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 hello@backpacks4sakids.org

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.

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights is 70 in 2018 and of it’s many grandchildren, the most widely ratified is the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC). To mark the anniversary, this is the second in the series of short articles about understanding, promoting and safeguarding rights, particularly those of children growing up in care or detained in youth justice facilities.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the foundation of international human rights law and has inspired more than 80 international human rights treaties and declarations.  As time passed, and with reflection and experience, international human rights instruments have become more focused and specialised, to address the circumstances of specific social groups and their issues.

Before the Convention on the Rights of the Child

The CRC was not the first international attempt to protect the rights of children.  It was preceded in 1924 by the Declaration on the Rights of the Child made by the League of Nations.  The League was a forerunner to the United Nations which folded when it was unable to prevent the onset of World War Two. The Declaration was re-adopted in an extended version by the UN in 1959 as the Declaration on the Rights of the Child.

The date of its adoption, 20 November, has been adopted as Universal Children’s Day.

These earlier Declarations, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, are acknowledged in the preamble to the CRC.

Like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the CRC is a global document that has been translated into over 500 languages and several child-friendly versions.  Nearly 200 countries are now party to the treaty, including every UN member except the United States.  The US contributed significantly to the drafting of the CRC and signed it in 1995 but successive administrations, including those of Presidents Clinton and Obama, have failed to pass the necessary legislation to ratify it.

The CRC took 10 years to draft.  It sets out the civil, political, economic, social, health and cultural rights of children.  It defines a child as any human being under the age of eighteen, unless the age of majority is otherwise defined locally.  It was adopted by the United Nations in 1989.  It entered into force in 1990 when it had been ratified by a required number of UN member states which had passed enabling legislation.

The Optional Protocols

In the succeeding years, three Optional Protocols (OP) have been added to the CRC to address particular issues affecting children. These are treaties in their own rights that provide for procedures with regard to the treaty or address a substantive area related to the treaty

The OP on the involvement of children in armed conflict, sometimes known as the ‘child soldier’ treaty came into force 2002 at the same time as the OP on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.

The OP on a communication procedure, which came into force in 2014, sets out an international complaints procedure for child rights violations, which enables children and their representatives to bring complaints about violations of their rights to the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child if they have not been fully addressed in national courts.

Supporting documents

The UN has also produced other documents to enhance the implementation of the CRC by member states.  Two examples that are especially relevant to child protection and juvenile detention are the 1985 Standard Minimum Rules for the Administration of Juvenile Justice (known as the Beijing Rules) and the Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children.

Most UN documents tend to be discouragingly dry and text-heavy but we have a liking for the colourful material produced by the Scottish Children’s Commissioner, especially this poster of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Working together for children in care

photo of Penny Wright

Penny Wright Guardian for Children and Young People in Care

When the state takes over the parenting of a child, that parent has many faces, many hands and, hopefully, many hearts.

Pointing the way to a new and better child protection system, Commissioner Margaret Nyland wrote in her preface to The Life They Deserve

The new agency cannot operate in isolation. It should coordinate and collaborate with all other relevant departments and organisations, both government and non-government, to give children better outcomes.  It must also be proactive and engage the community to play its part in developing programs and systems…

Many of the good things we see happening for children in state care, and we do see many good things happening in our work, happen when the hearts and the hands of adults come together to recognise and understand a child’s needs and stay together to work through to a good outcome.  The joy for the child, but also for the adults, is palpable.  It is one of the reasons we do the work we do.

Sadly, some of the worst results we see for children are when people and organisations fail to work together closely and respectfully in the child’s interests.

Our recent survey of the state of cooperation and collaboration in child protection asked respondents to rate levels of cooperation and collaboration.   We chose 19 different relationships drawn from those identified in the work of Commissioner Nyland as being crucial to an effective child protection system.  In analysing the results, we applied the standard that cooperation and collaboration should occur either ‘frequently’ or ‘always’.  By that standard only one of those critical relationships was scored as achieving a pass mark by 30 percent of the respondents.  Most of the others were scored much lower and many were in single figures.   There were two areas that had improved since an identical survey conducted in June 2017 but it’s fair to say the improvements were small and were from a very low base.  Allowing for the limitations of the survey, it is clear that respondents thought that we are still far short of Commissioner Nyland’s ideal.

Just as useful for me, were many of the comments.  There were a few heartening stories of good and effective cooperation but there were many more of key stakeholders being omitted from case planning and decision making and important information remaining unshared.  Many attributed the failures to workload issues but others referred to organisational culture, policy and training.

My office observed a sample of the Annual Reviews of young people in state care over a period of ten years to 2017.  Annual reviews have been long mandated in the Department for Child Protection, and its earlier incarnations, in order to review the situation of each child and young person in state care.  It is a time to reflect and review and plan for the child’s future outside of the day to day pressures. It is a time to place a child at the very centre of thinking and caring. Annual Reviews occurred for up to 80 per cent of children in care in most years but attendance at the planning sessions by other than social workers and supervisors was rare.  In our report Office of the Guardian Audits of Annual Reviews 2007- 2017 we summarised:

Most offices have, over the 10 years of these audits, conducted annual reviews with only Department staff present with carers represented occasionally and birth parents and other professionals very much the exception.

If, as Margaret Nyland concluded, cooperation and collaboration are essential to an effective child protection system then major cultural and practice change is essential.  I look forward to supporting and contributing to such relationships, as my office grows into its new roles.

Aboriginal children and young people in care and juvenile detention 2016-17

The proportion of Aboriginal children not placed according to the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle has continued to rise.

South Australia’s Aboriginal1 children and young people are vastly over-represented in in state care and in detention centres, according to the Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services 2018 (ROGS 2018) and the trends are not positive.

The ROGS 2018 data on child protection showed that at 30 June 2017, Aboriginal children and young people comprised 33 per cent of all of those on care and protection orders and were 7.3 times as likely to be in out-of-home care as non-Aboriginal young people. In 2010-11 Aboriginal children and young people were 6.1 times as likely to be in care.

The proportion of Aboriginal young people placed according to the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle (i.e. with kin, within their community or with Aboriginal families), has been declining in recent years from 76.4 per cent in 2009 to 62.5 per cent in 2017, below the national average of 67.6 per cent. (See the chart at the head of this story.)

Though comprising 33 per cent of children and young people in care, Aboriginal children and young people comprised 38 percent of the population in residential care.

The ROGS 2018 data on youth justice services showed that in 2015-16, 58 per cent of the population of 10-17 year olds in youth detention were Aboriginal and that proportion has been growing in recent years. South Australia had significantly higher rates of detention of Aboriginal children and young people than the Australian average.

We present more data and charts about this subject from ROGS 2017 in the Guardian’s Snapshot of South Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People in Care and/or Youth Detention from the Report on Government Services 2016-17.

Download the Snapshot of South Australian Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young People in Care and/or Youth Detention from the Report on Government Services 2016-17 now.

1 Aboriginal community preference in South Australia is that the term Aboriginal is inclusive of Torres Strait Islander people, a usage we generally adopt in our reports

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.