Costs seen in shift to welfare society

Press, 12 June 1984, Page 5

Costs seen in shift to welfare society

A move to communitybased social services could not be “done on the cheap,” the Rev. John Roberts, superintendent of the Central Methodist Mission, told a public meeting in Christchurch yesterday. He said he was concerned that the devolution of social services could be seen as a cost-cutting measure by the Government — a way of pulling back the Welfare State. Mr Roberts was one of six panel members invited to discuss the recent planning council publication, “Meeting Needs in the Community.” The meeting was organised by the District Council of Social Services. The report’s co-author, Dr Judith Davey, said it was a discussion paper on social services which examined replacing the Welfare State with a welfare society. Mr Roberts said the document was a timely reminder to church social service agencies which had developed a strong tendency

to institutionalised care. However, he believed it failed to recognise Maori concerns. Mr Jackie Renouf, a regional adviser on community development of social welfare, also believed the publication was timely as the relationship between social service sectors was not defined. This resulted in haphazard, gross and geographic inequalities. “We need new ways to meet existing needs and new needs resulting from demographic changes,” she said. She said there was a need to ensure resources went to the “informal” sector of community-based care, with more access to “caring leave” and caring benefit and more funding for “selfhelp” groups. Mr Rex Lester, who heads the City Council’s community services and health committee, said the report did not acknowledge the social services already available. “We need to look at the organisations doing well and

learn from them,” he said. Mr Murray Cree, a visiting university fellow on social work, believed there was a danger in reports which “laid the cards on the table.” He said the “informal” sector of communitybased social services was strong, but its strength came from its informality. Once it was defined, it was in risk of becoming formal.