.
Few jobs are as stressful and emotionally wrenching as that of the social worker. Every failure inevitably results in soul-searching, especially when its manifestation is the untimely death of the child in care. Many of those failures also attract the added burden of publicity. In such circumstances, the tendency may be for social workers to reproach themselves excessively. Certainly, it takes some strange twists in the road to arrive at the Department of Child, Youth and Family's abdication of blame for the level of children's deaths.
The department has been discomforted by statistics which show that 34 children and youths known to it died in the year to last July, including 10 in suicides and 10 in accidents. While a majority were in the care of their parents, family or whanau, most of the others were in the care of the welfare agency - in residences or with caregivers - when they died. The chief social worker, Mike Doolan, explained, quite reasonably, that those who came into contact with it were likely to have high-risk behaviour already. He pointed to American research which suggested that young people in the care of welfare agencies were up to four times more likely to die. Then the stunningly illogical leap: Mr Doolan said it was unfair to blame the department for the level of deaths.
Mr Doolan's motive may well be to salve and soothe the consciences of those social workers who numbered the dead children among their caseloads. But each of them will be well aware, even if retrospectively, of occasions when they did not handle young people as well as they might have. They should not, of course, be expected to shoulder all the blame. Many people, and often the community itself, must accept their share. Take the doctor who failed to report abuse, the police officer whose check was not sufficiently rigorous or the voluntary service organisation which gave wrong advice. And take those communities that fight tooth and nail to prevent department houses being located in their neighbourhood.
Nonetheless, it is absurd to suggest that the department - the agency charged with the care and protection of at-risk young people and families - should escape blame. Neither is it helpful of Mr Doolan to suggests that the death toll would have been higher without its involvement; or that it is unfair that social workers attract attention only when things go wrong. There are any number of recent blunders that suggest fundamental flaws in the department's operations. A former Commissioner for Children, Dr Ian Hassall, has described the agency as dysfunctional and called for a sweeping inquiry. Among the problems he pinpointed were high-risk cases not being taken seriously enough for investigation, unacceptable delays in initiating investigations and the dangerous placement of children.
Briefing papers to the incoming Government portray a seriously stretched department. They mention, for example, that mental health problems were often responsible for a child's death. Yet the department is not equipped or funded in this area. Many of the agency's blunders must surely also be symptomatic of social workers burdened by too many cases. If such is the case, there is no shame in accepting a share of the blame. And of airing departmental deficiencies that must be addressed in the interests of children's safety.
AdvertisementAdvertise with NZME.
Latest from New Zealand
ANZAC Day service in Auckland
Auckland War Memorial dawn service, Hobsonville civil service and the Devonport parade. How Aucklanders remembered the ANZACS. Photos / Hayden Woodward, Dean Purcell and Alex Burton