Ms ROSOL – How many children referred by the ARL for IFES support are referred back to the ARL due to incomplete referrals, and how many are referred back due to lack of capacity in the community‑service organisations?
Ms C. LOVELL – I don’t have that granular level of detail around IFES referrals and those outcomes.
Mr JAENSCH – Is that a failure of referral that you’re mentioning? I’m just wondering if it’s something we count.
Ms ROSOL – Do you count the referrals that bounce back when they’re not accepted by an organisation?
Ms C. LOVELL – Referrals don’t necessarily ‘bounce back’. IFES is a very intensive family support service right at the tertiary end, where sometimes if a family doesn’t engage with IFSS, then the Child Safety Service will need to intervene. It might be that IFES undertake an assessment and find that that family aren’t suitable, they’re not ready for that type of service intervention, and it does need to progress to the Child Safety Service. It might bypass IFES, rather than bouncing back to the Advice and Referral Line. It might be that IFES determine that a less intensive service is appropriate, in which case they can refer it into our Intensive Family Support System.
Ms ROSOL – Are you aware of any issues with capacity for IFES, where they’re not able to accept referrals because they don’t have the capacity?
Ms C. LOVELL – I don’t believe there are capacity issues at the moment.
Ms ROSOL – Thank you. Around that, whether IFES is to provide crisis support or preventative support. My understanding is, that originally it was developed to provide preventative support so that we’re helping families early before the issues become so significant that child safety services need to be involved.
What we’re hearing from the community is that organisations are receiving more and more intense referrals that go beyond what they can provide for preventative support. That means, while they’re funded to provide preventative support, they’re actually providing crisis support, which is much more intense, expensive, and difficult for them. Are you aware of that situation and what will you do to address that shift towards crisis level rather than a preventative level of support?
Mr JAENSCH – I have heard some similar comments, possibly from speaking with similar providers in the market. I haven’t had specific advice as to whether there’s a change in the complexity of the cases being referred, or a different threshold being applied for those who might be sent through for an IFES assessment. Clare may speak to that.
Ms C. LOVELL – Yes. I want to make sure we’re using the correct terminology. What you’re referring to I believe is the Integrated Family Support System (IFSS), which is a less intensive public‑health model than IFES.
Ms ROSOL – My understanding is that it’s an issue for both across the board.
Ms C. LOVELL – Yes, we have recognised that. When we’ve been working the integrated family support providers to map the nature of need that they’re responding to, we are finding that they are responding to a higher level of need than what was originally intended through that model. We have the opportunity to remodel so that there’s a different approach to families who have higher needs than what IFSS was intended for, but aren’t yet at that IFES level. We’re doing that modelling at the moment and working with those providers around what that might look like.
Mr JAENSCH – I think it’s been doing its job though, as part of the system, the ARL, and IFES have contributed to fewer cases progressing to a statutory intervention statistically over time since they were introduced.
