Suchergebnisse

This report presents the findings from RMIT University's evaluation of the Independent Family Advocacy and Support (IFAS) pilot run by Victoria Legal Aid (VLA). IFAS IFAS is a pilot service that provides non-legal advocacy and support to parents and primary carers who are involved in the investigation stage of the child protection system. The three main priority groups for IFAS are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, families where one or both parents have an intellectual disability, and since late 2020, culturally and linguistically diverse families. IFAS aims to divert families away from the child protection system and to increase access to legal services. The three IFAS pilot areas are Greater Bendigo, Ballarat and Darebin/Moreland, although Ballarat is not in scope for this evaluation as IFAS did not commence operations there until late 2020. During the evaluation period, from 02/01/2019 to 06/05/2021, IFAS provided advocacy and support to 282 parents and caregivers. This includes 68 Aboriginal parents or parents of Aboriginal children, 56 parents with intellectual disability and 57 parents from culturally and linguistically diverse families. IFAS also provided an additional 762 instances of referrals and advice. Approach to evaluation The evaluation was conducted in two parts, a midterm review and a final evaluation. Qualitative data was collected using interviews and focus groups with people who have used IFAS, IFAS staff, DFFH staff and other professional stakeholders. Quantitative data were provided by IFAS, VLA, DFFH and sourced from other publicly available data. Overall findings The overall findings from the evaluation are very positive. IFAS is highly valued by clients, who found it vital support through very distressing experiences. The IFAS approach works both in supporting parents and primary carers during the investigation phase of the child protection system and in diverting them away from the court system. The evaluation team recommend that IFAS is made available to all parents and primary caregivers who require support or assistance to reach decisions or take actions in response to child protection investigations. Views of parents and primary caregivers Parents and primary caregivers trust IFAS to help them navigate the child protection system. Parents told the evaluation team that IFAS builds the capacity of parents to self-advocate, helps calm their reactions and increases accountability of child protection practitioners. The only negative feedback from IFAS clients related to limitations of the pilot, mainly that advocacy was no longer available if they progressed to the court system. Views of child protection practitioners Child protection practitioners had more varied feedback, with those who better understood the model highly valuing IFAS. For these practitioners, IFAS enabled communication through mediation, allowing them to work effectively with families. Some practitioners found engaging with IFAS counterproductive, confusing or frustrating. This appeared to have occurred largely where there was either a lack of understanding of the IFAS model, or a perception that the representational advocacy approach was not helpful. It appears that many negative experiences could have been avoided if the model were better understood. Cost-benefit The evaluation team undertook a cost-benefit analysis, which estimates IFAS diverts 20% of referred clients away from court, resulting in an estimated saving of $3.52 to the Victorian government for every dollar invested in IFAS. Areas for development The evaluation also identified some specific areas for further development, including improving understanding of IFAS by stakeholders and ongoing support for lived experience perspectives. The data prompted considerations for expansion of the scope of IFAS, both geographically and in the child protection system. Finally, the evaluation considered the experience of children whose parents had used IFAS, finding no direct impact, but significant indirect impact where IFAS had supported families to address protective concerns identified by DFFH. Evaluation limitations The evaluation was limited by barriers to linking datasets and the impact of Victorian government COVID-19 restrictions, principally changes to the Children's Court processes.

This report presents the findings from the midterm evaluation of the Integrated Chronic Care (ICC) Service, conducted by RMIT University's Social and Global Studies Centre (SGSC). ICC is funded by North Western Melbourne Primary Health Network (NWMPHN) and delivered by Neami and cohealth. This evaluation is led by SGSC in partnership with Equally Well, Charles Sturt University and Melbourne University. Neami run ICC in Hume, Moonee Valley and Moreland Local Government Areas (LGA) and cohealth run ICC in Brimbank and Maribyrnong LGAs. Both ICC sites employ one registered nurse and one mental health peer worker, both on fractional appointments. Neami National and cohealth have collaborated to jointly commission this evaluation. The evaluation is in two parts, a midterm review and a final evaluation. This report presents the findings from the midterm review. Qualitative data have been collected using interviews and focus groups with people who have used ICC services, ICC staff and professional stakeholders. Quantitative data has been provided by Neami and cohealth. Overall, consumers expressed very high levels of satisfaction with their experience of ICC and professional stakeholders reinforced the value of the programs. The success of ICC appears to be due to a focus on the consumer's own identified needs rather than clinically driven interventions, flexibility, compassionate and caring support, and assertive coaching built on trust and empowerment. Few tangible examples of physical health improvement were reported, however many consumers identified other positive outcomes which would promote better physical health. Outcomes included access to disability and welfare support, improved trust in the health system and some lifestyle changes. As with any pilot program, there are areas for improvement and strengthening. In particular, there are important questions of program clarity and program drift, with key aspects of the program, including the basic model, target group, extent of support and referral networks that require consideration. The peer work aspect of the program is particularly in need of reclarification. Any reclarifications or revisions to the program should take into account that the success of the program relies on its consumer-driven focus, rather than being dictated by clinical decision-making. Within this context, some clinical aspects, particularly screening, should be enhanced to increase the ability of ICC to provide information to consumers to support their decision-making. The interim recommendations are in five parts: 1. Continue to deliver ICC 2. Review the ICC Model 3. Embed system integration 4. Ensure robust and efficient data collection 5. Recalibrate reporting requirements Detailed interim recommendations are available on page 43 of the report. The evaluation was limited by the quality and availability of quantitative data, by disruptions caused through Victorian coronavirus restrictions, and by issues of program clarity. The evaluation team will work with Neami and cohealth to address these limitations in the final stage of the evaluation.