Education snapshot of children and young people in out-of-home care in NSW Lo-Shu Wen Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies ACWA Conference 2010

Background Initiated through ACWA’s OOHC Forum Poor educational outcomes for children and young people in out of home care. Need for more data on how children and young people in out of home care are performing in school. Development of questionnaire to be used to capture a snapshot.

Research Process Questionnaire sent to non-government agencies providing OOHC. To be completed by caseworker, carer or similar. No identifying information recorded. Sent at the end of Term 3. First conducted in 2008 and then in 2009.

Out-of-Home Care in NSW 34,069 children and young people in OOHC in Australia (AIHW, 2010). 16,524 children and young people in care in NSW (Community Services, 2009). In NSW, residential care wholly provided by NGOs. Foster care divided between Community Services and NGOs. 78.2% Community Services, 21.8% NGOs – 1,921 children and young people (Wood Report, 2008).

Profile of the Sample Sample Size353 44% Female, 54% MaleGender46% Female, 52% Male 46% are 12 and under 54% are 13 and over Age 40% are 12 and under 60% are 13 and over 68% foster care, 30% residential care, 1% ‘other’ Placement Type 52% foster care, 37% residential care, 2% ‘other’ 73% government school 26% non-government school School Type 64% government school 20% non-government school 79% full time 13% part time School Attendance 73.5% full time 14% part time 4% not currently attending school Non- Attendance 9% not currently attending school

Key Findings – Changes in School Top reasons: Placement change Child’s decision Expulsion Needs of the child Primary School86 out of 197 (43.6%) 92 out of 212 (43.3%) Secondary School 62 out of 145 (42.7%) 87 out of 185 (47.0%) Change school at least once whilst in placement

Key Findings – School Attendance

Example of NAPLAN reporting NAPLAN Band Child’s Mark National Average School Average Key Findings – NAPLAN testing

Efficacy of NAPLAN results as basis of measurement for kids in OOHC. Small sample that provided NAPLAN results. Potential reasons for lack of reporting on NAPLAN. School practices in relation to NAPLAN testing. Inconclusive. Year 3, 5, 7, and 9 (n=38) Reading No. (%) Writing No. (%) Spelling No. (%) Grammar & Punctuation No. (%) Numeracy No. (%) Achieved minimum or better 31 (81.5%) 29 (76.3%) 30 (78.9%) 30 (78.9%) 31 (81.5%) Achieved average or better 17 (42.1%) 13 (34.2%) 18 (47.3%) 22 (57.8%) 9 (23.6%) Combining Year Groups NAPLAN Results

Further Work Completion of reports for 2009 survey and cross analysis of 2008 and Due to conduct the survey again in September Focus efforts at increasing reporting of NAPLAN test results. Potential impacts of new policies ▫Increase of compulsory school age to 17 ▫Keep Them Safe reforms  Education OOHC Coordinators  Education Learning Plans

Acknowledgements Education Research Working Party ▫Boys Town Engadine ▫CREATE Foundation ▫Foster Parents Support Network ▫Life Without Barriers ▫Marist Youth Care ▫PhD Student, Southern Cross University ▫UnitingCare Burnside ▫Wesley Dalmar Pamela Peters, social work student placement, UNSW

Contact Lo-Shu Wen, Policy Officer Association of Childrens Welfare Agencies (02)