| Select your State Union |
 |
|
 |
Child Protection
How can we protect our children?
30 August 2002
Do we want to know the true extent of the problems associated with child abuse and neglect and provide the resources to deal with the problem or do we regress and pretend there is no problem? Below is the PSA submission to an Upper House enquiry into child protection issues.
The Public Service Association is a registered industrial organisation of employees under the NSW Industrial Relations Act and has industrial coverage of all employees of the Department of Community Services.
This representation covers all areas of operation at the Department and includes Managers, Caseworkers and administrative employees at Community Service Centres, Managers, Caseworkers and administrative employees at the Helpline. Managers and administrative support staff at Head Office as well as secondary support unit employees attached to the Department.
The purpose of the Association's submission is to highlight the shortcomings of senior management's ability to adequately address staffing issues resulting from a massive increase in workload demand primarily generated from new legislation introduced in December 2000.
Whilst the reasons for the massive increase in the number of reports of child abuse and child neglect may be the scrutiny of academic and political debate, the fact is that our members (primarily Caseworkers) are now struggling to cope with the demands placed upon them.
It is indeed an extraordinary circumstance that our members in this area would resort to strike action in order for their circumstance to be recognised.
HISTORY
In 1992 there were 13,336 notifications and reports of child abuse and child neglect.
In a recent visit to a Community Service Centre one Senior Caseworker explained "We then had the ability to investigate every single report of child abuse and neglect".
"If a child went to school with bruises the parents could expect a visit that night from the Department or if an infant was taken to hospital with a broken limb the parents could expect a tap on the shoulder from Departmental Officers and be asked to explain".
He went on to explain that "this was the community expectation and by this the Department established community standards by which parents and carers could expect to be gauged"
Unfortunately he went on to say "that has now all changed and our inability to deal with all matters has altered community standards to an unacceptable /eve/ of tolerance".
By this it would seem that the shift from Investigation to Assessment of risk of harm has been an easy out for successive Governments as well as the Department in dealing with ever increasing demands associated with child abuse and neglect.
The question would be: do we want to know the true extent of the problems associated with child abuse and neglect and provide the resources to deal with the problem or do we regress and pretend there is no problem?
BACKGROUND
The 18 December 2000 saw the enactment of the Children & Young Persons Care & Protection Act 1998 (the Child Protection Act) which coincided with the commencement of operation of the Department of Community Service Helpline.
The new legislation provided for mandatory reporting of suspected cases of child abuse and neglect with the introduction of tough penalties for non compliance and a new centralised intake system.
Management proposed to the Association that the Helpline would be staffed by 55 Caseworkers to perform the centralised intake function on a 24 hour 7 days a week rostered basis.
The Association's response was that 55 Caseworkers totally inadequate in view of the fact it was estimated that 150-200 Caseworkers were at the time performing this function Statewide.
Despite this and regardless of the ~Association's request for a trial, management persisted in the Statewide introduction of the Helpline, severely understaffed.
The immediate result was that people could not contact the Helpline, with reports of 5 hour waiting times to get through.
Meetings between management and the Association saw an immediate increase in the number of Caseworkers at the Helpline in order to overcome the difficulties.
At this stage staff at the Community Service Centres did not realise that there was any increase in demand due to the backlog of work sitting in the Helpline.
By the end of January and the beginning of February 2001 the staff at the Community Service Centres began to feel the effects of increased workload pressures.
This was initially considered to be a clearing of the backlog of work sitting in the Helpline which was being processed on overtime by staff from neighbouring Community Service Centres.
However, by April 2001, it was becoming apparent that the workload demands in Community Service Centres were continuing to increase with no signs of abatement.
It was at this stage that preliminary advice provided to the Association indicated that the number of reports for 2001 would exceed 130,000. Whilst an additional 60 Caseworkers were provided, it clearly was not enough to cope with demand.
By August 2001, senior management of the Department of Community Services insisted that there were no staffing problems despite the fact that the number of reports being received by the Helpline was growing.
Management's blame shifting started with suggesting that the Helpline figures were wrong, then it was a case of suggesting that all these calls are for information only. These excuses were clearly rejected by members in the field.
The situation was becoming worse with management not only refusing to accept responsibility for the deteriorating situation but now they had a new found determination to blame others when things went wrong.
INDUSTRIAL ACTION
During this time a tragic situation arose in which a young child died whilst in foster care.
The circumstance surrounding the placement of this child was no different to the placement of thousands of other children in that the child was placed with a partially trained carer without fully completed reference checks as no other carers were available. This has been a situation prevalent within the Department for some time as Out of Home Care/Substitute Care is severely under-resourced with members constantly indicating that placements of children could not be made.
Senior management refused to accept any responsibility for resourcing issues in this case and despite the fact that reference checks and training had been completed prior to the child's death, management proceeded to departmentally charge the Casework Manager and remove him from his job.
At a meeting of members from Metropolitan South East Area the circumstance of this situation was explained to the membership.
Clearly the members could see the writing on the wall in that there were not enough staff to deal with the increasing workload and if something was to go wrong with one of their cases they would also be targeted by management.
As a result, the members resolved to take 24 hour strike action unless the Casework Manager was returned to his substantive position.
On this occasion the industrial action did not proceed as management acted swiftly to seek orders from the Industrial Relations Commission.
Should management have acted with such haste in resolving the staffing inadequacies that exist, the Department would not be in the present crisis it presently finds itself.
Following the dispute by members in the Metropolitan South East Area, members in other Areas throughout the State were requesting updates on the dispute as well as an opportunity to express their views on the staffing crisis. As a result, a teleconference was organised for the Metropolitan West Area on 16 April 2002.
Prior to this teleconference, there was a segment relating to the Department of Community Services on the "60 Minutes" television program.
During this program, the Director General of the Department denied there was a crisis within the Department and also made comments to the effect that it was the responsibility of the relatives of abused and neglected children to remove the child from their parents. (A legal nightmare).
These comments only served to infuriate our members within the Department who obviously know better.
From this it became inevitable that our members from Metropolitan West would resolve at the teleconference to take immediate 24 hour strike action in order to demonstrate to the public that there is a crisis in the Department.
Following this industrial action we saw the establishment of the Kibble Working Party (Terms of Reference, Appendix A) and the present Parliamentary Inquiry into Child Protection.
At the same time, our members in other areas from around the State were still requesting meetings in order to be updated with the current situation and given the opportunity to express their views.
The Association sought the resolution of a number of issues including an immediate interim increase in the number of Caseworkers as a sign of goodwill in order for us to participate in the working party. This was declined.
On 14 May 2002 a teleconference was conducted with our members from the Northern Area of the Department of Community Services to report the current situation. It was probably no surprise, given the frustration of our members who were increasingly becoming sick and tired of being sick and tired, that they resolved to take immediate 24 hour strike action.
The dedication of our members dealing with Child Protection cannot be questioned as countless additional hours are performed by Caseworkers on a regular basis.
As an example, the figures in Appendix ~B show that for the period 13.7.2001 to 30.11.2001 the staff at the Eastern Sydney Client Service Centre performed in excess of 2015 hours of unpaid work.
These issues were reported to Justice Schmidt of the Industrial Relations Commission following a dispute notification being made by the Department of Community Services.
Justice Schmidt recommended that the Association should participate with the working party to put our case and that as a matter of priority, the question of an immediate interim increase of Caseworkers should be discussed.
The Association complied with this recommendation with the end result being that the working party recommended to the Minister that evidence exists to support an immediate interim increase in the number of Caseworkers.
In fact the Government put out a press release acknowledging this fact.
Unfortunately, the Director General of the Department of Community Services has since tabled her "wish list" of demands that she wants the Association to agree to prior to the recruitment of any additional Caseworkers.
This list includes a pay decrease for Caseworkers which the Association cannot possibly agree to. Effectively the gun is now being pointed to the head of our members in order for the Director General to save face.
Our members should not have to pay for the mismanagement of the Department. The "Mexican stand-off" continues.
CURRENT SITUATION
The last reliable figures produced on the number of reports of child abuse and child neglect without the influence of the Child Protection Act was in the 1999-2000 Department of Community Services Annual Report.
This report showed that from 1 July 1999 to 30 June 2000 there were some 72,000 reports of child abuse or child neglect.
For a full year of operation under the new legislation 1 January 2001 to 31 December 2001, the number of reports has nearly doubled to in excess of 140,000 for that year.
These figures have been verified by consultants, Price Waterhouse Coopers, who are working with the Kibble Working Party.
The consultants have also verified that the increase to 140,000 is of actual reports of child abuse and child neglect and does not include "information only" matters which the Department tried to suggest in earlier meetings.
It has also verified that the increase in reports is consistent across all levels of reports. Level one, two, three and four reports have all risen comparably.
There is no question the workload has increased dramatically.
The Department of Community Services has indicated that one in every two reports are dealt with, however making a telephone call is significantly different to investigation.
Figures obtained by the Association from Metropolitan West Area for the period September - October 2001 (Appendix ~C) demonstrate the difficulties being experienced.
For the period 10 September to 5 October 2001, the Metropolitan West Area received 1,735 reports of child abuse and child neglect. Of these reports only 158 were investigated. This is less than 10% of the reports received.
For the same period, 252 of the reports were assessed as level one which is more than the number of investigations. Simply put, the Department considers that if a phone call was made it is deemed to have been actioned, however no action has taken place.
The figures for 8 October to 2 November 2001, show a similar situation in that 1721 reports of child abuse and child neglect were received with only 163 investigations.
Again 212 of these reports were assessed as level one.
For the record, a level one report is one which has been assessed as the child being at immediate risk of harm and should be responded to within 24 hours.
These figures are consistent with the information being conveyed by our members.
The dramatic increase in workload demand translates directly to the increasing numbers of urgent reports being left on ~unallocated lists. There are simply not enough staff to allocate the cases.
As one Casework Manager recently stated "We are now spending more time managing the work we do not do instead of the work we should be doing".
In order to deliver the same level of service that was being delivered prior to the new legislation you would need an approximate doubling of the number of Caseworkers.
Prior to the commencement of the new legislation there were more than 900 Caseworkers and given the workload has virtually doubled you would need an extra 900 Caseworkers.
The Association accepts that there has been an additional 130 Caseworkers allocated to the Helpline and an extra 60 in the field.
This would tend to suggest in round figures that an additional 700 Caseworkers are warranted.
However, the one significant issue that has not been addressed is the increase in the time taken to deal with each case of child abuse or neglect.
The new legislation is now more onerous on Caseworkers with the Director General of the Department suggesting through the Kibble Working Party that it now takes 25% longer to deal with each matter.
If this is the case then the final additional number of Caseworkers needed to deliver the same level of service that existed prior to the new legislation would be 850 to 900.
At present the Director General of the Department has effectively blamed everyone else for the current crisis within the Department.
So far the Association has been blamed for exaggerating figures, our members are blamed when cases go wrong, the media has been blamed for a beat up, relatives of abused and neglected children have been blamed for not removing kids, Childrens' Court Magistrates have been blamed for not doing their job and management has tried to shift blame from themselves by stating that it is not their fault because the computer system is not up to date.
Now senior management are again trying to blame the Association and the membership for not accepting a pay decrease for Caseworkers. It is about time the Director General accepted responsibility for the crisis in which the Department is now placed.
To further illustrate senior management incompetence, the Association requested the Department of Community Services to immediately increase court security following the assaults of members at Campbelltown and St James Courts. (See Appendix D).
Management of the Department of Community Services has as usual blamed the Attorney-Generals Department and refused to accept any responsibility for its own workers.
Furthermore, the Government announced 12 months ago that Disability Services would be separated from the Department of Community Services and included in the Department of Ageing, Disabilities and HomeCare Services.
Whilst everyone agrees with the separation, senior management of the Department of Community Services after one year still have not worked out how to do it. Nothing has changed.
It is this type of incompetence and blame shifting that has led our delegates to unanimously resolve at successive meetings that they no longer have confidence in the Director General of the Department of Community Services.
In fact the Association would suggest that the working relationship between the Director General and our members in Community Services has diminished to the extent that it is now beyond repair.
HELPLINE
The issue of the Helpline has been touched upon from time to time through this submission but needs some further discussion to outline the problems being experienced. The Helpline started operation on 18 December 2000 to coincide with the commencement of the new legislation and was supposed to be a centralised intake and initial assessment system.
The Helpline was initially staffed with 55 Caseworkers. This was despite the Association's assertions that this was not enough as it was estimated some 150 to 200 Caseworkers were currently performing this function throughout the State.
Within days the system collapsed through the sheer weight of calls being unanswered.
Management finally agreed to increase the number of Caseworkers and at present there are 130 designated positions.
The figure of 130 is, in the opinion of the Association, still well short of what is required to run the Helpline successfully.
It should also be noted that Management have never gone close to filling all 130 positions; further there are some 25 to 30 Caseworkers showing signs of repetitive strain injuries.
In order to further reduce waiting times, given that there is insufficient staff at the Helpline, Management told all mandatory notifiers (eg Police, Education, Health) that should they experience problems contacting the Helpline, they should contact the local Community Service Centre direct.
We now know that 1 0% of all reports of child abuse and neglect go straight to the Community Service Centre for intake and initial assessment.
This created tension with field staff who started to question the value of the Helpline if they were required to perform intake themselves.
The problem was compounded when long waiting times continued and led management to create a facsimile line for mandatory notifiers.
This meant mandatory notifiers could write 2 or 3 lines on a piece of paper and send it by fax to the Helpline in order to fulfil their obligations under the new legislation.
Unfortunately, by the time Caseworkers got to the fax message the notifier had left work and the Caseworker had no alternative but to past the 2 or 3 lines to the Community Service Centre as it stood.
This created further tension as the Caseworkers in the field considered the work of Caseworkers at the Helpline to be inadequate and substandard, not knowing what the true problem was.
Furthermore, managers and middle managers at the Helpline had been recruited from private sector call centres where quantity counted more than quality with unrealistic expectations of the number of reports taken.
Senior management of the Department of Community Services have again adopted quick fixes without addressing the real issue of understaffing.
Clearly, in order to deliver a proper and adequate Helpline service that will perform a totally centralised intake and initial assessment function there needs to be a compatible telephone network and switchboard for the entire State so that any reports made direct to a Community Service Centre can be transferred direct to the Helpline.
Further the facsimile line must be switched off so that mandatory notifiers can speak directly to Caseworkers in order for all relevant information to be obtained.
Naturally, to achieve this and not create massive waiting times, there needs to be a substantial increase in the number of Caseworkers.
SUMMARY
There is obviously a need for informed political and academic debate to determine the level of child protection in this State.
Obviously, if the government deems it necessary to provide a service that only addresses fractured skulls and ruptured spleens then the number of staff required would not be so great.
It is the view of the Association that this would be totally unacceptable and an abandonment of children in need. It would also send the wrong message to the community about standards of acceptable behaviour towards children.
This theme should be central to the debate concerning mandatory reporting.
Whilst mandatory reporting has been a major cause for the drastic increase in the number of reports of child abuse and child neglect, it has served as a useful tool in identifying the true extent of child abuse and child neglect in our community.
It would be useless to ignore mandatory reporting by again burying our heads in the sand and pretending the problem does not exist. The only true response from any decent Government would be to tackle the problem head on and provide the resources necessary to deliver the appropriate service.
There has been suggestion that the Department is too large to deal with child protection matters.
The Association one year ago may have agreed but the Government announced that Disability Services which represents over 60% of the Department of Community Services would be moved to another Department.
The only impediment to this Government directive has been the incompetence of senior management to put this initiative into action.
This separation of Disability Services would leave the Department of Community Services free to work exclusively with child and family matters.
There is no doubt, the number of reports of child abuse and neglect have virtually doubled.
Senior management have refused to accept responsibility for the crisis that has enveloped the Department, choosing instead to blame others.
The public denial of a crisis within the Department would tend to suggest that senior management have made the same statements to the Government leaving the Government in the dark as to the real problems that exist.
Our members have taken the extraordinary steps of strike action in order to bring the crisis to Community attention.
Our members have no confidence in the Director General of Department of Community Services.
Despite clear evidence that more Caseworkers should be immediately employed, a gun is now being held at our members head to agree to pay cuts in return for more Caseworkers.
The situation on the ground is deteriorating by the day and urgent attention is required.
The Association has attached submissions from our delegates and members which clearly attest to the disastrous situation.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. That immediate funding be made available to employ a further 850 to 900 Caseworkers to be deployed in areas that include Child Protection, Out of Home Care and the Helpline.
2. Supplementary funding be provided to cater for a proportionate increase in the number of Casework Managers, administrative support staff and necessary tools of trade such as computers, cars etc.
3. Immediate funding be made available to replace the present outdated Client Information System.
4. Immediate steps be taken to finalise the separation of Disability Services from the Department of Community Services.
5. Immediate steps be taken to introduce a compatible Statewide Telephone Network that would enable calls to be transferred directly to the Helpline.
6. The facsimile line at the Helpline be disconnected.
|
