An outcomes framework for Child Youth and Family

An outcomes framework for Child Youth and Family Pathfinder Workshop 5 17 April 2002

The selection of specific objectives and related outcome indicators is not a neutral technical exercise, but reflects fundamental views about the objectives of child welfare (Fallon and Trocme, 1998)

New Directions • Follow-on from Mick Brown report • 3 key goals – to become a joined-up agency that is outcomes-focused, strengths-based and client-centred – build allicances with communities – take a regional approach to the delivery of services • 8 projects which have outcomes-related thinking included within them

The Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 • To advance the well-being of families and the well-being of children and young people as members of families, whanau, hapu, iwi and family groups

Key principles • that families and whanau should participate in decisions regarding their CYP, and that their views should be taken into account • that the relationship between a CYP and their family/whanau should be maintained and strengthened • that decisions should take into account the welfare of the CYP and the stability of their family/whanau

CYF overview • Information to promote public awareness of and prevent child abuse and neglect • Statutory care and protection and youth justice services to children, young people and their families • The development and funding of community services • Adoption services

Activity Overview • 26, 000 notifications of abuse and neglect • 22, 000 investigations • provide (post-Court and post-FGC) social work services to more than 6, 000 C&P and 1, 200 YJ clients • work with more than 900 community service providers

International research • Research literature from 1970 s, drawing on a range of disciplines • Associated with change in social work practice

Complexity • Long-term vs short-term outcomes • Tensions between: – supporting families and ensuring child safety – child protection and emotional wellbeing – supporting families and ensuring community safety – restorative justice vs accountability for offending

“The greatest challenge in developing an outcomes framework in child welfare is finding a framework that integrates and balances the principles of child protection, child well-being and child and family support” (Trocme, Mac. Laurin and Fallon, 1998)

Outcome domains • • • Wellbeing Safety Family Functioning Cultural and Spiritual identity Permanence and stability Client satisfaction

International comparisons • Canada - Federal Client Outcomes in Child Welfare Project – Child safety – Child Functioning – Permanence and continuity of care – Family and Community support

International comparisons • Britain - (Farmer, 1997) – Child Protection – Child physical, emotional and intellectual development – Family functioning

International comparisons • Kansas State Government – Protection (safety) – Permanency – Child well-being – Client satisfaction

International comparisons • US - American Humane Association – Safety – Permanence – Improvements in functioning and well-being

Child, Youth and Family Youth Justice Strategy Goal Reduce the Rate and Severity of Child and Youth Re-offending

Reduce the Rate and Severity of Child and Youth Re-offending (low risk) • Child and youth offenders are held accountable for their offending • Victims are satisfied that a restorative justice process has occurred • Child and youth offenders do not progress to the more formal part of the youth justice system • Families/whanau are able to deal with offending by their own children and young people

Success Criteria (low risk) • Child and youth offenders do not re-offend • Plans reflects the level of offending, and tasks are completed in a timely manner • Victims express their satisfaction with the process • Families/whanau are able to identify how they will manage their children and young people

Performance Measures • Plans clearly identify sanctions for offending • No referrals are received by Child, Youth and Family for a youth justice FGC • Families/whanau are advised of the supports that are available to assist them • Regular surveys of victims are carried out

Reduce the Rate and Severity of Child and Youth Re-offending (med risk) • Child and youth offenders are held accountable for their offending • Victims are satisfied that a restorative justice process has occurred • Child and youth offenders do not appear in the Youth Court • Families/whanau are able to deal with offending by their own children and young people

Success Criteria (med risk) • The rate and severity of re-offending ceases or is reduced • Plans reflect the level of offending, and tasks are completed in a timely manner • Plan content reflects rehabilitation aspects as required • Victims express their satisfaction with the process • Families/whanau are able to identify how they will manage their children and young people

Performance Measures (med risk) • Plans clearly identify sanctions for offending • Referral for other FGCs are for offences of a less serious nature or repeat offending is less regular • No referrals for a Court Directed FGC are received by Child, Youth and Family • Families/whanau are advised of the supports that are available to assist them • Regular surveys of victims are carried out