26 life-without-barriers

Life Without Barriers
Institutional
Responses to
Child Sexual
Abuse in Out of
Home Care
Submission in Response to
Consultation Paper

ROYAL COMMISSION INTO
INSTITUTIONAL RESPONSES TO
CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE IN OOHC
SUBMISSION IN RESPONSE TO
CONSULTATION PAPER
Document is considered uncontrolled once printed
Date of last review: 22 April 2016
Life Without Barriers – Response to Royal Commission consultation paper 1
About Life Without Barriers
Life Without Barriers (LWB) is a not-for-profit organisation working in more than 300 communities
across Australia. Our services currently support over 11,500 people living in their own homes or in
residential houses that we manage.
We support children, young people and families, people with disability, older people and people
with mental illness. We work with people who are homeless and refugees and asylum seekers.
LWB is committed to reconciliation and improving outcomes and opportunities for Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander peoples.
At Life Without Barriers, the wellbeing of children is our greatest concern. We provide a range of
services for children, young people and families including home-based foster care, residential care,
family contact, post care, youth advocacy and mentoring. We support over 2,200 children and
young people in out-of-home care placements and ensuring children are well cared for, supported
and protected from sexual and physical abuse is an absolute, non-negotiable priority.
Our Response
We welcome the opportunity to respond to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to
Child Sexual Abuse in Out-of-Home Care consultation paper. This submission will respond to each
chapter of the consultation paper individually with some overall remarks, based on our practice
experience, about what works or does not work in addressing child sexual abuse in out-of-home
care.
Overall, as our response will indicate, we largely agree with the analysis and positions put forward
in the consultation paper. As a national organisation, delivering out of home care in every state and
territory with the exception of ACT, our submission draws on our comparative experience of the
service systems in the different jurisdictions and our key observations of strengths and areas for
improvement in the different state-based approaches.
We particularly support the need for harmonisation nationally to achieve consistent levels of
protection, care and support for all children, irrespective of geographical location. We are also of
the view that more support is needed for out-of-home care (OOHC) providers to build capacity in
all aspects of preventing and responding to child sexual abuse, including support for
implementation of evidence-based training and treatment programs and research into their
effectiveness.
We wish to thank the Royal Commission for the opportunity to contribute to this important
conversation and look forward to working collaboratively with our sector to achieve positive
change.

CONSULTATION PAPER
Child sexual exploitation and child-to-child sexual abuse
Given their pre-care experiences, which often include a background of complex trauma, children
and young people in OOHC – in particular residential care – are extremely vulnerable to mental
health, behavioural and developmental problems. Some of these children and young people are
likely to present with problematic and/or harmful sexual behaviours. They are also at a higher risk
of being victims of sexual exploitation.
It is recognised in LWB and the OOHC sector generally that practice improvement is required in
the way in which we prevent, identify and respond to problematic and harmful sexual behaviours of
children and young people in residential care.
The aim of our OOHC services are to enhance wellbeing and keep a child or young person safe from
further sexual, physical and/or psychological harm, and to minimise the risk to other children and
young people. Such placements are designed to protect those presenting with sexually problematic
or harmful behaviours by minimising both the risk of and opportunity for the behaviour to recur.
However, there are a number of challenges encountered in day-to-day practice and LWB has been
developing strategies to improve our responses.
In this extremely complex area of care, we have recognised the need to ensure that our staff are
well equipped to identify, understand and effectively respond to problematic sexual behaviour and
to do so in an appropriate and timely manner. We are currently developing an approach for
preventing, identifying and responding to problematic and harmful sexualised behaviours which
relies on a number of inter-related components. These include:
 Guidelines and a training package for staff, Identifying and Responding to Sexualised
Behaviours in Children and Young People, developed by True Relationships
Queensland;
 Specialised practice tools;
 Access to expert advice as required;
 Information and support about treatment options;
 Training in working with children and young people to develop positive and protective
behaviours; and,
 Sexuality and relationships education targeted at children and young people in OOHC.
The development of this approach is being supported by an Advisory Group including external
experts such as representatives from New Street Adolescent Services and the NSW Department of
Family and Community Services (FaCS), and has a collaborative focus through the involvement of
other service providers. An internal LWB Implementation Group will be established to inform the
Advisory Group and to develop and drive plans and actions.
The growing incidence of child-to-child sexual abuse also highlights the need to develop
specialised response models which allow for greater flexibility in placement matching processes,
the support of external expertise in providing treatment responses and the prevention of re-
traumatisation of young people.
We strongly agree that that there is currently a lack of adequate and sufficient treatment responses
for children across Australia who display sexually harmful behaviours. We would support nationally

CONSULTATION PAPER
consistent accreditation and professional development training for counsellors working in this field
and the development of evidence-based training packages for OOHC staff and carers.
We are also concerned by the trend to label as ‘perpetrators’ those who are also in many ways
victims, as well as the criminalisation of young people who are in need of a therapeutic response.
We see an opportunity for increased collaboration between OOHC, justice systems, including police,
and mental health sectors to ensure early intervention and improved access to treatment responses.
Data limitations
Life Without Barriers recognises the importance and value of improving the quality of data on child
sexual abuse in out-of-home care. As reported to the Royal Commission in 2014, LWB has
undertaken extensive work to consolidate a range of local incident registers into a single national
register covering all facets of OOHC service delivery. This process included data validation to
create a unique client identification number for each child involved in an allegation or report of
sexual abuse.
Taking this work further, in mid-2015 LWB commenced a major project to purchase and configure
an organisation-wide incident management software system. This will improve reliability and
access to information for staff as well as combining multiple event types – such as incidents,
complaints, investigations and whistle-blower disclosure – in a single system. We expect this to be
operational in the first quarter of financial year 2016-17.
To address the complexity inherent to different jurisdictional notification requirements and
terminology, LWB has internally adopted nationwide definitions, which have been translated into
each jurisdiction where required. This has necessitated extensive training support and change
management to enable staff to understand the differences between nationally consistent internal
incident categories and external jurisdiction-specific categories.
To help minimise this burden across agencies, we would support the Royal Commission’s
consideration of a standard national set of incident codes for OOHC service delivery agencies to
report on all forms of child sexual abuse. The adoption of common national terminology for incident
reporting would also improve consolidated information collected for AIHW reports and other
research agencies.
Another area of concern is that while we advance our internal capability to collect and collate
nationally standardised data on reports or allegations of child sexual abuse, there is no clear
pathway or ownership for the data to be made available outside of LWB. This is particularly
relevant in NSW, where service delivery agencies collect and report a range of information on
behalf of the Department. We suggest it should be primarily the role of government agencies to
collate and monitor sector information provided by NGOs, and to feed collated results to AIHW in
order to avoid an unwieldy individual transfer arrangement with each agency.
Returning to internal data collection, LWB currently records much of the recommended data for
each allegation of sexual abuse, including:
 The date of the incident;

CONSULTATION PAPER
 The date of the report;
 The location where the incident took place; and,
 The relationship of the perpetrator to the victim.
The capacity to collect and record demographic data will be incorporated into the new incident
management system, as will the recording of police reports and outcomes of criminal and civil
justice responses.
However, a significant issue for LWB, and presumably other non-government organisations
(NGOs), is that we often have no access to details about the perpetrator in incidents where we are
not involved or included in the investigation process. Of particular concern is our capacity to obtain
accurate and complete information about children and young people under 18 who enter OOHC or
transfer between placements and have been alleged or proven to have displayed harmful sexual
behaviours against other children. In addition to our comments on information sharing elsewhere in
this submission, we suggest that the Royal Commission identify means by which agencies can
access confidential information about any history of problematic and/or sexualised behaviours
involving a child or young person prior to a placement.
Disaggregation of data is another systems-level improvement that LWB aims to implement in the
near future. LWB currently disaggregates incident data at a sector level for OOHC, however, we
expect by the first quarter of financial year 2016-17 to be in a position to capture and report on
disaggregated primary placement types at local, state and national levels. Coupled with the
national internal definition framework described above, this data will improve LWBs capacity to
provide consistently meaningful and detailed reporting across our OOHC service delivery.
Improved data collection will be used to help facilitate better outcomes for children and young
people in OOHC. LWB has recently developed a suite of outcomes indicators for this cohort,
grouped by four key outcome areas: safety, stability, participation and wellbeing.
In the context of the subject of this consultation paper, safety outcomes reporting is used to
analyse data related to individuals and groups to identify changes in frequency over time to safety
related incidents, including:
 Sexual or indecent assault, abuse or exploitation
 Physical assault
 Abuse, neglect or exploitation
 Alleged and actual harm
 Absconded or missing person
 Self-harm or suicide attempts
 Restricted or prohibited practices
A key use of this information is to provide timely support for frontline case managers and clinical
staff to quickly identify and prioritise resources to assist children displaying escalating behaviours.
We should also mention that any report of sexual assault of a child or young person in OOHC,
regardless of where it is recorded, is deemed a critical incident and escalated immediately through

CONSULTATION PAPER
all levels of LWB to the Chief Executive Officer. This is in order to closely monitor our response,
and to ensure that appropriate care and support is provided to the child or young person
concerned. All incidents of this nature are also reported to the Board by the Risk Management
Committee. These measures situate accountability at the most senior levels of the organisation
and guarantee that preventative measures are built in to LWB’s future direction
Regulation and oversight
Life Without Barriers supports the position that all OOHC providers be required to hold
accreditation to a minimum, nationally consistent standard. We are of the view that nationally
consistent accreditation standards supported by strong enforcement processes will mean that:
 The quality of care provided to all children and young people across Australia is the
same no matter where they live;
 A national picture of outcomes for children in care can be created; and,
 Outcomes can be reported, measured and monitored in a transparent, efficient and
consistent manner over time with minimal difficulty comparing data sets.
National standards would make it much easier for national NGOs to operate if the accreditation
standards for each State and Territory were consistent. LWB holds the view that the current NSW
accreditation standards are an appropriate guide and could be constructively adapted as national
standards.
For example, in NSW the Office of the Children’s Guardian – a body independent to the relevant
jurisdiction’s lead – already has responsibility for assessing and granting accreditation. The same
applies to ongoing responsibility for monitoring accredited providers’ compliance with conditions
and standards of accreditation. With that said, it is noted that while the Children’s Guardian is an
independent statutory body, it retains a reporting relationship with the Minister for Family and
Community Services. In our view consideration should be given to altering this kind of reporting
relationship – for example, to the Attorney General – to achieve greater actual and perceived
independence.
Monitoring and enforcement of standards should also be undertaken in a nationally consistent
manner. LWB holds the view that the enforcement of standards, rather than the standards
themselves, is the critical factor in the regulation and oversight challenge. We would support a
strong and adequately resourced nationally consistent enforcement mechanism. We also believe
that NGO Boards should be at the forefront of protecting children and preventing abuse within their
organisation’s OOHC services, and that regulation needs to hold Boards responsible for
organisational performance and outcomes around child safety.
LWB supports nationally consistent carer authorisation assessments for reasons similar to those
above. An additional benefit of these may be the increasing professionalisation of foster care, a
theme of the Royal Commission’s paper. LWB has for some time had in place extensive carer
assessment processes which include probity checks, comprehensive criminal background checks
and the Working With Children Check (WWCC) and we see no reason why this could not become
a national standard.

CONSULTATION PAPER
Feedback from children in care about their placement is a critical part of our ongoing assessment
of carers. This feedback is sought away from the carer and the carer’s household. We see no
reason that this too could not be built in to a national standard for regular carer reassessment.
Independent oversight of complaints handling is another mechanism already in place in the NSW
context, falling within the purview of the NSW Ombudsman. The Ombudsman’s powers, however,
are only effective if the public is aware that they can conduct investigations into the complaints
handling process – more information about this process directed at the general public is required.
Administrative review of decisions can also be undertaken by the New South Wales Civil and
Administrative Tribunal (NCAT). Whilst this process adds an additional safeguard to ensure the
appropriateness of child-focused decision making by FaCS and the NGO sector, it is important to
ensure that Tribunal members receive adequate training and apply community standards when
making decisions about returning children to carers where serious allegations have been made.
Unless community standards are imparted into oversight decisions by bodies such as NCAT,
children in OOHC could continue to be placed at risk.
Reportable conduct and other carer data is also captured by the Carers Register in NSW, however,
as this is a new arrangement there are years of reporting that may not be accessible through this
mechanism. From our experience in NSW, a key element of developing a register for each
jurisdiction must be the addition of supporting legislation to enable organisations operating in
different jurisdictions to openly share information. Legislation that allows NGOs to share
information with child protection bodies in other states – rather than restricting this to governmental
child protection bodies – is also required.
With those points in mind, LWB supports a nationwide Carers Register despite the significant
administrative burden that may arise in exchanging information between states. We believe that
this is fundamental to enhancing across the board protections in all states and jurisdictions.
While we consider the NSW Carers Register to be working well in general, from an operational
perspective there are some improvements that we would like to see made. Reporting is one area
that is quite limited – as an example, we currently do not have the capacity to extract a list of
authorised carers and household members by name. Another key issue is that only FaCS is
currently able to transfer carer data into the register – NGOs need to provide this information
individually, thus creating an enormous administrative burden.
On the other hand, a significant advantage of the current arrangement in NSW in terms of probity
is that the Children’s Guardian also operates the WWCC system. This means that NGOs receive
alerts if an individual is barred from working with children, if their accreditation is about to expire or
if household members are about to turn 18. Data verification is further assisted by this arrangement
in that the identification details provided to Roads and Maritime Services as part of the WWCC
process must match the data in the Carers Register – if they do not, NGOs are required to review
and update the Register. This helps safeguard against the use of aliases, slight changes to birth
dates and so forth to bypass probity systems.
Information sharing
LWB broadly agrees with the Royal Commission’s proposals for improving information sharing in
OOHC contexts. We would like to stress the importance, from our perspective, of the term

CONSULTATION PAPER
‘institution’ being clarified to retain the broad definition consistent with the Royal Commission’s
terms of reference.
In particular, we strongly agree that nationally consistent arrangements for intra-jurisdictional and
inter-jurisdictional exchange of information related to the safety and wellbeing of children can and
should be implemented. One of the biggest issues facing designated agencies in NSW and
elsewhere is the inability to exchange information with interstate child protection agencies. This is
especially important as case management transfer becomes embedded in NSW, and the fact that
many of the families with whom we work regularly move between states and jurisdictions.
We also believe that the definition of prescribed bodies should be expanded to allow designated
agencies to seek information from Commonwealth bodies – these should include the Department
of Immigration and Border Protection, the Family Court, Centrelink and the Health Insurance
Commission (Medicare). The ability to seek information from Medicare would be particularly useful
in those cases where there are allegations of medical neglect, or simply as a means by which to
locate parents or seek confirmation that they are seeing specified medical practitioners. Similarly,
Centrelink would be a useful organisation with which to exchange information for the purpose of
locating a parent’s most recent address.
It is recognised that such an information exchange regime is very broad and unprecedented,
especially within the NGO sector. LWB concedes that it would require appropriate checks and
balances to ensure that such powers are being properly exercised by agencies other than the
statutory child protection department of the state. To allay any concerns, we would recommend
that the NGO sector be required to ensure that the delegation for the exercise of these powers
resides at a sufficiently senior level.
Child safe organisations
Life Without Barriers firmly believes that ensuring the safety of children in OOHC must be a
responsibility shared by all facets of the OOHC system.
Both government agencies and NGOs are responsible and should be held accountable for
ensuring that they implement the key elements of child safe organisations in order to provide the
best possible protection for vulnerable children and young people. This includes developing an
appropriate level of knowledge about child sexual abuse so that prevention, detection and
response can be handled appropriately.
Similarly, all adults who work for OOHC providers share the responsibility for the safety of children
supported by that agency or organisation. In particular, frontline staff and foster carers who work
with children in OOHC are responsible for attending training and acquiring knowledge in relation to
appropriate and inappropriate behaviour in relation to children, the indicators of child sexual abuse,
and appropriate responses to indicators and disclosures of abuse.
At LWB, we also understand that maintaining a child safe organisation requires more than just
practically focused training and knowledge acquisition. As the Royal Commission has identified,
there are a range of factors that may compromise children’s safety that cannot be easily addressed
with training alone. These include the often complex dynamics of abuse, such as where
perpetrators ‘groom the system’ around the child, and preconceived notions around the

CONSULTATION PAPER
characteristics of perpetrators – too often we hear phrases like ‘I can’t believe that person did this –
they were such a likeable person’.
For this reason, LWB is committed to not only training staff at all levels but to ensuring that they
understand the dynamics, internal processes and conditions that may compromise child safety,
and to help them adopt a proactive stance and vigilant attitude toward the safety and wellbeing of
children and young people. This includes assistance to overcome the emotional, psychological and
behavioural barriers that some staff may have to reporting unsafe behaviours when they are
exhibited by a colleague or friend.
Regulatory bodies should be accountable for implementing systems of oversight to ensure that
OOHC providers have the essential elements of child safe organisations in place. LWB supports
the independent oversight of investigations into allegations of child sexual abuse, as per the
function performed by the NSW Ombudsman discussed above. This helps to ensure that individual
matters are handled properly, and that agencies are supported to build capacity in their response
systems.
The Royal Commission has identified nine key elements to focus on in making organisations safe
for children. These elements are set out below, with consideration to their application to the OOHC
setting and specifically strategies and actions we have taken at LWB.
Organisational leadership, governance and culture
A visible commitment to a child-safe organisation by its leaders, and a clearly stated expectation
that all adults share the responsibility for child abuse prevention, are essential to ensuring that a
culture of child safety permeates throughout OOHC organisations.
LWBs approach to child safety, We Put Children First, incorporates the following elements which
aim to address the leadership, governance and culture aspects of child safety:
 A booklet that details LWBs position on the shared responsibility for child safety;
describes unacceptable behaviour in relation to children and LWBs response to such
behaviour; and, advises staff and carers what to do if they are concerned about the
safety of a child we support.
 A stated commitment by the Board of Directors to be accountable for the organisation’s
performance in child safety.
 A filmed statement by the Chief Executive outlining our position on child safety, which
has been shown to every member of the organisation – including the Board of Directors
– and is used in the induction of all new staff and carers. This video is also publicly
available on our website.
 Signed acknowledgement by all Board Directors, Executives, staff members and foster
carers that they have read and understood We Put Children First.
 Discussion at all team meetings across the organisation, including corporate support
teams, of We Put Children First.
A copy of We Put Children First is attached to this submission.

CONSULTATION PAPER
Human resources management
Stringent human resources management practices are vital for OOHC providers as they engage a
large number of people in employee and foster carer positions who work, often unsupervised,
directly with children. In particular, foster carers carry a high level of position-related risk,
interacting as they do with children in private homes, mostly unsupervised, and taking on the full
range of care for children, sometimes including personal care. To a lesser extent, the same is also
the case for residential support workers.
As part of our We Put Children First strategy, LWB includes a statement about our commitment to
child safety when recruiting Board members and in all staff and carer recruitment advertisements,
contracts of employment and carer engagement letters.
LWB has implemented standard interview questions for applicants to client-facing roles in order to
gauge attitudes and beliefs toward professional relationships with clients, shared responsibility and
other child safety concerns. Human resources and hiring managers are provided with guidance in
relation to what to look for in responses that should cause concern or conversely, indicate a good
understanding of child safety and shared responsibility. Training provided to recruitment specialists
in our Human Resources teams includes a focus on child safety considerations in recruitment.
We have also implemented a standard question for applicant referees, asking them directly about
any concerns the referee may have about the candidate working directly with children.
Employee screening is an essential aspect of human resources management, although obviously
not sufficient on its own to ensure child safety. LWB has a centralised system for recording probity
checks for all Board Directors, employees and carers and their household members – this includes
automated reminders prior to credential expiry and access to on-demand reporting. Compliance
with probity screening requirements, both internal and external, is a performance indicator for our
Executive team. This is monitored and enforced by the Board of Directors, who receive an annual
report of probity checks for the Executive team.
As we have advised the Commission previously, LWB is in a unique position to understand the
variance that exists across Australia with regard to probity checking, assessment, support,
monitoring and training requirements for foster carers. LWB supports the Commission’s findings
and proposals in relation to improving consistency of these practices across Australia, so that all
children are afforded the same level of safeguards, no matter where they live.
Child safe policies and procedures
Chid safe policies and procedures are an essential part of setting organisational expectations,
however as noted by the Commission, not sufficient in the absence of implementation and
supervision strategies to support them.
LWBs We Put Children First messaging is reiterated in all relevant policy and procedure
documents. The We Put Children First document and filmed Chief Executive statement is also
featured on our website, along with associated policy documents.

CONSULTATION PAPER
Child-focused complaint processes
We welcome the Commission’s recognition of the importance of child-focused complaints
processes. This is expressly important in OOHC agencies as children in care are inherently
vulnerable to abuse and may not have the level of support others may have in making a complaint.
OOHC agencies need to create a supportive culture around reporting complaints, and to ensure
that they can provide access to adults equipped to respond appropriately. This includes all aspects
of the complaint resolution spectrum, from the initial response to a child, conducting appropriate
investigations or enquiries into complaints, incorporating good practice in relation to
communication, support for the complainant, and equity and fairness throughout.
The NSW Community Services Complaints Review and Monitoring Act (1993) sets additional
principles and requirements for community services agencies’ handling of complaints. LWB
supports these requirements, unique in Australia, as they are effective in requiring agencies to
have proper processes in place. The NSW Ombudsman provides considerable support for
agencies to develop capability in complaint management, in order that they are able to comply with
this Act.
In addition to having the right mechanisms in place, it is important that children in OOHC are aware
of their rights and understand how to make complaints, both within and outside of their supervising
agency. To help facilitate this, in late 2014 Life Without Barriers conducted an exercise in which all
children in OOHC were provided with a copy of their rights, as relevant to their state or territory,
and provided with a postcard outlining simple mechanisms for making a complaint within LWB
(both direct to their allocated worker and to a local office) and to the relevant external authority
(e.g. the Ombudsman or Children’s Commission).
This exercise was conducted during regular home visits – with the addition of centralised oversight
– providing the opportunity for all children to be visited in the place where they live and to discuss
issues around rights and complaints with their caseworker. Children were also asked some simple
questions about whether they felt safe and part of the family where they live, the results of which
are attached. While the results were mostly positive, LWB recognises there is still work to be done
and is conducting further analysis using client data to assess the factors that contribute to feelings
of safety and happiness for children and young people in care. Where children reported that they
didn’t feel safe, or where the caseworker felt there may be a risk to their safety or wellbeing, these
concerns were immediately escalated to management.
Education and training
LWB is committed to ensuring that all adults who work with children have the required level of
knowledge about the characteristics and incidence of child sexual abuse. The capacity for staff and
carers to detect, report and respond appropriately is crucial to the safety of children.
The Commission has noted that there are varying requirements for training for staff and carers in
OOHC providers across Australia, with some states requiring training in child abuse issues for
carers as a mandatory condition of authorisation or registration, while in others this is left to
providers’ discretion.

CONSULTATION PAPER
Life Without Barriers supports a more consistent approach to training for carers, so that children
placed in OOHC are afforded the same level of protection regardless of where they live.
Education and training should encompass:
 child-safe practices;
 indicators of abuse;
 the characteristics of child sexual abuse perpetrators;
 the characteristics of child sexual abuse;
 grooming behaviour;
 responding to disclosures; and
 reporting requirements.
Training should not be limited to carers and staff in client-facing roles. Managers and relevant
support staff – such as human resources staff who are involved in recruitment and dismissal
decisions – should also be provided with training in the abovementioned areas.
Children’s participation and empowerment
For OOHC providers, recognising and observing the rights of children to express their views and
participate in decisions that affect their lives should play a key role in service delivery. Agencies
make decisions about key aspects of children’s lives on a daily basis – case planning processes
and other decision-making mechanisms must give due consideration to the views of children,
taking into account their age and developmental stage.
Encouraging and supporting children’s participation also serves to create a culture which respects
the importance of children and the primacy of their rights, as well as increasing safety by building
children’s confidence to raise concerns and complaints.
These principles form the backbone of LWBs Client Engagement Strategy, approved by the Board
in 2016. The strategy draws on internationally recognised best practice for client engagement
(International Association for Public Participation, 2015), comprising the following steps:
 Information: providing balanced, accurate and objective information to understand
problems, opportunities, alternatives and solutions;
 Consultation: obtaining feedback on analysis, alternatives and/or outcomes;
 Involvement: working directly with stakeholders to ensure their concerns and needs are
consistently understood and considered;
 Collaboration: partnering in developing alternatives, making decisions and the
identification of preferred solutions; and,
 Empowerment: enabling and equipping stakeholders to actively contribute to the
achievement of outcomes and placing final decision-making in their hands.
A key focus will be the development of fit-for-purpose, appropriately targeted approaches for
children and families, as well as addressing organisational factors such as workplace culture,
policies, training, management of caseloads and resolution of service gaps. The Strategy is

CONSULTATION PAPER
currently in the implementation phase and will be overseen by the Board of Directors via the LWB
Practice Committee.
Family and community involvement
Family and community involvement in all organisations that work with children is essential to good
governance. It is also a protective factor, ensuring that organisations are transparent and
accountable to families. This is particularly important for children in OOHC, helping to ensure that
they maintain a network of supporters – in addition to their carer and caseworker – who are
involved with them and interested in their welfare. These networks are often the first to speak up if
a safety concern arises and can sometimes be best placed to advocate for the child and to support
them if abuse occurs.
The organisation’s physical and online environment
A situational prevention approach to child sexual abuse, as described by Stephen Smallbone
(Smallbone, Marshall and Wortley, 2008), outlines the importance of managing the environment to
reduce the risk of abuse occurring rather than focussing only on the risk that particular individuals
may pose.
Making changes to the physical environment is challenging for OOHC agencies, particularly as the
bulk of service provision occurs in private homes and residential units rather than classrooms or
sports centres. These challenges are discussed in more detail below.
Notwithstanding this, there are some environmental changes that can be made within OOHC
agencies. One of these is to make prominent the position the organisation takes on child safety,
thereby discouraging potential offending. By way of example, at LWB, We Put Children First
posters, pens, and fridge magnets are distributed to all offices, residential units and foster homes.
This helps to ensure that the physical environment reinforces the importance of child safety as well
as maintaining awareness at all times of our willingness to act to ensure that children are
protected.
The online exploitation of children is also a challenging issue for providers to grapple with. This
type of abuse is less visible, and young people are becoming increasingly sophisticated in their
online activities. Agencies should be clear with staff regarding expectations about their own use of
social media, especially with regard to clients, and should also educate staff and carers about the
risks associated with children in OOHC using social media.
LWB has produced a resource – Children and young people in out-of-home care and social media
– which aims to provide information to carers and staff about the opportunities and risks associated
with the use of social media, including cyberbullying, sexting and sexual abuse via the internet.
Review and continuous improvement of policies and processes
Creating and maintaining a child safe organisational culture requires constant attention, review and
improvement. Processes around training, recruiting, reporting and responding should be regularly
reviewed and refined, as organisations learn from their own experience and from external
expertise.

CONSULTATION PAPER
LWB supports the application of all of the aforementioned elements of child safe organisations to
providers of all types of services to children and young people, including all forms of OOHC.
Although the size, governance arrangements, culture and service offerings of OOHC providers
vary widely, the elements identified by the commission are broadly applicable and able to be
implemented and regulated in a range of settings.
It is important that any oversight or regulation regime for OOHC providers is accompanied by an
integrated approach that supports and enables agencies to implement child-safe strategies. This
should include:
 Adequate funding to implement strategies such as general education and training, as
well as capacity building in specialist areas such as responding to complaints and
allegations in a range of areas;
 Enabling access to expertise, knowledge and resources; and,
 Development of accredited industry standard training packages for staff and foster
carers.
Ideally, regulation and oversight of child-safe strategies would be incorporated into existing or
broader regulatory mechanisms for OOHC providers without creating an additional regulatory
burden. We have commented elsewhere on the issues of the separation of funding and regulatory
mechanisms in OOHC, as well as the need for regulation of government as well as non-
government providers, as is the case in NSW.
LWB has identified several additional challenges and considerations for the OOHC sector when it
comes to implementing child safe standards:
 Children in OOHC are more vulnerable to abuse than others. This is due to a range of
factors including disability, previous history of abuse, neglect and trauma, social
isolation, and separation from family and community. It is therefore particularly
important for OOHC providers to pay attention to issues of chid safety, and to consider
the protection of children as core business.
 OOHC providers are in a parental role – children in OOHC are, by definition, separated
from their birth parents. The responsibility for the multiple legal and administrative
aspects of decision-making in relation to children in OOHC is located variously within
government departments and non-government providers, depending on jurisdiction.
Notwithstanding this, the organisation with responsibility for supervising the placement
of the child has an unavoidable and significant responsibility for the safety and
protection of that child. All parties within the provider organisation share this
responsibility – governing bodies, management, staff and foster carers.

CONSULTATION PAPER
 The majority of children in OOHC live in private family homes as most children requiring
care will have their needs best met by placement in foster care. These environments
are, however, challenging to monitor. We want carers to provide homes that are loving
and caring. We know that children thrive with physical affection, and that it can
contribute to a reparative environment for children with traumatic backgrounds. For
these and many other reasons, family homes are, by their nature, not easily subject to
monitoring of physical environments in the same way that other organisational settings
are. This means that OOHC providers must ensure that:
– Carers are appropriately screened and assessed
– Children in OOHC have relationships with trusted adults outside of the foster
home
– Children know how to raise issues and make complaints within and outside of
their agency
– Children know about appropriate and inappropriate behaviour from adults
– Staff are capable of detecting and responding to indicators and disclosures of
child sexual abuse.
 Related to the above is balancing the demand for monitoring with maintaining a family
environment. A challenge unique to OOHC is the need for stringent oversight to ensure
child safety combined with the aim that children in OOHC experience as ‘normal’ a
family environment as possible.
Ultimately, the key to continued good practice development is the sharing of research, expertise
and practice experience.
As suggested above, in NSW, the Ombudsman has made a significant positive impact on the
capacity of OOHC providers (and other agencies) to respond to and investigate allegations of
reportable conduct via the provision of expert advice, support and oversight, and we support the
introduction of an equivalent oversight scheme in all states and territories. Similarly, the NSW
Children’s Guardian plays an important role in developing child safe organisations via education
and training.
It is also important for agencies themselves to be encouraged to take the initiative to build child
safety into their organisations, and to share their successes. LWB has shared our We Put Children
First initiative widely in the sector, with the aim of continuing the conversation about what works to
ensure that child safety remains everybody’s responsibility.
Prevention of child sexual abuse in out of home care
Life Without Barriers strongly recommends that a strategy to prevent sexual abuse in OOHC needs
to be located within the context of comprehensive strategies at systemic, community and individual
levels to prevent entry to OOHC in the first place.
We support a greater emphasis on, and investment in, early interventions that support children to
remain safely with their families and services that support early restoration where children have
been removed from their families. Universal services and specialist adult services have an
essential role to play in both the early identification of children and young people at risk, and the

CONSULTATION PAPER
provision of support based on a holistic assessment of families’ needs (State of Victoria, 2012;
Wood, 2008).
The emphasis of policy and programs should extend beyond parents accessing services to
‘reaching out’ to engage with vulnerable parents and families, including:
 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families;
 Parents who are themselves in OOHC or have a care history; and,
 Parents and families who have previously had children removed.
LWB encourages the continued development and expansion of an effective system for early
intervention which has the capacity to both identify at-risk children and families and deliver services
that meet their needs. This approach is reflected in programs such as Communities for Children.
At a systemic level, a leadership and accountability framework that promotes interagency work and
coordinated multidisciplinary responses across related sectors – including domestic and family
violence, mental health, drug and alcohol and homelessness services – is a key requirement of an
effective service system. Moreover, the system needs to be child-centred, with interactions and the
quality of relationships between professionals and a child and their family being a key indicator of
the effectiveness of a response. Assistance delivered early on is better for children as it minimises
the period of adverse experiences and improves outcomes for children (Munro, 2011).
A national strategy to prevent child sexual abuse in out of home care
LWB supports the implementation of a nationally consistent education strategy as recommended in
the consultation paper. We would like to emphasise the following elements within this strategy:
 The educational strategies involving children should be framed by the concept of
healthy relationships, including issues of respect and consent. Children in OOHC are
particularly vulnerable in this area, as they may not have experienced adequate models
for healthy relationships – it is widely understood that perpetrators of child abuse exploit
this as part of the grooming process. LWB would endorse the use of evidence-based
programs such as the National Association for Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect’s
‘Love Bites’ and the adaption or tailoring of programs specifically to the needs of
children and young people in care, particularly residential care. However a range of
programs and packages are needed, as well as more research into their effectiveness.
 The strategy should be broad-based as described and aimed at a range of stakeholders
including children, young people, practitioners and carers. It should be complementary
to the strategy aimed at children and young people to support carers and others to
provide age appropriate information and to initiate and respond to discussions about
sexuality and relationships. It should also include legislative, procedural and other
requirements around reporting and responding to disclosures.
We would also recommend inclusion of birth families and parents in prevention strategies. Parents
and family are a crucial part of children’s support networks and can play an important role in
protecting and advocating for them while they are in care. Additionally:

CONSULTATION PAPER
 Many children and young people want to go home and will return home at some stage
during their care experience or shortly after leaving care.
 Many children and young people want increased and more relaxed contact with their
families while in care.
 Many parents and family with children in care have also had a care experience. Some
of these people have experienced sexual abuse in care and worry about whether or not
their children will also be abused.
 Children and young people with strong family support networks are safer and have
better long term outcomes.
 In Australian society, most children and young people have access to their parents and
other family members as advocates and supporters when making disclosures. Although
this is not realistic for some children and young people in care it will be realistic for
many and should be supported by other stakeholders whenever possible.
Policy and procedure development – including around factors contributing to child safe
organisations – accompanied by training for all stakeholders is an important part of prevention.
LWB has developed comprehensive policies and procedures to support prevention, disclosures
and responses to disclosures as well as sexualised behaviours in children and young people. As
discussed elsewhere, this task would be much better supported by a nationally consistent
regulatory and governance framework.
Due to the current limitations of the research and paucity of evidence-based training materials, we
would advocate for a coordinated cross-sector approach to the development and evaluation of the
effectiveness of training materials for key stakeholders. These should include carers and
residential care workers and focus on a range of topics including understanding healthy sexual
development, responding to problematic/harmful sexual behaviours in children and young people
and strategies to facilitate and support disclosures of sexual abuse.
Our remarks in relation to child safe organisations, particularly our We Put Children First strategy,
are also relevant to the prevention of child sexual abuse. The improvement of organisational
culture is a key part of LWBs efforts to increase our emphasis on prevention – this includes
recognising and being explicit about the fact that, as a provider of OOHC services, we are
inherently a high risk organisation for child abuse of all kinds.
A supportive and quality care environment
The importance of quality care cannot be overstated. Children and young people who experience
high quality and stable care are not only less likely to experience sexual abuse, they will also
experience better outcomes generally.
LWB strongly endorses the implementation of therapeutic care models for all children in OOHC.
There are a limited number of evidence based models available, and LWB would argue that more
research is needed to build the evidence base and to encourage innovation. However, there are

CONSULTATION PAPER
some promising models such as Sanctuary and Children and Residential Experiences (CARE) that
have been developed.
The importance of evidence and careful implementation of evidence-based
programs in developing quality care – an LWB case example
LWB is currently implementing the CARE model (Holden, 2009), beginning in New South Wales in
our residential care settings. CARE originated in 2005 in the USA and, to ensure program fidelity is
maintained, implementation has been supported by the Bronfenbrenner Centre for Translational
Research at Cornell University. The model was developed to provide a competency-based
curriculum to help residential care staff establish practices that would improve outcomes for
children in care (Holden et al, 2009).
CARE focuses on two core areas of competence. One is organisational and focuses on improving
leadership and organisational support for change. The second focuses on enhancing consistency
within and across teams around how they think about and respond to the needs of the children in
their care.
CARE has been implemented in a variety of locations in the USA, the UK, Canada and Australia.
While more research is urgently needed, there is a growing evidence base for CARE, with current
research ongoing. LWB, along with other organisations involved in implementing CARE, is
participating in data collection and current research studies.
CARE is underpinned by six principles:
1. Developmentally focused – This principle recognises that OOHC provides an opportunity to
enhance children’s chances for normal development which may have been compromised
by their pre-care or in care experiences. Staff and carers will learn how to enhance
children’s developmental competencies through:
i) Teaching children skills that are missing or maladaptive;
ii) Creating opportunities for children to practice these skills with adult
assistance; and,
iii) Adapting the environment so that children can succeed.
2. Family involved – Family are children’s first and most enduring relationship. Because a
child’s identity (in terms of race, ethnicity and culture) is inextricably tied to their family,
involving family and other community members is a vital component in planning for the
child’s return to the community.
3. Relationship based – Good quality attachments and nurturing care experiences are
necessary for children to be able to form meaningful and healthy relationships free of abuse
and coercion (Anglin, 2002; Bloom, 2005). Positive relationships between children, staff,
carers and other significant people enable children to feel safe, connect them safely with
others, to learn to trust, and be able to gain assistance to overcome barriers and problems
they face. In other words, they enhance resilience and self-care skills that children can take
with them into the future.
4. Competence centred – This refers to the combination of skills, knowledge and attitudes that
children need in order effectively to negotiate the challenges of daily life. Staff are

CONSULTATION PAPER
encouraged to help children become more competent at both managing their environment
and learning new skills.
5. Trauma informed – Research suggests that children’s development is adversely effected by
trauma, such as neglect, abuse and violence (Bloom, 1997). CARE teaches staff to take
into account the impact of a child’s trauma on all interactions, activities and expectations.
CARE stresses the importance of establishing and maintaining a safe, non-violent culture in
which children can learn adaptive ways of coping with stress.
6. Ecologically oriented – A caring and supporting environment provides the wherewithal for
children to learn how to look after others and themselves. In an environment where there
are caring adults who will show their belief in the child’s abilities and strengths a child is
motivated to learn; the more the environment can be enhanced to motivate the children to
participate in activities and relationships, the better the child’s opportunities for growth and
development (Anglin, 2002).
The implementation of these principles will contribute substantially to the prevention of child sexual
abuse, as well improving quality of care more broadly. For example, children with strong family
relationships and the presence of family members to advocate for them are less likely to be
abused. Additionally, a purposefully developed safe and protective therapeutic environment is less
likely to be one in which abuse occurs.
We would endorse a nationally consistent therapeutic trauma-informed approach that allows for the
implementation of evidence-based programs. We would also suggest that the importance of the
sector’s capacity to innovate and to implement a range of models is recognised, so long as these
are consistent with the evidence and consistent with trauma-informed care.
As part of this approach, it must be emphasised that the implementation of evidence-based
programs requires careful planning and review – CARE and most other evidence-based programs
are implemented through the use of training, tools and resources such as model policies and
procedures, quality assurance processes such as site visits and ongoing consultation/coaching
services and close monitoring of program integrity.
Placement matching
We endorse an emphasis on placement stability and matching to improve quality of care and to
prevent child sexual abuse. We agree with the Royal Commission’s finding that the current
approach does not best enable children and young people to be placed in a way that maximises
their chances for stability and safety for themselves and for other children. To the points raised in
the consultation paper we would add the following:
 The number of children currently in and entering OOHC is higher than the number of
quality caring households and placements available and that unless the numbers of
children entering and remaining in care reduces substantially this is not likely to change.

CONSULTATION PAPER
 Linked to the above, funding models are geared to outputs such as the number of
nights children spend in care. This may be incentivising agencies and systems to
provide quick and numerous placements rather than to focus on quality care and good
outcomes.
 Children are often placed in OOHC in an unplanned way, including their first entry to
care and after a placement breakdown.
 Children may be placed with other children and young people who are not related to
them. It is our experience that a practice of making multiple unrelated placements
(where children who are not related to one another or known to each other are placed
together in a foster or other placement) is a contributor to instability for all children. We
suggest that a better understanding of the impact of making multiple unrelated
placements in OOHC is needed, including more research.
 Many children and young people in care become disconnected from family and their
communities. There is some evidence that this is particularly the case for Aboriginal
children (Delfabbro, Barber and Cooper, 2002). This is despite evidence that children in
care with good quality family contact and relationships are likely to experience greater
stability and better long term outcomes (Mendes, Johnson and Moslehuddin, 2012;
Rock, Michelson, Thomson and Day, 2015). LWB would also argue that family inclusion
in all aspects of children’s lives including case planning, placement support and
education would result in greater stability and security.
 Australian OOHC systems may be reluctant to provide higher levels of support until less
costly placement methods have first been attempted. For example, a child entering care
at age 13 who has previously had care episodes and is suspended from school due to
behavioural issues is likely, at least initially, to require higher levels of support and
direct care than most foster placements can offer. The current system, however, is
geared to make an attempt – often several attempts – at the cheaper generalist foster
care option before consideration will be given to more intensive options. This
experience of placement instability can be extremely damaging for children already
suffering from the effects of trauma, loss, grief and disconnection and may lead to
greater vulnerability to abuse while in care.
Establish a nationally consistent therapeutic framework for OOHC service delivery
LWB supports the establishment of a nationally consistent therapeutic framework for OOHC
service delivery, subject to our remarks above. It is vital that organisations meet standards of care
and that these standards are developed in line with existing evidence. However, our view is that
there should not be an overly prescriptive approach for several reasons:
 The existing evidence base for ‘what works’ is still relatively limited – substantially more
research is needed.
 A number of models exist, including the CARE model being adopted by LWB, which
would meet ‘promising’ evidentiary standards.

CONSULTATION PAPER
 A highly prescribed approach may have unintended consequences such as limiting
innovation and the tailoring of responses to individual needs.
With that said, we would support enforcement of a nationally consistent therapeutic framework as
part of a national accreditation system. We also strongly support the continued development and
reporting of child outcomes and longitudinal research to inform the advancement of therapeutic
care.
Expand trauma informed therapeutic treatment, advocacy and support services
LWB supports the expansion of trauma-informed therapeutic treatment, advocacy and support
services. We would add however that the best way for children to receive quality therapeutic care –
and to prevent child sexual abuse – is in relationship with a secure social and family support
network. This may draw on paid therapists but should not rely on these entirely, as social and
family support are more enduring into adulthood, post the care experience.
We support the need for systematic training for carers and practitioners, as well as quality
supervision. We also propose that, whenever possible, parents and family members be engaged in
training and/or included in therapeutic responses with children and young people. We believe a
family inclusive approach to OOHC should be applied across the board to ensure that families
remain connected to their children in care whenever safe and possible, and that families are able
to care therapeutically for children during and after their care experience.
Enhance placement stability and reduce the number of strangers in a child’s life by
increasing the availability of placement options – including professional carer
models
LWB would support the development of a broader range of alternate care models to more flexibly
support children, young people and families including:
 Therapeutic residential options.
 Professional foster care.
 More flexible respite options for a range of OOHC placements. We would particularly
support a system where respite is provided in a child-focused way rather than being
primarily oriented to meeting carers’ needs.
 Preventative placement options including shared care and ongoing regular respite care
enabling children and young people to remain with their families. A good model for
preventative respite care is the ‘aunts and uncles’ model as described in Brennan and
Crowe (2002). When evaluated, this model was found to reduce reports of child abuse
and to increase the levels of support available to vulnerable children and families.
Caution should however be exercised around the expansion of traditional child care models to
include OOHC placement options. Child care models were primarily developed to meet the needs
of working families and are inherently voluntary, whereas children in OOHC are almost always
there because of complex family experiences including trauma, abuse and neglect which have, for

CONSULTATION PAPER
a range of reasons, led to them being removed. Families with children in care are rarely engaged
with child protection and OOHC systems on a voluntary basis.
We strongly support the need to address current barriers to professional foster care as a viable
option, as well as ensuring there is a nationally consistent carer reimbursement, training and
support system.
Provide better workforce planning and development for residential care staff
LWB supports the Royal Commission’s analysis of the need for providing better workforce planning
and development for residential care staff.
There are significant challenges in the recruitment and retention of quality staff in this sector due to
the relatively low status, difficult conditions and insufficient wages for frontline staff. We would
suggest that addressing these issues is a key element of improving retention and will make the
meeting of targets around reduced reliance on casual staff much more achievable.
Improve protections against child sexual abuse for children in kinship/relative care
LWB supports the use of ‘kin specific’ approaches to kin carer assessments using models such as
the Winangay tool described in the consultation paper.
We also support the position that children and young people in kinship care should receive
increased casework support and oversight – we believe that children in family and kinship
placements are just as likely to need casework and other supports as children placed in other
types of care. Casework support and oversight should be provided according to need and
individual circumstances and not be based on placement type or on a particular court order.
In practice, however, it is extremely difficult to impose policies and procedures, including
compulsory training, on kinship carers. With that said, if kinship carers do not want to attend
conventional training, other methods of transferring knowledge and information should be
investigated and utilised. Kinship care offers greater stability than other forms of care and it may be
extremely damaging and traumatising to end a placement solely on the basis of non-attendance at
training.
Additionally, children who are placed with extended family often do not regard themselves as being
in care and may find the roles of caseworkers and agencies confronting and stigmatising. Kinship
carers may also find it difficult to comply with implicitly rigid agency requirements for training, family
contact, investigations and the like. It is important that practice can be adapted to meet the
individual needs of children and young people and their carers/families.
The implications for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in particular need to be carefully
considered. For example, obstacles both perceived and actual associated with screening
requirements and application processes may deter otherwise willing family members from
participating, thus resulting in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children missing out on a
kinship placement.
We wholeheartedly agree with the proposals to promote the engagement of Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children with their culture. As part of our Stretch Reconciliation Action Plan, LWB

CONSULTATION PAPER
has committed to ensure that, by December 2018, at least 70% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children and young people have a Cultural Support Plan that complies with the Aboriginal
Placement Principle and includes opportunities for Return to Country.
More research into the lived experiences of Aboriginal children in care – especially those placed
with non-Aboriginal careers – is desperately needed. This is particularly urgent given the rising
numbers of Aboriginal children in care – NT has experienced strong increases as has New South
Wales (AIHW, 2015) and more than half of the WA care population is now Aboriginal (Government
of WA, 2016).
Increase support when leaving care and in the care leaver’s post-care life
LWB supports the consultation paper’s proposal that leaving care plans be developed for all care
leavers. We would also strongly support a requirement that ongoing care leaver services are
established in every state and territory, and that these offer flexible casework and other support
until young people are at least 25 years of age. These services should explicitly offer supports for
making complaints and applying for compensation, including legal advice and representation. Such
services would ideally also offer a broad range of flexible supports aimed at improving life
outcomes in domains such as housing, health, education and employment.
As an example, in Queensland, NEXT STEP Aftercare commenced in March 2015. Delivered
through a partnership between LWB, the CREATE Foundation and Uniting Care Community, it
provides ready access to information and practical advice on day-to-day issues such as sourcing
housing and accommodation, money, health and relationship and support with training and jobs.
The service also has the capacity to provide tailored individual support on a case-by-case basis
where required. NEXT STEP offers a 24-hour, seven-days-a-week phone service and is available
through social media, SMS, email and a dedicated website at nextstepaftercare.com.au.
We would strongly support the further development and use of internet and mobile applications to
communicate with care leavers generally and specifically to support care leavers to disclose sexual
abuse. In fact we would support the use of similar apps to communicate with and support children
and young people before they have left care.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we wish to thank the Royal Commission for the opportunity to provide feedback on
the consultation paper. Life Without Barriers is committed to continuous improvement in our sector
and we are constantly developing and implementing systems, processes and mechanisms to
ensure that child safety is at the forefront of everything we do.
As our response to the consultation paper attests, we agree broadly with the analysis and
proposals made by the Royal Commission, subject to our remarks above. In summary, we support:
 Harmonisation to achieve the same level of protection, care and support irrespective of
geographical location
 Greater consistency in definitions and thresholds across states and territories
 Greater information sharing between government departments and NGOs

CONSULTATION PAPER
 An independent oversight body for investigations into child sexual abuse. As discussed
in our response, this could use as its template the NSW Ombudsman and/or the NSW
Children’s Guardian
 Better funding and other supports for organisational capacity building, including staff
training, in all aspects of prevention and responding to child sexual abuse
 A nationally consistent strategy for preventing child abuse, including nationally
consistent accreditation mechanisms with associated monitoring and enforcement
capacity and data reporting and sharing. Particularly important to this is breaking down
the barriers that prevent data exchange between jurisdictions
 Increased availability and access to specialist counselling services
 An expansion of therapeutic placement options
 Increased support for young people transitioning into independence from care, with
continuing availability into early adulthood as required
 Greater support for and use of evidence-based programs, such as the CARE model
described above, and research into the effectiveness of evidence-informed programs
 Increased children’s participation and empowerment, as well as that of their families
and other support networks outside the OOHC system
Thank you once again for the opportunity to contribute. We would be glad to elaborate further on
any of the points raised in our response to this consultation paper and look forward to working
collaboratively to achieve positive change.
Kind Regards,
Mary McKinnon
National Director, Practice and Quality
Life Without Barriers
P: 02 9508 4101
M:
E: mary.mckinnon@lwb.org.au

CONSULTATION PAPER
References
Anglin, J. (2002). Pain, normality and the struggle for congruence. New York: The Haworth Press,
Inc.
AIHW 2015. Child protection Australia 2013–14. Child welfare series no. 61. Cat. no. CWS 52.
Canberra: AIHW.
Brennan, D and Crowe, M (2002). “Aunts and Uncles: working to reduce risk for children and
young people in Taree through planned respite care”, Developing Practice, Issue 4, Winter.
Bloom, S. (1997). Creating Sanctuary: Toward The Evolution of Sane Societies. New York:
Routledge.
Bloom, S. (2005). The Sanctuary Model of Organisational Change for Children’s Residential
Treatment. Therapeutic Community: The International Journal for Therapeutic and Supportive
Organisations, 26(1), 65-81.
Cashmore, J. A., & Ainsworth, F. (2004). Audit of Australian out-of-home care research. Sydney:
Child and Family Welfare Association of Australia, Association of Child Welfare Agencies.
Delfabbro, P, Barber, J, Cooper, L (2002). “The role of parental contact in substitute care” Journal
of Social Science Research, Vol 28 (3), p. 19 – 39.
Government of Western Australia (2016) Earlier Intervention and Family Support, Discussion
Paper from the Department for Child Protection and Family Support, Perth.
Holden (2009) Children and Residential Experiences: Creating Conditions of Change, The Child
Welfare League of America, Washington, D.C.
McDonald, D, Higgins, D, Valentine, K and Lamont, A (2011). Protecting Australia’s Children
research audit, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.
Mendes, P, Johnson, G and Moslehuddin, B (2012). “Young people transitioning from out of home
care and relationships with families of origin: an examination of three recent Australian studies”
Child Care in Practice, Vol 18(4), p. 357–370.
Munro, E (2011) The Munro Review of Child Protection: Final Report, Department of Education,
United Kingdom.
Rock, S, Michelson, D, Thomson, S and Day, C (2015). “Understanding foster placement instability
for looked after children: a systematic review and narrative synthesis of quantitative and qualitative
evidence”, British Journal of Social Work, Vol 45, p. 177 – 203.
Smallbone, S, Marshall, W and Wortley, R (2008). Preventing Child Sexual Abuse: Evidence,
Policy and Practice, Willan Publishing, Devon.
State of Victoria (2012). Report of the Protecting Victoria’s Vulnerable Children Enquiry.
Department of Premier and Cabinet: Melbourne
Wood, J (2008). Report of the Special Commission of Inquiry into Child Protection Services in
NSW. State Government of NSW: Sydney.

CONSULTATION PAPER
Appendices
Appendix 1: We Put Children First

CONSULTATION PAPER

CONSULTATION PAPER
Appendix 2: Listening to Children’s Voices

26 life-without-barriers

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to 26 life-without-barriers

Similar to 26 life-without-barriers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

26 life-without-barriers