Keep them safe
Outcomes Evaluation
F i na l R e p o rt – A n n e x a
N SW d e pa r t m e n t o f p r e m i e r a n d c a b i n e t
Ju n e 2 014
K T S I n d i c ato r s
Authors
This report was written by the evaluation team led by the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC) at the University of NSW.
The evaluation team includes researchers at the Bankwest Curtin Economics Centre (BCEC) at Curtin University, the University
of Melbourne (UoM) and the Parenting Research Centre (PRC). Chief investigators for the Outcomes Evaluation are:
kylie valentine (SPRC )
Ilan Katz (SPRC )
Rebecca Cassells (Curtin)
Aron Shlonsky (UoM)
Authors of this report include Rebeca Cassells, Alan Duncan, Christine Eastman, Grace Gao, Ilan Katz, Marcia Keegan, Astghik
Mavisakalyan, Aron Shlonsky, Ciara Smyth and kylie valentine.
Suggested citation: Cassells R, Duncan A, Eastman C, Gao G, Katz I, Keegan M, Mavisakalyan A, Shlonsky A, Smyth C and
valentine k (2014), ‘Keep Them Safe Outcomes Evaluation: KTS Indicators Final Report, Annex A’, Sydney: NSW Department
of Premier and Cabinet.
Acknowledgements
The evaluation team would like to acknowledge the contribution of Peter Ryan, Tomas Kosik and Katherine Barnes from
DPC; Peter Reily, Venessa Smoothy, Joanna Hopkins, Robert Johnston, Samantha Lukunic, Marilyn Chilvers and Marina
Paxman from FACS; Ross Duncombe from NSW Police; Paul Lennox, Robyn Bale and Wim Schoeman from DEC; Natasha
Mann and Rosemary Davidson from AGs; Jacqualine Vajda and Jenny Marshall from NSW Health and other colleagues who
have contributed to this report.
The KTS Evaluation Steering Committee provided valuable background information for the concept and design of the
KTS Indicators. This information was sourced from the KTS Indicators technical report and included in this document.
Ethics and police clearance
The Outcomes Evaluation has received human research ethics clearance from the University of New South Wales Ethics
Committee. Researchers involved in this project have obtained appropriate clearances (police checks) which are required
to work with sensitive datasets.
Keep them safe
Outcomes Evaluation
F i na l R e p o rt – A n n e x A
N SW d e pa r t m e n t o f p r e m i e r a n d c a b i n e t
Ju n e 2 014
K T S I n d i c ato r s
Contents
List of Figures
3
List of Tables
6
Abbreviations
8
Executive Summary
9
Findings against evaluation questions
13
1Introduction
25
2Methodological approach
27
3Findings
31
31
KTS Indicators
Children have a safe and healthy start to life
31
Children develop well and are ready for school
45
Children and young people meet development and education milestones
at school
51
Children and young people are safe from harm and injury
58
Aboriginal communities participate in the protection and wellbeing
of Aboriginal children and young people
75
Vulnerable and at Risk Children and Young People, Families and Communities
79
Child safety, welfare and wellbeing concerns are addressed before they
escalate to statutory involvement
80
Children and young people at risk of significant harm/living in
statutory out of home care
87
Children in OOHC transition to permanent care
87
96
Young people (16-18 years) successfully transition from OOHC
Children and young people in OOHC are safe and healthy and have access
to the support they need
100
Children at risk of significant harm are identified and protected
106
Children’s Court proceedings are timely and inclusive
117
4Summary and discussion
123
References
125
Appendix
127
2
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
List of figures
Figure 1
Receipt status of KTS Indicators, Secondary data
28
Figure 2
1a Rate of smoking by pregnant women, NSW Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal,
2000-2011
33
Figure 3
1a Rate of smoking by pregnant women, NSW Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal,
2011 Aboriginal
33
Figure 4
1b Proportion of women attending pre-natal care, NSW Aboriginal and nonAboriginal, 2000-2011
35
Figure 5
1c Proportion of families with a newborn receiving a Universal Health Home
Visit, 2007-2013
37
Figure 6
1d(i) Proportion of four year olds receiving a StEPS vision screening, 2009-2013
40
Figure 7
1e Proportion of children fully immunised, 2005/06 to 2011/12
42
Figure 8
2b NSW children attending preschool prior to school enrolment, 2008-2011
50
Figure 9
3a Proportion of students at or above the minimum standard in numeracy,
2008-2012
52
Figure 10
3a Proportion of students at or above the minimum standard in reading,
2008-2012
52
Figure 11
3a Proportion of students in the top two bands in numeracy, 2008-2012
53
Figure 12
3a Proportion of students in the top two bands in reading by grade, 2008-2012
53
Figure 13
3c Attendance rates for students in government schools, NSW Aboriginal and
all students, 2000-2011
56
Figure 14
4a Risk of Harm and Risk of Significant Harm reports, ALL children, 2004/052012/13
62
Figure 15
4a Risk of Harm and Risk of Significant Harm reports, Aboriginal children,
2004/05-2012/13
63
Figure 16
4b Rate of children in statutory Out of Home Care, 2004/05-2012/13
68
Figure 17
4b Rate of children in statutory Out of Home Care, Aboriginal, by age 2004/052012/13
69
Figure 18
4c Number of children under one year diagnosed with a fracture upon hospital
admission, 2006/07 to 2011/12
72
Figure 19
4c Number of children under one year diagnosed with a fracture, 2006/07 to
2011/12
73
Figure 20
4c Rate of children under one year diagnosed with a fracture by Aboriginal
group, 2006/07 to 2011/12
73
Figure 21
5aProportion of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC in accordance
with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, by age group, 2004/05-2012/13
76
Figure 22
5a Type of care for Aboriginal children, 2011-2012
77
3
Figure 23
6b Proportion of Aboriginal children whose families have completed (exited)
Brighter Futures, who are subsequently reported at risk of significant harm by
age group, 2008/09-2011/12
81
Figure 24
6b Proportion of non-Aboriginal children whose families have completed
(exited) Brighter Futures, who are subsequently reported at risk of significant
harm by age group, 2008/09-2011/12
81
Figure 25
6c Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people whose families have
exited Brighter Futures who subsequently enter OOHC in the following 12
months, by age group, 2008/09-2011/12
84
Figure 26
6c Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people whose families have
exited Brighter Futures who subsequently enter OOHC in the following 12
months, by age group, 2008/09-2011/12
85
Figure 27
11b Average annual change in OOHC re-entries by age, pre- and during KTS,
non-Aboriginal children, 2004/05-2011/12
88
Figure 28
11b Average annual change in OOHC re-entries by age, pre- and during KTS,
Aboriginal children and young people, 2004/05-2011/12
88
Figure 29
11b Proportion of 0-5 year olds who re-enter OOHC within 12 months,
2004/05-2011/12
89
Figure 30
11b Proportion of 6-12 year olds who re-enter OOHC within 12 months,
2004/05-2011/12
90
Figure 31
11b Proportion of 13-17 year olds who re-enter OOHC within 12 months,
2004/05-2011/12
90
Figure 32
11d Proportion of children in OOHC who have had fewer than 3 placements
within 12 months, 2008/09 – 2012/13
93
Figure 33
11d Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC who have
had fewer than 3 placements within 12 months, by age group 2008/09 –
2012/13
94
Figure 34
11d Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC who have
had fewer than 3 placements within 12 months, by age group 2008/09 –
2012/13
94
Figure 35
12a Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young people with a leaving care plan,
2011-12
97
Figure 36
13a Proportion of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and young people
with individual education plans, 2011-12
101
Figure 37
13b Proportion of children and young people in OOHC with individual health
care plans, 2008-09
103
4
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 38 13d Proportion of children and young people living in statutory OOHC
who are placed with and case managed by non-government agencies, 2011-12
and 2012/13
104
Figure 39
15a Proportion of ROH/ROSH reports that received a face-to-face assessment,
2004/05-2012/13
108
Figure 40 15b Rate of children and young people for whom a secondary assessment
determines intervention is required and who participate in a family preservation,
Strengthening Families, or placement prevention intervention 2011-12
and 2012-13
111
Figure 41 15c Proportion of children who were the subject of a substantiated report and
re-reported in the following 12mths, 2004/05-2011/12
113
Figure 42 15c Proportion of children who were the subject of a substantiated report
and re-reported in the following 12mths, Aboriginal by age group, 2004/052011/12
113
Figure 43 15c Proportion of children who were the subject of a substantiated report and
re-reported in the following 12mths, non-Aboriginal by age group, 2004/052011/12
114
5
List of tables
Table 1Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes
21
Table 2
1d(ii) Proportion of 4 year olds receiving a follow up after a vision screening,
2009-2011
40
Table 3Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children have a healthy
start to life
44
Table 4
2a Proportion of NSW children who are developmentally on track by AEDI
domain, 2009 and 2012
46
Table 5
2a Number and proportion of NSW children who are developmentally
vulnerable in one or more, or two or more domains by Aboriginality,
2009 and 2012
47
Table 6
2a Proportion of children who are developmentally on track, at risk and
vulnerable by AEDI domain, NSW and Australia, 2012
48
Table 7
2b Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children develop well
and are ready for school
50
Table 8Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children and young
people meet development and education milestones at school
57
Table 9
4a Reports of Harm for NSW children, pre- and during-KTS, 2004/05 -2012/13
61
Table 10
4b NSW Children and young people in statutory OOHC, 2004/05 to 2012/13
67
Table 11Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children and young
people are safe from harm and injury
74
Table 12 76
5a Number and proportion of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC
in accordance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, 2004/05-2012/13
Table 13Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – Aboriginal communities
participate in the protection and wellbeing of Aboriginal children and young
people
78
Table 14Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – child safety, welfare and
wellbeing concerns are addressed before they escalate to statutory involvement
86
Table 15Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children in OOHC
transition to permanent care
95
Table 16 98
12a Young people with leaving care plans, CREATE data, Australia and NSW
Table 17Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – young people successfully
transition from OOHC
99
Table 19 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – Children and young
people in OOHC are safe and healthy and have access to the support they need
105
Table 20 15a Children receiving a face-to-face when reported at harm, pre- and duringKTS, 2004/05 -2012/13
109
Table 21 15c Number of children who were the subject of a substantiated report and
re-reported in the following 12mths, by age group, 2004/05-2011/12
115
6
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 22Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children in OOHC
transition to permanent care
115
Table 23 16a Proportion of cases referred to ADR, 2011-2012
117
Table 24 16b Proportion of cases resolved by consent, 2011-2012
119
Table 25 16d Proportion of case hearings conducted by a specialist Children’s Magistrate
121
Table 26Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children’s court
proceedings timely and inclusive
122
Table 27 Reports of Harm for NSW Aboriginal children, pre and during-KTS,
by age group, 2004/05 -2012/13
127
Table 28 Reports of Harm for NSW non-Aboriginal children, pre and during-KTS,
by age group, 2004/05-2012/13
128
Table 29 Aboriginal NSW Children and young people in statutory OOHC, by age group,
2004/05 to 2012/13
129
Table 30 130
non-Aboriginal NSW Children and young people in statutory OOHC,
by age group, 2004/05 to 2012/13
Table 31 Aboriginal children receiving a face-to-face when reported at harm,
pre- and during-KTS, 2004/05 -2012/13
131
Table 32 non-Aboriginal children receiving a face-to-face when reported at harm,
pre- and during-KTS, 2004/05 -2012/13
132
Table 33 6a Number and proportion of Aboriginal children whose families have
completed (exited) Brighter Futures who are subsequently reported at risk of
significant harm, 2008/09-2011/12
133
Table 34 6a Number and proportion of Aboriginal children whose families have exited
Brighter Futures who are subsequently reported at risk of significant harm,
2008/09-2011/12
134
Table 35 6c Number and proportion of Aboriginal children whose families have exited
Brighter Futures who enter OOHC, 2008/09-2011/12
135
Table 36 6c Number and proportion of non-Aboriginal children whose families have
exited Brighter Futures who enter OOHC, 2008/09-2011/12
136
7
Abbreviations
ACARA
Australian Curriculum Assessment and Reporting Authority
ACPP
Aboriginal Child Placement Principle
ABS
Australian Bureau of Statistics
ADR
Alternative Dispute Resolution
AEDI
Australian Early Development Index
AIHW
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
CIW
Corporate Information Warehouse
CSGP
Community Services Grants Program
CSE
Child Social Exclusion
children
Children and Young People
CWU
Child Wellbeing Unit
DPJ
NSW Department of Police and Justice
DPC
NSW Department of Premier and Cabinet
DEC
NSW Department of Education and Communities
FACS
NSW Department of Family and Community Services
HEALTH
NSW Ministry of Health
JIRT
Joint Investigative Response Team
KCFF
Kids Come First Framework (Tasmania)
KiDS
Key Information Directory System (KiDS)
KTS
Keep Them Safe
LHD
Local Health District
LGA
Local Government Area
NAPLAN
National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy
NFPAC
National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children
PRC
Parenting Research Centre
NGO
Non-government Organisation
OOHC
Out-of-home care
POLICE
NSW Police Force
ROH
Risk of Harm
ROSH
Risk of Significant Harm
SEIFA
Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas
SPRC
Social Policy Research Centre
VCAMS
Victorian Child and Adolescent Monitoring System
8
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Executive summary
The NSW Government has made a substantial investment towards protecting children from harm
through its $750 million Keep Them Safe child protection initiative. Keep Them Safe (hereafter KTS) was
introduced in 2009 as the NSW government’s response to the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child
Protection Services in NSW undertaken by Justice Wood (Wood Inquiry). A detailed description of KTS is
provided in Section 2.1 of the Outcomes Evaluation Final Report.
This is one of eleven evaluation reports that make up the KTS outcomes evaluation. The evaluation
involved nine separate yet complimentary methodologies that were designed to address eight evaluation
questions and to analyse the various sources of data available to the evaluation team. A detailed
description of the evaluation is provided in teh KTS Outcomes Evaluation Final Report.
Keep Them Safe Outcomes Evaluation: Final report
Annex A. KTS Indicators
Annex B. Unit record Analysis
Annex C. Economic Evaluation
Annex D. Professional Perspectives
Annex E. Spatial Analysis Report
Annex F. Synthesis of Evaluations
Annex G. Report on Clients’ Interviews
Annex H. Data Development
Annex I. Other NSW Strategies and Initiatives
Annex J. Literature Review
9
This report provides a final analysis of a range of indicators of wellbeing of children and young people in
New South Wales, in particular vulnerable children targeted by the KTS reforms. It is a companion report
to the Final Report of the Keep Them Safe Outcomes Evaluation.
One of the key aims of the evaluation is to examine the progress of the outcome indicators and whether
or not targets have been met or positive changes have been achieved. Specifically, we examine the path
to achieve the target and its variations at different time points and throughout different regions of NSW.
Therefore, the first step is to compare the initial condition (ideally before substantial KTS investment)
with a target or threshold line going forward.
KTS Indicators
The KTS Indicators are a key source of evidence to inform the assessment of KTS impact of children,
young people and their families. They were developed by the KTS Evaluation Steering Committee and
attempt to:
§§
Align with the outcomes identified in the KTS Action Plan Keep Them Safe: a shared approach
to child wellbeing
§§
Facilitate a holistic, nuanced understanding of KTS by covering the broad context within which
KTS is being implemented, and the specific outputs and outcomes it is seeking to achieve
§§
Contain a selection of indicators for the most important aspects of KTS for which meaningful
data are available.
Data for this report has been drawn from departmental administrative data holdings, the Australian Early
Development Index (AEDI), the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN), and
the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
How this report should be read
This report is intended to give an early indication of the impact of the KTS reforms on children, young
people and their families in NSW. It summarises the wellbeing of different groups of NSW children and
young people over time and will be supplemented by geographic analyses in a separate report, where
data are available. This report is a key piece of information for the cost-effectiveness analysis.
The report should not be read as a definitive statement about KTS outcomes for the following reasons:
§§
10
Many of the interventions can only be expected to produce outcomes in children’s wellbeing in
the medium (up to five years) and longer term (5+ years).
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
§§
Some indicators only report on changes over a short time and these should not be read as
indicators of long-term trends.
§§
Attribution to KTS has not been attempted in this report. Where targets have been set, these
are reported or comparisons made to baseline data.
Over the last six years, almost $800 million 1 has been spent in NSW under KTS to improve outcomes
for children, young people and their families. Most of this funding has been directed towards improving
outcomes and service delivery for children and young people in out of home care (OOHC) through
transferring these services to the NGO sector ($336 million) and improving the child protection system
($181 million). The remainder of the funding is dedicated towards prevention and early intervention
services, statutory/tertiary services and services for Aboriginal children and young people.
Main findings
Overall, there has been an improvement in the circumstances of children in New South Wales since the
introduction of KTS. However, it is important to note that we have not attempted to derive attribution of
KTS funding to outcomes in this report; lack of improvement or worsening of outcomes should not be
necessarily attributed to KTS. The Economic Evaluation takes these indicators a step further to test this
relationship.
More NSW children are getting a healthy start to life with improvements in prenatal care attendance,
universal health home visits, vision screening and access to early childhood education (see page 23).
There have been improvements in child development between 2009 and 2012 in NSW as reflected in the
findings from the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) (see page 30). However, Aboriginal children
remain much more likely to be developmentally vulnerable than other children. Reaching educational
milestones is less promising, particularly for the Aboriginal population.
One of the major changes was an increase in the threshold for a child maltreatment report, from risk
of harm (ROH) to risk of significant harm (ROSH), with the intention that only children at the greatest
risk are subject to statutory intervention: allowing resources to be focused where they are most needed,
while families at less risk are referred to other support services. While some of the evidence is mixed,
the KTS Indicators suggest that vulnerable children are more likely to receive support, services and
interventions where needed.
Consequently, fewer children are being reported since the introduction of the new threshold –
see page 44.
1Note that this figure reflects actual funding (i.e. nominal dollars). The total KTS funding package was $750m in
constant 2009-10 dollars.
11
Examining a time-frame where the new threshold was fully operational (from 2010/11 onwards), ROSH
reports have converged among child age groups and have remained relatively stable for the entire child
population. Marginal increases can be seen in rates of reporting over this period. For Aboriginal children,
there is less convergence, with young children (aged 0-5 years) more likely to be reported at ROSH and
the rates of ROSH reports for all Aboriginal children rising.
Sixty per cent of Aboriginal children and 75 per cent of non-Aboriginal children at ROSH do not receive
a face-to-face assessment, however, the likelihood of receiving a face-to-face assessment has been
improving for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children during KTS (page 93). Children aged 0-5
years are much more likely to receive a face-to-face assessment than older children within the KTS
environment – almost one in every two Aboriginal children aged 0-5 years and one in three young nonAboriginal children.
With greater funding directed towards prevention and early intervention services, vulnerable children and
their families are participating in programs such as Brighter Futures at higher rates (see page 64). There is
little change in the rates of these participants subsequently being reported at ROSH or entering OOHC.
The rate of children entering statutory OOHC has slowed since the introduction of KTS and for some
groups, for example very young children, decreased. The strongest effects are observed for the youngest
children (those aged 0-5 years), with the rate of non-Aboriginal children in this group declining, and
the rate for Aboriginal children flattening instead of continuing to increase (see page 51). This finding
is consistent with KTS being effective as younger children are most likely to be diverted from OOHC by
prevention and early intervention programs. Despite these changes Aboriginal children are still more than
six times more likely to be in statutory OOHC than non-Aboriginal children.
There is evidence that successful restoration of children to their families has been improving. Re-entries
have decreased for almost all age groups over a seven year period which began before KTS. Aboriginal
children and young people have experienced an average annual decrease of 1.6 percentage points to
14.8 per cent in 2011/12. Re-entries for non-Aboriginal children and young people have decreased on
average by 1.06 percentage points annually to 11.1 per cent in 2011/12 (see page 71).
Limitations
One of the main limitations in this analysis was the ability to gain information about how children
and young people are faring when in OOHC. Eight indicators were set out in the Population Outcome
Indicators Technical Report, each seeking to address different aspects of the wellbeing of children in
OOHC, including their educational performance, case plan goals for restoration, permanent placements,
and interaction with the juvenile justice system and risk of harm reports while in care; however the data
required to create these indicators did not exist. This presents a significant gap in important information
and has formed one of the key recommendations for future data development, collection and analysis in
a separate Data Recommendations report.
12
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Findings against evaluation questions
The KTS Outcomes Evaluation is tasked with answering eight questions about the effectiveness of NSW
systems that promote the development, protection and wellbeing of children and young people in NSW,
particularly vulnerable groups. This section provides responses to these questions within the key elements
of the child protection system.
Children’s wellbeing in NSW: the universal service system
Summary
Our analysis shows that more children in NSW have access to services that seek to improve their
start in life, including vaccination, newborn home health visits and preschool.
However, the universal service system does not seem to be providing the same level of benefits
to older children. While the universal system is important to the overall wellbeing of children and
families, improvements in these indicators are likely the result of a range of Commonwealth and
state government initiatives other than KTS.
These indicators provide contextual information about the environment in which KTS is operating.
They are not intended to be a measure of the direct impact of KTS.
13
The universal service system should provide support for all families, regardless of income, socioeconomic
status or risk of harm, to ensure that all children have the essentials to thrive. Its key service components
are health and education. A universal system allows for the early detection of children who may be at
risk and require subsequent intervention to support vulnerable families.
The indicators that seek to inform evidence related to this evaluation question consider population wide
indicators for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal families. Indicators 1(a)-1(c) focus on prenatal and antenatal
support, indicators 1(d)-(e) focus on health testing prior to entering the formal education system, and
indicators 2 and 3 focus on education and schooling outcomes.
Health
The universal service system is showing an improvement in indicators relating to prenatal and antenatal
support. The rate of smoking among pregnant Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women (1a) has declined,
however, smoking rates have been on a downward trend from 2000 (page 22). The proportion of
pregnant women attending prenatal care (1b, p24) and families with a newborn receiving a Universal
Health Home Visit (1c, p25) have both increased, suggesting that more families receive support in caring
for their newborns. Very small increases in the proportion of four year olds receiving a vision screening,
p27 (1d(i)) and referred for further assessment (1d(ii)) are apparent, but the increases are small enough
that they may be due to random variation. Universal vaccination schemes have had relatively high rates
of compliance for many years before KTS. The proportion of children fully immunised at ages 1 and 2
has remained steady for the past seven years, but the proportion fully immunised at age 5 (1e, p29) has
increased from 84 per cent in 2005-06 to just over 90 per cent in 2011-12. However, this still falls short
of the goal of having 95 per cent of NSW children fully immunised – the rate of vaccination required for
herd immunity.
Overall, the majority of indicators evaluated have shown an improvement over time, however the
outcomes for Aboriginal children are still well below those of the rest of the population.
Education
There have been improvements in child development between 2009 and 2012 in NSW as indicated by
the findings from the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) (2a, p32). However, Aboriginal children
are much more likely to be developmentally vulnerable than other children. There has also been an
increase in the number of children attending preschool, from 81 per cent to 90 per cent since 2009,
and NSW is on track to reach the NSW 2021 target of 95 per cent in 2013 2. This is likely to be
attributable to initiatives other than KTS, such as the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood
Education, which provides a preschool program for 15 hours a week. However, other school related
indicators have worsened. Fewer NSW students are above the national minimum standard of reading
and numeracy (3a, p36) while attendance rates of Aboriginal students in primary school (3c, p40) have
2
14
Figures to assess whether this target has been met were not available at the time of this report.
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
improved. However, attendance rates of non-Aboriginal students at primary school have not improved
(although it should be noted attendance rates are already high), and attendance rates of both Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal high school students have reduced, possibly attributable to the increase in the school
leaving age.
Vulnerable children: strengthening early intervention
and community based services
Summary
An assessment of Prevention and Early Intervention (PEI) services provided under KTS and their
impact on child wellbeing outcomes is limited to the Brighter Futures program, which constitutes
around one-fifth of all KTS PEI funding but a relatively small part of the whole PEI system.
The number of 0-9 year old children whose families exited Brighter Futures has more than
doubled between 2008/09 and 2011/12 for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. There
has been little change in the proportion of children being reported at ROSH following exit from
Brighter Futures. The exception was Aboriginal children aged 3-5 years, who were less likely to be
reported in 2011/12 than previously. The proportion of children entering OOHC after their family
exited Brighter Futures has decreased over time, more so for Aboriginal children. It is difficult to
attribute Brighter Futures funding to these outcomes as there was a reduction in the rate of entry
into care for all children, not just for those children exiting Brighter Futures. Further evidence of
the impact of KTS PEI program funding and child wellbeing outcomes is provided in the Economic
Evaluation report.
KTS has implemented or enhanced a number of prevention and early intervention programs, totalling
$156m dollars across the KTS lifespan. Significant PEI programs funded by KTS include Brighter Futures
($36.7m); CSGP sustained home visiting ($18.8m); Family Referral Services ($39.5m); and Home School
Liaison Officers 3 ($11.6m).
One of the key aims of KTS is to ensure that vulnerable and at-risk children and their families have
appropriate support and intervention to prevent children entering the statutory child protection system.
Indicators 6(a), 6(b) and 6(c) (page 61) report on a particular intervention for at-risk children – Brighter
Futures. This program has the overall goal of preventing the escalation of serious family problems
impacting on parents’ ability to care for their children, by intervening before these problems become
entrenched. It involves identifying at-risk families early and directing them to the appropriate support
services as soon as possible, ideally while the children are still young.
3It is noted that The NSW Department of Education co-funded additional School Liaison Officers.
15
While the number of 0-9 year old children whose families exited Brighter Futures has more than doubled
between 2008/09 and 2011/12 for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children, there has been little
change in the proportion of children being reported at ROSH following exit from Brighter Futures. The
exception was Aboriginal children aged 3-5 years. Children entering OOHC after their family exited
Brighter Futures have decreased over time, more so for Aboriginal children. This follows the overall trend
of lower numbers of children entering care year on year in NSW.
This does not necessarily mean that Brighter Futures does not work to protect and intervene early
for children, as other outcomes from the program, such as improved learning and behaviour are also
worthwhile investments. Further, as Brighter Futures is not representative of the whole PEI system and
there is only limited amount of data, it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about the effectiveness of the
program as an early intervention tool.
Children at risk of significant harm (ROSH): the statutory system
Summary
Overall it appears that raising the threshold has helped to allow more children to be seen. The
pre-KTS trend of large increases in reports (at a state level) to the Child Protection Helpline has
been halted, and entry rates into OOHC for young children has reduced.
ROSH reports have remained stable since the introduction of the new threshold on 24 January
2010, with rates of reports converging among non-Aboriginal children. ROSH reports for Aboriginal
children have been slowly rising since the threshold was implemented. Rapid improvements in the
proportion of children receiving face-to-face assessments are evident in the analysis, however, these
still remain below that which is expected of a well-functioning child protection system.
The rate of children living in statutory OOHC has slowed since the introduction of KTS and for some
groups decreased. Aboriginal children are still more than six times more likely to be in statutory
OOHC than non-Aboriginal children. The strongest effects are observed for the youngest children
(those aged 0-5 years), with the rate of non-Aboriginal children in this group declining, and the
rate for Aboriginal children flattening. This finding is consistent with KTS being effective as younger
children are most likely to be diverted from OOHC by prevention and early intervention programs.
There is also positive evidence that successful restoration of children to their families has been
improving, with rates of re-entries into OOHC declining and that the rate of children being rereported at ROSH is declining.
However, given the recent implementation of the new threshold change, the SDM and triage
systems, these aggregate findings are not definitive. Continued close monitoring of ROSH reports
as well as following the pathways of children reported through the new system (as has been
undertaken in the Unit Record Analysis) will enable greater insight into the effectiveness of KTS
in this respect.
16
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
While some evidence is mixed, the KTS Indicators suggest that vulnerable children are more likely to
receive support, services and interventions where needed. One of the major changes was an increase in
the threshold for a child maltreatment report, from risk of harm (ROH) to risk of significant harm (ROSH).
The intention is that only children at the greatest risk are subject to statutory intervention: allowing
resources to be focused where they are most needed, while families at less risk are referred to other
support services.
Consequently, fewer children are being reported since the introduction of the threshold (page 45).
Examining a time-frame where the new threshold was fully operational (from 2010/11 onwards), ROSH
reports have converged among child age groups and have remained relatively stable for the entire child
population. Marginal increases can be seen. For Aboriginal children, there is less convergence, with
young children (aged 0-5 years) more likely to be reported at ROSH and the rates of ROSH reports for
all Aboriginal children rising.
There still remains 60 per cent of Aboriginal children and 75 per cent of non-Aboriginal children at risk
of significant harm who are assessed as requiring a face-to-face assessment, but do not receive this
assessment (page 81). However, the likelihood of receiving a face-to-face assessment has been improving
for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children during KTS. Children aged 0-5 years are much more
likely to receive a face-to-face assessment within the KTS environment – almost one in every two
Aboriginal children aged 0-5 years and one in three young non-Aboriginal children.
Indicator 15(b) shows the rate at which children and young people in need of intervention, based
on a secondary assessment, and receive appropriate family preservation or placement preservation
intervention (page 84). The number of children who received such interventions increased between
2011/12 and 2012/13, most noticeably among younger children.
Indicator 15(c) reports on the proportion of young people reported at risk of significant harm who
have already been the subject of a substantiated ROSH report – this is a test of how effective the child
protection system is at safeguarding children once they are identified as being at risk of significant harm.
While there are only two time periods to judge this indicator by, it appears that the rate of re-reporting
is declining.
With greater funding directed towards PEI services, vulnerable children and their families are
participating in programs such as Brighter Futures at higher rates. While there is little change in the
rates of these participants subsequently being reported at ROSH or entering OOHC, it is likely that this
program together with other KTS initiatives is having a positive impact on other outcomes for children.
The rate of children entering statutory OOHC has slowed since the introduction of KTS and indeed was
already slowing before KTS. For some groups the rate has decreased (page 50). Aboriginal children are
still more than six times more likely to be in statutory OOHC than non-Aboriginal children. The strongest
effects are observed for the youngest children (those aged 0-5 years), where the rate of non-Aboriginal
children in this group declining, and the rate for Aboriginal children flattening. This finding is consistent
with KTS being effective as younger children are most likely to be diverted from OOHC by PEI programs.
It should be noted that the rate.
17
Children’s Court
Summary
Overall the analysis indicates that there has been an improvement in case management and the
operations of the Children’s Court. Continued monitoring of these indicators is required to make
further assessments.
In order to ensure that children at risk of significant harm are protected, a robust child protection case
management system must be in place. Such a system should ensure that children and their families
receive the services they need, that the option of family preservation is thoroughly considered as an
option, and children are placed in OOHC only as a last resort. To the extent that this process involves the
court system, it should aim to be supportive and not intimidating.
Indicator 16(a) reports on the proportion of cases referred to alternative dispute resolution (ADR),
which seeks to resolve disputes without the need for a trial or hearing – page 88. Increasing its use
in child protection cases aims to provide a less intimidating and more inclusive way of resolving child
protection concerns. Performance against this indicator is strong, with an increase in the proportion
of cases referred to ADR from 6.2 per cent in January-March 2011 to 27.9 per cent in July-December
2013. Likewise, the proportion of cases heard by a Specialist Children’s Magistrate (Indicator 16(d)) has
shown improvement, increasing from 44.3 per cent to 76.8 per cent over the same period; as has the
proportion of cases resolved by consent indicator (16(b)) increasing from 28.7 per cent to 73.4 per cent.
Children in Out-of-Home Care
Summary
It is not possible to make a judgement regarding the changes in wellbeing of children in OOHC
at this time. There are preliminary indications of improvements in some areas, but areas of
concern remain.
Assessing the well-being of children while in OOHC has been further restricted by the lack of
comprehensive and reliable information available about child outcomes for NSW children in OOHC.
For children and young people who need to be in OOHC, a key goal is to ensure that sufficient support
is provided to children and young people, and their carers to enable them to thrive. This support should
extend to young people’s preparation in leaving care and becoming independent.
Indicator 11 relates to the stability of children and young people’s experiences of OOHC. Indicator 11(b)
is the proportion of children and young people who re-enter OOHC after being restored to their families.
18
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Most age groups showed a decline in the number of children re-entering OOHC within 12 months of
being restored to their families. Generally, this decrease was most noticeable among preschool and
primary school aged children, with less noticeable declines among older children. Aboriginal children
showed a decline of 1.6 percentage points per annum, while non-Aboriginal children showed a decline
of 1.06 percentage points per annum.
Indicator 11(d) shows the proportion of children who have had fewer than three OOHC placements
within 12 months (page 65). The percentage of children with fewer than three placements is high,
particularly among primary school age children (93-95 per cent) and preschool children (around 92
per cent). High school age young people are less likely to have stable placements. Aboriginal children
and young people have experienced an average annual decrease of 1.6 per cent. Re-entries for
non-Aboriginal children and young people have decreased on average by 1.06 per cent annually.
Indicator 12 relates to young people’s experiences in transitioning from OOHC to independent adulthood
(page 73). Indicator 12(a) reports on the percentage of young people aged 15 and over with leaving
care plans in place. Around 40 per cent of young people in OOHC have leaving plans at age 15; this
increases to over 90 per cent of 18 year olds, with Aboriginal young people less likely to have a leaving
care plan. Survey data suggests that leaving care plans may not be well communicated to young people
in OOHC. Only one data point was available in the data provided, so a comparison over time could not
be performed.
Likewise, KTS aims to increase the proportion of children and young people with individual education
plans (13a) and health plans (13b) – see p75. Data from the Office of the Children’s Guardian suggests
that twenty-three per cent had individual education plans, with older children and young people less
likely to have one in place, and 64 per cent had individual health plans, with younger children less likely
to have one. There is some evidence that many children and young people are not aware if they have
education, health or leaving plans in place. Since the purpose of these plans is to get children and young
people engaged in their future and give them direction, this lack of awareness is a concern.
Indicator 13(d) (the proportion of children and young people in OOHC who are case managed by
non-government agencies) was introduced because of the government’s aim to transfer management
of statutory OOHC to non-government organisations. The proportion of children and young people
in OOHC who are managed by NGOs has increased from around ten per cent to 30 per cent between
2011/12 and 2012/13.
It is not possible to make a judgement regarding the changes in wellbeing of children in OOHC at this
time, although there are preliminary indications of improvements in some areas, areas of concern also
remain.
19
Better supporting Aboriginal children and families
Summary
Aboriginal children have lower levels of wellbeing than non-Aboriginal children and young people.
This is across the majority of indicators assessed within this report, including health, education,
risk of significant harm and OOHC outcomes.
A key challenge in monitoring this population is to correctly enumerate Aboriginal children
and young people, so that accurate rates of harm, improvement, worsening or stagnation can
be measured.
On most indicators of child outcomes, particularly those discussed under Question 1, Aboriginal
children are worse off than non-Aboriginal children. This in unsurprising as the relative disadvantage of
Aboriginal children, families and communities is known to be a critical, long-standing issue and this was
not expected to substantially shift in the first three years of KTS.
Two KTS indicators focus specifically on the outcomes of Aboriginal children at p56; 5(a) (proportion
of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC placed in accordance with the Aboriginal Child
Placement Principle) and 5(b) (proportion of Aboriginal communities reporting increased participation
in the protection and wellbeing of Aboriginal children and young people).
Indicator 5(a) shows that there has been a very slight decline in the proportion of Aboriginal children
and young people placed in accordance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, from 83 per cent
in 2008/09 to 80.4 per cent. Primary school age children are more likely than other groups to be placed
in accordance with the principle, however the decline appears to be evenly spread across age groups.
Overall the findings from the indicators analysed so far are that Aboriginal children have lower levels
of wellbeing than non-Aboriginal children and young people.
Consultations indicate that Aboriginal families who have children assessed as ROSH are thought to
be well-supported by intensive family support and greater Aboriginal participation in child protection
casework. However, implementation of these service models has been slower than anticipated, partly
because they represent significant changes to child protection practice.
20
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 1 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
1(a) Rate of smoking by pregnant women
Improved
Improved
1(b)Pregnant women attending pre-natal care
Improved
Improved
1(c)Families with a newborn receiving a Universal
Health Home Visit
Not available
Improved overall, weakened
recently
1(d) (i) 4 year old vision screening (StEPS)
Inadequate
Improved
1(d) (ii) 4 year olds referred on for possible vision
problems
Inadequate
Unable to determine (All)
1(e) Children fully immunised at 1, 2 and 5 years
of age
Not available
Stable for 1 and 2 year olds (All)
Improved for 5 year olds (All)
2(a) Children are developmentally on track (AEDI)
Improved
Improved (All)
2(b) Access to early childhood education prior
to school
Not available
Improved (All)
3(a) NSW students are above the national minimum
standard for reading and numeracy
Worsened
Worsened
3(b) Year 12 completion for students in low
SES schools
Not available
Unable to determine
3(c)Attendance rates for students in government
schools
Improved (primary)
Worsened (secondary)
Stable (primary)
Worsened (secondary)
4(a)Children reported at ROSH
Worsened in KTS ROSH
period
Remained stable in KTS ROSH
period
4(b)Children in statutory OOHC
Rate has slowed,
plateaued for 0-5 year olds
Rate has slowed, decreased for
0-5 year olds
5(a)Aboriginal children placed in accordance
with ACPC
Marginally worsened
Not applicable
5(b)Communities reporting increased participation
in protection of Aboriginal children
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
6(a)Families in vulnerable communities participating
in Brighter Futures
Improved
Improved
6(b) Children reported at ROSH after families have
completed Brighter Futures
Improved
Improved
6(c) Children enter OOHC after families have
completed Brighter Futures
Improved
Improved
7(a)Parents in vulnerable and at risk families more
confident to care for children
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
8(a) Availability of child and family programs and
services to meet needs of vulnerable families
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
8(b) Participation in child and family programs
and services to meet the needs of vulnerable
families
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
9(a) Vulnerable and at risk families consider
targeted support to be relevant to their needs
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
21
Table 1 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
9(b) Vulnerable and at risk families find services to
be accessible and appropriate
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
9(c) Vulnerable and at risk families consider systems
and services to be responsive and timely
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
9(d)Vulnerable and at risk families consider services
are culturally appropriate and inclusive
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
10(a)Services and workers report increased capacity
to identify children at ROSH
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
10(b)Services and workers report increased capacity
to meet needs of vulnerable children
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
10(c)Collaboration and integration between services
and workers to support vulnerable children
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
11(a)Children in OOHC with a case plan for
restoration who are fully restored
Not available until 2016
Not available until 2016
11(b)Children who re-enter OOHC
Improved
Improved
11(c)Children in permanent placements
N/a until August 2014
N/a until August 2014
11(d)Children in OOHC with <3 placements in 12
months
No change
Improved
12(b) Young people leaving OOHC in employment/
education
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
12(c) Young people leaving OOHC with stable
housing
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
12(d) Young people in OOHC who enter the juvenile
justice system
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
12(e) Young people leaving OOHC who are provided
with information about assistance available
Not available
Not available
13(a)School-aged children in OOHC with individual
education plans
Only one year of data
Only one year of data
13(b)Children with individual health plans
Not available
Only one year of data
13(c) Children who were at ROSH while in OOHC
Not available
Not available
13(d) Children in OOHC are placed with and case
managed by NGOs
Improved
Improved
14(a) Carers appropriately trained for their role
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
14(b) Carers can meet the needs of children in their
care
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
12(a) Young people in OOHC aged 15 years and over
who have a current leaving care plan
15(a) Children at ROSH who receive a face-to-face visit Improved
Improved
15(b) Children for whom a secondary assessment
determines intervention
Improved (All)
22
Not available
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 1 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
15(c) Reports of ROSH for children who have been
the subject of a substantiated report of ROSH
Improved
Improved
15(d) Successful family preservation interventions
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
16(a) Cases referred to Alternative Dispute
Resolution
Not available
Improved (All)
16(b) Cases are resolved to consent prior to hearing
Not available
Improved (All)
16(c) Matters finalised within time standards
Not available
Not yet provided
16(d) Care hearings conducted by specialist
Children’s Magistrate
Not available
Improved (All)
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
23
24
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
1Introduction
The NSW government has made a substantial investment towards protecting children from harm through
its $750m KTS child protection initiative. Keep Them Safe (hereafter KTS) is arguably the most significant
change to child protection policy in NSW since the introduction of mandatory reporting in 1987. It was
introduced in 2009 as the NSW government’s response to the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child
Protection Services in NSW undertaken by Justice Wood. KTS is a five-year plan (2009-14) by Government
to improve the safety and wellbeing of children and young people in NSW.
The KTS initiative includes a number of key elements of reform including:
§§
Increasing the threshold for reporting children and young people to the Child Protection
Helpline from “risk of harm” to “risk of significant harm”
§§
Establishing Child Wellbeing Units in the major government reporting agencies
§§
Establishing a network of Family Referral Services
§§
Enhanced service provision, including prevention and early intervention services and
statutory/tertiary services
§§
Increasing the role of non-government organisations in delivering services
§§
Changes to out-of-home care
§§
Changes to processes in the Children’s Court
25
§§
Providing better services to Aboriginal children and young people, with the aim of reducing
their over-representation in the child protection system.
The Outcomes Evaluation builds on the Interim Reviews and individual program evaluations to
investigate whether after five years of implementation, KTS has had the intended impact on the service
system and ultimately on children in NSW. However, this is not simply a summative evaluation reporting
on past performance; a key component of this evaluation is to support funding and policy decisions
in the future regarding KTS as a whole and its constituent funded components. More specifically, its
purpose is to:
1.Identify whether outcomes for children, young people and their families in NSW have changed
since the introduction of KTS;
2.Identify the extent to which these changes are due to KTS;
3.Explain why identified reforms have been successful, within available information, to inform
future decisions on the best way to preserve gains; and
4.Explain why some reforms have not been successful, within available information, to inform
decisions about what should be done with these initiatives.
This report seeks to address the first component of the identified evaluation purposes – that is, to
identify whether outcomes for children, young people and their families have changed since the
introduction of KTS. It is important that this report is read within the context of this purpose and that it
is understood that this report is intended to provide primarily contextual information of outcomes rather
than definitive attribution to KTS.
This report contains data up to the end of 2013 as available, and should be considered current as at June
2014. Data collection and analysis were conducted using Stata and Excel.
The structure of the report is as follows. An Executive Summary including key findings is first provided.
An introduction and background to the KTS outcomes evaluation and the overall aim of this report
is outlined in this Section. The methodological approach including data sources and limitations is
outlined in Section 2. In Section 3, an analysis of KTS investment and the KTS Indicators, including the
background justification for inclusion of the indicators, targets, analysis and outcome summary are
provided. A brief summary and discussion is provided in Section 4.
26
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
2Methodological approach
Indicators and Data
The KTS Evaluation Steering Committee has identified 60 KTS Indicators to be analysed for the
evaluation (see KTS Indicators Technical Report). Indicators have been grouped within broader domains
associated with particular outcomes and include those that require both primary and secondary data
collection. This final report includes only analysis of indicators derived from secondary data collection
that have been supplied to the evaluation team.
Our approach to the indicators has been to assess each, particularly in relation to data quality and
usability, as well as identifying other indicators that may be useful addressing the key outcome
evaluation questions.
Extensive data testing, assembly and validation has taken place for those indicators where data has been
provided, with additional requests for refinements and modifications sent to the data custodian and
provided where possible.
The project team has also collected data from other jurisdictions to provide comparisons for the outcome
indicators where feasible. This was a challenging task, as the majority of the indicators were not directly
comparable with other jurisdictional measures. As such, very few jurisdictional comparisons were
achieved.
27
Data Development
Considerable effort was applied by the Department of Family and Community Services (FACS), Ministry
of Health (Health), Department of Education and Communities (DEC), NSW Treasury, Department of
Police and Justice (DPJ), NSW Police Force and the Office of the Children’s Guardian in order to assemble
the necessary data to operationalise the KTS population outcome indicator analysis and to assess KTS
investment.
A number of issues have arisen over the course of obtaining data that has meant that the KTS Indicators
analysis has been more challenging than initially considered. These issues and potential solutions and
recommendations around data development for ongoing monitoring of child protection outcomes, are
provided in a separate report supplement to the final KTS evaluation report.
Out of a total of 51 secondary data KTS Indicators 13 were not available (Figure 1). This was for a
number of reasons including availability issues and difficulties in extracting these data.
These indicators primarily centred around how well NSW Children and Young people were faring
while in Out-of-Home-Care, including their educational performance, case plan goals for restoration,
permanent placements, interaction with the juvenile justice system and risk of harm reports while
in care. The lack of available information and recommendations for future data development,
collection and analysis around these important pieces of information are addressed in a separate Data
Recommendations report.
Figure 1 Receipt status of KTS Indicators, Secondary data
Number of indicators
60
Not available
50
Received
40
30
20
10
0
Secondary data
Source: Authors’ calculations, Data Tracker_POI_080514
28
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Analytical approach
Our approach to analysing the indicators has been to begin with state-level analysis constructing timeseries where data permits, allowing temporal trends and trends between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal
children to be identified. While data has in many cases been provided by single year ages, we have
combined these into three meaningful categories – before school age (0-5 years); primary school age
(6-12 years) and secondary school age (13-17 years) for most indicators.
An important element of the indicators is that they are sensitive enough to display meaningful variability,
ideally across the dimensions of both time and space. Some indicators allow for both, others are less
flexible. In certain cases we are only able to obtain a single data point. However, this single data point
provides an important baseline going forward and efforts for future data collection will allow for further
monitoring and evaluation.
One of the key aims of the evaluation is to examine the progress of the outcome indicators and whether
or not targets or positive changes have been achieved in the process. Specifically we examine the path
to achieve the target and its variations at different time points and throughout different regions of NSW.
Therefore, the first step is to compare the initial condition (ideally before substantial KTS investment)
with a target or threshold line going forward.
It is important to note that areas where targets are not being met or change is not yet seen will not
necessarily mean that the KTS funding is failing, but may be an indicator of other factors, including
socio-economic conditions, implementation issues, data limitations or not enough time since program
implementation. This may also indicate unrealistic targets being set, rather than reflecting poorly on KTS.
Spatial Analysis Report and Child Protection Basefile
Due to the volume of data that has been analysed spatially (primarily at the Local Government Area
level), this analysis is provided separately as a supplement to both the KTS Indicators report and the
Cost-Effectiveness Analysis. The data underlying this report has been built into a child protection basefile
at LGA level, forming a panel. This basefile forms the key data source for the spatial cost-effective
analyses. This basefile includes information on socio-economic status of communities, economic activity
and importantly KTS investment along with all viable KTS Indicators.
29
30
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
3Findings
This section provides a high level analysis of investment in KTS to date and an in-depth analysis of the
KTS Indicators received by the evaluation team.
This section has been assembled in line with the format of the KTS Indicators Technical Report, that is,
they have been grouped by desired outcomes and target populations. In order to assess the outcome
indicators, a summary of the justification for each indicator is provided, drawn from the technical
indicators, this is followed by information about the desired target; the status of the indicator including
chart and table analytics and a summary of the outcome relative to the target.
KTS Indicators
Children have a safe and healthy start to life
Summary
Overall the environment that KTS is operating in has improved over time, with the majority of indicators
(primarily sourced from the NSW Department of Health) on a positive trajectory. Outcomes for Aboriginal
children have also improved, however, they still remain well below the non-Aboriginal population.
Many outcomes were not available by Aboriginality, or were subject to measurement issues due to
high proportions of non-stated values. This has meant that assessment of health outcomes related to
Aboriginal children is somewhat limited.
31
Indicator 1(a)
Rate of smoking by pregnant women
Target: No specific target under KTS. NSW 2021 Target under Goal 11 (“Keep people healthy
and out of hospital”) seeks to reduce the rate by 0.5 percentage points per year for
non-Aboriginal women, and by 2 percentage points per year for Aboriginal women.
Background
This is a proxy for whether children have a safe and healthy start to life. It has been chosen because
smoking by pregnant women contributes to low birth weight and a range of other health issues in
newborns, and is symptomatic of the prevalence of population-level characteristics that are statistically
associated with vulnerability in the very early stages of life. This indicator is intended to provide
contextual information about the environment in which KTS is operating rather than to measure the
direct impact of KTS: the prevalence of maternal smoking is an outcome of a wide range of factors
beyond those addressed directly by KTS initiatives. This indicator is consistent with Tasmania’s “Kids
Come First Framework” (KCFF) Indicator 14.4 (“Percentage of women who smoked during pregnancy”)
and the Victorian Child and Adolescent Monitoring System (VCAMS) Indicator 1.9 (“Proportion of
children exposed to tobacco while in utero”).
Status
The proportion of women who smoked when pregnant has been decreasing over the last decade for
both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women in NSW (Figure 2). The average percentage point decrease
for Aboriginal women between 2000 and 2011 was -0.8 per cent, and 0.64 per cent for non-Aboriginal
women. Relative to the target aspiration of a reduction in the rate of Aboriginal women smoking during
pregnancy of 2 percentage points each year, this indicator is faring well. For non-Aboriginal women,
a reduction in the rate of smoking for pregnant women is on track relative to target.
Aboriginal people are under-reported in the administrative data on which this indicator is based.
Estimates of the level of enumeration of Aboriginal babies have been calculated for the NSW PDC
through linkage to births data from the NSW Registry of Births Deaths and Marriages. The most recent
estimates for the PDC coverage of babies born to Aboriginal mothers in NSW are for 2008 data, which
showed an overall coverage of 93.1%. Up to 2010, the data on Aboriginality of babies in the NSW
PDC was based on the Aboriginality of the mother only, but includes Aboriginality of the baby from
January 2011.
32
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 2 1a Rate of smoking by pregnant women, NSW Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, 2000-2011
Non-aboriginal target
70
60
Per cent
50
40
Non-aboriginal
Non-aboriginal target
No
Aboriginal target
Non-aboriginal
No
Non-aboriginal target
Aboriginal
Aboriginal target
Ab
Non-aboriginal
Non-aboriginal target
Aboriginal
Ab
Aboriginal target
Non-aboriginal
Aboriginal
Aboriginal target
30
20
2008
2005
2009
2006
2010
2011
2007
2008
10
Aboriginal
0
2000 2010
2001 2011
2002
2009
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Note: Up until 2010, data on Aboriginality of babies was based on the mothers’ Aboriginal status. This is likely to reflect the peak seen
2008
2005
2009
2006
2010
between 2010 and 2011, and is therefore treated as a break in the series and not included in calculations for averages across the period.
2011
Source: NSW Perinatal Data Collection, Health Statistics NSW
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
The division between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women is stark, with more than half of pregnant
Aboriginal women having smoked during pregnancy in 2011, compared with less than 10 per cent of
non-Aboriginal women (Figure 3).
Figure 3 1a Rate of smoking by pregnant women, NSW Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, 2011 Aboriginal
Did not smoke
Smoked
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal
Note: The KTS Indicators technical document have stated that data for Aboriginal people are under-reported and that enumeration
is potentially at 63.9%.
Source: NSW Perinatal Data Collection, Health Statistics NSW
33
FINDING
Rate of smoking by pregnant women
This indicator is on track relative to the target for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women.
Rates of smoking for Aboriginal women when pregnant have fallen, but are extremely high when
compared to the non-Aboriginal population. Aboriginal statistics will require close monitoring and
more accurate data collection.
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Rate of smoking by pregnant women
National
VCAMS and the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children (NFPAC) do not provide
data on this indicator. Data on a comparable indicator are available from KCFF for at least six
consecutive years. This data shows that for the entire population, the rate of smoking of women
while pregnant is much higher in Tasmania – 23 per cent in 2010/11. This has reduced from 27.6
per cent five years earlier in 2005/06.
International
Internationally, a similarly comparable indicator form the USA Child Trends Data Bank show similar
trends to the non-Aboriginal Australian population, with the current rate of women reporting
smoking at least one cigarette while pregnant at around 9 per cent.
34
2008
2008
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 1(b)
Proportion of pregnant women attending pre-natal care before 14 weeks gestation
Target: No specific target due to KTS. In general, it would be desirable to see an increase in the
proportion over the baseline.
Background
This is a proxy for the extent of contact between the universal service system and the NSW population at
the earliest stage in a person’s life (while they are still in the womb). This indicator is intended to provide
contextual information about the environment in which KTS is operating rather than to measure the
direct impact of KTS: those KTS initiatives which sought to extend contact between the universal services
system and mothers/infants did not explicitly seek to expand availability or use of pre-natal care. This
indicator is similar to the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children (NFPAC) measure 2.3
(‘Proportion of women who had at least five antenatal visits during pregnancy’).
The proportion of pregnant women attending pre-natal care has increased considerably since the mid2000s (Figure 4). The rate of access for non-Aboriginal women peaked in 2008, decreasing slightly over
the following three years. A similar pattern of pre-natal care access is observed for Aboriginal women.
Relatively, the rate of access for Aboriginal women has increased faster since 2005, but it is still on
average 10 per cent lower than that of non-Aboriginal women. However, the gap between Aboriginal
and non-Aboriginal women has narrowed over time, mostly in the last few years.
Figure 4 1b Proportion of women attending pre-natal care, NSW Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal, 2000-2011
90
No
80
Ab
70
Per cent
60
50
40
Non-aboriginal
Non-aboriginal
30
20
Aboriginal
Aboriginal
10
0
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
Note: There were changes to the wording of the question asked around pre-natal care in 2011. This is likely to have influenced the sharp
decrease between 2010 and 2011. These results should be treated with caution.
Source: NSW Perinatal Data Collection, NSW Mothers and Babies Report
2009
2009
2010
2010
2011
2011
35
FINDING
Pregnant women attending pre-natal care
An increasing proportion of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women have been accessing
pre-natal care over time in NSW. The gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women is
narrowing. Recent decreases are due to a break in the series.
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Pregnant women attending pre-natal care
National
NFPAC provides data on the proportion of women who gave birth, by number of antenatal visits.
The key issues for drawing comparisons with this KTS indicator are: (i) the lack of information
linking antenatal visits with stages of pregnancy; (ii) availability of data for a single year only.
Information on this indicator is not available from KCFF and VCAMS.
International
Child Trends Data Bank (US) provides data on a somewhat related indicator: the proportion of
women who receive late (defined as the beginning of the third trimester of pregnancy) or no
prenatal care. While data on this indicator are available for nine years, differences in measurement
limit the scope for drawing comparisons with KTS data.
36
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 1(c)
Proportion of families with a newborn receiving a Universal Health Home Visit
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
This is a direct measure of the KTS commitment to “extend the universal health home visiting program
to full state-wide coverage”. This is an important program, both because it ensures new parents are
supported in the community and because it provides the opportunity for suitably-qualified health
personnel to identify potential cases of vulnerability or risk very early in people’s lives. This indicator is
similar to a VCAMS Indicator 30.3 (‘Proportion of infants receiving a maternal and child health service
home consultation’) which measures home visiting but not specific age, and also to KCFF Indicator 26.1a
(‘Percentage of children attending the 0-4 week Nurse Health Assessment’), KCFF also collect data on
Nurse Health Assessments at age 6 weeks, 6 months, 18 months and 3.5 years.
Status
Since 2007, the proportion of families with a newborn receiving a Universal Health Home Visit has
increased from the low 73 per cent in 2008 to 85 per cent in 2010. However, in 2013, the proportion
fell to 79 per cent. This may be the start of a downward trend, unless there has been a change in
measurement to explain the decrease.
Figure 5 1c Proportion of families with a newborn receiving a Universal Health Home Visit, 2007-2013
88
Percentage receiving UHHV
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
72
70
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Source: NSW Health
37
FINDING
NSW Families with a newborn receiving a Universal Health Home Visit
An increasing proportion of both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women have been accessing
pre-natal care over time in NSW. The gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal women is
narrowing. Recent decreases are due to a break in the series.
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Families with a newborn receiving a Universal Health Home Visit
National
Data on somewhat comparable indicators are available from KCFF and VCAMS. Some potential
issues include: (i) differences in the units of measurement of the recipients of health checks: the
number of families in KTS and the number of children in KCFF and VCAMS; (ii) differences in
denominators, including the units of measurement (families vs. children), definitions of eligibility
(estimates, actual record cards, etc.); (iii) institutional differences in the way health checks are
conducted – lack of clarity on the extent of similarity of health checks/home visits across states in
terms of timing, frequencies, substance, etc. These issues notwithstanding, data from Tasmania
and Victoria are available on a number of years making comparisons over time feasible.
As of 2010/11, 100 per cent of Victorian newborns received an initial home consultation by a
maternal and child health nurse. In Tasmania, over 90% of mothers registered with the Child
Health and Parenting Services attended the initial 2 week check and over 99% of mothers
attended at least one of the assessments scheduled within the first eight weeks of their baby’s life.
These rates are higher than in NSW, the discussed differences in measurement should be taken
into account when drawing inferences.
International
None of the considered sources provides data on a comparable indicator.
38
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 1(d)
Number and proportion of 4 year olds who:
(i)
receive a vision screening through State-wide Eyesight Preschool Screening
(StEPS) program; and
(ii)
who are referred for further assessment for possible vision problems
Target: No specific target due to KTS. In general, it would be desirable to see an increase in
number and proportion of screenings over the baseline.
Background
This is a proxy for the extent to which the NSW government is providing universal services likely to
ensure children have a safe and healthy start to life. Specifically, it measures the extent of contact
between the universal service system and the NSW population in the years which fall between birth
(when almost all infants are in contact with the health system) and school (when almost all children are
in ongoing contact with the education system). It is also an early-stage indicator of the prevalence of
one contributor to vulnerability, inasmuch as vision problems are themselves a health problem and can
contribute to subsequent disengagement from education. It is not intended to measure an increase in
possible vision problems; rather it is designed to measure an increase in the early identification of vision
problems currently in the community. It should be noted that this indicator does not measure the extent
to which those who receive referrals actually take up these services and receive treatment (a study
conducted in South Australia in the 1990s suggested uptake rates are around 70%).
Status
The StEPS program was formalised in 2008, although limited data is available for the number of children
screened in 2008, so data is shown from 2009 onwards. While officially data are collected by Aboriginal/
non-Aboriginal status, a high proportion of participants do not state their status, so these numbers are
too unreliable to be incorporated into this report.
There has been a substantial increase in the proportion of children receiving a StEPS vision screening.
In 2008 only 39% of four year olds received a screening; this nearly doubled to 72-73% in 2010-2012.
In 2013 this increased further to 80%, however this increase may be due to data variations and not be
sustained over the long term.
39
Figure 6 1d(i) Proportion of four year olds receiving a StEPS vision screening, 2009-2013
90
80
70
Per cent
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Source: NSW Health
From 2009 to 2011, around seven percent of four year olds who received a vision screening were
referred for follow up assessment each year. Assessments have increased between 2009 and 2010, and
fallen again between 2010 and 2011, making changes hard to interpret. Measurement issues could also
be a problem.
Table 2 1d(ii) Proportion of 4 year olds receiving a follow up after a vision screening, 2009-2011
Year
Population referred to further assessment (%)
2009
6.5
2010
7.7
2011
7
FINDING
4 year olds accessing vision screening and further assessment
The proportion of four year olds receiving a StEPS vision screening increased substantially between
2009 and 2013. It is difficult to draw any strong conclusions from the data provided on those
children receiving a follow up assessment after screening.
40
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 1(e)
Proportion of children recorded on the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register as
‘fully immunised’ at 1, 2 and 5 years of age
Target: No specific target due to KTS. In general, it would be desirable to maintain proportion
above the agreed benchmark of 95%.
Background
This is a proxy for the extent to which the NSW government is providing universal services likely to
ensure children have a safe and healthy start to life. Specifically, it measures the extent of contact
between the universal service system and the NSW population in the years which fall between birth
(when almost all infants are in contact with the health system) and school (when almost all children
are in ongoing contact with the education system). This indicator is consistent with VCAMS section 3
and KCFF section 3, which both measure the proportion of children who are fully vaccinated under the
outcome “free from preventable disease”. Internationally, this data is collected by UNICEF to be included
in the annual Overview of child wellbeing in rich countries”.
Status
The proportion of children fully immunised at ages 1 and 2 years has remained relatively stable over
the last seven years, at around 91 and 92 per cent respectively (see Figure 7). Those fully immunised
at age 5 has increased, from 84 per cent in 2005/06 to just over 90 per cent in 2011/12. From January
2009 children had to have their four year immunisation for families to receive a second maternity
immunisation payment. A new law has also just been passed which allows child care centres in NSW
to refuse children if they have not yet been immunised. This change is likely to see immunisation rates
increase further.
41
At 5 years
Figure 7 1e Proportion
of children fully
immunised, 2005/06 to 2011/12
At 2 years
At 5 years
At 1 year
/11
2011/12
2009/10
2008/09
2010/11
Percentage receiving UHHV
94
2009/10
At 2 years
At 5 years
At 1 year
At 2 years
92
At
At 1 year
At
90
At
88
86
84
2011/12
82
2010/11
80
78
2011/12
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Source: Medicare Australia Annual Reports, Children recorded as ‘fully immunised’ in the Australian Childhood Immunisation Register
FINDING
Childhood Immunisation
Childhood immunisation rates are relatively high, and have improved markedly for children at
5 years. Full immunisation rates for all ages are just below the benchmark of 95%.
42
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Childhood Immunisation
National
All three sources provide data on largely comparable indicators, although there might be minor
differences in (i) the way the age brackets are constructed (in addition, no data on immunisation
by 5 years of age is available from KCFF) and (ii) the definition of child population (based on
estimations, actual registrations, etc.)
Compared with other Australian jurisdictions (Victoria) and nationally, NSW is very similar in
patterns of childhood immunisation rates. NFPAC data shows immunisation rates of around 92
per cent for both 1 and 2 year olds, which have largely stayed the same over time from 2008/09
to 2012/13. These rates are also similar to Victoria (VCAMS), with rates of around 92-93 per cent.
Immunisation rates for five year olds in Victoria have increased from 87.2 per cent in 2009/10 to
92.6 per cent in 2012/13. Nationally, these are slightly lower, but have increased considerably over
time – from 80 per cent in 2008/09 to 90 per cent in 2011/12.
International
Child Trends Data Bank and UNICEF provide data on immunisation by around 2 years of age,
although there may be differences in (i) the way the age brackets are constructed and (ii)
differences in the types of immunisation (UNICEF, in particular, considers the coverage for measles,
polio and DPT3 only). Child Trends Data Bank provides the US data on immunisation rates among
children ages 19 to 35 months for nine years. Over the period considered, these rates have been at
least 10 percentage points lower compared with NSW, averaging at 82 per cent in 2011. Data on
routine immunisation rates for children of 12-23 months are available from UNICEF for 29
developed countries, albeit limited to the years 2005/2006 and 2009/2010. As of the latest year,
the immunisation coverage in the sample averaged at around 95 per cent. Greece and Hungary
had immunisation coverage of 99% whereas immunisation rates in Austria, Canada and Denmark
fell below 90%.
43
Summary – Children have a safe and healthy start to life
A summary of the outcomes are provided below in Table 3.
Table 3 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children have a healthy start to life
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
1(a) Rate of smoking by pregnant women
Improved
Improved
1(b)Pregnant women attending pre-natal care
Improved
Improved
1(c)Families with a newborn receiving a Universal
Health Home Visit
Not available
Improved overall, weakened
recently
1(d) (i) 4 year old vision screening (StEPS)
Inadequate
Improved
1(d) (ii) 4 year olds referred on for possible vision
problems
Inadequate
Unable to determine (All)
1(e) Children fully immunised at 1, 2 and 5
years of age
Not available
Stable for 1 and 2 year olds (All)
Improved for 5 year olds (All)
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
44
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Children develop well and are ready for school
Summary
Access to early childhood education prior to school has improved over time. Further information about
children across NSW being developmentally on track is required to make a full assessment of this
developmental outcome.
Indicator 2(a)
Proportion of NSW children who are developmentally on track, at risk and vulnerable
in the Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) domains:
(i)
physical health and wellbeing,
(ii)
social competence,
(iii)
emotional maturity,
(iv)
language and cognitive skills (school-based), and
(v)
communication and general knowledge
Target: No specific target due to KTS. NSW 2021 Target under NSW 2021 Goal 13 (“Better protect
the most vulnerable members of our community and break the cycle of disadvantage”)
seeks to decrease the proportion over the baseline of NSW children who are
developmentally vulnerable, particularly in multiple domains.
Background
This is an indicator of whether children develop well and are ready for school. The AEDI is based on
a checklist completed by teachers for children in their first year of full-time school, and provides an
indication of child wellbeing outcomes in the population as a whole. This data is used here to provide
contextual information about the environment in which KTS is operating. It is also possible that KTS
initiatives such as SAFE START, Universal and Sustained Health Home Visiting, Triple P Parenting Programs
and investment in preschool may be reflected in the AEDI. Any such change would, however, only be
likely to occur over the medium to long-term, and would be difficult to attribute directly to KTS given
the complexity of early childhood development and the range of other factors influencing the Index.
This Indicator is consistent with VCAMS 4.1 and KCFF 4.1.
Status
In 2012, the proportion of NSW children who were developmentally on track was the highest for the
language and cognitive skills domain, with more than 87 per cent on track in this area, and increasing from
84.6 per cent in 2009 (Table 4). The lowest score for those on track was within the communication and
general knowledge domain, with a much higher proportion developmentally at risk and sharing the highest
ranking for those developmentally vulnerable. These results are similar between 2009 and 2012. However,
the proportion of children developmentally vulnerable in the communication skills and general knowledge
domain has decreased from 9.1% in 2009 to 8.5% in 2012. Children developmentally on track in the
emotional maturity and social competence domain have increased slightly across the period. Children on
track in the physical health and wellbeing domain have remained relatively similar in both periods.
45
Table 4 2a Proportion of NSW children who are developmentally on track by AEDI domain, 2009 and 2012
AEDI Domain
No. of children
On track (%)
Developmentally
at risk (%)
Developmentally
vulnerable (%)
2009
2012
2009
2009
2009
2012
2012
2012
Physical health and wellbeing
82,960
89,481
78.5
78.1
12.9
13.7
8.6
8.3
Social competence
82,946
89,373
77.1
78
14.1
13.5
8.8
8.5
Emotional maturity
82,616
88,988
78.3
81.2
14.3
12.6
7.4
6.2
Language and cognitive skills
(school-based)
82,899
89,450
84.6
87.3
9.5
8.0
5.9
4.8
Communication and general
knowledge
82,948
89,460
75.0
74.7
15.8
16.8
9.2
8.5
Source: Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) National Report, 2009 and 2012
Between 2009 and 2012, the proportion of all children in NSW who were developmentally vulnerable
on one or more domains decreased from 21.3 per cent (2009) to 19.9 per cent (2012). These results
were statistically significant (Table 5). NSW children who were developmentally vulnerable on two or
more domains also decreased over time, and these results were also statistically significant.
Aboriginal children were considerably more likely to be developmentally vulnerable in one or more or
two or more domains (Table 5). While Aboriginal children represent only a very small proportion of the
overall population, almost 40 per cent were developmentally vulnerable in one or more domains and a
further 20 per cent vulnerable in two or more domains. These results are important and illustrate that
Aboriginal children are still falling behind, however there has been an improvement in these results
between 2009 and 2012, which was also statistically significant.
46
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 5 2a Number and proportion of NSW children who are developmentally vulnerable in one or more,
or two or more domains by Aboriginality, 2009 and 2012
AEDI Domain
Vulnerable in 1 or more domains
Vulnerable in 2 or more domains
No.
%
No.
%
Aboriginal
1,449
39.0
836
22.5
ALL
17,956
21.3
8,668
10.3
Aboriginal
1,669
36.7
957
21.0
ALL
17,722
19.9
8,189
9.2
Aboriginal
220
-2.4*
121
-1.5*
ALL
-234
-1.4*
-479
-1.1*
2009
2012
Difference (2012-2009)
Note: * denotes a statistically significant change, using a critical value derived by AEDI researchers. See Gregory and Brinkman (2013)
Source: Australian Early Development Index, 2012. Data provided by NSW DEC.
FINDING
NSW children are developmentally on track (AEDI)
Overall, there have been improvements in child development between 2009 and 2012 in NSW.
These improvements are evident for both the aboriginal and entire AEDI population and are also
statistically significant.
Aboriginal children are much more likely to be developmentally vulnerable than other children.
47
Table 6 2a Proportion of children who are developmentally on track, at risk and vulnerable by AEDI domain,
NSW and Australia, 2012
AEDI Domain
Physical health and wellbeing
No. of children
On track (%)
Developmentally
at risk (%)
Developmentally
vulnerable (%)
Aus
NSW
Aus
NSW
Aus
NSW
Aus
NSW
273,922
89,481
77.3
78.1
13.4
13.7
9.3
8.3
Social competence
273,534
89,373
76.5
78
14.3
13.5
9.3
8.5
Emotional maturity
272,682
88,988
78.1
81.2
14.2
12.6
7.6
6.2
Language and cognitive skills
(school-based)
273,896
89,450
82.6
87.3
10.6
8.0
6.8
4.8
Communication and general
knowledge
273,855
89,460
74.7
74.7
16.3
16.8
9.0
8.5
Source: Australian Early Development Index (AEDI) National Report, 2009 and 2012
Jurisdictional Comparisons
NSW children are developmentally on track (AEDI)
National
Compared to Australia, NSW children track relatively similar, which is in part due to around 30 per
cent of the total child population in scope for the AEDI nationally, stemming from NSW (Table 6).
Slightly higher proportions of children in NSW are developmentally on-track when compared to
national figures across most domains. The language and cognitive domain in particular stands out,
with 87.3 per cent of children in NSW on-track, whereas this is 82.6 per cent for Australia.
International
No comparable international data is available.
48
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 2(b)
Proportion of children in NSW with access to quality early childhood education program
in the 12 months prior to formal schooling
Target: No NSW 2021 Target under Goal 15 (“Improve education and learning outcomes for all
students”) seeks to increase the proportion to the 2013 benchmark (95%).
Background
This is a direct indicator of the NSW Government’s commitment to provide universal access to preschool
in the year before formal schooling. It is an important indicator in its own right in that quality early
childhood education might reasonably be expected to contribute to child wellbeing. It is also a proxy
indicator for the extent of contact between the universal service system and the NSW population in
the year before school (when almost all children are in contact with the education system), and hence
for the likelihood that the universal service system will identify vulnerable children at a very early stage.
This Indicator is consistent with VCAMS 31.2 and KFCC 27.4 measures of high quality early childhood
services available to children prior to school. NFPAC 2.2 collects data on ‘attendance rate of children
aged 4-5 years at preschool programs’.
Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) has been increasing substantially in Australia, with more
and more families using child care services and the sector becoming more regulated through the
National Quality Framework. Both the Australian and state and territory governments have agreed
that by the end of 2013 all four year old children will have access to 15 hours of preschool per week,
delivered by a preschool teacher with four years university training. This National Partnership for Early
Childhood Education is yet to be fully implemented in NSW.
Data collection for this indicator is problematic for a number of reasons, but primarily due to the
diversity of preschool programs, both within a mainstream school setting and child care centres. State
comparisons are also problematic, as the age at which children can start their first year of primary school
varies.
The ABS has embarked upon a National Early Childhood Education and Care Collection to provide
comparable statistics on ECEC. Absolute numbers are available by state and territory from 2010 to 2013,
as part of the Preschool Education, Australia (ABS Cat No.4240.0) collection.
Status
The proportion of children in NSW attending preschool in the year prior to school enrolment has been
increasing considerably since 2009, from 75 to 89 per cent in 2011 (Figure 8). This indicator is on track
to reach a target of 95 per cent by 2013, provided that current trends continue.
49
Figure 8 2b NSW children attending preschool prior to school enrolment, 2008-2011
100
Pro
Proportion enrolled
95
Cu
Current targets
Per cent
90
85
80
75
70
2012
2013
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Note: The results presented for 2011 represent a significant methodological change from 2008‑2010 results. The reported results include
children enrolled in government funded/operated preschools and long day care centres with a preschool program.
Source: NSW Annual Report on Implementing the Bilateral Agreement under the National Partnership Agreement on Early Childhood Education.
FINDING
NSW children attending preschool prior to school
Overall, there have been improvements in child development between 2009 and 2012 in NSW.
These improvements are evident for both the aboriginal and entire AEDI population and are also
statistically significant.
Aboriginal children are much more likely to be developmentally vulnerable than other children.
Table 7 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
2(a) Children are developmentally on track (AEDI)
Improved
Improved (All)
2(b) Access to early childhood education prior
to school
Not available
Improved (All)
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
50
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Children and young people meet development and education milestones at school
Indicator 3(a)
Proportion of NSW students in Years 3, 5, 7 and 9 at or above the national minimum
standard for reading and numeracy
Target: No specific target due to KTS. NSW 2021 Target under Goal 15 (“Improve education and
learning outcomes for all students”) seeks to increase the proportion over the baseline.
Background
This is a proxy for whether children and young people meet developmental and educational milestones
at school. It is a proxy in the sense that reading and numeracy, while important skills in their own right,
are taken as measures of educational outcomes more generally. This indicator is intended to provide
contextual information about the environment in which KTS is operating rather than to measure the
direct impact of KTS.
It is, in part, an indicator of the effectiveness of the education system; it is also, in part, an extremely
early indicator of the likely future prevalence of vulnerability, inasmuch as poor educational attainment is
associated with poor employment prospects as an adult, which is itself a contributor to family dysfunction.
It is possible that this indicator may be indirectly influenced over the long term by the KTS commitment to
participate in the Low SES School Communities National Partnership, but educational attainment is subject
to many other factors and it would be difficult to draw any firm conclusions about the impact of KTS
from changes in these data. This Indicator is consistent with NFPAC Indicator 4.5, which reports numeracy
and literacy rates using NAPLAN, disaggregated by OOHC status. VCAMS section 11 and KCFF section 9
also collect and report on this information. Internationally UNICEF collects data on numeracy, literacy and
science rates at the age of 15 across 30 OECD countries as a measure of educational wellbeing.
Status
No obvious improvement in education and learning outcomes for Aboriginal and all students can be
found over time when observing numeracy and reading outcomes for children (see Figure 9 to Figure 12).
The percentage of students in the top two bands in numeracy decreased over the last five years for all
students including Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal in years 3, 7 and 9 (Figure 11). It appears that students
in year 5 performed slightly better. The proportion of students in the top reading bands does not change
very much across the five year period, nor does the percentage performing at or above the minimum
standard.
More dramatic fluctuations can be observed from the proportion of Aboriginal students at or above
minimum numeracy and reading standards, suggesting that data collection may need to be reviewed for
this sub-group. There is a clear decline in 2012 for Aboriginal students in years 3, 5 and 7. Although the
performance of Aboriginal students and non-Aboriginal students trends in a similar pattern across each
grade, a large gap (between 5-20 per cent) is highly visible in all measures.
51
As children move from a low to high grade, the proportion of students in the top two bands in both
numeracy and reading declines. That is, as a child grows up, the chance of being a top student nationally
is smaller in NSW.
Figure 9 3a Proportion of students at or above the minimum standard in numeracy, 2008-2012
100
Al
95
Ab
Per cent
90
85
80
All students
75
Aboriginal students
70
Grade 3
Grade 5
Grade 7
Grade 9
Source: National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy
Figure 10 3a Proportion of students at or above the minimum standard in reading, 2008-2012
Grade 9
100
Al
95
Ab
Per cent
90
85
80
All students
75
70
Aboriginal students
Grade 3
Grade 5
Source: National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy
Grade 9
52
Grade 7
Grade 9
rade 3
rade 3
Figure 11 3a Proportion of students in the top two bands in numeracy, 2008-2012
50
45
40
All students
All students
Al
Aboriginal students
Aboriginal students
Ab
Per cent
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
Grade 5
Grade 5
0
Grade 3
Grade 7
Grade 7
Grade 5
Grade 9
Grade 9
Grade 7
Grade 9
Source: National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy
Figure 12 3a Proportion of students in the top two bands in reading by grade, 2008-2012
50
45
40
All students
All students
Al
Aboriginal students
Aboriginal students
Ab
35
Per cent
rade 3
rade 3
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
30
25
20
15
10
5
Grade 5
Grade 5
0
Grade 3
Grade 7
Grade 7
Grade 5
Grade 9
Grade 9
Grade 7
Grade 9
Source: National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy
53
FINDING
NSW students at or above minimum standard for reading and numeracy
No obvious improvements over time in reading or numeracy are observed. Large gaps are evident
between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal students. Performance tends to decrease as children
progress through the school system.
Jurisdictional Comparisons
NSW students at or above minimum standard for reading and numeracy
National
According to data from VCAMS, Victoria has maintained relatively stable proportions of students
achieving national minimum standard in reading and numeracy since 2008. As of 2011, 95.3% of
Y3, 94.3% of Y5, 95.8% of Y7 and 94% of Y9 students achieved national benchmark in reading.
National benchmark in numeracy was met by 96.2% of Y3, 95.6% of Y5, 95.8% of Y7 and
94.6% of Y9 students.
As in NSW, Victorian Aboriginal students, too, were less likely to achieve at or above national
minimum standard compared to non-Aboriginal students (as of 2012, 84.9% in reading and
85.9% in numeracy in Y3). NFPAC reports the shares of Y5 students who achieved at or above
national minimum standards for reading and numeracy nationally. In 2012, among Y5 students,
92% met the reading, and 93% met the numeracy national minimum standards. Y5 Aboriginal
students were less likely to achieve the reading (65%) and numeracy (69%) minimum standards
than non-Aboriginal students.
International
No comparable international data is available.
54
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 3(c)
Attendance rates for students in government schools
Target: No specific target for KTS. In general, it would be desirable to see an increase in
attendance rate.
Background
This is a direct measure of contact with the education system, and is intended to illuminate several aspects of
KTS. First, it is a proxy indicator of educational neglect. S23(b)(1) of the Children and Young People (Care and
Protection) Act, as amended under KTS, defines Risk of Significant Harm to include: “in the case of a child or
young person who is required to attend school in accordance with the Education Act 1990 – the parents or
other caregivers have not arranged and are unable or unwilling to arrange for the child or young person to
receive an education in accordance with that Act”. This indicator is a proxy because absences are not, on their
own, conclusive evidence of such inability or unwillingness on the part of parents or caregivers. Widespread
or persistently high absence rates among particular groups, however, could be consistent with educational
neglect. Second, this indicator constitutes a proxy for contact with the universal service system more generally.
This permits an assessment of its likely effectiveness as a mechanism of detection and extremely early
intervention. It also helps to assess engagement as students move across crucial institutional transition points
such as the move from primary to secondary schooling. It also provides contextual information for interpreting
other indicators in this site, namely NAPLAN results and year 12 completion rates.
Status
The average attendance rate for Aboriginal students in NSW government primary schools increased
from 88.4 per cent in 2006 to 89.8 per cent in 2012, and the rate for all students stabilised between the
range of 92.4-93.4 per cent from 2000 to 2012.
In 2010, the school leaving age in NSW was raised to 17. Students can now only leave school before
this age if they have finished year 10 and are engaged in full-time employment or another form of study
or training. This caused higher retention rates in years 10, 11 and 12, but lower attendance rates from
years 9 to 11 as disengaged students no longer had the option of leaving school.
For high school students in year 7 to year 10, the attendance rate remained more or less level at around
89 per cent, with a small dip from 2003-2005. In 2011, after the leaving age was increased, there was
another drop of 0.5 percentage points, but by 2013 this had reversed. Aboriginal year 7-10 students
have an attendance rate of 79.1 per cent in 2006, which is 7.5 per cent lower than the overall. While
there have been movements in the Aboriginal attendance rate, in particular the same dip in attendance
in 2011, in 2013 it showed no noticeable change from the 2006 attendance rate.
Attendance rates for students in year 11-12 fell very slightly between 2000 and 2013, by around
1 percentage point from 90 to 89 per cent. They show similar patterns to attendance among years
7 to 10: a slight decline in attendance between 2003-2005, a dip in 2011 and a rebound in 2013.
Attendance rates for Aboriginal students tell a less promising story, showing a decline in year 11-12
attendance rates of 2.5 percentage points from 2006-2013, increasing the attendance gap between
Aboriginal and all students from 7 per cent in 2006 to nearly 10 per cent in 2013.
55
All students
Figure 13 3c Attendance rates for students in government schools, NSW Aboriginal
and all students, 2000-2011
98 a. Primary School
Aboriginal students
All students
96
Aboriginal students
94
92
Al
Ab
90
Per cent
88
86
84
82
80
2003
2004
2005
2006
78
2007
76
2000
2001
2002
2003
74
2004 2000
2005 2001
2006 200220072003200820042009200520102006 2011
2007 2012
2008
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2009
2010
2011
2012
98 b. Year 7-10
Al
96
94
Ab
92
Per cent
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
98 c. Year 11-12
Al
96
94
Ab
92
Per cent
90
88
86
84
82
80
78
76
74
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
Note: Attendance data were collected by Aboriginal status starting with the 2006 collection.
Source: NSW Statistics Unit, Centre for Education Statistics and Evaluation (CESE).
56
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
There is still a reasonable gap in attendance rate between Aboriginal students and all students, about
3 percentage points for primary school kids and 5 percentage points for secondary school students.
For primary school children, this gap has been closing over time, however it has widened for secondary
school students.
Summary – Children and young people meet development and education milestones at school
Table 8 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children and young people meet development
and education milestones at school
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
3(a) NSW students are above the national minimum
standard for reading and numeracy
Worsened
Worsened
3(b) Year 12 completion for students in low
SES schools
Not available
Unable to determine
3(c)Attendance rates for students in government
schools
Improved (primary)
Worsened (secondary)
Stable (primary)
Worsened (secondary)
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
57
Children and young people are safe from harm and injury
Indicator 4(a)
Number and rate of children and young people reported at risk of significant harm
Target: Reduce rate by 1.5% per year. (This corresponds to Target under NSW 2021 Goal 13:
“Better protect the most vulnerable members of our community and break the cycle
of disadvantage”.)
Background
This is a proxy for the extent to which children and young people are safe from harm and injury. It is
also used here because it is likely to be sensitive to many of the initiatives adopted under KTS. Some
of these initiatives, such as changes to the reporting threshold, are likely to have an immediate impact.
The impacts of others, notably many PEI initiatives, are not likely to become apparent for several
years (although several indicators later in this suite have been chosen to provide an early indication of
likely future impact). Nevertheless much of the KTS funding for PEI was allocated to enhancement or
expansion of existing programs such as Brighter Futures, and a range of other PEI programs had been
funded from other sources (e.g. Families NSW, Communities for Children). The cumulative effect of these
programs would be expected to be reflected in the rate of reports, although the changes could not be
attributed to KTS alone.
This is a proxy indicator of prevalence in the sense that it uses the statutory threshold for reporting cases
to the Child Protection Helpline (Helpline) as an indicator of “risk of harm and injury” more generally,
but it must be borne in mind that many children who do not meet the threshold have complex needs
and may require urgent support. It is also a proxy in that it treats reports of risk as an indicator of the
prevalence of risk. For this reason, the measure should be interpreted with caution: reports are not a
perfectly valid indicator of prevalence, they are merely the best alternative in the absence of a sufficiently
detailed, valid and reliable direct measure. It cannot be guaranteed, for example, that all children who
meet this threshold will be identified and reported to the Helpline. Moreover, the Interim Review found
that some mandatory reporters who are aware of capacity issues in Community Services’ statutory intake
and assessment system will report children who they believe require a statutory response multiple times
to ensure they are assessed. For this reason, it is very important to look at both the overall rates for
reports (including multiple reports on the same child) and the rate for individual children reported in
a given year. Future reports will also look at prior involvement between years.
58
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
However if KTS were to achieve its goals, then the expected pattern would be:
§§
An immediate drop in referrals at the threshold when the threshold is raised
§§
Referrals at the threshold slowly declining after the threshold change as early intervention
diverts children from the child protection system
§§
Declines in referrals at the threshold declining quickest for the youngest children as the impact
of early intervention is expected to have the greatest effect on young children
§§
The gap in rates of referrals at the threshold between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children
closing as Aboriginal specific programs support these children.
Status
From 24 January 2010, reports of harm changed from a threshold of ‘Risk of Harm’ to ‘Risk of Significant
Harm’ as part of one of the major reforms of KTS. This change in reporting has meant that any
comparisons of risk of harm reports need to take into account the new guidelines. For this reason, we
provide a pre- and during-KTS comparison to enable the relative conditions before and after KTS to be
assessed (Table 9).
Comparing the Pre and During-KTS environments
Prior to KTS, the volume of reports of harm for children in NSW rose from 79,859 in 2004/05 to a
peak of 114,765 reports in 2008/09 (Table 9 combined Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal reports). While
volume can increase, it is important to assess increases in volume against population changes. To do
this, we have compared reports to changes in the population using official population statistics from the
Australian Bureau of Statistics 4.
For all non-Aboriginal children and young people, the proportion being reported at Risk of Harm
increased from 4.7 per cent in 2004/05 to 6.3 per cent in 2008/09, with the probability of a nonAboriginal child being reported at ROH increasing from one in 21 to one in every 16.
The relative risk of being reported at Risk of Harm increased consistently over the pre-KTS period for
both the non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal populations. For non-Aboriginal children, the relative risk of
being reported at Risk of Harm in 2005/06 was 7.5 per cent higher than in 2004/05. By 2008/09 these
odds had increased by 40 per cent when measured against the 2004/05 base period. For Aboriginal
children the relative risk of being reported at Risk of Harm was 80 per cent higher than in 2004/05,
where by this time one in every five Aboriginal children were reported at ROH.
4Individual year population counts have been sourced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian
Demographic Statistics Cat No. 3101.0, Table 51 Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of Age, New South
Wales. New Aboriginal population estimates from Estimates and Projections; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026, ABS Cat No. 3238.0 have been applied to Aboriginal analyses.
59
Examining trends during the KTS ROSH period 5, in the first full financial year of operation, around 3 per
cent of non-Aboriginal children were reported at ROSH. This meant that on average one in every 33
non-Aboriginal children were reported at ROSH.
Compared to the fully operational ROSH base year of 2010/11, the relative risk of being reported at
ROSH decreased by 1.9 per cent in 2011/12, however it increased slightly in 2012/13. These changes are
very small, and do not represent either an improvement or worsening of the proportion of children being
reported at risk of harm in a KTS environment for all non-Aboriginal children.
However, disaggregation of these results by Aboriginality does show a different pattern, with the relative
risk of being reported at ROSH increasing considerably over the past two years – from 6.2 to 12.3 per
cent higher for the entire 0-17 age group.
Disaggregation by age group shows more variation than that observed in the overall findings (see
Appendix Table 27 and Table 28). For young non-Aboriginal children there is a more substantial decrease
in the relative risk of ROSH, where in 2011/12 it was 4.4 per cent lower than the previous year; and in
2012/13 it was 2.6 per cent lower.
For Aboriginal children and young people during KTS the relative risk of being reported at ROSH was
higher across all age groups when compared to the 2010/11 base year. However, the increase in relative
risk was smallest for the youngest age group. Young Aboriginal children still remain the most probable
group to be reported at ROSH, with one in every six Aboriginal children aged 0-5 reported.
5The 2009/10 financial year has not been included in comparisons, as this period incorporates both a ROH and
ROSH environment.
60
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 9 4a Reports of Harm for NSW children, pre and during-KTS, 2004/05 -2012/13
Year
ROH/ROSH
reports1
Child
population2
ROH/ROSH
proportion3
Probability of
being at ROH/
ROSH4
Pre
KTS5
During
KTS6
0-17 year olds (non-Aboriginal)
2004/05
70,418
1,504,302
4.7%
21
2005/06
75,747
1,505,917
5.0%
20
7.5%
2006/07
88,069
1,514,815
5.8%
17
24.2%
2007/08
89,647
1,523,835
5.9%
17
25.7%
2008/09
96,791
1,534,019
6.3%
16
34.8%
2009/10
71,976
1,545,181
4.7%
21
2010/11
47,709
1,551,041
3.1%
33
2011/12
47,208
1,564,845
3.0%
33
-1.9%
2012/13
49,430
1,581,073
3.1%
32
1.6%
0-17 year olds (Aboriginal)
2004/05
9,441
84,380
11.2%
9
2005/06
11,449
85,895
13.3%
8
19.1%
2006/07
14,029
87,454
16.0%
6
43.4%
2007/08
16,392
88,377
18.5%
5
65.8%
2008/09
17,974
89,247
20.1%
5
80.0%
2009/10
14,895
90,026
16.5%
6
2010/11
11,183
90,436
12.4%
8
2011/12
11,929
90,840
13.1%
8
6.2%
2012/13
12,651
91,079
13.9%
7
12.3%
Notes
1The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH
2The number of children in NSW
3The proportion of children reported as at ROH/ROSH
4The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH is “one in x”
5The relative risk of being reported at ROH are y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of being reported at ROSH are y% higher or lower than in 2010/11
Note: See Appendix for further analysis by age groups.
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian
Demographic Statistics Cat No. 3101.0, Table 51 Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of Age, New South Wales; and Estimates and
Projections; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026, ABS Cat No. 3238.0.
61
Assessing ROH and ROSH reports by age groups over time, the change in the rate of reports upon
the introduction of the new threshold is evident (Figure 14). Prior to the threshold change, greater
differences between the rate of reports of harm were evident across the different age groups. However,
since the new threshold was introduced, rates of significant harm reports have converged across the
age groups. Reports per 1000 young (0-5) and school-age children remain higher than they are for older
children (age 13-17), which are currently the age group with the lowest reported rate per thousand of
ROH and ROSH reports (around 34 per 1,000). Reports of significant harm for all other age groups are
38 per 1,000 children.
90
13-17
80
6-12
Figure 14 4a Risk of Harm and Risk of Significant Harm reports, ALL children, 2004/05-2012/13
70
90
13-17
0-5
60
80
90
70
2004/05
2005/06
60
50
40
2006/07
30
2005/06
2006/07
10
0
2004/05
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2005/06
2007/08
2004/05
2006/07
2008/09
2005/06
2007/08
2009/10
2006/07
2008/09
2010/11
2011/12
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
2012/13
2010/11
2012/13
2007/08
2009/10
2011/12
2008/09
2010/11
0-5
2009/10
2011/12
6-12
All (0-17)
2010/11
All (0-17)
2011/12
2012/13
2012/13
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian
10
0
6-12
All (0-17)
13-17
0-5
20
2004/05
10
30
0
20
6-12
All (0-17)
13-17
0-5
80
Rate per 1,000
50
70
90
40
60
80
30
50
70
20
90
40
60
10
80
30
50
0
70
20
40
60
10
30
50
0
20
40
Demographic Statistics Cat No. 3101.0, Table 51 Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of Age, New South Wales.
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Overall, the rate of reports of harm for the Aboriginal population are much higher than that of the
entire child and youth population (Figure 15), with this trend prevailing over time. However, reductions
in reports of harm are also evident since the introduction of the threshold change in January 2010.
Currently, for every 1,000 Aboriginal children, there are 140 reports of risk of significant harm – this
compares to only 38 for all NSW children. This represents a rate that is 3.6 times higher than the entire
child and youth population in 2012/13.
62
13
6-
0-
Al
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
450
13-17
400
Figure 15 4a Risk of Harm and Risk of Significant Harm reports, Aboriginal children, 2004/05-2012/13
2004/05
6-12
All (0-17)
400
13-17
0-5
300
250
2005/06
200
2006/07
150
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2005/06
2006/07
50
0
2004/05
2005/06
2009/10
New ROSH
threshold
2010/11
2011/12
introduced
6-12
All (0-17)
2012/13
0-5
2007/08
2004/05
2006/07
2011/12
2008/09
2005/06
2007/08
2006/07
2008/09
2007/08
2009/10
2008/09
2010/11
2009/10
2011/12
All (0-17)
2012/13
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2012/13
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS - CIW annual data and ABS 3238.0 – Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
13
6-
6-12
All (0-17)
13-17
0-5
100
2004/05
50
0
450
350
50
150
0
100
6-12
13-17
0-5
Rate per 1,000
350
450
300
400
250
350
450
200
300
400
150
250
350
100
450
200
300
50
400
150
250
0
350
100
200
300
50
150
250
0
100
200
2012/13
Aboriginal children aged 0-5 years have the highest reporting rates, peaking at close to 270 reports
per 1,000 Aboriginal children in 2008/09 – this represented over one-quarter of all Aboriginal children
under 5 being reported in any one year and over three times higher than non-Aboriginal children.
Reports for Aboriginal children aged 5 and under have decreased substantially over time, but still remain
considerably higher than other Aboriginal children and the entire population. Further, trends in ROSH
reports for Aboriginal children since the KTS reform have been increasing compared with all children.
FINDING
Children and young people reported at risk of significant harm
Reports of ROH/ROSH reports have decreased considerably since the introduction of the new
threshold in January 2010.
Examining changes in ROSH During KTS, substantial decreases are observed for the younger
non-Aboriginal population, with the relative risk of being reported at ROSH for 0-5 year olds
currently 2.6 per cent lower than it was in 2010/11.
For Aboriginal children, relative risk of being reported at ROSH is higher than it was in 2010/11
and has increased over time. Young Aboriginal children still remain the most probable group to be
reported at ROSH, with one in every six Aboriginal children aged 0-5 reported.
63
0-
Al
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Children and young people reported at risk of significant harm
National
Directly comparable indicator is not available from any of the sources considered. The key issues
are: (1) the lack of clarity in what is understood under ‘risk of significant harm’ in each source; (2)
potential differences in the ways the ‘risk’ is identified (e.g. reports, notifications, substantiations,
etc.). The differences in definition notwithstanding, data on this (or similar) indicator is provided in
some of the sources considered, albeit for selected years only.
Nationally, the notification rate is 34 per 1,000 children and young people.
International
Directly comparable indicator is not available from any of the sources considered. The key issues
are similar to those encountered in national comparisons and should be taken into consideration
when drawing comparisons.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services provide the rates of child maltreatment per 1000
in the child population in the state of Minnesota while Child Trends Data Bank provides the same
statistics nationally (US). Both report significantly lower rates compared to NSW. As of 2008/2009,
the child maltreatment rate per 1000 in the child population was 18.3 in Minnesota and only 10.3
in the whole of the US. In Canada, children were substantiated for child maltreatment at a rate of
about 47 per 1000 children in 2008 (source Canadian Incidence Study 2008).
64
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 4(b)
Number and rate of children and young people in statutory OOHC
Target: Reduce rate by 1.5% per year. (This corresponds to Target under NSW 2021 Goal 13:
“Better protect the most vulnerable members of our community and break the cycle
of disadvantage”.)
OOHC
Data collection for children in statutory OOHC has been provided at postcode level. The postcode used
is that of the placement of a child or young person (children) in care. This information has been used to
provide a concordance to convert postcodes to LGAs. The concordance is a standard ABS mechanism.
It is important to note that children in OOHC are not always placed in areas where they were previously
residing and that consequently the incidence of OOHC by LGAs needs to be viewed from the perspective
of service provision rather than demand or risk.
Background
This is a proxy for the extent to which children and young people are safe from harm and injury. It is
used in this way here because there is no authoritative study of the prevalence of vulnerability or risk of
significant harm in NSW. It is also used here because it is likely to be sensitive to many of the initiatives
adopted under KTS, especially changes in the Children’s Court. But it should be interpreted with caution:
this proxy focuses on the most serious cases of neglect and abuse, in that children are only placed in
OOHC as a last resort. Moreover, this indicator cannot reveal how many children suffer from serious
neglect or abuse without coming to the attention of the statutory system. In addition, the indicator takes
a cross section of children in out-of-home care rather than differentiating between children who entered
OOHC before and after the introduction of KTS. There is therefore a considerable ‘lag’ in this indicator
because many children spend several years in care.
Status
In 2012/13 there were 12,349 children in statutory OOHC in NSW. This has been increasing over time,
having more than doubled since 2004/05. As with indicator 4a, we have estimated a time series of the
proportion of children in OOHC by dividing the number of NSW children in OOHC by age by the ABS
estimated resident population statistics and new estimates of the Aboriginal population. The results are
shown in Table 10.
A very small proportion of NSW children and young people are placed in Out-of-Home Care overall.
For non-Aboriginal children and young people aged 0-17 years, around half a per cent of the overall
population is currently in OOHC. For Aboriginal children however, the proportion in OOHC is ten times
higher at 4.7 per cent. Put another way, the probability of being in OOHC for Aboriginal children is one
in every 21 children, which has tripled over the last decade. For non-Aboriginal children the probability
is one in every 196 (2012/13), this has also increased over time, but at a rate of half that experienced
by Aboriginal children.
65
Comparing the Pre and During-KTS environment – Statutory OOHC
In the pre-KTS period (2004/05 to 2008/09), the number of non-Aboriginal children and young
people in statutory OOHC increased from 4,699 to 8,079. Taking into account population growth, this
translates to an increase of 0.3 of a per cent to 0.5 of a per cent. In the pre-KTS period, the relative
risk of a non-Aboriginal NSW child living in statutory OOHC increased to over 60 per cent by 2008/09
when compared with 2004/05. The increase was most pronounced among children aged 0 to 5 years,
who showed a 76.5 per cent increase – or a near doubling – in the relative risk of living in OOHC (see
Appendix Table 29). Older children showed a lower increase.
For Aboriginal children pre-KTS, the relative risk of being in statutory OOHC increased at a similar rate
to non-Aboriginal children, however, this population started from a position of a higher probability of
being in statutory OOHC. By 2008/09 the relative risk of Aboriginal children being in statutory OOHC
was 117.6 per cent higher than in 2004/05. For younger children (0-5 years), it was almost 160 per cent
higher.
During KTS (2009/10 to 2012/13), the relative risk of being in statutory OOHC for non-Aboriginal
children aged 0-17 years remained relatively stable, but began to reduce in 2012/13 – a decrease in the
relative risk of being in statutory OOHC of 1.2 per cent compared with the baseline of 2009/10. This
decrease was not evident across all age groups, with older aged children more likely to be in statutory
OOHC, however for young children (aged 0-5 years) the relative risk of being in statutory OOHC during
KTS has decreased considerably –from 2.4 per cent lower in 2010/11 compared with 2009/10 and
14.3 per cent lower in 2012/13 when compared with the same base year (see Appendix Table 29). As
older children are more likely to have had ongoing contact with the system than younger children and
less likely to be first time entries, these results suggest that KTS has worked to reduce new entries into
statutory OOHC for young non-Aboriginal children 6.
In the KTS environment, the relative risk of being in OOHC for Aboriginal children increased quite rapidly,
form 6.5 per cent to 20.1 per cent over the three KTS years. These increases were more prominent for
older age children, while for young children (aged 0-5 years) the relative risk of being in statutory OOHC
was much lower – only 3.3 per cent higher in 2012/13 when compared with 2009/10.
6
66
Young children (less than one years of age) are most likely to be first time entries into OOHC than any other age
group, and represent around 23.5 per cent of all first time entry OOHC children (See Appendix 6, Table A6.vi of
the FaCS 2011/12 Annual Statistical Report.
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 10 4b NSW Children and young people in statutory OOHC, 2004/05 to 2012/13
Year
OOHC
reports1
Child
population2
OOHC
proportion3
Probability
of being at
OOHC4
Pre
KTS5
During
KTS6
0-17 year olds (Aboriginal)
2004/05
1,352
84,380
1.6%
62
2005/06
1,606
85,895
1.9%
53
16.7%
2006/07
2,040
87,454
2.3%
43
45.6%
2007/08
2,523
88,377
2.9%
35
78.2%
2008/09
3,112
89,247
3.5%
29
117.6%
2009/10
3,513
90,026
3.9%
26
2010/11
3,757
90,436
4.2%
24
6.5%
2011/12
4,035
90,840
4.4%
23
13.8%
2012/13
4,270
91,079
4.7%
21
20.1%
0-17 year olds (non-Aboriginal)
2004/05
4,699
1,504,302
0.3%
320
2005/06
5,123
1,505,917
0.3%
294
8.9%
2006/07
5,986
1,514,815
0.4%
253
26.5%
2007/08
6,881
1,523,835
0.5%
221
44.6%
2008/09
7,679
1,534,019
0.5%
200
60.3%
2009/10
7,988
1,545,181
0.5%
193
2010/11
8,056
1,551,041
0.5%
193
2011/12
8,137
1,564,845
0.5%
192
0.6%
2012/13
8,079
1,581,073
0.5%
196
-1.2%
0.5%
Notes
1The number of children reported at OOHC
2The number of children in NSW
3The proportion of children reported as at OOHC
4The number of children reported at OOHC is “one in x”
5The relative risk of being in OOHC is y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of being in OOHC is y% higher or lower than in 2009/10
Note: See Appendix for further analysis by age groups.
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian
Demographic Statistics Cat No. 3101.0, Table 51 Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of Age, New South Wales; and Estimates and
Projections; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026, ABS Cat No. 3238.0. .
67
13-17
6-12
Figure 16 4b Rate of children in statutory Out of Home Care, 2004/05-2012/13
13-17
0-5
9
8
2011/12
2012/13
13
6-
6-12
All (0-17)
13-17
0-5
7
6
0-
6-12
All (0-17)
5
4
Al
0-5
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
3
010/11
2011/12
2012/13
010/11
2011/12
2012/13
010/11
6-12
All (0-17)
13-17
0-5
10
Rate per 1,000
010/11
The change in the number of children and young people living in statutory OOHC since the introduction
of KTS, and in particular, the changed reporting threshold, is clear from the charts below. After the KTS
changes, the rate of growth in the number of children in statutory OOHC slowed, with a reduction
in the number of children aged younger than six entering OOHC (Figure 16.) In 2012/13, 6.2 out of
1,000 children under 6 lived in statutory OOHC, compared to a peak of 6.8 in every 1,000 in 2009/10.
Teenagers are now more likely to live in OOHC than children under six years. The age group most likely
to live in OOHC are children aged 6-12 years (8.6 in every 1,000).
All (0-17)
2
1
0
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Note: For this analysis, the rate of children in OOHC is calculated by dividing the number of children in OOHC by the ABS’ annual estimates of
2011/12
population by age, and multiplying by 1,000.
2012/13
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS - CIW annual data and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian
Demographic Statistics Cat No. 3101.0, Table 51 Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of Age, New South Wales.
Aboriginal children are much more likely be living in OOHC than other children, with rates of OOHC
in 2012/13 of 46.9 children per 1000 compared to 7.4 per 1000 for all children. Since KTS, the rate of
Aboriginal children in OOHC appears to have slowed, particularly for younger children (0-5 years). Since
2009/10 the rate per 1,000 of Aboriginal children aged 0-5 years has hardly shifted (around 43 in every
1,000) suggesting that first time entrants into care for young people are less common.
68
010/11
010/11
010/11
13-17
6-12
Figure 17 4b Rate of children
in statutory Out of Home Care, Aboriginal, by age 2004/05-2012/13
13-17
0-5
80
70
60
2011/12
2011/12
Rate per 1,000
010/11
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
50
2012/13
13-17
0-5
6-
6-12
All (0-17)
0-
30
6-12
All (0-17)
20
0-5
10
All (0-17)
0
2011/12
13
13-17
0-5
40
2012/13
6-12
All (0-17)
2004/05
2005/06
Al
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2012/13
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data and ABS 3238.0 – Estimates and Projections, Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026,
2011/12
2012/13
FINDING
Children and young people in statutory OOHC
The rate of children being in statutory OOHC has slowed since the introduction of KTS and for
some groups decreased.
Aboriginal children are still more than six times more likely to be in statutory OOHC than nonAboriginal children.
The strongest effects are observed for the youngest children (those aged 0-5 years), with the rate
of non-Aboriginal children in this group declining, and the rate for Aboriginal children flattening.
This finding is consistent with KTS being effective as younger children are most likely to be diverted
from OOHC by prevention and early intervention programs.
69
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Children and young people in statutory OOHC
National
National sources provide data on the rate of children and young people in OOHC that are to a
large extent comparable with that of NSW. Some minor definitional issues include: (1) the use of
‘statutory’ to qualify OOHC in NSW but not in other sources; (2) definition of the rate with respect
to ‘resident’ population in Victoria but not in other places.
In Victoria, the rate of children and young people in OOHC per 1,000 persons was 5 in 2011/2012,
similar to that of the non-Aboriginal population in NSW. Nationally, it was 7.7.
International
International sources provide data on the rate of children and young people in OOHC that are to
some extent comparable with that of NSW. Differences in definitions of the type of care (children
‘looked after’, in foster care, in statutory OOHC, etc.) is a potential issue that needs to be
considered in comparisons. Data for a number of years are available.
The Minnesota Department of Human Services provide the rates of children in OOHC per 1,000
children in the state of Minnesota while Child Trends Data Bank provides the rates of foster
children per 1000 children in the whole of the US. Both sources document a slight decrease in the
rates over time. In Minnesota, the rate has decreased between 2007/08 and 2011/12 from 11.5
to 8.9. In the same period, the rate has decreased from 6.6 to 5.4 in the US. Similar patterns are
provided by the Department of Education in England, where the rate of children looked after has
increased from 5.5 to 5.8 between 2007/08 and 2011/12.
70
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 4(b)
Rate of presentation at hospital emergency departments for children under one year old
with a fracture
Target: Reduce rate over baseline.
Background
This is a proxy for the extent to which children and young people are safe from harm and injury. It is
intended as an adjunct to the use of reporting rates (Indicator 4(a) above). Its validity rests on the fact
that it is extremely rare for children who cannot yet walk to break bones in the absence of contributing
neglect or intentional actions from adults. As such, it provides a proxy measure for the prevalence of one
contributor to vulnerability, namely domestic violence towards children. This indicator is consistent with
VCAMS Indicator 12.2 “Age-specific hospitalisation rates from injuries and poisoning” and Indicator
12.5 “Rate of unintentional injury related long bone fractures in young people”. KFCC Indicator 10.2
measures percentage of children hospitalised due to injury. NFPAC includes a range of indicators on
childhood injuries, including hospitalisations, childhood injuries and emergency presentation.
Status
Data on infants with fractures come from two sources – fractures diagnosed in hospital emergency
departments prior to admission, and fractures diagnosed upon admission to hospital. Twice as many
fractures are diagnosed upon admission to hospital as are diagnosed in emergency departments.
There has been a slight downward trend in the number of infants diagnosed with a fracture upon
admission to hospital, but this is more than offset by a tripling of the number of infant fractures
diagnosed in emergency departments. While it is possible that there may have been an increase in
fractures over this time, there have been changes to record-keeping requirements in hospitals that
has resulted in better recording of fractures treated, and diagnosis of fractures has improved greatly,
especially in emergency departments. Thus an increase in the number of fractures reported may be due
to better diagnosis and recording of fractures, rather than an increase in injured infants.
71
Emergency department
250
2011/12
2009/10
Number of fractures/admissions
1
Figure 18 4c Number of children under one year diagnosed with a fracture upon hospital admission,
2006/07 to 2011/12Admitted to hospital
2010/11
Admitted to hospital
Emergency department
Adm
200
Emer
150
100
50
0
2011/12
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Source: Emergency Department and hospital admissions data.
The number of infants diagnosed with fractures at emergency departments or hospitals has increased
among non-Aboriginal children, and showed no discernible pattern among Aboriginal children. Given
that 20 or fewer Aboriginal children are treated for fractures at EDs or hospitals, it is not surprising that
no pattern can be determined. The total number of fractures has increased from 220 in 2006/07 to 324
in 2010/11 (Figure 19).
Part of the increase in the number of infant fractures is due to population increases, however, the rate
of fractures per 1,000 infants has increased slightly from 2006/07 to 2011/12 (Figure 20). As discussed
earlier, the low and fluctuating total number of fractures among Aboriginal infants makes it unwise to
draw conclusions from these figures. Nor is it possible to conclude whether Aboriginal infants have a
greater risk of fracture than non-Aboriginal infants. There is a noticeable increase in the proportion of
non-Aboriginal infants diagnosed with fractures: from 2006/07 to 2008/09, there were 2.7 fractures
diagnosed for every 1,000 non-Aboriginal children; this has since increased to 3.6 in 2011/12. These
findings need to be treated with caution due to changes in reporting systems and improved diagnosis
of fractures.
72
9/10
25
2010/11
25
20
Aboriginal
350
20
15
Non-Aboriginal
280
15
10
210
10
5
5140
2010/11
2011/12
2011/12
0
Non-Aboriginal
25
20
15
10
0
70
0
Aboriginal
Number of fractures – Aboriginal
2009/10
Number of fractures – non-Aboriginal
Aboriginal
Figure 19 4c Number of children under one year
diagnosed with a fracture, 2006/07 to 2011/12
5
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Non-Aboriginal
0
Source: Emergency Department and hospital admissions data.
Figure 20 4c Rate Non-Aboriginal
of children under one year diagnosed with a fracture by Aboriginal group, 2006/07 to 2011/12
Aboriginal
5.0
Non-Aboriginal
Aboriginal
No
4.5
2011/12
2010/11
Fractures per 1,000 infants
09
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Ab
4.0
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
2011/12
0.5
0.0
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Note: Population of Aboriginal children less than one year is estimated by assuming the Aboriginal proportion increased by same percentage
point every year from 4.1% in 2006 to 4.6% in 2011 from census data.
Source: Emergency Department data, ABS 3101.0 Australian Demographic Statistics
73
Table 11 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children and young people are safe from harm
and injury
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
4(a) children reported at ROSH
Worsened in KTS ROSH
period
Remained stable in KTS ROSH
period
4(b) children in statutory OOHC
Rate has slowed,
plateaued for 0-5 year olds
Rate has slowed, decreased for
0-5 year olds
4(c)Presentation with a fracture –
children less than one
Unable to determine
Unable to determine
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
74
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Aboriginal communities participate in the protection and wellbeing of Aboriginal
children and young people
Indicator 5(a)
Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC placed in accordance with
the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
This is a proxy measure for the extent to which the statutory child protection system deals with
Aboriginal children and young people in a manner which privileges the agency of Aboriginal children,
young people and communities. It is a proxy measure in the sense that it measures conformance with
widely-accepted principles for the placement of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC as an
indicator for the cultural sensitivity and appropriateness of the statutory system as a whole.
However, the indicator is subject to the same limitations referred to in indicator 4(a) and should be
treated with caution as:
1. The cross-sectional approach (i.e., all children in care in a given year) means that children are
included who were placed prior to KTS implementation;
2. The cross-sectional approach does not account for rate of entry to or exit from care.
NFPAC 5.1 intends to report on rates of children placed according to the Aboriginal Child Placement
Principle. VCAMS Indicator 30.10 reports rates of placements of Aboriginal children according to the
Aboriginal Child Principle as an aspect of improving supports and services, early identification and
attention to child health needs. KCFF 26.3 also collects data consistent with this indicator.
Status
While the overall number of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC has more than doubled
in the last seven years from 2,686 in 2004/05 to 6,487 in 2012/13, the proportion of Aboriginal
children and young people in OOHC placed in accordance with the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle
(ACPP) has remained relatively high. There has been a slight decrease over time from 84.2 per cent in
2004/2005 to 80.4 per cent in 2012/13.
75
Table 12 5a Number and proportion of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC in accordance with
the Aboriginal Child Placement Principle, 2004/05-2012/13
Period
No. places with ACPP
Total Aboriginal OOHC
2004/05
2,262
2,686
%
84.2%
2005/06
2,529
3,033
83.4%
2006/07
3,284
3,865
85.0%
2007/08
3,819
4,575
83.5%
2008/09
4,403
5,307
83.0%
2009/10
4,700
5,788
81.2%
2010/11
4,926
6,060
81.3%
2011/12
5,045
6,287
80.2%
2012/13
5,218
6,487
80.4%
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
2012/13
Figure 21 5a Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC in accordance with the Aboriginal
Child Placement Principle,
2004/05-2012/13
2011/12 by age group,
2012/13
2010/11
100
90
2011/12
2012/13
2010/11
2011/12
20
2010/11
80
20
13-17 years
Per cent
70
20
60
50
40
13-17 years
30
20
13-17 years
10
6-12 years
0
0-5 years
6-12 years
13-17 years
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
Additional information on children and young people in OOHC was provided by the Office of the
Children’s Guardian, which shows more detail on the type of care provided for 1,244 Aboriginal children
and young people. The most common care for Aboriginal children and young people was extended
family and kinship care, with 43 per cent of preschool and primary school aged children and 39 per cent
76
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
of teenagers in this form of care. Placement with a member of one’s own Aboriginal community
was not common. One quarter of preschool and primary school aged children were placed with
non-Aboriginal carers, and 23 per cent placed with members of a different Aboriginal community.
Just over a quarter of teenagers lived in residential care or independent living, followed by 22
Residential care/independent
per cent with non-Aboriginal carers.
Residential care/independent
13-18 years
13-18 years
13-18 years
Per cent
6-12 years
6-12 years
6-12 years
Residential care/independent
Not recorded on file
Not recorded on file
Not recorded on file
Non-Aboriginal authorised carer
Non-Aboriginal authorised carer
Figure 22 5a Type of care for Aboriginal children, 2011-2012
Non-Aboriginal authorised carer
Member of own Aboriginal community
Residential care/independent
Residential care/independent
Member of own Aboriginal community
Member of own Aboriginal community
Residential care/independent
Member of other Aboriginal community
Not recorded on file
Not recorded on file
Member of other Aboriginal community
Member of other Aboriginal community
Not recorded on file
Extended family/kinship
Non-Aboriginal authorised carer
Non-Aboriginal authorised carer
Extended family/kinship
Extended family/kinship
Non-Aboriginal authorised carer
50
Member of own Aboriginal community
Member of own Aboriginal community
45
Member of own Aboriginal community
13-18 years
40
13-18 years
Member of other Aboriginal community
13-18 years
Member of other Aboriginal community
Member of other Aboriginal community
35
Extended family/kinship
Extended family/kinship
30
Extended family/kinship
25
Re
No
No
M
20
M
15
10
Ex
5
0
0-5 years
6-12 years
13-18 years
Source: Office of the Children’s Guardian data
FINDING
Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC placed in accordance with the Aboriginal
Child Placement Principle
Primary school aged children are more likely to be placed in OOHC according to ACPP. The
proportion of Aboriginal children in OOHC placed according to ACPP has decreased slightly over
time, from a high starting point. The number of Aboriginal children placed according to ACPP has
more than doubled in the last seven years.
OCG data shows that the most common care for Aboriginal children and young people is kinship
care. This is particularly high for younger children.
77
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC placed in accordance with the Aboriginal
Child Placement Principle
National
The definitions of this indicator in national sources are largely comparable with that of NSW (there
are some differences in the use of the terms ‘Aboriginal’ and ‘Indigenous’ across sources, but, as it
appears, the two terms are used interchangeably, implying that there is no difference in the
content of the term).
Nationally, the share of Indigenous children in OOHC placed with relatives/kin or other Indigenous
caregiver has decreased from 70.5 to 68.8 percent between 2009/2010 and 2011/2012. This is
significantly lower compared to NSW.
International
No comparable international data has been able to be sourced.
Table 13 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – Aboriginal communities participate in the
protection and wellbeing of Aboriginal children and young people
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
5(a)Aboriginal children placed in accordance
with ACPC
Marginally worsened
Not applicable
5(b)Communities reporting increased participation
in protection of Aboriginal children
Primary data collection
Primary data collection
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
78
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Vulnerable and at Risk Children and Young People, Families and Communities
Brighter Futures
As a number of indicators seek to explore the impact of PEI programs on child outcomes, it is important
to seek to gain an understanding of one of the largest PEI programs within the KTS initiative – Brighter
Futures. However, it is important to note that Brighter Futures is not in and of itself representative of the
PEI sector.
Brighter Futures is a voluntary, targeted early intervention program for families with children at high risk
of entering or re-entering the child protection system. It provides sustained services and support to help
prevent problems from escalating and achieve long-term benefits for children. Services are provided
to families with children less than nine years who are experiencing a range of vulnerabilities including:
domestic violence, drug or alcohol misuse, parental mental health issues, lack of parenting skills or
inadequate supervision, or parent(s) with significant learning difficulties or intellectual disability.
Priority is given to families with children under three years of age and to families referred by an
Aboriginal Maternal and Infant Health Service.
Services and supports provided under Brighter Futures include:
§§
Case management – caseworkers meet with families to assess their needs and develop a case
plan that builds on the family’s strengths and addresses identified needs. Caseworkers organise
access to services that will help the family to achieve their goals and monitor the family’s
progress.
§§
Quality children’s services which offer small group sizes; skilled, qualified and consistent staff.
These services are also able to meet the developmental and cultural needs of children.
§§
Structured home visiting providing support and skills development to parents one-to-one in
their homes.
§§
Parenting programs to help parents improve their knowledge of child development and increase
their skills and capacity to appropriately parent and care for their children.
§§
Brokerage for other services to meet the family’s immediate and/or short term needs
(e.g. respite care, specialist mental health services and drug/alcohol services).
Services are delivered over a period of up to two years in order to produce lasting positive effects
for children. Services are provided by early intervention caseworkers who are employed by sixteen
non-government agencies. Families can be referred to Brighter Futures following a report or request
for assistance to the Helpline; by a community agency/program or an individual.
Expenditure
Brighter Futures received significant enhancement funding under KTS, totalling $37 million from
2010/11 to 2013/14.
79
Child safety, welfare and wellbeing concerns are addressed before they escalate to
statutory involvement
Indicator 6(b)
Proportion of children and young people whose families have completed (exited)
a targeted early intervention and prevention program (Brighter Futures) who are
subsequently reported at risk of significant harm
Target: Decrease number and proportion below baseline.
Background
This is a broad proxy measure of the extent to which child safety, welfare and wellbeing concerns
are addressed before they escalate to statutory involvement. It is a proxy indicator in that it assumes
repeated contact with parts of the child protection system designed to deal with progressively more
acute or more significant risks indicates that “concerns” were not successfully addressed by early
intervention services. This is a valid assumption insofar as early intervention services seek to prevent
problems from escalating to the point where intervention from the statutory system is required, but
it may not be perfectly valid if families subsequently enter into contact with the statutory system for
reasons which were not relevant or apparent when they accessed early intervention services. Nor does
the analysis in this section seek to be representative of the PEI sector operating within NSW.
This indicator is consistent with the NFPAC outcome 2 ‘Children and Families access adequate support
to promote safety and intervene early’. The NFPAC and the AIHW’s “Child Protection Australia” Report
note that Early Intervention is a focus in a number of states, including NSW, the Northern Territory and
Western Australia, however there is some discussion around the current lack of data collection in regard
to early intervention. VCAMS section 30 includes data on early identification of child health needs.
Status
In this analysis we concentrate on outcomes for children that were the main target of the Brighter
Futures program – children aged nine or less. We note however, that older children also utilised the
program.
The number of 0-9 year old children whose families exited Brighter Futures has more than doubled
between 2008/09 and 2011/12 for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children – see Table 33 and Table
34 in the Appendix. The biggest increase in participation (as proxied by exits from the program) has been
for Aboriginal children.
Comparing the years 2010/11 and 2011/12 (which have a consistent ROSH definition), there has been
little change in the proportion of children being reported at ROSH following exit from Brighter Futures
(Figure 23). The exception for this were Aboriginal children aged 3-5 years, where the proportion who
were subsequently reported fell from 41.7 to 24.7 per cent (Figure 24).
80
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
6-9
Figure 23 6b Proportion of Aboriginal children whose families have completed (exited) Brighter Futures, who
are subsequently reported
at risk of
3-5
6-9significant harm by age group, 2008/09-2011/12
0-2
70
6-9
0-2
3-5
60
6-
0-2
3-
50
Per cent
040
2011/12
20
2011/12
11
30
10
2010/11
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
2011/12
0
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Note: A new threshold was introduced in January 2010, making comparisons of this indicator prior to this date problematic.
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
6-9
Figure 24 6b Proportion of non-Aboriginal children whose families have completed (exited) Brighter Futures,
who are subsequently
risk of significant harm by age group, 2008/09-2011/12
3-5 reported at 6-9
0-2
70
3-5
6-9
0-2
3-5
60
6-
0-2
3-
50
0Per cent
11
3-5
40
2011/12
20
2011/12
2010/11
30
10
0
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
2011/12
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Note: A new threshold was introduced in January 2010, making comparisons of this indicator prior to this date problematic.
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
81
FINDING
Children and young people reported at risk of significant harm after their families have
exited Brighter Futures
The number of 0-9 year old children whose families exited Brighter Futures has more than doubled
between 2008/09 and 2011/12 for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children
Little change in the proportion of children being reported at ROSH following exit from Brighter
Futures is observed across age groups for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. The
exception were Aboriginal children aged 3-5 years.
82
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Indicator 6(b)
Proportion of children and young people whose families have exited Brighter Futures who
subsequently enter OOHC
Target: Decrease number and proportion below baseline.
Background
This is a proxy measure of the extent to which child safety, welfare and wellbeing concerns are addressed
before they escalate to the most acute form of statutory involvement (the removal of children from their
families). It is a proxy indicator in that it assumes repeated contact with parts of the child protection
system designed to deal with progressively more acute or more significant risks indicates that “concerns”
were not successfully addressed by early intervention services. This is a valid assumption insofar as early
intervention services seek to prevent problems from escalating to the point where intervention from the
statutory system is required, but it is not a direct measure of effectiveness because families subsequently
may enter into contact with the statutory system for reasons which were not apparent when they
accessed early intervention services. Furthermore, all early intervention programs are subject to the
‘surveillance effect’ – families who come into contact with services are more likely to be reported simply
because they are in contact with service providers who will notice issues within the family. As stated
above, this indicator is not a representative of the entire PEI sector operating within NSW.
Status
In this analysis we concentrate on outcomes for children that were the main target of the Brighter
Futures program – children aged nine or less. We note however, that older children also utilised the
program.
The number of 0-9 year old children whose families exited Brighter Futures has more than doubled
between 2008/09 and 2011/12 for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children (see Table 35 and Table
36 in the Appendix). The biggest increase in participation (as proxied by exits from the program) has
been for the Aboriginal children.
Prior to KTS, Aboriginal children entering OOHC following exit from Brighter Futures was increasing
for almost all age groups except those aged 0-2 years (Figure 25). Since KTS, proportions of Aboriginal
children entering OOHC after their families exited Brighter Futures began to decrease, with the biggest
drop for Aboriginal children aged 6-9 years. Prior to KTS one in every fourteen 6-9 year olds whose
family exited Brighter Futures went on to OOHC – in 2011-12 this had decreased to one in every 45 6-9
year olds.
83
6-9
Figure 25 6c Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people whose families have exited Brighter Futures
who subsequently enter
OOHC in6-9
the following 12 months, by age group, 2008/09-2011/12
3-5
0-2
9
3-5
6-9
0-2
3-5
2011/12
1
Per cent
8
2011/12
0-2
7
3-
6
0-
5
4
3
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
2
2010/11
6-
2011/12
1
0
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
Commencing from a low base, non-Aboriginal children also experienced a decrease in entry to OOHC
when comparing patterns in 2008/09 to 2011/12 (Figure 26). However, very little movement was
observed during the KTS period.
The shift away from children entering OOHC, particularly younger children – illustrated in Indicator 4(b)
is also likely to be impacting upon the results here. This does not necessarily mean that Brighter Futures
does not work to protect and intervene early for children, as other outcomes form the program, such as
improved learning and behaviour are also worthwhile investments.
84
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
6-9
Figure 26 6c Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people whose families have exited Brighter Futures
who subsequently enter
the following 12 months, by age group, 2008/09-2011/12
3-5 OOHC in 6-9
0-2
9
3-5
6-9
0-2
3-5
8
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
7
2011/12
11
Per cent
6
6-
0-2
3-
0-
5
4
2011/12
3
2
2010/11
2011/12
1
0
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
FINDING
Children enter OOHC after family exits Brighter Futures
Children entering OOHC after family exits Brighter Futures has decreased over time, more so for
Aboriginal children.
85
Table 14 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – child safety, welfare and wellbeing concerns
are addressed before they escalate to statutory involvement
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
6(a)Families in vulnerable communities participating
in Brighter Futures
Improved
Improved
6(b) children reported at ROSH after families have
completed Brighter Futures
Improvement for 3-5 year
olds, no change for other
age groups
No change
6(c) children enter OOHC after families have
completed Brighter Futures
Improved
Small improvement
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
86
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Children and young people at risk of significant harm/living in statutory
out of home care
Children in OOHC transition to permanent care
Indicator 11(b)
Proportion of children and young people who re-enter OOHC
Target: Decrease proportion from baseline.
Background
This is a proxy measure of the extent to which OOHC operates as a mechanism of last resort in the child
protection system. It is a proxy in that it assumes re-entering OOHC after having been restored indicates
that efforts at supporting restorations were not successful. This is a valid assumption insofar as support
services seek to prevent problems from escalating to the point where a return to OOHC is required, but
it may not be perfectly valid if families subsequently enter into contact with the statutory system for
reasons which were not apparent when restoration was undertaken. Like many of the other indicators,
this indicator is also subject to surveillance effects. If intensive work is done with the birth family after
restoration, for example, then this may uncover issues within the family which were not known about
previously and which may lead the child to re-enter care. In addition, this indicator is largely contingent
on which children actually exit OOHC. That is, if the risk profile of those who exit changes (e.g.,
increased risk over time), we would expect to see corresponding changes in the rate of re-entry (greater
proportion of restorations returning).The final report will attempt to consider this dependency.
This indicator is consistent with many reports on child wellbeing and child protection. The AIHW’s “Child
Protection Australia” Report collects national data on placements including rates of entry into OOHC
and time in placement, disaggregated by sex and Aboriginal status NFPAC 0.2 reports rate of children in
OOHC, and KCFF 26.4 measure numbers of placements in a given time and VCAMS section 30 includes
similar indicators. In the USA, the “Child Welfare Outcomes 2007 to 2010” Report to Congress includes
measures of permanency in out of home care, rates of entry into care, rates of re-entry into care and
number of placements per year.
Status
The proportion of children and young people who re-entered OOHC fell from 19.1 per cent in 2004/05
to 11.1 per cent in 2011/12 for non-Aboriginal children and from 27.4 to 14.8 per cent for Aboriginal
children. Assessing changes in re-entries both pre- and during KTS, Figure 27 shows the average annual
change in OOHC re-entries by age for non-Aboriginal children. In the KTS period (2009/10 to 2011/12)
both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children were less likely, on average, to experience a recurrence in
OOHC than they were during the pre-KTS period.
87
Figure 27 11b Average annual change in OOHC re-entriesNon-Aboriginal
by age, pre-pre-KTS
and during KTS, non-Aboriginal children,
2004/05-2011/12 Non-Aboriginal pre-KTS
Non-Aboriginal post-KTS
Non-Aboriginal pre-KTS
6
4
2
Non-Aboriginal post-KTS
Non-Aboriginal post-KTS
Non-Aboriginal pre-KTS
Pre-KTS average
Pre-KTS average
Pre-KTS average
Non-Aboriginal post-KTS
Post-KTS average
Post-KTS average
Post-KTS average
Pre-KTS average
Non-A
Non-A
Per cent
Post-KTS average
7
8
9
10
11
14
13
15
14
16
15
17
16
17
8
9
10
11
12
12
0
Pre-K
-2
Post-K
-4
13
14
15
16
17
-6
13
-814
-10
15
0
16
1
17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
Note: Pre-KTS denotes the period from 2005/06 to 2008/09 and during-KTS 2009/10 to 2011/12
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
Figure 28 11b Average annual change in OOHC re-entriesAboriginal
by age, pre-KTS
pre- and during KTS, Aboriginal children and
young people, 2004/05-2011/12
Aboriginal pre-KTS
Aboriginal post-KTS
Aboriginal pre-KTS
6
4
2
Aboriginal post-KTS
Aboriginal post-KTS
Aboriginal pre-KTS
Pre-KTS average
Pre-KTS average
Pre-KTS average
Aboriginal post-KTS
Post-KTS average
Post-KTS average
Post-KTS average
Pre-KTS average
Abori
Abori
Per cent
Post-KTS average
7
8
9
10
11
14
13
15
14
16
15
17
16
17
8
9
10
11
12
12
0
Pre-KT
-2
Post-K
-4
13
14
15
16
17
-6
13
-814
-10
15
0
16
1
17
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Note: Pre-KTS denotes the period from 2005/06 to 2008/09 and during-KTS 2009/10 to 2011/12
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
88
12
13
14
15
16
17
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 29 to Figure 31 shows the re-entry rate by three age groups: 0-5 (early childhood), 6-12 (primary
school), 13-17 (teens-high school). Re-entry rates have been decreasing over-time across all age groups
since 2008/09. Aboriginal children have higher re-entry rates than non-Aboriginal children, and this has
recently increased again for the youngest and oldest age groups.
The average re-entry rate for non-Aboriginal 0-5 year olds between 2004/05 and 2011/12 was 20
percent – for Aboriginal children this was just above 25 per cent. Currently around 11 per cent of nonAboriginal children aged 0-5 years will re-enter OOHC within 12 months – for Aboriginal children this is
around 18 per cent.
Figure 29 11b Proportion of 0-5 year olds who re-enter OOHC within 12 months, 2004/05-2011/12
40
35
35
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
Per cent
40
40
20
20
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
2004/05
2004/05
2005/06
2005/06
No
Aboriginal
Aboriginal
Ab
20
15
15
0
0
Non-Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal
0
2006/07
2006/07
2007/08
2004/05
2007/08
2008/09
2005/06
2008/09
2009/10
2006/07
2009/10
2010/11
2007/08
2010/11
2011/12
2008/09
2011/12
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
Re-entries for primary school aged children have averaged 22 per cent for non-Aboriginal children and
24.5 per cent for Aboriginal children across the period. Re-entries for this age group are currently lower
for Aboriginal children than non-Aboriginal children.
89
Figure 30 11b Proportion of 6-12 year olds who re-enter OOHC within 12 months, 2004/05-2011/12
40
35
35
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
Per cent
40
40
20
20
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
2004/05
2004/05
2005/06
2005/06
No
Aboriginal
Aboriginal
Ab
20
15
15
0
0
Non-Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal
0
2006/07
2006/07
2007/08
2004/05
2007/08
2008/09
2005/06
2008/09
2009/10
2006/07
2009/10
2010/11
2007/08
2010/11
2011/12
2008/09
2011/12
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
For the older age group, re-entries have also decreased but at a slower rate (excluding the 2007/08 result
for Aboriginal young people). The re-entry rate for non-Aboriginal young people has averaged 18 per
cent from 2004/05 to 2011/12 – for Aboriginal young people it is almost 24 per cent.
Figure 31 11b Proportion of 13-17 year olds who re-enter OOHC within 12 months, 2004/05-2011/12
40
35
35
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
Per cent
40
40
20
20
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
2004/05
2004/05
2005/06
2005/06
0
2006/07
2006/07
2007/08
2004/05
2007/08
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
90
No
Aboriginal
Aboriginal
Ab
20
15
15
0
0
Non-Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal
2008/09
2005/06
2008/09
2009/10
2006/07
2009/10
2010/11
2007/08
2010/11
2011/12
2008/09
2011/12
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
FINDING
Children and young people who re-enter OOHC in the following 12 months
Re-entries have decreased for almost all age groups over a seven year period. Aboriginal children
and young people have experienced an average annual decrease of 1.6 percentage points.
Re-entries for non-Aboriginal children and young people have decreased on average by 1.06
percentage points annually.
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Children and young people who re-enter OOHC
National
None of the sources provides directly comparable indicators.
International
Minnesota Department of Human Services provides data on out-of-home placement re-entry rate.
Re-entry means that a child who was discharged from out-of-home care to reunification with
parents or primary caretakers, or who was discharged to live with relatives in prior calendar year,
re-entered care within 12 months of that discharge. This indicator has increased from 20.7 to 25.8
per cent in the period from 2007/2008 to 2012/2013. It is higher compared to the samples of both
non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal children in NSW.
91
Indicator 11(d)
Proportion of children in OOHC who have had fewer than 3 placements within 12 months
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
Much research has indicated that stability of care for children in OOHC is one of the key factors linked to
children’s wellbeing. Children who experience multiple placements are likely to experience disruptions in
schooling, peer relationships and service access. The indicator is a proxy in that it focuses on one aspect
of OOHC, and stability is only beneficial if the placement meets the child’s needs. Further, the causal
impacts can work in both directions in that child characteristics such as behavioral difficulties or issues
with the birth family may cause disruptions in placements.
Importantly, this indicator measures only those children who were in care for the last 12 months. It
does not include children who entered and left care more quickly. Furthermore, it does not distinguish
children who have been in care for very long periods of time from children in care for shorter periods
(i.e. close to one year). Moreover, it does not distinguish between types of placement, a known correlate
of placement moves. For these reasons, it will be necessary to follow children forward over time, rather
than looking backward, controlling for placement type for the final report (i.e. ascertaining the number
of placements within 12 months of entry into OOHC and, if possible, by predominant placement type).
Status
Generally, the proportion of children and young people with fewer than 3 OOHC placements within a
12 month period is very high – ranging between 91 and 93 per cent over the last five years (Figure 32).
There have been some small changes in this indicator over the last four years for Aboriginal children and
young people, with marginally more children and young people having fewer than three placements.
92
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 32 11d Proportion of children in OOHC who have had fewer than 3 placements within 12 months,
2008/09 – 2012/13 Non-Aboriginal
Aboriginal
100
Non-Aboriginal
Aboriginal
No
90
Ab
80
Per cent
70
60
50
40
2012/13
30
2011/12
20
2012/13
10
0
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
Disaggregating these trends further by age group, older children (those aged 13-17 years) are more likely
to have more than 3 placements in a 12 month period, with this trend deteriorating marginally between
2009/10 and 2012/13 for Aboriginal children and young people (Figure 33). Older non-Aboriginal
children and young people have experienced a slight increase across the same period from 87.7 to
89.8 per cent (Figure 34). These findings are consistent with Australian and international research on
placement instability for young people and older children (McHugh, 2013; Osborn et al., 2008; Ward,
2009).
Younger children (those aged 0-5 years) are slightly more difficult to place than those aged 6-12 years,
with higher proportions (around 10 per cent) having more than 3 placements in a 12 month period. This
finding is likely to be linked with the supply of carers that can dedicate their time fully (that is, without
having to participate in the paid workforce), and to some degree child care availability; as well as the
individual care and supervision that is required for younger children who are more dependent upon their
carers. It may also reflect the greater use of emergency initial placements for these highly vulnerable
children, and these tend to be more temporary forms of care.
Primary school aged children are least likely to have more than 3 care placements within a 12 month
period – currently around 5 per cent for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. Children this age
are less dependent, are attending school and are somewhat easier to manage at this developmental
stage.
93
13-17
Figure 33 11d Proportion of Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC who have had fewer than
3 placements within6-12
12 months, by13-17
age group 2008/09 – 2012/13
0-5
98
6-12
13-17
0-5
6-12
96
13
0-5
6-
Per cent
94
0-
92
90
88
2012/13
011/12
86
2012/13
84
82
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
13-17
Figure 34 11d Proportion of non-Aboriginal children and young people in OOHC who have had fewer than
3 placements within6-12
12 months, by13-17
age group 2008/09 – 2012/13
0-5
98
6-12
13-17
0-5
6-12
96
13
0-5
6-
Per cent
94
0-
92
90
88
2012/13
011/12
86
2012/13
84
82
2009/10
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
94
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
FINDING
Children and young people who have had fewer than 3 placements within 12 months
The rate has remained largely unchanged for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children, but
older children 13-17 (both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal) are more likely to have more than 3
placements than younger children.
Jurisdictional Comparisons
Children and young people who have had fewer than 3 placements within 12 months
National
None of the sources provides directly comparable indicators.
International
Data from Minnesota Department of Human Services appears particularly appropriate for drawing
comparisons with KTS. The share of children who experienced only one or two placement settings
within a calendar year is reported. While it has increased from 84.8 to 86.4 between 2006/20072009/2010, it is lower compared to NSW.
Table 15 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children in OOHC transition to permanent care
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
11(a)Children and young people in OOHC with a
case plan for restoration who are fully restored
Not available until 2016
Not available until 2016
11(b) Children and young people who re-enter
OOHC
Improved
Improved
11(c) Children and young people in permanent
placements
Not available until August
2014
Not available until August 2014
11(d) Children and young people in OOHC with
<3 placements in 12 months
No change
No change
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
95
Young people (16-18 years) successfully transition from OOHC
Indicator 12(a)
Proportion of young people in OOHC aged 15 years and over who have a current leaving
care plan
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
This is a measure of the extent to which those leaving OOHC are provided with adequate and
appropriate support. It is directly related to KTS commitments to improve outcomes for those making the
transition from OOHC to independent life.
This indicator is similar to those in KCFF and VCAMS. VCAMS section 13 and 14 measures support for
vulnerable teenagers, and indicators include access to mental health services, dental services and physical
health services. KCFF section 11 and 12 measures lifestyle and law abiding behaviour of young people.
Status
The aim of leaving care plans is to ensure teenagers in OOHC receive appropriate support in transitioning
from care to independent living. These care plans typically provide assistance in living skills assessment,
seeking and enrolling in education, training and employment, securing housing and income support
where necessary, applying for driver’s licence and passport, and so forth. Leaving care plans are usually
appropriate for young people aged 15 and over, to allow them to gradually transition from supported
care to independence over the course of time.
The Office of the Children’s Guardian has provided data on children and young people in OOHC,
covering two audit periods: 2008-2010 and 2011-12. The former contains audits from 2008 and 2009,
the latter contains audits from 2011 and 2012. Only certain questions were asked in each audit period,
so in some cases, reliable data may only be available for one year.
In the 2011-12 audit period, 863 young people (aged 15 and over) showed a response to whether or
not they had a current leaving care plan. Of these, 540 (63%) had a leaving care plan, and 323 (37%)
did not. Aboriginal young people were less likely to have a leaving care plan, as shown in Figure 35.
Generally, the older a young person is, the more likely they are to have a leaving care plan – only 40 per
cent of 15 year olds had a leaving care plan, while over 90 per cent of 18 year olds had one.
96
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 35 12a Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal young people with a leaving care plan, 2011-12
100
90
80
Non-Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal
No
Aboriginal
Aboriginal
Ab
Per cent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
18
18
0
15
16
17
18
Source: Office of the Children’s Guardian data
CREATE, an organisation dedicated to supporting children in out of home care, conducts regular surveys
on children and young people’s experiences in their transition from OOHC to independence. They have
conducted a number of such surveys from 2005 to 2013. The data they collect is useful to consider
along with the Office of the Children’s Guardian data. However, it is not directly comparable – the Office
of the Children’s Guardian data is drawn from audits of children and young people’s case files, while
CREATE data is drawn from surveys of children and young people. In some cases, the children and young
people surveyed by CREATE may be unaware of all the information in their files; for example, while a
young person’s casefile with the Office of the Children’s Guardian may indicate they have a leaving care
plan, the young person may not be aware of it.
Respondents aged 15-17 were asked whether they knew if they had a current leaving care plan. CREATE
data show that nationwide in 2013, one-third of young people in OOHC across Australia indicated they
knew they had a leaving care plan in place – with NSW respondents sitting close to the national average.
Nationwide, 23 per cent indicated that they were only a little, or not at all involved in the development
of their leaving care plan, which could explain why many were unaware of it.
This also relates to indicator 12(e) – the proportion of children and young people leaving OOHC who
are provided with detailed information about the assistance available to them. This is a measure of the
extent to which those leaving OOHC are provided with adequate and appropriate support. It is directly
related to KTS commitments to improve outcomes for those making the transition from OOHC to
independent life.
The CREATE reports have various indicators that may serve as a proxy for 12(e), however, it is unlikely
these reports will be able to provide a consistent definition of ‘detailed information’.
97
Alternatively, those with a case plan could be used as a proxy for this indicator – aligning with 12(a) and
making 12(e) redundant. This data was originally going to be sourced from the Office of the Children’s
Guardian file audits, however, the CREATE data has a longer time series, with the Office of the Children’s
Guardian case file audits only available from 2010-12 for these data.
Table 16 12a Young people with leaving care plans, CREATE data, Australia and NSW
Report Year
2008
2009
2011
2013
Australia:
% young people with leaving care plan
41.7%
36.4%
31.4%
33%
NSW:
% young people with leaving care plan
35.3%
NA
18%
NA
Sample
N=164 (59 NSW)
N=335
N=605 (122
NSW)
N=281
Age surveyed
unsure
unsure
15-18yrs
15-17yrs
Population surveyed
In and Post-care
In and Post-care
In-care
In-care
Source
p.43 & 49
p.63
p.29
p.75
Source: CREATE Reports 2008, 2009, 2011, 2013
Data from 2008 and 2011 shows that young people in New South Wales are less likely to know about
having a leaving care plan than the national average (Table 16). While surprisingly fewer young people
knew of leaving care plans in 2011 compared to 2008, this may be due to small sample sizes, different
age groups surveyed and changes in survey methodology.
It is noted in both CREATE reports and Office of the Children’s Guardian data, older teenagers are more
likely to have a leaving care plan in place, as the need for such a plan becomes greater the closer a
young person is to adulthood. The Office of the Children’s Guardian data showing the vast majority of
older teenagers with leaving care plans is a promising sign – indicating that although they may not have
a plan in place when they are 15, they are very likely to have a plan in place when it comes time to leave
school, seek further education and employment and so forth. Taken together the findings from CREATE
and the Office of the Children’s Guardian indicate that many young people, perhaps the majority, who
have a leaving care plan are not aware of this.
98
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
FINDING
Young people aged 15 years and over have a current leaving plan
Older young people are more likely to have a leaving plan. Aboriginal young people are less likely
to have a leaving care plan than non-Aboriginal young people, which is likely linked to Aboriginal
young people having a higher propensity for kinship care.
According to the CREATE survey, much lower proportions of young people are likely to know
about the existence of a leaving plan when compared to administrative records.
These two different findings may mean that while a plan may be in place, the information may not
be communicated to young people as effectively as it could be.
Table 17 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – young people successfully transition from OOHC
Indicator
12(a)Proportion of young people in OOHC aged 15
years and over who have a current leaving care
plan
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
Only one year of data
Only one year of data
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
99
Children and young people in OOHC are safe and healthy and have access to the
support they need
Indicator 13(a)
Proportion of school-aged children and young people in OOHC with individual
education plans
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
This is a measure of the extent to which those living in OOHC are provided with adequate and
appropriate support. It is directly related to KTS commitments to improve coordination between
education and OOHC service providers. This indicator is unique to the KTS, and addresses measures
specific to it.
From 2010, it has been Department of Education and Communities policy that children new to statutory
OOHC should have education plans developed, preferably with the engagement of the child. Because
the emphasis is on developing plans for children entering OOHC, overall percentages of children in
OOHC with education plans may remain low in the short term.
Status
This indicator measures the proportion of school age children and young people who have an individual
education plan in place. This is intended to ensure that children and young people in OOHC have the
appropriate support and guidance to succeed at school and in further training.
Data from the Office of the Children’s Guardian was used to estimate this indicator, using audit data
from 2011-12. Of this sample, 2422 children were aged six and older, and 569 (23.5 per cent) had
individual education plans. Secondary school aged young people (aged 13-18) were less likely to have
individual education plans than primary school aged children (aged 6-12). A greater proportion of
Aboriginal children had an education plan at primary school level than non-Aboriginal children, but this
had reversed by high school.
100
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 36 13a Proportion of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children and young people with individual
education plans, 2011-12
40
35
35
35
30
30
30
25
25
25
Per cent
40
40
20
20
15
10
10
10
5
5
5
6
6
7
7
8
8
No
Aboriginal
Aboriginal
Ab
20
15
15
0
0
Non-Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal
9
9
0
10
10 6
11
11 7
12
12 8
13
13 9
14
14 10
15
15 11
16
16 12
17
17 13
18
18 14
15
16
17
18
Age of child
Source: Office of the Children’s Guardian data
CREATE data from 2013 shows that many children, particularly those in NSW, are unaware of whether or
not they have individual education plans. Nationwide, one-quarter of children in OOHC were aware that
they had individual education plans, however, in New South Wales, fewer than 20 per cent of children
and young people knew they had an individual education plan. Since the intention is that children
and young people should be involved in the creation and maintenance of their education plans, it is a
concern that many children and young people do not know whether they have them or not.
FINDING
Children and young people in OOHC with individual education plans
This data provides a baseline. It shows that there are differences between Aboriginal and nonAboriginal children with education plans, particularly for those aged nine and thirteen. Education
plans decrease as the child ages and are highest when first starting school.
101
Indicator 13(b)
Proportion of school-aged children and young people in OOHC with individual health plans
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
This is a measure of the extent to which those living in OOHC are provided with adequate and
appropriate support. It is directly related to KTS commitments to improve coordination between health
and OOHC service providers. This indicator is unique to the KTS, and addresses measures specific to it.
Status
Under Office of the Children’s Guardian standards, children entering OOHC must have a health
assessment within 60 days of entering care, and ideally should be provided with an individual health
plan. These plans should consider factors such as vaccinations, vision and hearing tests, height, weight
and nutrition tests and treatment and maintenance of any health conditions. Older children and young
people should have input into the creation of their individual health plan, however children of all ages
are intended to have individual health plans. The purpose of these is to ensure that the health care needs
of children in care can be met.
Just over 40 per cent of NSW children in OOHC could remember having a health check upon entering
care, slightly more than the national average of 35 per cent 7, although nearly half of children in NSW
and Australia as a whole could not remember whether they had had a health check or not.
This indicator was assessed using data from the Office of the Children’s Guardian from 2008-09 – most
files were audited in 2008 (before the introduction of KTS). Of a total of 355 eligible children and young
people in OOHC, 228 (64 per cent) had an individual health plan and 127 did not have a health plan.
Data were not available by Aboriginal status.
Figure 37 shows that younger children – those aged five or younger – were least likely to have an
individual health plan (51 per cent). Older age groups were more likely to do so with more than twothirds (69 per cent) of teenagers having individual health plans.
7See p58, CREATE 2013
102
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 37 13b Proportion of children and young people in OOHC with individual health care plans, 2008-09
100
90
80
Per cent
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0-5 years
6-12 years
13-18 years
Source: Office of the Children’s Guardian data
FINDING
School-aged children and young people in OOHC with individual health plans
This data provides a baseline. It shows that just before the beginning of KTS, older children in
OOHC were more likely to have individual health care plans than younger children.
103
Indicator 13(d)
Proportion of children and young people living in statutory OOHC who are placed with and
case managed by non-government agencies
Target: Increase proportion below baseline.
Background
This is a measure of the extent to which the NSW Government has implemented its commitment to
transfer OOHC to the non-government sector. This indicator is unique to KTS.
Status
The proportion of children and young people in OOHC who are placed with a non-government agency
has tripled between 2011-12 and 2012-13, from around 10 per cent to 30 per cent (Figure 38). The
biggest increase has been for those children aged 6-12 years.
Figure 38 13d Proportion of children and young people living in statutory OOHC who are placed with and case
managed by non-government
agencies, 2011-12 and 2012/13
2012/13
2011/12
2012/13
35
2011/12
20
Per cent
30
20
25
20
15
13-17 years
10
13-17 years
5
0
Source: FaCS KiDS annual data
104
0-5 years
6-12 years
13-17 years
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
FINDING
Children and young people living in statutory OOHC are placed with and case managed
by non-government agencies
Proportion has increased from a 2011/12 baseline. Target is being met.
Table 19 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – Children and young people in OOHC are safe
and healthy and have access to the support they need
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
13(a) School-aged children and young people in
OOHC with individual education plans
Only one year of data
Only one year of data
13(b) Children and young people with individual
health plans
Not available
Only one year of data
13(c) Children and young people who were at ROSH
while in OOHC
Not available
Not available
13(d) Children and young people in OOHC are placed
with and case managed by NGOs
Improved
Improved
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
105
Children at risk of significant harm are identified and protected
Indicator 15(a)
Proportion of Risk of Significant Harm (ROSH) children and young people who receive a
face-to-face visit (completed SARA/SAS2)
Target: Increase number and proportion over baseline.
SARA/SAS2
Safety, Risk and Risk Reassessment (SARA)
The Safety, Risk and Risk Reassessment (SARA) are three distinct tools used at Community Service
Centres (CSCs) by caseworkers. The Safety Assessment tool is used to determine whether there are
any immediate dangers of significant harm to a child and what interventions should be put in place
to provide immediate protection. The Risk Assessment is used to classify families into low, moderate,
high and very high risk groups to determine the likelihood of future abuse or neglect to a child. This
information is used to guide decisions about whether cases should be opened for ongoing services or
not. The Risk Reassessment is used periodically to assess any changes to the family’s risk level in order to
guide decisions about whether the case can be closed or if services should continue.
A SAS1 is an office based assessment which may include inquiries to other agencies already working
with families or referrals. A SAS2 is a face-to-face assessment.
Source: FaCS 2011/12 Annual Statistical Report Glossary and page 37, 51-56.
Background
This is a measure of the extent to which Community Services’ statutory intake system is able to assess
the reports of suspected ROSH it receives. It relates to one of the centrepieces of the KTS reforms:
raising the threshold for reporting. This was designed to reduce the burden on Community Services and
thereby provide an opportunity to ensure more (ideally all) reported cases were adequately assessed
and responded to. The measure emphasises the number and proportion of cases to make it easier to
distinguish between improved performance due to changes within the intake and referral system from
apparent improvements due solely to the reduced number of reports achieved by raising the threshold.
It should be noted that receiving a face-to-face assessment is a proxy for the performance of the child
protection system. Not all children who are reported at ROSH will require a face-to-face assessment and
there may be legitimate reasons for children not being seen by Community Services. However all reports
should be thoroughly assessed and children should be seen by a responsible professional unless there is
a clear determination that the child is not at ROSH (for example that the report was inaccurate or that
circumstances have changed since the original report). It is noted that the legislation provides that
the Secretary may decide to take no further action if, on the basis of the information provided, the
Secretary considers that there is insufficient reason to believe that the child or young person is at risk
of significant harm.
106
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Overall, however, this is a reasonable proxy for the effectiveness of the child protection system to
respond to referrals. Evidence about that rate at which other jurisdictions are able to complete face-toface assessments is absent from the literature. Anecdotal information from other jurisdictions indicates
that, once allegations of maltreatment have met the threshold for investigation (whether risk of harm or
risk of serious harm), the vast majority of such children (close to 100%) are seen for a face-to-face visit.
Status
From 24 January 2010, reports of harm changed from a threshold of ‘Risk of Harm’ to ‘Risk of Significant
Harm’ as part of one of the major reforms of KTS. This change in reporting has meant that any
comparisons of risk of harm reports need to take into account the new guidelines. For this reason, we
provide a pre- and during KTS comparison to enable the relative conditions before and during KTS to be
assessed (Table 20).
Comparing the Pre- and During-KTS environments – face-to-face assessments
Prior to KTS, the number of children reported at Risk of Harm in NSW rose from 80,018 in 2004/05 to a
peak of 114,765 reports in 2008/09 (Table 20 sum of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal). Of these reports,
12.8 per cent of non-Aboriginal children received a face-to-face assessment in 2004/05 reducing slightly
to 12.2 per cent just prior to the introduction of KTS.
Around one-fifth of Aboriginal children who were reported at Risk of Harm in 2004/05 received a faceto-face assessment, increasing to 23.9 per cent just prior to KTS.
For non-Aboriginal children prior to KTS, the relative risk (chances) of receiving a face-to-face assessment
diminished as time went on. Compared with 2004/05, non-Aboriginal children were 5 per cent less likely
to receive a face-to face by 2008/09.
Examining trends during the KTS ROSH period 8, the likelihood of receiving a face-to-face assessment
improved for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. In 2010/11 one in five non-Aboriginal
children reported at ROSH received a face-to-face, this increased to one in four for 2011/12, however
has remained the same in 2012/13, suggesting the system is at capacity. Aboriginal children had a one
in three chance of receiving a face-to-face, with improvements noticeable across all age groups and
continuing during the KTS environment.
Unpacking these findings further by age group, children aged 0-5 years are much more likely to receive
a face-to-face assessment within the KTS environment – almost one in two Aboriginal children aged 0-5
years and one in three non-Aboriginal children (see Appendix Table 31 and Table 32). The likelihood of
children and young people receiving a face-to face assessment are more in favour of younger children,
decreasing as children age.
Shown graphically, we can see that the proportion of children and young people reported to the Helpline
that go on to receive a face-to-face assessment has risen considerably since the introduction of the
new ROSH reporting threshold in January 2010 (Figure 39). Since 2008/09 children and young people
8The 2009/10 financial year has not been included in comparisons, as this period incorporates both a ROH and
ROSH environment.
107
receiving a face-to-face assessment has doubled for non-Aboriginal children and young people –
from 12.2 to 24.7 per cent. The proportion of Aboriginal children and young people that received
a face-to-face assessment has also almost doubled – from 26.2 per cent to 40.3 per cent. A much
higher proportion of Aboriginal children and young people receive a face-to-face assessment than
non-Aboriginal children and young people.
Figure 39 15a Proportion
of ROH/ROSH reports that received a face-to-face assessment, 2004/05-2012/13
Non-Aboriginal
Aboriginal
45
Non-Aboriginal
Aboriginal
No
40
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
35
Per cent
30
2011/12
2009/10
Ab
25
20
15
2012/13
10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
5
0
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
FINDING
Proportion of Risk of Significant Harm children and young people who receive a face-toface visit (completed SARA/SAS2)
The likelihood of receiving a face-to-face assessment improved for both Aboriginal and nonAboriginal children during KTS.
Children aged 0-5 years are much more likely to receive a face-to-face assessment within the KTS
environment – almost one in two Aboriginal children aged 0-5 years and one in three nonAboriginal children.
The likelihood of children and young people receiving a face-to face assessment are more in favour
of younger children, decreasing as children age.
108
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 20 15a Children receiving a face-to-face when reported at harm, pre and during-KTS, 2004/05-2012/13
Year
ROH/ROSH
reports1
Child
population2
ROH/ROSH
proportion3
Probability
of being at
ROH/ROSH4
Pre
KTS5
During
KTS6
0-17 year olds (Aboriginal)
2004/05
1,904
9,441
20.2%
5
2005/06
3,087
11,449
27.0%
4
33.7%
2006/07
3,601
14,029
25.7%
4
27.3%
2007/08
3,658
16,392
22.3%
4
10.7%
2008/09
4,300
17,974
23.9%
4
18.6%
2009/10
3,874
14,895
26.0%
4
2010/11
3,367
11,183
30.1%
3
2011/12
4,524
11,929
37.9%
3
26.0%
2012/13
4,973
12,651
39.3%
3
30.6%
0-17 year olds (non-Aboriginal)
2004/05
9,042
70,418
12.8%
8
2005/06
11,463
75,747
15.1%
7
17.9%
2006/07
11,745
88,069
13.3%
7
3.9%
2007/08
11,288
89,647
12.6%
8
-1.9%
2008/09
11,796
96,791
12.2%
8
-5.1%
2009/10
10,267
71,976
14.3%
7
2010/11
8,917
47,709
18.7%
5
2011/12
11,465
47,208
24.3%
4
29.9%
2012/13
11,876
49,430
24.0%
4
28.5%
Notes
1The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH who received a completed SARA/SAS2 face-to-face visit
2The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH
3The proportion of children receiving a F2F assessment after being reported at ROH/ROSH
4The number of children receiving a F2F assessment after being reported at ROH/ROSH is “one in x”
5The relative risk of receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROH is y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROSH is y% higher or lower than in 2010/11
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data.
109
Indicator 15(b)
Number and proportion of children and young people for whom a secondary assessment
determines intervention is required and who participate in a family preservation,
Strengthening Families, or placement prevention intervention
Target: Increase number and proportion over baseline.
This is a measure of the extent to which Community Services’ statutory system is able to respond to the
reports of suspected risk of significant harm it receives. It relates to one of the centerpieces of the KTS
reforms: raising the threshold for reporting, which was designed to reduce the burden on Community
Services and thereby provide an opportunity to ensure more – indeed, ideally, all – cases that were
reported were adequately assessed and responded to.
The measure emphasises the number and proportion of cases to make it easier to distinguish
between improved performance due to changes within the intake and referral system from apparent
improvements due solely to the reduced number of reports achieved by raising the threshold.
Status
The rate of children and young people for whom a secondary assessment determines intervention is
required and who participate in a family preservation, Strengthening Families, or placement prevention
intervention has increased between 2011-12 and 2012-13 across nearly all age groups (Figure 40). This
increase has been more substantial for younger children, with three year olds having the highest rate per
1,000 children and young people.
110
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 40 15b Rate of children and young people for whom a secondary assessment determines intervention
is required and who participate in a family preservation, Strengthening Families, or placement prevention
intervention 2011-12 and 2012-13
350
2012/13
300
350
250
350
300
200
300
250
150
250
200
Rate per 1,000
50
150
2012/13
20
<0
0
1
150
100
2
3
50
4
0
50
0
20
2011/12
100
200
0
100
2011/12
<0
0
1
2
3
5
<0
4
6
0
5
7
1
6
8
2
7
9
3
8
10
4
9
11
5
10
12
6
11
13
7
14
8
15
9
12 Age
13 of child
14
16
10
15
17
11
16
12
13
14
15
16
17
17
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
FINDING
Children for whom a secondary assessment determines intervention is required who
participate in a family preservation, Strengthening Families, or placement prevention
intervention
The rate of participation in family preservation, Strengthening families or placement prevention
intervention for those children and young people who have received a secondary assessment
(SAS 2) has increased considerably from the 2011-12 baseline, particularly for younger children
and young people. However, it is unclear whether children and young people who do not have
a secondary assessment (but who were assessed at ROSH) could have benefitted from program
participation.
111
Indicator 15(c)
Number and proportion of reports of risk of significant harm for children and young
people who have already been the subject of a substantiated report of significant harm
Target: Decrease number and proportion below baseline.
Background
This is a proxy for the extent to which children and young people at ROSH are identified and protected.
It is a proxy indicator in that it assumes repeated contact with the statutory child protection system
indicates that risks were not identified or addressed when first reported. This is a valid assumption in
theory, but must be applied with caution for several reasons.
First, it will only be valid if measures 15(a) and (b) show that the system is able to assess a significant
proportion of reports and allocate them for follow-up by a Community Services caseworker. If not, then
a significant number of children and young people will not receive any response, and it is therefore
quite likely that they will be re-reported. Moreover, the Keep Them Safe Interim Review: Location Based
Evaluation presented evidence that some mandatory reporters may be deliberately re-reporting cases
in an effort to ensure they are prioritised by Community Services. Finally, even if none of these factors
applied, re-reporting rates would be contingent on mandatory reporters subsequently identifying
potential cases of risk of significant harm, on whether they knew that a report had already been made
and on whether this influenced their decision to re-report. This measure is therefore at least partly a
measure of the way mandatory reporters interpret risk for a very specific portion of the children and
young people reported at ROSH, and the capacity of the system to address it.
Status
Of the 14,341 children who were reported at ROSH and were investigated further, the proportion
who were the subject of a substantiated report and re-reported in the following 12 months has been
decreasing since 2008/09, on average by 7.0 percentage points each year since 2008/09 for Aboriginal
children and young people and 6.8 percentage points for non-Aboriginal children. Since the introduction
of the new ROSH threshold in January 2010, children who were re-reported have continued to decrease,
and have decreased similarly for Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children. However the large decreases
experienced earlier have not been seen in more recent years – 2010/11 and 2011/12. Currently around
62 per cent of Aboriginal children were re-reported in the following 12 months as compared to 52 per
cent of non-Aboriginal children.
112
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Figure 41 15c Proportion of children who were the subject of a substantiated report and re-reported in the
following 12mths, 2004/05-2011/12
Non-Aboriginal
Aboriginal
100
Aboriginal
No
90
Ab
80
70
Rate per 1,000
010/11
60
50
40
2009/10
New ROSH
threshold
introduced
30
2011/12
2010/11
20
2011/12
10
0
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Age of child
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
100
Figure 42 15c Proportion of children who were the subject of a substantiated report and re-reported in the13-17
following 12 months, Aboriginal by age group, 2004/05-2011/12
90
6-12
100
100
80
0-5
13-17
90
90
70
6-12
80
100
80
60
Per cent
9
Non-Aboriginal
90
70
50
80
60
40
70
2004/05
2005/06
2004/05
2005/06
50
40
50
40
6-12
60
70
50
60
40
0-5
13-17
0-5
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
New ROSH
2010/11
threshold
introduced
2011/12
2004/05
2006/07
2005/06
2007/08
2006/07
2008/09
2007/08
2009/10
2008/09
2010/11
2009/10
2011/12
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2010/11
2011/12
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
113
13
6-
0-
Younger children are more likely to be re-reported in the following 12 months than older children, for
both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children (Figure 42 and Figure 43). All age groups have experienced
a considerable decline in re-reporting since 2007/08. Aboriginal children across all age groups are more
likely to be re-reported than non-Aboriginal children. Aboriginal children aged 0-5 years have dropped
below the older age groups in terms of re-reports since 2010/11, and re-reports for 0-5 non-Aboriginal
children have converged with those aged 6-12 years. This suggests that early intervention may be
working for these younger children or that they have been placed in an environment out of harm.
However the trend started in 2006/7 and thus it is difficult to know what added value can be attributed
to KTS.
Figure 43 15c Proportion of children who were the subject of a substantiated report and re-reported in the
following 12mths, non-Aboriginal by age group, 2004/05-2011/12
13-17
100
90
6-12
100
100
80
0-5
13-17
90
90
70
6-12
80
Per cent
100
80
60
90
70
50
80
60
40
70
2004/05
2005/06
2004/05
2005/06
50
40
50
40
6-12
60
70
50
60
40
0-5
13-17
0-5
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
New ROSH
2010/11
threshold
introduced
2011/12
2004/05
2006/07
2005/06
2007/08
2006/07
2008/09
2007/08
2009/10
2008/09
2010/11
2009/10
2011/12
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2010/11
2011/12
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
The raw number (rather than proportion) of children who were the subject of a substantiated report
and re-reported in the following 12 months has also declined considerably since 2008/09 for Aboriginal
children and 2007/08 for non-Aboriginal children (Table 21). The number of children re-reported has
since increased rapidly between 2010/11 and 2011/12, particularly for the younger age groups.
114
13
6-
0-
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 21 15c Number of children who were the subject of a substantiated report and re-reported in the
following 12mths, by age group, 2004/05-2011/12
Age
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
0-5
699
1,144
1,460
1,508
1,522
1,274
955
1,284
6-12
485
811
994
1,019
999
884
754
906
13-17
185
341
426
418
512
427
319
381
0-5
2,237
3,306
3,716
3,545
3,162
2,431
1,787
2,374
6-12
1,937
2,699
2,975
2,791
2,446
1,903
1,472
1,888
942
1,338
1,420
1,433
1,459
1,275
949
1,017
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal
13-17
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
Table 22 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children in OOHC transition to permanent care
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
15(a) Children and young people at ROSH who
receive a face-to-face visit
Improved
Improved
15(b) Children and young people for whom a
secondary assessment determines intervention
Not available
Improved (All)
15(c) Reports of ROSH for children and young people
who have been the subject of a substantiated
report of ROSH
Improved
Improved
15(d) Successful family preservation interventions
Not yet provided
Not yet provided
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
115
Children’s Court proceedings are timely and inclusive
Indicator 16(a)
Proportion of cases that are referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
As part of the KTS recommendations, two new models of Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) have
been introduced to deal with care and protection matters in the Children’s Court. This is a direct measure
of the KTS Action Plan commitment to trial and roll-out models of ADR.
Throughout 2013 further research and benchmarking will occur in regard to this indicator and child
protection ADR. Currently those reports that discuss outcomes of ADR in child protection reviewed by
the evaluation team use outputs of ADR to describe current progress, rather than outcome data and are
therefore unable to provide a contextual analysis for this outcome.
Status
The proportion of cases referred to ADR has increased steadily and considerably since the baseline period
of January-March 2011. In the period January to March 2011, only 6.2 per cent of cases were referred to
ADR; from July-December 2012, over a quarter of cases were referred to ADR.
Table 23 16a Proportion of cases referred to ADR, 2011-2012
Period
Number of matters where
dispute resolution or external
mediation was held
Number of matters
(per child)
%
Jan to Mar 2011
59
945
Apr to Jun 2011
126
1,081
12%
Jul 2011 to Jun 2012
July 2012 to June 2013
July 2013 to Dec 2013
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
116
6%
984
4,978
20%
1,302
5,186
25%
642
2,298
28%
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
ADR has numerous advantages over traditional court hearings in child protection matters. ADRs aim to
promote collaborative rather than adversarial interaction with Community Services and families. This
allows decisions relating to child wellbeing to be decided with the agreement of families, meaning
they may be more likely to abide by orders imposed and participate in programs to assist them in their
family relationships and caring for their children. It can be less stressful for children involved, and if an
agreement can be negotiated through ADR, is less costly for all parties than court hearings.
FINDING
Cases referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution
Indicator as increased substantially over time compared to January-March 2011. This should be
considered a successful outcome.
117
Indicator 16(b)
Proportion of cases that are resolved by consent prior to hearing
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
This is a direct measure of the KTS Action Plan commitment to ensure “Children’s Court proceedings
are conducted in a timely and consistent manner that allows for the participation of children and their
families in decisions relating to the care and welfare of a child or young person”.
Throughout 2013 further research and benchmarking will occur in regard to this Indicator and child
protection ADR. Currently those reports that discuss outcomes of ADR in child protection reviewed by
the Evaluation team use outputs of ADR to describe current progress, rather than outcome data and are
therefore unable to provide a contextual analysis for this outcome.
Status
The baseline used for analysis is the January to March 2011 period. In this period 28.7 per cent of cases
were resolved by consent. A resolution by consent is where the families come to a mutual agreement
with Community Services prior to a hearing. The proportion of cases resolved by consent remained fairly
steady from January 2011 to June 2012, with no significant changes to the baseline, as shown in the
table below. It is possible that there may be some under-reporting of matters when staff were first asked
to collect this information, and a change to the traditional adversarial culture may have taken some time.
This increased substantially in the 2012/13 financial year, an increase that was sustained in the latter half
of 2013.
Table 24 16b Proportion of cases resolved by consent, 2011-2012
Year
Jan to Mar 2011
Apr to Jun 2011
Number of matters where final
orders made without hearing
Number of matters
(per child)
%
271
945
29%
321
1,081
29%
Jul 2011 to Jun 2012
1,379
4,978
28%
July 2012 to June 2013
3,302
5,186
64%
July 2013 to Dec 2013
1,687
2,298
73%
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
118
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
FINDING
Proportion of cases that are resolved by consent prior to hearing
There has been a substantial increase in the proportion of cases resolved by consent over the
baseline clearly visible over an 18 month period. Progress against this indicator is progressing well.
119
Indicator 16(d)
Proportion of care hearings conducted by a specialist Children’s Magistrate
Target: Increase proportion over baseline.
Background
This is a direct measure of response to an explicit recommendation of the Wood commission to expand
the number of specialised Children’s Magistrates in NSW.
Status
The baseline period for assessment is January to March 2011. During this period, 44.3 per cent of cases
hearings were conducted by specialist Children’s Magistrates, as shown in the table below. This increased
to 64 per cent in April to June 2011. Since then, the proportion of cases conducted by Children’s
Magistrates has continued to steadily increase, from 70.2 per cent in July 2011–June 2011 to 77 per
cent in July–December 2012.
Table 25 16d Proportion of case hearings conducted by a specialist Children’s Magistrate
Period
Number of matters where
final orders made by specialist
magistrate
Number of matters
(per child)
%
Jan to Mar 2011
419
945
44%
Apr to Jun 2011
692
1081
64%
Jul 2011 to Jun 2012
3,494
4,978
70%
July 2012 to June 2013
3,909
5,186
75%
July 2013 to Dec 2013
1,979
2,578
77%
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
FINDING
Case hearings conducted by a specialist Children’s Magistrate
The proportion has shown a steady and significant increase over the baseline. The increase in the
first six months may be partially due to changes in policy conducted then, but the proportion has
increased steadily and consistently since then. Performance against this indicator is progressing well.
120
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Summary – Children’s Court proceedings are timely and inclusive
Table 26 Summary of indicators relative to desired outcomes – children’s court proceedings timely and inclusive
Indicator
Outcome relative to target/baseline
Aboriginal
Non-Aboriginal or All
16(a)Cases referred to Alternative Dispute Resolution
Not available
Improved (All)
16(b)Cases are resolved to consent prior to hearing
Not available
Improved (All)
16(c)Matters finalised within time standards
Not available
Not yet provided
16(d)Care hearings conducted by specialist
Children’s Magistrate
Not available
Improved (All)
Note: Some indicators provided have been disaggregated by non-Aboriginal and Aboriginal status, whereas others have only been provided
for the entire population – ‘All’.
Source: Various – refer to individual indicators
121
122
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
4
Summary and discussion
Overall, this report finds that there has been an improvement in the circumstances of children in New
South Wales since the introduction of KTS. However, it is important to note that we have not attempted
to derive attribution of KTS funding to outcomes in this report. The Economic Analysis Report takes
these indicators a step further to test this relationship.
Our analysis shows that the universal service system is operating so that more NSW children are getting
a healthy start to life with improvements in prenatal care attendance, Universal Health Home
Visits, vision screening and access to early childhood education. There have been improvements in
child development between 2009 and 2012 in NSW as per the findings from the Australian Early
Development Index. However, Aboriginal children remain much more likely to be developmentally
vulnerable than other children. Educational performance for primary and high school is less promising,
particularly for the Aboriginal population.
While some evidence is mixed, the KTS Indicators suggest that vulnerable children are more likely to
receive support, services and interventions where needed. One of the major changes was an increase in the
threshold for a child maltreatment report, from risk of harm (ROH) to risk of significant harm (ROSH). The
intention is that only children at the greatest risk are subject to statutory intervention: allowing resources
to be focused where they are most needed, while families at less risk are referred to other support services.
Consequently, fewer children are being reported since the introduction of the threshold. Examining a
time-frame where the new threshold was fully operational (from 2010/11 onwards), ROSH reports have
converged among child age groups and have remained relatively stable for the entire child population.
Marginal increases can be seen. For Aboriginal children, there is less convergence, with young children
(aged 0-5 years) more likely to be reported at ROSH and the rates of ROSH reports for all Aboriginal
children rising.
123
While there still remains 60 per cent of Aboriginal children and 75 per cent of non-Aboriginal children
at ROSH who are not seen by a case worker, the likelihood of receiving a face-to-face assessment has
been improving for both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children during KTS. Children aged 0-5 years are
much more likely to receive a face-to-face assessment within the KTS environment – almost one in every
two Aboriginal children aged 0-5 years and one in three young non-Aboriginal children.
With greater funding directed towards PEI services, vulnerable children and their families are
participating in programs such as Brighter Futures at higher rates. While there is little change in the
rates of these participants subsequently being reported at ROSH or entering OOHC, it is likely that this
program together with other KTS initiatives is having a positive impact on other outcomes for children.
The rate of children being placed in statutory OOHC has slowed since the introduction of KTS and for
some groups decreased. Aboriginal children are still more than six times more likely to be in statutory
OOHC than non-Aboriginal children. The strongest effects are observed for the youngest children
(those aged 0-5 years), with the rate of non-Aboriginal children in this group declining, and the rate for
Aboriginal children flattening. This finding is consistent with KTS being effective as younger children are
most likely to be diverted from OOHC by PEI programs.
There is also positive evidence that successful restoration of children to their families has been improving.
Re-entries have decreased for almost all age groups over a seven year period. Aboriginal children and
young people have experienced an average annual decrease of 1.6 percentage points. Re-entries for
non-Aboriginal children and young people have decreased on average by 1.06 percentage points
annually.
124
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
References
Gregory, T. and Brinkman, S. (2013). Methodological approach to exploring change in the Australia
Early Development Instrument (AEDI): The estimation of a critical difference. Western Australia: Telethon
Institute for Child Health Research.
McHugh, M. (2013). An exploratory study of risks to stability in foster and kinship care in NSW: Final
report SPRC Report 19/2013. Sydney: Social Policy Research Centre, University of New South Wales.
Osborn, A. l., Delfabbro, P. & Barber, J. G. (2008). The psychosocial functioning and family background
of children experiencing significant placement instability in Australian out-of-home care. Children and
Youth Services Review, 30(8), 847-860. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2007.12.012
Ward, H. (2009). Patterns of instability: Moves within the care system, their reasons, contexts and
consequences. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(10), 1113-1118. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.
childyouth.2009.07.009
Wulczyn, F. H., & Goerge, R. M. (1992). Foster care in New York and Illinois: The challenge of rapid
change. Social Service Review, 66(2), 278–94.
125
126
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Appendix
Table 27 Reports of Harm for NSW Aboriginal children, pre and during-KTS, by age group, 2004/05 -2012/13
Year
Aboriginal
ROH/ROSH
reports1
0-17 year olds (Aboriginal)
2004/05
9,441
2005/06
11,449
2006/07
14,029
2007/08
16,392
2008/09
17,974
2009/10
14,895
2010/11
11,183
2011/12
11,929
2012/13
12,651
0-5 year olds
2004/05
4,087
2005/06
5,049
2006/07
6,279
2007/08
7,515
2008/09
8,256
2009/10
6,331
2010/11
4,601
2011/12
4,867
2012/13
5,021
6-12 year olds
2004/05
3,639
2005/06
4,197
2006/07
5,009
2007/08
5,768
2008/09
6,268
2009/10
5,436
2010/11
4,188
2011/12
4,514
2012/13
4,866
13-17 year olds
2004/05
1,715
2005/06
2,065
2006/07
2,604
2007/08
2,991
2008/09
3,354
2009/10
3,047
2010/11
2,357
2011/12
2,503
2012/13
2,723
Child
population2
ROH/ROSH
proportion3
Probability of
being at ROH/
ROSH4
84,380
85,895
87,454
88,377
89,247
90,026
90,436
90,840
91,079
11.2%
13.3%
16.0%
18.5%
20.1%
16.5%
12.4%
13.1%
13.9%
9
8
6
5
5
6
8
8
7
29,512
29,905
30,367
30,557
30,876
31,218
31,236
31,153
31,149
13.8%
16.9%
20.7%
24.6%
26.7%
20.3%
14.7%
15.6%
16.1%
7
6
5
4
4
5
7
6
6
34,940
35,029
35,103
34,922
34,635
34,346
34,327
34,502
34,944
10.4%
12.0%
14.3%
16.5%
18.1%
15.8%
12.2%
13.1%
13.9%
10
8
7
6
6
6
8
8
7
19,928
20,961
21,984
22,898
23,736
24,462
24,873
25,185
24,986
8.6%
9.9%
11.8%
13.1%
14.1%
12.5%
9.5%
9.9%
10.9%
12
10
8
8
7
8
11
10
9
Pre
KTS5
During
KTS6
19.1%
43.4%
65.8%
80.0%
6.2%
12.3%
21.9%
49.3%
77.6%
93.1%
6.1%
9.4%
15.0%
37.0%
58.6%
73.8%
7.2%
14.1%
14.5%
37.6%
51.8%
64.2%
4.9%
15.0%
Notes
1The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH
2The number of Aboriginal children in NSW
3The proportion of Aboriginal children reported as at ROH/ROSH
4The number of Aboriginal children reported at ROH/ROSH is “one in x”
5The relative risk of being reported at ROH are y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of being reported at ROSH are y% higher or lower than in 2010/11
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data and Australian Bureau of Statistics and Estimates and
Projections; and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026, ABS Cat No. 3238.0.
127
Table 28 Reports of Harm for NSW non-Aboriginal children, pre and during-KTS, by age group, 2004/05 -2012/13
Year
Non-Aboriginal
ROH/ROSH
reports1
0-17 year olds (non-Aboriginal)
2004/05
70,418
2005/06
75,747
2006/07
88,069
2007/08
89,647
2008/09
96,791
2009/10
71,976
2010/11
47,709
2011/12
47,208
2012/13
49,430
0-5 year olds
2004/05
25,304
2005/06
27,900
2006/07
32,893
2007/08
34,404
2008/09
37,241
2009/10
25,692
2010/11
16,792
2011/12
16,274
2012/13
16,865
6-12 year olds
2004/05
27,606
2005/06
29,246
2006/07
33,649
2007/08
33,858
2008/09
36,229
2009/10
27,898
2010/11
18,378
2011/12
18,305
2012/13
19,270
13-17 year olds
2004/05
15,780
2005/06
16,846
2006/07
19,450
2007/08
19,698
2008/09
21,751
2009/10
17,359
2010/11
12,010
2011/12
11,882
2012/13
12,566
Child
population2
ROH/ROSH
proportion3
Probability of
being at ROH/
ROSH4
1,504,302
1,505,917
1,514,815
1,523,835
1,534,019
1,545,181
1,551,041
1,564,845
1,581,073
4.7%
5.0%
5.8%
5.9%
6.3%
4.7%
3.1%
3.0%
3.1%
21
20
17
17
16
21
33
33
32
486,291
488,304
497,912
510,358
522,393
532,717
535,199
542,638
552,043
5.2%
5.7%
6.6%
6.7%
7.1%
4.8%
3.1%
3.0%
3.1%
19
18
15
15
14
21
32
33
33
585,824
583,631
582,480
580,184
581,488
583,142
587,551
594,389
601,178
4.7%
5.0%
5.8%
5.8%
6.2%
4.8%
3.1%
3.1%
3.2%
21
20
17
17
16
21
32
32
31
432,187
433,982
434,423
433,293
430,138
429,322
428,291
427,818
427,852
3.7%
3.9%
4.5%
4.5%
5.1%
4.0%
2.8%
2.8%
2.9%
27
26
22
22
20
25
36
36
34
Pre
KTS5
7.5%
24.2%
25.7%
34.8%
-1.9%
1.6%
9.8%
27.0%
29.6%
37.0%
-4.4%
-2.6%
6.3%
22.6%
23.8%
32.2%
-1.5%
2.5%
6.3%
22.6%
24.5%
38.5%
Notes
1The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH
2The number of children in NSW
3The proportion of children reported as at ROH/ROSH
4The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH is “one in x”
5The relative risk of being reported at ROH are y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of being reported at ROSH are y% higher or lower than in 2010/11
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS - CIW annual data and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian
Demographic Statistics Cat No. 3101.0, Table 51 Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of Age, New South Wales.
128
During
KTS6
-1.0%
4.7%
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 29 Aboriginal NSW Children and young people in statutory OOHC, by age group, 2004/05 to 2012/13
Year
Aboriginal
OOHC reports1
0-17 year olds (Aboriginal)
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
0-5 year olds
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
6-12 year olds
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
13-17 year olds
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Child
population2
OOHC
proportion3
Probability
of being in
OOHC4
1,352
1,606
2,040
2,523
3,112
3,513
3,757
4,035
4,270
84,380
85,895
87,454
88,377
89,247
90,026
90,436
90,840
91,079
1.6%
1.9%
2.3%
2.9%
3.5%
3.9%
4.2%
4.4%
4.7%
62
53
43
35
29
26
24
23
21
430
546
729
927
1,164
1,326
1,337
1,360
1,367
29,512
29,905
30,367
30,557
30,876
31,218
31,236
31,153
31,149
1.5%
1.8%
2.4%
3.0%
3.8%
4.2%
4.3%
4.4%
4.4%
69
55
42
33
27
24
23
23
23
656
706
867
1,054
1,292
1,458
1,602
1,765
1,946
34,940
35,029
35,103
34,922
34,635
34,346
34,327
34,502
34,944
1.9%
2.0%
2.5%
3.0%
3.7%
4.2%
4.7%
5.1%
5.6%
53
50
40
33
27
24
21
20
18
266
354
442
542
656
729
818
909
957
19,928
20,961
21,984
22,898
23,736
24,462
24,873
25,185
24,986
1.3%
1.7%
2.0%
2.4%
2.8%
3.0%
3.3%
3.6%
3.8%
75
59
50
42
36
34
30
28
26
Pre
KTS5
During
KTS6
16.7%
45.6%
78.2%
117.6%
6.5%
13.8%
20.1%
25.3%
64.8%
108.2%
158.7%
0.8%
2.8%
3.3%
7.3%
31.6%
60.8%
98.7%
9.9%
20.5%
31.2%
26.5%
50.6%
77.3%
107.1%
10.4%
21.1%
28.5%
Notes
1The number of children reported at OOHC
2The number of children in NSW
3The proportion of children reported as in OOHC
4The number of children reported in OOHC is “one in x”
5The relative risk of being in OOHC are y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of being in OOHC are y% higher or lower than in 2010/11
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data and Estimates and Projections; and Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Australians, 2001 to 2026, ABS Cat No. 3238.0.
129
Table 30 Non-Aboriginal NSW Children and young people in statutory OOHC, by age group, 2004/05 to 2012/13
Year
Non-Aboriginal
OOHC reports1
0-17 year olds (non-Aboriginal)
2004/05
4,699
2005/06
5,123
2006/07
5,986
2007/08
6,881
2008/09
7,679
2009/10
7,988
2010/11
8,056
2011/12
8,137
2012/13
8,079
0-5 year olds
2004/05
1,297
2005/06
1,422
2006/07
1,738
2007/08
2,123
2008/09
2,459
2009/10
2,509
2010/11
2,459
2011/12
2,407
2012/13
2,227
6-12 year olds
2004/05
2,149
2005/06
2,301
2006/07
2,629
2007/08
2,923
2008/09
3,236
2009/10
3,375
2010/11
3,418
2011/12
3,487
2012/13
3,555
13-17 year olds
2004/05
1,248
2005/06
1,397
2006/07
1,615
2007/08
1,835
2008/09
1,983
2009/10
2,103
2010/11
2,178
2011/12
2,243
2012/13
2,296
Child
population2
OOHC
proportion3
1,504,302
1,505,917
1,514,815
1,523,835
1,534,019
1,545,181
1,551,041
1,564,845
1,581,073
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
320
294
253
221
200
193
193
192
196
486,291
488,304
497,912
510,358
522,393
532,717
535,199
542,638
552,043
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.4%
0.4%
375
343
286
240
212
212
218
225
248
585,824
583,631
582,480
580,184
581,488
583,142
587,551
594,389
601,178
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
0.6%
273
254
222
198
180
173
172
170
169
432,187
433,982
434,423
433,293
430,138
429,322
428,291
427,818
427,852
0.3%
0.3%
0.4%
0.4%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
346
311
269
236
217
204
197
191
186
Notes
1The number of children reported at OOHC
2The number of children in NSW
3The proportion of children reported as in OOHC
4The number of children reported in OOHC is “one in x”
5The relative risk of being in OOHC are y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of being in OOHC are y% higher or lower than in 2010/11
130
Probability
of being in
OOHC4
Pre
KTS5
During
KTS6
8.9%
26.5%
44.6%
60.3%
0.5%
0.6%
-1.2%
9.2%
30.9%
56.0%
76.5%
-2.4%
-5.8%
-14.3%
7.5%
23.0%
37.3%
51.7%
0.5%
1.4%
2.2%
11.5%
28.7%
46.7%
59.7%
3.8%
7.0%
9.6%
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 31 Aboriginal children receiving a face-to-face when reported at harm, pre and during-KTS, 2004/05 -2012/13
Year
Aboriginal
ROH/ROSH
reports1
0-17 year olds (Aboriginal)
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
0-5 year olds
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
6-12 year olds
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
13-17 year olds
2004/05
2005/06
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Child
population2
ROH/ROSH
proportion3
Probability of
being at ROH/
ROSH4
1,904
3,087
3,601
3,658
4,300
3,874
3,367
4,524
4,973
9,441
11,449
14,029
16,392
17,974
14,895
11,183
11,929
12,651
20.2%
27.0%
25.7%
22.3%
23.9%
26.0%
30.1%
37.9%
39.3%
5
4
4
4
4
4
3
3
3
947
1,500
1,800
1,837
2,120
1,767
1,506
2,158
2,284
4,087
5,049
6,279
7,515
8,256
6,331
4,601
4,867
5,021
23.2%
29.7%
28.7%
24.4%
25.7%
27.9%
32.7%
44.3%
45.5%
4
3
3
4
4
4
3
2
2
684
1,106
1,262
1,259
1,473
1,417
1,268
1,646
1,832
3,639
4,197
5,009
5,768
6,268
5,436
4,188
4,514
4,866
18.8%
26.4%
25.2%
21.8%
23.5%
26.1%
30.3%
36.5%
37.6%
5
4
4
5
4
4
3
3
3
273
477
537
559
707
689
593
720
857
1,715
2,065
2,604
2,991
3,354
3,047
2,357
2,503
2,723
15.9%
23.1%
20.6%
18.7%
21.1%
22.6%
25.2%
28.8%
31.5%
6
4
5
5
5
4
4
3
3
Pre
KTS5
During
KTS6
33.7%
27.3%
10.7%
18.6%
26.0%
30.6%
28.2%
23.7%
5.5%
10.8%
35.5%
39.0%
40.2%
34.0%
16.1%
25.0%
20.4%
24.3%
45.1%
29.5%
17.4%
32.4%
14.3%
25.1%
Notes
1The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH who received a completed SARA/SAS2 face-to-face visit
2The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH
3The proportion of children receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROH/ROSH
4The number of children receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROH/ROSH is “one in x”
5The relative risk of receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROH are y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROSH are y% higher or lower than in 2010/11
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian
Demographic Statistics Cat No. 3101.0, Table 51 Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of Age, New South Wales; and Estimates.
131
Table 32 Non-Aboriginal children receiving a face-to-face when reported at harm, pre and during-KTS,
2004/05 -2012/13
Year
Non-Aboriginal
ROH/ROSH
reports1
0-17 year olds (non-Aboriginal)
2004/05
9,042
2005/06
11,463
2006/07
11,745
2007/08
11,288
2008/09
11,796
2009/10
10,267
2010/11
8,917
2011/12
11,465
2012/13
11,876
0-5 year olds
2004/05
3,852
2005/06
5,034
2006/07
5,161
2007/08
5,072
2008/09
5,206
2009/10
4,085
2010/11
3,460
2011/12
4,833
2012/13
5,005
6-12 year olds
2004/05
3,389
2005/06
4,190
2006/07
4,290
2007/08
4,032
2008/09
4,066
2009/10
3,732
2010/11
3,283
2011/12
4,300
2012/13
4,381
13-17 year olds
2004/05
1,758
2005/06
2,211
2006/07
2,281
2007/08
2,167
2008/09
2,511
2009/10
2,441
2010/11
2,174
2011/12
2,332
2012/13
2,490
Child
population2
ROH/ROSH
proportion3
Probability of
being at ROH/
ROSH4
70,418
75,747
88,069
89,647
96,791
71,976
47,709
47,208
49,430
12.8%
15.1%
13.3%
12.6%
12.2%
14.3%
18.7%
24.3%
24.0%
8
7
7
8
8
7
5
4
4
25,304
27,900
32,893
34,404
37,241
25,692
16,792
16,274
16,865
15.2%
18.0%
15.7%
14.7%
14.0%
15.9%
20.6%
29.7%
29.7%
7
6
6
7
7
6
5
3
3
27,606
29,246
33,649
33,858
36,229
27,898
18,378
18,305
19,270
12.3%
14.3%
12.7%
11.9%
11.2%
13.4%
17.9%
23.5%
22.7%
8
7
8
8
9
7
6
4
4
15,780
16,846
19,450
19,698
21,751
17,359
12,010
11,882
12,566
11.1%
13.1%
11.7%
11.0%
11.5%
14.1%
18.1%
19.6%
19.8%
9
8
9
9
9
7
6
5
5
Pre
KTS5
During
KTS6
17.9%
3.9%
-1.9%
-5.1%
29.9%
28.5%
18.5%
3.1%
-3.2%
-8.2%
44.1%
44.0%
16.7%
3.9%
-3.0%
-8.6%
31.5%
27.3%
17.8%
5.3%
-1.3%
3.6%
8.4%
9.5%
Notes
1The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH who received a completed SARA/SAS2 face-to-face visit
2The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH
3The proportion of children receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROH/ROSH
4The number of children receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROH/ROSH is “one in x”
5The relative risk of receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROH are y% higher or lower than in 2004/05
6The relative risk of receiving a face-to-face assessment after being reported at ROSH are y% higher or lower than in 2010/11
Source: NSW Department of Family and Community Services, KiDS – CIW annual data and Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian
Demographic Statistics Cat No. 3101.0, Table 51 Estimated Resident Population by Single Year of Age, New South Wales; and Estimates.
132
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 33 6a Number and proportion of non-Aboriginal children whose families have completed (exited) Brighter
Futures who are subsequently reported at risk of significant harm, 2008/09-2011/12
Year
Non-Aboriginal
0-9 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
0-2 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
3-5 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
6-9 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
ROH/ROSH
reports1
Child
population2
ROH/ROSH
proportion3
Probability of being
at ROH/ROSH4
1,081
1,133
941
1,239
2,641
4,052
3,938
5,156
40.9%
28.0%
23.9%
24.0%
2.4
3.6
4.2
4.2
471
512
438
552
1,148
1,844
1,789
2,267
41.0%
27.8%
24.5%
24.3%
2.4
3.6
4.1
4.1
339
380
268
377
844
1,317
1,231
1,707
40.2%
28.9%
21.8%
22.1%
2.5
3.5
4.6
4.5
271
241
235
310
649
891
918
1,182
41.8%
27.0%
25.6%
26.2%
2.4
3.7
3.9
3.8
Notes
1The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH within one year after Brighter Futures
2The number of children who exited Brighter Futures
3The proportion of children reported as at ROH/ROSH within one year after Brighter Futures
4The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH within one year after Brighter Futures is “one in x”
Notes
aA new threshold was introduced in January 2010, making comparisons of this indicator prior to this date problematic.
bChildren above 9 years of age have not been included in this analysis.
The analysis reports on the number of children 0-9. The number of families engaged in Brighter Futures in the past three years are:
2009/10 – 3,580
2010/11 – 3,698
2012/13 – 2,717 (Community Services Annual Statistical Report)
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
133
Table 34 6a Number and proportion of Aboriginal children whose families have exited Brighter Futures who are
subsequently reported at risk of significant harm, 2008/09-2011/12
Year
Aboriginal
ROH/ROSH
reports1
0-9 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
0-2 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
3-5 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
6-9 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Child
population2
ROH/ROSH
proportion3
Probability of being
at ROH/ROSH4
477
553
522
676
861
1,350
1,328
1,894
55.4%
41.0%
39.3%
35.7%
1.8
2.4
2.5
2.8
206
245
246
301
395
615
659
890
52.2%
39.8%
37.3%
33.8%
1.9
2.5
2.7
3.0
152
187
160
209
284
434
384
602
53.5%
43.1%
41.7%
34.7%
1.9
2.3
2.4
2.9
119
121
116
166
182
301
285
402
65.4%
40.2%
40.7%
41.3%
1.5
2.5
2.5
2.4
Notes
1The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH within one year after Brighter Futures
2The number of children who exited Brighter Futures
3The proportion of children reported as at ROH/ROSH within one year after Brighter Futures
4The number of children reported at ROH/ROSH within one year after Brighter Futures is “one in x”
Notes
aA new threshold was introduced in January 2010, making comparisons of this indicator prior to this date problematic.
bChildren above 9 years of age have not been included in this analysis.
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
134
Keep them Safe Outcomes Evaluation Final Report Annex A – KTS Indicators
Table 35 6c Number and proportion of Aboriginal children whose families have exited Brighter Futures who
enter OOHC, 2008/09-2011/12
Year
Aboriginal
OOHC
reports1
0-9 year olds (Aboriginal)
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
0-2 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
3-5 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
6-9 year olds
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
Child
population2
OOHC
proportion3
Probability of
being at OOHC4
During
KTS6
51
79
71
66
861
1,350
1,328
1,894
5.9%
5.9%
5.3%
3.5%
17
17
19
29
-1.2%
-9.7%
-41.2%
20
28
30
37
395
615
659
890
5.1%
4.6%
4.6%
4.2%
20
22
22
24
-10.1%
-10.1%
-17.9%
18
27
26
20
284
434
384
602
6.3%
6.2%
6.8%
3.3%
16
16
15
30
-1.8%
6.8%
-47.6%
13
24
15
9
182
301
285
402
7.1%
8.0%
5.3%
2.2%
14
13
19
45
11.6%
-26.3%
-68.7%
Notes
1The number of children in OOHC within one year after Brighter Futures
2The number of children in Brighter Futures
3The proportion of children in OOHC within one year after Brighter Futures
4The number of children in OOHC within one year after Brighter Futures is “one in x”
5The relative risk of being in OOHC within one year after Brighter Futures are y% higher or lower than in 2008/09
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
135
Table 36 6c Number and proportion of non-Aboriginal children whose families have exited Brighter Futures
who enter OOHC, 2008/09-2011/12
Year
Non-Aboriginal
OOHC
reports1
0-9 year olds (non-Aboriginal)
2008/09
98
2009/10
105
2010/11
108
2011/12
139
0-2 year olds
2008/09
44
2009/10
47
2010/11
46
2011/12
69
3-5 year olds
2008/09
24
2009/10
32
2010/11
32
2011/12
42
6-9 year olds
2008/09
30
2009/10
26
2010/11
30
2011/12
28
Child
population2
OOHC
proportion3
Probability of
being at OOHC4
2,641
4,052
3,938
5,156
3.7%
2.6%
2.7%
2.7%
27
39
36
37
-30.2%
-26.1%
-27.3%
1,148
1,844
1,789
2,267
3.8%
2.5%
2.6%
3.0%
26
39
39
33
-33.5%
-32.9%
-20.6%
844
1,317
1,231
1,707
2.8%
2.4%
2.6%
2.5%
35
41
38
41
-14.6%
-8.6%
-13.5%
649
891
918
1,182
4.6%
2.9%
3.3%
2.4%
22
34
31
42
-36.9%
-29.3%
-48.8%
Notes
1The number of children in OOHC within one year after Brighter Futures
2The number of children in Brighter Futures
3The proportion of children in OOHC within one year after Brighter Futures
4The number of children in OOHC within one year after Brighter Futures is “one in x”
5The relative risk of being in OOHC within one year after Brighter Futures are y% higher or lower than in 2008/09
Source: KiDS – CIW annual data
136
During
KTS6