Page 1168 - Week 04 - Tuesday, 24 March 2009
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .
families with complex needs and which I have been informed has a high retention and success rate. I look forward to the upcoming evaluation of the program.
The child and family centres are another example of an existing collaborative program. These centres are open to everyone and encourage all families to visit. They offer a wide range of services or referral to services. This inclusiveness is aimed at reducing the fear of attending family support programs by including all families in the group. Healthy, liveable-income families, as well as those who experience difficult social, health and financial circumstances, can struggle with pregnancy and new children. By recognising this and bringing all new mums and dads in to share their problems and successes, the child and family centres, and the many government and non-government programs delivered through the centres, aim to decrease the stigma attached to asking for help, particularly for vulnerable families.
The aim is to support families so that involving care and protection is a last resort and so that parents do not feel afraid that if they ask for help they will be seen as inadequate and their kids will be taken away. And if the general services cannot provide sufficient assistance for particular families, those families can be guided—with their consent—to participate in programs that ensure that their child is provided with opportunities to thrive. In a 2001 article in Family Matters Sarah Wise noted:
Providing greater support for families—or balancing approaches to prevention and intervention as determined by need—involves the development of interventions that cover the service spectrum (generalist services that are universally available, services that are targeted at high needs groups, and tertiary services that respond to problems or crises).
She also observes:
… it may be easier for families to accept family support services when the coordinators of such services sit outside the statutory child protection system.
The child and family centres are applying those ideas, and I note that this does somewhat address the fear of care and protection issue raised by the terms of reference of the inquiry.
It is my understanding, however, that the information being recorded by the child and family centres focuses on the number of families coming through, not the background or current situation of those families. So while these centres are helping a large number of Canberra families, we do not know if they are reaching those at risk. This gap in the information being collected and therefore the lack of analysis of the existing programs concerns me. We have multiple support groups and services available to families and we do know the numbers of people attending. What we do not seem to know is a vital piece of information: are we reaching the vulnerable families?
Through the child and family centres, the plans for the early childhood centres, the interdepartmental and inter-agency liaison currently being undertaken by the ACT government and the work of community organisations, we are seeing a commitment to the ideas outlined by Ms Wise and by local, national and international research.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . . PDF . . . .