Workshop 8: Child protection information,

statistics and data management

Dr Daryl Higgins – Deputy Director (Research) Australian Institute of Family Studies

Conference on Child Protection: Enhancing capacity and strategic service delivery within a national and regional context

Kuala Lumpur, 20-22 November 2012

2

Disclaimer

The Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) is committed to the creation and dissemination of research-based information on family functioning and wellbeing.

Views expressed here are those of the presenter and may not reflect those of the Australian Institute of Family Studies or the Australian Government.

3

Overview

l  Relevance and types of data l  Child protection policy and practice context

u  Australian context and data l  Australian examples of using data to answer child

protection questions u  Magellan u  NTER u  Pathways of Care

l  Concluding thoughts and group discussion

4

Why collect…?

l  Information, Statistics and Data…? l  Answers a range of research, policy and practice

questions relating to protecting children, such as: u  How much is it a problem? u  It is more concentrated in some areas or groups? u  What are the risk factors? u  How are our services going at preventing harm, or

intervening to respond when harm is identified?

5

Different types/sources of data

l  Research surveys & interviews (population level, or with identified high risk, or abused populations)

l  Administrative data (regular data reports, extracts, or case-file audits) – often seen as “quality assurance” rather than research

l  Program evaluation (pre-post comparison data on effectiveness)

l  Cross-sectional vs. longitudinal data l  Qualitative vs. quantitative data

6

Different data sources needed to answer different questions l  Describing the problem; understanding the scope;

analysing the diversity (cross-sectional qualitative and quantitative surveys; administrative data):

l  What is the prevalence of child abuse and neglect (quantitative surveys)

l  What is the workload of child protection authorities? (administrative data)

l  What are the characteristics of children at risk and their families? (survey or service use data)

l  Are children’s outcomes improving? (longitudinal)

7

Pause and reflect

STOP! Stop and think about the most important

issue that your agency faces.

Please write down your question / issue.

8

Pause and reflect

Think… What data, information, or statistics could help answer your most important question?

9

Child Protection Policy in Australia Investigating and responding to allegations of harm to children: l  responsibility of each of the 8 states/territories l  massive increases in the workload of departments over

the past two decades l  largely focused on risk-assessments l  proceduralised & forensically driven l  emerging trends towards differential

approaches to family support National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020

10

Australian child protection data trends over past two decades

11

Australian child protection data trends over past two decades

12

Some Australian Examples

l  Evaluation of Family Court of Australia’s Magellan case-management of sexual abuse/physical abuse matters

l  Northern Territory Emergency Response – effectiveness of measures to support families and protect children

l  Pathways of Care study of all new entrants into out-of-home care in the state of New South Wales

13

Example 1

Magellan – the Family Court of Australia’s case-

management model for responding to child disputes between separating parents that

involve allegations of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse

14

Constitutional context

l  States have responsibility for child protection (public law issues i.e. state intervention in family life)

l  Commonwealth government has responsibility for family law issues (private disputes involving children in separated families)

15

Child protection/family law intersection

Concerns: 1. Federal family law system used as a default

child protection mechanism 2. State child protection departments used as

default mechanisms for assessing harm in the family law context

Aim of Magellan: to better protect children from harm in family law children cases

16

Overlapping legal frameworks and statutory responsibilities

l  Understanding the intersection between child protection and family law

l  Key agencies/systems: u  Child protection departments u  Juvenile courts u  Police & Director of Public Prosecutions u  Criminal courts & other courts of summary jurisdiction u  Family courts u  Legal aid commissions

see Higgins (2007) Table 3.1 (on p. 35)

17

Agency/ system

Jurisdiction Responsible

Focus Basis of decision-making / Burden of proof

Police State/territories Law enforcement Responsible for investigating alleged crimes and making the case to the DPP to lay charges if there is sufficient evidence to mean a conviction is likely

Criminal courts

State/territories Criminal justice Criminal Standard of proof (beyond reasonable doubt)

Child Protection Depart-ments

State/territories Protection of children Risk assessment to determine whether there is a significant risk of harm (based on a mix of professional judgment and actuarial decision-making frameworks)

Juvenile Courts

State/territories Protection of children Care and protection matters are determined on the civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities)

Family law system (FCoA and FMC)

Commonwealth Determination of private law disputes between two parties according to the best-interests of the child

Civil standard of proof (balance of probabilities)

18

The legal and investigatory gap in family law / child protection issues

19

Bridging the gap: Magellan

l  Co-ordinated approaches to bringing together information from each of these agencies to ensure private family law disputes have; u  Appropriate evidence u  Timely handling u  Processes to reduce trauma for children u  Ensure safety

20

What is Magellan?

l  The Family Court’s Magellan case-management model is a world-first initiative for improving outcomes for vulnerable children and families in the family law system.

l  It is an inter-agency, collaborative, judge-led approach to case-management approach for responding to allegations of sexual or serious physical abuse.

l  A consortium of agencies in Victoria developed and implemented the new approach in a pilot project of 100 cases, which commenced in 1998.

l  The pilot was evaluated in 2001 before the case-management approach was progressively rolled out.

21

What is Magellan? /…2

l  The Magellan case-management pathway consists of a team of Judges, Registrars and Mediators (‘Family Consultants’) who handle the case from start to finish.

l  Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICLs) represent the interests of children.

l  Significant resources (i.e., uncapped legal aid; focused report from CP Department; family report; other expert reports) are directed to the case in the early stages with an aim of resolving the case within six months.

22

Magellan Evaluation: The data question

The aim of the evaluation was to examine: l the effectiveness of Magellan in responding to

allegations of sexual abuse or serious physical abuse in parenting matters in the FCoA;

l how Magellan is being implemented; and l perceptions of key stakeholders regarding its

effectiveness, successful features, and any barriers to its successful implementation / improvements.

23

Total case duration

From date of application to date of case outcome: Magellan-like cases:

471 days (15.4 months) Magellan cases:

332 days (10.9 months) Difference = 133 days quicker (4.6 months)

**Magellan cases (excl. Brisbane): 304 days (10.0 months) Difference = 167 days quicker (5.5 months)

24

Distribution of case duration

25

Key elements of the Magellan model

Qualitative data from interviews revealed key elements: u  cooperation between all the agencies involved with

families; u  timeliness and prioritisation by courts; u  good relationship with the statutory child protection

department and timely receipt of report of their assessment and current concerns;

u  good individual case-management by a dedicated team of a Judge, Registrar and Client Services Officer;

u  provision of un-capped Legal Aid funding for parties; u  independent representation of children; and u  a focus on children’s best interests.

26

Magellan report

Evaluation released by Family Court 16 October 2007. Available at: www.aifs.gov.au/ institute/pubs/ magellan/index.html

27

Example 2

Northern Territory Emergency Response (NTER)

– the desk-top review of existing survey reports and data by the Australian Institute of Family

Studies

28

Overview of NTER

l  Announced 21 July 2007; with the aim of: u  protecting children u  making communities safe u  building a better future for people living in the 73 prescribed

Indigenous communities & town camps l  Covers population of 42,229 of which approx. 16,000 were

children (as at 2006) l  Part II of Racial Discrimination Act (1975) suspended

(reinstated June 2010)

29

Data context

l  No reliable child maltreatment prevalence data anywhere in Australia

l  More Indigenous children live in NSW (71,194) than the NT (27,458) (March 2011)

l  The number of Indigenous children with substantiated child protection concerns in 2010-11: u  NSW: 3,303 u  NT: 1,186

30

Supporting Families

l  Additional Child-at-risk workers u  70% increase in FTE workers u  issues of use of statutory data

l  Mobile Child Protection Teams u  provide support and services to remote areas u  have helped to clear backlog

31

Substantiation rates for Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in the Northern Territory and Australia

Source: Steering Committee for the Review of Government Service Provision

32

Supporting Families

l  Community, family, child safety u  ongoing issues but community survey suggests

people feel safer l  Family Violence

u  Aboriginal women over-represented in statistics u  34% report family violence as a concern (25%

rest of Australia)

Scott & Higgins (2011)

33

NTER review - conclusion

“Outcomes for health, education, employment, housing and safety showed some improvement but were still well below those for non-Indigenous people.”

(Roediger, 2011, p. 8)

34

Example 3

Pathways of Care – the New South Wales Department of Families and Communities (Community

Services) cohort study of all new entrants into out-of-home care

35

Pathways of Care: Longitudinal Study of Children and Young People in Out-of-Home Care in NSW

l  All children aged 0-17 years entering out-of-home care in New South Wales for the first time by way of final Children's Court orders over an 18-month recruitment period are eligible for inclusion in the study

l  Commenced data collection in May 2011 l  Four annual waves of data will be collected

36

Aim

l  The aim of the Pathways of Care study is to provide the knowledge needed to strengthen the service system in NSW in order to improve the outcomes for children and young people in out-of-home care (OOHC) such as: children’s and young people’s permanency, safety, and wellbeing (physical health, socio-emotional and cognitive/learning development).

37

Data questions l  characteristics, child protection history, development and

wellbeing of children and young people at the time they enter OOHC on Children’s Court orders for the first time

l  services, interventions and pathways for children and young people in OOHC, post restoration, and on leaving care at 18 years

l  children and young people’s experiences and outcomes from growing up in OOHC, post restoration, and on leaving care at 18 years.

l  factors that influence the outcomes for children and young people who grow up in OOHC, are returned home, and on leaving care at 18 years.

38

Data sources

l  Data collected from: u  Carers u  Caseworkers u  Children/young people u  Birthparents u  And Possibly teachers

l  supplemented by administrative data from the departmental/agency case files.

39

References and further reading Higgins, D. J. (2007). Cooperation and coordination: An evaluation of the

Family Court of Australia’s Magellan case-management model. Canberra: Family Court of Australia. Available at: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/magellan/index.html

Higgins, D. J. (2011). Protecting children: Evolving systems. Family Matters 89, 5-10. Available at: http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2011/fm89/index.html

Higgins, D. J., & Kaspiew, R. (2008). ‘Mind the gap…’: Protecting children in family law cases. Australian Journal of Family Law, 22(3), 235-258.

Scott, D., & Higgins, D., (2011). Supporting families (Chapter 7). In Northern Territory Emergency Response Evaluation Report 2011 (pp. 245-291). Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. Retrieved: <www.facs.gov.au/sa/indigenous/pubs/nter_reports/Pages/nter_evaluation_rpt_2011.aspx>

40

Workshop Discussion l  How could data better be used to answer the key issue

identified at the beginning of the workshop?

DATA NEEDS: Discuss l  What kind of data are needed?

u  Administrative? u  Survey? (qual or quant?) u  Pre-post-intervention and comparison group outcome data?

l  What is the value of longitudinal data versus cross- sectional data?

l  Do I need qualitative data or quantitative data? l  How will I use the data when I collect it?

41

Workshop Wrap up

u  Identify key messages re: value of data for improving child protection policy & practice

Identify & act

u  What actions do I need to take?

u  What messages will I take back to my agency?

u  How will I think differently about data?