DRM New Zealand Style: Practising for outcomes, supporting rights and changing lives Marie Connolly, PhD Ministry of Soc

1. DRM New Zealand Style: Practising for outcomes, supporting rights and changing lives Marie Connolly, PhD Ministry of Social Development

2. IN AN AVERAGE DAY AT CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY

3. We will receive more than 230 notifications… more than 140 will need further action

4. 15 will be critical6 will be very urgent59 will be urgent

5. We will complete more than 100 investigations… and hold 20 care and protection family group conferences

6. 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. Drivers for change • 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

11. Vision → Framework → Systems logic Systems Frameworks Practice Vision Practising for Outcomes

12. Child safety Family decision-making Family support

13. Vision → Framework → Systems logic Systems Frameworks Practice Vision Outcome focused practice

14. Marie Connolly PhD See: Connolly, M. (2007) Practice Frameworks: Conceptual maps to guide interventions in child welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 37 (5) 825-837. New Zealand’s practice framework The phases of our work Our perspectives Our practice triggers

15. The Phases of our Work: Engagement and Assessment • 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? Child-centred • Are we applying a family/whānau support response? • Is all contact with the family/whānaurespectful? • Are we persevering with engagementeven when resistance is encountered? • Are we encouraging family/whānau ownership of the issues and solutions? • Are we responding to the family’s cultural needs? Family-led & culturally responsive • Are we clear with the family/whānauabout 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? Strengths & evidence-based

16. The Phases of our Work: Seeking solutions • 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? Child-centred • 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? Family-led & culturally responsive • Does the familyhave 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? Strengths & evidence-based

17. The Phases of our Work: Securing safety and belonging • 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? Child-centred • 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? Family-led & 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? Strengths & evidence-based

18. Vision → Framework → Systems logic Systems Frameworks Practice Vision Outcome focused practice

19. From Transactional to Outcome-focused Practice Transactional Outcome-focused Based on need, focus on continuity and stability (i.e. relationship development & change Episodic, event driven (i.e. focus on front-end notification) transactional (getting families through the system Enhanced continuum of care focus, emphasizing both child safety, the child’s developmental and wellbeing needs, and the support needs of the family Focus on risk, ‘protection’ and immediate ‘safety’ (i.e. emphasis on evidence of significant harm or past harm) (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 Integrated systems Pockets of collaboration

21. Services across the continuum Strong, capable families Universal/preventative services supporting families to help themselves Educating and supporting… Targeted services Differential responses within community Influencing and supporting… Statutory services Differential responses within the statutory system Protecting and supporting… Situations of current harm

22. DRM: doing things differentlyacross the service continuum Partnering with NGOs and others to provide services for families based on need: pathways of support across a continuum Strong, capable families Universal/preventative services supporting families to help themselves Targeted services Differential responses within community Statutory services Differential responses within the statutory system Situations of current harm

23. Levels of Relationship… Partnership: commitment to formal relationship; planning based on partnership; value sharing influences relationship agendas; systems on equal footing 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 Coordination: some commitment to formal agreement; some common planning; generally based on case-by-case approach; values shared to pursue individual agenda 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

24. DRM: doing things differentlyacross the service continuum Partnering with NGOs and others to provide services for families based on need: pathways of support across a continuum Strong, capable families Universal/preventative services supporting families to help themselves Targeted services Differential responses within community Statutory services Differential responses within the statutory system Building alternatives to investigative processes within statutory systems: pathways of family engagement and support Situations of current harm

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. Pathways to family participation (Connolly & Ward 2008, adapted from Shier, 2001) Can families be responsible for planning and monitoring? 5. Power sharing and responsibility for decision-making Is this sanctioned by policy or mandated in law? Are you willing to share power? Are you ready to embrace family involvement in decision-making? 4. Family involvement in decision-making Is family involvement required? Is family involvement in decisions possible? 3. Feedback on service delivery is proactively sought Are you required to seek feedback? Are you receptive to feedback? Are user feedback systems in place? Levels of participation 2. Families supported to develop family-led solutions Do you believe in family-led solutions? Does service design support this? Does policy support family-led practice? Are you committed to and ready for family responsive practice? 1. Consulted and views taken into account Do practice systems enable this? Does policy require this? Openings Opportunities Obligations