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 for 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]. Young people are a national priority homelessness cohort in the National Housing and Homelessness Agreement [2], which came into effect as of 1 July 2018.

AIHW’s Child protection Australia annual report showed that in 2016–17 around 168,000 children in Australia were receiving child protection services and of them, around 64,000 were on a care and protection order (approximately 1 in 85 children aged 0–17). The rates of children on care and protection orders has continued to rise, increasing from 8 per 1,000 population to 10 per 1,000 population between 2012–13 and 2016–17. This increase may not necessarily reflect an increase in abuse, neglect or harm but could indicate an increase in community awareness, a greater willingness to report suspected cases for investigation and/or changes to the legislation and definitions [3].

For the purposes of the Specialist Homelessness Services Collection (SHSC), a client is identified as being under a care or protection order if they are aged under 18 and they were under a care and protection order and had the following care arrangements in any support period in the reporting period:

  • residential care
  • family group home
  • relatives/kin/friends who are reimbursed
  • foster care
  • other home-based care (reimbursed)
  • relatives/kin/friends who are not reimbursed
  • independent living.

Key findings in 2017–18

  • In 2017–18, 8,700 children and young people were on a CPO and received assistance from a specialist homelessness services (SHS) agency.
  • More than half (56%) of these clients on a CPO were aged 0–9. Males were more likely than females to be in this age range (59% of male clients compared with 53% of females).
  • Domestic and family violence was identified as the main reason for seeking assistance for 1 in 3 (33%) clients on a CPO.
  • The most common care type arrangement for clients on a CPO was ‘parents’ (62%).
  • More than half of clients on a CPO had received SHS services in the past 5 years (54%).
  • Clients on a CPO were more likely than the general SHS population to be homeless on presentation, and SHS agencies were successful in improving housing outcomes: for example, 19% were in public or community housing at the start of support, and this increased to 32% by the end of support.

Profile of children on care and protection orders in 2017–18

Of the 8,700 SHS clients aged 0–17 on a CPO in 2017–18:

  • Half were female (51%), the same as the proportion of female 0–17 year olds in the general SHS population (51%).
  • Over half (56% or 4,900 clients) were aged 0–9. Males were more likely than females to be in this age range (59% of males compared with 53% of females).
  • Over half were living with a lone parent when they sought assistance (52% or 4,400 clients). Over 1,100 clients (13%) were living in a couple family with one or more children on presentation to a SHS agency and 1,400 were living in ‘other family group’ (17%), which includes grandparents and other relatives.
  • More than 1 in 3 were Indigenous (36% or 3,100 clients), compared with 29% of general SHS clients aged 0–17.
  • 3 in 5 accessed services in Major cities (60% or 5,200 clients) while 1 in 5 (21% or 1,800 clients) accessed services in Inner regional areas. These are similar to those of the general SHS population aged 0–17 (61% and 21%, respectively).
  • Half were returning clients (54% or 4,700 clients), that is, they had received assistance from homelessness services at some time in the previous 5 years.
  • Clients on a CPO received significantly more days of SHS support than the general SHS population (median of 97 days compared with 39 days) and more nights of accommodation (median of 66 nights compared with 32 nights).

Vulnerabilities

The majority of clients on a CPO (64% or over 2,500 clients) aged 10 and over presenting to SHS agencies reported additional vulnerabilities (Table CPO.1):

  • Domestic and family violence was most commonly reported (46% or 1,800 clients), with some reporting both domestic and family violence and mental health issues (17% or 600 clients).
  • A further 7% of clients (or 300 clients) were experiencing all three vulnerabilities; domestic and family violence, mental health issues and problematic alcohol or drug issues.

Table CPO.1: Children on care and protection orders, by selected vulnerability characteristics, 2017–18

Domestic and family violence

Mental health issue

Problematic drug and/or alcohol use

Clients

Per cent

Yes

Yes

Yes

300

7.0

Yes

Yes

No

600

16.9

Yes

No

Yes

100

2.1

No

Yes

Yes

100

2.8

Yes

No

No

800

20.2

No

Yes

No

500

13.9

No

No

Yes

60

1.6

No

No

No

1,400

35.6

 

 

 

3,800

100

Notes

  1. Client vulnerability groups are mutually exclusive.
  2. Clients are aged 10 and over.
  3. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Collection 2017–18.

Children on care and protection orders: 2015–16 to 2017–18

In 2017–18, 8,700 children aged 0–17 who were SHS clients were identified as having a care and protection order (3% of all SHS clients). That is, 1 in 10 clients aged 0–17 years receiving assistance from a SHS agency were on a CPO (Table CPO.2). There was little change in client numbers between 2015–16 and 2017–18. Given changes to the collection of CPO data, 2017–18 data cannot be directly compared with data prior to 2015–16 (see Technical notes).

Over the three years, clients on a CPO:

  • received longer support (97 median number of days in 2017–18 compared with 86 days in 2015–16)
  • were less likely to receive accommodation (51% in 2017–18 compared with 55% in 2015–16)
  • were equally likely to have all case management goals achieved (17% in 2017–18 compared with 18% in 2015–16).

Table CPO.2: Children on care and protection orders: at a glance—2015–16 to 2017–18

 

2015–16

2016–17

2017–18

Number of clients

8,859

8,680

8,669

Proportion of all clients

3

3

3

Rate (per 10,000 population)

3.7

3.6

3.5

Housing situation at the beginning of the first support period (proportion (per cent) of all clients)

Homeless

50

51

51

At risk of homelessness

50

49

49

Length of support (median number of days)

86

98

97

Average number of support periods per client

1.7

1.7

1.8

Proportion receiving accommodation

55

53

51

Median number of nights accommodated

68

69

66

Proportion of a client group with a case management plan

86

84

85

Achievement of all case management goals (per cent)

18

15

17

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.
  4. Data for 2015–16 to 2016–17 have been adjusted for non-response. Due to improvements in the rates of agency participation and SLK validity, 2017–18 data are not weighted. The removal of weighting does not constitute a break in time series and weighted data from 2015–16 to 2016–17 are comparable with unweighted data for 2017–18. For further information, please refer to the Technical notes.
  5. In 2017–18, age and age-related variables were derived using a more robust calculation method. Data for previous years have been updated with the improved calculation method for age. As such, data prior to 2017–18 contained in the SHS Annual Report may not match that contained in the SHS Annual Report Historical Tables.

Source: Specialist Homelessness Services Collection 2015–16 to 2017–18.

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 parents (62% or almost 5,400 clients).

  • Two-thirds (67%) of those living with parents on a CPO were aged 0–9.
  • 9 in 10 (90%) of those in independent living arrangements were aged 15–17. Making up 23% of all clients on a CPO, 15–17 year olds were over-represented in residential care (64%) and ‘other living arrangements’ (57%).
  • Female clients on a CPO were more likely than males to report their care arrangement as independent living (60% compared with 40%) and residential care (57% compared with 43%).

The most common care type for Indigenous clients on a CPO was parents (56% or 1,800 clients); lower than for non-Indigenous clients (64% or 3,400 clients). Indigenous clients on a CPO were more likely than non-Indigenous clients to have care type arrangements of relative(s)/kin who are reimbursed (14% compared with 11%) and family group home (7% compared with 3%).

Housing situation

At the beginning of support, half of the clients on a CPO were homeless (51% or 4,400 clients). A similar proportion of clients on a CPO (49% or 4,200 clients) were at risk of homelessness when first reporting to SHS agencies for assistance in 2017–18.

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 one-third (33%) of clients reporting this reason.
  • Housing crisis was the next most common reason provided by clients (20%).

Services needed and provided

Nearly 7 in 10 clients on a CPO needed accommodation services (69% or 6,000 clients), higher than the general SHS population (56%) (Supplementary Table CPO.3).

  • Almost half (46% or 4,000 clients) of clients needed short-term or emergency accommodation, compared with 37% of the general SHS population. Most children on a CPO who needed short-term or emergency accommodation were provided with it (77%).
  • Over one-third (36% or 3,100 clients) of children on a CPO requested medium-term/transitional housing, higher than the general SHS population (28%). Clients on a CPO were almost twice as likely as the general SHS population to be provided with this accommodation (54% of those who requested it compared with 29%, respectively).
  • Long-term housing was needed by 35% (or 3,100 clients) of clients; provided to 5% of these clients.

Other general services most commonly needed by these clients were advocacy/liaison on behalf of client (68%), material aid/brokerage (45%), assistance for domestic/family violence (40%) and transport (37%). Higher proportions of clients on a CPO needed these services compared with clients in the general SHS population (54%, 36%, 32% and 20%, respectively).

CPO clients were also more likely than all SHS clients to report needing family/relationship assistance (37% compared with 18%), child protection services (27% compared with 5%), school liaison (17% compared with 5%) and assistance for trauma (25% compared with 12%).

Housing outcomes

The outcomes presented in this section examines the changes in clients’ housing situations from the start to end of support. Only clients who ceased receiving support by the end of the financial year are included in this section—meaning their support periods had closed and they did not have ongoing support at the end of the 2017–18 reporting period. However, it is important to note that a proportion of these clients may seek assistance from SHS agencies again in the future.

For 5,700 children on care and protection orders who had finished support (Figure CPO.1):

  • Most were housed (65% or almost 3,000 clients), while 35% were homeless (or 1,600 clients) at the end of support.
  • Many of the clients who were housed at the end of support were in public or community housing (32%) and private or other housing (32%). Public or community housing saw the greatest change, increasing from 19% of clients on a CPO at the beginning of support.
  • The number of clients (1,300) living in short-term or emergency accommodation at the start of support declined to almost 1,000 at the end of support.
  • Around 1 in 5 children (19% or 900 clients) were ‘couch surfing’ at the beginning of their support. This dropped to 12% (or 500 clients) by the end of support.

Figure CPO.1: Children on care and protection orders, by housing situation at beginning and end of support, 2017–18. This grouped horizontal bar graph shows the proportion of clients on a care and protection order in each of the 6 housing situations at the start and end of support. At the start, the largest group of clients with a CPO were living in private or other housing (29%25) increasing to 32%25 at the end of support. The largest increase in independent housing options was in public or community housing, up 13 percentage points from 19%25 at the start of support. There was also a 7 percentage point decrease in couch surfing, down to 12%25 at the end of support.

Of those clients who were housed but at risk of homelessness at the beginning of support (that is, living in either public or community housing (renter or rent-free), private or other housing (renter or rent-free), or in institutional settings) (Table CPO.3):

  • 8 in 10 (82%) were assisted to maintain their housing at the end of support.
  • Agencies assisted 8 in 10 clients (79% or under 700 clients) living in public or community housing to maintain their tenancy, with a further 5% assisted into private/other housing.
  • Agencies assisted two-thirds of clients (67% or 800 clients) living in private/other housing to maintain their tenancy, with a further 13% assisted into public or community housing.

Of those clients who were homeless (that is, living either with no shelter or improvised/inadequate dwelling, short-term temporary accommodation, or in a house, townhouse, or flat with relatives (rent-free)) when they began SHS support (Table CPO.3):

  • Half (49% or 1,000 clients) were assisted into housing at the end of support.
  • More than half of rough sleepers (51% or around 100 clients) and those in short-term or emergency accommodation (52% or about 600 clients) were successfully assisted into housing. In both instances, the majority were housed in public or community housing.

Table CPO.3: Children on care and protection orders, housing situation at beginning and end of support, 2017–18 (per cent) 

Situation at beginning of support Situation at end of support: homeless Situation at end of support: housed

Homeless

51.4

48.6

At risk of homelessness

17.9

82.1

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 Collection 2017–18, National supplementary table CPO.4.

References

  1. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2017. Child protection Australia 2015–16. Child welfare series no. 66. Cat. no. CWS 60. Canberra: AIHW.
  2. Council on Federal Financial Relations 2018. National Housing and Homelessness Agreement.
  3. Australian Institute of Criminology 2005. Children on care and protection orders in Australia. Crime facts info no. 101. Canberra: Australian Institute of Criminology. Viewed 24 September 2018.