Mike Munnelly Regional Manager child,youth Social Work Community Services and family Auckland a TD: Robert Harper Cc: Ken Rand Alan Newman SUBJECT: Whakapakiri DATE: 22 October 2004 You have requested some feedback regarding a number of options for Whakapakiri. have canvassed the views of the Auckland Region?s SDU Managers accordingly. have recorded Jessie Henderson?s comments in detail as they sum up the issues as the other Auckland Managers see them. Whilst there is not a unified view about the future of Whakapakiri (a maiority favour a reopening) there is a unified view about the issues Whakapakiri raises which in my view must addressed before any relaunch could be considered. ?i am absolutely opposed to Whakapakari reopening. have given this a lot of thought and appreciate that the dilemma we are all facing regarding placement options. My opposition to this is a philosophical one as much as anything. The 'out of sight out of mind? approach that occurs when placements are made to Whakapakari does not equal a quality social work service. We cannot fulfil our obligations to visits kids in care ever 2 months if they are placed in a remote area like W. There is no transitioning home of kids and the introduction to the programme also leave a lot to be desired they are often just plonked there - it is not realistic to have an orientation visit before making a decision for placement. A transition home in Auckland is not the solution - many of the kids are from outside Auckland (and let?s not kid ourselves regardless of the options, kids from other parts of the country would continue to be placed there). What good is a transition home in Auckland for kids from Napier or Manawatu? Under no circumstances would I agree to a family home being made available for this either. We need these resources for ourselves! The previous success of the programme has relied heavily on the charismatic nature of John 8: Willie da Silva, no staff employed can necessarily replicate the dedication and passion that the da Silva?s have. John Willie couldn't adequately manage the programme when they moved from the camp to another part of the island. it certainly cannot be managed effectively by a board based on the mainland. John and Willie cannot continue in the role they have held in the past they have clearly signalled they need to retire. 28 The very nature of the programme the remoteness, the primitive living conditions, the lack of managerial oversight and accountability creates an environment where otherwise sane people start behaving in an inappropriate manner. One of the staff on the island was a level qualified SW. He had worked for CYF some years ago and was highly regarded by his colleagues. He was one of the staff who allegedly assaulted young people on the island. As a service we have also demonstrated that we cannot be trusted to make sensible decisions about placing kids in spite of all we have learnt about these programmes, we still place kids with a 0&0 history, There were kids on the island that should never have been placed there, but they managed to get through the various screening processes both locally and nationally. All this tells me is that we cannot guarantee the level of safety that we should demand for our kids in a programme like Whakapakari. My preference is for services on the mainland. Recent events would indicate that even with these we need to be more vigilant and diligent of our monitoring procedures we need to ensure that we are visiting the kids regularly and that Approvals are monitoring for quality - not just for compliance.? Jessie raises a number of important points. As noted earlier her concerns are shared by her colleagues? particularly in relation to the inherent difficulties of it being a national resource. Some are of a view that option 4 may be worthy of further consideration. Overall there are clear views that should re-opening be considered then there is a real need for Child Youth and Family to be closely involved in the programme's redevelopment and in ongoing oversight. This has the potential to raise significant resource demands on Auckland which I think would need to be quantified in some more detail before any commitment could be made. Currently there is no available family home we could consider relinquishing. The proposed reconfiguration of YHT services could possibly result in the return of two properties to the Department. However one of these Glenmore Road would be unsuitable for the task and the other Claude Road would not be available for some considerable time. So while option four may be preferred there are questions about its feasibility. Practice experience in recent years of in relation to abuse in residential institutions suggests that there are a number of features which, if present, can create an environment in which abuse can thrive namely: - charismatic leadership - closed community - lack of outside scrutiny take ?hard to place children? - perception of expertise in relation to methodology and approach which is difficult to for others to challenge do not actively engage child?s social worker or family the power differentiate between staff and staff and children are rigidly maintained favouritism is evident in both staff and the residents group often coupled with a system of special privileges it may be useful to consider these features and ensure they are not replicated in any redesigned programme. i hope these comments are helpful. i and the SDU Managers would be more than happy to be involved in any further discussion; please come back to me if that would be useful. rim?.