dr. joseph mcdowall, create foundation - out-of-home care in australia

1 Joseph J. McDowall ⓒ 2013

Out-of-Home Care in Australia

Dr Joseph J. McDowall Executive Director (Research)

Joseph J. McDowall ⓒ 2013

What is Out of Home Care?

“Out-of-home care provides

alternative accommodation

for children and young people

who are unable to live with

their parents. “


Source: FaHCSIA, 2011, p. 3

OOHC

Primary

Secondary

Tertiary


Federated System

– States have major

responsibility for Child

Protection and

Out-of-Home Care


Child protection legislation Commonwealth Family Law Act 1975

New South Wales

Children and Young Persons (Care and

Protection) Act 1998

Victoria Children, Youth and Families Act 2005

Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005

Queensland Child Protection Act 1999

Western Australia Children and Community Services Act 2004

The Family Court Act 1975

South Australia

Family and Community Services Act

1972

Children’s Protection Act 1993

Tasmania Children, Young Persons and Their

Families Act 1997

Children, Young Persons and Their

Families Amendment Act 2009

Australian Capital Territory

Children and Young People Act 2008

Northern Territory

Care and Protection of Children Act

2007


Number Number per 1,000 children

Children admitted to out-of-home care 12,240 2.4

Children discharged from out-of-home care 9,304 1.8

Children in out-of-home care 39,621 7.7

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander CYP 13,299 55.1

Key OOHC Statistics

2011 - 2012


AIHW: Children admitted to, and discharged from OOHC 2008 – 2012


Admitted to OOHC Discharged from OOHC

AIHW (2013): Children admitted to, and discharged from, OOHC, by age

group, 2011-2012 (2008 % in parentheses)

(16.5)

(25.5) (23.9) (25.8)

(8.3)

(6.8)

(21.8) (21.5) (24.9)

(25.0)


AIHW (2013): Children aged 0–17 in out of home care by Indigenous status, 30

June 2008 to 30 June 2012 (rate)


AIHW (2013). Figure 4.2: Rate of children in out-of-home care, states and

territories, 30 June 2012


AIHW (2013). Figure 4.2: Rate of children in out-of-home care, states and

territories, 30 June 2012 (2008 rate in orange)


Most Out-of-Home Care is

categorised as:

Statutory OOHC

However, there also can be:

Supported OOHC

Voluntary OOHC


Types of Out-of-Home Care Home-based care o Foster care (+ Therapeutic FC)

o Kinship / relative care

o Other HB care

Family Group Homes o Live-in, non-salaried carers

Residential care o Facility with paid staff

Independent living o Private board, lead tenant

Other o Boarding schools, motels, hospitals


Types of Out-of-Home Care Home-based care 93% o Foster care 44%

o Kinship / relative care 47%

o Other HB care 2%

Family Group Homes o Live-in, non-salaried carers

Residential care 5% o Facility with paid staff

Independent living o Private board, lead tenant

Other o Boarding schools, motels, hospitals


AIHW (2013): Children in out-of-home care, by living arrangements, states and

territories, 30 June 2012


The First Part of Placement

Process (e.g., Victoria)


What impact does this

experience have on children

and young people?


Participants’ Characteristics

Age

Placement Type

Culture

Sex

8 - 9 yrs 10 - 14 yrs 15 - 17 yrs

156 588 325

Foster Kinship Permanent Residential Other

573 281 45 104 66

AngloAus Indigenous Other

704 309 56

Female Male

573 496 N = 1069


Care Experience Placement History

% CYP having one or two placements while in care

National Average


Care Experience Current Placement

Greater Instability

Those in Residential and Other placements

Indigenous children and young people

Satisfaction with Placements

Home-based placements more satisfied than others

Older less satisfied than others


10



11


Level of agreement that Needs are met in placement



% CYP NOT having internet access (Jurisdictions)

National Average



Other General Findings: Internet usage

Games:

Social Networking

Males Foster & Kinship Care

Younger age group

Females Residential & Other

Older age group

Games:

Social Networking:



Other General Findings: Good / Not Good Placements

Good Placements

Aspects N %

Relationships 434 44.7

Positive Emotion 170 17.5

Activities 108 11.1



Other General Findings: Good / Not Good Placements

Good Placements Not Good Placements

Aspects N % Aspects N %

Relationships 434 44.7 People 197 29.4

Positive Emotion 170 17.5 Poor Treatment 175 26.1

Activities 108 11.1 Violence 110 16.4


Care Experience Departmental

% CYP having designated number of caseworkers



% CYP who could contact caseworker as often as needed

National Average



Mean ratings of frequency of participation in meetings


14 19 18


% CYP who were aware of, and involved in preparing care plan

% CYP indicating they were aware of care

plan

Mean rating of involvement in care

planning

National Average


Identity Personal History

Why in care?

Indigenous CYP know less about why in care

Family Story

33% know a lot about family story


Identity Culture

Connected to Culture?

Cultural Support Plan


% CYP who have not been taught

about culture

National Average


Relationships Family Contact


% CYP in split placements

National Average




% CYP having designated level of contact with family members




Support by caseworkers and carers for family contact

1

2

3

4

5

6

Foster Kinship Permanent Residential Other

Me

an

Su

pp

ort

Ra

tin

g

Placement Type

Caseworker Carer


Relationships Contact Friends


Mean ratings of frequency of contact with friends (OSH)


Health Preventative


Mean ratings of availability of preventative health services


31

Health Preventative


% CYP who could recall having an initial health check

National Average


Health Preventative


% CYP who could recall having an initial health check

National Average


Health Preventative

Health Issues


Sport (OSH)

Weight


Education School Attendance


% of CYP who attended FOUR 0r more primary schools

National Average


35



% CYP who had been suspended THREE or more times

National Average




% CYP who had been suspended THREE or more times

National Average


Education School Experience

Individual Education Plan


% CYP who knew about their Individual Education

Plan

CYP rating of involvement in Individual Education

Planning

National Average


Social Presentation Complaints


% CYP who know how to complain, have complained, or decided not to


28

Self-Care & Independence Independence

Transition-from-Care Planning


% CYP indicating someone had talked to

them about transitioning from care

% CYP indicating they knew about having a

transition-from-care plan National Average

National Average


45

Overall Rating Department

How well cared for?


Mean rating (out of 10) for how well CYP feels the department or agency has cared for him/her

7.2

Scores 8 - 10 53%

Fail 15%


STANDARD and MEASURE Percentage (at

least 5 on 6-point scale)

Standard 1. Children and young people will be provided with stability and security during their time in care.

1.3 The proportion of children and young people in out-of-home care who

report feeling safe and secure in their current placement. 90.2

Standard 2. Children and young people participate in decisions that have an impact on their lives.

2.1 The proportion of children and young people who report that they have

opportunities to have a say in relation to decisions that have an impact on

their lives and that they feel listened to. 46.2

Standard 8. Children and young people in care are supported to participate in social and/or recreational activities of their choice, such as sporting, cultural or community activity.

8.1 The proportion of children and young people who report they may choose

to do the same sorts of things (sporting, cultural or community activities)

that children and young people their age who aren’t in care do. 65.4

Trial Measures of National Standards criteria (1)


STANDARD and MEASURE Percentage (at

least 5 on 6-point scale)

Standard 10. Children and young people in care are supported to develop their identity, safely and appropriately, through contact with their families, friends, culture, spiritual sources and communities and have their life history recorded as they grow up.

10.2 The proportion of children (as age-appropriate) and young people who

demonstrate having a sense of connection with the community in which they

live. 31.4

Standard 11. Children and young people in care are supported to safely and appropriately identify and stay in touch, with at least one other person who cares about their future, who they can turn to for support and advice.

11.1 The proportion of children and young people who are able to nominate at least

one significant adult who cares about them and who they believe they will be

able to depend upon throughout their childhood or young adulthood. 93.4

Standard 13. Children and young people have a transition from care plan commencing at 15 years old which details support to be provided after leaving care.

13.2 The proportion of young people who, at the time of exit from out-of-home care,

report they are receiving adequate assistance to prepare for adult life. 62.8

Trial Measures of National Standards criteria (2)


Numbers subjected to tertiary intervention

Placement Permanency

Over-representation of those with a care

background in juvenile justice

Major issues for the OOHC sector:

Over-representation of Aboriginal and

Torres Strait Islanders in care population


How can placement stability be achieved?

One solution: Permanency Planning

“a case planning process aimed at securing stability

and continuity for children in out-of-home care”

(Osmond & Tilbury, 2012)

It is clear from research (e.g., McDowall, 2013;

Osborn, Delfabbro, & Barber, 2007) that placement

instability in out-of-home care is likely to have

significant effects on the current and long-term

wellbeing of children


Permanency options:

reunification

supporting children and carers in kinship

placements

special foster placements (e.g., permanent care)

adoption Three dimensions are of concern:

relational

physical

legal

Timeframes are critical to avoid “drifting” through care


12.5% of

care

populatio

n

Adoptions from care in United States

02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12

Adoptions NSW 14 11 25 18 15 22 30 48 45 65

Adoptions from care in New South Wales 0.4% of care

population


In Australia, adoption may not be the preferred

option for achieving permanency;

as evidenced in a comment from the recent

Carmody Inquiry in Qld:

“significantly increasing the use of adoption in the

care system in its present form would be widely

opposed”

However, many governments are reforming their

adoption laws to make the process easier and

quicker


A more acceptable alternative to achieve

Permanency may be a variant on Long-Term

Guardianship Orders (similar to Permanent Care)

where carers can take on full parental

responsibilities without forcing children and young

people to lose contact with their birth parents

One size certainly will not fit all!


The gross over-representation of children

with a history in care in the juvenile justice

system

“Children in care are 68 times more likely to

appear in the Children’s Court than other

children.” (Department of Community Services, 2007)

Major issue for those who have

transitioned from OOHC


over a quarter (27%) had a history of being placed

in care (38% Aboriginal, 17% non-Aboriginal)

over half (60%) had a history of child abuse or

trauma (81% young women, 57% young men)

2009 NSW Young People in Custody Health

Survey Report (for those in detention):


Katherine McFarlane (2010, NSW):

Approximately half of the males and females in

care were facing the court for property damage

offences and similar offences

(Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22)

Over one-third (34%) of the young people

appearing before the Children’s Court were,

or had recently been in OOHC


“Child protection agencies must play a role in the

juvenile justice system and not abandon young

offenders with serious welfare concerns who

have entered that system.”

(Judge Mark Marien, 2012)

“Crucially, state parental responsibility for children

and young people in care must not stop once they

have offended and become troublesome as well

as troubled.”

(Cashmore, 2011)


Osmond, J., & Tilbury, C. (2012). Permanency Planning Concepts. Children Australia, 37(3), 100.

Roth, L. (2013). Permanency planning and adoption of children in out-of-home care. Briefing Paper No

03/2013. Sydney: NSW Parliamentary research Service.

Osborn, A. L., Delfabbro, P., & Barber, J G. (2008). The psychosocial functioning and family background of

children experiencing significant placement instability in Australian out-of-home care. Children and Youth Services

Review, 30, 847–860.

Department of Families, Housing, Community Services & Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA). (2011). An outline of

National Standards for out-of-home care. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.

Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (AIHW). (2013). Child protection Australia 2011–12. Canberra: AIHW.

McDowall, J. J. (2013). Experiencing out-of-home care in Australia: The views of children and young people

(CREATE Report Card 2013). Sydney: CREATE Foundation.

Marien, M. (2012). ‘Cross-over kids’ – childhood and adolescent abuse and neglect and juvenile offending.

Paper presented at the National Juvenile Justice Summit, Melbourne, 26-27 March.

McFarlane, K. (2010). From Care to Custody: Young Women in Out-of-Home Care in the Criminal Justice

System. Current Issues in Criminal Justice, 22, 345.

Cashmore, J. (2011). The link between child maltreatment and adolescent offending: Systems neglect of

adolescents. Family Matters, 89, 31-41.

Indig, D., Vecchiato, C., Haysom, L., Beilby, R., Carter, J., Champion, U., Gaskin, C., Heller, E., Kumar, S.,

Mamone, N., Muir, P., van den Dolder, P. & Whitton, G. (2011). 2009 NSW Young People in Custody

Health Survey: Full Report. . Sydney: Justice Health and Juvenile Justice.

References

dr. joseph mcdowall, create foundation - out-of-home care in australia

Health & Medicine

children children

young persons care

protection of children

care national average

northern territory care

rate of children

victoria children

tasmania children