Family Preservation Data Set Quality Statement 2019-20

Definition

Data Quality

Institutional Environment

Family preservation services are aimed at supporting families with children who have been reported at risk of significant harm (ROSH) or are at imminent risk of entering out-of-home-care (OOHC). Family preservation services are an important earlier intervention option for vulnerable children who need targeted support to remain safely at home with their families.

Family preservation contributes to two Premiers’ Priorities:

• Protecting our Kids: Decrease the proportion of children and young people re-reported at risk of significant harm by 20 per cent by 2023.
• Permanency: Double the number of children in safe and permanent homes by 2023 for children in, or at risk of entering, OOHC.

The department currently funds a range of family preservation services. Each program offers a unique model and different activities with different levels of intensity (hours per week, length of program) and approaches (sustained case management versus a therapeutic approach). A continuum of support is required to respond to varying needs.

Timeliness

The reference period for data collected for the Preservation dataset is for the financial year 2019-20. Historical data (data prior to 2019-20) is included in the assets, however it is likely to be of poorer quality due to historical data collection processes. The current quality statement therefore applies only to records of activities beginning in the 2019/20 financial year, or commencing prior to 2019/20 and continuing into the 2019/20 financial year.

For 2019/20 data was collected and remediated quarterly, with final collation taking place in around August 2020. 

 

Accessibility

Requests for data stored in the Federated Analytics Platform can be made by application for access to the data for research purposes from the Information Management team.

Interpretability

Supporting information on the relevant programs is provided on Program Specific Intranet Pages. 

• Brighter Futures
• MST-CAN
• FFT-CW
• IFP
• IFBS
• Youth Hope

 

Metadata associated with each of the Preservation data tables is linked to this Data Quality Statement under the Family Preservation Aristotle distribution.

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

Relevance

The target population for the program is vulnerable children, young people, families and communities.

The response to the collection of the data sufficient provides reliable information from the organisations that submitted data during the reporting period.

 

Accuracy

The degree of accuracy of the dataset cannot be determined for most fields due to lack to visibility of service provider source systems. 

Comparisons with ChildStory, where available, have shown discrepancies in core fields such as Aboriginal Status and Date of Birth (DOB).

Due to a high reliance on manual data collection processes and minimal data validation, the incidence of manual entry errors is suspected to be high. 

Known historic gaps in data collection processes prior to 2019/20 suggest that the accuracy and completeness of historical data, where it exists in the distribution, is poor. 

The collection of data to identify an individual and/or family group as Aboriginal differs across providers. Due to the inconsistency in method and the unknown application of practice, the Aboriginal status may be inconsistently and/or inappropriately applied.

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.