Report on Government Services 2022

Child protection services provide supports and interventions to promote child and family wellbeing, and to protect children and young people aged 0–17 years who are at risk of abuse and neglect within their families, or whose families do not have the capacity to provide care and protection.

Figure 16.1 is a simplified representation of the child protection services system, depicting common pathways through the system and referrals to support services.

Figure 16.1 The child protection services system ^{a, b, c, d, e}

a Dashed lines indicate that clients may or may not receive these services, depending on need, service availability, and client willingness to participate in voluntary services. b Support services include family preservation and reunification services provided by government and other agencies. c Green shading indicates data are reported. d Services differ across jurisdictions. e AG = Activity Group. See the ‘Key terms and references’ tab for detailed definitions.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished).

State and Territory governments have responsibility for funding and/or providing child protection services in Australia. Each jurisdiction has its own legislation that determines the policies and practices of its child protection system, and while this legislation varies in detail, its intent is similar across jurisdictions.

Other government service systems can have a role in child protection, including:

• mandatory reporting responsibilities for particular occupations in some jurisdictions
• education and child care services, which in some jurisdictions includes education on protective behaviours
• health services and mental health services, which support the assessment of child protection matters and deliver general medical and dental services as well as therapeutic, counselling and other services
• police services, which investigate serious allegations of child abuse and neglect, particularly criminal matters, and may also work on child protection assessments
• courts, which decide whether a child will be placed on an order.

This section reports on services provided by State and Territory governments to promote family wellbeing and to protect children, specifically: family support services; intensive family support services; protective intervention services and out‑of‑home care services (see 'Key terms and references' tab for definitions). Data are also included on expenditure by the Australian Government on intensive family support services.

Total recurrent expenditure on family support services, intensive family support services, protective intervention services, and care services (out-of-home care and other supported placements) was $7.5 billion nationally in 2020-21 (a real increase of 6.2 per cent from 2019-20) of which care services accounted for more than half (60.3 per cent, or $4.5 billion) (table 16A.8).

In 2020-21, real recurrent expenditure on all child protection services per child aged 0–17 years in the population was $1327 nationally (figure 16.2).

Nationally, the following number of children aged 0–17 years received protective intervention services and out‑of‑home care services during 2020‑21 (also reported as a rate per 1000 children in the population) (tables 16A.1–4):

• 293 585 children were the subject of notifications; 51.9 notifications per 1000 children
• 105 407 children were the subject of a finalised investigation; 18.6 finalised investigations per 1000 children
• 49 690 children were the subject of a substantiation; 8.8 substantiations per 1000 children
• 61 743 children were on care and protection orders at 30 June 2021; 10.9 children on care and protection orders per 1000 children
• 46 212 children were in out‑of‑home care at 30 June 2021, 8.2 per 1000 children aged 0–17 years, with a further 10 115 children in other supported placements.
  • There were 56 871 children in out‑of‑home care at least once during 2020‑21; with 11 515 children admitted to, and 11 382 discharged from, out‑of‑home care during this period. See Reporting on out-of-home care (below) for information about the definition of out‑of‑home care used in this Report.

Approximately half of all notifications nationally result in an investigation; the other half are dealt with by other means. The proportion of notifications dealt with by other means varies significantly by jurisdiction (table 16A.5). Around one in four children admitted to a care and protection order has been admitted to such orders before, though this proportion varies across states and territories (table 16A.6). Almost all children in out‑of‑home care are on care and protection orders (ranging from 84–100 per cent across jurisdictions as at 30 June 2021) (table 16A.7).

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are overrepresented in the child protection system (tables 16A.1–4). For further details see the performance indicator ‘Disproportionality’ under the 'Indicator Results' tab.

Reporting on out-of-home care

National reporting on out-of-home care has been subject to substantial data comparability issues due to variations across jurisdictions in the legislation that determines policies and practices in the out-of-home care system, in particular, relating to children on third-party parental responsibility orders.

Following extensive jurisdictional consultation, Children and Families Secretaries agreed in 2019 to a narrower scope of out‑of‑home care to better enable comparability in national reporting. The narrower scope is consistent with permanency reforms that consider children on third‑party parental responsibility orders as having transitioned from out‑of‑home care into a permanent and stable arrangement.

Out‑of‑home care for national reporting is defined as overnight care for children aged less than 18 years who were unable to live with their families due to child safety concerns. This includes:

• placements approved by the Department responsible for child protection for which there is both ongoing case management and financial payment (including where a financial payment has been offered but has been declined by the carer)
• legal (court ordered) and voluntary placements and placements made for the purposes of providing respite for parents or carers.

From 2018‑19 data are reported for children in out‑of‑home care under the new definition. Other living arrangements that were previously included in the scope of out‑of‑home care are excluded from the count of children in out‑of‑home care and reported as ‘other supported placements’. Supplementary data on the number of children in care, that is, out‑of‑home care or other supported placements, which aligns with living arrangements that were included in the previous national reporting for out‑of‑home care, are reported (where available) in data tables until 2018‑19.

Reporting against this narrower scope will result in some jurisdictions reporting fewer children in out‑of‑home care from 2018‑19 onwards compared to earlier years. The most significant difference relates to the exclusion of children in third‑party parental responsibility arrangements, noting that some jurisdictions have already excluded these children from national reporting on out‑of‑home care (Victoria from 2017‑18, NSW from 2014‑15, and WA for all years).

‘Disproportionality’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services in an equitable manner.

‘Disproportionality’ is defined as the extent to which a group’s representation in the child protection services system is proportionate to their representation in the child protection services target population (0–17 years). Disproportionality for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is calculated by dividing the proportion of children in the child protection system who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children by the proportion of children in the target population who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

The disproportionality ratio is calculated as follows:

If the group’s representation is proportionate to their representation in the target population, the disproportionality ratio will equal 1.0. For example, if five per cent of all children in the child protection system are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and five per cent of all children in the target population (0–17 years) are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, then the disproportionality ratio will be 1.0.

This measure comprises six ratios for components of the child protection services system (see figure 16.1 for a simplified representation of the components):

• notifications
• commencing intensive family support services
• investigations
• substantiations
• care and protection orders
• out of home care.

Disproportionality provides an indication of the extent to which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are overrepresented in child protection services. Some of this overrepresentation may be a result of a government’s child protection policies and practices resulting in differences in the supports and services delivered based on a group’s characteristics. A group’s representation should be proportional to their need for supports and services. Higher need may result in necessary disproportionality (that is, a ratio greater than 1.0). If risk factors and need are the same across groups, then neither overrepresentation or underrepresentation is desirable (that is, the disproportionality ratio should be 1.0). Both overrepresentation and underrepresentation can have undesirable consequences.

Disproportionality can reflect the uneven distribution of structural and relative disadvantage throughout the population, in addition to risk factors including economic and social factors, and can indicate a greater need for appropriate supports and services. At the same time, disproportionality can reflect biases in the system that should be avoided.

The six disproportionality ratios might fluctuate because of policy, funding and/or practice changes, such as increased investment in intensive family support and services to divert children from care, better targeting of investigative resources and the introduction of mandatory reporting. Increased community awareness and willingness to notify suspected instances of child abuse, neglect or harm can also influence these ratios.

Identification of Indigenous status may lead to data quality issues for this indicator, in particular underidentification of Indigenous status is likely to result in disproportionality ratios understating Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s representation in the child protection system. The disproportionality ratios should be considered in conjunction with data on the proportion of children for whom Indigenous status is not stated, which varies across states and territories (refer to tables 16A.1–3 and 16A.34).

The 2020-21 disproportionality ratios for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children vary within jurisdictions across each of the six service types (figure 16.3 and table 16A.9).

‘Support to families’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to support and strengthen families so that children can live in a safe and stable family environment.

‘Support to families’ is defined as the proportion of families identified as requiring support who receive support.

High or increasing proportions of families who have been identified as requiring support and who receive support is desirable.

Data are not yet available for reporting against this indicator.

‘Response times’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services that are responsive, ensuring that notifications are responded to, and investigations are completed, in a timely and appropriate manner.

‘Response times’ is defined by two measures:

• response time to commence investigations, defined as the proportion of investigations commenced within specified time periods, where the length of time (measured in days) between the date a child protection department records a notification and the date an investigation is subsequently commenced
• response time to complete investigations, defined as the proportion of investigations completed within specified time periods, where the length of time (measured in days) between the date a child protection department records a notification and the date an investigation is completed (that is, the date an investigation outcome is determined).

High and increasing proportions of investigations commenced and completed in shorter periods is desirable.

The length of time between recording a notification and commencing an investigation indicates the promptness in responding to child protection concerns. The length of time between recording a notification and completing an investigation indicates the effectiveness of responding to and conducting investigations in a timely manner.

Response times to commence and complete investigations varied across jurisdictions in 2020-21. Nationally, 59.5 per cent of investigations were commenced within seven days of notification (figure 16.4a) and 20.3 per cent of investigations were completed in 28 days or fewer — more than one in five investigations (21.8 per cent) took longer than 90 days to complete (figure 16.4b, tables 16A.10–11).

‘Substantiation rate’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that child protection services are targeted to children and young people who are at greatest risk.

‘Substantiation rate’ is defined as the proportion of finalised investigations where abuse or neglect, or risk of abuse or neglect, was confirmed.

The substantiation rate provides an indication of the extent to which services are targeted to those at greatest risk, thereby avoiding the human and financial costs of an investigation where no abuse or neglect had occurred or was at risk of occurring.

Neither a very high nor very low substantiation rate is desirable. A very low substantiation rate might indicate that investigations are not targeted to appropriate cases. A very high substantiation rate might indicate that the criteria for substantiation are unnecessarily bringing ‘lower risk’ families into the statutory system.

The substantiation rate might fluctuate because of policy, funding and practice changes. For example, targeting investigative resources to more serious cases may mean investigations are more likely to result in substantiation, and there are varying thresholds for recording a substantiation. Mandatory reporting, increased community awareness and willingness to notify suspected instances of child abuse, neglect or harm may also affect the substantiation rate.

The proportion of finalised investigations where abuse or neglect, or risk of abuse or neglect was substantiated varied across jurisdictions and over time (figure 16.5).

‘Safety in care’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide quality care for children and young people aged 0–17 years who cannot live with their parents for reasons of safety or family crisis, with an emphasis on safety, stability and permanency in children’s living arrangements.

‘Safety in care’ covers children in out-of-home care and children in other supported placements, and is defined by two measures:

• the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse or neglect (data for this measure are experimental)
• the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse or neglect where the person responsible was living in the household providing out-of-home care.

For the first measure, the person responsible can be anyone who encounters the child while the child is in out-of-home care or other supported placements (that is, not limited to a person living in the household). For the second measure, the person responsible is limited to someone in the household providing out-of-home care or other supported placements.

Low or decreasing proportions of substantiations for both measures is desirable. Care should be taken when interpreting these data as the threshold for substantiating abuse or neglect or risk involving a child in care is generally lower than that for a child in the care of his or her own parents. This is because governments assume a greater duty of care for children removed from the care of their parents for protective reasons.

Data reported for this indicator should be interpreted with caution. Jurisdictions employ different data systems and record keeping methods, which vary in scope (for example, whether data are collected on all, or only particular, care settings) and detail collected (for example, whether the perpetrator is recorded and whether an incident resulted in a substantiation or equivalent). These differences affect the comparability of these data across jurisdictions.

In 2020-21, the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of abuse or neglect was less than 5 per cent across all jurisdictions for whom data were available (table 16.1a). The proportion where the person responsible was living in the household was less than 3 per cent across all jurisdictions for whom data were available (table 16.1b).

‘Stability and permanency of placement’ is a partial indicator of governments’ objective to provide quality care for children and young people aged 0–17 years who cannot live with their parents for reasons of safety or family crisis, with an emphasis on safety, stability and permanency in children’s living arrangements.

‘Stability and permanency of placement’ is defined by two measures:

• the proportion of children on an order exiting out-of-home care who had one or two placements during a period of continuous out-of-home care, by length of care (less than 12 months, and 12 months or more)
• the proportion of children in out-of-home care for two or more years who have had one or two placements in the last two years.

High proportions of children exiting out-of-home care, or who have been in out-of-home care for two or more years, who had one or two placements, is desirable. But this must be considered in conjunction with other placement indicators.

Children can have multiple placements for appropriate reasons (for example, an initial placement followed by a longer-term placement) or it may be desirable to change placements to achieve better compatibility between a child and family, or to achieve a permanent care arrangement for the child. It is not desirable for a child to stay in an unsatisfactory or unsupportive placement. In addition, older children are more likely to have multiple placements as they move towards independence and voluntarily seek alternate placements. And children who have been in out-of-home care for a long period are more likely to have multiple placements as they transition to a permanent care arrangement once it has been determined that they cannot live with their parents.

Data for children exiting out-of-home care are only for children who were on orders and who exited out-of-home care during the reporting period. There are limitations to counting placement stability and permanency using a cohort of children on exit from care rather than longitudinally tracking a cohort of children on their entry into care. An exit cohort is biased to children who stay a relatively short time in care and thus are more likely to have experienced fewer placements. In addition, the data for children exiting out-of-home care do not distinguish between long- and short-term orders. Long-term orders can indicate legal permanency of placement, though a child may still experience multiple placements while subject to a long-term order.

Nationally (excluding Tasmania) in 2020-21, 88.6 per cent of children on a care and protection order who exited out-of-home care within 12 months experienced one or two placements (figure 16.6a). For children who had been in out-of-home care 12 months or more this proportion was 54.3 per cent nationally (table 16A.15). To assist with the interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.16 details the length of time children spent in continuous out-of-home care for all children in out-of-home care, while table 16A.18 details the length of time in continuous out-of-home care for children who exited out-of-home care.

Nationally in 2020-21, 86.9 per cent of children who have been in out-of-home care for two years or more have had one or two placements in the last two years (figure 16.6b).

‘Children in home-based care’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services that meet the needs of individual children and young people in the child protection system.

‘Children in home‑based care’ is defined as the proportion of children in out‑of‑home care who are in home‑based care.

A high or increasing proportion of children in out-of-home care who are placed in home-based care is desirable.

Placing children in home-based care is generally considered to be in their best interests, particularly for younger children. Children will generally make better developmental progress in family settings than in residential or institutional care environments.

Nationally at 30 June 2021, 91.1 per cent of children in out-of-home care were in home-based care — 96.9 per cent for children aged less than 12 years, and 80.8 per cent for children aged 12–17 years (figure 16.7). Nationally, proportions were similar for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and non-Indigenous children (table 16A.19). To assist with the interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.20 details the type of out-of-home care by Indigenous status.

‘Placement maintains connections’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services that meet the needs of individual children and young people in the child protection system.

‘Placement maintains connections’ is defined by four measures:

• placement with relatives or kin – the proportion of all children in out-of-home care who are placed with relatives or kin who receive government financial assistance to care for that child
• placement in accordance with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle – the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care who are placed with the child’s extended family, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander community or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people
• local placement – the proportion of children in out-of-home care attending the same school that they attended before entering out-of-home care
• placement with sibling – the proportion of children who are on orders and in out-of-home care at 30 June who have siblings also on orders and in out-of-home care, who are placed with at least one of their siblings.

High or increasing rates for all four measures are desirable, though a placement decision needs to consider all factors regarding the child’s safety and wellbeing and therefore may involve weighing up the measures separately. Placing children so that connections with family, kin and/or community can be maintained or enhanced is generally the preferred out-of-home care placement option due to the increased continuity, familiarity and stability for the child, and the association with improved long-term outcomes. However, placements with family, kin and/or community may not always be the best option.

The measure ‘placement in accordance with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle’ should be interpreted with care as it is a proxy, reporting the placement outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children rather than compliance with the principle.

Identification of Indigenous status may lead to data quality issues for this indicator, in particular high rates of Indigenous status not stated are likely to affect the results.

Data for the measures ‘local placement’ and ‘placement with sibling’ (measures 3 and 4) are under development and are not available for this Report.

Nationally at 30 June 2021, the proportion of children in out-of-home care who were placed with relatives or kin was 53.7 per cent, with the proportion similar for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (53.5 per cent) and non-Indigenous children (53.9 per cent) (figure 16.8a).

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle comprises five domains; prevention, partnership, placement, participation and connection (SNAICC 2013; DSS 2015). The placement domain specifies the following priorities:

• placement with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander relatives or extended family members, or other relatives or extended family members
• placement with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family‑based carers.

If the preferred options are not available, the child may be placed with a non‑Indigenous carer or in a residential setting. If the child is not placed with their extended Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander family, the placement must be within close geographic proximity to the child’s family. All jurisdictions have adopted the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle in both legislation and policy.

Nationally at 30 June 2021, 63.8 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out‑of‑home care were placed either with relatives/kin (54.3 per cent) or with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family‑based carers (9.5 per cent) (figure 16.8b). The calculation of this measure differs to that for figure 16.8a as it excludes those in independent living and unknown living arrangements.

‘Children with current documented case plans’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services that meet the needs of individual children and young people in the child protection system.

‘Children with current documented case plans’ is defined as the number of children who have a current documented and approved case plan as a proportion of all children who are required to have a current documented and approved case plan.

A case plan is an individualised, dynamic written plan (or support agreement) developed between a family and an agency based on an assessment process. A current documented case plan is one that has been approved and/or reviewed within the previous 12 months.

A high or increasing rate of children with current documented case plans is desirable.

The indicator does not assess the quality of case plans, nor the extent to which identified needs and actions are put into place. These factors should be taken into account when considering the results reported for this indicator.

Nationally (excluding the ACT), 88.8 per cent of children required to have a current documented and approved case plan, had such a plan at 30 June 2021 (figure 16.9).

‘Continuity of case worker’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide quality care for children and young people aged 0−17 years who cannot live with their parents for reasons of safety or family crisis, with an emphasis on safety, stability and permanency in children’s living arrangements.

‘Continuity of case worker’ is defined as the proportion of children in out‑of‑home care who have one caseworker assigned during the reporting period.

A high or increasing percentage of children in out‑of‑home care who have one caseworker assigned during the reporting period is desirable.

Data are not yet available for reporting against this indicator.

‘Unit costs for protective intervention services activity groups’ is reported as an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services in an efficient manner.

‘Unit costs for protective intervention services activity groups’ is defined as total recurrent expenditure on a child protection activity, divided by the relevant units of service activity, resulting in six measures:

• cost per report to child protection (AG1)
• cost per notification (AG1)
• cost per notification investigated (AG4)
• cost per child commencing protective intervention and coordination services who is not on an order (AG5)
• cost per order issued (AG6)
• cost per child commencing protective intervention and coordination services who is on an order (AG7).

Low or decreasing expenditure per child protection activity can suggest more efficient services, but could also indicate lower quality and should be considered together with the results for other indicators in this section.

Data for unit costs are experimental and should be considered together with the proportional allocation of total expenditure across all activity groups comprising the pathways method.

Child protection reports are not a separate process from child protection notifications in Victoria and the ACT and data for the cost per report to child protection measure are not applicable for those jurisdictions.

Unit costs for child protection intervention service activities from 2013‑14 to 2020‑21 varied across jurisdictions where data were available (figure 16.10). In 2020‑21, the cost per report to child protection ranged from $185 to $380 (this unit cost is not applicable for all jurisdictions); and the cost per notification investigated ranged from $610 to $5241. Other unit costs are reported in tables 16A.24–31.

‘Unit cost for support services’ is reported as an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services in an efficient manner.

‘Unit cost for support services’ is defined as total recurrent expenditure on support services, divided by the number of children receiving support services, resulting in two measures:

• cost per child receiving family support services (AG2)
• cost per child receiving intensive family support services (AG3)

Low or decreasing cost per child receiving support services can suggest more efficient services, but could also indicate lower quality and should be considered together with the results for other indicators in this section.

To be included in the Intensive family support services data, services must meet specific criteria, such as averaging at least 4 hours of service provision per week for a specified short-term period (usually less than six months).

Data for unit costs are experimental and should be considered together with the proportional allocation of total expenditure across all activity groups comprising the pathways method.

Data are available for Australian Government expenditure on intensive family support services. This relates to the expenditure on services in the NT and a small amount in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands in SA.

Nationally in 2020-21, the cost per child receiving intensive family support services was $8932 (figure 16.11).

Data from 2011-12 and 2012-13 are available in table 16A.33.

‘Unit cost of care’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services in an efficient manner.

‘Unit cost of care’ covers children in out‑of‑home care and children in other supported placements, and is defined as total real recurrent expenditure on out‑of‑home care services and other supported placements, divided by the total number of placement nights (AG8).

Low or decreasing expenditure per placement night can suggest more efficient services, but could also indicate lower quality and should be considered with the results for other indicators here.

Data for unit costs are experimental and should be considered together with the proportional allocation of total expenditure across all activity groups comprising the pathways method.

Nationally in 2020-21, the unit cost of care was $254 and this continues the annual increases over the 10 years of reported data (figure 16.12).

Cost per placement night in care services should be considered in conjunction with expenditure on care services per child (and by placement type). The annual cost per child in care at 30 June 2021 varied across jurisdictions ranging between $60 408 and $128 918. In jurisdictions where data were available, annual costs were considerably higher for residential care (ranging between $455 480 and $881 113 compared to non‑residential care (ranging between $41 358 and $54 460) (table 16A.36).

Efficiency indicators for child protection services are calculated using the pathways model, a top‑down activity‑based costing method. Eight national pathways provide a high‑level representation of the services that children and families could receive in any jurisdiction. Each pathway consists of common activity groups, which act as the ‘building blocks’ for each of the pathways. The aggregate cost of each activity group within the pathway will allow the unit cost of an individual pathway to be derived. Figure 16.13 shows how unit costs are calculated in accordance with the pathways model.

The activity groups and detailed definitions are included in the 'key terms and references' tab. Development of national reporting against these activity groups is ongoing and data are experimental.

Figure 16.13 Calculation of unit costs in accordance with the pathways model^a

a Activity group 1 (AG1): Receipt and assessment of initial information about a potential protection and support issue. Activity group 2 (AG2): Provision of generic family support services (FSS). Activity group 3 (AG3): Provision of intensive family support services (IFSS). Activity group 4 (AG4): Secondary information gathering and assessment. Activity group 5 (AG5): Provision of short‑term protective intervention and coordination services for children not on an order. Activity group 6 (AG6): Seeking an order. Activity group 7 (AG7): Provision of protective intervention, support and coordination services for children on an order. Activity group 8 (AG8): Provision of out‑of‑home care services and other supported placements.

Reports, notifications, family support services, intensive family support services and intervention orders relate to children aged 0−17 years. Investigations and secondary information gathering may relate to young people aged 18 years and over if the notification was received while the child was aged less than 18 years. Expenditure on other supported placements may include expenditure relating to young people aged over 18 years.

Differences across jurisdictions in the calculation of child protection expenditure are listed in table 16.2.

Table 16.2 Comparability of government recurrent expenditure — items included, 2020-21

		NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT
Superannuation	Included
	Method	Accrual	Accrual	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual	Actuals	Actuals	Accrual
Workers compensation	Included
Payroll tax	Included
Termination leave	Included
	Method	Actuals	Accrual	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual	Accrual
Long service leave	Included
	Method	Actuals	Accrual	Accrual	Accrual	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual
Sick leave	Included
	Method	Actuals	Actual	Actuals	Actuals	Actuals	Actuals	Actuals	Actuals
Depreciation	Included
Rent	Included
Utilities	Included		, but not shown separately
Umbrella department costs	Included	na
	Method	na	Dept formula	Dept formula	FTE	Dept formula	Dept formula	FTE / budget	Dept formula

Dept = Departmental
na Not available. Item included. Item not included. Not applicable.

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished).

‘Improved safety’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to protect children and young people who are at risk of abuse and neglect within their families, or whose families do not have the capacity to provide care and protection.

‘Improved safety’ is defined by two measures:

• substantiation rate after a decision not to substantiate, defined as the proportion of children who were the subject of an investigation in the previous financial year that led to a decision not to substantiate, and who were later the subject of a substantiation within 3 or 12 months of the initial decision not to substantiate. The year reported relates to the year of the initial decision not to substantiate
• substantiation rate after a prior substantiation, defined as the proportion of children who were the subject of a substantiation in the previous financial year, who were subsequently the subject of a further substantiation within the following 3 or 12 months. The year reported relates to the year of the initial substantiation.

Low or decreasing rates for these measures are desirable. However, reported results can be affected by the finalisation of investigations, factors beyond the control of child protection services, or a change in circumstances after the initial decision not to substantiate was made. A demonstrable risk of abuse or neglect might not have existed in the first instance. In addition, this indicator does not distinguish between subsequent substantiations that are related to the initial notification (that is, the same source of risk of abuse or neglect) and those that are unrelated to the initial notification (that is, a different source of risk of abuse or neglect). This indicator partly reveals the extent to which an investigation has not succeeded in identifying the risk of abuse or neglect to a child who is subsequently the subject of a substantiation. It also provides a measure of the adequacy of interventions offered to children to protect them from further abuse or neglect. This indicator should be considered with other outcome indicators.

Varying thresholds for recording a substantiation across jurisdictions should also be considered when interpreting data for this indicator (see 'Key terms and references' tab).

The proportion of substantiations that occurred within 3 and 12 months of a decision not to substantiate in 2019‑20 was under 8 per cent and 17 per cent respectively in all jurisdictions (figure 16.14). The proportion of substantiations that occurred within 3 and 12 months of a prior substantiation in 2019‑20 was under 11 per cent and 24 per cent respectively in all jurisdictions (table 16A.38).

‘Improved education’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to support children and young people in the child protection system to reach their potential.

‘Improved education’ is defined as the proportion of children on guardianship and custody orders achieving at or above national minimum standards in reading and numeracy in Year 5.

A high or increasing rate of children on guardianship and custody orders achieving at or above national minimum standards in reading and numeracy, and relative to all children, is desirable.

Factors outside the control of child protection services have an influence on the educational outcomes of children on guardianship and custody orders, and care should be exercised when interpreting results.

When interpreting NAPLAN (National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy) data, it is important to take into account student participation rates (table 16A.37). Children exempted from NAPLAN testing are recorded as not having met the national minimum standards in reading and numeracy. Experimental data indicate that children on guardianship and custody orders are exempted from NAPLAN testing at significantly higher rates than the general student population, which might contribute to poorer reported NAPLAN results for children on orders, compared with the general student population.

Over the period from 2013 (the only year for which data are available for all jurisdictions) to 2019, the proportions of children in care at or above the national minimum standards for Year 5 reading and numeracy varied across jurisdictions. In 2019, the proportions were below the proportions for all students by at least 17 percentage points for the jurisdictions for which data were available (figure 16.15).

‘Improved health and wellbeing of the child’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to support children and young people in the child protection system to reach their potential.

‘Improved health and wellbeing of the child’ is currently defined by one measure related to wellbeing: the proportion of children and young people in the child protection system not classified in the ‘abnormal’ range on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) scale. See 'Key terms and references' tab for further information on the SDQ.

A high or increasing percentage of children and young people in the child protection system with improved wellbeing is desirable. Data are not yet available for reporting against this measure.

A measure of improved health of the child is still to be developed.

‘Exit from out‑of‑home care to a permanency arrangement’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to protect children and young people who are at risk of abuse and neglect within their families or whose families do not have the capacity to provide care and protection.

‘Exit from out‑of‑home care to a permanency arrangement’ is defined as the number of children and young people who exited out‑of‑home care to a permanency outcome (reunified with their families, adopted or placed on third party parental responsibility orders), and for whom there was no return to out‑of‑home care within 12 months, as a proportion of all children who exited out‑of‑home care to a permanency outcome in the previous reporting period.

High or increasing proportions of children and young people exiting out‑of‑home care to a permanency outcome for whom there was no return to out‑of‑home care is desirable.

Nationally, 87.2 per cent of children who left out‑of‑home care to a permanency arrangement in 2019‑20 did not return to out‑of‑home care in the following 12 months (figure 16.16).