Re-capping on the road to reform so far Next 1 st July 2012: Queensland Child Protection Commission of Inquiry led by Commissioner Tim Carmody SC was established 1 st July 2013: Presentation of the Commission’s final report ‘Taking Responsibility: A Road Map for Queensland Child Protection’ to the Queensland Government 16 th Dec 2013: 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)

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

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

Three tracks in the roadmap Next 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 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

Three tracks in the roadmap Next 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 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

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.

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

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

Families in the systems. Child safetyHomelessness 41% of notifications children under 4yo; 4% were prior to birth (Carmody) Children 0-5 accompanying parents is fastest growing group presenting to homeless services (AIHW) Risk factors (Carmody) Younger parents (teenage 6%) Indigenous (21%) Single parents Drug & alcohol (47%) DV (35%) Mental illness (19%) Intergenerational abuse (25%) Criminal history (21%) 500 Lives 500 H0mes Registry Week 2014 Snapshot (267 families with 537 children). 24% families had contact with Child Safety in previous 6 months 30% families (81) were young parents (<25yo) Indigenous (24%) Single parents (73%), 93% women HoH Substance abuse (36%) DV – 29 in DV shelters at survey Mental illness (40%) Dual diagnosis (22%), Trimorbid (12%) 20% of parents had been in care themselves Prison (11%) 45% children were 0-5 years old

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

Exp erience 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

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

Systems change: Housing and child protection Housing and Homelessness Family Support and Child Safety Increase Supply : development of new social housing Incentives for investors not looking at social housing and lowest income individuals and families Expand the options for connecting families with affordable housing through a subsidy for private rentals Coordinated entry into current social housing system Capital investment in well-designed housing for dedicated family supportive housing (to scale over 10 years) Stop children/families entering child protection because of housing instability or homelessness Get children out of Out of Home Care protection more quickly where housing instability or homelessness is the barrier to reunification Redesign to meet the needs of families and children for safety and developmental needs of children (stable and affordable housing is often a presenting need) Respond to the needs of families by having flexible funding to provide a combination of rental assistance and retain connection to services over longer timeframes Dual reporting pathway For a cohort of families, we can work together to establish housing stability as a foundation AND provide support to improve family functioning.

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.

Breaking Social Isolation, building community.

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

NCHCW National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016 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.

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

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

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

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

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

2010 Child Welfare Funding Source: ChildTrends, 2012

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

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

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

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)

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

Caveats, final thoughts, discussion National Center for Housing and Child Welfare November 2016  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.

Let’s Talk