Contact between children in care
and their parents: the development
of guidelines to facilitate contact.
Dr Tracey Bullen, Dr Stephanie Taplin, Professor Morag
McArthur, Professor Cathy Humphreys and
Dr Margaret Kertesz.
Australian Catholic University
University of Melbourne
19th August 2014
kContact Research Partners
VICTORIA
• University of Melbourne
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Baptcare
Berry Street
CAFS Ballarat
Centre for Excellence in
Child and Family Welfare
MacKillop Family Services
Ozchild
Salvation Army Westcare
Wesley Mission Victoria
ACT
• Institute of Child Protection
Studies (ACU)
• Barnardos ACT
• Marymead Child and Family
Centre
• ACT Community Services
Directorate
2
kContact: Why we are doing the study
• Lack of research assessing the outcomes and
impacts of different models of contact in child
protection
• The research evidence is insufficiently strong
or developed to allow confident prescriptions
about contact (Quinton et al., 1997; Triseliotis, 2010;
Taplin & Mattick, 2014)
• kContact is the first study of its kind.
3
Stage 1: Guidelines and contact model
•
•
•
•
•
•
Literature & policy
Consultations
Workshop
Expert panel
Refine model and guidelines
Refine stage 2 design & obtain ethics
approval for Stage 2
4
Multiple Sources of Knowledge
Research
Evidence
Practitioner /
Carer Wisdom
Consumer
Experience
Policy
Perspectives
5
Methods used for reviewing the
literature
•A comprehensive literature search using
numerous search terms in multiple
databases.
•Articles graded for the level of evidence
(NHMRC guide).
6
Contact intervention studies:
Levels of evidence
• 13 studies were identified that specifically
focused upon contact.
• Mean score of the contact focused
interventions was 2.
• Primarily level IV grade of evidence
7
Action research workshop
• To share research findings, based on current
literature, policy trends and interview findings
• To develop the key elements of a proposed
intervention model
• To workshop similarities and differences between
current practice and the proposed model
• To present the methodology for phase 2 of the
research and discuss its implementation
8
Theoretical framework
• Attachment theory
• Ambiguous loss
• Carer secure attachment style and parenting
(DOCS, 2006; Dozier et al., 2009)
• Child perspective
(Kelly and Salmon 2014)
9
Purpose of contact in OOHC
• Maintain and enhance the relationship
attachment between children and their parents
(Scott, O’ Neil & Minge, 2005)
• Encourage reunification
• Enhance child’s psychological wellbeing
• Develop personal identity and cultural
connections
(Scott, O’ Neil & Minge, 2005; Haight et al., 2003; Poulin, 1992; Wilson & Sinclair, 2004; Jamal &
Tregeagle, 2013)
• Prevent idealisation of family
(Fahlberg 1991).
• Assess parent-child relationships
10
Contact frequency
• There are correlational relationships
between frequency and restoration not
causal relationships.
(Biehal, Wade, Farrelly, & Sinclair, 2011)
• Contact should occur as the child needs it
which should be determined by ongoing
assessment.
(Hashim, 2009)
11
Decision-making about contact
Individualised assessments should be regularly
reviewed
. Decisions and plans must
consider:
• Contact purpose
• Culture
• Age and developmental stage of the child
• Child safety
• Impact upon carers and parents
• Nature of the parent-child relationship
• Children’s views on contact (age-dependent) 12
(Hashim, 2009; Taplin, 2005).
Children’s participation in decisions
• Wishes can be considered but may not be
reflected in the decisions made.
• Children reported that they did not know
who made contact decisions or had a say in
where or when they occurred and often were
not given enough notice about visits (Morrison
et al , 2011).
13
Preparation and debriefing for contact
•
Provides an opportunity to process feelings about contact
away from visits.
•
Parents need information about their children to engage
with them (Hojer, 2009).
•
Carers need to prepare for contact to build relationships
with parents, process their own emotions and understand
the purpose for each child (Sanchirico & Jablonka, 2000)
•
Children need to prepare for contact to explore emotions
that arise before and after contact, to have the nature of
contact explained and to explore their wishes for visits
14
(Morrison et al., 2011)..
What promising contact interventions
have in common (1)
• Help parents to view contact from the child’s
perspective
• Learn strategies to stay positive and address
emotions outside of contact visits.
• Trust and rapport between facilitators and
parents.
• Using goal-setting to plan visits
15
What promising interventions have in
common (2)
• The theoretical basis uses different dimensions
of attachment theory
• Visits have a similar structure
• Foster carers are supported to have
relationships with birth parents.
16
Next steps kContact: Trial design
• Randomisation – intervention and
comparison group
• Longitudinal design – 9 month follow-up of
intervention and comparison groups
17
kContact: sample
Period
Intervention sites
(enhanced model)
(n = 60)
Comparison sites
(usual model)
(n = 60)
2014
Development of enhanced model and
guidelines
Vic
ACT
Vic
ACT
Feb – Oct 2015:
Initial interviews
Nov 2015 – July 2016:
Follow-up interviews
Aug – Dec 2016
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
30
Analysis of results and revision of model and
guidelines
Interviewees: 120 carers, 120 parents, 120 workers & 60 children > 8 yrs.
18
Funding
Funding: ARC Linkage Grant (LP13010028) plus
partner organisations: ACT Community Services
Directorate, Centre for Excellence in Child and
Family Welfare, Barnardos Australia and the
Marymead Child and Family Centre (2013-16).
Chief Investigators: Prof Morag McArthur (ACU),
Dr Stephanie Taplin (ACU), Prof Cathy
Humphreys (UMelb)
19
Contact
Tracey Bullen: Project Manager ACT ACU ICPS
02 62091331 tracey.bullen@acu.edu.au
Margaret Vic Research Fellow University of
Melbourne School of Social Work
mkertesz@unimelb.edu.au
http://www.acu.edu.au/about_acu/faculties,_in
stitutes_and_centres/centres/institute_of_child
_protection_studies/kcontact_project
20