FinalEvaluationReport

DrIsabelleBartkowiak-Théron

AssociateProfessorRobertaJulian

DrRomyWinter

DrLoeneHowes

DrSallyKelty

THETASMANIANINSTITUTEOFLAWENFORCEMENTSTUDIES

TheTasmanianInstituteofLawEnforcementStudies(TILES)iscommittedtoexcellenceinlawenforcementresearch.Collaborativeresearchthatlinksacademicswithpractitionersisahallmarkofthatresearch.Theinstitutefocusesonfourstrategicpriorities,namelyresearch,teaching,communication,andprofessionalism.ThesesupportuniversityandfacultyinitiativesfortheUniversityofTasmaniatobeinthetopechelonofresearchuniversitiesinAustralia.

Ourvision

Toachieveaninternationalreputationforexcellenceinlawenforcementresearch.

Ourmission

Toconductandpromoteevidence-basedresearchtoimprovethequalityoflawenforcement

andenhancecommunitysafety.

Contents

FIGURES AND TABLES ......................................................................................................................................... I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS .................................................................................................................................... II

THE RESEARCH TEAM ...................................................................................................................................... III

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS .............................................................................................. VI

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................... 1

1 – BACKGROUND: THE TASMANIAN INTER-AGENCY SUPPORT TEAMS ......................................... 4

THE IAST INITIATIVE ............................................................................................................................................. 4THE IAST+ PILOT PROGRAM ................................................................................................................................. 5

EVALUATION .......................................................................................................................................................... 6

2 -- IAST+ ENGAGEMENT .................................................................................................................................. 12

ATTENDANCE ........................................................................................................................................................ 12

PROCESS ISSUES .................................................................................................................................................... 15

3– STAKEHOLDER FEEDBACK AND DISCUSSION .................................................................................... 17

END OF PROJECT STAKEHOLDER SURVEY .............................................................................................................. 17

STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS .................................................................................................................................. 21

4- CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 28

Recommendations ............................................................................................................................................ 30

APPENDIX A – RESEARCH TIMELINE .......................................................................................................... 32APPENDIX B – RESEARCH OUTCOMES AND DELIVERABLES .............................................................. 33

i

FiguresandTablesTable1IASTmodelvariantsandsites.......................................................................................................................6

Table2Averagesatisfaction...................................................................................................................................13

Table3MemberCapacity.......................................................................................................................................18

Figure1Meetingattendance..................................................................................................................................12

Figure2SatisfactiontrackingDevonport................................................................................................................13

Figure3SatisfactiontrackingLaunceston...............................................................................................................14

Figure4SatisfactiontrackingGlenorchy.................................................................................................................14

Figure5-Accuracyofanalysis–Devonport............................................................................................................15

Figure6-Accuracyofanalysis–Launceston..........................................................................................................15

Figure7-Accuracyofanalysis–Glenorchy............................................................................................................16

Figure8SWOTanalysis...........................................................................................................................................29

ii

Acknowledgements

WewouldliketothanktheTasmanianOfficeforChildrenforfundingthisevaluationandTasmania

Policeforfacilitatingpartsofthisresearch.Wealsoextendourgratitudetothemanystakeholders

whoprovidedsupportfortheresearchfromitsverybeginning.Theydeserveparticularthanksfor

theirsupport,theirassistancewithsettingupthisevaluation,andforfacilitatingsomeofthelogistics

ofthedatagathering.Particularly,wewouldliketoacknowledgethecontributionsofAndrewPeschar,

CatherineSchofield,KathrynCampbell,DebraSalterandBelindaBraithwaite.

Ourgratitudegoestoallsurveyrespondentswhoreflectedontheaimsandobjectivesofthescheme

andtheirexpectationsofit,andespeciallytothosewhocommunicatedtheirthoughtsinthesurvey.

Thisreportwouldnotbecompletewithouttheirviewsandinput.

DrIsabelleBartkowiak-Théron

AssociateProfessorRobertaJulian

DrRomyWinter

DrLoeneHowes

DrSallyKelty

December2016

iii

Theresearchteam

DrIsabelleBartkowiak-ThéronisthecoordinatorofPoliceStudiesattheUniversityofTasmania,and

aseniorresearcherattheTasmanianInstituteofLawEnforcementStudies.Havingworkedwithyouth

atriskinFrance,IsabellebecameknowninAustraliaforhavingmanagedtheYouthPilotProjectofthe

AustralianNationalUniversity-VictoriaPoliceNexusPolicingARClinkagefrom2004until2006.She

alsoranthetwo-yearevaluationoftheSchool-LiaisonPoliceandthefirststageoftheMentalHealth

InterventionTeamsevaluationinNewSouthWales,fortheNewSouthWalesPoliceForce,from2007

until2009.Isabellespecialisesinthequalitativeandquantitativestudyofpolicingandpolicingservices

targetingvulnerablepopulations(e.g.,youngpeople,refugees,Aboriginalcommunitymembers)andis

inregularcontactwithrepresentativesofthesevulnerablepopulations.Shecontextualisesdata

accordingtoinformationgatheredfromthefieldandrelevantliterature.Sheisusedtohandling

confidentialinformationgatheredbygovernmentandnon-governmentorganisationsaswellas

sensitiveinformationgarneredfrompolicedatagatheringsystems.Herworkinpartnershipwitha

numberofgovernmentandnon-governmentagencieshascontributedtoherbeingcontractedin2011

onaProceedsofCrimeFundingschemetoevaluatearestorativeconferencingprojectintheareaof

Albury(NSW),aninitiativerunandmonitoredbyAlburyFamilyYouththattargetedyoungrecidivist

offenders.IsabellealsoevaluatedtheTasmaniaEarlyInterventionPilotProgramfortheDepartment

ofPoliceandEmergencyServices,andtheMentalHealthDiversionListfortheHobartMagistrates

Court.Sheistheco-editor(withNicoleAsquith)ofPolicingVulnerability(FederationPress,2012).She

isamemberofseveralresearchgovernanceandcommunityengagementcommitteesthroughout

Australia,andsitsontheAustralianCrimePreventionCouncilasanexecutivememberforTasmania.

SheisanAdvisoryBoardmemberfortheCentreforLawEnforcementandPublicHealth,andan

editorialboardmemberoftheJournalofCriminologicalResearch,PolicyandPractice.

AssociateProfessorRobertaJulianwasappointedtothepositionofDirector,TasmanianInstituteof

LawEnforcementStudies,inJuly2003.Priortothis,shewasaSeniorLecturerinSociologyatthe

UniversityofTasmaniawhereshehadbeeninvolvedinteaching,researchandadministrationforover

20years.Robertahasanestablishedrecordofscholarshipwithinthedisciplineofsociologyincludinga

strongtrackrecordinappliedsocialresearch.Shehasaninternationalreputationbasedonher

researchexploringmigrantandrefugeepopulations.Robertaconductedresearchontheresettlement

ofHmongrefugeesfromLaosforovertenyearsandpublishedbookchaptersandjournalarticleson

HmongidentityandHmongwomeninRace,GenderandClass,AsianandPacificMigrationJournaland

iv

Women’sStudiesInternationalForum.Hercommunity-basedresearchinterestshavenowbeen

extendedtoincludeissuessurroundingother‘at-risk’populationssuchasyoungoffenders.Roberta

hasbeenChiefInvestigatorforevaluationsofprojectsmanagedbyTasmaniaPolice,including:theU-

TurnProgram,ayoungrecidivistcartheftoffenderprogram;ProjectCurrawong,aseriesofadventure

programsaimedatchallengingyoungpeopleandprovidingpathwaysintocommunityparticipation;

andtheRiskAssessmentScreeningTool(RAST)usedinfamilyviolenceincidents.In2004shewas

awardedathree-yearAustralianResearchCouncil(ARC)LinkageGranttoexamineissuessurrounding

communitypolicingandrefugeesettlementinTasmania.In2006-7,shewasoneofthreeChief

Investigators(withDrClarissaHughesandInspectorMatthewRichman)awardedalmost$0.5million

toconductthefirstAustraliantrialofaninnovativealcoholmisusepreventionapproachknownas

‘SocialNorms’.MorerecentlyRobertawastheleadChiefInvestigatorinafive-yearAustralian

ResearchCouncilLinkageGrantwithVictoriaPolice,theAustralianFederalPolice(AFP)andthe

NationalInstituteofForensicScience(NIFS)thatbeganin2009(awardedalmost$1million).This

projectexaminedtheeffectivenessofforensicscienceinthecriminaljusticesystemwithafocuson

policeinvestigationsandcourtoutcomes.RobertaisamemberoftheBoardofStudiesofthe

AustralianInstituteofPoliceManagement(AIPM),anAssociateInvestigatorwiththeCentreof

ExcellenceinPolicingandSecurity(CEPS),amemberoftheEditorialBoardfortheAustralianandNew

ZealandJournalofCriminology,apastPresidentofTheAustralianSociologicalAssociation(TASA)and

acurrentmemberoftheCommitteeofManagementoftheAustralianandNewZealandSocietyof

Criminology.

DrRomyWinter[BA,MAppSoc(SocialResearch),PhD]isanexperiencedresearcherwiththe

TasmanianInstituteofLawEnforcementStudiesandteachesVictimologyinthePoliceStudies

programattheUniversityofTasmania.Herresearchinterestsincludecriminaljusticeresponsesto

intimatepartnerviolence,"socialproblems"policyandthesociologyofgenderinrelationtothe

workforce.Romyhasadecadeofexperienceinevaluatingprogramstargetingvulnerableandhard-

to-reachpopulationsincludingparentingprogramsforat-riskfamilies;youngpeopleonbail;

Aboriginalmenandboysinthecriminaljusticesystem,financialliteracyandwomenwithmarginal

attachmenttotheworkforce.

DrLoeneHowes[MA,MTeach,BSocSci(Psych)(Hons)]isalecturerinCriminologyattheUniversityof

Tasmania.PriortocommencingatUTAS,Loenewasahighschoolteacherfor14years.Duringthat

time,shewasaYearAdvisorforacohortofapproximately120studentsforaperiodoffiveyears.This

rolegavehersomefirst-handexperienceofparticipatinginamulti-agencyapproachtosupportyoung

people.Loenehasparticipatedinpreviousevaluationresearchwithinhercapacityasaresearch

assistantatTILES.Herresearchinterestsincludecareerdecision-making,communicationinthe

v

contextofpoliceintelligenceandinvestigativeinterviews,andthecommunicationofexpertevidence

inthecriminaljusticesystem.

DrSallyKelty[BComm,BA,PhD]SallyjoinedtheUniversityofCanberrain2015aspartoftheteaching

andresearchfacultyinPsychology.Shehaspreviouslyheldapost-doctoralfellowshipin

Criminology/SocialSciencesattheUniversityofTasmaniaandresearchandpracticepositionsatthe

DepartmentofJusticeinWesternAustralia,theUniversityofWesternAustraliaandTheWomen'sand

Infant'sHealthResearchInstitute.Sally'steachingandresearchinterestsincludeforensicandcriminal

psychology,psychologicalmethodsinforensicstudiesandpositivepsychology.

vi

ListofAcronymsandAbbreviations

ADS AlcoholandDrugServices

CP ChildProtectionServices

DHHS DepartmentofHealthandHumanServices

DoE DepartmentofEducation

DPEM DepartmentofPoliceandEmergencyManagement

DPFEM DepartmentofPolice,FireandEmergencyManagement

IAST Inter-AgencySupportTeams

IAST+ Inter-AgencySupportTeams+(pilotproject)

NGO Non-governmentorganisation

OfC OfficeforChildren

TILES TasmanianInstituteofLawEnforcementStudies

UTas UniversityofTasmania

YJ YouthJustice

1

ExecutiveSummaryInter-agencypartnershipsareacontemporaryframeworkforimplementingandmonitoring

governmentpolicyandassociatedprograms.Thisdocumentisthefinalreportofthetwo-year

evaluationofthe‘IAST+:ThreeApproachestoCaseCoordination’pilotproject(IAST+).Thisevaluation

wascommissionedbytheOfficeforChildren,TasmanianDepartmentofHealthandHumanServices

(DHHS)in2013.EvaluationactivityconcludedinJuly2016,afteralldataandresearchmaterialwere

collatedfromthevariousagenciesandstakeholdersinvolvedinthisproject.Theaimsoftheresearch

weretoexamineinter-agencycollaborativeprocesses,withalong-termgoaltobetterunderstandand

buildcollaborativepractice.

InTasmania,theinter-agencycollaborationthatisIAST+hasbeenworkingtoprovidetargeted

servicestoatriskyoungpeopleandtheirfamilies.Thepreceptoftheschemeistoprovideaformat

formultipleservicestocollaborateonissuesrelatingtothecareofchildrenandyoungpeople.Atits

inceptionthemodeltestednewmeansofcollaborationandinformationsharing,betterperformance

managementtoolsoravenuesfortheseyoungpeopleandtheirfamilies.Thecollaborationand

cooperationofagenciesandservicesinsharinginformationanddeliveringservicestoat-riskyouth

andfamiliesisthecruxofIASTs.AsindicatedintheIASTBusinessrules(2007,4and5):

IASTsprovideaforuminwhichparticipatingagenciesresponsiblefordeliveringservicesinaparticularcommunitycandevisethemostappropriatesupportstrategiesforreferredchildrenandyoungpeopleinacoordinated,timelyandeffectivemanner.(…)TheIASTsprovideaforuminwhichStateGovernmentagenciesandlocalcouncilscanidentifychildrenandyoungpeopleinthetargetclientgroup,jointlydeveloppracticalsupportstrategiesandthenmonitortheeffectivenessofthesestrategies.

TheIAST+projectfocusedonthreedifferentapproachestocollaborationinthelocationsof

Glenorchy,LauncestonandDevonport.

Thespecificaimsoftheevaluation,aswellasabackgroundanddescriptionoftheIAST+arefoundin

Section1ofthisreport.Section2outlinesdataobtainedthroughanalysisoffeedbackfromIAST+

meetings.Thethirdsectionpresentsstakeholderfeedbackfromafinalonlinesurveyandthethemes

generatedbyfacetofaceinterviewswithkeystakeholders.ThefourthandfinalSection4outlines

conclusions.

ThestrengthsoftheIASTmodellieinitsenduranceasamulti-agencycollaborationexercise,with

place-basedvariation,thathasenabledtrusttobebuiltamongagenciesworkingwithat-riskyoung

people.IASTspioneeredthesharingofinformationamongstagenciesinordertofillinformationgaps

andprovidegoodoutcomesforatriskyoungpeopleandtheirfamilies.Intermsofweaknesses,the

frameworkisnowoutmodedandcaseswhicharereferredtotheIASTgroupshavebecome

2

increasinglycomplexwhichcontributestothedwindlingeffectivenessoftheIAST(andIAST+)model.

ThisincreaseinthereferralofhighriskyouthhasmeantthatIASTshavemovedawayfromitheirearly

interventionfocus.Theevaluationfoundweaknessesintermsofgovernanceinthatthereareunclear

boundariesbetweenagencies,alackofclarityaroundtheprogram’spurposeandthereisalackof

datatoenabletrackingofdriversandbarrierstosuccess.Furtherweaknesshasbeenfoundinthe

resourcingforIAST+withworkloadexceedingthegovernancemodelandbudgetprovided.

TheevaluatorshavemadetwelverecommendationswhichwillenableIAST+modelstocapitaliseon

thelearningsofthistrancheofpartnerships.Theserecommendationsare:

Recommendation1. IASTpartnershipstoclarifytheirpurpose–acharterorMOUtobe

developedwhichoutlinestheparametersofoperationandeachmembers’rolesand

responsibilities.Implicitinthisrecommendationissignofffromtheseniormanagementof

thepartners.

Recommendation2. IAST+membershiptobeexpandedtoincluderelevantNGOsineach

area.Thiswillenableyoungpeopletobetrackedacrossanumberofdifferentintervention

programsandservices.

Recommendation3. Clearworkprocesses–allpartieswithdecisionmakingrolesare

visibleandaccountableforoutcomes

Recommendation4. Adoptionofaclearriskassessment/protectivefactorframework

whichoutlineswhatearlyinterventionisandwhatayoungperson’strajectorymightlooklike

e.g.nooffending;pre-offending;lowoffending;highoffending.

Recommendation5. Impactfactors–whichrelatetothevariouscontextualcomponentsof

theyoungperson’slifee.g.education,health,nutrition,drugandalcoholissues,housing,

familysupportetc.Theimpactsorrisksinvolvedineachyoungperson’scasetobeclearly

trackedwhichinvolvesthedevelopmentofagenerictrackingdocumentforallsites.

Recommendation6. Equalfooting–allmemberstohavethesamelevelofauthorityto

makedecisionsonbehalfoftheiragency.

Recommendation7. Sufficientresourcestoundertaketheworkinvolvedintheteamand

carryoutrequiredactionitems.WerecommendtheappointmentofadedicatedCoordinator

foreachIAST+whosesoleresponsibilityisfororganisingmeetings,followinguponaction

itemsanddocumentingpositiveandnegativeresponsestoagency/NGOinterventions.

Recommendation8. Commitmenttodismantlesilos–IAST+memberstoconsciouslywork

togethertorecognisewhenmemberagencypoliciesorresourcesmaynotbeworkinginthe

bestinterestoftheyoungperson.

3

Recommendation9. Changethefrequencyofmeetingstoweekly–thiswilleliminatethe

needforlengthymeetingsoroutofsessionmeetingsandenablethepartnerstorespondina

timeliermannertotheirclients.

Recommendation10. Implementclearprotocolsforexitforcasescompletedortoocomplex

fortheIAST+model.

Recommendation11. Protocolforfollow-up–astandardisedprotocolforfollow-upwith

clientswhichincludesreportinganddocumentationwillallowforgreatertransparencyand

accountability.

Recommendation12. Longitudinalevaluationofselectedcases–eachsitetodocumenta

numberofcasestudieseachyearforlongtermfollowupe.g.onexitingprogram,andfollow

upafterone,twoandfiveyears.

4

1–Background:TheTasmanianInter-AgencySupportTeams

TheIASTinitiative

Inter-AgencySupportTeams(IASTs)aroseoutofthe2002‘KidsinMindTasmania’project,which

aimedatraisingawarenessof‘theneedsofchildrenofparentswithmentalillness’(DPEM,2011,7).

Atthecoreofthisinitiativewastheobjectiveofincreasinginter-agencycollaborationandnetworksby

wayofimprovedcommunication.In2006,atotalof18IASTswerecreatedacrossTasmania,underthe

leadoftheDepartmentofPolice,FireandEmergencyManagement(DPFEM).Therewere23IASTsin

Tasmaniaattheendof2011.

ThecorefocusofIASTsischildrenandyoungpeoplewhoexperience,orareatriskofexperiencing,a

combinationofcircumstances(includingmentalillness,disengagementfromschool,homelessness,

andfamilyviolence)ordisplayingmarginalbehaviour(alcoholordruguseandoffending).IASTsinvite

anumberofagencies(dependingonthelocalavailabilityofservices)tojointlydiscusseachcaseand

‘workcollaborativelytowardsdevelopingandmonitoringmulti-agencyresponsestosupportthese

children,youngpeopleandtheirfamilies‘(DPEM,2001,8).IASTmembershipincludesarangeof

governmentandsometimesnon-governmentorganisations,mostly:theDPFEM,theDepartmentof

HealthandHumanServices(DHHS),theDepartmentofEducation(DoE),YouthJustice(YJ),Alcohol

andDrugServices(ADS),andHousingTasmania.

ItisimportanttonotethatthescopeandfocusoftheIASTshavechangedoverthelifespanofthe

project.Therewasapronouncedshiftfromconsideringyoungpeoplewhoseparentswerelivingwith

amentalillness(specifically‘supportchildren,youngpeopleandtheirfamilieswithmultipleand

complexproblems’–IASTBusinessRules,2007)tosupportingtheneedsofyoungoffendersoryoung

peopleatriskofoffending(DPEM,2001,8).

IASTaimsandoutcomesareasfollows(DPEM,2011,9):

Forchildren,youngpeopleandtheirfamilies:

•areductioninbehavioursthatplacechildrenandyoungpeopleatriskofcomingintocontactwiththeyouthjusticesystem

•anenhancementintheprotectivefactorsthatassistchildrenandyoungpeopletomakepositivechoicesaboutchangingtheirbehaviour,and

•morecoordinatedsupportforchildren,youngpeopleandtheirfamilies.

Forcommunities:

•engenderingasenseofcommunityownershipof,andinvolvementin,issuesthataffectthewell-beingofchildren,youngpeopleandtheirfamilies,and

5

•areductioninthedegreeandextentofyouthoffendingandantisocialbehaviourinTasmaniancommunities.

Forparticipatingagencies:

•bettercommunicationbetweenparticipatingAgencies,leadingtomoreeffectivesupportandlessduplicationofeffort,and

•anincreasedcapacityforearlyinterventionandprevention.

AreviewoftheIASTwasundertakenbytheDPEMin2010-2011.Thereviewspannedseveralareasof

importanceforgovernmentandnon-governmentagencies,andofnotablesignificanceforthe

articulationofcollaborativegovernancemechanismsacrossparticipatingagencies.Theseareasof

significancewere:leadership,resourcing,evaluation,inter-agencytrustandaccountability,and

rationalisation.Thereview,spanningatwo-year(24month)period,alsorecommendedconsideration

ofseveralissues.Theserecommendationsrelatedtothenatureandcorebusinessoftheleadagency

fortheIAST,thecommitmentofpartneringagencies,governanceframeworks,thedevelopmentofan

earlyinterventioncollaborativeframework,areviewofbusinessrulestotakeintoaccountthenew

circumstancesofthescheme,andascientificprocessandimpactreviewofthescheme.Thelatter

recommendationtriggeredthiscurrentevaluationresearchproject.Sincethen,theDPFEMfurther

continueditsinternalworkonthegeneralIASTmechanismsandreportingprocesses,andstarteda

processofrationalisation,lookingintofurtherdetailattheindividualcasesthathadbeenconsidered

byallIASTsacrossthestate.Thisresulted,inconsultationwithmajorstakeholders,informulating

strategiesastoexitingorretiringsomeyoungpeoplefromtheIASTprogram,afterassessmentas

beingunsuitableforanearly-interventionprogram.Theseconsiderationsarefurtheranalysedand

includedinthisreport.

THEIAST+PilotProgram

The‘IAST+:ThreeApproachestoCaseCoordination’(IAST+)worksfromthepremisethatinter-agency

cooperationandcollaborationisessentialtoeffectivelydeliverservicestoatriskyoungpeopleand

theirfamilies.TheIAST+isaninitiativehostedbyDHHS,undertheauspicesoftheOfficeforChildren

(OfC),usingtheexistingInter-AgencySupportTeam(IAST)frameworkasastartingpoint.Itconsiders

how‘agenciescanbestbesupportedtoworktogethertointerveneearliertoachievebetteroutcomes

forchildrenandyoungpeopleidentifiedatrisk’(OfC,2013,7).LiketheIAST,thepreceptoftheIAST+

istoencouragemultipleservicestocollaborateinrespondingtoissuesrelatingtothecareofchildren

andyoungpeople,whiletestingnewmeansofcollaborationandinformationsharing,anddesigning

betterperformancemanagementtoolsoravenues.TheIAST+projectessentiallyfocusesonthree

differentapproachestocollaboration,inthreedifferentsitesthroughoutTasmania:Glenorchy,

LauncestonandDevonport.

6

The‘self-directed’pilotishostedbytheGlenorchyIAST.IASTstakeholdersareprovidedwithongoing

externalsupport(bywayofprofessionaldevelopment,invitees,workshops,etc.)tolookatwaysto

workmoreeffectively.TheLauncestonpilot,alsoknownasthe‘co-located’orthe‘directedmodel’,is

providedwithanadditionalresourceofDHHShealthpractitioners,whoassessfamilies’needsand

recommendspecificinterventionsbasedontheseassessments.The‘ExistingModel’isbasedin

Devonport,andservedasacontrolsiteinthisevaluation(OfC,2013).

Table1IASTmodelvariantsandsites

Modelvariant Site

Existing Devonport

Self-directed Glenorchy

Co-locatedordirectedmodel Launceston

TheIAST+managementteamconsistsofthreepermanentpositionsattheOfficeforChildren,who

ensuretheadministrationofthescheme,communicationwithhierarchyandactasacontactpointfor

theresearchteam.ThesethreekeypersonnelalsoactincoordinationwiththeIASTmanagement

teamfromtheDPFEM.

EvaluationResearchpurposeandobjectives

Thepurposeofthisresearchwasto‘create,implementandfinaliseanevaluationmethodologyfora

caseplanningandcoordinationtrialproject’.

TheIAST+trialprojectspecificallytargetedvulnerablechildrenandtheirfamiliesinthreelocal

Tasmanianareas:Glenorchy,LauncestonandDevonport.AsperpriorconsultationwiththeOfficefor

Children,thisevaluationadoptedaninteractiveevaluationresearchdesign.Itwasagreedthatthe

TILESresearchteamwouldconsultonthedesignofevaluationtools,assisttheIAST+projectteamin

administeringtheseevaluationtools,andregularlyreporttotheprojectteam.

ItwasagreedthattheIAST+projectteamwouldbeinchargeofthelogisticsofadministeringthese

tools,andthatonathreemonthlybasis,allcompletedevaluationdocumentationwillbesubmittedto

theresearchteamforanalysisoveratwoyearperiod(endinJuly2016).

Thisevaluationwasbasedonprimarydataanddocumentanalysis,withthemainevaluationtools

consistingofinterviews,surveys,andtheregular(three-monthly)analysisoforganisational

informationprovidedbytheIAST+projectteam(e.g.,numberofcasesmanaged,committeemeeting

7

minutes,exitsurveys,self-assessmentsurveys;seeResearchToolsbelowforafulllistofevaluation

tools).

Theaimsoftheevaluationwereto:

1. identifyanddescribethemechanismsorprocesseswhichenhanceandsupportinter-agency

collaborationforthepurposesofintegratedcaseplanningandservicedelivery

2. evaluatetheeffectivenessofmechanismsandprocesseswhichenhanceandsupportinter-

agencycollaborationforthepurposesofintegratedcaseplanningandservicedelivery

3. determinethevalueofintegratedcaseplanningtochildren,youngpeopleandfamiliesfrom

bothclientandagencyperspectives

4. collate,anddeterminetherelativeefficacyoftherangeofmechanismsandprocesseswhich

enhanceandsupportinter-agencycollaboration.

Throughtheestablishmentofthismethodologicalframework,theIAST+projectteamattheOfficefor

Childrenwashopingtoidentifybetterwaysforagenciestocollaborateintheidentificationof‘at-risk

families’andthesubsequentdeliveryofappropriateservicestothesefamilies.Apreviousevaluation

(DPEM,2012)hadindicatedthatfurtherresearchwasneededto(amongother,morelogisticalissues)

1. gaugethelevelofsupportparticipatingagenciescancommittoforthecontinuationofthe

IAST,and

2. investigatetheoutcomesoftheIASTProgramanddeterminewhethertheIASTsaremakinga

differencetothelivesofchildren,youngandtheirfamilieswithcomplexneeds.

TheinvolvementofUTas(TILES)intheevaluationoftheIAST+wasintendedtoprovidetheproject

teamwiththetoolstoachievesomeofthesegoals.

Researchtools

Interviews

TheresearchteaminterviewedallpersonnelinchargeoftheIAST+pilotproject(atthreeproject

sites),aswellasthoseinchargeoftheIASTprojectasawholethroughoutTasmania.Theinterviews,

conductedonanindividualbasis,intendedtoidentifythevariousissuesthatneededexploring

throughthetoolsUTASwoulddeveloplateron.

Thein-depth‘background’interviewsofthemanagementteam(oneindividualinterviewforeach

teammember)allowedfortheclearidentificationanddocumentationofprojectaimsandobjectives,

andforaninitial‘mapping’ofprocessesinthethreedesignatedtrialsites(Devonport,Launcestonand

Glenorchy).Theyhighlightedexpectationsforthescheme,setupalldeliverablesfortheevaluation,

8

andguidedthedesignofthevariousevaluationtools(particularlythesurveys)describedbelow.These

interviewsalsoinformedthecreationofqualitativeandquantitativekeyperformanceindicators(KPIs)

forthewholeproject.

Surveys

Surveyswereusedduringseveralphasesofthisresearch.Theywereavailableinonlineformattoall

currentmembersofIASTsacrossTasmania(approximately80professionalsfromgovernment

agencies,intheirprofessionalcapacity).Thesurveyswereconducted:

1. onceforallIASTs,atthebeginningoftheresearch,and

2. atthebeginningandendoftheresearchformembersoftheIAST+pilot(inthethreesitesof

Devonport,GlenorchyandLaunceston).

AllIASTmemberswereknownpubliclythroughtheirparticipationinIASTteams.Targetedselectionof

surveyrespondentsallowedtheresearchteamto‘locate‘excellent’participantstoobtain[rich]data

(Charmaz,quotedinFlick2009).SurveyingallIASTmembersallowedfor:theexplorationandfull

documentationofrelatedprocessesandtoolsusedbyagencieswhenassessingcases;andthe

documentationofproblems(identifiedbystakeholdersthemselves),solutionstoproblems,and

successesincollaborativeprocesses.

Thefirstbackground‘attitudinalsurvey’capturedattitudinaldatafromall20IASTstakeholdersacross

Tasmaniathatwerenotpartofthetrialproject.Thissurveyestablishedabenchmarkinrelationto

existing(orotherwise)collaborativeprocesses,theefficacyofIASTstodateandexpectationsor

‘hopes’fornewcollaborativemodels.This‘one-off’surveywasadministeredonline.‘Stakeholders’

includedrepresentativesofagenciessittingonlocalIASTcommittees(e.g.:TasmaniaPolice,ADS,

DHHS,Education,etc.).

Thesecond(exit)surveyonlyconcernedstakeholdersinthethreetrialsites(Devonport,Launceston

andGlenorchy).Itestablishedabenchmarkinrelationtoexisting(orotherwise)collaborative

processes,theefficacyofIAST+todateandexpectationsor‘hopes’fornewcollaborativemodels,

especiallysincetheinceptionoftheIAST+scheme.This(approx.10min.)surveywasadministeredat

theendoftheallocatedtwo-yearperiod.

Subsequentsurveyadministrationanddatalimitations

DHHSwassubjectedtoasignificantorganisationaloverhaulduringtheresearchtimeline.

Thisresulted,amongotherthings,intheOfficeforChildrenbecomingdefunctandallstaff

beingreallocatedtodifferentsectionswithinDHHS.Asaresult,theadministrationofthe

researchsuffered.Particularly,thesomewhatdirectaccesstoIASTmembersthatwas

9

providedtotheresearchersthroughtheOfficeforChildrenwascancelled.This

responsibilityfellontothechairsoftheIAST+.DespitesomeremindersfromtheDPFEMand

researchers,only4exitsurveyswerecompleted.Asaresult,themostreliabledataavailable

attheendoftheresearchbecamestakeholderinterviews(IAST+sitechairs,DPFEM

stakeholdersandDHHSstaffremainingsomewhatattachedtotheproject)andIAST+case

efficiencydataheldbytheDPFEM(theoutcomeoftheinternalrationalisationexerciserun

bytheDPFEM).

‘Day-to-day’trackingtools

Inlightofdatafromsurveysandofthein-depthinterviewwiththeprojectteam,theresearchteam

designed,inconsultationwiththeprojectteam,asetofthree‘day-to-day’trackingtoolsforthe

project.Toeasetheprocessandavoid‘researchparticipationfatigue’,thesetoolsservednotonlyas

evaluationtoolsbutalsoasadministrativetoolsfortheproject:

1. IAST+committeemeetingminutes.Theprojectteamprovideduswithasetofde-identified

minutesfromapreviouscommitteemeeting.Inconsultationwiththeprojectteam,the

researchersweretaskedtodesignamoreefficientformatforminutetaking.Thenewform

aimedtoallow:betteridentificationofcasesandoftheirunderpinningfactors(mentalhealth,

abuse,drugaddiction,alcoholissues,etc.),betteridentificationofleadagenciesincase

management,betterinformationsharingacrossagencies,clearidentificationofcollaborative

mechanismsandbettermonitoringofcases.

2. An‘adverseornoticeableevent’documentationtool.Itmayhappenthattheprojectteamor

committeemembersreceivenotificationofanadverseeventorgetsome‘goodnews’relating

toacasebeingmanaged.Examplesincludeappreciationexpressedbyaclient,oramistakein

casemanagementwhichcausedaclienttodecideforanimmediateexitfromtheprogram.The

proposedone-pagetrackingdocumentwillallowfordocumentationandanalysisofthese

events.

3. Stakeholderself-assessmentsurvey.Attherequestoftheprojectteam,theresearchteam

designedashort‘self-assessmentsurvey’forallstakeholderstofillinattheendofeach

committeemeeting.Thisanonymousfiveminutesurvey(identifiedbysiteonly)allowedfor

somereflectionastowhetherthemeetingwaswellrun,andwhethercollaborative

mechanismswereclearlyoutlinedforallcasesdiscussed.Italsoenabledtheidentificationof

possibleobstaclestocollaborationorgoodcasemanagement.Itallowsmembersto‘vent’

10

possiblefrustrationorpraiseproceedings.Toencourageparticipation,araffleofa$30Coles,

WoolworthsorPlantsPlusvoucherwasdrawneverysixmonths.

FurthertoinitialdiscussionswiththeOfficeforChildrenprojectteam,andinviewofdevelopingan

impactevaluation,theresearchteamhadintendedtodesigna‘clientsatisfactionsurvey’,tobe

availableonlineorasahardcopyforallclientsexitingtheIAST+project.Thissurveywastobemade

availableinallthreetrialsitesinpaperform,withprepaidreturnenvelopes.However,theIASTsrun

an‘entry’and‘exit’surveyalready,availableontheformsclientshavetosigntoenterandexitthe

IASTprogram.Itwasthereforedecidednottorunanyadditionalsurvey,toavoidresearch‘fatigue’on

thepartofclients,andratherincludethesesurveys(de-identifiedbythemanagementteam)aspartof

ouroveralldesktopanalysisofdata(seePhase2,below).

Afterconsultationwiththeprojectteam,itwasagreedthatotherthanthein-depthinterviewsofthe

projectteam,theresearcherswouldnotadministertheseresearchtools.Theadministrationofall

surveyswasundertakenbyprojectteammembers,asamemberoftheprojectteamalwaysattends

committeemeetings.Thiswasagreeduponwithcostreductioninmind,andtoavoidredundancyin

evaluationprocesses.

Subsequentsurveyadministrationanddatalimitations

AfterDHHSwassubjectedtoasignificantorganisationaloverhaulduringtheresearch

timeline(asperthepreviousvignette),theday-to-daytrackingtoolsbecameunavailable.

Researchtimeline

PhaseOne(June2013–30thSeptember2013)

Thefirstphaseofthisevaluationfocusedonthein-depthinterviewsoftheprojectteam,followedby

thedesign,developmentandadministrationofallevaluationtools,inconsultationwiththeproject

team.

PhaseTwo(1stOctober2013–September2015)

Thisstageoftheresearchconsistedoftheresearchteamreportingonathree-monthlybasistothe

projectteam,followingthecompilationanddeliveryofalldataobtainedbytheprojectteamoverthe

saidthreemonths.Theprojectteamdeliveredsetsofminutes(asanexampleofproceedings),allself-

assessmentsurveysfilledinbystakeholders,andanyeventdocumentationfilledinduringthosethree

months.AmemberoftheresearchteamcollectedthesedocumentsfromtheOfficeforChildren.The

researchteamproceededwithadocumentanalysis,andprovidedaverbalreporttotheprojectteam

attheOfficeforChildren.

11

Itwasagreedthatdependingoncircumstancesandonthedynamicsoftheprojectandupon

consultationwiththeprojectteam,evaluationtoolsmaybeslightlymodifiedtoallowbetterdata

entry,tocaterforunplannedlogistics,orimprovedatagathering/sharing.

TheresearchteamvisitedallthreesitesduringPhaseTwo,tofamiliarisecommitteememberswiththe

researchteamandaskanyquestionstheymayhave.Thesevisitsoccurredduringcommittee

meetings,andallowedforanad-hoc,independentobservationofproceedings.

Duringthisstage,theresearchteamcompiled

1. afirstinterimreport(2014),followedby

2. afullliteraturereviewand

3. asecondinterimreport(January2015)

PhaseThree(September2015–May2016)

ThethirdphaseaddressedtheimpactoftheIAST+initiative,andtheissueofcollaborativeprocesses

holistically.Researchersexaminedstatisticaldata(providedbytheprojectteam,inparticularbythe

DPFEM)aswellasdatacollectedfromtheexitsurvey,anddatacontainedintheexitinterviewofthe

projectteam.

Thisfinalanalysisconsideredalldatarelatingto:

1. Allself-assessmentsurveys

2. An‘exitsurvey’administeredtoallIAST+trialsitestakeholders

3. Allday-to-daytrackingdocumentscompletedbycommitteemembers

4. Theexitinterviewoftheprojectteam

5. Allprojectstatisticsobtained.

12

2--IAST+engagementAttendance

Numberofmeetingsheldovertheevaluationperiodvariedbetweensites;Launceston(co-located)

met15times,Glenorchy12timesandDevonport11times.Meetingattendanceatthethreesites

fluctuatedoverthestudy(Fig.1)1.Devonportisthepilotsitewhereattendancehasbeenthemost

regular,withnumberofattendeesbetween6and11(averageof9)permeeting.GlenorchyIAST

meetingshavebeenwellattendedthroughouttheevaluationperiod,withbetween7and14

participants(averageof9)permeeting.Launcestonisthesitewhereattendancehasbeenthemost

irregular,withnumbersvaryingbetween3and10,andanoverallaverageof6attendeespermeeting.

Figure1Meetingattendance

MeetingattendanceseemstobedirectlylinkedtosatisfactionwiththeIASTprocessingeneral.Table

2showstheaverageofstakeholders’satisfactionovertheyearatthethreetrialsites.Overall,

participantsremainedsatisfiedwiththeIASTprocessandmeetingproceedings.TheLauncestonsite

(co-locatedmodel),whilemeetingmoreoftenthanthecomparisonsites,reportedhigherlevelsof

dissatisfactiononaverageandlowerattendanceatmeetings.

1Thisreporttakesintoaccountallself-assessmentsurveysreturnedtotheresearchteamby31stOctober2016.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Attend

ees

MeetingNumber

MeetingAttendance

Devonport Launceston Glenorchy

13

TheGlenorchymodelreportedthehighestrateofsatisfactionofthethreesites,with100percentof

attendeesreportingbeingverysatisfiedorsatisfied.Thiscompareswith98percentvery

satisfied/satisfiedinDevonportand92percentinLaunceston.Devonporthasthehighestaverage

reportingbeingverysatisfied.

Table2Averagesatisfaction

Verysatisfied Satisfied Not

satisfiedNotsatisfiedat

all Unsure Averageattendance

Devonport 41.2% 57.1% 2.1% 0.0% 0% 8.6Launceston 34.5% 57.5% 7.4% 1.1% 0% 5.8Glenorchy 35.% 65% 0.0% 0.0% 0% 9.0

WhilstmeetingsinGlenorchyseemtohavegonesmoothlywithrelativelyconsistentlevelsof

satisfaction(Fig4),meetingattendeesinDevonportandLauncestonexpresseddissatisfactionon

severaloccasions(Fig.2and3).

Figure2SatisfactiontrackingDevonport

WhileDevonportmembersreportveryhighlevelsofsatisfaction;thereweretwomeetingswhereone

attendeereportednotbeingsatisfied.

012345678

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11MeetingNumber

Satisfaction- Devonport

Verysatisfied Satisfied Notsatisfied

14

Figure3SatisfactiontrackingLaunceston

AttheLauncestonsite;therewerefivemeetingswhereattendeesreportednotbeingsatisfiedwith

themeeting.

Figure4SatisfactiontrackingGlenorchy

Glenorchymeetingsappeartohavehadgoodoutcomesforattendeesoneveryoccasion.

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15MeetingNumber

Satisfaction- Launceston

Verysatisfied Satisfied Notsatisfied Notsatisfiedatall

02468

1012

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12MeetingNumber

Satisfaction- Glenorchy

Verysatisfied Satisfied

15

Processissues

Overall,stakeholdersperceivedthatgroupmeetingsallowedforanaccurateanalysisofallcases

presentedinmeetings,asindicatedinFigures5,6and7.Anaverageof22%ofattendeesatthe

Devonportsite(acrossallmeetings)reportedveryaccurateanalysisaswellas63%reportinganalysis

asaccurate.

Figure5-Accuracyofanalysis–Devonport

Anaverageof21%ofattendeesattheLauncestonsite(acrossallmeetings)reportedveryaccurate

analysisaswellas58%reportinganalysisasaccurate.

Figure6-Accuracyofanalysis–Launceston

0123456789

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11Meetingnumber

Accuracyofanalysis- Devonport

Veryaccurately Accurately Notaccurately Unsure

0123456789

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15MeetingNumber

Accuracyofanalysis- Launceston

Veryaccurately Accurately Notaccurately Unsure

16

Anaverageof17%ofattendeesattheGlenorchysite(acrossallmeetings)reportedveryaccurate

analysisaswellas77%reportinganalysisasaccurate.

Figure7-Accuracyofanalysis–Glenorchy

AsshowninFigures5-7abovetherewereinstancesateachsitewheremeetingparticipantsdidnot

thinkcaseshadbeendiscussedwell–witheitherinaccuraciesorambiguities:sixmeetingsin

Devonportwheresomeparticipantsweredissatisfiedwiththeanalysisofcases,aswellasseven

meetingsinLauncestonandfiveinGlenorchy.

Detailsaboutissueswithprocessandgovernancearediscussedinthefollowingsection.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Meetingnumber

Accuracyofanalysis- Glenorchy

Veryaccurately Accurately Notaccurately Unsure

17

3–Stakeholderfeedbackanddiscussion

Informationinthissectionhasbeensourcedfromtheanonymousonlineendofprojectsurveyof

stakeholdersaswellasfacetofaceinterviewswithselectedmembersofthethreecommittees,

includingChairs.

Endofprojectstakeholdersurvey

Thefollowingresultsrepresentresponsestoasecond(andexit)surveywithstakeholdersinthethree

trialsites(Devonport,LauncestonandGlenorchy).This(approx.10min.)surveywasadministeredat

theendofthetwo-yearevaluationperiod.ResponseswerereceivedfromDPFEM(2),DoE(3)and

DHHS(4).TheOfficeforChildrenagencyhadbeenclosedduringthelifeoftheevaluation.No

stakeholdersfromlocalgovernmentrespondedtothesurvey.Oftheninerespondentscompleting

theexitsurvey,foureachwerelocatedinDevonportandLauncestonandonerespondentwaslocated

inGlenorchy.Sevensurveyrespondentsreportedalwaysattendedmeetings,whiletwoattended

sometimes.

Whilethenumberofrespondentstothesurveyissmall(nine)outofapossible35participantsat

meetingsor26%,theresponsesreflectthetrendsreportedinthefirstandsecondInterimreports.

ValueofIAST+toindividualstakeholder

FormorethanthreequartersofthesesurveyrespondentsamajorvalueoftheIAST+was

collaboration;whereastwo-thirdsreportedthatitwasmostvaluableforfindingtherightintervention

fortheyoungpersonorfamily

Regularupdateonat-riskfamilies,confidencethattheyarereceivingthislevelofsupport(Launcestonstakeholder)

AlmosthalffoundtheIAST+wasavaluableplatformforexchanginginformation.

invaluableopportunitytofosterandextendmynetworktocollaborativelyaddressmulti-facetedissuesforatriskyouthsandtheirfamilies(Devonportstakeholder)

ValueofIAST+tostakeholderagency/organisation

Respondentsreportedthatthevaluetotheiragencieswascommunication,sharedfocusand

collaborationaswellasconfidencethattheinterventionwastherelevantsupportforthefamily.For

onestakeholderthevaluewasalsoinaccountability-

cooperativeandpositiveworkingrelationshipsthatensuresagenciesremainengagedandaccountableforatriskyouthsandtheirfamilies(Devonport)

18

RespondentswereaskedinwhatcapacitytheyattendedtheIAST+meeting.Table4showstheir

responses.Inmostcasesitappearsthatthecommitteememberwasselectedbytheir

organisation/agencytoattendthemeetings.

Table3MemberCapacity

InwhatcapacityareyouinyourIAST+role: Percent Count

Iattendmeetingsonaneedsbasis 33.3% 3Itispartofmyjobdescription 22.2% 2Someonefrommyagencyneedstoattend,Iwaschosen 22.2% 2Ivolunteered 11.1% 1Iwasnominated 11.1% 1Other(pleasespecify) 1answeredquestion 9

UnderstandingofpurposeofIAST

Allstakeholdersrespondingtothesurveyhadagoodunderstandingofthepurposeoftheprogram

withmostrespondentsmentioningimprovedsupportforfamilies,improvedcasemanagementanda

sharedagendaforagenciesinvolved:

Toprovidehighlevel,targetedsupporttoyoungpeoplewhoareinvolvedwithtwoormoregovernmentagenciesand,ifpossibletokeepthemoutoftheyouthjusticesystemandengagetheminanappropriateeducationalprogram.Toenablethevariousagenciestoshareinformationwitheachotherwhichisusedtoinformoursupport/approach/intervention(Launcestonstakeholder)

UnderstandingofcollaborationinthecontextofIAST

Collaborationwasunderstoodasthesharingofinformation,ideasandresourcesinordertoprovide

thebestoutcomesforclients,workingwithotherprofessionalsinarelationshipcharacterisedbytrust

andrespect.

workingtogetherinamannerthatenablesparticipantstocooperativelyoperateinanenvironmentoftrustandrespectthatrecognisesthecapacityoftheindividualagencyandexpertiseoftheindividualparticipant(Devonportstakeholder)Honestsharingofcurrentinformationtoenableustosupportyoungpeople-whateverthatmaylooklike.IASTmemberstrusteachotherandhavethebestinterestsoftheseyoungpeopleastheprimefocusofalldiscussions(Launcestonstakeholder)

Successfulcollaborationsoutsidecasemanagementroles

Surveyrespondentsnominatedanumberofdriversforsuccessfulcollaborationoutsidetheirnormal

rolesuchascreationoflinkages,networking,sharingknowledgeandexperienceinworkingtogether

providedthroughmembershipofIAST+.

19

Internalobstaclestocollaboration

Whenaskedaboutanyobstaclestocollaborationathirdofsurveyrespondentsskippedthisquestion;

anotherthirdreportedthattherewerenoobstacles.Theremainingrespondentscitedlackofsenior

managementsupportofIASTprocess,problemswithfindingtimetoattendandfamilies’notgiving

consentforreferralsasobstaclestheyhadencountered.

Externalobstaclestocollaboration

Intermsofexternalobstacles,irregularattendancebyagencies(specificallyChildProtection)was

raisedbyathirdofsurveyrespondents.Furtherobstacleswereagenciesnotundertakingactions

assignedtothem.Onerespondentreportedthatnotallmeetingsusedastrengthsbasedapproach.

BenefitsofearlyinterventionframeworkforIASTs

Allrespondentssawthemainbenefitinbeingabletointervenewithyoungpeoplebeforeissues

escalateinseverityandcomplexityand/orbecomeentrenched.AsoneLauncestonstakeholdersays:

Theobviousbenefitisthatitpreventssomeverydiresituationseventuatinginfamilieswithhighandcomplexneeds.Identifyingproblemsearliercanresultinamuchbetteroutcomefortheyouthand/ortheirfamily.Youthrealisticallycanhavealimitedtimeperiodwhereofferingassistancewillhaveapositiveimpactandchangethedirectionoftheirlife.Iflefttoolatetheyhavetheriskofbecomingentrenchedinalifestyleand/orhealthdeteriorates(LauncestonStakeholder)

WhattwothingscouldimprovetheIASTprocess?

Althoughthesurveysamplewassmall,therewaswidespreadconcurrencethatmoreinvolvement

fromNGOswasdesirable.Othersuggestionsaroundgovernanceweremandatoryattendancebythe

mainagencies,morecontemporarybusinessrulesandimprovedrecordingofreferrals,subsequent

actionandprogresstoavoidrepetition.Suggestionsaroundpracticeinvolvedusingastrengthsbased

approach,inclusivepracticeandworkingwithchildrenatanearlierage.

Agencysupportforattendance

AllrespondentsreportedthattheiragencygavethemtimetoattendIASTmeetings.Three

respondentsnotedthatattendancewasintheirjobdescriptionsandonereceivedassistancewith

transport.OthercommentsincludedtheagencyrecognisingthatattendanceatIASTwasworthwhile

andhavingthesupportoftheagencytomakedecisionsaboutserviceprovision.

Howwellisinformationshared?

Allrespondentsreportedthatinformationwassharedverywellorwellbothwithinmeetingsand

outsidemeetingtimes.Commentsincludedthatmembershipofthecommitteewasstablewhich

fostersgoodworkingrelationships,respectandtrustandenablescommunication.

20

Howwellisyourmeetingchaired?

Respondentsreportedthattheirmeetingswereverywell(71%)orwell(29%)chaired.Comments

includedthemeetingsbeingwellorganisedandleadershipbeingstrongandcommittedwhichfurther

engenderstrustintheprocess.

Areatriskfamiliesidentified?

100%ofrespondentstothesurveysaidyes.

AssessmentofimpactofagencyonIAST+cases

Stakeholdersansweredthisquestionwithstatementsdescribingtheimpactoftheiragencyina

positiveway:

1. [school]PrincipalsareawareoftheprocessandwhattheIASTistherefor.Informationisfedbacktoprincipalsandtheyprovideuptodateinfoformeetings.Educationisrecognisedasfundamentallyimportantifpositivechangeistooccur.

2. Ahugeimpactbyprovidingstable/secureaccommodation-whereable-toallowotheragenciestohavebettersuccesswiththeirinterventions.

3. Alot,wehavenearlyallthefamilieswithourdifferentservicesthatareonthelistanditenableseveryonetoworkmoreeffectivelywiththefamilies,sharinginfoandresources

4. Careplanning.Specialistknowledgeofacutepsychiatricissuesanddevelopmentalneeds.5. Educationhasthepotentialtomakeahugedifferenceaslongasitistailoredtosuitthe

individualneeds6. Significantimpact7. Wecanprovidesupportifneeded,withconsent.

Whatresourcesareneededforgoodcasemanagementandproblem-solvingtooccur?

Stakeholderswereaskedforsuggestionsforimprovements.Responsesincludedsuggestionsfor

dedicatedworkersforIAST+,informationandknowledgeofthesector,leadership,respectforagency

andindividualworkerexpertise,legislativeandgovernanceframeworks,collaboration,andtime.

TheseresponsesreflectpreviousfeedbackaroundlackofsharedunderstandingoftheroleofIAST+

anditsconstituentmembersandalackofresourcingtomanagethecaseload.

HowwouldyoudescribetheimpactoftheIAST+onat-riskyouthsandtheirfamily?

Responsesrangedfromniltohighlysuccessful;thosethatregardeditaspositivecommentedthatthis

wasbecauseseniorpersonnelwereinvolved;actionforhighriskfamiliesisoftenimmediate;other

respondentscreditedsuccesstothecombinationofserviceswhichmakesitabletoaddressallofthe

youngperson’sneeds.

WhatshouldbetwokeyperformanceindicatorsfortheIASTs?

Suggestionsforkeyperformanceindicators(KPI)forIASTsfellintotwomainclassificationsofshort

andlongtermKPIs.

21

Intheshortterm,KPIsmightbe:

a. Improvedengagementwithappropriateeducationalprogram

b. Shorttermengagementoffamilieswithsupportservices

c. Communicationandinclusivepracticeswithfamilies

d. Safeandsupportivelivingarrangements

Whereaslongerterm,KPIsmightbe:

e. Offendingislower

f. Reductioninagencyresourcesassociatedwiththefamily

g. Familiesexitbecausegoalsaremet

h. Positivefeedbackfromfamilies

NametwothingstheIASThasachievedoverlasttwoyears

Themainthemesarisingfromthisquestionwerethatnetworksandgoodworkingrelationships

betweenagenciesandNGOshavebeenestablishedandthereisdeeperknowledgeoftheyoung

peopleandtheissuesthatimpactontheirrisk&safety.Athirdthemethatemergedwasachieving

engagementwithfamilies.

Detailsofmeetings

Intermsoftiming–respondentsratedthisasgood,suitableandflexible.Feedbackisthatmeetings

arewellchaired,allhaveopportunitiestospeakandbelistenedtorespectfully.Discussionisregarded

asprofessional,relevant,respectful.Venueswereregardedasconvenientandgood.Caseloadsare

assessedasworkableinmostcases.Follow-upisseenasgenerallygood;onerespondentwascritical

aboutnon-attendanceandnotreadingminuteswhichmeantactionsweredelayed.Inother

comments,onestakeholderreportedtheywouldpreferabettermethodofrecordingthereasonfor

referral,andimprovedsystemsformonitoringprogressandfinaloutcomes.

Stakeholderinterviews

TheanalysisofinterviewdatademonstratesthatthereremainsalackofclearconsensusofwhatIASTs

arefor,andwhattheyshouldbedoingandwhy.Theexactpurposeofthecollaborativeprocessalso

seemsconfusing,asaimsdivergeaccordingtorespondents’(siloed)professionalcorebusinessesand

personalviewsofthescheme.Theresearchteamhaschosentounpackrespondents’questionsinthe

followingtwo-foldmanner:viewsaboutpurposeandviewsaboutcollaboration.

22

ViewsaboutIASTpurpose

Throughtheinterviewswithavarietyofstakeholderstheevaluatorsconcludedthattherewasalack

ofconsistencyinmemberviewsofthepurposeoftheIAST+.Somewerequiteclear:

inthename,it'sInterAgencySupportTeam.It'saboutallagenciescomingtogethertosupportourclients.That'sthefundamentalthing.Isupposeit'saboutengagingortryingtoengagewiththeclientsI'vegotandaboutmakingpositivestepsintheirlives(Launceston).

SomestakeholderssawthesolepurposeofIAST+beingtobringtheresourcesandcollaboration

aroundthetable.OtherstakeholderssawtheIAST+asageneralsafetynet:

ifachildhasbecomesubjecttotheattentionsofanISTthere'sclearlyalotofthingsthathavefallenover,whetheritbeathomeoratschool,socially,drugandalcohol,familybreakdown,anynumberofthosenastysocialills.Butclearlythisisachildthat,togettoIST,hasfallenthroughthecracks.TheIST'swithinourStateisprobablytheirsafetynet….,it'sasafetynetforchildrenwhohavefallenthroughthecracks(Glenorchy).

ForsomestakeholdersthepurposeISthecollaboration;tolookattheyoungperson,theirfamilyand

theresourcesinplaceoravailableinthelocalareaandsuitablefortheirneeds.Alltheagenciesatthe

tableareusuallyactivelyinvolvedwiththefamiliesbeingdiscussed;soitisthejoiningofdotsand

sharingofintelligencethatisthekeygoal.

Viewsaboutcollaboration

Inherentinthenameisthattherewillbepartnershipsandcollaborationinvolvedinthemodel.At

mostsitesaroundthetableareEducation,Health,Housing,childandadolescentmentalhealth

(CAMHS),ChildProtection,Policeandinsomecasesyouthjustice.Aclearbenefithasbeenthe

opportunityformemberstonetwork,andshareinformationabouttheirservicesandjointclientsina

pro-activemannerwhichenablespositiveworkingrelationshipstobedevelopedandnurtured.

Itcreatesanetworkingenvironmentwherepeopleactuallyknoweachotherandit'snotjustagroupemailgoingoutinrelationtotheagenda,there'soutofsessioncontactsthatgoonallthetime(Glenorchy).

Thesynergycreatedbythemodelenablesagencyrepresentativestocomeupwithcreativesolutions

toclientissues.

Wewilloftencomeupwithinnovativelocalsolutionstoproblemsandthat'swhereit’shavingnotonlythekeystakeholdersbutthosekeypeoplefromthekeystakeholdergroupswhohavethenetworksandknowwhereweneedtogo(Devonport).

Similarly,essentialtocollaborationandagoodworkingpartnershipisthecommitmentofthe

participantstofindpositiveoutcomesfortheyoungpeopleinvolvedintheirservice.

Thereasonitdoesworkwellisbecauseofthemembersofmycommittee,it'stheirpassionandthey'readrivingforcetoactuallymakingachangeinthesepeople'slives(Launceston).

23

However,asforeshadowedintheInterimReportsprovidedinthisevaluation,therearealsonegative

opinionsaboutcollaborationundertheIASTframeworks.Themainissueraisedbystakeholdersisthe

irregularityofattendancebyagencies(ChildProtectionhasbeennamedupseveraltimesashaving

poorattendancerecord)andthiscreatesagapininformationontheyoungpersonandtheirfamily.

Anotherissuewithattendanceisthattherepresentativeofanagencychangesoftenwhichimpactson

continuityandflowofinformationaswellasrelationshipbuilding.Aswellasinconsistentattendance,

meetingshavebeendescribedas“gossipfests”ratherthanstrategicallycollaboratingtowards

outcomes.SomestakeholdersattributethistotheageoftheIAST+model:

Myconcernsaboutthisprocessbecauseit'sbeenaroundforsolong…aboutitbecomingjustatalkfest.Wesitonceamonth,wetalkabouttheseclientsbutnothingreallyhappensandI'mreallyworriedaboutthat(Launceston).

Otherscommentedaboutthedifferenceinlevelsofcommitmentbytheagencyintermsofsenior

managementnotprovidingenoughresourcesfortheagencytocommittimeandstaffresourcestothe

actionitemsrecommendedatmeetings.Commitmentisalsoanissueforthosebeingsecondedto

themeetingwithoutsufficientbriefing.Meetingchairsreportastronglevelofcommitmentto

outcomesfromregularmeetingattendees.ItisrecommendedthatadhocallocationtoIASTtype

tasksisavoidedbypartneragenciesasthisweakenscapacityconsiderably.

Resourcingisanissueinthecurrentclimateofcutstopublicsectorjobsandcommunitysector

funding.Althoughattimeschangesimplementedduetorationalisationhaveactuallyenabledthe

IAST+model.Onesuchexamplesisthatchangesinallocationofschoolsocialworkerssothatthey

areworkingacrossschoolsdistricts(ratherthanallocatedtosingleschools)hasprovenusefulfor

IASTsasasinglepersonwillnowhavecontactwithmultipleyoungpeopleatmultipleschoolsites.

Commitmentisalsoanissueinrelationto

theinformationprovidedbyeachagency

tothemeetings.Whileofteninformation

issharedgenerously,atothertimesthe

silosbetweenagenciesareveryrigid.

Sometimesthereluctancetoshare

informationmightrelatetoconfidential

informationwhichthenneedstobe

disclosedingeneraltermse.g.police

Isay"ClientOneisgoingtocourtonthe4thofnextmonthat(x)am.Thereare20complaintsbeforethecourtandonthosecomplaintsthereareatotalof35charges."That'sallIsay.

Vignette

Youngpersondisengagedfromeducation,drinkingheavily,into

dopeandrunningamuckwithprobablyfiveorsixotheryoung

people.IASTorganisedcommunityconferencingandgothimto

Courtandworkedintensivelytoseverthetieswithpeergroup.

Membersmobilisedalotofsupportaroundthatyoungperson,

changedhiseducationplanandthatyoungpersonisnowdoing

extremelywell18monthsortwoyearsdownthetrack.

24

IntervieweesalsoraisedtheissueofjugglingdifferentlevelsofinformationfromagenciesandNGO

workerswithashortamountoftimeallocatedtoeachcase.DevonporthashadNGOsatthetablefor

severalyears;beingafeatureofasmallregionalareaswithreducedgovernmentagencypresence.

DevonportstakeholdersmakethepointthatNGOsarekeymembersbecausenotallinformation

aboutfamiliesresidesingovernmentfileholding.

ThereisaconsensusamongallsitesthatNGOsneedtobeatthetableastheyhaveadifferentkitof

resources.Butthisiscounteractedbytheneedtokeepthemembershipataworkablenumber.It

maybethattheirattendanceiscasedependente.g.NGOsworkingwithfamilybeingdiscussedare

invited.Atthesametimeincludingarangeofdifferentorganisationswithdifferentcapacitiescanadd

tothecomplexityofcollaboration.Thereisalsothecaseofdifferentlanguagesanddiscoursesusedby

thevariousagencyandNGOrepresentativesaswellasvastdifferencesinthecapacitytorespond

quickly.ChairingofmeetingsbyPoliceisbothastrengthandaweaknessofthemodel;policemight

havecapacitytoundertakecertainactionsbecauseofDPFEMsystemsandresourcesbutpolicealso

bringaparticularcriminaljusticefocustothemeetingswhichmightnotalwaysbeappropriate.

Governanceisalsoraisedasaparallelissuewithcollaboration.GlenorchyandLauncestonhave

regularmeetingtimesandvenues;meetingonasetdateeachmonth.

Wereallymeetonceamonthbutifsomethinghappensinoneoftheclientslivesthat'stimecriticalandcan'twaittillthenextmeetingthenwedoemailstoeachother.Theremightbeasignificantthinglikeonehasbeenreportedmissingornotbeenseenfortwoorthreedays.Wecan'twait28dayssowemighthaveanemailorphonecallifsomethingistimecriticalorjustcan'twait(Launceston).

However,essentialtomeetingtheworkloadgeneratedbythemeetingsisforthecommitteeto

conveneoutsideregulartimes.

…todiscusstheclientsproperlyandtomakesurewegetthebestfortheclients…probably15onthelist…oncethelistgrowstomid20s…thenthemeetingisanhourandahalftotwohoursandIfind,nodisrespecttomycommittee,thatpeoplejuststarttoswitchoffalittlebitandwedon'tseemtohavethesameoutcomesaswewouldforasmallerlistwherewecantakemoretimetodiscusssomeoutcome(Launceston)

ForGlenorchy,theteammeetsregularlyoutsidethesetmeetingdates:

Look,tobequitehonest,mostofourworkoccursoutofsession.Wemightgetsomeoutcomesduringasessionandwhoneedstofollowupbutalotofitwillbemeetingasdifferentagencies,differentpeoplefromwithinthoseagenciesmeetingoutsidetofurtherdiscussandprogresssomeofit.Mostoftheworkgoesonoutsideofit(Glenorchymember).

Devonportnegotiatedateandtimeofeachmeetingandthechairalsomentionsdoinginformalthings

outsideofmeetingtimes.Thisisacleardemonstrationthatthevolumeandcomplexityofthe

25

caseloadrequiresincreasedresourcingtoenablethelocalteamstoworkwithatriskyoungpeople

andtheirfamilies.Forsomethemodelistoopassive–

anIASTmeetingthatmeetsonceamonth,butdoesn’tmeetinschoolholidays,it’safairlypassiveapproachtoactuallydealingwithsomethingthat’sthishuge[demonstrating],andallyouwanttodoislookatthisbitonceamonth.Soandeventhoughitmayhaveworkedasanadjuncttootherthings,it’sadropintheocean,anditreliesuponpeoplegoingawayfromthemeetinganddoingotherstuff,andconnectingupotherservices,andtryingtomakemoreinroadswithfamilies.Andiftherearelimitedresources,ortherearedifferentprioritiesorwhatever,it’sverydifficultforthedecisionsofanIASTtoactuallynecessarilyalwaysbetranslatedintosomeactionontheground,orenoughaction.

Thecomplexityofthecasesbeingmanagedisacknowledgedbyallstakeholders.Mostoftheyoung

peoplebeingreferredtoIAST+areknowntoGateway2orelsearecommonclientswithcomplex

needs.

InthissensethereisstrongevidencethatIASThasmovedawayfromdealingwithearlyintervention

casesandarecaseworkingyouthknowntothecriminaljusticesystem.Thereisathemeamongstthe

interviewsthatsuggestsIAST+maybespendingtoomuchtimewiththosealreadyentrenchedinthe

system(YouthJusticeServicesandAshleyYouthDetentionCentre3)andnotenoughon0-12yearolds

whomightbeabletobediverted.

Becauseit’sgoneforsolong-andnodisrespecttoanybody-it'sbeenallowedtocreeptothestagewherealotoftheotheragenciesareprobablyguiltyofreferringpeopletoISTbecausethey'verunoutofideasthemselvesandthinkthey'llputitthereandmaybemovetheaccountabilityforthewrongreasons…maybe(Launceston)Unfortunatelyalotofourkidsareatthatpointyendofthetriangle.Someofthem,we'renotgoingtostopthebehavioursthatwe'redealingwith.Sometimesit'sabouttryingtocurbitjustalittlebit(Glenorchy)

ThereisalwaysdifficultyinmeasuringsuccessinearlyinterventionprogramsbutIASTmembersnote

theirfrustrationwiththedifficultyinmeasuringsuccess.Thisisinpartareflectionofunclearrolesbut

alsoalackoftransparencyandconsistencywithtrackingtheyoungpeopleandtheirfamiliesthrough

2 FundedbytheDepartmentofHealth&HumanServices,Gatewayserviceslinkindividualsandfamilieswithappropriateinformationandadvice,briefinterventionandreferralstorelevantservices.Staffworkcollaborativelywithindividualsandfamiliestoensuretheirneedsarerecognisedandtheappropriateserviceresponseisgiven.

3YouthJusticeServicesisresponsibleforthedeliveryofrestorativejusticeservicestothevictimsandperpetratorsofyouthcrimeaged10-17years.Communitybasedservicessuchascommunityconferencing,communityserviceordersandsupervisionsupportareprovidedbyCommunityYouthJusticeTeamsbasedintheNorthWest,NorthandSouth.CustodialServicesareprovidedatAshleyYouthDetentionCentreintheNorth,nearDeloraine.AYDCisresponsibleforthesafeandsecurecareofyoungpeopleonremandanddetention.CommunityYouthJusticeisresponsiblefordiversionandrehabilitationprogramsforyoungpeopleundersupervisioninthecommunity.

26

thevariousinterventions.Protocols

andworkflowdocumentshave

developedincrementallyand

differentlyineachareawhichmakes

itdifficulttoevaluatestrengthsand

weaknesses;particularlywithlarge

caseloadsofcomplexclients.

Intervieweeswerecriticalabout

datacollection(thereisalmostnone

done,whichpreventsthingsfrommovingforward).Datagatheringiscurrentlyadhoc,andisnot

consistentlymaintainedwithinonesite,evenlessacrossIASTsites.Lackofconsistencyin

documentationofprocessandoutcomesunderminesthevalidityofanyinitiative.Inthecaseof

IAST+thelackofcomparabledatacollectiontoolsmakesitdifficulttoevaluateindividualand

universalimpactfactors,beingtheenablersorbarrierstosuccessandobscureswhatworksforwhich

clientinwhatcircumstances.Theevaluatorswerealsounabletodetermineanycost/benefitanalysis

ofthemodelsasthisdatawasunavailable.Itisimportantthatprocessesforcollectingthesetypesof

dataaresetupatthebeginningofanysocialprogramorinitiativeasitbecomesimpossibletoretro-fit

toolstoinconsistentdata.

Tofurthercomplicatelackofclarityaroundthetrajectorytowardsoutcomesfortheyoungpeople

involved,IAST+isoftennottheonlybodyworkingwiththesekids

Igetfrustratedbecausesomeofourkidsareveryhardcasekidsanditworriesmethattheysitontoomanycommittees.SomeofthemsitonISTbutbecausesomeareoncareandprotectionorderswithChildProtectiontheyhaveCareTeammeetingsatChildProtectiontodiscussthemandIgotothoseaswell.SomeareonYouthJusticesotheyhavemeetingsandIgotothem,too.I'mverymindfulthatsomeoftheseclientscouldbediscussedattwoorthreedifferentmeetingsandthat'swhenIsaidtoHobartthatifsomeoftheseareonYouthJusticeandtheyhavetheirCCCmeetings-CollaborativeCaseConferencemeetings-weshouldn'tgoagainsteachother.SoiftheyareonCCCwithYouthJusticeIshouldreleasethemoffourssothatalltheenergygoeswithYouthJusticebecausewhenYouthJusticehavemeetingstheyhavepsychologistsand…theyhavemorepeopletotheirtablethanIgettomine.Soifthey'reonYouthJusticemattersandthey'vebeenreferredtotheirCCCprogramIdelistthemstraightaway…(Glenorchy)

TheIAST+werecreatedwithaspecificearlyinterventionfocus.Earlyinterventionisdesignedto

preventtheonsetofdelinquentbehaviourandsupportsthedevelopmentofayouth’sassetsand

resilience.However,clientsveryoftenarekeptonIAST+listingsevenaftergoingtoAshley,orafter

longperiodsofaggravation/escalationindeviantbehaviour.Fromamodeldesignedforearly

intervention,IAST+hasgrownorganicallytotrytobea‘onesizefitsall’modelandthisiscausingitto

Vignette

13yearoldmalewhohasnotbeentoschoolsinceGrade3and

wasoffending.Motherwithmentalhealthissues.Insecure

housingandyoungpersoncausingsignificantpropertydamage.

IASTworkedwithmothertoaddressmentalhealthandhygiene

issues.Hasnotre-engagedwitheducationbutyoungperson

workingwithcommunitygrouplearningskillstorepairdamage

tohousehold.

27

fracture.Theresourcingisinsufficientforalargecaseloadofcomplexclients.Asoneintervieweesaid

“Ifitweretrulyearlyintervention,neitherpolicenoryouthjusticewouldbeatthetable’.

Althoughitisdifficulttomakedirectcomparisonsforreasonsdiscussedabove(lackofdocumentation,

lackofprocessandoutcomedata,lackofdetailofdecisionmakingandactions),theevaluators

considerthemodeloperatinginDevonportasmostmeetingtheneedsoflocalclients.Asfarasthe

IAST+modelisconcerned,thekeytosuccessisstabilityinattendance,consistentoutcomesand

tangibleactionsthathaveimpactedontheyoungpeopleinvolved.Ouranalysisisthatwhileallsites

areheavilyreliantoninvestmentofmembers;actionitemsarisingfromthemeetingsareoften

simplisticwithsketchyfollow-up,whichoftendoesnottakeintoaccountthewholecontextofthe

childandthemultipleriskfactorsinvolved.Thismightbeconceptualisedasthesocialdeterminantsof

(forexample)re-engagementwithschool;theyoungpersonalsoneedsclothes,hygiene,nutrition,

transportetc.forre-engagementwithschooltobepossibleonanongoingbasis.Devonport,withthe

NGOsatthetable,seemstobeabletobemoreflexibleinrespondingtotheneedsoftheyoung

personandperhapsthisisafeatureofasmallercommunitywhereservicesalreadyhaveacultureof

cooperation.

ManyoftheweaknessesassociatedwiththeIASTthathavebeendiscussedabove,willbeameliorated

throughmovementtowardsJoinedUpgroupswhichfeaturesmallercaseloads,structuredrisk

assessmentprocesseswhichmighttriageyoungatriskpeopleintocategoriessuchashighoffenders,

lowoffenders,pre-offendersandnooffending.Thesegroupsareaimedmoreatearlyintervention

withyoungpeopleandthestructureofthegroupsdoesnotrequireChildProtectionandYouthJustice

Agenciestoberegularlyatthetable.

28

4-ConclusionsandrecommendationsInsummary,theevaluatorsconsiderthatthestrengthsoftheIAST+modelisthatitwasanearly

exampleofbestpracticeforaninter-agencycollaborationexercise.Themodelendured,although

withplace-basedvariation,formanyyearsandenabledtrusttobebuiltamongagenciesworkingwith

at-riskyoungpeople.IAST+wasabletoshareinformationamongstagencieswhichfilledinformation

gapsandprovidedgoodoutcomesforfamilies.Intermsofweaknesses,themodelsbeingusedare

nowoutmodedandcaseswhicharereferredtotheIAST+groupsareincreasinglycomplexwhich

contributestotheirdwindlingeffectiveness.Thisincreaseinthereferralofhighriskyouthhasmeant

thattheIAST+hasmovedawayfromitsearlyinterventionfocus.Weaknessesintermsofgovernance

arethatthereareunclearboundariesbetweenagencies,alackofclarityaroundtheprogram’s

purposeandthereisalackofdatatoenabletrackingofdriversandbarrierstosuccess.Oneofthe

mainimpactscontributingtotowardslackoffocusisperhapsthattheagencythatsetuptheIAST+

modelwasdisbandedandsubsequentlytheprogramhasbeenpolice-led.Furtherweaknesshasbeen

foundintheresourcingforIAST+withworkloadexceedingthegovernancemodelandbudget

provided.

Intermsofopportunitiesforthefuture,themomentumgeneratedbyIAST+willenableanewer

generationmodeltobeundertakenandflourishduetothenetworksandinformationsharingcapacity

thathasbeenbuiltup.Agencieshavelearnedhowtooperateacrosstheirorganisationalboundaries

andthishaspotentialtoleadtoinnovationintermsofworkingtogethertosupportyoungpeopleat

risk.ThethreatsthattheIAST+modelfacesincludeagenerallackofappetiteforfundingearly

interventionprogramsundercurrentgovernmenteconomicframeworks.Attemptstoprovide‘one

sizefitsall’servicemodelsareunabletomeettheheterogeneticandcomplexneedsofat-riskyoung

peopleandsoone-stopshopsaresetuptofail.

Movingforward,theevaluatorsseethelegacyofIAST+intheemergingyouthwelfarespaceof‘joined

upservices’.TheIAST+programhasthepotentialtoevolveintothecollectiveimpactframework

whichisseenascurrentbestpracticeandourrecommendationswillfacilitatethemigrationfromthe

oldermodelintoacollectiveimpactmodel.Thefivekeyconditionsforcollectiveimpactare:

1. Acommonagendaforchangeincludingasharedunderstandingoftheproblemandajoint

approachtosolvingitthroughagreeduponactions.

2. Collectingdataandmeasuringresultsconsistentlyacrossalltheparticipantsensuresshared

measurementforalignmentandaccountability.

3. Aplanofactionthatoutlinesandcoordinatesmutuallyreinforcingactivitiesforeachparticipant.

29

Figure8SWOTanalysis

4. Openandcontinuouscommunicationisneededacrossthemanyplayerstobuildtrust,assure

mutualobjectives,andcreatecommonmotivation.

••earlyexampleofbestpractice••meetingsareaccountabilitymechanismforagencies••informationsharingmeantgoodoutcomesforfamilies••trustandgoodwillbuiltbetweenagencies

STRENGTHS

••Agingmodel••Increasingcomplexityofcasesunsuitableforearlyinterventionmodel••Dwindlingeffectiveness••inconsistencyinagencyattendance••unclearboundariesbetweenagencies••lackofdata••incompletefollowup••lackofexitstrategyforcases••Under-resourcing••Leadagencydisbanded••Police-led(whentechnicallyearlyinterventionshouldnotinvolvecriminaljusticeorchildprotection)••unclearastowhichofthethreemodelsworkedbestbecauseofdifferencesincontext

WEAKNESSES

••MomentumforjoinedupskillsisIASTlegacy••organisationalwillremains••networksdeveloped••IASThasprovidedgoodnetworkingwhichcouldleadtobidsandtendersforjointwork

OPPORTUNITIES

••lackoffundingforearlyintervention••Nota'one-size-fits-all'model

THREATS

••joinedupservicemodelandYouthatRiskstrategy••Naturalpartnershipsbetweenlawenforcementandpublichealth••collectiveimpactmodelisnewbestpractice

TRENDS

30

5. Abackboneorganisation(s)withstaffandspecificsetofskillstoservetheentireinitiativeand

coordinateparticipatingorganisationsandagencies.4

Finally,IAST+hasalsodemonstratedthesynergismbetweenlawenforcementandpublichealthwhich

haspotentialforfurtherexploration.

Recommendations

Afteranalysisofinformationcollectedaspartoftheevaluation;theevaluatorsrecommendthe

following:

• IASTpartnershipstoclarifytheirpurpose–acharterorMOUtobedevelopedwhichoutlines

theparametersofoperationandeachmembers’rolesandresponsibilities.Implicitinthis

recommendationissignofffromtheseniormanagementofthepartners.

• IAST+membershiptobeexpandedtoincluderelevantNGOsineacharea.Thiswillenable

youngpeopletobetrackedacrossanumberofdifferentinterventionprogramsandservices.

• Clearworkprocesses–allpartieswithdecisionmakingrolearevisibleandaccountablefor

outcomes

• Adoptionofclearriskassessment/protectivefactorframeworkwhichoutlineswhatearly

interventionisandwhatayoungperson’strajectorymightlooklikee.g.nooffending;pre-

offending;lowoffending;highoffending.

• Impactfactors–whichrelatetothevariouscontextualcomponentsoftheyoungperson’slife

e.g.education,health,nutrition,drugandalcoholissues,housing,familysupportetc.The

impactsorrisksinvolvedineachyoungperson’scasetobeclearlytracked;whichinvolvesthe

developmentofagenerictrackingdocumentforallsites.

• Equalfooting–allmemberstohavethesamelevelofauthoritytomakedecisionsonbehalfof

theiragency

• Sufficientresourcestoundertaketheworkinvolvedintheteamandcarryoutrequiredaction

items.WerecommendtheappointmentofadedicatedCoordinatorforeachIAST+whose

soleresponsibilityfororganisingmeetings,followinguponactionitemsanddocumenting

positiveandnegativeresponsestoagency/NGOinterventions.

• Commitmenttodismantlesilos–IAST+memberstoconsciouslyworktogethertorecognise

whenmemberagencypoliciesorresourcesmaynotbeworkinginthebestinterestofthe

youngperson.

4 HanleyBrown,F.,Kania,J.,&Kramer,M.(2012).Channellingchange:Makingcollectiveimpactwork.StanfordSocialInnovationReview1-8

31

• Changethefrequencyofmeetingstoweekly–thiswilleliminatetheneedforlengthy

meetingsoroutofsessionmeetingsandenablethepartnerstorespondinatimeliermanner

totheirclients.

• ImplementclearprotocolsforexitforcasescompletedortoocomplexfortheIAST+model.

• Protocolforfollow-up–astandardisedprotocolforfollow-upwithclientswhichincludes

reportinganddocumentationwillallowforgreatertransparencyandaccountability.

• Longitudinalevaluationofselectedcases–eachsitetodocumentanumberofcasestudies

eachyearforlongtermfollowupe.g.onexitingprogram,andfollowupafterone,twoand

fiveyears.

32

APPENDIXA–ResearchTimeline

ActionItems TimeframeProjectPhases

By Completed

Planningandscopingofevaluation

July/August2013 Phase1 TILES Ö

Considerationofmethodologyandevaluationtools

August2013 Phase1 TILES Ö

ProjectteamInterviews August2013 Phase1 TILES Ö

Preparationofsurveys August2013 Phase1TILES/OfC

Ö

Formattingofallsurveys September2013 Phase1 TILES ÖAdministrationofbackgroundsurveyof20IASTsites

EarlySeptember2013

Phase1TILES/OfC

Ö

Administrationofbackgroundsurveyof3IAST+trialsites

EarlySeptember2013

Phase1TILES/OfC

Ö

Designofday-to-daytrackingtools

Mid-September2013 Phase1TILES/OfC

Ö

Releaseandadministrationofday-to-daytrackingtools

FromOctober1st2013

Phase2 OfC Ö

ReleaseandadministrationofClientexitsurvey

Phase2TILES/OfC

N/A

Ad-hocvisitofIAST+trialsites Phase2 TILES ÖDesignofmeetingobservationtool

Phase2TILES(SK)

Ö

Ongoingcollectionofdata

FromOctober2013,every3months

Phase2 OfC ÖReleaseofdatatoTILESforAnalysis

Phase2 OfC Ö

DesktopAnalysisofdata,three-monthlyreports

Phase2 TILES

Verbalreport1ÖVerbalreport2ÖInterimreport1ÖInterimreport2Ö

DesktopAnalysisofalldata;preparationanddeliveryoffinalreport

FromlateSeptember2015

Phase3TILES/OfC

Ö

Qualitycontrolandinformationchecksofsurveys

2016Phases1,2&3

TILES Ö

33

AppendixB–Researchoutcomesanddeliverables

OUTCOMES SUB-AIMS DELIVERABLES

1. Mappingofhowagenciesworktogetherandhowtheycanworktogetherbetter

Mappingofchairfacilitationskills(whatmakesagoodChair?)

Seriesofrecommendationson:• Meetingfacilitation• Meetingchairing• Informationsharing• Followuponinformation• Process‘invisibility’• Needsidentificationand

assessment• Outcomeidentification• Exit/retirementprocessfor

childrenandtheirfamilies• ImpactidentificationAND

documentation• Stakeholderexpectation• Projectpurpose(s)

IAST+meetingdynamics(howaremeetingsrun,andcouldtheybebetterrun?)

Overallcollaborationandresponsibilityallocation

Identificationofinformationsharingpathways(+whatisdonewiththisinformation)

2. Impactstudy:howhaveIAST+changedkids’lives?

Acquiringanindication/establishingqualitativeindicatorsofbehaviouralchanges(forexample)

Seriesofrecommendationson:• Currentimpactmeasures• Possibleimpactmeasures

(identificationofpossiblequalitativeand/orquantitativeKPIs)

• ‘Hard’and‘soft’measureofimpact

3. OverallIAST+SWOT(Strengths,Weaknesses,Opportunities,andThreats)analysis

Trendsanalysis,withextractionsof:• Collaborationgaps• Collaborationstrengths• Possibleprocesswarning• Economicargument(how

manyhoursaresaved,throughagenciesmeetingviatheIASTmodel)

4. Theeffect1,2and3(above)haveonservicedelivery

34