Kts has suffered similar challenges in attempting to deliver systemic changes as other whole-of- government initiatives, and for similar reasons related to inadequate governance structures. a strong finding from the consultations was that the Kts senior Officers Group (senior Officers Group) was mainly concerned with ensuring that the components of Kts were implemented on time, sorting out implementation challenges and facilitating information sharing between agencies. it is important to note that the sOG has been carrying out its remit and its role has been highly valued. the role of Dpc and the sOG was always intended to coordinate government responses, not to take responsibility for them. nevertheless, many of the senior stakeholders expressed the view that an initiative such as Kts requires not just coordination but sustained and effective leadership. in some agencies this was provided within
Kts has facilitated a range of other inter-agency and inter-departmental initiatives and has changed the landscape in terms of how agencies interact with each other at a strategic level. senior stakeholders reported that there continues to be a high level of inter-departmental collaboration, not only in relation to Kts itself but also in related areas such as the nsW Government’s Domestic and family violence framework for Reform and the aboriginal maternity and infant health service.
similarly, while Kts Rpms supported changes to local practices, they did not appear to be positioned to drive strategic change within their regions. the changes to organisational boundaries and the introduction of facs District Directors may facilitate a whole-of-government approach to service provision for vulnerable populations.
8.5.1 Evaluation governance
an illustration of the challenges of governance is provided by the evaluation process itself. it is estimated that there have been over 50 project evaluations funded by Kts. Yet it has taken several months for the evaluation team to be provided with a definitive list of these evaluations. the evaluations themselves have been commissioned by individual agencies and most have been designed to meet the needs of each individual project rather than contributing to the overall understanding of Kts or the system as a whole. While the project itself should be the primary concern of evaluations, as Kts funded components it would be expected that there would be some consistency across these evaluations and some
consideration of the broader issues for Kts as was recommended by urbis in the implementation plan for the evaluation (urbis consultants, 2011).
8.5.2 Data
Good governance of complex interventions such as Kts relies on accurate and timely data. While it does appear that the sOG was provided with information about the progress and implementation of Kts funded projects, there have been considerable challenges in collecting and collating data for examining the impact and outcomes of Kts and its components. the most significant data development which was funded by Kts has been Wellnet, which is used by the three cWus. the draft cWu evaluation report indicates that although Wellnet has been a significant and welcome development, it is a rather unwieldy system and is difficult to use for monitoring and accountability purposes. the fRs evaluation similarly points out the challenges of understanding the impact of the fRs without adequate data.
another data issue identified by the recent Ombudsman’s report (nsW Ombudsman, 2014) and
confirmed by this evaluation is that the way activities are classified in the KiDs dataset does not allow for easy analysis. Whilst some of these categories may make sense from an operational or case management perspective, they do not facilitate an understanding of how the system functions. examples include:
§
§ the category “forwarded for information/action” which includes a whole range of different responses which have different implications for outcomes but are not possible to disentangle in the dataset.
§
§ the scRpt assessment of ROsh and response priority remains in the database even if it is determined by the csc that a child is not (or is no longer) at ROsh. the case may then be closed and categorised as ‘no further action’, giving the false indication that high risk cases are not being responded to appropriately.
the evaluation plan (Katz et al., 2013) explains the rationale for the evaluation and the choice of methods and data sources which have been drawn on. considerable effort has been made by Dpc and our team to ensure that data have been made available for all the Kts indicators and other analyses. it has proved exceedingly challenging for agencies to provide accurate, complete and up to date data for this evaluation. this is a concern not only for the evaluation but also for the management of Kts and its component projects. Without an adequate flow of data it is difficult to facilitate collective action and coordinated governance.
8.6 Summary
however, the main problems are not related to the practicalities of information sharing and collaboration. the system as a whole is still very ‘system focused’ rather than being ‘child focused’. there is still a great deal of activity and much anxiety around whether children do or do not meet the ROsh threshold, and therefore which agency is responsible for service provision. the mRG and the various structured Decision making tools are primarily focused on risk and safety assessment and not on what interventions are required to meet the needs of the child and the family. similarly, chapter 16a is often interpreted as supporting information sharing about children for the purposes of assessment, but does not necessarily lead to collaborative holistic interventions to support those children. there is no common assessment or strategic framework for ensuring that children are provided with a timely, holistic and coordinated intervention, and no process for assuring that there is a continuity of care for families. the view that community services is fully responsible for children who meet the ROsh threshold, and that only children below this threshold are ‘everyone’s business’, still pervades much of the practice in nsW. true interagency collaboration around families with children at ROsh is rare. this has led to perverse outcomes including instances where services have been withdrawn from children at ROsh rather than ROsh assessments triggering increased resources and collaboration between agencies, which are the hallmarks of good child protection systems internationally.
the clear intention of the inquiry and of Kts was not merely to improve information exchange and assessment; it was to facilitate a holistic, multi-agency response to vulnerable children at all levels of risk. information exchange is only helpful if it leads to better and more informed interventions, a principle which is clearly stated in the amendments to the Children and Young Persons (Care and Protection) Act
1998. section 245e (which is part of chapter 16a) of the act states that:
Prescribed bodies are, in order to effectively meet their responsibilities in relation to the safety, welfare or well-being of children and young persons, required to take reasonable steps to co-ordinate decision-
Kts has made significant inroads into changing the system and culture within nsW, and the changes appear to be embedded not only in the Kts funded programs but throughout the human services workforce. however, there is still some way to go before nsW can claim to provide coordinated, timely and holistic services to vulnerable children and their families at all levels of risk and need.
Kts is one of the most far-reaching reforms to child protection and early intervention in australia and internationally. similarly, this evaluation is one of the most comprehensive studies of a system level reform ever conducted in this policy area. nevertheless, there are some methodological limitations which should be taken into account when considering the findings.
the evaluation has found that there have been positive changes in all the outcome areas Kts targeted. however, there are continuing challenges for the child protection and early intervention systems which will need to be addressed.