Early intervention and placement prevention: Services in transition

8/13/2019 Early intervention and placement prevention: Services in transition

1/39

0 | P a g e

h t t p : / / w w w . n s w f a m i l y s e r v i c e s . a s n . a u

h t t p : / / w w w . y a p a . o r g . a u

A report on a survey of NGO

service providers August 2012

Early

Intervention and

Placement Prevention

Services in Transition


2/39

1 | P a g e

Y A P A / F a m S E I P P S u r v e y R e p o r t A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Contents

Executive Summary page 3

Introduction page 8

Analysisan overview page 10

Survey 1- Services Funded to Provide Childand Family and Youth and Family Services Section 2: page 1

Survey 2Services Funded to ProvideIntensive Family Support and Intensive

Family Preservation

Section 3: page 1

A report on a survey of NGO service providers August 2 12


3/39

2 | P a g e


Executive Summary

In May-June 2012 the Youth Action and Policy Association (YAPA) and NSW FamilyServices Inc. (FamS) surveyed services funded since 2011 under the NSW Department of

Community Services new Early Intervention and Placement Prevention (EIPP) program.

Along with the Community Builders service stream, EIPP replaced the funding and service

model previously known as the Community Services Grants Program (CSGP).

The intention of the surveys was to gather data on the implementation of EIPP in two distinct

groups of services. Those transitioning to Child and Family Support and Youth and Family

Support service models (CYFS services) and those services funded to implement the new

Intensive Family Support (IFS) and Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) service models.

Accordingly our findings and recommendations are presented separately in relation

to CYFS (Survey 1) and IFS / IFP (Survey 2).

Survey questions were designed to capture a sense of what is emerging as best practice in

the implementation and delivery of these EIPP services. They were also intended to record a

sense of the future for clients and potential clients after the transition and implementation

period has ended. Specifically for the CYFS services, the survey questions were intended to

gather information regarding local service delivery issues and problems that remain

unresolved, or that are no longer responded to due to changes introduced as part of the

EIPP implementation process.

Key Findings for CYFS:

Implementation Satisfaction

Satisfaction is uneven across and within network areas however all networkareas attribute their satisfaction to good collaboration with local FaCS office

Of 110 responses, a clear majority (54.5%) marked good collaboration withlocal FaCS office as one of the factors, practices and processes that theybelieve contributed to their satisfaction with the transition arrangements. Thiswas closely followed by flexibility of service specification and other criteria forservice delivery (52.7%), consultation with YAPA and/or FamS (48.2%),and Timely transition plan (44.5%).

Where strong satisfaction with the conduct of negotiations between servicesand FaCS regarding the transition arrangements had occurred, 50 servicesprovided further detail comments. 19 remarked on the importance of therelationship between the service and the CPO in negotiating the transition

successfully.


4/39

3 | P a g e


Impact on service and clients

Of 127 responses the majority (48.8%) noted the extent of changes they have

made to their service as moderate, with 30.7% registering a substantialextent.

34.4% recorded significant changes totheir target client group

There is an association between the extent of changes undergone by theservice and the extent of change to the target client group undergone by theservice. Significant and major changes to the target client group are highlyassociated with moderate and major changes.

Impact on the local service system

70% said that changes to their service give them concerns about [their]overall effectiveness in the context of the needs of local children, youngpeople and families.Out of 89 comments, 53 expressed concern thatchanges to their service had resulted in a service gap in their local area.

A service gap was noted 22 times in 57 comments around intensive work withclients with high and complex needs, including families with children who

meet Risk of Significant Harm (ROSH) and young people. Some servicesreported being prevented from undertaking effective work with clients forwhom outcomes have been achieved in the past

15 expressed concern about the specified length of service to clients, withmany noting the 12-week period as being restrictive.

11 expressed concern that the community development function of theirservice, typified by activities such as drop-in, had been diminished.Comments linked this specifically to a reduced capacity to engage clients for

effective work over the service period.

There is a strong message around the limited referral options for clientswith complex needs.

Whilst more than twice the number of responses (44) marked negative thanpositive (21), the majority (48.4%, n=126) marked neutral in response tothe question, how would you describe any impacts on the local servicesystem arising from changes to your service?


5/39

4 | P a g e


Positive changes to the local service system noted in the commentsincluded: increased collaboration with schools and an increase in focusedwork combining case management with approaches previously utilised suchas drop-in. An indicative comment in that regard is: family support ... to

complement youth services [is] providing good outcomes for families withyoung people.

Recommendations

To respond to clearly identified service gaps and poor alignmentbetween local needs and resource allocation:

1. Services with the demonstrated ability and capacity to work with a broader

target group should be encouraged to negotiate with FaCS to provideservices and programs to fill critical service gaps. The amount of existingEIPP funding allocated to this work and duration of the arrangementsshould be incorporated into the service specification and subject to normalservice specification review processes.

Note: In effect this has occurred in a number of locations as part of thetransition arrangement as intended. However, there is a risk that in somelocations that the gaps unintentionally created could become permanentfeatures of the local service system. Moreover, without such measures,some areas will have service continuums that undermine the effectiveness

of the services in place.

To respond to the need to ensure that community engagement anddevelopment activities can be incorporated into service specifications:

2. The CYFS Program Guidelines should be amended to ensure that aservice can devote a proportion of its CYFS funding to activities that whilstnot necessarily targeted at individual clients, are essential to its capacity towork effectively with particular communities and target groups.The amountof existing EIPP funding allocated to this work and duration of thearrangements should be incorporated into the service specification andsubject to normal service specification review processes.

Note: This has occurred in some locations as part of the intendedflexible application of the program guidelines in response to localcircumstances.

3. Resourcing of local FaCS offices to support: understanding of the model,discernment in referrals and other allocation activities, and thedevelopment of positive relationship with service providers.


6/39

5 | P a g e


4. Development of strategies to turn the general unevenness or ambivalencein responses across the CYFS surveys into a more evenly positiveexperience and increased confidence in the potential outcomes forchildren and young people.

Key Findings for IFS/IFP

Implementation satisfaction

There is strong satisfaction with the conduct of negotiations between theorganisation and FaCS to establish these new services. Over half ofrespondents were either fairly satisfied or fully satisfied.

Where there is low to no satisfaction, the design or conduct of the processwithin FaCS and the resourcing of local FaCS offices is reported as thereason.

Where services are somewhat unsatisfied with the conduct of thenegotiations, any satisfaction they do have is attributed to the quality of thecollaboration with the local FaCS office.

Those who did not experience impediments to establishing the service werenot necessarily satisfied with the negotiations. This highlights the difference

between the experience of negotiations with FaCS to establish the newservice and the implementation of the new service.

The most reported impediment to establishing the IFS/IFP service was therecruitment of qualified staff, the second most reported impediment concernsthe resourcing of the local FaCS offices.

The separate experience of negotiations as distinct from implementation andcommencement is also made clear in responses to the question Were thereany impediments to commencing service delivery?. Of 19 responses, 17 saidyes. A lack of resources (in the form of communication and discernment

skills of staff, as well as familiarity of staff with the new model and particularlythe referral pathway) in the CSC office is a very clear impediment tocommencing service delivery.

Impact on service and clients

Having the time, space and budget to do intensive work with high-needsfamilies and quality collaboration with CSCs/FaCS are considered the keyaspects that are working effectively in this new service


7/39

6 | P a g e


An example of an effective working relationship that demonstrates the roleit plays in making appropriate referrals and the resourcing of FaCS staff:

We can only take 8 families a year and FaCS present approx 3 families

each referral and between us we select the most appropriate family for theprogram.

A family that was referred back to CSC due toescalating/unacceptable level of risk to child/children was themost common form of exit from the program.

In response to what aspects of the new service are workingeffectively? The relationship with FaCS, the engagement offamilies, the intensive element, and referrals were all felt to be

working particularly well. Other aspects felt to be workingeffectively included brokerage, the design of the program, theestablishment of procedures, and the satisfaction of employees.

The majority of respondents report the high value of IFS anddemonstrated many positive outcomes of the IFS program thatappear to have occurred quite rapidly. Indeed, one IFS providersaid it is one of the best programs I have been involved in forover 20 years. An increase in parenting skills and livingskillsis reported several times as is improvement inchildrens school attendanceas well as supply and uptake ofspecialist services such as mental health support and drugand alcohol support. Increasedretention of children in thefamily homeis also reported.

Recommendations

1. The major change required by services is flexibility of periods of service andthe use of allocated funds. For many, the 12-week intensive service period isconsidered to be too rigid and/or too short by many services.

2. There is strong support amongst services for extending the IFS program inview of its perceived success to date.

3. Enhanced protocols for collaboration between FaCS and the local service arerecommended consistently.

3 Strong agreement that rolling IFS and IFP together would have no adverseeffects. In some cases, rolling IFS and IFP together is desirable due to theirsimilarity and the confusion that can be created as to the actual differencesbetween the two.


8/39

7 | P a g e


Introduction

Background to the Surveys

In May-June 2012 the Youth Action and Policy Association (YAPA) and FamilyServices NSW Inc. (FamS) surveyed services funded since 2011 under the NSWDepartment of Community Services new Early Intervention and PlacementPrevention (EIPP) stream. Along with the Community Builders stream, EIPPreplaced the funding and service model previously known as the CommunityServices Grants Program (CSGP). These surveys are reported below as Survey Iand Survey II.

Services funded to provide Child and Family Support (CFS) and Youth and Family

Support (YFS) responded to Survey I, and services funded to provide IntensiveFamily Support (IFS) and Intensive Family Preservation (IFP) responded to SurveyII.

The intention of the surveys was to gather data on the implementation of EIPP incommunity services undergoing the transition from CSGP. This data will complementdata being gathered by the NSW Department of Family and Community Services(FaCS) Evaluation Unit. The data from the surveys will also be used by YAPA andFamS to monitor sector support needs.

Survey questions were designed to capture a sense of what is emerging as bestpractice in the implementation and delivery of EIPP services. They were alsointended to record a sense of the future for clients and potential clients of communityservices after the transition period has ended. Further, the survey questions wereintended to gather information regarding local issues and problems that remainunresolved, or that are no longer able to be responded to by the service sinceimplementation. Copies of this report and the survey with original questions areavailable on the FamS and YAPA websites. (www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/www.yapa.org.au).

References to FaCS throughout the report are generally either referring to

Contracting and Funding staff in relation to service specification and contractingarrangements or staff of a Community Service Centre (CSC) in relation to referrals toservices.
http://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/http://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/http://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/http://www.yapa.org.au/http://www.yapa.org.au/http://www.yapa.org.au/http://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/


9/39

8 | P a g e


Thank you

We wish to thank all the services that participated in this survey, particularly for the

extent of detailed comments provided that assisted substantially in developing a

meaningful narrative to accompany the data.

We are particularly wish to acknowledge Dr. Ann Deslandes, who worked in

developing the survey with us and subsequently provided the analysis in the body of

the report.

This survey was completed as part of a FaCS funded project that enabled FamS and

YAPA to work closely with services involved in the implementation of the service

models and various FaCS staff involved in oversighting the implementation process.

Sophie Trower (YAPA) and Mike Sheargold (FamS) who delivered the project andorganised this survey continue to be involved in supporting EIPP implementation as

part of their general work with member organisations.

Many of the issues raised through the survey were identified early on in the

implementation process and in most instances the partnership with FaCS has

facilitated, from our perspective, desirable responses. The funded project concluded

on 30 June 2012.

We will of course continue to work with all our partners to achieve the best possible

outcomes for everyone involved in the delivery of these service models, focussingmost importantly on the benefits for children, young people, families and

communities.

Sue Richards

CEO

NSW Family Services Incorporated

Eamon Waterford

DirectorPolicy & Advocacy

YAPA - Youth Action & Policy Association NSW Inc


10/39

9 | P a g e


Analysis

Best practiceTaken together, Survey I (CFS/YFS) and Survey II (IFS/IFP) demonstrate that goodpractice in EIPP is taking place where service providers are able to conductfocussed, complementary and/or particularly targeted work, and where they reportthe benefits of intensive work. In particular, the relationship between the services andtheir local FaCS officers is a determining factor in the success of implementation andof subsequent effective work with families.

FaCS and the peaks

There is a clear experience of difference between local FaCS officers/offices andthose at Director or Executive level, pointing to the need for more effectiveresourcing of EIPP at the local office level. The role of the non-government peaks(FamS and YAPA) as advocates and mediators at this local level is also highlyevident.

Smaller services

The particular experience of smaller services is evident in responses to the survey.Small local services are more able to be flexible, but also face a higher

administration load per person due to their small size. The following comment, fromSurvey I, is indicative:

We are a very small service and as a result it is time consuming to developnetworks for referrals and there are disadvantages in being so small. However weare planning to run more support groups via partnerships in order to maximise ourcapacity. The challenge with this approach is to get the financial support throughsubmitting submissions and is again very time consuming. It also means gettingbogged down in administrative work. We have the service capacity to undertakemore intensive family support work with families coming here.

Other responses from small services noted the institutional differences betweensmall, community-run services and large NGOs with high levels of administrativesupport. In some cases this is experienced as a power imbalance between servicesin the local community and their capacity to work together to meet the needs offamilies, children and young people.

Service gaps

In advance of a definitive judgement of the effects of EIPP implementation on thelocal service system and local community, many respondents have clearly


11/39

10 | P a g e


identifiable concerns about existing or potential service gaps in their communitiessubsequent to the implementation of EIPP.

Whilst there is strong commitment to the early intervention effort of EIPP, there is a

general feeling that low needs have been traded off over high needs. This relates inturn to the high level of resourcing required to meet high needs. Responses toSurvey I (CFS/YFS) point to a burgeoning service gap around high needs clients andintensive, flexible work with these clients. They also suggest the loss of programitems associated with community development and youth work. This loss, along withrestrictions on the age of the client and the period of service, places limits on theoverall effectiveness of individual work with clients. Responses to Survey II (IFS/IFP)demonstrate overwhelming support for the intensive and flexible aspects of thoseprograms and the need for extending these programs to more clients. Takentogether, the sense of a service gap for individuals and families with highand/or complex needs is very pronounced. These needs are clearly being met

to great effect by IFS/IFP, with a strong shortfall evident in CFS/YFS.

The sense of 'trade-off' is evident in this comment, from a respondent to Survey I:

For the first time in 7 years we have no waiting list. For the month of April wereceived only 2 referrals which is the smallest amount in the history of this servicewhich has been operating for 30 years. Some of the referrals we do receive areinappropriate e.g. On the referral form, the reason for requesting the service states"a few parenting strategies only". Once we contact the family we find that the familymay have be an open case with Child Protection or even with JERT [JuvenileEmergency Response Team], so have to close. Unfortunately there is nowhere elseto send these families.

Another describes it as follows:

There have been positive components in that the changes have allow ourservice to support young people and their families in a way that wasn't possibleunder the old format. However, it has come at a cost to long-term engaged youngpeople who do not often require case management.

Opportunities for meeting service gaps

Implementation of EIPP programs has largely been effective, with appropriatereferrals being made and accepted and high levels of satisfaction amongst servicesundergoing the transition. At the same time, service gaps been created and/orbecome particularly evident. The positive relationships between services andFaCS is a strong foundation for addressing these gaps where possible. Whereservices are satisfied with the process and optimistic about the future for vulnerablechildren, young people and families in their communities, that positive relationship isthe reason for satisfaction.


12/39

11 | P a g e



13/39

1 | P a g e

C Y F S S u r v e y 1 A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Surveyed May - June 2012

The sample

223 services began the survey and 136 completed the survey. Due to the resulting

variation in the number of responses to each question, an individual figure is given when

reporting on specific survey questions.

The survey captured up to 223 of 326 funded to provide CFS and/or YFS, with every

network area represented in the responses.

Roughly half of responding services (n=217) provided just CFS (24.0%) or YFS (25.8%)

at their service, with 50.2% providing both CFS and YFS.

Service capacity and funding

Survey 1

Services funded to provideChild and Family Services (CFS)

and Youth and Family

Services (YFS)


14/39

3 | P a g e

C Y F S S u r v e y A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Funding

On a scale ranging from $0 to $500,000; most respondents receive between $50,000and $200,000 to deliver CFS programs at their service. On the same scale, mostrespondents receive between $50,000 and $150,000 to deliver YFS programs.

Figure 2 shows the delivery of CFS, YFS, and CYFS according to network area.

Figure 2. Delivery of CFS and YFS by network area

Other FaCS programs

Of 31 responses, 18 delivered IFS at their organisation and 10 IFP. 17 deliveredBrighter Futures.

41 responses under other FaCS funded programs were recorded: 14 CommunityBuilders, 13 Families NSW, one Aboriginal, one Better Futures, 2 children, 2childrens services, one disability, 3 domestic violence, 2 out of home care, oneparenting, and 5 others.

2 | P a g e

Number of Services


15/39

3 | P a g e


8 respondents recorded funding under Specialist Homelessness Services.

Uptake of FaCS support for implementation

132 of 145 respondents marked that they attended a briefing on the service model.102 of 144 utilised the FAQs available on the FaCS website to support theimplementation of the service model. This indicates a significant uptake of thegeneric resources made available by FaCS to assist with implementation.

Satisfaction with negotiations with FaCS for transitionarrangements

Figure 3: Satisfaction of CFS and YFS providers with the negotiation of EIPP transition

arrangements

As indicated by Figure 3, there is strong satisfaction with the conduct ofnegotiations between services and FaCS regarding the transitionarrangements. Almost half of respondents were either fairly satisfied or fullysatisfied.

50 respondents added detailed comments on their experience of negotiating thetransition with FaCS. It is notable that, of 50 comments, 19 remarked on theimportance of the relationship between the service and the CPO in negotiatingthe transition successfully. There were also remarks on the importance of

consultation of the service by FaCS in the transition process (n=8), and of flexibledesign (8).


16/39

3 | P a g e


Concerns were raised regarding the capacity of FaCS officers to undertake thenegotiations (n=5), the disadvantaging of clients during or as a consequence of the

transition (4), a sense of being coerced by FaCS officers in negotiating the transition(9), a concern that community engagement or community development activitieswere neglected in the negotiations (3), and that youth engagement was alsoneglected (3).

5 comments registered a strong sense of confusion regarding the transition process.

3 raised concerns about the costings in the negotiations, and 2 raised concernsregarding the appropriateness of the costings.

Comments from 7 services suggested that their service specifications are

inappropriate.

A cross-tabulation of responses (Figure 4) showing network area by satisfaction with the

conduct of negotiations shows that satisfaction is uneven across and within network

areas.

Figure 4: Satisfaction of CFS and YFS providers with the negotiation of EIPP transitionarrangements, by network area

4 | P a g e

4 | P a g e


17/39

3 | P a g e


Satisfaction with the transition arrangements

Of 110 responses, a clear majority (54.5%) marked good collaboration with localFaCS office as one of the factors, practices and processes that they believecontributed to their satisfaction with the transition arrangements. This was closelyfollowed by flexibility of service specification and other criteria for service delivery(52.7%), consultation with YAPA and/or FamS (48.2%), and Timely transition plan(44.5%). See Figure 5.

Figure 5: Factors informing satisfaction with the EIPP transition process for services funded toprovide CFS and YFS

1

A wide variety of issues were raised in 21 comments against this question. 7respondents noted the importance of their relationship with FaCS officers and its rolein satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the transition arrangements. The role of FamSand YAPA was also highlighted as providing an important advocacy or mediating rolebetween the service and FaCS on occasion.

1 Whilst FaCS-led new networks do not account for a high number of satisfaction indicators, itshould be noted that many of these networks are not yet established.

5 | P a g e


18/39

3 | P a g e


A cross-tabulation of factors informing satisfaction by network area (Figure 6) shows

that all network areas attribute their satisfaction to good collaboration with

local FaCS office.

Figure 6: Factors informing satisfaction with the EIPP transition process for services funded toprovide CFS and YFS, by network area

Impacts to date

Of 127 responses the majority (48.8%) noted the extent of changes they have madeto their service as moderate, with 30.7% registering a substantial extent and20.5% minimal.

56 comments covered a variety of issues that characterised these changes: thetransition from a community development approach to a casework or other approach(6), educating the community on the changes (6), increased data collection

responsibilities (5), and investment of time in organisational development (5).

6 | P a g e


19/39

3 | P a g e


7 noted their concern about a resultant service gap for high needs clients, and 5noted their concern about a resultant service gap for young people. This hasimpacted on the transition period as services have had to transition existing clientsout of their service and in some cases feel there is no services for these clients to be

transitioned to.

Of 128 responses, 46 (35.9%) said their target client group had undergone minorchanges and 44 services (34.4%) recorded significant changes. See Figure 7.

Figure 7: Changes to target client group due to EIPP transition as reported by CFS and YFSservices

There were 50 comments against this question. Of these, 19 comments noted thesignificance of their relationship with their Community Programs Officer (CPO)in changes to the client target group. 9 raised a sense of coercion in negotiatingchanges to their service, 8 noted the importance of consultation from their local officein negotiating the changes, and 8 referred to the importance of a flexible design. 7felt that their service specifications were inappropriate.

Other issues raised included poor resourcing of the local FaCS office (5), thedisadvantaging of clients by the change in target group (4), a loss of communityengagement (3) and youth engagement activities (3), a sense of confusion (5), therole of costings in the change to their client group (5), and the relationship with the

Director, Partnerships and Planning (DPP) (4).

7 | P a g e


20/39

3 | P a g e


Changes to the target client group

Figure 8: Extent of change to the service cross -tabulated with extent of change to the targetclient group (minimal, moderate & substantive) reported by CFS and YFS services

As Figure 8 demonstrates, there is an association between the extent of changesundergone by the service and the extent of change to the target client groupundergone by the service. Significant and major changes to the target clientgroup are highly associated with moderate and major changes.

The local service system

Whilst more than twice the number of responses (44) marked negative thanpositive (21), the majority (48.4%, n=126) marked neutral in response to thequestion, how would you describe any impacts on the local service system arisingfrom changes to your service?

Indeed, as Figure 9 shows, a 'neutral' impact is most likely to be reported acrossthe network areas.

8 | P a g e


21/39

3 | P a g e


Figure 9: cross-tabulation of perceived impact of EIPP transition on the local service systemby network area

Positive changes to the local service system noted in the comments included:increased collaboration with schoolsand an increase in focused workcombining case management with approaches previously utilised such as drop-in.An indicative comment in that regard is: family support ... to complement youthservices [is] providing good outcomes for families with young people.

Negative impacts on the local service system included skewed service delivery, asone commenter put it: There are now too many services funded to provide skillsdevelopment groups to young people with low support needs and not enoughservices funded to work with young people with high and complex needs. Otherimpacts were general confusion in the community about referrals and services,

less collaborationbetween services in the community, less communitydevelopment workbeing undertaken and less intensive workbeing undertaken.

A service gapwas noted 22 times in 57 comments and particularly applies tointensive work, clients with high and complex needs including families with childrenwho meet Risk Of Significant Harm (ROSH) and young people. Some servicesreported being prevented from undertaking effective work with clients for whomoutcomes have been achieved in the past. An indicative comment in this vein:

Some local services have commented that they are referring parents that arefailing under EIPP services provided elsewhere because their needs are complexand they know we work well with such clients. They recognise that courses and short

9 | P a g e


22/39

3 | P a g e


term interventions are not as effective for these families. Other services havecommented that case management has been too demanding for such clients andcase managers have not understood the difficulties these parents have in meetingthe demands of case plans. They have also commented that their clients have

engaged well with us, where previously there were problems with maintainingconnection with a service.

Another writes that, We keep being asked "So where will I refer these families infuture?". When we suggest "Brighter Futures" and explain their new eligibility criteria,we get such comments as -"But they don't do what you do". "But they are full". "But Ican't get them to accept a referral".

Outcomes for children, young people and families

Close to half (45.8%) of 120 services could see benefits for local children, youngpeople and families already evident from the changes. See Figure 10.

Figure 10: Benefits for children, young people and families through the EIPP transition asreported by CFS and YFS services

Of 60 additional comments, most (27) felt it was too early to make this assessment.Benefits that were evident included: more children getting a service, morecollaboration, more counseling being provided, more evidence-based work

being undertaken particularly through case management, more focused or holisticsupportbeing provided to clients, more group work, an increase in new clients,

10 | P a g e


23/39

3 | P a g e


more parenting supportbeing provided and utilised, more partnershipswithschools, services and clients, and more support for young people.

The comments also recorded less support for young peoplenow being available,a negative impact on small services, and the limits of reporting outcomes by 'tick-a-box'; i.e. using numbers and other quantitative measures to appreciate outcomes.

8 comments recorded concerns about a service gap in the community, again forfamilies with high and/or complex needs. These comments often also referred topositive aspects of the new service model.

Figure 11 shows that, again while uneven in character, respondents from every

network area can see the benefits of the transition for local children, youngpeople and families.

Figure 11: Perceived benefits for local children, young people and family by network area

11 | P a g e


24/39

3 | P a g e


Service gaps

Of 131 responses,an overwhelming 92 (70%) said that changes to their servicegive them concerns about [their] overall effectiveness in the context of theneeds of local children, young people and families.

Further, of 89 comments, 53 expressed concern that changes to their servicehad resulted in a service gap in their local area.

22 expressed concern that high needs clientscould no longer be supported by theirservice, and were therefore now not receiving a service.

22 expressed concern that young peoplecould no longer be supported by theirservice, and were therefore now not receiving a service.

15 expressed concern about the specified length of service to clients, with manynoting the 12-week period as being restrictive.

11 expressed concern that the community developmentfunction of their service,typified by activities such as drop-in, had been diminished. Comments linked thisspecifically to a reduced capacity to engage clients for effective work over theservice period.

9 expressed concern that the tool/s for reporting dataunder CYFS/EIPP wereinappropriate to the task.

Consistency of new service with intended outcomes

(42.4%, n=132) of respondents felt that their new service arrangements (as indicatedin their service specification) are consistent with the intended outcomes (i.e. thosedescribed in the FaCS documents about the model and transition arrangements).Considerable ambivalence on this question was also evident, with 20.5% markingno and 37.1% marking unsure.

Of 39 detailed comments, 8 respondents registered concern about reporting on the

new arrangements for example, one comment: although we believe that theservice specs and the initial intended outcomes are similar we believe that the datacollection required by the service specifications does not in any way reflect theoutcomes suggested in the initial service model. 5 respondents expressed concernthat there was now a service gap for high needs clients and families. Othercomments were concerned with the restrictions of the service period (12 weeks) (4comments), the loss of service for high needs clients (4), inflexibility of the servicespecification (3), and inappropriateness of the service specification (3). Othercomments made note of consultation of the service by FacS, outcomes beingdependent on other agents in the community, inappropriate costings, inappropriatefunding, inappropriate specifications, and the relationship between the service and

FaCS officers.

12 | P a g e


25/39

3 | P a g e


Referrals against service capacity

Of 128 services, a significant majority (77.3%, n=99) said they had sufficient referrals

to utilise their service capacity. 29 services said they did not have sufficient referralsto utilise their service capacity.

Of 56 comments, 9 felt it was too early to assess this question outright. Severalnoted that they were implementing community education and group work strategiesin order to keep their referrals at capacity. 6 services said they had too manyreferrals and 3 noted that they had implemented a waiting list to cope with thenumber of referrals. 4 services noted that, whilst they were seeing less clients, therewas now a service gap due to former clients or more complex clients not beingpicked up by other services in the community. 5 services noted that they had low orno referrals from the FaCS Child Wellbeing Unit. 3 noted that they were doingcommunity development work or work with complex clients that was now not countedunder the EIPP referral data or elsewhere in their reporting.

Appropriateness of referrals

Whilst only 5 of 126 respondents felt the referrals they receive are appropriate all ofthe time, 68.3% (n=86) marked that the referrals they receive are appropriate mostof the time. A significant minority (27.8%, n=35) marked that they receivedappropriate referrals some of the time.

Within 38 comments there is a strong message around the limitations ofreferrals for clients with complex needs. 16 comments raise their concerns aboutthis issue with referrals having to be refused because the clients needs are toocomplex, or referrals being taken on by the service because no other service willtake them and/or which are then not counted in the reporting that the service is doingunder EIPP. 5 comments noted their particular concern about referrals to theirservice for young people with complex needs. As one comment puts it: often whenyoung people get to the stage of warranting a referral by local services, their needsare well outside the parameters of early intervention and prevention. Othercomments raised the length of their waiting list, the attempt to refer on when theinitial referral is inappropriate, and problems with this when there is no other serviceto refer clients to; supplying further evidence of the service gap raised by others. 4comments discussed the need for further community education in understandingwhat would be an appropriate referral for their service.

Of 103 responses 28 services marked that they accepted 90-100% of appropriatereferrals into their service. 27 services marked 80-90% and 17 marked 70-80%.Overall, 70% took 70-100% of referrals.

13 | P a g e


26/39

3 | P a g e


Figure 12: The percentage of appropriate referrals currently being accepted by providers ofCFS and YFS

The high uptake of appropriate referrals by providers of CFS and YFS demonstratesthe importance of community education and resourcing of local FaCS officers aroundthe changes entailed by EIPP implementation. As canvassed above, communityeducation and resourcing of local FaCS officers contributes to appropriate referralsbeing made. Where appropriate referrals are made, services are largely able to

accept them.

Principles for recommendations

For CFS/YFS

Recommendations for improving delivery of CFS and YFS should incorporate thefollowing:

Flexibility for services to work with clients who don't fall into the categories it isfunded to report under (as some are already doing, in which case they alsoneed the flexibility to report this work)

Flexibility for services to incorporate program items that have a communitydevelopment focus

Resourcing of local FaCS officers: to understand the model and explain themodel, to exercise discernment in referrals and other allocation activities, andshow empathy in their relationship with service providers;

In general, turning the unevenness or ambivalence in responses across theCYFS surveys into evenly experienced positive and decisive feeling aboutoutcomes for children and young people.

14 | P a g e


27/39

3 | P a g e


Note re Community Development: Community development in this instance isdistinct from that funded through Community Builders, as it is focused on a genericcommunity rather than a community of interest. Comments that observed the loss of

community development activities either in their service provision or reportingrequirements noted the role of these activities in self-referral and 'soft entry' against,as several respondents put it, cold referrals from government or police agencies.Drop-in activities were particularly noted in such comments. The experiences of careand hospitality that can be extended via drop-in and related community developmentactivities are considered vital to the relationship-building that in turn enables effectiveindividual work with children, young people and families. This is borne out in theinternational research on complex and costly social problems.2

Further reading

YAPA Youth Work Snapshot 2011, Youth Action and Policy Association NSW, 2011.Available at

The role of Family Support Services in keeping NSW children safe, NSW FamilyServices Inc. Available athttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.html

The role of non-specialist youth services in addressing and preventing youthhomelessness in NSW: A review of policy, programs and literature, Literature review,Youth Action and Policy Association NSW, 2012.

Place-based Initiatives Transforming Communities, Proceedings from the Place-based Approaches Roundtable, Centre for Community Child Health,VIC, 2012

2 See for example Catherine Robinson, Beside one's self: Homelessness felt and lived, SyracuseUniversity Press, 2011, p.143.

15 | P a g e
http://www.yapa.org.au/youthwork/facts/snapshot/index.phphttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.yapa.org.au/youthwork/facts/snapshot/index.php


28/39

3 | P a g e

C Y F S S u r v e y A u g u s t 2 0 1 216 | P a g e


29/39

1 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Survey 2

Services funded to provideIntensive Family Support (IFS)

and Intensive Family

Preservation (IFP)

Surveyed May - June 2012

The sample

The survey captured up to 25 of 57 services funded to provide IFS and/or IFP. 25 services began the survey and 14

completed the survey. Due to the resulting variation in the number of responses to each question, an individual

figure is given when reporting on specific survey questions.

Other FaCS programs

Of 21 responses, all delivered CFS at their organisation. 12 services delivered YFS and 3 Brighter Futures.

One Northern Sydney IFS service listed the following FaCS programs: Housing Advocacy and Support, Strengthening

Communities, Family Support Mobile, Out-of-Home-Care (OOHC) Intensive Support Service, Residential Care

Program, Vacation Care, Long Day Care, Young Persons Community Care.

One IFS service in the Inner West noted a sexual assault program.

An Illawarra service providing IFS and IFP recorded one Families NSW project and one Staying Home Leaving

Violence project. A Hunter service providing IFS and IFP recorded one Families NSW project.


30/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Uptake of FaCS support for implementation

20 of 20 respondents marked that they attended a briefing on the service model. 18of 20 used the Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) available on the FaCS website tosupport the implementation of the service model. This indicates a high uptake of thegeneric resources made available by FaCS to assist with implementation.

Satisfaction and impediments

There is strong satisfaction with the conduct of negotiations between theorganisation and FaCS to establish a new service. Over half of respondents were

either fairly satisfied or fully satisfied.

Of 19 respondents, 8 experienced impediments to establish the service. 11 saidthere were no impediments.

Those who did not experience impediments were not necessarily satisfied with thenegotiations, as Figure 1 shows. This highlights the difference between theexperience of negotiations with FaCS to establish the new service and theimplementation of the new service.

Figure 1: Impediments to commencing service delivery reported by IFS and IFP providers,cross-tabulated with satisfaction with the negotiations reported by IFS and IFP providers


31/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Impediments to establishing the service

The most reported impediment to establishing the IFS/IFP service was the

recruitment of qualified staff. This applied to locating and hiring the appropriatestaff member/s, as well as designing the recruitment process around the requiredskills. In one instance staff were not retained at this early stage which was also animpediment as the service was required to recruit again.

Another reported impediment concerns the resourcing of the local FaCS offices.In one instance the service area was arbitrarily changed by FaCS officers, requiringthe service to spend unnecessary time arguing their case to have the area returnedto the appropriate demarcation. Another service reported that the relevant FaCS andCommunity Services Centre (CSC) officers were not familiar with the parameters ofthe new program being implemented.

Impediments to commencing service delivery

The separate experience of negotiations as distinct from implementation andcommencement is also made clear in responses to the question Were there anyimpediments to commencing service delivery? Of 19 responses, 17 said yes. Alack of resources(in the form of communication and discernment skills of staff, aswell as familiarity of staff with the new model and particularly the referral pathway) inthe CSC office is a very clear impediment to commencing service delivery. This poorresourcing of CSC offices chiefly meant that multiple inappropriate referrals weremade. It also contributed to a significant lack of referrals at the beginning of theprocess for many services. Further, poor resourcing meant that extra time at thebeginning of the process was required to establish protocols for communicationbetween the CSC and the service. An illustrative quote:

Prior to the formal process of referral being developed there were somedifficulties with paperwork being completed for the referral. CSC caseworkers couldnot locate the documentation in their system that supported an appropriate referral.This resulted in the first two referrals being inappropriate, despite us accepting thereferral and commencing the service with them. This experience informed the need

for a meeting that ensured a streamlined referral process was developed and acommunication strategy for CSC staff; supporting CSC staff to have the resourcesthey required to ensure the referral met the eligibility criteria.

Recruitment of staffwith the required qualifications for IFS/IFP was also difficult insome cases and thus impeded the commencement of service delivery.

Other impediments included lack of lead timeto establish the office before takingreferrals and the time limiton the period of intensive work with families.

3 | P a g e


32/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Factors informing satisfaction

Respondents were asked to report the factors, practices and processes thatcontributed to their satisfaction with the outcomes to date of implementing the new

service. From a list of five prompts with space provided for extra comment, 15 of 17respondents marked good collaboration with local FaCS office as contributing totheir satisfaction. This response was not restricted to those who marked that theywere fairly or fully satisfied with the negotiations. In other words, even whereservices are somewhat unsatisfied with the conduct of the negotiations, anysatisfaction they do have is attributed to the quality of the collaboration withthe local FaCS office.

Comments against this question demonstrate the importance of the localrelationship and showwhat it looks like when it is working well, for example:

The implementation of the IFS has been very positive and I believe thecommunication between the three CSC Manager Client Services, ManagerCasework and the caseworkers has contributed significantly. Having had anestablished and very good working relationship with the three CSCs, also reallysupported the successful implementation. There is such mutual respect of all the keystakeholders and our IFS Program is continually provided with positive feedbackfrom the CSC Caseworkers and their Managers for the quality of program wedeliver.

Further:

One family has been engaged for 6 months and has been effectivelysupported through home visiting, counseling, brokerage, and has been able toresolve child care issues and been supported through distressing courtappearances. They have accessed our 24/7 phone helpline out of hours to resolveimmediate crises. The family has moved from crisis to reporting that things arecalmer within the family context. Both parents have engaged in counseling and havereported feeling supported, and gained skills in dealing with conflict. Thecollaboration between Community Services case managers and our workers has ledto families reporting a greater sense of resilience: being better able to cope with thechild protection compliance requirements.

Where there is low to no satisfaction, the design or conduct of the processwithin FaCS and the resourcing of local FaCS offices is reported as the reason:

Our CPO and local office made every effort to overcome the obstacles toreferral but there were so many FaCs internal barriers that it seemed impossible fora smooth referral and intake process.

Also:There could be an improved communication system for FaCS workers within

their own environment so as (some) workers are not relying on NGOs to tell themwho they can refer to.

4 | P a g e


33/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Further:The Partnerships and Planning staff have been very supportive as has the

Director Child & Family Services. Managers Client Services have been less wellinformed and seem mainly interested in just having somewhere else to refer to.

The importance of both the relationship with local FaCS officers and theresourcing of CSC staffis well illustrated in this quote from a comment in responseto the question, were there any impediments to establishing the service?:

The NGOs had more information and access to the relevant documentationthan the FaCS CSC Casework and Management staff at the implementation stage.The communication of the models seemed reliant on the NGO Service Providers tomeet with CSC Managers to ensure their understanding and agreement to roles andresponsibilities was aligned to Service provision guidelines. However having alreadyestablished positive working relationships with the three CSC's, Manager Client

Services and furthermore the Casework Managers we were able to establish anexcellent process that minimised any considerable delay in establishing andimplementing the service model

Doing effective work

16 respondents answered the question what aspects of this new service areworking effectively?

Having the time, space and budget to do intensive work with high-needsfamiliesand quality collaboration with CSCs/FaCSare considered the keyaspects that are working effectively in this new service. Several responses describethe establishment of trust, engagement or buy-in (as one response put it) withfamilies as a key outcome recently experienced with this new service.

There is strong feeling that, in the words of one respondent, the intensive nature ofthe program [allows] us to provide the intervention that families with the high levelcomplex issues need. This is facilitated by a good relationship with the local CSCin the words of another respondent. Such a relationship is characterised byextensive information sharing with several respondents noting the role ofinformation sharing and agreed protocols with the CSC. An indicative quote in thisvein is:

It has been very exciting and fulfilling to implement effective intervention andtargeted family work with the appropriate resources to do this well. Effectivecollaboration with CS is vital for outcomes, we need to be working together to beclear about the risk factors that need to be reduced. Families need to know wherethey stand in terms of child protection risk factors. The program provides familieswith real opportunities to embrace behaviour and situation changes to reduce riskfactors and keep their children in their care.

5 | P a g e


34/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

An example of an effective working relationship that demonstrates the role it plays inmaking appropriate referrals and the resourcing of FaCS staff:

We can only take 8 families a year and FaCS present approx 3 families each

referral and between us we select the most appropriate family for the program.

IFS: current work with families

14 services noted their service capacity under IFS. See Table 1 for further detail.

Families who have not entered the program after referral12 responses discussed the reasons for families not entering the program afterreferral. In 3 instances, the family has not agreed to participate in IFS, or they have

not engaged further with the service after referral. There are 2 instances where therisk factors for families have been too high and/or children are to be placed inOOHC. In 3 instances, the family did not fit the criteria. In one case the reasongiven was lack of understanding of referral process through the CSCs. 3respondents were waiting for final administration from FaCS so the families couldbegin in the program.

Families who have exited the programOf 8 responses, exiting families were referred back to CSC due toescalating/unacceptable level of risk to child/children in 8 instances. Families had

terminated the relationship with the service in 3 cases. In another 3 they weredeemed no longer in need of our service, and no longer in need of a service at allfor one family. Three other cited reasons why families had exited IFS were: [thefamily] left the area, were re-referred as IFP clients, and child was removed.However, we need to note that the program has not been operating long enough formany families to have completed the program.

Outcomes for families16 respondents commented on the question, what aspects of the new service areworking effectively? The relationship with FaCS, the engagement of families, theintensive element, and referrals were all felt to be working particularly well. Otheraspects felt to be working effectively included brokerage, the design of the program,the establishment of procedures, and the satisfaction of employees.

14 of 15 respondents answered yes to the question ... have there been positivedevelopments and outcomes in relation to the work with families?

In the comments against this question, the majority of respondents report the highvalue of IFS and demonstrated many positive outcomes of the IFS program thatappear to have occurred quite rapidly. Indeed, one IFS provider said it is one of the

best programs I have been involved in for over 20 years. An increase in parentingskills and living skillsis reported several times as is improvement in childrens

6 | P a g e


35/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

school attendanceas well as supply and uptake of specialist services such asmental health support and drug and alcohol support. Increasedretention of

children in the family homeis also reported. There are several striking descriptions

of these positive outcomes, such as:

... small things like getting a father whose modus operandum is to agree tosomething and then simply not follow through/turn up, to routinely turn up formeetings or appointments and/or to contact in a timely manner to rearrange.Agreement of a family with entrenched parental relationship dysfunction as theprimary source of risk to their 6 children to: 1) attend counseling (already attending)and 2) participate in a structured in home parenting program that is very invasive intheir lives (about to commence).

And another:

1. For one family: Our intensive presence in the home really helped identifythe risk and protective factors that evidenced the need for the child to be placed inOOHC. 2. Improved attendance at school for x2 families / 4 children where courtaction by the Dept of Education had previously been taken against the parent. 3.Complex mental health of parents improved and or stabilised as a result of acoordinated approach with mental health service providers. 4. Brokerage hassupported access to and inclusion of specialist services and resources that havehelped to stabilise the family circumstances. 5.Children / young people linked intoSpeech, OT, Play therapy, Youth Counselling services, support accommodation,childcare, 6. x2 families who were not accepting of the severity of the risk issuespresented by the dept; impacting on their engagement resulted in a CourtSupervision order. This action certainly supported a level of required motivation towork with the IFS caseworker to effect necessary change.

Improving IFS

Services were asked to share ways in which they believed the IFS model might beimproved. They were also specifically asked how a rolling together of IFS and IFPwould affect their clients.

15 of 16 respondents marked yes in response to the question, Based on your

experience to date, are there ways the model might be improved?

The major change required by services is flexibility of periods of service. Formany, the 12-week service period is considered to be too rigid and/or too short bymany services. As one respondent notes families needs dont necessarily fit with theinitial 12 weeks being considered intensive. Another observes that: some familiesrequire significantly more time with the IFS caseworker to unpack the issues andrespond appropriately to meet the individual needs of all family participants.

Services also called for greater flexibility with program items and the use ofallocated funds. For one service the 24 hour on call service is not feasible and is

7 | P a g e


36/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

not being utilised by families.3For another, to date our experience is showing thattrying to provide a service to 9 families at any one time with FTE of 1.8 caseworkersis unrealistic. We would simply be compromising our quality and duty of care tosome of the feelings. It would be more achievable (with some flexibility) to meet the

needs of 9 families over a 12-month period.

Flexibility with brokerage fundsis also required. As one respondent writes,Brokerage is very difficult to budget for. Having the flexibility to, for example, retainbrokerage money for the subsequent financial year would ensure that brokeragemoney is available when families need it, which is not evenly predictable over adiscrete 12-month period.

There is strong support amongst services for extending the IFS programin view ofits rapid success with families. One respondent calls for extra funding for the Nepeannetwork area, as we are currently funded for 1.5 workers per 10 families for the

entire Nepean region. Extra funding will allow more families to be captured. Anothersees strong value in extending the program to include families where children are tobe restored.

Enhanced protocols for collaboration between FaCS and the local servicearerecommended consistently. It is clear that detailed knowledge of the program andespecially its referral pathways is paramount for FaCS officers involved inimplementing IFS. Shared discernment and communication between FaCS and thelocal services are considered to be pivotal to positive outcomes for families underIFS.

Finally, there is strong agreement that rolling IFS and IFP togetherwould have noadverse effects. In some cases, rolling IFS and IFP together is desirable due to theirsimilarity and the confusion that can be created as to the actual differences betweenthe two. For services in areas where no similar work is being conducted, IFS iseffectively doing the same work as IFP. For one respondent, rolling the two togetherwould not be possible without an increase in funding, so as to allocate specific IFPclients to an IFP worker and maintaining the current positive relationships we havewith our IFS clients. For this service, IFP is intensive and difficult work ofteninvolving violent teens and families who are together because older children selfplace and is thus distinct from IFS in the work of the service.

IFP: Service capacity and current work with families

7 services noted their service capacity under IFP. See Table 1 for further detail.

Families who have not entered the program after referral

3 This same point is made by a respondent on IFP, who observes that clients fear that callingthe service with a problem will result in recriminations.

8 | P a g e


37/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Of the IFP services, only one nominated a reason for a family not entering a programafter referral. In this instance the teenage son was unwilling to give consent to workwith the service.

Families who have exited the programThere were 8 responses to this question. Families exited IFP by terminating theirrelationship with the service in one instance and were referred back to CSC due to

escalating/unacceptable risk in 3 instances. In another the familys exit coincidedwith the service making continuing reports to the [Child Protection] Helpline and, inthe remaining response, because a child was removed from the family.

Outcomes for familiesOf 9 responses to the question what aspects of this new service model are workingeffectively?, similar aspects to those raised regarding IFS were described. There isstrong support for the intensiveaspect of the model. Other effective aspectsincluded the relationshipsof trust developed between families and the servicewhich are increased by families working with an NGO and not with FaCS. Specificprogram items that were reported as working effectively are home visitingandbrokerage. One respondent particularly noted the effectiveness of their collaborationwith the local CSC. There is a generally affirmative feeling that services aredeveloping partnerships with families to address the complex issues they face.

Further, of 7 responses, all agreed that there have been positive developments andoutcomes in relation to the work with families. There were 8 additional commentsagainst this question. As in the positive developments reported regarding IFS, IFPproviders note that school attendance, housingand use of specialist serviceshad improved for families along with other outcomes including a reduction in drugand alcohol use. Specific comments include: we have had increases in interactionsand small goals achieved; the flexibility around hours for our workers beingavailable has been positive for clients and especially for families who commit to thissupport.

Improving IFP

5 respondents felt that the model could be improved and one did not. There werealso 8 comments against this question. For one respondent, working with youngpeople aged 11-14 required more specific attention in the model.

As in the recommendations for IFS, IFP providers also note the need for increasingthe intensive period. As one respondent put it: good interactions and behaviourswere not sustainable with just the three month intensive period. The client also knewthat after 3 months the intensity would decrease and was waiting for this to getDOCS [sic] out of her life.

Another comment called for:

9 | P a g e


38/39

2 | P a g e

I F S / I F P A u g u s t 2 0 1 2

Careful consultation with FaCS CSC staff and IFS service providers at thetime of a planned referral to really assess parental capacity to change. Also theassumption of very intensive work in initial 3 months, then tapering off is somewhatunrealistic. Some of the families have been in the program for nearly 12 months and

whilst there has been a reduction in assessed risks for children, the families are stillin need of ongoing support.

One respondent repeated their comments on IFS, saying that a key change neededis monitoring in the wider localityto ensure that other local providers areadjusting service delivery in line with [the] new model. For example, if youthservices [are] needing to become family focused, then, they need to be engagingparents.

Of 9 respondents, most felt that rolling together IFS and IFP together would nothave a negative impact on IFP clients. 2 respondents could see this being

particularly effective for expediting referrals from the CSC rather than FaCS officershaving to discern appropriate referrals from two sets of criteria.

Recommendations

Recommendations for improving delivery of IFS and IFP should incorporate thefollowing:

Flexibility to extend the service period beyond 12 weeks

Flexibility with program items and use of allocated funds, particularly forbrokerage

Enhanced protocols for collaboration between FaCS and the local service

Extension of the programs where they are working well,

Rolling IFS and IFP together, ensuring there is no adverse effect on servicesdelivering both programs, and ensuring place-based monitoring of bothprogram's effects.

The levels of satisfaction and success reported by respondents to Survey II (IFS/IFP)is highly consistent with recent policy research on the role of intensive work withfamilies in preventing serious and costly social problems. The report of the NationalYouth Commission's inquiry into youth homelessness (2008) notes that whenworkers have the resources to persist with young people there are some

10 | P a g e


39/39

extraordinary success stories. Further, the best practice internationally would saythat intensive long-term support is required to address correlates of homelessnesssuch as family breakdown.4

Further reading

YAPA Youth Work Snapshot 2011, Youth Action and Policy Association NSW, 2011.Available at

The role of Family Support Services in keeping NSW children safe, NSW FamilyServices Inc. Available at

http://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new

-this

-

week/414-reporting-resources.html

The role of non-specialist youth services in addressing and preventing youthhomelessness in NSW: A review of policy, programs and literature, Literature review,Youth Action and Policy Association NSW, 2012.

Place-based Initiatives Transforming Communities, Proceedings from the Place-based Approaches Roundtable, Centre for Community Child Health,VIC, 2012

____________________

4 National Youth Commission,Australias Homeless Youth: A report of the National Youth
http://www.yapa.org.au/youthwork/facts/snapshot/index.phphttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/component/content/article/67-new-this-week/414-reporting-resources.htmlhttp://www.yapa.org.au/youthwork/facts/snapshot/index.php

Documents

Early intervention and placement prevention: Services in transition