Anglicare Response to Information Paper May 2014
We would like to make the following comments on the Strategic Planning
Information Paper for Consultation that was released in April 2014.
Overall we would like commend CSD for incorporating much of the feedback
from the last consultation round as this paper has adopted many of Anglicare’s
and other agencies’ recommendations, which we believe has made it a far
more comprehensive and strong document.
Some general comments:
 The paper makes no reference to the CYFSP program and how the early
intervention, intensive support and reunification services proposed in
this paper relate to the CYFSP funding program. For example, there is
already an Intensive Family Support program funded through the CYFSP
for very at risk children and their families – what would be the
relationship between that and the program being recommended here?
Likewise, the paper recommends the expansion of the Transition from
Care Team and yet the CYFSP’s Youth Engagement /Case Managers are
also working with this group as well. The CYFSP has as its goal to target
children, young people and their families at risk of entering child
protection systems and care; therefore there is a distinct overlap. The
integration/coordination/combination of these programs requires
further consultation and planning.
 The continuum of care concept is strongly articulated throughout the
strategic plan, however this may be particularly complex to achieve in a
small jurisdiction given the evidence of the quality best practice services
in the larger states, with far greater resources, is that they specialise in
certain areas of service on the continuum rather than attempting to be
expert across all domains.
 Of concern also is the continual inclusion of kinship care as a component
of the continuum of care. It is clear in the strategic planning that kinship
placement is the preferred plan for all children and young people
entering care. Kinship care is an inherently complex and very different
placement service than foster care/residential care services. As such it
should be developed as a different program of care with a related
continuum developed within a family focused framework rather than
simply being added to the non family/ kin placement continuum. As such
the continuum of care for kinship could include stronger and innovative
placement planning options including intensive placement identification
services, family care planning conferencing, extended family intensive
support services and shared care family services.
 The PCIP is recommended as a comprehensive intervention program for
parents and carers to assist them with the management of complex
behavioural issues and improve the quality of the parent child
relationship. It is unhelpful to focus on one particular program in a
strategic planning paper of this type, particularly as this program only
focuses on interventions with children aged 3-7 years. It would be
preferable to specify the importance of funding programs that work on
child-parent relationships with a trauma informed-attachment focus and
including those that also intervene in the first three years. This will
promote flexibility in the style and type of services offered to meet the
diverse needs of vulnerable families.
 The focus on comprehensive therapeutic assessments is positive,
however, unless there are the services to match the recommendations
of the assessment this may fail. It will also set expectations for children,
young people, their carers and case workers, that will not be able to be
met. This strategy will require a cross government and sector review to
maximise the capability and capacity of both sectors to meet this
increased need for service.
 In the information sheet for Families there is mention of adoption as an
option, but this is not referred in any detail in the strategy paper. It s
very important that adoption be an option for some children. This is
even more critical in light of the changes to the legislation and practice
that is occurring across the border in NSW. While EPRs may be
appropriate for some children, for others the move to permanency
through adoption is vital and needs to be more clearly articulated as part
of the continuum of care.
 In relation to carer recruitment and assessment it is unclear what is
actually being proposed – is there to be an independent new service to
perform this function? Or is it about more consistent practices across
agencies? Further clarification of what is being considered would be
useful.
 In relation to the Health Passport this needs buy in and commitment
from ACT Health to support the health assessment and ongoing
monitoring of children moving in and out of care. Overall there is no
reference to the work of other government departments and the
relation of the strategy to this. While the Human Services Blueprint may
address this, in this paper it would be important to talk about the role of
both Education and Health in making this strategy work.
 There is no mention of the links to other early childhood services, ie
child care centres, playgroups etc. and the critical role these services can
play in the early intervention and reunification stages for families. More
specific mention should be made of the need to continue to fund and
support at risk children to attend early childhood settings.
 In relation to professional carers – will they have to take all referrals to
them or are they going to be able to pick and choose? The mandatory
nature of their work will be important.
 There is little on the proposed model of accreditation and what this
would look like – further detail would be useful to have to evidence the
relative benefits of a Departmental accreditation process as described
during the strategy paper presentation as compared with an
independent review body model adopted in other states.
 In relation to financial incentives for agencies achieving outcomes – does
this match with policy elsewhere in ACT government? As it is currently
not in other funding programs across government, this may well cause
difficulties by having it in one funding program and not another e.g.
homelessness services. This can be a particularly complex process and is
likely highly problematic to determine how agencies are assessed and
rewarded.
 Training in therapeutic care also needs to extend to residential workers,
particularly if there is an expectation that residential care services have a
stronger therapeutic focus.
 In relation to information management consideration needs to be given
to the proposed data collection system for the CYFSP program, as many
of the clients in the out of home care system are also accessing CYFSP
services.
We would be happy to expand on any of the abovementioned points if
required.
Regards
Jenny Kitchin
Director of Community Services, ACT
--------------------------------------------------------3/80 Beaurepaire Cresc.
Holt ACT 2615
Telephone: (02) 6278 8403
Fax: (02) 6278 8499
E-mail: jenny.kitchin@anglicare.com.au
Website: www.anglicare.com.au
art text here.