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