RAPID RESPONSE program OPEN sector Research symposium 30 October 2017 Lalitha Nair, Research Officer Jonathon Cummins, Manager Quality & Regional Development

Key Elements of Rapid Response Model Respond at the point of crisis, where placement is imminent Initial meeting between family, rapid response and child protection within 24 hours Agree on clear and transparent safety plan and measurable and specific goals for change Provide practical support, live coaching and role modelling to build family skills Work in the family home Flexible hours enable workers to conduct home visits at opportune times for intervention, including outside of usual business hours

Key Elements of Rapid Response Model 4 weeks, intensive and focused intervention Low caseloads allow up to 15 hours per week service to each family Strengths based, solution focussed partnership approach Use of evidence-informed interventions such as Motivational Interviewing, behavioural approaches and parent-coaching Interventions are tailored to each family’s culture, circumstances and values Interventions are adjusted based on regular client feedback

Key Elements of Rapid Response Model Strengthen the support system around the family Joint visits with Child Protection at mid-point and closure Provide follow-up opportunities for booster sessions for families if needed Regularly monitor and review case progress Strong clinical oversight and supervision Effective partnership with Child Protection staff at all levels

Key Frameworks and Evidence Underpinnings Homebuilders® Signs of Safety® North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS)

Intervention Frameworks Motivational Interviewing Behavioural / Skills building Parenting Family Coaching Ecological Crisis Intervention Operating within an Evidence-Informed Decision Making Process with a focus on the therapeutic alliance.

Elements of Homebuilders Model Elements of the Homebuilders® Model that align within the Rapid Response program: Target population (Eligibility Criteria) Intense Support Model Case Loads Strengths based, coaching model Reflecting and active listening Best Interest of the child to remain in the family home Strengthen/Linkages to the community

Communication with Child Protection Communication with Child Protection throughout service intervention: Triage Meetings Emails Phone Referrals Ongoing consultation during the service intervention

In development Program Manual Program Evaluations – AV and DHHS Staff competency framework Quality standards Implementation framework

Evaluation of Rapid Response Eastern, southern and St Luke’s Bendigo regions

Scope of the evaluation RR program in 3 regions - Bendigo, Eastern Metropolitan and Southern Metropolitan areas Six month period 1 July to 31 December 2017 All clients who consent to be part of the evaluation Clients who complete the 4-6 week intervention

Purpose of the evaluation Demonstrate program efficacy – that the program is able to achieve its intended outcomes Develop and articulate a theory of change - to provide a research-informed conceptual grounding for the service model. Ensure program fidelity and consistency - that the program is being implemented, delivered and monitored in a consistent way across the different regions where it is offered, maintaining fidelity to the Homebuilders® program in its core features.

Premise Intensive interventions at a point of crisis provides an effective option for keeping families together through the provision of support that directly addresses specific risk factors Family preservation intervention focuses on strengthening family functioning that eliminates the need for removal, or at the least reduces the need for further child protection involvement

Research Questions Two primary outcomes are measured - placement prevention and improved family functioning Research Questions: What number/ proportion of program participants avoided placement in residential or foster care following program participation? Was placement prevention sustained over a short-term (up to a maximum of 6 months) follow-up period? Did program participation result in significant improvements in family functioning (measured through NCFAS) between program commencement and program completion? Is there a correlation between family, child and program characteristics, placement prevention and improvements in family functioning?

Methodology Integrates quantitative and qualitative methods Quantitative data from intake forms, Signs of Safety® assessments and closure summaries NCFAS scores at intake and closure Family needs and strengths as reflected in the intake, referral and Signs of Safety® forms A qualitative component – the case study will be used to capture multiple stakeholders’ perspectives, in particular client perspectives regarding their experiences Audit of processes and features of the program as implemented across the regions

Data Analysis Descriptive statistics to show frequencies of participant characteristics Paired samples t-test to compare pre-test and post-test scores for NCFAS. Regression analysis to find out if there is any correlation between family and child characteristics to placement outcome. Content analysis of referral, intake and Signs of Safety® forms to capture case workers’ assessment of relevant issues, strengths and weaknesses to identify any recurring themes or patterns

Initial results

Placement prevention

Signs of Safety®

Improved family functioning

The next steps Initial results indicate that the program: prevents placement, with the majority of children (97%) staying with their primary caregiver improves family functioning, with a clear change in the overall NCFAS scores Data collection will continue in the next 3 months from the program, and until June 2018 from Child Protection on placement outcomes We anticipate a sample size of around 40 Analysis, reporting and dissemination

Thank You