Marie ConnollyNick Corrigan

Marilyn Chilvers

Transitioning children in care: More than just moving house

Planning for Transition

Drivers

Data

Research

Challenges

Succes

s

Overview

Calls for systems change

Usher to Wood

Trend to partnerships

Cultural imperatives

Transition children

Transform the system

Drivers

Transition of OOHC to the NGO sector

• The purpose of the transition of services from the government to the non-government sector is to achieve the best possible outcomes for children, young people and their families by delivering a quality sustainable non-government Out-of-Home Care service system for NSW.

• The table below shows the overall OOHC population as at 30 June 2011 and the projected transition rate over the next 10 years.

Out-of-Home Care Population30 June

2011

Statutory Care (CS and NGO) 10,800

Supported and Other Care 7,100

Total 17,900

3,000 children and young people

already placed with NGOs

7,800 children and young people

placed with CS

90% placed with NGOs

10% placed with CS

100% placed with NGOs

0% placed with CS

30 June 2011 In 4 years In 10 years

Data

Rate of transition over 10 years

NGO transition planning

Community Services

NGO

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2011 in 4 years in 10 years

% o

f C

YP

in S

tatu

tory

Car

e30% placed with NGOs

70% placed with CS

90% to be placed with NGOs

10% to be placed with CS

100% to be placed with

NGOs

0% to be placed with CS

Data

Profile of Transition Cohort

6

7,800 children and young

people

33% Aboriginal children and young people

66% non-Aboriginal

children and young people

47% placed in Statutory Relative and Kinship care

53% placed in Statutory Foster

care

AboriginalityPlacement type

Age profile

29% aged < 5 years old

34% aged 5 years to <10 years old

37% aged 10 years to <18 years

old

Children and young people placed with CS including new

entries

Data

Report on children in care: www.community.nsw.gov.au

Effective practices in child and family welfareResearch

The experiences

and voices of children

Working with vulnerable

children and families

Children in Care

Restoration

A helpful system

The experiences and voices of children... Research

• Willingness to listen and show empathy; reliability; taking action; respecting confidence; see child as whole not just problem (Oliver 2010); Someone who is contactable; who follows through on promises; someone who cares about their

interests (CCYP&CG 2009)• More contact with family (Cleaver 2000; Wilson et al 2004)

• Adequate consultation and information; good consistent levels of support; genuine efforts to avoid them feeling excluded (Morgan 2005)

• Greater say in the development of their care plans (Morgan 2005; Timms & Thoburn 2003). Children and young people also recognise the importance of participating in

decision-making (Cashmore 2002; SCSI 2002)• Workers as friends and equals – highlighting the complexities in working with

vulnerable children (McLeod 2010)

What they say they want

• Not knowing what is going on, including their own care plan; 1 in 5 did not feel safer in care (Timms & Thoburn 2003)

• Feeling different and not belonging (Hek et al 2010)• Being treated differently (Morgan 2005)

• Workers talking to the adults and not to them (Morgan 2005)• Feeling homesick; being rejected; not being able to return home (Aldgate &

Bradley 1999)• Being listened to is not necessarily the same as being influential (Morris &

Connolly 2012)• Experiences of poor practice compounded feelings of sadness, loss and their

sense of being different (Bromfield et al 2005). Children also saw poor practice having a negative impact on placement sustainability

Some of the things they are

concerned about

• Feelings of being secure and trusting their carers (Selwyn et al 2008)• Several studies indicate that while children feel that being in a foster home is

the best thing for them and that their quality of life has improved, they also miss their family (Fox et al 2000; Sinclair et al 2001)

• Australian research indicates that children have been broadly positive about their care experiences, that they have felt secure, and their carers have been

supportive (Bromfield et al 2005)• Positive impact on their educational outcomes (Brodie 2009)

Positive aspects of their care

Working with vulnerable children and families...Research

• Good outcomes are influenced by supportive engagement (Trotter 2004); As much as 30% of good outcomes can be directly attributed to the relationship between the

worker and the family (McKeown 2000); 40% of therapeutic success has been attributed to factors outside the therapeutic relationships, e.g. Factors such as

engagement and empathy (Lambert and Barley 2001). • Good outcomes are also influenced by role clarity, the reinforcement of pro-social

values, and collaborative problem-solving (Trotter 2004). ‘Power-with’ rather than ‘power over’ (Dumbrill 2006)

• Family-led case plans are effective (Crampton 2003; Titcomb & LeCroy 2003)• FGC pilot in NSW demonstrated improved relationships; enhanced capacity to

reach agreement, and reduced risk to children in 2/3 of cases (Wood 2008)

Strengthening Practice

• One-size-fits-all doesn’t work, whole-of-community responses are more likely to be successful (Libesman 2004)

• Take community centred, family inclusive approaches to child protection concerns; advocate an Indigenous perspective for child protection processes; create greater understanding of child protection issues within communities, build collaborative

relationships; ensure children are culturally safe as well as physically and emotionally safe (Higgins & Butler 2007)

• Understand risk factors and intergenerational context of neglect; increased role for extended families and support networks; strengths-based practice, family-focused

practice and shared care (Francis et al 2008)• Recognition of importance of connection to family, connection to community, and

connection to culture (Higgins et al 2005)

Cultural imperatives

• The human brain is most responsive and malleable in early life – 90% of brain growth occurs by the age of three (Shore 1997). By the age of 1 year babies

usually build strong “memory templates” of their bonded relationships (Szalavitz & Perry 2010). This points to the role early relationships play in

creating resilience and adaptability (Shonkoff & Phillips 2001)• Stability of care and attachment has been found to be of critical importance to

child wellbeing (Watson 2005; Atwool 2007). Children can form multiple attachments – particularly important when working across diverse cultural groups. Interlinking fields of attachment and child protection is important

(Bacon & Richardson 2001; Mennen & O’Keefe 2005)

Children’s needs

Restoration... Research

• The age, ethnicity and health of children in OOHC are the most consistently studied factors regarding restoration and other permanency outcomes, age

being the most significant predictor of restoration. Infants are less likely to be reunified, school age children being more likely to be restored to family (Akin 2011; Shaw 2010; Connell et al 2006). Aboriginal children are less likely to be

reunified (Delfabbro et al 2003). • Child health problems and/or disability negatively impacts on restoration rates

(Shaw 2010; Connell et al 2006; Harris & Courtney 2003).

Child characteristic

s• Most studies on restoration look at how the characteristics of the family impact

on placement decision, and therefore restorative decisions. Harris and Courtney (2003) found children in two parent families were likely to be restored

more quickly than children in sole parent families (but this is complicated by ethnicity). Courtney (1994) found children from intact two parent families more likely to be restored following kinship placements. Fernandez (1999) found that

children in foster care were more likely to be restored to sole parents. Some studies found children in foster care were more likely to be reunited than

kinship placements (Shaw 2010; Connell et al 2006; Harris and Courtney 2003). • Family contact has been associated with increased rates of restoration

(Delfabbro et al 2002; Davis 1996). Findings are nevertheless complicated by family functioning, history etc.

Family characteristic

s• Early placement stability has been associated with increased likelihood of

reunification (Akin 2011), but differences decrease over time. Delfabrro et al (2002) found boys, rural placements and those with multiple placement

changes were more likely to experience placement disruption. • Probability of restoration is higher when child first comes into care (Connell

2006; Fernandez 1999). Probability steeply declines over the first few months of care, then slows down thereafter. Higher restorations occurred from first

placement (Fernandez 1999). In contrast, Akin (20110 found highest likelihood of restoration occurred between 15-18 months.

Placement characteristic

s

Children in care... Research

• There are ongoing concerns about stability for children in care (Sinclair 2010; Ward 2008). Sinclair suggests that sustaining placements through increased

use of kinship care, adoption or genuinely supported placements supporting a home for life is key to good outcomes. Kinship care is supported as a viable

out-of-home care option (Winokur et al 2009)• Positive long-term outcomes have been linked to the presence of a trusted

person in the child’s life (SCSI 2002). Good outcomes after care has been linked to the extent to which the young person felt cared for, listened to, and

being emotionally secure in care (Cashmore & Paxman 2003)

Stability and care

• Historically children in care have had poor educational outcomes (Zetlin et al 2005). In response, initiatives in the UK have resulted in positive benefits (Brodie

2009). Carers and workers can have powerful influences.•Studies have identified physical health concerns (Meltzer et al 2003; Nathanson &

Tzioumi 2007) and concerns regarding issues of mental health (Park & Ryan 2009; Halfon et al 2002). Children also present with complex needs (Bromfield et

al 2005).

Health and Education

• Evidence suggests that children may have a more successful return home and their mental health needs may be better support if contact arrangements are

carefully maintained (Sinclair 2005), and value in maintaining family connections has been identified (Wilson 2004; Cleaver 2004). Placement with

family and friends can make contact easier (Broad 2004). Contact with siblings is an important element of family contact (Morris & Connolly 2012)

• Contact can nevertheless be potentially harmful (Farmer et al 2004).

Family contact

A helpful system... Research

• New workers are not well prepared for child welfare work (Crettenden et al 2010; Healy & Meagher 2007)

• Orientation, training and support are essential, including creative training opportunities such as online learning, mentoring, buddying

etc (McPherson & Barnett 2006)• Minimal teaching of evidence-informed practice (Howard et al 2003)

• Positive outcomes are related to manageable workloads (Wood 2008; Murray 2002, 2004; Tittke 2002)

Worker preparation and support

• Workforce skills: effective communication and engagement with children and families; understanding of child development; promoting child welfare;

supporting transitions; multi-agency working; sharing information (Children’s Workforce Development Council 2010)

• Decision-making doesn’t always reflect best practice principles, often adult focused, and deficit focused (Ayre 1998)

• Culture of fear can impact on decision-making (NT Govt 2010; Wood 2008)• Reflexive exploration of ‘near misses’ can promote learning and prevent

defensive decision-making (Bostock et al 2005)

Workforce skills

• Interagency collaboration and coordinated responses enable effective interventions (DfE&S 2010; Ford 2007; Vardon 2004)

• Clear communication; knowledge of frameworks, roles, processes, criteria, role clarity; resources, are important (Darlington et al 2005)

• Interventions and treatment: parenting interventions that improve parent/child interactions and child mental health (Montgomery et al 2009);

Cultural healing processes (Cripps & McGlade 2008)• Neglect interventions: focus on family; provision of services – mental

health; substance abuse treatment; concrete services; early childhood; community support and social networks (Berry et al 2003)

Collaboration, interventions and treatment

Challenges

Partnership

Community Services

NGOs

Aboriginal Sector

Challenges

NGOs

Nimble vs mass mobilisation

Niche vs holistic

Community voices vs unified response

Selective delivery vs ultimate responsibility

9-5 culture vs always there

Values organisation vs Government job vs

Competition vs collaboration

Partnership vs contracting

Community Services

Challenges

Aboriginal Sector

Capacity building

Workforce

Needs of a child v. needs of a system

Local boundaries

Non-Aboriginal carers

Challenges

Partnership

Challenges

Successful Partnerships

Vision Memb

ership

Leadership

Decision

StructuresGover

nance

Communicati

on

Trust

Mutuality

Evidence

Implementation Framework Success

What will (system) success look like?

NGOs and CS are connected working together seamlessly as a result of having appropriate governance mechanisms in place.

NGOs are provided support to build on existing, or establish new capacity to provide OOHC services.

OOHC contract models are in place which emphasise permanency, restoration and preservation.

The roles and responsibilities of NGOs and CS with respect to ongoing casework are clearly defined.

The assessment of the needs of new Children or Young People in care is transparent and structured through the use of a single tool (the Child Assessment Tool).

Clear, local processes for transferring Children and Young People who are currently under the care of CS are in place.

Children and Young People who are currently under the care of CS, along with their carers, are well informed and supported through the transition process.

The NGO sector leads the ongoing recruitment of suitable carers that best meet the needs of Children and Young People in care.

Success

What will real success look like?

Fewer children will enter care as a consequence of stronger emphasis on, and service commitment to, restoration work

Children in OOHC will be well supported through practice systems that focus on their treatment and permanency needs

Carers will be well supported and focused on the needs of the child and family

Aboriginal children will be cared for through culturally responsive systems, strengthened over time

Services will work together to create new and innovative ways of working with and supporting vulnerable children and their families

Success

Marie Connolly: marie.connolly@unimelb.edu.au Nick Corrigan: transition@absec.org.au

Marilyn Chilvers: Marilyn.Chilvers@facs.nsw.gov.au

Transitioning children in care: More than just moving house

Thank you