Report on Government Services 2023

Child protection services provide support and intervention 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, 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 Explanatory material 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Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished).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 defines ‘a child in need of protection’ and determines the policies and practices of its child protection system. While this legislation varies in detail, its intent is similar across jurisdictions (see table 16.1).

Other government services 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 Explanatory material 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 $8.2 billion nationally in 2021-22 (a real increase of 7.5 per cent from 2020-21) of which care services accounted for 61.9 per cent, or $5.1 billion (table 16A.8).

In 2021-22, real recurrent expenditure on all child protection services per child aged 0–17 years in the population was $1450 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 2021-22 (also reported as a rate per 1000 children in the population) (tables 16A.1–4):

• 275 065 children were the subject of notifications; 48.4 notifications per 1000 children
• 100 870 children were the subject of a finalised investigation; 17.7 finalised investigations per 1000 children
• 45 548 children were the subject of a substantiation; 8.0 substantiations per 1000 children
• 61 149 children were on care and protection orders at 30 June 2022; 10.7 children on care and protection orders per 1000 children
• 45 393 children were in out‑of‑home care at 30 June 2022, 8.0 per 1000 children aged 0–17 years, with a further 10 399 children in other supported placements at 30 June 2022.
  • There were 55 791 children in out‑of‑home care at least once during 2021-22; with 10 345 children admitted to, and 11 020 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.

Nationally in 2021-22, around four in ten notifications (38 per cent) resulted in an investigation; the remaining notifications were dealt with by other means, such as providing advice or referral to services. The proportion of notifications dealt with by other means varied significantly across jurisdictions (table 16A.5).

Nationally in 2021-22, around one in four children (24 per cent) admitted to a care and protection order had prior admissions to such orders,though this proportion varied across jurisdictions (table 16A.6). Nationally, at 30 June 2022, nearly all children (94.5 per cent) in out‑of‑home care were on care and protection orders (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.

Population data on children aged 0-17 years by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status from December 2012 to 2021 and June 2013 to 2022 is available in table 16A.41.

Reporting on out-of-home care

To improve the comparability of out-of-home care data, particularly regarding children on third-party parental responsibility orders, in 2019, Children and Families Secretaries agreed to narrow the scope of out-of-home care. 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.

For national reporting, out‑of‑home care 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.

Data from 2018‑19 onwards are reported according to the updated national definition. Other living arrangements that were previously included in the scope of out‑of‑home care are now reported as ‘other supported placements’. Supplementary data on the number of children in care according to the previous definition (that is, out‑of‑home care or other supported placements) are reported in data tables (where available) until 2018‑19.

Reporting against this narrower scope has resulted 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, although some jurisdictions were already excluding 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).

The disproportionality ratio 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 by the proportion of children in the target population who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander.

The disproportionality ratio for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is calculated as follows:

If a group’s representation is proportionate to their representation in the target population, the disproportionality ratio will equal 1.0. For example, if 6 per cent of all children in the child protection system are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and 6 per cent of all children in the target population (0–17 years) are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, then the disproportionality ratio will be 1.0.

Another example is if 10 per cent of all children in the child protection system are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, but only 6 per cent of all children in the target population (0–17 years) are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander, the disproportionality ratio is 1.7 (10 per cent divided by 6 per cent). In this example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are 1.7 times as likely to be represented in the child protection system relative to their representation in the target population.

This measure comprises six disproportionality 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 child protection policies and practices providing different supports and services based on need.

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 nor underrepresentation is desirable (that is, the disproportionality ratio should be 1.0). Both overrepresentation and underrepresentation can have undesirable consequences.

Disproportionality can reflect uneven distribution of structural and relative disadvantage across the population and other social and economic risk factors indicating a greater need for appropriate supports and services. Disproportionality can also reflect biases in the system that should be avoided.

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.

Disproportionality ratios should be considered in conjunction with data on the proportion of children for whom Aboriginal and Torrs Strait Islander status is not stated, which varies across states and territories (refer to tables 16A.1–3 and 16A.34). Disproportionality ratios might understate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s disproportionality in the child protection system where there are high rates of children of unknown or not stated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status. To assist with the interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.41 details the population of children aged 0-17 years by Indigenous status.

The 2021-22 disproportionality ratios for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children varied within and across jurisdictions for each component of the child protection system (figure 16.3 and table 16A.9). Across all jurisdictions in 2021-22, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were between 2 and 9 times more likely to be subjects of substantiations compared to their relative proportion in the population aged 0-17 years (nationally 6 per cent of children aged 0-17 years are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; refer to table 16A.41).

‘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.

Nationally in 2021-22, 56.8 per cent of investigations commenced within seven days of a notification being recorded (the lowest proportion over the ten years of reported data) (figure 16.4a and table 16A.10) and 17.9 per cent of investigations were completed in 28 days or fewer (the lowest proportion over the ten years of reported data). Nationally in 2021-22, more than one in four investigations (26.6 per cent) took longer than 90 days to complete (figure 16.4c and table 16A.11). Response times to commence and complete investigations varied across jurisdictions.

‘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.

It is difficult to determine a target substantiation rate. A very low substantiation rate might indicate that investigations are not directed 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. Substantiation rates should be monitored over time to observe and respond to trends.

Substantiation rates 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.

Nationally in 2021-22, nearly half (45.8 per cent) of all finalised investigations were substantiated for abuse or neglect, or risk of abuse or neglect (figure 16.5 and table 16A.12). The substantiation rate varied across jurisdictions and over time.

‘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
• 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.

Zero 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 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 2021-22, the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of abuse or neglect was between 0.8 per cent and 4.8 per cent across all jurisdictions where data were available (table 16.2a and table 16A.13). In 2021-22, the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of abuse or neglect where the person responsible was living in the household providing out-of-home care was between zero and 3.1 per cent across all jurisdictions where data were available (table 16.2b and table 16A.14).

‘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 had one or two placements in the past 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. However, this indicator should 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
• placement change to achieve better compatibility between a child and family
• placement change to achieve a permanent care arrangement.

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. 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 from 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. The data for children exiting out-of-home care does 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.

Nationally (excluding Tasmania) in 2021-22, of children on a care and protection order who exited out-of-home care within 12 months, 87.7 per cent experienced one or two placements (figure 16.6a and table 16A.15). Nationally in 2021-22, for children who had been in out-of-home care 12 months or more, the proportion was 54.3 per cent. 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 2021-22, 88.6 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 past two years (figure 16.6b and table 16A.17).

‘Children in home-based care’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services that meet the needs of 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 2022, 90.2 per cent of children in out-of-home care were in home-based care — 96.4 per cent for children aged less than 12 years, and 79.4 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 interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.20 provides information on placement type by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status.

‘Placement maintains connections’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services that meet the needs of 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 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 aged 0-17 in out-of-home care at 30 June who were living with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or non-Indigenous relatives or kin, or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers
• 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 on orders and in out-of-home care at 30 June who have siblings also on orders and in out-of-home care and are placed with at least one of their siblings.

High or increasing rates for all four measures are desirable. A placement decision needs to consider many factors relating to a child’s safety and wellbeing and might involve weighing up a range of options. At times, placement with family, kin and/or community may not be possible. Nevertheless, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, placements that maintain and strengthen connections with family, culture and country are preferred to nurture and support a child's wellbeing, spirituality and identity.

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 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status may lead to data quality issues for this indicator, in particular high rates of unknown or not stated status are likely to affect results.

Data for measure 3 ‘local placement’ and measure 4 ‘placement with sibling’ are under development and are not available for this Report.

Nationally at 30 June 2022, the proportion of children in out-of-home care who were placed with relatives or kin was 54.0 per cent, slightly lower for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (53.6 per cent) compared to non-Indigenous children (54.3 per cent) (figure 16.8a and table 16A.21).

The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle comprises five core elements: prevention, partnership, placement, participation and connection (SNAICC 2018; DSS 2021). The placement element sets a hierarchy of preferred options for caregivers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out-of-home care. It is designed to ensure the highest possible level of connection to family, community, culture and country is maintained for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child in care.

The placement hierarchy is:

• with Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or non-Indigenous relatives or extended family members (kin), or other relatives and family members
• with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members of the child's community
• with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family‑based carers.

If the above options are not available, the child may be placed in another care arrangement (such as with a non‑Indigenous carer or in a residential setting).

If a child is not placed with his or her extended Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander family, the placement must be within close geographic proximity to a child’s family (such as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or non-Indigenous relatives or extended family members (kin)).

All jurisdictions have adopted the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle in legislation and policy.

Nationally at 30 June 2022, 63.1 per cent of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out‑of‑home care were placed either with relatives/kin (53.9 per cent) or with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family‑based carers (9.2 per cent) (figure 16.8b and table 16A.22).

‘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 at 30 June 2022, 87.6 per cent of children required to have a current documented and approved case plan, had such a plan (figure 16.9 and table 16A.23).

‘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 on 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 in 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 2021-22 varied across jurisdictions where data were available (figure 16.10). In 2021-22, the cost per report to child protection ranged from $170 to $496 (this unit cost is not applicable for all jurisdictions); and the cost per notification investigated ranged from $699 to $6915. 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).

A 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 in the pathways method.

In 2021-22, the intensive family support services program delivered by the Australian Government in the NT ceased and was replaced with the Children and Family Intensive Support (CaFIS) program. The number of children receiving services reduced during the transition period, which resulted in a higher cost per child. Australian Government expenditure data encompasses both IFSS and CaFIS programs and relates to expenditure on services in the NT and a small amount in the Anangu Pitjantjatjara Yankunytjatjara lands in SA. Family support programs delivered by the NT were also impacted by these changes.

Nationally (excluding the NT) in 2021-22, the cost per child receiving intensive family support services was $9220 (figure 16.11 and table 16A.33).

To assist with the interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.34 provides details on the number of children commencing intensive family support services by Indigenous status.

‘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 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 in the pathways method.

Nationally in 2021-22, the unit cost of care was $288, continuing the trend in increased real costs since 2012-13 (figure 16.12).

The unit cost of care 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 2022 varied across jurisdictions ranging between $61 731 and $150 783. In jurisdictions where data were available, annual costs were considerably higher for residential care (ranging between $487 185 and $955 880) compared to non‑residential care (ranging between $44 139 and $58 942) (table 16A.36). To assist with interpretation, table 16A.20 details children in out-of-home care by placement type.

‘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 (measure 1)
• 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 (measure 2).

Zero or decreasing rates for these measures are desirable.

Measure 1 partly assesses the extent to which an investigation did not succeed in identifying a risk of abuse or neglect to a child who is subsequently the subject of a substantiation. However, a demonstrable risk of abuse or neglect might not have existed in the first instance and family circumstances might have changed since the initial decision not to substantiate.

Measure 2 partly assesses the adequacy of interventions offered to children to protect them from further abuse or neglect. However, it 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).

For both measures, results can be affected by factors outside the control of child protection services.

Varying thresholds for recording a substantiation across jurisdictions should also be considered when interpreting data for this indicator (see Explanatory material tab).

The proportion of substantiations that occurred within 3 and 12 months of a decision not to substantiate in 2020-21 was under 6 per cent and 15 per cent respectively in all jurisdictions (figure 16.13 and table 16A.37). The proportion of substantiations that occurred within 3 and 12 months of a prior substantiation in 2020-21 was under 12 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.39). 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.

NAPLAN results for children in care were significantly lower than for all students. In 2021, for jurisdictions with available data:

• the proportion of children in care who were at or above the year 5 national minimum standard for reading was between 72.3 per cent and 79.8 per cent, compared to 94.1 per cent to 94.8 per cent for all students
• the proportion of children in care who were at or above the year 5 national minimum standard for numeracy was between 66.0 per cent and 76.0 per cent, compared to 94.3 per cent to 94.6 per cent for all students (figure 16.14).

‘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 yet to be defined. This indicator has been identified for development and reporting in future, potentially using separate measures for physical health, social and emotional wellbeing domains.

In the absence of a national data collection, table 16.3 presents summary information on jurisdictions' local approaches to measuring the health and wellbeing of children in out-of-home care.

Table 16.3 Measuring the health and wellbeing of children in out-of-home care

Source: State and Territory governments (unpublished).

‘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, 88.2 per cent of children who left out‑of‑home care to a permanency arrangement in 2020-21 did not return to out‑of‑home care in the following 12 months (figure 16.15 and table 16A.40).

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 16.16 shows how unit costs are calculated in accordance with the pathways model.

The activity groups and detailed definitions are included in the Explanatory material tab. Development of national reporting against these activity groups is ongoing and data are experimental.

Figure 16.16 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 16.4.

Table 16.4 Comparability of government recurrent expenditure — items included, 2021-22

		NSW	Vic	Qld	WA	SA	Tas	ACT	NT
Superannuation	Included
	Method	Accrual	Accrual	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual	Funding	Actuals	Accrual
Workers compensation	Included
Payroll tax	Included			na	na		na
Termination leave	Included
	Method	Actuals	Accrual	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual	Other
Long service leave	Included
	Method	Actuals	Accrual	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual	Actuals	Accrual	Other
Sick leave	Included
	Method	Actuals	Actual	Actuals	Actuals	Actuals	Actuals	Actuals	Other
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).