Recently the CCOSS board put together a submission for the Green paper on Vulnerable Children. There were over 8500 submissions received as at the 28th February for what appears to be quite a controversial document. Should you wish to read the CCOSS submission it is included here.
GREEN PAPER FOR VULNERABLE CHILDREN – SUBMISSION
Thank you for the opportunity to make a submission pertaining to the Green Paper for Vulnerable Children.
Council of Social Services in Christchurch is an organisation dedicated to the promotion of social equity, justice and well-being by advocating on issues, empowering groups and facilitating collaboration in the social services sector. Our vision is for a society based on the principles of social equity, justice and well being. The board of COSS is drawn from the full diversity of the community and social services sector in Christchurch, and together with the staff brings to the table a great depth and range of knowledge and expertise in social issues.
The government is to be commended on its commitment to improve the wellbeing of vulnerable children. As one board member noted, “all children are vulnerable”. It is the environment that children grow up in that makes some more at risk of poor outcomes than others. It would therefore be more useful to focus on vulnerable environments than ‘vulnerable children’. To make a difference in the lives of those children most at risk of poor outcomes we must have a society and nation that prioritises the wellbeing of all children. Such a society would provide an adequate income for all families and whanau to be able to meet basic needs and participate in their communities, an education system in which all children can flourish, and public values that do not stigmatise, label and therefore isolate some children or their families/whanau.
The most effective initiatives are also long-term initiatives that can take many years to show results. If you want a healthy society you need to work with the children, families and communities from birth onwards. The outcomes take longer but are worth it.
SHARE RESPONSIBILITY
COSS is concerned to note the absence of discussion points regarding the responsibility of the third partner in child wellbeing – the government. There have been studies in previous years that are pertinent to the subject of vulnerable children in society and, in particular, “Family Resiliency and Good Child Outcomes” Ariel Kalil 2003 https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/archive/2003-family-resilience-good-child-outcomes.pdf should be revisited in regard to these issues before much more time, effort and money is spent on replicating these findings.
There are currently services in place that are working well and with more time and resources would be able to produce the evidence based results that are much needed. Each time we try to reinvent the wheel and bring new agencies, groups or programmes onboard replacing what already exists, we lose the existing good work that with proper support and resourcing could become great. Some examples of this are Whanau Ora which was created in 2009 and has the potential to reach some of the most vulnerable children and families in the country. Plunket has the ability to reach into the homes of every new baby born but is struggling with a lack of funding. They have initiated a teenage well child service targeting teenage mothers who don’t engage well with standard programmes but again this is all funding dependent.
Child, Youth and Family need to take on a more forensic based role. The nomenclature of social service delivery remains very judgemental for parents, caregivers and families and can lead to stigmatisation and a sense of failure.
To “Intervene” in the situation continues to demonstrate that CY&F are not strength based but focused on a “Disorder” model. To intervene is to “Interfere, arbitrate, mediate, intercede, or intrude” in to the lives of families. This brings with it the sense of Parental / Caregiver and or Family FAILURE. In all cases there are family protective factors that could be drawn on. It is not always the case where the family is doing it wrong but need assistance – short intermediate or long term. Change the language and actions of CY&F and this will break down the unwillingness of families to seek assistance. The impression of the social worker from CY&F swooping in can be traumatic. In a strengths- based model of practice there is a preposition that what the parents, caregivers, or family is doing is not all wrong and the identification of what is working is as important as identification of what is not working. The community would be better served by CYF social workers being attached to NGO’s.
SHOW LEADERSHIP
The word “vulnerable” should apply less to the children and more to the environment the children are growing up in. Environmental factors need to be looked at and support for families to become resilient. Any “Action Plan” needs to take a ‘whole of society’ approach and focus on what creates vulnerability for the child and family and conversely what can help to protect a child (and family) from being vulnerable.
Sir Geoffrey Palmer described New Zealand as having “An overactive law making gland” and as such for every piece of legislation passed in to law, Parliament normally follows up with amendments because the parliament overlooked or underestimated the effects and or side effects of their actions.
Much legislation over many years has had an indirect negative consequence on children by changing the environmental factors for their families, e.g Employment, housing, benefit, resulting in comprised abilities of parents to positively parent their children. All proposed legislation related to social and economic policies should be evaluated for its impact on children, not just legislation directly related to children.
Children do not appear to rate in the political agenda that is dominated by economics.
MAKE CHILD CENTRED POLICY CHANGE
One of the big issues surrounding this is funding and we strongly believe longitudinal funding is so important. Longitudinal funding would give services such as Whanau Ora the chance to establish themselves and provide evidence based research that what they are doing is working. You cannot make generational change over the period of an election cycle and generational change is what is needed to ensure our children are safe. The funding should also be attached to the child so that there is transparency and the child is the priority. This would ensure the best outcome for the child.
Funding could also be shared across government departments for integrated funding putting the money where it is needed the most. For integrated funding to deliver its potential for children, further work by government on standardisation of accountability requirements should be a priority.
What we also believe is needed to address the issue is a connection between ante natal and post natal programmes. Well child checks and ante and post natal care need to be more intensive and better resourced. There are sectors of the community who don’t engage in these processes. For example, parents in the rural community are often isolated with no transport and transient partners. There is a lack of education as to why nutrition, self care and engaging with processes such as Well Child are important. Further funding to mothers and babies units would make these more accessible. According to HomeBirth Aotearoa http://www.homebirth.org.nz/statistics.html only 7% of babies are born at home which means 93% of all children born in New Zealand as hospital births and should should be accessing services such as Well Child and Plunket. It may be we need to make regular postnatal and Well Child checks a requirement rather than an option.
Communities need to be strengthened and community structures need to be identified. There needs to be an interlocking set of partnerships between the Government and community and information sharing needs to be reviewed so that families and children don’t fall through the cracks. Currently too many groups share too little information and this is detrimental to the families and children that are vulnerable. However, if information sharing is introduced then professionals need to be educated as to the correct procedures around this sensitive area.
We also believe that if all social workers adhered to the Code of Ethics mandatory reporting wouldn’t be an issue. 3.13 of The Code of Ethics states “A member may conclude that the client or someone else (such as a child) may be endangered or harmed by non-disclosure. In any event where disclosure of client information is critically indicated, it should only be done after consultation with a supervisor or colleagues.” There should be clarity in guidelines between the professional and the client, and their families if applicable, so that the social worker role is clearly defined and discussed.
One of the negative effects of mandatory reporting is it may well keep away the families that need help but are too frightened to ask for fear it will escalate out of their control. Families will be less likely to ask questions because even the smallest comment may result in a swoop of social workers descending on them when this may not be the solution.
MAKE CHILD CENTRED PRACTICE CHANGE
Community wrap around should also be considered to provide a greater level of care for families who work with multiple agencies and groups. This a child centric and family focused solution to ensure these families are not left out and to make sure those most in need do get the help. Funding should also go to improving and extending the Social Workers in Schools program.
To connect vulnerable children and their families/whanau with the services they need the Government needs to be pro active in bringing the services to the people. It may be something as simple as providing a mini bus daily from specific pick up points to the nearest service and return. The bringing together of frontline services into hubs, such as Linwood Link in Christchurch, makes this much more achievable and these families/whanau and children can access the services without having to go to several different places.
SUMMARY
It is hard to tell if the motivation behind the Green Paper is about taking responsibility away from the Government and handing it back to the community. Or perhaps it’s about making more direct government intervention into people’s lives acceptable. Page 21 of the Green Paper poses the questions “ Should the Government reprioritise spending to provide more early intervention; that is, more services for younger children and/or services for children that address problems as they are beginning to surface?” and “if so, from where should funding be taken?” This leads the reader to assume the Government will be taking funding from other important areas and is putting the onus on the community as to which areas should be cut back. We need good clear answers as to the agenda behind this paper.
We believe there are a number of organisations currently doing excellent work in this field and they need longitudinal funding and government support to be able to produce evidence based research that shows they are effective. The Government should be working with these agencies to ensure they are properly resourced and thereby able to support families and children across the board. Government can also help shape the public discourse that can either stigmatise or support families, and create policies that will ensure that every family has access to the fundamental prerequisites of family wellbeing – an adequate income, access to education, and the ability to participate in their communities.
