1

Kinship Breakdowns: Causes and Prevention

ACWA Conference 2-5 August 2010, Sydney

Lynne McCraeWendy Frayne

2

Outline of Presentation

• Background to the OzChild Kinship Service in Victoria

• The Review of OzChild Kinship cases – intact vs. breakdown

• The findings from the review of OzChild Kinship cases

• Practice Implications3

Background to OzChild Kinship Program

• Since 1998 OzChild has been providing a ‘stand alone’ small Kinship Support Program for 21 statutory placements.

• In 2006 OzChild’s Kinship program was expanded to run a 3 year pilot Kinship program for 91 statutory placements.

• In 2009 a decision was made by DHS to roll out a State-wide Kinship support program.

• Following a submission process, OzChild were the selected provider for Kinship services for two catchments in the Melbourne Metropolitan area and is now funded to provide support to a total of 138 children in statutory placements. 4

OzChild Kinship Service

• The OzChild Kinship service aims to promote positive outcomes for vulnerable children who have been placed in OHC by Child Protection services.

• The program supports the Kinship Carers to meet the needs of the child – all who have come with a background in abuse, trauma and neglect.

• Direct support is also provided to the child.5

What we know about Kinship

• More children are being placed in ‘formal’ Kinship placements than ever before – it is now the first placement option for children removed by Child Protection services.

• It is not known how often Kinship placements breakdown, or the reasons why they breakdown.

• It is often viewed that a placement breakdown is a negative outcome for a child – but our practice would indicate this is not always the case.

6

The review - Goals– To provide information about our Kinship families. – To provide information about placement

breakdowns, including the reasons behind the placement breakdowns.

– To look for any differences between cases where placements are intact vs those that breakdown.

– To look for what are the possible indicators, or red flags that a placement breakdown is likely?

– How can we prevent placement breakdowns and should this always be our aim?

7

The Review - Variables• Variables selected were aimed to discover if any particular

characteristics were more common in placement breakdowns.

• Demographic (household composition/Carer relationship to child)

• Various Carer characteristics, including their support needs and identified issues.

• The Carer capacity to understand and manage the child.• Various child characteristics, including their placement

history, contact with birth family, identified issues and support needs.

• Relationships with birth family and wider family and social networks.

• Supports provided to the Kinship family and child.8

The Review – Additional variables for placement breakdowns

• Was the breakdown in best interest of child?

• Why did the placement breakdown?

9

The Review - Methodology• To undertake an analysis of all OzChild Kinship cases

open in December 2009.– These cases were part of the initial pilot program from

April 2006 to Dec 2009.– This was a total of 67 children and 40 families.

• To undertake an analysis of all Kinship placement breakdowns during the pilot program. – April 2006 to Dec 2009.– This was a total of 18 children and 12 families.

• The total number of placements during the pilot program, 240 children were supported in placement, so placement breakdowns constitute 7.5 % of placements.

10

The Review - Methodology

• A file audit tool to record workers own knowledge and judgements was developed.

• Independent interviewer asked the questions to assist in creating greater consistency.

• The results were reviewed by the Team Leader/Managers to add greater scrutiny and reduce worker bias.

11

The Review – Reasons for placement breakdown

• The reasons for placement breakdown were varied, but comprised of the following

• Carer related: Quality of care issues commonly noted. Carer rigidity, unable to meet child’s needs, lack of understanding of child’s past trauma, Carer’s past trauma and Carer mental health issues.

• Childs related: Difficult to manage/aggressive behaviours, grief/loss issues of child and adolescence.

• Carer/child relationship: High levels of conflict between Carer and child. Negative attitudes/focus of Carer to child, poor attachment and relationships commonly noted.

• Family related: Lack of integration into Kinship family. High family conflict with birth family. Own family issues.

12

The Review - Findings

• To look at differences - compared % averages of the two groups (intact & breakdown groups).

• Differences of around 20% between the two groups were considered large enough to comment on.

• Nearly every variable we looked at produced differences of 20% between the two groups; many variables showed differences up to 50%.

• Only examples of some of the data will be provided.

The Review - Findings

• From the basis of this analysis there appears to be some clear indicators about factors that may increase placement stability/breakdown, but more research is required to confirm these early indicators.

• Risk and protective factors.

14

The Review - Findings

• Factors that showed no/limited difference between intact and breakdowns:– Gender of child– Other siblings in placement– Assessments

15

The Review - Findings• Characteristics of the breakdowns

– In nearly all of the cases at the point of breakdown the Carer’s were unable to understand and meet the child’s needs.

– In a number of cases quality of care issues were noted in the case.

– 90% of placement breakdowns were seen to be the ‘best outcome’ for the child.

– Placements were ended by Carers in 41%, the child in 25%, by Child Protection in 17%; and other in 17%

16

Graph - Factors noted at breakdown

Carer's understanding of child's needs

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1-poor 2 3 4 5-very good

Quality of the understanding

Perc

en

tag

e o

f ch

ild

ren

intact placement breakdown placement17

The Review - Findings

Care arrangements– Grandparents are more likely to provide greater

placement stability, other family members are a greater risk factor for breakdown, placement with kith couples is highly likely to breakdown.

– A Kinship placement is potentially more unstable where Carers have younger children.

– A care arrangement with older adult children is a strong protective factor.

– Breakdowns were more common in Kith couples, were less likely in Kinship couples and single Kinship carers.

18

Graph - Indicators of Differences between the two groups – Care arrangements

Type of kinhip care placement

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Grandparent Kith Other Family Member

Type of placement

Perc

en

t o

f ch

ild

ren

intact placement breakdown placement19

Graph: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – care arrangements

Carers own children

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 - 5 12+ 6 to 12 Adult None

Percentage of families

Ag

e o

f ch

ild

ren

intact placement breakdown placement20

The Review - Findings

Child Characteristics– Placements where the children are under 5 yrs of

age are unlikely to breakdown.– Adolescents is a difficult time for all families and

placement breakdowns are much higher for adolescences in Kinship placements.

– Child issues – Behavioral, education, mental health and a range of other issues are higher for the breakdown group.

– The child’s prior history will impact on placement stability, with previous placement increasing the risk of breakdown.

21

Graph: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – child characteristicsPercentage of children in intact and placement breakdown

families

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0 - 5 6 to 12 13+

Age of children

Perc

enta

ge o

f fa

mili

es

general family breakdown family22

The Review - FindingsAccess and relationship with birth family

– The impact of access is complex and variable; Both poor and good access see more placement breakdowns, as does the Carer supervising access.

– The relationship with the birth family impacts on placement stability only if it is very poor, indicating that highly conflictual relationships with birth families add stress on the placement/or mean the Carer is unable to focus on the child.

23

Graph: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – Carer support networks

Carer relationship with birth family

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 - poor 2 3 4 - good

Quality of the relationship

Perc

en

tag

e o

f fa

mil

ies

intact placement breakdown placement 24

The Review - Findings

Carer issues– At the time of breakdown all Carers were having a

range of parenting issues with the Kinship child. – Carer mental health issues and Carer past trauma

rates are higher in the placement breakdown group.

– Carer financial, stress levels and health issues are similar for the two groups.

25

Results: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – Carer issues

Issues experienced by carers

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Financial Stress Health Mental Health ParentingIssues

Past Trauma

Issues

Perc

en

t o

f fa

mil

ies

% intake % breakdown26

The Review - FindingsCarer support networks

– Support from both within the family and outside the family is extremely important and operates as a protective factor if present and a risk factor if not present.

– There was limited differences in the supports provided to the two groups by OzChild.

27

Graph: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – support provided to carers

28

Support provided to carers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Counselling/emotional support

Education/training Financial Child care Group respite

perc

en

tag

e o

f fa

mil

ies

intact placement breakdown placement

Practice Implications - SummaryPlacement Breakdowns – Causes and Prevention Reasons were varied however there are commonalities– When the Carer can not understand the needs of the child, or

manage the child’s behaviour – the placement is in breakdown phase. Carer rigidity becomes a consistent theme.

– In our sample of placement breakdowns – the cases had progressed to a point where a placement breakdown was in the best interest of the child.

– Issues related to the care arrangements; Child characteristics, access and relationships with the birth family, Carer issues and the Carers support networks, all have an impact on placement stability/breakdown.

– More research is required to confirm these early indications.29

Practice Implications – Case example

• 4 year old child placed with maternal cousin’s family (other family members)– Concerns about quality of relationship/attachment– Risk variables at play: Carer is other family member;

own younger children; highly negative attitude to birth father; extremely rigid in views about birth family and how to meet needs of child; carers have very poor relationships with extended family; child has had 2 prior placements; child has been in placement less than two years.

– Protective variables at play: child has no behavioural issues; child is under 5 years of age.

30

Contacts

• Lynne McCrae, OzChild– lmccrae@ozchild.org.au– (03) 9212 5600

• Wendy Frayne, OzChild– wfrayne@ozchild.org.au– (03) 9212 5600

31