with families and cater for their needs with support services and respite care. However, as yet there is a lack of published evaluation on actual
implementation of these more enlightened policy objectives. In fact reports
of cuts to funding of support groups continue (Age Concern, 1997; Martin, 1997) as do consumer requests for increased provision of support ( Mental Health Commission, 1998; National Health Committee, 1998).
A further concern with such policies is that in order to provide for situations where the extended family
do
want to be involved, or the patient/client wants them involved, there is no allowance in black and white policy guidelines for cases where the family is not wanted or does not want to be involved. For example, the Mental Health Commission (1997:64) states that "By 1 July 1998 Transitional Health Authority contracts will requireall
service providers to involve families and carers in service planning, implementation and evaluation" (National Mental Health Std 10). Other objectives are in conflict with such a blanket proposal in that they refer to "encouraging services to contribute to the best possible outcomes for consumers and their families" (ibid:70) and "enable individuals, families/whanau and communities to increase control over their mental health and well-being" (ibid:71). There is no mention of "choice" for the family or the individual, and in the latter case the mental health and well being of one family member may be in conflict with that of another, such as their principal carer. For example,The New Zealand Herald
(Stickley, 1996) reports a woman being horrified that the Children Young Persons and their Families Service was putting pressure on her to divulge information to her parents. Issues of equity arise from such blanket provisions, as there is no choice for those without family resources if no alternative services are available. Anecdotal evidence is available via the media of such instances, particularly in relation to care of those with mental health problems, with negative outcomes for the family and the community(New Zealand Herald,
1998; Johnston, 1999; MacLeod, 1999). And Warren (1994/5) found none in her sample of 42 carers of long-term mentally ill family members in Auckland had chosen to do so; they were only doing it under pressure from the hospital.In the education sector there has also been a recent policy shift from state support to self-reliance or dependence on families, as evidenced in the Education Regulation 1992 from the 1991 Budget, and more recently the Education Regulation 1997/51, pursuant to the Education Amendment Act
1989. These documents specify that unmarried students up to the age of 24 years will have applications for a student allowance made dependent on
their parents' combined incomes. In essence, this involves financial
dependency of young adults on their parents if they are students and unable to find part-time work sufficient to support them. A recent amendment to the regulation makes these students also unable to claim an emergency unemployment benefit over the summer vacation if they cannot secure paid employment, thus reinforcing their dependent status on their parents. This effectively involves a change in the length of dependency of young adult
children on their families. Such policy shifts were made without
consultation with the community.
The above examples show that recent policy shifts have involved, either explicitly or by default through removal of previous state provided or funded support schemes, a move to an increased reliance on family support. Pool (2000:4) argues that these changes "represent a major shift in the constitutional relationships between the state and other major social institutions, the family and the workplace". The next section of this chapter considers the rationale and assumptions underlying this position, and the inherent problems.
Assumptions and Debates about Policies Emphasising an Increased Role for Families
From the above examination of recent New Zealand social policies and commentaries on these, and from the general literature on extended families, two key arguments emerge in support of an increased role for families, rather than the state, in supporting individuals in need. The first is based on the ideology of familism, which in essence combines the beliefs that this is a natural role for families, particularly women, and that families can provide the best form of support. This involves assumptions of families' availability, ability and willingness to provide support. The second argument is that demographic trends will result in increased demands for
state support, and thus increased costs to the state, that is, taxpayers. In order to control this demand, it is argued, individuals should rely in the first instance on themselves or their families.
In addition to familism and control of state expenditure, in the health arena
an increasing role for family has occurred more by default than directly. According to Dalley (1996:66) community care was favoured as a policy in the health and disability arena because "it offered a less isolated and more integrated style of living to dependent people in need of care". But this humanitarian motive, with parallels to familism, was followed by a government emphasis on support for such policies being "closely allied to the view that families should take responsibility for their own members", and an aim of reducing demands on the state/taxpayers. The example of community care, particularly of the elderly, will be used to illustrate the key debates occurring with regard to the roles of the extended family and the state.
The Ideology of Familism
Intervention by the state, according to Moroney (1976), Deakin (1988), Gottlieb (1993) and Harding (1996) is made on the basis of ideological assumptions about the nature and role of both families and the state. Deakin (1988:16) quotes Conservative member of the British parliament, Patrick Jenkin, saying that: