parenting orders program enforcement pilot · web viewthis report presents the findings of programs...

Parenting Orders Program Enforcement Pilot

Evaluation report

Authors: Elizabeth Clancy, Reima Pryor, David Skvarc, Anna Nekonokuro

Centre for Family Research and Evaluation

October 2017

1 | P a g e

Executive SummaryThis report presents the findings of programs supporting separated families with dependent children, who have parenting orders in place, whether by consent or court-ordered, but are deemed likely to return to court in relation to disputation of those parenting arrangements. Two existing providers of federally funded Parenting Orders Programs were funded to trial a Parenting Orders Program Enforcement Pilot (POPE Pilot), involving alternative models for families with high and entrenched conflict including family violence. The intention of this POPE Pilot was provide support to families after they have been given interim or final parenting orders (whether by consent or judicially determined orders), and to divert parents from initiating applications for contraventions of parenting orders, which often occurs within 12 months of the orders being made. The two service agencies were CatholicCare Victoria Tasmania (CCVT), who delivered a Parenting Orders Support Program (POSP) in Dandenong and Geelong and Uniting (previously Unifam), who delivered a Parenting Orders Intervention (POI) program in Parramatta, with the intention of each service to see 50 families, estimated as included 125 unique clients.

The programs commenced in July/August 2016, and ran for approximately 12 months, with a total of around 160 adult clients participating in at least initial assessments across the two programs. Of these, 100 clients provided fully completed baseline measures, and 33 completed follow up outcome measures around 10 weeks after commencement. The program evaluation also included practitioner surveys regarding service components completed by individual clients, and focus groups with the practitioners of both services, to determine what worked, challenges experienced and overall recommendations.

As noted, the two models piloted were quite different in their structure and operations, with some challenges in operationalising the models. CCVT’s more structured intervention of supportive psycho-education and coaching focussed on understanding existing orders, the needs of the children and increasing the ability to focus on the children and more effectively co-parent. Uniting’s highly tailored model was resource intensive, involving hybrid delivery with a Family Counsellor and Family Dispute Resolution (FDR) Practitioner working together in each session with each client, with services based on assessment. Both services engaged additional internal services to support clients, including Child Inclusive Practice (CIP), FDR and counselling, as required or deemed appropriate.

However, the client and process outcome domains were similar, with the following key domains agreed to by both agencies.

Client outcome domainso Communication/Negotiation /Conflict in Inter-parental relationship o Insight/Accountabilityo Co-parenting capacityo Adult Wellbeing o Child wellbeingo Family Safety

Process domainso Service satisfaction o Elements of service received

2 | P a g e

Program establishment and engagement was challenging, and despite significant investment in promoting the programs to relevant legal and court networks, this did not always result in referrals. Where referrals were made, increased leverage was provided by including the program in court orders. However, both services still experienced frequent missed appointments and reschedules, with a significant investment of time required to work with these families.

Nevertheless, both programs appear to have delivered positive gains, at least for clients participating in the evaluation, and practitioner reports suggest that these gains were reflective of the overall cohorts. Whilst sample sizes for the quantitative analysis were small, results showed generally positive trends. Although for overall domain levels, these were largely non-significant, there were statistically significant improvements in reciprocal respect between parties, including in front of the child/ren, understanding of parenting orders and how to comply with them. There was significant improvement noted in mental health and wellbeing for adults and in reported child wellbeing. These gains may reflect increased clarity and the opportunity to resolve concerns, which flows to a more settled environment for the children. Personal safety and reduced exposure of children to violence also showed significant improvement, which was considered important given the significant proportion of families reporting high conflict and/or exposure to family violence at baseline. Participants of both programs reported high satisfaction with the services provided.

These positive results are consistent with the qualitative feedback from clients and practitioners. In particular, positive outcomes included increased capacity for parents to consider the needs and best interests of the children, to better manage communication and to avoid conflict or abuse. This resulted in reduced child exposure to conflict, more inter-parental consistency and greater ability for the children to have relationships with both parents. Adult clients also generally increased their capacity for self-reflection and insight, acceptance of personal responsibility and enhanced empathy or patience with the other parent/party. Achieving small agreements seemed to build good will and confidence to work towards further agreements. Overall, parties appeared to generally increase their ability to effectively co-parent the child/ren in the longer term.

In relation to key learnings, the importance of using court orders as leverage for engagement was highlighted, and it would be beneficial to incorporate increased opportunities to provide feedback to courts on how orders are working, to continue to refine this process. This was particularly effective with Interim Orders, where shorter timeframes due to upcoming court hearings provided incentive for clients to make visible progress.

The impact of psycho-education and resources was noted, with some clients particularly benefiting from receiving this information individually. Others may be more suited to group-based interventions, which allow parents to hear other experiences and perspectives and benefit from peer support. Both services noted the importance of being able to tailor services to the assessed client needs and readiness to change or reflect. They noted the need to provide longer-term, more flexible interventions to support these families at risk of ongoing court returns.

Key recommendations from this pilot were consistent from both clients and staff, and include:

1. Providing Post Orders support services earlier in the separation trajectory for families with high conflict (e.g. at filing stage or Interim Order stage)

2. Where families have not previously accessed support, consider the inclusion of participation in such programs within Final Orders

3 | P a g e

3. Families with entrenched high conflict (and related risk of returns to court) have complex issues and needs, and require a longer-term and flexible service model

4. Key elements of interventions include:a. Individual assessment for each adult client and flexibility to match interventions based on

identified and changing needs b. Clarification of current order interpretations and applications early in interventionsc. Psycho-education tailored to individual case needs, available in individual or group contexts,

with groups indicated for parties with controlling or abusive behavioursd. Psycho-education to include information to build understanding of family dynamics and

behaviours, and understanding of the children’s experience, perspective and needs e. Psycho-education to include practical strategies to strengthen parenting confidence and

skills, communication and conflict resolution skills and how to manage ongoing co-parenting dynamics and issues

f. Therapeutic processes and/or counselling regarding managing emotions and trauma-related responses, and coping with their situation

g. Close connection with other post-separation interventions and services and other specialist services (e.g. family violence, mental health, substance use) for effective referrals

h. Case-management where indicatedi. Suitable client/case review and closure processes

5. Elements which add value include: a. Adult Attachment and Care Giver Interviews in Assessment, building insight for changeb. Access to legal practitioners to help interpret orders and liaise with courts c. Use of Child-Inclusive Practice to build parent capacity to understand child/ren’s experiences

and focus on their best interestsd. Involving children directly in therapeutic processes e. Provision of longer-term individual adult counsellingf. Providing opportunities for parties to negotiate issues (i.e. hybrid FDR intervention and

legally-assisted FDR) and develop clear lists of issues to be addressed prior to conducting FDR mediation

6. Effective referral pathways for Post Orders support services require substantial collaboration with court staff to develop two-way protocols, including:a. Referral of families on Interim Orders at risk of ongoing conflict and court returnsb. Orders which require attendance for assessment and compliance with recommendationsc. Orders which require feedback from services about attendance and recommendations

arising from feedbackd. Communication channels to address ambiguous or contradictory orders with the courts

7. Broader opportunities to enhance practitioner-client relationships and service processes include:a. Increased flexibility to reduce barriers to participation b. Being responsive as far as is practicable c. Transparency about actions taken in relation to concerns, as far as possible in terms of

confidentiality and safetyd. Clear information at the start of service regarding service components available

8. Improvements for Outcomes evaluation and continual improvement include:a. Brief client surveys measuring key client outcome domains b. Staff data collection regarding client characteristics, process outcomes and changes to safety

issuesc. Survey time-points to be prior to commencement, midway through and towards the end.

4 | P a g e

9. Suitable outcomes for measurement include: a. Inter-parental relationship functioning (including communication and conflict)b. Understanding of orders and the systemc. Cooperative co-parentingd. Adult and child wellbeinge. Satisfaction with parenting arrangements/ordersf. Satisfaction with serviceg. Process outcomes in terms of service components undertaken

10. Data capture should also include client/case characteristics and dynamics

5 | P a g e

ContentsExecutive Summary...............................................................................................................................2

About this report...................................................................................................................................8

Citation..................................................................................................................................................8

Project Background...............................................................................................................................8

Parenting Orders Program Enforcement (POPE) Pilot.......................................................................9

Evaluation provider.....................................................................................................................10

Evaluation framework.................................................................................................................10

Evaluation timelines........................................................................................................................11

Pilot referrals...................................................................................................................................11

Pilot processes and models.............................................................................................................12

Client outcome domains..............................................................................................................13

Process outcomes........................................................................................................................14

Findings: Quantitative analysis............................................................................................................15

Challenges with service participation..........................................................................................15

Analytical methods..........................................................................................................................15

Baseline analyses.............................................................................................................................16

Client outcomes...................................................................................................................................20

Communication/Negotiation/Conflict in Inter-parental relationship..................................................20

Conflict with the other party/parent...............................................................................................22

Perceptions of Received and Reciprocated Respect (PRRR)............................................................22

Insight and Accountability...................................................................................................................23

Co-Parenting capacity..........................................................................................................................24

Caught in the Middle.......................................................................................................................26

Adult Wellbeing...................................................................................................................................26

Child Health and Wellbeing.................................................................................................................28

Family Safety.......................................................................................................................................29

Parenting Arrangements and Orders...................................................................................................31

Perceptions of satisfaction with parenting arrangements...............................................................31

Satisfaction with Service......................................................................................................................34

Qualitative analysis..............................................................................................................................35

Client feedback................................................................................................................................35

Practitioner Focus groups:...............................................................................................................36

Catholic Care Victoria Tasmania’s Post Orders Support Pilot (POSP)...........................................37

6 | P a g e

Uniting’s Post Orders Intervention (POI).....................................................................................38

Discussion............................................................................................................................................40

POPE Pilot models...........................................................................................................................40

Referral pathways............................................................................................................................41

Key client outcomes according to client surveys.............................................................................41

Limitations of analysis.................................................................................................................43

Key learnings...................................................................................................................................43

Suggestions in relation to evaluation...........................................................................................45

Recommendations...............................................................................................................................46

Conclusions..........................................................................................................................................48

References...........................................................................................................................................50

Appendices..........................................................................................................................................51

Appendix A: Program Logic..............................................................................................................51

Appendix B: Evaluation framework.................................................................................................53

Evaluation Framework.................................................................................................................53

Appendix C: Client Information Sheet and Consent Form...............................................................57

Appendix D: Client surveys..............................................................................................................59

Client Pre-service survey.............................................................................................................59

Client 10-week survey.................................................................................................................69

Client 20-week survey.................................................................................................................80

Appendix E: Staff surveys.................................................................................................................92

Practitioner Pre Survey................................................................................................................92

Practitioner 10-week Survey........................................................................................................96

Practitioner 20-week Survey......................................................................................................102

Appendix F: Staff Focus Group Questions......................................................................................108

Appendix G: Client qualitative feedback - detailed........................................................................110

Results for the 10-week Survey.................................................................................................110

Results for the 20-week Survey.................................................................................................113

Appendix H: Staff Focus Group findings.........................................................................................114

CCVT’s Post Orders Support Pilot (POSP)...................................................................................115

Uniting’s Post Orders Intervention Program (POI) or ‘Keeping contact’....................................123

Appendix I: Example Orders..........................................................................................................131

7 | P a g e

About this reportThis evaluation report is provided for Catholic Care Victoria/Tasmania (CCVT), Uniting and the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD).

CitationThe suggested citation for this report is

Clancy E., Pryor, R., Skvarc, D., & Nekonokuro, A. (2017). Post Orders Pilot Program: Evaluation Report. Centre for Family Research and Evaluation, Deakin University and drummond street services, Melbourne, Australia.

Project BackgroundSignificant reforms to the family law system were implemented in 2006. Since then, Family Law Services have become a central part of Australia’s response to family separation. They provide information, referrals and critical services to the community including Family Dispute Resolution (FDR), Family Counselling and Parenting Orders Program (POP). Family Law Services constitute one of six streams of the Department of Social Services (DSS) Family and Children Activity Group. Family Law Services are funded by AGD and administered by DSS. The reforms aimed to bring about a cultural shift away from litigation and towards cooperative post separation parenting.

Prior research investigating the impact of the Australian Family Law Reforms, (Qu et al., 2014) has found that the best outcomes for families occur generally where parties can mutually agree on parenting arrangements without resorting to the Family Law system. Over 70% of families separate amicably. They are able to work out arrangements regarding parenting, property and finance independently, maintain cooperative relationships with the other parent, and continue meaningful relationships between parents and children following separation. Such arrangements where parents report friendly and cooperative inter-parental relationships are more likely to be both durable and flexible to the changing needs of the children, and to result in less adverse consequences for both adults and children.

However, where parents are unable to arrive at such arrangements themselves, they can access either private or Federally funded FDR services, (Australian Government, 2016). FDR is a non-court process, including services such as mediation to help those affected by separation or divorce (including grandparents and extended family where relevant) to sort out family disputes on a range of issues relating to children, property and money. Since the 2006 Family Law reforms, prior to progressing to court, it is mandatory to attempt to resolve parenting arrangements through FDR. In 2014, approximately 10% of parents accessed FDR services, an increase from 3% in 2006 when the reforms were introduced. By contrast, other pathways have become less common, with 6% using lawyers and 3% courts (Qu et al., 2014).

If families do progress to court, they may be able to agree on court orders by consent, or a judge may issue interim or final parenting orders. To support families with parenting orders, the Federal Government funds Parenting Orders Program: Post Separation Co-operative Parenting Services (usually referred to as POP programs). These programs aim to assist separated or divorced families with high conflict to work out parenting arrangements with a focus on the best interest of children to establish and/or maintain relationships whilst ensuring the safety of all parties as the priority. The

8 | P a g e

POP programs seek to help parents manage their conflict, understand the effect their conflict is having on their children and develop strategies to deal more constructively with each other and develop and manage parenting arrangements. Where possible, POP programs work with all family members, providing a range of child-focused and child-inclusive interventions such as counselling, multi-session or one-off group work education and/or family dispute resolution.

Qu et al. (2014) noted that whilst the majority of families resolve disputes independently, a number of separated parents continue to experience significant distress and difficulties in the long-term (including violence and abuse, safety concerns for children, and fearful and/or highly conflictual inter-parental relationships). In addition, mental health and/or addiction problems were also present for many of those families experiencing ongoing distress and difficulty following their separation, with such health problems often present prior to separation. Typically, these families are more likely to access Family Law Services including FDR, and to be high frequency and intensity users of the family courts, which has impacts both on court time and wait lists, and negative impacts on children and families who are experiencing continued conflict and legal costs. This includes a high frequency of repeat usage, particularly proceedings related to contraventions of existing parenting orders.

Qu et al. recognised a “growing understanding of the characteristics and needs of these families”, and posited “the need for the development of service models designed to specifically address the multiple needs of families affected by (such) concerns”, and for efforts to be made “within and between the legal and family relationship sectors to work together more effectively in the service of their clients” (Qu et al., 2014, p. xix).

Parenting Orders Program Enforcement (POPE) PilotIn 2016, considering the need for enhanced service models, AGD funded two service organisations who currently deliver POP to develop and trial new models of working with families who have existing parenting orders. The intention of this Parenting Orders Program Enforcement Pilot (POPE Pilot) was provide support to families after they have been given interim or final parenting orders (whether by consent or judicially determined orders). It is in the best interests of children for disputes to be resolved quickly and for parents to have skills to manage ongoing parenting responsibilities cooperatively. As such, the aim of the POPE Pilot was to divert parents from initiating applications for contraventions of parenting orders, which often occurs within 12 months of the orders being made.

Secondary pilot outcomes were to include enhanced referral pathways between Federal Circuit Court registries/judges and pilot services, and improved court processes for contraventions (in conjunction with other initiatives including new application forms, affidavit templates and proposed registrar triaging for contravention applications).

The pilot was designed to deliver additional family law services, with the existing POP model modified to suit the Post Order support function. It was to include a triage component, a coaching role on understanding orders and referral to therapeutic interventions for additional support. Under a service agreement with AGD, the pilot providers were CatholicCare, (operating a Post Orders Support Program or POSP in Geelong and Dandenong) and UnitingCare Unifam (now Uniting) (operating as a Post Orders Intervention Program or POIP in Parramatta). The project intention was for each organisation to service approximately 50 families (estimated as 125 unique clients) over the 12-month pilot period from July 2016, for a project total of 100 families (250 unique clients).

9 | P a g e

Service delivery timelines were as follows:

Uniting commenced seeing clients in mid-July 2016, with service provision continuing to mid-September 2017 under this pilot

CCVT commenced seeing clients 1st Aug 2016, continuing to 30th September 2017 under this pilot across two sites

At the end of the pilot, for both organisations families who were continuing to request ongoing support were referred to other internal services, including Family Relationship Counselling, Individual adult and/or child counselling or programs and FDR services, and POP counselling, as relevant.

Evaluation providerThe Centre for Family Research and Evaluation (CFRE, a collaboration between drummond street services and Deakin University) was contracted to assist the service providers and AGD with development of an evaluation framework and an outcome measurement tool, evaluation support, data analysis and evaluation reporting regarding the POPE pilots.

Evaluation frameworkIn collaboration with the service providers and AGD, priority outcome domains and key pilot program processes were identified as outlined below (and further documented in Appendix A: Program Logic).

This process included an initial workshop with all stakeholders on 30th August 2016. Attendees included Managers and senior practitioners from the two services delivering the POPE pilots (3 from Uniting and 5 from CCVT); an AGD representative; a Federal Court Circuit Registry Manager (Dandenong); and 4 staff from CFRE involved in evaluating the pilots. The workshop involved: clarifying program aims and objectives; developing/refining Program Logics; identifying key outcomes; and commencing evaluation planning. This workshop and program documents from Uniting and CCVT outlined the intended interventions to be provided by each service, including noting the targets of 50 families for each organisation (Uniting – Parramatta and CCVT – Dandenong and Geelong sites), or approximately 125 clients.

Arising from this workshop, CFRE then provided an Evaluation framework (Appendix B), Client information sheet and survey (Appendices C and D) and staff surveys (Appendices E) as well as instructions for conducting the evaluation.

This evaluation framework noted a distinction between client and process outcomes.

Client outcomes refer to intended program objectives for adults, children and families. These included adult client-rated changes for adults and a child in the family (regarding for example, attitudes, knowledge, wellbeing and/or behaviour) and outputs such as any new parenting orders during the evaluation period, as well as practitioner-rated changes to the nature or level of dispute or risk issues, across the evaluation period.

Process outcomes refer to client feedback about their experience of the service, and practitioner information about the service processes undertaken with /experienced by the client/s, including referrals made, and reasons for closure.

The outcome measurement tool largely included quantitative outcome measures, with a mix of standardised outcome measures and specifically developed measures. Two qualitative client

10 | P a g e

measures were included, seeking client feedback about their experience of the service in their own words (any benefits for them or their family and any suggestions for service improvements).

In addition to client measures (Appendix D), staff surveys were completed for each client, indicating the nature and extent of the services received (see Appendix E). Focus groups were also conducted with staff of both organisations at the completion of the pilot to identify program strengths, opportunities for improvement and reflections on program successes (see Appendices F and H).

Evaluation timelinesDue to delays in finalising outcome measurement tools, evaluation data collection commenced 1st December 2016, allowing 8-9 months of data for Uniting and 8 months of data for CCVT. Finalisation of data collection was completed in August 2017, with analysis and reporting in September-October 2017. An extension was granted for the Final Report to be provided in mid-October 2017.

Pilot referrals Clients were accepted into the service based on the following referral and suitability criteria:

Referral sources

External referrals from courts, either within court orders or via court recommendations, or from lawyers including independent children’s lawyers (ICLs)

Internal referrals from other programs within pilot organisations, including Family Relationship Centres (FRCs) or other post-separation services

It is noted that both organisations focussed on court referrals. CCVT worked with courts, judges, and Registrars in Dandenong, Melbourne and Geelong. The CCVT service model was predicated on direct referrals from the court(s). However, in practice this was difficult to continue across multiple sites, and a direct court referral pathway was difficult to maintain. CCVT noted that referrals ebbed and flowed and were somewhat episodic, despite ongoing liaison. This was compounded due to the circuit court nature of the Geelong family law court registries. Uniting found that court referrals were more easily obtained, receiving 47 court-referrals, of which 44 were made at the time of Final Orders.

Referral suitability

Referrals were deemed suitable if there were either Interim or Final Orders (either by Consent or court-imposed) in place, and

the Interim Order matter was not currently being heard there was a risk of/a new Contravention Application or Parenting Order Application being made parents required support to understand and implement their existing order in order to avoid

returning to court parents would benefit from an enhanced POP (as opposed to existing POP programs), for

example with dual-practitioners (both FDR Practitioner and Family Counsellor), case coordinator etc.

both parties were willing to be involved in the pilot program Uniting and CCVT both included cases with grandparents/extended family as parties.

For Uniting, a total of 58 referrals were made to the Uniting program, involving 100 adult clients and 34 children. Of these, 42 adults did not complete the program, due to the case being deemed

11 | P a g e

unsuitable, only 1 party attending, the initial consultation being sufficient service provision or clients being unwilling to continue. CCVT received a total of 39 referrals for the service across the two sites, involving 70 clients. At Geelong, 14 referrals were received, involving 28 clients, whilst at Dandenong, 25 referrals were received, involving 42 clients. Of the 70 clients, 10 did not proceed to service delivery as they were unable to be contacted and/or refused services.

Pilot processes and models Each organisation determined their pilot model, as documented in the Program Logic (Appendix A), clarifying the project aims, procedures and intended process and client outcomes. As noted, each service had an existing POP, and was offering something new in their POPE pilots, which were relatively discreet interventions integrated with other services as needed. The main difference with their existing POP is the focus on families with existing orders. Key components of the POPE pilot services are detailed in Table 1.

Element CCVT

Post-Orders Support (POS)

Uniting

Post Orders Intervention Program (POI)

Referral sources Courts and internal Courts

Individual Assessment of adults

Yes Yes (conducted with dual practitioners)

Structured course Yes: 8 x 2 hour sessions of psycho-education and coaching tailored to needs

No: customised case-by-case

Dual practitioner involvement Yes: as needed Yes: joint sessions included Family Counsellor and FDR Practitioner

Legal advisor Yes No

Child involvement - Child-inclusive Practice, involving child consultations and feedback to parents

If required, based on assessment (i.e. if not having just completed Family Report)

As required, based on parental capacity to listen to children’s voices.

Child therapyindividual or group

Referrals as required Referrals to Anchor (internal program) for children aged 5-18 years as required for supportive group sessions or individual counselling.

Adult counselling sessions Within structured 8-week program or via referral

Yes: Individual sessions (1-2 hours) provided either via Family Counsellor or referral. Focus on psycho-education, trauma triggers and emotional regulation, negotiation.

Referrals to other services as needed

Yes Yes

12 | P a g e

FDR sessions with other party Optional Optional: as required

Consent Included consent to provide information to court regarding attendance or non-attendance

Included consent to provide information to court regarding attendance and recommendations

Table 1: CCVT and Uniting Pilot model elements

Client outcome domainsIn workshops with the providers, the following were agreed as the key client outcome domains and their conceptualizations. These domains were then mapped to relevant outcomes measures, using a combination of standardised and newly constructed items to be completed by the client or the practitioner, with the measure sources also provided below.

1. Communication/Negotiation/Conflict in Inter-parental relationship Enhanced relationship with other party/parent (specifically related to communication,

cooperation, negotiation, minimise/self-manage conflict) Enhanced perceived respect for other party/parent as a possible mediator of conflict Increased personal insight into the other party’s perspective/position Increased acknowledgement of personal responsibility

Measurement of this domain included the 25 items of the Parental Acrimony Scale (Shaw & Emery, 1982), four items adapted from Smyth (unpublished) and one item from the Longitudinal Study of Separated Families (LSSF) Wave 3 Survey.

2. Insight/Accountability/ Understanding of the orders and system Increased understanding of existing parenting orders Increased engagement and compliance with existing court orders Increased knowledge of post-separation support services/resources Confidence to return to CCVT/Uniting in event of dispute/contravention rather than to court

Measurement of this domain included seven constructed items.

3. Co-Parenting capacity Increased capacity to focus on the best interests of the children Increased insight into the impact of poorly managed/ exposure to conflict on children Increased emotional capacity of parties to focus on the children’s developmental needs

(attunement)

Measurement of this domain incorporated two items adapted from Smyth (unpublished), seven items from the Caught in the Middle Scale (Buchanan, Maccoby & Dornbusch, 1991), and 11 constructed items.

4. Wellbeing and Safety: adults and children Increased child wellbeing (via parent report) Decreased family violence/Increased safety Reduced personal anxiety, trauma-symptoms and distress Enhanced personal wellbeing

13 | P a g e

The General Health Questionnaire-12 item (GHQ-12; Goldberg, 1978) was used to measure adult wellbeing. The child wellbeing measure included nine items from the LSSF Wave 3 Survey (Qu et. al, 2014), one of which was adapted from the SF-36 (Ware, Nelson, Sherbourne and Stewart, 1992). Parents were asked to complete the child wellbeing measure in relation to their child (if there was only one) or their child of most concern to them at the baseline survey. The family safety measure included five items from the LSSF Wave 3 Survey (which were adapted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey, 2012), and two constructed items (the last two questions, being “If there are safety concerns for me or my children, then the current arrangements take these into account” and If there are safety concerns for me or my children, I have the information, support and skills to manage any safety concerns.”)

5. Satisfaction with the service and what was helpful about the service Satisfaction with service provided Feeling respected Qualitative feedback about what was useful about the service and suggestions for

improvements

This domain was measured via 16 constructed quantitative items and 2 constructed qualitative items seeking their feedback in their own words regarding benefits experienced and suggestions for program improvements.

6. Parenting Arrangements and Orders Time since separation Orders in place (interim or final, formal or informal) and main methods of achieving these Attempts to change parenting arrangements Estimated legal costs Extent parenting and finance arrangements are sorted Who the parenting arrangements are working well for

This domain was measured via categorical questions about the separation and parenting arrangements in place, how these had been negotiated and whether there had been attempts to change them (2 LSSF items, developed items). There were also 5 numerical questions from LSSF asking participants to indicate the extent to which parenting and financial arrangements were sorted and regardless of formal arrangements, how well current arrangements are working for each parent and for the child/ren.

Process outcomesProcess outcomes were sought from clients and practitioners and included the following areas:

Referral sources Referrals made during the evaluation period Responses to safety concerns Intervention processes clients participated in Services accessed by families previously, currently, subsequent to commencing with service Agreements attained Perceived methods of achieving agreements or arrangements (LSSF Wave 3 item) Reasons for closure

For full versions of the client and practitioner evaluation tools, please refer to Appendices D and E.

14 | P a g e

Findings: Quantitative analysisChallenges with service participationIt is noted that for both Uniting and CCVT, a proportion of referrals did not result in engagement with their pilot programs, despite significant investment of time and effort.

For Uniting, a total of 58 cases were referred to the Uniting program, involving 100 adult clients and 34 children. Of the adult clients who participated in the initial assessment, 42 did not continue with the program, resulting in 58 engaged clients. This was due to a range of reasons, including clients deemed as unsuitable on assessment due to significant mental health issues or high levels of violence, only 1 party attending, lack of client willingness to continue with the program, or where the initial assessment was considered sufficient service provision. Court referrals made up 81% of Uniting clients engaged with the program.

CCVT received a total of 39 referrals for the service across the two sites, involving 70 clients. At Geelong, 14 referrals were received, involving 28 clients, whilst at Dandenong, 25 referrals were received, involving 42 clients. Of the 70 clients referred, 10 were unable to be engaged in the process, resulting in 60 engaged clients. In some cases, whilst the POSP was recommended in the Family Report, this recommendation was not included in the court orders, hence clients withdrew as they considered the service was not mandated. For CCVT, court referrals were made in relation to around 60% of the clients who participated in the program. The balance came from a combination of internal referrals and other external contacts, including one from a Family Consultant.

There was also a proportion of clients that engaged with the pilot project but did not consent to participate in the evaluation. Whilst this was evenly split by gender for Uniting, CCVT females were less likely to participate in the evaluation, citing being overwhelmed with court processes.

For Uniting, of 100 engaged clients, 70 provided baseline measures: of these, 68 were complete and able to be analysed

For CCVT, of 60 engaged clients, 38 provided baseline measures: of these, 32 were complete and able to be analysed

CCVT noted that interpreter assistance was required for a significant proportion of their clients at Dandenong. The City of Greater Dandenong is the most culturally diverse municipality in Victoria, with 64% of residents born outside Australia, most frequently Vietnam, India, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Afghanistan and China, and around one quarter of these reporting that limited English language fluency (ABS, 2016). Dandenong clients included those of both European and Asian descent, as well as one client of Aboriginal identity. The need for cultural sensitivity and translators had an impact both on client numbers due to the additional time required, and evaluation participation as the survey was not translated. There was also an unanticipated change in staffing at Dandenong, which resulted in a delay of 2 weeks in handover and delivery.

Analytical methodsAll completed surveys were scanned and provided to CFRE for entry. These were entered into Qualtrics and data downloaded to a data analysis package (SPSS) for analysis. Following data cleaning to remove incomplete entries, there were 100 completed baseline measures, with 33 clients having matched completed measures at 10 weeks. Unfortunately, there were insufficient completed surveys (9) at 20 weeks for further analysis. Linear Mixed Model (LMM) analysis was used

15 | P a g e

to examine the efficacy of the POPE intervention across the pre-determined client process and outcome domains:

Communication/Negotiation/Conflict in Inter-parental relationship Insight/Accountability/ Understanding of the orders and system Co-Parenting capacity Wellbeing and Safety: adults and children Perceptions of satisfaction with arrangements Satisfaction with the service and what was helpful about the service

Gender, service provider, and perceived quality of the inter-parent relationship (single item with categories: fearful, lots of conflict, distant, cooperative or friendly fearful, lots of conflict, distant, cooperative or friendly) at baseline were included as co-variates in all models. LMM allows the calculation of the effects of variables and combinations of variables, known as interactions, identifying both main effects for single covariates, and first and second-order interactions for 2 or 3 co-variables.

For the completed surveys, slightly more males than females completed surveys, and the overall evaluation retention rate to 10 weeks was approximately 33%. Uniting clients represented approximately two thirds of the data, at both baseline and follow up time points, whilst CCVT clients were the remaining third, as detailed in Table 2.

Agency Male Female AllT1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline) T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

CCVT 18 9 14 3 32 12Uniting 34 11 34 10 68 21TOTAL 52 20 48 13 100 33

Table 2: Participant numbers by gender for services at baseline and 10 weeks

Baseline analysesParticipants were asked how long since they had separated. Whilst for around 50% of respondents, data was missing, the median value for those who responded was 3-5 years (Figure 1).

Less than 1 year 1-3 years 3-5 years 5-7 years 7-10 years More than 10 years

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Estimated separation in years

Time from separation

Num

ber o

f peo

ple

Figure 1: Time since separation (estimated)

16 | P a g e

Figure 2: Duration of interim and final parenting orders

Eligibility criteria for this pilot included those with parenting orders in place (i.e. Interim or Final). Of those who specified the nature of their orders, most (72%) had final parenting orders. When asked about the duration of these orders, Interim Orders were likely to have been in place for a shorter period than Final Orders (Figure 2).

Current parenting order in place.Final Order total (number of people): 68Interim order total (number of people): 26

Participants’ estimation of their personal legal expenses so far, and those of the other party are outlined in Figure 3. A significant proportion (almost 60%) reported spending between $10,000-$85,000 themselves, whilst estimates of the partner’s expense was likely to be less, or they may have accessed legal aid.

N o n e / l e g a l a i d

9 0 0 0 a n d l e s s

1 0 0 0 0 -3 5 0 0 0

4 0 0 0 0 -8 5 0 0 0

1 0 0 0 0 0 -1 8 0 0 0 0

2 0 0 0 0 0 -2 5 0 0 0 0

D o n ' t k n o w / C a n ' t

s a y

6.06

15.1

5

32.3

2

27.2

7

15.1

5

4.04

20.4

8

13.2

5

20.4

8

8.43 9.

64

1.2

26.5

1Clients Other parent/party

Costs (AU$)

Perc

enta

ge

Figure 3: Legal costs relating to property and parenting disputes

Referral source. Most respondents reported court as their referral source for the POPE, with no endorsement of friends or family as referral sources (Figure 4).

17 | P a g e

Less than 1 year 1-3 years02468

1012

Length of time since interim orders made

Time

Num

ber o

f peo

ple

Less than one year

1-4 years More than 10 years

05

1015202530

Length of time since final orders made

Time

Num

ber o

f peo

ple

Court Ex-partner Lawyer Other Self-referral Court+Other Lawyer+Court0

20

40

60

80

Referral sources

Referral sources reported by clients

Num

berr

of c

lient

s

Figure 4: Program referral sources

Many clients reported having previously used other service, as noted in Figure 5. Most commonly, this was FDR, adult or couples counselling, lawyers (usually private), child protection services and police with respect to violence.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Number of people Current Number of people Previous

Num

ber o

f peo

ple

Figure 5: Other services used: Current and previous

At baseline, practitioners rated the nature and intensity of dispute over a range of common issues. The most commonly reported areas of high conflict were:

Parenting time arrangements 69%) Last minute changes to arrangements (67%) Holiday arrangements (60%) Pick up/drop off times (57%) Relationships with extended family members (54%) Step-parents / new relationships (45%)

18 | P a g e

Practitioners also reported on the risk issues they had noted for the families. The most frequently endorsed areas of medium-high risk were:

High conflict between parents (96%) Significant power imbalance between parents (88%) Family violence – emotional (80%) Significant loss/trauma in family (70%) Family violence – physical (43%) Financial hardship/stress (41%) Parent mental health issue / illness (38%) Abuse / neglect of child/ren by parent (36%)

This data confirms the severity and nature of the issues that were observed within this client group.

Client outcomesCommunication/Negotiation/Conflict in Inter-parental relationship Thirty items from the client surveys were combined to calculate an overall value for a domain regarding inter-parental conflict and communication. All items were positively manipulated so that higher values indicate more positive outcomes, and data reviewed for changes when split by key independent variables including gender, service provider (i.e. CCVT or Uniting) or Relationship categorisation (i.e. whether the relationship was categorised at baseline as fearful, lots of conflict, distant, cooperative or friendly). Mean scores and standard deviations for baseline and 10 weeks surveys are provided in Table 3. Despite apparent trends toward positive change (apart from Uniting males), there was no significant difference observed in this overall measure from baseline to 10 weeks for any of the independent variables noted or any combination of these variables (significance testing was conducted at the .05 level for all analyses). Results of these analyses are provided in Table 4. It is likely that the lack of significant results reflects insufficient statistical power, based on the small sample size. Statistical power relates to the ability that a change can be detected if it is present, and is mainly influenced by the size of the effect and the size of the sample used to detect it. Bigger effects are easier to detect than smaller effects, while large samples offer greater test sensitivity than small samples.

Agency Male Female All % change

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

CCVT (N) 18 9 14 3 32 12Mean scores Conflict & Communication (SD)

76.50 (16.65)

81.67 (13.23)

77.57 (11.03)

80.33 (16.29)

76.97 (14.26)

81.33 (13.26)

5.7%

Uniting (N) 34 11 34 10 68 21Mean scores Conflict & Communication

75.21 (14.13)

67.82 (26.98)

73.24 (18.20)

79.40 (13.25)

74.22 (16.20)

73.33 (21.86)

-1.2%

19 | P a g e

(SD)TOTAL (N) 52 20 48 13 100 33Mean scores Conflict & Communication (SD)

75.65 (14.90)

74.05 (22.51)

74.50 (16.44)

79.62 (13.27)

75.10 (15.59)

76.24 (19.35)

1.5%

Table 3: Communication/Negotiation/Conflict in Inter-parental relationship - Mean scores

Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig.

Intercept 52.10 69.35 91.79 0.75 0.45

Servicecode 39.36 38.14 92.98 1.03 0.31

Gendercode 36.39 46.07 89.94 0.79 0.43

Relcode 6.84 17.29 91.98 0.40 0.69

Servicecode * Gendercode -29.15 25.13 91.60 -1.16 0.25

Servicecode * Relcode -10.73 9.48 93.27 -1.13 0.26

Gendercode * Relcode -8.80 11.44 89.22 -0.77 0.44

Servicecode * Gendercode * Relcode 7.24 6.22 91.07 1.16 0.25

Table 4: Estimates of Fixed Effects for Communication/Negotiation/Conflict in Inter-parental relationship

Analysis of individual items from baseline to 10 weeks show a mean (non-significant) change of 0.23 in the desired direction. Fourteen items showed significant positive change, as highlighted in Table 5 (pink). The largest improvement was noted in Item 5 (“Do you have friendly talks with the other parent?”). With the exception of Item 22 (“Are pick-ups and drop-offs of the children between you and your partner difficult times?”), all significant changes can be considered improvements. Ten items show non-significant positive change (green) and 6 show non-significant negative change (yellow).

DOMAIN Qst Wording

Paired Differences t df

Sig. (2-tailed)

Mean SD

Conflict and Communic’n

1.01 a) Do you feel friendly towards your children's other parent -0.18 1.01 -1.03 32.00 0.311.02 b) Do your children feel friendly toward the other parent -0.16 0.77 -1.15 30.00 0.26

1.03c) Are gifts to the children a problem between you and the other parent 0.31 1.22 1.44 31.00 0.16

1.04d) Is the parenting time schedule a problem between you and the other parent 0.21 1.87 0.65 32.00 0.52

1.05 e) Do you have friendly talks with the other parent -2.09 1.41 -8.45 32.00 0.001.06 f) Is the other parent a good parent -0.25 1.01 -1.39 31.00 0.17

1.07g) Do your children see the other parent as often as you would like -0.07 0.79 -0.46 28.00 0.65

1.08h) Do your children see the other parent as often as he/she would like -0.04 1.2 -0.16 25.00 0.87

1.09i) Do you and the other parent agree on discipline for the children -0.59 1.18 -2.83 31.00 0.01

1.10j) Are your children harder to handle after spending time with the other parent -0.59 1.17 -2.67 28.00 0.01

1.11k) Do you and the other parent disagree in front of the children -0.23 1.18 -1.07 29.00 0.29

1.12l) Do the children take sides in disagreements between you and the other parent -0.07 1.02 -0.36 28.00 0.72

20 | P a g e

1.13m) Are spousal or child support payments a problem between you and the other parent -0.27 1.27 -1.14 29.00 0.26

1.14 n) Do your children feel hostile toward the other parent -0.23 0.71 -1.75 30.00 0.09

1.15o) Does the other parent say things about you to the children that you don't want them to hear? -0.14 1.39 -0.54 27.00 0.60

1.16p) Do you say things about the other parent to the children that he/she wouldn't want them to hear? -0.23 0.76 -1.65 30.00 0.11

1.17 q) Do you have angry disagreements with the other parent -0.16 1.12 -0.80 30.00 0.431.18 r) Do you feel hostile toward the other parent -0.32 0.7 -2.56 30.00 0.021.19 s) Does the other parent feel hostile toward you -0.45 1.01 -2.37 28.00 0.03

1.20t) Can you talk to the other parent about problems with the children -0.36 1.13 -1.73 30.00 0.09

1.21 u) Do you have a friendly separation/divorce 0.13 1.44 0.50 29.00 0.62

1.22v) Are pick-ups and drop-offs of the children between you and the other parent a difficult time 0.59 1.77 1.77 28.00 0.09

1.23w) Does the other parent encourage your children to live with him/her 0.16 1.36 0.58 24.00 0.57

1.24x) Have you adjusted to being separated/divorced from the other parent -0.07 0.75 -0.49 28.00 0.63

1.25y) Has the other parent adjusted to being separated/divorced from you 0.09 1.25 0.34 21.00 0.74

1.26 a) I respect the other parent as a parent -0.37 1.21 -1.65 29.00 0.111.27 b) I respect the other parent as a person -0.35 1.36 -1.36 28.00 0.191.28 c) I think the other parent has respect for me as a parent -0.29 0.73 -2.19 30.00 0.041.29 d) I think the other parent has respect for me as a person -0.26 0.77 -1.86 30.00 0.07

OVERALL RECIPROCAL RESPECT -0.97 2.75 -1.96 ?? 0.06

1.30

Would you describe your current relationship with the other parent as friendly/cooperative/distant/lots of conflict/fearful/don't know/can't say?

-0.50 0.90 2.57 21.00 0.00

Total -1.09 16.19 -.387 32 .701

Table 5: Communication/Negotiation/Conflict in Inter-parental relationship - Analysis of individual items

Conflict with the other party/parentThe first 25 items of the Conflict and Communication scale comprise a standardised measure, the 25 item Parental Acrimony Scale. Higher values indicate lower levels of interpersonal acrimony (i.e. lower levels of conflict). When analysed separately, again there was change in the desired direction but no significant main effects for this scale, as indicated in Table 6 below.

Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig.Intercept 12.04 57.70 91.13 0.21 0.84Servicecode 50.18 31.67 91.63 1.59 0.12Gendercode 53.26 38.45 90.17 1.39 0.17Relcode 12.48 14.38 91.17 0.87 0.39Servicecode * Gendercode -36.38 20.92 90.96 -1.74 0.09Servicecode * Relcode -12.83 7.87 91.71 -1.63 0.11Gendercode * Relcode -12.74 9.56 89.70 -1.33 0.19Servicecode * Gendercode * Relcode 8.95 5.18 90.64 1.73 0.09

Table 6: Fixed effects for Acrimony Scale

Perceptions of Received and Reciprocated Respect (PRRR)The reciprocated respect subscale consists of the final 5 items of the Conflict and Communication domain (listed as items 26-29 in Table 5 above). Increasing values indicate a greater level of intra-couple respect. This did demonstrate a significant improvement from baseline to 10 weeks, indicating that intra-couple respect was significantly improved after the intervention, as indicated in

21 | P a g e

Table 7. This was not associated with any co-variates including service provider, gender, or relationship perception at baseline.

Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig.

Intercept 49.06 17.31 87.06 2.83 0.01**

Servicecode -14.04 9.60 87.68 -1.46 0.15

Gendercode -16.23 11.51 85.72 -1.41 0.16

Relcode -7.18 4.32 87.10 -1.66 0.10

Servicecode * Gendercode 7.53 6.30 86.80 1.20 0.24

Servicecode * Relcode 2.42 2.40 87.73 1.01 0.32

Gendercode * Relcode 3.03 2.86 85.06 1.06 0.29

Servicecode * Gendercode * Relcode

-1.26 1.57 86.33 -0.81 0.42

Table 7: Fixed effects for Perceptions of Received and Reciprocated Respect

The single item question (Item 30 in table above) also improved significantly, with a reduction in those describing their relationships as fearful or lots of conflict, and a move towards either distant or cooperative. Importantly, this suggests a more positive experience for the children.

Insight and Accountability The insight scale includes new 7 items, with higher scores considered to be more positive. For mean scores and standard deviation for baseline and 10 weeks, refer to Table 8.


T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

CCVT (N) 9 2 8 2 17 4Mean scores Insight & Accountability (SD)

23.89 (4.11)

26.50 (6.36)

23.25 (3.45)

26.00 (1.41)

23.59 (3.71)

26.25 (3.77)

11.3%

Uniting (N) 18 6 17 7 35 13Mean scores Insight & Accountability (SD)

23.06 (4.44)

22.00 (2.45)

22.35 (3.72)

23.00 (6.16)

22.71 (4.06)

22.54 (4.67)

-.7%

TOTAL (N) 27 8 25 9 52 17Mean scores Insight & Accountability (SD)

23.33 (4.27)

23.13 (3.80)

22.64 (3.59)

23.67 (5.52)

23.00 (3.94)

23.41 (4.65)

1.8%

Table 8: Insight and Accountability - Mean scores

While changes were in a positive direction, there was no significant difference observed in results on Insight and Accountability measures from baseline to 10 weeks for any combination of co-variates or variables alone (Table 9). It is likely that despite apparent trends toward significant change, there was insufficient statistical power to detect any effect. There was also a significant drop in client

22 | P a g e

numbers completing measures at the second time point, which impacted the ability to detect change.

Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig.Intercept 28.01 22.84 43.65 1.23 0.23Servicecode 1.55 12.62 44.08 0.12 0.90Gendercode 1.20 15.94 43.99 0.08 0.94Relcode -1.24 5.70 43.75 -

0.220.83

Servicecode * Gendercode -2.92 8.67 44.20 -0.34

0.74

Servicecode * Relcode -0.65 3.17 44.11 -0.21

0.84

Gendercode * Relcode -0.09 3.90 44.07 -0.02

0.98


0.77 2.13 44.27 0.36 0.72

Table 9: Fixed effects for Insight and Accountability Domain

However, analysis of matched results for individual items showed a tendency toward improved client insight from baseline to 10 weeks (Table 10). All items except one (1.7g “I try to consider the other parent’s view and needs in relation to our parenting arrangements”) indicated increased insight, with an absolute ‘mean’ difference for all items of 0.45 over time, with four items (1.01a, 1.02b, 1.05e and 1.06f) significantly improving. The largest significant change was in item 1.1a (“I have read and understand what the current parenting orders say”).

DOMAIN Qst WordingPaired Differences t df Sig. (2-

tailed)Mean SD

Insight and Accountability 1.01

a) I have read and know what the current parenting orders say

-0.69 0.78 -4.98 31 0.00

1.02b) I understand how to apply the parenting orders

-0.5 0.8 -3.52 31 0.00

1.03c) I actively work to apply the existing parenting orders

-0.44 1.39 -1.78 31 0.09

1.04d) The other parent actively works to apply the existing parenting orders

-0.31 1.42 -1.24 31 0.22

1.05

e) I know where to go to get information and support for my family in relation to post separation issues

-0.56 1.19 -2.68 31 0.01

1.06

f) I understand what is needed from me to make the parenting arrangements work for our children

-0.12 0.33 -2.1 33 0.04

1.07

g) I try to consider the other parent's views and needs in relation to our parenting arrangements.

0.56 3.07 1.04 31 0.31

TOTAL SCORE -.388 4.383 .532 35 .598Table 10: Insight and Accountability - Analysis of individual items

23 | P a g e

Co-Parenting capacityThe co-parenting capacity scale included 17 items, with all items recoded so that higher scores indicate more positive co-parenting capacity. Mean scores and standard deviations are presented in Table 11.

Agency Male Female All % changeT1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

CCVT (N) 9 2 8 2 17 4Mean scores Co-parenting (SD)

67.00 (9.24)

60.50 (5.20)

65.50 (1.73)

60.50 (5.20)

66.25 (6.20)

60.50 (4.81)

-8.7%

Uniting (N) 18 6 17 7 35 13Mean scores Co-parenting (SD)

50.50 (5.55)

49.83 (6.56)

52.29 (6.58)

51.71 (8.71)

51.46 (6.07)

50.85 (7.70)

-1.2%

TOTAL (N) 27 8 25 9 52 17Mean scores Co-parenting (SD)

54.63 (9.70)

52.50 (7.73)

55.22 (8.10)

53.67 (8.77)

54.94 (8.76)

53.12 (8.19)

-3.3%

Table 11: Co-parenting capacity - Mean scores

There was no significant change for any co-variate either in combination or as a main effect (Table 12), although there was a non-significant deterioration for males overall and for CCVT clients.

Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig.Intercept 55.55 50.55 40.65 1.10 0.28Servicecode 4.34 28.03 41.86 0.16 0.88Gendercode -1.48 35.39 41.49 -

0.040.97

Relcode -0.52 12.63 40.90 -0.04

0.97

Servicecode * Gendercode -2.04 19.28 42.17 -0.11

0.92

Servicecode * Relcode -1.81 7.04 41.94 -0.26

0.80

Gendercode * Relcode 1.06 8.65 41.73 0.12 0.90Servicecode * Gendercode * Relcode

0.70 4.74 42.39 0.15 0.88

Table 12: Fixed effects for Coparenting domain

Analysis of individual items (provided in Table 13) identified several significant improvements across the Co-parenting Capacity scale, with two notable exceptions in Items 6 and 9 (“I ask our child/ren to carry messages to the OP” and “I ask the children question about the OP they wish I wouldn’t ask”), where significant deteriorations were observed. Changes on these items were by far the greatest magnitude across all items on the survey. The mean absolute difference across time was 0.8.

Domain Qst Wording Paired Differences t df Sig.(2-tailed)

24 | P a g e

Mean Std.Deviation

Co-parentingcapacity 2.1a The OP is respectful of me in front

of our child/ren-0.69 0.78 -4.98 31.00 0.00

2.2b I am respectful of the OP in front of our child/ren

-0.44 0.80 -3.09 31.00 0.00

CitM 2.3c Our child/ren feel caught in the middle

-1.38 2.21 -3.52 31.00 0.00

CitM 2.4d Our child/ren don't hesitate to talk about the OP in front of me

-0.31 1.42 -1.24 31.00 0.22

CitM 2.5e The children don't hesitate to talk about me in front of the OP

-0.50 1.19 -2.37 31.00 0.02

CitM 2.6f I ask our child/ren to carry messages to the OP

3.35 0.98 19.93 33.00 0.00

CitM 2.7g The OP asks our child/ren to carry messages to me

0.81 3.26 1.41 31.00 0.17

CitM 2.8hThe OP asks our child/ren questions (about me/my family) that my child wishes they wouldn't ask?

-1.56 2.27 -3.89 31.00 0.00

CitM 2.9iI ask our child/ren questions (about the OP/family) that my child wishes I wouldn't ask?

2.41 1.94 7.25 33.00 0.00

Caught in the Middle subscale (2.3c – 2.9h) Total -2.30 8.04 33.00 0.012.10a I have a good understanding of the

emotional and developmental needs of our children

-0.25 1.05 -1.35 31.00 0.19

2.11b

The OP has a good understanding of the emotional and developmental needs of our children

-0.75 1.37 -3.10 31.00 0.00

2.12c I am able to be flexible to meet the child/ren's wishes or needs

-0.18 0.72 -1.44 33.00 0.16

2.13d

The OP is able to be flexible to meet the child/ren's wishes or needs

-0.50 1.08 -2.63 31.00 0.01

2.14e I think our current arrangements are in the best interests of the child.

0.29 1.77 0.97 33.00 0.34

2.15f The OP thinks our current arrangements are in the best interests of the child.

-0.06 1.89 -0.18 33.00 0.86

2.16g I have a good understanding of the impact of conflict on our children

-0.06 0.55 -0.63 33.00 0.54

2.17h

The OP has a good understanding of the impact of conflict on our children

-0.06 1.72 -0.20 33.00 0.84

Table 13: Coparenting capacity - Analysis of individual items

Caught in the MiddleThe Caught in the Middle scale is a standardised 7-item measure incorporated within the co-parenting capacity domain (items 2.3c-2.9i). This scale showed significant improvement in overall scores (in a positive direction) for matched measures between baseline to 10 weeks, but LMM analysis did not demonstrate significant improvement for the independent variables (Table 14).

Parameter Estimate

Std. Error

df t Sig.

25 | P a g e

Intercept 24.93 23.14 56.73

1.08 0.29

Servicecode 0.15 12.86 55.58

0.01 0.99

Gendercode 1.38 16.22 55.99

0.09 0.93

Relcode 0.71 5.79 56.50

0.12 0.90

Servicecode * Gendercode -1.77 8.85 55.33

-0.20

0.84

Servicecode * Relcode -0.89 3.23 55.50

-0.28

0.78

Gendercode * Relcode -0.81 3.97 55.75

-0.20

0.84


0.79 2.18 55.11

0.36 0.72

Table 14: Fixed Effects - Caught in the Middle

Adult WellbeingThe Adult Wellbeing domain used the 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) as a measure of mental health and wellbeing. This was recoded and scored consistent with scoring keys, so that increasing values indicated higher levels of reported wellbeing problems. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 15.


T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

CCVT (N) 9 2 7 2 16 4Mean scores GHQ-12 (SD)

37.22 (3.42)

20.00 (4.24)

33.43 (9.05)

18.00 (2.83)

35.56 (6.54)

19.00 (3.16)

-46.6%

Uniting (N) 18 6 16 7 34 13Mean scores GHQ-12 (SD)

37.00 (5.10)

22.00 (6.96)

36.25 (5.99)

23.86 (6.41)

36.65 (5.47)

23.00 (6.45)

-37.2%

TOTAL (N) 27 8 23 9 50 17Mean scores GHQ-12 (SD)

37.07 (4.54)

21.50 (6.16)

35.39 (6.97)

22.56 (6.21)

36.30 (5.79)

22.06 (6.02)

-39.2%

Table 15: Adult mental health - GHQ-12 scores

When examined overall, no significant change was observed across time for any combination of co-variates (Table 16), nor any in isolation when considering the entire client population for both Uniting and CCVT.

Parameter Estimate Std. Error df t Sig.Intercept 16.19 28.53 17.52 0.57 0.58Servicecode 9.09 16.64 20.44 0.55 0.59Gendercode 3.80 20.35 17.96 0.19 0.85Relcode 1.74 7.20 17.80 0.24 0.81Servicecode * Gendercode -2.36 11.40 19.59 - 0.84

26 | P a g e

0.21Servicecode * Relcode -1.32 4.20 20.31 -

0.310.76

Gendercode * Relcode 0.16 5.02 18.35 0.03 0.98Servicecode * Gendercode * Relcode

0.09 2.83 19.89 0.03 0.98

Table 16: Fixed effects for Adult Mental Health (GHQ-12)

However, matched data sets showed statistically significant improvement (i.e. reduction of reported health problems) for the total score and all individual items, with an absolute mean improvement of 1.3, which is especially large given the range of responses was 1 to 4. Results are provided in Table 17 and graphically in Figure 6.

Item Paired Differences t df Sig. (2-tailed)

Adult Mental health

Mean SD

GHQ-12 15.88 9.63 9.62

33.00 0.00

Table 17: Paired differences for Adult Mental health

Figure 6: Adult mental health by gender by service across time

Child Health and WellbeingThe Child Health and Wellbeing domain included 8 items, with greater values indicating higher levels of observed health and/or wellbeing problems (refer Table 18 for descriptive statistics).


27 | P a g e

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

CCVT (N) 9 2 7 2 16 4Mean scores GHQ-12 (SD)

27.56 (5.22)

18.00 (5.66)

27.43 (2.44)

13.50 (6.36)

27.50 (4.12)

15.75 (5.56)

-42.7%

Uniting (N) 18 6 16 6 34 12Mean scores GHQ-12 (SD)

24.22 (5.17)

20.00 (3.29)

25.31 (4.78)

20.67 (4.37)

24.74 (4.95)

20.33 (3.70)

-17.8%

TOTAL (N) 27 8 23 8 50 16Mean scores GHQ-12 (SD)

25.33 (5.33)

19.50 (3.63)

25.96 (4.27)

18.88 (5.51)

25.62 (4.84)

19.19 (4.52)

-25.1%

Table 18: Child health and wellbeing descriptive statistics

No significant changes were detected between baseline and 10 weeks for any predictive co-variate in isolation nor in combination (Table 19).

Parameter Estimate Std. Error

df t Sig.

Intercept 42.86 26.64 51.78 1.61 0.11Gendercode -8.87 14.81 50.74 -0.60 0.55Relcode -17.37 18.65 51.07 -0.93 0.36Gendercode * Relcode -4.30 6.68 51.58 -0.64 0.52Servicecode 8.67 10.17 50.48 0.85 0.40Gendercode * Servicecode 2.22 3.74 50.74 0.59 0.56Relcode * Servicecode 4.81 4.57 50.87 1.05 0.30Gendercode * Relcode * Servicecode -2.53 2.51 50.33 -1.01 0.32

Table 19: Fixed effects for the Child Health and Wellbeing domain

Significant improvements were observed for the overall scale when matched, and 6 individual items between baseline and 10 week assessments (Table 20). The absolute mean difference across time was 0.77, with Item 4 showing greatest change (“[My child] is a happy child/person”).


Mean SD

Child health and wellbeing

6.1a

Compared to other children of the same age, how would you say that your child is:Doing with his/her learning (or school work or academic achievement)

0.81 1.45 3.18 31.00 0.00

6.2bGetting along with other children/people his/her own age

0.73 1.68 2.39 29.00 0.02

6.3c Doing in most areas of his/her life?

0.73 1.26 3.19 29.00 0.00

6.4d Is a happy child/person 1.40 0.97 7.92 29.00 0.006.5e Is a confident child/person 1.13 1.57 3.95 29.00 0.006.6f tends to get anxious or -0.14 1.38 -0.55 27.00 0.59

28 | P a g e

worried about things

6.7g behaves in a sensible or mature manner

0.21 1.50 0.76 27.00 0.46

6.8h Loses his/her temper 1.00 1.44 3.67 27.00 0.00TOTAL 6.25 7.86 4.5 31.00 0.00

Table 20: Child Health and Wellbeing - Individual items

Family SafetyThe Family Safety Domain included 6 items, recoded so higher values indicate increased personal safety concerns and/or lower coping resources. Descriptive statistics are presented in Table 21.


T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

CCVT (N) 9 2 7 2 16 4Mean scores Safety measure (SD)

18.78 (4.82)

12.50 (2.12)

20.71 (3.20)

7.00 (4.24)

19.63 (4.18)

9.75 (4.19)

-50.3%

Uniting (N) 18 6 16 7 34 13Mean scores Safety measure (SD)

18.78 (4.92)

11.17 (6.97)

19.00 (4.70)

13.14 (4.49)

18.88 (4.75)

12.23 (5.60)

-.35.2%

TOTAL (N) 27 8 23 9 50 17Mean scores Safety measure (SD)

18.78 (4.79)

11.50 (5.98)

19.52 (4.31)

11.78 (4.97)

19.12 (4.54)

11.65 (5.29)

-39.1%

Table 21: Family Safety descriptive statistics

Similar to the above, there were no significant main effects noted when the total data set was included (Table 22)

Parameter Estimate Std. Error

df t Sig.

Intercept 22.16 26.91 41.64 0.82 0.42Gendercode -1.62 14.92 42.42 -0.11 0.91Relcode -7.98 18.80 42.23 -0.42 0.67Gendercode * Relcode 0.64 6.74 41.80 0.09 0.93Servicecode 4.93 10.24 42.61 0.48 0.63Gendercode * Servicecode -0.40 3.77 42.39 -0.11 0.92Relcode * Servicecode 1.24 4.60 42.36 0.27 0.79Gendercode * Relcode * Servicecode -0.87 2.53 42.68 -0.35 0.73

Table 22: Family safety - fixed effects

However, when matching data for individual items (Table 23), the first four items showed significant improvement in the parent’s concerns about their safety, their children’s safety and the frequency with which children were being exposed to threats or violence. There was a small but non-significant deterioration in the perception that the current parenting arrangements take safety

29 | P a g e

concerns into account, but overall there was significant improvement across the domain, suggesting an overall improvement in perceived family safety.


Mean SD

Family Safety 7.1a

I am concerned about my safety as a result of ongoing contact with the other party

1.50 2.62 3.25 31.00 0.00

7.2b

I am concerned about my child/ren's safety as a result of ongoing contact with the other party

0.67 2.54 1.44 29.00 0.16

7.3cMy child/ren has seen or heard the other parent threaten me with violence

3.15 1.91 8.41 25.00 0.00

7.4dMy child/ren has seen or heard the other parent try to assault me

3.67 1.27 15.83 29.00 0.00

7.5e

If there are safety concerns for me or my children, then the current arrangement/agreement takes into account those adequately

-.684 1.67 -1.78 18 .091

7.6f

If there are safety concerns for me or my children, I have the resources and skills to manage any safety concerns.

.038 1.94 .101 25 0.921

TOTAL 6.97 8.18 4.96 33 .000Table 23: Family Safety - Individual items

When viewed graphically, it is clear that across both gender and service organisation, there was an overall reduction in safety concerns (Figure 7).

30 | P a g e

Figure 7: Family safety by gender, service type

Parenting Arrangements and OrdersPerceptions of satisfaction with parenting arrangementsRegardless of the parenting orders in place, participants were asked to indicate whether parenting and property arrangements were resolved, and their perception as to how the current parenting arrangements are working for them, the other parent and for the children. Higher scores indicated greater degrees of resolution and/or satisfaction with arrangements (Table 24).


T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

T1 (baseline)

T2 (10 weeks)

CCVT (N) 18 10 14 3 32 13Mean scores Perception of satisfaction with arrangements (SD)

15.83 (5.12)

17.20 (4.73)

13.57 (4.93)

12.67 (1.53)

14.84 (5.09)

16.15 (4.60)

8.8%

Uniting (N) 34 10 32 12 66 22Mean scores Perception of satisfaction with arrangements (SD)

15.56 (4.02)

14.10 (6.17)

14.06 (6.03)

14.33 (4.58)

14.83 (5.11)

14.23 (5.23)

-4.0%

TOTAL (N) 52 20 46 15 98 35Mean scores Perception of

15.65 (4.39)

15.65 (5.58)

13.91 (5.66)

14.00 (4.16)

14.84 (5.08)

14.94 (5.02)

0.7%

31 | P a g e

satisfaction with arrangements (SD)

Table 24: Perceptions of satisfaction with parenting arrangements - descriptives

When scores were averaged, there was no significant improvement noted for the entire group. However, there was a significant interaction between gender and service provider in relation to their satisfaction with the parenting arrangements (Table 25). For CCVT, males increased their perceived satisfaction with arrangements, whilst females decreased their perceived satisfaction. For Uniting, females had increased perceived overall satisfaction, whilst males had reduced perceived satisfaction with parenting arrangements overall (Figure 8).

Source Numerator df Denominator df F Sig.Intercept 1.00 86.22 0.38 0.54Servicecode 1.00 85.71 2.53 0.12Gendercode 1.00 83.53 3.73 0.06Relcode 1.00 86.64 1.19 0.28Servicecode * Gendercode 1.00 84.35 4.03 0.048Servicecode * Relcode 1.00 86.19 2.37 0.13Gendercode * Relcode 1.00 83.54 2.99 0.09Servicecode * Gendercode * Relcode

1.00 84.46 3.75 0.06

Table 25: Fixed effects - perceived satisfaction with parenting arrangements

Figure 8: Arrangement satisfaction by gender, service organisation

32 | P a g e

When individual items were compared (Table 26), there was no significant movement overall in any of the items or the total score, with a significant spread of variability noticed. It is likely that given the relatively short time frame between when the agreement was reached and the time they were surveyed, it was hard for participants to comment on changes which had potentially not yet been implemented in practice.

Domain Qst Wording Paired Differences

t df Sig.(2-tailed)

Mean SD

Perceived satisfaction with parenting arrangements

8aThe extent to which our parenting arrangements are sorted

0.22 1.31 1.02 35 0.32

8bThe extent to which our property/finances arrangements are sorted.

-0.17 1.26 -0.74 28 0.47

9aThe current parenting arrangements are working well for me

0.00 1.20 0.00 35 1.00

9bThe current parenting arrangements are working well for the other parent

0.00 1.62 0.00 35 1.00

9cThe current parenting arrangements are working well for the child/ren

0.26 1.29 1.18 34 0.25

TOTAL 0.39 4.38 0.53 35 0.60Table 26: Perception of satisfaction with arrangements

An analysis of correlations between these items (shown in Table 27) identified a pattern whereby those clients who reported that their parenting arrangements were more resolved, were significantly more likely to have resolved financial arrangements, and to be satisfied with how these arrangements were working for themselves and their children (not for the other parent). In addition, those clients who were satisfied with how the arrangements were working for themselves were more likely to feel that arrangements were working for the children, but less likely to perceive the arrangements as working for the other parent. By contrast, those clients who reported that arrangements were not working for them were more likely to feel that the current arrangements were working for the other parent, but not for the children. That is, respondents were likely to indicate a similar level of satisfaction with arrangements for themselves and the children, and to have the reverse perception for the other parent.

8a 8b 9a 9b 9cSpearman's rho

8a Correlation Coefficient .277** .359** .188 .414**

Sig. (2-tailed) .008 .000 .061 .000N 91 101 100 100

8b Correlation Coefficient .197 -.092 .148Sig. (2-tailed) .060 .390 .162N 92 90 91

9a Correlation Coefficient -.199* .723**

Sig. (2-tailed) .044 .000N 102 101

33 | P a g e

9b Correlation Coefficient -.056Sig. (2-tailed) .581N 99

Table 27: Correlations between perceptions of success of parenting arrangements.

Satisfaction with Service The last client domain was ’Client Satisfaction’ with the service. This domain was only measured at follow up, and overall satisfaction levels were quite high for both services, as indicated below. Each individual item was scored from 1-5, with higher numbers indicating greater satisfaction. The total satisfaction score is the sum of each item (16 items * 5 = 80 maximum satisfaction score). Results are provided in Table 28)

Qst Catholic Care Uniting TotalMean N SD Mea

nN SD Mea

nN SD

sat1 The program communicated with me and provided services in a timely manner

4.23 13 0.60 4.10 20 1.02 4.15 33 0.87

sat2 I felt heard by the practitioner/service and was treated with respect

4.69 13 0.48 4.35 20 0.88 4.48 33 0.76

sat3 My needs were taken into account in processes (e.g. shuttle, culture/religion)

4.38 13 0.65 4.50 20 0.61 4.45 33 0.62

sat4 I gained more understanding of my child/ren’s, mine and my ex-partners rights and responsibilities

3.85 13 1.21 3.95 20 0.83 3.91 33 0.98

sat5 I gained a more realistic idea of what to expect and what is possible in these circumstances

3.77 13 1.24 3.85 20 0.99 3.82 33 1.07

sat6 We were able to save on legal fees and court costs as a result of participation in the service

2.73 11 1.42 3.05 19 1.65 2.93 30 1.55

sat7 Confidentiality was handled appropriately

4.60 10 0.52 4.50 20 0.61 4.53 30 0.57

sat8 I would use this service again to assist with future issues

4.15 13 0.90 4.05 20 1.00 4.09 33 0.95

sat9 I would recommend this service to others

4.50 12 0.80 4.25 20 0.85 4.34 32 0.83

sat10 The service provided was neutral and fair

4.50 12 0.67 4.40 20 0.82 4.44 32 0.76

sat11 I had an adequate opportunity to put my side forward

4.42 12 0.79 4.20 20 1.06 4.28 32 0.96

sat12 The child/ren's needs were adequately considered in the process

4.25 12 0.97 4.20 20 0.77 4.22 32 0.83

sat13 I felt I had a say in the decision-making

3.92 12 1.08 3.70 20 1.26 3.78 32 1.18

34 | P a g e

sat14 I was able to negotiate without feeling coerced

4.00 11 0.77 4.00 19 1.33 4.00 30 1.14

sat15 I didn’t have to compromise beyond what I felt was acceptable

3.90 10 0.74 4.26 19 1.05 4.14 29 0.95

sat16 The service was helpful to me 4.31 13 0.95 4.20 20 1.24 4.24 33 1.12SatTot

61.54/80 13 12.66 65.00 20 11.59 63.64 33 11.95

Table 28: Service satisfaction by agency

Overall satisfaction was high, with females reporting significantly higher service satisfaction than males (F = 5.394, p = .027). There was no difference in satisfaction between the two services.

Qualitative analysisClient feedbackThe 10- and 20-week Surveys incorporated two qualitative questions, the first asking about any benefits of the service and the second seeking suggestions for improvements. Response rates for both services (combined and separate) were as follows:

1. Please list any benefits to your or your family as a result of involvement in this service: 10-week Survey: 23 client responses (6 from CCVT, 17 from Uniting) 20-week Survey: 6 client responses (4 from CCVT, 2 from Uniting)

2. Please list any suggestions you have for improving this this service: 10-week Survey: 23 client responses (8 from CCVT, 15 from Uniting) 20-week Survey: 5 client responses (3 from CCVT, 2 from Uniting)

A summary of the client qualitative feedback is provided below. For more detailed feedback, please refer to Appendix G.

Benefits Benefits were noted by clients of both services. The most common benefit for both services was increased understanding/knowledge/awareness

of their situation, followed by gaining helpful strategies to use in their situation. Therapeutic benefits of the service (i.e. counselling) were noted, and the benefits of increasing

understanding of their child/ren’s perspective. Direct benefits for children were noted, including their being happy to attend the service and/or

happy with its outcomes in terms of reduced conflict or increased contact with a parent. One client indicated savings on legal fees and having an opportunity to negotiate. The other party

in this case noted at 20-weeks, the benefit of reduced time and costs associated with use of the service in comparison to court.

At 10-weeks, two clients noted no benefits were achieved (Uniting). At 20-weeks, two clients noted benefits from involvement in the service, but that overall, they

perceived the situation had not changed in relation to their high conflict and/or court returns, and one noted they don’t know what else would help (CCVT).

Suggestions Combined, results for the 10-week Survey indicate suggestions tended to be different for the two services (CCVT and Uniting), which may reflect differences in the service models.

35 | P a g e

Clients from both services suggested the importance of providing these services earlier (e.g. 4 years ago, at ‘filing’/interim stage, prior to the final hearing). One client noted the importance at least of having the program written into Final Orders.

Clients of Uniting suggested increased clarity of service processes, including development of lists for discussion prior to mediation. In terms of practicalities of service provision, the challenge of being responsive to clients in a timely way is noted, along with requests for after-hour services.

Practice challenges are noted for practitioners regarding: working with clients who do not follow through with agreements or court orders; providing feedback to parties in relation to issues of concerns and child-risk; and breaking the family cycle of going to court.

Concerns around the suitability of survey questions was also noted by three clients.

Practitioner Focus groups:This section provides a summary of the staff learnings from both Uniting and CCVT. Staff Focus Groups were held separately with each service in August 2017. Five Uniting staff attended a Focus Group on 4th August 2017 and seven CCVT staff attended a session on 17th August 2017. Attendees included: Managers; Family Counsellors; Intake staff; Family Law specialists and Senior FDR Practitioners.

At the start of each session, the program delivery was discussed, including variations from the planned models. The focus groups then sought feedback in relation to the following areas:

Program Establishment: What needs to be considered in setting up a program such as this? Target Group: Which types of families benefit from which programs/interventions? Delivery: What are key processes and interventions to support positive change? Outcomes: What are some of the positive outcomes seen? Evaluation: How should programs go about evaluating programs such as this?

Provided below is a summary of each intervention and staff key learnings. An overall summary of staff feedback in relation to the POPE pilots is provided in the Discussion section of this report.

Catholic Care Victoria Tasmania’s Post Orders Support Pilot (POSP) CCVT’s POSP piloted a new brief intervention which included:

Brief individual assessments with each parent/party focussed on current issues and dynamics; Use of the Adult Attachment and Care Give Interviews along with other resources to build parent

insight and focus on the best interests of the child/ren; Providing an early focus on ensuring consistent understanding and application of existing Orders; Providing key psycho-education (e.g. regarding the experience of children, emotion-regulation,

communication and conflict) tailored within eight individual counselling/coaching sessions with each party;

Ensuring referrals to other services and interventions where indicated.

This trial enabled CCVT to observe the benefits and limitations of:

Providing an individual-based education and support approach (versus a group-based approach) for separated parties/families with entrenched high conflict;

36 | P a g e

Incorporating a session with a legal professional to strengthen consistency of understanding and application of existing Orders.

The pilot has strengthened CCVT’s connection and communication with court systems, and provided insights to further build effective referral pathways and two-way communication between courts and Post Order support services. CCVT has identified that effective court orders require parties to participate in assessment and follow recommendations of Post Order support services, and require services to provide written feedback to courts regarding attendance and recommendations. CCVT also identified a need for communication between services and courts around problematic orders identified (e.g. internal inconsistencies, lack of clarity) to improve the effectiveness and ability for families to understand and comply with their orders.

CCVT found commonly at least one party was reluctant to engage and court orders were important to leverage involvement. ‘No shows’ and re-schedules were relatively common in this client group.

Whilst the concept of the CCVT program was a structured 8-session intervention, CCVT was able to apply this flexibly on a case by case basis depending on the assessment of client needs. For example, sessions could be condensed or not delivered if assessed as not appropriate for a client.

Client outcomes observed included increased insight of parents regarding: the children’s needs and perspectives; the relationship dynamics and how to manage these; and how to sustain the wellbeing of themselves and their children for the long-term amidst the dynamics. Families tended to return to court to finalise orders, rather than withdraw from the court process as a result of POSP involvement, within the timeframe of the pilot. It is possible that there were further benefits to changed behaviours or reduced acrimony within the court system and after, but this wasn’t captured in the scope of this evaluation.

CCVT’s learnings in relation to the needs of families with entrenched high conflict and family violence, particularly in relation to the benefits of group-based interventions for engagement and change with perpetrators of highly controlling and abusive behaviours, are important for the broader Family Law Services sector.

CCVT considered a future Post Orders support service would ideally involve flexibility in terms of components and interventions matched to identified needs, including an option for individual or group-based education and support. They also consider interventions may be lengthy due to the complexity of issues in these families. These are important learnings.

Regarding evaluation of a Post Orders support service going forward, CCVT suggest further consideration of items which ask about the other party and of items asking about family safety, indicating monitoring of safety may be best left within assessment processes only. They indicate a recent incident may alter client responses and could be captured within the process outcomes measurement. They also suggested measuring change at a later time-point than 10 weeks (e.g. around 6 months) would be more representative of the benefits of the service, and again at the end of their involvement (e.g. around 12 months).

Uniting’s Post Orders Intervention (POI)Uniting’s POI program piloted a hybrid model with a FDR Practitioner and Family Counsellor facilitating sessions with individual adult parties/parents. They found the benefits of the two roles assisted engagement and strengthened the effects, with one (the Family Counsellor) able to focus on

37 | P a g e

psycho-education and gentle challenge of parents where needed, while the other (FDR Practitioner) could maintain a more impartial role.

Uniting’s model was open-ended and flexible, with components delivered based on assessed needs. Key elements provided for each family included:

Individual counselling for each adult party/parent, provided by POI where possible or internal referrals;

Counselling incorporating attention to trauma-related symptoms and support, understanding the relationship dynamics and effective boundaries and communication, the perspectives and needs of the children, and confidence in effective parenting strategies;

Where appropriate, Child-Inclusive Practice (CIP) was provided with children over 5 years old seen by a child consultant who provided feedback to each parent. Alternatively, feedback was provided by the Family Counsellor regarding the child developmental needs;

Additional interventions included children being referred to a group therapy program for 5-18 year olds, additional individual counselling via Anchor (Uniting’s support program for children and young people experiencing separation and divorce), and FDR.

Uniting also developed partnerships with courts and legal professionals, including Independent Child Lawyers (ICL’s). Uniting promoted the program as designed to divert parties with Final Orders from returning to court, and wanted to differentiate the program from Uniting's existing POP program (Keeping Contact), where parties are referred by a judge via an interim order. Both ICL’s and judges were enthusiastic about the service, and referrals were obtained easily. There were 47 court referrals, of which 44 were made at the time of Final Orders. Where referrals were made in relation to Interim Orders, judges specified a period of time for parents to contact the service after Interim Orders hearings (ranging from 7-42 days). It was suggested that clients on Interim Orders were more suitable for this program, as court leverage for participation was gone once Final Orders were made. As for CCVT, ICLs were effective advocates for referrals on orders.

Uniting likewise noted challenges in engagement, typically with one party of the family. At times, court leverage was needed and not all offers of support were accepted. In other cases, both parties were motivated to participate to improve dynamics for the longer-term and avoid ongoing court costs and time. Families tended to have complex issues present, such as parental mental illness, substance abuse and trauma in their backgrounds, in addition to current entrenched high conflict and/or family violence dynamics.

Client outcomes observed included direct benefits for children, such as not being used as messengers, having consistent parenting approaches across households (e.g. consistency with medication regimes), reduced exposure to conflict, and increased ‘true permission’ to see and have meaningful relationships with both parents/parties. Outcomes for parents/parties included: lots of small agreements being achieved which built confidence and capacity for further agreements; increased patience and tolerance to work through issues together; reduced focus on negative feelings towards the other party; increased insight about own behaviour within dynamics; increased capacity to understand the perspective of the child/ren and other party; and increased acceptance of fair arrangements. Not all cases showed positive change, however no deterioration as such was observed.

Uniting noted the resource-intensive nature of this intervention, including the time taken for follow-up between sessions (clients, courts and other services), and administration. The intervention was

38 | P a g e

provided under time pressure of court return dates, which motivated family involvement but also was challenging to manage and resource. Uniting noted these are very complex and challenging families to work with.

Uniting considers that future interventions would ideally be longer than 12 months, as they were just starting to see progress in some families. They also suggested that ideally, several counselling sessions could be offered for each party within the service.

Regarding evaluation of a Post Orders support service going forward, Uniting note the role of the Intake worker to engage clients into the evaluation was critical. The time required for survey completion was significant and needed to be suitably factored in. Regarding the client survey, parents found it difficult to respond in relation to one child only. Clients were more willing to complete surveys while present at the service, although phone calls to clients were conducted to obtain a number of 10- and 20- week surveys. Once a client had finished with the services or if only involved briefly, they were generally not willing to participate after that point in time. Both Uniting and CCVT consider the 10-week survey was too soon to show the effects of the intervention with this client group.

DiscussionPOPE Pilot modelsBoth POPE pilot models offered by CCVT and Uniting were quite different in approach and together provide valuable learnings for Post Order support services going forward. The combined findings in relation to staff feedback are outlined below.

CCVT trialled an eight-session structured intervention with each parent in a case. A Family Counsellor was the key worker for each case. The eight sessions involved brief assessment and structured attachment and caregiver assessment tools, psycho-education and coaching tailored to the families’ needs (e.g. understanding the experience and perspective of the children), and referrals. A session with a legal practitioner/senior FDR Practitioner was key to support consistent understanding and application of the orders.

CCVT was able to draw on existing organisational capabilities in relation to their conjoint mediation therapy (COMET, provided by an FDR Practitioner and Family Counsellor) and dual-practitioner FDR models (2 FDR Practitioners for complex, high risk cases) and CIP, although these were not used to a great extent in the 12-month timeframe of this pilot. CCVT incorporated some flexibility of approach based on individual assessments, for example, sessions being condensed or left out if determined as not appropriate.

Uniting piloted a hybrid model with both a Family Counsellor and FDR Practitioner involved in each session with each client. Uniting’s intervention was customised for each case, based on assessment. The Family Counsellor took a lead role in providing psycho-education and at times challenging clients relating to the needs and experiences of children and parenting. The FDR Practitioner maintained their impartiality for the purpose of FDR interventions.

Uniting used CIP with cases as appropriate, with a Child Consultant seeing each child (over 5 years old) individually and providing feedback to each parent with POI practitioners present. The POI Family Counsellor provided general feedback to each parent for children under 5 years old or without siblings. Children were also commonly referred to Uniting’s therapy program for 5-18 year

39 | P a g e

olds (Uniting Anchor, individual and group-based support program for children and young people experiencing separation and divorce).

Uniting’s model included individual adult counselling sessions, either provided directly within the POI service or via internal referrals. Due to resourcing constraints, POI practitioners provided individual counselling directly for only four cases.

Within counselling sessions, Uniting placed focus on identifying and assisting trauma-related responses in parents/parties, as well as assisting with understanding and managing relationship dynamics, and affirming parenting strengths while supporting increased capacity to understand and meet the needs and best interests of the child/ren.

Only a small proportion of cases in each service got to the point of being able to utilise formal FDR processes. This was more common at Uniting, with a total of 13 cases utilising FDR (of 58 initially referred cases), and 20 hybrid shuttle FDR sessions provided as part of this pilot, each taking 3 hours per session. The CCVT model allowed for FDR as part of the program where deemed appropriate, but in most cases it was not considered either suitable or necessary. At Geelong, one case utilised FDR, with one 2 hour session provided. For Dandenong, 2 cases were referred for FDR services but clients did not follow through with these referrals.

In focus groups, Uniting noted the resource-intensive nature of their intervention, including the follow-up needed with clients, courts and other services. Both services noted the resourcing needed to engage many parties/families in this target group.

Referral pathwaysTo gain suitable referrals, CCVT met with judges, Family Consultants, Court Registrar Collaborative Law Group and Legal Aid ICLs. Likewise, Uniting met with judges and the Court Registry Manager, and communicated with ICLs by email.

Both services experienced judges to be enthusiastic about the pilot services, and ICLs were particularly useful in advocating for referrals. CCVT found court referrals slower to materialise and hence saw a greater number of internal referrals. As noted earlier, court referrals were the most common mechanism for engagement, providing 81% of Uniting referrals who successfully engaged with the program, and 60% for CCVT.

A set of standard orders were drafted by Melbourne judges with CCVT (see Appendix I for an example). The Uniting program was promoted to judges as being suitable for families on Interim Orders, differentiating from the existing POP program, ‘Keeping Contact’, which is designed for families with Final Orders. Both Melbourne and Parramatta judges in some cases included timeframes in their Interim Orders for parties to contact the service provider. Some families were referred back to Uniting’s POI after their hearings.

Both services have strengthened their connection and communication with local courts and legal professionals as a result of the pilot but more work is needed to effectively deliver a program providing Post Order support.

CCVT learned protocols are needed for two-way communication with the courts. Court orders need to include wording which requires parties’ involvement in assessment and compliance with service recommendations; which required POSP providing client attendance information and recommendations back to the court. POSP also needs an avenue to raise concerns about ambiguous

40 | P a g e

or contradictory orders and ideally an avenue for orders to be corrected by judges without the need for a hearing (e.g. by a ‘Slip Rule’).

Key client outcomes according to client surveysAs noted, the desired client outcomes for this program related to:

Communication/Negotiation/Conflict in Inter-parental relationship Insight/Accountability/ Understanding of the orders and system Co-Parenting capacity Wellbeing and Safety: adults and children Perceptions of satisfaction with parenting arrangements Satisfaction with the service and what was helpful about the service

Overall, the communication and conflict domain showed a small 1.5% improvement, which was not significant, but was attributed to a 5.7% improvement for CCVT clients. However, some key items did improve significantly. In particular, there was an improved overall perception of the inter-parental relationship, and an increase in reciprocal respect, which suggests that the functional aspects of the inter-parental relationship improved, including the ability to recognize the role of the other parent and to respect that role in their child’s life.

In relation to the insight and understanding domain, whilst there was again no overall significant change (overall movement was 1.8% improvement), CCVT clients did show a larger 11.3% improvement (although this was still not significant). Overall, there were statistically significant gains in relation to understanding the existing orders and how to apply them, and the ability to access support for themselves and their families, which are positive indicators of change.

Co-parenting capacity domain was relatively stable, with some non-significant deterioration in overall scores (3.3% overall), largely attributed to CCVT clients (8.7% deterioration). This may reflect a more accurate understanding of specific behaviours and/or more honest reporting at the second time point. There was also significant contrast, particularly at baseline, in respondents’ description of their own self-awareness and skills as being greater than the other parent’s. Individual items did show significant improvements, particularly with regard to reciprocated respect in front of the children, and the described behaviour of the other parent, including increased understanding and flexibility to meet the child’s needs.

Some respondents did comment to providers, that it was difficult to respond to items about the behaviour of the other parent, and to choose one child to report on (as requested in the survey).

There was a highly significant improvement in mental health and wellbeing for both adults (39.2% improvement, as measured by the GHQ-12) and children (25.1% improvement in ratings reported by parents/caregivers using constructed measures) over the course of the intervention. Whilst adult wellbeing was not an explicit goal of the program, the opportunity to raise issues and actively seek to resolve concerns with respect to parenting arrangements appears to have reduced levels of emotional distress for participants. This would be expected to flow on to a more positive environment for children where parents are able to focus more on the needs of the children. Participants also reported increased child wellbeing, which may be reflective of these changes, or the opportunity for the children themselves to engage with therapeutic support, which was offered as part of the pilot programs in both agencies.

41 | P a g e

The client’s self-rated sense of personal safety and reduced exposure of children to violence also showed significant improvement (50.3% for CCVT, 35.2% for Uniting, 39.1% overall), which is positive given that there was a significant proportion of families reporting exposure to family violence at the start of the program.

Lastly, there was a high level of satisfaction with the service provided overall, for both agencies. CCVT clients reported average satisfaction of 62/80, whilst Uniting clients reported satisfaction of 65/80, but this was not a significant difference. Females did report significantly higher service satisfaction than males. The only area which was not strongly endorsed related to potential savings in legal fees. This may reflect a significant cohort of clients of both services were still engaged with court processes and involved in this program under court orders, hence were anticipating a return to court, and some families accessed legal aid funding. This is consistent with the baseline reports that 6% of clients had previously used legal aid themselves, whilst 20% reported that their partners had accessed legal aid funding previously, which was consistent across both agencies.

Limitations of analysisThe statistical analysis is limited by three main factors. Firstly, only around a third of participants completed 10-week surveys, hence any analysis of change is limited to those who were willing to complete a second measure. This results in a relatively small sample group, particularly when reviewing each agency and gender, hence the statistical power to identify change is limited. Secondly, those who completed the second survey may also represent a potentially biased cohort, which may include those with greater literacy and competence with written materials, those who remained engaged with the service and those who were potentially less distressed by their inter-parental conflicts. It may also include those invested in the conflict and reporting negatively about the other parent. Thirdly, as the measure was taken at 10 weeks, some families were still engaged with the service and they had had limited opportunity to implement strategies or make changes to improve their family functioning. Whilst a follow up measure at 20 weeks was planned, there was very low take up of this measure, with agencies reporting that once families had left the service, it was very difficult to engage them in any conversation including completing follow up surveys.

Having noted these limitations, the quantitative data does show some significant improvements over time, which are supported by the qualitative feedback provided by both clients and practitioners.

In focus groups service staff identified observed positive client outcomes from their services. For CCVT, these included an increased capacity of parents to: be self-reflective and recognise what was within their control to change in the current dynamics; focus on the children’s developmental needs and best interests rather than on conflict with the other party/parent; better manage conflict and abuse dynamics and communication; plan for managing the situation in the longer-term to support the wellbeing of their children and themselves. Most of the families were on Interim Orders and only one withdrew from the court process, others were motivated to return to court to finalise orders.

Outcomes observed by Uniting included direct child benefits: reduced exposure to parent conflict; increased ‘true permission’ from parents for children to see and have relationships with them both; reduced use of children to pass messages; and improved consistency of parenting approaches (e.g. medications). Parents were able to experience achievement of small agreements together, which build their confidence and motivation to achieve further agreements together. There appeared to be increased ability in parents to consider the perspective of the other parent/party and the child/ren,

42 | P a g e

and insight into their own behaviour, and some increased patience and tolerance of the other parent to work through issues in the child/ren’s interests rather than being focussed on the other parent.

Key learnings As was expected, the families referred to both CCVT and Uniting were in entrenched high conflict, and many involved controlling and abusive (i.e. family violence) behaviours, generally by one party.

Many families had complex issues present, including parental mental illness, substance use, and/or other trauma experiences in their backgrounds, which is supported by baseline assessments of the nature and level of risks involved. Many had been involved with multiple court cases and high legal costs and hence many parties were motivated to participate to avoid future court hearings and costs.

Both services found one party was often harder to engage than the other. The leverage of a court order was needed for a number of matters. Missed appointments and re-schedules were common for both services.

Some parties/parents were not willing to engage or to gain insight or change their own behaviours. Where only one parent/party attended, they were referred for individual support.

Uniting found families on Interim Orders required shorter timeframes for interventions than their usual POP due to upcoming court hearings, which provided incentive for clients to make progress prior to the court return date.

CCVT considered their use of the Adult Assessment Interview (AAI) and Caregiving Interview (CGI) in assessment were helpful for parents to understand their own personal experiences influencing their responses, and to focus on their role as a parent and the needs of the child/ren.

They considered the session with the legal practitioner was also key, to help clarify interpretation and application of the orders. Ambiguities and contradictions of orders were identified and attempts made to address these.

CCVT observed the benefits of the psycho-education information and resources. Importantly, they noted some people are more suited to a group-based intervention, in particular, parents/parties who are perpetrators of controlling or abusive behaviours.

CCVT saw group sessions having the benefits of providing a sense of peer support and practical learnings from others who have had similar experiences. It also enables parents to hear a range of experiences and perspectives which can influence their attitudes, beliefs and behaviours, more than what their own ex-partner or a professional might say. A group intervention reduces intervention attrition rates for a number of parents/parties.

Uniting considered 3-10 individual counselling sessions for each parent/party being beneficial, incorporating monitoring and support for trauma-related reactions, support with understanding relationship dynamics, and support with understanding the needs and best interests of child/ren.

An FDR process was not used to a great degree by either service, although it is possible this would be coming to the fore at this point of time in case interventions. Both services considered there would be benefits for some families in having access to legally-assisted FDR (LA FDR). LAFDR may be particularly relevant for high conflict families and those experiencing family violence, where legally assisted FDR may help to reach agreement where individuals are unable to negotiate an agreement.

43 | P a g e

This finding is consistent with a prior evaluation of the Family Relationship Centre (FRC) Legal Assistance Partnerships Program (Moloney et al. 2011). This evaluation sought feedback from FRC Managers, FDR and legal practitioners and clients. Findings indicated well-targeted LA FDR supported by clear protocols has “considerable potential” to achieve core objectives of: increased focus on the best interests of children; addressing power imbalances; and reducing adversarial dispute resolution. One benefit according to some clients was the advocacy role provided by a partnerships lawyer for example, mothers with experience of domestic violence or fathers experiencing difficulties negotiating time with their children. A LA FDR process was specifically seen to benefit those who require a greater level of legal awareness or certainty, and those for whom the mediation process is inappropriate or unlikely to be helpful in the immediate future.

CCVT noted the POSP structure is not suitable for families with children not having contact with a parent/party.

Overall, both Uniting and CCVT considered a longer-term and flexible intervention was needed to support these families at risk of ongoing court returns.

Suggestions in relation to evaluation Uniting noted the role of the Intake worker in engaging clients into the evaluation process was critical. They noted client survey completion time would range from 30-90 minutes and needed to be allowed for. CCVT and Uniting received mixed feedback from clients in relation to the evaluation survey, with some clients and staff seeing benefits, while other clients found some items difficult to answer (particularly those relating to the other party/parent or choosing one child to report on), or upsetting (the safety ones).

The possibility of perpetrators of controlling or abusive behaviours reporting they are victims, suggested that safety monitoring is better assessed by practitioners and possibly within an assessment process rather than within an outcomes measure.

Outcomes domains suitable for measurement for Post Orders support services include:

Inter-parental relationship functioning (including communication and conflict) Understanding of orders and the system Cooperative co-parenting Adult and child wellbeing Satisfaction with parenting arrangements/orders Satisfaction with service Process outcomes in terms of service components undertaken

When asked about recommendations for future evaluations of such services, agencies identified that data collection should include:

Client/case characteristics

Culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds of families and use of interpreters Practitioner-reported (based on assessment) recent risk issues for each client, for example,

mental illness diagnosis, substance abuse, family violence including physical and emotional abuse (e.g. controlling behaviours), trauma-related reactions observed, significant (emotional or financial) power imbalance, high conflict driven by one vs both, child abuse or neglect concerns

44 | P a g e

Prior/current court case/s and orders (court-imposed/by consent)

Service components/process outcomes

Referral sources (court vs internal referrals, re-referrals after hearings) Numbers of missed appointments and re-scheduled appointments Reasons referrals not accepted by service (e.g. one party not willing to engage) Referrals made to other services internal and external (Family Law Services and other

specialist support services), including number of clients referred for individual support when one party was not willing to engage

Numbers of individual or group-based counselling/support sessions attended by adult clients during the service (internal and external)

Key issues covered in individual or group-based education and support Use of CIP (i.e. child/ren seen, feedback to parents individually) Direct engagement of children in individual or group therapeutic support Joint FDR sessions provided and variations in processes used (e.g. shuttle, dual-practitioner,

legally-assisted etc.) Other service components provided and accessed Reasons for closure Section 60I Certificates issued and grounds Withdrawals from court processes

Other recommendations for future evaluations include:

Obtaining feedback from other stakeholders, e.g. courts and legal practitioners Ensuring care with administrative details, including client, case and party coding and tracking

procedures to maximise matched surveys Concurrent evaluation of existing POP services to compare client and process outcomes Examination of which specific program components assist which families Integration of evaluation measures/processes with other evaluations of Family Law Service

and related services

In relation to evaluation processes, CCVT suggested surveys are collected prior to commencement, halfway through an intervention and at the end of the intervention, at the discretion of the practitioners, rather than at set 10- and 20- week time-points. Uniting considered the 10-week survey time-point too soon, as most clients had not participated in their individual counselling at that time. They also found a majority of clients who had finished with the service or had minimal involvement, declined to continue with the evaluation. Uniting noted greater success in asking clients to complete surveys while at the service, otherwise phone calls were the most effective way to have them completed.

RecommendationsThere was some consistency across qualitative feedback and recommendations provided by POPE pilot clients and staff. These have been integrated in the recommendations below.

1. Post Orders support services are recommended to be trialled earlier in the separation trajectory for families with high conflict (e.g. at the filing stage or Interim Order stage)

2. Where a family has not accessed support earlier, consider including participation in Final Orders

45 | P a g e

3. The target group of families with entrenched high conflict (and related risk of returns to court) have complex issues and needs, and require a longer-term and flexible service model

4. Key elements of effective Post Orders support services include:a. Individual assessment for each adult party and flexibility to match interventions based

on identified and changing needs over timeb. Clarification of current order interpretations and applications early within interventionsc. Psycho-education tailored to individual case needs, available in individual or group

contexts, with groups being indicated for parties with controlling or abusive behavioursd. Psycho-education to include information

i. to build understanding of family dynamics and behavioursii. to build understanding of the children’s experience, perspective and needs.

e. Psycho-education to include practical strategies: i. to strengthen parenting confidence and skills

ii. to strengthen communication and conflict resolution skills and strategiesiii. to manage ongoing dynamics and co-parenting issues

f. Provide therapeutic processes and/or counselling which is supportive and helpful regarding managing emotions and trauma-related responses, and coping with their situation

g. Close connection with a range of other post-separation interventions and services and other specialist support services (e.g. specialist family violence, mental health and substance use services) for effective referrals

h. Case-management where indicatedi. Suitable client/case review and closure processes

5. Elements which add value include: a. Use of Adult Attachment Interview and Caregiving Interview within assessment, to build

insight for positive changeb. Access to a legal practitioner to assist with consistent interpretation and application of

orders and to liaise with courts where orders are problematicc. Use of Child-Inclusive Practice to build parent capacity to understand child/ren’s

experiences and focus on their best interestsd. Involving children directly in therapeutic processes (i.e. individual counselling and/or

groups)e. Provision of longer-term individual adult counselling f. Providing opportunities for parties to negotiate issues (i.e. hybrid Family Dispute

Resolution (FDR) intervention and legally-assisted FDR) and develop clear lists of issues to be addressed prior to conducting FDR

6. Effective referral pathways for Post Orders support services require concerted and sustained collaboration, including face-to-face engagement with local court staff (e.g. judges, court registrars, collaborative law groups, and Independent Children’s lawyers) to develop effective two-way protocols for referrals and communication. This may relate to:

a. Referral of families on Interim Orders at risk of ongoing conflict and court returnsb. Orders which require attendance for assessment and following service

recommendationsc. Orders which require feedback from the service about attendance and

recommendations arising from feedback d. Communication channels to address ambiguous or contradictory orders with the courts

46 | P a g e

7. In relation to practitioner relationships with clients, and service processes more broadly: a. Consider flexibility to reduce barriers to participation (e.g. after-hours sessions) b. Be responsive as far as is practicable (e.g. responding to calls from clients in a timely way

etc.) c. Provide transparency regarding actions taken in relation to concerns raised, as far as is

possible in terms of confidentiality and safetyd. Provide clear information at the outset of service involvement regarding service

components available 8. Outcomes evaluation to monitor client benefits and engage staff in continual improvement

processes:a. Brief client surveys measuring key client outcome domains (as far as possible using items

which are experienced by clients as meaningful, and not using items which ask about the other party, or about only one child of a number of children in a family)

b. Staff surveys to measure process outcomes (i.e. intervention components engaged, referrals made, agreements attained) and changes to safety issues based on assessment

c. Time-points for client surveys to be prior to commencement of the intervention, midway through the intervention (around 6 months), and towards the end of the intervention, whenever that was for each case (around 12 months)

9. Suitable outcomes for measurement include: a. Inter-parental relationship functioning (communication and conflict)b. Understanding of orders and the systemc. Cooperative co-parentingd. Adult and child wellbeinge. Satisfaction with parenting arrangements/ordersf. Satisfaction with serviceg. Process outcomes in terms of service components undertaken

10. Data capture should also include client/case characteristics and dynamics

ConclusionsBoth the CCVT and Uniting programs evaluated in this report have worked with families entrenched in high conflict, with a significant proportion reporting power imbalance, controlling and abusive behaviour including emotional and physical family violence, significant loss and trauma, financial hardship and mental illness and substance use. As noted, the two models piloted were quite different in their structure and operations, with some challenges in operationalising the models. CCVT’s more structured intervention of supportive psycho-education and coaching focussed on understanding existing orders, the needs of the children and increasing the ability to focus on the children and more effectively co-parent. Uniting’s highly tailored model was resource intensive, involving hybrid delivery with a Family Counsellor and FDR Practitioner working together in each session with each client, with services based on assessment. Both services engaged additional internal services to support clients, including CIP, FDR and counselling, as required or deemed appropriate.

Program establishment and engagement was found to be difficult. Both agencies promoted their programs to relevant legal and court networks, who were enthusiastic in their reception of the program. However, this did not always result in referrals. Where referrals were made, increased leverage was provided by including the program in court orders. However, both services still

47 | P a g e

experienced frequent missed appointments and reschedules, with a significant investment of time required to work with these families.

Nevertheless, both programs appear to have delivered positive gains, at least for clients participating in the evaluation, from practitioner reports suggesting that these gains were reflective of the overall cohorts. For the quantitative analysis, sample sizes were relatively small, with only around one third of clients completing follow-up measures, resulting in a potentially biased sample. However, the results show generally positive trends, although at overall domain levels, these were largely non-significant. Statistically significant improvements were seen in reciprocal respect between parties, including in front of the child/ren, understanding of parenting orders and how to comply with them. There was significant improvement noted in mental health and wellbeing for adults and in reported child wellbeing. These gains may reflect increased clarity and the opportunity to resolve concerns, which flows to a more settled environment for the children. Personal safety and reduced exposure of children to violence also showed significant improvement, which was considered important given the significant proportion of families reporting high conflict and/or exposure to family violence at baseline. Participants of both programs reported high satisfaction with the services provided.

These positive results are consistent with the qualitative feedback from clients and practitioners. In particular, positive outcomes included increased capacity for parents to consider the needs and best interests of the children, to better manage communication and to avoid conflict or abuse. This resulted in reduced child exposure to conflict, more inter-parental consistency and greater ability for the children to have relationships with both parents. Adults also generally increased their capacity for self-reflection and insight, acceptance of personal responsibility and enhanced empathy or patience with the other parent/party. Achieving small agreements seemed to build good will and confidence to work towards further agreements. Overall, parties appeared to generally increase their ability to effectively co-parent the child/ren in the longer term.

In relation to key learnings, the importance of using court orders as leverage for engagement was highlighted, and it would be beneficial to incorporate increased opportunities to provide feedback to courts on how orders are working, to continue to refine this process. This was particularly effective with Interim Orders, where shorter timeframes due to upcoming court hearings provided incentives for clients to make visible progress.

The impact of psycho-education and resources was noted, with some clients particularly benefiting from receiving this information individually. Others may be more suited to group-based interventions, which allow parents to hear other experiences and perspectives and benefit from peer support. Both services noted the importance of being able to tailor services more specifically to the assessed client needs and readiness to change or reflect. They noted the need to provide longer-term, more flexible interventions to support these families at risk of ongoing court returns.

48 | P a g e

ReferencesAustralian Bureau of Statistics (2016). Community profile: Greater Dandenong LGA, Canberra,

Australia. Report retrieved from http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/communityprofile/LGA22670?opendocument

Australian Bureau of Statistics (2012). Personal Safety, Australia, 2012. Canberra, Australia. Report retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4906.0Chapter1002012

Goldberg (1978). General Health Questionnaire-12 item (GHQ-12). GL Assessment, London, UK.

Moloney, L., Kaspiew, R., De Maio, J., Deblaquiere, J., Hand, K. and Hosrfall, B. (2011). Evaluation of the Family Relationship Centre legal assistance partnerships program, Australian Institute of Family Studies, accessed 6/11/17 https://www.ag.gov.au/Search/Results.aspx?k=evaluation%20legal%20assistance%20program

Qu, L., Weston, R., Moloney, L., Kaspiew, R., & Dunstan, J. (2014). Post-separation parenting, property and relationship dynamics after five years. Canberra: Attorney-General’s Department.

Smyth (unpublished). Measures of reciprocal respect in separated couples. Used with permission from the author.

Buchanan, Maccoby & Dornbusch (1991). Caught between parents: Adolescent’s experience in divorced homes. Journal of Child Development, 62, 5, 1008-1029.

Ware, Nelson, Sherbourne & Stewart, 1992. A short-form of the SF-36. Adapted from Ware & Sherbourne (1992). The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36). Conceptual

49 | P a g e

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/4906.0Chapter1002012

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/communityprofile/LGA22670?opendocument

http://www.censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/census/2016/communityprofile/LGA22670?opendocument

AppendicesAppendix A: Program Logic

Parenting Orders Support Pilot: Consolidated Program Logic

Program Goal: The POP Pilot aims to divert parents from initiating applications for contraventions of parenting orders in the event of disputes.

CCVT: To assist separated parents to minimise conflict, promote the best interests of their children and divert them from initiating contraventions of parenting orders

Background/ Needs Objectives Inputs ActivitiesUF: Post Orders Intervention (POI)CCVT: Post Orders Support (POS)

Participants Short-Medium term outcomes (consolidated list)

Long-term Impacts

Most families with disputes about parenting children post separation resolve these out of court. However, a small minority return to court multiple times. It is in the best interests of children for these disputes to be resolved quickly and for parents to have skills to manage ongoing parenting responsibilities

Assist parents to comply with existing court orders

Avoid/reduce parents returning to court

To assist separated families to minimise conflict and focus on the best interests of their children

AGD: Funding and pilot support

Unifam and CCVT: Staff, training, facilities, resources, access to support, resources

CFRE: Evaluation framework, tools, support, data analysis and reporting.

Intake and assessment.

Initial individual consultation

Co-facilitation hybrid model*;

Assessment: risk; suitability etc.

Coaching, education, support

Triage On-going sessions

(hybrid); multi-party & / or individual

Child interviews / feedback, where

Parties / families with Interim or Final Parenting Orders, seeking or likely to need support and assistance to implement orders and avoid return to court

Increased understanding of parenting orders / court system.

Greater insight re impact of poorly-managed conflict, litigation on children.

Increased insight and accountability.

Improved parenting capacity and ability to focus on needs of children.

Increased predictability / stability for children

Increased ability to manage conflict / decreased conflict / family violence

Enhanced communication &

More cooperative post separation arrangements.

Improved child, individual, family & community wellbeing

Reduced litigation / court demands

50 | P a g e

cooperatively.

To address this issue, the AGD is conducting a Parenting Orders Program Enforcement Pilot (PO Pilot), operating in two organisations across three sites (Unifam: Parramatta; CatholicCare: Geelong and Dandenong).

appropriate Individual

counselling, as needed

Referrals *i.e. Family

Counsellor and FDRP /family law specialist

negotiation, inter-parental relationships

Better knowledge of post-separation supports to help with disputes outside court.

More cooperative post-separation arrangements & improved trust

Enhanced relationships between parent-child and significant others

Reduced legal costs, financial strain

Increased child & adult wellbeing, increased optimism, empowerment.

51 | P a g e

Appendix B: Evaluation framework Evaluation FrameworkProject BackgroundThe Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) is conducting a Parenting Orders Program Enforcement Pilot (PO Pilot) to provide support to families after they have been given interim or final parenting orders (both consent and judicially determined orders). It is in the best interests of children for disputes to be resolved quickly and for parents to have skills to manage ongoing parenting responsibilities cooperatively. The aim of the POP Pilot therefore is to divert parents from initiating applications for contraventions of parenting orders, which often occurs within 12 months of the orders being made.

Key outcomes of the pilot were therefore to include:

Reduction in parties returning to court regarding parenting orders Enhanced referral pathways between Federal Circuit Court registries/judges and pilot services Improved court processes for contraventions (in conjunction with other initiatives including new application

forms, affidavit templates and proposed registrar triaging for contravention applications)

Evaluation providerThe Centre for Family Research and Evaluation (CFRE, a collaboration between drummond street services and Deakin University) was contracted to assist the providers and AGD with development of an evaluation framework and an outcome measurement tool, evaluation support, data analysis and reporting.

Development of evaluation frameworkIn collaboration with the service providers and AGD, priority outcome domains and key pilot program processes were identified (as outlined below and further documented in the attached Program Logic). CFRE then provided the current document which outlines the evaluation framework and outcome measurement tools.

This evaluation framework notes the distinction between client and process outcomes. Client outcomes refer to intended program objectives for adults, children and families. These included adult client-rated changes for adults and a child in the family (regarding for example, attitudes, knowledge, wellbeing and/or behaviour) and outputs such as any new parenting orders during the evaluation period, as well as practitioner-rated changes to the nature or level of dispute or risk issues, across the evaluation period. Process outcomes refer to client feedback about their experience of the service, and practitioner information about the service processes undertaken with /experienced by the client/s, including referrals made, and reasons for closure.

The vast majority of items in the outcome measurement tool are quantitative in nature, involving ‘ticking’ which response applies from a number of category options provided (and being invited to include a new category where relevant). As exceptions, dates of survey completion and separation, estimated legal costs, and age of child of most concern were sought specifically. Only two open ended items were included, seeking client feedback about their experience of the service in their own words (any benefits for them or their family and any suggestions for service improvements).

PO Pilot structureThe pilot was designed to deliver additional family law services, with the existing Parenting Orders Program model modified to suit the post order support function. It was to include a triage component, a coaching role on understanding orders and referral to therapeutic interventions for additional support. Under a service agreement with AGD, the pilot providers are CatholicCare, (operating a Post Orders Support Program or POS in Geelong and Dandenong) and UnitingCare Unifam (now Uniting) (operating as a Post Orders Intervention Program or POI in Parramatta). The project intention was for each organisation to service approximately 50 families (estimated as 125 52 | P a g e

unique clients) over the 12-month pilot period from 30 June 2016, for a project total of 100 families (250 unique clients).

Service delivery timelines are as follows:

Unifam commenced seeing clients 1st July 2016, and anticipate ceasing seeing clients at the end of June 2017 CCVT commenced seeing clients 1st Aug and anticipate ceasing seeing clients at the end of July 2017

Evaluation timelinesConsidering the above service provision timeframes, evaluation data collection will be for 7 months (Unifam) and 8 months (CCVT), commencing 1st December 2016 and ceasing with the finish of the client work at end June/July 2017 (unless otherwise advised). Data analysis is to take place in August 2017, and the Evaluation Report will be provided at the end of September 2017.

For further information regarding data collection processes and implementation, please refer to the Practitioner Instructions and client and practitioner outcome survey tools.

Pilot operations Suitability criteria In a workshop with both service providers, the following pilot referral and suitability criteria were confirmed:

Referrals may be internal (from other programs within the pilot organisation, including Family Relationship Centres or other post-separation services) or external from the courts (either within a court order or via a court recommendation, for example, if a Contravention Application is made) or lawyers

Each pilot program will assess the suitability of referrals for cases with either Interim or Final Orders (which may be by Consent or court-imposed)

Cases may be suitable if o the Interim Order matter is not currently being heardo there is risk of/a new Contravention Application or Parenting Order Application being madeo they require support to understand and implement their existing Order in order to avoid a return to

court o they would benefit from an enhanced, as opposed to the existing, Parenting Orders Program, for

example with dual-practitioners (both Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner and Family Counsellor), case coordinator etc.

o both parties are willing to be involved in the pilot program Uniting is including cases with grandparents as parties, whereas CatholicCare is not

Program Processes/ModelThe pilot program processes were discussed and confirmed with both service providers as outlined in the Program Logic, provided as Appendix A to this document. This clarifies the overall project intentions and intended process and client outcomes.

Key components of the PO pilot services, some of which differ from their ‘standard’ Parenting Orders Program services, include the following:

Both PO Pilots will utilise two practitioners (dual practitioner/hybrid model) with both Family Counsellor and Family Dispute Resolution Practitioner/family law specialist present within initial individual consultations with each party, and again as needed for individual or joint sessions throughout the intervention

Both have articulated assessment processes Both services will utilise individual and joint adult sessions, including joint FDR sessions

53 | P a g e

Individual adult therapeutic sessions are included in both models, with specific priorities for support articulated by each (e.g. personal and interpersonal issues, Co-parenting, Adult attachment, emotional literacy, attunement and -regulation, communication and conflict management knowledge and skills)

Child-inclusive Practice, involving child consultations and feedback to parents, will be used for all Uniting PO pilot cases, and for some CCVT cases based on their assessment

Individual or group child therapy opportunities will be provided by both services as needed Both services will provide active referrals to other services, internal and external to their agencies, based on

identified needs, and a case-manager intention is articulated by Uniting to coordinate service involvement as required

CCVT has a defined 8-session intervention which is anticipated to take place over a 3-4 month period Uniting likewise has an articulated model and components, while the intervention and timelines will be

planned based on early and ongoing assessment, with the majority of the intervention likely to be completed by around 3 months

Both services place emphasis on supporting parents to understand and meet the child/ren’s best interests Both CCVT and Uniting’s client consent includes consent to share information with a court as needed (e.g.

regarding dates of attendance, advising if court-ordered services or continued involvement from POI is considered not appropriate, recommendations re continued POI or alternative services)

Both services utilise case review and closure planning processes

Client outcome domainsIn workshops with the providers, the following were agreed as the key client outcome domains, including their conceptualization. These domains were then mapped to relevant outcomes measures, using a combination of standardised and newly constructed items to be completed by the client or the practitioner, with the measure sources also provided below.

1. Insight/Accountability/ Understanding of the orders and system Increased understanding of existing parenting orders Increased engagement and compliance with existing court orders Increased knowledge of post-separation support services/resources Confidence to return to CCVT/Unifam in event of dispute/contravention rather than to court

Measurement of this domain included three items adapted from the LSSF Wave 3 Survey 1 and eight constructed items.

2. Communication/Negotiation /Inter-parental relationship Enhanced relationship with other party/parent (specifically relates to communication, negotiation,

minimise/self-manage conflict) Enhanced perceived respect for other party/parent Increased personal insight into the other party’s perspective/position Increased acknowledgement of personal responsibility

Measurement of this domain included the 25 items of the Parental Acrimony Scale Emery (1982), four items adapted from Smyth (unpublished) and one item from the LSSF Wave 3 Survey.

1 In 2006, the Attorney-General’s Department (AGD) and the then Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (FaHCSIA) commissioned the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) to undertake an extensive evaluation of the early effects of the reforms. As part of this work, AIFS developed the Longitudinal Study of Separated Families (LSSF), in consultation with AGD and FaHCSIA. 54 | P a g e

3. Parenting capacity Increased capacity to focus on the best interests of the children Increased insight into the impact of poorly managed/ exposure to conflict on children Increased emotional capacity of parties to focus on the children’s developmental needs (attunement)

Measurement of this domain incorporated two items adapted from Smyth (unpublished), seven items from the Caught in the Middle Scale (Maccoby, Buchanan and Dornbusch, 1991), and 11 constructed items.

4. Wellbeing and Safety- adults and children Increased child wellbeing (via parent report) Decreased Family violence/Increased safety Reduced personal anxiety, trauma and distress Enhanced personal wellbeing

The General Health Questionnaire-12 item (GHQ-12) (Goldberg, 1978) was used to measure adult wellbeing. Parents were asked to complete the child wellbeing measure in relation to their child (if there was only one) or their child of most concern to them at the pre time-point. It included nine items from the LSSF Wave 3 Survey, one of which was adapted from the SF-6 (Ware, Nelson, Sherbourne and Stewart, 1992). The family safety measure included five items from the LSSF Wave 3 Survey (which were adapted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Personal Safety Survey), and two constructed items.

Satisfaction with the service and what was helpful about the service (qualitative)

Satisfaction with service provided Feeling of respect Qualitative feedback about what was useful from the service

This domain was measured via 16 constructed quantitative items and 2 constructed qualitative items seeking their feedback in their own words regarding benefits experienced and suggestions for program improvements.

Process outcomesProcess outcomes were sought from either the client or the practitioner and included the following areas:

Referral source Referrals made during the evaluation period Services accessed by families previously, currently, subsequently to commencing Perceived methods of achieving agreements or arrangements (LSSF Wave 3 item) Reasons for closure

55 | P a g e

Appendix C: Client Information Sheet and Consent Form About the Post Orders Pilot Evaluation

Dear PO Pilot client,

You are being asked to help with the evaluation of a new Post Orders (PO) pilot program. The PO pilot is designed to help families understand and comply with parenting orders in the best interests of the children, outside the court system. This evaluation will help us see if this program is helpful for families and in what ways, and will inform decisions about practice and funding of programs.

Participation in the evaluation is voluntary and your decision about whether you take part or not will not affect the services you receive in any way. You are able to withdraw your consent at any time by notifying your practitioner.

Your responses to this survey are strictly confidential. The survey will be provided to the evaluators with a confidential client number, and no identifying information about you. Results to do with the study will be presented as summarised group findings and not individual findings.

If you are upset or distressed by any of the questions or while completing this survey, please discuss this with a program staff member, so they can provide you with some support. We also encourage you to speak with your GP or health practitioner. If you need support out of work hours, please contact Lifeline on 13 11 14 or the Family Violence hotline on 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732). Your practitioner will be made aware of your responses which may indicate risk and will discuss these with you to offer support. If your practitioner has serious concerns about your or your child’s safety they will discuss this with you. In exceptional circumstances, under their Duty of Care, they may also need to discuss their concerns with another worker or service, such as a Child protection service, to ensure your/their safety.

What will be involved?

1. Complete a Consent Form2. Complete the first survey immediately before your first face-to-face appointment. Each survey is expected to

take around 15 minutes. 3. Complete a second survey 10 weeks after starting with the service, or when you finish with the service

(whichever comes first). 4. Complete a third survey 20 weeks after starting with the survey (or when you finish with the service if this is

between the 10 and 20-week time-points). 5. If you finish involvement with the service prior to the 10-week time-point, you will be contacted by a staff

member (by your preferred method of phone or email) at the 20-week time-point to complete your third survey about how you and your family are going.

6. Your practitioner will provide the researchers with information about processes you were involved in and outcomes from their perspective.

More about the project

The Federal Government’s Attorney General’s Department (AGD) is funding this pilot and its evaluation, to measure the effectiveness of this service for clients. The evaluation is being conducted by the Centre for Family Research and Evaluation (CFRE) (a partnership between Drummond Street Services and Deakin University) and the pilot service providers, CatholicCare Victoria Tasmania and Uniting.

If you require further information, wish to withdraw your participation or have any problems concerning this project, please contact the research supervisor, Elizabeth Clancy, at [email protected] or call (03) 9246 8383, Ext: 95085.

Thank you for your time!

56 | P a g e

mailto:[email protected]

Consent form – Post Orders Pilot Evaluation

I, ……………………………………………………………………….……………………………(please print full name)

consent to participate in the evaluation of the new Post Orders pilot program. This study is being undertaken by the Centre for Family Research and Evaluation (a partnership of drummond street and Deakin University), the service providers (Uniting and CatholicCare) and the funder, the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department (AGD).

I acknowledge that:1. I have read and understand the Client Information Sheet provided and have been given a copy of this to keep. 2. My participation involves:

Completing surveys about myself and my family up to three times (Before my first face-to-face session, 10 weeks later and then 20 weeks later, or at closure).

Permission for the service provider to share de-identified information with the evaluators about the service I have received and outcomes.

If I finish with the service earlier than the 10 or 20-week time-points, I may be contacted at a later time (by my preferred method of email or phone) for feedback about how me and my family are going and my experience of the service.

If my practitioner is concerned about the immediate wellbeing or safety of me or anyone else in my family, they will discuss this with me. In exceptional situations, under their Duty of Care they may need to discuss this with another person or service.

3. My responses will be treated with strict confidentiality in that the evaluators will be provided with my responses only and a confidential client number. They will have no information about my identity or personal details. 4. Results of the study will be reported as summarised group findings and not individual findings. These findings are available to you on request. The findings will inform funding and practice decisions, and may be reported in scientific and academic journals and presented at conferences.5. I am free to withdraw from this study at any time by letting my practitioner know, and any information obtained up until that point will not be used and will be destroyed.

My preferred method/s of being contacted is: Phone: Email address:

Participant’s Signature: ______________________________ Date: _______________

Staff Member Initials: ___________________ Role: _________________________________

57 | P a g e

Appendix D: Client surveysClient Pre-service survey

Introduction

Thank-you for agreeing to participate in in this evaluation of the Post Orders pilot program you are involved with. This will help us know if this service is helpful for you and your family, and inform broader program funding and practice decisions.

Participation in the evaluation is voluntary and your decision about whether you take part or not will not affect the FDR service you receive in any way. You can withdraw your consent at any time by notifying your practitioner.

Your responses to this survey will be provided to the researchers with a confidential client number and no identifying information about you. All findings to do with the study will be presented as group findings only. You are able to request a summary of the findings.

We would like you to complete this first survey now, before your first face-to-face session. It will take around 15 minutes.

You will be asked to complete 2 further surveys, in 10 and 20 weeks’ time (or when you finish with the service if this comes first), to see how you and your family are and to gain your feedback on your experience of the service. These later surveys are very similar to the first one and will take around 15 minutes.

If you finish with the service prior to these time-points, you may be contacted by your preferred method (email or phone) at around these time-point/s to complete the survey and provide feedback on your experience. This will take around 15 minutes.

Your PO Pilot practitioner will also be asked to complete a brief survey at each time-point about processes they used with you and outcomes they noted.

The survey uses a mix of well researched and new measures to try to capture the intended outcomes, and so the questions and format does vary through the survey. There are no right or wrong answers to the survey questions. Please answer the questions as best you can and without help from family or friends.

If you are upset or distressed by any of the questions or while completing this survey, please discuss this with a program staff member, so they can provide you with some support. We also encourage you to speak with your GP or health practitioner. If you need support out of work hours, please contact Lifeline on ph. 13 11 14 or the Family Violence hotline on 1800 RESPECT (ph. 1800 737 732). Your practitioner will be made aware of your responses which may indicate risk and will discuss these with you to offer support. In exceptional situations, under their Duty of Care they may need to discuss this with another service such as Child Protection.

When you have finished the survey, please give it to your program staff member. If your practitioner is concerned about your wellbeing or anyone else in your family, they will discuss this with you individually in private.

Thanks for completing this survey – we really appreciate your help.

58 | P a g e

To be completed by the service: (Circle) Pre/10 week/20 week Client number:

A. Family SupportsNote: The other party to this dispute (who may be the other parent or another adult involved in the care of your children) is referred to as ‘other parent’ throughout this survey. When a question asks you about ‘your child’, if you have more than one child, please complete the questions with regard to the child of most concern to you. And please complete later surveys in relation to this child also.

Date survey completed: ____/___/____

These questions are about how you were referred to this Post Orders pilot program, and what services have been involved with your family.

1. Who suggested you attend this Post Orders Pilot service (please tick one)?Friend/familyLawyerCourtSelf-referral (found out about it yourself)Ex-partnerOther (please specify):

2. What services are you and your family are currently using / have you used previously(please tick any that apply)

Service Currently?

Previously?

NoneFamily Relationship Centre for Information or ReferralFamily Dispute ResolutionIndividual Adult Counselling/TherapyIndividual/Sibling/Group Child Counselling/TherapyCouple Counselling/TherapyFamily Counselling/TherapyLawyer. If yes, please specify: Private Community/Women’s/ATSI Legal Service Legal Aid CommissionFamily Relationships Advice Line Legal Advice ServiceFamily violence serviceAlcohol and other drug serviceMental health service: Adult and/or ChildChild Protection servicePolice (re violence, IVO)Other. Please specify:

59 | P a g e

B. Parenting Arrangements and OrdersThese questions are about your current parenting orders and arrangements and how they are working for you and your family. (We also ask about the extent property arrangements are sorted and your estimated to-date spending on legal costs).

1. Estimated date of relationship separation (Month/Year): ___/____ Not applicable

2. Current Parenting Order in place: Interim Order Final Order Estimated Date (Month/Year): _____/______

3. Which best describes how the current parenting arrangements were mainly reached (please tick one):Discussion with other parentCounsellingJoint Family Dispute ResolutionLawyersThe courtsNothing specific, it just happenedSomething else. Please specify:

4. Since the current Parenting Orders have been in place, have you or the other party tried to change arrangements (please tick any that apply)?I tried to change the arrangementsThe other parent tried to change the arrangementsWe both tried change the arrangementsThe child tried to change the arrangementsNo one tried to change the arrangementsWe are in the process of trying to change the arrangements

5. Roughly how much do you estimate you have spent on legal costs relating to property and parenting disputes so far? ($)__________

6. Roughly how much do you estimate the other parent/party has spent on legal costs relating to property and parenting disputes so far? ($)___________

7. The questions below relate to your current parenting orders and how you are helping them work between you and your child/ren’s other parent (or the other party/adult involved in the care of your children). Please circle the answer in each row that comes closest to what you think. Your first reaction is likely the right one.

Strongly disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree

1 2 3 4 5

SD D NS A SAa) I have read and know what the current parenting orders say 1 2 3 4 5

60 | P a g e

b) I understand how to apply the parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5c) I actively work to apply the existing parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5d) The other parent actively works to apply the existing parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5e) I know where to go to get information and support for my family in relation to post

separation issues1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

8. Regardless of agreements or orders, how are the arrangements working in reality/practice from my perspective:

In reality,

Nothing sorted out/

No agreement

In process of being sorted out

/Partial agreement

Sorted out

-Full agreement

a) The extent to which our parenting arrangements are sorted (circle one option)

1 2 3 4 5

b) The extent to which our property/finances arrangements are sorted (circle one option):

1 2 3 4 5

9. Please indicate the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements. Circle one response for each row.


1 2 3 4 5

SD D NS A SA

a) The current parenting arrangements are working well for me 1 2 3 4 5

b) The current parenting arrangements are working well for the other parent 1 2 3 4 5

c) The current parenting arrangements are working well for the child/ren 1 2 3 4 5

C. Your relationship with the other parentThese questions relate to your relationship with the other parent.

1. For the following questions, please indicate the response that best indicates the nature of your relationship with your child/ren’s other parent/party. Please circle a number for each row:

(1) if the answer is almost never (2) if the answer is some of the time(3) if the answer is much of the time (4) if the answer is almost always

61 | P a g e

almost never

some of the time

much of the time

almost always

a) Do you feel friendly towards your children's other parent1 2 3 4

b) Do your children feel friendly toward the other parent1 2 3 4

c) Are gifts to the children a problem between you and the other parent1 2 3 4

d) Is the parenting time schedule a problem between you and the other parent

1 2 3 4

e) Do you have friendly talks with the other parent1 2 3 4

f) Is the other parent a good parent1 2 3 4

g) Do your children see the other parent as often as you would like1 2 3 4

h) Do your children see the other parent as often as he/she would like1 2 3 4

i) Do you and the other parent agree on discipline for the children1 2 3 4

j) Are your children harder to handle after spending time with the other parent

1 2 3 4

k) Do you and the other parent disagree in front of the children1 2 3 4

l) Do the children take sides in disagreements between you and the other parent

1 2 3 4

m) Are spousal or child support payments a problem between you and the other parent

1 2 3 4

n) Do your children feel hostile toward the other parent1 2 3 4

o) Does the other parent say things about you to the children that you don't want them to hear?

1 2 3 4

p) Do you say things about the other parent to the children that he/she wouldn't want them to hear?

1 2 3 4

q) Do you have angry disagreements with the other parent1 2 3 4

r) Do you feel hostile toward the other parent1 2 3 4

s) Does the other parent feel hostile toward you1 2 3 4

t) Can you talk to the other parent about problems with the children1 2 3 4

u) Do you have a friendly separation/divorce1 2 3 4

v) Are pick-ups and drop-offs of the children between you and the other parent a difficult time

1 2 3 4

w) Does the other parent encourage your children to live with him/her1 2 3 4

x) Have you adjusted to being separated/divorced from the other parent1 2 3 4

y) Has the other parent adjusted to being separated/divorced from you1 2 3 4

62 | P a g e

2. Please indicate your level of agreement/disagreement with the following statements about your respect for each other, by a circle in each row.


1 2 3 4 5

SD

D NS A SA

a) I respect the other parent as a parent 1 2 3 4 5b) I respect the other parent as a person 1 2 3 4 5c) I think the other parent has respect for me as a parent 1 2 3 4 5d) I think the other parent has respect for me as a person 1 2 3 4 5

3. Would you describe your current relationship with the other parent as (please tick one):

Friendly Cooperative Distant Lots of conflict

Fearful Don’t know/Can’t say Prefer not to answer

D. Co-Parenting

These questions relate to how you and the other parent manage your co-parenting relationship with the children.

1. The statements below relate to your child/ren’s experience of the dynamics between you and their other parent, or the other adult most involved in the care of your children. Please circle the answer that comes closest to what you think, for each row. Your first reaction is likely the right one.


1 2 3 4 5

SD D NS A SAa) The other parent is respectful of me in front of our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5b) I am respectful of the other parent in front of our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5c) Our child/ren feel caught in the middle 1 2 3 4 5d) Our child/ren don't hesitate to talk about the other parent in front of me 1 2 3 4 5e) The children don't hesitate to talk about me in front of the other parent 1 2 3 4 5f) I ask our child/ren to carry messages to the other parent 1 2 3 4 5g) The other parent asks our child/ren to carry messages to me 1 2 3 4 5h) The other parent asks our child/ren questions (about me/my family) that my child wishes

they wouldn't ask.1 2 3 4 5

i) I ask our child/ren questions (about the other parent/family) that my child wishes I wouldn't ask?

1 2 3 4 5

63 | P a g e

2. This section relates to the ability of both parties to focus on the needs of the children. Please circle the answer that comes closest to what you think, for each row. Your first reaction is likely the right one.


1 2 3 4 5

SD

D NS A SA

a) I have a good understanding of the emotional and developmental needs of our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5b) The other parent has a good understanding of the emotional and developmental needs of

our child/ren1 2 3 4 5

c) I am able to be flexible to meet the child/ren's wishes or needs 1 2 3 4 5d) The other parent is able to be flexible to meet the child/ren's wishes or needs 1 2 3 4 5e) I think our current arrangements are in the best interests of the child/ren 1 2 3 4 5f) The other parent thinks our current arrangements are in the best interests of the child/ren 1 2 3 4 5g) I have a good understanding of the impact of conflict on our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5h) The other parent has a good understanding of the impact of conflict on our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5

E. Health and Well-being

The following questions are about your wellbeing and that of your child of most concern.

If you have concerns about your wellbeing or your child/ren’s, or are upset or distressed by any of the questions, please discuss this with a program staff member, so they can provide you with support. You may also contact your GP or Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Adult Health and well-being We would like to know if you have had any medical complaints, and how your health has been in general, over the past few weeks. Please answer ALL the questions simply by circling the answer that most nearly applies to you. Remember that we want to know about present and recent complaints, not those you had in the past. It is important that you try to answer ALL the questions. (Circle one option in each row)

a) Have you recently been able to concentrate on whatever you are doing?

Better than usual

Same as usual Less than usual Much less than usual

b) Have you recently lost much sleep over worry? Not at all No more than usual

Rather more than usual

Much more than usual

c) Have you recently felt that you were playing a useful part in things?

Better than usual


d) Have you recently felt capable of making decisions about things?

Better than usual


e) Have you recently felt constantly under strain? Not at all No more than usual



f) Have you recently felt you couldn’t overcome your difficulties?

Not at all No more than usual



64 | P a g e

g) Have you recently been able to enjoy your day to day activities?

Better than usual


h) Have you recently been able to face up to problems?

Better than usual


i) Have you recently been feeling unhappy or depressed?




j) Have you recently been losing confidence in yourself?




k) Have you recently been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?




l) Have you recently been feeling reasonably happy all things considered?

Better than usual


© David Goldberg, 1978 All rights reserved.

Published by GL Assessment Limited

The Chiswick Centre 414 Chiswick High Road, London W4

This edition published 1992.GL Assessment is part of the Granada Learning Group

Child Health and WellbeingIn the following, if you have more than one child who is the focus of your parenting orders, please answer in relation to the child of most concern to you. And please complete later surveys in relation to this child also.

Your child’s current age in years: _______

1. In general, would you describe your child's health and wellbeing as (tick one): Excellent Very good Good Fair Poor

2. Compared with other children of the same age, how would you say your child is (circle one response each row):

a) Doing with his/her learning (or school work or academic achievement)

Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse

b) Getting along with other children/people his/her own age

Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse

c) Doing in most areas of his/her life? Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse

a) Is a happy child/person All of the time

Most of the time

Sometimes Rarely Never

65 | P a g e

b) Is a confident child/person All of the time

Most of the time


c) Tends to get anxious or worried about things

All of the time

Most of the time


d) Behaves in a sensible or mature manner All of the time

Most of the time


e) Loses his/her temper All of the time

Most of the time


F. Family SafetyThe following questions are about your and your children’s safety. If you have current concerns about your own or your children’s safety, or need support in relation to past safety issues, please discuss this with your practitioner. You may also call the Family Violence hotline on 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732).

1. Please indicate whether you or your children have been exposed to any of the following within the last 3 months (circle one response each row):

Not at all concerned

Extremely concerned

a) I am concerned about my safety as a result of ongoing contact with the other parent

1 2 3 4 5

b) I am concerned about my child/ren's safety as a result of ongoing contact with the other parent

1 2 3 4 5

c) My child/ren has seen or heard the other parent threaten me with violence within the last 3 months.

Never occasionally

less than half the time

more than half the time

Frequently

d) My child/ren has seen or heard the other parent try to assault me within the last 3 months.

Never occasionally



Frequently

(Circle one response in each row below)

4. If there are safety concerns for me or my children, then the current arrangement/agreement takes them into account adequately

Not at all Somewhat Completely

1 2 3 4 5

5. If there are safety concerns for me or my children, I have the information, support and skills to manage any safety concerns

I don’t have them

I have them

1 2 3 4 5

66 | P a g e

6. If you indicated any of the above were a concern, do your concerns relate to any of the following: (please indicate any that apply)alcohol or substance usemental health issuesgamblingviolent or dangerous behaviouremotional abuse or anger issuesneglect or lack of supervisionroad safety or other physical issuessexual issuesother (Please specify:________________________)

As above, if you have any queries or concerns regarding your family wellbeing or this survey, please talk with your practitioner or group facilitator and seek other help as

suggested in the introduction.

Thank-you for completing this survey!

67 | P a g e

Client 10-week surveyParenting Orders (PO) Pilot Service Evaluation tool: Document 4: 10 week Service Client questionnaire

Introduction



Your responses to this survey will be provided to the researchers with a confidential client number and no identifying information about you. All findings to do with the study will be presented as group findings only.

We would like you to complete a survey now, 10 weeks after commencing with the service (or when you are finishing with the service if that came first). This survey is very similar to the first one and is expected to take around 15 minutes.

In another 10 weeks’ time, we would like you to complete a third survey to see how you and your family are and to gain your feedback on your experience of the service. Again, this is quite similar to the first survey and will take around 15 minutes.

If you finish with the service prior to the next time-point, you will be contacted by email or phone (your preferred method) to complete the survey and provide feedback on your experience. This will take around 15 minutes.

Your PO Pilot practitioner will also be asked to complete a brief survey about processes they used with you and outcomes they noted.

The survey uses a mix of well researched and new measures to try to capture the intended outcomes, and so the questions and format does vary through the survey. There are no right or wrong answers to the survey questions. Please answer the questions as best you can and without help from family or friends.



Thanks for completing this questionnaire – we really appreciate your help.68 | P a g e


A. Family Supports

Note: The other party to this dispute (who may be the other parent or another adult involved in the care of your children) is referred to as ‘other parent’ throughout this survey.

In this survey we will ask you questions about you and your family. When a question asks you about “your child”, if you have more than one child, please complete the questions with regard to the same child you selected at the initial survey (the child of most concern to you at that time).


These questions are about what services have been involved with your family.

1. What services, if any, have you or your family started/ re-started since you began this pilot service and which are not part of this pilot service (tick any that apply)?

Service Started/RestartedNoneFamily Relationship Centre for Information or ReferralFamily Dispute ResolutionIndividual Adult Counselling/TherapyIndividual/Sibling/Group Child Counselling/TherapyCouple Counselling/TherapyFamily Counselling/TherapyLawyer. If yes, please specify: Private Community/Women’s/ATSI Legal Service Legal Aid CommissionFamily Relationships Advice Line Legal Advice ServiceFamily violence serviceAlcohol and other drug serviceMental health service: Adult and/or ChildChild Protection servicePolice (re violence, IVO)Other. Please specify:______________________________

B. Parenting Arrangements and OrdersThese questions are about your current parenting orders and arrangements and how they are working for your family. We also ask about the extent property arrangements are sorted and your estimated to-date spending on legal costs.

1. In relation to the past 10 weeks, have any of the following taken place in relation to your parenting arrangements (please tick any that apply)?I tried to change the arrangements

69 | P a g e

The other parent tried to change the arrangementsWe both tried change the arrangementsThe child tried to change the arrangementsNo one tried to change the arrangementsWe are in the process of trying to change the arrangements

2. Please indicate if any of the following have changed in the last 10 weeks (tick which apply):

New Parenting Order Application. New Parenting Order HearingNew Parenting Order

Interim Parenting Order/s By Consent Court imposed

Final Parenting Order/s By Consent Court imposed

Other/s. Please specify:

2. If any changed, roughly how much do you estimate you spent on legal costs associated with the above activities? ($)______

3. If any changed, roughly how much do you estimate the other parent/party spent on legal costs associated with the above activities? ($)_______

4. Which best describes how the current parenting arrangements were mainly reached (please tick one):This Post Orders pilot serviceDiscussion with other parentCounsellingJoint Family Dispute Resolution LawyersThe courtsNothing specific, it just happenedSomething else. Please specify:



1 2 3 4 5

SD D NS A SAa) I have read and know what the current parenting orders say 1 2 3 4 5b) I understand how to apply the parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5c) I actively work to apply the existing parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5d) The other parent actively works to apply the existing parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5e) I know where to go to get information and support for my family in relation to post


f) I understand what is needed from me to make the parenting arrangements work for our 1 2 3 4 5

70 | P a g e

childreng) I try to consider the other parent's views and needs in relation to our parenting

arrangements.1 2 3 4 5


In reality,

Nothing sorted out/

No agreement


/Partial agreement

Sorted out

-Full agreement


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

7. Please indicate the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (circle one response for each row).


1 2 3 4 5

SD D NS A SA




C. Your relationship with the other parent

These questions relate to your relationship with the other parent.

4. For the following questions, indicate the response that best indicates your relationship with your child/ren’s other parent/party. Please circle a number for each row:


almost never

some of the time

much of the time

almost always

a) Do you feel friendly towards your children's other parent1 2 3 4

71 | P a g e



d) Is the parenting time schedule a problem between you and the other parent

1 2 3 4







1 2 3 4



1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4



1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4







1 2 3 4




5. Please indicate your agreement/disagreement with the following statements about your respect for each other, by a circle in each row.


1 2 3 4 5

72 | P a g e

SD

D NS A SA

a) I respect the other parent as a parent 1 2 3 4 5b) I respect the other parent as a person 1 2 3 4 5c) I think the other parent has respect for me as a parent 1 2 3 4 5d) I think the other parent has respect for me as a person 1 2 3 4 5




D. Co-Parenting


1. The statements below relate to what your children experience in relation to exchanges between you and your child/ren’s other parent, or the other adult most involved in the care of your children. Please circle the answer that comes closest to what you think, for each row. Your first reaction is likely the right one.


1 2 3 4 5




1 2 3 4 5

2. This section relates to the ability of both parties to focus on the needs of the children and to be flexible with each other. Please circle the answer that comes closest to what you think, for each row. Your first reaction is likely the right one.Strongly disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree1 2 3 4 5

SD

D NS A SA

a) I have a good understanding of the emotional and developmental needs of our children 1 2 3 4 5b) The other parent has a good understanding of the emotional and developmental needs of 1 2 3 4 5

73 | P a g e

our childrenc) I am able to be flexible to meet the child/ren's wishes or needs 1 2 3 4 5d) The other parent is able to be flexible to meet the child/ren's wishes or needs 1 2 3 4 5e) I think our current arrangements are in the best interests of the child/ren 1 2 3 4 5f) The other parent thinks our current arrangements are in the best interests of the child/ren 1 2 3 4 5g) I have a good understanding of the impact of conflict on our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5h) The other parent has a good understanding of the impact of conflict on our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5



If you have concerns about your wellbeing or your child/ren’s, or are upset or distressed by any of the questions, please discuss this with a program staff member, so they can provide you with support. You may also contact your GP or Lifeline on ph. 13 11 14.

Adult Health and well-being

We would like to know if you have had any medical complaints, and how your health has been in general, over the past few weeks. Please answer ALL the questions simply by circling the answer that most nearly applies to you. Remember that we want to know about present and recent complaints, not those you had in the past. It is important that you try to answer ALL the questions. (Circle one option in each row)


Better than usual






Better than usual



Better than usual


m) Have you recently felt constantly under strain? Not at all No more than usual



e) Have you recently felt you couldn’t overcome your difficulties?




f) Have you recently been able to enjoy your day to day activities?

Better than usual


g) Have you recently been able to face up to problems?

Better than usual


h) Have you recently been feeling unhappy or depressed?




i) Have you recently been losing confidence in yourself?




74 | P a g e

j) Have you recently been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?




k) Have you recently been feeling reasonably happy all things considered?

Better than usual


© David Goldberg, 1978 All rights reserved. Published by GL Assessment Limited The Chiswick Centre 414 Chiswick High Road, London W4 This edition published 1992.GL Assessment is part of the Granada Learning Group

Child Health and wellbeingIn the following, if you have more than one child who is the focus of your parenting orders, please answer in relation to the child of most concern to you. And please complete later surveys in relation to this child also.

You child’s current age in years: _______




Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse


Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse


Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse

3. Compared to other children of the same age, would you say that your child is (circle one response each row):


Most of the time



Most of the time



All of the time

Most of the time



Most of the time



Most of the time


F. Family Safety

75 | P a g e

The following questions are about your and your children’s safety.

If you have current concerns about your own or your children’s safety, or need support in relation to past safety issues, please discuss this with your practitioner. You may also call the Family Violence hotline on ph. 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732).


Not at all

Extremely concerned


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5


Never occasionally



Frequently


Never occasionally



Frequently

2. If you indicated any of the above were a concern, do your concerns relate to any of the following: (please indicate any that apply)Not applicable- no concernsalcohol or substance usemental health issuesgamblingviolent or dangerous behaviouremotional abuse or anger issuesneglect or lack of supervisionroad safety or other physical issuessexual issuesother (Please specify:________________________)

(Circle one response each row) Not at all Somewhat Completely

3.If there are safety concerns for me or my children, then the current arrangement/agreement takes them into account adequately

1 2 3 4 5

I don’t have them

I have them


1 2 3 4 5

76 | P a g e

G. Satisfaction with the Service1. Please indicate the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (Circle one

response each row):


1 2 3 4 5

SD

D NS

A SA

a) The program communicated with me and provided services in a timely manner 1 2 3 4 5

b) I felt heard by the practitioner/service and was treated with respect 1 2 3 4 5

c) My needs were taken into account in processes (e.g. shuttle, culture/religion) 1 2 3 4 5

d) I gained more understanding of my child/ren’s, mine and my ex-partners rights and responsibilities

1 2 3 4 5

e) I gained a more realistic idea of what to expect and what is possible in these circumstances

1 2 3 4 5

f) We were able to save on legal fees and court costs as a result of participation in the service

1 2 3 4 5

g) Confidentiality was handled appropriately1 2 3 4 5

h) I would use this service again to assist with future issues1 2 3 4 5

i) I would recommend this service to others1 2 3 4 5

j) The service provided was neutral and fair 1 2 3 4 5

k) I had an adequate opportunity to put my side forward 1 2 3 4 5

l) The child/ren's needs were adequately considered in the process 1 2 3 4 5

m) I felt I had a say in the decision-making 1 2 3 4 5

n) I was able to negotiate without feeling coerced 1 2 3 4 5

o) I didn’t have to compromise beyond what I felt was acceptable 1 2 3 4 5

p) The service was helpful to me 1 2 3 4 5

Your feedback1. Please list any benefits to your or your family as a result of involvement in this service:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

77 | P a g e

2. Please list any suggestions you have for improving this this service:____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

As above, if you have any queries or concerns regarding your family wellbeing or this survey, please talk with your practitioner or group facilitator.

Thank-you for completing this survey

78 | P a g e

Client 20-week surveyParenting Orders (PO) Pilot Service Evaluation tool: Document 5: 20 week Service Client Survey

Introduction



Your responses to this survey will be provided to the researchers with a confidential client number and no identifying information about you. All findings to do with the study will be presented as group findings only.

It is now 20 weeks since you started with the PO service (or you are finishing with the service, whichever comes first). We would like you to complete this third (final) survey to see you and your family are, and to gain your feedback on your experience of the service. This survey is very similar to the earlier surveys and will take around 15 minutes.

Your PO Pilot practitioner will also be asked to complete a brief survey about processes they used with you and outcomes they noted.

The survey uses a mix of well researched and new measures to try to capture the intended outcomes, and so the format varies somewhat. There are no right or wrong answers to the survey questions. Please answer the questions as best you can and without help from family or friends.



Thanks for completing this survey-

we really appreciate your help.

79 | P a g e


A. Family Supports

Note: The other party to this dispute (who may be the other parent or another adult involved in the care of your children) is referred to as ‘other parent’ throughout this survey.

In this survey we will ask you questions about you and your family. When a question asks you about “your child”, if you have more than one child, please complete the questions with regard to the same child you selected at the initial survey (the child of most concern to you at that time).


These questions are about how you were referred to this Post Orders pilot program, and what services have been involved with your family.

8. What services, if any, have you or your family started (or re-started) since you began this pilot service and which are not part of this pilot service (tick any that apply)?

Service YesNoneFamily Relationship Centre for Information or ReferralFamily Dispute ResolutionIndividual Adult Counselling/TherapyIndividual/Sibling/Group Child Counselling/TherapyCouple Counselling/TherapyFamily Counselling/TherapyLawyer. If yes, please specify: Private Community/Women’s/ATSI Legal Service Legal Aid CommissionFamily Relationships Advice Line Legal Advice ServiceFamily violence serviceAlcohol and other drug serviceMental health service: Adult and/or ChildChild Protection servicePolice (re violence, IVO)Other. Please specify:______________________________

B. Parenting Arrangements and OrdersThese questions are about your current parenting orders and arrangements and how they are working for your family. (We also ask about the extent property arrangements are sorted and your estimated to-date spending on legal costs).

1. In relation to the past 10 weeks, have any of the following taken place (please tick any that apply)?I tried to change the arrangementsThe other parent tried to change the arrangementsWe both tried change the arrangements

80 | P a g e

The child tried to change the arrangementsNo one tried to change the arrangementsWe are in the process of trying to change the arrangements

2. Please indicate if any of the following have changed in the last 10 weeks (tick which apply):New Parenting Order Application. New Parenting Order HearingNew Parenting Order

Interim Parenting Order/s By Consent Court imposed

Final Parenting Order/s By Consent Court imposed

Other/s. Please specify:

3. If any changed, roughly how much do you estimate you spent on legal costs associated with the above activities? ($)_______

4. If any changed, roughly how much do you estimate the other parent/party spent on legal costs associated with the above activities? ($)_______

5. Which best describes how the current parenting arrangements were mainly reached (please tick one):This Post Orders pilot serviceDiscussion with other parentCounsellingJoint Family Dispute Resolution LawyersThe courtsNothing specific, it just happenedSomething else. Please specify:



1 2 3 4 5

SD D NS A SAa) I have read and know what the current parenting orders say 1 2 3 4 5b) I understand how to apply the parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5c) I actively work to apply the existing parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5d) The other parent actively works to apply the existing parenting orders 1 2 3 4 5e) I know where to go to get information and support for my family in relation to post



1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

81 | P a g e


In reality,

Nothing sorted out/

No agreement


/Partial agreement

Sorted out

-Full agreement


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

8. Please indicate the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (circle one response for each row).


1 2 3 4 5

SD D NS A SA




C. Your relationship with the other parent

These questions relate to your relationship with the other parent.

1. For the following questions, indicate the response that best indicates your relationship with your child/ren’s other parent/party. Please circle a number for each row:


almost never

some of the time

much of the time

almost always

a) Do you feel friendly towards your child/ren's other parent1 2 3 4



d) Is the parenting time schedule a problem between you and the other 1 2 3 4

82 | P a g e

parent







1 2 3 4



1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4



1 2 3 4


1 2 3 4







1 2 3 4




2. Please indicate your agreement/disagreement with the following statements about your respect for each other, by a circle in each row.


1 2 3 4 5

SD

D NS A SA

a) I respect the other parent as a parent 1 2 3 4 5b) I respect the other parent as a person 1 2 3 4 5

83 | P a g e

c) I think the other parent has respect for me as a parent 1 2 3 4 5d) I think the other parent has respect for me as a person 1 2 3 4 5




D. Co-Parenting


1. The statements below relate to what your children experience in relation to exchanges between you and your child/ren’s other parent, or the other adult most involved in the care of your children. Please circle the answer that comes closest to what you think, for each row. Your first reaction is likely the right one.


1 2 3 4 5




1 2 3 4 5

2. This section relates to the ability of both parties to focus on the needs of the children and to be flexible with each other. Please circle the answer that comes closest to what you think, for each row. Your first reaction is likely the right one.Strongly disagree Disagree Not sure Agree Strongly agree1 2 3 4 5

SD

D NS A SA

a) I have a good understanding of the emotional and developmental needs of our children 1 2 3 4 5b) The other parent has a good understanding of the emotional and developmental needs of

our children1 2 3 4 5

c) I am able to be flexible to meet the child/ren's wishes or needs 1 2 3 4 5

84 | P a g e

d) The other parent is able to be flexible to meet the child/ren's wishes or needs 1 2 3 4 5e) I think our current arrangements are in the best interests of the child/ren 1 2 3 4 5f) The other parent thinks our current arrangements are in the best interests of the child/ren 1 2 3 4 5g) I have a good understanding of the impact of conflict on our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5h) The other parent has a good understanding of the impact of conflict on our child/ren 1 2 3 4 5



If you have concerns about your wellbeing or your child/ren’s, or are upset or distressed by any of the questions, please discuss this with a program staff member, so they can provide you with support. You may also contact your GP or Lifeline on 13 11 14.

Adult Health and well-being

We would like to know if you have had any medical complaints, and how your health has been in general, over the past few weeks. Please answer ALL the questions simply by circling the answer that most nearly applies to you. Remember that we want to know about present and recent complaints, not those you had in the past. It is important that you try to answer ALL the questions. (Circle one option in each row)


Better than usual






Better than usual



Better than usual


n) Have you recently felt constantly under strain? Not at all No more than usual



e) Have you recently felt you couldn’t overcome your difficulties?




f) Have you recently been able to enjoy your day to day activities?

Better than usual


g) Have you recently been able to face up to problems?

Better than usual


h) Have you recently been feeling unhappy or depressed?




i) Have you recently been losing confidence in yourself?




j) Have you recently been thinking of yourself as a worthless person?




85 | P a g e

k) Have you recently been feeling reasonably happy all things considered?

Better than usual


© David Goldberg, 1978 All rights reserved. Published by GL Assessment Limited The Chiswick Centre 414 Chiswick High Road, London W4 This edition published 1992.GL Assessment is part of the Granada Learning Group

Child Health and wellbeingIn the following, if you have more than one child who is the focus of your parenting orders, please answer in relation to the child of most concern to you. And please complete later surveys in relation to this child also.

You child’s current age in years: _______




Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse


Much better

Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse


Somewhat better

About the same

Somewhat worse

Much worse

3. Compared to other children of the same age, would you say that your child is (circle one response each row):


Most of the time



Most of the time



All of the time

Most of the time



Most of the time



Most of the time


86 | P a g e

F. Family SafetyThe following questions are about your and your children’s safety.

If you have current concerns about your own or your children’s safety, or need support in relation to past safety issues, please discuss this with your practitioner. You may also call the Family Violence hotline on 1800 RESPECT (1800 737 732).


Not at all

concerned

Extremely concerned


1 2 3 4 5


1 2 3 4 5

2. If you indicated any of the above were a concern, do your concerns relate to any of the following: (please indicate any that apply)Not applicable- no concernsalcohol or substance usemental health issuesgamblingviolent or dangerous behaviouremotional abuse or anger issuesneglect or lack of supervisionroad safety or other physical issuessexual issuesother (Please specify:________________________)


Never occasionally



Frequently


Never occasionally



Frequently

(Circle one response each row) Not at all Somewhat

Completely

3.If there are safety concerns for me or my children, then the current arrangement/agreement takes them into account adequately

1 2 3 4 5

I don’t have them

I have them


1 2 3 4 5

87 | P a g e

G. Satisfaction with the Service3. Please indicate the level to which you agree or disagree with the following statements (Circle one

response each row):


1 2 3 4 5

88 | P a g e

SD

D NS

A SA

a) The program communicated with me and provided services in a timely manner 1 2 3 4 5

b) I felt heard by the practitioner/service and was treated with respect 1 2 3 4 5

c) My needs were taken into account in processes (e.g. shuttle, culture/religion) 1 2 3 4 5

d) I gained more understanding of my child/ren’s, mine and my ex-partners rights and responsibilities

1 2 3 4 5

e) I gained a more realistic idea of what to expect and what is possible in these circumstances

1 2 3 4 5

f) We were able to save on legal fees and court costs as a result of participation in the service

1 2 3 4 5

g) Confidentiality was handled appropriately1 2 3 4 5

h) I would use this service again to assist with future issues1 2 3 4 5

i) I would recommend this service to others1 2 3 4 5

j) The service provided was neutral and fair 1 2 3 4 5

k) I had an adequate opportunity to put my side forward 1 2 3 4 5

l) The child/ren's needs were adequately considered in the process 1 2 3 4 5

m) I felt I had a say in the decision-making 1 2 3 4 5

n) I was able to negotiate without feeling coerced 1 2 3 4 5

o) I didn’t have to compromise beyond what I felt was acceptable 1 2 3 4 5

p) The service was helpful to me 1 2 3 4 5

Your feedback1. Please list any benefits to your or your family as a result of involvement in this service:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

2. Please list any suggestions you have for improving this this service:_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

89 | P a g e

As above, if you have any queries or concerns regarding your family wellbeing or this survey, please talk with your practitioner or group facilitator.

Thank-you for completing this survey

90 | P a g e

Appendix E: Staff surveysPractitioner Pre Survey To be completed during/after the first face-to-face session, for each adult client.

Client number:__________________

Date survey completed: ____/_____/____

Initials of practitioner/s who completed this form: ________

Please tick which apply and provide dates if known

Consent:

Client signed Client Consent Form Date: ____/_____/____

Client has the capacity to provide informed consent (ie practitioner assessment regarding client capacity to participate in the service and evaluation based on mental health/cognitive functioning)

Client withdrew consent to participate in the evaluation Date: ____/_____/____

(If withdrawn, no further data to be collected for this client)

Referral Source:

Internal to agency

External to agency

Court PO Pilot Ordered PO Pilot Recommended

Lawyer

Private Community/Women’s/ATSI Legal Service Legal Aid Commission

Legal Advice Service (as part of the Family Relationship Advice Line)

Other. Please specify: _________________________________________________

Existing Parenting Arrangements or Orders:

Informal parenting agreement in place from Month/Year:_____/_____

Unknown if informal parenting agreement in place prior

Parenting Plan/s (Written and signed)

Partial Month/Year:_____/_____

Full Month/Year:_____/_____

Unknown if Parenting Plan/s in place prior

Interim Parenting Order/s Month/Year:_____/_____

91 | P a g e

By Consent Court-imposed

Unknown if Interim Parenting Order/s in place prior

Final Parenting Order/s Month/Year:_____/_____


Unknown if Final Parenting Order/s in place prior

Prior Certificate s60I issued Month/Year:_____/_____

Unknown if s60I issued prior to this service

Ground/s of Certificate s60I, if paperwork available:

Unknown grounds of s60I issued prior to this service

Did not attend due to the refusal or the failure of the other party/parties to attend Did not attend because the FDRP considered under subregulation 25(2) of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (FDRP Regulations), it would not be appropriate to conduct FDR Attended FDR and all attendees made genuine effort to resolve the issue/issues in dispute Attended FDR but (specified) party/parties did not make a genuine effort to resolve the issue or issues in dispute Began attending FDR but the FDRP considered under subregulation 25(2) of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (FDRP Regulations), it would not be appropriate to continue

Nature of issues and level of disputes at Pre:

Based on your current understanding, please indicate the level of conflict/dispute by entering a number from the following in each box:

0= not applicable/not in dispute 1=low 2=medium 3=high

UnknownParenting time arrangementsPick up/drop off timesPick up/drop off locationsLast minute changes to arrangementsStep-parent/new relationshipMedical treatment for your childrenChildren’s daily routinesMaking decisions about choice of school

92 | P a g e

Schooling, homework etc.Attendance at school functionsRelationships with extended family membersBuying gifts for the childrenBuying necessities for the childrenHoliday arrangementsDietExtra-curricular activitiesDisciplineFinancial (who pays for what)Other. Please specify: _______________

Nature and level of risk issues present in family at Pre:

Based on your current assessment, please indicate the level of risk by entering a number from the following:

0= not present 1=low 2=medium 3=high

High conflict between parentsSignificant power imbalance between parentsFamily violence –emotionalFamily violence –physicalAbuse/neglect of child/ren by parentAvoidance of Child Support responsibility by parentMinimisation of finances/income by parentParent mental health issue/illnessParent disability/physical health issueChild mental health issue/illnessChild/physical health issueParental problematic alcohol or other drug useParental problematic gamblingSignificant loss/trauma in familyParental unemploymentFinancial hardship/stressHigh risk behaviours by child/young person in familyOther. Please specify: __________________________________________________

Nature of initial face-to-face session

Single practitioner, Assessment and Information

Family Counsellor FDR Practitioner/Family law specialist

93 | P a g e

Hybrid/Dual practitioner, Assessment and Information

Other. Please specify: ____________________________________________________

Referrals made by practitioner resulting from first face-to-face session

Services the client was referred to which are not part of this pilot service (please tick which apply):

ServiceNoneIndividual Adult Counselling/TherapyIndividual/Sibling/Group Child Counselling/TherapyCouple Counselling/TherapyFamily Counselling/TherapyLawyer. If yes, please specify: Private Community/Women’s/ATSI Legal Service Legal Aid CommissionFamily Relationships Advice Line Legal Advice ServiceFamily violence serviceAlcohol and other drug serviceMental health service: Adult and/or ChildChild Protection servicePolice (re violence, IVO)Other. Please specify:______________________________

Closure:

Closure of client/file took place Date: ____/_____/____

Reason for closure: ___________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________

Thankyou for your help!

94 | P a g e

Practitioner 10-week Survey To be completed for each adult client at the 10 week time-point after commencement with service, or when they finish with the service (if this is between the first session and 10 week time).

Client number: ______________________


Initials of practitioner/s who completed this form: _____________

Please tick ANY that apply and additional information if known:

Consent:


(If withdrawn, no further data to be collected for this client from that date)

Closure:



___________________________________________________________________________

Components of PO service received by client since commencement with service:

Initial face-to-face consultation (Assessment and Information)

Single Hybrid/Dual practitioner

Joint sessions (non-FDR) (Single or Hybrid/Dual practitioner) No. of joint sessions (non-FDR):____

Clarified orders and issues of dispute

Other purpose/s. Please specify:____________________________________

95 | P a g e

Child/ren consultation/s No. of sessions:_________

For debrief/therapeutic purpose

To provide feedback to parents re child/ren’s wishes/needs

Nature of Child consultation sessions:

Individual sessions Sibling group sessions Both individual and sibling group sessions

Child consultation feedback session/s provided for parents No. of sessions: _________

Individual therapeutic work with adult client No. of sessions: __________

Focus of individual therapeutic work with adult client:

Personal/individual

Intrapersonal/relationship with ex-partner

Co-parenting issues

Adult attachment assessment/education

Through the eyes of the children (their experience and needs)

Emotional literacy and regulation, emotional attunement of children

Communication education and skills development

Conflict resolution education and skills development

Trauma-response and recovery

Other. Please specify: ________________________________________________

Joint FDR No. of sessions:__________

FDR process variations:

Legally-assisted (lawyer/s present)

Shuttle (separate rooms)

Support person/s present

96 | P a g e

Interpreter/s, Auslan present

Consult with Child Support or Centrelink

Other. Please specify:

Therapeutic work with child/ren

Individual sessions (max no) Sibling group sessions Child group program

No. of sessions (of each):________ ___________ __________

Family Therapy (both parents and child present) No. of sessions:_________

Parent-child dyadic work (one parent and child/ren) No. of sessions:__________

Case-management role provided (eg liaison, coordination with other services, referrals)

Review/Closure planning session

Other. Please specify: ___________________________________________________

Certificate s60I issued by PO service since first face-to-face session:

Certificate s 60I issued Date: ____/_____/____

Ground/s:

Did not attend due to the refusal or the failure of the other party/parties to attend

Did not attend because the FDRP considered under sub regulation 25(2) of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (FDRP Regulations), it would not be appropriate to conduct FDR

Attended FDR and all attendees made genuine effort to resolve the issue/issues in dispute

Attended FDR but (specified) party/parties did not make a genuine effort to resolve the issue or issues in dispute

Began attending FDR but the FDRP considered under sub regulation 25(2) of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (FDRP Regulations), it would not be appropriate to continue

97 | P a g e

NEW Parenting Arrangements or Orders made since first face-to-face session:

Interim Parenting Order/s Month/Year:_______


Final Parenting Order/s Month/Year:_______


Other legal/court matters, if known.

Family Law- Parenting Family Law- Property

Children’s Court

IVO

Other. Please specify: ______________________________

Nature of issues and level of disputes at the 10 Week time-point:



UnknownParenting time arrangementsPick up/drop off timesPick up/drop off locationsLast minute changes to arrangementsStep-parent/new relationshipMedical treatment for your childrenChildren’s daily routinesMaking decisions about choice of schoolSchooling, homework etc.Attendance at school functionsRelationships with extended family membersBuying gifts for the childrenBuying necessities for the children

98 | P a g e

Holiday arrangements DietExtra-curricular activitiesDisciplineFinancial (who pays for what)Other. Please specify:

Nature and level of risk issues present in family at the 10 week time-point:

Based on your current assessment, please indicate the level of risk by entering a number from the following in each box:


High conflict between parentsSignificant power imbalance between parentsFamily violence –emotionalFamily violence –physicalAbuse/neglect of child/ren by parentAvoidance of Child Support responsibility by parentMinimisation of finances/income by parentParent mental health issue/illnessParent disability/physical health issueChild mental health issue/illnessChild/physical health issueParental problematic alcohol or other drug useParental problematic gamblingSignificant loss/trauma in familyParental unemploymentFinancial hardship/stressHigh risk behaviours by child/young person in familyOther. Please specify: ______________________________________________

Referrals made by practitioner since the first face-to-face session:

Services the client was referred to which are not part of this pilot service (please tick any that apply):

99 | P a g e

ServiceNoneIndividual Adult Counselling/TherapyIndividual/Sibling/Group Child Counselling/TherapyCouple Counselling/TherapyFamily Counselling/TherapyLawyer. If yes, please specify: Private Community/Women’s/ATSI Legal Service Legal Aid CommissionFamily Relationships Advice Line Legal Advice ServiceFamily violence serviceAlcohol and other drug serviceMental health service: Adult and/or ChildChild Protection servicePolice (re violence, IVO)Other. Please specify:______________________________

Thank you for your help!

100 | P a g e

Practitioner 20-week Survey To be completed for each adult client at the 20 week time-point after commencement with service, or when they finish with the service (if this is between the 10 and 20 week time-points).

Client number: ______________________


Initials of practitioner/s who completed this form: ________________

Please tick which apply and provide dates if known

Consent:


(If withdrawn, no further data to be collected for this client from that date)

Closure:



___________________________________________________________________________

Components of PO service received by client since 10 Week time-point:

Joint sessions (non-FDR) (Hybrid/Dual practitioner) No. of joint sessions (non FDR):_____

Clarified orders and issues of dispute

Other purpose/s. Please specify:__________________________________

Child/ren consultation/s No. of sessions:___________

For debrief/therapeutic purpose

To provide feedback to parents re child/ren’s wishes/needs

101 | P a g e

Nature of Child consultation sessions:

Individual sessions Sibling group sessions Both individual and sibling group sessions

Child consultation feedback session/s provided for parents No. of sessions:__________

Individual therapeutic work with adult client No. of sessions:___________

Focus of individual therapeutic work with adult client:

Personal/individual

Intrapersonal/relationship with ex-partner

Co-parenting issues

Adult attachment assessment/education

Through the eyes of the children (their experience and needs)

Emotional literacy and regulation, emotional attunement of children

Communication education and skills development

Conflict resolution education and skills development

Trauma-response and recovery

Other. Please specify: ________________________________________________

Joint FDR No. of sessions:______

FDR process variations:

Legally-assisted (lawyer/s present)

Shuttle (separate rooms)

Support person/s present

Interpreter/s, Auslan present

Consult with Child Support or Centrelink

Other. Please specify:_________________________

Therapeutic work with child/ren

102 | P a g e

Individual sessions Sibling group sessions Child group program

No. of sessions (of each):_____ __________ _________

Family Therapy (both parents and child present) No. of sessions:_______

Parent-child dyadic work (one parent and child/ren) No. of sessions:_______

Case-management role provided (eg liaison, coordination with other services, referrals)

Review/Closure planning session

Other. Please specify: ___________________________________________________

Certificate s60I issued by PO service since first face-to-face session:

Certificate s 60I issued Date: ____/_____/____

Ground/s:

Did not attend due to the refusal or the failure of the other party/parties to attend

Did not attend because the FDRP considered under sub regulation 25(2) of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (FDRP Regulations), it would not be appropriate to conduct FDR

Attended FDR and all attendees made genuine effort to resolve the issue/issues in dispute

Attended FDR but (specified) party/parties did not make a genuine effort to resolve the issue or issues in dispute

Began attending FDR but the FDRP considered under sub regulation 25(2) of the Family Law (Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners) Regulations 2008 (FDRP Regulations), it would not be appropriate to continue

NEW Parenting Arrangements or Orders made since the 10 Week time-point:

Interim Parenting Order/s Month/Year:

103 | P a g e


Final Parenting Order/s Month/Year:


Other legal/court matters, if known.

Family Law- Parenting Family Law- Property

Children’s Court

IVO

Other. Please specify:

Nature of issues and level of disputes at the 20 week time-point:



UnknownParenting time arrangementsPick up/drop off timesPick up/drop off locationsLast minute changes to arrangementsStep-parent/new relationshipMedical treatment for your childrenChildren’s daily routinesMaking decisions about choice of schoolSchooling, homework etc.Attendance at school functionsRelationships with extended family membersBuying gifts for the childrenBuying necessities for the childrenHoliday arrangements DietExtra-curricular activitiesDiscipline

104 | P a g e

Financial (who pays for what)Other. Please specify:

Nature and level of risk issues present in family at the 20 week time-point:

Based on your current assessment, please indicate the level of risk by entering a number from the following in each box:


High conflict between parentsSignificant power imbalance between parentsFamily violence –emotionalFamily violence –physicalAbuse/neglect of child/ren by parentAvoidance of Child Support responsibility by parentMinimisation of finances/income by parentParent mental health issue/illnessParent disability/physical health issueChild mental health issue/illnessChild/physical health issueParental problematic alcohol or other drug useParental problematic gamblingSignificant loss/trauma in familyParental unemploymentFinancial hardship/stressHigh risk behaviours by child/young person in familyOther. Please specify: ______________________________________________

Referrals made by practitioner since the 10 week time-point:

Services the client was referred to which are not part of this pilot service (please tick which apply):

105 | P a g e

Service

106 | P a g e

NoneIndividual Adult Counselling/TherapyIndividual/Sibling/Group Child Counselling/TherapyCouple Counselling/TherapyFamily Counselling/TherapyLawyer. If yes, please specify: Private Community/Women’s/ATSI Legal Service Legal Aid CommissionFamily Relationships Advice Line Legal Advice ServiceFamily violence serviceAlcohol and other drug serviceMental health service: Adult and/or ChildChild Protection servicePolice (re violence, IVO)Other. Please specify:______________________________

Thank you for your help!

107 | P a g e

Appendix F: Staff Focus Group QuestionsAgenda

Background Establishment Target Group Delivery Outcomes Evaluation

Key questions

1. Establishment: What needs to be considered in setting up a program such as this?

Design: how did you know what was needed/what you would try (ie processes/intervention/s)?

Differentiation: How is the intervention different/similar to existing POP?

Processes: What were your learnings about setting up a similar program (ie recruitment, training processes etc.)?

Referrals: What were your learnings about developing referral pathways?

2. Target Group: Which types of families benefit from which programs/interventions?

3 case studies considered/discussed:

1. A common / typical case

2. A case with a positive outcome

3. A case with a neutral or non-positive outcome

Do the planned inclusion criteria still stand (next slide)?

Were the families referred who you expected, or different?

How receptive were families - what strategies did you use to engage reluctant participants?

Who benefited, who would benefit more from regular POP?

Anyone NOT suitable?

Any comments about the timing for families receiving this service?

3. Delivery: What are key processes and interventions to support positive change?

Key processes and interventions to support positive change?

Was the program delivered as planned or were changes needed?

Key processes or interventions for positive change/what helps these families the most?

What worked well about how the program was run/delivered?

What were the main challenges in delivering the program?

Any other comments or learnings about program design or delivery?

108 | P a g e

4. Outcomes: What are some of the positive outcomes seen?

What positive or non-positive outcomes have you seen?

What did you observe/clients report? (e.g. changed attitudes/beliefs, knowledge, skills, behaviours, confidence)

Any surprises/unanticipated outcomes? For those other than clients?

Were there detrimental effects for clients participating in the program?

Did clients/families change in relation to intended outcomes?

5. Evaluation: How should programs go about evaluating programs such as this?

How were you included/informed about evaluation processes and tools?

What aspects of tools / processes worked well?

What aspects of tools or processes did you find challenging/ problematic?

How did you/your program address these challenges/problems?

Do you have suggestions about the timing of post and follow-up surveys?

Any positive effects for clients / staff / service re the evaluation?

Any detrimental effects for clients / staff / service?

109 | P a g e

Appendix G: Client qualitative feedback - detailedThe 10- and 20-week Surveys incorporated two qualitative questions, the first asking about any benefits of the service and the second seeking suggestions for improvements. Response rates for both services (combined and separate) were as follows:

1. Please list any benefits to your or your family as a result of involvement in this service: 10-week Survey-23 client responses (6 from Catholic Care, 17 from Uniting) 20-week Survey- 6 client responses (4 from Catholic Care, 2 from Uniting)

2. Please list any suggestions you have for improving this this service: 10-week Survey -23 client responses (8 from Catholic Care, 15 from Uniting) 20-week Survey -5 client responses (3 from Catholic Care, 2 from Uniting)

Results for the 10-week Survey

Perceived benefits as a result of involvement in the serviceBelow is a summary of client benefits reported by staff of both services, within focus groups.

Benefits Catholic Care

Uniting Combined

1. Enhanced self-understanding (awareness/ insight/ information/ knowledge)(e.g. child’s legal rights, issues, insight re other party, personal situation, experience/self-reflection/perspective, booklet/handouts, good advice, services available, better way to look at the situation)

4 4 8

2. Enhanced coping skills (e.g. helped deal with DV issues/court, helped think about the future/focus more on child, deal with situations in other ways, helpful strategies for self to move forward)

1 4 5

3. Therapeutic/supportive (i.e. being able to talk about/discuss the issues, emotionally helpful, feel supported and cared for, more confidence re going to court and re parenting, more controlled reactions, acknowledgement of previous pain/trauma)

2 2 4

4. Increased understanding/focus regarding child needs (feedback on how children were feeling, understanding child’s point of view from objective perspective, importance of reducing conflict)

1 3 4

5. Counselling element mentioned as beneficial (adults, child/ren) 4 46. Benefits for child (child happy with agreed changes as service helped

parents resolve issue, children sick of hearing arguments/wanted increased parental contact, child benefits from counselling and enjoys it)

3 3

7. No benefits 2 28. Increased understanding of other party (became aware of some of

their actions)1 1

9. An opportunity to negotiate out of court 1 110. Saved on legal fees 1 111. Mediation yet to take place (i.e. service still going) 1 1

110 | P a g e

The most commonly perceived benefits for both services at 10-weeks were increased understanding, knowledge and/or awareness (8), followed by gaining helpful strategies for use (5). Also noted were therapeutic benefits (i.e. counselling) (4), and benefits of increased understanding of the child/ren’s perspective (4).

“I found it therapeutic, was able to discuss ongoing issues. Hopefully the service can help others. “(CCVT)

Direct benefits for child/ren were noted, whereby they were happy to attend the service and/or were happy with its outcomes (3).

“My son likes attending. He walks out with a smile. He talks to the counsellor and does not look like he is holding on to something inside. He will a few days later talk about an activity done. He seems more confident after attending and looks to return” (Uniting)

“I can see my daughter is happy with the change we have so far been able to agree on. This would not have happened if it were not for XX helping my daughter’s father and I resolve this particular issue. Thank you.” (Uniting).

One client indicated they were able to save on legal fees, and this same client noted the benefit of having an opportunity to negotiate (i.e. rather than go to court). Two clients noted no benefits were achieved and one noted mediation was yet to take place.

Improvement suggestions Catholic CareIn relation to improvement suggestions, two clients commented that included that the service be provided earlier, at the interim stage. Three clients felt that the evaluation questions were obscure or not suitable, especially where clients were responding in relation to the other parent.

Two clients also commented on the challenge for services to facilitate ‘non-biased’ mediation especially where a relationship is characterised by violence or unequal power dynamics. One client also commented on the perceived benefits and also limits of discussion with a legal professional within the service.

Uniting Three clients suggested the need for more clear information of what happens within the service step-by-step (e.g. aiming to bring both parties to the table?, what to do next if process doesn’t proceed, expectations of us, how long it goes for, how many sessions both will attend).

Two clients suggested developing a clear list of issues/proposals to be discussed at the outset/prior to save time during the mediation.

Two clients made a number of suggestions each (5 points and 4 points, respectively).

The following list of 12 suggestions were provided by 9 clients: Would have been good to include child More contact with practitioners Less talk about background, more action

111 | P a g e

Was concerned initially with certain agenda topics being withheld at the beginning Quicker response times Practitioners to call back when they say they will After-hours session to disrupt work less understand the legal ongoing concerns prior to accepting the case (i.e. little or no knowledge

of not following court orders will be an issue) felt that parenting skills judged when asked the same question three times. (about my

children’s maturity) If my concerns were acted upon I saw no evidence of it. better communication regarding

follow up on sources of conflict and child risk would make this better Earlier in separation pathway (i.e. prior to final hearing)

Five clients provided no suggestions or only provided positive comments about the service. very happy with unifam. thank youcounsellor was very good and appreciate her support

One client noted benefits but also frustration at nothing breaking the cycle of going to court:service is great. girls enjoy speaking to child consultant. staff are great. frustrated because nothing makes any difference. been to court many times, still going

Of note, one client indicated the benefits of the service having been provided earlier in time. They also noted the importance of having the program written into orders:

This program would have been great to us prior to our final hearing. However, as we have order made and this program is written into orders I feel is the best outcome for myself and our children

Summary of suggestions for improvements for both services at 10-weeks

Combined, results for the 10-week Survey indicate suggestions tended to be different for the two services (Catholic Care and Uniting), while both had clients mention the importance of providing the services earlier (e.g. 4 years ago, at ‘filing’/interim stage, prior to the final hearing). One of these noted the importance at least of having the program written into the (final) orders.

The lack of suitability of (Evaluation) Survey questions by three Catholic Care clients is noted.

Clients of Uniting suggested increased clarity of process, including development of lists for discussion prior to mediation. In terms of practicalities of service provision, the challenge of being responsive to clients in a timely way is noted, and the request for after-hour services.

Practice challenges are noted for practitioners regarding: working with clients who do not follow through with agreements or orders is noted; providing feedback to parties in relation to issues of concerns and child-risk; breaking the family cycle of going to court. Results for the 20-week Survey

112 | P a g e

Perceived benefits as a result of involvement in the serviceCatholic Care

All four clients who provided responses indicated benefits relating to increased understanding/knowledge (e.g. co-parenting, parenting, problem-solving, other party, useful advice, learned more about coercion and abuse techniques, accepting a decision-making process and validating a person and their beliefs, useful advice). (Two of these had provided similar perceived benefits at 10-weeks).

One of these clients noted increased understanding and possibly increased empathy towards the other party as a result of involvement (this same client had noted increased understanding of the other parent at 10-weeks).

understanding that the mother’s personal hatred toward me probably stems from family and ongoing issues not me. I have started to feel genuine pity for her

The usefulness of the service was noted by 2, while they indicated ultimately the conflict was not reduced/the returns to court reduced due to the high conflict in the relationship dynamic. One of these indicated in their case, they don’t know what would work.

Useful counselling and advice. High conflict meant process changed nothingIn my case, I don't know what would work

at this point, very hard to see any apart from motivating me to learn more about coercion and abuse techniques, decision to obtain results through accepting a decision making process and validating a person and their belief system. (This same client had noted the challenge of negotiating when there is domestic violence and unequal relationships).

Uniting Two clients provided responses regarding benefits. One noted the benefit of the time and support to work through their issues.

My partner and I have never had the time allocated to us before to work through all our issues and this has been great for that. Thank you.

One noted the reduced time off work and reduced costs due to using the service rather than going to court.

Summary of perceived benefits for both services at 20-weeks

Very few responses were received. Clients of each service noted different benefits. As for the 10-week surveys, increased understanding/knowledge was highlighted, this time by two Catholic Care clients. One of these noted not only increased understanding but possibly increased empathy for the other party at this second time-point.

113 | P a g e

For two other clients, while benefits were noted, overall, they perceived the situation had not changed in relation to their high conflict and/or court returns, and one noted they don’t know what else would help.

One Uniting client noted benefits of time and support to negotiate with other party, and one noted reduced time and costs associated with use of service in comparison to court.

Suggestions for improving the service

Catholic CareOne client referred to having found the counselling and advice useful but made suggestion for (what appears to be) mediation:

some way to negotiate with both parties to help each other understand one another

One noted the survey form was terrible. (This was one of the two clients who noted lack of suitability of survey questions in the 10-week survey).

One made suggestion: remove ideological biases and understand that the rest of us operate in the real world. The meaning of this statement is not clear.

Uniting Only two suggestions were provided, with one of these being Thank You, and one made suggestion for later sessions, after 4pm (This was the same client who suggested this in the 10-week survey).

Summary of suggestions for improvements for both services at 20-weeksGiven the brief summary above, we refer you to that.

Appendix H: Staff Focus Group findingsThis Appendix provides more detail regarding the PO Pilot interventions provided by Uniting and CCVT, and key learnings of staff.

An initial workshop with all stakeholders was held on 30th August 2016. Attendees included: Managers and senior practitioners from the two services delivering the PO pilots (3 from Uniting and 5 from CCVT); a representative the Attorney General’s Department (AGD); a Federal Court Circuit Registry Manager (Dandenong); and 4 staff from the Centre for Family Evaluation and Research (CFRE) involved in evaluating the pilots.

The workshop involved: clarifying program aims and objectives; developing/refining Program Logics; identifying key outcomes; and commencing evaluation planning. This workshop and program documents from Uniting and CCVT outlined the intended interventions to be provided by each service.

Staff Focus Groups held with each service (separately) in August 2017, towards the end of the data collection period. Seven CCVT staff attended a Staff Focus Group on 17th August 2017 and five Uniting staff attended a Staff Focus Group on 4th August 2017. A variety of roles were represented including: Managers; Family Dispute Resolution Practitioners (FDRPs); Family Counsellors; Intake staff; and Family Lawyer/Senior FDRP.

114 | P a g e

Focus groups sought feedback in relation to the following areas:

Program Establishment- What needs to be considered in setting up a program such as this? Target Group- Which types of families benefit from which programs/interventions? Delivery- What are key processes and interventions to support positive change? Outcomes- What are some of the positive outcomes seen? Evaluation - How should programs go about evaluating programs such as this?

Provided below is a summary of each intervention and staff key learnings, followed by an overall summary of staff feedback in relation to the PO pilots. For each service, the following is provided:

Program documents What was delivered Compared to POP Developing referral pathways Key learnings

o Court orderso Target groupo Client outcomes observedo Suggestions for the futureo Feedback in relation to the evaluation

CCVT’s Post Orders Support Pilot (POSP) Program documentsCCVT provided program documents as follows:

1. CCVT Program Logic post separation services2. CCVT Program Logic Oct20163. CCVT (POS) FLOW CHART- including client pathways into and out of service, key

interventions and potential outcomes4. Post Order Support Pilot Brochure5. Intake Form 6. CCVT Pre-Appointment Questionnaire- categorising the nature of their relationship with the

other party, ticking issues which cause problems in relation to co-parenting, ratings in relation to the effectiveness of the co-parenting relationship and the children’s exposure to conflict.

7. CCVT Temporary Pilot Evaluation 8. POS Assessment Form

A copy of the Project summary for AGD outlined CCVT’s approach to intake, assessment, sessions and service pathways (including co-work if needed, referrals, counselling, FDR and groupwork), and review.

CCVTs provided a copy of the standard Orders developed by judges to refer a case to their POS program, and an email outlining some issues relating to working with families with culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds.

115 | P a g e

What was delivered CCVT recruited staff experienced in working with separated families with high conflict from their existing POP.

CCVT’s model utilised a Family Counsellor as the primary worker for each case.

CCVT designed an eight session structured intervention to trial. Each parent in a case was offered to participate in the following sessions:

1. Engagement and assessment2. Joint session with practitioner experienced in Family Law to review orders3. Adult Attachment Interview and CareGiver Interview4. The experience of the children (may include use of DVDs, YouTube clips and CIP)5. Managing emotions (may use YouTube clips)6. Communication and skill development (may refer to available technology)7. Conflict resolution and skill development8. Review and closure

CCVTs’ Session Outline documents key aims, activities and forms to be completed for each session.

Referrals to other CCVT interventions and services and external services were made as needed along the way.

Assessment was undertaken within individual assessment sessions with each parent. The assessment was brief compared to their POP assessment, primarily due to the POS intervention being brief, whereas POP is able to remain involved longer-term. Assessment focussed on the current issues and dynamics and as for their POP, incorporated the Adult Attachment Interview and Care Giver Interviews to guide directions for support and assistance.

Despite having a structured format, CCVT was able to incorporate some flexibility into their model on a case by case basis based on assessment of client need. For example some sessions were condensed and some sessions were removed if not appropriate for client.

The session with their Family Law practitioner was seen as key to the intervention and helped clarify interpretation and application of the Orders and provide a reality-check in relation to how a Judge may response to issues being raised about the Orders. Of note, this practitioner identified ambiguities and contradictions in one order and endeavoured to liaise with the courts in relation to this.

The individual focus enabled tailoring of psycho-education messages and coaching to address underlying barriers to cooperative co-parenting. This individual approach is particularly useful for families from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, as it ensures suitable time is given to understand concepts and meanings, and enables use of interpreters if needed and tailoring of concepts to cultural values and beliefs.

Within their existing Parenting Orders Program, CCVT uses a COMET approach (Con-joint Mediation Therapy with an FDRP and Family Counsellor) and within their FRC FDR services, they used a dual-practitioner model (i.e. two FDRPs) for complex high risk families. For their PO Pilot, CCVT was able to draw on COMET and dual-practitioner FDR practices if needed.

116 | P a g e

Child-Inclusive Practice was also available as needed, although CCVT found many families were recently involved in assessments for Court Family Reports, and it was not in the children’s interests to involve the children in this relatively brief PO Pilot intervention.

CCVT noted some parents were not motivated to attend and/or had multiple competing demands for their time and energy, and the service had to manage a high number of ‘no shows’.

Compared to POPKey difference from their existing POP included that POP is able to be involved longer-term and has more flexibility as a result, including more thorough assessments, inclusion of multiple family members and case-management.

POP generally involves a few preparatory individual counselling sessions prior to other interventions (such as groupwork, CIP or FDR) and is able to provide long-term counselling beyond these interventions or refer to other counselling services.

POP is able to assist with reunifications in families with children who have not had contact with one parent for some time.

POP generally provides the psycho-education within a 6-week group context, with mixed genders and not including the other parent of the case. Individual psycho-education is provided if needed, for example, for families with culturally and linguistically divers (CALD) backgrounds. A 3-week parenting group is also offered to enhance parent emotional attunement to children.

As above, the POP includes a COMET or dual-practitioner FDR intervention where indicated and the POP worker provides the CIP within these. CIP can be court-ordered and involves the POP worker seeing the children individually or in a sibling group, and planning and providing feedback to each parent individually in conjunction with the FDRP.

Developing referral pathways In order to develop new referral pathways to their POS program, CCVT staff:

developed a Post Order Support Pilot met with four judges in Melbourne who sit in in Dandenong met with Family Consultants in Melbourne attended the Court Registrars Collaborative Law Group Forum met with Circuit Judge in Geelong (however this judge left soon after and CCVT managed

only brief conversations with the replacement judge) met with Geelong Legal Aid Independent Children’s Lawyers (ICL)

A standard set of Orders regarding referral to POS were drafted by the four judges CCVT met with, provided in Appendix J. The Orders specify, for example: timeframe for clients to contact the service; clients must attend for assessment and follow the recommendations of the program; certificates of engagement confirming involvement in the program are to be provided to each party/legal by the program; parties are to provide the program with any memorandum or family report provided to the court by a Family Consultant; counselling is confidential unless disclosure is necessary to protect a person; and the program must report to the court failure by a client to contact and engage in the program.

117 | P a g e

The response from judges was enthusiastic, with request to ‘save the spots for us’, however resulting referrals directly from courts were slower than hoped for. Referrals also tended to come in ‘humps’ of busy times and quieter times which impacted service capacity to respond in a timely way.

CCVT invested significant time and effort engaging with courts, judges, Federal Magistrates and Registrars in Dandenong, Melbourne and Geelong. The service model was predicated on a direct referral pathway from the court/s which was difficult to maintain across multiple sites. The referrals ebbed and flowed and were somewhat episodic, and not necessarily a priority for courts at times, despite ongoing liaison.

CCVT needed to manage expectations of the courts regarding how quickly the service could respond to a referral. For example, judge associates wanted an immediate response from the service and gave clients 24 hours to contact the service.

No referrals were received regarding Contravention Applications despite courts being aware of their suitability for referral. Three referrals were received from judges regarding Reunifications and these were referred to POP. A number of referrals were received from local ICLs with whom CCVT has established relationships. No referrals were received from lawyers more generally.

A majority of referrals were received internally from other CCVT services.

CCVT noted while resource intensive, their work to build external referral pathways for POS has strengthened foundations for ongoing connection and communication with the court system and related professionals (e.g. judges, assistants, registrars, court networks, associates, circuit courts).

Key Learnings Court Orders CCVT noted if participation in the program was not written into orders (i.e. court-ordered and binding), clients were likely to not follow through, for example:

If parties merely made an ‘undertaking’ to attend If participation was in a ‘Notation’ and not in the order as such If involvement was recommended in the Family Report by the Family Consultant but not

written into orders.

Generally, the work of the legal practitioner of POS explaining orders to parents and clarifying order intentions and applications was relatively straightforward. There were several experiences of ambiguous or contradictory orders. These orders were open to differing interpretations, not actually saying what seems to have been intended, and/or leaving important gaps or having obvious mistakes.

These sorts of issues are highly problematic in cases with high conflict. Clients are concerned the other party will never agree to negotiate and will either apply an Order too literally or will simply insist on their own interpretation when there is vagueness. For some clients, they feel that they’re stuck with returning to court, even though they can’t afford it or are exhausted by the court process. Problems with Orders create additional barriers to co-parenting and further despair for some families.

Examples of unsatisfactory Orders are provided:

118 | P a g e

1. An Order stated that the child is to spend time with the father “During school term holidays from 9am the first Saturday until 9am Saturday.” Presumably it meant to say “until 9am on the middle Saturday.”, but it didn’t, and leaves wide open the possibility that the warring parties will interpret it differently.

2. The same Order says the child is to be with the father for the first week of the long holidays (which in 2017 means 22 to 29 December). It then goes on to give the father some Christmas Day time. Given that he already has the whole week, this doesn’t add anything. There is no mention of the mother having Christmas Day time with the children. A literal reading means that the mother has no right to any Christmas Day time with the children.

3. A third example is a different Order which gives the father some specified Christmas Day time, and in a subsequent paragraph removes his right to exactly that time.

CCVT has had difficulty clarifying intentions or correcting such Orders.

For a program such as POS, protocols are needed for two-way communication with the courts. Court Orders need to include wording which requires:

Parties’ involvement in assessment and following of practitioner recommendations; POS providing attendance information and recommendations back to the court.

This wording enables flexibility of approach by POS, and assists retention of reluctant parties and judges with their decision-making.

POS also needs an avenue to raise concerns about ambiguous or contradictory Orders. If Orders are able to be corrected by judges without the need for a hearing (e.g. by Slip Rule), that would be preferable.

As a side issue, staff noted the need for Child Protection staff to provide written advice regarding recommendations to a ‘protective’ parent (e.g. for no contact with the other parent or only supervised contact), rather than verbal advice. Where a protective parent is unsuccessful in negating these recommendations and has to make an application to the court, Child Protection needs to be available to support their application and advocate for the needs of the child/ren to ensure safe outcomes.

Target GroupCCVT noted families referred (from both courts and internally) tended to have high levels of conflict, emotional abuse and control issues. The majority had Interim Parenting Orders with court hearings ahead. The court hearings ahead tended to motivate their participation in POS.

Families suitable for the POS intervention are seen to include:

Child/ren having contact with both parents; At least one parent/party has the potential and willingness to participate and gain insight.

POS was considered not suitable for families with one party/parent having no contact with the child/ren, including cases where one parent was withholding contact, and/or cases where the child/ren was/were not wanting contact with a party/parent. These cases were considered more suitable for the POP intervention which is able to be more flexible and longer-term.

Cases which need practical assistance with decision-making, dispute resolution and negotiation of agreements regarding parenting arrangements need a form of FDR intervention.

119 | P a g e

Through their experience of providing individual-based POS intervention to the general target group (rather than just for specific cases such as families with CALD backgrounds), CCVT recognised some individuals learn better within a group environment due to the positive influence of the group, and are therefore more suited to their POP group-based support. In particular, parties/parents who are perpetrators of controlling or abusive behaviours within co-parenting relationships benefit from group-based interventions, offered in their existing POP.

CCVT experience highlights the following dynamics in separated families with high levels of conflict control and abuse:

Control and abuse behaviours are generally perpetrated by one party/parent within a family, rather than both;

behaviour includes the use of the children, services and systems (including in the interpretation of orders) to negatively impact the other party/parent;

perpetrators may be of either gender; perpetrators are less able or willing to learn and change (i.e. to participate effectively in

interventions such as FDR and POS); perpetrators can be experienced as unreasonable, dominating and irrational and some have

Personality Disorders; behaviours and dynamics were often present prior to separation rather than arising with the

separation; the party/parent who is the victim in the dynamic, is generally more open/receptive to learn and

change, and to participate effectively in interventions; victims may feel stuck in the system, and experience the system as replicating the power

dynamics and not effectively addressing them; victims often feel they have to keep compromising, and may eventually go to court to try to

manage the dynamics; victims may be unaware of the extent of the impacts of the dynamic on themselves or their

children, and/or may experience fear and trauma responses in relation to the other party/parent and their behaviours.

Parents who participated in POS, often didn’t participate in parallel. Often one parent appeared to attend only to meet court requirements, rather than out of genuine interest in changed dynamics. They tried to minimise their participation to minimum court requirements and often missed appointments and/or delayed responding to messages or scheduling appointments.

CCVT completed a lot of work to generate referrals. They had quite a number of referrals that despite their best efforts did not engage with the pilot program. Substantial resourcing was involved in initial scoping and work with clients who did not ultimately engage with the program.

They noted parties displaying the most entrenched and high conflict and/or family violence behaviours may not shift no matter what intervention is offered to them.

CCVT noted some parents are genuinely concerned for their children’s safety in relation to their contact with the other party/parent and felt helpless in addressing this within the court system. They consider that CIP is a valuable intervention to assess safety and wellbeing issues for children, and advocacy with parents and broader systems.

120 | P a g e

Client Outcomes observed CCVT staff noted the following client outcomes from the POS intervention:

Increased capacity to be self-reflective and to focus on the child/ren’s perspective, needs and best interests rather than on the conflict with the other parent.

Improved management of conflict and abuse dynamics with the other parent (e.g. putting boundaries in place through restricting communication to emails)

Increased understanding and acceptance regarding the reality of the situation o That the high conflict may continue and a court order may not solve the relationship

dynamic problemso That they need to find ways to live with/manage the situation over time and

parent/support the children as best as possible within that situation Increased self-responsibility within the conflict dynamics Increased self-care behaviours Improved co-parenting- they moved along the continuum of post-separation co-parenting

CCVT did not tend to observe improvements in communication or reduced conflict.

In terms of returns to court, one case withdrew from the court system and is not likely to return. Most had Interim Orders and were motivated to return to court to finalise Orders

Suggestions for future interventions CCVT indicated key effective elements of POS include:

Use of the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) and Care Giver Interviews (CGI) within the individual assessment and counselling processes. The AAI helps separate parent experiences and feelings from their child/ren’s experiences and emotions. The CGI frames intervention around the parental role and needs of the child, and away from blame/hatred of the other party/parent.

The session with the legal professional added significant value for some families, for example if they held different understandings of the Orders. For several cases, the Orders were ambiguous or contradictory, and liaison and clarification with the court system by the is important to reduce conflict and enable sustainability of the orders

Resources (e.g. ‘Remember me’ DVD and ‘In the name of the child’ booklet) to build parent insight about the perspectives and needs of children

Psycho-education to build parent knowledge and insight towards changed behaviours.

CCVT indicated the following suggestions for enhancement of POS for the future:

The eight-session structure tended to suit families with less complex issues and more manageable conflict

There is benefit for some clients of a group work model but for others a structured individual session based approach worked well

Families with complex issues and entrenched high conflict and/or family violence present, a more flexible, and longer-term approach is needed, which enables inclusion of other types of interventions including group work (particularly for perpetrators), case-management, counselling (in particular for victims) and CIP.

An option of all-day individual sessions (rather than eight separate sessions) would be more practical for some parents.

121 | P a g e

Some families are suitable for an FDR intervention and may benefit from a legally-assisted FDR process.

Benefits of a group-based intervention for some parents include:

increased retention in intervention/reduced attrition rates; experience of mixed gender group enables exposure to different perspectives and experiences, opportunity to separate own past experiences and perspectives from the current situation normalisation, moderation and challenge by the group

Benefits of individual-based interventions include:

ensures suitable time is given to understand concepts and meanings; and enables use of interpreters if needed and tailoring of concepts to cultural values and beliefs.

Overall, CCVT indicates along the continuum of work in the Family law space there is a wide spectrum of clients from those engaged and focused on supporting their children following separation but requiring direction and information, right through to those parents with protracted and dysfunctional high conflict disputes. Following the POSP pilot it became more evident and clearer to CCVT that interventions need to be more tailored to client presentations and capacity. This needs to include specific case-management to assist parents become more empowered and involved in decision-making, understanding interpersonal and family dynamics, understanding the content of court orders and becoming more focused about their children’s best interests

Suggestions for future evaluationsIn relation to this evaluation of the PO Pilots, CCVT indicated:

some clients found the tool challenging and even distressing. For example, one asked how she could explain her family violence experience on a scale when her experience was still inexpressible to her.

Parents found it difficult to answer questions which asked about the other party/parent (‘I can’t answer for the other parent’)

Some clients reported the survey helped them see more clearly the experience of the child, particularly in relation to the conflict

The client surveys were useful in terms of providing further information to inform assessment cultural identity should be examined in relation to suitable interventions and outcomes in future

evaluations there is the possibility of family violence perpetrators reporting themselves as being victims of

family violence, and on this basis CCVT suggest Family Violence monitoring sit within Assessment processes and be based on practitioner judgement

some clients reported increased stress during the intervention period due to a recent incident which may result in lack of positive change or deterioration according to measures

it is easier to have surveys while parties are attending the services rather than to seek completion after involvement has ceased

rather than having client surveys completed at set 10- and 20-we eek time-points, surveys would ideally be completed: before commencement of the service; in the middle of the intervention (i.e. after session 4); and at the end of the intervention (i.e. at the end of session 8).

Existing POP programs could utilise the 8-session model for specific cases within the overall POP program i.e. another intervention to add to the suite of interventions within in POP.

122 | P a g e

Uniting’s Post Orders Intervention Program (POI) or ‘Keeping contact’

Program documents Uniting provided program documents as follows:

Information for clients Post Orders Initial Consultation –outline of discussion, assessment and evaluation questions Uniting POI project summary- outline of intervention model

The Project summary outlined Uniting’s (previously Unifam) intention to “trial an intensive therapy/mediation (hybrid) assessment model with the capacity to tailor interventions on a case-by-case basis. The focus will be on managing conflict and adjusting parental expectations”.

In this summary Uniting noted “there are high attrition rates in the Parenting Orders Program, particularly of the ‘spends time with’ parent. Retention rates will need to be given consideration. The success of pilot will depend on support and cooperation of the Parramatta Federal Circuit Court registry… will work with the Parramatta Federal Circuit Court registry and other key bodies to influence and enhance participant engagement in the Activity”.

The summary outlines Uniting’s approach to intake, assessment, triaging cases, hybrid (dual practitioner) sessions (2 hours, up to 3 sessions), use of CIP, LAFDR (resources permitting), counselling, groupwork, and review.

Uniting also provided a summary of their service data at the end of the data collection period. This is provided in relevant sections, below.

What was delivered POI recruited staff internally from their existing POP and FDR services. Uniting generally find it harder to fill the POP positions than the FDRP positions.

POI was delivered largely as intended. Each case received a customised intervention and a hybrid model with FDRP and Family Counsellor co-jointly facilitating sessions with each adult client. While considered best practice with this client group, Uniting does not use this model as a matter of course within their POP program due to the resourcing required. The resource intensive nature of this approach was reinforced in this POI pilot.

Sessions were generally held fortnightly, which is a good frequency to enable reflection and behaviour change between sessions.

A distinction of role was provided and found to be important. The Family Counsellor provided the education regarding the developmental needs of children and challenged parents as needed regarding the children’s needs (e.g. “it’s not ok what you are doing”). The FDRP maintained an impartial role, which was needed during the FDR functions. Uniting considered this strengthened engagement and effects.

The FDRP was in the role 5 days a week, and the Family Counsellor 3 days a week, so the FDRP did most of the follow-up between sessions, including follow-up with clients who had missed appointments, courts and other services. The time needed for chasing up clients for appointments needs to be factored into resourcing for the future.

123 | P a g e

Child-inclusive practice was used for 16 cases, with 34 children. A child-consultant saw each child in the family who was over 5 years individually, planned feedback with the FDR Practitioner and FC, then provided feedback to each parent individually with the FDR Practitioner and FC present. For children under 5, rather than CIP, the family counsellor provided education about the child/ren’s developmental needs and likely experience and perspective based on the assessment information.

Uniting intended to provide up to 3 individual counselling sessions for each adult client, however due to resource constraints, only 4 adult clients were provided 2 or more individual counselling sessions by the POI practitioner. Clients were referred to other Uniting counsellors in addition to the support from the POI practitioner. Staff noted the flow on effects of the pilot to Uniting included POI being clients given priority for counselling within their counselling service.

Uniting places special emphasis on looking for signs of trauma-related responses in clients (e.g. flight/flight/hyperventilating reactions), and POI prioritised clients with these responses for their individual counselling. To ensure impartiality, POI provided individual counselling for the other party, noting that in some cases parties needed considerable time to relate their stories.

Individual counselling involved:

Education regarding impacts on brain, triggers, strategies to bring brain back ‘on-line’ such as tapping and grounding (E.g. Fisher, Siegal)

Support to understand and deal with the past relationship dynamics so they can focus on the child/ren (E.g. Imago, Gottman, Attachment theories)

Encouraging parents to ensure the child/ren know they are loved and respected by both and have true permission to go to both.

The children’s experiences and needs and suitable parenting strategies (i.e. exploring solutions in relation to child-related issues e.g. different views in relation to child behaviours and ADHD medication)

Communication and boundaries between parties/parents (e.g. respond rather than ignore) Affirming parent strengths and decisions which support their own and their children’s/family

wellbeing

Uniting provides a group therapy program for children 5-18 years (Anchor), and many of the children were referred to this program.

Of the 50 POI cases, 20 FDR sessions were undertaken (3 sessions with one case). POI assisted with FDR in relation to parenting and/or finances.

Other than when one party did not engage and the case was referred instead for individual counselling, there were no case closures as such. Some cases continued after the court event.

POI data indicated the following interventions were provided:

o CIP- 34 childreno Individual counselling (children)- 12o Total direct contact with children time= 109 hours -some children attended either CIP

OR counsellingo Individual counselling (adults)- 47=107 hourso Hybrid FDR- 20 sessions= 65 hourso Administration/Intake =300 hours (i.e. ~3 hours per case)

124 | P a g e

o Case-management meetings= 80 hours

Overall, Uniting found POI to involve intense work and high caseloads, with difficult cases.

Compared to POPDifferences between POI and Uniting’s existing POP program (Keeping Contact) included:

POI involved a mediator and counsellor working together, allowing for a broad range of interventions tailored to the needs of each case.

POI was more intensive in delivery than the standard POP program, due to pressure to attain agreement in days or weeks for an upcoming court hearing

By contrast, POP typically incorporates the FDRP within a FDR intervention, as an exception and much later in the service

POP involves a whole-of-family CIP approach from the outset, whilst for POI, CIP was optional POP involves a 3-hour education session to build parent insight into child/ren’s experiences and

needs POP can provide a longer timeframe for interventions (i.e. 6-12 months).

Developing referral pathways In order to develop new referral pathways to their POS program, Uniting staff:

Developed a program brochure Sent emails to Independent Children’s Lawyers to promote the service Had Contact with the Parramatta Court Registry Manager Had a face-to-face morning tea with judges

Judges indicated families with Interim Orders with breaches or not being upheld, or coming back for hearings should be targeted for the program. They indicated there was no leverage for families to attend services after Final Orders were made.

In terms of what was written into orders, the Federal Circuit Court put a condition on Interim Orders to contact POI within a certain time-frame, commonly 7 days, but ranging from 7-42 days.

All POI cases involved court referrals for families with Interim Orders. Most came through involvement of ICLs. Three cases were referred back to POI after their hearings.

POI has not heard back in relation to Final Order hearing outcomes, likely partly due to families still going through final hearings.

Key learnings Target groupUniting provided the following demographic data in relation to their POI client group:

Numbers of females and males involved with the service (females-52, males-48) Age range (25-63 years) Extended family (1 grandmother) Disability (mental health-9, other-2) Country of birth/CALD (New Zealand-6, Lebanon-5, India-2, Greece-2, USA-2, Aborigonal-1,

Afghanistan-1, Burma-2, Finland-1, Guinea Republic-1, Peru-1, Philippines-1, Sierra Leone-1) Referral sources- 47 court-ordered cases: Contravention Orders-23 (of the 47), Interim Orders-3,

Final Orders-44, Internal referrals-7, External referrals-4)

125 | P a g e

Staff noted the families attending were in entrenched high conflict.

Engagement of the second party was mixed despite the court/order requirement. Many were slow/reluctant to engage. Uniting had to remind a number of parties that their involvement was court ordered and staff would need to notify the court if they failed to participate. At times, the court had to push them to attend.

For 15 cases referred only one parent would attend. All of these had Final Orders. Where one party would not engage, POI did not continue and the party willing to be involved was referred for individual counselling instead of POI, where appropriate.

Many families have experienced multiple court attendances and high legal costs over time. For a number of families both parties did not want to go back to court due to time and costs associated, so they were motivated to participate in POI.2

In lots of cases but not all, the finances were resolved and the focus is on parenting.

Only one case involved grandparents as one party (paternal grandparents with a deceased son) and the children’s parent as the other party (mother).

Families attending generally had more than one of the following complex issues present: parental mental illness; parental substance use; family violence; other trauma in parent backgrounds. Nine families were considered not suitable due to mental illness.

Some families had re-partnered.

Uniting staff considered POI works for families with the following characteristics:

Those with Interim Orders (vs Final Orders) as there is incentive to attend Fresh from court-all revved up Those motivated to avoid future court hearings Those who want to be able to self-manage parenting arrangements and decisions rather

than have them court-imposed Those willing to gain some insight (even a very low level)

Uniting staff considered POI is less suitable (and POP more suitable) for families with more distance from court (i.e. a while after a hearing or a while until the next hearing) and for families with parents who are not willing or able to gain insight and/or who are unwilling/able to have empathy for the other parent or understand the children’s experience.

Staff noted a decision to accept only cases with both parties motivated to participate would assist resourcing issues and program outcomes for those families, but would exclude families who would otherwise not received support services.

2 As a side note, Uniting are aware many parties are self-representing by the time of involvement with POI as they can no longer afford legal costs. Some have fallen through the gaps of Legal Aide funding, others have used up their eligible amount. Some aren’t eligible due to their income, assets, or if they are considered unlikely to succeed with their case. A Judge has to give extra time and allowances for parties self-representing, which increases the costs for the other party with legal representation, and self-representation can be used as a form of system abuse of the other party.

126 | P a g e

Client outcomes observedAfter delivering POI for one year, Uniting staff note most cases are just starting to show progress now, including whole-of-family work starting to happen.

Where one party was slow/reluctant to engage, this slowed progress with the case.

Uniting staff noted the following client outcomes from the POI intervention in a number of families:

Direct child benefits

Children being used as messengers reduced after CIP feedback Child medication regime became consistent across both homes Children were exposed to less conflict Increased ‘true permission’ for child/ren to see and have meaningful relationship with the other

party rather than just their verbal permission

Reduced parent conflict

Lots of small agreements achieved regarding issues of dispute, for exampleo agreement on week about during Christmas holidays 2017-18o agreement on a schedule for phone contact with father to facilitate o travel/handover arrangements

Agreements built confidence and basis for further successes and agreements Increased patience and tolerance of parents to work through issues together Parents happy with their achievements and wanted to come back Reduced anger/hatred of the other party

Increased parent insight

Insight about own behaviour (e.g. catastrophizing regarding the other party, their controlling behaviours such as making arrangements which exclude other party)

Increased capacity for perspective-taking (e.g. about how it feels for the other party or child/ren) Increased understanding of the fairness to have the other party more involved (e.g. realising

they were not as bad as they thought, or realising had always been like that so shifting their expectations)

For the Staff Focus Group, Uniting prepared three case examples, one of a ‘typical’ case, one with a positive outcome, and one a neutral or detrimental outcome (i.e. a disappointing outcome). These are described below.

A ‘typical’ caseThe ‘typical’ case involved a separated family with 5 children aged 6-13 years. The father was reluctant or slow to engage, and was reminded by POI involvement was court ordered and they would need to notify court if he did not engage. Initial adult consultations/assessments were conducted, and then CIP undertaken with each of the children. Feedback indicated the 13-year-old was being used as a messenger by the parents and this was not in her interests. Feedback resulted in referrals for individual counselling for each parent regarding parenting strategies and communication between parents (e.g. how to respond to communicate rather than ignore).

Parents were in dispute over Ritalin use by the 11-year-old. The father would not let him use it when at his house as he could not see benefits from its use. The counsellor took the approach of asking

127 | P a g e

him what concerned him, and what he thought would help things to go better. The father was concerned about the 11-year old’s self-confidence and school performance. Discussion resulted in the father agreeing to try Ritalin in the mix with other identified parenting strategies. He was satisfied with the results and the 11-year-old benefitted from consistent medication approach across homes. The 13-year-old benefitted from no longer being asked to carry messages as parents enhanced their capacity to communicate directly together in relation to parenting issues.

One joint FDR session was undertaken in relation to financial settlement. Both parents refused to seek legal advice for their complex financial matters, but have now agreed to and another FDR session is planned after the next court hearing.

A case with a positive outcomeThe example of a case with a positive outcome involved a family with a father who had mental health issues, substance use issues, family violence behaviours and trauma experiences in his background. He had re-partnered and had a child with his new partner. The mother always had a lot to say, long winding stories about what had happened. The family had experienced multiple court dates and not all the issues had been addressed.

Initial adult consultations took place. Assessment indicated FDR was needed to address outstanding disputes. As there was only one child, CIP was not undertaken and instead the Family Counsellor provided feedback to each parent about her developmental needs and experiences within the family. Individual sessions with the father included affirming his efforts and achievements in relation to participation in rehabilitation and reduced substance use, and helped him consider skills he could translate to the dynamics with the other parent.

Three FDR sessions were held regarding outstanding disputes (e.g. Christmas holiday time, phone communication between the father and the child while at his house). A lot of small agreements were achieved within these sessions. A lot of time was spent talking and listening. Feeling heard and validated helped to reduce the conflict for both. Having a facilitated forum for communication enabled information to be clarified for both parents. Parents grew in their patience and tolerance to work through issues together. Parents were affirmed in their parenting strengths and supported to understand the child’s perspective and meet her best interests. Small successes in terms of agreements increased parents’ confidence they could make agreements and build on their successes.

A case with a disappointing outcomeTheir third example was of a family with the mother withholding the children’s contact with their father, resulting in the father applying for a Contravention Order. Both parents had re-partnered. The mother initiated contact with POI after the court ordered involvement but then was reluctant to participate, delaying appointments, cancelling appointments multiple times, and complaining of missing work and the children missing school. She called the service multiple times checking if the father had attended. She attempted to use the children and service to support her position by telling the children what to tell workers at their group program, and telling workers what to tell the children. Despite efforts to work with the mother, staff had to discontinue the children’s involvement in the children’s group due to the lack of emotional safety for them in attending. As far as staff were aware no shift in insight or behaviour was achieved with the mother. The father was not able to see the children despite their expressed wish for this to POI staff, and he would not return to court.

128 | P a g e

POI indicated there were other cases where nothing appeared to change. There was no deterioration as such. One case was disturbing to POI staff. An inappropriate Order was made requiring a 14 year old boy to see a parent despite his feedback he did not want to go and threats to run away if made to go. POI gave ideas to assist but the family did not continue.

Staff noted improved connection with court was another outcome of the pilot.

Suggestions for future interventionsStaff indicated the resource-intensive nature of the POI hybrid model was underestimated despite this approach being beneficial and effective.

Staff indicated to optimise client outcomes for the future, POI would involve:

3-10 individual counselling sessions for each party The intervention would ideally be longer than 12 months Availability of Legally-Assisted FDR would assist some cases

Resourcing needed for POI includes:

Initial assessment= 2 hours per party/parent For each 1 hour of face-to-face contact the non-contact time is around 3.5 hours Non-contact activities include: follow-up with court; chasing up clients; liaison between staff;

internal referrals; case records; ‘holding clients’ between sessions with phone calls. CIP - Child consultants spend 1 hour with each child in the family and 2 hours for

parent/party feedback Individual counselling of 3 hours per parent/party amounts to 6 hours per case FDR involves around two 3-hour shuttle FDR sessions per case (i.e. 6 hours per case) plus

administration

Suggestions for future evaluations Uniting provided the following data in relation to overall client participation in the evaluation:

Consent to participate in evaluation (70-Yes, 30-No at baseline) Numbers of follow-up surveys completed (10-week- 28, 20-week-2)

Uniting made the following observations in relation to evaluation measures and processes:

The role of the Intake worker to engage parties in Evaluation was critical. Intake staff did not specify the length or frequency at initial discussions, but just raised the idea of evaluation as beneficial and asked participants to complete at the first session.

Client Survey completion time ranged from 30 mins to 1.5 hours for those with a long story. One party took 2.5 hours to complete the survey with an interpreter despite staff telling interpreter it shouldn’t take so long

Parents indicated all the children were different and they didn’t know which child to focus on in client surveys

POI staff avoided reading through survey with clients in case they thought they were trying to influence them. The individual counsellor may have assisted them in this way.

Clients prefer to do the surveys in person. The 10-week survey could be completed if a party was coming in for a session.

129 | P a g e

Only one Survey was posted out, otherwise calls were made by the Intake worker or other staff.

Most clients who had not done much with POI or were not coming back flatly refused to complete the 10- or 20-week survey.

The timing of the 10-week survey was too soon. Most clients had not participated in their individual counselling at that time-point. Staff weren’t sure about the timing of a follow-up time-point to monitor sustained effects.

130 | P a g e

Appendix I: Example Orders

131 | P a g e

parenting orders program enforcement pilot · web viewthis report presents the findings of programs...

Documents