References and attachments
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2010). Child Protection Australia 2008-09. Canberra: Author. Retrieved from <https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/publications-articles/transitioning-to-independence-from-out-of-home-care-discussion-paper
Cashmore, J. and Paxman, M., (2007) Longitudinal Study of Wards Leaving Care: Four to Five Years On. Report of Research Project commissioned by the NSW Department of Community Services
Forbes, C. Inder, B. and Raman, S. (2006) Measuring the cost of leaving care in Victoria, Department of Econometrics and Business Statistics, Monash University.
Johnson, G., Natalier, K., Mendes, P., Liddiard, M., Thoresen, S., Hollows, A. and Bailey, N. (2010) Pathways from out of home care, AHURI Final report no. 147.
KPMG (2010), National Standards for Out of Home Care: Final Report, commissioned by the Department, Commonwealth of Australia.
Maunders, D., Liddell, M., Liddell, M., & Green, S. (1999). Young people leaving care and protection. Hobart: National Youth Affairs Research Scheme.
McDowall, J.J. (2008). CREATE Report Card 2009 -Transitioning from Care, Sydney: CREATE Foundation
McDowall, J.J. (2009). CREATE Report Card 2009 -Transitioning from Care: Tracking Progress. Sydney: CREATE Foundation
Mendes, P., (2007), When leaving home means being abandoned,
Centre for Policy Development retrieved from
http://cpd.org.au/2007/03/when-leaving-home-means-being-abandoned/(link is external)(Opens in a new tab/window)
Mendes, P. (2008), State wards: parental guidance recommended. Eureka Street Magazine 18(21) retrieved from http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/edition.aspx?eid=669(link is external)(Opens in a new tab/window)
Mendes, P. (2009), ‘A Structural Analysis of Young People Leaving State Care.’
Communities, Families and Children Australia, 3(1), 68 – 78.
Mendes, P. [2009(a)], Mentoring for Care Leavers: A Critical Review of the Literature, [online]. Developing Practice: The Child, Youth and Family Work Journal, 23, 36 – 44.
Mendes, P., & Moslehuddin, B. (2006), ‘From dependence to interdependence: Towards better outcomes for young people leaving state care’. Child Abuse Review, 15, 110–126.
Morgan Disney and Associates Pty. Ltd. and Applied Economics Pty. Ltd., (2006)
Transition from Care – avoidable costs of alternative pathways. Volume 1: Summary Report
Muir, K., Mullan, K. Powell, A., Flaxman, S., Thompson, D. and Griffiths, M. (2009)
State of Australia’s Young People: A Report on the social, economic, health and family lives of young people. Office for Youth, DEEWR
Paxman, M. (2007) Young People Leaving Out of Home Care,
A summary of a study by Paxman, M. and Cashmore, J.(1996): The Longitudinal Study of Wards Leaving Care: 4 – 5 years After Leaving Care
NSW Department of Community Services
Raman, S., Inder, B. and Forbes, C. (2005) Investing for Success: The economics of supporting young people leaving care, Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare and Monash University, Melbourne.
Stein, M. (2004) What works for young people leaving care? 2nd Ed. Russell Press, Nottingham
Stein, M. (2008) ‘Resilience and young people leaving care’, Child Care in Practice, 14, 1, 35-44.
Attachment A
Summary of Chapter 5 - Pathways from out-of-home care
Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute, April 2010
authored by
Guy Johnson, Kristin Natalier, Phillip Mendes, Mark Liddiard, Stian Thoresen, Andrew Hollows, Naomi Bailey
- Smooth Transition from Care:
- Had few placements in care;
- Generally felt safe and secure in care;
- Felt involved in the planning process;
- Left care at a later age;
- Felt that they were better prepared for leaving care;
- Had a successful first placement, which facilitated a smoother transition from care.
The housing experiences and outcomes of those young people experiencing a smooth transition also tended to be described in positive ways:
- Spoke favourably about transitional arrangements, identifying the quality of the accommodation and support as a critical factor;
- Had important, reliable and consistent social attachments that provided resources that enabled them to access and maintain accommodation;
- Were able to use stable housing as a base from which to start engaging with employment, training and education opportunities;
- Had someone to fall back on if problems emerged.
- Volatile transition from care:
- Had a high number of placements in care;
- Experienced physical and/or sexual abuse prior to, or while they were in care;
- Rarely had an exit plan;
- Left care in crisis at a younger age;
- Been discharged into inappropriate accommodation, such as refuges or boarding houses.
The housing experiences and outcomes of those young people experiencing a volatile transition were marked by:
- Poor experiences of supported/transitional accommodation and specifically, being forced to share;
- Lack of professional support;
- Experienced a lack of privacy, safety and control over their accommodation;
- Substance abuse and mental health problems destabilising their housing;
- An absence of relationships offering resources that could be used to access and maintain housing. Their social networks were comprised of homeless and other marginalised young people, and many experienced profound difficulties in maintaining relationships. Young care leavers in this category were also mistrustful of care and other welfare systems;
- Lost accommodation because of harassment, violence and/or relationship breakdown;
- Had difficulties coping with newly found autonomy and independence.
Attachment B
Extract from Transition from care: Avoidable costs to government of alternative pathways of young people exiting the formal child protection care system in Australia.
Morgan Disney & Associates Pty Ltd (2006)
In 2006, Morgan Disney and Associates undertook a study to inform CDSMC Ministers (and governments) about the current alternate pathways of young people after they leave formal care, and the comparative cost of these pathways to governments. The intention of identifying the alternative pathways and their costs was to establish the extent of potential cost savings if a proportion of young people were successfully diverted, through better support at the point of transition, to lower usage service pathways and to pathways which are economically and socially more productive.
The total (gross) estimated cost to government for the cohort of 1150 people who have left the formal child protections care system, across their life course from ages 16-60, is over $2 billion. This is equivalent to a cost of approximately $46 million for 1150 persons per annum, and an average cost of $40,000 per person per annum.
The study identified five typical alternative pathways that young people might follow after leaving care, reflecting different levels of avoidable (or preventable) use of government services, from low usage to very high usage levels across the following service systems: alcohol and other drugs, employment support, family support, health, housing, justice and mental health services.
The total (gross) estimated cost to government for the cohort of 1150 people who have left the formal child protections care system, across their life course from ages 16-60, is over $2 billion. This is equivalent to a cost of approximately $46 million for 1150 persons per annum, and an average cost of $40,000 per person per annum.
Based on individuals’ typical patterns of service usage and costs, three broad categories of service usage were identified.
Low cost service usage: Usage by this individual is estimated to cost governments, on average approximately $124,000 over the life course from age 16-60, with an overall average cost per annum of $2,800.
Moderate cost service usage: Usage by this individual costs governments, on average an estimated $1 million over the life course from age 16-60, with an overall average estimated cost per annum of $23,000.
High cost service usage: Usage by this individual costs governments, on average approximately $2.2 million over the life course from age 16 up to 60, with an overall estimated average cost per annum of $50,000.
An estimated 45 percent of young people who leave the child protection system require minimal or no support services beyond those provided and required by the general population. An estimated 55 percent, however, are in pathways which are higher cost across their life course, such as income support, with these costs increasing over time as an individual’s health or life circumstances lead into high or very high cost health, justice and mental health services.
The findings of the study indicate that there would be significant economic, and social, benefits if more young people leaving care were better supported in ways that reduced the likelihood of their progression into prolonged use of high cost services. It suggests that any policies directed at reducing the overall cost to government need to be two-pronged:
- reducing the numbers of people on the most expensive pathways;
- reducing the length of time they spend on these pathways.
The study also suggests the need for immediate action in each jurisdiction to build onto existing data matching projects to assist in tracking young people who leave the formal child protection system and enter adult service systems.
Attachment C
Extract from Young people leaving care and protection: A report to the National Youth Affairs Research Scheme
David Maunders, Max Liddell, Margaret Liddell and Sue Green
Implications of the research findings
The implications of the research findings are that, in order to support the process of transition to independence and to minimise the risk of homelessness, Australian governments need to consider the following issues:
- the extension of the responsibility of State governments to provide after-care support for those who have passed through the care system at least until the age of 25;
- the responsibility of States to negotiate with the Commonwealth to provide benefits for those who have been in care;
- the need for each State and Territory government to continuously review its practices, responsibilities and role as guardian to increase consistency;
- the provision of Commonwealth benefits at the full adult rate to young people living independently after being in care who are unemployed, studying or undertaking job skills training;
- the review of case planning and preparation for leaving care to reflect community standards of leaving home at an older age and to provide flexible options for support;
- the availability of continuing support and counselling services, until the age of 25, for those who have left care;
- the provision of programs with a range of delivery options to assist transition;
- the training of workers and caregivers to implement effective programs of transition from care;
- the maintenance of family links wherever possible and offering support to families as young people move to independence;
- the provision of basic personal items and furniture to young people leaving care to establish independent living;
- the provision of an opportunity for young people to gain access to files and documents regarding their time in care, with the support of workers to explain and interpret;
- the maintenance and storage of records;
- provision for educational and literacy needs;
- provision of affordable, appropriate and stable accommodation for those leaving care for independent living;
- the review of services to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (TSI) young people leaving care, in collaboration with Aboriginal and TSI care agencies and communities to ensure that the Aboriginal placement principle works;
- the review of transition arrangements for young women leaving care for independent living.
Attachment D
A larger version of this image is available.
Attachment D.1
A larger version of this image is available.
Attachment D.2
A larger version of this image is available.
Attachment E
A larger version of this image is available.
Attachment F
Key action 1: Improving planning for leaving care
| The importance of planning and preparation for leaving care | Under the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children, Commonwealth, State and Territory Governments have committed to developing nationally consistent approaches to support young people leaving out of home care, including a more effective transition to independent living. A quality process of development, implementation and review of leaving care plans or transition plans, is recognised as integral to effective transitions to independent living (Johnson et al., 2010; McDowall, 2009; Forbes, Inder and Raman, 2006; Maunders et al., 1999). |
|---|---|
| Building on State and Territory reforms; | Further reforms are needed to improve the experiences of young people leaving care, building on State and Territory reforms. Each State and Territory is, in accordance with legislation, required to prepare transition plans or leaving care plans for all young people leaving care. Nevertheless, recent studies suggest a disconnect between these legislative requirements and the experiences of young people. |
| The need for a consistent approach | The scope and content of leaving care plans differs across jurisdictions and care providers. The content of leaving care plans also varies in terms of language used and areas covered e.g. health, housing, education, training, employment, self-care skills, financial management, identity issues, relationships etc. Variations also occur in the processes used to develop, implement and monitor leaving care plans (e.g. who is involved, when does the planning start and implementation end). Increased consistency across jurisdictions is needed to deliver equity in the planning process for young people, regardless of their location. |
| A first step | Commonwealth, State and Territory governments and non-government organisations will develop a nationally consistent approach to leaving care plans, including content and language and the development of best practice guidelines that align with the National Standards. |
| Gathering our knowledge | To inform the development of a nationally consistent approach to leaving care plans, governments and non-government organisations will jointly gather and consider relevant information. This will include:
|
Key Action 2: Review the Transition to Independent Living Allowance
| What is TILA? | The Transition to Independent Living Allowance (TILA) provides one-off financial support to the value of $1,500 for eligible young people aged 15 to 25 years who are about to, or have exited formal state based care and/or informal care such as juvenile justice, out-of-home care and Indigenous kinship care arrangements. TILA commenced in 2003 in response to the report of the Youth Pathways Action Plan Taskforce, ‘Footprints to the Future’. TILA is one measure of many aimed at improving the provision of support services to young people as they transition to independent living from out of home care. The Commonwealth Government, through the Office for Youth, directs $3.8 million per year to TILA. |
|---|---|
| Why review TILA? | A review of the TILA is one of the key actions under the Transitioning to Independence National Priority in the first three year action plan for the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020. Since its introduction in 2003, TILA has grown from the original policy intent of assisting young people transitioning from statutory care, to assisting young people transitioning from any type of care. Other changes have also been made to TILA such as the introduction of a 24 month limit for accessing TILA, the contracting of a single service provider, ‘Southern Youth and Family Services’ to administer the payment, and increasing the allowance from $1000 to $1500. Broadening the client base and other changes has brought with it a number of issues which have been identified by the Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, and service providers. These issues include:
|
| Future Direction | The review of TILA will be led by the Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations (DEEWR) and is expected to be finalised by mid 2011. The TILA Evaluation Steering Committee convened on 27 October 2010 and is comprised of representatives from:
The review will consider:
|