The State has had responsibility for the care of children, young people and vulnerable adults in a range of settings. These include the large residential institutions already discussed such as boys’ and girls’ homes, youth justice residences, and psychiatric and psychopaedic hospitals. They also include smaller “family homes” (homes in which many children in State care would be placed, often together with the children of the supervising parents, for periods of time), as well as foster care. Some children and babies who were in the care of the State were adopted into families.

We have heard from many Māori, Pacific, disabled and Pākehā survivors of abuse in State care. Many survivors who entered State care, particularly the residential institutions “family homes” and foster care, came from working class families or a background of poverty.

State care in New Zealand can be traced back to the 1860s, when the State first established industrial schools for children and young people. Most children and young people who were in State care in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were placed there by court order after committing relatively minor offences. A minority entered care after having found to be abandoned, neglected or otherwise abused by their families, or when their families were unable to care for them. This was for many different reasons, including poverty and the illness or death of a parent.

Between 1948 and 1972, annual appearances in children’s courts grew from about 2,000 to approximately 13,000, a more than six-fold increase. This occurred in the context of the social changes already discussed, including heightened concerns about ‘juvenile delinquency’, urban migration by Māori, and growth of the Child Welfare Division. From the late 1940s to the early 1970s, the number of children in State care rose by about two-thirds. The peak was in 1977, when 7,214 children and young people were in State care. As already noted, the majority of those children and young people were Māori.

Deregulation came in the 1980s, and along with it the passing of State care functions to the private and voluntary sectors. This, together with criticism of children’s residences, led to the Department of Social Welfare closing the majority of the children’s residences in favour of community-based alternatives. The Children, Young Persons and their Families Act was introduced in 1989. The Act sought to put the responsibility and decision-making for children and young people back on families and led to a substantial drop in the number of children coming before the courts. The number of children and young people in care also dropped. Today, most children and young people in State care live in some form of out-of-home placement. This may include foster placements (with relatives or non-relatives), or residential accommodation run by government or community agencies.  

Survivors of State care told us of the physical, sexual and emotional abuse and neglect they experienced. We heard of horrific abuse at settings such as Moerangi Treks and Whakapakari, including repeated rape, the forcing of children to dig their own graves and shooting over their heads. Almost all the boys’ homes we heard about had kingpin systems, where the kingpin was authorised by the homes’ staff to punish other children. Children were subjected to “blanketing” and “stomping” initiations, where they were covered in blankets by others and kicked and stomped on. There was a strong culture of “no narking” in the residences, enforced by assaults and threats.

Many were subjected to ”secure” – a form of solitary confinement – including in many cases automatically on admission. Very young children were placed in secure, and some children were subjected to secure for months. One of the inquiry‘s witnesses spent 320 days out of a period of 563 days in solitary confinement. Another witness, Mr X, was seriously sexually abused while locked in secure. No education was provided for children in secure.

We also heard from many survivors who were abused in “family homes”, foster placements, and adoption placements, including some who were moved continually from placement to placement throughout their childhood. Once discharged from State care as teenagers, survivors often spoke of being left to fend for themselves. 

 Next: The journey for women and girls