The number of agencies that have endorsed the Charter of Rights has grown to 56, with Nanny SA being the most recent.  See the photo below.

The network of Charter Champions also continues to grow, now numbering 183.  More than a quarter or them participated in a survey about children’s experiences of moving while in care.  The results to the survey questions kick-started on-line conversations.  Thanks to all who responded.

The information collected is part of the evidence gathering for the 2013 inquiry about what children say about moving.  In the past three months we have also examined 100 case files, interviewed 20 young people and held three focus groups, to understand better the decision making process and the impact of changing placements.

Work on the comic for young people about managing conflict goes ahead with a group of young people from Mount Barker and from CREATE SA giving feedback on the work of the writer and artist. You can read more about this project on page 1.

Another 100 boxes of flashcards about children’s rights have gone to children with disabilities, with the assistance of Disability Services.

The advocacy team have applied their stage make-up for a new video about advocacy on behalf of children.  They talked of their experience, some of the rewards and the pitfalls.  Look out for it soon.

In the first quarter of 2013, the Office of the Guardian received 36 requests for intervention on behalf of 40 children, audited 47 annual reviews and visited five residential or juvenile justice units.

Nanny SA CEO Peter Emmerton signs the certificate of endorsement of the Charter of Rights with Guardian Pam Simmons

Nanny SA CEO Peter Emmerton signs the certificate of endorsement of the Charter of Rights with Guardian Pam Simmons

Find out more about the work of the Office and issues for young people in care, follow our Twitter feed.

link to twitter

 

The ACCG meeting in Hobart.

The ACCG meeting in Hobart.

Working with the National Commissioner for Children, issues for young people moving from out-of-home care to independent living and the National Framework for Protecting Australian Children were among the topics discussed when the Children’s Commissioners and Guardians met in Hobart on 2 and 3 May 2013.

You can read the ACCG Communique May 2013.

The ACCG promotes children’s rights and participation and ensure the best interests of children are considered in public policy and program development across Australia.

For further information on the ACCG and the work of the Children’s Commissioners and Guardians contact the ACCG National Convenor, Bernie Geary, (03) 86015886.

photo of Perter emmerton and Pam Simmons surrounded by the Nanny SA team.

Nanny SA CEO Peter Emmerton and Guardian Pam Simmons with the staff team after the signing of the Charter of Rights certificate of endorsement.

In January this year, Nanny SA became the 55th organisation to endorse the Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care.  Nanny SA is part of the Hessal Group and provides staff to fill short term vacancies in Families SA houses for young people in care.

Nanny SA CEO Peter Emmerton said, ‘Supporting rights is an important part of what we do here and some of the rights in the Charter will be applicable to all the young people we encounter, not just those in care’.

Find more articles about the Charter and children’s rights in our Twitter feed.

link to twitter

picture of Pam Simmons

Guardian Pam Simmons

In the Office of the Guardian we get many opportunities to advocate on behalf of children and young people and it is a very rewarding part of our work.  ‘Doing it right’ though doesn’t always mean achieving the change the child wants but it means completing the advocacy with stronger relationships and the child or young person feeling satisfied with taking action.

Based on what young people have had to say about participation, advocacy and making complaints, we have a pretty good idea of what works from a young person’s point of view.1

Good advocacy for children starts from listening very well and closely.  Clarifying what the child wants in their own terms but being careful not to redefine it to fit our own view of the situation or what would make our life easier.

 Jake, 12, wants more contact with his father Colin.  Jake’s social worker is of the opinion that Colin is unreliable and self-centred.  Colin has made promises to Jake before and has almost always let him down and left Jake unsettled and unhappy.  Jake’s foster family are resentful of Colin’s presence.  They have looked after Jake for the last four years and have seen him settle into a happy child who attends school and has good friends.  Jake has occasional, enjoyable time with his siblings who live with another family.  Jake has asked us to advocate for more contact with his father.

Jake’s views are clear.  But before we launch into representing his views we have to talk through the context, such as the limitations to his power (his father may let him down), his responsibility to others (what impact will this have on his foster family), unanticipated consequences (the trade-off in reduced time with his siblings).

Advocating for one thing as if it is isolated from all other things is dangerous.  This is particularly so when it affects relationships between people and it is an advocate’s responsibility to think this through with the young person.

Invariably, every problem is layered, so exercising power can lie within (or below) the presenting problem.  An advocate will negotiate among the parties for some change.  In my example, it may not be good or possible for Jake to have more face to face contact with Colin but could he make a connection through Facebook, through Colin’s mother, or by getting more information about his father?  And it might be that these alternatives are more palatable to his foster family.

Perhaps the toughest test of good advocacy is timeliness.  For us, Jake’s request is just one of the matters in our work life, progressed through meetings, emails, and due process.  It is easy to forget what it feels like to be Jake, waiting and hanging on a decision. Persistence and respectful pursuit of a resolution are fundamental to good advocacy.

It is also tempting to take the issue on as if it is our own, to anticipate success for ourselves by arguing well or using our authority, and to assume that the goal is to get what we asked for.  The goal is always more complicated than that.  Beyond the immediate issue is what we leave behind us when we step out from the advocate’s role.  First, did the young person feel in control of what happened during the advocacy or complaint?  Did they act for themselves whenever that was possible? (Sometimes they just need to know who to ask.)  Did we check back on their views?  Did we explain well enough what decisions they could make and what they couldn’t and why?

So even if Jake does not get all that he wants he should be left feeling that he was listened to and his views respected, with a sense of control and empowerment and with the important relationships with his foster family and his worker intact.
_____________________________________________________

1 See for example, Barnes, V (2007) ‘Young People’s Views of Children’s Rights and Advocacy Services: A Case for ‘Caring’ Advocacy?’ Child Abuse Review v.16 pp 140-152; Ofsted (2012) Young People’s Views on Complaints and Advocacy, www.rights4me.org; and drawn from advice provided by the Guardian’s Youth Advisors.

Find more articles on advocacy in our Twitter feed.

link to twitter

Professor Andrew Day

The answer is a resounding yes according to Professor Andrew Day, Professor of Clinical and Forensic Psychology in the Forensic Psychology Centre at Deakin University.

‘Analysis of studies from thousands of programs around the world show that good programs, well implemented, can reduce re-offending rates by up to 40 per cent.

‘If we don’t intervene we know that most young offenders will re-offend within two years.  Given the enormous social and economic cost to the community of a life of crime, programs to reduce re-offending are great value for money.’

Professor Day notes that in South Australia we have a well developed system of diversion which gives young offenders the opportunities and support to change their offending behaviour. ‘Offending behaviour is deeply rooted in the culture and the environment of the young offender.  Working not only with the offender, but with their families and peer groups offers us the best chance of success. Serious offenders, such as those committing serious assaults and violent sexual crimes can benefit from another layer of treatment that focuses on the causes of the behaviour, on the assumptions, attitudes and environment that triggers offending. This kind of intervention has shown to be particularly effective with some of our most serious young offenders.’

Professor Day notes the recent Productivity Commission findings showing that the disproportionately high rates of detention of Aboriginal young people across Australia are not improving. ‘Successes with Indigenous young people have come from developing culturally relevant programs and delivering them in ways that are engaging. We still have work to do in this area in South Australia.’

So, what would a good rehabilitation program for young offenders look like? ‘Well, there would be a range of initiatives that would ensure continuity between the services offered within detention centres to what is available in the community.  There would be a framework for assessing risk of re-offending and placing young people in the most relevant program to their level of risk, as well as quality assurance to ensure programs are implemented to a high standard. Programs themselves would place an emphasis on how young people think about their behaviour, and manage difficult emotions, as well as working with families or carers and other significant people as young people transition back into the community at the end of their sentence. Programs would be multi-faceted and integrate with and support other services such as education and vocational training and health services.  They would build skills and address attitudes and culture in preparation for the young person’s return to the community.’

Professor Day commented that the effectiveness of a program lies in the quality of its delivery. ‘A moderately effective program that is well run will produce better results than a more effective one that is poorly delivered. The most effective programs are those delivered by well trained and motivated staff with good supervision and support.’

And, of course, that are based on evidence.‘There is a sound base of knowledge to predict what will work in rehabilitating young offenders – and what will not. Increased punishment will not work, and may increase offending in some circumstances, and neither will increased supervision.  Boot camps, with no therapeutic input, have long been known to fail as a means of rehabilitation.

‘The good news is that rehabilitation programs can be effective even in settings such as detention centres.  Ideally we would like to provide the kind of stable and supportive environments that young people need to thrive in the community but for some young offenders detention can provide safety, stability, access to education and training and access to rehabilitation programs that can start them on the road to changing their lives.’

For more about rehabilitation and young offenders see Professor Day’s chapter on the subject in Casey, S., Day, A., Ward, T., & Vess, J. (2012). Foundations of Offender Rehabilitation. Oxford: Routledge Publishing. Other chapters on theories of crime and models of behaviour are also informative.

More research and opinion about rehabilitation for young offenders is on our Twitter feed.

link to twitter