Wharekauri, Rēkohu, Chatham Islands health and social needs

This report is an independent review of the health and social needs of Chatham Islanders. Executive summary Background: Whānau Ora is about the transformation of whānau/family – with whānau/family setting their direction. Whānau Ora is driven by a focus on outcomes: that whānau/family will be self-managing; living healthy lifestyles; participating fully in society; confidently participating in te ao Māori (the Māori world); economically secure and successfully involved in wealth creation; and cohesive, resilient and nurturing. Ha O Te Ora O Wharekauri Trust – Māori Community Services (‘Māori Community Services’) is one of 34 Whānau Ora provider collectives across New Zealand. Within these Whānau Ora provider collectives, there are approximately 180 service providers. The number of providers within each provider collective varies from 1 to 20. Ha O Te Ora O Wharekauri Trust is one of the few Whānau Ora provider collectives with only one provider: their service arm Māori Community Services. Te Whānau Whāriki: Whānau Ora Business Plan was developed by Māori Community Services (2011) to ensure business continuity, enhance management and governance, and put in place adequate infrastructure and appropriately trained staff to support Whānau Ora-based delivery programmes. The business plan seeks innovative opportunities to do things differently to support whānau/families to realise their aspirations. The Ministry of Health commissioned a report on the health and social needs of Chatham Islands. Māori Community Services intends to use the report to guide their work based on the aspirations and realities of whānau/families living on Chatham Islands. Māori Community Services were also keen to explore the feasibility of holding a Health and Wellbeing Day on Chatham Island, potentially using a model similar to PHARMAC’s One Heart Many Lives Program. It is intended that this report will inform other health and social organisations based on Chatham Islands and on the ‘mainland’, so they can work together to support whānau/families on Chatham Islands to realise their aspirations in both the short and long term

Why social policy needs subjective indicators

There are many qualms about subjective indicators, and some people believe that social policy should better not use them. This paper consists of a review of these objections. It is argued that policy makers need subjective indicators for the following reasons: 1. Social policy is never limited to merely material matters; it is also aimed at matters of mentality. These substantially subjective goals require subjective indicators. 2. Progress in material goals can not always be measured objectively. Subjective measurement often is better. 3. Inclusive measurement is problematic with objective substance. Current sum scores make little sense. Using subjective satisfaction better indicates comprehensive quality of life. 4. Objective indicators do little to inform policy makers about public preferences. Since the political process also does not reflect public preferences too well, policy makers need additional information from opinion polls. 5. Policy makers have to distinguish between ‘wants’ and ‘needs’. Needs are not observable as such, but their gratification materialises in the length and happiness of peoples’ lives. This final output criterion requires assessment of subjective appreciation of life as a whole. --

Using Criminal Punishment to Serve Both Victim and Social Needs

In recent decades, the criminal-justice pendulum has swung to the opposite extreme. Criminal law is often described as covering disputes between the offender and the state. Victims are not direct parties to criminal proceedings, they have no formal right to either initiate or terminate a criminal action, and they have no control over the punishment meted out to offenders. In this state-centric system, victim needs have been left unsatisfied, giving rise to a politically powerful victims\u27 rights movement that has had success in giving victims rights of access to prosecutors and rights to be heard in the courtroom. Here, O\u27Hara and Robbins propose changing the manner in which control rights over criminal sanctions are distributed

More Social Needs Endorsed by Caregivers of Young Children Experiencing Everyday Discrimination

Background: Both discrimination and social needs are underlying risk factors for poor health outcomes; however, there are no studies looking at how feelings of discrimination impact reporting of social needs in the pediatric health care setting. Objective: To compare caregiver report of social needs and desire for help addressing social needs in the pediatric primary care setting based on respondents’ experiences with discrimination. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study of caregivers of children aged 2-5 in an urban primary care setting. Caregivers completed a tool to screen for 15 social needs and desire for help to address these needs, with in-person assistance available. The tool was adapted based on qualitative data with this same population and included items from the PHQ-2, 2-item food insecurity screener, and WE CARE survey. The short version of the “Everyday Discrimination Scale” was also completed, and caregivers were categorized as experiencing everyday discrimination if they responded “rarely”, “sometimes”, or “often” on any of 5 types of discrimination. If caregivers experienced everyday discrimination, they were also asked about perceived basis for discrimination. T-tests were conducted to compare the number of reported social needs and number of needs for which a caregiver desired help between groups based on experience of everyday discrimination and type of discrimination. Results: One hundred seventy-eight caregivers (94% mothers, mean age 32) of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds (29% white, 61% black; 10% Hispanic) completed the screening tool. Sixty-seven percent had public insurance, and 35% were from households with an annual income below $20,000. Fifty-three percent of caregivers reported everyday discrimination, especially in regards to being treated with less respect and receiving poorer service in stores and restaurants (Figure 1) and most commonly on the basis of race (48%), gender (38%), and age (31%). Both caregivers who endorsed everyday discrimination in general, and those endorsing discrimination specifically by gender and age, reported a significantly higher number of social needs and number of social needs for which they wanted help (Table 1). Conclusions: In an urban population of mostly young Black mothers, the majority endorsed feeling some degree of everyday discrimination. Despite this, caregivers who endorsed feelings of discrimination, especially because of their gender and age, reported more social needs and a greater desire for help addressing these needs. This suggests that caregivers feel comfortable reporting sensitive social needs in the context of a child’s healthcare setting even though they may experience everyday discrimination. These findings may also suggest an association between experienced discrimination and social needs, with both potentially influenced by similar sociodemographic factors

A Needs-Based Partial Theory of Human Injustice: Oppression, Dehumanization, Exploitation, and Systematic Inequality in Opportunities to Address Human Needs

The article presents an original needs-based partial theory of human injustice and shows its relationship to existing theories of human need and human liberation. The theory is based on an original typology of three social structural sources of human injustice, a partial theorization of the mechanisms of human injustice, and a needs-based theorization of the nature of human injustice, as experienced by individuals. The article makes a sociological contribution to normative social theory by clarifying the relationship of human injustice to human needs, human rights, and human liberation. The theory contends that human injustice is produced when oppression, mechanistic dehumanization, and exploitation create systematic inequality in opportunities to address human needs, leading to wrongful need deprivation and the resulting serious harm. In one longer sentence, this needs-based partial theory of the sources, mechanisms, and nature of human injustice contends that three distinct social systemic sources—oppression, mechanistic dehumanization, and exploitation—produce unique and/or overlapping social mechanisms, which create systematic inequality in opportunities to address universal human needs in culturally specific ways, thus producing the nature of the human injustice theorized here: wrongfully unmet needs and serious harm

Social Protection: Why the EU Needs to Deliver

Conventional wisdom in European studies has long held that social policy is not anarea in which the European Union can make a large difference. Solidarity, it is said, can onlydevelop in societies where clear boundaries exist between individuals. Such is not the casein the EU, where a citizen’s primary allegiance is to his own country. Redistribution being azero-sum game, the majority method of decision-making is required, which may only beviable if the legitimacy of central institutions is clearly established. The legitimacy of the EUinstitutions, however, is said to be weak. In addition, a number of different traditions ofwelfare protection co-exist within the EU, as has been stressed by Gösta Esping-Andersen(1990). Citizens are strongly attached to their national brand of protection: in severalcountries, this is even regarded as a key element of national identity. The history ofEuropean integration has done little to belie these views. Social policy has experiencedrelatively modest progress, and the difficulties inherent in the adoption of European financialperspectives, undermined by the evils of juste retour have shown that redistribution andunanimity are indeed at odds. This contribution purports to examine the problem from a uniquely differentperspective. It does not start by taking an ontological view of Europe, in which the EU’sactivities are determined by reference to what Europe is. Nor does it rest on any normativeviews. Instead, it presents evidence demonstrating that European citizens are becomingincreasingly aware of their standards of living and worried about their children’s future, andthat these sentiments nurture a political protest that is a potential source of instability for theEU unless met by an adequate political response.social policy; welfare state; democracy; public opinion

International social work field placement or volunteer tourism? Developing an asset-based justice-learning field experience

This paper examines a developing model for building an international social work placement that meets the needs of the host agency and community first. The paper addresses the challenges for social work departments to develop a strong learning environment while also keeping primary the needs of the host community and agency