1. RAPID RESPONSE program
OPEN sector Research symposium
30 October 2017 Lalitha Nair, Research Officer
Jonathon Cummins, Manager Quality & Regional Development

2. Key Elements of Rapid Response Model
Respond at the point of crisis, where placement is imminent
Initial meeting between family, rapid response and child protection within 24 hours
Agree on clear and transparent safety plan and measurable and specific goals for change
Provide practical support, live coaching and role modelling to build family skills
Work in the family home
Flexible hours enable workers to conduct home visits at opportune times for intervention, including outside of usual business hours

3. Key Elements of Rapid Response Model
4 weeks, intensive and focused intervention
Low caseloads allow up to 15 hours per week service to each family
Strengths based, solution focussed partnership approach
Use of evidence-informed interventions such as Motivational Interviewing, behavioural approaches and parent-coaching
Interventions are tailored to each family’s culture, circumstances and values
Interventions are adjusted based on regular client feedback

4. Key Elements of Rapid Response Model
Strengthen the support system around the family
Joint visits with Child Protection at mid-point and closure
Provide follow-up opportunities for booster sessions for families if needed
Regularly monitor and review case progress
Strong clinical oversight and supervision
Effective partnership with Child Protection staff at all levels

5. Key Frameworks and Evidence Underpinnings
Homebuilders®
Signs of Safety®
North Carolina Family Assessment Scale (NCFAS)

6. Intervention Frameworks
Motivational Interviewing
Behavioural / Skills building
Parenting
Family Coaching
Ecological
Crisis Intervention
Operating within an Evidence-Informed Decision Making Process with a focus on the therapeutic alliance.

7. Elements of Homebuilders Model
Elements of the Homebuilders® Model that align within the Rapid Response program:
Target population (Eligibility Criteria)
Intense Support Model
Case Loads
Strengths based, coaching model
Reflecting and active listening
Best Interest of the child to remain in the family home
Strengthen/Linkages to the community

8. Communication with Child Protection
Communication with Child Protection throughout service intervention:
Triage Meetings s
Phone Referrals
Ongoing consultation during the service intervention

9. In development Program Manual Program Evaluations – AV and DHHS
Staff competency framework
Quality standards
Implementation framework

10. Evaluation of Rapid Response
Eastern, southern and St Luke’s Bendigo regions

11. Scope of the evaluation
RR program in 3 regions - Bendigo, Eastern Metropolitan and Southern Metropolitan areas
Six month period 1 July to 31 December 2017
All clients who consent to be part of the evaluation
Clients who complete the 4-6 week intervention

12. Purpose of the evaluation
Demonstrate program efficacy – that the program is able to achieve its intended outcomes
Develop and articulate a theory of change - to provide a research-informed conceptual grounding for the service model.
Ensure program fidelity and consistency - that the program is being implemented, delivered and monitored in a consistent way across the different regions where it is offered, maintaining fidelity to the Homebuilders® program in its core features.

13. Premise
Intensive interventions at a point of crisis provides an effective option for keeping families together through the provision of support that directly addresses specific risk factors
Family preservation intervention focuses on strengthening family functioning that eliminates the need for removal, or at the least reduces the need for further child protection involvement

14. Research Questions
Two primary outcomes are measured - placement prevention and improved family functioning
Research Questions:
What number/ proportion of program participants avoided placement in residential or foster care following program participation?
Was placement prevention sustained over a short-term (up to a maximum of 6 months) follow-up period?
Did program participation result in significant improvements in family functioning (measured through NCFAS) between program commencement and program completion?
Is there a correlation between family, child and program characteristics, placement prevention and improvements in family functioning?

15. Methodology Integrates quantitative and qualitative methods
Quantitative data from intake forms, Signs of Safety® assessments and closure summaries
NCFAS scores at intake and closure
Family needs and strengths as reflected in the intake, referral and Signs of Safety® forms
A qualitative component – the case study will be used to capture multiple stakeholders’ perspectives, in particular client perspectives regarding their experiences
Audit of processes and features of the program as implemented across the regions

16. Data Analysis
Descriptive statistics to show frequencies of participant characteristics
Paired samples t-test to compare pre-test and post-test scores for NCFAS.
Regression analysis to find out if there is any correlation between family and child characteristics to placement outcome.
Content analysis of referral, intake and Signs of Safety® forms to capture case workers’ assessment of relevant issues, strengths and weaknesses to identify any recurring themes or patterns

17. Initial results

18. Placement prevention

19. Signs of Safety®

20. Improved family functioning

21. The next steps Initial results indicate that the program:
prevents placement, with the majority of children (97%) staying with their primary caregiver
improves family functioning, with a clear change in the overall NCFAS scores
Data collection will continue in the next 3 months from the program, and until June 2018 from Child Protection on placement outcomes
We anticipate a sample size of around 40
Analysis, reporting and dissemination

22. Thank You