Briefing Session Interim Report on the Implementation of Family Services Review

1. Briefing Session Interim Report on the Implementation of Family Services Review Mr Fung Pak-yan Dr Joe Leung AD(FCW)/SWD HKU Consultant 2 June 2003

2. BACKGROUND Report on the Review of Family Services in HK (June 2001)

3. Recommendations • Direction • Strengthening families through a child-centred, family-focused and community-based approach

4. Accessibility Early identification Integration Partnership Principles of service delivery

5. New service delivery model • Integrated Family Service Centre (IFSC) • Family Resource Unit (FRU) • Family Support Unit (FSU) • Family Counselling Unit (FCU)

6. Implementation Strategy • Bottom-up and gradual approach • Verify the effectiveness of IFSC model through a 2-year Pilot Project • Evaluative study conducted by HKU during the 2-year Pilot period • Training on change management and multi-skills training

7. IFSC Pilot Projects • 14 pilot projects selected • 1 Integrated Service Project in Tung Chung also included

8. Support for Pilot Projects • Lotteries Fund grant ($200,000 to meet non-recurrent expenses such as publicity, programmes, staff training, etc.) • Minor renovation work for 8 service units • Reprovisioning of 1 service unit • 2 time-limited Programme Assistant posts to each pilot project • 23 training courses with over 900 participants

9. EvaluativeStudy • Objectives of the study • Assess effectiveness and implementation arrangements of IFSC model • Examine effectiveness of the use of existing resources, including manpower deployment • Recommend benchmark level of output & outcome indicators • Recommend the most cost-effective approach for future practice

10. Presentation of Initial Findings & Recommendations by HKU Consultants

11. New Frontiers for Family Services HKU Consultant Team

12. Background • SWD commissioned HKU to carry out an independent in-built evaluative study on 15 pilot projects from April 02 to March 04. • Pilot Projects were established to verify the effectiveness of the IFSC model. • Pluralistic approach: UIS, SIS, pilot projects’ business plan & half-yearly self-assessment report, focus groups (stakeholders, users, social workers & supervisors), case study, consultants’ reports and observations.

13. Purposes • To assess performance of pilot projects after one-year implementation • To identify key issues to inform further planning

14. Findings & Recommendations 1.Characteristics of 15 pilot projects: • Greenfield: 1 • Self-transformation: 2 (existing FSC) • Merging: 4 (FSC + community-based service of the same agency) • Strategic alliance: 8 (FSC of an agency + community-based service of another agency) • Target population sizes and staff provisions varied among projects • Only partial integration involved in some projects

15. Users’ profiles: • Typical pilot project user: female adult with no job and poor education. • High proportion of new arrivals, people without spouses, older persons & social security recipients • Vulnerable populations

16. Socio-Economic Information of Service User

19. Services rendered: • Continuum of family & children programs: clinical case & group intervention, training & educational classes, supportive groups, family-oriented social activities & child care programs • Screening form & assessment tools: objective & standardized instrument to determine level of risk, service needs & intervention required • Overall, users were extremely satisfied with the service

20. Tremendous workload for the 1st year of implementation: preparing for formation, learning & using new forms, launching service promotion campaigns, etc.  TEAMWORK is vital!

21. Establishment of IFSC requires: • IFSC operators & social workers’ commitments & initiatives • Cultural shift among social workers (traditional casework dominated approach  a more diversified, multi-level & community-based intervention)

22. Learning from different formation modes: • Strategic alliance: • Convenient & ready-made mode • Complementary expertise of 2 services • Differences between culture & practice of 2 partnered agencies • Limited collaboration in redeployment of staff and shared budgeting

23. Greenfield, merging & self-transformation • More effective to facilitate interfacing amongst 3 IFSC units • Deployment of social workers across 2-3 IFSC units • More effective inter-unit referrals • Self-transformation: takes longer time to develop FSU & FRU • Merging: partnership between FSC & community-based service  synergy to develop a new service mode more responsive to community & family needs • Partial integration creates confusion  merging 2 service units to form IFSC should involve 2 WHOLE UNITS

24. Interfacing with other services • Clear division of responsibility between IFSC & other family-related community-based services and centres dealing with family and individual crisis • IFSC can take up more responsibility in providing services targeting vulnerable populations, eg. new arrivals, single parents, people with suicidal risk

25. Clear consensus in the field that IFSC is an effective mode of family service  preparation for establishment of IFSC should be made as early as possible

26. IFSC provisions: • Clear & independent service boundary, with a population ranged from 100,000 – 150,000 people • In each district of DSWO, selected SWD IFSC(s) should be responsible for statutory cases

27. Staff provisions: • a minimum of 12 -14 social workers • 1 supervisor • FCU: 4 – 6 counsellors • FSU: 6 group workers and brief counsellors • FRU: 2 community & group workers • Deployment of social workers should be dynamic & flexible

28. Pilot Project FCU Caseload per Social Worker

29. Establishing IFSCs: • Pooling of existing resources • Merging of FSC with community-based service: more cost-effective to maximize existing resources & expertise • Strategic alliance should be discouraged • Self-transformation: has to ensure traditional caseworkers are equipped adequately with required community & group work skills

30. Strategic rationalization, close down, reshuffling, reallocation & merging of existing services  the rebirth of a new program with a new mission, not the death of a conventional program

31. The Way Forward

32. Re-engineering should begin now • Reasons: • Definitive advantages of IFSCs (e.g. greater accessibility, more integrated services, wider community network, enhanced partnership, improved users’ participation and satisfaction) • Consensus in the field that IFSC is a preferred mode • Position family services to better meet increasing demand arising from worsening family solidarity • The earlier the transformation, the greater certainty of resources in family services against tight fiscal situation

33. Parameters for re-engineering – some directions ahead • Transform all FSCs into IFSCs • Overall redistribution of FSC/counselling unit resources to fill service gaps and avoid duplication of resources • Pooling of resources: • Apart from existing FSC/counselling unit resources, re-engineering should take into consideration efficiency savings and pooling of other resources available in the family services e.g. FLE, FA, FSRC, PMC, SPC, etc. • Pooling of resources beyond the family services e.g. community centre, FSNT, CYC, NLCDP will need further consideration by SWD against savings requirements and policy deliberation

34. Preferred mode of transformation -in the following order of priority • Merging • Self-transformation • Strategic alliance not a preferred option • Partial integration not considered

35. Number of IFSCs in each district: depends on a combination of factors including population, district needs and social indicators, etc. • SWD/NGO proportion will follow more or less the same ratio as currently in existence, but there may be some swopping of service units between agencies as necessary • Clear service boundary, i.e. 1 IFSC serving a defined boundary • Statutory cases and other cases more suitably handled by SWD in an NGO IFSC boundary will still be served by SWD

36. Co-ordination and collaboration with other community-based units such as DECC, ICYSC, school social work so that IFSC would only receive referrals from these units with proven need for intensive counselling • Minimum size of an IFSC: 12-14 social workers (some IFSCs can be larger, depending on population served, district needs and social indicators, but not mega IFSC!) • Service components of IFSCs should also include FLE, services for new arrivals and single parents, suicide prevention, etc.

37. Preparation for Change • Consultation • Briefing to the Working Group (7 May 2003) • Briefing to the Sector (2 June 2003) • SWAC (26 June 2003) • LegCo Welfare Panel (July 2003) • Training • change management • programme design • multi-skills training (especially on group work) • marketing and service planning

38. Premises • Reprovisioning & relocation if justified to ensure better coverage • New Schedule of Accommodation • Minor renovations • Additional F & E

39. Tasks in the coming months • Planning for rationalization to take place before end of pilot project • Map out service needs, resources available and required for each district • Work out rationalization plans, e.g. examine the no. of IFSCs required, their distribution, potential operators, resources available for pooling, etc.

40. Tasks in the coming months • Close liaison, collaboration and coordination among DSWOs, FCW Branch and agencies in the process • Benchmark output/outcome levels • Refine screening/assessment tools

41. THE END