost per activity for FRCs

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/121

ACT $1,156.68 $1,065.40 $1,484.96 $2,442.43

NSW $2,020.06 $1,937.75 $2,582.16 $2,469.15

NT $3,108.98 $3,576.15 $10,278.14 $3,597.94

QLD $1,678.55 $1,799.87 $1,897.91 $2,199.20

SA $2,415.00 $1,904.44 $1,623.17 $1,705.29

TAS $1,289.91 $1,492.95 $1,854.19 $1,771.53

VIC $1,891.66 $1,863.36 $1,959.59 $2,093.34

WA $1,870.63 $1,814.10 $1,986.98 $2,307.07

National $1,880.25 $1,853.47 $2,098.09 $2,224.89 1 Cost per activity is calculated by dividing the amount of funding for FRC services as per the funding agreements by the number of FRC

activities undertaken in each state/territory according to the FSP Data System. Funding agreements covering service delivery jointly in NSW, SA and VIC were split evenly between the relevant jurisdictions. Relationships Australia Canberra & Region funding agreement for outreach, Goulburn and Murrumbidgee is reported in funding for ACT.

Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on funding data from FOFMS and FSP Data System data


Interpretation of this information also needs to recognise that each ‘activity’ reported by FRCs can involve a number of instances of client contact or ‘sessions.’ The case study process showed that FRCs can have very different service delivery models in place, and, in addition to traditional FDR services, may offer additional information and/or counselling at varying levels of intensity as part of their service delivery model. At place-based case study locations, average sessions per activity in 2011/12 ranged from 1.8 to 7.5, illustrating the different models in place. Table 5.3 provides an indication of the average cost for each session within an activity, to be read in conjunction with Table 5.2.

Table 6.3 ESTIMATED COST PER SESSION AND SESSIONS PER ACTIVITY FOR FRCS BY STATE AND TERRITORY, 2008/09 TO 2011/12

State/ territory

Estimated cost per FRC session and number of sessions per activity

2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/121

Average cost per session

Sessions per activity


Sessions per

activity





ACT $363.56 3.18 $406.25 2.62 $727.07 2.04 $928.19 2.63

NSW $561.87 3.60 $573.20 3.38 $761.73 3.39 $788.89 3.13

NT $1,514.79 2.05 $2,022.09 1.77 $5,188.64 1.98 $1,493.29 2.41

QLD $507.56 3.31 $486.33 3.70 $460.33 4.12 $535.31 4.11

SA $544.67 4.43 $396.99 4.80 $405.65 4.00 $356.67 4.78

TAS $351.16 3.67 $406.84 3.67 $586.09 3.16 $554.50 3.19

VIC $524.02 3.61 $519.07 3.59 $541.68 3.62 $592.13 3.54

WA $602.24 3.11 $594.91 3.05 $814.53 2.44 $795.87 2.90

National $537.16 3.50 $524.21 3.54 $594.34 3.53 $623.05 3.57 1Cost per session is calculated by dividing the amount of funding for FRC services as per the funding agreements by the number of FRC sessions undertaken in each state/territory according to the FSP Data System. Funding agreements covering service delivery jointly in NSW, SA and VIC were split evenly between the relevant jurisdictions. Relationships Australia Canberra & Region funding agreement for outreach, Goulburn and Murrumbidgee is reported in funding for ACT.

Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on funding data from FOFMS and FSP Data System data

While it is noted that cost per FDR activity provided by other FSP family law services (ie outside of FRCs) was around $1,550 in 2010/11, comparisons should be undertaken with caution, recognising that there are differences between what each service offers. For example, the service delivery model in place at FRCs can involve more intensive assistance than provided by other FDR services and cost per FRC activity can also include the cost of additional services such as information and advice.


6.3 Evidence of good practice in business processes

Consultation with FRC senior staff and management at case study locations demonstrated a focus on delivering an efficient service. Measures adopted by FRCs to improve efficiency of service delivery principally revolved around efforts to streamline administrative and practice procedures. These measures are informed by holistic approaches to service delivery that have been enabled through co-location and integration of FRCs with other FSP and family support services.

Co-location of FRCs with related services are seen as particularly important to fostering both formal and informal networks and service referral pathways between services. The existence of these networks across services enabled the provision of a more efficient and effective response for service users.

Service delivery models — place-based case study FRCs

Senior staff from FRCs acknowledged the scope that agencies were given at the establishment of the FRC to design and customise service delivery approaches appropriate to their local community and identified need. Accordingly, there were variations to service delivery models across each of the FRCs visited. Examples of unique interventions and services included:

• practice models developed specifically for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and CALD populations;

• provision of early intervention services and parenting programs to engage local communities and populations (such as CALD or rurally isolated service users) and strengthen parental capacity;

• options for legally assisted FDR (dependent on relationships with various local community legal centres);

• case management approaches to enable more holistic service responses broader than just FDR; and

• piloting of screening, assessment and referral tools at intake.

There is a consistent view among senior FRC staff and executives that, despite the relatively recent establishment of the FRC service platform, there remains an ongoing service gap for very complex families impacted by the presence of multiple risk factors including family violence, drug and alcohol abuse, mental health and/or child welfare issues. While the FRC service system is delivering good outcomes for service users who possess a certain level of functionality, it continues to be challenged by service users who are experiencing entrenched disadvantage.

Waiting times

High waiting times can have significant impacts on service users of FSP family law services. Stress, impacts of delays in seeing children, and deterioration in communication between the parties are all potential costs of the FDR process that should be considered in a holistic assessment of value for money. Waiting times can also involve other system costs. During consultation as part of the research, the Family Court of Western Australia noted that ‘waiting times at FRCs are an issue...it would be much better and cheaper to see somebody quickly without lawyers and filing fees.’


Twenty eight per cent of respondents to the service user telephone survey indicated that they had to wait, and waiting impacted on the issue they were dealing with at the service. In qualitative feedback, some respondents indicated significant consequences of waiting (see Box 5.1).

Box 6.1 SERVICE USER VIEWS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF SERVICE WAITING TIMES

Miss the golden time to resolve the issue. Extended loss of parental access, lawyer fees increased, chances of reconciliation were almost lost and bad communication with the other party. My ex-husband, who was abusive, became increasingly angry at the waiting time. I needed mediation straight away to do things in order to get to court for the safety of my children, but we had to do the introduction for the kids first...took so long and really impacted the kids in seeing their father. The issue became more intensive, longer and harder to sort through.

Source: Service user survey, Attachment C

Table 5.4 below sets out average waiting time between intake and second session for FRCs in each state and territory. Average waiting times are highest in the Australian Capital Territory at an average of 69 days and lowest in Tasmania at an average of 39 days. Although these waiting times, at a national average of 47 days or close to seven weeks, are significant, discussions about waiting times at place-based case study locations suggests that they are often a reflection of the process involved in FDR, including time taken to engage the other party. Waiting time data by geographic location shows highest average waiting times from intake to second session for FRCs located in metropolitan regions (49 days) and lowest waiting times in remote regions (33 days).

Table 6.4 AVERAGE WAITING TIME IN DAYS FROM INTAKE TO SECOND SESSION FOR FRCS BY STATE AND TERRITORY, 2007/08 TO 2011/12

State/territory FRCs average waiting time in days from intake to second session

2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

ACT 63.35 65.50 54.93 45.96 69.57

NSW 56.63 55.78 46.27 41.31 51.27

NT 89.00 N/A N/A 49.96 49.35

QLD 62.27 46.89 43.76 36.24 48.85

SA 31.12 31.83 39.06 44.18 45.55

TAS 29.54 43.00 22.37 29.77 39.29

VIC 55.79 54.25 46.58 41.59 39.79

WA 46.00 45.06 67.27 46.56 53.82

National 53.58 50.26 47.11 40.69 47.42

Note: Activities undertaken during a session may vary across FRCs, according to service delivery model.


Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on data from the FSP Data System

6.4 Effectiveness of FRCs in assisting disadvantaged families and reducing the need for court applications

Court filing rates

The AIFS evaluation of the family law reforms (Kaspiew et al 2009, p.305) found that overall applications for final orders in children’s matters declined 22 per cent from 2005/06 to 2008/9. This decline was due to a dramatic drop in total court applications for matters involving children from 18,880 in 2006/07 to 13,927 in 2007/08, a decline of around 26 per cent. Between 2007/08 and 2008/09 court applications increased by around 4 per cent. AIFS explains these changes as:

The main explanation is the introduction of the requirement for parents to attend FDR before filing a court application except in certain circumstances (operation of s60I), as well as some shifts in these issues being seen primarily as relationship problems rather legal ones and the increasing availability of relationship services.

Kaspiew et al 2009, p.305

Since the initial drop in filing rates (which corresponded to introduction of the requirement to attend FDR prior to filing a court application) there is little evidence of any further reductions. Between 2007/08 and 2009/10 total Family Court, Federal Circuit Court and Federal Court of Western Australia filings steadily increased, dropping off slightly in 2010/11. Comparison of overall filing rates for matters involving children with the number of divorces involving children suggests a close relationship between court filing rates and the number of divorces involving children (see Figure 5.2). A trend, noted in the AIFS evaluation (Kaspiew et al 2005, p.2005), towards reduced filings in the Family Court and increased filings in the Federal Circuit Court also continued.

Figure 6.2 DIVORCES INVOLVING CHILDREN AND FINAL ORDERS APPLICATIONS TO THE COURTS FOR PARENTING, AND PARENTING AND FINANCIAL MATTERS, 2007/08 TO 2010/11

Sources: Family Court of Australia, Federal circuit, and Family Court of Western Australia (FCoWA) Annual Reports, in addition to administrative data provided by the Family Court of Australia, and ABS Marriages and divorces, Australia, 2008 and 2011 (Cat: 3310.0)


However, a holistic assessment of value for money should recognise that this is only one measure. Another limitation with reliance on court filing rates is recognition that some disputes are appropriately resolved in court. While there is no clarity over precisely where the ‘saturation’ point sits, some stakeholder feedback does suggest that reducing the volume of court applications may not be appropriate:

My sense is that most disputes that can be settled are being settled outside the court system and the ones that are coming are the really toxic ones.

Federal Circuit Court Judge, research consultation

The use of filing rates as a measure of effectiveness, including stakeholder feedback on this issue, is discussed further in Chapter 7.

Parenting agreement outcomes

The rate of parenting agreements is one measure that can be used to consider a FRC’s effectiveness in assisting separating families make decisions about their children outside of the legal system. Analysis of FSP Data System information shows that, in 2011/12 where both parties attended family dispute resolution conferences, full agreement was reached for 4,938 cases, or 52 per cent of the total. Partial agreement was reached for a further 2,644 cases (28 per cent) (see Table 5.5). These rates of agreement are broadly comparable to the overall agreement rates for FSP family law services presented in Chapter 3. A significant amount of section 60I certificates were also issued by FRCs for a failure to attend (4,677) or because the matter was deemed inappropriate for mediation (3,321).

Table 6.5 FRC PARENTING AGREEMENT OUTCOMES WHERE BOTH PARTIES ATTENDED FDR, 2011/12

Outcome Number and proportion of outcomes

Number Percentage

Deferred/referred 149 2%

Full agreement 4,938 52%

No agreement 1,828 19%

Partial agreement 2,644 28%

Source: The Allen Consulting group, based on FSP Data System

As part of the case study method, data on parenting agreement outcomes was collected from the FSP Data System for each of the FRCs. In most instances FRCs experienced a peak in the numbers of parenting agreements reached in the first years of operation. Subsequent years then see a plateauing of full and partial agreement outcomes reached. However, this data should be interpreted with caution. Feedback from the place-based case studies suggested that recording of parenting agreement data has been affected by data entry error.


The issuing of section 60I certificates was another measure explored in the value for money section of the place-based case studies, with the numbers of certificates being issued for matters deemed not appropriate for mediation a possible indicator of the quality and effectiveness of intake and assessment measures. When presented with this data, some FRCs cited other drivers affecting parenting agreement outcomes and issuing of certificates. These included impacts associated with changed FRC funding and staffing and the quality and effectiveness of early intervention and other services delivered either by or alongside the FRC FDR service.

Services to vulnerable and disadvantaged groups

Comparison of the location of FRC service users under the SEIFA Index to the location of FDR and TODRS service users shows that FRCs are delivering a higher proportion of services to individuals located in areas of high socio-economic disadvantage under the SEIFA Index (see Figure 5.3). This suggests that FRCs may be more effective at reaching disadvantaged groups that other dispute resolution services provided through FSP family law services.

Figure 6.3 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX FOR FRC, FDR AND TODRS, 2011/12

Note: Service users considered include only registered service users who provided postcode information.

Proportions constructed by matching client postcode information with the SEIFA percentile rank for each postcode. SEIFA data is the decile of relative socio-economic disadvantage by postcode, as per the 2011 Census, where decile 1 is the most disadvantaged, decile 10 is the least disadvantaged.

Sources: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on the FSP Data System and the ABS Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 2011.

Comparison of the service user profile of participants in the service user survey using FDR services to the full survey sample also provides some support for a finding that FRCs tend to more effectively target disadvantaged groups. The survey sample demographic characteristics show 72 per cent of respondents using FRC services earning less than $50,000 per year, compared to 57 per cent for all FSP family law service users.


Observation of the practices and processes used by place-based case study FRCs to effectively reach and target services to disadvantaged groups also suggests some particular advantages of the FRC structure and service model that may enhance the effectiveness of FRC services in reaching disadvantaged groups when compared to other types of FDR services. The intention for FRCs to act as a catchment or gateway to the family law system, as well as a focus on integration and building referral relationships may be beneficial in helping FRCs reach disadvantaged groups. The relative size and capacity of FRCs compared to standalone FDR services may also be helpful in implementing good practices to reach disadvantaged groups, including employment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or CALD staff members and running culturally competent education and awareness programs.

It should be noted that the populations serviced and access by disadvantaged groups differs markedly across FRCs depending on population characteristics and community context. For example, among FRCs visited for place-based case studies:

• Ballarat FRC primarily services people of Anglo or Caucasian origin from lower socio-economic backgrounds, including a considerable student population;

• Broadmeadows FRC services an area where nearly 40 per cent of the residents were born overseas and speak a language other than English at home. The FRC works closely with service users from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds; and

• Lismore FRC services an area with a lower than average weekly household income compared to the rest of New South Wales, and a tendency towards alternative lifestyles resulting at times in complex family dynamics.

Some of the specific practices and service models that were in place at place-based case study FRCs are discussed further in section 4.3 and section 4.5, and details are provided in Attachment A.

6.5 Client outcomes and service user experiences

Analysis of value for money of FRCs needs to also account for the position of FRCs within the broader family law system and the impacts of system alternatives for resolution of family disputes. For example, resolution of a family law matter through a court gives certainty of outcome, however, may have other costs on the relationship. Although difficult to quantify, these issues are recognised as important by key stakeholders within the family law system:

In family law an adversarial court situation is the last thing we should be doing. Tearing each other apart in the witness box then getting on with parenting children is not ideal.

Federal Circuit Court Judge, consultation for research

Another element, again difficult to quantify, is the ongoing benefits of enabling people to reach their own agreements, as well as improvements in communication between parents. Commentary during consultations for the research provided strong themes that where people reach agreement outside the court they are often more ‘capable of adjusting the agreement for the circumstances’. Conversely, those people who have court imposed agreements were reported to regulatly return because they are less capable of reaching their own agreements.


As discussed in section 4.4, the results of the service user survey provide some evidence that in many cases FSP family law services are providing value by making a positive difference to individual outcomes. Analysis of the survey results for respondents using FRC services only for questions examining the areas discussed above — that is, impacts on the ability of parents to resolve their own issues, limiting children’s exposure to conflict and improved communication between parents — shows a tendency for a slightly higher proportion of FRC service users to agree or strongly agree with these statements when compared to the overall survey sample (see Figure 5.4).

Although the sample sizes involved when examining FRC service users only are not of sufficient size to draw statistically significant conclusions, these results are encouraging. They show that 66 per cent of respondents agreed or strongly agreed that parenting arrangements are workable and 64 per cent of respondents indicated that through the process they gained skills that have helped them resolve issues on their own. Notably, these proportions are higher than the overall proportion of FDR activities where full agreement is reached, suggesting that, services may be providing benefits even where full agreement is not achieved.


Figure 6.4 CLIENT OUTCOMES – FRC SERVICE USER EXPERIENCES

GAINED SKILLS TO HELP RESOLVE MY OWN ISSUES IN THE FUTURE (N=59 FRC, N=248 ALL) OUR CHILD/CHILDREN EXPERIENCED LESS

CONFLICT (N=55 FRC, N=231 ALL)

THE PARENTING ARRANGEMENTS ARE WORKABLE (N=55 FRC, N=227 ALL)

THERE IS BETER COMMUNICATION BETWEEN PARENTS ABOUT CHILD/CHILDREN’S NEEDS (N=54

FRC, N=227 ALL)

Source: The Allen Consulting Group, based on service user survey results, Attachment C

This point was also illustrated through the place-based case study process, which involved discussions with organisations that focused on a number of individual client stories. As part of the case study process a number of individual (de-identified) client stories were discussed which illustrated individual client outcomes and how these can go beyond parenting agreements and keeping service users out of court (see Box 5.2).


Box 6.2 INDIVIDUAL CLIENT OUTCOMES: CASE STUDY PRACTICE EXAMPLE

A mother, who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer, instigated a mediation process with her children’s father. She reported that she had mental health concerns about the father, he was currently living in a hostel and that there were high levels of conflict and harassment. The overall outcomes of the FDR process conducted at the FRC via shuttle mediation included: • an agreement for the father to spend one day per week with the children, supervised

by a family member; • an agreement for the parents to begin communicating via a book and cease phone

calls and threats; • a letter written by the mother to the father explaining her health situation, which

ultimately assisted the father in his application for public housing; and • a recognition by the father that he needs to develop a working relationship with the

mother’s family and avoid exposing the children to conflict during a difficult time.

Source: Adelaide FRC case study

FINDINGS — VALUE FOR MONEY

3 (a) FRC activity, client and parenting agreement outcomes data is subject to concerns about data integrity and quality. The research found instances of changes to reporting and counting rules, inconsistent data entry, and high levels of unregistered service users, which has inhibited ability to make reliable assessments about service costs and outcomes.

3 (b) Available data about service activities and costs suggests that the average cost of FRC services may be higher than FDR outside of FRCs under FSP family law services. However, these cost differentials alone do not point to a conclusion that FRCs are not providing a value for money service as the services involved and corresponding outcomes are not necessarily comparable.

3 (c) There is some evidence that the more intensive assistance offered by FRCs, including activities such as counselling and child focused practice, deliver value beyond reaching parenting agreements. Survey results suggest that over half of the people receiving FSP family law services (including from FRCs) have gained skills to assist them in maintaining parenting agreements.

3 (d) The place-based case studies of selected FRCs provided consistent examples of an underpinning business process to ensure efficient delivery of services and readiness to adopt new approaches informed by the evidence for effective practice. Increasingly, co-location of services and integrated service models are enabling FRCs to deliver efficient and effective client responses.

3 (e) Following an initial drop in court filing rates at the introduction of a requirement for parents to attend FDR prior to filing a court application, court filing rates have increased, tending to move closely in line with divorce numbers. Some judicial stakeholder feedback indicates that reducing the volume of court applications may not be appropriate. Stakeholder feedback reinforces that recourse to the courts for some families will be necessary and appropriate. Continuing to improve the capacity of FSP family law services especially for more complex disputes will ensure that court resources are being appropriately utilised and that outcomes for families support ongoing co-operative parenting.


Chapter 7

Technology

This chapter sets out findings examining how FSP family law services currently use technology, and how non face-to-face service delivery can be improved. The findings presented draw on the literature review, stakeholder consultations, case studies and analysis of the FSP Data System.

7.1 Current use of technology

Family relationship advice line

The FRAL (including information and advice, the LAS and TODR) is the key mechanism currently used by FSP family law services to deliver non face-to-face services. Services are primarily delivered over the telephone, however Relationships Australia Queensland (RAQ) (who delivers the non-legal component of the FRAL) has piloted a video based online dispute resolution application, which is now available for use. Internet speed restrictions means that telephones still need to act as a backup in many instances.

Figure 6.1 shows FRAL call volumes declined between January 2010 and July 2012. However, representatives from these services report that demand is high and has risen since RAQ took over the contract for the FRAL. In spite of this increase in demand, feedback from stakeholders and place-based case studies concerning the extent that the remainder of the sector is aware of and is using the various FRAL components is mixed. This is a potential area for further research.

Figure 7.1 NUMBER OF CALLS TO FRAL – JULY 2009/10 TO SEPTEMBER 2012/13

Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on FRAL call management system data provided by FaHCSIA

Use of the FRAL is very low among CALD and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users. Only one per cent of FRAL service users are reported as Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and less than one per cent of users report a primary language other than English. Note that these statistics are not reported for all calls. While the majority (77 per cent) of FRAL users are parents, calls are also received from grandparents, extended family and other support professionals (see Figure 6.2).


Figure 7.2 BREAKDOWN OF FAMILY ROLES OF FRAL USERS - 2011/12

Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis of FRAL call management system data provided by FaHCSIA

In addition to the FRAL, many individual FSP family law services have arrangements in place to deliver telephone services. TODR is already prevalent in situations where parties are in different locations and cases where family violence issues or safety concerns are present. TODR appears almost as successful as face-to-face FDR in terms of reaching full or partial agreement — RAQ reports an 80 per cent success rate for TODR compared with 90 per cent for use of face-to-face services. A growth in online dispute resolution is also taking place in Australia, driven by geographic challenges and the prevalence of service users in the under 35 age group who are familiar and comfortable with online technologies (Bilinsky 2010).

Family Relationships Online

There has been a general increase in the number of visitors to FRO between December 2010 to June 2012 from both Australian and overseas visitors (see Figure 6.3).

Figure 7.3 VISITS TO FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS ONLINE BY AUSTRALIAN AND INTERNATIONAL VISITORS, DECEMBER 2010 TO JUNE 2012

Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on FRO data provided by FaHCSIA


The average amount of time spent on the FRO website has decreased from 3 minutes and 42 seconds in December 2010, to 2 minutes and 27 seconds in June 2012. The number of pages viewed per visit also decreased during this time (see Figure 6.4). Some of this decrease may be due to changes to the web layout. An alternative interpretation is an increasing tendency for service users to use FRO as a jumping off point for accessing information contained on other sites.

Figure 7.4 AVERAGE PAGES PER VISIT AND TIME SPENT ON THE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS ONLINE WEBSITE, DECEMBER 2010 TO JUNE 2012


Growth in access to the FRO over the period December 2010 to June 2012 has come predominantly from search engines (see Figure 6.5). Direct traffic (typing into the address bar), and referring sites have been relatively constant over this period. Key search words in May 2012 included ‘family relationship centre’ (7.2 per cent of access from search engines), ‘family relationships’ (2.5 per cent) and ‘family relationships Australia" (2.1 per cent). In June 2012 around 20 per cent of total visits to FRO came from mobile phones.

Figure 7.5 POINT OF ACCESS TO THE FRO WEBSITE, DECEMBER 2010 TO JUNE 2012.



Use of technology — FRC case study locations

Across FRCs there is significant use of technology and non face-to-face communication methods. This principally comprises the increasing use of video conferencing and Skype, as well as telephone-based communication.

Currently the use of video conferencing and Skype is mostly confined to internal FRC use, including supporting corporate activities and staff training and supervision. There is a broader application of telephone based communication methods to support FRC service delivery. This includes intake and assessment activities, as well as supporting centre-to-centre phone mediation. This is seen as particularly important to improve access for service users challenged by geographic and transport considerations.

There is evidence of innovation through increasing use of smartphone and mobile technology as well. SMS confirmation and reminders are being sent to service users, as well as either the use or development of smart phone apps providing ready access to parenting advice or information on child developmental issues.

7.2 Improving non face-to-face service delivery

Barriers to use of technology

Significant barriers and difficulties accompany the opportunities to enhance the use of technology in delivering FSP family law services. Some key barriers, which range from a lack of relevant infrastructure to limitations in the circumstances where use of technology is appropriate and effective, are outlined in Box 6.1, drawing on the research Literature Review and stakeholder consultations.

Box 7.1 IDENTIFIED BARRIERS TO ENHANCING TECHNOLOGY USE

• Access to technology and comfort of use – the necessary technology (infrastructure, hardware and software) is not always readily available, particularly in remote and disadvantaged areas. Where technology is present both client and staff comfort in using the platform is a pre-requisite for effective use.

• Privacy and confidentiality issues – service users are less likely to engage where they don’t feel safe and secure. This can be a particular issue where service users are accessing services from the home.

• Need for face-to-face contact – a feeling of worker empathy and relationships cultivated through face-to-face contact can at times be very important for service effectiveness. Text based methods also create a risk of misinterpretations due to reduced communication cues. Some types of services, for example, child inclusive practice may be very difficult to do effectively without face-to-face contact.

• Lack of cultural appropriateness – effectiveness for CALD and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups can be dependent on culturally competent practices, which include relationship building and face-to-face contact.

• Complexity of client issues and needs – non face-to-face service delivery can reduce ability to identify client needs and create a risk of the most vulnerable service users falling through the cracks. In addition, some service users with higher needs require immediate follow up and support following service delivery.

• Difficulty in engaging some client groups – those most comfortable using technology are generally the most advantaged. Some service users do not have access, are not comfortable with the technology or simply not interested in making use of online communication.

Source: The Allen Consulting Group, drawing on Research Literature Review (Attachment B) and stakeholder consultations


Many of these barriers were also reflected in the view of staff at place-based case study locations. Despite the acknowledgement of technology’s potential, there was also some wariness at a practitioner level about its increased use. This was principally driven by a concern over how comfortable or familiar some vulnerable and disadvantaged service users may be with technology.

There was also concern about the quality of video conferencing and its potential to impact on good mediation and social work practice, for example, making it harder for FDRPs to pick up on subtle facial or body language, which can be indicators of certain behaviours or risk.

A final concern centred around ease of access potentially impacting on the level of commitment that service users may bring to the mediation process. FDRPs viewed client engagement and commitment to the mediation process as critical ingredients to its success or otherwise and had some concerns over technological improvements making it ‘too easy’, or perhaps more informal, for service users to participate in mediation.

Good practices in technology use for FSP family law services

The issues identified in Box 6.1 suggest that optimising use of technology in delivering FSP family law services requires careful service design and implementation. Some good practices for delivering FSP family law services, identified from the literature review and stakeholder consultations are outlined in Table 6.1 .

Table 7.1 GOOD PRACTICES FOR DELIVERING SERVICES USING TECHNOLOGY

Area Good practices

Use of appropriate technology • The level of technology must fit with local conditions, including bandwidth restrictions and the capacity of client groups to engage with the technology platform.

• Staff must have the skills and training needed to engage service users using the technology platform.

Appropriate targeting of service users

• Targeting technology efforts towards specific client groups can increase effectiveness. For example, outcomes would be improved by targeting the younger generation, who tend to be more comfortable with the internet.

• A screening process for underlying issues can help to identify service users with complex needs for whom non face-to-face services are not appropriate, creating a safety net for the most vulnerable service users.

Ensuring comfort and privacy • Ensuring a high rate of reliability and promoting privacy and confidentiality provisions may assist users to feel comfortable engaging with an online service.

A multi-pronged approach to ensure client needs are met

• Providing multiple service options (for example, online services with or without video feed) to assist with catering for client preferences and ensuring services are appropriate where issues such as family violence are involved.

• Telephone and online services can effectively augment face-to-face service delivery by allowing for ongoing client contact between services and service users (for example, in between face-to-face sessions), identification of needs and referrals to other agencies or online resources. This can be particularly important during the parenting agreement process.

Source: The Allen Consulting Group, drawing on literature review (Attachment B) and stakeholder consultations


Future opportunities — enhancing service reach and access

Stakeholders generally reflected that, although ‘nothing beats sitting across the table from someone’, technology is important for increasing service reach and access and there is significant scope to increase its use in delivering FSP family law services. The literature supports this view, suggesting that online technologies can reduce costs (Bellucci et al 2010) at the same time as adding value by mitigating disadvantage such as geographic isolation, confinement, imprisonment, disability, threat of physical violence, shyness in face-to-face settings and socio-economic status (Conley-Tyler and McPherson 2006).

Experience with FRC case study locations also suggests that staff and management are open to exploring ways that technology can be used to improve service access to service users. The potential for high quality video conferenced mediation was discussed at most case study FRCs. Rural or geographically isolated service users were commonly identified as the client group most likely to benefit from improved non face-to-face technology. The opportunities to expand the reach of online dispute resolution will continue to grow as the National Broadband Network becomes fully operational and broadband capacity increases.

Usage of technology to provide ‘warm’ referrals is another potential area where technology can add value by increasing uptake. For example, RAQ reports that providing ‘warm’ referrals by directly transferring calls to the LAS provides a higher uptake than referrals provided to community legal centres or legal aid.

Examples from related service areas show the potential to increase service reach and efficiency using technology. In the legal assistance sector, community legal centres are starting to deliver services in remote areas using Skype and other online platforms. The DHS — Child Support area operates primarily using a telephone platform, using seamless connections to put urgent calls directly through to a telephone counsellor. This includes a crisis support hotline, which provides direct access to a social worker between 8 am and 5 pm Monday to Friday. DHS indicated during consultation for the research that the cost of providing this hotline is very low, at ‘less than one physical social worker.’

Future opportunities — service support and training

In Australia, government and others are increasingly adapting policy and processes to take advantage of new technologies and better connectivity, enabling the construction of supportive environments for enhanced technology usage. Australians are also becoming increasingly comfortable with online technology and are choosing to access information and support using web-based mechanisms. The service user survey undertaken for the research, received 65 per cent of responses online, which is illustrative of this shift. In addition, many Australian alternative dispute resolution environments now use Facebook, Twitter and YouTube to engage with business, consumers and stakeholders about dispute resolution and to support dispute avoidance and self-managed negotiation strategies.


There is a significant opportunity for technology to contribute to improved quality and supervision measures. This could take the form of improved video conferencing technology, allowing for senior and experienced practitioners to sit in on mediation sessions to either augment the practitioner undertaking the session or to provide advice and guidance at the conclusion of the session. The web environment also presents significant opportunities to deliver education courses for parents in conflict, separated or separating. Online delivery of these programs could assist to connect people across different geographic areas, enabling service delivery in areas where client volumes would reduce efficiencies or service viability.

Negotiation support systems are also a good example of additional services that could be delivered using technology (Zeleznikow et al 2007). These systems are aimed at supporting FDR by enabling service users to better understand their legal position and alternative outcomes. Further details about different kinds of negotiation support systems and how they operate are provided in the Literature Review (see Attachment B). In addition to the potential to enable service users to better understand their position, this kind of technology also has future potential to enable services to better track and understand the information needs of disputants. Operation of these kinds of systems in Australia is currently primarily applied to property disputes. It has been recognised that application of ‘negotiation support systems’ to parenting arrangement negotiations, while having potential to promote negotiation based on individual interests, may be challenged by a need to promote the best interests of the children, including a harmonious relationship between parents (Zeleznikow et al 2007, p.9).

FINDINGS — TECHNOLOGY

4 (a) The FSP family law services include a telephone and online component for information, referrals, general legal advice and dispute resolution. In addition, a range of technology supports are used by services to facilitate mediation, overcome geographical barriers and to enable efficient access to information during mediations sessions. The level of engagement with telephone and online FSP family law services, including referrals from other non-legal services appears patchy, suggesting there may be scope for further utilisation.

4 (b) Generally, across a range of service providers involved in family relationships, there is strong qualification about the extent to which effective work can be done with service users in a non face-to-face environment. These qualifications suggest that increased usage and advancements in this area needs to be carefully designed and implemented to overcome barriers and ensure effectiveness.

4 (c) There are other opportunities to explore technology as an aid to quality assurance, client communication and more streamlined referral processes.


Chapter 8

Performance and quality measurement

This chapter sets out findings examining how to better measure performance of FSP family law services. It examines current arrangements, limitations and opportunities for improvement. The findings presented draw on the literature review, stakeholder consultations, case studies and analysis of the FSP Data System.

8.1 Current performance and quality measurement arrangements

The current FSP performance and quality measurement arrangements can be broadly classified under three separate components. These include:

• the FSP Data System — a data collection system designed to collect nationally consistent client data on FSP access and use;

• the FSP Performance Framework — designed to demonstrate the effectiveness of the whole sector; and

• Performance and quality measurement arrangements at a service provider level — incorporating obligations under the FSP Guidelines and Administrative Approval Requirements, and local performance and quality arrangements that services have implemented at a local level.

FSP Data System

The collection of FSP client information is a key input into the measurement and reporting of FSP service delivery and use. As outlined in the FSP Data System protocols, service providers are currently required to input data that relates to:

• the numbers of individuals, families and children using FSP services;

• the issues or factors which lead people to access FSP services;

• the demographics of people accessing FSP services;

• the types of services or activities which are provided to respond to individuals’ and families’ needs;

• where service users go when they leave FSP services; and

• the client outcomes achieved as a result of participating in FSP activities.

The major output of the FSP Data System is the annual FSP National Report (previously FRSP National Report), which presents national data on the FSP and assists in the assessment and ongoing improvement of the program.

FSP performance framework

Using data collected through the FSP Data System, the FSP Performance Framework is a key component of current performance and quality arrangements at a systems level. The framework was developed in consultation with the FSP sector and is designed to provide an outcomes-based assessment of the program's impact and effectiveness. In addition to using data collected by the FSP Data System, the FSP Performance Framework can involve surveys conducted by service providers.


The framework is outlined in Table 7.1. It outlines all of the framework's questions, objectives and performance indicators. There is a degree of flexibility in the design of the framework with service providers able to tailor evidence and data collection methods and some performance indicators, to best reflect the service provided. The performance framework includes indicators examining collaboration, integration and use of support services.

Table 8.1 FSP PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

Objective Performance indicator

QUESTION — Did we make a lasting difference? (intermediate outcomes/impacts)

• To improve family functioning Percentage of service users with improved family functioning including child wellbeing

• To improve child development Percentage of children with improved development

• To increase the safety of family environments Percentage of service users that live in safer family and community environments

• To increase community connectedness/social inclusion

Percentage of service users who are included in and socially connected to their community

QUESTION — Did we make an immediate difference? (immediate outcomes/impacts)

• To improve family's knowledge and skills for life and learning

Percentage of service users with improved knowledge and skills

• To provide services in a manner appropriate to service users and which satisfies their needs

Percentage of service users satisfied with the service they received Percentage of service users reporting that the service was responsive/respectful of their needs and/or cultural/language background

• To improve the client's access to and engagement with support services

Percentage of service users with improved access/engagement with services

• To improve family, social and economic participation

Percentage of service users with improved family, community and economic engagement

QUESTION — How well have we done it? (service delivery quality)

• To increase service to vulnerable and at-risk target groups

Percentage of service users from priority groups

• To increase integration and collaboration between service providers and with the community

Percentage of partner agencies reporting satisfaction with the contribution of the service providers to integrated service delivery/coordination

• To provide services that are high quality Percentage of service providers that meet approval requirements

QUESTION — How much did we do? (service outputs)

• To provide appropriate levels of service delivery

Number of service users assisted by demographic characteristics Number of service events/service episodes/activities Number and location of service sites

Source: FSP Performance Framework Edition 1 (July 2011)

Service provider arrangements

There are a number of other requirements that individual FSP service providers are required to meet.

• Program guidelines — program and operational obligations that FSP funded service providers are required to meet. This can include service priorities and activities, performance and evaluation obligations, risk management processes and other requirements to ensure quality service delivery.


• Administrative Approval Requirements — a set of fifteen quality service standards that funded FSP service providers must demonstrate compliance with as part of their funding agreements. The service standards cover key risk areas of governance, financial management, viability, performance management and issues management.

• Vulnerable and Disadvantaged Client Access Strategy — a key requirement of FSP service providers is the implementation and documentation of strategies to promote and improve service accessibility and effectiveness for service users and families from vulnerable and disadvantaged backgrounds.

Performance measurement and service improvement — case study FRCs

Among the FRCs visited as part of the place-based case study process there was a strong performance measurement and service improvement focus. In many instances client engagement and feedback methods, and data collection and review, went beyond what is required through Administrative Approval requirements and the obligations of the FSP Data System and Performance Framework. Some examples of this performance measurement focus observed during place-based case studies are set out in Box 7.1.

Box 8.1 PERFORMANCE MEASURES AND SERVICE IMPROVEMENT ARRANGEMENTS – EXAMPLES FROM PLACE-BASED CASE STUDIES

The following are examples of FRC focus on performance measurement. • Recently overhauled client complaint systems to ensure greater responsiveness to

service users unhappy with the service they received. • Regular client feedback surveys and call backs outside of the regular FSP

Performance Framework activities. In some instances this client feedback had directly informed FRC service delivery change.

• Staff training and professional development activities informed by best practice. • Establishment or participation in research and evaluation activities. There were

numerous examples of agencies involved in the delivery of FRCs undertaking or participating in research and evaluation activities. Particular areas of focus for these activities centred around child inclusive or centred approaches, responsiveness to family violence, and strategies to engage vulnerable or disadvantaged populations including CALD community groups.

Source: Research place-based case studies, Attachment A

A number of FRCs have either developed or purchased case management software. This is driven by a consistent view among FRCs that the FSP Data System does not provide enough data back to services to adequately inform and improve service design and delivery. Case management software in use by FRCs is used to monitor and enable FRC analysis of service activity, client characteristics, referral trends and FDRP case loads.

Significantly, the case study process itself highlighted the inadequacy of the FSP Data System to describe service activity and performance at the local level. When data extracts from the FSP Data System were shared with FRCs, there was extensive discussion and feedback on the local factors that are unable to be identified through the current data collection arrangements, as well as some of the factors contributing to inconsistencies in data recording. This was particularly the case for demographic data, wait time data and service activity data. For example:


• one FRC noted that, due to changes made to the FSP Data System online platform, their data system became incompatible and registered client data for a 6 month period was unable to be uploaded;

• one FRC noted that, at the time of moving to a new client information system, business decisions affected the manner in which information was recorded, leading to a significant decrease in recorded activities and sessions, as well as changes in how waiting times were recorded;

• one FRC questioned the reliability of data related to waiting time, noting that they had experienced issues with data transmission due to errors in the FSP Data system;

• a number of FRCs noted that, prior to 2011/12, participants at community development events were recorded as unregistered service users, however recording of these participants ceased in 2011/12, leading to large variations in attendance by unregistered service users;

• a number of FRCs expressed views that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users generally do not register, leading to significant underestimation of total Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users; and

• a number of FRCs acknowledged that data variations were due to practitioner input errors.

In part to respond to similar issues, Victorian FRCs are participating in the FSP Data System pilot. This is an initiative driven by the Victorian network of FRCs and supported by the local FaHCSIA office. Its design is to ensure the collection of a more consistent set of data than currently exists, enabling greater sector monitoring and analysis of activity across all of the Victorian FRCs.

8.2 Limitations of the FSP Data System for performance and quality measurement

In order to assess programs, data needs to be comparable across service providers. However, research activities have uncovered several issues that limit the appropriateness of the FSP Data System in this regard.

Inconsistencies in counting and reporting definitions

There are several reporting requirements where service providers do not necessarily have a shared understanding about what is to be reported, and the rigour with which to report it. For example, when reporting presenting needs, service providers can subjectively nominate as many or as few (with a minimum of one) as they deem appropriate. This creates differences in the data across service providers depending on capacity and/or willingness to identify and record needs, as well as across time, as providers may become better at identifying the needs of their service users.

Other examples uncovered during the research include changes in definitions and counting rules, which for one FRC saw a drop in the number of unregistered client attendances from 10,984 in 2009/10, to 801 in 2010/11, and 23 in 2011/12. This change was due to counting each attendance at community development activities, which has since ceased.


Registered/unregistered service users

The distinction between registered service users (those who have consented to provide their demographic information) and unregistered service users means that recorded information does not represent the full client base. Anecdotal feedback from service providers suggests that service users who are more socially isolated, or who are from areas of high disadvantage, may be more reluctant to give out this information, suggesting that registered client data underestimates the proportion of service users from these groups.

As noted by the Auditor General (2010), treatment of unregistered service users as unique whenever they attend a session also means that the number of service users is likely to be over-estimated in most reporting of the FSP data. Table 7.2 provides an indication of the total proportion of sessions attended by unregistered service users. This measure gives a potentially more accurate measure of delivery of services to unregistered service users than by treating each attendance as a unique client. The proportion of service users who are not registered if each attendance is treated as unique was 41.6 per cent in 2010/11.

The data does show some improvement in the proportion of unregistered service users’ attendance since 2009/10. Total unregistered client attendances peaked in 2009/10 at 24.3 per cent, dropping to 17.2 per cent in 2010/11 and an estimated 17.5 per cent in 2011/12.

Table 8.2 PROPORTION OF ATTENDANCES BY UNREGISTERED SERVICE USERS BY SERVICE TYPE

Service 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12

CCS 2.0% 5.9% 7.2% 11.2% 11.7%

Counselling 2.5% 11.5% 16.0% 16.7% 16.3%1

FDR 1.6% 11.0% 16.4% 19.7% 23.3%

FRC 16.7% 31.2% 36.4% 17.1% 15.9%

POP 5.6% 12.7% 15.1% 9.3% 14.5%

PSCP N/A 36.8% 24.8% 13.6% 11.5%

RFDR 6.9% 18.1% 22.6% 16.4% 20.3%

SCaSP N/A 24.1% 33.0% 25.8% 28.5%

TODRS N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.0%

Overall2 5.4% 18.4% 24.3% 17.2% 17.5% 1 Counselling figure in 2011/12 estimated as the average of 2009/10 and 2010/11. 2 Overall figures are adjusted to estimate counselling clients for family law services only.

Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on attendance data provided by FaHCSIA

Outlet/outreach location

Issues around the recording of client information also extend to where delivery of the service is reported. The degree of flexibility and extent of outreach services is not necessarily accounted for in the funding agreements or the FSP Data System. Service providers may record outreach services as delivered at the address of the outreach, or at the address of the outlet the service originates from, complicating analysis based on geographic locations.


8.3 Opportunity for improvements to performance and quality arrangements

Performance measurement for FSP family law services requires a full understanding of what constitutes a good outcome in complex environments.

The research has explored through stakeholder consultation, the potential usefulness and practicalities involved in performance measurement of FSP family law services in three key areas:

• how well services contribute to keeping families out of court;

• how services support enduring parenting agreements; and

• how effective services are in relation to the best interests of the children.

Some stakeholder commentary in relation to these areas is set out in Box 7.2 below.

Box 8.2 STAKEHOLDER COMMENTS – MEASURES OF PERFORMANCE

How well services contribute to keeping families out of court? Thought needs to be given to whether keeping the particular family from court could in fact be prolonging or exacerbating a potentially harmful situation, and/or prolonging the inevitable at unnecessary cost.

National Legal Aid In family law an adversarial court situation is the last thing we should be doing. Tearing each apart in the witness box then getting on with parenting children is not ideal.

Federal Circuit Court How services support the making of enduring parenting agreements? Enduring parenting agreements is an important measure. However, where things do fall apart it is not necessarily a measure of a failing of the service.

Department of Human Services Endurance is not a useful way of measuring effectiveness. Families move on, and if things change down the track it does not necessarily mean there is something wrong with the process.

Family Court of WA How effective services are in relation to supporting primary consideration of the best interests of the children Follow up with service users may not give an accurate indication of the best interests of the child. But, with time and use of supports that have been referred it may be possible to reflect on how the process did assist with the child's needs.

FRSA Determining whether agreements are in the best interests of children is a challenging issue, and perspectives on whether this is the case will vary depending on the perspective of each participant in the process.

National Legal Aid

Source: The Allen Consulting Group, based on stakeholder consultations

There is no real agreement among stakeholders about the usefulness of the suggested areas of performance measurement, nor about what indicators could usefully measure these areas. While the benefits of keeping individuals out of court are uniformly recognised, many stakeholders are reticent to use this as an indicator of performance, stressing that for some cases court is the most appropriate mechanism for resolution.


In relation to enduring parenting agreements, many comments highlighted that, as situations change, so too should parenting arrangements, suggesting that ‘endurance’ is not always the best measure. Rather than ‘endurance’ stakeholders tend to focus more on the importance of providing the parties with skills to manage their own affairs and change parenting arrangements as appropriate to changing circumstances. As put by National Legal Aid:

Perhaps the best kind of outcome is one that equips parties to resolve future disputes themselves, or with minimal external assistance. Being ‘adaptable’ is perhaps more helpful for children than sticking to an agreement that no longer meets the children's needs.

National Legal Aid submission to research

Future directions for performance measurement

The experience of major reviews such as the AIFS evaluation of the 2006 reforms highlights the importance of using multiple sources of data and performance measures to test and triangulate performance outcomes (see Attachment B). The Literature Review also found that the presence of initiatives at a local level to assess quality and service effectiveness is an important indicator of good practice and where possible, the results should be incorporated into broader service system performance and quality measurement arrangements.

Increased communication between the parties, skills that enable flexibility to adapt arrangements to changing circumstances and the resolution of family disputes at the most appropriate level are the areas generally seen as factors of success for FSP family law services. However, suggestions about how to construct formal indicators able to directly measure these service aspects are scarcer. The research has not found any examples of services in similar areas that are using these kinds of outcomes as performance indicators. For example, performance measurement arrangements in place at legal aid commissions in relation to FDR (see Box 7.3) focus on measures including settlement rates, durability of agreements, and the reasons that cases do not proceed to FDR.

Box 8.3 LEGAL AID COMMISSION PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT ARRANGEMENTS FOR FDR

Performance measurement arrangements in place at legal aid commissions in relation to FDR include: • partial/interim and final settlement rates • measures of timeliness • durability of agreements reached through client satisfaction surveys; • number of referrals/information resources provided to separated families and

conversion statistics • conversion statistics, including reasons why cases do not proceed to conference,

categories of cases being screened out

Source: National Legal Aid submission to research

The FSP performance framework, which includes measures such as whether service users have improved knowledge and skills, and whether service users have improved family engagement, already goes some way to measuring the outcomes generally considered to be of importance by stakeholders. However, there is some potential to better develop the performance framework in this regard, particularly in relation to:


• a greater focus on changes in conflict and communication between parties;

• more longitudinal performance measurement; and

• examination of how to incorporate some of the good practice local level performance measurement initiatives, such as those observed through the case study process, into the broader performance framework.

FINDINGS — PERFORMANCE AND QUALITY MEASUREMENT

5 (a) Issues with the FSP Data System, including changes in how data are recorded across years and transmission errors, as well as a shortage of demographic client information created through service delivery to unregistered service users, is a significant barrier to reliable performance and quality measurement of FSP family law services.

5 (b) Processes and practices in place at case study FRCs suggest a strong performance measurement and service improvement focus, often beyond formal requirements. The FSP Data System pilot, driven by Victorian FRCs, provides a promising sector initiative aimed at improving sector performance monitoring.

5 (c) Stakeholders considered that performance measurement should be tied to immediate and longer-term outcomes that focused on service user improvements in managing family relationships. This is consistent with the view that interventions offered by FSP family law services aim to address the immediate need for resolution of parenting arrangements, but in a way that builds the service user’s skills for future improved outcomes.

5 (d) Potential areas for measurement include changes in conflict and communication between the parties, and consideration of local initiatives in progressing the objectives of the services. Use of client surveys and longitudinal research would assist in building the evidence base for effective practice and improved service user outcomes.


Chapter 9

Conclusion

9.1 What’s working well?

There is positive feedback from observations of service providers, service user survey results and wider consultation with legal and other non-legal service providers that FSP family law services are relevant, adaptive and effective in meeting the needs of separating or separated parents and their children. Some key areas where the research has found positive evidence that FSP family law services are operating well are set out below.

Targeting services towards disadvantaged groups

Overall, service delivery appears to be provided at a higher rate to people in areas of greater disadvantage, although some services perform better than others on this measure. Service providers are increasingly innovating to engage vulnerable and disadvantaged service users, including collaborative arrangements and culturally competent workforce capacity development.

Supporting the best interests of the children

A majority (just over half) of respondents to the service user survey considered that the services were helpful in assisting them to understand their children’s needs better, the outcomes were in the best interests of the child/children and the child/children experienced less conflict, with female respondents more likely than males to have positive perceptions. Although views were mixed, interpretation within the context of the sensitivity of the subject matter does suggest that services are having some positive impacts.

Service integration within FSP family law services and legal services

There are generally strong links within FSP family law services, as well as with external legal services, facilitating referrals and collaboration, as well as helping to avoid duplication. Formal partnerships and networks, including Family Law Pathways Networks and the FRC and legal assistance partnerships program appear to have been helpful at facilitating close working relationships.

Resolving family disputes at the earliest opportunity

While it is difficult to assess value for money outcomes of FRCs from the data currently available, qualitative evidence supports the view that FRCs are operating effectively as a filter to intervene in matters that can be resolved outside of court, as well as delivering a service that for many clients provide more intensive assistance than dispute resolution system alternatives. This is being facilitated by a readiness among service providers to adopt new approaches informed by the evidence for effective practice, including operating on integrated service models and co-location of services.


Appropriate use of technology

In relation to technology to assist in efficient and accessible service delivery, aspects of these resources have been incorporated into services to the extent that they are seen to enhance operations. Given the complex nature of the services provided, there is a preference generally for face-to-face communication for best outcomes.

Measuring performance is viewed as most relevant when it is linked more directly to service outcomes than distal measures, such as court filings, which can be influenced by other factors.

9.2 Areas for improvement

Areas for improvement suggested by the research include:

• review of service location to ensure that the suite of FSP family law services is available in key locations to support the work of the FRCs and there is an appropriate level of regional and remote service access;

• strengthened strategies and incentives to build capacity to provide services to target populations including building organisational cultural competency;

• targeted investigation of long waiting times to better understand and overcome delays that create problems for separating and separated parents;

• facilitation of improved linkages to non-legal service providers in consultation with relevant government departments;

• consultation with service providers on models of effective practice to support persons presenting with family violence, to both improve service capacity in this area and increase services to this group;

• establish a small set of agreed indicators and measures to enable an acceptable level of program monitoring and evaluation, focusing on enhanced communication and skills to enable parties to resolve family disputes at the most appropriate level, and significantly improve data quality, building on the findings of the current Victorian FRCs pilot to improve sector performance monitoring.


References

Access to Justice Taskforce 2009, A strategic framework for access to justice in the federal civil justice system, Attorney-General’s Department.

Auditor General 2010, Implementation of the Family Relationship Centre Initiative, Australian National Audit Office, Canberra.

Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA), 2012, Family Support Program (FSP) 1 July 2011 to 30 June 2012, Canberra.

Bellucci E, Macfarlane D and Zeleznikow J, 2010, ‘How Information Technology Can Support Family Law and Mediation’ in Witold Abramowicz, Robert Tolksdorf and Krzysztof Węcel (eds), Business Information Systems 2010 Workshops, Berlin.

Bilinsky D, 2010, Report from the ODR Conference in Buenos Aires (ODR and Consumers 2010), available at http://www.odrandconsumers2010.org/2010/06/03/report-from-the-odr-conference-in-buenos-aires

Commonwealth of Australia 2011, Operational Framework for Family Relationship Centres, Revised version, June 2011.

Family Law Council 2012, Improving the Family Law System for Service users from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds, Commonwealth of Australia.

Family Law Pathways Advisory Group 2001, Out of the maze: pathways to the future for families experiencing separation, Australian Government.

Family and Relationship Services Australia (FRSA) 2010, What helps and what hinders: FRSA linkages and collaboration report, Canberra, October.

Family and Community Affairs Committee, House of Representatives 2003, Every picture tells a story. Report on the inquiry into child custody arrangements in the event of family separation, Commonwealth of Australia.

Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Bill 2005, Explanatory Memorandum.

Maloney L, Qu L, Weston R & Hand K 2013, ‘Evaluating the work of the Family Relationship Centres: Evidence from the first five years’, Family Law Review (upcoming FRC special issue).

Kaspiew, R, Gray, M, Weston, R, Moloney, L, Hand, K, Qu, L, & the Family Law Evaluation Team 2009, Evaluation of the 2006 family law reforms, Australian Institute of Family Studies.

http://www.odrandconsumers2010.org/2010/06/03/report-from-the-odr-conference-in-buenos-aires

http://www.odrandconsumers2010.org/2010/06/03/report-from-the-odr-conference-in-buenos-aires


Moloney, L 2013, ‘From “helping court” to community-based services: The evolution of Australia’s Family Relationship Centres’, Family Law Review (upcoming FRC special issue).

Moloney, L., Qu, L., Weston R., & Hand K. 2013, ‘Evaluating the work of the Family Relationship Centres: Evidence from the first five years,’ Family Law Review (upcoming FRC special issue).

Parkinson, P 2013, ‘The idea of family relationship centres in Australia,’ Family Law Review (upcoming FRC special issue).

Rush, P, Meredith, V, Robinson, E and Nair, L 2013 The Social & Economic Benefit of Family & Relationship Services: A review of current evidence, Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2013.

Zeleznikow, J et al 2007, ‘Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law – Using Utility Functions to Support Legal Negotiation,’ International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law: Proceedings of the 11th International Conference on Artificial Intelligence and Law, ACM, New York, USA, 237, 238.


Appendix A

Case study guide

Background to the research

The Allen Consulting Group and the Australian Centre for Court and Justice System Innovation at Monash University have been engaged by the Access to Justice Division of the Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) to undertake research associated with the Review of the family law services funded under the Family Support Program (FSP).

The research areas that will be addressed are:

• analysis of the value for money outcomes being delivered by Family Relationship Centres (FRCs);

• service location, geographic coverage, demand for services, waiting times, service gaps, and any service duplication for FSP family law services;

• mapping of service interventions undertaken including intake and assessment, counselling, group work, family dispute resolution, referral, information dissemination and case management;

• service effectiveness in relation to the best interests of children;

• access to services and service effectiveness, particularly for service users from Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) and vulnerable backgrounds;

• service users' experiences of these services;

• how well existing services are working, or could work together and with other parts of the family law system, to better meet the needs of Australian families;

• how well existing services are working, or could work together and with other family support services, for example drug and alcohol, mental health, family violence and homelessness services;

• how AGD could better measure effectiveness of these services, over and above current measures; and

• current and future utilisation of technology in delivering effective non face-to-face services.


Research activities

In addition to the case study process, the project includes:

• a literature review to identify existing information and good practices in service delivery;

• consultations with government staff members from AGD and FaHCSIA;

• consultations with other relevant stakeholders, including Family Relationship Advice Line, Family Law Courts, legal aid commissions and community legal centres; and

• a review of output and outcomes data, along with other relevant program support documentation.

Case studies in brief

Case studies will involve two days in each selected location. Case studies will involve the following activities.

• Conduct interviews with key stakeholders — discussions will be held regarding the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of service delivery activities.

• Cite relevant documentation and data — research staff may seek to review site-specific planning and policy materials, implementation guides, data systems, client feedback forms, and performance measurement documentation regarding service delivery.

• Observe service delivery — research activities may include observation of service delivery implementation, particularly for non-sensitive service delivery matters.

It is hoped that discussion will occur with a range of key staff members during the case study process, including:

• the CEO/coordinator;

• board member(s) or steering committee member(s); and

• client service officers or counsellors.

Depending on the time available and the context at each site, we are happy to meet the CEO/coordinator and board/steering committee members together. However, it would be beneficial to meet client service officers or practitioners separately.

Logistics

The case studies will be undertaken between December 2012 and January 2013. The locations selected provide a balanced view of a range of demographic and geographic characteristics, along with a spread of FSP family law services. The sites that will be visited are:

• Melbourne (services in and around Broadmeadows) (VIC);

• Adelaide (SA);

• Ballarat (VIC);

• Wagga Wagga (NSW);


• Perth (WA);

• Lismore (NSW) (including outreach services); and

• Alice Springs (NT).

Findings from each case study will be compiled into a report reflecting service delivery and user perspectives. Service providers will be given an opportunity to comment on the accuracy of the report prior to finalisation.

Confidentiality

Information collected through case studies will be de-identified in order that specific findings for each site are unable to be attributed to individuals. Staff members involved in consultations will therefore be free to discuss their thoughts openly.

Proposed discussion areas

The case study interviews will provide the opportunity to explore questions focusing on the appropriateness, effectiveness and efficiency of the FSP family law services program. Key questions are expected to cover areas outlined below.

Service background

• Background to the service provider, including years of service and details about other services provided.

• Number of staff involved in supporting the service and roles, including links between staff.

• Service delivery approach.

Service mapping

• Service locations and geographic catchment areas.

• Range of services provided, including demand for services and any additional services provided.

• Identification and servicing of target cohorts, including specific characteristics about the geographical environment and/or clientele that require consideration.

• Outreach activities and strategies in place to facilitate outreach.

Service delivery

• Challenges in accessing and meeting the needs of priority groups.

• Processes to ensure the best interests of the children are met.

• Processes to ensure services are directed towards priority groups.

• Strategies to enhance access for priority groups.

• Processes to ensure services are directed in a culturally competent manner.

• How service users with violence issues (current or past) are dealt with.

• Proportion of ‘closed case’ service users who re-engage with service.


Service integration and coordination

• Links and relationships with other FSP service providers.

• Links and relationships with other parts of the family law system.

• Inward and outward referrals and links with other local service providers, including most popular source of referrals and places from whence more referrals might be expected.

• Service overlap or gaps.

• Engagement with Legal Advice Service (part of FRAL).

Technology

• Use of technology in service delivery.

• Processes and practices surrounding use of technology.

• Barriers to use of technology.

• Opportunities to increase use of technology.

Performance measurement and management

• Use of FSP Administrative Approval Requirements.

• Processes to measure quality of service provision.

• Presence and use of a quality assurance process.

• Measuring client satisfaction.

• Monitoring of service delivery activities, including time spent and integrity of data.

• Performance indicators and organisational behaviour to support indicators.

FRCs only

• Funding allocation and costs of different types of intervention.

• Processes to reduce duplication.

• Processes to enhance efficiency.

• Processes to ensure service costs are proportionate to the dispute.

• Examining the number of service users who go through intake in relation to the number of service users who go on to undertake dispute resolution and reasons for service users not proceeding to dispute resolution.

• Exploring possible reasons underlying waiting times for family dispute resolution, including difficulty engaging with Party B, and other processes undertaken to prepare for dispute resolution.

• Options for dealing with extended waiting times for service users.

• Interaction with Department of Human Services — Child Support, and at what stage in a client’s interaction with the FRC this usually occurs.

R E S E A R C H O N F A M I L Y S U P P O R T P R O G R A M F A M I L Y L A W S E R V I C E S


Appendix B

Discussion guides

Background

The Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) has commissioned the Allen Consulting Group (ACG) to undertake research on the effectiveness, appropriateness and cost effectiveness of family law services funded under the Family Support Program (FSP). The full set of FSP family law services are set out in the table below.

FSP family law services

Family Relationship Centres Parenting Orders Program

Supporting Children after Separation Program

Children’s Contact Services

Post Separation Cooperative Parenting

Counselling

Family Dispute Resolution Regional Family Dispute Resolution

Family Relationship Advice Line (the Advice Line) comprising Information and Advice component, Legal Advice Service & Telephone and Online Dispute Resolution Service

These services form a core stream of the FSP — with an overarching aim of providing integrated services for families, particularly vulnerable and disadvantaged families, to improve child wellbeing and development, safety, wellbeing and functioning. The Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) is responsible for administration of programs under the FSP while AGD maintains policy responsibility for the FSP family law services.

The specific areas of the Allen Consulting Group’s research relate to:

• value for money of services;

• client participation in services, including access by various groups of service users;

• location of services and service interventions;

• effectiveness of services;

• service integration in the family law system; and

• current and future utilisation of technology.



Information collection

This project will draw on inputs from a number of different sources, including a targeted literature review, stakeholder consultations, program data, place based case studies and survey of service user perspectives.

ACG will be discussing key issues relating to the project with representatives from a range of stakeholders including industry representatives, government agencies and the family law system including legal assistance services. Detailed discussions with a full range of providers of FSP family law services will also occur as part of a number of place based case studies.

The main function of stakeholder consultations will be to provide contextual information on the performance and role of FSP family law services and to gain stakeholder insights on key research issues. The project commenced in July 2012 and is due for completion by April 2013. The various elements of stakeholder consultations will take place over the period from September 2012 through to January 2013.

Discussion guide questions

The following questions will guide discussion, however we are seeking an open dialogue with flexibility to discuss any additional issues or insights that may arise. Your views are important and we welcome your contribution.

B.1 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal services

Discussion questions:

Can you describe your relationship with local FSP family law services?

• To what extent does your service work with FSP family law services? Are there any linkages or integrations? Do you receive any referrals from or refer any service users to FSP family law services?

• Are you aware of any contextual factors (eg. policy changes or other events) that are shaping the family law environment or could be impacting the provision of FSP family law services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users?

• What key considerations impact service access and effectiveness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users? Are there any barriers to these service users effectively accessing and navigating the set of FSP family law services?

• Is there any overlap between the services provided by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Services and FSP family law services? Are you aware of any service gaps?

• What linkages currently exist between FSP family law services and other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander support services? Could the level of integration be improved? Are there any barriers to enhancing the level of integration?



• To what extent is the effectiveness of service delivery for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FSP family law services service users dependent on face-to-face contact? Are there any barriers to enhancing the use of telephone and online FSP family law services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users in the future to increase service reach and efficiency?

• Does your service have any strategies for dealing with service users with violence issues which FSP family law services might be able to benefit from in their service delivery?

• Are there any key considerations that should be explored in measuring effectiveness of FSP family law services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users? What measures could be used as an indication of:

– How well services keep families out of court?

– How many enduring parenting agreements are made?

– How effective they are in relation to ‘best interests of the child?’

• Do you have any other comments or questions?

B.2 Child support agencies


• Are you aware of any contextual factors (eg. policy changes or other events) that are shaping the family law environment or could be impacting the provision of FSP family law services?

• What key considerations impact service access and effectiveness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users and service users from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) and vulnerable backgrounds? Are there any barriers to these service users effectively accessing and navigating the family law system?

• How well do FSP family law services work with other family support services (eg. drug and alcohol, mental health, family violence and homelessness services)? Are referral linkages in place? Could the level of integration be improved? Are there any barriers to enhancing the level of integration?

• To what extent does your organisation work with FSP family law services? Are there any linkages or integrations? At what stage does your organisation generally become involved?

• What linkages currently exist between FSP family law services and other parts of the family law system (eg. Family Law Courts, legal assistance services, private legal practitioners)? Could the level of integration be improved? Are there any barriers to enhancing the level of integration?

• To what extent is the effectiveness of service delivery for FSP family law services service users dependent on face-to-face contact? Are there any barriers to enhancing the use of telephone and online FSP family law services in the future to increase service reach and efficiency?



• Do you know the extent to which staff and/or service users at FSP family law services are (i) able to access assistance in relation to child support issues, and (ii) the extent to which they avail themselves of this assistance?

• In your opinion, how effective are the current Child Support arrangements for assisting FSP family law services?

• Is it important for a session at a FSP family law service, where negotiation is taking place about parenting arrangements, post separation, to consider, in conjunction with this, Child Support issues?

• Are there any key considerations that should be explored in measuring effectiveness of FSP family law services? What measures could be used as an indication of:





B.3 Community legal centres


• Are there any key contextual factors (eg. policy changes or other events) that are shaping the family law environment or could be impacting the provision of FSP family law services?

• What key considerations impact service access and effectiveness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users and service users from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) and vulnerable backgrounds? Are there any barriers to these service users effectively accessing and navigating the set of FSP family law services?

• How well do FSP family law services work with other family support services (for example, drug and alcohol, mental health, family violence and homelessness services)? Are referral linkages in place? Could the level of integration be improved? Are there any barriers to enhancing the level of integration?


• Is there any overlap between the services provided by Community Legal Centres and FSP family law services? Are you aware of any service gaps?

• To what extent does your service work with FSP family law services? Are there any linkages or integrations?

• How effective are any legal assistance partnerships between your service and FRCs? Do any partnerships provide services to all FRC service users or only those from disadvantaged socio economic circumstances?



• If your service provides family dispute resolution are there any aspects of your service model that FRCs might be able to benefit from in their service delivery? For example, what strategies, if any, do you have to engage party B in the process? How are service users with violence issues (current or past) dealt with?

• To what extent is the effectiveness of FSP family law services dependent on face-to-face contact? How could technology be used in the future to increase service reach and efficiency?

• Does your service undertake any evaluation or performance monitoring in relation to family law issues?

• Are there any key considerations that should be explored in measuring effectiveness of FSP family law services? What measures could potentially be used as an indication of:





B.4 Family Courts






• Are FSP family law services contributing to the effective management of disputes and resolution prior to reaching court? What improvements could be made to increase the rate of early dispute resolution?

• Can you indicate the proportion of Court service users who have previously used FSP family law services such as FRCs (i) successfully (made agreement) and (ii) unsuccessfully (not reached agreement)?



• Are many people coming to Courts having already reached parenting agreements at FSP family law services, which may not have ‘lasted’/’endured’?

• Are many service users referred to FSP family law services once they have reached the Courts? If these service users have a current section 60I certificate, what are the circumstances, in relation to such referrals to FSP family law services? What proportion of such service users referred to FSP family law services, would subsequently return to Courts for resolution of their cases?

• • Would services like the Parenting Orders Program, which the Courts are frequent referrers to, be more appropriately referred to earlier in the separation process (i.e. before people come to Courts)?

• What kinds of information sharing takes place between FSP family law services and the Courts?







B.5 Family Law Pathways Network




• What kinds of organisations (including FSP family law services) are members of your FLPN? What kinds of activities does your organisation undertake?

• What referral linkages, information sharing arrangements or other integrations exist between your member organisations and FSP family law services? How does your FLPN help facilitate these linkages or integrations?

• Are you aware of any key factors that impact on the effectiveness of referral linkages and other integrations between various components of the family law system? Are there any barriers to enhancing linkages and integration between FSP family law services and other parts of the family law system?



• Are you aware of any service overlaps or service gaps within the location covered by your FLPN?

• How does your FLPN assist FSP family law services work more effectively with other parts of the family law system, in your area?

• Are there ways your FLPN could work differently to help FSP family law services work more effectively with other parts of the family law system in your area? What are they?







B.6 General discussion guide




• How well do FSP family law services work with other family support services (for exaple drug and alcohol, mental health, family violence and homelessness services)? Are referral linkages in place? Could the level of integration be improved? Are there any barriers to enhancing the level of integration?





• To your knowledge, do you think FSP family law services are working as originally intended and are there ways they could work more effectively themselves, and with other parts of the family law system?






B.7 Legal Aid Commissions




• How well do FSP family law services work with other family support services (for example, drug and alcohol, mental health, family violence and homelessness services)? Are referral linkages in place? Could the level of integration be improved? Are there any barriers to enhancing the level of integration?


• To what extent does your organisation work with FSP family law services? Are there any linkages or integrations?

• Does your organisation have any legal assistance association/partnerships with FRCs in your jurisdiction and how effective are they? Do any partnerships provide services to all FRC service users or only those from disadvantaged backgrounds?

• Can you comment on what dictates whether a client comes to a LAC for family dispute resolution or goes to a FRC?

• Are there aspects of your service model for providing family dispute resolution, which FRCs might be able to benefit from in their service delivery? For example what strategies, if any do you have to engage party B in the process? How are service users with violence issues (current or past) dealt with?




• What kinds of performance indicators does your organisation use to measure service effectiveness for family law issues? Would any of these be of relevance to FSP family law services?

– Are there any key considerations that should be explored in measuring effectiveness of FSP family law services? What measures could potentially be used as an indication of:





B.8 Legal Advice Service



• What key considerations impact service access and effectiveness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users and service users from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) and vulnerable backgrounds? Does access to telephone services vary for these groups? What barriers exist for service users from these groups effectively accessing telephone services?

• How does your service work with other family support services (eg. drug and alcohol, mental health, family violence and homelessness services)? Are referral linkages in place? Could the level of integration be improved? Are there any barriers to enhancing the level of integration?

• What linkages currently exist between your service and other parts of the family law system (eg. Family Law Courts, legal assistance services, private legal practitioners)? Could the level of integration be improved? Are there any barriers to enhancing the level of integration?

• How does your service currently use technology to deliver non face-to-face services? Do you consider that there are opportunities to enhance future use of technology in FSP family law services to increase service reach and efficiency?

• What are the advantages/disadvantages of non face-to-face legal advice over face-to-face legal advice? What factors contribute to service users being able to utilise non face-to-face legal advice?








B.9 Telephone/Online Dispute Resolution Services

Discussion Questions:


• What key considerations impact service access and effectiveness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users and service users from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) and vulnerable backgrounds? Does access to online/telephone services vary for these groups? What barriers exist for service users from these groups effectively accessing online/telephone services?



• How does your service currently use technology to deliver non face-to-face services? Do you consider that there are opportunities to enhance future use of technology in FSP family law services to increase service reach and efficiency?

• What is the uptake of (i) telephone dispute resolution and (ii) online dispute resolution, following client preparatory process (intake, assessment, etc) prior to dispute resolution and how does this compare to face-to-face dispute resolution? What factors contribute to service users being able to utilise non face-to-face family dispute resolution?

• What are the advantages/disadvantages of non face-to-face dispute resolution over face-to-face family dispute resolution? How successful is non face-to-face family dispute resolution compared to traditional family dispute resolution?

• You deal with the Legal Advice Service part of Family Relationship Advice Line in obtaining legal assistance for some of the service users that use the Information and Advice component of FRAL or the Telephone Dispute Resolution Service. Your organisation (Relationship Australia Queensland) also runs three FRCs in Queensland, which have legal partnerships with local Community Legal Centres or Legal Aid Commissions. As such, what are the differences in how legal assistance is provided to service users of your non face-to-face services (TODRS, Information and Advice component of FRAL) and to service users of your FRCs?








B.10 Family violence prevention legal services


The family law environment

• Are any contextual factors (eg. policy changes or other events) shaping the family law environment or affecting delivery of FSP family law services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users?

• What key considerations impact service access and effectiveness for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users? Are there any barriers to these service users effectively accessing and navigating the set of FSP family law services?

The relationship between your service and FSP family law services

• Can you describe your relationship with local FSP family law services?

• Do you receive any referrals from or refer any service users to FSP family law services?

• Is there any overlap between the services provided by Family Violence Prevention Legal Services and FSP family law services? Are you aware of any service gaps?

FSP family law services



Providing effective services

• Can effective services be delivered to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander FSP family law services using the telephone or internet? Are there any barriers to enhancing the use of telephone and online FSP family law services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users in the future to increase service reach and efficiency?



• Does your service have any strategies for delivering services to service users that have experienced family violence (past or present) which FSP family law services might be able to benefit from in their service delivery?

• Are there any key considerations that should be explored in measuring effectiveness of FSP family law services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander service users? What measures could be used as an indication of:







Appendix C

Service mapping

C.1 Service mapping — service locations

Figure C.1 SERVICE OUTLETS AND OUTREACH SERVICE OUTLETS — CCS




Figure C.2 SERVICE OUTLETS AND OUTREACH SERVICE OUTLETS — FDR




Figure C.3 SERVICE OUTLETS AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS — FLC




Figure C.4 SERVICE OUTLETS AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS — FRC




Figure C.5 SERVICE OUTLETS AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS — POP




Figure C.6 SERVICE OUTLETS AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS — PSCP




Figure C.7 SERVICE OUTLETS AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS — SCaSP




C.2 Service mapping — location by SEIFA Disadvantage Index

Figure C.8 FSP FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX — ADELAIDE




Figure C.9 FSP FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX — BRISBANE




Figure C.10 FSP FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX — CANBERRA




Figure C.11 FSP FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX — DARWIN




Figure C.12 FSP FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX — HOBART




Figure C.13 FSP FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX — PERTH




Figure C.14 FSP FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX — MELBOURNE




Figure C.15 FSP FAMILY SUPPORT PROGRAM SERVICE OUTLET AND OUTREACH LOCATIONS BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX — SYDNEY




C.3 Service provision by SEIFA disadvantage index

Figure C.16 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - CCS. 2011/12

Note: Service users considered include only registered service users that provided postcode information.


Source: The Allen Consulting Group analysis based on the FSP Data System and the ABS Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 2011

Figure C.17 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - COUNSELLING. 2010/11

Note: 2010/11 data used for counselling services, due to a lack of available data in 2011/12. Service users considered include only registered service users that provided postcode information.





Figure C.18 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - FRC. 2011/12




Figure C.19 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - FDR. 2011/12






Figure C.20 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - RFDR. 2011/12




Figure C.21 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - POP. 2011/12






Figure C.22 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - PSCP. 2011/12




Figure C.23 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - SCaSP. 2011/12






Figure C.24 SERVICE PROVISION BY SEIFA DISADVANTAGE INDEX - TODRS 2011/12






Appendix D

Stakeholders consulted

FSP FAMILY LAW SERVICES RESEARCH – STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

Stakeholder type Organisation

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal service Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander legal service Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Legal Service QLD

Child Support Department of Human Services Child Support

Child Support FaHCSIA Child Support

Community legal centre Women's Legal Centre ACT

Community legal centre Barwon Community Legal Service

Community legal centre Redfern Legal Centre

Community legal centre South West Sydney Legal Centre

Community legal centre Whittlesea Community Connections

Family Court Family Court WA

Family Court Federal Circuit Court

Family Court Family Court of Australia

FLPN Family Law Pathways Networks – Sydney

Family violence prevention legal service Central Australia Aboriginal Family Violence Legal Unit

Family violence prevention legal service FVPLS Victoria

Legal aid commission ACT Legal Aid (via submission from National Legal Aid)

Legal aid commission Legal Aid NSW (via submission from National Legal Aid)

Legal aid commission Northern Territory Legal Aid (via submission from National Legal Aid)

Legal aid commission Legal Aid QLD (via submission from National Legal Aid)

Legal aid commission Legal Services Commission SA (via submission from National Legal Aid)

Legal aid commission Tasmanian Legal Aid (via submission from National Legal Aid)

Legal aid commission Victorian Legal Aid (via submission from National Legal Aid)

Legal aid commission WA Legal Aid Commission (via submission from National Legal Aid)

Legal Advice Service Culshaw Miller

Other Australian Institute of Families Studies

Other Professor Patrick Parkinson (Family Law Review Editor)

Peak Body Family Relationship Services Australia

Peak Body Family Law Section of Law Council

Peak Body National Legal Aid

Telephone/online dispute resolution Relationships Australia (QLD)

FaHSCIA Family Support Program Branch

Source: The Allen Consulting Group



Attachments

Attachment A: Research on Family Support Program family law services: Family Relationship Centre case study compendium

Attachment B: Family Support Program Literature Review: Research into the Family Support Program: Family Law Services

Attachment C: Family Support Program family law services: Gauging the User Experience Report

Chapter 6 Value for money outcomes of FRCs · PDF fileChapter 6 Value for money outcomes of...

Documents

Transcript of Chapter 6 Value for money outcomes of FRCs · PDF fileChapter 6 Value for money outcomes of...