Organisational Policy and Procedures

Policies shape actions and decisions made by staff. So what’s the effect of bad policy? Bad decisions, hurt people and so much more.

The big example last week was the Oranga Tamariki Pratice Review into the Hastings case.

The review and discussion after it mainly focused on the actions of staff. It’s shocking reading.

Key findings include that:

• there were legitimate concerns for the safety of the baby warranting involvement by Oranga Tamariki (OT)
• not enough consideration and weight was given to options of parental, whānau, hapū or iwi care of the baby
• engagement with the parents, whānau and NGO partners was inadequate
• the social workers didn’t properly understand or act within their statutory delegation
• the basis for applying for an interim order without notice was “weak” and a with-notice application should have been possible
• mechanisms to check the exercise of statutory duties and powers did not operate effectively.

But is there more at issue? Yes! The OT policy framework that underpinned the decisions and actions that occurred.

Policy was relevant 

The actions of staff within OT, as in any other organisation, don’t exist in a vacuum. They are shaped by organisational context and policy. In this case, the policy framework reflected in the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 (“the Act”).

The case review indicates that staff were effectively biased against the options of leaving baby with the parent(s) or whānau members.  It suggests that staff should have been more open.

But the bias was not surprising. The parent in the case had apparently had a previous child removed from her care. The case review indicates staff believed that the “subsequent children” provisions of the Act applied. These provisions basically prescribe bias.

Subsequent children provisions

The “subsequent children” provisions were passed into law as part of the last National Government’s “vulnerable children” agenda (sections 18A-D of the Act).

The provisions basically prescribe that if a parent has previously had a child permanently removed from their care due to abuse or neglect, any subsequent child who comes into their care will be regarded as “in need of care or protection” unless that parent can demonstrate they are safe to care for the child.

The parent is not barred from parenting their subsequent child. But the dice is loaded against them.  Whereas OT usually has to investigate and substantiate care and protection concerns, the onus lies on the parent to show OT they can safely parent the subsequent child.

The provisions were considered justified by the government because evidence shows increased risks to subsequent children. However, risks are already considered as part of assessment along with evidence of change and signs of safety.

A bad policy choice was made and the subsequent children provisions passed into law. The adverse effects are that:

• they skew the Ministry’s and court’s  assessment towards risk and away from protective possibilities (as appears to have occurred in the Hastings case)
• they stigmatise a parent previously involved with the Ministry
• they come close to “once a bad parent always a bad parent”
• they potentially alienate a child from their cultural identity and turangawaewae
• they may be discriminatory – likely to impact most on whānau Māori (given the disproportionate number of Māori in care and likely disproportionate number of subsequent parents who are Māori).

Bad policy. It’s no wonder that the social workers in the case were closed against the possibility of the parents caring for their baby.

Policy implementation

Another policy problem identified in the case review was that legislation and Ministry policy wasn’t properly complied with.

For example, staff misapplied the subsequent parent provisions (1).  They failed to engage with the parents, whānau and involved NGOs and to implement the Ministry’s cultural framework and standards for working with tamariki Māori (eg Whakamana te tamaiti – empowering the Māori child).

These failures raise questions about how the policies were implemented – the extent of resourcing and support for staff in the regions to implement the policies and standards.

Policy implementation is often a weak point for agencies- statutory and non-government. It requires resources, commitment and perseverance from an agency to embed policy in a systemic way. One-off training and induction just doesn’t cut it.

Recommendations

The case review makes some important recommendations for change. But it could have made more.  Good news- we can expect a lot more effort and commitment from Oranga Tamariki to:

• engage with whānau and NGOs
• embed the cultural practice standard – Whakamana te temaiti
• support and resource implementation of policy and legislation across sites in the regions.

Outstanding

But the review raised some important issues. They weren’t addressed and are outstanding. These are about the need for:

• repeal of the subsequent children provisions, replacing it with policy that works to support parents to safely care for a subsequent child
• mechanisms for early engagement of and accountability to iwi/Māori for decisions about their mokopuna.  The case review recommended more oversight and checking of decisions before an application for an interim custody order without notice can proceed. However, the checks continue to be internal (the only exception is the community resource panels). What about external involvement of the iwi to which a child links through whakapapa?

(1.) All the conditions of section 18B were not met (ie court determination wasn’t made) and s18A treated as relevant to whānau members.

Contact us for an obligation-free policy consultation if you want to discuss a policy issue.

If you don’t want the worry of policies and procedures any more, take a look at the services we offer and consider joining our online policy service.

We walk a fine line as managers.

On the one hand we need to trust our staff and give them scope to use their professional skills and respond to diverse situations and clients. On the other hand, we need to ensure quality service provision and that staff act within the law, regulations and kaupapa of the organisation.

If we don’t get the balance right, the consequences can be dire. If staff are left to decide every situation there will be inconsistencies galore and a high likelihood that something important is missed.  Conversely, too many rules can quash worker spirit and prevent client-responsive practice.

Organisational policies and practices are key to getting the balance right. But as many of our clients ask us, how do you know what areas should be covered by policies?

Compliance

In some areas, it’s not hard to know if you need a policy. Legislation, regulations and standards require it. For example:

• the Children’s Act 2014 requires agencies to have a child protection policy.
• the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989 requires the development of policies by the Chief Executive
• both the Social Sector Accreditation Standards and Health and Disability Standards require policies and procedures to meet certain standards.

Clients frequently tell us that their main challenge is keeping up with all the legislative and regulatory changes they have to comply with. Compliance isn’t just a one-off policy. It means being on top of what policies are required and what policies should cover.

This is a biggie for our online clients. They tell us they have peace of mind now knowing that they no longer have to worry about staying on top of all the regulatory changes. They trust that we will keep them updated and they enjoy being able to input to policy reviews.

More tricky areas 

It’s often tricky making decisions in situations where there are competing interests. Policies and procedures are especially important here.

A case in point – too little 

The case is still being investigated so we don’t know all the facts. But the tragic case of the Canterbury University student found in his hostel room several weeks after his death may be an example of not having enough policy and procedure in place.

There were competing interests. The hostel held itself out as offering pastoral care. But as media comment afterwards indicated, the hostel also needed to respect its students’ rights to privacy and independence.

Without adequate policy guidance and procedure in this type of situation, staff are left to work out how to balance competing interests by themselves. They may veer too much on the side of privacy and independence.  They may think it is unduly intrusive to regularly check on students. They are unlikely to feel empowered to act when and if they have concerns about a student’s wellbeing.

The balance can be so hard. It shouldn’t rely on ad-hoc decision-making by staff. It should reflect a systematic and thoughtful process of policy making where competing interests are properly considered and weighed.

Not getting the right balance can be devastating. Our hearts go out to the student’s whānau for their loss.

Regulating for the balance between interests

The Government is now in the process of regulating for this balance of competing interests for domestic students living in hostels.  The Education (Pastoral Care) Amendment Bill is currently before Parliament. If passed, it will require student hostels to adhere to a code of practice for the pastoral care of domestic tertiary students.  Hostels will now be required to have policies and processes in place to support student wellbeing.

Adherence to the Education (Pastoral Care of International Students) Code of Practice 2016 is already mandatory for international students.

Too much policy

The worst thing about tricky situations is that often you don’t know it’s tricky until after something bad happens. When that happens, we often see over-regulation – organisations using their policies and procedures to deal with everything including the trivial stuff.

Or, as in this case perhaps, the Government legislating for something that could have been achieved through good policy and practice. There was a voluntary code of practice that the hostel could have applied but was outdated. But regardless of any regulation, if a hostel says it provides pastoral care, at the very least you’d expect the hostel to have policy and procedure around what pastoral care practically involves eg staff sighting a student, supporting a student to access help with issues.

Getting it right – check things out

So too much policy, too little – it is hard to work out. BUT you can’t ignore the fact that you need policies for compliance and for other tricky situations. The stakes are often too high.

Don’t worry if it feels hard – you’re not alone.

It’s why many clients come to us. We have years of experience in accreditation, regulation, policy work and management that we draw on to get the balance right in policies and procedures.

We’re here to help. We can help you build a strong policy foundation so that you can feel assured not only about meeting compliance but also that you’ve covered the tricky stuff. Do we really need a policy sets out some of our key considerations when deciding if a policy is necessary.

We don’t want our clients to be looking back and thinking “what if…” or “I wish we’d done that….”.  We aim for our clients to be looking forward, feeling strong and able to focus on the best quality services for our people and communities.

Dedication

This post is dedicated to Mason Pendrous and his family.

In the words of the late Dame Whina Cooper:

“Take care of our children. Take care of what they hear, take care of what they see, take care of what they feel. For how the children grow, so will the shape of Aotearoa.”