护理状况 报告

这篇客座博客文章是儿童专员Russell Wills博士撰写的。威尔斯博士介绍了他最新发表的报告‘State of Care’并邀请RSW博客的读者审阅报告并发表评论。

本周,我发布了我的办公室关于儿童,青年和家庭的第一份公开报告。的 护理状态 报告 summarises what we learnt from monitoring Child, Youth and Family and engaging directly with 孩子们 in 关心 between January 2014 and June 2015. I’m proud of the 报告 , and pleased to be able to share it with the public.

I wanted to share it personally with readers of the Reimagining Social Work blog because I know you have a strong interest in the current and future direction of Child, Youth and Family. You are actively thinking about many of the key issues raised in the 报告 , such as clarity of purpose and direction, child-centred practice, cultural capability, and workforce capacity and capability. I wanted to share some of our key findings directly with you, as key stakeholders committed to sharing best practice and improving the lives of 孩子们 in 关心. I hope this 报告 will make a useful contribution to your conversations about the future of Child, Youth and Family and the wider 关心 and protection system.

背景 护理状态 报告

My office has monitored Child, Youth and Family’s services to 孩子们 since our inception, but this is the first time we have aggregated our findings and shared 他们 publicly. In 2013 we refreshed our monitoring framework and decided to produce a public 报告 that aggregates our findings and summarises what 孩子们 told us. We wanted to bring a greater measure of transparency to our work and the work of Child, Youth and Family, and to help keep 孩子们 ’s voices central in decisions about their 关心.

Our findings and recommendations are intended to be constructive and give a ‘bird’s eye view’ of what is going well in CYF and where things need to be strengthened. We know that the majority of CYF staff are dedicated individuals who do a great job under the strain of immense workloads. Nothing in the 报告 is intended as a criticism of 他们.



Child, Youth and Family has strong 前端 systems and processes for investigating and making decisions about cases of potential abuse and neglect, which means it generally does well at keeping 孩子们 safe from immediate harm. After these 前端 decisions are made, however, CYF ’s case management and quality of 社会工作实务 is highly inconsistent. We found a number of systemic issues recurring across the sites and residences we monitored, including:

  • 地方规划不一致,导致缺乏明确的目的和方向;
  • 对文化能力的重视不够,特别是对毛科普纳毛利人和他们的华人而言;
  • 与需要加强的外部利益攸关方的伙伴关系和网络;
  • 缺乏定期,高质量的社会工作监督。

The ability of CYF ’s current workforce to address these issues is constrained in various ways: limited resources, high caseloads, the organisation’s current KPIs which focus 上 timeliness of 前端 work and not 上 -going support of 关心 placements, and the need to invest in training across the organisation to develop a workforce with the appropriate skillset. Issues regarding workforce capability, recruitment, training and retention were raised during almost every visit we undertook, and we believe these are behind much of the variable practice we have observed.



  • 被告知期望什么以及他们的权利是什么;
  • To be provided with high quality social workers and 关心 givers;
  • 得到支持与他们的出生家庭/瓦努人保持关系;
  • To be given a voice in decisions about their own 关心.

Some 孩子们 报告 ed positive experiences with Child, Youth and Family, but others 报告 ed very poor experiences. Generally speaking, the longer a child spends in Child, Youth and Family 关心, the more likely they are to experience harmful consequences. The feedback we received from 孩子们 suggests a system that is not centred 上 their needs, and that does not take into account the potential negative consequences of Child, Youth and Family’s actions and decisions 上 孩子们 .




Our overall observation is that Child, Youth and Family has become oriented towards 前端 processes for investigating and making decisions about cases of potential abuse and neglect, at the expense of 上 -going support for 孩子们 in all types of 关心 placements. This observation is supported by what 孩子们 and other key stakeholders told us about their experiences with Child, Youth and Family, and consistent with the conclusions in the recent 工作量和案例审查 由儿童,青年和家庭内部首席社会工作者办公室承担。

The reasons for this focus 上 前端 services are complex and historical, and we have not attempted to analyse 他们 in our 报告 . Rather, we have focused 上 ways to support Child, Youth and Family to maintain its focus 上 initial safety, and to expand this to include the 上 -going support necessary to improve 孩子们 ’s outcomes in the long term. This will require a greater level of investment in 孩子们 in all types of 关心 placement.



For this 报告 , we reviewed all our individual recommendations and developed a set of seven aggregated, future-oriented recommendations that we believe will help address shortcomings in the current system and improve 孩子们 ’s outcomes in future. We acknowledge that Child, Youth and Family can’t make all the necessary changes 上 its own. All the participants in the wider 关心 and protection and youth justice systems need to work together much better to deliver effective, high quality services to vulnerable 孩子们 .


  1. 对儿童,青年和家庭的核心目标及其实现的成果设定明确的期望;
  2. 确保儿童,青年和家庭在所有活动中完全以儿童为中心;
  3. Invest more in 上 -going support for 孩子们 in all types of 关心 placements;
  4. 解决儿童,青年和家庭劳动力的能力和能力问题;
  5. 提高整个组织的文化能力;
  6. 收集和分析相关数据,以改善儿童的结局;和
  7. Set clear expectations for other state agencies responsible for improving the outcomes of 孩子们 in 关心.

该报告包括有关每个建议的更多详细信息,可从以下网站获得: www.occ.org.nz/护理状态。我希望它会在Reimagining Social Work博客上产生一些有用的交流;我一定会不时签到以跟进对话。

14 thoughts 上 “护理状况 报告

  1. 很高兴看到/听到有关这种上升的辩论。正如尼尔(Neil)所指出的那样,一个关键问题是如何使用该报告来证明待决‘reforms’. 和… as Mike points out, it is more than a little rich to blame social workers for adopting a risk averse front end practice focus that has detracted from 关心 services – this is, 后 all, the result of policy and practice developed by their managerial ( and more importantly their ‘political’) masters.

    Clearly 关心 practice needs to be improved. The question of how is the important 上 e …没有或几乎没有理由相信某种形式的准私有化会更加有效。

    我们似乎在所有这些方面都缺少了一块。我们谈论与高需求家庭的早期预防工作,并且似乎越来越将此与非政府组织联系起来,证据–基础课程,儿童’s teams? We also talk about 关心ful ‘child-centered’ (?) assessment and getting it right in terms of initial safety. 和we talk about the neglect of 孩子们 in 关心


    这是有效的儿童保护社会工作的挑战。就像人们说的那样’容易,但可以做到– is done in places.

    目前,我们有一个起点和终点(我承认‘care’永远不会简单地结束),但是,好人,我们显然没有将注意力集中在中间– what we do in between assessment and 关心 proceedings –以及紧急行动后我们为家庭团聚所做的工作。是…时间安排得更紧(不要’t将其完整的时间框架固定在其中),但让’s get the intervention part of the puzzle sorted. Early permanency and out of family foster 关心 is the ‘simple’ solution …然而,这不是正确的选择–道德上或道德上。正如罗素所暗示的,我们在一起–但是我认为记住现实很重要–正如艾米丽(Emily)和保罗(Paora)所指出的–我们都生活在一个阶级和种族日益分化的社会中。

    和… by the way …如果我们要使所有三个位正确– assessment / intervention / 关心 …可能要花钱。


  2. 由于种种原因,直到现在我仍无法为辩论做出贡献,它仍然是对社会工作,尤其是对儿童及其家庭而言非常重要的辩论的简短贡献。我要处理三个关键问题。

    首先,正确地,应该特别注意儿童在照料期间会发生什么(一分钟内会得到更多关注)。在这一重点上,我们在儿童的需求和利益方面失去了另外两个同样重要的考虑因素。这些孩子来自家庭,其中许多人长期以来一直处于严重和重大的不利境地并遭受剥夺。在我们关心照料经历的过程中,我们也需要同样注意为抚养和协助家庭所做的工作,以便儿童能够适当和充分地获得其原籍家庭的证件。除此之外,在照顾孩子的同时正在与这些家庭合作,以改变这些孩子返回的情况– for return is what most of 他们 will want to do as we know from practice and research. The risk in the current debates is a child rescue approach in which it is assumed implicitly that removing 孩子们 will fix it up. That never has worked and there is nothing to indicate that it will work now.

    接下来是我的第二个贡献– much of the current discussion suggests/asserts that it is a 简单 fixing matter, like mending a broken leg or patching a hole in the road; the work is done and all is fixed. Social work with families and 孩子们 will never be that 简单 and practice, legislation, resourcing, management and supervision need to acknowledge that and work accordingly. Everywhere we look historically and at practice we are reminded of the demanding and complex work and should be very suspicious and very critical of 简单 solutions.


    最后的反思–正如其他人指出的那样,存在一个非常现实的危险,那就是该报告将在政治上用于推动/合法化政治议程,以降低CYF的等级。‘independent expert’ panel. Let’s be very clear –国家对儿童的照料(及其子女的抚养以及支持家人抚养子女的工作)需要在核心政府机构中配备一支资源充足,得到良好支持的高技能员工—子女和他们的家人应得的不菲。 Ngos可以对此进行补充,但是不能指望他们做这项核心工作–私营部门没有任何作用。部长们很快将责任移交给了机构和职员–他们接受他们的责任并采取行动已经过去了。

  3. 谢谢大家的意见。我们 ’ve had many positive comments via our website from 关心givers, social workers and young people who have been in 关心, which give me confidence that we’ve described the current state of 关心 accurately.

    我们在报告中提出的观点之一是,儿童,青年和家庭可以’自行进行所需的更改;他们需要我们的支持。让’s use this time to consider how we as academics and practitioners can improve outcomes for 孩子们 and young people at risk and in 关心 by improving how we work with CYF . There are no sides in this work, just colleagues.



  4. My perspective 上 the 报告 is as a NZ-based social sector management consultant and researcher (who has recently completed a doctorate 上 the education of 孩子们 in 关心 in NZ) and university educator 上 evaluation research. I started my post qualifying social work 关心er as a residential social worker before moving into statutory child welfare management which latterly included 2 years as the CYF National Manager Residences and Caregiver Services (2002-04). I have a particular professional interest in residential and foster 关心.

    1. I very much welcome this 报告 . In my view it is generally a very thorough and well-considered piece of work. It makes a timely and very useful contribution to the current Government and Expert Panel deliberations 上 statutory child welfare provision in NZ, and has created an opportunity for those outside of Government to publicly take part in debate 上 this important topic. This is a complicated 报告 and 上 e that needs to be read 关心fully. The 他们es and findings come from a synthesis of a variety of ‘business-as usual’ OCC activities crossing several parts of CYF , along with the collection and analysis of new data specifically for this 报告 .


    2.据我们许多人所知,在2000年代,1990年代和1980年代,有许多关于CYF及其前身的著名报道,例如1986年社会福利部毛利观点的部长级咨询委员会,以及米克·布朗(Mick Brown)2000年的儿童,青年和家庭服务部部长级审查。尽管您不会从(几乎是仪式主义的?)政治和媒体反应中认为这件事,但相对于此“前端”,我实际上仍在努力思考有关该组织工作的更积极的报道!尽管我认为目前这种“前端”成功中的某些成就至少直到最近才以牺牲组织对寄养和YSS安置的关注为代价,但该报告的确反映了我拥有的一些积极的政策和实践近年来,尤其是在一些青年司法住所方面的观察。

    3. However, the 报告 also identifies a number of critically important concerns and particularly so in relation to foster 关心 and the wider 关心 system. While many western English-speaking jurisdictions are currently struggling with their 关心 systems, in terms of quality and performance, I don’t think that there is much doubt that ours 关心 system overall is amongst the worst.

    4.但是对我来说,有时报告中的某些语言与报告本身的证据(以及接受媒体采访)之间存在脱节。尽管其中一些报告非常棘手和棘手,但在其他地方,报告似乎只能依靠委婉语,并融合各种问题。例如,“ CYF 并没有将儿童置于其所做的一切事情的中心”,虽然事实证明是正确的,但它也用于包含根据所提供的信息似乎违反了UNCROC的行动和不作为的例子'89法令,CYF政策和最基本的专业标准!

    5.虽然我很欣赏《护理现状》报告可能不是讨论背景的地方,但重要的是要认识到,我们今天的护理体系可能比五年前更好,并且可能不会比五年前更糟。 10年前。在1990年代,1980年代和1970年代,它也很贫穷。在这方面,《 89 CYF 法案》几乎无济于事,可以争论的是,那些仍待照料的人的处境更加糟糕(尽管有一些有关住宿照料者的相关规定,但该法令对州政府在履行其职责方面的职责很少给予任何关注当然,作为一个国家,我们持久不愿意将联合国儿童权利公约完全转变为国内立法,并有意义地接受其原则,因此,在对本报告及其结论与儿童照料有关的反应时毫无疑问,至少从一开始就将重点放在CYF内部现任的高级管理人员上,这些问题要比这些特定个人的决策深得多。

    6. While I understand why the OCC 报告 uses the term CYF rather than MSD, here I will mainly refer to MSD. CYF has not of course been a stand-alone organisation for a decade and since 他们 most of its supporting functions have been stripped away. Since then it has been the two successive CEOs of MSD that have had overall responsibility for the operation of CYF , and it is they and their senior leadership teams that have had direct control over many of the non-operational functions that are identified in this 报告 , and expenditure. In my experience, Ministers and Central Government Agencies are also heavily involved in the setting of departmental priorities – both planned and unplanned. In relation to 孩子们 in 关心, this is a failure of the State, not just 上 e service arm of 上 e government department.





    c。令人失望的是,在第19页上看到与YSS安置有关的五个地点中只有一个被认为符合“安置良好”的门槛,因此“一直向年轻人提供高质量的监督(我强调)”。 OCC还发现了“缺乏积极的案件管理”,“破坏YSS安置的潜力”和“损害儿童需求”的例子。但是,我也非常关注阅读此判断的依据。例如,这里的一项良好条件是:“站点领导者和社会工作者将其提供领导,支持和资源以支持YSS安置中的年轻人作为其明确的角色”。这真的是“高质量”实践的特征吗?当然这是绝对最低要求吗?我们需要比这更高的期望。如果我们不能清楚地确定和阐明与YSS安置中的儿童和年轻人有关的社会工作实地调查工作质量(更不用说高质量或转型性)了,那么在更广泛的护理方面,护理质量将如何发展?改善了吗?

    d. Reassuring to hear that no evidence was found of cruelty or torture in the residences, and that in this area we were meeting our international protocol obligations. However, important points are made here about the material conditions in, and maintenance of, residences (and I would add the design and size of these facilities too). That said, I was surprised that given international comparisons, there was no comment here 上 whether there was an over-reliance 上 physically secure residential facilities in New Zealand, and particular so in relation to 关心 and protection?


    f. In terms of 关心 placements not being well supported, I would agree with all of the points made here. For me this can be summarised with the following four points:


    ii。CYF作为一个实体,除了在加强文化能力方面的最新工作的基础上,还需要(重新)学习并更清楚地阐明高质量的有目的的whauau和nonwhanau寄养服务CYF做法(以及护理的替代方法) )实际上是。在重新设计其系统以适应这种变化的同时,还需要特别关注在照顾儿童的情况下开发高质量的专业社会工作实践(一些非政府组织已经拥有这种做法,但根据我的经验,在CYF中这很少见) 。为此,CYF还需要支持(重建)护理部门以及非政府组织机构和Iwi,还需要加强与大学,其他研究,教育和培训提供者以及国际护理组织的联系。

    iii. I agree with the comments 上 workforce and skills development around 关心. MSD needs to invest in comprehensive 关心 training for all, including senior managers, and specialist postgraduate 关心 related training and qualifications for some. However, if this is to be done properly, it is a massive and complex task.

    iv. In recruitment, whether for senior managers or foster 关心rs, we need to discriminate much better between those with the necessary attributes to improve outcomes for 孩子们 , and those who do not. The ‘cannon fodder’ approach to recruiting and retaining those across field work, residential 关心 and foster 关心 (including kin 关心) that I suspect some still take, needs to be continuously challenged.

    g. In relation to the recommendation that CYF set clear expectations for other state agencies other government departments, I would have thought that this will not be for the want of CYF trying! CYF cannot control education health, justice, the police and the courts, or for that matter Treasury, State Services Commission or the Department for Prime Minster and Cabinet. These government agencies (as do Ministers) all make decisions that also impact upon the wellbeing of 孩子们 in 关心.


    a. I applaud the inclusion of a section that seeks to capture the voices and experiences of 孩子们 and young people in 关心.

    b. However, the voices represented in the 报告 are predominantly those in our secure residences and in particular those aged 14 to 16 in our youth justice residences. As 80%+ of those in youth justice residences are now 上 remand, their experiences are not necessarily typical of all of those in residential and foster 关心. Capturing the voices and experiences of 孩子们 in secure residences is comparatively easy. However, while costly, they are a tiny proportion of those in 关心, and a wider range of voices and experiences is required in future years.

    c. In the 报告 there are limited comparisons made with other countries and those that are included are somewhat underplayed. For example the 报告 states that “several overseas jurisdictions have successfully introduced independent advocacy for 孩子们 in 关心”. In fact amongst western English-speaking countries this would be the norm. Who Cares Scotland, who as an organisation is referenced, was actually founded as long ago as 1978, and internationally it was not even the first? In England, there are also specialist advocacy services for those that have left 关心. Even closer to home, the CREATE Foundation in Australia was established 22 years ago! In this area we are decades behind most other western English speaking countries.

    d. As well the need for an advocacy organisation for 孩子们 in 关心, the important points 上 the age of leaving 关心, and the need for more comprehensive support for 关心 leavers, are all well-made.


    本报告的重点是对有和没有国家照看儿童的数据和信息进行检查,这是本报告的重点,并且整个章节都围绕该主题展开(尽管我注意到研究已被省略)。至关重要的是,本节着重指出,与国家照顾的结果数据相比,不仅缺乏汇总的结果数据,而且汇总的输出数据也非常有限。但是,我不得不说,OCC对CYF结果(和输出)数据有限感到惊讶。 OCC现在已经对CYF及其前身组织进行了36年的监视:我想应该定期评估此类数据才能充分发挥其监视作用吗? OCC自己的2010年综合273页的报告《护理中的儿童:向护理中的儿童提供的服务质量报告》也清楚表明了有关护理中儿童的可用数据的性质有限。


    c. It is surprising that the 上 ly NCEA data that has been released to OCC for this 报告 , is from 2012 and that MSD have declined to release the data that they have for the subsequent two years. My fear would be that the 2013 and 2014 data either shows a drop in the percentage of school leavers in 关心 gaining NCEA level two or higher, or a growth in the gap between those in 关心 and others. Such data must be collected and disseminated as soon as possible if it is going to inform organisational strategic planning. However, while such risk-averse behaviour may appear to be nonsensical, the history of CYF and its predecessor organisations would perhaps suggest otherwise!

    d. Significantly more analysis (and research) than is provided in this 报告 is required before firm conclusions can be drawn 上 the extent to which poor educational (and health, and offending) outcomes can be attributed to MSD and the failings of the 关心 (and education) system, rather than factors such as the long term effects of abuse and early deprivation, socio-economic background, and ethnicity-based disadvantage. However, although the old adage/cliché that “if you don’t count it, it doesn’t count” probably applies here, and I suspect that our outcomes for 孩子们 in 关心 are poorer than Australia, the UK, Canada and the United States, we just don’t know.


    I don’t actually disagree with the thrust of the recommendations in as far as they go. However, they’ll also need to be some much broader child-centred changes, which may or may not come from the Expert Panel, before we will see the types of improvement that so many want to see, and those in the 关心 of the state deserve.


    博士论文的一页摘要(滑梯和爬蛇:新西兰大学生以前在寄养方面的经验)可从以下网站获得: http://www.slideshare.net/iainmatheson

  5. 我忍不住愤世嫉俗,但是在部长级审查小组专注于CYF现代化的时候,《护理现状》报告现在公开是真的偶然吗?我怀疑不是!评论的委婉标题是有意选择的,我敢肯定,它将反映出将要出现的新自由主义经济模式。这不是火箭科学!!对于Tamariki及其码头的未来福祉,必须引起越来越多的关注,特别是考虑到专家组内没有毛利人的声音。最令人担忧的因素似乎是,我们的社会服务可能会随着以利润为导向的代理机构而日益私有化。一个这样的机构的首席执行官本周末访问了Aotearoa
    Change is to be embraced if it ensures progress and improved practice outcomes based 上 sound research and evidential analysis. Change should not be driven by a 政治 ideology that speaks in financial terminology ie ROI for short term gains without due consideration of possible long term social consequences measured in years not months. I suspect the future of Social Work and Social Services in NZ has many many challenges ahead.

  6. 这是一个很好的报告。我很高兴有机会对此发表评论。我喜欢提出行动的想法,特别高兴听到CYF在儿童保护工作的“前端”表现良好–这当然取决于我们要测量的内容,但是’这是一个很有帮助的陈述,即使只是强调它在(后端)“后端”有多糟糕。
    I held a position of permanency (back-end) worker for a short time in the mid 2000s. Another colleague and I worked with 孩子们 in 关心 who fit the description of those 孩子们 we are hearing about now – the 上 es who were ‘lost’ in 关心, had drifted through numerous placements. To appoint this small team was a good, courageous local management decision and I think we did some good work. It was certainly the most challenging social work job I held with CYF and I loved it. Predictably, with the mounting pressure of immediate protection work we were quickly drawn back to the front line (front-end). Care work simply could not be a priority.
    This 报告 has identified many issues. I chose to comment 上 this issue because it is close to my heart, but also to offer my view about just how much commitment it takes at all levels to do 关心 work well. It is a lot easier in our current structure/political environment to do the 前端 work (ie to produce good 报告 s like this 上 e) than it is to do the back-end work (ie to follow through 上 recommendations and promises –也就是说,有所作为)。那就是挑战所在 –比以往任何时候都更努力,但并非没有可能。

  7. 此报告中有很多问题,很难知道从哪里开始。而且在许多论坛上都会出现大量的文字。有些有用,有些则不是。因此,在这里,我将坚持我热衷的几个问题。这不’t mean I don’•优先处理其他事项。该报告提出了有关实践和监督准备的问题。关于第一个问题-准备练习–这是社会工作教育者关注的主要问题,我们希望不久就可以开始一些重要的研究。 OCC报告讨论了社会工作者对做好工作方面的知识和技能没有准备。随着时间的流逝,我觉得教育和培训变得更加注重风险– so it’关于筛选和评估。这显然很重要。但是,我们是否因此忽略了对从业人员进行长期目标指导工作的教育?为了解决Paora在上面的评论中谈到的恐惧。这些问题值得更深入的审查。但是准备练习–或为像CYF这样的实际工作做准备是’只是关于投入-传授知识的技能培训和课程。它’也是关于新毕业生获得的欢迎和归纳。在战区的前线被当做新兵一样对待’没有帮助。我们需要适当的NQSW程序(而且我知道CYF中有很多人迫切希望这样做),现在我们需要它们。这至少可以减少对家庭的流失和减少的流失成本。
    第二个问题是监督。我们需要大量的适当教育以进行监督。而我不’意思是一两天的监督–强调风险管理的数字培训。适当的评估技能培训。我们有能力做到这一点。但是目前,一些CYF社会工作者一直在为自己的研究生学习付费。那里’这是最近有所改善的迹象,但更多的人需要有机会学习如何进行高质量的反思性监督。并增强我们提供文化监督的能力。 CYF 有狂热的监督员–他们需要成为领导者,长期领导对新的毕业生支持和监督的全面改革。我从世界各地读过的每份报告都说这些事情至关重要。我希望我能更有信心“The 护理状态” would be evidence based and focused 上 support for the CYF social workers who must be feeling beleaguered, exhausted and dispirited right now. 和for all our words they still get up 上 Monday morning 和walk bravely in to another week of working with our 孩子们 and families. 和you know the really good 上 es probably feel the most pain.

    1. 绝对是丽兹。英国新的合格软件计划真正成功的故事是用于确保最新毕业生的导师和监督达到最佳状态的额外资源。该计划的这一方面投入了大量的额外资金。但是,人员流动率高的问题迫在眉睫,并且与此相关。–我们希望主管具有一定的实践经验,而不希望自己担任经验不足2年的主管,因为他们是该地点服务时间最长的人员。它’毫无疑问,表现最佳的站点拥有经验丰富的主管,他们能够提供当地社区的连续性和知识,与其他提供者建立了联系,并具有一定的实践能力,可以支持新毕业生的学习。支持并分阶段学习CYF的特定实践领域,儿童保护工作’例如,对于新毕业生而言,这与更高的工作满意度,更高的保留率以及重要的是更快,更好地获得必要的知识和技能有关。 CYF 在向其提供通用入门课程方面已经做了一些努力,但是太多的新毕业生无法花时间进行学习,因为他们没有保护自己的工作量,并且对这些新知识的重要嵌入还不够他们回到现场后将获得支持。迫切需要认真对待CYF中受保护的研究生课程。当你期望‘奔跑’ it’太容易忘记细节和大局了。必须有更多的资源来做到这一点,并允许更多有经验的社会工作者以他们希望的方式来满足儿童及其家庭和码头的需求。
      起亚kaha给我们的CYF同事们,他们一定会感到不了解的压力– we are with you.

  8. 大老白屁股(CC)

    种族歧视是新西兰奥特罗阿(Aotearoa)新西兰儿童保护“现状”的核心。已经三十多年了。由我的研究中的rangatahi参与者恰当地描述了 ’刚在青年司法官邸住了6个月,“您的福乐斯真笨,你们都像皇帝的新装一样撑起您的东西……我们只是坐下大笑,因为你们都向我们展示了您那头大大的白屁股。”机构种族主义在所有部委中盛行,某些最严重的偏见做法是针对妇女和毛利人的,如果你们俩都受到双重伤害。让我告诉你为什么,CYF收到的大部分通知是由于家庭暴力事件引起的警方转介。根据“护理状况”报告,为什么社会工作在前端工作得很好,但“个案工作和工作量管理”审查指出,没有足够的时间,资源或社会工作者来进行全面的社会工作。

    这是我的答案,CYF旋转门上的社会工作者在很大程度上依靠警方在家庭暴力事件中收集的评估信息。这导致对儿童的不良冒险行为在第一时间(通常是不必要的)被转移到国家的照顾中。然后在“时间允许的情况下”进行进一步的评估,看孩子是否可以返回家中。在我目前的研究中,毛琳(WahineMāori)跟我说过,她在生活的各个方面都受到了“微观审查”,因为她是毛利人,并且处于暴力关系。这通常是由“经验不足且文化上无知的” CYF 社会工作者造成的。一位参与者将其描述为:“就像他们(CYF)一样,派遣实习生进行精细的脑部手术。”所有这些与母亲实际上是否是“健康”父母是分开的。她仍然必须忍受不仅要保护自己和孩子的过程,而且还要免受机构和前线工作人员的审查和污名化。


    和whilst CYF is crying out for 关心givers because of the rate 孩子们 are being taken into 关心, they’re often 上 ly ‘screening’ 关心givers before 孩子们 are being placed with those 关心givers. As an ex-state ward, I can tell you that the abuse in 关心 is prolific and 孩子们 do tell but it often falls 上 deaf ears. 和if, 孩子们 don’t tell it’s because they think they wont be believed or they fear consequences. This is more pronounced for Maori 孩子们 who understand the insidious nature of 种族主义 right from the word go.

    这种制度上的种族主义和偏见的做法直接使毛利人在所有系统中的任职人数过多,而当这个世界的安东·布兰克(Anton Blanks)将其描述为“无意识的态度在发挥作用”时,我只需要大声疾呼。正是这种低估和假装问题不存在,才使新西兰的儿童保护现状成为“霓虹灯”火车残骸​​。火车残骸成功地沿着传送带成功地将有利可图的棕色单位交易到我们成人监狱系统的保险箱中。我们能否克服“奇迹”系统治愈方法的整个神话,例如双重文化框架,文化响应能力和家庭小组会议,这只能使我们所有人继续工作。

    儿童保护从根本上讲是单一文化的,这意味着社会工作者总体上只能通过自己的世界观进行观察。‘dominant’ and ‘one right’世界观,衡量包括毛利人在内的所有其他种族。其他导致毛利儿童在照料中人数过多的偏见做法包括预先确定FGC结果以支持社会工作者的愿望,批准社会工作者具有文化能力但不知道如何进行华卡帕帕搜索,打补丁和派遣,这是毛利人的社会工作者遇到了沉重的麻烦,并且经历了“褐色的倦怠”,这是有意雇用英国社会工作者,而不是经验丰富的本地毛利人社会工作者,帕克哈(Pakeha)占据了大多数管理职位,没有得到文化监督,这是一个适合所有人的方法,否定了毛利人在整个CYF工作方式的发展,而“空心词”则包含在更多的同一“空心政策”中,并且不断进行审查并未能实施建议(例如Puao te ata tu 1986, Te Punga:《我们的90年代双文化战略》,1994年; Te Whanau o Waipareira报告,1998年; Brown报告,2000年; Te Pounamu,2001年;以及Workload和Ca sework Review:社会工作者案例量的定性审查,尤其是Casework and Workload Management,2014年)。

    A “大老白屁股”如此令人眼花!乱!

    1. 因此,我们离这个报告搬了几座山的激动人心的日子并没有太远-并为那些推动Puao te ata tu的人提供了弹药:
      社会福利部(1985年)。 Tamaki Makau Rau社会福利部的机构种族主义。新西兰奥克兰[如果有人需要,我有一份称为WARAG报告的PDF副本]


      还有保拉– you’ve made some brilliant points about the unintended consequences of referrals of 孩子们 who are present in family violence incidents. Which I think is largely un-researched in a deliberate project? The experts 上 screening all agree that its not the screening that saves lives -it is what we do immediately 后 and over the months and years to follow.

  9. 我同意’s so important to highlight the experiences of 孩子们 in the 关心 system and develop ways of knowing what happens to 他们 when they leave 关心. Our internationally low age of 关心 exit means some young people end up literally dumped 上 their 17th birthday. It’我们不相信 ’t know what happens to 他们 后 that. If the state-as-guardian status is to be taken seriously then this needs urgent attention –哪个父母会这样?

    但是,从更大的角度看,调查和调查似乎浪费了资源。‘front-end’决策使其他领域丧失了生机– not 上 ly for those ‘after’决定要搬家(有照料的孩子),也要作出决定之前的孩子(有孩子在家但有家人努力照顾他们的孩子)。我知道,我知道,我能听到大家说两个字:孩子’s Teams. But it’s more than that. It’小孩子的贫穷生活’s team can’t fix. It’抑郁症及其对养育子女的影响,在家庭家庭支持工作中不费力地赢得了’t be addressed. It’社会隔离,使人们没有希望或社区感。并为此做出贡献’随着社会结构的变化,越来越多的不平等现象促使全世界推荐儿童保护系统‘us’ and ‘them’。真正以儿童为中心意味着确保整个政策范围都能满足儿童及其父母的需求。现在该认真考虑一下吗‘prevention’真正意思?社会工作在哪里?我们是‘us’ or ‘them’?


您的电子邮件地址不会被公开。 必需的地方已做标记 *