The inclusion and scope of faith-based care

20. When the Government first established this Inquiry in February 2018 its scope was limited to abuse and neglect in State care. This included some aspects of indirect care by faith-based institutions where the State placed children into facilities run by churches, such as orphanages or residential facilities.

21. During consultation on the Inquiry’s Terms of Reference there was a strong call from many in the faith-based community – including from several churches, as well as academics, survivors and their advocates – to expand the scope to include a broader examination of abuse in faith-based care.

22. When the Inquiry was fully established in November 2018,[3] its finalised Terms of Reference had a broader scope, explicitly including abuse and neglect of people in the care of faith-based institutions.

23. Faith-based care has its own unique features, which are specific to each faith-based institution.[4]

Faith-based care settings include education, foster care and formal residential care (sometimes provided on behalf of the State – indirect care), such as children’s and young people’s residential institutions. [5]As confirmed by the Terms of Reference amendment in 2023, faith-based care also extended to situations where a faith-based institution was responsible for the care of an individual through an informal or pastoral care relationship.[6]

24. Some examples of pastoral care relationships include youth groups activities, Bible study groups, Sunday school or children’s church activities, day trips and errands, pastoral or spiritual direction, mentoring, training, or visiting congregations or community members in their homes.[7]

25. As a result of their position of authority, members of and those working for faith-based institutions who exercise a pastoral care role may have significant influence over an individual, whānau, kainga, family or other group’s identity, beliefs, and life choices in interpreting a religious or belief system, and / or in guiding others on their religious or spiritual path.

26. The Inquiry could not investigate all faiths practising in Aotearoa New Zealand. The Inquiry investigated abuse and neglect in the care of eight faith-based institutions:

• Catholic Church
• Anglican Church
• The Salvation Army in Aotearoa New Zealand
• Methodist Church
• Presbyterian Church
• Gloriavale Christian Community
• Plymouth Brethren Christian Church
• Jehovah’s Witnesses. [8]

History and development of faith-based care in Aotearoa New Zealand

27. In the 19th century, faith-based care was often the only available option for care outside of the family unit, particularly for Pākehā with few or no family networks. For most of the 19th century, the State did not see itself as responsible for the care of those in need, preferring to leave that to the individual’s family or church community.[9]

28. Churches were also trusted institutions, seen as safe places that could provide good care for children, young people and adults in care. The faiths have a long history of providing care.[10]

29. Churches, particularly the Catholic, Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches and The Salvation Army, were involved in care provision during the Inquiry period. In addition to the pastoral care provided by all churches, some also operated schools and / or provided other services, such as unmarried mothers homes, adoption, foster care services and some residences for disabled people.

30. The total number of children’s homes grew rapidly during the early 20th century. In 1900, five orphanages were registered as charities, but by the mid-1920s, Aotearoa New Zealand had 85 private faith-based institutions and orphanages, housing approximately 4,000 children.[11]

31. By 1950, the State was regularly subsidising Christian social services.[12] Other areas of church social services also received increased financial support. [13] From 1956, the government subsidised faith-based children’s homes through a ‘capitation subsidy’ of 10 shillings a week per child, the equivalent of around $31 dollars in 2024. A subsidy for up to half the cost of any approved building work was also available. [14]

32. With growing pressure on accommodation in State institutions over the 1960s and 1970s, private and religious-run homes played an  increasingly important role as an ‘overflow’ for the overburdened State institutions. In 1977, around a quarter of the children living in church homes were State wards.[15] In 1985, 36 percent of the children and young people living in homes run by voluntary agencies were State wards. [16]

33. By the 1970s, a distinct church sector emerged, which operated as a well-resourced component of the non-government, non-profit sector expanding Christian social services beyond traditional structures. [17]

34. Church activities received substantial State funding until the 1980s, with a large increase in State funding from the 1960s to the 1980s.
Faith-based care settings during the Inquiry period.

35. At the beginning of the Inquiry period, faith-based institutions were among the largest providers of residential care for children in Aotearoa New Zealand. Many of the faiths ran children’s homes including the Catholic, Anglican and Methodist churches, the Presbyterian Support Organisations and The Salvation Army. By 1960, 53 out of the 68 registered children’s homes were run by faith-based institutions.[18]

36. There were also receiving homes (or reception centres) which were short-term residences for babies and very young children, such as The Nest, run by The Salvation Army, or Catholic-run orphanages such as the Star of the Sea and the Home of Compassion. [19]

37. Across the Inquiry period, the Anglican, Presbyterian and Catholic Churches and The Salvation Army were affiliated with children’s homes. Research conducted by the Inquiry showed at least:

• 15 homes affiliated with the Anglican church [20]
• 18 homes affiliated with the Presbyterian Church [21]
• 10 homes affiliated with The Salvation Army [22]
• 33 homes affiliated with the Catholic Church [23]
• six homes affiliated with the Methodist Church. [24]

38. As well as operating children’s homes, the faiths also facilitated children entering private foster homes during the Inquiry period, co-ordinated within their religious communities. It is difficult to understand from the records how many there were or their locations.

39. Some survivors who experienced abuse in Catholic orphanages told the Inquiry that they were sent away to foster placements with Catholic families during the school holidays, when the orphanages would close for several weeks. [25] Other foster care arrangements were more informal.

40. Faith-based adoptions were facilitated by the Catholic, Anglican and Presbyterian churches and The Salvation Army. [26] From the 1940s to 1955, although social worker approval was required, most legal adoptions were arranged privately, often through the various homes housing unmarried mothers. [27]

41. Catholic agencies remained significantly involved in the decades that followed, facilitating adoptions that were then processed through the State. [28] Catholic social service agencies also worked with the Māori Mission in finding homes for Māori and Pacific babies. [29]

42. For much of the Inquiry period, faith-based institutions have been providers of education in Aotearoa New Zealand. Catholic, Anglican, Methodist and Presbyterian churches, and the Gloriavale Christian Community, have all run or have affiliation with schools in Aotearoa New Zealand.

43. In the 19th century, missionaries from the various faiths played a role in establishing schools in Aotearoa New Zealand. Starting in 1844 with the opening of the Anglican St Stephen’s School in Tāmaki Makaurau Auckland, different faiths began establishing Māori boarding schools throughout the country.

44. These schools were established specifically for Māori, with the aim of providing them with the best education and to create future Māori leaders, as well as evangelise Māori. However, the leadership of these schools was predominantly non-Māori.

45. From the mid-1840s to the 1980s, these schools were the main (if not only) Māorispecific secondary school option. It was not until about the 1980s that other Māorispecific schools, such as kura kaupapa, were established.

46. While few faith-based institutions catered for Deaf adults and disabled adults, some private and church-based organisations did open residential homes for Deaf people and disabled people. Private institutions such as Hōhepa Homes, in Te Matau-a-Māui Hawke’s Bay, opened its first residential services in 1956. [30]

Key facts about registered survivors in faith-based care

Number and percent of registered survivors in faith-based care

• Total number: 841
• Gender:
  • • Female: 318 survivors (38 percent)
    • Male: 517 survivors (61 percent)
    • Gender diverse, non-binary, other, prefer not to say, no data: 6 survivors (1 percent)
• Part of Takatāpui, Rainbow and MVPFAFF+ community: 83 survivors (10 percent)
• Average age of Pacific survivors when they entered care: 9 years old

Footnotes

[3]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions Order 2018 (LI 2018/223).

[4] Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-Based Institutions, Terms of Reference, clause 17.4.

[5]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-Based Institutions, Terms of Reference, clause 17.4(b).

[6]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-based Institutions Amendment Order (No 2) 2023 (LI 2023/250).

[7]Royal Commission of Inquiry into Historical Abuse in State Care and in the Care of Faith-Based Institutions, Minute 16, Faith-based Care (31 January 2022, para 15).

[8]For further information on Jehovah’s Witnesses refer to the Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, Jehovah’s Witnesses: CaseStudy (2024).

[9]Lineham, PJ, “Trends in religious history in New Zealand: From institutional to social history,” History Compass, Volume 12, No 4 (2014, page 336)

[10]Bloy, M, The 1601 Elizabethan Poor Law (The Victorian Web, 2002)

[11]Dalley, B, Family matters: Child welfare in twentieth-century New Zealand (Auckland University Press, 1998, page 134).

[12]Tennant, M, O’Brien, M & Sanders, J, The history of the non-profit sector in New Zealand (Office for the Community and Voluntary Sector, 2008, page 20).

[13]Evans, J, “Government support of the church in the modern era,” Journal of Law and Religion, Volume 13, Issue 2 (1998, page 518); Evans, J, Church state relations in New Zealand 1940–1990, with particular reference to the Presbyterian and Methodist churches, Doctoral Thesis, University of Otago (1992, page 43).

[14]Cahill, T, Mitchell, A, Nixon, A, Sherry, B & Wetterstrom, J, Church social services: A report of an Inquiry into childcare services Department of Social Welfare, 1977, page 12).

[15]Tennant, M, The fabric of welfare: Voluntary organisations, government and welfare in New Zealand, 1840–2005 (Bridget Williams Books, 2007, page 104).

[16]Craig, T & Mills, M, Care and control: The role of institutions in New Zealand (New Zealand Planning Council, 1987, page 37)

[17]Evans, J, Church state relations in New Zealand 1940–1990, with particular reference to the Presbyterian and Methodist churches, Doctoral Thesis, University of Otago (1992).

[18]Evans, J, “Government support of the church in the modern era,” Journal of Law and Religion, Volume 13, Issue 2 (1998, page 519).

[19]Brief of evidence of Sonja Cooper and Amanda Hill on behalf of Cooper Legal at the Inquiry’s Contextual Hearing (Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care, 5 September 2019, para 38)

[20]Department of Social Welfare, Directory of residential facilities for disturbed children in New Zealand (1975, pages 22, 24, 26–27, 29, 31,
34); Oranga Tamariki, Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Notice to Produce 14, Schedule 2 (22 January 2021,
pages 2, 12, 21).

[21]Department of Social Welfare, Directory of residential facilities for disturbed children in New Zealand (1975, pages 21, 23–24, 28, 30,
37–39); Presbyterian Support Southland, Submission settings out a narrative and analysis of the information requested in Schedule
A (2024, page 2); Oranga Tamariki, Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Notice to Produce 14, Schedule 2 (22
January 2021, pages 12–13).

[22] Department of Social Welfare, Directory of residential facilities for disturbed children in New Zealand (1975, pages 24, 27– 28, 32, 37);
Oranga Tamariki, Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Notice to Produce 14, Schedule 2 (22 January 2021, pages
7, 14); Hawke’s Bay children’s holding trust, Our history (accessed 22 March 2024), https://hbcht.org.nz/our-history/; Cussen, I, Help where
help was needed: Single mothers and the Salvation Army Bethany home in 1960s–70s Auckland (Auckland History Initiative, 5 August
2021) https://ahi.auckland.ac.nz/2021/08/05/help-where-help-was-needed-single-mothers-and-the-salvation-army-bethany-home-in1960s-70s-auckland/.

[23]Department of Social Welfare, Directory of residential facilities for disturbed children in New Zealand (1975, pages 22–23, 31–32, 34–35,
38); Ponter, E, Interface: A review of Catholic social services New Zealand (National Directorate, Catholic Social Services 1986, pages 7–8);
Oranga Tamariki, Response to Royal Commission of Inquiry into Abuse in Care Notice to Produce 14, Schedule 2 (22 January 2021, pages
5–6, 12, 14–16, 20–23).

[24]Department of Social Welfare, Directory of residential facilities for disturbed children in New Zealand (1975, pages 21, 25, 35)

[25] Letter from Cooper Legal to the National Office for Professional Standards on behalf of Alexandra Murray (23 May 2018), pages 6–7);
Witness statements of Ms NJ (10 February 2022, page 6); Anne Hill (28 September 2020, page 5) and Linda (Taylor) Raby and Janice Taylor
(5 March 2021, paras 123, 128–129). Private session of Mr SI (5 August 2021, page 7).

[26]Witness statement of Dr Anne Else (9 October 2019, page 3).

[27]Witness statement of Dr Anne Else (9 October 2019, page 4).

[28] Witness statement of Lesley Hooper on behalf of the Catholic Bishops and Congregational Leaders in Aotearoa New Zealand (16 June
2022, page 6).

[29] Archdiocese of Wellington, Social Welfare Work in the Archdiocese (n.d., page 2)

[30]National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability, To have an ‘ordinary life’ – Kia whai oranga ‘noa’: Background papers to inform the National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability (2004, page 30).