More important stuff getting lost in the noise – the Victorian Ombudsman’s investigation into the failures of the Department of Human Services child protection program.
I’ve just skimmed the executive summary, but one thing that does flabbergast me is that a while there are other issues (drawn-out Children’s Court proceedings taking up gobs of time and yet another buggered-up IT implementation among them) a large part of the problem was a simple lack of resources.
Problems in this area are usually not particularly amenable to a simple application of money, but it sounds like this one was, in large part. The Victorian government is now fixing this by hiring a considerable number of additional case workers. But how in the hell did it ever get to this point? This should have been an easy one.
Ironically, I have just come away from a case conference with Families SA and Anglicare. We spent the last part of the meeting discussing the child protection system in general and why it seems to be a problem everywhere, not just Australia.
In every country of the world there are complaints about the child protection system, so why can’t ANYONE get it right? Is there something about the nature of child protection that is inherently complicated and difficult to fix, regardless of how much money you throw at the problem?
Mind you, they did admit that things would be better if there was more money, more case workers and more carers in the system, but they believe it still wouldn’t iron out all the problems.
One thing seems to be obvious, though: (anecdotally at least – I’m not sure if anyone has done a decent study on it) the system has been put under enormous strain in terms of the number of children entering the system (and especially in terms of sibling groups of 3 or more) since the baby bonus was introduced. Most workers in the system do not believe it is a coincidence.
I wonder if they’ll get enough deliverers if they throw more money at it?
The mere presence of Anglicare et al may suggest some of the reasons why we have problems.
The lack of resources is probably the killer. My understanding is that the varius regional offices were actually hiding their under-staffing issues. They’ve since taken to importing scab labour from the UK and NZ, which doesn’t solve the problem as these people get fed up and leave after a few months anyway.
The magistrates need to take some responsibility here also. They’re basically unaccountable. In many jurisdictions, they make their decisions after much consideration. In the children’s court, it’s basically anything goes. The effect of it all is that DHS become reluctant to bring matters to court unless it’s abolustely certain they’ll be found proven – the consequences of failing are magistrate’s abusing workers, costs being awarded, workers being threatened with a booking for contempt, deploying resources for no discernible benefit, etc.
Also, the minister is probably being treated unfairly by the media here. It’s the senior bureaucrats who are to blame. The minister walked into a mess about 18 months ago, and hasn’t been able to fix it. Senior managers are basically backside-covering crooks, who manioulate data and treat both workers and child protection clients with utter contempt. Unsurprisingly, of the additional staff being promised, about half are administrative, and of the actual ‘front-line’ workers, many will be dedicated to forming a team that simply puts out child prtoection spot fires before the media gets a hold of things.
Truth in most of the above, but it’s not all the picture. The relationship with the courts is not all one sided contempt, there are reasons for the lack of trust by the courts in the judgement of the protective workers.
If DHS only ran cases that had a reasonably sound legal basis they would save hundreds of hours in court each year- AND get far greater trust from that court.
The herald sun, kneejerk factor takes a lot of resources up with heavy handed responses too. If a DHS worker finds that a 15 year old girl is having a s3xual relationship with her 18 year old boyfriend, they are obliged to treat it as a formal protective matter because they can’t be seen as ‘endorsing’ the scenario. But trying to restore the morality of a s3xually active 15 year old by sticking them in secure welfare for a fortnight is like trying to solve rising sea levels with a collander.
Ultimately calling people scabs is not fair- it isn’t a question of a grand strike holding out for more money. And many, MANY Australian social workers go on working trips overseas and enjoy the perks there. The pay is ok but the problem isn’t money. It’s dealing with some of the nastiest and/or most screwed up people on earth, with no form of personal protection, day in and day out. You really think the police turn up every time a social worker has to go visit an ice addict and talk about taking their kids off them?
If the really violent types were either given lengthy prison sentences or psychiatric treatment when they came before the ‘other’ magistrate’s courts, child protection’s workload would decrease by about 1/3…
If DHS only ran cases that had a reasonably sound legal basis they would save hundreds of hours in court each year- AND get far greater trust from that court.
I agree that there are two sides. The Department very often runs shambolic legal arguments that are hastily put together by inexperienced, unsupported and overworked people. This doesn’t mean that the court doesn’t make matters infinitely worse. Far from providing checks and balances, it ends up creating idiotic compromise positions (like removing a child from parents, but ordering that some magical team of non-existent workers facilitates daily access with said parents).
The herald sun, kneejerk factor takes a lot of resources up with heavy handed responses too.
I agree that the Hun reports badly on these things. The ultimate blame, hwoever, must surely lie with the senior managers who divert significant resources to butt-covering tasks.
Ultimately calling people scabs is not fair- it isn’t a question of a grand strike holding out for more money.
I don’t blame the overseas workers. Some of them can’t get jobs in their own countries due to the GFC. The way that these overseas people are used, however, is effectively the same as scab labour. I think everybody agrees that the conditions are shithouse, but I’m not sure what makes you think that the pay is ‘okay’. Last I checked, the entry level wages were on a par with stacking shelves at the supermarket, and wages for senior workers were below the national average.
Why are DHS running cases that don’t have a reasonably sound legal basis? Lack of understanding of the law? A view that the law is an ass and doesn’t take case workers gut feelings into enough account? Arse-covering, in that in marginal cases they’ll run it by the courts and if things go wrong it’s the court that gets the blame?
Let’s just say the ethics of proceeding with government action against internally procured legal advice is a hazy area that is usually resolved in favour of the policy/project manager, rather than the lawyer. In some places this dissonance is moderate, in some it is stark, with the lawyers in turn having their own ethics questioned (duty to the court, model litigant policy, etc) for continuing to work under such conditions. All I’m saying (or need to be saying).
Child protection is a daunting field. I think the ombudsman report mentions the growing demand, this has meant that despite increasing resources going into the area the supply of resources is not keeping up with the demand. On top of this is the emotional draining experience dealing with the demands of child protection on a daily basis has on case workers. and finally it needs to be remembered that when the State takes on a child protection case it means the family has failed and has probably been failing over a number of years. So the question shouldn’t necessarily be around why the Child Protection system is failing, but how does it function at all. The real philisophical debate needs to be around do we pour money into cleaning up the failures of disfunctional families or do we put more resources into helping families function better. Whether it be the stolen generation, the forgotten children or any other poor group within our society, humans across the centuries have failed to adequately care for the vulnerable.
Steve1 I think you’re on the right track:
http://armagnacd.blogspot.com/2009/11/institutional-care-stuff-we-still-do.html
You also touch on a sad underpinning truth that makes this area so very, very hard:
“the question shouldn’t necessarily be around why the Child Protection system is failing, but how does it function at all”
Indeed. Sadly, underpinning it all, is that when a kid who finds themselves in a family situation where they are abused, or a parent is so incapable due to drugs or similar, and significant intervention is necessary, there is no winning solution. Some out of home placements work but many stuff up down the track. Some support services work, many don’t (it would still be worth a significant hike in the funding to that end though). It’s so often an exercise in finding the least-crap outcome, rather than the glowing decent childhood a kid deserves. This despondent hopelessness fcuks with everyone who touches it.
I have to reiterate: If the really violent types were either given lengthy prison sentences or psychiatric treatment when they came before the ‘other’ magistrate’s courts, child protection’s workload would decrease by about 1/3…
I certainly agree with the suggestion that abusers need to receive much more serious sentences. I work in the field (and am here on LP under a different ID than usual in order not to breach my service agreements)and have often enough thought ‘if we could just get this animal away from these kids they might have a fighting chance’. But it is only ever a fighting chance that they will get, even in the best cases, because the damage done in the 0-5 years is so profound.
Current reported rates of child abuse and neglect very probably are no greater now than in previous periods. Australian institutional history certainly seems to suggest that. The rates may even be less. It appears clear that increased reportage flowed from the rise of second wave feminism and the incorporation of the ‘private sphere’ under the rule of law in the interests of protecting women and children. The extension of the rule of law to protect women and children is a key modernising moment because agential citizenship is beyond the reach of anyone driven to madness, personality disorderor (but usually and) drug and alcohol use by systematic abuse.
Terrible failures do occur. It often comes down to the capacity of staff to stand their ground and argue a child’s interest in the face bureaucratic inertia or imperious magistracy. The work is gendered and employment in the field is heavily imbalanced towards young female graduates who are relatively life inexperienced. More men are needed to do this work.
And predictably…
“The Victorian Government is considering a plan to quarantine welfare payments to at risk families, as part of plans to improve the handling of child protection cases.”
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/11/27/2755225.htm
Not mentioned in the report is the obvious point that the Macklin trials apply to all welfare recipients in the area deemed disadvantaged by the minister. So the tool would be in no way useful as a way of discouraging child abuse amongst the minority of welfare recipients who engage in it.