Intensive Family Based Services Quality Statement

Definition

Data Quality

Institutional Environment

IFBS will work intensively with accepted families for 12 weeks in Preservation and Placement Support matters. For Restoration matters this is extended to 16 weeks to allow for a four week lead in period prior to the children coming back into the home. Some IFBS programs also have a ‘Step-down’ facility that allow them to continue work with families past the 12/16 week period to embed positive changes made by families.

Due to the intense nature of the work with families under IFBS, Caseworker caseloads are capped at two families per Caseworker. Caseworkers may spend up to 20 hours a week in the home with each family.

Timeliness

IFBS programs are funded to provide services to families annually and data are reported annually.

 

Accessibility

Each Party (i.e. CS caseworker, CS manager casework, IFBS caseworker and IFBS manager) is the owner of the information that they contribute to the IFBS Connect Database.

Each Party is responsible for taking reasonable steps to ensure the data they capture and store using the IFBS Connect Database is of an appropriate quality, accuracy and currency. IFBS Connect Users have the best understanding of the client data collected, entered and maintained on IFBS Connect and are responsible for the quality of that data.

In summary, data quality is important because it:

• enables a complete and accurate assessment of the IFBS Intervention
• permits evidence-based evaluation of the IFBS model;
• facilitates effective allocation of resources by providing a clear justification for where resources should be allocated;
• assists in identifying strategies to divert children or young people and their families from the statutory child protection system; and
• ensures accurate statistical data for evaluation purposes
   

IFBS Data stored in the Federated Analytics Platform is available on request from the Information Management team.

Interpretability

Supporting information on the relevant program is provided on Program Specific Intranet Page. 

• IFBS

Metadata associated with each of the IFBS data tables is linked to this Data Quality Statement.

In general detailed documentation about data storage in Service Provider source systems, provider level collection and remediation processes have not been systematically captured. 

Accuracy

The quality of all data is important; however, there are three types of data that are particularly critical to maintaining data quality in IFBS Connect

• Recording the correct dates: A date is important because it marks the beginning and end of an event. If there is a lack of clarity about the dates or the event itself then the value of the data is significantly degraded. Important dates to be entered into IFBS Connect are:
  • Date of referral acceptance
  • Date of Joint Meeting
  • Date of Initial Planning Meeting/Start date intervention
  • End date of intervention/conclusion
  • Start date of Step-down service
  • End date of Step-down service
• Identifying the Correct Person: Providing accurate and thorough details about the person when creating, searching or matching person data (and their aliases) is crucial to data quality. Any assessment must have a complete picture of what may have happened to a child or young person over time.
• Identifying the correct KiDS Number. As the IFBS Connect portal does not interface with KiDS the only way to link the two systems is by entering the KiDS number on the referral form. Best practice is to copy and paste the number as KiDS data technicians have reported high inaccuracies with manually typing in these numbers. This is due to the characters being indistinct on the screen, for example; L is commonly mistaken for I and etc.

Accuracy of Indigenous Status Data

The accuracy of data held about Indigenous Status in current collections is poor for several factors. Firstly, the number of individuals indicating that they are Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander may not be an accurate count, but an over- or under-representation depending on several factors. Secondly, the data quality of Indigenous Status is poor due to the variance and inadequacies of the question/s currently being asked to record Indigenous status.

The accuracy in the representation of Aboriginal and /or Torres Strait Islanders is determined by whether a person will or can identify as such on a data collection form. This is influenced by a number of factors, including the requirements of data collected, the reasons for the collection, who will have access to the information, who the collector is, the way it is collected, and the perception of why the information is collected. These factors are compounded by the structural systems of racism, which have led to power imbalances and relationships founded on mistrust.

The Department of Communities and Justice currently enacts program level Aboriginal identification guidelines, the variance in program guidelines impacts upon the capacity and willingness for an Aboriginal person to self-identify.

The current questions included in data collections to capture Indigenous status are also inadequate. Most commonly, this is seen as a Yes or No reply to Indigenous Status and provides very limited information. A person’s Indigenous status is more complex than a Yes or No reply. It is a starting point to seek more information about a person’s identity. It may be appropriate to collect additional information for example on Country, Clan, and Language affiliation.  This Information should only be collected for a defined and appropriate use for example to facilitate cultural connection of children with family and community.

To begin addressing these gaps, the Department of Communities and Justice, is implementing the Family is Culture Report, which will result in the re-design and collection of identifying Indigenous information as per Recommendation 77. This more detailed suite of questions will improve the quality of the data collected and be more likely to attract an accurate representation of people identifying as Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander. Multiple projects are also underway across DCJ to address the recommendations made in the Family is Culture Report to increase both the practice and policy positions of DCJ in regard to the identification and de-identification of Aboriginal and/or Torres Strait Islander children. The recommendations have been made to increase consistency, improve practice and ensure the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty guide the design of all future data elements.

NSW Government is committed to enabling the principles of Indigenous Data Governance as per the NSW Data Strategy . Aboriginal-led Governance structures will be formed as a result of the NSW Governments Commitment to the Family is Culture Report (Recommendation 2), and Closing the Gap, Priority Reform Four, Priority Key action Area 2 Closing the Gap, Priority Reforms.

Coherence

Coherence is generally poor. Value lists for similar data items items vary across distributions, and generally were developed in an ad-hoc manner without adherence to known standards. 

Processes around the collection, storage and remediation at the service provider level are undocumented. Collation and remediation processes at the DCJ level are only partially documented.