PeakCare

1. PeakCare Queensland Inc. keeping families together The backdrop 3rd February 2016

2. Re-capping on the road to reform so far • Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry led by Commissioner Tim Carmody SC was established • Presentation of the Commission’s final report ‘Taking Responsibility: A Road Map for Queensland Child Protection’ to the Queensland Government • Queensland Government response to the Child Protection Commission of Inquiry final report, indicating acceptance of all 121 recommendations (115 in full and 6 in-principle) • 1st July 2012: • 1st July 2013: • 16th Dec 2013: Next

3. Three tracks in the roadmap Reduce the number of children and young people in the child protection system 1 Revitalise child protection frontline services and family support, breaking the intergenerational cycle of abuse and neglect 2 3 Refocus oversight on learning, improving and taking responsibility Next

4. Three tracks in the roadmap Reduce the number of children and young people in the child protection system 1 • Divert children and young people from the statutory system • Increase access to family and individual support services Next

5. Three tracks in the roadmap Revitalise child protection frontline services and family support, breaking the intergenerational cycle of abuse and neglect • Improve child protection practice • Work collaboratively across sectors and disciplines • Develop a skilled professional workforce and carers • Increase access to support children and young people in care • Build the options for out of home care settings • Increase stability for children and young people in care 2 Next

6. Three tracks in the roadmap Refocus oversight on learning, improving and taking responsibility • Define strategic direction, departmental responsibility and governance of reform • Involve external stakeholders at every level of governance • Redefine systemic and individual advocacy • Improve child protection court and tribunal proceedings • Reduce duplication eg. complaints, child death reviews • Reduce red tape, streamline processes eg. screening, outsourcing foster and kinship care, service delivery costings 3 Next

8. Micah Projects Micah Projects is a community organisation with an unswerving commitment to social justice. We believe that every child and adult has the right to a home, an income, healthcare, education, safety, dignity and connection with their community of choice. Micah Projects provides a range of support and advocacy services to individuals and families.

9. Housing and Child Protection Meeting the needs of families and managing the risks/concerns

10. Why we are interested in the links between child protection and housing/homelessness Families with housing instability are often also families being referred to child protection • Both the child protection and homelessness/housing systems are working with the same children and families, at the same time or in sequence • Our learnings from the 2005 Demonstration Project

11. Families in the systems.

12. Yet… • The services available separately in each system do not match the needs (type and duration) and are not able to realise sustainable outcomes re homelessness, housing instability or family dysfunction. • Housing stability is not sufficiently recognized in either system as a fundamental component of an effective family support response • Affordability and supply issues are a barrier in both systems to access to stable, long-term, affordable housing for families

13. Experience of families in homelessness and child protection • Re cycling through time-limited services and housing instability • Statutory intervention due to poverty and homelessness, as well as personal issues (unintentional neglect rather than intentional abuse) • Family support offered after statutory intervention is time-limited • Case management goals of parents unattainable due to structural issues such as lack of supply of affordable housing and demand for housing • No investment into family support services to meet demand of families and accompanying children to specialist homelessness services

14. Challenges • Interest in responding to family needs better through a more balanced approach to child protection issues • How do we increase the supply of affordable and safe housing? • How do we have the duration of family support /case management service to families with both family homelessness and child protection and include housing stability? • How do we get social housing connected to support so that it can support solutions

15. Systems change: Housing and child protection For a cohort of families, we can work together to establish housing stability as a foundation AND provide support to improve family functioning.

16. Support Us • How you can help • Join us as a corporate partner • Fundraise for us through your school or community group • Become a volunteer • Leave a gift in your Will (Bequests) • Give to a project that needs support • For more information about ways to support Micah Projects, please contact us.

17. www.micahprojects.org.au Breaking Social Isolation, building community.

19. Housing Solutions for Families Involved with Child Welfare Ruth White, Executive Director Center for Housing and Child Welfare, Washington, DC, USA

23. NCHCW NCHCW links housing resources to child welfare agencies to improve family functioning, prevent family homelessness, safely reduce the need for out-of-home placement, and ensure that each young person who ages out foster care is able to access safe, decent, permanent housing. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016

24. Poverty and Child Welfare Poverty is the best indicator of whether or not a child will enter out of home care. (Pelton, 2008; Sedlak, Mettenburg, Basena, Petta, McPherson, & Greene, 2010) Housing is a tangible manifestation of poverty that provides a unique challenge to child welfare workers (Shdaimah, 2009). National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016

25. Housing Matters • Housing affects families at each decision point in the child welfare continuum. Children from families with housing problems are: • More likely to be investigated by CPS (Culhane et al, 2004) • More likely to be placed in out-of-home care (Courtney et al, 2004) • Longer stayers in foster care (Jones, 1998) • Thirty percent of children in foster care are there because of housing problems (Doerre & Mihaly, 1996; Hagedorn, 1995; Thoma, 1998). National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016

26. Housing and Overrepresentation of Minorities in foster care Disproportionality 2007 GAO report on the African American Children in foster care identified housing as a major contributor to the overrepresentation of minorities in foster care. A 2004 service matching in child welfare study found that housing was the least well-matched service and alarmingly, when it was matched to need, race was the best predictor of whether or not a family would get the service. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016

27. Family Options Study • Federally-funded randomized control trial which compares the impacts of:  • Short term housing subsidies (18 mo max) • transitional housing • permanent housing subsidies • emergency shelter system

28. Substantiated cases of maltreatment by type of Abuse and Neglect (USDHHS, 2012

29. 2010 Child Welfare Funding Source: ChildTrends, 2012

31. Housing versus Cash Assistance Sustained economic investments make the difference – in cases of great financial stress, a small handout or purchase of equipment may not tangibly improve the plight of families. (Littell and Schuerman, 2002). Families who received permanent housing assistance improved their functioning, while families who received cash assistance continued to have problems. Why might this be the case? National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016

32. Housing is Cost-Effective • A $15 million investment in FUP means that more than 9,000 children can return home. This will result in a savings of $101 million in foster care expenditures. (Harburger and White, 2004). (or $56,892 per family) • It costs approximately $53,500 to serve a homeless young person on the street or in residential treatment but supportive housing for one young person costs only $5,300. (Van Leeuwen, 2004). National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016

33. NCHCW 2015 cost analysis National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016 Estimated National Annual Average Savings for Two Bedroom and Three Bedroom FMR Per child annual savings in a two bedroom: $12,021 Per family annual savings in a two bedroom: $32,458 Per child annual savings in a three bedroom: $9,954 Per family annual savings in a three bedroom: $26,878

34. NCHCW 2015 cost analysis National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016 Estimated National Annual NATIONAL Average Savings for Two Bedroom and Three Bedroom FMR National savings if housing plus services intervention applied to all Title IV-E eligible families who need it: $822,992,330 (two bedroom) National savings if housing plus services intervention applied to all Title IV-E eligible families who need it: $681,494,639 (three bedroom)

35. The US Partnership Model US Dept of Housing and Urban Devt. (HUD) Department of Children and Families (child welfare) MOU Info and cooperation Funding for Sec. 8 vouchers Funding and referrals Family Issues voucher to family Local Public Housing Authority (PHA) Housing assistance and case management Pays rent on time Supportive Housing Landlord Pays rent on time Landlord recruitment, housing placement

36. Caveats, final thoughts, discussion • Of course, emergency homeless services dollars for families, but we recommend that families be assisted to avoid the homeless system whenever possible. • Conversely, we recommend that homeless families are assisted in ways that do not unnecessarily involve them in child protection • Collaborations are the fastest, most efficient way to create a range of housing options. • Consider the reduction in homelessness that could result from child safety workers who had knowledge and access to housing resources. National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016

37. In your work / contact with vulnerable families: • What would support better outcomes for the children, the families and the community? • What is missing? How often does that occur? • If we were to do it better, what would it look like? Let’s Talk

39. In your work / contact with vulnerable families: • What would support better outcomes for the children, the families and the community? • What is missing? How often does that occur? Let’s Talk

40. If we were to do it better, what would it look like? Let’s Talk