Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .
Legislative Assembly for the ACT: 2002 Week 1 Hansard (13 December) . . Page.. 209 ..
MR STEFANIAK (continuing):
I was going to read out, and I note the time, about nine examples. I think that may be over the top. I will skip over to example number seven. The evaluator states that "several (4) of the agencies consulted for the formative evaluation were again contacted during February and March 2001 for follow up interviews". The MAACS people state:
This claim was not supported by the key informants involved in the formative evaluation (4) that we contacted. Three of these informants said that they had not been contacted by the evaluator since the early stages of the evaluation (i.e., early 2000), and one of these informants said that they had not heard of the evaluators. The fourth informant said that they had no recollection of such a contact.
The final example that I will give-and, again, there are many-is that it was also stated in the evaluation that "Apart from the support worker's attendance at a seminar on child protection in October 2000, no other staff have attended any training relevant to working with children". The MAACS people stated:
However, in fact, the range of training and development opportunities assessed by staff and the Chairman included the following:
They list a suicide prevention course, St John's Ambulance qualifications, a domestic violence seminar, a child protection seminar, applied suicide intervention skills at Calvary Hospital, Men's Network and Homeless Men's Association meetings, and a number of others. In fact, they conclude:
This is nine times as many course attendances as indicated by the evaluator.
As I said, Mr Speaker, I really cannot comment one way or the other on the veracity of that, except to say, on reading the evaluation I certainly have some difficulties with it. I think where you have very conflicting views, it is right and proper that they be properly assessed, and properly assessed by an Assembly committee.
Some of the client testimonies-and I don't think anyone really disputes these-are terribly positive. For example, one client states:
Without a shadow of a doubt, I believe that I am in a position to say that the kind of services offered by your organisation are the most appropriate for the needs of men dealing with marriage breakdowns, particularly, and most importantly, for cases where children are involved.
Other comments included:
MAACS is a wonderful concept.
The staff are fantastic; kind, helpful, courteous, pleasant, empathetic ... perfect in this situation. Their patience and tolerance is exceptional.
I will never forget MAACS and staff, an absolute blessing in my life.
Hi there. J and I arrived safely up in Brisbane and have settle into the house here ... J started at his new school yesterday and already has made some friends. We both thank you for what you have done for us.
Next page . . . . Previous page . . . . Speeches . . . . Contents . . . . Debates(HTML) . . . .