฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
Report on the research into life outcomes for
people brought up in institutional care in Victoria.
MONOGRAPH NUMBER 17
MONOGRAPH SERIES 2008
Report prepared by
Sunitha Raman & Catherine Forbes
#/.4%.43
Foreword .....................................................................1
Chapter 4: Implications for policy ........................... 32
Executive Summary .................................................... 2
Chapter 5: Reparation and redress schemes ........... 36
Chapter 1: Background ..............................................
1.1 The Forgotten Australians Report ............................
1.2 The Victorian Sector Working Group .......................
1.3 The Research Project ...............................................
Chapter 6: Areas for priority investment ............... 40
4
5
5
6
Chapter 2: Historical Context .................................... 8
Chapter 3: Research Data .........................................11
3.1 Background information ........................................12
3.2 Overall characteristics of respondents ....................12
Chapter 7: Conclusion .............................................. 43
References ................................................................ 44
Appendices ............................................................... 45
Public apology to Forgotten Australians ..................... 45
Careleavers survey 2006 ............................................ 46
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Kevin Zibell, SWG Chair
CEO, Child and Family
Services Ballarat
The Centre would like to
gratefully acknowledge:
Brendon Carroll
Adoption and Family
Records Service, DHS
The Collie Trust for their financial support
for this project.
Bruce Cameron
Anglicare Victoria
The 77 careleavers who responded to the
research survey.
Caroline Carroll
VANISH
Staff members of community organisations
who administered the survey and supported
careleavers in this process.
Charles Gibson
Uniting Care Victoria
and Tasmania
Anglicare Victoria’s Research Ethics Committee.
Dr Peter Stricker, Project Officer for the
research project.
Claire-Anne Willis
Department of
Human Services
The following Victorian Sector Working Group
(SWG) members who provided valuable
guidance for this research project:
Coleen Clare
CEO, Centre for Excellence
in Child and Family Welfare
Published by
Centre for Excellence
in Child and Family Welfare Inc.
ISBN 1 921110 20 1
For more information on this report contact:
Coleen Clare, Chief Executive Officer
Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare
5/50 Market Street, Melbourne, Victoria 3000 Australia
Telephone +61 3 9614 1577 Fax +61 3 9614 1774
Email [email protected]
Dr Catherine Forbes
Monash University
Leslie McLeod
Berry Street Victoria
Felise Cremona
CLAN
Liz Irving
Berry Street Victoria
Fletcher Tame
Adoption and Family
Records Service, DHS
Maureen Cleary
Manager, VANISH
Frank Golding
CLAN
Mimi Morizzi
Orana Family Services
Helen Brain
Department of
Human Services
Sunitha Raman
Centre for Excellence
in Child and
Family Welfare
Jenny Glare
Mackillop Family Services
Susan Pitman
Oz Child
Judy Wookey
CEO, Glastonbury Child
and Family Services
Tim Matheson
Salvation Army Social
Policy Research Unit
Leonie Sheedy
CLAN
Willa Longmuir
Melbourne City Mission
1
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀฀
฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀฀
Quote
from
a
careleaver
who
participated
in
our
survey
฀
฀
It gives us great pleasure to commend this report to you.
With the collective effort of the dynamic Sector Working
Group in Victoria (SWG), and the selfless participation of
77 wonderful people in our survey, we have been able to
produce this report that can guide our efforts to support
the many Victorians who suffered trauma and abuse in
institutional care.
With the apology in Parliament in August 2006, and the
commitment of resources to enhance services provided
by the careleaver support groups VANISH and CLAN, the
Victorian Government has signalled its commitment towards
supporting careleavers. Work has also commenced in setting
up an appropriate memorial for careleavers and in compiling
a services directory in Victoria.
It takes enormous courage and strength of character
to recount the past, and share one’s experiences through
a survey. The 77 careleavers who participated in this process
provided us with valuable information and insights into their
experiences in care, and services that are needed in Victoria
to support them and their colleagues overcome the trauma
of these experiences. We are humbled by their willingness
to provide us with the information we sought and thank
them sincerely, for without them this research would not
have been possible.
However, much needs to be done before we can say that
Victoria has a service system that meets the needs of all
careleavers. We hope that this report stimulates dialogue
between government, the community sector and careleaver
support groups and leads on to a realistic investment in
setting up support services for careleavers.
Together we can show that it is still not too late to care.
The SWG that has supported this project is a unique group
that brings together representatives from the community
sector, government and careleaver support groups in a
partnership to move forward in implementing some of
the recommendations in the Forgotten Australians report.
We thank all of the members on this group for their
valuable time and advice.
Kevin Zibell
An undertaking of this nature is not possible without the
generous support of many organisations. We are grateful to
the Collie Trust for their financial support and the Anglicare
Research Ethics Committee for ensuring that our survey met
strict ethical standards for human services research. We thank
the many community organisations and the careleaver support
groups, VANISH and CLAN, for administering the survey to
their members and constituents.
Coleen Clare
We are also grateful to the authors, Ms Sunitha Raman
from the Centre for Excellence and Dr Catherine Forbes from
Monash University, for compiling this report. Dr Forbes offered
her expertise to this project, and we have benefitted greatly
from her expertise with numbers and her generosity.
Chair, Sector Working Group
Chief Executive Officer
2
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
฀
In response to the recommendations in the Senate Community
Affairs Reference Committee’s report Forgotten Australians,
the Victorian community sector established a multi-stakeholder
reference group called the Sector Working Group (SWG) in
2004 to scope the implementation of the recommendations
in Victoria. This group commissioned a research project to
quantify the life outcomes for careleavers who had been
raised in Victorian institutions, and compare the outcomes
against those in the general population belonging to the same
age group. The main aim of this research was to generate data
to identify specific program responses to support careleavers
in Victoria. This report outlines the findings of this research
and the recommendations for investment in programs and
services for careleavers.
The research was undertaken using a structured survey
instrument administered through community organisations
and careleaver support groups in Victoria. The survey also
had some areas where qualitative feedback could be provided
by careleavers to explain or strengthen their response. Ethics
approval was provided by Anglicare Victoria’s Research Ethics
Committee. 77 people who were brought up in Victoria’s
institutions participated in this survey. The benchmarking
data for the general population was obtained from the
Australian Bureau of Statistics, from the 2001 census data.
The significant findings of this research are:
s
The long term impacts of their early life in institutional
care is evident in many critical domains of careleavers’
lives, such as health, education, income, employment
and personal relationships.
s
On a comparative basis the experiences of careleavers
in the above domains are significantly lower compared
to the general population.
s
Even within the sample group of careleavers who
participated in our survey, the outcomes achieved by
careleavers in the 40–49 and 50–59 age groups appeared
to be relatively lower in these domains, when compared
with careleavers aged over 60 years.
s
Over half of all the respondents have been diagnosed with
a disability. Nearly half of the respondents had also visited a
specialist health service in the six months prior to our survey.
The specialist health services accessed by careleavers relate
to mental, dental and physical health needs.
s
72 per cent of careleavers earn less than $200 per week
from wages and salaries. A significant proportion of these
respondents are aged between 40–59 years. Over one third
of all respondents received a pension of between $200 and
$400 from the Government. In comparison with the general
population, a higher proportion of careleavers earn lower
incomes and are in receipt of a Government pension.
s
An overwhelming number of careleavers have concerns
about ageing and being in an aged care facility, due to their
prior experiences in an institution. Nearly three quarters
of respondents in the 50–59 age group and two thirds of
respondents in the 40–49 age category expressed concerns.
Only 5 per cent of respondents were in an aged care facility
at the time of our survey.
s
A fifth of careleavers live alone, and around a third of
respondents indicated that they either rely on themselves
or turn to a counsellor or psychologist for support in
times of need.
Our research has also established that many careleavers
have been successful in overcoming the impact of the adverse
circumstances in which they were brought up. This is reflected
in their achievements in education and careers, in their family
relationships, upbringing of children, positions in various
community and social groups, as documented by many
in the qualitative responses to the survey.
The data generated by this research provides us with some
useful information to guide investment in support services
and programs for careleavers.
3
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RECOMMENDATIONS
The principal recommendations to the Victorian Government
contained in the report are:
1
The establishment of a Victorian health card that identifies careleavers as a special community group and
allows them priority access to and fee concessions for physical, mental and dental health services.
2
Reviewing of Home and Community Care services guidelines to facilitate easy access to these services for careleavers.
Trialling of innovative programs in partnership with careleavers and the Federal Government aimed at meeting the
aged care needs of careleavers in alternative home-based settings.
3
Increased investment in support services for careleavers and their families such as counselling, literacy and
numeracy, dental services, mental health services etc, through careleaver support groups and other community
service organisations.
4
Assistance to community organisations to catalogue records, and set up supported record access services
for careleavers seeking access to their personal records. The possibility of developing collaborative models
of record access should also be explored.
5
Setting up a reparation and redress scheme in Victoria following the example set by other states
in Australia.
ONE
"!#+'2/5.$
5
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
BACKGROUND
1.1 The Forgotten Australians Report
1.2 The Victorian Sector Working Group
In August 2004, the Community Affairs Reference
Committee of the Australian Senate (the Committee)
released its seminal report Forgotten Australians, outlining
its findings from a national inquiry into the care provided
to children in Government and non-Government institutions
across the country, and the extent and impact of the
long-term social and economic consequences of child
abuse and neglect on individuals.
During late 2004, following the release of the Forgotten
Australians report by the Committee, the Centre convened
a meeting of its member organisations who provided
institutional care to children and young people in Victoria.
This meeting considered the Committee’s recommendations
and explored options to move forward with implementing
some of the recommendations in Victorian community
service organisations (CSOs).
The Forgotten Australians report is the third part of
a trilogy, outlining the plight of many thousands of mainly
non-Indigenous Australian-born children who were placed
As a result, a Sector Working Group (SWG) was formed
comprising members from the Centre who provided
institutional care in the past, Careleaver organisations –
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀
Quote
from
a
careleaver
who
participated
in
our
survey
฀ ฀
in institutional care. The other two reports outline the
plight of child migrants into Australia (Lost Innocents) and
Indigenous children (HREOC report, Bringing them home).
After over a year of inquiry in which over 600 public
submissions were received, and hearing evidence across
Australia from 171 individuals, the Committee presented
its report in two parts. The first part of the report focuses
on children who were in institutional and out-of-home care
mainly from the 1920s until the 1970s when a policy shift
saw the de-institutionalisation of care provided to children
and young people across Australia. 39 recommendations
were made in the Forgotten Australians report.
The second part of the report covers findings relating to
foster care, and has as its main focus contemporary foster
care issues, and government and legal frameworks in which
child welfare and protection systems operate in Australia.
The report also discusses matters relating to children and
young people with disabilities in care, and children and
young people in juvenile justice and detention centres.
This report is concerned with the work undertaken by the
Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare (the Centre)
in relation to the first report, and the recommendations
contained therein.
VANISH and CLAN, and the Department of Human Services,
to scope the work that was required to implement the
recommendations of the Committee, and with assisting
CSOs in that process.
A number of initiatives have been undertaken or are currently
underway as a result of the work done by the Centre and the
Department of Human Services in conjunction with the SWG,
and are detailed below:
s
s
The Centre has drafted and made available to its member
CSOs, a generic statement of apology to enable CSOs to
issue their own apologies to careleavers. It is worth noting
here that the Victorian Premier Hon. Steve Bracks issued
an apology to Victorian careleavers from the floor of the
Parliament on 7 August 2006 (Recommendation 1 in the
Forgotten Australians Report).
Two practice forums have been held during 2005 and 2006:
– showcasing good practice examples from member
organisations that have implemented, or are in the process
of implementing the Senate’s recommendations, and
– generating discussion about issues faced by Victorian CSOs
in implementing the recommendations.
6
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
BACKGROUND
s
In conjunction with the Corporate Integrity and Information
Resource Unit of the Department of Human Services, a
forum was held for CSOs in Victoria, focussing specifically
on issues and strategies related to providing careleavers with
supported access to personal records (Recommendations
12–18 in the Forgotten Australians Report). At the time of
writing this report, a research proposal has been presented
to the Australian Research Council by the Alfred Felton
Chair in Child and Family Welfare based at the University
of Melbourne and a consortium of ten CSOs including the
Centre, to undertake a project in looking at the importance
of archives in good child protection practice.
s
The Department of Human Services is currently working
with the SWG on finalising a Directory of Community
Services that provided institutional care in Victoria to
assist careleavers trace the institutions in which they
had been placed (Recommendation 14 in the Forgotten
Australians Report).
s
The Department of Human Services is currently consulting
with careleavers through the SWG on the establishment
of an appropriate memorial in Victoria commemorating
careleavers (Recommendation 34 in the Forgotten
Australians Report).
s
A research project was commissioned with funding
support from the ANZ/Collie Trust to collect information
about the life experiences of people formerly in institutional
care as a way of informing future policy directions in
providing appropriate support services to them. This research
was commissioned because other than the information in
the Forgotten Australians report, there is no documented
data/information about the life experiences and outcomes
achieved by careleavers. (Preliminary scoping to consider
implementation of Recommendation 23 in the Forgotten
Australians Report).
The rest of this report is concerned with outlining the
findings from this research and presenting policy and
program options that are open to Government and CSOs
for supporting careleavers.
1.3 The Research Project
1.3.1 Purpose
This research project was undertaken to collect information
about the life experiences of careleavers, the long term
impact of their time in care, and their current service and
support needs, with a view to informing the development of
policies and programs to support careleavers. This research
was made possible with the funding support provided by
The Collie Trust, and was undertaken during 2006/07.
1.3.2 Methodology
This research sought to collect data from at least 120
careleavers who were brought up in institutions in Victoria
as the primary source of information. However, given the
voluntary nature of participation, and despite our best
efforts reaching out to many careleavers, only 77 responses
were received. A semi-structured questionnaire exploring
various outcome areas and some open questions to capture
qualitative responses was designed for this purpose, and
cleared for administration by Anglicare Victoria’s Research
Ethics Committee. Respondents were accessed through
Victorian CSOs who provided institutional care in the past
and the careleaver support groups, VANISH and CLAN.
Participation in the survey was open to careleavers who were
in care in institutions in Victoria, but may currently be living
within or outside Victoria. Given the sensitive nature of the
survey, participation was entirely voluntary with the option to
withdraw at any time during the process. The questionnaires
were filled out by careleavers themselves, with organisations
who supported us with administering the survey assisting
careleavers with clarifications and support as required. Every
attempt was made to ensure that the sample was randomly
selected. However, given the voluntary nature of participation,
it was not possible to make a truly random selection from the
population group. Of the 77 respondents:
s 41 (53 per cent) were male and 36 (47 per cent) were
female. Factoring in the size of the sample, the proportion
of male and female careleavers may be considered equal.
s 3 respondents identified themselves as being of Aboriginal
or Torres Straight Islander descent.
s 61 per cent per cent of respondents (47) live in rural/regional
areas of Victoria, 25 per cent (19) live in metropolitan areas
of Melbourne, and 13 per cent (10) live outside Victoria.
One respondent did not provide information regarding their
current address.
s 52 per cent (40) of respondents were aged over 60,
30 per cent (23) were aged 50–59, and 17 per cent (13)
were aged 40–49 at the time of the survey. One respondent
did not provide information regarding their current age.
s Respondents had entered care over a 43 year time frame
ranging from 1929 to 1972, and had left care between
1939 and 1986.
With no official demographic data regarding people who
were brought up in institutions when they were young,
it is difficult to ascertain whether the sample we achieved
in this research is representative of the population group.
For example, given that respondents were accessed through
Victorian CSOs and careleaver support groups, it is reasonable
to assume that the study includes predominantly careleavers
who are in a relatively better supported position than other
careleavers who have had no contact with either a CSO or
careleaver support group. Similarly, given the focus of services
delivered by Centre member organisations, it is possible that
the survey has not captured the views of carers accessing
services such as mental health services, alcohol and drug
services, disability services etc.
The closest comparison of demographic data relating to
careleavers is with the profile of respondents to a survey
undertaken by the Careleavers of Australia Network (CLAN).
This was a national survey with participants from across
7
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
BACKGROUND
Australia, conducted in 2006. The brief overview of findings
released by CLAN in March 20081 shows that of the
291 respondents who participated in their survey:
s 45 per cent of respondents were male, and 55 per cent
were female.
s The majority of respondents (96 per cent) were aged 50
and over.
s
The sample was fairly evenly split between people who
had entered care after 1950 (just over 46 per cent) and
those who had entered care prior to that, most of them
in the 1940s and continuing in care throughout the 1950s
and often into the 1960s.
The research also seeks to establish age-related data on
outcomes achieved by people in the general population
for comparative benchmarking. Data for this purpose was
specially obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics
from the 2001 census to match the age profile of the
respondents to our survey. Data from the most recent
2006 census was still being compiled at the time of writing
this report.
In this report, the term ‘careleavers’ has been used to refer
to people who were brought up in institutional care in Victoria
and were placed in voluntary children’s homes (private) or
subject to the care of the Government (State wards).
RESPONDENT PROFILE
MARGARET (not real name)
Margaret is aged 63 and was in care for three years. She
was admitted to care as an uncontrollable child and she is still
not sure why. Margaret describes her care experience as good
overall and had five placements in the three years she was
in care. She says “I remember being locked up at Turana
and initially at Winlaton and wondering why, as I could
not understand what I had done wrong and why I was
being punished?”.
club and book club. Margaret also volunteers five hours
of her time each week to a hospital.
Margaret achieved less than year 10 at school and
subsequently had training as a nurse aid. She is out of
the workforce but does voluntary work for two days a week.
She receives a pension of $500 per fortnight and an allocated
pension of $500 per month. She has no debts and lives in her
own accommodation, where she has lived for the past eight
years. She lives in this property with a small dog for company.
She describes herself as a “very independent and strong
personality with a good sense of humour and attitude to
life. I think orphanage life was competitive and survival
of the fittest”.
Margaret has been diagnosed with Crohn’s Disease and
visited a GP and a specialist twice in the six months before
our survey. She has a daughter aged 40 whom she sees
every 6–8 weeks. Margaret considers that her time in care
affected her relationship with her own child. She says, “Yes,
I had my daughter as a single mum. Because of my shitful
childhood, I had my daughter adopted to give her a
chance of a normal mum-dad upbringing. I was not sure
I could provide for her properly on my own. I found her
through VANISH in 1999, and have been very lucky. We
have a great relationship and I have been able to see my
youngest grandchild Timothy (not real name) grow up
from his birth”.
Margaret turns to friends for support mostly for admittance
and discharge from hospital once or twice a year. She is active
in her community and is part of a golf and croquet club, jazz
1
Margaret would like to access more detailed records of her
time in care, and transcripts of her court case. She says her
mother died after not talking to her for thirty years and she
is at a loss to understand why and wants to know the events
in her childhood that brought her into care.
Margaret does not consider that it will be difficult for her to
contemplate spending her senior years in aged care. “Who
knows what circumstances I shall incur in regards to aged
care – maybe I will have dementia and won’t know what
it is all about. I feel whatever happens, I will manage it all
okay” she says.
Reminiscing about her care experience, Margaret says
“My time in care was good for me as it got me out
of quite a violent alcohol affected home life. My mother’s
de facto was a very cruel man taking to me with a stock
whip and threatening to shoot me. I was often terrified
most of the time. So orphanage life, even time spent at
Turana and Winlaton was peaceful in comparison.
No one was continually belting and threatening me”.
“I made some awful mistakes when young, 16 to 26.
But that is part of life’s learning journey. I have very
few regrets if any. I doubt that I would have done
much differently” says Margaret.
CLAN, July 2007, Brief Overview of Some Findings From the CLAN Survey, www.clan.org.au
TWO
฀฀
9
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
The Senate report documents the ambivalence that existed
about the best form of care for children who were abandoned
or neglected, and whether they were best cared for in
institutional settings or in family based settings. ‘Fashions
existed at various times both within and among the colonies
about institutional care or boarding-out (out-of-home care
or foster care). Such fluctuations continued until the 1960s
when government became more involved in child welfare
and moves began to close large institutions for children’2.
The Victorian Department of Human Services’ submission
to the Senate inquiry documents the increasing reliance
on orphanages and children’s homes during the 1920s, due
to the shortage of foster carers, and the increasing number
of female children placed in institutions after the Children’s
Welfare Act 1933 extended the definition of neglect to
“being a female found soliciting men for prostitution…or
found habitually wandering about…public places at night
without lawful cause… ”.3 The Senate report also documents
this drift of children back to institutions during the 1930s
and 1940s because of the lack of foster families, and the fact
that in Victoria by the early 1950s, around half of the children
who were State wards were in institutional care, with the
proportions rising to 85 per cent by the early 1960s.
Through the later part of the 19th century to the first
quarter of the 20th century, the child welfare system in
Victoria appears to have been based on concerns about
young offenders and the risks they posed to the community.
฀ ฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀฀
฀
฀
The Neglected and Criminal Children’s Act of 1864 and the
Department for Industrial and Reformatory Schools ensued
as a result. The recognition that the needs of neglected
children were different to those of young offenders saw
the establishment of a Neglected Children’s Department
two decades later. The child welfare system responded by
establishing reformatories for young offenders, orphanages
for abandoned children, and placing neglected children
with foster families (or in orphanages when foster families
could not be found). Churches played a critical role in the
establishment and operation of these children’s homes.
The passing of the Infant Life Protection Act in 1907 and
Maintenance of Children Act 1919 reflect concerns about
the quality of foster care provided to children and the desire
to keep families intact by supporting mothers who had no
income, but had accommodation. In 1928, the Child Welfare
Act was passed consolidating all of the existing legislations
relating to child welfare, and the Adoption of Children
Act was also passed in the same year, legalising adoptions
in Victoria.
2
3
4
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀
฀฀
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀ ฀฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
Quote from a careleaver who participated in our survey
The largely unregulated and unsupervised provision of care for
children in Victoria until then changed with the introduction
of the Children’s Welfare Act 1954, and the requirement for
children’s institutions to be registered with the Child Welfare
Department. Standards for care were developed and enforced
through Departmental inspections of children’s homes, and
the Government was given the powers to establish its own
homes for children and young offenders. This heralded
the gradual increase in the number of homes opened and
operated by the Victorian Government over the next decade.
A greater understanding and acknowledgement of the
fact that large-scale institutions managed in a strictly
regimented style had a damaging impact on many children,
together with a growing body of knowledge4 about the
importance of attachment and retaining contact with the
family, saw child welfare practice in Victoria gradually shift
from institutionalised care to smaller units or family group
homes during the late 1950s and 1960s. There was renewed
interest in foster care as we know it today, a system which
emphasised a careful selection and supervision of foster carers.
Senate Committee Report 2004, Forgotten Australians, p19.
July 2003, Submission of the Government of Victoria to the Senate Inquiry into Children in Institutional Care, p5.
Curtis report, 1946, Home Office, England.
10
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
Financial pressure seems to have played a huge role in
the standard of care provided in the children’s homes and
orphanages. The deficiencies in the standard of care in
children’s homes and orphanages as a result of this financial
pressure is noted in the Senate report – ‘while the state was
responsible for monitoring standards of care, the charitable
institutions argued that the flat rate payments made for
the care of individual wards were insufficient to provide
increasingly demanding standards of care (and rates of
pay for residential staff), and that it was increasingly hard
to supplement the state payments with funds received
as charitable donations. Children placed voluntarily were
even harder to care for adequately. These pressures came
to a head in the early 1970s when the charitable institutions
ceased to take voluntary placements and became, in effect,
part of the residential arm of the Social Welfare Department’5.
The employment of largely untrained staff working under
constant financial strain led to an atmosphere that was
in many cases controlled and punitive rather than caring
and loving.
The 1970s saw a significant shift in Government policy with
the introduction of the Social Welfare Act 1970, the setting
up of the Social Welfare Department, and an increased focus
on keeping children in care close to their families. The practice
of families placing their children voluntarily in care ended
around the time that the Commonwealth introduced parents’
pension in 1973. The broader process of de-institutionalisation
across Australia and in Victoria continued during the 1970s
and 1980s, with the last of the institutions in Victoria being
closed during the early 1990s.
The shift in the role of children’s homes and child welfare
policy and practice through the last century is evident from our
history. For many, the reforms perhaps came a bit too late. Child
welfare practices that are not tolerated by the present society
were unfortunately commonplace in the protracted period
prior to regulation and supervision of children’s institutions. This
report examines some of the consequences of these practices
which in many cases continue to have an impact on people
who were brought up in institutions in their later life.
RESPONDENT PROFILE
JENNY (not real name)
Jenny is aged between 50 and 59 years. She spent around
12 years in care due to family breakdown. She considers her
time in care bad overall, and went through 8 placements in
that time.
Jenny did not complete schooling while in care and had
just completed a Certificate III in Aged Care prior to our
survey. She is currently unemployed and has been looking
for employment for over a year now. Her current income is
around $200–300 per week from Government pension and
she has problems with debts relating to her credit card, rental
arrears, phone and other utilities and her vehicle.
Jenny lives in private rental accommodation with her
daughter and has been living in this accommodation for
12 months prior to our survey. She hasn’t been diagnosed
with any long-term illnesses or disability and has been to the
doctor less than 5 times in the six months before our survey.
With 5 children aged between 14 and 28 years, Jenny
is in regular contact with all of them. However she says
“I have trouble showing them affection and because
of this I feel I am not a good mother”.
Jenny feels that her time in care has affected her ability to
interact with her broader family in a positive way. She turns
to herself for support, and says “with a little success,
I try and solve my own problems”.
5
While she has had no involvement with the Police, Jenny’s
daughter has been prosecuted for assault, cultivating cannabis
and theft. Jenny considers that drug and alcohol services,
stress management, housing and life skill support programs
will help address the issues she faces from her time in care.
She considers that her time in care gave her the “ability
to survive in a lot of situations. They taught me to fight
back, steal, to feed and clothe myself and family”. Given
her experience in care, she finds it difficult to contemplate
spending her senior years in aged care.
Jenny notes a number of significant achievements in her life.
She says “Well, I have reared 5 children successfully, I have
just completed a 6 months course in aged care nursing
and even got an award for commitment to study. And
I’ve achieved to get this far”.
Recounting her experiences in care, Jenny says “being
in care as a child has made my journey in life so hard,
I find it hard to show affection. I don’t trust anyone.
I am frightened of the dark and hate being shut in
any where. I am struggling with drugs and alcohol
and have very few friends. (I am) struggling financially,
have bad thoughts all the time, have anxiety and panic
attacks and the list goes on”.
Jaggs, D, 1986, Neglected and Criminal – Foundations of Child Welfare Legislation in Victoria, Phillip Institute of Technology Centre for Youth
and Community Studies, Melbourne 1986, quoted in the Victorian Government submission to the Senate Inquiry.
THREE
฀
฀฀
12
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
3.1 Background information
Distribution of year left care
This part of the report summarises the results from a survey
undertaken by the Centre during 2006, which was returned
by 77 careleavers who had been in institutional care in Victoria.
Figure 2 shows the distribution of the year respondents left
care, and indicates that the age of a person at the time of
survey is also not a perfect indicator of when care ended.
The sole observation at the far right of the top panel reflects
the fact that one individual in the 60+ age group reported
remaining in care for 25 years. Similarly, in the middle panel,
the sole observation at the far left of the scale corresponds
to one individual aged 50–59 years at the time of the survey
who entered care at a very young age, but only remained
in care for a short period of time.
The data presented in this chapter summarises the overall
characteristics of the respondents, including gender, age,
number of years in care, etc, as well as the responses
received regarding careleavers’ education, employment,
health, housing, income, and relationships.
Due to policy changes and changing societal forces in play
over the relevant period between 1920s – 1970s discussed in
the previous chapter, the responses to the range of questions
from careleavers need to be understood within the relevant
context. For this reason, although some overall statistics are
reported, in most cases the data is presented in accordance
with the age of the respondent at the time of participating
in the survey.
3.2 Overall characteristics of respondents
Age
Forty respondents, or just over half of the sample, were
aged 60+ years, with 23 respondents, about one-third, in
the 50–59 year age group, and 13 respondents, or about
one-in-six, were from the 40–49 year age group. One
respondent did not provide information about their age.
Gender
As is shown in Table 1, overall the gender of the respondents
was split fairly evenly. However, there were more male
respondents than female respondents in the 60+ age group.
TABLE 1 Reported gender of respondents, by age group.
Age of respondent
Male
Female
Total
40–49 years
6
7
13
50–59 years
11
12
23
60+ years
24
16
40
Total
41
35
76
Distribution of year entered care
Our survey results demonstrate that the age of a respondent
at the time of our survey is not a strong indicator of when
their care experience began. This is evident from the fact that
the distributions of the year of entering care for our three age
groups overlap, as shown in Figure 1. The discrepancies are
largely due to the fact that some people entered care when
very young, whereas others entered care as teenagers.
6
Reasons for being placed in care
Respondents were asked about the circumstances that led
them to being initially placed in care. Figure 3 illustrates the
reasons specified, broadly grouped under seven categories.
This figure shows that parental separation was cited by
around a third of the respondents, followed by parental
hardship such as poverty, ill health etc, which was cited by
around 24 per cent. Other reasons cited include alcohol use
by one or both parents (10 per cent), death of one or both
parents (5 per cent), neglect (5 per cent) and other responses
including being an illegitimate child or not knowing the
reason for being placed in care (18 per cent).
Some of the qualitative responses provided by respondents
give us an indication of the various circumstances under which
children were placed in care. According to one respondent,
“Our parents separated four years before. Mum worked
full-time, so we were placed in care”. Another respondent
states “Our mother left us with our father who was usually
drunk and who found it hard to feed us and we were in
a house that was too small for the number of children left
for him to look after”.
Other reasons provided by respondents include – “inability
to fit in with new step-mother and family when my father
re-married after WW II”; “my mother and father could not
take care of me-us”; “my mother fell ill then died”; “I was
born illegitimate”; ”I was admitted to the care of the then
child welfare department as an uncontrollable child, still
am not sure why”.
The data in Figure 3 provides an interesting comparison
with a 1960s study (Tierney 1963)6 which shows that the major
factors associated with the admission of children into state
wardship at the time of his study were: neglect (54 per cent),
parental separation (16 per cent), disordered behaviour of
the child (14 per cent) and hardship (affliction) of parents
(8.3 per cent). For privately admitted children, the major
factors associated with admission are parental separation
(36.1 per cent), hardship (affliction) of parents (27.2 per cent),
neglect (19 per cent), and admission associated with the child
being born out of wedlock (11.4 per cent).
Tierney, L.J (1963) Children who need help: A study of child welfare policy and administration in Victoria, Parkville: Melbourne University Press.
13
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
FIGURE 1 Distribution of year entered care, by age group.
FIGURE 2 Distribution of year left care, by age group.
10
10
6
9
5
3
1
0
1
1
0
1
3
4
4
5
5
Age group:
60+ years
8
8
Number of
respondents
9
Age group:
60+ years
9
Number of
respondents
Age group:
50–59 years
5
5
1
1
0
Age group:
40–49 years
6
5
0
1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980
–39 –44 –49
–54 –59 –64 –69 –74
–79 –84
1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 1945 1950 1955 1960 1965 1970 1975
–24 –29 –34 –39 –44 –49
–54 –59 –64 –69 –74
–79
25
0
7
CLAN, July 2007, Brief Overview of Some Findings From the CLAN Survey, www.clan.org.au
Other
13
23
17
Neglect
5
5
Behaviour of child
Death of parents
10
4
15
Parental hardship
20
Parental separation
Number of respondents
Alcohol use
A further comparison of our survey data can be
made with the results of the survey conducted by CLAN
in 20067. The preliminary findings released by CLAN from
this research shows that 17 per cent of the respondents
in their sample of 291 careleavers were placed in care due
to parental separation, 16 per cent due to the death of one
or both parents,19.6 per cent due to alcohol use by parent
(father), 10.6 per cent due to parental hardship. Nearly
48 per cent of the respondents in this study had been state
wards, and 42.6 per cent had been voluntary placements.
FIGURE 3 Reported reasons for child being placed in care.
7
It can be seen from this comparison that the reasons for
being placed in care cited by the respondents to our survey
closely resemble those of privately admitted children
in Tierney’s study.
2
0
1
4
5
5
6
Age group:
40–49 years
4
0
1
2
5
5
2
6
7
9
Age group:
50–59 years
14
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
FIGURE 4 Timeline showing number of years in care for each respondent (each line represents a respondent in this research).
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
1970
1975
1980
1985
Number of years in care
Each respondent’s period of care is mapped onto a timeline
in Figure 4. In this graph, respondents were ordered according
to the year they entered care, and a line segment was drawn
to correspond to the period of care for each respondent. The
left end point of a line segment corresponds to the year the
respondent entered care, and the right end point corresponds
to the year that same individual left care. The length of each
line segment, therefore, corresponds to the total length of
time that a person spent in care.
It is apparent from Figure 4 that respondents in our sample
had care periods that cover the full time period of interest.
Further, from visual inspection it does not appear that there
are systematic differences in the duration of care through
time, and that the spread of the year entering care is fairly
uniform throughout the relevant period of time when
institutionalisation occurred, i.e., from the late 1920s
to the late 1970s.
Figure 5 displays frequency histograms for the number of
years in care for each of the three age groups. In general, the
distributions relating to the number of years in care for each
group are similar, except that unlike careleavers in the older
age group, none of the youngest respondents (40–49 years)
were in care before the age of 5 years, nor were they in care
past 18 years of age. For the middle age group (50–59 years)
only one person reported staying in care past the age of
18 years. Despite the few cases of long periods in care, the
median number of years in care for each of the 60+ and the
50–59 year age groups was 9 years. The median number of
years in care for the 40–49 year age group was 11 years.
Figure 6 shows the distribution of the number of years in care
by the number of placements while in care. Given the limited
size of the survey, it is difficult to be precise; however it does
not appear that the number of placements is associated with
the average number of years in care. As shown in Figure 7,
the proportion of respondents within each age group having
more than one care placement was highest in the youngest
age group, and lowest in the oldest age group. Overall,
about 46 per cent of respondents had only one placement
while in care and around 47 per cent experienced between
2 to 5 placements in the time they were in care.
15
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
FIGURE 5 Distribution of number of years in care,
based on age at time of survey.
10
Number of
respondents
One care
placement
7
7
8
Age group:
60+ years
11
10
12
Number of
respondents
FIGURE 6 Distribution of number of years in care,
according to number of placements while in care.
5
3
1
3
2
2
2
1
1
1
3
4
6
0
0
Two to
five care
placements
6
6
7
8
Age group:
50–59 years
0
1
2
2
1
2
1
3
3
4
5
5
5
0
Age group:
40–49 years
6
Six to
nine care
placements
1
0
1
2
1
3
3
3
4
5
5–7
years
8–10
years
0
1
year
2–4
years
5–7
years
8–10
years
11–13 14–16
years
years
17–19
years
20–22
years
23–25
years
1
year
2–4
years
11–13 14–16
years
years
17–19
years
20–22
years
23–25
years
Classification of care experience
FIGURE 7 Number of care placements by age group
(percentages relative to age group).
Six to nine care placements
One care placement
Two to five care placements
Unreported
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
69.2
47.8
TABLE 2 Classification of care experience.
Number
Per cent
‘Good overall’
27
35.1
‘Bad overall’
35
45.5
‘Difficult to say’
13
16.9
2
2.6
77
100.0
No response
Total
4.3
15.4 15.4
47.8
Age group: 60+ years
37.5
52.5
5.0
5.0
Respondents were asked to classify their care experience
by selecting 1 of 3 categories – “Bad overall, “Good overall”
or “Difficult to make general assessment”. 75 respondents
provided a classification of their experience while in care.
Table 2 shows that the majority of respondents chose not
to characterise their care experience as positive. Nearly half
of the respondents described their experience as bad, and
17 per cent were ambivalent about their feelings. Over
a third of careleavers described their experience as being
“good overall”.
16
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
FIGURE 8 Classification of care experience by age group.
Good
Difficult to say
Bad
Unreported
FIGURE 9 Highest level of schooling completed whilst in care,
according to age group.
The only available responses to this question
were – “Bad overall, “Good overall” or
“Difficult to make general assessment”
20
Number of respondents
Less than year 10
Year 11
Year 10
Year 12
Unreported
20
16
13
15
15
15
22
18
25
Number of respondents
10
9
8
10
0
6
1
2
1
3
2
3
2
1
1
2
3
5
4
5
6
5
5
5
0
Age group:
40–49 years
Age group:
50–59 years
Age group:
60+ years
Caution is advised in the interpretation of these responses
because of the highly subjective nature of the classification
descriptions, and their relativity to the experience of individual
respondents. However, in addition to the classification,
respondents were also provided with the opportunity to
describe, in their own words, how they felt about their
care experience. Reading these comments, along with the
number of respondents who were ambivalent about their
experience, one takes away the impression that a majority
of careleavers’ experience in institutional care has been
less than ideal, a situation that rings true for them after
many years of leaving care. Further, many respondents
who described their experience as ‘good’ also indicated
that it was not always good, and that there were some
‘bad times’ as well.
These qualitative responses from careleavers portray
a life which for many bordered on “brutal, violent, awful,
traumatic, cruel, insensitive”. Careleavers recount being
“Repeatedly beaten with cane and strap, belted across the
head by hand and sexual abuse” and of carers who should
not have been allowed to provide care – “My foster mother
shouldn’t have been allowed to foster. She was a very
cruel woman”. Yet others talk about suffering social isolation,
regular beatings and sexual abuse while in care. One careleaver
talks about being treated “as things, not human beings”,
and another recollects her care time as “awful – I still have
nightmares. Can see the nun’s face and feel the terror”.
For others, the experience has been mixed, depending
on the institution/orphanage they were placed in. One
careleaver who had moved several times, described the
care experience as ‘very good’ at one facility, ‘reasonable’
at another and ‘bad’ at the third.
Age group:
40–49 years
Age group:
50–59 years
Age group:
60+ years
“We had good and bad times. Hard to comment” says
another careleaver.
Careleavers who indicated they had a positive experience in
care suggest that “If ‘they’ hadn’t been there, where would
I have been now! No regrets whatever”. (We understand the
‘they’ to be the institutions/orphanages where respondents
were placed). Yet another careleaver has said, “My time in
care was good for me as it got me out of quite a violent
alcohol affected home life. My mother’s de-facto was
a very cruel man, taking to me with a stock whip and
threatening to shoot me etc. I was often terrified most
of the time so orphanage life, even time spent at Turana
and Winlaton was peaceful in comparison. No one was
continually belting or threatening me”.
When comparing the experiences by the age group of the
respondent (Figure 8), it appears that while an equal number
of 40–49 year olds, and a greater proportion (40 per cent) of
respondents aged over 60 years described their experiences as
being ‘good’, a large proportion (70 per cent) of 50–59 year
old respondents described their experiences as bad.
Education
Respondents were asked what the highest level of
schooling they attained was while in care and the highest
level of schooling completed, irrespective of whether they
were in care or not when they completed. Figure 9 shows
that educational attainments are relative to the age of the
respondent, with a greater proportion (23 per cent) of
respondents under 50 years of age having completed year
11 or above while still in care compared to respondents
aged more than 60 years (8 per cent). Interestingly, none
of the respondents aged between 50–59 years pursued
schooling after year 10, at least whilst they were in care.
17
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
Figure 10 represents data on the final highest level of school
completed by the respondents, whether completed in care
or after care. Comparing this to Figure 9 shows that some
respondents in each age group were able to continue with
their education after leaving care.
FIGURE 10 Highest level of schooling completed, by age group,
whether completed in or after care.
Less than year 10
Year 11
Year 10
Year 12
Unreported
Figure 11 shows retention rates at school while the respondents
were still in care. The curves represent the proportion of
respondents in each age group who completed their indicated
school year level while in care. It appears that the retention
rates may have improved over time, with more of the younger
respondents (40–49 age group) having stayed in school longer
whilst in care than respondents aged 60 and over. However,
among the older respondents, more respondents in the
60+ age group completed year 10 and above, compared to
respondents in the 50–59 age group.
22
25
Number of respondents
20
7
7
10
7
11
15
1
3
1
Age group:
50–59 years
1
3
Age group:
40–49 years
3
2
4
5
5
0
Age group:
60+ years
FIGURE 11 Percentage school year completed whilst in care.
Age group: 40–49 years
The curves in Figure 12 represent the proportion of
respondents in each age group who completed indicated
school year level, irrespective of whether or not it was
completed whilst in care. It is important to note that while
some careleavers have pursued their education after care,
the numbers are relatively few – indicating potentially
a lack of support for further education.
FIGURE 12 Highest level of schooling completed,
whether in or out of care.
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 50–59 years
100
Per cent (%)
100
Per cent (%)
75
75
50
50
25
25
0
0
Less than
Year 10
Year 10
Year 11
Year 12
Less than
Year 10
Year 10
Year 11
100
54.5
27.3
9.1
100
61.5
38.5
23.1
100
31.8
4.5
4.5
100
50.0
18.2
13.6
100
29.0
9.7
6.5
100
38.9
19.4
16.7
Year 12
18
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
In addition, 24 of the 73 respondents who also provided
information about schooling, approximately one-third,
indicated that they also completed either vocational, graduate
or postgraduate qualifications. This figure compares with the
findings in CLAN’s 2006 research8 which shows that around
29 per cent of respondents had completed vocational,
graduate, post graduate or doctoral qualifications.
Figure 13 shows that respondents in the older age
groups were more likely to have completed vocational
qualifications, while respondents in the 40–49 age group
are more likely to have completed graduate or post
graduate qualifications as part of their higher education.
Benchmarking with educational attainments of
people in the general population
Figure 14 compares the educational levels attained by
careleavers with that of people from the same age group
in the general population. In this section and other sections
where comparative data is provided, the data collected from
the 77 respondents to our survey about their life experiences
have been compared with experiences of people from the
general population in the same age categories. Data that
has been used to enable this comparison was obtained
from the Australian Bureau of Statistics and is based on
Figure 14 shows that:
s¬ ¬In
general, across all age groups, the education completion
level of careleavers is lower than that of people in the
general population.
s¬ ¬The
gap in educational attainment between the general
population and the careleaver population appears to have
worsened over time, as the percentage of careleavers
who completed Year 10 was 7 percentage points lower
in the 60+ age group, 20 percentage points lower in the
50–59 year age group, and 23 percentage points lower
in the 40–49 year age group.
s¬ ¬The
percentage of careleavers who completed more than
Year 10 was 8.5 percentage points lower in the 60+ age
group, 29 percentage points lower in the 50–59 year age
group, and 25 percentage points lower in the 40–49 year
age group.
The lack of opportunities for higher education for careleavers
becomes evident in this comparison. Without completing year
12, higher education is simply outside of one’s reach.
FIGURE 14 School completion levels for careleavers and
general population.
FIGURE 13 Further education and training.
Vocational qualification
the census data for 20019. The data from the survey and
ABS is compared in areas of education, employment, housing,
income, and health.
Postgraduate qualification
Age group: 40–49 years
Graduate qualification
10
84.2
100
Per cent (%)
12
Number of respondents
75
30.0
38.4
47.3
47.6
61.5
40.5
4
4
1
1
0
0
Age group:
40–49 years
Age group:
50–59 years
21.6
18.2
3
25
2
1
2
50.0
50
63.6
69.8
8
8
9
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group:
60+ years
Careleaver
General
Completed Year 10
Careleaver
General
Completed > Year 10
CLAN, July 2007, Brief Overview of Some Findings From the CLAN Survey, www.clan.org.au
At the time this research was undertaken the 2006 census was underway and data from this census was in the process of being collated.
19
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
In total, 18 per cent of respondents to the survey (15 out
of 72) indicated an interest in receiving support to pursue
a range of personal development, study/educational
opportunities which include the following:
s¬ assistance/training
with building social networks
management
s¬ integration with community
s¬ parenting skills
s¬ motivation and self confidence
s¬ public speaking
s¬ trade skills
s¬ building personal relationships
s¬ financial
youngest age group (38 per cent) reported being in full
time employment, with 3 in part-time employment.
6 respondents indicated they have been searching for
a job for more than a year.
Comparison of experience between careleavers
and the general population
Figure 16 shows the percentage of careleaver respondents who
held some form of employment (full or part-time) at the time
of our survey in comparison with the employment levels of
people in the general population, and of the same age group.
Figure 15 shows that more than half (12 out of 19, or
63 per cent) of careleavers in the 50–59 age group are either
currently unemployed or out of the workforce. It seems that
employment status for careleavers in the survey group may
have a relationship with the fact people in this age group
have also been diagnosed with a disability (please see
Figure 17). None of the respondents in the oldest age group
were in full time work, with only 5 of the 40 in part-time
work, and the majority (34 our of 40) considering themselves
out of the workforce. Only 5 of the 13 respondents in the
This figure shows that there is very little difference between
people aged over 60 years both in the general population and
in the careleavers group in terms of employment. However,
the rate of unemployment amongst careleavers in the
40–49 and 50–59 age groups are 28 and 67 per cent higher
respectively than that of people in the general population.
It is also significant to note that in response to our survey,
a quarter of the careleavers aged 40–49, and 30 per cent
of careleavers aged 50–59 have stated that they were out
of the workforce, indicating they were not actively seeking
employment (please refer to Figure 15 for further details).
Comparative data for people in the general population out
of the workforce was not available.
FIGURE 15 Current employment status at time of survey,
according to age group.
FIGURE 16 Percentage employed (full-time and part-time)
in careleaver sample and general population.
Employment status
Currently employed
Out of the workforce
Age group: 40–49 years
Currently unemployed
Unreported
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 50–59 years
61.5
34.8 26.1
100
Per cent (%)
78.7
Age group: 40–49 years
13.0
61.5
50
40.0
26.1
66.7
75
23.1 15.4
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 60+ years
25
15.1
2.5
12.5
12.5
0
Careleaver
85.0
General
20
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
Number of GP visits
Around a quarter of careleavers aged 50–59 and over a third
of those aged over 60 had frequent visits to a GP in the
6 months prior to our survey, as shown in Figure 18 below.
Careleavers were requested to provide further information on
the nature of the specialist visits, i.e., whether it was a dental
specialist, mental health specialist they visited. This level of
detail was not provided by a majority of careleavers, which
makes it difficult to understand the specific problems for which
careleavers are accessing support. Taking the conservative view
that those who did not respond did not have contact with
any of the specialists, then the sample proportions indicated
are likely to underestimate the true proportion of careleavers
who visited health specialists. Even so, nearly half of the
respondents indicated that a physical health condition was
the reason for a specialist visit. In addition, a mental health
condition was a reason for a fifth of the respondents’ specialist
visit, while dental health was a reason for visiting a specialist
for 16 per cent of the respondents.
Number of Specialist visits
About half of the careleavers in the 40–49 and 60+ age
group and approximately two-thirds of careleavers in the
50–59 age group indicated that they had visited a specialist
medical service in the 6 months prior to our survey, as
shown in Figure 19 below.
Further exploration of these responses, as shown in Figure 20,
shows that mental health specialist visits are far more prevalent
in the youngest age group, with 46 per cent of respondents in
that age group reporting visiting a mental health specialist. In
this group, about 38 per cent indicated that they had visited
more than one type of health specialist. The middle age group
Health/Disability
Long-term illness or disability
Overall, regardless of age, 54.5 per cent of respondents have
been diagnosed with a disability (please see Figure 17). While
the incidence is highest in careleavers from the 60+ age group,
a significant proportion of careleavers from the 40–49 years
age group (46 per cent), and in the 50–59 years age group
(57 per cent) also reported a diagnosis of disability. Four
respondents did not complete this question. Details about
the specific nature of disability were not sought.
FIGURE 17 Incidence of long-term
illness or disability by age-group.
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
53.8
39.1
37.5
Yes, have been diagnosed
with illness or disability
Unreported
FIGURE 18 Number of GP visits
in past 6 months (percentages
relative to age group).
5.0
8.7
No, have not been diagnosed
with illness or disability
46.2
52.2
57.5
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
84.6
69.6
55.0
None
1–5 visits
6–10 visits
4.3
15.4
More than 10 visits
FIGURE 19 Number of specialist
visits in past six months (percentages
relative to age group).
8.7
22.5
7.5
17.4
15.0
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
38.5
52.2
30.0 12.5
5.0
7.5
None
6–10 visits
1–5 visits
> 10 visits
Unreported
4.3
8.7
7.7
53.8
34.8
45.0
21
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
of 50–59 years had the highest proportion of respondents
visiting a physical health specialist. The higher incidence
of disability, GP visits, and specialist health visits by
careleavers aged 50–59 is clearly highlighted in the all
of the relevant figures.
FIGURE 21 Comparison of illness or disability for careleavers
and general population.
Careleaver
General
Comparative analysis of health/disability status
of careleavers and general population
Figure 21 provides comparative information on the health
status of careleavers and people of the same age group in
the general population. Nearly 50 per cent of respondents to
our survey aged between 40 and 49, and 60 per cent in the
50–59 age groups indicated that they have been diagnosed
with a long-term illness and/or a disability. The comparative
figures in the general population are 39.5 per cent in the
40–49 age group and 56.2 per cent in the 50–59 age group.
However, our data indicates that a far lower proportion
of careleavers aged 60 and over (58.3 per cent) indicated
a long-term illness or disability compared to the general
population (83.9 per cent). We are not sure why the health
outcomes for careleavers in the oldest age group are better
than that of the general population. This could be due to
the possible bias in the sample discussed earlier in this
report, i.e, that people included in the sample are the ones
who are in a relatively better supported position than other
careleavers who have had no contact with either a CSO
or careleaver support group.
100
83.9
Per cent (%)
56.2
52.2
39.5
46.2
50
57.5
75
25
0
Age group:
40–49 years
Age group:
50–59 years
Age group:
60+ years
Accessing drug or alcohol service
Respondents were asked if they had ever attended a drug or
alcohol service. 7 respondents reported having attended such
a service, with 4 of the 7 coming from the 40–49 age groups,
and only one from the 60+ age group. Of these respondents,
2 from the 40–49 age group and one each from the other
2 age groups, had attended a drug or alcohol service within
the 12 months prior to the survey.
FIGURE 20 Types of health specialist visits (percentages relative to age group).
Dental health specialist
Physical health specialist
Any health specialist
Mental health specialist
Other health specialist
More than one health specialist
100
Per cent (%)
62.5
0
Age group:
40–49 years
Age group:
50–59 years
Age group:
60+ years
20.0
7.5
45.0
20.0
12.5
21.7
17.4
17.4
8.7
38.5
15.4
30.8
25
46.2
38.5
50
60.9
61.5
69.6
75
22
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
Aged Care Concerns
Housing
Careleavers were asked whether being in institutional care
when young made it difficult for them to contemplate aged
care in an aged care service. Figure 23 shows that two-thirds
of respondents felt concerned about aged care services.
A relatively higher proportion of 40–49 and 50–59 year olds
held such concerns compared with careleavers aged over 60.
Type of accommodation
Figure 22 shows that one in five careleavers aged 40–49 and
one in four careleavers aged 50–59 had difficulties with stable
housing. In comparison, around 98 per cent of careleavers
aged over 60 years live in secure accommodation, a majority
of which is owned by them or rented through the private
rental market. 5 per cent of those aged over 60 years lived
in a retirement home.
The reasons underlying this observation are not clear from
the responses to the survey. However, it is clear from our
survey that careleavers in the 60+ age-group demonstrate
a relatively higher level of stability across a range of areas
such as number of placements, experience of care, housing
arrangements, income levels, and access to someone for
support. Most of our respondents in this group were in a
stable housing situation at the time of the survey. Perhaps
these factors contribute to the reported feelings of relative
equanimity regarding aged care in this group.
Comparison of housing arrangements between
careleavers and general population
Figure 26 shows a comparison of current housing arrangements
between careleavers and the general population. Home
ownership rates are significantly lower for careleavers
compared to the general population. The figure also shows
that careleavers in the 60+ age group are more likely to own
their own homes compared with careleavers aged 40–59.
Some of the qualitative responses to our survey indicate
the level of concern held by careleavers. A female careleaver
aged 50–59 states, “I don’t wish to be neglected or ever
abused again. I’d rather die”. Another careleaver who says
it is difficult to contemplate spending senior years in aged
care voices the same concerns: “any form of institutional
care horrifies me”. Yet another careleaver states, “I have
already told my children if they put me in a home, I will
disown them”. Some careleavers “hope to avoid it”, or
“wouldn’t even consider it”. Others consider it their
“worst nightmare, from a home to a home”.
The category ‘other arrangements’ for careleavers includes
sleeping rough, boarding with friends, refuges etc. It is
significant to note that one in five careleavers has indicated
this category in relation to their current housing arrangements.
Details regarding what are included in ‘other arrangements’
for the general population were not available.
Length of time at current address
A good proportion of careleavers appear to be living in
stable accommodation. As shown in Figure 24, many had
been residing at their current address for a year or more,
with 64 per cent overall indicating that they had been at
their current address for 5 years or more. The stability in
residential accommodation is also evident in the fact that
around 90 per cent of careleavers had not changed residence
in the 12 months prior to the survey, as shown in Figure 25.
FIGURE 22 Proportion current housing type, according to age group.
Own house
Retirement home
Sleeping rough
Private rental
Public housing
Other
100
Per cent (%)
65.2
61.5
50
75.0
75
0
Age group:
40–49 years
Age group:
50–59 years
Age group:
60+ years
2.5
5.0
17.5
8.7
17.4
8.7
15.4
7.7
15.4
25
23
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
Age group: 40–49 years
FIGURE 23 Proportion of respondents
reported being concerned about aged
care, by age group (percentages
relative to age group).
Age group: 50–59 years
30.8
Age group: 60+ years
42.5
21.7
7.7
Yes
17.4
No
Unreported
FIGURE 24 Length of time at
current address (percentages
relative to age group).
17.5
61.5
60.9
40.0
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
46.1
17.4
22.5
6–12 months
> 1 year
17.4
30.8
> 5 years
Unreported
FIGURE 25 Number of housing moves
in the past 12 months (percentages
relative to age group).
2.5
2.5
23.1
65.2
72.5
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
76.9
78.3
90.0
2.5
None
7.5
1–5 times
8.7 13.0
23.1
Unreported
FIGURE 26 Housing arrangements of careleavers and general population.
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
87.9
86.9
62.5
0
Careleaver
General
Fully owned
Careleaver
General
Other arrangements
2.2
1.4
1.8
2.5
23.1
Careleaver
General
Rental or public housing
9.9
11.6
16.0
17.5
15.4
26.1
25
8.7
61.5
50
75.0
75
82.2
100
Per cent (%)
24
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
Relationships
Current living situation
Around three-quarters of careleavers who participated in
the survey indicated they live with someone, with a quarter
indicating they live alone. The incidence of living alone is
highest in the 40–49 age groups, where 38 per cent of
respondents reported living alone, and smallest in the
50–59 year old age group, where only about 14 per cent
live alone (please refer to Figure 27).
Relationships with siblings
Approximately 87 per cent of all careleavers reported having
at least one sibling. Figure 28 shows the proportion of
respondents who have siblings in each age group.
Not all siblings of respondents were in care, as shown
in Figure 29, however the vast majority of respondents
did in fact report that their siblings were also in care.
However, even if both a respondent and his or her sibling(s)
were in care, they need not have always lived in the same
care placement.
FIGURE 27 Living arrangements of
careleavers (percentages relative
to age group).
Unreported
FIGURE 28 Siblings of careleavers
(percentages relative to age group).
Figure 31 shows that about a third of careleavers currently live
alone. However, when cross tabulated with data from Figure 30,
it becomes evident that there is an association. The majority of
careleavers currently living alone were in fact separated from
their siblings while in care. This is highlighted in Figure 32.
Figure 33 shows that where siblings had been separated while
in care, there is a higher likelihood of loss of contact with
siblings. This is more evident in respondents in the 50–59
and 60+ age groups.
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
61.5
82.6
70.0
Live alone
Live with someone
Overall across all age groups, 75 per cent of careleavers
reported that they were separated from their siblings while
in care. As shown in Figure 30, although the proportions are
very high in each age group, the youngest age group appears
to have experienced the highest incidence of being separated
from siblings. 92.3 per cent of respondents in the 40–49
age group who had siblings were separated from each other
while in care. 60.9 per cent of 50–59 year old respondents
and 55 per cent of respondents aged over 60 years were also
separated from their siblings while in care10.
13.0
38.5
27.5
4.3
2.5
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
100.0
91.3
80.0
8.7
7.5 12.5
At least one sibling
No siblings
Unreported
10 These percentages only relate to the 62 out of 77 respondents who reported having siblings.
25
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
FIGURE 29 Proportion of respondents
with siblings who were also in care
(percentages relative to age group).
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
92.3
78.3
73.0
Sibling in care
8.1
7.7
Sibling not in care
8.7
Unreported
FIGURE 30 Proportion of respondents
separated from siblings while in care
(percentages relative to age group).
13.0
18.9
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
92.3
60.9
55.0
7.7
17.4
25.0
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
61.5
82.6
70.0
Separated from sibling(s) in care
20.0
21.7
Not separated from siblings
Unreported
FIGURE 31 Proportion of respondents
living alone, or with someone,
according to age group.
Live alone
2.5
4.3
Live with someone
13.1
38.5
Unreported
FIGURE 32 Proportion of respondents currently living alone,
according to whether separated from siblings whilst in care.
Age group: 60+ years
FIGURE 33 Proportion of respondents who are in contact
with siblings, whether separated from siblings whilst in care
(percentages relative to age group).
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
87.5
90.9
100.0
100
Per cent (%)
45.5
50
Per cent (%)
100.0
Age group: 40–49 years
27.5
28.6
50
21.4
25
68.2
69.2
75
7.1
25
0
0
Siblings separated in care
Siblings not separated in care
Siblings separated in care
Siblings not separated in care
26
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
Contact with children
69 respondents reported being the parent of 1 or more
children and 6 respondents reported not having any children.
Figure 34 shows the responses to a question on whether their
experiences in care impacted on the relationship careleavers
had with their own children. Two-thirds of careleavers said
that their time in care impacted negatively on their relationship
with their own children. While the impact is high across all
age-groups, it is highest for careleavers in the 50–59 age group.
The qualitative responses provide some insights into the
difficulties experienced by careleavers showing love and
affection to their children, as a result of their own experiences
as children. According to one careleaver, she had “trouble
showing them affection, and because of this I feel I have
not been a good mother”. For another careleaver, “not
growing up with my own parents has been hard because
I don’t know how to relate to my own kids…relationships
have always been rocky”.
Careleavers report being “always depressed not knowing how
to handle situations and being afraid of doing the wrong
thing”, and having a tendency to “be unapproachable” to
their family. The lack of a role model to draw upon and lack
of guidance to raise their children were also cited as reasons
for the negative impact care had on careleavers’ children.
For many of the careleavers, it can be argued that it is still
not too late to develop a relationship with their children,
particularly if given support with developing and maintaining
such relationships.
The survey also sought to establish the extent to which
careleavers felt they were able to rely on a significant person
in their lives for support, of whatever form. Figure 37 shows
that, across all three age groups, around 82 per cent of all
careleavers who responded to this question have indicated
that they are able to rely on someone for support. However,
a third of the careleavers in the 40–49 age group have
indicated they have no one to support them.
People careleavers turn to for support
Figure 38 shows that in many instances, a spouse or partner
is the person that careleavers turn to for support. Other
people mentioned as providers of support include children,
friends, siblings and family. However, it should be noted
that over 18 per cent of respondents mentioned they rely
on themselves for support, and around 10 per cent turn to
their counsellor or psychologist because they have no one
within their family or friends to turn to. Taken together, this
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 50–59 years
63.6
74.4
68.4
78.9
75
81.8
100
Per cent (%)
100
Per cent (%)
75
Support available
FIGURE 35 Proportion of respondents with children who are
currently in contact with their children, according to age group.
FIGURE 34 Impact of care on relationship with own children
(percentages relative to age group with children).
Age group: 40–49 years
Figure 35 shows that nearly three quarters of the respondents,
across all age groups, who indicated they have children, are
currently in contact with them. However, a further analysis
of this figure shows that where respondents had indicated
that their time in care had impacted negatively on their
relationship with their children, they were less likely to be
currently in contact with them. Figure 36 shows that nearly
30 per cent of careleavers who reported that their time in
care impacted negatively on their relationships with their
children, have no contact or have contact only with some
of their children.
50
7.7
5.3
26.3
Unreported
18.2
Care did not
impact negatively
7.7
10.5
25
10.5
25
17.9
36.4
43.6
48.7
50
0
0
Care impacted
negatively
In contact with
all children
Not in contact with
all children
Unreported
27
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
indicates that over a quarter of careleavers rely on themselves
or a service provider in times of need. If the 12.5 per cent of
the 60+ group who did not respond also have no one to turn
to for support, this figure is likely to be more like a third of all
careleavers who rely only on themselves and service providers
when they need support.
FIGURE 36 Contact with children (percentages relative to age
group with children and whether care impacted on relationship
with children).
Age group: 40–49 years
FIGURE 37 Reported availability of support from
a significant relationship.
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 50–59 years
100
Per cent (%)
87.0
88.2
100.0
100.0
100
Per cent (%)
75
72.5
69.2
70.6
64.3
71.4
75
50
0
12.5
11.8
13.0
25
15.0
30.8
29.4
28.6
25
35.7
50
0
In contact
with all children
Not in contact
with all children
In contact
with all children
Feels care had negative impact
on relationship with children
Have support
from someone
Not in contact
with all children
Do not
have support
Unreported
Do not feel care had negative
impact on relationship with children
FIGURE 38 Source of main support (percentages relative to age groups).
4.3
5.7
4.3
7.7
11.4
7.7
2.9
4.3
15.4
11.4
2.9
4.3
7.7
17.4
30.8
17.1
17.4
30.8
25
47.8
50
Per cent (%)
Age group: 60+ years
48.6
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 40–49 years
0
No one / self
Partner
Sibling
Children
Friend
Doctor /
Counsellor
Family
Religion
28
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
45
45
Per cent (%)
Per cent (%)
0
Financial help / housing
5.2
32.5
Education / training
5.2
Help with family info
Aged Care
5.2
7.8
Don’t need or want
5.2
3.9 Housing
15
3.9 Dental / medical
30
38.2
Emotional
16.4
General
Other
9.1
14.5
Counselling
7.3
5.5
Medical
15
9.1
All types
30
Counselling / VANISH
FIGURE 40 Range of services that would assist careleavers.
Companionship / friendship
FIGURE 39 Types of support sought by careleavers.
42.9
Respondents were asked to indicate the type of support
they accessed from friends, family and others. 54 out of
77 respondents answered this question. Figure 39 shows
that over one-third of respondents who answered this
question sought companionship and/or friendship.
Emotional support, counselling support and general
support (covering a range of help including household
help) were also mentioned by careleavers.
No response
“I go to the pub and talk to strangers for general
communication, shoulder to lean on” states one careleaver.
For another careleaver, the type of support they seek is
“a helping ear to listen to me and doesn’t mind if I cry
which is quite often”. While many have not responded to
this question, it is also evident that some who need support
do not seek it, which is demonstrated by one respondent’s
comment, “I need support but do not seek it – prefer
to be a loner”.
Types of support accessed
0
FIGURE 41 Estimated weekly income from wages/salary.
Age group: 40–49 years
FIGURE 42 Estimated weekly income from
government benefit/pension.
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
100
Per cent (%)
Per cent (%)
82.5
100
0
> $800
None
reported
< $200
10.0
4.3
23.1
2.5
8.7
7.7
2.5
15.4
13.0
0.5
$400 –
$799
27.5
38.5
$200 –
$399
17.4
< $200
2.5
7.7
10.0
None
reported
25
26.1
25
0
60.0
60.9
50
38.5
50
69.6
75
69.2
75
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
$200 –
$399
$400 –
$799
29
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
When asked about the types of services that would assist
them now, careleavers mentioned a range of services.
Figure 40 shows that predominant among them were access
to counselling services (35 per cent of those who responded
to this question), support with education, access to general
health, dental health and mental health services, housing
support, access to records and assistance with tracing family.
Income
The survey sought to establish the income levels of
careleavers derived from various sources such as salary,
wage, pension/benefit or superannuation. The responses
received from careleavers indicate that some respondents
were in receipt of an income from more than one source.
The data for the different categories of income is presented
in Figures 41, 42 and 43.
Gross weekly income from wages/salary
Across all age groups, approximately 72 per cent of
careleavers indicated that they earned less than $200
per week from wages/salaries. However, there are large
differences between age groups, with over 60 per cent
of respondents in the 50–59 age group and 39 per cent
of respondents in the 40–49 age group being represented
in this low-income category. The low levels of earnings from
wages/salary correspond with the low rate of employment
(Figure 15) and high rates of diagnosed disabilities
(Figure 17) discussed earlier in this report.
FIGURE 43 Estimated weekly income from superannuation.
Age group: 40–49 years
Gross weekly income from govt benefit/pension
Over half of the 57 respondents who provided a response to
this question indicated that they receive a pension of between
$200–400 per week from Government. A third of careleavers
in the 40–49 age group and the 50–59 age group were
amongst careleavers receiving this benefit/pension. Notably,
as shown in Figure 42, relatively more respondents from
the 60+ age group responded to this question, potentially
indicating that there are differences in income levels amongst
the other age groups and the older age group.
Weekly income from superannuation and
other sources
Figures 43 and 44 show the proportion of careleavers earning
income from superannuation and other sources. Perhaps
not surprisingly, most respondents did not report income
from either superannuation entitlements, with only about a
quarter of all respondents receiving some benefits. Even fewer
respondents (10 per cent overall) reported having any other
source of income, and even when there was other income
it was typically less than $200 per week.
FIGURE 44 Estimated weekly income from other sources.
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
100
100
90.0
75
0
None
reported
< $200
$200 –
$399
$400 –
$799
0
> $800
None
reported
< $200
$200 –
$399
$400 –
$799
4.3
2.5
2.5
2.5
8.7
7.7
4.3
2.5
5.0
4.3
10.0
15.4
10.0
25
7.7
25
17.4
50
7.5
50
2.5
73.9
75
76.9
92.3
Per cent (%)
87.0
Per cent (%)
> $800
30
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
Total weekly income
s
The various categories of income types were combined11 to
obtain an estimated gross weekly income for each individual.
These estimated income values are summarised by age and
disability status and shown in Figure 45 and demonstrate that
even for careleavers who have not been diagnosed with an
illness or disability, weekly incomes tend to be relatively low.
Figure 45 presents some interesting observations:
Where careleavers have been diagnosed with a disability,
the estimated overall income tends to be lower in comparison
than that of careleavers who have not been diagnosed with
a disability.
s
Careleavers in the 50–59 age group seem to be represented
more at the lower income level than the other two age
groups. This is true whether or not the individual reported
having been diagnosed with a disability or illness.
FIGURE 45 Estimated weekly income by illness or disability status.
Age group: 50–59 years
Age group: 40–49 years
0
$200 pw
$600 pw
Has disability or illness
15.4
14.3
15.0
5.0
18.2
27.3
25
28.6
40.0
50
60.0
54.5
75
57.1
80.0
84.6
100.0
100
Per cent (%)
Age group: 60+ years
$1000 pw
$200 pw
$600 pw
No disability or illness
$1000 pw
FIGURE 46 Estimated total weekly income from different sources for careleavers and others in general population.
$200 – $399 per week
< $200 per week
$499 – $799 per week
> $800 per week
Careleaver
General
Wages / salary
Careleaver
General
Government benefit / pension
3.9
Careleaver
General
Other sources
11 The middle value of each reported income category range reported was totalled to form the estimated gross weekly income.
2.7
5.2
22.2
11.1
11.1
21.7
Careleaver
General
Superannuation
6.0
43.7
28.6
11.1
11.1
1.4
7.5
13.2
7.9
27.8
35.7
7.4
12.3
19.0
9.5
14.3
25
0
37.5
44.6
50
50.0
57.1
75
55.6
78.9
88.2
100
Per cent (%)
31
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
RESEARCH DATA
s
The income level of careleavers aged over 60 is approximately
the same whether there is a diagnosis of disability or not.
s
The level of income careleavers are relying on, i.e., between
$250–600 per week, raises concern for their quality of life.
Comparison of weekly income from different sources
for careleavers and the general population
Figure 46 provides a comparison of weekly income from
different sources for careleavers and people from the general
population. This shows a higher concentration of careleavers
in jobs with lower incomes, and in receipt of government
pension when compared with others in the general population.
Income from superannuation in the $200–400 range seems
comparable for both population groups, but interestingly,
a higher proportion of careleavers receive a superannuation
income of more than $800 per week. A similar pattern is
evident in income from other sources with a significantly
higher proportion of careleavers receiving higher amounts
of income from ‘other sources’ such as investments.
Crime
72 respondents answered the question on being a victim of
crime. There is no clear information about the nature of the
crimes committed against careleavers. Figure 47 shows that
a higher proportion of careleavers in the 50–59 age group
have indicated that they have been victims of crime.
31 respondents answered the question in relation to having
ever committed a crime. No information was provided
regarding the nature of the offence committed. It appears
that overall a third of the respondents who answered this
question had committed a criminal offence, and careleavers
in the 40–49 age group are more likely to have committed
a crime compared with careleavers in the older age cohorts.
The 2006 CLAN survey12 also shows that one third of all
respondents to their survey (59 men and 40 women)
had been in trouble with the law for offences other than
parking infringements. Nearly a fifth of the respondents
had been in gaol.
General feedback from careleavers
In addition to questions relating to specific life outcomes,
careleavers were also given an opportunity to share general
comments about their care and their thoughts. The inner
strength, resilience, and tenacity of careleavers is brought out
in many of the responses in this section. Despite the adverse
circumstances in which many respondents lived, their ability
to turn their adversity into a strength, to sustain them for
their life in care and beyond, is clearly articulated.
Talking about their strengths, careleavers have stated,
“my strength as a person is to see that none of my
children end up in a home and do have the love of
parents that I never had...my strength came from being
in care”. Others speak of “being able to stand on my own
two feet...don’t let anyone push me around”, and being
able to cope in their elder years, due to their experience
being alone and coping with trauma alone as a child.
Learning to be self-reliant, acquiring good listening skills, and
learning to accept things that cannot be changed, strength of
character, mateship and simply surviving are other strengths
that carers have identified in the survey.
The pride in their various achievements – education, careers,
service in the armed forces, strong family relationships, raising
their children well, positions in various social and community
groups – is also clear in the qualitative comments in the
survey responses.
FIGURE 47 Involvement in crime as victim and as perpetrator.
Age group: 40–49 years
Age group: 60+ years
Age group: 50–59 years
30.4
30.8
40
Per cent (%)
10.0
17.4
15.0
15.4
20
0
Victim of crime
Committed a crime
12 CLAN, July 2007, Brief Overview of Some Findings From the
CLAN Survey, www.clan.org.au
FOUR
฀
฀
฀฀
33
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
The Forgotten Australians report recorded details of the
long-term impact of the abuse and neglect suffered by
many people who grew up in orphanages and institutions
around Australia from the late 19th to the mid 20th centuries.
The long-term impact of their early life in institutional care on
careleavers is brought out clearly in our research across many
critical domains of life. On a comparative basis, careleavers’
education, employment, income, health and housing
outcomes are significantly lower compared with the general
population. Even among the different age-groups of
the respondents to our research, the outcomes achieved
by careleavers aged 40–59 appeared to be relatively lower
than those achieved by careleavers aged over 60 years.
The range of mental health problems experienced by careleavers
is brought out in the recent 2006 survey of 291 careleavers
across Australia by CLAN14. Depression, panic attacks, sleep
disorders, low self-esteem, nightmares about care experience,
fear of being locked in, obsessive compulsive behaviour, severe
social anxiety, post traumatic stress disorder, problems with
drug and alcohol use, etc have been identified by careleavers
who participated in their survey. This study also points out
the high incidence of physical pain or distress suffered by
careleavers from the injuries received in care as a child, and
the very high proportion of careleavers who have had suicidal
thoughts, have attempted suicide, or know of other careleavers
who have attempted or committed suicide.
However, some outcome areas stand out compared with
others, providing us with some pointers for the development
of policy and programs to support careleavers. These are
discussed below:
It is important to note that income levels indicated by
careleavers in our survey show that a large proportion
of careleavers receive Government benefits of up to $400
per week or income from salary, pension or other sources
of less than $200 per week. With such low income levels,
access to health and disability services becomes one of the
key priority areas of focus for policy and program development.
The incidence of reliance on specialist health services found
in the careleaver cohort would suggest that careleavers need
to be considered as a specific sub-group in any health, dental
and mental health strategy and associated programs delivered
by the State Government.
Health and disability
The Forgotten Australians report documented evidence
from careleavers that their basic health needs were neglected
while in care and many of their current health problems were
directly related to this past neglect of their health needs.
The Committee also heard evidence about the multiple
disadvantages experienced by careleavers often compounded
by their financial situation13. The Committee’s report also noted
studies which show that the long term impacts of child abuse
and maltreatment include an increased risk of depression,
anxiety disorders, peer conflicts, social isolation etc.
Our research shows us that a significant proportion of
careleavers across all age groups in our study have been
diagnosed with a disability – 46 per cent in the age group
40–49, 52 per cent in the age group 50–59, and 58 per cent
in the 60+ category. A quarter of careleavers aged 50–59,
and more than a third of those aged over 60 years visited
a GP more than 5 times in the 6 months prior to the survey.
Nearly half of the respondents across all age groups also
visited a specialist health service in the 6 months prior to
the survey. Though it is difficult to draw an accurate picture
of the exact nature of the specialist services accessed by
careleavers from the data in our survey, they broadly relate
to the mental, dental and physical health problems
experienced by them.
The introduction of a special health card that identifies
a person who has been in institutional care, and allows
them priority access and fee concessions for access to health,
dental and mental health services is an option worth further
exploration by the State Government.
Aged Care
An overwhelming number of respondents to our research
expressed concern about ageing and being in an aged care
facility, or another ‘institution-like’ environment. Careleavers
in the two youngest groups (40–49 years and 50–59 years)
expressed higher levels of concern than the oldest group
of respondents. Only 5 per cent of respondents were in
retirement homes at the time of our survey.
Concerns expressed by careleavers centred around their
perceptions of living in an ‘institution-like’ setting in their
old age, when many had not yet come to terms with their
experiences in institutions as children. Older careleavers
expressed a preference not to spend their later years in an
aged care facility, a finding also reflected in the Forgotten
Australians report.
13 Senate Committee Report 2004, Forgotten Australians, p313.
14 CLAN, July 2007, Brief Overview of Some Findings From the CLAN Survey, www.clan.org.au
34
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
The appropriateness of current models of aged care support
for careleavers, and the level of knowledge and awareness
that aged care support staff have about the particular
experiences of careleavers in institutional care as children, and
consequently the adequateness of their training to support
careleavers, are two of the predominant concerns that are
raised in this regard. These concerns were documented in
the Senate inquiry report and further raised at a Forgotten
Australians forum organised by the Federal Department
of Families, Communities and Indigenous Affairs (FACSIA)
in Sydney in July 2006. Ms Karen Haycox, an academic
specialising in research into aged care, who provided a written
submission to the Senate inquiry, also documents her concerns
about the specific issues that careleavers will face as they age,
and the lack of awareness amongst current service providers
about their specific concerns and needs.
The Home and Community Care (HACC) Program in Victoria
is funded jointly by the State and Federal Governments based
on a 40/60 ratio, and delivered mainly through local councils.
Funding for this program was around $440 million during
2006/07. This program comprises a range of support services
including domestic assistance, personal care, allied health
services, food services, activity groups, property maintenance,
respite services etc for the elderly. While this program is
designed to support people whose capacity for independent
living is at risk and preventing inappropriate admission to
long-term residential care, access to this program is not
immediately available due to demand for these services.
The Senate report noted the Department of Health
and Ageing’s trials focusing on innovative residential care
models of aged care services to specific target groups, and
recommended that one of these trials could be aimed at
meeting the specific needs of careleavers. The pilots that
have been trialled and evaluated to date have been aimed
at addressing the interface between aged care and hospital
care, aged care and disability services, supporting people
suffering from dementia in alternative settings, etc.
However, there have been no trial programs as yet aimed
at addressing the specific needs of careleavers in alternative
settings, and this stands out as another key area of policy
focus, to be addressed by both the Federal and State
Governments given their joint responsibility for the provision
of aged care services in the States and Territories. There is
also a critical need to address the gap in knowledge and
training of the aged care services sector workforce about
the experiences of careleavers in institutions, and the impact
of their experiences as children on their lives as adults.
Relationships and Supports
Our research sought to establish the impact of institutional
care on careleavers’ relationships with partners, siblings and
their own children and the support they received from friends
or family at present. The results of our survey show that:
s¬ ¬currently
around 39 per cent of careleavers aged 40–49,
13 per cent aged 50–59 and around 28 per cent aged over
60 live alone.
s
A vast majority of careleavers were separated from their
siblings, with around 92 per cent of those aged 40–49,
around 61 per cent of those aged 50–59, and around
55 per cent of those aged over 60 reporting they were
separated from their siblings while in care.
While this correlates to what we now know about the
policy and practice around placement of children under the
institutional care framework, the longer term impact of this
separation, particularly on careleavers’ current relationships is
evident in our research. Our research shows that 46 per cent
of careleavers aged 40–49, 21 per cent of careleavers aged
50–59, and 28 per cent of careleavers aged over 60 who
were separated from their siblings currently live alone.
Their time in care has also had significant impacts on
careleavers’ relationships with their own children with over
two-thirds of careleavers reporting that it affected their
relationships with their children negatively. Careleavers in
the 50–59 age group (around 80 per cent) are more likely
to have experienced this negative relationship with their
children than any other age group.
Figure 38 in this report shows that where careleavers do
have someone to support them, in a vast majority of instances,
a spouse or partner is the person that they turn to for support.
Other people mentioned as providers of support include
children, friends, siblings and family. However, it should be
noted that 18 per cent of respondents mentioned they rely
on themselves for support, and around 12 per cent turn to
their counsellor or psychologist because they have no one
within their family or friends to turn to. Taken together, this
indicates that nearly a third of careleavers rely on themselves
or a service provider in times of need.
Figure 39 in this report shows that around 38 per cent
of respondents who answered this question in the survey
indicated that the support they accessed from family and
friends related to seeking companionship and a person with
whom they could share their thoughts and issues. Emotional
support, counselling support and general support (covering
a range of help) were also mentioned by careleavers.
When asked about the types of services that would assist
them now, careleavers mentioned a range of services.
Predominant among them were access to counselling
services (33 per cent of those who responded to this
question), support with education, access to general health,
dental health and mental health services, housing support,
access to records and assistance with tracing family.
These findings highlight the urgency for a service response
to meet the support needs of carers. The Senate report noted
the need for counselling and other therapeutic services for
careleavers, particularly specialist counselling to deal with
the trauma of the past and in addressing the difficulties
experienced by careleavers in forming and maintaining
relationships. Counselling services also play a critical role
in supporting careleavers who access their personal records.
35
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICY
While many community organisations and the State
Government fund the provision of counselling services,
the ad hoc nature of these services and the inability to meet
increasing demand are of concern. Evidence presented at
the Senate inquiry shows that VANISH, the Victorian based
careleaver support group, experienced a 650 per cent increase
in demand for counselling services during 2003/0415.
In his media statement following the 2006 formal apology
to Victorian careleavers, the former Premier Steve Bracks
indicated that the State was providing an additional
$1.4 million over three years to careleaver support groups CLAN
and VANISH, for the provision of more counselling and other
support services. However, with an estimated 90,000 people
in care between 1928 and 1990, the unprecedented increase
in demand for counselling services in the past few years, and
the high proportion of careleavers requiring support services
as evidenced in our research, the resource commitment
towards counselling services provided through careleaver
support groups needs to increase substantially. To enable this
work to progress, it is recommended that further work be
undertaken to identify the demand for counselling and other
support services, and to cost the provision of these services.
The Senate Committee noted in its report that it should not
be left up to the State to provide services that churches and
agencies could fund from their own resources, and noted many
instances where this was available. However, we believe it is
critical for some form of Government assistance to be available
for community organisations that do not have access to their
own sources of funding, to establish services where they are
not currently available, or to strengthen them where there is
some form of service provided, to ensure that careleavers are
able to access services from CSOs when they require support.
RESPONDENT PROFILE
JOHN (not real name)
John is a 48 year old male who was taken away by welfare
when he was very young and separated from his siblings. He
describes his care experience as bad overall and as “fighting,
confused, angry and frustrated”. He found it very hard
to mix with other children, because he knew they weren’t
his immediate family. He felt he was different, and “cannot
fathom how (he) felt, except angry”.
John completed year 10 while in care, and did not pursue
further education. He is currently unemployed and receives
a disability services pension of $200–$400 per week.
John’s housing situation is transient. He currently stays with
his mate in a private house but finds it difficult to settle down
and/or “get into any real rhythm or reason”. He has changed
more than 5 residences in the 12 months before our survey.
John suffers from alcoholism, drug addiction, depression
and disillusionment and has been diagnosed with a severe
personality disorder. He has attended a drug and alcohol
service in the past. He has been diagnosed with mental
health issues and has attempted suicide twice.
John has four children aged between 11 and 26 years. He has
contact with some but not all of his children. He considers
that his time in care has affected his relationship with his
children and says “not growing up with my own parents
has been hard because I don’t know how to relate to my
own kids. Relationships have always been rocky”.
15 Senate Committee Report 2004, Forgotten Australians, p303.
John has siblings who were also placed in care, but were
separated from him. John has maintained contact with his
siblings, but considers that his time in care has affected his
ability to interact with his broader family.
John does not have anyone to turn to for support and says
“I try to cope as best as I can. If I do think about help, I
go to a pub and talk to strangers”. He has sought general
communication, a shoulder to lean on, companionship,
understanding and compassion from these strangers. Given
his experiences in care, he finds it difficult to contemplate
spending his senior years in aged care facilities.
John has had involvement with the police for various offences
such as driving when drunk, driving while disqualified, and
various assaults. He considers that he would benefit from
support services such as counselling, follow-up and outdoor
activities. Summarising his experiences in care, John says “I was
a bed-wetter. I used to get the belt across my bare backside
and the back of my legs. What did they expect from us
who were ripped away from our parents at such a young
age? The only positive to come out of all this rubbish is
that I got an education. I am an alcoholic and don’t read
anymore. I used to be so outgoing. Now I would rather
be on my own. That way I can’t get hurt anymore”.
FIVE
฀
฀฀
฀฀
37
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
REPARATION AND REDRESS SCHEMES
The issue of reparation was not canvassed in the survey
with careleavers. However, given the developments in
various jurisdictions across Australia, and more recently in
South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland, we
consider it important to discuss the schemes that have been
established in other states, in this report. Several overseas
schemes have been discussed extensively in the Forgotten
Australians Report providing us with an overview of how
different governments have approached reparation and
redress for people who suffered abuse in institutional care.
Under the Tasmanian scheme, the claims were lodged
with and processed through the Ombudsman’s office,
and independent assessors determined the eligibility of the
claimant to receive compensation. The maximum amount
paid ex gratia to individual claimants under this scheme
was $60,000. At the time the scheme was closed in 2005,
878 claims were lodged of which 670 were assessed to be
eligible for compensation. The scheme cost the Tasmanian
Government in excess of $27.5 million, against the original
estimate of $5 million.
Tasmania
In response to representations from careleavers who
legitimately missed out on applying for compensation
under the original scheme, the Tasmanian Government has
re-opened the compensation scheme for a limited period,
from 28 March 2008 until 30 June 2008. The eligibility
criteria to access this scheme and the maximum amount
of ex gratia payment remain the same. An independent
assessor appointed by the Tasmanian Government will
determine each claimant’s eligibility for payment.
The earliest known redress scheme in Australia was
established by the Tasmania Government in 2003 in response
to the Tasmanian Ombudsman’s inquiry into abuse of children
in institutional care. This scheme was open for nearly two years
until June 2005 for careleavers to file a claim for compensation
from the Tasmanian Government.
RESPONDENT PROFILE
MARY (not real name)
Mary is aged between 40–49 years and has spent 15 years
of her life in care, with three placements in that time. She
considers her care experience as bad overall, and describes it as
“institutionalised, awful, traumatic, cruel, and insensitive”.
Mary has siblings who were also placed in care, but were
separated from her. She has contact with some of her siblings
and considers that overall, her time in care has affected her
ability to interact with her broader family.
She completed Year 11 of her schooling while in care and
did not attain post-secondary qualifications. She is currently
employed part-time, working less than 35 hours per week.
Her income is between $400–799 weekly and she also
receives less than $200 by way of child support. She has
debts connected with her credit card and vehicle, and
struggles to provide adequately for her two children,
their education, clothes and activities.
She turns to her friend for emotional and financial support
and advice. Mary has been the victim of rape and sexual
assault, and physical and domestic violence. She has also
been involved in theft and shop lifting.
Mary lives in private rental accommodation, and has been
in her current address for more than a year. She lives in this
property with her two daughters aged 12 and 20.
Mary has been diagnosed with rheumatoid arthritis, depression,
anxiety and alcoholism, and has visited a GP and a specialist
between one to five times in the six months prior to our survey.
Her specialist health visits related to dental, physical and mental
health problems. Jenny has attended an alcohol and drug
service in the 12 months prior to our survey.
She finds that her time in care has impacted on her relationship
with her two daughters. She says “Yes. (it is) difficult to
nurture, set appropriate boundaries, provide security
and aspirational examples”.
Financial assistance, dental and medical care, psychological
assistance, educational and trade skills, financial management
and personal relationships are some of the types of support
services that Mary considers will assist careleavers.
She considers herself resilient, canny and tough. She says
“I worked very hard to help myself to the best of my
ability despite all the abuse I received”. With regard to
spending her senior years in aged care Mary says “any
form of institutionalised care horrifies me”.
Mary also says “my life, my children would greatly benefit
from a lump sum financial award/compensation as I could
invest and set them up in a way, providing security of
sorts that I have never had. This would provide significant
healing and a chance to forgive”.
38
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
REPARATION AND REDRESS SCHEMES
The Tasmanian Government is offering the following
additional measures as part of this process:
s¬ Access
to the claimant’s welfare file
s¬ ¬Information
regarding referral to Tasmanian Police if the
claimant wishes to pursue this option; and advice regarding
pursuing civil proceedings against the alleged wrongdoer.
s¬ ¬Up
to $300 to seek legal advice for claimants who wish
to receive the ex gratia compensation, regarding the waiver
of their right to take legal action against the Government
to recover compensation or damages suffered as a result
of the abuse
s¬ ¬Access
to up to three counselling sessions for the claimant,
funded by the Government.
Queensland
In response to the recommendations made by the Forde
inquiry into the abuse of children in institutional care in
Queensland, the Government established several support
services for careleavers. These include:
s¬ ¬Historical Abuse Network (HAN) auspiced by Micah
Projects Inc to provide formal and informal peer support
opportunities for people who identify as having experienced
abuse in institutions, detention centres and foster care.
The network aims to:
– maintain a voice and continue dialogue with the
government and the churches
– share and disseminate information
– reconnect and provide opportunities for engagement
– participate in reconciliation events and children’s
homes reunions
– promote affirmative action and ensure recognition of the
lifelong impact and disadvantage of institutional care.
s¬ ¬Esther Centre also auspiced by Micah Projects Inc.,
which provides:
– support and advocacy for individual former residents
and their families experiencing crisis
– advocacy and support for people processing complaints
of historic abuse through internal church protocols,
professional bodies or organisations and criminal
justice processes
– facilitation and resourcing of the Historical Abuse Network.
s¬ ¬Aftercare Resource Centre (ARC), a program of
Relationships Australia (Qld) which provides:
– face to face counselling at the ARC office at South
Brisbane, Relationships Australia branch offices and
approved private practitioners in Queensland
and interstate
– telephone counselling via a 1800 telephone number
– limited financial assistance for education expenses
or vocational training opportunities, medical and
psychological reports, personal development
programs, records searches, family reunification
and victims impact statements.
s¬ ¬The
Forde Foundation, which was established in 2000
as an independent, perpetual charitable trust benefiting
former residents of Queensland children’s institutions and
some foster care residents. The trust fund, to which the
Queensland Government has contributed $4.15 M, is
administered by the Public Trustee of Queensland which
acts on the recommendations of a Board of Advice when
distributing funds to beneficiaries.
The Forde Foundation operates a program to provide small
monetary grants to former residents to assist overcoming
disadvantage arising from childhood experiences in
institutional care, including:
– basic life necessities
– education and training
– assistance with health issues
– items or services for self development or improved
quality of life
– family reunification.
More recently in 2007, the Queensland Government also
established a redress scheme to make an ex gratia payment
to careleavers to acknowledge the impact of the past and
help them move forward with their lives. This scheme will be
in operation from 1 October 2007 until 30 June 2008, and
offers two levels of payments to claimants.
At the first level, an amount of $7,000 is offered to claimants
based on an assessment of their eligibility, ascertained through
a review of the claimant’s records. At the second level, a further
$33,000 can be accessed by the claimant if they have suffered
more serious abuse or neglect. The second level payments are
based on an assessment of the claim by a panel of experts.
Western Australia
On 17 December 2007, the Western Australian Government
set up Redress WA, to administer a $114 million redress
scheme for those who as children were abused while in State
care in Western Australia. Eligible individuals will be able to
apply for an ex gratia redress payment of up to $10,000 if they
show they experienced abuse while in State care, or up to a
maximum of $80,000 where there is medical or psychological
evidence of loss or injury as a result of that abuse. Applications
to Redress WA will be received by Redress WA for 12 months
from 1 May 2008 and must be lodged by 30 April 2009.
Individuals who do not wish to pursue civil litigation against
the State are eligible to apply to Redress WA. In addition to
the redress scheme, the Western Australian Government is
providing the following to careleavers:
s¬ ¬an
apology and acknowledgement to those who in the past
have suffered when the State did not provide a proper level
of care.
s¬ ¬a
range of support services including personal support,
financial counselling and independent legal advice, as well
as funding of non-government consumer advocacy and
self-help groups.
39
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
REPARATION AND REDRESS SCHEMES
s¬ ¬Assistance
with referring cases to the Police for investigation,
if the claimant wishes to bring the perpetrator to justice.
s¬ ¬A
prominent and permanent memorial to acknowledge
those who have suffered in State care in the past; and
s¬ ¬On
a personal level, an opportunity for careleavers to
formally record their own stories on their official files.
South Australia
The latest state in Australia to acknowledge the need for
a redress scheme is South Australia. Following the release of
Justice Mullighan’s report into abuse in care on 1 April 2008,
the South Australian Government has responded with an
interim measure, which allows careleavers to access
compensation through the $22 million Victims of Crime
Fund that is currently available to all South Australians.
The Government has announced compensation of up
to $50,000 for eligible claimants immediately, and has
undertaken to provide a detailed response to Justice
Mullighan’s 54 recommendations by June 2008.
With four states in Australia taking the lead in establishing
ex gratia payment schemes ranging from $40,000 to $80,000
to acknowledge the poor quality of care provided to people
who were brought up in institutions, and the abuse and
neglect they suffered, it is time to consider what is required
in Victoria for careleavers who were brought up in
Victorian institutions.
The approach taken by other State Governments is that while
money cannot make up for the abuse some people suffered
in State care, the experience of abuse may have resulted in
missed opportunities in life, together with emotional pain and
suffering, making it appropriate for some ex gratia payment
to be made available to the victims.
This view is mirrored in the Senate Committee’s Forgotten
Australians report which states “while no amount of
money can adequately compensate victims for the pain and
suffering experienced while in institutions and other forms
of care, monetary compensation can go some way towards
acknowledging past abuse and affording a sense of justice
and closure for many victims”16. The committee also added
that to achieve healing for many careleavers, monetary
compensation alone is insufficient and other forms of redress
are also essential. On the question of quantum of monetary
compensation, the Committee’s view was that reparations
should be capped at an appropriate level.
It is our view that the time is right for the Government of
Victoria to consider implementing a reparation scheme in
Victoria that includes a monetary compensation scheme,
supported by investment in the specific services and health
measures identified in this report, based on the evidence
generated through the survey.
RESPONDENT PROFILE
JANE (not real name)
Jane is 60 years of age and went into care at a very young
age. She says that her mother was an alcoholic, and left her
with her grandmother. Her father turned up after eight years
and met a woman who did not want her around, and took
her from her grandmother and placed her in a home.
Jane considers her care experience bad overall. She says
“(it was) awful. I still have nightmares. (I) can see the
nun’s face and feel the terror”.
Jane completed year 10 after she left care and did not
pursue further studies. She is currently unemployed and
stopped working due to illness. Her current income comprises
$200–400 as Government pension and less than $200 as
superannuation. Jane lives alone in her own accommodation,
and has lived there for the past 17 years.
Jane suffers from a heart condition, has been diagnosed
with post traumatic stress, and suffers depression and anxiety.
16 Senate Committee Report, p226.
Her health condition has necessitated more than 10 GP
visits in the 6 months prior to our survey.
Jane has three children aged between 29 and 38 years.
She finds it distressing and hard to talk about whether her
time in care has affected her relationship with her children.
Jane has siblings who were placed in care with her, but she
does not have contact with her siblings now. In general she
feels that her time in care has affected her ability to interact
with her broader family. She looks to her doctor and friends
for support, just talking to them to help with all the pain.
However, she does not talk to her children about this.
Jane has been a victim of crime, and does not feel as though
she has any strengths. She has very poor self esteem and
says “Being in care ruined my life”.
SIX
฀
฀
฀฀
฀฀
41
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
AREAS FOR PRIORITY INVESTMENT
RECOMMENDATIONS
The following recommendations are made to further progress the work undertaken through this project,
and to give effect to the recommendations made in the Senate’s Forgotten Australians report:
1
Given the evidence about the high reliance on specialist health services, it is recommended that the Victorian
Government considers the needs of careleavers as a specific sub-group and develops appropriate physical health,
dental health and mental health strategies and programs that will meet the identified needs of careleavers.
A Victorian health card system that identifies careleavers as a special community group eligible for priority
access to, and concessions for a range of services within the Victorian public health system is the preferred
option for enabling access to physical, mental and dental health services for careleavers.
Given that an overwhelming majority of careleavers have expressed concerns about aged care services,
it is recommended that:
s¬ ¬Access
guidelines to Home and Community Care (HACC) programs be reviewed to ensure that careleavers
are able to access this program on a priority basis.
s¬ ¬The
2
State Government trials innovative programs in consultation with the Victorian Sector Working Group on
Forgotten Australians convened by the Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, careleaver support
groups and in partnership with the Federal Government, which are aimed at addressing the specific needs
of careleavers in alternative settings, with a view to embedding them in practice.
s¬ ¬The
Victorian Sector Working Group on Forgotten Australians, careleaver support groups, the Department of
Human Services and community organisations work collaboratively with aged care peaks and aged care training
providers, to address the gap in knowledge and training of the aged care services sector workforce about the
experiences of careleavers in institutions, and the impact of their experiences as children on their lives as adults.
3
It is recommended that the Victorian Government increase its investment in support services such as counselling,
to meet the demand for such services in recent times. The investment of $1.4 million over three years from
2006/07 is a welcome start. More recently, the Government announced an investment of $7.1 million over
four years from 2008/09 to set up a single access point to coordinate the provision of information and advice to
careleavers on how to access services that are currently available, assistance with searches, and accessing legal
support. It is not clear at the time of writing this report whether the funds are allocated to provide advice about
and referrals to existing services or for the actual provision of counselling, and other support services to careleavers.
With an estimated 90,000 people in care between 1928 and 1990, and with the increase in demand for support
services in the past few years, substantial resources will be required to support careleavers. Government should
also support VANISH and other relevant community organisations establish counselling and other support services
for careleavers where they are not currently available, or to strengthen them where there is some form of service
provided, to ensure that careleavers are able to access services from CSOs when they require support. Investment
in specific programs for careleavers on parenting their own children, in the light of the trauma they have
experienced in institutional care is also recommended.
4
Access to personal and historical records for all careleavers along with support to access the records is
another critical component in establishing support services for carers. Currently, many large organisations such
as Mackillop Family Services, have led the way in establishing such heritage record access services for careleavers.
However, their experience demonstrates the intense resource requirements to set up an archives system along
with enabling supported access to records. Given the passage of time, the records of many community
organisations are lost or damaged. With many organisations ceasing business, and handing back records to
Government, a lot of effort is required to catalogue records and set up a records system which can meet the
needs of careleavers seeking information about themselves and their time in care. Many small organisations
will be unable to meet this challenge and need to be supported by Government in this process. Government
should also explore the possibility of developing collaborative arrangements for providing supported access
to records for careleavers. The Victorian Sector Working Group should consider developing a collaborative
framework and guidelines for access to and release of records of careleavers.
5
Finally, it is recommended that the Government establish an appropriate financial redress scheme following
the example set by Tasmania, Queensland, Western Australia and South Australia to acknowledge the
abuse and neglect suffered by the many people who lived in institutional care in Victoria.
SEVEN
฀฀
43
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
CONCLUSION
This report attempts to document the impact of institutional
care on the lives of careleavers in this state. The information
generated through the survey, benchmarked with the life
experiences of people in the general population, provides us
with an understanding of where careleavers are at, and the
different areas we can target to establish support services.
Our research demonstrates the impact of institutional care
across various dimensions of careleavers’ lives, and the lifelong
impact of their traumatic experiences as children. Our research
also highlights the resilience and inner strength of many
careleavers who have overcome adverse circumstances.
Their resilience provides us with the basic building blocks
on which to establish services which will support them
now and into their future.
By recounting their experiences in their responses to our
survey, careleavers have attempted to provide us a glimpse
into their past, with a view to making the present and
future for many a better one. We are very grateful to all
77 respondents who participated in our research for their
generosity in sharing their history with us.
One of the respondents to our survey stated, “it is hard
to make people understand how my upbringing has
affected my life..the hurt and pain and anger that
you carry in your head stay with you forever. Sure you
laugh and smile but often that is a mask and it makes
others happy if you seem happy…”. We are sure there
are many careleavers in similar circumstances who have
learnt to mask their true feelings as a way to cope, but
carry the trauma of their childhood with them even
today, and will continue to do so into the future. The
clock can never be turned back for them, but there
is certainly an opportunity now to address the impact of
the trauma and hurt, by investing in realistic services to
support careleavers.
฀ ฀
฀
฀
฀
฀
44
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
Careleavers of Australia Network (2007), Brief Overview
of Some Findings From the CLAN Survey, www.clan.org
Curtis, M, 1946, Report of the Care of Children Committee,
Home Office, England (Curtis Report)
Department of Human Services (2003), Submission of the
Government of Victoria to the Senate Inquiry into Children
in Institutional Care.
Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee (2004),
Forgotten Australians: A report on Australians who
experienced institutional or out-of-home care as children
Tierney, L.J (1963) Children who need help: A study of
child welfare policy and administration in Victoria, Parkville:
Melbourne University Press
45
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
APPENDIX 1: PUBLIC APOLOGY TO
FORGOTTEN AUSTRALIANS
฀
฀
฀
฀฀
10 August 2006
CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN
CHILD AND FAMILY WELFARE INC.
The Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare, a peak body for community organisations
in Victoria providing care for children and young people, wishes to record its deep sorrow and
regret for the abuse suffered by many Australians who were in institutional care as children.
The Centre apologises to Forgotten Australians unreservedly for the hurt and harm they suffered
in institutional care and the long term impact of past abuse on them.
The Centre will work with its members to assist the development of appropriate support services
for Forgotten Australians. The Centre will also extend support to advocacy groups for Forgotten
Australians, in the development of such services.
Signed,
David Murray
Coleen Clare
President
Chief Executive Officer
10 August 2006
10 August 2006
46
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
APPENDIX 2: CARELEAVER SURVEY 2006
฀
฀
Date:
Location:
Referring Organisation:
A. Background Information
C. Your education participation and attainment
1. Your gender
Male
Female
2. Are you of Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander background?
Yes
No
10. What is the highest level of schooling you completed?
(Please circle)
While in care
Year 12
Year 10
Year 11
Less than year 10
Both while in care and later
Year 12
Year 10
Year 11
Less than year 10
3. Your age
40–49
50–59
60 and over
4. What is the postcode of your current address?
B. Information about your institutional care experience
5. What year did you first enter care? (You may need to estimate)
11. Have you attained any post-secondary education?
Yes (please go to Question 12)
No (please go to Question 13)
6. What year did you last leave care? (You may need to estimate)
12. If you have attained post-secondary education, which of
the following is the highest level you completed?
Post Graduate Qualification
Graduate Qualification
7. What were the circumstances that you understand
led you to being initially being placed in care?
Vocational Qualification
13. Are you currently studying or involved in a training program?
Yes (please go to Question 14)
No (please go to Question 15)
14. If you are currently studying or taking a training program,
in which sector?
8. How would you describe your care experience?
Good overall
Bad overall
Difficult to make general assessment
9. How many care placements did you have?
University – full time
University – Part time
Vocational education – full time
Vocational education – part time
Other, please specify
One placement
Between two and five placements
Between six and nine placements
Ten or more placements
Your comments:
D. Your current employment
15. What is your current employment situation?
Employed, including unpaid work in family business
(please go to Question 16)
Unemployed (please go to Question 17 and 18)
Out of the active workforce (e.g. home duties, retired)
47
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
APPENDIX 2: CARELEAVER SURVEY 2006
16. If you are currently employed, is your job full-time or part-time?
Full-time (35 hours or more each week in all jobs)
23. How many times have you moved residence
in the last 12 months?
Part-time (less than 35 hours each week in all jobs)
17. If you are currently unemployed, for how long have you been
searching for work?
Less than one year
Full-time work
Five to ten times
One to five times
More than ten times
24. Who are you currently living with?
More than one year
18. If you are currently unemployed, are you searching for full-time
work or part-time work?
None
Alone
Relative
Friend
Partner
Other
Part-time work
E. Your current income
G. Your current health
19. On average, what is the gross income (before tax) you receive
each week from:
25. Have you been diagnosed as having an illness or disability?
Yes, please specify
No
Wages/salary
less than $200
$400–$799
$200–$399
$800 or more
26. How many times have you visited a GP in the last six months?
Government benefit/pension
less than $200
$400–$799
$200–$399
$800 or more
Superannuation
less than $200
$400–$799
$200–$399
$800 or more
Zero
Six to ten times
One to five times
More than ten times
27. How many times have you visited a medical specialist other
than a GP in the last six months?
Zero
Six to ten times
One to five times
More than ten times
28. If you visit a medical specialist other than a GP, is this for:
Other sources (please specify)
Dental health
Physical health
Mental health
less than $200
$400–$799
$200–$399
$800 or more
20. Please indicate if you currently have problems with
these debt-types:
Credit Card
Phone or other utilities
Vehicle
Rental arrears
Other, please specify
Other (please specify)
29. Have you ever attended a drug and alcohol service?
Yes
No
30. Have you attended a drug or alcohol service
in the past 12 months?
Yes
F.
Your housing situation
No
H. Family, children and support providers
21. Which best describes your current living situation?
Living in own
accommodation
Retirement home
Private rental
Caravan park
Public housing
Sleeping rough/squatting
Transitional housing
31. How many children have you had? (Please circle)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
More than 6
32. If you do have children, have any of them ever been in State care?
Yes, just one of my children has been in State care
Boarding
Yes, more than one of my children has been in State care
Emergency refuge
No, none of my children has ever been in State care
Other housing arrangements (please specify)
33. What are the current ages of your children?
34. Do you have contact with your children?
22. How long have you lived at the current address?
Less than six months
More than a year
Between six months
and a year
More than 5 years
Yes, I have contact with all my children (please go to
Question 35 and 36)
Yes, I have contact with some but not all of my children
(please go to question 35 and 36)
No (please go to Question 37)
48
IT’S NOT TOO LATE TO CARE
APPENDIX 2: CARELEAVER SURVEY 2006
35. If you have contact, how often do you see your children?
J.
Your thoughts on services that could assist you
46. Please identify any services that could now be offered
to you to address issues arising from your time in care.
36. Do you think that your time in care has affected your relationship
with your own children? Please explain.
47. Are there any education/training programs you would recommend
for those in organisations providing services to careleavers?
37. Do you have any siblings?
Yes (please go to Questions 38–40)
No (please go to Question 41)
38. When you were in care, were your siblings also in care?
Yes
48. What do you see as your main strengths as a person?
Were any of these strengths helped by your period in care?
No
39. If your siblings were also in care, were you separated
or together with them?
Yes
No
40. Do you have contact with your siblings now?
Yes
49. Does your period in care when young make it difficult for you
to contemplate spending your senior years in aged care?
No
41. In general, do you think that your time in care has reduced
your ability to interact with your broader family?
Yes, negatively
Yes, positively
No
Yes
No
K. Your achievements and general thoughts
42. Whom do you turn to most when you are in need of support?
50. Would you like to share your significant achievements with us?
43. What type of support have you sought from this person (persons)?
51. Is there anything else you would like to add to this survey?
I.
Other issues
44. Have you been involved in any community organisations at any
stage over the past year?
Religious
Sports
Community Service
Other
Social
None
52. Would you be willing to be contacted by the Centre for Excellence
in Child and Family Welfare to share further specific details of your
experiences since leaving care at a subsequent interview?
45. Have you had involvement with the police:
a) As a victim of crime?
Yes (please specify)
Yes
No
b) For your role in committing an offence?
Yes (please describe the offence)
Please note that while the Centre for Excellence in Child and
Family Welfare would be very pleased if you agree to provide the
contact information in Question 52, it is an optional addition to
the core survey and you are under no pressure to provide it.
No
No
Please complete the box on the next
page with your contact details.
Please note that any contact information will be treated confidentially
and not disclosed to anyone. It will only be used to contact you if
further information is required for research purposes.
Thank you very much for filling in this survey.
Photography Child and Family Services (Ballarat) and Glastonbury Child and Family Services (Geelong)
Design Louisa Williams Printing BLS Printing, www.blsprinting.biz
CENTRE FOR EXCELLENCE IN
CHILD AND FAMILY WELFARE INC.
5/50 Market Street
Melbourne, Victoria 3000
Australia
TELEPHONE +613 9614 1577
FACSIMILE +613 9614 1774
WEBSITE www.cwav.asn.au