1. family and parenting
2. children

The Child and Family Services
Outcomes Survey 2012
Final report
July 2013
Prepared by the Queensland University of Technology
and the Social Research Centre
For the Department of Human Services
Published by the Victorian Government Department of Human Services
Melbourne, Victoria.
© Copyright State of Victoria 2013
This publication is copyright. No part may be reproduced by any process
except in accordance with the provisions of the Copyright Act 1968.
Authorised by the State Government of Victoria, 50 Lonsdale Street,
Melbourne.
July 2013
This document may also be downloaded from the Department of Human
Services web site at <www.dhs.vic.gov.au>.
i
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................ ii
Abbreviations.......................................................................................................................................v
Glossary ............................................................................................................................................. vi
Acknowledgements ........................................................................................................................... vii
Organisations that participated in the survey ................................................................................... viii
Executive summary ............................................................................................................................ ix
Part 1: About the survey and this report..............................................................................................1
Introduction..........................................................................................................................................2
Part 2: Survey results ..........................................................................................................................7
Context: Victoria’s children and young people ....................................................................................8
Section 1: Demographic information ...................................................................................................9
Section 2: Education and ch
ild care ...............................................................................................................................................17
Section 3: Previous Child Protection involvement.............................................................................26
Section 4: Health and wellbeing ........................................................................................................30
Section 5: Behaviour and mental health ...........................................................................................38
Section 6: Connections to family, school and community.................................................................44
Section 7: Current protective orders .................................................................................................52
Section 8: Out of Home Care – involvement of carers......................................................................54
Section 9: Indigenous children or young people and parents or carers (connected to their
culture)...............................................................................................................................................57
Section 10: Parent or carer experiences of services.........................................................................62
Section 11: Service effectiveness .....................................................................................................70
Section 12: Service experience and parent or carer perception of outcomes ..................................80
Appendix A: Survey methodology .....................................................................................................82
Appendix B: Out of Home Care agencies supporting recruitment to the survey ..............................85
Appendix C: Number of participants by family services agency and region .....................................87
Appendix D: Average survey household size calculation .................................................................89
Appendix E: Service group across region (unweighted) ...................................................................90
Appendix F: Out of Home Care contact with relatives by type of care..............................................91
Appendix G: Lifestyle factors.............................................................................................................92
Appendix H: Details of Indigenous sample by region and service group..........................................93
References ........................................................................................................................................94
ii
List of Tables
Table 1: Primary carer’s relationship with child (self-identified) ........................................................12
Table 2: Number and proportion of children in Out of Home Care by placement type .....................13
Table 3: Gender of children by service group ...................................................................................14
Table 4: Age distribution across service groups ...............................................................................14
Table 5: Households moves in the past 12 months by service group...............................................16
Table 6: School attendance by service group ...................................................................................21
Table 7: Number of days where child has been physically active for 60 minutes or more ...............35
Table 8: Service group by frequency of hospital/doctor visits in previous 12 months by age of
child or young person ........................................................................................................................37
Table 9: Strengths and difficulties score for children or young people aged four years and over
across the service groups ................................................................................................................40
Table 10: Parent or carer relationships with the child or young person across service groups.......42
Table 11: Out of Home Care: Child or young person’s contact with mother and father ...................47
Table 14: Frequency of protective order types for Out of Home Care children ................................53
Table 15: Frequency of protective order types for Child Protection children ....................................53
Table 16: Out of Home Care: Care team members by placement type............................................55
Table 17: Indigenous sample by region ............................................................................................59
Table 18: Participation in cultural activities for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children or
young people .....................................................................................................................................61
Table 19: Comparison of rates of cultural participation by Victorian Indigenous children and
young people by age group...............................................................................................................61
Figure 17: Information provision and use..........................................................................................64
Table 20: Frequency of negative qualitative comments regarding inappropriate use of
information.........................................................................................................................................66
Figure 18: Response to service.........................................................................................................67
Table 21: Out of Home Care: Themed grouping of negative qualitative comments on office
suitability............................................................................................................................................68
Table 22: Duration of service intervention by service group .............................................................71
Figure 20: Out of Home Care: Age group by years of service intervention ......................................72
Table 23: Frequency of service use reported by Family Services parents or carers........................74
Table 24: Improvement of parenting skills for Child Protection and Family Services .......................76
Table 25: Themed grouping of qualitative comments on the impact of services on parenting
skills ...................................................................................................................................................77
Table 26: Improvements in child's wellbeing or health across service groups .................................78
Table 27: Improvements to child’s health and wellbeing due to services .........................................79
Table 28: Estimated survey response and participation data ...........................................................83
Table 29: Out of Home Care agencies supporting recruitment to the survey...................................85
Table 30: Participants by family services agency and region ...........................................................87
Table 31: Average household size of survey participants assuming a single parent household......89
iii
Table 32: Service group across region unweighted*.........................................................................90
Table 33: Out of Home Care child/young person able to have contact with mother by placement
type....................................................................................................................................................91
Table 34: Out of Home Care child/young person able to have contact with father by placement
type....................................................................................................................................................91
Table 35: Lifestyle factors of children or young people aged 12 years and over..............................92
Table 36: Indigenous population by region ......................................................................................93
List of Figures
Figure 1: Service group across region, weighted..............................................................................10
Figure 2: Service group by Indigenous status* .................................................................................11
Figure 3: Distribution of carers by formal care arrangements relative to total number of carers
and parents........................................................................................................................................12
Figure 4: Service group by percentage of other children in household.............................................15
Figure 5: Reading days for children 5 years and younger by service group.....................................18
Figure 6: Children aged 5 years or younger: Childcare type by service group .................................19
Figure 7: Type of school by service group ........................................................................................23
Figure 8: Disability assessment by service group .............................................................................25
Figure 9: Grounds for intervention by service group .........................................................................27
Figure 10: Out of Home Care – length of time in current placement by age of child ........................28
Figure 11: Service group by parent or carer rating of child health ....................................................31
Figure 12: Long-term health condition by service group and age of child or young person .............33
Figure 13: Service group by parent’s or carer’s perception of child's weight....................................34
Figure 14: Proportion of survey children receiving or needing treatment or counselling for by
service group .....................................................................................................................................40
Figure 15: Number of main carers per child since birth by service group.........................................45
Figure 16: Frequency of participation in community activities by service group...............................51
Figure 17: Information provision and use..........................................................................................64
Figure 18: Response to service.........................................................................................................67
Figure 19: Response to worker assistance .......................................................................................69
Figure 20: Out of Home Care: Age group by years of service intervention ......................................72
iv
Abbreviations
ABS
ACCO
AEDI
AIFS
AIHW
ANOVA
CATI
COAG
CRIS
CYFA
DEECD
DHS
IRIS
LSAC
NHMRC
OOHC
QUT
SDQ
SPSS
TAFE
VCAMS
VCHWS
Australian Bureau of Statistics
Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation
Australian Early Development Index
Australian Institute of Family Studies
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Statistical procedure - The Analysis of Variance
Computer Assisted Telephone Interview
Council of Australian Governments
Client Relationship Information System
Children, Youth and Families Act 2005
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development
Department of Human Services
The Integrated Reports and Information System (Family Services database)
Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
National Health and Medical Research Council
Out of Home Care
Queensland University of Technology
Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
Statistical Package for the Social Sciences
Technical and Further Education
Victorian Child and Adolescent Monitoring System
Victorian Child Health and Wellbeing Survey
v
Glossary
Best Interests Framework
Case Planner
Children’s Court
Child FIRST
Chi Square test
Community Service Organisation
Mean
Spearman’s Rho
t-test
The Centre for Excellence in
Child and Family Welfare
Thomas & Associates study
(2002)
Best Interests Framework For Vulnerable Children and Youth
Delegation held by Child Protection Unit Manager, Department
of Human Services
The Children’s Court of Victoria
Child and Family Information, Referral and Support Teams
Pearson’s chi squared test - a statistical hypothesis test
A non-government organisation registered and funded by the
Department of Human Services
Mathematical average of all the terms
Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient
Student’s T test–statistical assessment test
Peak body for community services organisations in Victoria
Child Protection Client and Family Survey,
Shane Thomas and Associates 2002
vi
Acknowledgements
The Department of Human Services would
like to warmly thank the parents and carers
who participated in the survey. We would
also like to thank all of the community service
organisations that participated in the survey
for all their hard work to recruit and support
the participants. The organisations are listed
in the next page.
The initial development of the Child and
Family Services Outcomes Survey
instrument was coordinated by the
Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development, Victoria (DEECD).
DEECD commissioned the Australian
Institute of Family Studies with assistance
from the University of Adelaide in 2008 to
undertake the preliminary work.
The survey was funded by the Victorian
Department of Human Services.
The authors of this report are:
• Professor Bob Lonne, Associate
Professor Ingrid Wagner and Kerri
Gillespie of School of Public Health and
Social Work, Queensland University of
Technology.
Key staff involved in the data collection are:
• Ms Sonia Whiteley, Ms Michelle Silbert
and Mr Tim Von Carate of the Social
Research Centre.
The Victorian Department of Human Services
provided matched client data from their Client
Relationship Information System (CRIS).
The analysis and interpretations made in this
report are provided in good faith and are
based on the expertise and experience in
Child Protection matters and research data
analysis of the people involved.
vii
Organisations that participated in the survey
Anchor Inc.
Gateway Community Health
Anglicare Victoria
Gippsland and East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative
Ballarat Health Services
Gippsland Lakes Community Health
Ballarat and District Aboriginal Cooperative
Glastonbury Community Services
Baptcare
Good Shepherd Youth and Family Service
Bass Coast Regional Health
ISIS Primary Care
Bellarine Community Health Ltd
Kildonan Child and Family Services
Benalla Rural City
Kingston Family Support Services
Bendigo and District Aboriginal Cooperative
Knox Community Health Service
Bendigo Community Health Service
Lakidjeka Aboriginal Child Specialist Advice Support Service
Berry Street
Lisa Lodge
Bethany
Mallee Aboriginal Corporation
Brophy Family and Youth Services Inc.
Mallee Accommodation and Support Program Inc.
Camcare
Mallee Family Care
Cara Inc.
Mallee Track Health and Community Service
Caroline Chisholm Society
MacKillop Family Services
Castlemaine and District Community Health Ltd
Merriwa Industries Ltd
Catholic Care
Menzies Inc. Youth Services
Centacare
Merri Community Health Inc.
Central Hume Support Services
Monash Youth and Family Services
Child and Family Services
Murray Valley Aboriginal Cooperative
Children’s Protection Society
OzChild
City of Greater Dandenong
Pinarc Disability Support
City of Darebin
Quantum Support Services
City of Greater Geelong
QEC
City of Kingston
Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative
City of Moonee Valley
St Luke’s Anglicare
City of Wodonga
Sunbury Community Health Centre Inc.
City of Yarra
The Bridge Youth Service
Cobaw Community Health Service
The Salvation Army
Colac Area Health
Uniting Care
Community Connections
Upper Murray Family Care
Department of Human Services regional staff
Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
Eastern Access Community Health
Wesley Mission
Echuca Regional Health
Wimmera Uniting Care
FamilyCare Carer Support Services
Windermere Child and Family Services Inc.
Family LIfe
Yarram and District Health Service
Youth for Christ Victoria
viii
Executive summary
The Child and Family Services Outcomes
Survey is a research project funded by the
Victorian Department of Human Services and
conducted by the Social Research Centre
and the Queensland University of
Technology. It provides essential information
on how children receiving services from
Victoria’s Child Protection, Placement and
Family Services are faring. It focuses on
children’s and young people’s health, stability
and development and how they, and their
parents and carers, experience services.
The survey is an important tool in Victoria’s
strategy to improve Child Protection services.
In May 2012 the government confirmed its
ongoing commitment to system-wide reform
and improvements through Victoria’s
vulnerable children: our shared responsibility.
This important reform builds on work over the
past decade. It aims to prevent child abuse
and neglect, reduce the impact when it does
occur, and improve the outcomes for children
and families in the Child Protection and
Family Services service system.
The results of this survey provide evidence
about how well the reforms are working –
how people experience the system and
whether the outcomes for children and young
people are improving.
There is evidence from the survey results
that the reforms are having a positive impact
on parents’ and carers’ experiences across
all services. A large majority of parents or
carers receiving Out of Home Care and
Family Services reported that the services
that were provided met their needs and were
beneficial. The Child Protection and Out of
Home Care results showed significant
improvements in communication and
responsiveness from a similar study in 2002
(Thomas and Associates). A number of
parents and carers were also critical of the
service they received (especially Child
Protection).Overall, this information has
provided valuable insights into how parents
and carers experience the statutory Child
Protection system – insights that suggest
how practice approaches can be improved
for people who are involved with Child
Protection and Family Services.
About the survey
The Child and Family Services Outcomes
survey involved a telephone survey of 973
‘principal carers’ in Victoria – parents,
grandparents, step-parents and paid carers –
of children and young people who were
receiving services from Child Protection, Out
of Home Care and Family Services. This was
completed in August 2012.
The principal carer survey was designed to
collect information from parents and carers
about their children’s safety, stability and
development, including physical and mental
health, education, relationships, and
connections with family, community, culture
and behaviour. Therefore it reflects parents’
or carers’ perceptions of their child and
young person. The survey also asks a range
of questions about their and their children’s
experiences with services.
The study sampled 973 parents and carers in
total, comprising:
•
289 from Child Protection
•
293 from Family Services
•
391 from Out of Home Care
(Placement Services).
This report presents findings from the
principal carer survey.
ix
There are some limitations to the data
collected. The Child Protection parents and
carers were living at home with their children
and were not involved in contested legal
proceedings at the time of the survey. This
group is therefore not fully representative of
Child Protection as a whole. Also, a quarter
of the Out of Home Care participants
(permanent carers) were not receiving an
ongoing casework service. This limits to
some extent comparisons of service
effectiveness between service groups.
Survey findings
More detailed information about the survey
and the data analysis can be found in the
main body of the report and in supplementary
information at <www.dhs.vic.gov.au>.
• Fifty-eight per cent of survey families
consisted of at least one parent and their
child who lived with them all the time.
‘In every way he has improved, he’s
even allowed to go on school camps
now as his behaviour much improved.
Last year he was suspended 11 times
from school, this year not once.’
Survey participant
Demographic information
• There was a relatively balanced spread of
age and gender across the children or
young people selected for study.
• Thirteen per cent of parents and carers
were the principal carers of Indigenous
children.
• Over 95 per cent of survey households
spoke English as the main language. This
is quite high relative to the general
population.
• The families were larger than usual and,
apart from the Out of Home Care group,
they moved relatively frequently, which is
associated with a range of household
stresses.
• Many more survey families lived in rural
and regional areas (45.9 per cent) than
the general population (28.2 per cent).
• Many carers, foster carers and permanent
carers described themselves as a parent
or stepparent of the child or young
person.
x
Education and childcare
Health and wellbeing
• Fewer parents and carers (58 per cent)
read to children (aged under five years)
daily than the broader community (67 per
cent).
• Most participants rated their child or
young person’s health as excellent to
good, but the proportion rating it as fair to
poor was higher than found for the broad
community.
• Parents and carers accessed child care
for their children aged five years or
younger, less than the broad community.
Of those who did access services, child
care centres, kindergarten and preschools
were the most frequently used.
• Only 1.4 per cent of parents and carers of
children aged 5 years or younger used
‘informal care’ – that is a friend or relative
– to care for their children.
• Most children and young people attended
government schools.
• School attendance was generally reported
as high. There was, however, a significant
proportion (> 10 per cent) of children or
young people who missed school due to
refusal or truancy
• Between six and 11 per cent of children or
young people had been enrolled at five or
more schools in their life.
• A higher proportion of children or young
people had a disability, particularly a
learning difficulty (30.7 per cent of the
children aged six years and older), than is
found in the broad community.
• Overall 12.5 per cent of the survey
children attended a special needs school.
• Parents and carers reported young people
had much lower levels of accessing paid
employment than the broad community.
• Immunisations of children were reported
at a higher rate (93-97%) than for the
broad community (87%-93%) for children
at each age.
• Many children or young people were
receiving treatment for a range of health
conditions. Slightly more than one quarter
of the carers reported their children as
requiring medication, and half of these felt
that their child needed more medication
than what they were getting.
• Parents and carers reported a lower
proportion of children and young people
as being overweight and a higher
proportion of children or young people as
underweight than in the broad community.
• Approximately half of the children or
young people were reported as being
active every day for 60 minutes or more.
• Children and young people with long-term
(chronic) health conditions (such as
hayfever, sight problems, sinusitis,
migraines, asthma and other allergies)
were reported at an overall lower level
than those in the broad community for all
ages. However, a higher proportion of
parents or carers of Family Services
stated that their children had long-term
health conditions (45 per cent) than other
parents and carers.
• The proportion of survey young people
over 12 years who were reported to have
drunk alcohol in the past year was similar
to the broad population. However, those
placed in Out of Home Care drank alcohol
more frequently than those in the broad
community although at an overall lower
level.
xi
• A high proportion of survey children and
young people were reported to smoke
cigarettes regularly.
• The study cohort had higher rates of injury
requiring medical or hospital attention
than found for other children and young
people, with most experiencing only one
injury over the 12 months prior to the
survey. Eight per cent had two or more
injuries in the previous year. Children and
young people in Out of Home Care had
significantly lower rates of injury.
Behaviour and mental health
• In comparison to the broad community,
the survey revealed high rates of
emotional and behavioural problems in
these children, particularly for the Family
Services group. The rates that were
reported by Child Protection parents and
carers were much lower than the other
two groups, which was unexpected.
• Many children or young people were
receiving regular counselling and therapy
to deal with these issues and associated
problems.
• The overwhelming majority of parents or
carers rated their relationships with their
children or young people as positive on a
range of measures.
• However, a small number were found to
have poor relationships with their children
or young people. These were primarily in
the Family Services group and involved
children aged between nine and 16 years.
Connections to family, school and
community
• Approximately one in five of the Child
Protection and Family Services children or
young people, and seven in ten of their
Out of Home Care counterparts, had
experienced three or more main carers,
this being particularly likely for those with
a disability or identified as being ‘at risk’ in
terms of behavioural and other difficulties.
• A significant proportion of Out of Home
Care children and young people have had
multiple carers. Approximately 67 per cent
had experienced three or more carers and
one quarter had experienced five or more
main carers in their life. Children and
young people with a disability in Out of
Home Care had a higher prevalence of
multiple carers.
• Children or young people in the Out of
Home Care group experienced a variety
of levels of contact with their mothers,
fathers, siblings and other relatives. This
was mostly face-to-face contact.
• The most frequently occurring contact
between children and their key relatives
was with other main relatives.
• There was a small but substantial
proportion of children or young people
who did not have contact with their
parents and families, particularly their
fathers and non-resident siblings, and
there is an identified need to examine the
factors at play in contact decision-making.
• Nearly one in four children and young
people placed in Out of Home Care are
regularly spending time with other carers
for respite, breaks and holidays.
• While many children or young people in
Out of Home Care are engaged in regular
sports and recreational activities, nearly
half do this rarely or never. Overall,
across the sector, the levels of accessing
these activities are lower than found for
their counterparts in the broad community.
xii
Previous Child Protection
involvement
• The most common grounds for previous
involvement came as a result of
substantiated investigations identifying
emotional or psychological harm.
• 42 per cent of the Out of Home Care and
Child Protection children and young
people had experienced a substantiated
Child Protection investigation prior to their
latest service episode.
• The data points to the potential for
cumulative harm experienced by these
children or young people.
Current protective orders
• By far the most common order for Out of
Home Care children and young people
was the Custody to Secretary Order,
followed by the Permanent Care Order.
• Almost all the orders that the Child
Protection service group children and
young people were subject to were
Supervision Orders (95.3 per cent).
Out of Home Care: involvement of
carers
• Forty four per cent of children or young
people in the Out of Home Care group
had a care team, although after
accounting for those permanent care and
kinship care arrangements where this is
not required, almost 70 per cent had a
care team.
• Approximately 60 per cent of children or
young people in Out of Home Care had a
care and placement plan that carers were
aware of. Carers reported that 80 per cent
of these were up to date.
Indigenous children or young people
and parents or carers (connected to
their culture)
• The proportion of Indigenous children in
the survey (13 per cent) reflects the
broader systemic over-representation of
Indigenous children or young people in
the protective system. Approximately 1.2
per cent of Victoria’s children are
Indigenous.
• Indigenous children or young people were
younger on average (average age 6.5
years) than the non-Indigenous children
or young people (average age 9.2 years).
• Parents and carers of Indigenous children
and young people reported a generally
higher level of connection with cultural
activities than has been found in other
recent Australian studies.
• Overall, there were no statistically
significant differences in education,
health, behaviour, relationship and mental
health outcomes found between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous children
and young people.
• Just under half (44%) of the parents and
carers of Indigenous children and young
people in this survey were themselves
Indigenous.
• Indigenous parents or carers were less
likely than others to feel that their
parenting skills had improved as a result
of service involvement accessing
services, but more likely to believe that
their patience had improved.
xiii
Parent or carer experiences of
services
• The researchers used a prior study, the
Child Protection Client and Family Survey
(Thomas and Associates 2002) as a
benchmark to determine the extent to
which there have been changes to carers’
experience over time.
• Overall, the data illustrates that there
have been positive improvements on a
range of relational and informational
indicators concerning service delivery
since 2002.
• Nevertheless, there is room for
improvement in information provision,
particularly of rights-based matters.
• The Family Services group were much
more positive about their experiences
than were the Out of Home Care group
and, in particular, the Child Protection
group parents or carers, many of whom
indicated that they were aggrieved by
court related intervention processes.
• The majority of parents or carers found
the services were useful, and that workers
were available and responsive when
needed, although this was more
frequently reported for Family Services
and Out of Home Care than Child
Protection.
• There were generally positive experiences
identified in the overall service
environment, such as feeling welcomed,
although the qualitative data illustrates a
more mixed picture with some being
critical of the physical office environment.
• Overall, the results were positive for the
ongoing reform agenda as they highlight
improved communication and more
inclusive practice approaches with
parents or carers.
Service effectiveness
• The results were positive for the ongoing
reform agenda as they highlight the
importance of relational aspects of
professional interventions.
• The survey data confirm the potential of
the Family Services system to provide
long-term beneficial support to families.
• There was high support expressed by
Family Services parents or carers for
services having improved their parenting
skills, and about half of the Child
Protection group felt this way.
• For those parents or carers who believed
their parenting skills had improved, there
was high support for the services across a
range of indicators, including relating
better to their children or young people
and managing better.
• Family Services parents and carers were
more positive than the Child Protection
parents or carers regarding improvements
in their child or young person’s wellbeing
and health, and for those who believed
that improvements had occurred, areas
such as child safety, mental health and
behaviour were identified by parents and
carers.
• Despite being overall less positive about
improvements in their children’s health
and wellbeing, Child Protection
participants reported better relationship,
health, education and behavioural
outcomes for their children than the
Family Services participants.
• The Child Protection and Family Services
families were stressed due to high needs
and multiple complex issues and they
required significant and broad-ranging
support systems in order to address
matters and remain intact.
• The level of services provided to address
issues associated with disability was
reported by parents and carers to be
lower than the identified needs of these
children.
xiv
Service experience and parent or
carer perception of outcomes
• When parents or carers perceived
improvement in the child’s or young
person’s health, regardless of whether or
not it was attributed to the services
provided, there was a significant increase
in their positive perception of the child’s
pro-social behaviour and
psychopathology. That is, there was a
shift from the perception of the child’s
behaviour as ‘at risk’ to ‘borderline’ or
‘normal’, which may be assumed to have
as a corollary an improved outcome for
the child’s health and wellbeing.
• When Child Protection and Family
Services parents or carers had positive
perceptions of their worker’s response to
requests for assistance there was a 400
per cent increase in the likelihood that
they would perceive an improvement in
their parenting skills.
• When Child Protection parents or carers
perceived that the worker had contacted
them as often as they felt was needed,
there was a 227 per cent increase in the
likelihood that they would perceive an
improvement in their parenting skills.
• When Child Protection parents and carers
perceived that they had the opportunity to
express their views about the service, and
that they were made to feel welcome in
the agency, there was an associated
increased likelihood of the parent’s or
carer’s engagement in improving
parenting skills. Specifically, there was a
300 per cent increase in the likelihood that
parents perceived improvement in their
parenting skills due to the involvement of
the service.
Regional variations
The potential for regional variations, as well
as for urban or metropolitan differences was
an important area to explore, as this was
identified as being at issue in the Report of
the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children
Inquiry.
However, the survey analysis found few
statistically significant regional variations –
there were not many that were identified as
likely to result from anything more than
chance. Further, the analysis was not able to
find statistically significant differences in
outcomes that could be attributed to gender,
age and Indigenous status differences in
children.
Hence, it can be concluded that the policy
and practice frameworks are generally
consistent across the state within reasonable
margins. This indicates a high level of
program and service consistency across key
demographic variables. Overall, this means
that the findings can generally be applied
broadly across the program rather than to
specific groups or regions.
The primary statistically significant
differences found in the analysis were those
between the service groups.
xv
Findings specific to service groups
Child Protection group
Out of Home Care group
• On average, these children and young
people had been involved in services for a
total of around three years.
• On average, these children had been
involved in services for a total of about six
years.
• The duration of service involvement
increased with the age of the child and 15
per cent of the Child Protection children
and young people had been involved for
two years or more continuously.
• Approximately half the children or young
people were subject to Custody to
Secretary Orders.
• Substantiated harm history indicates that
emotional / psychological harm and
physical harm are the most frequently
reported for this service group.
• Approximately half the children or young
people were subject to supervision orders
and half were subject to protective
intervention.
Family Services group
• These children and young people were
the youngest compared to the other
groups.
• Children or young people were placed in
kinship care (38 per cent), foster care (28
per cent) and permanent care (25 per
cent) and residential care (8 per cent).
• Substantiated harm history indicates that
emotional or psychological harm and
neglect are the most common types of
harm.
• There was evidence of children
experiencing placement stability, with the
majority being in their current placement
for a year or more. Only three per cent
had experienced three or more placement
changes in the last year.
• Similar to the Child Protection group there
was high residential mobility and larger
families than is average across Victoria.
xvi
Part 1: About the survey and this
report
Introduction
The Child and Family Services Outcomes
Survey is one of the key mechanisms for
evaluating out-of-home care and related
statutory Child Protection and family
services initiatives…
Victoria’s vulnerable children: our shared
responsibility May 2012
The Child and Family Services Outcomes
Survey is a research project conducted to
provide essential information on how children
receiving services from Victoria’s Child
Protection, placement and family services are
faring. It focuses on children’s and young
people’s health, stability and development
and how they, and their parents and carers,
experience services.
The survey is an important tool in Victoria’s
strategy to improve Child Protection services.
In May 2012 the government confirmed its
ongoing commitment to system-wide reform
and improvements that aim to prevent child
abuse and neglect, reduce the impact when it
does occur, and improve the outcomes for
children and young people in the statutory
Child Protection system (Government of
Victoria, 2012).
This commitment builds on the extensive
system reform that has happened over the
past decade. The results of this survey
provide evidence about how well the reforms
are working – how parents and carers
surveyed experience the system and whether
the outcomes for their children and young
people are improving.
The Department of Human Services monitors
the performance of its directly-provided and
community-funded services, and the
outcomes for children involved in its services,
through the Child Protection, Placement and
Family Services Outcomes Framework. The
Framework comprises 39 indicators of health,
wellbeing, family and community connection
and service experience. This survey provides
evidence for 51 measures against these
indicators.
There is evidence from the survey results
that the reforms are working and are having a
positive impact on parents’ and carers’
experiences across all services. Out of Home
Care and Family Services predominantly
reported satisfaction with workers’ responses
and services. A large majority of parents or
carers from Family Services and Out of
Home Care found that the services that were
provided met their needs and were
responsive. Even though more Child
Protection participants (than Family Services
and Out of Home Care were critical of the
effectiveness of services, the communication
and responsiveness of Child Protection
services were much higher than compared to
a similar study in 2002 (Thomas and
Associates).
‘The people I deal with now are
wonderful. If I need help the
caseworker is always there for me.’
Survey participant
There are also valuable insights into how
parents and carers experience the statutory
Child Protection system – insights that
suggest how practice approaches can be
adapted to respond to people who are
involved in an involuntary system.
More detailed information about the survey
and the data analysis can be found in
supplementary information at
<www.dhs.vic.gov.au>.
2
About the survey
The Child and Family Services Outcomes
survey is a research project which involved a
telephone survey of 973 ‘principal carers’ in
Victoria – parents, grandparents, stepparents and paid carers – of children and
young people who were receiving services
from Child Protection, Out of Home Care and
Family Services. This was completed in
August 2012.
The scope of this report is children aged 0–
17 years, in line with the definition of child
under the Child Wellbeing and Safety Act
2005. Unless otherwise stated, the term ‘
children’ throughout this report refers to
those aged 0–12 years and the term ‘young
person’ refers to those aged 12–17 years.
The principal carer survey was designed to
seek information from parents and carers
about their children’s safety, stability and
development, including physical and mental
health, education, relationships, and
connections with family, community, culture
and behaviour. The survey also asks a range
of questions about people’s experiences with
services.
Statistics (ABS) and from reports such as the
Department of Education and Early
Childhood Development’s State of Victoria’s
1
Children reports.
Detailed comparisons were sometimes
difficult because of variations in the analysis
parameters. Nevertheless, wherever feasible
the results of other reports have been used
as benchmarks for comparison of the
outcomes of this survey, and to give context
to the observation of substantive issues.
Survey respondent interviews and
subsequent data analysis were undertaken
by independent contractors. The Social
Research Centre was appointed by public
tender to undertake the telephone interviews
and compile subsequent data. The Social
Research Centre subcontracted analysis of
the data to independent subject experts,
Professor Bob Lonne, Associate Professor
Ingrid Wagner, and Ms Kerri Gillespie, in the
School of Public Health and Social Work at
the Queensland University of Technology.
This report presents findings from the
principal carer survey.
The carer survey data from all service groups
was analysed using standard quantitative
and qualitative statistical methods. Deidentified data from the Child Protection and
Out of Home Care service groups was also
subject to limited further analysis being
matched with anonymised data from the
Department of Human Services Client
Relationship Information System (CRIS)
using a numerical identifier, in order to
understand more about the services these
children and young people have received,
and to enable comparison of the survey
sample with the entire client group.
The survey sample was also compared with
other research studies of similar sample
groups, and from general population data
available from the Australian Bureau of
1
The two most recent State of Victoria’s Children
reports were produced in 2009 and 2010, the
former focusing on Aboriginal children and the
latter on a thematic analysis of ten health and
wellbeing issues identified in reports produced
since 2006.
3
How to read this report
Part 1 gives some background to the survey
and briefly describes the survey
methodology.
Part 2 presents the study results.
Demographic information about the survey
participants and children and young people is
presented in Section 1. Sections 2 to 8
present information about the children and
young people’s education, their previous
involvement with Child Protection services,
their health, harm history, and social and
cultural connections with others. Results
concerning the parents’ or carers’
perceptions of their experiences with services
are analysed in Sections 9 to 11.
Key findings are highlighted at the beginning
of each section.
Each subsection contains one or more of the
following elements:
•
context
•
the relevant survey question(s)
•
data analysis and discussion
•
the survey data (presented in text,
tables, graphs and figures)
•
comparisons with
–
other data sources for this group
–
the general population.
When other studies or datasets are
compared with the survey data, a symbol
next to the study or dataset being compared
provides an at-a-glance indicator of whether
the two datasets are similar or divergent.
These symbols are explained below.
!
The data from the comparison study
or dataset differs from the survey data
and findings.
The data from the comparison study
or dataset is similar to, and confirms,
the survey data and findings.
?
The data from the comparison study
or dataset is not directly comparable;
nevertheless they can provide
valuable context and suggest
comparisons or avenues for further
study.
A series of appendices at the end of the
report give more detailed information about
the survey methodology. They also present
further detail about some of the data relating
to demographics, lifestyle factors and contact
with biological family members.
4
Survey methodology
The study participants are parents and carers
resident in Victoria, Australia who are the
primary carers for a specific child.
Participation was voluntary and consent was
formally sought at the beginning of the
interview. A more detailed description of
survey methodology is contained within
Appendix A.
Survey participants had access to a
confidential freecall helpline for any queries
or concerns about the study. All the
participants were given a $50 voucher as
compensation for the time required to
participate in the telephone survey interview.
Sampling
The study sampled 973 parents and carers in
total, comprising:
•
289 from Child Protection
•
293 from Family Services
•
391 from Out of Home Care
(Placement Services).
The sample pool was developed to ensure
that the children of the respondents were
representative of the distribution of age,
gender, Indigenous status and regional
location of children and young people
receiving services from Child Protection and
Placement Services during the study period.
The delivered sample was analysed by
applying weighting according to the statewide
distribution of the study sample to ensure that
results closely followed the statewide
characteristics of the study population.
Survey inclusion criteria
Participants were selected if they had been
the primary carer of a child or young person
for a continuous period of three months or
more, and then according to the following
criteria.
Child Protection: In this group the child was
receiving Child Protection services from the
Department of Human Services. Their need
for protection had been investigated and
substantiated, but formal Children’s Court
proceedings were not active or pending. The
child was not placed in Out of Home Care.
The group included parents or carers where
the case was in closure phase within the
previous two months.
Family Services: In this group the family
had been supported by a registered family
service as a result of a referral where there
were significant concerns for the child or
young person’s wellbeing. This also included
situations where the case was in closure
phase in the previous two months.
Out of Home Care: This group included
carers of children and young people who
were placed in Out of Home Care and were
subject to Child Protection orders made by
the Family Division of the Children’s Court of
Victoria. The group included permanent
carers, the majority of whom were not
receiving a casework service at the time of
the interview.
Indigenous children and young people were
oversampled from Family Services to ensure
meaningful analyses were possible.
Appendix B shows the Out of Home Care
agencies that supported recruitment of the
survey participants. Appendix C shows the
number of participants by Family Service
agency and departmental region.
5
Survey exclusion criteria
Ethics approval
Potential participants were excluded from the
study if:
Approval to conduct this study was given by
the Department of Health Human Research
Ethics Committee, Victoria, and the ethics
approval bodies of four participating agencies
– Anglicare Victoria, MacKillop Family
Services, Berry Street and Good Shepherd
Youth and Family Services.
•
the child was involved in current or
planned contested Children’s Court
action
•
it was not in the child’s best interests
or there was a risk of adverse
consequences arising for any party as
a result of inclusion in the survey
•
a child’s sibling(s) were already in the
same sample
•
the interviewer had been unable to
contact the participant , or the identity
of the participant could not be
confirmed
•
a participant withdrew consent or
indicated that they no longer wished to
participate.
Data analysis
Data from the survey and from CRIS were
linked by a unique case identifier, allowing a
more complete picture of each participant. As
noted earlier, the Out of Home Care, Child
Protection and Indigenous samples were
increased and the study sample was
weighted according to regional distribution.
The data were subject to a number of
qualitative and quantitative analyses using
the Statistical Package for the Social
Sciences version18 (2009). An alpha level of
0.05 was used as the level for statistical
significance.
Responses to open ended questions were
organised and analysed thematically. Short
excerpts of parent or carer comments are
used to highlight the views and attitudes of
participants.
Limitations
The data reflects parent or carer perceptions
of the child’s or young person’s state, which
may not be consistent with information and
outcomes derived from other sources of
information. Therefore, care should be taken
in making such comparisons.
Some cautions also apply to the
interpretation and generalisation of the
results. The Child Protection parents and
carers live at home with their children and are
not currently engaged in contested legal
proceedings. This group is therefore not fully
representative of Child Protection as a whole.
A quarter of the Out of Home Care
permanent carers were not receiving an
ongoing casework service, thus limiting
comparisons of service effectiveness
between service groups.
The case exclusion criteria and case
selection roles played by the Department of
Human Services and agencies for the Family
Services Group raise the potential for biased
selections to have occurred, although cross
checking of the sample selection
characteristics has indicated general
uniformity on demographics including age,
gender, Indigenous status and location.
While legislation may be broadly similar,
definitions of notification and substantiation of
abuse and neglect vary across states and
territories and may limit cross-jurisdictional
comparisons (AIHW 2012). Similarly, due to
changes over time in how child abuse and
neglect is defined and legislative and policy
developments, comparison of outcomes
across time may also be inexact.
6
Part 2: Survey results
Context: Victoria’s children and young
people
While Victoria has about 25 per cent of the
total Australian population, it has a lower
proportion of children (22.5 per cent) in the
total population. In Victoria, 71.8 per cent of
children live in metropolitan areas and 28.2
per cent in regional and rural localities.
Approximately 1.2 million children and young
people live in approximately 570,000 families.
Overall, as in the rest of Australia, rural
populations contain a higher proportion of
children and young people than metropolitan
populations (AIHW 2010).
Victoria has a lower incidence than other
states and territories in Australia of those
demographic factors that are associated with
a higher likelihood of coming into contact with
statutory Child Protection: poverty,
Indigenous heritage and disability.
The ABS Socioeconomic index for areas
(SEIFA) (2008b) indicates that Victoria has
proportionately fewer people in the lower
socioeconomic deciles than found elsewhere
in Australia.
The 2006 ABS Census indicated that 0.7 per
cent of the Victorian population identifies as
being Indigenous – the lowest in the country.
Indigenous children are 1.2 per cent of
Victoria’s child population, but make up a far
higher proportion (43.5 per cent) of the
Indigenous population, and they are more
evenly spread across rural and urban
locations than are the general Australian
population.
Victorian households have a language other
than English spoken at home more often than
across the country as a whole.
There is a lower percentage of children with a
disability in Victoria (7.0 per cent). However,
parents of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island
children have been found to be more likely to
report they have a child with disability than
are others (ABS 2008a).
Rural Victoria has a higher proportion than
metropolitan Melbourne of key population
groups that are known to experience higher
levels of socioeconomic disadvantage,
including Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islanders, one-parent families and people
with a disability.
The SEIFA Index of Relative Socioeconomic
Disadvantage identified that 53 per cent of
local government areas in rural Victoria are
ranked in the bottom two most disadvantaged
quintiles compared to 19 per cent of
metropolitan local government areas.
8
Section 1: Demographic information
Key findings
• There was a balanced spread of key demographics for the children or young people
regarding age and gender
• The proportion of Indigenous children and young people included in the survey (13 per
cent) is broadly representative of the proportion of Indigenous children in the sample
groups. This compares with 1.2 per cent of Indigenous children and young people in the
general population.
• Over 95 per cent of survey households spoke English as the main language. This is quite
high relative to the general population and future CAFSOS surveys will aim to obtain a
more representative sample.
• The families were larger than usual and, apart from the Out of Home Care group, they had
high residential mobility, which is associated with a range of household stresses.
• The proportion of survey families who lived in rural and regional areas (45.9 per cent) was
higher than the general population (54.1 per cent).
• Many carers, foster carers and permanent carers (18.5 per cent) self-identified as a
stepparent or grandparent of the child or young person.
• Over the 12 months prior to the survey, the children and young people of the Child
Protection and Family Service groups had moved on average approximately three times as
often as children (or adults) in the general population.
1.1
Survey participants by service
group
The total number of parent and carer participants
was 973. The proportion of parents or carers in
the three different service groups (weighted) is:
•
Child Protection – 289 (29.7 per cent)
•
Family Services – 293 (30.1 per cent)
•
Out of Home Care – 391 (40.2 per cent)
1.2
Place of birth
The majority of survey children – 88.8 per cent
(864) – were born in Victoria.
1.3
Residency
When asked whether the child lived with the
participant the large majority, approximately 95
per cent of each of the service groups, indicated
that the child lived with them ‘all of the time’.
The numbers of participants (unweighted) by
service group and region is in Table 32 at
Appendix E.
9
1.4
Geographic distribution
Survey results
The survey sample includes 527 (54.1 per
cent) children and young people who were
living in metropolitan areas and 446 (45.9 per
cent) living in rural and regional areas. Figure
1 depicts the distribution (weighted) of the
service groups across region, while the
unweighted data is in Appendix E.
Comparison to the general
population
!
The state of Victoria’s children 2010
(DEECD 2011)
Children and young people in Victoria’s
general population live predominantly in
metropolitan areas (71.8 per cent)
compared to the survey sample, of whom
45.9 per cent (weighted) lived in
metropolitan areas.
Figure 1: Service group across region, weighted
1.5
Language
English was the main language spoken at
home for the majority of the children and
young people, being over 96 per cent across
the three service groups.
•
Child Protection – 96.6 per cent
•
Family Services – 96.1 per cent
•
Out of Home Care – 98.5 per cent.
Comparison to the general
population
!
2006 Census of Population and Housing
(ABS 2006)
This result was very much higher than
expected when compared to the ABS
2006 census, which indicated that 20.4
per cent of all Victorians spoke a
language other than English at home.
Because of this disparity, it is
recommended that a review of the data
collection methods be undertaken prior
to subsequent surveys.
10
1.6
Indigenous status
Of the 127 children in the Indigenous cohort:
•
four (3.1 per cent) recognised themselves as Torres Strait Islander
•
three (2.4 per cent) as both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
•
three (2.4 per cent) are unknown.
Details of the Indigenous sample by service group and departmental region are in Appendix H.
Figure 2: Service group by Indigenous status*
*Note: Unweighted data
1.7
Primary carer’s relationship to child or young person
Survey results
Fifty eight per cent of survey participants
described themselves as biological parents.
Grandparents and foster carers made up the
next most numerous categories (see Table 1
below).
Comparison with other data sources
IRIS data 2010–11 (DHS 2012)
CRIS data (DHS 2012)
Child Protection Australia 2010–11
(AIHW 2012)
The profile of children and primary
carers in each placement group were
generally proportionate to the overall
Victorian statewide distribution of
families involved in these services.
11
Table 1: Primary carer’s relationship with child (self-identified)
Relationship of
carer to child
Child Protection
Family Services
n
%
n
%
n
%
Biological parent
284
98
280
95
0
0
58
Grandparent
4
1.7
13
4
129
33.1
15
Step-parent
-
-
-
-
6
1.5
0.6
Foster carer
1
0.3
0
0
128
32.7
13.2
Permanent carer
0
0
0
0
72
18.4
7.4
Residential carer
0
0
0
0
32
8.1
3.1
Other
-
-
-
-
24
6.1
2.5
Total
289
293
Defining relationships
Many carers, foster carers or permanent
carers self-identified as the parent of the child
or young person, or identified as a foster
carer rather than a permanent carer or
residential carer. Kinship carers referred to
themselves as grandparents or step-parents
and one quarter of permanent carers
described their relationship to the child in
other terms.
Out of Home Care
% in survey
391
Comparison with other data sources
CRIS data (DHS 2012)
!
The researchers used matched CRIS
data to group the carers by the type of
formal care arrangement that was in
place. The data results are in Figure 3.
Figure 3: Distribution of carers by formal care arrangements relative to total number of carers and
parents
12
1.8
Care arrangements for Out of Home Care children
Survey results
Comparison with other data sources
There was a range of different types of care
arrangements for the children and young
people in this service group. The four major
types of care arrangements were:
•
Foster care
•
Kinship care
•
Residential care
•
Permanent care.
?
The distribution of children in the different
types of care is outlined in Table 2 along with
the overall statewide picture.
Child Protection Australia 2010–11
(AIHW 2012)
The survey sample is representative in
placement types to the statewide Out
of Home Care cohort. However, it is
important to note that carers often
identified themselves in terms of their
relationship to the child, rather than
calling themselves by the formal name
of the placement type. For example,
some parents or carers with
permanent and kinship care
arrangements described their
relationship as foster carers or as
stepparents, grandparents or adoptive
parents.
Table 2: Number and proportion of children in Out of Home Care by placement type
Number in survey
%
Statewide at 30.6.11
%
Foster Care
110
28.2
24.7
Kinship care
149
38.1
42.0
Residential Care
32
8.2
8.7
Permanent Care
97
24.8
24.0
Other
7
0.7
0.6
Total
391
100.0
100.0
Placement type
1.9
Gender
Survey results
The gender of the participant’s children is in
Table 3 below. The differences among the
service groups were not statistically
significant.
Comparison to other data sources
Child Protection Australia (AIHW
2012)
This finding for Victoria was similar to
national findings (AIHW 2012), which
reported slightly more males (52 per
cent) than females (48 per cent) on
care and protection orders.
13
Table 3: Gender of children by service group
Gender
Service group
Male
Female
n
%
Child Protection
145
50.1
144
49.8
Family Services
175
59.7
118
40.2
Out of Home Care
206
52.6
185
47.4
Total
526
54.0
447
46.0
1.10
n
%
Age
The age of the survey children ranged from
less than 12 months to 18 years. The largest
proportion of children were aged five years
and under, and the smallest proportion were
aged 12 years and over.
The difference in mean ages is attributable to
the generally higher percentage of the Out of
Home Care group who were aged ten and
above, and the high percentage (about three
quarters) of the Family Services children who
were aged less than 12 years.
The mean age for all the children is 8.45
years. However, age differed significantly
across service groups. The mean ages by
service group are:
•
Family Services – 7.01 years
•
Child Protection – 7.36 years
•
Out of Home Care – 9.15 years
(comparable to the statewide
average of 9.4 for this group at 30
June 2011)
For the Out of Home Care group, the children
and young people in residential care
arrangements (average age 13.87 years)
were more likely to be older than those in
kinship care (9.06 years), foster care (8.73
years) or permanent care (8.53 years).
Table 4: Age distribution across service groups
Frequency/ Service Groups
Ages of Children
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
% in survey
0–5 years
120
131
107
37
6–11 years
95
94
146
35
12-–18 years
(17 years for CP & FS)
74
68
138
28
289
293
391
100
Total
14
1.11
Household size
Survey results
Across all of the service groups just over 13
per cent had three other children in the
household, and 10 per cent had four or more
other children in the household. There was
no statistically significant difference among
the service groups.
A table calculating the average household
size of survey participants, assuming a single
parent household, is in Appendix D.
Comparison to the general
population
!
2011 Census of Population and
Housing (ABS 2012)
This study cohort has a high proportion
of large families; substantially larger
than that of the general population,
where families have an average of 1.9
children.
Figure 4: Service group by percentage of other children in household
1.12
Child or young person’s relationship to other children
Survey results
The majority of the Child Protection (224 or
98.2 per cent) and Family Services (205 or
96.2 per cent) children lived in a household
with their biological siblings. None of these
children lived with unrelated children.
The relationship between the child and
participant in the Child Protection group was
almost entirely that of biological parent and
child (284 or 98.4 per cent). The remainder
were grandparent and child (3), permanent
carer and child (1) and ‘Other’ (1).
Approximately half of the Out of Home Care
children (146 or 53.5 per cent) who lived with
other children also lived with their biological
siblings. The remainder lived in households
with either step-siblings or adopted or foster
siblings (47 or 17.4 per cent), or a mixture of
these (42 or 15.2 per cent).
Only a small percentage of the children of the
Out of Home Care group (38 or 13.9 per
cent) lived in households with unrelated
children.
15
1.13
Household moves
Survey results
Comparison to the general
population
The majority of children in the survey had not
moved address in the past 12 months (Child
Protection 66 per cent, Family Services 65
per cent, Out of Home Care 81 per cent).
!
Out of Home Care children were more stable
than the other two groups, which had
comparable levels of mobility.
Population mobility, Victoria
(ABS 1999)
The population mobility study of 1999
found that 12 per cent of households
with children had moved at least once
over the three years prior to the study.
A more recent assessment of mobility
(ABS 2006 census) found that 13.4 per
cent of families had moved address in
the previous 12 months.
Because the eligibility criteria included that
the carer completing the survey had to have
been caring for the child for at least three
months, this data may exclude the minority of
children in care who are highly mobile.
This compares to the survey population,
28 per cent of whom had moved once or
more in only the previous 12 months.
The Child Protection and Family Service
groups were the most mobile – 34 per
cent of each group had moved in the
previous twelve months.
Table 5: Households moves in the past 12 months by service group
Service group
No changes in the
past 12 months
1 or 2 changes of child’s
address in the past 12
months
3 or more changes in the
past 12 months
n
%
n
%
n
%
Child Protection
190
66
81
28
17
6
Family Services
191
65
83
28
17
6
Out of Home Care
319
81
60
15
12
3
Total
700
224
46
16
Section 2: Education and child care
Key findings
• The survey parents and carers read to their children under five at rates that were lower than the
broader community. Family Services parents and carers reported reading the least frequently. The
proportion of Out of Home Care carers reading daily was at the same level as that reported for the
broader community.
• The rates of accessing childcare for children five and under were lower than the broader community,
with childcare centres, kindergarten and preschools being more frequently used.
• Only 1.4 per cent of parents and carers used ‘informal care’ – that is a friend or relative – for their
children.
• The majority of children and young people attended government schools, and school attendance was
generally reported as high. There was, however, a significant proportion (> ten per cent) of children or
young people who missed school due to refusal or truancy, particularly for those placed in residential
care compared to other types of Out of Home Care.
• Between six and 11 per cent of children or young people across the service groups had been enrolled
at five or more schools in their life.
• A far higher proportion of children or young people across all service groups had a disability,
particularly a learning difficulty (30.7 per cent of the children over six), than is found in the broad
community. Overall 12.5 per cent of the survey children attended a special needs school.
• The survey children or young people had lower levels of accessing paid employment than the broad
community.
2.1
Parent or carer reading to children aged five years and younger
Survey results
Across all of the service groups the majority
of parents or carers – 56.7 per cent –
indicated that they or someone in their
household read to the child 6 or 7 days per
week (see Figure 5). There was no significant
difference between the service groups for the
number of days on which the child was read
to within the household. Few parents or
carers indicated that within their household
the child was not read to at all.
Comparison to the general
population
?
The state of Victoria’s children 2010
(DEECD 2011)
Survey participants read less to their
young children compared to data for
children aged under five years in the
general population. However, the survey
question excluded those instances where
the child was read to at playgroup or
preschool, so this data is not entirely
comparable.
17
Figure 5: Reading days for children 5 years and younger by service group
2.2
Early childhood education and care arrangements for children aged
five years and younger
Context
Recent Australia-wide research has indicated
that almost one quarter (23.9 per cent) of
children are struggling in some areas of
development by the time they reach school
(The Australian Early Childhood
Development Index 2009).
circumstances. The number of hours spent in
an early childhood program was also linked
to mothers’ education, family income and
employment, with children from poorer
backgrounds spending fewer hours in a
program.
There is increasing evidence that access to
good quality early childhood programs from
an early age can make a significant
difference to children’s life opportunities. A
UK study, the Effective Provision of
Preschool Education, found that all children
benefited from preschool, with disadvantaged
children benefiting most (Sylva et al. 2004).
During the past 18 months, the Victorian
Government has specifically sought to
increase access to three and four year old
kindergarten programs for children in key
high needs groups, including children known
to Child Protection. These children are able
to access two years of kindergarten free of
charge, and it may be that this policy
development has been effective in raising the
percentage of children accessing formal
kindergarten or childcare in these service
groups.
The 2009 Australian Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children found that while most 4–5
year old children (95 per cent) attend some
type of childcare or early education program,
this varies significantly according to family
18
Survey results
The majority of parents or carers of children
aged five years and younger accessed other
education or care providers for the children
during the day (see Figure 6).
The data indicates that higher proportions of
Child Protection and Out of Home Care
children have accessed early childhood
education and care services than Family
Services children and that (based on this
data), all three service groups are accessing
these services at a lower level than the
broader community. It also indicates that
these service groups have much less access
to informal pre-school age childcare than the
broader population.
Comparison with the general
population
!
ABS Childhood Education and Care
Report (2008)
Very few (1.4 per cent) of the children of
parents or carers across all the service
groups received informal care from
friends or relatives of their primary
carers). This finding contrasts with the
ABS Childhood Education and Care
Report 2008, which found that, Australia
wide, more than 20 per cent of children
aged less than 5 years, attended
informal childcare.
Figure 6: Children aged 5 years or younger: Childcare type by service group
19
2.3
Frequency of early
childhood education and care
arrangements for children aged
five years and younger
Survey results
After accessing early childhood education
and care services, children in each service
group received a similar level of service.
However, the data suggests that fewer
children receiving Family Services may be
accessing early childhood education and
care services than Child Protection and Out
of Home Care children.
For those who access any early childhood
education and care services, on average:
•
Child Protection children received 6.47
hours per day
•
Out of Home Care children received
5.95 hours per day
•
Family Service children received 5.78
hours per day.
The average duration of service per week is:
•
Family Services – 3.46 days per week
•
Out of Home Care – 3.2 days per week
•
Family Services children received 5.78
hours per day.
2.4
School attendance survey
question
Parents and carers were asked a range of
related questions about their child or young
person’s school attendance. This was partly
in order to obtain a subjective view of their
child’s recent attendance level, and also to
obtain data about the number of nonattendance days in the previous school term
due to school refusal and truancy.
Survey results
Parents or carers of each service group
reported a high level of regular school
attendance by children and young people
aged six to 17 years, during the month prior
to the survey.
The proportion of school age children of
compulsory school age whom their parents or
carers stated missed no days of school due
to truancy or school refusal in the previous
school term varied between service groups
and that variation was statistically significant.
A small, but nonetheless substantial, number
(56) of children or young people missed
between one and five days during the past
school term.
A small number of students (24) missed a
substantial number of days’ schooling (30
days or more) in the last school term.
Family Services parents or carers reported
that their children missed the highest
proportion of schooling in the previous term
due to truancy and refusal, and Out of Home
Care participants significantly less.
Within the Out of Home Care group, there
were significant differences in the level of
school attendance among placement types.
The residential care children or young people
were significantly more likely to have missed
20
Comparison with the general
population
school than children placed in home-based
care placement types. This may be
associated with the lower level of placement
stability for children or young people in
residential care resulting in unscheduled
changes of school (see Section 3.4 on
placement stability). It is also related to the
generally higher age of children placed in
residential care.
The state of Victoria’s children 2009
(DEECD 2010)
This report found that 28 per cent of
children self-reported as having
skipped school in the previous month.
The survey finding for the proportion of
Child Protection children attending
school regularly is similar to the figure
reported by DEECD for the general
population.
Comparison with other data sources
The Looking After Children outcomes
data project: final report (2012)
87 per cent of the 334 children aged 517 years subject to the Looking After
Children project placed in Out of Home
Care were reported to be attending
school full-time. This is an almost
identical proportion to the 86.5 per cent
identified in the current study.
Table 6: School attendance by service group
School attendance in
past month
Service group
Days lost in previous school term
by refusal or truancy
Regular attendance
No days
1-5 days
30+ days
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Child Protection
164
89.3
115
70.1
17
11.2
7
4.3
Family Services
153
84.2
96
62.7
21
14.5
11
8.3
Out of Home Care
265
94.5
226
85.3
18
6.8
6
2.0
Total
582
437
56
24
Note: some children or young people do not attend school: 4 Child Protection, 8, Family Services and 17, Out of Home
Care.
21
2.5
Number of schools attended since commencing school
Survey question
Parents and carers of children aged six years
and older were asked the total number of
schools their children had attended up to the
time of interview.
Survey results
From the available data, it is apparent that
the highest percentage of children who have
attended multiple schools is found in the
Family Services group which. This is a
slightly surprising finding as Family Services
Children are overall, the youngest group.
Average number of schools attended
•
Child Protection – 2.19, range 1–7
•
Family Services – 2.63, range 1–13
•
Out of Home Care – 2.22, range 1–8.
From the available data, those who had
attended only one school were:
•
61 children or young people (37 per
cent) of the Child Protection group
•
46 children or young people (29 per
cent) of the Family Services group
•
99 children or young people (42 per
cent) of the Out of Home Care group.
Nearly one third (30 per cent) of each of the
three service groups had attended two
schools, and those children or young people
who had attended five or more schools were:
•
4 children or young people (6 per
cent) of the Child Protection group
•
17 children or young people (11 per
cent) of the Family Services group
•
23 children and young people (10 per
cent) of the Out of Home Care group.
Comparison with other data sources
!
The Looking After Children outcomes
data project: final report (DHS 2012)
This data outcomes project looked at
the educational history of 334 children
aged six years and older placed in Out
of Home Care. It found that between a
quarter and a third (28.5 per cent) of
children experienced a change of
school in the past 12 months. This
suggests that there may be a higher
incidence of school changes in the Out
of Home Care population overall than
has been reported in this survey
sample.
22
2.6
Type of school attended
Survey results
For children aged six years and over across
the entire service group, the majority of
children and young people attended
government schools, very few attended
mainstream independent schools, received
home tuition or attended TAFE.
Comparison with the general
population
?
Summary statistics for Victorian schools
(DEECD 2012)
Of particular note is the high proportion
of children attending special needs
schools in each service group. The
proportion of Child Protection children
attending special needs schools in 2011
is 5 times that for Victorian children as a
whole. For Family Services this is more
than 6 times, and for Out of Home Care
more than 11 times more.
Figure 7: Type of school by service group
23
2.7
Children with learning difficulties
Context
People with intellectual disabilities
experience a range of problems including
learning difficulties, integrating socially and
communicating with others, and common
assistance includes special tuition,
counsellor/disability support workers, and
special assessment.
Of the participants whose children and young
people have been assessed as having a
learning difficulty, over one quarter of Child
Protection and Family Services carers
believed that their children did not receive
appropriate educational services:
•
Child Protection – 28 per cent
Survey results
•
Family Services – 27 per cent
Of the 603 children or young people aged six
years and older across all of the service
groups, 185 (30.7 per cent), of parents or
carers indicated that their child or young
person had been assessed as having a
learning difficulty.
•
Out of Home Care -–19 per cent.
There was a significant statistical difference
between the service groups with the children
and young people of the Child Protection
group less likely to be assessed with a
learning difficulty, and those of the Out of
Home Care group more likely to be assessed
with a learning difficulty (see Figure 8).
This is an issue that needs further
consideration.
The high proportion of the children and young
people of all service group participants
(especially in Out of Home Care), attending a
special needs school (see Figure 7),
suggests there may be a much higher
prevalence of intellectual disability within the
children of this sample as compared to the
Australian general population.
Comparison with the general
population
It is difficult to disentangle how many of the
children in this survey have an intellectual
disability as opposed to a learning disorder
(for example dyslexia or a speech and
language disorder such as auditory
processing difficulties), both of which would
result in assessment for intervention.
2006 Census (ABS 2006)
!
According to the census, 7.0 per cent
of Victorian children had a type of
disability (all types of disability).
AIHW (2008)
!
The national prevalence of intellectual
disability is 3.0 per cent, with 1.8 per
cent being classified as having a
severe or profound disability. Around
45.0 per cent of students with an
intellectual disability attend ordinary
classes.
24
Figure 8: Disability assessment by service group
100%
Current
assessment
90%
80%
Percenttage
70%
Not assessed
60%
50%
40%
Assessed
30%
20%
10%
0%
Child Protection
2.8
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Paid employment
Since January 2010 all young people In
Victoria must attend school until year ten.
After year ten and until the age of 17 years,
students must be either in full time education,
in approved education or training, in full time
employment, or a combination of all of these.
Survey results
The number and proportion of those aged 14
years and older from any of the service
groups who were employed in any form of
paid work was:
•
Child Protection – 7 (14.3 per cent)
•
Family Services – 5 (12.2 per cent)
•
Out of Home Care – 14 (15.1 per
cent).
people (31.5 per cent) worked four hours per
week.
Comparison with the general
population
?
Young Australians (AIHW 2011)
These employment figures are not
directly comparable with the AIHW
report, which found 30.0 per cent to
31.0 per cent of people aged 15 to 19
years in 2009 and 2010 were employed
in part time work. They nevertheless
suggest that there is a much lower
engagement in employment activities in
the survey sample.
Sixty per cent of these positions were mostly
on a casual basis and those who were
employed were reported to work a varied
range of hours, from one to 30 hours per
week. The largest proportion of these young
25
Section 3: Previous Child Protection
involvement
Key findings
• The most common grounds for previous intervention were as a result of substantiated investigations
identifying emotional or psychological harm, although those in Out of Home Care were more likely to
have experienced neglect than the Child Protection group.
• Between one third and one half of the Child Protection (42.6 per cent) and Out of Home Care children
(42.7 per cent) had experienced one or more substantiated investigations prior to the current episode
of service.
• The data raises serious issues of many of these children or young people experiencing cumulative
harm and across multiple types of maltreatment.
3.1
Harm types
An analysis of CRIS records relating to the
Child Protection history of children in the
Child Protection and Out of Home Care
groups was undertaken in order to track the
primary reasons for service involvement.
Historical data could be matched for 257 (89
per cent) of Child Protection children and 353
(90 per cent) of Out of Home Care children.
Types of maltreatment reported for the Child
Protection and Out of Home Care children
are in Figure 9 below.
The most common grounds for intervention in
the sample were for ‘Child not protected from
emotional or psychological harm by parents’,
followed by ‘Child not protected from physical
harm by parents’, and ‘Risk of harm to child’s
physical development or health’ (neglect).
Only a small number of children were
considered at risk from parental failure to
protect them from sexual abuse.
The children and young people of the Out of
Home Care group were more likely to have
grounds for intervention due to risk of harm to
their physical development/health (neglect).
26
Figure 9: Grounds for intervention by service group
3.2
Previous investigations
Families who experience cumulative harm
are more likely to experience multiple interlinked problems, an absence of protective
factors and enduring parental problems
affecting their capacity to provide adequate
care (Bromfield, 2007).
Long-term harm is more likely to result from
living in an unfavourable environment and the
resulting emotional damage from abuse,
rather than from physical damage (Cichetti
and Toth 2000).
Of those who had been subject to previous
substantiated Child Protection investigations,
most (66.1 per cent) had experienced
between one and three previous
substantiated investigations. The most likely
type of harm is emotional or psychological
harm, which is consistent with national and
Victorian trends.
In the Child Protection group, 123 (42.6 per
cent) children had previous substantiated
investigations prior to the current service
episode, with the number of substantiations
ranging from one to 20 and an average of
3.85.
In the Out of Home Care group, 167 (42.7
per cent) had previous substantiated
investigations (prior to the current episode),
with the number of previous substantiations
ranging from one to 16 and an average of
3.57.
The data suggests that children or young
people coming to the attention of the
statutory system and having substantiated
outcomes to investigations have a high
likelihood of experiencing cumulative harm
and multiple types of harms. This implies a
high degree of complexity in the provision of
protective interventions. The data, when seen
alongside the other survey data, indicates
high levels of complex need are present.
27
3.3
Placement stability for Out of Home Care children
Survey results
Average length of placements
For the Out of Home Care children, the
average length of time in their current
placement was 2.53 years, over an age
range from three months to 15 years.
The majority had been in their current
placement for one year or more (see Figure
10).
However, data is missing for 54 children. The
overall pattern is of a higher frequency of
older children with greater lengths of time in
their current placement.
Figure 10: Out of Home Care – length of time in current placement by age of child
Average number of placements
From the commencement of their care, the
Out of Home Care children and young people
had an average of two previous placements,
but the number of placements ranged from
one to 61. The breakdown of average
number of placements by placement type is
as follows:
•
Residential care – 6.68 years
•
Foster care – 6.54
•
Permanent care – 3.11
•
Kinship care – 3.21
Number of placement changes in the
past 12 months
The number of placement changes in the past 12
months is as follows:
•
No changes – 319 children (81 per cent)
•
One move – 46 children (11.8 per cent)
•
Two moves – 14 children (3.6 per cent)
•
Three moves – 6 children (1.5 per cent)
•
Four moves – 4 children (1.0 per cent)
•
Five moves – 1 child (0.2 per cent)
•
More than five moves – 1 child (0.2 per cent)
This data points clearly to the greater stability
of permanent care and kinship care.
28
Comparison with other data sources
!
The Looking After Children outcomes data
project: final report (DHS 2012)
The Department of Human Services
monitors placement changes as one
measure of placement stability. At June
2012, 19 per cent of children placed in Out
of Home Care statewide had experienced
three or more changes of placement in
their lifetime. The survey data, which was
3 per cent over a 12-month period, is
lower than expected by comparison.
Comparison with other data sources
The state of Victoria’s children 2010
(DEECD 2011)
The survey findings are consistent with
statewide data from DEECD, which
found that 30 per cent of children
entering care in Victoria had previously
been admitted, of which approximately
30 per cent had either 2 or 3 prior
admissions to care.
29
Section 4: Health and wellbeing
Key findings
• Between 91 and 96 per cent of parents and carers rated their child’s health as excellent or good.
However, the proportion rating it as fair or poor ranged from 4 per cent to 9 per cent, which was much
higher than found for other children or young people in the broad community (1.5 per cent rated fair or
poor).
• The proportion of fully immunised children (92.9 to 96.9 per cent) were higher at all ages than reported
for the broad community (ranging from 87.2 to 92.8 per cent) - depending on the age of the child.
• The incidence of long-term (chronic) health conditions ranged between (29.1 to 45.1 per cent) was
lower than that reported for the broad community (60 per cent).
• Many children or young people were receiving therapy for a range of conditions. Of the total number of
carers, 27 per cent reported their children as requiring medication, and half of these felt that their child
needed more medication than what they were getting.
• Parents and carers reported a lower proportion of children and young people as being overweight and
a higher proportion of children or young people as underweight than the broad community.
• Approximately half of the children or young people were reported as being physically active every day
for at least 60 minutes. Children in Out of Home Care were more physically active more frequently than
Family Services and Child Protection children and young people.
• The proportion of survey children over 12 years who were reported to have drunk alcohol in the past
year was similar to the broad population. However, those placed in Out of Home Care drank alcohol
more frequently than those in the broad community although at an overall lower level.
• A much higher proportion of survey carers reported that their child or young person smoke cigarettes
than the then state average for children aged 12 to 17 years that found 24.6 per cent of these children
or young people had ever smoked. Of those who had ever smoked, nearly eight out of 10 children in
Out of Home Care were reported to smoke on a daily basis, a level much higher than the broad
community (17 per cent) and marginally higher than that reported for Family Services children.
• The study cohort had higher rates of injury requiring medical or hospital attention than found for others,
with most experiencing only one injury over the 12 months prior to the survey. Eight per cent had two or
more injuries in he previous year. Out of Home Care had significantly lower rates of injury.
30
4.1
General health
Survey results
Most parents or carers rated their children’s
health as excellent, very good or good (see
Figure 11). Just four per cent of Child
Protection, 10 per cent and Family Services
and 6 per cent of Out of Home Care carers
rated their children’s health as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’.
Comparison to the general
population
Australian Children’s Report (AIHW 2011)
While very few parents or carers rated their
child’s health as fair or poor, this was
consistent with the parent ratings shown in
the Australian Children’s Report.
The state of Victoria’s children 2010
(DEECD 2011)
!
The survey parents’ and carers’ ratings of
their children’s health as ‘fair’ or ‘poor’ were
higher than the state average. Just 1.5 per
cent of Victorian parents of children aged 012 years rated their children’s health as
‘fair’ or ‘poor’.
Victorian adolescent health and wellbeing
survey (2009)
!
The survey findings also contrast with the
2009 HOWRU survey in which a higher
proportion of Victorian children aged 12
years and more, self-rated their health as
fair or poor.
Figure 11: Service group by parent or carer rating of child health
31
4.2
Immunisations
Survey results
Between 92.9 per cent and 96.9 per cent of
each service group in the current sample
reported their child’s immunisation as being
complete and up to date.
Comparison to the general
population
The state of Victoria’s children 2010
(DEECD 2011)
!
4.3
The survey findings are positive and
are higher than the recent actual state
average (2009–10), which was 92.8
per cent fully immunised at 12 to 15
months, down to 87.2 per cent at 72 to
75 months.
Medication
Two hundred and sixty two parents or carers
(27 per cent) reported that their children
required medication prescribed by a doctor.
A higher proportion of Family Services
parents or carers reported that their children
or young people required medication (35 per
cent) than did the Out of Home Care (25.9
per cent) or Child Protection groups (20 per
cent).
4.4
Long-term health conditions
Long-term (chronic) health conditions include
allergic rhinitis, sinusitis, sight problems,
asthma and other allergies, migraines.
Survey results
Less than half of the children or young
people of the Family Services group (133 or
45.1 per cent), just over one third of the Out
of Home Care group (149 or 37.9 per cent)
and Child Protection group (84 or 29.1) were
reported to suffer from a long-term health
condition that had lasted, and was expected
to last, for at least 12 months.
Of the survey parents or carers who identified
their child suffered from a long-term health
condition, approximately half felt their child
was functionally limited by their health
condition.
Over 90 per cent of all parents or carers who
reported a child or young person with a longterm health condition reported that the
children’s or young person’s treatment had
lasted, or was expected to last, for at least 12
months.
Between 70 and 80 per cent of those in each
service group who were reported as receiving
treatment or therapy had been assessed with
a learning difficulty.
Nearly all parents and carers who reported
that their children needed medication –
between 86.1 per cent and 90 per cent –
stated that the medical condition has lasted,
or was expected to last, at least 12 months.
The Child Protection group had fewer
children or young people (11.1 per cent)
reported as receiving or requiring special
therapies (such as physiotherapy,
occupational or speech therapy) than Family
Services.
In addition, of those who stated that their
child received medication, a significant
number of participants believed that the child
required more medication than they were
receiving at the time (45 per cent of Family
Services, 50 per cent of Out of Home Care,
62 per cent of Child Protection).
Figure 12 shows the distribution of reported
long-term health conditions across age
groups, with those in the 0 to 11 year
category most likely to be identified by their
parent or carer as suffering from a long-term
health condition.
32
Figure 12: Long-term health condition by service group and age of child or young person
Comparison to the general population
Young Australians report (AIHW 2011)
?
The survey findings differ from data on long-term
health conditions in the general population of
Australian children in 2007–08, which identified
the prevalence levels of 34 per cent of children
aged 0 to 11 years, 59 per cent of children aged
12 to 14 years, and 48 per cent of children and
young people aged 15 to 19 years.
Fewer of the survey children and young people
in each of these age categories of the sample
groups were identified as suffering from longterm health conditions.
However, the lower prevalence levels reported
by parents and carers in the survey may reflect
some limitation of the survey question utilised.
33
4.5
Weight of children
Survey results
The majority of parents or carers of each
service group considered their child or young
person as being of a healthy weight (see
Figure 13). The Child Protection group were
more likely to indicate their child or young
person was of a healthy weight, and less
likely than the other two service groups to
indicate their child or young person was
overweight.
Very few parents or carers considered their
child or young person to be very overweight.
An unexpected result, compared to nutritional
surveys, was that a similar proportion
(approximately 10 per cent) of parents and
carers reported their children to be
underweight as they did overweight.
Figure 13: Service group by parent’s or carer’s perception of child's weight
34
Comparison to the general population
!
2009–10 National Secondary Students’ Diet
and Activity survey (DEECD 2011)
National Health Survey
Self-reports by children or young people
were more aligned with the National
Health Survey figures as 61.7 per cent
rated themselves a healthy weight, and
23.1 per cent considered themselves to
be overweight.
The survey figures differed slightly from the
DEECD data, which found that, although a
similar proportion were identified as a healthy
weight (71.6 per cent), a higher proportion
were overweight (18.2 per cent) or obese
(5.5 per cent).
The DEECD report also found that parents
were more likely to identify their children’s
weight as ‘healthy’ (90.6 per cent) with far
fewer parents (2.1 per cent) considering their
child or young person to be overweight.
4.6
Physical activity
Survey results
Survey parents and carers of children aged
12 years and older were asked to provide
information on whether their children had
been physically active for at least 60 minutes
a day during the past week (see Table 7).
This relates to the Australian Government’s
physical activity recommendations for
children and young people.
About half the parents or carers estimated
that their child had been physically active for
at least one hour every day. Relatively few
parents or carers indicated that their child
had not been active for at least an hour
during the week, or on two days or less of the
week. However, 20 per cent of Family
Services children or young people were
reported to be inactive in the previous week,
more than three times the proportion of other
service groups.
Table 7: Number of days where child has been physically active for 60 minutes or more
In the past week, how often has the child been physically active for a total of at least 60 minutes?
Child Protection
Family Services
n
%
n
%
n
%
Every day
40
54.1
29
43.1
66
47.9
5 –6 days
9
12.0
6
8.9
17
12.6
4 days
4
5.0
1
1.3
10
7.4
3 days
5
6.2
6
8.6
14
9.8
2 days
8
10.9
2
3.5
6
4.1
1 day
1
1.8
6
8.9
5
3.8
No days
4
5.2
13
20.1
8
6.0
Don’t know
4
4.7
4
5.7
12
8.4
Frequency
Out of Home Care
35
4.7
Lifestyle factors
Survey questions
All parents or carers of children and young
people aged 12 years and above were asked
about the child’s use of inhalants, illicit
substances, tobacco and alcohol. Appendix
G contains each survey question with the
responses collated by service group.
Parents and carers may not have been fully
aware of children and young people’s use of
cigarettes, alcohol and other substances. The
survey results will be checked against selfreports in the young people’s survey to be
undertaken later this year.
Of these children, 21 per cent were reported
to have taken a drink less than once a month.
Only 15 per cent were reported to have taken
a drink one to three times a week.
Comparison to the general
population
The state of Victoria’s children 2009
(DEECD 2010)
?
The survey data (30 per cent of the
children over 12 years of age had
consumed alcohol in the previous 12
months) is somewhat lower than data from
DEECD (2010), which found that 37.7 per
cent of children aged 12 to 17 had
consumed alcohol in the past month. The
DEECD data is from children self-reporting.
Survey results
Illicit substances
Regarding the use of illicit substances the
parents or carers indicated that their child or
young person mainly used marijuana. This
was similar to the statewide data, which
found that 16.0 per cent of those aged 15 to
17, and 9.6 per cent of those aged 12 to 17
years had tried cannabis (DEECD 2010).
Inhalants
Only three children in the cohort were
reported to use inhalants, all in the previous
12 months. One child (Child Protection) had
stopped during the last 12 months; one was
using them three times a month (Out of
Home Care) and the frequency for one (Out
of Home Care) was not known.
Alcohol
About 30 per cent of young people aged over
12 years were estimated to have consumed
alcohol in the last 12 months. The distribution
by service group of these children is as
follows:
Tobacco
One of the main findings was that the parents
or carers in this sample estimated that a
much higher proportion of their children or
young people (33.7 per cent to 45.1 per cent)
smoked cigarettes than the state average of
24.6 per cent for children aged 12 to 17 years
(DEECD 2011).
The distribution by service group of the
children who had smoked tobacco at any
time in the past is as follows:
•
Child Protection (45 per cent)
•
Family Services (40 per cent)
•
Out of Home Care (34 per cent).
Four out of five of these children had smoked
in the past 12 months. Of these children, the
distribution by service group of those who
smoked every day is as follows:
•
Child Protection (36 per cent)
•
Child Protection (29.6 per cent)
•
Family Services (60 per cent)
•
Family Services (29 per cent)
•
Out of Home Care (77 per cent).
•
Placement services (29.5 per cent).
36
4.8
Injuries requiring medical attention
Survey results
About one fifth of Child Protection (21.1 per
cent) and Family Services (19.5 per cent)
parents or carers, and 16.1 per cent of the
Out of Home Care group reported that their
children suffered an injury in the 12 months
prior to the survey that required medical
attention from a doctor or hospital.
These injuries happened only once for most
(see Table 8). Younger children had a higher
frequency of injuries except for the Out of
Home Care children. Few parents or carers
indicated that the child or young person had
attended a doctor or hospital for treatment of
an injury more than five times but, of the
service groups, Out of Home Care carers
reported a higher frequency of five or more
injuries occurring to the child or young
person. This is likely to be associated with
the higher age of children and young people
of this group.
Comparison to the general
population
?
The state of Victoria’s children 2010
(DEECD 2011)
The survey results appear to be
significantly higher than the pooled
2000–01 to 2007–08 registrations of
Victorian children’s data (DEECD),
which reported 8.1 per cent of children
aged 10 to 17 years having one hospital
admission, and 5.8 per cent having
more than one admission. However, it
must be noted that the survey sample
includes not only hospitalisations, but
also doctor visits for injuries.
Table 8: Service group by frequency of hospital/doctor visits in previous 12 months by age of child
or young person
Age of Child
Child Protection
1 injury
2 injuries
3 injuries
4 injuries
5 + injuries
0–9 years
34
2
2
-
1
10 years and older
13
5
1
-
2
47
(78.3%)
7
(11.6%)
3
(5.0%)
0–9 years
30
3
3
1
-
10 years and older
14
5
1
-
1
44
(75.9%)
8
(13.8%)
4
(6.9%)
1
(1.7%)
1
(1.7%)
0–9 years
25
2
-
3
-
10 years and older
19
6
3
1
5
44
(68.7%)
135
(74.2%)
8
(12.5%)
23
(12.6%)
3
(4.7%)
10
(5.5%)
4
(6.3%)
5
(2.7%)
5
(7.8%)
9
(4.9%)
Total Group
3
(5.0%)
Total
39
(65.0%)
21
(35.0%)
60
(100%)
Family Services
Total Group
37
(63.8%)
21
(36.2%)
58
(100%)
Out of Home Care
Total Group
Grand Total
30
(46.9%)
34
(53.1%)
64
(100%)
182
(100%)
37
Section 5: Behaviour and mental health
Key findings
• In comparison to the broad community, the survey revealed high rates of emotional and behavioural
problems in these children, particularly for the Family Services group. The rates that were reported by
Child Protection parents and carers were much lower than the other two groups, which was an
unexpected result.
• The rates reported by Out of Home Carers are consistent with rates reported by a recent comparative
study of Victorian Out of Home Carers.
• Many children or young people were receiving regular counselling and therapy to deal with these
issues and associated problems.
• The overwhelming majority of parents or carers rated their relationships with the children or young
people as positive on a range of measures.
• However, a small number (18) were found to have poor relationships with their children or young
people who were primarily in the Family Services group and involved children aged between nine and
16 years.
5.1
Emotional and behavioural problems
Survey question
Survey results
The Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire
is a short screening tool that is being
increasingly employed to identify emotional
and behavioural problems in children and
young people. The tool has five subscales:
emotional symptoms, conduct problems,
hyperactivity, peer problems and prosocial. A
‘total difficulties score’ is calculated by
totalling the four subscales that capture
problems. The prosocial scale score is
excluded from the total score.
Table 9 shows the total difficulties scores for
2
each of the service groups.
High scores for emotional and behavioural
difficulties were strongly associated with
service group. Child Protection children or
young people were significantly lower in
reported emotional and behavioural
problems, and Family Services children or
young people were identified by their parents
or carers as significantly more ‘at risk’ than
expected.
The parent or carer completed the
questionnaire for children four years and
over.
2
In order to calculate the total difficulties score,
cases with missing values (total number of
children is 226) reported as ‘Don’t know’ or
‘Refused to Answer’ or ineligible ages were
excluded from the analysis.
38
Family Services children who are identified
as having a ‘significant wellbeing concern’ or
requiring disability support are more likely to
be reported as experiencing high levels of
emotional and/or behavioural difficulties.
Comparison to the general population
!
The state of Victoria’s children 2010
(DEECD 2011)
!
The Victorian Child and Adolescent
Health and Wellbeing Survey 2011
(HOWRU)
The Family Services parents or carers were
more likely to describe their children’s
behaviour as being problematic, with the
Child Protection children most likely to be
described as within the normal range. While
there are several possible explanations for
this, including the subjective expectations of
parents, the data indicates that Family
Services participants were more likely than
the other two groups to report a range of
difficulties being experienced by their children
or young people, which required services to
address them.
The survey children had much higher
scores than the general population in
2010, when the majority (83.5 per cent) of
children aged four to 12 years did not
have any overall behavioural or emotional
difficulties. 10.6 per cent of Victorian
children aged 4–12 years had behavioural
problems rated ‘borderline’ or ‘at risk’ and
only a small proportion (5.4 per cent) were
’at risk’. The proportion of survey children
younger than 12 with behaviour rated as
‘borderline’ or ‘at risk’ was 27.4 per cent
(Child Protection), 60.7 per cent (Family
Services), and 48.9 per cent (Out of
Home Care).
Comparison to other data sources
The Looking After Children outcomes
data project: final report (2012)
Analysis of strengths and difficulties
assessments completed by primary
carers of 334 Out of Home Care
children aged 5–17 years old resulted
in scores very similar to the survey
scores. 47 per cent of children had
‘normal’ scores (survey 53 per cent), 15
per cent were ‘borderline’ (survey 9 per
cent) and 39 per cent were ‘at risk’
(survey 38.5 per cent). Note: This
research excluded permanent care
children and approximately 70 per cent
of kinship care arrangements.
The survey found that a higher proportion
of girls than boys (aged 12 years to 17
years) showed a high level of distress.
Girls also showed a greater capacity for
resilience.
However, in the survey males (181 or
63.1 per cent) were significantly more
likely to be found in the ‘at risk’ category
than females (106 or 36.9 per cent).
39
Table 9: Strengths and difficulties score for children or young people aged four years and over
across the service groups
Strengths and
difficulties
scale score
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Total
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Normal
143
67.1
72
34.7
173
52.9
388
52.0
Borderline
24
11.3
19
9.2
28
8.4
71
9.5
Substantial Risk
46
21.6
115
55.8
126
38.5
287
38.5
Total
214
28.6
206
27.6
327
43.8
747
100.0
5.2
Treatment or counselling
Survey results
The number of children receiving or needing
treatment or counselling for emotional and
behavioural problems was high; however
Child Protection children were reporting at
comparatively lower levels.
Just over 90 per cent of those in Out of Home
Care and Family Services, and 83.1 per cent
of those in Child Protection reported that the
problem had lasted, or was expected to last,
at least 12 months.
One in five of the Family Services and Out of
Home Care children or young people were
receiving special therapy services. Between
70 and 80 per cent of these children or young
people had been assessed as having a
learning difficulty.
Approximately 70 per cent of these children
and young people (between 69.7 per cent
and 75.4 per cent) were receiving help for the
problem. This suggests that, in the view of
the parents or carers, there is currently a
level of unmet need.
Figure 14: Proportion of survey children receiving or needing treatment or counselling for by
service group
40
5.3
Parent’s or carer’s relationship with child or young person
Survey results
Parents and carers overwhelmingly
described their relationships with their
children or young person as being very
positive, and this was evident across all
groups and for all children or young people
aged from 0 to 17 years (see Table 10).
However, negative aspects to their
relationships were very much the exception.
It is noted that these questions measured
perceptions and may not fully reflect the
broader scope of the relationships that other
methodologies and approaches might reveal.
Family Services parents or carers were more
likely to identify that a less positive
relationship with the child existed than did the
other two groups. Of the 18 participants
reporting the absence of positive aspects to
relationships, only one was in the Child
Protection group, three were in the Out of
Home Care group, and 14 were in the Family
Services group.
For those parents or carers who felt there
were little or no positive aspects in their
relationship with children, almost all of the
children or young people concerned were
nine to 16 years of age. The majority (15)
were considered as high risk for emotional
and behavioural problems by parents or
carers. This is an indicator of the need for
greater support for some families. It may also
be the case that some parents were
inadequately prepared or otherwise unable to
cope with their child’s transition from
childhood to early adolescence.
41
Table 10: Parent or carer relationships with the child or young person across service groups
Child Protection
n
Family Services
%
Out of Home Care
n
%
n
%
How would you describe the child’s relationship with you? There are.....
Many positive aspects to the relationship
246
85.3
213
73.1
341
87.2
Some positive aspects to the relationship
40
14.1
65
22.1
47
12.0
1
0.4
14
4.8
3
0.8
222
76.3
220
76.3
260
66.5
Little or no positive aspects to the relationship
I express affection by hugging, kissing or holding the child
Strongly agree
Agree
57
19.7
53
18.3
84
21.5
Neither agree or disagree
1
0.2
3
1.2
8
2.0
Disagree
7
2.3
8
2.9
23
5.9
Strongly disagree
4
1.5
4
1.3
16
4.1
201
69.2
186
63.7
255
65.3
78
26.9
92
31.3
108
27.7
Neither agree or disagree
4
1.4
1
0.2
3
0.7
Disagree
7
2.5
11
3.8
17
4.5
Strongly disagree
0
0
3
0.9
7
1.8
221
76.2
214
73.3
290
74.2
I tell the child how happy he or she makes me
Strongly agree
Agree
I enjoy doing things with the child
Strongly agree
Agree
64
22.2
71
24.1
88
22.6
Neither agree or disagree
0
0
3
1.1
3
0.9
Disagree
4
1.4
4
1.5
9
2.4
Strongly disagree
1
0.2
0
0
0
0
I feel close to the child when they are happy and also when they are upset
Strongly agree
230
80.1
200
69.0
299
76.6
51
17.9
77
26.6
80
20.4
Neither agree or disagree
1
0.5
3
1.0
2
0.5
Disagree
4
1.6
9
3.2
8
2.1
Strongly disagree
0
0
1
0.3
1
0.4
Agree
Of all the times you talk with the child about their behaviour, how often is this praise?
All the time
27
9.4
23
8.3
25
6.6
153
54.0
141
50.2
226
59.5
About half the time
86
30.4
92
32.8
110
28.9
Less than half the time
15
5.3
21
7.5
18
4.7
Almost never or never
3
0.9
3
1.2
1
0.3
More than half the time
It is important that you know where the child is and what he or she is doing all the time (children over 12
months)? Do you......
Strongly agree
Agree
Disagree
253
90.9
248
91.2
333
85.5
25
9.1
24
8.8
51
13.0
0
0
0
0
6
1.5
42
Child Protection
n
%
Family Services
n
%
Out of Home Care
n
%
When you give the child an instruction or make a request to do something, how often do you make sure that
he or she does it (children over 5 years)?
All the time
69
41.6
66
41.3
130
46.1
More than half the time
66
39.5
60
37.8
103
36.6
About half the time
24
14.3
23
14.2
36
12.8
Less than half the time
8
4.6
9
5.6
8
3.0
Almost never (or never)
0
0
2
1.2
4
1.6
How often does the child get away with things you feel should have been punished?
All the time
19
6.6
19
6.6
11
3.0
More than half the time
37
13.1
53
18.5
42
10.9
About half the time
67
23.7
83
28.8
91
23.6
Less than half the time
69
24.6
63
21.9
83
21.5
Almost never (or never)
92
32.0
69
24.1
159
41.1
43
Section 6: Connections to family, school and
community
Key findings
• Approximately one in five of the Child Protection and Family Services children or young people, and
seven in ten of their Out of Home Care counterparts, had experienced three or more main carers, this
being particularly likely for those with a disability or identified as being ‘at risk’ in terms of behavioural
and other difficulties.
• A significant proportion of Out of Home Care children have had multiple carers. Approximately one
quarter of these had experienced five or more main carers in their life, and 67 per cent had
experienced three or more carers. Children with a disability had a high prevalence of multiple carers.
• Children or young people in the Out of Home Care group experienced a variety of levels of contact with
their mothers, fathers, siblings and other relatives. This was mostly face-to-face contact. Overall, the
most frequent contact was between children and other main relatives. However,
eighteen percent of children who were permitted contact with their mothers had no contact
within the 3 months prior to the survey
one quarter of children who were permitted contact with their fathers did not have any contact
within the 3 months prior to the survey
one third of children who do not reside with their siblings had no contact within the past 3
months.
• Approximately one in four Out of Home Care children or young people are regularly spending time with
other carers for respite, and other breaks.
• While most children or young people in Out of Home Care are engaged in regular sports and
recreational activities, nearly half do this rarely or never.
6.1
Changes of carer
Context
Having multiple carers can impact negatively
on a child or young person’s development.
There is a significant level of international
literature on the negative effects of caregiving discontinuity on the development of
children in Out of Home Care, especially the
association between placement breakdowns
and cumulative risk in the Out of Home Care
population (see Sinclair 2005; Sinclair, Gibbs,
Wilson forthcoming).
44
Survey results
Participants reported that many of the
children and young people had experienced
multiple main carers, and this is likely to have
contributed to their social and emotional
needs, and possibly their behaviour. For the
three service groups the respective
proportions of children who have had three or
more main carers in their lives were:
•
Child Protection – 23.6 per cent
•
Family Services – 17.4 per cent
•
Out of Home Care – 67.1 per cent.
The three least stable groups of children
were: the Out of Home care children, children
with a disability and children ‘at risk’ of
emotional and behavioural problems.
The Out of Home Care children were by far
the least stable group. About one quarter (28
per cent) of the children or young people in
Out of Home Care had experienced five or
more main carers. This is more than six times
that of the other two service groups,
reflecting the risks of placement change or
breakdown. One in six (13.2 per cent) of the
Out of Home Care service group had
experienced more than seven carers.
Those children who were assessed as having
a learning difficulty were more likely to have
had three or more carers in their lifetime.
The Family Services and Out of Home Care
children or young people ‘at risk’ for
emotional and behavioural problems had also
experienced more carers in their lifetime than
the children with lower scores. It seems clear
that disruption of primary caregiver – child
relationships is an important issue for these
children.
Figure 15: Number of main carers per child since birth by service group
45
6.2
Contact with family members – Out of Home Care only
While protective issues surrounding contact
are critical, the importance for Out of Home
Care children and young people in
maintaining connection and relationships with
family is critical and is confirmed within the
legislative framework.
•
83 per cent of children had contact
with their biological mother and 17 per
cent had no contact
•
75 per cent of children had contact
with their father and 25 per cent had
no contact
The survey results regarding these children’s
contact with their parents and siblings
present some difficulties of interpretation due
to missing data. Twenty two per cent of
carers did not provide information regarding
their child’s contact with their mother and
father.
•
67 per cent had contact with their nonresident siblings and 33 per cent had
no contact
•
80 per cent had contact with a main
“other relative” and 20 per cent had no
contact.
Nevertheless, the data from those who did
respond to these questions show that there
appears to be a less than optimal frequency
of contact by children in Out of Home Care
with their immediate and extended family
members.
Carers stated that 74 per cent of children
were able to have contact with their biological
mothers and 26 per cent were not. Carers
also stated that 48 per cent of children were
able to have contact with their biological
fathers and fifty two per cent were not.
Of those who were able to have contact the
following levels of contact occurred in the
previous three months prior to survey
interviews:
Face-to-face contacts were the most frequent
types of contact reported across all the
relatives – father, mother, sibling and other
main relative. Most frequent contact was with
other main relatives.
There are several limitations to this data,
however, and carers may not be fully aware
of the extent of telephone contact or of other
contact which the survey questions did not
measure (such as social media).
Due to the limitations of the data it was not
possible to make a complete comparative
analysis across placement types. However,
Appendix F does include contact data by
placement type. This found no significant
statistical difference in the level of contact
between placement types.
46
Table 11: Out of Home Care: Child or young person’s contact with mother and father
Mother
n
Father
%
n
%
151
48.4
Is the child (n=314) able to have contact with their mother or father (n=310)?
Yes
233
74.2
If yes, in the past three months, how often has the child had contact with their mother (n=228) or father
(n=148) over the phone?
Daily
4
1.7
3
2.0
2-6 times per week
22
9.6
5
3.4
Weekly
35
15.3
15
10.1
Fortnightly
11
4.8
8
5.4
Monthly
19
8.3
11
7.4
Special occasions only
25
11.0
23
15.5
Never
112
49.1
83
56.1
How often has the child had face-to-face contact with their mother (n=229) or father (n=148) in the past 3
months?
Daily
8
3.5
2
1.4
2-6 times per week
14
6.1
7
4.7
Weekly
31
13.5
10
6.8
Fortnightly
27
11.8
19
12.8
Monthly
37
16.2
23
15.5
Special occasions only
56
24.4
37
25.0
Never
56
24.4
50
33.8
How often in the past 3 months has the child stayed overnight with the mother (n=173) or father (n=98)?
Daily
4
2.3
0
0
2-6 times per week
2
1.2
0
0
Weekly
0
0.0
1
1.02
Fortnightly
5
2.9
3
3.1
Monthly
3
1.7
1
1.0
Special occasions only
9
5.2
13
13.3
150
86.7
80
81.6
Never
Please note children who had contact during the last 3 months were able to experience more than
one kind of contact with their relatives.
47
Table 12: Out of Home Care: Child or young person not residing with siblings' contact with siblings
Out of Home Care
n
%
Thinking about the child’s contact with siblings in the past 3 months, how often has the child had
contact with siblings over the phone (if the child does not live with siblings)? (n=108)
Daily
1
1.0
2 to 6 times per week
5
4.8
Weekly
4
3.3
Fortnightly
13
11.7
Monthly
8
7.5
Special occasions only
11
10.2
Never
66
61.1
How often has the child had face-to-face contact with their siblings? (n=108)
Daily
4
3.6
2 to 6 times per week
4
4.1
Weekly
11
10.0
Fortnightly
12
11.5
Monthly
24
22.0
Special occasions only
17
15.4
Never
36
33.4
How often in the past 3 months has the child stayed overnight with their siblings? (n=71)
Daily
1
1.2
Weekly
4
6.3
Fortnightly
3
4.3
Monthly
7
9.6
Special occasions only
8
10.7
Never
48
67.9
48
Table 13: Out of Home Care: Child or young person’s contact with other relatives
Out of Home Care
n
%
If the child has had contact with other (main) relatives not in the household: in the past 3 months,
how often has the child had contact with this relative over the phone? (n=308)
Daily
7
2.3
2 to 6 times per week
28
9.0
Weekly
48
15.6
Fortnightly
31
10.0
Monthly
37
12.1
Special occasions only
26
8.6
Never
131
42.5
How often has the child had face-to-face contact with this relative in the past 3 months? (n=313)
Daily
3
1.0
2 to 6 times per week
59
18.8
Weekly
36
11.7
Fortnightly
41
13.1
Monthly
53
16.9
Special occasions only
58
18.5
Never
63
20.1
How often in the past 3 months has the child stayed overnight with this relative? (n=250)
Daily
0
0.0
Weekly
5
2.0
Fortnightly
6
2.3
Monthly
22
8.7
Special occasions only
55
22.0
Never
162
64.7
49
6.3
Other care providers
Context
Out of Home Care children stay with care
providers besides their primary carers for
respite care, on short-term breaks or for
reunification with biological parents. This
support can be critical to enhance placement
stability and to facilitate reunification,
particularly when the child or young person
has high and complex care needs.
•
a respite carer provided short-term
breaks in nearly half of reported
arrangements (48 children or 47.5 per
cent)
•
another foster carer provided care in
six per cent of arrangements where
children had other care providers
•
another family member provided
alternative care in nearly a quarter of
arrangements (26 children or 25.7 per
cent) ;
•
fifteen children (or 14.5 per cent) split
their time with two other carers
•
Eleven children (or 10.1 per cent)
stayed with a parent
•
Six children (or 5.9 per cent) were
cared for by a friend
•
Four children (3.9 per cent) were
staying with other carers.
Survey results
The survey data shows that 101 (25.7 per
cent) Out of Home Care children stayed with
carers other than the survey participant (the
primary carer) in a wide range of
arrangements. Of those who utilised shortterm care support:
•
•
6.4
the majority (76 children or 72.5 per
cent) stayed with other carers on an
irregular basis or less frequently than
once per week
a small number of children (11 children
or 10.8 per cent) stayed with their
primary carer between one to four
days per week
Participation in community activities
Survey question
Parents and carers of children aged five
years and older were asked about the
frequency with which their child had been
involved in sports, clubs, organisations or
other activities in the three months prior to
the survey.
Survey results
Overall, children or young people in Out of
Home Care were statistically more likely to
be involved in regular activities and less likely
to be unengaged than Family Services and
Child Protection children.
50
Figure 16: Frequency of participation in community activities by service group
Comparison to the general population
While little comparative data exists, it
appears that the Child Protection and Family
Services children and young people are less
engaged in sports clubs and other activities
than the general population of children and
young people.
Mission Australia National Survey of
Young Australians 2011
72 per cent of survey participants were
involved in a sporting activity.
?
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010
In this Australia-wide study, 63 per cent of
children participated in at least one
organised sport outside of school hours,
in the 12 months to April 2009
51
Section 7: Current protective orders
7.1
Protective orders for Out of Home Care children
Context
A Custody to Secretary Order gives sole
custody of a child to the Department of
Human Services (the Secretary being the
chief executive officer of the department) but
this does not affect the guardianship of the
child. These orders are made where the child
is unable to safely live at home but where
there may be prospects for re-unification of
the child with a parent in future.
Permanent Care Orders vest custody and
guardianship of a child in a person other than
the parents or Secretary. A pre- requisite for
the Court making such an order is that the
child’s biological parents have not had care
of the child for at least six months or for
periods that total at least six out of the last 12
months.
Guardianship Orders grant custody and
guardianship to the Secretary of the
Department of Human Services - meaning
the Secretary has the sole right and
responsibility to make all decisions about the
care, control and welfare of a child. The
maximum initial period of a Guardianship
Order is two years. Guardianship Orders are
rarely made when reunification to a parent is
a realistic prospect.
Supervised Custody Orders grant sole or
joint custody to a person other than the
Secretary of the Department of Human
Services or a person employed by a
Community Services Organisation. They do
not affect the guardianship of a child. The
maximum initial period of a Supervised
Custody Order is 12 months. Re-unification is
the ultimate objective of a Supervised
Custody Order.
Survey results
All of the children or young people in the Out
of Home Care group were subject to Child
Protection orders or permanent care orders
at the time of the interview with their primary
carers. The most common order – the
Custody to Secretary Order – was almost
twice as numerous in the sample to the next
most common, the Permanent Care Order.
Comparison with other data sources
CRIS data (DHS 2012)
There is a broad similarity in the
proportion of these orders within the
sample compared to a statewide
snapshot of these types of order taken
on 30 June 2012.
Long-term Guardianship Orders grant
custody and guardianship of a child over the
age of 12 years to the Secretary of the
Department of Human Services. Both the
child and Secretary of the Department are
required to consent to the making of such an
order, which can last until the child is 18
years and may be revoked by the Court if it is
satisfied that it is in the best interests of the
child.
52
Table 14: Frequency of protective order types for Out of Home Care children
Number of children
subject to specific
Orders
% of all Orders in
Survey
% statewide
as at 30.6.12
Custody to Secretary Order
191
48.8
44.3
Guardianship to Secretary Order
80
20.5
17.1
Long Term Guardianship Orders
14
3.6
2.9
Permanent Care Order
97
24.8
35.7
Supervised Custody Order
9
2.3
no data
391
100.0
Type of Order
Total
7.2
Protective Orders for Child Protection children
Of the children in the Child Protection group,
44.6 per cent (129) were subject to a Child
Protection Order at the time of interview.
These were nearly all supervision orders
(95.3 per cent).
The remaining 55.4 per cent were in the
‘protective intervention’ phase of
departmental involvement or were part of
cases awaiting closure.
Table 15: Frequency of protective order types for Child Protection children
Type of Order
n
%
123
95.34
Custody to Secretary Order
2
1.55
Therapeutic Treatment Order
2
1.55
Interim Protection Order
1
0.78
Supervised Custody Order
1
0.78
129
100.00
Supervision Orders
Total
53
Section 8: Out of Home Care – involvement
of carers
Key findings
• Forty four per cent of those children or young people in the Out of Home Care group had a care team,
although after accounting for those permanent care and kinship Care arrangements where this is not
required, roughly 70 per cent had a care team.
• Approximately 60 per cent of children or young people in Out of Home Care had a care and placement
plan, most of these being up to date.
• Ten per cent of those who could be expected to have a care and placement plan did not have one.
8.1
Care teams
Context
Not all Out of Home Care children are
required to have a ‘care team’ – a team that
meets regularly to consider the child’s day-today needs. Current policy does not require a
care team for 70 per cent of kinship care
placements (those that are not supported by
a community service) or for any children
subject to permanent care orders.
Nevertheless, there are children in
placements without a care team who could
be reasonably expected to have one.
Survey results
A total of 142 primary carers – 36.3 per cent
of the entire cohort – identified that their child
had a care team. Recognising that not all
children are required to have a care team,
this means that 68 per cent of those who
could be expected to have a care team were
reported to have one. The children whose
carers stated that they had a care team
tended to be older on average (9.83 years)
than those who did not (8.73 years).
Of the 142 carers who stated their children
had a care plan:
•
76 were foster carers (68 per cent of
all foster carers in the survey)
•
35 were kinship carers (23 per cent of
all kinship carers in the survey)
•
30 were residential carers (97 per cent
of all residential carers in the survey)
•
1 was a permanent carer (one per cent
of all permanent carers in the survey).
With regard to foster care and residential
care participants, the following reports were
provided about the establishment of a care
team for the child or young person:
Foster Care
•
Yes = 69
•
No = 34
•
Don’t know = 2
Residential Care
•
Yes = 30
•
No = 1
54
Care team members comprised any or all of
the following:
•
the carer – 134 (94.5 per cent)
•
the Out of Home Care Support Worker
– 130 (91.5 per cent)
•
the Child Protection worker – 96 (67.6
per cent)
•
a different caseworker – 69 (48.6 per
cent)
•
another carer (other than participant) –
55 (38.7 per cent)
•
the child – 34 (23.9 per cent).
Eight primary carers (5.5 per cent) who
identified that their child had a care team
stated that they (the carer) were not
members of the care team themselves.
A higher proportion of Indigenous children
had a care team (30 or 53.8 per cent) than
non-Indigenous children (111 or 33.3 per
cent). This can be seen as a positive result.
Table 16: Out of Home Care: Care team members by placement type
Care team
Kinship
care
Foster care
Permanent
care
Residential
care
Other
Total
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
n
%
Primary
carer
37
26.2
71
27.4
1
25.0
25
18.5
0
0
134
94.5
Another
carer
10
7.1
20
7.8
1
25.0
22
16.6
2
9.5
55
38.7
Another
parent
9
6.4
16
6.2
0
0
10
7.5
2
9.5
37
26.0
The child
13
9.2
7
2.7
0
0
14
10.6
0
0
34
23.9
Agency
worker
30
21.2
67
26.0
1
25.0
27
20.4
5
23.8
130
91.5
Child
Protection
worker
26
18.4
43
16.7
1
25.0
22
16.6
4
19.0
96
67.6
Another
worker
16
11.3
35
13.6
0
0
15
11.4
3
14.3
69
48.6
141
100.0
259
100.0
4
100.0
135
100.0
16
100.0
555
100.0
Total
55
8.2
Care and placement plans
Context
Survey results
Victoria’s Looking After Children is a best
practice framework that directs services how
to identify each child’s or young person’s
needs while they are placed in Out of Home
Care, and to meet their needs in a way that
reflects good practice, as it is articulated in
the Best interests case practice model:
summary guide.
Of all the Out of Home carers, 217 (60.9 per
cent) reported that their child or young
person had a care and placement plan, with
173 (or 79.8 per cent) stating that the plan
was up to date.
Not all Out of Home Care placements in
Victoria operate under the Looking After
Children framework. Exclusions include
children or young people who are placed in
permanent care and 70 per cent of kinship
care placements – those that are not
supported by a community service
organisation.
The care and placement plan is part of a
Looking After Children record and is
completed within the first two weeks of a
child coming into care or within four weeks of
a referral being made to a kinship placement
support service. The plan records how the
care team has determined to meet the needs
of the child or young person’s while they are
unable to live with their parents. The plan
links to all other types of plans (cultural
support plans for Aboriginal children,
individual education plans, and leaving care
plans).
There were 97 Out of Home (24.7 per cent)
permanent carers who would not have been
expected to have an up-to-date care and
placement plan.
Of the carers in Out of Home Care who could
have been expected to have a care and
placement plan but did not, 33 (23.7 per cent)
were kinship carers, 15 (10.8 per cent) were
foster carers, and four were residential carers
(2.7 per cent).
Overall, approximately ten per cent of those
who would reasonably have been expected
to have care and placement plans did not
have them. While this can be seen as a
positive result as indicating that a large
majority do have these plans, it nonetheless
shows that some children or young people do
not have care and placement plans who may
require them.
‘He now has the support he needs at school,
and is taking more responsibilities, the child is
a lot more settled and a lot less violent
behaviour.’
Out of Home Care participant
56
Section 9: Indigenous children or young
people and parents or carers (connected to
their culture)
Key findings
• Thirteen per cent of the sample identified as being Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, reflecting the
broader systemic over-representation of Indigenous children or young people in the protective system.
• Approximately half of their carers in this survey were non-Indigenous.
• Indigenous children or young people were younger on average than the non-Indigenous children or
young people.
• Indigenous parents or carers were less likely than others to feel that their parenting skills had improved
following accessing services, but more likely to believe that their patience had improved.
• The survey children had a generally higher level of connection with cultural activities than has been
found in other recent studies.
• Overall, there were no statistically significant differences in education, health, behaviour, relationship
and mental health outcomes found between Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in the survey.
There is significant over-representation of
Indigenous people in Australian jurisdictions
in the statutory Child Protection system
compared to the general population of
children in Victoria. The survey sample
reflects that over-representation. Indigenous
children represented 13 per cent of the
survey sample. This is broadly comparable to
the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
Child Protection Australia 2010–11 report,
which found that 10.5 per cent of the total
number of Victorian children who were the
subjects of substantiations and notifications
in 2010–11 were Indigenous. This is
compared to Indigenous representation in the
general population of children and young
people, which is only 1.1 per cent.
57
9.1
Indigenous participants
Details of the Indigenous sample by service
group and departmental region are in
Appendix H.
Comparison with other data
Child Protection Australia 2010–11
(AIHW 2012)
Survey results
The Out of Home Care parents and
carers indicated that 56 (14.3 per cent)
of their children and young people
identified as Indigenous. This is
consistent with the proportion of
Indigenous children placed in Out of
Home Care statewide (15.4 per cent
as of 30 June 2011).
Just under half of the carers for Indigenous
children or young people (57 or 44.8 per
cent) were themselves Indigenous, meaning
that over half of the Indigenous children or
young people (70 or 55.2 per cent) were
cared for by non-Indigenous carers.
The distribution by service group of children
with Indigenous carers (57) was as follows:
•
Child Protection - 21
•
Family Services - 15
•
Out of Home Care - 21
The distribution by service group of children
with non-Indigenous carers (70) was as
follows:
•
Child Protection - 15
•
Family Services - 20
•
Out of Home Care - 35
!
Family Services Integrated Reports
and Information System data (DHS
2012)
Family Services parents and carers
indicated that 35 (11.9 per cent) of
their children and young people were
Indigenous. This is a much higher
proportion than the 6.4 per cent of
Indigenous children who were
recorded on IRIS during the 12 months
from June 2011 to July 2012.
Table 17 outlines the regional distribution of
the sample cohort children or young people
and broader population data.
58
Table 17: Indigenous sample by region
Indigenous population
(within sample, not
weighted)
Region
Indigenous population
(within sample weighted)
Indigenous
population in Victoria
(SVC 2009)
n
%
n
%
%
Barwon-South Western
17
13.4
12
9.7
9.2
Grampians
19
15.0
10
8.5
5.8
Loddon Mallee
22
17.3
21
17.4
15.3
Hume
16
12.6
11
9.5
12.2
Gippsland
18
14.2
15
12.6
10.2
North and West
12
9.4
25
20.7
24.2
Eastern
10
7.9
9
7.2
8.6
Southern
13
10.2
17
14.4
14.2
Total
127
100.0
120
100.0
99.7
9.2
Duration of Child Protection
involvement
The average length of service involvement
with protective services (where recorded) is
4.49 years. The length of service involvement
was less (though not statistically significantly
so) than those who were non-Indigenous (an
average of 4.96 years).
9.3
9.4
Age of children or young
people
The Indigenous children or young people
(average age 6.54 years) were generally
younger than their non-Indigenous
counterparts (8.20 years). There was a larger
percentage of those aged under five years
who were Indigenous.
Gender distribution
There were approximately equal numbers of
male 61 (51.1 per cent) and female 59 (48.9
per cent) Indigenous children or young
people in the survey sample.
59
9.5
Parenting skills
There were differences in the reported
responses of Indigenous carers to questions
about the impact of services on their
parenting skills.
Indigenous participants were less likely to
report that they had improved in how they
related to the child (73.7 per cent) compared
to their non-Indigenous counterparts (87.0
per cent), although both reported a high level
of improvement.
When compared to non-Indigenous parents,
they were more likely to feel that their
patience with the child had improved (15.4
per cent compared to 4.8 per cent) even
though the overall response to this question
was a low frequency one.
All parents or carers were asked if certain
aspects of the child’s health and wellbeing
had improved since they had been receiving
their respective services. In respect to
improvement in the child’s safety, a higher
proportion of parents or carers of Indigenous
children or young people (95.3 per cent),
stated that the child’s safety had improved
compared to 85.1 per cent of non-Indigenous
parents or carers.
9.6
Connecting with culture
Connecting with culture is critically important
and more than half of the Indigenous children
or young people had reportedly been
involved in cultural activities (see Table 18).
There were no differences between
Indigenous and non-Indigenous carers with
regards to the proportions of children and
young people participating in these cultural
activities. The activities listed below are not
mutually exclusive, as one child may have
participated in a number of activities.
Comparison with other data sources
!
National Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Social Survey (ABS 2008a)
The State of Victoria’s Children 2009:
Aboriginal and Young People in Victoria
(AIHW 2009)
Overall the survey participants reported
higher rates of participation for children
aged three to 14 years, and 15 years and
older, in comparison to either of these
reports. The higher rates appeared to be
mainly due to reported higher rates of
participation in arts and dance events.
However, the survey participants indicated
a lower participation rate in attendance at
sports carnivals, and no young people
aged 15 years or older were said to
participate in storytelling.
Fewer of the survey children or young
people engaged in fishing or hunting than
was those described in the 2009 AIHW
report. Overall, the results for participation
in cultural activities are encouraging but
there remain opportunities for further
engagement.
60
Table 18: Participation in cultural activities for Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children or
young people
Frequency
Activities
n
%
Child participated in activities that foster knowledge / appreciation
of own culture
70
60.4
Cultural arts / dance
40
57.6
Meetings with Aboriginal community members
22
30.8
Other
20
28.6
Story telling
14
20.0
Visiting traditional lands
11
15.3
Sports Carnivals
6
8.1
Hunting / fishing with Aboriginal / Torres Strait Islander community
members
4
6.3
Visiting Aboriginal museums
4
5.3
Koori playgroup
3
3.6
Table 19: Comparison of rates of cultural participation by Victorian Indigenous children and young
people by age group
Survey
ABS (2008a)
AIHW (2009)
DEECD (2010)
%
%
%
%
Overall Participation
60.5
59.0
54.2
-
Arts and Dance
57.4
27.6
-
-
Sports Carnivals
7.7
16.9
-
-
Story Telling
22.7
0.0
-
15.4
Hunting or Fishing
5.9
0.0
-
9.2
36.7
36.7
36.7
36.7
Overall Participation
88.5
48.5
53.4
-
Arts and Dance
84.0
24.5
-
-
Sports Carnivals
13.8
22.6
-
-
-
-
-
11.2%
8.0
-
-
10.5 %
(Hunt)
Cultural Activity
Age group 3–14 years
Age group 15 years and over
Story Telling
Hunting or Fishing
35.1%
(Fish)
61
Section 10: Parent or carer experiences of
services
Key findings
• The researchers used a prior study, the Child Protection Client and Family Survey (Thomas and
Associates 2002) as a benchmark to determine the extent to which there have been changes to carers’
experience over time.
• Overall, the data illustrate that there have been positive improvements on a range of relational and
informational indicators concerning service delivery since 2002.
• Nevertheless, there is room for improvement of the information provision, particularly of rights-based
matters.
• The Family Services group were much more positive about their experiences than were the Out of
Home Care and, in particular, the Child Protection group parents or carers many of whom presented as
being aggrieved by the court related intervention processes.
• The majority of parents or carers found the services were useful, and that workers were available and
responsive when needed, although this was more frequently reported for Family Services and Out of
Home Care than Child Protection.
• There was generally positive experiences identified in the overall service environment, such as feeling
welcomed, although the qualitative data illustrates a more mixed picture with some being very critical of
the physical office environment.
• Overall, the results were positive for the ongoing reform agenda as they highlight improved
communication and more inclusive practice approaches with parents or carers.
• The survey children or young people had lower levels of accessing paid employment than the broad
community.
The survey asked carers a range of
questions about the types of experiences that
children or young people and parents or
carers had with the three service systems, in
particular the provision of information about
services and decision-making processes, the
use of client information, the provision of
services and their utility, the appropriateness
of the office environment and whether safety
levels and parenting had improved.
The researchers used a prior study, the Child
Protection Client and Family Survey (Thomas
and Associates 2002) as a benchmark to
determine the extent to which there have
been changes to carers’ experience over
time.
In the Thomas and Associates report a need
was identified for Child Protection workers to
provide clearer information and to be more
inclusive of clients and parents in decisionmaking processes.
62
10.1
Provision of information and use
Provision of information linked to worker assistance
Parents or carers receiving Family Services,
generally speaking, highly rated the provision
of information, the services and the worker
assistance they received. Within this group,
91.4 per cent (262) reported that their most
recent worker had given them information
about support being provided.
A reasonably large proportion of Out of Home
carers (83.8 per cent, 304) felt they had
sufficient opportunity to have contact with
their current support service (community
service organisation or Department of Human
Services). They reported generally high
levels of support from services and worker
assistance, and slightly more than half (53.4
per cent, 194) stated that a Department of
Human Services or agency worker had
provided them with information about the
options available to enable a review of their
situation.
Although the Child Protection participants
were the least satisfied overall with worker
assistance, a significantly increased
proportion of Child Protection parents or
carers reported improvements in
communication. A total of 93.6 per cent of
parents and carers stated that workers
explained why they were visiting (an increase
in 33 per cent from the 2002 study). A high
proportion (82.6 per cent or 239) said their
worker explained the reasons for actions to
be taken, and 78.2 per cent (219) confirmed
that they had been given information about
what needed to change.
When compared to the Thomas and
Associates (2002) reported findings (labelled
CPCFS in Figure 17 and elsewhere), the
proportion who stated that the ‘worker
provided information about the services that
were needed (all or most of the time)’
decreased from 62.3 per cent in the 2002
study to 57.1 per cent in this current survey.
This, however, was the only aspect of Child
Protection service experience where there
had not been a reported improvement since
2002.
‘I find that I have had to do all the work
finding out what is available for us. I
think the DHS were not forthcoming
with information that would have been
very helpful.’
Out of Home Care participant
‘’The most recent worker was very good
at keeping me informed and was very
approachable.’
Child Protection participant
63
Figure 17: Information provision and use
Appropriate use of client information
Approximately one quarter of the Child
Protection participants felt that their
information had been used in an
inappropriate way (see Figure 17), which was
many times more than the corresponding
figure for the other groups. They reported in
their qualitative comments to the interviewer
that their details had been lost, misplaced or
given to a third party without their consent;
that information and things they had said
were later used in court against them; that
untruthful claims had been made about them;
or that their workers had been prejudiced
against them based on information they
received.
64
Table 20 provides a themed grouping of the
frequency of the negative qualitative
comments by parents or carers about the
inappropriate use of information by workers,
and highlights how much more this was an
issue for Child Protection parents or carers.
Of particular note is that the highest
frequency of negative comments about Child
Protection were made within the context of
Children’s Court proceedings, where
relationships are often most conflictual.
This issue requires further consideration,
ultimately because it goes to the heart of the
worker–parent relationship and the matter of
trust, as well as the impact of court
proceedings on the nature of the worker–
parent relationship.
‘Information I gave them about my medication and that I was going to go into detox to change
my medication and they turned that into me having a drug problem.’
Child Protection participant
‘My DHS file was opened by a worker and e-mailed to my partner more than once.’
Out of Home Care participant
65
Table 20: Frequency of negative qualitative comments regarding inappropriate use of information
‘The information provided by the parent/ carer was
used in an inappropriate way.’
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home
Care
19
3
12
2
1
6
27
5
2
3
0
2
14
2
1
Feeling judged / made assumptions / were
prejudicial based on information
8
4
2
Lost information / careless with data and /or
information
3
0
1
Breach of confidentiality
Name / address / phone number was provided to a
third party without consent
Information I gave was used against me (i.e. in
court)
Used in custody disputes
Made untruthful claims
I told the worker things and she used it
against me in court rather than helping to
get services.’
Child Protection participant
‘I am still waiting to find out what my rights
and responsibilities are. I have been asking
for two years now.’
Out of Home Care participant
‘My phone number was given out
on a form that was sent to the
biological parents.’
Family Services participant
‘I told them things in confidence that have
later been brought up by the person I was
talking about.’
Child Protection participant
Information about rights and
complaints
The study data also reveals that the Child
Protection and Out of Home Care groups
perceived a lack of information provision
concerning their rights to information and
complaint processes, while this was generally
not the case for the Family Services parents
or carers.
The disparities in the data for the groups may
partly indicate a cultural difference in the
ways in which workers in different
organisational contexts view the importance
of client rights, or different procedures and
processes operating concerning the provision
of information. They may also arise from
parents of the Child Protection service group
feeling aggrieved about investigative
inquiries, which prioritise the safety of
children over the rights of parents. In any
event, the issue requires further policy
attention to improve the practice of providing
information about client rights and feedback
processes, along with building trusting and
effective helping relationships.
66
10.2
Service environment
Survey questions
Parents and carers were asked questions
about whether they were made to feel
welcome when they visited services and
whether office environments were
appropriate and safe.
Survey results
Figure 18 reveals that from many
parents’/carers’ perspectives the office
environment is not found to be a supportive
or safe environment to visit. Despite this, the
majority of participants identified that they
were made to feel welcome, although the
Child Protection group are less likely to
indicate this than the others.
Some Out of Home Care participants
qualitative comments reported the office
environment was unpleasant, small and dark,
there was nothing for children to do, that the
child ’feels it’s like a jail’, that the area
brought back memories of trauma, or that
they did not appreciate the behaviour of other
clients.
Qualitative responses from parents or carers
have also further illustrated these
participants’ viewpoints and highlighted
particular issues. It should be noted that,
understandably, there was a mixed array of
qualitative responses.
Figure 18: Response to service
67
Table 21 depicts a thematic grouping of the
negative qualitative responses from Out of
Home Care carers regarding the unsuitability
of the office environment for children.
‘‘I feel that the child would be
stressed by going there as it is
painted black and dark inside and
that is bad for children with traumas.’
Out of Home Care participant
Table 21: Out of Home Care: Themed grouping of negative qualitative comments on office
suitability
The service / agency office is not an appropriate or safe environment
It is an unpleasant environment / small / dark / dangerous
12
It is not child friendly / nothing for children to do
8
It brought back memories / trauma
6
Other clients are noisy / argumentative
25
10.3
Service responsiveness
Context
This data provides key indicators of the
parents’ and carers’ perspectives of the
relational aspects of the helping process, that
is, the development of open communication,
the accessibility of help when it is needed,
and the perceived level of worker interest in
their situation.
These evaluations of aspects of the relational
process are important outcomes in their own
right. As such, they are important baseline
figures for comparison with future study data
findings.
Overall, there are positive indications that the
policy and practice reforms have led to
improvements in some key areas including
information provision and the interactions
between workers and families. The findings
strongly suggest that workers are being a lot
clearer in their communication and allowing
parents or carers to make greater
contributions to discussion and decisionmaking.
Given that the system has undergone
profound change across a number of areas,
this is welcome news. However, the data also
indicates that there is opportunity for further
improvement in some critical areas of the
relational and informational aspects of
interactions between workers and parents or
carers.
Survey results
All three groups reported increased
satisfaction with workers’ responses and
services compared to the 2002 Thomas and
Associates study (see Figure 19). The
responses from Family Services and Out of
Home Care groups suggested that they were
happier with these services than Child
Protection groups.
This is consistent with the much higher levels
of agreement from all the service groups that
the services arranged were found to be
useful (see Figure 18). Clearly, a large
68
majority of parents or carers found that the
services that were provided met their needs
and were beneficial. These results were
significantly higher than the Thomas and
Associates 2002 findings which did not
include Family Services..
Although both groups rated quite highly (over
93.0 per cent) that the worker explained why
they were visiting, qualitative data shows that
there are mixed responses regarding the
necessity and justifications of Child
Protection workers’ actions.
Additionally, there have been substantial
improvements, compared to the 2002
responses, in the proportion of parents or
carers who concluded that there was
sufficient opportunity to put forward their
views, albeit with significant differences
between the three groups and with the
Family Services group being the largest.
While worker contact showed that their
availability had improved since 2002, there is
still a large percentage of Child Protection
parents or carers who did not express
satisfaction with their access to Department
of Human Services staff. There is opportunity
for further improvement.
There was a substantial increase in the
familiarity of new staff with the families’
situations with Out of Home Care parents
and to a lesser extent Child Protection, and
this is an important indicator of the overall
quality of the relationships.
Figure 19: Response to worker assistance
69
Section 11: Service effectiveness
Key findings
• Overall, the Child Protection and Family Services families are stressed due to high needs and multiple
complex issues and they require significant and broad ranging support systems in order to address
matters and remain intact.
• The survey data confirm the potential of the Family Services system to provide long-term beneficial
support to families.
• A range of services is provided which are mostly targeted to address issues associated with child
abuse and neglect, for example domestic violence and counselling.
• The level of services provided to address issues associated with disability appear to be lower than the
identified needs of these families.
• There was high support expressed by Family Services parents or carers for services having improved
their parenting skills, but only about half of the Child Protection group concurred.
• For those parents or carers who believed their parenting skills had improved, there was high support
for the services across a range of indicators, including relating better to their children or young people
and managing better.
• Family Services parents and carers were considerably more positive than the Child Protection parents
or carers regarding improvements in their child or young person’s wellbeing and health, but for those
who believed that improvements had occurred, areas such as child safety, mental health and behaviour
were identified.
• Overall, despite negative opinions expressed about services, Child Protection participants reported
generally better relationship, health, education and behavioural outcomes for their children than Family
Services participants. This finding may warrant further study.
• Overall, the results were positive for the ongoing reform agenda as they highlight the importance of
relational aspects of professional interventions.
70
11.1 Duration of service intervention for Out of Home Care and Child
Protection
The total time spent within the protective
system was recorded for 671 Child Protection
and Out of Home Care participants. This
information was not recorded for Family
Services participants. If involvement was
ongoing, the interview date was used to
calculate the ‘end’ date.
The duration of service intervention differed
significantly between Child Protection and
Out of Home Care groups, however, this is
probably a reflection of the relative age range
of each group. The majority of children in the
Child Protection group were aged between 6
months to five years, and this is reflected in
the higher proportion of clients in receipt of
service intervention for less than five years.
Table 22: Duration of service intervention by service group
Cohort
Both groups
Total # years
Mean years
A few days to almost 17 years
4.89
1–15 years
2.88
Less than 1 year to 16.9 years
6.38
Child Protection
Out of Home Care
Out of Home Care
The total cumulative years of involvement
with intervention services for the Out of
Home Care group ranged between less than
one year to 16.9 years, with an average of
6.38 years.
The majority of children in the Out of Home
Care group were aged between six to 11
years (with an average of 9.61 years) and
this is reflected in the higher proportion of
clients (54.8 per cent) in receipt of a service
intervention for more than five years’
duration.
Few of the children and young people in this
group had received a service intervention for
less than one year. Of those who had,
approximately two-thirds were younger than
12 years old.
71
Figure 20: Out of Home Care: Age group by years of service intervention
72
11.2
Family Services
Family Services are a major provider of
support services to families of children where
there have been significant concerns for the
child’s wellbeing. Family Services are a
critical component of the Victorian
Government’s child welfare reforms.
One of the key aims has been to ensure that
families and children can be offered more
consistent, longer episodes of support than
would be possible with other services.
11.2.1 Duration of current service
contact
The survey explored the duration of the
current episode of Family Services
involvement. Data was received from 281 (96
per cent) of participants and indicates that:
•
over one quarter (77 or 27.4 per cent)
have received services for up to six
months
•
almost one quarter (63 or 22.5 per
cent) have received services for six to
12 months
•
nearly one third (83 or 29.6 per cent)
have received services from between
one to two years
•
a further 49 (or 17 per cent) have
received services from two to five
years.
Given that nearly half (47 per cent) of the
participants indicated they had been in
receipt of existing services for more than a
year, this profile is one which confirms Family
Services’ overall capacity to provide longterm support to families.
11.2.2 Frequency of service contact
The frequency of contact between the
sample child or young person and Family
Services support in the past three months
was reported by parents or carers to be:
•
weekly – 104 (or 43.4 per cent)
•
fortnightly – 55 (or 22.9 per cent)
•
monthly – 36 (or 15.1 per cent).
Relatively high proportions of children and
young people were receiving a high level of
Family Support services (see Table 23).
11.2.3 Service components
Survey question
Family Services participants were asked
which service components they were
receiving and their descriptions reflect their
understanding of the primary services that
they are receiving.
Survey results
Mental health service assistance was
provided to a high percentage of children and
young people to address their emotional,
psychological and behavioural issues (see
Table 23).
The proportion of children receiving disability
support was low relative to the percentage of
children who were reported as having a
learning difficulty. While some of these
children may have had a learning disorder
rather than an intellectual disability,
nevertheless this matter requires further
examination because it has particular
relevance for the broad program and specific
services designed to meet the needs of these
children and young people, and their families.
We have already identified that as a group,
these were generally large families who have
higher proportions of children with disabilities
and social/emotional problems requiring
significant supports for extended periods.
73
Table 23: Frequency of service use reported by Family Services parents or carers
n
%
Which types of services are you/your child currently receiving?
None of these
38
13.0
Mental Health support
72
24.6
Family Support
58
19.7
Child Protection
31
10.8
Disability support
31
10.8
Another type of service
17
5.9
Family violence support
28
9.6
Juvenile Justice
3
0.9
How long have you and your child been receiving services for the child during this current period of support?
Less than one month
2
0.8
1 to 6 months
77
27.4
More than 6 months
63
22.5
1 to 2 years
83
29.6
2 to 5 years
49
17.3
More than 5 years
7
2.4
11.3
Service impact
Context
Survey questions
An important focus of the survey has been
the impact of services on the ability of
parents or carers to effectively and safely
parent the children or young people in their
care. Their responses indicate their own
views about improvements, and these may
be different from other more ‘objective’
assessments. Nonetheless the perceptions of
parents or carers are critical to understanding
the impact of service responses on improved
parenting. An important difference between
the Child Protection parents or carers and the
other two groups is that the former are
involuntarily receiving intervention and this
may well be an important factor shaping their
viewpoints about services.
A series of questions were put to the Child
Protection and Family Services parents or
carers that sought their perceptions of ways
in which their parenting skills had improved,
the initial question being whether or not any
improvement had occurred.
Survey results
Table 24 identifies a significant difference in
perception among service groups about
whether or not parenting skills had improved
as a result of help provided. There is a large
and significant disparity between Child
Protection and Family Services groups, with
only around half of the Child Protection
parents or carers answering positively.
These findings lend further weight to the
earlier data, which demonstrates a generally
more positive outlook to the interventions and
services by those receiving services from the
Family Services agencies when compared to
the Child Protection parents or carers.
74
However, for those from both groups who
believed that improvements had occurred,
there were many similarities about the
specific nature of the changes to parenting
and the resultant relational and other issues.
‘I would have been the same parent with
or without them. I probably would have
been much better without them. They
made me feel insecure.’
These results indicate that when parents or
carers concluded that their parenting
improved, they generally felt more confident
in their parenting, were better able to relate to
their children and better manage their
behaviour, as well as relate to others and
manage their finances.
‘Learning more about the cerebral palsy
part of the child’s life.’
Table 25 summarises the grouped themes of
qualitative data about the positive and
negative impacts of services upon parenting
skills.
‘I believe that had we had help from when
I first asked would have helped but I had
to tell my story several times till we got
the help we needed.’
Child Protection participants were more
negative than Family Services participants
about improvement to their parenting skills,
but they reported more positive outcomes in
health, educational and behavioural outcome
areas. Just because protective interventions
occurred involuntarily does not necessarily
mean that parents or carers did not
appreciate or make use of services and
supports.
Family Services participant
Comments from the Child Protection carers
were divided between those who felt they
were supported by Child Protection services
and had benefitted from their help, and those
who felt that they had been detrimental or
little to no help. A number of parents or
carers felt that they did not require help in
being a parent, while other parents or carers
mentioned being more patient with the child,
and having improved communication and
self-confidence.
Child Protection participant
Child Protection participant
‘They didn't really do anything. They just
came and saw that I was doing the right
thing. They didn't provide any sort of
assistance.’
Child Protection participant
‘The people I deal with now are
wonderful, if I need help the case worker
is always there for me.’
Out of Home Care participant
‘Controlling the kids and coping better
when they’re being naughty.’
Child Protection participant
‘I can talk to my kids calmly and give the
kids a time out, instead of yelling at them.’
Family Services participant
‘They have been disruptive to our family
dynamic. I think they missed the mark in
helping our family.’
Out of Home Care participant
75
Table 24: Improvement of parenting skills for Child Protection and Family Services
Child Protection
n
Family Services
%
n
%
Has Your Parenting Improved since services have been involved?
Yes
135
47.1
240
84.8
No
152
52.2
43
15.2
If yes, in what areas do you think your parenting skills have improved? Would you say you are more able to
meet the child’s needs? Note: (Not statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
121
90.6
225
94.4
No
13
9.4
13
5.6
Would you say you are more able to understand your child’s point of view?
Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
115
86.9
220
93.1
No
17
13.1
16
6.9
Are you more able to communicate more easily with the child?
Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
109
81.8
215
90.5
No
24
18.2
23
9.5
Would you say you are more able to manage the child’s behaviour?
(Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
103
77.3
211
88.5
No
30
22.7
27
11.5
Would you say you are more able to relate to the child?
(Note: (Not statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
109
82.4
209
87.6
No
23
17.6
30
12.4
Would you say you are more able to teach the child how to do things?
(Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
105
78.3
209
87.0
No
29
21.7
31
12.0
Would you say you are more able to manage your finances?
(Note: (Not statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
90
68.4
156
67.0
No
42
31.6
77
33.0
Would you say you are more able to relate to other people?
(Note: (Not statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
101
76.5
186
78.2
No
31
23.5
52
21.8
Would you say you are more able to be a confident parent?
(Note: (Not statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
114
85.0
216
91.1
No
20
15.0
21
8.9
76
Table 25: Themed grouping of qualitative comments on the impact of services on parenting skills
Themes based on verbatim responses given by clients
Child Protection
Help provided by Family Services / Child Protection has helped
me to improve my parenting skills
Family Services
135
240
Improved my patience
4
17
Better manage my own behaviour
4
23
Learnt new or improved ‘household’ skills
4
11
Closer with children / bond / play / interact
5
7
I am happier / more positive / open minded / aware
9
14
Helped with my other children also
4
2
Everything / overall improvement
2
5
Help provided by Family Services / Child Protection has NOT helped improve my parenting skills for the
following reasons:
Nothing has changed / everything is the same
16
3
They made things worse
60
10
It wasn’t the type of help / support I needed
22
14
I already had / have good parenting skills
29
6
They just tell me what I already know
4
1
I disagree with their information / advice
3
1
10
2
Poor administration / they don’t return phone calls
1
2
Their staff aren’t skilled / I teach them
3
2
I didn’t need their help
11.4
Improvements in child’s wellbeing and health
Survey questions
Survey results
The Family Services and Child Protection
groups were asked questions about
improvements in their child or young person’s
wellbeing and health, and whether they
directly attributed this to the provision of
services, with the second question only being
asked of those who said yes to the first
question (Table 26).
A statistically significant difference was found
between service groups with a much higher
proportion of Family Services participants
(81.6 per cent) reporting that their child’s
wellbeing or health had improved since
receiving services, compared the Child
Protection carers (44.8 per cent). There was
overwhelming agreement from Family
Services participants (94.6 per cent) that this
was as a result of involvement by services.
Just 78.8 per cent of Child Protection carers
who reported that their child’s wellbeing or
health had improved agreed that service
involvement was a factor.
‘He now has the support he needs at school,
and is taking more responsibilities, the child is
a lot more settled and a lot less violent
behaviour’
Out of Home Care participant
‘Being able to have exposure to the world and
things instead of being locked in a house like
before or running feral in the street.’
Child Protection participant
77
Table 26: Improvements in child's wellbeing or health across service groups
Service groups
Child Protection
Family Services
n
n
%
%
Out of Home Care
n
%
Do you think the child’s wellbeing or health has improved since the above service groups have been
providing services? (Note: Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
127
44.8
229
81.6
322
89.9
No
157
55.2
52
18.4
36
10.1
Do you think these improvements have occurred as a result of the involvement of services?
(Note: Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
96
78.8
211
94.6
270
86.6
No
26
21.2
12
5.4
42
13.4
11.5
Specific improvements in child’s wellbeing and health
Survey question
Those parents or carers who answered in the
affirmative to the question above and
indicated they believed their child’s wellbeing
and health had improved were asked a series
of questions to elicit more details about the
specific areas of improvement and these are
outlined in Table 27.
Survey results
For the Child Protection participants who
indicated that their child’s wellbeing or health
had improved, the most frequently cited
areas of improvement (compared to Family
Services carers) were safety, physical and
mental health, healthy lifestyle and
happiness. Family Services carers cited
education and behaviour more frequently.
In every way he has improved, and is even allowed
to go on school camps now as his behaviour much
improved, last year he was suspended 11 times
from school, this year not once.’
Family Services participant
‘The child in the last 12 months he has been less
violent but he is not going to school and he needs
more support as he is getting nowhere enough help
as he is not “disabled enough”.’
Qualitative responses described
improvements to child health and wellbeing
as well as to the living conditions within the
family home.
The greatest number of responses
mentioned the improved emotional health of
the child and the child’s attitude, a decrease
in violent behaviour and improved social
interaction and communication.
Improvements in sleeping, hygiene, motor
skills and speech were also frequently
reported by parents or carers to be a result of
the services they have received.
These results indicate generally positive
perceptions and, in some areas such as child
safety, mental health and behaviour, highly
positive views of improvements in the child’s
wellbeing.
The generally more positive perceptions of
child outcomes held by Out of Home carers
indicate that predominantly stable care
arrangements have a positive impact on
children’s health, wellbeing and relationships.
This area is worthy of further exploration in
future surveys.
Family Services participant
78
Table 27: Improvements to child’s health and wellbeing due to services
Service Groups
Child Protection
n
%
Family Services
n
Out of Home Care
%
n
%
Have any of the following improved since Child Protection/family services/out of home care have been
providing services to you?
Child’s Safety Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
104
83.3
157
70.4
316
98.4
No
21
16.7
66
29.6
5
1.6
Physical Health Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
88
70.8
137
60.2
297
93.0
No
36
29.2
90
39.8
23
7.0
Child’s Mental Health Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
105
89.3
185
86.5
279
93.1
No
13
10.7
29
13.5
21
6.9
Child’s Education Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
77
64.8
164
76.0
281
91.1
No
42
35.2
52
24.0
27
8.9
Child’s Behaviour Note: (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
93
77.5
183
82.9
268
88.1
No
27
22.5
38
17.1
36
11.9
Child’s Relationship with primary carer Note: (Not statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
100
82.3
190
84.3
259
82.8
No
22
17.7
35
15.7
54
17.2
Child’s Relationship with other family members (including wider family): Note (Not statistically significant
differences between service groups)
Yes
96
79.5
163
74.4
253
82.6
No
25
20.5
56
25.6
53
17.4
Child’s Relationships with friends: Note (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
80
68.1
158
74.2
250
82.5
No
38
31.9
55
25.8
53
17.5
Child’s Self Confidence: Note (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
93
81.0
170
80.6
275
91.1
No
22
19.0
41
19.4
27
8.9
Child’s Self-Care: Note (Statistically significant differences between service groups)
Yes
91
75.4
157
73.0
273
90.0
No
30
24.6
58
27.0
30
10.0
Note: To facilitate the inquiry, ‘do not know’ responses were removed for analysis.
79
Section 12: Service experience and parent or
carer perception of outcomes
This section provides a further exploration of
the relationship between the parent or carer
participants’ experiences of service and their
perceptions of outcomes for their child or
young person’s health and wellbeing, and for
their own parenting skills.
The researchers undertook detailed
regression analysis on the impact of specific
factors and their contribution to parents’ or
carers’ perceptions of positive outcomes. The
results are summarised below. A more
detailed description of the methodology of the
regression analysis is available in Child and
Family Services Outcomes Survey:
regression analysis of service experience
and parent or carer perception of outcomes
available at <www.dhs.vic.gov.au>.
In the previous sections the analyses have
demonstrated that the different service
groups have varying perceptions of the
impact of services interventions on their
children’s health and wellbeing and on their
own parenting skills. As has been
demonstrated, the Child Protection
participants were often far less positive than
the Family Services and Out of Home Care
groups.
The nature of the relationship of parents or
carers in the Child Protection group with
Child Protection services is very complex.
They are less likely than those in other
groups to perceive positive changes, and
when they do they are less likely to attribute
those changes to the services provided
through the Child Protection intervention.
However, the results of the regression
analysis reveal that improvements in the
relational and informational practice of
workers can be expected to have a marked
positive impact, at least from the Child
Protection and Family Services parent’s or
3
carer’s perspective .
Health linked to behaviour
When parents or carers perceived
improvement in the child’s or young person’s
health, regardless of whether or not it was
attributed to the services provided, there was
a significant increase (300 per cent – Child
Protection; 140 per cent Family Services) in
their positive perception of the child’s prosocial behaviour and psychopathology. That
is, there was a shift from the perception of
the child’s behaviour as ‘at risk’ to ‘borderline’
or ‘normal’, which may be assumed to have
as a corollary an improved outcome for the
child’s health and wellbeing.
Worker responsiveness linked to
parenting skills
When Child Protection and Family Services
parents or carers had positive perceptions of
their worker’s response to requests for
assistance, there was a 400 per cent
increase in the likelihood that they would
perceive an improvement in their parenting
skills.
When Child Protection parents or carers
perceived that the worker had contacted
them as often as they felt was needed, there
3
For the Out of Home Care group, carers’
experiences of services did not predict outcomes
either emotional and behavioural difficulties or for
carers’ perceptions in the improvements in the
child’s or young person’s health.
80
was a 227 per cent increase in the likelihood
that they would perceive an improvement in
their parenting skills.
When Child Protection parents and carers
perceived that they had the opportunity to
express their views about the service, and
that they were made to feel welcome in the
agency, there was an associated increased
likelihood of the parent’s or carer’s
engagement in improving parenting skills.
Specifically, there was a threefold increase in
the likelihood that parents perceived
improvement in their parenting skills due to
the involvement of the service.
Conclusions
This analysis suggests that the parent or
carer experience of their relationship with
workers may be a factor in improving
outcomes, and is within the remit of service
organisations to positively influence.
Respectful relationships and the provision of
needed information are a foundation for
effective service delivery and, therefore,
positive outcomes for children’s and young
people’s health and wellbeing.
This analysis is supported by Thomas and
Associates (2002) who noted that parents
recognise and appreciate when workers
listen to them and understand, are involved in
decision-making, linked to services, and
receive the help they need.
While it is recognised that the perception of
improved skills may not equate with an actual
improvement of parenting skills measured by
more objective instruments, it is nevertheless
a necessary, if not sufficient, element of the
process of gaining and continuing to gain
skills that are essential to the health and
wellbeing of the children and young people in
their care.
81
Appendix A: Survey methodology
Sampling
In order to ensure adequate numbers to allow
a meaningful analysis of the survey data and
to ensure that ‘false positive’ and ‘false
negative’ statistical errors were eliminated
from the delivered sample. Rural regions
samples were increased beyond the census
for that region.
The study sample was analysed by weighting
according to the regional distribution of these
population groups to ensure that the results
reflect a statistically valid statewide
representative sample of each of the three
sample groups. Further, Indigenous children
and young people were also oversampled in
this survey to ensure a large enough sample
for meaningful analyses.
Participation was voluntary for all and no
reason was required to be given for refusal to
participate. In all cases consent to participate
was confirmed by the interviewer prior to
conducting the survey interview. Prior to
commencement, potential participants were
given access to a confidential free-call
telephone helpline for any queries about the
study. An email address was established to
enable parents or carers and agencies to
access information about the study.
Procedure for participant selection
and recruitment
Child Protection and Out of Home
Care
For both the Child Protection and Out of
Home Care groups a random sample was
selected from the stratified sample pool
derived from CRIS, and case records of
potential participants were checked against
the inclusion and exclusion criteria for entry
into the study.
For these service groups, a participation rate
and a response rate for the study were
calculated. The response rate was estimated
by dividing the number of participants
completing the survey by the number of
completed interviews added to the number of
participant refusals. The participation rate
was estimated by dividing the number of
participants who completed the survey by the
total number of participants that were
selected from the sample pool.
The number of participant refusals was
calculated by adding together those who
declined to participate at all stages of the
survey i.e. pre interview, following initial
contact by interviewers (when consent was
sought) and during the interview.
Those deemed out of scope included those
whose circumstances had changed between
selection and contact by interviewers so that
they no longer met the criteria for inclusion in
the survey. This also included situations
where the basis for inclusion in the survey
was contested by the person contacted.
In accordance with the study’s ethical
requirements a detailed procedure was used
to select and recruit participants.
82
Table 28: Estimated survey response and participation data
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
n
%
n
%
n
%
Uncontactable
173
31
16
5
21
4.5
Participant refusal
56
10
3*
39
8.5
Out of scope at time of Interview
32
6
13
4
7
1.5
Completed interview
289
72
293
73
391
98
Total selected
552
325
458
Participation rate
52
85
Response rate
84
91
* Note: This figure represents only those Family Services participants who declined participation at
interview.
Family Services
Survey Tool and Process
For the Family Services group, the
researchers aimed to select parents or carers
of a representative sample of children and
young people receiving services from a
Family Service agency where that service
holds case management responsibility. The
key demographic characteristics of age,
gender and Indigenous status of the
population of Family Service clients across
the state for the 12-month period preceding
the study were extracted from the
Department of Human Services’ Integrated
Reports and Information System (IRIS).
Managers from Family Services agencies
were requested to randomly select
participants on the basis of a specific
demographic information provided by
researchers. A total of 71 Family Services
agencies participated in the selection of
participants for the survey (see Appendix C).
The initial development of the survey
instrument was co-ordinated by DEECD.
DEECD commissioned the Australian
Institute of Family Studies with assistance
from the University of Adelaide in 2008 to
undertake preliminary work. The
questionnaire was tailored to provide data
and information for the Child Protection,
Placement and Family Services Outcomes
Framework. This work was subsequently coordinated by the Department of Human
Services towards the end of 2009.
Response and participation rates could not
be accurately estimated for this service
group.
Details of the selection and recruitment
procedure are outlined in Appendix A.
The survey instrument was designed to
gather information about the child or young
person’s health and wellbeing outcomes,
including questions about the child or young
person’s physical and mental health,
education, relationships and behaviour,
connection to family, community and school,
and their engagement in cultural and social
activities. It consisted of structured response
set questions and the Social Research
Centre interviewers followed detailed
protocols to administer the telephone survey
supported by Computer Assisted Telephone
Interview (CATI).
83
Open-ended questions were also asked of
participants in order to elicit qualitative
information, particularly about the perceived
quality and usefulness of services.
A pilot telephone survey was conducted by
the Social Research Centre in August and
September 2010 that tested the questions
and methodology in one region.
Approximately ten per cent of questions were
modified following testing, and participant
recruitment methodology was altered for the
Child Protection participants in order to
increase the response rate. These changes
received ethical approval in November 2010.
The telephone survey interviews for the full
study commenced in February 2011 and
were completed in March 2012.
The survey instrument is available in its
entirety at <www.dhs.vic.gov.au>.
Data analysis
Before the data analysis, quantitative data
was screened for data entry and missing
values. Refusal to respond or not knowing
the answer (where this information was not
pertinent) was treated as missing data. All
percentages reported were based on nonmissing responses. The data was then coded
and analysed using Statistical Package for
the Social Sciences v18 (2009). Frequency
and descriptive statistics were used to
identify trends. An alpha level of 0.05 was
used as the level for statistical significance.
The survey data were also investigated using
chi square analyses, Spearman’s Rho
correlations, and ANOVA and t-tests for
associations between variables. Logistic
regression modelling was used to analyse
more specific associations between specific
psychological and service delivery outcomes
identified in the general statistical
investigation.
For this study to allow a meaningful analysis
of the survey data, the Out of Home Care
and the Child Protection samples were
increased beyond the size that would reflect
a representative sample. Thus the study
sample was weighted according to the
statewide regional distribution of these
population groups to ensure that the results
reflect a statistically valid statewide
representative sample of each of the service
population groups. Indigenous children and
young people were also oversampled to
ensure a large enough sample for meaningful
analyses. Overall, the methodology has
allowed samples that are large, and analysis
that is robust and broadly representative of
each of these early intervention and Child
Protection populations.
Ethics considerations
Ethics approval to conduct this study was
given by The Human Research Ethics
Committee, Department of Health, Victoria.
This committee ensures that all research
‘involving or impacting on humans’ conforms
to the National Statement on Ethical Conduct
in Human Research (National Health and
Medical Research Council (NHMRC) 2007a)
and also the Australian Code for the
Responsible Conduct of Research (NHMRC
2007b) and, in addition, it complies with
legislation regarding information privacy in
accordance with the Victorian Information
Privacy Act 2000 (Parliament of Victoria), and
Victorian Health Records Act 2001
(Parliament of Victoria). Furthermore, ethics
approval was given from the ethics approval
bodies of four Community Service
Organisations – Anglicare Victoria, MacKillop
Family Services, Berry Street, and Good
Shepherd Youth and Family Services.
84
Appendix B: Out of Home Care agencies
supporting recruitment to the survey
Table 29: Out of Home Care agencies supporting recruitment to the survey
Region
Out of Home Care Agency
Number of Participants
1
Lakidjeka Aboriginal Child Specialist Advice Support Service
1
2
Brophy Family and Youth Services Inc
2
3
Community Connections Geelong
3
4
Glastonbury Community Services
4
5
Community Connections Warrnambool
6
6
MacKillop Family Services
6
7
Bethany
7
Barwon South West
8
Department of Human Services
19
Total
8
Eastern Metropolitan
Total
48
1
Cara Inc.
1
2
OzChild
1
3
The Salvation Army EastCare
1
4
Youth for Christ Victoria
1
5
Anchor Inc.
7
6
Department of Human Services
17
7
Anglicare Victoria
23
7
51
1
Ballarat and District Aboriginal Cooperative
1
2
Pinarc Disability Support
1
3
Lisa Lodge
2
4
Wimmera Uniting Care
4
5
Child and Family Services
14
Grampians
6
Department of Human Services
27
Total
6
Gippsland
1
Gippsland and East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative
2
2
Anglicare Gippsland
3
3
Quantum Support Services
3
4
Uniting Care Gippsland
4
5
Berry Street Gippsland
11
6
Department of Human Services
26
Total
6
49
49
85
Region
Hume
Total
Out of Home Care Agency Cont’d
Number of Participants
1
Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative
3
2
Merriwa Industries Ltd
5
3
Upper Murray Family Care
13
4
Berry Street
17
5
Department of Human Services
18
5
56
1
Mallee Aboriginal Corporation
2
2
Mallee Accommodation and Support Program Inc.
2
3
Mallee Family Care
4
4
St Luke’s Anglicare
7
Loddon Mallee
5
Department of Human Services
22
Total
5
North & West
Metropolitan
37
1
Community Connections
2
2
MacKillop Family Services
2
3
The Salvation Army Westcare
2
4
Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency
3
5
Baptcare
4
6
Berry Street
6
7
Kildonan Child and Family Services
6
8
Anglicare Victoria
10
9
Department of Human Services
19
Total
9
Southern Metropolitan
1
Berry Street
1
2
The Salvation Army Southern
1
3
Menzies Inc. Youth Services
2
4
MacKillop Family Services
3
5
Wesley Mission
3
6
Department of Human Services
15
7
OzChild – Children Australia
22
Total
Grand Total
54
7
47
53
391
86
Appendix C: Number of participants by family
services agency and region
Table 30: Participants by family services agency and region
Region
Barwon SW
Total
Eastern
Metropolitan
Total
Family Service Agency
Number of Participants
1
Bellarine Community Health Ltd
3
2
Community Connections Warrnambool
3
3
Brophy Family and Youth Services Inc.
4
4
City of Greater Geelong
4
5
Bethany
6
6
Glastonbury Community Services
7
7
Colac Area Health
9
7
36
1
Eastern Access Community Health
1
2
Knox Community Health Service
3
3
Monash Youth and Family Services
3
4
Uniting Care East Burwood Centre
5
5
Camcare
7
6
Uniting Care Connections
8
7
Anglicare Victoria
13
7
40
1
Ballarat Health Services
1
2
Ballarat and District Aboriginal Cooperative
4
3
Wimmera Uniting Care
9
4
Centacare Catholic Diocese of Ballarat
10
Grampians
5
Child and Family Services
18
Total
5
42
1
Anglicare Gippsland South Coast and Bass Coast
1
2
Uniting Care Gippsland Wellington
1
3
Uniting Care South Coast and Bass Coast
1
4
Uniting Care Wellington
2
5
Yarram and District Health Services Inc.
2
6
Gippsland Lakes Community Health
5
7
Anglicare Gippsland Latrobe – Baw Baw
9
Gippsland
8
Bass Coast Regional Health
10
Total
8
31
1
Gateway Community Health
1
2
QEC
1
3
City of Wodonga
1
4
Rumbalara Aboriginal Cooperative
2
5
The Bridge Youth Service
2
6
Central Hume Support Services
3
7
Benalla Rural City
5
8
FamilyCare Care Support Services
10
Hume
9
Upper Murray Family Care
14
Total
9
39
87
Region
Family Service Agency
Number of Participants
1
Bendigo and District Aboriginal Cooperative
1
2
Centacare Diocese of Sandhurst
1
3
Echuca Regional Health
1
4
Mallee Track Health and Community Service
1
5
Murray Valley Aboriginal Cooperative
1
6
Centacare Catholic Diocese of Ballarat-Mildura
2
7
Castlemaine and District Community Health Ltd
4
8
Cobaw Community Health Service
4
9
Mallee Family Care
4
10
St Luke’s Anglicare
5
Loddon Mallee
11
Bendigo Community Health Service
6
Total
11
30
1
Caroline Chisholm Society
2
City of Darebin
1
3
Sunbury Community Health Centre Inc.
1
4
Anglicare Western
2
5
Children’s Protection Society
2
6
Good Shepherd Youth and Family Service
2
7
Merri Community Health Inc.
2
8
City of Moonee Valley
2
9
1
Uniting Care Broadmeadows
2
10
Catholic Care
3
11
City of Yarra
3
12
MacKillop Family Services
4
13
Anglicare Broadmeadows
5
North & West
Metropolitan
14
ISIS Primary Care
5
15
Kildonan Child and Family Services
5
Total
15
40
Southern
1
City of Greater Dandenong
1
Metropolitan
2
City of Kingston
1
3
Good Shepherd Youth and Family Service Hastings
1
4
Kingston Family Support Services
1
5
Community Connections Windsor
3
6
Southern Family Life
4
7
Community Connections Narre Warren
6
8
Windermere Child and Family Services Inc.
6
9
Anglicare Frankston
12
Total
Grand Total
9
35
71
293
88
Appendix D: Average survey household size
calculation
Table 31: Average household size of survey participants assuming a single parent household
Frequency
Total
(x)
1 Parent
973
973
1 Sample Child
973
973
1 Other Child
267
267
2 Other Children
219
438
3 Other Children
130
390
4 Other Children
46
184
5 Other Children
40
200
6 Other Children
8
48
7 Other Children
1
7
8 Other Children
2
16
9 Other Children
1
9
10 Other Children
0
0
11 Other Children
1
11
Number of Household Residents
Total
3516
3.6
89
Appendix E: Service group across region
(unweighted)
Table 32: Service group across region unweighted*
Service group
Child Protection
Region
n
%
Family Services
n
Out of Home Care
%
n
%
Total Region
n
%
Regional/Rural Victoria
Barwon
36
12.5
36
12.3
48
12.3
120
12.3
Grampians
39
13.5
42
14.3
49
12.5
130
13.4
Loddon-Mallee
38
13.1
30
10.2
37
9.5
105
10.8
Hume
33
11.4
95
13.3
56
14.3
128
13.2
Gippsland
43
14.9
31
10.6
49
12.5
123
12.6
North West
33
11.4
40
13.7
54
13.8
127
13.1
Eastern
36
12.5
40
13.7
51
13.0
127
13.1
Southern
31
10.7
35
11.9
47
12.0
113
11.6
Total
289
100.0
* Note – data not weighted for region
293
100.0
391
100.0
973
100.0
Metropolitan Victoria
90
Appendix F: Out of Home Care contact with
relatives by type of care
Table 33: Out of Home Care child/young person able to have contact with mother by placement type
Yes
No
Total
Type of Care
n
%
n
%
n
Kinship Care
97
75.2
32
24.8
129
Foster Care
64
72.7
24
27.3
88
Permanent
Care
55
72.4
21
27.6
76
Residential
17
81.0
4
19.0
21
Total
233
74.2
No sig. Difference between care types
81
25.8
314
Table 34: Out of Home Care child/young person able to have contact with father by placement type
Yes
No
Total
Type of Care
n
%
n
%
n
Kinship Care
67
52.3
61
47.7
128
Foster Care
37
45.1
45
54.9
82
Permanent
Care
33
42.3
45
57.7
78
Residential
14
63.6
8
36.4
22
159
52.2
310
Total
151
47.8
No statistically sig. Difference between care groups
91
Appendix G: Lifestyle factors
Table 35: Lifestyle factors of children or young people aged 12 years and over
Service Groups
Child Protection
Family Services
n
n
%
Out of home Care
%
n
%
Has the child used inhalants in the past 12 months?
Yes
0
0
1
1.3
2
1.3
Three times per month
0
0
0
0
1
59.3
Don’t know
0
0
0
0
1
40.7
Stopped taking inhalants
0
0
1
100
0
0
19
29.0
41
29.5
11
27.0
If yes, how often?
Has the child had an alcoholic drink in the past 12 months?
Yes
22
29.6
If yes, how often in the last 12 months did the child have an alcoholic drink of any kind?
1 to 3 times a week
2
10.7
0
1 to 3 days per month
2
7.4
3
13.2
4
10.8
Less than once a month
8
38.4
12
60.6
19
45.5
Stopped drinking
3
13.0
1
5.2
0
0
Don’t know
7
30.4
4
21.0
7
16.7
Has child ever smoked cigarettes or other forms of tobacco?
Yes
33
45.1
27
40.4
47
33.7
If yes, has the child smoked cigarettes or other forms of tobacco in the last 12 months?
Yes
30
89.2
22
80.5
4
89.3
If yes, how often has child smoked in the last 12 months?
Every day (or every
second day)
11
36.1
14
60.5
32
76.8
1 to 5 days per week
1
4.6
2
8.5
3
7.3
1 to 4 times per month
2
5.5
1
5.2
2
4.1
Less than once a month
2
5.6
0
0
3
7.3
10
33.0
20.2
1
2.6
5
15.3
5.6
1
3.1
Stopped smoking
Don’t know
1
In the last 12 months, has the child taken illicit drugs (not prescribed)?
Yes
4
5.1
8
12.1
25
18.4
92
Appendix H: Details of Indigenous sample by
region and service group
Table 36: Indigenous population by region
Region
Barwon
Indigenous population
(within sample not
weighted)
n
%
17
13.4
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Grampians
19
22
16
18
North west
12
10
13
9.4
4
7.1
2
6.3
4
12.5
4
7.1
5
15.6
6
18.8
11
19.6
15.3%
12.2%
2
6.3
5
15.6
4
7.1
10.2%
6
18.8
4
12.5
5
8.9
7
21.9
4
12.5
14
25.0
24.2%
8.6%
3
9.4
1
3.1
4
7.1
10.2
14.2%
3
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
5
15.6
10
17.9
Total Child Protection
(weighted sample)
32
100.0
Total Family Services
(weighted sample)
32
100.0
56
100.0
Total Out of Home Care
(weighted sample)
Total
%
5.8%
7.9
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Southern
12.5
3
9.4
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Eastern
4
14.2
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Indigenous population
In Victoria (SVC
2009)
9.2%
12.6
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Gippsland
%
17.3
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Hume
n
15.0
Child Protection
Family Services
Out of Home Care
Loddon-Mallee
Indigenous population (within
sample service groups
weighted by region)
127
93
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2010, Year Book Australia, 2009-2010, Australian Bureau of Statistics,
Canberra. Viewed 24 June 2012,
http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/0/916F96F929978825CA25773700169C65?opendocument
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, National Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Survey, Australian
Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2008, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas: Population Distribution For Larger
Areas, Australian Bureau of Statistics, Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, Census of Population and Housing, Australian Bureau of Statistics,
Canberra.
Australian Bureau of Statistics 1999, Population Mobility, Victoria, 1999, Australian Bureau of Statistics,
Canberra. Viewed 24 June 2012,
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3237.2Main+Features1Oct%201999?OpenDocument
Australian Institute of Family Studies, (AIFS) 2010, Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of
Australian Children (LSAC), AIFS, Melbourne. Viewed 24 June 2012,
http://www.aifs.gov.au/growingup/pubs/asr/2010/asr2010h.html
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, (AIHW) 2012, Child Protection Australia 2010–11, Child welfare
series no. 53. cat. no. CSW 41, AIHW, Canberra. Viewed 24 June 2012,
http://www.aihw.gov.au/WorkArea/DownloadAsset.aspx?id=10737421014
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2011, Young Australians: Their Health and Wellbeing
2011, cat. no. PHE 140, AIHW, Canberra.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2010, The State of Victoria’s Children 2010, AIHW,
Canberra.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2009, The State of Victoria’s Children 2009: Aboriginal and
Young People in Victoria, AIHW, Canberra.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2008, Disability in Australia: Intellectual Disability.
Bulletin no. 67. cat no. AUS 110, AIHW, Canberra. Viewed 24 June 2012,
http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442468183
Bromfield L, February 2010 Australian Institute of Family Studies Cumulative harm: the effects of chronic
child maltreatment, Presentation to the Tasmanian Magistrates Conference, Hobart.
Bromfield L, and Higgins D, Chronic and Isolated Maltreatment In a Child Protection Sample in Family
Matters No.70 Autumn 2005, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne
Centre for Community Child Health, Melbourne and the Telethon institute of for Child Health, Perth A
snapshot of Early Childhood Development in Australia (Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) National
Report 2009 re-issue March 2011. Australian Government Department of Education, Employment and
Workplace Relations, Canberra.
Cicchetti, D and Toth,SL (2000) Child maltreatment in the early years of life. In JD Osofsky & HE Fitzgerald
(eds), WAIMH Handbook of infant mental health (vol.4 pp 257-294). New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Council of Australian Governments 2009, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework
for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, FACHSIA, Canberra. Viewed 24 June 2012,
http://www.communities.qld.gov.au/resources/childsafety/child-protection/national-framework.pdf
Cummins, P, Scott, D and Scales, B 2012, Report of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Inquiry,
Department of Premier and Cabinet, Melbourne. Viewed 24 June 2012,
www.childprotectioninquiry.vic.gov.au/report-pvvc-inquiry.html.
94
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) 2011, The state of Victoria’s children
2010, DEECD, Melbourne.
Department of Education and Early Childhood Development (DEECD) 2010, The state of Victoria’s children
2009: Aboriginal children and young people in Victoria, DEECD, Melbourne.
Erickson, S J, Robinson, T N, Haydel, K F, & Killen, J D (2000). Are overweight children unhappy? Body
mass index, depressive symptoms, and overweight concerns in elementary school children. Archives of
Pediatric Adolescent Medicine, 154(9), 931–935.
Franklin, J, Denyer, G, Steinbeck, K S, Caterson, I D, & Hill, A J (2006). Obesity and risk of low self-esteem:
A statewide survey of Australian children. Pediatrics,118(6), 2481–2487.
Goodman, R 2001, ‘Psychometric Properties of the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire’, Journal of the
American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, vol. 40, no. 11, pp. 1337-1345.
Lamont, A 2011, Resource Sheet: Child Abuse and Neglect Statistics, National Child Protection
Clearinghouse Series, Feb 2011, AIHW, Canberra.
Lamont, A & Bromfield L, Families with multiple and complex problems: Issues for the safety and wellbeing
of children, by, presentation at the Australian College for Child and Family Protection Practitioners
(ACCFPP) National Conference 2010, Canberra, 15-17 October.
Martin, D., Garske, J and Davis, K 2000, ‘Relation of the Therapeutic Alliance with Outcome and Other
Variables: A Meta-Analytic Review’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, vol. 68, no. 3, pp. 438450.`
National Survey of Young Australians (2011), Victoria summary p.119, Mission Australia, Sydney, New
South Wales.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Australian Vice-Chancellors’
Committee 2007, National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research, National Health and Medical
Research Council, Canberra.
National Health and Medical Research Council, Australian Research Council, Universities Australia. 2007,
Australian Code for the Responsible Conduct of Research, National Health and Medical Research Council,
Canberra.
Scott, D, O’Neill, C & Minge, A (2005). Contact between children in out-of-home care and their birth families:
A review of the literature. Sydney: NSW Department of Community Services.
Sinclair, I, Wilson, K & Gibbs, I (2005). Foster placements: Why they succeed and why they fail. London:
Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Sinclair, I, Baker, C, Lee, J and Gibbs, I (forthcoming) The pursuit of permanence: a study of the English
care system. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Sylva,K, Melhuish, E,Sammons, P, Siraj-Blatchford I, Taggart, B, (2004),The Effective Provision of Pre
School education (EPPE) Project: Findings from Pre-school to end of Key Stage 1 DfES, Nottingham.
Tarren-Sweeney, M, Hazell, P and Carr, V 2004, ‘Are foster parents reliable informants of children’s
behavioural problems?’ Child: Care, Health & Development, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 167-75.
The Department of Human Services (2012) Looking After Children Outcomes Data Project (2012)
(forthcoming).
The Parliament of Victoria 2005, Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (Vic) no. 96 of 2005 (Austl.).
The Parliament of Victoria 2005, Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 (Vic) no. 83 of 2005 (Austl.).
The Parliament of Victoria 2001, Health Records Act 2001 (Vic) No. 022, no. 2 of 2001 (Austl.).
The Parliament of Victoria 2000, Version No. 021 Information Privacy Act 2000 (Vic) no. 98 of 2000 (Austl.).
Thomas, S and Associates Pty Ltd 2002, Child Protection Client and Family survey: Final Report 2002,
Victorian Department of Human Services Community Care Division, Melbourne.
95
The Victorian Government, May 2012, Directions Paper, Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Our Shared
Responsibility, Melbourne
Wilson, K. & Sinclair, I. (2004). Contact in foster care: some dilemmas and opportunities. In E. Neil &
D.Howe (Eds.), Contact in adoption and permanent foster care (pp 165-185).London: British Association for
Adoption & Fostering.
Web address for Department of Human Services, Victoria, Child Protection Practice Manual 2012:
<http://www.dhs.vic.gov.au/cpmanual>
96