Programs for young people should be evaluated – by them

a group of young people at the Royal Commission consultation
An interview with Isabella Daziani from the Department for Child Protection Evaluation Unit

‘In evaluating programs for young people, we think it is fundamental to start with the young people themselves’, says Isabella.
‘If we really want to improve services for young people we must recognise they are the foremost experts in their lives – they know what is working for them and what isn’t.
‘And it must be done genuinely, more than a quick tick and flick to check off the “young people consulted” box.
‘But achieving a genuine, respectful and useful dialogue with young people is not always easy and can be made difficult by the circumstances of the young people. They have a lot of adults coming in and out of their lives and some are understandably reluctant and distrustful of yet another nosey adult. Others may have psychological, intellectual or physical disabilities that we need to acknowledge, and provide them with opportunity to contribute.
‘Some young people may be suspicious of the motives of adults or jaded by consultations that take up their time but produce no follow-up and no change.
‘To talk to young people, you may also need to navigate the attitudes of the adults who care for them. Some adults genuinely believe that young people should be protected from discussing challenging issues. Some believe that only adults can understand and legitimately speak on issues for young people.
‘We have found that many young people are very aware of their circumstances and capable of expressing their insights to a degree that would surprise many adults. They are the experts in their own lives. The young people we have spoken to always surprise and delight us with their insights and their directness.

This is part of a longer interview which includes the views of young people, Isabella’s top tips for consulting and some further reading.

Download the full version of Programs for young people should be evaluated – by them

What Youth Training Centre residents want from their community visitor

AYTC residents going for a football mark

Young footballers in the AYTC going for a mark at the Reconciliation Week game.

Community visits to the Adelaide Youth Training Centre will start this month.  Back in April we asked groups of residents about what they would like from the visits and what they hoped might result.

These are some of the things they said:

‘Why don’t you have a day when you are here each week – like a program?’

 ‘Speak to us as a group.  We might all have the same problem.’

‘Two weeks between visits is too long – you’ll miss all the lovely stories!’

 ‘There’s always stuff going on in the centre that we need more support on.’

‘[We need weekly visits because] anything could be happening in here.’

 ‘We ask the staff to contact you but then we have to wait a few days.’

‘Everyone should have your [phone] number as a pre-set when they come in.’

 ‘If I’m going through a rough patch or I’m not feeling confident, I won’t talk to you.’

‘Advocacy is making time easier.’

 ‘After you talk to the bosses, they treat us better.’

 

The quality and comprehensiveness of child protection practice frameworks in Australia

ACCG Frameowkrs report front page image

One of the key reforms in child protection in Australia recently has been the adoption of overarching child protection frameworks to ensure that practitioners have suitable training and competencies and that models of practice and tools are clearly defined and based on evidence.

So far, these reforms have not produced the expected results, with an increase in the rate of children on substantiated notifications, care and protection orders and in out-of-home care.  It is for this reason, the Australian and New Zealand Children’s Commissioners and Guardians (ACCG) commissioned academics at the Australian Centre for Child Protection at the University of South Australia to examine current frameworks in Australia.

The intention was:

…to develop a benchmarking tool identifying the key components of child protection practice frameworks and a procedure for assessing the extent to which the approach within each component reflects good practice based on best available evidence. (1)

The report provides a concerning picture of the state of child protection frameworks as a whole. The researchers analysed 12 frameworks, including some from South Australia, and identified four significant gaps and limitations:

  1. Inconsistency and lack of child focus so that outcomes tended to emphasise parental and practitioner satisfaction, or decreasing expenditure.
  2. Lack of guidance as to what practitioner skills, knowledge or experience might produce better child protection practice.
  3. Little guidance on the models, techniques and tools needed for each aspect of child protection practice.
  4. Lack of an evidence base for the frameworks being used or, in some cases, evidence that indicated that the frameworks used were actually producing negative or contrary outcomes.

The review indicates that further work is clearly needed, including a bench marking tool and quality assurance procedure to assist with framework selection and development.

(1) Assessing the Quality and Comprehensiveness of Child Protection Practice Frameworks is now available on the Guardian’s website.


Should we extend the age of leaving state care beyond 18? – Poll results

graph of poll results

A huge ‘thank you’ to the 310 people who responded to the poll and particularly to the 177 who contributed to the over 11,500 words of comments.  It will take us a bit longer to prepare a report that will do justice to the quality and diversity of the comments.  In the meantime, here are the major themes.

The majority of respondents to the poll favoured the extension of support to young people in state care beyond the age of 18.  The reasons they gave were broadly of four types:

  1. Birth parents in our community frequently support their children with accommodation, education, finance and in many practical ways beyond the age of 18.   So should the state as parent.
  2. Children in care often have histories of neglect and abuse leading to developmental delays and the effects of trauma and their schooling is often affected by disrupted childhoods. This diminishes the capacity of many to cope with the responsibilities of adulthood at 18.
  3. High rates of homelessness, teenage pregnancy, mental health problems, substance abuse and unemployment and low levels of education and training demonstrate that many young people exiting care at age 18 are unprepared by the system to cope without further support.
  4. Recent research has demonstrated that human brain development and the capacity for self-regulation continue into the mid-twenties and beyond.

The right to opt out

Some respondents pointed out the legal and civil-liberties problems of extending the age of guardianship beyond 18.  Many stressed that it was essential that care-leavers should have the choice to opt in to the services provided and have a say in what services were made available and how they should access them.  Many stressed the right for young people to opt out of care situations they did not like.

How long should support last?

Many disputed the idea of setting a particular age at which support should cease and proposed that a marker could be used such as completion of education or training, stable accommodation or employment.  Others favoured a professional assessment against a set of psychological indicators to show when a person no longer needed support.

What services should be provided?

A wide range of services and supports were proposed which included financial and other support for foster and kinship families to enable young people to stay on beyond 18 at least until education and training were complete.  Some pointed out existing and proven services that could be extended and developed.  Others noted that current transition planning left many young people unprepared and that extra resourcing and new approach was needed to transition.

A fuller analysis of comments later.

Australian Children’s Commissioners and Guardians (ACCG) May 2018 meeting

ACCG members in Perth: Back row (left to right) Andrew Johnson, Phillip Brooks, Helen Connolly, Judge Andrew Becroft, Liana Buchanan, Natalie Siegel-Brown, Colin Pettit, David Clements, Penny Wright, Cheryl Vardon. Front row: Jodie Griffiths-Cook, Colleen Gwynne, Janet Schorer and Megan Mitchell.

The Australian Children’s Commissioners and Guardians (ACCG) met on 15 and 16 May 2018 in Perth, Western Australia.  The ACCG comprises national, state and territory children and young peoples’ commissioners, guardians and advocates.

The ACCG is currently focusing on

  • achieving better outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people
  • promoting children and young people’s engagement and participation
  • upholding the rights of children and young people in youth justice detention
  • improving the safety of children and young people in organisations
  • promoting the safety and well-being of children and young people and
  • ending violence against children and young people

Download the ACCG May 2018 meeting Communique now.

Should we extend the age of leaving state care beyond 18?

picture of girl on jettyMany communities are questioning whether young people leaving state care at their 18th birthday are fully equipped to take on all of the demands of adult life.  Birth families often provide emotional and practical support to their offspring well beyond their teens.

One solution proposed has been to extend the age of leaving care beyond the current 18 years.  Does this deserve serious consideration in South Australia? Please contribute to the conversation via the Guardian’s 30-second poll.


Take me to the poll

We will post the results next week.

Backpacks for SA kids

picture of toys on the rack Backpacks 4 SA Kids is an amazing not-for-profit operating out of an industrial park north of Adelaide that provides care packs for children and young people in state care and in homeless and domestic violence shelters. Rachael Zaltron, who set up and manages it, took us on a tour.

“In 2017 we sent out 2,628 care packs to children and young people in state care and in domestic violence and homeless shelters as well as nearly 2,500 Christmas presents.  Eighty percent of what we send out comes from public donations.

girl packing a bag“Most of the work is done by volunteers.  We get 30 to 40 at each of our packing sessions.

“Backpacks contain the fun stuff like toys, games and books but also plenty of useful items like clothing and hygiene products.  Each back pack is checked three times to ensure that the contents are of high quality and suitable for the child.

“In the school holidays we are happy to see many children come in to volunteer packing the backpacks.  Children volunteering from local schools and the community learn a valuable practical lesson in understanding and helping other young people.

box of clothes“All of our back packs are matched for age or size and the gender.  As adolescents seem to be getting bigger, we are now including some adult sizes.

“We are always on the lookout for another place where we can make a contribution.  Last year we provided 52 ‘home starter packs’ of everyday home items to families trying to set themselves up in new accommodation and we are doing that again this year.

You can get in touch with Rachael via Facebook, the website or at [email protected]

You can read the full article in the Guardian’s May 2018 Newsletter.

The Guardian’s Quarterly Newsletter – May 2018


In this edition of the Guardian’s Quarterly Newsletter:

  • The Guardian on the necessity for collaboration and cooperation in child protection
  • A community group doing fantastic work providing backpacks for young people in care and escaping domestic violence
  • The short but eventful history of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
  • Some things we can learn from Commissioner Lander’s inquiry into events at the Oakden nursing home.

Plus what the Office has been up to over the last few months.

Download the May 2018 Newsletter.

Community visitor programs – what we can learn from Oakden

[Oakden residents] lacked any voice themselves. They were entirely dependent upon others for their care and their safety”. – Commissioner Lander, p190 1

There are many lessons to be learned from the report by Commissioner Bruce Lander QC on the events at the Oakden nursing home, many of which can be applied to other facilities in our state.

Residents of the Oakden facility should have been protected from abuse and mistreatment by layers of overlapping protections which were the the domains of many different people at different levels of government, administration and service provision.

They, their families and the community, would have expected government and senior departmental officers to provide adequate resourcing and oversight and to have policies and procedures in place to ensure suitable levels of care, management and supervision. The training and professional standards of the staff working there should have provided another level of protection. Effective complaints procedures for residents and concerned others should have provided additional safeguards as should have accreditation inspections by external bodies.

Finally, the residents of Oakden relied on community visitors to bring an independent and critical eye to the conditions they experienced.

Commissioner Lander set out in forensic detail how each of these layers of protection failed and his report sounds a warning for any organisation that provides care for vulnerable people in a closed or secure environment.  Regarding the operation of the relevant community visitor scheme (CVS) –

…consideration needs to be given as to whether the CVS in its current form is an appropriate safeguard for those suffering mental illness who are housed or treated in treatment centres, limited treatment centres, or authorised community mental health facilities. [p307]

Commissioner Lander’s critique of aspects of community visiting at Oakden raised questions for all such schemes, not just those visiting mental health services. The Guardian’s Office is currently in the process of establishing two separate community visitor schemes, so the issues he described are instructive as we attempt to craft models for the protection and wellbeing of young people in residential care and in youth detention. These are some of the issues.

Should schemes use volunteers or paid visitors?

Volunteers are assumed to bring into the institution expectations and standards reflecting those of the broader community. Because volunteers are not paid, that could potentially mean larger numbers of visitors within a given budget allowing more frequent visits.  But is it reasonable to expect volunteers to accept the rigorous selection process, training and complex tasks required of a visitor? Commissioner Lander noted that some visitors to Oakden may not have had the necessary skills and support to identify problems, report them and intervene on behalf of residents. He favours a model in which visitors are paid, comprehensively trained, and operate within a rigorous model that has sound documentation and effective accountability mechanisms…


This is the first part of a longer paper which goes on to consider the use of volunteers as visitors, the concept of visiting versus inspection, unannounced visits, visitor independence and the place and value of visitor programs. For the full version, download Community visitor programs – what we can learn from Oakden.

1 Oakden: A shameful chapter in South Australia’s history.