1 / 11

WORKING WITH ‘THE SYSTEM’

WORKING WITH ‘THE SYSTEM’. A SOLUTION FOCUSSED APPROACH TO WORKING WITH A CHILD PROTECTION AUTHORITY David Zarb Karen Hulmes Mofflyn, Perth, WA. THINGS TO THINK ABOUT . Do Strengths Based and/or Solution Focussed principles apply to programmes as well as clients?

verda
Download Presentation

WORKING WITH ‘THE SYSTEM’

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. WORKING WITH ‘THE SYSTEM’ A SOLUTION FOCUSSED APPROACH TO WORKING WITH A CHILD PROTECTION AUTHORITY David Zarb Karen Hulmes Mofflyn, Perth, WA

  2. THINGS TO THINK ABOUT • Do Strengths Based and/or Solution Focussed principles apply to programmes as well as clients? • Do agencies have a responsibility to change/improve CP systems? • Do we look at ourselves as critically as we look at ‘the System’? • Are we ‘victims’ at the mercy of ‘the System’ or ‘experts’ with the capacity to challenge and develop it?

  3. MOFFLYN IFS • Reunification • Tertiary Family Preservation • Metro – wide (9 DCD offices) • 4 work pairs, SSW / FCW • Average 13 weeks per family • 5 cases per pair

  4. PREVIOUS INTAKE MODEL • Waiting lists (sometimes over 3 months) • Paper based referrals • Office based • Minimal case discussion at intake stage • DCD expectations 80% reunification, 20% family preservation.

  5. RESULTS • Balance of reunification / family preservation referrals never achieved • By 2001 only 30% reunification • Referrals for family preservation increasingly involving lower CP risk levels • Cases had to be renegotiated upon allocation • Agency blamed DCD for inappropriate referrals Text Text Text Text Text

  6. PROGRAMME OUTCOMES • 30% funding reduction • Lack of reunification cases cited as justification • Field staff expressing frustration with waiting lists • DCD introduce central referral point • Perception that agency difficult to engage particularly around complex high risk cases

  7. EVALUATION • Waiting lists not appropriate for high risk cases • Agency needed to be more active in ensuring appropriate referrals • Paper based referral system creates unnecessary frustration for DCD staff • Insufficient resources devoted to building relationships • Agency having minimal impact on case practice despite a metro wide brief • Agency taking minimal responsibility

  8. MODIFIED INTAKE SYSTEM • Increased resources devoted to intake/case consultation. • Waiting lists eliminated • Paper referrals limited to accepted cases • Active participation in case planning discussions • Active decision to promote consultation role to improve referrals and to promote better practice by sharing ‘expertise’.

  9. REFERRAL TRENDS

  10. WHAT HAPPENED? • The referral mix was corrected • Increased participation in case planning processes • Referral process less cumbersome for field workers • Mofflyn work focussed on the family as goals for work better clarified at intake • Increased goodwill between DCD and Mofflyn • Mofflyn expertise increasingly recognised and utilised, notably for complex and political matters.

  11. THINGS TO THINK ABOUT • Do Strengths Based and/or Solution Focussed principles apply to programmes as well as clients? • Do agencies have a responsibility to change/improve CP systems? • Do we look at ourselves as critically as we look at ‘the System’? • Are we ‘victims’ at the mercy of ‘the System’ or ‘experts’ with the capacity to challenge & develop better CP practice?

More Related