CYF Review let’s get real - Public Service Association · CYF review let’s get real 3 Foreword...

CYF Review let’s get real

Key discussion points from the symposium on the CYF Review

Contents

Foreword ............................................................................................................................................. 3

Introduction ....................................................................................................................................... 4A review or an agenda? ................................................................................................................. 4Symposium sponsors ..................................................................................................................... 5

Scene setting and background ...................................................................................................... 6Addressing the issue ...................................................................................................................... 6Learning from our past and present ............................................................................................ 7Where to from here? ..................................................................................................................... 7

In conversation – remodelling CYF .............................................................................................. 8

The time for change is now ........................................................................................................... 11

Workshop sessions – key points ...................................................................................................14

Reimagining Social Work Aotearoa .............................................................................................15

Summary and wrap up – next steps ............................................................................................16

CYF review let’s get real 3

Foreword Liz Beddoe, University of Auckland

On 1 April 1 2015 the Minister of Social Development, Anne Tolley, announced the formation of an “independent expert panel” to lead a “complete overhaul” of Child, Youth and Family (CYF). The timing of another major review caused great concern, especially given the programme of work required by the passing of the Vulnerable Children Act 2014 and the review’s inception so soon after a highly regarded major workload review that had made many excellent recommendations.

Overseas attendees at the Australasian Conference on Child Abuse and Neglect conference held in Auckland were shocked that the minister spoke to the conference on 31 March but did not mention this review which was to be announced the following day. Many wondered why the minister chose not to announce a major child protection initiative (which it became clear had been the subject of discussion since February) to an audience of around 500 passionate advocates for children! We can only imagine that she wanted to avoid a discussion with such a well-informed audience.

In the social work reactions which followed our initial focus was on the make-up of the panel, which most found neither independent nor expert. Panel chair Paula Rebstock and Police Commissioner Mike Bush both are both closely aligned with major state service operations. Rebstock is the chair of several state service boards and associated with welfare reforms that have been widely critiqued as draconian and callous.

Missing in the make-up of the panel were the voices of those closest to the issues: practitioners, local non-governmental organisation leaders and experienced advocates for carers and children. Where were the spokespeople for Māori and Pasifika communities who work every day to support the health and well-being of their people, and whose children are so disproportionality caught up in the care and protection system? The child welfare and family violence researchers who have worked tirelessly to inform policy and practice? In the cabinet paper on the expert panel it was apparent in the two governance diagrams that the minister removed an advisory group, where those important voices could have been heard. This decision side-lined the opinions and expertise of Māori, Pasifika, unions, educators and other major stakeholders.

It was also noted that there was no panel member with a strong understanding of the CYF “operating environment ... or a comparable operating environment in a similar jurisdiction”. Might we have reasonably expected that such a person might be a child protection expert from another country?

Since then some additional input has been achieved. But why did we have to fight so hard for that to happen? Could we imagine a major health service review that excluded doctors or a justice system review that excluded lawyers? If an external voice was required one would have thought that expertise in the operation of child protection was essential. In discussions many social workers could name many people who could have been approached to bring genuine expertise and independence from the current system.

There are many alarming aspects of this review that will still need to be addressed. Since those exhausting early days in April when members of our professional bodies, the PSA and the Reimagining Social Work Collective wrote press releases, opinion pieces and blog posts the entire social work sector has come together, with unprecedented levels of activity and collaboration. If there is one positive thing to take from these events it is the real strength and determination social workers, unionists and Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers’ members and many others have shown. Let’s get real outlines the many contributions made to solidarity building at the PSA Social Workers Action Network Symposium of 8 August. We will need to keep working together to face the many challenges ahead.

www.reimaginingsocialwork.nz

4 CYF review: let’s get real

IntroductionOn 8 August 2015 the PSA Social Workers Action Network (SWAN) and Unitec’s Department of Social Practice hosted a full-day symposium on the Child, Youth and Family Review (CYF Review) that is currently underway. The symposium provided an opportunity for the social work community and interfacing professions who have not been consulted or provided an opportunity to engage through the CYF Review process to have their say on CYF; social work collaboration; and child protection in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Over 100 social workers and other concerned individuals attended the event that included presentations from those with personal experience of CYF care, the PSA, social work academics and the profession’s leaders, along with an information-filled and sometimes emotional panel discussion.

Speakers for the day included:

• Mike O’Brien, associate professor, University of Auckland• David McNabb, lecturer – social practice, Unitec • Lucy Sandford-Reed, chief executive, Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers• Paora Crawford-Moyle, independent social work supervisor• Liz Beddoe, associate professor, University of Auckland• Deb Stanfield, academic staff member, Wintec• CYF delegates from the PSA

A review or an agenda?On 1 April 2015, minister for social development Anne Tolley announced that she was appointing a panel to develop a business case for the modernisation of CYF.

The panel includes Paula Rebstock as chair who serves on a number of boards including as chair on both the ACC Board and the Work and Income Board; Police commissioner Mike Bush; Duncan Dunlop chief executive of Scotland’s Who Cares charity; Helen Leahy, specialist adviser for Te Rūnanga o Ngāi Tahu; and Professor Richie Poulton, chief science adviser to the Ministry of Social Development (MSD). In early July, minister Tolley appointed a Youth Advisory Panel of eight young people (aged 15 – 23) who have had experience in state care to advise the panel. At the same time, Peter Douglas, Ngāti Maniapoto, was appointed to the panel. Peter started his career as a social worker and has been the principal Māori advisor at MSD.

While the new additions to the panel are welcome, there is still concern at the dearth of social workers on the panel and the very limited representation by Māori and people with experience within the system. The overall process still only allows for input from a select few rather than a range of voices on a hugely significant issue.

At best, the approach appears to be an oversight that will not encourage a robust analysis of the issues. At worst, the panel selection appears to be a cynical move to usher in changes to CYF that are based on economics or an ideological viewpoint, as opposed to a real interest in “modernising” the system. As PSA organiser Amy Ross noted in the PSA’s July issue of Working Life: The mention in the terms of reference of “results” is also of concern. Everyone wants good results, but the question is how are those results defined? And by whom? And against what criteria?


I attend a lot of conferences and I am rarely touched to tears by keynote speakers, but when Paora Crawford-Moyle spoke, not only did I cry but my social justice heart wanted to jump out of my chest. This is a social work I want to be part of, this is a social work my students need to learn.

Paora was not the only bright spark, all other speakers demonstrated competence, creativity, passion and grace – in response to that – all participants were actively engaged. PSA managed to gather a group of social work practitioners, students, teachers and other professionals who are concerned about the upcoming review and what it may mean for the future of the work we do.

The symposium was an example of brilliant organisation, high-quality facilitation and effectiveness. Thank you PSA and David McNabb from Unitec for making it possible....

I guess this was an example of what Liz Beddoe proposes as Reimagining social work. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Tena koe.

-Ksenija Napan, associate professor, Massey University

In the Welfare Working Group that Paula Rebstock also chaired results were defined as people “off benefits”. Will we be looking at such a tick-box exercise for child protection?

That concern seems well founded with the minister’s focus on an “investment approach”. Is the review just a cost-cutting exercise or is it truly about improving the lives of New Zealand’s vulnerable children and youth?

The approach also seems counter to the more holistic way the government is taking when reviewing laws that cover family violence. In that case, the government has released a discussion paper that proposes significant changes to the laws covering family violence. As justice minister Amy Adams told TVNZ’s Q&A programme, she is looking “to start a pretty ground-up discussion about what we can do better”.

SWAN and others working within the sector are committed to giving a voice to social workers, people who interact with the system and others with an interest in this issue.

Symposium sponsorsSWAN – PSA

SWAN is a network within the PSA that aims to unify, inspire, inform, and advocate for social workers and through them the communities they work within. SWAN provides a forum for social work members to come together and organise around the issues facing our community, and ensure that the unique needs of social workers and social worker clients are identified and responded to. SWAN seeks to advocate for the social work community and develop a sense of cohesion, unity and strength amongst social workers.

Unitec

Unitec’s Department of Social Practice is located at Waitakere campus. We teach undergraduate and postgraduate programmes and courses in counselling, social work and community development. We work from a rights-based approach and our staff share an active commitment to social justice and community activism.


Scene setting and backgroundAmy Ross and Debbie Taylor, PSA organisers

Social work has never been an easy profession. It’s complex, demanding work and even with best-practice models in place social workers operate in grey areas – from assessing a home environment, to determining the people who come into contact with a child all require judgement. But in recent years the work has gotten harder. For the last decade social workers have been asked to do more with less. While new roles have been created they have not kept pace with administrative requirements and workloads.

There are also societal factors that affect social work, including poverty. In 2013, 260,000 dependent children aged 0–17 years (24 percent) were living in relative poverty after housing costs. Those numbers go up for Māori and Pasifika children: From 2010 to 2013, around 34 percent of Māori and 28 percent of Pasifika children lived in poor households, compared with 16 percent of European children.1

But aside from the challenges described above, we have a whole social system most would agree needs to be more fit for purpose. We need to get this right and as you will hear in the following presentations – so far we haven’t.

Addressing the issueIn May 2014, MSD released the findings of a qualitative review of social worker caseload, casework and workload management.2 The review was commissioned by the chief executive of MSD and led by the Office of the Chief Social Worker of Child, Youth and Family. Before the qualitative review, a white paper on vulnerable children was prepared and served as important background information.

The qualitative review then involved extensive frontline staff participation and was undertaken in partnership with the PSA. The review was intentionally narrow in focus and asked just two questions: Are we working with the right cases and in the right timeframes to improve outcomes for New Zealand’s most vulnerable children and young people? Do we have the right tools and resources to enable us to meet the current demand for our service and to deliver quality social work practice?

The review also included input from an independent expert advisory panel to provide comment on methodology, findings and recommendations. The panel included Dr Nicola Atwool (University of Otago), Mike Munnelly (Barnardos New Zealand), John Fluke (University of Colorado, US) and Nigel Richardson (Leeds City Council, UK). In addition, a range of stakeholders was consulted across government departments, non-government providers, iwi and the Office of the Children’s Commissioner.

The review included 12 recommendations aimed to deliver better quality social work that makes a positive difference to the lives of our most vulnerable children and young people. Key to those recommendations was the employment of additional social workers to address current demand levels. Implementing some of the recommendations of the qualitative review was seen as an important next step for CYF to deliver high-quality services to New Zealand’s children, youth and families.

A year on, those recommendations have barely had time to be socialised or adopted within the organisation and tested with communities of interest, although some new programmes have been tested within individual CYF offices with promising results.

1. 2014 Child Poverty Monitor Technical Report. Retrieved from: www.nzchildren.co.nz/document_downloads/2014%20Child%20Poverty%20Monitor%20Technical%20Report.pdf.

2. Qualitative review of social worker caseload, casework and workload management, MSD, May 2014. Retrieved from: http://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/newsroom/me-dia-releases/2014/workload-and-casework-review.pdf


Learning from our past and presentWe acknowledge that there is no moving forward without recognising our society’s past actions. As keynote speaker Paora Crawford-Moyle discusses in her presentation (see page 11) our past policies and actions were devastating for many, many vulnerable individuals.

The final report of The Confidential Listening and Assistance Service (2015) serves as an important guide for where we have made mistakes in the past and should serve as a stark reminder of the very real impact poor policies or practices can have.3

The Office of the Children’s Commissioner State of Care report 2015 confirms that we still have a long way to go to better protect and serve children who are within state care. As children’s commissioner Dr Russell Wills noted in his introduction of the report:

For the most part, CYF staff members are dedicated individuals who work hard, often with impossible workloads. Nothing in this report should be taken as a criticism of individual staff members, many of whom I admire enormously. Yet as an organisation, CYF’s performance is concerning.

Where to from here?The PSA would welcome an honest and robust review of the current system – a review that goes beyond CYF – and is focused on truly seeing where and how we can better serve children, families and communities. But that’s not what the current CYF Review represents.

A genuine review would require real engagement with communities of interest, and a hard, critical look at what impact funding or lack thereof is having on social work practice and the quality of service to whānau. The drive for cost-effective production efficiency in a demand-saturated environment has led to practice failure in the child protection system. This drive is not based on the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989, but instead reflects reduced funding and a crisis-driven organisational culture. There has been such a long-term lack of funding that it has destabilised the sector, which makes it difficult to identify what could be working within the system with proper funding and what really needs to be addressed.

We suggest that certainly a more efficient and effective approach (words that ministers like to use when it suits their political agenda, but seem to lose sight of when they go against their ideology) would be to genuinely review the recommendations that came out of the 2014 qualitative review findings and develop an action plan for implementing those recommendations.

I want to express my appreciation for the work you did to organise this event and the foresight involved in anticipating the need for it. You invited key people to express their views and provide valuable analysis of the issues, and you facilitated a fair safe process for all participants to contribute meaningfully. I am hoping that a similar event can be held in my region (Waikato) in the near future as I know my colleagues here would appreciate a similar opportunity. I believe the event provided key support to hard-working professional social workers who are struggling within a structure that is not aligned with the core values and principles of social work. Thank you again.

-Deb Stanfield, Wintec academic staff member

3. Retrieved from: https://dunedinstadium.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/final-report-of-the-confidential-listening-and-assistance-service-2015.pdf.


In conversation – remodelling CYFLucy Sandford-Reed, ANZASW; and David McNabb Council for Social Work Education Aotearoa/New Zealand

As many of you have also voiced, we have concerns about the current CYF Review. Our contention is the review is not wide enough, instead relying on a siloed approach to fix a wider problem. We also believe the continued focus on a narrow outcome-focused approach, with black-and-white “results”, is a crude measure and fails to put children, families and communities at the centre of our system. So while we have many, many good practitioners and pockets of excellence, the overall system is failing our children, our families, and our communities.

The review also signals changes to the investment approach within the social services system that are of concern. This approach seems to define New Zealand citizens in a one-dimensional way as “clients” or “choosing consumers”. In the case of children and families this is a particularly worrying viewpoint. Thereseems to be an emphasis on privatising services. We believe this could have long-lasting effects on the system (as recent privatisation issues in other sectors have illustrated).

Through the establishment of the panel and the terms of reference, the CYF Review also undermines the sector and social workers. For example, there is a valid concern about possible legislative changes to the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 which may deprofessionalise social worker roles. Unitec lecturer Peter Matthewson has written an insightful blog on this issue.4

While the review does not have a real consultation process built in, we, like all of you who are here today, feel this is too an important a discussion to be left out of. So below is our starter for 10 to add to the conversation.

What does a good system look like?

We need to agree on what our expectations are for social work. We suggest the following as a starting point:

• being responsive to community, family and individual needs and aspirations• quality, effective and responsive practitioners• a contracting environment where there is an ability to build and sustain relationships• a system that is based on intervention and prevention• a national strategy where state services serve a central role, with the role of non-governmental

organisations (NGOs) clearly understood, valued, supported and properly resourced • a system that encourages the input of practitioners, providers and users.

Supporting a robust review

The current CYF Review needs to be broadened to ensure the following:

• consider CYF in context of the larger social services system, particularly with a focus on the needs for CYF and NGO services that advocate and challenge ongoing systemic injustice that perpetuates cycles of poverty and abuse rather than just reacting after the fact

• engage with children, youth and families• take on board recommendations from professional gatherings such as this one• look at caseloads, staffing and administration time (see Figures 1 and 2)

4. Modernisation, Deprofessionalisation, and the Role of the Private Sector by Peter Matthewson. Retrieved from: www.reimaginingsocialwork.nz/2015/05/modernisation-deprofessionalisation-and-the-role-of-the-private-sector/.


• consider the data and knowledge available, and investigate where there are gaps in our knowledge• review caseloads and programmes in terms of quality as well as quantity.

Putting New Zealanders at the centre of decision-making

The needs of people who use social services needs to be at the centre of all decision-making and should be the core of any review. That includes:

• showing respect and understanding that they are the experts about their own and their family’s needs• listening to them• making accurate information accessible to them• letting them control their own lives and be active partners in solving their own problems • understanding that individuals act within whānau and communities.

Respecting the profession

In addition, social workers need to be valued as part of the solution and meaningfully included in any review. They bring valuable knowledge and understanding of issues, including:

• relationship skills• working toward safe outcomes for vulnerable people• constructively challenging and working alongside high-needs and multi-stressed families• decision-making based on user-determined decisions• informed knowledge of possibilities and limits• ability to locate service users in the wider whānau and community context• effective advocacy and access to services• sustained commitment to the welfare of people and to a social just society.

And not to be underestimated, social workers often bring a sense of hope.

Figure 1. Proportion of available social worker time spent in contact with children, young people and their family/whānau. Source: Qualitative review of social worker caseload, casework and workload management, published by MSD in 2014 (page 72).


Figure 2. Proportion of available social worker time spent on documentation, administration, travel and escorting. Source: Qualitative review of social worker caseload, casework and workload management, published by MSD in 2014 (page 75).

What next?

First, put children, families and communities at the centre of any review or decisions.

The review then needs to look at who our social services interact with and how we do it. Where are we doing it well? Where – and with who – are we failing? As part of the review we need to understand why we succeed and why we fail.

Once we understand those things we need to determine what skills and resources are needed to be effective in our roles. As part of that, we need to understand what happens if we continue to fail. It’s easy to talk about the costs of services, but we need to fully comprehend the costs of not having those services before making any decisions.

YES!!! I was so happy to be able to come yesterday. As a student it was wonderful to be invited to the conversation and to hear about how we can work together so we are not working against each other.

-Emma Bickley


The time for change is nowKōrero by Paora Moyle, Ngāti Porou

I am an independent social work supervisor at Moaintheroom. I have been practising social work for over 20 years and at least 10 of those years in direct family group conference practice. I am half way through a three-year PhD in social work at Massey University. I am also an Iwi Kaiwhakaruruhau through Te Korowai Aroha o Aotearoa.

I want to take you back to a time when some of you may remember, bellbottoms, psychedelic clothes, platform shoes and disco dancing the night away. Whilst you were doing this, I remember a little blonde-haired, blue-eyed Māori girl being ripped from her whānau and incarcerated into a hostile environment. A kid that had to fight almost daily to protect herself from the varying abuses that approved adult caregivers subjected her to. A little girl who was pitted (like dogs are) against other state kids for adult entertainment – where she learned to king hit and maim and win to protect her younger brothers from also being pitted. If she stayed in, then her younger brothers weren’t pitted and she didn’t have to come up against them.

Yes, I’m a survivor of abuse in state care and whilst we are gathered here talking about the state of social work, there are kids in care who have been taken from their whānau and many of them will experience sexual, physical and cultural abuse.

My decision to be a social worker was shaped by my own experience of being raised in institutional care as a ward of the New Zealand state. Some have said this makes me too close to the topic, emotional and unable to be objective. Well my response to that is, social work IS emotional, being Māori heart and soul, working with whānau who have had intergenerational state abuses impacting them, is emotional. My ability to see from the inside as well as outside makes me perfect to do this mahi. The point I am making is that the act of alienating a child from their cultural roots is in itself a fundamental abuse on that child – and one that this current system does not recognise.

Now I’m not talking about where there is a clear and established need to uplift a child from harm. I am talking about practice with whānau has become so risk adverse our babies are uplifted in the first instance regardless of the concerns and then it’s sorted out later. Once kids are in the system it is really hard to get them back – decisions and actions have to be defended by those in power. It is very seldom roses and happy families for these kids. May I be clear at this point I don’t speak on behalf of all tangata whenua. My views are my own. Although they have been well informed by the research participants I have been working with.

I was going to talk today about the research, instead I am going to talk about how we are constitutionally bicultural (in principle at least), ethnically multicultural, but institutionally monocultural. So monocultural that appropriate Māori representation on the CYF review panel was ignored. This demonstrated an intolerance of Māori and just how much casual racism is taking hold. Take for example, if numbers of our children in care were a justification for appropriate representation then members of the CYF review panel would almost all be Māori. Hei aha we are here to talk about the future of social work – a position we seem to be perpetually in. Convincing ourselves that we are making change occur even if it is incrementally...always trying to get there...but WHERE is there?

We have been doing this since Puao-te-ata-tu, which we keep promising to return back “to the spirit of” but never quite get there either. In my supervision work with social workers I am always reminded of how many have no idea what this document is about. So given its significance, allow me briefly refer to it: Puao-te-ata-tu described the effect of institutional racism within the Department of Social Welfare (now Ministry of Social Development) as individualistic and state centered dispensing of social services. This nurtured attitudes and practices that discriminated against Māori. Puao-te-ata-tu produced a number of significant recommendations, the first two were about tackling institutional racism and eliminating deprivation. Without addressing these two in the first instance, the other recommendations about making the social welfare system more culturally responsive would be ineffectual (Ministerial Advisory Committee, 1986).


Puao-te-ata-tu (breaking of the dawn) never got to see the light of day because the very thing the document sought to irradiate – institutional racism – blocked it. Those in positions of power to effect and implement those changes did not want to share that power. In the same vein as we see “partnership” and “biculturalism” being flouted under te Tiriti auspices. The point I am making is that in the 30 years since, nothing has changed for Māori, they remain unacceptably over represented in all systems – systems that are fundamentally Eurocentric and monocultural, not bicultural.

Let’s talk about the myth of biculturalism – it was huge in the early 90s. Biculturalism was intended as a way of working across the whole of youth justice and care and protection. Ae, there were pockets of really good practice as there are today, but it didn’t fly. Essentially, there is no such thing as biculturalism in practice. If the system is monocultural, that’s what it is. If you are monocultural, that’s what you are. All the culturally responsive guidelines and “Māorified” frameworks and risk assessments in the world will never make you capable of seeing through a Te Ao Māori lens.

Māori and our Pasifika cousins are bicultural, they exist on a day-to-day basis in two often opposing world views, their own and the colonisers. No and I’m not taking away from the mahi that our chief Māori advisors or any of our tangata whenua leaders are currently working on, but for me “regurgitating” bicultural frameworks and “reinvigorating” cultural responsiveness is just keeping ourselves in work – always getting there without knowing where “THERE” is. Our child protection system, as is the adult prison system, is a self-generating machine of supply and demand transacting profitable brown units and providing the jobs we all love and love to hang on to. We maintain the status quo.

Let’s talk about the myth of Cultural Responsiveness. Another popular term bandied around the ministries. How do we know what it is and how it works when there is no actual evidence of cultural responsiveness working for our people? How do you quantify or qualify something without knowing exactly what it is? Is it karakia at the beginning of a family group conference? Tikanga is infinitely more than a rimu veneer grafted onto monocultural one-size-fits-all process. That’s not responsiveness that’s glorified tokenism. The same way a harakeke weave design, or graphic of a pounamu pendant adorn the CYF website and ministerial reports. Or “dial a pōwhiri” at the start of a social work conference – all of that equates to cultural appropriation, not responsiveness. It’s taking, not giving.

Let me put it this way, painting a kowhaiwhai on the front of a child protection or youth justice residence still makes it a residence where our children are locked up. We need to move the narrative to WHY our children are mass-incarcerated in the first place. Yes. I’m talking about the targeting and commodification of Māori children.

To illustrate this statement, in October 2010 major youth justice reforms titled, Fresh Start, came into effect, including significant changes to the youth justice provisions of the Children Young Persons and their Families Act 1989. These changes were intended to transform youth justice, particularly the family group conference and not least, re-address the “Māori problem” of Māori over-representation. Some of the key changes included new and extended formal Youth Court orders, more programmes and interventions and the ability to put children (12 and 13 years) before the Youth Court.

However, since the reforms, Māori have gone from half to more than two-thirds of the total children and young people in both youth justice and care and protection residences, whilst the Pakeha numbers have dropped (CYF Practice Centre, 2014). The success of the reforms were hailed in operational reports by way of fewer Police apprehensions, family group conferences and formal court orders (MSD, 2012). However, the operational reports stopped hailing the success in 2012 when the stats on Māori did not show that the reforms had addressed over-representation (MSD, 2012). Reinvigorating doesn’t work either – our people continue to be targeted and our children removed from their cultural roots.

Institutional racism is rife across all the ministries and some of the worst-biased practice is aimed at women and Māori and if you are both you get a double dose. Two-thirds of the notifications CYF receive are through referral from Police resulting from family violence incidents. Wahine Māori talk to me about being


“microscopically scrutinised” in every aspect of her life because she is Māori and in a violent relationship. This is separate from whether she is actually a fit parent or not. She still has to endure the process of not only protecting herself and her children, but also from the scrutiny and stigma she experiences from agencies and frontline workers.

Māori women I interviewed in my research described frontline practitioners as generally ignorant, arrogant, controlling, bureaucratic, and prejudiced. Yet those same practitioners and their agencies lack basic key knowledge about child abuse and family violence. For example, not knowing the impact upon the mental health of a whānau or not understanding that it takes resources for women to leave a violent relationship. These women/mothers are expected to be solely responsible for protecting their children. Thus, the responsibility of the perpetrator of the abuse is often not a factor in securing safety for children.

Children can be removed from their mother because she has failed to protect them from being exposed to family violence when in fact it is the perpetrator who is compromising the safety of the children. It seems that mothers must bear the burden of protecting their children even though they are often unable to protect themselves whilst we are all busy telling her to leave and judging her for not. Leaving is not a simple choice because these women live in fear of what happens next, especially when previous attempts to leave failed. Leaving often only happens when the violence has worsened to the point of fearing for their lives, and often without the necessary supports to leave successfully.

Now let’s talk about the myth of cultural competence – the Social Workers Registration Board approves social workers as culturally competent to work with our people, but the truth is most practitioners working in the helping professions have no idea how to work with whānau at a grassroots, kaupapa Māori level. Here’s another example, a wahine who has been fighting the system for six years to have her son returned to her talked about how in Family Court judges often asked her what Māori things meant, such as, what does whanaungatanga and manaakitanga mean? What does whānau and whakapapa mean? What is wairua?

If our social workers and Family Court judges do not get Te Ao Māori then what chance do our people have? This monocultural system is oppressive and contributes to the cultural genocide of Māori. Taking our kids from their cultural roots and not returning them is “state violence on whānau” (whānau violence) and is a violation of that child’s Indigenous human rights. Why on earth would you want to work for a system that is diametrically opposed to Māori well-being?

We all have a choice about where we position ourselves. We can remain contractually gagged through our organisations or choose to find creative ways of speaking out on social justice issues or supporting others to do so. But the point is all of us have a choice about how we use our voice, how we work with whānau to truly uplift them. Life is short, be the person you want to be, who your ancestors intended you to be. Some of you may be aware that we exist in a really unique time in the her-story of the world. Whether we realise it or not we are all part of a current global conscientisation, an uprising of Indigenous nations who are reclaiming their land, their intellectual property of old, and their relationship with mother Earth.

Be a part of this movement, the time is right now, for it will never come again.

Mauri ora koutou katoa.

Video of this kōrero posted at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weFzeVzkQBc.

I attended the SWAN symposium today and our profession was called out on its institutional racism. I totally welcome the challenge and realise I have much to learn. I like many other social workers can rattle off the right things to say to be a “culturally competent” practitioner, but need to follow it up with deeper understanding, critical thinking and knowledge so real change can occur, otherwise we are continuing to colonise.

-Stacey Randall, social worker


Workshop sessions – key pointsIn the afternoon, symposium participants broke into three groups to discuss three topics:

• the current CYF Review and how it may impact on CYF organisational structure and service provision• keeping a focus on children, families and communities we serve• facing the future and creating connections – how the social work sector can work together.

Key discussion points

Workshop participants discussed a number of key ideas, including the need to work towards the intent of Puao-te-ata-tu and the Children, Young Persons, and Their Families Act 1989 (the Act). Concerns were raised around some of the language in the terms of reference in the review, for example, “child centric” – that this could indicate a move away from the spirit of Puao-te-ata-tu and the Act.

Participants also discussed the need for a cohesive vision, along with policies and systems that support the well-being of children and families. To underscore this point, there was a discussion about the need to respond to notifications of family violence in ways that are more sensitive to the needs of the victims. There were anecdotal reports that women were not willing to report family violence because they were fearful their children may be taken from them.

A review needs to consider underlying societal issues, such as poverty and low wages that can cause child abuse and neglect. As part of this, there is a need to better understand and address the culture of poverty that exists for many families and communities and how this impacts specific situations.

There was a discussion about how existing structures do not empower social workers. Specifically, Māori and Pasifika social workers discussed being passionate about working with mokopuna and whānau, but felt disempowered by CYF organisational structures and workloads. There was a suggestion that external cultural supervision would be helpful. As Paora highlighted in her presentation, the monoculture nature of CYF as an institution is a significant barrier to addressing and responding to cultural differences. This issue is particularly frustrating for Māori social workers who are often expected to represent bicultural viewpoints and lead activities (such as powhiri) with no recognition and little appreciation of the deeper meaning behind these activities.

There was recognition that whānau is taonga. There needs to be more investment and resourcing into bringing whānau together to support children rather than separating them as separation causes damage. Responsible and reliable adults can usually be found within families.

There was also a discussion about institutional racism, and how data collection, as well as predictive risk modelling can lead to discriminatory and stigmatising practices. At every level there needs to be a meaningful relationship with Te Ao Māori.


Reimagining Social Work AotearoaLiz Beddoe, associate professor, University of Auckland, and Deb Stanfield, academic staff member, Wintec and members of the Reimagining Social Work Collective

The CYF Review has implications for all social work services.

What’s important to us as a collective working to reimagine social work in Aotearoa/New Zealand?

• We believe it’s crucial to challenge the focus on a child-centric approach which risks further erosion of the holistic family approach.

• We oppose the privatisation of foster care and the intensification of permanent removal of children.• We believe that children in care, perhaps more than any other category, deserve the protection of the

state via a rights-based approach as outlined in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

• We challenge the uncritical use of risk-modelling type approaches.

What we know about the sector?

• Caseloads are too high and the primary reason for poor practice of many kinds. This causes two issues: First, it increases the risk to children where social workers have high caseloads and where “lower” priorities may not get the attention they need to avert a future crisis event. Second, innovation and creative practice cannot occur in a high-stress environment which can give rise to the myth of practitioners not being able to innovate. Many fantastic ideas and practice models are not seeing the light of day due to this reason. Social workers must have time.

• MSD’s Qualitative review of social worker caseload, casework and workload management needs to be taken seriously as part of any review.

• Management, supervisory processes, and assessment tools need to take account of the complexity of CYF and how it sits within wider social work services.

• A broad ecological approach to social work education is required. It is fundamental to social work education more than any other profession, and is necessary to respond intelligently and effectively to “wicked” problems.

What we know about social work?

• The practice and profession of social work brings some particular skills and insights into child protection work, but does not ultimately offer solutions to systemic child maltreatment rooted in social inequality.

• Social workers bring a broad socio-political-economic analysis of the circumstances of those with whom they work. This analysis is often eschewed as soft and irrelevant to child safety work, but nothing could be further from the truth. It informs respectful communication and understanding of family circumstances.

• Social workers communicate with caregivers and children and make decisions informed by a process of relational engagement. This work is complex, risky and inexact.

• Child protection social work is not a business or a science, nor does it fit nicely into a box.

How we are reimagining social work?

• The key to good practice is understanding and acknowledging the socially situated complexity of risky work, but not being frozen or disabled by it. Social work care and protection systems need to acknowledge this rather than elevate assessment regimes to the level of evidence-based science.

• Social workers need to think in emotionally engaged and supportive contexts. Social workers need to look around us and not be boxed into thoughtless systemic compliance.


• Social workers need to find better ways of working with multi-stressed whānau. We need to foreground practice-centered learning. It is vital that our child protection services have time to work on preventive social work with families.

As a collective, we propose to resist the silencing of our voice by creating a space to discuss, debate and deliberate on the future of modern and progressive social work services in Aotearoa New Zealand. We welcome contributions from colleagues – social workers, social work managers, social work students, policy-makers, trade unionists and others – who share our concerns on this issue.

Great minds all speaking out about change at #therealexpertpanel. Loved every minute of today!

-Julie Knight


Summary and wrap up – next stepsThere was a bittersweet quality to this full-day symposium. The energy, knowledge and commitment in the room made it clear that there are many issues with the current system, but there are also solutions and people willing to contribute to those solutions. But the frustration in the room was palpable. Many social workers and other professionals have “been here before” when it comes to partial, closed reviews that seem more focused on instituting untested “answers” without bothering to ask meaningful questions or listen to the suggestions of the people who have the most experience and knowledge in this area.

The current CYF Review appears to be a behind-closed-doors discussion between a few debatable experts – it also has signs of being a done deal.

But it doesn’t need to be this way. The review of family violence policies and laws illustrates that the government can run comprehensive processes. Even the flag selection process has been run in a transparent and inclusive way. Surely some of our most vulnerable members of society are much more important than a symbol of our nationhood? As such, they deserve more than the pretence of a review.

We encourage minister Tolley to reconsider the review process that she has instructed her officials to undertake. We ask that she direct her officials to include a robust consultation process and ensure that people at the coalface (social workers, people who are or have been in state care and people representing communities of interest) from around the country are involved in the discussion. We ask for a transparent process that is wider than just a CYF Review, is informed by MSD’s Qualitative review of social worker caseload, casework and workload management, and takes into account the whole social ecosystem. As part of this, it will be important to review the tension that exists between monoculture institutions and the need for more holistic solutions, particularly in relation to the intent behind Puao-te-ata-tu.

We also call for immediate action to ensure the current system is appropriately resourced and supported. Current caseload levels for social workers are not sustainable and have high risks for both the children, families and communities being served, as well for social workers and other professionals working in the system.

We believe it is insincere to say that the CYF Review is expected to help deliver a strategy that focuses on the needs of children, when to date the government has not invested in the current system to levels required for those working within the system to safely and effectively do their jobs. We also believe without an appropriately funded system it is impossible to determine where systemic problems exist.

In other words, we suggest instead of picking a flag, the government expend more energy on picking a future focused on the safety and well-being of all Kiwis – a real and much more long-lasting symbol of how we stand as a nation.


Afterword One of my reflections from yesterday’s hui on the CYF review as I travel home is on the discussion around incremental change. For those of you who expressed frustration about change that occurs incrementally rather than via revolution I hear you. I too feel like I’m drowning at times in the struggle.

However, think of this, throughout history the greatest revolutionary moments rest on what is often decades of struggle, pressure building and small yet significant changes. Much like steam building in a kettle everything we have done, are doing and will do contributes to the ultimate revolution that we need to ensure social justice is number one, not a paltry second to economic narrative, individual wealth and neoliberal dogma. So don’t despair or feel that without complete change we achieve nothing.

A revolution is many things and connecting as we did yesterday is part of a revolutionary tapestry I think. Very proud of the PSA and the social work community today.

Thinking of you all. Kia Kaha. You are not alone.

-Amy Ross, PSA organiser

CYF Review let’s get real - Public Service Association · CYF review let’s get real 3 Foreword...

Documents

Transcript of CYF Review let’s get real - Public Service Association · CYF review let’s get real 3 Foreword...