Association of Teen
Parent Educators of
Survey of WINZ-related
issues
October 2004
SUMMARY OF RESULTS
Background
At the annual ATPENZ
conference held in August 2004, a number of members indicated concerns relating
to their relationship with WINZ and apparent inconsistencies and gaps in the
provision of services.
A decision was made to
survey all members on the issues raised. This is a summary of the findings of
this survey.
Survey numbers
A total of 11 members
responded to the survey. All ran Teen Parent Units but had varying arrangements
for childcare for the students concerned. Most had dedicated and usually
attached early childhood education centres, but some used established community
childcare facilities and one was operating a playgroup at present. One
respondent had no childcare arrangements yet established.
The respondents reported
that they accessed 34 different WINZ offices in all. One respondent accessed
services from 11 different offices and 4 respondents related to one office
only. On average, each respondent accessed WINZ services from 3 different
offices.
WINZ service delivery
There was a general
agreement of inconsistent service delivery between WINZ staff within the same
office, between WINZ offices in the same district and between districts. Respondents who accessed services from one
office only had the best chance of a more consistent service.
The nature of the
inconsistencies varied. Respondents speculated that these could be as a result
of no clear policy or practice guidelines, use of “discretion” which varied
greatly, a lack of understanding of the role and nature of Teen Parent Units
and perceived “approval” or not of this kind of educational support.
Examples of inconsistencies
included the way applications were processed (eg how “late” forms were
handled), decisions on “backpay” for childcare, which students qualify for TIA,
which items qualify for TIA and how TIA is paid out.
Although it is appreciated
that general entitlements will vary from student to student, most will have a
similar arrangement when it comes to TIA and childcare.
The appointment of Childcare
Coordinators is generally viewed as a positive development with improvements
noted in relationships with the offices where such appointments have been made.
Not all respondents have yet been approached by Childcare Coordinators in their
regions.
RECOMMENDATION: Policy and/or practice
guidelines be developed by WINZ to ensure that all staff understand the nature
of Teen Parent Units and that delivery consistency can be reached across all
WINZ staff in all districts. If possible, one case manager per office/region
should supervise benefits for students attending TPUs.
Dealing with Childcare Absences
In terms of the relevant
WINZ policies, WINZ will continue to pay childcare providers if a child is
absent from the centre. This payment is restricted to 210 hours each year after
which time students themselves are liable for their children’s absences.
The above policy is
reasonable in general terms and there needs to be care taken to prevent any
“abuse” of the system. It is certainly unreasonable to expect WINZ to pay for a
childcare space for the child of a TPU student if that student does not use
that service for extended periods.
However, application of this
policy does lead to difficulties in the ongoing provision of an educational
programme to students attending TPUs and an attempt should be made to address
this issue.
Some TPUs use community
daycare facilities which do not close during school holidays. Students are
encouraged to spend time with their children during this time and, as a result,
the 210 hours of available cover is used over holiday periods meaning none is
available for absences during school time.
Teen Parent Units have been
established as “second chance” educational units to provide continuation of
schooling or a return to schooling of young parents. Many (but not all!) of
these young people have had significant schooling disruption in their pasts and
often face significant social and family upheavals in the present. Added to
this is the demand of parenting at a very young age.
As a result, disruption to
schooling, even in TPUs, is common. Teachers strongly encourage regular
attendance but the lives of these young people often dictate that disruption
will occur. Teachers are aware that they need to maximise the time that
students do attend so that maximum progress can be made.
In light of the above, when
the 210 hours has been reached, TPUs and particularly associated childcares,
are reluctant to demand payment from students unless there is no other option.
As a result, debts occur or are written off in the best interest of the
students and children concerned. This is obviously not a viable option in the
long term.
This problem can lead to a
student dropping out of school due to an inability to pay or to the centre
writing off the debt. The benefits of ongoing education and the benefits to the
child in their ongoing involvement in a childcare centre are therefore at risk.
RECOMMENDATION: MSD in consultation with MoE
consider a policy of review or appeal when the 210 hours has been reached for
students attending a Teen Parent Unit and who are therefore receiving education
within a secondary environment.
Students who do not Qualify for Childcare Subsidies
Respondents indicate that an
average of 23% of students attending their Teen Parent Units do not qualify for
the full childcare subsidy.
This occurs broadly for two
main reasons. Firstly, a student’s partner may be working and they may fall
below the threshold for the full subsidy payment. Secondly, the student may be
under 16 years old and therefore does not qualify for any subsidy.
Respondents handle this
matter in a number of ways. In some cases, students and partners cover excess
costs; in others, family members (eg grand-parents) contribute. Certain
students may only be able to attend school on limited days due to an inability
to pay. Some childcares absorb these cost; in others, shortfalls are covered by
a trust. Again, this cannot be maintained in the long term.
The situation of partial
subsidy causes direct and indirect stress which impacts both on the student’s
ongoing attendance and on their progress while attending.
The second scenario where a
student is under the age of 16 and therefore receives no direct subsidy is a
significant barrier to learning. These students may not legally leave school
but cannot access the full benefit of attending a TPU because their children
are not subsidised for childcare costs. In these cases, the students or their
families must cover childcare costs or the costs must be written off. This is
again an untenable long term position.
In some cases, another
family member (eg the parent of the student concerned) may be able to apply for
the childcare subsidy as the “principle care-giver”. However, this is generally
an unwieldy approach which does not address the main concern.
This situation must concern
both MSD and MoE given the legal status of these students. One approach would
be to consider changing WINZ regulations to permit under 16 year olds to
receive this subsidy. The other would be for MoE (possibly under special
education provisions) to provide the equivalent subsidy for childcare costs for
students who are legally required to attend school.
RECOMMENDATION: MSD in consultation with MoE
review the policy of the payment of childcare subsidies with respect to
students attending Teen Parent Units to ensure full childcare can be provided
for their childen. This should cover the circumstances of students who receive
partial subsidy as well as students under the age of 16 who receive no direct
subsidy
Recommendations
Three recommendations are
made:
- Policy and/or practice guidelines be developed
by WINZ to ensure that all staff understand the nature of Teen Parent
Units and that delivery consistency can be reached across all WINZ staff
in all districts. If possible, one case manager per office/region should
supervise benefits for students attending TPUs.
- MSD in consultation with MoE consider a policy
of review or appeal when the 210 hours has been reached for students
attending a Teen Parent Unit and who are therefore receiving education
within a secondary environment
- MSD in consultation with MoE review the policy
of the payment of childcare subsidies with respect to students attending
Teen Parent Units to ensure full childcare can be provided for their
childen. This should cover the circumstances of students who receive
partial subsidy as well as students under the age of 16 who receive no
direct subsidy
November 2004