Editorial in the New Zealand Herald
Child, Youth and Family remedy urgent for our children
One area of concern stood out from the multitude when a damning
review of Child, Youth and Family was released last month. The agency,
it was found, had a culture resistant to change. That conclusion, more
than any other, explained why CYF has swallowed up repeated
million-dollar funding boosts without that money significantly improving
the way it operated. It also confirmed that the agency's woes would not
be solved simply by pouring in more cash, no matter how compelling the
case for additional resourcing appeared. A culture change must be the
top priority. And that is why the resignation of Jackie Pivac, the CYF
chief executive, represents such a golden opportunity.
In effect, Ms Pivac's departure can act as a circuit-breaker. A new
chief executive can introduce new ideas, new expectations and a new
sense of purpose. Given the shortcomings of the present culture, that
person must come from outside CYF. It is to be hoped that the Prime
Minister is thinking along those lines in suggesting the agency is in
need of a shake-up.
That sentiment has been expressed before, never more so than after a
report in 2001 by former Chief Youth Court Judge Mick Brown that
identified an array of woes, including low staff morale, poor training
of social workers, huge under-funding and, perhaps worst of all, skewed
decision-making. Judge Brown, as well as dissecting the ailment, offered
commonsense remedies. Yet a new directions programme based largely on
his recommendations has not improved CYF's performance to any
significant degree. Nor has what amounts to a 50 per cent increase in
baseline funding between 1999 and 2002.
For that, senior CYF management must accept much of the blame.
Pointedly, the minister responsible for Child, Youth and Family refused
to express confidence in Ms Pivac when the review — carried out by the
Treasury, CYF, the State Services Commission and the Social Development
Ministry — was released. Government praise on the occasion of her
resignation was also muted. But all in all there is little to suggest
that Ms Pivac was, as Opposition MPs contend, a "sacrificial lamb". That
could be so only if the review's criticism had been ill-directed.
Logic does not suggest that, even if there might be cause to quibble
with one or two of the findings. The emphasis, for example, on “critical
information gaps” and, in particular, CYF's inability instantly to come
up with the number of children in its care. It is understandable that
this might not have been a major focus for an agency which, in its own
words, was running a skeleton operation because it did not have the
funding to meet an upsurge in notifications of at-risk children. When
priorities were established, the welfare of those children should have
been given top billing. Quite rightly, less attention would have been
paid to having overall operation statistics at the ready.
Nonetheless, the problems at CYF ran far deeper than a matter of
priority. It is reasonable to point the finger at the agency's culture,
and at a lack of management focus. Remedying that culture and
orchestrating an acceptable level of performance are daunting
challenges. There will be obstacles aplenty. Always there will be
irresponsible parents, such as those who allowed young children to live
in a Hamilton apartment being used as a methamphetamine laboratory. And
always there will be issues of funding, despite the latest 12.5 per
cent, or $127 million, boost announced by the Government.
Additionally, unrealistic expectations will sometimes be heaped on
CYF. Not so unrealistic, however, as to excuse the agency's
underperformance since its establishment in 1999. Opportunities to enact
fundamental, and comprehensive, change come along all too rarely. For
the sake of at-risk children, this one must be taken.
7 November 2003
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/storydisplay.cfm?storyID=3532468&thesection=news&thesubsection=general
home
|