Gateway and Family Support
Services
Midterm Review Report
February 2012
Acknowledgements
The contribution of the following individuals in preparing this Report is gratefully acknowledged:
Steering Committee
Mercia Bresnehan, Ingrid Ganley, Mark Byrne,
Noel Mundy, Marita Scott, Penny Egan, Nick Evans, Wanda Buza and John Hargrave
Reference Group
Jeremy Harbottle, Di Caney, Bev Funnell, Di Bester, Denise Brazendale, Noelene Fittock,
Mary D’Elia, Ulo Raabus, Mark Pitt, Donna Evans, Anne French, Nick Goddard, Christine Long,
Raylene Cox, Jennifer Thain, Kate Wilson, Robyn Yaxley
Project Team
Julian Joscelyne, Diana Darcey and Baden Phillips with Anna Oakley,
Andrew Peschar and the Performance and Evaluation Team.
Table of Contents
1 Executive Summary and Recommendations ............................................................................ 5
1.1 The Review ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.2 Major Findings .................................................................................................................... 6
1.3 Recommendations............................................................................................................... 8
2 Glossary of Acronyms and Terms ........................................................................................... 12
3 The Review ............................................................................................................................... 14
3.1 Terms of Reference........................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Scope............................................................................................................................... 14
3.3 Review Methodology ......................................................................................................... 15
4 Context
............................................................................................................................... 16
4.1 Drivers for reform ............................................................................................................ 16
4.2 The Gateway/IFSS Model ................................................................................................... 17
5 Outcomes for Children and Families....................................................................................... 21
5.1 Impact on the statutory child protection service system ........................................................ 21
5.2 Experience of direct service providers ................................................................................ 23
5.3 Desktop review of cases .................................................................................................... 25
5.4 The experience of families.................................................................................................. 26
6 Value for Money ....................................................................................................................... 32
6.1 Context ........................................................................................................................... 32
6.2 Service level ..................................................................................................................... 32
6.2.1 Planned capacity .................................................................................................... 32
6.2.2 Gateway activity .................................................................................................... 33
6.2.3 IFSS activity ........................................................................................................... 33
6.3 Cost ................................................................................................................................ 35
6.4 Service quality................................................................................................................... 35
6.5 Achievements ................................................................................................................... 36
7 Operational Aspects of the Service System ............................................................................ 38
7.1 The Gateway Community Based Access and Assessment Service ........................................... 38
7.1.1 Summary of the model ........................................................................................... 38
7.1.2 Information sharing ................................................................................................ 39
7.1.3 Community Referrals to the Gateway...................................................................... 41
7.1.4 Child Protection Services Referrals to the Gateway .................................................. 43
7.1.5 Gateway/IFSS referrals to Child Protection Services .................................................. 45
7.1.6 The Common Assessment Framework .................................................................... 45
7.1.7 Timeliness and Completion of Assessments ............................................................. 46
7.1.8 The allocation process (Weekly Allocation Meetings) ................................................ 48
7.2 Family Support Services ..................................................................................................... 49
7.2.1 Summary .............................................................................................................. 49
7.2.2 Assertive outreach ................................................................................................ 50
7.2.3 Capacity to commit with hard to engage and resistant families ................................... 51
7.2.4 Ongoing Outreach................................................................................................. 52
7.2.5 Intake and Assessment ........................................................................................... 53
7.2.6 Case Management ................................................................................................. 53
7.2.7 Casework ............................................................................................................. 54
7.2.8 Practical Support and Skills Development ................................................................. 54
7.2.9 Action Learning / Action Research .......................................................................... 55
7.2.10 Sustained, Enduring Support.................................................................................. 57
7.2.11 Brokerage ........................................................................................................... 57
7.2.12 Access for Aboriginal Children, Young People and Families ...................................... 58
7.2.13 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity ............................................................................ 59
7.2.14 Participation in Area Advisory Groups ................................................................... 59
7.2.15 Collaborative Working Relationships ..................................................................... 60
7.2.16 Links to other Initiatives ....................................................................................... 61
7.2.17 Links to other Service Systems .............................................................................. 61
7.2.18 Early Years Parenting Support Services .................................................................. 62
7.3 Relationship to FAHCSIA Funded Services ........................................................................... 66
7.3.1 FAHCSIA Service Approach ................................................................................... 66
7.3.2 Consultation comment........................................................................................... 66
7.3.3 Discussion and Findings .......................................................................................... 67
7.4 Information and Reporting ................................................................................................. 68
7.4.1 Data collection and reporting arrangements ............................................................. 68
7.4.2 MACSIMS ............................................................................................................. 69
7.4.3 Future Directions .................................................................................................. 69
7.5 Governance and Program Management ............................................................................... 70
7.5.1 Governance at sector level ..................................................................................... 70
7.5.2 Governance at Program and Service level ................................................................ 71
7.5.3 Operational management ....................................................................................... 71
7.6 Workforce ....................................................................................................................... 73
7.6.1 Worker qualifications ............................................................................................ 73
7.6.2 Consultation comment........................................................................................... 73
8 Future Directions and Areas for Development ...................................................................... 75
8.1 Drawing the threads together ............................................................................................ 75
8.1.1 Where we are today.............................................................................................. 75
8.1.2 National trends ..................................................................................................... 76
8.1.3 The 2011 Select Committee on Child Protection...................................................... 77
8.1.4 Auditor General’s Report ....................................................................................... 78
8.1.5 Evolution or revolution .......................................................................................... 78
9 Appendices ............................................................................................................................... 80
1 Executive Summary and Recommendations
“I know that the Gateway shouldered most of the responsibility with this family.” – Service Provider
“I have been in the welfare system myself since I was 10 or something like that, Youth Justice and
parole and stuff as well. I didn’t think this would be any different than all the other stuff they had
made me do, but [my worker] wouldn’t let me play the system, she just knew what to do. She
made me sit up and listen. They saved my life.” – Client Comment
1.1 The Review
Major reform for family support services was implemented in September 2009 with $31.5M over
four years provided to establish a new community based common access service (the Gateways)
funded to ~$2M per year and new Integrated Family Support Services funded to ~$4M per year.
The model is described at 4.2.
In addition, $1.2M was directed to new Early Years Parenting Support Services (EYPS) recognising
the importance of the early years including for unborn children and $1.4M established new Targeted
Youth Support Services (TYSS) for adolescents, 50% funded by each of the DHHS Reform Unit and
Housing Tasmania.
These services were in addition to ~$1.2M funding to existing Family Support Services which were,
over the subsequent period, required to modify their service models to work with the new
arrangements. $1.0M of other pre-existing family support services had their focus moved to
providing a reunification service for CPS, to get children safely home where that could be achieved
with intensive family support.
These arrangements are underpinned by amendments to the Children, Young Persons and their Families
Act 1997 which, inter alia, established the intake services and provided for improved information
sharing between services.
With the current funding allocation ending at 30 June 2012, this review was undertaken as part of
standard program management and to provide advice on the effectiveness and value for money of
the model.
The Terms of Reference for this review were to:
1. Assess the extent to which the service system is delivering the objectives of the reform of
Family Support Services (FSS), including:


high quality assessment, referral and service access
integrated FSS to a superior professional standard, in order to
o assess the improved service capacity for families who may not come into contact with
Child Protection Services (CPS)
o reduce the number of families notified to CPS by improving access to and
responsiveness of community based services
o minimise client re-notifications and the progression of families into the CPS system.
2. Evaluate the relationship of Gateway and FSS with other services systems, including:


therapeutic, counselling and support services (Sexual Assault Support Services, Alcohol and
Drug, Mental Health, Gamblers Help etc)
Statutory services (Child Protection, Youth Justice, Police, Education, Justice, Family
Violence Counselling and Support Service)
3. assess the extent to which the reformed service system is delivering improved outcomes for
families
4. assess the extent to which the reformed service system is delivering value for money for
government.
5. provide advice to Government on future directions and any priority areas requiring
development.
The methodology for the review is at 3.3.
1.2 Major Findings
This review has established that Tasmania is well served by the Gateway and Family Support
Services model, and that the service system is functioning as intended. Key features such as the
Community Based Child Protection Team Leader, Gateway services, Integrated Family Support
Services and case allocation processes are working effectively. The client survey provides heartfelt
feedback from parents about the value of the services and the skills of their workers.
The operational aspects of the system are discussed in some detail, and in line with continuous
quality improvement, there remain areas that will benefit from service development. This will
continue the enhancement of what is already a good model of service that is working for children
and families.
It was very clear there has been a significant culture and practice shift in the sector with good
coordination and cooperation fostering environments in which robust discussion and sharing of
views can occur with respect, and where there were numerous examples of great outcomes for
children and their families.
This review has demonstrated that the Gateway/IFSS model has slowed the rate of entry to Out of
Home Care (OoHC) and a large number of children have been referred to and received family
support rather than being on child protection. However, there is continual demand for all services
and a necessity for the Gateway/IFSS model to continue to be funded.
If this reformed service system is not sustained in its current form the likely repercussions include
future significant service capacity issues within statutory systems such as CPS and OoHC.
This review establishes that there are quantitative and qualitative measures that establish the
intended outcomes are being achieved:

Children have been diverted from the statutory system, with an overall downward trend in
the net admissions of children to out-of-home care since implementation of the reforms

Of 247 children referred for family support from the Child Protection Service (CPS) in a
6-month period, in the subsequent 6 months, only 34 (13.8%) had a subsequent
substantiation, with only 17 (6.9%) being admitted to out-of-home care.

A client survey conducted by independent consultants provided consistent and emotive
feedback about the difference to the lives of children and their families the services have
made. Case studies and feedback comments are provided through this report to reflect the
reality for many parents, and the subsequent changes to their lives — often where
intergenerational issues have been addressed.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 6

Stakeholder consultation through community forums and one to one meetings evidenced a
significant improvement in working together, consultation and cooperation between
services including those outside the new alliances and with CPS, and a maturing of a
partnership approach focused on client outcomes.
In looking at the extent to which the new model is delivering value for money the broad
parameters were that assistance would be provided to up to 3 400 families per year, that the
services could be established within available funds and that they would meet quality standards.
Review findings are:

Based on Gateways dealing with all Level 1 interventions (information advice, referral oneoff crisis or episodic brief intervention) and ~50% of Level 2 (low-intensity case
management, casework and secondary consultation) the KPMG modelling anticipated
~2 000 per year, (Table 2, p. 32) while client activity data is showing ~8 000 per year (Table
3, p. 33).

IFSS, based on the KPMG modelling would deliver the other 50 per cent of Level 2, and all
the Level 3 (medium level support) and Level 4 (high level support), a total of 1 360 cases.
Statewide IFSS client activity data for the period 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011 shows a total
of ~1 800 cases, with ~1 500 of those substantive casework (Table 4, p. 34).

Both services were established with budgets within available funds and within the anticipated
range in the Request For Proposals (RFP) process, and neither has made representations for
additional funding, although they have indicated some pressure points they are managing,
such as ‘Active Holding’ of families awaiting allocation to a family support worker.

The Department’s Community Sector Quality and Safety Team confirm that both lead
agencies are engaged with and compliant with the Quality and Safety Standards Framework.
Both agencies have a Quality Advisor and provided evidence of a continuous improvement
approach to services.
At an operational level the review has established that the service system is working well, but that
there are some areas for further development. The areas requiring further attention include:

A significant and welcome maturing of the relationships between sector organisations and
Gateways/IFSS and CPS has occurred, and this should be supported. It became apparent
that a shared understanding of and working within the intent of the information sharing
arrangements of the Children, Young People and their Families Act (1997 and 2009
Amendments) by all services could further improve outcomes for children and families.

There remain opportunities to ensure consistent feedback to referrers at location level
about the outcomes of referral, and at key points in casework by all providers, particularly
where they are involved in linked services or service systems.

There was good evidence that CPS and the Gateways/IFSS were constantly improving how
they worked together, with strong support for the Community Based Child Protection
Team Leader (CBCPTL) role, but that CPS staff was less positive about the achievements of
Family Support Services than Family Support Service staff.

The Common Assessment Framework (CAF) and the need for it was understood and
agreed upon, but there was frustration with a long delay in implementing the revised tool.
The revised, computerised, semi-automated tool will ensure better referrals to CPS.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 7

Practice development, including through Gateway/IFSS lead agencies’ processes and
Practitioner Networks was building capacity across the sector, including with smaller
organisations with less infrastructure and professional supervision, and this area will need to
continue to be developed.

The current client data platform, IRIS (Information Reporting and Information System), was
acquired out of necessity to have a functioning reporting system to record referrals
information and activity levels while providing case management functionality for services in
a networked environment at the time of reform. However, it does not provide the level of
functionality and robustness required for the medium-longer term.

There were regular monitoring and reporting arrangements in place, but at the
Department’s end they were confused (Riley and Riley review); and with current structural
arrangements in Disability and Community Services (DCS) it was timely to install consistent
arrangements at both an Area and Statewide level, without creating additional administrative
and process burdens.

Workforce was an area of considerable interest, but it was recognised this could not be
substantively dealt with in this review. It was however an area for attention at sector level
through other processes.
Additionally the House of Assembly Select Committee on Child Protection Report1 found that
investment in early intervention appears to offer best value for families, community and government
(F112) that Gateway is an effective early intervention mechanism (F114) and recommends
continuation of the Gateway/IFSS (R108), for additional resourcing to allow more time to work with
complex cases (R115).
In relation to future directions, this review points to national data showing that the most
common maltreatment types across Australia are emotional abuse and child neglect2. Emotional
abuse includes verbally abusing, terrorising, scapegoating, isolating, rejecting, ignoring and/or
witnessing family violence. Neglect refers to failure to provide basic needs — food, shelter,
clothing, supervision, hygiene, medical attention — consistent with disadvantaged socio-economic
conditions and with the stories told by parents in this report. The alignment of Gateway and IFSS
service provision to date with these priority needs is testament to the relevance and
appropriateness of the model and services delivered. Work is ongoing within the services to tailor
services to match community and family needs.
1.3 Recommendations
Recommendation 1: That the Gateway/IFSS model continues to be funded at current levels,
noting the model is delivering value for money, positive outcomes for children and families and is
successfully diverting children from the higher cost statutory systems of Child Protection and Out of
Home care. The new model has also been successful in strengthening the broader sector through
skills development, capacity building and quality assurance processes.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 8
Recommendation 2: Clear and concise information about the information sharing intent and
service expectations of the Parliament, Minister and Secretary should be developed in order to
ensure that information sharing entities, including referrers, Gateway/FSS providers and services
working with families referred by CPS or Gateways act in accordance with the CYPF Act, taking
into account national standards and best practice in this area.
Recommendation 3: Funding Agreements for provision of such services should be explicit about
the legislative provisions in place to support information sharing. A working party should be
established to examine the best way forward in line with national standards and best practice.
Recommendation 4: Gateway/IFSS Lead Agencies, with input from Child Protection Services and
Disability and Community Services, should prioritise an integrated community information and
education strategy which includes:
• strategies and supporting material for the general population promoting a single ‘Gateway’
• targeted information and education developed and provided to key stakeholders/referrers.
Recommendation 5: CPS and DCS, in consultation with Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, revise the
DHHS website to give increased prominence to Family Support and the Gateway Services, including
a clear pathway for users to find it.
Recommendation 6: A joint review of protocols for establishing feedback expectations, the
appropriateness and method should be conducted into the Gateway intake, assessment and referral
processes; and explored for further integration with Child Protection Services processes.
Recommendation 7: That it is noted that the Community Based Child Protection Team Leader
position is integral to the model and should remain and be strengthened to ensure success of the
model at both an operational and systems structural level.
Recommendation 8: The enhancements to the Child Protection Information System to facilitate
case information sharing between CPS, Gateways and other information sharing entities should be
progressed as a priority. A representative key stakeholder group should be established including
Gateway Management, Community Based Child Protection Team Leaders, and CPS managers to
guide development of the enhancements and to ensure an optimum solution for all stakeholders is
developed.
Recommendation 9: Statewide consistent practice involving the Community Based Child
Protection Team Leader should be followed in Gateways/IFSS, including formalisation of a referral
protocol for proposed referrals between CPS and Gateway, which is consistent with the model and
includes provision for a case review where there is dispute.
Recommendation 10: The revised, integrated and automated Common Assessment Framework
tool should be implemented in the Gateways as a matter of urgency as soon as logistics are arranged
with the Gateway/IFSS lead agencies. Gateway/IFSS lead agency managers, CPS managers and DCS
should complete a post implementation review of the revised CAF to ensure it is as well tuned and
efficient to use within three months of its deployment.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 9
Recommendation 11: Consistent practice guidelines including structured case closure and advice
to referrer have been developed by Gateway/IFSS lead agencies and Alliance partners, and could
usefully be revisited in consultation with Children and Youth Services. Appropriate protocols
should be in place where families fail to engage, so that any risk to a child is mitigated.
Recommendation 12: The best functioning aspects of Weekly Allocation Meetings around the
state should be reviewed and developed into a best practice model in line with the Action Learning
processes underpinning the service model.
Recommendation 13: The Gateway/IFSS lead agencies and CPS should review the findings and
recommendations of the Desktop Review Report with a view to incorporating these findings and
recommendations for good practice consistently across the state.
Recommendation 14: Child Protection Services and Gateway/IFSS lead agencies should ensure
that the Community Based Child Protection Team Leader is involved in a case review with the
Family Support Service provider to discuss strategies that may encourage and maintain engagement,
and appropriate protocols should be in place where families fail to engage, so that any risk to a child
is mitigated.
Recommendation 15: Further work should be commissioned to provide a more complete
picture of the inter-relationships in the service system and to provide directions for improving
service coordination.
Recommendation 16: Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, DCS and DOE should develop joint strategies
to improve information sharing and familiarisation with respective roles, policies and issues, leading
to better integrated approaches and responses for families and children.
Recommendation 17: Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, CPS, Early Years Parenting Services, DCS and
Child Health And Parenting Service should jointly explore and develop better integrated
approaches and responses for families with children 0-5, including unborn children.
Recommendation 18: Gateway/IFSS lead agencies should continue to engage with the Child and
Family Centres Project at a statewide and local area level to further promote understanding of the
Gateway/IFSS role and work practices, and to explore ways of raising FSS workers profile and
relationship with individual CFCs at local level.
Recommendation 19: Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, Department of Justice and DCS should jointly
explore and develop better integrated approaches and responses for families where family violence
is an issue.
Recommendation 20: Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, DCS and the Tasmanian Association of
Community Houses should jointly review the Neighbourhood Houses issues and develop
appropriate responses within existing resources.
Recommendation 21: A service development project focused on family support coordination and
integration of services for 0-5 year olds, including unborn children, should be undertaken in
consultation with key service providers and other stakeholders, including FAHCSIA and the
Tasmanian Early Years Foundation.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 10
Recommendation 22: Senior managers from Gateway/IFSS lead agencies should develop agreed
protocols and approaches for closer coordination to improve client outcomes among State and
Federally funded Family Support Services operating at communities level.
Recommendation 23: Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, FAHCSIA and DHHS work together to bring
the broader Family Support Sector together for statewide and regional planning and professional
development opportunities.
Recommendation 24: In consultation with its providers DHHS should develop options for a
redeveloped data collection and information system for the Gateway and FSS programs.
Recommendation 25: DCS in consultation with the Purchasing Commissioner Unit and lead
agencies should ensure that future Funding Agreements are explicit in establishing processes for
addressing partner governance and performance issues.
Recommendation 26: DCS in consultation with the Gateway/IFSS lead agencies should formalise
contract review meetings to provide for performance monitoring at both Area and Statewide
perspectives.
Recommendation 27: Alliance lead agencies, CPS and DCS should look at structured
opportunities for joint training such as participation of staff recruited to Family Support Services in
‘Beginning Practice’ and ‘Signs of Safety’ training.
Recommendation 28: DCS in consultation with Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, the Tasmanian
Council of Social Service, Family Support Services Association, Children and Families Welfare
Association of Tasmania, the sector and the Department’s Workforce Development unit should
review workforce strategies for the family support service sector.
Recommendation 29: The Government should adopt an evolutionary approach to development
of the Family Support Service system, entering into new Funding Agreements with existing providers
subject to successful negotiation of arrangements.
Recommendation 30: The Department should progress the approved recommendations from
this report as part of established business planning and program management.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 11
2 Glossary of Acronyms and Terms
AAG
Area Advisory Group
CAF
Common Assessment Framework
CAFWAT
Child and Families Welfare Association of Tasmania
CALD
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse
CFC
Child and Family Centres
CHAPS
Child Health and Parenting Service
CBCPTL
Community Based Child Protection Team Leader/s
CPIS
Child Protection Information System, used to support CPS case
management and to provide performance reports
CPS
Child Protection Services
CPT
Community Partnership Team/s
CRISSP
Victoria’s Department of Human Services Client Relationship
Information System for Service Providers
CYPF Act
Children, Young People and their Families Act 1997 and 2009
amendments.
CYS
Children and Youth Services
DCFYS
Disability, Child, Youth and Family Services
DCS
Disability and Community Services
DHCS
Disability, Housing and Community Services
DHHS
Department of Health and Human Services
DOE
Department of Education
EYPS/FF
Early Years Parenting and Support Services / Family Futures
FSSA
Family Support Services Association (Tasmania)
FaHSCIA
Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community
Services and Indigenous Affairs
FSP
Australian Government Family Support Program
FSS
Family Support Services – a global term used for both the IFSS and
pre-existing Family Support Services.
FTE
Full Time Equivalent
Gateway
Gateway Services are community based intake services, providing
information, assessment and initial support and referral services
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 12
principally through allocation to Family Support Service providers.
IFSS
Integrated Family Support Services – the reformed service model
IRIS
Integrated Reporting and Information System
LINC
Learning and Information Network Centres (DOE)
MACSIMS
Mission Australia’s Community Service Information System
NEWPIN
New Parent Information Network
NFA
No Further Action, a status code within case management
NHH
Neighbourhood Houses
OoHC
Out of Home Care
Pathway Home
An intensive family support service working with families, where a
child or children are in out-of-home care, to achieve and sustain
successful reunification to the family of origin
Police
Department of Police and Emergency Management
PE
Performance and Evaluation, DHHS unit in CYS
PYPS
Pregnancy and Young Parent Support
RFP
Request for Proposals – the procurement process documents which
set out the features on the Gateway model and IFSS model, inviting
proposals from the community sector to deliver them
RIU
Reform Implementation Unit, former DHHS unit to enact GW model
Safe at Home
Department of Justice’s Safe at Home Project
SAG
Statewide Area Advisory Group
SASS
Sexual Assault Support Services
TAC
Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre
TACH
Tasmanian Association of Community Houses
TasCOSS
Tasmanian Council of Social Service
TYSS
Targeted Youth Support Services
VFM
Value for Money
WAM
Weekly Allocation Meeting – the Gateway/IFSS meeting at which
families are allocated to an appropriate provider for FSS.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 13
3 The Review
“Without the Gateway service and the IFSS worker I would not have coped during a very difficult
part of my life while having problems with my child. I don’t know where we would have ended up,
and my family can’t thank you enough for the help.”
3.1 Terms of Reference
The objectives of the Gateway and Family Support Services Midterm Review Project set out in the
Terms of Reference (Attachment 1) were to:
1. Assess the extent to which the service system is delivering the objectives of the reform of
Family Support Services (FSS), including:


high quality assessment, referral and service access
integrated FSS to a superior professional standard, in order to
o assess the improved service capacity for families who may not come into contact with
Child Protection Services (CPS)
o reduce the number of families notified to CPS by improving access to and
responsiveness of community based services
o minimise client re-notifications and the progression of families into the CPS system.
2. Evaluate the relationship of Gateway and FSS with other services systems, including:


therapeutic, counselling and support services (Sexual Assault Support Services, Alcohol and
Drug, Mental Health, Gamblers Help etc)
Statutory services (Child Protection, Youth Justice, Police, Education, Justice, Family
Violence Counselling and Support Service)
3. assess the extent to which the reformed service system is delivering improved outcomes for
families
4. assess the extent to which the reformed service system is delivering value for money for
government.
5. provide advice to Government on future directions and any priority areas requiring
development.
3.2 Scope
The overall budget for Community Support Program services is $16.4 million, which includes $8
million funding the Gateway, Family Support Services, Early Years Parenting Support Services (EYPS)
and Targeted Youth Support Services (TYSS). However the total funding in scope for the review is
approximately $7.1 million as denoted with an * in Table 1, page 16. TYSS has not been included in
scope as the service has only been up and running for a short period, and 50 per cent of TYSS is
funded by Housing Tasmania.
The Organisations that are in scope of this review are the two Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, Baptcare
and Mission Australia, and their respective Alliance partners; the EYPS Organisations, Anglicare and
Uniting Care; and the other Family Support Services which are required to work within the model.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 14
Related services funded through the Community Support Program including the TYSS, Grandparents
as carers, Disability Gateway and Pathway Home are not in scope of the review, but are considered
in the context of their interface with the Gateway and FSS. There is also a strong inter-relationship
between the Gateway and CPS through the Community Based Child Protection Team Leader
(CBCPTL) and the cross-referral of children between the two services. CPS were also the subject
of a models of service review completed in December 2011.
Table 1: Services in scope and value of Funding Agreements
In-scope Family Support Services
$
Expiry 30 June
Gateways (Family Support)
$1.9 million*
2012
Integrated Family Support Services
$4.0 million*
2012
Early Years Parenting Support (EYPS)
$1.2 million*
2012
Sub Total
Existing Family Support Services
(continuing e.g. Lady Gowrie, Early Support for Parents)
$7.1 million
$1.2 million
2014
Targeted Youth Support Services (TYSS)
(50 per cent from Housing Tasmania)
$1.4 million
2013
Therapeutic Residential
$5.7 million
2013
Existing Family Support Services
(re-direction to new Pathway Home)
$1.0 million
2014
Related Services
Total
$16.4 million
3.3 Review Methodology
The reference for this Review was endorsed by the Steering Committee on 16 October 2011 with a
required reporting date of 31 December 2011. This has required a short and focused methodology
to meet the Terms of Reference. The methodology for the Review includes:

project sponsorship by the Deputy Secretary, Disability Housing and Community Services and
the Deputy Secretary, Children

joint Project Ownership by the Director Disability and Community Services and the Director,
Children and Youth Services Operations

direction and governance through the Steering Committee which met on five occasions
through the Review

convening of the Reference Group of operational level managers in funded services, related
agencies and the Department

convening stakeholder forums in each of the North-West, North and South of the state to
obtain input for the review
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 15

deployment of an online survey to collect views from all interested parties

one on one meetings with identified key stakeholders including the Tasmanian Departments of
Police and Education, Youth Justice, Office for Children, Child and Family Centres Project,
Child Health and Parenting Service (CHAPS), Commissioner for Children and the Australian
Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
(FAHCSIA)

desktop case reviews of 48 shared clients from around the state examining case management
collaboration between CPS and Gateway, appropriateness of referrals between the two service
systems and the role of the CBCPTL

external evaluation of satisfaction with the Gateway/IFSS services from 20 clients with either
closed or continuing service engagement

service evaluation reports from both Gateway/IFSS lead providers

analysis of available data from the Integrated Reports and Information System (IRIS) the Child
Protection Information System (CPIS), the Mission Australia Community Services Information
System (MACSIMS) and additional data collections and sources including the online survey

consolidation and analysis of information into a draft report

consideration of the draft report by the reference group and steering committee

preparation of a final version and reference to the Minister.
4 Context
“Until I was introduced to the service it seemed that no help was available for a father in my
position. Having IFSS support has really helped me to deal effectively with the emotional stresses
and frustrations of my situation, simply by having someone to talk to. From introducing me to a
budget planner to finding a clinical social worker, the IFSS worker’s help and understanding has
been invaluable and I would recommend the service to anyone who feels lost and alone in their own
personal despair.”
“The whole point of the reform was to free up a lot of the demand that was coming into Child
Protection that was not actually child protection.”
4.1 Drivers for reform
The Gateway for Family Support and the Integrated Family Support Services (IFSS) were introduced
in August 2009.
A Review of the Tasmanian Family Support Service system (October 2005) reported, inter alia, that
the Tasmanian FSS system had evolved in an unplanned and ad hoc manner with programs and
services poorly linked and interconnected3.
At the same time the level of notifications to CPS and the growing number of ‘unallocated’ cases led
to major reviews of the Child Protection system in 2006-2007. This review of CPS found that the
quantum and distribution of family support services was inadequate, and that significant investment
was required to increase the capacity to support families to both improve outcomes for children
and families and reduce pressure on the statutory system.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 16
New Directions for Child Protection in Tasmania: an Integrated Strategic Framework (January 2008)
presented the findings and models from the KPMG consultancy on the redevelopment of child
protection undertaken in 2006-2007, incorporating the earlier 2005 review of family support
services.
Responding to the issues raised and proposals for reform put forward in the Framework the
Tasmanian Government committed an additional $8 million per year to reform the system, in order
to provide services for up to 3 400 families per year.
There has been general broad support for the reforms, including tripartite political support.
Features of the reformed service system included a community-based ‘Gateway’ access point where
family issues and needs are assessed then matched to tailored services provided by IFSS.
4.2 The Gateway/IFSS Model
It is to be noted that during the past two and half years the Gateway Service has also been involved
in further program development of TYSS, Grandparents as Carers and Disability Gateway. These
aspects, although implemented, were not in the scope of this review.
Originally the RFPs for the Gateway and IFSS set out the following model.

Four Departmental defined service delivery areas:
o
South West, incorporating Glenorchy, Hobart, Huon Valley and Kingborough
o
South East, incorporating Brighton, Central Highlands, Clarence, Derwent Valley,
Glamorgan/Spring Bay, Sorell, southern Midlands and Tasman
o
North, including Break O’Day, Dorset, Flinders Island, George Town, Launceston, Meander
Valley, Northern Midlands and West Tamar
o
North West, incorporating Burnie, Central coast, Circular Head, Devonport, Kentish, King
Island, Latrobe, Waratah/Wynyard and West Coast

A single ‘Gateway’ community intake point in each area, to provide a visible entry point and
referral pathway for families and other professionals to access family services. These Gateways
will provide information, identify needs and refer families to appropriate services, and can avoid
notifications to CPS where family support services are most appropriate

An Integrated Child and Family Support Service (the subject of this RFP) in each of the four
areas to coordinate a range of service responses to vulnerable children, young people and
families in a coordinated and integrated manner.

To support the effective planning and operation of Disability, Child and Family Services at area
level, advisory groups will be established. These will include partners from the Gateway service,
Integrated Family Support Services, Child Protection, Disability Services, DHHS staff, and, where
capacity exists, Aboriginal family and disability services representation. Where that is not
possible, the advisory group should make all efforts to consult with the Aboriginal community
on family support and disability services activities

Partnerships with CALD services relevant to the area will also be developed and all efforts to
consult with CALD communities on activities and services should be made.4
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 17
Provision of Family Support Services was to be within a four level service model:
 Level 1
Information and Advice, comprising information and support; and one-off crisis or
episodic brief intervention. KPMG envisaged this to be usually provided by the
Gateway, to be of 1-4 hours duration over a period up to a week
 Level 2
Low-level Support, comprising low intensity case management and other services;
case work interventions; and secondary consultation. This level would build
strengths and prevent issues from escalating
 Level 3
Medium-level Support, comprising medium level case management; and case work
interventions. This level addresses the needs of children, young people and families
who are at risk of entering the child protection system without support
 Level 4
High-level Support, comprising intensive case management; and case work
interventions. This level addresses the needs of children, young people and families
who are at risk of entering the child protection system or already in the child
protection system.
A Common Assessment Framework (CAF) was a key component of the model to guide
development of care plans through:

identification of risk factors

identification of individual and family needs

identification of goals for intervention in consultation with families and other agencies involved

identification of the range and type of service responses (case work interventions) required and
to allocate specific roles to agencies

identification of a lead case manager5.
The service system was initially conceived as depicted in figure 1, overleaf.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 18
Figure 1: Initial Reformed State Service System structure
DCY&F Area
Directors
Children
Families
Community
Gateway
Common Assessment Framework
Area Advisory
Group
Integrated Family
Support Services
Early Years
Care &
Protection
Statewide
Advisory
Group
Action Research
Other DHHS
funded Services
Quality Assurance
Disability
Services
Other Services for
C&F
Cross Sector Training
Consistent practice, standards, evaluation
The Operational Framework for Family Support Services provides for varying degrees of support
ranging from low to high intensity, varying length of service/intervention required and a vast range of
complexity levels within the three approaches. This was envisaged to be matched to the individual
circumstances of the family, with a recognition that some clients might move between the
approaches.

Approach One
Information, advice, assessment and planning, including support; and one-off, episodic brief
intervention. Shorter term work may include short term case work and/or referral to
support services or the statutory system.

Approach Two
Medium level support comprising case work and case management interventions, including
secondary consultations and referral to support services.

Approach Three
Medium to high level support, comprising medium to intensive level case management; and
case work interventions.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 19
As implementation progressed developments were made in recognition of the complexities of some
cases and length of time required to achieve meaningful outcomes across the range of complex
issues Gateway and IFSS work on with families.
Updating the service model to reflect developments in the service mix and relationships resulted in
the following representation:
Figure 2: Revised Reformed State Service System structure
Area
Directors
Children
Families
Community
Gateway
Area
Advisory
Group, Cochaired by
Area
Directors
and Sector
Nominee
Statewide
Advisory
Group
Community Based Access & Assessment Services
Early Years
Integrated Family
Support Services
Children &
Youth Services
Targeted
Youth Support
Services
Disability
Services
Other DHHS
funded Services
Continuous improvement,
reflective practice
Quality Assurance
Other Services for
Children & Families
Cross Sector Training
Consistent practice, standards, evaluation
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 20
5 Outcomes for Children and Families
“Without the Gateway service and the IFSS worker I would not have coped during a very difficult
part of my life while having problems with my child. Without the IFSS Worker I don’t know where
we would have ended up and my family can’t thank you enough for the help.”
5.1 Impact on the statutory child protection service system
A key driver for introduction of the Gateway and IFSS was to improve parenting capacity and family
functioning in order to prevent the progression of children, young people and their families through
the statutory child protection system.
An important measure of the impact of the Gateway and IFSS is its success in diverting children
from the statutory system. Prior to implementation of the new model, there had been no
systematic opportunity to divert higher need families from the child protection system to the family
support services. While the Early Support Program operated for approximately 2 years prior to the
implementation of Gateway and IFSS, it was provided as an interim solution only.
The internal Review of Child Protection and Gateway Interactions Report completed for this review
examined data from CPIS relating to the effectiveness of interactions between Child Protection
Services (CPS) and Gateway and IFSS. While only a limited amount of relevant information was
available for this area, a few trends and issues were able to be identified.
Overall it is encouraging that the diversionary objective of the Gateway and IFSS appears to have
been achieved with regard to prospective clients of CPS. This is evidenced by a reduction in the
number of children notified for 12 months subsequent to implementation of the program as well as
a continued reduction in the net admissions of children in care since that time. 6
Figure 3: Net admissions to out of home care (admissions – discharges), by quarter
Although fluctuations in the net admissions have been observed from one quarter to the next,
an overall downward trend since the implementation of Gateway and IFSS may be indicative of
the diversionary effect of those programs.7
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 21
The review into interactions between CPS and Gateway client referral patterns also examined the
pathways of CPS clients referred to the Gateway and IFSS. An indication of the diversionary effect
can be seen by looking at the rate of statutory involvement within the six months following an initial
referral for family support.
Figure 4: Number of CPS children referred to Gateway and IFSS who experience
subsequent statutory involvement with CPS (6 months to 30/4/2011)
300
250
247
200
( 56.3%)
150
139
100
(21.1%)
52
50
(13.8%)
34
( 6.9%)
17
0
Notifications Renotifications Referrals for Substantiations Admissions to
referred to
to CPS
Investigation
OOHC
GW/FS
For this period, there appears to be a high rate of involvement at Intake following referral from CPS to
Gateway and IFSS. It is possible that some notifications represent varied levels of concern, from provision
of information or updates, to instances of re-notification or joint notification to both CPS and Gateway,
to other issues, such as a lack of client engagement or service capacity.
A qualitative review of 17 individual cases examined reasons for re-notifications after referrals to
Gateway and IFSS was undertaken as part of the CPS and Gateway interactions report. The case
review identified a number of issues that may contribute to the high rate of re-notifications
observed in the data.




There was often need to address multiple risk issues such as parental drug use, mental
health issues, housing instability, financial pressures, and domestic violence.
Access complications in service provision had occurred due to factors such as:
o service limitations in other sectors
o the resources required to effectively engage hard-to-reach clients, and the need for
assertive engagement practices
o time required to secure and allocate resources among a changing client mix.
Further notifications being taken during period of assessment by CPS and Gateway.
There was also need for improved information sharing between Gateway and IFSS and CPS.
Service Providers also report that often re-notifications are received from Family Violence, schools
or other providers while Gateway is actively working with a family to achieve change.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 22
5.2 Experience of direct service providers
During November and December 2011, an online survey was conducted to canvass the views of
various groups with a particular interest in the operation of Gateway and IFSS. Completion of the
survey was voluntary, with initial distribution to a range of stakeholders, who were also asked to
forward the survey on to other individuals who had an interest in the mid-term review. The survey
covered a range of topics about the operation of Gateway and IFSS.
The chart below shows the distribution of how survey respondents relate to the Gateway and IFSS.
As may be expected, Gateway/IFSS and CPS workers were the largest individual group, and also
provided the most reliable response rates.
Figure 5: online survey responses by organisation
N = 228
* ‘Other CSO’ includes workers in the following
services: •‘Early Years Parenting Support Services’ /
‘Targeted Youth Support Service’ / ‘another Family
Support service’ / ‘any other community sector service’
** ‘DHHS – Other’ includes DHHS employees in
the following areas: ‘Child Health and Parenting
Service’ / ‘Drug & Alcohol and Mental Health
Services’ / ‘Grants Unit’ / ‘Youth Justice’ / ‘Children
& Youth Services, Office for Children’ / Disability,
Housing & Community Services’
Overall, questions 5-11 had the better response rates, with the principal contributors being from
CPS and Gateway/IFSS workers. These questions focus on critical operational aspects. For questions
5-11, respondents were asked to indicate if they agreed or disagreed with the following statements:
5. Making referrals to the Gateway is easy and works well
6. The Gateway process for assessing family need using the CAF tool is working well
7. The allocation of families to Family Support Services through a Weekly Allocation Meeting is
working well
8. The Community Based Child Protection Team Leader provides good support in assessing
risk and engaging families
9. Families and children are being provided with services matched to their needs
10. The Gateways and Family Support Services are delivering positive outcomes for families and
children
11. Family Support Service providers are working well together
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 23
As response rates varied for different organisation groups and different questions, an average
response was calculated to indicate an overall ‘view’ of the respondents. Using this method, it was
found that average response ratings ranged between about 3 and 4, with a high of 3.9 for Question 8
and a low of 3.0 for Question 6.
Figure 6: Average response rates to survey questions 5-11, all respondents
The two major respondent groups, CPS and Gateway/IFSS, also had the largest difference in average
response ratings. Figure 7 shows average ratings for the survey questions 5-11 for CPS and
Gateway/IFSS. It can be seen that while Gateway/IFSS on average agrees with each question, CPS
were more reserved, and often more inclined to disagree than to agree.
Figure 7: Average response rating to survey questions 5-11, by organisation
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 24
The largest difference in overall ratings was for Questions 5: ‘Making referrals to the Gateway is
easy and works well’, where on average CPS and Gateway/IFSS workers have opposing views. The
two main issues highlighted in the comments by CPS workers were that the referral form (CAF
tool) was cumbersome to complete and that sometimes there were challenges with the process for
getting Gateway to accept referrals.
On average both groups agreed that the CBCPTL was providing good support in assessing risk and
engaging with families (Question 8).
Gateway/IFSS lead agencies and CPS note that this was a major reform of systems, culture and
practice across both sectors and as such this review was conducted at the two year mark of what
was envisaged to be a five year reform process. The lead agencies are convening forums to bring
together Gateway, family support and CPS managers and workers to build better understanding of
respective roles, expectations and ways of working together, thus embedding the system, culture
and practice changes that sustaining the reform requires.
5.3 Desktop review of cases
The desktop review conducted by Children and Youth Services sampled cases of families with
interactions with both the CPS and Gateway/IFSS provided an opportunity to track the actual
experience of families. The summary report from that review found, inter alia:

the Gateway system appears to work well to distribute cases and there were a number of
examples of matters that were dealt with successfully by Gateway where otherwise CPS
involvement would have been required

there were a number of examples of highly thoughtful practice by IFSS workers who were able
to engage with families strongly and positively while maintaining a clear focus on identified
concerns

while the overall standard presented as high there was evidence of variable demonstration of
skill level on the part of IFSS workers. This was difficult to ascertain by looking purely at CPS
records

most cases evidenced a significant amount of communication and cooperation between the CPS
and IFSS.
There was strong support for the desktop review component of this project, with both CPS and
Gateway/IFSS lead agencies finding it a valuable opportunity to look at the family experience across
both service interactions.
Findings from the desktop reviews included:

referral processes from CPS have been working well, the information received in most cases
was useful and helpful to the work with clients

the CAF has been utilised in all cases with referrals coming in from CPS completing the initial
assessment and Gateway completing the targeted assessment

the CBCPTL has been involved in a wide range of activities across these cases and the role is
well demonstrated. Not only is the referral process from CPS working well, there is also quality
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 25
information shared, consultations occurring appropriately between both Gateway and CBCPTL
and IFSS and the CBCPTL. There have been joint visits for both risk assessment support, safety
planning and to encourage engagement

complex cases in this review all had ongoing input from CPS

collaborative work has gone well in cases where GW/IFSS had linked with other services

there were several cases where high-risk families who had historically been hard to engage,
agreed to IFSS when CPS became involved. However, despite all efforts by CPS and IFSS when
CPS closed the cases, those families ceased engagement with family support.
This last point is further discussed in Section 7 of this report.
5.4 The experience of families
In December 2011 an independent consultant conducted client feedback interviews with 20 current
or past clients from both lead agencies. The findings overwhelming indicate satisfaction with the
services received, increased confidence in parenting skills and greater family cohesion. Two of those
surveyed reported that the program did not meet their expectations — but this was due to
insufficient staffing numbers and access to staff rather than outcomes or deliverables.
Of the 20 clients surveyed, 15 (75 per cent) had previous notifications with CPS.
Respondents to the survey identified the two most common parenting challenges were feeling
isolated (e.g. doing it all alone with no support or networks to access help); and dealing with their
children’s challenging behaviours in appropriate ways.
Surveyed clients were asked to assess their capacity to deal with their most challenging areas of
parenting before they were engaged with the program. Virtually all clients rated themselves either 1
or 2 out of 5 (where 1 = ‘not very well’ and 5 = ‘extremely well’)8. When asked to rate their
capacity at program completion most clients self-reported ratings of either 4 or 5. For the few
clients who continued to rate their capabilities low this was due to their ongoing challenges to
adequately deal with family violence and associated adolescent behaviours, as illustrated in figure 8.
Figure 8: Capacities towards a range of parenting activities at program completion
N=20
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 26
Clients were asked to rate how often they engaged in certain activities (responses ranged from
‘none of the time’ to ‘all of the time’). As shown, prior to the program, most parents had minimal
engagement children’s activities ‘all or most of the time.’ This was especially apparent for spending
time on sports or hobbies with children, with no-one reporting any time spent on this way.
However respondents reported a high level of involvement in time spent with their children after
completing the program, coupled with their own personal enjoyment in doing so. The biggest
difference in self-reported engagement with their child was the parent spending time laughing
together. Several clients provided unprompted examples of activities they have had since
participated in the program as a matter of course 9 as charted in figure 9.
Figure 9: Client’s level of engagement with children’s activities (before and after program)
N=20
One of the stand-out pieces of feedback by this group of clients was the way their worker engaged
the whole family, not just the child/ren or just the adult/s. This is in line with the current practice
research and demonstrates the importance of this kind of approach in engaging and achieving
outcomes for traditionally hard to reach and hard to engage families.
In addition, from both Baptcare and Mission Australia, a large number of case studies are provided
which include specific comment from families. While there may be an inevitable bias towards
families that have engaged with the Gateway/IFSS and it was difficult to obtain comment from
resistant disengaged families, it remains irrefutable that many families have received great benefit
from the services.
The illustrative case studies included here have been de-identified and used with permission.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 27
Case study 1: Single mother and baby, sustained long-term IFSS intervention
The following case study illustrates that with appropriate therapeutic support and partnership
approaches to deliver IFSS we can assist families who have had previous statutory involvement to
make significant changes in their lives. The two cases below show how successful collaboration with
the Early Years Parenting Service, NEWPIN, was a key to success.
Client: Single mother, 1 baby – IFSS intervention for 15 months.
Issues: Family violence, intravenous drug use, other drug abuse, alcohol abuse, family
breakdown, isolation, parenting issues, financial issues, childhood abuse and adult abuse, trauma
and mental health.
Response: Originally this referral was an unborn baby alert. All other children are in state care.
During this intervention period of IFSS working with the mother, the intravenous drug use
eventually ceased altogether, as did the alcohol and other drug use (with some support from
Alcohol and Drug services and close work with the CBCPTL worker). The family violence
concerns were addressed adequately and supported by the police and family violence service.
The isolation concerns and parenting issues were addressed with a collaborative approach
involving the IFSS worker and NEWPIN (when a referral to both services was permitted). The
trauma issues were worked through with the IFSS worker, with referral options to other
services not being picked up by the client due to trust issues in relation to the trauma.
Outcome: With close work between NEWPIN and the IFSS worker, joint goals were
established and reached in most instances. The mother has been doing really well for quite some
time and has been equipped to understand her mental health diagnoses and how to self-manage
and to know when to get extra support. Throughout the IFSS workers time involved, the
mother was able to care for the child appropriately and Child Protection were satisfied for the
most part, with her progress. The child remained in her care during the IFSS workers time with
the family.
On closure, the mother commented: “You are the only worker I’ve ever had that makes me feel
comfortable and I can tell you anything and you won’t judge me. It’s because of your help the
welfare hasn’t taken my baby again”.
Case Study 2: Child Protection and IFSS working together
Central to the Tasmanian model is the relationship between Gateway/IFSS and CPS. The interface
between these services is new and ability to work in partnership and ensure coordinated and
seamless delivery requires skilled and experienced practitioners. This case study highlight the
advantages when these two services are working well together, but also the challenges faced by non
statutory services working with families on the edge of statutory care.
Client: Family with intergenerational CPS involvement
Issues: Family referred due to reports of environmental neglect. CBCPTL and Gateway
conducted a joint visit and identified the family had been living without power and the state of
the house was of serious concern. Mum was in and out of CPS until she was 18 years old.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 28
After negotiation with Child Protection to develop support expectations, the family were
referred to IFSS with the understanding that the CBCPTL would participate in joint visits and
assist in monitoring progress for the family.
Response: IFSS worker supported children to re-engage in education and develop positive
relationships with the school. IFSS advocated strongly which resulted in power being connected
at home and eliminated the rent arrears to ensure the family could remain in the house. IFSS
assisted mum in setting up automatic deductions with both Centrelink and Aurora to minimise
the risk of returning into arrears in the future.
We hired a skip bin and supported the family to dispose of old furniture and rubbish which was
further putting the children at risk. Despite the support, the home environment was not
improving enough to ensure the safety of the children. As a result, the kids were removed for a
period of 6 weeks and CPS arranged for the house to be industrially cleaned.
IFSS continued to support the family in conjunction with CPS during this time and worked with
mum to develop routine charts to help keep on top of cleaning and ensure they do not find
themselves in that situation again in the future. The children returned to a clean house and
returned to school. Mum continued to work positively with IFSS and CPS (case management)
after the children were returned to her care.
Outcome: CPS and IFSS worked together and facilitated a referral to NEWPIN. This family
demonstrated the value of organisations working together to achieve a shared goal for the
family. As a result of continued case planning and review, the family were able to sustain the
level of engagement and successfully complete the 12 month NEWPIN Program and can now
maintain a high level of functioning without intensive support.
Case study 3: Sub-statutory threshold, successful diversion
The following case study examines a family circumstance that had not yet reached a statutory level
but had considerable support needs that required an intensive five month outreach service to
achieve sustained changes.
Client: 50 year old single mother with an adult daughter, and a 14 year old daughter with a
diagnosis of ADHD in April 2011.
Issues: Mother (50yo) is assessed with low functioning ability, low self-esteem, a basic level of
parenting and self-care and socially isolated. The Father had passed away when the children were
younger. Mother has experienced on-going symptoms of anxiety and depression since she was
young which she was receiving treatment for. Her 14 year old daughter had a history of nonschool attendance since the start of the year, and was underweight.
Assessment: Mother has challenges parenting the 14yo daughter. She was confused about the
daughter’s diagnosis as she had received inconsistent information and had difficulties finding
suitable medical support. Daughter controls the living room space of the home and would often
trash the house when she was angry. Due to the medication she was taking this daughter was
considerably underweight and did not have a normal appetite. She was refusing to go to social
and when feeling overloaded would become violent. Mother felt powerless, demoralised; and
isolated she expressed that it was easier to carry on and not speak out about her needs to get
support, as this would cause problems with the daughter’s behaviour.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 29
Response: Communicating by social stories works well for the daughter, so assisting mum to
use this technique reduced conflict and misunderstanding. The school and other support services
were trying to help the family, and now with IFSS involvement case conferencing with the family,
collaboration between services and other synergies are providing the family with more
confidence and improved outcomes. Mum learns well if it is delivered in small amounts at a
time, so the IFSS worker adapted to this and provided incremental advocacy and support to
access services which may be otherwise difficult to access or to understand referral pathways
into. IFSS worker focussed on all aspects of the family’s well-being, physical emotional and
environmental, taking a holistic approach.
Outcomes: The family developed a strong working relationship with the IFSS worker over time
which assisted both to feel more relaxed. Daughter attends her appointments and feels less
stressed. Mother was provided support around budgeting and nutrition involving daughter in the
process to encourage her to look after herself and her weight. There was a brokerage purchase
for children’s cookbooks. Both now cook together, which has improved their well-being and
strengthen their relationship and communication.
Daughter is attending school, after the IFSS worker advocated, successfully overturning a
decision for Special Education Funding. Daughter now has additional support to attend class.
Mother has more time in the day to build her work readiness skills by volunteering. The IFSS
worker and mum attended Centrelink together. She now has more money to buy the necessities
without having to rely on emergency assistance. The IFSS worker support both to access
supportive medical assistance, The daughter is now taking a different medication which does not
impact on her appetite and is now a healthy weight. Mum has gained practical skills and strategies
to manage disruptive behaviour and de-escalate situations which become tense.
Client feedback: “I’m so glad that you are helping me, I find I have the confidence to do the
things I need to do to help my family with your support.”
Case Study 4: An IFSS mother’s perspective
This case study is in form of a personal story. It shares the life and trauma trajectory from a client
perspective before and after her IFSS engagement. The story demonstrates the impact of cumulative
harm as well as specific traumatic life events for this client, and how they continued to impact her
relationships with others, including her own children.
Mum loves me; Dad is here
I have lots of siblings
My little brother is accidently killed
Mum is diagnosed with a terminal illness
My Mum dies; I am eight
Dad doesn’t want me
I live in foster homes
I’m being moved again. And again
I am happier as I get to see two of my sisters
Dad finds a girlfriend; she wants to meet me
I am sent to live with Dad with two sisters
Dad drinks. Or he isn’t there
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 30
I am physically abused
When he drinks I protect my little sister from the men
I am sexually abused. Often
To protect my little sister I let them
I refuse to stay any longer; I self-select a placement
I am happier
I meet a guy
I am pregnant; I am seventeen
We live together
We have a child
He starts to abuse me
I am pregnant again
He continues to abuse me
I leave
I have the child; I do not want or love this child
I meet a man; I am pregnant
He leaves me
I have another child; I do not want or love this child
Services are insisting I accept support
I engage/disengage with services; sometimes it helps
I cannot cope with my children
I request support with behaviour management; I am allocated an IFSS Worker
I am not close or loving with my children
I want to be a good parent and THAT scares me
I begin accepting support; I am shown play and behaviour management strategies
I tell my story; the nightmares begin
I start to enjoy moments with my children
I allow my children to give me hugs
I take my children to play group
I enjoy playing in the sand and blowing bubbles;
I let my children play with me
Chaos and confusion surrounds me
Life is changing; I am enjoying my children.
The insight into the complex lives and continual challenges faced by this client group and exemplified
in these case studies is testament to the dire need for intensive and integrated services as delivered
by the Gateway/IFSS model. Prior to introduction there was no dedicated service system to manage
the density of issues and subsequent high level of sustained response required, and as clients have
indicated above, many felt bereft of a clear pathway out and lived chaotic lives entrapped in various
cyclic systems impacting on their personal, social, professional and family abilities.
From its clients’ perspectives the demonstrated success of the Gateway/IFSS model is in ending
those cycles.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 31
6 Value for Money
“My case is closed now because I’m fairly well sorted, but I know I can ring [my worker] at any time
and she will give me some advice... This is the best service I have had contact with. At the other
services I have accessed, I have ended up feeling abandoned.”
6.1 Context
The RFP set the following Value for Money (VFM) criteria (inter alia):
17.9
Value for money will be assessed based on the combined outcomes of the
assessments of the qualitative criteria and price…. in assessing ‘value for money’
major factors to be considered include:

the quality of the proposed service, i.e. how well it meets the specified
requirements; vs.

whole of life costs; vs. risk, i.e. the capacity of the proposer to deliver the
service, as specified, on-time and on-budget.
17.10 The proposer must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Department an
understanding of the requirements to provide the service.10
6.2 Service level
6.2.1 Planned capacity
The first area for examination was whether the Government had received value for money in
relation to the level of services being provided compared to the specified requirement.
The planned service level for the Gateway/IFSS services was established by KPMG modelling which
was based on a need to provide additional assistance to up to 3 400 families per year.
A complicating factor here is that the KPMG modelling was based on an additional 3 400 families,
but with other existing providers joining the model, the capacity being counted should exceed the
KPMG estimates. An allocation of the 3 400 families according to the demographic and notification
modelling done by KPMG provided a breakdown against the four service levels as shown in Table 2.
Table 2: KPMG modelled demand, by region and service level classification
Level
1 - 45%
2 - 30%
3 - 20%
4 - 5%
Total Families
South West
394
263
175
44
875
26%
South East
338
225
150
38
750
22%
North
437
291
194
49
970
29%
North West
362
242
161
40
805
24%
1 530
1 020
680
170
3 400
100%
Totals
Split
Key: 1 = info and advice; 2 = low level support; 3 = medium level; 4 = high-level case management
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 32
It is important to note that this relates to families actually provided with a service and that there
was no information available from comparative jurisdictions (e.g. Victoria’s Child First program) on
the total number of ‘inbound’ contacts that might be expected.
6.2.2 Gateway activity
The model anticipated that Level 1 activity (up to 2 hours) would occur in the Gateway, together
with a proportion of Level 2 interventions.
Information provided by lead agencies on the numbers of contacts with the Gateway since service
inception is summarised in the following table.
Table 3: Statewide Gateway client activity since service inception (excluding disability GW)
Aug 09 - Oct 11
Total
Split
Month
Year
Gateway NW
5 692
30%
211
2 530
Gateway SE
3 623
23%
134
1 608
Gateway N
4 716
25%
175
2 096
Gateway SW
4 033
21%
149
1 792
18 066
100%
669
8 026
Total
Baptcare report an increase in the number of Level 1 (termed ‘non-substantive’) calls as the
Gateway has become better known, including an increasing number of re-contacts which is seen as a
positive of people receiving a valuable service and of client trust.
Mission Australia report there were more contacts early in the life of the Gateway, however their
MACSIMS information system now reports that the level of contacts each quarter have stabilised.
This high level of presentations to the Gateway, with 75 per cent being resolved by Gateway
services and not progressing to family support services is a clear demonstration of the value for
money of the Gateways.
These figures illustrate the less costly early intervention role of the Gateways is providing
diversionary links with the broader service system, successfully diverting families away from the
more intensive, high cost, statutory interventions.
6.2.3 IFSS activity
The model anticipated that proportion of Level 2 and all level 3 and 4 families would receive a case
managed family support service, and that while they would be fewer in number, the higher need (L3
and 4) families would be the priority focus.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 33
DHHS figures derived from IRIS for the 12 months to 30 June 2011 provide a picture based on the
Department’s mandated reporting system. In IRIS ‘non-substantive’ classifies cases where a limited
time (two hours) was spent on the case, while ‘substantive’ reflects those where case-managed
family support services (of more than 2 hours duration, such as intense interventions and/or longer
term support) were provided. Data from Baptcare indicates that in addition to the IFSS substantive
cases below, approximately 250 families were allocated to non-alliance partner organisations to
provide family support interventions. Mission Australia’s information system MACSIMS was unable
to report on this split of non alliance provided services to family support clients.
Table 4: Statewide IFSS client activity, 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011
Family Support
Mission Australia
Baptcare
Totals
9
301
310
IFSS Substantive
739
746
1 485
Totals
748
1 047
1 795
IFSS Non-Substantive
Compared with the KPMG split of the 3 400 families, with 1 872 included in Levels 2-4 and 851 in
Levels 3 and 4 (IFSS), the total figure of 1 795 in the above table exceeds the KPMG modelling, and
the ‘IFSS Substantive’ of 1 485 is well above the KPMG modelling. This is a crucial and positive
outcome of the reformed service system, indicating that more than 500 families have received
intensive family support than originally envisaged. These additional 500 families have benefited from
the integrated process of assessment, allocation and collaborative case work delivered by the
reformed services.
When looking at total state-wide activity for Gateway and IFSS it is remarkable to note the service
has provided either brief or long term interventions to more than 18 000 contacts.
To manage capacity in line with demand a range of techniques are deployed. Active Holding is one
such strategy used to manage demand across the system. One of the aspects of the original request
for proposal was to require the lead agencies to have demand management strategies to cope with
periods of peak demand.
To date active holding has been used at peak times when case work capacity was fully utilised.
Further demand management strategies have been formalised and endorsed with alliance partners.
One such tool was case reviews by operational management to ensure appropriate management of
cases and best allocation of staffing resources.
Additionally, the lead agency alliance executive management structure governs this process and has
further demand management strategies and contingency plans in place should peak demand exceed
capacity at either the Gateway intake or case management.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 34
6.3 Cost
The second aspect of value for money is whether the services are being delivered within Budget and
at a reasonable cost. Funding was provided in the Tasmanian Budget based on the commercial-inconfidence and Cabinet in Confidence KPMG business case. The issue for this review, then, is to
establish whether the services have been delivered within the funding provided.
While work has progressed on the Department’s Unit Pricing and Resource Allocation Framework
to establish a unit pricing of services, the initial focus has been on the Disability Services sector.
Work has commenced on establishing a FSS unit cost however, this is yet to be finalised, due to the
requirement to articulate the impact of families presenting with complex issues; the need to often
work with multiple family members and unpredictable nature of the time required to achieve
meaningful outcomes; and how to relate the hourly unit cost to caseload and service targets.
The current funded model for IFSS and family support services is based on agreed FTE direct service
capacity with detailed budget provisions for associated service delivery costs, operating overheads
and governance fees.
Both Baptcare and Mission Australia submitted original budgets that were within the available
funding, and provided the rationale for their budgets consistent with their respective service and
business models.
Neither has requested or required budget supplementation to deliver the services at the levels
specified in the RFP.
Baptcare, in their review report note that for the 2009-10 financial year, the Department’s total
expenditure on child protection services, including casework and out-of-home care was $52.8M
(child protection $20M, out of home care $32.8M) compared to $4.1M for IFSS.11
In fact, then, the Department is receiving a higher level of service for the funding provided than was
modelled. On a cost basis the services are exceeding the value for money expectation of the RFP.
The success of this early intervention approach is in delivering improved outcomes to clients and as
a result is reducing future costs to government.
6.4 Service quality
All funded services are required to comply with the Department’s Quality and Safety framework.
This framework includes the following generic standards:

safe environment

consumer focus

workforce

incidents and feedback

consumer information

governance.
The Department’s Community Sector Quality and Safety Team analyse the quality and safety
submissions of each organisation on a holistic basis, not by the individual service types that the
organisation is funded for.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 35
In other words, if an organisation receives disability and mental health funding the analysis of the
quality and safety submission as undertaken by the Community Sector Quality and Safety Team is on
the basis of the whole organisation, and not from a disability or mental health specific perspective.
Advice from the Quality and Safety Team is that both lead agencies have met requirements.

[Baptcare and Mission Australia have independently] demonstrated engagement with the
Quality and Safety Standards Framework through the provision of timely and detailed quality
and safety submissions. [Each] organisation is up-to-date and compliant with the reporting
requirements of the Quality and Safety Standards Framework.
Baptcare has noted to this review that the Department’s Quality and Safety Framework provides it
an opportunity to enact a leading role across Alliance partners bringing a continuous improvement
approach to quality systems. Quality workshops have been held regularly, with good take-up and
application among Alliance members.12
Mission Australia and Baptcare each have a Quality Advisor who assists with compliance and attends
Contract Management meetings which are held between the respective leads and their Alliance
Partners.
The practitioner networks are also seen as a valuable feature of the model supporting quality and
continuous improvement.
6.5 Achievements
“The IFSS worker was highly professional and adaptable where my family’s needs changed.
Both the IFSS worker and the Gateway greatly benefited me and my family during a very difficult
time. Thank you, and keep up the great work.”
The review has established that the outcomes sought, activity levels, cost and quality of the services
are all meeting or exceeding the requirements of the RFPs.
The lead agencies report that implementation of the new model has provided a definitive change to
service implementation which has strengthened sector capacity. Its elements of greater
coordination, cooperation and information sharing between service providers, service and
workforce quality standards and a culture of continuous improvement are having a constitutive
effect on improving relationships and service delivery synergies. This in turn improves conditions for
clients and workers. Both agencies in submissions to this review refer to an environment where
healthy conversation is now occurring throughout the sector and between the sector and CPS.
During the second year of the model’s operation the service implemented the Disability Services
component of the Gateway. This significant reform was a Tasmanian service innovation which
required considerable resourcing and management development, being the first of its kind in
Australia. While the requirement to provide this service was included in the Gateways RFP, the
operational model and service transitioning required substantive development and implementation
with providers collaborating closely with the Department. For clients this has resulted in a fuller
service provision to families whose needs require combinations of family and disability support.
Following from this professional development and sector training provided via Gateways now
includes a disability focus, and closer worker and service collaboration has lead to a cross
fertilisation of skills.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 36
During the second year of operation both Gateway/IFSS lead agencies were also separately funded
to provide a state-wide Grandparents and other relative carers program and a Targeted Youth
Support Services (TYSS) in the SE and SW areas.
In the North and North West of the state each provider has been required to coordinate TYSS
intake without additional funding. Baptcare also implemented a Respite Activity Program. All of
these additional services are delivered through the Gateways and have further increased the scope
of services offered and thus applicability to the needs of broader client groups and complex families.
Recommendation 1
That the Gateway/IFSS model continues to be funded at current levels, noting the model is delivering value
for money, positive outcomes for children and families and is successfully diverting children from the higher
cost statutory systems of Child Protection and Out of Home care. The new model has also been successful in
strengthening the broader sector through skills development, capacity building and quality assurance
processes.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 37
7 Operational Aspects of the Service System
“My IFSS worker is a very capable and caring person. What she says she’ll do gets done quickly and
thoroughly. She is calm and really helped me get through things that needed to be attended to but I
was unable to cope with at that time.”
7.1 The Gateway Community Based Access and Assessment
Service
7.1.1 Summary of the model
A single lead agency manages the Gateway Service in each Area – Baptcare in the North and SouthWest, Mission Australia in the North-West and South-East. The primary purposes of the Gateways
were to enable system navigation, assessment, planning and coordination at the local level, through a
single easily recognised community access point; to ensure that vulnerable children, young people
and their families were linked effectively into relevant services. It was anticipated that a wider group
of families, beyond vulnerable families, would access or be referred to Gateways. Gateways were
intended to provide an important preventative role by providing advice and information to these
families, or to the professionals or organisations that may have referred them. The focus was to be
on linking or connecting families to relevant universal or secondary services that can meet their
needs.
Figure 10: Service flowchart
Individuals, Families, Service Providers, Other Services
Referrals
Area Gateway
Phone – 1800 111 222 or, walk up to ‘shop front’
Family
Screening
Support
Assessment
Targeted Assessment
One off Crisis
response
Refer to Child
Protection
Services
Targeted Assessment
One off
Pathway Home
Refer to IFSS or
EYPS
Refer to Child
Protection
Refer to
universal
services
Disability, Eligibility
and Support
Targeted Youth
Support Services
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
response
Refer to Local
Area Coord
and/or specialist
Disability Svc
Refer to
universal
services
Page 38
The Gateways perform various functions for children, young people and families who require
support at various stages. This includes:

a visible and transparent point of entry, assessment, planning and prioritisation and allocation to
the IFSS, Disability Services and a referral point for other services

consultation and a joint level of interaction between CPS and the Gateway. The CBCPTL will
be instrumental in this interaction

information and advice, including:


o
informing individuals and referring agencies about services and programs, service and
program eligibility and referral processes for Gateways and IFSS
o
providing information about universal and specialist services.
intake, assessment, planning and prioritisation of client need:
o
undertaking an assessment within reasonable timeframes
o
consulting with other professionals regarding needs and risks, and the appropriate responses
o
facilitating demand management
o
active engagement with the child, young person and their family
o
capacity for the provision of immediate responses through the Gateway, involving short
term or brief contact with the child, young person and their family before allocation to
casework provided by FSS or referral to another agency and/or brief or short term contact
provided after completion of longer term case work by IFSS.
data collection, including key information to support:
o
IFSS access and performance
o
regional planning, i.e. difficulties experienced in terms of referral/access – such as system
capacity issues and system gaps, including a lack of early intervention services
o
early intervention
o
identification of Culturally and Linguistically Diverse (CALD) status.
The consistent approach to intake and assessment and planning through the Gateways relies upon
the commitment from service providers to continually monitor and improve the intake and
assessment processes for referred families by using the Common Assessment Framework (CAF).
The CAF supports usage of common language that has the same definitions and interpretations to
ensure sound decision making. Additionally, it provides the framework for sharing information and a
strong process with defined decision making and communication points between the different
services.
7.1.2 Information sharing
This issue is addressed first as it establishes the foundation on which discussion and findings in
relation to a number of aspects of the model and practice are based.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 39
As noted above, there exists a range of views and dynamics on how agencies work together and
share information in relation to children and their families. This ranges from an open sharing, based
on professional and respectful joint concern for the outcomes for the child(ren) and families, to an
arm’s length sharing only with parental permission where deemed necessary approach, driven by a
view that information held by the service provider is confidential between it and the family.
There is a need to ensure a shared understanding of the intent and authority established by the
2009 amendments to the (CYPF Act) which provides, inter alia, definitions of information sharing
entities encapsulating all services interacting with DHHS funded services (such as Gateway); and
associated responsibilities around providing safety and welfare information about persons of interest
associated with management of the case. The information sharing entity and object extracts from
the Act are included here as Appendix B.
Implications from the Act include that CPS may provide, or require to be provided, information in
relation to a relevant person (child/parent/significant other) by every organisation that receives a
referral from the Gateway or CPS. Thus any Gateway/IFSS may provide information in relation to a
relevant person (child/parent/significant other) to either CPS or another service provider.
The purpose of sharing information must, of course, be consistent with the Object of the CYPF Act.
This is to provide for the care and protection of children in a manner that maximises a child's
opportunity to grow up in a safe and stable environment and to reach his or her full potential.
It is clear, when drawing together the Object and the provisions in relation to sharing information
between all information sharing entities that it provides the framework, authority and expectation
that information will willingly and pro-actively be provided in the best interests of the safety, welfare
or wellbeing of a relevant person. Further work is planned to assist agencies and service providers
to understand the intent and objects of the CYPF Act and how it applies across and within service
sectors.
The information sharing framework links to service evaluation and service provision. The
effectiveness of services and programs offered by DHHS is evaluated through measuring improved
outcomes for clients. However this can only be achieved when identifiable information is provided
to DHHS for validation, matching and analysis.
Nationally and at the state level, adoption of collaborative and integrated approaches to the
management of service provision and sharing client related information is being promoted. A
collaborative approach is needed to support shared clients, whereby seamless client-centred
services can be planned and provided. Future work in this space is required to understand how it
links with privacy and national best-practice standards.
Recommendation 2
Clear and concise information about the information sharing intent and service expectations of the
Parliament, Minister and Secretary should be developed in order to ensure that information sharing entities,
including referrers, Gateway/FSS providers and services working with families referred by CPS or Gateways
act in accordance with the CYPF Act, taking into account national standards and best practice in this area.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 40
Recommendation 3
Funding Agreements for provision of such services should be explicit about the legislative provisions in place
to support information sharing. A working party should be established to examine the best way forward in
line with national standards and best practice.
7.1.3 Community Referrals to the Gateway
Community referrers to the Gateway consistently reported that the 1800 number worked well,
with no delays or issues contacting the Gateways and being able to make a referral. The general
view was that the Gateway workers presented competently and were receiving and confirming the
issues of concern well.
Only one service provider in the North had a significantly different view, which may reflect
particular expectations of the way the Gateway should respond to their concerns about a child or
parent. The consistent view of all other forum participants suggests this was an isolated view.
There was, however, a consistent view expressed that referrers rarely heard back on the outcome
of their referral as it was progressed via Gateway/IFSS, and that this could leave them uncertain
about whether family support was being provided, and if so by whom. This left some in doubt as to
whether they could treat the issues as having been picked up, or should maintain some role in
relation to the family. It was also seen to limit their capacity to link/work with a family support
provider in their relationship with the child or parents/carers.
Providers report case note evidence within the Gateway’s does not support this assertion. Each of
the Gateways also cited protocols were in place for staff to ensure that professional referral sources
that have an ongoing relationship with the family are given feedback about the outcome of the
referral and a process to follow up for further information. It was noted however, that at times it
was inappropriate to provide referral outcome information to community referrals such as those
from neighbours, friends and family.
One on one discussion with key stakeholders including Departments of Education (DOE) and Police
revealed different approaches and perceptions across the areas. While this was generally positive,
there was clear feedback that in the early stages referrers had varied experiences, with teachers and
learning services staff in a couple of areas preferring to refer directly to CPS. The view was,
however, that the system had since matured significantly, but further work could be done on the
assessment and decisions to either refer out or not move to allocation.
There was consistent consultation comment that the referral in process from the community was
generally working effectively. Some sectors, such as DOE, had unclear views about the role of the
Gateway vis-à-vis the role of Child Protection, and when to refer where. Some areas expressed a
preference to always refer to CPS, others refer to both, and overall some external agencies were
not clear about whether they wanted to refer or notify.
For many people in the community there exists a lack of clarity about what the Gateway is and what
its functions are (and aren’t), so that often during consultations it was clear that discussion was in
relation to a Family Support Service provider, but the language used was ‘Gateway’.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 41
Lead agencies also pointed to a change in focus in promoting the Gateway which has moved to
common signage for Gateways. This will provide a basis for improved visibility of the Gateway in
settings where prescribed persons, concerned family and friends; and concerned members of the
community receive a single, consistent message from an integrated communication strategy. There
were suggestions, for example, that better information (posters, pamphlets) could be widely
distributed for, e.g., Staff Rooms in schools.
Recommendation 4
Lead Agencies, with input from Child Protection Services and Disability and Community Services, should
prioritise an integrated community information and education strategy which includes:
• strategies and supporting material for the general population promoting a single ‘Gateway’ concept
• targeted information and education developed and provided to key stakeholders/referrers.
The Department could also improve the way it provides information to the community so as to
promote a clear pathway to the Gateways as the primary access point for family support, that
referrals should only be made to CPS where there is a clear risk to a child, and that refers will meet
their mandated requirement regardless of which entry point they use.
Review of the DHHS Website reveals that a person concerned for a child’s welfare using the Find a
Service path, the specific term Family Support was not listed, and when searching the term Children
and Families for an area (e.g. North) Gateway was the 10th listed service, while Family Planning was
the first. Similar confusion arises when using the ‘Services’ tab, which leads to a Children and Families
link, with Gateways well down an alphabetical listing of ~150 services.
Recommendation 5
CPS and DCS, in consultation with Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, revise the DHHS website to give increased
prominence to Family Support and the Gateway Services, including a clear pathway for users to find it.
There was consistent comment across the stakeholder forums, one on one meetings and online
survey that there was a lack of feedback to some referrers about the action taken in response to
their concern. With the fundamental underpinnings of the reforms including better coordination and
integration of services and ensuring children and families do not fall through gaps, there could be
improvements made here.
It was a great strength of the change in relationships achieved via the reforms that many referrers
were raising this issue out of concern for improving the outcomes for the child. The concern
expressed as part of the review related to confirmation of a referral being accepted and was not a
comment on the quality of services provided.
It is important to again acknowledge that both lead agencies confirm that protocols for feedback to
referrers (where appropriate) are in place for Gateways, and in many cases this does happen during
support, particularly where there are established working relationships at a local level.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 42
For the Gateway/IFSS model and further to the context of the information sharing discussion above,
the process should consistently establish from the referrer their role in relation to the referee and
establish whether advice back on action taken is appropriate to be provided. Where that is
established, the process should be robust to ensure it occurs.
Recommendation 6
A joint review of protocols for establishing feedback expectations, the appropriateness and method should be
conducted into the Gateway intake, assessment and referral processes; and explored for further integration
with Child Protection Services processes.
7.1.4 Child Protection Services Referrals to the Gateway
Feedback at the forums was that this referral pathway was sometimes less straightforward. The
issues highlighted during the consultation discussions included that:

the effectiveness of the referral process was very dependent on the Community Based Child
Protection Team Leader (CBCPTL) and worked well where the CBCPTL gets involved in and
facilitates the referrals, but

there was complexity, and inconsistency in the way information relevant to the referral was
passed between CPS and Gateway, with

o
CPS workers feeling frustrated at the comprehensive nature of the CAF requiring
transcription of information from case notes and CPIS
o
Gateway workers frustrated at not receiving all relevant information necessary to facilitate
assessment and preparation for allocation (or in a small number of cases, referral back to
CPS)
both CPS and Gateway workers reported that this led to some tensions and misunderstandings
such as Gateway requests for further information being interpreted by CPS as ‘push back’ or
attempts to refuse to take the referral.
In one on one meetings with CPS, it was possible to deal much more specifically in relation to the
experience of the CBCPTL and the interface between CPS and the Gateway/IFSS. From these
meetings it was apparent that:

different practices, existing cultures and assumptions have contributed to identified differences
in the level of collaboration across regions. Where the CBCPTL was seen as an out-posted arm
of CPS with a ‘gate keeping’ and ‘vetting for CPS’ role the relationship was more structured and
kept at arm’s length. Where the worker was seen as an equal partner, working collaboratively
with Gateway workers, there was a more integrated approach and joint responsibility and
ownership for decisions in relation to cases and families.

following on from the previous point, there was variation in sharing of information in relation to
families, with
o
the former having limited access to information, strictly provided with information sought
where ‘need to know’ was demonstrated, while
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 43
o
in the closer collaborative approach, there was a view that CBCPTL could have shared
access to information in relation to the family.
The intention for the CBCPTL was to be a resource for Gateways as well as a conduit between the
diversionary and statutory service systems. The role was collocated to ensure on-the-ground
collaboration and shared ownership of decisions about case management to support the progression
of families through each system. Thus from the above examples of practice variance it was agreed
that the preferred approach, for client outcomes as well as service integration appropriate to the
model, was one of increased collaboration, open and appropriate information sharing and joint case
ownership where required.
In the online survey, 51.6 per cent of direct service workers agreed/strongly agreed that the referral
process from CPS to the Gateway was working well, with 33.0 per cent disagreeing/strongly
disagreeing. Those expressing dissatisfaction were consistent across the various consultation
processes, identifying issues including time delays, no feedback coming back to the referrer, making
referrals to Gateway but being told the client did not fit FSS criteria despite CPS concerns of stress
and possible mental health issues. It was also raised that the process involved could be intimidating
and difficult for those with lower literacy and confidence.
This minority feedback was countered by strong positive comments that making contact with the
Gateways was easy, direct and most often helpful. The 1800 number was exemplified as an ‘easy and
efficient’ method of obtaining a service response and ‘establishing contact with helpful staff’. There
were some who reported particular negative experiences, but acknowledged this was balanced by
other positive interactions and experiences.
There was general agreement that the referral process between CPS and Gateways/IFSS could be
more efficiently managed. The objectives here are to:

maintain the integrity of the objective assessment processes so that there is equity in priority of
access and so that services are tailored to families

minimise the extent to which process makes effective referral and transfer more difficult

ensure relevant information held by ether CPS or Gateway/FSS is readily accessed and made
available between information sharing entities.
CYS Information Services are aware of the issue and are currently in the process of developing
capacity to select and download CPIS held information so that it is available to Gateway/IFSS
assessment and caseworker staff. However, it is not clear which stakeholders are engaged in the
development and implementation of this system enhancement and how it relates to the CAF that is
required to be used by Gateway staff.
Recommendation 7
That it is noted that the Community Based Child Protection Team Leader position is integral to the model
and should remain and be strengthened to ensure success of the model at both an operational and systems
structural level.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 44
Recommendation 8
The enhancements to the Child Protection Information System to facilitate case information sharing between
CPS, Gateways and other information sharing entities should be progressed as a priority
A representative key stakeholder group should be established including Gateway Management, Community
Based Child Protection Team Leaders, and CPS managers to guide development of the enhancements and to
ensure an optimum solution for all stakeholders is developed.
7.1.5 Gateway/IFSS referrals to Child Protection Services
The online survey was not structured to receive responses in relation to this specific flow, so
commentary here is based on feedback from the forums and from one-on-one meetings with CPS,
CBCPTLs and Lead Agency managers.
The consistent view was that this is a flow/interaction between Gateway/IFSS and CPS that is
disparate and varied.
The review heard it was essential to recruit CPS workers with knowledge and skills about the
reform to the CBCPTL role, and that they were provided with good supervision. The key duties of
the role require systematic review to ensure consistency of approach across regions.
In areas where there was a well developed, joint approach to assessing risk and issues in relation to
parenting skills and family functioning, CPTLs identified good practice as a model in which proposed
referrals to CPS were subject to a case review involving the Gateway, CBCPTL, other services (eg
DOE learning services) and that this had resulted in most cases not being referred. Those cases that
were had clearly identified issues for attention by CPS.
There was also varied practice in the way Gateway/IFSS refer cases to CPS. It was evident that for
those that were assessed as inappropriate for family support, or were seen as push-back by CPS, the
pathway had bypassed the CBCPTL role. CBCPTL’s view was that where they were involved, as
with referrals from CPS to Gateway, appropriateness of referral to CPS can be readily resolved,
with one region citing a local area network triage process as very effective.
Recommendation 9
Statewide consistent practice involving the Community Based Child Protection Team Leader should be
followed in Gateways/IFSS, including formalisation of a referral protocol for proposed referrals between CPS
and Gateway, which is consistent with the model and includes provision for a case review where there is
dispute.
7.1.6 The Common Assessment Framework
Consultation comment from the Forums was from two perspectives:

workers within the Gateways who, while agreeing the necessity for a consistent comprehensive
and structured screen and detailed assessment, continue to find the current format repetitive,
not easy to navigate and time consuming
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 45

CPS workers who, as noted in 7.1.4 above, found the need to complete the CAF Tool
laborious, repetitive, and not necessarily helpful in sharing the key information and issues
relevant to the referral.
Lead agency comment included that the RFP specification and the Funding Agreement with the
Gateway providers require them to use the tool(s) specified by the Department and that this was
the practice being followed.
However, in the Baptcare report13 the position put was that Baptcare had used the tool but worked
around gaps by adding elements. The Baptcare report was also critical of the delay in the
Department acting on proposed modifications to the tool.
The online survey indicated that 35 per cent of respondents did not think the tool was working well,
but 37 per cent thought it was, with the remaining 28 per cent neutral. Comments from
respondents were consistent with the points above, with those positive about the tool recognising
it is a useful comprehensive and uniform approach, but those unhappy commenting on some gaps,
on repetition and time taken to complete. CPS respondents again noted the requirement to
complete the tool when they were already engaged with a family, had applied Signs of Safety and the
Tasmanian Risk Framework. Lead agencies noted the CAF was intended to assess the entire family,
where as the focus of CPS intake and assessment was the child, hence the need for a broader family
based comprehensive assessment once referrals were received at Gateway.
This core Gateway function is clearly being carried out effectively. The information provided
reflects a well-developed and functioning model. The clear issues of frustration were:

use of the currently deployed CAF Tool

effective and efficient ways of referring families by key services, principally the CPS, but also
CHAPS and DOE Learning Services.
The revised CAF for Family Support has been developed for some time, but was dependent on the
development of the tool for the detailed Disability Support assessment and associated Information
Technology requirements before being finalised. The revised tool was released in mid December
2011.
Recommendation 10
The revised, integrated and automated Common Assessment Framework tool should be implemented in the
Gateways as a matter of urgency as soon as logistics are arranged with the Gateway/IFSS lead agencies.
Gateway/IFSS lead agency managers, CPS managers and DCS should complete a post implementation
review of the revised CAF to ensure it is as well tuned and efficient to use within 3 months of its deployment.
7.1.7 Timeliness and Completion of Assessments
Comment from the forums was that most referrals have assessments completed within 5-7 working
days, and therefore, if assessed as appropriate for allocation, would be at the Weekly Allocation
Meeting (WAM) within a fortnight of initial referral. Gateways cited exceptions to this including
hard-to-engage families and occasionally rural/remote families.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 46
Baptcare reports that the average length of time from first contact to completion of the targeted
assessment is 2-3 days, and to a maximum of two weeks to allocation.14 This indicates a total time
of 16-17 days. Mission Australia reports that the average time in the North-West Gateway was 15
days15 and for the South-East 17.5 days16.
Advice from program managers was that while most families do have assessments completed in 5-7
working days (which could be 7-11 calendar days), the requirement in the service model for
assertive outreach and pursuing strategies to engage resistant families, combined with rural/remote
access, results in the average time reported.
Mission Australia reports that in the South East, 98 per cent of exits from intake were planned17 and
in the North West it was 99.8 per cent18.
There was some concern expressed from CPS that some families which declined to engage were
being closed when more assertive practice could have been followed, which seems to be more of
concern for areas where the working relationship with the CBCPTL was less developed.
Baptcare reports that only 3 per cent of referrals did not engage in the North, but a significantly
higher 13 per cent did not in the South-West19.
However, both lead agencies report that this has developed in consultation with CPS and the
CBCPTL and both support further developing the collaborative model. There isn’t an analysis
available of those families which are not known to CPS but are referred to Gateway and
subsequently decline to engage.
The other identified area for development was the resolution of the assessment. There is
opportunity and a clear need to better close the loop in relation to:
 community referrals in relation to the outcome for the referee and sharing this information with
the referrer where appropriate
 explicit steps to close or No Further Action (NFA) a case so that it is clear either the referral;
o
was inappropriate because it is explicitly established that there are no concerns for a child
o
was appropriate and appropriate engagement and assessment strategies have been carried
through resulting in referral out, referral to CPS or referral to a family support service, or
o
could not be acted on because of inability to engage the referee and that all reasonable
steps consistent with the referral risk issues have been taken. In this instance, there
should be CBCPTL involvement before closure, if this is a CPS client.
It should be noted that the Gateway and family support services provide a voluntary service and that
there is a fine balance between active, assertive engagement strategies designed to gain a families
trust and been seen as harassing an individual. The lead agencies and their alliance partners have
developed a protocol to ensure that where there is a case closure due to non-engagement and the
various attempts have been made in this space they are well documented.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 47
Recommendation 11
Consistent practice guidelines including structured case closure and advice to referrer have been developed
by Gateway/IFSS lead agencies and Alliance partners, and could usefully be revisited in consultation with
Children and Youth Services.
Appropriate protocols should be in place where families fail to engage, so that any risk to a child is mitigated.
7.1.8 The allocation process (Weekly Allocation Meetings)
There was strong, consistent support for this process across the state, with the North-West in
particular demonstrating strong support in the stakeholder forums. Although in the early days there
were very mixed views, it was apparent that this process has matured and was now embedded as a
key element of the model.
The online survey also reflected support for the allocation process, with only 16 per cent of
respondents disagreeing that the process was working well, 52 per cent agreeing and strongly
agreeing, and 32 per cent neither agreeing nor disagreeing. Perhaps the clearest factor here was in
those with strong views; 3 per cent strongly disagreed, while 19 per cent strongly agreed.
There is a small minority of service providers who maintain continuing concerns that personal
information about individuals and families is ‘shared’ at the Weekly Allocation Meeting. Comments
in the online survey reflected sensitivity at maintaining dignity of families, redundant sharing of
information with services that cannot provide capacity and the possibility that information shared
may go beyond that necessary to address the presenting issues.
The alternative views expressed included that the WAMs were well chaired and managed, that case
discussion was respectful and conducted only among qualified professionals, and that there was
often opportunity to contribute to case practice (particularly in relation to resistance to engage and
understanding the full picture of family issues including for siblings and significant others).
In the North West there was a shared view that the WAM was a forum which allowed peer/
professional practice to develop and be maintained.
Stakeholder forums did identify that there were limitations on matching families to the best fit
service, a factor of available capacity at the time of allocation and of regional and remote access.
There was some discussion, for example, in the Northern forum about the geographic realities for
the far North East and for Glamorgan/Spring Bay with most services centred in Launceston.
Recommendation 12
The best functioning aspects of Weekly Allocation Meetings around the state should be reviewed and
developed into a best practice model in line with the Action Learning processes underpinning the service
model.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 48
7.2 Family Support Services
“I felt like I was such a bad parent, I was just overwhelmed all the time. [My worker] helped me
work through a range of strategies that helped me see that I could do it. For the first time I don’t
feel criticised or judged and I feel supported...”
7.2.1 Summary
The Operational Framework for Family Support Services provides for varying degrees of support
ranging from low to high intensity, varying length of service/intervention required and a vast range of
complexity levels within the three approaches. This was envisaged to be matched to the individual
circumstances of the family, and there was a recognition that some clients would likely move
between the approaches during the course of their service engagement.

Approach One
o

Approach Two
o

Information, advice, assessment and planning, including support; and one-off, episodic brief
intervention. Shorter term work that may include short term case work and /or referral to
support services or statutory system.
Medium level support comprising case work and case management interventions, including
secondary consultations and referral to support services.
Approach Three
o
Medium to high level support, comprising medium to intensive level case management; and
case work interventions.
This includes the promotion of the Gateways as a highly visible point of access and assessment for
families (that don’t meet the statutory level for Child Protection) and may otherwise be referred to
CPS in order to receive support services. Service providers must also work closely with CPS to
manage the process of referral from CPS to the Gateway.
Early Years Parenting Support/Family Futures (EYPS/FF) is a program funded by the DHHS for family
support during the Early Years, 0 – 5. The program comprises the New Parent Infant Network
(NEWPIN) and Pregnancy and Young Parent Support (PYPS). Services are delivered locally in each
area, providing targeted therapeutic module based approaches for vulnerable families with children
0-5 years of age, including unborn children, with access via the Gateway services.
EYPS/FF programs are therapeutic, module-based approaches addressing core life skills from
strength-based approaches. These services complement but are not substitutions for dedicated IFSS.
NEWPIN is an intensive therapeutic program, working with the parents and children, in order to
educate, support, improve and practise the parenting skills in the family unit. The full program takes
approximately 18 months to complete, and is intensive and challenging to both parents and workers.
However program success is evidenced by past program evaluations finding that 6 months in the
NEWPIN program all participant parents achieve lasting change in terms of their self esteem and
confidence.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 49
PYPS is also an outreach program, and works with pregnant and young mums up to age 25. PYPS
offers education, support and skill development across all areas, including pregnancy and birth,
nutrition and health, family relationships, return to education, child development, baby clothing and
equipment, housing and advocacy.
In some cases where a family is engaged with an EYPS/FF therapeutic program, the co-delivery of
IFSS services at same time may not be productive. Care questions considering the capacity of the
family to adapt to multiple programs being delivered, often while the circumstance that prompted
notification are still in play, need to be considered from the family’s perspective. IFSS services
consulted were mindful of a need to work closely with EYPS/FF services to ensure streamlining of
services delivered. Due to the formal structure of the WAMs, this work may need to occur outside
of the WAM if EYPS/FF workers were not already at the table.
The Family Support Services approach was formulated on the basis that effective responses to the
complex and diverse needs of vulnerable families require the following characteristics:

a network of coordinated community-based services, including CPS, FSS, Health, Justice,
Housing and Education

new services being integrated with existing services rather than added on as a separate layer of
service provision

a range of low, medium and high intensity services, capable of delivering comprehensive, flexible
services that respond to families’ needs

the provision of sustained, enduring support to families that have chronic long term needs

an approach to service delivery incorporating:

o
active engagement with families through assertive outreach
o
capacity to work with hard to engage families displaying resistance and denial
o
a focus on working with parents to address their children’s needs, and
trained, professional, experienced staff with a high level of interpersonal skills.
The key requirements of the new service approach set out in the RFP20 and re-stated with some
additional commentary in the Family Support Operational Framework21 are italicised in the following
sections, with commentary on stakeholders’ perspective as gathered during the review process.
7.2.2 Assertive outreach
Some families eligible to receive the service may not respond to traditional client engagement
methods such as letters of invitation to attend an office appointment. A capacity to engage with
families through visits to families in their own home or other community based locations is essential.
A key element of assertive outreach is to formulate strategies that will engage difficult and nonresponsive families. In some instances this will include accompanying Child Protection Services
workers on home visits to newly referred families.
Comment from the forums and the online survey provided a general view that this was happening as
an integral component of the model, but that there were cases where this had not occurred.
Consultation with CPS managers cited cases, and there were some examples in the desktop review.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 50
The suggestion was that this was more likely to be an issue for smaller alliance partners or referred
services than the lead agencies.
However, there were also several examples from the desktop reviews where there were clearly a
range of strategies used in an effort to engage families. The commentary and recommendation in
relation to case closure for non-engagement also applies here.
7.2.3 Capacity to commit with hard to engage and resistant families
Current knowledge indicates that many families re-notified to CPS are often unable to engage with
the available support services. Some families may display an unwillingness to acknowledge the
range and extent of problems, some may minimise family difficulties once the initial crisis has
passed, and some may simply resent the involvement of a service. While the services to be offered
ultimately depend upon family consent, services must display a willingness to persevere with
strategies to engage with resistant or reluctant families. This is particularly likely to occur in
situations where the family’s circumstances suggest that disengagement from the service may lead
to further future notifications to CPS. Where this appears likely to happen, the reinvolvement of
CBCPTL may assist in preventing a CPS notification and intervention.
Commentary in relation to this aspect is similar to that for 7.2.1, with a large number of cases cited
where this has occurred with positive outcomes for the families and children.
However, the Desktop Review found inconsistent practice and areas for improvement.

There were potential issues where families disengage after initial agreement, and where they do
engage but are not able to create change. The report back that the family has engaged does not
necessarily address the success of the engagement. A small number of cases were noted where
the family disengaged from Gateway Services after a period but where there was no record of
CPS being informed of this.

There was variation in the level of active and assertive engagement by IFSS, mostly noted around
some of the smaller agencies. While, in the majority of cases, engagement appeared to be
strongly pursued there were a small number of cases where attempts to engage appeared to be
minimal – such as a single phone call.

Referral by Gateway to third party agencies outside regional alliances made tracking the success
of some cases unreliable. In one matter the case was handed to a third agency and recorded as
successfully concluded even though the family had yet to demonstrate achieving the original
goals of intervention. There may be a need for greater clarity of tracking of cases that have
originated with Child Protection concerns and of the definition of ‘successful’ engagement.

In some matters cases were closed too quickly by CPS – not waiting for, or seeking/receiving,
information about Gateway allocation / acceptance / engagement. This has resulted in renotifications.

It was often difficult to assess why families disengaged, as little information made it into CPIS.
The review report makes the following recommendations (inter alia):

it would be of benefit to find opportunities for joint reviews of cases with a view to identifying
ways of enhancing joint practice
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 51

there may be a need for further training for IFSS workers in relation to the need for more
assertive outreach in cases where CPS concerns have been identified.
Recommendation 13
The Gateway/IFSS lead agencies and CPS should review the findings and recommendations of the Desktop
Review Report with a view to incorporating these findings and recommendations for good practice
consistently across the state.
Baptcare notes collaborative family visits including the CBCPTL as very effective in that in many
cases involving both parties they have been able to stay engaged with high-risk families over a period
of weeks where previously they may have been referred back to the statutory system, providing full
IFSS supports and assisting a family to develop more protective factors22.
However, there are limits to the extent this can be pursued, and Baptcare notes that, within the
desktop reviews, there were several cases where high risk families who had historically been hard to
engage agreed to IFSS when CPS became involved. However, despite all efforts by CPS and IFSS
when CPS closed the case, those families ceased their engagement with IFSS.
Recommendation 14
Child Protection Services and Gateway/IFSS lead agencies should ensure that the Community Based Child
Protection Team Leader is involved in a case review with the Family Support Service provider to discuss
strategies that may encourage and maintain engagement, and appropriate protocols should be in place
where families fail to engage, so that any risk to a child is mitigated.
7.2.4 Ongoing Outreach
A significant proportion of referred families may have very limited financial means, may have limited
access to public transport and/or may have child care responsibilities. For many of these families,
traditional, appointment based, prescribed therapeutic models are unlikely to meet their needs or
requirements. A significant majority of client contacts must therefore occur in the client’s own home
and be highly practical in nature.
The definition of outreach utilised here also encompasses the need to conduct an environmental
scan to gain a greater understanding of a families situation, and to role model change practices in
their natural environment where they can apply the learning’s rather than in an office environment.
There was good evidence that this is occurring, and the feedback from clients provided in the
Mission Australia and Baptcare reports reflect this practice. Anecdotally, lead agency program
managers reported that ’field work’ constituted the majority of workers’ time, and both parties
expressed a concern that the travel time involved in supporting this was under-stated, particularly
given the dispersed Tasmanian population.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 52
7.2.5 Intake and Assessment
The consistent approach to intake and initial assessment and planning through Gateway Services
relies upon the commitment from service providers to continually monitor and improve the intake
and initial assessment processes for referred families by using the Common Assessment Framework.
This includes the promotion of the Gateways as a highly visible point of access and assessment for
families (that don’t meet the statutory level for Child Protection Services) and may otherwise be
referred to CPS in order to receive support services. Service providers must work closely with Child
Protection Services to manage the process of referral from Child Protection Services to the Gateway
and then through to Integrated Family Support Service providers.
This is covered by discussion for 7.1.5 above.
7.2.6 Case Management
Integrated Family Support Services provide a case managed approach, based on initial and/or
ongoing assessments. Components of the case management role include:






Case Planning
regular case review
supporting parents/families to access services and the coordination of involved services best
suited to their needs
supporting parents/families to build formal and informal networks within their community
that will increase their capacity, resilience and sustainability
referral as required
delivery of casework services.
The case management and reporting information is generated by worker recording of casework
practice undertaken and the consistent picture, including from the desk-top review was that a
casework approach was being consistently followed across services.
This is in fact established by the CAF and allocation process which establishes a systematic case
management foundation.
Case management challenges appear to be more around the availability of and access to other
services, particularly specialist community services such as Drug and Alcohol and Mental Health.
The services which had the highest negative response to the question ‘Please rate FSS working
relationships with other services’ were Mental Health at 37 per cent, Drug and Alcohol at 21
per cent and Therapeutic Services at 20 per cent.
On the other hand, looking at responses rating the service relationship as good or excellent at 60
per cent or better, Mental Health received 60 per cent (perhaps recognising service capacity issues),
CHAPS 73 per cent, EYPS 76 per cent, Sexual Assault Support Services (SASS) 65 per cent,
Disability Services 61 per cent, TYSS 65 per cent, Family Violence 65 per cent, and Police 62
per cent.
This does pose the issue for Government about the whole service system being in balance. In the
stakeholder forums, family support service workers did express frustration at the lack of access to
specialist services and were concerned that this compromised their work. For example, trying to
work on household management with a parent who needs treatment for depression had limited
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 53
chance of progress, and trying to support the client takes workers into areas they were not qualified
or trained to address.
Recommendation 15
Further work should be commissioned to provide a more complete picture of the inter-relationships in the
service system and to provide directions for improving service coordination.
Supporting parents/families to build formal and informal networks within their community that will
increase their capacity, resilience and sustainability received strong positive feedback in the 3p
Consulting client survey, with parents saying they now understood the support options available and
felt comfortable accessing them.
The Tasmania Association of Community Houses (TACH) did provide comment on linking families
into its community based networks. This is discussed at 7.2.16 below.
7.2.7 Casework
Integrated Family Support Services provide a casework service to families assessed as requiring this
support. This is a move away from a throughput model of service intervention, to one that reflects
the complex and evolving needs of vulnerable families. Casework may include a range of activities
such as group work, practical support, counselling and mediation.
7.2.8 Practical Support and Skills Development
This is a critical element of casework services, particularly for families that are repeatedly notified to
Child Protection Services. The basic physiological and personal safety/security needs of a significant
proportion of these families are not adequately met. For such families, traditional, therapeutic
counselling based approaches are unlikely to lead to positive change. Therefore a key focus involves
providing sound, practical support and teaching skills that assist families to maintain their basic
needs. This will often require a thorough assessment of parenting skills, identification of deficits and
implementation of skills, training or other supports to achieve and then maintain required goals. A
critical element of this work is the ability to provide open and honest feedback to families in relation
to skill deficits and the resultant risks to health, development and well being of children.
Mission Australia reported the top five identified needs, noting that for the North-West the major
support need was parenting and caring for children, compared to 27 per cent in the South-East. In
the South-East 26.6 per cent of all referrals required more practical support around household
management compared to 17 per cent in the North-West.
Baptcare reported that its client families predominantly have multiple concurrent issues. Mental
health issues, parenting skills, behaviour management and family violence are consistently highly
reported across both the North and South West Gateway. Some regional divergences are
noteworthy:
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 54


The South Western area experiences a higher number of people presenting with pregnancy
concerns, and this does not occur to such an extent in the North. The provider noted this
was potentially due to that Gateway’s strong relationship with the Royal Hobart Hospital
high-risk antenatal service, but there not being a correlating service in the North.
The North area experiences a higher reported rate of people presenting with mental health
issues. The provider noted this may be due a lack of access to mental health services across
that region.
This demonstrates that these practical aspects are well represented in the work of the FSS.
Additionally, the self-reported personal and parental achievements reported in the client experience
interviews gave a clear response on parenting skills. Following IFSS engagement virtually all clients
said they:





ensured the house was kept clean
prepared nutritious meals
enjoyed being a parent
had a better relationship with their children
had a loving relationship with their children.23
7.2.9 Action Learning / Action Research
Development of a quality culture with continual improvement processes in place was identified as a
key component of the reforms. The key required elements of a quality culture identified by KPMG
were:

Ensuring the best interests of children and young people are at the centre of all decision making,
planning, development and delivery of services;

Continuous improvement in service delivery and responses to the needs of children and young
people;

Leadership that promotes and is supportive of developments that improve outcomes for
children and young people, including innovation and flexibility; and that

Everyone, including stakeholders and the wider community, recognises their role in promoting
quality and supporting continuous improvement processes in terms of service responses,
effectiveness and outcomes for children.
DLA Piper were engaged to progress the issues relating to a quality culture by providing:

High quality action research, and action learning practice capability to embed ways of working in
services; and

A contemporary set of resources and methodologies for applying action research and action
learning to the delivery of human services in Tasmania.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 55
The project commenced in June 2009 and will conclude in March 2012. It includes development and
support for Learning Circles in each area of the state with 6-monthly state-wide forums to review
progress and to share learnings from the circles and process. DLA Piper provided a structured
program for the circles and forums and this has been carried through, with some minor timing
adjustments initiated by the Department or jointly agreed. A Tool Kit, developed in conjunction with
circle participants has also been developed and delivered.
Participants have included:

Gateway Services

Family Support Services involved in the Alliances

Community Based Child Protection Team Leaders

Community Partnership Teams

Disability Support Services (since later 2010).
There were good examples of effective application of the approach, including development of
collaborative work practice between the CBCPTL and Gateway/IFSS staff in the North West and
innovative approaches to community issues and service development with young people on the
West Coast.
However, there were issues raised which affected the success of the process in some other areas,
including:

some issues early in the project with process to ensure issues for inquiry were scoped
appropriately and had the support of management within the affected agency

the need to ensure directions of learning circles were congruent with the service model,
with one instance drawn to attention which sought to simplify needs assessment when a
comprehensive, consistent approach to needs assessment was integral to the model

lack of continuity of membership and participation is some circles compromising progress
and shared learning.
The lead agencies have also identified their own organisational approaches to quality and continuous
improvement, discussed in this Report at 7.6.2 and the general view was that while the project has
been useful, take-up and active participation has been varied and this has compromised the original
intent.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 56
7.2.10 Sustained, Enduring Support
A proportion of eligible families may have family or individual characteristics of a long term, chronic
nature, such as, inter-generational patterns of family vulnerability, child abuse or neglect, health or
mental health conditions, intellectual disability, poor financial management, drug and alcohol misuse
and family violence. Such families are far more likely to experience repeat and multiple referrals to
Child Protection Services. A capacity to undertake crisis work through to long-term support work
with families exhibiting these characteristics is an important component of integrated services.
This was a significant change on introduction of the IFSS model. The previous Early Support Program
had been time-limited to <3 months. Baptcare notes that there is a trade-off here with system
capacity limited by longer term engagements, when capacity relies on case closures. That
organisation has implemented regular case reviews, especially for these longer-term cases,
undertaken at the WAMs24. Baptcare reports the following data on the duration of its client’s
service engagement25:
Figure 11: Baptcare IFSS Service Period (to closure)
North
South West
This profile demonstrates that the requirement to work with families for as long as required
(provided case goals are being progressed) is being met.
7.2.11 Brokerage
An element for ensuring responsive and innovative approaches to tailoring services and achieving
sustainable change in individual and family functioning is the use of brokerage funds. These might be
used for purposes such as:

purchase of a specific service capacity from an individual or service provider to meet identified client
need. This could be in the form of single client focussed interventions (for example, a series of
counselling sessions or enrolment fees for a TAFE [sic] course)

purchase of respite foster care, including the caregiver payment component
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 57

purchase of temporary child care (including after school care and/or school holiday programs)

provision of one-off home/garden services and items to address immediate safety and or hygiene
issues within the client’s home

purchase of material aid.
Both Baptcare and Mission Australia report brokerage functions as an essential element of the
model, allowing for flexible and creative responses tailored to family needs. Use of brokerage funds
is carefully managed so that it supports the aims of the case planning for each family. The brokerage
has most commonly been deployed for very practical support: assistance with cleaning and
household waste removal; provision of kitchen and household equipment, bedding and linen; or the
purchasing books and school uniforms.
Often this practical support makes the difference in meeting key Family Service outcomes:
attendance at school being dependant on having appropriate clothing or books, reducing
notifications through addressing hygiene or nutrition needs; and the use of cleaning and skips for
waste removal has avoided possible eviction due to environmental neglect /derelict notices, etc.
Brokerage funds have also been used to purchase short term capacity at times of high demand for
services, and to purchase earlier interventions and specific specialist services such as speech therapy,
relationship counselling and enrolment fees for vocational and employment related courses.
7.2.12 Access for Aboriginal Children, Young People and Families
Support for the provision of culturally appropriate services provided where possible by Aboriginal
Child and Family Support Services. Where this is not possible, services must consult and work
closely with the Aboriginal community at local and service level.
Consultation comment was that access for aboriginal children and families was complex. Advice was
that for families recognised by the Tasmanian Aboriginal Centre access to their service was effective,
but where they sought to access another provider, liaison with TAC was slow, with difficulty making
contact. Services noted a number of Aboriginal families electing not to identify and accessing
mainstream services.
However, Mission Australia did provide information that, over the time the services have operated
6.95 per cent of referrals identified as Aboriginal in the North West26, and 5 per cent in the South
East27. In the 12 months to November 2011 this was 4.25 per cent NW and 2.92 per cent in the SE.
Over the full period of operation, Baptcare reports that 8 per cent of substantive cases in the North
identified as Aboriginal, and 5.6 per cent in the South West.28
As indicated above, the TAC Family Support Program (FSP) operates alongside but in coordination
with the Gateway and IFSS service system. The TAC FSP is funded to work with Aboriginal families
in ways that protect cultural identity and foster community connectedness.
In addition to direct service provision to families its 2010-11 annual report indicates collaborative
work with CPS and the broader sector in the provision of services to Aboriginal families as
summarised below:
 provision of respite care to 6 families on eleven separate occasions.
 support of 3 day care placements
 development of case management plans to prevent CPS engagement with 2 families
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 58




support of 40 families engaged with CPS
260 contacts made by TAC staff to CPS and 504 contact made from CPS to TAC
Eight group sessions statewide on family meal planning, gambling education, child sexual
abuse prevention, identifying unhealthy relationships, breastfeeding, outdoor play with kids
resulted in 775 contacts with families
referrals were provided to a broad range of community services for families to provide
advice on issues likely to impact on parenting ability.
Further work is underway to more closely align the coordination and collaboration between TAC,
CPS and the Gateway/IFSS systems in the provision of culturally appropriate care plans and other
early intervention work.
In its response to this review29 TAC suggests procedures for dealing with Aboriginal clients are
reviewed to ensure more Aboriginal specific support services are offered, and notes as an example,
Colony 47’s Aboriginal Information and Referral Service (AIRS) service in the North.
7.2.13 Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
Must be a focus to ensure services are available and delivered in a culturally appropriate way.
Baptcare reports that over the time the IFSS have been operating, 0.35 per cent of Northern and
3.6 per cent of SW referrals identify as CALD30. Mission Australia report that in the last 12 months,
0.16 per cent in the NW and 0.18 per cent in the SE identified.31
Comments provided at the Stakeholder Forums included that engagement with newer
refugees/migrants was low, with speculation that Christian North-African families with strong links
to the church may be receiving a range of support services through their religious affiliations and
also through settlement programs.
7.2.14 Participation in Area Advisory Groups
Service providers will support and actively participate in the area advisory groups. This includes
promoting awareness of service capacity among key referral groups and the broader service
network.
The lead agencies and most partners are regular participants in the Area Advisory Groups (AAGs).
Stakeholder Forums included substantive discussion of the forums relevant to the family support
services and providers, including AAGs, Alliance Meetings and Practitioner Networks.
The Baptcare State Operations Manager is a member of the Northern AAG and is Co-Chair of the
South West AAG.32
Both lead agencies demonstrate a good understanding of the intention of these governance
arrangements and are constructively participating as key stakeholders.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 59
7.2.15 Collaborative Working Relationships
Integrated Family Support Services work collaboratively with Child Protection Services and other key
service providers that comprise the service network (i.e. education, health, justice, housing and other
notifier groups). This includes undertaking joint work with families, sharing information on a case by
case basis (subject to information sharing legislation, policy and protocols), developing a shared
understanding of worker roles and responsibilities, and promoting a shared responsibility for the safety,
health and well being of children and their families.
Review of consultation processes with key service stakeholders provided many examples of good
collaborative relationships – often driven by individual approaches and the development of personal
networks to ‘make things happen’.
However, Department of Education feedback was mixed, with varying experiences reported by
Learning Services managers. In these and other discussions it was clear that greater understanding is
needed for both Gateway/FSS and DOE workers in relation to services and strategies to improve
outcomes for children of joint interest.
Recommendation 16
Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, DCS and DOE should develop joint strategies to improve information sharing
and familiarisation with respective roles, policies and issues, leading to better integrated approaches and
responses for families and children.
The Child Health and Parenting Service (CHAPS) is another service intercepting with Gateway/FSS
and Early Years Parenting Support (EYPS). This applies to both their general/universal services, and
also to CU@Home for teenage parents requiring more intensive parenting support in the home.
CHAPS managers noted a number of examples of good jointly coordinated interventions and
support for families, and would support exploring ways to better coordinate intake/assessment and
coordinated responses in relation to families with 0-5 year olds. A way of participating in the
assessments and WAMs was discussed.
This would address Recommendation 17 from the CYS Model of Care Review for the child and
family health nursing role to be strengthened through case review and/or care team approaches to
address the needs of vulnerable families; and Recommendation 31 for improved information sharing.
It will also be important that the Model of Care recommendations in relation to increased home
visiting focus and greater focus on at-risk families is done in consultation and collaboration with
Gateway/FSS and EYPS as well as CPS (recommendations 9, 14, 16).
Discussion with EYPS providers indicated that the access through the Gateway was working
satisfactorily, but that it does involve referring families for ‘process’ which can distract from getting
on with family support. There were also some issues about joint casework with families with older
siblings and other parenting issues, as the EYPS is a therapeutic service dedicated to 0-5 year olds.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 60
Recommendation 17
Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, CPS, EYPS services, DCS and CHAPS should jointly explore and develop better
integrated approaches and responses for families with children 0-5 including unborn children.
7.2.16 Links to other Initiatives
Integrated Family Support Services promote close linkages and potential integration with related
initiatives such as the Child and Family Centres, the Learning, Information Network Centres (LINC),
Communities for Children and other FaHCSIA child and family programs and community building and
neighbourhood renewal initiatives that may be developed or operating in the area.
Stakeholder forums reflected a generally sound understanding of the Child and Family Centres
(CFC) project, and noted that a number of alliance partners are members of Local Enabling Groups
(e.g. Eastern Shore NHH and Youth and Family Focus with the East Devonport CFC).
However, there were some areas where consistent understanding of the nature of IFSS work was
unclear. This is developing, with CFCs understanding that IFSS workers were mostly out of their
offices, working in homes and other community settings. However the Manager of the CFC project
did express a desire that thought be given them using CFCs as a hot-desk location for writing up
case notes, thus IFSS workers being more visible and present at the centres.
Recommendation 18
Gateway/ IFSS lead agencies should continue to engage with the Child and Family Centres Project at a
statewide and local area level to further promote understanding of the Gateway/FSS role and work practices,
and to explore ways of raising FSS workers profile and relationship with individual CFCs at local level.
FaHCSIA programs are discussed at 7.3 below.
7.2.17 Links to other Service Systems
This includes interfaces with other key service systems in relation to collaborative planning, their intake
systems, referral and service provision with services such as early years, homelessness, “Safe at Home”,
family relationship, early intervention and those provided by other service providers within the service
system, including local government.
It was evident from the data, anecdotal information, desk-top reviews and commentary from lead
agencies that Family Violence was a major presenting factor, particularly for families where higher
risk was present. Department of Justice’s Safe at Home (SAH) program input was that it would be
useful to strengthen the relationship between SAH and the IFSS, including the assessment of family
support requirements and the coordination of service responses.
Closer coordination and cooperation can ensure that service responses are consistent with SAH
policy and the Family Violence Act and support any arrangements in place including Family Violence
Orders and safety plans.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 61
Recommendation 19
Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, Department of Justice and DCS should jointly explore and develop better
integrated approaches and responses for families where family violence is an issue.
The Tasmanian Association of Community Houses (TACH) provided a response to the review, in
order to present issues of concern to houses in a collective way. While affirming that there are a
number of communities very pleased with the Gateway/FSS model, with St Helens and Eastern
shore specifically named as strong supporters, other houses had concerns. In summary, the key
points were:

a number of NHH Coordinators expressed frustration at failure to get feedback on referrals

a number believed, based on the contact they have with families the risk was much higher than
assessed, yet FSS was not provided

frustration at families not engaging with FSS, and hence do not receive support, but from
ongoing contact coordinators know that support was really needed

an expectation that FSS workers would be more imbedded in their community but, if anything,
houses report seeing less of them

IFSS workers not linking families into being part of community houses, building relationships
between clients and the house for when the worker’s time with them is done

frustration that the model was focused on the higher need families, not at a preventative
community-based approach to family support

the case management model could be balanced with group work, offering clients the
opportunity for connectedness with community organisations and other community members

there were directives that the system must embed well in local communities, and the successful
tenderers needed to have partnered with local neighbourhood houses as part of the process.
Recommendation 20
Gateway/ IFSS lead agencies, DCS and the Tasmanian Association of Community Houses should jointly
review the Neighbourhood Houses issues and develop appropriate responses within existing resources.
7.2.18 Early Years Parenting Support Services
These services were implemented following establishment of the Gateways and IFSS to deliver a
preventative early intervention service offering intensive therapeutic work targeted at vulnerable
families with children from 0-5 years of age, including un-born children. This targeted support was
to complement the general integrated family support services available through the Gateway and
IFSS by providing specialist high intensity support for parents and children.
Funding of $1.2M was evenly divided, with ~$300,000 available in each of the four DCS Areas.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 62
In the NW Area, Anglicare provides the services through their North West Early Start Therapeutic
Support program (NESTS) which focuses on strengthening the attachment bond between parents
and their children. Uniting Care provides the service for the other three Areas, providing a centrebased NEWPIN service at Ravenswood with some outreach, and an outreach model using NEWPIN
resources for the SE and SW Areas. Uniting Care Burnside licenses use of the model and provides
QA of their service.
Uniting Care Burnside completed a QA Report in November 2011 which found that the service
provides a unique and meaningful service to families that were often reluctant to engage in
traditional services and in which parents were striving to overcome their own experiences of
childhood trauma33.
There are some tensions in the operationalised service model including that:

These EYPS are therapeutic services, with their role cast as addressing specific parenting
issues through structured programs, not as being able to provide casework support for all
presenting issues in a family. Meaning services sometimes feel they are being asked to
extend beyond their scope and role

FSS providers feel the EYPS providers should extend their support on a case by case basis
so that a parent is not being required to work with multiple case workers

There is concern by some at the small numbers of families supported in these structured
programs; for instance a NEWPIN parent may take up to 18 months to complete the
modules. However, this is offset by recognition that these are families requiring sustained
engagement to achieve change, and there have been some excellent outcomes.
It is interesting to note that case studies provided by the lead agencies include strong examples in
which excellent cooperation and joint work with families has produced real improvements, so
clearly views and practice on the ground vary, and in some cases had triumphed over these tensions.
This 0-5 cohort is also the core group for CHAPS for both their core child health services and
particularly their CU@home service for teenage parents requiring support and their New Parent
Group program. Chaps managers are keen to work closely with the gateway and IFSS and there is
clearly synergy in this including EYPS services.
The CYF Model of Care review makes a number of recommendations in relation to how CHAPS
works with other services, case planning, co-location and more flexible service hours with an
increased focus on vulnerable families.
KPMG has recently provided a report for FAHCSIA on the effectiveness of early intervention.34
While this was focused on children with developmental delay and the Better Start initiative, the
report was clear that investments made in services for children in the early years of live provide
significant lifetime benefits, not leastwise by reducing government need to provide more costly
service interventions later in life.
These developments and issues make it timely to undertake a more detailed service development
review including the key service providers, DCS and other stakeholders, including FAHCSIA and the
Tasmanian Early Years Foundation.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 63
Recommendation 21
A service development project focused on family support coordination and integration of services for 0-5 year
olds, including unborn children, should be undertaken in consultation with key service providers and other
stakeholders, including FAHCSIA and the Tasmanian Early Years Foundation.
The following case studies are included to exemplify the experience of NEWPIN clients.
NEWPIN Case Study 1
M= Mother; H= daughter (4 years old)
M was referred to NEWPIN from Ward 1E, the psychiatric ward at the Launceston General
Hospital in 2009. At that stage, M was diagnosed with clinical depression and PTSD from
years of domestic abuse from her ex partner. M was being treated with a regime of heavy
medications and she was also pregnant with her second child, the first was taken by his father
at the time of M’s return and her admission to hospital.
For the first 4 months of attending the centre, M sat at the end of the dining table, in the
lounge room of the centre, with her head between her hands and made no attempt to
interact with workers or other members. M appeared very dishevelled and often wore food
stained clothes.
Closer toward the end of her pregnancy M stated that this baby needed to be adopted, she
didn’t have what it took to rear it. After the coordinator explored this with M she stated
that this was how she truly felt and that ‘Hope’, the name she’d chosen for her baby would
be better off.
With the support of NEWPIN and other service providers in the area, M received support
each working day of the week. M’s confidence began to grow although she still felt unsure of
the depending birth of her daughter. Another service that specialised in adoptions was a
referral source for M to receive the support and information she needed.
M stayed with NEWPIN for 3 years, her daughter sang the NEWPIN song every morning
from the age of 18 months when she was strapped into car seat on the NEWPIN bus.
M is working part time as a security guard in the retail industry as the same time as studying
for her BA in Law.
M is one of NEWPIN greatest supporters and states that without the support and belief of
the workers at NEWPIN, she has no idea where either she, or her daughter would be today.
NEWPIN Case Study 2
M= Mother; Father= F; two daughters, 0-2 years old
Family was referred to us via the Gateway in 2010. The parents were a young couple who
met in Ashley Youth Detention Centre and had extensive criminal backgrounds. M had an
extremely traumatic upbringing and her extended family are well known to CPS, and she
grew up in and out of foster care, as did her siblings.
F had a less abusive childhood and grew up in a low socio-economic area and in his words
“mixed with the wrong people and made stupid choices”.
The reasons for the children’s removal were:
•
excessive physical punishment (due to the toddler going to child care with bruising)
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 64
•
erratic and the aggressive behaviour of M (who had been diagnosed with a
personality disorder while at Ashley)
•
notifications that the children were being driven around unrestrained in the car
•
neglect (dirty nappies, failure to follow up on CHAPS appointments).
NEWPIN became involved to work with CPS and the family towards reunification with their
daughter. Staff worked with the family once a week. At the time, M and F were on police
imposed curfews, had to be drug tested regularly due to amphetamine abuse, were frequently
raided for drugs by the police. F also needed to check in at the police station daily. It was a
usual occurrence to see police cars drive past their premises, or park outside their house for
up to 20 minutes while we were home visiting. M used to "borrow" things from the shops as
she couldn't afford to buy them, and wanted to be able to give her daughter new clothes and
toys when she came for access visits.
M became pregnant with their second child during this time. Both M and F worked together
to complete the NEWPIN modules and work in conjunction with Child Protection on the
reunification before the baby was born. However, there were times when the family had
setbacks and the reunification was delayed due to criminal behaviour.
M was recently imprisoned unexpectedly for an old crime. The family took the news calmly,
informed the services that were involved, organised a case conference with the CPS,
NEWPIN and Centacare to discuss additional supports they may need, and to talk about
what they had managed to problem solve already.
They had already decided that M would like the baby (who was then just 2 months old) to go
into the mother and baby unit in the prison with her, the two year old was to stay with F.
They had arranged for the 2 year old to start child care one day a week so that F could have
a break as well as having routine and structure for their child.
There was concern over how M in particular would cope. She had been reactive and volatile
while at Ashley, and there was a chance that she could be triggered into these behaviours
again. M was aware of this, and was able to concentrate her time on her new baby and ignore
situations or people that may have frustrated or annoyed her. The biggest problem she said
she had was that she didn't agree with the way that some of the other Mums treated their
children, and she found it difficult as she wanted to teach them the strategies and techniques
and knowledge that she has gained through her time with NEWPIN.
NEWPIN have been part of the full reunification process and it has been a completely
successful reunification. Their now 2 year old daughter is a healthy, energetic, strong willed
girl, who is developing consistently with ‘ages and stages’. Since the birth of their second
child both M and D play, talk and sing to their son, and often talk of how this aids in their
attachment with him, and helps develop his brain. When we talk of the NEWPIN outreach
model being inclusive of fathers, having a holistic approach, and being sustainable long term,
this is just the proof we need. This is the breaking of the cycle
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 65
7.3 Relationship to FaHCSIA Funded Services
7.3.1 FaHCSIA Service Approach
The Australian Government’s Family Support Program (FSP) provides funding to non-government
organisations to support families and children, especially those who are vulnerable and in areas of
disadvantage. It provides early intervention and preventative family support focusing on family
relationships, parenting and family law services to help people navigate life events. It also aims to
protect children who are at risk of neglect or abuse.
The FSP is intended to complement state and territory government services to help support families
during critical life events and provide access to a wider range of support for families living in
locations of high and/or multiple disadvantage.
These services are seen as a vital part of the Australian Government's efforts as part of the National
Framework for Protecting Australia's Children to intervene early to guard against the abuse and
neglect of our children and to complement the state and territory governments' child protection
systems.
From July 2011, new 3-year funding agreements were introduced. These require services to identify
and develop appropriate local service delivery systems to support the most vulnerable client groups
including developing/maintaining:

connections with local FSP, community and government service providers that can engage hardto-reach and vulnerable families

connections with State/Territory child protection systems

appropriate activities to ensure all client groups receive the level of assistance needed across the
service system.
These plans were required to be submitted to FaHCSIA by December 2011, and remain subject to a
6-month negotiation between FaHCSIA and the services to resolve and approve them.
7.3.2 Consultation comment
There was considerable discussion of the relationship between DHHS and FaHCSIA funded services
at the community consultations. In a number of instances services receiving FaHCSIA funding were
also receiving DHHS funding. As an example, in the North West Area, there were only two
FaHCSIA funded organisations not currently at the WAM table, and these were working closely
with IFSS providers.
FaHCSIA funded services in the South of the state reflected similar sentiments and actual examples
of this practical working together, and of some flexibility in service models to provide support to
more vulnerable families.
FaHCSIA’s Victoria/Tasmania Assistant State Manager indicated to this review that the requirement
for identified strategies to better target vulnerable families and for better integration and
coordination would be fairly high level, but they did, nevertheless demonstrate an intent to work
more closely together and to better coordinate application of Federal and State funding.
There was not any expectation, however, of integration to a level where service access would be via
the Gateway service.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 66
7.3.3 Discussion and Findings
There is clearly a good opportunity in both program alignment and timing to work collaboratively
between FaHCSIA, DHHS and the sector on planning, service gaps, service models and practice.
Better collaboration was recently endorsed by the Standing Council on Community, Housing and
Disability Services. At their 21 October 2012 meeting Ministers agreed to support the
implementation of a national collaboration framework for Family Support Services.
The framework commits all jurisdictions to a practical approach to working more collaboratively
with each other and with non-government organisations in the delivery of accessible and
coordinated family support services to vulnerable families and individuals.
As a small jurisdiction, Tasmania is well positioned to explore further opportunities for practical
collaboration.
Recommendation 22
Senior managers from Gateway/IFSS lead agencies should develop agreed protocols and approaches for
closer coordination to improve client outcomes among State and Federally funded Family Support Services
operating at communities level.
Recommendation 23
Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, FaHCSIA and DHHS work together to bring the broader Family Support Sector
together for statewide and regional planning and professional development opportunities.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 67
7.4 Information and Reporting
“I needed lots of help with life issues; finances, mental health, dealing with the school and life in
general. My elder son was bashing his younger brother and I didn’t know what to do about it.”
7.4.1 Data collection and reporting arrangements
The Gateway and IFSS are required to report to the Department using the Integrated Reporting and
Information System (IRIS), a client information and case tracking system owned by DHS Victoria.
Tasmania took the system on the understanding that it would run a ‘Vanilla’ implementation – that
is, use the system as-is, with no functionality changes particular to Tasmania.
DHS Victoria implemented IRIS to transition funded organisations from paper based reporting and
to support activity based funding. The focus in IRIS is therefore on activities by services, including
the number of clients seen and the nature of the support services provided to each one.
IRIS is a distributed system – the product is loaded onto a computer or computers at each service,
and an email transmission of data to a central repository in the Department occurs at quarterly
intervals.
The IRIS application stores information about families by registering a ‘client’ as a representative of
the family. However, the application does not enforce any single definition of client on the service
provider. A client may be an individual person (an adult, young person or child), a couple, or a group
of unrelated persons, potentially resulting in the recording of duplicate information for particular
families.
The IRIS application stores information about children by recording children as related persons of
clients for each case that is registered. In all registered cases the IRIS application does not force
users to collect information about persons related to the primary client, including children.
As a result of the non-mandatory recording of children, the potential duplication of client records
between agencies or regions, and the absence of a primary identifier field and statistical linkage key
for children, the number of children accessing services cannot be accurately determined using IRIS.
However, IRIS can provide information relating to:




cases – including the date of case closure by the service provider
service activity – including the type of service clients were referred for
hours – including the hours of service delivery for all issues
responsiveness – including the date of entry and referral of clients from a Gateway lead agency
to a service provider.
In seeking to extract data and provide analysis for this review, the Department was limited by
significant data gaps and unreliability of the data, for instance due to limited entries into optional
coding fields, which makes meaningful analysis difficult.
Similarly, lead agencies’ advice was that areas that might have been of particular interest, such as
travel time, were seriously under-stated because workers were not working in an environment
similar to DCS Victoria, where performance review linked to funding had a strong focus on client
service hours delivered. This made production of comparable tables to Victoria’s review
impractical.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 68
Baptcare uses IRIS, as do its Alliance partners, for reporting data. Having had many years of
experience using IRIS, Baptcare was aware of some of the system limitations, and so from the
beginning of Gateway/IFSS implemented strong protocols both internally and with Alliance partners
to resolve some of the identified issues noted above. For example, the primary carer is always
entered as the primary client for a family and collection of information about children is entered into
IRIS and cross referenced with internal tracking sheets for data accuracy.
7.4.2 MACSIMS
Mission Australia and its alliance partners use Mission Australia Community Services Information
System (MACSIMS), from which an IRIS-compatible data upload is taken. The provision of data is
generally very good, notwithstanding the comments made in this report.
Mission Australia’s Senior Project Manager advised the Project Team that MACSIMS allows
collection of much more information, and with enhancements to be applied in early 2012, it will
become a more powerful case management and service reporting system.
7.4.3 Future Directions
There is general agreement that IRIS has serious limitations and that while it was a necessity to have
an information system in place from the commencement of the Gateway/ IFSS services in August
2009, in its present form it is not a sustainable solution, nor particularly helpful to the service
providers or the Department.
The Department currently has a project underway to review options to replace IRIS with a
reporting system more suitable for future needs. The project includes identifying the range of
systems available – whether this be using a proprietary system, adapting a system already in use
(either locally or from another jurisdiction or organisation), or developing a purpose-built system.
Also under consideration will be factors such as cost and licensing structures, the extent of
functionality required, the suitability of the data model, and support available (such as training,
documentation, and technical assistance).
Recommendation 24
In consultation with its providers DHHS should develop options for a future reporting information solution for
the Gateway and FSS programs.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 69
7.5 Governance and Program Management
“The Gateway helped to mediate with me and another program so I could go back there
and get help with my mental health needs.”
7.5.1 Governance at sector level
The relationships between DHHS and the community sector are well developed with a shared
governance arrangement with joint responsibility for needs analysis, service planning, performance
monitoring and evaluation. The governance arrangements comprise of:

The Statewide Advisory Group, which is a partnership at statewide level and co-chaired by
the Deputy Secretary, Children and the Deputy Secretary, Disability, Housing and Community
Services, including key stakeholders from the sector, other Departments and programs

The Area Advisory Groups were created as part of the reforms and are well established
forums held regularly in each area. The Area Advisory Group is co-chaired by the Area
Director and a Community Sector provider representative (nominated by the Group).
Figure 12: Governance flow chart
Statewide Advisory Group
Monitor the vision and service delivery framework
and investigate possible improvements
Oversee joint planning mechanisms: unmet demand,
service gaps and trends state-wide and allocate
resources accordingly
Indentify and develop strategic policy to better
integrate services
Family Support
Services
Identify training and
development needs
Share practice wisdom
Highlight best practice
Identify service issues
and improvements
Disability Services
Area Advisory Groups
Development of Area Plans
Data collection and analysis
Service system design
Feedback on service system
issues
(Family Support Services Practitioner
Networks)
Identify training and
development needs
Share practice wisdom
Highlight best practice
Identify service issues
and improvements
(Disability Services Practitioner
Networks)
As noted in 7.2.13, both lead agencies are active members of the AAGs. While this is operating as
intended at AAG level, changes in DHHS structural arrangements and in the management of the
relationship with the sector has led to delays in progressing the SAG. The new structure was in
place and work was progressing to re-scope the SAG at time of this review.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 70
7.5.2 Governance at Program and Service level
Both lead agencies are well established incorporated entities operating in multiple jurisdictions.
They met the governance information requirements of the RFP and comply with the governance
standards of the Department’s Quality and Safety Framework
The lead agencies have imbedded governance arrangements to ensure engagement of both their
alliance partners and of other family support services working within the Gateway/IFSS model.
The Alliance Meetings are reported to be very valuable for Alliance members, particularly smaller
organisations and these together with the practitioner networks and quality training being jointly
coordinated is reported to be building very functional alliances. Baptcare also notes that the
relationship between the lead agencies is currently at its best developed over the life of the
services.35
An aspect that emerged through the review was the contractual relationship between the alliance
members and their respective lead agency, and that lead agency’s accountability to the Department.
The lead agencies have responsibility for delivering the outputs and outcomes of the funded services,
but their responsibility for the quality of service provision, professionalism of workforce and work
practice in partner organisations is not explicit in the Funding Agreement with the Department
(although standard provisions in relation to sub-contracting might cover this).
Both agencies have agreements in place with each partner agency, and provided examples of
occasions where they have initiated action for failure to meet the agreement provisions.
So, while lead agencies deploy their own contract management processes within respective Alliance
members, there exists no DHHS protocols or arrangements in place to address these relationships.
This area should be worked through between the lead agencies and the Department prior to
finalising the provisions of future funding agreements so that protocols and processes are explicit.
Recommendation 25
DCS in consultation with the Purchasing Commissioner Unit and lead agencies should ensure that future
Funding Agreements are explicit in establishing processes for addressing partner governance and
performance issues.
7.5.3 Operational management
Departmental arrangements at program level have changed over time. At the time the Reform
Implementation Unit (RIU) was completing the procurement process and the new Gateway and IFSS
were in their start-up phase. Management was directly from the RIU, with the Unit’s Director
meeting regularly with senior managers of the lead agencies, and direct operational liaison and
performance reporting being between Baptcare and Mission Australia operations managers and the
Family Support Reform Implementation Team.
With establishment of an area-based model for DCYFS (as it then was) the RIU moved to place
governance arrangements on a standard business footing. This resulted in:
Area Directors assuming the executive management role for the Department (reflected in their
co-Chair role on the AAGs, and managing the relationship with the lead agencies at Area level
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 71


newly formed Community Partnership Teams (CPTs) in each area, with responsibility for
managing the operational relationship with services including responsibility for monitoring
performance against Funding Agreements

performance reporting moving from the Family Support Reform Implementation Team to
Planning, Performance and Evaluation in DCYFS [sic], with

funded organisation performance reporting directed to the then Office for the Community
Sector “Grants Unit” and quality and safety reports going to the Quality and Safety Team there.
These arrangements had a number of weaknesses, including those reported by Riley and Riley in
their 2011 review of the Department’s Integrated Finance and Performance Framework, and with
the structural changes to the then DCYFS, there were splits of executive and operational
management and reporting arrangements.
A number of the variations in practice revealed in this review have been in large part the inevitable
result of having four Areas managing at local level, but without strong program coordination at a
central level. This has limited the opportunity to identify good practice, work with lead agencies on
emerging national and international developments, or to provide a consolidated picture of system
performance.
Most recently, however, structural arrangements within the Department provide a better alignment
at program level. The CPTs now work to a Manager, Disability and Community Services in each
Area, and those managers report to the Director, Disability and Community Services.
The DCS unit is managed by a DCS Executive which includes the four DCS Area Managers and the
Manager, Community Services, who has program responsibility for the Gateway and Family Support
Services.
However, some of the most critical inter-relationships for the Gateways/IFSS are with CPS so future
arrangements need to be built on the basis of the relationship of the Gateway and IFSS to the
broader service system.
The current operational relationships between funded organisations and CPTs at Area level are
working satisfactorily and should continue. However, CPTs role is scoped in relation to monitoring
performance under funding agreements and dealing with local operational issues. In order to better
support statewide management, the arrangements detailed in Appendix D are proposed.
These arrangements would not result in creation of a new overlay of meetings and forums, with
most already in place, although there is some change to scope and participants. For example, the
Area Operations Meetings occur now, but focus on the Disability Services Gateway operations.
This extends their scope to family support. Funding Agreement Management performance reviews
are proposed to be more formally structured and to include both the area managers for the lead
agencies and DCS, and the statewide managers for the lead agencies and DCS.
Recommendation 26
DCS in consultation with the Gateway/IFSS lead agencies should formalise contract review meetings to
provide for performance monitoring at both Area and Statewide perspectives.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 72
7.6 Workforce
7.6.1 Worker qualifications
The Family Support Operational Framework provides, inter alia, that staff working in Family Support
Services will be appropriately qualified and experienced, possess relevant competencies to provide
excellent levels of service and be able to work within the Family Support Services Operational
Framework and Standards including the Key Result Areas.
Staff should be appropriately qualified, holding a minimum qualification of either a diploma or degree
in a child and/or social welfare related field i.e.: social work, social sciences, psychology, nursing,
child health.
Baptcare notes that in the new model Alliance agencies agreed to employ professionally qualified
staff and to provide an appropriate level of supervision and support to ensure that there was the
capacity to manage high risk families, and notes that organisational and skills development is
occurring with time36.
7.6.2 Consultation comment
The consultations with key stakeholders revealed a general level of support that the skills of the
workers were appropriate, but there were concerns expressed about only a small number of
workers in relation to their skills and practice. This was said to apply to a small number of smaller
organisations that did not have the same professional supervision capacity as the lead agencies.
CPS managers pointed to practice of FSS staff being included in Beginning Practice and Signs of Safety
training, noting that this gives a good theoretical and practical introduction to child protection and
family support in Tasmania, and provides common language, frameworks and tools which support
good practice.
Recommendation 27
Alliance lead agencies, CPS and DCS should look at structured opportunities for joint training such as
participation of staff recruited to Family Support Services in “Beginning Practice” and “Signs of Safety”
training.
The 3p consulting report supports practice, with strong responses about the skills and qualities of
the worker:
“I have been in the welfare system... I didn’t think this would be any different than all the
other stuff they had made me do, but [my IFSS worker] wouldn’t let me play the system, she
knew just what to do, she made me sit up and listen...”
There were consistent messages about feeling listened to and not feeling judged by the service
workers. The other key message that most respondents reported, was how their worker had
focused on the whole family (and not just the children or the adults as separate entities)37.
The Baptcare report also points to workforce development flowing from implementation of the
model, with Alliance meetings and quality workshops all contributing to capacity building in the
workforce. Practitioner Networks are another opportunity to support professional development.
Feedback from the consultation was that Practitioner Networks could be well-attended, robust
forums, and were worthy of ongoing development and promotion.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 73
Mission Australia in their report noted the importance of a skilled workforce, flagging that ensuring
appropriately trained practitioners into the future will rely on investment now.
Recommendation 28
DCS in consultation with Gateway/IFSS lead agencies, the Tasmanian Council of Social Service (TasCOSS),
Family Support Services Association (FSSA), Children and Families Welfare Association of Tasmania
(CAFWAT), the sector and the Department’s Workforce Development Unit should review workforce
strategies for the family support service sector.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 74
8 Future Directions and Areas for Development
“My kids are more settled and calmer now that we have somewhere proper and stable to live.”
8.1 Drawing the threads together
8.1.1 Where we are today
This review has established that Tasmania is well served by the Gateway and Family Support
Services model, and that the service system is functioning as intended with key features such as the
CBCPTL, Gateway services, IFSS and case allocation processes working effectively. The client
survey provides heartfelt feedback from parents about the value of the services and the skills of
their workers.
The operational aspects of the system were discussed in some detail, and in line with continuous
quality improvement, there remain areas that will benefit from service development. This will
continue the enhancement of what is already a good model of service that is working for children
and families.
It was very clear that there has been a significant culture and practice shift in the sector with good
coordination and cooperation fostering environments in which robust discussion and sharing of
views can occur with respect and where there are numerous examples of great outcomes for
children and their families.
This review has demonstrated that the Gateway/IFSS model has slowed the rate of entry to Out of
Home Care and a large number of children have been referred to and received family support
rather than being referred into child protection. However, there remains continual demand for all
services and a necessity that the Gateway/IFSS continue to be funded.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 75
8.1.2 National trends
The Australian Institute of Family Studies National Child Protection Clearinghouse (NCPC) provides
the following comparative data on substantiations of child abuse or neglect.
Table 6: Number of substantiations, states and territories, 2000-01 to 2009-10 38
Year
NSW(a)
VIC
QLD
WA
SA
TAS(b)
ACT
NT
Total
2000-01
7 501
7 608
8 395
1 191
1 998
103
222
349
27 367
2001-02
8 606
7 687
10 036
1 187
2 230
158
220
349
30 473
2002-03
16 765
7 287
12 203
888(c)
2 423
213
310
327
40 416
2003-04
NA.
7 412
17 473
968
2 490
427
630(d)
527
NA
2004-05
15 493
7 398
17 307
1 104
2 384
782
1 213
473
46 154
2005-06
29 809
7 563
13 184
960
1 855
793(e)
1 277
480
55 921
2006-07
37 094
6 828(f)
10 108(g)(h)
1 233
2 242
1 252(e)
852(i)
621
60 230
2007-08
34 135
6 365
8 028
1 464
2 331
1 214
827
756
55 120
2008-09
34 078
6 344
7 315
1 523
2 419
1 188
896
858
54 621
2009-10
26 248(j)
6 603
6 922
1 652
1 815
963
741
1 243
46 187
The NCPC notes that the significant reduction in NSW was the result of legislative change which
had changed the measure.
It is notable that Victoria, with Child First which saw a fall in notifications from 2006-7 to 2008-9 has
now seen numbers start to increase.
The NCPC reports that maltreatment types most commonly substantiated across Australia were
emotional abuse and child neglect (see Figure 13, overleaf). Emotionally abusive behaviours include
verbally abusing, terrorising, scapegoating, isolating, rejecting, and ignoring. Children who witness
domestic violence are also typically categorised as having experienced emotional abuse. The high
proportion of substantiations of emotional abuse is a relatively new phenomenon (AIHW, 2011).
The inclusion of children who have witnessed domestic violence is likely to be one of the key
reasons for the high rates of substantiated emotional abuse (Holzer and Bromfield, 2008).
Neglect refers to the failure (usually by the parent) to provide for a child’s basic needs, including
failure to provide adequate food, shelter, clothing, supervision, hygiene or medical attention. The
high rates of neglect are consistent with the disadvantaged socio-economic conditions prevalent in
many families referred to child protection services (Becket, 2003).
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 76
Figure 13. Per centage cut of primary substantiated maltreatment types in Australia in 2009-10
Source: AIHW (2011, p. 68)
These factors were consistent with the issues reported through the 3p Consulting client surveys
and suggest continuing demand for community based family support services working with families
to reduce pressure on the child protection and Out of Home Care (OoHC) system.
The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare’s (AIHW) most recent report on child protection
shows that the rates of children subject to a substantiated notification has fallen from 6.5 per 1 000
in 2008-09 to 6.1 per thousand for 2009-10 and 2010-11. At jurisdiction levels, the 5-year pattern
for Victoria shows a drop from 5.6 to 2006-7, to 5.0 in 2008-09, but was now recording an
increasing trend with 5.2 for 2009-10 and 5.9 for 2010-11.39
This can be mapped to introduction of the Child FIRST regional projects, and then the extension of
the model statewide, resulting in an initial reduction in the rate of substantiations, but followed by a
re-emerging upward trend.
For Tasmania, in 2008-09 a rate of 9.1 is reported, reducing to 7.4 in 2009-10 with introduction of
the Gateways, but then moving up to 9.5 for 2010-11. This is consistent with the Victorian
experience and underlines the importance of maintaining services.
The AIHW reports that nationally, emotional abuse was the most common substantiation type
followed by neglect. That is the case for Tasmania, with Tasmania recording comparatively low
proportions of sexual and physical abuse.40
8.1.3 The 2011 Select Committee on Child Protection
There were a large number of findings and recommendations from this Select Committee report in
scope of this review. The key themes from that report for Gateway/IFSS were:

Gateway and IFSS was an effective service model and should be continued, with increased
resourcing to allow longer time to be spent with complex cases.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 77

Additional resourcing should be provided for family support services, specialist and universal
support services throughout communities for early intervention.

There were a number of areas for improvement – generally mirroring issues raised in this
report. Examples such as families falling through the gap between CPS and Gateway were
strongly commented on. However, stakeholder feedback to this review included that the
SC evidence was taken in October-November 2010, over 12 months ago when the services
had only been operating for a year, and considerable progress was made in 2011.
8.1.4 Auditor General’s Report
In September 2011 the Tasmanian Auditor General presented as report to the Tasmanian
Parliament on children in out of home care. The Auditor General reported41 :
‘From our testing and discussions, we found that:

All notifications received by DHHS had been promptly assessed

Gateway processes included procedures to ensure reliable and consistent processing of
notifications such as regular case conferences attended by senior DHHS staff

Gateway provided a record of each referral and determination to DHHS as required by
the Manual

Between 50 and 65 per cent of OoHC files showed evidence that alternative
interventions, such as the provision of family support services, had been attempted
before children were placed in OoHC. We saw this as evidence that the system was
working as intended and that statutory intervention was being avoided where
reasonable alternatives existed.
This confirms, from the Auditor Generals separate investigation, that the Gateway is working
effectively and that Family Support services are being provided where appropriate as an alternative
to statutory intervention. This underlines the necessity of maintaining the Gateway and Family
Support Services to keep the service system in balance.
8.1.5 Evolution or revolution
The clear picture that emerges from this review was that there has been a great improvement in the
quality and quantum of family support services. This is not to say there were not good quality
services prior to the reforms — there were — but there was shared recognition the service system
had grown up in an ad-hoc way and was under-resourced.
The service model put in place was adapted from a model proposed by KPMG developed through
their work on the Child FIRST model implemented Victoria
KPMG completed a Child FIRST Review 42 in 2011. Key areas for further development there
include:

strengthening the sustainability of IFS partnerships through tools and resources to enable
effective management and stronger accountability for performance
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 78







enhancing the interface between CPS and Child FIRST and IFS at governance and service
delivery levels
enhancing collaboration with universal, secondary and Specialist services
establishing real demand and investment requirements for ChildFIRST and IFS
taking a lead on a stronger public health approach to demand management
improving the consistency of eligibility determination statewide (Victoria does not have a
universal CAF and tool)
clearer tiered planning (we had AAG model) and
strengthening capacity of intervention at an earlier stage than a statutory response.
It is not surprising that, for models with major similarities there is a strong congruence of their
evolution and areas for further development. The Tasmanian model already has features
recommended for further development in Victoria by KPMG and others are covered by the
recommendations made through this report.
This is clearly not a time for major change or re-thinking the model. This review has established the
value of the Gateway/IFSS model, including improved outcomes for children and families, value for
money for Government and a strong maturing of integration and cooperation between sector
providers, with the working relationship between CPS and the sector continuing to improve.
Note is also taken of the Select Committee report comments in relation to the need for further
inquiry, which recommended that, given the large number of reports and recommendations over
recent years, a further broad ranging inquiry into the child protection system is not warranted. In a
similar way, it would be un-helpful to shake confidence in the family support service system and
providers to create unnecessary uncertainty about continuity.
Recommendation 29
The Government should adopt an evolutionary approach to development of the Family Support Service
system, entering into new Funding Agreements with existing providers subject to successful negotiation of
arrangements.
It is also important to note that most of the areas on which recommendations have been made are
the subject of forward planning as priority areas for attention in DCS business planning and program
management processes. There are no issues that have arisen through this review that would signal
the need for an “off-line” unit or project to implement recommendations.
Recommendation 30
The Department should progress the approved recommendations from this report as part of established
business planning and program management.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 79
9 Appendices
Appendix A
Draft Family Support Services Operational Framework
Appendix B
Annotated information sharing provisions form the CYPF Act
Appendix C
Detail of parties consulted as part of the review process
Appendix D
Suggested DHHS Governance, Gateway/IFSS
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 80
Appendix A: Draft Family Support Services Operational Framework.
Click here for the Draft Family Support Services Operational Framework
This document was held at Draft stage, pending finalisation of this review and resolution of any issues raised.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 81
Appendix B: Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1997 Annotated Excerpts relating to information sharing
Section 3 (1)
Interpretation
"information-sharing entity" means –
(g)
the person in charge of an organisation that receives a referral from the Secretary or a
Community-Based Intake Service;
That is, every organisation that receives a referral from the Gateway or CPS, whether or not
funded by the Department, is an information sharing entity
Section 14.
(1)
Informing of concern about abuse or neglect or certain behaviour
In this section,
prescribed person means –
(k)
any other person who is employed or engaged as an employee for, of or in, or who is a
volunteer in –
(i)
a Government Agency that provides health, welfare, education, child care or
residential services wholly or partly for children; and
(ii)
an organisation that receives any funding from the Crown for the provision of
such services; and
Employees and volunteers of all organisations funded to provide family support are prescribed
persons.
(2) If a prescribed person, in carrying out official duties or in the course of his or her work
(whether paid or voluntary), believes, or suspects, on reasonable grounds, or knows –
(a)
that a child has been or is being abused or neglected or is an affected child within the
meaning of the Family Violence Act 2004; or
(b)
that there is a reasonable likelihood of a child being killed or abused or neglected by a
person with whom the child resides; or
(c)
while a woman is pregnant, that there is a reasonable likelihood that after the birth of
the child –
(i)
the child will suffer abuse or neglect, or may be killed by a person with whom the
child is likely to reside; or
(ii)
the child will require medical treatment or other intervention as a result of the
behaviour of the woman, or another person with whom the woman resides or is
likely to reside, before the birth of the child –
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 82
the prescribed person must inform the Secretary or a Community-Based Intake Service of
that belief, suspicion or knowledge as soon as practicable after he or she forms the belief or
suspicion or gains the knowledge.
Employees and volunteers of all organisations funded to provide family support are required
to notify the Gateway or CPS of concern.
Section 53B.
(1)
(2)
Secretary and information-sharing entities may provide information
The Secretary may do either or both of the following:
(a)
provide an information-sharing entity with information relating to the safety, welfare or
wellbeing of a relevant person;
(b)
require an information-sharing entity to provide, to the Secretary, information relating
to the safety, welfare or wellbeing of a relevant person.
An information-sharing entity required to provide information to the Secretary under
subsection (1)(b) must, within the period specified by the Secretary –
(a) provide the information; or
(b) if the information-sharing entity does not have the information, provide the Secretary
with written notice that it cannot provide the information for that reason.
That is, CPS may provide, or require to be provided information in relation to a relevant
person (child/parent/significant other) by every organisation that receives a referral from the
Gateway or CPS.
(3)
An information-sharing entity may do either or both of the following if satisfied that
information in its possession relates to the safety, welfare or wellbeing of a relevant person:
(a) provide the Secretary with the information, whether or not the Secretary has required
the information to be provided;
(b) provide another information-sharing entity with the information if that entity is involved
with, or is likely to be involved with, the relevant person or a significant person to the
relevant person.
That is, any Gateway/IFSS may provide information in relation to a relevant person
(child/parent/significant other) to either CPS or another service provider.
The purpose of information sharing should of course be consistent with the Object of the act, and
done to further the Object.
Section 7.
Object
(1)
The object of this Act is to provide for the care and protection of children in a manner that
maximises a child's opportunity to grow up in a safe and stable environment and to reach his
or her full potential.
(2)
The Minister must seek to further the object of this Act and, to that end, should endeavour –
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 83
(a)
to promote, and assist in the development of, a partnership approach between the
Government, local government, non-Government agencies and families in taking
responsibility for and dealing with the problem of child abuse and neglect; and
(b)
to promote and assist in the development of coordinated strategies for dealing with the
problem of child abuse and neglect; and
(c)
to provide, or assist in the provision of, services for dealing with the problem of child
abuse and neglect and for the care and protection of children; and
(d)
to provide, or assist in the provision of, preventative and support services directed
towards strengthening and supporting families and reducing the incidence of child abuse
and neglect; and
(e)
to assist recognised Aboriginal organisations to establish and provide preventative and
support services directed towards strengthening and supporting families and reducing
the incidence of child abuse and neglect within the Aboriginal community; and
(f)
to provide, or assist in the provision of, information or education services for guardians,
prospective guardians and other members of the community in relation to the
developmental, social and safety requirements of children; and
(g)
to provide, or assist in the provision of, education to persons who are required to
notify the Secretary if they know or reasonably believe or suspect that a child is being,
or is likely to be, abused or neglected; and
(h)
to provide, or assist in the provision of, services to help persons who have been under
the guardianship or in the custody of the Secretary during childhood to make a
successful transition to adulthood; and
(i)
to collect and publish relevant data or statistics or to assist in their collection or
publication; and
(j)
to promote, encourage and undertake research into child abuse and neglect; and
(k)
to encourage the provision, by educational institutions, of courses offering instruction
about child abuse and neglect and its prevention and treatment; and
(l)
generally to do such other things which the Minister believes will further the object of
this Act.
This establishes Ministerial responsibility to, inter alia, promote a partnership approach, to
provide or assist in the provision of preventative and support services directed to
strengthening families, to collect data and to undertake research.
Section 8.
(1)
Principles to be observed in dealing with children
The administration of this Act is to be founded on the following principles:
(a)
the primary responsibility for a child's care and protection lies with the child's family;
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 84
(b)
a high priority is to be given to supporting and assisting the family to carry out that
primary responsibility in preference to commencing proceedings under Division 2 of
Part 5;
(c)
if a family is not able to meet its responsibilities to the child and the child is at risk, the
Secretary may accept those responsibilities.
(2) In any exercise of powers under this Act in relation to a child –
(a)
the best interests of the child must be the paramount consideration; and
(b)
serious consideration must be given to the desirability of –
(i)
keeping the child within his or her family; and
(ii)
preserving and strengthening family relationships between the child and the child's
guardians and other family members, whether or not the child is to reside within
his or her family; and
(iii)
not withdrawing the child unnecessarily from the child's familiar environment,
culture or neighbourhood; and
(iv)
not interrupting unnecessarily the child's education or employment; and
(v)
preserving and enhancing the child's sense of ethnic, religious or cultural identity,
and making decisions and orders that are consistent with ethnic traditions or
religious or cultural values; and
(vi)
preserving the child's name; and
(vii) not subjecting the child to unnecessary, intrusive or repeated assessments; and
(c)
the powers, wherever practicable and reasonable, must be exercised in a manner that
takes into account the views of all persons concerned with the welfare of the child.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 85
Appendix C: Names of those consulted as part of this review
North West Forum (17 November 2011) Participants (24): Melissa Murray FBC, Justine Barwick FBC,
Wendy Cadman FBC, Jodie Stokes MA, David Bryan Wyndarra, Denese Ferguson Wyndarra, Larry Kalender
Centacare, Cheryl Jones GFC, Mark Holwill GFC, Emma Stott Anglicare, Sue Howard LINC, Simon
Hyvattinen MA, Beth Cooper HT, Annie Taylor CHaPS, Sue Mitchell CHaPS, Sally Cock FV, Anna Prouse CPS,
Mary Donnelly-Grey Salvation Army, Jodi Maxwell SA, Laura Williams CPT, Carol Redman CPT, Ros Atkinson
YAFF, Bernadette Zeeman YAFF and Emma Gebrael CAMHS
Northern Forum Held (17 November 2011) Participants (17): Lynette Burr Ravenswood NHH,
Theraze Duggan CPT, Cathy Hurst Baptcare, Jeannette Doyle St Giles, Camille Everett Baptcare, Maurice
Dawe UC, Cindy Richards CPS, Stuart Lee GFC, Diana Holliday Baptcare, Flora Dean UC, Cassie Tennant
CPS, Natasha Williams CPS, Kai Kitchin CPS, Maxene Schulte Yemaya, Richard Austin Centacare, Tim Fowler
CPS
Southern Forum (18 November 2011) Participants (33): Di Bester FSSA, Tanya Castle-Phillips SA,
Annette Clark HCM, Suzi Edwards Pittwater, Donna Evans GB, Leanne Harris LG, Emily Hope BC, Renate
Hughes, GCC, Nella Keane Autism Tas, Trish Males BC, Helen Manser JRS, Rhonda McIntyre SA, Sherri
McKenna HT, Caroline Pegg ACD, Teresa Rose MA, Jill Sleiters GCC, Natasha Speed BC, Alayne Stott MA,
Maryse Street Positive Solutions, Kim Strickland BC, Teresa Whyte Centacare, Natalie Wright Anglicare,
Marilyn Marks Pittwater, Martha Hay Centacare, Michelle Folder HCM, Marie Hardwick JRS, Robyn Manton
JRS, Ann McRae BC, Wendy Yardy CPT, Sarah Lockley CPT, Noel Fittock MA, Michelle Zara Lifeline, Mark
Jessop CPS
Key stakeholder consultations
Office
Contacts
Baptcare
Commissioner for Children
CHaPS
Mary D’Elia, Helen Riddell
Aileen Ashford, Jeanette Banks
Raylene Cox, Christine Long (North), Cheryl Smith
(NW)
Des Graham, Jennifer Thain
Andrea Sturges, Paulette Muskett, Sonia Chivers,
Pamela Lovell, Helen Marshall, Cindy Richards, Mark
Byrne, Ange McCrossen, Leonie Watson, Tony Poole,
Rebecca Flakelar
Steve Bayliss, Kate Wilson
Bev Funnell
Jeremy Harbottle, Di Caney
Simon Koop, Louise Newbery, Steve Rickerby,
Michael Valk
Sarah Lockley (SE), Wendy Yardy (SW), Laura
Williams (NW), Steve MacKenzie & Theraze Duggan
(North)
Donna Evans
Robyn Yaxley
Anne French Bill Linton (SW), Amanda Beams (SE),
(Craig Tyeson (North), Di Beverage (NW). Craig
Tyeson, Di Beveridge (survey)
Noel Mundy, Denise Brazendale, Noelene Fittock
Lindy O’Neill, Flora Dean
Paul Mallett
Georgina McLagan*, Teresa Whyte (attended forum)
Justin Abrahams, Linda Bennett
John Hooper
Nick Goddard *
John Alderdice *
*Attempts were made to meet
Office for Children
Child Protection Services
Youth Justice
Child and Family Centres
Children and Youth Services
CYS Performance and Evaluation Team
DHHS Community Partnership Teams
Good Beginnings
Justice, Safe@Home
Department of Education, Learning
Services
Mission Australia
Uniting Care
Anglicare
Centacare
Police
Tasmanian Association Community Houses
Statewide and Mental Health Services
Drug & Alcohol
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 86
Appendix D: Suggested DHHS Governance Gateway/IFSS
Governance
Forum
Alliance Meetings
DCS Executive
Participants
Partners
Director DCS and
DCS Managers
As per TORs
Occurring
Alliance timelines
Monthly
6-monthly following
receipt of
performance report
by Commissioning
Unit
Monthly
Program/Service
Planning and
priorities
Funding
Agreement
management
AAGs and Statewide
Advisory Group
FA Performance
Review
(4 X DCS Areas)
Lead Agency
Operations Manager
Manager DCS (Area)
CS Program Manager
Service System
monitoring and
management
Statewide
Operations Meeting
CPS relationship
CPS Liaison Meeting
Lead Agency
Operations Managers
Director CYS
Director DCS
DHHS Program Mgr/s
Lead Agency
Area Manager
CPS Area Manager
DCS Relationship
Area
Operations Meeting
Service
coordination and
practice
Alliance Meetings
Practice
Practitioner
Networks
Lead Agency
Operations Manager
Lead Agency
Area Manager
Manager DCS (Area)
CPT Manager
Partners
By invitation:
FSS Providers
DCS/CPS/CPT
Managers
As developed at area
level.
AAG timelines
Monthly – 6-weekly
Monthly – 6-weekly
Alliance timelines
Network timelines
These arrangements would not result in creation of a new overlay of meetings and forums, with
most already in place, although there is some change to scope and participants. For example, the
Area Operations Meetings occur now, but focus on the Disability Services Gateway operations.
This extends their scope to family support.
Funding Agreement Management performance reviews are proposed to be more formally
structured and to include both the area managers for the lead agencies and DCS, and the statewide
managers for the lead agencies and DCS.
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 87
References
1
Select Committee on Child Protection, Parliament of Tasmania, House of Assembly, No 44, 2011
1
Select Committee on Child Protection, Parliament of Tasmania, House of Assembly, No 44, 2011
2
NCPC Resource Sheet, February 2011
3
Review of the Family Support Service, Final Report, KPMG, October 2005, P81
4
Gateway/IFSS Services Request for Proposal, DHHS, 2008
5
Review of the Family Support Service, Final Report, KPMG, October 2005, P68
6
Review of Child Protection & Gateway Interactions, DHHS, November 2011, P1
7
Review of Child Protection & Gateway Interactions, DHHS, November 2011, P3
8
Gateway and IFSS Client Interviews Summary Report, 3p Consulting, December 2011
9
Gateway and IFSS Client Interviews Summary Report, 3p Consulting, December 2011, P7
10
IFSS Request For Proposals, DHHS, 2008, P 23
11
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P43
12
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P41-42
13
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P16
14
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P20
15
Gateway North-West Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P8
16
Gateway South-East Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P17
17
Gateway South-East Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P17
18
Gateway North-West Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P8
19
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P13
20
IFSS Request For Proposals, DHHS, 2008, Section 3.3
21
Family Support Services Operational Framework, DHHS, November 2011, Pp 23-26
22
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P29
23
Gateway and IFSS Client Interviews Summary Report, 3p Consulting, December 2011
24
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P22
25
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, Pp 24-25
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 88
26
Gateway North-West Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P12
27
Gateway South-East Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P11
28
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P16
29
Brief Response to the Gateway and FSS Midterm review, TACH, December 2011
30
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P16
31
Gateway North-West Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P12
Gateway South-East Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P11
32
Gateway South-East Service Report, Mission Australia, December 2011, P39
33
Launceston Newpin Quality Assurance Report November 2011, Uniting Care Burnside, P8
34
Reviewing the evidence on the effectiveness of early childhood intervention, KPMG, 30 September 2011
(released 19 December 2011)
35
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P41
36
Baptcare Midterm Review Report December 2011, P42
37
Gateway and IFSS Client Interviews Summary Report, 3Pconsulting, December 2011, P9
38
NCPC Resource Sheet, February 2011 available at http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs1/rs1.html
38
Child First and Integrated Family Services Evaluation Summary Report, KPMG, February 2011
39
Child Protection Australia 2010-1, Child Welfare Series No 53, AIHW, December 2011, P19
40
Child Protection Australia 2010-1, Child Welfare Series No 53, AIHW, December 2011, P9
41
Children in out of home care, Report of the Auditor General No 2 of 2011-12, September 2011, P28
42
Child First and Integrated Family Services Evaluation Final Report, KPMG, February 2011
Review of Gateway and Family Support Services
Page 89