Review of the DCJ Complaint System in respect of its Aboriginal Child Protection functions

This special report was completed as part of the NSW Ombudsman's community services complaint system review function. It follows a comprehensive review of the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) system for handing complaints from, or concerning Aboriginal children in the child protection system. It makes recommendations to improve DCJ's complaint handling system at a foundational level, starting with a recommendation that DCJ develop a plan for overarching system reform.

This is a report about the NSW Ombudsman’s review of the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) system for handling complaints from, or concerning, Aboriginal children and young people in the child protection system.

A key objective of this review was the inclusion of Aboriginal people – to seek and hear Aboriginal voices on their experience of navigating DCJ’s complaint system. The views expressed by Aboriginal people are incorporated throughout the report – our observations chapters start with the key messages we heard, and we have taken into account the constructive suggestions Aboriginal people shared with us when developing our recommendations for how the DCJ complaint handling system could be improved.

The NSW Ombudsman is an independent integrity agency that pursues fairness for the people of NSW. We strive to ensure that those entrusted with public power and resources fulfil their responsibilities and treat everyone fairly. A particular role is to review how community services are delivered to children and families in NSW, including community services that are provided by DCJ, as well as non-government service providers that receive funding or authorisation from DCJ. Section 14 of the Community Services (Complaints, Reviews and Monitoring) Act 1993 (CS CRAMA) provides that one of our functions in this role is to review and report on the systems of community service providers for handling complaints.

Complaint system reviews are improvement focused. They take a system-wide look at how an agency’s administrative practices should or could be improved to achieve better complaint handling services and outcomes.

This review focused on understanding DCJ’s child protection complaint handling system and how effectively it handles complaints from Aboriginal children and families. We looked at the foundational elements underpinning the system, and how well the system is administered in practice. In doing so, we also focused closely on the qualitative experiences of Aboriginal children and young people, and their families, carers and communities, in the child protection and out-of-home care (OOHC) system.

What we observed

DCJ manages a complex, decentralised complaint system that lacks integration, coordination and consistency. Although there is a central complaint ‘clearing house’ function in the Enquiry, Feedback and Complaints Unit (EFCU), it is poorly resourced and there is limited awareness of its existence or role, even among DCJ staff.

The system is not sufficiently culturally attuned to the needs of Aboriginal complainants and is not adequately accessible to Aboriginal people. Fear of, and experience of, retribution or detrimental action³ following a complaint is a significant issue that must be addressed. There is considerable work to be done to improve the accessibility of the complaints system generally, which is undermined by low levels of awareness (particularly in relation to the centralised complaint handling unit), inadequate promotion, distrust in the process and the need for assistance to complain.

Complaint management is marked by uneven performance. Complaints are too easily lost in the system and communication with complainants is patchy at all stages, including acknowledging complaints, providing updates, notifying finalisation, and advising of review options. Too many complaints take too long to resolve (even acknowledging the complexity of handling complaints in a child protection environment), and double-handling can be confusing for complainants.

There are some significant gaps in the foundational elements that underpin DCJ’s complaint handling system. The results of a DCJ staff survey conducted for this review support the view that it has insufficient workforce capacity to handle and resolve all the complaints it receives.

Complaint handling policies and procedures, while generally consistent with Effective Complaint Handling Guidelines, are not adequately integrated and utilised by staff, and key casework policies for Aboriginal people, such as the Aboriginal Case Management Policy, are silent on complaint rights and process. Complaint handling is further challenged by aging or non-existent records and case management systems (both for managing complaints and producing quality data to identify system issues and underpin improvement activities). Quality assurance processes are patchy. Except in a small number of matters (where escalation has occurred or a specialist unit is involved), there is no mechanism for independent investigation of a complaint outside the local area. This is particularly unacceptable in a complaint system that has the role of resolving complaints about adverse administrative decisions that are not currently reviewable by a formal internal review process.

While many committed and talented DCJ staff handle complaints relating to Aboriginal children, their work can be complex, sensitive, and emotionally challenging. Many staff responding to our survey said they lacked full confidence in handling complaints from Aboriginal people. DCJ staff training in complaint handling is inadequate, with low levels of awareness at the Community Service Centre (CSC) level of procedures to be followed when a complaint is made, low uptake of existing training across the agency, and staff indicating they would benefit from further complaint handling training. Further work is required in DCJ to increase involvement of Aboriginal staff in complaint handling.

An area of particular concern is that cultural or unconscious bias affects how some DCJ staff view and handle complaints from Aboriginal people. We heard accounts of bias and retribution in the DCJ staff survey and from Aboriginal stakeholders, and of Aboriginal people being afraid to complain or speak up for fear of retribution, concern that a complaint would not be taken seriously or that a complaint would lead to being labelled as a ‘troublemaker’. The immense power imbalance between the state and an Aboriginal person in the NSW child protection environment was well articulated by the Family is Culture Report and is a critical issue for DCJ that extends well beyond complaint handling. As in many other areas of child protection, this must be acknowledged and addressed for the system to operate well for Aboriginal people.

DCJ has a process for receiving complaints about its service providers and ensuring contract management issues that arise in complaints can be dealt with by contract managers. However, the contract manager role in complaints appears ‘light touch’, as is EFCU’s quality assurance of the response. The forms included in the comprehensive suite of guidelines maintained by Partnerships Directorate were not once used in the sample we reviewed. DCJ could do more to ensure the quality of complaint handling involving service providers.

It has been five years since the Family is Culture Report was published. Recommendation 10 of that report contemplated a review of the DCJ complaint system with a view to developing a complaints system that is transparent and accessible; child-friendly; empowered to resolve complaints adequately; developed in consultation with Aboriginal communities; and supported by a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities for Aboriginal Families. It also contemplated the employment of Aboriginal staff in key roles in the complaint space. DCJ has charters of rights in place for children, care leavers and carers, but not for parents. Its system continues to have issues of accessibility and lacks transparency, with deficits in record keeping and the information provided to people about and during the complaint process. It cannot yet be said to have reached the goals of being adequately culturally appropriate and child-friendly. DCJ has partially implemented the recommendation of employing Aboriginal people in some key complaint handling roles, but key components of its wider complaint handling system have not achieved that goal.

We have made 58 recommendations to improve DCJ’s complaint system at a foundational level, starting with a recommendation that DCJ develop a plan for overarching system reform. This includes building a culturally competent and well supported complaint handling workforce, addressing retribution issues, establishing a centralised complaint investigation function, better integrating its policies and procedures, adopting fit-forpurpose case management system and data analysis functions, addressing accessibility barriers and improving complaint resolution practices. Many of the recommendations in this report will have wider application and benefit all complainants. However, at all times during planning and implementation, DCJ should consult with Aboriginal stakeholders and ensure that the experiences of Aboriginal people are front of mind.

A better complaint handling system

A well-functioning complaint handling and review system is vitally important in the child protection and OOHC system. Fundamental reform is needed to put in place the essential foundations for a complaint handling system that will better serve Aboriginal children and families.

The priority should be embedding a positive and culturally attuned complaint handling culture, building workforce capacity and ensuring staff have the resources they need to effectively handle complaints. Aboriginal people also told us, and we agree, that urgent work is needed to ensure better promotion of complaint rights and processes, improvements to response times and communication, greater impartiality and independence in DCJ complaint handling, greater accountability for complaint outcomes and increased support for children and families.

The recommendations that follow aim to address these fundamental reform steps, and some of the more granular improvements suggested throughout this report. Many of the recommendations cut across several key areas for reform. When implementing these recommendations, DCJ will need to ensure it engages in genuine consultation with key Aboriginal stakeholders.

The recommendations below are strongly focused on system improvement. We recognise that these recommendations, if fully implemented, would involve additional cost to DCJ. This has been carefully weighed in our formulation of recommendations and is not taken lightly.⁴

Overarching reform plan and public statement

DCJ will need to begin by developing a comprehensive plan to address the issues in this report. It is also appropriate that DCJ publish a response to the central conclusion of this report: that the DCJ complaint system is failing to adequately cater for Aboriginal complainants.

A Reform plan

1. DCJ should:

• within 6 months of the tabling of this report in Parliament, publish a plan that outlines what DCJ will do, and by when, to implement the recommendations 3 to 58 below
• provide the NSW Ombudsman with, and publish, a final outcomes report on its implementation of the recommendations no later than 1 December 2025.

A Public statement

2. In the meantime, the DCJ Executive should within 1 month of the tabling of this report publish its response to the central finding that the DCJ complaint system is failing to adequately cater for Aboriginal complainants in the following ways:

• Aboriginal people find the complaint system overly complex, difficult to navigate, and not attuned to their needs at a cultural, practical or emotive level
• Aboriginal children and young people make little use of the complaint system
• there is a genuine fear in the Aboriginal community that a complaint to DCJ will trigger detrimental consequences
• Aboriginal people do not generally have confidence that complaints will lead to good experiences and outcomes
• cultural or unconscious bias may affect how some DCJ staff view and respond to complaints from Aboriginal people.

System foundations

DCJ should begin work as soon as possible to put in place a coherent, integrated complaint handling policy framework, as this will underpin the other work (including training and workforce development) that must follow. More can be done to integrate complaint and casework policies, for example in the Aboriginal Case Management Policy which is silent on complaint rights and process. DCJ’s numerous complaint handling areas each have their own complaint handling policies, some of which are not well known or used, and it is not always clear which policy should have precedence in the event of a conflict. The framework should describe all elements of the complaint framework and how they interact.

In concert with this, DCJ needs to take steps to build a fit-for-purpose complaint management system and database that embeds its policy framework, with workflows that will enable staff to better record, manage, track and quality assure complaints. It should also be capable of producing high quality ‘single source of truth’ complaint data for reporting and improvement purposes. In doing so, it should address the existing data and recording system weaknesses identified in this report. Benchmarks should be fit-for-purpose, measured and reviewed regularly with a view to continuous improvement.

Integrated policy framework

3. DCJ should develop a single framework document for child protection complaints that describes all elements of the complaint framework and how they interact with all policies relied upon by staff during complaint handling to ensure the policies interact seamlessly.

4. The policy should include specific content on handling complaints from Aboriginal people in a culturally appropriate, child friendly and trauma-informed way.

5. The framework should be fully consistent with the NSW Ombudsman’s Commitments to Effective Complaint Handling.

6. The framework should include complaint policies, units and pathways, mandatory training, quality assurance, a no-retribution (safe complaints) strategy, and support, escalation, quality assurance and review options for complainants.

7. In consultation with Aboriginal stakeholders, DCJ should amend the Aboriginal Case Management Policy, to ensure it contains appropriate references to complaint rights.

8. DCJ should provide clear guidance to staff on managing complaint issues that potentially intersect with concurrent court proceedings, and in particular to inform staff that court proceedings alone are not a reason to refuse or close a complaint prematurely.

9. DCJ should make any further discrete adjustment to its policies and templates, as suggested in this report.

A Centralised data and case management system

10. DCJ should work towards:

• a ‘single source of truth’ for complaints data (whether in a single system or several well integrated systems), from which high quality complaint data can be extracted and analysed by Family and Community Services, Insights, Analysis and Research (FACSIAR) and the DCJ Executive
• a centralised complaint database and case management system that supports case handling, complaint monitoring, quality assurance and systemic analysis.

11. These systems should be designed to overcome weaknesses in the current DCJ system, such as:

• inability to flag a complaint as urgent, sensitive or priority
• lack of access to a complaint management system for districts, Community Services Centres (CSCs), and contract management areas
• difficulties posed in tracking complaint handling workflows
• inefficiencies of manual two-part form processes in lieu of integrated single system workflows
• lack of prompts when complaints are nearing KPIs or overdue
• lack of visibility of complaints handled previously or concurrently by districts and CSCs
• limited granularity in data about types of complaint issues and outcomes
• not all units have systems that assign unique identifiers and record Aboriginality
• inefficiencies arising from manual checking of entry of information from one system to another (e.g., Aboriginality)
• lack of guidance on internal complaint consultation, escalation and transfer
• inefficiency and error associated with manual exchange of complaint information between Enquiry, Feedback and Complaints Unit (EFCU) and the Prudential Oversight team/contract managers
• applying QA processes actively and consistently to all complaint processes.

12. DCJ should ensure that complaint handling staff have operational access to complaint information, subject to privacy and retribution considerations (with the aim of ensuring people do not need to repeat their story, and that complaint handling is not siloed).

Benchmarks

13. DCJ should consider reducing its acknowledgement KPI from 5 working days to 3 working days to be consistent with the relevant Australian Standard (AS 10002:2022).

14. DCJ should review its framework of complaint handling performance benchmarks/KPIs to ensure these are in place and measured for all stages of the complaint process, particularly in districts and specialist units.

15. Data on compliance with those benchmarks should be regularly collected and consolidated, under a structured program that requires regular Executive review of the data, including to identify systemic complaint issues or patterns.

16. DCJ should consult with Aboriginal people to explore culturally safe and trauma-informed ways to seek feedback from Aboriginal people about their complaint experiences.

17. Partnerships Directorate should remove the incorrect reference to an Ombudsman ‘requirement’ to close cases within 25 days of receipt.

Safe complaints framework

DCJ must address the interlinked issues of workforce capacity, cultural bias, and detrimental action explored in this report. DCJ will need a comprehensive response to the issue of detrimental action associated with complaints (a ‘safe complaints’ framework).

The starting point for DCJ must be that detrimental action, and the fear of it, is a concern repeatedly raised by Aboriginal people and that it will not be tolerated in any form. DCJ must train its staff to recognise and report detrimental action. Its integrated policies must include a framework for preventing, identifying and responding to detrimental action fears, both as an accessibility issue and during the handling of a complaint in a culturally attuned and trauma-informed way.

Where detrimental action is suspected or alleged, there should be clear processes for protecting complainants, and investigating allegations. Where detrimental action is substantiated, there must be processes for ensuring accountability for the detrimental action. DCJ’s commitment to preventing and responding to detrimental action must be communicated to Aboriginal people, and it must demonstrate that commitment and accountability in its actions. It should consider offering call recording to any Aboriginal people who want it.

Comprehensive safe complaints framework

18. The DCJ Executive should develop a comprehensive framework to identify and manage fears, risks and allegations of detrimental action. This should include:

• a clear commitment that people who complain should not be subjected to any detrimental action as a result, and that detrimental action will not be tolerated
• developing a clear policy and operational guidance on identifying, preventing, and responding to detrimental action fears and risks. All complaint handling policies should link to this guidance
• developing a written procedure spelling out how it will handle allegations or suggestions that detrimental action has occurred, including:
  • how allegations are received, acknowledged and recorded
  • direction on internal reporting of allegations
  • who is responsible for arranging and conducting any investigation
  • how the investigation will be carried out
  • the rights of the staff member against whom an allegation is made
  • the action that can be taken if an allegation is sustained, including referral for criminal prosecution, where appropriate
  • reporting the outcome to an alleged victim.

19. DCJ should adjust complaint intake procedures (across all DCJ units that may receive complaints) to include guidance for staff on how to ask complainants, in a safe way, to share any detrimental action concerns and put appropriate safeguards in place.

20. DCJ should revise referral and response forms to ensure that they ask and record detrimental action management information.

21. DCJ should develop a separate training module on identifying, preventing, detecting and handling detrimental action allegations. Completion of the module should be mandatory for caseworkers and specialist complaint staff, and be made available to other DCJ staff, both as induction and refresher training.

22. DCJ should review the Code of Ethical Conduct to decide if additional guidance on detrimental action offences or managing detrimental action fears, risks and allegations is required.

23. Once DCJ’s framework is in place, DCJ should consult with Aboriginal people on a communication plan to effectively and appropriately assure Aboriginal people of its commitment to preventing detrimental action and encourage them to contact EFCU and explain any concerns they have about complaining.

24. Retribution framework communication should include messaging for the general public, including on the DCJ website, and in interactions with complainants. DCJ should consider separate messaging to reassure Aboriginal children and young people.

Workforce development

Many committed and talented DCJ staff undertake complaint handling functions, and their work is complex and challenging. However, DCJ staff do not currently have the resources necessary to deliver a complaint handling service that meets the needs of Aboriginal children and families.

DCJ must urgently address the issue of cultural bias in complaint handling. Noting that it has established an anti-racism taskforce, it should ensure that any wider initiatives to address cultural bias include a focus on complaint handling. Positive, culturally attuned complaint handling should be modelled and recognised by the Executive.

Complaint handling would benefit from greater use of cultural supports, including more Aboriginal people in complaint handling, liaison, advice and support roles. Intake and complaint resolution processes should include steps for identifying, recording and responding to cultural support needs. DCJ should also look at ways to support advocacy services to assist people with cultural support to pursue a complaint.

Complaint handling is challenging and DCJ staff survey respondents told us they are not confident in handling complaints from Aboriginal children and adults. Staff should be comprehensively trained in DCJ’s new integrated complaint handling and retribution framework, starting with how to recognise a complaint (versus, for example, a genuine enquiry or request for service) as well as matters that should be handled via a complaint process rather than casework services.

The recommendations in this section focus on workforce culture and training. Many of the other recommendations in this report, if effectively implemented, should also help lift workforce capacity (particularly those relating to retribution, investigations and review functions, and quality assurance generally, which are an essential link in the workforce performance improvement chain).

Culture

25. The DCJ Executive should develop and implement a strategy to address issues concerning cultural and unconscious bias discussed in this report.

26. The DCJ Executive should actively and regularly, promote and demonstrate the value of highquality complaint handling and recognise good complaint handling by staff.

27. DCJ should strive to increase the number of Aboriginal staff involved in complaint handling, whether directly or in supporting liaison roles.

Training

28. DCJ should make complaint handling training in THRIVE mandatory for all staff whose roles involve interactions with complainants (appropriate to the role and extent of responsibilities for complaint handling).

29. DCJ should develop a training program that is specially tailored to its complaint work, to include the following elements:

• information on DCJ complaint systems, processes and policies, with special emphasis on the role of EFCU
• practical advice on understanding and responding to specific issues arising in the Aboriginal child protection context, such as managing retribution fears and risks and taking a culturally aware, trauma-informed and child-centred approach
• case studies, drawn from DCJ work, on how individual complaints have exposed deficiencies, or stimulated improvements, in DCJ policies and administration.

30. DCJ should provide comprehensive training to all staff on its new integrated complaints and retribution policies, once developed. In the meantime, DCJ should raise awareness of existing complaint handling policies at all levels in districts and CSCs.

Investigation and review functions

DCJ needs an internal investigation process that is separate and operates independently from the unit complained about, so that complaints can be investigated by a person with no prior involvement in the matter complained of, and where appropriate, outside the district complained of. Arm’s length complaint investigation is an important principle of complaint handling generally but particularly important in the DCJ context, given stakeholder and staff survey responses about the bias that can occur at the local level.

It is also timely to consider whether complaints about some decisions might be better served by a more formal internal review function, adjacent to the complaint handing function.

Investigation

31. DCJ should implement a process for independent internal handling and investigation of complaints by a suitably qualified person outside of the district that is subject of the complaint. In doing so, DCJ should examine options for establishing a central investigation function, located in either EFCU or another central unit such as the OSP, with additional resourcing.

32. In the meantime, DCJ should formalise a process for EFCU to recommend independent investigation of a complaint by a staff member in another district or unit. The policy should include guidance on when independent review should be available, which may include situations where:

• issues raised are serious, complex or involve multiple districts
• the complainant has raised a fear of retribution or bias
• the complaint issue is protracted, unresolved or escalated by the local level.

Review

33. DCJ should also consider implementing a formal internal review process for decisions that would be better suited to internal review than a complaint process. In doing so, DCJ should consult with legal services, such as the Aboriginal Legal Service and Legal Aid, to identify which types of decisions could be suited to such an internal review process (an example that could be considered are decisions about what is included in a Leaving Care Plan or that relate to financial support).

Resolving complaints

DCJ can do more to make its complaints system more responsive and to achieve better outcomes and experiences for Aboriginal people. This includes ensuring that all complaints are properly categorised, acknowledged, and quality assured. Communication must improve, particularly in terms of updates if an extension of time is granted or resolution is delayed, advising complaint outcomes (even if the outcome is that there will be no further action) and providing meaningful reasons for any decisions.

Intake

34. EFCU should adjust its practices to ensure that complaints are not miscategorised as enquiries (taking into account any preference of the Aboriginal person, e.g., if they expressly state they are not making a complaint but rather an enquiry).

35. DCJ should have a consistent practice of ensuring that all complaints from Aboriginal people (including complaints of a kind that would previously have been miscategorised as enquiries) are followed up to ensure that an outcome has been communicated to the complainant (including if the outcome is that no further action is to be taken).

36. DCJ should develop guidance and training for staff, particularly casework staff, about how to recognise complaints and distinguish them from other casework interactions.

37. DCJ should ensure staff have clear guidance for identifying and responding to complaints that:

• are from a child or young person
• are urgent or sensitive
• need involvement of an Aboriginal staff member or other cultural support
• need action to manage retribution fears or respond to allegations of retribution.

38. Complaint handling forms and templates should prompt DCJ staff and/or service provider staff involved in the complaint to consider and record:

• if the complainant is Aboriginal or a child
• any specific age, trauma, retribution or cultural considerations
• steps taken to address these age, trauma, retribution or cultural considerations during the handling of the complaint.

39. The registers used by contract managers to record contracting complaints should be amended to include unique identifiers and fields recording Aboriginality.

40. DCJ should conduct quality assurance to ensure staff guidance on intake processes (including when to notify EFCU of the complaint) is understood and followed consistently in the multiple DCJ units that receive and handle complaints.

Progress and outcomes

41. DCJ should review and improve its processes for communicating both progress updates (particularly if there is a delay) and complaint outcomes (including closure outcomes) to complainants.

42. Where a complaint handling unit declines to implement an EFCU recommendation for the handling of a complaint, reasons should be fully recorded in the complaint response form.

Records and quality assurance

DCJ needs to strengthen its ‘light touch’ centralised quality assurance (QA) processes to secure better experiences and outcomes for complainants, improve consistency of complaint handling across DCJ units, and influence ongoing workforce development.

DCJ needs to integrate these quality processes and its quality benchmarks with other complaint handling steps to achieve increased consistency, compliance, staff confidence, transparency and accountability. QA processes should be aligned with its retribution framework and be able to detect conscious or unconscious bias in decision-making and treatment of Aboriginal people.

Records

43. DCJ should develop a more comprehensive and structured process for recording complaint information, at the district and CSC level and in their responses to EFCU. Complaint information that should be recorded includes:

• the complaint issues identified and examined
• the findings reached on those issues
• other files (cross-referenced) that contain relevant records
• the DCJ response provided to the complainant, including advice about file closure and internal and external review options
• any follow-up action taken in DCJ on the complaint investigation, such as training or examination of systemic issues.

44. Districts and EFCU should ensure that all substantive complaint issues are addressed.

45. DCJ should develop and implement processes for ensuring all instances of unsatisfactory performance or misconduct are appropriately referred for further action and recorded.

Quality assurance

46. DCJ should develop a QA process to ensure that complaints from Aboriginal people are satisfactorily managed.

47. In the meantime, EFCU should more closely monitor the adequacy of response forms and escalate as appropriate. Consideration should be given to whether the EFCU lead responsible for any QA of district responses should be at an equivalent or more senior grade with the district staff signing off on complaint responses. Its independent reporting line to the Executive should be maintained (i.e., outside child protection and housing business lines).

48. Subject to extensive consultation with Aboriginal communities and legal and clinical experts, DCJ should explore the viability of options for piloting the use of ‘opt in’ audio recording in complaint handling at the district and CSC level, particularly for escalated complaints (i.e., allowing recording if an Aboriginal person asks for it).

49. An opt in audio recording pilot (if any) should involve consultation with its Ngaramanala Aboriginal Knowledge Program to help ensure an informed dialogue between DCJ and Aboriginal communities on Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous governance.

50. DCJ should build complainant satisfaction and feedback into ongoing evaluation and improvement processes. A written policy should set out how, when and by whom complainant satisfaction surveys will be conducted, and how the results will be circulated and considered. Any surveys should collect Aboriginality and other demographic information.

Accessibility

Creating a complaint-handling system where Aboriginal people feel safe to complain about issues relating to Aboriginal children in child protection and OOHC is both immensely challenging and critically important. There is more that DCJ can do and most of the recommendations in this report will serve this goal in some way. This is because a system will not be accessible if it is not trusted to respond to complaints in a way that is culturally attuned, responsive to complainant needs and barriers, and results in fair outcomes and experiences.

In addition to these fundamental reforms, DCJ needs to address a specific accessibility problem, that EFCU’s central role in DCJ complaint handling is undermined by its low profile, internally and externally, and its limited resources. A communications campaign is needed to raise awareness of EFCU (particularly among advocacy and support services) and more actively promote complaint handling rights and pathways to Aboriginal children and families, particularly at key touchpoints in casework processes. DCJ should develop a charter of rights for families, as initially recommended in the Family is Culture Report, improve its website information, and develop resources that are specifically targeted to Aboriginal people.

Finally, we heard repeatedly from stakeholders that the key to better accessibility is an empowered and resourced network of advocates and support people who can help Aboriginal people to complain. DCJ should explore options for it to enable and support NGOs, advocacy services, and Aboriginal community organisations to assist people to access its complaint system.

Enabling and promoting complaints

51. DCJ Executives and managers should promote and reward a culture whereby staff actively identify complaint accessibility barriers and support people to complain.

52. DCJ should undertake a communications campaign to explain and promote its complaint handling system to Aboriginal people. This includes developing and distributing, through multiple avenues, promotional materials that are:

• specifically targeted to Aboriginal children, young people, families, communities and advocates
• specifically directed at removing barriers to complaining by Aboriginal people.

53. DCJ should enhance the presentation of complaint pathways and processes on its website, with a particular focus on providing clearer and consistent information and assurances for Aboriginal people.

54. DCJ should identify additional key touchpoints where Aboriginal children, young people and families should be reminded of their complaint rights and processes, including:

• commencement of services
• when there is a change of caseworker (by both outgoing and incoming caseworkers)
• when an adverse decision is made or action taken.

55. DCJ should take action to raise the profile of EFCU both internally and externally. Actions that can be taken include:

• Executive promotion of EFCU internally
• highlighting EFCU’s role in training and staff guidance
• making it easier to find information and links to EFCU on the DCJ website
• promoting EFCU to legal and advocacy bodies and in DCJ outreach programs
• at the local level, promoting EFCU during district/CSC engagement with Aboriginal communities and organisations working with Aboriginal people.

56. DCJ should implement the recommendation of the Family is Culture Report to develop, in consultation with Aboriginal people, a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities regarding service delivery standards and the right to complain.

57. DCJ should explore options for it to enable and support NGOs, advocacy services and Aboriginal community organisations to assist people to access its complaint system. This should include consideration of suggestions made by Aboriginal people in this report for improving accessibility through community nominated complaint advocates (i.e., who are authorised and trusted by each community).

58. DCJ should promote, and require its funded service providers to promote, the right to complain about a funded service provider directly to DCJ where the person does not feel comfortable complaining, or has already complained, to the service provider in the first instance.

Scope

1. This review looked at the Department of Communities and Justice (DCJ) system for handling complaints from, or concerning, Aboriginal children and young people in the child protection system.

2. The review focused on:

• DCJ policies, procedures and administrative practices relating to the receipt, handling and resolution of complaints about DCJ community services, made by or about an Aboriginal child or young person, family or carer
• the qualitative experience of complainants, where the complaint is made by or about an Aboriginal child or young person, family or carer
• DCJ’s contract management of commissioned OOHC agencies to examine its processes for ensuring accountability for the handling of complaints and compliance with relevant complaint handling standards
• DCJ workforce capacity to effectively execute DCJ complaint handling policies and procedures, including staff training, cultural competency and trauma awareness
• DCJ’s capacity to analyse complaint handling data to identify and remediate systemic service delivery/complaint handling issues.

3. We also considered Recommendation 10 of the Family is Culture independent review of Aboriginal child protection arrangements in NSW (which recommended in 2019 that DCJ review its complaint handling system) and relevant internal and external DCJ system reviews since that time.

Review methodology

4. The review team collected information from a range of sources as described in Table 1 below. This information was then evaluated against accepted complaint handling benchmarks (listed on the following page) to assess how well DCJ serves the needs of Aboriginal children and families and opportunities for system improvement.

Table 1 - Information gathering and analysis

Benchmarks

5. DCJ complaint handling was assessed against complaint handling standards. They include:

• NSW Government Commitments to Effective Complaint Handling⁶
• NSW Ombudsman, Effective Complaint Handling Guidelines 2017⁷
• Australian Standard (AS 10002:2022), Guidelines for complaint management in organizations.⁸

6. We also considered DCJ’s internal complaint handling policies and procedures, examining both their adequacy and staff compliance with them. These policies include:

• FACS Complaints and Feedback Management Policy, 30 September 2018
• Responding to Complaints at a CSC [undated]
• Community Services, Enquiry, Feedback and Complaints Unit, Procedures Manual, January 2022
• Handle Contracting Complaints Procedure, October 2020.

7. The review also had regard to Recommendation 10 of the Family is Culture Report⁹ and complaint handling expectations set out in the OCG’s Child Safe Standards (Standard 6)¹⁰ and the National Office for Child Safety’s (NOCS) Complaint Handling Guide.¹¹

8. Some of the good complaint handling principles and practices that are particularly relevant to the observations in this review have been listed at the beginning of each Observations chapter

A note about case studies and file reviews

9. Case studies are included throughout the report to illustrate our observations about DCJ’s complaint handling practices and the experiences of Aboriginal people. All case studies have been de-identified and all names used in the case studies are pseudonyms.

10. Each case study includes enough information to illustrate the issue being discussed in the text that precedes it in the report. It is important to note that the issue raised in a case study may not be indicative of all issues complained about or the overall outcome of that particular case. For example, some case studies may have been used to illustrate a particular process error (e.g., record keeping failure), even though the eventual outcome for the complainant was positive. Conversely, a case study drawing out a positive aspect of complaint handling will not necessarily mean that the complainant was ultimately satisfied, or that other process errors or complaint management issues were absent.

11. Limitations in district record-keeping practices¹² meant the review team relied on verbal accounts from staff and stakeholders about district complaint handling practices.

12. It follows that most of the case studies and file review data analysis derive from the complaint files maintained by units that were able to provide complaint registers and files for examination (particularly EFCU).

13. When we looked at cases DCJ managed by its CSIM team, we confined our inquiry into DCJ’s actions only, not those of any Minister or MP who referred the complaint. Nothing in this report should be read as a comment of any kind on the actions of any Minister or MP.

A note about the DCJ staff survey

9. We received 357 completed survey responses.

10. Of these, 60 respondents (17%) identified as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander (Aboriginal respondents). There were 283 respondents (79%) who identified as non-Aboriginal and 14 (4%) who preferred not to say.

11. Responses were spread across regions, with 53% of respondents saying they worked in metropolitan areas and 41% as working in regional or remote workplaces.

12. In total, 228 (64%) of respondents identified their work area as casework services, and 129 (36%) worked in other areas. A large majority of respondents (293 – 82%) said they worked directly with Aboriginal people in child protection / OOHC.

13. Results of the survey are included throughout the report. A copy of the questions put to DCJ staff in the survey can be found at Appendix C.

Point in time referencing

14. This report reflects the information provided to the review team during its investigation, analysis, and conclusion testing phases.

15. Where DCJ’s submission to this review indicated that there have been subsequent changes to its business unit names or processes, these changes have been noted in footnotes. For example, we reviewed the processes and complaint files of the team known as Community Services Issues Management (CSIM). Although that unit has since been re-named¹³ we have used the name of the unit as it was when it was reviewed in this report (i.e., CSIM).

Review team

16. Over the course of this review, half of the staff who have worked on it have been Aboriginal, including an Aboriginal Executive lead during the planning, stakeholder engagement and information gathering and analysis phase, and input and review from the Deputy Ombudsman, Aboriginal Programs, during the report writing and finalisation stage.

Earlier reviews

22. This review considered the reports of two internal reviews of DCJ’s complaint system since the Family is Culture Report was published in 2019, undertaken by PricewaterhouseCoopers and Ernst and Young respectively. The review team has sought to leverage (and not duplicate) the work of those reviews.

The Family is Culture (FIC) Report – October 2019

23. The Family is Culture Report examined 1,144 Aboriginal child protection case files of children who entered OOHC between 1 July 2015 and 30 June 2016. Although not its primary focus, the Family is Culture Report highlighted issues concerning Aboriginal people’s limited access to, and knowledge of, complaints systems and how to navigate them. It reaffirmed that Aboriginal children and families lack trust in the complaint system due to legacy issues, complex entry pathways, and a fear of retribution.

24. Recommendation 10 of the Family is Culture Report proposed that DCJ conduct a review of complaint handling systems to develop a system that is:

• transparent and accessible
• child-friendly
• empowered to resolve complaints adequately
• developed in consultation with Aboriginal communities
• supported by a Charter of Rights and Responsibilities for Aboriginal Families, and
• employs Aboriginal staff in key roles.

PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC) internal review – November 2021

25. DCJ engaged PwC to review its complaint handling system. This review was presented as responsive to Recommendation 10 of the Family is Culture Report.¹⁴ However, its scope was narrowly focused and did not directly consider the experience of Aboriginal people.¹⁵ Further:

• the audit sample was small (20 complaints and 10 enquiries were reviewed)
• only 7 of 20 randomly selected clients responded to a complainant experience survey
• a stakeholder survey was offered to 27 of 63 service providers, of which 20 responded.

26. The reason given for the PwC review not including engagement with Aboriginal people with experience of DCJ’s complaint handling system was that the NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian (OCG) was conducting an external review of how the system supports Aboriginal children, young people and families.¹⁶ The OCG report (issued in March 2022 by the Aboriginal Deputy Children’s Guardian) noted that DCJ had not delivered on Recommendation 10 of the Family is Culture Report, despite PwC’s review. The OCG report recommended that our office proceed with an independent review of DCJ’s complaint handling system.¹⁷

27. Notwithstanding this, the PwC report made constructive findings that we have considered (and reiterate in our review) including:¹⁸

• not all complaints are communicated to EFCU (DCJ’s central complaint handling unit)
• KPIs are not consistently measured or met
• reporting is incomplete and not consistently performed
• complaints processes are not fully aligned with the NSW Government’s Commitments to Effective Complaint Handling
• there are inconsistent approaches to complaint handling by district and local offices
• policies and procedures are incomplete or out of date.

28. The PwC review also found flaws in DCJ’s policy framework, including the following gaps:

• formalised quality assurance processes (secondary review of complaints within EFCU had not been documented)
• lack of escalation of complaints based on defined thresholds
• siloed procedures.

29. DCJ accepted the management actions recommended by PwC. In its recent Family is Culture response progress report,19 DCJ reported that it had implemented all 15 managerial actions, with 3 being ongoing (updating brochures, annual customer experience surveys and complaint handling training).

30. This review found that DCJ had taken steps to implement those actions except setting KPI timeframes for differing levels of seriousness, urgency and complexity of complaints. However, as the analysis in the Observations section of this report shows, many of the issues identified in the PwC report were also apparent in our inquiries, and we were not persuaded that implementation had addressed all the underlying issues the management actions were intended to address.

Ernst & Young (EY) internal review – February 2023

31. DCJ also engaged Ernst & Young (EY) to review its ministerial complaint handling processes, following an earlier review which identified challenges in the volume of complaint response ‘reworks’ related to both quality and process issues, causing bottlenecks and associated timeliness issues. It identified a lack of data visibility due to limitations in the ‘mini App’ reporting system and a range of process issues.

32. This internal EY review also did not specifically consider the experience of Aboriginal complainants.

33. The EY report was conducted and finalised (in February 2023) in parallel to our review. It suggested a range of key areas for improvement, including trialling a Dashboard Analysis tool, onboarding a ‘Duty Clearance Officer’, adopting a Quality Performance Framework, caseload management changes, supporting governance arrangements and improving communication between units. It also made medium to long-term recommendations associated with process, tracking, reporting, governance (roles and responsibilities), communication and training.

34. The issues identified in the EY report were also observed in interviews and case sampling during this review. Many of the findings and recommendations of the EY review in this report were consistent with ours. However, our review makes broader system-wide recommendations and, should DCJ consider there is any conflict between the EY review recommendations, we consider that the recommendations in this report should be preferred.

Complaints to the NSW Ombudsman

35. In December 2021, our office undertook a preliminary internal review of complaint holdings in respect of DCJ, in anticipation of this review.

36. From 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020, the NSW Ombudsman received 1,447 complaints about DCJ regarding OOHC and child protection services. Of those, 318 (22%) were Aboriginal complaints, and preliminary inquiries were made by our office in relation to 121 (38%) of those matters. We conducted a qualitative examination of 45 of the 121 complaints where preliminary inquiries²⁰ were made. Complaint handling issues included some complainants reporting a lack of action, or that they were not heard by DCJ, and a small number felt they were prevented or not enabled to follow through with their complaint, which was why they sought the Ombudsman’s intervention.

37. The review team then looked at our complaint holdings for the 3 financial years 2019-20, 2020-21 and 2021-22. During this period the Ombudsman received 2,552 actionable complaints about OOHC and child protection services of which 735 were recorded as Aboriginal complaints. Of these Aboriginal complaints, 460 were complaints about DCJ and 270 were complaints about service providers. This included 37 complaints where the primary issue was recorded as relating to agency complaint handling (although for most complaints, it is generally the issue that gave rise to the complaint that will be recorded as the primary issue, so the true figure for complaints involving complaint handling issues is likely to be higher).

38. To complement the earlier qualitative analysis conducted in 2021 (i.e., the period 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2020), the review team performed a qualitative review of a sample of cases from the 18-month period 1 January 2021 to 30 June 2022. This included all Aboriginal complaints where the complainant was 18 or under,²¹ all Aboriginal complaints where complaint handling had been selected as a primary issue, 10 remote Aboriginal complaints, and a small random selection of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal complaints spread across metro, regional and remote areas (see selection methodology in Appendix D).

39. We observed that complaint handling issues identified in the 2021 review had continued. The most common reason for escalating a complaint to the Ombudsman was not receiving a complaint response from DCJ or an NGO, followed by dissatisfaction with the complaint outcome. Other reasons included being prevented from or unable to progress a complaint further within DCJ, dissatisfaction with being referred back to the district complained about, and fear of retaliation if the person were to complain to DCJ.

40. Where relevant, other insights from the qualitative review of our complaint holdings are discussed in later chapters of this report.

Aboriginal child protection in NSW

41. Aboriginal child protection in NSW has a painful history of violent and discriminatory government policies and practices. That history continues to impact generations of Aboriginal families today, with Aboriginal children being removed from their families by DCJ at vastly higher rates than other children in NSW.

42. Understanding the egregious wrongs of the past, the inter-generational trauma experienced by Aboriginal families, and the failure of successive governments to reduce the number of Aboriginal children in child protection and OOHC is integral to understanding why Aboriginal people justifiably hold concerns and mistrust in DCJ’s present-day handling of child protection, including complaints systems.

Complexity associated with involuntary systems

43. The complexities of complaint handling in an involuntary child protection system must be acknowledged. Aboriginal families are often engaged involuntarily with the child protection system during a time of heightened emotions, distress and vulnerability. Mistrust of the child protection system (including the way complaints are handled) is prevalent due to the devastation of the Stolen Generations, systemic racism,²² and ongoing high rates of child removals (see discussion at paragraph 47 below).

44. We heard in conversations with Aboriginal community members and stakeholders that Aboriginal people are tired of repeating the same narrative and solutions to present-day problems, without seeing meaningful change, as well as a very real fear of retribution held by Aboriginal people, which deters them from making complaints in the first place.

45. Conversations with Aboriginal community members and stakeholders also revealed frustration that what they say may be disregarded if it is expressed in passion, anger, or frustration. In some cases, Aboriginal people told us their complaints are met with defensiveness, rather than compassion or empathy.

46. Our review appreciates that not all complaints can be resolved to the satisfaction of a complainant. Families may inevitably be left unhappy with some decisions of DCJ given its role in administering an involuntary system, even if the complaint handling is exemplary. However, these complexities also highlight the importance of a culturally safe, trauma-informed and child-friendly approach to complaint handling (in line with Recommendation 10 of the Family is Culture Report) centred around continuous reflection and improvement.

Aboriginal children in OOHC in NSW

47. Aboriginal children are over-represented in the child protection and out-of-home care (OOHC) system. Despite comprising only 6.5% of the NSW population,²³ they represented 47% of the children entering OOHC during the year ending 30 June 2023.²⁴

48. Although the total number of children entering OOHC²⁵ has remained steady, increasing by less than 1% since 2017-18, there has been a significant increase in Aboriginal children in OOHC. Over the 6 years since 2017-18:

• the number of Aboriginal children entering OOHC increased by 26% compared to a drop of 14% for non-Aboriginal children
• the proportion of children entering OOHC who were Aboriginal, increased from 38% to 47%.²⁶

49. Based on 2022-2023 figures, Aboriginal children are now over 12 times more likely to enter OOHC than non-Aboriginal children. This represents a significant increase in recent years (in 2017-18, Aboriginal children were 9 times more likely to enter OOHC than non-Aboriginal children).²⁷

50. There has also been a 19% decline in Aboriginal children exiting care through restoration between 2018-2019 and 2022-2023.²⁸ The proportion of Aboriginal children living with a relative or Aboriginal carer also declined from 74% at 30 June 2018 to 69% at 30 June 2023.²⁹

51. Many children in OOHC are case-managed by NGOs. As at 20 June 2022, there were 1,710 Aboriginal children with non-Aboriginal OOHC providers and 1,421 with Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations compared with 2,759 managed by DCJ itself.³⁰

52. As of 30 June 2023, around 21% of Aboriginal children do not have a Cultural Care Plan in place and 27% of Aboriginal children leave the OOHC system with no Leaving Care Plan (despite this being a mandatory requirement).³¹

What Aboriginal people told us they experience now

53. A key objective of this review was to hear Aboriginal voices on their experience of navigating DCJ’s complaint system. We heard the lived experiences of Aboriginal children, young people, complainants and their families and support systems. We spoke to many frontline service providers and others with experience of the child protection and OOHC system.

54. This section recounts what we heard at 2 forums at which there was multi-stakeholder participation and in our other engagement with Aboriginal organisations and legal services. All Aboriginal stakeholders had a connection to the child protection or OOHC system through their personal experience, paid or unpaid work and included parents, children and young people,32 advocates, caseworkers and Elders.

55. Numerous participants gave a deeply emotional account of their struggle to navigate the complaint system and the impact this had on them, explaining how they felt frustrated and aggrieved at the difficulties they faced. We understand that for many, these stories involved personal grief and trauma, and that sharing them may have come at a personal cost. We are grateful to stakeholders for their generosity in sharing these stories with us.

56. A prominent theme was that DCJ staff do not have the capacity to handle their complaints in a culturally informed and effective way. People we spoke to described frustration at dealing with multiple people and repeating their stories. We were told that staff are not sufficiently trained in cultural issues and communication, and can be defensive, judgemental and lacking in compassion or interest. We heard concerns about accountability and lack of remedial action where poor performance was identified, and a belief that bias and lack of independence in the complaint handling process meant that it was not possible to get a fair hearing.

57. We were repeatedly told of retribution and fears of retaliation or other negative consequences for making complaints. We heard that people are afraid to complain to DCJ. Parents and carers worry that a complaint would trigger more intensive surveillance of their children, or harsher controls being imposed. Families fear retribution for complaining against a DCJ staff member who has control or authority over decisions that affect them. Some feared being seen as disrespectful, an inconvenience or a troublemaker for making a complaint, and worried about the effect this may have on future interactions with DCJ. People said they experienced punitive action in response to complaining and that there is no accountability and remedial action when retaliatory action occurs.

58. Another common theme we heard in our consultations with Aboriginal people, organisations and advocates was that the DCJ complaint system is not responsive to their needs. We heard that delay is an issue and many complaints need faster resolution before an issue worsens or alters. There were concerns about culturally inappropriate communication and some people felt put down when trying to explain why they were complaining. Complainants are not always told when complaints are delayed or finalised or about the complaint findings or outcomes.

59. There was also a lack of confidence that the DCJ complaint system would reach fair and just outcomes. People were sceptical when lodging a complaint that their concerns would be taken up and objectively assessed. There was a perception that DCJ complaint handlers were ‘investigating themselves’ and could reach outcomes that were shallow and risk-averse. We heard that staff in local offices were defensive, favouring staff versions of events, and that staff were not held accountable when poor practice was identified.

60. Aboriginal children, families and stakeholders told us that DCJ’s complaint system is not accessible enough. A legacy of mistrust, systemic racism and fear of retribution or other negative consequences are significant barriers to complaining. People also described barriers arising from previous poor experience, such as disillusionment that nothing changes, the process taking too long, feeling exhausted from repeating their story and not hearing back about outcomes. We heard from Aboriginal caseworkers that a major barrier is that people are unaware of how to complain or lack the support to complain, and they can be discouraged from doing so if they think a complaint will be unwelcome. For those who do complain, the system is complex and difficult to navigate.

61. We also heard concerns that some interactions with DCJ are not accurately recorded by DCJ staff and inaccurate records are sometimes used against people in later decisions. This means some Aboriginal people audio-record their interactions with DCJ.

62. Overall, the messages we heard during our Aboriginal stakeholder engagement mirrored those in the Family is Culture Report. The lasting impression is that Aboriginal families and organisations feel little, if anything, has changed since that report was released in October 2019.

What Aboriginal people told us they want to see

63. As part of our consultation with Aboriginal families, communities, and organisations, the review team asked about the features of a complaint system they could trust and would use, and what priority changes they thought were needed. Forum workshops and engagement with legal services produced consistent improvement themes.

64. The improvements identified by the Aboriginal people we spoke to are listed below and grouped according to the themes explored in this report. We listened to these suggestions for improvement, many of which we agree with and many of which are reflected to some extent in the recommendations of our review.

65. Closer examination of some suggestions, such as the adoption of certain advocacy models, were beyond the scope of this review.

66. Some consistent themes emerged in what Aboriginal people told us they would like to see:

Right to complain

• Aboriginal people must know they have a right to complain; this message must be conveyed early in the child protection continuum and be regularly reinforced.
• Community and carer education on the complaint system must be provided, particularly for people in remote communities.
• An Aboriginal Charter of Rights (such as the one recommended in the Family is Culture Report) could include a statement of rights and responsibilities in regards to complaints.
• Families should be empowered by running courses on their rights and DCJ processes.

Responsiveness and communication

• Urgent complaints must be dealt with more quickly.
• More regular and easily understood updates on complaint progress are needed.
• Cultural competency needs to be improved.
• Causes of delay (particularly staff vacancies and leave) need to be addressed.
• Complaint explanations should be more detailed and tailored to the children and families.
• Complaint handling requires more compassion, fairness and equity from DCJ staff.
• Aboriginal staff need to be empowered to make decisions and speak their mind.

Independence in DCJ complaint handling

• To improve trust and decrease hesitancy to engage with the system, complaints should not be investigated by the staff member about whom a complaint is made.
• An option to ensure greater independence and impartiality may be for a complaint to be investigated by a neighbouring DCJ district.
• DCJ Executives and district directors should be more accountable for complaint fairness and outcomes.
• Communication about complaint outcomes should be timely, clear and honest. If necessary, DCJ should justify an outcome that is displeasing to an Aboriginal family or community.
• Greater transparency is required.

Strengthened DCJ accountability for complaint outcomes

• Retribution or threatened retribution by a caseworker against a complainant should be dealt with strongly.
• DCJ staff should be held to account when poor practice is identified.
• Complainants should be told when remedial action is taken when poor practice is identified.
• DCJ executives must take responsibility for using complaints to identify systemic problems in DCJ administration, rather than ‘applying band-aid solutions’.
• DCJ’s child protection policies should be publicly accessible to complainants and advocates so that informed action can be taken to support families and to enable questioning of decisions that seem unfair or unjust.
• Aboriginal business should be considered ‘core business’ rather than optional or annexed to other departmental functions.
• There was some support for Aboriginal people being able to ask for conversations with DCJ caseworkers to be recorded (to support accountability and alleviate fears of retribution against complainants) in circumstances where the Aboriginal person wants it, and Indigenous data sovereignty is preserved.

Increased support for children and families

• Aboriginal families need a strong support network so they feel empowered, aware of their rights, and can communicate better with DCJ.
• Funding should be allocated for appointing and training advocates with expertise in navigating the complaint system.
• Advocates must be trusted by the community, e.g., community-nominated complaint advocates to assist children and families complain.
• There was some support for Elders and community leaders being more involved when complainants deal with DCJ as a way to remedy the profound power imbalance that stifles families from negotiating with DCJ on equal terms.

Figure 1 – Aboriginal-led suggestions for a better complaint system

DCJ complaint handling areas

67. Key business areas involved in complaint handling in DCJ are listed in Table 2.

Table 2: Key complaint handling units

How complaints enter DCJ

68. This chapter describes the pathways into DCJ’s complaint handling system for Aboriginal people.

69. While some complaints are received directly by dedicated complaint handling units, other complaints follow a more indirect pathway – via contact with another DCJ unit or executive, or an external agency or advocate. Figure 2 distinguishes between primary, secondary and external pathways. Acronyms for external pathways are provided on the following page.

Figure 2. Complaint Entry Pathways

Direct complaint pathways

70. There are several direct complaint pathways to DCJ complaint handling units:

• EFCU – This unit receives complaints directly from individuals, and via referral from other internal and external channels such as districts, CSCs, DCJ business units (such as CSIM), the NSW Ombudsman and Members of Parliament. Complaints can be made by phone, email, post or online via the feedback assist widget.
• CSCs and districts – There are 81 CSCs delivering frontline services directly to customers in 16 local district areas (organised into 7 district clusters). District and CSC offices receive complaints directly from individuals and via referral from other internal units and external organisations.
• Contract managers – DCJ contract managers who manage its contracts with NGO providers may, on rare occasions, receive a complaint directly from a member of the public, or from an NGO about another NGO.

71. Sometimes, a person may complain during an interaction with another DCJ unit or staff member who will then refer the matter to the relevant complaint handling unit. DCJ units and staff that may receive complaints from time to time include:

• Helpline – DCJ’s Child Protection Helpline receives reports that a child or young person is at risk of significant harm in NSW. The notification may be in the form of an allegation, report or a complaint to the Helpline and from time to time an allegation or report may include a complaint.
• DCJ Executives – Complaints from Aboriginal people may be received directly by senior DCJ Executives, particularly the Office of the Deputy Secretary for Child Protection and Permanency (CPP) and the Deputy Secretary34 for Transforming Aboriginal Outcomes (TAO) division. Complaints received by senior Executives are referred to the Deputy Secretary CPP, CaPS, or other complaint handling areas to initiate a formal complaint handling process.
• OGIP – This unit handles privacy complaints and may sometimes refer complaints to EFCU.

External complaint referral pathways

72. There are a number of government agencies and non-government organisations external to DCJ that may assist a person to complain to DCJ (e.g., by advising the person to complain, directly referring a complaint, or making a complaint on the person’s behalf, to DCJ). These include:

• Non-government organisations (NGOs) – including Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisations, are contracted to provide OOHC services for DCJ. As frontline services, they may directly receive complaints from Aboriginal people. Funding contracts include specific requirements for having complaint handling processes and procedures for receiving and managing complaints.
• NSW Child, Family and Community Peak Aboriginal Corporation (AbSec) is an incorporated Aboriginal-controlled organisation. It is the peak body for Aboriginal children and families in NSW. AbSec has a large membership of people and organisations directly involved in the child protection system and may hear complaints about DCJ during its interactions with members and stakeholders.
• Ministers and MPs – Ministers and Members of Parliament receive complaints directly from the public. These will ordinarily be notified to and managed by DCJ district staff. The Member of Parliament may continue to liaise with the complainant with updates and notifying the outcome.
• NSW Ombudsman – The NSW Ombudsman (the Ombudsman) can receive and investigate complaints about child protection and OOHC services provided by DCJ and NGO community service providers. The Ombudsman can also refer complaints to DCJ for local resolution or investigation.
• Office of the Children’s Guardian – The NSW Office of the Children’s Guardian (OCG) regulates and oversees organisations that provide services to children, including their adherence to requirements in the OCG Child Safe Standards for organisations. These standards apply to DCJ and NGO providers and include complaint handling requirements. The OCG may receive complaints about DCJ from members of the public or during its interactions with stakeholders.
• Official Community Visitors – Official Community Visitors (OCV) visit supported accommodation services providing full-time care in NSW, including children and young people in OOHC. Although the OCG has statutory responsibility for the OCV scheme, it has entered into an arrangement with the Ageing and Disability Commission for the latter to manage the scheme. OCVs speak privately with residents and staff and may inform the NSW Ageing and Disability Commission about matters affecting residents.
• Legal, advocacy and support services – Legal services (such as the Aboriginal Legal Service, the NSW Legal Aid Commission and community legal centres) and other support services that provide advocacy and support to Aboriginal people may hear complaints about DCJ and NGOs regarding their child protection and OOHC activities. The service response can vary according to the nature of a complaint and range from referral and monitoring to direct advocacy. It is also possible that an OOHC service provider caseworker may refer or assist a person to complain to DCJ.
• Family, friends, carers and community – Aboriginal people may be assisted to complain by family, friends, carers and community members, who may act as a referrer, a support person, an advocate or representative.

Policy framework

NSW Government complaint handling commitments

73. The NSW Ombudsman Commitments to Effective Complaint Handling (the Commitments) are a guarantee to the public about what they can expect when they complain to a NSW government organisation about its processes, services or employees. They aim to ensure a consistent and effective approach to complaint handling across the NSW public sector. Based on what matters most to customers, the commitments form the foundation of an agency’s complaint management system.

74. The Commitments were endorsed by the Secretaries Board in 2016. The Board agreed the Commitments would be implemented by all NSW government agencies. The 6 commitments are:

Respectful treatment – We are responsive and treat our customers with courtesy and respect.

Information and accessibility – We make it easy for our customers to give us feedback so we can make improvements.

Communication – We keep our customers informed about the status of their complaint or feedback.

Taking ownership – We are trained and skilled to manage customer complaints and one person, or our team, will manage the complaint.

Timeliness – We do our best to deal with customer complaints as soon as possible. Our customers know our timeframes for finalising their complaint.

Transparency – We record and analyse information on our complaint handling processes to help improve our services.

DCJ’s overarching complaint policy

75. DCJ has an overarching policy now known as the DCJ Managing Complaints and Feedback Policy (DCJ Complaint Policy)³⁵ which outlines the principles and objectives to be followed in managing customer complaints and feedback in relation to DCJ’s community services functions, including the standard of behaviour expected of agency staff. It is expressed at a high-level and applies across DCJ’s wider agency functions.

76. This policy states that it is based on the 6 whole-of-government complaint handling commitments.

Unit level policies and procedures

77. At the unit level, DCJ has several discrete procedural guidance documents which are referenced in this report.

• EFCU policies and procedures are set out in the Community Services, Enquiry, Feedback and Complaints Unit, Procedures Manual, January 2022 (EFCU Procedure). The EFCU Procedure references relevant legislation,³⁶ service standards and KPIs, step by step complaint handling from intake to resolution, record keeping, review rights and code of conduct and ethics.
• Districts and CSC complaint handling policies and procedures are set out in the Responding to Complaints at a CSC (CSC Procedure). The CSC Procedure applies to complaint handling at the local level, whether the complaint is managed exclusively by the district or CSC (‘locally managed complaints’) or with EFCU’s involvement. It includes a definition of a complaint (with examples), describes who can make a complaint and sets out step by step procedures for handling complaints from intake to resolution, escalation options, KPIs and links to relevant resources.
• Partnerships Directorate has another comprehensive suite of complaint handling procedures for contract managers handling complaints about funded service providers. These procedures are discussed in more detail in the chapter which looks at DCJ’s handling of contracting complaints (page 119).
• CSIM did not have any documented complaint handling procedures. In its response DCJ noted the ‘conduit workflow’ nature of work associated with this function.³⁷

Functions and workflows of key units

78. There are several DCJ units that play a special role in complaint handling, as well as districts and CSCs. Below we explain the basic functions and workflows of the key units, i.e., how they are designed to work.

79. Later, from page 56, we closely scrutinise how well these processes work in practice for resolving complaints for Aboriginal children and families.

Enquiry Feedback and Complaints Unit (EFCU)

80. The EFCU Procedure describes EFCU’s role as ensuring DCJ’s responses to complaints ‘meet the highest standard’ and lists the following functions:

• managing the intake of compliments, enquiries, feedback and complaints received
• prioritising complaints and resolving them in the first instance where possible
• alternatively, referring complaints to the most appropriate district or business unit for local resolution and subsequently reviews the response
• providing information, advice and referral to clients and complainants
• providing advice to field and Head Office staff on complaint resolution
• monitoring and recording complaint issues and outcomes
• identifying opportunities for improvements to the complaint system.

81. When it receives a new contact, EFCU conducts a triage process to assess whether the contact should be classified as ‘feedback’, an ‘enquiry’ or a ‘complaint’. The EFCU Procedure uses the definition of a complaint contained in the Australian Standard.

82. In this section, we have described processes for responding to complaints and enquiries (we have not described processes for feedback or compliments).

Intake process as described in the EFCU Procedure

83. During intake, staff are to collect key details including:

• identifying details and contact information
• the owning CSC or Business Unit
• details of any children involved, if relevant, including DOB / age, address, and Parental Responsibility status if known
• details of the enquiry or complaint, including assisting the person to articulate their complaint in a way that will assist in resolution
• the person’s desired outcome.

84. The staff member is to then check EFCU’s Satisfy database to ascertain whether the person has previously contacted EFCU, check ChildStory if necessary, consult any relevant policies, procedures or legislation and decide on the most appropriate action. Matters that relate to an executive briefing note or a formal Ombudsman request are to be referred to the EFCU Manager.

85. In some cases, the EFCU officer may immediately assess that they can resolve a complaint by providing information, an explanation or advice at the time of a call. Where this is the case, the EFCU Procedure permits closure of the complaint, including if the person is unhappy with the outcome but accepts that ‘there is no further action that [DCJ] can reasonably take’.

86. The Procedure states that the ‘usual process’ is for matters received by EFCU to be referred to the district (generally for referral to local CSC management) or other relevant business unit for resolution. This is to be done using a two-part referral and response process described in more detail below.

Further intake process (as described by DCJ staff)

87. EFCU clarified at the outset of our review that matters are only classified as ‘complaints’ if the two-part referral and response complaint process is used (‘formal complaints’).

88. According to the process described by EFCU, matters it records as ‘enquiries’ are typically a simpler matter that can be resolved either:

• immediately upon receipt by EFCU, or
• by making immediate direct contact with the local office to resolve.

89. This may include matters that meet the definition of a ‘complaint’. However, EFCU takes the view that due to their simple nature they can be classified as ‘enquiries’ in Satisfy and are sometimes referred to by staff as ‘informal complaints’.

90. Where EFCU staff can resolve a complaint immediately upon receipt (for example, by answering a question after a quick check of the ChildStory database), they will do so and communicate the outcome to the person. It is recorded as an ‘enquiry’ in Satisfy, the concerns and outcomes are recorded, and then closed.

91. Where EFCU refers a simple complaint or enquiry to the local office for resolution, and the local office agrees to contact the person, EFCU also records these ‘enquiries’ as being resolved and closes them.

92. If the enquirer subsequently contacts EFCU for an update or to express dissatisfaction with how an enquiry was handled, EFCU may treat this new interaction as a formal complaint.

Process for handling matters classified by EFCU staff as complaints

93. Acknowledgement: complaints received by telephone are acknowledged during the call, which is audio recorded on an opt-out basis. Other complaints (e.g., complaints received by email) are acknowledged in writing within 5 days. Acknowledgement correspondence will explain DCJ’s responsibilities in handling the complaint, and DCJ’s expectations of the complainant. Complainants are to be advised by EFCU that certain decisions can be ‘reviewed’ by the NSW Ombudsman or the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, with contact details provided for both agencies.

94. Referral for resolution: EFCU does not itself conduct complaint investigations, referring almost all complaints to the relevant DCJ District Allocations team for local resolution at the district or CSC level, or in the case of a complaint about an NGO OOHC provider, to the NGO for resolution. EFCU may refer a complaint to another specialist unit within DCJ, such as a privacy or conduct unit. If local resolution at the CSC level does not seem appropriate, staff are to consult the EFCU Manager with a view to referral to more senior management or a specialist unit.

95. EFCU has a two-part referral and response resolution process. EFCU sends a referral form to the district or NGO.³⁸ This form outlines the complaint and may include EFCU’s views on which staff should handle it or how it should be handled.

• For DCJ complaints, EFCU emails the form to the District Allocations team who in turn refer the complaint to an appropriate staff member in the relevant district, such as a caseworker or (more commonly) a Manager Casework (MCW) or Manager Client Services (MCS) for handling.
• For NGO complaints, EFCU emails a similar NGO referral form to the NGO, copying the Prudential Oversight team which is in turn responsible for informing the NGO’s contract management team.

96. Responses: Districts and NGOs must return a response form to EFCU.³⁹ This form must be signed off by the district director and returned to EFCU by the district or NGO within 20 working days explaining the action taken to resolve the complaint. These are to be signed off at district director level, or senior NGO management. EFCU assesses the response forms received from districts and NGOs. EFCU will consider the response and may accept the explanation and close the complaint. Alternatively, it may seek further information, such as copies of complaint handling correspondence, or escalate the complaint.

97. Extension and escalation: If EFCU does not receive a response form within 20 working days, it should contact the district or NGO for an explanation. EFCU has the option to escalate overdue DCJ matters directly to the owning district director for review and action. If an escalated complaint remains overdue for over 40 working days with no update, a referral to the owning Executive Director may be considered where appropriate.⁴⁰ The complexity or sensitivity of a matter can be taken into account when making an escalation decision.

98. Closure: Outcomes are recorded in the EFCU’s ‘Satisfy’ database and the complaint is closed when no further action is required or all reasonable steps have been taken.41 A ‘TRIM’ (document management system) file is to be created to save all records of the complaint.

Referral processes

99. The EFCU Procedure notes that EFCU can refer complaints to ‘a specialist unit’ if it determines that resolution at CSC level is not appropriate.42 It states that complaints from the media should be referred to the Media & Communication Branch.⁴³ EFCU refers any complaints with a Reportable Conduct⁴⁴ aspect to the Reportable Conduct Unit for assessment. Allegations of professional misconduct are referred to the appropriate district director or Executive Director, or to the Director, Industrial Relations.⁴⁵

100. The EFCU Procedure also states that if complainants are not satisfied with the complaint handling pathways offered by EFCU, then complaint officers should provide contact details for the NSW Ombudsman.⁴⁶ It also outlines that complaints from Members of Parliament should be referred to Ministers in the first instance.⁴⁷

Figure 3 – EFCU Enquiry workflow

Figure 4 – EFCU complaint workflow

Districts and CSCs

101. Complaints received directly at the district or CSC level may be handled solely at the CSC or district level (locally managed complaints) or may be handled with the involvement of other DCJ units (centrally managed complaints).

102. Although districts and CSCs have the option of managing complaints locally, the CSC Procedure provides guidance for staff with examples of matters that ‘should’ be referred to EFCU, including:

• if the complaint is about your own conduct
• if you have a conflict of interest, e.g., if the matter concerns a member of your family, a friend or an associate
• if you feel you cannot deal with the matter fairly or with the complainant’s perception of fairness
• if the complainant requests that someone else deals with the matter
• when the problem is outside your delegation or area of expertise
• where the matter should be referred to another management procedure
• if you cannot do any more and the complainant is still dissatisfied.

Process for complaints managed locally (i.e., without EFCU involvement)

103. The CSC Procedure requires staff to take specific actions to manage complaints. These include:

• clarifying complainant details and how they want their complaint addressed
• helping the complainant understand the decision or action they are complaining about
• arranging interpreters where required, trying to meet any reasonable requests
• discussing and agreeing a course of action to respond to the issues, timeframes for response and contact preferences
• making referrals to other units as required.

104. The procedure then states that ‘If an immediate resolution is unavailable, or the content of the complaint is deemed serious or complex, refer the client to EFCU’. This is the end of the procedure if the complaint is referred to EFCU.

105. If the complaint is not referred to EFCU, staff are to:

• document all conversations with the complainant
• report the complaint and agreed actions to a line manager
• undertake agreed actions
• let the complainant know about the resolution, finding or decision
• record the complaint and response in the local complaints file/log and record casework action arising in ChildStory. Staff are to ask their line manager for advice on record keeping if concerned about the privacy of a staff member.

106. For locally managed complaints, there is possible internal escalation through successive levels as shown in Figure 5 below:

Figure 5 - Escalation process for locally managed complaints

107. At any of those escalation points a complaint may (or may not) be referred to EFCU (at which point EFCU processes described at paragraphs 93-100 and 108 apply).

Process for complaints managed by EFCU

108. The process for responding to complaints referred to districts by EFCU is the same as for locally managed complaints, but with the following differences:

• Local management staff should contact the complainant within 5 working days to confirm receipt of the complaint and obtain any further details required. They should also write to the complainant if the complainant cannot be contacted by phone, suggesting a reasonable timeframe for their return contact to a nominated manager.
• There is no instruction to record complaint information in a local complaints file/log or ChildStory. Rather, staff are instructed to complete a response form, return for district director endorsement, save relevant information in TRIM and return the response form to EFCU with any supporting correspondence. The complaint record is held in Satisfy.⁴⁸

Local processes (as described by district staff)

109. Our interviews with the Executive Directors in 4 districts revealed differing processes. Some districts told us they had a practice of always referring complaints to EFCU to be recorded and sent back to the district and CSC for action. Other districts preferred to manage complaints locally without referring or escalating them to EFCU (referred to in this report as complaints managed locally).

Community Services Issues Management

110. The Community Services Issues Management (CSIM) is an internal facing team that manages escalated complaints from the Secretary and Deputy Secretaries, NSW Ombudsman, Ministers and Members of Parliament.⁴⁹

111. CSIM uses DCJ’s software program (‘MiniApp’) for receiving, recording, and tracking complaints and sending them to districts for response. CSIM receives complaints and refers them to the relevant district, who produces a ‘dot points’ response which is cleared by the District Executive Officer / District Allocations team, District Director, Executive District Director, CSIM staff, and the Deputy Secretary before it is forwarded to the Minister or Ombudsman. Contentious cases may also be progressed to the Secretary if required.

112. The EY review described the process for handling Ministerial complaints, which involves significant reworking and double-handling, as non-linear and likened it to ‘snakes and ladders’.

Figure 6 - CSIM complaint workflow

113. Staged duration estimates provided to the EY review were workflow registration and allocation (Days 1-5); collation and quality assurance (Days 5-15); Executive Director or Deputy Secretary endorsement (Days 14 – 21); and if endorsed, distribution (by Day 28).

Contract managers and the Prudential Oversight team

114. It is possible, but rare, for a DCJ contract manager to receive a complaint directly from a member of the public or personally manage a complaint resolution. Contract managers may receive complaints from members of the public referred by a minister’s officer or DCJ senior executives.

115. Contract managers are supported by the Prudential Oversight team, to which complex or unresolved matters may be escalated, and which also has a role as ‘intermediary’ between the EFCU and contract managers.

116. EFCU copies in the Prudential Oversight team when it emails a complaint referral to a funded service provider for resolution.

117. The Prudential Oversight team then forwards the email to the contract manager who is located in the relevant district in either a Commissioning and Planning team or a Statewide Services team.

118. The contract manager is responsible for entering the complaint in a complaint register provided by the Prudential Oversight team and, although the complaint is generally managed by EFCU, the contract manager is responsible for monitoring the complaint and any contract issues it may raise.

119. The Prudential Oversight team and the contract manager are also to be copied in on any response from the service provider.

DCJ Child Protection Helpline

120. The Helpline operates 24 hours to receive notifications that a child or young person is at risk of significant harm. The Helpline has 11 Aboriginal staff⁵⁰ – and DCJ told us of further plans for a rural and regional recruitment program. The aim is that an Aboriginal staff member is available upon request to a caller, either directly or through a call-back service.

121. Calls from children and young people are prioritised. The caller is not placed on hold but kept on the line while their call is transferred to casework staff.

122. A triage process applies to other calls to the Helpline:

• If the caller is lodging a complaint (directly or implicitly) the call will be transferred to EFCU for action.
• A complaint about a caseworker may be referred to a Manager Casework (MCW) or to EFCU, following discussion by the Helpline with the caller and, on occasions, a Director Community Services. These complaints are not transferred directly to districts, except as appropriate when the caller is a child.
• A complaint about a caseworker or agency staff member that is ‘reportable conduct’ may instead have to be handled through the reportable conduct pathway rather than the complaint pathway.
• A complaint about the Helpline itself will usually be referred to EFCU, with the exception of straightforward matters (such as wait times) that can be handled by the Helpline Manager for Client Services (MCS) or team leader.
• Responsibility for managing a referred matter passes to the receiving unit.

123. All calls to the Helpline are audio-recorded. A matter referred to a DCJ district may be recorded if there is a local recording facility.

124. The Helpline does not currently have a complaint register, although DCJ informed us that this is under consideration. The Helpline Strategic Plan lists ‘service system reform’ as one of its reform pillars.

Office of the Senior Practitioner

125. The Office of the Senior Practitioner (OSP) discharges several specific functions. These include promoting best practice in child safety and protection, child death review, serious case review and reportable conduct.

126. OSP does not have a direct role in complaint handling, although discharge of its other functions may lead to positive outcomes for some people who have previously complained about related issues (see discussion at paragraph 277).

Workforce capacity

What we heard from Aboriginal people

127. We heard serious concerns from the Aboriginal people we spoke to about DCJ’s workforce capacity, including:

• frustration at dealing with multiple personnel and staff absences, sometimes leading to delay and trauma for complainants who have to repeat their complaint to new officers
• concern that some DCJ staff members were not sufficiently trained about cultural issues
• poor communication skills, including not communicating complaint outcomes, defensiveness, judgemental attitudes and a lack of compassion or interest from DCJ staff handling their complaint
• lack of accountability and remedial action where poor practice is identified
• belief that bias and lack of independence in the complaint handling process meant that it was not possible to get a fair hearing.

Child protection needs a specialised complaint handling workforce

128. We were aware throughout this review of the challenges DCJ faces in managing an effective complaint system for Aboriginal people. Complaint handling is inherently a demanding task. To be done effectively the complaint staff must have special analytical and people skills – good judgement, patience, resilience, empathy and discretion.⁵¹

129. Complaint handling in relation to child protection matters will frequently involve other layers of complexity and sensitivity. So too, will complaints from Aboriginal people who may have experienced inter-generational trauma, racism and personal and cultural disadvantage. Faced with these complexities, complaint handlers must be able to overcome accessibility barriers in a manner that is child-focused, culturally safe and trauma-informed. Complainants and their associates may be distressed, fearful and even combative.

130. More broadly, the complaint handler must have strong support from their organisation in numerous ways. These include adequate training and support, reasonable workload, clear guidance, supervisory back-up, record keeping, and data collection and analysis.

131. This review built on that theme by examining many aspects of workplace capability and resourcing in DCJ. Some aspects are dealt with more fully in other chapters – such as data capture (paragraph 406). Aspects that are taken up in this section include training, staff confidence, perceptions of bias, and utilising Aboriginal staff as a resource.

DCJ training resources do not meet staff training needs

132. DCJ’s online training portal – ‘THRIVE’ – is available to all DCJ staff. THRIVE includes links to 3 generalist complaints courses developed by the NSW Ombudsman (noted below). The courses are optional for staff.

133. DCJ also informed us that its wider departmental training is trauma-informed and ‘underlies all frontline practice for staff’.⁵² While it is reasonable for an agency to leverage its general training (such as cultural awareness and trauma training programs) as a starting point for complaint handlers, further training will often be required to ensure staff understand how to manage any particular challenges (and how the general principles they learn should be applied) in a complaint handling context.

134. We observed limited awareness among DCJ staff of DCJ’s complaint policy and procedure documents, particularly the CSC Procedure. In later chapters, we highlight weaknesses in the policies and scope for improving these documents by ensuring that they are integrated, consistent and provide clear step-by-step guidance and resources to support staff handling complaints.

135. Two further documents published by DCJ to its staff warrant mention:

• Working with Aboriginal People – a practice resource: Although prepared in 2009,⁵³ this guide contains relevant information on topics such as Aboriginal history, language, family, communication and consultation with Aboriginal communities. The publication does not deal with complaint handling.
• Talking to Children & Participation: This guide includes material on children’s participation in decision-making, encouraging children to speak up about their concerns, a brief section on complaints, a link to resources developed by the National Office for Child Safety, and links to casework support resources on the DCJ intranet dealing with cultural practices and working with children.

Complaint handling training is not mandatory, and completion rates are low

136. We sought information from DCJ on staff participation in training courses. DCJ staff estimated⁵⁴ around 4,000 staff may be involved in complaint handling – variously in EFCU, district and CSC offices, and some discrete business areas.

137. DCJ staff have access to complaint handling courses through THRIVE. These courses were not mandatory for staff in any unit in the early stages of this review.⁵⁵ However, EFCU staff had all completed at least 1 NSW Ombudsman complaints course – ‘Fundamentals of Complaint Handling’ and/or ‘Managing Unreasonable Conduct by a Complainant’. Further, all new EFCU staff are ‘buddied’ with an experienced EFCU staff member for a minimum of 2 weeks. The buddies sit together and review the complaint systems, cases, standards, and client interactions.⁵⁶

138. DCJ advised that the following number of staff had completed these 3 THRIVE courses:

• ‘Complaint Handling for Public Sector Staff’ – 410 staff
• ‘Complaint Handling for Senior Staff’ – 118 staff
• ‘Frontline Complaint Handlers’ – 266 staff.

139. If those completion rates are measured against the estimated number of DCJ staff involved in complaint handling (4,000), the indication is that only around 10% of staff have undertaken 1 of the training courses. That result may need to be qualified given the total number of staff is an estimate, but nevertheless suggests that the total formal participation by DCJ staff in training courses is low.

140. Our survey asked staff about their completion of DCJ training courses. Seventy-two percent of staff who responded (257 of 357) said they had not completed any complaints training on THRIVE. This included half of respondents working in specialist complaint handling units, and almost 80% of respondents working in casework services. It is possible some of those staff may have participated in other external training courses (our survey did not ask about external training). Nevertheless, the emerging picture is that there is minimal formal staff participation in complaint handling training.

Most DCJ staff respondents said they would benefit from further training

141. Our survey asked staff directly if they thought they would benefit from more training about handling complaints from Aboriginal children and adults.

142. More than two-thirds (69%) of respondents thought they would benefit from further training, 22% responded they were ‘not sure’ and only 9% thought they would not benefit.

Figure 7 - DCJ staff views on the benefits of more training

143. We next asked respondents who had responded ‘yes’ to select the type of training they thought should be included in additional training. They answered as follows:

Figure 8 - DCJ staff views on type of training needed

144. The high response rate (81%) for ‘Aboriginal cultural awareness in complaint handling’ is relevant to the response to survey questions relating to perceived cultural bias in complaint handling (see discussion at paragraph 150 below).

Some staff have low confidence in handling complaints from Aboriginal people

145. We asked if staff felt confident in knowing what to do upon receiving a complaint from an Aboriginal person. As reflected in Figure 9, a total of 62% of staff felt moderately to completely confident, while 18% of staff were not at all confident and 20% were only slightly confident.

Figure 9 - DCJ staff confidence in complaint handling

There is limited staff awareness of EFCU, complaint policies and resources

146. Our survey examined staff awareness of DCJ complaint protocols and information, and whether they knew where to find complaint handling information and resources.

147. One question asked staff if they had heard of EFCU (see Figure 10). It is noteworthy that 37% of all respondents (132 staff) said they had not heard of EFCU.

Figure 10 - Knowledge of EFCU

148. People who identified as managers were most likely to have heard of EFCU, with 13% of managers (11 of 88) indicating they had not heard of EFCU. This proportion was considerably higher for other groups, with 44% of team leaders (4 of 9), 36% of officers (16 of 45) and 53% of caseworkers (76 of 143) saying they had not heard of EFCU see Figure 11 below.

*Note - figures in table do not add to 100 due to rounding

Figure 11 - Knowledge of EFCU by role

149. Another survey question asked staff about factors that affect whether they provide information to people about the complaint process and their rights (see Figure 12). The most prominent factor (197 staff) was being unsure where to find complaint information resources. Notable too is that 118 staff did not see it as part of their role to provide complaint information.

Figure 12 - Factors affecting the provision of complaint information

There are staff perceptions of racial bias in complaint handling

150. We also thought it important to explore with DCJ staff whether in their experience ‘racial bias (including unconscious bias) affect[s] complaint handling in DCJ’ (see Figure 13).

151. There were 112 (31%) ‘not sure’ responses. It is some cause for concern that there were 112 respondents who were not able to, or were not prepared to, express a view in response to this question. However, it is possible that not all respondents may have dealt with a complaint before, and this may account for an unknown number of ‘not sure’ responses.

152. The following points are noteworthy:

• The proportion of respondents who answered ‘never’ was relatively low – 41 respondents (11%).
• Over half (57%) of the respondents gave an affirmative answer – ‘always’ 26 respondents (7%); ‘often’ 46 respondents (13%); 98 respondents ‘sometimes’ (27%); and 34 respondents ‘rarely’ (10%)

Figure 13 - Racial bias in complaint handling

153. Survey respondents were then asked (in optional free text answers) to comment on the form bias could take and the causal patterns. There were prominent themes:

• A common view was that staff who harboured racial bias (including unconscious bias) had predisposed views or assumptions in dealing with complaints and this could lead to staff acting dismissively, defensively or with less empathy.
• The dominant causal factor of underlying racial bias as described by respondents was a staff member’s prior complaint or casework history with a particular Aboriginal family or advocate. The mention of a family’s name could trigger a biased disposition, particularly if there were ‘repeated child protection reports and limited evidence of change’. Similarly, the attitude towards a community that was served by a strong advocate may be ‘here we go again’ or ‘they’re always complaining – just leave it for a while’. A form of confirmation bias could also stem from ‘high volume contact’ with a particular community, and lead to a lack of objectivity or reflection in deciding how to respond to complaints.
• A racially biased attitude towards complaints from regional and smaller communities was another factor described by respondents. Among the comments were that ‘Aboriginal people in country areas face stronger unconscious or even conscious bias’; ‘family names carry a reputation and staff handling complaints are on edge and more reactive’; and ‘caseworkers who have lived in the area all their life may have a bias against Aboriginal people in the area’.
• Repeat complainants could be viewed as troublesome or vexatious. This point was sometimes generalised – for example, ‘there is a perception that Aboriginal people are quick to complain’, and that a frequent complainer group are ‘grandmothers complaining about DCJ’s actions for her various extended family members’. Particular individuals may also be regarded as vexatious – for example, ‘a carer desperately trying to get a response from DCJ [whose] complaints are valid but always have been and always will be dismissed’.
• Lack of cultural understanding or awareness was seen as a cause of racial bias. Examples given were a ‘knowledge gap of … cultural requirements’ for Aboriginal complainants; limited ‘cultural capability in this agency’; inconsistent cultural understanding across DCJ; the disbelief that racism is an issue in DCJ; redirecting Aboriginal complainants to Aboriginal staff rather than accepting that a ‘collaborative and holistic approach’ is required in DCJ; and a presumption that Aboriginal advocacy groups play ‘the race card’.
• A complainant’s reluctance or inability to articulate a complaint may reinforce unconscious bias (in the sense that the holder of the unconscious bias may incorrectly perceive ‘agreement’, or the absence of disagreement, from the Aboriginal person as affirming or supporting their viewpoint). An example given was an Aboriginal person worried their children would be taken if they spoke up: ‘For quieter Aboriginal people, who may have big worries about their children being taken if they speak up, they tend to get less of a service or their opinions and thoughts ... are never expressed. They agree to everything and this is accepted as being agreeable however it is distrust’. Similarly, an Aboriginal person may not be listened to if they ‘appear not making sense, require a translator or Aboriginal caseworker to understand what their concerns are’. A similar comment compared the better treatment that educated white people may receive to ‘complainants that are less so, [and] often come off as aggressive, or are labelled as having poor mental health, or described as a pest that needs to be managed with a communication strategy’.
• A competing view articulated by a small number of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal respondents was that a form of ‘reverse bias’ can apply. The view is that Aboriginal people may be treated more carefully or favourably ‘in order to try and not seem racially biased’. This could lead to an over-reaction or imbalance that gave too much weight to an Aboriginal person’s complaint.

There is value in having more Aboriginal staff involved in complaint handling

154. We explored whether DCJ has Aboriginal staff members in key complaint roles. The DCJ Complaint Policy states that providing appropriate assistance to a complainant means ‘cultural, language, socio-economic, and other factors need to be considered’, and ‘Aboriginal people may prefer to talk to an Aboriginal person in relation to the complaint’.⁵⁹

155. Few Aboriginal staff (if any) are employed in specialist complaint handling units, although they may handle complaints at the local level, or be included in complaint handling in a supporting or liaison role.

156. EFCU itself does not have any Aboriginal complaint handling staff. We were advised EFCU can access Aboriginal staff at the Helpline for consultation on cultural issues where appropriate. However, this resource is not referred to in the EFCU Procedure and Helpline managers we consulted could not recall any occasion it had occurred.

157. EFCU, when referring a complaint to a district, will sometimes recommend Aboriginal staff be involved in the local resolution. We saw examples of this occurring in the cases we sampled and give a case study below that illustrates the benefit of Aboriginal staff involvement. The CSC Procedure repeats the principle from the DCJ Complaint Policy, adding that ‘if requested, having an Aboriginal employee assist with managing a complaint where available’.

158. We observed 3 Aboriginal complaints about DCJ⁵⁸ that recorded Aboriginal staff being involved in the complaint by attending a meeting or participating in a phone call.

159. We understand units, such as the Helpline, have actively tried to increase the number of Aboriginal staff, but with limited success.

160. There is a need for DCJ to ensure Aboriginal staff are employed within or attached to the complaint system. Options for consideration range through having dedicated complaint roles for Aboriginal staff to involving more Aboriginal staff in a supporting or liaison role.

161. We acknowledge there are also staff wellbeing complexities to consider. Aboriginal staff who are asked to play a role in a child protection case may themselves (directly or through family) have been affected by past or current child removal practices. The emotional interplay in complaint handling runs the risk of a staff member experiencing burnout, tension or trauma.

162. In Lisa’s case below, Aboriginal staff were helpfully involved. Although Lisa remained dissatisfied that her grandchildren were not restored to her son’s care, she was reportedly pleased with the better explanation she received after an Aboriginal caseworker was involved.

Lisa’s case: Aboriginal staff involved in handling complaint

Retribution and fear of complaining

What we heard from Aboriginal people

163. We were repeatedly told that Aboriginal people experience, and fear, retribution or other negative consequences for making a complaint. It was raised in several ways:

• Aboriginal people say they are afraid to complain to DCJ
• they fear being seen as disrespectful, an inconvenience or a troublemaker for making a complaint, and the negative effect this may have on future interactions
• there was a fear of retribution if they complained about a DCJ staff member who had a degree of control or authority over their affairs
• parents and carers worry that a complaint would trigger more intensive surveillance of their children, or harsher controls being imposed
• some people said that punitive action had been taken against them and others in response to particular complaint issues
• some people said that there is no accountability and remedial action where retaliatory action occurs.

Retribution is an offence

164. Complainants are protected from retribution under the CS CRAMA Act.⁶² It is an offence to take, or threaten to take, detrimental action against a person who makes or proposes to make a complaint to a service provider or to the Ombudsman.⁶³ DCJ, and non-government agencies funded, authorised or licensed by DCJ are ‘service providers’.⁶⁴ The offence carries a maximum penalty of $2200, or 5-years imprisonment, or both.⁶⁵

165. ‘Detrimental action’ means actions causing, comprising or involving any of the following:

• injury, damage or loss
• intimidation or harassment
• discrimination, disadvantage or adverse treatment in relation to employment
• dismissal from, or prejudice in, employment
• prejudice in the provision of a community service
• disciplinary proceedings.⁶⁶

166. In this report, any reference to ‘retribution’, ‘reprisal’ or ‘retaliation’ is a reference to ‘detrimental action’ as defined above.

167. The types of detrimental action described in the feedback we heard from Aboriginal people and DCJ staff, tended to involve allegations that would, if proven, fall within the second last category, namely ‘prejudice in the provision of a community service’.

168. The criminal offence can also potentially extend to detrimental action being taken against a person who assisted (or proposed assisting) a complainant to complain to DCJ or our office, for example by making a complaint on behalf of another person, or by providing supporting documents or information.⁶⁷ Consequently, family members, carers and other support people may come within the scope of this protection, depending on the nature of the assistance they are providing. The protection potentially extends also to DCJ staff – such as a staff member who faces detrimental action for assisting an Aboriginal person to complain to DCJ or the Ombudsman.

169. The offence provision in CS CRAMA extends also to detrimental action against a person who brings proceedings in the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal, who provides information to our office or the Tribunal.

Some DCJ staff report witnessing retaliation

170. In our survey of DCJ staff, 15% of all respondents⁶⁸ and 31% of Aboriginal respondents⁶⁹ indicated they had witnessed a situation where a person was threatened with (or experienced) retaliation because the person had complained. At least 12 staff (including 6 Aboriginal respondents) clearly described witnessing retaliation70 in response to a complaint.

171. We asked those respondents who said they had witnessed actual or threatened retaliation to describe the kind of retaliation that they witnessed. Comments included:

No clearly articulated policy for dealing with retribution fears and risks

172. DCJ does not have a clearly articulated policy for preventing, identifying and responding to retribution risk and allegations. In fact, there is no mention of specific procedures or processes for responding to retribution allegations in any of the policy or procedural documents provided to us by DCJ. A public complaint brochure, Managing Your Complaint to Community Services, includes, in a list of DCJ responsibilities, ‘taking all practicable steps to ensure that you are not subjected to any detrimental action in reprisal for making your complaint’. EFCU’s acknowledgement correspondence includes an attachment with similar messaging. DCJ staff advised us during this review that it had not developed a resource on the topic of retribution and Aboriginal complainants specifically.⁷¹

173. DCJ also told us that in the 3 financial years prior to 30 June 2022, it did not receive any allegations of retribution for complaints relating to Aboriginal children in the child protection system. It said that in such circumstances, consideration would be given to having a specialist unit manage the matter, such as the DCJ Conduct and Professional Standards unit. It noted that a level of protection is built into EFCU’s complaints process by requiring the endorsement of a district director and EFCU before the closure of any matter, and that EFCU offers all complainants assurances and information of their rights.

Retribution can be difficult to detect, but ‘red flags’ not followed up

174. It is important that agencies respond when retribution is suspected. That said, retribution may be difficult to identify, for several reasons.

175. First, objective evidence of retribution may not be available. It is improbable, for example, that a staff member will document their retribution intentions.

176. Second, not all actions and decisions that a complainant perceives as detrimental will amount to retribution. For example:

• a sharp disagreement between a complainant and an official will not necessarily point to an over-reaction by the official
• adverse decisions made after a complaint will not necessarily be in retribution for a complaint (e.g., if the staff member would be expected to act to protect a child from risk)
• staff becoming more cautious or formal in interactions after a complaint may be seen as becoming more distant, but may not, of itself, amount to ‘prejudice the provision of services’ (although the complainant may feel this is a negative consequence of complaining).

177. However, depending on the circumstances of the particular case, things like subsequent adverse decisions, actions, omissions or changes in treatment or behaviour may be a ‘red flag’ that retribution may have occurred and require further investigation.

178. Although we did not find conclusive evidence that retribution had occurred in the complaint files we looked at, we saw at least 1 instance where, even though there was information that raised serious concerns about whether retaliation may have occurred, these retaliation ‘red flags’ were not followed up. In Grace’s case below, a person complained in a private capacity on behalf of a child, after which the service provider subject of the complaint wrote to her employer (another provider) to complain about her.

Grace’s case: Retaliation ‘red flags’ not followed up

* Note: other issues and further details of Grace’s case can be found at paragraph 346 of this report

Retribution fears can intensify if resolution is delayed

179. In Ann’s case below, the initial complaint issue – a relocation request – was swiftly resolved in the complainant’s favour. However, subsequent complaints about caseworker conduct in how that request had been handled spread over many months and progressively deteriorated. Complaints were sent back to the local office and the Manager Casework (MCW) who was the subject of the complaint, rather than the supervising Manager Client Services (MCS) or another district office for more arms-length consideration.

Ann’s case: Complaint issues and retribution concerns intensified by prolonged resolution

Retribution fears can escalate complaints from the outset

180. In our review of complaints made to our office, we identified 2 complaints where the person indicated the reason they had contacted the Ombudsman was due to fear of retribution by DCJ if they were to complain directly to the agency without Ombudsman involvement.

181. We discuss how complaints affect the relationship between complainants and staff in our chapter on independent investigation and review functions below (see in particular paragraphs 315 - 319).

182. In its submission to this review, DCJ observed that any allegations of retribution warrant an independent review by DCJ’s Conduct and Professional Standards (CaPS) unit. It advised that to strengthen client protections, the visibility of policies, guides and communication with staff is being increased.

Responsive complaint handling

What we heard from Aboriginal people

183. A common theme we heard in our consultations with Aboriginal people, organisations and advocates was that Aboriginal complainants do not feel the DCJ complaint system is responsive to their needs. The criticisms included:

• many complaints need faster resolution before an issue worsens or alters
• complainants do not always receive an update on the progress of their complaint
• some complainants said they do not receive compassion or interest from DCJ staff handling their complaint
• some DCJ staff have insufficient cultural training and awareness to deal with complaint issues
• DCJ staff absences adversely impact on complaint handling, which causes delay and trauma for complainants who have to repeat their complaint to a new officer.

There is uneven performance and many complaints take too long to resolve

184. DCJ’s complaint handling procedures include timeframes and similar requirements that serve as benchmarks (or key performance indicators – KPIs) against which DCJ measures complaint handling performance.

185. This section looks first at quantitative EFCU data before moving on to issues of responsiveness that arose in our qualitative assessment of DCJ’s practice.

186. Some districts told us they had a practice of always referring complaints to EFCU to be recorded before being sent back to the district and CSC for action. These complaints will be captured in EFCU data below. However, we cannot measure performance against benchmarks for locally managed complaints, as there is no mechanism for districts to report complaint data for these complaints, and only 1 district could produce a complaint register when required by us.⁷³

187. It is also likely that some (possibly most) locally managed complaints are handled through casework processes. No district we spoke to had a clear, documented triage process to help caseworkers distinguish between when complaints can appropriately be handled via casework practice and when they should be managed within the complaint management framework.

188. This means DCJ’s response to complaints received locally will vary from one district to another, and complainant experience will vary depending on the district they live in.

EFCU calls are answered quickly, although not all KPIs are measured

189. Overall, EFCU manages a timely call-handling service. EFCU’s Quarterly Business Report (QBR) gives a monthly breakdown of how telephone calls are handled and trend data against the previous quarter, including for both the EFCU and Care Leaver’s lines.⁷⁴ This dashboard includes data about calls offered,⁷⁵ answered, abandoned, average handling times, average answer speed, and the number of calls handled within 3 minutes.

190. For example, between October – December 2021 (Q2), EFCU received 1539 calls, of which 1497 (97%) were answered, followed by a slight dip in total calls from January – March 2022 (Q3) when 1486 calls were received of which 1458 (98%) were answered. The average time taken to answer EFCU calls in Q2 and Q3 was around 25 seconds,76 the average time spent on calls was around 15 minutes, and 96% of calls were answered within 3 minutes.⁷⁷

191. If a matter can be resolved during the initial call, EFCU aims to do so and enter the result in Satisfy within 45 minutes. With an average time on calls of 15 minutes, EFCU may be meeting this target, though specific data to confirm this is unavailable.

192. If further work is required – such as contacting a CSC or district to arrange for someone to speak with the caller or emailing information or advice to the caller – EFCU aims to complete that work within 24 hours. Again, there is no available data on whether that benchmark is met.

Acknowledgement KPI is not aligned with DCJ’s complaint policy or the Australian Standard

193. EFCU’s acknowledgement timeframe of 5 working days78 is longer than the 3 working days set in the Australian Standard and the 2 working days in the former FACS Complaint Policy.79 An acknowledgement timeframe was removed from the FACS Complaint Policy altogether when it was updated and rebranded as a DCJ policy in March 2024.

194. The explanation for the longer period provided by DCJ is to allow time for preparatory work (such as a ChildStory history check) and to enable a single interaction with a complainant.

195. The 5 working day timeframe for a substantive acknowledgement response may be reasonable in the circumstances but could be complemented by an automated confirmation of receipt for complaints received by email. At a societal level, complainants increasingly use email and online services and generally expect rapid confirmation that their complaint has been received. EFCU and other child protection areas could pilot an autoreply acknowledgement, advising people that a more substantive reply will be received within 5 working days.

196. In its submission to this review, DCJ advised that EFCU has already implemented our draft recommendation concerning acknowledgement KPIs.

Complaint resolution – single KPI for simple and complex cases met in only around half of complaints

197. DCJ aims to resolve complaints within 20 working days. The timeframe is adopted in the policies of EFCU80, CSCs⁸¹ and Partnerships Directorate.⁸² It is expressed differently in each policy, but the general understanding is that the 20-working day timeframe begins after acknowledgement (i.e., in the case of EFCU, it is in addition to the 5 working day acknowledgement timeframe).

198. Data is not available on CSC compliance with this timeframe. Nor is data available for service provider compliance. This is overseen by the Prudential Oversight team, which is principally concerned with contract management rather than overall complaint performance.⁸³

199. As to EFCU, the 20-working day timeframe effectively applies to any matter referred by EFCU to a CSC or service provider, and its response. Table 3 provides data on EFCU compliance. The 20-working day timeframe was met in only around 50% of complaints over the 3 financial years from 2019-2020 to 2021-2022, with a slight drop in performance in the third year. An additional 40% (approximately) of complaints were resolved within 40 working days, while between 9-16% took more than 40 days to resolve. These figures do not include complaints EFCU inaccurately classifies as enquiries (see discussion on page 76), which are usually resolved more quickly.

Table 3 - Time taken by EFCU to resolve complaints relating to Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal children

200. We looked at compliance with the 20-working day timeframe in the 66 EFCU complaint files that we sampled.⁸⁴ In 64 of these, EFCU had requested information from a CSC or service provider.⁸⁵ Of those 64 files, the 20-working day response target was met in only 26 (41%). Of the remainder, 26 (41%) were responded to within 21-30 days, 6 (9%) within 31-40 days, 2 (3%) within 41-50 days and 4 (6%) in over 50 days. The longest response time was a complaint EFCU referred to a service provider - the response took 168 days. In another complaint that EFCU managed, a CSC took 166 days to respond after 5 reminder notices from EFCU.

Potential benefits of staggered KPIs

201. DCJ considered but rejected adopting a different or tailored timeframe for complex complaints, as recommended by the PwC Audit. PwC pointed to the NSW Commitments which require agencies to adopt KPIs ‘which recognise the differing levels of seriousness, urgency and complexity of complaints received.’

202. DCJ preferred to stick with a single 20-working day timeframe for all matters, as a ‘gold standard’ to be met. Defining ‘complex case’ was thought to be problematic⁸⁶ and would blur more important objectives of tailoring the timing of the complaint response to the individual case, and keeping the complainant informed of revised timeframes and the reasons for them.

203. DCJ’s rationale is understandable and expeditious resolution of all complaints is a worthy goal. However, the alternative argument is that (in any complaint system) there may be a risk associated with not having staggered timeframes because:

• Some issues that warrant urgent attention or early resolution may be overlooked or not responded to quickly.
• Some issues that warrant greater attention may be finalised too quickly by staff trying to meet KPI timeframes. There is also a risk that, once exceeded, newer complaints (for which KPIs can still be met) may be prioritised over older complaints.

204. Staggered KPIs that set reasonable timeframes for handling various kinds of complaints and/or various complaint stages can assist staff to prioritise and respond to a complaint in a way that is commensurate with the type of complaint.⁸⁷

205. Where there are clear and justifiable reasons for extending the timescale (whether due to complexity or delay), DCJ should consider setting time limits on any extended investigation.

Incorrect classification can mean no response, or getting lost in the system

206. A threshold decision for EFCU is to classify a call as an enquiry or a complaint. This decision is largely left to the EFCU staff member receiving the call.

207. The Australian Standard defines:

• an enquiry as ‘relating to requests for service and/or information’
• a complaint as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction made to or about an organization related to its products, services, staff or the handling of a complaint, where a response or resolution is explicitly or implicitly expected or legally required’.⁸⁸

208. We reviewed 67 files classified by EFCU as enquiries and 66 files classified by EFCU as complaints.

209. There is understandably room for individual judgement and differing views on the appropriate classification of incoming matters. That said, our review of 67 EFCU enquiry files differed markedly to EFCU’s assessment (applying the definition of ‘enquiry’ and ‘complaint’ in the Australian Standard). In our view, of the matters classified by EFCU as enquiries:

• 20% (14) were correctly classified as enquiries⁸⁹
• 75% (50) could (and in our view should) have been differently classed as complaints⁹⁰
• 70% (46) of Aboriginal files categorised as enquiries⁹¹ should in our view have been categorised as complaints, but were less likely to be wrongly classified than non-Aboriginal files (82%)⁹²
• 4% (3) could not be assessed on the limited information on file.

210. Of the 67 EFCU enquiry files, 6 were received from children and young people (including care leavers aged up to 26). We disagreed with the ‘enquiry’ classification in 4 of these, noting that some follow-up action was required to resolve the matter.

211. Correct classification is important in several ways. First, misclassification means EFCU and DCJ data does not properly reflect the true number of complaints received, and how quickly and fully they are resolved. Second, complaints miscategorised as enquiries are more likely to ‘fall through the cracks’ and be delayed or unresolved. This is because:

• There is no formal follow-up procedure to assess if they were correctly handled or finalised. EFCU may simply close the matter in Satisfy once an enquiry is transferred to a local office.
• Since there is generally no formal procedure at district level for recording and monitoring enquiries, it may go unknown or undetected that an enquiry has not been responded to.
• Enquiries do not receive a written acknowledgement that sets out the action a caller may take (such as complaining to the Ombudsman) if they are dissatisfied with the outcome.
• Only complaints have district director and EFCU quality assurance of response forms.

212. Most importantly, incorrect classification can have a significant impact on a caller/complainant. This is illustrated in the following 3 case studies which, in our view, were wrongly classified as enquiries.

Emmy-Lou’s case: Support to caller delayed after EFCU classified matter as enquiry

May’s Case: Ombudsman referral to EFCU not classified as complaint

Tyrone’s case: Matter not treated as a complaint until subsequent ‘highly distressed’ call

213. In each of those cases the matter could (and in our view should) have been classified from the outset as a complaint. Each caller expressed clear dissatisfaction with a DCJ service and expected to receive both a response and the resolution of an issue. One caller was suffering financial distress, and another had already called the Ombudsman.

214. The advantage of quick, local resolution is acknowledged. However, that did not happen in these 3 cases, and each caller had to take follow-up action before receiving the support or assistance they first requested. This places an onus or burden on a person who may be vulnerable or disengaged from the system.

Figure 14 - EFCU enquiry workflow pain points

215. The diagram below illustrates the workflow differences between matters classified as enquiries versus complaints.

Figure 15 - EFCU complaint workflow pain points

216. DCJ advised in its submission to this review, and Tyrone’s case specifically, that EFCU has now updated its policies so that issues concerning large financial matters will be classified by staff as formal complaints instead of attempting to resolve the matter directly.

217. It also advised that the ‘enquiry’ terminology is a legacy system term and that EFCU are working with the software vendor to introduce a new term, ‘Complaint resolved at EFCU.’ It asserts this will provide a clearer description of the issue and the resolution process, improving client understanding and the accuracy of reporting. The EFCU will also need to ensure that it does not merely reclassify complaints, but also addresses the substantive responsiveness issues described in this report.

Better acknowledgement could reduce confusion and double-handling

218. EFCU sends an acknowledgement letter/email when a person’s contact is classified as a complaint, which we observed occurs consistently in practice. The EFCU Procedure states that an acknowledgement should explain the complaint management process, timeframes and avenues for escalation.

219. Most EFCU acknowledgement letters also explain which CSC office the complaint has been referred to and thank the complainant for raising an issue that could improve DCJ services. An attachment to the letter lists the responsibilities and expectations for both the complainant and the agency in managing the complaint. Information is provided on 2 other dispute resolution options – the NSW Ombudsman and the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal.

220. However, some EFCU acknowledgement letters we examined gave inadequate detail of the complaint management process and steps. Further, some letters did not provide a contact name at the CSC, or another contact point for the complainant to provide further information, seek an update or report that no response had been received. One letter explained that ‘Community Services’ would respond to the person’s complaint within 20 working days, but with no explanation of whether ‘Community Services’ meant, for example, EFCU, a district, or some other unit.

221. Addressing these issues and ensuring complainants know who to contact if they receive no response may prevent complainant confusion, help recover complaints that fall through the cracks and avoid the need for double-handling.

222. DCJ’s response to the report indicated that while EFCU may not always include local contact details in the initial acknowledgment letter (allowing local areas to determine the best point of contact), it will include EFCU officer details for any immediate questions.

Triage for urgent and sensitive matters should be documented

223. Triage processes are a widely used method of undertaking a preliminary assessment of new cases to decide if they are urgent or require priority handling.

224. In practice, the EFCU Manager may assess that a matter requires immediate attention. In 1 file we reviewed,⁹³ a matter was effectively triaged and escalated to the EFCU Manager who contacted the local area, pointing out the complaint response ‘may need a shorter turn around’ as there was an impending birth of a child the department was intending to remove at birth.

225. It may be useful for DCJ to develop clear written guidance for assessing urgency or sensitivity and a separate KPI for matters that might be so classified; the current KPI is 20 working days irrespective of urgency. In our sampling of EFCU files, all cases were classified as ‘Normal’, even where there were indicators of urgency.

226. We acknowledge that the Helpline (not EFCU) handles child protection issues that involve urgent matters relating to the safety of children and young people. There are nevertheless other areas of EFCU work where a triage or priority assessment may be appropriate. This could include cases in which a person is experiencing financial hardship following a decision to cease financial support, or there is a risk of violence to one or more parties.

227. Tom’s case at paragraph 241 is an example of a complaint that could appropriately have been marked for urgent response. An Aboriginal family was facing a threat of ongoing violence after their caseworker allegedly disclosed information to a relative in a way DCJ ultimately agreed ‘should not have happened’. This disclosure led to the relative ‘running at’ the complainant with a knife, and NSW Police taking out an AVO to protect the complainant from the relative. The complainant wanted to know how DCJ would support them to be safe. The complaint was not triaged as urgent and the district was given 1 month to respond,⁹⁴ even though the complainant attended the local office several times during this period to discuss their complaint.

Delays and revised timeframes are not routinely notified to complainants

228. Despite around half of complaints taking longer than 20 working days to resolve, we identified sub-standard practice in DCJ in providing updates to complainants:

• We found no information to show that EFCU proactively notified the complainant that an extension of time was granted to a CSC or service provider (unless the complainant themselves contacted to ask for an update).
• Similarly, we found no information – in any case that was not resolved in 20 working days – of EFCU, or a CSC or service provider, proactively providing an update to the complainant.
• The EFCU complaint system (Satisfy) does not contain an alert flag that the 20-working day resolution timeframe is pending or has passed. EFCU staff advised that it was impractical to add this function as the system was ageing and may need overhaul or replacement. The temporary workaround is that the due date is added to the client’s name field (e.g., ‘J Smith next action due 1/5’).

229. In cases that exceed the 20 working days target, the complainant should be updated on the reason for the delay and given a revised timeframe for resolution.

230. In cases where complainants rang EFCU to seek an update on their complaint, EFCU generally contacted the CSC to ask CSC staff to call the person. This process will benefit people who prefer to communicate with EFCU directly to track their complaints, rather than with the CSC (e.g., because they have escalated from the CSC, or are concerned about retribution). However, for other cases where a person is happy to contact the complaint handler directly, there may be scope to reduce some double-handling by providing local contact details (e.g., the person responsible for handling the complaint at the CSC) in the acknowledgement letter.

DCJ should clarify and promote its escalation policy and guidance

231. The CSC Procedure presently advises officers to refer matters to EFCU if they ‘cannot do any more and the complainant is still dissatisfied’.95 The PwC Audit found deficiencies in DCJ’s escalation thresholds in complaint handling.⁹⁶

232. Our file review identified instances where complainants reported attempts to make a complaint, or take a complaint further, but were ignored or not responded to, and sometimes for lengthy periods. This was also a reason for escalation of complaints to our office.

233. We observed some barriers to escalation at the local level before contacting EFCU or our office. For example, a CSC manager being unwilling to speak with a complainant directly. This is illustrated in Joanne’s case where her request to speak privately to a senior officer without a caseworker present was initially rebuffed on the basis that she was ‘unable to articulate why’ she made that request.

234. It is understandable that district officials cannot agree to every client request to speak with a manager, or put new casework arrangements in place whenever a clash or incident arises. On the other hand, there must be flexibility and an open mind as to why a client may request a private meeting or a new arrangement. One possibility, for example, is the client may have retribution concerns they wish to raise.

235. In some districts, a district director may agree to a complainant’s request to have a complaint handled by another district. There would be value in formalising a process where EFCU itself takes the initiative in recommending a complaint be reviewed by or allocated to another district (or, if the district takes this initiative, it notifies EFCU that this has occurred).

Joanne’s case: Benefit of escalated private meeting between client and Manager Client Services

Clearer referral procedures may stop complaints falling through the cracks

236. The EFCU Procedure notes that EFCU can refer complaints to ‘a specialist unit’ if it determines that complaint resolution at CSC level is not appropriate but does not outline which units this could include.⁹⁷ It does not provide internal referral guidance for privacy matters to DCJ’s Open Government Information and Privacy unit (OGIP). Its guidance on external referrals is brief (for example there is no guidance on referrals to bodies such as ICAC or Anti-Discrimination NSW).

237. During our file review, we observed some issues with the referral of matters to OGIP, and the Prudential Oversight team.

238. It is noted that our review did not assess the actions of DCJ’s OGIP unit, which is a matter more appropriately within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner. However, we did look at whether complaints to EFCU that included potential privacy issues were appropriately transferred to OGIP.

Referral of privacy complaint issues

239. We observed deficiencies in referral processes in complaints with privacy aspects. Any general review DCJ undertakes of workflow interaction between its complaint units (as recommended in this report) warrants reflection on how privacy complaint issues pass between EFCU and OGIP.

240. In Tom’s case below, EFCU appears to have allowed an important privacy issue to lapse rather than notify it to OGIP. There was no information on the file to show Tom was advised of his options for pursuing a privacy complaint.

241. In its submission to this review, DCJ advised that EFCU has now updated acknowledgement letters to include the escalation pathway for the Information and Privacy Commission NSW. It stated that previously, a complaint investigation would determine if an OGIP referral was required, and that EFCU and OGIP processes will be reviewed.

Tom’s case: Privacy issue in broader complaint not referred to OGIP

242. In Tracey’s case OGIP transferred a matter involving privacy issues to EFCU for a casework response, explaining that it would accept an application from the complainant if she wanted a privacy review. However, despite the complainant remaining unsatisfied with the casework response, there is no information on file of her being told of her option to apply to OGIP.

Tracey’s case: Privacy issue in broader complaint not separately examined

Referrals to the Prudential Oversight team

243. Exchange of complaint information between EFCU and the Prudential Oversight team was generally sound, but with scope for improvement. We considered it to be deficient in 5 of 37 relevant files we sampled (14%).

244. Delays could sometimes occur in EFCU forwarding referral or response form information to the Prudential Oversight team and in the Prudential Oversight team forwarding the information received from EFCU to the contract manager. Ken’s case is an illustration of this breakdown

245. It is possible that a centralised complaints database, with workflows that can assign tasks to people in other teams or units, could help avoid problems associated with exchange of information by email.

246. In its submission to this review DCJ advised that since 2020, there have been improvements in how EFCU shares information with the Prudential Oversight team. It advised that to further improve efficiency and reduce the risk of errors, an upgrade to the Satisfy database is being explored, which could potentially allow for automated updates to be sent to contract managers more quickly.

Complaint outcomes

What we heard from Aboriginal people

247. A common theme we heard in our targeted consultations with Aboriginal people was a lack of confidence that the DCJ complaint system would reach outcomes that were fair and just. The criticisms included:

• many complainants were sceptical when lodging a complaint that their concerns would be taken up and objectively assessed
• this lack of confidence could be heightened by vulnerability and a feeling of being marginalised in dealing with the department
• some people felt put down when trying to explain why they were complaining
• complainants are not always told when a complaint is finalised or the complaint findings or outcomes
• complainants do not feel caseworkers are held accountable when poor practice is identified
• some people doubted they could get a fair outcome from local resolution.

Sample analysis found mixed outcomes

248. The sample analysis we undertook of DCJ complaint files looked at complaint outcomes to assess if they conformed to best practice principles.98 We gained a mixed picture. In this section, we start with 3 examples of good complaint outcomes before moving on to cases where we identified deficiencies in complaint outcomes.

Some good outcomes

249. In the first case study below, Sue’s complaint resulted in increased Aboriginal casework assistance and involvement of the Aboriginal consultation panel in future decisions. Features that stood out were DCJ officers identifying there was a grievance that required focused attention, devoting time to engaging with the complainant and working through the issues, and efforts to provide culturally sensitive complaint handling. Follow-up work may still have been required within DCJ, but the matter was being well-handled at the point our examination stopped.

Sue’s case: Complaint results in additional cultural support

250. In Dr Andrew’s case an apology was promptly provided for rude treatment after the complaint handler listened to the call recording.

Dr Andrew’s case: Call recording leads to apology for rude treatment

251. In Rebecca’s case, DCJ apologised and agreed to have an MCW present at future interviews and to provide sensitive questions in advance. An Aboriginal consultation occurred and Rebecca was advised during a subsequent home visit that DCJ had taken her complaint on board and had implemented the improvement steps it said it would take. Although Rebecca was not wholly satisfied and would have preferred reassurance about disciplinary action being taken, her complaint to the MCW and later to EFCU resulted in positive outcomes.

Rebecca’s case: complaint leads to process improvement for family

Better complaint handling could improve outcomes

252. Other files we examined demonstrated deficiencies that resulted in less positive complaint outcomes. Among the themes taken up in the discussion and case studies throughout the rest of this chapter are complainants not being advised of outcomes, deficient explanations of outcome, not all substantive complaint issues being investigated, and some complaints about staff behaviour that could have been better managed.

253. One of the key themes to emerge was that a good complaint outcome requires an explanation being provided to the complainant. The complainant may not accept the explanation, but they should at least be provided with an explanation that is reasonably understandable in the circumstances.

Some complainants receive no notification of outcome

254. We saw several instances where complainants were not officially notified that their complaint was finalised. The explanation, found in the response forms, was that the local office considered the complaint had either been resolved through casework processes or the concerns had been discussed with the complainant prior to their EFCU complaint. EFCU did not follow up in these cases to discuss the outcome with the complainant, and the complaint was closed without further contact with the complainant. This meant the only complaint-related communication with the complainant was EFCU’s initial acknowledgement letter.

255. In 8 of 45 (18%)99 Aboriginal complaint files we examined that had been managed end-to-end by DCJ¹⁰⁰ the complainant either did not receive a response from the district office or EFCU (4 files) or it was unclear whether subsequent contact with the complainant was in response to their complaint or other issues (4 files).

256. Some complaints can be effectively and efficiently resolved through casework processes without additional action. There may be instances too (in any complaint system) in which a complainant is unreasonably persistent.

257. What is required, however, is that EFCU should carefully examine the response forms it receives from local offices to assess if the office’s response was appropriate in that case. If so, it would be a straightforward step for EFCU to notify and advise the complainant that the file will be closed in the absence of further contact from them (with contact details provided). Similarly, if EFCU assesses that a further response is not required for a repeat complaint or an unreasonably persistent complainant, this should be formally advised to the complainant together with Ombudsman office contact details.

258. Generally, EFCU must keep an open mind to the possibility a complainant is confused or holds a different understanding as to the outcome of their complaint. This is illustrated in Brittney’s case on page 93.

Brittney’s case: Confusion when not informed of complaint outcome

259. DCJ advised in its submission to this review that it is not EFCU policy to close a complaint under circumstances such as Brittney’s. It says that EFCU staff have now participated in refresher training and EFCU has implemented additional random case audits to further strengthen review processes.

260. In 4 of the EFCU files that we sampled (7% of the sample), EFCU closed a complaint prior to the final outcome being reported back to EFCU from the relevant unit. This is illustrated in Mark’s case below.

Mark’s case: Complaint outcome not fully reported

261. When complaints are closed prior to the final outcome being known by EFCU, its involvement ceases and the onus shifts to the complainant to re-contact EFCU if they are dissatisfied.

262. This will not always be a problem for straightforward complaints where the complainant has the knowledge and confidence they need to return to EFCU, if the promised action does not eventuate. It is more likely to be an issue where the complainant is a child, or the issues are complex or serious, or if the complainant is experiencing ‘complaint fatigue’ or other barriers to making a further complaint.

263. While an undertaking by a local office to take further action in response to a complaint may be a reasonable basis for EFCU to finalise and close a complaint, there does not appear to be a quality assurance process at local offices for tracking and following up actions agreed to in resolving complaints that EFCU has closed, other than the complainant returning with a further complaint if the action does not eventuate.

Complaints about staff and underlying complaint issues not followed up

264. Many complaints to organisations criticise, directly or indirectly, the competency or conduct of staff involved with the complaint issues. From an accountability and continuous improvement perspective, agencies must be alert to the possible need to undertake a separate examination of staff development needs or conduct issues.

265. Further, for many complainants, satisfactory complaint resolution includes not only acknowledging aspects of their complaint that are upheld, but also (where appropriate) reassurance that steps have been or will be taken to prevent similar issues in future. Such feedback can build trust in a complaint system.

266. It is concerning that despite our review finding that 13 of 90 complaints handled by EFCU or CSIM (14%) involved a CSC apologising to the complainant (e.g., for rude, threatening, or incompetent conduct) or acknowledging a shortcoming in casework,101 only 1 case included information on the complaint file about practice improvement steps that would be taken. That case, described below, illustrates the kind of detail that can helpfully and appropriately be recorded on a complaint file, and assurance that can be provided to complainants about practice improvement. It is followed by other case studies where such action was not taken.

Holly’s case: Information provided about practice improvement

267. Holly’s case was the exception. The following are examples of complaints where action to address underlying complaint issues (if any) were not apparent on the complaint file. This is a problem for several reasons. First, it represents a lost opportunity to use complaints to improve service delivery. Second, the complaint file does not adequately record what findings were made and reasons for any decisions.

268. In Kristy’s case below, there was a breakdown in the complainant’s relationship with a caseworker. The CSC response advised only that a new caseworker had been appointed, without addressing the various underlying issues raised in the complaint.

Kristy’s case: Underlying complaint issues not addressed

269. In Nikki’s case below, the complaint handler took steps to address the key issue (refusal to reimburse expenditure). However, it is not clear whether incorrect advice was given (although that is the likely inference based on the actions taken to resolve the complaint) and the response is silent on whether steps would be taken to ensure the caseworker would receive feedback about any incorrect advice they may have provided.

Nikki’s case: Underlying complaint issues not addressed

270. Although the substantive outcomes in these complaints were positive, there was nothing to indicate that the underlying conduct or practice issues had been addressed.

271. These case scenarios are not inconsistent with feedback we received from one senior DCJ staff member to the effect that the outcome of complaints can too often be a change in caseworker, without addressing what are sometimes serious shortcomings or misconduct of the previous caseworker.

272. To be clear, it is not necessary to provide complainants with detailed information about steps taken to address staff conduct issues. However, where an error or shortcoming is identified, it will generally be appropriate to not only rectify the issue, but also where possible, reassure the complainant, and EFCU, that steps will be taken to prevent its reoccurrence.

273. While complaint files should not record details of disciplinary action (which are more appropriately held on personnel files) any referral for further action should be recorded, so that the complaint record shows that all necessary and appropriate steps were taken. This is important for quality assurance as well as any queries or follow up related to the complaint.

In some cases, not all substantive complaint issues were followed up, or follow up was slow

274. All substantive complaint issues should be reasonably examined and the outcome notified to the complainant. At a practical level, failure to do so may result in a fresh complaint.

275. Complaint issues were not always followed up (or if followed up, were not always recorded). This occurred in district responses in at least 8 complaints referred for handling via EFCU102 of which at least 5 were Aboriginal complaints.103 This did not appear to be an issue in complaints handled by CSIM.

276. In other cases, there were significant delays in following up whether issues had been responded to, as occurred in Harry’s case below.

Harry’s case: Slow follow-up by DCJ of complaint referred to service provider

Senior Practitioner involvement led to good outcomes

277. The OSP does not have a direct role in complaint handling, although in discharging its other functions an outcome may also be that an earlier complaint is effectively resolved.

278. The OSP was involved in only 3 (or 3%) of the complaint files handled by EFCU and CSIM. However, our observation from case sampling is that when the OSP was involved, it made a valuable contribution and displayed strong casework expertise.

279. We understand the OSP is not currently resourced to investigate complaints. This raises the question whether the OSP could – with proper resourcing – play a greater role in providing arms-length complaint investigation (e.g., complex escalated complaints or other complaints that raise potential systemic issues with a view to identifying opportunities for systemic improvement).

Complaint issues can be left unresolved if there are adjacent court proceedings

280. A familiar occurrence in complaint handling is that a complaint is (or may soon be) the subject of adjacent legal proceedings. A question confronting the complaint handler is whether to take account of that development and possibly defer investigation action while proceedings are underway.

281. The issue was raised with us by several legal services to which we spoke during this investigation. We were told lawyers are hesitant to advise a client to make a complaint during proceedings ‘as this may be perceived as being obstructive/non-compliant, even though it may be a client’s right to make a complaint’. One aspect of their concern was that DCJ officers may misread intentions or react adversely.

282. A related concern was the way DCJ officers sometimes respond to a lawyer. One commented, ‘even when we are very polite and say we are just trying to understand, DCJ staff are very defensive and go into “protection mode” straight away’. We heard DCJ staff may bring in their agency lawyers to continue the conversation ‘even if it’s just a simple matter’ and that an overriding concern of the lawyers is to be ‘very gentle’ in the conversation so there is no ‘risk of retribution’ to the client.

283. The communication impasse could, we were told, continue after a court matter was finalised. At that point, the legal service may not have the capacity to assist the client in pursuing the complaint.

284. At a recent Budget Estimates hearing, the issue of complaint handling by service providers was discussed, including that poorly handled complaints could have flow-on effects for the quality of information that flows to DCJ lawyers in their conduct of matters before the courts. The DCJ Deputy Secretary CPP also expressed concern about this issue.¹⁰⁴

285. We saw this issue arising in the file sampling we undertook. We saw instances where court proceedings were cited as a reason why complaint issues could not be considered, despite some issues being outside the scope of legal proceedings (for example, a caseworker being rude or insensitive).

Meghan’s case: Complaint issues not addressed because of court proceeding

286. Leanne’s case at paragraph 279 demonstrates how an earlier independent complaint investigation could have produced a fairer result for the complainant sooner, and saved the department considerable time and expense, by ensuring the information before its lawyers and the Children’s Court was accurate and fair. In Leanne’s case, there were concerns raised on her behalf about fabrication of evidence and incorrect information in caseworker affidavits. No action was taken on the complaint as the matter was before the courts. The OSP later undertook a review and concluded that DCJ had not provided the Children’s Court with a balanced view of the mother but instead focused on evidence to support their position that the mother could not care for the children, and that case management decisions had been based on NSW Police interventions rather than DCJ assessments. The OSP recommended a change in case direction, recommending consideration be given to restoring the children to their mother.

287. Every case must be approached individually to assess how current or proposed legal proceedings interact with issues that could be the subject of administrative investigation. Situations may arise in which it is advisable on legal or practical grounds to suspend further administrative investigation, wholly or as to some issues while matters are before the court. However, it should not be presumed that further administrative investigation of all issues is ordinarily to be suspended or terminated.

288. There must also be a preparedness by complaint staff to discuss complaint handling options (including investigation) with a person’s legal representative, without necessarily transferring that discussion to the DCJ legal section if some or all of the issues are outside the legal proceedings. Similarly, if complaint issues are appropriately assessed as being for the court to determine in concurrent proceedings, the complaint file should record (and the complainant should be advised) whether and how any outstanding complaint handling can be progressed after the legal proceedings have concluded.

289. As this discussion indicates, there is a need for DCJ to examine this issue with a view to clarifying its guidance to staff¹⁰⁵ and possibly addressing the issue in staff training.

More can be done to evaluate complainant satisfaction

290. DCJ decided to implement regular client feedback surveys following the PwC report.¹⁰⁶ Presently these are conducted by EFCU on an ad hoc basis, from year to year. EFCU complaint officers phone a cross-sample of complainants¹⁰⁷ to elicit their experience of the complaint process, through 8 mostly open questions. Broadly, complainants are asked about overall satisfaction, experience with EFCU and local offices, access to complaint information, complaint updates, and areas for improvement.

291. Additionally, EFCU call management guidance includes contacting a complainant after a complaint has been resolved ‘to ensure that the solution was satisfactory’, and to record the complainant’s response.¹⁰⁸ EFCU Procedure requires that a CSC to which a complaint has been referred should, when reporting back, explain whether the complainant expressed satisfaction with the explanation or information provided or action taken.¹⁰⁹ The CSC Procedure does not stipulate that complainant satisfaction feedback should be sought, and it is unclear whether local and district offices conduct surveys as part of the complaint handling routine.

292. EFCU has made a promising start in eliciting client feedback, but DCJ should build on these initiatives. A written policy should set out how, when and by whom complainant satisfaction surveys are to be conducted, and how the results will be circulated and considered. Any surveys should collect Aboriginality and other demographic information, to facilitate more sophisticated reporting on the experience of Aboriginal complainants.

Investigation and review functions

What we heard from Aboriginal people

293. A recurring theme in feedback from Aboriginal stakeholders was that the complaint system lacks independent investigation and decision-making accountability. Aboriginal people told us that:

• DCJ complaint handlers were ‘investigating themselves’ and could reach outcomes that were shallow and risk-averse
• staff in local offices were defensive and favoured staff versions of events
• the complaint process was not transparent and the outcome could be unfair.

No centralised complaint investigation function

294. DCJ does not have a centralised complaint investigation function. EFCU and CSIM perform what is essentially a centralised ‘clearing house’ type of role which involves resolving enquiries, referring complaints for local resolution, and managing associated record keeping and reporting. The Prudential Oversight team may undertake an investigation, but its focus is primarily on contract management issues arising from the complaint.

295. In earlier chapters of this report, we discussed weaknesses in DCJ’s complaint handling system, including issues with workforce capacity to handle complaints, perceptions and experience of retribution, and at times circular processes by which complaints escalated to EFCU from local office staff handling are returned to the same local handler for resolution. A well-functioning central complaint and review function for certain complaints may help address many of these issues, and improve confidence in the independence and accountability of the complaint resolution process.

Rationale for decentralised complaint resolution

296. We understand a central complaint handling unit that preceded EFCU¹¹⁰ did have a complaint investigation function, but this was regarded as an unsustainable arrangement on resourcing grounds.

297. EFCU is currently resourced for 6 staff¹¹¹ who handle enquiries, feedback and complaints about child protection, and manage over 10,759 child protection-related contacts per year.¹¹² To manage this volume, a high proportion of matters are finalised through the initial call (e.g., after a quick ChildStory check). Only around 5% of matters are classified as complaints and referred to district offices for local resolution.

298. EFCU also explained – and to an extent justified – the current arrangement by the principle of ‘local resolution’. The EFCU Procedure states: ‘The fundamental aim of the EFCU is to provide an efficient and effective complaints intake service, with the primary objectives of referring for local resolution any complaints that it cannot resolve at the intake stage’.¹¹³

299. The principle of local resolution is also stated even more strongly in two other statements in the EFCU Procedure:

• ‘Local resolution of complaints is a clear requirement of CS CRAMA and is consistent with best complaints practice and the Ombudsman’s expectations of CS’.¹¹⁴
• ‘Community Services Complaints Model requires complaints to be resolved at the local level with the complainant’.¹¹⁵ [emphasis added]

300. It is open to question whether EFCU is overstating the need for local resolution. CS CRAMA only ‘encourages’ rather than ‘requires’ local resolution – s 3(1)(c) provides that one of the objects of the Act is ‘to encourage, wherever reasonable and practicable, the resolution of complaints at a local level’.¹¹⁶

301. Local resolution is an important principle, strongly supported by our office, but must be balanced against other considerations. The overarching aim is to ensure complaints are handled fairly, effectively and impartially, and complainants can be reasonably confident in the complaint arrangements. That aim is arguably clouded by a comment in the EFCU Procedure that seems to prioritise local resolution over the preference of complainants worried about impartiality:

302. However, in some cases these same considerations may mean that investigation outside the district of complaint is genuinely warranted.

303. DCJ’s response to our review emphasised EFCU operates with a high level of independence as it does not report directly to a Community Services district or Head Office.¹¹⁸ This is important and should be preserved. It bolsters EFCU independence and underpins an important public message about the DCJ complaint system.

304. However, the role of EFCU as an independent complaint resolution unit is less persuasive given the analysis in other chapters of this report observed that most resolution actions, and quality assurance, occurs at the district director level with EFCU taking district responses on ‘good faith’. We also observed that people get caught in a circuitous process where, if they complain to EFCU because they are dissatisfied with district complaint handling, their complaint will be referred back to the district (and occasionally even the same person) for handling.

Districts have ad hoc independent investigation processes

305. At the district level, we heard that some districts may from time to time arrange for another district to handle a complaint, at a complainant’s request. We understand this occurs on an ad hoc basis and there is no documented or consistent process for this.

306. The issues described throughout this report mean that in some cases, local resolution may not be the preferable approach to resolution. This might include complaints where –

• it is inadvisable to refer a matter for local resolution as the complainant has expressed a fear of retribution or believes the local office is biased against them on the basis of prior interaction
• the local office has escalated an unresolved, serious or complex complaint to EFCU
• a complaint relates to several districts or business units and joint (or singular) investigation is impracticable.

307. This prompts consideration of whether EFCU – or another central unit – should have an investigation function, even if only in a prescribed set of circumstances (e.g., including where the complaint is about how the complaint was handled at the local level). At the very least, there should be a process in place whereby EFCU can refer a complaint for arm’s length investigation outside the CSC or district which is subject of the complaint.

308. We note again our observation of the value and expertise that the OSP can bring to escalated complaints to the extent that it overlaps with its core functions. This raises the question of whether it could (with adequate additional resourcing) be given an expanded function of investigating serious or complex escalated complaints involving practice errors or unresolved problems.

309. Several districts also described Family Group Conference processes (if taken up by families) as a forum where complaints are raised and resolved with the assistance of an independent facilitator.

The complaint system is also performing a de facto review function

310. Not all adverse decisions that are made by DCJ have an internal review right,¹¹⁹ or right to review by a merits review tribunal, despite the fact they can have a significant impact on the Aboriginal children and families involved.

311. In these cases, it falls to the complaint handling system to provide a review of substantive administrative decisions. In this way, it has a dual role of handling complaints about problems like lack of communication or poor customer service while also performing a de facto review function.

312. This underscores the vital importance of a well-functioning complaint handling system, which has the capacity to independently review and investigate decisions and actions of staff.

313. That said, there may be some important DCJ decisions and actions that do not currently have internal review rights, but which might be more appropriately managed via internal review than a complaints framework.

Complaint systems cannot fully discharge review functions

314. Complaint systems cannot fully perform a review function, and do not confer any enforceable or externally reviewable rights. As the Administrative Review Council observed:

315. Review systems can also have the benefit of shifting the focus away from the parties involved, and a dispute about their different subjective positions or opinions, to the merits of the decision itself (i.e., whether it was objectively the correct and preferable decision).

316. If a person has to use a complaints system to challenge a decision, it can mean greater focus on the parties to the complaint. This has the potential to deter complainants, have negative impacts on staff well-being, or increase retribution risk. For example:

• the person seeking review is labelled as a ‘complainant’ (rather than as a person asserting a right)
• the decision-maker (e.g., a caseworker) is cast as someone who has been complained about
• the focus is more likely to be on whether the decision-maker’s actions or inactions were ‘wrong’ (rather than whether the decision itself was the preferable one in all the circumstances)
• the complainant has to positively ‘accuse’ DCJ of something (rather than just asking that the decision/action be reviewed).

317. There is also an inherent risk that, for complainants who frequently complain about other issues, complaints about decisions may be treated dismissively on the basis of the person’s complaint history, as we heard from some DCJ staff in our survey.

318. From the staff perspective, being the subject of a complaint is inherently an uncomfortable position. Being the subject of a complaint can impact staff well-being and may have other flow-on impacts. For example, research published by the University of Glasgow shows a caseworker’s attitude to a complainant may change and become defensive or more cautious in dealings and in some cases. The research also found that the likelihood of a negative effect included factors such as the level of experience of the staff member and whether the complaint is perceived as personal, as an attack on professionalism, or vexatious.¹²¹

319. We discuss retribution in an earlier section (page 65), which is a real issue DCJ must grapple with, but note here that changes to how a complainant is treated after making a complaint can in some cases amount to retribution (whether real or perceived, and conscious or unintended), and a more ‘neutral’ review system may potentially have a flow-on benefit for reducing retribution risk.

Examples of complaints about decisions that might be better served by internal review

320. One example of a decision that might appropriately be subject to a right of internal review is a decision about what is in included in a Leaving Care plan (or omitting to finalise a Leaving Care plan). In Emmy-Lou’s case at paragraph 212, an 18-year-old Aboriginal care-leaver complained she was not receiving any After Care support and a ChildStory check showed her service provider had not finalised an After Care plan. We previously commented that her contact should have been classified as a complaint, as this may have prevented it falling through the cracks for almost a year until she re-contacted. However arguably, given she had a statutory right to have a leaving care plan under s 166(1) of the Care Act, a right of review of a decision about a Leaving Care plan (or failure to finalise one) may have been a more appropriate mechanism.

321. Another example might be decisions that relate to payments, such as in Tyrone’s case at paragraph 212, where a Care+1 payment was withheld from him for use by the service provider. Review rights increase accountability and transparency

322. An effective, centralised review function with the ability to conduct an independent review before either affirming, setting aside or varying DCJ decisions could potentially have wide-ranging benefits, including improved consistency in decision-making across districts, increased accountability and transparency, and increased trust in DCJ’s decision-making.

323. The Administrative Review Council preferred a broad approach to the identification of merits reviewable decisions:

324. It cautioned that if a more restrictive approach is adopted, there is a risk of:

• denying an opportunity for review to someone whose interests have been adversely affected by a decision.
• losing the broader and beneficial effects that merits review is intended to have on the overall quality of government decision-making.

325. We acknowledge that there is a complex existing external review and decision-making process within DCJ, including in proceedings before the Children’s Court, and external review of a limited number of decisions by NCAT.

326. DCJ should work to identify decisions that substantially affect the rights or interests of a child, family or carers that should be subject of a review, and avenues by which that review might happen. Consideration should be given to a centralised, independent review unit, to ensure reviews are conducted at arm’s length, and to promote consistency and quality in decision-making across districts.

327. It should also develop guidelines for appropriately supporting and managing DCJ staff whose actions or decisions are the subject of a complaint.

Accessibility and the Right to Complain

What we heard from Aboriginal people

328. Aboriginal people we spoke to told us that DCJ’s complaint system has significant accessibility barriers. We heard that the complaint system is complex and difficult to navigate, and that people are frustrated at dealing with multiple personnel and having to tell their stories ‘over and over again’.

329. We will not repeat the problems Aboriginal people told us about that have already been summarised at the beginning of our observations chapters, but all are centrally relevant to the issue of accessibility (in particular fear of retribution, unfairness, transparency, accountability and workforce capacity).

330. Facilitated workshops with Aboriginal people and front-line service providers identified 6 key reasons Aboriginal people were reluctant to engage with DCJ’s complaint handling system as depicted in Figure 16 below. Underpinning these reasons for reluctance were issues with complaint system visibility, previous poor experiences, slow response times and lack of outcome communication from DCJ.

Figure 16 - Workshop outcome: reasons for reluctance to complain

331. Another strong theme that emerged was the vital importance of advocates to assist people to complain to DCJ, and that these advocates must be trusted in each Aboriginal community.

System weaknesses undermine accessibility

332. Accessing a complaint system is, from an end-to-end process perspective, the starting point for a user journey. The many systemic issues described in earlier chapters of this report have a direct and significant impact on the accessibility of the system for Aboriginal people:

• The issues associated with workforce capacity, cultural competence, bias and retribution deter complaints because a person is less likely to complain if they are uncomfortable with or afraid of doing so, if they do not trust the process will be competent or fair, or if some staff are unable or unwilling to assist people who need help to complain.
• The problems with complaint resolution processes and adequacy of complaint outcomes also have a flow-on effect on accessibility. People who experience poor complaint handling may abandon a complaint or choose not to complain again in future. They may share their poor experience with others in the community, deterring others from complaining. Even where a complaint is lodged, access issues can arise if a person cannot access discrete parts of the process, for example, if a request to escalate a complaint is unactioned.

333. These issues will not be revisited in this chapter, noting that if the recommendations of this report are implemented, any progress in addressing these issues should also improve accessibility of the system.

334. This chapter examines further discrete accessibility issues, and what additional steps might need to be taken to improve system accessibility. DCJ staff have mixed views, but few said the system was highly or very accessible

335. Our DCJ staff survey asked staff to rate the accessibility of the complaint system for Aboriginal people. There were 88 staff (25%) who responded that they were ‘not sure’. For the remaining respondents who expressed a firmer view about the accessibility of complaint systems for Aboriginal people (see Figure 17): A 36% said the complaint system was not accessible or not very accessible A 27% said the system was moderately accessible A 12% said the system was highly or very accessible.

Figure 17 - DCJ staff perceptions of system accessibility

336. Staff were more likely to have a negative view of accessibility if they were themselves Aboriginal. Of the staff who responded that the complaint system was not accessible or not very accessible:

• 42% worked directly with Aboriginal people
• 71% identified as Aboriginal.

337. Staff said the following were the biggest barriers for Aboriginal people to use the DCJ complaint system:

• not trusting government and fear of retribution for complaining
• feeling the complaint will not be heard or understood
• feeling the complainant will not be taken seriously or may be judged
• a perception that nothing will be done or achieved by complaining
• not having confidence in using the complaint process
• difficulty for the complainant in assessing if a caseworker was doing the wrong thing and should be complained about. The system needs to be more child-friendly

338. A core issue in this review is whether the DCJ complaint system is accessible by and appropriately responsive to Aboriginal children and young people.

339. We examined that dimension in several ways – asking participants in several forums, surveying DCJ staff, drawing from interviews the Office of the Advocate for Children and Young People (ACYP) had conducted with children and young people, and looking at a sample of complaints made directly by children and young people.

340. During our review, DCJ recognised the importance of the complaint system being accessible to children and young people and acknowledged that the barriers they face in using a complaint system are accentuated in the child protection system. DCJ has a Charter of Rights for children and tailored resources to communicate those rights to children. Its guideline ‘Talking to Children and Participation’ advises staff about communicating with children and enhancing their participation in decision-making. It also includes a section on complaints that refers to other DCJ guides, such as the ‘Speak Up and Make a Complaint’ guide¹²³ and the Kids Central Toolkit¹²⁴ which encourage children to speak up about their concerns so they will be more at ease about making a complaint.

341. However as shown in Figure 18 below, DCJ staff perceptions about the child-friendliness of the complaint handling system for Aboriginal children and young people were generally negative: A 50% of staff said the DCJ complaint system was not, or not very, child-friendly A 19% of staff said the system was highly, very or moderately child-friendly.

Figure 18 - DCJ staff perceptions about the child-friendliness of the system

342. When further broken down, Aboriginal staff were more likely than non-Aboriginal staff to hold a negative view, with 88% of respondents who identified as Aboriginal answering that the system was not, or not very, child-friendly. A similarly negative assessment was expressed by Aboriginal participants in the facilitated forums we conducted. Overall, they expressed the view that the DCJ complaint system was not child-friendly.

343. We looked also at the pattern of complaints from children in EFCU data and found they rarely complain to EFCU:¹²⁵

• EFCU received 12 complaints from Aboriginal children and 34 complaints from non-Aboriginal children in a three-year period, 2019-20 to 2021-22.¹²⁶
• Complaints to EFCU from Aboriginal children over that period comprised only 0.8% of total complaints to EFCU (1,498) despite comprising almost half of all children in OOHC.¹²⁷

344. This was also apparent in the EFCU complaint files we sampled, of which only 4.5% were made by children and young people.

345. In 2021, the ACYP interviewed 20 Aboriginal children and young people who were in or had recent experience in OOHC. The ACYP shared transcripts of these interviews128 with the review team. The following information in Table 4, in a condensed way, extracts the voices of those children on complaint handling.

Table 4 - Voices of Aboriginal Children and Young People from ACYP interviews

346. Grace’s case illustrates how a failure to respond to a child’s request for an advocate compromised the handling of a complaint.

Grace’s case: Failure to action child’s request for advocate

347. In response to Grace’s case and this review, DCJ advised that EFCU has now changed its policy to add an additional step, where appropriate, to contact clients under 18 years old to discuss the outcome of their complaint.

Right to complain

DCJ can do more to incorporate complaint rights in casework policies

348. Most Aboriginal people affected by the child protection system interact with DCJ at the local level via casework or related interactions. These interactions can be both the source of the issue complained of and a key complaint system access point. It is therefore essential that complaint rights and processes are communicated to people at key casework touchpoints. Policies that govern these interactions should include guidance on how and when this is to be done.

349. Currently, DCJ mandates require complaint rights to be discussed with children when they enter care, and as part of case planning and annual reviews.¹²⁹ In our view, complaint rights should be communicated more regularly to children and families, particularly where decisions or changes are being made that may have a significant impact on day-to-day arrangements for a child, or where a parent may be adversely affected by the decision or change. Examples include a change in caseworker, planning activities and key events such as commencing or leaving care.

350. We also looked closely at the Aboriginal Case Management Policy (ACMP), because of its important objective to guide Aboriginal-led culturally embedded casework practice. We were concerned that the ACMP does not contain any reference or links to the complaint handling system. Principle 7 of the ACMP ‘Principles of Aboriginal Case Management’ is that case management must be accountable to Aboriginal people for the outcomes achieved for Aboriginal children and their families. In our view, effective complaint handling is vital to pursuing that Principle.

351. Similarly, the Aboriginal Child Safety procedure would benefit from the inclusion of directions to staff to ensure children and families understand their right to complain without retribution and are provided with the phone number of EFCU and local complaint pathways. This message should be repeated throughout the document at key points, including during or after engagement with Aboriginal people. DCJ has more work to do on charters of rights

352. A charter expresses an organisation’s commitment to complying with the service delivery standards outlined in the charter. This is designed as a message – a guarantee to customers and clients – that they will be valued and treated respectfully. It also conveys a message internally to staff about the standards expected of them and may support an organisation’s culture. In that way, charters align with other social and government trends for greater transparency, accountability and customer-centric service delivery. A charter may also outline the organisation’s expectations, framed as a set of complainant responsibilities.

353. The Family is Culture Review recommended that DCJ develop a Charter ‘to help to explain the rights and responsibilities of Aboriginal family members to guide their decision-making’ about making child protection complaints.¹³⁰ The Review highlighted the work of Dr Sharynne Hamilton¹³¹ and Prof. Valerie Braithwaite¹³² who, in consultation with parents, families and community members, developed ‘Guiding principles of rights and responsibilities for parents and family members involved with Australian Child Protection Services’. In their Occasional Paper,¹³³ they include a table that lists a column of rights next to a column of responsibilities.

DCJ has some charters in place, but has not yet developed a charter for Aboriginal families

354. EFCU’s complaint acknowledgement correspondence includes an attachment which is laid out in a similar way to the Hamilton and Braithwaite model. Listed responsibilities include ‘taking all practical steps to prevent retribution to ensure that you are not subjected to any detrimental action in reprisal for making your complaint’.

Figure 19 - EFCU Managing your complaint extract

355. DCJ has also published several charters and other rights statements on its ‘Your rights as a child or young person in care’ page¹³⁴ on its website. This includes a Charter of Rights for 7 to 12-year-old children and a Charter of Rights for 13 to 17-year-old young people. These include child-friendly posters and animations. The content is for a wider audience, although one animation includes a brief image of an Aboriginal flag. DCJ requires caseworkers¹³⁵ to provide children 7 years and older with a copy of the Charter of Rights, ensure the child understands the Charter and make appropriate records.¹³⁶

356. DCJ advised there was no record of Aboriginal consultation occurring in the development of its charters for children, which were developed in 2006 and updated in 2016 prior to the Family is Culture Report being published.¹³⁷ We are also not aware of any consultation with Aboriginal people in the development of EFCU’s ‘roles and responsibilities’ document.

357. Other rights resources made available by DCJ include:

• a Care Leaver’s Charter of Rights, which can also be downloaded as a poster
• a webpage titled ‘Your rights as a birth parent’, which lists the rights to information and involvement in decision-making for birth parents,¹³⁸ but has no content specifically for Aboriginal families or birth parents
• a Code of Conduct for Carers¹³⁹ which includes a rights-like section covering respect and participation, information, and support and training. It includes the right to be provided with information about the agency’s complaints process.

358. Those resources are all designed for a wider audience, and while helpful, none amount to a charter of rights for Aboriginal families.

Charters of rights in other jurisdictions

359. Comprehensive charters are in place or being developed in other jurisdictions. Some have been developed after comprehensive stakeholder engagement and with reference to the Hamilton and Braithwaite model.

360. The Australian Capital Territory (ACT),¹⁴⁰ Western Australia¹⁴¹ and Queensland¹⁴² all have charters in place for families and parents involved with child protection. The ACT charter, for example, was founded on the work of Braithwaite and Hamilton, informed by feedback from families and aligned with the ACT Human Rights Act 2004. ¹⁴³ This charter is also for a wider audience, but included consultation with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Co-Design Network and specifically references the experiences of Aboriginal people.

A well-promoted charter of rights for Aboriginal families may help improve accessibility

361. Although DCJ has published several charters and statements of rights, and there is some very limited Aboriginal-specific content in these documents, they mostly address a wider or general audience. There is no record of consultation with Aboriginal people, including Aboriginal children or young people, or Aboriginal organisations in the development of these documents.

362. A charter of rights and responsibilities for Aboriginal families, developed in consultation with Aboriginal people, may help build trust between DCJ and families, clarify expectations, and empower families to assert their rights. In developing any charter, DCJ should have close regard to legislated rights of Aboriginal people, including the recently introduced Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Children and Young Person’s Principle¹⁴⁴ and the Aboriginal Case Management Policy.

Website review

363. We examined DCJ’s website¹⁴⁵ to gauge if it provided adequate information about complaint pathways and processes and to assess if changes would improve accessibility of website information to Aboriginal children and families.

364. Overall, there is scope for improvement in the following areas:

• The main landing pages could be reorganised to provide clearer and consistent information for Aboriginal people about complaint options and support
• Reassurance of the right to complain without retribution could be stated more prominently, along with the ability to request an Aboriginal caseworker be involved in the complaint process
• Better advice could be given about complaint resolution timeframes and the options available to a complainant who is dissatisfied with the complaint response
• The website information and presentation could be reviewed with a view to making it more targeted to Aboriginal people, including children and young people.

DCJ’s website contains several pages with complaint information

365. There is a feedback widget on DCJ’s homepage. If a person clicks on the ‘unhappy face’ icon they are invited to lodge a complaint. A person unfamiliar with widgets who used the search word ‘complain’ on DCJ’s homepage,¹⁴⁶ within 3 clicks will reach a link to a ‘Child protection complaint handling’ page and a ‘Your rights as a child or young person in care’ page (which contains links to charters of rights documents that include information about complaints).

366. Below is a summary of key webpages with complaint information:

Table 5: DCJ webpages with complaint information

The Feedback and Complaints page could be clearer and less confusing to navigate

367. The page has a lot of valuable information that applies to all complaints, for example, topics such as ‘What if I need assistance to provide feedback’ and ‘What if I am dissatisfied with the handling of my complaint’. However, the link to the dedicated child protection complaint page is above that information, so a person who immediately follows the child protection complaints page link is likely to miss that important information (which you only know is there if you first scroll down to see it before scrolling back up to follow the link to the dedicated child protection complaint page).

368. The topic ‘What if I need assistance to provide feedback’ (which offers to assist people with a disability and people who do not understand English well) could be made more inclusive. For example, it could be extended to other people who may have difficulty making a complaint, including Aboriginal people, or children.

Speak Up page and Caring for Children page language should be clarified

369. While otherwise helpful, these pages give the impression that the right to complain to EFCU does not arise until after these things have been tried (e.g., speaking to your caseworker or another adult like a school counsellor ‘If you have tried all of these things, you have a right to make a complaint’). In fact, EFCU can be contacted at any time. Similarly, the advice for children who have issues with their carer incorrectly implies the caseworker is the only complaint route (as opposed to being the preferred route). This should be clarified.

DCJ could add more content relevant to reducing retribution barriers

370. Neither the Feedback and Complaints page nor the Child Protection Complaint Handling page include any reassurances about the right to complain without retribution. No reassurance is given that the DCJ takes seriously its responsibility to protect complainants from retribution, or that people who may fear retribution are encouraged to discuss their concerns with EFCU. Any potential complainant concerned about retribution, and particularly children and young people in OOHC would need to separately access the 12-page DCJ Complaint Policy which states ‘we are responsive and will ensure customers receive no detriment for having complained’, which recently replaced language in the earlier FACS Complaint Policy that ‘no unfair treatment comes from making a complaint or providing feedback’.¹⁵⁵

371. DCJ’s webpage content falls short of explaining complaints can be handled ‘anonymously’ (the complaints policy says anonymous complaints are accepted,156 but it is likely that few complainants will read the full policy). The Feedback and Complaints page advises complainants ‘make sure’ to include their ‘name, postal address and phone number’ and that ‘While we can handle your complaint confidentially, this may limit our ability to examine or resolve your concerns’. In our view, complaints must always be handled ‘confidentially’ and the use of the word ‘confidentially’ alone in this context does not communicate the ability to lodge a complaint ‘anonymously’.

372. The website does not refer to the ability to request an Aboriginal caseworker be involved in handling a complaint. The statement that complaints are important and valuable to help the DCJ improve its services could also be made more prominent.

DCJ could include clearer timeframe and escalation information

373. The Feedback and Complaints page advises complainants that feedback will generally be acknowledged within 3 working days, and to expect a response within 20 working days. It says serious or complex complaints may take longer, a person will be told if there is a significant delay and, if possible, given an estimated timeframe for a response. However, the Child Protection Complaint Handling page (where some people will land instead) does not include advice about what to do in case of delays, rights to be kept updated about progress, or timeframes for more complex complaints.DCJ could add more child-friendly, culturally and trauma-informed content

374. The review team spoke with DCJ staff in 2 areas – those running the child rights campaign project, which is looking at how to improve child awareness of rights; and the team managing the transition of content into the Care leavers page (hosted on the NSW Governments ‘Living in NSW’ page, not DCJ’s own website).

375. We understand improving information available to children and on the website about the right to complain is within the scope of those projects. We encourage DCJ to add complaints information to its Care Leaver's Charter of Rights and to ensure there are links from the Care leavers page to simple complaints information in child-friendly language and formats (including the use of images, videos and colour).

376. Generally, our view is that the website could be improved to make it more welcoming and reassuring for Aboriginal people. It could include targeted information or advice to Aboriginal people on the website complaints pages, reassurances about anonymity or retribution, links to complaint advocates and culturally welcoming or reassuring graphics and pictures. There is a good FAQ sheet on the Feedback and Complaints page about where and how to obtain legal advice, but there are no other linked agencies or resources specifically for Aboriginal people that could potentially assist with complaints.

Information about review rights

377. There is little information on DCJ’s website about review processes and pathways. Even for the limited decisions reviewable by NCAT,157 we found no child protection decision review policies,158 factsheets or processes describing review processes and how to use them. This is in stark contrast to the considerable information available for external review in other programs e.g., this housing appeals brochure¹⁵⁹, which is specifically targeted to Aboriginal people.

Complaints about contracted service providers

What we heard from Aboriginal people

• Aboriginal people we spoke to were concerned about the way that DCJ handled complaints about service providers, particularly where DCJ refers complaints back to service providers, as it means they investigate their own actions.
• We heard it is essential that both DCJ and service providers actively promote all complaint avenues in a consistent way.
• One Aboriginal service provider told us that they use external agencies to investigate complaints about their services, as this ensures independence in the process.

Service providers are contractually obliged to enable and handle complaints

378. Service providers also have contractual obligations to deliver quality complaint handling services. These include requirements to provide accessible complaint information, encourage and enable complaints, maintain policies and procedures (and make them available on request), and keep a register of complaints. Some programs include other specific requirements, such as to advise clients about complaint and appeal rights or have clearly stated timeframes.

379. It is positive that all these contracts have complaint handling requirements, although these terms are not entirely consistent across programs, potentially adding to complexity in monitoring compliance.

Contracting complaint register data could be improved

380. DCJ has a responsibility to ensure its service providers meet their contractual obligations, including for handling complaints and improving outcomes for Aboriginal children. This can be achieved through activities such as monitoring performance and compliance with contractual requirements and supporting service providers with advice and assistance on how to meet obligations.

381. DCJ advised that it began keeping a register of contracting complaints in October 2019 following the Family is Culture Report. That register holds data on complaints DCJ receives about service providers. DCJ provided our review with complaint register data for complaints received from 11 October 2019 to the end of November 2022 (when DCJ compiled its response for our review). While not perfectly aligned with financial years, this represents just over 3 years of complaint handling data. The registers recorded 244 contracting complaints identified as potentially in scope of the review. The register does not distinguish between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal complaints.

382. A total of 99 (41%) of the registered complaints were about programs that provide services to children and families involved in the child protection and OOHC system. The vast majority relate to the Permanency Support Program (PSP):

• 88 complaints about PSP providers
• 8 complaints about Brighter Futures providers
• 3 complaints about Family Preservation Program providers.

383. The registers do not have a unique identifier for each complaint and if a complaint raised multiple issues this appeared to sometimes be recorded as separate complaints, rather than as a single complaint with multiple issues. This means the review team could not ascertain the total number of complaints with absolute certainty.160 However, the data was sufficient for the purposes of obtaining sample files for review.

384. There was only 1 complaint registered in the 2019 calendar year. The remaining annual complaints data are shown in Figure 20 below. There were 37 in each of the calendar years 2020 and 2021 as the system for recording complaints in registers was embedded in the years after publication of the Family is Culture Report. There were only 18 complaints in the partial year to November 2022. Six complaints were undated.

Figure 20 - Consolidated Contracting Complaints register – Service Provider Complaints 1 Jan 2020 - 29 Nov 2022*

* 35 months of data to 29 November 2022

Overall contracting complaint volumes are low

385. As Figure 20 above shows, contracting registers indicate that DCJ receives less than 40 contracting complaints per year. This is concerning, given children in NGO OOHC number in the thousands.¹⁶¹ The majority of complaints reached contract managers via EFCU (54 of 99), followed by staff from other areas (9 of 99). There was only 1 complaint recorded as being received directly by a contract manager.¹⁶²

386. There is clear information about the contracting complaints process on a dedicated page on the DCJ website, but the low number of complaints DCJ receives about service providers warrants further consideration by DCJ to understand the reasons for this and whether there are further steps it could take to ensure people are aware they can escalate a complaint about a service provider to DCJ.

387. The register records ‘Nature of the Complaint’. The vast majority of complaints are about service provider actions, including service quality and delivery, behaviour of staff, and issues relating to communication.

There is scope to improve policy and procedures for contracting complaints

388. In addition to the overarching FACS complaint handling policy, DCJ has a Handle Contracting Complaints Procedure163 and associated procedures and templates for the handling of complaints about contractors. The Handle Contracting Complaints Procedure directs that it should be read in conjunction with the overarching FACS Complaint Policy, and includes:

• clear KPIs for acknowledging and responding to complaints (5 and 25 working days, respectively) and requires communication updates where 25 days is likely to be exceeded
• links to the overarching FACS Complaint Policy and an explanation of the 6 commitments to effective complaint handling
• guidance on conflicts of interest, confidentiality, anonymity and responding to unreasonable complainant conduct
• step-by-step guidance and templates for recording complaints and referrals, including a register, worksheets and referral forms
• guidance on receiving, triaging, assessing and investigating complaints
• an explanation of how and when complaints are received from and referred to other complaint handling branches, and includes a close-the-loop process for checking quality of handling in complaints that were referred to other areas
• quality assurance and escalation processes
• statements about the value of complaints, the importance of good complaint handling, the Premier’s priority and Secretary’s commitment to improving complaint handling.¹⁶⁴

389. With the exception of the areas for improvement discussed below, the policy and associated procedures and templates broadly conform with the NSW Ombudsman’s best practice guidelines and provide detailed step-by-step guidance for contract managers in the Commissioning and Planning teams based in district offices.

390. However, we identified the following issues and scope for improvement:

• It is not clear, in the event of a conflict with EFCU or district complaint handling procedures, which procedures have priority – this should be clarified.
• Complaint worksheets and registers would benefit from inclusion of unique identifiers and fields recording Aboriginality.
• The policy does not contain guidance for staff on managing Aboriginal cultural considerations in handling contracting complaints, and the worksheets, referral forms and registers do not collect information about Aboriginality or the specific cultural considerations for each complaint. The policy would benefit from additional guidance to prompt decision makers to consider if any of the parties are Aboriginal, and prompt consideration of any cultural supports or needs.
• The policy should also include guidance about how to manage retribution fears or risks, and any specific fears held by Aboriginal complainants (for example fears about increased surveillance, unfair or punitive treatment by caseworkers, removal of further children) and/or by Aboriginal staff who assist with complaints.
• The policy states that for complaints the primary focus is managing expectations and ‘achieving the requested outcome if possible’ and that ‘this activity is time-constrained, based on the NSW Ombudsman’s best-practice guidelines, and the complaint must be closed within 25 business days of receipt’. This not a correct statement. Neither the Ombudsman nor the Australian Standard mandate resolution within 25 days, and this should be clarified.
• The policy should acknowledge that in some cases issues affecting the complainant may not be resolvable within 25 days, provide guidance on the steps that should be taken, and additional benchmarks, where a complaint needs a longer period of time to resolve effectively.

DCJ’s process for monitoring performance and compliance

391. To help detect and address contract non-compliance and broader program issues DCJ needs an effective complaint handling process to receive and respond to complaints about contracted service providers.

392. PSP contracts involving Aboriginal children are managed by contract managers located in the districts, with support available if needed from the Prudential Oversight team. The level of involvement of the contract manager in the handling of complaints will vary according to the circumstances, including:

• the nature and seriousness of the issues raised in the complaint
• how responsive the service provider has been in resolving the issues raised in the complaint
• whether the complainant is satisfied with the service provider’s response to, and resolution of the issues
• how DCJ became aware of the complaint; for example, if it was received by the contract manager or referred by another agency.

393. Contract managers collect key complaint information in Contracting Complaint Registers which are maintained by each Commissioning and Planning or Statewide Services¹⁶⁵ team. This information is shared with the Prudential Oversight team on a quarterly basis for its centralised register of complaints, which is used to build the complaints section of PSP Provider Dashboards. These dashboards include quarterly and annual figures for open and resolved complaints in the categories of Communication, Procedures and Processes, Behaviour of Staff, Service Quality and Delivery, and Other. It also shows quarterly trend data for total open and closed cases over a 12-month period.¹⁶⁶ The Prudential Oversight team does not share complaint handling reports with service providers, but they may be discussed in meetings between the contract manager and the service provider.

394. Where contract management issues are identified, actions a contract manager can take include:

• reviewing the complaint and response, and providing assistance or support, or investigating the matter further
• requiring copies of the service provider’s complaint policies, registers and other relevant documents
• reviewing the service provider’s complaints mechanism
• raising specific complaints and issues arising from complaint handling in meetings with service providers (including discussing specific complaints, how they are being dealt with, issues the complaints have raised and how these have been or are being managed)¹⁶⁷
• if necessary, developing and implementing either a Service Development Plan (SDP) or a formal Performance Improvement Plan (PIP). Failure to make progress against a plan may result in further action under the contract including withholding funds or in serious breaches of contract, termination.

395. Service providers are required to develop and maintain their own registers of complaints they receive. They must provide DCJ with a copy of their complaint procedure document, and must make their register available to DCJ, on request. We did not ask for these, noting our review was about DCJ’s complaint handling system, not service provider systems.

Role of contract managers in complaint resolution

396. While contract managers can receive and be responsible for the management of complaints, we observed this was rarely the case. Complaints ordinarily enter via EFCU, which retains overall complaint management. The complaint manager is copied in on correspondence, and their role is generally limited¹⁶⁸ in practice to whether there were contract compliance issues.

397. This is not in itself a problem and is consistent with advice from the Prudential Oversight team that DCJ contract managers generally only become directly involved when other DCJ staff seek assistance having been unable to adequately resolve the complaint with the service provider.

Issues identified in sampled files

QA process for complaints referred to service providers is ‘light touch’

398. Quality assurance was ‘light touch’ with little information to suggest that service provider responses were critically assessed, either by EFCU, Prudential Oversight team or contract managers.

399. There was no DCJ request for further information or additional action in any of the 46 contract management complaint files we examined, even where there were apparent issues in how the complaints were handled. This light touch approach is illustrated in Harry’s case at paragraph 276, in which EFCU did not follow-up when no response was received, nor when an unduly brief response was subsequently received.

Contract managers could do more to proactively follow up contract issues arising from complaints

400. Overall, while contract managers were generally provided a copy of EFCU’s response form, we observed little follow-up action by contract managers, even in cases where serious and potentially systemic contracting issues arose.

• We also did not observe any cases where service providers were asked for their complaint registers, including in cases where there were concerns with the quality of a service provider’s complaint handling response, for example Grace’s case at paragraphs 178 and 346.
• There were a small number of files where minutes of contract meetings were included on the complaint file, but they tended to focus on updates about the likely timing of complaint responses, rather than a discussion of the substantive complaint issues. There were also a number of very delayed complaints relating to a particular service provider where there was no apparent action taken by the provider in response to the complaints.
• We saw only 1 case which involved an SDP. This was in response to concerns which were raised internally by another area of DCJ regarding a service provider rather than a complaint from a member of the public. Information on this complaint noted that the SDP was discussed during monthly contract meetings and the plan updated as required. Contract Managers handled this complaint directly.
• We did not observe any files during our file review where there was a completed PIP, although in our further inquiries into Shane’s case below we learned there was a completed PIP (which did not address the specific issues of that case but did include that 'complaints regarding poor performance against the contracted services were not adequately identified, recorded or responded to by the organisation’).

401. In Shane’s case below, a complaint that a service provider was withholding part of a carer allowance (to fund its additional casework assistance) was referred to the service provider for handling by EFCU. The complaint was ultimately upheld by a consultant hired by the service provider to look into the matter, on the basis there was no authority for the service provider to retain these funds. No response form was returned by the service provider, but a full copy of the consultant’s report was provided to EFCU and the contract manager. Despite the seriousness of the allegations, and the potential systemic and compliance issues it raised (discussed in more detail below), the complaint file contained no evidence of any further action by the contract manager

Shane’s case: Service provider wrongly withheld carer allowance

402. DCJ process is that contract issues arising from complaints should be investigated by the contract manager or escalated to the Prudential Oversight team by the contract manager. A feedback loop to EFCU should make it clear that the contract management issues will be investigated through contract management processes.

403. If the individual’s complaint is resolved, subsequent contract management actions will not necessarily need to be communicated back to EFCU, but any subsequent discussion or actions that do relate to an open complaint should be communicated to EFCU for its records and to enable it to keep the complainant updated.

Contract management templates are rarely used

404. We did not identify any cases where the ‘contracting complaint referral form’ was used (there was 1 case where a contract manager began to fill it in). There was 1 case where a contract manager used a 1-page ‘notice of complaint’ letter to refer a complaint to the service provider, even though they had the option of using the contracting complaint referral form.

405. This may be explained by the use of EFCU forms instead, but it means that the additional information required in the ‘contracting complaint referral form’ is not captured. While the EFCU form prompts the contract complaint manager to review the complaint response and consider whether it raises any new contract management issue, it does not guide the contract manager to fully assess the quality of the complaint response the way the four-part form does.

Complaint recording and data collection

What we heard from Aboriginal people

• Some interactions with DCJ are not accurately recorded by DCJ staff
• Inaccurate recordings are sometimes used against people in later decisions
• To address this issue, some Aboriginal people audio-record their interactions with DCJ
• People find they have to repeat their stories to different staff and units
• Indigenous data sovereignty is a key concern for Aboriginal people.

The importance of high-quality data

406. An effective complaint system is evidence-based and data-driven. Comprehensive and high-quality data is essential in several ways – for mapping complaint issues and patterns, illuminating both successful and ineffective complaint outcomes, pinpointing gaps and shortcomings in the complaint system, and shaping practice improvement reform proposals.

407. Reliable data is especially important in reviewing the operation of a complaint system that aims to assist Aboriginal people. In that context, DCJ data collection is inadequate in 3 prime areas:

• Only 1 of the 7 DCJ district clusters, and 1 of 81 CSCs, could provide evidence that they formally collect complaint handling data for locally managed complaints.
• EFCU was, until recently, the only complaint handling unit in DCJ that maintained separate data on Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal complaints.¹⁶⁹
• Complaints from Aboriginal people are not always recorded in a way that captures the distinctive Aboriginal aspects of the complaint (e.g., any particular cultural needs or preferences such as involvement of Aboriginal casework staff).

408. Those gaps make it difficult to paint a clear picture of when and how Aboriginal people interact with the DCJ complaint system. This chapter examines areas of uncertainty and weakness in DCJ record keeping and collection practices.

Data collection at district level

409. We heard from many Aboriginal families that their local DCJ district was the first (and preferred) place they would go to lodge a complaint. We heard the same from advocacy services, who are likely to have contacts and experience to draw on at the district level. Generally, complainants are encouraged to first raise their complaint issue at the local level or normal point of contact in an organisation. Districts and CSCs may elect to handle a complaint locally (that is, without referring the complaint to EFCU).

410. Only 1 of the 7 DCJ district clusters (and 1 of the 81 CSCs) formally collects local complaint handling data.¹⁷⁰ The practical effect is that there is an information vacuum that hampers objective analysis. It is not known how many complaints are made to district offices, how they are handled, what is classified as a complaint, and what issues are raised by Aboriginal people, or generally.

411. This means there is no data that can be drawn on to make a comparison between districts as to how they handle locally managed complaints. DCJ is equally hampered in ascertaining what is occurring within districts and holding them to account for locally managed complaint handling activity. DCJ will be similarly hamstrung in identifying complaint themes and systemic issues in complaint management, client relations and administration of services to Aboriginal children and families.

412. This report was impacted by inadequate DCJ data. It is likely the report understates the number and type of complaints that DCJ receives from Aboriginal children and families and DCJ practices and complaint expertise.

413. The PwC audit also expressed concern that not all complaints received at district level about child protection and OOHC are notified to EFCU, and complaints are responded to differently across the department. DCJ’s response to the PwC report did not include any plan to institute a new and comprehensive centralised system for recording complaints.

414. DCJ told us it had revised the EFCU Procedure and ‘District Quick Info Sheet’ to ensure districts refer complaints to EFCU in specified circumstances. However, the EFCU Procedure is directed to EFCU staff and may not influence behaviour at district level. The District Quick Info Sheet contains information about what EFCU does but does not contain information about when or how a complaint should be referred to EFCU from districts, CSCs or NGOs.

415. The Effective Complaint Handling Guidelines recognise that it may not be necessary for a caseworker to record, or to only record minimal details of, simple complaints that are immediately resolved on first contact.¹⁷¹ The Australian Standard states that a record should be made of all complaints, but that a complaint need not be recorded by a frontline worker if it is not reasonably practicable to do so (e.g., utility meter readers or public transport operators), if the complaint is appropriately addressed through immediate discussion, or the frontline staff provides appropriate contact details for making a complaint.

416. It is also possible a caseworker may, from one case to the next, be unsure whether the stage has been reached at which a case should be escalated or referred to EFCU. The greater problem appears to be low awareness among caseworkers of the criteria stipulated in the CSC Procedures for resolving those case-handling uncertainties.

417. The Child Safety Standards published by the Office of the Children’s Guardian include a standard requiring organisations to implement a child-focused complaint handling procedure.¹⁷² The OCG ‘Guide to the Child Safe Standards’ explains that one of the requirements to meet this standard is that an organisation keeps ‘records of complaints made to the organisation’ and ‘records of complaint handling’.¹⁷³

418. Districts appear to interpret these requirements differently. Only 1 district maintains a complaint register to meet the OCG requirement.

Questions prompted by EFCU data

419. EFCU collects complaint data that distinguishes between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal cohorts. This is valuable in itself for identifying systemic issues affecting Aboriginal complainants, and because it prompts important questions for further inquiry that are not answered by the data alone.

420. For example, the following EFCU data indicates areas for further inquiry:

Complaints involving Aboriginal children are under-represented in complaint data

421. The number of EFCU recorded complaints involving Aboriginal children is not proportionate to the number of Aboriginal children in care. During the 2019-22 period, Aboriginal children made up 43% of children in OOHC.¹⁷⁴ However, during the same period, EFCU registered only 26% of the 1,498 complaints it received as complaints involving an Aboriginal child.

422. Complaints from children themselves is notably low, and lower still for Aboriginal children. In total, 46 child complaints were registered by EFCU in the three-year period. Of those, only 12 (26%) were registered as Aboriginal child complainants. Those 12 complaints were less than 1% of the 1,498 complaints registered by EFCU in the period.

423. Under-representation of Aboriginal people in complaint data is not only an issue for DCJ, but also for other agencies (including the Ombudsman). The important thing is that this data is collected, analysed and used to improve Aboriginal people’s access to and use of complaint handling systems. If DCJ can obtain further insight about what prompted or enabled Aboriginal people to come to EFCU, this may help DCJ identify ways to promote and enable greater use of EFCU for other Aboriginal children and families.

Aboriginal people are under-represented in complaints assisted by advocacy services

424. Only a small proportion of the complaints to DCJ from advocacy services are recorded as complaints involving Aboriginal children. Complaints registered by EFCU in the three-year period 2019-22 as coming from a ‘Professional’ or ‘NGO or other advocate’ were registered as relating to Aboriginal children in only 19% of instances. This figure was also trending downwards – from 23% in 2019-20 to 14% in 2021-22.

425. Those figures may present an incomplete picture, as advocacy services may have taken many complaints directly to districts or the CSC. Nevertheless, this low figure in EFCU data warrants further analysis to ascertain if the advocacy services representing Aboriginal children and families are fully aware of the formal complaint channels, and what might be needed to increase assistance to Aboriginal people to lodge complaints (particularly in light of the feedback we heard from Aboriginal people that they need more support to complain).

Recording Aboriginality

426. DCJ does not consistently record in its complaint files the Aboriginality of the complainant, the Aboriginality of the child or young person to whom the complaint relates, or whether the service provided is an Aboriginal Community Controlled Organisation.

427. Information about Aboriginality is not required in either the contracting complaints form or EFCU’s form for a referral to an NGO. Aboriginality is only captured in CSIM data in briefing notes or dot points and therefore not recorded centrally within DCJ (although CSIM advised during the review that having been alerted to the issue it would begin capturing this data).

DCJ complaint recording practices

428. There are multiple record-keeping systems in DCJ that may yield varying data:

• EFCU records complaints centrally in a dedicated complaint management system – ‘Satisfy’.
• CSIM records complaints using Content Manager (TRIM) and an extension application known as MiniApp.
• Contract managers use an Excel spreadsheet template issued by the Prudential Oversight team.
• District offices do not have a consistent process for recording complaints managed locally, although the CSC Procedure indicates that complaints should be registered in a log and that documents should be filed in TRIM.

429. Our interviews with DCJ staff showed some refer complaints to EFCU for recording, some do not, and some use EFCU only as a secondary escalation point. In some districts, a TRIM folder was used for complaints handled at or above the MCS level or director level (but not below). One district located a TRIM folder, but it had not been used since 2020. Other districts did not use TRIM for complaint documents. We were told complaints may not be recorded unless the complaint reaches director level and that generally complaints that come ‘ground up’ would not be recorded for data purposes. Some complaints may be recorded in ChildStory as file notes of client interactions, others may be recorded in ‘Household’ or other sections of the ChildStory database (if at all).

430. Those separate record-keeping systems and practices create difficulties at two levels. At the case level it can be difficult to track how individual complaints were handled and the outcome. At a system level, it can be difficult to assemble reliable data on DCJ’s complaint caseload and capture system-wide issues arising from complaints.

431. Interviewees in one district commented on the issues that arise from the limited visibility of prior complaints at the local level, including that:

• Caseworkers and managers cannot see patterns of complaints from carers which could be used to better understand families and anticipate concerns.
• A person may have made numerous earlier complaints, but ‘as a new manager for that family, I have no idea what’s happened to resolve it. There may have been effective strategies I’m unaware of, or I could be making it worse’.
• The majority of escalated complaints relate to issues arising in frontline service delivery and it would be helpful to be able to pull data to target training.
• ‘[W]hen cases change hands [complaint] information gets lost to us. … and I guess also thinking about how many times we may be repeating conversations that have been had before and how confusing that may be for a family if those conversations are slightly different’

432. Staff also commented that it would be good to have an information source that indicates to them that complaints exist and can be found. One staff member observed:

Quantitative data

433. There is scope for better integration and reporting of agency-wide complaint data.

434. DCJ publishes basic EFCU complaint handling information in its annual report, which is available on the DCJ website. However, for reasons explained earlier in this report, the stakeholder feedback we heard would suggest most complaints are received and managed locally in districts and CSCs. While we accept the line between casework and complaint handling can be difficult to discern, it remains important to record and report on these complaints. CSCs should be recording and reporting on complaints managed locally.

435. Family and Community Services Insights Analysis and Research (FACSIAR) is the DCJ data unit that is set up to ‘drive evidence-based decision making to achieve the best outcomes for children, families and vulnerable communities’. This includes extracting quantitative data from ChildStory. However, FACSIAR does not appear to have a role in the extraction and reporting of complaints data across the department. FACSIAR’s potential role in complaint analysis should be considered by DCJ.

Key records not on complaint file

436. The main shortcomings in record-keeping related to complaint files are not always including key documents or recording the internal consideration of complaint issues. For example:

437. Most response forms did not include important records such as emails and file notes. Only 5 of 66 EFCU complaint files we sampled (8%) contained supporting documentation with the response form. The few files that did contain supporting documentation had important documents such as emails, meeting minutes, updated cultural plans and external consultant assessments. Similarly, some files were closed without a summary of the steps taken, evidence collected and the reasons for a decision. Most responses contained only dot point information.

438. There was a similar lack of documentation attached to service provider responses – Harry’s case is an example (see paragraph 276). This shortcoming can be concerning as DCJ staff do not have access to a service provider’s case management system. DCJ can be totally reliant on the service provider for reassurance that a complaint was properly handled and EFCU have told us that they take the service provider’s response ‘on good faith.’ In our earlier chapter on complaint outcomes we discussed the need for more robust quality assurance by EFCU (and/or contract manager). It is also important that DCJ be prepared to handle some complaints itself (e.g., where serious, complex or involving retribution risk) without necessarily referring the complaint to the NGO to handle.

Internal deliberations not recorded

439. An important dimension of case handling can be interaction between caseworkers and managers in dealing with difficult complaint issues. It was clear from our sampling of EFCU case files and our interviews with district staff that active discussion often occurs between caseworkers and managers during the handling of a complaint. This ranges from seeking advice, having a sound-out discussion, escalating a difficult issue, ascertaining a case-worker’s version of events, or giving a complainant the option of speaking with a casework manager. However, record keeping shortcomings meant in some cases it was not possible to assess the quality of these interactions, or the support and supervision caseworkers received during complaint handling.

Audio recording verbal interactions

440. A specialised aspect of complaint management and data collection is the audio recording of oral and telephone conversations. This issue touches other aspects of complaint management that are taken up in other chapters of this report.

441. It is now a familiar social occurrence that calls to telephone help and enquiry lines (particularly in the corporate sector) are prefaced with an announcement that (with consent) the call may be audio recorded for data verification purposes.

442. Calls to the DCJ Helpline and to EFCU are audio recorded. Individuals to whom we spoke said they sometimes audio recorded their other interaction with DCJ officers as they did not trust that a full or accurate written record would be kept. We heard that people do not trust that information provided to DCJ will be properly recorded in writing. We were told of instances in which the DCJ written record was allegedly incorrect as words had been mis-recorded, taken out of context or misrepresented, including in later child protection proceedings before the Children’s Court.

443. We accept that there can be a disagreement or misunderstanding as to what was said in a conversation. This is particularly so in an interaction that may be emotionally-charged regarding a child protection issue.

444. Audio call recording can be an effective and practical strategy to reduce misunderstanding. Audio recording has other potential benefits also – creating a reliable record; improving data collection and analysis; boosting efficiency and transparency in complaint management; avoiding unproductive disputation; and, overall, restoring trust to the client relationship.

445. From a retribution management perspective, audio recording would make it easier to quickly ascertain exactly what happened in an interaction with DCJ before or without the need to interview witnesses. It can also discourage the risk of misconduct occurring in the first place. As noted above, we were told by some Aboriginal people that they already make their own audio recordings of their interactions with DCJ. If this is occurring, it lends weight to the proposition that DCJ should be examining more closely whether it should be offering audio recording for any Aboriginal people who want it.

446. We acknowledge there are likely to be significant complexities associated with further expansion of audio recording in a child protection environment, and that ultimately, such expansion may or may not be appropriate. However, consideration should be given to options to enable Aboriginal people to request, if they wish, that an interaction with the department be audio recorded (i.e., on an opt in basis) so that they can:

• have confidence and certainty about the accuracy of the record of the interaction
• request that the recording be later listened to by a manager or independent complaint handler.

447. On that basis we recommend in this report that DCJ examine whether it is appropriate and feasible to expand audio recording of certain calls and other client interactions. However, it would be vital that broader and deeper consultation is undertaken with Aboriginal stakeholders to ascertain whether there is broader community support for expanded audio recording and to hear any concerns before new arrangements (if any) are trialled or introduced. Any new initiatives to expand audio recording, data capture, and use should be developed in consultation with DCJ’s Ngaramanala Aboriginal Knowledge Program to help ensure an informed dialogue between the department and Aboriginal communities on Indigenous data sovereignty and Indigenous governance.¹⁷⁵ It would also be important to consult with legal and clinical experts to help DCJ weigh the potential benefits and risks of any further expansion of audio recording.

448. Data collection and analysis protocols should also be embedded in any new arrangements for recording client interactions.

Improved record keeping and data management

449. The need for improved record keeping and data management in DCJ is a recurring theme of this report. We briefly note a few factors that should be considered in rolling out an improved system.

Record keeping requirements

450. It is a fundamental requirement under the State Records Act 1988 (NSW) that ‘each public office must make and keep full and accurate records of the activities of the office’ (s 12).

451. The Australian Standard states that organisations should make a record of all complaints, with some exceptions for frontline workers in certain circumstances, as described above. This view is reinforced by the Child Safety Standards that urge organisations to maintain reliable records on child safety complaint handling.

452. Based on the fact that so few districts supplied complaint registers, and many complaint files were missing key records, DCJ needs to review its complaint resources to ensure staff – at all levels – have clear and consistent guidance about their obligations in relation to recording all aspects of the handling of a complaint.

Recording client interactions

453. There are differing views on when complaints and client interactions should be recorded. While some client-facing areas may not, for example, fully record complaints that are simply resolved upon first contact, there is a competing view that more rather than less should be recorded to build a fuller picture of complaint issues and trends.

454. We encountered instances in which DCJ officials were unaware of the written agency guidance on complaint recording they were expected to follow. Our view is that it should be clear to staff when an explanatory record should be kept, for example when a complaint is escalated or if the complaint is about the behaviour or conduct of a DCJ worker. Dr Andrew’s case at paragraph 250 illustrates how thorough record keeping made it possible to examine a medical practitioner’s complaint of poor treatment when making a child safety report.

Systemic analysis of qualitative and quantitative data

455. A strong theme in Aboriginal stakeholder engagement was the view that complaints do not result in any systemic changes. Legal Aid observed that while complaints emailed to a local CSC ‘were typically actioned in a way that addressed an immediate issue, systemic complaints remain largely unresolved’.¹⁷⁶

456. Identification and investigation of systemic problems in agency policy and administration can be strengthened through a comprehensive and integrated complaint database. This process can be aided by a database that is complete and navigable. Indeed, a high-quality record system can spontaneously flag potential systemic issues for further evaluation.

457. This was noted in the PwC audit, which observed that inconsistent and disparate complaint recording ‘limits DCJ’s ability to analyse complaint data to identify themes and root causes of complaints’.¹⁷⁷

458. We observed obstacles to systemic analysis at a documentary and operational level. The Prudential Oversight team’s referral form contains a prompt to consider whether any new contractual issues are raised in the complaint. There is no similar prompt in the EFCU referral form. EFCU, as a centralised unit that sees the issues and responses provided by all districts, is in a strong position to identify and feedback systemic issues and promote greater consistency and agency-wide improvement.

459. Holly’s case at paragraph 266 provides an example of the kind of reflective practice information that districts sometimes share with EFCU. It would be helpful if this information were routinely provided, ensuring that EFCU can collate and share complaint improvement insights with the executive and other districts as appropriate.