Recommendations

Establish a mechanism to capture data that enables an accurate picture of the use of CISS to be developed over time.

It is recommended that the Department reconsider the approach to data collection, measurement and reporting on the utilisation and impact of CISS. Current data collection occurs at the ISE level. While this is an intentional design feature, it does limit the ability of the CISSC and others with oversight responsibilities to understand CISS impact in order to gain an overall picture of the use of CISS. This introduces transparency risk as well as meaning it is difficult to understand patterns of use in different ISEs and sectors. It also significantly limits any understanding of CISS’ impact on child wellbeing and safety.

In relation to establishing a mechanism of capturing data to monitor CISS’ utilisation, it would be advisable to articulate this mechanism in detail in a revised Outcome Measurement Framework. However, to be meaningful and current, it is anticipated that it is likely to require a form of reporting from ISEs. There are pre-existing legislative and regulatory requirements for ISEs to keep records of information requested, shared, or refused to be shared through CISS. Reporting from ISEs could take the form of an annual summary report of information sharing activity from the preceding year, or a more detailed report from a representative sample of ISEs from each year. This could be accompanied by periodic audits of information sharing activities by a sample of ISEs. Alternatively, there is an opportunity to explore whether Child Link could be augmented to include a reporting functionality regarding information sharing activities undertaken through CISS and determines any patterns of usage (e.g., which ISEs/types of ISEs are using Child Link to seek information through CISS).

Prospective reporting mechanisms would need to be developed with consideration for their impacts on information sharing stakeholders. ISEs would incur some additional cost arising from their compliance with reporting requirements. Government would also incur some additional cost arising from their oversight of ISEs. These compliance and oversight activities would likely require additional resources to maintain their provision of their services to their pre-existing levels. Alternatively, these activities may reduce ISEs’ and government’s capacity to deliver their pre-existing services to the same level.

Prioritise the continued improvement and full rollout of the CISS Outcome Measurement Framework including an accompanying data collection and analysis approach that will improve understanding of the impact of CISS on child wellbeing and safety, which will in turn guide CISS improvement.

The performance monitoring and measurement approach for CISS (including the data collection activities required, such as the establishment of periodic aggregate activity-based reporting by ISEs) should align with the complete implementation and continued improvement of the Outcome Measurement Framework. Building on the Outcome Measurement Framework, the Department should build a strategy to assess the effectiveness of CISS at an aggregated and de-identified level, and provide key stakeholders with regular updates about the benefits and impact of CISS.

The Department should consider undertaking more sophisticated analysis (e.g., regression-based techniques) to understand the impact of information sharing on outcomes for the wellbeing and safety of Victorian children.

Ensure every ISE has appropriate representative(s) who have undertaken up-to-date CISS training.

For CISS to operate effectively in each context as designed, each site requires a person(s) with appropriate training in CISS. They could in turn provide advice and guidance to colleagues about when and how to share information using CISS, including any obligations.

The representative(s) should complete regular and up-to-date training on matters such as promoting cultural change at the site, supporting compliance with record keeping and data protection requirements, promoting information sharing where it supports a child’s wellbeing or safety, promoting culturally safe practice and collating and maintaining data about people trained in CISS and the use of CISS at their site. The existing LMS could be utilised to maintain all the relevant and up-to-date training materials, accessible by all ISEs.

By ensuring that all ISEs have at least one person with up-to-date CISS training engagement with information sharing would be increased and the risk of incorrect information sharing would be reduced.

It is acknowledged that the requirement of ensuring each ISE has at least one person with up-to-date training and coordination (recording, reporting and training) responsibilities would require consideration of the associated costs and benefits, particularly for ISEs with persistent resource constraints such as smaller community organisations. Consequently, government may need to provide additional resources to these organisations to maintain their capacity to deliver their services while ensuring they have received current CISS training.

ISEs maintain a CISS training register to ensure information about trained individuals is available to the Department upon request.

Consistent with ISEs being responsible for information sharing and record keeping, it would be appropriate to require maintenance of a register of who in the ISE has completed CISS training and when. It is recognised that this could impose additional administrative burden on ISEs. However, this is considered an appropriate requirement to ensure ISEs have current trained users with an understanding of CISS and are able to demonstrate this – both internally and to the Department if required.

Prescribing a specific form of record keeping and register might be considered, with the goal that it should be as simple as possible. In line with Recommendation 3, the potential use of the existing LMS for recording all CISS training undertaken could be explored.

Strengthen support available to ISEs through implementation activities such as training (mandatory/refresher), support services and communication to ensure all ISEs understand their obligations to report potential breaches of the Act and and/or misuse of information.

There should be clearer obligations for professionals using CISS regarding in what circumstances, and to whom, potential breaches of the Act or other concerns about CISS should be reported. These should be communicated clearly to ISEs by providing strengthened support through up-to-date mandatory and refresher training (in line with Recommendation 3) and support services.

Clarify the CISS complaints process for ISEs wishing to raise concerns or make complaints about non-privacy related matters.

While there is an established complaints and escalation pathway for privacy-related matters, it is currently unclear how matters can be raised and through which pathway for matters unrelated to privacy beyond the complaints process about the activities of funded services to the appropriate department.

Arrangements should be made to collect information about complaints or issues on these matters from other government agencies, such as the Commission for Children and Young People, the Office of the Victorian Information Commissioner, the Coroner, the Health Complaints Commissioner, and relevant education complaints bodies.

This information should be supplemented by direct data or incident reporting from ISEs, where possible, such as through a CISS responsible person or regular data collection exercises.

Adopt a place-based approach to change management supporting ISEs with meeting their CISS obligations and opportunities for information sharing, including providing support to ACCOs and services directly from the Department of Education and partner agencies.

The Department has piloted place-based implementation initiatives in Doveton (metropolitan) and Robinvale (regional) through the CISS Change program, and both the Department and other Victorian Government agencies (e.g., Victoria Police, the Department of Families, Fairness and Housing) have delivered sector-specific training and resources for ISEs. However, it is not clear whether this training has been tailored enough to address place-based and sector-specific issues, particularly outside the education sector.

Training models and resources should build upon the successes of those delivered to date and enable professionals to tailor materials to their place- and sector-specific context. Training models and resources should also incorporate resources developed by, for, or in consultation with diverse communities and communities experiencing disadvantage, including Aboriginal communities (discussed in recommendations above). Additionally, there is an opportunity to explore providing additional resourcing to support ACCOs in promoting cultural safety in the context of CISS.

There is a risk that knowledge gains may be lost over time (e.g., through attrition or reduced visibility), which may impact the effectiveness of CISS. Place-specific monitoring of trained persons occurs to some extent in the education sector, as the Department keeps records of each education site and number of persons at the site who have received CISS training (including, for schools, whether the principal has been trained). Monitoring of trained persons across sites should be extended to all sectors impacted by CISS, to enable systematic identification of sites where no one has been trained in CISS.

Learnings from these exercises should be consolidated into training and materials that can be centrally accessed by ISEs and readily adapted to different sectors and places (e.g., by an ISE responsible person).

To ensure that CISS is embedded to benefit Aboriginal children and their families, the Department should collaborate with Victorian Aboriginal communities to inform how the principles of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Data Governance can be embedded and understood through CISS, enabling Aboriginal Controlled Community Organisations and communities to make self-determining decisions about their data.

Within the State of Victoria, a number of initiatives are being progressed that acknowledge and respond to the historical harms that have arisen from Indigenous peoples’ data being collected, handled and stored in ways that have led to negative outcomes for Aboriginal communities. The Self-Determination Reform Framework makes a provision for Victorian Government departments to develop and implement a WoVG approach to improving the quality, accessibility and use of Aboriginal data and consider data sovereignty. The Yoorrook Justice Commission through its truth-telling processes has both recognised these harms and sought to embed principles through its Inquiry. Yoorrook adopts the following definitions:

• Indigenous Data Sovereignty is the right of Indigenous Peoples to own, control, access and possess data that derive from them, and which pertain to their members, knowledge systems, customs, resources or territories
• Indigenous Data Governance is the enactment of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and refers to the mechanisms that support Indigenous decision-making on how data are controlled, collected, interpreted, accessed, stored, and used.

To respond to growing expectations across both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal communities that Aboriginal peoples have agency in decision making around use and control of their data, it is recommended that the Department allocate sufficient funding and resources to enable a co-design process to take place between ACCOs and the Department where the application of Indigenous Data Sovereignty and Governance principles to CISS can be understood and a program of work developed to embed an agreed set of actions through CISS over time. It is recognised that the Yoorrook Justice Commission has the ability to present findings and recommendations to the Victorian Government that informs the Treaty-Making process and any self-determining decisions about data should be considered in this context.

Develop a program of work (as a monitoring activity within the Outcome Measurement Framework) to better understand the impact of CISS on diverse communities and communities experiencing disadvantage, including how any positive impacts of information sharing can be enhanced with any unintended consequences identified.

It is recommended that the Department improves its understanding of the impact of CISS for diverse communities and communities experiencing disadvantage, particularly Aboriginal communities, and embed culturally safe practices.

Privacy concerns and data security issues can disproportionately affect diverse communities, leading to a potential erosion of trust. Therefore, a careful and culturally sensitive approach is crucial, ensuring that CISS is designed to respect and accommodate the unique needs and preferences of these diverse populations, ultimately fostering social cohesion.

For Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, additional considerations should be given to the potential for information sharing to have unintended consequences (either through misuse or due to underlying discrimination experienced by these communities).

Further consideration should also be made regarding the impact of CISS on other diverse communities and communities experiencing disadvantage, including culturally and racially marginalised communities and LGBTQIA+ children (particularly trans and gender diverse children).

There is an opportunity for the Department to develop a meaningful communications and engagement plan to consult with Aboriginal and other stakeholders who support diverse children and children experiencing disadvantage in an ongoing manner. However, this communications and engagement plan should be mindful of the extensive consultation burden these stakeholders face, be culturally sensitive, and provide value (either monetary or otherwise) to embed cultural safety most effectively in CISS' design and use across sectors and places.

Improve ISE confidence and capability in engaging with children and their parents or carers about the benefits of information being shared to promote the wellbeing and safety of children.

One of the principles enshrined in Part 6A of the Act is that ISEs should seek and take into account the views of a child and the child’s family members if it is appropriate, safe and reasonable to do so, as well as to seek to maintain constructive and respectful engagement with children and their families.

As discussed in Section 3.3.3, there is limited evidence regarding the extent to which families and children are engaged with and have their views sought when their information is being shared. Furthermore, there was some evidence that some ISEs may not be confident that families would support sharing information about their child.

Further guidance and support for ISEs is required about how to manage consultations with children and/or their families that promotes the benefits of sharing information on the child’s wellbeing and safety.

Building broader community support for information sharing, particularly among those affected by it, holds significant benefits for the successful implementation and functioning of CISS. Increased community support fosters a sense of transparency and trust within communities, mitigating concerns and potential resistance. When individuals and families are informed about the purpose and safeguards of CISS, they are more likely to engage positively with CISS, leading to a collaborative environment for child wellbeing and safety. Additionally, community support would lead to the de-stigmatisation of information sharing, promoting a shared responsibility for the wellbeing and safety of children.

Include non-government organisations in the CISS governance model, recognising that CISS is designed to extend well beyond Victorian Government entities in its scope.

The current CISS governance structure is centred around the CISSC, discussed in Section 1.4.1, which includes a number of Victorian Government departments and agencies impacted by Phase One. However, CISS is a state-wide scheme which has since expanded to include many more services, such as the education, early childhood and healthcare sectors. The diversity of sectors and services are not represented in this governance structure.

Building on the value of the current WoVG governance arrangements, organisations representing ISEs outside of the Victorian Government should be included in an updated governance structure, to reflect the reach and impact of CISS in universal services. This should include representatives from all prescribed workforces, such as education and early childhood sector stakeholders (e.g., non-government schools, school principals, early childhood peak bodies), health sector stakeholders (e.g., general practitioners, nurses, community health care providers) and the wider community sector. For example, members from existing networks such as the Training and Practice Advisory Group, which comprises primarily non-government organisations and provides a critical mechanism for feedback on CISS, should be considered as a starting point.

These organisations could have a formal advisory role rather than a decision-making role. However, the steering committee must engage and consider this advice in considering how CISS functions and can be improved.

Work with other governments (particularly New South Wales, South Australia and the Commonwealth) to enhance information sharing, particularly to promote child wellbeing and safety in border communities.

A key limitation of CISS is that it is only operational in Victoria, which impacts the ability of prescribed workforces to share information with professionals who may provide or have provided services to the child or family outside of Victoria’s jurisdiction. For example, a child may reside and attend school in Victoria but receive health services in New South Wales, or a child may have recently moved to Victoria from Queensland.

The Victorian Government should work with other jurisdictions, prioritising neighbouring jurisdictions of New South Wales and South Australia, to improve information sharing between services operating within border communities, and advocate to the Commonwealth for legal supports for sharing information pertaining to a child’s wellbeing and safety across borders. These arrangements would enable linked up care for Victorian children and interstate children who engage with Victorian services.

It may be necessary to collaborate with other governments on advice or guidance, particularly on place-based guidance to border communities, to ensure CISS and any complementary interstate child information sharing schemes can operate as intended for children in these circumstances.

Determine the appropriate scope of further CISS expansion to remaining sectors that have high involvement with children and families.

The Department should work with partner agencies to determine the relevant sectors to be prescribed under CISS. This should be informed by a comprehensive assessment of sectors with the greatest responsibility or impact on child wellbeing and safety, ensuring that the prescription aligns with the overarching intent of CISS. This assessment should determine the relevance of the services provided and data held by the organisation, and feasibility of the organisation to participate in CISS depending on their capacity and capability. This should also be supported by a long-term strategy regarding the phasing of all workforces who work with children in Victoria, supported by place-based, culturally safe and sector-specific resources.

Expansion should occur in consultation with key partner agencies (subject to their agreement) and relevant sector and place-based leadership, aligned with FVISS and MARAM reforms as appropriate to build upon existing efficiencies, as well as build on work with other governments to identify workforces who work across border communities.

Consider implementing the improvement opportunities identified by the above recommendations, to further strengthen CISS and support any expansion of ISEs.

The improvement opportunities identified through this Review’s recommendations will strengthen the implementation of CISS and will support a more effective expansion of CISS.

Further to this, there is a continued need for the Enquiry Line as implementation of CISS continues and particularly if Phase Three implementation occurs. This will ensure that appropriate support is provided to ISEs, particularly from an established mechanism that has been utilised to this point. As such, it is recommended that the Enquiry Line function continue beyond its current funding period.