ACWA’s Response to the ACT Out of Home Care Strategy 2015-2020 Discussion Paper
Children and Young People in Care Growing up Strong, Safe and Connected
This response is written by the Association of Children’s Welfare Agencies (ACWA), a peak body that represents the voice of NSW and ACT non- government community service organisations delivering services to vulnerable children, young people and their families. This submission is based on consultation with 4 members of ACWA that provide services in the ACT. The Centre for Community Welfare Training (CCWT), ACWA’s learning and development arm, has also contributed to our response in relation to training and workforce implications of those working in out-of-home-care as well as in relation to the training required to support a therapeutic approach.
ACWA thanks the Community Services Directorate for the opportunity to explore how out-of-home care in the ACT can provide better outcomes for children, young people and their families. ACWA welcomes the focus on placement prevention and reunification, as these work areas have the potential to bring stability to the lives of children and young people. The commitment to empowering children and young people and consulting them as the sector continues to find ways to make ‘The International Convention on the Rights of the Child’ enlivened.
This response will, firstly, outline the principles and strategies required for good service delivery within out-of-home care and the need for an integrated, holistic approach to meet the individual needs of children and young people in out-of-home care or at risk.
An Integrated Approach
Children and young people in out-of-home care and at risk of entering care face complex issues. ACWA supports an integrated approach to address these issues effectively.
This integrated approach to a service system considers – at the higher level – accredited service provision, legislation, regulations, policy, organisational structures and governance. This approach supports the Council of Australian Governments’ recognition through the National Framework (2009) that a commitment is needed to better link supports and services “avoiding duplication, coordinating planning and implementation and better sharing of information and innovation”.
Joined up services
On a day-to-day level, this approach is implemented through joined up service provision. If services work together on the ground, caseworkers are better equipped to access support for children, young people and families.
There are many factors that impact on joined up services, including: the working relationship between government and non-government agencies; work and placement environments; workers’ skills and support networks; and the training and support for carers. Ultimately, an integrated service system and joined up services in the local area provide the best outcomes for children and young people. Community housing, homeless and disability services, experiences in education, and health practices all have an impact on children and families involved in out-of-home care or at risk from entering care. These services are also crucial to engage for a young person in their successful transition from care.
In short, this five year Out-of-Home Care Strategy needs to be developed with articulated links to the network of wider government services, including education, training and health.
ACWA also stresses the centrality of casework as being the interface between the child/young person and carer and the wider service system.
Casework is not mentioned within the discussion paper and caseworkers are only referred to once. Casework is an integral part of out-of-home care and needs to be addressed when discussing issues like parental contact, transition from care, reunification and empowering children in decision- making. The current definition of casework in NSW is, for example, “the practical day-to-day involvement with children, young people, their carers and families”. This includes safety and risk assessments, case plan implementation, building relationships, monitoring and coordination of the services and supports needed. Briggs and Cromie (2000) describe casework skills as being able to “liaise effectively with service providers, often engaging in advocacy or brokerage roles to obtain appropriate resources” which requires “a good understanding of which community resources suit which client”. A flexible service model with a range of available resources, therefore, requires strong casework to ensure equity and access for children, young people and their families.
Care and Protection Services introduced a ‘single caseworker’ model to increase stability. To support this, there needs to be clear roles and responsibilities for the caseworker. There also needs to be an outline of the case ratio within the proposed therapeutic approach. Good casework also requires appropriate internal supervision and support, and may also be supported by consultation in relation to specific skill areas. For example, in managing complex Alternative Dispute Resolution processes or in responding to trauma related behaviors in a child.
This response will now answer questions posed in the discussion paper sequentially.
Question 1: Do the elements described address the main challenges facing the out of home care sector?
One of the main challenges facing the sector is the growing number of children and young people in out of home care in the ACT. Out-of-home care numbers have increased across the past decade in Australia. In the ACT, numbers have doubled from 215 children and young people in 2000 to 566 in 2012. From the short period between 2009-2012, the number of children and young people admitted to out-of-home care rose from 168 to 247, while 168 were discharged in 2012. The numbers in out-of-home care is a key progress measure for the National Framework (2009). These figures raise questions over the capacity of the sector and the recruitment of professionals and foster carers, each of these being explored in the response to Question 7.
To deliver an effective service model in out-of-home care, there are key areas that the ACT will need to develop. Firstly, casework is a key area, as outlined in the introduction. Secondly, ACWA members in the ACT have asked for a clear accreditation system for agencies. This is supported by the Auditor- General (2013), who reported that there was “no formal policy to guide visitations for monitoring the welfare of children and young people in out-of- home care placements”. Thirdly, a standard assessment framework is needed to adequately assess individual needs and ensure effective implementation of therapeutic care to meet these needs.
Standard Assessment Framework
ACWA emphasises the importance of a standard assessment framework to provide a transparent process, and common language and understanding across the funding body and service providers.
Assessment tools fulfill two purposes: providing information about the level of intervention support required to meet a child’s individual needs and the placement type that the child/young person requires. McLean et al. (2011) explain that Therapeutic Residential Care involves the “prioritisation of children and young people with complex needs” so requires a comprehensive assessment of individual need. There are several assessments that can be used within a therapeutic approach including Trauma System Checklist for Children (TSCC), Social Network Map (SNM), Behaviour Assessment System for Children (BASC2), Parent/carer and Teacher Report Scales (PRS or TRS) and the Infant–Toddler Social and Emotional Assessment (ITSEA).
To allocate an appropriate placement type, the Child Assessment Tool (CAT) is being used in NSW. One problem with the implementation of this tool, to be avoided in other jurisdiction, is that it has been tied to funding levels – it was not however designed for this purpose. The Looking After Child (LAC) system is used in the ACT by ACWA member agencies and could be used more widely if evaluations show it is a robust tool that enables sharing of information and includes the child and carer.
Guidelines will be needed to outline how soon assessments are completed and when they are reviewed. This timeframe will be dependent the caseload of therapeutic specialists, if they are used to make the assessment as part of the therapeutic placement. This may also be an evolving process that the specialist will complete with the engagement of key participants.
Question 2: Are the service models and the support options feasible in the context of the ACT?
Within a wider context, a good service model will consist of adequate funding; resourced workers; a large good pool of trained, supported and monitored carers that will enable appropriate matching; and accreditation for on-going improvement. A move to all placements being therapeutic and improved services for placement prevention, transition from care, kinship carers and reunification all require the funding and resources to support effective implementation.
Question 3: Are there alternative models that would add substantially to the proposal?
Government and non-government agencies have been delivering out-of-home care together in the ACT as part of a “mixed model of case management”. For a working relationship to be successful, there needs to be a level of transparency. To implement reforms or suggest alternatives, there needs to be a shared understanding of the model being proposed as well as the governance within the new service system. To support a strong working relationship, there needs to be clear roles in terms of Case Management and support for well-established agencies to continually contribute to the service model with innovative responses.
Case Management Policy should ensure that the decisions about day-to-day matters of care are made by the person closest to the child.
This will help ensure that the child’s needs are at the forefront. These considerations highlight the importance of the delegation processes from government to non-government agencies to ensure timely decisions and reduce the duplication of roles. These issues were raised in the section on ‘Case Management’ in the discussion paper. In Frederico et al.’s report (2012), carers working under a therapeutic model expressed a “lack of communication with both the foster care agency and [government departments] and the fact that sometimes contradictory information was provided”. This is also an issue that ACT carers raised in the Roundtables.
Also, the Auditor-General (2013) recommended “an electronic data management system that allows information on children and young people to be readily accessed”. Comprehensive information sharing and adequate staff training for using the LAC, or another system, is key for working together. ACWA recommends that the “case management framework” be strengthened through delegation of day-to-day decision-making, increased transparency, common assessments that are shared to understand a child or young person’s level of need, effective information sharing tools, funding security and clear policies.
Spaces need to be allowed for the well-established agencies providing services in the ACT to lead innovation in the sector.
Part of an effective service system is the ability for agencies to be innovative in response to emerging issues. The shared care arrangement referred to in the discussion paper is a fresh approach to support reunification and permanency. ACWA’s member agencies are highly experienced in the sector and providing support for new solutions will help agencies tackle issues as they arise.
One area that could be taken on by agencies now is Kinship Care. The discussion paper recognises the supports listed “exist already but are not accessed universally”. Currently, the proposals do not suggest a way in which access will be improved. Care and Protection Services still holds case management for Kinship Care meaning they are still the largest service providers. ACWA and its members support the outsourcing of kinship care to non-government agencies to allow government to fulfill its role in monitoring standards and holding agencies to account.
Question 4: What elements would you prioritise? How would you direct resources?
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Children and Young People
ACWA advices that systems are put in place to enable research into children’s backgrounds, a kinship tracking service, a focus on governance responsibility within agencies and capacity building to develop the support for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people.
There are a number of priority areas for out-of-home care within the ACT. The first area has a population focus. The discussion paper raises the need for independent advice on the needs of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and young people. Twenty-three percent children and young people in out-of-home care are Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children. There is an over representation of male Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander children (65% in 2012). Out of the 138 Indigenous children and young people in out-of- home care in 2012, 34.6% were not placed with relatives, kin, other Indigenous caregivers or in Indigenous residential care. These statistics show that commissioning independent, community based cultural advice and establishing an Aboriginal agency is a key priority in the ACT to meet Standard 3 of the National Standards for Out-of-Home Care.
There also needs to be a process to review the impact of this population approach.
Placement Prevention and Reunification
ACWA’s members raised the need for longer-term, adequately intensive support for birth families to effectively prevent children and young people entering care as well as preventing problems that lead to reunification breakdown.
Placement prevention and reunification need to be funded and resourced to make the much-needed impact on the long-term outcomes for child, young people and their families. Effective investment in these areas will help address the ACT issue of rising numbers of children and young people in care. This would provide cost savings by reducing the number of children and young people in need of intensive support. Priority will, nonetheless, always be needed to provide out-of-home care.
The proposed model would need to identify critical points of intensive work, specify who would provide the support and outline how. This will be shaped by information about the numbers and ages of children and families who need this level of intervention. This will also require strong casework and case management. The skillset required for work with birth families is different to those needed for out-of-home care. For example, contact time will take on a dual purpose of supporting parent/ child relationships and modeling good parenting skills. Contact before reunification would also be more frequent and programs would need to be available for parents, meaning a different range of services will need to be available too. Quality childcare, respite and transport to school are also areas that would require funding to support families. The complexity of this work raises questions over whether a “para-professional workforce” would have a sufficient level of skill to deliver both placement prevention and reunification successfully.
If reunification is not an option, ACWA members want to see a stronger focus on adoption.
Permanency is a priority area to provide stability for children and young people in care. Governments should provide all children with the right to a comprehensive range of permanency options, including adoption. Decisions about permanency should be made as soon as possible to provide the child/young person with a sense of belonging and security. Early decision- making is important to avoid deleterious delays in establishing permanency. 31.6% of children and young people in out-of-home care had been in a continuous placement for 5 years or more in 2012. Brown and Ward’s (2013) research explains that best practice includes age sensitivity around how quickly permanency orders are made. This research brings into question the two-year orders that are currently used within the ACT, raised in Barnardos’ submission.
Transition from Care
More than a flexible service model, detail is needed on state programs for access to after care and whether there is funding attached to these improved services.
Transition from care needs funding to implement the policies that are already in place. Careful planning and preparation is already a requirement of agencies providing care for young people. Support is needed to ensure that these plans are followed through. Young people need to be supported with joined up services in housing, education, mentoring, driving and access to documentation, such as passports. A greater focus on the support networks for after care is also needed to ensure that the outcomes for young people in out-of-home care are improved. Schlonsky et al. evidence review (2013) explained that there was a lack of empirical evidence in support of training programs in money management, for example, in increasing the independence of young people. Support is needed for young people when they face the reality of living independently. Funding needs to be allocated to provide after care services that is additional to the funding for young people while they are in out-of-home care.
ACWA and its members also support raising the leaving care age to at least 21 and introducing processes that allow young people to be supported to stay until 25 while in education, training or moving towards independence in other ways.
This month, the UK Department of Education placed a legal duty on care providers to support every young person who wants to stay with their foster parents until 21 financially, allocating £40 million to these new arrangements.
Question 5: Do the elements build on the strengths of the existing system? What might be the implications for implementation?
One of the main implications for the proposal that every placement is therapeutic is funding and resources. The Victorian government allocated 416 million for therapeutic foster care for a 5-year period between 2005-2010 (Frederico et al., 2012). Making all placements therapeutic, the Community Services Directorate needs to consider the funding implications for a Five- Year Strategy, not only for therapeutic foster care, but for therapeutic residential care, improved placement prevention services and better transition from care.
The flexible service model raises many questions. Firstly, the discussion paper outlines that the funding model will be based on a core level of care that will then be supplemented with additional therapeutic services based on individual need. It is unclear whether funding will be split between these two elements or calculated together.
Secondly, the paper states that regular reviews of the therapeutic plan would include “the possible development of more specialist inputs”. This raises questions over whether the funding would be increased to allow for the implementation of additional inputs.
Thirdly, services must exist for individual service plans to be meaningful. The funding model needs to be flexible in terms of being able to provide for all the needs of the individual. This means that the different types of services that may be required need to be already in place or provided through allocating additional funding to agencies. There are possible issues around agency viability with an individual funding model, especially with residential care. If the funding follows the child or young person, this may make it different for residential homes to cover their day-to-day costs in a small jurisdiction. This is an issue because the funding model incentivises full placements rather than the best placements in the interest of the child.
Question 6: Is the option of making every placement therapeutic achievable?
The discussion paper does not provide clarity in its use of the term ‘therapeutic’. It is unclear whether making placements therapeutic is meant to replace casework, have a role inside casework, whether it is a level of care every child needs or if it is a general approach. This makes it difficult to address the question of whether it is achievable. The answer to this question will be highly dependent on the funding and resources provided (as discussed in response to Question 5).
This response will set out the different views of therapeutic care, nationally and internationally, and what they might look like in practice.
In order to judge whether making every placement therapeutic is achievable, it is important to understand what a therapeutic approach looks like. A clear understanding of the therapeutic approach and whether a particular model is going to be used will contribute to success along with the processes that would support the child/young person’s to access the services they need.
A therapeutic care plan involves specialised inputs as well as providing the core plans for development, relationships, social and academic needs. These specialist inputs might include drug and alcohol counselors, social workers, psychiatrists, speech specialists, occupational therapists, dieticians, and psychologists among others. These will be the ‘wrap around’ services that would need to be available within the flexible service model. This means that a multi-disciplinary Care Team is needed.
ACWA members raised questions concerning who will lead the therapeutic care plan and what it will include. A therapeutic specialist, while involving key stakeholders, would be the most appropriate person to complete an assessment of intervention needs when the child/young person enters care.
A therapeutic placement would then have a number of key elements. Firstly, the child and young person’s needs are paramount. The discussion paper makes a commitment to empower children and young people in decision- making. This means the Care Team needs to become more democratic to engage staff, children and young people. Additionally, Bloom (2005) identifies therapeutic placements as creating a culture of inquiry, growth, shared ownership, non-violence and emotional intelligence. Also, therapeutic placements create a home-like care environment focused on building relationships, integrate the birth family into the program and provide access for children and workers to additional special support services.
Although these core principles underlying a therapeutic approach will be the same, the strategies should be applied differently in different contexts to be effective. Work is being carried out in Australia, including between ACWA and its members, to devise an agreed set of elements for therapeutic care, create frameworks for how it can be effective in residential and home-based settings and to evaluative the outcomes for children and young people.
Therapeutic care can be provided through a general approach or can take the form of many different models that are specialised for different placement types and different levels of resources and funding. These models are also underpinned by the research into trauma theory, attachment theory and brain development as well as others. Clear program guidelines will be essential to making every placement therapeutic.
An international study by Stuart and Sanders (2008) describes Therapeutic Foster Carer as involving “foster carers who are recruited and trained to care for children in a therapeutic, trauma-informed way. These caregivers are typically reimbursed at a higher rater than conventional foster carers, in recognition of the complex needs of the children that they care for”. Research conducted by Meadowcroft (1989) distinguished Therapeutic Foster Care “by its provision of a structured and nurturing environment for a small number of youth per staff, frequent and close supervision by program staff, program coordination with the youth’s school, extensive support services for treatment families, and coordination of care for all participants.” These two definitions highlight the need for trauma-based training and continuing support for carers. Meadowcroft’s definition also stresses the need for service coordination. This response highlighted the importance of agencies working together in response the introduction. This also brings resource implications for work to be carried out in schools, to provide access to outside clinical consultants, skilled caseworker time and supervision.
The national definition of therapeutic residential care devised by the National Therapeutic Residential Care Working Group is
“intensive and time-limited care for a child or young person in statutory care that responds to the complex impacts of abuse, neglect and separation from family. This is achieved through the creation of positive, safe, healing relationships and experiences informed by a sound understanding of trauma, damaged attachment, and developmental needs” (McLean et al., 2011).
The notion that therapeutic residential care is time-limited highlights the importance of the review process and introduces the need for placement changes. In the section on a ‘Therapeutic Residential Model’, the discussion paper states “The young person should not have to change placement if the goal of their therapeutic plan changes” and highlights need for services to be flexible. The ‘wrap around’ services provided by a multi-disciplinary team are crucial to therapeutic care. The funding and availability of specialists in the locality, however, may affect the capacity for agencies to provide this service. A limiting factor on the effectiveness of therapeutic care, reported by Frederico et al. (2012), is the caseload of therapeutic specialists. As highlighted in response to Question 5, for “services and funding [to] follow the child regardless of a change in placement”, the services need to be accessible and the caseworker needs to have the time and training to locate the appropriate services for each individual.
Question 7: What are the workforce implications?
A multilayered approach is needed to recruit committed carers and well qualified staff.
It is important to attract suitably qualified staff to deliver therapeutic care. Caseworkers will be responsible for sourcing the tailored interventions within the flexible service model. With the specialised training needed in therapeutic care, the entry baseline for caseworkers may need to be raised and, subsequently, increased salary packages may need to be offered to attract these skilled professionals.
2. Voluntary Carers
To meet the rising number of children and young people in care, the discussion paper highlights the need to improve carer recruitment. Also, the fact that some children under the age of 12 are being placed in residential care - 6.1% of those in residential care were aged 5-9 and 36.4% aged 10- 14 in 2012 – highlights the need for greater home-based care provision for children with complex needs.
37 households commenced foster care in 2012 while 18 households left. This also raises questions over retention. Currently, carers receive allowances to cover the day-to-day costs of children in their care. Therapeutic models highlight the need for “significantly improved financial support to foster parents” to be able to provide the individualised care required (McHugh and Pell, 2013). Especially within the high levels of employment in the ACT, payment needs to be competitive to incentivise potential/existing carers who want to make this significant commitment to fostering.
The paper proposes a centralised team to “nurture relationships”. Some ACWA members do not support the centralisation of carer recruitment and assessment. This is because these processes are part of the relationship building between carers and agencies.
3. Professional carers
Professional carers are a way to provide care for children and young people with disabilities or other complex needs. Detail is needed concerning the appropriate matching of children and young people with voluntary or professional carers. For example, consideration is needed on how sibling groups may affect matching with professional carers.
Professional carers would need to be equal partners in the care team as an individual with specialist knowledge and skills. This may, however, result in difficulties surrounding boundaries (outlined below). Also, research needs to be done on the potential impact of professional carers on the voluntary carer pool. The paper addresses the need to clearly differentiate between professional and voluntary carers. Specifically, the role of professional carers in relation to increased accountability needs to be outlined: how will the outcome of their work be measured? Will agencies be required to pay them if there is an empty placement?
There are currently a number of barriers to professional carers. The discussion paper references many practical implications for employment law, health and safety, qualifications, training and remuneration. If this is a proposal that will be taken forward, OCYFS’s work to overcome these barriers must be fast tracked ahead of any further planning towards this proposal.
The move to make all placements therapeutic brings with it workforce implications in terms of training and qualifications. The effectiveness of staff is crucial to the success of a therapeutic approach, as they will have a lasting impression on the child or young person.
There are a series of courses that explore Trauma, Attachment and Resilience and Trauma Informed Behaviour Support. These courses provide understanding that all workers in out-of-home care would need to provide a therapeutic approach for children and young people. Training courses focused on counselling and therapy will also be relevant to caseworkers and managers, looking at Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for example.
The Auditor-General (2013) report suggested providing “flexible learning options” for staff training. As a way to provide ongoing training, communities of practice are an alternative to a training model. Networks that discuss practice could add motivation for experienced carers and workers to engage with on-going professional development.
2. Voluntary Carers
In Frederico et al’s (2012) evaluation of a therapeutic model, carer training is cited “as an important component in supporting and guiding work with the child and young person”. Additional funding is needed for the therapeutic training for all carers. The Berry Street report highlights that “Sustained, additional investment is required to improve the quality of care and lifelong outcomes for foster children” (McHugh and Pell, 2013).
There is nationally recognised carer training with the ‘Foster Care Skill Set’, offering child focused units in providing care as part of a team, supporting the development of a child and promoting positive development. This provides a way for carers to work towards accreditation for a Certificate IV. To provide “a therapeutic style of parenting” the training available will need to be tailored while taking into consideration the distinct role of a foster carer. A foster carer is not a therapist and they need training on what the differences are. Carers need an understanding of behaviours and strategies to manage this while not having all the background information on a child from caseworkers. They also need opportunities to explore attached and detachment, which will involve managing boundaries.
As well as providing a core level of training, the Berry Street model outlines the need for continued support through peer support networks, both web based and localised (McHugh and Pell, 2013). This may include, more group specific support for carers of different age groups or a child/ young person with disabilities. There will be different developmental stages that carers will need more in-depth knowledge about to provide for these individual needs.
3. Professional Carers
Voluntary and professional foster carers would require different training. While professional foster carers may enter the sector with qualifications in psychology or psychiatry, customised training would be needed to apply this background knowledge and skillset to the out-of-home care context and acquiring the ‘Foster Care Skill Set’. This may also need to be more bespoke based on the varying previous training and experience of these individuals.
The issues around managing boundaries will be even more acute with professional carers because they will use their professional skills within a personal home environment. A child’s attachment needs at a young age must be addressed in a foster care environment. This might be difficult to achieve if the professional carer is serving a different role within the home. This raises issues for the child’s identity if they feel a stronger sense of labeling as a ‘case’ rather than belonging in the home. Additional research and evaluation of programs like Victoria’s Circle Program, is needed into these complex relationships before adequate training can be devised for professional carers.
4. Kinship Carers
Kinship carers require different approaches again. Within relative and kinship placements, the attachment between the child and the carer is already established so the role the carer takes is different. Kinship carers could have some training in therapeutic approaches and will need support with strategies to manage behaviour. They will not be able to take on the neutral stance of a therapeutic carer because of their own attachment and that of the child. The child or young person’s want a different type of support from their relative or kinship carer that would not be consistent with the therapeutic carer’s level of support.
List of References
ACT Auditor-General’s Office (2013). Performance Audit Report Care and Protection System REPORT NO. 01/2013.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (2013). Child Protection Australia: 2011-2012 (Child Welfare Series No. 55). Canberra: AIHW.
Bloom, S. L. (2005). ‘The Sanctuary Model of Organisational Change for Children’s Residential Treatment’ in Therapeutic Community: The International Journal for Therapeutic and Supportive Organisations 26(1): 65- 81. Association of Therapeutic Communities.
Briggs, L. and Cromie, B. (2000). “Mental Health Social Work in New Zealand” in Social Work: Contexts and Practice. Edited by Marie Connolly and Louise Harms. Melbourne: Oxford University Press.
Brown, R. and Ward, H. (2013). Decision-making within a child’s timeframe Loughborough: Childhood Wellbeing Research Centre.
Council of Australian Governments (2009). Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020. Canberra: Council of Australian Governments.
Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2011). National Standards for Out of Home Care. Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia.
Frederico, M., Long M., McNamara, P., McPherson, L., Rose, R., and Gilbert, K. (2012 ). The Circle Program: an Evaluation of a therapeutic approach to Foster Care. Melbourne: Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare.
Meadowcroft P. (1989). ‘Treating emotionally disturbed children and adolescents in foster homes’ in Child and Youth Services (Volume 12, Issue 1-2). Routledge.
McHugh, M. and Pell, A. (2013). Reforming the Foster Care System in Australia. Melbourne: Berry Street.
McLean, S., Price-Robertson, R. and Robinson, E. (2011). Therapeutic Residential Care in Australia: Taking Stock and Looking Forward (NCPC Issues No. 35). Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies.
ACWA response to OOHC Strategy 2015-2020 17
NSW Family and Community Services (2013). Case Management Policy. Sydney: FaCS. – For NSW definition of casework.
Schlonsky, A., Kertesz, M., Macvean, M., Petrovic, Z., Devine, B., Falkiner, J., D’Esposito, F. and Mildon, R. (2013). Evidence review: Analysis of the evidence for Out-of-Home Care. Melbourne: Parenting Research Centre and University of Melbourne.
Stuart, C. and Sanders, L., (2008). Child and Youth Care Practitioners: Contributions to evidence-based practice in group care. Ontario: School of Child and Youth Care, Ryerson University.
Name: Dr Wendy Foote
Position: Deputy CEO
Phone: (02) 9281 8822
Address: Level 4, 699 George Street, Sydney, NSW
Postal address: Locked Bag 13, Haymarket Post Office, NSW, 1240