the evolution of reunification services at marist youth care
TRANSCRIPT
The Evolution of Reunification Services at
Marist Youth Care
The background
• In 1896 the Marist Brothers took over the St Vincent’s Boy’s Home at Westmead in the building that now houses UWS and the Police College.
• In the early 1980’s a review of the work at Westmead was conducted
• The review identified
•Changing trends in the care of children and youth
•Reducing numbers of ‘orphans’
•A need to move away from institutional care
•A need for more professional and skilled interventions with children and young people
The Background
• In 1985 the old building was sold to UWS and the program moved to Darcy Rd in Westmead
•The Marist Brothers have always held the family in high regard and believe that young people need ‘family’.
•The Brother’s believed they could play the role of family for those that don’t have family or foster care options and use this relationship to reconnect families.
St Vincent’s Family Restoration
• The St Vincent’s program was redeveloped to provide placement options through DOCS for young people who were unable to reside with their family but where restoration was a real option.
•Young people referred through the courts
•Develop a support relationship with the whole family that emphasises reconciliation.
•Aftercare provided regular contact, birthday cards and reunions for many years if wanted
•Use of lay social workers and youth workers to support the more complex needs of clients
St Vincent’s Family Restoration
• In the 1990’s this program began to emphasize early intervention and aimed to prevent young people from entering the care system
•The approach changed slightly to target young people who were at risk of entering care through family breakdown
•Referrals began to be targeted more from schools and doctors who were believed to have more first help contact than DOCS
•Temporary and voluntary placements to provide time out and to focus on the needs of the family
•greater emphasis on supporting difficulties at school as a means of resolving family conflict
St Vincent’s Family Restoration
• In 2005 an internal and external review was conducted of the St Vincent’s program which identified the following strengths and weaknesses of the program:
Strengths
•High success rate (80%). •Engagement with the family as a whole•Emphasis on outdoor activities and growth experiences•Emphasis on education•After care encouraged belonging and continued outcomes for families.
St Vincent’s Family Restoration
Weaknesses
•Limited data about long term success of restoration•Lack of specific theoretical approach•No female placements•Limited alignment to OOHC funding objectives – mostly voluntary clients•Funding did not cover the full costs of the program•Removal of young people from the home reinforced the view that young people were the problem•Young people were being accommodated for 9-18 months
St Vincent’s Family Restoration
•Further to this, there were problems with the model
•A review of the client stats over a 23 month period revealed
-67% of clients referred and within criteria were assessed as requiring an in home support service rather than accommodation
-41% of clients provided with accommodation were assessed as not needing accommodation, 23% would have only needed short respite accommodation and 36% would have still required the full program if an intensive family support option was available as an alternative.
-100% of clients referred or accommodated in this period were assessed as likely to need a shorter placement if an in home family intervention service was available
A new model
•A change in organisational culture and program model
•Residential placements were reduced to 5 and were offered to male and female young people between the ages of 12 and 15 who were at imminent risk of breakdown and those who had recently experienced family breakdown
•Target young people from DOCS prioritise young people on short term care orders including restoration orders
•An approach of preserve, restore or reconcile was adopted across agency.
Young person in Family
Young person out of Family
Casework team
assessment
Young person in Family
Young person out of Family
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Young person in Family
Young person out of Family
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Preservation
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Return home in short-term?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
N
Preservation
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Return home in short-term?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Short Term OOHC
Short Term SAAP
Y
N
Preservation
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Return home in short-term?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Short Term OOHC
Short Term SAAP
Return home?
Y
N
Preservation
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Return home in short-term?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Short Term OOHC
Short Term SAAP
Return home?
Y
Y
N
Preservation
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Return home in short-term?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Short Term OOHC
Short Term SAAP
Return home?
Y
Y
N
Preservation
Restoration
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Return home in short-term?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Short Term OOHC
Short Term SAAP
Return home?
Y
Y
N
N
N
Preservation
Restoration
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Return home in short-term?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Short Term OOHC
Short Term SAAP
Return home?
Supported Independent
Living
Medium to Long-term or
intensive placement
Y
Y
N
N
N
Preservation
Restoration
Independent living
Casework team
assessment
Stay at homewith support?
Return home in short-term?
Young person in Family
Work with young
person inFamily
Young person out of Family
Y
Short Term OOHC
Short Term SAAP
Return home?
Supported Independent
Living
Medium to Long-term or
intensive placement
Y
Y
N
N
N
Preservation
Restoration
Independent living
Reconciliation
A new model
•A team of intensive family support caseworkers and support workers established
•Provide short term therapeutic interventions aimed at preventing family breakdown and the need for DOCS intervention.
•Adopted a more empirical basis
•Holistic and multidisciplinary assessments introduced to expand data collection, develop practice evidence and inform practice interventions
•Emphasis on more clinically skilled caseworkers and separation of case management function
A new model
Case Manager
IFS Case Worker Young person
and family
Casework Support
Develops the case plan, BMP and
conducts reviews
Implements the case plan and provides
therapeutic casework
Assists the case worker in situations
where more intensive support is required.
Education and Rec
As needed and initiated by case
manager/caseworker
Referral
Referral received
Assessed within 7 days by case manager and referral worker
Discussed with team at intake
meeting
Client accepted or assisted to access other
services
Session plans and case plan
written
Intervention
Admission meeting
Holistic assessment report after 4 weeks
Case review after 6 weeks
Case review at 12 weeks -
extend or finalise
Weekly sessions with family and yp
Engage internal and external services
A new model
•Education and recreation components were retained and extended
•Developed an internal continuum of care for clients.
•Referrals centralized
•The majority of clients previously accepted to residential care are now successfully worked with in the community.
•More opportunities to avoid long term OOHC.
•Reunification success in other OOHC programs
– Young people have a strong need to belong and seek
identity through peers or family and significant carers.
–Young people therefore benefit from having a cooperative
relationship with their family even if they will not live with
them and this builds reconciliation
–Once young people enter care the chance of restoration
diminishes
–The longer young people remain in care the harder it
becomes to return them to their family
–Families are increasingly isolated and need peer support
–Families need support to understand normal adolescent
behaviour and how to respond to modern youth culture
Practice Learnings
– Family ownership and understanding of interactions that
lead to dysfunction is paramount to successful restoration
–Young people need the opportunity to succeed and to
challenge their world view.
–Being flexible and adaptable to changes in the service
system and family needs is necessary to ensure that
effective service is maintained
–Young people in care need opportunities to succeed
–Integration of an intensive family support program with
residential services provides more flexible options and avoids
placements into OOHC
–Residing with the natural family is not always the best
option for young people
Learnings
David Keegan
Manager, Support Services
Marist Youth Care
Westmead
www.maristyc.com.au
9407 2105
Questions?
Contact details