Stronger Families Safer Children Evaluation: First Stage Report

(1)

Stronger Families

Safer Children

Business Affairs

Stronger Families Safer Children Evaluation:

First Stage Report

January 2011

Department for Families and Communities Business Affairs

Research Unit

(2)

(3)

1 Introduction

In June 2008, the South Australian Government approved $28.2 million over 4 years to fund the ‘Stronger Families, Safer Children’ (SFSC) Initiative to support vulnerable families. The aim of the initiative was to prevent children from

vulnerable families entering or becoming entrenched in the child protection and alternative care systems.

Through this initiative, Non Government Organisations (NGOs) are funded to work in partnership with Families SA Offices to provide families with a wide range of support services to achieve the outcomes of stabilizing and supporting families to care for children in safe environments.

There are three streams to the program which aim to address presenting problems at differing stages within the child protection and care system:

 Targeted Early Intervention Family Support Services (TEIS)  Intensive Placement Prevention (IPP)

 Reunification Support Services (RSS)

The SFSC program was rolled out in April 2009. TEIS and RSS were implemented in all 18 Families SA Offices, and IPP was initially implemented in three Families SA Offices (two metropolitan and one rural). In May 2010, the IPP stream was extended to a further three Offices (two metropolitan and one rural).

The organisations involved in service delivery are1

: Anglicare SA, Centacare Port Pirie Diocese, Centacare Adelaide, Nunkuwarrin Yunti, Aboriginal Family Support Services, Uniting Care Wesley Port Pirie and Anglican Community Care.

1.1 First stage evaluation focus and methodology

The evaluation of the SFSC program (designed and coordinated by the Research Unit, Business Affairs, DFC) will take place over two years, with two main reporting

1

(6)

stages.2_{This report presents findings from the First Stage evaluation and} identifies key issues and opportunities for program development.

Targeted family support services such as those provided through Stronger

Families Safer Children (SFSC), are not new, and have become a core and valued element of the family and child services system across the world. Numerous evaluations have identified the potential and success of such initiatives, including their ability to address child safety and care concerns.

In this context, this First Stage evaluation does not focus on the question of whether the SFSC services are a worthwhile investment, but rather, on early outcomes; and whether implementation has achieved services and working

relationships that are likely to deliver the best possible return from the investment - that is, the most positive outcomes for children and families.

The following questions guided the quantitative component of the evaluation: 1. What have been the profile and needs of clients referred to the program? 2. How has SFSC impacted on the safety and stability of children engaged

with child protection services?

3. What have been the impacts on the skills, capacity and resilience of families?

Data collected routinely by NGO service providers and Families SA, covering a period of 15 months from program inception to mid July 2010, was analysed according to the relevant evaluation questions. In addition, the North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS)3

, collected at intake and closure, was utilized to assess change in family functioning.

Families SA child protection/alternative care data was also used to provide

background information on child protection history and to assess impacts on child safety. An intake number common to all data sets was used to match client data from different databases for the purposes of analysis.

2

SFSC: Establishing the Evaluation Framework document prepared by the Research Unit provides a full description of the

evaluation stages and components 3

NCFAS Scores - a worker (NGO) administered scale that provides pre-post measure of family functioning for families served by a program aimed at addressing child abuse/neglect issues.

(7)

Statistical methods were applied to analyse the data, using SPSS software (version 17.0), including descriptive analysis to report on clients’ demographic characteristics, their needs, nature of services provided, service capacity and early program outcomes.

The qualitative component of the evaluation drew on the extensive experience of such services across the world for its focus. It is clear that there are a number of elements that need to be in place to ensure program effectiveness. These include:

 A strong working relationship and partnership between the service provider and statutory child protection authority

 Effective processes in relation to referral, assessment, decision making and case closure

 A service model which includes high quality interventions and is able to meet the needs of referred families

 A highly skilled workforce

 A family-centred but child-focused approach (i.e., working positively with families but with a clear focus on child safety and wellbeing issues). These issues have been the focus of the qualitative evaluation, explored through consultation with both the NGO and Families SA sector. Specific questions included:

1. What implementation issues have arisen that impact on outcomes? To what extent has the Stronger Families model, as originally envisaged, been implemented?

2. How effective have been the policies, procedures and processes

established, including between Families SA, Community Connect and the NGOs? How have these influenced outcomes?

3. Have effective partnerships been established between Families SA and the NGOs? What has contributed to or detracted from effective partnerships? 4. What specific services are being provided by SFSC service providers, and

(8)

The evaluation plan originally envisaged that the qualitative component of the evaluation would be undertaken by an independent consultant. However,

difficulties in securing the services of a suitable evaluator, costs, and timeframes resulted in a split of responsibilities with:

 An external consultant conducting focus groups and reporting from the NGO sector; and

 The Research Unit, DFC reporting from Families SA staff

Methodology specific to each component is described in the relevant sections of this report.

The methodology for the evaluations was reviewed and approved by the Families and Communities Research Ethics Committee (FCREC) in July 2010.

1.1.1 Limitations

Due to limitations in the quantity and quality of quantitative data, it was not possible to explore the evaluation questions to the depth it was originally intended. In

particular, there was limited data available to assess client outcomes, and results could not be assessed by sub-group (eg region, by demographic characteristics). Specific data issues are discussed in relevant sections of the report.

1.1.2 Structure of the report

The report is structure as follows:

 Section 2: Quantitative analysis (by the Research Unit, DFC)  Section 3: Qualitative analysis, Families SA (Research Unit, DFC)  Section 4: Summary of qualitative analysis, SFSC program staff

(Consultant – Dr Paul Aylward, University of Adelaide)  Section 5: Summary and conclusions

 Appendix A: Distribution of SFSC Services

(9)

2 Quantitative analysis

Over the 15 month period covered by this report, a total of 303 families and 802 children were referred to the TEIS and IPP and an additional 123 families and 203 children to the RSS4

. This is a considerable number; however, when broken down across different program streams, demographics and stages of client involvement, numbers were sometimes too small to allow for reporting or sound conclusions. For example, NCFAS scores at closure were available for only a small number of clients, limiting the reliability of results and the potential for analysis. Similarly, analysis of outcome data post-closure was impacted by the small numbers of clients who had exited the program and the relatively short time between case closure and data analysis. Missing data was also a problem. For example, missing intake numbers made it impossible to link data (such as NCFAS data for the reunification clients) with Families SA administrative records.

In view of the above, findings should be treated with caution and considered as indicative only.

(10)

2.1 Targeted Early Intervention Service (TEIS)

Key findings

Referrals and entry into the program:

• Country offices made just over half of all referrals to the program, with Pt Pirie and Pt Augusta having the highest referrals rates

• 80% of families (for whom this information was available) were reported to have engaged successfully with the program

• There was no significant difference in engagement rates between Aboriginal and Torres Islander and non-Aboriginal families

• The most common barriers to engagement identified were families’ inability to keep appointments; distrust or lack of understanding of the child protection system; refusal of service or parental mental health problems

• Families who were harder to engage included those with a previous Tier 1 notification and a history of confirmed abuse and/or child being placed in care.

Client profile:

• A large proportion of families referred to the program were headed by a single female households (41%), with high rates of disability reported for both children and carers

• The majority resided in rental (mostly public housing) accommodation

• Large families were common, with nearly 40% having 3 or more children and 18%, five or more

• The majority (62%) of children were aged under 10 years of age

• Aboriginal families were well represented in the referrals (30% of families and 37% of children)

• All families had a previous involvement, in some cases quite extensive, with Families SA

Number of families %

Total referrals 263 100.0

Attempted to engage with 221 84.0

Successful engagement 177 67.3

(11)

• The majority of families (96.5%) had been the subject of at least one Tier 2 notification (consistent with the programs’ aim to target medium to high risk

families); almost half had also been subject of Tier 3 and over one third (36%) Tier 1 notifications (in some cases this involved multiple notifications)

• Allegations most commonly related to neglect (84%) followed by emotional abuse (68%)

• Nearly all families had been the subject of a child protection investigation with abuse substantiated in 77% of cases

• Most families (79%) had no history of children being placed in care.

Services provided by TEIS:

• Families in the program received a wide range of services, with most supported by 5 or 6 service types

• Parenting skills development (80% of families) was the most common service type, followed by links to community networks and services (74%) and school/education-related children services (64%)

• The average duration of support (calculated for closed cases only) was 156 days.

Outcomes of support:

• By mid July 2010, 95 cases (involving 91 families) had been closed

• Thirty two (34% of closed cases) were closed due to the successful completion of the program, the most common reason for closure

• Other common reasons for closure included ‘difficulties in engaging families’ (24%) and families moving outside of the service area (12%)

• In 16% of cases, closure resulted from increased risk to children or due to children being placed in care

• Post-closure data from Families SA indicated that subsequent notifications were received in relation to 28% of all families who exited the program and 23% of the families who had successfully completed the program; however no children of the successfully-exited families were placed in care

• When available, NCFAS data indicated improved family functioning at closure for TEIS clients.

(12)

2.1.1 Referrals

Since its inception, the Targeted Early Intervention Service (TEIS) received a total of 273 referrals relating to 263 families (10 families were referred to TEIS twice) and 697 children (Figure 1).

TEIS attempted to engage with 221 families (84% of families referred); of whom 177 were recorded as having successfully engaged.

At the time of analysis, 95 cases (34.8% of all referrals) relating to 91 families had been closed.

Figure 1: Program statistics

263 221 177 91 0 50 100 150 200 250 300

referred to TEIS attempted to engage with successful engagement case closure

nu m b e r of fa m il ie s

2.1.1.1 Regional distribution of service referrals

5

Eighteen Families SA Offices made referrals to TEIS (Table 1). Referrals were particularly high in the rural/regional areas, with just over half of all the referrals (50.9%) coming from these areas. Port Pirie (12.1%) and Port Augusta (11.4%) made noticeably more referrals than other offices across the state.

(13)

Table 1: Number of referrals made by each Families SA Office

Families SA Office Number of referrals %

Southern

Adelaide 6 2.2

Marion 13 4.8

Mount Barker 11 4.0

Onkaparinga (Noarlunga and Aberfoyle

Park) 16 5.9 Subtotal (Southern) 46 16.8 Northern Elizabeth 19 7.0 Gawler 11 4.0

North East (Modbury and Enfield) 15 5.5

Salisbury 12 4.4 Woodville 16 5.9 Subtotal (Northern) 73 26.7 Country Ceduna 10 3.7 Coober Pedy 11 4.0 Mount Gambier 10 3.7 Murray Bridge 12 4.4 Port Augusta 31 11.4 Port Lincoln 8 2.9 Port Pirie 33 12.1 Riverland 14 5.1 Whyalla 10 3.7 Subtotal (Country) 139 50.9 Unknown 15 5.5 Total 273 100.0

Table 2 provides information about the number of referrals, by Indigenous status, made to each service provider. It is important to note that referral numbers, including numbers of Indigenous clients, are impacted by the level of funding, agreed targets, and geographical coverage of the service. Families SA offices do not choose service providers but refer to the designated service for the local area. Due to the location of the offices referring to the program, Centacare received the majority (57.9%) of TEIS referrals for both Indigenous and non-Indigenous clients (Table 2).

(14)

Table 2: Number of referrals to each NGO by cultural background

Indigenous Non-Indigenous Not stated Total

Service Provider

n % n % n % n %

Centrecare 34 43.0 112 66.3 12 48.0 158 57.9

UnitingCare Wesley Port Pirie 21 26.6 50 29.6 1 4.0 72 26.4

Nankuwarin Yunti 12 15.2 0 0 0 0 12 4.4

AFSS 12 15.2 0 0 0 0 12 4.4

Catholic Diocese Port Pirie 0 0 7 4.1 0 0 7 2.6

Unknown 0 0 0 0 12 48.0 12 4.4

Total 79 100.0 169 100.0 25 100.0 273 100.0

2.1.2 Characteristics of families and children at Intake

6

2.1.2.1 Age and number of children in households

Almost 30% of all the families and 37% of children in the program were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.

Of all children aged 0 to 17 years who were subject to a notification and

substantiation in SA in 2008-09, 18.6% and 31.4% respectively were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.7

In this context, Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander families were well represented in the TEIS referrals.

The average age of children was 7 years (median 6 years), with the majority (61.7%) under 10 years old (Table 3).

6 The total number of clients with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background is not large enough to allow reporting. 7 Results derived from data held by Families SA.

(15)

Table 3: Age of children by cultural background

Age groups n % n % n % n % 0-1 36 14.1 50 12.2 3 9.4 89 12.8 2-4 56 22.0 91 22.2 7 21.9 154 22.1 5-9 70 27.5 113 27.6 4 12.5 187 26.8 10-14 48 18.8 98 23.9 3 9.4 149 21.4 15-17 13 5.1 19 4.6 3 9.4 35 5.0 Not stated 32 12.5 39 9.5 12 37.5 83 11.9 Total 255 100.0 410 100.0 32 100.0 697 100.0

The number of children reported in each household ranged from 1 to 9 (Table 4). Although about 40% of family referrals included only 1 child, around 18% of families had 5 to 9 children, with a higher percentage of large families amongst Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander clients (just over 25%).

Table 4: Number of children in each household by cultural background

Number of families

Indigenous Non-indigenous Not stated Total

Number of children in the household _n_{% n} _% _n _{% n}_% 1 26 33.8 70 43.2 8 33.3 104 39.5 2 12 15.6 31 19.1 1 4.2 44 16.7 3 8 10.4 25 15.4 0 0.0 33 12.5 4 11 14.3 10 6.2 2 8.3 23 8.7 5 2 2.6 9 5.6 1 4.2 12 4.6 6 8 10.4 9 5.6 0 0.0 17 6.5 7~9 10 13.0 8 4.9 0 0.0 18 6.8 Not stated 0 0 0 0 12 50.0 12 4.6 Total 77 100. 0 162 100.0 24 100.0 263 100.0

2.1.2.2 Household and accommodation characteristics

Close to half of all families referred (45%) were headed by a sole parent, most commonly a female (Table 5).

A large proportion (70.7%) were in rental accommodation, with just under half (42.9%) living in public or community housing. Some (7.2%) were in

accommodation indicative of housing or homelessness issues (e.g. rent free, boarding house or sleeping rough/transient).

(16)

Table 5: Household and accommodation characteristics

Number of families (N=263) %

Household type

Household containing family members only 207 78.7

Household containing a mixture of family and

non-family members 37

14.1

Not stated or inadequately described 19 7.2

Household family composition

One parent family - female caregiver 108 41.1

Couple family - natural parents 82 31.2

Couple family - step/blended parents 38 14.4

Not stated or inadequately described 15 5.7

One parent family - male caregiver 10 3.8

Other relatives/kin as primary caregivers 10 3.8

Accommodation type

Public housing rental 100 38.0

Private rental 73 27.8

Purchasing/purchased own home 32 12.2

Not stated 14 5.3

Community housing rental 13 4.9

Other 12 4.6

Boarding house 10 3.8

Rent free accommodation 5 1.9

Sleeping rough/transient 4 1.5

2.1.2.3 Disability status of children and carers

8 High rates of disability were reported.9

Just over 20% of families were reported to include at least one child with a disability (Table 6). The most common forms of child disability reported were intellectual or learning disability (55.2%), sensory or speech disability (31.0%) and physical disability (20.7%).

About a third (30.8%) of families were reported to include adult carers with a disability (Table 6). Of these, the most commonly reported adult disabilities were mental health problems (71.6%) and intellectual or learning disability (22.2%).

8 A family may include children or carers with more than one type of disability.

9 It should be noted that this data represents disability as reported by NGO service providers – it is not known if the disability had been clinically assessed. The severity of disability was not reported.

(17)

Table 6: Disability status of children and carers Number of families (N=263) % Children No notable disability 192 73.0 Having a disability 58 22.1 Unknown 13 4.9 Carers No notable disability 169 64.3 Having a disability 81 30.8 Unknown 13 4.9

2.1.2.4 Child protection and placement history of referred cases

In order to examine clients’ previous contact with Families SA, TEIS referral information was matched to the Families SA Client Information System (CIS). Since CIS is in transition to a new system, some child protection and placement information was unavailable for extraction. As a result, data on only 199 (75.7% of the total, n=263) were available for analysis.

Results suggest an extensive involvement of the referred families in the child protection system prior to the referral (Table 7). Nearly all families (96.5%) had attracted Tier 2 notifications, reflecting the program’s targeting of children at

moderate to high risk of harm. The number of Tier 2 notifications per family ranged from 1 to 33, with a mean of 5 (median 3).

Almost half of the referred families had been the subject of a Tier 3 notification and over one third (36.2%) a Tier 1 notification. The maximum numbers of Tier 1 and Tier 3 notifications relating to individual families were 6 and 10 respectively. The families were most commonly reported for neglect (84.4%), followed by emotional (67.8%) and physical abuse (52.8%). Nearly all (95.5%) of the families had been the subject of a child protection investigation with abuse substantiated in 77.4% of families.

(18)

Table 7: Contacts with child protection system prior to TEIS referrals*

Contacts with child protection Number of families (n=199) %

Type of notification

Tier 1 72 36.2

Tier 2 192 96.5

Tier 3 99 49.7

Notifier only concerns (NOCS) 131 65.8

Type of alleged abuse

Neglect 168 84.4 Emotional 135 67.8 Physical 105 52.8 Sexual 49 24.6 Outcome Investigation 190 95.5 Substantiation 154 77.4

*A family may have more than one contact with the child protection system.

Most families (79.4%) referred to the program had not had any children placed in care (Table 8). Of those who did, the most common placement type was

emergency care (16.1%).

Table 8: Alternative care placement history prior to TEIS referrals*

Alternative care placement Number of Families (n=199) %

No placement 158 79.4

Emergency 32 16.1

VCA or parent/guardian authorisation 14 7.0

12 month order 12 6.0

Respite from foster placement 8 4.0

Respite from birth family 7 3.5

GOM18 1 0.5

Other 1 0.5

*A family may experience more than one type of alternative care placement.

2.1.3 Service delivery information

2.1.3.1 Engagement in TEIS

Engagement information was available in relation to 228 referrals (83.5% of all referrals received by the program) (Table 9). Over three quarters of these referrals were reported to have led to clients successfully engaged in TEIS. A slightly higher rate of successful engagement was reported for Aboriginal clients.

(19)

Table 9: Engagement in TEIS by cultural background

Number of referrals Indigenous

Non-indigenous

Not stated Total

Engagement in TEIS n % n % n % n % Successful 57 79.2 111 76.6 9 81.8 177 77.6 Unsuccessful 15 20.8 34 23.4 2 18.2 51 22.4 Total 72 100.0 145 100.0 11 100.0 228 100.0

Tables 10 and 11 compare current TEIS engagement outcomes with the families’ previous history of contact with Families SA. That is, Table 10 summarises

previous notifications received in relation to the family, by type, level and outcome.

Table 10: Contacts with child protection system prior to TEIS referral by outcome of engagement in TEIS Number of families# Successful engagement in TEIS (n=135)* Unsuccessful engagement in TEIS (n=40)* Prior contacts with child

protection n % n % Type of notification Tier 1 41 30.4 23 57.5 Tier 2 132 97.8 39 97.5 Tier 3 70 51.9 19 47.5

Notifier only concerns (NOCS) 91 67.4 29 72.5

Neglect 112 83.0 37 92.5 Emotional 91 67.4 33 82.5 Physical 73 54.1 26 65.0 Sexual 32 23.7 13 32.5 Outcome Investigation 129 95.6 40 100.0 Substantiation 100 74.1 36 90.0 #

A family may attract more than one type of notification and alleged abuse.

*Of the 221 families with engagement information, only 175 were successfully matched to Families SA Child Protection data.

(20)

Table 11: Alternative care placement history prior to referral to TEIS by engagement outcome Number of families# Successful engagement in TEIS (n=135)* Unsuccessful engagement in TEIS (n=40)*

Alternative care placement

n % n % No placement 110 81.5 26 65.0 Emergency 22 16.3 10 25.0 VCA or parent/guardian authorisation 9 6.7 5 12.5

Respite from foster placement 5 3.7 3 7.5

12 month order 4 3.0 6 15.0

Respite from birth family 4 3.0 3 7.5

GOM18 0 0 1 2.5

Other 0 0 1 2.5

#

Children in a family may have multiple placements.

*Of the 221 families with engagement information, only 175 were successfully matched to Families SA Child Protection data.

The data in Tables 10 and 11 suggests harder to engage families were more likely to have experienced:

 Tier 1 notifications with Families SA (57.5% of those who were not engaged had been the subject of at least one Tier 1 notification as compared to

30.4% of those who were engaged)

 confirmed abuse (90% of those not engaged had had at least one prior confirmation of child abuse in their family compared to 74% of those who were engaged)

 placement in care (65% of families not engaged had not had child(ren) placed in care prior to entry, notably less than the 81%of those successfully engaged).

They were also subject to more notifications across the full spectrum of abuse categories indicating multiple notifications and greater complexity of issues. This suggests that the more complex and entrenched the child protection issues, the harder it is to successfully engage families.

2.1.3.2 Barriers to engagement

Problems with engagement were reported for about half of the referrals (for whom the information was available) (Table 12). The four top barriers identified were:

(21)

 inability to keep appointments

 carer(s) is/are distrustful of or lack understanding of the child protection system

 carer(s) declined services or carers were unwilling to engage and  parental mental health.

Some families were identified as presenting with multiple barriers to engagement.

Table 12: Barriers to engagement*

Barriers to engagement Number of referrals

(n=228)

%

No Barriers identified 96 42.1

Inability to keep appointments 30 13.2

Carer(s) is/are distrustful of or lack of understanding of child protection system

24 10.5 Carer(s) declined services/ Carers were

unwilling to engage

24 10.5

Parental mental health 22 9.6

Not stated or not applicable 19 8.3

Others 18 7.9

Carer(s) lack of awareness of need for

change 16

7.0 Unresolved parental alcohol and/or drug

misuse 9

3.9 Carer(s) has/have a history of childhood

abuse 9

3.9

Domestic violence 7 3.1

Unable to locate carers/ child(ren) 7 3.1

Housing instability/Homelessness 7 3.1

* More than one type of barriers can be identified.

2.1.3.3 Support services offered

The data from the SFSC services provides summary information on the range of support services offered to the families participating in TEIS (Table 13). Parenting skills development, links to community networks and services, services relating to school/education, counselling and housing/homelessness were the most frequently ustilised.

(22)

Table 13: Support services provided through TEIS*

Support services Number of families who

received service (n=170)10 _%

Parenting skills development 136 80.0

Links to community networks and services 126 74.1

Children services/school/education related 108 63.5

Counselling 108 63.5

Housing/homelessness 85 50.0

Financial support 83 48.8

Mental health support 81 47.6

Practical and structured in-home assistance 76 44.7

Medical support 66 38.8

Domestic/family violence interventions 53 31.2

Drug and/or alcohol support 49 28.8

Brokerage 42 24.7

Family dispute interventions 39 22.9

Child developmental delays assistance 38 22.4

Disability support 38 22.4

Therapeutic service interventions 34 20.0

Offending related support 25 14.7

Other 6 3.5

*A family may receive more than one type of support service.

Families received between 1 and 15 types of services, with a mean of 7 (median 6). Around one fifth of families received ten or more types of support, with one family receiving 15 forms of services. Just over 14% of families had been offered three or less types, with two families only receiving one form of service (Figure 2).

(23)

Figure 2: Number of family support services offered to families 6.5% 16.4% 27.6% 18.8% 14.7% 6.5% 9.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9-10 11-12 13-15

number of family support services

P er cen tag e o f f am il ies

2.1.4 Case closure

By mid July 2010, 95 cases (relating to 91 families11_{) had been closed, with 32} (35%) cases reporting successful completion of service.

2.1.4.1 Duration of support

For the closed cases, the average duration of support provided was 156 days (range: 15 to 406 days) (Table 14). About 30% of cases received support for less than 100 days, with three families receiving services for less than one month. Around one in six cases (16.8%) had remained engaged with TEIS for more than 250 days, with four cases for over a year. (These figures are indicative only as the available data is limited and reflects the early stages of the program

implementation).

11 Four families had been referred to TEIS twice.

(24)

Table 14: Duration of support

Duration of support (days) Number of cases %

15-50 16 16.8 51-100 12 12.6 101-150 23 24.2 151-200 13 13.7 201-250 13 13.7 251-406 16 16.8 Unknown 2 2.1 Total 95 100.0

2.1.4.2 Reasons for case closure

Table 15 summarises the reasons for case closure. The successful completion of service was the most common reason (33.7%), followed by difficulties in engaging families (24.2%).

Table 15: Reasons for case closure

Reasons for case closure Number of cases %

Successful case completion 32 33.7

Difficulties in engaging families 23 24.2

Family has moved outside of the service’s geographical coverage area

11 11.6

Child(ren) has(have) been placed into care by Families SA

8 8.4 Risk to child(ren) had increased and the service

was no longer appropriate, or incorrect referrals

7 7.4

Change in child care arrangement 3 3.2

Other (no details specified) 11 11.6

Total 95 100.0

Where children were placed in care (8 cases or 8.4% of case closures), in all cases ‘parental incapacity’ was reported as a contributing factor. Other significant issues identified in those families were parental substance misuse, mental health issues, intellectual or physical disability and domestic violence.

Eleven families exited the program as they moved outside of the service’s geographical coverage area, interstate or within South Australia. For those who moved within South Australia, referrals were made to various services (e.g. Housing SA, Salvation Army and Anti-poverty team of Families SA office), or

(25)

discussion took place about the family being re-referred to the SFSC program in a different location.

2.1.5 Case Outcomes

2.1.5.1 North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS)

The North Carolina Family Assessment Scale for General Services (NCFAS-G Version G2.0) is a family functioning assessment scale intended for low and moderate risk families. The scale is used to assess families’ strengths and problems across 8 domains:

 environment

 parental capabilities  family interactions  family safety  child well-being  social/ community life  self-sufficiency  family health.

Each domain includes several subscales which are rated along a six-point continuum (clear strength, mild strength, baseline/adequate, mild problem, moderate problem, serious problem).

The scales are used at the points of intake and closure, making it possible to assess changes in family functioning and wellbeing.

2.1.5.2 Families’ problems at intake

NCFAS assessment scores at intake were available for 109 families. In each domain, nearly half of the families were assessed as having scores below baseline/adequate level (Figure 3).

(26)

Figure 3: Percentage of families with mild, moderate or serious problems at intake (N=109) 48.6 53.2 56.0 47.7 _45.0 47.7 49.5 42.2 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 environment parental capabilities family interactions

family safety child well-being social/ community life self-sufficiency family health P e rc e n t o f fa mi li e s

Most commonly, “problem” scores were rated as “mild”. This would suggest that, despite their often extensive child protection history, at the time of referral most families were not presenting with a high level of risk.

2.1.5.3 Changes in family functioning

At the time of analysis only 30 (or 31.6%) of the 95 closed cases had been

assessed at closure using NCFAS. Of these 30 cases, only 12 were closed due to successful completion of service. Results should therefore be treated as indicative and regarded with caution.

Figure 4 shows the overall change measured for the 30 families. Although the numbers are relatively small, the figures indicate that families for whom data is available made considerable improvements from the time of intake to closure, particularly in the areas of environment, family safety and family interaction.

(27)

Figure 4: Change experienced by families with case closure on the NCFAS domain scores (n=30) 0 5 10 15 20 25 Environment Parental Capabilities Family Interaction Family Safety Child well-being

Social life Self-Sufficiency Family Health N u m b e r o f f a milie s

Baseline or Above at Intake Baseline or Above at Closure

Figure 5 presents changes experienced by the 12 families with successful completion of service. It demonstrates that by the time of case closure,

 75% improved in the domains of environment and family interaction  58.3% improved in the domains of parental capabilities and family safety  50% improved in the domain of self-sufficiency

 41.7% improved in the domains of child well-being, social/community life and family health.

Of the domain scores which did not demonstrate any change during TEIS, around 70% were rated in the “problem” range at the time of intake.

Positive influences on family functioning were therefore reported for most families who had successfully completed the service, indicating positive outcomes for the TEIS program.

(28)

Figure 5: Change experienced by families with successful case completion on NCFAS domain scores (n=12)12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

-1 or more no change +1 +2 +3 or more

N u m b e r o f F a m ilie s

Environment Parental Capabilities Family Interactions Family Safety Child Well-being Social/Community life Self-Sufficiency Family Health

2.1.5.4 Child protection contacts following case closure

Families SA child protection data was linked for 82 of the 95 TEIS cases closed between June 2009 and July 2010, including the 30 reported to have successfully completed the program. Nearly half (49%) of all cases were closed for more than 6 months, with 9% closed for more than 12 months. Around a third of cases had been closed for less than 3 months.

Post-closure notifications had been received for 23 families (28% of the total, n=82) (Table 16), mostly at the Tier 2 classification level, with neglect being the most common. In 6 of these families, abuse was subsequently confirmed.

Seven (23.3%) of the 30 families who had successfully completed the program had been the subject of notifications post-closure. One of these families attracted 3 notifications (Tier 2, Tier 3 and notifier concern); four families attracted Tier 2 notification; two families Tier 3’s, and three were subject of “notifier concerns” reports. No substantiations were recorded.

(29)

Table 16: Contacts with child protection system after case closures*

Contact with child protection Number of families (n=82) %

Received at least one notification 23 28.0

Tier 1 4 4.9

Tier 2 18 22.0

Tier 3 4 4.9

Notifier only concerns (NOC) 8 9.8

*A family may have more than one contact with the child protection system.

In the vast majority of cases (86.6% of families), children did not require placement post-closure (Table 17). However, 5 families had at least one child removed from their care and placed under a 12 month order and children in 3 families were placed under a long term order (GOM18). No children from the 30 ‘successfully completed’ families were placed in care.

Table 17: Alternative care placement after case closure*

Alternative care placement Number of families (n=82) %

Emergency 4 4.9

GOM18 3 3.7

VCA or Parent/Guardian authorisation 3 3.7

Respite from birth family 0 0

(30)

2.2 Intensive Placement Prevention (IPP)

13

Key findings

Referrals and entry into the program:

Number of families %

Total referrals 40 100.0

Attempted to engage with 34 85.0

Successful engagement 16 40.0

Case closure 18 45.0

 The majority of referrals into the program came from two metropolitan Families SA offices (Elizabeth and Salisbury)14

 Less then half of the referrals resulted in a successful engagement

 Engagement rates were lower for Aboriginal families with only 1 family was reported as successfully engaged

 The inability of families to keep appointments was reported as the main barrier to engagement.

Client profile:

 About a quarter (23.8%) of children (from 7 families)15

were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders

 Half of the families were headed by a sole parent  Most families (63%) had one or two children

 Most commonly, families were renting in public or community housing

 A noticeable proportion was reported to have at least one child or one carer with a disability

13 The analysis of IPP data was impacted by small numbers of clients and missing data. Consequently, particular care should be taken when interpreting results in this section.

14 Originally, the IPP program was implemented in 3 locations (two metropolitan and one country). In May 2010 it was expanded to further 3 locations (two metropolitan and one country).

(31)

 All families had been subject to a Tier 2 notification and just over a third, to a Tier 1

 Neglect was most common type of alleged abuse (88%)

 All families had been subject to a child protection investigation with abuse confirmed in 72% of cases

 Most families had not had children placed in care prior to the IPP referral

 NCFAS data indicated a higher level of risk at intake compared to TEIS families.

Services provided by IPP:

 Families in the program received a wide range of services, with a third receiving six service types and a quarter, four

 Parenting skills development was provided to 92% of families, followed by counselling (75%) and school/education children services (58%)

 The average duration of support (for 18 closed cases) was 119 days.

 At the time of data collection, 18 cases were closed

 The most common reason for closure was recorded as ‘engagement issues’ (around 40% of cases)

 Three cases were closed due to successful completion of the program, with no re-notifications reported for the two families for which data was available

 NCFAS closure information is inconclusive due to the small number of cases for which this data is available.

(32)

2.2.1 Referrals

A total of 41 referrals, involving 40 families (one family was referred twice) and 105 children, were made to IPP services.

IPP services attempted to engage with 34 families16

(85% of those referred) and reported successful engagement with 16 families. Since inception, 18 cases had been closed17 (Figure 6).

Figure 6: Program statistics

40 34 16 18 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

referred to IPP attempted to engage with successful engagement case closure

nu m be r of f a m il ie s

2.2.1.1 Regional distribution of service referrals

18

The IPP was initially available in 3 Families SA Offices (Elizabeth, Port Augusta and Salisbury), which referred all 41 cases considered in this report (Table 18). In May 2010 the program was extended to another 3 locations (Metro North East, Gawler and Whyalla).

16 Engagement information was available for 34 out of 40 families referred. 17 This number includes 9 of the unsuccessful engagement cases.

(33)

Table 18: Number of referrals made by each Families SA Office

Families SA Office Number of referrals %

Elizabeth 15 36.6

Port Augusta 7 17.1

Salisbury 14 34.1

Unknown 5 12.2

Total 41 100.0

Anglicare SA had received the majority of the referrals (n=29); Catholic Diocese Pt Pire, in partnership with AFSS, received 7 referrals19

; and the remaining 5 referrals did not include service provider information.

2.2.2 Characteristics of families and children at intake

20

2.2.2.1 Age and number of children in households

Seven families (17.5%)21_{and approximately 25% of children (23.8% n=105) were} Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. The average age of children was 6 years (median 5 years), with the majority (68.5%) under 10 years old (Table 19).

Table 19: Age of children by cultural background

Age groups n % n % n % n % 0-1 3 12.0 9 17.0 2 7.4 14 13.3 2-4 4 16.0 14 26.4 7 25.9 25 23.8 5-9 9 36.0 16 30.2 8 29.6 33 31.4 10-14 5 20.0 6 11.3 2 7.4 13 12.4 15-17 1 4.0 3 5.7 0 0.0 4 3.8 Not stated 3 12.0 5 9.4 8 29.6 16 15.2 Total 25 100.0 53 100.0 27 100.0 105 100.0

19 It is important to note that referral numbers are impacted by the level of funding, agreed targets, and geographical coverage of the service. Families SA offices do not chose which NGO to refer to but refer to a designated NGO service provider for the local area.

20 The total number of clients with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) background is not large enough to allow reporting. 21 Given that six (or 15%) of the 40 families’ cultural background is unavailable, this data should be interpreted with caution.

(34)

The number of children in referred households ranged from one to nine (Table 20).

Table 20: Number of children in each household

Number of children in the household Number of households %

1 15 37.5 2 10 25.0 3 7 17.5 4 3 7.5 6 1 2.5 7-9 3 7.5 Not stated 1 2.5 Total 40 100.0

2.2.2.2 Household and accommodation characteristics

Half of all families in the program were headed by a sole parent (Table 21). Close to half (42.5%) were in public or community housing; and 2 families (5.0%) were in arrangements indicative of homelessness (e.g. rent free or boarding house).

Table 21: Household and accommodation characteristics

n % Household type

household containing a mixture of family and non-family members 4 10.0

household containing family members only 30 75.0

household containing non-family members only 1 2.5

not stated or inadequately described 5 12.5

Household family composition

one parent family – female caregiver 19 47.5

couple family - natural parents 9 22.5

not stated or inadequately described 7 17.5

couple family - step/blended parents 2 5.0

other relatives/kin as primary caregivers 2 5.0

one parent family – male caregiver 1 2.5

Accommodation type

public housing rental 13 32.5

private rental 12 30.0

not stated 7 17.5

community housing rental 4 10.0

rent free accommodation 1 2.5

boarding house 1 2.5

other 1 2.5

(35)

2.2.2.3 Disability status of children and carers

22

Six families (15%) were reported to have at least one child with a disability (Table 22), including four with an intellectual or learning disability, one a sensory or speech disability, and three physical disabilities.23

Thirteen (32.5%) carers were reported to have a disability (Table 22), including eight with mental health problems, four an intellectual or learning disability and one a physical disability.

Table 22: Disability status of children and carers

Number of families (N=40) % Children No notable disability 25 62.5 Having a disability 6 15.0 Unknown 9 22.5 Carers No notable disability 17 42.5 Having a disability 13 32.5 Unknown 10 25.0

2.2.2.4 Child protection and placement history of referred cases

Twenty-five of the 40 families were successfully matched with Families SA client data to assess previous Families SA history.

All of the 25 families had attracted previous Tier 2 notifications, and just over a third a Tier 1 notification (Table 23). Neglect was the most common abuse type alleged (88%). All 25 families had been the subject of a child protection

investigation and abuse was confirmed in 72% of cases.

22 A family may include children or carers with more than one type of disability.

23 It should be noted that this data represents disability as reported by NGO service providers – it is not known if the disability had been clinically assessed. The severity of disability was not reported.

(36)

Table 23: Contacts with child protection system prior to IPP referral*

Contact with child protection Number of families (n=25) %

Tier 1 9 36.0

Tier 2 25 100.0

Tier 3 11 44.0

Notifier only concerns (NOCS) 15 60.0

*A family may have more than one type of contact with child protection system.

Most families had not had children placed in care prior to the IPP referrals (Table 24).

Table 24: Alternative care placement history prior to referring to IPP

Alternative care placement Number of Families (n=25) %

Emergency 7 28.0

VCA or Parent/Guardian authorisation 2 8.0

Respite from birth family 2 8.0

GOM18 0 0.0

2.2.3 Service delivery information

2.2.3.1 Engagement

Data was available on engagement for 34 of the 41 families referred to the program (Table 25). Overall, the data suggests considerable problems with

engagement, with less then half the families (16 or 47.1%) successfully engaged. Those who failed to engage included a very high proportion of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander families. Only one Aboriginal client was reported to have

(37)

successfully engaged. The majority of families with a prior Tier 1 notification (8 out of 9) failed to engage.

Table 25: Engagement in IPP by cultural background

n % n % n % n %

Successful 1 16.7 11 47.8 4 80.0 16 47.1

Unsuccessful 5 83.3 12 52.2 1 20.0 18 52.9

Total 6 100.0 23 100.0 5 100.0 34 100.0

The ‘inability to keep appointment’ was reported as the main barrier to engagement (Table 26).

Table 26: Barriers to engagement*

Barriers to engagement Number of referrals

(n=34)

%

Inability to keep appointments 11 32.4

Carer(s) is/are distrustful of or lack understanding of child protection system

4 11.8 Carer(s) lack of awareness of need for

change 4

11.8

Parental mental health 3 8.8

Domestic violence 2 5.9

Unresolved parental alcohol and/or drug

misuse 1

2.9

Unable to locate carers/ child(ren) 1 2.9

Not stated 9 26.5

* More than one type of barriers can be identified.

2.2.3.2 Support services offered

Service providers offered a range of support services to the 12 families for whom data was provided24_{(Table 27). The most frequently provided services included} parenting skills development, counselling and children services/ school/education related supports.

(38)

Table 27: Support services provided*

Support Services Number of families received services

(n=12)

%

Parenting Skills Development 11 91.7

Counselling 9 75.0

Children Services/School/Education related

7 58.3

Housing/Homelessness 5 41.7

Links to Community Networks and Services

5 41.7

Mental Health Support 5 41.7

Therapeutic Service Interventions 5 41.7

Financial Support 3 25.0

Medical support 3 25.0

Practical and Structured In-Home Assistance

3 25.0

Brokerage 3 25.0

Family dispute interventions 2 16.7

Domestic/Family Violence Interventions 1 8.3

Drug and/or Alcohol Support 1 8.3

*A family may receive more than one type of support service.

The number of support services offered to an individual family ranged from 2 to 10, with a mean of 5 (median 5) (Figure 7). Ten out of the twelve families received four or more types of services.

Figure 7: Number of support services offered to families

1 1 3 1 4 1 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5 6 7 10

number of family support services

num b e r of f a m il ie s

(39)

2.2.4 Closure information

2.2.4.1 Duration of support

The IPP program is designed to provide an intensive and time limited support to families in crisis. It is anticipated that generally families will remain in the program for less than four months.25

By the time of data collection, 18 cases (43.9% n=41) had been closed. For these, the average duration of support was 119 days (range = 12 to 259 days). Eight of the 18 cases had received less than 100 days of IPP support, with 2 less than one month. Five cases had remained engaged with IPP for more than 200 days.26

2.2.4.2 Reasons for case closure

Only three of the 18 cases were closed due to the successful completion of service (Table 28). The most common reason for case closure was recorded as

‘engagement issues’ (38.9%). Four cases were closed because children were placed in care and parental mental health problems were identified for three of these parents.

Table 28: Reasons for case closure

Reasons for case closure Number of cases %

Engagement issues 7 38.9

Child placed in care 4 22.2

Successful Case Completion 3 16.7

Increase risk or incorrect referrals 2 11.1

Other 2 11.1

Total 18 100.0

25 Stronger Families Safer Children Practice Guidelines – December 2009

26These figures are indicative only as the available data is limited and reflects the early stages of the program implementation.

(40)

2.2.5 Case outcomes

27

2.2.5.1 Families’ problems at intake

NCFAS assessment scores at intake were available for only 16 families, or 40% of the 40 families referred to IPP. Consequently, the following results are indicative only.

In each of the 8 domains, a noticeable proportion of families was assessed as having problems (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Percentage of families with mild, moderate or serious problems at intake

68.8 68.8 87.5 75.5 56.3 68.8 68.8 75.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 environment parental capabilities family interactions

family safety child well-being social/ community life self-sufficiency family health p e rc e n t o f f a m ilie s

Compared with TEIS, those families entering IPP with “problem” scores (i.e. mild, moderate or serious) were more likely to be rated as having a moderate or serious problem. This suggests a higher level of risk compared to TEIS families.

2.2.5.2 Families’ problems at case closure

NCFAS assessment scores at closure were provided for 12 families. Half or less than half were rated in the “problem” range (mild, moderate or serious problem):

 child well-being (50.0% in problem range at closure)  environment (41.7%)

(41)

 parental capabilities (33.3%)  family interactions (33.3%)  family safety (33.3%)  self-sufficiency (33.3%)  social/community life (25.0%)  family health (16.7%).

Overall, the outcomes were mixed and therefore difficult to report. Only three cases were closed due to the successful completion of service, making it impossible to further explore changes in the domain scores and outcomes as a result of the IPP.

2.2.5.3 Subsequent child protection contacts

Data on subsequent notifications and placements was available for only 12 of the 40 families in the program. Of those, seven cases had been closed for more than 6 months. Given the small numbers, it was not possible to calculate re-notification rates. Of the 12 families,

 four families had attracted at least one notification after case closure, including one Tier 1 notification

 two families had the subject of Tier 2 notifications and Notifier Only Concern reports

 two families had been the subject of an investigation of alleged child abuse, with abuse substantiated in both cases

 one family had a child placed in care following case closure.

Families SA child protection data was available for two out of the three families who successfully completed IPP. At the time of data collection, both cases were closed for between 3 and 4 months and neither had been the subject of any re-notifications to the child protection system.

(42)

2.3 Reunification Support Services (RSS)

Key findings

Between 1 April 2009 and 14 July 2010 a total of 123 families (with 203 children) were referred to the Reunification Program.

Reporting on RSS is significantly limited due to the quality of data. The findings on this aspect of SFSC are indicative only and should be treated with caution.

Client profile:

 Of the 80 families with reported cultural background information, about 25% were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islanders

 Sixty percent of children were aged between 2 and 9 years of age

 The majority (65%) of children were on a 12 month Guardianship Order and a large proportion (53.1%) was placed in relative or kinship care

 Over 90% of families had three children or less.

Services provided by RSS:

 The average duration of support (for closed cases) was 150 days

 At the time of data collection 52 cases were closed

 Successful reunification was reported for 18 (35%) of the closed cases  Eleven closures (21%) were due to unsuccessful reunification, with children

returned into or remaining in alternative care

 NCFAS assessments were conducted for 42 families. Results for the 12 closed cases were mixed.

Reunification data was provided from services to the Research Unit in paper format, with a considerable amount of data missing.

The data included not only SFSC RSS clients but also clients of other (pre-existing) reunification services, with no identifier available to distinguish between the different programs. Consequently, the analysis in this section includes all program data, RSS and from other reunification program funding.28

That is, some NGOs recorded funding for their reunification program for SFSC together with

(43)

other pre-exiting reunification programs funded through Families SA. Table 29 summarises the split of NGOs reunification program funding between RSS and other Families SA funding as well as the number of referrals of all reunification clients in the data collection period.

Table 29: Number of reunification referrals made to each NGO and funding for RSS

NGO service provider Number of

referrals

% of funding for RSS

% of funding for other programs

Centacare 43 73% 27%

Anglicare 38 100% 0

ACCare 17 48% 52%

UnitingCare Wesley Port Pirie 14 49% 51%

AFSS 11 100% 0

Total 123

In addition, about 90 percent of RSS records did not include an intake number, making it impossible to link the RSS data with NCFAS data sets.

2.3.1 Program statistics

Between 1 April 2009 and 14 July 201029 a total of 123 families (with 203 children) were referred to one of the five RSS service providers, ACCare, AFSS, Anglicare, Centacare and UnitingCare Wesley Port Pirie for reunification services. Fifty-two cases were closed during that period.

2.3.1.1 Child and parent demographics

The average age of children was 6 years, with the majority (77.8%) being under 10 years of age (Figure 9).

(44)

Figure 9: Children by age groups 17.7% 23.6% 36.5% 13.8% 2.0% 6.4% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 0-1 2-4 5-9 10-14 15-17 Not stated age group P e rc e n ta g e o f c h ild re n

The number of children in each household ranged from 1 to 5 (Table 30).

Table 30: Number of children in each household

Number of children in the household Number of families %

1 77 62.6 2 23 18.7 3 13 10.6 4 9 7.3 5 1 0.8 Total 123 100.0

Cultural background information was provided for 80 families (65.0% of total). Of these, 21 families (26.3%) identified as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. (In comparison, recent statistics indicate that 25.8% of children in out-home care in SA were Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander.30

)

2.3.1.2 Court order and placement information at referral

Of the 146 children for whom information was available, 65.1% were currently on a 12 month Guardianship or Custody Order; and approximately 15% were on a Voluntary Custody Agreement. Where placement details were available (113

(45)

children), over half (53.1%) were placed in relative and kinship care, 16.8% had been placed in interim emergency care and 15.9% were placed in foster care.

2.3.2 Service delivery and closure information

2.3.2.1

Engagement

Engagement information was available for 52 families (42.3% of the total). Of these, 46 were described as successfully engaged (88.5%).

2.3.2.2 Closure information

Seventy one cases were still open at the time of analysis. Thirty one (43.7%) of these referrals were made before December 2009. Fifty-two cases had been closed. The average duration of support was 150 days, with a range of 6 to 348 days (Table 31). About 20% of families had received services for less than 100 days, with 3 families remaining in the program for less than one month. About 10% of families had participated in the program for more than 250 days.31

Table 31: Duration of support

Duration of support (days) Number of families %

6-50 6 11.5 51-100 5 9.6 101-150 7 13.5 151-200 9 17.3 201-250 2 3.8 251-348 5 9.6 Not stated 18 34.6 Total 52 100.0

Eighteen cases (34.6%) were closed due to successful reunification (Table 32). Eleven closures (21.2%) were due to unsuccessful reunification with children being returned to or remaining in alternative care. Seven (13.5%) cases were closed due to engagement issues.

(46)

Table 32: Reasons for case closure*

Reasons for closure Number of families (n=52) %

Successful reunification 18 34.6

Other (not specified) 18 34.6

Children return into alternative care 11 21.2

Family has disengaged for an unknown or another reason 7 13.5 Family has been supported for 12 months post-reunification 1 1.9

* A family may indicate more than one reason for closure.

2.3.3 Case outcomes

About 90 percent of RSS records did not include an intake number, which made it impossible to link the RSS data with NCFAS data sets. Case outcomes analysis in this section is therefore based only on NCFAS data.

NCFAS assessments were conducted for 42 families; twelve of these families had exited the program.

Reunification clients were assessed using the North Carolina Family Scale for General Services and Reunification (NCFAS-G+R) which includes, in addition to 8 domains contained in NCFAS-G, two other:

 caregiver/child ambivalence  readiness for reunification.

2.3.3.1 Families’ problems at intake

In each domain there were over 60 percent of families (n=42) rated in the

“baseline/adequate or above” range (i.e. baseline, mild and clear strength) at the time of intake. This suggests that the families referred to RSS presented with a lower level of risk and higher level of readiness for reunification, making them suitable candidates for the program.

2.3.3.2 Changes in family functioning

NCFAS closure scores were available for 12 families. Figures 10 and 11 show the level of change across the 10 domains at the time of closure. There were no clear trends in the results, with the most common scoring assessment being ‘no

(47)

could improve in some domains, but decline in others. Of the total of 112 domain scores recorded for the 12 families:

 34 scores were ‘positive change’  27 were ‘decline’

 46 were ‘no change’.

Of the domain scores which did not demonstrate any change at closure, more than half were rated in the “problem” range at the time of intake.

Figure 10: Changes in Families recorded NCFAS Scores at Case Closure (Domains of Environment, Parental Capabilities, Family Interactions, Family Safety and Child Well-being)32 (n=12) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

N u m b e r of f a m ilie s

Environment Parental Capabilities Family Interactions Family Safety Child Well-being

(48)

Figure 11: Changes in Families Recorded NCFAS Scores at Case Closure (Domains of Social/Community life, Self-Sufficiency, Family Health, Caregiver/Child Ambivalence and Readiness for Reunification) (n=12)

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

N u m b e r of f a m ilie s

Social/Community life Self-Sufficiency Family Health Caregiver/Child Ambivalence Readiness for Reunification

2.4 Conclusion

The analysis of the program and related data presents a mixed picture.

In the 15 months between program inception and data analysis, 426 families with 1005 children were referred to the Stronger Families Safer Children program. Many of these families had entrenched, complex issues often with extensive histories of concern related to child safety and wellbeing.

Aboriginal children and families were well represented in referrals to the program and country locations appeared to have utilised the TEIS program especially well. Some families have clearly benefited from program support, as indicated by

NCFAS results for TEIS families and the successful closure of cases. Even where cases were closed with an unsuccessful outcome, involvement with the service may have provided a clear direction for future planning and the long term safety and stability for children.

However, the data also points to significant problems with engagement, particularly in the IPP program and for ATSI clients. Not surprisingly, families with more

extensive child protection histories and complex issues were harder to engage. Of particular concern is that only one Aboriginal family had been engaged

(49)

successfully in IPP. Inability to keep appointments was frequently identified as a barrier to engagement. This suggests a need for a more proactive and persistent strategy. Hard-to-engage, chaotic and resistant families are the target group for the program and should be a priority area of focus.

Although it is difficult to quantify given the quality of the available data,

inappropriate referrals may have contributed to high drop out rates post referral. This may reflect the reported tensions between Families SA and NGO service providers in the early stages of the program regarding the suitability of clients for the program (see qualitative evaluation reports).

Of some concern are the relatively small numbers of families exiting the program as a result of successful completion (about a third of TEIS and RSS closures and only 17% of IPP’s). Engagement issues were again identified as a significant problem.

It is not possible to assess the broader impacts of the program, particularly on the child protection system, at this early stage. This question will be explored in more detail through analysis of data in the second stage of the evaluation.

Finally, data quality was an issue across all program streams, most significantly the RSS, and this impacted significantly upon the evaluation. More robust data is required for better and more meaningful analysis.

Stronger Families Safer Children Evaluation: First Stage Report