Getting it right for the sake of the child

Paula Tyler

A knock at the door brings foreboding to the family. It's not the police but it may as well be - it's the social worker from Child, Youth and Family. In the past financial year more than 20,000 families heard the knock, some more than once. Nearly 40,000 children were thought to be at risk.

Allegations may have revolved around violence or sexual abuse, they may have been prompted by a child's screaming or tantrums, or concerns about neglect. In one in five cases, abuse or neglect would be substantiated but in most other cases, investigation would be a shattering ordeal, followed by ... nothing.

In the volatile, emotion-charged cauldron of family dysfunction, the state's child protection agency would like to be seen as the guardian angel. But Child Youth and Family has struggled with an image problem, its power to remove children often dashing any chance of gaining trust and sorting out problems before things get out of hand.

Its image problem is made worse by a siege mentality in response to the media highlighting child abuse and cases which have "slipped through the cracks". The catalogue includes Delcelia Witika in 1991, James Whakaruru in 1999, Lillybing Karaitiana-Matiaha and Tangaroa Matiu in 2000, Saliel Aplin and Olympia Jetson in 2001 and Coral Burrows in 2003.

But demand for CYF services keeps rising. Several inquiries and the media spotlight have failed to stem the rising tide of notifications to Child Youth and Family alleging abuse or neglect. In fact, the service suspects the publicity has partly fuelled the trend.

In the year to June 30, the service received more than 53,000 abuse and neglect notifications, the 20 per cent leap in line with international trends. It found 43,400 required some form of follow up.

Formal social worker investigations led to nearly 5500 family group conferences and 3000 family/whanau agreements. More than 3800 children were placed in care. While a recruitment drive eased the shortage of foster parents, the department struggled all year to find enough beds for youth justice remand cases.

Something has to give, and the widening gulf between demand and CYF's capability is prompting a major change in the way the service operates. Christened with the unlovely name of differential response, it is a system of splitting high-risk "care and protection" cases needing formal investigation by CYF social workers from cases which could be treated in other ways.

The alternative path can involve community agencies undertaking family needs assessments, and may lead to families obtaining support services. It hopes a preventive approach will avoid issues escalating to the point where they become "high risk" and reduce CYF's workload.

But CYF won't be reduced to a leaner, meaner state agency dealing only with the hard cases, says project leader Debbie Sturmfels. CYF social workers will gain broader powers to "engage with families and the NGO [non-government organisation] sector in different ways".

A law change to broaden the options open to CYF staff and allow NGOs to undertake assessments will be reported back to Parliament next year. The new system will be piloted in Auckland, Hamilton, New Plymouth and Christchurch before it is rolled out nationally in 2007.

It is billed as the most significant change since the Children, Young Persons and their Families Act was passed in 1989, but has been greeted with considerable suspicion.

Social worker scepticism is not helped by the resignation of CEO Paula Tyler, recruited last year from Canada, which introduced a similar differential response system.

In the community sector, unease surfaced in September at a conference of family support agencies. Some feared becoming financially dependent on CYF and losing their independence.

Carole Fleming, director of Catholic Family Support Services in Hamilton, told of a hui in which "the overriding agenda people had was solely money". Her organisation was concerned about "prostituting ourselves" and would decline to contract.

Agencies working with struggling families are concerned they will be seen as agents of the state, making it difficult to gain vital trust.

"We know with preventive work the best outcomes are when you can engage families from the beginning," says Bettina Schempf, general manager of Presbyterian Support's James Family service. "It is much harder when they are afraid their children will be taken away."

Some suspect that part of the motivation for differential response is to reduce CYF's caseload and financial risk, following court rulings establishing a "duty of care" on some state agencies. Some see contracting-out as a cost-cutting method for an agency which attracts more than $500 million in taxpayer funding.

But the overriding worry is the fear that funding will be insufficient to allow meaningful support work.

Schempf says most community organisations would like to reach more families. Her agency is involved in a demand management pilot designed to ease CYF's backlog of unallocated cases by contracting-out some assessments.

Last year, funding for follow-up work was available, but not this year. "We hope that out of differential response will come funding for a lot more services so [problems within the family] don't escalate. But right now Child, Youth and Family doesn't have the funding."

A formal investigation by CYF social workers is not to be laughed off. Staff have sweeping powers to gather information from the police, health authorities and schools to establish the safety of children. They can take emergency action and obtain warrants to remove children they think are in imminent danger.

But fewer than a third of notifications are deemed to require further intervention or services following investigation, say the department's Steve Waldegrave and Fiona Coy. In a paper published in the Social Policy Journal of NZ, Waldegrave and Coy say 58 per cent of cases are usually closed with little or no follow-up in counselling or support services.

Waldegrave and Coy say investigations can have traumatic effects, generating "extreme anxiety and uncertainty for children and families". While high-risk situations, such as sexual abuse allegations, clearly warrant social work investigation, reports of neglect, relationship difficulties and child behavioural issues often do not.

"In many cases, a social work investigation could be unhelpful and may not identify the root of the problem because of the single focus on establishing whether abuse has occurred."

While CYF has developed a system of ranking cases according to urgency, this often means a lengthy wait or no service at all for less-urgent cases. "Such cases nevertheless have the potential for significant long-term harm to children."

The Methodist-linked West Auckland Family Service is one of several agencies undertaking assessments of unallocated cases as part of CYF's demand management pilot. The assessment process could point the way for differential response.

"Our whole focus is on a different approach, a different way of engaging people," says service manager Erin Redgrove. "The purpose of visiting is to provide support. We look at strengths rather than deficits. It doesn't mean we ignore what wasn't working for the family but we have a slightly different perspective. We don't present the threat that CYF does. The only issue we've got about [differential response] is whether it will be adequately funded."

Differential response systems have been introduced in Canada, the United States, Britain and some Australian states, with mixed results. The key to success appears to be sufficient funding to ensure those receiving a child and family assessment have access to services.

David Hanna, director of Wellington-based Wesley Community Action, supports the principle of increased partnership with community organisations but queries whether differential response is seen as the cure for CYF's wider ills.

"It is one of the biggest changes since the act was brought in, but it seems to have been slipped in at the 11th hour," says Hanna, a spokesman for the Association for Adolescent Health and Development.

"In some ways it is a desperate organisation because of the challenges they've had and they've latched on to differential response as the holy grail which will solve all their problems."

Hanna says CYF needs to address its internal problems, which include huge variation in capability between offices. "Some are great - you build up a trusting relationship and they offer really good solutions. Others are just in chaos with lots of inefficiencies and it's no surprise children bounce around the system."

"Differential response may be part of the solution but don't think it's going to solve it all. And if they get it wrong, the community sector risks getting dumped on."

Barnardos chief executive Murray Edridge sees the "blurring of boundaries" between Government accountability and community responsibility as a positive step.

"The work that Child Youth and Family does is vital in our community and, unless they deal with it, the consequences are hugely unsettling and damaging.

"Can we do more to prevent [abuse] happening as opposed to picking up pockets?"

Edridge says the state's responsibility in child protection is not confined to CYF - the ministries of Social Development, Health and Justice are all involved. All are potential funding sources. "The single biggest issue is getting various components of the Government working together," says Edridge.

CYF's Debbie Sturmfels agrees resourcing is the key to an expanded role for support services and a reduction in the care and protection caseload. But it's for the Government to decide where it wants to invest welfare money, she says.

Many details about differential response have yet to be worked through, says Sturmfels, and concerns should ease after pilots next year. She says the system is "not a way of prioritising cases but a way of determining the most appropriate response to a family's needs."

There will be no shift in accountability. CYF will retain responsibility until the child no longer needs to be in the system. CYF staff will still make the initial call on whether a child needs urgent intervention by a social worker and in some cases undertake a child safety assessment before an agency undertakes a needs assessment.

"In terms of safety for the child, differential response will in fact enhance it."


How the system works

Notifications of suspected abuse or neglect:
Department receives notifications through its call centre and a social worker investigates. Where further intervention is required a Family/Whanau Agreement (FWA) or a Family Group Conference follows to address issues identified.

Formal social work investigation:

* Systematically gathering further information to determine whether harm to the child or young person has occurred and is likely to recur.

* Deciding if emergency action (e.g. filing for warrants) is necessary to remove the child or young person from immediate harm.

* Engaging police if sexual or serious physical abuse is alleged or suspected.

* Sighting the child/family/caregiver to establish the child's immediate safety.

* Interviewing, informing, consulting family/whanau, care and protection resource panel, police, public health nurse, doctor, teacher, and others as necessary.

* Involving two or more social workers in the investigation.

* Consulting a CYF solicitor and/or cultural adviser, when necessary.


Differential response (proposed)

CYF undertakes preliminary assessment leading to the following options:

* A child and family assessment

* An investigation

* Referral to other organisations (including NGOs) or departments for the provision of services.

* Any other action to give effect to the objects of the CYP&F Act.

* A decision that no further action is required, where appropriate.


Child and family assessments:

* Focus on identifying the support needs of the child, young person and their family, and any services they may require to improve or restore their wellbeing.

* Do not involve systematically collecting further information as evidence for potential court cases.

* May be undertaken on behalf of CYF by approved organisations, including NGOs.

* Do not involve the exercise of coercive powers.

* Do not require consultation with a care and protection resource panel.


CYF left in the lurch 

With her sunny smile, communication skills and Canadian-accented positivity, Paula Tyler brought a breath of fresh air to Child, Youth and Family. She cleaned out head office, restructured the regions and set about reinventing the service's frontline operations. Now she's leaving, 16 months into a three-year contract, and CYF is again like a possum in the headlights.

The new CEO's resignation in August (she leaves next week) embarrassed the Government, which spent $134,000 to lure Tyler (including $70,000 on relocation costs for her and husband Peter Kruselnicki) to a job paying more than $320,000.

Tyler's explanation - she's following her husband (a bureaucrat who didn't like twiddling his thumbs out here much) back to Alberta - had a hint of a smokescreen. But it seems there was no disenchantment on her part and she is (almost) as upset as the New Zealand taxpayer that she's walking out on a job barely begun.

She's not talking publicly, but it seems Kruselnicki's return to Alberta to become the state premier's chief of staff left her with a stark career or marriage-saving choice.

In her only public statement, the 52-year-old mother of four said her decision to resign was made "very reluctantly. I had to choose between a job that is both challenging and hugely rewarding and being with my partner and family in Canada."

Agencies in the child and family sector applaud her decision but see it as a major setback.

Tyler is credited with achieving much in a short time, although the directional changes stem largely from the Government's 2003 "baseline review" of the agency. Head office jobs were readvertised and only one incumbent, experienced social worker Shannon Pakura, survives in the new executive management team of nine.

Regional offices were reduced from six to four and the managerial focus extended, raising staff cynicism about managers' grasp of frontline social work realities.

But Tyler's biggest challenge, introducing a differential response system for notifications, is far from complete. The system provides alternatives to a social work investigation for less-urgent cases. "I'm a great supporter of the work Paula has done," says Barnados chief executive Murray Edridge. "I'm really sad and disappointed it won't last longer. Hopefully there's enough traction there for it to continue.

"She set the department on a very positive path but it was not quite at the stage where they had staff enthused. They've been through a lot of pain associated with restructuring but haven't seen the upside yet. This is one more bit of uncertainty."

Says one insider: "Things were going good. Her leaving now leaves [head office] in a really vulnerable position, because you get that cynical response from staff: 'Oh, you know, the chief executive comes around, sells all this stuff and then suddenly she's gone'."

Not everyone is impressed with CYF's new direction.

Morale is still a problem for over-stretched social workers wary of the service's new managerial focus. One office is reported to have 10 vacancies.

Mary Gray, director of counselling service the Home and Family Society, says CYF still needs to address organisational and staffing issues. "We had a teenage girl who was raped because Child, Youth and Family didn't do anything about the risk she was in."

The CEO post will be filled by Ministry of Women's Affairs head Shenagh Gleisner until a replacement is found.

She is the service's fourth head in just over two years.