The information corroborates my original sources and confirms that cuts are occurring to child care and protection services in more South Island communities than previously thought.
New sources tell me that in Dunedin one frontline supervisor position has been halved and two social worker positions have been cut, plus one family group conference co-ordinator, one administrator and one social work resource assistant position.
That is a total of five and half positions in Dunedin alone delivering or supporting frontline services in our region.
In Otago, two social worker positions and one supervisor position have been cut affecting services in Oamaru, Alexandra, Gore and Balclutha. In Invercargill, at least two social workers and one supervisor position have been cut.
These are reductions in essential services. Services that provide the opportunity for a young person to turn their life around, for a family in distress to get the support they need, for a child in harm’s way to get the care and protection they deserve.
These cuts clearly indicate that frontline social work in Otago and Southland is being hollowed out while National repeatedly claims to be improving public services and moving resources to the frontline.
Is the Minister for Social Development aware that, contrary to the Government’s stated commitment to putting more workers on the frontline, the reverse is happening, that frontline staff are being cut at Child, Youth and Family?
Is the Minister aware that Child, Youth and Family’s head office is claiming: ‘There are no staffing cuts to the organisation. No cuts are being made. No staff member is losing their job’*?
In light of the new detail on reductions in Otago and Southland services, I have lodged a further Official Information Request to get past the smokescreen from head office to the truth of the situation – that deep cuts are being made to already stretched services in the South.
I would be the first to congratulate the Minister if the staffing cuts reflected a significant reduction in the number of children and families needing protection and support. Regrettably, that would be a naive assumption.
Child, Youth and Family is that vital line between hope and despair, between giving a child refuge from neglect and abuse and turning our back on the plight of the defenceless.
* Source: CYF manager of public affairs Bernadine MacKenzie, quoted in Otago Daily Times on 21 July 2011.
” New sources tell me ” Who? How can this be confirmed?
David
This is indeed a worrying aspect of the parlous financial state we find ourselves in after 9 yrs of Labour government.
The National led government has had to deal with what you (The Labour Party) left them with (apart from your lying in the PREFU) in trying to handle deep financial difficulties.
Much of this was due to The Labour not properly costing (if at all) schemes and policies they started.
Which I consider deliberate, as it was to scupper any options The National led government might have had to turn the country round.
That you don’t have the honesty and integrity to acknowledge this disgraces you and the Labour herittage and does a diservice to all New Zealanders and in an ideal world would disallow you any place within parliament ever again.
Mike Mckee
Seatoun
@Lou Peters 9.06am. I now have several sources close to the action so I’m entirely confident on this. You’ll also see that CYF have avoided answering direct questions that would embarrass the Government. I’ve documented that here: http://www.davidclark.org.nz/2011/07/dunedin-cuts-cyf-spindoctors-stretch-truth/
@Mike Mckee 9:37am. I’m afraid I disagree with your premise Mike. The last Labour Government grew the economy by 25% in real terms, produced surpluses year after year, significantly reduced Government debt and introduced savings schemes. By contrast, National has steadily reduced GDP per capita (productivity), increased unemployment and continues to borrow beyond our means. Given these facts, I can’t quite see where you’re coming from.
Woe is the south
They can’t argue with the surplus so they have to invent some stuff round the edges, repeat it ad infinitjm and voila, create a new truth.
The real question, even if this distorted reality is correct, is, how is it good to spend millions more on roads while under resourcing those who we do resource to take care of kids? If we think child abuse is bad now, wait til CYPS is further depleted
I read two articles on the new Green paper on Child welfare. stuff and herald. neither articles linked to the paper or further information. I came back an hour or so later stuff now links herald doesnt. Note the nice political campaign speech from the Pm to kickstart the paper… with several references to the last 10 years
http://img.scoop.co.nz/media/pdfs/1107/greenpaperforvulnerablechildren.pdf
Interestingly 7% of female students and 3% of male students attempt suicide. Yet this Government cut funding to a self defence course for girls at high school which was shown to considerably boost self esteem and confidence. Girls were also more likely to speak to an adult about a problem following such a course. KEEPING these kinds of programmes going helps vulnerable young people.
Could a moderator start a thread on the green paper for discussion/ideas?
Tracy
Saw a stuff article today on green paper launch. Interestinly Labor and WR were quoted as opponents. It made it sound like they opposed the green paper when reading the quotes Claire was asking why action was wasn’t taken a year ago, after the 2 day conference. And she mentioned that there would be cross party support to get this moving before the recess.
It got me to thinking that Paula Bennet remembers how popular Pita Sharples got with his stand against abuse, yet had done SFA and seems to have forgotten the problem. This time the minister is taking a popular emotional line just before an election while cutting the very service she tasks with solving the problem.
Jeremy
Sigh- you are probably right. In the same week they announced their focus on vulnerable children and the need to a good start they cut play centre funding.
I see they have also heavily emphasized if you want us to help vulnerable children tell us where we can cut other funding. It is a fair question but very broad. W can’t have everything but we must have as many children safe as we can.
Perhaps we stop giving tax breaks to billion dollar empires, and don’t waste time and money rushing through laws at their behest?
Perhaps we stop giving $20m in bailouts to people who didnt even qualify for the government guarantee.
Perhaps MPs stop getting a pay rise for the next five years until our economy is underway again (and dont blah blah me about higher salaries commission – if we can rush thru law changes to keep a movie company happy we could do this with the will) – I mean which MP wants to say no to the poor suffering children for their own gain?
Buddy Day, great initiative
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10766685