Protecting Children or Systems?

“There is no trust more sacred than the one the world holds with children. There is no duty more important than ensuring that their rights are respected, that their welfare is protected, that their lives are free from fear and want and that they can grow up in peace.”  Kofi Annan

As Queensland gears up for a State Election PeakCare is asking pertinent questions about child protection and child and family well-being.  Key themes are emerging from the feedback offered by our members and stakeholders.  Not surprisingly compliance mechanisms have been raised as a major concern.

Compliance as a concept is not the concern; perceived over-prescribed compliance measures that take significant worker time and risk client needs being unmet is.  This echoes our commentary during our Munro campaign whereby we spoke of the similarities between child protection in Queensland and the issues highlighted by Professor Eileen Munro in her report on the British system.

What is surprising is the overwhelmingly consistent commentary about the child protection system being so systemically protective that we are inadvertently overlooking the protective needs of children.  Whilst rhetoric across the system speaks of ‘child centred approaches’ we are being told the reality often demonstrates a stark contrast to this stated intent. 

Many have argued that we are so busy complying: form filling, box ticking and meeting measurable process related outcomes that client needs become lower on the agenda than any practitioner would ever accept them to be.  Time with clients which includes: relationship building, hearing their stories, responding to their stories, assessing their needs and developing a plan to ensure holistic support are all time consuming albeit essential activities.  Such significant relational aspects of child protection practice seem to be suffering under such heavily weighted systemic demands. 

So are we client centred or system centred?  So far the feedback argues the latter.  That is not to say the system and professionals in the sector don’t aim for client centred practice, but the reality of ‘system’s demands’ means that such a desire often remains just that – a desire. These tensions are faced by practitioners on the front line of child protection be they government or NGO employees.

It is also important to note that the system exists to protect children and that is the clearly articulated intent.  Balancing the competing demands of child protection work has been an ongoing issue for governments internationally and nationally.

In Queensland, we need to ask ourselves based on significant commentary: Has compliance gone too far and is the system now the unintended key focus whilst children are taking a back seat?  This is a key question to ask and answer.  It also poses possibilities for working on bipartisan agreement around fundamental necessities of an effective child protection system to ensure that children (and not the system) remain the focus regardless of party politics.

In September 2011 our Executive Director Lindsay Wegener highlighted the following in his blog post It’s all about the sum of the parts, isn’t it?

Professor Eileen Munro stated that examination of the child protection system should note the contributions being made by local health services, education, police and the justice system to the creation and maintenance of an effective child protection system.  According to Professor Munro, if “rules” are to exist, those that should be focused upon are those that are developed to ensure that organisations are effectively working together.

So given over compliance is of significant concern, Lindsay asked what it would be like in Queensland if we replaced compliance of individual services with regular assessments of the contributions of all key parties including government departments, NGOs and other key services with the aim to achieve agreed upon outcomes for children, young people and their families within communities?

As we prepare for the 2012 Election, it is timely to ask this again.  What would this be like?  We’d love to hear your responses!

In the lead up to the March 2012 Election please stay tuned as next week we will summarise comments on significant matters pertaining to: domestic violence, child sexual abuse and privacy issues.  Please continue to share your comments and issues in the meantime by emailing election2012@peakcare.org.au.

Lorraine Dupree

Policy and Research Manager – PeakCare Qld

Behind the 8 ball

Pay Equity is a hot topic since the national pay equity win of February 1, 2012.  This much anticipated outcome followed extensive national campaigning and comes three years after the Queensland pay equity win of 2009.  Those of us fortunate enough to have employers who honoured that win in Queensland are now being fully  remunerated under the pay equity rates rolled out over the past three years.  For our colleagues around Australia and those in Queensland whose employers did not maintain the momentum of our earlier win, it will be eight years before the full financial benefit will be recognised.  However, by 2020 workers in our sector will yet again be significantly behind the 8 ball in pay equity.

Unlike many industries, the community services sector is Award driven.  As such, it is rare that pay rates or conditions above and beyond Award sanctioned commitments are offered.  This adds to the significance of this pay equity win and of the eight year roll out.

The Australian Services Union (ASU) will be advocating a reduction to the phase-in time through funding arrangements with the Federal Government.  Whilst thrilled with the win they were disappointed that the six year phase in which was already a compromise was extended to eight years.  The ASU maintains that because the wage increases awarded will be on top of the annual wage review (increase to the minimum wage and Modern Awards), the effect of the decision shouldn’t be eroded over the phase-in period.

Last year I penned other blog posts on the topic of pay equity. The price we pay when we won’t pay the price and The Cost of Not Paying the Price outlined the pay equity case; its history and issues for the sector.  I’ve been watching the movement in our industry around fair pay for years now.  I was a Manager in the NGO sector when the original SACS Award was proclaimed to introduce base wages.  I was astounded by many negative responses then and I remain so now that more equitable wages to build our sector’s workforce have been sought and won.  It is hard to fathom how an issue such as pay equity in which social and human services professionals currently being paid $45,000 per annum (way below the national average wage) and will be awarded an average of $65,000 by 2020 has created such widespread disdain.  Fortunately such antagonistic stances are balanced by enthusiastic applause from many others.

It is perplexing that such backlash includes financial analysts questioning whether or not the tax payer should foot the bill for this pay equity win.  The analysis is narrow.  Let’s not forget that this win means taking thousands of sector workers into higher tax brackets, off social housing lists and significantly reduces their reliance on welfare.  We are well aware of the social costs of our vast population of working poor.  Fair pay also enhances life opportunities for children and family members of these staff.

It has been an eye opener reading the many pages of commentary about pay equity.  Some entries endorsed the win; many were highly offended by it and considered it sexist.  One such comment in response to the many underpaid workers in the community services sector being dual degree qualified was: “A janitor with a degree is still a janitor”.  That speaks volumes about the perceptions of the work.  There appears to be a lack of public awareness that the role of social workers and human services workers is complex and highly fraught.  It requires specific qualifications, skills and on-going professional development and supervision.  The complexities of these roles and the impact such personnel have on social well-being needs to be acknowledged.  Perhaps this ignorant remark sums up why pay rates have remained so low and staff retention is such an issue for our sector?  Research shows that it is not just poor pay that drives staff from child protection and community services; it is also a lack of positive regard for and recognition of the roles undertaken.

The capacity of the child protection and social services sector to attract and retain qualified and skilled staff is waning. The need for this sector to be competitive in a market industry is evident now more than ever before.  Whilst other factors such as job satisfaction, respect for the roles and organisational culture are amongst the reasons staff stay with employers, pay rates are of significant importance in ensuring that our most vulnerable Queenslanders receive the quality support services they require.

It’s long overdue that fair pay be awarded to this sector so staunch in its advocacy for others in our community.  The fact that most workers have another eight years to wait means it’s also long overdue for sector workers to become their own advocates.

Lorraine Dupree

Policy and Research Manager – PeakCare QLD

Click here to read an update from QCOSS

Engagement: 2012 New Year’s Resolution

What will you do in 2012 to engage?

Do As I Say Not As I Do

As a social worker and longtime social justice advocate, I have been carefully watching the Occupy Wall Street movement and related events. I am torn as I write this, between wanting to discuss the implictions of social media for social justice and social advocacy and also looking at the response to the Occupy Wall Street protests, which is actually a response to freedom of speech, the right to gather, the right to dissent and peaceful protest – the right to advocate for social change.

Never being one to pick between two equally as compelling choices, I will write a little about both things.

I will begin by saying I feel immensely privileged by the ease which I can find out information from across the world, and bear witness to (and participate in) what has certainly become a global movement to not only encourage economic democracy, but also to champion a variety of inter-related social justice causes. Of the many, many social media stories that captured my attention in the past couple weeks, I include:

1)      The video footage available on Youtube, widely posted across citizen journalist and news blogs, FaceBook and Twitter showing the brutal police crackdown against peaceful student (faculty supported)  protesters at two American universities.

2)      The call on University Heads To Declare Their Campuses Safe Protest Zones that arrived via my RSS feed to the Feminist Philosopher’s blog – and their sharing of the Open Letter to Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi written by Assistant Professor  Nathan Brown, University of California at Davis calling for her immediate resignation for, not only failing to ensure the safety of students at UC Davis, but for also being the primary threat to the safety of those same students.

3)      Last but not least, the MOXNews’ Olbermann interview (via YouTube) of Dorli Rainey, an 84 year old social activist who was pepper sprayed by Seattle police this week.

Occupy Wall Street, whether we approve of it or not, has certainly mobilized public attention in a way that more planned and organized attempts have been unable to do. The discourse has changed. We are talking about and thinking about economic disparity – we are talking about fairness and equity, marginalization and oppression; we are talking about freedom of speech, the right to gather or assemble peacefully, the right to political and social dissent, the right and obligation to seek social justice. We’re talking about control over the media, the disappointment of mainstream media coverage and the rise of citizen journalism. It’s been awhile since we have had these social justice discussions, especially on such a massive, global scale. As far as I am concerned, no matter what happens from here, the Occupy Wall Street movement has been for these reasons, if no others, a success.

Apart from the obvious links to the global movement to put social justice issues front and center and the amazing ease through which we are able to educate ourselves about issues and the things that are happening across the world – there’s something  else I’ve been thinking about. I’ve been thinking about the importance of social justice and advocacy in our work as child protection practitioners. I know I am singing to the choir when I say that many MANY of the children, young people and families we work with, will be actively struggling with issues of marginalization, oppression and social inequity. We need to know how to encourage and support social change, in our world, in our practice and with the families we work with.

But how do we learn activism and advocacy?

Surely our schools should be places where students can gather together, question, challenge, even yes, demonstrate or protest peacefully. They should be places where such processes are actively modeled, supported and encouraged by the faculty. They should be places where we are raising strong minds and brave hearts. So, what does it mean when we see the police crackdowns against University staff and students for peacefully protesting? What does it mean when students tell us that there is no room to challenge what they are being taught or to think outside of the boxes we put them in?

We want practitioners to be strong advocates, we want them to champion and fight for social justice. The question is, where do they learn this? Who do they learn it from?

Recent events such as those I have raised above, would suggest that we have a long way to go when we think about what sort of education and experience makes for creating a good advocate. Recent events would suggest that there is plenty of room for discussions about freedom to assemble, freedom of speech, freedom to dissent; especially when we do not even actually have those rights.

Fiona McColl

Training and Sector Development Manager – PeakCare Queensland

Foster Carers Speak Out About Transition From Care

Very pleasingly, Transition From Care Month 2011 was met with considerable media attention.  Through several radio interviews and newspaper articles, public attention was drawn to the issues faced by around 400 Queensland young people who leave care each year.

Even more pleasingly, foster carers elected to add their voice to our media campaign.  In response to a column entitled “Care can’t end when kids hit 18”  that was recently published in the Courier Mail, former foster carers responded by sending letters to the editor:  “Foster kids need support as adults” and “Kids set up to fail”.

My sincere thanks and appreciation are extended to the authors of these letters – Lenore Blaine and Shae Bell.  Your letters presented the relevant arguments in an incredibly clear and compelling manner.

My best wishes are also extended to the foster carer who rang me seeking advice about her own situation concerning a young woman in her care.  I hope that this situation is resolved satisfactorily for both of you.

Special mention must also be made of an email I received in response to the Courier Mail column that raised issues about the very special needs of teenage refugees as they transition to independence and adulthood.   The issues faced by these young people and the support that they require are certainly worthy of more focussed attention.

Transition from Care Month is ending, but the key issues of concern in relation to the adequacy of support being provided to young people as they transition from care remain.   It’s not too late for you to add your voice to those of Lenore Blain and Shae Bell and play your part in advocating for these young people.

Join them in sending letters to the editor of the Courier Mail, enter comments to this post and make sure that you have entered your responses into the Transition From Care Survey.

Click here to access the survey.

Lindsay Wegener

Executive Director, PeakCare Queensland

 

IMPORTANT UPDATE

Thank you to Rod and Lynette Chataway for their letter to the editor published in the Courier Mail:  “No cut-off age to parental input”.

Also thank you to Jacqui Reed from CREATE for her support of this important issue.

Pay Equity Chapter Two

Last week saw some tumultuous activity take place in relation to pay equity that culminated on Thursday with the repealing of the original Regulation of 4th August 2011.
This should not be viewed as the end of the pay equity story however.  It is far better to regard last week’s events as the closing of one chapter and the commencement of another.

Throughout the week, PeakCare sought to ensure that our Member Agencies were provided a forum to express their differing viewpoints about the Regulation and their concerns in relation to its implementation.  We also sought to make sure that our Member Agencies were given prompt and accurate advice of the events that transpired during the week.

Thanks are extended to the numerous organisations and individuals who e-mailed or phoned to tell us their viewpoints and “real stories about paying for pay equity”.  My sincere appreciation is also extended to Ms Vanessa Walker who, at very short notice, agreed to work temporarily at PeakCare collecting and collating your stories and comments.

PeakCare Queensland remains strongly committed to the achievement of pay equity and looks forward to its properly planned and funded implementation.  In particular, PeakCare remains committed to the development of a sector that is properly resourced and staffed with a capacity to deliver high quality child protection and related services.  The right to receive high quality services is regarded as an unquestionable entitlement held by Queensland children, young people and families.

As chapter one of the pay equity story has now ended and chapter two commences, your viewpoints about its implementation remain as important as ever.  In addition to making use of this post to enter comments about your opinions and concerns, you are encouraged to also avail yourself of the opportunities being provided to:

attend the regional industrial workshops being conducted by QCOSS and NDS, and complete the surveys measuring the implications of a Pay Equity Regulation.
Farewell chapter one and welcome chapter two.

Lindsay Wegener

Executive Director, PeakCare Queensland

The Real Stories behind Paying for Pay Equity

At the start of this week, PeakCare Queensland wrote to our Member Agencies seeking to find out the “real stories behind paying for pay equity” so that we can properly represent these stories in our advocacy on their behalf and on behalf of the children, young people and families who are entitled to receive high quality services.

Amidst the confusion of facts and figures being contended with by organisations as they have been attempting to examine the implications of recent decisions made about the delivery of pay equity to our sector employees, PeakCare was keen to ensure that the actual hardships and dilemmas being caused to many of our Member Agencies and the children, young people and families who are the recipients of their services, were being accurately conveyed and made known to governments, the media and the general public.

Organisations were invited to email or tell us:

• the real stories of small community-based organisations facing the heart-breaking struggle of determining whether or not it is viable for them to continue their services
• the real stories of larger organisations faced with making decisions about which services to reduce or close down
• the real stories of people considering the prospect of finding themselves without a job
• the real stories of local communities, volunteers and fund-raisers dealing with the prospect of further fund-raising after having had to deal with the impact of the global financial crisis and a season of natural disasters, and
• very importantly, the real stories of children, young people and families likely to experience the services they have been accessing services withdrawn from them.

Many of the stories we have been told are distressing.  Many have been about the dilemmas caused to organisations that have campaigned strongly for, and remain committed to, pay equity whilst dealing with the realities of its implementation.  With the permission of those who have come forward, we will be re-counting these stories as comments to this post.

Pleasingly, many organisations that have not been impacted by the recent pay equity decisions have also clearly stated their desire to support other organisations – smaller ones in particular – that have already been or may continue to be adversely affected.  These organisations are to be applauded for their sense of loyalty and commitment to the broader community service sector.

As PeakCare Queensland continues to play our part in representing the interests of our Member Agencies during the advocacy and liaison we undertake with QCOSS, other peak bodies and governments in dealing with the unquestionable rights of our sector employees to pay equity and the need for full-Government funding, your “real stories” remain important.

You may wish to add comments to this post that tells a “real story” from the perspective of your organisation’s experience or continue to email or phone Vanessa Walker, the PeakCare project officer who is collecting and collating these stories.

PeakCare Queensland respects that organisations will have a range of viewpoints and opinions about matters that are contentious and we view the capacity of our sector for engaging in honest, open and respectful debate as a strength.

My sincere thanks are extended to those organisations and individuals who have already contacted Vanessa (Phone 3368 1050; Email vwalker@peakcare.org.au) and I encourage others to come forward to tell their stories too.

Lindsay Wegener

Executive Director – Peakcare Queensland

The Week that Was.

As Child Protection Week has now ended for 2011, it’s timely to consider the question, “Are the systems and services designed to protect our children improving?”

The answer is a mixed one – many things have improved, whilst others have a long way to go before, as a community, we can feel confident that our children are being adequately protected.

If we look back in time, some major milestones can be seen to have been achieved.  Due to an absence of any laws designed to protect children, the first action ever taken through a court to protect a child took place in Britain in the early nineteenth century under laws governing the protection of animals.  It seems that the rights and need of animals to be protected was understood before anyone realised that children also needed protection.

Looking back to the early parts of the 20th century, Queensland children who were viewed as “neglected and destitute” were often housed in hulks moored at wharfs at Lytton in Brisbane or sent to properties to work as unpaid farm hands.  This was followed by the period of large orphanages and farm homes where, as vividly recalled during last week’s “Remembrance Ceremony for Forgotten Australians”, many children suffered severe physical, sexual and emotional abuse.   A “stolen generation” of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children were forcibly removed from their families and communities and child migrants and other vulnerable children endured similar atrocities at the hands of those who were charged with the responsibilities for their care.

If we compare the child protection system today with those earlier times, we can see that great gains have been made.  This is largely attributable to people such as those who were the recipients of this year’s Child Protection Awards – Bruce and Denise Morcombe who, despite enduring the most horrendous experiences imaginable for a parent, continue to promote ways in which children can be kept safe from those who threaten their lives and innocence, Hetty Johnson and Bravehearts who have campaigned tirelessly for many years in raising public awareness about the vulnerability of children to sexual abuse by family members and others who should be those who are the most close and protective of them, Corelle Davies from Queensland Health who has exemplified the collaborative effort needed across government departments in ensuring the protection of children, Legal Aid Queensland Child Protection Unit and Advocate in promoting the legal rights and protections that should be afforded to all young people, the Mount Isa Substance Misuse Action Group that has provided a model for partnerships between a Police and Citizens Youth Club and local community organisations in arriving at innovative solutions to local community needs and Jill Wesche who represents the often unsung efforts of volunteers who selflessly contribute their time and efforts to protecting children.

Whilst we celebrate the achievements of these people and the improvements that they and many others have brought to the child protection system, it is important to note that we still have a long way to go.  The increasing over-representation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children within the child protection system says that not enough is being done to adequately address the impact of social and economic disadvantage that continues to be experienced by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander families and the longstanding impact and trauma of the Stolen Generations.  The increasing rates of notifications of children being abused or neglected and numbers of children entering care that has occurred over recent years says that families are struggling.

The tragic murder of Brisbane school girl, Sidonie Thompson and the apparent suicide by her mother says that the protection of children holds no bounds in relation to the culture or socioeconomic background of children.

More than ever, the child protection system is in need of highly experienced, suitably qualified and professionally supervised practitioners able to properly assess and make well-informed decisions about the needs of families and their children.  It is in this area however that the child protection system is struggling.   At a time when they are most needed, well-trained, experienced and professionally qualified Social Workers are not there in the numbers required to ensure high quality services.

Government expenditure on child protection services has dramatically increased in the past decade, spurred on by findings of the 1998-1999 Forde Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Institutional Care and the 2004 Crime and Misconduct Commission’s Inquiry into the Abuse of Children in Foster Care.  An increase in the funding provided to the right programs and services is only a part of the answer however.

Child protection is a “people-driven” system.  It now needs to more actively recruit, support and sustain the involvement of properly qualified Social Workers along with valuing the contributions to be made by other professional and para-professional groups, foster carers and volunteers.  These are the people in whom the public needs to have confidence that they are well-equipped and able to deal with the complexities of child protection.  In turn, these are the people who will be seeking, and are deserving of, the support of the public in exercising the onerous responsibilities of their jobs.

Lindsay Wegener – Executive Director, PeakCare

Do Tools Rule?

The Munro Review of the United Kingdom’s child protection system promotes a vision for “child-centred” practice where professional expertise in individualising the services to be provided to children, young people and families is properly valued.

Underpinning the reforms recommended by Professor Eileen Munro were concerns about the UK’s use of “one-size-fits-all” approaches to the delivery of child protection services.  In particular, this included concerns about an overly rigid and routine use of electronic assessment tools as a substitute for the exercise of professional judgement and decision-making.This can be seen as symptomatic of the concerns described in my previous posts about “procedure driving practice” (i.e. the “tail wagging the dog”) in place of “good practice” remaining in charge (i.e. the “dog wagging its tail”).

Concerns about the application of standardised approaches to the assessment of children and families’ needs including, in particular, the use of “electronic assessment tools”, are not confined to the United Kingdom.

You may like to read and consider the linked Gillingham and Humphreys (2010) report on the use of “Structure Decision-Making (SDM) Tools” in Queensland.

This research identified that none of the specific aims of the SDM tools in relation to assisting decision-making, promoting consistency and targeting children most in need of service provision had been met.The research found that, rather than assisting the process of decision-making, the tools were often completed in retrospect to match the outcome that had already been determined.

Practitioners who were consulted in the process of conducting the research were critical of the tool “over-simplifying” and failing to deal with the complexities of casework.   The tools were viewed as an “administrative burden” that were being chiefly used for purpose of ensuring accountability for decision-making, rather than as an aid in assisting appropriate decisions being made.

What are your thoughts about the concerns raised by the Munro Review and the Gillingham and Humphreys research in relation to current use of the SDM tools?

Do the findings of the Gillingham and Humphreys report match or differ from your observations and experiences in relation to ways in which the SDM tools are currently being used?

If you have concerns about the SDM tools, are they about the design of the tools or about the ways in which the tools are being used?

Lindsay Wegener – Executive Director, PeakCare

It’s all about the sum of the parts, isn’t it?

Amongst the range of changes to be made to the United Kingdom’s child protection system, Professor Eileen Munro recommended that there be a shift away from conducting inspections of individual organisations to police their compliance with various guidelines, rules and performance measures.  In place of this, she recommended that an inspection system be created that allows for an examination of the contributions being collectively made by all key services in achieving an effective child protection system at a local level. 

Professor Munro noted that this should include an examination of the contributions being made by local health services, education, police and the justice system to the creation and maintenance of an effective child protection system.  According to Professor Munro, if “rules” are to exist, those that should be focussed upon are those that are developed to ensure that organisations are effectively working together.

Can you imagine what it would look like if a similar shift in approach was to occur within Queensland? 

For example, what would it be like if, in place of evaluating the compliance of individual non-Government organisations with the outputs stipulated in their “service agreements”, there was a shift towards regularly assessing the contributions being made by all key services – both Government and non-Government owned – to the achievement of agreed-upon outcomes being sought for children, young people and families within a particular community?

Non-Government organisations often report to PeakCare Queensland that their capacity to meet the requirements of “service standards” associated with the licensing of care services is often impinged upon by other organisations such as Child Safety Service Centres, if they are not adequately fulfilling their defined role and responsibilities in relation to a number of practices or procedures.

What would it look like if the approach taken to the assessment of services in relation to their licence applications was changed to also incorporate an evaluation of the collaborative performance of Government organisations (such as Child Safety Service Centres, Youth Justice Services, public health and education services) in meeting the requirements established by licensing?

How could these approaches be best managed in ways that promote a shared “learning culture” in preference to a “compliance culture”?

Lindsay Wegener – Executive Director, PeakCare