Planning Forum on Service-specific Issues

2. The subject of role of SWD and NGOs in the provision of family services has been the concern of the NGOs in the past few years. In the other welfare services, the Department mainly acts as the funder and the NGOs as the service providers. In family services, the Department takes up both roles of funder and service provider and is in fact the major service provider. The following table on the service provision in 2000-2001 illustrates this:

Service	SWD	NGOs
Family Casework Child Custody Family and Child Protection	578 workers (76%) 33 workers (100%) 55 workers (100%)	183 workers (24%) 0 worker (0%) 0 worker (0%)
FLE	6 workers ( 8%)	73 workers (92%)
SSWP	5 workers (83%)	1 worker (17%)
Family Aide	41 workers (79%)	11 workers(21%)
FARC	19 centres (86%)	3 centres (14%)
Family Care Demonstration & Resource Centre	1 centre (100%)	0 centre (0%)

　

　

3. In the latest exercise of allocating family caseworker units, it is noted that the caseload in the respective sectors was no longer the major factor (which used to be so in the past years) adopted in considering the allocation of new units. If according to the caseload, more caseworker units should be allocated to the NGO sector. The expansion of the Department’s Child Protective Services Units (CPSUs) into Family and Child Protective Services Units (FCPSUs) in April this year is another impetus for agencies to examine this subject.
4. With the coming of the Review of Family Services, we understand that needs/problems that family service should be focused to meet would be looked into. We would assume that the roles of SWD and NGOs in the provision of family service would also be covered. While we would leave the details to the consultants, we would like to share and discuss with the Department our initial view on this.

Agencies’ Views

5. Agencies feel that the following factors are important in considering the subject:

2. With regard to the 1^st factor on choice

1. the provision now generally gives choice to the public, except for statutory cases. However, whether it is a must for statutory duties to be undertaken by government and could the statutory duties be shared with the NGOs should be further discussed.
2. we note that there are less NGO family service centres (FSCs). To offer choice to the clients, there is also a need for providing an easily accessible network of NGO FSCs to the public. The planning of FSCs should take this into consideration.

2. With regard to the 2^nd factor on cost

1. the cost of running a service is relatively cheaper in the NGO sector than the SWD e.g. there is much less expense in the fringe benefits to the staff. The administration would be fully aware of this fact, agencies would like to be enlightened on the thinking behind in expanding the government run family service all these years and in the years to come.

2. While the Review of Family Services would take about a year to complete and there might need more time before the recommendations could be implemented, agencies would like to take this opportunity to discuss the role of SWD and NGOs in the provision of services for the battered spouse cases.
3. The number of battered spouse cases has increased in the past few years. This is one of the reasons for the SWD to place the service under the specialized unit – the FCPSUs. The staff of the then CPSUs are used to be SWOs and the Department has also increased 7 SWOs recently to the FCPSUs. It is also learnt that some caseworkers in the Department family service centres were transferred to these Units for handling the cases.
4. On the other hand, the provision in the NGO sector for handling these cases remains the same as before. If the service offered to the clients is the same in both the SWD and the NGO sector, there is no ground for the difference in the staffing provision. How would we explain this to the clients and how should they choose?
5. Apart from the counselling service, there is shelter for the battered spouse. In April this year, the two NGO homes (the Serene Court of the Christian Family Service Centre and the Harmony House) were asked to operate 24 hours admission service. Their hot line service was also manned 24 hours since then. The average utilization rate was 89% from April 1999 to March 2000. (To serve as an emergency shelter, there should always be one to two family quota available, i.e. the optimum occupancy rate should be 80%). The staff strength was stretched to the utmost limit. While agencies appreciate government’s recognition on the need to improve the service to this target group, the improvement should cover services in both the government and NGO sector. Agencies would like to know how would the government facilitate agencies to offer the crisis intervention service including the shelter service to the clients.

Concluding View

6. While the subject of role of SWD and NGOs in the provision of family services would be covered in the Review of Family Services, the discussion on the subject in the Planning Forum would facilitate agencies’ and SWD’s preparation for more in-depth examination in the Review.