1

For further information

Policy, Research and Innovation unit
Anglicare Victoria
P (03) 9412 6113

ISBN: 978-0-9808054-2-0

© Anglicare Victoria 2011

This publication is copyright. Apart from fair dealing for the purpose of private
study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act,
no part may be reproduced without written permission from the publisher.

Anglicare Victoria
103 Hoddle Street Collingwood
Anglicare Victoria
P (03) 9412 6113
F (03) 9415 9181
E info@anglicarevic.org.au

ABN 97 397 067 466

www.anglicarevic.org.au
Table of contents

About the author 3

Acknowledgements 3

Executive summary 4

Anglicare Victoria: The State’s largest provider of foster care 8

Developing out-of-home care services 8

Attention to siblings in law and policy 9

Benefits of sibling placement 10

Sibling relationships and separations 11

Why siblings are separated 12

Anglicare Victoria’s Brothers and Sisters in Care survey 14

Definition of sibling 14

Research methods 14

Sample description 15

Findings 17

Discussion and recommendations 22

Conclusion 28

References 29
About the author
Dr Sarah Wise is General Manager, Policy, Research and Innovation at Anglicare Victoria.
Dr Wise has a background in developmental psychology and has extensive social policy
research experience in the areas of parent-child attachment, child care and the family,
community and service contexts of vulnerable and disadvantaged children. Dr Wise is
particularly active in research relating to outcomes for out-of-home care children, which
includes her PhD study Attachment and Wellbeing in Foster Care Children, research using
child outcomes data collected through implementation of the Looking After Children system
in Victoria and a comprehensive study into the education outcomes of looked after children.

Acknowledgements
Many of my corporate, practice and research colleagues at Anglicare Victoria have
generously contributed their time and expertise to discussing the issues surrounding sibling
separation and the need for this research, the specific content of the foster carer survey,
the practice and policy implications of the survey findings as well as commenting on various
drafts of the report. The people who readily took part in this highly participatory research process
include Paul McDonald (CEO), Jenny Potten (Deputy CEO - Community Services), Antoniette
Bonaguro (General Manager Placement and Support), Cathy Argus (Practice Specialist), May
Davey (Acting Program Manager Yarraville out-of-home care), Dennis Minster (Program Manager
Gippsland out-of-home care) and Maya Serelis (Team Leader Eastern out-of-home care).

Others inside Anglicare Victoria provided specific practical support to facilitate the research
process. I am grateful to Annie Bruxner (Research Assistant) for her help in sourcing the
relevant literature and to Antoniette Bonaguro (General Manager Placement and Support), Sarah
Wilks (Research Assistant) and the Team Leaders in out-of-home care located in the Yarra Ranges
(Michelle Mealor), Box Hill (Gina Housakos), Broadmeadows (Lydia Cuce and Genevieve O’Connor),
Yarraville (Sherrie Martin) and Morwell (Trent Kooyman) for constructing the sample information.

The research was also greatly assisted by Mark Davis, David Morris and the interview team
at I-view who conducted a smooth and professional fieldwork process.

Above all, I am indebted to the foster carers who took the time to participate in this research.

3
Executive summary
On any one night over two thousand babies, children and young people across Victoria are
accommodated in foster care homes. Anglicare Victoria is the major provider of foster care
in the State, coordinating around 16 per cent of all foster care placements.

One of the issues Anglicare Victoria practitioners have raised on the basis of their experience
accrediting, supervising and supporting foster care placements is the difficulty placing siblings
together when they enter out-of-home care (OOHC). Anglicare Victoria’s experience was
suggesting that many siblings were separated on placement in foster care, and children who
entered foster care at a later time were often placed away from their siblings as well.

The literature recognises that a sibling can soften a child’s grief associated with parental
separation and provide an important source of support during care and through life.

Anglicare Victoria conducted the Brothers and Sisters in Care (BASIC) survey to provide the first
Australian data on the proportion of foster children who were part of a sibling group and the
prevalence of siblings who were separated in foster care. The extent to which separated siblings
lose contact with one-another was another question behind the survey, as was the extent to which
a lack of diversity and capacity within the Victorian OOHC system was dictating the separation of
siblings who could otherwise benefit from staying together in the same home. The survey was not
designed specifically to examine the extent to which separate sibling placement was the result of
a ‘positive placement’ decision.

The population of interest for the survey was all children accommodated in active full-time foster
carer households supervised by Anglicare Victoria. At the point in time the survey was conducted
(October 2010) this included 116 carer households across 12 home-based care programs located in
the Eastern, North-West and Gippsland regions of Victoria. Ninety-five foster carers responded to a
telephone interview about 144 foster children. This represented an overall response rate of 82 per cent.

The BASIC sample represented approximately 6.4 per cent of all Victorian children living in foster
care at any one point in time. The BASIC sample was also roughly comparable to the general
population of children in OOHC on characteristics including ATSI and CALD background, age and
length of time in current placement. Of particular relevance to the study of sibling separation was
the generally long-term nature of children’s placements. The mean time children had spent with
their current carer was just over two years, indicating generally stable living arrangements.

The high response rate, relative large sample size and comparability of the sample to the general
population of OOHC children suggest the findings of the BASIC survey can be generalised beyond
Anglicare Victoria to the Victorian OOHC system more widely.

The survey data were analysed to address four key research questions concerning the proportion
of foster children who belong to a sibling group, the incidence of sibling separation in care, the
role service capacity plays in sibling separation and contact between separated siblings.

4
A very high proportion of children in the BASIC survey had siblings and had siblings in care.
These figures were consistent with findings reported elsewhere:

• 73.6 per cent of the 144 foster children included in the BASIC survey had a sibling
(either in care or living at home)
• 88.7 per cent of children with siblings had a sibling in care and
• 65.3 per cent of the 144 foster children included in the BASIC survey had a sibling in care.

A very high proportion of children with siblings in care were separated from at least one sibling.
This figure is substantially higher than what has been reported elsewhere:

• 84.1 per cent of the 94 children in the BASIC survey with siblings in care were separated
from at least one sibling.

International studies have reported that approximately half of children with siblings in care
are separated from one or more sibling.

A high proportion of children with at least one sibling in care were separated from all their
siblings in care. This figure was consistent with findings reported elsewhere:

• 42.6 per cent of the 94 children with siblings in care were separated from all their siblings.

Intact sibling groups or ‘not separated’ children are under-represented in the Victorian
OOHC system compared to the situation internationally:

• Only 16 per cent of the 94 children with siblings in care in the BASIC survey were placed
with all their siblings.

Studies conducted overseas report between 40 to 46 per cent of children with siblings in
care are part of intact sibling groups.

Findings from the BASIC survey were also able to shed some light on the extent to which positive
choice, serial entry into care and lack of resources may be related to sibling separation.

Separated children did not differ from children living with at least one sibling on any child or
placement characteristic that might indicate separated children were living apart from their
siblings for ‘positive choice’ or ‘best interests’ reasons.

5
There was evidence to suggest that serial entry into care may be related to sibling separation
in the Victorian context. Just over one-third of the 106 children who were part of a sibling group
had at least one sibling at home (42(39.6%)).

There was also evidence to indicate a lack of resources may be an important reason why siblings
are separated during placement. Specifically, there may be a significant proportion of the foster
carer pool who are more experienced or who are sole carers who are unwilling and/or unable
to accommodate siblings or sibling groups.

In relation to sibling contact, it was found that contact between separated siblings (those in care
and those at home) was generally poor. Less than one-third of all children separated from siblings
in care or at home (29(29.3%)) had contact with their siblings on a weekly or more frequent basis.
Perhaps more stark was the finding that nearly half of all children with siblings living elsewhere
(45(45.5%)) never saw their siblings or only saw them on an irregular and infrequent basis.

The extent of sibling separation observed in the BASIC survey combined with minimal
contact between a high proportion of separated siblings calls for action to both prevent sibling
separation in care, to enable siblings to maintain contact with one-another and to promote
reunification of siblings in care where it is in children’s best interest to do so.

Eleven recommendations are put forward to ensure current and future generations of foster
children are not further traumatised by losing important relationships and a natural source of
lifelong support.

Recommendation 1. A standard should apply whereby regional placement coordination

units access the DHS Client Relationships Information System (CRIS) to establish whether or
not any child coming into care has sibling(s) already in placement. In circumstances
where a child entering into care has a sibling(s) already in placement, a placement
referral should be made to the agency supervising the sibling(s) in the first instance.

Recommendation 2. Enhance the DHS Client Relationships Information System for Service
Providers (CRIS/SP) so that agencies have access to information about family members
recorded in CRIS, including the location of siblings and half siblings.

Recommendation 3. Implement best practice processes to promote sibling reunification,

including:
• Assign all siblings to the same caseworker, no matter when they are referred to the agency
• Review within the first week to plan for reunification of siblings who have been
separated in an emergency placement and
• Discuss sibling issues at regular case reviews.

Recommendation 4. Provide for ongoing aggregation and analysis of data from CRIS to
monitor sibling separation as a key OOHC performance indicator.

Recommendation 5. Develop and pilot a range of models that are designed to

accommodate the needs of larger sibling groups in a family-like environment.

6
 Recommendation 6. Develop and pilot an adapted set of standards to better suit the
care needs of siblings.

Recommendation 7. Increase the amount of respite care available to carers of large sibling
groups to cover day-time respite as well as resources for other essential supports associated
with the care of a large sibling group.

Recommendation 8. Overhaul the current lengthy recruitment and assessment protocols to

simplify and expedite the assessment and accreditation of prospective carers.

Recommendation 9. Launch a new, State-wide foster carer recruitment campaign to attract

carers specifically to care for sibling groups.

Recommendation 10. Implement best practice processes in maintaining contact between

separated siblings, including:
• Joint short-term outings or camp experiences
• Joint respite care
• Placing siblings in the same local area or school district
• Keeping siblings in their same schools
• Encouraging other forms of contact if the distance between siblings is great
(eg. letters, e-mail, cards, phone calls and even social media such as Facebook)
• Arrange contact with birth parents at a time when all the siblings can be together
• Resource carers of separated siblings to facilitate ongoing communication and visitation
• Train caseworkers and foster parents on the importance of preserving sibling
connections and
• Record information about siblings in each child’s Life Book.

Recommendation 11. Further research should be undertaken to establish the determinants

of sibling separation, particularly the extent to which sibling separation is the result of ‘positive
placement’ decisions, and the outcomes for these cases.

7
Anglicare Victoria: The State’s largest
provider of foster care
Anglicare Victoria was formed in 1997 when three of the State’s largest child and family welfare
agencies joined together - the Mission to the Streets and Lanes, the Mission of St James and St John
and St John’s Homes for Boys and Girls. Combined these well-respected agencies had over 260
years experience in providing care and support to vulnerable and marginalised children, young
people and families.

Anglicare Victoria is the major provider of foster care in Victoria.1 At 30 June 2010 there were 2,234
Victorian children and young people living in foster care, representing 40.8 per cent of all children
and young people in out-of-home care (OOHC) (AIHW, 2011).

Anglicare Victoria’s 12 foster care programs located in the Yarra Ranges, Box Hill, Knox,
Broadmeadows, Preston, Yarraville and Morwell coordinate around 16 per cent of all foster care
placements in the State. In 2009-10 Anglicare Victoria provided 1,831 foster care placements and
95,172 days of OOHC for children and young people. At any one point in time Anglicare Victoria
has 680 committed carers willing to nurture and support vulnerable children and young people
who have been removed from their parents.

Developing out-of-home care services

Foster children have typically experienced abuse and/or neglect in their original families. Many
also experience significant separation trauma as a result of being taken into care. Child welfare
professionals have responsibility for developing and coordinating interventions and assistance to
promote the safety, stability and development of all foster children, which includes provisions of
opportunities to work through abuse and separation-related trauma.

For a number of successive years, Anglicare Victoria has invested heavily in overhauling its OOHC
services. The agency has used considerable amounts of its own funds to improve the provision of
OOHC to achieve better outcomes for children. Succeeding in this area continues to be extremely
important to the agency. Placing children in the care of others is a serious responsibility, particularly
given the abuse and trauma so many have suffered. Our journey is to discover how to best support
children’s healing, learning and more healthy and positive ways of engaging.

Anglicare Victoria’s breadth of experience delivering foster care and commitment to quality
improvement has produced practitioners, managers and foster carers who are wise, perceptive
and reflective about features of their work and issues within Victoria’s OOHC system that impact
on the level of care and protection being provided to the children within it.

8 1
Foster care is a home-based care model that provides placements for children
and young people up to 18 years of age who are unable to live with their families
because of abuse or neglect, or where the parent(s) are unable to care for the child
or young person for a short period of time due to illness or other significant family
circumstances.
Anglicare Victoria believes combining its practice and organisational wisdom with evidence from
research in an authoritative and objective way will improve its work and ability to implement its
responsibilities to children in OOHC.

One of the issues Anglicare Victoria practitioners raised on the basis of their experience accrediting,
supervising and supporting foster care placements, was the difficulty following legislation and
practice guidance that supports the placement of siblings in the same foster home.

Attention to siblings in law and policy

At the heart of the Victorian Children, Youth and Families Act 2005 (CYFA) is a set of ‘best interests
principles’ that specify how to protect children from harm, protect their rights and promote their
development in culturally, age and gender appropriate ways. The best interests principles of the
CYFA include the desirability of siblings being placed together when they enter OOHC.

The Best Interests Planning for Children in Out of Home Care guidance (DHS, 2007) sets down the
implications of the ‘best interests principles’ for the way that practitioners go about their day-to-
day work with children and families. The Best Interests Planning for Children in Out-of-Home Care
guidance provides the policy and practice framework for the delivery of OOHC services. It specifies
that in accordance with s. 169 and s. 170 of the CYFA, whenever it is assessed that long-term OOHC
care is in a child’s best interests, the child’s best interests plan2 should include details of planning for
arrangements for access by the child to their parent(s) and sibling(s).

Against this legislative and policy background are other initiatives designed to promote the rights
and full and harmonious development of children in OOHC, including the UN Convention on the
Rights of the Child (1989) and the related SOS Children’s Villages International Guidelines for the
Alternative Care of Children (United Nations Framework, 2009). The Guidelines for the Alternative
Care of Children state that “Siblings with existing bonds should in principle not be separated by
placements in alternative care unless there is a clear risk of abuse or other justification in the best
interests of the child. In any case, every effort should be made to enable siblings to maintain
contact with each other, unless this is against their wishes or interests” (p.8).

The CYFA also requires that there is a Charter for children and young people in care in Victoria
that provides a framework for promoting the wellbeing of these children (s. 16(1)(f)). The Charter
for Children in Out-of-Home Care (DHS, no date) provides a clear and simple set of statements of
the rights that children and young people can expect to be upheld throughout their time in care.
Although one of the 16 rights is “To keep in contact with my family, friends and people and places
that matter to me”, no specific mention is made of sibling contact or placement. Likewise, the
development of the National Standards for Out of Home Care (FAHCSIA, 2010) by the Australian
Government under the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2009–2020 makes
no specific mention of siblings anywhere in the 14 standards it sets down.

2
A best interests case plan is the formal plan that guides the assessment, planning 9
and action by child protection workers for a child subject to a protective intervention.
A best interests case plan incorporates a statutory case plan, cultural plan, care and
placement plan, family reunification plan and/or stability plan as appropriate.
Benefits of sibling placement
Although the various legislative, policy and practice guidance referred to above supports the
general principle of placing siblings in the same foster home wherever possible, they are neither
detailed or specific. For example, there is no guidance to caseworkers to implement such
placements or to assist decisions about placement changes for siblings. In particular, the guidelines
do not address the issue of balancing the needs of siblings to be together against other best interest
principles, such as maintaining stable placements where positive attachments have been formed.
Nor are there specific obligations to provide siblings in foster care with information about, and
contact with, each other.

Despite the lack of focus and detail in the various documentation, the idea that a sibling can
cushion a child’s grief associated with parental separation and provide an important source of
support in both childhood and adulthood has strong empirical support.

Sibling co-placement can have an ameliorating effect on the trauma and distress children
experience on entering OOHC. Research has found, for example, that a young child’s secure
attachment to an older sibling can diminish the impact of adverse circumstances such as parental
mental illness or loss (Werner, 1990; Sanders, 2004).

Protecting ties that offer support to children removed from their original families is also important for
long-term wellbeing. Foster children typically experience more losses of significant others, meaning
sibling relationships are often one of their only sources for a continuing significant relationship.
Research has also demonstrated that warmth in sibling relationships is associated with less loneliness,
fewer behaviour problems and higher self-worth (Stocker, 1994).

Concomitantly, separation from a sibling is known to deprive children of the opportunity to

develop a relationship that might be expected to offer them significant support over the course of
their lives. This loss of relationship has been painfully described by some of the 500,000 children in
institutional care in Australia between 1930 and 1980 as one example of the ‘systemic abuse’ they
experienced. In the SBS documentary ‘The Forgotten Australians’ (SBS, 2010), Leonie Sheedy, who is
a co-founder of the Care Leavers Association Network (CLAN), spoke of how her sisters and brother
were taken from her when they were in care and how she was left on her own. Leonie’s story
highlighted not just the trauma she experienced on separation from her siblings but the distress this
event has caused her over a lifetime.

A body of research has also established that separated siblings in foster care are at higher risk for a
number of negative outcomes, including placement disruption, running away and failure to exit the
system to reunification or an alternative permanent care arrangement (Leathers, 2005; Courtney,
Skyles, Miranda, Zinn, Howard & Goerge, 2005).

10
Sibling relationships and separations

The Australian ‘knowledge gap’

Information about siblings does not appear in the annual statistics on child protection collected
from each State and Territory department by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare and
reported in the Child Protection Australia series. Research-based information on the number and
proportion of siblings among children in care and the extent to which brothers and sisters stay
together in placement is also scant (Ainsworth & Maluccio, 2002).

While the issue of sibling groups in care has been underemphasised in the Australian research,
a number of investigations have been conducted outside Australia over the past two decades.
In 2005 Hegar published a review of 17 international studies from Canada, England, The
Netherlands, Scotland and the United States. Although the sample of children in the 17 studies
varied considerably in terms of size, definition of sibling and how sibling separation was reported,
it provides some useful benchmarks.

Foster children who come from sibling groups

The National Adoption Information Clearinghouse estimates that 65 to 85 per cent of foster children
in the United States come from sibling groups (Corder, 1999). An earlier study of 262 children referred
to Casey Family Services3 over a 14-year period revealed that as many as 90 per cent of these
American children had siblings (Staff & Fein, 1992). A study conducted in Scotland similarly reported
that 82 per cent of the foster care population were known to have siblings (Kosonen, 1996).

Siblings in the OOHC system

Reports of foster children in the United States who had a sibling in care ranged from 60 to 73 per
cent (Shlonsky, Webster & Needell, 2003). For example, a study of a California public agency
population reported that 60 per cent of foster children had siblings in care (Welty, Geiger &
Magruder, 1997). Approximately two-thirds of children with Casey Family Services were reported
to have siblings in care (Staff & Fein, 1992).

Separation from siblings in care

Studies that have examined sibling separations from an individual ‘child’ perspective, as opposed
to a sibling ‘group’ level of analysis suggest that approximately half of children with siblings in care
were separated from at least one sibling also in care. For example, in 1999, 47 per cent of children
who entered foster care in New York were separated from at least one of their siblings (Casey
Family Programs National Centre for Resource Family Support, 2002).

International studies have also reported the proportion of children who were separated from all
their siblings in care. More than half (53%) of children in the Casey Family Programs study were
separated from all siblings (Staff & Fein, 1992). Findings from the study of a California public agency
population referred to above indicated that about 40 per cent of siblings were placed apart from
all siblings in care (Casey Family Programs National Centre for Resource Family Support, 2002).

3
Casey Family Services is the direct service agency of the Annie E. Casey Foundation 11
operating in seven states of America - Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts,
New Hampshire, Rhode Island and Vermont.
Placements with siblings
The issue of sibling separation has also been examined from the perspective of children who were
placed with siblings in care. One study of California foster children with siblings in care reported that
66 per cent were placed with at least one sibling (Shlonsky et al., 2003). Studies that have examined
the issue of sibling placement further suggest that approximately 40 per cent of foster children with
siblings in care stayed with their complete sibling group. For example, a study of California foster
children with siblings in care reported about 46 per cent were placed with all their siblings who were
in care (Shlonsky et al., 2003). In July 2002 the California Department of Social Services reported that
about 40 per cent of foster children were placed with all of their siblings (Casey Family Programs
National Centre for Resource Family Support, 2002).

Why siblings are separated

Studies have been able to identify a number of reasons for sibling separations in foster care.

Separation as a positive choice

Although it is generally held that siblings should be placed in the same foster care home when
it is feasible to do so, the international research identifies circumstances where siblings should
be placed separately. This includes circumstances where sibling placement can detract from a
secure attachment environment or disrupt a stable placement where positive attachments have
been formed (eg. when children have been placed at different times or when a sibling has a
behaviour problem). Another reason for positive choice is when child safety is compromised, as in
circumstances of sibling violence and aggression (Hegar, 2005; Shlonsky et al., 2003; Linares, 2006).
Large age gaps and specific needs for different types of placement have also been cited as
reasons for separation as a positive choice (Maclean, 1991; Rushton, Dance Quinton & Mayes, 2001).

Entering foster care at separate times

A key factor identified in foster care studies as contributing to separation was having entered care
at separate times (Shlonsky et al., 2003; Welty et al., 1997; Maclean, 1991; Rushton et al., 2001). The
available evidence suggests that children who follow siblings into care are less likely to be co-
placed than siblings who enter care on the same day (Wulczyn & Zimmerman, 2005).

Organisational issues
A number of organisational issues may also be linked to sibling separation, including organizational
policies and procedures, agency rules regarding the maximum number of children who can be
placed in a foster home as well as beliefs and attitudes of workers (Child Welfare Information
Gateway, 2006).

12
Lack of capacity within OOHC systems
An important determinant of sibling separation that has been largely overlooked in the research
is the issue of capacity within OOHC systems to accommodate sibling groups in the same home.
While the international research shows that large sibling groups are more often split than small
sibling groups (Hegar, 2005; Shlonsky, et al., 2003), little attention has been given to the adequacy
of placements for large sibling groups and allied resources and supports.

Some anecdotal information does exist to suggest difficulties accommodating more than three
children in a foster care placement in Victoria. Separation of siblings was one of the deficiencies
found in the report of a recent investigation by the Victorian Ombudsman into Victoria’s OOHC
system (Ombudsman Victoria, 2010). The report includes the observations of senior practitioners
who state that “usually the only option for housing larger sibling groups is residential care” (p.78).
Increasingly, it seems, contingency placements are being used to manage the shortfall in
placement capacity.

The Ombudsman stated that nine per cent of the Department’s contingency placements for the first
quarter of 2009-10 were used to house sibling groups. Often this means children are taken from their
family and housed in a hotel room with a child protection worker around the clock (Cleary, 2008).

The Ombudsman concluded that the use of undesirable placements for OOHC children - which
includes separation of siblings among other factors - was linked to the current growth in demand for
OOHC services and insufficient capacity to meet this demand. Following national trends, the report
highlights that that demand for OOHC services in Victoria has increased by 50 per cent over the
past decade and that the number and breadth of placement options has simply not kept in step
with this demand.

The experience of Anglicare Victoria caseworkers supports the idea it can be difficult to find foster
families willing and able to care for multiple children. The practicalities of meeting existing foster
care standards that relate to privacy, motor vehicle travel, and sleeping requirements in particular
can act as prohibitive barriers to finding a suitable placement.

13
Anglicare Victoria’s Brothers and Sisters
in Care survey
The Brothers and Sisters in Care (BASIC) survey is an example of how Anglicare Victoria is seeking to
better understand features of its work and what they might mean for children and young people in
care as well as the organisation of the OOHC service system more broadly.

The overarching purpose of the BASIC survey was to put the issue of sibling placement on the policy
agenda by producing research-based knowledge on sibling separation in foster care. This was
intended to guide recommendations to enhance the operation of the OOHC system to support
the placement of siblings in the same home and to enable separated siblings to maintain contact
with one-another.

The BASIC survey was developed with four main questions in mind:

• What proportion of foster children are part of a sibling group?

• What is the incidence of sibling separation in care?
• To what extent is a lack of capacity within the Victorian OOHC system related
to sibling separation? and
• What is the frequency of face-to-face contact between separated siblings?

Definition of sibling
The issue of how to define siblings has been identified in the literature as a sticky research problem
(Staff, Fein & Johnson, 1993). Children involved with the child welfare system may experience a
number of different families and may develop ties with other children with whom they may or may
not have a biological relationship. The approach taken in the BASIC survey was to define siblings
on the basis of biological relatedness and to include full siblings (children with the same mother
and father) and half-siblings (children who shared at least one parent), including any children who
had never lived in the same household (eg. children who were relinquished or removed at birth or
placed serially by the same parent).

Research methods
The sample frame for the study comprised all active full-time foster carer households supervised by
Anglicare Victoria, which totalled 116 at the time the sample was constructed in October 2010.
This included carer households managed by home-based care programs located in the inner- and
outer-Eastern Metropolitan Region, the North-West region and the Gippsland region of Victoria.

14
Foster carers were first contacted about the study by mail. The recruitment method involved
an active opt-out procedure. Carers who were interested in participating in the study were
subsequently contacted to complete a computer assisted telephone interview. Of the original
sample of 116 carer households, eight declined to be interviewed and a further 12 carers
were unable to be contacted during the period the project was in-field. Thus, the final sample
comprised 95 foster carer households representing an overall response rate of 82 per cent.

Sample description
The unit of analysis for the BASIC survey was foster care children. There were 144 children aged
0-17 years living full-time in the 95 foster carer households included in the survey. Going on figures
reported in Child Protection Australia 2010 (AIHW, 2011), this represents approximately 6.4 per cent
of all Victorian children living in foster care at any one point in time.

Household structure
Presence of birth children
More than half (82(57.7%)) of the 144 foster children involved in study lived in foster child only
households; that is, no birth children aged less than 18 years were resident in the same household.
The mean number of birth children per household was .96(Std. Deviation4 = .14).
Presence of other foster children
The majority of foster children involved in the BASIC survey lived with other foster children
(89(61.8%)). However, approximately three-quarters of these children lived with only one other foster
child; that is, in homes comprising two foster children (66(74.2%)). Placements comprising groups of
three foster children or more were relatively uncommon.
Single- and two-carer households
Just over one-quarter of foster children in the sample lived in sole-foster parent homes (38(26.4%)).
The mean number of active carers for the sample as a whole was 1.92(Std. Deviation = .72).
Carer age
The mean age of respondent foster carers was 49.4 years (Std. Deviation = 10.3).

Child and placement characteristics

Table 1 below presents the demographic and placement profile of the sample children.
Of particular note here is the generally long term nature of children’s placements. The mean time
children had spent with their current carer was just over two years (Std. Deviation = 2.3 years). Only
one-quarter of the sample had lived with their current carer less than six months (36(25.0%)). The
other noteworthy sample characteristic is the generally young age of children on entry into care
(Mean = 4.4 years, Std. Deviation = 3.4 years).

4
The standard deviation (Std. Deviation) is a measure of how spread out the values 15
or data are around the mean. 68% of the values are within one standard deviation of
the mean. 95% of the values are within two standard deviations of the mean. More
than 99% of the values are within three standard deviations of the mean.
Table 1. Demographic and Placement Profile of Children involved in Anglicare Victoria’s Brothers
and Sisters in Care (BASIC) Survey

Sample characteristic
Mean child age 7.1(Std. Deviation = 5.2)
Age structure
0-4 years 56(42.6%)
5-9 years 34(26.0%)
10-14 years 24(18.3%)
15-17 years 17(13.0%)
Male 83(57.6%)
Australian born 131(91.0%)
ATSI 16(11.1%)
Placement type
Home-based care placement 117(81.3%)
Adolescent community placement 8(5.6%)
Therapeutic foster care placement 11(7.6%)
Don’t know 8(5.6%)
Order type
Guardianship Order 36(25.0%)
Custody to the Secretary Order 79(54.9%)
Interim Accommodation Order 17(11.8%)
Not on a court order 2(1.4%)
Other 4(2.8%)
Don’t know 6(4.2%)
Mean length of time with foster carer (mos.) 25.4(Std. Deviation = 27.0)
Mean age on entry into care (years) 4.4(Std. Deviation = 3.4)

Sample representativeness
Although the BASIC sample was drawn from one large agency, it was assembled from a very
broad geographic base across 12 home-based care programs. Proportions of children from ATSI
and CALD backgrounds described in Table 1 were also approximately similar to the State average.
While it is difficult to make direct comparisons owing to the way the data are reported, the age
structure of the BASIC sample was also largely similar to that of all children in OOHC. Finally, 32.4 per
cent of all Victorian children in OOHC have been in continuous placement for more than five years
(AIHW, 2011). While this measure was not included in the BASIC survey, length of time in a child’s
current placement can serve as an indicator of time in care. Of all children in the BASIC survey,
9.7 per cent of children had been living with their current carer for five years or more and 41.7 per
cent had been living with their current carer for two years or more.

These comparisons suggest a rough similarity between the BASIC survey sample and the general
population of OOHC children. This combined with the reasonable sample size (N = 144) suggests
the findings of the BASIC survey are generalisable beyond Anglicare Victoria to the Victorian
OOHC system more widely.

16
Findings
The survey data were analysed to address the four key research questions outlined above
concerning the proportion of foster children who belong to a sibling group, the incidence of sibling
separation in care, the role service capacity plays in sibling separation and contact between
separated siblings. The findings are presented below.

Foster children who come from sibling groups

Among the 144 foster children in the BASIC survey, 106 or 73.6 per cent were part of a sibling group;
that is had at least one sibling at home or in care.

Foster children with siblings in the OOHC system

The vast majority of the 106 children who were part of a sibling group had at least one sibling
in care (94(88.7%)). Only 12 of the 106 children who were part of a sibling group did not have a
brother or sister in care (11.3%). Represented another way, of all the 144 foster children included
in the BASIC survey, approximately two-thirds (65.3%) had a sibling in care.

Just over one-quarter of the 106 children who were part of a sibling group had at least one sibling
in care and at least one sibling at home (30(28.3%)). Just over one-third of the 106 children who
were part of a sibling group had at least one sibling at home (42(39.6%)). Represented another way,
of all the 144 foster children included in the BASIC survey, just over one-quarter(29.2%) had at least
one sibling at home.

Figure 1 shows the proportion of foster children with a sibling in care and/or at home.

All foster children

(N = 144)

Siblings in care No siblings in care Don’t know

n = 94 n = 38 n = 12

Siblings at home Siblings at home

n = 30 n = 12

Figure 1. Foster children who were part of a sibling group

17
It was curious to find that in 12(8.3%) cases foster carers did not know whether the child in their care
had a sibling also in care. This suggests that the actual proportion of foster children with siblings in
care could be higher than 65.3 per cent.5

Carers should have knowledge of siblings on placement if they are provided with a copy of the
child’s Placement Referral Form, which includes information on whether the child is part of a
sibling group needing placement, the names of siblings referred for placement with the child, any
reasons why siblings should not be placed together and the preferred placement arrangement.
However, carers may not receive this information for some weeks, or at all if the Community Service
Organisation does not receive the Placement Referral Form from the Department of Human
Services or if the Community Service Organisation does not give the Placement Referral Form to the
carer. Four of the children with carers who did not know about siblings at home or in care had only
been living with the foster carer for four weeks or less. It is likely, therefore, that referral information
had not been exchanged at the time the BASIC survey was administered.

Further, it is not always easy to track half siblings in complex families, where mothers and fathers
have children to different partners. This is especially so when birth parents lose contact with children
in care. Six children with carers who did not know whether they had a sibling at home or in care
never had contact with their father, and four children with carers who did not know about the
presence of siblings never had contact with their mother. This suggests that loss of contact with birth
parents was a key reason why foster carers (and foster children) did not have full knowledge about
the presence of siblings.

Foster children with siblings in care who were separated, partially separated

and not separated
To understand the prevalence of sibling separation, the 94 foster children with siblings in care were
categorised into one of three groups in relation to where their siblings were placed.

The first group were separated from all their siblings (‘separated’). This accounted for 40 or 42.6 per
cent of all foster children with siblings in care.

The second group of children were placed with at least one sibling, but were also separated from
at least one sibling. Children who were placed with at least one sibling but also had a sibling in care
living elsewhere (‘partially separated’) accounted for 39 or 41.5 per cent of all foster children with
siblings in care.

The third group of children were placed with all their siblings. These 15 children who were part of
intact sibling groups (‘not separated’) accounted for 16.0 per cent of all children with siblings in care.

18 5
In 18(12.5%) cases foster carers reported that they did not know whether the child
in their care had a sibling living at home.
The proportion of children in each of the three groups are illustrated in Figure 2 below.

100%
16.0% Not separated
80%
Partially separated
60% 41.5%
Separated
40%

20% 42.6%

0%

Figure 2. Separated, partially separated and not separated siblings in care (N = 94)

The living arrangements of foster children in the BASIC survey is further illustrated in Figure 3 below.
This diagram shows the number of children who lived with other foster children (n = 89) and those
who lived in households where they were the only foster child (n = 55). These groups are further
broken down in terms of whether children had siblings in care or not. Finally, children with siblings in
care who were living with other foster children are represented according to whether they were
living with none (separated), some (partially separated) or all (not separated) of their siblings.

In respect of children separated from all their siblings in care (n = 40), 25(62.5%) were living in homes
where they were the only foster child and 15(37.5%) were living with unrelated foster children.

All foster children (N = 144)

Only foster child in household Living with other foster children

n = 55 n = 89

Separated No Don’t Sibling(s) in care No Don’t

n = 25 siblings know n = 69 Siblings know
n = 25 n=5 n = 13 n=7

Separated Partially Not

n = 15 separated separated
n = 39 n = 15

Figure 3. Living arrangements of foster children with siblings in care.

19
Children placed with, and children separated from, at least one sibling
To aid comparisons with findings from the published studies of siblings in foster care reported above,
the proportion of children who were separated from at least one sibling and the proportion of
children who were placed with at least one sibling was calculated.

As can be seen in Figure 2, 84.1 per cent of children with a sibling in care were separated from at
least one sibling (n = 79). This group of children are the children who were separated and partially
separated combined.

Further, of all children with a sibling in care, more than half (54(57.4%)) were placed with at least
one sibling. These are the partially separated and not separated children.

Difficulties placing siblings together

The BASIC survey explored the extent to which sibling splits may have been related to difficulties
placing children together. This question was examined by asking carers of separated and partially
separated children whether they had been asked to fit a sibling into their family.

Separated and partially separated foster children were also compared on relevant child, carer,
household and placement characteristics to help illuminate the extent to which these two groups
of foster children varied on factors that would indicate a lack of placement capacity.

Requests to carers to fit a sibling into the foster family

Surprisingly, only a very small minority of the 79 carers of children with siblings placed apart
(separated and partially separated children) were asked to care for the separated sibling
(12(15.2%)). Of those carers who could not fit a sibling into the foster family, all reported the
impact of the sibling(s) on family dynamics as a reason. A child’s special needs was the second
most common reason for not fitting a sibling into the foster family (2(16.7%)).

Differences between children who were separated and partially separated

To further explore possible reasons for sibling splits, separated foster children (n = 40) were
compared with children who were partially separated (n = 39).

Separated children did not differ from partially separated children on any child or placement
characteristic, including child age, gender, length of time with foster carer or age first placed in OOHC.

Carers of separated children did not differ from carers of partially separated children in terms of
age or number of birth children living in their household.

However, carers of separated children had been caring for a significantly longer period and had
looked after significantly more foster children than carers of partially separated children. Further,
there were significantly more active adult carers in households containing partially separated
children compared to households containing separated children.

These findings are reported in Table 2.

20
Table 2. Differences between Separated and Partially Separated Foster Children on Carer,
Household, Child and Placement Characteristics

Separated Partially t-value p-value

separated
Carer characteristics
Carer age (years) 50.65 48.92 .76 ns
Years fostering (carer) 10.90 7.74 2.01 .05
Number of children fostered 43.42 18.00 2.11 .04
Household structure
Number of birth children 1.08 1.10 -.07 ns
Number of active carers 1.75 2.23 -2.95 .00
Placement characteristics
Months with foster carer 23.78 26.31 -.44 ns
Age first entered care 4.32 3.04 1.62 ns
Number sibs living apart 2.39 2.00 1.24 ns
Child characteristics
Age of child 7.05 6.68 .32 ns

Contact with siblings in care or at home

Of all children with a sibling in another OOHC placement or not in care, approximately one-
quarter(22.2%) never had contact with their sibling(s). Another quarter of the foster children with
siblings living elsewhere only saw their siblings less than monthly or irregularly. This means that just
under half (45.4%) of all foster children rarely or never had contact with siblings living elsewhere.
Another quarter of foster children who were separated from at least one sibling in care or at home
saw their sibling(s) at least monthly (25.3%). Only 25.3 per cent of foster children saw their separated
sibling(s) on a weekly basis. In only four cases did separated siblings see one-another daily (4.0%).

Comparing separated and partially separated children, it did not appear that being separated
from all siblings (either in care or at home) heightened the risk of losing contact with siblings.

The frequency of contact between children and their separated siblings for separated children,
partially separated children and all children who were part of a sibling group is presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Sibling Contact Among Separated, Partially Separated and All Foster Children with Siblings

Frequency of contact Separated n(%) Partially All children

separated n(%) part of a sibling
group n(%)

Never 11(28.2%) 8(20.5%) 22(22.2%)

Less than monthly/irregularly 10(25.6%) 9(23.1%) 23(23.2%)
Less than weekly but at least monthly 7(17.9%) 12(30.8%) 25(25.3%)
At least weekly 9(23.1%) 9(23.1%) 25(25.3%)
Most days 2(5.1%) 1(2.6%) 4(4.0%)
Total 39(100%) 39(100%) 99(100%)

21
Discussion and recommendations

Prevalence of sibling groups and siblings in care

Approximately three-quarters (73.6 per cent) of all foster children included in the BASIC survey had
a sibling either in care or living at home. This finding is consistent with other research, which suggests
that between 65 and 90 per cent of foster children are part of a sibling group.

Of the total sample of 144 foster children included in the BASIC survey, 94 or 65.3 per cent had a
sibling in care. This is also consistent with the international literature, which reports between 60 and
73 per cent of foster children have a sibling in care.

Prevalence of sibling separations in care

Results of the BASIC survey suggest that 42.6 per cent of the 94 children with siblings in care were
separated from all their siblings (referred to as ‘separated’). This figure appears to be in line with the
experience internationally.

However, findings from the BASIC survey suggests that a higher proportion of children in the BASIC
survey were separated from at least one sibling than what is reported in the international literature.
Specifically, 84.1 per cent of the 94 children in the BASIC survey with siblings in care were separated
from at least one sibling (referred to as ‘partially separated’ and ‘separated’ in the findings section).
International studies have reported that approximately half of children with siblings in care are
separated from one or more sibling.

Another way of representing sibling separation is by examining the proportion of children with siblings
in care who were living with all their siblings. Only 16 per cent of the 94 children with siblings in care
in the BASIC survey were placed with all their siblings in care (referred to as ‘not separated’). This
compares to reports of 40 to 46 per cent of children in intact sibling groups in OOHC systems overseas.

This suggests that intact sibling groups or ‘not separated’ children are under-represented in
the Victorian OOHC system compared to the situation internationally.

Child characteristics as a reason for sibling separation

The international research identifies a number of individual child determinants of sibling separation,
including positive choice, the presence of a child with a psychological problem, a wide age
range between siblings and other special needs of individual members of a sibling group.

The BASIC survey was not designed to capture information about the characteristics of sibling
groups or assessments regarding placement decisions and care plans, so it is unclear the extent
to which separations observed here were related to positive choice or the needs and welfare of
individual children.

However, when separated and partially separated children were compared on child and
placement factors that may serve as proxy measures (such as time with current carer, child age
and child age on entry into care) no differences were apparent. Further research is needed to
explore the extent to which characteristics of children or specific needs dictate sibling separation.

22
Serial entry to care as a reason for sibling separation
The available research suggests that sibling groups who enter care separately are more likely to
be separated than siblings who enter care together. Siblings who enter care later than six months
after their sibling(s) appear to be at the highest risk of being separated, especially if the siblings
had never lived in the same household.

While the BASIC survey did not collect information to determine how many sibling groups entered
care together, it was found that just over one-third of the 106 children who were part of a sibling
group had at least one sibling at home (42(39.6%)). This suggests that serial entry into care may be
related to sibling separation in the Victorian context.

A number of situations may lead to siblings being placed separately despite best efforts to the
contrary. However, the challenge of serial placement may be exacerbated by deficiencies in
client record keeping and referral practices. This would suggest strategies to identify, track and
reunite siblings in care.

Recommendation 1. A standard should apply whereby regional placement coordination

units access the DHS Client Relationships Information System (CRIS) to establish whether or
not any child coming into care has a sibling(s) already in placement. In circumstances
where a child entering into care has a sibling(s) already in placement, a placement referral
should be made to the agency supervising the sibling(s) in the first instance.

Recommendation 2. Enhance the DHS Client Relationships Information System for Service
Providers (CRIS/SP) so that agencies have access to information about family members
recorded in CRIS, including the location of siblings and half siblings.

Recommendation 3. Implement best practice processes to promote sibling reunification,

including:
• Assign all siblings to the same caseworker, no matter when they are referred to the agency
• Review within the first week to plan for reunification of siblings who have been separated in
an emergency placement and
• Discuss sibling issues at regular case reviews.

Recommendation 4. Provide for ongoing aggregation and analysis of data from CRIS to monitor
sibling separation as a key OOHC performance indicator.

23
Capacity within the OOHC system as a reason for sibling separation
Although the literature identifies a number of issues that can determine whether siblings live
together in the one placement or not, the issue of capacity within the OOHC system; that is the
number and type of placements required to accommodate sibling groups, was explored through
the BASIC survey as a potential reason for sibling splits.

The findings suggest that while many children with siblings in care have two or more siblings, there
is insufficient capacity within the OOHC service system to accommodate large sibling groups.
For example, the household characteristics of the survey sample showed that 61.8 per cent of
foster children lived with other foster children.6 However, only 16 per cent of foster children lived
in foster homes that comprised three or four foster children. Official statistics reported by the
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare show that for Victoria as a whole, only 12.4% of foster
carer households comprise three of more foster children (AIHW, 2011).

When partially separated and separated children were compared on child, carer and household
characteristics, differences were found on carer and household structure characteristics. That
is, the carers of separated children had been fostering for significantly longer and had cared for
significantly more foster children than carers of partially separated children.

This suggests that new foster carers may be more willing to care for sibling groups, and/or are
better able to fit the requirements of siblings into their family and household circumstances. Further,
households containing separated children had significantly fewer active carers than households
containing partially separated children, which suggests that single-carer households may not have
the time or other significant resources to care for sibling groups.

These findings suggest that there may be a significant proportion of the foster carer pool who are
more experienced or who are sole carers who are unwilling and/or unable to accommodate
siblings or sibling groups.

These findings suggest new efforts are needed to increase capacity within the Victorian
OOHC system to accommodate sibling groups.

Specialised service for sibling groups

In order to keep multiple siblings together, child welfare jurisdictions around the western world have
developed specialized home-based programs specifically for large sibling groups. Historically, the
Victorian system relied on Family Group Home type models to accommodate sibling groups of three
or more children. This generally worked on the basis of a couple moving into a fully equipped home
owned by the auspice organisation at no cost to the carers personally. Generally, but not exclusively,
carers did not have their own children still living with them in the home. They would receive four to
six children into their care and run the household in a way that was typical of an ordinary family. In
return, the couple were paid a modest income. They would work 12 consecutive days a fortnight and
then have a two day weekend off duty and away from the Family Group Home.

24 6
State-wide this figure is 40.8 per cent (AIHW, 2011).
Recent changes to the Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010
have seen these models phased out. As a result foster care and, more recently, kinship care, are
relied upon to accommodate children coming into OOHC who are part of large sibling groups.
Both models provide appropriate and adequate care for sibling groups. However, the capacity of
individual carers and the restrictions of care standards relating particularly to privacy and sleeping
arrangements all impact on the ability of these care options to maintain siblings together.

A return to a Family Group type home model, or the targeting and training of specific foster carers
are two directions that could be developed to ensure adequate placement diversity and capacity
in the Victorian OOHC system to accommodate large sibling groups.

Recommendation 5. Develop and pilot a range of models that are designed to accommodate
the needs of larger sibling groups in a family-like environment.

Review of care standards

Victorian government standards and policies do not differentiate between the placement needs
of related or unrelated foster children. Standards designed to support and enhance a child’s
placement life can present impractical and unnecessary restrictions to placing sibling groups in the
same foster home. For example, standards relating to privacy and sleeping arrangements suggest it
is inappropriate for siblings of different genders to sleep in the same room, even if this means siblings
are unable to be placed together. Existing standards do not address the practical and emotional
needs of larger sibling groups, who may require a more relaxed, though safe, environment as a
means of remaining together as well as an expression of family life.

Recommendation 6. Develop and pilot an adapted set of standards to better suit the care
needs of siblings.

Support to carers of large sibling groups

Carers of sibling groups of three or more children are eligible for intensive placement
reimbursements of $500 per child per annum in addition to the home-based care reimbursement.
However, this is often not sufficient to cover the additional household items and services needed to
look after a large sibling group, such as a large vehicle to transport children safely, assistance with
transport if children have to be in different places at different times, help with household chores
such as cleaning and cooking and day-time respite.

Recommendation 7. Increase the amount of respite care available to carers of large sibling
groups to cover day-time respite as well as resources for other essential supports associated
with the care of a large sibling group.

25
Recruitment strategies
Carer recruitment strategies are clearly relevant to increasing the pool of foster carers who are able
to care for siblings, especially in the light of current findings that suggest relatively few long-standing
carers are willing to take on sibling groups.

In order to increase the current pool of foster carers and to ensure a constant ‘refresh’ of the
foster carer pool, an overhaul of the current recruitment and assessment protocols to simplify and
expedite the assessment and accreditation of prospective carers is proposed. The idea is to make
available ‘probationary carers’ ready to take on new placements within a two-month period.

This approach involves a shift from the current lengthy and linear inquiry, recruitment, assessment,
training and accreditation process to a parallel process whereby initial training, criminal history and
working with children checks, psycho-social screening, home-safety checks and referee checks
are completed concurrently within a two-month period. After these processes are complete,
an application would be made to the Assessment Accreditation Committee (AAC) to register
the carer(s) on a probationary basis for 12 months. Carers would then be approved to take on
placements in line with AAC approval.

During the next six months a process competency review would be undertaken and feedback
sought from DHS, other professionals and agency workers regarding any areas of development
required or other concerns. These would be raised with the probationary carer and measures put
in place to address them or the probationary accreditation taken back to AAC for determination
as to whether or not to proceed further. At the end of 12 months a recommendation would be
made regarding the removal of a carer’s probationary status.

Recommendation 8. Overhaul the current lengthy recruitment and assessment protocols to

simplify and expedite the assessment and accreditation of prospective carers.

Recommendation 9. Launch a new, State-wide foster carer recruitment campaign to attract

carers specifically to care for sibling groups.

Contact between separated siblings

Contact between separated siblings (those in care and those at home) was generally poor. Less
than one-third of all children separated from siblings in care or at home (29(29.3%)) had contact
with their sibling(s) on a weekly or more frequent basis. Perhaps more stark was the finding that
nearly half of all children with siblings living elsewhere (45(45.5%)) never saw their sibling(s) or only
saw them on an irregular and infrequent basis.

Strategies for maintaining ties between separated siblings

Evidence of children losing contact with siblings in care and at home reported above suggests
innovative and best practice processes are needed to enable siblings to maintain contact with
one-another.

26
 Recommendation 10. Implement best practice processes in maintaining contact between
separated siblings, including:
• Joint short-term outings or camp experiences
• Joint respite care
• Placing siblings in the same local area or school district
• Keeping siblings in their same schools
• Encouraging other forms of contact if the distance between siblings is great
(eg. letters, e-mail, cards, phone calls and even social media such as Facebook)
• Arrange contact with birth parents at a time when all the siblings can be together
• Resource carers of separated siblings to facilitate ongoing communication and visitation
• Train caseworkers and foster parents on the importance of preserving sibling connections and
• Record information about siblings in each child’s Life Book.

Further research
The main purpose of the BASIC survey was provide the first Australian data on the proportion
of foster children who were part of a sibling group and the prevalence of siblings who were
separated in foster care. While capacity and diversity of placements within the Victorian OOHC
system was examined as a possible reason for sibling separation, the study was not designed to
capture important information about other determinants of sibling separation, specifically whether
separation was a ‘positive choice’ decision.

Recommendation 11. Further research should be undertaken to establish the determinants

of sibling separation, particularly the extent to which sibling separation is the result of ‘positive
placement’ decisions, and the outcomes for these cases.

27
Conclusion
Although information on siblings in care is embedded within the DHS Client Relationships and
Information System, these data are not currently extracted and reported at an aggregate level
in order to inform issues surrounding sibling placement.

The Brothers and Sisters in Care survey was designed to fill the current gap in knowledge on the
proportion of foster children in Victoria who are part of a sibling group as well as the incidence of
sibling separation in care. The extent to which separated siblings lose contact with one-another
was another question behind the survey, as was the extent to which a lack of resources within the
Victorian OOHC system is dictating the separation of siblings who could otherwise benefit from
staying together in the same home.

Although the cross-sectional nature of the study and the limited data on reasons for sibling
separation suggest some caution when interpreting the findings, it provides critical new information
that should stimulate dialogue on how agencies and the system more broadly can better meet its
responsibilities to ensure siblings in care have the same opportunity as children in the community to
form close, affectionate and enduring bonds.

Specifically, a high prevalence of sibling separation and a relatively low occurrence of intact sibling
groups in care as well as overall poor contact between separated siblings all point to the need
for additional processes and resources to identify, monitor and reunite siblings who have been
separated, to increase capacity within the OOHC system to accommodate sibling groups and to
ensure separated siblings maintain contact with one-another.

The study findings and the 11 key recommendations outlined above should be used to open public
dialogue about siblings in care and the actions that government and community service agencies
need to take to ensure current and future generations of foster children are not further traumatised
by losing important relationships and a natural source of lifelong support.

28
References
Australian Institue of Health and Welfare (2011). Child Protection Australia 2009-10. Child Welfare
Series No. 51. Cat. No. CWS 39. Canberra: AIHW.

Ainsworth, F., & Maluccio, A. (2002). Siblings in out-of-home care: Time to rethink? Children Australia,
7(2), 4–8.

Bath, H. (2008). Children Australia, 33:2,

Casey Family Programs (2002, May). Proceedings of the National Leadership Symposium on
Siblings in Out-of-Home Care. Available at: www.casey.org/Resources/Archive/ Publications/
SiblingSymposium.htm

Child Welfare Information Gateway (2006). Sibling Issues in Foster Care and Adoption. Bulletins for
Professionals No. 7. Available at: http://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/siblingissues/siblingissues.cfm

Cleary, R. (2008). Protection system in need of reform. Media release 11 December 2008. Available
at: http://www.anglicarevic.org.au/index.php?pageID=6779&merchant_id=0

Corder, C. (1999). Sibling bonds. Children’s Voice, 8(2), 28– 29.

Courtney, M., Skyles, A., Miranda, G., Zinn, A., Howard, E., & Goerge, R. (2005). Youth who run away
from substitute care. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center for Children.

Department of Families and Housing Community Services and Indigenous Affairs (2010). National
Standards for Out of Home Care: Final Report. Available at: http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/
families/pubs/kpmg_final_report_nsfohc/Documents/final_report_nsfohc_kpmg.pdf

Department of Human Services (2007). Best interests planning for children in out of home care.
Department of Human Services Child Protection Practice Manual. Available at: http://www.
dhs.vic.gov.au/office-for-children/cpmanual/Output%20files/practice%20functions/Output%20
files/Execute/1284_bi_planning_out_of_home_care.pdf

Department of Human Services (no date). Charter for children In Out-of-Home Care. Available at:
http://www.cyf.vic.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/96066/charter_for_children_in_out-of-
home_care.pdf

Hegar, R. L. (2005). Sibling placement in foster care and adoption: An overview of international
research. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(7), 717-739.

Kosonen, M. (1996). Maintaining sibling relationships—neglected dimension in child care practice.

British Journal of Social Work, 26, 809-822.

Leathers, S. (2005). Separation from siblings: Associations with placement adaptation and outcomes
among adolescents in long-term foster care. Children and Youth Services Review, 27(7), 793-819.

Linares, L. (2006). An understudied form of intra-family violence: Sibling-to-sibling aggression among

foster children. Aggression and Violent behaviour, 11, 95-109.

Maclean, K. (1991). Meeting the needs of sibling groups in care. Adoption and Fostering, 15(1),
33–37.

Ombudsman Victoria (2010). Own motion investigation into child protection - out of home
care. Available at: http://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/Own_motion_
investigation_into_child_Protection_-_out_of_home_care_May_2010.pdf

29
Rushton, A., Dance, C., Quinton, D., & Mayes, D. (2001). Siblings in late permanent placements.
London: British Agencies for Adoption and Fostering.

Sanders, R. (2004). Sibling relationships: Theory and issues for practice. Hampshire, England: Palgrave
Macmillan.

Shlonsky, A., Webster, D., & Needell, B. (2003). The ties that bind: A cross-sectional analysis of siblings
in foster care. Journal of Social Service Research, 29(3), 27–52.

SBS (2010, November). The Forgotten Australians. Television Documentary. Available at: http://www.
sbs.com.au/documentary/program/forgottenaustralians

Social, Community, Home Care and Disability Services Industry Award 2010. Available at: www.siag.
com.au/modern_awards/Social_Community_HomeCare_DisabilityServicesAwd2010.pdf

Staff, I., & Fein, E. (1992). Together or separate: A study of siblings in foster care. Child Welfare, 71,
257-270.

Staff, I., Fein, E., & Johnson, D. B. (1993). Methodological issues in studying sibling placement. Social
Work Research and Abstracts, 29(2), 35–37.

Stocker, C. M. (1994). Children’s perceptions of relationships with siblings, friends, and mothers:
Compensatory processes and links with adjustment. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry,
35(8), 1447-1459.

U.N. Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989). UN General Assembly Document A/RES/44/25.

United Nations Framework (2009) Guidelines for the Alternative Care of Children, SOS Children’s
Villages International, Austria.

Welty, C., Geiger, M., & Magruder, J. (1997). Sibling groups in foster care: Placement barriers and
proposed solutions (report to the Legislature of June 1997). Sacramento, CA7 California
Department of Social Services.

Werner, E. E. (1990). Protective factors and individual resilience. In E. J. Meisels & S. J. Shonkoff (Eds.),
Handbook of early childhood intervention (pp. 97-116). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Wulczyn, F., & Zimmerman, E. (2005). Sibling placements in longitudinal perspective. Children and
Youth Services Review, 27(7), 741-763.

30