Cooperation and collaboration survey January 2018 – some gains and some way still to go

‘My experience is that when workers across the systems work collaboratively and cooperatively with each other the outcomes for the child and carers can be positive in numerous ways and is heart-warming.’ – survey respondent

Compared to 2017

Compared to the June 2017 results, the January 2018 respondents award modest improvements in some areas. Cooperation between the Department for Child Protection (DCP) workers and foster and kinship carers occurs frequently or always according to 23% and 28% of respondents respectively, both significant improvements.  It is up by 15% to a survey-best of 31% among organisations when there is an investigation of child sexual abuse.

The poorest performers

Cooperative relationships that occurred least frequently were between

  • DCP staff and the National Disability Insurance Agency
  • disability services and DCP workers
  • heads of government on child protection matters
  • organisations, NGOs, universities and other training organisations on workforce planning

Overall

Even for the best performing relationships, the survey revealed how far we are from a situation in which cooperation and collaboration occurs frequently or always with only six of the nineteen relationships surveyed exceeding 20% and none exceeding 31%.

Strategic relationships were among the worst rated.  Cooperation between heads of government departments, workforce planning and service planning were given ‘never’ or ‘not normal’ ratings by 49%, 60% and 47% of respondents respectively.

Comments

Our special thanks to the many respondents who made extensive comments and they mostly agree with the general direction of the statistics.  They also illuminate specific issues and, apart from a few excisions, we reproduce them in full in the report.

Download the January 2018 Cooperation and collaboration survey report.

A Training Centre Visitor for young people in detention

Penny Wright is Training Centre Visitor in addition to being Guardian for Children and Young People. Work is well underway to set up the new Training Centre Visitor (TCV) Program established by the Youth Justice Administration Act, 2016.

At the heart of the new program is the obligation to listen to and promote the best interests of children and young people in the youth justice system. A major milestone is the commencement of Travis Thomas, the first Advocate to start developing relationships with residents at the two Adelaide Youth Training Centre (AYTC) sites.

The role of the TCV

The TCV will provide the South Australian community with independent scrutiny of the conditions and rights of children and young people in detention.  This is just the sort of independent oversight body’ proposed in recommendation 15.10 of the recent report of the Commonwealth Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse.

The TCV will promote the best interests of AYTC residents by mechanisms such as an advocacy service and ongoing visiting and formal inspection programs.  As is usual with independent positions of this sort, the TCV also can conduct inquiries about any matters referred by the Minister and can initiate an own motion inquiry about systemic reform.

Progress

With the recruitment of Advocate Travis Thomas to the team, work will prioritise dialogue with AYTC residents to advise them about the new TCV role and to build the relationship necessary to elicit and express their views, aspirations and needs.  Dialogue with other stakeholders will continue or be established, particularly AYTC staff and management, and the community and government agencies with an interest in youth justice.

The detailed work necessary to create an operational framework for the TCV Program is underway including the development of appropriate standards, guidelines and policies.  This will be done, as much as possible, to ensure that the TCV Program will work in line with international standards such as those that will come into force following Australia’s recent ratification of the Optional Protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (OPCAT)

Special groups

Importantly, the Youth Justice Administration Act directs the TCV to respond to the needs of three particular groups of children and young people . They are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders who are significantly over-represented, those who are under guardianship in the child protection system and those who have a physical, psychological or intellectual disability.

The TCV program will provide accessible, credible and culturally appropriate services that reflects and promote the views of AYTC residents about  their care, conditions, treatment and opportunities for development.  The program also will identify opportunities for improvements and promote systemic change in the youth justice sector.

The program will comply with Parliament’s requirement that all state authorities protect, respect and seek to give effect to rights set out in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant international human rights instruments affecting children and young people.  A focus for this will be reference to entitlements enshrined in the Charter of Rights for Youth Detained in Training Centres, also endorsed by Parliament.

Information sessions

The TCV Program team will host a series of information sessions in the coming months to provide further information to interested stakeholders.  If you would like further information or to attend, please email or phone Belinda Lorek or Alan Fairley on 8226 8570.

This story first appeared in the Guardian’s Newsletter for February 2018, downloadable here.

SA spends more on child protection and gets less – 2016-17 ROGS

diagram showing child protection services

The Productivity Commission’s 2016-17 Report on Government Services (ROGS) helps understanding of how the South Australian Government’s expenditure on child protection has changed and how it compares with other states.

Child protection services expenditure in SA per child* has increased significantly from $749 to $1,396 in the period 2013-14 to 2016-17 but the real interest is how this translates into the different services that comprise child protection:

  • in protective intervention services we spend $90 per child, which is just 41 percent of the national average
  • in family support services we spend $131 per child, 49 percent more than the national average – an increase of over 300 percent in the the period 2013-14 to 2016-17
  • in intensive family support services we spend $83 per child, roughly on par with the national average
  • in out-of-home care (foster, kinship and residential care), we spend $1,092 per child which is 91 percent more than the national average.

Out-of-home care consumed 78 percent of the SA child protection budget in 2016-17.

Why does SA spend 79 percent more than the national average on out-of-home care?

One of the reasons is that SA relies much more on relatively expensive residential care (properties staffed with paid workers) rather than home-based care (foster and kinship care). In 2016-17 in South Australia it cost, on average, $670,142 per child in residential care compared to $48,005 per child in home-based care.  Another reason is that SA has relied more than other states on so-called ’emergency’ care which makes use of private agency staff to provide care in rented accommodation – more costly but far less suitable to the needs of children.

*refers to a resident child 0-17 in the SA population as a whole.

There is much more detail in our paper South Australian child protection expenditure from the Report on Government Services 2018, available for download now.

 

Collaboration survey results – The views of Government and NGOs

This week we look at how perceptions of collaboration and cooperation in child protection differ between government organisations and NGOs.

Given that collaboration should occur ‘frequently’ or ‘always’  in no areas did more than half of Government or non-Government respondents report that this was the case.

Differences

Government respondents almost always perceived much higher levels of collaboration and cooperation than NGO respondents.  Averaging all areas, 23 percent of Government versus 7 percent of NGO respondents rated collaboration and cooperation as occurring ‘frequently’ or ‘always’ .

NGO respondents rated collaboration and cooperation much lower that Government respondents most significantly:

  • between organisations working with children in the courts on child protection matters
  • between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal organisations on matters related to individual Aboriginal children
  • between organisations supporting children after sexual abuse

Areas of agreement

Government and NGO respondents agreed on a number of areas where levels of cooperation and collaboration never occurred or were not normal.  These included:

  • between government organisations, NGOs and universities and other training organisations on workforce planning
  • between heads of government departments on child protection matters
  • between government and Aboriginal organisations on policy about Aboriginal children in care
  • between DCP staff and the National Disability Insurance Agency

Comments from Government respondents

Communication between stakeholders is paramount in finding workable support and solutions… we just need to drop the walls and get on with the job holisicly!

We have excellent support from CAMHS staff and Residential care, also fabulous support from My Youth Health Nurse who visits regularly to assist young people. There has been an improved interaction between agencies and DCP to assist Aboriginal young people in care.

There is extreme variation of quality and quantity of collaboration and coordination between individuals and agencies involved in the care and protection of children and young people. In my area, it is of particular concern that there is such poor communication between DCP and other government agencies (principally DECD), as well as the NGO sector with regard to the training and development of DCP staff, workforce planning and aligning practice between DCP and non DCP workers who are charged with similar roles in the child protection system. Not only in this poor management and support of the workforce, it contributes to inconsistencies in knowledge, skills and practice and thus poorer outcomes for children and young people.

I work in child and adolescent mental health and part of my role is to work across the system for the purpose of creating or strengthening scaffolding for the child or adolescent and their carers. My experience is that when workers across the systems work collaboratively and cooperatively with each other the outcomes for the child ?? and carers can be positive in numerous ways and is heartwarming. Obviously this doesn’t always happen for many reasons, much of which I believe is work overload and insufficient supports for many workers leading to a stressed system and a lack of education and deep understanding of the effects of trauma and abuse on young people. However the system also has a band of many experienced and dedicated workers in all areas who support the strengthening of the system in the course of doing their jobs. Thanks for the work and role your organisation plays ??

Comments from non-Government respondents

This to me is still a huge area for practice development. It is too often the case that the systems around the child are the ongoing contributor to the complexities and anxiety placed on the child in care. It is clear through the many commissions that change is critical in collaboration and coordination, however I fear that the changes occurring are a result of a tick-boxing exercise and are not occurring in the spirit of collaboration and coordination across the sector.

Government departments frequently consult with stakeholders but it’s often shallow and doesn’t appear to have impact on decisions and policy. At the most basic level, care team planning for children in OOHC doesn’t have happen. Carers and NGOs are not respected and asked for input once decisions are made.  DCP have no idea of, or commitment to, real co-design or partnership.

**Comments have had minor proofing changes. Some comments have been edited for brevity and to minimise repetition.

Secure Therapeutic Care – Framing Principles

In October 2017, the Guardian provided advice to the Minister for Education and Child Development with reference to bills before State Parliament.  In it she discussed tensions between the child’s right to freedom and self-determination and the need to take appropriate steps to protect a child from danger and to aid their psychological recovery.

This advice is now available for download.

The UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights – 70 years on

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the foundation of international human rights law and just as relevant now as it was when it was created 70 years ago.

It represents the recognition that basic rights and fundamental freedoms are inherent to all human beings, whatever their nationality, place of residence, gender, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, language, or any other status. It is the great grandparent of our own Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care.

Since its origins in the aftermath of World War Two, the Declaration has inspired more than 80 international human rights treaties and declarations, a great number of regional human rights conventions, domestic human rights bills and constitutional provisions. Together , they constitute a comprehensive, legally binding, system for the promotion and protection of human rights.

To mark its anniversary, this is the first of a short series of articles on the importance of understanding, promoting and safeguarding rights, particularly those of children and young people growing up in care.

Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, is widely recognised as the driving force for the Declaration’s adoption

Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, is widely recognised as the driving force for the Declaration’s adoption

Spurred by the global tragedy of the Second World War, the United Nations was formally created in October 1945 after representatives of the original 51 member countries signed or ratified the United Nations Charter. Early in its existence, the UN decided a roadmap was required to complement the Charter and to guarantee the fundamental rights of every individual. This ultimately led to the development and proclamation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

The Declaration was drafted by representatives with different legal and cultural backgrounds, drawn from all regions of the world. Eleanor Roosevelt, widow of American President Franklin D. Roosevelt, chaired the drafting committee. Australia was represented on that committee by William Hodgson.

When the Declaration was proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in December 1948, the UN consisted of 58 member states. Since then, membership has grown to 193 and the Declaration has become a global document. In 1999, the Guinness Book of Records declared it the most translated document in the world and it has been translated into more than 500 languages. One of the most remote languages is Pipil – an almost extinct language spoken in El Salvador by less than 50, mainly elderly, people. In this way, translating the Declaration has also served to preserve culture.

Over time, international human rights treaties have become more focused and specialised, addressing a variety of defined social groups and issues, many relevant to our own community.  They include, for example, the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment.

Particularly relevant to the work of the Guardian’s Office is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Signed by 196 countries, and ratified by every member state of the UN, except the United States, the Convention came into force in 1990 and is the most widely ratified human rights treaty.

Under South Australia’s legislation, the Guardian’s Office is responsible for developing and implementing the Charter of Rights for Children and Young People in Care – which is just one of the ways the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child influence our work.

In our next newsletter, we’ll look at the Convention of the Rights of the Child.

More information about the 70th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights can be found on this web page.

This story first appeared in the Guardian’s Newsletter for February 2018, downloadable here.

Collaboration survey results – staff of Government schools and the DCP

 

 

 

 

 

The results from the survey completed in January 2018 show little change from the June 2017 survey in the rate of collaboration and cooperation between workers in Government schools (DECD) and those in the Department for Child Protection (DCP).  However, DCP and DECD workers see things quite differently with DCP workers consistently rating levels of collaboration and cooperation as higher than their education colleagues.

Collaboration between between staff of Government schools and DCP workers
nevernot normalsometimesfrequentlyalwaysn*
June 2017 – all responses71855201246
Jan. 2018 – all responses52058152105
Jan. 2018 – DCP employees0176711618
Jan. 2018 – DECD employees15224122027

*n is the number of respondents who felt competent to comment on this aspect of collaboration and cooperation. Where the numbers are small, one should be careful of drawing more than general conclusions.

Comments by DCP workers**

January is not a normal month as a lot of agencies slow down during the Christmas break and school holidays. Otherwise there is a lot of dialogue with schools and DCP.

There is extreme variation of quality and quantity of collaboration and coordination between individuals and agencies involved in the care and protection of children and young people. In my area, it is of particular concern that there is such poor communication between DCP and other government agencies (principally DECD), as well as the NGO sector with regard to the training and development of DCP staff, workforce planning and aligning practice between DCP and non DCP workers who are charged with similar roles in the child protection system. Not only is this poor management and support of the workforce, it contributes to inconsistencies in knowledge, skills and practice and thus poorer outcomes for children and young people.

Comments by DECD workers**

I feel that DCP needs to open up the lines of communication with DECD/schools. Education needs to be given a greater importance then DCP often give it. Connection to education is linked to future outcomes for students.

Lack of communication from DCP with schools and DECD Student Support services; difficult to get DCP workers to attend case meetings; difficult to get a DCP worker to talk to on the phone about one of their clients (e.g. a guardianship child). DCP don’t always put the required consideration in to what school to enrol a guardianship child. (Please note these are general statements, there can be DCP workers who communicate and interact well).

There are times when there is good information sharing and planning between agencies, but other times not so. Seems somewhat dependent on staff involved.

I am as social worker in a Children’s Centre and we work very well with the Department of Child Protection and other government and non-government agencies in relation to supporting children at risk. I believe the only reason why collaboration is not always available is due to lack of resources in relation to the Department of Child Protection given on the ground workers are always operating at full capacity.

DECD Support Services often makes contact with DCP caseworkers regarding children already in care – often without return contact or reply… I make lots of recommendations in my reports and I rarely hear if any of these have been followed up by DCP. Personally have found DCP staff very difficult to contact. Staffing vacancies in the country most likely contribute to this.

Comment by an NGO worker**

In my limited experience of working with young people in care in the public school system, there is very limited communication between DCP and schools. Incidents such as missing person reports, lack of attendance, mental health and physical health, suicide and self harm risks and many other factors that impact upon a young person’s ability to attend and engage in education have not been clearly communicated with the school. This means that we as educators and school support staff are unable to provide the required support to ensure that the young person’s right to an education is upheld.

**Comments have had minor proofing changes. Some comments have been edited for brevity and to minimise repetition.

Analysis and commentary

Although the number of respondents was fewer than in the 2017 survey, there is little change from the June 2018 survey in the rate of collaboration and cooperation between workers in Government schools (DECD) and those in the the Department for Child Protection (DCP). The comments left identify similar issues to those identified in the June 2017 survey.

It is reasonable to expect that cooperation and collaboration should occur ‘always’ or ‘frequently’. By this criterion, DCP respondents, DECD respondents and respondents as a whole give the Government schools-DCP collaboration a substantial ‘fail’.

The  respondents’ comments generally suggest that, as the most significant decision makers and holders of information, DCP should be taking the initiative in promoting this collaboration.

Collaboration survey results – foster carers and the DCP

The results from the Collaboration and Cooperation Survey completed last week show little change in the rate of collaboration and cooperation between foster carers and the Department for Child Protection, with percentages in each category being similar to those in June 2017.  Responses from those identifying as foster carers varied significantly from the overall result but the number of foster carers who responded is small.

Collaboration and cooperation between foster carers and  (DCP) workers

nevernot normalsometimesfrequentlyalwaysn*
June 2017 – all responses (%)

2

1557214

235

Jan. 2018 – all responses (%)

22154184

92

Jan. 2018 – foster carers  (%)81742330

12

*n is the number of respondents who felt competent to comment on this aspect of collaboration and cooperation. Where the numbers are small, one should be careful of drawing more than broad general conclusions.

Foster carer comments

Five of the foster carers who responded left comments.  Some comments have been edited for brevity and to minimise repetition.

Cooperation and collaboration between Foster Carers, Kinship Carers and the Department remains sub-standard… Examples of this are an absence of communicating with carers about a child’s access to biological parents which is only known after the access has occurred or material decisions being made with no regard to the best interests of the child.

I am more than disappointed that DCP don’t involve carers in case planning [and] reunification planning…

Carers are being excluded from children’s annual reviews including meetings, copies of their own annual reviews, case planning [and] financial agreements…  Meetings are taking place without carers … decisions are being made by staff, both NGO and DCP, who have never met the children nor the carer and with no knowledge at all…

There is no or very little effective communication … in working WITH foster (carers) parents…

NGO’s are failing to support foster carers who are left to advocate for their children alone. No one has ever checked to see if foster carers are receiving the support NGO’s are paid to provide them. Foster carers are leaving the system and only few are joining!

Comments from other than foster carers

Communication between DCP and Carers (foster and kinship carers caring for children in the statutory care system) can be improved. Many issues that arise for carers are due to lack of communication, miscommunication or poor communication. (NGO Manager)

DCP workers do not have the attitude and skills to work respectfully and collaboratively with families and other professionals….The message about respect and collaboration is not breaking through. (child protection worker – area not identified)

I think communication can be excellent and it can be really poor. I believe it is person-led and not necessarily because any organisation applies quality assurance measures across the agency consistently. (DCP worker)

I’ve not noticed any significant change as recommended by the Royal Commission, in particular foster carers are provided with next to no information on the children residing in their homes. (DCP Worker)

Analysis and commentary

Although the number of respondents was fewer than in the 2017 survey, the responses indicate that there has been little change in the frequency of coordination and collaboration between foster carers and the DCP.  The comments left by foster carers highlight similar issues to those raised in the June 2017 survey and are supported by respondents elsewhere within the system.

It is reasonable to expect that cooperation and collaboration should occur ‘always’ or ‘frequently’. Only 25 percent of respondents to the June 2017 survey and 22 percent of the 2018 survey gave a ‘pass mark’ to the DCP/foster carer collaboration by this standard.  The bulk of the commentators suggested or implied that the DCP should take the initiative in improving the collaborative relationship. Numbers of commentators suggested that workload for DCP workers limited opportunities to develop collaborative practice.

Mental illness and FASD in SA’s young offenders

picture of young person in hoodie

Findings from a recent study by paediatricians and researchers from the Telethon Kids Institute has revealed the high rate of neurodevelopmental impairment in young people in youth detention in Western Australia.

Almost 90 percent of detainees suffered from some sort of impairment and over one third showed severe physical and mental impairment due to excessive alcohol consumption by their mothers during pregnancy.

‘We must be concerned about the risk that similar rates of neurodevelopmental impairment and foetal alcohol syndrome disorder (FASD) exist among young offenders in South Australia’, said Guardian for Children and Young People, Penny Wright.

‘This study highlights the vulnerability of young people, particularly Aboriginal youth, within the justice system and the importance of reliable diagnosis to identify their strengths and difficulties, in order to guide and improve their rehabilitation.

‘Young people with neuro-developmental impairments need early assessment and diagnosis, appropriate interventions and access to support.

‘Knowing if young people are affected by these disorders will enable our community to create more effective diversion programs when they come in contact with the youth justice system and better rehabilitation programs for those who end up in custody.

‘Diagnosing these disorders is a complex process requiring skilled practitioners but the investment would more than pay off in terms of diverting young people away from offending and helping those who do offend return as positive members of the community.

‘A submission made by the National Organisation for Foetal Alcohol Syndrome and Related Disorders to the South Australian Inquiry into the Sale and Consumption of Alcohol in 2013 called for all people entering prison or juvenile detention to be screened for FASD.

‘The submission noted that “Current cognitive behavioural approaches used both in custodial settings and in the community are ineffective for individuals with FASD and it is highly likely that this is a contributing factor in high rates of recidivism.”

‘Understanding the prevalence of FASD in youth detention in South Australia is a crucial step in ensuring effective interventions to promote support and rehabilitation.’
You can download the Guardian’s media release from this link.

Young people speak about protecting their rights in residential care

Following up from Commissioner Nyland’s recommendation #136 in her August 2016 report on child protection systems in South Australia, the Guardian asked CREATE to ask some young people in residential care what they knew about their rights and how they thought that they could be best protected.

Here are some of the things they said.


You can download the above in text form from this link.