How we achieved “the most significant Australian child welfare reform in a generation”

Author: Paul McDonald

Article published in the Australian Journal of Social Issues. 1 August 2024

DOI: 10.1002/ajs4.361

Abstract
In Australia, on any given day, about 45,000 children and youth aged 0–17 (about 1 per cent of Australian youth) are in the care of the state, often cared for through delegation-funded child welfare organisations. Many of these children are in out-of-home care of such organisations for brief periods of time, but a substantial number remain in care until their mandatory emancipation. About 3600 youth a year are obliged to leave care at 18 years of age, due to child protection orders ending before their 18th birthday. Many advocates in the field, including former youth in out-of- home care represented in the CREATE Foundation, believe that this is much too young to be out on their own. Founded in 2016, Home Stretch is a national advocacy campaign to extend the leaving care age for young people in out-of-home care from 18 to 21 years in all Australian jurisdictions. Prior to the Home Stretch movement, no Australian state, territory or federal government (with the partial exception of the ACT) had indicated any action, interest or desire to extending its services to children in state care past 18 years. Yet, extended care in varying forms has been found recommended in various government enquiries over the past several decades. Seven years after the Home Stretch launch, extended care is now offered in all eight Australian jurisdictions, and at last count, over 4200 young people are in extended care arrangements to 21 years
across the country. This is a remarkable social policy about face by the Government in a relatively short space of time. In this article, we describe the advocacy strategy employed.

1 | INTRODUCTION

There are an estimated 45,000 children and young people in out-of-home care in Australia, about 3600 of those will have their care terminated at the age of 18 (Australian Government, 2022). Too many care leavers experience poor outcomes; in fact, half will find themselves homeless, unemployed, a new parent or in jail within the first 12 months of leaving care (Raman et al., 2005). Sixty-three per cent of the Australian homeless youth are care leavers (Flatauet al., 2015). Of the 45,000 children and young people in out-of-home care, 43.7 per cent are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander; in comparison, only 6 per cent of children in the general population are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Australian Government, 2023). Leaving care programs available across the country are discretionary, sporadic and not sufficient
to tackle the poor outcomes experienced by this cohort. Numerous reports have called for more support to be provided to care leavers, including reports by state, territory and federal governments; however, the changes to support post 18 were incremental and discretionary (Mendes, 2015, 2024). No one had campaigned singularly on the extension of care to 21 years.

“Australia was regarded internationally as a leaving care laggard” (Mendes, 2024, p. 1). Meanwhile, in the United States and the UK, care was being extended to 21 years with strikingly positive outcomes for the young people themselves and the wider community. Homelessness rates were halved, and employment and education engagement were doubled; these were just some of the positive outcomes of the reform internationally. International evaluations such as the CalYouth study from the United States by Mark Courtney and the Staying Put evaluation from the UK by Emily Munro were key in assisting the development of the landmark cost-benefit analysis by Deloitte Access Economics in 2016, which gave the campaign the economic argument to complement the moral argument for the need to extend care to 21 years locally.

The Home Stretch campaign set out to change the policies of eight different state and territory governments, from formally terminating state care at 18 years to formally continuing the care to the young person through 3 years of funding and support. It took 7 years to get all eight governments announcing formal extended care to all young people in care and with the new policies providing a combined $300 million for the extended care provision.

The Home Stretch campaign was launched in 2016 at Anglicare Victoria (AV). AV quickly grew this campaign into a national movement with campaign committees established and event and media launches held in each of the eight jurisdictions. The campaign attracted the support of hundreds of individuals and organisations made up of sector agencies, peak bodies, councils, philanthropic organisations, law agencies and community groups such as Rotary and Country Women’s Association (for a full list see: theho mestr etch. org. au/ suppo rters ). This article will explore the Home Stretch campaign’s strategies and tactics employed to get eight governments to commit to one of the most significant reforms in child welfare in a generation.

2 | EXTENDING CARE FOR THE CHILD UNDER STATE CARE IS IMPORTANT

Mendes (2019) argues that research shows that leaving care practices by governments have been failing young people for many years. A Victorian cost-benefit study by Raman et al. (2005) found that half of those who are required to exit their care placement end up homeless, in prison, unemployed or a new parent within the first 12 months; a Swinburne University national study of 400 homeless young people surveyed found that 63 per cent were recent care leavers (Flatau et al., 2015). Other studies show that this cohort is over-represented in emergency wards of hospitals, youth refuges and correctional institutions. Around the Western World, extended care until 21 is normative; yet, prior to the attention Home Stretch brought to this issue, Australian jurisdictions lagged extended care initiatives in other Anglophone countries around the world (Mendes, 2021). Moreover, the standards of care are different for youth living with their parents and not with the state in out-of-home care. A Melbourne University study reported 85 per cent of 18-to 21-year-old Australians currently reside at home with at least one parent (Wilkins, 2017). The average age for leaving home is 24 years old (Wilkins & Vera-Toscano, 2019). There is obviously something that typical parents know that seems to have been missed by the state, and this difference in care standards suggests a pernicious social devaluation of youth in out-of-home care. Kagan (1979, p. 889) admonished that children and youth’s assessment of their social value “depends in part on whether the form of rearing is different from that of the majority”.

3 | THE STATE OF ADVOCACY IN CHILD WELFARE

Mosley (2011, p. 444) defines advocacy: “By advocacy, I mean trying to advance the interests of a group or a public issue by influencing public policies, policy makers, business leaders, or other decision makers.” Elsewhere, Mosley (2013, p. 231) further defines policy advocacy as “… advocacy that is directed at changing policies or regulations that affect practice or group well-being.”

There is a paucity of research on policy advocacy, particularly in social and child welfare. Mosley and Ros (2011) distinguish between frontline case-related advocacy and national policy advocacy with two major tactical categories: direct “insider” advocacy tactics (speaking directly to policymakers) versus indirect policy advocacy that is aimed at the general population (Mosley, 2011; Mosley & Ros, 2011). In a survey of Los Angeles (USA) human service organisations (321 respondents—43 of which are child welfare non-profits), 51 per cent reported engaging in direct insider tactics, and 44 per cent in indirect approaches (Mosley & Ros, 2011). According to the researchers “… the odds that a child welfare non-profit would participate in advocacy was approximately 58 times lower than human service non-profits overall” (Mosley & Ros, 2011, pp. 308–309). Lu (2018, p. 191) in their meta-analysis found that “…size, professionalization, board support, constituent involvement, knowledge about laws, government funding, private donations, foundation funding, collaboration, and negative policy environment have positive and significant associations with a non-profit’s level of advocacy engagement.” Mosley (2011, p. 450) reports that “organizations with larger tactical repertoires were those with greater capacity for advocacy, greater institutionalization, and higher dependence on government funding.” Mosley and Ros (2011, p. 300) report that despite the consensus that child welfare services are ineffectual, fewer child welfare non-profits get involved in policy advocacy.

Lu (2018) reports that some critics suggest that non-profit advocacy is self-serving. However, 65 per cent of child welfare non-profits report that their advocacy activities are focussed on service-recipient well-being issues, 4 per cent on administrative and funding issues and 30 per cent on both (Mosley & Ros, 2011). They conclude that with increasing privatisation and devolution of child welfare services in particular and human services in general, advocacy participation becomes more important as a means of providing a feedback loop “on what really works in improving children’s lives” (p. 313).

4 | GETTING ADVOCACY RIGHT: EMBRACING ADVOCACY CAMPAIGNING AND A NEW VISION

The starting point for achieving a change in policy for youth leaving out-of-home care was acknowledging that past efforts at advocacy had not worked. Previously, advocacy had not been clear on what change was needed for “care leavers” and the advocacy activities were too laid back and unfocussed. Indeed, there was no strategy other than the ad hoc occasional repetition of better leaving care programs, despite the lack of evidence of their effectiveness. To be successful, we believed that advocacy requires a different ask of government; a strategic campaigning that is more energetic and multifaceted; a tactical approach to advocacy, in which repetition, use of multi-media and relentlessness (read persistence) are almost as important as the content of the advocacy position.

Advocacy on behalf of care leavers by the sector, prior to the Home Stretch movement, focussed almost exclusively on calling governments to improve leaving care programs. Yet, improving leaving care services had provided little demonstrable evidence of the effectiveness on leaving care outcomes (Mendes, 2019). The Leaving Care Advocacy, such as it was and despite its best intentions, did not seek change in the age of termination of care by the state but was about tinkering with what was already a failing response to these young people.

In contrast, the Home Stretch campaign argued for a different vision for “leaving care,” challenging government with a key question: Why does the state terminate its care and role as a ‘parent’ at such an early age? Why do these young people have to “leave care” in the first place? The Home Stretch campaign argued that to rectify the problem of poor leaving care outcomes, the government should continue providing care to the child rather than severing the relationship. And not just a 3-month extension, (like many leaving care programs), but for 3 years until they acquire a bit more maturity and are well into the transition to adulthood when they turn 21 years. Do this, Home Stretch argued, and there will be demonstrably improved outcomes in life readiness, employment, income, health and economic return for the young persons and for the state.

It is also of great importance to develop an appreciation of policymakers’ mind sets. While extending the care of 17–21 years may seem obvious to some, on first glimpse, it can be a daunting idea for a government and their minister. Many ministers of this portfolio area know only too well that issues around child protection can result in crisis and scandal for governments. Thus, the prospect of extending this relationship by three further years can be met with “I’ve got my hands full with those under 18 years!” The idea that we should extend care for three further years thus initially served to worry government ministers in some parts of this country.

The campaign had to recognise that Australian child welfare systems are inherently conservative.
It is a system that has a lot of inertia, in which continuity is the hallmark; typically, there are no sudden policy changes in this sector. Child protection systems and structures particularly for young people in out-of-home care have remained largely intact for decades. And terminating care before 18 years has been entrenched in child protection practices for decades. While other human service sectors have experienced paradigm shifting service delivery reform (think Disability, Mental Health), child protection, a high-octane
high-risk service of government, has remained largely unchanged, incrementally improving but certainly resistant to large-scale change.

5 | WHY WAS HOME STRETCH SUCCESSFUL?

First and foremost, for the advocacy to be effective, the campaign needed to be persistent in presentation, focussed on its key ask, positively engaging and easily understandable. Given the conservative nature of this sector in policy reform, the campaign knew it needed to be single-minded in presenting the reforms to governments that were largely aloof to such reform or completely distracted by other child protection matters.

Second, the campaign focussed on one single unwavering issue—it was not about reforming child protection services (though that might be a desirable objective), but it was focussed on one really important issue albeit a narrow one. The age at which looked after children are obliged to leave home and the care of the (corporate) parent is critical and worthy of attention on its own.

Third, the endeavour had good “campaign DNA.” It had the human element. Everyone can relate to terminating the parental care to an 18-year-old, and having such a young person fending for themselves. Adults have all been 18 years old, and everyone knows or has within their circles an 18-year-old, and the ones they are thinking about are likely to still be at home. More so given that housing, post-secondary education, work and economic independence are becoming complexly challenging for this age group.

Fourth, the campaign’s issue (the “problem” so to speak) and proposed “solution” were readily understandable. In three sentences, anyone could describe the problem, the solution and the outcomes to a politician—no long-winded explanations—just evidence, facts and a simply explainable moral perspective. The campaign’s objective was unimpeachable.

The campaign used repeatedly pithy, evidence-based one liners, such as:

• Extending care by three more years will halve youth homeless rates and double education engagement (Deloitte Access Economics, 2016).
• Most (85 per cent) 18-to 21-year- olds in the wider community are still at home with one or both parents (Wilkins, 2017).
• Premiers and ministers around the country are not planning to exit their own children from their homes at 18 years.
• Half (50 per cent) of those who leave care at 18 will be either homeless, in prison, pregnant or unemployed within their first 12 months of leaving care (Raman et al., 2005), and generating government expenditures.
• For every dollar spent on extending care, a government will save itself $2.00 (Deloitte Access Economics, 2018).
• The youth arrest rate will decline by 40 per cent for this cohort, and hospitalisation rates will decline by a third (Courtney, 2019).
• “Make it 21!” This easy slogan complemented the Home Stretch campaign messaging.
• Extended care is seen by authorities in other countries and in the UK, in particular, as the most significant child welfare reform in a generation (Cumberland, 2014).

6 | THE ADVOCACY STRATEGY AND TACTICS

Home Stretch quickly created a presence. The presence requires a campaign name and media attention, wherever possible, and a message that engaged the understanding and sympathy of a listener or audience. “Home Stretch” and “Make it 21” quickly became familiar slogans and conveyed the positive image of “home” and of completing a critical race that people could relate to. Quickly making the advocacy cause ubiquitous meant to suggest that a large proportion of the citizenry is supportive, particularly in the early stages of the campaign as one is building a credible coalition.

Media were a key platform for the campaign. The government’s eye is rarely off the media, and it was important that the Home Stretch campaign presented its proposal to media at every opportunity— Youth Homeless Week, Child Protection Week, Youth Week and so on—all great causes and also great pretexts to put out a media release or a comment referencing the merits and need for extended care reform to those in state care. Given the “care leaver” was largely over-represented in homelessness data, mental health data, unemployment and correctional data, it was a message direct and to the point of the reform sought. Opinion pieces, media releases, presenting at conferences, radio interviews and news grabs all created a presence for this campaign. Late night radio, suburban newspaper, mainstream press and Home Stretch would present itself with its case, relevant to the issue of the day. The presentation of our advocacy through the media was both opportunistic and deliberate. An example of a particularly impactful media piece was of a group of care leavers sharing their stories with The Age journalist Miki Perkins (https:// thehomestretch.org. au/news/fending-for-ourselves-shauna-and-her-friends-plead-with-
premier-for-more-help/). A full list of media pieces are available on the website: www.thehomestretch.org.au.

We presented an economic argument with the social argument. Cost-benefit studies have often struggled to be articulate in campaigns in the past, yet cost-benefit is always an issue. Especially for bureaucrats and politicians, particularly in conservative jurisdictions that need to be confronted forthrightly (Wolfensberger, 2002). The Campaign commissioned a series of Deloitte Access Economics (2016, 2018) cost-benefit analyses for the Australian context—first, a landmark report, commissioned by Anglicare Victoria, to get things started on overall cost and benefits for any government if they were to extend care (Deloitte Access Economics, 2016); second, a summary report that outlined the costs and benefits for every state; third, a report that provided a deeper and more focused cost-benefit analysis for a federal government; and two separate reports for New South Wales and Queensland, specific to their jurisdictions, commissioned by local committees. All of these reports were used as material to discuss the
economics of outcomes with bureaucrats and ministers and launched publicly to engage voters. It gave the campaign those compelling statistics needed to highlight social inequality and financial return.

Polling was also a key advocacy tactic. A polling company was commissioned to find out what the public thought and if our indirect advocacy efforts were having any impact. Early in the campaign, the Home Stretch campaign won an award for polling by a major polling company on an issue. A survey of 2000 Australians asked six questions about extending state care to 21 years. Public support was overwhelming. Politicians going through the advocacy materials took in the poor outcomes for the care leaver under the then current system, and the economic and social benefits outlined by our Deloitte reports. But it was the polling page that talked to their political instincts.

In Australia, the responsibility of child protection is under state and territory governments. There are eight different state and territory governments in Australia running child protection, but all had the same policy of terminating state care at or before 18 years. For the policy and legislation to change, Home Stretch solely advocated at the eight state and territory governments.

The federal government is largely inactive in provisions of support to those in state care. They offer a one-off payment of $1500, but this falls short. Despite the federal government’s high cost of not doing anything for this cohort, estimated at $1.8 billion over 10 years due to high costs in unemployment, hospitalisations and forgone taxes among other domains (Deloitte Access Economics, 2018). Home Stretch initiated the cost-benefit analysis by Deloitte Access Economics for the federal government in 2018 to help draw attention to this cohort; however, the federal governments saw this as a state matter. The uniqueness of Home Stretch has been its ability to convince eight different governments without the help from any Federal Governments, which is different from how the policy change happened in the United States for example. Notably, the Home Stretch never aligned with any ideological party in any jurisdiction, nor at the federal level. The ask of the campaign appealed to all sides of politics, and all minor parties in each jurisdiction. Home Stretch continues to advocate for this cohort to the federal government.

7 | CREATING A COALITION

Australia’s use of the lived voice in child and family welfare policy could be described as under done, and Home Stretch attempted to rectify the situation. The CREATE foundation, the national consumer body for children and youth who have experienced out-of-home care, was a key partner in promoting Home Stretch through “Make it 21!” messaging. CREATE foundation does an outstanding job in bringing the lived care voice to government, and they embraced this opportunity to take on the extended care issue. Indeed, the role of young service recipients is critical in positioning any social policy debate on media platforms. The campaign established a “…strong social and traditional media presence” (Mendes, 2024).

This included media releases, interviews with young people with a care experience and paid radio and newspaper advertising. As the national Home Stretch campaign was largely sponsored by Victoria’s largest out-of-home care provider, Anglicare Victoria, we had on hand, former looked after children who wanted to talk about their care leaving experiences and their desire for achieving something better for the current generation of young people in care. Dylan Langley, a former youth in care, became a key ambassador, and he was regularly featured in the media, at events and meetings on Home Stretch. Dylan Langley spent his childhood years bouncing in and out-of-state care until he aged out-of-care at 18, soon after leaving care Dylan was directed to find a homeless shelter when he had nowhere to go. Dylan was an articulate, heartfelt advocate for extending care to 21 by sharing his lived experience. Also, Josh, Aisha, Jesse, Kiera and Gina were featured in the media telling their particular stories about what leaving care was like (e.g. https://thehomestretch.org.au/news/what-did-you-do-on-your-18th-birthday/). “It is widely acknowledged that ‘good policy’ should be informed by the individuals it most directly affects” (Doyle et al., 2021, p. 84). The lived experience ambassadors’ impact in talking with politicians on all sides of the political fence was immeasurable. The campaign’s face was the real-life voices of advocates such as Dylan, Keira and Jesse, who passionately advocated for systemic change for future generations by talking to newspapers, television programs, at events and in front of politicians. This approach to campaigning is more widely seen in recent years in health and disability services (Doyle et al., 2021).

Building a coalition into a movement was a huge part of the strategy. Apart from the CREATE foundation and many of its spokespersons, the Home Stretch Website lists over 200 organisations that signed up to support the Home Stretch campaign, from community sector agencies to law firms, to organisations of all persuasions. Each organisation represents hundreds of stakeholders who thus add weight and momentum to the movement. Having the Indigenous community onboard was crucial to the campaign’s success. SNAICC (The National Voice for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and families) was one of our first supporters, as were Victorian Aboriginal Child Care Agency (VACCA) and the National Ambassador for First Nations People, Justin Mohamed in his former role as Commissioner for Aboriginal Children and Young People of Victoria. Home Stretch was deliberate to include Indigenous perspectives at every campaign event and media opportunity. Mr Mohamed at a keynote presentation at the first Home Stretch symposium stated:

There are more Aboriginal children in care than ever before…there’s a real cycle and generational connection to this, and what has been done in the past hasn’t worked. That’s why we have to look at new ideas, new innovative ways to move this and hopefully break what has been sadly a stain on our society for many years (Mohamed, 2018).

Notably, in Western Australia, Anglicare WA and Yorganop (out-of-home care agency) co-designed the extended care to 21-year model, an excellent example of working together to create meaningful change (Anglicare WA, 2022). The CEO of Yorganop, Dawn Wallan, said: “While we don’t want our young people remaining in the system, we recognise that between 18–21 years old is an exceptionally vulnerable age. It’s essential that they have the support and connections they need to successfully transition to independence when they’ve been living in the care system” (Wallan, 2022).

There was also a very systematic use of video to sell the reform. People are visual and Home Stretch commissioned The Shannon Company to create and develop several videos over the course of the campaign. Short video pitches were used over and over during the past seven years—at the start of our meetings with ministers, at the end of a conference speech and at a presentation to a service club. Our video messages are a mix of emotion and facts with evocative still images and a unique voice over (see Home Stretch campaign: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9-HmGBi-2k&t=5s).

In the lead up to several state elections, the Philanthropic sector pushed us to develop radio and print advertising on commercial radio. Supported by three philanthropic organisations keen for the reform to be canvassed in the Victorian election of 2018, the Home Stretch campaign again worked with The Shannon Company to develop advertising messages aimed at Victorian mums and dads seeking to resonate with their parental instincts, as opposed to requesting the Government to adopt the reform. Radio advertisements were developed targeting mums and dads listening to FM radio picking up and dropping off children at school, and those listening to AM talkback radio. These radio spots were very effective at presenting a simple argument to thousands of people, forging new ground in social campaigning for the child welfare sector and getting the attention of government by taking its advocacy to the population. This was grounded campaigning from a sector that had not done it this way before. These strategies were then used in state elections in three other states to promote the adoption of this reform.

We took every opportunity to publicise our agenda; no invitation to speak was ever turned down conferences, presentations at events, meetings, service groups, private firms and interested individuals. If it was a grandmother who wrote about her granddaughter turning 18 years, Home Stretch campaigners would offer to meet with her to hear her story and encourage her to tell her story to politicians. If it was a young person who told their story, Home Stretch would call them and meet with them. If it was a local group that wanted to know about the issue, Home Stretch would talk to them. No opportunity to meet, present or talk was missed.

Given the problem was the same in every state, and child welfare is administered by each state and territory government jurisdiction, a key strategy was to establish campaign committees in all jurisdictions, supported and coordinated by the national Home Stretch secretariat. A Campaign Committee in every jurisdiction gave the campaign a strong profile, as ex-care leavers told their stories, carers called for reform and individual jurisdictional child commissioners declared their support. Notice was given to the political class that the Home Stretch campaign was on the move.

Prior to any public launch or report release in a jurisdiction, Home Stretch would always arrange a pre-briefing with the minister, the shadow minister and the bureaucracy. On the one hand, pre-briefing created a sense of persistent advocacy for change, all the while ensuring that governments were not caught by surprise when Home Stretch was featured in the press, which kept the relations with governments positive and increased the prospect of the bureaucracy providing an informed brief to the minister.

Two and a half years into the campaign, the Home Stretch campaign hosted an international symposium in Sydney with over 130 attendees in 2019. This was a way of exercising influence on the policy process and politicians, and an opportunity for those jurisdictions who had adopted the reform to share thoughts on implementation and policy. International experts from England, New Zealand, Scotland and the United States attended, as did influencers, policy developers and implementers from every Australian jurisdiction. Governments valued this approach and allowed their officials to hear about the international and national experience in extending care. Following on from that first symposium, 2 years later, in 2021, we held the second symposium online, attended by over 200 people, this time with a focus on the “how” to extend care, rather than the “why” we needed to extend care. A third symposium was held in 2023, whereby the historic presentation by all eight governments on their extended care policies to 21 years were showcased.

8 | HOME STRETCH TODAY

The Home Stretch campaign is supported by over 200 organisations, 27,000 individual pledges, including political parties from all sides, along the way receiving over 20 philanthropic grants. To date, the campaign has achieved its goals in all eight Australian child welfare jurisdictions, and some 4200 young people have benefited from extended care arrangements. Some of the key factors that enabled Home Stretch to be successful were its persistence, its single mindedness and its humanistic nature. Not giving up when a minister says no, always staying positive and seeking the next opportunity to engage with the media or the minister on the case to extend care and the plight of these young people. In total, it took 7 years to get eight governments to announce formally that they will extend care to 21 years. Home Stretch continued to bring wave after wave of campaigning, multiple meetings with the same ministers, shadow ministers and bureaucracies to achieve the commitments by each of the eight jurisdictions. Capitalising on talking to the government and opposition in eight different jurisdictions in lead up to elections was also a fertile time to turn up the campaign heat on the parties in four of the eight jurisdictions to extract a formal commitment for reform in their next term. Key to our campaign is that we were highly disciplined in our advocacy for the reform. We stuck to one simple objective, extend care to 21 years. Refusing during the campaign to water down the ask by either adjusting the age or agreeing for incremental improvements to the leaving care system. Lastly but most importantly, having young people with a care experience share their stories over and over in media pieces, alongside the Home Stretch campaign, made it compelling campaigning at events, or with ministers, or with key decision makers. This gave the human impact and drove home the campaign’s authenticity. Their role compelled our targeted audience, the sitting state government, to engage and empathise with the cause.

The Home Stretch campaign coming off this historic and unprecedented success is now turning its focus to having all eight governments enshrining their policies in legislation, futureproofing the reform for generations to come.

Home Stretch is an exciting endeavour. We have learned much about advocacy and how it can contribute to better outcomes for youth in out-of-home care. This has been an exercise not only in policy change but in social reform campaigning. We have learned that much can be achieved by taking the art of advocacy seriously: Minds can be changed; policies can be transformed, and in so doing, lives are improved.

REFERENCES

Anglicare WA. (2022) Home Stretch partnership with Yorganop, Anglicare Australia Awards 2021 [Video]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S1rNuyUUx-w [Accessed 1st August 2024].

Australian Government. (2022) Australian Productivity Commission report on government services 2022. Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/research/ongoing/report-on-government-services [Accessed 7th March 2022].

Australian Government. (2023) Australian Productivity Commission report on government services 2023. Available from: https://www.pc.gov.au/closing-the-gap-data/dashboard/se/outcome-area12/out-of-home-care [Accessed 16th July 2024].

Courtney, M.E. (2019) The impact of extending foster care to 21 on young adults’ outcomes: evidence from the United States [power point slides]. School of Social Service Administration, University of Chicago. Available from: https://thehomestretch.org.au/site/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Mark-Courtney-Symposium-presentation.pdf [Accessed 1st August 2024].

Cumberland, A. (2014) Will every young person in care get the chance to stay put? Available from: https:// www.theguardian.com/social-care-network/2014/jul/16/young-people-care-staying-put [Accessed 8th November 2021].

Deloitte Access Economics. (2016) Raising our children: guiding young Victorians in care into adulthood. Available from: https://thehomestretch.org.au/site/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Raising-Our-Children_Guiding-Young-Victorians-in-Care-into-Adulthood.pdf [Accessed 1st August 2024].

Deloitte Access Economics. (2018) A federal and state cost benefit analysis, extending care to 21 years. Available from: https://thehomestretch.org.au/site/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/A-Fedral-and-State-Cost-Benefit-Analysis-Extending-Care-to-21-years_Deloitte-Access-Economics.pdf [Accessed 1st August 2024].

Doyle, C., Gardner, K. & Wells, K. (2021) The importance of incorporating lived experience in efforts to reduce Australian reincarceration rates. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 10(2), 83–98. Available from: https://doi.org/10.5204/ijcjsd.1942

Flatau, P., Thielking, M., MacKenzie, D. & Steen, A. (2015) The cost of youth homelessness in Australia study (snapshot report 1). Melbourne, Vic.: Institute for Social Research, Swinburne University.

Kagan, J. (1979) Family experience and the child’s development. American Psychologist, 34(10), 886–891.

Lu, J. (2018) Organizational antecedents of nonprofit engagement in policy advocacy: a meta-analytical
review. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 47(4S), 177S–203S.

Mendes, P. (2015) Young people transitioning from out-of-home care: a case study of Australian media reporting 2004–2015. Developing Practice, 43, 5–16.

Mendes, P. (2019) A case study of policy inaction: young people transitioning from out-of-home care in Victoria. Social Work & Policy Studies: Social Justice, Practice and Theory, 2(1), 1–18. Available from: https://openjournals.library.sydney.edu.au/index.php/SWPS/article/view/12920

Mendes, P. (2021) Ending Australia’s status as a “leaving care laggard”: the case for a national extended care framework to lift the outcomes for young people transitioning from out-of-home care. Australian Social Work, 75, 122–132. Available from:https://doi.org/10.1080/0312407X.2021.1910323

Mendes, P. (2024) “The most significant child welfare reform in a generation”: an examination of the strategies used by the Home Stretch campaign. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 59(2), 328–343. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/ajs4.288

Mohamed, J. (2018) Justin Mohamed talks about extending care to 21 years [Video]. Available from: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0aWsr_ ZxKDE [Accessed 1st August 2024].

Mosley, J. (2013) Recognizing new opportunities: reconceptualizing policy advocacy in everyday organizational practice. Social Work, 58(3), 231–239.

Mosley, J.E. (2011) Institutionalization, privatization, and political opportunity: what tactical choices reveal
about the policy advocacy of human service nonprofits. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40,
435–457.

Mosley, J.E. & Ros, A. (2011) Nonprofit agencies in public child welfare: their role and involvement in policy advocacy. Journal of Public Child Welfare, 5, 297–317.

Raman, S., Inder, B. & Forbes, C. (2005) Investing for success: the economics of supporting young people leaving care. Melbourne, Vic.: Centre for Excellence in Child and Family Welfare.

Wallan, D. (2022) Nitja Nop Yorga Ngulla Mia co-design– supporting our young people. Yorganop. Available from:https://yorganop.org.au/nitja-nop-yorga-ngulla-mia-co-design/ [Accessed 1st August 2024].

Wilkins, R. (2017) The household, income and labour dynamics in Australia survey: selected findings from waves 1 to 15. Melbourne Institute, Applied Economic & Social Research The University of Melbourne. Available from: https://melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/_data/assets/pdffile/0010/2437426/HILDA-SR-med-res.pdf [Accessed 1st November 2021].

Wilkins, R. & Vera-Toscano, E. (2019) Over 50% of young Australian adults still live with their parents – and the numbers are climbing faster for women. Available from: https://theconversation.com/over-50-of-young-australian -adults-still-live-with-their-parents-and-the-numbers-are-climbing-faster-for-women-120587 [Accessed 1 November 2021].

Wolfensberger, W. (2002) Why Nebraska? In: Schalock, R.L. (Ed.) Out of the darkness and into the light: Nebraska’s experience with mental retardation. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation, pp. 23–52.

Author Biography

Paul McDonald is CEO of Anglicare Victoria and Founding Chair of the Home Stretch
Campaign. He was previously the Deputy Secretary of the State Department for Child
Protection Services and Youth Justice Program. He led the Government’s response to the heroin
overdose crisis and won the Prime Minister’s Award for his Department’s work in harm
minimisation. He established the St Kilda Crisis Centre, has Chaired nationally significant
enquiries on behalf of the Australian Government and is the former chair of peak CFECFW.

Share article