Forced adoption support services scoping study Daryl Higgins, Pauline Kenny, Reem Sweid and Lucy Ockenden Report for the Department of Social Services by the Australian Institute of Family Studies February 2014

124.1Web implementation options

125Expand Find & Connect website

There were mixed views as to whether a nationally coordinated website relating to past adoption issues could be best delivered as an addition to the existing Find & Connect website: . Some saw this as an “efficient” use of resources. Others were adamant that the issues of past-adoption “survivors” would be largely invisible. However, the web “architecture” and some of the content could be used/adapted for an adoption-specific website.

A key consideration is the nature of the content to be developed and managed, and the range of services or “aims” for the website. A number of the proposals that were raised by stakeholders require a high level of sensitivity to the particular stakeholder groups, knowledge and “credibility” within the sector, and active outreach to service providers in order to develop and maintain the information that is needed. For this reason, a more efficient option would be to have a website developed and housed within a broader “knowledge translation and exchange” service that could implement a number of the proposals stakeholders raised.

126Integrate as part of a “clearinghouse” or knowledge translation and exchange service

Many of the ideas raised by stakeholders are either dependent on, or would benefit from, a national, centralised approach, or require someone to take responsibility for developing, refining, promulgating, advocating, liaising or housing a product or service.

As previously described, KTE is disseminating research findings and resources in ways that encourage access by policy-makers, practitioners and lay audiences. Based on the principle that many professionals are time poor, and that both professionals and lay users need formats that avoid jargon or discipline-specific knowledge to be able to understand the material. This includes:

disseminating research findings in user-friendly formats (alerting stakeholders to key findings from new research as it is published; synthesising knowledge across multiple studies; identifying debates, different perspectives and key issues);

developing and sharing supports for program/service evaluations (e.g., program logic; evaluation frameworks; survey tools, etc.);

sharing resources (e.g., how-to guides for searching; training kits);

sharing information (conferences, training events, key contacts, directories of local experts);

sharing innovation, good practice principles, service models, and results of user feedback and evaluations via initiatives such as promising practice profiles;

leading in the development of service standards;

assisting post-adoption specific services, and mainstream health/mental health and family support services to adopt evidence-informed approaches to the needs of those affected by adoption;

ensuring the effective and sustainable implementation of programs and dissemination of programs; and

disseminating programs, practices, strategies, tools and resources using best practice KTE and implementation approaches.

Our experience at AIFS in running information exchanges for almost 20 years has shown that although in-depth literature reviews on relevant topics remain important, there is a growing need for access to brief, targeted products that practitioners and policy-makers can more effectively integrate with their work in a time-pressured environment, and that also meet the needs of lay people wanting information about issues affecting them. Advances in digital communication tools will continue to add to the variety of methods that can be used for knowledge exchange. Multimodal, easy-to-use, quality research summaries that are relevant to policy and practice can include:

webinars—presentations or seminars that are transmitted via the web;

podcasts—radio-style, audio content that can be listened to on mobile devices such as MP3 players;

social media—such as Facebook, Twitter and Google+;

infographics and other data visualisation tools that provide easy to understand, graphic representations of data;

practice guides and resource sheets;

fact sheets;

written summaries of research, synthesising findings across multiple studies; and

short articles highlighting perspectives of practitioners and/or service users.

However, not all of these may be relevant—or practical—for the area of past adoptions. For example, feedback from stakeholders at our workshops suggests that use of social media is problematic. A number of workshop participants identified the unhelpful use of social media by affected individuals to the point where it has become “toxic”, with instances of very negative, derogatory interactions between different individuals and/or peer-support groups where differences emerge in their perspectives on an issue.

There is a growing sophistication about what is involved in translating knowledge to action.

New and highly effective modes of communicating research findings have emerged, alongside traditional modes, as well as relatively new disciplines, such as “implementation science”.¹⁸ Additionally, there is a growing expectation that information will not be provided in a passive manner—the ability to interact and be involved in learning is a key function of the Web 2.0 environment.

127Web portal implementation

In implementation, care needs to be taken to reduce the likelihood that actions have unintended consequences. In one submission, we were advised that the approach to developing the National Archives website created some disquiet and even trauma for some individuals, who then sought support from peer-support providers.

The development of a national web portal would be a sensitive task, which would involve engaging individuals affected by forced adoptions. In one submission, it was suggested that whoever is tasked with developing a national web portal should first undertake a risk assessment in order to consider the impact on individuals who are already severely traumatised.

There were mixed views about the possibility of building on, or incorporating adoption-specific information as part of the current Find & Connect website. Many stakeholders acknowledged the efficiencies that could be achieved; and many suggested the importance of liaison and articulation with Find &Connect; however, the predominant view was that it needed to be a separate adoption resource.

In terms of cost—while there was almost universal¹⁹ support for the idea of a new, central web portal for forced adoption information, there was also a strong theme that funding for this should not be at the expense of other priorities (for example, training, and increasing the organisational capacity to deliver “core direct services” such as counselling, and supports for searching and making contact).