DRM New Zealand Style:

Practising for outcomes, supporting rights and changing lives

Marie Connolly, PhDMinistry of Social Development

IN AN AVERAGE DAY AT CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY

We will receive more than 230 notifications

… more than 140 will need further action

15 will be critical

6 will be very urgent

59 will be urgent

We will complete more than 100 investigations

… and hold 20 care and protection family group

conferences

More than 5000 children and young people will be living with

caregivers

… supported by our caregiver liaison social workers and care

specialists

7

We will visit key notifiers to raise awareness about child abuse, how to recognise it and how to

report it

8

And we will work with other agencies, NGOs, providers and

communities to tackle the greatest task faced by leaders in

children’s services …

9

… to foster good outcomes and lasting cultural change

10

• Managing unprecedented child abuse and neglect notifications

• Balancing child protection responses and our need to support families

• The need to strengthen family support responses• Concern about the increase in numbers of children

coming into care• Questioning the investigative approach taken with

many families• An NGO sector that wanted to work differently with

us

Drivers for change

11

Vision → Framework → Systems logic

Frameworks Practice Vision Systems

Practising for Outcomes

12

Child safety

Family support Family decision-making

13

Vision → Framework → Systems logic

Frameworks Practice Vision Systems

Outcome focused practice

14

Marie Connolly PhD

New Zealand’s practice framework

The phases of our work

Our perspectives

Our practice triggers

See: Connolly, M. (2007) Practice Frameworks: Conceptual maps to guide interventions in child welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 37 (5) 825-837.

15

•Are we thinking about the whole child: safety, security and wellbeing?

•Have we thought enough about the vulnerability of the very young child?

•Are we engaging and building a relationship with the child/young person?

•If moved from home, is the decision fully justified?

•Has the child been consulted about practice decisions?

•Does the child/young person have someone to talk to about their concerns?

•Are we applying a family/whānau support response?

•Is all contact with the family/whānau respectful?

•Are we persevering with engagement even when resistance is encountered?

•Are we encouraging family/whānau ownership of the issues and solutions?

•Are we responding to the family’s cultural needs?•Are we clear with the family/whānau about our role and power?

•Are pro-social values modelled and abuse-supportive dynamics identified?

•Are family/whānau decision-making processes being utilised early?

•Is the family/whānau seen as a care and protection resource?

•Are we working collaboratively with professionals involved with the family?

The Phases of our Work:

Engagement and Assessment

Child-centred

Family-led & culturally responsive

Strengths & evidence-based

16

•Has the child been actively involved in decision-making processes?•Are decisions and plans supporting safety, stability and belonging?•Have systemic attachments been maintained, eg familial, cultural, social, educational?•Are decisions mindful of child’s timeframes?•Does the child have an advocate they can talk to?

•Is the family/whānau fully involved in the process of decision-making?•Are all family/whānau members having the opportunity to contribute?

•Are the decisions family-led?•Have cultural & broader support systems been mobilised?

•Is everyone clear about what needs to do to make the solutions work?

•Does the family have all the information necessary to make sound decisions?•Are decisions linked to family/whānau strengths and resources?•Are we addressing family violence dynamics?•Are people working together & is it clear who is doing what?•Are the right services being provided at the right time?•Does the worker have a relationship with the family that fosters change?•Is progress being reviewed and positive changes reinforced?

The Phases of our Work:

Seeking solutions

Child-centred

Family-led & culturally responsive

Strengths & evidence-based

17

•Does the child feel like he or she belongs somewhere?•Does the plan for the child address care, safety and wellbeing?•Is the child fully involved in planning?•Does the child have family mementoes, eg photographs, life story book etc?•Is permanency a priority and is placement stability being closely monitored?•Are transitions from care fully planned and supported?

•Is family/whānau reunification a practice priority?

•Are family/whānau members having regular contact with the child?

•Is the family/whānau at the centre of care decision-making?

•Are cultural support systems mobilised?

•Are plans culturally responsive?

•Is permanency being secured for the child to prevent drift in care?

•Are professional relationships working positively to support the child?

•Are community and cross-sectoral services being mobilised?

•Are services well coordinated and are workers getting together to support planning, monitoring and transitions?

•Are services and plans being reviewed as agreed?

The Phases of our Work:

Securing safety and belonging

Child-centred

Family-led & culturally responsive

Strengths & evidence-based

18

Vision → Framework → Systems logic

Frameworks Practice Vision Systems

Outcome focused practice

19

From Transactional to Outcome-focused Practice

Transactional Outcome-focused

Episodic, event driven (i.e. focus on front-end notification) transactional (getting families through the system

Based on need, focus on continuity and stability (i.e. relationship development & change

Focus on risk, ‘protection’ and immediate ‘safety’ (i.e. emphasis on evidence of significant harm or past harm)

Enhanced continuum of care focus, emphasizing both child safety, the child’s developmental and wellbeing needs, and the support needs of the family

(adapted from Dept of Human Services, VIC)

20

From Transactional to Outcome-focused Practice

Transactional Outcome-focused

Limited, short-term responses (e.g. investigate, ensure safety or close)

Flexible responses aligned to child and family needs (e.g. engagement and assessment, needs-based referrals and supportive casework)

Managerial effort focused on closing off system failures by increased emphasis on compliance; efficiency of processes; increased documentation and information fiefdoms

Outcome-based metrics; focus on guiding practice toward in depth, needs-driven relationship work promoting safety and wellbeing. Systems support good practice rather than creating obstacles

Pockets of collaboration Integrated systems

21

Services across the continuum

Universal/preventative services

supporting families to help themselvesEducating and supporting…

Targeted services

Differential responses within communityInfluencing and supporting…

Statutory services

Differential responses within the statutory system

Protecting and supporting…

Strong, capable families

Situations of current harm

22

DRM: doing things differentlyacross the service continuum

Universal/preventative services

supporting families to help themselves

Targeted services

Differential responses within community

Statutory services

Differential responses within the statutory system

Strong, capable families

Situations of current harm

Partnering with NGOs and others to provide services for families based on need: pathways of support across a continuum

23

Levels of Relationship…

Cooperation: focus on networking and liaison; generally requires little commitment, planning usually done in silos, values recognized but not necessarily shared; generally

relies on individual relationships

Coordination: some commitment to formal agreement; some common planning; generally based on case-by-case approach; values shared to pursue

individual agenda

Collaboration: mechanisms established to maintain working relationship; common approaches, systems and processes; mutually agreed goals based on client need; values shared to the extent they

are service based

Partnership: commitment to formal relationship; planning based on partnership; value sharing influences relationship

agendas; systems on equal footing

24

DRM: doing things differentlyacross the service continuum

Universal/preventative services

supporting families to help themselves

Targeted services

Differential responses within community

Statutory services

Differential responses within the statutory system

Strong, capable families

Situations of current harm

Partnering with NGOs and others to provide services for families based on need: pathways of support across a continuum

Building alternatives to investigative processes within statutory systems: pathways of family engagement and support

25

Establishing and securing people’s common and shared civil and human rights and meeting their different self-defined needs in the way they, ensured full knowledge, support and choice prefer (Beresford, 2000)

26

Service users should be regarded as active participants with a right to effect support, but equally, with responsibilities to take up support …and play an active role in improving their outcomes. …lack of control over one’s own life is a key contributory factor to poor outcomes.(Department for Education and Skills, 2007)

27

Openings Opportunities Obligations

1. Consulted and views taken into account

2. Families supported to develop family-led solutions

3. Feedback on service delivery is proactively sought

4. Family involvement in decision-making

5. Power sharing and responsibility for decision-making

Are you committed to and ready for family responsive practice?

Do you believe in family-led solutions?

Are you receptive to feedback?

Are you ready to embrace family involvement in decision-making?

Are you willing to share power?

Do practice systems enable this?

Does service design support this?

Are user feedback systems in place?

Is family involvement in decisions possible?

Can families be responsible for planning and monitoring?

Does policy require this?

Does policy support family-led practice?

Are you required to seek feedback?

Is family involvement required?

Is this sanctioned by policy or mandated in law?

Pathways to family participation(Connolly & Ward 2008, adapted from Shier, 2001)