Kinship Breakdowns: Causes and Prevention

2. Kinship Breakdowns: Causes and Prevention ACWA Conference 2-5 August 2010, Sydney Lynne McCrae Wendy Frayne

3. Outline of Presentation • Background to the OzChild Kinship Service in Victoria • The Review of OzChild Kinship cases – intact vs. breakdown • The findings from the review of OzChild Kinship cases • Practice Implications

4. Background to OzChild Kinship Program • Since 1998 OzChild has been providing a ‘stand alone’ small Kinship Support Program for 21 statutory placements. • In 2006 OzChild’s Kinship program was expanded to run a 3 year pilot Kinship program for 91 statutory placements. • In 2009 a decision was made by DHS to roll out a State-wide Kinship support program. • Following a submission process, OzChild were the selected provider for Kinship services for two catchments in the Melbourne Metropolitan area and is now funded to provide support to a total of 138 children in statutory placements.

5. OzChild Kinship Service • The OzChild Kinship service aims to promote positive outcomes for vulnerable children who have been placed in OHC by Child Protection services. • The program supports the Kinship Carers to meet the needs of the child – all who have come with a background in abuse, trauma and neglect. • Direct support is also provided to the child.

6. What we know about Kinship • More children are being placed in ‘formal’ Kinship placements than ever before – it is now the first placement option for children removed by Child Protection services. • It is not known how often Kinship placements breakdown, or the reasons why they breakdown. • It is often viewed that a placement breakdown is a negative outcome for a child – but our practice would indicate this is not always the case.

7. The review - Goals • To provide information about our Kinship families. • To provide information about placement breakdowns, including the reasons behind the placement breakdowns. • To look for any differences between cases where placements are intact vs those that breakdown. • To look for what are the possible indicators, or red flags that a placement breakdown is likely? • How can we prevent placement breakdowns and should this always be our aim?

8. The Review - Variables • Variables selected were aimed to discover if any particular characteristics were more common in placement breakdowns. • Demographic (household composition/Carer relationship to child) • Various Carer characteristics, including their support needs and identified issues. • The Carer capacity to understand and manage the child. • Various child characteristics, including their placement history, contact with birth family, identified issues and support needs. • Relationships with birth family and wider family and social networks. • Supports provided to the Kinship family and child.

9. The Review – Additional variables for placement breakdowns • Was the breakdown in best interest of child? • Why did the placement breakdown?

10. The Review - Methodology • To undertake an analysis of all OzChild Kinship cases open in December 2009. • These cases were part of the initial pilot program from April 2006 to Dec 2009. • This was a total of 67 children and 40 families. • To undertake an analysis of all Kinship placement breakdowns during the pilot program. • April 2006 to Dec 2009. • This was a total of 18 children and 12 families. • The total number of placements during the pilot program, 240 children were supported in placement, so placement breakdowns constitute 7.5 % of placements.

11. The Review - Methodology • A file audit tool to record workers own knowledge and judgements was developed. • Independent interviewer asked the questions to assist in creating greater consistency. • The results were reviewed by the Team Leader/Managers to add greater scrutiny and reduce worker bias.

12. The Review – Reasons for placement breakdown • The reasons for placement breakdown were varied, but comprised of the following • Carer related: Quality of care issues commonly noted. Carer rigidity, unable to meet child’s needs, lack of understanding of child’s past trauma, Carer’s past trauma and Carer mental health issues. • Childs related: Difficult to manage/aggressive behaviours, grief/loss issues of child and adolescence. • Carer/child relationship: High levels of conflict between Carer and child. Negative attitudes/focus of Carer to child, poor attachment and relationships commonly noted. • Family related: Lack of integration into Kinship family. High family conflict with birth family. Own family issues.

13. The Review - Findings • To look at differences - compared % averages of the two groups (intact & breakdown groups). • Differences of around 20% between the two groups were considered large enough to comment on. • Nearly every variable we looked at produced differences of 20% between the two groups; many variables showed differences up to 50%. • Only examples of some of the data will be provided.

14. The Review - Findings From the basis of this analysis there appears to be some clear indicators about factors that may increase placement stability/breakdown, but more research is required to confirm these early indicators. Risk and protective factors. 14

15. The Review - Findings • Factors that showed no/limited difference between intact and breakdowns: • Gender of child • Other siblings in placement • Assessments

16. The Review - Findings • Characteristics of the breakdowns • In nearly all of the cases at the point of breakdown the Carer’s were unable to understand and meet the child’s needs. • In a number of cases quality of care issues were noted in the case. • 90% of placement breakdowns were seen to be the ‘best outcome’ for the child. • Placements were ended by Carers in 41%, the child in 25%, by Child Protection in 17%; and other in 17%

17. Graph - Factors noted at breakdown

18. The Review - Findings Care arrangements • Grandparents are more likely to provide greater placement stability, other family members are a greater risk factor for breakdown, placement with kith couples is highly likely to breakdown. • A Kinship placement is potentially more unstable where Carers have younger children. • A care arrangement with older adult children is a strong protective factor. • Breakdowns were more common in Kith couples, were less likely in Kinship couples and single Kinship carers. 18

19. Graph - Indicators of Differences between the two groups – Care arrangements

20. Graph: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – care arrangements

21. The Review - Findings Child Characteristics • Placements where the children are under 5 yrs of age are unlikely to breakdown. • Adolescents is a difficult time for all families and placement breakdowns are much higher for adolescences in Kinship placements. • Child issues – Behavioral, education, mental health and a range of other issues are higher for the breakdown group. • The child’s prior history will impact on placement stability, with previous placement increasing the risk of breakdown. 21

22. Graph: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – child characteristics

23. The Review - Findings Access and relationship with birth family The impact of access is complex and variable; Both poor and good access see more placement breakdowns, as does the Carer supervising access. The relationship with the birth family impacts on placement stability only if it is very poor, indicating that highly conflictual relationships with birth families add stress on the placement/or mean the Carer is unable to focus on the child. 23

24. Graph: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – Carer support networks 24

25. The Review - Findings Carer issues At the time of breakdown all Carers were having a range of parenting issues with the Kinship child. Carer mental health issues and Carer past trauma rates are higher in the placement breakdown group. Carer financial, stress levels and health issues are similar for the two groups. 25

26. Results: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – Carer issues

27. The Review - Findings Carer support networks Support from both within the family and outside the family is extremely important and operates as a protective factor if present and a risk factor if not present. There was limited differences in the supports provided to the two groups by OzChild. 27

28. Graph: Indicators of Differences between the two groups – support provided to carers

29. Practice Implications - Summary Placement Breakdowns – Causes and Prevention Reasons were varied however there are commonalities When the Carer can not understand the needs of the child, or manage the child’s behaviour – the placement is in breakdown phase. Carer rigidity becomes a consistent theme. In our sample of placement breakdowns – the cases had progressed to a point where a placement breakdown was in the best interest of the child. Issues related to the care arrangements; Child characteristics, access and relationships with the birth family, Carer issues and the Carers support networks, all have an impact on placement stability/breakdown. More research is required to confirm these early indications. 29

30. Practice Implications – Case example • 4 year old child placed with maternal cousin’s family (other family members) • Concerns about quality of relationship/attachment • Risk variables at play: Carer is other family member; own younger children; highly negative attitude to birth father; extremely rigid in views about birth family and how to meet needs of child; carers have very poor relationships with extended family; child has had 2 prior placements; child has been in placement less than two years. • Protective variables at play: child has no behavioural issues; child is under 5 years of age.

31. Contacts • Lynne McCrae, OzChild • lmccrae@ozchild.org.au • (03) 9212 5600 • Wendy Frayne, OzChild • wfrayne@ozchild.org.au • (03) 9212 5600