Children on care and protection orders

Care and protection orders (CPOs) are legal orders or arrangements that place some responsibility for a child’s welfare with child protection authorities. They set up arrangements to provide support and assistance to vulnerable children and young people to protect them from abuse, neglect or other harm, or where their parents are unable to provide adequate care or protection [1].

Improvements in the identification of SHS clients on a CPO have led to significantly better quality data since 2015–16, therefore improving reporting on these clients (see Technical Information). For previous collection periods, those clients recorded as having a care type of either ‘parents’ or ‘other living arrangements’ were excluded from the CPO derivation. These care types are now included.

Clients are now also identified as being on a CPO if they report being on a CPO in any support period during the collection period (i.e. the relevant financial year), rather than just the first. This means that analysis for these clients in 2015–16 and 2016–17 is not directly comparable with previous years. Any comparisons with previously published data on clients on a CPO should therefore be made with caution.

Key findings in 2016–17

  • In 2016–17, 8,680 children and young people on a CPO sought assistance from a SHS agency.
  • Fifty-eight per cent of clients on a CPO were children aged 0–9. Of all male clients on a CPO a greater share were in this age range compared with females (61% compared with 55%).
  • Domestic and family violence was identified as the main reason for seeking assistance for 3 in 10 (30%) clients on a CPO.
  • The most common care type arrangement for clients on a CPO was ‘parents’.
  • More than half had received service in the past 5 years (52%).
  • Clients on a CPO were more likely to be homeless on presentation than the general SHS population (51% compared with 44%)
  • SHS agencies were successful in improving housing outcomes: 18% (850 clients) were in public or community housing at the start of support, and this increased to 33% by the end of support. Most of this increase into public or community housing came from children on a CPO presenting homeless (620 clients).

Children on care and protection orders: 2015–16 to 2016–17

In 2016–17, almost 9,000 clients or 3% of specialist homelessness service (SHS) clients were identified as a child on a care and protection order (aged 0–17 years) (Supplementary table CPO.1). There was a decrease (2%) in client numbers between 2015–16 and 2016–17.

Compared with 2015–16, clients on a CPO in 2016–17 were:

  • more likely to receive longer support (98 days in 2016–17 compared with 86 days in 2015–16);
  • less likely to receive accommodation (53% compared with 55%); and
  • less likely to have all case management goals achieved (15% compared with 18%).

Table CPO.1: Children (0–17 years) on care and protection orders: at a glance— 2015–16 to 2016–17

  2015–16 2016–17
Number of clients 8,859 8,680
Proportion of all clients 3 3
Rate (per 10,000 population) 3.7 3.6
Housing situation at the beginning of first support period (proportion of all clients)
Homeless 50 51
At risk of homelessness 50 49
Length of support (median number of days) 86 98
Average number of support periods per client 1.7 1.7
Proportion receiving accommodation 55 53
Median number of nights accommodated 68 69
Proportion of a client group with a case management plan 86 84
Achievement of all case management goals (per cent) 18 15

Notes

  1. Rates are crude rates based on the Australian estimated resident population (ERP) at 30 June of the reference year. Minor adjustments in rates may occur between publications reflecting revision of the estimated resident population by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  2. The denominator for the proportion achieving all case management goals is the number of client groups with a case management plan. Denominator values for proportions are provided in the relevant national supplementary table.
  3. Due to changes in the reporting of children on a care and protection order in 2015–16, as detailed in the online technical information, data are not comparable with previous years.

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Collection 2015–16 to 2016–17.

Characteristics of children on care and protection orders 2016–17

Of the 8,680 clients on a CPO in 2016–17:

  • Half the clients were female (50%), similar to the rate of female 0–17 year olds in the general SHS population (51%).
  • Nearly 3 in 5 were aged 0–9 (58%). Males were more likely than females to be in this age range (61% compared with 55%).
  • Over half were living with a sole parent when they sought assistance (54%). The next most common living arrangement on presentation to a SHS agency was ‘other family group’ (18%).
  • Over one in 3 were Indigenous (35%), compared with 32% of general SHS clients aged 0–17.
  • Three in 5 accessed services in Major cities (60%) and just over 1 in 5 (21%) in Inner regional areas. This is similar to that of the general SHS population (62% and 23%, respectively).
  • Half were returning clients (52%), that is they had received homelessness services at least once prior to 2016–17.
  • Clients on a CPO also received significantly more days of SHS support (median of 98 days compared with 37 days) and more nights of accommodation (median of 69 nights compared with 33 nights) than the general SHS population (Table CPO.1 and Table Client Trends.1).

1 in 3 clients on a CPO (aged 0–17) were Indigenous (35%)

Care arrangement type

Care arrangement type refers to the type of living arrangement a child on a CPO can be placed into. This can include a wide range of living arrangements including living with family or relatives, foster or residential care, or independent living.

The most common type of care arrangement for clients on a CPO was parent(s) (64%). 

  • Two-thirds (66%) of those living with parent(s) on a CPO were aged 0–9. 
  • Almost 9 in 10 (87%) of those in independent living arrangements were aged 15–17. Making up 21% of all clients on a CPO, 15–17 year olds were also over-represented in residential care (60%) and other living arrangements (53%).
  • Female clients on a CPO were more likely than males to report their care arrangement as independent living (61% compared with 39%). The same proportion of males and females reported family group home as their care arrangement (50% for each).
  • The most common care type for Indigenous clients on a CPO was parent(s) (55%), lower than for non-Indigenous clients (68%). Indigenous clients on a CPO were more likely than non-Indigenous clients to have care type arrangements of relative(s)/kin who are reimbursed (15% compared with 11%) and family group home (9% compared with 4%).

Reasons for seeking assistance

While clients can identify a number of reasons for seeking assistance, agencies also record the main reason for seeking assistance.

  • Domestic and family violence was the most common main reason CPO clients sought assistance with nearly one-third (30%) of clients reporting this reason.
  • Housing crisis was the next most common reason provided by clients (19%).

Services needed and provided

Nearly 7 in 10 clients on a care and protection order needed accommodation services (68%), higher than the general SHS population (56%) (Supplementary table CPO.3).

  • Almost half (47%) of clients needed short-term or emergency accommodation, compared with 37% of the general SHS population.
  • Over one-third (36%) of clients requested medium-term/transitional housing, higher than the general SHS population (27%) and these clients were almost twice as likely to be provided with this accommodation (56% of those who requested it compared with 30%, respectively).

Other general services most commonly needed by these clients were advocacy/liaison on behalf of client (62%), material aid/brokerage (45%), transport (37%) and assistance for domestic/family violence (38%). These services were needed by higher proportions of clients on a CPO than clients in the general SHS population (53%, 35%, 21% and 29%, respectively).

Nearly 3 in 10 clients needed assistance with child protection services (27%)

CPO clients were also more likely than the general SHS population to be identified as needing family/relationship assistance (34% compared with 18%), child protection services (27% compared with 5%), school liaison (17% compared with 5%) and health and medical services (16% compared with 10%).

Housing outcomes

For those clients on a care and protection order whose support had ended in 2016–17:

  • Half (49%, or nearly 2,400 clients) were classified as homeless at the beginning of their support, with the majority of these (51%) living in short-term or emergency accommodation (Supplementary table CPO.4).
  • Around 1 in 5 (19%) were ‘couch surfing’ at the beginning of their support (Figure CPO.1). This almost halved to 1 in 10 (11%) by the end of support.
  • At the end of support, the proportion of these clients classified as homeless had decreased to 32% or around 1,500 clients homeless (down from 49%).
  • Private or other housing was the most common housing situation at the end of support, increasing 2 percentage points to 34%.
  • The greatest change in housing situation was an almost two-fold increase in the proportion of CPO clients into public and community housing (33%, up from 18% at the beginning of support).

Figure CPO.1: Children on care and protection orders, by housing situation at beginning of support and end of support, 2016–17

Figure CPO.1: Children on care and protection orders, by housing situation at beginning and end of support, 2016–17. The grouped horizontal bar graph shows the proportion of clients in each of the 6 housing situations at the start and end of support. At the start of support the majority of clients (32%25) were living in private or other housing. At the end of support, this had increased to 34%25. The largest increase in independent housing options was in public or community housing, up 15 percentage points from 18%25 at the start of support. There was also an 8 percentage point decrease in couch surfing, down to 11%25 at the end of support.

Notes

  1. The SHSC classifies clients living with no shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling, short-term temporary accommodation, or in a house, townhouse, or flat with relatives (rent free) as homeless. Clients living in public or community housing (renter or rent free), private or other housing (renter or rent free), or in institutional settings are classified as housed.
  2. No shelter/improvised includes inadequate dwellings; short-term accommodation includes temporary and emergency accommodation; couch surfer/no tenure includes living in a house, townhouse or flat with relatives rent free; public/community housing includes both renting or rent free; and private/other housing includes both renting or rent free.
  3. Proportions include only clients with closed support at the end of the reporting period.

Source: Specialist homelessness services 2016–17, National supplementary table CPO.4

For some, stable housing (public or community housing, private or other housing, or Institutional settings) is more difficult to achieve than for others.

For clients on a CPO who started support housed, but at risk of homelessness, 84% were successfully assisted to maintain their housing at the end of support (Table CPO.2):

  • Agencies were able to assist 8 in 10 clients (79%) living in public or community housing, to maintain this tenancy, with a further 6% assisted into private/other housing.
  • Agencies were able to assist 7 in 10 clients (70%) living in private/other housing to maintain this tenancy, with a further 12% assisted into public or community housing.

Of those clients on a CPO who were homeless when they began support:

  • 53% were assisted into stable housing at the end of support.
  • More than half of rough sleepers (54%, or nearly 120 clients) and those in short-term emergency accommodation (56%, or about 600 clients) were successfully assisted into stable housing. In both instances, the majority were housed in public or community housing.

Table CPO.2: Clients on care and protection orders, housing situation at beginning and end of support, 2016–17 (per cent) 

Situation at beginning of support Situation at end of support:
homeless
Situation at end of support:
housed
Homeless  47.1 52.9
At risk of homelessness 16.3 83.7

Notes

  1. The SHSC classifies clients living with no shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling, short-term temporary accommodation, or in a house, townhouse, or flat with relatives (rent free) as homeless. Clients living in public or community housing (renter or rent free), private or other housing (renter or rent free), or in institutional settings are classified as housed.
  2. Proportions include only clients with closed support at the end of the reporting period. Per cent calculations are based on total clients, excluding ‘Not stated/other’.

Source: Specialist homelessness services 2016–17, National supplementary table CPO.4.

Reference

  1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare 2017. Child protection Australia 2015–16. Child welfare series no. 66. Cat. no. CWS 60. Canberra: AIHW.