Programs for high needs children and young people: Group homes are not enough

2008 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 41-47 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Ainsworth ◽  
Patricia Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Foster Care ◽  
Young People ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Group Homes ◽  
Community Services ◽  
Residential Programs ◽  
South Wales ◽  
High Staff Turnover

Recently the Department of Community Services in New South Wales and the Department for Child Safety in Queensland have both released information about funding and the award of contracts for group homes and other residential services. In addition, in the 2008 discussion about out-of-home care at the Wood Commission of Inquiry into the Child Protection Services in New South Wales, group homes were discussed in terms of them being less demanding environments than foster care. The view presented was that group homes are appropriate for some young people who are either unsuitable for foster care or who want a less intimate setting than that provided by foster care. This article argues that group homes or residential programs, against the New South Wales and Queensland descriptions, fail to respond to the need for quality residential programs for children and youth. This is partly due to the low level of training for staff in group homes and high staff turnover.

Group Homes for Children and Young People: The Problem Not the Solution

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Ainsworth ◽  
Patricia Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Young People ◽  
Residential Care ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Group Homes ◽  
Integrated Treatment ◽  
Children And Young People ◽  
South Wales ◽  
High Staff Turnover ◽  
Therapeutic Care

In every state and territory in Australia, child welfare departments, under various names, maintain or, alternatively, fund group homes for children and young people in the non-government sector. Increasingly, these group homes offer only four places with no integrated treatment or educational services. In that respect they can best be viewed as providing care and accommodation only. Since 2010, following the release of a definition of therapeutic residential care by the National Therapeutic Residential Care Work Group, there has been debate about how to make group homes therapeutic. In 2017, as part of a wider reform effort, New South Wales renamed all their out-of-home care (foster care and residential care) as intensive therapeutic care and ceased using the term residential. The net result is that the group homes in New South Wales will from now on be referred to as intensive therapeutic care homes. This article raises questions about the utility of this renaming and explores whether or not group homes can be therapeutic given the characteristics of the population of children and young people they accommodate, their small size, the staffing complement and the limited job satisfaction with high staff turnover as a consequence of this smallness. All of these factors lead to the well-documented, anti-therapeutic instability of the group home life space.

Rescission or Variation of Children's Court Orders: A Study of Section 90 Applications in New South Wales

2012 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
pp. 69-75 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patricia Hansen
Keyword(s):  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Community Services ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Court Orders ◽  
Children's Court ◽  
Children’S Court

This article reports on a study of Children's Court files relating to completed applications for variation of care orders (section 90 applications) in three specialised Children's Courts in New South Wales. All files that could be located for completed applications were reviewed and nonidentifying data was recorded. The study attempted to examine the type of applications, the characteristics of applicants and the outcomes of the applications. One hundred and seventeen applications were reviewed: almost half of these were made by the then Department of Community Services (DoCS), and about the same proportion of applications were made by parents. After the section 90 applications were determined there was an increase in care orders allocating parental responsibility to the Minister for Community Services with 73% of the children placed under the care of the minister to age 18.

Challenges posed by kinship care: A study focussing on New South Wales

2003 ◽  
Vol 28 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-18 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leonie Gibbons ◽  
Jan Mason
Keyword(s):  
Child Protection ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Kinship Care ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative Methods ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Care And Support ◽  
Placement Option

Kinship care as a formal placement option has been steadily increasing over recent years, particularly in New South Wales. This paper draws on a report of research on kinship care in New South Wales, in which the two authors participated (Mason et al, 2002). In conducting the research, qualitative and quantitative methods were used to explore both ‘top down’ perspectives (from policy documents and statistics) and ‘bottom up’ perspectives (from child protection practitioners and those who experience policy as service recipients – kinship carers, young people in kinship care and parents of children in kinship care).In this paper we briefly outline the research and discuss findings relating to definitions of kinship care, the extent of kinship care in NSW, decision making around the placement of children in kinship care, reasons given by participants for kinship care, and support for carers.

Establishing Adoption as a Route Out of Care in New South Wales: A Commentary

2016 ◽  
Vol 41 (3) ◽  
pp. 232-236 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frank Ainsworth ◽  
Patricia Hansen
Keyword(s):  
Foster Care ◽  
Parental Care ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Open Adoption ◽  
South Wales ◽  
The Us ◽  
Realistic Possibility ◽  
Children's Court ◽  
Children’S Court

Over the last 25 years (1990–2015), the number of adoptions of children (and young persons) in Australia declined from 1,142 to 292 (25.5 %). Of the 292 adoptions that took place in 2014–15, 83 (28%) were inter country adoptions, with the remaining 209 (72 %) adoptions of Australian children. Very few of the adoptions of Australian children were in New South Wales. In amendments in 2014 to the New South Wales Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act 1998 and the Adoptions Act 2000, a new emphasis on ‘open’ adoption was introduced. The focus of these amendments is on adoption of children who are in foster care where the New South Wales Children's Court has ruled that there is no realistic possibility of restoration of the child to parental care. This article is about the implementation of this new legislative emphasis on adoption. It does not examine the benefit or otherwise of adoption for children who cannot be safely restored to parental care as this issue has been extensively canvassed elsewhere. This article also highlights the US and English experience of adoption from care in order to place the New South Wales development in perspective. The article concludes with discussion of the issues adoption raises for the parents of a child who is being considered for adoption from care.

Refocusing on Early Intervention and Family Support: A Review of Child Welfare Reforms in New South Wales, Australia

2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (2) ◽  
pp. 303-316 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harriet Churchill ◽  
Barbara Fawcett
Keyword(s):  
Early Intervention ◽  
Child Welfare ◽  
Child Protection ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
New South ◽  
New South Wales ◽  
Public Health Approach ◽  
Family Services ◽  
South Wales ◽  
Welfare Reforms

Since 2000, the New South Wales (NSW) Government in Australia has pursued major child welfare reforms. Responding to the ‘crisis in child protection’ and informed by a public health approach, key aims were to prevent child maltreatment and promote child welfare by ‘expanding and enhancing early intervention and family services’. This article critically reviews the aims, approach and main developments in NSW. The article argues that in several respects the reforms extended and enhanced early intervention and family services in cost-effective ways but suffered from implementation problems, limitations in service developments and major reform challenges which inhibited their scope and impacts. These limitations raise critical issues about the reform framework, resource constraints and ideological influences.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document