Report on Government Services 2026

PART F, SECTION 16: RELEASED ON 29 JANUARY 2026

Performance – linked to Objectives

Outputs

Equity

• Disproportionality – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete

Effectiveness – Access

• Support to families – no data reported and/or no measures yet developed
• Response times – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Substantiation rate – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete

Effectiveness – Quality

• Safety in care – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete

Effectiveness – Appropriateness

• Stability and permanency of placement – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Children in home-based care – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Placement maintains connections – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Children with current documented case plans – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Continuity of case worker – no data reported and/or no measures yet developed

Effectiveness – Sustainability

• Workforce sustainability – no data reported and/or no measures yet developed

Efficiency – Inputs per output unit

• Unit costs for protective intervention services activity groups – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Unit cost for support services – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Unit cost of care – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete

Outcomes

• Improved safety – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Improved education – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete
• Improved health and wellbeing of the child – no data reported and/or no measures yet developed
• Exit from out-of-home care to a permanency arrangement – most recent data for all measures is either not comparable and/or not complete

A description of the comparability and completeness is provided under the 'Indicator results' tab for each measure.

‘Disproportionality’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services in an equitable manner.

‘Disproportionality’ is defined as the extent to which a group’s representation in the child protection services system is proportionate to their representation in the child protection services target population (aged 0–17 years).

The disproportionality ratio for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is calculated by dividing the proportion of children in the child protection system who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children by the proportion of children in the target population who are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children.

The disproportionality ratio for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children is calculated as follows:

If a group’s representation is proportionate to their representation in the target population, the disproportionality ratio will equal 1.0. For example, if 6% of all children in the child protection system are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and 6% of all children in the target population (aged 0–17 years) are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, then the disproportionality ratio will be 1.0.

Another example is if 10% of all children in the child protection system are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, but only 6% of all children in the target population (aged 0–⁠17 years) are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, the disproportionality ratio is 1.7 (10% divided by 6%). In this example, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are 1.7 times as likely to be represented in the child protection system relative to their representation in the target population.

This measure comprises six disproportionality ratios for components of the child protection services system (figure 16.1 includes a simplified representation of the components):

• notifications
• commencing intensive family support services
• investigations
• substantiations
• care and protection orders
• out-of-home care.

Disproportionality provides an indication of the extent to which Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are overrepresented in child protection services. Factors such as intergenerational trauma, forcible removal of children, racism, inequality and a lack of understanding of cultural differences in child rearing practices and family structures have contributed to the overrepresentation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in the child protection system (Darwin et al. 2023; QPCC 2021; SNAICC et al. 2023). Refer to the Historical and ongoing target context section of Target 12 of the Closing the Gap Information Repository.

Disproportionality can reflect uneven distribution of structural and relative disadvantage across the population and other social and economic risk factors indicating a greater need for appropriate supports and services. Disproportionality can also reflect biases in the system that should be avoided.

Disproportionality ratios might fluctuate because of policy, funding and/or practice changes, such as increased investment in intensive family support and services to divert children from care, better targeting of investigative resources and the introduction of mandatory reporting. Increased community awareness and willingness to notify suspected instances of child abuse, neglect or harm can also influence these ratios.

A group’s representation should be proportional to their need for supports and services. Higher need may result in necessary disproportionality (that is, a ratio greater than 1.0). If risk factors and need are the same across groups, then neither overrepresentation nor underrepresentation is desirable (that is, the disproportionality ratio should be 1.0). Both overrepresentation and underrepresentation can have undesirable consequences.

Disproportionality ratios should be considered in conjunction with data on the proportion of children for whom Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status is not stated, which varies across states and territories (refer to tables 16A.1–3 and 16A.37). Disproportionality ratios might understate Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children’s disproportionality in the child protection system where there are high rates of children of unknown or not stated Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status. To assist with the interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.44 provides information on the population of children aged 0–17 years by Indigenous status.

The 2024‑25 disproportionality ratios (excluding Queensland for all components of the child protection system and Tasmania for intensive family support services) for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children varied within and across jurisdictions for each component of the child protection system (figure 16.3). Across all jurisdictions (excluding Queensland) in 2024-25 for the substantiations component of the child protection system, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were between 2 and 11 times more likely to be subjects of substantiations compared to their relative proportion in the population aged 0–⁠17 years (nationally 6.9% of children aged 0–17 years are Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people; refer to table 16A.44).

‘Support to families’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to support and strengthen families so that children can live in a safe and stable family environment.

‘Support to families’ is defined as the proportion of families identified as requiring support who receive support.

High or increasing proportions of families who have been identified as requiring support and who receive support is desirable.

Data is not yet available for reporting against this indicator.

‘Response times’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services that are responsive, ensuring that notifications are responded to, and investigations are completed, in a timely and appropriate manner.

‘Response times’ is defined by three measures:

• response time to commence an investigation from the notification date. This is defined as the proportion of investigations commenced within specified time periods, where the length of time (measured in days) between the date a child protection department records a notification and the date an investigation is subsequently commenced
• response time to complete an investigation from the notification date. This is defined as the proportion of investigations completed within specified time periods, where the length of time (measured in days) between the date a child protection department records a notification and the date an investigation is completed (that is, the date an investigation outcome is determined).
• response time to complete an investigation from the commencement date. This is defined as the proportion of investigations completed within specified time periods, where the length of time (measured in days) between the date a child protection department commences an investigation, and the date an investigation is completed (that is, the date an investigation outcome is determined).

High and increasing proportions of investigations commenced and completed in shorter periods is desirable.

The length of time between recording a notification and commencing an investigation indicates the promptness in responding to child protection concerns. The length of time between recording a notification and completing an investigation, and between commencing and completing an investigation, indicates the effectiveness of responding to and conducting investigations in a timely manner.

Measure 1: Nationally (excluding Queensland and Tasmania) in 2024‑25, 60.8% of investigations commenced within seven days of a notification being recorded (figure 16.4a). Response times varied across jurisdictions.

Measure 2: Nationally (excluding Queensland and Tasmania) in 2024‑25, 18.2% of investigations were completed within 28 days of the notification date and 28.1% took longer than 90 days to complete (figure 16.4c). Response times varied across jurisdictions.

Measure 3: Nationally (excluding Queensland) in 2024‑25, 26.2% of investigations were completed from the commencement date in 28 days or fewer and 22.8% took more than 90 days to complete (figure 16.4e). Response times varied across jurisdictions.

‘Substantiation rate’ is an indicator of governments’ objective that child protection services are targeted to children and young people who are at greatest risk.

‘Substantiation rate’ is defined as the proportion of finalised investigations where abuse or neglect, or risk of abuse or neglect, was confirmed.

The substantiation rate provides an indication of the extent to which services are targeted to children at greatest risk, thereby avoiding the human and financial costs of an investigation where no abuse or neglect had occurred or was at risk of occurring.

It is difficult to determine a target substantiation rate. A very low substantiation rate might indicate that investigations are not directed to appropriate cases. A very high substantiation rate might indicate that the criteria for substantiation are unnecessarily bringing ‘lower risk’ families into the statutory system. Substantiation rates should be monitored over time to observe and respond to trends.

Substantiation rates might fluctuate because of policy, funding and practice changes. For example, targeting investigative resources to more serious cases may mean investigations are more likely to result in substantiation, and there are varying thresholds for recording a substantiation. Mandatory reporting, increased community awareness and willingness to notify suspected instances of child abuse, neglect or harm may also affect the substantiation rate.

Due to differences in the way jurisdictions collect and report on notifications, investigations and substantiations, data is not comparable across jurisdictions.

Nationally (excluding Queensland) in 2024‑25, 48.0% of finalised investigations were substantiated for abuse or neglect, or risk of abuse or neglect (figure 16.5). The substantiation rate varied across jurisdictions and over time.

‘Safety in care’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide quality care for children and young people aged 0–⁠17 years who cannot live with their parents for reasons of safety or family crisis, with an emphasis on safety, stability and permanency in children’s living arrangements.

‘Safety in care’ covers children in out‑of‑home care and children in other supported placements, and is defined by two measures:

• the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse or neglect
• the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of sexual abuse, physical abuse, emotional abuse or neglect where the person responsible was living in the household providing out-of-home care.

For the first measure, the person responsible can be anyone who encounters the child while the child is in out‑of‑home care or other supported placements (that is, not limited to a person living in the household). For the second measure, the person responsible is limited to someone in the household providing out-of-home care or other supported placements.

Zero or decreasing proportions of substantiations for both measures is desirable. Care should be taken when interpreting this data as the threshold for substantiating abuse or neglect or risk involving a child in care is generally lower than that for a child in the care of his or her parents. This is because governments assume a greater duty of care for children removed from the care of their parents for protective reasons.

Data reported for this indicator should be interpreted with caution. Jurisdictions employ different data systems and record keeping methods, which vary in scope (for example, whether data is collected on all, or only particular, care settings) and detail collected (for example, whether the perpetrator is recorded and whether an incident resulted in a substantiation or equivalent). These differences affect the comparability of this data across jurisdictions.

Measure 1: Across jurisdictions in 2024‑25 (excluding Queensland), the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of abuse or neglect ranged between 0.7% and 6.1% (table 16.2a).

Measure 2: Across jurisdictions in 2024‑25 (excluding Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory), the proportion of children in care who were the subject of a substantiation of abuse or neglect where the person responsible was living in the household providing out-of-home care ranged between 0.1% and 3.3% (table 16.2b).

‘Stability and permanency of placement’ is a partial indicator of governments’ objective to provide quality care for children and young people aged 0–⁠17 years who cannot live with their parents for reasons of safety or family crisis, with an emphasis on safety, stability and permanency in children’s living arrangements.

‘Stability and permanency of placement’ is defined by two measures:

• the proportion of children on an order exiting out‑of‑home care who had one or two placements during a period of continuous out‑of‑home care, by length of care (less than 12 months and 12 months or more)
• the proportion of children in out‑of‑home care for two or more years who had one or two placements in the past two years.

High proportions of children exiting out‑of‑home care, or who have been in out‑of‑home care for two or more years, who had one or two placements, is desirable. However, this indicator should be considered in conjunction with other placement indicators. Children can have multiple placements for appropriate reasons, for example:

• an initial placement followed by a longer‑term placement
• placement change to achieve better compatibility between a child and family
• placement change to achieve a permanent care arrangement.

It is not desirable for a child to stay in an unsatisfactory or unsupportive placement. In addition, older children are more likely to have multiple placements as they move towards independence and voluntarily seek alternate placements. Children who have been in out-of-home care for a long period are more likely to have multiple placements as they transition to a permanent care arrangement once it has been determined that they cannot live with their parents.

Data for children exiting out-of-home care is only for children who were on orders and who exited out‑of‑home care during the reporting period. There are limitations to counting placement stability and permanency using a cohort of children on exit from care rather than longitudinally tracking a cohort of children from their entry into care. An exit cohort is biased to children who stay a relatively short time in care and thus are more likely to have experienced fewer placements. The data for children exiting out‑of‑home care does not distinguish between long‑ and short‑term orders; long‑term orders can indicate legal permanency of placement, though a child may still experience multiple placements.

Measure 1: Nationally (excluding Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory) in 2024‑25, of children on a care and protection order who exited out‑of‑home care within 12 months, 92.4% experienced one or two placements (figure 16.6a). Nationally (excluding Queensland, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory) in 2024‑25, for children who had been in out‑of‑home care 12 months or more, the proportion was 54.4% (table 16A.18). 

To assist with the interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.19 provides information on the length of time children spent in continuous out‑of‑home care for all children in out‑of‑home care, while table 16A.21 provides information on the length of time in continuous out‑of‑home care for children who exited out‑of‑home care.

Measure 2: Nationally (excluding Queensland) in 2024‑25, 90.3% of children who have been in out‑of‑home care for two years or more have had one or two placements in the past two years (figure 16.6b).

‘Children in home‑based care’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services that meet the needs of children and young people in the child protection system.

‘Children in home‑based care’ is defined as the proportion of children in out‑of‑home care who are in home‑based care.

A high or increasing proportion of children in out‑of‑home care who are placed in home‑based care is desirable.

Placing children in home-based care is generally considered to be in their best interests, particularly for younger children. Children will generally make better developmental progress in family settings than in residential or institutional care environments.

Nationally (excluding Queensland) at 30 June 2025, 90.4% of children aged 0–17 years in out‑of‑home care were in home‑based care (figure 16.7) — 81.0% for children aged 12–⁠17 years, and 96.5% for children aged under 12 years (table 16A.22). 

Nationally, proportions were similar for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and non‑Indigenous children (table 16A.22). To assist with interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.23 provides information on placement type by Indigenous status.

‘Placement maintains connections’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services that meet the needs of children and young people in the child protection system.

‘Placement maintains connections’ is defined by four measures:

• placement with relatives or kin – the proportion of all children in out‑of‑home care placed with relatives or kin who receive government financial assistance to care for that child
• placement in accordance with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle – the proportion of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged 0–⁠17 years in out‑of‑home care at 30 June who were living with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or non‑Indigenous relatives or kin, or other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander carers
• local placement – the proportion of children in out‑of‑home care attending the same school that they attended before entering out‑of‑home care
• placement with sibling – the proportion of children on orders and in out‑of‑home care at 30 June who have siblings also on orders and in out‑of‑home care and are placed with at least one of their siblings.

High or increasing rates for all four measures are desirable. A placement decision needs to consider many factors relating to a child’s safety and wellbeing and might involve weighing up a range of options. At times, placement with family, kin and/or community may not be possible. Nevertheless, for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children, placements in accordance with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle that maintain and strengthen connections with family, culture and country are important to nurture and support a child's wellbeing, spirituality and identity. More information about the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle is included below.

The measure ‘placement in accordance with the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle’ should be interpreted with care as it is a proxy, reporting the placement outcomes of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children rather than compliance with the principle.

Identification of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander status may lead to data quality issues for this indicator, in particular, high rates of unknown or not stated status are likely to affect results.

Data for measure 3 ‘local placement’ and measure 4 ‘placement with sibling’ is under development and is not available for this report.

Measure 1: Nationally (excluding Queensland) at 30 June 2025, the proportion of children in out‑of‑home care who were placed with relatives or kin was 59.7% (figure 16.8a), slightly lower for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children (58.2%) (table 16A.24).

Cultural identity and connection to country, family and kinship are pillars of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander wellbeing. The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle comprises five core elements: prevention, partnership, placement, participation and connection (SNAICC 2018; DSS 2021). The placement element sets a hierarchy of preferred options for caregivers of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out‑of‑home care. It is designed to ensure the highest possible level of connection to family, community, culture and country is maintained for an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child in care.

The placement hierarchy is:

• with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander or non‑Indigenous relatives or extended family members (kin), or other relatives and family members
• with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander members of the child's community
• with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family‑based carers.

If the above options are not available, the child may be placed in another care arrangement (such as with a non‑Indigenous carer or in a residential setting).

If a child is not placed with their relative or kin, the placement must be within close geographic proximity to a child’s family (such as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander or non‑Indigenous relatives or extended family members (kin)).

The ‘Placement maintains connections’ indicator is one measure of the Placement element. It is not a substitute for comprehensive analysis that considers all five elements of Prevention, Partnership, Placement, Participation and Connection placement and connection elements of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle. Refer to the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's (AIHW) report on The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle indicators (https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/child-protection/atsicpp-indicators/contents/about) for more information on indicators under development to measure the implementation of the placement principle across policy, programs, processes and practice.

All jurisdictions have adopted the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander child placement principle in legislation and policy.

Measure 2: Nationally (excluding Queensland and the Australian Capital Territory) at 30 June 2025, 58.7% of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children in out‑of‑home care were placed with relatives/kin and 7.7% with other Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander family‑based carers (figure 16.8b).

‘Children with current documented case plans’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide services that meet the needs of individual children and young people in the child protection system.

‘Children with current documented case plans’ is defined as the number of children who have a current documented and approved case plan as a proportion of all children who are required to have a current documented and approved case plan.

A case plan is an individualised, dynamic written plan (or support agreement) developed between a family and an agency based on an assessment process. A current documented case plan is one that has been approved and/or reviewed within the previous 12 months.

A high or increasing rate of children with current documented case plans is desirable.

The indicator does not assess the quality of case plans, nor the extent to which identified needs and actions are put into place. These factors should be taken into account when considering the results reported for this indicator.

Nationally (excluding Queensland) at 30 June 2025, 88.3% of children required to have a current documented and approved case plan, had such a plan (figure 16.9).

‘Continuity of case worker’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide quality care for children and young people aged 0–⁠17 years who cannot live with their parents for reasons of safety or family crisis, with an emphasis on safety, stability and permanency in children’s living arrangements.

‘Continuity of case worker’ is defined as the proportion of children in out‑of‑home care who have one caseworker assigned during the reporting period.

A high or increasing percentage of children in out‑of‑home care who have one caseworker assigned during the reporting period is desirable.

Data is not yet available for reporting on this indicator.

‘Workforce sustainability’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide sustainable child protection services.

'Workforce sustainability' relates to the capacity of the child protection workforce to meet current and projected future service demand. These measures are not a substitute for a full workforce analysis that allows for training, migration, changing patterns of work and expected future demand. They can, however, indicate that further attention should be given to workforce planning for services.

This indicator is currently under development for reporting in the future.

‘Unit costs for protective intervention services activity groups’ is reported as an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services in an efficient manner.

‘Unit costs for protective intervention services activity groups’ is defined as total recurrent expenditure on a child protection activity, divided by the relevant units of service activity, resulting in six measures:

• cost per report to child protection (AG1)
• cost per notification (AG1)
• cost per notification investigated (AG4)
• cost per child commencing protective intervention and coordination services who is not on an order (AG5)
• cost per order issued (AG6)
• cost per child commencing protective intervention and coordination services who is on an order (AG7).

Low or decreasing expenditure per child protection activity can suggest more efficient services but could also indicate lower quality and should be considered together with the results for other indicators in this section.

Data for unit costs is experimental and should be considered together with the proportional allocation of total expenditure across all activity groups in the pathways method. Refer to 'Interpreting efficiency data' in the 'Explanatory material' tab for further information on expenditure data.

Child protection reports are not a separate process from child protection notifications in Victoria and the Australian Capital Territory and data for the cost per report to child protection measure is not applicable for those jurisdictions.

Unit costs for child protection intervention service activities from 2015‑16 to 2024‑25 varied across jurisdictions where data was available (figure 16.10). In 2024‑25, the cost per report to child protection (AG1) ranged from $185 to $476 (figure 16.10) (this unit cost is not applicable or available for all jurisdictions); and the cost per notification investigated (AG4) ranged from $1,779 to $6,040 (excluding Queensland and the Northern Territory) (tables 16A.27–34). Other unit costs are reported in tables 16A.27–34. 

‘Unit cost for support services’ is reported as an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services in an efficient manner.

‘Unit cost for support services’ is defined as total recurrent expenditure on support services, divided by the number of children receiving support services, resulting in two measures:

• Cost per child receiving family support services (AG2)
• Cost per child receiving intensive family support services (AG3).

A low or decreasing cost per child receiving support services can suggest more efficient services but could also indicate lower quality and should be considered together with the results for other indicators in this section.

To be included in the Intensive family support services data, services must meet specific criteria, such as averaging at least four hours of service provision per week for a specified short‑term period (usually less than six months).

Data for unit costs is experimental and should be considered together with the proportional allocation of total expenditure across all activity groups in the pathways method. Refer to 'Interpreting efficiency data' in the 'Explanatory material' tab for further information on expenditure data.

Nationally (excluding the Northern Territory) in 2024‑25, the cost per child receiving intensive family support services was $11,637 (figure 16.11).

To assist with the interpretation of this indicator, table 16A.37 provides information on the number of children commencing intensive family support services by Indigenous status.

‘Unit cost of care’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to provide child protection services in an efficient manner.

‘Unit cost of care’ covers children in out‑of‑home care and children in other supported placements, and is defined as total real recurrent expenditure on out‑of‑home care services and other supported placements, divided by the total number of placement nights (AG8).

Low or decreasing expenditure per placement night can suggest more efficient services but could also indicate lower quality and should be considered together with the results for other indicators in this section.

Data for unit costs is experimental and should be considered together with the proportional allocation of total expenditure across all activity groups in the pathways method. Refer to 'Interpreting efficiency data' in the 'Explanatory material' tab for further information on expenditure data.

‘Improved safety’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to protect children and young people who are at risk of abuse and neglect within their families, or whose families do not have the capacity to provide care and protection.

‘Improved safety’ is defined by two measures:

• Substantiation rate after a decision not to substantiate: This is defined as the proportion of children who were the subject of an investigation in the previous financial year that led to a decision not to substantiate, and who were later the subject of a substantiation within three or 12 months of the initial decision not to substantiate. The year reported relates to the year of the initial decision not to substantiate.
• Substantiation rate after a prior substantiation: This is defined as the proportion of children who were the subject of a substantiation in the previous financial year, who were subsequently the subject of a further substantiation within the following three or 12 months. The year reported relates to the year of the initial substantiation.

Zero or decreasing rates for these measures are desirable.

The measure Substantiation rate after a decision not to substantiate partly assesses the extent to which an investigation did not succeed in identifying a risk of abuse or neglect to a child who is subsequently the subject of a substantiation. However, a demonstrable risk of abuse or neglect might not have existed in the first instance and family circumstances might have changed since the initial decision not to substantiate.

The measure Substantiation rate after a prior substantiation partly assesses the adequacy of interventions offered to children to protect them from further abuse or neglect. However, it does not distinguish between subsequent substantiations that are related to the initial notification (that is, the same source of risk of abuse or neglect) and those that are unrelated to the initial notification (that is, a different source of risk of abuse or neglect).

For both measures, results can be affected by factors outside the control of child protection services.

Varying thresholds for recording a substantiation across jurisdictions should also be considered when interpreting data for this indicator (refer to 'Explanatory material' tab).

The proportion of substantiations that occurred within three and 12 months of a decision not to substantiate in 2023‑24 was under 6% and 15% respectively in all jurisdictions (excluding Queensland) (figure 16.13). The proportion of substantiations that occurred within three and 12 months of a prior substantiation in 2023‑24 was under 9% and 21% respectively in all jurisdictions (excluding Queensland) (table 16A.41).

‘Improved education’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to support children and young people in the child protection system to reach their potential.

‘Improved education’ is defined as the proportion of children on guardianship and custody orders meeting ‘exceeding’ or ‘strong’ proficiency levels in reading and numeracy in year 5 based on the National Assessment Program — Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) results.

A high or increasing rate of children on guardianship and custody orders meeting ‘exceeding’ or ‘strong’ proficiency levels in reading and numeracy, and relative to all children, is desirable.

Factors outside the control of child protection services have an influence on the educational outcomes of children on guardianship and custody orders, and care should be exercised when interpreting results.

Reporting for 2023 represents the start of a new time series for this indicator due to a number of changes in the testing and reporting of NAPLAN results including: resetting of the NAPLAN measurement scales; all tests being held online, except the Year 3 writing test; and test dates being moved from May to March. All reporting from 2023 is therefore not comparable with previous RoGS reports.

‘Improved health and wellbeing of the child’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to support children and young people in the child protection system to reach their potential.

‘Improved health and wellbeing of the child’ is yet to be defined. This indicator has been identified for development and reporting in future, potentially using separate measures for physical health, social and emotional wellbeing domains.

In the absence of a national data collection, table 16.3 presents summary information on jurisdictions' local approaches to measuring the health and wellbeing of children in out‑of‑home care.

Table 16.3 Measuring the health and wellbeing of children in out‑of‑home care

Source: state and territory governments (unpublished).

‘Exit from out‑of‑home care to a permanency arrangement’ is an indicator of governments’ objective to protect children and young people who are at risk of abuse and neglect within their families or whose families do not have the capacity to provide care and protection.

‘Exit from out‑of‑home care to a permanency arrangement’ is defined as the number of children and young people who exited out‑of‑home care to a permanency outcome (reunified with their families, adopted or placed on third party parental responsibility orders), and for whom there was no return to out‑of‑home care within 12 months, as a proportion of all children who exited out‑of‑home care to a permanency outcome in the previous reporting period.

High or increasing proportions of children and young people exiting out‑of‑home care to a permanency outcome for whom there was no return to out‑of‑home care is desirable.

Nationally (excluding Queensland), 89.8% of children who left out‑of‑home care to a permanency arrangement in 2023‑24 did not return to out‑of‑home care in the following 12 months (figure 16.15).

Efficiency indicators for child protection services are calculated using the pathways model, a top‑down activity‑based costing method. Eight national pathways provide a high‑level representation of the services that children and families could receive in any jurisdiction. Each pathway consists of common activity groups, which act as the ‘building blocks’ for each of the pathways. The aggregate cost of each activity group within the pathway will allow the unit cost of an individual pathway to be derived. Figure 16.16 shows how unit costs are calculated in accordance with the pathways model.

The activity groups and detailed definitions are included in the 'Explanatory material' tab. Development of national reporting against these activity groups is ongoing and data is experimental.

Reports, notifications, family support services, intensive family support services and intervention orders relate to children aged 0–⁠17 years. Investigations and secondary information gathering may relate to young people aged 18 years or over if the notification was received while the child was aged less than 18 years. Expenditure on other supported placements may include expenditure relating to young people aged over 18 years.

Differences across jurisdictions in the calculation of child protection expenditure are listed in table 16.4.

Dept = Departmental. na Not available. Item included. Item not included. Not applicable.

Source: state and territory governments (unpublished).

AIFS (Australian Institute of Family Studies), Chapin Hall Centre for Children University of Chicago and New South Wales Department of Family and Community Services, 2015, Pathways of Care Longitudinal Study: Outcomes of children and young people in Out-of-Home care in NSW - Wave 1 baseline statistical report, https://aifs.gov.au/research/commissioned-reports/pathways-care-longitudinal-study (accessed 20 June 2025).

Darwin, L, Vervoort, S, Vollert, E and Blustein, S 2023, Intergenerational trauma and mental health, https://www.indigenousmhspc.gov.au/publications/trauma (accessed 10 September 2024).

DSS (Department of Social Services) 2021, Safe and Supported: the National Framework for Protecting Australia’s Children 2021-2031, https://www.dss.gov.au/our-responsibilities/families-and-children/programs-services/protecting-australias-children (accessed 12 October 2022).

QPCC (Queensland Family and Child Commission) 2021, Principle Focus - A child-rights approach to systemic accountability for the safety and wellbeing of Queensland’s First Nations children, https://www.qfcc.qld.gov.au/sector/monitoring-and-reviewing-systems/principle-focus (accessed 10 September 2024).

SNAICC (Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care) 2018, The Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Child Placement Principle: a guide to support implementation, https://www.snaicc.org.au/the-aboriginal-and-torres-strait-islander-child-placement-principle-a-guide-to-support-implementation (accessed 12 October 2022).

SNAICC, Family Matters Leadership Group, Monash University, and University of Technology Sydney 2023, Family Matters Report 2023, https://www.snaicc.org.au/resources/family-matters-report-2023/ (accessed 10 September 2024).