Early versus Earlier Intervention… reality or semantics

1. Early versus Earlier Intervention… reality or semantics

2. Early Intervention/Earlier Intervention Early Intervention ...refers to intervention at a stage before vulnerability has been identified and therefore applies to more universal services. Earlier Intervention ...applied to intervention that occurs when a child's, young person's or family's vulnerability has been identified. Family services will provide, critical, timely and responsive services before risks and concerns escalate and lead to Child Protection intervention.

3. The changing role of Family Services CP CP The changing role of Family Services Universal Services Universal Services Pre 2007 After 2007

4. Key data supporting the change It was clear (in 2001-02) that we faced a number of challenges in Victoria: • Growing demand – in particular through child protection re-notifications, running at 62% and rising • Notifications from professionals were increasing, especially schools and police (doubling every 4 years) • Compelling evidence of increasing client complexity (Drug and Alcohol/Family Violence in particular) • Projections based on unchanged policy settings indicated continued growth in front –end demand… • Even “IF” notifications stabilised, still looking at 19% of Victorian children notified to child protection during their childhood

5. What the data was telling us and the implications • In 2002 it was clear that we needed to change the way we worked: • children and families presented to child protection with increasingly complex needs and characteristics • better outcomes could be realised through strengthened prevention and early intervention • current demand management was not catering for the needs of many children • more effective intervention services were needed.

6. What the data was telling us and the implications (2) Parental characteristics of families had become increasingly complex as mentioned: • Almost 40% presented with alcohol abuse • Over 50% presented with domestic violence • Approximately 50% presented with another form of substance abuse • Almost 30% presented with another form of substance abuse • Around a third had experienced abuse or neglect as a child themselves

7. Key Features of Family Services reform • Child Protection and Family Services under same Legislation (CYFA 2005) • Best Interests Principles - Safety, Stability and Development • Strengthening service responses for Aboriginal children • New provisions for information sharing • Central Intake – Child FIRST • ‘Earlier’ intervention • Service Quality, Standards and Registration

8. Government Strategies • Children Youth and Families Act 2005 • Child Wellbeing and Safety Act 2005 • The Strategic Framework 2007 • State and Local Shell Agreement • Integrated Family Service Alliances • Central Intake Point • Community Based Child Protection Workers • VACCA / ECD / FaPMI / FV

9. Local Strategies • Alliances • MOU / Catchment plans / Operational Guidelines • Research and local knowledge regarding local community needs • Community Based all Team Leaders and no case allocation • Information sharing • Joint Community Education

10. The ‘new’ Family Service worker • Focus on vulnerable child and YP (including unborns) • Higher threshold of risk and complexity • Case management role • Collaborates with multi professional care teams • Funded through targets and hours • Implications for recruitment and training

11. Community Based Child Protection Position introduced with commencement of CYFA 2005 CP Team Leaders are based in CF office and service all IFS Alliances Facilitate referrals and reports and provides consultations around risk management CBCP role is a key element in supporting the ability of FSW to work with more complex children and families CBCP plays negotiator role between sectors, key in dispute resolution Participation in local professional and community education initiatives

12. What Does This Mean? • Family Services and Child Protection required to work more effectively together • Partnership and common frameworks • Profile of cases in CF moved from low risk and early identification of need to complex cases where harm is identified • Percentage of complex cases has increased • Requires longer involvement and coordination of services in care team approach • Role of FSW more case management based requiring different skills • The gap between FS and CP has significantly narrowed but not closed

13. Challenges • Voluntary services – fine line between voluntary and statutory role when working with complex families • Families at “early’ end of the spectrum receiving less secondary intervention.– less preventative work being done • Complex families often require long term interventions and support – funding issue • FS assessments identifying cumulative harm and chronic neglect • Managing the tension between the sectors relationships • Information gathering/sharing – different rules for different phases of intervention

14. Strengths • Significantly fewer families falling through the gaps between CP and FS • Information sharing reduces duplication of work and problems are identified earlier (ie patterns of non engagement) • More understanding across sectors re FS and CP roles (reduces frustration) • Targeted higher need families receiving a service • Families not having to repeat stories • Quicker service response

15. Family Services and Child Protection working together • The child is the focus of all our interactions • Promote understanding of each other role • Develop clarity around joint goals • Create opportunities for sectors to come together • Build trust and respect at each level of interaction • Dispute resolution needs to be carefully managed at earliest point • Ability to negotiate and prevent rigidity of role

16. Practical Strategies in SMR • Two way inductions • Joint training • CP attendance at all levels of Alliance meetings – T/L / Programme / Exec • FS attend CP staff meetings • Joint reflective practice sessions • Morning tea / forums, etc • Professional development / presentations • Cross Sector interview panels

17. Local information sharing arrangements • CP Intake Doc is used as a referral form for the Intake team in the SMR • FSW forward their Closure Summaries to CBCP to upload on the child's file (with DHS referred families) • CBCP - significant part of role spent reviewing information from both FS and CP files. T/L share S38 record with FSW’s. • FAX backs • CP pattern and history shared with family support workers in CF

18. Relationships • Increasing complexity with the families we work with calls for carefully constructed team approach from all disciplines • CP, CF and IFV are required to collaborate with all professionals who work with children • Built on respect, trust, understanding and good communication • These take time, effort and goodwill • Flexibility is crucial • Extending collaborative working practice with Family Violence/DEECD/Mental Health/health under new reforms

19. The Future • More sophisticated State and Local Shell Agreements • OV recommendations to be implemented • Building skills in the sector • Continuation of building relationships - collaboration with multi professional groups • Development of joint work practices between CP and FS • The role of Universal services

20. Reality and Semantics!