Thursday, 1 August 2013

The Claytons "Safety Review" saga continues

I've already written about the Glenn Inquiry "safety review", which recommended better PR, posher data systems, and fewer troublesome experts involved in advising people with little background in domestic violence how to ensure the safety of survivors was paramount.

Radio New Zealand were all over this story this morning.   Turns out there are more problems with the "safety review" - the authors didn't actually speak to any of the people who were conducting the interviews with survivors, so the descriptions of what was occurring are just plain false according to several former interviewers who spoke with Radio New Zealand.   The "safety review" authors were not available to comment apparently. 

Have a listen for yourself.  This is all shady if not outright shonky.  Signing off safety - with a side order of character assassination of those people raising the concerns in the first place - when you haven't even spoken to the people doing the actual interviews with survivors? 

If this was public money being spent, I hope this would be leading to resignations.  If this was public money being spent, the bullying nature of what appear to be false claims about a number of people's professional practice in the "safety review" would hopefully be dealt by the ending of contracts.  If this was public money being spent, the fact that Ruth Herbert and Jessica Trask were essentially whistle-blowers would hopefully lead to them being protected, not to attempts to professionally demolish them.

I guess it's one of the benefits of the private sector dealing with domestic violence - safety is literally for sale, and there are few ways to hold such shonky practise to account.  Good on Radio New Zealand for trying, and good on the 28 Think Tank members who have voted with their feet.

Just how much does a "safety review" go for on the free market these days?

1 comment:

Rebecca said...

Interesting question. I'm assuming they picked people to do the 'independent' review whose organisations would not stand to benefit from the $78 mill. pledged to 'sort out' DV. The saddest thing about this for me is that it looks as if the original inquiry was set up by Ruth Herbert using some pretty cool methods for research - methods that addressed the dynamics of power in an inquiry, methods that were deeply respectful of participants, methods that required a beautiful level of commitment from the researchers. When I read about this in Rachel SImon Kumars article, I was struck by the elegance and vision of what Ruth set up as the research methodology and, in contrast, the lack of imagination exhibited in the review. Such a pity.