Document Text Contents
Page 1
h
Issue date: 4 November 2011
Department of Human Services
Evaluation of the Therapeutic
Residential Care Pilot
Programs
Final Summary & Technical
Report
WEB.0224.001.0001
Page 2
verso consulting pty ltd 1
Verso Consulting Pty Ltd
Mail
Verso Consulting
PO Box 412
CLIFTON HILL VIC 3068
Telephone
+61 3 9489 3233
Facsimile
+61 3 9489 3244
Email
[email protected]
Website
www.verso.com.au
While Verso Consulting Pty Ltd endeavours to provide reliable analysis and believes
the material it presents is accurate, it will not be liable for any claim by any party
acting on such information.
© Verso Consulting Pty Ltd
verso
is a registered Australian Trade Mark (Registration No 1142831)
WEB.0224.001.0002
Page 102
verso consulting pty ltd
The median date of entry to the TRCs was April 2009 with the first client entering in
November 2007 and the most recent client (being tracked for this evaluation)
entering in April 20
of this evaluation. The young people in the TRCs had been in OoHC at the time of TRC
entry for an average of 31 months (median 17 months). This length of time ranged
from 2 to 147 months (n
placements reported and this ranged between one to 12 placements (n=35)
12).
Figure 11: Distribution of length
Figure 12: Number of residential placements at time of TRC entry
The median date of entry to the TRCs was April 2009 with the first client entering in
November 2007 and the most recent client (being tracked for this evaluation)
entering in April 2010. Other clients have since entered some TRCs, but are not part
of this evaluation. The young people in the TRCs had been in OoHC at the time of TRC
entry for an average of 31 months (median 17 months). This length of time ranged
from 2 to 147 months (n=35) (Figure 11). There was a median of four residential
placements reported and this ranged between one to 12 placements (n=35)
: Distribution of length of time in OoHC
: Number of residential placements at time of TRC entry
101
The median date of entry to the TRCs was April 2009 with the first client entering in
November 2007 and the most recent client (being tracked for this evaluation)
10. Other clients have since entered some TRCs, but are not part
of this evaluation. The young people in the TRCs had been in OoHC at the time of TRC
entry for an average of 31 months (median 17 months). This length of time ranged
. There was a median of four residential
placements reported and this ranged between one to 12 placements (n=35) (Figure
: Number of residential placements at time of TRC entry
WEB.0224.001.0102
Page 103
verso consulting pty ltd 102
6.4 About the young people in the Comparison Group
The comparison group comprised 16 young people with a median age of 15 years.
Fifty percent were female. There were proportionately more females in the TRC
Pilots and the median age was younger at 13.
The Comparison Group (CG) had been in OoHC at the first collection occasion an
average for 11 months and a median of 10 months (TRC 31 months, median 17
months). This is briefer than for the young people in the TRC group.
6.5 Impact of Therapeutic Interventions
6.5.1 Safety from Injury and Harm
Incident Report data
Incident report histories were obtained for the 38 young people in the TRC evaluation
and the 16 young people in the CG, as the Department required this key information
be included.
The quality of Incident Report data provided was not consistent, leading to the
potential for inaccuracies in analysis and reporting. The consultants were also
advised that in some cases an incident may be reported for each young person
involved, regardless of the nature of their “involvement”, whether it is instigator,
victim or witness. This practice did not appear to be consistent between services.
Therefore, the following analysis of the data provided should be interpreted with
caution, and considered within the context of other data presented in this report.
All Category 2 and Category 1 incidents have been included in the analysis. Note that
incidents described as “accidents” in the narrative description where the staff
classified them as category 1 or 2 have been retained. A number of incidents were
provided with no documentation of their category status being provided. These were
retained unless they described an accident and then they were excluded. It is likely
there is significant variation in agency or staff understanding of the categorisations of
incidents and the incident data from DHS must be treated with some caution.
The date of TRC entry was used to divide incidents into pre and post-entry. Incidents
have then been averaged over the number of months in the relevant period. The date
between entry to TRC and the date recorded for first residential placement was used
to establish the number of months prior to TRC entry. The difference between TRC
entry and the last data entry form was used to estimate the months post-entry.
Where no date of first entry to residential care was recorded, 18 months pre TRC
entry was used to estimate the initial time frame. Where a different date was
recorded for first residential placement, the very first date recorded was used.
From the table 15 below, it can be seen that the mean number of incidents per
month increased from 0.92 to 1.47, and the median number of incidents increased
from 0.42 to 0.77. Based on the evidence provided, it appears that the overall
number of incidents has increased subsequent to TRC entry. Therapeutic Specialist
and CSOs reported that they expected an increase in incidents immediately post
entry to the TRC. Their perspective is that the change of placement, alternate
routines and approaches and an increased attention to record keeping would impact
on the number of incidents reported. They further qualify this perspective with the
commentary that an incident report does not necessarily mean negative progress is
being made by the young people. The following examples (Table 13 and Table 14)
illustrate the challenges of using incidents reports as a primary source of information
to provide evidence of poor outcomes.
WEB.0224.001.0103
Page 204
verso consulting pty ltd 203
Stone, S., 2007. Child Maltreatment, Out-of-home Placement and Academic
Vulnerability: A fifteen-year review of evidence and future directions.
Children and Youth Services Review, 29(2), pp.139-161.
Taplin, S., 2005. Methodological Design Issues in Longitudinal Studies of Children and
Young People in Out-of-home Care: Literature Review, NSW: NSW Centre for
Parenting & Research and Research, Funding & Business Analysis, NSW Dept
Community Services.
Taylor, P. et al., 2008. The Cost of Child Abuse in Australia, Melbourne: Australian
Childhood Foundation and Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia.
The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2010. Social Relationships Are Key to Health, and to
Health Policy. PLoS Med, 7(8). Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000334 [Accessed August 30,
2011].
VanBreda, A., 2001. Resilience Theory: A literature review. Pretoria, South Africa:
South African Military Health Service, Military Psychological Institute, Social
Work Research & Development.
Ward, A. et al., 2003. Therapeutic communities for children and young people,
London and New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Widom, C., 1989. The Cycle of Violence. Science, 244, pp.160-166.
Widom, C. & Maxfield, M., 2001. An Update on the “Cylce of Violence” National
Institute of Justice Research Brief, US Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs.
Wise, S. & Egger, S., 2007. The Looking After Children Outcomes Data Project: Final
Report, The Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Wise, S. et al., 2010. Care system impacts on academic outcomes, Anglicare Victoria
and Wesley Misstion Victoria. Available at: www.anglicarevic.org.au.
Wise, S. et al., 2005. The Efficacy of Early Childhood Interventions, Australian
Government.
WEB.0224.001.0204
Page 205
verso consulting pty ltd 204
11 Attachments
• 1: TRC Evaluation Project Literature Review, Verso Consulting, December 2010
• 2: Essential Service Design Elements, DHS, September 2007
• 3: Child Protection, Placement and Family Services Outcomes Framework, DHS,
(Approved 2009)
• 4: Brann Likert Scale Alignment with Frameworks
• 5: Cost and Benefit Analysis
WEB.0224.001.0205
h
Issue date: 4 November 2011
Department of Human Services
Evaluation of the Therapeutic
Residential Care Pilot
Programs
Final Summary & Technical
Report
WEB.0224.001.0001
Page 2
verso consulting pty ltd 1
Verso Consulting Pty Ltd
Verso Consulting
PO Box 412
CLIFTON HILL VIC 3068
Telephone
+61 3 9489 3233
Facsimile
+61 3 9489 3244
[email protected]
Website
www.verso.com.au
While Verso Consulting Pty Ltd endeavours to provide reliable analysis and believes
the material it presents is accurate, it will not be liable for any claim by any party
acting on such information.
© Verso Consulting Pty Ltd
verso
is a registered Australian Trade Mark (Registration No 1142831)
WEB.0224.001.0002
Page 102
verso consulting pty ltd
The median date of entry to the TRCs was April 2009 with the first client entering in
November 2007 and the most recent client (being tracked for this evaluation)
entering in April 20
of this evaluation. The young people in the TRCs had been in OoHC at the time of TRC
entry for an average of 31 months (median 17 months). This length of time ranged
from 2 to 147 months (n
placements reported and this ranged between one to 12 placements (n=35)
12).
Figure 11: Distribution of length
Figure 12: Number of residential placements at time of TRC entry
The median date of entry to the TRCs was April 2009 with the first client entering in
November 2007 and the most recent client (being tracked for this evaluation)
entering in April 2010. Other clients have since entered some TRCs, but are not part
of this evaluation. The young people in the TRCs had been in OoHC at the time of TRC
entry for an average of 31 months (median 17 months). This length of time ranged
from 2 to 147 months (n=35) (Figure 11). There was a median of four residential
placements reported and this ranged between one to 12 placements (n=35)
: Distribution of length of time in OoHC
: Number of residential placements at time of TRC entry
101
The median date of entry to the TRCs was April 2009 with the first client entering in
November 2007 and the most recent client (being tracked for this evaluation)
10. Other clients have since entered some TRCs, but are not part
of this evaluation. The young people in the TRCs had been in OoHC at the time of TRC
entry for an average of 31 months (median 17 months). This length of time ranged
. There was a median of four residential
placements reported and this ranged between one to 12 placements (n=35) (Figure
: Number of residential placements at time of TRC entry
WEB.0224.001.0102
Page 103
verso consulting pty ltd 102
6.4 About the young people in the Comparison Group
The comparison group comprised 16 young people with a median age of 15 years.
Fifty percent were female. There were proportionately more females in the TRC
Pilots and the median age was younger at 13.
The Comparison Group (CG) had been in OoHC at the first collection occasion an
average for 11 months and a median of 10 months (TRC 31 months, median 17
months). This is briefer than for the young people in the TRC group.
6.5 Impact of Therapeutic Interventions
6.5.1 Safety from Injury and Harm
Incident Report data
Incident report histories were obtained for the 38 young people in the TRC evaluation
and the 16 young people in the CG, as the Department required this key information
be included.
The quality of Incident Report data provided was not consistent, leading to the
potential for inaccuracies in analysis and reporting. The consultants were also
advised that in some cases an incident may be reported for each young person
involved, regardless of the nature of their “involvement”, whether it is instigator,
victim or witness. This practice did not appear to be consistent between services.
Therefore, the following analysis of the data provided should be interpreted with
caution, and considered within the context of other data presented in this report.
All Category 2 and Category 1 incidents have been included in the analysis. Note that
incidents described as “accidents” in the narrative description where the staff
classified them as category 1 or 2 have been retained. A number of incidents were
provided with no documentation of their category status being provided. These were
retained unless they described an accident and then they were excluded. It is likely
there is significant variation in agency or staff understanding of the categorisations of
incidents and the incident data from DHS must be treated with some caution.
The date of TRC entry was used to divide incidents into pre and post-entry. Incidents
have then been averaged over the number of months in the relevant period. The date
between entry to TRC and the date recorded for first residential placement was used
to establish the number of months prior to TRC entry. The difference between TRC
entry and the last data entry form was used to estimate the months post-entry.
Where no date of first entry to residential care was recorded, 18 months pre TRC
entry was used to estimate the initial time frame. Where a different date was
recorded for first residential placement, the very first date recorded was used.
From the table 15 below, it can be seen that the mean number of incidents per
month increased from 0.92 to 1.47, and the median number of incidents increased
from 0.42 to 0.77. Based on the evidence provided, it appears that the overall
number of incidents has increased subsequent to TRC entry. Therapeutic Specialist
and CSOs reported that they expected an increase in incidents immediately post
entry to the TRC. Their perspective is that the change of placement, alternate
routines and approaches and an increased attention to record keeping would impact
on the number of incidents reported. They further qualify this perspective with the
commentary that an incident report does not necessarily mean negative progress is
being made by the young people. The following examples (Table 13 and Table 14)
illustrate the challenges of using incidents reports as a primary source of information
to provide evidence of poor outcomes.
WEB.0224.001.0103
Page 204
verso consulting pty ltd 203
Stone, S., 2007. Child Maltreatment, Out-of-home Placement and Academic
Vulnerability: A fifteen-year review of evidence and future directions.
Children and Youth Services Review, 29(2), pp.139-161.
Taplin, S., 2005. Methodological Design Issues in Longitudinal Studies of Children and
Young People in Out-of-home Care: Literature Review, NSW: NSW Centre for
Parenting & Research and Research, Funding & Business Analysis, NSW Dept
Community Services.
Taylor, P. et al., 2008. The Cost of Child Abuse in Australia, Melbourne: Australian
Childhood Foundation and Child Abuse Prevention Research Australia.
The PLoS Medicine Editors, 2010. Social Relationships Are Key to Health, and to
Health Policy. PLoS Med, 7(8). Available at:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000334 [Accessed August 30,
2011].
VanBreda, A., 2001. Resilience Theory: A literature review. Pretoria, South Africa:
South African Military Health Service, Military Psychological Institute, Social
Work Research & Development.
Ward, A. et al., 2003. Therapeutic communities for children and young people,
London and New York: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Widom, C., 1989. The Cycle of Violence. Science, 244, pp.160-166.
Widom, C. & Maxfield, M., 2001. An Update on the “Cylce of Violence” National
Institute of Justice Research Brief, US Department of Justice, Office of
Justice Programs.
Wise, S. & Egger, S., 2007. The Looking After Children Outcomes Data Project: Final
Report, The Australian Institute of Family Studies.
Wise, S. et al., 2010. Care system impacts on academic outcomes, Anglicare Victoria
and Wesley Misstion Victoria. Available at: www.anglicarevic.org.au.
Wise, S. et al., 2005. The Efficacy of Early Childhood Interventions, Australian
Government.
WEB.0224.001.0204
Page 205
verso consulting pty ltd 204
11 Attachments
• 1: TRC Evaluation Project Literature Review, Verso Consulting, December 2010
• 2: Essential Service Design Elements, DHS, September 2007
• 3: Child Protection, Placement and Family Services Outcomes Framework, DHS,
(Approved 2009)
• 4: Brann Likert Scale Alignment with Frameworks
• 5: Cost and Benefit Analysis
WEB.0224.001.0205
