It’s been fascinating (?) to read commentary on various platforms responding to the announcement of the funding for I am Hope/Mike King. The most salient point (which I agree with) is: instead of this money going to a charity, why not start with actually investing in the public mental health services the government is supposed to be providing?
Other comments decry the lack of transparency of the services provided by the charity. Apparently, only 2 assessment sessions, followed by a maximum of 2 follow-up sessions. While arguably, it’s better than nothing, there’s a counter position acknowledging that assessment with no real follow through is potentially more damaging, especially when there’s limited options for where to go next once said assessment is complete.
A plethora of comments are more negative, presenting opinions on how difficult (NB: euphemism!) King is to work with and for, while yet others regard it as ‘hush money’ (learning from the Labour government’s lack of funding for the charity).
I’ll be fascinated to see if the same level of scrutiny on outcomes will be held here as the coalition is vocally supporting in other areas.
Re: First Home Grants. Absolutely shocking. If part of the rationale is shoring up a “fiscal cliff” (I.e., the money won’t be needed until June 2025), why does it need to be shut down immediately?
The large and unaccountable grant to Gumboot Friday is not good news. It is an unsafe model which does not meet regular ethical or procurement standards. Young people needing mental health support can choose a counsellor from a list. The counsellor needs to be a member of a professional association but may not have any specialist counselling skills with young people. They can charge whatver they want which Gumboot Friday will pay for but the flaw is that it is only for two sessions. Two sessions is barely enough to built trust let alone deal with trauma even if the counsellor is a good fit. But the young person will have to pay for any further sessions. Occasionally Gumboot Friday will pay for another session but that requires GF management to see confidential information about the young person. It is an unethical system with high risks for both young people and counsellors.
I know nothing about the Mike King Gumboot Friday enterprise, so leave that to people who know to evaluate whether it is worthwhile supporting with massive govt funding. I will observe however that it is typical of N-Act policy principles to contract out what Labour-Greens see as core govt responsibilities so that a) they can blame someone else for any failings b) not bother themselves with the daily struggles of their constituents c) pretend they are "fiscally responsible" because they've reduced govt spending d) maintain a hands-off approach to problem solving (see a) above) e) get their evil jollies by pointing at individuals failing & getting into crime as being totally responsible for being unable to find work, or being mentally ill etc.
Same explanation re the axing of the First Home Grants to divert $$ to organisations outside of govt to find the "social housing" solution - mind you, if outside orgs do a better job maybe removing it from the whims of govt policy is good? (Until another govt stops the funding, & here we go again...)
Does anyone remember when ‘The Budget’ was embargoed until its official release on Budget Day? Now its details are drip fed to us over several weeks prior. Is there a reason for the change of strategy?
It's not new, but there does seem to have been quite a few this year. Generally it's to get good news stories out ahead of budget day to maintain media coverage. In the case of the first home grants, that was more likely to pre-empt negative coverage and because the announcement had already been scooped by several outlets.
It’s been fascinating (?) to read commentary on various platforms responding to the announcement of the funding for I am Hope/Mike King. The most salient point (which I agree with) is: instead of this money going to a charity, why not start with actually investing in the public mental health services the government is supposed to be providing?
Other comments decry the lack of transparency of the services provided by the charity. Apparently, only 2 assessment sessions, followed by a maximum of 2 follow-up sessions. While arguably, it’s better than nothing, there’s a counter position acknowledging that assessment with no real follow through is potentially more damaging, especially when there’s limited options for where to go next once said assessment is complete.
A plethora of comments are more negative, presenting opinions on how difficult (NB: euphemism!) King is to work with and for, while yet others regard it as ‘hush money’ (learning from the Labour government’s lack of funding for the charity).
I’ll be fascinated to see if the same level of scrutiny on outcomes will be held here as the coalition is vocally supporting in other areas.
Re: First Home Grants. Absolutely shocking. If part of the rationale is shoring up a “fiscal cliff” (I.e., the money won’t be needed until June 2025), why does it need to be shut down immediately?
Kia ora for your mahi Spinoff whānau!
The large and unaccountable grant to Gumboot Friday is not good news. It is an unsafe model which does not meet regular ethical or procurement standards. Young people needing mental health support can choose a counsellor from a list. The counsellor needs to be a member of a professional association but may not have any specialist counselling skills with young people. They can charge whatver they want which Gumboot Friday will pay for but the flaw is that it is only for two sessions. Two sessions is barely enough to built trust let alone deal with trauma even if the counsellor is a good fit. But the young person will have to pay for any further sessions. Occasionally Gumboot Friday will pay for another session but that requires GF management to see confidential information about the young person. It is an unethical system with high risks for both young people and counsellors.
I know nothing about the Mike King Gumboot Friday enterprise, so leave that to people who know to evaluate whether it is worthwhile supporting with massive govt funding. I will observe however that it is typical of N-Act policy principles to contract out what Labour-Greens see as core govt responsibilities so that a) they can blame someone else for any failings b) not bother themselves with the daily struggles of their constituents c) pretend they are "fiscally responsible" because they've reduced govt spending d) maintain a hands-off approach to problem solving (see a) above) e) get their evil jollies by pointing at individuals failing & getting into crime as being totally responsible for being unable to find work, or being mentally ill etc.
Same explanation re the axing of the First Home Grants to divert $$ to organisations outside of govt to find the "social housing" solution - mind you, if outside orgs do a better job maybe removing it from the whims of govt policy is good? (Until another govt stops the funding, & here we go again...)
Does anyone remember when ‘The Budget’ was embargoed until its official release on Budget Day? Now its details are drip fed to us over several weeks prior. Is there a reason for the change of strategy?
It's not new, but there does seem to have been quite a few this year. Generally it's to get good news stories out ahead of budget day to maintain media coverage. In the case of the first home grants, that was more likely to pre-empt negative coverage and because the announcement had already been scooped by several outlets.