Briefing Session Briefing Session Interim Report on the Implementation Interim Report on the Implementation

of Family Services Reviewof Family Services Review

Mr Fung Pak-yan Dr Joe Leung

AD(FCW)/SWD HKU Consultant

2 June 2003

2

BACKGROUND

Report on the Review of Family Services in HK

(June 2001)

3

Recommendations

Direction

Strengthening families through a

child-centred, family-focused and

community-based approach

4

Principles of service deliveryPrinciples of service delivery

Accessibility

Early identification

Integration

Partnership

5

New service delivery modelNew service delivery model

Integrated Family Service Centre (IFSC)

Family Resource Unit (FRU)

Family Support Unit (FSU)

Family Counselling Unit (FCU)

6

Implementation StrategyImplementation Strategy Implementation StrategyImplementation Strategy

Bottom-up and gradual approach

Verify the effectiveness of IFSC

model through a 2-year Pilot Project

Evaluative study conducted by HKU

during the 2-year Pilot period

Training on change management and

multi-skills training

7

14 pilot projects selected

1 Integrated Service Project in Tung Chung also included

IFSC Pilot ProjectsIFSC Pilot ProjectsIFSC Pilot ProjectsIFSC Pilot Projects

8

Support for Pilot ProjectsSupport for Pilot ProjectsSupport for Pilot ProjectsSupport for Pilot Projects

Lotteries Fund grant ($200,000 to meet non-recurrent expenses such as publicity, programmes, staff training, etc.)Minor renovation work for 8 service unitsReprovisioning of 1 service unit2 time-limited Programme Assistant posts to each pilot project23 training courses with over 900 participants

9

EvaluativeEvaluative StudyStudy

Objectives of the studyAssess effectiveness and implementation arrangements of IFSC modelExamine effectiveness of the use of existing resources, including manpower deploymentRecommend benchmark level of output & outcome indicatorsRecommend the most cost-effective approach for future practice

10

Presentation of Initial Findings Presentation of Initial Findings &&

Recommendations byRecommendations by

HKU ConsultantsHKU Consultants

New Frontiers for Family Services

HKU Consultant Team

Background• SWD commissioned HKU to carry out an

independent in-built evaluative study on 15 pilot projects from April 02 to March 04.

• Pilot Projects were established to verify the effectiveness of the IFSC model.

• Pluralistic approach: UIS, SIS, pilot projects’ business plan & half-yearly self-assessment report, focus groups (stakeholders, users, social workers & supervisors), case study, consultants’ reports and observations.

Purposes

• To assess performance of pilot projects after one-year implementation

• To identify key issues to inform further planning

Findings & Recommendations1. Characteristics of 15 pilot projects:

Greenfield: 1 Self-transformation: 2 (existing FSC) Merging: 4 (FSC + community-based service of the

same agency) Strategic alliance: 8 (FSC of an agency + community-

based service of another agency) Target population sizes and staff provisions varied

among projects Only partial integration involved in some projects

2. Users’ profiles: Typical pilot project user: female

adult with no job and poor education. High proportion of new arrivals,

people without spouses, older persons & social security recipients

Vulnerable populations

Socio-Economic Information of Service User

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

% of cases

Male Female

Sex

Sex Distribution

Distribution of Age Group

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

0~1011~2021~3031~4041~5051~6061~7071~8081~90

>91

Age

gro

up

Percentage

Employment Status

0 5 10 15 20 25

Employed Full Time

Employed Part-time

Unemployed

Retired

Home-maker

Students

Self-employed

Others

3. Services rendered: Continuum of family & children programs: clinical

case & group intervention, training & educational classes, supportive groups, family-oriented social activities & child care programs

Screening form & assessment tools: objective & standardized instrument to determine level of risk, service needs & intervention required

Overall, users were extremely satisfied with the service

4. Tremendous workload for the 1st year of implementation: preparing for formation, learning & using new forms, launching service promotion campaigns, etc.

TEAMWORK is vital!

5. Establishment of IFSC requires: IFSC operators & social workers’

commitments & initiatives Cultural shift among social workers

(traditional casework dominated approach a more diversified, multi-level & community-based intervention)

6. Learning from different formation modes: Strategic alliance:

Convenient & ready-made mode Complementary expertise of 2 services Differences between culture & practice of 2

partnered agencies Limited collaboration in redeployment of

staff and shared budgeting

Greenfield, merging & self-transformationMore effective to facilitate interfacing amongst 3 IFSC

unitsDeployment of social workers across 2-3 IFSC unitsMore effective inter-unit referralsSelf-transformation: takes longer time to develop FSU

& FRUMerging: partnership between FSC & community-

based service synergy to develop a new service mode more responsive to community & family needs

Partial integration creates confusion merging 2 service units to form IFSC should involve 2 WHOLE UNITS

7. Interfacing with other services Clear division of responsibility between

IFSC & other family-related community-based services and centres dealing with family and individual crisis

IFSC can take up more responsibility in providing services targeting vulnerable populations, eg. new arrivals, single parents, people with suicidal risk

8. Clear consensus in the field that IFSC is an effective mode of family service preparation for establishment of IFSC should be made as early as possible

9. IFSC provisions: Clear & independent service

boundary, with a population ranged from 100,000 – 150,000 people

In each district of DSWO, selected SWD IFSC(s) should be responsible for statutory cases

10.Staff provisions: a minimum of 12 -14 social workers

1 supervisor FCU: 4 – 6 counsellors FSU: 6 group workers and brief counse

llors FRU: 2 community & group workers

Deployment of social workers should be dynamic & flexible

Pilot Project FCU Caseload per Social Worker

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O

AverageCaseload/SocWorker (Apr-Dec02)

AverageCaseload/SocWorker (Dec 02)

11. Establishing IFSCs: Pooling of existing resources Merging of FSC with community-based servic

e: more cost-effective to maximize existing resources & expertise

Strategic alliance should be discouraged Self-transformation: has to ensure traditional

caseworkers are equipped adequately with required community & group work skills

12.Strategic rationalization, close down, reshuffling, reallocation & merging of existing services the rebirth of a new program with a new mission, not the death of a conventional program

31

The Way ForwardThe Way Forward

32

Re-engineering should begin nowReasons:

Definitive advantages of IFSCs (e.g. greater accessi

bility, more integrated services, wider community n

etwork, enhanced partnership, improved users’ par

ticipation and satisfaction)

Consensus in the field that IFSC is a preferred mod

e

Position family services to better meet increasing de

mand arising from worsening family solidarity

The earlier the transformation, the greater certaint

y of resources in family services against tight fiscal

situation

33

Parameters for re-engineering – Parameters for re-engineering – some directions aheadsome directions ahead

Transform all FSCs into IFSCsOverall redistribution of FSC/counselling unit resources to fill service gaps and avoid duplication of resourcesPooling of resources: Apart from existing FSC/counselling unit resources,

re-engineering should take into consideration efficiency savings and pooling of other resources available in the family services e.g. FLE, FA, FSRC, PMC, SPC, etc.

Pooling of resources beyond the family services e.g. community centre, FSNT, CYC, NLCDP will need further consideration by SWD against savings requirements and policy deliberation

34

Preferred mode of transformation -in the following order of priority Merging Self-transformationStrategic alliance not a preferred optionPartial integration not considered

35

Number of IFSCs in each district: depends on a combination of factors including population, district needs and social indicators, etc.SWD/NGO proportion will follow more or less the same ratio as currently in existence, but there may be some swopping of service units between agencies as necessaryClear service boundary, i.e. 1 IFSC serving a defined boundaryStatutory cases and other cases more suitably handled by SWD in an NGO IFSC boundary will still be served by SWD

36

Co-ordination and collaboration with other community-based units such as DECC, ICYSC, school social work so that IFSC would only receive referrals from these units with proven need for intensive counsellingMinimum size of an IFSC: 12-14 social workers (some IFSCs can be larger, depending on population served, district needs and social indicators, but not mega IFSC!)Service components of IFSCs should also include FLE, services for new arrivals and single parents, suicide prevention, etc.

37

Preparation for ChangePreparation for Change

ConsultationBriefing to the Working Group (7 May 2003)Briefing to the Sector (2 June 2003)SWAC (26 June 2003)LegCo Welfare Panel (July 2003)

Trainingchange managementprogramme designmulti-skills training (especially on group work)marketing and service planning

38

Premises

Reprovisioning & relocation if just

ified to ensure better coverage

New Schedule of Accommodation

Minor renovations

Additional F & E

39

Tasks in the coming monthsTasks in the coming months

Planning for rationalization to take place before end of pilot projectMap out service needs, resources available and required for each districtWork out rationalization plans, e.g. examine the no. of IFSCs required, their distribution, potential operators, resources available for pooling, etc.

40

Tasks in the coming monthsTasks in the coming months

Close liaison, collaboration and co

ordination among DSWOs, FCW Br

anch and agencies in the process

Benchmark output/outcome levels

Refine screening/assessment tools

41

THE END