DRM New Zealand Style:

1
DRM New Zealand Style Practising for outcomes,
supporting rights and changing lives Marie
Connolly, PhD Ministry of Social Development
2
IN AN AVERAGE DAY AT CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY
3
We will receive more than 230 notifications
more than 140 will need further action
4
15 will be critical6 will be very urgent59
will be urgent
5
We will complete more than 100 investigations
and hold 20 care and protection family group
conferences
6
More than 5000 children and young people will be
living with caregivers supported by our
caregiver liaison social workers and care
specialists
7

• We will visit key notifiers to raise awareness
  about child abuse, how to recognise it and how to
  report it

8

• And we will work with other agencies, NGOs,
  providers and communities to tackle the greatest
  task faced by leaders in childrens services

9

• to foster good outcomes and lasting cultural
  change

10
Drivers for change

• Managing unprecedented child abuse and neglect
  notifications
• Balancing child protection responses and our
  need to support families
• The need to strengthen family support responses
• Concern about the increase in numbers of
  children coming into care
• Questioning the investigative approach taken
  with many families
• An NGO sector that wanted to work differently
  with us

11
Vision ? Framework ? Systems logic
Systems
Frameworks
Practice Vision
Practising for Outcomes
12
Child safety
Family decision-making
Family support
13
Vision ? Framework ? Systems logic
Systems
Frameworks
Practice Vision
Outcome focused practice
14
New Zealands practice framework
Marie Connolly PhD
See Connolly, M. (2007) Practice Frameworks
Conceptual maps to guide interventions in child
welfare. British Journal of Social Work, 37 (5)
825-837.
The phases of our work
Our perspectives
Our practice triggers
15
The Phases of our Work Engagement and Assessment

• Are we thinking about the whole child safety,
  security and wellbeing?
• Have we thought enough about the vulnerability of
  the very young child?
• Are we engaging and building a relationship with
  the child/young person?
• If moved from home, is the decision fully
  justified?
• Has the child been consulted about practice
  decisions?
• Does the child/young person have someone to talk
  to about their concerns?

Child-centred

• Are we applying a family/whanau support response?
• Is all contact with the family/whanau respectful?
• Are we persevering with engagement even when
  resistance is encountered?
• Are we encouraging family/whanau ownership of the
  issues and solutions?
• Are we responding to the familys cultural needs?

Family-led culturally responsive

• Are we clear with the family/whanau about our
  role and power?
• Are pro-social values modelled and
  abuse-supportive dynamics identified?
• Are family/whanau decision-making processes being
  utilised early?
• Is the family/whanau seen as a care and
  protection resource?
• Are we working collaboratively with professionals
  involved with the family?

Strengths evidence-based
16
The Phases of our Work Seeking solutions

• Has the child been actively involved in
  decision-making processes?
• Are decisions and plans supporting safety,
  stability and belonging?
• Have systemic attachments been maintained, eg
  familial, cultural, social, educational?
• Are decisions mindful of childs timeframes?
• Does the child have an advocate they can talk to?

Child-centred

• Is the family/whanau fully involved in the
  process of decision-making?
• Are all family/whanau members having the
  opportunity to contribute?
• Are the decisions family-led?
• Have cultural broader support systems been
  mobilised?
• Is everyone clear about what needs to do to make
  the solutions work?

Family-led culturally responsive

• Does the family have all the information
  necessary to make sound decisions?
• Are decisions linked to family/whanau strengths
  and resources?
• Are we addressing family violence dynamics?
• Are people working together is it clear who is
  doing what?
• Are the right services being provided at the
  right time?
• Does the worker have a relationship with the
  family that fosters change?
• Is progress being reviewed and positive changes
  reinforced?

Strengths evidence-based
17
The Phases of our Work Securing safety and
belonging

• Does the child feel like he or she belongs
  somewhere?
• Does the plan for the child address care, safety
  and wellbeing?
• Is the child fully involved in planning?
• Does the child have family mementoes, eg
  photographs, life story book etc?
• Is permanency a priority and is placement
  stability being closely monitored?
• Are transitions from care fully planned and
  supported?

Child-centred

• Is family/whanau reunification a practice
  priority?
• Are family/whanau members having regular contact
  with the child?
• Is the family/whanau at the centre of care
  decision-making?
• Are cultural support systems mobilised?
• Are plans culturally responsive?

Family-led culturally responsive

• Is permanency being secured for the child to
  prevent drift in care?
• Are professional relationships working positively
  to support the child?
• Are community and cross-sectoral services being
  mobilised?
• Are services well coordinated and are workers
  getting together to support planning, monitoring
  and transitions?
• Are services and plans being reviewed as agreed?

Strengths evidence-based
18
Vision ? Framework ? Systems logic
Systems
Frameworks
Practice Vision
Outcome focused practice
19
From Transactional to Outcome-focused Practice
Transactional
Outcome-focused
Based on need, focus on continuity and stability
(i.e. relationship development change
Episodic, event driven (i.e. focus on front-end
notification) transactional (getting families
through the system
Enhanced continuum of care focus, emphasizing
both child safety, the childs developmental and
wellbeing needs, and the support needs of the
family
Focus on risk, protection and immediate
safety (i.e. emphasis on evidence of
significant harm or past harm)
(adapted from Dept of Human Services, VIC)
20
From Transactional to Outcome-focused Practice
Transactional
Outcome-focused
Limited, short-term responses (e.g. investigate,
ensure safety or close)
Flexible responses aligned to child and family
needs (e.g. engagement and assessment,
needs-based referrals and supportive casework)
Managerial effort focused on closing off system
failures by increased emphasis on compliance
efficiency of processes increased documentation
and information fiefdoms
Outcome-based metrics focus on guiding practice
toward in depth, needs-driven relationship work
promoting safety and wellbeing. Systems support
good practice rather than creating obstacles
Integrated systems
Pockets of collaboration
21
Services across the continuum
Strong, capable families
Universal/preventative services supporting
families to help themselves
Educating and supporting
Targeted services Differential responses within
community
Influencing and supporting
Statutory services Differential responses within
the statutory system
Protecting and supporting
Situations of current harm
22
DRM doing things differentlyacross the service
continuum
Partnering with NGOs and others to provide
services for families based on need pathways of
support across a continuum
Strong, capable families
Universal/preventative services supporting
families to help themselves
Targeted services Differential responses within
community
Statutory services Differential responses within
the statutory system
Situations of current harm
23
Levels of Relationship
Partnership commitment to formal relationship
planning based on partnership value sharing
influences relationship agendas systems on equal
footing
Collaboration mechanisms established to maintain
working relationship common approaches, systems
and processes mutually agreed goals based on
client need values shared to the extent they are
service based
Coordination some commitment to formal
agreement some common planning generally based
on case-by-case approach values shared to pursue
individual agenda
Cooperation focus on networking and liaison
generally requires little commitment, planning
usually done in silos, values recognized but not
necessarily shared generally relies on
individual relationships
24
DRM doing things differentlyacross the service
continuum
Partnering with NGOs and others to provide
services for families based on need pathways of
support across a continuum
Strong, capable families
Universal/preventative services supporting
families to help themselves
Targeted services Differential responses within
community
Statutory services Differential responses within
the statutory system
Building alternatives to investigative processes
within statutory systems pathways of family
engagement and support
Situations of current harm
25
Establishing and securing peoples common and
shared civil and human rights and meeting their
different self-defined needs in the way they,
ensured full knowledge, support and choice prefer
(Beresford, 2000)
26
Service users should be regarded as active
participants with a right to effect support, but
equally, with responsibilities to take up support
and play an active role in improving their
outcomes. lack of control over ones own life is
a key contributory factor to poor
outcomes. (Department for Education and Skills,
2007)
27
Pathways to family participation (Connolly Ward
2008, adapted from Shier, 2001)
Can families be responsible for planning and
monitoring?
5. Power sharing and responsibility for
decision-making
Is this sanctioned by policy or mandated in law?
Are you willing to share power?
Are you ready to embrace family involvement in
decision-making?
4. Family involvement in decision-making
Is family involvement required?
Is family involvement in decisions possible?
3. Feedback on service delivery is proactively
sought
Are you required to seek feedback?
Levels of participation
Are you receptive to feedback?
Are user feedback systems in place?
2. Families supported to develop family-led
solutions
Do you believe in family-led solutions?
Does service design support this?
Does policy support family-led practice?
Are you committed to and ready for family
responsive practice?
1. Consulted and views taken into account
Do practice systems enable this?
Does policy require this?
Openings
Opportunities
Obligations