NGO’s currently involved in administrating the care of foster children in addition to programs covering early intervention with families:

More funding is acquired if failures inside intervention programs occur, those children then come under the NGO administration as foster children which government funding in NSW is reported well above the norm.

For the funding to continue until 18 any reunification with the biological family is required to fail.

Additional funding becomes available if the child is on medication for a chronic problem developing such as ADHD.

Less expenditure possible in areas such as severely limiting the number of visits the child has with biological parents.

What controls are in place for the private sector in Australia that would prevent a sequence of events taking place purely to profit from early intervention failing, the child coming into care, being medicated, status changing to a permanent placement, and access to family restricted?

We allow private companies to regularly benefit from service failures?

Ethically should they be in this system?

From CS report:
"Five major drivers contributed 80% of the annual cost increase from 2004/05 to 2007/08, with a sixth large increase in 2008/09 due to costs associated with new NGO contracts
•Long term trends observed elsewhere, with various drivers including evolving child protection practice
•A 'volume effect' (numbers of children in the system) highly correlated with the carer payment reforms
•Impact of the increase in caseworker numbers from2003/04
•Unit cost consequences of the 2006 carer payment reforms
•Increased use (ie the 'mix') ofmore costly placements, including NGO places
•Higher than historic average costs due to new NGO contracts and their introduction costs”

NON PROFIT from ATO:
"The basic premise of a non profit organisation is that it is not operating for the profit or gain of its individual members, whether these gains are direct or indirect."

Foster carers with some NGO’s get twice the monies of government registered foster parents.

Community Services employees have also told me that they could get twice the salary if they instead went to work for some NGO’s locally.

Indirect gains?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/foster-care-agencies-fear-shakeup-will-hurt-children-20100211-nv7m.html
http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/bcg_report.pdf
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw-act/docs-too-slow-for-charities-and-church-groups/story-e6freuzi-1225956851955
http://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au/media/File/Report8_10_ProfilingNSWNGOs.pdf
http://www.news.com.au/national/why-nsw-is-australias-new-adhd-capital/story-e6frfkvr-1225954092238
http://www.ato.gov.au/content/downloads/NFP00246017coy.pdf

what a lot of info..you have outlined much that should concern
is there a better way?

what about oversight[is investigation in-house...or a policing matter

...[it seems that some..could docter-shop...
[for egsample]..to get both the kids..and their drugs..and the higher rate..for a 'sick'-child

is there many..or few ngo's...

[i recall...some-one once said
timber in their area...employed 12 people...and carers[industry]..'empolyed'..double/that..in a town of a few hundred
[all run by the same ngo?]

an approved ngo carer listing..[or regestration]
..or education level..of skills..courses?

a state or fed issue...[who could fix it?]
how many we talking about here?..
[kids..v ngo's..v carers]

do they get tax-free...or tax deductions...other allowances
is there a franchise that services their needs...[one on one intervieuw with the kids..by a neutral oversight body..;ombudsman..or dept of child services..or juvinile justice system..[watchdogs]..?}

is it results based?

This site has the list of designated agencies in NSW that are accredited. I counted over 50 but not all do out-of-home-care for foster children. Or I didn’t think they all did.

http://www.kidsguardian.nsw.gov.au/accreditation/designated-agencies

This next one is how many children are in care:

http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/pubs/sheets/rs8/rs8.html

“At 30 June 2009, the rate of children aged 0-17 years in out-of-home care was 6.7 children per 1,000”

“The AIHW statistics show that 94% of all children living in out-of-home care in Australia are in home-based care. Of that figure, 47% are in foster care, 45% are in relative/kinship care and 1.4% are in a different kind of home-based care”

In NSW far as I can work out whether with other family members or foster care all the adults are registered through govt or NGO’s. All registered foster parents get reimbursed to have the children while the NGO’s who they are registered through receive funding to administer care.

Foster parents get this allowance which varies depending on who you register through and also family assistance for each child which, last I heard, was means tested on the carers income.

I wish the Federal Govt would step in. Each state has altered the Care and Protection Act, as far as I know.

I have found no body/org/govt dep that oversees the NGO’s or when asked can tell me if they have the power to de-register/end accreditation of an NGO.

They appear untouchable, given much of the history of these NGO's there is no wrong done to a child that I have found that will stop the govt supplying them with children.

I forgot to add this bit:

"Based on today's system, up to 24,000 children may be in care by2013/14 (if carers can be found)
•Estimated costs could reach ~$790m by 2013/14 at current averagecaseworker ratios, while scenarios of transfer to the current NGO system and improved caseworker ratios estimate 2013/14 costs at over $800-900m"

http://www.community.nsw.gov.au/docswr/_assets/main/documents/bcg_report.pdf

TPP, your concerns seem entirely reasonable and highlight the problems associated with outsourceing what should be core business for the Govt.

It also highlights the problems around the provision of social welfare in this country generally, as the "industry" of service providers has much more capacity to demand things from Government than individuals and in fact, much of the waste is in the provision for Government interactions and propagandising. There is also the problem of broadening of definitions in an effort to increase both funding and the supply of "clients". The law of unintended consequences applies.

Governments like this sort of thing for two reasons. Firstly, it reduces the number of people they have to deal with as Ministers. Governments love "peak bodies". Secondly, it allows for buck-passing from Government to service provider and back again, effectively muddying the waters when people like the Ombudsman go looking. A bonus is that many of these groups are church-affiliated, meaning that pandering to (say) Anglicare leads to lots of positive sermonising in Anglican congregations everywhere.

What is needed is a complete rethink of the way we do social welfare services, including abolition of third-party providers. Organisations like Mission Australia etc have become self-serving monsters.

The problem is inherent in trying to replace natural parents with foster parents, whether or not the service is provided by governmental or non-governmental providers. In fact it is nonsense to call the NGOs by that name. They are paid by government to provide services stipulated by government to standards stipulated by government at prices set by government in an industry which government regulates so that only government-approved provides can enter. So it's a bit rich to call them 'NGOs".

It is nonsense to say that out-of-home care caseworkers don't do it for profit. Presumably they would turn up for work even if you only paid their costs of doing the work? Let's get real. The caseworkers get a salary higher than they could get with that skill-set doing anything that anyone would voluntarily pay for. Of course they expect a salary, and superannuation, and flex leave, and holiday leave, and purchased leave, and sick leave, and study leave, and maternity leave, and family leave, and community leave, and extended leave, and and training, and junkets, and comfortable offices, and so on.

Out-of-home care for children in state care is also an empire of third-party providers. The caseworkers call the natural parents their "client". But of course the natural parents aren't paying for the "service" of having their children removed! The caseworkers *real* client is the government department who pays, not the child who is strictly a third party to the arrangement. As with any contract for the benefit of third parties, this is a classic locus of fraud, and the problem affects governmental as much as so-called non-governmental workers. They have a much greater interest in shuffling papers, complying with rules and regulations, and currying favour with their superiors, than they have in providing to the child the benefits of care and protection its natural parents were unable or unwilling to provide.

Everyone assumes that the status quo is better for children than if government neither provided, nor hindered the provision of care and protection for children in need of it. Why?