Briefing Session
Interim Report on the Implementation
of Family Services Review
Mr Fung Pak-yan
Dr Joe Leung
AD(FCW)/SWD
HKU Consultant
2 June 2003
BACKGROUND
Report on the Review of
Family Services in HK
(June 2001)
2
Recommendations
Direction
Strengthening families through a
child-centred, family-focused and
community-based approach
3
Principles of service delivery
Accessibility
Early identification
Integration
Partnership
4
New service delivery model
Integrated Family Service Centre (IFSC)
Family Resource Unit (FRU)
Family Support Unit (FSU)
Family Counselling Unit (FCU)
5
Implementation Strategy
Bottom-up and gradual approach
Verify the effectiveness of IFSC
model through a 2-year Pilot Project
Evaluative study conducted by HKU
during the 2-year Pilot period
Training on change management and
multi-skills training
6
IFSC Pilot Projects
14 pilot projects selected
1 Integrated Service Project in
Tung Chung also included
7
Support for Pilot Projects
Lotteries Fund grant ($200,000 to meet
non-recurrent expenses such as
publicity, programmes, staff training, etc.)
Minor renovation work for 8 service units
Reprovisioning of 1 service unit
2 time-limited Programme Assistant posts
to each pilot project
23 training courses with over 900
participants
8
Evaluative Study
Objectives of the study
Assess effectiveness and implementation
arrangements of IFSC model
Examine effectiveness of the use of
existing resources, including manpower
deployment
Recommend benchmark level of output &
outcome indicators
Recommend the most cost-effective
approach for future practice
9
Presentation of Initial Findings
&
Recommendations by
HKU Consultants
10
New Frontiers for Family
Services
HKU Consultant Team
Background
• SWD commissioned HKU to carry out an
independent in-built evaluative study on 15
pilot projects from April 02 to March 04.
• Pilot Projects were established to verify the
effectiveness of the IFSC model.
• Pluralistic approach: UIS, SIS, pilot projects’
business plan & half-yearly self-assessment
report, focus groups (stakeholders, users,
social workers & supervisors), case study,
consultants’ reports and observations.
Purposes
• To assess performance of pilot
projects after one-year
implementation
• To identify key issues to inform
further planning
Findings & Recommendations
1. Characteristics of 15 pilot projects:
 Greenfield: 1
 Self-transformation: 2 (existing FSC)
 Merging: 4 (FSC + community-based service of
the same agency)
 Strategic alliance: 8 (FSC of an agency +
community-based service of another agency)
 Target population sizes and staff provisions
varied among projects
 Only partial integration involved in some
projects
2. Users’ profiles:
 Typical pilot project user: female
adult with no job and poor education.
 High proportion of new arrivals,
people without spouses, older persons
& social security recipients
 Vulnerable populations
Socio-Economic Information of
Service User
Sex Distribution
70
60
50
% of cases
40
30
20
10
0
Male
Female
Sex
Age group
Distribution of Age Group
>91
81~90
71~80
61~70
51~60
41~50
31~40
21~30
11~20
0~10
0
5
10
15
Percentage
20
25
30
Employment Status
Others
Self-employed
Students
Home-maker
Retired
Unemployed
Employed Part-time
Employed Full Time
0
5
10
15
20
25
3. Services rendered:
 Continuum of family & children programs:
clinical case & group intervention, training &
educational classes, supportive groups, familyoriented social activities & child care
programs
 Screening form & assessment tools: objective
& standardized instrument to determine level
of risk, service needs & intervention required
 Overall, users were extremely satisfied with
the service
4. Tremendous workload for the
1st year of implementation:
preparing for formation,
learning & using new forms,
launching service promotion
campaigns, etc.
 TEAMWORK is vital!
5. Establishment of IFSC requires:
 IFSC operators & social workers’
commitments & initiatives
 Cultural shift among social workers
(traditional casework dominated
approach  a more diversified,
multi-level & community-based
intervention)
6. Learning from different formation modes:
 Strategic alliance:
 Convenient & ready-made mode
 Complementary expertise of 2 services
 Differences between culture & practice of 2
partnered agencies
 Limited collaboration in redeployment of
staff and shared budgeting
Greenfield, merging & self-transformation
More effective to facilitate interfacing amongst 3
IFSC units
Deployment of social workers across 2-3 IFSC units
More effective inter-unit referrals
Self-transformation: takes longer time to develop
FSU & FRU
Merging: partnership between FSC & communitybased service  synergy to develop a new service
mode more responsive to community & family needs
Partial integration creates confusion  merging 2
service units to form IFSC should involve 2 WHOLE
UNITS
7. Interfacing with other services
 Clear division of responsibility between
IFSC & other family-related
community-based services and centres
dealing with family and individual crisis
 IFSC can take up more responsibility in
providing services targeting vulnerable
populations, eg. new arrivals, single
parents, people with suicidal risk
8. Clear consensus in the field that
IFSC is an effective mode of family
service  preparation for
establishment of IFSC should be
made as early as possible
9. IFSC provisions:
 Clear & independent service
boundary, with a population ranged
from 100,000 – 150,000 people
 In each district of DSWO, selected
SWD IFSC(s) should be responsible
for statutory cases
10.Staff provisions:
 a minimum of 12 -14 social workers
 1 supervisor
 FCU: 4 – 6 counsellors
 FSU: 6 group workers and brief
counsellors
 FRU: 2 community & group workers
 Deployment of social workers should be
dynamic & flexible
Pilot Project FCU Caseload per Social
Worker
140
120
Average
Caseload/Soc
Worker (AprDec02)
Average
Caseload/Soc
Worker (Dec 02)
100
80
60
40
20
0
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
11. Establishing IFSCs:
 Pooling of existing resources
 Merging of FSC with community-based
service: more cost-effective to maximize
existing resources & expertise
 Strategic alliance should be discouraged
 Self-transformation: has to ensure
traditional caseworkers are equipped
adequately with required community &
group work skills
12.Strategic rationalization, close
down, reshuffling, reallocation &
merging of existing services  the
rebirth of a new program with a new
mission, not the death of a
conventional program
The Way Forward
31
Re-engineering should begin now
Reasons:
Definitive advantages of IFSCs (e.g. greater
accessibility, more integrated services, wider
community network, enhanced partnership,
improved users’ participation and satisfaction)
Consensus in the field that IFSC is a preferred
mode
Position family services to better meet increasing
demand arising from worsening family solidarity
The earlier the transformation, the greater
certainty of resources in family services against
tight fiscal situation
32
Parameters for re-engineering –
some directions ahead
Transform all FSCs into IFSCs
Overall redistribution of FSC/counselling unit
resources to fill service gaps and avoid
duplication of resources
Pooling of resources:
 Apart from existing FSC/counselling unit resources,
re-engineering should take into consideration
efficiency savings and pooling of other resources
available in the family services e.g. FLE, FA, FSRC,
PMC, SPC, etc.
 Pooling of resources beyond the family services e.g.
community centre, FSNT, CYC, NLCDP will need
further consideration by SWD against savings
requirements and policy deliberation
33
Preferred mode of transformation in the following order of priority
 Merging
 Self-transformation
Strategic alliance not a preferred
option
Partial integration not considered
34
Number of IFSCs in each district:
depends on a combination of factors
including population, district needs and
social indicators, etc.
SWD/NGO proportion will follow more or
less the same ratio as currently in
existence, but there may be some
swopping of service units between
agencies as necessary
Clear service boundary, i.e. 1 IFSC serving
a defined boundary
Statutory cases and other cases more
suitably handled by SWD in an NGO IFSC
boundary will still be served by SWD
35
Co-ordination and collaboration with other
community-based units such as DECC,
ICYSC, school social work so that IFSC
would only receive referrals from these
units with proven need for intensive
counselling
Minimum size of an IFSC: 12-14 social
workers (some IFSCs can be larger,
depending on population served, district
needs and social indicators, but not mega
IFSC!)
Service components of IFSCs should also
include FLE, services for new arrivals and
single parents, suicide prevention, etc.
36
Preparation for Change
Consultation
Briefing to the Working Group (7 May
2003)
Briefing to the Sector (2 June 2003)
SWAC (26 June 2003)
LegCo Welfare Panel (July 2003)
Training
change management
programme design
multi-skills training (especially on
group work)
marketing and service planning
37
Premises
Reprovisioning & relocation if
justified to ensure better coverage
New Schedule of Accommodation
Minor renovations
Additional F & E
38
Tasks in the coming months
Planning for rationalization to take
place before end of pilot project
Map out service needs, resources
available and required for each
district
Work out rationalization plans, e.g.
examine the no. of IFSCs required,
their distribution, potential
operators, resources available for
pooling, etc.
39
Tasks in the coming months
Close liaison, collaboration and
coordination among DSWOs, FCW
Branch and agencies in the
process
Benchmark output/outcome levels
Refine screening/assessment tools
40
THE END
41