1

So what do families think of Looking After Children?

Sue TregeagleSocial Justice and Social Change Research Center

University of Western Sydney

2

Industry partnership to research:• Service users experience of LAC in

Australia

• Explore ways of promoting ‘service user’ perspectives within LAC

• How information and communication technology could be utilised in further development

• First step: previous service user studies.

3

Service User Research: Qualitative• No consultation in development of LAC• Pilot studies 1997-8: Canada serviced users (est)

54 surveys +symposium (Kufeldt, Simard, Vachon + quantitative ), Scotland 4 (Wheelaghan and Hill) &20 (Francis- qualitative) and Australia 37 (Wise mixed quantiative and qualitative for ‘mature’children)

• English generic studies-, Munro and Thomas and O’Kane (numbers unclear, qualitative method), Jones comments

• Australian established LAC, service user qualitative research 9 young people - Create.

Jones- comments

4

Limited research base• Undertaken early in implementation- system not

embedded, sometimes inappropriate forms used.

• Time frames for assessment short - longest: 12 months Canada, 9 months Australia

• English findings unclear re LAC use - it is unclear if children were using LAC (Munro, Thomas and O’Kane), including second hand reports (Francis)

• Methodology variable quality, sampling methods not always described, position of researchers not clear, control in Canada.

• Whole systems not used- eg Canadian study used AAs

• Only two Australian studies- did not include birth families

5

Study Participants limited

• Birth mothers, fathers and extended family rarely consulted (only 14 in Kufeldt)

• Limited numbers consulted participants- 113 (+unspecified studies), larger group tested quanitatively

• Older children and young people (Create), 10-17 yrs (Munro), 14-17? yrs (Wise), 10-20yrs (Canadian)

• Participant involvement in design of the research specified rarely (exceptions; WhoCares Scotland and Australia’s Create)

6

FINDINGS re LAC DISCOURSE

• Participation/ involvement in decision making

• Documentation/ ‘Text’ distribution

• Transparency / relationship with worker

• Individualized Planning/ Accountability/ Collaboration

• Views of Childhood/ Standardisation

7

Participation: Positives

• Increased opportunity to participate “Youth believed that the traditional method of compiling case information never allowed them to have input” (Kufeldt et al p189).

• More involved than formerly, children helped to remember (Wheelaghan and Hill)

• Wanted the opportunity offered (Create)

8

Participation: Reservations• Ability to participate: • Concerns about understanding espe impact of literacy and document

circulation (Francis, Create) • Discomfort at meetings, need for preparation (Thomas and O’Kane

undifferentiated study with 28% only using consultation papers (1997). • Low level of power and participation in decision making- change in

workers, lack of voice in reviews and confidente (Munro) • No increase in children’s control over decisions (Wise)• Understanding of process: • Need for greater :positive engagement, time, comfort, preparation/rights

info, feedback‘overwhelmed with professionals’ (Create)• No knowledge of complaint process, inadequate advocacy (Munro ).

9

Documentation: Positives• Greater control over information (Canada)• Information goes with young person, eaiser to

understand (Create)• Captured positives (Canada)• Captured information well eg bullying (Francis)

• RESERVATIONS:• Concern by young people about writing down

things that may be hurtful to parents (Francis)• Concern about recording information in the

booklets (Wise)

10

Documentation: Reservations• Length problematic but unable to determine what

should be excluded (Kufeldt), timeframe short for amount (Wise), time (Francis),complex (Wheelaghan)

• Literacy- Create re adolescents, Francis re young children and learning disability. Visuals (language difficulties)- Create, Francis

• Overall Format- unattractive, confusing or boring (Wheelaghan and Hill), Francis reported on need for age appropriate forms and requested interactive software Design, layout and language unsuitable for adolescents (Create, Wise reported by carers )

11

Documentation

• Checklist format problematic- Francis• Copies not received, didn’t see what was

recorded, wanted documentation prior to meeting (Create, Wise)

• Uncontrolled distribution (Munro)• Privacy and confidentiality concerns: too

personal (Munro)

12

Individualized planning/ accountability/ collaboration: Positives

• Appreciated Increased accountability of workers Francis

• EIRs save repetition- (Francis)

• Questions appropriate/ needs full implementation (Create, Francis)

• Detail of information appreciated- Francis (including range of questions), Jones, Create

• Relationship with carer improved (Wise)

• Investment worthwhile (youth 88%, 100%parents), learnt anything new (53% youth, 50% parents), eg reestablished birth family relationship. Self id. of problems (Canada)

13

Planning: Reservations• Followup and issues still not completed

(Francis), need to tell people why issues not implemented (Create)

• Families not strongly involved (Wise)• Collaboration between agencies not strong

(Wise’s comment)• Some questions not asked (Francis)• Need to focus on independent living skills, and

relationship with parents/siblings (Create)• Mistrust of process (Wise)

14

Transparency/Relationship: Positives• Better able to identify issues Kufeldt eg selfcare with

older adolescents, opened up hidden issues. Helped to remember and ‘sort’ out things Wheelaghan and Hill

• Better able to talk about themselves Wheelaghan, Hill, Francis.

• Better quality of relationship with workers, enjoyed time (Canadian symposium) compared to bureaucratic tendency (Francis)

• Shared responsibility was appreciated (Jones)• Relationship improvement (Wise 2003)

15

Transparency/Relationship: Reservations

• Questions on sensitive issues concerning (Kufeldt), too personal and potentially hurtful (Francis) or sensitive (Wise)

• Mistrustful of process and not frank on issues (Wise)

• Impersonal nature of relationship- Munro• More personalised support needed than just the

the documentation process (Create)• Class bias (Francis)

16

Views of childhood: Reservations• Children’s agency not considered - autonomy issues for

over 12s, ability to make mistakes discounted (Munro)

• Lives segmented,compartmentalised and not holistic (Francis)

• Adult agenda (Francis comment on vegetable consumption)

• Children’s view of contact/ attachment overruled eg contact with mother requests ignored (Munro)

• Children’s right to privacy not appreciated- contraception, sexual behaviour (Kufeldt et al, Francis) Not confirmed by Create

• Aftercare-Create wanted more work on needs at independence, however Canadian study appreciated this aspect of LAC especially self-care skill issues.

17

Findings ‘preference for LAC’• Canada: 44% youth were positive, 27 somewhat 88%

and 100% parents saw LAC as worthwhile, 53% youth and 50% parents reported learning something. Overall anxiety but pleased questions asked.

• Scotland: Francis-generally favorable response but flagged issues

• Australian service users: Create- Questions necessary, improvement over previous system but attention to forms and participation required. – Wise- benefits identified from completing records

• England: too limited to comment

18

Summary Reservations• Participation: requires better implementation, information

on rights and support (Create), control no greater (Wise)

• Documentation:– Poor circulation/distribution/ feedback of documentation

(Create, Francis), – length (Francis, Kufeldt et al) is problematic but positives include

detail, questions, increased accountability, streamlining data collection

– Literacy- need for kid friendly language and format,visuals, sensitivity to age/disability. (Francis, Create)

– Privacy/Confidentiality: nature of questions, privacy recording, access to information (Kufeldt et al, Francis, Wise, Munro)

19

……..Summary Reservations 2

• Planning -not strong on involvement of families, follow-up, worker implementation of whole process (Wise)

• Focus on aftercare inadequate(Create)• Relationship with workers early concern

(Francis), sensitivity of issues noted• Discourse on childhood- greater attention to

agency and the growth of independence

20

Further research needed:• Now that LAC is established• Over longer term of use• In Australians, especially indigenous Australians• From a wider range of participants: birth parents

and extended families, younger children• Other subjugated or emergent issues • With proposed merge with pre-placement

assessment• With use of technology- could pen and paper

technology be improved?

21

Table 1: Detail of child welfare guided practice studies 1997-2005: Australia and BritainChief Researcherand referencedetails

Sample Country Auspice of research Methodology Period of study

LACKufeldt,(Kufeldt et al2000), (Kufeldt etal 2005, Kufeldt etal 2003)

Study of 541/6parents, 5/6children andyoung people

Canada Funded by The SocialDevelopment PartnershipDivision of HumanResources DevelopmentCanada. Undertaken byUniversity of NewBrunswick andUniversite Laval

Evaluation formsand focus groups

Begun in 1997-one year followup.

Wheelaghan andHill

4 young people,no parents

Scotland Commissioned byScottish Office,University of Glasgowresearchers

Qualitativeinterviews

Research periodNovember 1997-July 1998(implementationperiod for pilot)Published 2000

Wise(Wise 1999)(Wise 2003)

no parentsinterviewednumber of youngpeople unclear(estimated at 25),aged 6 years -18

VictoriaAustralia

Australian Institute ofHealth and Welfareutilising in houseProfessional researcher.

Unspecified inrelation to contactwith service users,behaviour testingutilised.

1997 - 9 months,assessment

Thomas andO'Kane (Thomas& O'Kane 1999)Participation inreview and careplanningmeetings.(Thomas2005)

225 aged 8-12, 47followupinterviews withchildren and theirworkers.No parent study

7 localauthoritiesin Englandand Wales

No detail, based atUniversity of Wales,Swansea

Qualitative study:Groups and smallmeetings. Survey

Researchundertaken ininitial in 1996-7,unclear how manywere using LACduring this earlyimplementationperiod.

Jones 1998 No numbers England Anecdotal Unspecified Published 1998Munro- views ofbeing looked afterand power indecisionmaking.(Munro2001)

15 young people England Commissioned by localauthorities. Undertakenby university researcher(London School ofEconomics)

Qualitative-interviews

Research periodunclear.Acceptedfor publicationSeptember 2000,some youngpeople had startedto use Action andAssessment forms

Francis-(Francis 2002)

Approximately 20Ages and natureof sampleunknown.

Scotland Who cares Scotland.Research was employee,research report byLecturer in Social Work,University of Edinburgh

"informalconsultationgroup"(Francis.p450) ofthose in pilot from1995-8

Work undertakenin 1999 (LAC waspiloted inScotland Nov1997- July 1998)

Create(CreateFoundation 2004)Views oninvolvement incare planning

9 young people(aged 15-18 years)

Victoria,Australia

Consumer group foryoung people in care,funded by StateGovernmentimplementing LAC.

2 focus groups,method andengagement byyoung people.

May 2004. LACintroduced insecond half of2003