REPORT OF THE COMMUNITY CARE REVIEW
September 2000
Jan Carter Deakin Human Services Australia Deakin University
Report of the Community Care Review September 2000 Author: Jan Carter
© Department of Human Services, September 2000 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted by the Copyright Act MCMLXVIII, no part may be reproduced by any process without written permission from The Department of Human Services, 555 Collins Street, Melbourne, Victoria. IBSN 0 731160 92 4
Report of the Community Care Review Summary ii
Contents
Summary viii
Chapter 1The context 1
Overview 1
1.1 Introduction 1
1.2 Terms of reference 2
1.3 Review approaches 3
1.4 The key questions 4
1.5 Youth and Family Services Redevelopment, 1997–99 4
1.6 Themes 5
1.7 This Report 18
Chapter 2 The past: The YAFS Redevelopment and the reaction 21
Overview 21
2.1 Introduction 22
2.2 The environment for the Redevelopment 24
2.3 The Redevelopment 26
2.4 Problems and weaknesses of the Redevelopment 29
2.5 The positive aspects of the Redevelopment 36
2.6 Summary of information from consultations 40
2.7 Models of public administration 41
Report of the Community Care Review Summary iii
2.8 Summary and recommendation 47
Chapter 3 The future: principles and priorities for reform 48
Overview 48
3.1 Principles for community care services: the consultations 49
3.2 Principles for guiding reform 53
3.3 Opportunities and priorities 56
3.4 Implications 61
3.5 Building blocks for future network capability 62
3.6 Summary and recommendations 71
Chapter 4 The future: building resilient communities 73
Overview 73
4.1 Introduction 74
4.2 Building community and community infrastructure 75
4.3 Principles of community building 80
4.4 Key issues 85
4.5 Implications for Community Care 86
4.6 Implementation: the practice of community 87
4.7 Summary and recommendations 88
Chapter 5 The future: reducing vulnerability 89
Overview 89
5.1 Introduction 90
Report of the Community Care Review Summary iv
5.2 Recognition of prevention 93
5.3 Characteristics of successful prevention 95
5.4 Connecting prevention and early intervention 95
5.5 Prevention and risk 99
5.6 Types of prevention 101
5.7 Prevention partnerships 104
5.8 Prevention and programs 104
5.9 Summary and recommendations 105
Chapter 6 The future: service structures 107
Overview 107
6.1 Introduction 108
6.2 Theme A: Service objectives 108
6.3 Ages of children and young people 111
6.4 Service clusters 115
6.5 Clusters and levels of intervention 117
6.6 Theme B: Community Care Networks and Community Zones 118
6.7 Networks: the 'portfolios' required 119
6.8 Towards service integration 123
6.9 Summary and recommendations 124
Chapter 7 Improvements in community care services 125
Overview 125
7.1 Introduction 126
7.2 Child protection 133
7.3 'Out of home' services 137
Report of the Community Care Review Summary v
7.4 Leaving care 139
7.5 Residential care 140
7.6 Foster care 143
7.7 Indigenous issues: child, youth and family 145
7.8 A framework for service review 149
7.9 Case-content analysis 150
7.10 Summary and recommendations 150
Chapter 8 Other considerations 151
Overview 151
8.1 Introduction 152
8.2 Families 152
8.3 Schools 159
8.4 Professionalisation and its place 160
8.5 Legislation 163
8.6 Accountability 167
8.7 Summary and recommendations 170
Chapter 9 Recommendations 171
Overview 171
9.1 Vision and mission 171
9.2 Recommendations 172
Report of the Community Care Review Summary vi
Appendices
Acknowledgements 1-1
Members of the Reference Group 2-1
Review Commissioning Document 3-1
Consultations and meetings 4-1
Consultation attendance summary 5-1
Submissions received 6-1
Summary of submissions 7-1
YAFSR publications 8-1
References 9-1
Report of the Community Care Review Summary vii
Summary
I Key issues
I.i Context In this report it is argued that effective community care services, both preventative and intensive, are investments in the future social infrastructure of Victoria. Governments and community service organisations need a framework whereby explicit goals and effectiveness are achieved. In the Community Care Review (CCR), the past Youth and Family Services Redevelopment (YAFSR) was analysed and a framework for future directions was provided. The themes that recur are as follows. • Partnerships should be formed between government, communities, community service organisations (CSOs) and other key agencies, including local governments. • People are citizens, not merely consumers. • Practice has to be goal directed, evidence based and coordinated. • Through prevention, expansion of intensive services will be halted in the long run. • Community services organisations delivering services on behalf of government must be reimbursed the full cost of delivery. • ‘Place’ means building and rebuilding specific communities and delivering flexible local services. • Policy requires ‘joined up’ government and ‘whole of government’ responses. • ‘Process’ will require new forms of management and leadership. • Performance will require that accountabilities be met by all partners, both organisational and individual.
I.ii The YAFS Redevelopment The evidence of the Review is that there has to be a more effective model of public administration to guide relations between government and non-government than that proposed by YAFSR. This model has to be partnership based, relational oriented, locally responsive, based on standards, results driven and linkage conscious.
Report of the Community Care Review Summary viii
Central to the partnership will be recognition of a discernible network of services over and above the identity and contribution of individual CSOs, whereby programs are matched with problems, tasks, capabilities and service standards.
I.iii Building blocks In the Review, building blocks were defined whereby future capability will be determined. These are as follows. • Inclusion: a commitment to participation as the basis for moving ahead • Quality: developing learning networks • Service standards • Quality assurance through audit and inspection • Benchmarking and target setting • Quality data and information systems • Development of learning organisations • Knowledge: leveraging evidence-based activity • Localism: building ‘place’ at the local level • Linkages: getting the whole of government together • Financing: best value assessments
I.iv Communities Central to the objectives of community care is the task of community building. Ingredients in building successful communities were found to be as follows. • Community is the end, not the means, of delivering a program. • A preponderance of members of a community will decide democratically what has to be delivered. • Strong leadership and advanced democracy are compatible. • Vulnerable communities have lost their ‘know-how’.
I.v Prevention There is a new body of evidence in which it is made clear that if there is prevention, risk factors associated with youth and adult crime, mental illness, child abuse and violence can be reduced. Prevention is central to service design; it has to be carefully directed to all children and families (universal), and to children, youth and families determined to be ‘at risk’ (selective). Prevention has to be goal directed and transition focused. Specific points in the life cycle at which risk can accumulate, consolidate or decrease are noted.
Report of the Community Care Review Summary ix
Prevention cannot be substituted for intensive intervention, but over time, through coherent universal prevention programs and selective prevention aimed at population groups at risk, it should be possible to halt the escalation of intensive services and to even wind them back.
I.vi The way ahead The structure of organisations is of secondary importance to purpose, process, relationships and networks. Organisations are not being abolished and new ones are not being started up. In this section a range of service objectives and service clusters are recommended whereby more focused attention will be placed on specific age groups and the evidence about respective forms of intervention will be used. Community Care Networks coterminous with local government areas and local Community Zones could plan, audit and deliver services. Local Community Zones could ‘cash out’ resources and develop service plans consistent with agreed community needs.
I.vii Service improvements A major national research effort to scope the nature of family and community services, problems and interventions is required, together with a framework for regular reviews of current services, according to agreed Practice Improvement Plans. The Review also found: • that there was substantial agreement that the child protection service has to divert many families to a comprehensive family support service • that there was agreement that residential care is often not based on young people’s needs that standards fall short of good practice, and that government financing is insufficient • that the high rate of foster care breakdown is unacceptable • that the lack of effective education, training and employment for young people in care is a serious concern • that a coherent, supported, resourced plan has to accompany each young person leaving care • that service providers working with indigenous families have to understand grief and loss, and to support and resource indigenous communities to care for, guide and school indigenous children and young people.
I.viii Other matters Issues central to the work of this Review are outlined in this section.
Report of the Community Care Review Summary x
They are as follows. Families: The Division of Community Care is the key agency for accumulating knowledge about Victorian families and for advising the Government about family matters. This means that the knowledge base about families has to be strengthened. Schools: Stronger partnerships between schools, the Department of Human Services and CSOs are needed for smooth transitions. Child and youth learning has to be enhanced (particularly for vulnerable young people) and if children and young people ‘at risk’ of abuse and neglect are to be protected. The School Community Care partnership extends far beyond the provisions of mandatory reporting. Professionalisation: The Community Care Division has to support the professional education and training of its staff and to consider professionally based methodologies and technologies. Legislation: Advances in understandings about children’s rights, about the responsibilities of carers and parents, and about standards of care are required in Victorian legislation. Accountability: There is inadequate public accountability for follow- up of children and young people who disappear from community care services. Better data, audit and inspection of services, and a complaints and appeals system at arm’s length from service delivery, are needed.
II Framework
A framework for community care is outlined. It contains: • a statement of responsibility • a statement of purpose (general and specific) • principles • a vision statement • a mission statement • service objectives.
II.i The Government’s overall objectives are as follows. To promote social and economic growth and a better quality of life through financially responsible but socially progressive methods, whereby affirmative assistance is given to the individuals, families and communities left behind, both economically and socially
Report of the Community Care Review Summary xi
II.ii The Community Care Division’s responsibilities are as follows. • To provide a high quality broad band of effective services throughout Victoria for children and young people and their families • To ensure that the children, young people and families who have been, are, or are likely to be disadvantaged by economic, social and personal change or trauma have harms reduced and transitions supported by high quality compensatory services that are responsive, personalised, effective and timely
II.iii The general purpose of the Division of Community Care is as follows. Through partnerships, to enable all Victorian children, youth and families to take part in Victoria’s prosperity, to participate in Victoria’s services (particularly education, health and employment), and to contribute to Victoria’s democratic institutions and be responsible members of the community
II.iv The specific purpose of the Division of Community Care is as follows. To advise the Government about policies and measures required in order to support children, youth and families and to assist and support people who have specific needs to enter the Victorian community
II.v Principles The following seven principles are advocated as the basis for the future community service delivery. • Service users are the first and last consideration. • Planning, design, provision and evaluation of all services have to include service users. • Families are the building blocks of communities, and communities have to build families. • Partnerships are the basis of planning, design, delivery and evaluation of service networks. • When there is prevention and early intervention, an investment rationale is offered for service delivery. • Provision of community care requires commitment to: • justice and equity as the moral basis • quality as a fundamental commitment. • Sufficient resources and fair funding models must underpin delivery.
Report of the Community Care Review Summary xii
II.vi The VISION of Community Care is as follows. That together in partnership, Government, community service organisations, communities, families, children and young people in partnership invest in the people of Victoria’s diverse communities
II.vii The MISSION of Community Care is as follows. That through partnerships, improved opportunities, and social and economic inclusion through strengthening individual, family and community capacity to do the following be supported. • Provide high quality, locally responsive and available, participative, universal and specific networks of services, in order to meet the needs and continued development of children, youth and families. • Practise a duty of care to the most vulnerable members (children, youth and families) of the community. • Ensure that support services users become or remain valued and contributing members of the community.
II.viii The service objectives of community care Twelve service objectives were delivered during the Review on a continuum from promotion and prevention to intensive support and joining up with specialist services.
Objective 1 — Developing community capability: creating social capital (promotion) In this objective the aim is to support development of capable communities that are safe, sustainable, productive and happy learning environments for infants, children, young people, parents and extended families.
Objective 2 — Extending family capacity: promoting family life (Promotion) In this objective the aim is to develop and maintain capable families by providing information, education and support, both statewide and at local level.
Objective 3 — Supporting the foundations: services for all (universal prevention) In this objective, the aim is to build and communicate service paths from a solid foundation of information, support and connectedness in order to assist all babies, children, young people, parents and extended families in all Victorian communities.
Report of the Community Care Review Summary xiii
Objective 4 — Sustaining by reinforcement: surmounting stress (selective prevention) In this objective, the aim is to reinforce the capability of specific populations that include infants, children, young people, parents and families, in order to surmount stressors, transitions and changes by building protective factors and reducing vulnerability.
Objective 5 — Strengthening transitional pressure points: reducing risks (indicative intervention and early intervention) In this objective, the aim is to strengthen resilience for infants, children, young people, parents and families who are vulnerable as a result of being exposed to risk.
Objective 6 — Steering along a path to safety: protecting against harm (intensive intervention and reduction of risk/harm) In this objective, the aim is to supervise or ‘superintend’ infants, children, parents and families when there is evidence of physical, psychological or sexual harm and/or neglect, by reducing risks and increasing safety and wellbeing.
Objective 7 — Shepherding by caring and nurturing: being an alternative family (intensive intervention and reduction of risk/harm) In this objective, the aim is to provide safety, stability and stimulation for infants, children and young people, temporarily or permanently, outside the family of origin, in order to offer the same opportunities as outlined in objectives 3–6. The aim is to continually reconnect infants, children and young people with their family of origin and community of care, or in the absence of these, to create them as necessary.
Objective 8 — Partnering specialist services: solving specific issues In this objective, the aim is to provide specialist services for special groups that have to connect to objectives 3–7. These special structures are: • financial counselling • domestic violence services • problem gambling services.
Report of the Community Care Review Summary xiv
Objective 9 — Integrating statewide services: linking services to service paths For people who use services in objectives 3–8, there is sometimes the need to draw in a statewide service to discharge responsibility. In addition to the statewide services listed in the YAFSR, the Women’s and Children’s Health Network is included here.
Objective 10 — Connecting Aboriginal childcare Connecting the spiritual, cultural and social needs of Aboriginal children and young people to the previous service paths is important in light of the responsibilities of VACCA and local Aboriginal organisations to connect with the wider service system.
Objective 11 — Connecting ethno-specific and multicultural services Connecting the special needs of culturally and linguistically diverse children, youth and families to mainstream services will be one of the community care network’s greatest challenges.
Objective 12 – Joining up the service network In this objective, the aim is to develop partnerships with other State Government services (such as homelessness, education, health and mental health) and Commonwealth Government services.
III. Recommendations
A Overarching recommendations There are three overarching recommendations through which the context to the implementation plan for this Review is provided: (1) The Report of the Community Care Review has to be viewed as being the key instructing document for shaping the future structures, plans and actions of community care services in Victoria. (2) The structures and plans for community care services have to be adequately resourced by the State Government to enable results to be achieved. In particular, services delivered on behalf of the Government require 100 per cent of delivery costs. (3) The Division of Community Care in the Department of Human Services and its partners have to develop a three year implementation plan for this review and publish an annual progress report.
Report of the Community Care Review Summary xv
B Specific recommendations In this Report, a strategic direction based on the principles and building blocks is set out as follows. (4) The principles of community care are as follows. • Service users are the first and last consideration. • Planning, design, provision and evaluation of community care services have to include users. • Families are the building blocks of communities, and communities are built on families. • Partnerships are the basis of financing, designing, delivering and evaluating services. • Through prevention and early intervention, investment approaches to service delivery are offered. • Provision of community care require, quality, social justice and equity. • Sufficient resources and fair funding models must underpin delivery (Chapter 3). (5) The building blocks for community care are as follows. • Inclusion of stakeholders, including service users • Quality: developing learning networks through service standards, quality assurance, benchmarking, quality data, and learning organisations • Localism: building place through Community Zones • Linkages and ‘whole of government’ integration • Financing best value assessments (Chapter 3) (6) That partnerships between the Division of Community Care, Community Service Organisations (CSOs), communities and other key delivery agents develop networks and zones that plan, decide, resource and deliver at the most local level (Chapter 4)
(7) That the Division of Community Care and its partners participate in community building plans and activities to support the broad objects of pursuing community, economic and social wellbeing for families, young people and children (Chapter 4)
(8) That the Government consider establishing VicWork in order to assist Victorian communities to promote the connection between
Report of the Community Care Review Summary xvi
economic and social wellbeing by informing, educating and linking families with international, technological and market changes occurring to work, and thereby identify the competencies required in order to benefit from global change (Chapter 4)
(9) That universal and selective prevention and early intervention programs be established with whole of government and other partnership support and that they be targeted at supporting critical transitions at a range of sensitive developmental levels for children and young people (Chapter 5)
(10) That each service participate in a three yearly independent Practice Improvement Review and Plan, as outlined in the Review Report (Chapter 7) (11) That a major research effort to scope and research the nature of community service problems and best practice interventions be supported by a wide range of partners, including the Commonwealth Government, all State Governments, higher education bodies and philanthropic trusts (Chapter 7) (12) That the Government seek to advance the quality of life for Victorian families by promoting family wellbeing through the activities of the new Vic Families Foundation (Chapter 8) (13) That the Government advance the educational status of all vulnerable children and young people, in particular of wards of the state, by supporting school transitions, especially from school to work and from school to post-compulsory education (Chapter 8) (14) That the Government review legislation underpinning the activity of the Division of Community Care’s responsibilities for children, young people and families, consistent with the principles of the International Convention on the Rights of the Child (Chapter 8) (15) That the Government foster high professional standing in practitioners of community care services, consequent on agreements between higher education, professional bodies, community service organisations and the Government about the outcomes of these services and the capabilities required (Chapter 8) (16) That consideration be given to establishment of an independent office of Child and Youth Futures to monitor key data about children and young people; ensure that accountabilities for results by the Division of Community Care and its partners are met; and to maintain an active audit, inspection and appeals program for services, particularly ‘out of home’ care (Chapter 8)
Report of the Community Care Review Summary xvii
Chapter 1 The context
Overview
The theme of this chapter is that effective community care services, both preventative and intensive, are investments in the future social infrastructure of Victoria. Governments and community service organisations need a framework for community care in which it is acknowledged that effectiveness must be sought and goals achieved. In the Community Care Review, an analysis of the past Youth and Family Services Redevelopment strategy and a framework for future directions are provided. The themes that recur throughout the report are introduced in Chapter 1 as follows. • Partnerships have to be formed between Government, communities, CSOs and other key agencies, including local governments. • People are citizens, not merely consumers. • Practice has to be goal directed, evidence based and coordinated. • When there is prevention, expansion of intensive services will be halted in the long run. • The funding of services delivered by community service organisations on behalf of government must be at full price. • ‘Place’ means building and rebuilding communities, and delivering flexible local services. • Policy requires ‘joined up’ government and ‘whole of government’ responses. • ‘Process’ will require new forms of management and leadership. • Performance will require effective accountabilities to be met by all partners, both organisational and individual.
1.1 Introduction
There are three good reasons why government should be interested in community care services. First, successful economic and social developments go hand in hand. It is not true that economic development ‘trickles down’ to everyone equally. Economic development will work best when there is strong development of ‘people’ and when this combination results in strong communities. Building and rebuilding people and communities are therefore investments, not costs (see Chapter 4).
Report of the Community Care Review 1
Second, prevention and early intervention services for all families who care for children and young people result in future economic and social benefits. Once it happens that children, families and neighbourhoods ‘drop out’ from economic and social viability and visibility, the long-term costs are increased and GDP is reduced. Prevention and early intervention must now be treated by policy makers as an investment if they wish to maintain the cohesion of the local, regional, State and national community and to halt the steady increase otherwise required in intensive services (see Chapter 5). Third, the financial neglect of the intensive personal support services, particularly residential and foster care for children and young people, has been and will continue to be extremely expensive. The complexity and severity of problems of children and young people continues to be ignored without commensurate resourcing for their restoration to their family and community. The actual scale of this problem is not clear. Some troubled young people are outside the school and service system (on the streets or leading a so-called feral existence). A potential breakdown of arrangements for dealing with young people is serious both socially and economically. Fostering a future adult sub- population that is uneducated and unable to participate in work or constructive family life both reduces GDP and undermines society’s cohesiveness. Intensive and competent efforts to provide second, third and fourth chances for young people are therefore not only humane but absolutely essential to reduce the long-term burden of welfare dependency and despondency (see Chapter 7). This report is important for the community at large as well as for the State Government, local governments, Community Services Organisations (CSOs), the Commonwealth Government and philanthropic trusts. It is, however, centrally addressed to the new Community Care Division in the Victorian Department of Human Services (DHS).
1.2 Terms of reference
The terms of reference for this Review are as follows. • To identify the strengths and areas of common interest arising from the Youth and Family Services Redevelopment whereby opportunities are provided for implementating the Government’s community services policy • To provide an analysis of the Redevelopment undertaken within the Department both centrally and regionally, and by agencies, individually and in groups, as it aligns with government policy • To identify, consistent with the Government’s community services policy, other issues that were not addressed or were inadequately addressed in the YAFS Redevelopment
Report of the Community Care Review 2
• To propose a set of principles for and essential features of a community care service system that can operate within a contemporary family and societal context in order to deliver improved outcomes for clients and communities
1.3 Review approaches
This review − the Community Care Review − was commissioned to examine a series of issues connected with what was known as the YAFS Redevelopment (YAFSR), an exercise led by the then managers of the Youth and Family Services (YAFS) division of the Department of Human Services, Victoria between 1997 and 1999 under the Kennett Government. The YAFSR was to be an ambitious re-engineering of a selected group of Government service models and programs, mostly, but not totally, delivered by Community Services Organisations (CSOs) in the non-government community-based sector. The task for this Review of YAFSR was to address the abovementioned terms of reference and to provide this report with a framework for a subsequent action plan. This Report is therefore not an operational document, nor an implementation plan; all issues in community services are not addressed equally in it. The roles and tasks of each organisation involved in community services are not specified in it. Its task was limited to discussing the terms of reference and producing frameworks as a basis for a plan. The Review timetable was short. Within eight weeks, consultations were held in nine regional centres of Victoria (corresponding to the DHS regional offices), discussions were held in eight rural towns, and 20 meetings were held in Melbourne. In addition, 133 submissions were received, and information about the Review was distributed electronically via a Web site:
Report of the Community Care Review 3
However, the submissions to the Review and the results of consultations will, along with this Report, provide an ongoing platform for progress.
1.4 The key questions
The discussions within the consultations were based on six questions, which were discussed in the public consultations. Therefore, much of the Report (chapters 2-5) will be oriented to answering these questions which were as follows. 1. What, if any, were the problems and weaknesses of the YAFSR? 2. What, if any, were the positive aspects and strengths of the YAFSR? 3. What should be the future principles for community care services in Victoria? 4. What should be the relative balance of services, from prevention to statutory services? 5. Considering questions 3 and 4, what are the opportunities and priorities for future community care services? 6. What strategies are required for building community and community infrastructure?
1.5 Youth and Family Services Redevelopment, 1997-99
In the YAFSR, an agenda of contestability, outcome based funding and program rationalisation was sought to be introduced through a reductive process known as program ‘bundling’. Consonant with changes in its host Department, regions of the Department became purchasers of services and the community service organisations (CSOs) became suppliers. (However, the Department of Human Services retained the role of provider of the statutory based juvenile justice and child protection services.) From its inception, the YAFSR was controversial. It was resisted by many CSOs individually, but also by the peak body, the Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria (CWAV). In mid-1999, and before the election in October of that year, the then Liberal Party Minister Dr Denis Napthine called a halt to competitive tendering of existing services in the non-government sector. Throughout the time of the Redevelopment there were also disputes between the Government and the CWAV about the levels of funding for children and young people in care. During the 1990s, the CSO’s had taken over provision of the balance of Government provided residential care. CWAV claimed that
Report of the Community Care Review 4
the Coalition Government had revoked a 1991 agreement to pay CSOs at 100% of the cost of looking after a child or young person legally in the care of the Government and/or under orders of the Children’s Court. After the Victorian election period was over (September-December 1999), the incoming Minister in the Labor Government, the Honourable Christine Campbell, ended the YAFSR within her portfolio, which was retitled Community Care. She wished to examine the benefits and weaknesses of YAFSR and therefore commissioned this Report in order to examine a range of connected issues and to recommend the next steps. In this report, the findings of this brief investigation are presented. It is intended to provide a range of issues for the State Government, local governments and CSOs to consider. As many questions as answers are included in it (a function of the short time available), but it does provide an analysis of the past and a framework for directions.
1.6 Themes
Throughout this Review, nine themes kept recurring and will be raised at a number of points in the Report. As it happens, the themes – partnerships, people, practice, prevention, price, place, policy, process and performance – become a set of underpinning issues for progress beyond this Report.
1.6.1 Partnership For more than a century, the community service sector and its organisations (CSOs) have usually worked in a cooperative, collegial way with colleague organisations and government, and insofar as there had been competition between CSOs, it was covert and oriented towards pursuing innovation or additional dollars via fundraising. Introduction of a type of market model into Youth and Family Services through more privatisation of services and competitive tendering was threatening to the identity and viability of some CSOs, and the level of cooperative activity was reduced. There was no doubt that the Community Services Organisations (and their peak body, the Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria) favoured progress through cooperative negotiation or partnerships. The Australian Council of Social Services has argued for adopting a new and better approach in order to guide relations between government and non-government sectors. This could include a new Compact or Framework for Relationships and Reform. This would include: • identification and clearer articulation of shared goals with reference to the outcomes being sought in the change process
Report of the Community Care Review 5
• a more formal agreement about the respective roles and contributions of governments and the non-profit community welfare sector in achieving these goals, and about the principles that underpin the relationship (ACOSS, 1999). This agreement could take the form of a Compact or Framework for Relationships and Reform in which the key elements necessary to ensure the community sector’s continuing capacity to contribute to Australia’s economic and social development into the future could be documented. The principles and commitments as well as the practices and processes that would help in achieving shared goals would be set out in it. It would include: • the need for research and evaluation to examine the outcomes of CSOs • the importance of having respectful relationships between the sectors (ACOSS, 1999). This Compact is at present being examined by the Victorian Government via a Department of Premier and Cabinet Working Party. The Victorian Government has committed itself to advancing relations with communities and the community sector through partnership- based activity. The Premier, the Honourable Steve Bracks, has stated: ‘We will also focus on the developing of strong partnerships with local government and with community organisations: partnerships in which each of the partners contributes expertise and resources, based on shared understanding about such things as transparency, priorities and respect for the different roles of each partner. The Government expects that each of these partnerships will produce new practical models for more integrated and related service delivery.’ (Bracks, 2000) The Premier’s theme of partnerships between State Government, local governments, CSOs and communities reflects a significant international trend. A mustering of localised responses to the symbolic and financial power of globalisation, and the need to repair local communities and prepare an educated workforce might have brought new vigour to the partnership idea. In the face of the lack of evidence about the benefits of competitive tendering and the political ructions caused by imposing market-like disciplines, sanctions and compliances on small communities and their organisations, governments are searching for a better way. Partnerships imply a different model of government administration, networks, negotiation and consultation, all of which are discussed in this Report. In contrast, in the YASFR it was assumed that the central role of non- government community service organisations was to serve the State by delivering government services. No one would disagree that delivery of government services is an important function. No one
Report of the Community Care Review 6
consulted during this Review argued that there should not be standards of performance and accountabilities for expenditure of public moneys. The problem seemed to be that there was no perceived understanding on the part of the then government of the independence of the ‘third sector’, as the non-government sector is often called. CSOs were too often wrongly conceptualised as being extensions of the State. There was no acceptance of the other functions that CSOs, as independently governed organisations, maintained. The functions could include some or all of the following. • Innovator —Studies suggest that some CSOs, at least, view their role as being to test and pilot new service improvements or even innovations. • Advocate — The role of some CSOs is viewed as being mainly an advocate for a cause or group (such as the most disadvantaged people). • Social capital builder — For some CSOs, promotion and development of solidarity, community and resources in a specific neighbourhood is a role over and above that of service deliverer. • Altruism generator — In a secular post modern society, CSOs provide outlets for secular commitment by generating, mobilising and managing the altruism of boards, staff, volunteers and local communities. • Mediator — CSOs have a major role in exemplifying the diversity of form (gender, race, ethnicity and class) and function (work, leisure and spiritual) that combine to make up all the faces of a community. In this sense, CSOs are mediating institutions: they act as a buffer between the individual and the two major sectors of government and business (Carter, 2000 p. 16).
In a discussion of the recent disruption of the work of international organisations such as the World Trade Organization and the World Bank during the 1990s, in The Economist (11 December 1999) it was noted that the non-government sector had the power to disrupt government and intergovernmental bodies, and to force economic and social change. To the abovementioned list of functions, The Economist writer adds ‘coalition building’ and ‘technical expert’ as other significant roles of the non-government sector. It is therefore suggested that a progressive government is more likely to form alliances with the non-government sector, by way of partnerships.
1.6.2 People There is a strong humanistic argument that all people are to be treated with respect and dignity. The Victorian Premier has also noted that the Government’s agenda is to ‘regard Victorians as citizens, not merely consumers of community services.’ (Bracks, 2000). In this Report, the
Report of the Community Care Review 7
inclusion of service users as citizens, not only in the processes of service delivery and in consultative forums, but in terms of their involvement in roles in their own community, is discussed. In the Report there is also a strong argument that structures and decisions that do not ‘wrap around’ the needs of people will fail, and that organisations and structures cannot be formulated independently of any analysis in which the question is asked: ‘If these are the needs, how should responsible, responsive intervention be organised and audited?’ One major and valid criticism to be made of this Report is that service users were not consulted in any systematic way and that members of the public were not consulted about their opinions, experiences and wishes for the direction of community services. However, in the Report it is argued that the inclusion of service users should be included in the plans of CSOs (see Carter, 2000) and that members of the community should be involved as stakeholders in the planning and management of services in their own community (Edgar, 1999).
1.6.3 Practice In the Report, it is argued that we have no valid descriptions of the needs and problems that are the responsibility of community care services. There is an absence of any reliable connection between understanding what it is that service providers do, and organisational structures and procedures. In this Review, it is argued that the Government and CSOs lack a reliable understanding of the nature, intensity and duration of the work they are expected to do, which in turn means there is little certainty about which interventions work and which don’t, how long things take to do and what the costs are. In the Review, in many cases, attention is drawn to the inadequacy of objectives, understandings, collaborations and resources. A good example is the case of ‘Maria’ (age 15) that was sent as a submission to the Review. In this vignette, it is shown that Maria’s circumstances are complicated, interwoven and hard to resolve. No outcome can be sought from services when the nature of the problem is so poorly understood. Maria’s situation is outlined as follows.
Example: Maria The problem Maria, 15 years old, lives with her mother and younger sister in a rural town. The mother left Maria’s father when Maria was quite young, and moved to Victoria to be close to her own family. The mother has been in a relationship with a neighbour for three or four years. About eight months ago, Maria reported that she had been sexually assaulted by this man repeatedly and in a very aggressive way.
Report of the Community Care Review 8
When the mother was told of this, she did not take it very seriously. She reported that Maria had been a difficult child since she was pre-adolescent. She reported that she had great difficulty controlling Maria’s behaviour, and that essentially Maria kept whatever hours she wanted and did whatever she wished. Maria then reported this sexual assault to one of her teachers, who in turn reported it to Child Protection. Child Protection discussed it with Maria’s mother, and thought it necessary to remove Maria and put her into care because of her mother’s poor attitude towards attempting to protect Maria from this man. Placement and care Maria was in the care of a local family for about two weeks. This foster family had considerable difficulty controlling Maria’s behaviour (about when she came in, etc.) and the placement reached a culmination one afternoon when Maria climbed to the top of the water tower at school and threatened to kill herself. When she eventually came down, she was removed and taken to a secure placement in Melbourne for two weeks. Following this, she was found a foster family in another rural town about two hours’ drive from her home town. This placement also did not last because of Maria’s behaviour. When Maria was removed this time, she was placed in the Adolescent Acute Psychiatric Unit in Melbourne. This was also partly because Maria had begun to harm herself by cutting herself superficially. After three or four weeks in the Acute Psychiatric Unit, Maria was diagnosed as having symptoms of an emerging Borderline Personality Disorder (that is, forming inappropriate relationships with staff members, threatening self-harm, making parts of disclosures about family violence or sexual abuse and attempting to draw staff into it, and tending to misinterpret information given to her). It was also revealed that she had been dealing drugs when in her home town, and it was believed that she had been exchanging sex for drugs. She was seen by two psychiatrists and discharged. A placement in a large regional city was the only placement that Child Protection was able to find. This placement was in a house for high-risk adolescents, in which three other adolescents were staying. From the moment Maria arrived there, the staff were unable to control her behaviour and had no ability to contain her. She left the house frequently late at night, went to the beach and took LSD or smoked marijuana, and returned the following day. When challenged about her behaviour, she threatened to cut herself. She was admitted to the Acute Psychiatric Unit one day when she was threatening to harm herself. She was seen by a psychiatrist, then discharged at her request. (She could not be held under the Mental Health Act because she showed no evidence of illness and had dropped all threats to harm herself.)
Report of the Community Care Review 9
Within 48 hours Maria was re-admitted displaying exactly the same behaviour. During the days that followed this second admission, an attempt was made (for the first time) to get concerned workers together, and a telephone link-up was established with Maria’s case manager in her home town. In the meantime, the police rang the acute service asking for advice. They so far had not managed to interview Maria successfully, because she tended to sit and simply mutter a sentence or two when asked about the alleged sexual assault. This was despite the fact that the police had taken her away from her home town in the company of community police (females) and had attempted to interview her over a full day. They were seeking advice as to whether or not they should make any effort to proceed with charges; they doubted they could. Also, as a result of the case conference, Maria’s mother was interviewed. It was agreed that Maria would return home to her mother. This was at her mother’s request (over the previous six months, her mother had spent a great deal of money on buses and overnight stays attempting to visit Maria) and at Maria’s request. Maria had been repeatedly in touch with her mother, although she had been banned by her case workers from talking to her mother because they had noticed she was significantly upset after she had had contact with her mother. Three agencies (not including the school) were involved with this girl over eight months, and each of them had differing objectives and powers: Child Protection made every effort to protect Maria from harm. It removed her from her home and thereby protected her from the harm, which it saw in her being at home, exposed to the man who allegedly sexually assaulted her. However, it was unable to protect her from the harm she was inflicting on herself by repeatedly leaving her placements, smoking marijuana and taking other drugs, etc. The Mental Health Services are concerned about trying to help Maria therapeutically, and in some circumstances this means giving her responsibility, even if it involves some risk. To treat all risk by ‘containing’ the individual means that the individual fails to learn ways of managing. To admit people who have a Borderline Personality Disorder for anything except a short period of assessment is counterproductive in most cases, except for very short periods of time when people are in extreme crisis. The Police, naturally, had a different agenda: they were not concerned about protection or justice, or therapy, but about bringing the alleged offender to justice. Many important questions are raised in this record. For example: • Why was Maria, not the perpetrator, moved from home, school and town? (We later note the lack of relationship between legislation for child protection and domestic violence).
Report of the Community Care Review 10
• What were the differing values, objectives and powers of the three services that kept them from providing Maria with effective help? (Is it reasonable that Maria’s safety and future should depend on the capacity of Government officers and/or practitioners to work together?) • Although it is appreciated that the needs of ‘high risk’ adolescents are now better understood by the Department of Human Services, what steps can be taken to prevent young people from becoming ‘high risk’ adolescents?
The reason for raising the case of Maria is not to criticise any of the people involved; it is to show how difficult, complex and unclear the technology, resources and relationships in this type of case have become. Treating Maria as a valuable, even cherished, individual in her own right, supporting her to identify her strengths, and liking and even cherishing her would require a vastly changed set of operating conditions. These would include having flexibility across time, place and departmental ‘silos’, and having a ‘next’ friend (professional or other) stay close to Maria during the trauma of investigation. The aim would have been to keep Maria at home, to convince her (and her community) that her issues were being dealt with justly and compassionately, and to ensure that on top of the allegations of abuse she was protected from further risk and potential harm. This approach would have required more front-end resources. In the long run, this might have been cost effective. Maria would have been protected from the risks of capital city homelessness, substance abuse, psychiatric admission and dropping out of her education: all consequent on her removal from a risky home. Victoria’s economic and social future depends on being able to integrate Maria and other young people like her into the community. She is a future citizen, worker, taxpayer, mother and wife. In part, as noted, Maria is owed a human and compassionate response from the service providers she meets. She is also owed the best expertise. Essentially, in the Review, a cultural change is sought among managers, whereby practice in its various forms is put at the centre, not the periphery, of action. There are many troubled young people such as Maria, and although there have undeniably been improvements in collaboration (through strategies such as the Working Together forums, in which child protection and care are combined with services for juvenile justice, mental health and drug treatment), there has been less emphasis on what it is that happens in the interactions and exchanges between the staff (professional and otherwise) and the people who use services. Also, to neglect to develop an evidence base around a competent understanding of ‘what works and what doesn’t, and why’ is fundamental abuse of public responsibility, accountability and
Report of the Community Care Review 11
transparency. Furthermore, goals and targets cannot be set, outputs cannot be specified and outcomes cannot be delivered in a rational way without clear and agreed intervention protocols. The gap between policy and implementation in this issue is huge and must be closed gradually, and government must take responsibility for this.
1.6.4 Prevention It is now accepted that in the evidence of overseas research it is shown that there is a long term return on financial investment in quality prevention and early intervention support for children in populations in which there are risks associated with the children’s optimal development. Practitioners have known this from small-scale evidence for years, but the recent research is that biological, psychological and social development is enhanced by there being a choice of programs in which resilience can be built. Programs have to be targeted at both children and parents. This does not mean that governments can switch support from tertiary intensive programs to prevention. The difficult message is that both preventative programs and intensive programs will have to coexist for some time in the future, because intensive programs can also be preventative of more deterioration. (If, for instance, a 15 year old homeless, illiterate ward of the state can be encouraged to return to education, mentored and championed by someone who cares about him or her, and can be found accommodation and support within a church or other community, this activity is also cost effective compared with long term prison, hospital costs and income insecurity.) In the Report, it is shown that the only safe prediction that can be made about Victoria’s existing care system is that most of its young graduates are destined for long term unemployment in the new economy and therefore for long term welfare dependency. In turn, there will be massive long term economic and social costs to society via the taxpayer, the individual involved and his or her family (because both the cost and the intergenerational transmission of long term unemployment are well documented). The implications of this are that the Community Care Division, School Education, Health, Treasury and their partners have to concentrate their efforts on finding a solution. In addition to individual prevention, there is now considerable evidence that poor, dysfunctional and even ‘toxic’ communities can influence the culture, attitudes and behaviour of individuals and families. In the Report, more emphasis on promoting healthy communities is called for as being the crucible for family and individual wellbeing.
Report of the Community Care Review 12
1.6.5 Price Price of the purchase of services became a contentious issue in Victoria’s community care services. First, the CSOs contended that one of the agendas of YAFSR was to drive down the price (particularly of residential care) to the lowest market price, regardless of quality. Second, CSOs claimed that the Kennett Government reneged on an agreement made by the previous Labor Government in 1991 to pay CSOs for the full price of actual service delivery. Third, the CSOs also argued that because of a move to fund only a part of client costs, viable internal infrastructure within agencies to fund research, staff development and so on, has been removed. In return, some Government officials argue that the ‘true’ cost of residential care service delivery can be settled only by way of market- based competition, and that in any case, many CSOs are independently wealthy (although no evidence to support this was found in the Review). Some officials therefore argue that the Government’s part-payment of the costs of children and young people is merely a subsidy for work that is actually the responsibility of the CSOs. It is simply not the case that this is not the responsibility of Government. Also, the Review found that Victoria’s care system is in poor condition, and that a cumbersome and fragmented system of care undermines good intentions and the continuous supportive relationships, the tailored educational support, the stable housing and the future workforce participation that are basic to any young person’s needs and progress. In the Review, there was insufficient time to establish the detail in either set of the abovementioned arguments, but when analysed, the key results for children in care in the educational area supported the CSOs’ concerns. It is essential for the Government’s agenda that a resolution of the facts of the case about price be agreed on, and that a productive partnership be established in this area between CSOs and government.
1.6.6 Place ‘Place’, or location, is a major theme in this Review. The most pervasive issue involves relations between country and city, as was the case in Maria’s care. Within the metropolitan area, there are, of course, issues of place, but the most frequent issue involves the relationship between place and identity (often cultural and linguistic identity). The point was that there was no ‘one size fits all’ culture that could be taken for granted in community service delivery. The theme of place collided with one of the values connected with YAFSR: that of consumer and customer choice. In many rural centres, this choice, the researchers were told, made little sense because choice was limited due to scarce resources and small populations. Another argument was that even if resources and population size allowed for
Report of the Community Care Review 13
choice, local service providers were always superior because of their relationship with and understanding of local communities. Although the Review presented no opportunity to test this proposition empirically, it was evident that this was a popular proposition. The theme of building and rebuilding ‘place’ communities as evidence of the impacts of ‘place’ on families and individuals is expressed at many points in the Report. It will be suggested that the Community Care Division consider how to help families connect themselves to paid or unpaid work. This follows huge changes in labour markets and increases in long-term unemployment. The close relationship between long-term unemployment and long term social problems must be tackled by youth and family services, which often meet long-term unemployment well ahead of official employment services. In the Review, the principle of making decisions about communities and their services at the level closest to the need, and thereby of invoking the principle of subsidiarity, is discussed. A large number of issues are thereby raised about social policy, who controls it, and what the nature of any community’s response to social issues should be.
1.6.7 Policy perspectives Social policy is in the middle of a sea change about a number of important issues, whereby the nature of relationships between individuals and governments, between institutions and governments, and between departments and ministers within governments is radically changing. Central to this are two important issues. Social policy has in the past been defined by way of a structural and institutional analysis in order to produce policy. From the time of the Second World War to a decade ago, the big question was: ‘How do the institutions work?’ Some analysts, in particular the market-based proponents of less government, advocated an entirely new switch to focusing on the customer and his or her empowerment. On this reading, it was always the institutions of government that needed reform, and more recently, reducing or even dismantling was undertaken in the quest for providing ‘customers’ with ‘choice’. In this Report, the view is taken that there is a strong case for institutional reform, but that the market case behind reducing institutions or dismantling them to achieve customer empowerment is, at some points, inappropriate and misguided. (A more detailed discussion of this is available in Carter, 2000.) On the other hand, it is accepted that too many issues, including bureaucratic structures and ideologies of various types, have got in the way of provision of respectful, responsive, helpful, technically skilled, effective and efficient services for members of the community. The sea change is therefore that new thought and more effort have to be put into defining the role of governments, departments and
Report of the Community Care Review 14
divisions in service delivery. The traditional social policy emphasis on exclusive analysis of institutions has to change to include the long term performance of government and of service providers in meeting the needs of the service users and the community. Five years ago, the recommendation was simply that government should ‘steer, not row’ and, whenever possible, get out of service delivery. There is now a recognition that ‘steering’ means more than supervising contracts. Steering means: • respecting the expertise of the ‘rowers’ • understanding the complexity of the issue and response • being sure that the service, however complex, is wrapped around the user and is not ‘dolloped’ out in uncoordinated packages by many service providers • reviewing who does what and why within the framework of partnerships • having greater collaboration between ministers and departments to overcome competition and duplication at the point of delivery • understanding that because what happens in one departmental area can affect demand and supply in another area, the whole of government must be better organised to respond to this • having sufficient knowledge to be certain that beneficial and effective consequences result from services.
For example: The removal of trade barriers has affected the nature of primary industry and agriculture, which, in turn has affected the life of rural communities, which, in turn has had a huge impact on the quantity and quality of financial, health, education and community services available in rural communities, which in turn has affected the nature and quality of family life and the bringing up of children and young people. Ten years ago, only a few people understood the consequential and longitudinal impacts of the chain of events described; now the whole country understands them. This need for ‘whole of government’ policy responses that go beyond the strict purview of the portfolio of community services is a major feature of this Report. The Division of Community Care has to deliver a categorical set of services, but it is argued that the Division should also: • inform the Government about the likely consequential chain and its impacts over an extended specific period that will result from the implementation of (or failure to implement) policies • sponsor discussions with departments and bodies about responses to these consequential chains.
Report of the Community Care Review 15
For example, the ‘cause and effect’ chain of children and young people’s coming into residential and foster care has to be clearly understood in terms of: • social and economic impacts on other Government institutions, such as health (including mental health), education, employment, social security, homelessness, refuges and prisons • social and economic impacts on any child or young person, and on his or her family and local community. The existing and future costs to relationships and wellbeing have to be calculated.
If these consequential connections were understood longitudinally, the Division of Community Care would be able to consider for children and young people in care (and for any other problem): • in which circumstances the Division is the lead agency in delivery • in which circumstances the Division develops partnerships with other agencies.
It is argued that the central role of the Division of Community Care and its partners is to: • consider how the services it funds and delivers at present can be better done and in cooperation with whom • unravel the puzzles of the barely understood interactions between events and policies that form the ‘problems’ dealt with in community care and, on a ‘whole of government’ basis, to respond appropriately.
1.6.8 Process A change in policy is only the beginning. The implications of the Report are that a different way of ‘doing government’ is needed and that a new model of public administration will be required. In this, a new perspective will be combined with a new set of skills. Arguably, the enthusiasm for the 1990s fad of ‘reinventing government’ by ‘steering, not rowing,’ was fuelled by the power and status it gave the governing over the governed, and the dominance of purchasers over providers. In this Report it is implied that this must be set aside and that a quite different ethic of public value must be sought. The person who would be a leader has to recognise the opportunity to also be a servant; as well as to inspire, mentor and foster the work of other people, he or she has to recognise the need to tend and support. In the Review, it is argued that the work done in community care will not be achieved by abolishing or downsizing organisations, by setting
Report of the Community Care Review 16
up new ones to take their place, or by forcing existing organisations to compete with each other through contractual fiat. The work required is cultural, and requires the building of goodwill and trust into networks. At this point, cynics have to be reminded that there is evidence to show that relationally based networks of trust are the basis of economic and social prosperity. The work of David Putnam and other researchers shows that is an environment of mistrust, ther are huge economic costs (Putnam, 1993). What are the perspectives and skills required for servant leadership? The perspectives involve understanding and managing complexity, being responsive to the rights and views of stakeholders, being able to assemble a resource base and being able to steer a demonstrably fair direction through ambiguity and change with integrity and principle. The skills needed are different from the traditional management and bureaucratic skills involved in maintaining large institutions, whether government or non-government. The skills include the need to be able to listen to, talk to and respond to service users; to build, maintain and promote alliances with stakeholders; to build and analyse data; to develop strategic directions; to be able to implement action as a response to policy; to understand and respond to tensions between conflicting objectives to support staff creativity and solidarity; and to be transparent and open.
1.6.9 Performance Although it is never explicitly stated, some people have concluded that there are members of the community sector and CSOs who consider that ensuring a fair, balanced process between government and non-government relations is achieved is an end in itself. In this report, it is not accepted that this is so. Government and partners, including CSOs, will have to accept it is their performance that is the important issue, and that this must in turn be related to articulating goals and eventually targets short, medium and long term − for individuals, families and communities. For this reason, in the Report, it is emphasised that service standards and their measurement are necessary in all areas, as an attribute of good governance. Also, although proper resourcing is emphasised, so is the need for all parties: CSOs (boards, CEOs, managers and practitioners) and government officers − to accept transparent forms of accountability in relation to their performance. In the Report, the arguments for looser organisational forms carry with them responsibility to ensure absolute clarity about performance requirements. In particular, in the long term, these involve integrating service users in their community (Carter 2000).
Report of the Community Care Review 17
However, community care service providers are a considerable distance from being able to articulate rational, agreed outcomes as the baseline for assessing their performance. The evidence base is not yet available: the research is yet to be done. In the interim, service standards have to be generated and agreed by way of having a transparent process.
1.7 This Report
For the new century, what is required is a different direction and a strategic set of tasks in community care, different resourcing and partnerships, and a commitment to uncovering evidence and tolerating ambiguity! In this Report, it is possible to only point to signposts along the way. The ‘Ps’ in this chapter are these signposts. A substantial part of this report (chapters 2 to 5) is based on the outcomes of the consultations and is framed around the answers given to the questions raised. Chapter 2 is a discussion of the pros and cons of the Youth and Family Services Redevelopment. It is argued that although the negatives of the proposed reforms outweighed the positives, a clearer view of the community care sector and the need for coordination of and quality in services began to emerge. Networks as a basis for collaboration are the emerging theme. Chapter 3 is an outline of the feedback given to the Review about the fundamental principles that should underpin service delivery. From this, a Charter has been devised in which the six principles are outlined. In considering the priorities and opportunities occasioned by the Review, the Report includes a discussion of a series of elements – such as knowledge building – that have to become fundamental building blocks for operating the Community Care Division. Chapter 4 is an examination of the significance of communities and community building for the Division of Community Care. Although it is acknowledged that other branches of government are fortunately now interested in community building, the specific issues for community care ‘surround’ inclusion of economically and socially disadvantaged people while more general local social capital accumulation is being contributed to. A special issue is connecting ‘work’ and ‘non work’ to family and individuals. In Chapter 5, the future role of prevention is canvassed. A concerted call for prevention and early intervention is reported, but not at the expense of adequate funding for the more intensive services. However, in the long term, it is acknowledged that it should be possible to reduce intensive services once prevention and early intervention services are in place.
Report of the Community Care Review 18
In Chapter 6, the Report moves to an elucidation of a structural framework for community care services. This is based on the discussion of the usefulness of networks as a reiteration of partnerships. Two organising mechanisms are advanced. First, in service clusters, the stage and transitional pressures of children and families are taken into account. Second, mechanisms based on place are recommended. Community Care Networks (CCNs), the place for the organisation of services, are based on two or three local government areas. More fundamentally, the local community is to be a site of not only delivery but pooling of resources as well as services so that local communities, through Community Zones, can specify what services they need, and when and how they need them. Chapter 7 is a discussion of a range of issues presented to the Review about intensive services, and from this material a regular process of service review for all programs is recommended. In Chapter 8, several issues are raised that arose in the course of examining intensive services. There is insufficient understanding of the nature of families. What is the connection to be between community services and schools? Legislative review is needed in Victoria. What should be the role, if any, of professionals in the Community Care Division? Who should, in the end, exercise responsibility for making sure accountabilities (including the Government’s) are met? The closing chapter, Chapter 9, is a review of the main recommendations of the Report.
Report of the Community Care Review 19
Chapter 2 The past: The YAFS Redevelopment and the reaction
Overview
Most features of the proposed YAFSR were rejected by the people who were consulted in the Review. In summary, the drawbacks of the YAFSR were considered to be as follows. • It was a static and mechanistic ‘black box’ system in which service delivery and service users were trapped within a narrow, insulated service system, without an adequate definition of the problems to be tackled. • There was lack of recognition of the culture in which services were delivered, in particular any culture sustained within and between CSOs. • There was lack of appreciation of the gaps in the existing service system beyond YAFS and lack of appreciation of the tasks to be undertaken. • There was no obvious connection with cognate services delivered by other parts of the Department of Human Services, other State departments, local government or the Commonwealth Government, or with the highly related child protection and juvenile justice services. • There was insufficient clarity as to whom any service was mainly directed (child, young person, parent, family or all of these) and there was only a patchy focus on families’ needs in relation to the members’ age and the stage of their life cycle. Sometimes early childhood or adolescence was acknowledged, other times not. • There was a lack of appreciation of the need for research within child and family services, and a lack of knowledge of research within related fields such as child and youth mental health whereby evidence might be provided for improved practice. This included lack of focus on population wellbeing. • There was lack of emphasis on the Government’s having a duty of care of Government for wards of the state. • It was claimed that promotion of competition by inviting large city based CSOs to compete with smaller rural CSOs does not, of itself, improve services.
Report of the Community Care Review 21
By contrast, the positives emerging from the YAFSR process were that its centralised, imposed, non-consultative style had the unintended consequence of uniting organisations against it. The anticipated future benefits of YAFSR were viewed as being based on two issues: first, that a linked service system was a good idea and could only improve service delivery, particularly if service standards were involved, and second, that the possibility of service groupings had merits in offering greater flexibility and local capacity for focusing services on local needs. The evidence found in the Review is that there has to be a more effective model of public administration to guide relations between government and non-government than that proposed by YAFSR. The model has to be partnership based, relational oriented, locally responsive, standards oriented, results driven and linkage conscious. With this in mind, a future framework for community care services in Victoria requires a new operating model of public administration based on partnership agreements between government and other parties, including the non-government sector; other parts of government, including the Commonwealth and local governments; and users of services. In these consensual agreements, the respective contributions of each party, including resources, and knowledge and understanding of problems, tasks and competencies, will be acknowledged. Central to the partnership will be recognition of a discernible network of services over and above the identity and contribution of individual CSOs, whereby programs are matched with problems, tasks, capabilities and service standards.
2.1 Introduction
The YAFSR was to be a far reaching reorganisation. The first stage, however, was focused on the ‘targeted’ services. These were externally provided services, for which funding exceeded $140million, provided by more than 460 community service organisations. At the commencement of the YAFSR, there were more than 80 programs and service models funded by the Department of Human Services, Division of Youth and Family Services, in many of which similar client issues and client groups were addressed. For example, the Department funded more than 40 types of ‘out of home’ care and support for children and young people, and 20 service types of support for vulnerable families and parents. This situation reflected the tendency to add new services as new problems and issues emerged: a typical historically based funding process.
Report of the Community Care Review 22
In the Review, the Department argued that the evolving and historical nature of the funding of youth and family services had led to the following situations. • Similar services and programs wrer funded on different bases. The historical reliance on organisation level or block grants, ‘input’ grants and the later introduction of user targets resulted in agencies, receiving different notional funding on a per client basis. (For example, in one Region, the providers of family support services receive notional unit-client allocations ranging from $263 to $823.) • Organisations, particularly the larger ones, received funding for a large number of different services, each of which had varying client and service definitions and accountability requirements. • An incremental approach to new services was adopted. Combined with the historical funding arrangements, this meant there were significant inequities in overall service provision between Regions in a number of significant service areas, and therefore inequality of access for clients. • The historical funding approach combined with the changing demographic pattern of the population had led to a situation whereby there were not the necessary services in areas of need. (For example, there is a paucity of support services for vulnerable families in growth areas, such as the cities of Casey and Frankston and the Shire of Mornington, compared with the cities of Bayside and Kingston, which do not rate as highly in terms of areas of social disadvantage, and yet are where most family support services are located. A similar pattern is shown for the Northern Metropolitan Region, in which there is an absence of service outlets in the growth corridors such as Whittlesea.) • Victoria has a long tradition, over 150 years, of provision of community services by locally based, non-government community service organisations (CSOs). CSOs vary in their origin, traditions and size. They have undergone significant change, and reduction, over the past two decades. For example, the number of individual member agencies of the peak body, the Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria, decreased from 75 in 1993–94 to 49 in 1996–97 (although membership is again rising). • Most significant for this sector has been the apparent shift in the funding base. Many CSOs are now almost entirely dependent on government funding for their continued existence. • There is a significant variation in the funding CSOs receive. For example: • Funding of $20million for the various support services for families is allocated among 123 agencies. Three CSOs receive in excess of $1million, and 52 receive less than $50,000.
Report of the Community Care Review 23
• Fifty-three CSOs are funded for placement and support services, but the four largest CSOs receive more than $20million combined, and 18 receive less than $200,000. The issue as perceived by the DHS was ‘how to improve client outcomes and [given] the complexity and interrelationship of client need, how to link into an effective area-based service system the large number of agencies receiving limited funding for a single-client issue or service.’ Most people consulted in the Review would agree with this analysis of the problem.
2.2 The environment for the Redevelopment
After the Kennett Government was elected in 1992, the then Department of Community Services amalgamated with the Department of Health and Aboriginal Affairs Victoria to form the Department of Health and Community Services (H&CS). By the time of the State election in 1996, the then Child and Family Welfare (CAFW) division had established a strong policy- and program- development focus and introduced mandatory reporting. There had been a huge influx into the child protection system. Following the 1996 election, the Office of Housing and Youth Affairs joined H&CS to become the Department of Human Services. Also, later in 1996, part of the then Primary Care and Children’s and Family Welfare divisions and the Office of Youth Affairs were amalgamated into the Division of Youth and Family Services (YAFS). (The remainder of the Primary Care Division went to the Division of Aged Care, Community and Mental Health.) The second series of changes in 1996 resulted from a review of program and structure by McKinsey and Company. The influence of the 1996 McKinsey Review on YAFS was seminal. In the Review, informants were confined to top-level people within the bureaucracy. The Review’s emphasis was consolidating a series of program divisions, all driven by their own objectives and performance criteria, and linked back to corporate strategy and performance management, while corporate and regional governance was being expanded. In moving to the purchaser-provider model, the key aims for the new YAFS as viewed by McKinsey were to: • develop a ‘seamless service’ • focus roles on system-program achievement • improve access and outcomes for children and family welfare by: • improving case management • presenting Children’s Court matters more effectively • targeting primary care services • redeveloping juvenile justice centres
Report of the Community Care Review 24
• introducing contestability for accommodation and protection, and other direct service provision.
All these aims were to be achieved by imposition of a stronger corporate management system. The framework of the McKinsey Review set the scene for the subsequent YAFSR: a strong corporate management system, a split between the purchaser and provider of services, and introduction of a contestability framework to regions and the community sector in turn. The hierarchy of bureaucracy was considered to extend from the Minister through the regional divisions of the Department, and beyond to community sector organisations. Through this chain of command, it was considered possible to bring all programs and organisations into conformity with the corporate will. In this model, community service organisations (CSOs) were reclassified as extensions of the State Government. A framework for a number of misconceptions was thereby provided: • Community service organisations (CSOs) do deliver government services, but many have a range of other functions under independent governance structures of a board or management committee (see Chapter 1). • The benefit of CSOs has always been understood to be their diversity and contribution to the civil (as opposed to business or government) life of their local community, so this lack of recognition of the independent role of CSOs, and their incorporation in the corporate chain of command, were viewed as being a threat to the independency and advocacy of organisations. • The top−down, mandated nature of the corporate plan did not allow for dialogue or negotiation, or for acknowledgment that the recommended approaches reflected specific viewpoints and perspectives.
The significance of the acceptance of the McKinsey Review was that it apparently committed the Coalition government to a top−down appraisal of community services that synchronised with the Coalition’s policy to introduce contestability and a disconnection between the purchaser of services and the provider. In doing so, there was no space for any analysis by McKinsey whereby the nature, problems, tasks, sector and workforce of youth and family services might have been differentiated as being any different from any commercial or non-commercial sector. There was no analysis of the nature of the type and range undertaken by the community service field; no comprehension of the range and depth of the problems and difficulties faced by families and children; no definition of the tasks, statutory and otherwise; no longitudinal research required to be
Report of the Community Care Review 25
undertaken; no understanding of the demography and governance of formal provider institutions (such as local government and community service organisations) or informal organisations (such as families and volunteers) in whose ‘bailiwick’ these problems and tasks occur; and no appreciation, quantitative or qualitative, of the successes and failures of the past and present responses to and interventions I- these problems. The McKinsey assumption was that reorganising the structure of YAFS would enable the Government to take control of all other variables from the top down. In the McKinsey Review there was therefore no cognisance of: • the definition, range and complexity of problems to be tackled • the nature, extent and duration of difficulties • the life situation and environments of users • the nature, governance and culture of the non government sector and CSOs.
2.3 The Redevelopment
Three publications formed the conceptualisation of the Youth and Family Services Redevelopment (YAFSR): • The Redevelopment of Victoria’s Youth and Family Services – The Strategic Directions, January 1998 • Youth and Family Services Redevelopment – Service Integration and Purchasing, 1998 • The Redevelopment of Victoria’s Youth and Family Services – Purchasing Specifications, 1999 In the first document, The Redevelopment of Victoria’s Youth and Family Services − Strategic Directions (DHS 1998)—five outcomes for child, youth and family services were identified. These were: 1. provision of a foundation during the first five years of life for development of optimal health and wellbeing 2. reduction in incidence of abuse of children and young people in the community 3. improved life chances for children, young people and families identified as being significantly at risk 4. minimisation of the effects of abuse on children and young people 5. minimisation of the incidence and prevalence of problem behaviours in the youth population. The service groups proposed in the Redevelopment are shown in Table 2.1. For more details, see Appendix 8.
Report of the Community Care Review 26
Table 2.1 YAFS Redevelopment, 1998: summary of service - group components Service group Core components: services Possible additional components Department-provided Specialist statewide services statutory services linked to this service group Support Services for Family Support – Family Counselling Family Preservation Reunification Early Parenting Centres Families Family Support – In-home Support – Families First Family Intervention Homelessness Services for Families Placement Support Workers Strengthening Camilies Behaviour Intervention and Support Teams (YAFS) Early Intervention Early Intervention Services for Families Early choices Strengthening Family Support Pre-school Field Officers Specialist Children’s Services Intensive Support High Risk Infants (Part) Family Preservation Regional Child Protection Forensic, Paediatric, Medical Services for Children Innovative Support Reunification – Families First After Hours Child Protection and Sexual Abuse Treatment and Families Family Choice Placement Support Workers Court Early Parenting Centres Kinship Care Behaviour Intervention and Family Intervention Home Based Care Support Teams (YAFS) Residential Care Support Services for Youth Support Homelessness Services for Young Young People School Focused Youth People Refugee Placement Support Workers Behaviour Intervention and Support Teams (YAFS) Adolescent Support Adolescent Community Placement Intensive Support High Risk Adolescents Homelessness Services for Young Regional Child Protection Juvenile Justice (Community Services for Young Intensive Youth Support People After Hours Child Protection Based) People Innovative Support Placement Support Workers Court Forensic, Paediatric, Medical Family Choice Behaviour Intervention and Juvenile Justice (Custodial and Sexual Abuse Treatment Kinship Care Support Teams and Community Based) Juvenile Justice Home Based Care Adolescent Support Forensic Adolescent Health Residential Care Adolescent Community Placement Personal Support Financial Counselling Services Problem Gambling Source: DHS (1998). Youth and Family Services Redevelopment: Service Integration and Purchasing.
Report of the Community Care Review 27
The advantages of the new service arrangements were stated to be: • emphasis on the complementary nature of services • service continuum • flexible, client focused service interventions • achievement of outcomes • client based approach to purchasing • provision of a consistent service response • integrated intake and assessment system • closer links with the child protection service.
To fulfil these intentions, the plan was to require Regions of the Department and CSOs to implement detailed regional implementation plans and registration of service proposals. In the Purchasing Specifications • outcome measures for programs (not based on an empirical research program) were produced • client-based funding (although no information or research was available about cost or financing) rather than input - or infrastructure - based funding was required • contestability as the basis for letting contracts was introduced • an ambitious timetable was worked to. The Redevelopment took place in a climate of reluctance, even ill will. The then Government Minister agreed in mid-1999 not to proceed with the application of competitive tendering of services already being operated.
2.4 Problems and weaknesses of the Redevelopment
As part of this Review, consultations were held in nine Regions (four metropolitan and five regional, and were held by way of focus-group discussions. The people invited by the Government to attend the consultations in each Region were CEOs and service staff of organisations who delivered programs funded by the Division of Community Care. Most participants in the consultations were therefore service providers who were stakeholders in the Division of Community Care’s programs. Most organisations invited to the consultations attended. The attendance list is shown in Appendix 6. Participants in the consultations came from extremely wide ranging backgrounds, community care organisations, community health and other health centres, neighbourhood houses, and early childhood services.
Report of the Community Care Review 29
Government officers were present at each consultation to organise proceedings, and by agreement with participants, occasionally took part. In each consultation, participants were asked to answer the six questions already outlined in Chapter 1. Participants were divided into small groups and were asked to record their main findings for feedback for other people in the consultations and for the Review. The comments reported and the quotations throughout this chapter and Report come from group records about the major findings of small groups in the consultations. These were subjected to a thematic analysis and a simple numerical count of the frequency with which each theme was mentioned. The question dealt with in this section was: What, if any, were the problems and weaknesses of the YAFS Redevelopment? YAFSR was comprehensively rejected as being an inappropriate, if not disastrous, framework for delivery. In analysis of the consultation feedback, 12 predominant themes were identified. These were: • disagreement with the rationale and methodology underlying the Redevelopment • ignoring of linkages with other services • lack of a comprehensive, holistic focus whereby the service user was viewed as having complex needs • poor consultation and an imposed process whereby feedback was insufficient • inhibiting of collaboration and promotion of competition between services • the impact on and possible elimination of small agencies and local networks • imposition of unrealistic timelines and disregard for limited agency capacity • that the ideological basis of YAFSR was inappropriate: and was a misguided application of national competition policy • that because of lack of additional resources to support YAFSR, time and energy were diverted from service users • that rural respondents complained of the metropolitan conception of YAFSR • that detail about costings was absent • various ‘one off’ issues.
A simple numerical count of the number of separate responses gathered in the consultations grouped against these themes is detailed
Report of the Community Care Review 30
in Table 2.2. Not too much numerical significance should be placed on the data; the comparisons between metropolitan and rural responses are not statistically reliable, but are provided to show within metropolitan and within rural regions what was identified as being the most to least important theme. It also has to be remembered that any member of any discussion group, and every discussion group as a whole, could raise points. The following themes are organised into number of responses ‘most often mentioned’ to ‘least often mentioned’. Table 2.2 Negatives of the Redevelopment: metropolitan and rural responses (N = Frequency of themes) Theme Metropolitan Rural Total count count Disagreement with the rationale and 82 55 137 methodology underlying the Redevelopment Ignoring of linkages 29 28 57 Lack of a comprehensive focus 37 19 56 Poor consultation and an imposed 32 22 54 process Inhibiting of collaboration and 37 10 47 promotion of competition Impact on small agencies and local 37 10 47 networks Unrealistic timelines and impact on 34 12 46 agency capacity Inappropriate ideological basis of the 17 7 26 Redevelopment Other ‘one off’ issues 14 9 23 Lack of additional resources to 9 8 17 support the process Rural issues 1 11 12 Absence of detail about costings 8 2 10 566
A brief summary of the key points made at the consultations about each of these themes is provided as follows. The rankings were developed retrospective to the consultations, and there are various other limits on the data. For example, not all groups believed they had enough time to develop their arguments. The information was reduced to manageable size and priority after, not during, the consultations by the participants.
2.4.1 Disagreement with the rationale and methodology underlying the Redevelopment It was an architectural solution which didn’t reflect the reality of existing services (Loddon−Mallee respondents). In the responses, a broad range of weaknesses associated with the rationale and methodology underlying the Redevelopment program were dientified, including:
Report of the Community Care Review 31
• the view that there was an inadequate level of detail about specialist, statewide and early intervention services in YAFSR • concerns that the proposed catchments did not align with existing ‘natural’ catchments • the perception that the Redevelopment was driven administratively and was not user focused • there was no acknowledgment that any system existing before the Redevelopment was working well • an absence of focus on quality and standards in the delivery of services was not thought excusable • an inadequate research and evidence basis for the reorganisation was considered to be a major defect • service bundles were inappropriate and lacked flexibility • an inadequate consideration of the legal implications of the proposed consortia between otherwise independent CSOs had not been thought through • the principles espoused did not reflect strategies proposed: the actions belied the words • because the focus was on purchasing, the gaze of providers and purchasers was restricted and their vision was turned away from service users • the lack of consideration of broader societal and economic factors impacting on services meant insufficient attention was given to the context • an absence of pilot programs to test models was thought to be a weakness • proposals about financial counselling were unacceptable to the agencies • the failure to comprehensively address Aboriginal and Torres Straits Islander issues was criticised.
In short, YAFSR was considered ignorant of the service system as a whole, not targeted to natural communities, bureaucratically centred and designed, lacking in ethno-specific and indigenous understanding, rigid and inflexible, and lacking practice research and theory logic.
2.4.2 Ignoring of linkages It didn’t recognise that services were linked (Loddon-Mallee comment). It was contended by respondents that there was failure to adequately address the issue of linkages with, and pathways between, like and related services and service systems. There was a perceived lack of integration with the related Primary Health and Community Support
Report of the Community Care Review 32
Services (PHACS) Redevelopment process, an exercise taking place in another Division at the same time. Respondents also highlighted failure to adequately address linkages with local government and community networks not funded by YAFS. Opportunities to develop synergies with related redevelopments and systems were missed. Respondents argued that the YAFSR promoted ‘silos’ of service delivery, and worsened the closing and isolation of YAFS from other services.
2.4.3 Lack of a comprehensive focus Key services were not included in given ‘bundles’ (Southern Metropolitan response). YAFSR lacked a comprehensive framework to span the entire service system. It was argued that there was an over emphasis on tertiary services, and that inadequate attention was given to the important role of prevention and early intervention programs. Paradoxically, the government-run child protection and juvenile justice services were left out of YAFSR, despite their close links with CSO tertiary programs. In addition, the rationale for excluding services such as maternal and child health services and neighbourhood houses from the Redevelopment was strongly criticised. It was thought that redeveloping the tertiary services without giving equal attention to prevention demonstrated misguided conceptions of family need.
2.4.4 Poor consultation and an imposed process Lack of consultation was appalling – plus they didn’t know what they were doing – didn’t know the field of services – [it was] the perspective of planners rather than users (Northern Metropolitan response). Respondents considered that YAFSR was imposed centrally and had inadequate consultation. Feedback from the sector was not accepted. The consultation process was imposed, and some respondents commented that the Department ‘only heard what they wanted to’. The Redevelopment was thought to have resulted in deterioration in the quality of the relationship between the Department and the sector, whereby both sides were seen to ‘close ranks’. Local government, specialist services and community networks considered themselves to be excluded from the consultation. The idea that the Government had produced an ‘objective’ analysis and a ‘solution’ to be adhered to was strongly resisted. CSOs argued that in the process, defensive behaviour and cynicism were promoted.
2.4.5 In the Redevelopment, collaboration was inhibited and competition was promoted It eroded trust between agencies; it drove them apart because [of] competition, not cooperation (Hume response). Respondents considered that in the Redevelopment, a culture of
Report of the Community Care Review 33
competition between agencies was promoted. This was considered to be at the expense of collaboration, which had traditionally characterised relationships in the sector. A competitive paradigm was inappropriate for the community care sector; it had to be cooperation, not competition, that was rewarded, argued one group of participants. The YAFSR process was styled as being essentially ‘coercive’ because of its prescribed ‘take no prisoners’ method. Financial pressure was increased on many deficit-funded organisations so they could stay in business by participating in YAFSR.
2.4.6 The impact on small agencies and local networks There was a devaluing of smaller agencies and their community interests; [there was] no choice but to be consumed by larger agencies [in the belief that] bigger is better. [We] fear that services will be lost from smaller agencies (Gippsland response). Many small agencies were uncertain of their future. It was considered that YAFSR was predicated on a significant reduction in the number of small ‘stand alone’ agencies. Several respondents considered that work associated with the Redevelopment consumed significant agency resources. The potential reduction in small agencies was viewed as having serious repercussions for local community networks. Small agencies were described as being disenfranchised, excluded, confused, devalued and discriminated against. The place of local communities and the importance of location had been lost. In the tender process, no account was taken of knowledge about ‘place,’ and small agencies feared loss of services, volunteers and funds. In particular, in most country-based regions, the practice of inviting or promoting large city- based CSOs to compete with smaller rural agencies was strongly resented. Localism was seen to be a more important virtue than alternative expertise.
2.4.7 Unrealistic timelines and the impact on agency capacity There was no acknowledgment of the time pressures in the field (Southern Metropolitan comment). Respondents were highly critical of the very short timelines associated with implementation of the Redevelopment. The scale of change required was considerable, and because of the rigid timelines, adequate and appropriate planning and implementation were prohibited. CSOs expended considerable resources attempting to work within the proposed timelines, but these were too short to consider the range of governance issues thrown up in YAFSR. The unevaluated nature of the YAFSR experiment was viewed as being a danger.
Report of the Community Care Review 34
2.4.8 The inappropriate ideological basis of the Redevelopment It was ideologically driven, not evidence based – it attempted to remove or shift responsibility and risk from DHS; there was limited evidence to support this shift (Northern Metropolitan response). Some respondents highlighted the inappropriate application of National Competition Policy and ‘economic rationalism’ to the community services sector. The pressure to form ‘partnerships’, was driven by the top−down priorities of Government, not users, and raised a range of ‘catch 22’ governance issues.
2.4.9 Absence of detail about costings Lack of detail on costings was a major issue, as was lack of growth funding (Western Metropolitan response). Not only were the costings for services inappropriate; there were no costings for governance, ‘management’ of redeveloped services or the redevelopment process – [this was] a ‘cost neutral’ redevelopment which presumed services could be delivered on inadequate costings (Gippsland comment). There was an absence of detailed costings in the Redevelopment proposals. Several respondents considered that YAFSR was an exercise in cost shifting from the Department to agencies. Savings for DHS would result by transferring transaction costs to a lead agency. Other respondents argued that the purpose of YAFSR was to avoid discussing funding issues related to community services.
2.4.10 Lack of additional resources to support the process Requirement was for more work, but we had inadequate existing funding and no promise of additional funding (Loddon-Mallee comment). The process was very time consuming, but there was no evidence of additional resources for agencies to facilitate the proposed process for major change. There were financial, time and energy costs involved in YAFSR.
2.4.11 Rural issues It was city focused, not reflecting local community need: one size fits all (Loddon Mallee comment). Rural respondents considered YAFSR to be ‘metropolitan-centric’ whereby no account was given to issues of rural service delivery. Elements of the proposed services were considered to be inappropriate in rural areas, in which specialist services were less likely to be viable. The YAFSR view that there was minimal existing service collaboration was an unfounded assumption. That rural services cost more to deliver because of travel time and a smaller critical mass was ignored.
Report of the Community Care Review 35
2.4 12 Other ‘one off’ issues Respondents highlighted a range of observations and specific concerns about YAFSR, including the following. • CSOs already had the capacity to demonstrate greater accountability without redevelopment. • The specific issues facing early intervention services and financial counselling, and the strategic fit with the broader YAFSR, were ignored. • Change should be determined by practitioners, not by referring to fashionable ideology.
2.5 The positive aspects of the Redevelopment
Despite the criticism and antagonism encircling YAFSR and the comprehensive rejection of its models and implications, participants in the consultations volunteered a number of strengths as having arisen from YAFSR. In summary, the main issues were as follows. • Opportunities were provided through YAFSR to improve service delivery by recognising and developing a service system. • There was recognition that inter-agency relationships could be improved. • The sector had been mobilised by adversity. • The process meant that CSOs had noted that joint service planning was necessary to eliminate service gaps. • Agency role and function had been reconsidered. • In YAFSR, an understanding of the dynamics of the service system as a whole has been provided. • Service amalgamation by a process whereby resources could be used flexibly could be supported under some circumstances.
A simple numerical count of the number of separate responses (not respondents) grouped against these themes is detailed in Table 2.3. Again, the numeric data is provided simply to give an understanding of the relative priority of issues mentioned in metropolitan and rural sectors.
Report of the Community Care Review 36
Table 2.3 Positives of the Redevelopment (N = frequency of themes) Theme Metropolitan Rural Total responses responses Service system and service 75 27 102 delivery linkages Inter-agency relationships, 49 16 65 linkages and collaboration General observations 26 13 39 Mobilised sector 18 8 26 Planning and identification 7 12 19 of service gaps Agency role and function 12 6 18 Understanding of the 9 5 14 system Service bundling 8 4 12 295
The positive responses to YAFSR could be divided into two groups: actual benefits that came about through the process of YAFSR as an unintended consequence (these were secondary benefits), and potential benefits: the ones likely to be the consequence of the Redevelopment itself (these were primary benefits). In the discussion that follows, it will be clear that few benefits cited were primary in that they were expected from implementation of YAFSR itself. Most came through the unanticipated consequences of CSO staff members’ meeting in enforced circumstances and were therefore secondary benefits. The secondary benefits, or unintended consequences, will be dealt with first as being the larger group of responses.
Secondary benefits These related particularly to articulation of common interests between CSOs, and to a new emphasis on CSO plans and sector plans.
2.5.1 Inter-agency relationship, linkages and collaboration It forged strong relationships out of adversity (Northern Metropolitan response). Although the Redevelopment was perceived to be centrally imposed, it did, by default, result in improved alliances, networks and collaborations. In the opinion of the people canvassed, these should be consolidated and built on. Agencies became more aware of each other, positive relationships were built, and sustained partnerships were voluntarily explored, hence ‘the theme of tendering produced constructive dialogue’.
Report of the Community Care Review 37
2.5.2 A mobilised sector United opposition was created among agencies (Barwon South West). It energised the sector, united in defence (Gippsland). It united the field against the Department (Grampians). As already noted, YAFSR had the unintended and unexpected effect of mobilising organisations both at peak-body and agency level. The process generated important debate within the sector about its role, function and capacity to the point of a groundswell. The peak agency, the Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria, became an important focus for CSOs.
2.5.3 Planning and identification of service gaps [The Redevelopment] gave the Department opportunity for comprehensive mapping; gaps and overlaps [were] identified (Eastern Metropolitan response). In the Redevelopment, organisations were encouraged to develop an overview of their services and to identify service gaps such as appropriate levels of family support services. A requirement for service planning that included all groups, such as ethno-specific agencies in the Western Metropolitan Region was therefore highlighted.
2.5.4 Agency role and function Agencies more critically assessed their services (Grampians response). Agencies identified common points of reference/practices/standards and had increased awareness of each other; it got agencies talking, to review how they could better offer services (Hume response). Some responses pointed to the way YAFSR had led agencies to consider their strengths and weaknesses, to clarify their core activities and to consider strategic planning issues. It was claimed that self- appraisal (‘navel gazing’) about the purpose and strengths of individual CSOs had commenced.
2.5.5 Understanding of the system For the first time, we were able to network, and to know who is who in the area and what services are available (Loddon−Mallee comment). For some respondents, YAFSR had led to services becoming less myopic. There was considerable development of improved knowledge of the services system (e.g. who’s who in the area, and what services are available). Agency staff started to think about where they fitted in a continuum of service delivery.
Report of the Community Care Review 38
2.5.6 General observations It was a useful wake-up call that there was enormous need and very limited resources (Southern Metropolitan comment). Some responses were ‘one off’ unconnected observations about the Redevelopment, including that it: • highlighted the level of need that was evident, and the limited resource capacity available to meet the need • helped to develop a service profile • offered business and management training funded by the YAFS Division • improved relations between regional office and community organisations • had potential, but the process was overly prescriptive.
Primary benefits The primary benefits of YAFSR were to draw attention to deficiencies in the service system and service delivery, and to create debate around service bundling.
2.5.7 Service system and service delivery deficiencies It put onto the table the very issues that needed wok, e.g. common standards and protocols, common assessment and intake (Western Metropolitan response). The opinion was that a range of potential strengths had emerged from the YAFSR. Linkages between services reflecting a common, integrated services system and service standards became perceived to be important; that is, there was support for: • work on principles, service groupings, service standards and client outcomes • strengthened linkages between intensive services and support services • a future focus on an integrated service system, especially if early intervention services were included • the capacity to plan for a one-door entry system whereby repeat intake and assessments of clients would be avoided • the notion that agencies could improve and work together • the promise of a quality-improvement framework for services • a transparent view of budgets and processes • potential to create efficiencies.
Report of the Community Care Review 39
2.5.8 Service bundling The idea of bundling is sound but [it had] difficulties in practice (Grampians). Within the [proposed] bundles there was a greater flexibility about using resources (Loddon−Mallee). Several responses expressed conditional support for service bundling and the potential capacity for a more flexible use of resources. CSOs were forced into self-evaluation, resulting in greater accountability and clearer service goals. Bundling began with being viewed as being a liability, and grew to being viewed as being a cautious positive.
2.6 Summary of information from consultations
In the Review, it was noted that the disadvantages of the new service arrangements were seen by the participants in consultations to by far outweigh the advantages. In summary, the drawbacks of the proposed YAFSR were: • a static and mechanistic ‘black box’ system in which service delivery and service users were trapped within a narrow, insulated service system, without an adequate definition of the problems to be tackled • lack of appreciation of the gaps in the existing service system beyond YAFS • lack of appreciation of the tasks to be undertaken • no obvious connection with cognate services delivered by other parts of the Department of Human Services, other State Government departments, local government or the Commonwealth Government • no obvious connections made with the highly related child protection and juvenile justice services • insufficient clarity as to whom any service was mainly directed (child, young person, parent, family, or all of these?) • a patchy focus on families’ needs related to the members’ age and the stage of life cycle. Sometimes early childhood or adolescence was acknowledged, other times not • lack of appreciation of the need for funding of current research within child and family services, and a lack of knowledge of research within related fields such as child and youth mental health in which evidence for improved practice might be provided • lack of focus on population wellbeing • Government’s lack of emphasis on the ‘duty of care’ towards wards of the state
Report of the Community Care Review 40
• lack of recognition of the culture in which services were delivered, in particular any culture sustained within and between CSOs • promotion of competition by inviting large city-based CSOs to compete with smaller rural CSOs.
The anticipated future benefits of YAFSR were seen to centre around two issues: first, that a linked service system was a good idea and could only improve service delivery, particularly if service standards were involved, and second (and conditionally), that the possibility of service amalgamation had merits in offering greater flexibility and local capacity for focusing services on local needs in some circumstances.
2.7 Models of public administration
The evidence of the Review is that there has to be a more effective model of public administration to guide relations between government and non-government than that proposed in YAFSR. In public administration terms, YAFSR was a classic proposal of corporate- market organisation or bureaucracy. Images of organisation can be described as being procedural (as in the ‘older’ bureaucracy), corporate (as more recent products of management theory prescribe), market based (through control by contracts around price) or networked (describing partnerships that flexibly wrap services around clients). Of these approaches, the network organisation (and multiple organisations) would seem to take forward the partnership approach that is the basis of Government policy and the aspirations of respondents to the Review. In Table 2.4, one approach, by Considine (1999), is described.
Table 2.4 Bureaucracy and its orientations Source of Form of Primary Service Rationality Control Virtue Delivery Focus Procedural Law Rules Reliable Universal Organisation Treatments Corporate Management Plans Goal driven Target Organisation Groups Market Competition Contracts Cost driven Price Organisation Network Culture Co- Flexible Clients Organisation production Adapted from: Considine, M. and Lewis, J., 1999, ‘Governance at ground level: the frontline bureaucrat in an age of markets and networks’, Public Administration Review, November−December, vol. 59, no.6, p468.
Report of the Community Care Review 41
Considine argues (and this Review confirms) that these four orientations, far from being abstract and remote, have had a huge impact on service delivery. His study demonstrates that the ‘old’ procedural approach was overtaken by a merger between corporate and market organisations, producing a combined corporate—market organisation, sometimes known as the contract bureaucracy. It is the combination of its corporate plans and legal contracts that distinguishes this approach. The McKinsey corporate structure combined with the Kennett Government’s policies for competitive tendering provided both ideology and structure to determine what frontline workers could and could not do. In Considine’s outline (Table 2.5), the impact a management orientation could have on ‘frontline’ staff is spelt out.
Table 2.5 Management orientations Definitions of the four ‘frontline’ orientations Proceduralists were defined as having a strong orientation to rules. Statements such as ‘I have rules and procedures to guide me in the work I do,’ show commitment to this idea. Corporate Managers were defined as less interested in rules and more clearly motivated by targets and plans for specified client groups. Major interest was seen to reside in the need for officials to service particular target groups who were valued in policy and program plans. Approaches to the use of sanctions and special treatments were presumed to follow recognition of such group prioritisation. Marketeers were defined by responsiveness to the costs and prices for different services and different clients. A high consciousness of the need to beat one’s competitors is also apparent. Objectives were viewed as less a matter of goals and plans, and more clearly defined by ‘payable outcomes.’ Networkers were defined as those who saw their work as based upon the co-production of results using brokerage and negotiation. A high value was placed on trust and maintaining good contacts with clients and other service providers, including competitors. Networkers say ‘when you get good results with clients it’s usually a joint effort by yourself, the training person, the employer, etc.’
Source: Adapted from Considine, M. and Lewis, J., 1999, ‘Governance at ground level: the front linebureaucrat in an age of markets and networks’, Public Administration Review, November−December, vol. 59, no. 6, p. 472.
Considine says: The introduction of a quasi market…for welfare…did so according to judgments primarily concerned with price…competition is seen to save government decision makers some of the costs of rational choice by allowing the market to determine available means to a defined end. Existing contractors were held to represent the feasible range of available strategies, combining both cost and
Report of the Community Care Review 42
quality considerations. This reduced the decision makers’ task to one of selection from a known menu of public and private contractors. Typically the market bureaucracy divided itself into a core of senior managers responsible for policy and shielded from competition, and a series of operational units run as quasi- businesses. These developed their own business plans, devised quotes and divided work practices according to the real or potential threat they faced from other contractors. This provided senior management with a means to restructure their organisations without the costs of detailed negotiation and without previous forms of industrial dispute. (Considine, 1999, p. 4)
In Considine’s work, he notes the early shifts by some governments to a more network-based organisation. Network organisations propose interdependence − partnerships and coalitions − developed by negotiation, around existing and potential ‘pathways’ of service users, who can also be viewed as being better co-producers. Officials are network agents who move up, down and across the network, aiming at creating and improving individualised systems of service delivery and combining initiatives for service improvements. The network organisation is interested above all in partnerships (Bracks), cooperative government, ‘joined up’ government (Blair), and social coalitions (Howard). Whereas the corporate-market organisation is uninterested in the socio-political culture, the network organisation thrives on it. Whereas the corporate-market organisation requires formal rules, regulations, distance between purchasers and providers, and compliance, the network organisation discusses trust as being its binding force. As such, because interactions between organisations occur around culture and trust, ‘negotiation’ based on personal interactions is a key communication strategy. In short, positive relationships are central to the network organisation and a network system. As we have noted, critics of YAFSR rejected the corporate-market organisation but want quality service delivery, effective linkages between policy and practice environments, shared information, and common service standards to meet client needs. The network organisation based on partnership gives a model potentially able to take into account the issues in the field, because of its emphasis on incorporating knowledge, understanding and expertise of all stakeholders, including service users (see Table 2.6). It can also accommodate a range of styles, both formal and informal, for how an organisation manages itself and how it relates to other organisations and government. In Table 2.6 there is an attempt to summarise the values of participants in the consultations as a set of aspirations needed by governments and CSOs to take forward community services in Victoria. These aspirations could be summarised by saying that the desired values are partnership based, relationally oriented, locally responsive, standards oriented, results driven and linkage conscious.
Report of the Community Care Review 43
In the chapters of this report, these themes will be elaborated on. Meanwhile, YAFSR, because of its lack of interest in culture and relationships, collided with a different set of service provider values whereby the processes (although not necessarily the objectives) of YAFSR were viewed as being cognitively dissonant with their roles and tasks. This discomfort was alleviated by way of having the opportunity to derive some form of meaning from the process, by building stronger relations with colleagues. Unintentionally, the process of the Redevelopment often provided forums for development of new CSO alliances whereby a new sense of their existing and future connections with other services was provided. At their best, then, service networks are already ‘in development’. These are arguably more appropriate for community care services, with their complexity, low technology and relationship centred processes, than for the more frequently advocated ‘seamless’ service of the straightforward production line of service delivery in other less complex service arenas, such as day surgery. At its worst, YAFSR fractured some inter-agency relationships, apparently beyond repair. The reconciliation process is as yet incomplete.
Report of the Community Care Review 44
Figure 2.6 Some characteristics of a service network Source of Rationality Culture (organisational and professional) Form of Control Co-production Primary Virtue Flexible Service Delivery Focus Clients (Above from Considine and Lewis (1999) (Below from analysis of YAFSR – reaction) Source of legitimacy Community consensus expressed via political mandate Symbolic mandate (or To return service user to the community in overarching value) better shape Hidden agenda Creating social value in local communities Key incentives Achieving a vision; adequate resourcing Network ‘glue’ Agreements for objectives and directions based on a shared view of the role of community care Modes of network Collegial and collaborative, i.e. relational interaction Foundational activities Building together via planning Currency of transactions Negotiative and relational; aims at trust between producers and relationships and agreement; informal and consumers formal Delivery mode User-responsive, integrated, wrap around service View of consumers Partners in enterprise; co stakeholders View of carers Partners in enterprise; co stakeholders Roles of public officials Network facilitators; knowledge brokers; informed purchasers Basis of inter program ‘Joined up’, linked activity with common relations protocols; IT communications Directions of inter- Solving cross-cutting issues; synchronising organisational activity protocols and processes Key technical challenge Connecting development, delivery and results with ‘tracking’ technology, and providing diverse, individualised user pathways Focus of decision making Principle of subsidiarity or decision making at lowest level Shared objective Improving results via agreed service and performance standards Accountability Agreements for service standards, inputs and outputs; regular, results based reporting to partners and Government Basis of partnerships 1. Trust 2. Clear specifications of roles and responsibilities, and inputs and outputs Style Negotiable, but can be informal
Report of the Community Care Review 45
Networks provide a more appropriate approach for community care service delivery than corporate-market approaches, whereby: • the relationships between people are of the essence • people need reliable, complex information or services • quality cannot be specified easily or is difficult to define • commodities are difficult to price • professional discretion and expertise are core values • service delivery is locally located • cross-sectoral multi-agency cooperation is required • monitoring revaluation requires high political administrative costs • implementation involves negotiation • diplomacy in governance exists (Rhodes, 1998). The drawbacks of networks can be that they can: • be closed to outsiders • have less clear accountability than simple contracts • be difficult to steer • be difficult to combine with other governing structures.
Like any care sector, community service organisations are a heterogeneous set of orientations, but the evidence presented to the Review is that they have rejected procedural, corporate and contract orientations. The challenge for the community care sector is to use a network framework to design and then organise the strengths of emerging inter-organisational sector activity into service networks and to find out the extent to which other prevailing (and to some extent competing) orientations continue to add value, or confusion, to the complexity of organisation and administration. Naturally, networks will therefore co-habit with elements of other perspectives. The procedural, legislative rule based orientation will still exist; the corporate management orientation with centralist goals, planning, targets and evaluations will be apparent. Contracts will remain valuable for specifying the roles and tasks of various stakeholders. In addition, there will be professional orientations whereby the values of a dominant profession (for example, social work, medicine or education) will be significant. In some CSOs, there are religious orientations whereby the significant values can be vocational. There have been industry-dominated orientations whereby the ‘black letter’ of awards has been the predominant value. Within this framework, individual CSOs in the community care services network have varying adherence to value systems from a range of the perspectives mentioned. For example, some senior DHS staff told the Review in confidence how altruistically driven some
Report of the Community Care Review 46
members of their community care sector were. Other observers pointed to professional capacity or lack of it in some CSOs. In each set of value assumptions, the perceptions of the service environment are organised and shaped. The issue is one of searching for values, principles and objectives in common, and of organising the service system around them. The structure of an organisation is less important than the organisation guiding values and purpose. Operating styles should be derived from the needs and responsibilities of the organisation’s practice.
2.8 Summary and recommendations
A future framework for community care services in Victoria requires a new operating model of public administration based on partnership agreements between government and other parties, including the non- government sector; other parts of government, including the Commonwealth Government and local governments; and users of services. In these consensual agreements, the respective contributions of each party, including resources, knowledge and understanding of problems and of tasks and competencies, will be acknowledged. Central to the partnership will be recognition of a discernible network of services over and above the identity and contribution of individual CSOs, whereby programs are matched with problems, tasks, capabilities and service standards.
Report of the Community Care Review 47
Chapter 3 The future: principles and priorities for reform
Overview
From a range of themes presented to the Review about issues that have to be considered as principles for service delivery, seven principles are advocated as the basis for future community service delivery. In these, a Charter for Community Care is provided: • Service users are the first and last consideration. • Planning, design, provision and evaluation of all services have to include service users. • Families are the building blocks of communities, and communities have to build families. • Partnerships are the basis of planning, design, delivery and evaluation of service networks. • Prevention and early intervention offer an investment rationale for service delivery. • Provision of community care requires a commitment to: • justice and equity as the moral basis • quality as a fundamental commitment. • Sufficient resources and fair-funding models must underpin delivery.
From a range of opportunities and principles put forward in the Review, six building blocks have been defined by which future capability will be determined. These are as follows. • Inclusion: a commitment to stakeholders’ dialogue as the basis for moving ahead • Quality: developing learning networks • Service standards • Quality assurance by way of audit and inspection • Benchmarking and target setting • Quality data and information systems • Development of learning organisations • Knowledge: leveraging evidence-based activity
Report of the Community Care Review 48
• Localism: building ‘place’ at local level • Linkages: setting the whole of government together • Financing: best value assessments
With the implications of YAFSR in mind, what should be the post- YAFSR principles and priorities? In this chapter, a future set of principles is outlined to guide service development and delivery, and the priorities and opportunities occasioned by the Review are set out.
3.1 Principles for community care services: the consultations
In the Review, the question was raised about the future principles of service delivery, with the people who attended the consultations. Again, most of the information in this chapter was gleaned from the face-to-face consultations held in nine locations. Responses covered a very broad area, and will be dealt with in turn. For each issue, a checklist of the main issues is followed by a table in which a relative ranking of the importance of each issue is given. The material in this chapter was also examined closely by the Reference Group to the Review, the input of which guided the outcome of the development of both principles and priorities. In analysis of the consultation feedback, 10 themes were identified and are listed as follows. • Consultation and planning (including evaluation and review) require stakeholders’ involvement. • Service characteristics have to reflect partnerships. • With reference to funding arrangements and funding issues, the sector was viewed as being under-funded. • Clients, citizens, families and the community have to be at the centre. • General observations about the service system were made. • Specific issues for consideration in future community care principles include access, equity and social justice. • Quality and standards require agreement. • Prevention must be supported. • Linkages across government are essential. • Rural issues include distance, travel, isolation and higher costs.
A simple numerical count of the number of separate responses, grouped against these themes, is detailed in Table 3.1.
Report of the Community Care Review 49
Table 3.1 The principles of community care service delivery Theme Metropolitan Rural Total responses responses Consultation and 71 50 121 planning Services have to be 79 28 107 recognised by way of client and family focus Funding 81 25 106 arrangements and funding issues Clients, citizens and 79 10 89 community General observations 33 6 39 Specific issues for 21 7 28 consideration in development of community care principles Quality and 15 10 25 standards Prevention 18 5 23 Linkages 11 12 23 Rural issues 14 14 575
A brief summary of key points made in each of these themes is provided as follows. One strong difference was detected in the data: whereas in metropolitan responses the need for choice and diversity of services was emphasised, rural respondents argued for locally based services and local accountabilities.
3.1.1 Consultation and planning require stakeholders’ involvement True consultative process for any changes must engage community, client, services, sector and government (Gippsland). Respondents consistently raised the critical importance of stakeholder involvement in consultation and planning exercises. Collaboration, inclusiveness, partnership, local input – and listening – were highly valued. Responses emphasised participating in community, local government, regional and State planning processes. Effective long term planning, coupled with evidence based knowledge and practice, experience and wisdom were the best foundation for an effective design. The importance of criticism for best models of service was raised. Resourcing consumers to take part was considered important.
Report of the Community Care Review 50
3.1.2 Services across the board have to be recognised by way of their client and family focus and other characteristics reflective of partnerships A shared ideology between Government and the sector should be 'client need’. Client outcomes should be driving the system, and should be checked out all the way; e.g. catchments and boundaries are administrative constraints, not service constraints (Northern Metropolitan). The service will fit clients, not clients fit the system (Gippsland). There was a broad range of comments about desired future characteristics of the service system, including: • family and client focus • common intake processes and client pathways • agency flexibility, especially in rural areas • rebuilding trust and collaboration between agencies • partnership between Government and sector • innovation promoted • service framework has recognition of diversity of need • data requirements have to be recognised • evolutionary change in which current strengths are built on
3.1.3 Funding arrangements and issues Funding should reflect the real cost of service delivery and particular area needs (Gippsland). Responses expressed a consistent view that the sector was significantly under-funded, and that in many cases, Government funding did not reflect the actual costs of service delivery. Greater transparency in what is included in funding was called for. Responses argued for greater flexibility in how agencies expend funds. Some responses considered that funding current services well should be embarked on before new services are funded. Current funding was criticised as being inadequate, discontinuous, prescriptive and unrelated to demand or rural needs. It was suggested that partnership agreements replace tendering.
3.1.4 Citizens and communities have to be at the centre We must have a community development focus, not just direct service delivery. This is to develop and capture issues regarding social capital, localism, neighbourhood connectedness, which are at the ‘front end’ [of] prevention. This is a long term approach (Southern Metropolitan). The responses consistently expressed support for the public: citizens and communities are to be placed at the centre. Future principles
Report of the Community Care Review 51
should reflect and respond to citizen and community diversity, and should be premised on concepts of strengthening and building community capacity.
3.1.5 Development of community care principles, including access, equity and social justice Responses identified a range of specific considerations for inclusion in development of future community care principles, including access, equity and social justice, as well as clear, plain language and diversity of service choice. ‘Wrap around’ services separated from ‘silo’ thinking were suggested.
3.1.6 Quality and standards A quality framework [has to] be agreed regarding services, standards and good practice (Barwon South West). A requirement to develop quality services and to re-focus effort from quantity to quality was discussed. A starting point would be to recognise the explicit and tacit knowledge in the field. Uniform development of good practice standards and a vehicle for recognising and using good practice are essential.
3.1.7 Prevention Ensure access to universal services – value their support, e.g. kindergartens, childcare (Southern Metropolitan reponse). Strong support for prevention was expressed. There should be a gradual reorientation of services towards prevention and early intervention.
3.1.8 Linkages Joint planning partnerships – tripartite arrangements between local, State Government and non-government sectors (Gippsland). Ensuring linkages were established across Government, between the Commonwealth Government and local governments, and between CSOs, was a theme. The duplication of DHS services by divisional ‘silos’ was noted, and the lack of communication between divisions was criticised. Linkages had to be founded on cross-sectoral planning. The absence of planning frameworks was noted.
3.1.9 Rural issues Rural ‘models’ need to be recognised; i.e. one model does not fit all. [You] cannot transport Metropolitan models into rural areas (Gippsland).
Report of the Community Care Review 52
Reference was made in rural regional consultations to the troubling issues facing rural agencies. Several references were made to the adoption of a Rural Charter put forward by small rural agencies to the Review. Travel issues, distance, lack of density, isolation and equitable funding had to be acknowledged.
3.2 Principles for guiding reform
A series of principles to guide future community care reform were derived from the regional consultations and were subjected to more detailed analysis by the Reference Group. These principles have to be considered to be benchmarks against which future service proposals can be tested.
3.2.1 Service users are the first and last consideration Deep understanding of the nature of issues for service users and their difficulties has to underpin relationships with service users. The starting point for family strengthening is demonstrating genuine respect for each service user and family. Respect is demonstrated by understanding the importance of each service contact for a service user, and knowing that a relationship is essential to a process of healing and/or growth. Listening is fundamental. Users’ capabilities have to be promoted and affirmed by supporting active involvement in the services offered, in the actual running of community service organisations, and in the development of social capital in the local community. Associations between service users and their local community ‘mark off’ CSOs’ contributing to social capital from the more narrowly based service providers. A dialogue in which diversity is respected and promoted, including indigenous life and cultural difference, is necessary, as is support for both communities of interest. A service framework of ‘risk’ is too narrow. The key words are ‘strengthening’, ‘building’ and ‘connecting’. Roles of staff have to include mentor and coach as well as mediator and counsellor.
3.2.2 Planning, design, provision and evaluation of all community care services needs to include users of services Social capital is contributed to when rewarding associations and participation between service users and their families and communities are increased. Community care service users trapped in poverty, isolation or both receive a service directed at the symptoms (e.g. child abuse, and delinquency) rather than the cause, that is, social exclusion. This, in the long run, is hit and miss, poor strategy and wasted investment.
Report of the Community Care Review 53
Disconnection of the service user from the sources of social and economic capital is shortsighted and wasteful. Stronger connection of service users to families and neighbourhood is required. Users have to be more actively involved in delivery of services from providing feedback to acting as consumer consultants. The ultimate objective is for service users and their families to be partners in development of their communities (Carter 2000).
3.2.3 Families are the building blocks of communities, and communities have to build families Local communities are not the sum of physical and economic infrastructure. Local communities are more or less strong, according to the cohesion and confidence of the families who live in them. The task of local governments and community service organisations extends beyond delivering a service to providing opportunities for families and communities to grow; it is to contribute to social development and leadership while ensuring that marginalised and excluded families are included in the everyday life of the community. Resilient and diverse families and communities cannot be fostered through legislation, contracts or neglect. They are mainly the outcomes of participating in the community, and providing a sense of belonging and a stake in both the present and the future. Families and communities therefore have to be included in partnerships driving the services, and to contribute their experiences of caring.
3.2.4 Partnerships are the basis of planning, design, delivery and evaluation of service networks Formed between networks of citizens, communities, State and local governments, and community service organisations, partnerships have to specify appropriate roles, respect the customs and constraints of other partners, share expertise, be open and transparent, and work towards agreed goals and outcomes. Partnerships can be at any of three domains: representative, managerial and implementational (DOETR, 1997). Partnerships can be formal or informal, and with or without powers and plans. Partnerships have to replace central direction in service planning, design, delivery and evaluation. No individual family or community should be worse off because of the failure of governments, departments, ministers, councillors, local governments and service organisations to cooperate and work together. Service partnerships have to be horizontal (across divisional and departmental boundaries) and vertical (between governments, and between managements and staff). Working partnerships have to be built on trust. When trust has been depleted, active measures have to be used to build it up again. Trust will be the outcome of the amount of ‘first hand’ associations people
Report of the Community Care Review 54
have with each other and the pooling of their shared values. Trust comes from expectations of reciprocal relations, not from ‘spot’ contracts or competition. When working partnerships have trust, they not only generate social capital; they improve economic life. Contributions to partnerships can be fiscal based, knowledge based, expertise based or relationship based, but always have to be acknowledged by the partners.
3.2.5 Prevention and early intervention offer an investment rationale for service delivery There are practical ways for State and local governments and communities to invest in social capital. The aim of prevention is to prevent untoward negative events from occurring, whereas the aim of early intervention is to halt a possible or actual process of deterioration. Maintaining individuals, families and communities as committed social, economic and cultural participants is, in the long term, less expensive. However, once social capital is depleted, it becomes necessary (as in Victoria) to rebuild, through support, by both maintaining intensive services (and even increasing their support to enable the people receiving intensive services to participate) while setting up systems of prevention and early intervention. As is quoted in Chapter 4, ‘Community building and strengthening are viewed as being the best form of prevention.’
3.2.6 Provision of community care requires a commitment to: • social justice and equity as the moral basis of the charter • quality as a fundamental commitment, expressed through service standards, benchmarking, research, evaluation, audit and performance agreements. In the consultations, issues of social justice and equity were asked to be reinstated in the planning, design and delivery of services. This was not specified in detail, so it was not possible to determine the various shades of respondents’ meaning in the use of these terms. The rhetoric of social justice in community services often emanates from the day- to-day observation by front-line staff of social injustice. Social justice often means a ‘fair go’, in the sense of providing equal opportunity to service users and other people. A more complex use of the term ‘social justice and equity’ relates to distributional policies, so the rural and regional argument that the metropolis has benefited at the expense of ‘the bush’ was also heard. In this sense, social justice could have implied a call for different methods of distribution (of new resources) and redistribution (of current resources).
Report of the Community Care Review 55
3.2.7 Sufficient resources and fair-funding models must underpin delivery The chronic under-funding of community services requires a commitment from Government to meet 100% of service costs, and agreement about cost models. At present, this is inhibited by the absence of information about types of case and types of intervention, which is a subject to be discussed later. According to two specific issues raised in the consultations, it was alleged, first, that the Government had moved from a 1991 agreement to pay the full costs of children in care (most of whom are wards of the state even though almost all are in the care of NGOs) and, second, that funds from the Family Support Program were inadequate. Members of the DHS staff informed the Review of the under-funding of YAFS services when compared with other Departmental services such as in-patient admission and mental-health treatment. The Government must reach agreement with its community care partners about decent and flexible funding models for residential care and family support services.
3.3 Opportunities and priorities
People who attended the consultations were asked to discuss the ‘opportunities and priorities’ for future community care services, and these themes emerged: • Service improvement strategies can now be invoked. • Local planning, research and evaluation can be the backbone of the system. • Improved funding and funding arrangements can be instigated. • Better linkages and ‘whole of government’ approaches can be implemented. • Greater participation and consultation can be constituted. • Community building and locally based services can be introduced. • Strengthening of preventative services will be a long term benefit. • Delivery will be improved by way of strengthening of agency autonomy, flexibility and capacity for innovation. • Client, citizen and community participation must be strengthened. • Issues facing rural service delivery will be emphasised. • Specific needs of diverse communities will be addressed. • Other issues will be addressed.
Report of the Community Care Review 56
A count of the number of separate responses, grouped against these themes, is detailed in Table 3.2. Although many of these themes are repetitive and overlapping with the previously outlined principles of service delivery, the repetition of specific issues is worth observing because it indicates the issues that are currently of concern to providers.
Table 3.2 Responses to themes (N = frequency of themes)
Theme Metropolita Rural Total n count count Service-improvement 47 8 55 strategies Improved planning, 22 9 31 research and evaluation Improved funding and 21 7 28 funding arrangements Improved linkages and 20 6 26 ‘whole of government’ approaches Greater participation and 16 10 26 consultation Community building and 14 9 23 locally based services Strengthening preventative 12 7 19 services Other issues 11 5 16 Strengthening agency 9 1 10 autonomy, flexibility and capacity for innovation Client, citizen and 7 3 10 community participation Focus on issues facing rural 2 5 7 service delivery Addressing specific needs 7 0 7 of diverse communities 258
A brief summary of key points made in each of these themes is provided as follows.
3.3.1 Service-improvement strategies [A] quality-assurance framework is required for the new YAFS Development (Barwon South West). The most frequently mentioned issue was the need to seek rigorous service improvement.
Report of the Community Care Review 57
Respondents identified a broad range of matters, including: • integrity and honesty in funding arrangements • development of practice standards • clarifying roles and responsibilities • strengthening the workforce • improving data systems • promoting capacity for innovation • devising a new continuum of care • adopting a longer term, developmental approach to service redevelopment.
3.3.2 Improved local planning, research and evaluation to be the building blocks [There have to be] better planning and research frameworks, needs- based funding and models (Gippsland). The requirement mentioned here was to base any more development on sound planning principles augmented by research and evidence. A comprehensive strategic planning framework was considered to be critical. Local planning was perceived to form the building blocks for planning at sub-regional, regional and statewide level.
3.3.3 Improved funding and funding arrangements can be instigated Full funding: the real cost of delivering services (Barwon South West). Equitable funding arrangements to redress previous historical funding inequities were sought. Funding arrangements should be based on the full cost of delivery, and should include clear reference to price, targets, quality, capital infrastructure and training requirements. The need for technology for small agencies and staff parity with the Government sector for NGOs were stressed.
3.3.4 Improved linkages and ‘whole of government’ approaches Closer integration of Department of Human Services internal programs and other Government programs should parallel the development of sustained linkages between agencies. Significant opportunities were identified to develop collaborative, inter-sectoral planning across Government and the sector, ‘particularly at the top level’. Service integration at local and regional level was undermined by the ‘silos’ that are running separate divisions at DHS headquarters.
Report of the Community Care Review 58
3.3.5 Greater participation and consultation A change in mindset is needed (Grampians). Really look at [the] notion of collaboration and service as being part of a larger service system (Loddon–Mallee). Development of local planning involving the Department, local government and the sector was considered to be essential. The planning should be based on principles of partnership and collaboration, and should include consideration of social justice and equity.
3.3.6 Community building and locally based services can be commenced Promote different communities to work together (Eastern Metropolitan). Remembering our history, e.g. community development, self-help grants, cheap investments (Northern Metropolitan). Opportunity to look holistically at communities (Grampians). In addition, there was the need for development of a much stronger focus on locality and community in community care services policy and planning. Strategies to empower local communities should be expanded and should include restoration of advocacy services. Respondents indicated that all agencies in the sector should be driven by the needs of the local community.
3.3.7 Strengthening preventative services will be a long term benefit Increase profile for early intervention programs (Eastern Metropolitan). There’s scope for more intervention between ‘prevention’ and ‘tertiary’ (Northern Metropolitan). There was support for a vision for the future, based on expansion of preventative and early intervention services, provided this expansion was not resourced by contracting intensive-services expenditure. The need for balance was consistently referred to.
3.3.8 Specific needs of diverse communities Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) community needs in Western Metropolitan Region and access to language services are a major unmet need (Western Metropolitan). The specific needs of culturally and linguistically diverse communities were highlighted. These groups were considered to have been ignored.
Report of the Community Care Review 59
3.3.9 Strengthening agency autonomy, flexibility and capacity for innovation Understanding the diverse needs of clients, and providing flexible service (Eastern Metropolitan). Context is changing: we need dynamic responses (Northern Metropolitan). Several respondents called for agencies to have greater flexibility in service delivery and stronger capacity for innovation.
3.3.10 Service-user, citizen and community participation Children are clients. Families have no recourse in the present system (Eastern Metropolitan). Communities feel alienated and therefore would welcome this engagement (Southern Metropolitan). In several comments, a requirement to re-engage with local communities and develop services that maximise client choice was highlighted. The absence of review and appeal mechanisms for children and families was also noted. Users could be involved in planning, design and delivery. The lack of service focus on families was noted.
3.3.11 Issues facing rural service delivery [Need for awareness] of impact on unit cost in rural regions (Grampians). Rural uniqueness needs to be recognised (Hume). Look at funding inequity – rural remote – now rather than at end of funding period (18 months away) (Loddon–Mallee). Rural respondents highlighted the range of unique issues facing rural and remote agencies, in particular funding and funding inequities. The relative lack of rural infrastructure and access to services was noted.
3.3.12 Other issues Need to move on (Loddon–Mallee). Respondents raised a number of specific issues, including: • better recognition of the constraints facing small agencies • State–Commonwealth childcare issues • development of therapeutic residential services for young people.
Report of the Community Care Review 60
3.4 Implications
For the past 30 years and culminating in YAFSR, there have been two major assumptions about service improvement. The first is the managerialist assumption that structural rearrangement leads to service improvement. The second is the assumption that if the program model is modified, revised or accrued, service improvement will result. Both types of reorganisation have an impact on front-line service delivery, but not necessarily a positive one. However, the evidence presented in the Review is that outputs and outcomes are a function of inputs and processes. The Reference Group organised the abovementioned data around elements of organisational capacity, including a number of key mechanisms. These might provide the inputs of future organisational capacity for all partners.
Element 1 — Inclusion of all stakeholders, including users Key mechanisms: • Promoting stakeholder dialogue • Forming partnerships with communities • Involving users in service delivery
Element 2 — Quality Key mechanisms: • Developing learning networks • Promoting innovation • Strengthening performance • Supporting diversity
Element 3 — Knowledge Key mechanisms: • Improved planning by way of population analysis and service knowledge • Evidence based research analysis of policies, programs and practice • Improved IT capacity
Element 4 — Linkages Key mechanisms: • ‘joining up’ government by way of: – improving linkages between services – improving ‘tracking’ of service users
Report of the Community Care Review 61
Element 5 — Location Key mechanisms: • ‘place’: buildings and management in specific locations, by way of: – focusing on issues facing communities – focusing on issues facing rural delivery
Element 6 — Financing Key mechanisms: • Improved funding levels • Improved funding models • Joint financing with other partners • ‘Duty of care’ issues • Best value criteria
In summary, the key priority and opportunity is to improve organisational capability, both Government and non-government, by implementing six key elements supported by a range of associated mechanisms. These are the new building blocks of organisational structure. These building blocks are to provide the link between management required by transparent and accountable governance and user-focused service delivery. Successful network governance will require equal commitment by all partners to these issues.
3.5 Building blocks of future network capability
3.5.1 Inclusion: committing to stakeholder dialogue as the basis for moving ahead All community service organisations have to rethink the position of service users and carers. When service providers marginalise service users by disconnecting them from service decisions, they reinforce the users’ experience of exclusion from the broader community (DHSA, 1999). Mental health reforms are now substantially more advanced than is the community care sector in placing service users at the heart of organisations. Techniques have been developed – for example deep dialogue – to allow extended focus group type discussions to open up the issues and gaps between service providers, service carers and service users (DHSA, 1999). The face-to-face strategy is a promising start for ‘deep dialogue’ in community care, but its scope and support must be extended if it is to
Report of the Community Care Review 62
have an impact on organisational cultures, systems and policy makers. The community care sector has no analysis of its profile of its service users, current or future. The major ‘units of delivery’ mentioned during the consultations were ‘individuals’ and ‘communities’, but between these two is a huge range of possibilities: babies, children and/or young people; mothers (residential and non-residential); fathers (residential and non-residential); step-parents; siblings; households; nuclear families; extended families; neighbours; and other people, are all but a part of the range of potential service users.
3.5.2 Quality: developing learning networks Government and many CSOs have mostly ignored the powerful impact of experiential learning on service improvements; indeed, it has been discouraged in the corporate–contract culture. The most successful organisations in the commercial world are ‘wired’, not only technologically but culturally, into dealing with feedback from their staff and customers or clients at all levels, through the processes of double-loop learning. If there had been opportunities for feedback and learning in YAFSR (that is, if double-loop learning had been promoted), the Redevelopment could not have proceeded without incorporating the reactions and responses of CSOs and service users (DHSA, 1999). Learning networks have to be underpinned by learning organisations that have appropriate staff development, and have to be achieved in partnership with higher education providers and professional bodies. The DHS Community Care Division has to maximise co-operation with professional bodies and relevant professional courses to build an agreed commitment to learning organisations. A suggested quality framework will have five strands to it.
Strand 1: Development of service standards The development of standards should be framed around the community services charter set out earlier in this chapter.
Strand 2: Quality assurance This strand has to encompass audit and inspection. There were many comments in the Review in which concern was expressed about quality of care (especially in ‘out of home’ care). At present, the service audit is confined to detailed examination of child deaths. The operating basis evolved by the Child Death Review Committee – independent, multi-disciplined, practice focused, collaborative and transparent — can offer a model of audit and inspection for services provided by both Government and non-government providers.
Report of the Community Care Review 63
Strand 3: Benchmarking and target setting Benchmarking could be introduced almost immediately, with reference to benchmarking user involvement and satisfaction. A full-scale benchmarking program will take time to develop. Setting targets and goals requires an evidence base of data. For example, reducing the number of young people running away from care might be one target, although without an analysis of frequency, behaviour and context, adopting a target to reduce numbers would be at best meaningless and at worst counterproductive. Therefore, targets should not be established without having careful and creditable evidence-based research. In the Review, it is believed that the Government is a long way from being able to link these targets to funding arrangements and from having the security required to protect the data through protocols of agreement.
Strand 4: Quality data and information systems As noted, quality services require databases. In order to ensure that babies, children and young people do not ‘fall through the net’ or become lost to Community Care and other services such as schools, there has to be a ‘whole of government’ database to ensure awareness of all children and young people and their connection with all services. The database would require State, regional and local components, and would therefore require clear protocols, controls and restricted access in order to maintain appropriate privacy issues. This database is already available via notification of births, but has to be connected to infant and child health, education, disability and community care issues.
Strand 5: Development of learning organisations In the Review, it was frequently mentioned that ‘our best people have left’. Of the ones who stay, there has been little capacity for staff and managers to ‘learn from experience’ – essential when the face-to-face work is so complex and diverse. This work is what sociologists call ‘wicked problems’: taxing issues for which no immediate solution is available, demanding of professional and personal commitment, decision making and ingenuity. Quality circles that review and discuss the actual work with informed and knowledgeable consultants have to be formally organised in both the DHS and CSOs. The quality of staff is any organisation’s greatest potential resource. Work commissioned by the Department from the Centre for Community Child Health at the Royal Children’s Hospital points to: • the need for long-term planning for staff development (not one-off days or events) • identification of common content areas for staff across disciplines and organisational boundaries
Report of the Community Care Review 64
• planned, coherent use of independent education and training providers • the need for education and training to be linked with practice issues and changes. The experience is that the best people want to work for the best organisations, and that these are learning organisations, from their board to their junior staff.
3.5.3 Knowledge: leveraging evidence-based activities Appreciating and using qualitative feedback as learning is important for the health and capability of any organisation, and is accrual of quantitative information and tested data. Planning – both population planning and service planning – requires not only that the planners become knowledgeable but that this knowledge is shared by other colleagues in the service system. Up-to-date evidence has to inform options for decisions. It is not necessary to generate all the evidence internally; evidence-based partnerships can be developed nationally and internationally. An obvious place to start would be to develop an international evidence base about effective practice in child protection, juvenile justice, residential care and foster care. The lack of a credible evidence base for these sensitive, volatile and expensive service issues is negligent. Without any evidence base, there is no way of knowing whether interventions are appropriate, efficient, effective and equitable. Knowledgeable organisations: ones that effectively accumulate, sift, analyse and use different types of data usually are essential. However, youth and family services require different types of evidence base from the ones developed in, say, medicine, whereby evidence-based medicine (EBM) developed from drug trials. In family and community measurement, Random Controlled Trials (RCTs) are rarely appropriate, because few if any of the variables are under the control of the experimenter. Research methods based on other than strictly experimental models have to be used to develop a sufficient knowledge base in this field. RCT methods can provide spurious scientism in the field of community and family care and cannot be controlled to permit valid measurement of a few leading indicators. Other forms of evidence include better use of ABS data to inform local-area plans. It was noted in the Review that population-based planning in community care was virtually non-existent despite the availability of ABS data in which detailed and crucial social and economic data about small areas was provided. The SEIFA index and small area labour market data and rankings on unemployment are all indicators of high utility for the work of community care. (The DHS Gippsland Region has developed a planning methodology that is one appropriate process vehicle.) Becoming knowledgeable will require a major cultural shift in thinking about community care. Even by the standards of a best practice business model, the YAFSR was based on a threadbare
Report of the Community Care Review 65
information system. Organisations cannot become knowledgeable overnight, but in the future, government and CSOs will have to reconsider their knowledge platforms, actively sift both process and outcome data, and invest in knowledge development. At present, the Community Care Division expends a minuscule amount on research, and little of this is geared to developing an understanding of the problems, tasks and interventions faced by front-line staff. A research- based partnership between government, universities and the philanthropic sector (on the model of the new AHURI – Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute) offers a partnership research model whereby input into policy and practice is provided by a range of parties. In the Review, it was found that some DHS reporting requirements were onerous and lacking in significance. All current reporting requirements require revising in light of the service clusters to be discussed (see Chapter 6). Evidence-based practice and evidence-based policy require a commitment from the Government to development of a visible and competent service system that inspires public confidence and forms the basis of sustained investment.
3.5.4 Localism: building ‘place’ Subsidiarity – taking decisions at the most appropriately devolved local level at which decisions can be made – is the key to achieving effective localism and ‘place management’. Place management is also about basing public policy on places and their people rather than on structures. There are many difficult conceptual issues about the who, what and how of place management, but it provides a framework for thinking about ‘localism’, which was one of the issues put forward in the Review, mostly but not exclusively from rural Victoria. (When offered a choice between localism and choice in one rural consultation, most respondents opted for ‘localism’ as being more important than choice.) Place management has to be preceded by ‘place’ building. It relates to the previous strategies in which a combination of user-centred strategies, experiential learning and hard-headed knowledge are argued for. It is the antithesis of management based on formal contracts, because in it the specific (and usually uncodified) knowledge base of the ‘local’, with its accompanying direct feedback loops are accessed. Having these loops helps ‘place managers’ to turn the particularly local forms of knowledge and learning into action. Similar to the other strategies mentioned to this point, place managers work by forming effective relationships. Edgar (1999) has developed a form of place management that is pertinent to community care services. He argues for a model of
Report of the Community Care Review 66
Community Zones, resourced to promote healthy growth of every individual within a supportive family and community. Services are only one aspect of the resources needed. Resources (including services) are accumulated in local communities across multiple contexts and institutions, including pre-schools, childcare centres, health centres, schools, tertiary colleges, local libraries, youth and aged care activities, information databases and networks, workplaces, sport and other recreational facilities, playgrounds, volunteers, and mentors. Local communities, suggests Edgar, then participate in defining needs and in developing suitable programs of action. The locus of power and decision making is within the community, however designated, not within a centralised, bureaucratic department. Policies and broad procedures are set according to governmental priorities, as now, but the ‘what’ and ‘how’ of community resourcing is in the hands of the people most directly affected – the ‘community’ itself, which assesses resources currently available in the community and resource gaps in order to formulate priorities and develop action plans. Edgar suggests that today’s ‘regions’ and even local government areas are probably too large for this purpose, particularly in rural areas, whereas neighbourhoods defined by separate school-catchment areas are too small. Because the goal is to facilitate sharing of information and other resources and to maximise efficiency in whatever action programs are set up, Edgar suggests clusters of schools and childcare centres as being one starting point for Community Zones. They provide a non-stigmatising and clearly development-oriented focus for planning. Each area, called a Community Zone in this report (but by Edgar called a family and community resource zone), establishes a family and community forum under the auspices of a school or other community-based agency. Its first actions are to undertake a survey of family and community resources to assess available and missing resources, and also to generate community understanding of the new attitude to resourcing families and promoting the positive growth of every individual within a supportive community. Collating resources has to precede service planning. The focus is on dealing with the whole family in its context, and ensuring the context is made more positive for adequate family functioning. Notions of need and risk are not narrowly applied to individual cases or families, but rather to identifying ‘toxic’ factors in neighbourhoods, schools and other specific contexts in which each family operates, and tackling them in health-promoting and growth- promoting ways. Community Zone forums would continually reinforce the community’s network of community agencies, including its schools, churches, welfare and health services, recreational groups, police, local government agencies and workplaces, to integrate these various forms of family support. This practice of continuous networking also
Report of the Community Care Review 67
embeds families within their zone, expands their connectedness with other people, reduces isolation and disadvantage, and respects and involves families themselves, always starting with the family’s own self-interest and practical concerns, as do many present-day play groups, youth groups and childcare centres.
3.5.5 Linkages and getting the whole of government together YAFSR required coordination and even amalgamation of CSOs, whereas Government arrangements stayed uncoordinated and untouched. In Chapter 2, it was noted that YAFSR was sited within a public administration culture in which corporatism and contracts which combined and as such were reinforced by a hierarchical ‘silo’ approach to service design and delivery. The service bundles were an arbitrary attempt to promote service integration, whereby the onus for service integration was placed on CSOs. There seemed to be little recognition that governments themselves need to ‘cluster’, and that competitive approaches between governments, ministers, departments, managers and staff within government can have extremely negative effects on communities and individuals. In the networks, clusters and partnerships (see Chapter 6) emphasis is on opening up the boundaries of organisations and linking across boundaries. Networks have to be vertical (up as well as down) and horizontal (at every level of the organisation). Networks have to be both planned and synergistic. One consistent area of criticism during the Review related to systems in which there is a huge overlap of tasks but incompatible legislation goals, frameworks and strategies for processing the work. One example is in the area of education – community care. Although the Schools Focused Youth Service Program is acknowledged, there is generally no tradition in which education works together with the DHS and community service organisations, no shared culture, and no understood accountabilities. It is suggested attention be immediately given to developing education – community care networks and that this issue be given serious attention in the Connors Review (see Chapter 8). Ministers can work together to integrate policies and resources, but their efforts have to be mirrored by joint exercises at the level of secretary, director and assistant director in each department. A major obstacle to integrating the range of human services is the separate policy and program divisions of the DHS, and separate structures for reporting to ministers. Networks at local and regional level will be greatly inhibited in their capability without having similar arrangements via both policy and politics. The ‘silos’ at the ‘top of the
Report of the Community Care Review 68
DHS’ were constantly a subject of negative comment, along with the paradox of expecting front-line workers (and their CEO) to coordinate when senior and ministerial officials and ministers seemed unable to do so.
3.5.6 Financing: best value assessments Service-financing issues about funding and tendering have been of specific concern. The funding issues relate to the level and indexation of funding for community care programs. It was persistently complained that: • funding levels in all program areas have not kept pace with costs and that indexation existed it had been abandoned • funding of programs previously fully funded by government was now partially funded by government on a mixture of per capita, output and outcome rationales • the costs of agency infrastructure as a separate issue to client- service costs (that is, the funding of inputs) had been abandoned. This left CSOs unable – even if they wanted to do so – to implement any of the strategies already referred to in this sector whereby ‘best’ practice would be promoted • in the case of rural agencies, travel and time costs remained unacknowledged • decisions could not be made locally to meet local needs • the special financial issues of communities bordering NSW in relation to staffing and user service were thought to require review • the relationship between funding and output was static and rigid, and gave no incentive, room for discretion or scope for innovation.
It is reasonable to test and review the principles underpinning the fiscal and fiduciary nature of any alliance. Partnerships, to be effective, require commitment to similar goals. If one partner (government) is committed to saving money at all costs by reducing the price paid, and another is committed to quality service, there will be a malalignment of goals. This collision of objectives was expressed in one submission, as follows. A transparent compact needs to be developed between community services organisations (CSOs) and governments concerning the principles and mechanisms of service delivery for particular programs. A widely expressed view was the government was attempting to reduce (or abandon) its legal and moral duty of care to children and young people. It should not need to be said that in circumstances where the government is a child’s legal guardian that full cost funding needs to be the basis of the partnership of care. In other circumstances, a needs-based funding model needs to be developed. The efficiency of anticipated competitive tendering was strongly contested by organisations, and these issues have been discussed in
Report of the Community Care Review 69
Chapter 2. The central argument against contestability for service provides dealing with delicate services and complex matters of child, youth and family life is that this disrupts the confidence and security necessary for achieving good practice, and that, by its stop–start fragmented nature, it diminishes rather than increases the sum total of local social capital. The following comment was made by the CEO of a rural organisation. Compulsory (or compulsive!) Competitive Tendering was never an appropriate means of achieving YAFS sector redevelopment. Consultative processes are much to be preferred. The potential to deplete what social capital exists through competitive tendering, especially in rural areas, is very real and to be avoided. Competitive processes can be useful when establishing new services or to resolve impasses, but they must never be the primary means of allocating services in this sector. For YAFSR, competitive tendering was a key conceptual plank to its business model and a significant means of potential cost savings. In a future in which services are jointly planned, and within a quality- evidence framework, tendering as a method of fair allocation of new services might have a place; however, so might other forms of funding, and it is the recommendation of this Review that forms of funding in which community, partnership and collaboration are actively promoted, be actively sought, even for new projects. The criteria are the transparent knowledgeability of the purchasers and the requirement that all stakeholders have contributed to the design. One frequent complaint about service purchasing (from inside and outside the Department) was that at times it seemed to be the responsibility of less knowledgeable officers. The main ingredients in service commissioning are therefore: • a knowledgeable commissioner • insistence that government provide adequate funding • transparent and negotiated agreement with stakeholders about service goals and design • agreement about the prospective respective contributions of partners, both financial and non-financial • agreement about how accountability is to be measured, based on regular provision of data about performance reporting, practice audits and user satisfaction. The six opportunities or elements discussed have to be the managerial building blocks of community care. Some people will be unfamiliar within the Department and the community sector. A joint development exercise in which this notion is explored, and shared assumptions and agreement about their meaning, are necessary for more progress to be made.
Report of the Community Care Review 70
3.6 Summary and recommendations
3.6.1 The principles around which community care has to be developed are as follows. • Service users are the first and last consideration. • Planning, design, provision and evaluation of community care services have to include users. • Families are the building blocks of communities, and communities are built on families. • Partnerships are the basis of financing, design, delivery and evaluation of services. • Prevention and early intervention offer investment approaches to service delivery. • Provision of community care requires fair funding, quality, social justice and equity. • Sufficient resources and fair-funding models must underpin delivery.
3.6.2 The organisational building blocks for all organisations are as follows. • Inclusion of stakeholders, including service users • Quality: developing learning networks by way of service standards, quality assurance, benchmarking, quality data and learning organisations • Knowledge: leveraging evidence-based activity • Localism: building place through Community Zones • Linkages and ‘whole of government’ integration • Financing best value assessments
Report of the Community Care Review 71
Chapter 4 The future: building resilient communities
Overview
In examining the competence required for building community and community infrastructure, it was argued it was essential to: • uphold specific criteria (such as effectiveness, access and choice) • promote community-led ownership of planning and advisory mechanisms • improve linkages across all levels of government • resource information technology and transport • strengthen agency capacity and the culture of volunteerism • reorient policy and services to focus strongly on community • ensure that services reflect diversity and the special needs of users • acknowledge related reviews and planning models • strengthen the capacity for analysis of evaluation, planning and needs • acknowledge a major role for local governments • promote prevention at local level.
In discussing the ingredients for building successful communities, it was said that: • community building is the end, not the means, of delivering a program • a preponderance of members of a community will decide democratically what has to be delivered • strong leadership and advanced democracy are compatible • vulnerable communities have lost their ‘know-how’.
Community wellbeing can be measured in a range of ways but has to include measurement of the levels of work, both paid and unpaid. Government must ‘join up’ at the point of service delivery. This will require: • a ‘joined-up’ policy • re-education and training of the workforce
Report of the Community Care Review 73
• a participation profile for each community • an avenue for consideration of economic and social changes, and their impact on local communities • a commitment to community practice and local decision making • ‘cashing out’ strategies for local community decision making about resources and services.
4.1 Introduction
In YAFSR, little was asked about the meaning, purpose and content of community services in Victoria. Questions about the nature of community and family; the pressures resulting from globalisation; the destructuring of communities following structural and cyclical unemployment; the impact on families and young people of unemployment, poverty and family breakdown; the increasingly complex role of parenting; and the changing role of education were not of policy interest. Elsewhere, it has been noted that the preoccupation of public policy for almost 20 years in Australia has generally been economistic and individualised. ‘Macro’ policy and ‘micro’ policy have been aimed at the nation and the individual, respectively; the intervening levels − community and family − have been omitted. A partial explanation lies in the difficulty of measuring ‘community’ and ‘family’ by using the currently popular quantitative methods of social and economic research. The more difficult, complex measurement problems to do with elusive and hard-to-define structures such as ‘community’ and ‘family’ tend to be either overlooked or subjected to methodological control by way of imposing inappropriate quantitative templates. It has therefore not been science or research that has restored ‘community’ to the policy agenda. Democracy has challenged the taken-for-granted political and bureaucratic denial of community needs. Ignoring the values and purposes of community life has to be viewed as beingpart of an ‘old’ social policy. Therefore, in this chapter, the responses to the following Review question are examined. ‘What structures are required for building community and community infrastructure?’ As will become clear, the responses to this question confirm the preference that future community care be based on social development and community building. Without these building blocks, efforts ‘down the line’ further, offering intensive services, cannot be leveraged sufficiently to achieve outcomes that provide the best value for all. Building and strengthening communities are viewed as being the best form of prevention. Prevention (accompanied with early intervention) is the crucial next stage of investment. The role of Community Service Organisations in community development and community building is
Report of the Community Care Review 74
vital. Efforts at community building and strengthening have to be based on thorough understanding of community and CSOs. It is worth making this point because previous government understandings of CSOs have been lost and will not be easy to recover (see Chapter 1).
4.2 Building community and community infrastructure
In considering the question ‘What structures are required for building community and community infrastructure?’ the respondents in the consultations offered 12 themes. These were as follows. • Upholding a range of considerations (for example, effectiveness, access and choice) is required in building community and community infrastructure. • Promoting community-led ownership of planning and advisory mechanisms is essential. • Improving linkages across all levels of government should be a priority. • Funding, resourcing, information technology and rural transport issues are all aspects of community building. • Strengthening CSO capacity and the culture of volunteerism contributes to social capital. • Reorienting policy and services to focus on ‘community’ is a must. • Ensuring services reflect diversity and special needs should replace ‘one size fits all’. • In acknowledging related reviews, planning and service models, a knowledge base is built. • Acknowledging enhanced roles for local governments is central. • Strengthening the capacity for evaluation, planning and needs analysis would be useful. • Promoting preventative roles underpins building community. • There are other issues (such as issues specific to specialist CSOs).
A count of the number of separate responses, grouped against these themes, is detailed in Table 4.1 and enables a comparison, within metropolitan and rural sectors, to be made as to the relative frequency with which specific matters were mentioned.
Report of the Community Care Review 75
Table 4.1 Key themes in community building (N = frequency of themes) Theme Metropolitan Rural Total responses responses Upholding specific criteria required 36 34 70 in building community and community infrastructure Promoting community-led 29 19 48 ownership of planning and advisory mechanisms Improving linkages across all levels 26 11 37 of government Resourcing, information technology 18 16 34 and rural transport Strengthening agency capacity and 13 9 22 the culture of volunteerism Reorienting policy and services to 4 14 18 focus on community Ensuring services reflect diversity 12 5 17 and special needs Acknowledging related review, 16 0 16 planning and service models Other issues 11 3 14 Strengthening capacity for 12 0 12 evaluation, planning and needs analysis Acknowledging enhanced roles for 8 2 10 local government Promoting preventative roles 4 5 9 305
A brief summary of key points made in each of these themes is provided as follows.
4.2.1 Upholding specific criteria (e.g. effectiveness, access and choice) required in building community and community infrastructure Educate policy makers about ‘social capital’ (Eastern Metropolitan). Need to also acknowledge social changes e.g. permanence of unemployment for some people (Northern Metropolitan). Some local governments have lost connections with the community; many have lost the capacity to provide support to the communities (Western Metropolitan). Respondents identified a broad range of considerations to include in strategies for building community and community infrastructure.
Report of the Community Care Review 76
These included acknowledgments that: • definitions of ‘community’ are often contested • there are characteristics of effective services, such as shared approaches and protocols • the ease of citizen access to services is important • capacity for citizens to have choice in services whenever possible should be considered • a balance between local, sub-regional and specialist services is important • the interface between economic and social development requires connecting • role clarification between the Department of Human Services and the community services sector is required.
4.2.2 Promoting community-led ‘ownership’ of planning and advisory mechanisms Reinstate community as a basis for policy development (Northern Metropolitan response). Greater community ownership of planning and advisory mechanisms will include: • genuinely collaborative decision-making processes in which all stakeholders are engaged • incentives to promote community engagement • ‘feedback loops’ to embed community forums and views in policy frameworks • shifts in the policy paradigm to focus on building stronger communities • rethinking of existing community boundaries • sub-regional consultative groups and forums.
4.2.3 Improving linkages across all levels of government Build partnerships and coordination between different spheres of government (Northern Metropolitan). Improved linkages between CSOs and across all levels of government are essential. Many respondents emphasised a capacity to strengthen linkages at local community level, but also noted that ‘whole of government’ approaches provide a broader policy framework, and that compared with the community sector, government seemed less prepared to ‘join up’.
Report of the Community Care Review 77
4.2.4 Resourcing information technology and rural transport issues Resources, resources, resources (Eastern Metropolitan). Funding has to support strengthening of community and community infrastructure, effective community based planning and greater flexibility in service agreements. ‘Taking chances’ and innovation were argued for. Strengthening the sector’s information technology infrastructure was considered to be a priority. Rural and regionally based agencies highlighted the critical role of transport infrastructure and services in sustaining strong communities. Advocacy was viewed as being an important component of community development.
4.2.5 Strengthening agency capacity and the culture of volunteerism Expectations placed on volunteers are crushing (Eastern Metropolitan). Acknowledgment of voluntary Committees of Management and volunteers (Northern Metropolitan). The main capacity of smaller CSOs is to effectively engage with communities on a local basis. These agencies have significant knowledge and understanding of local community issues, and this knowledge base should be built on and incorporated in the planning process. The significant role of volunteerism was highlighted. The demands placed on volunteers were becoming excessive, according to some respondents. Many respondents highlighted the extent to which the CSOs considered their role to be misunderstood in YAFSR.
4.2.6 Reorient policy and services to focus on community Revisit Community Development principles – develop responsible communities (Gippsland). Use existing community strengths (Grampians). Respondents identified a requirement for policy development and service providers to focus more strongly on ‘community’. Several respondents supported restoration of community development principles, which had almost been extinguished by the previous government. One suggestion was to have a ‘template’ of service provision across a region, flexibility for municipal areas to develop service models, and allocation of resources according to the areas’ own needs (Hume).
Report of the Community Care Review 78
4.2.7 Ensuring that services reflect the diversity and special needs of users Involvement of service users in building community – also using natural leaders in the community (Western Metropolitan). In community-strengthening strategies, there is a need to respect the diversity that is evident in the community. The importance of addressing the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse communities was highlighted. Broad community participation in the development of strategies was considered to be essential to ensure this diversity is effectively addressed.
4.2.8 Acknowledging related reviews, planning and service models Communities That Care model – agencies want to have another opportunity to look at the model and other models that take a holistic approach to strengthening communities (Western Metropolitan). Significant work is in progress for strategies to strengthen communities. Examples noted included the Communities That Care model and work undertaken by the People Together project. Related reforms were also underway in primary health. Respondents supported strategies to ensure these reforms were complementary, and when possible, for opportunities for integration to be promoted.
4.2.9 Strengthening the capacity for evaluation, planning and needs analysis Fund software for integrated data and statistics (Gippsland). A strengthened planning and evaluation capacity at all levels of community service delivery would involve making use of available data, undertaking service inventories and using software packages to integrate local statistics. This was considered to be an urgent need.
4.2.10 Acknowledging a major role for local governments Recognise capacity of local governments to take a lead role in advocating, resourcing and facilitating participation of service users in consultative forums (Gippsland). If the local government contribution to planning and building communities is examined, it is suggested that local-government areas have to be the basis of service delivery, and that sharing resources and data is fundamental. Local government requires an active role in service planning. Some local government areas were too large for planning and delivery, and some respondents thought smaller ‘precincts’ such as school clusters, communities of ethnic interest or local places would be better – thereby reflecting communities of interest as well as place communities.
Report of the Community Care Review 79
4.2.12 Promoting prevention at local level State and national policies should be implemented and acted on at a local level (Eastern Metropolitan). The existing system, which veers between either prevention or tertiary services, is considered to be too rigid. Health and wellbeing should be jointly promoted and extended.
4.2.13 Other issues Several specific issues were raised, including: • sustaining a balance between universal services and specialist services • levels of stress within the community sector workforce • the specific issues faced by specialist agencies.
4.3 Principles of community building
In the Report on the Victorian State Summit, Growing Victoria Together (March 2000), useful State-development principles are offered that apply equally well to the objectives of community building. From the Summit Report, the goals of community building could be encapsulated in the following adaptation. The broad objectives for any community are: • to have an attractive investment environment • to have a high level of economic wellbeing based on the output of an industry mix whereby growth and opportunities are provided for all Victorians • to build on a skilled workforce, and have a strong entrepreneurial tradition and an efficient government to deliver this outcome • to have equitable distribution of jobs and rewards from growth, and provision of fair and enforceable standards for all workers • to be able to make adjustments in order to meet emerging circumstances, whereby existing strengths are built on and new opportunities are explored • to have open and inclusive decision making and recognise the diverse roles the community’s members have • to address social and economic disadvantage and promote access to opportunity.
At the Victorian Summit, It was also noted that social and economic development and environmental sustainability must be pursued
Report of the Community Care Review 80
simultaneously, not consecutively, as they were in the past. Furthermore, it was agreed that economic growth is not an end in itself but a means by which all Victorians can achieve a better quality of life, and that ‘success’ should be judged by not only economic indicators but community wellbeing. When there are strong communities and an inclusive society, everyone can access opportunities and share in the benefits of a productive economy. To achieve these broad goals, it is necessary to: • address historical injustices and entrenched disadvantage for indigenous people • audit existing levels of access to, and the adequacy of, service programs • reduce fragmentation and increase flexible, innovative responses by having ‘whole of government’ responses • measure performance in meeting social goals by having clear targets and benchmarks.
At the Summit, it was also acknowledged that Victoria has to: • be a just society in which everyone, including people outside the workforce, are enabled to share in the wealth • have a strong, innovative public sector that provides services to the community and business: essential for economic and social growth, and for a more equitable distribution of the benefits of growth • have a government commitment to a strong social-services system and infrastructure, and a strong non-government sector that is also a partner in policy development. These are promising policy settings for developing community capability. Some issues not explored at the Summit but that are critical for progressing the framework established at the Summit are to determine: • What a community is • What the ingredients are in building capable communities • how the level of community wellbeing can be measured • how government is ‘joined up’ or integrated at the point of community service delivery.
4.3.1 What is a community? No definitions were put forward in the Review. On the other hand, it was clear that specific communities ‘just knew’ they were (or were not) a community. Rather than explore the absorbing (but confusing) literature about community, the view is taken in this report that a
Report of the Community Care Review 81
community is whatever it says it is. The Review was told of a project in the City of Port Phillip whereby ‘natural communities were identified as places for intervention, rather than formal wards’. What is clear is that ‘community’ is viewed as being extraordinarily important for many respondents.
4.3.2 What are the ingredients for building capable communities? The Review visited a range of communities, large and small. In addition, the Review had a number of excellent submissions about methods for building community capacity. Some of these included: • the People Together project • the Purple Sage project • the Partners in Community Building program • Growing Gippsland • the Millennium 3: Community Regional Sustainable Development project • Communities That Care.
In these submissions, an important question was raised: can communities be developed via a ‘program’ (as in the Partners in Community Building program and Communities That Care) or can communities be built only from within, by communities themselves and by processes through which communities are sought to be built as ends, not as means to ends? This is a question that has to be clarified before community-building policies can be implemented. From an analysis of these submissions, the Review’s conclusion is that: • community building has to be an end in itself rather than a means to implementing a program or activity • in community building, it is assumed that a preponderance of members of any community will decide democratically what it is that requires developing for themselves (see Chapter 1 for a discussion about the servant-leader) • strong leadership and advanced community democracy are compatible and even reinforcing. Leadership development might have to precede community building. • Vulnerable communities are communities that have lost not only their assets, their leadership and their economy but their ‘know how’. In some rural communities, the deterioration has been caused by not only asset stripping and leadership loss but loss of community ‘intelligence’. In these communities, the working
Report of the Community Care Review 82
knowledge of worlds (culture and expertise) beyond the community might have vanished. • Local governments play a significant part in providing support and funding of community services and in practical community development programs.
4.3.3 How can the level of community wellbeing be measured? A renewed interest in social indicators and measuring wellbeing is demonstrated by way of several approaches. First, we can test participation in local governance. On this definition, in Victoria, local democracy has been at least on the defensive if not in retreat in recent years. A second approach is to equate social health with social wellbeing. When an examination is made of where the nation stands on a range of 29 indicators in nine fields − income, work, housing, health, education, culture, social stress, equity and democracy, and environment − Australia’s social health is compared with the social health of our OECD partners. At a national level, this is very straightforward, but it would take a long time − and be very expensive − to apply to local communities. A third, simpler approach to measuring the wellbeing of a community might be to assess the level of the community’s full time jobs (and its full time workforce). Whether or not citizenship and workforce participation can be equated is an important discussion beyond the scope of this report. However, equating wellbeing with full time employment by using an index in which the full time jobs and people employed full time in any community were combined would enable a discriminating ranking system to be developed and communities not doing so well to be rapidly detected. Lack of opportunities for full time employment usually reflects communities that have lower incomes, lower educational levels and lack of home ownership. This is a contentious suggestion in a labour market in which more part-time and casual jobs are being produced. A fourth way of measuring community wellbeing lies in using quarterly data whereby regular and sensitive monitoring of unemployment rates in small area labour markets can be conducted (Small Area Labor Market DEWRSB). Developing an approach in which the lack of wellbeing of a community is measured by determinging the community’s level of unemployment would provide a robust and immediate measure. Fifth, the ABS Census data produces a SEIFA (Socio-Economic Index for Areas), an aggregated measure whereby the socio-economic standing of specific communities is ranked and can be easily adapted to local communities.
Report of the Community Care Review 83
There is therefore a range of ways from easy to more complex of rating the health and wellbeing of a community. This is not the problem; the problem lies in issues of ‘know-how’ and leadership. The abovementioned discussion is focal, because the way in which outside agents such as government and non-government bodies enter communities is very important. It has not always been appreciated that a poor or misjudged entry, even one that has the praiseworthy aim of providing a new service, carries with it the risk it might not have much value, or might even do more harm than good. An analysis of a community’s ‘know-how’, leadership, capacity, understanding of democracy and level of wellbeing is essential before entering or imposing any new services on any community. These guidelines have not been observed in the recent past. Government and non-government community service organisations are disconnected from issues surrounding participation in the community via work and non-work, both paid and unpaid. If adequate levels of paid work equate with wellbeing for individuals and families, it is scarcely surprising to find that successful communities have higher levels of employed people. A central feature of community building is helping communities secure their economic future so all their families can work as much as they want. The contribution of decent paid work to positive family life cannot be overstated.
4.3.4 How is government ‘joined up’ at the point of service delivery? In Victoria, there has been less attention to and discussion of this problem than there has been in some other countries (such as the UK and NZ). To require government and CSOs to ‘join u’p and ‘wrap around’ services at the point of delivery to the citizen/client/customer/ consumer will require a sea change. First, ‘joined up’ services require ‘joined up’ policy. This involves making of highly cooperative agreements between ministers, departmental secretaries, directors and assistant directors. To the observer, this is simply not the way government works. Fortunately, over recent years the States have found greater strength in collaborating rather than competing, but this approach does not always apply within a government, whereby to outsiders the competition between ministers and departments and within departments sometimes seems to be unproductive. Second, ‘joined up’ services will require major re-education and training of any workforce. Often the barriers to ‘joining up’ are less the tensions of political dominance (as mentioned) than the results of professional and/or bureaucratic thinking, which is segmented – even fragmented – by definitions, roles, funding lines and contracts. The
Report of the Community Care Review 84
types of governance referred to in Chapter 2 make a feature of considering rules, targets or contracts ahead of solutions. In other jurisdictions, the absence of ‘joined up’ thinking is now recognised as being wasteful, expensive and self-defeating. The Commonwealth Government has undertaken an important national experiment in ‘joined-up health’, whereby a range of Medicare funds were ‘cashed out’ for local decision making about the optimal need for health dollars. Rather than dispersal of resources down the program-delivery route of departmental or divisional ‘silos’, the moneys were earmarked for a specific community of interest or place community to allocate. For example, the health status of Tiwi Island people has changed, and their reliance on Darwin hospital admission has been minimised as their decision to invest in ‘joined up’ local prevention and early-intervention programs has increased. This type of thinking is relatively new, relatively untested and experimental in communities in which the range of relevant outcome variables is wide and less dependent on bio-medical measurement. The Edgar model of Community Zones relates to ‘joined up’ government at the delivery stage, and will be taken up again in Chapter 6. The essence of the argument is that community building will not work without ‘joined up’ government. Community building is about developing or maintaining capability and resilience, and minimising incapacity and vulnerability (Rayner and Montague, 1999). Although the strength of a community is much more than the sum of its constituent individuals and families, ‘community wellbeing’ and ‘prevention’ were often used as synonyms by respondents. Community wellbeing was generally viewed as being fundamental to prevention by the people at the consultations, because economic and social wellbeing could not be expected to emanate from deteriorating or dying communities. There is a need to develop data and feedback about successful community wellbeing, and about its recipes and ingredients for success.
4.4 Key issues
The major issues for making community building a central plank of community care as determined in this Review are as follows. • The main need is to recognise community as being an end in itself, in order to ensure that government, business and other processes enhance and do not destroy existing communities, and to develop strategies that foster community.
Report of the Community Care Review 85
• There is a need to assess ‘know-how’ and to develop leadership in many Victorian communities, by adopting approaches that are sponsored and ‘owned’ by local communities. • In communities, there has to be an avenue for consideration of and reflection about the nature of economic and social change. Understanding globalisation and trade, and technology and its impact on work, employment and families is important. • The need is for each community to develop a participation profile. This is an audit of how people participate in a local community, through paid full-time and part-time, and unpaid, work. Participation plans can be compared (‘benchmarked’) with other similar communities whereby the aim is to see how a community can increase its level of participation among all its groups. • The role of business, small and large, in supporting development of community infrastructure and services is important for effective partnerships (DHSA, 2000). • If the main factor in the wellbeing of communities is connection with employment, a number of measures might be adopted to assist communities to increase their participation rates in paid work and unpaid activities. • The respective and combined contributions of neighbourhood houses, training providers, Job Network providers, the DHS and community service providers to increasing participation through paid and unpaid work have to be scoped. • Community service providers have to support clear pathways to link neighbourhood houses and both education and employment providers (for example TAFEs) so that people who wish to have a clear understanding of routes to education and work can do so. In the same way, viable links to Job Network are crucial. • Many family homes are now a workplace. The implications of this for family life are yet to be described.
4.5 Implications for Community Care
The central implication is the need for ‘community infrastructure’. There has been no time to demonstrate the engagement of predecessors of Community Care (YAFS, CAFS and CSV) in community work, but it is safe to say that by 1999, community development had all but been eliminated from the YAFS remit. Despite this, the characteristics of Community Care service users – as illustrated by people in the child protection and juvenile justice systems – have not altered. Most are not in the labour market (they are on pensions and benefits) or, if they are in the labour market, they are unemployed. The Review was told of one neighbourhood in which children knew of no working adult other than their school teacher.
Report of the Community Care Review 86
Other neighbourhoods have increasingly tenuous and problematic links with the workforce due to casualisation of work. Young people exiting the care system who have a poor educational level have little chance of finding jobs. The current tendency to turn a blind eye to the levels of unemployment in families in community care services has to be reversed. It is no longer acceptable for community care service providers to ignore their service users’ material and symbolic need for long term attachment to the workforce. The increasingly problematic connection with paid work, or its lack, is a major issue for Community Care and communities, and one that has been mostly ignored by the Government and the community sector. In rural Victoria, the Review was told on a number of occasions of the need for a connection between neighbourhood houses and the need for community members’ increased understanding of the major changes to work, the workforce and the workplace. Mentoring programs in which people in paid work are connected are constructive ways for community care service providers to react to unemployment (Hammond 1988). This is quite a different role from the role of Job Network agencies. A new body, VicWork, has to be developed to make the connection for Victorian families undergoing massive change in the nature of their work, to encourage community members to respond, to promote connections with work, and to increase participation in paid and unpaid work by leveraging relevant education and training measures, and mentoring programs, within a local community. There has to be a central commitment to understanding the effects of the presence or absence of work on communities, families and individuals within the community care network.
4.6 Implementation: the practice of community
The implementation of community involvement will require a major shift in values, knowledge and skills for government, State and local community service organisations, and the community itself. The nature of community itself can be people who have similar characteristics (age, gender, ethnic background and family kinship), or faith or political communities, economic position or profession, or place. For most of this report, community is defined mainly by reference to ‘place’, but within any ‘place’ all the other dimensions apply. Levels and mechanisms of community involvement; building partnerships; designing, managing and evaluating projects; building capacity, investigating needs and preferences; providing information; devising methods of working in communities; and involving specific groups (such as the young or the aged, churches, and ethnic and indigenous communities) are all subjects that will have to be considered in a manual for practitioners.
Report of the Community Care Review 87
In the meantime, excellent information is available in Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration: A Guide for Practitioners (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, UK, 1997).
4.7 Summary and recommendations
4.7.1 The Division of Community Care and its partners have to participate in ‘whole of government’ community-building activities and in activities that support the broad government objects of pursuing community economic and social wellbeing. 4.7.2 The Division of Community Care has to develop the capacity to plan, design, deliver and evaluate services appropriate to the articulated needs of specific Community Zones, in partnership with communities and stakeholder organisations, including local governments, CSOs, schools and other bodies, including the private sector. 4.7.3 The Government has to consider establishing VicWork to assist Victorian communities and families to establish the connection between economic and social wellbeing and work by informing, educating and linking families with international technological and market changes to work, thereby identifying the competencies required in order to benefit from global change.
Report of the Community Care Review 88
Chapter 5 The future: reducing vulnerability
Overview
Prevention cannot be substituted for intensive intervention, but over time, through well-planned universal prevention programs, and selective prevention and early intervention aimed at population groups ‘at risk’, it should possible to at least halt the escalation of intensive services and, on the evidence available, to even wind them back. Prevention programs are essential for reducing the incidence of complex social problems and their long-term ‘dis-welfare’ for the Victorian community and economy. A more sophisticated approach to developing programs is necessary. This has to be adopted in a range of domains, rely on community resources and strengths, draw on external public and private expertise, and have an objective whereby people are united and improvement is sought continuously. According to a new body of evidence, it is clear that through family- based prevention, risk factors associated with youth and adult crime, mental illness, child abuse and violence can be reduced. It is essential that prevention be central to service design; that it overlap with other domains such as health, education and justice; that it have a similar meaning for all its participants; that it have sustained commitment; that it be rigorously designed and evaluated; that it be community focused and owned; and that structural as well as behavioural issues be taken into account. Prevention has to be carefully directed to all children and families (universal) and to children, youth and families determined to be ‘at risk’ (selective). Prevention has to be goal directed and transition focused. Specific points in the life cycle at which risk can accumulate, consolidate or decrease are noted. To whom the prevention is directed (a child, an adolescent, parents, a mother or a father) is important. Prevention programs have been found to be most successful when combined with community-building efforts.
Report of the Community Care Review 89
5.1 Introduction
Throughout the Review, a major thread of concern was the inability of service providers to deal with prevention and early intervention because resources for the services did not exist, had been removed or (as in the case of Family Support Services) had been reallocated to families more needy than the ones for which the original service design had been intended. Considerable frustration about the absence of prevention and early intervention was expressed. The question was: ‘What should be the relative balance of services, from prevention to statutory services?’ In analysis of the consultation feedback, seven themes were identified as follows. • The future mix of services must include prevention. • In the existing mix of services, prevention is devalued. • The future mix of services must be evidence based and locally decided. • Funding recommendations must be viewed as being long-term investments. • In prevention, client and developmental considerations should be taken into account. • There are linkage issues (between services). • There are other prevention issues.
A simple numerical count of the number of separate responses, grouped against these themes, is detailed in Table 5.1. Table 5.1 The balance of services (N = frequency of themes) Theme Metropolita Rural Total n responses responses Future mix of services 62 37 109 (prevention) Existing mix of services 32 12 44 (prevention and statutory) Future mix of services 29 4 33 Funding (prevention) 19 7 26 Other issues 11 11 22 Client and developmental 17 4 21 considerations Linkage issues 9 3 12 267
A brief summary of the key points made in each of these themes is provided as follows.
Report of the Community Care Review 90
5.1.1 The future mix of services must include prevention [There should be] scope for more intervention between ‘prevention’ and ‘tertiary’ (Northern Metropolitan). System resources should reflect needs for both prevention and statutory services (Southern Metropolitan). This was essentially the message. Respondents made a number of observations about the desired future balance: mainly a consistent view that more emphasis should be placed on prevention and early intervention services. They also argued for: • conceptualising the service system in terms of a continuum of care • maintaining commitment to services at both ends of the continuum • ensuring that in all services, including statutory services, community-strengthening features are incorporated • a refocus on community building (in considering the linkages between preventative and statutory services) • well-functioning communities as being the best form of prevention • shifting the paradigm from deficits to strengths • greater participation of clients, carers and volunteers in determining priorities • acknowledgement that rapid change requires dynamic service responses • tailoring services according to local need • not allowing strengthening of prevention services to occur at the expense of tertiary services • developing alternative entry points to child protection.
5.1.2 In the existing mix of services, prevention is devalued It needs stronger prevention – the ‘too hard’ basket is getting too hard (Northern Metropolitan). Preventative and community development approaches were thought to have been devalued. Preventative services were eroded by way of tighter targeting and a requirement to demonstrate immediate results and outputs. As a result, statutory services have become the entry point for many clients (and, in turn, greater demand for statutory services naturally results).
5.1.3 The future mix of services must be evidence based and locally decided Prevention needs to be considered in relation to effectiveness – it’s easy to dismiss but it is critical – maybe [there should be] more faith now and less need for scientific proof (Northern Metropolitan).
Report of the Community Care Review 91
Recognise the benefits of early intervention, and actively pursue research to inform (Southern Metropolitan). The different needs and aspirations of local communities were highlighted. Planning and action researchers should recognise this diversity by building up from local community level. If the government invests in long-term planning, research and evaluation, informed choices can be made.
5.1.4 Funding recommendations must be viewed as being long- term investments Balance [has to be] at least 50–50, but in the first year, early intervention services need to be funded more highly to provide preventative roles instead of funding going to the statutory end (Eastern Metropolitan). A range of funding strategies associated with ensuring an appropriate balance of services included: • investing more in preventative services • setting long-term goals to strengthen preventative services • strengthening agencies’ IT capacity to better inform the planning process • ‘lump’ funding (that is, pooling funds).
Some respondents wanted to see as much as 80 per cent or 95 per cent of resources directed to prevention and early intervention.
5.1.5 Client and developmental considerations Primary-age kids are under-funded; early intervention and high-risk adolescents receive priority funding (Southern Metropolitan). The youth area is vital for early intervention (Gippsland). Preventative services for all developmental and age groups were considered to be under-funded, at all ages and stages. The requirements of newly arrived communities, and of cultural and linguistically diverse groups, were also highlighted.
5.1.6 Linkage issues Prevention programs need to be generalist or generic, with access to all services (Grampians). Economic development and its impact on local communities should be integrated in the thinking about prevention. The importance of ensuring linkages with related services and systems, for example with local government when planning preventative approaches, was emphasised.
Report of the Community Care Review 92
5.1.7 Other prevention issues Are outcome measures beyond our technical capacity? (Eastern Metropolitan). You can’t choose between prevention and statutory (Northern Metropolitan). Lack of clarity between DHS and other agencies re. roles and practice in prevention (Barwon South West). Don’t look back from statutory intervention! (Gippsland) A number of matters were raised, including: • the absence of shared understanding of what preventative work means • some reservations about the terminology of prevention and statutory services.
5.2 Recognition of prevention
As indicated in Chapter 1, the Victoria of the future will rely more and more on having a well-educated workforce. Making efforts to close the gap between the educationally and socially advantaged and the disadvantaged are crucial. Existing approaches to welfare – palliative, short term, reactive, positive and preferably cheap – are self-defeating for long term economic and social viability. For this reason, any government must now consider prevention of social problems as rigorously as it considers prevention of health problems, traffic accidents, and drug and alcohol abuse. At present, there are no agreed formulations for prevention in the case of the range of family-based social problems that make up the remit of the former YAFS, now Community Care. Neither international nor national protocols are agreed on for prevention of family violence, delinquency, homelessness and other disturbances. However, there is a great deal of intervention literature that has to be examined carefully in order to bring forward hypotheses about prevention. It also seems there is now some excellent (albeit US) research about the benefits of early intervention for selected groups and environments that have a known high likelihood of developing a disturbance (or a range of clustered disturbances), or that have the early signs of having developed the disturbance. In Australia, however, social epidemiological work is only occasional. Vinson’s work involving postcodes of areas in which child abuse occurs in NSW is a rare example. However, it is clear from the responses to the Review that practitioners and CSOs are quite confident in their views about the nature of prevention and early intervention in a range of
Report of the Community Care Review 93
circumstances. These intuitive, case-based practice understandings have to be collated. There is huge scope for intergovernmental cooperation and Commonwealth Government support for developing a classification framework around the day-to-day social problems and disturbances dealt with in child, youth and family services. Using these frameworks could lead to development of guidelines for both prevention and intervention, and the guidelines could be developed nationally by expert practitioners. Although in the Review it will be advocated that practical prevention efforts should be mounted, two caveats are necessary, as follows. 1. Attempts to transfer medical approaches of classification and intervention are inappropriate. Social problems are not generally bio-medical in origin, and their ‘cause and effect’ relationships are more often related to economic, social, demographic, neighbourhood and family variables. 2. Efforts at introducing prevention and early intervention approaches have to be monitored and evaluated carefully, but the tacit understanding of practitioners and the quality of relationships always have to be included as important dimensions of evaluation. The Random Controlled Trial (RCT) has limited value at this early stage of social problem prevention (even if it were an appropriate social research method ethically) because the appropriate variables cannot be confidently isolated from contamination by other variables, due to the fact that structural issues are not measured in the method.
This is not to say that general pointers cannot be derived from prevention trials in medicine. First, we can glean encouragement that over time, prevention does work. Second, we can derive specific lessons from the logic of the approach to prevention in health research. Mrazek and Haggerty (1994) say that prevention is developed through a series of phases, each of which builds on the earlier phase, that is: 1. recognising and defining a problem 2. delineating the risk factors 3. examining the power and priority of various risk factors, both singly and in combination 4. examining the protective factors 5. testing a variety of interventions to decrease risk and increase protection 6. conducting large scale studies of the most promising interventions
Report of the Community Care Review 94
7. conducting large scale confirmatory studies of the most promising interventions at multiple sites 8. transferring the knowledge to the public domain.
5.3 Characteristics of successful prevention
• Prevention does not always have to ‘wait’ for scientific knowledge about cause–effect and intervention. Having effective prevention might be possible before having effective intervention (for example, it is possible to prevent homelessness without knowing how to remedy it after it occurs). • Prevention relies on having a well developed understanding of and framework for theory. • Prevention works best when people listen to similar messages from multiple domains of intervention. • Prevention should be community focused and owned, and be directed to specific sub-populations. • Prevention should be rigorously designed and evaluated. • In prevention, overlaps with other areas (for example, physical and mental health should be acknowledged). • Prevention requires sustained commitment by all levels of government, both internally and externally, by CSOs and by academics. (For a more detailed discussion of these issues, see Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994.)
One criticism that can be made of a lot of prevention research in health and mental health involves the relative absence of attention to the broader structural issues that have an impact on individuals, families and communities. The nature and scope of the current technological, economic and social revolution is often bypassed. In the YAFS area, it is imperative there be a structural as well as a behavioural understanding of the dynamics of family and families (see Chapter 8).
5.4 Connecting prevention and early intervention
Victoria already has a relatively well established set of preventative services by way of its neighbourhood houses, universal maternal and child health, preschool program, parenting centres, general practitioners and community health centres. Unfortunately, no conclusions can be reached in this brief review as to their availability,
Report of the Community Care Review 95
coverage, access and adequacy. However, it is clear from feedback received that their presence is appreciated, and their expansion was generally favoured. Early intervention services are mandated for early childhood, for children who have a specific developmental problem, but the services are not available beyond school commencement; in fact, for most families, entry to services for family support once a child reaches school age is now via the child protection system, that is, at the statutory-based end of the system. For this chapter, the issue is whether the remit of the new Community Care Division should encompass more-comprehensive prevention and early intervention options. As noted in Chapter 1, there is now a body of evidence in which it is made clear that if there is family based prevention, the risk factors associated with youth and adult crime, mental illness, child abuse and violence can be reduced. Most of the prevention research work has been done overseas, mostly about early childhood. What is argued in the evidence includes the following. • The necessity for appropriate care and stimulation in babies is essential for normal brain development (Perry 2000). • Participation in a preschool program promotes positive cognitive development in the short term and prepares children to succeed in school. • Preschool experience seems to be a positive force in the life of low- income children more than in the life of advantaged children. • Maternal employment and participation in ‘out of home’ care, even during infancy, seems not to harm children, and can yield benefits if the childcare is regulated and of high quality. • Early childhood and early development programs can produce a large increase in IQ during the early childhood years, as well as sizeable, persistent improvement in reading and maths, decreased need for grade retention and special education, and improved socialisation for disadvantaged children. • Anticipatory guidance, a common feature of child health surveillance programs, can improve nutrition, some aspects of behaviour and development, and parenting. • Home-visiting programs can be effective, particularly for very disadvantaged women, but there have been difficulties in implementing and operating some of the programs. • Group-based parenting education programs for parents produce more changes in children’s behaviour, and are more cost effective and user friendly than individual, clinic based programs. • In early intervention programs for children who have a developmental delay or disability, the focus is increasingly on
Report of the Community Care Review 96
broad family outcomes rather than on specific developmental gains for children. (The Centre for Community Child Health provided this data in 1999, with the exception of the first point.)
The Centre for Community Child Health at the Royal Children’s Hospital (1999) quotes a US study as reporting major long-term savings by way of investment in prevention and early intervention. Savings included reduced costs of special education, income security and reduced incarceration. Benefits included increased income and paid taxes. No Australian-based research has been conducted to confirm either assertions or the overseas contention that prevention and early intervention programs should continue throughout the school yeras. Not all social and emotional problems emerge in early childhood, and even if they do, the need is to offer some children a second and third chance and others a first chance. In Table 5.2, the developmental phases and transitions each child is required to surmount are made clear. Transitions are more important than chronological age and either help or hinder the individual’s ability to make the transition (see Chapter 6). What matters is not so much chronological age as any change in demands, and in the resources or strategies, when a transition is made (National Crime Prevention, 1999, p. 131). In Table 5.2, some of the important transitions and developmental phases any child is expected to surmount are outlined. The table must be viewed as being only a partial list, because the importance of the family and community context into which the developing child and young person is embedded is not taken into account in it.
Report of the Community Care Review 97
Table 5.2 Developmental phases and transitions Developmental Developmental Risk factors Preventative phase tasks strategies* Prenatal/perinatal Physical and Parental substance Family support neurological abuse development Adolescent pregnancy Inadequate prenatal care Birth injury Prematurity Transition to parenthood Infancy Affect regulation Disturbances of Parent training Attachment attachment Early education Developing Inappropriate autonomy behaviour Sense of self development Social isolation Inappropriate parenting Transition to preschool Preschool Separation from Inappropriate Child training mother parenting Teacher training Preparation for Problem behaviours school Peer difficulties Socialisation for Impulsivity and transition inattention Peer relationships Transition to school School Adaptation to School failure Peer group training school Lack of parental Peer relationships monitoring Experiences of Inconsistent success and failure discipline Peer rejection Transition to high school Adolescence Defining identity Teenage pregnancy Anti-bullying Growth of Risk-taking programs autonomy in a behaviour Community support context of peer Unemployment for youth in schools conformity Antisocial peers Developing a value Lack of parental system support Intimate rel’ships Transition to work and adult relationships Adulthood Adult roles and Unemployment Social and responsibilities Poverty economic Homelessness development Social isolation Building social networks *The preventative strategies are only examples of possible interventions. Other strategies for each phase are available, and many strategies (such as family support) are applicable in more than one phase.
Report of the Community Care Review 98
Source: National Crime Prevention (1999), Pathways to Prevention: Developmental and Early Intervention Approaches to Crime in Australia: Full Report (National Crime Prevention, Attorney General’s Department).
5.5 Prevention and risk
To understand prevention, it is also necessary to outline the idea of risk. Risks are adverse circumstances or stresses, communal or individual, and are cumulative: the more risk factors, the greater the chance of troublesome or troubling behaviour (Rayner and Montague, 1999). In Table 5.3, ‘risk factors’ are outlined. These factors have a cumulative effect on behaviour: the more risk factors experienced by a child, the greater the risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour. Table 5.3 Risk factors associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour Child factors Family factors School Life events Community and context cultural factors • prematurity • Parental • school • divorce and • socio-economic • low birth weight characteristics: failure family disadvantage • disability • teenage mother • normative break-up • population • prenatal brain damage • single parent beliefs • war or density and • birth injury • psychiatric about natural housing • low intelligence disorder, aggression disasters conditions • difficult temperament especially • deviant • death of a • urban area • chronic illness depression peer group family • neighbourhood • insecure attachment • substance abuse • bullying member violence and • poor problem solving • criminality • peer crime • beliefs about • antisocial models rejection • cultural norms aggression • Family • poor concerning • attributions environment: attachment violence as • poor social skills • family violence to school acceptable • low self esteem and disharmony • inadequate response to • lack of empathy • marital discord behaviour frustration • alienation • disorganised manage- • media portrayal • hyperactivity/disruptive • negative ment of violence behaviour interaction/social • lack of support • impulsivity isolation services • large family size • social or • father absence cultural • long term discrimination parental unemployment • Parenting style: • poor supervision and monitoring of child discipline style (harsh or inconsistent) • rejection of child • abuse • lack of warmth and affection • low involvement in child’s activities • neglect
Report of the Community Care Review 99
Source: National Crime Prevention (1999), Pathways to Prevention: Developmental and Early Intervention Approaches to Crime in Australia: Full Report (National Crime Prevention, Attorney-General’s Department).
The reviews by Rayner and Montague (1999) and other researchers show there is now evidence that building up protective factors (by numbers and by intensity) will strengthen resilience and reduce risk, and therefore reduce vulnerability. Table 5.4 is a ‘map’ of protective factors that can be strengthened in any individual circumstance. Protective factors are thought to have a cumulative impact on behaviour: the more protective factors experienced by a child or young person, the lower the risk of antisocial and criminal behaviour.
Table 5.4 Protective factors associated with antisocial and criminal behaviour Child factors Family factors School context Life events Community and cultural factors • social • supportive, • positive school • meeting a • access to competence caring parents climate significant support • social skills • family • prosocial peer person services • above average harmony group • moving to • community intelligence • more than two • responsibility a new area networking • attachment to years between and required • opportuni- • attachment to family siblings helpfulness ties at the • empathy • responsibility • sense of critical community • problem for chores: belonging/ turning • participation solving required bonding points or in church or • optimism helpfulness • opportunities major life other • school • secure and for some transitions community achievement stable family success at group • easy • supportive school and • community/ temperament relationship recognition of cultural norms • internal locus with other achievement against of control adult • school norms re violence • moral beliefs • small family violence • a strong • values size cultural • self related • strong family identity and cognitions norms and ethnic pride • good coping morality style
Source: National Crime Prevention (1999), Pathways to Prevention: Developmental and Early Intervention Approaches to Crime in Australia: Full Report (National Crime Prevention, Attorney-General’s Department).
Report of the Community Care Review 100
5.6 Types of prevention
The existing situation in Victoria is as follows. • There is a suite of mostly uncoordinated universal preventative services in the early childhood area (maternal and child health, preschool and childcare). • There are no systematic selective prevention services targeted statewide to children and young people who are sub-groups of a population whose risk of developing a social or emotional difficulty or problem might be viewed as being high (for example sole parents and indigenous children). The exception is the early intervention service directed to all children who have a disability, about which a considerable amount was heard at the Review. This tyoe of service could also be profitably directed to many children living under the poverty line, children who are of low birth weight at delivery, indigenous children and many NESB children from a background of trauma, and children of parents brought up in institutional care. • In overseas evidence it is shown that selective prevention interventions are appropriate when the interventions do not exceed a moderate level of cost and when negative effects are either minimal or non-existent (Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994). • There are no systematic indicated prevention services targeted at high-risk children who have minimal but detectable signs of difficulty. There is no classification system for ensuring this. This and other assumptions about ‘high risk’ children require research work. • There are few prevention or early intervention community care services in the middle childhood or adolescent age group. For the future, attention therefore has to be given to considering selective intervention by doing as follows. • Developing a classification of ‘no’ to ‘high’ risk populations in each age band • Following this, planning and developing universal preventative, selective prevention and indicative prevention (or early intervention) services for early and middle childhood and adolescence. These services have to be clearly scoped around the primary and secondary service recipient/s, for example parent and/or child. There also has to be discussion about what partnerships between providers and what sites can advance establishment of prevention and early intervention services. For example, • early intervention services (such as play groups and Home Instruction for Prevention in Preschool Youngsters − HIPPY) can be connected to early childhood services
Report of the Community Care Review 101
• prevention and early intervention services in middle childhood have to be based on schools • prevention and early intervention services in adolescence have to involve the local government and, when possible, a broad range of community and business partners (the VISYcare project at Dandenong is one model in which a broad and comprehensive prevention and intervention service is provided out of a ‘one-stop shop’).
Prevention services can be divided into two groups: universal prevention services and selective prevention services. In some definitions, early intervention services are also known as ‘indicated prevention services’, and are targeted at high risk individuals, families, populations and communities. There are now reasonably well validated early intervention programs that can be selected and directed according to their impact on building up resilience and reducing risk in the early, middle and teen years. In particular, service designs that are inclusive of both the child/youth and parent/s have to be given priority. (Too many service providers continue to fail to provide access and participation for fathers or siblings.) In addition, it should now be possible for researchers to scope the most problematic transitions at which point protective factors have to be reinforced. Some of these universal transition points are entry to parenthood, entry to childcare or preschool, entry to school, entry to secondary school, leaving school, and entry to work and adulthood (see Table 5.2). Specific population groups sustain increased risk at the abovementioned points of transition. In selective prevention and indicative prevention services (or early intervention services) the focus is on defined population groups at risk, in particular locations at risk, which are often accompanied with high levels of social and economic disadvantage, and consequent high levels of unemployment. Selecting locations for selective prevention and early intervention services must be fine-grained enough to identify disadvantage. (For example, at first glance, the City of Greater Geelong does not seem to be particularly disadvantaged, but when its statistical local areas (SLAs) are disaggregated and examined independently, huge socio- economic differences are evident between Corio and nearby Newtown.) The task ahead, then, is to match locations and specific populations within them (for example, sole parents and unemployed parents) with selective preventions and early interventions whereby the aim is to prepare for and support transitions. This modest approach will depend on selecting appropriate evidence-based service interventions (see Chapter 7). In the Review, it has not been possible to provide an ‘evidence base’ of interventions, but some possibilities to be
Report of the Community Care Review 102
considered in this type of review are outlined as follows. Issues for review are the objectives of selective prevention and early intervention, the type of program and the program results. In points 5.6.1–5.6.3, illustrative outlines are provided.
5.6.1 Early childhood The neurological development and attachment capacity of a young child are deeply affected by his or her early environment. A range of home-visit programs (such as Healthy Start and the Prenatal – Early Infancy Visitation Program, or David Olds) have been shown to be successful. However, parent-oriented programs such as Head Start and HIPPY have also showed gains in working with both children and parents of disadvantaged children in order to give them confidence. The issues of site – home based or centre based – require consideration, as do target groups, and the level and intensity of the intervention. The outcomes should be to develop language and social skills before school entry.
5.6.2 Middle childhood Programs involving schools have to be considered at this point. FAST (Families and Schools Together) is an indicative early intervention, geared at children and families that have noted problems, and is already operating in Melbourne under the auspices of the Uniting Church. The School Development Program that has evolved in Full Service Schools broadens the environment of people who have a stake in the outcomes of schools, and includes parents and teachers, local community service organisations, business groups and mental health teams. Interventions to improve the social competence and connectedness of both children and parents are thought to reduce risk factors for academic failure and mental disorders (Mrazek and Haggerty, 1994). Because children who cannot read two years after entering primary school will be at risk of academic failure and disturbance, these are two issues to target.
5.6.3 Older childhood: teenagers By adolescence, risk has often become cumulative and multiple, and selective prevention and early intervention have to be aimed at reducing behavioural problems and substance-abusing behaviour and at increasing the rewards of staying at school. Programs have to be both school based and out-of-school based. Empowering schools to extend their remit by way of forming community partnerships is an essential approach. Programs include well-resourced, school-focused youth services and Communities That Care. In the Commonwealth Government’s Youth Pathways Action Plan Taskforce Report, a comprehensive approach to prevention and early intervention is outlined (Commonwealth, 2000).
Report of the Community Care Review 103
School-to-work transitions are particularly important, as is noted inthe Review being conducted within the portfolio of Education, Employment and Training. In Chapter 7, the struggle and educational defeat of young people in care who have been set up for a life of difficulty due to their educational failure is noted. The objective should be for Community Care Services to support 12 years of schooling.
5.7 Prevention partnerships
Sponsorship of prevention and early intervention programs requires that care and thought be given to the partnerships required in being commited to delivering beyond the Community Care portfolio. Prevention and early intervention are of substantial interest in a range of State portfolios: health (including child and adolescent health, and mental health), prisons, housing and homelessness services, education, and local government. Commonwealth Government portfolios that have an investment are Family and Community Services, Health, Attorney-General, Education, and Employment Services. These stakeholders, CSOs and local governments have to be represented in service design, funding and evaluation. The role of the Community Care portfolio should be to lead a strategy for prevention and early intervention for pre-school children and their families. This requires a ‘whole of government’ mandate and support. The outcomes of this strategy will materially affect the future workloads of other services such as education, health and justice. (There are some impressive US programs whereby a ‘whole of government’ and business–community approach becomes a systematic, determined plan of prevention.)
5.8 Prevention and programs
To date, one issue that has not been considered very much is interaction between and beyond programs. Choosing programs is relatively easy; the question is how synergy can be created from the abovementioned and other choices so beneficial neighbourhood effects are guaranteed and sustained from program impacts. The other question is how to build beneficial neighbourhood effects into economic and social development whereby exclusion is combatted and specific communities are built. The issue is that problems cannot be dealt with one at a time. No single program intervention, service or integration of services will deal with ‘joined up’ problems. ‘Joined up’ problems require ‘joined up’ solutions (as Tony Blair famously said). To quote Schorr, The new synthesis rejects addressing poverty, welfare [un]employment, [poor] education, child development, [poor] housing and crime one at a time; multiple and interrelated problems…require multiple and interrelated solutions. The new synthesisers are determined to reverse
Report of the Community Care Review 104
the economic and social and political marginalisation that has turned the poor…into an underclass…they refuse to choose between the structural and behavioural causes of urban dysfunction, or between equipping the poor to leave unsupportive neighbourhoods or making them better places to live. (Schorr, 1997, p. 319) The current argument is therefore that the choice of prevention and early intervention programs will be undermined unless the programs are incorporated in community-building activities. In the Review, Schorr’s argument was noted as follows. • In successful programs, action in a range of domains (community care, education, health, economics and community building) is combined. • In successful programs, a community’s own resources and strengths are relied on as the foundations for designing service and change initiatives. • In successful programs, outside resources (both public and private), expertise and new partnerships are then draw on. • Successful programs have a theory of change behind them whereby participants are given a common sense of meaning about their activities. • In successful programs, the conditions are created under which comprehensive programs can be improved, sustained and expanded. These conditions include: – availability of continually evolving information about ‘what works’ – new forms of friendly technical assistance and support, for example,. IT – connections to political clout – appropriate levels of funding and ability in order to leverage new funds – a rationale for an investment strategy, or a ‘cost of failure’ analysis. (Schorr 1997)
5.9 Summary and recommendations
The universal and selective-based prevention and early intervention programs have to be established with ‘whole of government’ and other partnership support, and have to be targeted at supporting critical transitions at a range of sensitive developmental levels for children and young people.
Report of the Community Care Review 105
Chapter 6 The future: service structures
Overview
The message of this report is that the structure of organisations and networks is of secondary importance to purpose, process, relationships and networks. In the Review, the recommendation is not to abolish organisations or start up new ones. Tasks and purposes are viewed as being the driver of structure. It is important to say this before this chapter commences, because in the Review it was noted that discussions of structure (as in YAFSR) sometimes seemed to be the end rather than the means. In a similar vein, an informant to the Review noted the community sector’s ‘obsession with models’. There is no perfect way for services to be delivered: the aim is always to minimise the drawbacks and maximise the positives. With these caveats in mind, this chapter is a discussion of one possible structure that relates to the themes in Chapter1 (particularly partnerships); the networked organisations of Chapter 2; the principles and building blocks discussed in Chapter 3; the emphasis on community building and relationships in Chapter 4: and the new emphasis on prevention, early interventions and transitions discussed in Chapter 5. The chapter also accommodates the emphasis in this report placed on ‘whole of government’ policy by also emphasising ‘whole of government’ practice by forming linkages with other services, for example housing and homelessness services. In the chapter, service objectives are established that when set against the age group of children and young people to be served provide a framework for assessing when and where risky transitions will occur. Essentially, this matrix will show a range of service clusters whereby more focused attention can be given to the needs of specific age groups of children and young people, and their families, and to the evidence about respective forms of intervention. Additionally, Chapter 6 is a discussion of Community Care networks as being aggregations of informal organisational activity for planning purposes at the level of each local-government area. Each Community Care network will have to consider its service objectives in light of service clusters, and of the needs and resources of specific Community Zones. Community Zones could be the site of highly localised resource audits and of planning and service delivery. It is quite possible that specific Community Zones would ‘cash out’ resources and develop a service plan consistent with their own needs.
Report of the Community Care Review 107
6.1 Introduction
In responding to the issues raised in the Review, in this chapter some complex options for future service activity are presented. The framework outlined in the chapter has to be taken forward into activity. This activity has to be resourced if it is to be effective. Some people might be concerned that governance changes are implied in the chapter, but this is not the case. The model that follows is presented for more discussion. Essentially, this chapter is a discussion of two streams of service activity. In the first stream, the objectives of service delivery, and the clusters of service activity needed in response are organised. These clusters have to be based on specific age groups (as reflective of developmental needs, whether child or parent), and the targets of service and appropriate levels of intervention have to be considered in them. Clusters composed of practitioners and other people have to meet regularly to review and monitor the service work of clusters, and to learn incrementally about service improvement in cluster forums. Clusters are the engines of evidence-based collections of data and can often reflect the nature of the disciplines involved. However, of themselves, cluster forums do not plan or deliver services. Service delivery is organised through networks, of which two types are discussed: Community Care Networks (CCNs), which comprise one local government area, and Community Zones, which are the most devolved community based level of planning and delivery, and which offer services around local community needs and requirements. Essentially, then, two sets of themes are being addressed: Theme A: Clusters Components: service objectives, developmental stages, transitions and levels of intervention Theme B: Networks Components: Community Care Networks and Community Zones
6.2 Theme A: Service objectives
In the 12 objectives that follow, • two have the aim of promotion (objectives 1 and 2) • two have the aim of prevention (objectives 3 and 4) • one has the aim of early intervention (objective 5) • two have intensive services (objectives 6 and 7) • two have specialist services connected to mainstream services (objectives 5 and 7) inside (objective 8) and outside (objective 9) the Division
Report of the Community Care Review 108
• two have specialist services based on indigenous issues (objective 10) and ethno-specific, cultural or language issues (objective 11) related to objectives 3–9 • one seeks to ‘join up’ with other State and Commonwealth portfolios (objective 12).
Objective 1 — Developing community capability: creating social capital (promotion) In this objective, the aim is to support development of capable communities (competent, resilient and nurturing) that are safe, sustainable, productive and happy learning environments for infants, children, young people, parents and extended families.
Objective 2 — Extending family capacity: promoting family life (promotion) In this objective, the aim is to develop and maintain capable families (competent, resilient and nurturing) that are safe, sustainable, productive and happy learning environments for infants, children, young people, parents and extended families, by providing information, education and support at statewide and local level. All CSOs and governments have to contribute to this. A key institution is VicFamilies.
Objective 3 – Supporting the foundations: services for all (universal prevention) In this objective, the aim is to build and communicate service paths from a solid foundation of information, support and connectedness to assist all babies, children, young people, parents and extended families in all Victorian communities.
Objective 4 — Sustaining by reinforcement: surmounting stress (selective prevention) In this objective, the aim is to reinforce the capability of specific populations that have infants, children, young people, parents and families, in order to surmount stressors, transitions and changes by building protective factors and reducing vulnerability.
Objective 5 — Strengthening transitional pressure points: reducing risks (indicative intervention and early intervention) In this objective, the aim is to strengthen resilience for infants, children, young people, parents and families who are vulnerable as a result of being exposed to risk.
Report of the Community Care Review 109
Objective 6 — Steering along a path to safety: protecting against harm (intensive intervention and reduction of risk/harm) In this objective, the aim is to supervise or ‘superintend’ infants, children, parents and families when there is evidence of physical, psychological or sexual harm and/or neglect, by reducing risks and increasing safety and wellbeing.
Objective 7 — Shepherding by care and nurturing: being an alternative family (intensive intervention and reduction of risk/harm) In this objective, the aim is to temporarily or permanently provide safety, stability and stimulation for infants, children and young people, outside the family of origin, in order to offer the same opportunities as outlined in objectives 3–6. It is necessary to continually reconnect infants, children and young people with their family of origin and community of care, or in the absence of these, to create them as necessary. (Although objectives 1–7 are the basis for service paths, plans, programs and practice, there are other services that relate to each of the abovementioned objectives. These are represented in objectives 8– 12.)
Objective 8 – Partnering specialist services: resolving specific issues These are special services for special groups, which have to connect to objectives 3–7. These special structures are: • financial counselling • domestic violence services • problem gambling services.
Objective 9 — Integrating statewide services: linking services to service paths For people who use services mentioned in objectives 3–8, there is sometimes the need to draw in a statewide service to discharge responsibility. In addition to the statewide services listed in the YAFSR, the Women’s and Children’s Health Network is included here.
Objective 10 — Connecting Aboriginal childcare Connecting the spiritual, cultural and social needs of Aboriginal children and young people to the previously mentioned service paths is important in light of the responsibilities of VACCA and local Aboriginal organisations to connect with the wider service system.
Report of the Community Care Review 110
Objective 11 — Connecting ethno-specific and multicultural services Connecting the special needs of culturally and linguistically diverse children, youth and families to mainstream services will be one of the community care network’s greatest challenges.
Objective 12 – Joining up the service network In this objective, the aim is to develop partnerships with other State Government services (such as homelessness, education, health and mental health) and Commonwealth Government services. These objectives are fitted together in Figure 6.1.
6.3 Ages of children and young people
As argued in Chapter 5, if prevention and early intervention are to be taken seriously, service objectives have to be connected more systematically with the age group of children and families. This is central to understanding the significance of transitions and pressure points. Therefore, within any service, age is an important factor in service design or delivery. Age is a proxy for ‘development’. As noted, when examining the recent evidence about child and youth development, the issue of transferring from one stage of the life cycle to the next is not always straightforward and depends on a number of factors connected with how poorly this (and earlier) transitions are handled. Services therefore have to be grouped around the specific age
Report of the Community Care Review 111
groups already suggested in Chapter 5: • early childhood • middle childhood • youth.
In Figure 6.2, the possible relationships between service objectives and age groups are shown.
Report of the Community Care Review 112
:
Self Managed Case Managed Type of user involvement
Voluntary Statutory Type of service Universal Selective Implementation prevention prevention Age Based Objective 3 Objective 4: Objective 5: Objective 6: Objective 7: Program Supporting the Sustaining Strengthening the Steering to Safety Shepherding by Development Foundations Populations by Pressure Points Example Delivery Reinforcement Early childhood
Middle childhood
Youth
Objective 1: Building Community Capability – Creating SocialCcapital Objective 2: Extending Family – Capacity and Family Promotion
Report of the Community Care Review 113
Table 6.1 Possible service clusters in which service gaps are demonstrated − DHS Community Care
Age Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Objective 7 Neighbourhood Houses Early Intervention Family Support Families First Foster Care and Early-Parenting Centres Services Strengthening Families High Risk Infants Placement Support Preschool Field Officers Early Choices Child Protection Residential Care Maternal and Child Specialist Children’s Home Based Care Health Services Court Services Early child child Early hood Neighbourhood Houses Family Support Families First Foster Care and Strengthening Families Child Protection Placement Support Home Based Care Residential Care Court Services Middle child Middle child hood Neighbourhood Houses Family Support Families First Adolescent Community Strengthening Families Intensive Youth Support Placement School Focused Youth Juvenile Justice Juvenile Justice Services (Community) (Custodial) Residential Care, Foster Youth Care and Placement Support
Report of the Community Care Review 114
6.4 Service clusters
Service objectives could be related to age groups and, in turn, to service clusters. A service cluster is a group of age related services, clustered according to broad service objectives. Having clusters could enable us to map the existing and future service network, and its gaps and possibilities, because the cluster is a group of similar services organised around an age group. Existing services can be mapped as service clusters. This is illustrated in Table 6.1, showing the absence of services in middle childhood, the presence of services for young people at the case managed end of the spectrum only, and the fact that in the service mix, services directed to parents and services directed to children are not differentiated. Service clusters are composed of regular forums of practitioners involved in planning, design, delivery, review and research of community care services. A cluster (or clusters) can be mapped at a range of geographic and organisational levels, whether: • statewide • regional • a Community Care network • any Community Zone • within any community service organisation.
Cluster forums have to be held on a regular basis to disseminate, share and extend knowledge, both formal and tacit; to review methods and approaches; to discuss with users and carers, and to discuss service duplication, gaps, incoherence and continuities. At times, cluster- forum participants will wish to combine with other clusters. Cluster forums have to be learning groups. They have to provide development for practitioners, intelligence to managers, and analytic policy information to decision makers. Their organisation will have to be dynamic rather than static, their boundaries fluid rather than rigid. Service clusters are not formal organisations but task groups aimed at providing improved analytic tools and practice for all people involved in community care.
6.4.1 Targets of service clusters As well as mapping services against age groups, for developmental and transitional reasons it is becoming more and more important to specify whether the services are targeted at parents or children and young people. Each or both might be appropriate, but a family based analysis is required around this if service objectives are to be met.
Report of the Community Care Review 115
(For example, in the case of Janice [Chapter 7], whereby emotional rejection is an issue, it is not enough to focus a service on Janice alone.) If the children require stimulation and compensatory development opportunities, they must be offered these in their own right. On the other hand, working with Petra (Chapter 6) without working closely with her parents and other significant adults in her life will also fail. The incentives for being involved in cluster based activity are two fold. There is the incentive of being – and being seen to be – a high quality professional. There is also an incentive provided by working in a framework that will be much more quality conscious and objectives centred. There is the incentive provided by continuously obtaining feedback from users. There is the incentive of continuously learning and developing. In the new framework, the incentives will have to be expanded in order to promote and recognise excellent practice (Clark 2000). In tables 6.2 (i) and (ii), the people to whom current clusters of services are offered are outlined.
Table 6.2 (i) Services directed to adults or parents Age Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Objective 7 Neighbourhood Early Family Families First Nil Houses Intervention Support Child Protection Early Parenting Services Strengthening Home Based Care Centres Early Families Court Services Preschool Field Choices Officers Specialist Maternal and Children’s Child Health Services
Early childhood childhood Early Centres Neighbourhood Nil Family Families First Nil Houses Support Child Protection Strengthening Families Middle Middle childhood Neighbourhood Nil Family Families First Nil Houses Support Child Protection Strengthening Families Youth
Report of the Community Care Review 116
Table 6.2 (ii): Age specific services directed to children and young people Age Objective 3 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Objective 7 Preschool and Early Intervention Nil Home Based Foster Care childcare Services Care Residential Specialist Care hood hood Children’s
Early Child Early Services Nil Nil Nil Foster Care Residential Care child child hood hood Middle Middle
Youth Support School Intensive Youth Adolescent Nil Services Focused Support Community Youth Placement Services Juvenile Justice Youth Residential Care Foster Care
Tables 6.2 (i) and (ii) are as much useful for what they do not say as for what they say. It is easy to trace the service gaps, albeit crudely, from them. For example, there are no designated services offered to the parents of children in ‘out of home’ care in any age group (which is not to say that many CSOs and their staff do not strive to keep and develop these links). Likewise, there are no early intervention services directed to parents after the early childhood years. To this point, families – their forms, roles, tasks, capabilities and pressure points – have been the missing ingredient in the Review. This important point will be discussed in Chapter 8. More thought is needed about directing services to families, not individual parents.
6.5 Clusters and levels of intervention
As well as relating of services to objectives, age groups and targets within a family, making an attempt to describe levels of intervention related to the different clusters of services would be helpful. Services, from the less intensive to the very intensive clusters, require description. What are the inputs or packages of intervention? What are the average and median levels of intervention? For all objectives, scoping the minimum to maximum service package has to be undertaken by way of field-research investigation. Furthermore, where are the services needed? (Services can be required at several points of the State in any one case – perhaps where the
Report of the Community Care Review 117
(separated) parents live (two different towns), where the foster carer lives (a third town), and possibly a fourth town – to where a young person runs away (see ‘Maria’ in Chapter 1). However, stand-alone service packages (resources) are only half the story. A large part of the delivery process is ‘relational’. Resources have to be used creatively and within an atmosphere of goodwill (including statutory child protection cases). At present, we have minimal understanding about the composition of service packages – their instrumental (material and design) components and their affective (relationship) components. The earlier discussion about the need to map the nature of problems has to be accompanied with an attempt to map interventions. For the moment, we can only guess at the levels of intervention required in any problem set of circumstances. Thinking creatively about levels of intervention, beyond the professional case management model of service delivery, is necessary. A range of forms of voluntary help, such as mentoring and befriending services, require more-serious consideration. Another issue is the level of competence and skill that has to accompany any service. In recent years, governments have been preoccupied with the instrumental aspects of service, and have not reflected, scoped, specified and supported development of increased skill levels for staff.
6.6 Theme B: Community Care Networks and Community Zones
A Community Care Network is an aggregation of service clusters that is made real by being located in a local government area. Service networks are not intervening layers of management between CSOs and regional divisions of government; they are independent organisations that have their own governance. They are construction of a forum of all stakeholders (government, local government, CSOs and the community) that come together in partnerships to plan, oversee and develop the services required within a local government area. They will require quite different operating methods (trust relationships, persuasion, argument and debate), although a network will be quite formal in its requirements for performance accountability. In fact, one of the important tasks is to specify: • who the partners are • how leadership or management issues are to be resolved • what information base the networks will have recourse to • what resources the networks will have for planning a service system for Community Zones (CZs) and Community Care Networks (CCNs)
Report of the Community Care Review 118
• what otherwise centralised allocations can be devolved to the networks to reorient • what, and from whom, the accountabilities have to be.
Following is an outline of some key tasks of a service network, as sited in either a Community Care Network or a Community Zone. • Four integrated sets of plans (based on community capacities, community needs, population data and service data) • Involvement of all stakeholders (including users) and the public at large in consultation, planning and review • Appropriate organisation and accountability arrangements, reflecting accountability and transparency (to be determined) • Processes to implement priorities of inclusion, quality, knowledge and linkages
Community Care Networks have to co-relate to the Commonwealth Government’s Department of Employment, Workplace Relations and Small Business Area Consultative Committees (ACCs) that provide a forum for Job Network agencies, businesses and government to network about employment issues. ACCs will benefit from liaising with CCNs because CCNs are required to consider how community capability can be improved.
6.7 Networks: the ‘portfolios’ required
Networks will require substantially different skills from contract management, within Government and CSOs. It was suggested in Chapter 3 that a different set of building blocks are required. These building blocks will become drivers of the new forms of activity. They are bounded by three new forms of information: consumer (and care) experiences, population data, and qualitative and quantitative service data. Overall, the substantive understandings required by managers are as follows. • Achieving inclusion of service users • Improving quality by developing learning networks • Leveraging knowledge by having evidence-based activities • Seeking linkages by way of ‘joined up’ government and services • Building ‘place’ by having specific locations • Financing and resourcing by having best value services
Report of the Community Care Review 119
• Connecting the ‘drivers’, which will require a planning framework and planning capabilities as shown in Figure 6.3.
The technical skills of planners in Government and local government will have to be combined with the aspirations and ‘know-how’ of both communities and CSOs if these approaches are to be achieved at CCN and CZ level. In addition, strong connections will have to be made with Primary Care Partnerships (PCPs) and other partners, in particular schools. It is essential that school principals, staff and other resources be fundamental to this development. In Figure 6.4 the requirements of CCNs and CZs are summarised.
Report of the Community Care Review 120
Figure 6.4: The requirements of Community Care Networks and Community Zones
• A service map in which the clusters are connected to service objectives, both actual and desired • A description of to whom a service is to be delivered (child and parent/s) • An agreed set of quality-improvement measures, starting with agreed service standards • Common referral processes • Agreed protocols with providers that are not part of community care, e.g. PCPs and SAAP • Resource allocation whereby service costs, coordination costs and local delivery issues are recognised • Shared commitment to evidence based practice
Report of the Community Care Review 121
Table 6.3 Community Zones and Community Care Networks Source of rationality Culture Form of control Co-production Primary virtue Flexible Service delivery focus Clients (aka service users, children, youth, families and citizens) (From Considine and Lewis, 1999, Chapter 2) Symbolic mandate (or (i) To return the service user to the community in overarching value) better shape (ii) To build families and communities to have improved economic and social wellbeing Hidden agenda Creating social capital in local communities Key incentives Reducing disadvantage improves the level of wellbeing for all Network ‘glue’ Achieving opportunity, equity and justice in local communities Modes of network interaction Collegial and collaborative, and data driven and evidence based Foundational activities Joint planning and review of place based service clusters ‘Currency’ of transactions Trust relations and shared knowledge Delivery mode Evidence researched, user responsive, integrated ‘joined up’ activity View of consumers Partners in enterprise, co stakeholders View of carers Partners in enterprise, co stakeholders Roles of public officials Network facilitators, knowledge brokers Sanctions to be agreed Against ‘creaming’, and dumping of users. Against breaches of probity and conflicts of interest Basis of inter program relations ‘Joined up’ activity, vertically and horizontally Directions of activity Solving cross cutting issues, and synchronising protocols and processes Key immediate technical Connecting production, delivery and results with challenge ‘tracking’ technology for individuals and population data Focus of decision making Principle of subsidiarity – decisions made at the lowest recurrent level Shared objective Improving results via agreed service and performance standards Accountability Regular performance based and financial reporting, and audits, available to partners and Government Basis of partnerships Clear specifications of roles, tasks, responsibilities and targets related to service objectives Criteria for financing model Based on need, quality and value; pooling and leverage of local funds Best outcome Service users participate in the networks and community, and become attached, both economically and socially
Report of the Community Care Review 122
6.8 Towards service integration
At service delivery level, service integration will be aided somewhat, but not solved, by adopting the processes and structures discussed in this chapter. Although respondents to the Review mentioned service integration often, this is a difficult and complex issue that requires persistent attention. ‘Joined up’ policy will assist greatly, but ‘joined up’ practice is necessary too. For the individual or family, there are four processes that would greatly aid service ‘wrap-around’ or integration. These are as follows. • Agreements with Community Zones (CZs) and Community Care Networks (CCNs) about common referral protocols. This means that: • a prospective service user will be able to enter any organisation in the CZ or CCN and to find information about other services and their entry points • an organisation the service user enters will arrange for a brief intake interview to take place about the request (or the presenting problem) • the organisation will then take responsibility for achieving a referral on behalf of the service user, make an appointment on his or her behalf, transfer the initial information to the appropriate organisation and, if needed, arrange any transport and an escort to the first appointment at the appropriate organisation. • Role specification and key worker: When two or more organisations are involved in management, there has to be an inter- agency role specification, on which the roles assigned to each organisation and, in particular, the responsibilities of a key worker who can practise on behalf of two or more organisations, are outlined. Common funding models would also be needed for this practice to work efficiently. • Planning conferences: When two or more organisations are involved in management, it is essential to convene case discussions between the organisation, service user and/or carers to map out and exchange plans. • Tracking data: All these processes have to be connected by way of existence of an integrated data system, in which past and present service contacts are listed as part of a minimum data set.
Report of the Community Care Review 123
6.9 Summary and recommendations
One model for consideration involves the following elements. • Service partnerships denote formal agreements. • A service cluster is a collection of similar services, organised around a specific child or youth age group. The service cluster can provide a focus for planning, integration, review and evaluation of services, within and between clusters. Service clusters are aggregated across Community Care Networks (CCNs)and Community Zones (CZs). • A Community Care Network is a network of both services clusters and CSOs, at both local government and State Government level. The responsibility of Community Care Networks is to provide community care for the citizens of specific communities within the network in a specific geographic area. This will be one local government area. • Community Zones are the basis of local service delivery for CCNs. CZs can be based on towns, specific areas or school clusters. Their boundaries should not be imposed, because decisions will have to be made with the communities involved as to what constitutes a Community Zone. CZs are the geographic building blocks of CCNs, and constitute a community based level of social planning. CZs can be formed with specific reference to schools and school clusters, and, when possible, local resources will be pooled so the CZ can decide the most appropriate service formation.
The State Government and local government are expected to support the creation and operation of CZs.
Report of the Community Care Review 124
Chapter 7 Improvements in community care services
Overview
Although it has not been possible to review actual services funded by the Division of Community Care, a main argument of this Report is that it is not rational to separate the activities of ‘caseness’ from either policy and program development or management processes. The objective of a ‘seamless service’ might apply to relatively straightforward delivery chains such as day surgery, child immunisation and housing allocation but are misplaced when problems have yet to be described, let alone classified. Problems are complicated, interrelated, interwoven, hard to resolve and ‘thick’. It is not rational to expect ‘outcomes’ to be sought from services when their nature is unknown or their scope is undefined. Although the criteria for judging the performance of community care is three-fold (the relevance of policy, the appropriateness of programs, and the results for service users), there is no existing way of judging service results (except for collecting satisfaction and dissatisfaction data). In the absence of coherent descriptions of the inputs to services (partnerships, and relationships and resources described by duration, service, frequency of service and skills), output and outcome measures are meaningless. Once service classifications and intervention protocols are in place, targets for specific populations or sub- populations can be developed. When data is adequate enough to begin to specify output and outcome measures, the measures have to encompass involvement of service users in delivery of services, in management of CSOs and other delivery organisations, and in their communities (Carter, 2000). A major national research effort to scope the nature of family and community services, problems and interventions is required, together with a framework for regular reviews of current services, according to agreed Practice Improvement Plans. In the Review, it was also found that: • there was substantial agreement that the child protection service has to divert many families to a comprehensive family support service • there was agreement that residential care is often not based on young people’s needs, that standards fall short of good practice, and that Government financing quantums are insufficient
Report of the Community Care Review 125
• the high rate of foster care breakdown is unacceptable • the lack of effective education, training and employment provision for young people in care is a serious concern • a coherent, supported, resourced plan has to accompany each young person leaving care • all service providers working with indigenous children and young people have to start at understanding loss, and then have to support and resource indigenous communities and services to care, guide and school indigenous children and young people bi-culturally.
7.1 Introduction
The services discussed represent ‘intensive’ services rather than the full range of services represented in the spectrum. This has been the result of having limited time. There is no intention to suggest that the intensive services are more important than the prevention and early intervention services, indeed, the rolling timetable drawn up for the Practice Improvement Plans recommended at the end of this chapter has to include all services. The services selected for the first phase of YAFSR have been selected. When considering how to discuss the services within this chapter, which are: • child protection • ‘out of home’ care – residential care – foster care – children leaving care, and • indigenous services, the method was to consult written submissions, and to refer to the consultations as well as to the specialist meetings held with government and CSO representatives in each case. What has been collated is a range of provider and former purchaser perspectives. The discussion about future goals and targets of these services has been hindered by lack of an evidential base. There is a minimum data set for the child protection service, and comprehensive statistics and analysis for child deaths, but there is no consistent, reliable, quantitative or quality evidence to illuminate the Reviewer, the policy maker and the practitioner. Despite this, government funds are allocated on the basis of output formulas. This is questionable in a service system that has, as yet, to be described, let alone categorised, and in which the goal statements that exist relate to legislative mandates (for example, protection from abuse) rather than to the improved, long-term life chances of service users, be they children,
Report of the Community Care Review 126
young people or families. It is not rational to create accurate output– outcome measures by fiat (as in YAFSR), and the existing international status of outcome measurement in this field is primitive when compared with health service measurement (Carter 2000). Because of the almost total neglect of measurement in the social- problems field in Australia, an argument is raised for having major cooperative national investment in consistent and coherent analysis of problems, categorisations, interventions and outcomes.
7.1.1 Example one: Petra Petra is a 15 year old girl whose parents separated when she was two. Her first service contact with a child psychiatrist was at age nine for somatic symptoms, intermittent school refusal and demanding behaviour. She is in ‘out of home’ care but repeatedly runs away from various accommodation options. She threatens self-harm and suicide. The agencies and services involved are: • three DHS offices (and officers) involved in three Victorian cities • three child and adolescent mental health psychiatrists involved in three cities • one Community Service Organisation (CSO) • police in three cities • various community supports, including accommodation services. The mother lives in one regional city, the father in another, and Petra regularly absconds to Melbourne. The issues seem to be as follows. • There is lack of agreement about the goals of involvement with Petra. • There is lack of coordination and communication between services in various regions. • There is pressure for case closure in one region when Petra is not physically present. • There are differing agendas between the range of services, and different protocols and legislation are influencing case plans. • There is lack of a crisis plan that will span all the services in the three regions. • Continuity of care is difficult, whereby the role of case manager is passed around the various agencies and regions according to Petra’s actual movements.
Petra is now in residential care in a regional city. She wants to live in Melbourne, and intends ‘running away’ again to get there. This has happened repeatedly − last time she ended up on secure welfare for two weeks. Service providers in the regional city are told by DHS that she cannot live in Melbourne because this is a ‘resource issue’. No Melbourne based DHS region will take her on because of this.
Report of the Community Care Review 127
7.1.2 Example two: Janice Janice, a single mother, moved to a rural town 400 kilometres from Melbourne, with three children under six. The father was living elsewhere. Janice has a physical disability, was suicidal, had a psychiatric history and was drug and alcohol dependent. The father visits occasionally in attempts to re-enter the family, but every effort results in chaos. Janice was referred to the family support program from the town’s housing worker because she was new in town, and seemed to need extra assistance to settle into the area and manage her young children. The Family Support Service has been involved for two years, and will be involved long term, three to 10 hours per week. During the past two years, the following problems have been presented to the family support worker. The mother, Janice, has a personal history of institutional care, following her abandonment by her parents at the age of two. While in care, she experienced ongoing sexual abuse. She has no support network. She has an obsessive–compulsive disorder, for which she receives treatment. She recently sustained a major injury, which will most likely result in physical disability. The impact of her own history of abandonment affects her parenting of her three children. She has a limited ability to put parenting strategies in place. Her relationship with the children’s father is generally negative. The family lives under the poverty line and has no transport. When Janice arrived in town, she had no housing. One of the three children has a disability and frequently needs medical attention.
According to the family support worker, the above mentioned vignette encompasses at least 13 presenting problems, for which the agency has provided help. In addition, the family support worker has had to negotiate with at least 18 services and bodies on behalf of the family. These are as follows.
1. DHS Community Care Service • Maternal and child health nurse • Childcare centre • Family day care • Foster carer for respite care
Report of the Community Care Review 128
• Kindergarten • Protective service • Early intervention • Co-care
2. Hospital services • Mother – Hospital doctor in regional city – Hospital doctor in Melbourne • Child – Paediatrician – Speech therapist – Physiotherapist
3. Non-government services Volunteer services
4. Private sector services Bank Estate agents
5. Commonwealth Government services Centrelink
Some of the tasks undertaken by the family support worker are as follows. • Providing personal support for Janice • Preparing Janice emotionally for appointments and assisting her through the maze of services • Educating and advocating with service providers about the family situation and the mother’s behaviour, which often results in her being rejected or in services being withdrawn • Identifying strengths in the family and the mother, and building on them in order for Janice to work towards independence of services and to have a greater sense of control in her life • Liaising with Protective Services and acting as a gatekeeper to prevent the family from getting into the protective system (the impact of the mother’s history means her greatest nightmare is losing her children)
Report of the Community Care Review 129
• Attending appointments with service providers, and acting as an interpreter of information and instructions • Coordinating services and the medical system around the family • Budgeting • Banking • Transporting the family to Melbourne for hospital appointments • Modelling play with children, and generally developing parenting skills
According to the family support worker, there are strengths in the mother. These are: • her belief in family life • her belief that she is a good mother • her belief that she can cope • her belief that she knows what is best for her family • her acceptance of help • her sense of humour • her instinct for survival.
The local Family Support Service claims it endeavours to: • present opportunities for the mother to build on her competencies • help create good experiences for the mother with her children • work with service providers to change their responses to the mother at times of inappropriate behaviour • build a community support network for the family • promote independence and confidence in decision making • believe the mother’s history and help the mother make sense of it • coordinate services involved, and make sure they are involved only if necessary.
7.1.3 Key lessons The following key points emerge from the two abovementioned examples, and are said to be ‘typical’ cases by their authors. • Service recipients are not able to be standardised and are far from predictable. • Recipients sustain complex, interwoven problems involving a range of services across the board, in and out of Community Care, and in and out of DHS.
Report of the Community Care Review 130
• The continuum of motivation ranges from ‘not very motivated’ to ‘quite highly motivated’. • Both these issues are long term, and none have short term ‘solutions’. • In the case of Petra, there is a mismatch between her safety, the resources available, where the resources are available and the time at which they are available. In the case of Janice, the demand seems to match the supply (although Janice was not interviewed for her opinion). Both cases demonstrate that some interventions can make things worse, whereas others can stabilise and even improve a complex family. • Both Petra and Janice are common to Community Care and Mental Health services, but are not perceived or managed as such. • Whatever service classifications exist (and none were presented to the Review) have been overtaken by major changes in the broader environment (e.g. family breakdown, lack of a young person’s labour market, and substance abuse) and the service environment (e.g. mandatory reporting, and outsourced residential care services).
The case of Janice shows exemplary coordination and exemplary relationship building. The case of Petra shows lack of coordination and ‘connectedness’. For Janice, what is being prevented is admission of the three children to residential care and wardship. From the information given, it is not clear whether the service is intensive and focused enough for the children to be assisted to overcome an undoubted legacy of vulnerability, or whether the service provided helps the family ‘just get by’. In the case of Petra, the issues of relationship and coordination are now very complex (if they were ever simple). The ingredients of successful practice with difficult and troublesome young people is, first, what might be termed ‘cherishment’– showing a young person by actions that a person (whether a teacher, a social worker, a youth worker or a volunteer) cares absolutely (Clark, 2000), and also developing well-managed connections, by the ‘cherisher’, with other services. Petra, of course, by her behaviour, has made it difficult for anyone to see her other than as a nuisance, and thinking about her welfare is dominated by bureaucratic considerations of service cost and service boundaries. There is no suggestion she is either a substance abuser or a chronic offender, but without successful intervention, both outcomes are possible. One objective of raising the circumstances of Janice and Petra is to make the point that the organisational structure of services must be shaped by and secondary to the nature of the work. Both purchasing and providing community care services are a long way from the
Report of the Community Care Review 131
standard purchaser–provider split of standard business practice, typified by ‘selling toothpaste to the army’, as one Review informant put it. However, in addition, in both cases we have insufficient knowledge of the nature of the difficulties, and of their various causes and triggers, at individual, family and societal level. Nevertheless, the ‘caseness’ that makes up everyday work must be central to future action. In this chapter, comment will selectively be made about some issues that were presented in the Review, by covering some issues connected with four other issues: child protection, family support and ‘out of home’ care (residential, foster and leaving care), and indigenous issues. These issues were chosen as being the ones most central to YAFSR and therefore as being the matters in central focus for the Review. The Reviewer commends the recent interest in initiatives developed by the DHS in bringing together different divisions and programs to coordinate services. Examples are the Working Together strategy, in which child protection, juvenile justice, substance abuse, and child and adolescent mental health come together. To be effective, these linkage strategies will have to include active discussions about obstacles of purpose and meaning, as well as about systematic, structural and operational obstacles. For example, many differences are obscured behind the culture, traditions, beliefs and operating approaches of the various professional disciplines in the field (DHSA in 1995). Other programs were not the subject of a major focus in the Review. These included, first, most universal services (preschool, maternal and child health, neighbourhood houses, and parenting programs) and the juvenile justice service, along with most statewide services. Some groups made important submissions to the Review: early intervention and childcare services. Unfortunately, because of time constraints and the limits of the Terms of Reference, we are unable to do these important services justice, and in their omission make no comment about their significance. The Reviewer saw some exemplary prevention and early intervention programs, for example the Uniting Church travelling early childhood service in East Gippsland, a tutoring and homework program in a neighbourhood house, and a discussion program about the future of work and use of new technologies in a neighbourhood house, all of which were impressive. In addition, specialist community care services, including financial counselling, problem gambling services, and domestic violence and sexual assault services, deserve much more attention than they are given in this Report. The essential nature of family support is acknowledged, and Chapter 6 must be reviewed in this light.
Report of the Community Care Review 132
7.2 Child protection
Although, technically, the Child Protection Service was not included in YAFSR, the large amount of interaction with CSOs, and the number of comments and discussions, justify its place in this Review. The Government of Victoria’s relatively recent child protection system has had a troubled history, and was a reliable source of press attack until 1996. A combination of factors, including internal-system reform, analysis and public reporting of child deaths via the annual reports of the Child Death Review Committee, and some effective new initiatives (such as the High Risk Infant strategy), would seem to have reduced public concern about the competence of the service. That is not to say that no difficulties exist; they will be dealt with under two headings: national and State.
7.2.1 National issues Some issues are national and common to all Australian jurisdictions. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare has catalogued some of these recently (AIHW, 1999), as follows. • What is child protection? There is no national understanding about a range of issues. • There is no clear definition about what constitutes child abuse and neglect in Australia. All States and Territories have different legislation, values and policies. • There is no agreed understanding about what constitutes child protection work. The broadening of definitions from ‘abuse’ and ‘neglect’ to ‘child protection’ has led to more families’ being investigated for ‘harm’ than were 10 years ago, for example. This is not necessarily related to increases in prevalence and incidence. • There is no consistency as to what constitutes a ‘notification’ to child protection, State by State, and as to when a notification is counted. • Abuse ‘types’: emotional abuse and neglect vary in definition and use across the country (and between individuals). • ‘Substantiation’ means different things in different States (and for different individuals). Is it substantiation of harm, risk or an incident, or all three? • What to do about families that have a range of other needs (‘child concern reports’, says the AIHW) is an issue not only in all States and Territories but internationally. Essentially, the impact of mandatory reporting on child protection has absorbed most, if not
Report of the Community Care Review 133
all, the resources previously devoted by States to child welfare and disadvantaged families (Carter 1999).
7.2.2 State issues Within Victoria, child protection and juvenile justice tertiary services receive the major share of the direct youth and family services budget – about 45 per cent (or almost 55 per cent if pre school services are excluded). The pressures on the child protection service are that: • notifications to the services of suspected child abuse and neglect increased by an average of 5 per cent over the past three years. • More than 50 per cent of children who were the subject of a notification to the child protection system in 1998−99 were about children and young people who had been the subject of previous notifications of neglect and abuse.
Both these findings suggest there is a strong need for continuing family support services, but in 1999, only 7 % of child protection notifications were referred to family support services; the remainder received no service support despite indications in many cases of significant family ‘dis-welfare’. (Due to establishment of the Strengthening Families Program, which includes the requirement that 75 % of the target group be referrals from the child protection service, the percentage will be increased even more.) Overall, however, diversion from the child protection service is slow and rare. Service users have a range of interrelated service issues. A recent (1999) analysis of the Department’s information indicated that 11% of the parents of protective clients were also clients of the Office of Housing, that 8 % were clients of a statutory mental heath service, and that almost 3 % were registered disability clients. In 1997, in the Brimbank Project in the Western Metropolitan Region, child protection notifications were analysed, and presence in most notified families of one or more of domestic violence, substance abuse and mental illness and their related services was identified (Western Metropolitan Region, 1997). Essentially, the efficiency, effectiveness and equity of the existing arrangements supporting child protection can be questioned.
7.2.3 Review opinion There is substantial agreement between DHS management, the child protection managers and the community services sector that there has to be a reorientation of the child protection service. All agree about the following matters. • Many children and families could (and should) be diverted from the child protection system.
Report of the Community Care Review 134
• Although mandatory reporting might have been successful for politicians and managers, there is a negative impact on the families that constitute the majority of referrals when abuse or neglect is not confirmed, and when families become angry and outraged at child protection investigations. The system collects too many ‘false positives’ for it to be efficient. • There has to be a comprehensive, separate family support service that is capable of strengthening families, to prevent their entry to child protection or continue working with families once the risk to the child’s safety is adequately low. • Investment in prevention and early intervention is essential if pressure on the child protection service is to be reduced. • Establishing shared risk assessment protocols with CSOs did help CSOs in knowing at which stage they should report or report again. • There is lack of criteria against which the child protection service should be evaluated.
There was difference of opinion as to how quickly these diversions could be achieved, and this related to the differing level of notifications in specific regions. In order to process the workload, resulting from mandatory reporting, of a range of professionals and groups, the DHS has been in a difficult position. The ‘just tell us and we’ll deal with it’ message of mandatory reporting has been unsustainable. Within Child Protection an informal filtering system for prioritising the workload has been poorly received by other service providers (including schools), who often feel that their concerns have been ignored. On the other hand, the Supreme Court found (in July 2000) that schools have a duty of care to report. Professional staffing remains a key problem in some rural areas of the child protection service. The turnover of staff dictates against the services’ credibility being credible to other providers, and against building up knowledge and quality. There is a strong desire among senior members of the service to become a professional social work service. A number of implications for the future of the child protection service arose from this Review, as follows. • There has to be a review of mandatory reporting and its impacts on all service systems. • The CPS also has to benchmark itself against the principles and elements outlined in Chapter 3, and that arerecommended for delivery of community care services. • Child and adolescent-removal practices requiring reviewing. • There also have to be issues within Chapter 4 considered because working on the neighbourhood level of risk is as important in the
Report of the Community Care Review 135
long run as making efforts to reduce individual risk. Neighbourhoods can be ‘toxic’ and dangerous, as can families. Without neighbourhood thinking, child protection assessments are unbalanced. • Understanding risk is important, as is incorporating a separate domain in routine case analysis whereby existing and future safety is assessed. This will mean that the child protection service will be required to continue to undertake ‘forensic’ investigations but will also be required to provide an expert assessment and intervention service for ways to build up safety. • Over time, the child protection service has to encompass inter- disciplinary activity in its assessments, case plans and reviews. At present, minimal inter-disciplinary activity is available in the child protection service. • There is a need to build up the capability of child protection staff by way of a professional development process, staff exchanges with other services, incentives to contribute to the body of knowledge, and service innovation. Much latent capacity already exists in the service; now is the time for managers to promote emergence. Family group conferencing and mediation skills have to be more readily available. • A ‘strengths development’ perspective (such as that practised by St Luke’s Bendigo) has to underpin the methods of child protection services. • A formal family support service has high quality individual- and family-based services independent of the child protection service. The family support service should be able to deal with many child concern reports and be accessible separately, yet be open to take referrals from the child protection service when risk is low. • Child protection practice has to be firmly tied to child development knowledge and skills. This has implications for age related child protection practice. • Support by the Victorian Government for the recommendations of the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare report about the comparability of Child Protection data would be useful. • Encouragement for the National Child Protection Council to set up a national research program about child protection interventions would be timely. • The Victorian legislation for child protection legislation has to be reviewed to ensure it gives priority to the rights of children, because Australia has become a signatory to the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child since the (1989) Children and Young Persons Act was passed. This issue will be discussed in Chapter 8.
Report of the Community Care Review 136
• Bringing together legislation about child protection and domestic violence has to be considered. • There is a need for more consideration of the value issues in child protection. Although the CPS must develop partnerships with other services, the existing forensic perspective about child protection and its focus on deficits should not be the driver of a new family support service. Finding a reconciling point of common dialogue between the CPS and other providers is critical. If all community services, including child protection, were able to mobilise around improving or increasing the safety of children, as previously suggested, risk might automatically decrease. For example, if attention had been given to making ‘Maria’s’ environment safe, in addition to assessing risk (see Chapter 1), would Maria have been removed from home in the first place? • The location of child protection services has to be considered. It is suggested that CPS develop a strong, regionally based specialist service whereby case consultancy would be readily available to CSOs and schools. • A long term framework for dealing with child neglect and emotional abuse, at a range of levels of interventions and based on triall’ing world’s best practice strategies, has to be developed. • Connecting the CPS to the clusters and networks discussed in Chapter 6 should be considered. • The role of schools in the child protection system (see Chapter 8) should be considered.
7.3 ‘Out of home’ services
Legislators and officials are inclined to overlook the long-term impacts of a poor care system, the increase to Gross Domestic Product due to long term under-employment, and financing of mental health services, homelessness shelters, domestic violence services and prisons. Technically, much future cost of the poor outcome of care can be shifted to the Commonwealth, but the State and community will continue to suffer ‘dis-welfare’ and loss from the entrenched trans- generational results of having many children in care. If correct, this is an indictment of the service system and its funders. The substitute-care system in Victoria is neither a system nor a network. Despite the efforts of committed individuals and services, some services are impoverished and disabled. Despite this, several pioneering experiments have taken place in the past few years, for example in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, through Eastern Placement and Support, seeking linkages and coordination, and the Looking After Children program. In Barwon South West Region, coordination with child and adolescent mental health has improved.
Report of the Community Care Review 137
However, these examples are isolated. According to past research (CWAV, 1999), the following conclusions can be drawn about children and young people in care. • They are financially and socially disadvantaged (most parents are pensioners or beneficiaries). • Their needs are long term (78 % had spent more than one year in care). • They are itinerant (on average, they sustained 3.3 placements). • They frequently have a disability (34 %). • Most frequently attend primary school. However, • by lower secondary school, a quarter of students stop attending school regularly. In addition, a third develop a poor or very poor attitude to school. • Poor social skills are prevalent, and negate against children in care’s staying at school. • Levels of attainment in reading, writing and numeracy are well below average State levels at all stages of primary and secondary schooling. • Very few young people in care reach standards in reading, writing and numeracy that are consonant with the competence needed for completing Year 12 schooling. • Existence of a disability has a major impact on school performance for children in care. • Existence of one on one support and encouragement to undertake schoolwork seems to be a major factor for children in care. • The transition from primary to secondary school and from secondary school to other education or work is particularly problematic for children in care.
At present, no individual or department is accountable for guaranteeing the continuity and quality of education for children in care. The two relevant departments, Education and DHS, have not been able to agree about arrangements for enabling children and young people in care to: • complete primary school being competent in reading, writing and numeracy within the normal range • accomplish a successful transition to secondary school • complete secondary school with agreed competencies and transfer successfully to higher education or training • complete education and training, and enter and remain at work.
Report of the Community Care Review 138
Poor outcomes for children leaving care are a national issue. Interstate cooperation for trialling models of education and training is essential. The Education Department has to lead joint educational provision for children in care. In particular, for some children and young people it is essential to trial stability of residential, therapeutically based schooling. In Chapter 8 this matter is discussed more.
7.4 Leaving care
Although we have a volume of overseas research to assure us that good educational outcomes for children in care make a long-term difference to these children, there is no ‘joined up’ government approach to children leaving care. According to data provided to the Review by CREATE and CWAV, young people are still leaving care before or at 18 who are bereft of any adult support and resources, without skills in obtaining and keeping employment, without financial management, without credit, without consumer rights, and without strengths in personal and relationship development. Post-placement support of three months as currently provided is grossly inadequate. According to many informants to the Review, outsourcing of services that were formerly government residential services has detracted from the Government’s giving attention to its duty of care to young people leaving care. Recommendations in this area have to be implemented by the Government as a matter of priority, and are as follows. • Make the young person’s opinions, hopes and wishes the centre of the plan. • When possible actively connect the young person leaving care with his or her extended family of origin. • Have a ‘leaving care’ coordinator to implement a ‘leaving care’ plan. • Require that stable accommodation, education and training are supported in the plan. • Provide each young person leaving care with at least one adult and one young person mentor. • Provide the young person with at least one year’s post placement support. • Appoint a named individual as being accountable for the outcomes of ‘leaving care’ plans. • Provide training to provider staff and carers about the issues faced by young people leaving care. • Provide CREATE with the resources to: – locate, train and support mentors for young people leaving care –conduct an annual survey about young people leaving care
Report of the Community Care Review 139
– specify, with support, outcomes and benchmarks for young people leaving care – partner with a training and employment provider who has specialist experience in working with young people who have disadvantages, to help develop a pathway into training and work.
In addition, in a ‘leaving care’ plan, opportunities for paid work have to be actively provided and a future work plan canvassed. (It is suggested a pilot project be undertaken between the Commonwealth departments of Education and Training, and Family and Community Services, and State Governments, in order to discover the best practice options in this area.)
7.5 Residential care
The Review was informed that for some children and young people (particularly young people), foster care is not an acceptable form of care, but that much residential care as practised at present is inadequate (‘ramshackle’ was the word one Department staff member used to describe much residential care). The Review was told that against the odds (an unfavourable operating climate and unfavourable deficit funding), that CSOs had struggled to make residential care work. Three major sets of problems were brought to the Review: • financing • models of care • staffing All these issues intersect.
7.5.1 Financing In the Review, the central argument was that by divesting residential care to the community sector and contracting to communit service organisations, the Government also divested itself of its legally constituted duty of care – its responsibility, as guardian, to provide a young person with the necessities of life: physical, social, emotional and financial, at a level superior to the standards and reasons that led a young person to be brought into care. At present, the Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria and its member organisations view the sector as being chronically under- funded, in substantial deficit and, on a medium term basis, unviable. One provider has returned its services to the DHS, and according to CWAV, other providers might follow suit. In the 2000 State Budget, this was alleviated by an injection of $14.8 million, whereby the
Report of the Community Care Review 140
sector has been pulled from crisis; however the sector remains chronically under-funded. CWAV commissioned a financial viability project that involved study of a sample of 11 member organisations: nine community-based organisations and two local government service units. The focus was on the financial performance of the organisations’ youth and family services (YAFS) funded through the Community Care Division. The sample group included two rural-based organisations and seven Melbourne-based organisations, three organisations providing services across two or more DHS Regions (metropolitan and rural), and six organisations the range of services of which include residential services. The mix of organisations within the study group was representative of the Victorian YAFS sector, and financial information was collected from the study organisations using a purpose-designed survey instrument. The key findings for 2000 were as follows. • DHS funding is covering only about 85% of total operating expenditure of YAFS services; small amounts are collected in fees. The balance is the operating deficit. • Aggregated total operating expenditure for the 11 organisations was $77.6 million, and the budgeted deficit was $9.1 million. • For the specific DHS-funded YAFS segment, budget total expenditure for the group was $54.4 million, and the deficit was $7.2 million. • The budget deficit for the 11 organisations is 13.3% of total YAFS operating expenditure – similar to 1998–99. • The 11 organisations commenced the 1999–2000 financial year with an aggregate budget deficit of $5.6 million for funded YAFS services (down from an actual deficit of $8.3 million in 1998–99); however, based on financial performance in the first seven months, the organisations have increased the aggregate budget deficit by 29%, to $7.2 million. • Within the 11 organisations, budgeted expenditure on residential services was $20.0 million, and a shortfall in anticipated DHS funding resulted in a budgeted deficit of $2.7 million (that is, 13.5% of total expenditure on residential YAFS). • The aggregated data from the sample organisations also indicates that payments to staff of external employment agencies averages about 6% of total salary costs and overheads, and purportedly reflects general staff recruitment difficulties within the sector. • The data also indicates that WorkCover costs in 1999–2000 are anticipated to be $1.2 million (that is, 32%) higher than in the previous year.
Report of the Community Care Review 141
The viability of the sector therefore remains uncertain. Although the injection of funds from the 2000 Budget was welcomed in the sector, it is recommended that: • financing of residential services be equivalent to financing of other client services delivered by the Department of Human Services, that is, be at 100% of costs and as per the agreement made in 1991 with the then government • a formula be devised to assist providers in deficit as a result of provision of residential services • financing residential services be one of two funding priorities in the forthcoming 2001 State Budget • a broad based viability study be independently undertaken to: – assess the actual and future age based costs of residential care – estimate the actual and future additional costs of meeting special needs, and the requirements of meeting external costs such as rural location, gender, and ethnicity, as well as under-linked findings related to the Consumer Price Index and Average Weekly Earnings – develop models and proposals around these costs and requirements – assess residential care within a broad service context for ‘out of home’ care and family support.
In the costing proposal mentioned, the current costs of residential care as well as the future costs (see models as follows) have to be dealt with.
7.5.2 Models of care It was put to the Review that models of residential care are worn and require rethinking. Demand for residential care is greatest among young people who have complex, difficult and urgent needs. Most young people entering residential care are now inflicted with substance abuse problems. In a series of cases of deceased young people, analysed by the Victorian Child Death Review Committee, the inadequacy of current models of residential care has been most apparent. It is recommended that the Community Care Division do the following. • Benchmark its residential care services against world’s best practice in residential care with reference to meeting young people’s needs, stability and education, and work and life outcomes. • Conduct pilot studies of models of residential care, and particularly note the models in which priority is given to the need of young
Report of the Community Care Review 142
people in residential care to both continue in education and achieve well in their adult life and employment. (In this context, consider the model of the the therapeutic residential- school,). • Introduce a quality system (Looking After Children, which has already been trialled in the Eastern Metropolitan Region, is a minimum standard). (However, the absence of family extended- family and community thinking in LAC renders it an unsatisfactory long-term instrument.) • Review staffing ratios and qualifications. Training and quality are necessary. Many people reported to the Review that reliance on casual, unqualified staff (despite the dedication of some) is inappropriate for the complexity and continuity of care required.
7.6 Foster care
Foster carers represent a crucial source of voluntary commitment. At present, foster care basic allowances have not been increased since 1996. Over time, many of the age related allowances have disappeared. A number of policy issues are important for the capacity of foster parents to properly resource their commitment to children in care properly. These policy issues are as follows. • The foster parents’ connection with Commonwealth government allowances (for example,. Family Allowance, Maternity Allowance, Disability Allowance and Youth Allowance), and at State level the Educational Maintenance Allowance, is problematic. • Each agency runs its own training program, and there is no state wide, accredited training in which prior learning is acknowledged and a pathway to further education and training is provided. • Service agreements are interpreted variously between agencies. • Expectations of foster carers (for example, to accompany children to long distance medical visits) vary between agencies and workers, often to the detriment of carers with reference to time and expense. • Relations with natural parents and extended family are a matter of ‘hit and miss’, and very few connections are evident in practice. Sometimes a case plan is out of date. • Resources and supports designated in the case plan are not available to the child, and there are frequent breakdowns in communication between DHS and agency staff. • Placement breakdowns occur because of: – inadequacy of the matching process – a shrinking pool of foster carers
Report of the Community Care Review 143
– assumptions that there will always be a home based carer who can ‘fit in’ with agency timetables – lack of availability of respite care for foster parents – inadequate appreciation of child-development issues in the placement processes. • The reason for continuity in a placement is frequently not respected by the DHS or agencies. Consecutive ‘revolving door’ placements are not considered untoward. • In short, there is a lack of commonly accepted practice standards in foster care. A foster parent wrote the following letter to the Review to remind the DHS of slippage in standards. A growing number of carers, including myself, are very concerned about the leaving care structure. This is on two levels. The first level is the obvious one, where a young person’s Guardianship, or Permanent Care Order expires, after long term foster care, at the age of eighteen years (or slightly younger). Residential Units move these people on, with very little life skills under their belt, and as foster carers we are expected to farewell these young people in much the same way as we do with our younger short term placements. It would appear to us as carers that this situation occurs because of a lack of services available to carers and young people. We do not ask our own natural children to leave home at eighteen (or younger), and certainly assist them in any way that we can until they are at least twenty-five. This should also occur with young people that have been in care. It seems to be a serious area of discrimination, and in my own personal view sets the ex-care young person up for failure. The second level of leaving care that concerns a growing number of carers, is the situation of younger children leaving care. At the present moment when a young child leaves our care, it is a total, and immediate, severance of contact. This transition destroys a bond, and possible attachment that the child has had with his carers. Research (by Dr Jenny McIntosh) shows that this can be very damaging to the future development of the child, particularly if this child proceeds into and out of care on a number of occasions. According to Dr Jenny McIntosh, as little as two transitions can be damaging. Approximately four to five years ago, the leaving care process for these children had a built in reducing respite structure after returning home. This allowed a weaning off from the carers, and in my own personal view, reduced the risk of the child returning to care. Nobody seems to be able to inform us as to why this practice ceased. I can only assume that it was a financial situation. The relationship between the placement and support system, the child protection system, the Children’s Court and the legislation is un-
Report of the Community Care Review 144
coordinated and discontinuous. The Review was told that placements of unplanned length and repeated (‘revolving door’) placements were allowed to continue. The Foster Parents Association also drew attention to the lack of continuity between magistrates’ hearing of specific cases in the Children’s Court and the lack of consistency around an agency’s application for access to a child by his or her natural parents. These are serious matters, but at present they cannot be documented beyond the case example because no data exists. In Chapter 8, it is argued that the relationship between the Court and care should be reconsidered whereby the Court be required to approve placement changes.
7.7 Indigenous issues: child, youth and family
In the Review, the following situations were noted with concern: the relative isolation of Aboriginal child-support and family-support services from other services, the absence of capacity to develop indigenous policies in the Division of Community Care, the lack of mapping of agencies and networks, and the relative absence of professional support and development for Koori staff. In a year in which ‘reconciliation’ is being emphasised, these are major deficits, and the demographics of the Koori community in Victoria suggest that these issues will increase in importance rather than disappear. Since the release of two major Commonwealth reports: the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (1991) and the National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children from their Families (1997), public and government attention has been drawn to over-representation of indigenous adults in the prison, mental-health, homelessness and other care systems. The importance of extending these investigations into practice of contemporary indigenous-child and indigenous-family services cannot be emphasised too strongly.
7.7.1 The Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement (2000) In the case of the former report (Aboriginal Deaths in Custody), in the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement, the Victorian Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Human Services (DHS), the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee (AJAC) are signed up to: • address the over-representation at all levels of Aboriginal people in the criminal-justice system • improve Aboriginal access to justice-related services • promote greater awareness in the Aboriginal community of civil, legal and political rights.
Report of the Community Care Review 145
In the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement, it is argued that: • over-representation of indigenous people in the justice system relates to disproportionately high levels of disadvantage experienced and caused by: – traditional lands’ being taken away and the consequent breakdown of indigenous society – coercive removal of many indigenous children from their family, extended family and culture. In the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement, the following facts are pointed out. • Fifty-seven per cent of Koori people are younger than 35, compared with 39% of the general population. • The major issues are therefore young families, children and teenagers. • The unemployment rate in the Aboriginal community is 21.4% (almost three times the rates of the general population as recorded in the 1996 Census). • The control and coercion roles of government agencies in separation of children from their family, and enforcement of legislation, are strong in Aboriginal communities, and, some people consider, are contemporaneous. • Childhood entry is a factor in long term involvement in the criminal-justice system. • Breakdown of indigenous families, entry to the system of child protection and care, and contact with the justice system are a well documented cycle of disadvantage. Child abuse and neglect are significant predictors of contact with the justice system. • The factors affecting the operation of programs for indigenous people are: • fragmented policy and service delivery • lack of availability of services to cater for the higher numbers of young indigenous families and young people • lack of ‘whole of government’ responses whereby many services are fragmented or isolated • lack of indigenous community involvement.
In addition, in this Review the following factors were identified. • Lack of a professional development strategy • Lack of a rational funding model to support the complex work undertaken • Lack of a preventative strategy
Report of the Community Care Review 146
In this Report, we call for a ‘whole of government’ strategic framework in which a long term, integrated plan for provision of ‘whole of government’ and cross-portfolio services for Aboriginal communities is argued for. The planners will: • address economic and social disadvantage • endorse reconciliation, and promote respect between indigenous and non-indigenous people • respond to the Bringing Them Home report (The National Inquiry into the Separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children, 1999) • with the Commonwealth Government, develop bilateral agreements around improved outcomes for programs • develop a strategic plan for health • develop a business network • provide better education and school-to-work opportunities • develop an employment policy, particularly for youth unemployment, in which: − the need for school exit plans − a youth unemployment information service and − youth-recruitment targets are recognised • partner the Koori community to rebuild a sense of community, community networks and supports • build a Koori Services Improvement Strategy (KSIS) in which local planning networks are developed, and it is recognised that local Koori communities are best placed to identify their needs and priorities, and deliver services that have good outcomes • develop regional Aboriginal justice agreements within the existing KSIS, to reinforce consultation and integrate service delivery. The Review endorses KSIS and the strategic objectives of the Justice Agreement Action plan, in which it is sought to: − increase participation − coordinate a strategic approach − deliver fair and equitable services − increase community safety, security and wellbeing − reduce the risk of becoming involved in the Aboriginal children, youth and justice system.
Report of the Community Care Review 147
7.7.2 A Koori family-building strategy During the Review, indigenous organisations in Mildura and Bairnsdale, as well as the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency, were visited. The position is taken that the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement will not succeed unless a proactive approach is taken to promoting indigenous child and youth development and family life, and to preventing child abuse and neglect. In the VAJA agreement and the Koori Service Improvement Strategy (KSIS), the resources required for meeting the needs of Aboriginal children, youth and families are underestimated to a considerable extent. Delivery difficulties, lack of resources, lack of staff-development opportunities in Aboriginal childcare organisations, both statewide and local, are a serious matter. If Aboriginal childcare agencies are to fulfil the roles envisaged in this Report for building community, promoting family life, preventing family breakdown and providing intensive services for child abuse and neglect − in short, if they are to meet the objectives specified in Chapter 6 − more assistance will have to be provided to Aboriginal agencies. The Reviewer considers that policy, programs and practice platforms as reflected in current funding are inadequate, given the complex problems in Koori communities. A taskforce comprising a partnership between the Victorian Government, Koori child careagencies and communities will have to build a Koori Family Building Strategy within the KSIS to: • develop understanding of the effect of loss of land, culture and family on Aboriginal child, youth, family and community issues • ascertain how strategies for strengthening children, youth and families might be invoked in light of studies about the importance of ‘connectedness’ • rectify the deficits of the historical funding base of the Aboriginal Child Care Agency, given the complex problems of the community and Koori youth demographics • address the urgent need for education, training, professional development, scholarships and fellowships for staff working in Koori child and family services • review, develop and resource an effective policy for kinship placements (which the Reviewer considers require more, not less, support) • address the need for constructive partnerships in the spirit of reconciliation with the indigenous agencies, so that understandings, knowledges and skills can be exchanged to improve non- indigenous agencies’ capacity to understand indigenous issues, and to support the increased capability of indigenous services • discuss the respective roles of statewide and local services
Report of the Community Care Review 148
• develop strong connections with education, health and employment services.
7.8 A framework for service review
The issues presented in the Review that are outlined in this chapter are critical ones, and are of major importance for the Government and the community. Given the staff and time limitations of this Review, there has not been the capacity to recommend practice improvements. However, what is clear is that all services require a current Practice Improvement Plan, in order to set directions and targets, and match capabilities to these goals. This Review provides a framework for practice improvement that has to be part of a continuous cycle of review. Over each three year period, each service review about Practice Improvement requires: • a key reviewer and reference group (including practitioners and users) • a process of open consultation and submission • an interim report, which is again open to consultation.
In each review, the following terms of reference have to be assessed. • Are the operating goals of the service congruent with the principles of community care? In what ways does the service not reflect the principles of community care? • Considering that the priority elements of community care are inclusion of users, quality, knowledge, linkages, location and financing, in what ways does the service (in question) reflect an adequate level of these elements? • Considering the recommended mechanisms for a quality framework, how does the service (in question) adhere to: – agreed service standards? – quality assurance by way of regular audit and inspection? – an adequate database and information base? • Are there opportunities to benchmark processes against leading services located elsewhere? • How is the service grounded in a local community? (What is the extent of local ‘ownership’ of the service, and how does the service contribute to the economic and social development of that community?) • Are the current balances of prevention and intervention appropriate, and how could they be improved?
Report of the Community Care Review 149
• What are the working understandings and knowledge that guide this service with reference to families, young people, children and parents, and their development?
In short, is the service efficient, effective, equitable, quality, relevant and satisfying to use? The service providers outlined in this chapter could be the ones invited to participate in the first round of Practice Improvement Reviews.
7.9 Case-content analysis
Serious research for scoping the nature of the problems, and the roles and tasks involved in prevention and intervention, has to be conducted. Noting the Commonwealth Government’s investment in the case-mix process (a research-driven health-service activity that took a number of years to define), it is suggested that this task requires the assistance of Commonwealth and State partners, and that it can be justified on economic grounds by referring to the possible future reductions in the burden of economic and social costs to individual communities and governments, by way of reductions in the long term burden of social exclusion.
7.10 Summary and recommendations
Each service requires a three yearly independent Practice Improvement Review and Plan, as outlined in this Report. A major research effort to scope the nature of community services problems and best practice interventions is essential, and has to be supported by a wide range of partners, other State Governments and the Commonwealth Government.
Report of the Community Care Review 150
Chapter 8 Other considerations
Overview
A range of issues not covered in the Terms of Reference but central to the work of this Review are outlined in this chapter. These are as follows. Families: The discourse about families within the Division of Community Care is important because the Division is the key agency for accumulating knowledge about Victorian families and for advising the Government about family matters. The knowledge base about families therefore has to be taken more seriously. Schools: Although relations with health services are slowly advancing, stronger partnerships between schools, the DHS and CSOs have to be developed if transitions are to be smooth, if child and youth learning is to be improved (particularly for vulnerable young people), and if children and young people ‘at risk’ of abuse and neglect are to be assisted. The School − Community Care partnership extends far beyond the provisions of mandatory reporting. Professionalisation: The Community Care Division has to support the professional education and training of its staff, and has to make space for consideration of professionally based methodologies and technologies in service delivery. Legislation: The Reviewer reports that because of advances in understandings about children’s rights and the responsibilities of carers as well as of parents, it is imperative to review and benchmark the Victorian Children and Young Persons Act 1989 and other relevant legislation against national and international benchmarks. In particular, recent legislative change in Queensland and New South Wales has to be noted. Accountability: There is inadequate public accountability for follow up of children and young people who disappear from community care services and school. Better data, audit and inspection of services, including residential care, and a complaints and appeals system at arm’s length from the DHS, are discussed.
Report of the Community Care Review 151
8.1 Introduction
A number of considerations were noted in the Review that although not central to the Terms of Reference are central considerations for the performance of the Community Care Division. They are: • families • schools • professionalisation • legislation • accountability.
8.2 Families
8.2.1 Families — in absentia The Review was informed that the strengths of any extended family were rarely mustered on behalf of children and young people in care. However, research shows that the benefits of an extended family as a resource for a child or young person in care are incalculable. Ensuring that each child in care is regularly in productive contact with his or her extended family could not be resourced at present, but could provide the scope for framing important new directions in care: sharing care between the extended family of origin and the formal care system. Issues of identity, connectedness and purpose figure so centrally for children and young people in care that family resources have to be actualised. The best practitioners, of course, are aware of this, but from some submissions made to the Review, it seems this practice is far from universal. The Division of Community Care is the key agency for maintaining knowledge about Victorian families and advising government about family issues. However, both within and around the Review, discourse about families was almost absent. In this section of the Report, we will discuss the need to focus, in a concentrated way, on developing a public body of knowledge about all types of family as a basis for legitimising excellent youth and family work. For example, rather than solely rely on either statutory powers or the Victorian Risk Framework to make judgements about the presence of child abuse and neglect, a contemporary child, youth and family service must make judgements underpinned by a knowledge of, and normative understanding of, the culture; nature; functions; demography; values, and economic, social, private and community life of all Australian families. This is the context within which judgements have to be made.
Report of the Community Care Review 152
In contrast with opinions about communities, families were in absentia during the Review. Although this could be because in the Review’s procedures family knowledge and understanding failed to be elicited, it might also be because so few services are actually directed to families and that the unit of service delivery is usually cast as being an individual (a child, young person or parent) rather than as being a family. In the latter case, it is important, for a number of reasons, that efforts be made by the Division of Community Care and CSOs to improve their knowledge about Victorian families. Existing policy discourses about families are related to six major tasks. There has to be expert knowledge of all of these as follows. • Bringing up and training children (socialisation) • Marriage and relationships, divorce and childbearing (forming, dissolving and re-forming of family) • Making a living (work or the lack of it) to support family members (production) • Relating to other formal social institutions, from school to Tax Office (negotiation) • Undertaking caring, for example of elderly or disabled members (caring) • Contributing to the community (family citizenship)
In the past, the DHS has related to families in only one of these functions: bringing up and training children. Contact with families via their children has been one of two types: the first, through all families, occurs because most have temporary, early contact via universal services such as maternal and child health, and second, as time progresses, the contact with all families about their children evaporates, and the DHS gaze becomes concentrated on some families, often the ones at a point of near or absolute child–parent breakdown. Although DHS, YAFS (and many non-government services) appropriate the word ‘family’ for their departmental title, the connection between services provided and the needs of most families is tenuous. Given that most State ‘family’ departments evolved out of statutory child welfare whereby coercive intervention of the State was supported when the family was absent or insufficient, the lack of connection with supporting the functions of most families is hardly surprising. However, governments can either help or hinder the various functions of families. Research persistently demonstrates that many families live with stress and pressure. The gaze of government and CSOs is confined to bringing up and training children in early childhood, or tointervening in the case of troubled or troublesome children. The
Report of the Community Care Review 153
understanding of CSOs and government is narrowed away from the principle that ‘families’ are the building blocks of communities and that communities are built on ‘families’ (principle 2). A broader and deeper understanding of families is needed for the Community Care Division and its partners as the key agencies of delivery for family matters. As pointed out in Chapter 4, this must include the most central of issues for family stability: connectedness, wellbeing and health, and the place that work, both paid and unpaid, has in family sustainability. Families need work to be able to perform their functions adequately. Some governments have decided that responsibility for supporting all families (rather than for purely focusing on some troubled children and young people in some families) has to be undertaken by a separate but related agency (a Bureau for the Family, as in Western Australia) or a central agency (as in the NSW Premier’s Department). Either way, a broader view of support for families will require a seismic shift and more effort than delivering another program out of a bureaucratic ‘silo’.
8.2.2 Understanding family functions The Review recommends that all stakeholders recognise that strong families are the building blocks of communities, and that strategies be developed that strengthen rather than undermine families. This will involve being familiar with the following functions.
Forming, dissolving and re-forming families Although this function has traditionally been the responsibility of the Commonwealth Government by way of its pre-marriage, marriage- counselling and divorce arrangements through the Family Court and the new Federal Magistracy, there is a large and ill-defined overlap with the Community Care Division. A strong policy articulation of the responsibilities of each body is required.
Making a living (work and lack of it) Despite the strong evidence about the negative impact of both overwork and economic exclusion on family life, and about the apparent role of both in creation and expansion of social problems such as child abuse, child neglect, child delinquency and homelessness, this area of family life has been generally viewed as being a matter for the market or for employment services. The Community Care Division to create links and joint projects with employment agencies. The high level of unemployment in child abuse samples is regularly noted, as is the likely exclusion of many young people in care from the paid workforce because of low educational
Report of the Community Care Review 154
achievement. The disconnection between family life, and a revolutionising economy and major changes in work, have not been accepted as being areas for government. Attention has to be paid to the realms of economic distress and work stress in families. ‘Income security’ does not take care of each family’s chance of living decently, and of being adequately housed, clothed, fed, educated and occupied. Over a number of years, the income security system has gradually moved towards enbracing ‘active’ rather than ‘passive’ outcomes for families. It remains, however, for Community Care to build an active bridge to support families in economic need, particularly those out of work.VicWork, discussed in Chapter 4, has to take up this role, with a view to informing the ‘social problem’ related services of child protection and juvenile justice, and how, in reducing family economic vulnerability, family social vulnerability will also be arrested. Naturally, this is not to say that family economic insecurity is the only precursor to social problems; it is to argue that this dimension of family vulnerability has been ignored by the predecessor departments of community care. The family is now, of course, a workplace for many people: in one sense the Government and CSOs have to rethink the implications of the family as a workload and a place for tasks to be completed.
Relating to and using other social institutions There is a strong but little-heard argument that community care services exist to help families use social institutions to their full advantage. In evidence in the previous chapter, system failure was outlined with reference to education for children in care, and this is discussed later in this chapter. Community Care services are for assisting children and young people in their care to achieve the equivalent of a minimum educational standard: an education to Year 12 completion. Until that point, on present-day policy standards, the Community Care Division’s in loco parentis responsibility cannot be said to be discharged. A similar argument applies to the organisations in the community care network that are required for reducing family vulnerability. Their objective has to be framed so that vulnerable families are connected usefully to education and health services for children, young people and parents. During early childhood, there is recognition that the maternal and child health extension service can undertake this role, but no agency retains this responsibility at commencement of school age. As an example, the FAST (Families and Schools Together) project examined by the Review shows the benefits of firmly connecting vulnerable, isolated families within the school community. Because this objective
Report of the Community Care Review 155
− to connect families to effective use of wider institutions – is so obvious it seems to have been almost overlooked. As discussed later in this chapter, the relationship between local CSOs and school communities has to be closely defined and more aligned.
Wider caring functions of families Many vulnerable families have a wider caring role, for an adult disabled son or daughter, for an elderly parent, or for a relative who has a mental illness. ‘That belongs to PHACS’ (Public Health and Community Partnerships), the earlier bureaucrats would have responded. However, what if a 12 year old child were the carer? Or what if either partner in a ‘30 something’ couple that had young children sustained a severe accident? Shared care protocols with other divisions of the Department and other services have to be developed if the Government wishes families to develop or maintain carer roles. The competitive nature of relations between YAFS and PHACS was criticised strongly at a number of points in the Review, whereby respondents pointed out that ‘joined up’ government, starts with having ‘joined up’ divisions within the one department.
Participation in the community An objective of the Community Care Division with reference to vulnerable families has to be to connect vulnerable families with roles in the community. Work undertaken under the auspices of Deakin Human Services Australia’s Policy and Practice Research Unit demonstrates how previous objectives of assisting users to ‘participate’ has given way to the market ‘empowerment’ of ‘customers’ (Carter, 2000). In this work, it was argued that inclusion of service users in the community should be the ultimate objective of CSOs. In this Report, this issue is taken a step further by recommending not only that users be included as part of communities but that the family of service users also receive attention. In the Review, the work of Canterbury Family Centre through Uniting Church parishes in supporting and mentoring vulnerable families in church communities was cited as being an example of good practice.
Assisting families that have troubled and troublesome children The conclusion of this Review is that this traditional child-welfare objective will continue to fail unless it is focused on the family objectives cited earlier. It is no longer reasonable to advise or censure families about their child-rearing failures by using legislative based court action or removal after anticipated, suspected or confirmed child abuse and neglect, without paying serious attention to the vulnerability of the modern family that is stressed by economic, social and technological changes and lack of educational support. The task of the
Report of the Community Care Review 156
true Community Care Division is to ensure that the child rearing capacity of all Victorian families is supported, sustained and enhanced, and that the families’ integrity, autonomy and diversity is respected. Wider approaches than those of the child protection intervention, with its unavoidable overtones of compulsion and coercion, are essential. As Implied in Chapter 7, child protection policy has mostly supplanted the family policy of the mid-1970s to mid-1980s, which had in turn replaced the century-old child welfare policy. This has left a void: it is no agency’s job to promote the wellbeing of families. Edgar (1999) points out that there is also not one type of family, so it is not about persuading families to conform to the same template. The question is how Community Care and its partners should work to support families to undertake the functions outlined as well as possible; that is, • What happens to enhance each family’s chances of living decently: being adequately housed, clothed, fed, educated and occupied? • What assists parents in their job of raising children who will be capable adult citizens? • What assistance is there for families who have to care for other family members, such as disabled children or the aged? • What support is there for partners to enjoy a relationship as free as possible from conflict, violence and despair? These are goals, inevitably limited by resources and public and private failings, but goals which any government system of family service delivery must, in the end, measure up to. And they are goals which assert that governments and other social institutions have an obligation to support the private functioning of families, in the interests of a healthy society and the common good, not simply for some economic cause. (Edgar, 1999, p. 16)
8.2.3 VicFamilies The Review recommends that an organisation known as VicFamilies be established. This will be a body for fostering and promoting development of family wellbeing, with specific reference to the economic and social stressors undermining the resilience of Victorian families, the diversity of families, and the central role of bringing up children. This body would have a general role in promoting of all family life and preventing vulnerability through education, statewide and local action, research, and media communication. VicFamilies might work best as an independent foundation based on a 10 year plan that comprises partnerships between the Government, philanthropic bodies and businesses. Its tasks would be both general and specific.
Report of the Community Care Review 157
General functions • Listen to families about issues of family life. • Establish a clearing house around strategic information that is necessary for all Victorian families to develop resilience and reduce risks. • Market issues of importance to all families through communication strategies whereby Victorian families are informed, educated and challenged. • Set targets for removal of barriers to having a rewarding family life. • Educate and work with all bodies that have an impact on family policies. • Educate communities about economic, technological and social changes occurring in families.
Special functions • Partner the Community Care Division, and other partner bodies in Government and non-government arenas to develop policies and agreements for support of vulnerable families whereby the families are enabled to undertake the contemporary tasks required of all Victorian families in bringing up children. • Advise about the special needs of special groups of families.
Taking families seriously would require a different approach in the practice of the Community Care Division, in partnership with other divisions of the DHS, non-government agencies, the Commonwealth Government and the teaching institutions, particularly universities. In summary, respondents to the Review generally had a view of individual needs and community needs that was broader than that of family needs. This is important, because the credibility of Community Care will rest on a contemporary understanding of ‘family’. Although the Review’s method was not aimed at eliciting what was known and practised about families, any underestimation of what has to be known about values, knowledge, capability, dynamics, diversity, norms, composition, economics, formation and dissolution of Australian families is of concern because the Community Care Division is the major agency for advising the Government about family issues and needs. It is possible this function could be focused by way of providing family impact statements as advice to Cabinet.
Report of the Community Care Review 158
8.3 Schools
There have been major changes in school communities in recent years. Because of significant school closures, schools have become larger. At the same time, the loss of much support infrastructure has been a serious concern for many principals. The fundamental issue faced by schools is the extent to which they should concentrate on teaching and learning, and leave other agencies to deal with non curricular issues. In Victoria, Reviews of Schools and Post Secondary Education are taking place. Both types of revieware highly relevant to three groups of children and young people: • All – who need the best possible education and support services to make their way in life • Some children and young people – who are so vulnerable to social and psychological stress that they are at risk of educational failure • A few – children and young people who already have major educational difficulties and problems (such as children in care, as discussed in Chapter 7), or who have become disconnected from school.
In keeping with the ‘whole of government’ perspectives of this Review, it is important that partnerships – practice, program based and policy – be created between schools (and TAFEs, the DHS and CSOs) if schools are to undertake their mission. Central to this seems to be a stronger emphasis placed by schools on recognising the transitions and the risks around them – as outlined in chapters 5 and 6. Additionally, there are curriculum issues, because the evidence in Chapter 7 is that not all children and young people learn from having an academicised education. ‘Hands on’ learning seems to be important for many disadvantaged children and young people. The respective accountabilities of schools and CSOs have to be made clearer. In the Commonwealth’s Youth Pathways Action Plan Task Force (DETYA, 2000, forthcoming),it is argued that: • schools have to be made responsible for education of enrolled children and young people, regardless of whether or not the children and young people attend the school • schools must provide individualised support and follow-up for transitions (for example, from school to work) • appropriate tracking systems are required to enable this to take place • schools have to foster positive links with community organisations
Report of the Community Care Review 159
All these functions could be better achieved by forming school partnerships with the DHS and CSOs. In considering the issues of vulnerable children and young people, serious consideration has to be given to forming partnerships of teaching staff (from schools and TAFEs) and CSOs to meet the complex educational needs of children and young people. In this case, it might sometimes be a matter of seconding an educator to a CSO if serious educational issues are to be addressed. It is also worth drawing attention to the success of some UK therapeutic residential schools in providing a stable, supported environment to meet children’s and young people’s residential needs. The implication that schools, the DHS and CSOs have to work more closely together is reinforced by a recent Victorian Supreme Court judgement in which it was found that a school had failed to observe a duty of care with reference to a child who drew the attention of a classroom teacher to allegations of sexual abuse. Whether or not schools have to review their procedures for mandatory reporting of suspected child abuse and neglect is not the issue; more important is how any school can develop a caring, observational culture. It might be that schools have to become more multi- disciplined in order to: • allow for early intervention programs for safety and wellbeing (such as FAST – Families and Schools Together) to be practised in them • provide a knowledgeable, supportive ‘whole of school’ climate for individual teachers’ concerns to be raised and tested. One approach to this is to consider develop Full Service Schools by alliances at local level between schools and CSOs. Co-locational arrangements or seconded social work staff might provide schools with the consultative back-up they need.
8.4 Professionalisation and its place
Unlike its departmental counterparts Health and Justice, Community Care is ambivalent about the extent to which it should be based on recognised, approved professional qualifications. As a result, there has been no inclination to form professional multidisciplinary teams (as in child or mental health). In addition, the child protection service has developed along highly procedural lines, unlike the more professionalised services of, say, WA and NZ, which are organised behind a Chief Social Work Advisor. The Review was told that a highly professionalised service is required: if families are to be helped effectively to raise their children in safety; if the children’s wellbeing and developmental needs are to be met; and
Report of the Community Care Review 160
if children are to become functioning, contributing members of their community. The following matters were agreed on. • The tasks inherent in child, youth and family practice are extremely complex and require highly professional responses. • The problems and understandings of the range of family situations encountered in child and family services are insufficiently described or even insufficiently counted (that is, the number of specified situations is unknown; also, we cannot properly describe the various family situations in a way whereby plans for effective intervention can be aided). • The knowledge base is often initial, and knowledge has to be applied carefully and critically to specific case situations, by people who understand the task of exploring validity, often through disciplined ‘trial and error’ choices. • In this situation, assessment and intervention require considerable ‘art’, intuition, wisdom and judgement, as well as application of accepted and verified knowledge, and a continual process of knowledge building by way of careful examination of concepts and theory. • Additionally, the tasks are emotionally fraught, and often crisis ridden, and involve complex and competing views and perceptions. • Nor are the situations themselves stable: there are constant dynamics and interactions that alter the situation in which practitioners are intervening. • The tasks of child, youth and family services cannot be reduced to regulation or to administrative or procedural process. Having alert, committed professionals who are prepared to adopt a ‘working scientist’ approach to every family situation is the only way to advance effective practice (Mitchell, personal communication).
8.4.1 Appropriate qualifications The Review was informed that the discipline of social work (provided curricula are substantially upgraded) provides the most appropriate qualification to ensure family-centred and ecological, developmental and competency-based practice, and to address the ‘family in situation’ context and problems faced by client families. However, additional professional expertise − especially psychology, psychiatry and paediatrics − for specific assessments of children and adults, and for specific therapy to address individual problems, is important. Educationalists and early childhood specialists are also essential for assessment and successful intervention. Child, youth and community nursing specialists are also important. The role of multi disciplined teams for providing specialist services requires discussion and development.
Report of the Community Care Review 161
There are now methods such as the method of the reflective practitioner (see Clark 2000) through which the disciplines can be united in their quest for improved learning. However, the Review was also told of gulfs between the entry requirements in the workforce and actual graduate expertise. It was considered that the following questions require work by universities and governments (as the major employers), employers and professional bodies. • What are the common disciplinary values, knowledge and skills required for child, youth and family work? • How can all the stakeholders, including families, children and young people, find a voice in the processes of curriculum development and deliveryin university and in workplace training?
The Review was told that the Australian Association of Social Workers’ Recommended Standards in Child Welfare Practice (1998) requires review, by the AASW, the universities, practitioners and the Community Care Division. These practice standards should include the following questions. • What would universities and the profession support as being quality practice standards and audits in this field? • What are the types and numbers of family situation encountered in child, youth and family services?
The Review also received some random and isolated comments about the less attractive qualities of professionals, including monopolistic tendencies and insensitivity; paying more attention to their conditions and remuneration than the needs of children, young people and families; and a sometimes inflexible attitude to change. One option for advancing professional competencies is to consciously increase the professional capacity of clusters (see Chapter 6) by cross- referencing the management of the building blocks discussed in Chapter 3 with professionally based leadership portfolios, both in the DHS Community Care Division and the CSOs. For example, a Principal Social Worker (Advisor) could also manage the building block for promoting quality. A Principal Psychologist (Advisor) might also carry the portfolio for knowledge development so that discipline- based knowledge could be fed into the proposed clusters. Interaction between disciplines can also provide a healthy basis for progressive development of a coherent multi discipline service base. In partnership with the Ministry of Post Secondary Education and Training, professional bodies and higher education bodies, the Community Care Division has to:
Report of the Community Care Review 162
• develop a statement about the competencies required of graduate employees • review higher education bodies’ and professional bodies’ capacity to deliver • develop a training and development plan for children, youth and the family workforce.
8.5 Legislation
The traditional ‘child welfare’ division of responsibility between the Children’s Court (which makes the orders) and the Government (which implements them) is no longer working (if it ever did) in a diverse and fragmented substitute-care system. When considering the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 against the provisions of recent legislation in Queensland (1999) and NSW (2000), a range of differences and questions arise as follows. • How can the ‘revolving door’ of care placements be stopped? Some young people have dozens of placements. What should be the agreed standards? Who should be accountable for measuring these, and whose job should it be to audit patterns in variations in care placements? • How should the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child, to which Australia is a signatory, provide the basis of a statement about children’s and young people’s legal, social and moral rights? • How can legislation express the need to guarantee the safety of children and young people as well as the need to protect them from harm? • How can legislation support the carer (for example, the foster carer) more effectively? (The existing chain between court order and foster parent is a very long one.) • How can evidence based, well-researched and effective practice strategies (such as Family Group Conferencing) be included in legislation? • How can the interests of a child in care be protected? (The UK system of a having guardian ad litem requires consideration, as does the knowledge-based and specialist legal representation of each child.)
Report of the Community Care Review 163
8.5.1 A Charter of Rights for Children and Young People Should legislation benchmark children’s rights against the provisions of the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child (as in Queensland; see Figure 8.1). In the following figure, the Charter of Rights developed for children in care in Queensland is shown. As a benchmark of government commitment, this might be compared with existing Victorian legislation.
Figure 8.1: Queensland’s charter of rights
CHARTER OF RIGHTS FOR A CHILD IN CARE Section 71 Because — The Parliament recognises the State has responsibilities for a child in need of protection who is in the custody or under the guardianship of the chief executive under this Act, this Act establishes the following rights for the child — 1. to be provided with a safe and stable living environment; 2. to be placed in care that best meets the child’s needs and is most culturally appropriate; 3. to maintain relationships with the child’s family and community; 4. to be consulted about and to take part in making decisions affecting the child’s life (having regard to the child’s age or ability to understand), particularly decisions about where the child is living, contact with the child’s family and the child’s health and schooling; 5. to be given information about decisions and plans concerning the child’s future and personal history, having regard to the child’s age or ability to understand; 6. to privacy, including, for example, in relation to the child’s personal information; 7. if the child is under the long-term guardianship of the chief executive, to regular review of the child’s care arrangements; 8. to have access to dental, medical and therapeutic services, necessary to meet the child’s needs; 9. to have access to education appropriate to the child’s age and development; 10. to have access to job training opportunities and help in finding appropriate employment; 11. to receive appropriate help with the transition from being a child in care to independence, including, for example, help about housing, access to income support and training and education.
Report of the Community Care Review 164
Source: Queensland Child Protection Act 1999. Act 10 of 1999: Schedule 1, section 71, p. 117. Some questions are thereby raised for socio-legal review. More detailed issues, covered in the recent NSW review of children’s legislation (as described by one of its architects, Parkinson) include: • whether to license providers, certify foster parents, and legislate for standards of residential and foster care • whether to bring together the legislation around child protection and domestic violence • whether to provide a framework for a process of mediation between parties • whether to provide a framework for dealing with youth homelessness • whether to support involvement of the immediate and extended family • whether to support application of the Looking After Children project • whether to review the definitions of child abuse and set out a work plan for effective deployment of child protection resources • whether to provide a mechanism for appealing decisions and hearing grievances.
The Review considers that all these questions have to be answered affirmatively. Finally, there are four other issues, as follows: • Whether to recognise issues of intersectoral coordination and ‘whole of government’ coordination in the Act (for example. the need for accommodation, mental health and other services) • Whether to legislate to support the ‘face to face’ process • Whether to legislate for an Office of Child and Youth Futures to be an organisational mechanism of accountability and review • Whether quality mechanisms should be enacted, as described in Figure 8.2 from recent Queensland legislation
Report of the Community Care Review 165
8.5.2 Standards of care Figure 8.2: Queensland’s quality mechanisms
Queensland Child Protection Act 1999 Part 1 – Standards of Care Statement of Standards –
(1) The chief executive must take reasonable steps to ensure a child who, for the purposes of this Act, is placed in the care of an approved foster carer, licensed care service or departmental care service, is cared for in a way that meets the following standards (the statement of standards) − 20. the child’s dignity and rights will be respected at all times; 21. the child’s needs for physical care will be met, including adequate food, clothing and shelter; 22. the child will receive emotional care that allows him or her to experience being cared about, and valued, and that contributes to the child’s positive self-regard; 23. the child’s needs relating to his or her culture and ethnic grouping will be met; 24. the child’s material needs relating to his or her schooling, physical and mental stimulation, recreation and general living will be met; 25. the child will receive education, training or employment opportunities relevant to the child’s age and ability; 26. the child will receive positive guidance when necessary to help him or her to change inappropriate behaviour; 27. the child will receive dental, medical and therapeutic services necessary to meet his or her needs; 28. the child will be given the opportunity to participate in positive social and recreational activities appropriate to his or her developmental level and age; 29. the child will be encouraged to maintain family and other significant personal relationships; 30. if the child has a disability the child will receive care and help appropriate to the child’s special needs; 31. for subsection (1)(g), techniques for managing the child’s behaviour must not include corporal punishment or punishment that humiliates, frightens or threatens the child in a way that is likely to cause emotional harm; 32. for subsection (1)(o), if the chief executive has custody or guardianship of the child, the child's carer must act in accordance with the chief executive’s reasonable directions; 33. the application of the standards to the child’s care must take into account what is reasonable, having regard to − 34. the length of time the child is in the care of the carer or care service; and 35. the child’s age and development.
Source: Queensland Child Protection Act 1999, section 123(1)–(4).
Report of the Community Care Review 166
It is recommended that the Minister for Community Services consult with the Attorney-General as to conducting a review of the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 and other relevant legislation, to examine international and national trends with a view to enacting legislation to secure safe, secure and stable environments for children and young people as well as protection from harm.
8.6 Accountability
As implied in the abovementioned section, there is no transparent accountability for care of a child or young person in Victoria, although the Supreme Court recently found against the Education Department for absence of duty of care. ‘Duty of care’ is a subject that all governments are likely to address in the coming decade, because of the uncovering of the past abuse of deprived children in care. Legislative change is important but not a panacea, and does not of itself solve day to day practice issues of accountability. In this chapter, the point has been made that the problems of many children and young people are not well served by applying pre- ordained templates. The task is to steer a course between service standardisation and service chaos, so that at any one in time on the service path the question ‘Who is responsible?’ can be answered. The Reviewer takes the view that at every point in the service path, and in every partnership, there must be a responsible agent.
8.6.1 Failed transitions The Review has a submission from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) about failed school to work transitions, and their impact on marginalisation and long-term unemployment. This group, as argued in Chapter 7, includes almost all children in care. Many failed school- to-work transitions could be prevented by way of having effective prevention and early intervention in the early, middle and adolescent years. The Reviewer considers it a necessary to have formal allocations for accountability to ensure that transitions can be successful. BCG suggests that ‘failed transitions’ occur for three reasons: • Unclear accountability • Inadequate tracking of outcomes • Lack of a knowledgeable buyer of services for individuals
In the BCG report, the focus was on failed school-to-work outcomes for young people, a matter related to failures in education for children in care. BCG raises an important point: in the plethora of services, who is responsible, given the plethora of agents involved? In a past,
Report of the Community Care Review 167
less complex society, parents undertook responsibilities, or governments intervened and assumed parental rights. Now it cannot be assumed that government-as-parent will provide any superior discharge of parental responsibility (although the Reviewer would argue that it should do so, and that there is a case for asking the courts to ensure it does so). There is also a large ‘no man’s land’ in the middle, in which parents give up, governments decline responsibility, and children and young people fall through safety nets. In the BCG report, comment is made about the need to ensure that someone takes responsibility for the transitions of children and young people: There is widespread agreement that failure in transitions . . . is a pathway to marginalisation and long term unemployment. And while there are many programs and initiatives designed to provide support . . . they tend to operate in isolation, without institutionalised sharing of best practice, and with a plethora of funding source and reporting arrangements. Stated simply, some fundamental management principles are missing: they are accountability, measurement of outcomes through tracking and informed purchasing of services. While state government school systems have some degree of accountability for what happens to children and young people, this accountability ends when any child leaves the school system. At this point many can step into an abyss with no body having clear accountability. When those who fail this transition ultimately become eligible for welfare benefits, often not until age 18, they become a concern for the federal government — but by then their chances of marginalisation may have increased considerably. (BCG, 2000)
8.6.2 Follow-up and data In the BCG report, the UK Government’s report about young people (Connexions 2000) and the Commonwealth Government report from the Youth Pathways Action Plan Taskforce (DETYA, forthcoming), it is argued that in transitions, attention has to be focused on outcomes, and feedback has to be collected. There is no routine measurement of success rates or tracking of what happens to Victorian children and young people. Without routine follow up of children and young people, management of them is likely to remain inadequate for people who become marginalised and isolated from family, school and work. Adequate tracking data has to be available for following families, children and young people through the key transitions already discussed, such as birth, starting school, transferring to secondary school and leaving school. These transition points are of interest to all services – education, health and so on – and the responsibility of none. In the BCG report, it is suggested that a Director of Youth Futures have responsibility for young people who fall out of the school
Report of the Community Care Review 168
system, by mobilising the resources allocated on their behalf. A Director of Youth Futures would have to ensure there was adequate tracking data locally for measuring the outcome of the school to work (or further on) transition. A Director of Youth Futures therefore becomes a knowledgable ‘commissioner of services, by either insisting a school takes back a young person who has dropped out or supervising implementation of an alternative services plan. The Director of Youth Futures therefore has the powers of Case Manager of Last Resort.
8.6.3 Audit What does a ‘knowledgeable buyer’ have to understand about service quality? As discussed in Chapter 3, services for children and young people have to be inspected, and an audit and appeals process has to be in place. Inspection and audit of services is one method of a range of tools for achieving high quality services. Inspection, audit and appeals have to be completely independent of departments and CSOs. Tracking outcomes on behalf of government and non-government services; ensuring that marginalised young people receive an appropriate and high quality service by acting, when necessary, as a purchaser of last resort; undertaking audits and inspections of care and residential services; and operating an independent appeals process could be the remit of a new Office of Child and Youth Futures. This Office would follow up all children and young people and be specifically responsibile for ensuring that children and young people not become disconnected from school, family and social life. The Office would be required to: • maintain privacy laws and conventions surrounding the database about cohorts of children and young people, and their attachment to school, health and community care services • purchase flexible services, perhaps for children and young people who have dropped out, by using the resources already available for that child or young person, within the service systems • audit and inspect services for children and young people according to agreed service standards • investigate complaints about service providers and operate an appeals system • establish regional capacity when necessary.
Report of the Community Care Review 169
8.7 Summary and recommendations
8.7.1 Families The Division of Community Care and its partners have to develop and preserve broad and deep knowledge and understanding of families. • That advancement of quality of life of Victorian families be promoted through support of family wellbeing in the activities of a new VicFamilies foundation
8.7.2 Schools The Government has to consider how to expedite advancing the educational status of all vulnerable children and young people, in particular wards of the state, by supporting transitions.
8.7.3 Professionalisation The Division of Community Care has to commit itself to ensuring professionalisation and professional development of its staff, and partnership with other bodies, to support their continuous learning. • That the Government foster high professional standing in practitioners of community care services, consequent on agreements between higher education, professional CSOs and the Government about the outcomes of these services and the capabilities required
8.7.4 Legislation The Government has to consider updating Victoria’s legislation for children and young people after undertaking an international review. • That all legislation underpinning the activity of the Community Care Division’s responsibilities for children, young people and families be integrated and developed consistent with the principles of the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child
8.7.5 An independent Office of Child and Youth Futures The Government has to consider the need to establish a body to maintain excellent data; allocate responsibility for all children and young people, especially those who fall through gaps in the service system; and maintain an active audit, inspection and appeal process, especially for ‘out of home’ care.
Report of the Community Care Review 170
Chapter 9 Recommendations
Overview
In the final chapter of the Report, we discuss the way in which the Community Care Division could be in a position to contribute to the Government’s overall objectives, and how it might do this. A purpose, vision and mission, and 16 recommendations are outlined.
9.1 Vision and mission
It might seem unusual to conclude a report with a vision and mission, but in doing so the point is made that the two emerged from the Review process. Furthermore, it is now possible to say how the Community Care Division can advance the Government’s objectives. A great deal more now has to be accomplished in Victoria in Community Care if the Government’s overall objectives are to be achieved: promoting social and economic growth and a better quality of life by adopting financially responsible but socially progressive methods, and offering affirmative assistance to the individuals, families and communities left behind, both economically and socially. The Community Care Division has a special responsibility in the Government’s overall responsibility to: • provide a high-quality broad band of effective services throughout Victoria for children and young people, and their families • ensure that the children, young people and families who have been, are or are likely to be disadvantaged by economic, social and personal change or trauma have harm reduced and transitions supported by having high-quality compensatory services that are responsive, personalised, effective and timely.
The general purpose of the Community Care Division is, through partnerships, to enable all Victorian children, youth and families to take part in Victoria’s prosperity, to use Victoria’s services (particularly education, health and employment), to contribute to
Appendix 1–171
Victoria’s democratic institutions, and to be responsible members of the community. The specific purpose of the Community Care Division is to advise the Government about policies and measures required for supporting children, youth and families, and for assisting and supporting people who have specific needs, to enter or re-enter the Victorian community. The VISION of Community Care is for government, community service organisations, local government, communities, families, children and young people to be in partnership, investing in the people of Victoria’s diverse communities. The MISSION of Community Care is, through partnerships, to support improved opportunities, and social and economic inclusion, by strengthening individuals’, families’ and communities’capacity by: • providing high-quality, locally responsive and available, participative, universal and specific networks of services, to meet the needs and development of children, youth and families • practising a duty of care for the most vulnerable members (children, youth and families) of the community • supporting service users to become or remain valued and contributing members of the community.
9.2 Recommendations
A. Overarching recommendations Three overarching recommendations provide the context for the implementation plan for this Review: (1) That the Report of the Community Care Review be viewed as being the key instructing document for shaping the future vision, mission, principles, service objectives, structures and plans for community care services in Victoria (2) That the future vision, mission, principles, service objectives, structures and plans for community care services be adequately resourced by the Government to enable results to be achieved. In particular, that services delivered on behalf of the government require 100 per cent of delivery costs (3) That the Community Care Division in the Department of Human Services and its partners develop a three-year implementation plan for this Review, and publish an annual progress report
Report of the Community Care Review 172
B. Principles and essential features (4) That in this Report, a strategic direction is set out around the following principles for community care development. • Service users are the first and last consideration. • Planning, design, provision and evaluation of community care services have to include users. • Families are the building blocks of communities, and communities are built on families. • Partnerships are the basis of financing, design, delivery and evaluation of services. • Prevention and early intervention offer investment approaches to service delivery. • Provision of community care requires quality, social justice and equity. • Sufficient resources and fair-funding models must underpin delivery. (5) That in this Report, the following building blocks for community care are set out: • Inclusion of stakeholders, including service users • Quality: developing learning networks by having service standards, quality assurance, benchmarking, quality data and learning organisations • Localism: building ‘place’ by having Community Zones • Linkages and ‘whole of government’ integration • Financing best value assessments (6) That the partnerships between government, CSOs, communities and other key delivery agents require networks and zones that plan, decide, resource and deliver at the most feasible local level (7) That the Community Care Division and its partners will participate in community building planning and activities to support the broad objects of pursuing community, economic and social wellbeing for families, young people and children (Chapter 4). (8) That the Government consider establishing VicWork to assist Victorian communities to promote the connection between economic and social wellbeing by informing, educating and linking families with international, technological and market changes to work, and identifying the competencies required in order to benefit from global change
Report of the Community Care Review 173
(9) That universal and selective prevention and early intervention programs be established with ‘whole of government’ and other partnership support, to be targeted at supporting critical transitions at a range of sensitive developmental stages for children and young people (10) That each service provider participate in a three-yearly independent Practice Improvement Review and Plan (11) That a major research effort to scope the nature of community service problems and best practice interventions be supported by a wide range of partners, including the Commonwealth Government, State Governments, higher education bodies and philanthropic trusts (12) That the Government seek to advance the quality of life of Victorian families by promoting family wellbeing through the activities of the new VicFamilies foundation (13) That the Government advance the educational status of all vulnerable children and young people, in particular of wards of the state, by supporting transitions throughout schooling, especially from school to work and from school to post-compulsory education (14) That the Government consider a review of legislation underpinning the activity of the Community Care Division’s responsibilities for children, young people and families, consistent with the principles of the International Covenant on the Rights of the Child (15) That the Government foster high professional standing in practitioners of community care services, consequent on agreements between higher education, professional bodies, community service organisations and the Government about the outcomes of these services and the capabilities required (16) That consideration be given to establishing an independent Office of Child and Youth Futures to monitor key data about children and young people; to ensure that accountabilities for results by the Community Care Division and its partners are met; and to maintain an active audit, inspection and appeal program for ‘out of home’ services, particularly care.
Report of the Community Care Review 174 Appendix 1
Acknowledgements
My thanks go to many people who have illuminated this report:
The Minister for Community Services, Ms Christine Campbell, who provided this opportunity to look again
The Reference Group members, who generously provided time, intellectual capital and enthusiastic commitment
The many hundreds of people who attended consultations and visits, and discussed their work with generous commitment
Margaret Wagstaff and Mick Naughton and staff, who provided support
My Deakin Human Services Australia colleagues: Emily Duizend, Lyn Thane, Kate Huntington and Amelia Thompson, all towers of strength
My associates in the Policy and Practice Research Unit, whose ‘backgrounding’ through research over the past three years has become the foreground
Past and existing Deakin colleagues and consultants – Robin Clark, Don Edgar, Moira Rayner, Meg Montague and Mark Considine, whose thinking has been seminal for the report
All my colleagues on the Commonwealth Youth Pathways Action Plan Taskforce whose contributions about ‘joined up’ government, and other things have been more important than they would realise
My copy editor and proofreader Deborah Doyle.
Appendix 1–1
Appendix 2
Members of the Reference Group
Doug Dalton
Peter Johnstone
Paul Linossier
Gaye Mitchell
Michelle Plane
Margaret Wagstaff
Valerie Ayres-Wearne
Marilyn Webster
Pam White
Appendix 2–1
Appendix 3
REVIEW COMMISSIONING DOCUMENT
Introduction The Minister for Community Services announced in her address, Victoria’s Children, Youth and Families: Toward a Better Future for Communities, 13 December 1999, to the Community Care funded services and Department representatives, a review of the YAFS Redevelopment strategy. This strategy was outlined in the documentation on the YAFS strategic directions and purchasing framework, and at regional forums hosted by the Department of Human Services. The Review will be undertaken by an independent reviewer and supported by Community Care Division, Department of Human Services. This paper outlines the purpose, consultation process, review tasks, terms of reference, timelines and reporting arrangements of the review process.
Purpose To examine in the context of The Government’s Policy, Community Services, A New Partnership with the Community, the previous YAFS Redevelopment rationale, strategy and response from the community services sector to inform the setting of future directions for service reform.
Terms of reference The four terms of reference are: 1. To identify the strengths and areas of common interest arising from the redevelopment which provide opportunities for implementation of the Government’s community services policy 2. To provide an analysis of the redevelopment undertaken within the Department, both centrally and regionally, and by agencies individually and in groups, as it aligns to government policy 3. To identify, consistent with the Government’s community services policy, other issues which were not addressed or were inadequately addressed in the YAFS Redevelopment 4. To propose a set of principles for and essential features of a community care service system, which can operate within a contemporary family and societal context to deliver improved outcomes for clients and communities.
Appendix 3–1
Review tasks The Reviewer will conduct key tasks, including: • prepare a written plan of the review process for communication to external and internal agencies and individuals which provides information on the process, scheduled timelines, personnel, coordination and accountability and reporting arrangements • undertake a consultation with agencies, local government, interested individuals and Department of Human Services staff involved in the provision of Community Care services • undertake an examination and analysis of documents, plans and correspondence produced by both external and departmental sources during the previous Redevelopment process • prepare a final Report for the Minister to provide advice on the findings and the issues to be addressed for implementation of the Government’s Community Services policy.
Independent Reviewer An independent Reviewer, Professor Jan Carter, Deakin University, has been appointed to undertake the Review process. The final Report will be presented to the Minister in mid-March 2000.
Reference Group The Review will be supported by a Reference Group, which will meet on three occasions during the process, to: • provide input on the Review framework and the consultation process • review progress and discuss issues identified by the sector • provide comment on the conclusions.
Timelines The Reference Group will also be involved in the consultation process, which will commence on 31 January 2000. The first meeting of the Review Group will be held at 9 a.m. on 27 January 2000.
Appendix 3–2
Focus of the Review The Reviewer will report to the Minister of Community Services about: • approaches to client driven and quality service reform • the principles for reform of the community care service system • essential features of a future service system for delivering improved client outcomes • the critical relationships between key aspects of the service system • approaches to consultation and service planning.
The Reviewer will give consideration to the relationship between the wider community care service system and the primary health and community support directions as part of the Review process.
Review consultation process The consultation process will include: • regional consultations comprising discussions with people who contributed to the Redevelopment process • a meeting with the Regional Director and DHS staff • a meeting with regional service providers, including non- government and local government representatives • a meeting with small rural agencies • a round table meeting with peak organisations and interested external people • a round table meeting with DHS managers and staff • a meeting with service users and advocacy groups of young people, including CREATE.
The Review will provide an opportunity for community care service providers, local governments, non-government agencies, Department staff, research bodies and community groups to communicate their views about the Redevelopment process. All written materials previously submitted to the Department will be considered as part of the Review. Agencies will be able to submit additional information as a short written summary for consideration by the Reviewer.
Appendix 3–3
Appendix 4
Consultations and meetings
REGIONAL AGENCY CONSULTATIONS Metropolitan Western Metropolitan Region 3 February 2000 Southern Metropolitan Region 4 February 2000 Eastern Metropolitan Region 22 February 2000 Northern Metropolitan Region 25 February 2000
Country Grampians Region 8 February 2000 Gippsland Region 11 February 2000 Barwon South Western Region 21 February 2000 Loddon−Mallee Region 24 February 2000 Hume Region 29 February 2000
REFERENCE GROUP MEETINGS First Reference Group meeting 1 February 2000 Second Reference Group meeting 23 February 2000 Reference Group workshop 3 March 2000 Third Reference Group meeting 17 March 2000
PEAK BODIES AND INDIVIDUALS Face to Face Steering Committee 14 March 2000 Dimity Fifer, Victorian Council of Social Service 15 March 2000 Families and Schools Together (FAST) 15 March 2000 Peak bodies 16 March 2000 Dr Frank Oberklaid, Royal Children’s Hospital 16 March 2000 Muriel Cadd 16 March 2000 Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Association CREATE Foundation in Victoria 17 March 2000
Appendix 4–1
Professor Hayden Ray-Smith 20 March 2000 Foster Care Association 20 March 2000 Child Death Review Committee 21 March 2000
RURAL SERVICES AND AGENCIES Small rural agencies 7 February 2000 Gippsland consultation 1 and 2 March 2000 (Swifts Creek, Mirboo North, Bairnsdale) Mildura consultation 9 March 2000 (Mildura Aboriginal Co-operative, Ouyen MPS, Red Cliffs Community House)
DHS AND OTHER GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS Margaret Wagstaff, Director/Community Care Division Child and family welfare managers 14 March 2000 Research Planning and Budget Management Branch 14 March 2000 Senior government officers 15 March 2000 Regional directors 20 March 2000 Protection and Care Branch 29 March 2000 Family and Community Support Branch 29 March 2000
Appendix 4–2 Appendix 5
Consultation − attendance summary Attendance summary
Western Region consultation Susan Adamson Melton Shire Council Melissa Afentoulis Women’s Health Allen Carol Early Childhood Management Services Delia Allen Footscray Youth Housing Group Jane Alley Brimbank City Council Nelly Amezquita Migrant Resource Centre North West Gwen Arnold West Arc John Avent Salvation Army – Crossroads John Awad Travellers Aid Society Valerie Ayres Wearne Community Care Review Reference Group Julie Barber Spastic Society of Victoria Brett Bedson Essendon Youth Accommodation Maurice Bellamy City of Melbourne Julie Bertram YWCA Victor Bilous Centacare Catholic Family Services Mark Blackburn Brimbank City Council Mario Blandin Werribee Mercy Hospital de Chalain Jenny Both Westarc Kathy Brackett Melbourne City Council Glenys Bristow Salvation Army – Crossroads Linda Burke City of Moonee Valley Ros Burnett Western Region Centre for Alcohol and Drug Dependence Julie Burns Rusden Early Intervention Program Nic Burt Hobson’s Bay City Council John Carcaster Wyndham City Council Sandra Caruana Wyndham City Council Chris Chapman Gatehouse Lyn Chapman ISIS Primary Care Coleen Clare Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria Kathryn Curtain ISIS Primary Care Marg D’arcy Centre Against Sexual Assault
Appendix 5–1
Pier DeCarlo Western Region Community Health Centre Mary D’Elia Caroline Chisholm Society Christine Dennis Wesern Association of Community Health Centres Melanie Doherty Melton Shire Council Liz Dorsett South Kingsville Community Centre Joan Eddy Djerriwarrh Health Services Mary Fay Caroline Chisholm Society Philip Flanagan Catholic Social Services Robyn Fleming Essendon Youth Accommodation Group Lucy Forwood Women’s Health West Steve Gilbert Abercare Michael Girolami MacKillop Family Services Sarina Greco Ecumenical Migration Centre Rachael Green Centre Against Sexual Assault Claire Griffin CREATE Foundation in Victoria Sue Hadley Werribee Support and Housing Group Inc. Bronwyn Hall Care Connect Marg Hamley Salvation Army Deborah Handley Western Region SAAP Network Christine Harding Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind Betty Hassold Tweddle Child and Family Health Centre Jo Higginson City of Melbourne Helen Hoffman Good Shepherd Youth and Family Services Keran Howe Royal Women’s Hospital Carol Ingersole Wyndham City Council Annette Jackson Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Sue Jarvis West CASA Chris Jones Salvation Army – Crossroads Louise Joy Caroline Chisholm Society Maureen Judd Laverton Community Centre and Neighbourhood House John Kalisperis Ecumenical Migration Centre Janet Keily Care-a-link West Pam Kennedy ISIS Primary Care Dianne Kouvelis Parent to Parent West Julie Langdon Women’s and Children’s Allied Health Rita Lawrence Baywest Youth Housing Group Levi Lawrence Sunshine Youth Housing Group
Appendix 5–2
Roslyn Leary Victorian Foundation for Survivors of Torture Inc. Mike Lewis Western Drug and Alcohol Services Mandy Loveratt Uniting Church in Australia Huy Luu Australian Vietnamese Women’s Welfare Association Richard McCann Travellers Aid Society Irene McGinnigle Wyndham City Council Angela Melendro Footscray Youth Housing Group Diane Millington Melton Shire Council John Moran Care Ring Sue Morrell Royal Women’s Hospital Morwood Morwood Gatehouse Ruby Muffet Young People’s Health Service Carol Muir Werribee Support and Housing Group Inc. Anne Muldowney Care Connect Tamara Mulherin Joan’s Place Roland Naufal Yooralla Society of Victoria Simon Newman Maribyrnong City Council Loc Nguyen Australian Vietnamese Women’s Welfare Association Kevin O’Brien Wyndham City Council Katie O’Callaghan Baptist Community Care Ltd Kay O’Connell Good Shepherd Youth and Family Services Jan O’Connell Tweddle Child and Family Health Centre John O’Leary Inner Western Region Migrant Resource Centre Jenny Paredes Women’s Health Sally Parnell Crossroads Harry Patsamanis Western Region Community Health Centre Ken Patterson Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria John Patsikatheodorou Inner Western Region Migrant Resource Centre George Patton Centre for Adolescent Health Judith Pearce Brimbank Community Centre Kerry Pollock Uncle Bob’s Child Development Centre Liz Riley ISIS Primary Care Ian Robbins Wyndham City Council Sally Rogers ISIS Primary Care Barbara Romeril Financial and Consumer Rights Council Inc.
Appendix 5–3
Catherine Rosenbrock Carlton–Fitzroy Financial Counselling Services Robyn Schwarz Royal Children’s Hospital Russ Seviour Baptist Community Care Ltd Maureen Sexton Regina Coeli Community Mary Shaw Djerriwarrh Health Services Alfina Sinatra Women’s Health West Grace Sorgente Housing Resource Cathy Spear City of Moonee Valley Family Services Meredith Swaby ISIS Primary Care Beth Thompson Wombat Lanigiro Deborah Tsorbaris Melbourne City Mission Karen Walker Melton Shire Council Melissa Watts Anglicare Victoria Angie Were Anglicare Victoria Kerryn Westhorpe Anglicare Victoria Carol Westrup Noah’s Ark Tamara White Melton City Council Glenys Wilkinson Anglicare Victoria Joy Williams Uniting Church in Australia David Wilson Salvation Army Denise Witt Molly’s House Nicholas Woodlock Care Connect Martyn Wright Women’s and Children’s Health Care Network Peter Yewers Department of Education John Zika VICSEG
Appendix 5–4
Southern Metropolitan Region Consultation Angie Were Anglicare Victoria Bill Hepburn Anglicare Victoria Leanne Braithwaite Bayside City Council Neville Daynes BAYSIS Lillith Collins Bentleigh–Bayside Community Health Service Sandra de Wolf Berry Street Jenny Cummings Berry Street Maree Grover Biala Peninsula Lana Gullquist Cardinia Shire Council Helen Caroline Lodge Chris Pearson Centacare Catholic Family Services Pat Boyhan Centacare Catholic Family Services George Robinson Central Bayside Community Health Service Jane Chapman Children Australia Inc. Rhonda O’Neill Children Australia Inc. Glenda Stanislaw City of Glen Eira Douglas Savige City of Greater Dandenong Liz Mann City of Kingston Carol Mayell City of Port Phillip Mark Knauer City of Port Phillip Bob Weber Community Houses Network of the Southern and Westernport Region Lesley Oakley Copelen Child and Family Services Rita Corbett Early Education Program for Hearing Impaired Children Inc. Rosalind Patterson Monash University – Elwyn Morey Centre Kit Hauptman Financial Counselling Services Southern Mandy Gatliff Frankston City Council Ken Ferdinands Fusion Australia David Munro Good Shepherd Youth and Family Services Michael York Good Shepherd Youth and Family Services Eleanor Weeks Gordon Homes for Boys and Girls Francoise Jewell Hanover Welfare Services Robbi Chaplin Inner South Community Health Service Anton Hermann Jewish Community Services Simon Jedwab Jewish Community Services Bev Kilvington House Margaret Blake MacKillop Family Services Peter Pa’apa’a Maori and Pacific Island Community Based Debra McCarthy Marillac House Robin Adams Mornington Peninsula Shire Claire Nyblom Melbourne City Mission Deb Tsorbaris Melbourne City Mission Ian Berry Menzies Homes for Children Warwick Cavanagh MOIRA
Appendix 5–5
Linda Olive’s Place Lila Corbett Open Family Rob MacIndoe Peninsula Health Care Network Elida Radig Peninsula Women’s Information and Support Margaret Knee Relationships Australia Susan Fallaw SAAP Regional Network John Devine Sacred Heart Mission Robert Marlo Salvation Army–South East Services Network Janet Goodwin South Port Community Housing Group Sonia Copewell Southern Directions Youth Services Jo Cavanagh Southern Family Life Tim Walsh Southern Health Care Network Gary Fisher Spastic Society of Victoria Teresa Bednall Springvale Community Aid and Advice Bureau Jeff Ayon St Kilda Community Group Jo Bolton St Kilda Community Group John Scott Stonnington City Council Lesley Murray Stonnington City Council Kathy Arentz VOSA Dave Glazebrook Visy Cares Centre Janice Peterson WAYSS Ltd Jill Parriss Wesley Central Mission Ray Canobie Windermere Child and Family Services Rose Reed WIRES Lucila Vitale Yooralla
Grampians Region consultation Peter Clout Centacare Ballarat Shannon Thompson Grampians Psychiatric Services Lisa Wood Rural Youth Information Service St Arnaud Ruth de Fegely Ararat Family Care Helen Francis Ararat Family Care Dawn Neale Salvation Army Graeme Bird Lifeline Ballarat Helen Hage DHS – Direct Care Services Fiona White Child and Family Services Ballarat Mark Pelchen DHS – Juvenile Justice Naomi Howard DHS – Child Protection Kelly Grigsby Moorabool Shire Council Cliff Barclay Outreach Christine Harrison Palm Lodge Sue Tantaro Darley Neighbourhood House Jenny Auty Darley Neighbourhood House Glenda Ward Wimmera Community Care Ray Elsworthy East Grampians Health Services Faye McLeod Hepburn Shire Council Christine Reid Ararat Rural City Council
Appendix 5–6
Lois Urquhart Central Highlands Community House Network David Beaver Centacare Anne Munro Centacare Stephanie Jones Ballarat Community Health Di Noyce Lisa Lodge Tamara Peachey Stawell Neighbourhood House and Wimmera West Grampians Network Annie Reeve Women’s Health Grampians Judy Gregurke Djerriwarrh Health Services John Dixon Pyrenees Shire Shane Dawson Ballarat Division of GPs Megan Bourke-O’Neil Child and Family Services Ballarat Mike Coffey Palm Lodge Centre Inc Horsham Jo Yarwood West Victorian Division of GPs Lisa Wood Rural Youth Information Service St Arnaud Tamara Peachey Stawell Neighbourhood House and Wimmera West Grampians Network Marg Card Moorabool Shire Council Kevin Sebell Child and Family Services Ballarat. Ruth Turvey Central Highlands Women’s Collective Salvation Army John Dixon Pyrenees Shire Jenni Sewell PINARC Heather Thewlis PINARC Craig Marshall City of Ballarat Youth Services Tony Diamond City of Ballarat Doug Dalton WCC Jeannie Howard DHS Martin Keil Djerriwarrh Employment and Education Services Glenn Rowbotham Hepburn Health Services Brendan Kelly Wimmera Community Care Heather Brassington St Arnaud Neighbourhood House Paul Clark Yarriambiack Shire Council Cliff Barclay Uniting Church – Outreach Centre
Appendix 5–7
Gippsland Region consultation Leona Mann Central Wellington Health Service Steven Watkinson Anglicare Victoria – Gippsland Val Callister Latrobe Community Health Service Inc. Lin Chandler Gippsland Regional Neighbourhood Houses Group Antoinette Mitchell DHS Ann Fitts Latrobe Community Health Service Inc. Robert Martin Salvation Army Gippscare Sandra Milne Salvation Army Gippscare Jenny Milkins Bass Coast Shire Council Anna Doganieri Anglicare Victoria – Gippsland Maree McPherson Anglicare Victoria – Gippsland Linda McCoy Baw Baw Health and Community Care Centre John Perham Wellington Shire Council Margaret Wheeler Davey House (Wonthaggi and District Hospital) Linda Rowley DHS Helen Padalini Bass Coast Shire Council Verona Beasley Co-Care Gippsland Judy Clarke Lakes Entrance Community Health Centre John Ireland Lakes Entrance Community Health Centre Kris Landels Noah’s Ark Family Resource Centre Tim Ross Berry Street Jenny Cummings Berry Street Alyson Ferguson Gippsland Women’s Health Service Inc. Ormond Pearson West Gippsland Healthcare Group Libby Thompson Lifeline Gippsland Terrona Ramsay Kooweerup Regional Health Service Colleen Boag Yarram District Health Service Inc. Robyn Russell Yarram District Health Service Inc. David Gorrie Quantum Community Care Inc. Craig Hibbins Quantum Community Care Inc. Alan Wilson Central Gippsland Accommodation and Support Service Inc. Steve Koczwarra Central Gippsland Accommodation and Support Service Inc. Wendy Gilbert Central Gippsland Accommodation and Support Service Inc. Chris Casey Central Gippsland Health Service Inc. Tom Sinclair Monash University Yvonne Waite Parent to Parent Gippsland David Welch DHS
Appendix 5–8
Sue Macaulay Gippsland Southern Health Service Inc. Sue Harris Orbost Multi-Purpose Service Kylie Edlington Orbost Multi-Purpose Service Helen Johnson Latrobe Valley Special Needs Support Group Kath McEntee DHS Peter Muldoon DHS Geoff Fraser South Gippsland Shire Council Anne Henham Kilmany Family Care Kerry Sayburn Salvation Army Gippscare Michael Page Baw Baw Shire Council Kay Gravell Lakes Entrance Community Health Centre Carmel Berger DHS Craig Hemsworth DHS Carmel Hennessy DHS
Barwon South West Region consultation Jane Hogan Colac Community Health Service Daphne Finn Colac Community Health Service Carolyn Gatti Colac Community Health Service Shirley Rutherford Colac Community Health Service Jeff Cooke Colac Community Health Service Ron Cochrane Salvation Army Geelong Nigel White Barwon Youth Accommodation Service Barrie Gregory Winchelsea Community House Beth Davidson Winchelsea Community House Jane Sloane Zena Collective Inc. Sharon Blackney Emma House DV Services Warrnambool Peter Hill Portland and District Community Health Centre Myra Bourke Portland and District Hospital Margaret Ritchie Simpson and District Community Centre Cath Lourey South West Access Network Julie Pech South West Access Network Pat O’Brien Emma House DV Services Warrnambool Francis Broekman Brophy Family and Youth Services Shane Storer Warrnambool Hospital Sheila Bramall Community Health – Casterton Memorial Hospital Kelly Gannon Portland Community Health Centre Peter Punch Western Region Alcohol and Drugs
Appendix 5–9
Christine Cuff MacKillop Family Services Mal Douglas Baysa Youth Services Mark Lee Barwon Health Fran Quigley Geelong Rape Crisis Centre – CASA Barb Chalmers Bethany Family Services Kathy Ryan Bethany Family Services Victor Coull Glastonbury Jordan Mavros Geelong Ethnic Communities Counci l– Migrant Resource Centre Grant Boyd Gateways Support Services – Barwon Community Care Rob Jane Bellarine Community Health Centre Rosemary Malone Gateways Support Services Merrin McCracken Spastic Society of Victoria – Shannon Park Centre Liz Saunders Barwon Family Resource Centre Anne Horsley Bethany Family Services Tom Callaly Barwon Health – Mental Health Mike Barrow Barwon Adolescent Task Force Paul Napper Barwon Psychiatric Resources Carmel Eyre Jindara Community Programs Brian Donovan Karingal Care Review Gaye Mitchell Community Care Review Reference Group Valerie Ayres-Wearne Community Care Review Reference Group Snezana Milosavic DHS Community Care Division Gary Alexander DHS Barwon South West Region Nettie Hulme DHS Barwon South West Region Annette Drummond DHS Barwon South West Region
Eastern Metropolitan Region consultation Margaret Chipperfield Anglicare Margaret Keasley Anglicare Amanda Golding Autism Victoria Brenda Moore Biala Sue Schinck Brenda House Women’s Refuge Angie Bauer Bulleen and Templestowe Community Health Judy Aiton Camcare Irene Pagliarisou Camcare Lena Gibso CASA House
Appendix 5–10
Heather Mcgrimme City of Monash Rita Butera Donvale Living and Learning Neilsa Gillian Eastcare – Homeless Outreach Lorna Wyatt Eastern Access Community Health Judy Johnson EDVOS Barbara Younger EDVOS Sue Carlile Family Access Network Stephanie Webber Harrison Community Services Janine Swalwell Illoura Basia Sudbury Inner East Community Options Dianne Bailey-Tribe Irabina Margaret Fennell Japara Neighbourhood House Pauline Walton Japara Neighbourhood House Larry Roberts Koonung Cottage Community House Thanh Thach Louise Mulicultural Centre Maureen Burke Louise Multicultural Centre Jan Loughman Manningham City Council Janet Haberle Maroondah Halfway House Vickie Feretopoulos City of Maroondah Janine MCardle City of Maroondah Jan Fox City of Maroondah Julie Viney Mooroolbark EIP Susan Ridding Morisson House Frank Harris Nadrasca Margaret Robertson Nadrasca Claire Cotter Nadrasca Ann Callanan Networks IE Rachel Slade Oakleigh Youth Resource Nicola Pomce Power Neighbourhood House Belinda Hughes Power Neighbourhood House Janine Berryman Robinson House Graham Craig RVIB Sandra Mortimer RVIB Helen Smith RVIB Livia Carusi SAAP Network Robyn Holtham Selby Community House Hanny Schoen Selby Community House Steve Allen Shire of Yarra Ranges Sharon Gorton Shire of Yarra Ranges Robyn Fung Specialist Children’s Service EMR
Appendix 5–11
Shirley Denehy Taralye Colleen Saunderson The Avenue Neighbourhood House Helen Stagg The Basin Community House Kath Moynihan United Support Services Anne Muir Villa Maria Les Earnshaw Wesley Central Mission Paul Stevenson-Ryan Wesley Central Mission Lee Woolcock Wheelers Hill Family Centre Pam Young Wheelers Hill Family Centre Sue Cox Yarinda Mandy Fallons Yarra Community Christian Care Sue Hancox Young Women’s Project Brendan Carins City of Boroondara Rob Crispin City of Knox Kath Parton City of Knox Geoff Draper City of Manningham Vickie Feretopoulos City of Maroondah Fee Harrison City of Monash Jeff Loftus City of Monash Noelene Duff City of Monash Tara City of Whitehorse Sandra Hills City of Whitehorse Valerie Ayres-Wearne Community Care Review Reference Group Sharon Gorton Shire of Yarra Ranges Steve Allen Shire of Yarra Ranges
Loddon−Mallee Region consultation Julie Oberin Annie North Women’s Refuge Pauline Gordon Bendigo Community Health Service Clover Wilson Campaspe–Murray Community Care Beth Hopworth Castlemaine and District Accommodation Resource Group Brendan Dunn Castlemaine and District Accommodation Resource Group Paul Fogarty Centacare Bendigo Peter Hunt Centacare Mildura
Appendix 5–12
Loddon−Mallee Region consultation Judy Flanagan Centre Against Sexual Assault (CASA) Rosalie Rogers City of Greater Bendigo Joanna Casey Cobaw Community Health Service Lisa Delaney Cobaw Community Health Service Alan Taylor Cobaw Community Health Service John Hamilton Department of Education, Employment and Training Kathy Reardon Families of Children with a Disability Kim Fairburn-Baker Families of Children with a Disability Karli Price Future Connections Maxine Brockfield Kyabram and District Memorial Community Hospital Peter McLean Loddon−Mallee Housing Service Ken Marchingo Loddon−Mallee Housing Service Kath Johnson Loddon−Mallee Housing Service Eileen Oates Loddon−Mallee Women’s Health Anne McKenna Macedon Shire Council Ian Rye Maryborough District Health Service John McCarthy Mildura Rural City Council Cheryl Gray Mildura Rural City Counci l– Mildura Youth Centre Merlyn Pritchard Mount Alexander Hospital Julie Batson Mount Alexander Hospital, Castlemaine Family Support Dean Curtis Mount Alexander Shire Anne Villiers Noah’s Ark, Bendigo
Appendix 5–13
Andrew Weightman Salvation Army Major Stan Caple Salvation Army Jean Andrews Shire of Campaspe Joy O’Donnell Shire of Campaspe Glenda Templar Specialist Services, Spastic Society of Victoria Di O’Neil St Lukes Anglicare Peter Richardson St Lukes Anglicare Angie Laussel St Lukes Anglicare Clint Wardle St Lukes Anglicare Rachel Fisher Swan Hill Rural City Council Jennifer Hocking Westate Community Development Mick Turner YSAS
Northern Metropolitan Regional consultation Sally Alsop DHS Mette Jorgensen DHS Lou Howlett Children’s Protection Society Jennifer Boulton Melbourne Citymission Julie Merlyn YWHS Michael Yore Good Shepherd Youth and Family Services Jillian Rose Anglicare Victoria Michelle Plane City of Whittlesea Celia Clapp Children’s Protection Society Mick Boyle No to Violence Sharee Dean Bethlehem Community
Appendix 5–14
Di Godfrey DHS Jane Broadhead Kildonan Child and Family Services Georgina Aldersea Norparrin Gabrielle McTiernan PUCHS Steve Woodland City of Whittlesea Leonie Symes Broad Insight Group ECIP Anne Boutell Noah’s Ark Susan Fraser Kildonan Child and Family Services Andrew Compton Preston Creative Living Centre Karen Russell NRCHS Sue Brown AAL Karen Flanagan Children’s Protection Society Raffaella Calafione Young Women’s Housing Shop Front Lisa Wagner DHS Rocco Fonzi DHS Louise Steffen City of Yarra Carmen Faelis City of Yarra Margaret Kenny Good Shepherd Youth and Family Services Lucy Romano Anglicare Kathy Leenaerts ParentZone Magi Marcon City of Yarra Anne Kitchen Share Care Sandra Mounsey PUCHS Angela Forbes Kildonan Nik Filips Sabin Ferbacher Safe Place
Appendix 5–15
Diane Craig St Mary’s House of Welcome Roslyn Stevens Sunbury Community Health Centre Heather Thompson Berry Street Marilyn Webster Berry Street John McDougall Berry Street Karen Bode Banyule Community Centre Kevin Close Victoria Police Rob Palmer Victoria Police Leigh Barrett Uniting Broadmeadows Care Karen Sheehan Diamond Creek Living and Learning Centre Robin Hill Eltham Community Health Centre Marni Sheehan Alys Key Family Care Antoinette Mertins Moreland City Council Caroline Wilkins Berry Street Beth Glover RVIB Helen Malivegiergos WHOSS L. Morgan SPEECH Inc. Joumana Elmatrah IWNCV Adela Holmes Berry Street Valma Byers Kalparrin Jo Fuller Northern CASA Michael Smith Nillumbik Shire Council Pat S. Children’s Protection Society O. Pinek Dianella Community Health Centre Chris Bell CAVE Alicia Poperechny MCHS Kathy Boyle Melbourne Citymission
Appendix 5–16
Hume Regional consultation Sue Medson Goulburn Valley Care Anita Pell Berry Street Bernie Stratton Shepparton Financial Counselling Luke Rumbold Upper Murray Family Care Mary Bridgland Spastic Society Debi Randich Community Interlink – Goulburn Valley Health Sandra Walker Goulburn Valley Community Health Service Charmaine Farrell Upper Murray CASA Tom Keating La Trobe University Corienne Krich Central Hume Support Services Lynne Allan Central Hume Support Services Jenny Bristol-Jones Benalla Support Group (Child Specialist Needs) Angela Verde Wangaratta District Base Hospital Jill Guerra City of Greater Shepparton Terrie Seymour Mitchell Community Health Service Pierina Morano Mitchell Shire Council Kaylene Conrick Delatite Shire Council Patience Harrington City of Wodonga Gerri Jones Wangaratta District Base Hospital Donna Richards North East Support and Accommodation for Youth Chris Arnold Hume SAAP Network Rowena Allen Cutting Edge Youth Services Lila Corbert Open Family Australia Rick Harrison The Bridge
Appendix 5–17
Mildura Regional consultation Cheryl Gray Mildura Rural City Council – Mildura Youth Centre Pam Pisasale Robinvale Network House – Robinvale Youth Committee Sue Smith Robinvale Network House Dave Pugh St Lukes Anglicare Julie Karayilan Sunraysia Residential Service Marian Luehman Sunraysia Residential Service Doug Tonge Mallee Accommodation and Support Program Elizabeth Schepisi Murray Valley Aboriginal Cooperative Marlon Parsons Murray Valley Aboriginal Cooperative Lois O’Callaghan Loddon–Mallee Women’s Health Douglas Wain Sea Lake and District Health Service Rosie Clarke Sea Lake and District Health Service Deborah Farley Noah’s Ark Family Resource – Kerang Early Intervention Program Alison Jones Mallee Sexual Assault Unit Joanne Sheehan Mallee Sexual Assault Unit Jennifer Hocking Westate Community Development Elizabeth Maffei Mallee Family Care, Board of Management Roger Cornell Mallee Family Care, Board of Management Bernie Currow Mallee Family Care, Board of Management Chris Hoye Red Cliffs Community Resource Centre Leonie Burrows Chief Executive Officer, Mildura Rural City Council
Appendix 5–18
Mildura Aboriginal Cooperative Sally Sherger Co-ordinator, Family Services
Patsy Doolan Respite Coordinator Kerry Clarke Family Group Home Co-ordinator Sonya Hunt Family Preservation Rhonda McInnes Foster Care Colin Brady Team Leader, Koori Unit, Loddon–Mallee DHS Region
Mallee agency visits Lynsey Lynch Mallee Track MPS Chris Hoye Red Cliffs Community Resource Centre
Rural Gippsland consultation Bev Newcommen East Gippsland Remote Family Services Di Nicholls Benambra Primary School Rhonda Legg Benambra Neighbourhood House Rae Robbins Swifts Creek Neighbourhood House Parent Group Emsay Remote Family Services Kay Gravell Lakes Entrance Community Health Judy Clarke Lakes Entrance Community Health Lesley Edwards Lakes Entrance Community Health Helen Carlyle Lakes Entrance Community Health Faye Rash Lakes Entrance Community Health Janie Cohen Gippsland – East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative Paul Harper Gippsland – East Gippsland Aboriginal Cooperative Gero Gardner and Community Association of Mirboo North community representatives
Appendix 5–19
Small rural agencies group consultation Doug Dalton Wimmera Community Care Cliff Barclay Uniting Care Luke Rumbold Upper Murray Family Care Vernon Knight Mallee Family Care David Gorrie Quantum Care Kevin Sebell Child and Family Services Ballarat Francis Broekman Brophy Family Care Sue Medson Goulburn Valley Family Care Bruce Deverger Community Connections
State Face 2000 meeting Barry Neale Foster Care Association Coleen Clare Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria Muriel Cadd Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency Claire Griffen CREATE Foundation in Victoria Ken Patterson Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria Lyndsay Munyard CREATE Foundation in Victoria Geoff Jende Protection and Care Community Care Division Alison Cavanagh Protection and Care Community Care Division
Peak−bodies meeting Barbara Executive Financial and Consumer Rights Council Romeril Director Jan Chairperson Financial Consumer Rights Council Pentland Mandy Human Services Victorian Local Governance Association Gatliff Manager, Frankston City Council Clare Policy Analyst Municipal Association of Victoria Hargreaves
Appendix 5–20
Mandy Policy Officer Uniting Care Victoria Leveratt John Zika Executive Ethnic Community Council of Victoria Member Marion President Association of Neighbourhood Houses and Harride Learning Centres Philip Project Director Catholic Social Services Flanagan Janet President Early Childhood Intervention Australia Hutchinson Netty Chief Executive Council to Homeless Persons Horton Officer Andrew President Victorian Council of Social Service McCallum Coleen Chief Executive Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria Clare Officer Helen Secretary Foster Care Association of Victoria Falconer Carol Allen Executive Kindergarten Parents Victoria Director
Foster Care Association (Victoria) Janice Hughes President Barry Neale Vice President Helen Falconer Secretary Sandra Creaner Committee Member
Child Death Review Committee Professor Glen Bowes Member Di O’Neill Member Jan Norton Member Francis Zemljak Member Tony Weldon Member Pam White Member
Appendix 5–21
CREATE Foundation in Victoria Claire Giffen Consulting Facilitator, CREATE Foundation Lisa Consultant, CREATE Foundation Lyndsay Munyard Consultant, CREATE Foundation
Victorian Public Service departmental senior officers Peter Harmsworth Secretary, Department of Justice Jenny Sams General Manager, Office of Post-Compulsory Education and Training Colleen Mercy Manager Student Welfare, Department of Education
Others Hayden Raysmith Consultant Muriel Cadd Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency Prof. Frank Oberklaid Royal Children’s Hospital Dimity Fifer Victorian Council of Social Service
Appendix 5–22
Department of Human Services
Directorate Margaret Wagstaff, Director, Community Care Division
Research Planning and Budget Management Branch Garth Lampe Assistant Director, Research Planning and Budget Management Unit Christine Roughead Manager, Budget and Program Support
Family and Community Support Branch Gill Parmenter Assistant Director Olga Bursian Manager, Parenting Support and Child Development Cheryl Taylor Manger, Family and Individual Support Bernie Marshall Manager, Community Programs
Protection and Care Branch Garth Lampe Assistant Director Johan Top Manager, Juvenile Justice Liz Armitage Manager, Child Protection and Care Helen Brain Manager, Statutory Services Delivery Janice Robertson Manager, Service Development Unit Greg Lawrence Manager, Planning, Purchasing and Development Kristi Kihl Larsen Manager, Service, Planning and Development Johanna Breen Project Manager, High Risk Infants Karyn Myers Manager, Quality, Monitoring and Improvement Unit
Appendix 5–23
Regional directors Richard Deyell Northern Metropolitan Region Jonh Leatherland Regional Director, Southern Metropolitan Region John Joyce Regional Director, Hume Region John Mollett Gippsland Region Geoff Lavender Barwon South West Region Pam White Regional Director, EMR Brenda Bolland Regional Director, Western Metropolitan Region David Mulquiney Regional Director, Loddon–Mallee Region
DHS Child and Family Welfare managers Gary Alexander Barwon South West Region Sigrid Haslam Hume Region Andy Bevan Northern Metropolitan Region Gill Callister Southern Metropolitan Region Peter Green Eastern Metropolitan Region David Welch Gippsland Region Kerry Lord Loddon–Mallee Region Chris Asquini Western Metropolitan Region
Appendix 5–24 Appendix 6
Submissions received ONFIDENTIAL FIRST NAME NAME LAST POSITION ORGANISATION NUMBER OF DATE SUBMISSION C 1 2/2/00 N Janet Allen Principal Centacare Catholic Family Services Officer, Adoption 2 7/2/00 N Jo Cavanagh Director Southern Family Life
3 8/2/00 N Luke Rumbold CEO Upper Murray Family Care
4 16/2/00 N Peter Clout Manager Strengthening Families: Centacare – Catholic diocese of Ballarat
5 22/2/00 N Ray Canobie CEO Windemere Child and Family Services Inc. 6 22/2/00 N Tim Matheson Joint Convenor The Salvation Army Eastcare on behalf of the EPAS of the EPAS Project Project 7 22/2/00 N Jack Melbourne President Rotary Club of Melbourne Inc.
Appendix 6–1
8 22/2/00 N Lin Chandler GRNHG Gippsland Regional Neighbourhood Networker Houses Group Inc.
9 23/2/00 Y Delia Allen On behalf of Footscray Youth Housing Group the staff and management 10 23/2/00 N Doug Dalton Executive Wimmera Community Care Director
11 1/3/00 N Coleen Clare CEO Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria Inc. 12 1/3/00 N Coleen Clare CEO Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria Inc. 13 16/3/00 N Coleen Clare CEO Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria Inc. 14 24/2/00 N Kevin Zibell CEO Child and Family Services Ballarat 15 24/2/00 N Rita Corbett Centre Early Education Program for Hearing Manager and Impaired Children Program Co-ordinator 16 25/2/00 N Rosemary Malone Program and Gateways Support Services Services Manager 17 28/2/00 N Jenny Cameron Research Community Economics Project, School Fellow of Social Policy, Monash University
18 28/2/00 N Lois Urquhart Networker Central Highlands Community House Network Inc.
Appendix 6–2
19 28/2/00 N Simon Jedwab Director, Jewish Community Services Inc. Family and Disability Services 20 28/2/00 N Julie Viney Mooroolbark Mooroolbark Early Childhood Early Education Centre Inc., incorporating Childhood Mooroolbark Early Childhood Intervention Intervention Programme Programme 21 28/2/00 N Hume–Moreland YAFS Alliance 22 28/2/00 N Chris McDonnell Executive Orana Family Services Director 23 28/2/00 N David Morrell Director Kildonan Child–Family Services 24 28/2/00 N Mike Hill Director Victorian Local Government Association 25 28/2/00 N Gerard Jose General Spastic Society of Victoria Manager, Operations and Community Service Development 26 28/2/00 N VCOSS: Victorian Council of Social Service
27 7/3/00 N Gabrielle Levine Regional DHS Director, Western Metropolitan Region
Appendix 6–3
28 28/2/00 N DHS Barwon South West Region
29 28/2/00 N DHS Loddon–Mallee Region 30 28/2/00 N DHS Northern Metropolitan Region
31 28/2/00 N Madeleine Smith DHS Grampians Region 32 28/2/00 N Wendy Taylor Executive Court Network Director 33 28/2/00 VCOSS: Victorian Council of Social Service
34 28/2/00 N TJ Macdonald President Reach Out for Kids Foundation Inc.
35 28/2/00 N John de Campo CEO Women’s and Children’s Health Care Network 36 28/2/00 N Suzanne Solly Business Kyabram Community and Learning Manager Centre Inc. 37 1/3/00 N Barbara Romeril Executive Financial and Consumer Rights Council Director Inc.
38 24/3/00 N Barry Neale Vice President Foster Care Association of Victoria
39 28/2/00 N Peter Ruxyla Director and Eastern Access Community Health CEO 40 29/2/00 N Deborah Handley Western Western Region SAAP Network Region SAAP Network Coordinator
Appendix 6–4
41 29/2/00 N Milan Poropat Executive Canterbury Family Care Director 42 29/2/00 N Shirley Dennehy Director of The Advisory Council for Children with Services Impaired Hearing (Victoria)
43 29/2/00 N John Forster CEO Noah’s Ark 44 29/2/00 N Ian Berry Convenor Frankston − Peninsular Youth and Family Services Collaboration and Planning Group 45 29/2/00 N Maree Grover Manager Biala Peninsula Inc.
46 29/2/00 N Roland Naufal General Yooralla Society of Victoria Manager, Specialist Statewide Services 47 29/2/00 N Betty Hassold CEO Tweddle Child and Family Health Service 48 29/2/00 N Shirley Dennehy Statewide The Advisory Council for Children with Convenor Impaired Hearing (Victoria)
49 29/2/00 N Pam Young Wheelers Hill On behalf of Uniting Care Connections Family Centre 50 29/2/00 N Michelle Plane City of Whittlesea 51 29/2/00 N Lesley Hardcastle For the Policy and Practice Research Unit 52 1/3/00 Y Mignon Mant CEO and O’Connell Family Centre (Grey Sisters) Director of Inc. Nursing
Appendix 6–5
53 1/3/00 N Ray Cleary CEO Melbourne Citymission
54 1/3/00 N Dianne Bailey- Manager Autism Services: Irabina Early Tribe Intervention Program 55 1/3/00 N Maree McPherson Regional Anglicare Victoria for Families, Youth Manager and Children, Gippsland 56 1/3/00 N David Blyth RVIB General Royal Victorian Institute for the Blind Manager 57 1/3/00 N Anne Callanan Networker Network of Inner Eastern Community Houses Inc. 58 1/3/00 N Penny Bristol- On behalf of Benalla Family Support Group for Jones the Benalla Children with Special Needs Support Group 59 1/3/00 N Chris Arnold East Hume Reference Group
60 1/3/00 N Norman Cameron Urban and Central Goldfields Shire Council Regional Planner 61 2/3/00 N Janet Hutchinson President Early Childhood Intervention Australia (Victorian Chapter) Inc.
62 2/3/00 N Gwenyth Arnold Manager West Arc Early Childhood Intervention Program 63 2/3/00 N Damien McCartin Social Policy Good Shepherd Youth and Family Analyst Services. 64 2/3/00 N John Mollett Regional Department of Human Services, Director, Gippsland Gippsland 65 2/3/00 N Mary Crooks
Appendix 6–6
66 3/3/00 N Glenda Ward Youth and Wimmera Community Care Counselling Manager 67 3/3/00 N John Fry Mayor and Whittlesea Youth Commitment, and Chairperson City of Whittlesea 68 3/3/00 N Margo Holness Team Leader, Shire of Yarra Ranges, Community Children’s and Services Department Family Services 69 3/3/00 N Ros Burnett Program Women and Children’s Alcohol and Manager Drug Service 70 3/3/00 N Larry Kamener
71 3/3/00 N David Murray Director of Jesuit Social Services Policy 72 3/3/00 N Margaret Wheeler Coordinator Davey House Family Resource Centre
73 3/3/00 N John Jeffrey Chairperson The Salvation Army, Victorian State Council 74 3/3/00 N Liz Curren Catholic Commission for Justice, Development and Peace, February. 2000
75 3/3/00 N Peter Dwyer Associate. Youth Research Centre, The Professor University of Melbourne 76 3/3/00 N Leonie Symes Manager Broad Insight Group Inc. 77 3/3/00 N Mary D’Elia CEO Caroline Chisholm Society, and Pregnancy and Family Support Service
Appendix 6–7
78 7/3/00 N David Huggins Director Catholic Education Office, Melbourne
79 8/3/00 N Kathy Moynihan Development United Support Services Inc. Officer 80 8/3/00 N Burt Stevens Victorian Council of Churches 81 8/3/00 N Lyn Littlefield Director Victorian Parenting Centre 82 10/3/00 N Netty Horton CEO Council to Homeless Persons 83 8/3/00 N Rolando Garay President CELAS Spanish – Latin American Welfare Centre 84 9/3/00 N Barry Horn President East Burwood Counselling Centre, and Nunawading Citizens Advice Bureau Inc. 85 9/3/00 N Maureen Buck Director Waverley Emergency Adolescent Care (WEAC) 86 9/3/00 N Corienne Krich CEO Central Hume Support Services Inc.
87 9/3/00 N Various Centre for Rural Communities and citizens Mirboo North Community 88 9/3/00 N Gordon Gemmell CEO Baptist Community Care 89 9/3/00 N Robert Crispin Manager, Knox City Council Family Services 90 10/3/00 N Victor Stojcavski Senior Policy ATSIC Australia Officer 91 10/3/00 N Neil Smith Youth Services Regional Youth Committees, Gippsland Development Officer
Appendix 6–8
92 10/3/00 N Louise Kennedy- Youth La Trobe Shire Council Young Development Officer 93 10/3/00 N Maria Plakourakis School Youth Services Program, Frankston Focused Community Health Centre, Peninsula Youth Service Health Care Network Coordinator 94 10/3/00 N Helen Burt MacKillop Family Services
95 10/3/00 N Lloyd Owen Senior Department of Social Work and Social Lecturer in Policy Social Work 96 10/3/00 N Sandra De Wolf CEO Berry Street 97 10/3/00 N Sue Medson CEO Goulburn Valley Family Care
98 28/2/00 N City of Victoria University Early Childhood Stonnington and Family Services Consultancy
99 15/3/00 N Dianna Patterson CEO Surf Coast Shire 100 16/3/00 N Douglas Savige Manager, City of Greater Dandenong Human Services 101 16/3/00 N Sue Milner Chairperson Dietitians Association of Australia (Victorian Branch) 102 16/3/00 N Jenny Merkus Director, Moreland City Council Social Development
Appendix 6–9
103 16/3/00 N Peter Quin Community Far East Gippsland Health and Support Support Service Program Team Leader 104 16/3/00 N Vernon Knight CEO Mallee Family Care
105 23/3/00 N Clare Hargreaves Senior Policy Municipal Association of Victoria Advisor 106 23/3/00 N Kay Gravell Lakes Entrance Community Health Centre 107 23/3/00 N Julie Batson Coordinator Castlemaine Family Support Service and Counsellor 108 23/3/00 N Nicola Bruce
109 23/3/00 N Louise Steffen Human City of Yarra Services Project Officer 110 23/3/00 N Margareta Williams President SPEECH Inc. 111 23/3/00 N Carol Allen Executive Kindergarten Parents Victoria Inc. Director 112 23/3/00 N Clare Griffin CREATE CREATE Foundation for children and Consultant young people in care 113 23/3/00 N Marion Stanway President Children’s Protection Society
Appendix 6–10
114 23/3/00 N John Avent General The Salvation Army Crossroads Manager Network – Child and Adolescent Services 115 23/3/00 N John Smith On behalf of City of Darebin the North Central Family Support Services Group 116 23/3/00 N Margarita Frederico President and Australian Association of Social Director Workers (Victorian Branch) 117 23/3/00 N Phil Conrick Broadmeadows Family Care
118 23/3/00 N Mick Boyle Manager No to Violence: The Male Family Violence Prevention Association Inc.
119 23/3/00 N John Leatherland Acting DHS Southern Metropolitan Region Regional Director 120 23/3/00 N Ian Whiteside Treasurer Barwon Family Resource Centre Inc.
121 23/3/00 N Roslyn Loader Executive Doncare Director 122 23/3/00 N The People Together Project
123 23/3/00 Y Muriel Cadd CEO VACCA: the Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency Co-operative Ltd.
Appendix 6–11
124 23/3/00 N DHS Victoria
125 28/3/00 N Connie Gibbons Director, City of Boroondara Community Development 126 28/3/00 N Jo Fuller Public Officer Victorian Centres Against Sexual Assault Forum
127 28/3/00 N Mavis Smith Executive The Victorian HealthCare Association Director Ltd 128 28/3/00 N Mandy Gatliff Human Frankston City Council Services Manager 129 28/3/00 N Michael Gourlay CEO Association of Children with a Disability 130 23/3/00 N Russell Savage, Member for Parliament of Victoria MLA Mildura 131 5/4/00 N George Lekakis Chairperson Ethnic Communities Council of Victoria
132 5/4/00 N Thomas Callaly Director of Barwon Health Psychiatry
Appendix 6–12 Appendix 7
SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
INTRODUCTION In this appendix, a summary of the written submissions and recommendations received by the Community Care Review is provided. In Part A, an overview of the source and content of the written submissions is provided. In Part B, the recommendations arising in the written submissions are summarised.
Part A The Community Care Review received more than 130 written submissions from Victorian community care agencies, including local governments, agency and service networks, industry peak bodies, advocacy groups, specialist and statewide services, and individuals. Included in the submissions forwarded to the Review were a number of reports, academic articles and publications. When the written submissions were examined, it was indicated that: • 75 submissions were from community care agencies, service alliances and networks • 30 submissions were from peak bodies, and statewide and specialist services • 2 submissions were from client and carer groups • 7 submissions were from Department of Human Services Regions • 2 submissions were from professional bodies • 14 submissions comprised articles, publications, extracts and review reports forwarded to the Review for information and consideration. When the source and type of written submission were examined, it was indicated that: • 31 submissions were mainly focused on ‘out of home’ care services • 25 submissions were mainly focused on youth, family support and parenting services • 18 submissions were from agencies and specialist services involved in providing services for early childhood development • 25 submissions were from services located in rural and regional Victoria
Appendix 7–1
• 6 submissions were from neighbourhood houses and community centres • 14 submissions were from local governments • 13 submissions were from alliances and networks formed to provide community care services • in a small number of submissions, issues associated with cultural and linguistically diverse communities, Koorie services, housing services, and drug and alcohol services were addressed. In the written submissions, a variety of formats were adopted. In most submissions, comment was provided about some or all six questions that formed the basis of the Review’s regional consultations held in February and March 2000. In several submissions, documentation submitted to the previous government about the YAFS Redevelopment process was enclosed. A small number of submissions were copies of submissions made to the Commonwealth Youth Pathways Taskforce.
Part B Although the written submissions included a broad range of concerns and considerations, some consistent themes were evident. In a significant number of the written submissions, sector-specific and service-specific issues were raised. Methodology Guidelines for the format of written submissions were not issued, so recommendations in the submissions had a wide variety of formats. For example, some recommendations were formally made whereas others were implicit. It was considered important to ensure that all recommendations to the Review, however made, were represented in the summary that follows. Given the broad range and nature of the recommendations, and as indicated, given the intention to summarise the recommendations made, the following typology of key themes was adapted: • Whole of Government • The Way Forward • Legislation • Advisory Mechanisms • Partnership • Planning • Rural Service Delivery • Quality • Redevelopment • Funding Arrangements
Appendix 7–2
• Funding Priorities • Program and Policy Development Priorities • Information and Data Management • Statewide and Specialist Services
Although in this summary every effort has been made to incorporate the range of recommendations made to the Review, it is possible, given the large volume of material submitted, that some recommendations have been unintentionally omitted. However, it is understood that there will be mechanisms for providing feedback about this Report, and individuals and agencies might wish to use these mechanisms as an opportunity to highlight any specific recommendations that might have been omitted in this summary.
Summary of recommendations Whole of Government • That social and economic planning should be integrated • That Government should commit to the application of an agreed set of socio-economic indicators • That a ‘whole of government’ approach to enabling communities must be pursued, and that local government should be a significant partner in planning • That Citizen, Family and Community Impact Statements should be required for all policy and program development initiatives • That the Commonwealth Government’s Partnerships to Prevention approach be adopted • That closer linkages between education and community care services be promoted in order to focus on the needs of ‘at risk’ young people
Appendix 7–3
The Way Forward • That a set of principles for conduct of community care services be established and that Government departments be audited against these standards • That future community care policies be based on concepts of community building, partnership, quality, and fair and adequate funding • That Government commit to development of a clear and agreed three to five year vision for community care • That Government clearly identify a minimum level of community care service provision and service availability for all Victorians • That partnership form the basis of the relationship between Government, agencies and service users • That partnership between Government and service providers be based on an agreed compact and be mutually respected, open and transparent processes • That a diverse service network, small agencies, localism and volunteerism be valued and supported • That Government acknowledge its ‘duty of care’ responsibilities • That Government retain responsibility for social control functions, human rights and statutory child protection services
Legislation • That the Children and Young Persons Act 1989 and associated administrative appeal mechanisms be subject to legislative review
Advisory Mechanisms • That establishment of a Community Care Ministerial Advisory Council be endorsed • That clients and carers be valued as equal stakeholders
Partnership • That incentives be provided for collaboration and partnership • That subject to adequate consultation, grouping of like and related services be supported • That through partnership and collaboration, the aim be to develop common intake, assessment and referral arrangements
Appendix 7–4
• That development of service networks be supported and adequately funded • That larger agencies act as mentors for smaller agencies
Planning • That planning be based on local communities of interest • That local government areas be the basic planning units • That there be three planning tiers: local government, sub- regional and regional • That health, education and welfare stakeholders be incorporated in planning • That planning be based on life cycles, and that emphasis be placed on pre-school, school and youth • That regions engage local governments as joint partners in planning • That service users and carers be actively engaged in the planning processes • That planning be based on a sound research and evidence base • That an ongoing planning and needs analysis of communities be funded • That planning include consideration of level of demand and unmet need
Rural Service Delivery • That Government adopt the Rural Services Charter, focus on developing rural service models, promote joint planning, and support development of leadership capacity within rural communities • That the additional costs of rural service delivery (after hours, staff retention, transport, travel, telephony and electronic communication costs) be recognised and incorporated in rural funding models • That the generalist worker model be actively promoted in rural funding arrangements
Appendix 7–5
Quality • That progressive development of a quality improvement framework for community care services be essential • That a quality framework be based on widespread consultation with key stakeholders • That the minimum set of standards proposed in the YAFS Redevelopment publications form the basis for development of a comprehensive quality improvement framework • That issues of quality, service user engagement and community participation be components of outcome measurement • That in outcomes and key performance indicators, priority be given to users’ connections to the broader community
Redevelopment • That the need for change be acknowledged • That redevelopment should occur by way of collaborative and consultative processes in which all stakeholders are effectively engaged • That redevelopment occur on an incremental basis • That in redevelopment, the focus be on the full, not the selective, continuum of care • That research and evidence form the basis of redevelopment • That redevelopment be based on concepts of planning, funding, integration and governance (as per Primary Care Partnerships proposals) • That the existing momentum for agency collaboration be sustained and supported by Government • That in the redevelopment, the focus be on building healthy and inclusive communities, and on strengthened investment in prevention and early intervention • That in the redevelopment process, the interface between the parallel redevelopment of adoption and permanent-care services be clearly addressed • That there be consistent planning, funding and catchment arrangements across State funded primary care, disability and community care services
Appendix 7–6
Funding Arrangements • That market approaches are inappropriate funding mechanisms for community services • That input funding as well as output and outcome funding be considered • That Government acknowledge that the community care sector is chronically under-funded, and that some agencies are struggling to remain viable • That Government acknowledge that in setting funding levels, it has failed to address growing client complexity and the associated requirement for more skilled staff • That for each additional Budgetary provision for statutory services, for example child protection, another provision calculated at 50% of the total amount for statutory purposes be committed to community support services • That funding be based on a fair and adequate premise and on the actual costs of service delivery • That Government acknowledge the significant funding and ‘in kind’ contributions of local government to community care services • That funding based on joint planning arrangements replace the ‘purchaser provider’ split • That funding contracts be of three to five years’ duration • That changes in the Consumer Price Index, ‘award’ salary and wage decisions, Fringe Benefits Tax, and GST compliance costs be immediately factored into funding arrangements • That Government transfer its equity (buildings) in local services to CSOs • That the equity formula for protection and care be reviewed • That intensive and non-intensive youth and family support programs operate within the same policy and funding framework • That there be greater capacity for the Regions to fund innovative pilot programs • That the impact of Occupational Health and Safety requirements be addressed • That there be an annual review of pricing levels • That services have greater capacity for flexibility and innovation
Appendix 7–7
Funding Priorities • That the chronic under-funding of residential care services be urgently addressed • That new services for supporting young people leaving care are required • That the level of caregiver payments be reviewed • That additional and improved funding for early childhood intervention services is required • That neighbourhood-house and pre-school funding be increased • That a community development worker be funded in each local government area • That Government, in partnership with the sector, fund a research agenda in which all stakeholders are included • That the level of services for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and their families be mapped, and that existing service deficits be addressed • That generalist youth and youth outreach services be established and funded • That services be adequately funded for provision and costs of interpreter services • That services for funding post-natal depression be given priority • That priority be given to funding infrastructure costs and restoring wage parity
Program and Policy Development Priorities • That in program and policy development, more emphasis be placed on strengthening communities • That services be provided as early as possible • That responsibility for community building be devolved as much as possible to local level • That the long term benefits of investment in universal services be recognised • That all programs remain outsourced to community based not for profit, organisations and local government, other than the investigative and court processing functions of child protection, secure welfare facilities and juvenile justice facilities • That child protection be progressively reoriented to focus exclusively on the ‘hard end’, and that the non-government sector assume a stronger preventative and early intervention role
Appendix 7–8
• That all post-court child protection and juvenile justice services, including case management (but excluding secure welfare and custodial juvenile justice services) be outsourced • That all policy development include consideration of the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse communities • That there be consultation with representatives of Victoria’s ethnic communities to ensure the needs of culturally and linguistically diverse communities are addressed in a comprehensive and strategic way • That there be greater capacity to work with disadvantaged and vulnerable clients on a long term basis • That the role of advocacy as a core component of CSOs’ service delivery be restored • That the critical role of education in young people’s life be reflected by having better linkages between support services and schools • That family and community resource zones be piloted • That the Communities That Care and Looking After Children models be developed more • That the Aboriginal childcare principle be reviewed • That a ministerial taskforce be appointed to provide advice about future development of the early childhood development sector • That Government and non-government early childhood intervention services be integrated in a single system • That a research and training institute for early childhood development be established • That there is a significant level of unmet need for financial- counselling services • That in policy and program development, greater recognition be given to gender specific issues • That policies be documented in plain English whereby the positive rather than the negative is emphasised • That Government adopt a comprehensive training policy
Appendix 7–9
Information and Data Management • That a consistent client-assessment framework and electronic data management system, including minimum data sets, be jointly developed by the Department and the sector • That services be committed to sharing data and information • That Government acknowledge the inadequacy of CSOs’ existing information management systems
Statewide and Specialist Services • That a clear definition of statewide and specialist services be required • That in devolved planning arrangements, input from statewide and specialist services be guaranteed • That Government ‘quarantine’ funding to specialist services
Appendix 7–10 Appendix 8
YAFSR publications
Three documents were published during the previous YAFS Redevelopment process undertaken by the former government.
1. The Redevelopment of Victoria’s Youth and Family Services: Strategic Directions (Department of Human Services, November 1997) In this publication, a proposed future framework for Victoria’s youth and family services is outlined. Key elements of the future service system were identified as being: • clear specification of and agreement about the core outcomes and objectives of the system • strengthening the preventative services in order to balance and complement statutory intervention services • having clear access points for appropriate services • grouping services to provide effective responses to a range of family and individual needs • delivering services on the basis of appropriate area configurations. The document includes an analysis of the existing service system, and it is proposed that the redeveloped service system have four key characteristics: • a balanced, targeted and linked service system • access to appropriate services • clear and robust service interventions • area and community-based service delivery A series of information sessions were scheduled for early 1998, followed by development of a progressive implementation strategy from mid-1998.
2. Youth and Family Services Redevelopment: Service Integration and Purchasing (Department of Human Services, June 1998) In this publication, proposed new purchasing arrangements for the targeted child, youth and family services are outlined. Proposals involved ‘grouping’, or ‘clustering’, existing service models and programs into new service groups, or ‘service bundling’. The document was later referred to as the ‘bundling’ paper, and the following six new service groups were proposed in it.
Appendix 8–1
• Support services for families • Intensive support services for children and families • Early intervention services for families • Support services for young people • Intensive support services for young people • Personal support services In the document, it is indicated that following consultations about the proposals, new purchasing arrangements for targeted child, youth and family services would be finalised and incorporated in tender specifications for 1999–2000.
3. The Redevelopment of Victoria’s Youth and Family Services: Purchasing Specifications (Department of Human Services, May 1999) This publication contains a detailed set of purchasing specifications and more detail about service requirements, whereby the service groups outlined in the previous document are modified. Information is provided about the new purchasing approach; details are provided about a set of revised service groups developed following feedback about the ‘bundling’ paper; and more-detailed information is provided about service-delivery and service-system features, including outcomes and performance monitoring, service standards, intake and assessment, and service-delivery arrangements. In the document, it is indicated that the new services would be contestably purchased through a Registration of Service Proposals process to commence in the 2000–01 financial year, and a range of tasks is foreshadowed to be undertaken with the sector over a subsequent two- to three-year period, such as development of a quality-improvement framework, more development of outcomes, development and implementation of an information-management framework, and development of a practice-based client-assessment approach.
Appendix 8–2 Appendix 9
References
A joint initiative developed by the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Department of Human Services (DHS), the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) and the Victorian Aboriginal Justice Advisory Committee, Victorian Aboriginal Justice Agreement, 1999. Australian Labor Party. Community Services: A New Partnership with Community, 1999. Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS), Paper 102, Common Cause: Relationships and Reforms in Community Services – a joint paper by VCOSS and the State and Territory Councils of Social Service, 1999. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Comparability of Child Protection Data, AIHW cat. no. CWS 9, Canberra: AIHW, 1999. Carter, J. Child Welfare and Family Policy: A Report to the Commission of Inquiry into Abuse of Children in Institutions in Queensland (The Forde Inquiry), (unpublished report: Deakin Human Services Australia), Deakin University, 1999. Carter, J. Better Outcomes for Service Users and Community Service Organisations, Deakin Human Services Australia, 2000. Centre for Community Child Health. A Review of the Early Childhood Literature, prepared for the Department of Family and Community Services, 1999. Children’s Welfare Association of Victoria (CWAV). The Educational Needs of Children and Young People in Care, 1999. Choo, C. Aboriginal Child Poverty, Brotherhood of St Laurence, 1990. Clark, Robin. ‘It Has to Be More Than a Job – a Search for Exceptional Practice with Troubled Adolescents’, Deakin Human Services Australia, Deakin University, 1999. Considine, M. and Lewis, J. ‘Governance at Ground Level: the Frontline Bureaucrat in an Age of Markets and Networks’, Public Administration Review, November–December 1999, vol. 59, no. 6, pp. 468–472. Deakin Human Services Australia. Learning Together: Education and Training Partnerships in Mental Health Service, final
Appendix 9–1
report prepared by Deakin Human Services Australia with funding from the Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, with the National Mental Health Strategy (Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care), 1999. Department of Education and Youth Affairs, and Family and Community Services (forthcoming report of the Youth Pathways Action Plan Taskforce). Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (UK). Involving Communities in Urban and Rural Regeneration – a Guide for Practitioners, 1997. The Economist, 11 December 1999. Edgar, Don. Promoting the Positive: Family–Community Resourcing as a Model for Family Services, Deakin Human Services Australia, Deakin University, 1999. Families and Schools Together. Evaluation report for Australian FAST schools, Report 3 (unpublished report by FAST International), 1999. Hammond, B. Mentoring Jobseekers: An Evaluation of the Business Mentoring Project, Deakin Human Services Australia, 1998. Kirby, P. Ministerial Review of Post-Compulsory Education and Training Pathways in Victoria: Interim Report, Department of Education, Employment and Training, Victoria, 2000. Mackieson, Penny. Brimbank Family Outreach Program: a Research Project, Western Metropolitan Region, Victorian Government Department of Human Services, July 1998. McKinsey and Company, and the Victorian Government Department of Human Services, Restructuring for Performance: The Department of Human Services – Report on Program and Organisation Structure: Exhibits, August 1996. Mitchell, G. Personal communication. Mrazek, Patricia J. and Haggerty, Robert J. (eds). Reducing Risks for Mental Disorders: Frontiers for Preventive Intervention Research, Institute of Medicine, National Academy Press, Washington, DC, 1994. National Crime Prevention, Attorney-General’s Department. Pathways to Prevention: Developmental and Early Intervention Approaches to Crime in Australia – Full Report, 1999.
Appendix 9–2
Perry, B. Traumatised Children: Neurodevelopmental Impact of Childhood Abuse and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, paper to seminar, Royal Children’s Hospital Gatehouse Centre, Parkville, 5 May 2000. Premier of Victoria. Victoria’s New Priorities and New Direction: A Speech by the Premier of Victoria The Hon. Steve Bracks, MP to the Centre for Public Policy, University of Melbourne, 15 May 2000. Putnam, R. Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy, Princeton University Press, 1993. Rayner, M. and Montague, M. Resilient Children and Young People, Policy and Practice Unit, Deakin Human Services Australia, 1999. Schorr, Lesbeth B. Common Purpose: Strengthening Families and Neighbourhoods to Rebuild America, Doubleday, New York, 1997. Success Works. Evaluation of the School Focussed Youth Service: Literature Review, Education Victoria, 1999. The Victorian Children and Young Persons Act, Victorian Government, 1989. Victorian Government Department of Human Services. The Redevelopment of Victoria’s Youth and Family Services: Strategic Directions, November 1997. Victorian Government Department of Human Services. Youth and Family Services Redevelopment: Service Integration and Purchasing, June 1998. Victorian Government Department of Human Services. The Redevelopment of Victoria’s Youth and Family Services: Purchasing Specifications, May 1999. Victorian State Summit (2000). Report of the Victorian State Summit: Growing Victoria Together: http://www.premier.vic.gov.au/summit/framset4.htm. Vinson, T. Unequal in Life, Jesuit Social Services, 1999.
Appendix 9–3