This is the final evaluation report of the Northern Suburbs. Schools Hub Pilot ....
Diagram 1: Schematic representation of the Results-Based. Accountability Model
..... protection (Laskey,. 2004, Buckley & McGarry, 2011; Bryant & Baldwin, 2010).
Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project Final Evaluation Report December 2012
2
Table of Contents Executive Summary
6
Introduction 6 The Northern Suburbs School Hub Pilot Project Project objectives
6
6
Participant schools
7
The evaluation
8
A program logic model
9
NSSHPP Logic Model
10
Brief literature review: collaboration between schools, Child Protection and Family Services 12 What the NSSHPP did and how much
12
Service Delivery Data
13
Was anyone better off?
17
Working in partnership
18
Families’ experiences of the project
20
School staff experience
23
Professional experiences
24
Summary and Conclusions
26
Recommendations 27 References 28
3
Tables Table 1 - School enrolment and staffing information
8
Table 2 - Evaluation Framework
10
Table 3 - NSSHPP Logic Model
11
Table 4 - Service delivery data
13
Table 5- NSSHPP referrals
14
Table 6 - Historical and concurrent involvement with Child Protection 16 Table 7 - Vic Health Partnership response data
19
Table 8 - School staff understanding of role
23
Diagrams Diagram 1 - Schematic representation of RBA
9
Diagram 2 - Total service delivery
15
Diagram 3 - Vic Health Partnership domains
18
Diagram 4 - NSSHPP case history
21
Appendices Appendices 29 Appendix 1 - Secondary Consultation form
29
Appendix 2 - Service intervention flow chart
31
4
Executive Summary This is the final evaluation report of the Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project. The program was initiated in 2009 with an aim to protect children and improve family functioning through increased collaborative practices of schools, family services and child protection. Previous interim reports were completed in June and October 2011 and focused on program activities for a two and a half year period from January 2010 to June 2012. Over the duration of the pilot the project has consistently exceeded its annual target of 59 families, and 590 hours service across the four campuses of Northern Bay p-12 College. The project has now been allocated ongoing funding through the Department of Human Services. Project outcomes have included increased collaboration between sectors, shared language and understanding of each other’s perspectives, and improved processes for the referral and the provision of support to vulnerable children and their families. Families, teachers, Principals and Wellbeing staff from the four primary schools, Family Services staff from Glastonbury and Bethany, the Child FIRST Coordinator and NSSHPP worker, Child Protection workers and Bethany’s Executive Manager of Family Services contributed their knowledge and experience to this evaluation of the project.
5
6
Introduction
Project objectives
This is the final report of an evaluation of the Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project (NSSHPP). The report builds upon previous interim reports from March 2011 and October 2011.
Early meetings of the Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project Working Group established three objectives of the pilot.
The original NSSHPP documentation articulated the project’s aims:
Objective 1: Develop capacity building strategies to enhance service responses to vulnerable children and families within the school setting.
•
to facilitate referral pathways between target primary schools in the northern suburbs, Child Protection and Family Services;
Objective 2: Targeted service intervention based on needs of school and presenting families (Early Intervention Focus).
•
strengthen service coordination; and
Objective 3: Develop and implement improved collaborative service planning tools and processes.
•
improve communication between stakeholders while `promoting early identification, assessment and response to reduce risk factors and enhance positive health, safety and wellbeing for children.
It is by the achievement of these objectives that we can assess that the approach has been successful and is a valuable model of service intervention which has the capacity to enhance the wellbeing of children in our community.
A Bethany evaluation framework was prepared in late 2009 based on the Results Accountability model developed by Mark Friedman. The following final evaluation report follows the framework’s approach with sections focused on what was done, how much was done and whether anyone is any better off.
The Northern Suburbs School Hub Pilot Project The project was a pilot funded through the Department of Human Services – Children, Youth and Families; in partnership with the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, Department of Human Services – Neighbourhood Renewal Barwon Child and Family Services Alliance, Bethany Community Support and other community partners. Early program documentation defined the projects aims to protect children and improve family functioning through using existing resources, trialing innovative practices; promoting early identification of risk factors; strengthening service coordination; improving communication and understanding between key stakeholders and service providers and promotion of positive protective factors around health, safety and wellbeing for identified children. The project methodology was based around the principles of capacity building, or those activities, resources and supports that strengthen the skills and abilities of people and organisations to effectively meet community needs. The project worker was employed by Bethany and was a skilled and effective senior worker located within the organisation’s Child FIRST team
7
Participant schools The original target group of the Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project was vulnerable children enrolled in grades 2 to 4 at each of the four original sites; Corio Primary School (Hendy Street); Corio West Primary School (Wexford Court); Norlane West Primary School (Peacock Avenue) and North Shore Primary School (Tallis Street). The target group was later expanded to include children and their siblings in grade prep to six and in the final year of the pilot phase Vermont Avenue (previously Corio South Primary School) joined. Each of these schools is identified as being socially disadvantaged (based on ABS data) and each is a member of the Regeneration Project in the north of Geelong as part of the newly formed Northern Bay College P-12. The Northern Bay P-12 College was formed in 2011 as a result of a merger of nine primary and secondary schools into one multi-campus College. The purpose of the merger was to provide a supportive, co-ordinated and consistent approach to the education and wellbeing of children and young people enrolled in government schools in the Corio/Norlane area (http:// www.northernbaycollege.vic.edu.au/text/a_message_from_ the_college_principal_bep8.htm ). The following table presents school enrolment information and indicates that Tallis Street is the smallest school in terms of enrolment and staffing and has the lowest representation of Indigenous and CALD students. Peacock Avenue is the largest school and has the highest percentage of CALD students (35%).
School
2012 Enrolment
Teaching Staff
Non-teaching Staff
Indigenous Students
CALD Students
Peacock Avenue
378
28
15
3%
35%
Tallis Street
140
17
7
3%
2%
Hendy Street
234
19
12
8%
12%
Wexford Court
344
33
11
8%
9%
Vermont Avenue
383
Total
1735
1
Table 1: School enrolment and staffing information from http://www.myschool.edu.au/2
1 2
Data for Vermont Avenue was not available NOTE % of CALD students is based on 2010 information.
8
The evaluation The evaluation project used the Results-Based Accountability approach where interventions are measured against by performance measures of how much the program did, how well they did it and whether anyone is any better off (Friedman, 2005). The Results-Based Accountability model is used widely across the US, the UK and Australia to improve the outcomes for children, young people and families. 3New South Wales Families Services Inc supports non-government family services programs to provide quality support services and endorses the ResultsBased Accountability model. The model begins with ends and works backwards to the means by which we achieve those ends through assessing the outcomes of a program against previously established benchmarks. The evaluation of the NSSHPP has not used the Results-Based Accountability model in its purest form but has adopted the approach to assess the program’s performance against its objectives.
Diagram 1: Schematic representation of the Results-Based Accountability Model as applied within NSSHPP evaluation.
Adapting the framework for the purposes of this evaluation involved some additional steps; identifying what it was the program did and where we could find data by which we could measure how much it did, how well it was done and whether anyone was any better off. The following diagram maps the process by which data was gathered for the purposes of the evaluation and reflects the Results-Based Accountability model. The data collection framework was implemented flexibly, being mindful of the challenges in accessing some stakeholders and some data over a two and a half year period.
3
http://www.nswfamilyservices.asn.au/results-based-accountability.html 9
Program Objectives
Evaluation Questions What questions did we ask to determine that the objectives were met.
Objective 1: Develop capacity Note Each of the 3 questions building strategies to enhance asked of each objective service responses to vulnerable children and families within the • What did we do? school setting. Objective 2: Targeted service intervention based on needs of school and presenting families (Early Intervention Focus).
• How well did we do it? • Is anyone better off?
Objective 3: Develop and implement improved collaborative service planning tools and processes. Table 2: Evaluation Framework
A program logic model To better understand the Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project program staff and the internal evaluator undertook the development of a program logic model. Logic models have the capacity to illustrate a program’s theory of change by showing in graphic form how day to day activities connect to outcomes (Coffman, 1999). The NSSHPP logic model described logical linkages across resources, activities, outputs, audiences and the proposed short, medium and long term outcomes of the program.
10
Information Required Data Source What information did we use to Where did we find this answer each question? information? Service delivered # consultations/ groups/ episodes of support Completed tasks
Program documentation, Groupwork records, IRIS data, NSSHPP worker Achievement Report , Child FIRST reports
Families who felt NSSHPP support was helpful, School staff successfully collaborated with NSSHPP worker,
Service User Satisfaction Survey School staff survey Professionals Surveys Focus Group
Increased partnerships, Improved child-parent relationships, Increased schools collaboration with community organisations Improved classroom dynamics.
DHS data VicHealth Partnership tool School reports/interviews with schools
11
Activities
Participation
CAMHS redevelopment DEECD North Network RAMP Common Approach to Assessment Referral & Support
Referral networks Core Team development
Coordinator Child FIRST/ Exec Manager Child & Family Services – Working Group Meeting 7S Alliance Bethany Schools wellbeing Staff WOW – Workers of Wellbeing (all sites tog) Families CPU
NSSHPP worker
Outputs
Core – wkly wellbeing meetings - 3 schools & informally at 4th. Worker records minutes re cases discussed. Consult. with schools, Child FIRST, DHS, DEECD. Consults (previous data) – 34% Hendy St (40%) 25% Peacock Ave (23%) 28% Wexford Ave (21%) 13% Tallis St (16%) Receive referrals (as Child FIRST) & enter data IRIS (‘gatekeeper role’) Child FIRST referrals made for NSSHPP by school Child FIRST inform worker &DHS inform schools of referrals. Focus -communication, facilitate information sharing under CYF legislative umbrella. After referral worker meets with family/school to establish collaborative partnership. Post referral (or referral development) meet with family& school –partnership approach. Child FIRST assessment/ referral Consult with CBCPW (S38) Liaison b/n key people Case conferences – no fam. Community Ed – risk assess Active hold, home visits, case conference, appoint support, brokerage, Allocation & Handover – interim or hold until long term allocation Ongoing support
Table 3: NSSHPP Logic Model
Worker refers to NSSHPP worker
Development – Child FIRST team now assisting NSSHPP worker.
Child FIRST worker (NSSHPP project worker),onsite with focus on well-being; Co-located at schools and dependent on community/school need. Funding DHS Management support – Bethany Working group – 12 key stakeholders
Inputs Short
Families – more effective response – not on wait list (more immediate response – i.e. early intervention); Face to face contact for client – better understanding to navigate system/coaching. Immediate risk assessment. Advocate with schools- voice of the family. Mediation b/b school & family. Straight talk. Schools – immediate response to concerns for children; Access to information, Additional worker in wellbeing team. Improved communication b/n all stakeholders. Colocation/coordination of services – eg Boyz Rock/ G*L group; staff wellbeing; Family Services – Greater understanding of the needs for the family – improved relationships & connections. Increased importance of involving schools in assessment process. Improved capacity to support families. Child Protection – quicker access & school info/co worker/ Possible enhanced family engagement – access to information to better protect children.
Medium
Families – engaged with services. Improved relationship with the school. More confident to manage children’s behaviour & understanding of behaviours. Schools – more confident staff to navigate systems; improved relationship b/w schools & families; Review Northern Bay College re mandatory reporting policy. Family Services – have a better understanding & empathy for the school system. Child Protection – Improved collaborative practice Facilitating relationships between CP & FS systems.
Outcomes -- Impact Long
11
Families – Improved educational outcomes; Improved safety outcomes. Schools – Teachers take more responsibility/better understanding of reporting processes. Family Services – improved capacity to support families. Families to have better Services success at school; Family S to accept the importance of education in children’s development included in Family Action Plan Child Protection – Improved collaborative practice > importance of advocating to schools needing support – Empowerment of staff to report to appropriate reports to either Child FIRST or Child Protection.
NSSHPP Logic Model
Brief literature review: collaboration between schools, Child Protection and Family Services A brief literature search found little discussion of collaborative projects involving schools, child protection and family support services. In 1997, Briar-Lawson and colleagues proposed that our children were early-warning systems for the needs of society because school is children’s only universal entitlement. In the US some schools are co-locating services to establish communication between organisations focused on the needs of children. Meanwhile researchers in Australia, Ireland and the US found that primary school staff are often not confident about identifying child abuse or reporting to child protection (Laskey, 2004, Buckley & McGarry, 2011; Bryant & Baldwin, 2010). Different approaches have been adopted internationally to support the safety and wellbeing of primary school aged children including programs to ensure children stay within the educational environment and professional development to increase teachers’ knowledge of area of child abuse and reporting (Buckley & McGarry, 2011; Lovitt, 2010). Teaching staff in schools are mandated to report suspected child abuse although there is no obligation to prove abuse. Rather a ‘belief’ that abuse is present is sufficient and consequently there is commonly ambiguity around what is a ‘belief’ so that teachers commonly prefer others within the school to report (Laskey, 2004; p4). The literature supports the approach of co-locating welfare services within schools where there is a high level of vulnerability and disadvantage. Co-locating services in schools is an effective strategy to reduce duplication of services and increase accessibility to services (Blair-Lawson et al, 1997; Buckley and McGarry, 2011). Previously centralised intake systems have been associated with improved collaboration between services and schools (Buckley and McGarry). The Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project is a model of service coordination supporting disadvantaged children’s continued engagement in the school system. It enables early intervention and supports teachers to comply with their responsibilities.
12
What the NSSHPP did and how much The following sections present information collected during the process of the evaluation. A significant amount of data is generated continuously within the delivery of services and is reported at monthly working group meetings. Additionally information was collected through individual and focus group interviews, paper and electronic surveys, worker reports and case studies. This information is used to describe what it is the program does and how much it does. The following sections present service delivery data, VicHealth Partnership data, summaries of service user case studies, school staff surveys and professional’s surveys and focus group information.
Service Delivery Data Service delivery targets for the Northern Suburbs School Hub were set at 59 cases and 590 hours of service annually including both substantive and non-substantive cases. Substantive cases are those where the family received between two and ten hours of support. Support might include groupwork activities, meetings between school and families, direct contact with the family by the worker or activities to support families whilst awaiting support from a Family Support program. Non-substantive cases are less than two hours duration and include consultations, brief interventions and referrals to other services. The following table shows the number of substantive and non-substantive cases and total client hours in six months intervals from July 2010 to June 2012.
4
Time Frame
Substantive cases
Non-substantive cases
Hours of Service Delivery per 6 month period
July to December 2010
48
51
404.12
January to July 2011
53
109
426.02
June to December 2011
80
58
596.01
January to June 2012
61
37
582.69
Table 4: Service delivery data (substantive and non-substantive cases and hours)
The above table shows the number of cases to receive a service during each six-month time frame. It is possible that some families may have received support over more than one intervention which may distort the figures to some degree. However the above table appears to indicate that the number of substantive cases has risen over the final two six month time frames and the number of non-substantive cases seems to have fallen. Discussions with the NSSHPP worker and Child FIRST Coordinator revealed that over the course of the pilot project the process of recording worker activities had been refined and families who might initially been counted as non-substantive were counted as substantive at a later time. This was primarily because ongoing review and development of the program using available data showed that families received greater than two hours total support whether or not they were been referred to a family support program for further assistance.
Group work cases include those activities with children or parents in a range of groupwork programs that were recorded as a part of the project but may have been delivered by other Bethany staff members with specific groupwork skills. Groupwork activities included 1-2-3 Magic, a parenting program; Boys Rock aimed at boys aged between 9 and 11 years and When Things Change for Kids facilitated by Bethany’s Supporting Children after Separation Program (SCaSP).
4
Cases may have been active in more than one time period which may distort the figures. 13
School
Substantive Cases (including groupwork cases)
Non-Sub Cases
Direct referral for NSSHPP assist
Peacock Avenue (previously known as Norlane West) 29% of student population 5
45 (23.5%)
55 (19.5%)
21 (23.5 %)
17 (29%)
Tallis Street (previously known as North Shore) 10 % of student population
55 (28.5%)
51 (17%)
21 (23.4 %)
12 (20.5%)
Hendy Street (previously known as Corio) 15% of student population
65 (33.5%)
95 (32%)
27 (29.5%)
20 (34%)
Wexford Street (previously known as Corio West) 24% of student population
28 (14.5%)
89 (30.5%)
20 (22 %)
9 (15.5%)
0
2 (1%)
2 (2%)
0
195
292
91
58
Vermont Avenue (previously known as Corio South) 22% of student population
Total
Table 5: Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project referrals for period January 2010-June 2012.
Table 3 (above) presents information regarding the percentage of Northern Bay College primary aged students attending each school (far left hand column), the number of substantive and non-substantive cases (second and third columns from the left), the number and percentage of direct referrals to NSSHPP for assistance (second column from right) and the number and percentage of referrals to Child FIRST (final right hand column).
5
Referral to Child FIRST
NOTE this is using 2010 enrolment data from the My School website (http://www.myschool.edu.au/).
14
1% 24%
20%
Peacock Ave Campus Tallis St Campus 22%
33%
Hendy St Campus
Wexford Crt Campus Vermont Ave Campus
Diagram 2: Total service delivery including substantive, non-substantive and groupwork Diagram 2: Total service delivery including substantive, non-substantive and groupwork
The highest percentage of substantive cases was from Hendy Street campus,ofalthough Hendy Street the from secondHendy lowest Street campus, although Hendy highest percentage substantive caseshadwas primary school enrolment. Peacock Avenue campus, which has et had the second lowest primary school enrolment. Peacock Avenue campus, which has the highest student enrolment, had the second lowest number of highest student enrolment, had the second lowest number of substantive cases. Tallis substantive cases. Tallis Street campus had the second highest et campus had the second highest percentage of substantive cases although its student percentage of substantive cases although its student enrolment olment was the lowest (10%). Hendy Street campus had the highest number and was the lowest (10%). Hendy Street campus had the highest entage of non-substantive cases, while Tallis Street campus had the lowest percentage of number and percentage of non-substantive cases, while Tallis -substantive cases. Street campus had the lowest percentage of non-substantive cases.
errals for support from NSSHPP were highest from Hendy Street Campus (which had the ond lowest student enrolment) and were higher for referrals to Child FIRST. The lowest Referrals for support from NSSHPP were highest from Hendy entage ofStreet referrals Child was made in enrolment) relation to school children from Wexford Campusto(which hadFIRST the second lowest student et campus thereforwas the tosecond highest of primary school children. and where were higher referrals Child FIRST. The enrolment lowest mont Avenue was not a part of the initial NSSHPP and had only recently become involved percentage of referrals to Child FIRST was made in relation he number of children and families from that school to receive support from the project is to school children from Wexford Street campus where there low and was not the necessarily reflective of the need within the school. second highest enrolment of primary school children. Vermont Avenue was not a part of the initial NSSHPP and had
re were clearly differences frequencies withand which schools referred to NSSHPP only recently become between involved so the the number of children h were not necessarily related to thesupport levelfrom of enrolment families from that school to receive the project is at that school. While it may be very low not the necessarily reflective of the need the rmined why thisand was situation, there may bewithin a number of possibilities including that e may beschool. a higher level of unmet need in some areas within the Northern Bay College ool zone. Additionally the arrangements for school wellbeing welfare staff vary across the were so clearly between have the frequencies with hern BayThere College thatdifferences some schools fewer internal resources and may welcome referred based to NSSHPP which were notalso necessarily presencewhich of aschools community project. It is possible that some schools are less the level of enrolment at that school. While it may be usiastic related about toaccepting the services of non-school based support services. School determined why this was the situation, there may be aduring number of essionals were invited to participate in surveys the course of the evaluation and possibilitieslater including theredocument may be a higher level of unmetgo some way to providing an e are reported in that this which may somedifferences areas within thebetween Northern Bay College school zone. erstandingneed ofinthe numbers of referrals to the project across each Additionally the arrangements for school wellbeing welfare staff pus. vary across the Northern Bay College so that some schools have fewer internal resources and may welcome the presence of a community based project. It is also possible that some schools are less enthusiastic about accepting the services of non-school based support services. School professionals were invited to participate in surveys during the course of the evaluation and these are reported later in this document which may go some way to providing an understanding of the differences between numbers of referrals to the project across each campus.
15
15
The following table presents data for the period of the pilot project and records those children who had previously had involvement with Child Protection, or had some contact with Child Protection, including the Community Based Child Protection Worker during involvement with NSSHPP. School
History of Child Child Protection during CBCPW involved Protection involvement NSSHPP involvement during NSSHPP
% referrals to have some contact with CP
Peacock Avenue (previously known as Norlane West) Total referrals = 100
26
9
5
40%
Tallis Street (previously known as North Shore) Total referrals = 101
24
13
5
41%
Hendy Street (previously known as Corio) Total referrals = 160
29
11
6
29%
Wexford Street (previously known as Corio West) Total referrals = 117
18
7
5
25%
Vermont Avenue (previously known as Corio South)
1
2
0
21
100%
Total
98
1
41
Table 6: Historical and concurrent involvement with Child Protection The above table shows that a large number of children who were the subject of NSSHPP involvement had a history of contact with Child Protection. A smaller number had had some involvement with Child Protection during the NSSHPP intervention and almost half as many had contact with the Community Based Child Protection Worker during NSSHPP involvement. The above table indicates a higher percentage of referrals from Peacock Avenue (40%) and Tallis Street (41%) had either a history of Child Protection Involvement, had contact with Child Protection or the Community Based Child Protection Worker during NSSHPP intervention. A lower percentage of referrals from Hendy Street or Wexford Court had a history of Child Protection Involvement or had contact with Child Protection or the Community Based Child Protection Worker during NSSHPP intervention.
16
Was anyone better off? The Results Based Accountability model’s final measure is to assess if anyone is any better off as a result of the program. This section collates the contributions of Bethany’s Executive Manager of Child and Family Services, service users and professionals from schools, family services and Child FIRST and Child Protection. Bethany’s Executive Manager Child and Family Services has been instrumental in the Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project. In reflecting on the project at the conclusion of the pilot phase she noted that one of the factors that was critical to the success of the pilot was the partnership and continued engagement of schools that has been maintained and enhanced over the three years of the pilot. Furthermore, the continuation of funding and the capacity of the project to intervene early with children and their families was essential to the program’s success. School staff have increased their confidence and understanding of the importance of early intervention in families to support children’s development. From the perspective of the Executive Manager, stakeholder engagement through the Working Group was critical and a high level of participation continued throughout the period of the project. Challenges the project encountered and overcame included an early staff change, defining the project’s role within the school support staff continuum, establishing its purpose and not succumbing to a range of definitions of vulnerable children’s needs. The project has consistently encountered competing demands and has been able to negotiate them successfully. In conclusion from the perspective of the Executive Manager what worked well was early intervention; building stronger relationships between schools and family services; streamlined processes; increasing confidence levels of school staff in understanding issues for children and the impact those issues have on their holistic development and impetus for the schools to maintain the program. Further factors that had worked well included the project worker’s relationship and professional approach. This had been a major factor in the success of the project. A final achievement was having maintained the momentum of the project within a period of major redevelopment for the schools and the Regeneration Project.
17
Working in partnership A formal partnership was initially established which clearly documented the project background, partner roles, program objectives and approach. The partnership provided a framework that supported and sustained the project over the duration of thepilot phase. During the initial developmental phase a working group was formed comprising stakeholders including representatives from the Department of Human Services, Department of Education, school representatives and Bethany Child FIRST and Executives. Initially meetings were held frequently and supported the establishment of project goals and objectives and the facilitation of working relationships between the different bodies. Initially a worker was recruited to the position but due to unforeseen circumstances was later replaced. The original funding was for a twelve month period and later news that funding had been extended for a three-year pilot phase shaped working group meetings and activities. Meeting records demonstrated that once the project had become established, meetings occurred bi-monthly, were located at Bethany and were often chaired by the Executive Manager of Child and Family Services. Attendance at meetings became more consistent over time and partner representatives actively engaged in the process of supporting and directing the project to ensure its success. Meetings had an agenda and were minuted. The NSSHPP worker reported all community development activities and direct service data to the working group against established targets. In order to evaluate the partnership approach members of the working group were asked to complete the Partnerships Analysis Tool checklist on three occasions throughout the duration of the evaluation process. The purpose of the tool, developed by VicHealth, is to asses the effectiveness of partnerships. It measures partnerships against the perceived need for the partnership, choice of partnership members, ensuring partnerships are effective, plan collaborative action, minimise barriers and are sustaining. The Partnerships Analysis Tool reflects seven domains collaborative relationships (see below). Sector
Domain
1
Determining the need for the partnership
2
Choosing partners
3
Making sure partnerships work
4
Planning collaborative action
5
Implementing the collaborative action
6
Minimising the barriers to partnerships
7
Reflecting on and continuing the partnership
Diagram 3: VicHealth Partnership domains
18
Each domain was measured against a five-point likert scale (1 being Strongly disagree; 5 being Strongly agree). Scores from 0-49 suggest the whole idea of a partnership should be rigorously questioned. Scores in the 50-91 range suggest the partnership is moving in the right direction but will need more attention to be really successful. Scores of between 92-140 indicate partnerships based on genuine collaboration have been established and the challenge is to maintain impetus and build on current success. The tool was first completed by 12 members of the NSSHPP working group in June 2010, again in June 2011 when six stakeholders completed the checklist and finally in August 2012 when nine members completed it for the final time. The following table presents data from each time and demonstrates continued strength of the partnership over the duration of the project evaluation with scores in the highest range on each occasion with a small improvement each time.
VicHealth Partnership Tool (T1 July 2010) Participant
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Total Score
1
19
16
18
14
5
17
15
104
2
16
14
17
15
9
14
15
100
3
15
13
13
15
14
15
15
100
4
18
17
18
17
16
15
15
116
5
19
16
19
20
19
18
20
131
6
16
19
20
20
19
19
20
133
7
16
16
12
14
10
11
13
92
8
16
13
13
16
15
12
16
101
9
18
17
17
19
17
13
17
118
10
20
10
14
14
13
15
13
99
11
18
11
15
15
13
12
14
98
12
16
13
15
14
14
14
16
102
AVERAGE
17.25
14.58
15.91
16.08
13.66
14.58
15.75
107.83
VicHealth Partnership Tool (T2 June 2011) Participant
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Total Score
1
16
18
15
15
16
16
15
111
2
18
14
17
20
12
14
20
115
3
15
11
14
13
11
11
13
88
4
19
17
15
16
16
19
18
120
5
20
18
17
17
18
18
20
128
6
19
15
16
16
16
14
17
113
AVERAGE
17.833333
15.5
15.666667
16.166667
14.833333
15.333333
17.166667
112.5
VicHealth Partnership Tool (T3 2012) Participant
Section 1
Section 2
Section 3
Section 4
Section 5
Section 6
Section 7
Total Score
1
20
19
20
18
17
20
19
133
2
18
13
17
12
17
15
14
106
3
20
20
20
19
19
20
17
135
4
17
16
16
15
14
14
15
107
5
20
16
17
19
18
19
18
127
6
19
16
14
15
20
20
19
123
7
19
15
12
14
12
9
11
92
8
18
14
16
17
15
19
17
116
9
17
16
19
18
20
18
18
126
AVERAGE
18.66
16.11
16.77
16.33
16.88
17.11
16.44
118.33
Table 7: VicHealth Partnership Tool response data
Whilst there was some variation within each time frame, no participants’ scores fell outside the highest range indicating that members of the NSSHPP Working Group experienced the partnership as being positive and based on genuine collaboration.
19
Families’ experiences of the project During the evaluation process a small number of Service User Satisfaction Surveys were completed, as well as case studies recorded by the project worker and telephone interviews with service users. The feedback was consistently positive and emergent themes included feeling ‘heard’ by the worker who was warm, positive, non-judgmental and supportive. Service users commonly observed that previously they did not feel anyone heard their stories and some felt uncomfortable in the school environment. However, their perception had changed and some had increased their engagement with their children’s schools. Case studies articulated the practice approach within the program and included collaboration with child protection, schools and other family support services; active participation in meetings convened by the school or the project worker to resolve child behavioural issues and absenteeism; examples of assisting families whilst awaiting allocation to family support services; joint assessments with the Community Based Child Protection Worker; referrals to specialist support services and supporting school staff to engage services concerned with child safety and wellbeing. The following diagram (Diagram 4) illustrates the process of supporting one family with very complex issues over three separate interventions; two of four weeks duration and one lasting two weeks over a six month period. This example includes a full assessment, consultation with Child Protection and a second school attended by a sibling, referral to Family Services through the Child FIRST process and closure. The second intervention involved consultation with school Wellbeing Staff and Family Services and a report to Child Protection. The final intervention involved the re-engagement of the NSSHPP worker and collaboration with Child Protection, consultation with the CBCPW and the Wellbeing staff and eventually closure.
20
NSSHPP intervention A single mother of two children self referred to the NSSHPP via the school wellbeing worker as she was not coping with her family situation. The children were exhibiting extremely violent and aggressive behaviours towards each other and their mother. The mother reported that she was not confident in her parenting ability to protect herself or the children, and she was in the process of ending a violent relationship with her current partner. The mother had mental health and other health care issues which she also requested support. The mother has older NSSHPP – single mother twocare children, 8 and 12 years old. Mother self referred to the NSSHPP via the school wellbeing worker as children whointervention had been removed fromofher dueaged to exposure she was not coping with her family situation. Children were exhibiting extremely violent behaviours towards each other and their mother which to past familyhousehold violenceobjects in the being home. involved used as weapons. Mother reported she was not confident in her parenting ability to protect herself or the children. Mother was in the process of ending a violent relationship. Mother had mental health and other health care issues which she also requested support for. Mother has two older children who had been removed from her care by Child Protection due to exposure to family violence in the home.
NSSHPP worker meets with parent as they self refer to the school NSSHPP worker requests pattern and history check from CBCPW
School meeting with parent – re: safety concerns
Liaison with primary school wellbeing worker
Consult with secondary school wellbeing worker NSSHPP worker completes Child FIRST assessment
Case allocated to Family Services NSSHPP worker hand over case to IR Family Services worker
NSSHPP case reopened. Consult with school wellbeing worker – re: new concerns
NSSHPP case closure
Consult with Family Service worker
Consult with the CBCPW
NSSHPP case closure
NSSHPP case reopened to support Family Service worker
Consult with Family Service worker
Case conference with CBCPW and Family Service worker
Consult with school wellbeing worker
NSSHPP case closure
Report to Child Protection
Referral to Zena Women’s Services for Family Violence support
Diagram 4: NSSHPP case history
Diagram 4: NSSHPP case history
The above diagram is representative of a family with difficult, entrenched and complex challenges and one where the presence of the NSSHPP worker was able to facilitate the relationships between each of the parties involved in the project; Child Protection, Schools, Family Services and the project worker.
21
22
School staff experience School staff were first mandated to report suspected child abuse in 1993. Police and teachers are the most frequent notifiers of child abuse. Previously cited literature indicates the pressures experienced by school staff as a consequence of being mandated to report suspected abuse and neglect. The NSSHPP has worked actively within schools to support school staff to fulfill their legal requirements. School staff, including teaching and support staff, were surveyed three times during the period covered by this report. A brief survey was developed with four primary questions and was delivered using Survey Monkey in July 2010 (21 respondents), a paper format in March 2011 (71 respondents) and Survey Monkey again in July 2012 (31 respondents). The questions were constant at each occasion. Respondents to the final survey conducted in late July 2012 had approximately two and half years to have contact with the worker, participate in training and consult regarding children they taught. There were significant differences in the number of school staff to respond at each time. Initially only 21 members of the school staffing body responded to the survey but of those a little over half had consulted with the NSSHPP worker. In March 2011 a paper questionnaire was distributed to school staff and 71 responded. A little over a quarter had consulted with the worker. In July 2012, 31 school staff responded and a little under half of those had consulted with the worker at some time. This would indicate that for staff to use the program, they need to have knowledge of the program and possibly have connected with the worker.
Teachers and other school staff were asked about their understanding of the NSSHPP worker’s role, their experience of consulting with her when they had concerns for a child and how confident they were to report the situation to Child Protection when necessary. School staff were asked to describe the Bethany project worker’s role. Nine stated that they were either unaware or did not understand the role. Others described the role as providing consultation and liaison, active participation on the school Wellbeing team, actively linking families with Family Services caseworkers, providing advice about family resources in the area; providing assistance where children had experienced trauma and being a resource to teaching staff. One staff member identified groups, projects and programs facilitated by Bethany staff, including the NSSHPP worker, and one described the role as being a Child Protection worker. In July 2010, at the time of the first survey, 9.5% believed they understood the role of the worker very well. At the time of the final survey, July 2012, 19.5% believe they understood the role very well. This would appear to indicate that over the two and a half year period school staff got to know about the project and had perhaps even had contact with the worker in her role within the school through being present (co-location), her participation in events, school staff participation in training or having consulted regarding the wellbeing of children.
Time 1 (21)
Time 2 (71)
Time 3 (31)
Not at all =19 % A little = 28.6% Some Understanding = 28.6% A Good Understanding = 14.30% Very well = 9.5%
Not at all = 19% A little = 15% Some Understanding = 34% A Good Understanding = 25% Very well = 7%
Not at all = 19% A little = 26% Some Understanding = 22.5% A Good Understanding = 13% Very well = 19.5%
Have you consulted with the 52% Yes NSSHPP worker? 48% No
26% Yes 74% No
48%Yes 52% No
If you were concerned about the welfare of a child how confident would you feel to make a report to Child Protection
Not at all confident= 3% A little confident = 5% Some confidence= 34% Confident = 31% Very confident = 22%
Not at all confident= 13% A little confident = 3% Some confidence= 32% Confident = 22% Very confident = 29%
Using a scale of 1-5 how well do you understand the role of the NSSHPP worker?
Not at all confident= 19% A little confident = 5% Some confidence= 38% Confident = 19% Very confident = 19%
Table 8: School staff understanding of the role of the NSSHPP worker.
23
Professional experiences For the purposes of this evaluation ‘professionals’ are defined as those staff employed by Child Protection or community based family services programs. Staff from Child FIRST, Child Protection and Family Services at Bethany and Glastonbury were given an opportunity to complete an online survey (Survey Monkey) twice during the course of the pilot project; the first during February 2011 and the second in August 2012. The response rates on each occasion were 40% and 29% respectively. At February 2011, 17 workers responded to the survey; two from Child Protection; four from Child FIRST and 11 from Family Services. At August 2012, one Child Protection worker, two Child FIRST workers and seven Family Services Workers responded to the professional survey. At the final survey four professionals had a basic understanding of the role of the Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project worker and four believed they had a clear understanding of the role; two had some understanding of the role but were a little unclear. All ten professionals had had involvement with the NSSHPP worker in relation to a family, primarily through a secondary consultation role (70%) or had received a referral regarding a family from the worker (50%), or in a liaison capacity (60%). Professionals were asked to consider how the NSSHPP role could be improved. Suggestions included the guarantee of recurrent funding, expansion of the role to other locations; for example, Whittington; and improved communication with family services programs in the area. The following comments demonstrate the value placed on the NSSHPP role within disadvantaged schools in the Northern suburbs of Geelong. There is always a need for more workers and more recurrent funding in this sector. The role is so important and so successful that consideration should be given to expanding to primary schools in all areas. In my opinion it would be useful to have an additional NSSHPP worker as the current worker does both short term, crisis and follow up work with families as needed and another worker in this role would add further value to these schools which appear quite overwhelmed at times by the number of complex families who attend the school. Other workers proposed greater promotion of the program and engaging other services to support schools. Continue to promote it (the project) to family support agencies in the area and encourage further liaison between services.
24
Finally a suggestion was made to facilitate the process involved and as the professional noted this improvement has been implemented. Would be more time effective for worker to complete BCF assessment from Northern School families and this is now going to take place. Workers from Child Protection, family services, schools and Child FIRST were invited to participate in a one-off focus group convened at Bethany by the Manager Quality & Service Development. Nine workers participated; one from Child FIRST, one from Child Protection Intake and the Community Based Child Protection Worker, two family services workers from two agencies and four Wellbeing staff from schools who are participants in the project. Participants described the role of the NSSHPP worker as a ‘bridge’, ‘broker’ or ‘facilitator’. The Child Protection intake worker commented that families who had been involved with the project were more able to accept the interventions of Child Protection and family services and the worker’s presence was often a source of continuity for families, from school to Child Protection, to family services. One school wellbeing staff member commented that parents commonly saw schools as lacking authority and only concerned with the child’s education. She noted that the NSSHPP worker had an extensive knowledge of resources and services in the community that could support families and assisted those families to accept the support of the school. School Wellbeing staff commented that families are often surrounded by inconsistency and a great many changes, particularly in the recent school environment. In those families the project worker was a consistent, energetic and supportive figure who maintained connectedness between the various systems. She actively participated in groupwork activities that have been valuable for families and schools as well as facilitating the delivery of other groupwork activities. One of the invaluable aspects of the role has been to provide school staff with opportunities for secondary consultations so that interventions might occur earlier sometimes doing so by carrying out joint home visits with school staff. As a consequence the role has created a sense of all the services being ín this together’ and rather than calling Child Protection being seen as a punishment, particularly by those families who were difficult to engage, these were opportunities to collaboratively support families. One family services worker commented that the role has brought together services who really didn’t know each other very well through NSSHPP providing coordination and leadership. One of the continuing challenges is that some workers have not yet grasped the intent of the project or the usefulness of collaborative practice and that this is an area of continued work to create a more collaborative service environment.
These stakeholders identified two aspects of project’s role; firstly as program development, relationship building (through linking families and services), and direct service provision in carrying out assessments, supporting families engage with services and resourcing school staff where children where vulnerable. Stakeholders involved at the program management level observed that schools had different interests and concerns specific to their school so their expectations of the project could have been different which may impact on their access to the program. One school based professional felt there was some reluctance among staff at her school to accept the program which may have been due to their limited understanding of the purpose of the project. Another commented that the demands on the project worker’s time and role could easily expand beyond her original brief. Another matter raised as a challenge was engaging other family services in the region that may not have seen the value of the project. In this situation the comments were related to services traditionally working alongside one another in silos, but without networking or communication so the project has challenged services to collaborate across existing boundaries. Some of the practical challenges included the development of family service assessments based on intake assessments and transition to longer term supports. However systems have been developed to support the process during the course of the project. Additionally there are challenges in appropriately diverting families from school welfare supports to family services. School representatives discussed communication challenges and cited examples where they may not have been kept in the information loop by family services and that they did not know when families had ceased working with family services. The group reflected on the risk of vulnerable families and children being left unsupported in these circumstances. Program management staff contributed to the evaluation project by reflecting on the previous two and a half years. Whilst the project had clearly achieved its objectives from this perspective a number of challenges were identified. Those who contributed to the focus group noted that despite the best efforts of the NSSHPP worker and her presence in schools, there are still some family services workers, school staff and child protection staff who have limited understanding of the project and the practice of collaboration. Program management staff concurred and observed that it was an ongoing challenge. A further challenge is current service delivery allocation of ten hours for each family. This was frequently insufficient to support families where multiple problems were present. However, the recent adoption of single sessions may enable services to provide families who require short term support to achieve a good outcome and release longer term resources to support those families with multiple issues. 25
Summary and Conclusions The Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project brought together four disadvantaged primary schools located in the Northern suburbs of Geelong with Child Protection and family services programs in the area. The evaluation reported two and half years of the project’s activities using a Results Based Accountability approach to evaluation and embracing program logic, focus groups, surveys, interviews and the project worker’s service data. The evaluation has been an opportunity to review NSSHPP program activities in depth including engagement with schools, providing direct support to families, consulting with Child FIRST and the CBCPW (using the S38 procedure), facilitating referrals to family services programs in the community, supporting school-based wellbeing teams, providing training to school staff, facilitating groups of children and parents, engaging schools, families and family services programs in case conferences and actively ‘holding’ families until they could be allocated to family services programs for supportive interventions. The established targets were to provide support to 59 families over 590 hours annually across both substantive (under 10 hours of support) and non-substantive (less than 2 hours support). The project continually exceeded these targets since the beginning of the 2009 pilot phase. An analysis of service data collected through the course of the program demonstrated that the size of a school’s enrolment did not necessarily dictate demand for service. Schools with lower enrolments (for example Hendy Street and Tallis Street) sometimes appeared to have higher levels of demand for support (Tallis Street had the second highest number of cases). This could be the consequence of greater need within the school community or indicate greater willingness within the school environment to embrace the program. However, a greater number of children from Peacock Avenue and Tallis Street had previously had contact with Child Protection suggesting that these two schools may have a greater number of vulnerable children. The project has contributed to the improved engagement of vulnerable, difficult to engage, families in available support services and the increased safety of children. Partnerships within the NSSHPP reference group were strong and based on genuine collaboration. Schools demonstrated their enthusiasm to engage with the program to support families when vulnerable children are enrolled at their school. Achievements include improved communication between schools, Child Protection and Family Services; increased capacity within schools through access to staff training, improved relationships and understanding between sectors, shared language and knowledge of processes, challenges and limitations and greater knowledge of available community resources.
26
Contributing factors to the success of the program have been the project’s worker visibility and availability within the school environment through being co-located on campus, participation in school wellbeing meetings and undertaking tasks such as recording meeting minutes. Representatives of family services programs, Child Protection and schools who contributed to the evaluation commonly attributed much of the success of the program to characteristics of the project worker. There was evidence that some teaching staff continue to have limited understanding of the role. This may be a consequence of high demands on teachers, structures within school environments or changes in staff personnel. Some school wellbeing staff assume the lead role in ensuring the welfare of children possibly reducing the imperative for teaching staff to fully embrace the role. Those who contributed to the evaluation of the project were unanimous in their view that the program should continue and be expanded to other schools and in other geographical areas. A development during the course of the pilot was the announcement by DHS that the program would receive continued funding in the Northern suburbs of Geelong.
Recommendations The Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project is a model of good practice; the evaluation process has demonstrated it to be effective in contributing to collaborative practice between the domains ensuring the wellbeing and safety of children. The following section briefly outlines a number of recommendations for the future of the project. •
The model should be disseminated widely through the development of papers and presentations at future conferences so that it is embraced more widely within the community.
•
The project has received ongoing funding beyond the initial pilot phase and should be renamed to reflect its continuing status.
•
The model should be expanded within identified geographic areas of need, within school communities where risks to the safety and wellbeing of children have been identified.
•
School teaching staff should have the opportunity to participate in training or information sessions in order to increase their knowledge of services and models of intervention to support children where there may be difficulties within families that may impact on the child’s capacity to learn.
•
The program model should be documented to ensure the knowledge and wisdom, as well as procedures are accurately communicated to other programs, schools and localities to ensure the integrity of the model into the future.
•
Further research should be conducted into the effectiveness of collaborative practice between schools, family services and Child Protection and the impact this has on children’s wellbeing and safety.
27
References Blair-Lawson, K. Lawson, H., Collier, C. & Joseph, A. (1997), School-Linked Comprehensive Services: Promising Beginnings: Lessons learned, and future challenges, Social Work in Education, Vol 19, No 3, pp136-148 Bryant, J. & Baldwin, P. (2010) School Counsellors’ Perceptions of Mandatory Reporter Training and Mandatory Reporting Experiences, Child Abuse Review, Vol 19, pp 172-186 Buckley, H., & McGarry, K. (2011) Child protection in primary schools: a contradiction in terms or a potential opportunity? Irish Educational Studies, Vol 30, No, pp113-128 Coffman, J. (1999), Learning from Logic Models: An Example of a Family/School Partnership Program, Harvard family Research Project, www.hfrp.org Laskey, L. (2004) Educating Teachers in Child Protection: Lessons from Research, paper presented at AARE (Australian Association for Research in Education) Conference, Melbourne, Downloaded from http://www.aare.edu.au/04pap/las04710.pdf Lovitt, T., (2010) What Teachers Can Do for Children Living in Difficult Circumstances, Intervention in School and Clinic, Vol 45, No 5, pp 317-320
28
Secondary Consultation form Secondary Consultation Form between School Staff & NSSHPP Worker Date School
School staff name Staff role
Parents name Address Contact phone number Name of child & D.O.B Name of child & D.O.B Name of child & D.O.B Name of child & D.O.B Summary of current situation including the identified wellbeing concerns (completed by the school) (Examples: child/youth behaviours, family history, parent/child interaction, significant event/losses, response to crisis)
Current situation
Wellbeing concerns
31
29
Agreed action plan by the school staff representative & NSSHPP worker (completed by the NSSHPP worker) Information regarding the concerns identified by the school:
Action plan:
Recommendations:
The secondary consultation form can be used by a school staff representative when they have identified wellbeing concerns for a child, young person or family. The secondary consultation will involve a discussion between the NSSHPP worker and a school staff representative and an action plan will be agreed upon. The secondary consultation will assist schools and the NSSHPP worker to decide how to better support the family and offer professional support.
This information is to be kept confidential and not distributed. Completed by: ………………………………………………………….. SCHOOL STAFF REPRESENTATIVE
……………………………………………………………. NSSHPP WORKER
DATE…………………………………………………..
DATE…………………………………………………….
32
30
NOTE: In instances where a family does not engage with the FS worker, the NSSHPP project worker may co- support the FS worker to engage the family.
NSSHPP project worker & relevant school staff to assist the family to make referrals to external supports if required.
Yes
NSSHPP project worker informs the school & relevant professionals of the case allocation to FS. NSSHPP closes the client case file.
Family is allocated to a FS agency. NSSHPP project worker withdraws support upon the family being linked.
NSSHPP project worker submits the CF assessment to the weekly FS allocations meeting. The family is provided short term support (active hold) by the NSSHPP project worker until the case is allocated to a FS agency.
Initial assessment phase begins with a family meeting. If appropriate, the NSSHPP project worker completes the CF assessment for FS support.
NSSHPP project worker or the school referrer sets up a meeting between the parent/s, relevant school staff & other relevant professionals.
The school submits the CF referral to the NSSHPP project worker.
Family agrees to a Child FIRST (CF) referral for Family Service (FS) support.
If the identified concerns require further attention, the NSSHPP project worker, in conjunction with the school staff member will attempt to re engage the family to discuss support options.
If the concerns are resolved through the consultation process, the NSSHPP project worker closes the file as no further involvement is required. NSSHPP project worker is available to provide future secondary consultation if needed.
Following the secondary consultation discussion an action plan is developed. The NSSHPP project worker to provide the school staff member with the completed consultation form outlining the relevant actions taken & recommendations.
Upon the NSSHPP project worker receiving the consultation form, the school staff & the NSSHPP project worker discuss concerns as soon as practical. NSSHPP project worker collects background family information regarding the concerns to make further assessment of the families needs.
NOTE: If the family refuses to engage with CF & there are significant wellbeing concerns, the NSSHPP project worker will request to consult (Section 38) with the Community 34 Based Child Protection Worker within the CF team to discuss risk and safety issues. However, if there are insufficient concerns to warrant more assertive outreach with the family, the NSSHPP project worker will not proceed with the referral.
No
Report to Child Protection Intake on 1800 075 599.
Yes
The school decides that the wellbeing concerns require additional support and a secondary consultation request is made to the NSSHPP project worker. School staff complete the consultation form prior to contacting the NSSHPP project worker.
If school staff are uncertain whether to report concerns, consult further with Child Protection Intake or with the NSSHPP project worker.
A school staff member identifies wellbeing concerns for a child/family. Is the child or young person at risk or in immediate danger?
School staff makes contact with the parent/s to address wellbeing concerns.
Northern Suburbs Schools Hub Pilot Project service intervention flow chart
No
NSSHPP Service intervention flow chart
31
