1 / 41

Contact between, and Placement of Siblings in Out-of-Home Care

Contact between, and Placement of Siblings in Out-of-Home Care. Dr Joseph J. McDowall Executive Director (Research ) CREATE Foundation Visiting Fellow School of Public Health and Social Work Queensland University of Technology. How did project develop?. Sibling Placement:

faunus
Télécharger la présentation

Contact between, and Placement of Siblings in Out-of-Home Care

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Contact between, and Placement of Siblings in Out-of-Home Care Dr Joseph J. McDowall Executive Director (Research) CREATE Foundation Visiting Fellow School of Public Health and Social Work Queensland University of Technology

  2. How did project develop? • Sibling Placement: Grew out of findings relating to Family Contact in CREATE’s 2013 Report Card

  3. Mean frequency of Contact ratings with family members Weekly Not at all

  4. % CYP having designated level of contact with family members National Average

  5. Sibling Placements • Together: All siblings in care located in the same placement • Splintered: Child or young person placed with at least one sibling • Split: Child or young person separated from siblings who are located in other placements (Hegar & Rosenthal, 2011) • Alone: Child or young person has siblings but is the only family member in care

  6. % CYP in Split placements National Average National Average

  7. % CYP in Split placements National Average National Average

  8. Department of Social Services State and Territory Governments& NGOs Through Collaboration with: • 1160 children and young people in OOHC surveyed • Concentrated on Sibling Placement • Stratified by Age, Sex, Culture, and Care Type as well as Jurisdictions* * (WA Department for Child Protection and Family Support subsequently requested that the data from children and young people in that state not be presented in this report)

  9. Extensive literature review Preferred outcomes: • Where possible and appropriate, keep siblings Together or in Splintered placements; • If not possible, ensure that contact between siblings is facilitated if desired by child or young person.

  10. Children and Young Persons’ Questions • Demographics • Care history • Do you live with any of your brothers or sisters from your birth family? • Are any of your brothers or sisters from your birth family living in care but not with you? • Family contact

  11. Children and Young Persons’ Survey • Governments assisted in locating interested participants • About half were randomly selected from care population • Others were randomly selected from members of clubCREATE • Data were collected through online survey or through structured interviews conducted face-to-face or by telephone

  12. Distribution of Participants by Age within the Australian Jurisdictions

  13. Distribution of Participants by Sex, Culture, and Care Type

  14. Caseworker Survey • Online survey • Respondents given the opportunity to record information about a maximum of 20 cases: • Time in care • Time as caseworker • Amount of contact per year • Number of siblings • Number of siblings in care • Number of siblings in same placement

  15. Caseworker Questions • Awareness of sibling placement policy? • What personal principles followed? • How successful in placing siblings together? • What has made the placing of siblings together difficult? • How important is it to help siblings maintain contact? • How involved in maintaining contact? • How difficult has it been to arrange contact?

  16. Caseworker Survey Number of cases sampled: 1022 Govt: 47%; NGO: 53%

  17. Mean frequency of contact ratings with family members % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Jurisdictions (Children and Young People)

  18. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Jurisdictions (Caseworkers)

  19. Mean frequency of contact ratings with family members % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Jurisdictions (Children and Young People and Caseworkers [coloured])

  20. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Age Groups (Children and Young People)

  21. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Age Groups (Caseworkers)

  22. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Age Groups (Children and Young People and Caseworkers [coloured])

  23. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over CulturalGroups (Children and Young People)

  24. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over CulturalGroups (Caseworkers)

  25. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Cultural Groups (Children and Young People and Caseworkers [coloured])

  26. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Care Type (Children and Young People)

  27. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Care Type (Caseworkers)

  28. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Care Type (Children and Young People and Caseworkers [coloured])

  29. % Together, Splintered, and Split sibling placements over Disability (Children and Young People)

  30. Together, Splintered, Split, and Alone placement and Family Contact (Children and Young People) Not at all Weekly

  31. % Together, Splintered, Split, and Alone placements having NO Contact with Family Member (not living with)

  32. Carers’ and Caseworkers’ support for maintaining family contact in Together, Splintered, Split, and Alone placements

  33. Comments from Children and Young People regarding support for maintaining contact “Phoning my mum, taking me to see her, picking her up so we can have time together. Phoning my sister and her carer so I can see her.” (Male, 13 years) “Like they tell me reasons why I should keep in touch with my family, like my family is important sort of thing.” (Female, 12 years) “Not very much support because my caseworkers are always changing and I have hardly any contact with them.” (Female, 16 years)

  34. Sibling Placement with Indigenous Children and Young People (n = 329) • No significant differences in level of connectedness with culture based on sibling placement condition (Together, Splintered, or Split)

  35. Caseworker Survey How successful have you been in ensuring that children and young people in your care are placed together with siblings?

  36. Caseworker Survey What have you been able to do, if anything, to help place siblings from one family together? (105 comments)

  37. Caseworker Survey What factors, if any, have made it difficult to place all siblings from one family together? (128 comments)

  38. Caseworker Survey Ratings of Importance, Involvement, and Difficulty of organizing Sibling Contact

  39. Caseworker Survey “When removing children from family it is an extremely traumatising time for young people and if we are able to reduce any additional trauma by placing them with familiar people who are siblings then I will advocate for this strongly.” (NT Caseworker) “Advocate for improved support for foster carers, to enable more potential carers to be recruited who could possible care for sibling group.” (VIC Caseworker)

  40. Caseworker Survey “Sibling contact is not prioritised enough. Siblings are the longest relationship most CYP will have and we have a duty to assist in maintaining and sustaining those relationships. Siblings may be the most crucial support to each other post 18.” (NSW Caseworker)

  41. Questions?

More Related