www.pwc.com.au
Strictly private and confidential
Department of Social
Services
Evaluation of the National Framework for Protecting
Australia's Children 2009-2020
June 2020
Department of Social Services
PwC i
Disclaimer
This report is not intended to be used by anyone other than the Department of Social Services.
We prepared this report solely for the Department of Social Service’s use and benefit in accordance with and for the
purpose set out in Official Order 90011886 Statement of Work Services dated 10 October 2019. In doing so, we acted
exclusively for the Department of Social Services and considered no-one else’s interests.
We accept no responsibility, duty or liability:
to anyone other than the Department of Social Services in connection with this report
to the Department of Social Services for the consequences of using or relying on it for a purpose other than that referred
to above.
We make no representation concerning the appropriateness of this report for anyone other than the Department of Social
Services. If anyone other than the Department of Social Services chooses to use or rely on it they do so at their own risk.
This disclaimer applies:
to the maximum extent permitted by law and, without limitation, to liability arising in negligence or under statute; and
even if we consent to anyone other than the Department of Social Services receiving or using this report.
Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards legislation.
Executive summary
Department of Social Services
PwC ii
Executive summary
Background and context
In 2009, governments and non-government organisations came together to develop the National Framework for Protecting
Australia’s Children 2009-2020 (the National Framework or the Framework) which was endorsed by Council of Australian
Government (COAG) in April 2009. The National Framework was unique in its design in being governed by a tripartite
arrangement between Commonwealth, and state and territory governments, as well as the non-government and research
sectors through the National Forum for Protecting Australia’s Children (the National Forum).
A key feature of the National Framework was a shift in emphasis from protecting children from abuse and neglect to
promoting children’s safety and wellbeing. To effect this shift, the National Framework sought to apply a public health model
which places a significant focus on primary or universal initiatives and programs (aimed at all children and families),
intensifying the focus on secondary services (focusing on early intervention) with the tertiary (statutory) system being a last
resort as outlined in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Application of the primary health model to child protection – a system for protecting children
1
Ultimately, the aim of a public health approach is to reduce the occurrence of child abuse and neglect and to provide the
most appropriate response to vulnerable families and those in which abuse or neglect has already occurred.
2
To this end,
the National Framework had a core high level outcome that ‘Australia’s children and young people are safe and well’
measured by a target of ‘a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect in Australia over time’.
3
To support delivery of its high-level outcome, the Framework included six supporting outcomes:
1 Children live in safe and supportive families and communities.
2 Children and families access adequate support to promote safety and intervene early.
3 Risk factors for child abuse and neglect are addressed.
1
Commonwealth of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, 2009, page 8.
2
Commonwealth of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, 2009, page 8.
3
Commonwealth of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, 2009, page 11.
Universal preventative initiatives to
support all families and children
Early intervention services targeted
to vulnerable families and children
Targeted services and
programs for ‘at-risk’
families and children
Statutory
system
Executive summary
Department of Social Services
PwC iii
4 Children who have been abused or neglected receive the support and care they need for their safety and wellbeing.
5 Indigenous children are supported and safe in their families and communities.
6 Child sexual abuse and exploitation is prevented and survivors receive adequate support.
4
The National Framework has been implemented through four, three-year action plans which were developed and
implemented sequentially over the Framework’s twelve-year timeframe. Each action plan outlines key priorities or strategic
focus areas and actions to be progressed over the three-year period.
Monitoring of the Framework’s progress is supported by the development of a set of 32 data indicators that are reported on
annually by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW). Annual reports on the National Framework and its Action
Plans are also available up until 2015-16. In addition, an earlier evaluation of the progress of the National Framework was
completed in 2015, which included the First and Second Action Plans.
5
Now entering its final year of operation, it is timely to consider the effectiveness and appropriateness of the National
Framework in order to inform its next phase. It is in this context that the Department of Social Services (DSS) commissioned
PwC and PwC’s Indigenous Consulting (PIC) to evaluate the National Framework and its Third and Fourth Action Plans.
The objectives of this evaluation were to:
assess the National Framework in terms of implementation and outcomes achieved, taking a particular focus on the
actions and outcomes achieved under the Third and Fourth Action Plans of the National Framework
assess the effectiveness of the overarching framework, including its governance arrangements and the broad
implementation of the action plans
in particular, assess how the National Framework has coordinated effort across governments and the non-government
sector and reduced the prevalence of child abuse and neglect.
A combination of quantitative and qualitative methods were used to gather evidence to undertake this evaluation, including
a comprehensive consultation program with 49 semi-structured interviews and focus groups, and analysis of publicly
available and internal reports.
While best efforts were made to solicit feedback and evidence evaluation questions, a number of limitations exist, including
that:
the nature of outcomes and specific actions makes it challenging to attribute outcomes specifically to the National
Framework.
the National Framework was not supported by a robust logic model or evaluation framework which limited its ability
to measure its effectiveness.
significant time has elapsed since the early activities of the National Framework, which limited stakeholder input
and commentary
the lack of a prevalence study of child abuse and neglect impacted the ability to make conclusive evaluation
findings.
Key evaluation findings
A number of key evaluation findings have been identified based on the evidence collected and analysed through this
evaluation.
4
Commonwealth of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, 2009, page 11.
5
ACIL Allen Consulting, Measuring Progress under the National Framework: Evaluation of progress under the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s
Children, June 2015.
Executive summary
Department of Social Services
PwC iv
The National Framework has been an important mechanism for national collaboration on protecting Australia’s
children and reducing child abuse and neglect
The National Framework recognised that significant reform was needed to reduce the growing rates of child abuse and
neglect in Australia. At the time of its conception, there was an almost universal view that the scale of the challenge to
reduce child abuse and neglect required a long-term, strategic approach that coordinated the activities of government, non-
government and research sectors. The Framework has successfully delivered a national strategy that has enabled a
national conversation to be had, an elevated the priority of children’s safety and wellbeing among governments. Its tripartite
governance structure has fostered collaboration and built trust among jurisdictions, peak bodies and the service sector.
Key initiatives by the National Framework include:
the implementation of the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations which were recommended by the Royal
Commission into Institutional responses to Child Sexual Abuse and developed through the Third Action Plan.
the support that the National Forum and the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Working Group (ATSI WG) has
provided for more comprehensive implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement
Principles (ATSICPP) through the Fourth Action Plan.
In 2009, the National Framework’s outcome of achieving a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and
neglect represented a significant challenge for the National Framework. In 2020, twelve years on, this outcome
remains a significant challenge for Australia.
The National Framework itself highlighted that ‘measuring a reduction in child abuse and neglect is difficult, as Australia
does not have robust data on incidence/prevalence’.
6
The absence of a robust, national prevalence/incidence study in 2009
at the inception of the National Framework prevented measurement of progress against this outcome. However, the
Framework’s 32 data indicators (reported on by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
7
) provide an indication of
progress; Eight of the 32 indicators relate to the high-level outcome of a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse
and neglect, and of these, three have worsened, two have remained steady and two have improved over the life of the
Framework. One does not have sufficient time series data to report on.
Significant gaps exist in the reporting of data meaning that the National Framework’s high-level objective to reduce child
abuse and neglect cannot be tracked or measured meaningfully.
The governance arrangements of the National Framework and the Third and Fourth Action Plans evolved over time
in response to feedback from stakeholders and Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) committee changes.
While the intent of the National Framework was broad reaching, over its twelve-year timeframe, its implementation of action
plans became more narrowly focused on statutory child protection systems. This occurred due to the evolution of the
governance arrangements over the twelve-year term to support the delivery of each action plan. Concurrently, its
governance structures evolved in response to COAG committee changes and changed representation of working groups.
This had the effect of narrowing the focus of activities and discussion to those of child protection. Additionally, activities
delivered by jurisdictions, were largely driven by reforms and programs that were interrelated to the ambition of the National
Framework but were not conceived by it.
The National Framework and accompanying action plans were largely developed in consultation and lessons
learned were often incorporated to improve the effectiveness of later plans. However, consultation could have
been more targeted to specific groups.
Over time, the Third and Fourth action plans increasingly focused on statutory child protection systems and smaller
initiatives and trials, building on lessons to focus effort rather than trying to deliver upon too broad a mandate. This also
reflected that activities were not supported by a sound investment and resourcing model that would enable achievement of
6
Commonwealth of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, 2009, page 11.
7
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National framework for protecting Australia's children indicators, June 2019.
Executive summary
Department of Social Services
PwC v
outcomes and implementation of actions. Opportunities exist to consider joint funding and investment matching
opportunities to provide a more sustainable investment model that could have greater impact and deliver upon the ambition
set.
The National Framework was not able to fully embed a public health approach and coordinate the policy agenda for
children and young people
Challenges to fully embed a public health approach that balances the needs of the child protection system with primary
prevention and early intervention activities were cited by many stakeholders to this evaluation. While many concurrent
strategies and policies that touch upon these service systems have been delivered by jurisdictions over the life of the
National Framework, these have not been integrated and coordinated with the policy agenda for children and young people.
Opportunities for the successor plan to the National Framework
Five key opportunities have been identified to inform the development of the successor plan to the National Framework.
These opportunities seek to leverage the valuable contribution made by the National Framework in bringing together
governments and the non-government and research sectors to focus on protecting Australia’s children. Importantly, these
opportunities incorporate lessons learned which could strengthen any future framework.
Target the successor plan for the National Framework towards improving the services system to better support a
specific group, vulnerable children and their families.
Narrowing the focus of the National Framework on a defined cohort of children and families would enable governments and
non-government bodies to dedicate resources towards improving outcomes for these children and families. All sectors
within the service system – which include government and non-government services that address the social determinants of
health and wellbeing - in order to improve their wellbeing and reduce their risk of contact with the statutory child protection
system, as well as supporting children and families already in the child protection system.
Having the Commonwealth, state and territory governments working together under the National Framework presents a
significant opportunity to better coordinate and integrate, ensure the effectiveness of and identify improvements to services
delivered to these children and families across all relevant portfolios, including for example child maternal health, early
childhood, school education, housing, justice and family and parenting services.
Taking a service system approach and focusing on policy and system levers is where the National Framework can have the
greatest impact, rather than focusing on the operational detail of how child protection related services are delivered which
will continue to vary across different state and territory jurisdictions. Further, focusing at a service system level will allow for
greater alignment and integration with other strategies and frameworks that emerge in areas that impact on children and
families. A system focus is also likely to be more impactful in the long term rather than investing in shorter-term initiatives
and research trials.
The exact target cohort would be for the parties to the successor plan to the National Framework to define. A number of
organisations consulted as part of the evaluation suggested the focus should be on vulnerable children and their families.
This would allow for a more targeted approach for the Framework rather than focusing on all children, while also
acknowledging that families are important to improving outcomes for vulnerable children.
Within this cohort there are groups with specific needs and attention would need to be paid to ensuring that the service
system is fit for purpose for these groups, for example children and families with disability, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children and families and culturally and linguistically diverse children and families.
Establish a governance structure for the successor plan to the National Framework that enables greater
involvement of other relevant portfolio areas
There is an opportunity to ensure the governance structure supports the delivery of the successor plan to National
Framework. Improving outcomes for vulnerable children and their families requires collaboration across the whole service
system, from services that have early contact with families and children and can intervene early to provide support through
to the statutory child protection system.
Executive summary
Department of Social Services
PwC vi
To achieve the greatest impact, the National Framework governance structure could consider a broader membership, not
restricted to representatives from child protection and family services agencies. In line with the first opportunity outlined
above, the governance group would include a focus on the service system and policy levers rather than on the delivery of
specific services, programs or initiatives.
Adopt an outcomes framework to guide and measure efforts and commission a national prevalence study on child
abuse and neglect
There is an opportunity to adopt an outcomes framework to ensure a sustained focus on and alignment to the high-level
objectives of the successor plan to the National Framework, over the life of the Framework. The key features of an
outcomes framework are:
a shared vision of what success would look like for the target cohort of children and families
articulation of short, medium and long term outcomes/goals to support achievement of the shared vision
an outcomes framework would be supported by a measurement framework, which sets out how and when
progress towards achieving the outcomes will be measured.
An implementation plan or roadmap could provide the detail on the work that will be undertaken by all parties to the National
Framework to achieve the short, medium and long term outcomes, which could be reviewed at regular intervals. This would
replace three-year action plans.
Iterative evaluation could also be undertaken for the duration of the successor plan to the National Framework to assist in
early identification of any issues with the implementation.
Further, a national prevalence study on child abuse and neglect to set an accurate baseline at the beginning of the
successor plan to the Framework and then at regular intervals will help to accurately measure whether there is a significant
shift in the prevalence of child abuse and neglect during the next term of the Framework.
Implement an independent monitoring and reporting mechanism to ensure accountability
There is an opportunity to implement independent reporting on the progress of the successor plan tothe National
Framework. This could include reporting against the outcome and measurement framework as set out in the third
opportunity (outlined above).
Independent monitoring and reporting would ensure accountability and measurement of progress in a timely manner. A
number of organisations consulted as part of this evaluation referenced the Family Matters reporting on the over-
representation of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children in out of home care as a good example of timely and
informative reporting that informs action in this area.
Establishing a monitoring and reporting independent function could include producing publicly available progress reporting,
but also working directly and proactively with parties to the National Framework to assist in identifying areas for
improvement.
Ensure children, families and communities have an opportunity to inform the of the successor plan to the National
Framework
There is an opportunity to involve children, families and communities in informing the priorities of the successor plan tothe
National Framework, and in better understanding their experiences of the service system and areas for improvement. This
would ensure the successor plan is designed from the perspective of children, families and communities and would help in
identifying what would really make a difference to the cohort of people whom the Framework is targeted at.
Organisations consulted as part of the evaluation provided a number of examples of children and young people who had
poor experiences navigating the current service system. They also spoke of the power of hearing the voices and
perspective of service users in identifying areas for improvement.
Executive summary
Department of Social Services
PwC vii
Further, supporting communities to have a voice in how services are designed and delivered in their community and how
these services are integrated and coordinated is also critical in improving the effectiveness of service system. This could be
adopted as a key principle of the successor plan to the National Framework.
This would also enable greater alignment with the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the United Nations Declaration
on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Conclusion
Reducing child abuse and neglect is a complex issue, requiring a long-term national approach involving governments, non-
government and research organisations, the social services sector and families and communities. The National Framework
has provided a strong platform to date for national leadership and collaboration on the issue and this can be harnessed
going forward in the successor plan to the Framework. This evaluation has produced a number of findings and
opportunities to strengthen the Framework in its next phase, including on the Framework’s scope and purpose, its
supporting governance arrangements and data collection and monitoring. These findings and opportunities and how they
relate back to the key evaluation questions is summarised in Figure 2.
Figure 2: Connection between key evaluation questions, findings and opportunities
1. To what extent did the National
Framework achieve its intended
outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
2. How well did the National
Framework support the policy
agenda for children and young
people?
3. How effective was the
development of the National
Framework and Action Plan?
While robust prevalence data are
not available to accurately
measure whether the National
Framework achieved its intended
outcome of a substantial and
sustained reduction in child abuse
and neglect, available data
suggest that this outcome was
not achieved
The National Framework has
been an important mechanism for
national collaboration on
protecting Australia’s children and
reducing child abuse and neglect
Target the National Framework
towards improving the service
system to better support
vulnerable children and their
families
Establish a governance structure
for the next phase of the National
Framework that enables greater
involvement of other relevant
portfolio areas
Adopt an outcomes framework to
guide and measure efforts and
commission a national prevalence
study on child abuse and neglect
Implement an independent
monitoring and reporting
mechanism to ensure
accountability
Ensure children, families and
communities have an opportunity
to inform the next phase of the
National Framework
The National Framework was not
able to fully embed a public
health approach and coordinate
the policy agenda for children and
young people
The evolving governance
arrangements underpinning the
National Framework and the
Third and Fourth Action Plans
impacted the achievement of the
Framework’s intended outcomes
Key evaluation questions
Key evaluation findings
Opportunities
Executive summary
Department of Social Services
PwC viii
Terms and acronyms
Table 1: Terms and acronyms
Term or acronym
Definition
ABS
Australian Bureau of Statistics
ACCO
Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation
AIFS
Australian Institute of Family Studies
AIHW
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
ARACY
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth
ATSICPP
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle
ATSIWG
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Working Group
BCAP
Building Capacity in Australian Parents
CAA
Child Aware Approaches
CAFDaN
Children and Families Data Network
CAFS
Children and Families Secretaries group
CALD
Culturally and linguistically diverse
CDSMAC
Community and Disability Services Ministers’ Advisory Committee
COAG
Council of Australian Governments
CSM
Community Services Ministers
DCP
Department for Child Protection
SA
Services Australia
DoH
Department of Health (Commonwealth)
DPMC
Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet (Commonwealth)
DSS
Department of Social Services
Indigenous
The term ‘Indigenous’ has been used throughout this report when referring to both Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander people. Where quoting source material, Aboriginal, Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander or Indigenous may be used as per the relevant source.
NAPCAN
National Association for the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect
National Coalition
National Coalition on Child Safety and Wellbeing
National Forum
National Forum for Protecting Australia’s Children
National Principles
National Principles for Child Safe Organisations
National Standards
National Standards for out-of-home care
NDIA
National Disability Insurance Agency
NGO
non-government organisation
NOCS
National Office for Child Safety
OOHC
out-of-home care
RoGS
Report on Government Services
SIG
Strategic Information Group
TIA
Towards Independent Adulthood
TILA
Transition to Independent Living Allowance
UNCRC
UN Convention on the Rights of the Child
Department of Social Services
PwC i
Contents
Executive summary ii
Terms and acronyms viii
Contents i
2 This evaluation 3
2.1 Evaluation of the National Framework 4
2.2 Evaluation approach 4
3 Background 7
3.1 Overview of the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s
Children 2009-2020 8
3.2 Prevalence of child abuse and neglect over the course of the
Framework 11
4 Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its
intended outcomes and what factors supported or inhibited outcomes? 19
4.1 Achievements of the National Framework and Action Plans 20
4.2 Supporting factors, strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for
improvement 22
4.3 Effectiveness of informing the agenda for Indigenous priorities and
actions 29
5 Evaluation question 2: How well did the National Framework support the policy
agenda for children and young people? 32
5.1 Alignment with broader policy areas 33
6 Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National
Framework and Action Plans? 41
6.1 Consultation process used to develop priorities and actions 42
6.2 The extent to which Action Plans drew on lessons learnt 43
6.3 The alignment of actions to the National Framework outcomes 45
6.4 Appropriateness of the duration and structure of the National
Framework and its Action Plans 47
This evaluation
Department of Social Services
PwC ii
6.5 Alignment of the National Framework with the United Nation
Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) 49
6.6 Alignment of activities with a public health model 51
7 Findings and opportunities 54
7.1 Key findings of this evaluation 55
7.2 Opportunities 62
Appendices 63
Appendix A Evaluation Approach 64
Appendix B Summary of governance: terms of reference 73
Appendix C Background analysis 77
Appendix D Consulted stakeholders 93
This evaluation
Department of Social Services
PwC 3
2 This evaluation
This chapter covers…
the focus of this evaluation
the evaluation approach employed
data collection approach.
This evaluation
Department of Social Services
PwC 4
2.1 Evaluation of the National Framework
The National Framework was established in 2009, presenting a national strategy for addressing child abuse and neglect. It
was designed to operate over a twelve-year timeframe to 2020, with rolling three-year action plans that specified the
priorities and actions for each three-year period.
2.1.1 Mid-way evaluation of the National Framework
In 2015, DSS commissioned a mid-way evaluation of the National Framework and its two initial action plans.
8
That
evaluation found, among other things, that:
• a lack of clarity over the Framework’s governance and implementation arrangements between 2013 and 2015
created uncertainty and meant that the development of the Second Action Plan was ‘widely regarded as flawed’
• the implementation of a number of initiatives were viewed as successful, including: Communities for Children and
Child Aware Approaches; Building Bridges; National Standards for Out of Home Care; and, the establishment of a
National Children’s Commissioner
• the National Research Agenda, under the Framework had progressed the translation of research to practice
• the development of the Child Protection National Minimum Dataset was a key achievement.
Key implementation challenges identified through the 2015 mid-way evaluation included:
• the use of time-limited funding
• discrete site-based trialling of initiatives (limiting the evidence base/scaleability of activities)
• constraints associated with government procurement processes and contractual obligations which limited the
ability of service organisations to implement early intervention approaches
• limited research funding to achieve the scale and evidence needed for governments and organisations to
implement new evidence-informed approaches
• the need for a shift from tertiary services to universal and preventative services.
The evaluation concluded that systemic change – particularly in the governance arrangements needed to underpin a public
health model - was required to progress the ambitions of the Framework.
2.1.2 Focus of this evaluation
Given the mid-way evaluation focused on the First and Second Action Plans, this evaluation has focused on the
effectiveness and appropriateness of the National Framework and its Third and Fourth Action Plans. This evaluation sought
to:
• assess the National Framework in terms of implementation and outcomes achieved, taking a particular focus on
the actions and outcomes achieved under the Third and Fourth Action Plans of the Framework
• assess the effectiveness of the overarching framework, including its governance arrangements and the broad
implementation of the action plans
• in particular, assess how the National Framework has coordinated effort across governments and the non-
government sector and reduced the prevalence of child abuse and neglect.
2.2 Evaluation approach
PwC and PIC undertook his evaluation in line with a set of evaluation questions shown in Table 2. These evaluation
questions incorporate different evaluation types, including:
formative evaluation: an adaptive approach which enables refinement as the framework is being implemented
process evaluation: determines whether the framework was implemented as intended
8
ACIL Allen Consulting 2015, Measuring Progress Under the National Framework: An evaluation of progress under the National Framework for Protecting
Australia’s Children, Melbourne
This evaluation
Department of Social Services
PwC 5
outcomes evaluation: measures the progress of the framework in achieving its intended outcomes.
Table 2 sets out the evaluation questions and sub-questions mapped against the evaluation objectives (question domains).
Table 2: Evaluation domains mapped to key evaluation questions and sub-questions
Question domain
Key Evaluation
Questions
Evaluation sub-questions
1: Outcomes:
achievement of
intended outcomes
(barriers and
enablers)
1. To what
extent did the
National
Framework
achieve its
intended
outcomes and
what factors
supported or
inhibited
outcomes?
a. What were the major achievements of the National Framework?
b. What supported and/or inhibited the implementation of the actions listed in the
National Framework and Action Plans? What could be improved?
c. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the National Framework, including
the effectiveness of its governance structure?
d. What supported and/or inhibited achievement of outcomes listed in the National
Framework and Action Plans?
e. How well did the National Framework and the Action Plans work together to
achieve outcomes?
f. How effective was the National Framework in informing the agenda for
Indigenous priorities, actions and cultural appropriateness?
g. How effective were the National Framework and Action Plans in achieving
broader outcomes particularly coordinating effort across governments and the non-
government sector and reducing the prevalence of child abuse and neglect?
2: Effectiveness:
supporting the policy
agenda for children
and young people
2. How well did
the National
Framework
support the
policy agenda
for children
and young
people?
a. How well does the National Framework connect other elements of the broader
policy agenda for children and young people at both a Commonwealth and state
and territory level?
b. Were there any gaps or was there areas of duplication with other key policy
areas, including but not limited to:
family and domestic violence
education
housing
justice
health
disability
culturally and linguistically diverse families
Closing the Gap?
3: Effectiveness
and
appropriateness:
development
processes
3. How
effective was
the
development of
the National
Framework and
Action Plan?
a. How effective and appropriate were the consultations leading up to, and the
resulting priorities and actions in the Third and Fourth Action Plans?
i. Did the development of the priorities and actions in the Third and Fourth
Action Plans incorporate lessons learnt from previous action plans?
ii. Did the priorities and actions in the Third and Fourth Action Plans clearly align
with the high-level outcomes of the National Framework?
b. To what extent were the duration and structure of the National Framework and its
Action Plans appropriate?
c. How well did the National Framework respond to the Convention on the Rights of
the Child?
d. To what extent did the National Framework engage with the public health model
and primary prevention activities?
An evaluation framework was developed to build out each of the evaluation sub-questions and methods by which this
evaluation has sought to address the key questions. It is outlined in Appendix A.
This evaluation
Department of Social Services
PwC 6
2.2.1 Key methods adopted
This evaluation was undertaken between late 2019 and early 2020. It has comprised:
a comprehensive nation-wide and tripartite (Commonwealth Government, state and territory government and non-
government) consultation program
quantitative and qualitative analysis, leveraging a range of existing data and resources.
DSS selected the stakeholders to be consulted as part of this evaluation, including stakeholders representing a range of
different jurisdictional, sector and issue-based perspectives. A full list of organisations consulted through this evaluation is
provided in Appendix D.
2.2.2 Limitations encountered
Limitations were encountered throughout the evaluation, that impacted the ability to gather comprehensive evidence and
validate findings on particular evaluation questions and sub-questions. These include:
Evaluating a high-level framework: The National Framework is a collection of action plans, strategic focus areas,
priorities and activities spanning a twelve-year period. Rather than being a single program or a discrete policy, a range of
different parties delivered actions broadly aligning to the Framework in a variety of different contexts over time. The
individualised nature of these outcomes makes it challenging to attribute outcomes specifically to the National Framework.
Absence of an outcomes measurement framework and a logic model: While the National Framework identified the
high-level outcomes that the parties to the Framework were seeking to achieve, the absence of an evaluation framework
affected the ability to measure its effectiveness. A program logic would have outlined how the action plans, strategic focus
areas, priorities and actions would collectively deliver on the outcomes.
Undertaking elements of a process evaluation after significant time had passed: Undertaking an evaluation of the
Third and Fourth Action Plans became difficult, as many of the stakeholders consulted were not able to provide detailed
commentary due to the time that had elapsed. They had either commenced in their roles after the action plans were
developed or were not able to recall specific details.
Lack of available data and evidence: While there have been significant efforts over the life of the Framework to improve
data collection on the safety and wellbeing of Australia’s children, challenges exist preventing the comparability of data
across jurisdictions. The lack of a prevalence study of child abuse and neglect resulted in an inability to make conclusive
findings on whether the National Framework achieved its intended outcomes.
Stakeholders were contacted by PwC and PIC to seek their engagement and were provided with an information sheet
ahead of interviews that outlined the scope of this evaluation and the key questions to be raised through consultations.
Consultations were run as semi-structured interviews against key questions and sub-questions in the evaluation framework
and were led by a senior member of the PwC and PIC team.
Capture and analysis of data
To support the capture and consistent analysis of information collected through this evaluation, a data tool was developed
to input stakeholder responses (representing organisations) to evaluation questions and develop common themes.
Categorisation was undertaken in two stages; first, an initial categorisation to understand emerging themes, and a second
categorisation to refine themes and develop findings.
Perspectives presented in this report have been validated by cross-referencing this data tool against other organisation’s
perspectives and to assess the extent to which organisations expressed the same or similar viewpoints. The data tools
used as part of this analysis are shown in Appendix A of this report.
Limitations associated with the stakeholder consultations are noted in the Executive Summary.
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 7
3 Background
This chapter covers…
contextual background to this evaluation including
o the purpose of the National Framework for Protecting
Australia’s Children 2009-2020
o as well as its structure including its governance and action
plans
o expenditure and statistics on children’s safety and
wellbeing over the operation of the Framework.
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 8
3.1 Overview of the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-
2020
The National Framework is an initiative of COAG. Endorsed in 2009, the National Framework sets out a vision for an
integrated approach to protecting the safety and well-being of Australia’s children. It brings together the Commonwealth,
state and territory governments and the non-government sector who share responsibility for delivering safety and well-being
services.
The Framework is structured around the singular high-level outcome that ‘Australia’s children and young people are safe
and well’, delivered through the ‘substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect in Australia over time’.
The high-level outcome is recognised as an ambitious target. A target that sought to engage stakeholders across the
sector, jurisdictions and policy areas to address the intractable challenges associated with reducing child abuse and
neglect.
9
The Framework was developed as a mechanism to deliver a collaborative environment and with an ambitious goal
to influence system-level change and reduce child abuse and neglect.
To support delivery against the target, the Framework comprises of six supporting outcomes, which are in turn measured
through progress indicators that have evolved over the life of the Framework.
The six supporting outcomes are:
1 Children live in safe and supportive families and communities.
2 Children and families access adequate support to promote safety and intervene early.
3 Risk factors for child abuse and neglect are addressed.
4 Children who have been abused or neglected receive the support and care they need for their safety and wellbeing.
5 Indigenous children are supported and safe in their families and communities.
6 Child sexual abuse and exploitation is prevented and survivors receive adequate support.
3.1.2 Design and operation of the Framework
The National Framework extends over a 12-year time frame, supported by rolling 3-year action plans. Each action plan
outlines key priorities or strategic focus areas and actions to be progressed over each 3-year period. Action plans are
developed and agreed in consultation with sector stakeholders and the advice of the National Forum (discussed below
under Governance). The two action plans considered as part of this evaluation are the Third and Fourth Action Plan. Their
priorities are shown in Table 3. The 2015 mid-way evaluation considered previous action plans (the First and Second Action
Plans) and are not in scope of this evaluation.
Table 3: Third and Fourth Action Plan focus areas
Action Plan
Key focus areas/strategies
Third Action Plan (2015-2018)
Cross cutting focus area: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island children and families
Strategy 1: Early intervention with a focus on the early years, particularly the first 1000 days for
a child
Strategy 2: Helping young people in out-of-home care to thrive into adulthood
Strategy 3: Organisations responding better to children and young people to keep them safe
Fourth Action Plan (2018-2020)
Priority 1: Improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children at risk of
entering, or in contact with, child protection systems
Priority 2: Improving prevention and early intervention through joint service planning and
investment
9
Australian Research Alliance for Children and Youth (2008) Inverting the pyramid: Enhancing systems for protecting children, accessed:
https://www.aracy.org.au/publications-resources/command/download_file/id/107/filename/Inverting_the_pyramid_-
_Enhancing_systems_for_protecting_children.pdf, 28/01/2020
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 9
Action Plan
Key focus areas/strategies
Priority 3: Improving outcomes for children in out-of-home care by enhancing placement
stability through reunification and other permanent care options
Priority 4: Improving organisations’ and governments’ ability to keep children and young people
safe from abuse.
3.1.3 A shift to a public health model
In 2009, the National Framework identified that a shift in emphasis was needed in Australia from protecting children from
abuse and neglect to include promoting children’s safety and wellbeing. This is the vision of a ‘public health model’ of child
protection where greater emphasis (including resources) is placed on universal or preventative interventions reducing the
overall need for statutory interventions, as outlined in Figure 3. The size of each component of the pyramid is intended to
reflect the relative resource/effort envisaged by the public health model, with the largest investment in the bottom of the
pyramid (universal services), and the smallest investment at the top of the pyramid (statutory system).
Figure 3: Application of the primary health model to child protection – a system for protecting children
The outcomes of the Framework were more closely aligned to an “hourglass” than a pyramid due to the significant demands
on child protection services that had accumulated over previous years. The public health model was considered a key point
of reference for the activities undertaken under the Framework and part of the broader vision of what a future system might
look like to achieve the outcomes of the Framework. While public health elements were referenced in concept, the
supporting outcomes and indicators against which the National Framework was progressed maintained a child protection
focus. Chapter 6 explores the alignment of the Framework to the public health model.
3.1.4 Governance of the National Framework
The governance structure underpinning the National Framework has evolved over time in response to COAG committee
changes and feedback over the framework. These changes provide important context for many of the perspectives shared
by stakeholders through this evaluation. These aspects are described in detail in Chapter 3 of this report. At a high-level the
common stakeholders involved in governance were:
Community Services Ministers (CSM) – mechanism where state/territory and Commonwealth Ministers responsible for a
variety of community services including child protection meet and discuss issues
Children and Families Secretaries Groups (CAFS) – formal group state/territory and Commonwealth Secretaries with
responsibly for children and families
Universal preventative initiatives to
support all families and children
Early intervention services targeted
to vulnerable families and children
Targeted services and
programs for ‘at-risk’
families and children
Statutory
system
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 10
National Forum for Protecting Australia’s Children – tripartite group encompassing representatives from Commonwealth,
state and territory governments and the non-government sector appointed by the National Coalition for Child Safety and
Well-being
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Working Group – advisory group of Indigenous experts and representatives
Members of various working groups.
An overview of the governance structure for the Third and Fourth Action Plan is outlined in Figure 4 and
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 11
Figure 5 below.
10
Figure 4 - Third Action Plan: Governance Structure
10
Department of Social Services, ‘Third Action Plan 2015-2018 Governance Structure’, emailed on 2 December 2019, p1, Department of Social Services,
‘Fourth Action Plan Governance structure – draft’ emailed 2 December 2019, p. 1.
Children and Families Secretaries (CAFS)
National Forum for
Protecting
Australia’s
Children
Aboriginal and
Torres Straight
Islander Working
Group
Strategy Working Groups
Strategy 1 – NGO Coalition
Strategy 2 – Commonwealth
Strategy 3 – State and Territory
governments
Research Advisory
Committee
National Coalition
Steering Group
Commonwealth,
State and Territory
Officials Working
Group
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 12
Figure 5: Fourth Action Plan: Governance Structure
3.2 Prevalence of child abuse and neglect over the course of the Framework
The National Framework’s target to achieve ‘substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect in Australia
over time’ must be contextualised by the changes that have occurred over the operation of the National Framework. Since
inception:
spending on child protection and family support services has grown, indicating the growing need for these services
the rates of children in care has increased, and substantially so among Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children
there have been changes in jurisdictional approaches to notifications, investigations and substantiations, which
means that it is difficult to draw conclusions as to whether there has been impact on these indicators
at the same time, the increasing rate of children receiving intensive family support services suggests that there is a
growing need for these supports.
Changes in practices, reporting and prevalence make comparison of the impact of the National Framework on its target
difficult. Recognising that it would be challenging to track the progress of the National Framework in achieving its primary
target of ‘a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect in Australia over time’ without a prevalence study
of child abuse and neglect, a set of 32 data indicators were established. In addition to these indicators, annual data is
compiled within the Productivity Commission’s Report on Government Services (RoGS) on child protection and family
support services provided and government spending.
These indicators and RoGS data provide a high-level overview of how child protection and related data points have
changed in the decade between 2009 and now. These provide context to the findings presented in this report.
3.2.1 Spending on child protection and family support services continues to grow
Figure 6 shows total government funding on protective intervention services, out of home care, intensive family support and
general family support services between 2008-09 and 2017-18 (in 2017-18 dollars) across Australia. Reporting of spending
National Forum
(Co-Chairs: Families Australia, the
Commonwealth Department of Social
Services)
Community Services Ministers (CSM)
Children and Families Secretaries (CAFS)
CAFS
Strategic
Information
Group (SIG)
(AIHW and
NSW)
Aboriginal
and Torres
Strait
Islander
Children
Working
Group
(Priority One)
(QLD and ACT)
Early
Intervention
and
Prevention
Initiative
(Priority Two)
(ACT and Tas)
Permanency
Working
Group
(Priority
Three)
(Vic and NSW)
Child Safety
Working
Group
(Priority
Four)
(National Office
for Child Safety
and NSW)
Children
and
Families
Data
Network
(CAFDaN)
(Chair: AIHW)
Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Working Group
(Chair: SNAICC)
Consultation relationship
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 13
on general family support services was included in 2011-12, prior to then, spending estimates exclude family support
services. Spending on child protection and family support services has increased by 7 per cent per annum between 2011-
12 and 2017-18. Across the same time points, total government spending was reported as $3.99 billion (2011-12),
increasing to $5.84 billion by 2017-18.
Figure 6: Government spending on child protection and family support services between 2008-09 and 2017-18
11
The proportion of spending on child protection and family support service types has remained relatively constant between
2011-12 and 2017-18 with a small decrease in spending on protective intervention services being offset by an increase in
out-of-home care services. Approximately 17% of spending is dedicated to family support services.
3.2.2 Rates of children and young people in child protection continues to increase, especially among
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children
Figure 7 depicts the rate of Indigenous, non-Indigenous and all children on care and protection orders in Australia over the
period between 2008-09 and 2017-18. The number of children on a care and protection order in Australia has increased
from 35,409 (7.5 children per 1000) to 56,412 (10.2 children per 1000), representing a compound annual growth rate of 3
per cent per annum. Over the same period the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children on care and
protection orders has increased significantly from 10,271 (38.4 children per 1000) in 2008-09 to 20,484 (67.2 children per
1000) as at 2017-18,
12
representing a compound annual growth rate of 6 per cent per annum. In 2017-18 Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children were 10 times more likely than non-Indigenous children to be on a care and protection
order.
13
Some of the underpinning factors influencing these trends are explored in Chapter 3.
12
RoGS 2019, Chapter 16 Child Protection, Table 16A.7.
13
RoGS 2019, Chapter 16 Child Protection. Table 16A.1, Non-Indigenous children on a care and protection order is 6.8 per 1000 compared to Indigenous
children 67.2 per 1000.
30%
32%
32%
28%
30%
28%
27%
25%
23%
24%
59%
58%
59%
53%
53%
54%
56%
58%
60%
58%
11%
10%
9%
10%
7%
8%
8%
8%
8%
8%
9%
10%
10%
8%
9%
9%
9%
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
$6,000
$7,000
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Sum of Government spending, 2017
-18 $ '000,000
Protective intervention services Out-of-home care services Intensive family support services Family support services
7% per annum
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 14
Figure 7: Change in the rate of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children on care and protection orders in Australia, 2008-09
to 2017-18
Over the same period of time the number of children in out of home care has also increased. Figure 8 depicts the rate of
Indigenous, non-Indigenous and all children who were in out-of-home care in Australia on 30 June of each year, over the
period between 2008-09 and 2017-18. The number of children in out-of-home care in Australia has increased from 34,069
(6.8 children per 1000) to 45,756 (8.3 children per 1000), representing a compound annual growth rate of 2 per cent per
annum. Over the same period the number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care has also
increased significantly from 10,512 (37.5 children per 1000) in 2008-09 to 17,787 (58.3 children per 1000) as at 2017-18,
14
representing a compound annual growth rate of 5 per cent per annum. In 2008-09 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children made up 31 percent of all children in out-of-home care, this proportion has grown and in 2017-18 they made up 60
percent of all children in out-of-home care. In 2017-18 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were 11 times more
likely than non-Indigenous children to be in out-of-home care.
15
14
RoGS 2019, Chapter 16 Child Protection, Table 16A.7.
15
RoGS 2019, Chapter 16 Child Protection. Table 16A.1, Non-Indigenous children on a care and protection order is 6.8 per 1000 compared to Indigenous
children 67.2 per 1000.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Number of children per 1000
Indigenous Non-Indigenous All
67.2 per
1000
6.8 per
1000
10.2 per
1000
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 15
Figure 8: Change in the rate of Indigenous and non-Indigenous children in out of home care Australia, 2008-09 to 2017-18
There is no consistent trend in the rate of children in notifications, investigations and substantiations across Australia. This
is because it is challenging to draw conclusions across and within jurisdictions as practices and processes have changed
over the timeframes considered. While at a national level there has been an increase in notifications from 43.5 per 1000 to
44.7 per 1000 between 2008-09 and 2017-18 and an increase in substantiations from 6.9 per 1000 to 8.5 per 1000 between
2008-09 and 2017-18. There has been a national decrease in investigations over the same period from 21.5 per 1000 to
17.5 per 1000.
Additionally, the national average masks significant jurisdictional differences. Table 4 shows that the rate of notifications
increased over the period in four jurisdictions and decreased in four jurisdictions. A similar pattern is also observable in
investigations which increased in three jurisdictions and decreased in five jurisdictions and substantiations which increased
in three jurisdictions while decreasing in five jurisdictions.
Jurisdictional differences may also be driven by a large number of reporting and policy/legislative changes over the period
which have influenced the comparability of data (these are summarised in Table 4). For example, in Queensland,
amendments to the Child Protection Act 1999, changed mandatory reporting requirements and significantly influenced the
number of notifications made in that jurisdiction.
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Number of children per 1000
Indigenous Non-Indigenous All
58.3 per
1000
5.3 per
1000
8.3 per
1000
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 16
Table 4: Rate of change per 1,000 children between 2008-9 and 2017-18 for notifications, investigations and
substantiations
16
Jurisdiction
Notifications
Investigations
Substantiations
Factors influencing
comparability
Difference
CAGR
Difference
CAGR
Difference
CAGR
Tasmania
↓ 10.8
-2%
↓ 8.3
-8%
↓ 3.5
-5%
Changes to the definition of a
notification were introduced as of
2015-16 making data from
previous years incomparable with
data from 2015-16 onwards.
2015-16 data is now consistent
with other jurisdictions.
Victoria
↑ 26.2
7%
↑ 12.9
11%
↑ 7.2
10%
None.
Northern
Territory
↑ 115.6
11%
↑ 49.9
11%
↑ 14.4
9%
None.
New South
Wales
↓ 19.3
-3%
NA
NA
NSW implemented a new client
management system in 2017-18
to improve data quality for future
periods. Limited data was
provided for 2017-18.
Queensland
↓ 3.1
-2%
↓ 1.5
-1%
↓ 1.6
-3%
From 2014-15 Qld made a suite
of changes including; requiring all
notifications to be investigated,
the consolidation of mandatory
reporting legislation and ‘child
concern reports’. Data from 2014-
15 onwards is not comparable
with earlier periods.
Western
Australia
↑ 7.2
4%
↑ 7.4
8%
↑ 4.5
11%
None.
South Australia
↓ 4.3
-1%
↓ 5.9
-6%
↓ 1.2
-3%
SA only counts notifications as
those reports which meet the
criteria for a reasonable
suspicions of child abuse and
neglect.
Australian
Capital Territory
↑ 11.2
2%
↓ 2.2
-2%
↓ 5.2
-11%
ACT includes notifications as all
intakes that meet the definition of
both a child concern report and a
child protection report.
Commonwealth
↑ 1.2
2%
↓ 4
-2%
↑ 1.6
2%
While the total proportion of spending on family support services has remained relatively constant since 2012-13, the total
number of children receiving family support services has increased.
Figure 9 shows the rate of children receiving intensive family support services in Australia growing at a rate of 10 per cent
per annum, with approximately 9.5 children per 1,000 accessing intensive family support in 2017-18. The number of
children receiving intensive family support services has increased from 21,976 in 2008-09 to 52,028 in 2017-18 (a
compound annual growth rate of 10%). By comparison, total funding for family support services has grown at a rate of 5 per
cent per annum between 2012-13 and 2017-18. The result has been a decrease in the average recurrent expenditure per
child receiving support of 11 per cent. This decrease may represent greater efficiency in service provision or could signal a
16
RoGS 2019, Chapter 16 Child Protection, Table 16A.1.
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 17
reduction in the level or intensity of support provided, it is not possible to determine the cause of this change with currently
available data.
Figure 9: Rate per 1000 of children receiving intensive family support services in Australia, 2008-09 to 2017-18
17
3.2.3 National Framework data indicators
Thirty-two data indicators
18
are compiled to report the progress of the Framework’s high-level target and supporting
outcomes. Of these indicators, based on Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) data and reporting, three are not
reported on as no data is available and ten have insufficient time series data to make a reliable assessment of trends.
Challenges with data are explored further in Chapter 3. A summary of the 19 indicators with reliable time series data is
provided in Table 5 below. At a high level, four indicators have shown improvement over the life of the framework, 12
indicators have remained steady or show no clear trend, and three indicators have worsened as reported by AIHW. Note
that due to year-to-year variability in data points, a linear trend cannot always be derived. Trend directions represented here
are extracted from AIHW reporting which have analysed trends in each dataset.
Table 5: Summary of National Framework data indicators with reliable time series data
19
Domain
Indicator
Baseline year*
Baseline year
value
Current year
Value (current)
Trend
High level outcome: Australia's children and young people are safe and well
Child protection
substantiations
Rate of children aged 0–17
years who were the subject
2009–10
6.2 (per 1,000)
2017–18
8.5 (per 1,000)
↑ (increase)
17
RoGS 2019, Chapter 16 Child Protection, Table 16A.1.
18
Please refer to https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/nfpac/contents/national-framework-indicators-data-visualisations for the full list of data
indicators.
19
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2019, National Framework Indicators, https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/nfpac/contents/national-
framework-indicators, accessed: 21/01/2020
9.5 per
1000
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2008-9 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18
Number of children per 1000
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 18
of child protection
substantiation
Out-of-home
care
Rate of children aged 0–17
years who are in out-of-
home care
2010
7.1 (per 1,000)
2018
8.2 (per 1,000)
↑ (increase)
Teenage births
Age-specific birth rate for
women aged 15–19 years
2009
16.4 (per
1,000)
2016
10.2 (per
1,000)
↓ (decrease)
Low birthweight
Proportion of live born
infants of low birthweight
2009
6.2%
2016
6.5%
↑ (increase)
Child homicide
Assault (homicide) death
rate for children aged 0–17
years
2008–10
0.5 (per
100,000)
2012–14
0.4 (per
100,000)
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Early childhood
development
Proportion of children who
are developmentally
vulnerable on one or more
domains of the AEDC
2009
23.6%
2015
22.0%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Family economic
situation
Proportion of households
with children aged 0–14
years where at least 50% of
gross household income is
from government pensions
and allowances
2009–10
17.1%
2015–16
13.2%
↓ (decrease)
Supporting Outcome 1: Children live in safe and supportive families and communities
Family
functioning
Proportion of families who
report ‘good’, ‘very good’ or
‘excellent’ family cohesion
(a) birth cohort
2010–11
89.5%
2015–16
88.4%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
(b) kinder cohort
2010–11
87.7%
2015–16
87.3%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Supporting outcome 2: Children and families access adequate support to promote safety and intervene early
Early childhood
education
Attendance rate of children
aged 4–5 years at preschool
programs
2012
86.1%
2017
87.3%
↑ (increase)
Antenatal care
Proportion of women who
had at least five antenatal
visits during pregnancy
2010
94.3%
2016
93.6%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Supporting Outcome 3: Risk factors for abuse and neglect are addressed
Parental
substance use
(alcohol)
Proportion of parents with
children aged 0–14 years
who drank alcohol at risky
levels
2010
48.1%
2016
43.5%
↓ (decrease)
Parental mental
health
Proportion of parents with
children aged 0–14 years
who have a mental health
problem
2009
16.9%
2017
16.3%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Homelessness
Rate of children aged 0–17
years who receive
assistance through
homelessness services
(accompanied and
unaccompanied)
2011–12
13.3 (per
1,000)
2017–18
16.3 (per
1,000)
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Supporting Outcome 4: Children who have been abused or neglected receive the support and care they need for their safety and
wellbeing
Background
Department of Social Services
PwC 19
Child protection
resubstantiations
Rate of children aged 0–17
years who were the subject
of a child protection
resubstantiation in a given
year
2008–09
17.3%
2016–17
17.6%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Placement
stability
Proportion of children aged
0–17 years exiting out-of-
home care during the year
who had 1 or 2 placements
2009–10
63.3%
2017–18
65.6%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Leaving care
plans
Proportion of young people
aged 15–17 years who have
a leaving care plan
2012
77.0%
2018
58.8%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Supporting Outcome 5: Indigenous children are supported and safe in their families and communities
Placement of
Indigenous
children
(relatives/kin)
Proportion of Indigenous
children aged 0–17 years in
out-of-home care placed
with extended family or
other Indigenous caregivers
2010
70.5%
2018
65.2%
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Supporting Outcome 6: Child sexual abuse and exploitation is prevented and survivors receive adequate support
Sexual abuse
substantiations
Rate of children aged 0–17
years who were the subject
of a child protection
substantiation for sexual
abuse
2012–13
0.8 (per 1,000)
2017–18
0.9 (per 1,000)
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
Child sexual
assault
Rate of children aged 0–14
years who have been the
victim of sexual assault
2010
210.3 (per
100,000)
2017
202.8 (per
100,000)
~ (steady/no clear
trend)
*Note: baseline years vary between data indicators due to differences in data collection and baselining methods.
Department of Social Services
PwC 20
4 Evaluation question 1: To what
extent did the National
Framework achieve its intended
outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
This chapter covers…
the outcomes of the National Framework and its Third and Fourth
Action Plans. Aspects of the Framework’s strengths and
weaknesses and factors that supported or inhibited the
achievement of outcomes are also explored. It comprises three
sections:
o Section 4.1 explores the major achievements of the
Framework.
o Section 4.2 explores four key areas that organisations
identified as important strengths, weaknesses, supports or
inhibitors of achieving the outcomes of the Framework and
action plans.
o Section 4.3 explores the effectiveness of the National
Framework in impacting the priorities and actions for
Indigenous children.
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 21
4.1 Achievements of the National Framework and Action Plans
Key finding
Organisations reported that a major achievement of the Framework has been keeping the welfare of children on the
national ‘agenda.’ The implementation of a number of key initiatives, including the National Children’s Commissioner
and National Standards for Out-of-Home Care, are major achievements of the Framework. Although the Framework
implemented a number of key initiatives, it appears that the Framework did not achieve the high-level goal of a
substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect,
The majority of stakeholders reported that there were achievements that they believed could be clearly attributed
to the Framework.
The most frequently cited achievement was that by providing a clear, published and endorsed position on the need to
reduce the prevalence of child abuse and neglect in Australia, the needs of the most vulnerable children and families were
‘on the agenda.’ Organisations reported:
the longevity of the Framework enabled it to transcend changing ministerial priorities, maintain bipartisan support and
create focus on a well-meaning national conversation that aimed to achieve coordination
there is an inherent value in having the National Framework and convening the National Forum as it communicates a
level of importance placed on the needs of Australian children and young people.
Some organisations indicated that having the National Framework and Forum, whilst probably not the catalyst for change,
may have contributed to the broader environment that has seen other reforms and changes that have improved the
wellbeing of children. Organisations provided the following examples:
the implementation of the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations which were recommended by the Royal
Commission into Institutional responses to Child Sexual Abuse and developed through the Third Action Plan.
broader campaigns including Family Matters and Every Child were supported by the relationships and conversations
facilitated by the Framework and Forum.
A large number organisations who were closely involved with the development and delivery of the action plans reported that
the National Framework enabled the generation of cross-jurisdictional relationships between the National Forum members
and these relationships have resulted in trust, coordination and collaboration, which was not present prior to the
Framework. Stakeholders commented favourably on the inclusion of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) as part of
the National Forum and particularly identified building greater understanding and relationships with the SNAICC – National
Voice for our Children as an achievement. An example that was provided was the workshops facilitated by SNAICC in each
jurisdiction in relation to the implementation of the ATSICPP, resulted in greater ongoing engagement with SNAICC by the
jurisdictions.
20
Organisations identified a range of specific initiatives delivered by the Framework over successive action plans as major
achievements. The top four most commonly reported initiatives were:
the agreement of the National Standards for Out-Of-Home-Care
the establishment of the National Children’s Commissioner
the development of the Child Protection National Minimum Data Set
the support that the National Forum (as a regular convening of government and non-government stakeholders) and the
ATSI Working Group provided for more comprehensive implementation of the ATSICPP.
Desktop review of the reported achievements of the action plans identified these achievements along with others, largely
delivered through trials and specific initiatives. These are outlined in Table 6.
20
The ATSICPP seeks to prioritise the placement of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children with their family, community or other Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander families. It also requires consultation with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families, communities and organisations regarding child
protection interventions, placement and care, in addition to ensuring that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are supported to maintain their
connection to family, community and culture. Further information can be found at: https://www.snaicc.org.au/understanding-applying-aboriginal-torres-strait-
islander-child-placement-principle/
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 22
Table 6: Selection of key projects from National Framework Action Plans
Action Plan
Selection of key projects
Action Plan 1
2009 – 2012
Establishment of a National Children’s Commissioner
Agreement of the National Standards for Out-of-Home-Care
Action Plan 2
2012 – 2015
Trialling of the Child Aware Approaches (CAA) initiative that builds on partnerships between
Commonwealth, state and territory governments and the community sector;
Development of the Child Protection National Minimum Data Set;
Reforming the Transition to Independent Living Allowance (TILA); and
National Research Agenda for Protecting Children 2011-2014 - Three research projects selected
through an open tender process and jointly funded by the Australian Government and State and
Territory Governments, comprised key components of the National Research Agenda.
Action Plan 3
2015 – 2018
The Building Capacity in Australian Parents (BCAP) trial (branded ‘Parent Link’) which aims to build
parenting skills and strengths-based parenting behaviours.
The National Community Awareness Raising Strategy (NCAR) aims to raise community awareness
about the importance of the first 1,000 days of a child’s life.
Towards Independent Adulthood (TIA) is an initiative that aims to help young people in out-of-home
care (OOHC) to thrive into adulthood.
SNAICC – National Voice for our Children has developed a Guide to Support Implementation of the
ATSICPP. Connect4Safety - the Inter-jurisdictional Child Protection Data Sharing Project.
Development of the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations
Action Plan 4
2018 – 2020
Ongoing implementation of the ATSICPP
Announcement of seven out of 10 sites for Stronger Places, Stronger People
Research project on Guide for decision making on permanency in a timely manner
Source: DSS website.
At a broader level, the majority of organisations consulted valued the National Framework for its role in driving the children’s
agenda and creating an environment for collaboration and engagement across the sector and jurisdictions. However, there
was not universal awareness of the National Framework’s achievements among organisations; some reported that they
were either unaware or considered that there were limited achievements attributable to the Framework.
These views were almost always expressed in relation to the high-level objective of the Framework which was to achieve “a
substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect in Australia over time.” In many cases stakeholders also
acknowledged that it may not have been possible to achieve the high-level objective within a 12-year Framework but they
were still frustrated at what appeared to be a lack of progress on ‘turning the tide.’
A review of data indicates that the number of children in Australia who receive child protection and/or family support
services has increased over the life of the Framework (see Chapter 3 for an overview of data). A number of potentially
competing factors could explain this increase including;
there is evidence that in developed countries around the world rates of children experiencing poverty, disadvantage and
maltreatment are increasing. A 2019 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) report
estimates that one in seven children in developed countries are growing up in poverty today and over the last ten years
childhood poverty has increased in two thirds of developed countries
21
emerging evidence from the BetterStart initiative, based on a case file review in South Australia indicates that the
prevalence of children experiencing abuse and neglect could be in the order of one in four children, which is significantly
higher than previous estimates
22
21
OECD, 2019, Children paying a high price for inequality, accessed: http://www.oecd.org/social/children-paying-a-high-price-for-inequality.htm, 21/01/2020
22
BetterStart, 2017, Child Protection in South Australia, https://health.adelaide.edu.au/betterstart/publications/reports/child-protection-in-south-australia.pdf,
accessed: 21/01/2020
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 23
levels of notifications, investigations and substantiations have varied considerably across jurisdictions over the last ten
years and have been influenced by policy and legislative changes which effect the rate of reporting of child abuse and
neglect and the threshold that is determined as abuse and neglect. (See Chapter 3 for additional detail)
Noting that the broader objective of the National Framework mightn’t have been achieved, the National Framework was
successful in bringing and sustaining the policy priorities of children and young people to the national ‘agenda’. It delivered
a range of initiatives as well as cornerstone outcomes in the establishment of the National Children’s Commissioner and
National Standards for Out-of-Home care. The lack of a prevalence study meant that the baseline against which the
Framework could progress was not established. A robust baseline would assist future benchmarking to inform policy
making.
4.2 Supporting factors, strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for improvement
All organisations consulted provided views on the supporting factors, strengths, weaknesses and opportunities for
improvement of the Framework and Action Plans.
As discussed in section 4.1, many organisations referenced the role of the National Forum in fostering collaboration across
governments and the non-government sector as a major strength of the Framework’s design. The longer-term view of the
Framework also elevated the policy needs of children and ‘kept it on the agenda’.
Almost all organisations made statements that indicated that governance of the National Framework and the Third and
Fourth Action Plans was an inhibitor of the achievement of outcomes and implementation of actions. In referring to
governance there were two broad challenges identified by organisations;
1 the ability of the Framework’s governance arrangements to provide broader leadership and strategic direction that
influenced priorities across government and service sectors to drive outcomes for children (outlined in section 3.2.2)
2 the ability of the Framework and Action Plans’ governance to adequately support internal decision making that was
aligned to the Framework’s objectives or to drive accountability for actions and outcomes (outlined in section 3.2.3)
In addition to these challenges, organisations identified challenges related to investment and resourcing, the use of data
and evidence and coordination across government. Evidence of these themes are outlined in sections 4.2.3 and 4.2.4.
4.2.2 Governance and decision making
Across all organisations there were differences regarding the aspects of the Framework’s governance models that either
supported or inhibited it. Many organisations indicated that governance in the earlier years of the Framework was stronger;
several indicating that governance has been a consistent challenge throughout the Framework and a few indicating that the
governance has improved in the Fourth Action Plan. Overall, as with many cross-governmental and large-scale initiatives,
the governance has been impacted by numerous changes that are outside the control of the Framework including COAG
restructures and mode of government changes.
As outlined in the summary in Box 1 (below), successive iterations of governance have resulted in the National Framework
no longer reporting to a standing COAG committee and instead formally reporting to the Children and Families Secretaries
(CAFS) and Community Services Ministers (CSM). A number of impacts of this change were reported by organisations
including:
several organisations reported that CAFS was not able to influence governmental priorities to the extent of COAG.
These organisations reported that they observed that the National Framework gradually became less of a priority for
governments over the life of the Framework and this coincided with movements of the Framework’s governance
structure away from the oversight, leadership and accountability of COAG. Some stakeholders reported that earlier
governance models that reported through to COAG provided for a greater ‘authorising environment’ which led to the
establishment of some signature initiatives such as the National Standards for OOHC and the National Children’s
Commissioner. One focus group also reported that challenges to gaining authorisation had arisen but felt that the
authorising environment had improved in later action plans as DSS took on a bigger role in seeking approvals from
CAFS and CSM out of session.
focus group discussion suggested that the evolution of the processing of reporting to the Community Services Ministers
meetings (following the changes from the COAG Standing Committee of Community and Disability Services Ministers)
had lessened the priority of the National Framework among governments.
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 24
Box 1 Summary of the evolution of governance
Governance arrangements of the Framework and Action Plans have evolved over time both in response to external
changes such as COAG reviews and through internal processes to develop governance arrangements that best meet the
needs of the Framework and its action plans. This section summarises some key changes to governance arrangements
that give context to the operation of the Third and Fourth Action Plans (which were delivered between 2015 and 2020) as
compared to earlier action plans. The evolution covers the period from 2009 to 2020.
At inception (2009), the National Framework set out an ambition for arrangements that ensured it was supported by
integrated governance that cut across government and the non-government sector in order to plan and implement
actions. The governance structure was as follows.
the Community and Disability Services Ministers’ Conference was responsible for the implementation of the National
Framework, reporting annually to COAG
a Ministerial Forum on Protecting Australia’s Children was convened to bring together Ministers with responsibilities
under the National Framework. The Forum invited contribution from non-government representatives, such as State
and Territory Children’s Commissioners and children and young people
the Community and Disability Services Ministers’ Advisory Committee (CDSMAC) to support CDSM to manage the
National Framework
a tripartite National Framework Advisory Committee to advise on the operation of the National Framework,
comprising CDSMAC officials with nominees from other sectors (such as health, education and justice) and non-
government representatives (such as leading academics, practitioners and peak organisations)
supporting the formal governance mechanisms were a series of working groups, with members drawn from
government and non-government organisations as appropriate.
In March 2011 a significant reform of Ministerial Councils was announced which resulted in the dissolution of the
Community and Disability Services Ministers Conference and supporting structures (CDSMAC).
23
Between 2011 and
2014 the National Framework reported to the Standing Council on Community, Housing and Disability Services and was
supported by the Standing Council on Community and Disability Services Advisory Council.
Further changes resulted in the dissolution of the Standing Council on Community, Housing and Disability Services in
2014. It was replaced by the Children and Families Secretaries Group (CAFS) and an informal structure referred to as
the Community Services Ministers (CSM) meeting, which the National Framework reported to from 2014 onwards. As
such the National Framework is no longer sponsored as an initiative of COAG and current COAG performance reporting
does not include indicators related to child safety or wellbeing.
24
Chapter 2 outlines the governance structure and working groups of the National Framework, as per the Third and Fourth
Action Plans. The governance arrangements for the Fourth Action Plan had not been finalised prior to consultation
undertaken as part of this evaluation. The draft governance structure supporting the Fourth Action Plan demonstrates a
number of key changes from the structure under the Third Action Plan including that;
CSM meeting is included within the governance structure diagram. CSM meetings took place during the period of the
Third Action Plan and the CSM was designated ultimate responsibility for the Third Action Plan but this group was not
included in the governance diagram.
Priority Working Groups report directly to CAFS. The Commonwealth, State and Territory Officials Working Group is
no longer included in the structure.
The National Forum provides input and guidance to working groups but working groups no longer report through the
National Forum to CAFS.
Alignment of the Working Groups to the four priorities outlined in the Fourth Action Plan plus the Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander Working Group. Working groups are co-chaired by States/Territories and NOCS instead of
being aligned to the three parties of the tripartite arrangement. The National Coalition no longer chair a working group
and do not maintain membership on any of the Priority Working Groups.
There are two Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Working Groups representing Priority One of the Fourth Action
Plan and a separate advisory group who have input into all Priority Working Groups, the Strategic Information Group
and the National Forum.
Outside of this governance structure there was an Inter-jurisdictional Child Protection Information Sharing working
group which was convened in 2016 in response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse. This group reported to CAFS. The work of this group was closely linked to the Priority 4, Child Safety
Working Group who are progressing the response to Royal Commission recommendations through the Fourth Action
Plan. The group is no longer convened.
The CAFS Strategic Information Group (SIG) and Children and Families Data Network (CAFDaN) have been
convened as part of the Fourth Action Plan.
The Research Advisory Committee is no longer convened.
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 25
Governance membership and representation
In addition to the changes related to COAG structures, membership of the National Forum and Working Groups was heavily
focussed on both government and non-government representatives from the child protection space which limited the
Framework’s ability to have broader influence. Views provided included that:
a few organisations and a couple of focus groups reported that despite the broad membership of the National Coalition
on Child Safety and Wellbeing (convened by Families Australia), the representative organisations on the Forum were
mostly focussed on the statutory child protection space. It was reported that this led to a narrowing of the priorities
discussed for action in the Third and Fourth Action Plans.
a few organisations also reported that government representation on the National Forum and Working Groups was also
focussed heavily on child protection departments (state/territory) and DSS (Commonwealth). Organisations indicated
that although Commonwealth Departments of Education and Health have been involved throughout, there were
opportunities to better enhance representation. Enhanced representation occurred after the establishment of the
National Office for Child Safety and the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA). In addition, organisations
referenced that the state/territory government representation has almost exclusively included child protection
departments except in case where child protection is delivered as part of a broader portfolio in a jurisdiction. This has
resulted in the exclusion of broader state representation among related portfolios such as disability, justice, community
services and housing.
Further impacts related to coordination and influence of the broader policy agenda are outlined in detailed in Chapter 5.
Strategic direction and decision-making
The Third Action Plan was seen as the most effective through implementation, largely driven by its rationalisation of
actions and focus on the child protection system where National Forum members had greater leverage to influence
activity.
The Framework and its governance mechanisms were unable to influence the broad strategic direction of
governments and service sectors outside of child protection. This inability was influenced by successive changes to
the governance structure which removed it from COAG oversight and the narrow membership of the National Forum
which resulted in the Forum having limited networks and influence in broader service sectors.
The governance structure did not drive consensus in decision-making within the National Forum and was ineffective
in holding members accountable for outcomes of the Framework.
Stakeholders familiar with the governance structure that underpinned the National Framework reported positively on some
aspects of the governance structure but generally agreed that challenges in reaching agreement and/or decisions
outweighed the positives.
A few stakeholders highlighted that the current governance structure for the Fourth Action Plan has not been agreed or
finalised. A greater number of organisations indicated that this challenge was broader than just the Fourth Action Plan and
reported that the roles and responsibilities of tripartite members has never been well defined. This is supported by the
desktop analysis of the terms of reference documents which is provided in Appendix B and shows that there were
inconsistent approaches to what information is included, how terms of reference are generated and signed off.
Organisations reported that inter-jurisdictional collaboration was a key strength of the governance arrangements,
particularly in relation to convening the National Forum and the working groups, including that:
the National Forum enforced a level of collaboration between members and that that the inclusion of NGOs on the
National Forum helped to bridge jurisdictional boundaries and share lessons from around Australia
23
Australian Parliament House, Reform of Ministerial Councils,
https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2011/March/Reform_of_Ministerial_Councils,
accessed: 13 January 2020
24
Productivity Commission, Performance Reporting Dashboard, https://performancedashboard.d61.io/aus, accessed: 13 January 2020
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 26
a key issue regarding the governance was a lack of senior government attendance to the National Forum and working
groups which meant delegates were not authorised to commit to implementing actions. These organisations highlighted
that the seniority of government attendees reduced over time and stymied momentum for implementation and
collaboration.
Tripartite governance structure
Some organisations reported that the tripartite nature of the governance was a key strength and something that set it apart
from other national frameworks and policies in the beginning however over time the tripartite nature evolved and became
less productive. Views in relation to the tripartite nature of the governance included:
that the draft governance structure for the Fourth Action Plan effectively dissolves the tripartite nature of the governance
by removing the National Coalition from all decision-making bodies and working groups. Desktop analysis of the Fourth
Action Plan governance structure identifies that membership of the priority working groups has been limited to the
state/territory and Commonwealth governments. As the working groups have shifted to report directly to CAFS under
this structure, stakeholders perceived that these changes risk that the National Coalition is not appropriately consulted
as part of decision-making processes
that representatives of the National Coalition on the National Forum were organisations that were focussed on the
statutory child protection sector and reflected that this group heavily influenced conversation and focus towards the child
protection space. This focus sometimes hampered conversation and effort to discuss a broader early intervention and
prevention agenda. Some organisations reported that the rationalisation of working groups under the Fourth Action Plan
enables greater focus on the delivery of planned early intervention and prevention initiatives.
Role of the working groups
A few organisations reported that in the Third and Fourth Action Plan working groups there has been increasing pressure to
use the working groups to address or respond to the recommendations of inquiries, reviews and Royal Commissions. This
was also supported in focus group discussions which indicated that as CAFS took on responsibility for ensuring the full
implementation of Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse recommendations, the National
Forum and Working Groups became a natural mechanism to drive this work forward. This is supported by desktop analysis
which found that:
the Terms of Reference for working groups in the Fourth Action Plan includes a broader mandate to respond to the
priorities of CAFS and the CSM. This appears to be in line with a decision which was reached at the November 2017
National Forum and referenced at the August 2018 National Forum to move away from an implementation focus for the
working groups (in reference to the working groups under the Third Action Plan) to a more ‘strategic approach’ and to
streamline the membership of the working groups
the inclusion of CAFS Strategic Information Group (CAFS SIG) and Children and Families Data Network (CAFDaN) in
the governance structure appeared to be a mechanism for responding to and aligning with the Royal Commission into
Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and the Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children
in the Northern Territory.
25
The impact of using the governance structures of the National Framework for a purpose other than that specified in its
Terms of Reference and planned priorities is that it risks distracting from the agenda of the National Framework. It also risks
cementing that the National Framework has a role in ‘advising’ or to function as a discussion forum for jurisdictions, but not
an implementation arm. Revisions to the governance arrangements would be required if this structure is to be retained to be
sure to quarantine or dedicate working groups focused on the agreed activities of the Framework.
On balance, the governance structure support ongoing engagement between the jurisdictions and sector, but considering
the specific aspects, the Third Action Plan was most effective given its narrower focus. Its focus on child protection reflected
the strength of the governance structure which enabled it to influence those within the sector, however broader influence
was more difficult to achieve. The lack of accountability or levers to drive consensus within the structure could be reviewed
to enhance the delivery of outcomes.
25
Fourth Action Plan 2018-2020, Supporting families, communities and organisations to keep children safe.
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 27
4.2.3 Investment and resourcing of the National Framework
Key finding
Available investment for the Framework limited the scale of initiatives pursued and in turn limited the achievement of
outcomes. Joint funding opportunities were not sufficiently explored or implemented.
Almost all organisations made statements that indicated that investment and resourcing of the National Framework and
action plans inhibited the achievement of outcomes and implementation of actions. Several organisations agreed that
funding committed was important to deliver specific actions of the action plans but identified that funding was not always
prioritised and/or was directed to deliver specific initiatives, without ability to consider where it might best be invested.
Investment approaches
Almost all organisations who identified investment as an inhibitor reported that there was a lack of resourcing for the
Framework. Stakeholders who expressed this view commented:
that jurisdictions often look to the Commonwealth to provide leadership by investing in key initiatives under the
Framework but it is not clear that this is the best or only investment model. Joint funding and investment matching
opportunities could provide the most sustainable investment model for the Framework. Stakeholders, particularly from
the broader service sector, reported that these opportunities have not been appropriately explored under the Framework
which may be connected to challenges faced with the governance model (outlined above). This was supported through
desktop analysis of Strategy Workplans under the Third Action Plan which could not identify any documented joint
funding/investment arrangements
that the funding under the National Framework compared to other national plans and commitments by the
Commonwealth has been relatively less than for other plans given the broad and complex scope of the Framework.
Stakeholders perceived that this resulted in action plans not being implemented successfully and also signalling the
lesser priority of the Framework. A comparison was often drawn with the National Plan to Reduce Violence against
Women and their Children, for which $328 million was committed for the implementation of the Fourth Action Plan
(2019-2022)
26
compared to $48.06 million which has been provided for the Fourth Action Plan of the Framework (see
Appendix C for additional detail on the funding provided under the Third and Fourth Action Plans).
A few organisations who identified investment as a key inhibitor reported that there was a lack of investment in early
intervention and prevention activities by jurisdictions. These stakeholders reported that:
jurisdictions face challenges in redirecting funding to early intervention and prevention in the short term while the
population of children in the child protection system is still high and growing
Commonwealth funding may be required in the short to medium term to enable simultaneous investment across the
three tiers of the public health model, until a reduction and/or slowing of the number of children in the system is
achieved.
Design and funding of trials
Several organisations identified that the short term or trial nature of the actions that were implemented, limited impact. The
lack of ongoing and national implementation was generally seen as a result of a lack of secured funding or opportunity for
long term investment of projects that showed promising results. Examples provided by organisations included:
personal advisor models similar to that trialled under the Transition to Independent Adulthood initiative of the Third
Action Plan have been in operation in the United Kingdom for a number of years and have been trialled and evaluated in
Victoria through Berry Street’s Stand By Me initiative.
27
This organisation reported that given the evidence already exists
for the effectiveness of this approach, it is not useful to implement further small scale trials of this program
26
Department of Social Services, 5 March 2019, Our Investment in Women’s Safety, https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/03_2019/our-
investment-womens-safety-5-march-2019.pdf, accessed: 29/01/2019
27
Berry Street, Stand By Me article, https://www.berrystreet.org.au/news/2017/stand-me
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 28
most organisations reported frustration at the lack of scale of trials, demonstrations and initiatives that are funded, and
often reported that given the small scale they were unsurprised that there had been minimal achievement of the
Framework’s outcomes which are broad and ambitious compared to the funding and implementation that has been
observed.
Funding for the Framework
The desktop analysis of funding attached to the Framework and its action plans found that there is no dedicated investment
plan attached to the Framework. Information on the funding provided for the Framework was provided by DSS. An overview
of total funding provided by the Commonwealth identified that over $184 million has been committed to the National
Framework and associated initiatives as shown in Table 7.
A review of work plans for the three Strategy Working Groups under the Third Action Plan identified that outside of key
initiatives funded by DSS and Department of Education, actions included do not have an identified source of funding or
resourcing plan attached. Some initiatives appear to secure funding through the Base National Initiatives appropriation
however documentation of the amount or duration of funding was not provided. An outline of specific funding for the Third
and Fourth Action Plans is shown in Table 8 with further detail provided in Appendix C.
Table 7: Summary of funding provided by the Commonwealth for the delivery of the action plans
Action Plan
Total amount28
1
$63 million (2009 to 2012)
2
Not captured in 2015 evaluation
3
$13.75 million (2015-2020) – Department of Social Services
$60 million (2015-2020) – Department of Education
4
$48.06 million (2018-2023) – Department of Social Services
Source: 2015 Evaluation and DSS data
Table 8: Breakdown of major funding streams for the Third and Fourth Action Plans
Action
Plan
Funding
Amount
29
3
Base National Initiatives appropriation
$7.8 million ($2.6 million per annum, 2015-16 to 2017-18)
3
Building Capacity in Australia’s Parents trial
$2.08 million (2016-17 to 2019-20)
3
Transition to Independent Adulthood Trial
$3.87 million (2016-17 to 2019-20)
3
Connected Beginnings
Approximately $12 million per annum provided by Department of
Education
3
TOTAL
$13.75 million (2015-2020) – Department of Social Services
$60 million (2015-2020) – Department of Education
4
Base National Initiatives appropriation
$7.8 million ($2.6 million per annum, 2018-19 to 2020-21)
4
Departmental reallocation to National Initiatives
$1.5 million (2018-19)
4
Stronger Places, Stronger People
$35 million (2019-2023)
4
National Child Protection Information Sharing System
$3.867 million (2018-19)
4
TOTAL
$48.06 million (2018-2023) – Department of Social Services
28
Funding for the First Action Plan reported in ACIL Allen Consulting – Evaluation of Progress under the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s
Children 2015. Funding and activity information provided by DSS for the Third and Fourth Action Plan in emails dated; 9 December 2019 and 21 January
2020.
29
Funding and activity information provided by DSS in emails dated; 9 December 2019 and 21 January 2020
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 29
Considering the investment made and initiatives pursued, the National Framework was constrained in the impact it could
have. There are opportunities to explore joint funding or other funding models that leverage investment of jurisdictions to
amplify the reach of initiatives delivered through the National Framework.
4.2.4 Use of data and evidence to inform decision making
Key finding
The Framework contributed to the evidence base through funding research activities, but decision-making processes
were not sufficiently robust to ensure that evidence was embedded which occasionally resulted in key initiatives and
trials that were not evidence-based.
Data indicators were focussed on child protection and as the primary mechanism for reporting on outcomes, many do
not have sufficient data. The indicators contributed to a focus on the child protection system which failed to engage
broader sectors and portfolios and failed to result in accountability for the outcomes being achieved.
More than half of organisations indicated that evidence and data could have been better used to inform decision making
and prioritisation of effort. Organisations reported that a number of factors impacted on the effective use of evidence in
decision making including:
that the use of evidence and data to inform priorities and action such as the establishment of the Research Advisory
Committee under the Third Action Plan was positive but reported that the use of evidence was not embedded
consistently.
processes and decisions made regarding the priorities of the action plans and the parameters of projects and initiatives
undertaken were not always based on evidence. A handful of stakeholders and one focus group referred to the
establishment of the BCAP trial as an example of where evidence was not used to inform the parameters and design of
the trial. Stakeholders reported that at least one jurisdiction chose not to be a part of the trial due to the lack of evidence-
informed design.
Several organisations referenced that the data indicators used to report on the National Framework were largely focussed
on children in child protection and there were insufficient indicators that reported on risk factors or leading indicators such
as repeat hospital admissions. Desktop review of the National Framework indicators revealed that of the 32 indicators, 17
indicators report on children and families who are already known to child protection or other frontline services
(homelessness). Of the 18 indicators that have sufficient time series data to report on trend, 10 are related to children and
families who are already known to child protection.
30
While some of the funded activities under the National Framework built the evidence base through research, it was
suggested that decision-making processes were not sufficiently evidence-based. A strong focus on child protection – as
reflected in the Framework’s data indicators – focused activities on those that influence these metrics.
4.2.5 Coordination across government and prioritisation of effort
Key finding
While the intent to bridge cross-portfolio issues that underpin child abuse and neglect was evident in discussions
throughout the development of the National Framework and the Action Plans, the challenges of doing so were not
overcome. Broad system and cross-jurisdictional changes were not achieved to address the underlying causes of
child abuse and neglect.
A significant number of organisations consulted with made statements that indicated that coordination of national effort
under the National Framework and action plans was weak and this impacted on the achievement of outcomes.
The most commonly reported inhibitor was a lack of coordinated and consistent implementation of initiatives across
jurisdictions and over time (reported by more than half of organisations who identified this challenge). Organisations who
reported this inhibitor indicated that the lack of consistent implementation was a symptom of a lack of investment and
resourcing, and an inability of the National Framework to lead broad service system improvements and cross-governmental
30
PwC analysis of Australian institute of Health and Welfare, National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children: Indicator quick reference guide.
Accessed: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/nfpac/contents/national-framework-indicators
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 30
changes to connect services and overcome disjointed referral pathways. Several organisations reported that the current
services system is disconnected/disjointed and results in inefficient allocation of support services such as some clients
falling through the cracks and others being over-serviced.
A handful of organisations identified that a strength of both the Third and Fourth Action Plans was that, to overcome the
challenges experienced in coordinating effort, the Forum focussed on a smaller number of achievable actions that had
greater success in being implemented. However, some stakeholders suggested that this focus became possible because
the activities that were prioritised were within the child protection space where the majority of the members of the National
Forum and Working Groups had jurisdiction or influence. Organisations reported that:
it was positive to achieve more of the initiatives included within the Third Action Plan and to see any outstanding
initiatives included within the Fourth Action Plan
however, the focus on achievable actions resulted in the actions being pursued and being selected based on what could
be achieved as a first priority
this approach resulted in effort being directed back to the statutory, child protection system and failed to progress a push
towards greater early intervention and prevention.
While the intent to bridge cross-portfolio issues that underpin child abuse and neglect was evident in discussions of the
National Framework’s governance structure, the challenges of doing so were not surmounted. The broad system and cross-
jurisdictional changes envisaged were not implemented over the operation of the National Framework. Further, the lack of
data on the prevalence of child abuse and neglect, and other measures of health and wellbeing indicators - which was cited
by a number of stakeholders - is a challenge in embedding appropriate measurement and accountability frameworks
against which progress could be tracked at a national level.
4.3 Effectiveness of informing the agenda for Indigenous priorities and actions
Key finding
The over-representation of Indigenous children in child protection has deteriorated over the life of the Framework.
Organisations identified that positive work had commenced to embed the ATSICPP but cautioned that full
implementation (not just as a placement hierarchy) is required to fully pursue Indigenous children’s rights. Indigenous
stakeholders identified an opportunity for the Framework to ensure that Indigenous communities are adequately
consulted in all stages of development and implementation. Focus would also be better supported if prevalence data
enabled the National Framework to monitor its progress.
Almost all organisations consulted provided views on the effectiveness of the National Framework and action plans in
informing the agenda for Indigenous priorities. Of those organisations almost half made statements that indicated that the
Framework has not resulted in any reduction in the over-representation of Indigenous children in child protection and out of
home care.
Indicators of progress for Indigenous children
Desktop analysis of data indicators (outlined in Chapter 3) supports this view as over-representation appears to have
worsened from 6.8 times more likely to 9.9 times between 2008-09 to 2018-19. In addition, the proportion of all children on
a care and protection order who identify as Indigenous has increased from 29% in 2008-09 to 36% in 2017-18. As
Indigenous children currently make up a significant cohort within the child protection system, the supporting factors,
strengths, weaknesses and inhibitors of achieving the actions and outcomes of the Framework also apply closely to the
effectiveness of informing Indigenous priorities and actions. This was supported by more than half of organisations who
referenced that the challenges experienced in relation to the high-level factors outlined above, also impacted on the ability
of the Framework to impact on outcomes for Indigenous children.
Extent to which the Framework progressed the Indigenous agenda
Three Indigenous organisations were consulted with as part of this evaluation and provided their views on the key factors
that have inhibited progress for Indigenous children. All Indigenous organisations were aligned on two key factors:
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 31
1 The National Framework has not embedded the key principles of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) including the right to self-determination and free, prior and informed consent.
31
Indigenous organisations provided the following specific examples:
The consultation processes to develop the action plans had not adequately consulted with Aboriginal community-
controlled organisations and peak bodies in the formative stages of developing actions and initiatives. An
example provided was that when consultation was undertaken it was often conducted ‘tokenistically’ once key
parameters and priorities had been settled which did not enable organisations to truly influence the outcome (see
also Chapter 6 of this report)
consultation was often limited to members of the National Forum, of which there was only one representative for
the majority of the Framework, and so did not enable broad consultation with community and Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander people
the action plans and supporting governance structures of the Framework didn’t provide the leadership or
prioritise work to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s child protection services are
delivered by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander organisations
It is noted that Australia endorsed UNDRIP in April 2009, the same month that the National Framework was
released. The timing of this is likely to have contributed to the National Framework not embedding principles of the
UNDRIP at its inception. A high-level analysis of the alignment of the Framework’s outcomes with the UNDRIP is
outlined in Appendix C. The analysis showed that, the Framework’s supporting outcome 5 “Indigenous children are
supported and safe in their families and communities” is consistent with article 22 of the UNDRIP “special attention
shall be paid to the needs of Aboriginal youth and children” and the majority of articles which reference Indigenous
children are at least partly addressed by the Framework. More broadly none of the supporting outcomes of the
Framework directly contravene the rights outlined in the UNDRIP, however as the UNDRIP outlines the rights of all
Indigenous people, it is not expected that the Framework, which focusses on children, would respond to all rights.
Regardless of this, comments from Indigenous organisations reveal that the Framework could have more fully
incorporated overarching principles of the UNDRIP including self-determination and free, prior and informed consent
when programs and policy that effect Indigenous people were developed, implemented, reviewed and evaluated.
2 Monitoring of the ATSICPP is required to ensure that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s culture is
respected and supported.
Several organisations reported that a key achievement of the Framework in informing the agenda for Indigenous
children has been the agreement and implementation of the ATSICPP. The ATSICPP is a set of five elements that
have been endorsed or legislated in some way in all states/territories and provide guidance to ensure that
Indigenous children’s culture and identify are supported and respected, including when they are in the child
protection system.
32
The ATSICPP is a key way in which jurisdictions are responding both to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. However, there is a need for
jurisdictions to ensure the full and consistent implementation of the ATSICPP in order to actively pursue the rights of
Indigenous children.
Despite many organisations reporting that the implementation of the ATSICPP has been a key achievement, there
remains debate around the extent to which these principles have been fully implemented in each jurisdiction. For the
first time in 2019 SNAICC completed a baseline analysis of the Child Placement Principle in all jurisdictions. This
31
UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007, accessed: https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/declaration-on-the-rights-
of-indigenous-peoples.html, 29/01/2020
32
SNAICC, 2019, Baseline analyses of Child Placement Principle, https://www.snaicc.org.au/policy-and-research/child-safety-and-wellbeing/baseline-
analyses-of-child-placement-principle/
Evaluation question 1: To what extent did the National Framework achieve its intended outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
Department of Social Services
PwC 32
analysis found that “significant progress is needed to ensure full and holistic implementation of the principle.”
33
The
completion of the baseline analysis is evidence of progress, as a previous study undertaken by the Australian
Institute of Family Studies recommended investment into monitoring to ensure that full implementation of the
ATSICPP was achieved.
34
The Fourth Action Plan included a specific action to “Develop a nationally consistent
approach to measuring the application of the five elements” of the ATSICPP the initial outputs of which have been
used to deliver the baseline analysis.
During consultation, organisations indicated that whilst a full set of ATSICPP indicators had been agreed, none of
the indicators were currently able to be reported on consistently, due to insufficient data. Work to develop and collate
data sets is underway however some challenges highlighted included:
complexity of compiling data from diverse data bases and client management systems across the
states/territories
much of the data has not been recorded in a data base and will require case file review to compile, no funding to
complete a full case file review has been allocated
some of the data may never be able to be reported on systematically because of the nature of the indicators.
Activities of the National Framework
The Third Action Plan is the first action plan under the National Framework to include a specific focus area and a working
group to further work on improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. Organisations commented
favourably on the establishment of this working group, with some stakeholders reporting that the Fourth Action Plan seems
to have ‘got it right’. Section 6.2 explores the views organisations provided in regard to ‘lessons learned’ in developing
priorities for Indigenous children. Organisations reported the following aspects that have influenced the operation of the
National Forum in developing this approach:
the involvement of SNAICC in the Framework governance and implementation processes was viewed favourably. Some
stakeholders also reported that SNAICC’s involvement in the Forum has resulted in their jurisdictions being more
engaged with SNAICC when implementing initiatives and activities outside of the Framework and this has resulted in
greater cultural competency in their child protection services
that as SNAICC has been the only Indigenous organisation on the National Forum for most of the National Framework,
that the priorities for Indigenous children championed by SNAICC have occasionally been competed out by other
priorities put forward by a greater majority of Forum members
the National Forum has struggled to come to consensus about what the best practice is to respond to the needs of
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. This was referenced in relation to the best way to ensure a focus on
improving outcomes (including whether establishing a separate priority or embedding the priority throughout all work
was the best model) and within that, disagreement in relation to the best initiatives to implement.
Over the operation of the Framework, the over-representation of Indigenous children has deteriorated. Some positive
progress has been made through the introduction of the ATSICPP and representation of Indigenous organisations on the
National Forum which has given greater focus to the priorities of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.
Opportunities exist to enhance the evidence base, through a prevalence study, to enable future policy work to monitor
progress. In addition, greater engagement of Indigenous communities would support the delivery of the UNDRIP principles.
33
Ibid.
34
Australian Institute of Family Studies, 2015, Enhancing the implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle, accessed:
https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/enhancing-implementation-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-child/export, 20/01/2020
Department of Social Services
PwC 33
5 Evaluation question 2: How well
did the National Framework
support the policy agenda for
children and young people?
This chapter covers…
the extent to which the National Framework supports the policy
agenda for children and young people. It includes:
o Section 5.1.1 considers the connectivity of recent
jurisdictional activity in the child protection sector to the
National Framework
o Section 5.1.2 reviews the alignment of government
investment (in reported policies and programs) to the
National Framework
o Section 5.1.3 explores recent activity within intersecting
policy areas
Evaluation domain 2: How well did the National Framework support the policy agenda for children and young people?
Department of Social Services
PwC 34
5.1 Alignment with broader policy areas
5.1.1 Connectivity of jurisdictional activity in the child protection sector
Key finding
There is evidence of a significant amount of government investment and reform among policy domains that are
connected to the National Framework. These policy domains deliver against various priorities of government (for
example, in child sexual abuse and universal service design and provision). While aligned, activities are difficult to
directly attribute to the National Framework.
Over the operation of the National Framework, a number of interrelated inquiries, Royal Commissions and reforms have
taken place. These have led to a wide range of government responses that correspond to the outcomes sought by the
National Framework. With the exception of the Commonwealth Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse, the National Framework governance does not appear to have had any role in facilitating jurisdictional
responses to these inquiries, Commissions or reforms.
Figure 10 outlines a number of key reform activities that have taken place over the life of the National Framework. It shows
that much government focus has been centred on inquiries (including responses to the Royal Commissions and state-
based inquiries). Not represented here are the numerous coronial inquiries which have also been delivered across
jurisdictions and stimulated much policy activities in interrelated policy areas.
Department of Social Services
PwC 35
Figure 10: Key inquiries and reforms during the National Framework
35
35
Note: rapid review of jurisdictional inquiries and reforms relating to child protection, based on desktop research.
2009
2019
2011
2013
2015
2017
Action Plan 1 Action Plan 2
Action Plan 3
Roy al Commission
into Violence, Abuse,
Neglect and
Exploitation of
People with Disability
(Cth)
Roy al Commission
into Institutional
Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse (Cth)
Roy al Commission
into the Protection
and Detention of
Children in the
Northern Territory
(Cth)
Productivity Inquiry
into Expenditure on
Children in the
Northern Territory
(Cth)
Special Commission
of Inquiry into Child
Protection Serv ices
(NSW)
Child Protection
Commission of
Inquiry (QLD)
Inquiry into
imprisonment and
recidiv ism (QLD)
Roy al Commission
into Victoria’s Mental
Health System (VIC)
Roy al Commission
into Family
Violence (VIC)
Inquiry into Child and
Youth Protection
Services (ACT)
Child Protection
Systems Royal
Commission (SA)
Inquiry into
Aboriginal Youth
Suicides (WA)
Inquiry into
Accommodation and
Intensive Family
Support Funding f or
People with
Disabilities (WA)
Action Plan 4
The National Plan to
Reduce Violence
against Women and
their Children 2010-
2022 (Cth)
Government
Response to the
Roy al Commission
into Institutional
Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse (ACT)
Strong f amilies, safe
children (VIC)
Luke Batty
murdered (2014)
ABC Four Corners
‘Australia’ s Shame’ (Don
Dale detention) (2016)
Uluru Statement
from the Heart
(2017)
Their Futures Matter:
A new approach
(NSW)
Safer Liv es for
Women, Men and
Children(NSW)
Supporting Families
Changing
Futures(QLD)
Connecting Care to
Recovery(QLD)
Domestic and Family
Violence Prev ention
Strategy (QLD)
Safe, Thriving and
Connected (NT)
Safe, Respected and
Free from
Violence(NT)
Child and Young
People Saf ety Act
2017 (SA)
Response to the
Roy al Commission
(2018) (WA)
Strong Families,
Safe Kids (Tas)
Safe Homes, Safe
Families 2015 (Tas)
National Disability
Strategy
Key events
Key reforms
Key commissions
and inquiries
Department of Social Services
PwC 36
Figure 10 shows that over the past five years, governments have directed significant reform and funding towards child
protection, domestic and family violence, and, youth justice policy domains. Among these are:
a number of substantial child protection reforms, including in Tasmania, South Australia, New South Wales and
Queensland have also been implemented within the past five years. These reforms have led, in most cases, to service
model design changes across the child protection sector.
government responses to the federal Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
36
and the
Victorian Royal Commission into Family Violence which have led to significant government investment into domestic
and family violence plans which were introduced between 2015 and 2018.
the 2017 Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory
37
which led to
significant reforms in the Northern Territory. Similar youth justice policy challenges are reflected in commissions,
reviews and inquiries in other states. For example, Queensland, Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory, have, or
are developing responses to address systemic youth justice policy challenges.
Many of these reforms have influenced and directed jurisdictional priorities and funding since 2015.
In many cases, reform activity can be linked to external events which have highlighted systemic sector issues, triggering
government response. For example, the ABC’s Four Corners report of the Don Dale Detention Centre has garnered public
interest and demand for government response to these issues.
These activities make it difficult to draw direct attribution between policy activity and the National Framework. However,
there are clear linkages between the policy objectives arising from these reviews and those in the National Framework.
Organisations who thought that activities were not directly attributable, qualified that jurisdictional activity and the extent to
which they can be linked to the National Framework, must take account of:
that many activities were focused on women and families and are not oriented to the child. Due to this, they don’t
properly align to National Framework outcomes
jurisdictions were often able to cite their activities as being aligned given how broad the National Framework’s outcomes
were, although organisations perceived that many of their initiatives were established as a result of other drivers
a busy five-year window in which reforms in child protection (and related policies) have been undertaken in the
jurisdictions. These had driven much jurisdictional attention over the National Framework.
5.1.2 Alignment of government effort to the National Framework
Across the operation of the National Framework, governments have led significant action addressing issues relating to
children’s safety and wellbeing.
A set of broader initiatives delivered between 2015 and 2019 that appear to be aligned to the priorities outlined in the Third
and Fourth Action Plans are reported on in the Draft Annual Report 2016-17 and 2017-18 and are summarised in Table 9
below.
38
Initiatives reported by jurisdictions vary significantly in terms of their ambition and reach. It is difficult to therefore
draw conclusions over the impact of these initiatives on the outcomes. Further detail is provided in Appendix C.
ATSICPP was reported to be one activity that was specifically coordinated or implemented as a result of the National
Framework. These principles have been brought back to jurisdictions and are now incorporated within broader community
services strategies outside of child protection and it cited to be a direct result of SNAICC’s role and influence as part of the
National Forum. ATSICPP appears to have provided the mechanism for the broader application of priorities outlined in the
National Framework and action plans. In addition, the existence of the National Forum has facilitated enhanced
36
Parliament of Australia, ‘Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse’, accessed at:
https://www.childabuseroyalcommission.gov.au/preface-and-executive-summary, 2 December 2019.
37
Parliament of Australia, ‘Royal Commission into the Protection and Detention of Children in the Northern Territory’, accessed at:
https://www.royalcommission.gov.au/sites/default/files/2019-01/rcnt-royal-commission-nt-report-overview.pdf, 2 December 2019
38
Department of Social Services, ‘DRAFT – NFPAC Annual Report 2016-2017 and 2017-2018.DOCX’, emailed 2 December 2019.
Evaluation domain 2: How well did the National Framework support the policy agenda for children and young people?
Department of Social Services
PwC 37
collaboration and information sharing. Elements of how governments have better collaborated are outlined in Chapter 4 of
this report.
Table 9: Alignment of reported jurisdictional actions against National Framework outcomes
39
Supporting
outcomes
C’wealth
ACT
Vic
NSW
Qld
NT
SA
WA
Tas
Total
Outcome 1
3
3
0
1
2
3
3
2
3
20
Outcome 2
1
3
4
4
4
8
5
2
3
34
Outcome 3
3
2
3
3
3
5
3
1
4
27
Outcome 4
5
2
4
5
4
2
3
4
4
33
Outcome 5
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
1
1
19
Outcome 6
1
1
2
3
3
2
4
3
0
19
Reported actions demonstrate a wide range of activities across both jurisdictions and outcome areas. However, the specific
actions reported vary in their scale and type. Key observations include that:
Many actions reported relate to other policies and priorities which link to the National Framework outcomes. For
example:
– A number of activities reported by the Commonwealth against Outcome 5 (indigenous children are supported and
safe in their families and communities) were Closing the Gap activities
– Working with Children Checks and its associated activities largely comprise activity reported against Outcome 6
(child sexual abuse and exploitation is prevented and survivors receive adequate support)
– Actions reported against Outcome 4 (children who have been abused or neglected receive the support and care
they need for this safety and wellbeing) were largely comprised of research items and service delivery frameworks
that support children in care.
while there are a large number of actions reported, many are of component parts of overarching jurisdictional strategies
or part of a suite of complementary programs
responding to sexual abuse, in government responses to relevant Royal Commissions and inquiries also comprised a
large number of actions pursued.
While no direct attribution can be drawn between the conception of these actions to the National Framework, their operation
and reported links demonstrate intersection between objectives. The challenge of attribution not only lies in the complexity
of long-term policy design and planning (which is typically a confluence of political mandate, currency, funding and public
awareness), but also in the underlying policy logic. With the design of the National Framework being high-level in nature,
activities can be easily mapped to the outcomes sought. However, it is difficult to assign the evolution of policies and
programs against the National Framework, considering that it does not prescribe the activities to be delivered to meet its
own outcomes.
39
DRAFT- NFPAC Annual Report 2016-17 and 2017-18.
Evaluation domain 2: How well did the National Framework support the policy agenda for children and young people?
Department of Social Services
PwC 38
5.1.3 Activity within intersecting policy areas
Key finding
Over the past five years, governments have implemented a wide array of reforms across connected policy domains.
Many of these reforms have been led by inquiries and Royal Commissions which have focused government action.
Intersecting activity in jurisdictions appears to be driven mostly by reforms in the areas of family violence, education,
child protection and youth justice policy domains. Relatively less effort appears to have been directed through the
National Framework to disability and CALD policy priorities.
This evaluation seeks to establish how well the Framework connects with and informs the broader policy agenda for
children and young people. It specifically seeks to consider areas such as family and domestic violence, education,
housing, justice, health, disability, culturally and linguistically diverse families and Closing the Gap.
The need for connectivity with these policy domains recognises that a preventative approach to keep children safe and well,
considers associated services to work together to achieve these aims. While a policy can embed a preventative approach
without engaging associated services, its reach can be less impactful. The National Framework identifies, among its
stakeholders, that key responsibilities and levers include:
40
State and territory governments in their role delivering:
statutory child protection systems, including the support provided to children and young people in out-of-home care
therapeutic and support services for families, children and young people at-risk of abuse or neglect
conducting research into child protection
health and education services, including maternal and child health services, schools, and specialist services for at-risk
children and young people and their families
police and justice systems, including court services to hear child/youth care and protection matters.
Commonwealth Government in their role delivering universal support and services, including:
provision of income and family support payments to provide both a broad social safety net and specifically support
families in their parenting role (pensions, family payments, childcare benefit and tax rebates)
services such as Medicare, employment services, child and parenting support services, family relationship services and
the family law system
support to states and territories for key services such as hospitals, schools, housing and disability services
targeted programs for vulnerable individuals and families, including mental health, substance abuse, intensive parenting
services, intensive employment assistance, and allowances for young people leaving care to help with the transition to
independent living
services for families at higher risk of disadvantage including those in Indigenous communities.
Box 2 outlines the breadth of intersecting policy areas that influence the health and wellbeing of children and young people.
This shows that the reach of policy influence is much broader than those represented here.
40
Paraphrased from the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020
Evaluation domain 2: How well did the National Framework support the policy agenda for children and young people?
Department of Social Services
PwC 39
Box 2 Overview of protective factors and intersecting policy areas
Much research has been directed to the underlying causes of and ongoing sources of disadvantage that increase the risk
of interaction with the child protection system.
41
,
42
These have explored the dimensions of family life and protective
factors which have negative influence on children’s outcomes. They are considered to be domains which require a
system-wide policy response that coordinate and support improvement in child abuse and neglect rates. Many of these
intersect with the public health approach (and other approaches) which are the basis of preventative intervention models.
Among these are:
welfare (including family benefits and support, Medicare, social safety net, other financial support)
employment
early education
education and schooling
housing
health (mental, physical, substance use, social, emotional)
justice (including access to justice, youth and family justice frameworks)
disability
family and domestic violence
culturally and linguistically diverse communities
migrant communities
leisure, recreation, environment and communities
Indigenous communities (connection to country, culture and identity)
Acknowledging that the National Framework outlined a bold and broad scope in approach and reform, the policy
interactions are also broad in nature. Given this, it is not possible to comprehensively assess all policies of all jurisdictions to
consider the extent to which each contribute/or are based on the National Framework.
Table 10 outlines a snapshot of key reforms that have been undertaken since 2016 which demonstrates the breadth of
activity and intersection of government priorities to that of the National Framework.
Table 10: Examples of key reforms in related policy domains
43
Related policy domains (defined by
the evaluation framework)
Examples of major reforms (primary policy target)
Family and domestic violence
The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-
2022 (Cwth)
Family and domestic violence plans and government responses (every
jurisdiction)
Education
2016-17 Supporting Families Changing Futures (continued 10-year reform
program to strengthen families) (QLD)
41
Parkinson S, Bromfield L, McDougall S, Salveron M (2017) Child Neglect: Key Concept and Risk Factors, A report to the NSW Department of Family and
Community Services Office of the Senior Practitioner, Australian Centre for Child Protection
42
Cumulative harm: Best interests case practice model (2012) Specialist practice resource, Department of Health and Human Services Victoria
43
DRAFT- NFPAC Annual Report 2016-17 and 2017-18 and rapid scan of government websites. Note, child protection reforms not represented here
Evaluation domain 2: How well did the National Framework support the policy agenda for children and young people?
Department of Social Services
PwC 40
Related policy domains (defined by
the evaluation framework)
Examples of major reforms (primary policy target)
2018 Early support by design program (10-year program joint initiative to reform
human services systems) (ACT)
Housing
National Partnership Agreements on Remote Housing and Affordable Housing
(Cwth, QLD, WA, SA, NT)
Justice
Embedded within policy frameworks, but no targeted reform activity identified
Health
2018 Early Years Initiative (10-year partnership to deliver placed-based
approaches for early years) (WA)
Disability
National Disability Strategy 2010-2020 and National Disability Insurance
Scheme (all governments)
Culturally and linguistically diverse
communities
Embedded within policy frameworks, but no targeted reform activity identified
There have been a wide range of child protection reforms implemented by jurisdictions over the operation of the
Framework. A number of these examples demonstrate whole-of-system approaches to child protection and youth justice
which don’t neatly align to one policy domain. For example, NSW’s Their Futures Matter: A new approach (long term reform
strategy addressing service design and delivery) (2016) and NT’s Safe, Thriving and Connected (systemic reforms to
support children, young people and families) (2018).
There are also a number of major policies, such as Closing the Gap, which intersect across multiple policy domains (as do
many of the reforms identified below). These have not been outlined but are illustrative of the busy policy landscape in
which the National Framework is operating.
Further, it is widely recognised that the root causes of child abuse and neglect transcend many related policy domains. This
implies that a coordinated policy response must take account of the distributed responsibilities for these policies across
Commonwealth and state and territory governments.
For example, how welfare and child care funding, and the delivery of maternal and child health services is distributed
between tiers of governments. To truly address these root causes would require reforms that take a whole-of-system
approach. While the extent to which these connections have been made or achieved have not been analysed, it is worth
noting that these whole-of-system perspectives are required if the National Framework is to design for its ambition of a
sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect. It is not evident that this was achieved in practice. Organisations that were
consulted as part of this evaluation stated that:
while the National Framework has raised awareness of the public health model across the sector, activity has fallen
short of achieving coordination outside of the child protection sector due to competing priorities of broader government
and departments and a lack of buy in outside of child protection (Chapter 6 explores this further)
activity was primarily influenced by the ministerial priorities across different portfolios and jurisdictions. This was due to a
lack of influence beyond child protection portfolios and/or representation from those policy areas within the National
Framework governance, with the exception of inter-departmental committees and other informal means.
the broad ranging policy mandate of the National Framework was challenged by federalism barriers and other structural
barriers (for example, the long-term effects of colonisation and intergenerational trauma experienced by Aboriginal
people, families and communities experiencing poverty and the standing of/ respect for children within Australian
society).
that there are some examples of broader connection across other policy domains, such as family and domestic violence,
and education initiatives (e.g. First 1000 days)
most government stakeholders consulted reported that they have many frameworks and strategies that contribute to or
impact on the wellbeing of children and these have not been generated with the National Framework in mind.
Sometimes these are conflicting and sometimes they are duplicative
Evaluation domain 2: How well did the National Framework support the policy agenda for children and young people?
Department of Social Services
PwC 41
– an example of family violence was provided where there may be an inherent conflict between the needs of children
and families.
– another example of the Commonwealth developing/maintaining three separate, but interconnected policies (National
Framework, Family Violence Policy and the National Child Safe Policy)
there is scope for governments to reconsider policy and service delivery approaches to enable achievement of the
outcomes. For example, that the role for the Commonwealth could be expanded in providing leadership, funding and
alignment of levers available to it (for example, welfare) to address the underlying causes of disadvantage
in parallel to the National Framework, Governments have implemented a wide range of reforms in connected policy
areas, but these have been predominantly led by inquiries or Royal Commissions and not necessarily coordinated with
the National Framework.
The vision of an interconnected policy agenda to achieve outcomes for children and young people through the National
Framework was not achieved in practice. Barriers include the inability to engage with responsible departments (across and
within jurisdictions) in a meaningful way given the focus of activities on child protection, as well as the authorising
environment that was established by the membership and accountability embedded by the National Framework’s
governance structure. Challenges associated with Commonwealth-state/territory roles and responsibilities also hindered the
National Framework’s ambit to address the underlying drivers of and levers to address child abuse and neglect reflected in
Australia’s service systems. Additionally, the changing priorities of jurisdictions made it difficult for the National Framework
to coordinate and align activities to deliver upon its objectives.
Department of Social Services
PwC 42
6 Evaluation question 3: How
effective was the development of
the National Framework and
Action Plans?
This chapter covers…
the development of priorities and actions for the Third and Fourth
Action Plans, and the alignment of the priorities and actions with
the National Framework, international rights-based treaties and the
public health model.
It comprises of six key sections:
o Section 6.1 and 6.2 explores the consultation process
used to develop priorities and actions, including lessons
learnt
o Section 6.3 explores the relationship between the and the
priorities and actions and the National Framework
outcomes
o Section 6.4 explores the appropriateness of the duration
and structure of the National Framework and Action Plans
o Section 6.5 explores the relationship between the priorities
and actions and relevant international rights treaties
o Section 6.6 explores the relationship between the priorities
and actions and the public health model
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 43
6.1 Consultation process used to develop priorities and actions
Key finding
There were clear consultation processes that supported the development of the Third and Fourth Action Plans, but
there were some challenges engaging with portfolios outside of child protection. As a result, the priorities and actions
included in the Third and Fourth Action Plan were narrowly focussed on child protection. In addition, some key
groups were not adequately consulted with including children and young people, Indigenous and CALD stakeholders.
Consultation was a key process feature discussed by organisations in this evaluation. Observations tended to fall into two
key themes; how the consultation process affected the development of priorities and actions, and how organisations
engaged in consultation influenced the development of priorities and actions agreed in action plans.
Impact of consultations on priorities and actions agreed in action plans
Organisations considered that the consultation processes were professional and led to meaningful discussions. However,
some organisations considered that there was either no clear relationship between the consultation process and the actions
and priorities that arose, or that consultation was not sufficient, which potentially diminished their impact on priorities and
actions agreed in action plans.
Specifically, many organisations highlighted that there was a marked difference in the use of consultation to inform priorities
and actions in the Fourth Action Plan relative to the Third Action Plan, where the consultation for the Fourth Action Plan was
perceived to be less meaningful and informing of final priorities and actions.
For example, in the Third Action Plan the consultation process appears to have involved specific, cross-jurisdictional, face
to face consultation, supplemented by written feedback and supported by a discussion guide. Desktop review identifies that
14 round-table discussions were delivered at a mix of regional and metropolitan locations, supplemented by a written
feedback process.
In contrast, there was no face to face consultation held specifically for the Fourth Action Plan. Prior to the development of
the Fourth Action Plan Families Australia convened 10 forums across Australia to discuss how to progress the child well-
being agenda however, there is no evidence to indicate that these were specific to the Fourth Action Plan. Rather, a
discussion guide was prepared and provided to select organisations to provide written feedback. Desktop analysis of
available material highlights that the action plan-specific consultation was in written format (email submissions). After the
priorities of the action plan were finalised by governments, proposed actions were presented to the National Coalition for
feedback.
As such many organisations consulted as part of this evaluation described the Fourth Action Plan consultation process as
relatively less effective for developing priorities and actions as the format did not support them to be developed
collaboratively. Instead the priorities appeared to be ‘pre-formulated’. Focus groups to this evaluation identified that
consultation processes reflected the limited amount of time to develop and implement the action plan, given it was the final
action plan of the Framework, and was viewed as necessary to meet key milestones.
Influence of stakeholders consulted on priorities and actions in the action plans
Organisations expressed mixed views regarding the appropriateness of stakeholders engaged to develop priorities and
actions. While many organisations regarded the volume and diversity of stakeholders engaged as a valued feature of the
consultation process, some noted that the range of stakeholders consulted was unhelpful to narrowing down priorities due
to their broad and often-competing agendas. A broader strategic direction would be best served by a consultation process
that engages with a wide range of stakeholders.
Many organisations indicated that the consultation process inadequately engaged key cohorts of the National Framework. It
was perceived that this undermined the development of priorities and actions as it omitted potentially important sources of
feedback. Cohorts identified included:
state/territory and Commonwealth government departments not involved in child protection. Organisations highlighted
that although there was some cross-portfolio engagement it was generally ad hoc rather than embedded
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 44
Guardians and Commissioners at the state/territory level, noting that many Commissioner roles were established
following the development of the National Framework and its governance processes
children, noting that some consultation occurred but that it was not systematic or embedded. Feedback also noted that
there are inherent difficulties in consulting with children directly impacted by the National Framework
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people, noting that some consultation did occur but that it was insufficient, given the
disproportionate number of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people impacted by the child protection system
CALD communities, who, some organisations suggested, were not sufficiently considered in the development processes
regional stakeholders, that may experience acute challenges in supporting delivery of the National Framework
outcomes. Resource constraints impacted the ability to conduct more regional consultations.
Some organisations also commented that National Coalition stakeholders with “the loudest voice” may have also impacted
the effectiveness of consultations as it meant the same feedback was received during different rounds of consultations,
limiting the development of new ideas. It is not clear how impactful this was on the development of action plans.
Stakeholders consulted in the development of action plans
A comprehensive list of stakeholders consulted is not available to be compared across action plans. At a high-level the
desktop analysis validates that consultations with a broad group of stakeholders did occur and, for the Third Action Plan,
some of the cohorts that organisations suggested were not sufficiently engaged were, in some way, consulted. For
example:
for the Third Action Plan consultations included specific engagement with children, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island
people, and CALD communities, in addition to regional and metropolitan consultation held with government and non-
government stakeholders. One focus group specifically identified that the process reached a cross-section of
government.
for the Fourth Action Plan it appears that the targeted consultation process resulted in feedback from a mix of
state/territory government, NGOs, Guardians/Commissioners, academics and research organisations. Additionally, the
Annual Meeting of the National Coalition where the Fourth Action Plan actions were discussed was attended by over
100 delegates comprising of NGOs, Commonwealth agencies (DSS, DoH and DPMC) and state/territory government
officials from NSW, NT and SA.
across both action plans there is some indication that consultation did occur with similar groups of stakeholders.
Considering the evidence available, it is apparent that clear consultation processes did exist to support the development of
the Third and Fourth Action Plans. However, challenges to engage other portfolios and some stakeholder groups may have
impacted how representative the views gathered were.
6.2 The extent to which Action Plans drew on lessons learnt
Key finding
There is evidence that the action plans incorporated some lessons learned, including to contain fewer priorities and
actions, and to give greater focus to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children actions. A formal process for
monitoring progress on achieving outcomes through the action plans may have resulted in earlier or more
comprehensive identification of lessons learned and more opportunity to embed these in future action plans.
In addition to the consultation process itself, the evaluation also considers whether the action plans incorporated lessons
learnt over time. The feedback gathered in this evaluation was limited on this point as many of the organisations were not
sufficiently involved across the timeframe of the National Framework to make an informed comment.
These organisations generally provided evidence that the action plans did incorporate lessons learnt to an extent, with two
key examples emerging in relation to the refinement of actions and priorities, and an increased focus on Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander children in later action plans.
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 45
Refinement of the number of priorities and actions in action plans
Many organisations commented that a key lesson from the initial action plans, particularly the Second Action Plan, was that
the number of priorities and actions was impractical and too ambitious given the time and resources available to implement.
The number of priorities and areas was reduced in the later action plans, with a view to make them more practical and
achievable.
Table 11 below shows that relative to the First and Second Action Plan fewer priorities were included in the Third and
Fourth Action Plans. Additionally, the number of actions falls from 70 in the Second Action Plan to 17 and 13 in the Third
and Fourth Action Plan, respectively.
Table 11: Comparison of the number of national priorities and actions included in each action plan
First Action Plan
Second Action Plan
Third Action Plan
Fourth Action Plan
Number of national
priorities
12
20
5
4
Number of actions
13
70
17
13
Focus on Indigenous children
Both organisations and focus groups consulted through this evaluation identified that a key lesson from the Third Action
Plan was a need to increase focus on actions related to improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
children.
There is evidence that this lesson was incorporated in the Fourth Action Plan. A high-level comparison of Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander related priorities and actions in both the Third and Fourth Action Plan is outlined in Table 12. It shows
that, relative to the Third Action Plan, the Fourth Action Plan includes more targeted actions to build on the actions and
achievements in the Third Action Plan.
Table 12: Comparison of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander related priorities and actions in the Third and Fourth Action
Plan
Third Action Plan
Fourth Action Plan
National priority
Cross-cutting focus area –Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children and families Sustained
attention will be given to improving outcomes for
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children to
reduce the number needing child protection services.
Priority Area 1: Improving outcomes for Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander children at risk of entering,
or in contact with, child protection systems
Actions
Action: All parties agree to ensure the five domains
of the ATSICPP (prevention, partnership, placement,
participation and connection) are applied to the
implementation of strategies and actions identified in
the Third Action Plan.
Action: A new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
working group will be established to provide advice
and expertise on the implementation of actions and
strategies, and report to the National Forum for
Protecting Australia’s Children on progress and
outcomes, to ensure a sustained focus on results.
Action: Actively implement legislation, policy and/or
practice to ensure compliance with the five elements
of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child
Placement Principle.
Action: Identify and share models that have been
shown to improve Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander participation in decision-making processes
for children and families at risk of entering, or in
contact with, child protection systems.
Action: Develop a nationally consistent approach to
measuring the application of the five elements of the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement
Principle.
Action: Develop a nationally consistent and
comparable approach to report on state and territory
government support for Aboriginal Community
Controlled Organisations and Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander managed services to deliver family
support and child protection services.
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 46
Mechanism for evaluating action plans and incorporating lessons learnt
One organisation noted that there was no formal process which evaluated the action plans, which meant that lessons learnt
have not been captured in a systematic way. This makes it difficult to both identify lessons learnt, as well as areas where
lessons were learnt but not necessarily incorporated in future action plans.
Based on the desktop material available to this evaluation there is evidence that the consultation process for the Third and
Fourth Action Plan contained questions that encouraged reflection on the performance of previous action plans however, no
specific evaluation framework was used.
For example, the Third Action Plan discussion paper contains the following discussion question ‘Are there any particular
achievements and/or challenges with working together to deliver the Second Action Plan that you would like to highlight?
How do you think we can learn from what worked or what didn’t work?’. Similarly, the Fourth Action Plan discussion paper
contains this discussion question ‘Are there any particular lessons learnt from the Third Action Plan that you would like to
highlight in the Fourth Action Plan? What do we need to do differently?’.
While feedback on the National Framework was sought, no formal framework was used to ensure lessons were learnt from
each action plan and systematically reflected in future action plans.
The evidence provided by organisations and through the desktop review suggests that the action plans did learn from
previous action plans. This was reflected in fewer priorities and actions, and a greater focus to Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander children actions in the Third and Fourth Plans. While efforts were made to reflect on previous action plans, a
formalised process to monitor and evaluate the plans may have resulted in a greater opportunity to learn and adapt future
action plans.
6.3 The alignment of actions to the National Framework outcomes
Key finding
The Framework’s high-level outcomes are sufficiently broad to enable alignment of all actions and priorities under the
Third and Fourth Action Plans. However, a lack of a defined program logic which links actions, outputs and outcomes
meant it was difficult to establish how sufficient actions and priorities were to achieve the intended outcomes.
Organisations generally agreed that the actions and priorities, while aligned with the intent of outcomes, were not
aligned with the ambition of a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect.
Almost half the organisations consulted through this evaluation commented on the alignment of actions and priorities to the
National Framework outcomes. While some indicated that the documents were broadly aligned, many disagreed suggesting
that the relationship was not clear, and in some cases not apparent. This was generally related to how the action plans and
Framework appeared to be very different documents; the Framework containing wide-reaching, high-level supporting
outcomes, relative to the action plans that contain discrete, narrow, targeted actions. This is explored in more detail below.
Drawing a connection between the ‘broad’ framework and ‘narrow’ action plans
The broad scope of the National Framework relative to the narrow nature of the actions was an area in which organisations
disagreed. Some organisations suggested that because the National Framework is intentionally strategic, long term and
broad, it was therefore possible for all actions to be aligned to it in some way. Other organisations suggested that the broad
ambitions of the Framework required action plans to be narrower to ensure focus.
The explicit link between the actions in the action plans and the National Framework is not always clear. In the Third Action
Plan, supporting outcomes are not mapped to each action. In the Fourth Action Plan each supporting outcome (or
outcomes) has been identified against each action but the linking rationale is not provided.
This is consistent with the comments provided by many organisations that no program logic or theory of change was used
to connect actions to outcomes. As such, organisations perceived that it was unclear if actions (and therefore priorities)
were actually in line with the National Framework.
A program logic model or theory of change are schematic models that describe how a program or policy is intended to work.
There are a variety of tools/resources available to convey a program’s logic model. One example is a ‘results chain’ depicts
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 47
a program theory “as a linear process with inputs and activities at the front and long-term outcomes at the end”. A standard
results chain is depicted in Figure 11.
Figure 11: Example program logic model (results chain)
44
At a high-level, as the Third and Fourth Action Plan at most draw a link between an action and supporting outcome it
appears that, consistent with feedback from organisations, there are gaps in the overall program logic. This is schematically
depicted in Figure 12 which shows that although the inputs, activities and impacts are articulated, the middle section of the
chain that relates to outputs and outcomes is not articulated.
Figure 12: Apparent gap in program logic between action
45
To further the analysis around the relationship between actions and the National Framework, acknowledging gaps in the
articulated program logic, a high-level mapping of the signature actions contained in the Third and Fourth Action Plan
against the supporting outcomes of the Framework is outlined in Appendix C. This mapping is based on a program logic
approach; each action is linked (broadly) to a strategy from the Framework. As each strategy is linked to a supporting
outcome the mapping attempts to fill in the gap between activities (actions) and impacts (supporting outcomes).
An analysis of the actions articulated in the action plans has been undertaken to identify which align to, and which deliver
upon the supporting outcomes of the National Framework.
For the Third Action Plan:
five out of 17 actions align to supporting outcomes under the Framework through the creation of research,
standardisation and governance arrangements to enable the Framework to target activities and measure progress.
the remaining actions can generally be linked to one or more strategies associated with the supporting outcomes under
the Framework, noting that supporting outcome 6 does not appear to be addressed by any action.
For the Fourth Action Plan:
all actions can generally be linked to one or more strategies associated with the supporting outcomes under the
Framework
actions appear to be focused on implementation rather than enabling functions to deliver the supporting outcomes.
44
Lawton, B., Brandon, P.R., Cicchinelli, L., and Kekahio, W. (2014). Logic models: A tool for designing and monitoring program evaluations. (REL 2014–
007). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
45
PwC analysis
Inputs
Resources
required to do
activity/action
Activities
Actual activity or
action to be
implemented
Outputs
Output arising
from activity or
action taken
Outcomes
Changed
outcome arising
from output
Impacts
Impact of
changing
outcomes
Inputs
Resources
required to do
activity/action
Activities
Actual activity or
action to be
implemented
Outputs
Output arising
from activity or
action taken
Outcomes
Changed
outcome arising
from output
Impacts
Impact of
changing
outcomes
Articulated through
supporting outcomes of
the National Framework
Articulated through
the Third and Fourth
Action Plan
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 48
This analysis demonstrates the wide-ranging activities captured by the action plans and their broad alignment with the
supporting outcomes articulated by the National Framework.
Child protection, child well-being and the public health model
Additionally, some organisations commented that the action plans were disproportionately aligned to statutory child
protection needs and system issues. These organisations reflected that the Framework was intended to have a holistic
focus on all the factors that might impact a child’s safety and well-being, yet the actions were most often about issues within
tertiary child protection and out of home care services. The focus on child protection and out of home care is explored in
some detail in Chapter 4. This is related to the focus, perceived by many organisations, that the action plans appear to have
on tertiary interventions over primary interventions in the public health model.
The review of how the structure of the action plans and Framework demonstrates that the Framework’s high-level outcomes
are sufficiently broad to enable alignment of all actions and priorities under the Third and Fourth Action Plans, but lack the
program logic mapping out how actions, outputs and outcomes work together to achieve the outcomes. This meant that
while actions could largely be aligned, the strategic intent to achieve a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse
and neglect could not be described by the sum of the actions.
6.4 Appropriateness of the duration and structure of the National Framework and
its Action Plans
Key finding
The 12-year duration of the Framework was considered appropriate and an achievement of the Framework in that it
facilitated and enabled a national conversation which elevated the priority of children’s safety and wellbeing in
Australia.
The rolling structure of three-year action plans was seen as appropriate as it allowed flexibility for the Framework to
respond to changing policies and the political landscape. However, the requirement to renegotiate, develop and
agree each new action plan resulted in significant loss of time for the implementation of the plans.
Only a small number of organisations consulted for this evaluation commented on the appropriateness of the duration and
structure of the National Framework and its action plans. Many of the remaining organisations were not sufficiently involved
over the life of the Framework to provide feedback on the duration and structure. In general, both advantages and
disadvantages of the Framework were identified however, the broad theme was that duration/structure was just one factor
among many that influenced the implementation of the Framework and its action plans.
Identified advantages and limitations of current structure and duration
Conflicting views were provided by stakeholders on the structure and duration of the Framework and its action plans. Some
organisations indicated the duration and structure was conducive to the implementation of the Framework and its action
plans. These organisations identified that three-year action plans supported momentum and allowed priorities to shift with
the times. For example, the action plans were able to align focus with the Royal Commissions and other related reforms.
The long timeframe was also considered appropriate to ensure the Framework could sustain real change. These
organisations indicated a shorter length would have been prohibitive to change.
A number of organisations suggested that the longer duration of the Framework limited the adaptability of the Framework
and was no longer a contemporary document. Additionally, the three-year time frame for the action plans were insufficient
to enable actions to be properly implemented. For example, the Fourth Action Plan it was developed in 2018, launched in
2019 to be implemented in 2020, leaving a limited window for implementation.
It was noted that the three-year plans enabled better alignment to election cycles (and so, could support changing
jurisdictional priorities), but was not conducive to a long-term, consistent approach to implementing the Framework. This is
because it was perceived that each election cycle resulted in a change of personnel and policies that influenced how the
action plans were developed, such that they did not appear closely linked. This was perceived as detrimental to having a
consistent approach and agenda. As such some organisations indicated longer action plans (i.e. five-years) may be more
effective for achieving outcomes.
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 49
Based on desktop analysis of the action plans it appears that the shorter timeframes may have created opportunities for the
action plans to align with the broader policy agenda around children and families. For example, the Third Action Plan
explicitly identifies that the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse and Senate Inquiries into
Out-of-Home Care and Grandparents who take Primary Responsibility for Raising their Grandchildren informed the
development of priorities and actions.
Duration and structure are not the only factors that contribute to implementation
Some organisations acknowledged that, although the duration and structure of the Framework and its action plans may
have been improved, the implementation of the Framework was impacted by numerous factors (i.e. leadership, funding,
changing policy priorities, changing stakeholders etc. discussed through this evaluation – refer to section 4) that in turn
made the duration and structure unworkable.
As an example, one organisation suggested that the National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children
2010-2022, which has a very similar structure to the National Framework (12-year plan delivered through a series of four 3-
year action plans), has been more effective in creating a long-term reform agenda.
Desktop analysis of the National Plan relative to the National Framework identified some marked differences between the
two. For example, although both strategies utilise four 3-year action plans to support their implementation, in the National
Plan the agenda for each action plan was set at inception. This appears to be a key mechanism to ensuring the action plans
adhered to the vision of long-term reform reflected in the Plan. Additionally, each action plan in the National Plan is
supported by national and jurisdictional implementation plans that explicitly outline the key initiatives and their funding,
milestones, intended outcomes and connection to priority areas. This approach appears to increase the overall
transparency and level of attribution that can be made between the Plan and the initiatives undertaken. Further differences
between the characteristics of the National Framework and National Plan are discussed below.
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 50
National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-22
The National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-22 was mentioned by several
organisations as an example of a strategy that has different features to the National Framework, that cumulatively appear
to support its overall implementation (see Chapter 4). Some of the key differences raised by organisations throughout
this evaluation are outlined below:
Action Plans: Although both strategies operate over a 12-year time-frame with rolling 3-year action plans, the theme
of the action plans to support the National Plan are set out in the overarching strategy, and each is accompanied by
both a national implementation plan and jurisdictional implementation plans.
Tripartite arrangements: Both strategies set out to support collaboration between government and non-government
organisations. In the National Framework this is reflected through the tripartite National Framework Advisory
Committee (the National Forum) which was intended to advise on the operation of the National Framework. In the
Fourth Action Plan they report to the various working groups. In the National Plan this was reflected through the
tripartite National Plan Implementation Panel established to advise on the development and implementation of the
National Plan. This panel reports directly to Ministers.
Ministerial involvement: The National Framework was intended to be led by the (former) Community and Disability
Services Ministers’ Conference who subsequently reported to COAG. As discussed in section 4, this Conference was
dissolved and more recently the Framework has fallen to the purview of the Community Services Ministers meeting.
The National Plan is led by Commonwealth and state/territory Women’s Safety Ministers who are responsible for
reporting to COAG.
Commonwealth funding: Estimated Commonwealth funding specifically designated to support the Fourth Action
Plan under the National Framework is $48.6m. In comparison estimated Commonwealth funding in support of the
Fourth Action Plan under the National Plan is $328m.
46
The National Plan and its accompanying documents can be viewed in more detail at:
https://www.dss.gov.au/women/programs-services/reducing-violence/the-national-plan-to-reduce-violence-against-
women-and-their-children-2010-2022.
Overall, the ambition of the National Framework was supported as requiring a longer-timeframe for implementation. The
structure of three-year rolling action plans was also appropriate in providing agility to shift with changing policy priorities of
jurisdictions. However, the structure that supports the development of the action plans hindered progress by introducing
delay to account for renegotiation of priorities. Opportunities were reflected in drawing comparisons to the National Plan to
Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010-22, which set priorities of each plan upfront, providing greater
focus for implementation.
6.5 Alignment of the National Framework with the United Nation Convention on
the Rights of the Child (UNCRC)
Key finding
Responsibility for delivering on the UNCRC does not rest wholly with the Framework. In the absence of an evaluation
framework that defines the commitment of the Framework to delivering on the UNCRC, it is impossible to assess the
degree to which the Framework has responded to, or is expected to respond, to the UNCRC. There is evidence that
the Framework was guided by the principles of the UNCRC at its inception and in the activities that have been
delivered (for example, the establishment of the National Children’s Commissioner). However, delivery of the UNCRC
principles in full would require governments to consider how all activities, including the Framework, respond to the
UNCRC so that Australia’s commitments can be identified and measured.
46
Prime Minister of Australia (media release) Record Funding to Reduce Domestic Violence, https://www.pm.gov.au/media/record-funding-reduce-domestic-
violence
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 51
In line with the commitment in the Framework to adhere to the principles set out in the UNCRC, this evaluation considers
the extent to which the National Framework responds to the United Nations Convention on the Rights of a Child
(UNCRC)
47
.
The majority of organisations consulted during the evaluation provided feedback on how the National Framework
responded to the UNCRC. This feedback tended to fall into two key themes; to what extent the Framework was intended to
respond to the UNCRC, and to what extent its implementation progressed the rights set out in the UNCRC. These are
explored below.
Relationship between the National Framework and the UNCRC
Organisations acknowledged that the National Framework is not the only or the primary mechanism through which Australia
responds to the UNCRC. There are separate organisations responsible for responding to the United Nations directly on how
Australia is responding to the UNCRC. This includes the Children Commissioner’s and Guardians (at both a national and
state/territory level), and members of the Commonwealth and state/territory governments. It captures and must consider a
broad range of government activity, beyond the remit of the National Framework. This is consistent with the language
contained with the Framework itself which notes that it is underpinned by the principles of the UNCRC, rather than directly
enabling it.
Organisations most familiar with the UNCRC reflected that the rights of children are not universally enshrined in
Commonwealth and state/territory legislation, and where it is, it is not necessarily consistently embedded, meaning that
different jurisdictions have responded in different ways. As a result, the National Framework is not the appropriate
mechanisms to drive consistency and implementation of the UNCRC Australia-wide.
Desktop analysis of the alignment between the supporting outcomes of the Framework and the articles of the UNCRC
suggests that the National Framework aligns to 16 out of the UNCRC’s 54 articles. This alignment appears to be
comprehensive given there are a large number of articles that do not fall directly within the Framework’s remit. For example,
the right to a name and nationality (article 7), the right to protection from international abduction (article 11), the right to
mass media and free speech (article 13 and 14) and so forth. Additionally, there are a range of articles related to the
governance of the Convention that are also limited and a responsibility of government more broadly to deliver. As such, at
inception it appears that the Framework adhered to the principles of UNCRC as intended. Refer to Appendix C for detailed
mapping of the articles against supporting outcomes.
Impact of the Framework’s implementation on the rights set out in the UNCRC
There were conflicting views expressed by organisations on whether the National Framework progressed the rights set out
in the UNCRC.
At a high-level several organisations commented that the rights-based approach was not central to the development of the
National Framework, and the review and development of each action plan did not consider the UNCRC in a practical way.
Additionally, an organisation noted that there was no mechanism embedded into the Framework and its action plans to
reflect on the UNCRC, even if only in principle.
In terms of actual implementation, organisations noted that there is an inherent difficulty in commenting on progress against
the UNCRC, particularly when there is broad interpretation of the articles themselves, and no objective way to assess ‘how
well’ they may have progressed. This was particularly evident through conflicting views presented on the degree to which
specific articles had been progressed.
For example:
47
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child is an international legal framework to protect the rights of every child. The Convention provides a
universal set of standards to be adhered to by all countries in the treatment of all children. These are outlined in 54 articles, which are underpinned by a
selection of guiding principles including: non-discrimination, adherence to the best interests of the child, the right to life, survival and development, and the
right to participate. The Convention, its status and relevant reports can be accessed at: https://www.ohchr.org/en/professionalinterest/pages/crc.aspx
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 52
Article 12 sets out that the right of a child who is capable of forming his or her own views has ‘to express those views
freely in all matters affecting the child’. Several organisations suggested that because the National Framework and
action plans were developed with limited engagement with children and did not actively set out a role for the involvement
of children it did not respond fully to the rights set out in article 12. In contrast a few organisations identified examples
where the Framework sought to involve or engage children, such as the ChildAware conferences and establishment of
the National Children’s Commissioner, as evidence in support of the rights set out in article 12.
Article 3 set outs that ‘in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare
institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration’. Although one organisation suggested the best interests of the child were not always reflected in the
activity undertaken through the Framework, another organisation noted that ‘the best interests of the child’ is interpreted
by different jurisdictions in different ways, and in some instances involves balancing some rights against others. There
are limited instances where a set of criteria has been developed to articulate what ‘best interests’ means (i.e. Northern
Territory) that would enable objective assessment of delivery against the article.
Desktop analysis of the activity taken under the Framework identifies that there is evidence that the rights of the UNCRC
have been progressed to some extent. For example, in addition to the ChildAware Conferences and the establishment of
the National Children’s Commissioner, further initiatives that appear to support/facilitate the voice of the child (article 12)
include:
specific consultations conducted with children in relation to the Third Action Plan’s development and implementation
the allocation of a position at the National Forum to both the National Children’s Commissioner and the Victorian
Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People.
As such, acknowledging the complexity of assessing the degree of progress against the Framework, there is evidence of it
being consistent with it in principle.
On balance, it is important to consider that the National Framework is not itself responsible for delivering on Australia’s
obligations set out in the UNCRC. It is also difficult to establish the extent to which the National Framework has responded
to the UNCRC without a commitment having been set by governments of the expectations that it must deliver upon.
Having said this, there is evidence that the National Framework was guided by UNCRC principles and has delivered
initiatives that respond to the UNCRC in part. To make clear what components of the UNCRC the National Framework
should deliver upon, governments would need to consider the holistic view of how its activities respond to the UNCRC and
which are best delivered through the National Framework to ensure activities align, and that together, they respond the
UNCRC in full.
6.6 Alignment of activities with a public health model
Key finding
The extent to which the National Framework has engaged with the public health model appears limited. Challenges in
generating cross-portfolio coordination and in continuing to respond to rising numbers of children in the child
protection system has driven a focus on child protection. Both the Third and Fourth Action Plans were primarily
focused on targeted and statutory inventions.
The National Framework highlighted a need to shift from ‘protecting children’ to ‘promoting the safety and wellbeing of
children’ as per the principles of the public health model (for more detail on the public health model please refer to Chapter
3. This evaluation considers to what extent the National Framework engaged with public health model of child well-being.
Organisations who provided feedback on the public health model indicated that the implementation of the National
Framework was not wholly consistent with the principles of the public health model based on the actions pursued. Several
organisations pointed out that this was related to a number of factors, including the immense demand for child protection
services in Australia already. These themes are explored in detail below.
Please note: the child protection public health model outlined in the National Framework comprises of four parts; universal,
preventative, targeted and statutory interventions. The standard public health model comprises of three parts; primary,
secondary and tertiary interventions. The relationship between the models is outlined in Figure 13. Throughout this section
the terminology for equivalent components is used interchangeably (i.e. statutory and tertiary is used interchangeably).
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 53
Figure 13: Relationship between child protection public health model and standard public health model
Alignment between actions/priorities under the National Framework and the public health model
The majority of organisations indicated that the implementation of the Framework was not wholly consistent with the public
health model due to the focus on statutory and targeted initiatives. This is supported through desktop analysis of the actions
pursued through the Third and Fourth Action Plan which shows that the majority of actions appear to be targeted or
statutory interventions (refer to Appendix C for the detailed mapping of actions against the four components).
Please note, in undertaking desktop analysis of the actions to understand how they adhere to the public health model the
following considerations apply:
While some initiatives may have a specific target cohort other may be overlapping. In particular the distinction between
vulnerable and ‘at-risk’ families is not always clear. Where possible we have selected the alignment to the public health
model based on the cohort most targeted by an intervention. For some actions the cohort is ambiguous and therefore
they are categorised as both.
Some actions seek to create an enabling environment (i.e. through research, standardisation, governance protocols)
while others relate more directly to implementing policy or programs. Actions that are more enabling are categorised as
‘N/A’ as they do not directly address a cohort identified in the public health model.
For the Third Action Plan:
Six out of 17 actions relate to governance, research and target development to enable stakeholders to progress
concepts of the public health model.
Of the remaining 11 actions, nine appear most consistent with targeted or statutory interventions, and five appear most
aligned to universal or early interventions.
For the Fourth Action Plan:
Three out of 13 actions relate to measurement and reporting in support of the public health model.
Seven of the remaining ten actions appear most consistent with statutory interventions.
In both cases the weighting towards statutory and targeted intervention is not aligned with the proportions outlined in the
public health model and is consistent with the feedback provided by stakeholders.
Primary challenges aligning actions/priorities to the public health model
Organisations with a strong understanding of the public health model identified two primary challenges that led the
Framework to focus on targeted and statutory interventions. These were that:
Universal preventative initiatives to
support all families and children
Early intervention services targeted
to vulnerable families and children
Targeted services
and programs for
‘at-risk’ families and
children
Statutory
system
Primary
Secondary
Tertiary
Evaluation question 3: How effective was the development of the National Framework and Action Plans?
Department of Social Services
PwC 54
There is an immediate and significant need for child protection services in Australia. This is supported by emerging
research which estimates that as many as 25 percent of children in Australia will be the subject of at least one
notification to the child protection system.
48
As such the resource allocation implied by the public health model is
regarded by some organisations as not feasible.
The funding re-allocation required to implement the public health model of child protection is significant and impacts
whole of government systems and may ultimately require fundamental re-design of service delivery. A handful of
organisations highlighted that this would likely require substantial cross-portfolio coordination within both state/territory
governments and the Commonwealth. However, the Framework has typically experienced challenges achieving cross-
portfolio coordination (discussed in Chapter 5]) due to:
– limited awareness across different portfolios regarding the role and intention of the Framework
– limited time/resources built into the Framework to enable portfolios to be engaged to support a substantial reform
agenda around the public health model
As such the transition to the public health model was not able to be substantially progressed.
Other factors considered relevant to the Framework’s alignment to the public health model
Other factors identified as relevant to how the actions pursued linked to the public health model included that:
the stakeholders most engaged with the Framework in the early stages were primarily focused on child protection issues
(including, for example, establishing the National Standards for Out of Home Care) and this had an ongoing impact on
the nature of actions pursued. For example, the membership of the National Coalition was predominantly child
protection and out of home care focused organisations
the language of the Framework around ‘abuse and neglect’ resulted in a natural focus on child protection services that
was subsequently reflected through actions that were targeted or statutory in nature. The development of priorities and
actions for the Third and Fourth Action Plans, and to explore the alignment of the priorities and actions with the National
Framework, international rights-based treaties and the public health model.
It is also important to consider that the basis of a public health model is not embedded in the supporting outcomes of the
National Framework. While the concept is outlined in the National Framework, its outcomes and indicators focus on
statutory measures, which means that the National Framework was geared towards delivery against these objectives from
the outset.
While the National Framework highlighted a need to pursue a public health model approach to deliver on its target, this
intent was not reflected in its design. The language, supporting outcomes and actions were all oriented towards child
protection activities which naturally led activity within the Framework towards a statutory focus, and meant that universal
prevention and/or early intervention had lesser focus. If a public health model were pursued, the program logic should
design to this. The Framework would also need to focus on how it can engage broadly across portfolios to generate a
system-wide response that reflects the intent of a public health model.
48
BetterStart, 2017, Child Protection in South Australia, https://health.adelaide.edu.au/betterstart/publications/reports/child-protection-in-south-australia.pdf,
accessed: 21/01/2020
Findings and opportunities
Department of Social Services
PwC 55
7 Findings and opportunities
This chapter covers…
the findings and opportunities of this evaluation of the National
Framework and its Third and Fourth Action Plans. It comprises two
sections:
o Section 7.1 provides a summary of the findings of the
evaluation
o Section 7.2 provides an overview of the key opportunities
for consideration in the development of a future National
Framework based on the key findings.
Findings and opportunities
Department of Social Services
PwC 56
7.1 Key findings of this evaluation
Based on the evidence collected through this evaluation, a number of findings that relate to the key evaluation questions
are identified below.
Key finding: The National Framework has been an important mechanism for national collaboration on protecting
Australia’s children and reducing child abuse and neglect
The National Framework was developed in recognition that significant reform was needed to reduce the growing rates of
child abuse and neglect in Australia. At the time of its conception, there was an almost universal view that the scale of the
challenge required a long-term, strategic approach that coordinated the activities of government, non-government and
research sectors to achieve this aim.
Overwhelmingly, stakeholders consulted as part of this evaluation cited the Framework’s delivery of a national strategy as a
core achievement. Their view was that the existence of the Framework enabled a national conversation which has elevated
the priority of children’s safety and wellbeing on the agenda of governments. The creation of a National Forum, as the
tripartite apparatus which supports the Framework, has also brokered collaboration and built trust between jurisdictions,
peak bodies and the services sector which has enhanced knowledge sharing and facilitated the implementation of some
important national initiatives.
While some national initiatives resulted from other reform activity and cannot be directly attributed to the National
Framework, organisations consulted as part of this evaluation provided examples of initiatives that were able to be
coordinated and implemented through the National Framework. Key examples associated with the Third and Fourth Action
Plans include:
the implementation of the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations which were recommended by the Royal
Commission into Institutional responses to Child Sexual Abuse and developed through the Third Action Plan.
the support that the National Forum (as a regular convening of government and non-government stakeholders)
and the ATSIWG have provided for more comprehensive implementation of the ATSICPP through the Fourth
Action Plan.
Key finding: While robust prevalence data are not available to accurately measure whether the National Framework
achieved its intended outcome of a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect, available data
suggest that this outcome was not achieved
The National Framework itself highlighted that ‘measuring a reduction in child abuse and neglect is difficult, as Australia
currently does not have robust data on incidence/prevalence’.
49
The Framework did not result in the implementation of a
robust, national prevalence/incidence study which would be the only way to accurately track progress against this outcome.
The Framework’s 32 data indicators (reported on periodically by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare
50
) provide a
proxy or leading evidence of trends in the underlying prevalence of child abuse and neglect but they do not conclusively
track prevalence.
Eight of the 32 indicators relate to the high-level outcome of a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and
neglect. Of the eight indicators, three have worsened over the life of the Framework, two have remained steady, two have
improved and one does not have sufficient time series data to report on. It is reasonable to suggest that given this mix of
indicators, the Framework has not resulted in the achievement of its high-level outcome of a substantial and sustained
reduction in child abuse and neglect. This finding was supported by organisations consulted as part of this evaluation.
Indigenous children and young people are a significant cohort within the child protection system representing approximately
36 per cent of all children and young people on a care and protection order in 2017-18. Supporting outcome 5 of the
49
Commonwealth of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, 2009, page 11.
50
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, National framework for protecting Australia's children indicators, June 2019.
Findings and opportunities
Department of Social Services
PwC 57
Framework is to ensure that ‘Indigenous children are supported and safe in their families and communities’. No prevalence
study has been implemented to understand levels of child abuse and neglect experienced by Indigenous children but it is
clear that this outcome has not been achieved with the over-representation of Indigenous children in the child protection
system and out of home care worsening over the life of the Framework.
Overall, despite efforts to assemble the 32 data indicators to measure progress of achieving the Framework’s outcomes, the
lack of a robust prevalence study of child abuse and neglect in Australia coupled with significant gaps in the reporting of
data to inform indicators result in an inability to comprehensively track and measure the National Framework’s
achievements.
Key finding: The evolving governance arrangements underpinning the National Framework and the Third and
Fourth Action Plans impacted the achievement of the Framework’s intended outcomes
The National Framework was ambitious in seeking to adopt a shared agenda across Commonwealth, state and territory
governments and the non-government and research sectors aimed at preventing and reducing child abuse and neglect. The
National Framework states ‘we need a unified approach that recognises that the protection of children is not simply a matter
for the statutory child protection systems’
51
and that ‘our separate efforts still fail many children and young people’.
52
A key finding of this evaluation is that while the intent of the National Framework was broad reaching, its implementation
became more narrowly focused on statutory child protection systems over its twelve-year timeframe. A major reason for this
narrow focus was the governance arrangements supporting the National Framework, which evolved over its twelve-year
term and were re-set every three years to support the delivery of the action plans.
The National Framework’s governance arrangements were set up from its inception in 2009 to support a whole of
government response across jurisdictions, as well as engaging the non-government and research sectors in addressing
child abuse and neglect. In order to ensure national leadership and attention, the National Framework would report and be
accountable to a standing Coalition of Australian Governments (COAG) committee and the National Forum was also
established.
However, the governance arrangements changed in 2014. The Third and Fourth Action Plans instead involved formally
reporting to the Children and Families Secretaries (CAFS) and Community Services Ministers (CSM). This meant COAG no
longer reported on nor was accountable for the Framework and its implementation throughout the duration of the Third and
Fourth Action Plans.
Organisations consulted as part of this evaluation reported that the National Framework became less of a priority for
governments as a result and that CAFS was not able to influence broader governmental priorities to the same extent as the
COAG committee. The membership of the Working Groups under the Third and Fourth Action Plans was mostly constituted
of state and territory child protection agency representatives which limited the Framework’s ability to influence actions in
other policy areas and commit to system wide reforms.
The result was that the activities delivered under the action plans increasingly became focused on statutory child protection
systems and smaller initiatives and trials, and less on comprehensive, system-wide change to address the drivers of child
abuse and neglect. While organisations consulted for this evaluation noted that there were some positive and concrete
national initiatives committed to under the National Framework, overall the Third and Fourth Action Plans were narrow in
their scope.
Analysis of available annual reporting on the National Framework shows that most activity reported as being delivered
under action plans were state and territory-based reforms and programs rather than national initiatives that were
established as a result of the Framework.
51
Commonwealth of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, 2009, page 6.
52
Commonwealth of Australia, Protecting Children is Everyone’s Business: National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020, 2009, page 6.
Findings and opportunities
Department of Social Services
PwC 58
Key finding: The National Framework was not able to fully embed a public health approach and coordinate the
policy agenda for children and young people
Throughout the duration of the Third and Fourth Action Plans there have been an increasing number of child protection-
related inquiries and commissions in all jurisdictions, and reform programs resulting from these inquiries and commissions.
A number of organisations consulted for this evaluation expressed that these reform programs have increasingly become
the driver of most activity by jurisdictions, rather than the National Framework being the catalyst for action. State and
territory government representatives also noted that the intensive focus on child protection systems and steady or growing
child protection numbers and expenditure on child protection has also made it difficult to focus funding and policy efforts on
primary prevention and early intervention activities, while at the same time maintaining efforts on addressing these policy
and service challenges.
At the same time, there has also been a proliferation of other strategies, frameworks and reforms released by governments
on policy areas that impact the drivers of child abuse and neglect. This includes policy areas such as mental health,
domestic violence, housing, disability, health, education, early childhood and social security.
Organisations consulted for this evaluation noted that in order to fully embed the public health approach, policies and
programs in these areas would need to be integrated. In addition, specific consideration needs to be given to how policies
and programs impact on vulnerable children and their families, which has not been the case in all policy areas. This is
supported by a range of different reviews undertaken during the term of the National Framework that have found that
funding and services in policy areas impacting on vulnerable families and children are often delivered in siloes.
53
Finally, a number of organisations suggested that the National Framework and Third and Fourth Action Plans could have
been better informed through consultation with children and young people and their families and communities.
54
This
includes taking a “human-centred” approach to developing an understanding of how the service system and policies can be
improved. This would ensure they are supporting the child or young person in the context of their whole family and
community and developing their strengths and protective factors.
Evaluation sub-question findings
Sub-question findings are detailed throughout the body of the report and have informed the development of the key
evaluation findings outlined above. Table 13 provides a summary of the findings to each evaluation sub-question.
55
53
See for example Productivity Commission, Expenditure on Children in the Northern Territory, Draft Report, November 2019.
54
We note that some research was commissioned under the Third Action Plan which involved discussions with young people: Alasdair Roy, Talking with
young people about the National Framework: Outcomes of conversations with young people about the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s
Children, June 2017.
55
Note that, for the purposes of presentation, evaluation question numbering has been reordered as compared to the original contract with DSS to improve
readability
Findings and opportunities
Department of Social Services
PwC 59
Table 13: Evaluation sub-question findings
Key Evaluation
Question
Sub-questions
Finding
Outcomes:
achievement of intended
outcomes (barriers and
enablers)
1. To what extent did the
National Framework
achieve its intended
outcomes and what
factors supported or
inhibited outcomes?
a. What were the major achievements
of the National Framework?
Organisations reported that a major achievement of the Framework has been keeping the welfare of children on
the national ‘agenda.’ The implementation of a number of key initiatives, including the National Children’s
Commissioner and National Standards for Out-of-Home Care, are major achievements of the Framework.
Although the Framework implemented a number of key initiatives, it appears that the Framework did not achieve
the high-level goal of a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect,
b. What supported and/or inhibited
the implementation of the actions
listed in the National Framework and
Action Plans? What could be
improved?
A number of key factors were identified as critical to the achievement of outcomes including;
the Third Action Plan was seen as the most effective through implementation, largely driven by its
rationalisation of actions and focus on the child protection system where National Forum members had
greater leverage to influence activity.
the Framework and its governance mechanisms were unable to influence the broad strategic direction of
governments and service sectors outside of child protection. This inability was influenced by successive
changes to the governance structure which removed it from COAG oversight and the narrow membership of
the National Forum which resulted in the Forum having limited networks and influence in broader service
sectors.
the governance structure did not drive consensus in decision-making within the National Forum and was
ineffective in holding members accountable for outcomes of the Framework.
available investment for the Framework limited the scale of initiatives pursued and in turn limited the
achievement of outcomes. Joint funding opportunities were not sufficiently explored or implemented. the
Framework contributed to the evidence base through funding research activities, but decision-making
processes were not sufficiently robust to ensure that evidence was embedded which occasionally resulted in
key initiatives and trials that were not evidence-based.
data indicators were focussed on child protection and as the primary mechanism for reporting on outcomes,
many do not have sufficient data. The indicators contributed to a focus on the child protection system which
failed to engage broader sectors and portfolios and failed to result in accountability for the outcomes being
achieved
c. What were the strengths and
weaknesses of the National
Framework, including the
effectiveness of its governance
structure?
d. What supported and/or inhibited
achievement of outcomes listed in the
National Framework and Action
Plans?
e. How well did the National
Framework and the Action Plans work
together to achieve outcomes?
Findings and opportunities
Department of Social Services
PwC 60
Key Evaluation
Question
Sub-questions
Finding
while the intent to bridge cross-portfolio issues that underpin child abuse and neglect was evident in
discussions throughout the development of the National Framework and the Action Plans, the challenges of
doing so were not overcome. Broad system and cross-jurisdictional changes were not achieved to address
the underlying causes of child abuse and neglect.
f. How effective was the National
Framework in informing the agenda
for Indigenous priorities, actions and
cultural appropriateness?
The over-representation of Indigenous children in child protection has deteriorated over the life of the
Framework. Organisations identified that positive work had commenced to embed the ATSICPP but cautioned
that full implementation (not just as a placement hierarchy) is required to fully pursue Indigenous children’s
rights. Indigenous stakeholders identified an opportunity for the Framework to ensure that Indigenous
communities are adequately consulted in all stages of development and implementation. Focus would also be
better supported if prevalence data enabled the National Framework to monitor its progress.
Additional sub-question:
g. How effective were the National
Framework and Action Plans in
achieving broader outcomes
particularly coordinating effort across
governments and the non-
government sector and reducing the
prevalence of child abuse and
neglect?
The National Framework has not resulted in comprehensive reporting against an outcomes framework or the
development of a prevalence study of child abuse and neglect. In the absence of these measures, it is
impossible to assess the effectiveness of the National Framework in achieving its broad outcomes. Available
data suggests that a substantial and sustained reduction in abuse and neglect has not been achieved.
Effectiveness:
supporting the policy
agenda for children and
young people
2. How well did the
National Framework
a. How well does the National
Framework connect other elements of
the broader policy agenda for children
and young people at both a
Commonwealth and state and
territory level?
There is evidence of a significant amount of government investment and reform among policy domains that are
connected to the National Framework that have delivered against various priorities of government (for example,
in child sexual abuse and universal service design and provision). While aligned, these activities are difficult to
directly attribute to the National Framework.
b. Were there any gaps or was there
areas of duplication with other key
policy areas, including but not limited
to:
Over the past five years, governments have implemented a wide array of reforms across connected policy
domains. Many of these reforms have been led by inquiries and Royal Commissions which have focused
government action. Intersecting activity in jurisdictions appears to be driven mostly by reforms in the areas of
Findings and opportunities
Department of Social Services
PwC 61
Key Evaluation
Question
Sub-questions
Finding
support the policy
agenda for children and
young people?
family and domestic violence
education
housing
justice
health
disability
culturally and linguistically
diverse families and/or
Closing the Gap
family violence, education, child protection and youth justice policy domains. Relatively less effort appears to
have been directed through the National Framework to disability and CALD policy priorities.
Effectiveness and
appropriateness:
development processes
3. How effective was the
development of the
National Framework and
Action Plan?
a. How effective and appropriate were
the consultations leading up to, and
the resulting priorities and actions in
the Third and Fourth Action Plans?
There were clear consultation processes that supported the development of the Third and Fourth Action Plans,
but there were some challenges engaging with portfolios outside of child protection. As a result, the priorities and
actions included in the Third and Fourth Action Plan were narrowly focussed on child protection. In addition,
some key groups were not adequately consulted with including children and young people, Indigenous and
CALD stakeholders.
a i. Did the development of the
priorities and actions in the Third and
Fourth Action Plans incorporate
lessons learnt from previous action
plans?
There is evidence that the action plans incorporated some lessons learned, including to contain fewer priorities
and actions, and to give greater focus to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children actions. A formal process
for monitoring progress on achieving outcomes through the action plans may have resulted in earlier or more
comprehensive identification of lessons learned and more opportunity to embed these in future action plans.
a ii. Did the priorities and actions in
the Third and Fourth Action Plans
clearly align with the high-level
outcomes of the National Framework?
The Framework’s high-level outcomes are sufficiently broad to enable alignment of all actions and priorities
under the Third and Fourth Action Plans. However, a lack of a defined program logic which links actions, outputs
and outcomes meant it was difficult to establish how sufficient actions and priorities were to achieve the intended
outcomes. Organisations generally agreed that the actions and priorities, while aligned with the intent of
outcomes, were not aligned with the ambition of a substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and
neglect.
Findings and opportunities
Department of Social Services
PwC 62
Key Evaluation
Question
Sub-questions
Finding
b. To what extent were the duration
and structure of the National
Framework and its Action Plans
appropriate?
The 12-year duration of the Framework was considered appropriate and an achievement of the Framework in
that it facilitated and enabled a national conversation which elevated the priority of children’s safety and
wellbeing in Australia.
The rolling structure of three-year action plans was seen as appropriate as it allowed flexibility for the Framework
to respond to changing policies and the political landscape. However, the requirement to renegotiate, develop
and agree each new action plan resulted in significant loss of time for the implementation of the plans.
c. How well did the National
Framework respond to the
Convention on the Rights of the
Child?
Responsibility for delivering on the UNCRC does not rest wholly with the Framework. In the absence of an
evaluation framework that defines the commitment of the Framework to delivering on the UNCRC, it is
impossible to assess the degree to which the Framework has responded to, or is expected to respond, to the
UNCRC. There is evidence that the Framework was guided by the principles of the UNCRC at its inception and
in the activities that have been delivered (for example, the establishment of the National Children’s
Commissioner). However, delivery of the UNCRC principles in full would require governments to consider how all
activities, including the Framework, respond to the UNCRC so that Australia’s commitments can be identified
and measured.
d. To what extent did the National
Framework engage with the public
health model and primary prevention
activities?
The extent to which the National Framework has engaged with the public health model appears limited.
Challenges in generating cross-portfolio coordination and in continuing to respond to rising numbers of children
in the child protection system has driven a focus on child protection. Both the Third and Fourth Action Plans were
primarily focused on targeted and statutory inventions.
Department of Social Services
PwC 63
7.2 Opportunities
Based on the findings of this evaluation, there are a number of opportunities to enhance the National Framework (or the
successor plan to the National Framework) building on lessons learnt through implementation.
The first opportunity exists to more narrowly define the cohort of children and families that are the focus of the successor
plan to the National Framework. This would support the Department and its stakeholders to focus on children and families,
and give broader consideration to their touch points with the service system, which includes government and non-
government services that focus on the drivers of child abuse and neglect (early intervention, targeted and statutory
services).
A second opportunity exists to enhance the governance structure of the successor plan to the National Framework) to
better connect it with other relevant portfolio areas. In particular, this should support collaboration across the whole service
system so as to address the broader needs and ambition to reduce child abuse and neglect.
Adoption of an outcomes framework, would enable a sustained focus on and alignment to the high-level objectives of the
successor plan to the National Framework, over its life, given its longer-term design. It should be complemented by an
implementation roadmap that details the activities of each party to meet short, medium and longer-term outcomes to drive
accountability, but also allow for review. A national prevalence study on child abuse and neglect would set an accurate
baseline against which progress can be measured over delivery of the successor plan to the National Framework.
A fourth opportunity exists to implement an independent monitoring and reporting mechanism to drive accountability and
measurement of implementation and outcomes.
And finally, children, families and communities should be engaged to inform the priorities of the successor plan to the
National Framework, to provide their lived experiences and understanding of the service system so that the successor plan
to the National Framework) can be better tailored to their needs. Their voice is critical to ensuring a fit-for-purpose service
system that delivers real, meaningful change to reduce the rates of child abuse and neglect in Australia.
Department of Social Services
PwC 64
Appendices
Appendix A Evaluation Approach 64
Appendix B Summary of governance: terms of reference 73
Appendix C Background analysis 77
Appendix D Consulted stakeholders 93
Department of Social Services
PwC 65
Appendix A Evaluation Approach
1 Evaluation purpose
The National Framework is to conclude at the end of 2020. It is timely to undertake this evaluation of the National
Framework. Consistent with a continuous improvement approach the evaluation will be used to gather data and qualitative
insights to shape the development of the strategy beyond 2020. In this context the purpose of the evaluation is to:
assess the appropriateness and effectiveness of the National Framework and its associated action plans including:
o governance arrangements
o broad implementation of the Third and Fourth Action Plans
o effectiveness in achieving broader outcomes including:
coordinating effort across governments and the non-government sector
reducing the prevalence of child abuse and neglect.
inform future policy and planning work.
2 Evaluation audience
The primary audiences for the evaluation are:
the Department of Social Services (the policy owner and commissioner of this evaluation)
all states and territories’ children and families agencies noting the National Framework is a COAG initiative
non-government organisations and representatives including members of the National Coalition on Child Safety
and Wellbeing
One of the stated aspirations of the National Framework is to, over time, rebalance effort and investment from a focus on
preventing abuse and harm to promoting child safety and wellbeing. Secondary audiences for the evaluation include:
Australian Government agencies who administer or fund relevant programs or grants including the National
Indigenous Australians Agency, Department of Education and Training, Services Australia, National Office for
Child Safety
state and territory agencies with responsibilities for early childhood, education, justice, Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander affairs and programs and justice
the general public, to whom key findings (and potentially the whole report) will made available to through
publication on DSS’ website.
3 Scope of evaluation
A high-level concept map for the National Framework is provided at Figure 14. While drawn directly from the National
Framework, this concept map has been presented in a program logic format for the purposes of this evaluation framework.
Program and policy logic models are schematic representations that describe how a program or policy is intended to work.
Evaluation Approach
Department of Social Services
PwC 66
They are useful in helping frame monitoring and evaluation activities primarily concerned with supporting decision making
around program and policy resources, activities, outputs, and outcomes and answering questions such as:
Were allocated resources sufficient to implement the policy effectively?
Were the activities conducted as intended?
Were expected outputs achieved?
To what extent did the policy achieve its short-, mid-, and long-term outcomes?
In particular program and policy logic models:
provide a readily accessible summary of the policy or the activity: developing a policy logic supports the
development of a deeper understanding for the activities and intended outcomes and brings a systematic
approach, imposing structure, rigour and discipline which makes clear the relationships among its components at
various stages. Importantly program logic models link the activities to the aims and intended outcomes.
identification of evaluation questions: presentation in a policy logic model format helps identify key evaluation
questions and support decision making to target evaluation efforts to the most critical areas. The policy logic can
help make clear the audiences for evaluation material and the potential sources and holders of data. In addition
program logic models help fine tune general evaluation questions into “clear, specific, and actionable evaluation
questions”.
56
A clear statement of needs and objectives is important to ensure there is a clear statement of the problem that is being
addressed. This statement of need is well articulated in the National Framework.
The components of the policy and program logic model developed for this evaluation framework are:
Action and Strategies: what is required to make the National Framework implementation successful? What outputs
are delivered?
Indicators: what are markers of progress towards achievement of supporting outcomes?
Supporting outcomes: what are the intermediary or supporting outcomes that will contribute to the overall
outcome?
Measures: what are the key trends that will be monitored to determine progress towards achievement of the target
and the overall outcome?
Target: what are the outcomes sought within the timeframe of the National Framework?
High level outcome: what is the overall outcome or vision of success (note this high-level outcome may extend
beyond the life of National Framework)?
56
Lawton, B., Brandon, P.R., Cicchinelli, L., & Kekahio, W. (2014). Logic models: A tool for designing and monitoring program evaluations. (REL 2014–007).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Regional Educational Laboratory Pacific. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Evaluation Approach
Department of Social Services
PwC 67
Figure 14 National Framework high-level concept map (program logic)
Supporting outcomes
Australia’s children and young people are safe and well
A substantial and sustained reduction in child abuse and neglect in Australia over time
Trends in the number of children in
out-of-home care.
1. Children live in safe and
supportive families and
communities
• Community attitudes towards
and value of children
• Children’s perception of their
value within the community
• Measure of children’s and
young people’s participation in
administrative and judicial
proceedings that affect them
• Proportion of pregnant
women who receive perinatal
care
• Number of at risk children
and families accessing
support services
• Rate per 100,000 babies
born with low birth weight
Proportion of communities
with improved measures
against the Australian Early
Development Index
• Proportion of disadvantaged
3 year olds in early
childhood education
• Proportion of children aged 4
to 14 years with mental
health problems
• Rate of child protection
notifications
• Rate per 1,000 children
living in households where
there is adult abuse of
alcohol and/ or other drugs (
• Rate per 1,000 children
accessing assistance
through homelessness
services (accompanied &
unaccompanied)
• Number of children living in
jobless families
• Rate per 1,000 children
living in households where
family violence occurs
• Proportion of parents with a
mental illness who are
accessing mental health
services
• Proportion of investigations
finalised by time taken to
complete investigation
• Proportion of children on
guardianship and custody
orders achieving national
reading and numeracy
benchmarks
• School retention rates (Years
10 & 12) of young people in out-
of-home care or under
guardianship (TBD)
• Retention rate of foster carers
and child protection workers
(TBD)
• Number of out-of-home carers,
by type of carer
• Rate per 1,000 Indigenous
children with substantiated
cases compared to other
children
• Rate per 1,000 Indigenous
children in out-of-home care
compared with other children
• Proportion of Indigenous
children placed in accordance
with the Indigenous Child
Placement Principles
• Proportion of Indigenous 3 to
4 year olds participating in
quality early childhood
education, development and
child care services
• Rate of hospitalisations for
injury and poisoning for
Indigenous children aged 0 to
4 years
• Ratio of Indigenous out-of-
home care placement through
mainstream or Indigenous
services
• Rate per 100,000 children
aged 0–4, 5–9, 10–14, and
15–19 reported with
sexually transmitted
diseases
• Number of individuals and
organisations prosecuted
for sexually exploiting
children
• Number and rate of
children with
substantiations related to
sexual abuse
Trends in key national indicators of
children’s health, development and
wellbeing
Trends in hospital admissions and
emergency department visits for
neglect and injuries to children under
three years
Trends in substantiated child
protection cases
2. Children and families
access adequate support to
promote safety and
intervene early
3. Risk factors for child
abuse and neglect are
addressed
4. Children who have been
abused or neglected receive
the support and care they
need for their safety and
wellbeing
5. Indigenous children are
supported and safe in their
families and communities
6. Child sexual abuse and
exploitation is prevented
and survivors receive
adequate support.
Measures
Target
High level outcome
Indicators
2
Strategies and actions
Evaluation Approach
Department of Social Services
PwC 68
Figure 14 has been used as a tool to unpack the Key Evaluation Questions and sub-questions to confirm that lines of
inquiry are comprehensive.
4 Evaluation type
A range of approaches may be appropriate to evaluate strategies and action plans including:
formative: an adaptive approach which enables refinement as the program or strategy is being implemented
process: determines whether the strategy was implemented as intended
outcomes: measures the progress of the strategy in terms of outcomes
impact: assesses the overall effectiveness of the strategy often compared to valid counterfactual.
A mixed method approach will be adopted for this evaluation comprising components of formative, process and outcomes
evaluation methodology noting that an impact evaluation is beyond the scope envisaged by DSS’ evaluation questions.
A combination of quantitative and qualitative methodologies will be deployed to assess effectiveness of the development of
the framework, the influence that the Framework and Third and Fourth Action Plans have had on the policy agenda for
children and young people and the extent to which the National Framework achieved its intended outcomes (with
consideration to barriers and enablers). In particular it will comprise:
a strong focus on qualitative analysis: understanding the experiences, insights, observations and perspectives of
the diverse range of individuals and organisations with an interest in, or responsibility for, implementation of the
National Framework will be a key foundation to the evaluation. This will include developing a contemporary picture
of the current policy, legislative and program management arrangements in place in each jurisdiction.
quantitative analysis: we confirm our understanding that this evaluation is not anticipated to include a
comprehensive audit of actions implemented under the Action Plans, or assess the effectiveness of each individual
action or plan. A summative assessment is to be made of the National Framework leveraging existing reports and
published data.
An additional sub-question has been proposed to ensure that the evaluation appropriately considers:
the effectiveness of the Framework and Action Plans in achieving broader outcomes particularly coordinating effort
across governments and the non-government sector and reducing the prevalence of child abuse and neglect
the extent to which the headline outcome, target, measures, supporting outcomes and indicators have been met.
Key evaluation questions
Three key evaluation domains are specified:
Domain 1: Outcomes: achievement of intended outcomes (barriers and enablers)
Domain 2: Effectiveness: supporting the policy agenda for children and young people
Domain 3: Effectiveness and appropriateness: development processes
The Key Evaluation Questions and sub-questions aligned to these three evaluation domains is set out in Table 14 at the
end of this section.
Evaluation Approach
Department of Social Services
PwC 69
5 Data collection and capture
This evaluation relies on both the analysis of available information as well as stakeholder consultation to provide insights. A
brief summary of these data collection approaches is described in the following sections.
Stakeholder consultation
Consultations were undertaken with stakeholders across Australia representing jurisdictional, sectoral and academic
perspectives. Stakeholders were identified by DSS and consulted between October 2019 – January 2020. Engagement was
undertaken through:
• Early notification by DSS to stakeholders of the evaluation
• Phone contact by PwC/PIC, supported by a guiding script, to schedule engagement
• Circulation of a calendar invitation with teleconference/location details and including a standardised invitation
script
• Provision of an information sheet that provides context to the objectives of the evaluation
• During consultation, upfront acknowledgement of how information collected through consultation will be
documented and used through the evaluation
• Documentation of consultation dialogue in the form of a standardised data collection template
Information sheet
An information sheet was shared with stakeholders ahead of our meeting with them to outline the scope of our evaluation,
its context, as well as the high-level questions to be asked through the consultations. A snapshot of the information sheet is
shown in Figure 15.
Evaluation Approach
Department of Social Services
PwC 70
Figure 15: Information sheet provided to stakeholders
Consultation guide
To support our team to undertake consultations, a consultation guide was prepared to guide our questioning of
stakeholders. This assisted us to ask questions in a consistent way and to cover all elements of the evaluation framework
with stakeholders. All stakeholders were provided with upfront context and an opportunity to introduce their experience with
the National Framework. Stakeholders were also asked to acknowledge that our team was taking notes for the purposes of
informing this evaluation. A high-level overview of the consultation guide is shown in Figure 16.
Evaluation Approach
Department of Social Services
PwC 71
Figure 16: PwC/PIC consultation guide
Data tool
Responses from stakeholders were collated in a common data tool, based in excel, that provided the database for this
evaluation. The tool was developed to:
Input notes, based on each evaluation sub-question, for each stakeholder
Identify each question response by stakeholder type, date, the relative strength of evidence provided (opinion or
with reference to a data point or example)
Identify key themes arising and categorise stakeholder responses
Undertake a secondary review of theming to ensure that categories assigned were correct, were expanded upon,
or a further category assigned to each response
Analyse categories to establish weightings of responses and strength of evidence to inform findings
A visual view of the documented inputs to the data tool is shown in Figure 17.
Figure 17: High-level overview of data tool
The data tool enabled the evaluation team to analyse the broad dataset captured through consultations. This supported
segmentation of data to review common themes and emerging findings by stakeholder type, by evidence source and by
Raw data inputs Two-stage categorisation (and theming) Analysis of responses
Evaluation Approach
Department of Social Services
PwC 72
themes. From the over 700 data points collected, the evaluation team considered the themes arising from consultation to
balance these against desktop review findings to assess the validity of perspectives shared and to as great an extent as
possible, provide rigour to the analysis provided in this report.
This approach lent to objectivity in review of responses provided. However, the limitations of the stakeholder approach – in
which stakeholders had varying levels of familiarity and experience with the National Framework – meant that a strict
interpretation of results was not deemed appropriate. Instead, some judgment has been applied to derive findings as
weightings (multiple stakeholders supporting a point) did not necessarily equate to a given conclusion due to their offering
of opinion rather than defensive evidence. Where possible, desktop analysis has been used to balance perspectives
provided.
Evaluation Approach
Department of Social Services
PwC 73
Table 14: Evaluation domains mapped to key evaluation questions and sub-questions
Question domain
Key evaluation question
Sub-questions
Outcomes:
achievement of intended
outcomes (barriers and
enablers)
1. To what extent did the National
Framework achieve its intended
outcomes and what factors
supported or inhibited outcomes?
a. What were the major achievements of the National Framework?
b. What supported and/or inhibited the implementation of the actions listed in the National Framework and Action Plans? What
could be improved?
c. What were the strengths and weaknesses of the National Framework, including the effectiveness of its governance structure?
d. What supported and/or inhibited achievement of outcomes listed in the National Framework and Action Plans?
e. How well did the National Framework and the Action Plans work together to achieve outcomes?
f. How effective was the National Framework in informing the agenda for Indigenous priorities, actions and cultural
appropriateness?
Additional sub-question:
g. How effective were the National Framework and Action Plans in achieving broader outcomes particularly coordinating effort
across governments and the non-government sector and reducing the prevalence of child abuse and neglect?
Effectiveness:
supporting the policy agenda
for children and young people
2. How well did the National
Framework support the policy
agenda for children and young
people?
a. How well does the National Framework connect other elements of the broader policy agenda for children and young people
at both a Commonwealth and state and territory level?
b. Were there any gaps or was there areas of duplication with other key policy areas, including but not limited to:
family and domestic violence
education
housing
justice
health
disability
culturally and linguistically diverse families and/or
Closing the Gap
Effectiveness and
appropriateness:
development processes
3. How effective was the
development of the National
Framework and Action Plan?
a. How effective and appropriate were the consultations leading up to, and the resulting priorities and actions in the Third and
Fourth Action Plans?
i. Did the development of the priorities and actions in the Third and Fourth Action Plans incorporate lessons learnt from previous
action plans?
ii. Did the priorities and actions in the Third and Fourth Action Plans clearly align with the high-level outcomes of the National
Framework?
b. To what extent were the duration and structure of the National Framework and its Action Plans appropriate?
c. How well did the National Framework respond to the Convention on the Rights of the Child?
d. To what extent did the National Framework engage with the public health model and primary prevention activities?
Department of Social Services
PwC 74
Appendix B Summary of
governance: terms of reference
Table 15: Third Action Plan Terms of Reference and operating arrangements
Group
Missing membership/
representation?
57
Summary of Terms of Reference
Reports to
Meeting
frequency
CAFS
58
As a government
structure this group
does not include
National Coalition
membership.
Broad oversight of Child Protection
Royal Commissions, the
Framework, Children and Families
Data Network, broader inter-
jurisdictional collaboration, juvenile
justice.
CSM
Annual and ad
hoc as
necessary.
National Forum for
Protecting Australia’s
Children
59
None
Provide advice to governments on
priority areas requiring tripartite
collaboration. Provide advice to
CAFS, CAFS SIG and the working
groups.
CAFS,
CAFS SIG
and Priority
Working
Groups
At least twice
per year
Commonwealth,
State and Territory
Officials Working
Group
60
As a government
structure this group
does not include
National Coalition
membership.
No Terms of Reference provided
Third Action Plan provides:
“responsible for monitoring and
reporting progress to CAFS on the
implementation of the Third Action
Plan”
CAFS
Not reported
Aboriginal and
Torres Strait Islander
Working Group
61
Membership does not
include State/Territory
or Commonwealth
government
representatives.
Membership includes a
wide range of NGOs
and Peaks.
Provide guidance, advice and
expertise to the National Forum and
Strategy Working Groups. Provide
annual reports to the National
Forum on implementation of actions
under each of the 3 Strategies.
Support the ATSICPP’s full
implementation.
National
Forum
Reporting in
line with
National
Forum
meetings
As necessary
57
Note: this is a high level assessment of whether membership includes all State/Territories, Commonwealth and the National Coalition as the three key
parties to the National Framework.
58
Children and Families Secretaries, ‘Terms of Reference’, document titled ‘Item 2 - Att A_TOR.DOC’, emailed on 2 December 2019.
59
National Forum for Protecting Australia’s Children, ‘Terms of Reference’, 2019, document titled ‘Agenda Item 7 – National Forum Terms of Reference.pdf’
emailed 2 December 2019.
60
Department of Social Services, ‘Third Action Plan 2015-2018’, October 2015, p. 14.
61
Children and Families Secretaries, ‘Terms of Reference’, document titled, ‘Agenda item 3 - Attachment A Terms of Reference - Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander .PDF’, emailed on 2 December 2019.
Summary of governance: terms of reference
Department of Social Services
PwC 75
Group
Missing membership/
representation?
57
Summary of Terms of Reference
Reports to
Meeting
frequency
Strategy Working
Groups
None
Draft governance arrangements
were proposed at the National
Forum on 1 Sept 2015 no final
Terms of Reference were provided.
Draft arrangements include; driving
and monitoring implementation of
actions under each Strategy of the
Third Action Plan, proposing
additional actions as necessary,
ensuring the ATSICPP is embedded
throughout actions.
National
Forum
Biannual
reports
(draft)
Three times
per annum
(draft)
Research Advisory
Committee
Membership does not
include States/Territory
Government, Australian
Centre for Child
Protection or Australian
Institute of Health and
Welfare despite their
membership fo the
National Forum.
No formal Terms of Reference have
been provided, arrangements were
agreed at National Forum.
Explore the development of targets
and progress markers, revitalise a
new research agenda, examine how
to continue the full implementation
of the National Standards for OOHC
to respond to the Senate Inquiry into
OOHC.
National
Forum
None
documented
Table 16: Fourth Action Plan Terms of Reference and operating arrangements
Group
Missing membership/
representation?
62
Summary of Terms of Reference
Reports to
Meeting
frequency
CAFS
63
As a government
structure this group
does not include
National Coalition
membership.
Broad oversight of Child Protection
Royal Commissions, the Framework,
Children and Families Data Network,
broader inter-jurisdictional
collaboration, juvenile justice.
CSM
meeting
(informal)
Annual and ad
hoc as
necessary.
National Forum for
Protecting
Australia’s
Children
64
None
Progress implementation of initiatives,
lead engagement with broader
community inc. communication
strategy, provide opportunity for
CAFS
As necessary,
up to 3 times
per annum
62
Note: this is a high level assessment of whether membership includes all State/Territories, Commonwealth and the National Coalition as the three key
parties to the National Framework.
63
Children and Families Secretaries, ‘Terms of Reference’, document titled ‘Item 2 - Att A_TOR.DOC’, emailed on 2 December 2019.
64
National Forum for Protecting Australia’s Children, ‘Terms of Reference’, 2014, document titled ‘216_Att_A.PDF’, accessed 12 December 2019
Summary of governance: terms of reference
Department of Social Services
PwC 76
Group
Missing membership/
representation?
62
Summary of Terms of Reference
Reports to
Meeting
frequency
discussion and fill gaps regarding the
evidence base.
CAFS Strategic
Information Group
(SIG)
As a government
structure this group
does not include
National Coalition
membership
Oversee and provide strategic advice
on the development and
implementation of a data improvement
plan for national child safety and
welfare data under the CAFS remit.
Develop, maintain and oversee the
implementation of a national data
improvement plan on behalf of CAFS,
including prioritisation of information
developments and enhancements by
jurisdictions.
CAFS
As necessary,
but usually 3–
4 times
annually
Children and
Families Data
Network
(CAFDaN)
65
National Coalition not
represented
Provide technical support to CAFS
SIG
CAFS SIG
As necessary,
but usually 3–
4 times a year
Aboriginal and
Torres Strait
Islander Children
Working Group
(Priority One)
66
National Coalition not
represented on working
group.
Provide advice and progress work on
actions agreed at CAFS and CSM
meetings.
Deliver/implement the Fourth Action
Plan’s Priority Area one.
CAFS
Quarterly
Early Intervention
and Prevention
Initiative (Priority
Two)
67
Working group limited
to membership of the
Co-Chairs and
Commonwealth
Department of Social
Services
To oversee and provide advice on
actions 2.2 and 2.3 under Priority Two
of the Fourth Action Plan and as
agreed at CAFS and CSM meetings.
Deliver actions 2.2. and 2.3
CAFS
As required
Permanency
Working Group
(Priority Three)
National Coalition not
represented on working
group.
Provide advice and progress work on
actions agreed at CAFS and CSM
meetings.
CAFS
Quarterly
65
Children and Families Secretaries, ‘Children and Families Data Network (CAFDaN)’, document titled ‘15 February 2019 CAFS - Item 4 - Attachment F -
Terms of Reference for CAFDaN.DOCX’, emailed 2 December 2019
66
Children and Families Secretaries, ‘Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Working Group (Priority One) Terms of Reference’, document titled, ‘6.2 - Att 1 -
Priority One Working Group Terms of Reference.docx’, emailed 2 December 2019.
67
Children and Families secretaries, ‘ Early Intervention and Prevention Working Group (Priority Two) Terms of Reference’, document titled, ‘6.3 attachment
A: P2WG Terms of Reference.DOCX’, emailed 2 December 2019.
Summary of governance: terms of reference
Department of Social Services
PwC 77
Group
Missing membership/
representation?
62
Summary of Terms of Reference
Reports to
Meeting
frequency
Develop a work plan and/or implement
the Fourth Action Plan priority area
three.
Child Safety
Working Group
(Priority Four)
68
National Coalition not
represented on working
group.
Provide advice and progress work on
actions agreed at CAFS and CSM
meetings.
Develop a work plan and/or implement
the Fourth Action Plan priority area
four.
CAFS
Quarterly
Aboriginal and
Torres Strait
Islander Working
Group
69
Membership of this
group has not been
provided.
No formal terms of reference have
been provided. The Fourth Action Plan
requires the working group to; provide
guidance, advice and expertise to the
National Forum and working groups
and to ensure that the action plan
remains focussed on delivering
programs for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander children.
SIG, the
four Priority
Working
Groups and
the National
Forum
Not provided
68
Children and Families Secretaries, ‘Permanency Working Group (Priority Three) Terms of Reference’, document titled, ‘15 February 2019 CAFS - Item 4 -
Attachment C - Permanency Working Group.DOCX’, emailed 2 December 2019.
69
Children and Families Secretaries, ‘Terms of Reference’, document titled, ‘Agenda item 3 - Attachment A Terms of Reference - Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander .PDF’, emailed on 2 December 2019.
Department of Social Services
PwC 78
Appendix C Background analysis
In relation to evaluation domain 3, sub-question aii (did the priorities and actions in the Third and Fourth Action Plans clearly
align with the high-level outcomes of the National Framework) PwC and PIC sought to understand the mapping of actions to
supporting outcomes in the action plans. This mapping is presented in Table 17 and Table 18 below.
In undertaking this mapping, we note that in the Third Action Plan the signature actions are not explicitly linked to any
supporting outcomes. In the Fourth Action Plan the actions are linked to specific supporting outcomes but no rationale is
provided.
Therefore, to analyse whether there is clear alignment between actions and supporting outcomes PwC and PIC sought to
link each action to a supporting outcome based on whether it could be reasonably linked to a supporting outcome strategy.
We understand that the supporting outcome strategies, which are documented in the National Framework, were intended to
help focus efforts and actions under the Framework and refer to specific areas. This makes them more readily linked to
actions. By linking actions to supporting strategies, we sought to provide a clear rationale as to how the link between action
and supporting outcome was established.
In undertaking this mapping, we note the following:
Actions are not all of the same kind; some actions seek to create an enabling environment (i.e. through research,
standardisation, governance protocols) while others relate more directly to implementing policy or programs. While the
former may support the latter, we note that they do not have a stand-alone direct impact on the supporting outcomes.
Therefore, in the analysis presented below, unless the actions that are in enabling in nature are clearly supporting a
specific program/policy outcome they are categorised as ‘Not applicable’.
Supporting outcomes are not strictly mutually exclusive. For example, actions related to supporting outcome 2 (Children
and families access adequate support to promote safety and intervene early) may indirectly deliver supporting outcome
1 (Children live in safe and supportive families and communities). That is, delivering the necessary support to families
will support a safe and supportive family and community. Although this overlap exists, we note that the supporting
outcomes were intended to help focus efforts and actions. To this end, we have focused on listing the strategy and
supporting outcome that is most clearly aligned to the action under consideration, putting aside potential flow-on effects
to other strategies/supporting outcomes (including second generation effects).
Where an action is not clearly linked to any supporting outcome it is categorised as ‘Not aligned’.
Table 17 maps the Third Action Plan signature actions against the supporting outcomes strategies and outcomes of the
National Framework.
Table 17: Third Action Plan signature actions mapped against the National Framework
No.
Signature action
Supporting outcome strategy
Supporting outcome
Cross-cutting focus area – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families
1
Action: All parties agree to ensure the
five domains of the ATSICPP are
applied to the implementation of
strategies and actions identified in the
Third Action Plan.
Ensure that Indigenous children receive
culturally appropriate protection services
and care.
Supporting outcome 5
2
Action: A new Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander working group will be
established to provide advice and
expertise on the implementation of
actions and strategies, and report to the
National Forum for Protecting Australia’s
Children on progress and outcomes, to
ensure a sustained focus on results.
Underpinning.
This action may support further actions
in relation to supporting outcome 5..
Aligned to supporting outcome 5
Strategy 1: Early intervention with a focus on the early years, particularly the first 1000 days for a child
3
Action: Commonwealth to initiate
community awareness raising activities
focused on effective parenting practices
Educate and engage the community
about child abuse and neglect and
strategies for protecting children.
Supporting outcome 1
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 79
No.
Signature action
Supporting outcome strategy
Supporting outcome
and strategies to enhance safe and
supportive environments in the early
years, at both national and local levels.
4
Action: Identify locations with high
incidences of domestic and family
violence and improve resource co-
ordination of services and activities to
better meet the needs of vulnerable
expectant parents and parents of young
children.
Enhance services and supports for
children and families to target the most
vulnerable and protect children ‘at-risk’.
Supporting outcome 2
5
Action: Commonwealth to develop and
trial an effective model of services and
support focused on the first 1000 days
to better support Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander families and communities.
Expand access to Indigenous and
mainstream services for families and
children.
Enhance services and supports for
children and families to target the most
vulnerable and protect children ‘at-risk.
Supporting outcome 5
Supporting outcome 2
6
Action: Examine place-based models to
identify critical success factors to inform
future work.
Underpinning.
This action may support further actions
in relation to the National Framework.
7
Action: Commonwealth to support
integration of child care, maternal and
child health, and family support services
in a number of disadvantaged Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander communities,
through the Community Child Care
Fund.
Implement an integrated approach to
service design, planning and delivery for
children and families across the lifecycle
and spectrum of need.
Expand access to Indigenous and
mainstream services for families and
children.
Supporting outcome 2
Supporting outcome 5
Strategy 2: Helping young people in out-of-home care to thrive into adulthood
8
Action: Commonwealth to continue to
support eligible young people to access
services through the Youth Employment
Strategy, Growing Jobs and Small
Business Package.
Underpinning.
This action supports young people and
the determinants of intergenerational
poverty/future risk factors.
Aligned to supporting outcome 3
9
Action: Commonwealth to trial ways of
improving support to young people by
better utilising available data and
delivering intensive case management
including wrap around services linking to
education, health and housing, working
with jurisdictions. All parties to use
findings to guide future interventions for
young people.
Enhance services and supports for
children and families to target the most
vulnerable and protect children ‘at-risk.
Supporting outcome 2
10
Action: Examine 2014 reforms to the
Transition to Independent Living
Allowance to ensure it continues to
target those who need it most and
improve efficiency.
Improve support for young people
leaving care.
Supporting outcome 4
11
Action: Evaluate impact of jurisdictions’
policy changes to extend statutory
responsibility and access to services to
young people who exit out-of-home care
over the age of 18 years.
Improve support for young people
leaving care.
Supporting outcome 4
Strategy 3: Organisations responding better to children and young people to keep them safe
12
Action: Review and implement the
National Framework: Creating Safe
Environments for Children —
Increase capacity and capability of:
- adult focused services to identify and
respond to the needs of children at-risk
Supporting outcome 3
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 80
No.
Signature action
Supporting outcome strategy
Supporting outcome
Organisations, Employees and
Volunteers (2005).
- child-focused services to identify and
respond to the needs of vulnerable
families
- the broader system to identify children
at-risk
Educate and engage the community
about child abuse and neglect and
strategies for protecting children
Supporting outcome 1
13
Action: Strategy working group to
produce a work plan to identify
resources to support best practice on
child-safe standards.
Underpinning.
This action may support further actions
in relation to supporting outcome 1.
Aligned to supporting outcome 1
14
Action: Share jurisdictional approaches
to develop a best practice model of
information exchange.
Develop new information sharing
provisions between Commonwealth
agencies, State and Territory agencies
and NGOs dealing with vulnerable
families.
Supporting outcome 2
Cross- cutting focus area – Research and reporting under the Third Action Plan
15
Action: Explore capacity to develop
targets and progress markers for Third
Action Plan to measure progress, and if
viable, identify appropriate targets and
markers, to assist with reporting by June
2016.
Underpinning.
This action may support further actions
in relation to the National Framework..
16
Action: Examine how to continue full
implementation of, and give best effect
to, the National Standards for out-of-
home care in light of the Senate Inquiry
Into Out-of-Home Care
recommendations.
Improve support for young people
leaving care.
Develop and implement effective
mechanisms for involving children and
young people in decisions affecting their
lives.
Supporting outcome 4
Supporting outcome 1
17
Action: Revitalise the Research
Advisory Committee of the National
Forum to develop a new research
agenda.
Underpinning.
This action may support further actions
in relation to the National Framework..
Table 18 maps the Fourth Action Plan actions against the supporting outcomes strategies and outcomes of the National
Framework.
Table 18: Fourth Action Plan actions mapped against the National Framework
No.
Action
Supporting outcome strategy
Supporting outcome
Priority area 1: Improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children at risk of entering, or in contact with, child
protection systems
1
Action: Actively implement legislation,
policy and/or practice to ensure
compliance with the five elements of the
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
Child Placement Principle.
Ensure that Indigenous children receive
culturally appropriate protection services
and care
Supporting outcome 5
2
Action: Identify and share models that
have been shown to improve Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander participation in
decision-making processes for children
and families at risk of entering, or in
contact with, child protection systems.
Ensure that Indigenous children receive
culturally appropriate protection services
and care
Enhance access to appropriate support
services for recovery where abuse or
neglect has occurred
Enhance services and supports for
children and families to target the most
vulnerable and protect children ‘at-risk’
Supporting outcome 5
Supporting outcome 4
Supporting outcome 2
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 81
No.
Action
Supporting outcome strategy
Supporting outcome
3
Action: Develop a nationally consistent
approach to measuring the application
of the five elements of the Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander Child
Placement Principle.
Ensure that Indigenous children receive
culturally appropriate protection services
and care
Supporting outcome 5
4
Action: Develop national principles to
support the investment, expansion and
development of Aboriginal Community
Controlled Organisations and Aboriginal
and Torres Strait Islander managed
services to deliver family support and
child protection services.
Ensure that Indigenous children receive
culturally appropriate protection services
and care
Supporting outcome 5
5
Action: Develop a nationally consistent
and comparable approach to report on
state and territory government support
for Aboriginal Community Controlled
Organisations and Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander managed services to
deliver family support and child
protection services.
Support enhanced national consistency
and continuous improvement in child
protection services
Ensure that Indigenous children receive
culturally appropriate protection services
and care
Supporting outcome 4
Supporting outcome 5
Priority Area 2: Improving prevention and early intervention through joint service planning and investment
6
Action: Jointly invest in 10
disadvantaged communities across
Australia to implement a place-based,
collective impact initiative that focuses
on interrupting the cycle of childhood
vulnerability and poverty.
Enhance services and supports for
children and families to target the most
vulnerable and protect children ‘at-risk’
Supporting outcome 2
Supporting outcome 3
7
Action: Continue efforts to develop and
strengthen support for young people
transitioning from out-of-home care into
adulthood and improve priority access to
support services.
Provide priority access to services for
children who are at serious risk of abuse
and neglect
Improve support for young people
leaving care
Supporting outcome 2
Supporting outcome 4
8
Action: Undertake research into what
works to address key drivers of entry
into child protection systems.
Support enhanced national consistency
and continuous improvement in child
protection services
Supporting outcome 4
Priority Area 3: Improving outcomes for children in out of home care by enhancing placement stability through reunification and other
permanent care options
9
Action: Develop a national data
reporting and evaluation framework to
measure permanency outcomes.
Support enhanced national consistency
and continuous improvement in child
protection services
Supporting outcome 4
10
Action: Further promote:
a) timely and consistent decision-making
for permanency
b) better permanency options, including
consistent processes for family
reunification to be explored and resolved
as part of permanency planning.
Enhance access to appropriate support
services for recovery where abuse or
neglect has occurred
Supporting outcome 4
11
Action: Develop an approach to
recruitment, training and support of
more permanent carers, including
improving workforce capability to
support carers, by state and territory and
Commonwealth governments.
Support grandparent, foster and kinship
carers to provide safe and stable care
Supporting outcome 4
Priority Area 4: Improving organisations’ and governments’ ability to keep children and young people safe from abuse.
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 82
No.
Action
Supporting outcome strategy
Supporting outcome
12
Action: Support the promotion of the
National Principles for Child Safe
Organisations, subject to agreement by
the COAG.
Increase capacity and capability of:
- adult focused services to identify and
respond to the needs of children at-risk
- child-focused services to identify and
respond to the needs of vulnerable
families
- the broader system to identify children
at-risk
Educate and engage the community
about child abuse and neglect and
strategies for protecting children
Enhance prevention strategies for child
sexual abuse
Supporting outcome 3
Supporting outcome 1
Supporting outcome 6
13
Action: Building on the work of the
Child Protection Information Sharing
Project, the states and territories will
improve protocols and procedures to
share child protection related
information between jurisdictions,
including information on the support
needs of children and families in child
protection systems.
Develop new information sharing
provisions between Commonwealth
agencies, State and Territory agencies
and NGOs dealing with vulnerable
families.
Support enhanced national consistency
and continuous improvement in child
protection services.
Enhance prevention strategies for child
sexual abuse
Supporting outcome 2
Supporting outcome 4
Supporting outcome 6
Below outlines the reported initiatives of jurisdictions against the supporting outcomes for each action plan. It demonstrates
that jurisdictions aligned a lot of jurisdictional initiatives, including major reforms and Royal Commission responses, to the
supporting outcomes of the National Framework. For completeness, no lens has been applied to the initiatives represented
here (they are reported as they are within the action plans).
Table 19: Overview of reported jurisdictional initiatives against National Framework outcomes
Supporting
outcomes
Jurisdiction
Initiative
No. of
initiatives
Outcome 1
Commonwealth
Support for National Child Protection Week
Building Capacity in Australian Parents trial (branded ‘Parent Link’)
Connected Beginnings
3
ACT
Youth Roundtable
Children’s Services Program
Child and Family Centres
3
VIC
No initiatives reported
-
NSW
Improving child protection information sharing
1
QLD
Respectful Relations Education
Family and Child Commission Community Education initiatives
2
NT
Starting Early for a Better Future
Safe, Thriving and Connected: Generational Change for Children and
Families 2018–2023
Age Appropriate Pedagogies
3
SA
Children and Young People (Oversight and Advocacy Bodies) Act 2016
South Australian Commissioner for Children and Young People
Child Development Council
3
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 83
Supporting
outcomes
Jurisdiction
Initiative
No. of
initiatives
WA
Best Beginnings Plus
Early Years Initiative
2
TAS
Healthy Tasmania Five Year Strategic Plan and Healthy Kids Toolkit
B4 Early Years Coalition
Child and Student Wellbeing Strategy
3
Total initiatives aligned to supporting outcome 1
20
Outcome 2
Commonwealth
Business Research and Innovation Initiative
1
ACT
Information sharing
Child Development Service
Early Support by Design
3
VIC
Child wellbeing and safety and family violence information sharing schemes
and the Multi Agency Risk Assessment and Management framework
10 year Early Parenting Centre (EPC) service plan
Cradle to Kinder (C2K) and Cradle to Kinder for Aboriginal children and their
families programs
smalltalk
4
NSW
Landmark child protection reform, Their Futures Matter
Family group conferencing
Permanency Support Program
Quality Assurance Framework
4
QLD
Increased interagency information sharing
Missing children protocol
Advancing Queensland’s child protection and family support reforms —
Supporting Families Changing Futures
Child Safety Officers
4
NT
Reform to legislation for children and families
FACES helpline
Strengthened investment in services for vulnerable young people
Healthy Under 5 Kids — Partnering with Families program
Child and Family Centres
Partnerships with Aboriginal community controlled organisations
Reinvigorating and expanding child safety and wellbeing committees
Young Mothers Strong Mothers Program
8
SA
Public Sector (Data Sharing) Act 2016
Early Intervention Research Directorate
Child and Family Health Service targeted and sustained services
Child and Family Assessment and Referral Networks
Child Safety Pathway
5
WA
Earlier Intervention and Family Support Strategy
Target 120 program
2
TAS
Child and Youth Wellbeing Framework and the Child and Family Wellbeing
Assessment Tool
Joined Up Services Project
Intensive Family Engagement Service
3
Total initiatives aligned to supporting outcome 2
34
Outcome 3
Commonwealth
National Principles for Child Safe Organisations
National Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children 2010–
2022
3
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 84
Supporting
outcomes
Jurisdiction
Initiative
No. of
initiatives
National Disability Strategy
ACT
Improving service responses to domestic and family violence
Family Safety Hub
2
VIC
Minimum qualification requirements for residential care workers
The Orange Door
Adolescent Family Violence Program
3
NSW
Practice Framework
Expanding perpetrator interventions
Domestic and Family Violence Innovation Fund
3
QLD
Child Safety Practice Manual Rebuild
Domestic and family violence (DFV) capability development
Connecting Care to recovery 2016–2026
3
NT
Youth Outreach and Re engagement Teams
Sexual Behaviours in Children Guidelines and mandatory reporting training
Early Years Rewarding Careers
Northern Territory Domestic, Family and Sexual Violence Reduction
Framework 2018–2028, Safe, Respected and Free from Violence
Domestic and family violence initiatives
5
SA
Child Wellbeing Practitioners
Metropolitan Youth Health Young Parents Program, Youth and Women’s
Safety and Wellbeing Division
Department for Child Protection’s Disability Program
3
WA
Responding to domestic and family violence
1
TAS
Safe Families Coordination Unit
Safe Homes, Safe Families
The Youth Suicide Prevention Plan for Tasmania (2016–2020)
Everybody’s Business Implementation Plan
4
Total initiatives aligned to supporting outcome 3
27
Outcome 4
Commonwealth
Young people in child protection and under youth justice supervision
Vulnerable young people — interactions across homelessness, youth justice
and child protection
Working Together to Care for Kids: The Survey of Foster and
Relative/Kinship Carers
National Standards for out of home care
Towards Independent Adulthood trial
5
ACT
A Step Up for Our Kids
Therapeutic assessments:
2
VIC
Better Futures
Carer KaFE program
New model of kinship care
Development of industry transition plans
4
NSW
The Institute of Open Adoption Studies
Permanency Support Program
My Forever Family NSW
Contracting partnerships to be responsive to needs
Out-of-home care transition
5
QLD
Blue card and foster care system reviews
Next Step After Care program
Partners in Care
4
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 85
Supporting
outcomes
Jurisdiction
Initiative
No. of
initiatives
Child and family workforce capacity and capability development
NT
Culturally appropriate care arrangements
Carers charter of rights
2
SA
Children and Young People Safety Act 2017
Interagency Therapeutic Needs Panel
Education program for children in residential care to promote their rights to
make complaints
3
WA
Department of Communities and Telethon Kids Institute — Exploring
outcomes for young people who have experienced out-of-home care study
Department of Communities and Curtin University led research team —
Transitioning from Out of Home Care: A longitudinal population based study
Needs Assessment Tool
Homes for Carers
4
TAS
The Quality and Accountability Framework for Out of Home Care
Appointment of Tasmanian Child Advocate
A new model for family based care
Outcomes Framework for Children and Young People in Out of Home Care
4
Total initiatives aligned to supporting outcome 4
33
Outcome 5
Commonwealth
Supporting implementation of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child
Placement Principle
Input to the Closing the Gap Refresh process
2
ACT
Family Group Conferencing
Our Booris, Our Way
2
VIC
Authorisation of Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations (ACCOs) to
care for Aboriginal children
Transitioning Aboriginal children to Aboriginal Community Controlled
Organisations
Aboriginal Child Specialist Advice and Support Service
3
NSW
Aboriginal Outcomes Strategy
1
QLD
Our Way Strategy 2017–2037 and Changing Tracks Action Plan 2017–2019
Legislative amendment and the Child Placement Principle
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Family Wellbeing Services
3
NT
Aboriginal Cultural Security Policy and Framework
Indigenous Education Strategy 2015–2024
Stars Program
3
SA
Yunga Nungas: Future Leaders pilot program
Aboriginal workforce participation
Kunpungku Atunymankunytjaku Tjitji Uwarkara (KATU)
3
WA
Aboriginal In Home Support Service (Wungening Moort)
1
TAS
Appointment of Aboriginal Family Safety Workers
1
Total initiatives aligned to supporting outcome 5
19
Outcome 6
Commonwealth
Child Abuse Royal Commission Senior Officials Working Group
1
ACT
ACT Government Response to the Royal Commission into Institutional
Responses to Child Sexual Abuse
1
VIC
Kinship care and child safety screening
Strengthening treatment services for children and young people who display
sexually abusive or concerning behaviours
2
NSW
National Redress Scheme for survivors of child sexual abuse
3
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 86
Supporting
outcomes
Jurisdiction
Initiative
No. of
initiatives
See, understand and respond to child sexual abuse practice kit
Intensive Therapeutic Care system
QLD
Development of culturally appropriate resources for Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Island people
Review of blue card system
responding to sexual abuse
3
NT
Sexual Assault Referral Centre (SARC) Top End
Central Australia Health Service
2
SA
Child Safety (Prohibited Persons) Act 2016
Continuous monitoring of screening
Criminalising dishonest communication with children
Restricting the ‘release on licence’ option for sex offenders
4
WA
Mandatory reporting reform
Response to the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child
Sexual Abuse
Improving advocacy, treatment and support for survivors of child sexual
abuse
3
TAS
No initiatives reported
-
Total initiatives aligned to supporting outcome 6
19
Table 20 contains the National Framework supporting outcomes mapped against the articles of the Convention, based on
whether the supporting outcomes of the National Framework could be reasonably expected to progress the rights outlined
in each convention. Note: The article descriptions are in summary form only and the Convention should be directly
consulted for its full contents.
Table 20: Alignment of Framework supporting outcomes to Articles of the Convention
National Framework supporting
outcomes
Articles of the Convention for the Rights of
the Child
Discussion
Supporting outcome 1: Children
live in safe and supportive families
and communities.
Article 3: In all actions concerning children the
best interests of the child shall be a primary
consideration.
Article 5: Respect and support the role that
families play to support children’s rights.
Article 12: In relation to matters affecting a
child, the child has a right to present views and
be heard.
Article 18: State parties to ensure that parents
understand their responsibility to care for
children and are supported to do so.
Article 27: Support the right of every child to a
standard of living adequate for the child's
physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social
development.
Supporting outcome 1 may progress the rights
outlined in Articles 3, 5, 12, 18 and 27. The
focus of this outcome is providing support to
families and communities to understand the
needs and rights of children, to enable them to
act in a child’s best interests and to support the
provision of adequate care. It also
encompasses providing children with a right to
participate in decisions that affect them,
particularly in relation to judicial proceedings,
juvenile justice and child protection.
Supporting outcome 2: Children
and families access adequate
support to promote safety and
intervene early.
Article 7: Children have a right to know and be
cared for by his or her parents, as far as
possible.
Article 9: Children have a right to live with their
parents unless against the best interests for the
child.
Article 24: Children have a right to the
enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
health and to facilities for the treatment of
illness and rehabilitation of health.
Supporting outcome 2 may progress the rights
outlined in Articles 7, 9, 24 and 28. The focus
of this outcome is ensuring that children have
access to support and services (including
education and healthcare) to create conditions
for safety and care. It also includes specific
provisions for supporting families with children
who are ‘at-risk’. In this vein it may protect the
rights of children to remain with their parents by
creating a supportive environment for families.
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 87
National Framework supporting
outcomes
Articles of the Convention for the Rights of
the Child
Discussion
Article 28: Right of the child to education, and
with a view to achieving this right progressively
and on the basis of equal opportunity.
Supporting outcome 3: Risk
factors for child abuse and neglect
are addressed.
Article 19: State parties to take legislative,
administrative, social and educational
measures to protect children from violence,
injury, abuse, neglect, or exploitation by care
providers.
Article 23: Children who have any kind of
disability should receive special care and
support so that they can live a full and
independent life.
Article 34: States parties undertake to protect
the child from all forms of sexual exploitation
and sexual abuse.
Supporting outcome 3 may progress the rights
outlined in Articles 19 and 34. The focus of this
outcome is on addressing major parental risk
factors associated with abuse and neglect,
including health, domestic violence and
drug/alcohol abuse. Therefore, it may deliver a
child’s right to be protected from abuse and
other forms of harm. This supporting outcome
specifically identifies disability as a risk factor
for abuse and identifies increase support for
children or parents with disabilities as a key
strategy, and in this vein may progress the
rights set out by Article 23.
Supporting outcome 4: Children
who have been abused or
neglected receive the support and
care they need for their safety and
wellbeing.
Article 20: Children taken from a family
environment are entitled to State assistance
that has regard for the child’s ethnic, religious,
cultural and indigenous background.
Article 25: State parties should undertake
periodic review of children placed in care.
Article 39: Children who have been neglected
or abused should receive special help to
restore their self-respect.
Supporting outcome 4 may progress the rights
outlined in Articles 20, 25 and 39. The focus of
this outcome is on providing timely and
appropriate services to children who have been
abused or at risk of abuse, including high-
quality child protection. Depending on the exact
nature of child protection, it may deliver on the
rights encompassed in these articles.
Supporting outcome 5: Indigenous
children are supported and safe in
their families and communities.
Article 5: Respect and support the role that
families play to support children’s rights.
Article 18: State parties to ensure that parents
understand their responsibility to care for
children and are supported to do so.
Article 20: Children taken from a family
environment are entitled to State assistance
that has regard for the child’s ethnic, religious,
cultural and indigenous background.
Article 30: A child belonging to such a minority
or who is indigenous shall not be denied the
right to enjoy his or her own culture, or to use
his or her own language.
Supporting outcome 5 may progress the rights
outlined in Articles 5, 18, 20 and 30. The focus
of this outcome is on supporting Indigenous
families to support children, and to provide
culturally-appropriate care to Indigenous
children in child protection systems. This has
some overlap with supporting outcome 1
(Articles 5, 18) and supporting outcome 3
(Article 20). The focus on culturally appropriate
care may specifically progress Article 30.
Supporting outcome 6: Child
sexual abuse and exploitation is
prevented, and survivors receive
adequate support.
Article 34: States parties undertake to protect
the child from all forms of sexual exploitation
and sexual abuse.
Article 39: Children who have been neglected
or abused should receive special help to
restore their self-respect.
Supporting outcome 6 may progress the rights
outlined in Articles 34 and 39. This outcome is
focused on the specific activities that are
required to prevent sexual abuse and to
provide support to child survivors of sexual
abuse. This is consistent with the rights
encompassed in these articles that are
specifically related to preventing sexual abuse
and providing special assistance for victims of
abuse.
In relation to evaluation domain 3, sub-question d (to what extent did the National Framework engage with the public health
model and primary prevention activities) Table 21 maps the signature actions in the Third Action Plan against the child
protection public health model.
This is based on the following categorisation:
Universal refers to initiatives that support all families and children
Early refers to early intervention initiatives that target vulnerable families and children
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 88
Targeted refers to initiatives that target ‘at-risk’ families and children
Statutory refers to initiatives that target families and children that are part of the child protection system
While some initiatives may have a specific target cohort other may be more difficult or overlapping in relation to the above
categorisation. In particular the distinction between vulnerable and ‘at-risk’ families is not explicitly defined. Where possible
we have selected the alignment to the public health model based on the cohort most targeted by an intervention. For some
actions the cohort are ambiguous and therefore they are categorised as both.
In addition, similar to the commentary provided with the mapping of actions to outcome we note that some actions seek to
create an enabling environment (i.e. through research, standardisation, governance protocols) while others relate more
directly to implementing policy or programs. Consistent with how they have been treated in the previous analysis, actions
that are more enabling are categorised as ‘N/A’ as they do not directly address a cohort summarised in the public health
model.
Table 21: Third Action Plan signature actions mapped against the public health model
No.
Signature action
Universal
Early
Targeted
Statutory
Cross-cutting focus area – Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families
1
Action: All parties agree to ensure the five domains of the ATSICPP
are applied to the implementation of strategies and actions identified
in the Third Action Plan.
2
Action: A new Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander working group will
be established to provide advice and expertise on the implementation
of actions and strategies, and report to the National Forum for
Protecting Australia’s Children on progress and outcomes, to ensure
a sustained focus on results.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Strategy 1: Early intervention with a focus on the early years, particularly the first 1000 days for a child
3
Action: Commonwealth to initiate community awareness raising
activities focused on effective parenting practices and strategies to
enhance safe and supportive environments in the early years, at both
national and local levels.
4
Action: Identify locations with high incidences of domestic and family
violence and improve resource co-ordination of services and activities
to better meet the needs of vulnerable expectant parents and parents
of young children.
5
Action: Commonwealth to develop and trial an effective model of
services and support focused on the first 1000 days to better support
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and communities.
6
Action: Examine place-based models to identify critical success
factors to inform future work.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
7
Action: Commonwealth to support integration of child care, maternal
and child health, and family support services in a number of
disadvantaged Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities,
through the Community Child Care Fund.
Strategy 2: Helping young people in out-of-home care to thrive into adulthood
8
Action: Commonwealth to continue to support eligible young people
to access services through the Youth Employment Strategy, Growing
Jobs and Small Business Package.
9
Action: Commonwealth to trial ways of improving support to young
people by better utilising available data and delivering intensive case
management including wrap around services linking to education,
health and housing, working with jurisdictions. All parties to use
findings to guide future interventions for young people.
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 89
No.
Signature action
Universal
Early
Targeted
Statutory
10
Action: Examine 2014 reforms to the Transition to Independent
Living Allowance to ensure it continues to target those who need it
most and improve efficiency.
11
Action: Evaluate impact of jurisdictions’ policy changes to extend
statutory responsibility and access to services to young people who
exit out-of-home care over the age of 18 years.
Strategy 3: Organisations responding better to children and young people to keep them safe
12
Action: Review and implement the National Framework: Creating
Safe Environments for Children — Organisations, Employees and
Volunteers (2005).
13
Action: Strategy working group to produce a work plan to identify
resources to support best practice on child-safe standards.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
14
Action: Share jurisdictional approaches to develop a best practice
model of information exchange.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Cross- cutting focus area – Research and reporting under the Third Action Plan
15
Action: Explore capacity to develop targets and progress markers for
Third Action Plan to measure progress, and if viable, identify
appropriate targets and markers, to assist with reporting by June
2016.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
16
Action: Examine how to continue full implementation of, and give
best effect to, the National Standards for out-of-home care in light of
the Senate Inquiry Into Out-of-Home Care recommendations.
17
Action: Revitalise the Research Advisory Committee of the National
Forum to develop a new research agenda.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table 22 maps the signature actions in the Fourth Action Plan against the child protection public health model.
Table 22: Fourth Action Plan actions mapped against the public health model
No.
Signature action
Universal
Early
Targeted
Statutory
Priority area 1: Improving outcomes for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children at risk of entering, or in contact with, child
protection systems
1
Action: Actively implement legislation, policy and/or practice to
ensure compliance with the five elements of the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Child Placement Principle.
2
Action: Identify and share models that have been shown to improve
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander participation in decision-making
processes for children and families at risk of entering, or in contact
with, child protection systems.
3
Action: Develop a nationally consistent approach to measuring the
application of the five elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander Child Placement Principle.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
Action: Develop national principles to support the investment,
expansion and development of Aboriginal Community Controlled
Organisations and Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander managed
services to deliver family support and child protection services.
5
Action: Develop a nationally consistent and comparable approach to
report on state and territory government support for Aboriginal
Community Controlled Organisations and Aboriginal and Torres Strait
Islander managed services to deliver family support and child
protection services.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Priority Area 2: Improving prevention and early intervention through joint service planning and investment
6
Action: Jointly invest in 10 disadvantaged communities across
Australia to implement a place-based, collective impact initiative that
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 90
No.
Signature action
Universal
Early
Targeted
Statutory
focuses on interrupting the cycle of childhood vulnerability and
poverty.
7
Action: Continue efforts to develop and strengthen support for young
people transitioning from out-of-home care into adulthood and
improve priority access to support services.
8
Action: Undertake research into what works to address key drivers of
entry into child protection systems.
Priority Area 3: Improving outcomes for children in out of home care by enhancing placement stability through reunification and other
permanent care options
9
Action: Develop a national data reporting and evaluation framework
to measure permanency outcomes.
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
10
Action: Further promote:
a) timely and consistent decision-making for permanency
b) better permanency options, including consistent processes for
family reunification to be explored and resolved as part of
permanency planning.
11
Action: Develop an approach to recruitment, training and support of
more permanent carers, including improving workforce capability to
support carers, by state and territory and Commonwealth
governments.
Priority Area 4: Improving organisations’ and governments’ ability to keep children and young people safe from abuse
12
Action: Support the promotion of the National Principles for Child
Safe Organisations, subject to agreement by the COAG.
13
Action: Building on the work of the Child Protection Information
Sharing Project, the states and territories will improve protocols and
procedures to share child protection related information between
jurisdictions, including information on the support needs of children
and families in child protection systems.
Table 23 maps Framework’s supporting outcomes to the Articles of the UNDRIP.
Table 23: Alignment of Framework supporting outcomes to Articles of the UNDRIP
National Framework Supporting
Outcomes
UNDRIP
Discussion
Outcome 1: Children live in safe and
supportive families and
communities.
Article 1: Indigenous peoples have the right to
the full enjoyment of all human rights
Article 7: Indigenous individuals have the
rights to life, physical and mental integrity,
liberty and security of person
Supporting Outcome 1 aligns with articles 1
and 7 as the outcome supports all children to
live in safe and supportive families.
70
In order
for Aboriginal people to enjoy human rights
and maintain physical and mental integrity, it
is important that Aboriginal children and their
families are safe and well.
Outcome 2: Children and families
access adequate support to promote
safety and intervene early.
Article 21: Indigenous peoples have the right,
without discrimination, to the improvement of
their economic and social conditions, including
in the areas of education, housing, sanitation,
health and social security
Article 24: Indigenous individuals have an
equal right to the enjoyment of the highest
Access to adequate services, as per
Supporting Outcome 2, assists Aboriginal
families to improve their wellbeing and attain
70
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 13 September 2007,United Nations, Art 1 and 7, available at:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf [accessed 12 December 2019]
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 91
National Framework Supporting
Outcomes
UNDRIP
Discussion
attainable standard of physical and mental
health
the highest standard of health, aligning with
articles 21 and 24.
71
Outcome 3: Risk factors for child
abuse and neglect are addressed.
Article 22: States shall take measures, in
conjunction with Indigenous peoples, to
ensure that Indigenous women and children
enjoy the full protection and guarantees
against all forms of violence and
discrimination
To ensure Aboriginal families enjoy physical
and mental health integrity, the high rates of
domestic violence in the Aboriginal community
must be addressed.
72
Supporting Outcome 3
addresses this risk factor which in turn aligns
with article 22 of the UNDRIP and the right
Aboriginal women and children have to be
protected from forms of abuse and neglect.
73
Outcome 4: Children who have been
abused or neglected receive the
support and care they need for their
safety and wellbeing.
Outcome 5: Indigenous children are
supported and safe in their families
and communities.
Article 3: Indigenous peoples have the right of
self-determination
Article 4: Indigenous peoples, in exercising
their right to self-determination, have the right
to autonomy or self-government in matters
relating to their internal and local affairs
Article 5: Indigenous peoples have the right to
maintain and strengthen their distinct political,
legal, economic, social and cultural
institutions.
Article 8: Indigenous peoples and individuals
have the right not to be subjected to forced
assimilation or destruction of their culture.
Article 11: Indigenous peoples have the right
to practice and revitalize their cultural
traditions and customs.
Article 22: Particular attention shall be paid to
the rights and special needs of Indigenous
elders, women, youth, children and persons
with disabilities.
Articles 3, 4, 5 and 8 have been identified as
corresponding with Supporting Outcome 5.
These four articles relate to the right
Aboriginal people have to self-determination
and to pursue and control their own social,
economic and cultural destinies.
74
Supporting
Outcome 5 somewhat upholds these rights
through its commitment to expanding
Aboriginal family services (such as SNAICC),
rolling out Aboriginal community building
activities and, working with Aboriginal
organisations to increase the cultural
competency of child safety services.
75
Outcome 6: Child sexual abuse and
exploitation is prevented, and
survivors receive adequate support.
71
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 13 September 2007,United Nations, Art 21 and 24, available at:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf [accessed 12 December 2019]
72
AIHW, Family, domestic and sexual violence in Australia 2018, Family violence is worse for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, 28 February 2018,
available at: https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/domestic-violence/family-domestic-sexual-violence-in-australia-2018/contents/summary [accessed 12
December 2019]
73
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 13 September 2007,United Nations, Art 22, available at:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf [accessed 12 December 2019]
74
UN General Assembly, United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 13 September 2007,United Nations, Art 3, 4, 5 and 8, available at:
https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf [accessed 12 December 2019]
75
Department of Social Services, ‘National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009-2020’, p. 29.
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 92
Table 24 provides additional detail on the specific actions funded through the National Framework including the Base
appropriation.
Table 24: Summary of funding provided by the Commonwealth for the delivery of the Third and Fourth Action Plans
Action
Plan
Funding
Amount
Actions funded
76
3
Base National
Initiatives
appropriation
$7.8 million
($2.6 million per
annum, 2015-16
to 2017-18)
Development of the National Principles for Child Safe Organisations: action 3.1.1
A research report on effective strategies for working with expectant parents, their
babies, and families in which young children may be exposed to violence and other
forms of risk: action 1.2.1
Contribution to the First 1000 Days Foundation Project: The Urban Pilot
Preconception Study: action 1.2.2
Financial support to publish an ACT Discussion Paper: Transition from out-of-
home care to adulthood: mapping legislation and policy across Australian
jurisdictions: action 2.1.4
Secretariat support for the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Working Group:
Cross-cutting focus area – Indigenous - action 2
Data development for the ATSICPP: Cross-cutting focus area – Indigenous - action
1
Support to AIHW to develop a paper: Development of targets and progress
markers: Final project report to DSS: Cross-cutting focus area – research – action
1
The Australian Institute of Family Studies conducted the survey ‘Working Together
to Care for Kids: A Survey of Foster and Relative/kinship Carers’: Cross-cutting
focus area – research – action 2
Youth consultations on the third action plan
3
Building Capacity
in Australia’s
Parents trial
$2.08 million
(2016-17 to
2019-20)
1.1.1
3
Transition to
Independent
Adulthood Trial
$3.87 million
(2016-17 to
2019-20)
2.1.2
3
Connected
Beginnings
Approximately
$12 million per
annum provided
by Department
of Education
1.3.2
3
TOTAL
$13.75 million (2015-2020) – Department of Social Services
$60 million (2015-2020) – Department of Education
4
Base National
Initiatives
appropriation
$7.8 million
($2.6 million per
annum, 2018-19
to 2020-21)
Development of a practical resource to support implementation of ATSICPP: action
1.1
Delivery of workshops in every state and territory to develop an individualised
implementation plan for the ATSICPP: action 1.1
Development of an approach to promote timely and consistent decision making for
permanency: action 3.2
Research project - Timely decision making and outcomes for children in out-of-
home care: action 3.1
4
Departmental
reallocation to
National Initiatives
$1.5 million
(2018-19)
4
Stronger Places,
Stronger People
$35 million
(2019-2023)
2.1
76
Funding and activity information provided by DSS in emails dated; 9 December 2019 and 21 January 2020
Background analysis
Department of Social Services
PwC 93
Action
Plan
Funding
Amount
Actions funded
76
4
National Child
Protection
Information
Sharing System
$3.867 million
(2018-19)
4.2
4
TOTAL
$48.06 million (2018-2023) – Department of Social Services
Department of Social Services
PwC 94
Appendix D Consulted
stakeholders
This evaluation was supported by a broad array of stakeholders who provided input through face-to-face consultations,
teleconferences and focus groups. A summary of stakeholders consulted is provided below.
Stakeholder
Organisation / Dept.
Date of consultation
Commonwealth stakeholders
1
Department of Social Services (Focus group 1)
10 December 2019
2
Department of Social Services (Focus group 2)
11 December 2019
3
Department of Social Services
17 January 2020
4
Department of Social Services
8 January 2020
5
Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet,
National Office for Child Safety
18 November 2019
6
Australian Government NIAA - Indigenous Affairs Group
27 November 2019
7
Australian Government Department of Health
28 November 2019
8
Australian Government Department of Education
28 November 2019
9
Australian Institute of Health & Welfare
28 November 2019
10
Australian Institute of Family Studies
3 December 2019
11
Australian Institute of Family Studies (follow-up interview)
15 November 2019
State and territory government stakeholders
12
SA Department for Child Protection
8 January 2020
13
ACT Government/ ACT Community Services Directorate
28 November 2019
14
NSW Department of Family and Community Services
12 December 2019
15
Territories Families (Strategy, Policy and Performance Division)
14 November 2019
Consulted stakeholders
Department of Social Services
PwC 95
Stakeholder
Organisation / Dept.
Date of consultation
16
Territory Families (Reform Management Office)
9 December 2019
17
QLD Department of Child Safety, Youth and Women
26 November 2019
18
Tasmanian Department of Health and Human Services
18 November 2019
19
Victorian Department of Health and Human Services
9 December 2019
20
WA Department of Communities
18 November 2019
21
NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian
2 December 2019
Key stakeholders
22
Families Australia
27 November 2019
23
SNAICC – National Voice for our Children
13 December 2019
24
Institute of Child Protection Studies - Australian Catholic University
29 November 2019
25
Australian Foster Care Association
27 November 2019
26
Create Foundation
22 November 2019
27
Australian Centre for Child Protection - University of South Australia
21 November 2019
28
Uniting Communities
21 November 2019
29
Centrecare Inc
10 December 2019
30
NAPCAN
17 January 2020
31
ARACY
18 November 2019
32
National Coalition (Focus Group)
11 December 2019
33
Children and Young People with Disability Australia
11 December 2019
34
Daniel Morcombe Foundation
6 December 2019
35
Andrew McCallum AM (former Association of Children's Welfare Agencies)
25 November 2019
Consulted stakeholders
Department of Social Services
PwC 96
Stakeholder
Organisation / Dept.
Date of consultation
36
The Benevolent Society
5 December 2019
37
Save the Children Australia
9 December 2019
Commissioners, guardians and advocates
38
Australian Human Rights Commission – National Children’s Commissioner
3 December 2019
39
The Children and Young People Commissioner (ACT Human Rights
Commission.)
27 November 2019
40
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner
3 December 2019
41
The NSW Advocate for Children and Young People
29 November 2019
42
The Children's Commissioner (Office of the Children's Commission NT)
4 December 2019
43
Queensland Family and Child Commission
26 November 2019
44
Office of the Public Guardian
26 November 2019
45
The Commissioner for Children and Young People
22 November 2019
46
The Guardian for Children and Young People
22 November 2019
47
The Commissioner for Children and Young People
29 November 2019
48
The Principal Commissioner for Children and Young People, and The
Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People
9 December 2019
49
Commissioner for Children and Young People
18 November 2019
© 2020 PricewaterhouseCoopers. All rights reserved. PwC refers to the Australian member firm, and may sometimes refer to the PwC
network. Each member firm is a separate legal entity. Please see www.pwc.com/structure for further details. Liability limited by a scheme
approved under Professional Standards Legislation.
www.pwc.com.au
