Microsoft Word - First Report Web viewNORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT. Growing. Them. Strong, Together. Child Protection External Mo. n. itoring and Reporting

Report of Northern Territory Child ProtectionExternal Monitoring and Reporting CommitteeJuly 2011

Page 1 of 30

NORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT

Growing Them Strong, Together

Child Protection External Mo n itoring and Reporting Committee

Report following Second Meeting, May 26-27 2011

Alice Springs

Executive Summary

The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee (CPEMRC) was appointed by the Minister for Child Protection, the Hon Kon Vatskalis MLA, to undertake an independent monitoring role in regard to the implementation of the reforms agreed to by the Northern Territory Government following the release of the Growing them Strong, Together report of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) in October 2010. The Committee reports to the Northern Territory Parliament through the Minister for Child Protection every six months on the progress of implementation of the reforms. This is the Committee’s first report.

The CPEMRC has met twice – a day meeting in Darwin in February 2011 and a two day meeting in Alice Springs in May 2011, during which a number of site visits were carried out.

The Committee met with the DCF Chief Executive and support staff on8 February and all day on 26 May. Over this period DCF released its Strategic Framework for 2011-2015 “Safe Children, Bright Futures”, part of its response to the BOI recommendations and in April 2011, and the first six monthly Progress Report on Child Protection Reform was released by the Minister. During this period, the substantive appointment of the Acting Chief Executive Ms Clare Gardiner-Barnes was confirmed. CPEMRC welcomed this appointment noting with approval the stability that was provided by her continuance in the role.


Page 2 of 30

The CPEMRC general impression was that the BOI, and subsequently the Government as reflected in the Safe Children, Bright Futures Strategic Framework 2011 to 2014, have each recognised that reform of the child protection and family support system does not occur quickly. The timeframe in which developments commence within six, 12 and 24 months is appropriately ambitious.


Page 3 of 30

There were 34 urgent recommendations in the BOI report that required implementation to have commenced within the first six months. The Department indicated in its Progress Report that movement had been made on all of these. In addition the Report noted progress that had been made on a further seven recommendations. DCF in its follow-up report to the CPEMRC, documented progress it had made with respect to 66 recommendations many of which related to progress with less urgent matters for implementation within the first 18 months.

CPEMRC noted and supported the Department’s acknowledgement of some of the key issues to be addressed in the change process:-

The degree of cultural change needed within the DCF; The importance of communication at all levels; Acknowledgement of the healing process that was needed between DCF

and Aboriginal people; Staff recruitment issues, including housing and the disparity

that existed for different categories of NT Government employees;

Pressures on frontline staff with a 12% increase in numbers of investigations;

The need for reform of the Alternative (out-of-home) care system; Information systems development; Challenges involved in establishing the Aboriginal peak body

In responding to this range of identified issues the CPEMRC noted:-

Priority given in the budget to preventive and early intervention services with a 41.5% increase in funding in 2011-12 allocated to Family and Parent Support services;

There can never be too much communication and the current strategy to enhance this – between head office and other departmental sites and between the Department and NGOs should be further developed. Attention also needed to be given to ways of getting positive messages about the progress of the reforms into the public arena.

CPEMRC welcomed the breadth of the reforms and recognised the enormous challenges this places on DCF to keep things moving across so many fronts. The Northern Territory Government should recognise the demands this places on senior staff and it is important that the DCF response be commended for the significant progress achieved to date.


Page 4 of 30

The CPEMRC Meeting with Northern Territory Families and Children Advisory Council who expressed some concerns about the lack of synchrony between some of the Commonwealth initiatives and the Northern Territory Government


Page 5 of 30

reforms, particularly in the area of family support services. The Council and CPEMRC have agreed to have ongoing meetings to address issues of shared concern including ways of monitoring the impact of the reforms, particularly within the non-Government sector.

CPEMRC met with the NT Foster Carers’ Association and noted a range of their concerns in relation to the recruitment and support of Aboriginal foster carers. The Committee was impressed with the openness of the forum and DCF's evident commitment to open and frank feedback and discussion. The committee recognises that the partnership between statutory child protection staff and volunteer general and kinship carers can be complex and challenging, but was greatly encouraged by the understanding and commitment to partnership by both the NTFCA and DCF.

This open and candid approach extended to all the committee's meetings with partner agencies and DCF staff that it held in Alice Springs. These included visits to some of the town camps where a range of issues were raised and to the new Youth Hub with which CPEMRC were particularly impressed.

The Committee visited the Alice Springs office of DCF where a number of concerns were ventilated by staff. The Committee was impressed with the willingness of staff to express these concerns and the lack of hostility in the interchanges and the clearly demonstrated commitment of senior management to listen and subsequently respond to issues raised. In particular we were pleased that the smouldering issue of the incomplete implementation of the “Joint Protocol” developed several years ago to provide guidelines for interactions between DCF and NGO staff which had been raised on several occasions during the day was addressed by clear and decisive action by the DCF Executive as a follow-up to these visits.

The CPEMRC in summary noted:-

1. The signifi c ant p r ogress achieved

The CPEMRC considers that DCF is essentially on track with the reform process and applauds the substantial work that has occurred for this to be so. The immediate challenge, however, and one that will continue throughout the reform process, is for these developments to be felt by staff and partner agencies in their day to day work on the ground.


Page 6 of 30

In terms of immediate impact, the committee notes the excellent achievement in largely addressing the issue of the backlog of assessments and investigations. It also recognises that there has been a


Page 7 of 30

substantial increase in Category 1 and 2 notifications and that workload challenges will remain well into the future.

In this context the recruitment and retention of staff will remain as the primary challenge for DCF to fulfil its role and achieve reform. It is not alone in facing this challenge in the Northern Territory. The cost of housing and the absence of subsidised housing in regional centres outside of Darwin remains the most obvious impediment.

2. Magni t ude and br e adth o f the changes being envisi on ed and implemented

The Committee notes that the changes being implemented affect every nook and cranny of the child protection system. Changing the system, including its culture is a challenge comparable with changing course for an ocean liner. It is something that will take time, and progress will not be uniform in all areas. Patience at all levels combined with energy and a clear vision of what is needed to achieve better outcomes are necessary qualities.

3. The importance of addressing achievi n g a change of culture within the child protection system

Numerous stakeholders raised the issue of the need for culture change within the child protection system, which we felt in many people’s eyes still equated with changes needed in the statutory authority. Whilst culture change within DCF is clearly necessary, interagency partners, NGOs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups also need to be open to the possibility of change occurring in a Department despite a history of earlier experiences that have generated negative attitudes and mistrust towards it. Stakeholders in the child protection system need to be open to the possibility of positive changes; otherwise there is a risk that the glass will always be perceived as being half empty. The vision of DCF being an employer of choice for Territorians committed to Closing the Gap in Aboriginal disadvantage is inspiring.

4. Communicating with staff, the sec t or and communiti e s about the new directions

Change is always most obvious to those nearest to where the


Page 8 of 30

change is occurring. In large bureaucracies, change in the upper echelons, whilst significant, is often perceived as having minimal impact and relevance at


Page 9 of 30

the coal face. It is important that the rationale for change and its nature, including its benefits for clients as well as staff, is clearly understood. This poses a significant communication challenge for those charged with leading change. The Committee have asked DCF to provide a summary of its existing and proposed communication strategies and how their impact is being assessed for its next meeting

Much emphasis is being given in current Australian child protection literature to the importance of a public health approach to protecting children and promoting their wellbeing. This approach not only recognises the importance of prevention and early intervention as strategies that complement statutory and other forms of downstream interventions for children who are at risk of, or who have sustained significant harm, but the importance of the social context in which abuse is occurring. Without doubt the Northern Territory provides the most challenging context in Australia for its communities, organisations and governments to respond to the scourge of child maltreatment. Whatever changes are implemented to improve the formal systems to protect children, the importance of addressing the social determinants of child abuse and neglect must not be underestimated. The Committee wishes to support and encourage the Minister to emphasise the importance of this work with his ministerial colleagues and the Northern Territory community.

Child maltreatment in the Northern Territory disproportionately affects Aboriginal children and young people and occurs in a very different context to most of the rest of the country – a context marked by poor housing, poverty, remoteness and often intergenerational joblessness; a relatively low ratio of adults available to care for children; the effects of dispossession of lands on communities’ sense of wellbeing; the loss of traditional culture; the impact of intergenerational violence and alcohol and other chemical substance misuse. Improving child protection response systems to improve outcomes for children, whose safety, welfare and wellbeing are threatened by adverse environmental circumstances and the nature of their experience of being cared for, need to be matched by strategies directed at remediable upstream determinants of the care they experience. This requires not just a whole of government but, indeed, a whole of community approach. Without such a broad-based strategy, any hope that downstream reforms will improve the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people is likely to be misplaced.

The CPEMRC would like to acknowledge the administrative support


Page 10 of 30

provided by key officials of DCF, especially Samantha Ping-Nam, Pippa Rudd and Clare Gardiner-Barnes.


Page 11 of 30

Background

The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee (CPEMRC) was appointed by the Minister for Child Protection the Hon Kon Vatskalis MP to undertake an independent monitoring role in regard to the implementation of the reforms agreed to by the Northern Territory Government following the release of the Growing them Strong, Together report of the Board of Inquiry (BOI) in October 2010 and the commitment by the Government of an additional$130M over five years, an additional $41M being provided in Financial Year2011-12. The Committee reports to the Northern Territory Parliament through the Minister for Child Protection and is required to provide a written report onthe progress of implementation of the reforms on a six monthly basis.

The Committee has met twice – an all day meeting in Darwin in February 2011 (after which an interim report was provided to the Minister) and a two day meeting in Alice Springs in 26 – 27 May 2011 which also provided an opportunity to visit several NGOs providing services in and around Alice Springs and foster carers and to meet with the Northern Territory Families and Children Advisory Council (NTFCAC) and staff of the Department of Children and Families (DCF). Prior to this meeting the Chair met with the Northern Territory Council of Territory Cooperation (CTC) in Darwin on 25 May.

This is the first formal report of the Committee.

Committee’s Process

The Committee has been supported by Samantha Ping-Nam and Pippa Rudd and the Chief Executive of DCF, Clare Gardiner-Barnes. For the first two meetings the Committee met with DCF people present, and on the second day of the Alice Springs meeting, although accompanied by DCF staff we met with many other people. The Committee intends to spend more time in camera from its next meeting. The Committee is exploring options for better connections with other groups, such as NTFCAC

Recruitment of new


Page 12 of 30

members

Two of the committee members have resigned. Donna Ah Chee from Congress in Alice Springs advised her resignation after being appointed as CEO of the National Aboriginal Community Controlled Health Organisation (NACCHO) in Canberra and Charlie King also resigned because of his inability to quarantine time because of other demanding commitments. Replacements for these two people are currently being considered.


Page 13 of 30

Meeting with the Department Executive

The Committee met with the DCF Chief Executive on 8 February and all day on26 May. It was noted that since the February meeting DCF had released its Strategic Framework for 2011-2015 “Safe Children, Bright Futures”, part of its response to the BOI recommendations and in April 2011, its first six monthly Progress Report on Child Protection Reform was released by the Minister. During this period, the Acting Chief Executive Ms Clare Gardiner-Barnes had also been confirmed in the substantive position. The Committee welcomed and congratulated Clare on her appointment, noting with approval the stability that would be achieved by her continuance in the role.

Our general impression was that the BOI, and subsequently the Government as reflected in the Safe Children, Bright Futures Strategic Framework 2011 to2014, have recognised that reform of the child protection and family supportsystem does not occur quickly. The timeframe in which developments commence within six, 12 and 24 months is appropriately ambitious.

There were 34 urgent recommendations in the BOI report that required implementation to have commenced within the first six months. The Department indicated in its Progress Report that progress had been made on all of these. In addition the Report noted progress that had been made on a further seven recommendations. DCF in its follow-up report to the Committee, documented progress it had made with respect to 66 recommendations many of which related to progress with less urgent matters for implementation within the first 18 months.

The Department’s strategic framework Safe Children, Bright Futurescategorised the need for reform under seven key headings:-

Supporting and strengthening families; Keeping kids safe; A strong and effective legal framework; Working together; Our people;


Page 14 of 30

Healing, growing, walking together; Building a stronger, better, more accountable system.

The progress highlighted in the first six months included:-

Success recruiting 42 professional child protection staff;


Page 15 of 30

Secondment of staff from New Zealand to reduce the backlog of 870 cases requiring investigation which was reduced to 31 by 12 May;

Funding of Aboriginal Medical Services Alliance Northern Territory (AMSANT) to (a) create an Aboriginal Peak Body and (b) creation of Aboriginal Child Care agencies in Darwin and Alice Springs and (c) engage with and consult with NGOs and communities;

Implementing common assessment tools in targeted family support services in Darwin, Alice Springs and Katherine;

Funding to establish a Centre for Child Development and Education through Menzies School of Health Research;

Establishing a Child Safety and Wellbeing Directors Network; Establishing an Information Sharing and Legislative Reform Reference

Group; Providing funding to Northern Territory Council of Social

Services (NTCOSS) to facilitate relationships with NGOs and implementation of specific recommendations;

Development and implementation of appropriate child protection caseload ratios that take local geography into account;

Development of Child Protection Crisis Response Skills Retention Allowance to promote retention of Administrative stream staff which includes numbers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander employees;

Introducing an incentives- based package targeting frontline staff; Hosting a staff forum for 135 Aboriginal and Torres Strait

Islander staff to assist with workforce planning and examine ways of improving contribution of these staff to decision making;

Drafting legislative amendments to the Care and Protection of Children Act which increase the powers and functions of the Children’s Commissioner and increasing funding for the Office.

Issues raised

In her updated report to the Committee, with some additional information requested by the Committee being provided on 17 June, the Chief Executive noted the following key issues:-


Page 16 of 30

The degree of cultural change needed within the DCF. As the CE noted:-


Page 17 of 30

“Cultural change represents more than just improving systems and processes. It also includes restoring the confidence of our staff, readjusting practice priorities, investing in training, healing broken relationships with key partners, promoting high expectations and quality performance standards, ensuring staff take pride in and are accountable for the services they provide.Cultural change and the shift to early intervention and proactive services which focus on child and safety wellbeing practices and more rigorous evaluation processes will take time.”

The Committee noted and commended the workforce related strategies, including streamlined managerial changes, strengthening the involvement of staff in policy development, giving enhanced recognition to staff who exhibited standards of excellence in management or casework innovation and the holding of management forums that addressed the issue of changing culture and improving communication.

The importance of communication – within DCF, between the Department and NGOs and carers. It was acknowledged that NGOs generally have very little awareness of the reforms and their progress and a stronger external communication strategy was needed.The Committee noted the range of strategies which had been developed within the Department to improve communication between members of the Executive and staff.

The healing process that was needed between DCF and Aboriginal people in relation to past adverse experiences of many Aboriginal people as a necessary prerequisite to forming stronger ongoing relationships. CPEMRC was pleased to note that the DCF has had further discussions with the Healing Foundation on ways in which this process can be facilitated. The Committee welcomed the interest being shown in Canada’s restorative justice programs and noted that trust between the community and DCF has undoubtedly been affected by the backwash of community attitudes to the Australian Government’s Northern Territory Emergency Response. The report of the NTER Review Board noted that Aboriginal people and government both wanted improved relationships but went on to state:

“The most fundamental quality defining that relationship must be trust. And for that to occur at the community level in the Northern Territory there must be an active re-engagement with the community by government. As we report, one of the impacts of the NTER was to fracture an already tenuous


Page 18 of 30

relationship with government.” Staff recruitment issues, including housing


Page 19 of 30

The CE noted the increase in staff in Care and Protection services and the net increase in professional stream employees that had occurred following substantial investment of $1.03M. This resulted in 41 new staff from abroad (Canada, United Kingdom, New Zealand), and 33Australians (out of 116 successful applicants) being appointed. The continuing high vacancy rate (51 professional and 83 administrative)continues to affect caseloads and ability to retain staff.The CE in noting that 75% of the children and young people in the child protection system were Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islanders stressed the importance of recruiting more staff from an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander background. It was estimated that about one fifth of DCF staff identified as Aboriginal, and although this is significantly greater than the NTPS average (8%), the aim was to have Aboriginal staff comprise 30% of the total, a figure commensurate with their proportion in the Northern Territory population overall. 58 of the 99 staff who identify as indigenous are permanent, with 15 on a higher duties allowance.The Committee welcomed the attention being given to acknowledging staff contributions and successes and the benefits arising from the establishment of the seven strand staff incentives package including the establishment of a Professional Support fund. The Committee was particularly impressed with the professional development strategies that had been undertaken to support staff.The Committee noted that inequities in the public sector workforce with regard to access to housing in remote communities remain a significant impediment to the reforms recommended by the BOI. The Committee subsequently explored the issue of housing with the Commissioner for Public Employment who joined the Committee by teleconference on 26May. The Commissioner noted that Northern Territory Police had an enterprise agreement that included housing. He advised that the Northern Territory Government had a policy of not providing housing to local recruits in remote locations and noted that the problem in many remote communities was the absence of housing stock. He noted that the cost to the Northern Territory government of supplying houses for its local recruits in remote communities would be enormous. He informed the Committee that Treasury had advised that


Page 20 of 30

funding for staff housing in remote communities had been included in the enhancements and if further housing funding was needed a further submission to Treasury should be prepared. The Commissioner indicated that there was a prevailing view that salaries for staff in remote areas of the Northern Territory were not competitive with other jurisdictions. The CE indicated that with remote incentive allowances Northern Territory salaries were


Page 21 of 30

competitive with the other states. Attachment D of the DCF report provided a comparison of Salaries and other Benefits for Statutory equivalents to DCF in most of the other States/Territories.The Committee was particularly concerned at the possibility of the recruitment and housing of DCF staff making up the innovative interagency Community Child Safety and Wellbeing teams in five of the Territory Growth Towns being affected by problems with housing, particularly as these have such an important community development, prevention and early intervention role, an important element of a public health approach to child protection.The Committee noted discrepancies between the Northern Territory and at least one other jurisdiction (WA) with respect to the definition of and benefits of remoteness. In the East Kimberley (Kununurra) equivalent WA staff receive substantially higher cost of living benefits compared to the Northern Territory, including free housing, electricity, air-conditioning and gas estimated to be worth $31,600 pa. (Attachment D). Several members of the Committee indicated that they would be attending a meeting in Melbourne with the Hon Jenny Macklin in June and would raise with her the possibility of Commonwealth funding contributing to the available housing stock1 in remote areas.

Pressures on frontline staff with the 12% increase in numbers of investigations. The Chief Executive noted in her May report that as a result of secondment of New Zealand child protection workers, only 31 of the 804 cases in “the legacy backlog” on 8 December 2010 had outstanding uncompleted investigations. By 17 June all of these had been completed.The process for legacy backlog reduction included removal of cases as a result of a data cleaning exercise (329) leaving 475 cases allocated to the backlog team for further investigation. Of these, on review and investigation by the backlog team 340 were identified as suitable for closure, leaving 135 referred to a DCF office. Of these, 10 were currently active with casework occurring at the office, 92 were referred to an office due to existing case work and closed at the office and in 33 investigations at the DCF office had already commenced before the backlog team had got to the case.A further 255 cases arising as a result of notifications in 2011 were awaiting investigation as at 2 June 2011 of which 14


Page 22 of 30

were in the most

1 Her response to this question was that she would not be able to transfer Commonwealth funding for Aboriginal to housing for Territory employees unless they were Aboriginal when consideration could be given.


Page 23 of 30

serious categories with the remaining 241 being in Category three (child concern). Over 1,000 more child protection investigations were closed in the 10 months of the current financial year compared to the whole of2009-10 an increase in investigation activity of 12%.

Alternative care reform. It was noted that as had occurred in other jurisdictions there had been a marked increase in the number of children in care – an increase from 306 in June 2006 to 643 in March 2011 of whom 80% were Indigenous. The supply of Departmental foster care placements has not kept pace leading to an increase from one to 151 in more expensive private (NGO) placements which in the current financial year are 4.9 times higher per capita than for Departmental foster carers. The total per capita expenditure in FY 2010-11 for all children in care is$34,601, amounting to $22.38M in total.It was noted that a significant investment in the Learning and Development of foster and kinship carers had occurred as a result of the reforms, as had support for the development of stronger consultation and partnership between the Department and carers and better means of providing carer support and supervision. The Committee was impressed with the active project work going on in this area. Upgrading this information infrastructure is vital to the effective coordination and delivery of services and the Department’s public accountability. This is an area of risk requiring attention.

Information systems development. The Chief Executive indicated that considerable work and investment in updated information systems was needed. In attempting to find out how many children in care had school attendance issues, the only way was by a case by case approach.

Challenges involved in establishing the Aboriginal peak body The Committee noted that DCF is working with the Aboriginal Medical Services Alliances of the Northern Territory (AMSANT) to develop and establish three key services – an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child, Youth and Families Peak Body and two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Care Agencies, one in Darwin and one in Central Australia.

Funding and in-kind support has been provided towards the establishment of the Peak and its ongoing running costs. The Aboriginal Peak Body is to focus on the wellbeing and


Page 24 of 30

safety of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, young people and families.

The Committee noted that AMSANT had called for expressions of interest for interim board membership of the Aboriginal Peak Body and had advertised nationally for a Chief Executive to work with the interim Board to establish and guide the organisation through its initial set up and


Page 25 of 30

operation. The Committee welcomed the fact that AMSANT has held community forums across the Northern Territory, including in remote communities, in order to obtain community feedback on the development of the new Peak Body.

The Board of Inquiry report proposed that the responsibilities of thePeak Body would include:-

o Policy and advocacy;o Collaboration;o Development of quality culturally appropriate out of home care

(through the establishment or Aboriginal and Torres StraitIslander Child Care agencies (ACCAs);

o Support for Aboriginal controlled health services to work with families;

o Provision of an Aboriginal perspective in individual child protection cases.

The Committee supported the BOI conclusion that “there are many functions it could and should have, but there is a risk in initially setting expectations unrealistically high. Such an agency may well find it difficult to limit its focus to its core business given the enormity of the potential takes it will likely want to take on”.

The CPEMRC noted that there are significant challenges for both the Department and AMSANT which includes ensuring that the new Aboriginal Peak Body represents all regions and Aboriginal peoples of the Territory, and gives due attention to ensuring that Body’s membership will assist it focusing on its key responsibilities by having appropriate community development, welfare and wellbeing sector representation on its Interim Board. CPEMRC suggested that further discussions need to be held with NTCOSS and AMSANT around steps they have been taking to improve communication between each other and with the sector.

We agree that the Peak Body will also face challenges in gaining confidence from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander sector that quality and inclusive approaches are being adopted to address child protection and family support issues in the Territory to that ensure the safety and wellbeing of children in the Territory. The Committee believed that a policy of “hasten


Page 26 of 30

slowly” will provide an opportunity to gain support from all the stakeholder groups.

In responding to this range of issues, the Committee noted that:-


Page 27 of 30

Priority given in the budget to preventive and early intervention services with a 41.5% increase in funding in 2011-12 allocated to Family and Parent Support services was welcomed;

There can never be too much communication and the current strategy to enhance this – between head office and other departmental sites and between the Department and NGOs should be further developed. Attention also needed to be given to ways of getting positive messages about the progress of the reforms into the public arena.

CPEMRC notes and welcomes the breadth of the reforms and recognises the enormous challenges this places on DCF to keep things moving across so many fronts. The Northern Territory Government should recognise the demands this places on senior staff and it is important that the DCF response be commended for the progress achieved.

Performance Management and Evaluation FrameworkA Subcommittee of CPEMRC had been appointed at the first meeting to provide advice on the development of this framework, which addresses Recommendations 2, 22, 53 - 55, 59, 100, 135.The Framework will need to provide guidance on:-

1. The establishment of ongoing guidelines for the implementation of theBoard of Inquiry report into the child protection system; and

2. The establishment of a longer-term evaluation framework which will guide an eventual evaluation into the impact the recommendations of the report have had on the wellbeing of Northern Territory children who are victims of abuse or neglect (or who are at risk of becoming so).

It is anticipated that it will take 12 months to complete the development of the Performance Management and Evaluation Framework (PM&EF), a process that will require extensive consultation.The Subcommittee provided a report to the Committee which recommended that:-

The process of formulating the PM&EF be commenced immediately; The PM&EF be undertaken by DCF (i.e. not outsourced)


Page 28 of 30

The PM&EF be incorporated into a single document; and


Page 29 of 30

Project oversight to be provided by the CPEMRC subcommittee and the schedule of reporting to the Committee on the project’s progress is designated as per the project timelines provided at Appendix B.

The Committee endorsed these recommendations.

Meeting with Northern Territory Families and Children AdvisoryCouncil

The Committee met with several members of the Council - Liza Balmer, Jane Lloyd and Geoff Stewart. The Council members expressed concern about the lack of synchrony between some of the Commonwealth initiatives and the Northern Territory Government reforms, particularly in the area of family support services. They also raised the question as to how progress of the reforms and in particular, engagement with the NGO sector was to be measured. Council members were concerned about previously unsuccessful attempts to share information between DCF’s predecessor and NGOs. They were particularly concerned to look at ways in which the Council and Committee could keep in touch and meet together over the life of the Committee. Further consideration to this request is being given by the Committee.

Issues raised at meetings with non-government agencies

The Committee met with a range of NGO groups on Thursday and Friday that are listed in the appendix.

Northern Territory Foster Carers’ Association Members of the CPEMRC were pleased to be asked to attend a meeting of foster carers and the Northern Territory Foster Carers’ Association and DCF staff on both Thursday and Friday morning, where carers were invited to raise issues of concern to them and the improvements they want to see. Amongst the issues raised were:-

The lack of trained experienced carers; Poor communication between the Department and carers; The importance of key paperwork to accompany children

taken into care; The circumstances under which children were removed


Page 30 of 30

was more disempowering than it needed to be; The importance of changed practices; Concerns about the challenges facing unregistered Indigenous

carers in meeting the standards required to register as foster carers.


Page 31 of 30

There was a clearly expressed hope that management in the Department would take the leadership in driving the new culture of openness and partnership.

The committee was impressed with the openness of the forum and DCF's commitment to open and frank feedback and discussion. The committee recognises that the partnership between statutory child protection staff and volunteer general and kinship carers can be complex and challenging, but was greatly encouraged by the understanding and commitment to partnership by both the NTFCA and DCF.

This open and candid approach extended to all the committee's meetings with partner agencies and DCF staff that it held in Alice Springs.

The Committee visited a number of the Town Camps on Friday morning accompanied by Dorrelle Anderson from the DCF office in Alice Springs who acted as a guide and translator. These included Tangentyere Town Camps (the learning centre at Yarrenyty Altere, and the community centre at Karnte), the Hidden Valley Community Centre, and the Akeyulerre Healing Centre in Alice Springs.

A number of issues were raised. These included:-

The desire for good relationships between the camps and DCF; Difficulties around long term case planning and engagement of

families in planning; Confusion in families around what the perceived problem with

their care of their children is and what action is being taken by DCF;

Concerns around getting vulnerable teenage girls back into the school system;

Poor documentation of interagency casework planning meetings; Staffing shortages in the DCF office in Alice Springs and the

difficulties this caused for good practice and the handling of complaints;

The failure to work in accordance with a Joint Protocol between DCF and the town camps developed about 2007 (see below);

School attendance issues and transport difficulties; Maintaining school attendance in high school; School attendance being affected by parental drinking behaviour; Continuing community violence; Minority of families in town camps are employed (e.g. 6 out of 20 in


Page 32 of 30

Hidden Valley); Insecurity of funding of particular camps.

DCF staff drew attention to the challenges for the Alice Springs office in a number of areas including:-


Page 33 of 30

Dealing with unregistered carers; Many changes of management personnel; Significant vacancies in professional stream staff (eight FTE at

the time of our visit); Workload issues especially in relation to the fact that

reducing the backlog of investigations has in effect relocated the bottleneck to thenext stages of referral and case management process.

Further information about the Joint Protocol which was developed in 2003 and revised at the end of 2006 was provided by the CE. The Senior Manager of Alice Springs Child Protection services noted in early 2011 that the protocol had not been actioned or implemented satisfactorily. A process for updating and “re-energising” the protocol is currently being undertaken that will involved DCF staff and NGOs, which will need to be accompanied by staff training to ensure ownership, knowledge and participation in its use will occur. Feedback from community agencies informed about this process has been positive.

Visit to Youth Hub

The Committee also visited the Youth Hub and met John Adams, the Youth Services Coordinator (DCF) and was also welcomed to the site by the Minister for Central Australia, Mr Karl Hampton. The Hub is an important component of the overall Alice Springs Youth Action Plan which was launched in 2009 to help make the community safer and help young people stay out of trouble. The CPEMRC was very impressed with what they saw and heard during this visit.

The Youth Hub aims to provide a safe place for young people to meet, get information, learn new things and have fun.

It provides a focal point for the coordination of youth

services. Key elements of the Youth Hub include:-

An integrated presence and approach between government and the non- government sector to deliver support and services to the youth sector and their families;


Page 34 of 30

Youth related services to be available on site include: the Department of Children and Families Family Responsibility Support Centre, Youth at Risk Team and Streetworks Outreach Service;


Page 35 of 30

The consolidation of recreation, counselling andgeneral education activities within the precinct.

In addition, CREATE will be opening an office in the Hub once the current refurbishments are completed which will offer a unique opportunity for children and young people who have had any out-of-home care experience, to be consulted and have a voice in service developments.

Governance is provided by a cross-agency group chaired by John Adams that ensures Northern Territory, Federal, local government and non-government youth sector organisations are working together to provide the best services to young people.

Visit to Mobile Outreach Service Plus

The Committee also met with staff at Mobile Outreach Service Plus (MOS Plus), led by Alistair MacDonald, a joint program being implemented in the context of the Health Services and the Closing the Gap in the Northern Territory National Partnership Agreements between the Australian and Northern Territory Governments. This provides culturally safe counselling and support services in response to any form of child abuse-related trauma in remote areas, and is The Australian Government’s commitment to funding a therapeutic response to neglect and abuse, complemented by appropriate non case-related services to children and their families and communities. MOS Plus complements the role of many primary health care providers. The program is also intended to increase referral pathways through partnerships with the broader remote health and community services sector. These funds also improve access to remote forensic sexual assault services. MOS Plus teams consist of professional counsellors and Aboriginal Therapeutic Resource Workers who provide casework services, community education and professional development services to Aboriginal children, families and community members in remote Northern Territory.

The Committee noted the significant challenges in providing therapeutic services on a mobile basis in what is essentially a cross cultural setting. It was impressed with the role of the Aboriginal staff in bridging this gap, and management’s understanding of the challenges inherent in providing the service.

Issues raised at meeting with Department of Children and Families, Alice Springs, Mwerre House Alice Springs


Page 36 of 30

The Committee, accompanied by members of the DCF Executive took the opportunity to meet with staff in the Alice Springs office where a number of concerns were raised in a very open manner. These included:-

The importance of staff being listened to and consulted, especiallyAboriginal staff;

Perceived lack of communication about reform, and staff’s high expectations about big change expected after BOI Report. Change is happening but staff need to be clearer and realistic about the time it will actually take;

Salary levels; Concerns about poor understanding of roles - e.g. Foster

Carers all have a different idea about their job; Concerns about standards of practice; The importance of improved orientation, training and familiarisation; Need to update the staff manual; Practice models from the southern states weren’t appropriate in

Northern Territory; No one ever hears about the good things being done

in child protection; Absence of a substantial well-functioning NGO sector in Alice Springs; The importance of Inter-agency meetings to develop

relationships with partners (and the successes of these when chaired by Central Lands Council;

The challenges of breaking down the historical reputation of difficult relationships with The Department shared by outside agencies;

The protocol for understanding with NGOs worked well to begin with, but fell over in about two years;

Service being so driven by crises; Lack of systems or processes; Huge impact of staff vacancies (currently eight vacancies)

and staff turnover:-- Caseloads are stretched and allocation should take into

account the complexity of cases;- Work is needed on unallocated cases to uncover who is

most at risk;


Page 37 of 30

- No time to do what needs to be done;- Writing reports on children whom staff know nothing about;- Distinct lack of planning around permanency planning;- Working in a funnel;- Being taken away from core business to attend external

inquiries puts more children at risk;- A wall of work is coming in daily.

. Incentive package needs to be re-jigged; Difficulties around youth crime and anti-social behaviour; Desperately need creation of youth court ; Lack of youth shelters; Concerns about the Youth Hub’s lack of immediate impact meaning that

Caseworkers may end up with more cases; Concerns about the number of children who have been in

long-term Foster Care (e.g. 8-9 years) and challenges of reunification after this period;

Staff perception that there has been more paperwork since the reforms; Concerns about implementing the specific Remote Teams.

Responses to a number of these issues have been provided by DCF Executive in the updated June 2011 report (pp 31-32). In particular:-

The protocol for information sharing and cooperation with the NGOsector;

Operation of remote teams; Consulting with Indigenous staff; Links with the Youth Hub.

The Committee was impressed with the willingness of staff to express their concerns and the lack of hostility in the interchanges and the clearly demonstrated commitment of senior management to listen and subsequently respond to issues raised.

Issues raised at meeting with Northern Territory Council of TerritoryCooperation.


Page 38 of 30

The chair met with the Northern Territory Council of Territory Cooperation the day before the meeting. A number of issues were raised and questions taken on notice. A separate response to the Council has been provided.

Committee’s analysis of progress based on information gathered from multiple sources.

1. The signifi c ant p r ogress achieved

The CPEMRC considers that DCF is essentially on track with the reform process and applauds the substantial work that has occurred for this to be so. The immediate challenge, however, and one that will continue throughout the reform process, is for these developments to be felt by staff and partner agencies in their day to day work on the ground.

In terms of immediate impact, the committee notes the excellent achievement in largely addressing the issue of the backlog of assessments and investigations. It also recognises that there has been a substantial increase in Category 1 and 2 notifications and that workload challenges will remain well into the future.

In this context the recruitment and retention of staff will remain as the primary challenge for DCF to fulfil its role and achieve reform. It is not alone in facing this challenge in the Northern Territory. The cost of housing and the absence of subsidised housing in regional centres outside of Darwin remains the most obvious impediment.

2. Magni t ude and br e adth o f the changes being envisi on ed and implemented

The Committee notes that the changes being implemented affect every nook and cranny of the child protection system and the relationships between the statutory agency, other government agencies (both Australian and Northern Territory) the Non-Government sector and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups. Changing the system, including its culture is a challenge comparable with changing course for an ocean liner. It is something that will take time, and progress will not be


Page 39 of 30

uniform in all areas. Patience at all levels combined with energy and a clear vision of what is needed to achieve better outcomes are necessary qualities.


Page 40 of 30

3. The importance of addressing achievi n g a change of culture within the child protection system

Numerous stakeholders raised the issue of the need for culture change within the child protection system, which we felt in many people’s eyes still equated with changes needed in the statutory authority. Whilst culture change within DCF is clearly necessary, interagency partners, NGOs and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander groups also need to be open to the possibility of change occurring in a Department despite a history of earlier experiences that have generated negative attitudes and mistrust towards it. Stakeholders in the child protection system need to be open to the possibility of positive changes; otherwise there is a risk that the glass will always be perceived as being half empty. The vision of DCF being an employer of choice for Territorians committed to Closing the Gap in Aboriginal disadvantage is inspiring.

A quote from the Review Board established to enquire in to the NTER is pertinent

“One thing very clear to the Review Board: the way forward from the Intervention can not be based on a return to ‘business as usual’. Both Aboriginalpeople and theAustralian

Government want a new relationship. The most fundamental quality defining that relationship must be trust. And for that to occur at the community level in the Northern Territory there must be an active re-engagement with the community by government. As we report, one of the impacts of the NTERwas to fracture an

already tenuous relationship with government.”

4. Communicating with staff, the sec t or and communiti e s about the new directions

Change is always most obvious to those nearest to where the change is occurring. In large bureaucracies, change in the upper echelons, whilst significant, is often perceived as having minimal impact and relevance at the coal face. It is important that the rationale for change and its nature, including its benefits for clients as well as staff, is clearly understood. This poses a significant communication challenge for those charged with leading change. The Committee have asked DCF to


Page 41 of 30

provide a summary


Page 42 of 30

of its existing and proposed communication strategies and how their impact is being assessed for its next meeting.

Concluding thoughts

Much emphasis is being given in current Australian child protection literature to the importance of a public health approach to protecting children and promoting their wellbeing. This approach not only recognises the importance of prevention and early intervention as strategies that complement statutory and other forms of downstream interventions for children who are at risk of, or who have sustained significant harm, but the importance of the social context in which abuse is occurring. Without doubt the Northern Territory provides the most challenging context in Australia for its communities, organisations and governments to respond to the scourge of child maltreatment. Whatever changes are implemented to improve the formal systems to protect children, the importance of addressing the social determinants of child abuse and neglect must not be underestimated. The Committee wishes to encourage the Minister to emphasise the importance of this work with his ministerial colleagues and the Northern Territory community.

It is very clear that the gains achieved by the Department of Families and Children in addressing the priority recommendations of the BOI will be very difficult to sustain without an equivalent investment in upstream preventive and early intervention strategies by other human services agencies such as Health, Housing and Education and the community controlled and NGO sectors. It is in this regard that Minister can ensure that the implementation of Northern Territory Early Childhood Plan, now in development by the across-government Early Childhood Steering Committee, is given the level of support it requires from his ministerial colleagues, their departments and the broader Northern Territory community.

Context of the system to prot e ct chil d ren ’ s safety, welfare and wellbeing in Northern Territory

The Northern Territory faces unique problems in grappling with the promotion of the safety, welfare and wellbeing of its children and young people. In 2004, the Territory’s population (excluding Darwin) was the youngest of all Australian jurisdictions, with the median age at 28 years (compared to a median age of 36 years across Australia).


Page 43 of 30

Children and young people thus make up 28% of the total population of 227,000 and a third of the total population are Aboriginal.43.3% of the Territory’s children are Aboriginal rising to 84% in remote areas. This creates enormous difficulties for the provision of human services, includinghealth, education, child protection and policing.


Page 44 of 30

“A higher number of remote communities are located in the Territory compared to other jurisdictions — in Northern Territory there are over 96 remote communities. With over three quarters of the Indigenous population living in either remote or very remote areas, the effect of servicing the population is that resources, including policing resources, are required to be spread over vast remote areas. This is therefore a responsibility of proportionately greater logistical complexity and a higher cost per capita.”

(Allen Consulting Group 2010, Independent Review of Policing in Remote IndigenousCommunities in the Northern Territory.)

Teenage birth rates are 3.8 times greater than in Australia generally, with Aboriginal rates 4.3 times higher than non-Indigenous Territorians. Low birth weight rates are 50% higher than elsewhere in the country, reflecting the higher proportion of Aboriginals in the population rather than comparatively higher rates to the rest of the country in either Aboriginal or non-Aboriginal rates. Death rates in children under one year of age living in remote or very remote locations are over 60% higher than similar locations elsewhere in the country.

Recent data from the Northern Territory Department of Education and Training show that 65% of Aboriginal children in very remote locations attended school for less than 60% of the time in 2010, a proportion that has increased from44% in 2006; only 13% attended school for more than 80% of the time a decline from 23% over the same period. 47% of Aboriginal childrencommencing school are developmentally vulnerable on two or more domains of the Australian Early Development Index.

As the recent Allen Consulting Group reports, The Northern Territory has a higher population in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic areas — 34 per cent compared to a national proportion of 13 per cent of the population. Of all jurisdictions, the Northern Territory has the lowest proportion of Indigenous residents owning or purchasing their home. The gap between Indigenous and non-Indigenous people living in a home owner/purchaser household was the largest in the Northern Territory (SCRCSP 2009). Only 10.3% of Aboriginal people in the Northern Territory own or are buying their own home compared with (a) 28.9% for Australia generally and (b) 72% for the non-Indigenous Northern Territory population.


Page 45 of 30

Allen Consulting also note that reported crime rates in the Northern Territory are significantly higher than those in other states and territories. The following points illustrate the prevalence of reported crime in the Northern Territory according to the latest ABS figures (2005 & 2009b):


Page 46 of 30

• In terms of personal crimes, which include robbery, assault and sexual assault, the Northern Territory has the highest victimisation prevalence rate of 6.6 per cent (followed by Queensland with 6.1 per cent);

• Compared to every other Australian jurisdiction, the Northern

Territory has the highest imprisonment rate at 658 prisoners per100,000 adults, which is over three times the national average. Given that a third of the population are Aboriginal it is not surprisingthat 81.8% of prisoners in the Northern Territory are Aboriginal.

Anthropological studies also report evidence of comparatively high rates of contemporary and pre-colonial interpersonal violence, particularly involving women in remote Australia compared to other populations. In Neolithic British and Iron Age Italian remains, between 7% and 13% showed skull fractures compared to 20% or more in Australian pre-colonial remains, with female rates being up to double this (Sutton P, 2011). Minister Macklin reports (June 6,2011) that Indigenous women and girls currently are 35 times more likely to be hospitalised due to family violence assaults than non-Indigenous women."Aboriginal men in Central Australia have acknowledged and apologised for the violence perpetrated against Aboriginal women:

“We acknowledge and say sorry for the hurt, pain and suffering caused by Aboriginal males to our wives, to our children, to our mothers, to our grandmothers, to our granddaughters, to our aunties, to our nieces and to our sisters ...” (Inteyerrkwe Statement Aboriginal Male Health Summit, Ross River, June 2008)

Given the absence of police on many remote communities until the NTER, it would be surprising if crimes related to interpersonal violence were not underreported.

However since the NTER, crime rates have diminished. Confirmed aggravated assault incidents recorded by police in NTER communities dropped by 31 per cent between 2009 and 2010 following an increase of 15 per cent between2008 and 2009. Moreover convictions for assaults have also decreased by 15 per cent between 2009 and 2010 despite a 28 per cent increase between 2007 and 2009. These data give some cause for optimism.


Page 47 of 30

In terms of child protection issues, in 2008-09, the Northern Territory had the highest number of children who were subject to a substantiation of a notification received (for child protection), with 12.9 substantiations per 1,000


Page 48 of 30

children. This rate was well above the national average of 7.6 substantiations per 1,000 children. It should, however, be noted that each jurisdiction employs different policies and approaches to child protection (AIHW 2010).

Alcohol consumption and deaths attributable to alcohol are significantly higher in the Northern Territory with Territorians consuming an average of 14.3 litres per capita (16.1 litres per capita in Aborigines) compared to the Australian average of 9.88 litres. Death rates attributable to alcohol are twice the national average in non-Aboriginals and 9-10 times higher for Aboriginals. These figures do not include the documented higher rates of alcohol-related hospital admissions and the effects of alcohol ingestion during pregnancy on the prevalence of foetal alcohol spectrum disorder and its accompanying developmental deficits.

Thus, child maltreatment in the Northern Territory occurs in a very different context to most of the rest of the country – a context marked by poor housing, poverty, remoteness and often intergenerational joblessness; a relatively low ratio of adults available to care for children; the effects of dispossession of lands on communities’ sense of wellbeing; the loss of traditional culture; the impact of intergenerational violence and alcohol and other chemical substance misuse. Improving child protection response systems to improve outcomes for children, whose safety, welfare and wellbeing are threatened by adverse environmental circumstances and the nature of their experience of being cared for, need to be matched by strategies directed at remediable upstream determinants of the care they experience. This requires not just a whole of government but, indeed, a whole of community approach. Without such a broad-based strategy, any hope that downstream reforms will improve the safety, welfare and wellbeing of children and young people is likely to be misplaced.


Page 49 of 30

CHILD PROTECTION EXTERNAL MONITORING AND REPORTING COMMITTEE

TERMS OF REFERENCE

1.0 OVERVIEW

1.1 The Child Protection External Monitoring and Reporting Committee (CPMRC) will oversight the reform process and implementation and will be chaired by a prominent person with content expertise.

1.2 It will draw together the necessary partnerships and expertise required to deliver on the intent of the Board of Inquiry Recommendations.

1.3 The Government will report to Parliament through the Minister for ChildProtection, twice yearly, on the effectiveness of the reform delivered.

2.0 RESPONSIBILITES

2.1 Report to Parliament through the Minister for Child Protection, on a twice yearly basis, in relation to the progressive implementation of the agreed Board of Inquiry Report Recommendations.

2.2 Consider and respond to matters raised by the Chief Executive’s taskforce.2.3 Provide expert advice to government to inform the implementation of

reform initiatives.2.4 Raise issues as required directly with the Minister for Child Protection.2.5 The Committee will make recommendations to the Minister for Child

Protection in relation to any matters that are critical to achieving the required outcomes.

3.0 STRUCTURES, PROCESSES AND MECHANISMS

3.1 Membership will comprise of eight members including prominent child protection experts.

3.2 The term of the membership will be 3 years with the option of an extension. The Committee will meet four times a year.

3.3 The Committee will provide a written report on the progressive implementation of the Reform initiatives to the Minister for Child Protection twice yearly.

3.4 The Committee will conduct high level consultations as required to achieve a whole-of-government approach and a public engagement in relation to the progress of the reforms.


Page 28 of 30

Northern Territory Child Protection External Monitoring and ReportingCommittee

AGENDA

Meeting Details: 2nd CommitteeMeeting

Date ofMeeting:

Thursday 26 & Friday 27 May 2011

Time: 10.30 – 6.00pm

Location: Crowne Plaza Alice Springs

Committee Members: Professor Graham Vimpani (Chair), Terry Murphy, Jacqui Reed, FrankHytten, Teresa Neihus, Dr Sven Silburn

Secretariat: Samantha Ping-Nam, Secretariat

Other meetings attendees Clare Gardiner-Barnes, Pippa Rudd, Fran O’Toole, Danyelle Bodaghi, SueTrembath, Dorelle Anderson, John Adams, Ken Simpson

Item Time Description Notes

DAY 1

1 10:30 – 10.45 Morning Tea on arrival Welcome and introduction from Committee Chair

Professor Graham Vimpani

2 10.45 – 11.30 DCF

Update on Department of Children and Families and the Response to the Board of Inquiry

Clare Gardiner-Barnes, A/Chief Executive

Pippa Rudd, A/Senior Director, Strategic Reform and Accountability



Page 29 of 30

3 11:30 – 12.00 Northern Territory Commissioner for Public Employment– Telelink

~ Ken Simpson PH: 8999 4104

Remote area conditions

Workforce

4 12:00 – 1.30 Reporting and Evaluation

Performance Management Evaluation Framework

External Monitoring & Reporting Sub-Committee

- Sven Silburn, Jacqui Reed, Frank Hytten

Community Child Safety and Wellbeing Teams

Strategic Investment Framework

Fran O’Toole and Danyelle Bodaghi, DCF

5 1:30 – 2.00 Lunch

6 2.00 – 3.00 Foster Care Reforms

Sue Trembath, DCF

7 3.00 – 4.00 Committee planning and discussion

Endorsement of TOR

Items for follow up

3rd committee meeting proposed dates

8 4:00 – 4.15 Afternoon Tea/refreshments

9 4.15 – 5.15 Meeting with representatives of the NTFC AdvisoryCouncil

10 5.15 – 6.00 Day 2 planning and Agenda


Page 30 of 30


DAY 2

1 07:30 – 8:15am Hotel Breakfast (Crowne Plaza meeting room)

Together with Dorelle Anderson of DCF AliceSprings

2 08:15 – 8.45am Agency presentation (Crowne Plaza meeting room)

Foster Care Alice Springs

Teresa Neihus

3

09.00 – 10.00

10.00 – 11.00

Agency visit

Tangentyere

Yarrenyty Altere Learning Centre

Karnte Camp Community Centre

4 11.00 – 11.30am Morning Tea Break

511.30 – 12.15

12.15 – 1.00

Agency visit

Hidden Valley Community Centre

Akeyulerre (Healing Centre)

6 1:00 – 2:30 LunchAgency visit

Youth hub

John Adams, DCF

7 2:30 – 4.00 Agency visit

Department of Children and Families

Dorelle Anderson

Documents

Microsoft Word - First Report Web viewNORTHERN TERRITORY GOVERNMENT. Growing. Them. Strong, Together. Child Protection External Mo. n. itoring and Reporting