Transcript No Slide Title

CONTEXT OF PRACTICE
• Geelong is the largest regional city in Victoria, with a population of 198,000
• Geelong is situated approximately 75 kms, southwest of Melbourne
• Geelong is the traditional home of the Wathaurong Community
• The region has a diverse range of coastal, urban, rural and semi rural
living options.
• Geelong is also known for its farming, manufacturing, heavy
industry, tourism and wine growing
GLASTONBURY – IN THE BEGINNING
• In 1854, Glastonbury was established as a children’s orphanage
• Two co-founders, James Austin, a successful businessman and property owner
William Hingston Baylie, who was also the Mayor of Geelong
• An orphanage was deemed necessary due to the gold rush which saw many
abandoned, neglected and orphaned children
• Only other avenue of “care” was under the Vagrancy Act, which saw children
arrested, brought before the Courts and often imprisoned or placed in large
children homes in Melbourne
• In the 1950’s a Geelong historian suggested that the children’s
home be renamed as “Glastonbury” to honour the 100 year
association of the Austin family to the children’s home
GLASTONBURY – IN THE BEGINNING Cont...
• From the mid 1960’s the profile of children placed in care changed, with more
focus being on physical, sexual, emotional abuse and neglect
• In the late 1970’s Glastonbury established family group homes with a view of
closing the children’s home
• In the mid 1980’s the children’s home was closed with the establishment of 10
family group homes
• In the early 1990’s Glastonbury diversified it’s program profile, establishing a
family support program and case work service, whilst maintaining the family
group homes.
• 2003 saw the amalgamation o f several family support programs, allowing for a
continuum of service response, flexible interventions tailored to meet the needs
of children and their family’s.
TRADITIONAL FAMILIES FIRST MODEL
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
 This program was Initially modelled on the “Homebuilders” program operating
in the US since 1974
 Underpinned by Family Preservation principles, providing intensive family based
service to high risk families during a time of crisis when:
 An out of home placement of child/children is probable (placement prevention)
Or
 Planned reunification of children with their families (Reunification)
 Program offers both therapeutic and concrete interventions to assist families to
overcome difficulties that place their children at risk of harm
 The work is intensive (up to 20 hours per week), and of a brief duration
of up to six weeks
TRADITIONAL FAMILIES FIRST MODEL
SERVICE CHARACTERISTICS
 Focus on family strengths – not problems
 Limited to families where children are at risk of placement unless the
identified protective concerns are resolved
 Flexible scheduling (7 day week availability)
 On call crisis component
 Small caseloads (2 families) per worker
 Intensive intervention (5 – 20 hours per week as needed)
 Services delivered in client’s home and community
PRACTICE WISDOM
 In 1999 an integrated approach was adopted with staff working a mixed case
load of one FF and several FRP families
 Adopted to enable continuity of worker as many interventions did not succeed
because of the transfer of the worker relationship
 Further key issues from practice and annual reviews, giving rise to a more
extended form of reunification process:
 Parents who had not adequately sorted out their personal issues hit crises,
which resulted in children being returned to care
 Paradoxically this was often at the point when the client had engaged with
the staff member and the crisis could be used to make change. This often
resulted in the program withdrawing and the client losing the opportunity to
consolidate or move towards change.
 On occasions when a Family Resource Worker had been involved in the family
this had been beneficial in establishing routines, practical care/life
skills tasks. It was felt that this approach could be usefully
commenced prior to the family having the stress of children
returning to care.
PRACTICE WISDOM Cont...
• Need to work with wider family members than just the immediate family unit.
Many families had experienced trans-generational trauma and work often
defaulted to include grandparents, new partners, aunts/uncles etc.
• Parents who had experienced substance abuse and mental health issues tended
to require long term interventions - practice observations suggest that it took
some time to establish a trusting relationship and that an earlier form of
intervention
LITERATURE REVIEW
REUNIFICATION SUCCESS
• Chronic conditions, such as long term relationship difficulties, substance abuse and
multi-generational trauma suggest long term service works best (Ainsworth 2001,
Atkin & Gregorie 1997, Tristekiotis 1993, Hohman & Butt 2001)
• Repeated, multiple at tempts at reunification reduce the likelihood of ultimate
likelihood of success (Tristekitotis 1993, Department of Human Services - Victoria
2003)
• Re-entry into foster care following reunification can be reduced by service provision
both before and after a child’s discharge from care (Festinger, cited in Ainsworth
2001, McCarrt-Hess, Folaron, & Buschcmann 1994)
• Parental substance abuse is a key predictor of neglect and likelihood of children
being removed from parental care (Hoffman & Rosenheck 2001, Department of
Human Services - Victoria 2003)
• Planning for reunification needs to be prompt and purposeful with clear
understanding of the outcomes/behaviours that parents need to
demonstrate (Tristekitoitis 1993, Hohmann & Butt 2001, McCarrt,
Folaron & Buschmann 1994)
LITERATURE REVIEW Cont...
INTERVENTION APPROACHES
• Transgenerational trauma can impact the present thereby supporting a whole
family approach (Bekir, McLellan, Childress & Gariti 1993, Chaitin 2003)
• Positive relationships with key workers facilitates successful reunification,
particularly in the area of substance abuse (Hoffman & Rosenheck 2001)
• Intervention approaches need to include practical support, such as education
about child development, parenting skills, problem solving, family/friends/community
support, brokerage for child care, housing and transport (Sun 2000, Ainsworth 200,
Hohman & Butt 2001)
• Preparation of all family members contributes to the success of reunification and
this needs to include learning/practising new behaviours prior to reunification
(McCartt, Folaron & Buschmann 1994, Tilbury 2003)
CASE WORKER/RESOURCE WORKER ROLES
UNDER THE 2 WORKER MODEL
CASEWORKER

















Qualifications
Bachelor of Social Work
Psychology
Diploma of Welfare Studies
or Equivalent
Skills in family therapy, short term
competency based practice
Case management
Case direction tasks
Counselling intervention
Development of protective plans
Risk assessment
Coordination of service systems
Crisis intervention
Assessment/service plans
Advocacy
Macro
Education
Report writing
Taking lead/decision making role in
two worker model
FAMILY RESOURCE WORKER







Qualifications
Experience in child and family welfare
Tertiary qualifications in human
services desirable but not a
prerequisite
Practical material aid tasks
Role modelling work
General support ie. budgeting and
household management, routines
Assisting in the coordination of
meeting appointments
Crisis work, usually in consultation
with case worker
Micro
CASE EXAMPLE 1
AUGUST 1998 – MARCH 2001
 Mary, a single mother aged 24
 Two boys aged 4 & 6 years
 At time of intervention eldest child had experienced six placements and the
youngest five
 Commenced as reunification in FF then transferred to FRP. Placement of both
boys subsequently broke down and they returned to foster care
 Technically this should have been closed, as Mary did not have the children in
her care
 However as reunification was case planned to occur promptly decision was made
to remain involved
 Focus moved to a counselling intervention for the mother with interventions
around cognitive approaches (journal, crisis planning), narrative solution focused
(therapeutic letter writing) projective/object relationship work, normalising/
reframing.
Interventions in regard to parenting were also utilised around
behaviour modification, time out, protective plans, identifying strengths,
and family activity time.
CASE EXAMPLE 1 Cont...
 Mother very isolated – no family support.
 Intervention occurred over a two and a half-year time frame with the boys
being reunified after 18 months in care and 12 months for youngest child.
Family support continued for eight months post reunification and four months
post Child Protection withdrawal.
 Returned with planned recurrent respite.
 Child Protection were satisfied with the progress that they revoked the order
six months early.
 Follow up two years post closure – both boys still at home. More tellingly family
had not been visited by Child Protection in that time.
 Lesson was that once Mother’s significant trauma issues had been addressed
there was space for her to prioritise her children’s needs.
In August 2003 the agency underwent a major re-development of its Family Based
Services Programs, which was operationalised in November 2003. The Enhanced
Families First model was included as part of this process and at this stage
is very much a “work in progress”.
CASE EXAMPLE 2
Enhanced Families First Model
JANUARY 2003 – CURRENT
 Jemima, single mother of two children
 10 year old girl (Ester) & four year old boy (Sam)
 Ten year old has had multiple placements usually with maternal grandparents. This
has in effect been co-parenting in many instances.
 Extended family support
 Issues around neglect (inadequate supervision, environmental neglect, verbal abuse,
running away
 Protective issues around physical abuse hitting with objects, smacking
 After a complicated family conflict over the care of Ester and abuse incident by
Jemima, Ester was placed in a Glastonbury placement in May 2003.
 Again rather than withdraw the agency’s input decision was made to maintain
the family in a pre care model. This enabled work to continue with
regards to Sam’s safety and to work towards Ester returning to her
mother’s care.
CASE EXAMPLE 2 Cont...
Enhanced Families First Model
PROGRESS
 Use of Family Resource work intervention meant hygiene, routine and household
management issues could be established and maintained for sufficient time for
Sam’s Supervision Order to be withdrawn.
 The agency’s early intervention program for pre-schoolers (Peach) was
implemented along with attendance at the agency’s parenting group. In addition
Counselling occurred around family systems & dynamics, relationship issues,
personal safety and family of origin with Jemima.
 During this time Jemima had limited contact from her parents and sought support
from extended family members.
 Counselling commenced with Ester with the goals of helping her settle into
placement, working through anxiety related t o recent familial conflict issues
around court and prepare Ester for more specialised counselling.
 Family appeared on track for reunification of Ester to occur although clear
work was identified and required in relation to anger management
issues for Jemima, before this could occur safely.
CASE EXAMPLE 2 Cont...
NEW DYNAMIC
Enhanced Families First Model
 In September 2003 a request for custody and contact with Ester came from her
Father, who had no previous involvement with Ester since she was 2.
 The program had input into the planning and facilitation of this process.
 A period of weeks went into the successful preparation of this new introduction of
Ester to her Father and his new family. This included casework staff meeting the
Father, his wife and family.
 Ester’s counselling continued with a disclosure occurring around sexual abuse from
her brother’s father: (NB: Sam’s no longer in Australia).
 Abuse denied by mother to both casework staff and Child Protection.
 Subsequent to this supervision issues again emerged for Ester on access along with
unsupervised contact with maternal grandparents, which was in breach of Child
Protection Orders.
 Jemima withdraws from the program following making threats to Ester’s father
and withdrew from other services, such as the Peach program and child care.
 Ester’s counselling is maintained.
 Ongoing intervention with Mother’s sibling and family and Ester’s father.
CASE EXAMPLE 2 Cont...
Enhanced Families First Model
CURRENT SITUATION
 Counselling for Ester to stop due to a change in her access with her mother and
maternal grandparents
 Pattern of this effectively meaning that Ester is not safe and unable to disclose
the “hard stuff” that she wants to talk about
 Referral for Ester’s father to undertake reunification preparation for the
possibility of Ester coming to live with her Father and family
 There are some blended family issues pertaining to this occurring and being
successful
 Current placement “safe”
 Maintaining extended family input into Ester’s life, eg staying together during
school holidays, contributing to education and leisure expenses.
ADVANTAGES and DISADVANTAGES of
Enhanced Families First Model for Case Example Two
ADVANTAGES

Continuity of service delivery for child

Avoidance of reunification by default
DISADVANTAGES

Child’s extended family are in the loop and informed

Inclusive of all family members

Avoids separation and fragmentation

As child protection workers change there is a “keeper
of the process”

Careful consideration of whether
reunification to family is appropriate

Disclosure in counselling has freed up information
around viability or return to Mother that was
previously unknown (unintended)
or
not
a

Multiple roles requires sensitivity to boundaries and
positioning

Legal considerations given issue will return to court

Time consuming

Skill needed to keep focused on casework and
therapeutic issues rather than vested interests and
conflict.
PRE CARE MODEL
CRITERIA
 Parents with significant childhood abuse histories – sexual & physical
 Previous unsuccessful reunification attempts
 Children are safe
 Children in care/transient arrangements eg. Relatives who frequently step
in and care for the children
 Willingness and preparedness to make changes
 Extended family involvement an advantage
AFTER CARE MODEL
CRITERIA
 History of past unsuccessful reunifications
 History of chronic social/emotional functioning that preceded child rearing
and impacts on ability to parent
 Need for period of consolidation of skills to move into maintenance behaviours
 To assist parents with permanency planning regarding the children
 Top up service to past clients
INTERVENTION OFFERED UNDER
Enhanced Families First Model
Pre Care
Reunification
After Care
Individual counselling – parent, child
Ranges from 4 – 12 weeks of traditional
intensive Families First work
Up to 18 months family resource work.
Focus on moving families to
independence
Transgenerational casework eg.
Grandparent mother, family mediation
Reunification readiness
Six week reunification (solo) or plus six
week placement prevention
May include a number of interventions.
 Solo counselling child or parent
 Family work/therapy
 Joint casework/family support work
 Solo family support/family aide
 On call capacity
Family resource work eg routines, child
development
Up to 20 hours per week with on call
capacity
Relinquishment work if services not
viable
Family work – access preparation
Behaviour modification – safety plans,
crisis management
Family Group Conferencing
Relinquishment work
Family Group Conferencing
Family Therapy
Family Group Conferencing
STAFFING MODEL
 Team approach
 Four combined Families First/Family Based Services caseworkers
 One counsellor
 One Family Resource Worker (family support worker)
 Staff can be used at various stages of the model – staff may be used
interchangeable at different points of the model
THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES
 Ecological perspective
 Family Systems Theory
 Crisis Intervention Theory
 Social Learning Theory
 Developmental perspective
 Competence-based practice
 The solution focussed intervention
 A permanency-planning perspective
Figure 1.
Concept Diagram:
Proposal for Continuum of Glastonbury Family Based Services incorporating
 Central Intake – Linked with Coordinated Regional Intake System
Client Needs Key
 “Flexipac” – range of flexible service packages responsive to family/community needs.
(Individually tailored “mix” from “pool” of varying length of service/low, medium, high intensity/multiple interventions)
 Level 2 - Med needs, Preventative/
 protectective concerns (low)
Central Intake
 Duty Screening/initial assess’t for appropriate intervention
 Com’ty/DHS Consultation, Case Conference, Notification if required
 Weekly Intake & Allocation meetings
 Risk/Need Assess’t, Assertive Outreach, S/T case management/Waiting list
 Referral – internal/external
Referrals
 DHS &
 Community
- Self
- Professional
Family Support Services
(current Strengthening Families)
Community
Development &
Outreach
/Service
Network
Options
Level 1
Level 2
up to 3 mths
Level 3
Groupwork
Agency & joint C’ty
Joint Initiatives eg
Co located
Mental Health Worker,
Best Program
Service Network
Groups
eg. Best Start, Batforce, RAG,
NAG
Early Intervention-HIPPY/PEACH
 Level 3 - Med-high needs,
protective concern diversion
 (Enhanced FF) - Intensive
Reunification/Placement
Prevention, med/ high risk,
low intensity pre/post FF
ENHanced
Families First
(*Fig 2)
Level 5
4,6,8,10,12 wks
% of pre/post FF
 Exit
 SafetyNet
 Re entry
 “Top ups”
up to 6 mths, small % of long term
“Pool” of Intervention Options
Community Development & Outreach
Service Network OPtions
 Level 1 -Preventative with needs
Case Management/Casework
Advocacy Assessment Plans
Providing information,
Youth Resource Work
Co working/ Linking
with other services
Counselling
Single session work
Shared C’sling
Parenting Issues
Individual
Couple
Family
In Home Support
Practical Assistance
Parenting Support /Skills
Family Resource work
Brokerage
Group work
Range of Agency
/Community groups
Enhanced Families First
Consultation/Assess’t/Service
Reunif’n Readiness/ PP (Pre)
Reunifiication/Placement Prevent’n
Double Interventions
Aftercare
Family Group Conferencing
Secondary Consultation
Mediation
within family/extended family
 Referral to other
Services
 Closure
Glastonbury Child & Family Services
222 Malop Street
GEELONG VIC 3220
Phone: (03) 5222 6911
Fax: (03) 5222 6933
[email protected]