Belly you scare me, I keep hearing that this change has to be good considering DoCS have had it wrong for so long.

The last few rapes/abuses of foster children I have seen in the news papers were all children placed with NGO’s. The media always puts “DoCS” to attract attention in its headlines and then you read more and find out how the kids were with some local NGO.

The public doesn’t seem to understand about NGO’s and that once a child is placed with one that their own caseworkers take over and often the DoCS caseworkers do not see the kids again.

I would rather see DoCS supported and improved and made solely responsible for the children they removed.

I cannot see where DoCS employees make any money from children coming in to care, the NGO’s I know pay their caseworkers more, have company cars etc. NGO carers get paid more and in some cases almost double for the same children just removed from DoCS carers.

This country will not do better with NGO’s Belly. These problems you see with whitewash I think comes from DoCS being a government department…. I imagine it reaches even higher levels within a private company and they probably have the ability to hide it better.

Reading OUG’s post I see some amazing amounts of money and I think DoCS have slightly put the brakes on as in some cases funding with NGO’s recently have had a time period of three years and have stated a specific number of children per NGO over that time. From what I have been told there were not set child numbers previously.

not sure if anyone saw sunrise show today[but there was a 'joke' about not being out of the woods[basiclly quotes of many people saying..'were not out of the woods'

naturally as a believer in synconicity i thought of the woods report[a complicated series of recomendations..[with set time lines coded into it]

<<..R1..In relation to priority,..the term‘immediate’
means that the implementation of the recommendation should be substantially commenced within six months,..‘short term’means that implementation of the recommendation should be substantially commenced within 12 to 18 months and‘long term'means that the implementation of the recommendation should be substantially commenced within two to three years>>

further worry<<..iii..33 per cent received some attention which fell short of a face to face visit>>
<<iv..only 13 per cent of reports resulted in a home visit from a DoCS
caseworker,as part of a secondary assessment process

<<..e...Too many reports are being made to DoCS which do not warrant the exercise of its considerable statutory powers...As a result,much effort and cost is expended in managing these reports,..as a result of which the children and young people the subject of them receive little in the way of subsequent assistance..

<<..,f...Those who are required to report when they reasonably suspect a child or young person to be at risk of harm,..known as mandatory reporters,..receive insufficient information from DoCS about its response to their reports...As a result,they keep reporting,..often to little effect and it is less likely that they
will work in partnership with DoCS to assist the child

<<..frequently reported families..for DoCS are estimated to
number between 2,500 and 7,500 families...>>surely more than an..'esitimate'..is required

interesting changes..[3 only]..in Chapter 3 DoCS Workforce Capacity

<<Recommendation 3.1..[From 1 July 2009]
From 1 July 2009 all appointed Managers Casework should be required
to possess a relevant tertiary qualification,..in addition to experience in child protection work.>>how to get experience[via ngo's?

<<Recommendation 3.2
A review should be undertaken to identify tasks that could be
appropriately delegated by caseworkers.
Recommendation 3.3
A review of financial delegations should be undertaken.>>

“anyhow it smells like political payback[to me]..as well as separating the new rules..[exempting ngo's from them..[who knows]”

So NGO’s get handed and funded for these services but cannot be investigated as employees? Would this mean if a child was hurt or neglected in care that DoCS can’t go investigate the NGO the child is placed with?

Would this even be legal? Wouldn’t it conflict with the Care and Protection Act here?

This is not a government phone company being privatised; these are our nation’s children being handed over for profit.

Oh yeah, they are “not for profit” companies I think so I guess they don’t do things like increase contributions to super schemes, performance bonuses, allowances for car/clothing/travel. But this status means besides being funded by DoCS they get grants from lotteries etc? They probably have different tax rules?

I think we need to run screaming from the Woods and take the children with us.

Anti:”As long as there is no "garbage-filter" applied by the people in DOCS, the waste will go on. Woods was about applying that filter.”

DoCS used up over two hours in my house the other day and five different members of staff so I guess the tax payers paid for 10 hours plus travel. I paid for drinks of water! Oh and an hour with two NGO staff members.

But I don’t see a filter being applied and see it is being taken away and DoCS thrown straight in.

Instead of DoCS we will have a fragmented industry with duplication of management and administration each following their own culture, agenda and process. I see a protectionist attitude where collaboration and co-operation will be non-existent. But they will probably have some lovely conferences on island resorts somewhere now and again so they can chat about how fragmented they are.

What I cannot see is where the children have any chance of being a priority. Where do the little Aussies catch a break in all of this?

I'd support disbanding DOCS and starting from scratch with new staff and structures.
I've only had two interactions with them, years ago, and both were disgusting. In the first, when I asked them about help trying to get maintenance from my wealthy ex-wife, they threatened to remove my kids if I pushed it.
In the second, my kids were staying with my mother while I took a week off, during the school term. My then 4yr old daughter ran into the edge of a table and bumped her forehead, in front of several people by the way. But when asked about her injury at school she promptly informed the teacher that Gramm'ar had kicked her! God only knows why! But Docs and the police were summoned, and my mother was visited and harassed. Even though all the witnesses came immediately and explained, she was threatened with prosecution.
Still further, even though the kids returned to me 3 days later, Docs kept visiting my mother at random and demanding to know where MY kids were! It took a series of letters from a solicitor to make them stop.
I know they do a good job sometimes, and face incredible problems, but the Femnazi's have taken over, and have their own agendas. Like most "ists", they can happily ignore anything that doesn't fit that agenda, and the children suffer.

you have to understand how govts work..[you set up a scape goat to take the flack..[the docs brand is contaminated so we have an enquiry[to clean it up..[making obvious rules..[such as experience etc]...but also slip in new depts..[or new minester..new names..[or in this case ngo's]...who go on with business..as usual

see how training allowences and perks[allowing newbies to be trained]by the ngo's who then go to docs with 'experience'...

all that complained about re docs..from 1 july..only goes to the ngo's...and complains stop building up..[a new file needs to gain weight...then the next revieuw recomending..a new govt dept..[and go back to go...a new file is opened

you could go back in time [before docs..[itself was formed]..when other reports said that previous dept didnt work...lol..[etc etc back down the line..[each..'new start'..allows the same to go on...

but the baggage that has built up..gets reshuffled into a dead file[contracts expire,.people stop what they are doing..and do the 'new' stuff,.the files get..[shedded]..as services get muddled up by the transphere of powers...

i told you this was a messy area[allways has been allways will be]...docs clearly allowed the old complaints to disappear[now the ngo's allow futher confusion..its sort of like seperation of powers..[i thought you were doing it..[but i thought you did...till the next reshuffle..shuffles the cards for the next play/distraction from buisness as usual..[all the evidences disapear in the reshuffle]

the ongoing interplay of powers..not being held to account..for an ongoing ability of some to steal kids..via confusion deliberatly [conspirationally wrought..[by those wanting to steal kids,by formalised powers

to meet the demand of those called..'child lovers'..[thats what pedophile actually means],..pedo-philes are experts at shuffling files...ever planning the next confusion...change...that allows more of the same.[but under a different name]..dept/authority or heading

[havnt you wondered why there is allways some new docs/worker..kid visiting..[the old ones are either in on the game...or moved on in the ongoing reshuffle's]

Dear Jewely,

According to many of the websites that I
scrawled on this subject - they unanimously
seem to agree that:

"The Department of Community Services has been
swamped. Children about whom it has been
notified have died. Thousands of families in
need of help, if not urgent attention, have
slipped through the net, even when cases have been
followed up by the DOCS."

"Short-comings for out-of-home care as run by DOCS have
been apparent for more than a decade."

In addition, the point made was that:

"Significant numbers in foster-care and residential
care are already outsourced, including children
and young people with the most complex needs.
Evidence given to Justice Wood by the 'Children's
Guardian,' the Government Agency set up to monitor
standards for out-of-home services showed very
clearly that on all quality standards the
non-government sector totally outperformed the
DOCS foster-care services."

And finally:

"Many non-government services have reached
full-accreditation
but not DOCS - which is currently involved in
"quality improvement," and aims to achieve full
accreditation by 2012."

As the websites pointed out, "This is not good enough
for...foster children. Fully accredited agencies
provide quality foster care and are flexible
responsive organisations."

It appears that DOCS is not one of them.