Support for Vulnerable Families – Archive Article
December 10, 2008

BROADCAST ON RADIO 2GB JULY 3 1998

An ounce of prevention is better than a ton of cure. If prevention is so good, then why is the State Government so reluctant to finance it?

Wesley Dalmar Child and Family Services is part of the Coalition to Support Vulnerable Families. The Coalition is running a campaign to encourage the State Government to invest in families at risk.

The Coalition has called on the Government to spend an extra $20 million per year to boost home visiting services and respite care. In other words, there should be more attention given to preventative programmes.

Wesley Dalmar is one of the oldest and largest child care services in the southern hemisphere and it is busier now than ever before. But it is a tragic irony that Wesley Dalmar receives some Government funding once a child is taken into care, but the Government is reluctant to spend money to keep the family together in the first place so that there is less need for taking the children into care.

Why is there this irony? Part of the explanation may come from the philosophy of economic rationalists in Treasury who take the view that money should be targeted specifically to areas of demonstrated need. Because you cannot show that prevention specifically works in an accounting sense, then the programmes ought not to be funded.

The Coalition has produced a great deal of material to show in general terms how much money could be saved because fewer children would go into care. But an economic rationalist would claim that this argument could not be demonstrated in specific cases. This is the triumph of ideology of over humanitarian considerations.

Second, the Department of Community Services, which is short of funds anyway, goes from one crisis to another. It can only recognize a problem once it has reached a crisis stage. If a family situation has not reached that stage, then it does not come within the Department’s concentration span.

However, to its credit, the Government a few weeks ago launched the Families First initiative, which will see the recruitment of volunteers to assist families in trouble, as well as an increased role for community nurses. This is a step towards the ideas of the Coalition to Support Vulnerable Families in that it is focusing on prevention. It shows that there is now a greater recognition by Government on the need for preventative strategies.

But, the Government’s scheme is tentative, if not experimental, there is too little money for it and too much reliance is placed upon volunteers. It is too little too late.

It would have been a lot better if the Government had followed the recommendations from the Coalition to Support Vulnerable Families. The Coalition has already done the research on what is happening overseas. Some of the member agencies of the Coalition have already – out of their own pocket – pioneered intensive family-based therapy and family support programmes and so they know what is required. The Government should have gone straight to funding these non-governmental initiatives.