1

CONFIDENTIAL Office of the Minister for Social Development Chair Cabinet Social Policy Committee

MODERNISING CHILD, YOUTH AND FAMILY EXPERT PANEL: INTERIM REPORT

Proposal

1 This report summarises the work of the Modernising Child, Youth and Family Expert Panel from April through to July. It seeks the endorsement of Cabinet Social Policy Committee to both the high level direction of the Interim Report and the next phase of work through to the final report in December. It also outlines arrangements for the impending release of the report.

Executive summary

2 In April 2015, I established the Modernising Child, Youth and Family (CYF) Expert Panel to develop a plan for the modernisation of CYF. The Terms of Reference for the review focus on whether CYF’s current operating model is delivering improved outcomes for children and young people, and changes required to improve these outcomes. They also include consideration of any wider changes required to legislation and services provided by other agencies.

3 I have now received the first report of the Expert Panel. I am planning to release the report following discussion of this paper at Cabinet and I am seeking your endorsement of the Panel’s overall strategic direction through to the end of December 2015 ahead of that release.

4 In completing its first report, the Panel has drawn on the perspectives of a diverse range of stakeholders, including young people who have been in CYF care. It has also had access to rich administrative data and other research and information provided by agencies, and has drawn on the findings of previous and related international reviews. It has established a set of principles and objectives for the care, protection and youth justice systems against which to assess the operation of CYF.

5 The overall conclusion in the Interim Report is that while there are pockets of good practice, and a committed frontline workforce, the system as a whole is not delivering effectively for vulnerable children and young people. In particular, the Panel’s view is that the current operating model tends to be focused on managing immediate risk and containing short-term costs and that this has come at the expense of the prevention of re-victimisation, remediation of harm and supporting long term outcomes. Achieving all of these objectives would reduce the level of re-work within the system and would help address the significant adverse outcomes (and associated fiscal costs) many of these children currently experience.

6 The report signals that a commitment to a substantial multi-year programme of work would be required to turn the current situation around and deliver on New Zealanders’ aspirations for our vulnerable children, with associated financial and legislative implications. The Panel expects that the new operating model would also require the wider social sector to make substantially greater progress than has so far been evident in delivering on results for vulnerable children. This may require a strengthened legislative mandate and specific time-bound contributions from each agency to the seamless and co-ordinated effort needed for each child. More targeted performance indicators, metrics and evaluation at the system level will certainly be required.

2

7 While the overall conclusion of the Expert Panel is of significant concern, this report, in combination with the final December report, means we are now significantly better positioned to fully understand what is required to deliver on New Zealanders’ aspirations for our vulnerable children and young people. Legislative and practice reforms introduced as part of the Children’ Action Plan also mean we are already some ways towards building the platform required to support this level of change.

8 The next stage of work for the Panel is the development of a future operating model. The Panel has identified four building blocks to underpin the new model: a child-centred system, an investment approach for vulnerable children, a professional practice framework and engaging all New Zealanders.

9 Proposals for a future operating model will be developed using a collaborative design approach that engages children, young people, caregivers, families and providers as partners in design. Two reference groups and an advisory panel have also been established in support of this work: a Youth Advisory Panel made up of young people with experience of CYF service, a Māori Reference Group and a Practice Reference Group.

10 The new operating model will create the framework for the more detailed design of the processes, systems, roles and responsibilities required within CYF. It will also identify required changes to current governance, accountability and legislative frameworks that underpin the delivery of services across the sector.

11 I have also agreed that work can begin immediately in some areas ahead of the delivery of the final operating model, specifically: a feasibility study on the use of an actuarial valuation to support an investment approach; engaging the philanthropic sector to develop proposals for a new advocacy service for children and young people in contact with CYF; and engaging New Zealanders to build their understanding of what care means for children and the many different ways in which they can help support and care for vulnerable children and young people.

12 The December report will also include a plan for the detailed design and implementation phase in 2016 and high level costings of the new operating model as well as detailed costings of specific initiatives that could be funded through Budget 2016. Detailed costings of the new operating model will be developed as part of implementation planning in 2016 and these will be finalised in time for consideration as part of Budget 2017 processes.

13 I will report back to Cabinet Social Policy Committee early in the New Year following receipt of the final report from the Panel in late December.

Background

14 Through the White Paper for Vulnerable Children, the accompanying Children’s Action Plan, and the Vulnerable Children Act 2014, we have embarked on the fundamental re-design of the service landscape for vulnerable children and their familes. Over this same period, we have also made some significant commitments to vulnerable children, including, most recently, a package of measures to address hardship among children living in our poorest families.

15 We have also turned our attention to the operation of CYF. Between 2011 and 2014, we received a number of reports that identified significant issues with the operation of the care and protection system:

3

the Mel Smith Report (2011) which emphasised the need for a child-centred approach and for the whole system to be held responsible for protecting vulnerable children

the Broad Report (2013) which proposed new ways to ensure that CYF is held to account for what it does

the Deloitte report (2013) which provided greater visibility of CYF spending and what is being purchased

the Qualitative Review of Social Worker Caseloads (2014) which identified a lack of clarity about what is CYF’s core business, pointed to transactional and process-driven systems compromising practice, and found that not enough time was being spent by social workers with vulnerable children.

16 In response to these concerns and the changing landscape, CYF was directed to report to Cabinet Strategy Committee in March 2014 on current issues in the care and protection system and possible responses. The committee directed Child, Youth and Family (CYF) to modernise its operations and develop an approach to invest in better results for children and young people [CAB Min (14) 8/2 refers].

17 Budget 2014 appropriated additional funding to CYF for the 2014/15 fiscal year only, with the understanding that the modernisation programme would inform future funding requirements. Budget 2015 appropriated an additional one-off $8 million to help address demand pressures.

18 In April 2015, after reviewing progress and following discussion at Cabinet Social Policy Committee [SOC Min (15) 2/2 refers] I established the Modernising Child, Youth and Family Expert Panel (the Panel) to develop a plan for the modernisation of CYF. The Terms of Reference for the review focus on whether CYF’s current operating model is delivering improved outcomes for children and young people, and changes required to improve these outcomes. They also include consideration of any wider changes required to legislation and services provided by other agencies.

19 The Terms of Reference specifically require that the Expert Panel:

provide myself, as the Minister for Social Development, with a programme level business case by 30 July 2015. The programme level business case will be focused on the case for change, desired future state for CYF and a high level assessment of options for a future CYF operating model

provide oversight and challenge on the development of the detailed business case, to be delivered to me, as the Minister for Social Development, by December 2015, with any Budget decisions considered as part of Budget 2016.

20 The Panel members are as follows:

Paula Rebstock (Chair), Chair of the ACC Board, Chair of the Work and Income Board, Deputy Chair of KiwiRail, Chair of the Insurance and Savings Commission, member of the University of Auckland Business School Advisory Board, Director of Auckland Transport and lead reviewer for the Performance Improvement Framework for the State Services Commission

Mike Bush, Commissioner of New Zealand Police

Peter Douglas, Chief Executive, Te Ohu Kaimoana

4

Duncan Dunlop Chief Executive of Who Cares? Scotland, an independent advocacy charity for young people in care

Helen Leahy, Specialist Advisor, Strategy and Influence, Te Runanga o Ngai Tahu

Professor Richie Poulton, Chief Science Advisor to the Ministry of Social Development Professor of Psychology at the University of Otago, and Co-Director of the National Centre for Lifecourse Research.

21 The Panel has been supported by a secretariat that includes secondees from the Ministry of Social Development (including CYF), the Ministry of Health, the New Zealand Treasury, the Office of the Children’s Commissioner, Accident Compensation Corporation, and the New Zealand Police. Discussions are underway with the Ministry of Education about its involvement.

Comment

22 I have now received the first report of the Modernising Child, Youth and Family Expert Panel (the Interim Report). An A3 summary of the report is appended in Annex One.

23 The Interim Report provides a detailed and comprehensive analysis of the current issues facing the care, protection and youth justice systems. It provides a high level account of the nature and level of change required to address these challenges, and sets out a work programme through to the delivery of a detailed operating model by the end of this year.

24 This paper summarises the high level business case set out in the report and highlights the key legislative and budget implications of this work, as well as linkages with other initiatives already underway. I am planning to release the report following discussion of this paper at Cabinet and I am seeking your endorsement of the Panel’s overall strategic direction through to the end of December ahead of that release.

The Panel’s approach and work to date

25 In completing this report, the Panel has drawn on the perspectives of a diverse range of stakeholders, including young people who have been in CYF care. The Panel has also had access to detailed analysis of administrative data and other research and information provided by agencies1, and drawn on the findings of previous and related international reviews. This is detailed below.

The voices of children and young people

26 The Panel has commissioned in-depth research with a small group of young people about their experiences within the care and protection system. The key themes that emerged from this work are set out below:

The system places insufficient emphasis on nurturing and love and the provision of an environment where children and young people can learn, grow and heal.

The young people felt they did not have a voice in important decisions being made about their futures and this left them confused and disempowered.

1 To date, the secretariat supporting the Panel has made 96 formal requests for information from agencies,

the vast majority of these from the Ministry of Social Development.

5

The young people wanted more help to make sense of their experiences, including the significant trauma many had been exposed to.

Finding a sense of family was critical for these young people. This may not be their birth family but nevertheless an environment where they feel accepted and loved. Many reported the life-changing impacts of finding ‘the one’ adult who understood and supported them.

Young people talked of the value of cultural connections, especially in relation to building their sense of identity and well-being. They felt this was not well recognised or supported, and adults did not understand the importance of this connection.

Some young people felt very unprepared, stressed and vulnerable when they are about to ‘age out of care’ at 17. For some young people their only option is to go back to the unsafe environments they were initially removed from.

The perspective of other stakeholders

27 The Panel has also met with 24 stakeholder groups, including experienced practitioners, leaders and researchers from across the health, education, justice, social services, and care and protection fields both within and outside of New Zealand. It has also conducted 11 site visits, including visits to youth justice and care and protection residences, family homes and a Children’s Team. In addition the Secretariat supporting the Panel has met with 35 different stakeholder groups.

Analysis of CYF and other agency data

28 The Interim Report draws on analysis of client-level data on the pathways of cohorts of children from birth through to early adulthood through the care and protection, youth justice, benefit, education and corrections systems. This data also provides rich information on the profile of caregivers and siblings of these children, and the costs associated with those different pathways. The Panel has also made extensive use of CYF administrative data. Key findings from this work are set out below.

High and growing proportions of repeat notifications

29 Although the overall number of children coming to the attention of CYF has been decreasing over the past six years, an increasing proportion of these children are already known to the agency. In 2004, most of the notifications made to CYF were for children not previously known to the agency. In 2014, six out of ten notifications were for children the agency already knew about. Many of these children had extensive history with the agency - on average, these children had engaged with CYF on three previous occasions.

30 This pattern of increasing repeat notifications is associated with an increasing delay between notification and subsequent intervention. In 2014, children having their first care and protection Family Group Conference had, on average, more than four prior reports of concern and this figure more than doubled between 2000 and 2014.

Concerning levels of re-victimisation among children who have been in care

31 In 2010, 23 per cent of children who exited care and returned to their biological parents were re-abused and 10 per cent of those who exited care to kin or whānau placements were re-

6

abused within 18 months2. By contrast, re-abuse rates are low at one per cent for those exiting care in non-kin or non- whānau placements.

32 The Panel has not been able to establish the level of abuse while in care because of the data quality issues. However most of the young people interviewed as part of this process disclosed that they were harmed while in care.

High levels of complex needs among many of the families of children coming to the attention of CYF

33 Child abuse and neglect occurs within families across all parts of the community. However, many of the children and young people who come to the attention of CYF are living in families who are experiencing the combined impacts of long-term unemployment, low income, unaddressed physical and mental health needs, parental alcohol and drug addictions and family violence.

34 To illustrate, of all children born between 2005 and 2007 who had come to the attention of CYF by age five, 70 per cent were in families where the Police had records of at least one family violence incidence involving the parents in the five years prior to the birth of the child and 37 per cent had a least one parent who had served a criminal sentence over that same period. 40 per cent had a mother who had been receiving a benefit for more than four out of the last five years prior to their birth.

Over-representation of Māori children

35 Although Māori children make up 30 per cent of all children in New Zealand, approximately 57 per cent of children seen by CYF by the time they are aged five are Māori. Māori children are disproportionately represented in families with high levels of need and disadvantage. For example, Māori children are nearly four times more likely to have a parent who was involved with CYF as a child and four times more likely to have a mother who has been dependent on a benefit. The over representation of Māori children increases the further they become involved in the system with six out of every 10 children in care are Māori children.

Poor long-term outcomes and high fiscal costs

36 Children and young people who have required the intervention of the care, protection and youth justice systems have dramatically worse outcomes as young adults than the rest of the population. Figure One below shows these outcomes by the highest level of contact with CYF. For children in the cohort who had no contact with CYF for care and protection reasons, just over 30 per cent left school with less than level 2 National Certificate of Educational Achievement (NCEA). By way of contrast, about 80 per cent of children and young people who were taken into CYF care left school with less than level 2 NCEA qualifications.

2 Outcomes for children discharged from CYF care in 2010. Unpublished report, Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, Ministry of

Social Development, May 2012. Note this study only looked at children who were under 15 years at the time of their exit from care, and where this was their first care episode. ‘Whānau placement’ refers to placements where there was already a close relationship between the child and the caregiver prior to placement. In most cases the caregiver will be extended family/ whānau, but could also be unrelated to the child, for example a close family friend.

7

Figure One: Selected life course outcomes to age 21 for cohort born in the 12 months to June 1991, by type of contact with CYF as a child/young person.

37 The poor outcomes experienced by children who have contact with CYF mean that they make up a sizeable proportion of the ‘at risk’ group of many other agencies. For example, among young people in the 1990/91 birth cohort who were in receipt of a benefit with a child by age 21, just under half had previously had contact with CYF for care and protection reasons. More than 60 per cent of individuals with a custodial sentence by age 21 had previously had contact with CYF.

38 Fiscal analysis shows the government is spending a considerable amount in lifetime costs for children and young people who come to the attention of CYF. Most of this relates to subsequent benefit receipt and involvement in the adult criminal justice system, rather than investment in preventative services. This is illustrated in Figure Two below.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

No Level 2 NCEA On benefit before 21 On benefit with childbefore 21

Youth Justice Referralbefore age 18

Custodial sentence before21

Community sentencebefore 21

Percentage

No care and protection contact Notification only Investigation/assessment, no finding/careFinding of abuse of neglect Care/placementNo youth justice referral Youth Justice referral

8

Figure Two: Selected fiscal costs (CYF, benefit, and Corrections) up until age 35, for the cohort born in the 12 months to June 1991

Learnings from previous reviews and international experience

39 CYF has been the subject of a large number of prior reviews spanning 1988 to 2015, including 14 restructures. Many of these reviews identified the same issues that have arisen through this process. The Panel have had a close look at a number of these reviews to inform its thinking about how to leverage the kind of change that is required here. The Panel notes that past reviews largely concentrated on CYF, and that many of the recommendations of previous reviews were not put into effect, resulting only in incremental improvements to the system but leaving many fundamental concerns about vulnerable children substantially unaddressed.

40 The Office of the Children’s Commissioner (OCC) conducts periodic reviews of CYF’s operations through a combination of site visits, direct engagement with children, young people and families, and speaking with frontline workers. These reviews have also identified consistent themes relating to highly variable practice across sites, poorly supported care placements, young people leaving care not receiving adequate support, insufficient multi-agency collaboration and insufficient priority being given to cultural capability. The OCC has also identified weaknesses in the current complaints and advocacy systems.

41 As part of this process the Panel has also commissioned advice on the operation of care and protection systems in similar jurisdictions, such as Australia and the United Kingdom. All countries have faced pressures driven by rising demand and costs, struggled with over-representation of indigenous and minority children in their systems, and faced barriers to improving a cross-agency response to vulnerable children. There is a widespread recognition of the need to invest in increased prevention. Using and properly implementing evidence-based programmes is another major focus and recognition of the mix of different professional skills required in the child protection workforce.

42 Internationally, there is a preference for community-based care of young offenders, the use of secure residential care as a last resort is supported by research indicating that young people in less restrictive step-down residential care have better outcomes than those in more restrictive secure care facilities

9

43 Of particular interest to the Panel has been a move in many countries to enable children and young people to participate in care and protection decisions that involve them. This has meant more legal rights, advocacy, and peer support networks of young people in care.

Principles and objectives

44 The Expert Panel sought a consistent set of principles to guide its assessment of the current system and their consideration of potential options. Sections 5,6,13 and 208 of the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 contain a total of 27 distinct principles guiding the operation of the Act overall and the application of different parts within the Act. The Panel has condensed a number of these to give a clearer strategic direction for the Panel’s work, and to guide future development and delivery of care, protection and youth justice services.

45 These principles are:

Place the child or young person at the centre of what we do. We should ensure that, whenever possible, children and young people will understand what is happening to them and why, and have a say in decisions affecting their lives. We will listen to children individually, locally and nationally as we design and implement services for them. The emotional and physical well-being of each child will be paramount in our decisions.

Support families to care for their children. A child or young person’s family/ whānau (whether their original family or a new family) and extended family have the primary role in loving and protecting them and should participate in decisions that affect the child or young person. Whenever possible, a child or young person’s family/ whānau should participate in the making of decisions affecting that child or young person and their views should be listened to.

Use evidence-based approaches to get the best results. We should use interventions that have been proven to make a difference. We should clearly understand the results we are achieving for vulnerable children and young people and strive to do better. We recognise that early and effective help is better for children. Those children who have experienced trauma need to be supported to recover before they can develop.

Support the connection of all children, including Māori children, to their family, cultures and communities. We should support children to feel connected to their communities, cultures and wider whānau and family through understanding the significance of genealogy and family context, their unique needs and ensuring that our services and care respect their uniqueness.

Have the same high level of aspiration for vulnerable children as we do for all other New Zealand children. We should ensure that children receive the love that they need and have access to the same opportunities as other New Zealand children.

Help all New Zealanders to make a difference for vulnerable children. We should work to reconnect New Zealand families and communities with children who are in need of care and protection and youth justice services, and encourage New Zealanders and agencies to help, with the right support, children and young people in need.

46 The Panel has reviewed the care, protection and youth justice objectives set out in legislation and associated documents. The Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989 currently sets out seven high level objectives for the overall system and 10 specific functions for the care, protection and youth justice systems. The Panels view is that this long set of objectives and functions is too complex to form a coherent, strategic focus. The Panel has also received an outcomes framework commissioned and reviewed by the Vulnerable

10

Children’s Board which sets out high level cross-agency outcomes for vulnerable children and 48 indicators and measures in support of that.

47 The Panel has developed the following set of objectives to cover what it would expect from a child-centred child care, protection and youth justice system:

ensuring that children have the earliest opportunity for a loving and stable family

addressing the full range of needs for each child

preventing harm and re-victimisation to children

helping children to heal and recover

supporting children to become flourishing adults

helping children and young people to take responsibility for their actions and live crime-free lives.

The Panel’s overall assessment of the current operating model

48 The Panel has assessed the current operating model against these principles and objectives. The Panel has concluded that the current operating model places a high priority on completion of tasks with narrow responsibility and accountability within and between agencies. Decision-making tends to be focused on managing immediate risk and containing short-term costs. This focus has come at the expense of the prevention of re-victimisation, remediation of harm and supporting long term outcomes. While there are pockets of good practice, and a committed frontline workforce who strive to do a good job, the system as a whole is not delivering effectively for vulnerable children and young people. A summary of the Panel’s overall assessment of the operating model is set out below.

The current system is not organised around a common purpose and aligned strategy

49 The current system consists of multiple agencies and is largely based on the performance of functions with compartmentalised responsibility and accountability. This has been accompanied by on-going uncertainty within and between agencies on their respective roles and functions in realising the objectives set out in the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, which has not been resolved by the introduction of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014. This includes confusion about the role of the statutory system in situations of chronic neglect and emotional abuse, and high longer-term risk, and uncertainty about obligations towards meeting the needs of children in care.

50 CYF does not currently have a clear mandate to direct services from the wider sector towards the care and protection of vulnerable children. This results in CYF being unable to access the right services for children and families until they have escalated further into the system, limiting effectiveness of early prevention activities. Children’s Teams, Whānau Ora, Social Sector Trials are all working with vulnerable families, but the Panel’s conclusion is that this current approach is not sufficiently systematic, coherent or co-ordinated.

11

The system does not place children at the centre

51 The current operating model is focused on process rather than on the needs of the child. At an individual level, the current service does not provide enough regular engagement with children, families or caregivers, or understanding of their needs.

52 Currently there is no independent voice or agency of sufficient size and capability to speak for children and hold the system to account in its day-to-day dealings with children. Nor does the legislation support a child-centred approach. The interests of children are represented in principles outlined in sections 5, 6 and 13 of the current Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989. However, throughout the rest of the Act, children are treated as passive participants in a process where decisions are made for them by others. Neither is there reference to the rights or voices of children and young people in the Vulnerable Children Act 2014.

New Zealanders are not being actively engaged in making a difference for vulnerable children

53 Children report social stigma associated with being in care and, in particular, with not being part of a loving family. This can prevent their effective participation in society in every-day ways that are important for young people. The background, stories and needs of children in care are not well understood by the wider New Zealand population. The Panel has concluded that fundamental settings of the current system, such as ‘aging out at 17’ or the high average number of placement changes, are not understood by the majority of New Zealanders, and would be unacceptable if they were.

54 Care is not just a State responsibility and it is only through families and communities that love and nurturing will be found. There is great potential to find care in the community beyond the current formal definition of caregivers. The Panel believes all New Zealanders need to be encouraged to do what they can to help and take action to support vulnerable children and young people, and that all agencies across the social sector need to play their part in this.

The system is not effective in supporting families/whānau to care for their children

55 Current preventative efforts are not working as evident from the pattern of repeat notifications and delayed intervention. The Family Group Conference is the centrepiece of preventative services in the system. However, little coordinated analysis has been completed on the needs of the children and young people currently receiving Family Group Conferences, or the effectiveness of the process in meeting these needs.

56 CYF cannot support children and families on its own. Health, Education, Police and other agencies are key partners in the Family Group Conference process. However, it is not currently mandatory for agencies to participate, nor are all relevant agencies held accountable for the plans agreed at the conference.

The system does not focus on providing earliest opportunities for a loving and stable family

57 Vulnerable children currently have seven to eight prior placements and are, on average, between seven and eight years old. The high average number of placement moves experienced by children at a young age is unacceptable.

58 A significant degree of trauma, confusion, stress and disruption to their development is an inevitable consequence of so many moves for any child or young person, and more so for children who are already vulnerable. Permanency should be achieved far more quickly than is currently the case.

12

There is insufficient focus on the recruitment, support and retention of caregivers who are vital to provision of loving and stable families

59 CYF currently works with about 3,500 caregivers, yet there is no national picture of the needs of our care population, the range and needs of caregivers, what works in their recruitment or retention and what kind of support is needed. There is no overarching, nationally co-ordinated approach to caregiver recruitment and there is an inability to predict and plan for future requirements.

60 A high proportion of caregivers are in low income households and 42 per cent of the caregiver population are in receipt of a benefit. The majority of CYF caregivers are middle-aged, but a significant proportion are nearing the age of 60 years or older. This is a concern in that children who have complex and significant needs are being placed in households where resources may already be stretched and the capacity of the caregiver to meet needs may be constrained.

61 Caregivers are largely a volunteer workforce, receiving allowances for the child’s day-to-day costs. There have been clear historical reasons for using volunteers, and many caregivers have a strong value base as to why the care of children is not a paid job. However, greater financial and non-financial support may be required especially for those entrusted with the most vulnerable children with complex needs.

There is a lack of evidence-based approaches to achieve results

62 The Panel has reviewed international experiences and from this has identified a range of well-tested and proven approaches that meet a high standard of evidence. Unfortunately, few of these approaches have been tested in New Zealand. Most of New Zealand’s child protection system relies on practices and approaches that have not been proven to a high standard of evidence.

63 Evidence-based practice would require CYF and the wider system to have greater clarity on the results they are seeking, better monitoring of the results and understanding of the mechanisms by which results can be achieved.

The workforce lacks the capabilities and capacity to meet increasingly complex needs of children and families

64 CYF employs about 3,200 FTEs and relies on social work and social workers as the primary means of service delivery. There is currently fragmentation at a national level in social worker qualification and training, which is reflected in a lack of consistent practice within CYF. There is also a lack of workforce planning and reporting capability within CYF that results in a lack of long term planning to address these issues.

65 Front-line child protection and youth justice workers need better support, training and a full range of skills to be able to make a lasting difference in the lives of vulnerable children. Key directions in many countries include measures that improve training for front-line workers, increase worker satisfaction and reduce turnover, and also practical measures to provide adequate professional supervision and reduce administrative burden. An important issue for many countries is the appropriate mix of different professional skills required in the child protection workforce.

66 The skills required to achieve results for vulnerable children reside across a range of different professional disciplines. Social work, psychology, psychiatry, general and specialised medicine, education and youth work all have a vital role to play. There is not currently a

13

sufficiently multi-disciplinary approach to the CYF frontline workforce, and there are gaps in the professional skills required to meet diverse and complex needs.

There is more work to do on supporting the connection of children to their cultures and communities

67 Young people talked of the value of cultural connections, especially in relation to building sense of identity and well-being, and that this was not well recognised or supported. We must acknowledge the connection of children – including Māori children – with their wider systems of support, such as whānau, and begin engaging early and productively.

68 CYF has made commitments and improvements to address cultural connection, including through its strategic vision, Ma Mātou, Ma Tātou, the development of a bi-cultural practice framework and establishing memorandums of understanding with Iwi.

69 However, the Panel is mindful of reviews, as recent as the 2014 Casework review and as far back as Puao-Te-Atata-Tu in 1988, which point to a lack of consistent capability to work successfully with Māori and achieve better results. They highlight the need for better responsiveness to Māori and more consistency of practice. CYF should build staff and manager capability and confidence in this area and partner more effectively and extensively with Iwi and Māori organisations.

The use of residences and custodial remand reflects an overly institutional approach to care and youth justice

70 A number of children have suffered significant stress and trauma prior to being placed in a CYF residence. Evidence and experience show that the propensity of large-scale institutions to cause harm to vulnerable children generally outweighs the security and safety benefits. Cold, sterile facilities like some of the CYF residences run the risk of re-traumatising children and young people.

71 Security and safety can often be dealt with by smaller, more localised services where a stronger connection to communities and tailored support would also provide a better chance of healing and development. CYF has started to develop a wider continuum of care options that are legitimate alternatives to residential placement. The Panel sees this as a positive trend, but believes that any further investment needs to be informed by a more comprehensive understanding of the needs of children and young people.

72 The youth justice system deals with offending by children aged 10-13 years, and young people aged 14-16 years. Despite declining youth crime, youth justice residences are increasingly being used to house young people under remand and as a short term solution when other placement options cannot be found. Custodial remands form 73 per cent of total admissions, but 75 per cent of young people remanded go on to receive a non-custodial sentence at youth court. The Panel believes that this over-use of custodial remand for young people is unacceptable, especially given the harm that can be caused in an institutional setting, and that there is insufficient focus on keeping young people away from custodial and institutionalised settings, where these can be avoided.

73 The youth justice system lacks integrated planning for the child or young person as they transition between care and youth justice and between agencies, providers and community. Greater alignment is needed between CYF and community providers, health and education around a common language and interoperable IT systems in order to achieve a coherent approach to individual young people across agencies.

14

74 There are also missed opportunities for early intervention in the youth justice system to reduce the likelihood of children who offend from entering the adult justice system. Early onset of offending is widely regarded as a predictor of long-term recidivism. Although the numbers of children who are offending is falling, there is a group of children who will offend persistently but who are not referred to CYF early. Only about 10 per cent of the 2,500 or so child apprehensions are referred to CYF by Police. Many in this group are at risk of offending again. This represents a missed opportunity to step in earlier to prevent that trajectory.

Vulnerable young people need and deserve far more support to make a successful transition to adulthood

75 The Panel’s view is that young people in need of care and protection should not have their assistance lapse at age 17, as is the case in New Zealand. In most comparable jurisdictions, young people exit formal State care at age 18. In a handful of jurisdictions this age is 19. Jurisdictions are increasingly introducing provisions to allow young people to stay in care up until the age of 21. Similarly, most comparable jurisdictions have a higher upper age for youth justice.

76 Many young people leaving care report a sense of abandonment, anxiety and fear and experience high levels of instability and insecurity across many aspects of their lives. This includes unsafe, unstable and poor quality housing and homelessness and difficulty remaining connected to education. Most of these young people lack the kind of stable and safe family, peer and community relationships and resources that are available to other young people as they make the transition into adulthood.

77 Current transitional support for care leavers is limited in scale and scope. A large proportion of young care leavers get no government-funded support after leaving CYF care. The supports that are available are not, in large part, designed to address the range of material, health, education and safety needs affecting many of these young people.

Nature of change required Shifting to a strategy that achieves all of the objectives of the care, protection and youth justice systems

78 The current approach for CYF places a very high priority on speed of response and on ensuring the immediate physical safety of children. The Panel’s view is that there is insufficient attention paid to ensuring that children do not cycle back into the care and protection system and ensuring that they can recover and go on to fulfil their potential as adults. Achieving all of these objectives would reduce the level of re-work within the system and would help address the significant adverse outcomes (and associated fiscal costs) many of these children currently experience.

79 This is more easily said than done. International evidence suggests achieving results can be difficult due to the long-term nature of change, a preoccupation with urgent issues, high staff turnover and caseloads, and sensitivity to the risk of adverse incidents.

Key building blocks

80 I have asked the Panel to provide me with a final report in December that will outline a new operating model for CYF that can deliver on the six objectives described in paragraph 47 above. This will include providing clarity about CYF’s role within the wider system and sector. The final report will also set out the expected key shifts required in CYF and the wider sector by the new operating model.

15

81 The Panel has identified four equally important building blocks necessary for providing the foundation for the new way of working. These are set out below.

A child-centred system

82 The system must shift from being primarily centred on the services, processes and administrative convenience of the agencies, to bringing the voice of children, young people and their families to the forefront of:

decision-making on the services and interventions they require to be safe, nurtured and stable, and to flourish as adults;

design of services, policies and approaches at a system level; and

advocacy for their rights through an understanding of the expectations they can have of the system and all its participants.

An investment approach

83 The system must shift from an event-driven and response-based approach to one focused on evidence and long-term results across the social sector. The investment approach for vulnerable children will use data, evidence and analytics to:

provide incentives to intervene with the right service, as early as practicable with the right children, young people and families, by ensuring that agencies and non-government providers are accountable for achieving improved outcomes which will reduce costs in the longer term;

identify, evaluate and improve on the interventions; and

create a shared and consistent prioritisation and delivery of seamless services for children, young people and families across multiple agencies and providers within the sector.

A professional practice framework

84 The system must shift from a rules, compliance and timeframe-driven practice to professional judgement based on:

an evidence-based understanding of the impact of trauma on children and young people, the science of child development, and best practice approaches in building resilience in children and young people;

a high degree of cultural competency and confidence to support the needs of all children, including Māori children; and

a framework for decision-making that sets out the principles and tools to guide effective professional practice.

Engaging all New Zealanders

85 We must re-engage with New Zealand families and communities to:

build their understanding of what care means for children

16

take action to support vulnerable children and young people wherever and whenever they can in their daily lives

provide access to safe, loving and stable families where they can

support children in their care to heal, recover and flourish, and

play a shared role in championing the role of children, young people and their families in designing the system.

Scale of change and change readiness within CYF and the wider sector

86 A commitment to a substantial multi-year programme of work would be required to turn the current situation around and deliver on New Zealanders’ aspirations for our vulnerable children. Achieving the scale of improvement required to the child care, protection and youth justice system is an enormous challenge. The current operating model for CYF and the wider system has not been effective in responding to long-term trends and a transformational change is required to reverse the current patterns of re-entry, poor life outcomes and overuse of custodial and institutional responses. Change on this scale will take years, rather than months to achieve and must be implemented in a way that ensures effective delivery of improved outcomes for vulnerable children.

87 To direct, manage and implement the shifts in operating model will require a significantly higher level of leadership, strategic vision and planning, service design, and delivery management than is currently evident in CYF. It is the Panel’s observation that the current capacity and capability of CYF is focused on operational management, and therefore significant change would be required to move to transformation and then continuous improvement.

88 Although CYF has progressively improved its connection to the corporate support functions within the Ministry of Social Development, building blocks for implementing change such as robust performance management, workforce planning, management reporting and portfolio management are currently absent.

89 The Panel expects that the new operating model would also require the wider social sector to make substantially greater progress than has so far been evident. Government should expect social sector chief executives to deliver tangible results for children experiencing, or at risk of, abuse and neglect. This may require a strengthened legislative mandate and specific time-bound contributions from each agency to the seamless and co-ordinated effort needed for each child. More targeted performance indicators, metrics and evaluation at the system level will certainly be required.

90 The high degree of fragmentation between CYF, the Children’s Action Plan, Health, Education, Justice, Housing, Community Investment and Social Sector Trials and providers reduces the ability of the social sector to become truly centred on the needs of each vulnerable child. Government should expect the Vulnerable Children Plan provided for in the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 to address this fragmentation.

Progress already made in building the platform for change

91 The overall conclusion in the Interim Report is that the system as a whole is not delivering effectively for our vulnerable children and young people. Obviously this finding is of significant concern to me and, no doubt, my colleague Ministers. I am reassured, however, that this report, in combination with the final December report, means we are now significantly

17

better positioned to fully understand what is required to deliver on New Zealanders’ aspirations for our vulnerable children and young people.

92 I am also reassured that while the scale of change envisaged in the report would take some years to implement, we have already set in train key initiatives to address some of the same issues identified in the Interim Report. In particular, the legislative reforms we introduced in 2014 included measures designed to strengthen the protection of children from abuse and neglect and to improve key care and protection processes, in particular:

greater protection for children born to parents who are known to have previously significantly harmed a child in their care

new obligations across the state service to improve the identification and notification of child abuse and neglect

new worker safety checking to reduce the risk of harm to children.

93 We also have a major programme of work underway through the Children’s Action Plan to build the core competencies across the children’s workforce. Work underway in local sites to support the implementation of Children’s Teams also means professionals, providers and agencies in those sites now have a clearer understanding of the different roles they can each play in recognising and meeting the needs of vulnerable children.

The Panel’s work through to December

94 The next stage of work for the Panel is the development of a future operating model. This will create the framework for the more detailed design of the processes, systems, roles and responsibilities required within CYF. It will also identify required changes to current governance, accountability and legislative frameworks that underpin the delivery of services across the sector. This work will establish a blueprint of the desired outcomes, parameters and principles for detailed design work in 2016 conducted with CYF and partner agencies.

95 The Panel will develop the future operating model using a collaborative design approach that engages children, young people, caregivers, families and providers as partners in design. The Panel sees this as essential to the development of a robust and practicable model and to supporting a successful transition through to the subsequent detailed design phase of work.

96 Two reference groups and an advisory panel have also been established in support of this: a Youth Advisory Panel made up of young people with experience of CYF service, a Māori Reference Group and a Practice Reference Group. A list of members of the Māori and Practice reference groups is provided in Annex Two.

97 The December report will also include a plan for the detailed design and implementation phase and high level costings of the new operating model as well as detailed costings of specific initiatives that could be funded through Budget 2016. Detailed costings of the new operating model will be developed as part of implementation planning in 2016 and these will be finalised in time for consideration as part of Budget 2017 processes.

98 The significant shifts signalled in the Interim Report would be likely to require a number of legislative changes. The December report will include final advice on a package of legislative reform for possible inclusion in the 2016 legislation programme. The areas where the Panel expects to make recommendations include:

supporting the rights and perspectives of children within the system

18

supporting different pathways through the care and protection system

helping young people to transition successfully to adulthood

reviewing provisions associated with the use of, and processes associated with, custodial care

reviewing the governance and accountability mechanisms that sit across the care, protection and youth justice system

re-writing the CYPF Act to make it easier to understand and to better cater to prevention, response and recovery

allowing wider participation by agencies and communities in service delivery

information sharing provisions in relation to vulnerable children

enabling a broader range of expert professionals in decision-making for vulnerable children.

99 I expect that in finalising its proposals for a new operating model, the Panel will consider the alignment between its work and related initiatives already underway across the social and justice sectors, particularly work on vulnerable 0 – 5 year-olds through Budget 2016 processes and the Vulnerable Children’s Plan.

Briefing Cabinet on the final report

100 After I receive and consider the final report from the Panel in late December, I will report back to Cabinet Social Policy Committee with proposals for a new operating model for CYF, including recommendations for a package of legislative reform, implementation planning and the overall funding envelope.

Making an early start on implementation

101 A substantial effort over a number of years will be required to design, implement and embed a new operating model, and associated change across the sector. Nevertheless, there are a number of areas where change can commence much more quickly and where I have agreed that work begin immediately.

102 MSD, on behalf of the Modernising CYF Expert Panel, are running a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a feasibility study of an investment approach for vulnerable children. The RFP is a closed tender process from selected actuarial firms which began in late August. The report from the RFP is due in mid-November to inform the Panel’s December report.

103 The RFP is primarily conceptual. It asks for information on the feasibility of a cross-social sector investment approach to vulnerable children using an actuarial valuation, and how it could be used to improve outcomes for vulnerable children. Within this broad scope, it will also have a particular focus on those children currently, or previously, engaged with the child protection and youth justice system, and those at-risk of entering the system. MSD will establish a cross-agency panel to support the selection process for the RFP and to help ensure appropriate linkages are made with related work underway across the sector, particularly the Social Sector Investment Change Programme.

19

104 The Panel has also begun work to engage the philanthropic sector to strengthen the voice of New Zealand children and young people in care by developing a proposal for a new advocacy service. It is also investigating opportunities to begin work on engaging all New Zealanders to build their understanding of what care means for children and the many different ways in which they can help support and care for vulnerable children and young people.

105 I also expect that MSD will look at the linkages between its own service delivery areas and ensure that housing, youth services and information sharing are addressed proactively for vulnerable children and young people and their caregiver.

106 Once the Panel has presented its final report in December a range of early changes, possibly overseen by the Vulnerable Children’s Board, could begin that would pave the way for the larger changes to follow, and would help to establish change capability and readiness within CYF and across the sector.

107 There may be opportunities for other agencies in the social sector to contribute to the new operating model by prioritising interventions for vulnerable children within their own agencies – especially for those children with a high level of assessed risk and/or a finding of abuse by CYF. The Panel’s view is that these children should be at the front of the line for government-funded income and employment assistance, universal and targeted health and education services and housing supports.

108 I expect that Child, Youth and Family, with the support of the wider agency, will also begin to work to develop a coordinated approach to recruit and better support caregivers and to make improvements to the professional practice framework to better support staff in their professional judgement.

Parallels with the Business Case Methodology

109 As noted above, the Terms of Reference call for the Panel to provide a programme level business case in its interim report. Key elements of the programme level business case are included in the report, specifically:

the strategic context and objectives for the programme

the scope of the change and the high level business requirements to fulfil the purpose and objectives of the system

mechanisms to support the establishment of concrete targets, to measure performance, to manage implementation and to realise benefits

the identification of a range of possible changes for consideration.

110 The Panel expects its final report will fulfil the remainder of its Terms of Reference and will provide sufficient clarity not only for Budget 2016, but for the years ahead.

111 As this project is being conducted as an independent review, rather than an internally sponsored programme of work, there are some areas where the Panel has had to adopt an approach that is somewhat different to the better business case process. In particular, as an external panel it has had a less complete picture of CYF’s internal readiness and ability to implement the recommended changes. As a consequence, an additional amount of work will be required at the end of this process to confirm detailed costs and timeframes.

20

Consultation

112 As set out above, the Panel and Secretariat has benefited from the insights of some very experienced practitioners, leaders and researchers from across the health, justice, social services, and care and protection fields both within and outside of New Zealand. This process of engagement will continue through to the Final Report.

Financial implications

113 The Panel has commissioned an analysis of current spending on services for vulnerable children and families through the Ministry of Social Development. Through this work, it has identified over $700 million of spending in scope, split across CYF, Children’s Teams and Community Investment. The Panel’s early advice is that addressing the urgent and pressing issues identified in the Interim Report will require some significant additional investment and reprioritisation. The development of the cost model for the December report, and the on-going development of the Social Worker Resource Estimation Model within MSD, will help the Panel to comprehensively map current costs, and will inform advice about spending, prioritisation of resources and any additional investment that may be required.

114 As noted above, the December report will include high level costings of the new operating model as well as detailed costings of specific initiatives that could be funded through Budget 2016. Detailed costings of the new operating model will be developed as part of implementation planning in 2016 and these will be finalised in time for consideration as part of Budget 2017 processes.

115 It is also worth noting that CYF is currently forecasting a deficit in its budget for 2016/17 of between $28 million and $38 million. This is driven by the continuation of funding pressures from previous years ($18.8 million), cessation of one-off funding in 2015/16 ($13.4 million), and additional wage and other cost pressures in 2016/17 ($6.4 million). The range reflects uncertainty about the offsetting savings that might be achieved both within CYF budgets and MSD.

Human rights implications

116 Any human rights implications associated with the new operating model will be considered in the next stage of work of the Panel and will be identified in the December report.

Legislative implications

117 The Interim Report signals a number of areas where the Panel is likely to recommend legislative change in the December report. These are set out in paragraph 98 above. The December report will include final advice on a package of legislative reform for possible inclusion in the 2016 legislation programme.

118 This package could represent a sizeable programme of legislative reform, particularly in relation to the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act 1989, but possibly also other related pieces of legislation, including the Children’s Commissioner Act 2003 and the Vulnerable Children Act 2014.

Regulatory impact and compliance cost statement

119 Detailed advice on regulatory impact will be completed as part of subsequent reports to Cabinet, following the delivery of the final report from the Expert Panel in December.

21

Gender implications

120 This paper has no gender implications.

Disability perspective

121 Children with disabilities are significantly over-represented within the care and protection systems. Shifting to an operating model that secures better results for children in contact with CYF should have a disproportionately positive impact for children with disabilities.

Publicity

122 I plan to release the full Interim Report following Cabinet consideration of this paper. I believe that releasing the report will help prepare CYF staff for the overall direction and scale of change envisaged by the Panel. It will also support the Panel to test some of the features of the new operating model with a broader set of stakeholders ahead of its final report.

Recommendations

123 I recommend that the Committee:

1 note I have received the Modernising Child, Youth and Family Expert Panel Interim Report

2 note the tabled copy of the Interim Report and the appended A3 summary

3 note the report signals the need for a substantial, multi-year programme of transformational, system-wide change in order to deliver on our aspirations for vulnerable children and that this is likely to have significant financial and legislative implications

4 note I will receive a final report from the Expert Panel in December 2015

5 endorse the Panel’s proposed principles to guide the strategic direction of its work through to the final report:

place the child or young person at the centre of what we do

support families to care for their children

use evidence-based approaches to get the best results

support the connection of all children, including Māori children, to their family, cultures and communities

have the same high level of aspiration for vulnerable children as we do for all other New Zealand children

help all New Zealanders to make a difference for vulnerable children

6 endorse the four building blocks the Panel has identified for providing the foundation for the development of the new operating model:

a child-centred system

22

an investment approach for vulnerable children

a professional practice framework

engaging all New Zealanders

7 note I will report back to Cabinet early in the New Year following the receipt of the final report with proposals for a new operating model for CYF, including advice on budget and legislative implications

8 note I have agreed that work begin immediately ahead of the delivery of the final report in the following areas:

a feasibility study on the use of an actuarial valuation to support an investment approach

engaging the philanthropic sector to develop proposals for a new advocacy service for children and young people in contact with CYF

engaging New Zealanders in the care experience and how they can help support and care for vulnerable children and young people

9 note I intend to release the Interim Report following consideration of this paper at Cabinet in order to help prepare CYF for the nature and scale of the direction of change envisaged by the Panel.

Hon Anne Tolley Minister for Social Development ______ / ______ / ____

23

Annex Two: Modernising CYF Expert Panel Practice and Māori Reference Group Membership Practice Reference Group

Member Role

Member

Member Role

Shannon Pakura

New Zealand Parole Board member. Former Professional Advisor for the Social Worker Registration Board and Former Chief Social Worker, CYF. Shannon also teaches social work students and is completing a PhD.

Kelly Anderson

Practice Advisor, CYF. Former South Island Regional Director. Kelly is a registered social worker.

Alison Hussey

Senior Advisor, Ministry of Health - Nursing. Alison has a long history of working for Plunket, most recently as National Clinical Advisor. Alison has a Master of Philosophy in Nursing and is a registered nurse.

Tusha Penny

Superintendent, National Manager Prevention, New Zealand Police. Formerly Child Protection and Sexual Violence manager at New Zealand Police.

Jonelle McNeil Site Manager, CYF. Member of Te Potae Kohatu (CYF Māori Leadership Governance Group). Jonelle is a registered Social Worker.

Linda Surtees CEO, Fostering Kids. Former Care Advisor, CYF and managed a fostercare home for both the Open Home Foundation and CYF.

Peter Alexander Youth Justice Manager, CYF. Formerly seconded as Regional Practice Advisor for Auckland. Holds a Bachelor in Social Work. Ian Hyslop

Professor of Social Work, University of Auckland. Former social work teacher, Unitec and CYF practice manager in South and West Auckland. Ian is a registered social worker.

Mike Munnelly

General Manager, Child and Family Services, Barnados. Mike worked in the UK in child protection before moving to New Zealand. Formerly, Mike ran the social work programme at Manukau Institute of Technology, worked at CYF and held a national role at Department of Labour. Mike holds a Masters in social work and public administration.

Robyn Corrigan

Member of MSD Chief Executive Advisory Panel for Complaints and Children’s Action Plan Expert Advisory Panel. Former Professional Practice Leader – Northern at Family Works, inaugural Chair of the Social Workers Registration Board (SWRB) and a past-President of the Aotearoa NZ Association of Social Workers (ANZASW).

24

Māori Reference Group

Member Role

Member

Member Role

Rangitane Marsden

Chief Executive Officer, Te Runanga o Ngai Takoto (Northland Māori iwi) and Co-Chairperson of the Te Hiku (Social Accord) Secretariat. Rangitane was involved in Treaty Settlement Negotiations and now in Post Settlement Governance establishment. Rangitane formerly work 22 years at CYF including as a Practice Leader and was also a Public Service Association representative.

Miri Rawiri

Executive Director, Te Kahui Atawhai O te Motu (National body for Iwi and Maori Social Service providers). Formerly CEO, Ngati Ranginui Iwi (Social services), National Iwi Maori Development Advisor and Contract Specialist, CYF. Former NGO Advisor for Anne Tolley, MSD-ISO Strategy, and CYF Care Forum. Miri holds a Bachelor in Social Science and a Diploma in Clinical Psychology.

David Greig Social Worker. Former Youth Justice Coordinator and Adoptions Coordinator, David has extensive experience working bi-culturally.

Pep Taiaroa Works with Te Oranganui (Iwi Health Authority).

Donna Matahaere-Atariki

Member, University of Otago Council and Treaty of Waitangi Committee and member of the Etu Whānau (Maori movement for positive change) Advisory Group to MSD. Former member of Programme Management Advisory Council, CYF, Care and Protection Blueprint Development Group and National Advisory Council – Families & Communities Service. Donna served on the National Taskforce Family Violence.

Moana Eruera

Principal Advisor Māori, CYF. Former Director, Kaahukura Enterprises (Consultancy that supported social services organisations nationally). Moana was a member of the Social Work Registration Board and also a member of the Northland Ministry of Social Development Community Response Forum. She is a former Social Work Lecturer. Moana is a registered social worker.

Martin Kaipo

Chief Executive Officer, Otangarie Trust – providing structured youth programmes and family support community. Martin has held this position for 24 years and holds a masters in Māori Development.

Leland Ruwhiu Principal Advisor Māori, CYF. Leland is a senior consultant, LENIC Consultancy & Associates. Formerly a Senior Lecturer, Massey University and social worker.

Juanita (Whiti) Timutimu

Māori responsiveness advisor, New Zealand Police. Whiti manages Te Roopu Tatai Hono (prevention branch).