OOHC Webinar

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Australian Centre for Child Protection, or any other employer or organisation. Citation suggestion: Kathleen Martawan, independent care leaver with lived experience, contributing to the ACCP Empowering Young People’s Lives Beyond Out-of-Home-Care (OOHC) Webinar, July 2025

Kaya folks, I'm Kat. I've been working in the out-of-home care (OOHC) space, both through lived experience and professional expertise, for around four years now — really, since I first understood what lived experience meant and the value it holds.

Like many young people who go through OOHC, it wasn't that I couldn't speak up or didn’t want to. In fact, I love a good complaint — because who wants to live in constant discomfort or feel unsafe while in child protection? But still, that’s often the reality we hear from young people with lived experience.

Now, I want to be clear: I don’t speak for all lived experience voices. OOHC and lived experience are deeply diverse, multifaceted, and nuanced. But what I do offer is a perspective shaped by years of working across different parts of the system — from those driving real change to those, unfortunately, slowing it down.

If I had to summarise some of my key takeaways from this work, particularly around elevating the voice of children and young people with care experience, it would be this:

• Their voices should be at the forefront of system and service design
• We need to acknowledge their truth-telling and see that truth turn into real change, in real time, ideally while they are still in care — or at least shortly after
• That kind of transformation takes champions — people who can advocate to decision-makers — and intentional investment from those in power. It’s not just about listening; it’s about enabling. That includes accessible, wraparound supports that make participation possible and meaningful

Another big learning for me has been around what it truly means to be culturally informed.

It goes far beyond completing your mandatory training or holding a once-a-year event. Culturally informed work, in this context, means creating opportunities for young people to engage in lived experience work while connecting to culture. It means letting communities design and shape what “lived experience” looks like in ways that reflects their unique needs and strengths.

And that brings me to another key point: you can’t apply a one-size-fits-all model of lived experience across different communities and contexts. What works in one place may not work in another — and that’s okay.

With the Home Stretch program, what’s worked really well is the flexible, multi-method approach to youth participation — whether through conversation, email, consultation, lived experience-led sessions, youth worker-led sessions, or group discussions. There was an understanding that participation needed to be accessible and responsive.

That said, one challenge I observed was the assumption that a statewide model could be directly applied to a six-month sprint project with fewer resources and higher demands. It wasn’t a copy-paste situation. It came with its own unique challenges and successes.

What made it possible at all was the support of key stakeholders who backed a proposal to government to permanently embed lived experience and youth participation into Home Stretch. That process included self-led, independent meetings with the department, drafting a collective letter, and creating a recommendations plan — all informed by feedback from the statewide rollout.

None of this would have been possible without the right ally support, the Home Stretch Community of Practice, or dedicated roles like the Lived Experience Consultants.

If I had one major complaint about this experience, it would be this: we need not just intentional funding for young people to do the work of lived experience, but also funding for the supports that help them do it. This is a systemic issue — not just a program-specific one.

And I think that’s largely because lived experience still isn’t leading reform.

Too often, we see organisations competing for funding, trying to prove that outdated models of “youth consultation” still work — when many clearly don’t. What we really need is an independent, lived experience-led group whose sole agenda is to create meaningful, real-time change for young people currently in the system.

The way we consult young people needs a serious rethink. It must be intentional. Afterthoughts often fall through — and when that happens, they tend to cause more harm than good.

That’s just my opinion — but it’s one shaped by real involvement in this space.

Now, to finish on a positive note: when lived experience is done well, I’ve seen powerful outcomes.

• I’ve seen young people form meaningful support networks and reconnect with their culture
• I’ve seen confidence and empowerment grow — not only in young people, but in the services that support them
• I’ve seen young people helping each other navigate the system
• pursue further education
• and even become professionals in this field, bringing deep compassion and understanding to their work
• Most powerfully, I’ve seen young people come to realise they are more than what they experienced in OOHC — and that is truly incredible

Stepping back and looking at it all, it actually costs less for government and services to invest in the future and potential of young people through lived experience. What we get is a system that works better, services that are more effective, happier workers — and, ultimately, better outcomes for young people.

Thanks so much for listening to me waffle on — I hope there was something valuable in there for you.

I’m more than happy if anyone wants to connect, and I’d love to hear from others too.

Cheers,

Kat

To contact Kat, please email melissa.o'donnell@unisa.edu.au and she will pass your details on.