On Mission - A History of the Development of Juniper a Uniting Church Community by Juniper

Its story is an organisational history, but much more. It is a story of the aged care sector, tracing the upheavals as aged care developed from widely varied charitable endeavours and bleak institutions to a highly-regulated, professional industry. It is a church story, part of the narrative of the Uniting Church in Australia’s 40 years of determining how to unite disparate individuals, theologies, communities and organisations as one church. It recounts the joys and challenges of honouring the past while moving into the future with hope, vision and solid foundations. For many individuals involved, Juniper’s story has been a faith story: how to serve God through serving others, in an increasingly secular culture. It is a story of navigating bureaucracy, corporatisation, market-driven operation and government policy without losing sight of the individuals the organisation is set up to serve: older people seeking support as they age.

“In earlier times, life expectancy was shorter. Medical knowledge was limited. The range of diseases that could kill you, at any age but particularly as you got older, was much greater than in our time.” “It was mid-century before the fate of older Australians began to come significantly to public attention. Little had changed since the nineteenth century ...” CLARE MENCK is a professional historian who has worked on Western Australian history since 2001. She is also a parent, church worker and community volunteer. Recent work includes thematic histories of WA government housing, Wheatbelt bridges and the Shire of Jerramungup, along with a range of heritage-related projects.

“Everyone in the aged care sector knew that the system was deeply flawed UCH had been one voice amongst many providers calling for change.” “The challenges ahead for Juniper will be largely dictated by the emerging nature of ageing boomers. The parameters are still in flux.”

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

JUNIPER, formerly Uniting Church Homes, began as independent aged care services, the first of which opened in 1949.

A HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF JUNIPER A UNITING CHURCH COMMUNITY

First published in March 2018 by Uniting Church Homes T/as Juniper a Uniting Church community 313 Main Street Balcatta WA 6021

ÂŠ Juniper 2018

Except for any fair dealing for the purposes of private study, research, criticism or review, or as otherwise permitted, under the provisions of the Copyright Act, no part of this publication may be reproduced or re-used for any commercial purpose, without the prior written permission of the publisher. Menck, Clare On Mission, a history of the development of Juniper â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a Uniting Church community ISBN 978-0-646-98425-4

Cover art concept by Paul Fanning Printed by Scott Print

Contents Foreword. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

3 Onwards into the 21st Century. . . . . . . . . . . 67 3.1 Preparing for the Waves of Change. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

1 Where it all began . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3.2 Juniper is Born. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85 3.3 Remaining Faithful to the Mission . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

1.1 Aged Care in Western Australia up to the 1970s. . . . . 5 1.2 The Aged Persons Homes Board. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 1.3 Pulling the Pieces Together (or Apart?). . . . . . . . . . . . 28 1.4 Turning Vision into Reality. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

4 Appendices. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.1 Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 4.2 Chronology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108 4.3 Board Members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

2 Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

4.4 Management Committee Members (1992) . . . . . . . 121 4.5 Brief History of Individual Facilities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

2.1 Heads Down and Make it Work. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44

4.6 Glossary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148

2.2 Creating Values . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

4.7 Bibliography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153

2.3 New Opportunities, New Challenges. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

4.8 Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

FOREWORD After over a decade on the Board of Juniper, I have come to appreciate the integrity and passion with which it is run. This history shows that these qualities guided the organisation long before my involvement, preceding the uniting of independent aged care services and stretching back to the 1940s. With foresight, faithfulness and care, the founders responded to the crying needs of older people unable to provide for themselves in the post-war decades, when existing services were minimal. Serving others was essential for these founders’ identities as Christians. The formation of the Uniting Church in 1977 called them to come together as a tangible expression of the church’s intention to serve others in unity. But unity is a bumpy road. While sorting out what it meant to be church together, aged care bodies also needed to respond to rapid changes in government regulation and funding. The first section of this book outlines the often tense process of forming one aged care organisation large enough to have significant influence while responding to the changing aged care sector.

The latter sections of the book describe the ongoing challenges of navigating change. Government policy, social norms, technology and church culture have all seen major adjustments through recent decades. Juniper, and aged care, have needed to adapt. Not all aged care organisations have survived. The story told here demonstrates both the struggles and the faithfulness of people wrestling with fundamental questions: How could they retain their history and identity while also being part of a greater whole? How could Christian foundations guide the organisation’s values in an increasingly secular culture? How could they fulfil their desire to serve people, while also meeting government requirements? How could they honour the passion and commitment of volunteers while also becoming sufficiently professional and accountable to keep up with the developing aged care industry? These questions remain crucial today. Juniper operates in an active marketplace, a consumer-driven, highly regulated industry. Yet our heart remains, as it has always been, to provide for those least able to support themselves. Aged care is transforming, particularly in preparation for the ‘baby boomer’ generation, who have already begun retiring. For Juniper, remaining faithful to our mission continues to underpin our operations. It is my pleasure to invite you into Juniper’s story. Fred Boshart

1. Where it all began

1. Where it all began 1.1 Aged Care in Western Australia up to the 1970s Old age in Australia is a relatively new phenomenon.1 In earlier times, life expectancy was shorter. Medical knowledge was limited. The range of diseases that could kill you, at any age but particularly as you got older, was much greater than in our time. Options for ensuring older people could survive once they became frail were few. The needs of older people were generally not on the social or political radar. Prior to World War Two, services for older people were minimal and, to modern eyes, often abhorrent. In the early decades of European settlement in Western Australia, there were simply not many older people in the colony. Three quarters of the British colonists who arrived in 1829 were less than 30 years old. After three years, 1,500 colonists had arrived: only three were over 60. Through the nineteenth century, migrants continued to be young and Old Menâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Home and Swan Brewery, Mounts Bay Road, c.1890-1900. Image: Boerkamp collection of glass negatives, State Library of Western Australia <230446PD>.

Jalland, Pat, Old Age in Australia: A History, Melbourne UP, Melbourne Vic, 2015

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

disproportionately male. The import of 10,000 male convicts between 1850 and 1868, followed by the arrival in the 1890s of tens of thousands of men in response to the gold boom, meant men outnumbered women approximately two to one (in some districts, as much as ten to one). Most convicts and prospectors were young.2 Life expectancy was less than 50 years at birth in the 1890s. Old age itself was described as a disease and listed as a cause of death in nineteenth century records.3 By the turn of the twentieth century, less than 2% of the population was aged over 65 (3,322 individuals). Only 680 people in the whole state were 75 years old or more. The oldest people in Western Australia on census night in 1901 were two 95-year olds.4 By comparison, at the latest census (2016) the over-65 age group accounted for 14% of Western Australia’s population, including 42,420 individuals aged 85 or older. Two hundred and three individuals were aged 100 years old or more.5 Demographers predict the percentage of older Australians will continue to rise for some years to come.6 Australian life expectancy is now around 81 for men and 85 for women.7

Only 680 people in the whole state were 75 years old or more.

Sitting in the Garden, c.1924. Residents of the Old Women’s Home, Fremantle. Image: Izzy Orloff Collection of Photographs, State Library of Western Australia <111003PD>.

With such a small ageing population in the nineteenth century, those who were particularly frail were cared for within the mainstream hospital system. Accommodating older people more generally was seen as a family responsibility (particularly a daughter’s duty), but many Western Australian men had never had the opportunity to form families.8 There was a strong Victorian-era prejudice against ‘undeserving’ paupers. ‘Benevolent asylums’ across Australia discriminated against those felt to have brought poverty on themselves – including former convicts. Conditions varied from sparse to inhumane. Asylums were often overcrowded. Spouses were separated as accommodation was in gendered dormitories.9

2 Menck, Clare, Thematic History of Western Australia (working draft), June 2017 3 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.6, 8 4 Fraser, M, Superintendent of Census, Seventh Census of Western Australia, Taken for the night of 31st March 1901, Government Printer, 1903 Note: Census data for 1901 does not include Aboriginal Australians 5 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Census data 2016, (online) accessed 7 Aug 2017 Note: WA has a lower percentage of people aged over 65 than the national average of 15.7%. 6 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.2 7 Butler, Mark, Advanced Australia: The Politics of Ageing, Melbourne UP, Carlton Victoria, 2015, p.18 8 Menck, Thematic History of Western Australia, 2017 9 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.15-21

1. Where it all began

A former convict depot at Mount Eliza was converted in 1869 to an ‘old men’s home’ for Perth. By 1900, the Home’s 265 residents10 comprised up to one-third of the colony’s elderly population. The Home relocated in 1906 to what became Sunset Hospital at Dalkeith. Older women without families, initially far fewer in number, were lodged at Perth Poorhouse if they could not provide for themselves.11 By the early 1900s, the Goderich Street poorhouse was listed as a government-run ‘home for the aged’, although its 60 to 80 residents (referred to as ‘inmates’) were not all older women.12 Women from the poorhouse were transferred in 1909 to the newly opened Women’s Home at Fremantle – the lunatic asylum, refurbished to house homeless women. It soon became the Old Women’s Home.13 Among other groups, Methodist Sisters from the Fremantle Wesley Methodist Mission visited the Home to provide pastoral and practical support to residents.14 The US Navy commandeered the building as its Fremantle headquarters in 1942. Residents were removed to the dilapidated Woodbridge House in Guildford, where conditions were abysmal. Some women were also temporarily housed at Carinya in Shenton Park. Mount Henry Home superseded both in 1951.15 In addition to these meagre government-run options, the Home of Peace for the Dying and Incurable in Subiaco (established as a community venture in 1901) had around 30 beds. Bed space expanded to 85 in the mid-1930s, although this also included younger people with disabilities.16 Catholic religious orders such as the Little Sisters of the Poor and Sisters of Nazareth also offered a little residential care to needy, elderly people.17

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18

In Aboriginal communities, older people were traditionally held in high esteem.

In Aboriginal communities, older people were traditionally held in high esteem. They were cared for as needed through a system of kin obligations, within the context of family and community. Colonisation caused immense disruption to Aboriginal families and kinship systems. Europeans introduced diseases to which Aboriginal populations had no resistance, drastically reducing life expectancies for the formerly healthy indigenous peoples. Social disruption and disadvantage, in many cases compounded by the introduction of alcohol, damaged community bonds. Through the twentieth century, Aboriginal people were increasingly forced to depend on government services to survive, despite these being substandard, degrading and often introducing as many problems as they solved. Most mainstream services, including hospitals, did not accept Aboriginal people for full care. Aged care, pensions and government housing provisions did not include Aboriginal people until the 1940s, and then only in limited ways for many years.18

Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.43 Menck, Thematic History of Western Australia, 2017 Barnes, Anita Joan, ‘Mount Henry Home (later known as Mt Henry Hospital)’, unpublished article, c.1999, p.1 Menck, Thematic History of Western Australia, 2017 ‘Inmates of Women’s Home’, Fremantle City Library image collection, item 2819, information in online caption, accessed 26 October 2017 Barnes, ‘Mount Henry Home (later known as Mt Henry Hospital)’, c.1999, p.7 Brightwater, ‘Our History’ (website); Heritage Council WA, P04640 Home of Peace, database entry (online); accessed 9 August 2017 Little Sisters of the Poor Oceania (website); Sisters of Nazareth (website); accessed 13 Jul 2017 Menck, Clare, A Thematic History of Government Housing in Western Australia, prepared for the Department of Housing, 2014, p.358-364; Menck, Thematic History of Western Australia, 2017; Menck, Clare, research for ‘Numbala Nunga’ heritage assessment, completed for State Heritage Office, June 2015; Smith, K, Grundy, JJ, & Nelson, HJ, ‘Culture at the centre of community based aged care in a remote Australian Indigenous setting: a case study of the development of Yuendumu Old People’s Programme’, Rural and Remote Health, 10/ 1422 (online), 2010

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Aged pensions were introduced by the Federal government in 1908. This was a crucial milestone in the history of older Australians. From the outset, pensions were means tested. Initially the pension amounted to only one quarter of the basic (minimum) wage, far less than required for living expenses. This did not rise significantly until the 1940s.19 Government housing assistance was almost entirely restricted to working families until the mid-1950s. The only exception was the McNess Housing Scheme. This small program began during the Depression to house women at risk of becoming destitute, including aged pensioners. Older single women were sometimes required to house-share with another woman in order to obtain a home, as the houses were designed for families, and in high demand.20

paramount. A sense of crisis in aged care inspired compassion and energy for reform. Concerned citizens called for better options for people as they aged. Matters were complicated by both Federal and State governments having responsibility for some areas impacting older people.23 Church and philanthropic organisations began organising to provide care services themselves. Central Methodist Mission opened Hardey Lodge in 1949 as a 12-bed Home for older women.24 Aside from services to the poor offered by Catholic religious orders, Hardey Lodge appears to have been the first religious-based aged care facility in Western Australia, followed by Braemar (Presbyterian, 1952) and a Churches of Christ Home at Joondanna (1954).25

It was mid-century before the fate of older Australians began to come significantly to public attention. Little had changed since the nineteenth century, except that the gender balance had tipped so that older women outnumbered older men. Scandals in New South Wales in the latter 1920s had revealed deplorable conditions in aged care asylums, but the 1930s Depression, followed by six years of war, hampered any attempts to improve matters. Most people, including governments, were too busy treading water to notice what happened to older Australians.21 Meanwhile, the number of Western Australians aged 65 or over was increasing in both real terms and as a proportion of the population – up to 20,230 individuals by 1947, nearly 8% of the State’s population.22 As the country returned to a peace-time footing in the latter 1940s, an attitude shift towards older people emerged. The right to a life of dignity and value, whatever one’s age, became

Residents of the Old Women’s Home, Fremantle, c.1924. Image: Izzy Orloff Collection of Photographs, State Library of Western Australia <112399PD>.

19 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.2 20 Menck, A Thematic History of Government Housing in WA, 2014, pp.65-67, 153 21 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.81-103 22 ABS, Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, 30 June 1947 Note: Census data for 1947 does not include Aboriginal Australians. 23 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.2-3, 170, 271 24 Uniting Church Homes, Celebrating Sixty Years¸ UCH, Balcatta, 2009, pp.6-13 25 Bethanie, ‘Our History’ (website); Braemar Presbyterian Care, (website); accessed 13 July 2017

1. Where it all began

The State government opened Mount Henry Home for the Aged in 1951, built with substantial Lotteries Commission funding. Planning for the Home had begun in 1943. Early hopes were for a series of cottages, catering for married couples, as well as single men and women. Post-war shortages of labour and building materials, coupled with budgetary constraints, resulted in the Home being opened as two, two-storey block

Central Methodist Mission opening Hardey Lodge reported as New Home for Aged Women, The West Australian, 18 November 1949. Image: National Library of Australia.

26 27 28

buildings for women and three duplex cottages to house six couples. One large block comprised single rooms, the other six-bay dormitories for frailer residents. Over subsequent years, Lotteries fought to have the original concept of cottage homes retained, while the government moved towards expanding the site as a hospital.26 Charitable organisations’ establishment of ‘Homes’ for groups of older residents was modern, innovative and provided the highest quality care at the time. Correspondence relating to the establishment of Mount Henry Home indicates how progressive moves were in the 1940s to accommodate only four to six older people in a room. Large wards were the norm. Community expectations also allowed that accommodation for older men need not be of as high a standard as for older women. Educated elderly women were considered more ‘worthy’ of quality care than ‘vagabond’ women. The latter were acknowledged as likely to end up in prison or ‘sleeping under a bush’ if not accepted into state institutions, but they were not to be welcomed at Mount Henry for fear they would upset the ‘comfortable and cheerful surroundings’. They were instead directed to Woodbridge, which remained open until 1964 despite few improvements on its deplorable 1940s conditions.27 With a desperate shortage of options even for those older people considered socially acceptable, few were interested in providing for those truly at the bottom of the pile. The post-war years saw the establishment of a modern Australian welfare state. Initially, older people were largely excluded from its benefits, but as Australia experienced over two decades of post-war prosperity they were to see their options vastly improve.28 In 1954, after intense community

Barnes, ‘Mount Henry Home (later known as Mt Henry Hospital)’, c.1999, pp.4-8 Barnes, ‘Mount Henry Home (later known as Mt Henry Hospital)’, c.1999, pp.4-6, quotes p.4 (‘elderly’) and p.5 (all other) Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.270

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

lobbying, the Commonwealth government legislated to provide funding to house older people. This was the first significant government attempt to improve life for older Australians since the introduction of pensions almost half a century earlier. The Act provided matching funding for community organisations to build accommodation for ablebodied older people, including cottage homes or flats. By 1970, funding under the 1954 Aged Persons Homes Act had provided accommodation for 30,000 people across Australia.29 Bethshan (Presbyterian, 1955), St David’s (Presbyterian, 1955), Pilgrim House (Congregational, 1956), Rowethorpe (Methodist,

After intense community lobbying ... funding was provided to house older people 1961) and Elimatta (Congregational, 1963) were all opened in the years following the introduction of this government funding. Hardey Lodge was also expanded considerably in the latter 1950s.30 Churches were independently moving towards aged care services out of their own concerns for elderly people, rather than responding to government policy change. Commonwealth funding boosted the budget of many church projects. Frail older people received no support under the 1954 Act. In Melbourne, impoverished older people in inner city areas were found to be dying of starvation and lack of support as they grew ill. Some of the most prominent voices decrying this

29 30 31 32 33

situation were Methodists.31 Methodists in Western Australia had already demonstrated their awareness of, and practical concern, for impoverished older people. Sister Florence of the Central Methodist Mission wrote in 1950: One aspect of Mission work which is ever present and ever urgent is that of old age with its pitiable helplessness and dependence. This problem had, in the post-war years, become considerably aggravated by the lack of accommodation which is everywhere badly felt … The problem of old age is one of the Mission’s greatest anxieties. The cost of living is a severe blow to those who have to live on a pension … In order to be able to pay the rent many of these old ladies live on a good deal less than they should. This is a dreadful thing and one that concerns the Mission greatly. Some of these old ladies are in a desperate plight and when we remember that some of them must surely have been pioneers when the country was a lot younger, we should experience no lack of sympathy or desire to help. 32 Astonishing medical advances and improvements in public health, nutrition and sanitation through the twentieth century brought about increases in life expectancy. By the 1960s, the average age of Australians was again rising, despite the impact of young migrants and high birth rates. Antibiotics, introduced from the mid-twentieth century, reduced the impact of infectious diseases, which had previously been big killers of older people. It became clear that more and more people would live to get old. As greater numbers of people lived longer, more of them also lived with chronic or degenerative conditions, requiring increasing levels of care.33 Studies of patients at Royal Perth Hospital from 1956 to 1959 showed increasing numbers of long-staying patients with chronic illnesses, especially cardiovascular complaints.

Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.137-140 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years¸2009, p.6-13 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.130-131 Quoted in Lutton, Wesley, The Wesley Story: Centenary of the Wesley Church, Perth, Central Methodist Mission, Perth, 1970, p.16 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.6-7

1. Where it all began

More than half the hospital’s patients were over 60; up to 40% were older people from poorer, inner city suburbs. Poverty and frailty brought them into acute hospital care, although they were not acute patients. Doctors noted that to meet their patients’ needs, all physicians had to act as geriatricians. Although doctors would have preferred to move these high care patients to specialised facilities, such places were not available. Within mainstream medicine, they were often viewed disparagingly as blocking up beds intended for acute patients.34 Many were transferred to Sunset or Mount Henry, despite these facilities not providing medical care for serious illnesses.35 Geriatric medicine began developing as a specialist field around this period. Over several decades, medical practice began gradually shifting towards improving the lives of older patients with chronic conditions. The emerging profession of social work brought many insights to geriatric care. Preventing people from becoming bed-bound became a priority. Care began to emphasise wellness, rather than illness, and focused on rehabilitation. Skills for independence were encouraged. Attitudes shifted to acknowledge that ‘while some conditions are incurable, they are still capable of improvement’ if appropriate medical care and social support was provided.36 Hostels were advocated as an intermediary level for those needing support but not nursing care. From the mid-1960s, pioneering physician Dr Dick Lefroy worked, often in the face of resistance and suspicion, to enact these changes in Western Australia. Sunset and Mount Henry were gazetted as hospitals in 1966, coupling acute care with rehabilitation facilities. Royal Perth, Fremantle and Sir Charles Gairdner hospitals opened departments of geriatric medicine around

34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41

the same time, followed (after considerable lobbying by Dr Lefroy) by Albany and Bunbury hospitals. Hostels were opened at Collie, Busselton and Kalgoorlie, with a State government subsidy for approved residents, a very unusual innovation in Australia at the time.37 From 1963, a nursing home benefit was introduced by the Commonwealth government to encourage development of high care facilities (then called ‘nursing homes’, or ‘C-class hospitals’). Commonwealth funding of $2 per day was provided for frail residents requiring nursing care.38 The Methodist Church opened its nursing home at Subiaco soon after (1965)39 and a nursing home was added at Rowethorpe (Charles Jenkins Hospital, 1967). 40 By the mid-1960s, the 1954 legislation also extended to high care facilities. Church and charitable agencies were encouraged by the government to

Mount Henry had hopes of providing quality of care. apply for this funding. Across Australia, the number of nursing homes increased by almost 50% in five years through the mid-1960s. In Western Australia, the State Housing Commission provided design assistance to community organisations seeking to establish or expand aged care facilities.41 The Presbyterian Church opened Numbala Nunga nursing home in Derby in 1969, catering particularly for

Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.191-193, 197 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.209 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.193-196, quote (Muriel Doherty) p.196 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.208-211 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.218 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years¸2009, p.13 Powell, Myee, The Rowethorpe Story, Access Press, Bassendean, 2000, p.29 Menck, A Thematic History of Government Housing in WA, 2014, p.156

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Aboriginal residents.42 The Anglican and Catholic churches in Western Australia began aged care services in the 1960s, followed by the Baptist and Reformed churches in the 1970s.43 However, many for-profit businesses entered the sector at the same time, as residential facilities were seen as a low risk, high profit investment.44 Western Australia and New South Wales in particular saw syndicates of real estate investors profit from owning nursing homes, rorting the system of government subsidies. Higher fees did not guarantee better quality. Many Homes had multiple residents in shared rooms, limited toilets, no sitting rooms, unhygienic conditions and insufficient staff. Patients were reputedly over-medicated to make them more compliant for hospital schedules. Many Homes ignored the developing field of geriatric medicine, made no efforts towards rehabilitation, and became ‘waiting rooms for the dying’. The rapid increase in nursing homes, often with little regulatory oversight, saw many developed that were later condemned as offering inferior care. By 1972, Western Australia had 57 nursing home beds for every thousand people over 65. This was the highest rate in Australia and at least 25% more than the number of frail older people in the state. Aged care professionals objected to investors profiting from these facilities, calling for government funds to instead be directed towards charitable agencies and home care services.45

42 43 44 45 46 47

Smaller Homes, run by churches and other philanthropic groups, were seen as much more personal and caring places than the corporate-run facilities. Although their atmosphere was far superior, many operated with few professional staff and significant funding deficits. Regardless, they had long waiting lists.46 By this stage, a clear majority of older people requiring support were single women. With around 6% of Western Australia’s ‘marriageable men’ (aged 18-41yrs) killed

during World War One, many women growing older in the 1960s and 1970s had not had the opportunity as young women to marry or have children. 47 As family remained the chief source of assistance in old age, this placed them at risk of being without support.

Residents at Sunset Hospital, formerly Claremont Old Men’s Home. Image: Sunset Hospital Collection of Photographs, State Library of Western Australia <BA1333/130>.

Menck, ‘Numbala Nunga’, June 2015 Amana Living, ‘Our Anglican Essence’ (website); Catholic Homes, ‘About Catholic Homes’ (website); Southern Cross Care (WA) Inc (website); Baptistcare, ‘A Brief History of Baptistcare’ (website); Manoah Homes, ‘Our Journey’ (website); accessed 13 July 2017 Legislative Research Service, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986: Digest of Bill, 86/147, November 1986 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.3, 206, 216, 219-221, 223-224; quote p.206 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp. 221-222 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, p.60; Menck, Thematic History of Western Australia, 2017

1. Where it all began

From 1969, Commonwealth funding began to also encourage home care services. Three years later, the government began legislating to control admissions to residential facilities and increased support for at-home care, but residential care continued to attract the majority of government aged care funding. 48 It became much cheaper to establish a nursing home than to offer low care (hostel) or home-based services. In the early 1970s, Western Australia had three times more nursing home than hostel beds, despite more residents needing low than high care. Older people who did not need nursing care frequently took up nursing home beds, as they could more easily afford and access these than more appropriate low care or home care services. Survey after survey indicated that most older people preferred to stay in their own homes, yet very few services were available to help them do so. Most home care was provided through the unpaid and often unrecognised labours of spouses, daughters and daughters-in-law, much as it had been 100 years earlier.49 Retirement villages for active older people developed particularly through the 1960s and 1970s. Increasingly, providers in this sector were profit-making entrepreneurs. Older people of limited means were often priced out of retirement communities. For the very poor, asylum-like conditions much like in earlier periods continued to await them in their last years.50 Sunset Hospital was ‘a bleak and overcrowded asylum for 450 inmates’, largely housed in rows of dormitories. Despite its hopes of providing a better quality of care, Mount Henry is remembered as being run like an English workhouse and considered a place for ‘low class inmates’ and ‘undesirable types’, with approximately 350 residents.51

Demand for low care or independent accommodation continued to outpace supply. There were particularly high numbers of elderly, single women seeking accommodation. In the early 1970s, the Commonwealth government provided a one-off program of grant money to build more housing for ‘single aged pensioners’, followed by a second grants round

“Bleak and overcrowded”. Image: Sunset Hospital Collection of Photographs, State Library of Western Australia <BA1333/88>.

48 Legislative Research Service, ‘Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill’, 1986, p.3 49 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.3, 219, 225 In the early 1970s, approximately 25% of nursing home patients did not require high care. 50 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.186-188 51 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.209

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

from 1974 aimed at improved aged care options in country areas. The ongoing arrangements to support community endeavours in aged care also saw Commonwealth grant money matching $2 for every $1 spent by church and other community groups in the sector.52 In the context of this funding increase, especially for retirement communities, independent living communities were opened at Chrystal Halliday (Presbyterian, 1971), Fraser House (Presbyterian, 1975), Euroka (Methodist, 1976) and Subiaco Congregational Homes (later Mayflower, 1976).53 Additional independent living units were completed at Rowethorpe in 1970 (Centenary Units) and 1975 (Tranby Units) and the 10-storey Thrum House opened at St David’s in 1976. New nursing homes were added at Rowethorpe (John Wesley, 1974), St David’s (1976) and Chrystal Halliday (1976).54 The Methodists acknowledged in 1970 that the extensive facilities they had been able to develop at Rowethorpe and Hardey Lodge would not have been possible without Commonwealth subsidies and State government support,55 and this reality was cemented as services expanded. The quality of aged care by the 1970s was nowhere near 21st century standards, and even at the time it received some criticism. In 1975, the Henderson Report into poverty in Australia found that up to 9% of Australia’s aged population lived in hospitals, nursing homes, hostels or boarding houses. Many of these were described as ‘too poor for a poverty line to have much meaning in their case’, with residents paying all they had for ‘somewhat less than the bare necessities of life’. Most older Australians reported wishing to remain in their own homes as long as possible, and many lived with their adult children when they could no longer manage alone. Appropriate aged care facilities were in short supply. What was available was often remote from where elderly people

52 53 54 55 56

had formerly lived and of poor quality. Despite the large number of people caring for elderly parents in their homes, little support for family- or home-based care was on offer.56 It was clear by the latter 1970s that major changes to aged care were required. Australia had more nursing home beds in relation to its over-65 population than any other Western country in the world, but nursing homes were unpopular with residents, families and medical professionals. Rehabilitation (acknowledged as best practice), was expensive and often

The official opening of Claudia Hicks Lodge in March 1962. Image: Juniper.

Menck, A Thematic History of Government Housing in WA, 2014, pp.156-159 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, p.13 ‘Significant dates in the establishment of Uniting Church Homes’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History Lutton, The Wesley Story, 1970, p.17 Henderson, Ronald F, Commission of Inquiry into Poverty: Poverty in Australia: First Main Report, Volume 1, Australian Government Publishing service, Canberra, 1975, pp.239-40, quoted in Menck, A Thematic History of Government Housing in WA, 2014, p.159

1. Where it all began

ignored, especially by for-profit service providers. The vast majority of people over 65 lived in their own homes, with only 3% becoming long-term residents of nursing homes. Government funding models needed adjustment, with better coordination of State and Federal provisions. Regulations had to be tightened to abolish rorting and improve standards of care. Low care and home-care services cried out for finance. Action to encourage high-quality professionals to take up careers in aged care was essential. Yet political will was lacking, and changes did not eventuate until the mid-1980s.57 For the Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterian Homes, the major change of the latter 1970s was the formation of the Uniting Church, bringing both community services and worshipping communities together. What this union would mean for aged care would evolve through the rest of the century.

57 58

1.2 The Aged Persons Homes Board In June 1977, a new Christian denomination was formed: The Uniting Church in Australia (UCA). Most Congregational and Presbyterian congregations joined the union, along with all Methodists. Guiding the new association was the Basis of Union, a document with a vision of Christians reorienting themselves to follow Jesus in greater unity with each other. The Uniting Church was formed in an atmosphere of great hope. The new church was intended to be a manifestation of the unity of Christ, a representation in the world of how Christian unity might be lived out, drawing members of all three preceding denominations to fresh commitment to the way of Jesus Christ. Active negotiations towards union had been underway since at least 1901, and with increasing focus from 1954. By 1977, the vision of unity was agreed upon. How to implement that in practical terms became the task of subsequent decades.58

Image: Juniper.

Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.226-231 Massam, Katharine, â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Hope is of God: The Inauguration of the Uniting Church in Australiaâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;, in Mostert, Christiaan (ed), Hope: Challenging the Culture of Despair, ATF Press, Adelaide, 2004, pp.151-154

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

By the time the Presbyterian, Methodist and Congregational churches in Western Australia came together in 1977, they had 11 different governing bodies operating 12 aged care facilities. Some aged care initiatives had arisen from individual parishes, missions and communities, while others were launched by denominational action groups. Each functioned with a volunteer management committee, which appointed administrators and/or directors of nursing for their facilities. As the three denominations came together, members felt an overseeing body was required to better manage the aged care work already underway.61 All the Homes, apart from Braemar House, came under the auspices of the newly formed Uniting Church, with the latter retaining affiliation with the continuing Presbyterian Church.

The Australian Inland Mission hospital at Fitzroy Crossing 1939. Image: Courtesy Sheena Hesse, Uniting Church WA archives.

At the inaugural synod of the Uniting Church in Western Australia, it was resolved that aged care agencies of the three denominations would continue functioning as before, until new arrangements could be made. The day-to-day operations of the Homes continued unhindered while the details were nutted out.59 The Basis of Union did not specifically provide for union of community service agencies, nor did the associated constitution or regulations. However, the guiding documents’ heart and the practicalities of churches working together made cooperation essential, and pointed in the direction of increasing shared function.60

59 60 61 62 63 64

Australian Inland Mission, an initiative of the Presbyterian Church, also offered some aged care services, including Numbala Nunga Aboriginal nursing home in Derby.62 At Union, the inland missions of the three denominations came together to form Frontier Services.63 Frontier Services focused on services for people living north of the 26th parallel. As a national initiative, it operated under the auspices of the National UCA Assembly64 and thus Numbala Nunga was not included in the establishment of Western Australian synodical aged care oversight. The largest of the 10 aged care agencies that came under the auspices of the new Uniting Church was Central Methodist Mission (CMM) Homes, which managed both Rowethorpe (Bentley) and Hardey Lodge (Mount Lawley). CMM was linked with Wesley Methodist Church in Perth city. Rowethorpe, at the time, provided for 314 residents in self-contained units, 111 in hostel accommodation and 142 in nursing home care (567 in total). Hardey Lodge provided nursing home care for 45 residents, making CMM alone responsible for almost

UCA Synod of Western Australia, Reports and Proceedings of the Inaugural Synod, Perth, 8 Oct 1977, p.15, 26, 37-38 Beresford, Marilyn, Uniting in Mission: The story of the merger and creation of UnitingCare West, UnitingCare West, Perth, 2011, pp.7-9 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years¸2009, p.6 Menck, ‘Numbala Nunga’, June 2015 National Library of Australia, ‘Australian Inland Mission’ (website); Frontier Services, ‘Our History’, (website); accessed 1 September 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview with Clare Menck, 18 October 2017

1. Where it all began

half the aged care places available under the auspices of the UCA. Other facilities had accommodation available as follows, totalling 624 places:65 yy Subiaco Memorial Hospital: 43 residents (nursing care) yy Euroka Village, Waterman: 56 residents (self-contained) yy St Davidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, Mount Lawley: 76 residents (self-contained); 11 residents (hostel); 42 residents (nursing) yy Chrystal Halliday, Karrinyup: 51 residents (47 self-contained units); 32 residents (hostel); 24 residents (nursing) yy Fraser House, South self-contained units)

Perth:

residents

(65

Bringing all these facilities together made the Uniting Church one of the largest providers of aged care in the State, accounting for over 10% of total available accommodation and around one quarter of that offered by churches. There were 141 facilities in Western Australia subsidised under the Aged or Disabled Persons Homes Act and Aged Persons Hostels Act. This included 1,082 nursing home places, 2,175 hostel places and 3,783 self-contained units. Religious organisations accounted for around 57% of the places, although their facilities were fewer in number (55 sites, compared with 86 non-religious sites). The Anglican, Apostolic, Baptist, Catholic, Churches of Christ, Presbyterian, Salvation Army, Uniting and Seventh Day Adventist churches were running aged care facilities, along with the Jewish community.

yy Bethshan, Katanning: 23 residents (hostel) yy Elimatta, Mount Lawley: 88 residents (78 self-contained units), 32 residents (hostel) yy Pilgrim House, East Fremantle: 13 residents (10 self-contained units); 38 residents (hostel) yy Subiaco Congregational Homes (later Mayflower): 16 residents (11 self-contained units); 5 residents (hostel) Chrystal Halliday also provided a day care service, but other facilities appear to have been entirely focused on residential care. Approximately 300 staff members were employed, including both full- and part-time staff.66 The Aged Care report to the 1977 Synod noted that sites without hostel or nursing facilities would soon experience problems providing continuing care. Investigation of both expansion of facilities associated with existing homes and sites for completely new Homes was recommended.67

Collier Pine Plantation. Image: Juniper.

65 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, pp.37-39, 126 Note: For some agencies, the number of independent living units is not provided, only the number of residents in these units. 66 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1979, pp.48-49 67 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, pp.38-39

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Many of the smaller facilities in the State, often comprising groups of four to eight units, were operated by local governments in rural areas. Largest of all the facilities were Rowethorpe and its adjacent Bentley neighbour, Swan Cottage Homes. Together, the two facilities in Bentley housed a community of over 1,000 older people. Almost as large was the combined housing at Menora, where Elimatta was one of seven aged care providers accommodating older people in various levels of care, although none of the individual facilities catered for so many as Rowethorpe or Swan Cottage Homes.68 Both the Bentley and Menora precincts were built on the site of former Forests Department pine plantations (Collier and Scaddan respectively), which had been made available by the government after fires destroyed both forests in the same weekend in March 1957.69 Sorting out arrangements for a united approach to aged care was a huge task. After many months of negotiation, the Aged Persons Homes Board was established. Operating as a branch of the UCA Division of Mission (later the Division of Mission and Nurture), the new entity began trading as The Uniting Church Homes for the Aged. The Board first met in September 1977. A constitution was developed, defining the relationship between the new Board and the pre-existing management committees and an interim relationship with CMM Homes.70 Sub-committees were formed for specific issues, such as one in 1978 considering assessment procedures.71 Attempts began to create a standard accounting system,72 but even by the 1990s there were serious anomalies between the accounting of the different facilities.73 Efforts to standardise assessment procedures, application processes

and employment conditions similarly struggled to be consistently adopted.74 Western Australia was the only synod of the Uniting Church in 1977 that established a synodical body to coordinate aged care.75 For many years the body did not work particularly efficiently, yet the establishment of the Board in 1977 signalled a clear intent for greater unity, which was a significant foundation in the late 1980s when moves were made to merge the Homes into a single agency.76

The Review Committee urged confidence and good will

The Synod resolution of 1977 that brought independent aged care facilities under Uniting Church auspices included CMM Homes as ‘part of the Aged Care Work of the Uniting Church’ to which its by-laws applied. However, as CMM Homes had indicated some reluctance to operate under the Aged Persons Homes Board, it was granted that the first 12 months would be considered a trial period. After this, a review including both the Board and Wesley Parish Mission (who oversaw CMM Homes) would determine whether the arrangement was viable. It appears CMM Homes was not given much choice about whether to participate in the trial.77 Because it had not taken steps to incorporate as an autonomous body after the Incorporation of the Methodist Church Act was passed in 1969,

68 List of subsidised homes, 1 November 1977, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/148 69 The Age, 18 March 1957, p.1; State Records Office, search results ‘scaddan AND plantation’ (online database) accessed 19 October 2017 70 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, p.26, 37-39, 126 71 Correspondence, 1977-1979, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc6314A/10 72 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 73 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, pp.1-2, 8 74 Correspondence, 1982, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc6314A/14 75 Regionalisation Working Party Report, 1984, Correspondence, 1983-1984, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/28 76 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 77 Notes from the committee reviewing APHB and CMM Homes, November 1979, Correspondence, 1983-1984, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4933A/3

1. Where it all began

it had legally come under the auspices of the Synod Property Trust at Union, subjecting it to governance through a series of inter-related Councils of the Church.78 The review took place through the latter half of 1979. CMM Homes acknowledged that the Board had the potential to make a significant contribution to the combined aged care work of the Uniting Church and should be financially supported by all the Homes. However, the formula for determining how much each Home contributed was not considered reasonable. CMM Homes paid a far greater share than any other management committee, due to the larger number of residents it cared for. It had concerns about the accountability of the Board. It also worried that the Board may make an ‘empire building’ power grab, usurp the role of management committees and destroy the autonomy of independent groups. Communication between the Board and CMM Homes had clearly not been ideal and the relationship had got off to a bumpy start. However, there were signs of improvement and the Board offered assurances that it had no interest in a centralisation of power at the expense of management committees. The review committee urged the Board and CMM Homes to build confidence and good will towards each other. It recommended some tweaking of the bylaws, especially representation of the Homes within Board membership and improved accountability through bringing the Board more clearly within the Division of Mission. However, the committee felt it needed to note that ‘the proposed changes … will achieve little without the willing co-operation of the people concerned’.79 Over subsequent years, this ‘willing co-operation’ was not always forthcoming, in either direction. However, CMM Homes remained within the umbrella of the Board, its temporary status removed.

Members of local UCA parishes were to be included in the administration of Homes for the Aged. Parishes were also urged to pay particular care to aged persons living in their own homes.80 To this end, a Field Officer for Aged Care was appointed in 1977, linked to the Mount Lawley – Maylands Parish Day Care Centre. Lynette Litfin was the first Field Officer.81 Parishes were subsequently encouraged to provide activities for older members, particularly through day care centres.82 Synod resolved in 1979 to support the Board in establishing services to help older people remain in their own homes.83 However, a decade later home care options were still being researched as possible ways for the church to expand its aged care services, suggesting few practical outcomes resulted from the 1970s rhetoric.84

Image: Juniper.

78 Secretary of Synod, letter to Wesley Parish Mission, 14 May 1984, Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 79 Notes from the committee reviewing APHB and CMM Homes, November 1979, Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 80 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, p.9 81 Division of Mission, ‘Supplementary Report’, UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, p.156 82 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1978, pp.45-47 83 Correspondence, 1977-1979, MN659 Acc6314A/10 84 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1985, pp.152-153

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

The Aged Persons Homes Board, which was made up of volunteers, was provided with a salaried executive officer and assistant85 after initial attempts to run entirely on volunteer time proved unworkable. The first executive officer, Warwick Donovan, was appointed in late 1977 and took up office from February 1978.86 The Board comprised 11 members (increased to 16 from 1980)87, selected for their relevant expertise, and the Superintendent of the UCA (WA) Division of Mission.88

The main concern was provision of care for older people in need One of the first tasks of the Board was a comprehensive survey of the facilities it had adopted.89 It also made special effort to build relationships of trust between the individual Homes and the Board. To this end, Board meetings were held at the different Homes and local management committee members encouraged to attend.90 The Board itself operated administratively out of rooms at Fraser House, South Perth.91 Budgets were tight from the outset. Wherever possible, the Board applied for government assistance, but the building programs it hoped to implement were hampered by its

lack of funds.92 In 1978, it seemed government finance for future development would not be forthcoming, and alternate funding sources were to be investigated.93 The following year, the Board found it needed to intervene at Subiaco Memorial Hospital to address financial problems. Under Board advice, changes were made to substantially reduce a $48,000 capital debt at Subiaco.94 By 1980, both this hospital and Chrystal Halliday Homes had been assisted to become debt-free. Service charges to residents in all Homes had to be increased more than the Board wished, in order to ensure facilities, especially hostels, broke even financially.95 Some funding was raised by an annual Street Appeal, but this was abandoned after 1981.96 The main concern of the Aged Persons Homes Board was provision of care for older people in need, with priority for the destitute or underprivileged. However, as resources were limited and elderly people of greater means were also requesting care, the Board investigated options in the early 1980s for expanding to provide fee-paying places. A service charge was to be included in fees for these places to ensure they funded not only the resident concerned but also expansion of services for destitute residents.97 Few centralised services were provided by the Board. By 1980, it did not even have any information brochures describing Uniting Church Homes to prospective residents. Enquirers were directed to check the phone book for contact details of individual Homes. When questioned, the Executive

85 UCH, Celebrating Sixty YearsÂ¸2009, p.6 86 Executive Directors Reports to the Board, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/121 87 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1980, pp.82-84 88 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1979, pp.48-49 89 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1978, pp.45-47 90 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1980, pp.82-84 91 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 92 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1979, pp.48-49 93 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1978, pp.45-47 94 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1979, pp.48-49 95 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1980, pp.82-84 96 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1982, p.106 97 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1981, p.100

1. Where it all began

Officer replied that the Board had made no attempt to create promotional materials as ‘very few of our Homes … are able to consider taking applications for accommodation’, especially independent living units. When vacancies did occur that could not be filled from waiting lists, the Board contacted public hospitals to find candidates for accommodation.98 Waiting lists for independent living units by this time were so long that many Uniting Church facilities no longer accepted applications. Demand far outstripped supply.99

The new name, and associated changes in the by-laws, was intended to facilitate moves towards offering home care and also prepare the way for greater unification of disparate aged care services under UCA auspices ‘if and when such a move is considered desirable’.104 Synod did not approve the name change. Possibly the voices opposing greater centralisation voted it down. However, by 1985 the Board was answering directly to Synod, although the Division of Mission and Nurture retained some functional oversight.105

The first amalgamation of the independent Homes under the Uniting Church umbrella came in 1979, when the management committees for Elimatta and Pilgrim House came together. Both had previously been Congregational Homes.100 Euroka and Chrystal Halliday Homes followed in 1981. Geographically close, they had been established by the Methodist and Presbyterian churches respectively.101 Three years later, management committees for the former Congregational and Methodist facilities in Subiaco (Mayflower and the Memorial Hospital) also merged.102 Although continuing to operate separately, Fraser House had a strong relationship with Rowethorpe, which functioned as its extended care facility.103

The St David’s Management Committee opened Riverslea in Mount Lawley in 1982. A 45-bed hostel, it was the first new aged care facility to open as a Uniting Church Home. At the same time, 68 more places were added at Rowethorpe and expansion was underway at Chrystal Halliday Homes.106 The Chrystal Halliday project (Chrystal Gardens) was a venture into resident-funded retirement units. Unfortunately, the housing market was very depressed in 1983 as they reached completion and the Board found the units difficult to sell.107 By late 1984, however, all the units were sold and occupied.108 The Uniting Church then operated 13 Homes, accommodating over 1,400 residents and employing approximately 560 staff. Over half the residents lived in 640 independent living units. Hostels offered 349 beds while nursing homes had 314. Most residents were over 70 years old, with 53% over the age of 90.109

Recognising that its services would increasingly expand to home care, the Aged Persons Homes Board in 1981 considered changing its name to Council for Aged Care. There was clearly some frustration from the Board at having to function under the umbrella of the Board for Mission and Nurture rather than being directly accountable to Synod.

98 Correspondence, 1980, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc6314A/11 and Acc6314A/12; quote: letter from Executive Officer to Miss Jones, 26 March 1980 (Acc6314A/11) 99 Correspondence, 1982, MN659 Acc6314A/14 100 Correspondence, 1977-1979, MN659 Acc6314A/10 101 Correspondence, 1982, MN659 Acc6314A/14 102 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 103 Second Interim Report of the Working Party reviewing the APHB, p.12, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4933A/9 104 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1981, p.107 105 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 106 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1982, p.100 107 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1983, pp.203-205 108 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 109 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

From 1983, the Board established an Aged Care Development Fund to centralise donations. All management committees were asked to contribute to the fund. Central to its beginnings was a generous donation from a resident at one of the Uniting Church’s Homes.110

was due to questions of how the positions would be funded. The Board chair, Dr John Blackwell, had a particular interest in ensuring chaplaincy services were established. It was due largely to efforts by Blackwell, Board member Mrs Terry Roberts and Executive Director Warwick Donovan that the Board persevered with attempts to employ chaplains.116 Despite years of planning, it was 1987 before a north of the river chaplain was able to be appointed, with Rev Allan W Shallcross the inaugural appointee.117 He served in the role until 1993.118 From 1987, the South of the River chaplain, Rev Deane Tietzel, was also Minister for a Uniting Church congregation at Rowethorpe.119 The Prestage Sullivan Foundation was established from 1988 to fund aged care chaplaincy, supported by donations and bequests.120

An attempt at standardisation was the introduction of a uniform application form, agreement and conditions of residence for all independent living units and hostels in 1984.111 Implementation, however, appears to have been patchy.112 Although all the management committees together funded the Aged Persons Homes Board to provide some linking oversight and accountability to Synod, there was significant resistance to any moves towards greater union at this stage.113

After many years working from offices at Fraser House, in February 1984 the Board’s administration was moved from South Perth to the Uniting Church offices in the Perth CBD. Staff members were not pleased.121 For two years, Warwick Donovan struggled with an office that lacked privacy, noisy meetings in the adjacent meeting room, limits on afterhours phone calls and an ‘impossible’ parking situation. The executive director needed to come and go several times a day, as did others in the office, and found himself repeatedly parked in and having to move cars.122 Approval to move back to Fraser House was granted in March 1986, but it was December before the Aged Persons Homes Board was again working from South Perth.123

Chaplaincy was another area where the Board attempted an inter-Home service. The Board began appointing chaplains with Rev B.D.N. Hale, who served Homes south of the river from 1984 to 1986.114 There appears to have been considerable red tape involved in getting chaplaincy positions approved.115 Partly this

110 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1983, pp.203-205 111 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 112 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, transcript of interview with Natalie McNee, 23 May 2016 113 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 114 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 and 1986, pp.123-126 115 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 116 Donovan, W. letter to Rev J. Moody, 18 Sept 1987, Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 117 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1987, pp.65-68 118 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.7 119 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1987, pp.65-68 120 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110 121 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 122 Executive Directors Reports to the Board, MN659 Acc4471A/121; Correspondence, 1981-1985, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/26 123 Correspondence, 1986-1987, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/27

1. Where it all began

Government funding for aged care changed from January 1984 so that all hostel residents were reassessed and many had their subsidies changed. Some received $10 a week as Hostel Care Subsidy and others $50 a week as Personal Care Subsidy. The net result was a sudden and substantial income reduction for residential facilities, resulting in two Uniting Church facilities ending up in financial loss. Warwick Donovan took the matter up personally with the Minister.124 Although payments were not increased, changes to the conditions relating to them had restored adequate levels of funding by the following year.125 Elaine Fairclough, long-standing Chair of the Bethshan Management Committee, was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in 1985 for her contribution to aged care.126 Her recognition was representative of the enormous dedication that volunteers poured into the work of managing the individual Uniting Church aged care facilities. For many, this was a chief expression of their faith. The Uniting Church continued the strong values of community service and efforts to improve life for the marginalised that had characterised the Presbyterian, Congregational and Methodist churches prior to union. These values were primarily lived out not in organisational dictums or statements of intent, but in the practical service of individual church members. By the mid-1980s, some centre managers were receiving very low salaries, far beyond any relevant award. When attention was drawn to this matter, staff asserted that managers were content with arrangements as they had excellent job satisfaction and saw their work as a community service.127

Three new hostels opened in 1986 (Hillcrest Geraldton, Bethavon Northam, and expansion of St Davidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Mount Lawley), adding 117 hostel places to the Uniting Churchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s facilities. The Northam and Geraldton hostels also had their own management committees, bringing the number of committees to nine.128 The country facilities were supported in their start-up by CMM Homes, especially the management team at Rowethorpe. Hillcrest was funded through a loan by CMM Homes, which was repaid by 1988. Bethavon was funded by a Uniting Church Investment Fund loan (also repaid by 1988) along with private interest-free loans from residents, community members and the Grain Pool of WA.129

Juniper Hillcrest, Geraldton c.1995. Image: Juniper.

124 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 125 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 126 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1985, pp.152-153 127 Correspondence, 1981-1985, MN659 Acc4471A/26 128 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1986, pp.123-126 129 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Many other private bodies brought proposals to the Board for potential UCA involvement, but most were considered unsuitable.130 Commonwealth legislation in 1986 introduced measures to limit the growing number of residential aged care facilities. The government felt the aged care sector was too reliant on high care residential facilities. Over-supply was seen as contributing to this, a result of years of government funding that had encouraged construction of nursing homes. It was proposed that expansion of residential care would be permitted only at a ratio of 100 places per 1,000 people aged 70 and over. The Commonwealth would only 100%-fund facilities intended

to accommodate financially disadvantaged residents.131 Increasingly stringent regulations were introduced to govern the residential aged care sector. Over the next decade, the number of residential beds reduced (as a proportion of the over-65 population) and the balance shifted towards more low care and fewer high care places.132 After documented instances of poor standards in nursing home care came to light, the Commonwealth took over regulation of residential facilities in 1987.133 The Board applied in 1986 to transfer nursing home beds to Chrystal Halliday and Rowethorpe to facilitate expansion of high care services on these campuses, as construction of new nursing home places was being discouraged. The transfer was initially knocked back134 and was a planning headache even once approved. 135 The new policy also dashed hopes of establishing a hostel in Subiaco, which had been under investigation for some years.136 This left the anomaly of the Uniting Church offering independent living units and nursing home care in Subiaco, but not the intermediary hostel stage.

Despite an emphasis on home care, waiting lists continued to be filled.

Paul Spadaccini, Bethavon architect Jim Thompson, Guy Spadaccini and Brian Gluestein October 1985. The Spadaccini Constructions company in Northam has worked with Juniper for many decades. Image: The Avon Valley Advocate.

130 131 132 133 134 135 136

UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1986, pp.123-126 Legislative Research Service, ‘Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill’, 1986, p.1, 4-5 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, p.231 de Boer, Rebecca, ‘Aged care policy in Australia: 1993-2015’, unpublished paper, prepared for Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015, p.9 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1986, pp.123-126 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1987, pp.65-68 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1987, pp.65-68

1. Where it all began

Under the 1986 changes, government funding for home care services would increase in place of residential care.137 This had already been foreshadowed in the Home and Community Care Act 1985.138 The new government approach was referred to as the Home and Community Care Program (HACC). It looked like the 10 year hopes of expanding Uniting Church aged care services into home care finally had some realistic government support. The Board established a committee to investigate how the new legislation might enable development of ‘domiciliary services’.139 Similar services were offered by the UCA’s Crossroads program, which assisted adults with intellectual disabilities. Several UCA parishes offered community services that included older people, although not targeting them specifically. Some of the broader UCA social service agencies, such as Wesleycare and Communicare, also had services applicable to some older people. Chrystal Halliday’s Day Care Centre offered services and activities for older people referred through public hospitals, supported by four part-time employees and some volunteers. On weekdays, up to 40 individuals attended, with more than half coming from outside Chrystal Halliday.140 The links created between residents and community members resulted in many day clients eventually taking up residence.141

137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144

Despite policy and funding emphasis on home care, however, by the end of the 1980s there were still waiting lists at all the Uniting Church’s residential facilities. Older people (or their families) continued to seek out residential care.142 As the 1986 policies were implemented, there were several rounds of changes and adjustments to how aged care was subsidised and regulated by the government. Geriatric Assessment Teams were gradually implemented. Nursing home funding became linked to these teams’ assessments of residents’ needs. Hostel funding was also restructured. The way fees were set was revised. All up, the late 1980s were a period of upheaval for the aged care sector. The Board, along with the management committees and staff of each facility, had to work hard to keep abreast of the changes as aged care became increasingly complex to manage.143 Meanwhile, hostels admitted more and more higher-needs residents, as government assessments kept many out of nursing homes that would formerly have accepted them.144

Legislative Research Service, Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill, 1986, p.1, 4-5 Legislative Research Service, Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill, 1986, p.3 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1986, pp.123-126 Domiciliary and Home Help Services Sub-Committee, Minutes, 1985, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/97 Lynne Robinson, transcript of interview with Natalie McNee, 13 June 2016 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

From 1987, men became eligible for admission to residential aged care facilities at 60 years of age, the same as women, rather than 65 as previously, increasing the potential client base.145 At the 1986 census, 15% of Australia’s population had been recorded as aged 60 or over. However, Aboriginal people had much shorter life expectancies, with only 4.2% of the Aboriginal population reaching the age of 60.146 This was equivalent to where the rest of the population had been in the early twentieth century.

Dr John Blackwell resigned as Board chair in 1987, after 10 years in the role and two years prior to Union as chair of the Presbyterian Aged Persons Homes Council. He was remembered as providing excellent oversight and support for both the Executive Director and Board members. His leadership was characterised by ‘statesmanship, diplomacy and democracy’. Professionally part of a pathology practice at St John of God Hospital, he was also a member of Nedlands Uniting Church (formerly St Pauls Presbyterian Church).148

The Board recognised that independent living units were increasingly challenging for the Homes to manage. Some were over 25 years old and no longer met standards expected by potential residents. While for some units this was due to limits in their original design or lack of maintenance, more broadly it was a result of an increase in Western Australian housing standards, not only for older people’s accommodation. Upgrades were anticipated to be expensive, putting Uniting Church independent living units financially beyond the capacity of the low-income older people they were intended to serve. Discussions in 1987 even suggested converting independent living units for hostel use or demolishing them altogether, and focusing entirely on supported residential care and home-care services.147

Rowethorpe received State government funding in 1988 towards accommodation for couples where one suffered from Alzheimer’s disease. The new Home for six couples, Hakea Place, opened in 1990. This was an innovation at the time. The same year, the Board’s annual report noted the increasing need to cater for those with dementia. New day services and centres were called for, along with improved dementia-specific aspects within existing facilities.149 Both the Rowethorpe project and the more general appeal reflect the rise of dementia as a major concern among older Western Australians.

145 Correspondence, 1986-1987, MN659 Acc4471A/27 146 ABS, Census 86 – Australia in Brief, Commonwealth of Australia, 1987, p.5 147 Report of the APHB Planning Morning held 14 February 1987, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 148 Donovan, W. letter to Rev J. Moody, 18 Sept 1987, Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 149 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192

1. Where it all began

By 1988, the Aged Persons Homes Board oversaw 15 facilities, as follows:150 Facility

Independent Living Units

Hostel places

Bethavon, Northam

Bethshan Lodge, Katanning

Chrystal Halliday Homes, Karrinyup

Chrystal Gardens, Trigg

Elimatta, Mount Lawley

Euroka Village, Waterman

Fraser House, South Perth

Nursing home places

Hardey Lodge, Mount Lawley

Hillcrest, Geraldton

Mayflower, Subiaco

Pilgrim House, East Fremantle

Riverslea Lodge, Mount Lawley

38 45

Rowethorpe, Bentley

269

165

160

St Davidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s, Mount Lawley

Subiaco Uniting Church Hospital TOTAL

150

43 638

460

314

UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Not only concerned with the practicalities of overseeing its many Homes, the Board also raised wider issues of an ageing population with Synod. In 1987, the Board urged the UCA’s National Assembly to look into the impact of ageing on the church. One impact felt keenly by the Board, and no doubt many other church organisations, was the ageing of its own members. Younger church members seemed more reluctant to volunteer for Board membership.151 It was always a challenge to engage Uniting Church parish members with the work of the Aged Persons Homes Board. Displays were developed, presentations prepared, newsletter inserts written and synod appeals made. The parishes directly associated with residential facilities seem to have reasonably good connections with these services. In other places, however, aged care was off the radar. Encouragement to become aware of the Board’s operations, and to develop non-residential services within parishes, seems to have had little response.152 Amid all these operations, the Board and its management committees also spent much of the 1980s considering options for greater union. It was a vexed question. The Homes were managed by highly independent, passionate volunteers, for whom serving older people was an expression of their faith. Yet the world of aged care was rapidly changing, and volunteer undertakings had limits. Day to day, caring for elderly residents was everyone’s main concern. At a planning level, however, the 1980s into the 1990s was an intense period of wrestling with what it meant to be both ‘Uniting’ and ‘Church’.

151 Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 152 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110 153 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4471A/28 154 Board minutes, 16 Aug 1983, Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4471A/28

1.3 Pulling the Pieces Together (or Apart?) From its inception, the Board operated with a light touch in dealing with management committees. Wherever possible it did not interfere, opting to tread lightly when making changes. Some thought that, in so doing, it had made itself a ‘paper tiger’. Others felt the committees managed just fine without Board involvement, and that the Board responded too slowly to be useful anyway. Committees had not all been keen on the creation of the Board in the first place. Some felt they did not get value for money for their (compulsory) contributions to Board finances. Aware of this sensitivity, the Board aimed for ‘cooperation, consensus and conciliation’ rather than imposing decisions. By the mid-1980s, however, it was beginning to consider changing tack.153 A working party was established by the Board in 1983 to examine the role of the board in relation to management of individual Homes.154 The following year the working party developed a regionalisation plan, proposing a two-tier administration, with the Board responsible for policy setting and broad governance, and regional committees managing day-to-day operations. Most of the Homes did not welcome the move. It was felt that local focus was crucial to effective operations, and would be lost in regional administration. Personal contact with residents and ongoing historic links to founding parishes seemed threatened. Volunteers were less likely to contribute. Costs would increase to pay for centralised staff, as well as more highly qualified local managers. Existing managers were offended by calls to improve and professionalise management, seeing it as a slight on their abilities. They feared for their jobs and were outraged that regionalisation was presented as a foregone conclusion by the time they were consulted. Existing committees resented

1. Where it all began

statements of the working party that made committees sound obstructive, recalcitrant and stubbornly resistant to change. The whole proposal was considered not to have been sufficiently thought through.155 By early 1984, two management committees appeared supportive, but five had written expressing objections to the proposals.156 Part of the resistance stemmed from difficult relationships between the Homes and the Executive Director. While the Executive Director felt he was insufficiently resourced to do his job well, the Homes felt that at times he interfered in their operations. Rather than assisting them, he was seen as increasing their workload. The management committees and the Executive Director all called for a redraft of his job description to clarify his role and responsibilities and ensure he was able to perform a coordinating role.157 CMM Homes was particularly opposed to centralisation of any kind. Notes from a meeting with the Working Party in 1984 described ‘an attitude of aggressive confrontation’.158 CMM Homes offered to pay for an ‘independent’ review of the Board’s operations, provided it had power of veto over the consultant appointed and agreement that recommendations of any review would only be progressed with the agreement of a majority of management committees. It already had someone in mind suitable to conduct the process. The Division of Mission and Nurture declined the offer, feeling that funding by one committee, let alone the conditions attached, would prevent such a review being independent.159 A year later, the relationship between

CMM and the Board was acknowledged to be so tense that other matters were set aside to focus on rebuilding trust.160 Tension between CMM Homes and the Board hampered the Board’s operations and was to overshadow negotiations towards greater union through the rest of the decade and beyond. Retrospectively, it has been described as a situation of ‘trench warfare’.161

St David’s was an early voice supporting moves towards centralisation By April 1985, the UCA’s Division of Mission and Nurture, which oversaw the Aged Persons Homes Board at the time, was having second thoughts about the whole restructure proposal and decided to go ‘back to base one’.162 The Working Party was wound up in June. The concept of regionalisation continued to be endorsed, but the Board conceded more preparatory work was needed and allowed that this may take up to two years.163 A confidential report in 1986 outlined concerns that the Board was ineffective, unwieldy and unpopular with its Homes. Having Homes directly represented on the Board caused conflicts of interest and hampered efforts at big-picture

155 Correspondence, 1981-1985, MN659 Acc4471A/26 156 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 Note: Hillcrest and Bethavon were still in planning stages at this point. 157 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 158 Correspondence, 1984, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/29 159 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 160 Correspondence, 1981-1985, MN659 Acc4471A/26 161 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 162 Correspondence, 1981-1985, MN659 Acc4471A/26; quote: internal memo, 4 April 1985 163 Correspondence, 1984-1986, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/30

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

planning.164 Board members continued to express frustration and concern that their authority was limited, despite the Board carrying significant legal responsibility. Decisions of the Board had to be approved by management committees in order to be implemented, and management committees were often not prepared to move in the Board’s direction.165 The Board needed greater financial independence, as it relied heavily on levying the Homes to fund its operations. It also relied on suitably qualified professionals volunteering their time. Appropriate expertise was not always easy to obtain.166 Another attempt was made in 1988 to review operations and look at possible restructure. All nine management committees were consulted.167 Daphne Cotton, of the UCA’s Division of Mission and Nurture, facilitated the review.168 She quickly concluded that concerns raised in earlier years remained live, and in some instances had worsened.169 St David’s was an early voice supporting moves towards centralisation.170 It had long advocated for the changes, at times as a lone voice in the early 1980s.171 Other Homes followed, feeling the Board was failing in its current form.172 CMM Homes opposed centralisation. It put forward an alternative, proposing retaining the Board as an enabling rather than directive body while establishing a ‘coordinating committee’, supported by a paid secretary, to address management issues common to all facilities. This committee would comprise the paid administrators and voluntary secretaries of all the UCA facilities, and would replace the Executive Director.173

The review also considered whether to do away with the Board altogether and have the Homes report directly to Synod. This option was rejected early in the piece as it was judged that Church policy clearly mandated that Homes and other like services should report to Synod through an overseeing Board. 174 Conflict erupted late in 1988 when the Executive Director heard rumours that CMM Homes was attempting to bypass the Board in a decision regarding investment of capital funds. CMM Homes was adamant that they were not doing so, and took offense at the approach taken in response. The Division of Mission and Nurture, although noting some impropriety had gone on regarding finance approvals, sided with CMM Homes in the matter of what was appropriate to address this.175 At the same time, the position of Executive Director was under review. The role had been established in 1978 with the aim of drawing the individual Homes together within the Uniting Church. Investigations and peer feedback found that, despite a decade of effort, Warwick Donovan had not been successful in overcoming resistance to a central Board. A report suggested this was unlikely to change while he served as Executive Director. At times, the Executive Director had acted in his own right rather than implementing decisions of the Board. A loose job description gave him weighty responsibilities without appropriate support or accountability. Tension and misunderstandings between Donovan, the Homes and

164 Review of the Structure and Operations of the Aged Persons Homes Board, 1988-1989 (file), UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/16 165 Letter from Douglas MacAdam to John Smith, 22 December 1987, Correspondence, 1988-1989, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/3 166 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110 167 Correspondence, 1988, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/31 168 Correspondence, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/3 169 Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16 170 Correspondence, 1988, MN659 Acc4471A/31 171 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 172 Correspondence, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/3 173 Correspondence, 1988, MN659 Acc4471A/31 174 Cotton, Daphne, ‘Confidential Report of the Aged Person’s Homes Board Review’, January 1989, Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16 175 Correspondence, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/3

1. Where it all began

the Board had resulted. Some Homes expressed a lack of confidence in the Executive Director, with their paucity of trust at times manifest as outright antagonism. Warwick Donovan subsequently tendered his resignation, effective from late February 1989.176 Within a few months of Donovan leaving, the last remaining Board member from the 1970s, Norm Lushey, also resigned. It was the end of an era. Both Donovan and Lushey had begun with the Board in 1978.177 They had participated in establishing the Board in the early years when the church as a whole had been working out together what ‘Uniting’ would look like.

Norman C. Lushey had begun involvement with the Homes in 1964 through the Presbyterian Church, and became chair of the St David’s board in 1966 when founding chairman Rev Thrum resigned. A skilled administrator, Lushey was involved in project management of several facilities and participated in many boards and committees, including as chair. For many years, St David’s management committee relied heavily on Lushey voluntarily taking responsibility for administrative tasks, for which other large facilities employed senior staff. From 1985, he was employed as St David’s Administrator, until his retirement in 1992.180 Lushey continued to assist the Board over several years after ceasing to be a member.181

Warwick Donovan, as founding Executive Officer, had particularly contributed to integrating the disparate Homes under the Uniting Church umbrella, including attempts to develop standard accounting systems and drawing up the independent living agreement. During his term, new residential facilities had been established at Northam and Geraldton, as well as considerable expansion of metropolitan Homes. One of Donovan’s particular concerns was the establishment of chaplaincy services. At his resignation, the Board acknowledged that ‘this newly created position has been a difficult one’ in which Donovan served with ‘devotion to the position’.178 Warwick Donovan died only four years later after a protracted illness. Synod that year acknowledged his substantial contribution to aged care.179

Norman Lushey. Image: Juniper.

176 Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16 177 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 178 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 179 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1993, pp.83-85 180 ‘Norman C. Lushey’, notes, 1994, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History; Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 181 Review of the Structure and Operations of the Aged Persons Homes Board, 1990-1992, (file), UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/17

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

One outcome of Daphne Cotton’s review was appointment of an executive committee in 1989 to attend to urgent items between Board meetings.182 For much of 1989, the Board operated without an Executive Director. CMM Homes offered to make a senior staff member available to act in the position temporarily. However, this was rejected by the Division of Mission and Nurture. Given the sensitive nature of restructure negotiations through the year, such an appointment would have created an intractable conflict of interest. The role of Executive Director was rewritten to clarify issues that had caused difficulties during Warwick Donovan’s term in office.183 By 1989, administrators of the metropolitan facilities were meeting regularly to pool expertise. Out of these meetings, the administrators appealed to the Board for review of their roles, based on a range of difficulties in the existing arrangements.184 Administrators felt they were ‘each trying to do everything’ and ‘unable to cope with the sheer volume of work and comprehend the very detailed complexities’.185 The Board acknowledged that its services were ‘reaching the limit of where volunteerism can take us’ and ‘disempowering professionals’, running the risk of losing the best of their staff. Management committees were mostly focused on administration and not able to address strategic planning or position themselves for the evolving future of aged care.186 The review recommended strongly that individuals not be eligible to serve on both the Board and a management committee at the same time, lest this limitation be writ large at Board level. Connection with the Homes was to be retained instead through administrators nominating a representative for Board membership.187

Daphne Cotton continued to guide the review process through 1989, largely as a paid consultant. New by-laws were drafted and circulated for input from stakeholders. A suitable candidate for the reworked Executive Officer position was sought. As her work drew to a close, Daphne wrote that she was ‘confident that the major barriers to the effective functioning of the APHB are now removed or in the process of coming down’. She acknowledged that along the way ‘some long-standing established relationships between the Board and the Homes’ had been ‘destabilised’ but did not think this would cause long-term harm. The pain caused in the ‘collapse of some old wood’ would ‘allow a healthy regrowth’.188 Although ultimately Cotton recommended actions that strengthened the Board and went against the wishes of some of the Homes, she was very clear that the Board needed to lift its game. The Homes had not been receiving the ‘tangible benefits’ that a Board should have given them and resented financially supporting its operations. The Board operated with such a tiny staff that most of the week it did not even have a person to answer the phone during business hours. Some Board members had little understanding of their role while others strongly represented only the interests of individual Homes, resulting in a culture of Board inaction. Cotton advised that the Board ‘must improve its performance if it wishes to still the criticism from the Homes’.189

182 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 183 Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16 184 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 185 Notes preparing for 1991 Synod, Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 186 File note, 1990, Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 187 Cotton, ‘Confidential Report’, January 1989, p.3 188 Cotton, Daphne, report to APHB, 20 September 1989, Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16 189 Cotton, ‘Confidential Report’, January 1989, quote p.16

1. Where it all began

Synod in September 1989 agreed to restructure the Board, redefining its role and adopting new by-laws. Its name was changed to Uniting Church Homes Board. The new arrangement strengthened the authority of the Board to direct the work of individual management committees.190 ‘Aged’ was removed from the name as the word had obtained associations with incapacity or disability, and had fallen out of favour with many older people.191

Unity was the direction ahead. CMM Homes felt they had not been granted fair leave to speak against the changes at Synod before the restructure was voted in. The Chair of CMM Homes wrote to the UCA’s WA Moderator, deeply disappointed at what he and his board perceived as a lack of consultation and a synod process failing to adhere to the democratic principles on which the Uniting Church had been formed. He initially intended to resign in protest, but was urged to reconsider, and stayed on. The Board responded that CMM Homes’ approach at Synod had been ‘bullying’, ‘threatening’ and potentially duplicitous. The issue was not unfair processes or a lack of consultation but a fundamental difference of opinion about the balance of power between CMM Homes and the Board.192 After years of struggle amongst the church’s aged care services, Synod’s decision made it clear that further unity was the direction ahead. A new stage was about to begin.

1.4 Turning Vision into Reality Many issues remained to be resolved following the 1989 review, including regional or group management models, central financial control, centralised administration, and sharing of resources between UCH facilities. However, the review determined that ‘it would not be useful for the Board to tackle these issues at the present time’.193 After Synod’s inprinciple resolution to restructure Uniting Church aged care operations, the work of addressing such practical matters began. In place of Warwick Donovan, the Board appointed Vaughan Harding as Director, Uniting Aged Care.194 Vaughan had formal qualifications in organisational development and industrial relations. He had served 19 years in the Commonwealth public service, including roles relating to aviation, industrial relations, foreign affairs and child care services, and joined Uniting Aged Care after working in the aged care arm of the Department of Community Services. His background in government policy was to prove invaluable to the organisation as it entered a period of tumultuous change.195 Initially seconded for a shortterm contract, Vaughan was to have a long and pivotal history with UCH.196 The practice ceased of having some members appointed by Synod and others by management committees. Only two of the five Board members who had represented management committees in 1989 continued to serve on the 1990 Executive Board. Several Board members left as part of the restructure, including Deputy Chair Wendy Johnstone, who had served on the Board since 1980, and Russel Birks, who had represented Subiaco Homes, Bethshan and Fraser House since 1981.

190 Correspondence, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/3 191 Cotton, ‘Confidential Report’, January 1989, p.11 192 Correspondence, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/3 193 ‘Review Report’ (1989), Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16; quote from item 7.2.4 194 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 195 Myers, Roley (Juniper), biographical notes on Vaughan Harding, provided 12 July 2017; Juniper, ‘Board Members’, Annual Report, various years 196 Grant, Beryl, transcript of interview with Natalie McNee, 24 May 2016

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Two long-standing members initially continued with the new Board: Terry Roberts and Noel Ryan, both originally appointed in 1980. Dr Chris Whitaker was appointed Chair. Dr Mike Marsh, the previous chair, who had served the Board since 1987, stayed on as a Board member (until 1991197). The new Board met for the first time in November 1989.198

The new Board appointed a comprehensive committee structure to manage its workload, as recommended by Daphne Cotton’s review. Committees were formed to manage executive, finance, development and chaplaincy functions. A committee oversaw residential facilities, while another concerned itself with strategic planning. The Board began developing guidelines and common documentation for use in all facilities, to improve its coordinating role. It transferred its financial affairs to Synod office and consolidated its investments. Everyday operations were improved by purchase of the Board’s first computer and fax machine. Boardnews was produced from December 1989 to improve communication between facilities, and between the Board and the Church.199 Newspapers love any whiff of a scandal, and in October 1988 Perth’s Daily News ran a front-page article condemning nursing home care. Its report was allegedly based on a complaint against an un-named UCA Home. A week of dreadful publicity resulted. The Federal government set up a temporary complaints hotline in response.200 A national report in 1989 by Chris Ronalds, including data from the phone complaints received, was highly critical of long-term residential aged care, especially its institutional characteristics. More negative media attention resulted. Aged care providers and staff were frustrated to be blamed for low quality care that resulted from government-imposed limits such as bed-quotas, staffing ratios and overall funding levels.201

CMM Homes Administrator Keith Middleton and Darren Mouchemore fire up the barbeque for a “meet the Board” event in 1987. Image: Juniper.

Neither the Board nor the Homes were equipped to mount a cohesive response to negative publicity or a damaging government report. Ad hoc attempts to engage with community newspapers and run positive stories were made.202 However, the situation illustrated another limitation of the existing structure.

197 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991, p.1-5, quote p.2 198 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 199 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 200 Correspondence, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/3 201 UCA WA Newsletter & Notes, March 1989, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/84 202 Correspondence, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/3

1. Where it all began

by the Disabled’, new career structure and superannuation requirements for nurses, and a range of increasingly stringent occupational health and safety regulations.205 The following year, Homes had to prepare codes of practice, charters of residents’ rights and responsibilities, and formal agreements between residents and service providers. The Board attempted to coordinate responses, but individual management committees remained responsible for meeting each wave of government policy obligations. This was a taxing burden for voluntary committees, demonstrating the limits of the existing administrative structure.206

Vaughan Harding. Image: Juniper.

Government aged care policy in the wake of the Ronalds report increasingly emphasised residents’ rights. The Commonwealth government developed a national Charter of Rights and Responsibilities and funded advocacy groups. The moves boosted a cultural change towards greater attention to residents’ views.203 Attention to ‘outcome standards’ increased, first in nursing homes and then in hostels.204 Each facility was expected to maintain increasing levels of documentation for all aspects of services. In 1989, every management committee was required to address a Draft Code of Practice for Retirement Villages, design rules for ‘Access

203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212

Smaller providers struggled to offer the range of services that was increasingly required to meet both government standards and residents’ expectations.207 High quality staff members were essential, but attracting and retaining such staff was an ongoing challenge.208 Career development was difficult within the small, separate providers under the Uniting Church umbrella.209 Building from the 1988-89 review, the new Board surveyed all its aged care facilities, parishes and selecting agencies. What did they want? What deficits could they see? The Board arranged workshops, aiming to reach consensus on the role and future direction of the Uniting Church in aged care.210 Chris Whitaker and Vaughan Harding met with the Chairs of all management committees to work through issues of structural change, future planning, and individual facilities’ challenges.211 All UCA parishes were also invited to provide comment to inform the review process.212

de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.10 (referring to Ronalds’ report Residents Rights in Nursing Homes) UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 Beresford, Uniting in Mission, 2011, pp.10-11 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991, p.1-5, quote p.2 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991, pp.1-5 Circular letters, February 1990, Correspondence, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/3

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

just local interests. Properties were to be vested in the UCA Property Trust to ensure ‘the greatest possible equity, quality, efficiency and effectiveness of services’. By this time, UCH had an annual turnover of approximately $15 million, with capital assets exceeding $100 million.215

Keith Middleton. Image: Juniper.

Ownership and management of properties was a thorny issue in any discussion of merging agencies. Local bodies, mostly volunteers, had worked over many years to establish and then improve their aged care facilities. As a result, these were valuable assets. In 1990, Synod was asked to affirm that these assets were for the benefit of the whole Uniting Church, not

A report to the Board at this time was severely critical of the management of CMM Homes. It was accused of failing to provide the leadership that might be expected of an agency of its size. Management models were deemed outdated, inwardlooking and either incapable or unwilling to deal with change. Senior staff had left because they felt their expertise was not valued by volunteer decision-making bodies. Approaches to appointing staff were judged unprofessional. Nursing home services were operating with annual losses of around $300,000. Long-standing resistance to being accountable

213 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991, pp.1-5 214 Correspondence, 1990-1993, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/4 215 Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992, quote: draft synod recommendations for 1990 216 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991, pp.1-5 217 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, pp.ii-iii, 3 218 Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992

Meanwhile, CMM Homes’ long-standing administrator, Keith Middleton, retired after 25 years serving the organisation.213 With CMM Homes such a substantial part of Uniting Church aged care, this was a significant departure and loss of expertise in the midst of a time of upheaval. Keith Middleton subsequently received a Medal of the Order of Australia in 1992 for his services to older people.214

The Board presented to Synod in 1990 a Strategic Directions paper that outlined a vision for a new agency. This would create a professional management team responsible for the whole organisation. Synod strongly supported this idea, but it required more definite planning before it could be implemented.216 It requested the Board to prepare plans for restructuring so that the resources of the Homes could most effectively implement the agreed vision. Achieving the desired vision was acknowledged as requiring fundamental changes to management structures. Synod also adopted a vision statement and philosophy of care, supported by service and organisational objectives.217 The Board articulated its mission as providing care and support for both the elderly and disabled, including church members desiring to grow old in the care of a Christian community, and wider community members of limited means desiring support as they aged.218

1. Where it all began

to the Board was also noted.219 CMM Homes had been reluctant to release financial information to facilitate this report, and took months to agree to a meeting to discuss it. They vehemently disagreed with the report’s assessment and resented it being aired.220 Other Homes were also struggling with financial management. Bethshan was in financial difficulties, being propped up by seed funding from the Board. Money troubles at Chrystal Halliday in its early years of operation had been largely resolved by the 1990s, but a legacy of caution remained.221 The Board was wary of either Chrystal Halliday or other facilities repeating the mistakes of the 1980s. The restructure process acknowledged that a considerable strength of the independent facilities was their links to local communities, connection with local knowledge, and strong support by local volunteers. This gave the Homes a strong history. Management committees feared losing local identity and connections. Local volunteers were emotionally invested and had a tremendous sense of ownership over their Homes. Many had been involved for decades in fundraising and planning, down to practical details like sewing the curtains, stencilling the linen, selecting the furniture and painting the walls of Homes as they were established.222 Residents knew and respected management committee members; they were often friends.223 But were the management committees equipped to respond to increasingly complex government requirements, detailed reporting standards, professional requirements for modern

nurses, and the prediction that Australia’s population of older people would double in the next 20 years? Increasingly, the view of the Board, Synod and many in the Homes was that even strong volunteer groups would struggle to meet these challenges.224 While the population of older people was increasing, the supply of volunteers to serve on management committees was dwindling.225 At issue was not the intention of voluntary committees to offer high-standard care, but their realistic capacity to do so. The need for change had become urgent. The Board was too isolated from the daily operations of individual facilities to be much use, but remained accountable to Synod for these same operations. Even within the polite confines of a Synod report, the Board could barely contain its frustration when it described ‘the considerable difficulty (at times manifest as resistance) which is sometimes encountered when seeking information about past performance and future intentions’.226 If change did not occur, the situation would ‘create great risk for the church’.227 Over several years, the Board built up organisational structures that would allow it to move forward. Synod supported each phase, encouraged by some key advocates speaking on behalf of the change process.228 The efforts to bring aged care together were not only driven by operational necessity. Fundamental questions of what it meant to be ‘uniting’ as a church were also raised.229 Parallel to developments in Aged Care, the Uniting Church had been finding its feet as a new church. Initial hopes to be a

219 ‘Management Performance – CMM Homes, over the last two years’, undated report c.1991, Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 220 Correspondence, 1990-1993, MN659 Acc4540A/4 221 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 222 McCallum, E., ‘A History of the Subiaco Church Hospital Ladies Auxiliary’, 1985, p.2, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 223 Done, John, unpublished letter to Western Impact, November 1991, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 224 UCH Board, ‘Strategic Directions – supplementary report to Synod for 1990’, Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 225 Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 226 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991, pp.1-5, quote p.2 227 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 228 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 229 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Internal documents show the increasing frustration of the Board and its staff in trying to balance the demands of the increasingly complex aged care industry with the enthusiasm but unprofessional approach of volunteer management committees.

witness to Christian unity proved difficult to implement. The church struggled with ‘the weight, complexity and frequent dysfunction of administration’. At the outset, church members and committees had been buoyed with confidence that the risks involved in a union would be navigated by God’s provision. Over time this ‘daring picture’ of a ‘pilgrim people’ responding to God, moved by the Holy Spirit to great things, often got bogged down in the day-to-day mechanics of operating a church. Many church members also found themselves living with grief at the loss of denominational memories and culture, a grief that they had not fully anticipated when enthusiastically joining the Uniting Church. By the early 1990s, the lustre of the 1977 hopes had faded and a pragmatism, often accompanied by debate and anger, increasingly replaced it.230 As the Board navigated both the need for and resistance to change, it came to appreciate the work of its new Director in managing the process. Vaughan Harding was noted in the 1991 Synod report as playing ‘a key role in assisting the management committees of the Homes, and the Board itself, to be fully appraised of the implications of an increasingly complex and changing external environment’. He was honoured in the report for his ‘professionalism and unstinting willingness to put in many extra hours and evenings’.231 Chris Whitaker later reflected that ‘Vaughan was a master at seeing over the horizon when most others were

230 231 232 233 234

simply peering at it in a blinkered state of bewilderment. He saw opportunities and threats well before his peers’.232 The following year, after advertising the new position of Chief Executive Officer nationally and receiving a large number of applications, the Board appointed Vaughan Harding to the job.233 Internal documents show the increasing frustration of the Board and its staff in trying to balance the demands of the increasingly complex aged care industry with the enthusiasm but unprofessional approach of volunteer management committees. Many were not using computers, or only in unsophisticated ways, especially when managing financial affairs. Employed managers had their responsibilities limited, while suffering the ‘deleterious effect that well-intentioned but poorly informed “volunteers” who hold actual power can have on the well-being, morale and future directions of a Home’. Some senior employees gave up waiting for change and left altogether, causing concern at the loss of expertise within staff of residential facilities. Senior administrators felt particularly pressured, calling for greater co-operation to help with both the volume and complexity of their work. Nine management committees were replicating many administrative functions while not able to resource broadimpact tasks like research or strategic planning, or allow for specialised services.234

Massam, ‘Hope is of God’, 2004, pp.154-157, 164; quotes p.154 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991, pp.1-5, quotes p.5 Whitaker, Chris, emailed comments on draft manuscript for this book, 28 January 2018 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1992, pp.55-56 Unattributed notes to Board Chair, c.1991, Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992

1. Where it all began

The administrative structure was unwieldy and slow. This impacted both its internal operations and its role as an industry advocate. A note to the Board chair in 1991 observed that the agency’s ‘inability to quickly or easily arrive at a position on almost any issue ... reduces our capacity to negotiate with outsiders or influence the big picture’.235 A proposal was put to Synod in 1991 recommending two fundamental changes: moving essential management functions from voluntary boards to paid, full-time professional employees, and realigning volunteer contributions to a Board overseeing governance and strategic matters, and local committees as advisory bodies supporting staff to improve quality of life for residents. Local committees would no longer have management authority over senior staff.236 The Board anticipated that ‘some may have difficulties’ with their proposal, and indeed they did. Leading up to changes being put to Synod in 1991, each management committee was given a chance to comment. Most opposed the proposals. Volunteers felt the proposals stripped them of the chance to have real input. Committees feared that volunteers would lose interest if they had no real power. Many were offended by the report’s implication that individual Homes were not meeting the goals of the UCH vision statement. Restructure was anticipated to be expensive, regardless of long-term savings forecast by streamlined operations. Professionals were viewed with suspicion and equated with depersonalisation of services.237

235 236 237 238

Caring for others is an integral part of Uniting Church ethos. Community services are viewed as a means by which Christ may bring about reconciliation and renewal of the whole creation. Aged care services are an outworking of the Church’s commitment to compassion and justice, core to its identity. For management committee volunteers, operating aged care Homes was an expression of what it meant for them to be Christian. Calls for change appeared as challenges to individuals’ faith, especially their sense of who they were as church members. Their service was a matter of heart. Talk of professionalisation or corporatisation had overtones of profit-making and detachment, putting many people offside. The non-hierarchical, collegiate organisation of the Church was also important for its culture and character. Anything that smelt of business was seen by many as antithetical to church life.238 Some within management committees also remembered the context in which their Homes had been founded, when services for older people were deplorable or non-existent. The loving, personal care of charitable Homes was a revolution when churches and other charities began establishing them in the 1950s and 1960s. Moving from impersonal asylum dormitories to smaller shared rooms was a vast improvement. Community involvement aimed to put a personal touch on care, reacting to the institutional attitudes operating in preceding decades. Charitable provision of accommodation through the 1960s and 1970s, when corporate providers were rorting the system and mistreating residents, had been prophetic and necessary. When the Board in the 1990s stated

Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 ‘Management of Uniting Church Homes – The Urgent Need for Change’, supplementary report to Synod for 1991, Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 Beresford, Uniting in Mission, 2011, p.25, 36

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

The journey of uniting was to take decades of work that these Homes were outdated and unable to keep up with change, it seemed the time, effort and emotion individuals had committed to bring aged care beyond asylums, dingy boarding houses and heartless corporate institutions, was being dismissed and devalued. Hillcrest, which was one of the Homes to support the restructure in principle, submitted that ‘Caring and Nurturing are the basic concepts essential to Church Homes and this cannot be guaranteed by successive Professionals alone’. Bethshan registered their ‘objection in the strongest terms possible’. Its management committee saw the facility as ‘a home for country people run by country people’ and felt the proposed restructure would undermine its role as ‘a community home, not a church home’.239 CMM Homes completely rejected the review report and vowed to fight to the end any efforts to bring it into a centralised aged care agency. As the largest provider under Uniting Church oversight, this was a significant opposition voice. The CMM management committee attempted to amend the recommendations to Synod to take the teeth out of them.

239 240 241 242

A hand-written note on these proposed amendments in UCH files expresses in evident frustration: ‘this does not do anything; the arguing will continue’. Rather more ominously, the same hand noted ‘will use everything in the faxes against them’ and ‘may have to bring out some of the dirty washing’.240 ‘Dirty washing’ presumably included the scathing report into CMM management and finances. Contributing to the struggle with CMM Homes was its foundations as part of a mission rather than a parish. Missions had a wider mandate of operations than parishes. They had long operated with a sense of independence that some in the church experienced as arrogance. The same strong-minded leadership, initiative and passion that saw missions establish many wonderful social works also led to many instances of tension between missions and wider church networks. Although they had joined the Uniting Church in 1977, the journey of ‘uniting’ took decades of work and the early 1990s were in many ways still near the beginning of the process.241 Perth Wesley Mission (formerly Central Methodist Mission), which had founded and continued to support CMM Homes, had also founded Good Samaritan Industries (GSI) in the 1960s. At the same time that negotiations were underway to merge aged care services, there were also moves to make GSI more accountable to Synod and less tied to its founding Mission.242 It is hardly surprising that some individuals of the Mission, many involved in supporting both CMM Homes and GSI, felt under attack by 1991.

Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992; Hillcrest quote: letter to the Board, 21 Sept 1991; Bethshan quote: letter to the Board, 23 Sept 1991 Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 various correspondence, 1991, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History

1. Where it all began

As evidence mounted, showing the desperate need to change, some in the management committees attacked not the message but the messenger. Possibly they felt cornered and could see no other outlet for their frustration. Vaughan Harding recalls being the target of personal attacks during the transition years.243 Memories of this stressful period remain strong even today. Despite opposition, Synod passed the resolutions put to it in 1991. The Board acknowledged that management committees had â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;some apprehensionâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; as to what this would mean. Addressing these concerns was flagged immediately after Synod as a key issue moving forward.244

the people impacted by any changes. Solid planning must be accompanied by resources and time invested in the process, and attention to monitoring and evaluating progress towards major goals. Problems and pitfalls are also common across many mergers: uncertainty, rapid spread of rumours, higher (often crisis-oriented) workload, loss of identity, centralisation of decision making, and temptation for power games, internal conflicts and self-interest to dominate. Merging is an emotional process, which leaves many exhausted.247

Change had been agreed on, but what exactly would it look like? After Synod in 1991 authorised changes, the Board commissioned an independent consultant, Darryl Maytom, to facilitate a process for moving forward. He was to liaise with all relevant parties and prepare options for a new structure.245 A steering committee was appointed to work with Maytom. The Board nominated the chair of CMM Homes to join the group to represent management committees.246 Given the recent, high-level conflict between CMM Homes and the Board, this was a serious attempt at conciliation.

Again, the review process identified recurring concerns with the organisation. An overall lack of vision or shared purpose led to fragmented decision-making. The management structure had resulted in a lack of strategic planning. Systems were not in place to monitor or improve quality of care, or management performance. Committees were micro-managing, while many senior staff members were prevented from taking on appropriate management responsibilities. Communication between the Board, management committees and staff was very poor, with a culture of secrecy in many areas. There was no functional relationship between the Executive Director and the professional staff of the Homes. Training and information technology were areas where managing multiple independent facilities was causing inefficiencies and inconsistencies.248

Studies of organisational mergers suggest some common factors for those that succeed. A clear vision and good reasons for merging begin the process. Strong leadership is needed, along with effective communication and attention to

The review also acknowledged that most of the Homes were in a strong financial position. Committees demonstrated an admirable level of innovation. Their commitment, good intention and caring attitude were commended. The volunteer

243 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 244 Correspondence, 1990-1993, MN659 Acc4540A/4 245 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p. 3 246 Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992 (file), MN659 Acc4540A/17 247 Beresford, Uniting in Mission, 2011, pp.145-146 248 Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992, MN659 Acc4540A/17

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

management system had achieved a great deal, mainly through the dedication of the people involved. However, these individuals could not be expected to serve forever, and were struggling to keep up with the aged care sector more generally. The consultant found that, while opposition to change was easy to find, there was also much support for a major restructure from residents, staff and management committees. He particularly noted the overwhelming ‘warmth’, ‘hospitality’ and ‘Christian charity’ that he had encountered in all meetings during his consultancy. 249 Clearly the consultant had had some management committees try to convince him that they should be excluded from any proposed restructure. In his final report, Darryl Maytom wrote: Whilst not all of the problems are present in all Homes, there is no Home which is free from the implications of at least several of these conclusions. The claim that some of the Homes are managed so well that they should be excluded from this restructure is not sustainable. He wrote these words in bold in the conclusion of his report, the only conclusion given such prominence.250 When UnitingCare West was formed 15 years later, individual UCA social services were given the choice of aligning with a parish, answering directly to Synod or merging into the new agency.251 At the formation of UCH, individual management committees were not given this choice. Largely this was because, as Darryl Maytom found, the Homes could not survive on their own much longer. They did not have the

249

key features needed for a modern organisational structure. Also, some of the reasons for uniting, such as providing a unified public voice, creating economies of scale and sharing both risks and services, would be jeopardised if not all the Homes participated. Inclusion of CMM Homes, representing such a substantial portion of UCA aged care, was essential. Without them ‘the new model may not have been viable at all’.252 CMM Homes, upon receiving Darryl Maytom’s report, recognised that restructuring was inevitable. While the management committee wrote to urge that report recommendations relating to upholding volunteer involvement and retaining links to grass-roots decisionmaking be embedded in any change, it no longer vowed to fight centralisation.253 Proposed changes included a management structure grouping clusters of Homes together for administrative purposes. Each cluster was to include one of the three largest Homes (Rowethorpe, St David’s and Chrystal Halliday) and link with one country facility. In deciding which Homes to group together, the Board considered administrative efficiency, geographical considerations, resident numbers, traditional links, future development options, varying levels of service, and staff skills, attempting to create balanced clusters.254 The proposals could be interpreted as increasing Rowethorpe’s influence, as it would become the centre for a regional administration, where it had long feared restructure would remove its authority.

Maytom, Darryl, ‘Final Report of the Consultancy into the Management Structure and Accountability Frameworks of Uniting Church Homes (WA)’, April 1992, quotes p.51, in Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992, MN659 Acc4540A/17 250 Maytom, ‘Final Report…’, 1992, p.24 251 Beresford, Uniting in Mission, 2011, pp.30-31 252 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 253 Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992, MN659 Acc4540A/17 254 Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992, MN659 Acc4540A/17

1. Where it all began

By-laws were approved by the Synod Standing Committee so that changes could take place in the lead-up to Synod, held in September 1992, including appointment of Regional Committees.255 The Property Trust set up by the UCA in Western Australia as part of union in 1977 was more open to corporate-style restructure than in other states, allowing the ground-breaking by-law changes to proceed.256 The Mission of the Board, adopted in 1990, stated that it was responsible for both older people and those with disabilities. From the following year, there was extended discussion as to whether the Board should extend into provision of disability housing. Early in 1992, it was decided that Mofflyn was a more appropriate agency to take responsibility for UCA services in this area.257 This was an early instance of the Board clarifying its strategic intent and overall purpose, although it was another two years before its mission statement was formally changed in line with this decision. By this stage, the Board oversaw 15 facilities run by nine management committees: Bethavon (Northam), Bethshan Lodge (Katanning), Chrystal Halliday Euroka Homes (three sites at Karrinyup, Waterman and Trigg), CMM Homes (Rowethorpe, Bentley and Hardey Lodge, Mount Lawley), Elimatta Homes/ Pilgrim House (Mount Lawley/ East Fremantle), Fraser House (South Perth), Hillcrest Lodge (Geraldton), Subiaco Homes (Subiaco Hospital and Mayflower) and St David’s Retirement Centre (Mount Lawley, inc Riverslea).

Federal funding arrangements had changed in 1990 so that non-financially disadvantaged hostel residents were no longer eligible for subsidies. To the outrage of hostels, the measure was made retrospective, and attempts to draw attention to the impacts of the move were ignored. Strong national action followed, culminating in the peak body for non-profit aged care, Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations, withdrawing cooperation from all government reviews, committees or working parties in January 1991. Within a fortnight, the government negotiated a compromise to minimise the impact of the changes, especially for small or regional hostels.258 The government was again approving development of new hostels, which had stalled through the 1980s. In 1992, Chrystal Halliday, St David’s, Subiaco Homes and Rowethorpe all received approval for construction of hostels. 259 Synod in 1992 formally elected a new Uniting Church Homes Board. The years of discussion came to fruition and sweeping management reforms were implemented over the next year. Three priorities were addressed: improving the quality of services to residents, progressing staffing issues especially management accountability, and developing better stewardship of both residents’ and government money and the assets inherited by the agency. Management committees were disbanded. Synod acknowledged the names of nearly 100 committee members serving at the time of the change. While some retired from aged care involvement, many continued to serve in other capacities.260 The new, unified agency was called Uniting Church Homes (UCH).

255 Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992, MN659 Acc4540A/17; UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1992, p.55-56 256 Smith, John H., emailed comments on draft manuscript for this book, 30 January 2018 257 Correspondence, 1990-1993, MN659 Acc4540A/4 258 Correspondence, 1990-1993, MN659 Acc4540A/4 259 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991, pp.1-5 260 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1993, pp.83-85

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH 2.1 Heads Down and Make it Work Years of reviews and reports were over. Decisions had been made. By-laws were approved. Regional committees were appointed, and local management committees disbanded. A Chief Executive Officer was in place. New Board members were sworn in. Synod passed the new structure formally into operation. Uniting Church Homes was underway. Several years of solid work to turn the vision into reality lay ahead. Within a year of Synod approving the merger, UCH reported itself to be functioning successfully as a single organisation. The formerly ‘quasi-independent’ agencies and volunteer management committees had been replaced by the new structure. Administration was managed through three regions (North, South and Central), each with a regional manager. Initially, the senior manager of the largest Home in

each region was appointed as Regional Manager, formalising existing networks and giving authority to what had previously been support roles.261 Three regions soon proved unworkable. From July 1994, Homes were re-assigned into North and South only. The former Central regional manager moved to developing new services. ‘North’ included Bethavon, Chrystal Gardens, Chrystal Halliday, Elimatta, Euroka, Hardey, Hillcrest, Riverslea and St David’s; ‘South’ comprised Bethshan, Fraser, Mayflower, Pilgrim, Rowethorpe and Subiaco. Rose Mount, which had opened at Joondanna (1990) and Dianella (1993), was administered from State Office.262 In both the original and revised groupings, Hardey Lodge and Rowethorpe were in different regions. This was controversial. It separated the two facilities formerly run together by CMM Homes and supported by Perth Wesley Mission. However, it was anticipated that Hardey Lodge would not survive a government rationalisation of nursing homes, so this

261 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.v, vi, 1 ‘North’ originally included Chrystal Halliday, Euroka, Subiaco Homes, Mayflower and Hillcrest; ‘Central’ had Hardey Lodge, St David’s, Rose Mount, Elimatta, Riverslea, and Bethavon; ‘South’ covered Rowethorpe, Fraser, Pilgrim and Bethshan 262 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, p.11, inside cover

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

situation would be short-lived.263 The new UCH also saw benefit in breaking up some internal dynamics of the former CMM Homes management that had long been problematic.264 As it turned out, Hardey Lodge operated for another nine years, surviving longer than the regionalised model. Pilgrim House and Elimatta were both former Congregational establishments that had been operated by the same management committee since 1979. They were also separated in the restructure, but this does not appear to have caused as much angst as the division of former CMM Homes.265 They were geographically distant (East Fremantle and Mount Lawley), making it logical they would end up in different regions. Possibly, their separate origins also meant they were more open to being divided. The key governance concern that had led to the formation of UCH had been addressed: policy making had been disentangled from operational management. The former was the role of the Board and other voluntary structures; the latter was the responsibility of paid managerial staff. Volunteers were also involved in advisory committees at regional and local levels. Financial savings were evident within the first year. More importantly, expertise and resources were being shared. By the end of 1993, UCH believed its new structure enabled it to be ‘more responsive to residents’ needs’, a core function of the agency.266 ‘Consolidation’ was the main priority of the Board as UCH was established. Administrative, financial and human resource systems all had to be brought together. In order to ‘let the managers manage’ while also being accountable for UCH operations, one of the Board’s first tasks was to establish strong reporting frameworks across all levels on management.

Other policies developed in the first year related to diverse matters including investments, use of lotteries funding, conflicts of interest, motor vehicle replacement and entry contributions. The language of the first annual report suggests the Board also had to work hard to educate its stakeholders as to how the new structure operated and who was (and was not) responsible for various matters.267 Where previously individual facilities had been managed by directors of nursing (referred to at the time as ‘matrons’), the new arrangement separated management of nursing from oversight of services such as cleaning, laundry, maintenance, gardening, administration, security and catering. Directors of nursing subsequently focused entirely on resident care, which for some was quite a challenging variation of responsibilities.268

Standardisation was not easy, but ultimately it was successful

Several facilities at the time of centralisation were run by strong characters who had to adjust to changes in their level of authority. This was not always welcomed. The new arrangements dislodged a ‘very entrenched management culture’ in some places. Senior staff and volunteers had to adjust to think of themselves in the context of a much broader organisation rather than focusing on local, internal issues.269 Facilities had been run according to their own internal standards. A major reason for creating UCH was ‘to

263 Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992 (file), MN659 Acc4540A/17 264 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 265 Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992 (file), MN659 Acc4540A/17 266 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.v, vi, 1 267 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, pp.5-6, 8 268 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 269 Patterson, Deb transcript of interview with Natalie McNee, 5 June 2016

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

create a standard that all of [UCH’s] services would be known by, right across the group’. Standardisation was not easy, but ultimately it was successful.270 Individual Homes had managed their financial reporting in quite different ways, causing a huge headache for the new agency. Developing unified accounting structures took up a large portion of resources in the first year, and the audited annual financial reports were provisional due to ongoing glitches in consolidation. An Executive Finance Manager was appointed in April 1993 (Brian Parrick) and from July a centralised Group Accounting Office managed all payrolls. Other financial matters were transferred over subsequent months.271 Property assets required revaluation to allow for consistent accounting. It was 1995 before this was fully achieved272 and the following year before the annual accounts were no longer ‘qualified’ at audit.273 Bringing all the bank accounts together into a central accounting system was one of the most fundamental and challenging moves of the merger process. Here was the crux of many former management committees’ sense of disempowerment, evident as an ‘impact … on people’s psyche’.274 Five key challenges remained as UCH entered its second year: establishing UCH-specific benchmarks for service delivery, completing policy frameworks to guide managers, sorting through issues created by consolidating finances, clarifying where to focus efforts in future, and building links with parishes and communities.275 An external review of the new management structure, commissioned early in 1994, found

270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280

that the changes were proceeding well. Although the review made several recommendations for further improvement, including suggesting an end to Regional Committees, it identified no urgent issues and commended the progress made in bringing the agency together.276 Nearly two years later, the 1995 annual report noted that UCH was ‘still quite some distance from achieving its program of reform in organisational development, service delivery and facility redevelopment’.277 Disparate cultures as well as operating systems were being merged. Looking back, Vaughan Harding reflected that ‘to really bring the culture together, so that we were seen as one, working with each other, took about five years’.278 Change took time, and hard work. In 1994, a Human Resources Manager was employed and staff surveyed to better understand their needs. On the whole, staff reported a focus on resident care and a positive, harmonious working atmosphere. However, many felt that staff members were not adequately recognised and teamwork was not an organisational strength. A Staff Development Centre was opened, located at Rowethorpe, to better facilitate ongoing staff training. Staff members with supervision responsibilities received training in human resource management. The promise made at Synod in 1991, that no staff member would have salary reduced or contracts terminated early, was upheld throughout the process, although some employees did have their job descriptions redefined.279 There were union protests outside the Uniting Church offices in 1994, however, when catering at Riverslea was transferred from in-house staff to contractors, who paid their staff less than UCH had done.280

Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, pp.1-2, 8 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.27 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.22 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, pp.1-2 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, pp.4-5 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.11 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, pp.7-10 MWU protest leaflet, 1 March 1994, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4911A/1

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

UCH subsequently ensured that contractors paid staff the same rates that UCH had been offering.281 Other initiatives to support staff were the establishment of an annual ‘staff dedication service’ to acknowledge staff (from 1993) and implementation of a free counselling service for staff and their family members.282 The Executive Management Team held its meetings, on a rotating basis, at various Homes, encouraging local staff members to meet with the Team, to promote positive relationships across the organisation and keep the Executive in touch with the coal face.283

For some, the new structure was too different to what they had signed on for and they left UCH. Others stayed despite being uncomfortable, resulting in several years of uneasiness as individuals adjusted to new arrangements and shifting culture. Many, however, welcomed the changes and were excited to be part of taking UCH in a new direction.284 Changes caused much disquiet among residents of the various facilities. The residents’ chief concern was that their lifestyle may be impinged on. Many feared that what they had chosen when they entered a Home would not be what they ended up with.285 Fraser House reported a positive resident response to the merger. However, residents initially saw the change not so much as having joined UCH as becoming ‘part of Rowethorpe’.286 Fraser House had a long-standing relationship with Rowethorpe, which functioned as its linked high care facility. CMM Homes had, in the past, had a representative on the Fraser House management committee.287 It appears that as ‘South Region’ was initially dominated by Rowethorpe, and managed by its senior officer, it became (in some contexts) Rowethorpe by another name.

281 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 282 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.12 283 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.10 284 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 285 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.15, quoting Christina Erskine 286 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.18 287 Second Interim Report…, p.12, MN659 Acc4933A/9

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Dr Gordon is not the only one saddened by the change in direction. Happy as I am personally with the Rowethorpe I know, villagers who have lived here for a long period emphatically claim that Rowethorpe is ‘not the place it was when the Central Methodist Mission was in complete control’.288 This account was written by a Rowethorpe resident in consultation with many individuals from Rowethorpe’s early history, including Dorothy Sutton, one of the founders of the Home, and long-standing Rowethorpe GP and management committee member, Dr Douglas Gordon. As such, it likely represents the views of a group who had long opposed having CMM Homes brought into a centralised agency. Other residents were less open to the change. A history of Rowethorpe published in 2000, described the formation of UCH as follows:

288 289

Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, pp.113-114 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.15, quoting Christina Erskine

In 1992 the Uniting Church dismissed every one of its various boards of management, including Rowethorpe’s. This was a decision greatly to be regretted. This village owed immeasurable debt to the innovative leadership given by members of our Board, chaired by such men as Ralph Sutton, Wesley Lutton and James Cain. They had generously devoted both their valuable time and their expertise to the control and direction of Rowethorpe. What had been an extremely successful local effort would now be replaced by a centralised system. In Dr Gordon’s opinion, ‘aged care’ was now becoming ‘aged management’.

One year in, a residents’ representative reported that things had gone more smoothly than anticipated. More ‘grass roots’ input was still hoped for, but residents recognised that the transition was still in process. Although adjustments had happened, they had not been negative. Managers were acknowledged as having tried to understand and respond to residents’ worries.289 As this review came from a resident of one of the Homes most supportive of the merger, who was also a member of a Regional Committee and therefore educated in the virtues of the new system, it may not be broadly representative. Even those who supported the merger were not immune to feeling hurt by it. Some who had made immense contributions under the previous model ‘felt they had been disregarded’ and for several years there was ‘a little bit of an aftermath’. However, on the whole resistance was short lived. Even individuals who had previously had very

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

strong relationships with management committees often rode out their initial difficulties and became strong allies of staff members from the central administrative team.290 Commonwealth government Standards Monitoring Teams (SMT) visited most of UCH’s facilities in the first year. All retained their accreditation. Areas for improvement related almost entirely to ageing buildings rather than staff practices.291 Over subsequent years, SMT visits identified improvements being made in response to each round of review.292 The landscape of aged care was being transformed. Buzz words of the 1990s emerged, such as Accountability, Quality of Care Standards, Consumers’ Rights, Co-ordination, Integration and Evaluation.293 Older people in the mid-1990s reported feeling ‘very fearful of having to move to a nursing home’. Residential facilities were viewed as being ‘a living death’ where residents were excised from the wider community and forfeited control of their lives. Any whiff of an institution was resented, including the literal ‘hospital smell’ many facilities seemed permeated with. Options for part-time and rehabilitative care were desired. For quality care the appearance, smell and daily rhythms of facilities should feel ‘like home’. UCH was keenly aware that its services would need to change significantly to keep up with community expectations.294 A government report in 1994 estimated that $125million was needed across Australia to improve the quality of existing nursing homes. Increased monitoring had improved standards of care significantly since the latter 1980s, but fire safety, accessibility and privacy remained concerns. Many facilities lacked fire doors or smoke detectors.

290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298

Bathrooms and toilets were often small and many were not accessible for frail residents or those in wheelchairs. The majority of nursing homes at the time housed between two and four residents in each room. A 10-year program to increase government funding for upgrading facilities was introduced by the government in 1995, but the funding ceased following a change of Federal government in 1996.295 Substantial funds were approved by the UCH Board from the mid-1990s to improve resident comfort, including improving bathrooms, ventilation, lighting, universal access, airconditioning, resident meeting rooms and amenities rooms. A single program in 1996 used $350,000 to purchase 212 beds featuring hospital-like features such as height adjustment and wheels, benefiting both residents and staff. Refurbishing and maintenance works, such as new paving or non-slip flooring, also improved both amenity and safety.296 The Board became aware as part of establishing UCH that there was no means in place to measure clients’ experiences of UCH services. A ground-breaking customer satisfaction survey was developed in partnership with Curtin University. It was found to be one of the first of its type in Australia. Initial survey results indicated generally high levels of satisfaction from residents of UCH independent living facilities.297 Within a year of the initial surveys, residents noted improvements in areas where surveys had identified a desire for change. An ongoing program for receiving and responding to resident feedback was subsequently implemented. This was more difficult for higher levels of care, where residents were not always able to respond for themselves.298

Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.12 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.16 Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 Harding, Vaughan, ‘Current perceptions of Nursing Home life by some elderly people’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.8, Oct 1995, p.1, 4 de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.6, 9 UCH, Viva Voce, No.2, Feb 1996, pp.1-2 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.11 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, p.8

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

was particularly concerned to hear from frail residents and their families, who may otherwise have been excluded from resident input processes.300

From late 1994, residents’ representatives from independent living units began meeting together regularly, becoming the Residents Delegates Forum. Residents were anxious about what seemed like constant changes in management structure. On many issues, resident representatives disagreed with those in management positions. Residents also expressed some criticism of staff. However, UCH saw increased resident input as a positive, including residents’ critique. The Board was subsequently better able to respond to issues impacting residents’ well-being.299 From 1996, the residents’ representative on the Board, Win McPherson, began visiting all facilities, especially hostels and nursing homes, to seek feedback and make connections. A Rowethorpe resident, she

299 300 301 302 303 304 305

UCA, Annual Report, 1995, pp.6-7 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, pp.16-17 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.13 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, p.1, 5-6 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.1 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016

One of the arguments for merger had been to give UCH a stronger voice in the aged care sector. Vaughan Harding recollected that ‘collectively, we were a big entity, but we weren’t making our presence felt. We made sure that when we did come together we would involve ourselves often in political processes, to make sure our voice was heard’, representing not only the agency but the people the agency served.301 From the outset, Executive Team members of UCH were variously involved in wider aged care associations, including lobbying the government on various issues. In 1992 and 1993, UCH was a strong voice calling for change to the Retirement Villages Act (implemented from July 1992), as it saw the Act as being an onerous burden on providers with little benefit for residents.302 Through the early 1990s, UCH lobbied strongly for better government provision for people living with dementia, although initially with little success.303 Increasingly, refurbishment or expansion of UCH residential facilities included areas specifically for care of residents with dementia.304 While these early attempts at dementia services would not meet later standards, they were the best attempts in an era where very few dementia-specific services were available in the community.305

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

At a national level, each Uniting Church Synod had separate ministries for older people. Representatives of each met as the National Association for Senior Adult Care. In New South Wales and Queensland, centralised organisations similar to UCH existed by the early 1990s â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Uniting Ministry with the Ageing and Department of Aged Care & Domiciliary Services, respectively.306 It took some years to find an organisational structure that worked well for UCH. Through the mid-1990s there were many reorganisations of roles, structures and management teams. However, the intention of the 1992 reforms was maintained throughout.307 Initially, structures needed to accommodate existing staff and volunteers, reassigning responsibilities in manageable portions. Within the first few years it was clear that volunteers had little interest in regional advisory councils, and these were disbanded. Supporting on-site managers was central to any structure. As needs and contexts changed, the agency structure also morphed in response.308 Through the change period, UCH continued operating out of its small offices at Fraser House. However, when centralised accounting services were required, these were located within buildings at Rowethorpe.309 Some administration for North Region was also located at St Davidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s.310 Having executive functions across several sites was unwieldy, and in March 1994 a new UCH head office opened in Richardson Street, South Perth. The new offices allowed for more efficient operations.311 Staff missed the daily contact with residents that Fraser House had given, although some residents had been challenging to share space with. Residents at Rowethorpe,

306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315

St Davidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s and Fraser House were also disappointed to lose direct contact with administrative staff.312 Government trials from 1995 looked at the potential for increasing local control of health service delivery in country areas. Katanning was part of the initial trials, with implications for Bethshan.313 Although UCH explored options for participating in the shared-service model, it was decided it had little to gain and much to lose from joining. Although a multi-purpose service program was subsequently adopted by the government for rural and regional health services, UCH opted not to be part of what was, in many ways, a means of propping up struggling country hospitals.314 The individual Homes had relied heavily on government funding both for their initial establishment and their ongoing operations. As a result, financial reserves for upgrades were not set aside at sufficient levels. By the mid-1990s, UCH recognised it needed to improve its financial management and find new funding streams in order to respond to both increasingly stringent government requirements and higher community quality expectations.315 Aged care providers raised concerns with government that funding models did not adequately provide for older people as their care needs increased. Many residents had to face the disruption of relocating to a new facility when their needs exceeded the caring capacity of their hostel. Hostels and nursing homes operated as two separate systems, with quite different funding models. Nursing homes attracted much higher rates of government funding for their residents, yet

UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.14 UCH, Annual Report, 1993-1997 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, p.11 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, p.11 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.16 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, pp.29-30

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

up to 20% of residents in hostels were at least as dependent as those being cared for in nursing homes. The number of hostels was increasing, while the government continued to restrict construction of new nursing homes.316

New systems and technology emerged to replace manual practices. The State government closed both Sunset and Mount Henry Hospitals in the mid-1990s. Aged Care Western Australia was concerned that former residents would not be provided for. Many were not covered by Commonwealth government funding. Vaughan Harding participated in review processes associated with the closures, with consideration given to expanding UCH services to cover some of the need. However, it was decided UCH did not have the capacity to do this. Ultimately, the State Government recognised its responsibility to continue providing care within the State health system for the residents of the former hospitals.317 A substantial challenge that emerged for aged care providers in this period was how to retain quality staff. Industrial pressure was moving the sector towards higher wages and better conditions. However, government funding was not increasing at the same rate. Tight regulation also prevented residential facilities from increasing revenue by raising fees. The UCH recognised its responsibilities to staff, but it was difficult stretching funds to cover all the organisation’s needs.318

316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324

After some years of research and internal review, mid-1996 saw the launch of an integrated management information system. This was to supersede the manual processes being used at the time. It would unify record keeping across all facilities, reducing duplication and staff time.319 Even at head office, manual practices such as registering cheques received in an exercise book had remained standard well into the 1990s.320 The new system was called ‘In Touch’. It took over a year to bring all areas of the organisation online. For some facilities, office refurbishment was required as computers simply would not fit into existing spaces.321 ‘In Touch’ served the agency for over a decade, until major software upgrades in 2008.322 The first new UCH facility to open after the agency centralised its management structure was John Bryant Hostel in Marangaroo. Planning for the facility involved consulting with residents and staff throughout, from briefing the architects to the final opening. John Bryant opened in mid-1996.323 Union activists made their presence felt the day John Bryant opened, attending with protest placards. At issue, as at Riverslea in 1994, were fears that UCH would move towards private contracting of catering services. However, UCH determined that it was not in the best interests of its residents to bring food from off-site. The agency remained a ‘fresh cook’ organisation, with kitchens active on each site. On-site catering was found to provide better quality food for residents, thus improving quality of life.324

Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (Gibson, Rowland, Braun & Angus), Ageing in place: Before and after the 1997 aged care reforms, June 2002, AIHW Cat. No. AUS 26 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.14 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, pp.9-10 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.14 Cheques Received Register (exercise book covering Jan 1990 to April 1993), Juniper file 12/05, UCH History UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.1, 4, 12-13, 16 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.11 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.15, 20 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

Volunteers continued to be important at all UCH facilities. From the mid-1990s, the agency became more aware of its occupational health and safety obligations. This impacted both its duty of care to volunteers, and its need to ensure the work of volunteers met health and safety standards. Training was implemented for some volunteers in response.325 Chris Whitaker resigned as Board Chair in 1996. He had served for seven years, navigating the process of merging nine agencies into one and forming a united culture within the new agency. Beryl Grant replaced him as Chair, and he continued on as a regular member until 1999.326

325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332

At the end of 1996, the two Regional Managers (Kevin Bertram and Lynne Reynolds) both left UCH. Management was subsequently restructured and refocused on ‘Care Centres’ rather than regions. Management shifted back to being site-based, a move that was seen to increase teamwork and provide better focus on residents. A corporate management group was implemented, comprising the Chief Executive, managers of Caring Services, Human Resources, Financial Services and Service Development, and the General Manager of Rowethorpe.327 Residents welcomed the return to management on-site.328 After several years of almost annual restructures, this arrangement was retained until 2002, when Regional Managers were again appointed.329 Changes at middle-management levels were implemented in the interim, however. Culturally, UCH had somewhat of a ‘divide’ between North and South, whether or not the management structure reflected it. There was a sense that each region ‘did things differently’. For some this was the natural outcome of services developing in different local contexts while for others it went as far as creating a ‘them and us’ mentality,330 with the two regions ‘like night and day’ or even viewed as ‘opposition’. The sense of a north-south divide persisted well into the 21st century.331 The presence of Rowethorpe in the South contributed to the sense of difference. Both its size, far larger than any other UCH facility, and its history of highly independent management, led to it shaping the culture of the region it anchored. In many ways, ‘North and South’ was really about ‘Rowethorpe and the rest’.332

UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.14 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, pp.15-16 UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.8, 12, 16 and 1999, p.1 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.20 UCH, Annual Report, 1997-2002 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

offered two non-residential services: the Day Care Centre at Chrystal Halliday, and Approved Services at Rowethorpe, which served both onsite residents and members of the wider community. Rowethorpe was also trialling a Commonwealthfunded ‘Transitional Care Program’ to support older people for up to eight weeks after they left hospital. Several of the independent living communities had also taken on staff to provide additional support, including fee-for-service in-house assistance (laundry, housework, supervision of medications etc) and on-call community caretakers.335 This became known as the Serviced Unit program. Care was provided by staff from on-site hostels visiting residents living independently, which increased the links between levels of care.336 From 1998, the Serviced Units program expanded to include two more communities, including Rowethorpe (the largest). Over 50 residents were participating in the program by mid-year.337

As more older Australians had higher care needs, it became harder to obtain a place in a residential facility. The Commonwealth government funded many service programs to support older people in their own homes, but coordination of the sector was often poor. Funding was also vulnerable to changing government policy.333 Both State and Commonwealth governments funded programs through HACC. From the early 1990s, Commonwealth funding became available for home care through the Hostel Options program. From 1993, this was reshaped in Community Aged Care Packages.334 UCH appointed an Outreach Service Project Officer (Kerry McDougall) in 1996 to investigate how UCH might offer services in this sector. By this time, the agency

333 334 335 336 337 338 339

UCH, Annual Report, 1996, pp.20-21 de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.8 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, pp.20-21 UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.16 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.10 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

Five years after the establishment of Uniting Church Homes, the agency was truly functioning as a united whole. Those joining the new organisation, as they became aware of the history of the previous decade, described the merger process as ‘totally courageous’.338 Although it had been ‘very, very difficult’ for the ‘old guard’, it was a positive experience for the church ‘growing up as a church’ through ‘dealing with change’.339 Partly this was due to the material issues addressed in this chapter, such as finances, information technology, human resources, communication and governance. Huge industry changes were on the horizon in 1997, however. Concrete considerations alone were not sufficient to prepare UCH for the upheaval. Fortunately, the agency also spent the 1990s determining its purpose and values, allowing it to become a leader in aged care as the sector evolved into the 21st century.

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

2.2 Creating Values What does it mean to be a Christian community service provider? What are the connections between offering a professional service and being a ministry of the Church? How can the heart of individuals for serving God through attending to the needs of older people be honoured within a commercially viable business model? Throughout the years of review and restructure, these identity questions cried out for attention. Finally, as the dust of centralisation began to settle, they could be properly considered and incorporated into UCH operations. After the most urgent practical matters of merging were addressed, UCH prioritised strategic planning to set the direction of the new agency. Guidance was needed to assist decentralised managers to stay on track with the direction of the agency as a whole. Clear policy would allow for wise stewardship of resources and fair allocation of funds. Overall, a strategic plan was seen as essential to ensure UCH fulfilled the Uniting Church’s intentions in providing services for older people.340 Prior to review processes of the late 1980s, the Aged Persons Homes Board had operated with the object ‘to provide accommodation and care in a Christian environment for aged persons appropriate to their needs’. However, this was buried in the Board’s by-laws rather than promoted as a guide for its planning. In 1989, the object was updated to read: ‘to provide a range of accommodation and associated care for aged and/ or disabled persons within a Christian environment’.341

340 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, p.3 341 Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Finally, in 1990, the Board adopted a mission statement intended as the benchmark for operations: to enable both elderly and disabled people to maximise their enjoyment of life through the provision and support of quality care and associated services as an expression of Christian values and within a Christian environment. A seven-point philosophy of care elaborated values of the dignity of individuals, options for older people, emphasis on home care where possible, connection and community, freedom and independence, rehabilitation, and equity of access to services. Service and Organisational Objectives were also articulated.342 Approximately 40 UCH staff and Board members attended the Aged Care Australia national conference when it was held in Perth in September 1993. Its theme of ‘Today’s visions… Tomorrows’ Reality’ was timely. UCH Conference attendees gathered afterwards to contribute to a vision for the agency.343 Through 1994 the Board worked to fine tune these ideas into a strategic plan. Core Principles were developed to provide ‘an important theological and spiritual basis’ for UCH’s work.344 One outcome of the planning process was to clarify that UCH was not set up for catering for the needs of younger, disabled people. Many older people lived with disabilities, and were included in UCH’s services. However, the vision statement was amended to remove reference to services to the disabled to ensure the focus on older people, rather than those with disabilities, was clarified.345 Early in 1995, practical work began to identify the ‘core values’ of UCH. Since 1990, the mission statement had committed the agency to being ‘an expression of Christian values’ –

but what were they? Sister Anne Noonan, of the Order of Our Lady of the Missions, facilitated a retreat at New Norcia over several days to begin the process. Senior staff, chaplains, board members and one residents’ representative attended the four-day workshop.346 Those who attended remember the New Norcia days as an important and interesting time. Retreat participants stayed in shared accommodation, getting to know each other much better as they together thought through what UCH was about and where it was going. Finding language to express shared values was a challenge, as everyone brought different understandings to the implications of certain words. ‘Servanthood’, for example, expressed a core Christian value for some participants, relating to ‘service’. For others, it sounded like ‘servitude’, with unpleasant overtones of being treated as second-class, at the beck and call of a ‘master’. ‘Servanthood’ was not adopted as a core value, but the essence of its meaning in a Christian context was encompassed by other values.347 Over subsequent months, and with much effort, staff and residents refined the outcomes of the retreat. Four workshops were held to road test with staff and residents the values hammered out at New Norcia. 348 A short-list of preferred values was taken to the Board for a final decision. Former staff recall the Board meeting to determine the final set of values being ‘rather torturous’.349 However, the long process finally reached an outcome. Seven core values were identified: integrity, justice, respect, compassion, excellence, welcome and hope.350

342 Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16 343 UCH, Annual Report, 1993, p.13 344 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, pp.3-4, quote p.4 345 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, p.4 346 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.11, 14-15 347 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 348 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.11, 14-15 349 Russell-Taylor, Diane, response to written interview questions from Natalie McNee, June 2016 350 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.11, 14-15

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

Being values-based was central to being a Christian organisation, as long-standing Board member Beryl Grant noted: Caring for other people … is what the whole thing of Uniting Church Homes is about; it’s a caring organisation. Caring for people is the most important thing.351 Beryl played a significant role in developing the values and was described by staff as being ‘quite remarkable’ through the process.352

A Training Coordinator was appointed and an Employee Handbook produced. The values became a vital element in performance reviews for existing staff members, and in recruiting processes for new ones. Where review led to staff being dismissed, increasingly the reason given was noncompliance with core values.355 Within months, UCH reported that the values were ‘making a significant difference to the way we see ourselves, and the way we work together’.356

In May 1996, an event to launch the core values was held at All Saints Floreat Uniting Church. A commemorative booklet was produced, which was used in ongoing orientation for staff.353 The launch included teams of staff members presenting each value, encouraging all those present to ‘breathe life’ into them, so that they had an impact. It was described as ‘heart and soul territory for Uniting Church Homes’.354 Those who had been so concerned that a centralised agency would lose its heart might have been gratified to hear that report. A catchy list of values does not automatically translate into organisational practice. Once the Board adopted the values, focus shifted to developing a Values Integration Program. Description was provided for each value. Examples of how staff might practice the value in day-to-day situations were given. Business cards, letterheads and annual reports included the values. Bookmarks, wall plaques and other materials were printed. Across the agency, staff members were trained to enact the core values. All staff meetings incorporated a reflection on one of the values. Monthly orientation courses for new staff or volunteers began, included having the values presented. Existing staff were also encouraged to participate.

351 352 353 354 355 356

A remarkable contributor to the life of the organisation. Miss Beryl Grant AO OBE (1921-2017). Image: Roley Myers, Juniper.

Grant, Beryl, interview, 2016 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.13 UCH, Viva Voce, No.4, May 1996 p.1-2 Russell-Taylor, Diane, written interview, 2016; UCH, Annual Report, 1995, pp.14-15; 1996, p.1, 13, 15 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.1

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

The Mission and Values of UCH launched in 1996 were as follows: To enable elderly people to maximise their enjoyment of life through the provision and support of quality care and associated services as an expression of Christian values and within a Christian environment. Integrity: Firmly adhering to the truth and honesty in relationships and work practices. This is an integral part of the Christian moral code and belief system. Justice: Being fair in our dealings with all people, recognising that in all situations there are both rights and responsibilities. Respect: Valuing all people equally, recognising that everyone has a unique worth and purposeful contribution to make in life. Compassion: Caring for others with empathy and responding appropriately to provide comfort and enable healing. Excellence: Ongoing willingness and dedication to achieving the highest possible standards of care and service in pursuit of agreed goals and within the scope of available resources. Welcome: Being warm, friendly, gracious and empathetic to all and open to new ideas. Hope: Encouraging people to celebrate life, both now and in the future, demonstrating a realisation that each person’s existence has a value and purposed with expectations, desires and dreams.

357 358 359 360

Grant, Beryl, interview, 2016 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 Smith, John H., email, 2018 UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.4

Adopting the values ‘gave people something to work for’ by providing guidelines for staff to work within, creating a more united staff culture across the agency. Beryl Grant (chair of the Board at the time and in later years a resident at St Andrew’s) credited the core values with laying the foundation for ongoing quality of care into the 21st century. Interviewed in 2016, she noted ‘little did I know that I would benefit from the work we were doing [myself]’.357 The values also created standards by which others would judge both individuals and UCH as a whole. Knowing staff would be held accountable to whatever measures were adopted influenced the process of determining what the core values should be. The values were always intended to be more than a public relations exercise: to actually be a genuine inner compass for the organisation.358 As increasingly fewer staff members identified as Christian, the values ensured the Christian origins and mission of the organisation remained embodied in its practices.359 From 1997, the UCH Annual Report replaced its service objectives and organisational objectives with six corporate objectives: 360 1. To widen our responsiveness to the care needs of elderly people 2. To create the capacity to cope with a complex future 3. To further enhance the capability of our workforce 4. To establish a business-minded culture 5. To increase existing and create new income sources for a viable future 6. To develop an innovative asset management plan which ensures optimum use of existing physical stock

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

The corporate objectives were formally endorsed by the Board in November 1996. The Mission, core values and philosophy of care remained unchanged.361 However, the prominence given to corporate objectives and their business-minded framing indicate a shift in agency culture regarding governance. From 1998, two-year strategic plans were developed to guide operations. The 1998-1999 plan, titled ‘The Way Ahead’, had three focus areas: clients, staff and support systems. In each area, the values hammered out in 1996 were embedded in practical goals. However, UCH’s ‘Mission’ had been modified slightly. ‘Mission’ now emphasised independence for older people and presented UCH as working together with, rather than on behalf of, its client base. A ‘Vision’ had been added, which focused on placing UCH as a leader in the aged care sector.362 The seven values were retained for a decade. In 2007, a review process to ensure the core documents of the agency reflected ‘who we are, what we stand for and the qualities which are at the core of the services we offer’ condensed the seven values to four: Welcome, Respect, Compassion and Hope. Explanation of these made it clear that ‘Integrity’, ‘Justice’, and ‘Excellence’ were now understood to be covered by the four retained values, particularly Respect and Compassion. Reflecting trends of the time, statements of purpose were more concise and simple. The mission statement became ‘To journey in a Christian environment with people who require care and support services’. The former emphases on ‘elderly people’, ‘maximising independence’, ‘enjoyment of life’ and ‘quality care’ were no longer articulated, although the idea of ‘journey’ and centrality of a Christian environment were retained. The Vision became ‘A good life for all our people’. Gone was the wording about excellence or becoming an industry leader;

the focus was again on residents and clients rather than the organisation. ‘Philosophy of Care’ became ‘Guiding Principles’. Although spruced up, the seven points adopted in 1990 were largely unchanged. Notably, an eighth principle was added: All people have the right to ultimately die with dignity and peace.363 Further tweaking took place in 2011. A statement of ‘who we are’ was added to the Foundation Statements: UCH is a Christian, values driven, community benefit organisation that excels in social enterprise for the benefit of the whole community. The mission statement was expanded to look more like it had been in the 1990s: To enhance the independence, spiritual fulfilment and enjoyment of life of older people through care, accommodation and support services. This emphasis on spirituality was also picked up in the reworked ‘guiding principles’. These now read:364 We respect each person’s physical, spiritual, emotional and social needs We empower each person to exercise choice and control over their lives We strive to enhance independent functioning

personal

freedom

and

We provide care services based on holistic needs assessment We encourage people to develop their spirituality We encourage people to engage with community to counter social isolation We respect each person’s right to die with dignity and peace

361 UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.4, 12 362 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, pp.4-5 Mission (p.5): To journey with elderly people in maximising their independence and enjoyment of life through the provision and support of quality care and associated services as an expression of Christian values and within a Christian environment. Vision (p.5): By striving for excellence and relevance in everything we do, we will be recognised as a leader in responding to the needs of elderly people and their families. 363 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.3 364 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.2

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

This rewording was more cosmetic than substantial. However, the emphasis on personal spirituality had increased, while the assertion that residential care should be a last resort where no other care options were viable had been removed. A new Code of Conduct was developed in association with the 2011 changes. All staff subsequently made a commitment to upholding the core values and abiding by the high standards of honesty, integrity and quality of care outlined in the Code.365

Although the wording and emphasis changed, the heart of the agency’s values remained. Through highest quality professional services for older people, UCH was to embody the attitudes of Christ, lifting up the weak and creating a welcome space for all.

These changes formed part of preparations for a change in trading name. Choosing a new name required reconsideration of who UCH was and what it was committed to. The name ‘Juniper’ was chosen for its allusions to ‘shelter, protection, sustenance and strength’, and its biblical connections.366

Although serving those of little means and high needs has been and remains a core commitment of the agency, it has not been explicitly stated in its mission and values. Presumably this reflects a desire not to be seen as providing charity, with the associated lack of dignity for recipients that this can imply.

365 366 367 368 369

UCH, Annual Report, 2012, p.9 Juniper website, accessed 18 August 2017 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.7 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.3 Juniper, Annual Report, 2015, inside cover

Annual reports for Juniper began addressing themselves directly to older people as potential clients, rather than to stakeholders such as Synod. Juniper was identified as a leader in the aged care sector. Guiding principles were no longer listed, but their ethos was incorporated into a welcome statement emphasising choice and independence, professionalism and friendliness, fulfilment and enjoyment of life. From 2014, this statement specified ‘we welcome all people, regardless of their background, beliefs, means or requirements’.367 It also included ‘we believe in enjoying and celebrating life, and enabling choice in how you wish to live it’.368 When the ‘welcome’ was condensed the following year, the latter statement was prominently retained.369

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

2.3 New Opportunities, New Challenges Everyone in the aged care sector knew that the system was deeply flawed. UCH had been one voice amongst many providers calling for change. A new Federal government in 1996 brought different perspectives and priorities. The following year, it also produced industry-wide upheaval. From August 1996, the aged care sector was launched into months of trials, reassessments, workshops, consultations and training regimes as the government sought to completely overhaul aged care in Australia. The time frame provided was incredibly short. Aged Care agencies, including UCH, protested that reforms were being applied hastily, with subsequently poor results and inadequate communication. Budgeting for new but largely unknown arrangements proved immensely difficult. Staff at UCH, as in similar agencies across the country, spent countless hours responding to requests from the government as it pursued improvements.370 Government reforms finally implemented in 1997 amalgamated the hostel and nursing home systems. Residents were assessed for the level of care they required. Every attempt was made to provide the appropriate level of care in the home they were already in, with funding allocated according to individual needs rather than accommodation tier. ‘Low care’ and ‘high care’ replaced ‘hostels’ and ‘nursing homes’. While most facilities continued to be geared towards one more than the other, many now offered both. Within four years, the proportion of low care residents transferring to high care facilities dropped to less than half what it had been. Western Australia was slower to take up changes than other States. The reform package, implemented by the Aged Care Act 1997, was referred to as ‘Ageing in Place’.371

370 371 372 373 374

The reforms of 1997 were part of a changing ethos, presented by the government in terms of ‘inter-generational equity’. In practice, except for those on full pensions, ‘equity’ meant a user-pays aged care system. Many services were privatised. Government assistance was reduced. Income testing and up-front fees become the norm. The HACC program began charging client fees to all but those on the lowest incomes. Home care remained most older people’s preference, but was underfunded and limited in its range of services. Family members continued to provide most of the day-to-day care for older Western Australians, as they had done for decades.372 Amidst the political rhetoric of improving care for older people, the Commonwealth government reduced funding. Through its involvement in industry associations, including Aged Care Western Australia, Aged Care Australia and Uniting Community Services Australia, UCH lobbied fiercely for the needs of older people as policies changed. The 1997 reforms were stressful and complex to implement. In a scathing review of the reform process for the 1998 annual report, Vaughan Harding condemned policies ‘driven by the financial bottom line and political survival’ and accused the government of having ‘jeopardised justice and equity for elderly Australians’.373 Money was tight in the following years. Both the Board and the Chief Executive spoke out repeatedly about the under-funding of aged care and the impact this had on staffing and service delivery.374 The new regime required aged care facilities to provide a set quota of places to ‘Concessional’ and ‘Assisted’ residents. Although the quota varied according to local demographics, the Australian average was around 27%. UCH more than doubled this target. In the first two years, 58% of new residents were either ‘Concessional’ or ‘Assisted’ – most in

UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.5, 10 Australian Institute of Health & Welfare, Ageing in place, 2002 Jalland, Old Age in Australia, 2015, pp.232-233 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.10 UCH, Annual Report, 2001, 2002, 2003

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

the former (less financially secure) group.375 Extending nearly 40% of places to residents not meeting financial needs criteria demonstrates the pragmatic management of the organisation through changing times. Accommodating older people of limited means far beyond obligations, however, demonstrates the agency’s ongoing commitment to the ethos that motivated the founders of individual Homes: to serve the poor, as an expression of Christian faith.

Managers gained valuable experience in planning for individual facilities As part of the 1997 reforms, facilities were subject to even more stringent assessment. Any that did not meet accreditation standards would be unable to charge accommodation bonds and therefore excluded from funding for capital improvements. This was felt to be manifestly unfair, as it cut off from funding the very facilities most in need of assistance. Although three years were given to bring facilities up to scratch, UCH could see that many of its older sites required significant upgrades. Plans were prioritised to completely replace both Subiaco and

375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382

St David’s Nursing Homes.376 Fire safety regulations, including sprinkler systems, were difficult for some older buildings to achieve.377 Fortunately, all UCH facilities passed the initial tests and were able to access funding and levy accommodation fees under the new arrangements. However, full accreditation (required by January 2001) loomed as a challenge.378 So rapidly were the reforms rolled out that some aspects, although required for the new system to work, had still not been created by the government months after the 1 July 1997 start date. Agencies struggled to implement changes about which they could not obtain sufficient information. UCH joined the wider Uniting Church in Western Australia in writing to the Prime Minister appealing for a more considered implementation timeframe.379 The following year, Aged Care Australia launched a public campaign lobbying against funding cuts, changes to the basis for assessing care subsidies and inequities between States.380 Although aspects of the 1997 reforms had been welcomed in principle, the process of implementation was fraught with difficulties and protested fiercely. Meanwhile, executive staff and senior managers met to workshop ways forward for UCH within the uncertain new framework.381 The role of hostel manager was redrafted in 1998, particularly in response to accreditation requirements. Some former managers stepped back into senior carer roles, while others left UCH.382

UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.28 UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.5, 10 Brown, Graeme & Parker, David, ‘The Certification Hurdle’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.6/00, Aug 2000, p.1 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.10 Nel, Mike, ‘Responding to the New Environment: Two Workshops on Change’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.7/97, Sept/ Oct 1997, p.1 UCH, Viva Voce, No.4/98, June 1998, p.2 Nel, Mike, ‘Responding to the New Environment’, 1997, p.1 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.16

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

As if these changes were not enough to keep them busy, UCH head office also moved premises in August 1998. The new site was co-located at Balcatta with St Andrew’s residential facility, although the latter took several more months to be completed.383 St Andrew’s was the first UCH facility to operate under the 1997 reforms with ‘intermixed’ high and low care residents. It opened in February 1999, replacing Subiaco Nursing Home. Thirty-one residents transferred from Subiaco, along with the Subiaco staff, joining an expanded staff and 44 new residents at Balcatta. The Subiaco site was subsequently cleared and sold for a net profit of $1.2million.384 Industrial trouble erupted in 1998 as UCH attempted to draft a simpler award for non-nursing staff at residential facilities. These staff members were covered by several different awards. While UCH intended to ensure no-one lost pay through the changes, conditions were to change. The Miscellaneous Workers Union organised picketing and stopwork meetings. Negotiations with the MWU broke down. As a result, matters went to the Industrial Relations Commission for arbitration. Meanwhile, UCH’s nurses were being paid significantly less than nurses in public hospitals. Many left UCH as a result. A pay rise in 1998 improved matters, but lack of funds prevented raising wages to public hospital rates.385 It was 2001 before a more competitive salary package for registered nurses was adopted by UCH.386 At the same time, studies showed aged care nursing was the least favoured career choice for graduate nurses, viewed by nursing peers as low status work.387

383 384 385 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393

This was a period of heightened anxiety about union activities and the potential loss of award conditions, as the State government had passed controversial industrial legislation in 1997 limiting the scope of union activity and changing employment regulations.388 Synod in 1999 adopted a policy framework reminding all UCA agencies that their employment practices were to reflect the values of the Church.389 Recognising that many staff members were from nonEnglish speaking backgrounds, UCH from the latter 1990s participated in the Workplace English Language and Literacy (WELL) program. Language training was provided employing written materials used in students’ workplace. As the In Touch system was rolled out, this included significant training in computer literacy.390 UCH staff members were devastated in 1997 by the death of long-standing senior staff member Barry Styles. He was only 46 when he died, leaving a personal and professional hole in the organisation, especially the payroll team.391 As ‘Ageing in Place’ was implemented, UCH was successful in obtaining funding to operate Community Care Packages (CCPs). They were later known as Community Aged Care Packages (CACPs). Initial funding covered 20 CCPs. The program was run out of St Andrew’s. At the same time, Rowethorpe participated in a pilot program providing high care in people’s homes, called (Rowethorpe) Extended Aged Care at Home (EACH, for some years REACH).392 From 1999, additional CCPs were funded at Chrystal Halliday,393 and the

UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.12 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.15, 22, 31 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.11 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 UCH, Viva Voce, No.4, May 1996, p.4 Menck, Thematic History of Western Australia, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.13 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.11 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.13; Metropolitan Cemeteries Board records (online), Barry Styles of Duncraig, died 09/12/1997 aged 46 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.17 UCH, Annual Report, 2000, p.9

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

following year also at St David’s and Rowethorpe, bringing the total to 92. REACH was confirmed as an ongoing program in 2000, reaching 25 clients in that year.394 UCH decided to press ahead with seeking accreditation. It was one of the first aged care agencies in Western Australia to apply under the new system, aiming to have all facilities accredited by the government by the end of 1999. Accreditation involved the Commonwealth government’s Aged Care Standards and Accreditation Agency inspecting all UCH’s business, management and care delivery systems. Where previous assessments had concentrated on facility and care standards, the new accreditation process included things such as strategic planning, contract management and staffing. It also required evidence of ‘continuous improvement’ – processes to ensure ongoing response to change.395 Preparing for accreditation was a huge undertaking.396 It was also expensive, both in accreditation fees and staff time. Fees alone were over $100,000 for the agency.397 While few significant changes to operations were required to meet standards, all aspects of UCH’s work had to be documented to demonstrate compliance.398 Supposedly simple tasks spawned further projects. For example, in checking consistency of documentation across the agency, staff discovered a wide variety of ‘standard’ forms in use, according to individual staff preferences, and considerable resistance to uniformity.399 Fortunately, the centralised corporate structure of the agency made the process significantly easier.400

394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404

All 17 residential facilities passed the accreditation test. Some had required intensive input as deadlines approached, following early non-compliance assessments. Senior managers even camped overnight in their offices to ensure all tasks were completed in time. When accreditation was finally achieved, a great party was held that included a ‘ceremonial burning’ of the accreditation kits filled in for each facility.401 Had UCH facilities still been operating as independent Homes, as they were prior to 1992, it is likely not all would have managed to obtain accreditation. The media, meanwhile, took pleasure in ‘exposing’ Homes, run by other agencies, that the accreditation process revealed to be substandard, although much of the fault resulted from under-funding rather than mismanagement or malice.402 The strong public reaction to these revelations of failed care caused a crisis in consumer confidence across the aged care sector. UCH urged its staff to emphasise the agency’s high standards and accreditation achievements, while opening facilities to concerned members of the public to demonstrate that UCH had nothing to hide.403 Agency-wide standards meant UCH could be confident that all its facilities were up to scratch. UCH had put much energy into ensuring staff followed agreed procedures, to protect both the organisation as a whole but also all its individual staff members.404

UCH, Annual Report, 2001 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.1, 10, 12, 20 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.1, 10, 12, 20 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 Fergusson-Stewart, Di, ‘Accreditation – What Is It?’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.2/98, April 1998, p.4 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.1, 10, 12, 20 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, 2000, p.7 Harding, Vaughan, ‘…and so it goes…’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.2/00, March 2000, pp.1-2 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

2. Developing the Culture and Ethos of UCH

A positive outcome of the accreditation process was that managers gained valuable experience in planning for individual facilities. Many wanted to follow this up by contributing to agency-wide planning. In April 2000, UCH took up this offer by arranging a planning day to incorporate input from managers into its strategic plan for 2000-2001. There was significant consensus between managers about what would be critical issues for UCH in the planning period. The second two-year Way Ahead plan rested substantially on these managers’ input.405 Around the same time, UCH supported all its managers to obtain a Certificate Four in management, through a course developed in conjunction with Curtin University.406 Uniting Church Homes had sought approval from Synod in 1996 to become incorporated. At the time, UCH was the largest agency operating under the WA Synod. Incorporation would make the agency an independent legal entity. It was to be effected under the Uniting Church in Australia Act, rather than the Companies Act, which would leave UCH’s reporting obligations and relationship to the Church as they had been. Incorporation was felt to be crucial for UCH to be able to respond effectively to the seemingly perpetual changes in the aged care sector.407 It would provide a stronger administrative overlay and bring UCH into line with other church bodies such as Good Samaritan Industries and individual Uniting Church schools,408 allowing UCH to own property, buy and sell assets, and sue (and be sued) in its own right as a separate legal entity. Synod would still appoint the majority of members to the Board, and could dismiss Board members if

405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416

it desired.409 However, Synod did not approve incorporation until 1998.410 UCH was finally incorporated in December 1999. One immediate impact was that UCH was able to be an Approved Provider in its own right under the 1997 Aged Care Act, where previously UCA’s Property Trust had been the Approved Provider.411 Responding to two external factors created a workload for UCH’s administrative teams heading into a new century: the perceived threat of ‘Y2K’ for computer systems as the clocks ticked over on 1 January 2000, and the introduction of the GST from 1 July 2000. Working parties to prepare the agency for both events were activated. Both transitions passed relatively trouble-free.412 Long-time Board member Beryl Grant, who also served some years as Chair, was awarded an Officer of the Order of Australia in 2000 in recognition of a life of both paid and unpaid service to the community. She had worked as the founding matron at Ngala for 21 years and as a magistrate for the Perth Children’s Court for 10 years. Her extensive volunteer work included as a Board member for Inland Mission (later Frontier Services),413 a Moderator of the Uniting Church in Western Australia, and national president of the Royal College of Nursing. She had previously been recognised by State Parliament (1997) and received an Order of the British Empire (1976), Queen’s Jubilee Medal (1977) and Advance Australia Award (1993),414 and the following year also received a Centenary Medal.415 Beryl served on the UCH Board from 1989 to 2003.416

Harding, Vaughan, ‘Way Ahead 2000/2001’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.3/00, May 2000, p.1 Russell-Taylor, Diane, written interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, pp.9-10 Parker, David, ‘UCH Incorporated’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.2/00, March 2000, p.2 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.13 UCH, Annual Report, 2000, p.9 UCH, Annual Report, 2000, p.8 UCH, Annual Report, 2000, p.14 UCH, Viva Voce, No.5/97, June/ July 1997, p.1 Department of Premier and Cabinet, ‘Australian Honours Search Facility’ (online), accessed 21 August 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 2003

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Looking ahead in the late 1990s, Vaughan Harding noted that the pressures and concerns of wider society were increasingly influencing UCH’s operations. Government reforms had moved the aged care sector into a commercial operating sphere, with accountable professional standards and fees for services becoming the norm. Rather than a ‘protected public benevolent institution removed from the pressures of the rest of the community’, UCH had ‘grown up’, ready for new changes and challenges in a new century.418 In Touch: computer literacy training was provided c.1997.

The Board in 1998 gave Vaughan Harding the chance to undertake an overseas study tour. Visiting like agencies in Europe and North America allowed him to bring back a broader perspective to influence strategic planning at UCH. Australian aged care standards were found to be comparable with Europe, where the sector was largely government funded, despite Australian funding levels more like the under-funded not-for-profit sector of North American systems. North America also operated a higher standard for-profit aged care sector, available only to those with greater means.417

417 418 419

The United Nations designated 1999 the International Year of Older Persons. This brought attention and some (small) grants to the aged care sector. Social events dominated, including inter-generational activities.419

The era of baby boomer clients for aged care led providers to reconsider their services.

UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.10, 13 Harding, Vaughan, ‘1998 – what sort of year is it likely to be for staff and residents of UCH?’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.1/98, Feb 1998, p.1 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, pp.25-26

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

3. Onwards into the 21st Century 3.1 Preparing for the Waves of Change By the turn of the century, Australia’s population was recognised to be markedly ageing. This was as a result of lower birth rates coupled with increasing life expectancy. The baby boomer generation, born in the two decades after World War Two, began eyeing retirement, with the first postwar babies turning 65 in 2011. It was forecast that by 2050 the number of people over 65 in Australia would have more than trebled, becoming up to a quarter of the total population. As a proportion of the population, even greater increases were anticipated in the over-85 age group, expected to quadruple to around 5% of the Australian population by mid-century.420 Boomers are not a statistical anomaly. They are the first wave of a ‘new normal’, in which Australia will have a large share of its population aged over 65.421

420 421 422

Social and medical advances over the last century have resulted in a remarkable increase in life expectancy for Australians. As a result, the boomer generation can confidently expect to enjoy a ‘third age’ between retirement and physical decline. ‘Active ageing’ has in recent years become key to public policy, looking to facilitate the ‘third age’ as ‘a period of self-fulfilment after the peak responsibilities of child-rearing and paid work are either finished or, at least, winding down’. Already, the ‘grey nomad’ culture of lengthy Australian road trips and temporary caravan park communities is thriving, reflecting the development of an increasingly active post-retirement cohort. Universities of the Third Age, established in the 1970s, are extremely popular volunteer-driven teaching and learning environments for those over 65. Services and social activities flourish to serve healthy older people. As male life expectancy is gradually catching up to female (currently about a three-year gap), the number of widows, and the average length of time alone after a partner’s death, is expected to decline.422

ABS, ‘An Ageing Australia’, Year Book Australia, 2003 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, p.3 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, p.11, 29, 48-49 (quote p.48)

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

The approaching era of baby boomer clients for aged care led providers to reconsider the services they were offering. Baby boomers are known to be more highly segmented than earlier generations. As a social cohort they are highly diverse in their choices and yet have generally anticipated they will be able to acquire their preferred options. Their expectations of aged care are predicted to be no different.

Compared to the preceding generation, baby boomers are also far more likely to be separated from a spouse and/or living alone, more likely to have never had children, and far more highly educated. Approximately 20% of boomers hold a university degree, where only 6% of the previous generation had even completed secondary school. Boomers are more culturally varied than earlier generations and less likely to

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

identify as Christian.423 Most are technologically adept and operate comfortably in the online sphere.424 Their interests and priorities are diverse. Even within the generation there are significant differences.425 Older members, born soon after World War Two, grew up during a period of Australian prosperity (the post-war shortages of their infant years rarely remembered) and relative peace. They were young adults in the 1960s era of social upheaval, formatively shaped by Australia’s involvement in the Vietnam War. Younger members were children as prosperity dwindled during the economic crises of the 1970s. They inherited the fruits of their older siblings’ 1960s activism, as societal changes began to take hold in the 1970s and 1980s. Despite these advances, their youth culture often expressed nihilism and a lack of hope.426 As a cohort, the boomer generation had led significant change in their lives. Many 21st century social norms that had been radical when they were young are now normal social expectations for their children and grandchildren, such as sexual practice, gender relations and work dynamics. Where previous generations have been characterised as ‘stoic’, ‘unassuming’, ‘frugal’ or ‘silent’, boomers are more often thought of as ‘outspoken and ambitious’. Despite advances since the mid-twentieth century, wider society maintains a demeaning attitude towards older people, often being patronising or dismissive. Outright ageism is also widespread. Boomers are not accustomed to being treated in this way and it is anticipated that they will not stand for it as they age.427 As the new millennium commenced, UCH began focusing energy and attention on preparing for the post-war generations to enter aged care, anticipating that they would shake up aged

423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430

care when they got there just as they had brought change to other domains they had journeyed through their lives.428 Uniting Church Homes had been looking towards the approaching wave of baby boomer clients since it first amalgamated in the early 1990s. Change and adaptation to meet the needs of this generation was seen at that time as beyond the capacity of the individual facilities. Boomers, at the peak of their working life in the 1990s, were already anticipated then to expect much more of aged care than their parents when they eventually needed it for themselves. The need to be ready for them was one reason raised for going ahead with merging into UCH.429 Although the peak of boomers entering aged care was predicted to be around 2026, as the oldest in the cohort reached their eighties, UCH knew it would need long-term strategic planning and change to meet their needs.430 Characteristic of the agency’s approach, it set about playing the long game before most boomers had even begun thinking they may one day truly get old.

Hugo, Graeme, ‘The Demographic Facts of Ageing in Australia’, Aged Care Financing Authority Second Annual Report, Appendix Q, July 2014, pp.17-19 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, p.143 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, pp.54-55 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, p.2-3, 45 (quotes p.2) Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Conversely, hospitals were discharging patients too early who did have a care place awaiting them, despite residential facilities not being intended to provide acute care. Even as demand for skilled nurses and carers increased, the underfunded aged care sector found retaining staff more and more difficult.433 UCH participated in many initiatives to try and attract registered nurses. From 2002, it offered a Graduate Nurse Program. School and university students were encouraged to do work experience or practical placements within UCH facilities. UCH also liaised with other industry bodies to promote aged care nursing.434

Approximately six per cent of older Australians (aged over 65) lived in residential aged care facilities by this time, including most of those with high needs.431 Commentators frequently discussed the increasing numbers of older Australians as a crisis, problem or burden, rather than celebrating achievements in increasing life expectancy. Older people themselves expressed high levels of anxiety about what awaited them as they aged.432 Both residential facilities and home-care programs were oversubscribed, leaving vulnerable people unable to access care. Hospitals were unable to discharge patients as they had no appropriate care to go to.

431 432 433 434 435

Meanwhile, pressure was high to constantly improve services. Accreditation, with the threat that licences may be revoked, was never far away. It was a ‘costly and invasive process’ that became ‘a routine part of operating aged care facilities’. Although consistently meeting standards for accreditation, UCH resented having to constantly re-justify their operations in order to remain eligible for meagre government funding, provided at levels it described as ‘drastic’ and ‘dysfunctional’.435 UCH was by this time in a difficult financial situation. The Board devoted long hours to planning ways to keep the organisation solvent. Government subsidies were not keeping pace with inflation, while costs of meeting government requirements rose steadily. Over several years, the organisation’s financial

McIntosh, Greg & Phillips, Janet, ‘Caring for the Elderly – an Overview of Aged Care Support Services in Australia’, e-brief for Parliament of Australia website, updated 30 April 2003 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, p.11 Harding, Vaughan, ‘“Crunch Time” is fast approaching’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.2/01, March 2001, p.1 Harding, Vaughan, ‘The Nursing Shortage’, UCH, Viva Voce, No.4/01, July 2001, p.1 UCH, Annual Report, 2003 , (quotes from Chief Executive’s report)

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

situation was gradually turned around until by the end of the decade UCH had sufficient reserves to plan for substantial expansion.436 Two rounds of two-year strategic plans expired in 2001. Uniting Church Homes subsequently adopted a five-year plan. A particular goal of the longer-term plan was to build up financial reserves sufficiently to allow a major redevelopment of Rowethorpe, the largest and most complex UCH site.437 With an eye on ensuring governance was maintained at high standards, a handbook was introduced in 2002. This guided Board members in their responsibilities. It was periodically reviewed in the following years, to keep UCH up to date with changes in both the aged care and not-for-profit sectors.438 Board members were increasingly selected based on their skills. Through the 2000s, the Board became more professional but less linked to the Uniting Church, as many Board members were not church members.439 Ella Williams House opened at Noranda in November 2000. Thirty high care bed licences transferred from St David’s nursing home, which was subsequently decommissioned. Thirty new low care places also opened. Half of the new facility was a secure dementia care area. Ella Williams was located alongside Noranda Uniting Church. The minister and volunteers from the parish began involvement at Ella Williams, including leading fortnightly worship services. The strong link of parish and aged care facility was an exciting development for the UCH.440

436 437 438 439 440 441 442 443 444

The Armadale parish took on a similar role the following year after Sarah Hardey Lodge opened at Kelmscott. This was a 64-place residential facility with 32 places in a secure dementia unit, replacing the original Sarah Hardey Nursing Home in Mount Lawley.441 Until its closure in 2001, Hardey Lodge continued to accommodate only women, reflecting the initial intention of Sarah Hardey’s gift to the church and the practical limitations of the old building. It was the only UCH facility to have ever been exclusively single-gender.442 Like St Andrew’s at Balcatta, both Ella Williams and the new Sarah Hardey provided an integrated mix of high and low care. As the government kept a tight lid on approvals for new aged care places, UCH moved their bed licences between facilities where possible. Thus, the bed licences from Subiaco transferred to Balcatta, St David’s transferred to Ella Williams, and the old Sarah Hardey transferred to the new. When Rowethorpe ceased using the Charles Jenkins building for residential care in 2002, its licences were either converted into REACH places or transferred to Sarah Hardey Lodge.443 Bed licences had been introduced in response to the oversupply of nursing homes in the 1970s. The paternalistic government control of licences, and their restricted numbers, was a significant limitation for UCH operations by the 2000s. Vaughan Harding reflected: You weren’t free to just move licences from here to there. You weren’t free to say, ‘there’s a need here; I want to move and start doing something now’. You had to wait until you went through all these processes, and it would take quite some time and effort before you got there.444

Wolfe, Lindsay, emailed comments on draft manuscript for this book, 25 January 2018 UCH, Annual Report, 2001 UCH, Annual Report, 2012, p.10 Wolfe, Lindsay, email, 2018 UCH, Annual Report, 2001 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

2001 and 2002 that these independent living communities would close within three years. Neither had capacity for any higher care onsite. New residents were no longer accepted. Existing residents were offered transfers to other UCH sites or assistance to find alternate housing in the area. Mayflower had been closed and the property sold by mid-2003.445 Fraser House was eventually sold, after long negotiations, in May 2005.446

Cheryl Lipari and Vaughan Harding.

445 446 447 448 449 450 451

Within the redevelopment, UCH worked to develop a teaching nursing home. Annesley, which opened in 2007, became an accredited teaching facility in 2011, affiliating with Curtin University.449 It was the first successful teaching nursing home in Western Australia, although both Brightwater 450 and St Ives had experimented in the area.451 Teaching nursing homes were an initiative implemented gradually across Australia to provide collaborative research, clinical care, education and

UCH, Annual Report, 2002, 2003, 2004 UCH, Annual Report, 2005 UCH, Annual Report, 2005 Juniper, Viva Voce, Autumn 2016, p.3 Juniper, Strategic Plan 2013-2023, March 2017, p.6 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Barnett, Kate, Abbey, Jennifer & Eyre, Jonquil, Implementing the Teaching Nursing Homes Initiative: Scoping Study, Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide, 2011

By the 2000s, facilities constructed in the 1960s and 1970s were coming to the end of their useful life. Standards had changed so much that huge capital expense was required to upgrade them for ongoing use. Asbestos in some buildings had to be removed. Units that had housed able-bodied older people were increasingly expected to also be suitable for residents as they grew more frail. Residents at Mayflower (Subiaco) and Fraser House (South Perth) were informed in

Work began in June 2005 on a major redevelopment of Rowethorpe, the culmination of many years’ planning and budgeting. Charles Jenkins and John Wesley House were to be replaced by a 104-place integrated low and high care facility. Sixty-four independent living units designed to support ‘ageing in place’ would be built. A training facility, office accommodation to support community care places, and fitness centre with pool and gymnasium were also part of the works, in addition to upgrades and modernisations of buildings across the site. Anticipated as a $43 million five-year project, it was intended to become the centrepiece of UCH’s operations.447 It took considerably longer than five years to implement. Works from the 2005 plan were largely completed by 2016, when a second masterplan was developed to replace the earlier one.448

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

training through partnering a residential aged care facility with a tertiary institution. Training was interdisciplinary. It was anticipated that teaching nursing homes would improve training for the aged care workforce. Experience found that recruitment and retention of aged care workers also increased, reducing the turnover of staff and therefore providing greater continuity of care for residents. Becoming a teaching nursing home also involved substantial additional work, as UCH staff members were required to supervise and mentor students. However, the considerable benefits to the aged care sector as a whole, as well as the agency itself, were felt to be well worth the effort.452 Although remnants of the ‘north-south’ divide had been evident into the twentieth century, by this time the lingering divisions were finally fading away. As the agency continued to grow, more services were centralised.453 Increased size resulted in less whole-of-agency interactions, even within administration. Those who had been with the agency for a long time and remembered the days of operating like a small family out of Fraser House felt the loss of personal connection across management levels, but generally change was recognised as necessary for a large organisation to function effectively.454

452 453 454 455 456

In the early 2000s, local governments indicated their intention to start charging rates to aged care providers. Previously, aged care facilities had been exempt under the Local Government Act. UCH launched a legal challenge to the imposition of rates. In May 2005, the State Administration Tribunal found in favour of UCH. Not-for-profit aged care providers were deemed to be ‘for charitable purposes’ under the relevant Act and therefore exempt from Council rates. This was a major win for the notfor-profit sector, both in aged care and beyond.455 Not only was UCH increasingly a leader in the aged care sector, its Chief Executive was acknowledged in his own right as being notable in the field. In 2005, Vaughan Harding won the prestigious individual category at the Aged and Community Services Awards for Excellence.456

Barnett, Kate, Abbey, Jennifer & Eyre, Jonquil, Bridging Education, Research and Clinical Care – the Teaching Nursing Home: Discussion Paper, Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide, 2011 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 Robinson, Lynne, interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, 2005 UCH, Annual Report, 2005

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Staff who worked with Vaughan applauded his leadership, and acknowledged that part of his skill was in creating a team to work together. They also acknowledged that much that was achieved within UCH was due to collaborative efforts. Deb Patterson, who joined UCH in 1993 and gave over 18 years’ service in various senior management roles, reflected after leaving: I can’t think of anything that I achieved on my own or thought I was absolutely marvellous [at] – I had a group of really clever people that probably made me look quite good but they were the ones that really contributed.457

Core to the culture of the Uniting Church was an emphasis on collaboration and consultation, and UCH honoured this approach wherever possible. While some may have had concerns at the increasingly business-like approach of the agency, others on the inside expressed frustration at the ‘ethos of consultation for everything’. Practical realities often required quick responses, which were slowed down by the need to consult.458 UCH also operated collaboratively with other aged care agencies where possible, working particularly closely with Brightwater and Amana Living. The CEOs of the three organisations met regularly and Board chairs were in steady contact.459 In 2003, UCH’s Board Chair, Tom Styles, handed the role on to Lindsay Wolfe. Tom Styles, a solicitor and member of Claremont Uniting Church, had joined the Board in 1995, became Chair in 1998 and continued to serve as a member until 2008.460 Workers compensation claims were a long-running concern for UCH. Aged care nursing includes the need to regularly move people who are not physically able to move themselves. This heavy lifting wears bodies down. From June 2001, a comprehensive ‘no lift’ policy was implemented in an attempt to reduce workplace injuries.461 It was a key element in an integrated risk management program that resulted in compensation payouts reducing by 87% over three years. Besides being a cost-saving, the changes improved health and safety for staff.462 After four years of focused work to reduce injury risk, UCH in 2004 received a high commendation at the national Better Health and Safety Awards and a silver award in

Deb Patterson. Image: Juniper.

457 458 459 460 461 462

Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 Russell-Taylor, Diane, written interview, 2016 Wolfe, Lindsay, email, 2018 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.13, and 2008, p.4 UCH, Annual Report, 2001 UCH, Viva Voce, No.3/04, Feb 2004, pp.16-19

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

the IFAP Safe Way Awards. Both judging bodies acknowledged

the whole-of-agency approach UCH had taken to injury risk management. The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;no liftâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; program was particularly commended, and other aged care providers began seeking UCHâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s expertise to implement similar improvements.463 Increased focus on occupational health and safety was a characteristic of the changing aged care industry into the 21st century.464

463 464

By the 2000s, aged care had become an enormously complex and highly regulated industry. Small, independent facilities, many started by volunteers much as the Congregational, Methodist and Presbyterian Homes had been, increasingly found they were unable to navigate the changes. As a leader in the sector, UCH was able to assist smaller providers by contracting to provide them specific services, such as

UCH, Annual Report, 2004 Robinson, Lynne, interview, 2016

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

preparing for accreditation, creating relevant software or more general management services.465 It is likely that UCH’s experience of transitioning from multiple small operations to one large organisation gave it particular insights into the needs of the surviving small operators. In the mid-1980s interstate visitors had criticised Rowethorpe for being too large and centralised;466 now, it was cottage operations that were out of favour. Some small providers could not survive. This was especially true in country areas. UCH began acquiring former independent facilities in 2005 when it purchased the 50-place Residency in Northam from the Avon Community Development Foundation.467 After two years providing contracted management services for the City of Bayswater’s aged care facilities, in 2006 UCH took on the City’s aged care staff. Although operating as a partnership, with Bayswater retaining ownership of the properties, this brought three additional sites under the UCH umbrella: Carramar in Morley, Mertome in Bayswater and City of Bayswater Hostel in Embleton,468 with Salisbury Retreat (Bedford) and Noranda Village following soon after. Northam Cottage Homes was acquired in 2007-08 469 and Albany Cottage Homes in 200910.470 Frontier Services (formerly Australian Inland Mission) were assisted in 2009 after they were found non-compliant in an accreditation review of their Derby facility.471 Five years later, UCH (by then trading as Juniper) took on management of all Frontier Service’s Kimberley operations.472

465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475

Community demand for high care places increased each year. Dementia care was especially in demand. In 2005, UCH implemented a Dementia Care Project to review and improve dementia care across the agency. A ‘person centred approach’ was adopted. Meal times particularly benefited from the change in focus. John Bryant House was converted to cater entirely for residents with dementia and Cygnet Lodge at Rowethorpe was planned for a similar conversion. Other facilities had more than half their places designated for dementia care. Yet, despite the increasing demand, and the increasing cost of providing appropriate care, government funding did not increase at the same pace.473 ‘Dementia’ is an umbrella term to describe more than 100 different diseases, of which the most common is Alzheimer’s disease. Although not the most common chronic condition among older people, it is easily the one with the greatest overall impact, or ‘burden of disease’, for the community and individuals. In recent years, 10% of people aged 75-84 and 30% of those aged 85+ lived with a diagnosed dementia condition. Individuals approaching older age consistently identify fear of dementia as one of their greatest worries. Its debilitating impact on quality of life is well-known. Less widely appreciated is that it is a terminal condition,474 the leading cause of death for Australian women and second only to heart disease for the population as a whole. Improvements in treatment of heart disease and rising numbers of individuals diagnosed with dementia mean the latter is likely to become Australia’s most common cause of death in the coming years.475

UCH, Annual Report, 2004 ‘Regionalisation Working Party Report’, 1984, Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4471A/28 UCH, Annual Report, 2005 UCH, Annual Report, 2006, p.8, 15 UCH, Annual Report, 2008, p.11, 15 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.4 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.10 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.17 UCH, Annual Report, 2005 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, pp.123-125 ABS, ‘Drug induces deaths at highest rate since late 90s’ (media release, online), 27 September 2017

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

Despite its prevalence, dementia carries a social stigma. There are often delays in diagnosis, restricting access to services and medication that manage symptoms. Research is ongoing, but at present there is no cure.476 Review of Pricing Arrangements in Residential Aged Care, more commonly called the Hogan Review, was a national review of aged care in Australia in 2004. The report called for major changes to financing and payment arrangements for residential care. It identified over-regulation as an industry problem, calling for greater flexibility for providers. Funding changes in 1997 were described as having improved quality of care but reduced government spending, leaving the aged care sector in an unsustainable position. A temporary boost to funding was provided in the 2004 Federal budget, but most of the recommendations of the review were not adopted.477 Aged care providers were required to compete with each other each year for allocation of a limited number of additional aged care places (formerly ‘bed licences’). In 2005, Ella Williams, St Andrew’s, EACH and CACPs together were granted funding for a total of 90 more places.478 Another 80 were granted the following year, mostly non-residential,479 and more again in 2007. Home care services continued to be the focus of government funding.480 There were considerable differences between States, as HACC was jointly State and Federal funded. By the 2000s, changes to streamline home care were being recommended, but it was another decade before real change came.481 Reports repeatedly stated that in future more people

476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488

would want services in their home, as if this was new. However, older people’s common wish to stay out of residential care had been prominent in studies since at least the early 1970s. UCH was one of many service agencies operated by the Uniting Church. A national umbrella body, UnitingCare, began operating in 2000 to provide them a combined voice.482 Three years later, UCH changed its letterhead to show its link to UnitingCare.483 In 2005, WA Synod agreed to a new agency being formed to unite separate UCA (WA) community service entities. Agencies undertook a long process of working towards the merger. All agencies had the freedom to opt in or out. Initially, Uniting Church Homes was part of the discussions, and financially supported the project officer for the merger process.484 While ready to assist the church to facilitate the community services merger, UCH was clear that it was too large and complex to join a wider UCA community service agency. Merging everyone was not anticipated to provide good governance and oversight for anyone.485 UCH continued to operate as a separate Synod agency, one of three (with Good Samaritan Industries and Crossroads) to retain independent Synod-accountable operations after UnitingCare West formed in July 2006.486 Although remaining independent, from around 2007 UCH began more consciously identifying as part of the Australia-wide UnitingCare network.487 In 2011, it began sharing its computing infrastructure with UnitingCare West, Good Samaritan Industries and Uniting Church in the City.488

Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, pp.124-125 de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.2, 19-20 UCH, Annual Report, 2005 UCH, Annual Report, 2006, p.8 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.4, 8 de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.2, 26-27 UCH, Viva Voce, No.7/00, September 2000, p.1 UCH, Viva Voce, No.1/03, Oct 2003, p.3 Beresford, Uniting in Mission, 2011, pp.30-31, 35 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Beresford, Uniting in Mission, 2011, pp.30-31, 35 UCH, Annual Report, 2007+ UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.8

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

From 2006, UCH took over the ‘Do Care’ program. This national

The WA Health Department began partnering with UCH in 2006 to provide a ‘care awaiting placement’ program. Seventy beds were made available at Mertome for older people discharged from hospital who could not return to their homes.492 Such services were increasingly required, as the supply of permanent residential places was not keeping up with demand. However, the State Government cut funding for the project after only three years. The last residents were transferred out in December 2009. Fortunately, UCH successfully applied to keep the facility open as a low care residential site. Renamed ‘Tranby’, this opened late in 2009. Six temporary residents of Mertome were granted permanent places at Tranby. Many staff also remained with the facility through its conversion.493

A HACC-funded UCA initiative had previously been run in Western Australia by Perth Wesley Mission. It organised a network of volunteers to provide friendship and social support to older people. Home visits, group outings and telephone conferences characterised the service.489 The following year, UCH established Uniting Community Care. All the home and community care services were brought under the oversight of one executive manager, including EACH, CACP, HACC, Do Care, therapy and respite services.490 From 2008, some of the EACH services were ‘dementia specific’ (EACH D).491

As Western Australia’s economy boomed in response to high iron ore prices in the mid-2000s, community service providers were squeezed. Boom caused higher prices, but no additional income streams. Staff were difficult to retain, attracted by high-paying jobs in the mining sector. In some years, UCH was unable to operate at capacity as it simply did not have enough staff.494 Across Western Australia, development of the aged care sector slowed almost to a halt. Increased operating expenses meant non-essential expenditure was cut, such as new building programs or non-urgent maintenance. Although

489 490 491 492 493 494

UCH, Annual Report, 2006, p.8 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.8 UCH, Annual Report, 2008, p.9 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.4 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.10 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.10

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

the government continued increasing the number of licences allocated, providers were unable to build infrastructure or provide staffing to fulfil the allocations. Even a decade after the peak of the boom, there are still hundreds more allocations than actual aged care places in Western Australia.495 By 2008, staff vacancy rates sat steadily at 8-9%. Overtime for permanent staff and the contracting of agency staff went part way to covering the gap, but both were expensive options. By this time, UCH employed around 1,300 people, in addition to being served by over 400 registered volunteers. The agency could no longer afford to be anything less than an â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;employer of choiceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;. A Community-Specific Recruitment and Training Coordinator was appointed. Long-term strategies to attract and retain quality staff were developed. Orientation, training and mentoring of staff was improved. Work agreements were made more flexible. Advertising campaigns were rolled out to promote the agency to potential employees.496 After several years being pressured by high costs and limited staff, the Global Financial Crisis (GFC) of 2008 suddenly turned things around. As unemployment in the wider community increased, difficulties in obtaining staff melted away (at least for a while). Now the main strain was on income streams. For an agency where interest was more often an income source than a debt burden, lower interest rates cut into income. Community uncertainty, especially fears of a collapsing real estate market, made people less confident to commit themselves to residential places, impacting another major income source.497

The government responded to the GFC by pouring out money to stimulate the building industry. None of the stimulus funding was directed to constructing infrastructure for aged care. Construction costs remained high, slowing expansion of residential facilities to a crawl. However, limits on residential growth opened opportunities to expand community care services. Year by year, UCH secured more and more funding for community care places.498 Uniting Community Care in 2010 won a tender to be a preferred provider for palliative and community nursing services, funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs. This money supported the services in both the metropolitan area and the Wheatbelt.499 By 2011, UCH had funding for 556 community care places.500 Another source of financial support was Lotterywest grants. Many lotteries grants were directed towards facility upgrades. In total, they were quite substantial. Some years, over half a million dollars was received from Lotterywest.501 Up to the 1990s, Uniting Church agencies had not been permitted to accept lotteries funding, due to the churchâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opposition to all forms of gambling. This restriction was lifted by Synod in 1991. While gambling was still not condoned, using available funds to benefit the community was deemed acceptable.502 Through years of limited government finance, lotteries funding became not just acceptable, but at times essential.

495 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 496 UCH, Annual Report, 2008, p.6, 8 497 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.6 498 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.10 499 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.10 500 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.10 501 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.9 502 Correspondence, 1990-1993, MN659 Acc4540A/4

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

For an agency that emerged slowly over many years, with many milestones, it is hard to pin down a year to commemorate. In 2009, UCH elected to celebrate the 60th anniversary of the opening of its first home, Hardey Lodge, as 60 years of UCH. Events for the commemorative year included a celebration honouring 60 individuals who had contributed to UCH. Celebrations included a gala dinner and ball, celebratory worship service, and the production of a commemorative historical booklet. All the residential facilities observed UCH Week in September 2009 with a variety of local events.503 Anniversary celebrations provided an opportunity to reflect on what had changed and what remained consistent with the services established from 1949. Small, volunteer-run homes had been replaced by large, professional facilities. Passionate volunteer committees operating independent services had been united into an equally passionate paid management team overseeing sites from Katanning to Geraldton within a corporate structure. The desire of the Methodists who founded Hardey Lodge continued to be honoured: to provide services for those without the means to fund their own care. UCH remained a church agency and a charity, running as a not-for-profit service provider within a complex and highly regulated professional sector. As in the beginning, and despite tighter finances, UCH continued ‘to target people who do not have choices.’504 The ethos of service was not all in one direction. For example, residents in 1996 collected discarded spectacles for the Eyeglass Bank Project in Thailand.505 After the devastating Victorian bushfires in February 2009, residents, their family members and staff contributed to a generous donation from

503 504 505 506 507 508 509

UCH, Annual Report, 2009, pp.8-9, and 2010, p.4, 8 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.6 UCH, Viva Voce, No.1, Jan 1996, p.2 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.10 Juniper, Viva Voce, Winter 2013, p.3 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years¸2009, p.21 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.6

UCH to the bushfire appeal.506 In 2013, residents donated to the Red Cross Queensland Flood Appeal after natural disasters on the eastern seaboard.507 Local initiatives over many years also involved residents and staff caring for communities beyond UCH facilities. In 2009, UCH provided services to over 3,500 people, supported by over 1,300 staff and 450 volunteers. While most of these services were in the Perth metropolitan area, facilities also operated in Katanning, Geraldton and Northam. Services offered by UCH were: yy Community Care, focused on supporting elderly people in their own homes yy Residential Care – dementia specific, high care, low care and respite care yy Care Awaiting Placement yy Independent living and serviced units508 Challenges to operating these services continued to be plentiful. Having spent over a decade railing against the Howard government’s woeful provision of aged care, UCH was disappointed to discover that a change of government in 2007 did not bring with it any greater interest in supporting older Australians. Funding levels remained unsustainably low. Capital investment was restricted. Meanwhile, costs were escalating and there were not enough people available to staff services. Through the national UnitingCare network, UCH participated in a campaign lobbying for greater awareness of the needs of older people.509

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

Australia moved into the second decade of the 21st century with an ageing population and a stressed aged care industry. After years of lobbying, the government finally took a serious look at aged care. Yet again, upheaval appeared inevitable. UCH was becoming expert at navigating both internal and external change. UCH created a new senior role in 2011: ‘Consultant Special Projects’. The main focus of this new role was preparing for the cultural change anticipated as baby boomers aged. At the same time, management positions above the level of Care Manager were restructured. The new arrangement was intended to enhance capacity for strategic leadership, especially in view of government reforms in aged care.510 Leadership was targeted at areas of growth and development.511 It was the first major realignment of senior roles after some years of stability. In 2011, the Productivity Commission released a report arising from two years of investigation. UCH contributed to UnitingCare Australia’s written submission, and Vaughan Harding participated in the public hearing in Perth in April 2011. Over-regulation and under-funding were two chief concerns raised by UCH. Rising numbers of older Australians, higher rates of dementia and other age-related disability, fewer informal carers and difficulties in retaining aged care staff were all identified as looming challenges. A hard-tonavigate system with wide variations in quality, financing and availability of services was also a problem.512 The Productivity Commission proposed a consumer-directed approach to aged care, with maximum choice for older people. Funding was recommended to follow individuals rather than

be allocated to providers. An end was urged to rationing of places through providing government funding on a quota system, to be superseded by a market-driven system.513 Government ministers at the time, and in subsequent years, agreed in principle with the direction of the Productivity Commission report. Real change, however, has been less forthcoming.514 From 2013, the Commonwealth government began implementing a staged 10-year program of aged care reforms under the banner ‘Living Longer, Living Better’. Making the system sustainable for an ageing population was a priority, as proportionally less and less of Australia’s population would be in paid employment to support the increasing proportion of older Australians. Greater funding and support was targeted at home-based care, recognising the desire of most elderly people to remain independent for as long as possible, preferably in their own home and close to family and community. The package of changes also aimed to increase investment in the sector by providers and expand the career options available, to ensure quality employees were available to deliver the services promoted. The reforms were intended to ensure older Australians, wherever they lived, had access to equivalent services and were funded on equal terms.515 Reforms did not fundamentally alter the structure of aged care financing or end restrictions on allocated places. Means testing was extended and resident contributions increased for those of greater means, although not to the levels that the Productivity Commission had recommended. Capped accommodation payments were introduced for all residential

510 UCH, Annual Report, 2008, p.7, 11 511 Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.6 512 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.10; Productivity Commission, Caring for Older Australians, August 2011, p.xviii-xix and associated website (including lists of submissions/ public hearings) 513 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.10; de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.38; Productivity Commission, Caring for Older Australians, 2011, p.xviii 514 de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.38 515 Department of Health, ‘Aged care reform’ (website), accessed 13 July 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

facilities, ending the distinction between arrangements for low or high care residents. The choice of paying a fully refundable bond on entry into residential care was introduced, with protections for those with low income or few assets.516 ‘Living Longer, Living Better’ aimed to increase the agency of older people within the aged care system, giving greater choice and improving transparency in how individuals’ funds are spent. The first stages of the program included establishing a national online portal – My Aged Care – launching the Aged Care Pricing Commission and Australian Aged Care Quality Agency, and introducing new Home Care Packages.517

rather than reducing the load or improving transparency. UCH joined other UnitingCare agencies to lobby strongly for ACNC to be established on more useful terms.520 They got in early in the process to make their presence felt and ensure any new requirements had genuine benefits to the sector. As a result, ACNC became ‘quite a useful body’ that was ‘actually doing something’. Minimum standards were adopted, with ACNC moving decisively to deregister charities and not-forprofits that failed to meet standards or were found to be illegitimate.521

The reforms were greeted with mixed hope and disappointment by UCH. Funding was not to be substantially increased. Regulation, on the other hand, expanded, despite the Productivity Commission report decrying an over-regulated system. Changes were described by UCH as ‘cautious, postdated, and likely to limit any fair and reasonable increase in aged care funding’. However, the agency acknowledged that many ideas from the Productivity Commission’s report had been picked up in the new system, especially measures to improve resourcing for dementia care.518 The first instalment of the new system came into operation from 1 July 2014.519 Another Productivity Commission report of the same period also impacted UCH: a review of the not-for-profit sector. Again, the administrative burden of complying with government requirements was a key concern. The government responded by establishing a not-for-profit regulator, the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission (ACNC). However, this measure was drafted in a way that increased regulation

516 517 518 519 520 521

de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.30-32 Department of Health, ‘Aged care reform’ (website), accessed 13 July 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 2012, p.4, 9-10 (quote p.4) Juniper, Viva Voce, Winter 2014, p.3 UCH, Annual Report, 2012, p.10 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

Current Juniper Board Chair Fred Boshart (left) with former Board Chairs Lindsay Wolfe and Dr Chris Whitaker. Image: Bill McDonald, Juniper.

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

Vaughan Harding participated in a Europe, UK and USA study tour in 2010,522 and another to England and Denmark in 2016. He was impressed to discover that Denmark had identified responding to an ageing society as the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s second-highest priority.523 Insights gathered in the northern hemisphere assisted UCH in planning for a changing future. In 2012, Harding accepted nomination as president of the national network of not-for-profit aged care groups, Aged and Community Services Australia (ACSA).524 He served in the role for a three-year term and focused on moving the organisation from a federation to a national body. The implementation of this work is still underway and will resource ACSA to provide the industry leadership required for the future.525 UCH also supported many staff members to attend training courses and conferences across Australia.526 Western Australia, although isolated, is part of a global network working to better provide for older people. UCH has ensured it remains abreast of best practice wherever it exists.

providing better support for medical staff.527 The Rowethorpe model was so successful that UCH subsequently planned to establish medical centres specialising in geriatric medicine at some of its other sites.528

Expanding to be more than a care provider was a strategic goal for UCH into the 2010s. One step in this direction was taking over the medical facilities at Rowethorpe in 2011. Previously, doctors from Victoria Park Medical Centre had used buildings at Rowethorpe for regular consulting hours. After the premises were refurbished and expanded in 2010, UCH looked at options for becoming Practice Manager for the facility. From June 2011, Rowethorpe Medical Centre operated as a fully accredited practice licensed under the Australian General Practice Accreditation Ltd. The new arrangement, which included many of the same doctors continuing to work at Rowethorpe, expanded services to residents while

UCHâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s staff has long reflected patterns in migration to Australia. Many of its jobs are relatively poorly paid and unskilled, attracting employees with limited English language proficiency or recognised Australian qualifications. In the early years, it had many Italian workers, who gave way to Vietnamese migrants. More recently, the workforce has included many African employees.531

522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531

Uniform clinical documentation management was implemented around the same time as UCH adopted iCare across the agency.529 An electronic medication system was also introduced. Staff subsequently had to fill in forms and assessments online, bringing an end to the use of nonstandard forms in individual facilities â&#x20AC;&#x201C; a goal first attempted in the early 1980s. Logistically, moving the whole staff across from filling in forms manually to computerised data entry was a huge undertaking, especially as many excellent caring staff had challenges with English as a second language or limited computer skills. Within three months, over 1,000 staff members were trained to use iCare. Managerial teams spent many hours supporting their staff to make the transition.530

Government changes unveiled to begin in 2013 did not run smooth, as the Federal government changed midway through the year. The new government removed Aged Care as a Cabinet position. Aged care was separated administratively

UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.9 Juniper, Viva Voce, Summer 2016, p.3 Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.10 Juniper, Viva Voce, Summer 2016, p.3; Harding, Vaughan, notes to Clare Menck, December 2017 Robinson, Lynne, interview, 2016 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.8 Juniper, Strategic Plan 2013-2023, March 2017, pp.6-7 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.11 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 Vaughan Harding, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

from Health and added to a new Department of Social Services. A period of disruption as the restructure played out was inevitable 532 However, the Coalition government honoured its commitment to continue the long-term plan begun by its Labor predecessors.533 Long-serving Board Chair Lindsay Wolfe resigned in 2014. Lindsay Wolfe came to UCH in 2002 after a career working for the International Monetary Fund in Washington DC. His 11-year tenure as Chair included rebranding Juniper, doubling the agency’s revenue and strengthening governance frameworks. He was remembered as an inclusive, patient and gentle leader with an eye for improving governance and sound financial management. His ‘enquiring mind and strong sense of fairness’ underpinned his positive relationship with the UCH Executive.534 Fred Boshart, an accountant and registered builder who joined the Board in 2006, became Chair in his stead and continues in the role to the present.535 By 2015, the first round of ‘Living Longer, Living Better’ had been implemented. Old ways of doing aged care were incrementally being transformed, preparing for baby boomer clients. To best place itself in the emerging new aged care marketplace, UCH rebranded itself with a fresh look and a new name: Juniper.

532 533 534 535

Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.10 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.8 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.9, 10, 12 (quote p.10) UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.13; Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.8, 11, 32

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

3.2 Juniper is Born Uniting Church Homes was a name coined in the era when 14 facilities run by nine independent management committees were being painstakingly and sometimes acrimoniously drawn together into a united church organisation. The name identified clearly that the agency valued being together as one, being church, and supporting the loving ‘home’ facilities developed by volunteer committees. It was a name that met the internal needs of those invested in the Homes. By the 21st century, it was increasingly clear that UCH needed a name that would meet the needs of those outside the church who might draw on its aged care services. Uniting Church Homes had replaced Aged Persons Homes Board as the organisational name in 1989. As early as 1992, the name was considered less than ideal. Being tied to residential care services was the main problem with the name at the time. Alternatives suggested were Uniting Church Aged Care Agency, Uniting Home Care or Uniting Care Ministry.536 None of these appear to have been given any serious consideration, and there was far too much to do sorting out the formation of UCH as a centralised agency to put resources into investigating a name change. Entering the 21st century, UCH ran focus groups with community members from the baby boomer cohort, to better understand the next generation who would be accessing aged care services, investigating ‘what kind of people are they, what are their aspirations, and where [does UCH] fit in the scheme of things?’ 537 Vaughan Harding, observing the conversations held in focus groups, recalls being ‘taken aback by their negativity’:

536 537 538 539 540 541

The level of cynicism about church and churches; their negative reaction to ‘charity’, or ‘care’, or even ‘community’, where they felt locked in. They had a lot of things that they did not like. Now we were called Uniting Church Homes and we thought: you know, this is quite a disconnect. We’re actually there for the whole community and yet we’re marketing ourselves in a way that a lot of people think we’re there for a person if they’re a Uniting Church person, or if not, at least a church person. And that’s whether they come and get a service from us, or whether they come and work with us. We found there was a problem.538 Research in 2005 noted that Uniting Church Homes had strong, positive brand awareness within the Uniting Church. However, it was suggested that possibly ‘Uniting’ alone would have the same internal recognition, and ‘Church’ was not necessary in the name. ‘Homes’ was felt to be outdated, giving ‘a meagre and austere image’ with institutional overtones. This was no longer an impression UCH would benefit from presenting to the general public. The consultant engaged to provide advice recommended moving the name away from ‘homes’ to emphasise ‘care’.539 Uniting Life was proposed as a potential new name, with individual operations coming under either Uniting Life Services or Uniting Life Centres.540 Not only were there concerns that the name Uniting Church Homes was hard to market to potential clients, but it was found to be a barrier to attracting staff. Tests found that job applicants were significantly less likely to enquire about an employment opportunity if it was advertised by a church agency. In an era of staff shortages, this was a major problem.541

Maytom, ‘Final Report…’, 1992, p.49 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Sue Smith & Associates, Proposal, 6 July 2005, Juniper file, PR & Marketing - General Juniper file, PR & Marketing - General Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Nevertheless, change was a very long process, involving senior staff and the Board.542 The Board, in October 2007, endorsed action by the Executive to investigate options for rebranding. UCH was noted to be one of the few aged care agencies to retain an historic and church-related name.543 Anglican Homes had become Amana Living,544 Churches of Christ Homes was now Bethanie,545 Sisters of Mercy had rebranded their services as MercyCare,546 Baptist Homes Board amended to Baptistcare547 and Home of Peace had changed to Brightwater.548 Options began to be canvassed. The following year, consultancy firm ‘303’ was engaged to assist with finding a new name that would be simple, short and easy to understand, have a clear connection to the brand’s past, and be inspirational and inviting.549 As the agency was expanding, the name needed to be one to which other words could be added. Finding that word was an enormous challenge. Over 500 possible names were considered.550 Juniper was selected from a short list of three names, the others being Affinity and Eden.551 Juniper was seen to portray the organisation’s heritage, growth, strength, resilience and renewal.552 Juniper is a hardy plant of the pine family, with needle-like leaves and round, bluish-black berries. It has long been used in herbal medicine, as an edible herb and as a key ingredient of gin. Larger species are also used for their timber, making them particularly valuable in more arid regions

where many trees do not grow.553 The Bible mentions juniper as a plant of shelter, specifically in a story of the prophet Elijah escaping from pursuers and in some traditions also in recounting the flight of infant Jesus and his family into Egypt. The plant’s qualities of shelter, protection, sustenance and strength were particularly relevant in selecting the name.554 Stylistically, the actual letters of the word ‘Juniper’ were attractive, giving plenty of flexibility for graphic design. 555 The biblical link was important in assuring UCA stakeholders that Juniper remained committed to being an agency of the church. Leading up to rebranding there was a fair bit of resistance within the church, and a ‘great sensitivity to changing names’. Vaughan Harding recalls people saying ‘you’re just setting yourselves off to drift off away from the church’. UCH had become its own organisation in 1992, incorporated as a legal entity in 2009, and many worried that it was tracking to leave the fold altogether, as some other Christian-based aged care providers were perceived to have done. Significant efforts were required to assure church members that this was not the case, but that UCH was becoming a liability as a brand name.556

542 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 543 ‘Brand Launch – Progress Report – September 2012’, Juniper file 1301, Communications 544 Amana Living, ‘Our Anglican Essence’ (website), accessed 13 July 2017 545 Bethanie, ‘Our History’ (website), accessed 13 July 2017 546 MercyCare, ‘Our History’ (website), accessed 13 July 2017 547 Baptistcare, ‘A Brief History of Baptistcare’ (website), accessed 13 July 2017 548 Brightwater, ‘Our History’ (website), accessed 26 October 2017 549 ‘Brand Launch – Progress Report – September 2012’, Juniper file 1301, Communications 550 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 551 Myers, Roley, email to Clare Menck, 7 February 2018 552 ‘Brand Launch – Progress Report – September 2012’, Juniper file 1301, Communications 553 Encyclopaedia Britannica (website), ‘Juniper (Plant)’; Gardening Australia (website), ‘Plant Profile: Juniperus’; Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine (website), ‘Juniper’; accessed 20 October 2017 554 Juniper website, accessed 20 October 2017 555 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 556 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

trademark.558 The Juniper family subsequently traded as The Juniper Group, although in practice the name was often still shortened to Juniper.559 Finally, in April 2012, all obstacles were cleared and several months of activity ensued to prepare for agencywide rebranding. Juniper was launched on 14 August 2012.560 Technically, the agency remained Uniting Church Homes, trading as Juniper – a Uniting Church Community.561 Both the legal name and the tagline helped provide comfort for people concerned at the loss of church connection. 562 To all but those noting administrative detail, however, the agency was Juniper. It was 2010 before the Board approved rebranding under the name Juniper. Action was further delayed as trademark clearance issues took some time to resolve.557 A property development company in Queensland operated by the Juniper family used Juniper as its business name. As UCH and the Juniper family were active in both accommodation and catering, it was not viable for both to use the name. After about 18 months, UCH was able to resolve the matter with the Juniper family and acquire the registered

557 558 559 560 561 562

In Western Australia, the name Juniper is widely associated with Robert Juniper, one of the State’s most prominent visual artists of the 20th century. As UCH and Robert Juniper operated in such completely different spheres, there were no problems encountered with the artist in adopting Juniper as an agency name. It was hoped that he may be commissioned to provide artwork after the rebranding, as he had completed a substantial body of work for churches over his career, but sadly Robert Juniper died soon after UCH took on its new

‘Brand Launch – Progress Report – September 2012’, Juniper file 1301, Communications Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper Group (website), accessed 20 October 2017 ‘Brand Launch – Progress Report – September 2012’, Juniper file 1301, Communications Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.6 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

name. His family continues to use the Juniper name for Juniper Estate Winery in Margaret River. The Uniting Church’s Juniper often uses Juniper Estate wines for functions.563 A comprehensive ‘communications activity timeline’ was developed to guide the transition to Juniper. Over 7,500 letters were sent out to residents, families, staff and other stakeholders. Within a month of the rebranding, 90% of the tasks of the timeline had been completed.564 The rebranding process identified some areas for improvement within Juniper’s systems. In order to send a letter to all stakeholders, many contact details had to be manually entered, highlighting the lack of a central database of all stakeholder contacts. Some deficit in organisational knowledge across the agency was also highlighted.565 Following the rebranding, Juniper commissioned external consultants to advise on internal, corporate and social media communications strategies. They had also assisted with the rebranding transition and launch, out of which the need for these strategies was identified.566 By 2013, it was acknowledged that the long-standing focus on individual services, designed to maintain local community connection, was becoming less relevant.567 All facilities operated by Juniper’s service model and adhered to Juniper’s standards. There were no longer ‘local’ standards creating variation between facilities. Local community characteristics continued to be reflected at individual sites, such as the use of Mediterranean styling for St Andrew’s in response to a neighbourhood with strong Mediterranean cultural links. However, staff trained in Juniper processes, practices and procedures could be confident that if they adhered to these they would meet the requirements of the industry and receive the protection of the organisation if anything went wrong. Clients could be assured that walking into any Juniper service they would encounter the same values, standards and ethos of care.568 Local links had historically come through the strong involvement of local Uniting Church volunteers. By the 21st century, most Juniper volunteers were community members without links to the church. As Uniting Church membership shrunk and church culture around community service changed, not enough volunteers were available from local churches to meet the needs of Juniper’s services. Instead, Juniper attracted its own volunteers based on capabilities and interests.569

563 564 565 566 567 568 569

Juniper Group (website), accessed 20 October 2017 ‘Brand Launch – Progress Report – September 2012’, Juniper file 1301, Communications ‘Brand Launch – Progress Report – September 2012’, Juniper file 1301, Communications Juniper file 1301, Communications Juniper file 1301, Communications Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Prefixing each name with Juniper, to draw attention to the agency as a whole, was proposed as a more appropriate marketing strategy. Thus, Rowethorpe became Juniper Rowethorpe, including individual facilities – Juniper Annesley, Juniper Hilltop and the rest.570 The only place where this was not applied was in some Kimberley services, as it was determined to be culturally inappropriate to prefix Aboriginal place names with Juniper. In an increasingly competitive market, it was important to improve Juniper’s brand recognition. The culture of a united agency was so firmly developed by this time that there was no controversy about this change in facility naming.571 Within a year of the rebranding, Juniper reported that clients and staff accepted the change and were functioning well under the new name.572 Despite church uneasiness prior to the move, once the name was actually launched ‘it just flowed’, with only ‘a few little negatives’ but ‘nothing significant’. It appeared key stakeholders had accepted that rebranding was the ‘right thing’, an essential action to ‘move with the times’.573 Even long-serving staff reported rapidly being so accustomed to the new name that it felt strange to refer to UCH at all.574 Although some residents were initially resistant to the change, very soon no-one seemed to even think much about it.575 Becoming Juniper was not so much a birth as a coming of age. From firm foundations, first as individual Homes and then as a combined agency, UCH trading as Juniper was equipped to stay faithful to its mission within an increasingly consumerdriven aged care sector.

570 571 572 573 574 575 576

Juniper file 1301, Communications Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.4 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 Robinson, Lynne, interview, 2016 Juniper, Annual Report, 2016, p.1

3.3 Remaining Faithful to the Mission Government policy was changing. Technology was transforming society. Churches’ role in the community was shifting. The post-war generations had begun retiring. Western Australia was riding the wave of two decades of prosperity, yet always there were some who missed out. In this period of transition, looking towards a very different future, how could Juniper continue its foundational commitment to serving older people who were least able to provide for their own needs? As the government’s 10-year reform program took effect the pace of change accelerated. The long-anticipated baby boomer cohort was accessing aged care services in increasing numbers, changing the culture of Juniper’s client base. Empowering consumer choice became central to planning and service delivery. Vaughan Harding, reflecting on over 30 years work in aged care (most of them with Juniper), noted in mid-2016 that he had ‘never experienced a period of fundamental change as has occurred in the last 12 months’. He described himself, ‘after a lifetime of work’ being ‘just at the bottom of the mountain ready for ascent’.576 As the government rolled out a 10-year program of reform, Juniper had developed its own 10-year strategic plan, covering 2013 to 2023. Its strategic response was to double the agency’s capacity over 10 years. After many years focusing on home care, Juniper identified a crisis in housing for older people. Rent rises were squeezing the private rental market.

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

The 10-year plan outlined measures to substantially expand accommodation services. Juniper aimed, by 2023, to provide residential care for 1,700 individuals, particularly those who were very sick or frail, with 500 of these places being dementia specific. In parallel, independent living numbers were set to be increased to 1,400 units, including affordable housing for the financially less able, with resources designed to allow 95% of residents to remain in their homes to the end of their lives. Four respite centres were planned, along with three medical practices specialising in geriatric medicine. Community service programs aimed to expand to reach 4,000 clients. A well-trained workforce provided with secure, well-paid employment was foreseen. To sustain this growth, services to clients of greater means were to be structured with sufficient profit margin to fund services for those with fewer means. The plan was ambitious, grounded in both expertise and confident hope.577 Doubling Juniper’s ‘capacity to respond to the community’ would not necessarily mean doubling its services. In some areas, replacing old resources with up-to-date facilities would give Juniper better ability to meet needs without huge increases to the number of beds or care packages available. In other areas, upgrades would target changing community requirements, such as the increasing demand for higher care and dementia services as home care increasingly caters for people formerly entering low care residential facilities. Increasingly, expansion would see more services into people’s homes rather than more physical places to offer services from.578

577 578

Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.6; Juniper, Strategic Plan 2013-2023, March 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

In keeping with the ‘heartland’ of its mission, Juniper’s forward planning included paying attention to the gaps where services were lacking, disempowered groups who were not having their needs met or other providers were failing to cater for. Vaughan Harding has noted that ‘some people’s needs are so great that a lot of providers don’t want them, because they’re so resource hungry’, but Juniper strives to ensure they are accommodated. Older people with dementia are particularly vulnerable, being ‘disempowered because of their mental health condition’. Over many years, the agency has built up a strong balance sheet that gives it the freedom and flexibility to respond. More mainstream services for relatively well-heeled clients have been run at a profit, with the surplus used to ensure those without adequate means can still access the care they need.579 While the majority of the Australian population has seen huge increases in life expectancy and improvements in quality of life over the past century, Aboriginal populations have significantly missed out on advances. A national effort was launched by the Federal government in 2008 to ‘close the gap’ between Aboriginal and non-indigenous life expectancy, along with a range of other quality of life measures such as health, education and employment. At the time, Aboriginal life expectancy was 18 years less than the wider population. While some improvements have since been made, particularly in milestones relating to children, systemic health issues remain. Living conditions for Aboriginal people are often below the standards other Australians enjoy, leading to poorer health outcomes. Diabetes is particularly endemic amongst Aboriginal populations, affecting up to 20% of Aboriginal people. Poverty-related ailments also result in eyesight problems for many Aboriginal people, especially older individuals.

579 580

581 582 583 584

Due to inadequate screening and less timely diagnosis, as well as frequent remoteness from medical intervention, cancer is much more likely to be fatal for Aboriginal patients. Aboriginal life expectancy in 2017 remains at least 10 years less than for other Australians.580 Frontier Services was still operating under the National Assembly of the UCA into the 2010s. The National Assembly was by this time feeling the strain of providing governance for a service provider, when it was not set up to run services. Juniper felt it had a moral obligation to keep the Kimberley aged care services open.581 In 2014, Frontier Services transferred its Kimberley operations to Juniper, bringing Kununurra Community Care, Marlgu Village (Wyndham), Numbala Nunga and Ngamang Bawoona (both Derby) into the UCH fold.582 The following year, Juniper acquired Guwardi Ngadu flexible care service at Fitzroy Crossing, and entered into an agreement with Halls Creek People’s Church to manage their 28-bed residential facility, Halls Creek Frail Aged Hostel.583 At Kununurra, Juniper is now developing a new service hub to bring together residential, respite, home care, therapy and clinical services. Working with primarily Aboriginal clients, Juniper determined that the ‘vibe and feel’ of the place needed to be ‘pretty different’, especially given Aboriginal culture’s aversion to frequenting locations where people had died. Core to the new Kununurra centre is a ‘go to’ kitchen where food is available most hours of the day, for clients and their families, creating a social space with plenty of life and activity. Juniper is attempting ‘to create a whole new feel and flavour’, taking risks that many service providers avoid, in the hope of bringing about different, better, results.584 It is anticipated that

Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Hunter, Fergus & Gordon, Michael, ‘Closing the Gap: Six of seven targets “not on track”, life expectancy gap unchanged’, Sydney Morning Herald (online), 14 February 2017; Menck, Thematic History of Western Australia, 2017; Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee for Indigenous Health Equality, Progress and priorities report 2017, Oxfam, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.17 Blue Care took over Frontier Services in the NT and QLD, and established a new agency to oversee services in the Pilbarra (Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017) Juniper, Viva Voce, Summer 2016, p.3 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

At the other end of the State, Juniper was also paying attention to gaps in the services available at Albany. The former State Housing Commission suburb of Lockyer had long been a troubled area, socially stigmatised and physically somewhat cutoff by a boundary of busy roads. Having acquired Albany Cottage Homes within the suburb in 2009 (renamed Juniper Boronia Court), Juniper began to get involved in ‘actively working to help reinvent Lockyer’.589 A multi-purpose centre was developed, named the Beryl Grant Community Centre. Opened in October 2017, it was intended for use by various community groups, including providing office accommodation for UnitingCare West. A second stage of involvement was also underway, developing a 100-bed residential care facility nearby. Additional independent living units are also planned for the site.590

Juniper’s whole-family approach to serving older Aboriginal people will in future be recognised and highly regarded as an industry-leading approach.585 Acquiring additional services in the Kimberley region helped to give Juniper a critical mass that allowed for more effective service delivery, particularly for Aboriginal clients. It was a steep learning curve to operate in a remote region.586 As a region, the Kimberley has had a long history of systemic failure, with white-fella interventions disempowering the very people they were intended to assist. A new Juniper management region was developed to provide dedicated oversight.587 The site managers in the Kimberley initially reported to a senior manager in Perth but in December 2017 Juniper created an Area Manager Kimberley position based in Kununurra to enable more practical support.588

585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593

In Perth, Juniper has worked to respond to the looming homelessness crisis, in which older women are one of the most at-risk groups. More than one third of older women live alone. Median private rental payments for older single women are over 40% of their household income, but provide no housing security, and homelessness among older women has been steadily increasing over the past decade.591 Ron Wilson House opened at Rowethorpe in 2014, providing lowincome rental accommodation for women. It was named after prominent churchman, high court judge and human rights campaigner Sir Ronald Wilson, who had ‘a great empathy for people who were doing it tough’, reflecting Juniper’s ongoing commitment to such individuals.592 Redeveloping Rowethorpe was a huge part of Juniper’s work after 2005. By the time the first round of redevelopment was completed, more building projects were in the pipeline.593

Juniper, Strategic Plan 2013-2023, March 2017, p.7 Juniper, Annual Report to the Synod of Western Australia 2016, pp.3-4 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Parker, David, Executive Officer, Juniper email to Roley Myers, 14 March 2018 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, ‘Doors open on major new service hub for Albany community’, 25 October 2017 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, p.139, 141 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, Viva Voce, Autumn 2016, p.3

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

The second Masterplan is now guiding development in line with Juniper’s agency-wide 10-year strategic plan. Still Juniper’s largest site, Rowethorpe is viewed very differently to the early years of North and South. There is no longer a general manager in charge of the whole site. Each care centre has its own manager, with a coordinator overseeing the independent living units. Regional services such as the Area Manager, Housing Services and Home & Community Care are based at or spend time each week at Rowethorpe, but their focus is far beyond the Bentley site. Juniper also liaises with neighbouring Swan Care to ensure the best outcomes for residents in both precincts, the old conflicts between the two Bentley-based providers now long in the past.594 At Menora, the aged care precinct surrounding Elimatta has not seen particular conflict between providers, unlike the early years at Bentley. All on site are not-for-profits. Nevertheless, each site has operated quite independently. The area has been described as ‘the biggest aged care ghetto in Australia’. In 2017, several of the providers in the group are in the process of major redevelopments, including Juniper. It is hoped that, once the area gets beyond being a building site, some cooperative initiatives can be developed, such as fencing the whole precinct while removing internal barriers to facilitate greater pedestrian movement across all sites and services.595 In 2015, government trials were underway with longer accreditation periods, in an attempt to reduce administrative red tape for providers.596 Although some agencies were given five-year periods as part of the trial, within a short time

594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601

the conversation had moved on to changing the nature of accreditation rather than the length of its cycles. In 2017, providers and government are discussing options for allowing multiple accreditation agencies to operate in the aged care sector, so organisations can choose who they use and not rely on one single body.597 Weaknesses in the government regulation of aged care hit the media in 2017 when instances of gross failure of care, even constituting elder abuse, were disclosed at Oakden residential facility in South Australia.598 The scandal demonstrated yet again that ‘aged care is very sensitive in the media space, in terms of negative publicity. The media love the negative stuff. They’ll be into you in the blink of an eye’.599 However, truly abhorrent practices had been exposed at Oakden and quality providers such as Juniper supported investigation of the claims. An independent review subsequently commissioned by the government found that the situation at Oakden was not typical of Australian aged care, but circumstances that led to it were also not unique. The review advised tightening regulation. It proposed bringing together the fragmented regulatory system by creating a single, independent agency to address accreditation, compliance and complaints handling. Genuinely unannounced inspection visits were recommended after facilities had met their initial accreditation, as reviewers had found evidence of facilities presenting a false impression of their services when given advance notice that auditors would be visiting.600 The Federal Minister for Ageing, Ken Wyatt, moved quickly to confirm that unannounced accreditation audits would be implemented as soon as possible.601

Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.37 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Carnell, Kate & Paterson, Ron, Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, presented to the Minister for Ageing 3 October 2017, pp.v-xiii Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Carnell & Paterson, Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, 2017, pp.v-xiii Wyatt, Ken, ‘Quality review released: Aged care assessment visits to be unannounced’, Media release, 25 October 2017; Donnellan, Angelique, ‘Nursing homes to be audited without warning, Government announces’, at ABC News (online), 25 October 2017

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

The lack of control is galling to those looking to their future

Hopefully tightening regulation will not mean increasing the administrative paperwork for aged care providers. Already this is a substantial burden, identified in numerous reviews as a significant problem in the industry. Nationally, the Aged Care Sector Committee has been working for some years on measures to reduce red tape, particularly by streamlining reporting requirements and removing duplication in administration. A Red Tape Reduction Action Plan released in 2015 included 35 key recommendations for change, many of which have since been implemented.602 Public alarm following the Oakden case reflects wider foreboding in the community about the likelihood of eventually having to enter a residential facility. Although at any given time only about 5% of Australians aged over 65 are in residential care, of those who reach this age over 50% of women and around 40% of men will at some point in their life need to access residential care. However, many report that they would rather die (literally) than be ‘put’ in a ‘nursing home’. Despite decades of improvement, public perception continues to see residential aged care as a depressing environment, devoid of dignity, conversation, activity or good food, with residents treated more like objects than human beings. The lack of control during this ‘fourth age’ of physical and mental decline is galling to those looking towards it.603

602 603 604 605 606 607 608

Although Australian aged care remains, as it began, primarily operated by not-for-profit agencies, other providers also operate in the sector. In 2014, 37% of residential aged care facilities were operated by for-profit businesses, in addition to 7% operated by the state or local governments. Not-forprofit providers had a larger share (81%) of the home care sector.604 Corporate operators carry with them a risk for the sector, as they are themselves risk-averse and profit-driven. If return on investments was to change, many would exit the industry, leaving a gaping hole in available aged care services. At the same time, the number of older Australians continues to increase. Juniper, as a values-driven leader in the sector, recognises a need for long-term provision to insure against the risk of corporate providers withdrawing services in future. Vaughan Harding has expressed this as ‘a significant obligation to make sure we provide some leadership in stepping up and responding to the needs’.605 Parallel to the development of the national My Aged Care portal, Juniper developed its own centralised entry point for all services, Juniper Access. 606 By 2017, the Juniper Access team, based at Juniper Central in Balcatta, were taking around 100 phone calls a day and had processed 401 confirmed residential admissions in the preceding year.607 At State level, new legislation governing independent living units was implemented from 2014. It was the first stage in a multi-step process intended to give greater choice and control to residents.608 A government review of retirement villages completed in 2010 had identified many problems. This resulted in the 1992 legislation governing WA retirement villages being amended in 2012, but the new laws did not come into effect until April 2014. Further packages were

Aged Care Sector Committee, Red Tape Reduction Action Plan, 2015 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, pp.156-165 Department of Social Services, 2013-14 Concise Facts & Figures in Aged Care, October 2014, p.9 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, Annual Report, 2015, p.5 Juniper, Viva Voce, Winter 2017, p.7 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.8

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

It’s a balancing act. You’ve got to find a way to protect the interests of vulnerable consumers – and older people can be [vulnerable], because they are no longer able to generate new income. Therefore [if] they lose a lot of money because of malpractice by a provider, how do they recapture that again to make sure that they’ve got stable housing or whatever else they need for the rest of their life? They have a vulnerability. So you’ve got to find a way to provide that protection. But you’ve also got to find a way to allow the business side of things to be attractive to investing in retirement living, because our community’s going to need that, and if you make the barrier so high that nobody wants to invest, our community’s got real problems. That’s the risk they’re running at the moment.611

implemented in 2015 and 2016. Overall, the changes were intended to improve consumer protection for residents.609 A change of State government in 2017 disrupted the transition process, however, with decisions made that did not appear to reflect the long consultation process that had been undertaken.610

609 610 611 612 613

Home care services are also in a process of transition. A new approach for delivering home care services was introduced by the government from July 2015. Branded as Consumer Directed Care (CDC), the care model aimed to increase flexibility and choice for clients and was part of the second phase of ‘Living Longer, Living Better’. Juniper participated in a pilot program prior to the scheme being enacted more widely. When CDC began in earnest, Juniper was delivering 934 community care packages through various programs, including 125 in regional areas. Together these packages provided support for over 1,800 individuals.613 CDC Home Care Packages superseded

WA Government (Consumer Protection), ‘Retirement Villages legislation review’ (website), accessed 6 Sept 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Property Council of Australia, ‘Raising Standards in Retirement Villages: Industry commits to an 8-point improvement plan’, 3 August 2017, accessed online 6 September 2017 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.19, 21

Community concern continued to be expressed, with periodic media accounts of older people ripped off or deceived by unscrupulous operators. In response, the Federal government began to take interest in the independent living sector, previously a State government domain. Vaughan Harding reflected on the situation:

Resident associations met with retirement community operators in August 2017 and developed an action plan to improve standards, clarify financial processes, and establish an independent dispute resolution process. The eight-point plan was adopted nationally and intended to form the basis of future discussions with government.612

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

what had formerly been CACP, EACH and EACH-D services. The government anticipated nearly doubling the number of CDC packages it funded within two years.614 Implementation was very bumpy, as ‘governments just do not do implementation well’.615 By 2017, a more competitive environment had been achieved for the home care sector, but the nature of services older people can access remains essentially the same and there has been much uncertainty and delay for individuals seeking assistance.616 Fundamentally, home care packages support informal care providers. At most, the government funds 15 hours of care per week. Recognising the strain of being an unpaid carer, ‘Living Longer, Living Better’ included funding for respite care. However, older people living alone often cannot continue to live in their own homes even with the highest available level of home care package. Having more people receiving care at home also increases the risk of social isolation and depression for frail older people.617 Juniper’s strategic planning to increase its respite care capacity is responding to identified needs in this sector. From February 2017, home care funding allocations shifted from providers to clients, through the Increasing Choice in Home Care reforms. Individual applicants were assessed to determine the level of services they required, from basic support (level 1) to high level and complex needs (level 4). They were also assigned a priority ranking (medium or high). A national prioritisation queue was established in an attempt to provide greater equity. Wait periods were experienced, but mechanisms to support new providers also saw a substantial increase in the number of service providers offering home

614 615 616 617

de Boer, ‘Aged care policy in Australia’, 2015, p.3, 31 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, Annual Report, 2017, p.1 Butler, Advanced Australia, 2015, pp.158-159

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

care packages. Between 27 February, when the new system began, and 30 June 2017, 3,545 home care approvals were made in Western Australia, of which 1,710 (48%) were level four and 1,015 (29%) high priority (across levels 2, 3 and 4). At 30 June, 8,973 Western Australians remained on the national prioritisation queue, including 6,778 assessed as eligible for level 4 support. Over 18% of those in the State awaiting assignment of care packages had been waiting for more than a year. However, as the number of packages allocated (4,632) was substantially larger than the number of new approvals, the wait list was gradually being reduced.618 The new model moved away from ‘quotas’ in funding community care packages. Instead, agencies were empowered to make market-driven decisions about what they could offer. This opened up greater flexibility in decision making. It also gave care agencies more responsibility for assessing and managing the risk of how far they extended themselves. In the residential sector quotas remained, although the direction of policy suggests they too will eventually be dispensed with.619 Increased availability of home care services meant those entering residential care often had higher needs than residents in earlier periods. Organised recreational activities needed to be amended to cater for more frail individuals. Supporting residents with dementia became more and more central to activity programs.620 Juniper had recognised for many years that all future planning must prepare to support increasing numbers of clients with dementia, including training staff with the skills required to provide best quality care. Enterprise agreements negotiated in 2014 made Juniper’s residential care staff the highest paid in their profession in

Australia. The relatively generous pay deal recognised the value and dedication of Juniper’s staff. It was also a strategic move to attract and retain quality staff, a long-running struggle for all aged care providers.621 Juniper was well aware that no matter how good their governance, strategic planning, finances or management, the day-to-day work of staff within their services was crucial for providing the quality care the agency built its reputation on. Chaplaincy has evolved within Juniper over the three decades since it was introduced in the 1980s. By the 2010s Juniper catered to clients and staff from a very diverse range of belief systems. Foundational statements expressed the heart of Juniper as a Christian organisation based on the ethos of the Uniting Church. The agency’s mission statement listed ‘spiritual fulfilment’ as one of three characteristics of the ‘good life’ that it sought to enhance for older people. While this was embedded in all of Juniper’s operations, chaplains played a major role in embodying pastoral care for individuals.622 From 2012, a Client Care sub-committee of the Board oversaw chaplaincy. Within its first year, it reviewed chaplaincy services. The definition of ‘spirituality’ was reconsidered, and expanded to cover a wider range of beliefs and practices.623 This change recognised a societal shift, led by the boomer generation. Juniper could see that to meet the needs of clients with this wide understanding of spirituality it would need staff with ‘a lot broader range of capability to respond to them’. Chaplains trained only through theological colleges often struggled to have the language or listening skills to hear residents’ expressions of what gave them meaning, or journey with them where they were actually at.624 Staff members were also

618 Department of Health, Home Care Packages Program: Data Report: 27 February – 30 June 2017, September 2017, p.3, 8, 12-13, 16 Note: Many of those in the queue for higher level support were at the same time receiving other services or support at a lower level. 619 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 620 Robinson, Lynne, interview, 2016 621 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.27 622 Juniper, Annual Report, 2012, p.9 623 Juniper, Annual Report, 2012, p.9; 2013, p.11 624 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

controversial within the church. Again, concerns were raised that Juniper was drifting away from its church roots. However, the pastoral and spiritual care services team has become a valued part of Juniper services. Increasingly, team members find themselves approached by staff, residents and their families to provide support traditionally offered by churches, such as weddings, funerals and assistance in family conflicts. With the decline in public respect for the church as either a trustworthy institution or a custodian for matters of the soul, community members ‘won’t go to a church to ask … but as an agency of the church doing everyday work, they do ask’.626 recognised as significant recipients of chaplaincy support. The Client Care committee reaffirmed the foundational mission of the agency. However, in response to the broadened understanding of ‘spirituality’ identified through the review, chaplaincy was in 2014 renamed Pastoral and Spiritual Care Services, with a seven-member staff team. Trained volunteers supported the service and were key to its expansion.625 In the 1980s, chaplains were ordained Uniting Church clergy. In the current era, staff in the Pastoral and Spiritual Care Services team are primarily lay people with training in clinical pastoral care. They are not necessarily members of the Uniting Church. Changes to chaplaincy services were

625 626 627

Parallel to Juniper’s growth and change, the Uniting Church was also maturing and responding to an evolving Australian culture. For many years after union, it mattered within church culture and interactions which founding denomination individuals or organisations had come out of. Diversity of opinion, and particularly of theology, was little tolerated, both within the church and in wider society. When UCH formed, ‘the Uniting Church itself – the people in the pews – the whole heart of the church was still very strong. People were active and vocal and present. Today, it’s reduced dramatically, and it’s the agencies that have grown significantly’.627

Juniper, Annual Report, 2012, p.9; 2013 p.11; 2014, p.1, 23; 2015, p.5 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

In the early 1990s, the Uniting Church accounted for around 6.5% of the Western Australian population. In 2016, only 2.6% of those in the State who answered the census religion question identified with the Uniting Church. Despite the State’s population numbers increasing by over 50% in 25 years, the actual number of Uniting Church affiliates dropped by around 40% (approximately 36,000 individuals).628 Acceptance of a wide variety of viewpoints, cultures, religious perspectives, sexualities and political positions has become socially normative. The Uniting Church has become a strong advocate for embracing diversity, developing a culture of its own that has largely superseded remnants of its founding denominations (although growing from the inheritance passed on). Its agencies are a practical expression of this culture of ‘unity in diversity’.629 A recent instance of Juniper reflecting the church’s commitment to supporting diversity has been a staff-wide training program presenting the history of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans and Intersex (LGBTI+) experiences in Australian society. The UCA has expressed strong affirmation for this community, becoming one of few churches to take a lead in full inclusion of members with diverse sexual identities. Juniper staff members were encouraged to understand the history of LGBTI+ exclusion, especially rejection from churches and consequent hesitation about coming near any church organisation, including for aged care support.630 Another area the church has been active in is ecological sustainability. Here too Juniper has responded to reflect the church’s views. A policy is currently being developed to help the agency look after the planet better.631

628 629 630 631

100

ABS, census data, 1991 and 2016, (online) accessed 23 October 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

Juniper embodies the mission of the church not so much by what it does but by how it does it. It is committed to journeying with people in ways that honour their individual experiences and uphold their basic human rights. Individuals from church backgrounds often look for church language to express their experiences. Given the acknowledged aversion in wider society to anything ‘churchy’, Juniper has actively aimed to avoid using ‘church language’, except when reporting to Synod. Welcome, respect, compassion and hope remain core, reflecting the Christian heart of the agency in language that is accessible for those put off by all things ‘church’.632

increasingly move into aged care sector, conversations have arisen about the possibilities of forming a single national agency to increase the UCA’s competitive position in the marketplace. The legal status of church organisations is also under the spotlight in response to enquiries such as the Royal Commission into child sexual abuse, and national consistency may assist. However, a hierarchical, corporate national body is ‘not in the DNA’ of the UCA. According to Vaughan Harding ‘it’s not where we’ve come from; it’s not how we see the world. We don’t think that that provides the best response to a lot of the communities in this country’.634

In one significant area, Juniper has a very different culture to the Uniting Church. While the church operates on a collegiate model, emphasising democratic processes and wide-based involvement, operating realities have resulted in Juniper becoming a strongly hierarchical organisation. There have been times were this interface of democratic and hierarchical approaches has caused tensions between Juniper and its church base. The need to function in highly regulated environments, however, will likely see the trend of divergent structures continue, not only for Juniper but for many of the social service agencies of the church. Navigating these challenges will be part of the life of both the Uniting Church and Juniper in the years ahead.633

Although merging into a ‘homogenised single organisation’ is unlikely in the future, there are concerns that there should be some unified identity across UCA services anywhere in Australia. Vaughan Harding reflects:

Juniper also retains strong relationships with Uniting Church agencies in other states, both in aged care and the wider community services sector. UCA aged care is managed very differently in each State. In some places, it is combined with other social services in regional management structures, some under a State social services CEO. Others have providers incorporated separately under corporate legislation with their own boards. Some link very strongly to the church and others retain only a tenuous connection. As large corporate entities

632 633 634 635 636

When a person comes into a Uniting Church service anywhere in the country, does it look and feel like there is a common set of standards and ethics and behaviours and product that you can identify? ‘This is the standard that they adhere to’ … There is an approach that we take which is different to others, and you can see it and you can feel it when you come into a centre.635 Working towards this ideal is at present an active agenda for UCA agencies across Australia. The government has signalled its intention to transform Australian aged care into ‘a consumer driven, market- based, sustainable aged care system’.636 The Aged Care Sector Committee released a seven-year plan for this transition in 2016. A simpler system was proposed, with increased consumer choice, reduced government regulation and market-driven pricing supported by a government safety net. Significantly, dementia care was identified as one of the main

Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Aged Care Sector Committee, Aged Care Roadmap, March 2016, p.3

101

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

insurmountable economic barriers to accessing care. The My Aged Care portal was also found to be operating relatively effectively for a majority of clients, although improvements were recommended to ensure populations with certain specific or complex needs were also catered for. It was acknowledged that the general public was mostly unaware of either My Aged Care or the aged care system more broadly. Improvements in training and wages for the aged care workforce were identified as an ongoing challenge where the 2013 reforms had had little impact. According to the review, outstanding issues for the aged care sector that require further reform relate to information, assessment, consumer choice, means testing and equity of access.638

Volunteers from Juniper Rowethorpe village help train students from Curtin University.

priorities moving forward, with goals to ensure it was ‘core business throughout the aged care system’.637 The 2016 Road Map, although articulating admirable goals, provides little detail to give confidence that the transition process will be adequately funded or supported. Embedded in the ‘Living Longer, Living Better’ legislation in 2013 was a requirement to review progress of the reforms after three years. The review, released in 2017, found that overall some success had been achieved in moving Australian aged care towards a more sustainable, consumerdriven system. Changes to accommodation payment arrangements appeared to be operating well. A marked increase in the development or improvement of residential aged care infrastructure was observed, while at the same time the number of full pensioners entering care remained steady, indicating the new arrangements were not creating

637 638 639

102

A key recommendation of the 2011 Productivity Commission report, not included in the 2013 reforms, was to remove the caps on provision of aged care services. While there has been general agreement that this is a good idea which would facilitate greater industry response, flexibility and innovation, pre-conditions for the change have still not been met. Ensuring equity for all older people, especially in contexts with limited choice or competition, developing robust regimes of eligibility assessment, creating mechanisms for increased consumer financing of aged care while making certain services do not become financially out of reach for those who need them, and providing accurate government understanding of service demand all remain issues to be addressed before quotasystems will be lifted.639 By 2017, around 1.3 million Australians accessed some form of government-funded aged care service each year. The majority (approximately 71%) of these utilised ‘entry level’ home support such as maintenance, cleaning, meals and transport services, with a much smaller number accessing specialised home care packages. Nationally, around 235,000 older people lived in residential care, two and a half times more than the number receiving tailored home care to meet

Aged Care Sector Committee, Aged Care Roadmap, 2016, p.4 Tune, David, Legislated Review of Aged Care, 2017, Department of Health, Canberra, July 2017, pp.6-12 Tune, Legislated Review of Aged Care, 2017

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

their

assessed

needs.

The government anticipates specialised home care services to expand by over 50% in the next five years, with a corresponding increase in respite care also required. The total cost of aged care services to all 1.3 million recipients was around $20 billion per year, of which consumers contributed about one quarter and government the remainder.640

Currently, 140 providers offer aged care services in Western Australia, of which over 60% offer residential care (not including independent living communities). A total of 22,869 government-subsidised residential care places have been allocated,641 although only 16,580 of those had been made available by providers. At 30 June 2017, Juniper was one of 15 providers registered as a religious-based organisation, which together accounted for 4,883 available residential places (29.5%). Non-religious charitable or communitybased providers offered a further 5,023 residential places (30.3%).642 As funding for home care places was reorganised in February 2017 to be assigned to consumers rather than services, 2017 data for the portion of government-subsidised home care Juniper accounts for is not available.643 However, in 2016 Juniper provided 594 of the State’s 8,861 home care places (6.7%), a significant portion of the 32.5% of home care provided by religious-based providers and 41.7% provided by charity and community agencies.644

640 641 642 Note:

Tune, Legislated Review of Aged Care, 2017, pp.6-8 Department of Health, ‘Stocktake of Australian Government Subsidised Aged Care Places’ (online), 30 June 2017 Department of Health, ‘Aged Care Service List – Western Australia’ (online), 30 June 2017 Some providers listed as ‘charitable’ agencies appear to be religious-based, including Adventist Care and MercyCare. These two agencies account for an additional 670 residential places. 643 Department of Health, ‘Stocktake…’, 30 June 2017 644 Department of Health, ‘Aged Care Service List – Western Australia’ (online), 30 June 2016

103

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

The main provider of aged care, however, remained the informal care of partners, family, friends and neighbours, who together account for 80% of the home care received in Australia.645 Juniper displays justifiable pride in identifying itself as ‘WA’s leading aged care provider’.646 After many years supporting smaller agencies, Juniper sponsors an annual Aged and Community Services WA (ACSWA) award for Small Provider of the Year. In 2014, Juniper itself won ACSWA’s Aged Care Organisation of the Year award. The recognition acknowledged innovation and excellence, including the Teaching Residential Aged Care Services project, training facilities at Juniper Simulation Centre (Rowethorpe) and expansion of services in the Kimberley. Also in 2014, Juniper was awarded the State’s highest accolade for workplace health and safety, WorkSafe WA’s Platinum Certificate for Occupational Health, Safety and Injury Management Systems, acknowledging years of systematic improvements to put the organisation at the forefront of its industry.647 It retained the Platinum rating in 2015 and 2016,648 and in 2016 received the Best Workplace Safety and Health Management System award.649 In 2015, Juniper won ACSWA’s Employer of Choice award. The Simulation Centre won two State awards in clinical supervision,650 and was noted in a national review of aged care in 2017 as an example of the sort of innovative training ideas needed across the sector. 651 Offering over 1,000 residential care places and 600 home care places, in addition to independent living options for over 2,000 people, Juniper was one of the largest single aged care providers in

645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655

104

Western Australia. With a geographic spread from Albany to Wyndham, it also covered more of the State than any other parallel agency.652 Vaughan Harding’s long service as an industry representative at a national level also gives status to the agency. In his role as President of Aged and Community Services Australia, in an era of generational shift amongst senior management in the sector, he was recognised as an elder statesman with Australian aged care.653 He was awarded a Medal of the Order of Australia in 2017 in recognition of his distinguished service to aged care organisations.654 Vaughan was also well appreciated within Juniper. Long-standing former Board member, sometimes Chair, Beryl Grant described Vaughan as ‘always very good at looking at new ways of doing things and trying things out to see if they could be improved anywhere … an excellent CEO … a very, very good man … a strong personality, very devoted to the job’ with ‘a caring attitude towards his staff and residents’.655 For those who didn’t work with him personally, however, he could come across as ‘a bit aloof’, with ‘a presence about him’. Former senior manager Deb Patterson reflected that Vaughan was ‘always focused on responding to need … looking at what services were actually going to provide a service’. He ensured the agency continually responded to the changing environment in which it operated and was open to encouraging staff to suggest and implement new ideas. He was a strong, astute leader who ‘knew what [he] wanted and saw the future’. His management skills and keen intellect were

Productivity Commission, Caring for Older Australians, 2011, p.XX Juniper website, 18 August 2017 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.25, 26, 31 Juniper, Viva Voce, Summer 2016, p.5 Juniper, Annual Report, 2017, p.2 Juniper, Annual Report, 2015, p.2, 3 Tune, Legislated Review of Aged Care, 2017 Department of Health, ‘Aged Care Service List’, 30 June 2016 and 30 June 2017 Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.10 Department of Premier and Cabinet, ‘Australian Honours Search Facility’ (online), accessed 21 August 2017 Grant, Beryl, interview, 2016

3. Onwards into the 21st Century

complemented by ‘incredible compassion’ and insistence that real, individual people not get lost in policy and planning.656 This included both residents and staff. Although not one to ‘suffer fools’, Vaughan Harding listened to his staff and was considered ‘very fair’.657 Other senior staff described him as ‘the driving force behind the culture of Juniper’, resulting in it being ‘a very good organisation to work for’ that ‘cares for the community and its staff’.658 Undoubtedly, Vaughan Harding’s leadership has contributed significantly to Juniper being such a leader in its field. His visionary ability to foresee future change, coupled with a practical ability to assist the organisation to prepare for it, has firmly established Juniper as a successful organisation with the ability to respond flexibly as needs evolve.659 Vaughan has not been alone, however. For around 20 years, relatively longserving senior leadership teams have guided the agency to become ‘one of the most stable large aged care providers in Western Australia’.660 The challenges ahead for Juniper will be largely dictated by the emerging nature of ageing boomers. The parameters are still in flux. Research is needed to provide evidence-based models for change, and Juniper is already partnering with Curtin University to support this work. Services will need to be different but questions remain: ‘What do they look like? What do they feel like?’ New generations of staff need to be skilled for new requirements. In early 2018, Juniper has 13 active projects and has a rolling program of similar scale in the pipeline for coming years. With not many other providers actively looking at expansion and cultural change to meet changing demographics, Vaughan Harding reflects, ‘we’ve never had more work on our plate’.661

656 657 658 659 660 661

Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 Robinson, Lynne, interview, 2016 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 Author’s reflection based on research for the book as a whole Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

105

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Juniper’s current strategic plan includes a ‘preferred future’ for where the agency hopes to be by 2023. It sees itself serving with double the capacity it had in 2013. Building on its strengths, Juniper intends to develop innovative approaches to provide services for the boomers, who by this time will be the mainstay of aged care clientele. Residential facilities will be accredited centres of excellence. At least half are intended to operate as teaching facilities, part of Juniper’s commitment to developing future staff for the aged care sector and supporting tertiary research and evidence-based practice. Respite centres and an expanded community care program will be enabling greater numbers of older people to remain in their own homes, including most residents of Juniper independent living communities. It is anticipated that Juniper will increasingly concentrate its home care program on more specialised and complex clinical services. As a result of improvements in design, independent living units will increasingly provide for their occupants to the end of their lives. Juniper will also provide services to maintain general health and wellbeing for older people who do not necessarily require ‘care’. By 2023, Juniper’s use of technology will have advanced in all fields, from robotics in care facilities to use of big data in strategic planning to internet courses for older people. Juniper aims to be an early-adopter, ensuring staff are trained in emerging technologies and have a mindset open to new things. 662

662 663 664

106

Juniper, Strategic Plan 2013-2023, March 2017, pp.6-7 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

Former staff members who have now experienced Juniper from the ‘outside’ observe that the agency has positioned itself very well in the industry. ‘They know their business, they know what they’re good at and they don’t just take on everything’. Whatever is ahead in the next 10 years, ‘it will be well planned and well thought out’.663 Juniper remains faithful to its mission to serve those least able to provide for themselves. This is a much more difficult and complex goal than running a for-profit service, where the bottom line is to deliver financial returns on investment. As both an agency of the church and a leading organisation in the aged care sector, Juniper is ‘delivering on mission in an active marketplace’, which is a broad challenge and hard work. However, constantly paying attention to the gaps in service provision and going where others may be too risk-averse to venture is considered ‘in the DNA’ of Juniper,664 passed on to it from the volunteer founders of Methodist, Congregational and Presbyterian Homes.

4. Appendices

4. Appendices 4.1 Acknowledgements Thanks to the following individuals who have assisted with researching and preparing this book: Vaughan Harding, who initiated the project, supported its development and gave generously of his time and reflections to enhance the narrative. Roley Myers and Bill McDonald, who managed the project, and other Juniper staff who assisted in various ways: David Parker, Paul Fanning, Natasha Dâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;Arcy and Heather Barber. All those whose shared their memories of Juniper, including Christina Erskine, Beryl Grant, Kerry Green (Bonham), Cheryl Lipari, Deb Patterson, Lynne Robinson and Diane Russell-Taylor. Fred Boshart (Juniper Board Chair), Dr Chris Whitaker, Rev Dr John Smith and Mr Lindsay Wolfe, for reviewing the draft manuscript. Bevan Marshall, for providing a suitable recording device for interviews. Rebecca de Boer, for allowing access to her unpublished 2015 paper, which was invaluable in providing context for the development of aged care policy in the last 20 years. Staff at the State Library, especially Helen Ouf, who provided copies of historical images from the State Library Collection. Images sourced from the collections of the State Library of Western Australia have been reproduced with the permission of the Library Board of Western Australia. Danielle Costley, who proofed the manuscript. Natalie McNee, who undertook most of the interviews for this book in 2016. Staff at Scott Print, especially Andrew Hoddinott and Rio Chard, for turning the manuscript into a beautiful book. Thanks also to those who have supported the project in intangible ways, especially my husband Tyson, and to all those who I have overlooked or omitted.

107

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

4.2 Chronology 1949

Central Methodist Mission opens Hardey Lodge as a 12-bed hostel for older women, using a house purchased with donations from Sarah Hardey in 1915

1952

Presbyterian church opens Braemar, East Fremantle

1954

Commonwealth government legislates to provide funding for the establishment of housing for able-bodied older Australians (Aged Persons Homes Act)

1955

Bethshan opens in Katanning, a combined effort between the Presbyterian congregation and the Katanning community, repurposing a residence constructed in stages from 1907 St David’s opens in Mount Lawley, a Presbyterian-run facility using a former residence that had been converted in the 1930s into a private hospital (later ‘Thrum House’ after Rev James Guthrie Thrum, who led founding committee of both Braemar and St David’s)

1956

Pilgrim House opens in East Fremantle, founded by the Congregational Church

1959

Hardey Lodge expanded to provide for 41 residents

1961

CMM Homes opens first stage of Rowethorpe, comprising 21 duplex cottages Oversight of Braemar and St David’s separated into two management committees

1962

Claudia Hicks Lodge opens at Rowethorpe, providing part hostel and part nursing home care First double cottage completed at St David’s, followed by 25 more independent living cottages or units over next three years Commonwealth government introduces a ‘nursing home benefit’ to encourage development of high care residential facilities, providing a daily subsidy for the care of frail older residents; rapid increase in the number of nursing homes results Congregational church begins work at Mount Lawley to create ‘a colony for senior citizens’ (eventually Elimatta); initially 22 cottages constructed Blocks of flats open at Rowethorpe (North and South Court Units)

1965

Subiaco Memorial Hospital opens, founded by the Methodist Church Hilltop Lodge opens at Rowethorpe, providing part hostel and part nursing home care; additional units also open (North and South Terraces)

1966

108

Keith Middleton becomes Administrator of CMM Homes (serves for 25 years); Rev James Thrum resigns as chair of St David’s management committee

1963

4. Appendices

1967

Charles Jenkins Hospital opens at Rowethorpe; Nursing home patients from Claudia Hicks and Hilltop transferred, after which these facilities operated as hostels only

1968

Rev Ralph Sutton dies; credited with establishing Rowethorpe and expanding Hardey Lodge Elimatta Hostel opens at Mount Lawley

1969

Numbala Nunga opens in Derby, established by Presbyterian Church through Australian Inland Mission Rivergum Units open at Rowethorpe Commonwealth begins (limited) funding for some home care services

1970

Centenary Units open at Rowethorpe St David’s hostel expanded to accommodate 12 more places

1971

Chrystal Halliday opens in Karrinyup, founded by the Presbyterian Church Sutton Community Hall opens at Rowethorpe (expanding 1966 administration block)

1974

John Wesley Lodge opens at Rowethorpe, including 32-bed dementia area; all nursing care brought together as Rowethorpe Nursing Centre (with John Wesley and Charles Jenkins wings)

1975

Fraser House opens in South Perth, founded by the Presbyterian Church Tranby Units opens at Rowethorpe

1976

Euroka opens in Waterman, founded by the Methodist Church Subiaco Congregational Homes opens (later ‘Mayflower’, also ‘Subiaco/ Leederville Homes’) Nursing home opens at Chrystal Halliday Thrum House and nursing home opens at St David’s; original converted residence demolished

1977

Uniting Church in Australia forms, bringing together Congregational, Presbyterian and Methodist churches; denominational aged care services join the new church with the exception of Braemar, which remains with the Continuing Presbyterian Church Aged Persons Homes Board forms to oversee aged care for the UCA in Western Australia Pilgrim redeveloped to provide new 38-bed hostel and 10 flats

1978

First executive officer, Warwick Donovan, appointed to support the Board; Board administration based at Fraser House

1979

Elimatta and Pilgrim House management committees merge

109

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

1980

UCH intervenes to support Subiaco Memorial Hospital as debts threaten viability Expansion at Bethshan including craft room

1981

Euroka and Chrystal Halliday Homes management committees merge

1982

Riverslea opens in Mount Lawley, operated by the management committee of St David’s as a joint venture with the City of Stirling Trinity Lodge opens at Rowethorpe (hostel); John Wesley Lodge also extended Wing at Mayflower set aside as a ‘well-aged hostel’ for men, unusual at the time

1983

Chrystal Gardens independent living units open Working party established by the Board to examine the role of the Board in relation to management of individual Homes, developing regionalisation proposal to centralise management

1984

Mayflower and Subiaco Memorial Hospital merge Chaplaincy service established, initially with one chaplain Administrative office for the Board moved to UCA’s central Perth offices

1985

Working Party wound up and regionalisation proposal set aside due to opposition from management committees Home and Community Care Act implements Commonwealth funding for home care

1986

Board administration moves back to Fraser House, as Perth office proves unworkable Hillcrest opens at Geraldton (40-bed hostel) Bethavon opens at Northam (32-bed hostel) Substantial expansion of St David’s (new 45-bed hostel) Commonwealth legislation changes funding for aged care, introduces bed quotas to limit the growth in nursing homes, and increases regulation of residential facilities

1987

Dr John Blackwell resigns as Board chair after 10 years in the role; replaced by Dr Mike Marsh

1988

Daphne Cotton appointed to review Board/management committee structure and relationship (continues through 1989) Major upgrades at Elimatta to expand hostel and provide ensuites to all rooms

110

4. Appendices

1989

Warwick Donovan resigns; after some months without a director, the Board appoints Vaughan Harding to the position on a short-term contract UCA Synod resolves to restructure the Board and adopts new by-laws strengthening the authority of the Board in relation to management committees; Board renamed Uniting Church Homes Board; Chris Whitaker appointed Board Chair National report by Chris Ronalds criticises residential aged care facilities for their institutional characteristics; government policy shift results to emphasise residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; rights and improve care standards Hakea Place opens at Rowethorpe, for couples where one partner has dementia; Rowethorpe Chapel also opens

1990

Board purchases its first computer CMM Homesâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; chief administrator, Keith Middleton, retires after 25 yearsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; service, and two years later receives a Medal of the Order of Australia for his services to older people Following a year of broad consultation and review by the Board, Synod adopts mission statement and philosophy of care for Uniting Church Homes Board, including vision for a new agency with a centralised, professional management team Rose Mount Stage One completed Extension completed at Bethshan, replacing earlier rooms that had housed 10 residents

1991

Synod agrees to restructure of aged care services, to move management from voluntary committees to professional employees, except for the Synod-accountable Board overseeing governance and strategic matters Daryl Maytom appointed to facilitate change process to implement the changes approved by Synod Wyndham Aged & Disabled Services opens hostel (later Marlgu) Rose Mount Joondanna opens

1992

Uniting Church Homes forms as a centralised agency; individual management committees wound up; regional management structure implemented, with three regions (South, Central and North) Vaughan Harding appointed Chief Executive Officer of Uniting Church Homes Cygnet Lodge opens at Rowethorpe; some original 1961 cottages demolished to accommodate the new hostel New hostel opens at Chrystal Halliday and old hostel vacated

111

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

1993

Government funding for Community Aged Care Packages begins; UCH begins trial programs offering home care Rose Mount Dianella completed; Rose Mount Retirement Centre formally opens Converted portion of Bethshan opens as recreation area for residents and wider community

1994

Regional management structure realigned to create two (rather than three) regions UCH moves into new head office in Richardson Street, South Perth Recreation centre for ILU residents opens at Elimatta

1995

Extensive internal review and agency-wide consultation to determine the core values of UCH UCH sells its units at Rose Mount Joondanna outright to residents, subsequently having no financial interest in the precinct Subiaco Council refuses approval to upgrade existing buildings at Subiaco Memorial Hospital, resulting in UCH acquiring land at Balcatta to replace the facility instead

1996

UCH core values launched: Integrity, Justice, Respect, Compassion, Excellence, Welcome, Hope Integrated information management system launched (In Touch) John Bryant opens in Marangaroo (42 hostel units, including 13 dementia-specific) Chris Whitaker resigns as Board Chair; Beryl Grant takes on the role Serviced Unit program begins at Rowethorpe, later expanding to other facilities Hardey Lodge renamed Sarah Hardey Lodge to give greater prominence to its origins

1997

Commonwealth aged care funding substantially restructured, amalgamating hostel and nursing home systems into ‘low’ and ‘high’ care; Aged Care Act 1997, commonly referred to as ‘Ageing in Place’, moves the sector towards an increasingly ‘user-pays’ model; implements more stringent accreditation regime; introduces Community Aged Care Packages (CACPs) Regional management structure wound up in favour of centralised and site-based management Upgrades at Elimatta include creation of 15-place secure dementia wing

1998

UCH head office moves to new premises at Balcatta Tom Styles replaces Beryl Grant as Board chair Works completed at Pilgrim to provide every room with an ensuite bathroom and create a 15-place dementia wing; 16 ILUs at Thrum House converted to 15 serviced units and a common lounge area

112

4. Appendices

1999

St Andrew’s opens in Balcatta, replacing Subiaco Nursing Home (the latter site subsequently cleared and sold) – 75 place inter-mixed high and low care facility All 17 UCH facilities achieve full accreditation in line with the standards introduced nationally in 1997 UCH incorporated, becoming an independent legal entity, but still reporting to Synod Former hostel at Chrystal Halliday reopens after conversion to serviced units; works upgrade kitchen and dining areas at Riverslea, including construction of new satellite dining room

2000

Ella Williams House opens in Noranda, replacing St David’s Nursing Home (subsequently decommissioned) UnitingCare forms as national umbrella body for UCH community services, including UCH

2001

Sarah Hardey Lodge opens in Kelmscott, superseding the original Hardey Lodge in Mount Lawley, which was subsequently closed and sold ‘No lift’ policy adopted across all sites, significantly improving staff health and safety

2002

Charles Jenkins Nursing Home decommissioned and buildings subsequently repurposed for non-residential functions within Rowethorpe Mayflower ceases accepting new residents and closes within the year (sold in 2003) Regional managers employed once more

2003

Lindsay Wolfe becomes UCH Chair as Tom Styles resigns Fraser House formally closed (sold 2005)

2004

UCH wins high commendation at the Better Health and Safety Awards’ and silver award at IFAP Safe Way Awards, recognising agency-wide process over four years to improve workplace health and safety Hogan Review (national government report) calls for major changes in funding arrangements for residential aged care, but little change results at the time UCH begins managing City of Bayswater’s aged care facilities on a contract basis

2005

Work begins on major redevelopment of entire Rowethorpe precinct, taking over a decade to complete ; Claudia Hicks demolished, along with early cottages and Court units UCH acquires the Residency in Northam from the Avon Community Development Foundation (founded c.1990); upgrades and expansion completed over the following year Dementia Care Project implemented to review and improve dementia services, as increasing numbers of residents and home care clients presented with dementia symptoms; John Bryant low care facilities converted to be dementia-specific

113

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

2006

UCH takes on full management and staffing of City of Bayswater’s aged care facilities: Carramar, Morley; Mertome, Bayswater; and City of Bayswater Hostel in Embleton, soon followed by Salisbury Retreat, Bedford and Noranda Village, Noranda Mertome converted to provide 70 beds for the ‘care awaiting placement’ program, housing older people discharged from hospital while they waited for a longer-term residential place UnitingCare West forms as combined UCA-WA community services agency, but UCH opts not to join the merger First villas at Jacaranda Ridge completed at Rowethorpe Expansion and upgrade works completed at Bethavon, The Residency, Pilgrim, and Hillcrest, also head office

2007

Seven core values condensed to four: Welcome, Respect, Compassion, Hope UCH acquires Northam Cottage Homes UCH establishes Uniting Community Care, bringing all its home and community services under the oversight of one executive manager Annesley House opens at Rowethorpe, replacing John Wesley (demolished 2008) and Charles Jenkins Major upgrades and expansion at St David’s, also upgrades at Elimatta

2008

First refurbished Centenary Units completed at Rowethorpe, seeing pairs of two units combined into single residences

2009

UCH celebrates 60 years of aged care UCH acquires Albany Cottage Homes (later Boronia Court) Mertome ‘care awaiting placement’ program ceased due to State government funding cuts; Mertome converted to low care facility and renamed Tranby UCH provides assistance to Frontier Services at Derby following a non-compliance determination; working to get the assessment lifted and continue services

2010

First of the baby boomer generation reach official retirement age (65yrs) Wesley Units completed at Rowethorpe; also refurbishment and extension of Sutton Centre, medical centre, pharmacy and administration block

2010

114

Hillcrest opens 20-room extension, completed as a secure wing

4. Appendices

2011

Productivity Commission report calls for urgent and extensive restructure of Australia’s aged care industry UCH takes over the medical facilities at Rowethorpe and begins opening its own medical centre Annesley becomes a teaching nursing home, the first to operate successfully in WA

2012

UCH rebrands as Juniper, launching under the new name in August Major upgrade and expansion of Juniper head office at Balcatta

2013

Individual facility names changed to be prefixed with Juniper (eg. Juniper St Andrew’s) Juniper launches 10-year plan, including goal to double the agency’s capacity over the decade Second new 20-room extension opens at Hillcrest (Abrolhos Wing)

2014

Commonwealth government begins implementing ‘Living Longer, Living Better’ reform package, moving aged care towards a more consumer-directed model; implements some of the 2011 Productivity Commission’s recommendations but does not fundamentally restructure funding arrangements or address over-regulation Frontier Services (formerly Australian Inland Mission) transfers Kimberley aged care services to UCH, including Kununurra Community Care in Kununurra, Marlgu Village in Wyndham, and Numbala Nunga and Ngamang Bawoona at Derby State government legislation implemented to improve consumer protection for residents of independent living units Lindsay Wolfe resigns as Board Chair after serving 11 years; replaced by Fred Boshart Ron Wilson House opens at Rowethorpe, including Simulation Centre Juniper wins ACSWA Aged Care Organisation of the Year award; also WorkSafe WA Platinum Certificate for Occupational Health, Safety and Injury Management Systems (retained in subsequent years)

2015

Juniper Access established as central entry point for all services Juniper wins ACSWA Employer of Choice award, also State awards for Simulation Centre at Rowethorpe Juniper acquires Guwardi Ngadu flexible care service at Fitzroy Crossing; also enters into agreement with Halls Creek People’s Church to manage Halls Creek Frail Aged Hostel First stage of redevelopment of Elimatta opens, working to masterplan to transform the site into ‘apartments for life’ Juniper Gardens community garden opens at St Andrew’s

115

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

2016

Second Rowethorpe Masterplan developed, as works from 2005 Masterplan effectively completed (released for public comment December 2017) Ensuites added to all rooms at Bethshan to meet contemporary standards Heritage-listed former church hall adjacent to Bethavon renovated by Juniper as multi-purpose community training and development facility

2017

Vaughan Harding awarded Medal of the Order of Australia for service to aged care Charles Jenkins converted to a 60-place transition care facility Major refurbishment and upgrades completed at Bethshan Beryl Grant Community Centre (multi-purpose facility) opens at Albany; construction of 100-bed residential facility begins alongside, scheduled for completion approximately March 2019 Work begins constructing 100-place residential facility at Martin (City of Gosnells), anticipated for completion 2018 Work begins on Aged Care Services Hub and 30-place residential facility in Kununurra, due for completion by mid-2018 1976 nursing home building at Chrystal Halliday demolished in preparation for construction of 120-place residential facility, due for completion in 2018

2018

40 apartments under construction at Elimatta, due for completion by mid-year Staff accommodation under construction at Derby residential facility, completion expected by end of the year Plans underway for 100-place residential facility at Ridgewood (City of Wanneroo), anticipated for construction to commence in 2020

116

4. Appendices

4.3 Board Members The Board began in 1977 as Aged Persons Homes Board (APHB), with 11 members, an executive officer and a Synod representative from the Department of Mission & Nurture. From 1980 to 1988, five additional members were appointed to represent the management committees of individual Homes. The Executive Officer of the APHB, later the Chief Executive of UCH, has also been an ex-officio member of the Board, in early years also serving as Secretary to the Board. Warwick Donovan was Executive Officer from 1977 to February 1989. Barry Preece acted in the role through 1989. Vaughan Harding was appointed in October 1989 and continues to serve as Chief Executive to the present. Full lists of Board members for 1977-1982 and 1985 have not been located and some Board members may therefore be left off this list.665 Member Name Allen-Smyth, Julianne Arnason, Maree

Term of Appointment 2001 – 2003 March 2014 – (current as at Feb 2018)

Ash, Sue

1985 – 1987

Birks, Russell (Subiaco Homes, Bethshan & Fraser House representative)

1981 – 1989

Blackwell, Dr John (Chairperson)

1977 – 1987

Boshart, Fred (Chairperson since 2014)

2006 – (current as at Feb 2018)

Broun, Adrian (Elimatta & Pilgrim House representative)

1985 – 1990

Bruce, Assoc Prof Dr David

1995 – 2007

Cain, Rev Jim (CMM Homes representative)

1980 – 1987

Cake, Tricia

1989 – 1991

Chadwick, Ray Cousins, Rev Des (representing Department of Mission and Nurture in 1983)

1990 – 1996, Feb 2000 – Jan 2005 1983, 2001 – 2006

Davies, Larry

3/1992 – 9/1992

Doran, Olive

1978-1979 (possible also 1977 and 1980 – 1982); prior to APHB served on Methodist Aged Care Committee

665

Parker, David, Juniper Board Members list (1987-2017), provided to Clare Menck, 2 February 2018; UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977-1989; Correspondence, 1977-1979, MN659 Acc6314A/10; Correspondence, 1980, MN659 Acc6314A/11 and Acc6314A/12; Correspondence, 1981, MN659 Acc6314A/13; Correspondence, 1982, MN659 Acc6314A/14; Correspondence, 1981-1985, MN659 Acc4471A/26

117

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Member Name

Term of Appointment

Douglas, Beth

1992 – 1993

Downes, Gary

1996 – 2000

Elder, Dr Janet

1996 – 1998

Erskine, Christina (Residents’ Representative)

1992 – 1995

Etherton-Beer, Dr Christopher Gibbons, Nadine (formerly Nadine Lee) Gilks, Rev John (acting Secretary to the Board, probably also Board member) Gluestein, Brian (Country Representative) Gordon, Dr Douglas Grant, Beryl, AO, OBE. (Chairperson 1996 – 1998)

2007 – (current as at Feb 2018) 1989 – 1995 1977, 1980 (possibly 1977 – 1982) 1988 – 1990 1990 (one meeting) 1989 – 2003

Hacket, Lance

March 2012 – June 2016

Honey, Barry

1993 – Nov 1999

Hotchkin, Michael

1990 – 1993

Houghton, Mr G.D.

1983 – 1985 (possibly earlier)

Hudson Jeremy

June 2008 – Dec 2017

In’t Veld, Shirley

October 2013 – 2015

Jamieson, Rev Kira Jeffreys, Frederick (John) Jodrell, John Johnstone, Wendy King, Mary-Ellen Knight, Penny Lowson, Jim (St David’s & Riverslea representative) Lushey, Norm

Nov 1998 – Feb 1999 (one meeting) September 2008 – (current as at Feb 2018) May 1999 – 2001 1980 – 1989 June 2015 – (current as at Feb 2018) September 2017 – (current as at Feb 2018) 1980 – 1987 1978 – 1989, 1992 (March to Sept)

Marsh, Dr Michael (Chairperson 1987-1989)

1987 – 1991

McAdam, Dr Douglas

1988 – 1991

118

4. Appendices

Member Name

Term of Appointment

McAlister, Mr T.A.

1983 (possibly earlier)

McDonald, Norm (St David’s & Riverslea representative)

1988 – 1992

McFarland Bruce

2009 – 2012

McGill, Pearl

2002 – 2003

McKechnie, Mr J.

1983-1986 (possibly earlier)

McMillan, Helen

2003 – 2012

McPherson, Judy

1978-1979 (possibly 1977)

McPherson, Winsome (Residents Representative)

1995 – 2001

Motion, Tony (Country Representative)

2000 – 2002

Mouchemore, Darren (CMM Homes representative)

1988 – 1989

Murdoch, Bruce

1985 – 1989

Noack, Mr C. (Chrystal Halliday & Euroka Homes representative) Parnell, Geoff

1983-1986 (possibly earlier) Nov 2012 – April 2017

Patterson, Greg

1992 – 1995

Preece, Barry (Synod Representative)

1989 – 1992

Pryor, Roy

1977 – 1987

Roberts, Terry

1980 – 1990

Roberts, Rev Owen

1992 – 2001

Robinson, Rev David

1992 (March to Sept)

Ryan, Noel

1980 – 1992

Saggers, David

1986 – 1991

Siddins, Judy Singham, Dr Lloyd Smith, Rev John H. (Synod Representative) Smith, Mr R. (Elimatta & Pilgrim House representative) Smithson, Beth

1998 – June 2001 1985 – 1988 1986 – 1991 (possibly 1985) 1983 (possibly earlier) 1990 – 1992

119

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Member Name Spencer, Joe (Chrystal Halliday & Euroka Homes representative) Styles, Tom (Chairperson 1998 – 2003)

Term of Appointment 1985 – 1989 Sept 1995 – 2008

Swan, Gillian

2004 – 2015

Thomas, Mr R (Elimatta & Pilgrim House representative)

1984 – 1988

Thompson, Joan

1987 – 1989

Timmerman, Margaret (Country Representative)

1992 – 1998

Waldon, Rosalyn

2003 – 2011

Wealand, Bill (Residents’ Representative) Whitaker, Dr Chris (Chairperson 1989 – 1996) Williams, Rev Ken (Country Representative)

2001 – April 2009 1989 – March 1999 2002 –July 2008

Williamson, Mr K.

1983 (possibly earlier)

Wilkie, Mrs W. (Division of Mission and Nurture representative)

1984 (possibly 1985) 2002 – 2015

Yeo, Rev Patrick

2000 - 2002

Yeoman, Dorothy

1992 – 1996

Reynolds Graham

2008 (two meetings)

120

Wolfe, Lindsay (Chairperson 2003 – 2015)

4. Appendices

4.4 Management Committee Members (1992) The following individuals were serving on management committees for individual Homes when UCH formed in 1992. Many had served for long periods and some were founding members of the Homes, with involvement dating back to the 1950s.666

Member Name

Committee

Member Name

Committee

Adams, Mal

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Fawcett, Rev Mike

Hillcrest

Barton, Mrs M.

Elimatta/ Pilgrim House

Fletcher, Betty

Bethshan

Birks, Mrs L.

Fraser House

Fountain, Warwick

Hillcrest

Birks, Russell

Fraser House; Subiaco Homes

Fox, Laura

Bethavon

Boon, Mr J.

Fraser House

Garlick, Mr Syd

Bethshan

Bosisto, Don

Hillcrest

Garlick, Mrs Syd

Bethshan

Broun, Adrian

Elimatta/ Pilgrim House

Gluestein, Brian

Bethavon

Cameron, Angus

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Gordon, Dr Douglas

CMM Homes

Collins, Doreen

Bethshan

Guyatt, Dennis

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Connop, Cyril

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Hallam, Mabel

Subiaco Homes

Dalzell, Brian

CMM Homes

Hanna, Colin

Bethshan

Davies, Larry

Subiaco Homes

Harris, Mrs L.

Elimatta/ Pilgrim House

Davis, Ken

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Harvey, Audrey

Bethshan

Dee, Ron

Subiaco Homes

Hayes, Mr A.H.

St Davidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

Dowdell, Rosemary

Bethshan

Hewson, Elaine

Bethshan

Dwyer, Georgina

Bethshan

Hill, Doreen

CMM Homes

Fairclough, Elaine

Bethshan

Hoar, Bruce

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Farrell, Mr J.

St Davidâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s

Indersmith, Lawrie

Hillcrest

Farrington, David

Hillcrest

James, Rhona

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

666

UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1993, pp.84-85

121

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Member Name

Committee

Member Name

Committee

Jeffs, Beryl

Subiaco Homes

Ogden, Cath

Bethshan

Jodrell, John

CMM Homes

Okely, Ron

CMM Homes

Johnson, Henry

Fraser House

Ottaway, Vern

Bethavon

Johnston, Mr C.

Elimatta/ Pilgrim House

Paterson, Mr G.

Fraser House

Keast, Mr Fred

Bethshan

Phipps, Cec

St David’s

Keast, Mrs Fred

Bethshan

Porteous, Nerida

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Kerin, Margaret

Bethshan

Prosser, Gladys

Bethshan

Ladyman, Monica

Bethshan

Pryor, Roy

Elimatta/ Pilgrim House

Lind, Mrs M.J.

St David’s

Roberts, Rev Owen

CMM Homes

Mahoney, Denis

Subiaco Homes

Russ, Jess

Hillcrest

Manuel, Gill

Hillcrest

Russell, Harold

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Marshall, Rev John

Subiaco Homes

Schroder, Bev

Bethavon

McCollum, Elma

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Singe, Win

Hillcrest

McDonald, Lois

St David’s

Smith, Arthur

CMM Homes

McDonald, Norm

St David’s

Smyth, Colin

Bethavon

McNaught, Eva

Hillcrest

Spencer, Joe

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Middleton, Keith

Fraser House

Thomas, Mr R.F.

Elimatta/ Pilgrim House

Millard, Roy

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Threlfall, Rev Neville

Bethavon

Morrison, Mr W.N.

Fraser House

Timmerman, Margaret

Hillcrest

Mouchemore, Darren

CMM Homes

Turich, Miss J.

Elimatta/ Pilgrim House

Murdoch, Bruce

CMM Homes

van der Moezel, Beverley

Chrystal Halliday/ Euroka

Noll, Ken

Bethshan

Wilewskie, Mary

Bethavon

Nuich, Hilda

Bethavon

Wilhelm, Joyce

Bethshan

O’Shaughnessy, Elizabeth

Bethavon

122

4. Appendices

4.5 Brief History of Individual Facilities Services are presented below in alphabetical order. Facilities have been included that were previously part of Uniting Church Homes or Juniper, but have since closed.

4.5.1 Bethavon, Northam Planning began in 1980 towards a residential aged care facility in Northam. The planning committee included both UCA and local community members, with plans focused on vacant land adjacent to the church. At the time, Northam Regional Hospital was located on the other side of the land, making it an excellent location for aged care.667 (The adjacent hospital closed in the late 1990s when a new medical centre opened on the other side of the river. The vacant old hospital was eventually demolished in 2016, to be replaced with a shopping centre.668) The local community needed to raise $100,000 to supplement a Commonwealth grant. Many local businesses, associations and individuals contributed. The Mayor, Vern Ottaway, was part of the steering committee and promotional events were supported by both the Premier (Brian Burke) and Prime Minister (Bob Hawke).669

667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677

Bethavon residential facility opened in November 1986 as a 32-bed hostel (low care facility).670 It had its own management committee, increasing the number of committees under the Aged Persons Homes Board to the nine that eventually merged to form UCH. An Occupational Therapy department was added in 1993671, followed by an activities and amenities centre in 1996672. Possibilities for a secure dementia unit were explored in 2001, but as another provider in Northam was moving to address the need locally, it was determined to be beyond the budget at the time.673 However, the whole facility was upgraded and expanded in 2005-06.674 In 2016, the heritage-listed Uniting Church Hall adjacent to Bethavon was renovated as a multi-purpose community training and development facility, for joint Juniper and community use.675 Lotterywest heritage grants funding was used to enable the project.676 The name Bethavon was created by combining the Hebrew word ‘beth’, meaning ‘home’, with ‘avon’, referencing both the nearby river and the wider region.677

Juniper, Juniper Bethavon: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014, p.2 Tyrrell, Claire, ‘Northam Hospital demolished to make way for supermarket’, The West Australian (online), 4 August 2016 Juniper, Juniper Bethavon, 2014, p.2 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1986, pp.123-126 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.16 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.15 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 UCH, Annual Report, 2006, p.8 Juniper, Annual Report, 2016, p.5 Jacobs, Albert (MLA), ‘Lotterywest grants to preserve WA’s heritage’, media statement (online), 4 September 2014 Juniper, Juniper Bethavon, 2014, p.2

123

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

4.5.2 Bethshan, Katanning The Silver Chain had been fundraising towards an aged care facility in Katanning over many years, but did not have the capacity to begin such a service.678 Alex Thompson MP had given money to the Silver Chain in the late 1940s for aged care services. 679 Their efforts were supported from 1954 by the Katanning Presbyterian Church, led by Rev Jack Hutchinson.680 Local landholder E.A. Hassell sold a house known as ‘The Pines’681 house to the church to be used for aged care. It had been built in stages from 1907, and from the latter 1930s operated as a maternity hospital.682 Local volunteers fitted out the residence to accommodate older residents and in 1955 the place opened as a Home for the ‘well aged’ (later known as a hostel or low care facility). 683 In its early years as an aged care residence, the place used the name Parkside.684 Originally, the facility was just the original large house, with up to four residents living in each room. Each resident had a screen around their bed and one drawer.685 A new wing was added in 1961, expanding the home’s capacity from six to 13 beds. A further six-bed wing was added in 1967.686 The following year, the Medical Department granted Bethshan permission to operate as a ‘frail aged’ facility (nursing home).

It was refurbished and reopened as a nursing home in November 1968.687 When the Uniting Church formed in 1977, Bethshan came under the auspices of the Aged Persons Homes Board. Although its management committee was drawn from both the community and the Presbyterian church, and it had a strong community focus, the property was owned by the church.688 Gradually the small facility was upgraded and expanded. Two new hostel rooms were added in 1980, along with a craft room and staff bathroom. Local fundraising allowed the work to be completed debt-free.689 In 1989, local builder A. Laurins began work to replace 10 old beds with a new, expanded 10bed wing, opening the new rooms in 1990.690 The front section of the Home was upgraded in 1993 to create a more ‘homely’ atmosphere, including installing wood fires in the living area. The following year the wing that had been vacated in 1990 was converted to an activities and recreation area for both residents and the wider community.691 In 1996, the kitchen and dining room were replaced.692 As aged care standards evolved, the need to upgrade continued. Most recently, ensuites were added throughout in 2016 to meet contemporary requirements693 and further refurbishment and upgrades were completed in September 2017.694

678 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, pp.8-9 679 Juniper, Juniper Bethshan: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014, p.2 680 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, pp.8-9 681 Juniper, Juniper Bethshan, 2014, p.2 682 Heritage Council WA, P07072, Bethshan Lodge including original Mitchell Cottage, database entry (online) 683 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, pp.8-9 684 Heritage Council WA, P07072, Bethshan Lodge, database entry 685 Juniper, Juniper Bethshan, 2014, p.2 686 ‘Significant dates in the establishment of Uniting Church Homes’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 687 Juniper, Juniper Bethshan, 2014, p.2 688 Correspondence, 1982, MN659 Acc6314A/14 689 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1980, pp.82-84 690 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 691 UCH, Annual Report, 1993, p.16 and 1994, p.18 692 UCH, Annual Report, 1993, p.16 and 1994, p.18 693 Juniper, Viva Voce, Autumn 2016, p.3 694 Myers, Roley (Juniper), notes on current and planned projects, 30 January 2018

124

4. Appendices

4.5.3 Boronia, Albany

residences. Six of these conversions had been made by 2009. Recognising that it was struggling to keep the facility open, the management committee approached the Uniting Church to take it on.698 In 2010, UCH took the service over, along with associated landholdings. Boronia Court, also referred to as Albany Cottage Homes, was under full UCH management by 2011.699

Lockyer was established as a State Housing Commission subdivision in the mid-1950s.695 It was developed from east to west, reaching the west side of Townsend Road in the early 1960s. In the early years of Lockyer’s development, Annie Bryson McKeown gifted land from her estate to the Albany Town Council to establish housing for older people of limited means. The Albany Cottage Scheme (Inc) was incorporated c.1955 and raised funds locally to build on the land. In 1961, the site was still vacant, but by 1977 12 independent living bedsit units had been completed at the corner of McKeown and Townsend Streets. The age of buildings on site suggests another six were constructed soon after as part of the initial planning.696 Ten years later, Albany Cottage Scheme partnered with Homeswest to construct another six units on site, as part of a State Government Joint Venture Scheme for low income housing, launched in 1982. Another six units were constructed under the Joint Venture Scheme in 1995, bringing the precinct to 29 residences. By this stage it was known as Boronia Court. Homeswest supplied the bulk of the funding for construction in both 1987 and 1995, on land owned by the Albany Town Council and administered by the Albany Cottage Scheme.697

Lockyer had a history of social problems, and Juniper made a strategic decision to invest in regenerating the neighbourhood.700 As plans for a large residential facility alongside the Boronia independent living units were developed, work began on a multi-purpose community centre to create a social and service hub. It was designed in consultation with a local Community Advisory Group, using local architects, builders and suppliers. The new premises included function rooms, workshop space, café, kitchen facilities, barbeque area and office space for UnitingCare West.701

By the early 2000s, members of the volunteer management committee of Albany Cottage Scheme were themselves ageing. Recruiting new members proved difficult. There were also problems raising capital for necessary redevelopment of the site, including converting bedsit units to single bedroom

Planning is also underway in 2017 for a 100-bed residential care facility nearby, and additional independent living units are planned for the site.704 Site works for the new facility began in December 2017, heading for completion in approximately March 2019.705

695 696 697 698 699 700 701 702 703 704 705

In October 2017, the new facility opened, named the Beryl Grant Community Centre after a long-serving UCH Board member, who had also been a volunteer in many other capacities throughout her long life.702 Beryl Grant died the following month, aged 96.703

Menck, A Thematic History of Government Housing in WA, 2014, p.90 List of subsidised homes, 1977, MN659 Acc4471A/148; Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (online), 1954, 1961, 2001, 2017; David Parker, Executive Officer, Juniper, email to Roley Myers and Clare Menck, 14 November 2017 Government of Western Australia, ‘Completion of new units for Albany seniors’, media statement (online), 19 March 1995 Parker, David, email, 14 November 2017; Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.4, and 2011, p.8, 16 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, ‘Doors open on major new service hub for Albany community’, 2017 Juniper, ‘Doors open on major new service hub for Albany community’, 2017 Metropolitan Cemeteries Board (online), record for Beryl Grant Juniper, Viva Voce, Autumn 2015, p.3; Juniper, ‘Doors open on major new service hub for Albany community’, 2017 Juniper, ‘Work starts on new aged care facility in Albany’, 12 December 2017

125

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Boronia is a genus of Australian native plants with almost 100 sub-species. They are common in open forests and woodlands, generally growing as small to medium-sized shrubs. Many species have attractive perfumed flowers.706

Chrystal Halliday management committee in 1981 merged with Euroka, another Uniting Church aged care facility, which had been established by the Methodist Church in nearby Waterman in 1976.711

4.5.4 Chrystal Halliday, Trigg/ Karrinyup

In December 1983, another independent living site was opened, in the adjacent suburb of Trigg. The 20-unit development was built using resident funding and named Chrystal Gardens. Adjacent land was also purchased from the State Housing Commission for future extension into residential care.712 An unexpected slump in the housing market in 1983 initially made it difficult to sell the units,713 but within a year all had been sold and were occupied.714

In October 1971, the Presbyterian Church opened Chrystal Halliday Homes at Karrinyup with 36 independent living units.707 The Homes were named for Chrystal Halliday (1890-1965), a former teacher and dedicated volunteer with Ross Memorial Presbyterian Church. She taught for many years in government schools, including a lengthy tenure as head of Perth Girls School. Chrystal Halliday is remembered as an energetic and charismatic volunteer on many projects. Her sister Nesta, also a teacher, supported Chrystal’s voluntary work. Both had significant interest in the Australian Inland Mission, including travelling to Alice Springs to visit AIM projects there.708 A nursing home was added at the Karrinyup site in 1976.709 The following year, Chrystal Halliday was one of 10 aged care agencies to join the newly formed Uniting Church. At that time it had 51 residents in 47 self-contained units, 32 residents in a hostel and 24 in nursing home care. It was also the only facility under Uniting Church auspices to offer a day care service.710

When Uniting Church Homes was formed in 1992, Chrystal Halliday was one of the three largest UCH facilities. As such, it was the administrative base for the North region for the first two years.715 However, when three regions were amalgamated to two from 1994, North moved its administration to St David’s.716 A new hostel opened in November 1992. Thirty-two residents transferred from the old hostel, and eight new residents also moved in.717 The former hostel was remodelled and opened as serviced units in 1999.718

706 Australian Native Plants Society (website), ‘The Boronia Family’, accessed 10 November 2017 707 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 708 ‘Chrystal Isabella Halliday’, undated notes, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 709 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.16 710 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, pp.37-39 711 Correspondence, 1982, MN659 Acc6314A/14 712 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1982, p.106 713 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1983, pp.203-205 714 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1984, pp.209-211 715 Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992 (file), MN659 Acc4540A/17 716 UCH, Annual Report, 1993, p.v, vi, 1, and 1994, p.11, inside cover 717 UCH, Annual Report, 1993, p.16 718 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.16

126

4. Appendices

In 2017, plans were well-advanced for construction of a new 120-place residential care facility.719 The 1976 nursing home buildings were demolished late in 2017 in preparation for new construction.720 The new facility is expected to be completed around the time this book goes to print (early 2018).721

4.5.5 City of Bayswater residential facilities From 2004, UCH provided contracted management services to the City of Bayswater for its aged care facilities. In 2006, UCH also took on the City’s aged care staff. The City and UCH subsequently operated in partnership, with the City owning the properties and UCH operating the services.722 Mertome (Bayswater), Carramar (Morley) and City of Bayswater Hostel (Embleton) were the first to have operations fully transferred, in 2006. This was followed by Salisbury Retreat (Bedford) and Noranda Village (Noranda) in 2007. MERTOME/ TRANBY The first venture into aged care for the City of Bayswater was Mertome Village. The cottages west of the village’s main north-south road were constructed in 1973, totaling 39 single and 10 double units. This was followed by the 70-place hostel, constructed in the mid-1970s. In 1981, further independent living units were added immediately north of the hostel, with more the following year in the south-east portion of the site

719 720 721 722 723

724 725 726 727

(Mertome Gardens). Around the late 1980s/early 1990s, units were added at the far north of the precinct, followed by those directly south of the hostel. Finally, buildings east of the hostel were added in 2000.723 Residents of Mertome Hostel were transferred to the City of Bayswater Hostel in Embleton when it opened in 2006, leaving the 1970s building vacant.724 In its first year under full UCH management, 2006, the vacant Mertome Hostel was upgraded and converted for use as a Care Awaiting Placement facility. This was part of a State government program to support older people discharged from hospital who could not return to their homes. Seventy places at Mertome were made available for this program.725 However, funding was short-lived and the program ceased in 2009. UCH subsequently re-opened Mertome as a 70-place low care residential facility, renamed Tranby, after the ship that brought early Methodist colonists to Western Australia. Several of the temporary residents and many of the staff continued on with Tranby.726 In August 2016, the City of Bayswater voted to dispose of the land at Mertome through a 99-year lease agreement with a suitable aged care provider. Major redevelopment of the site was required to bring it up to contemporary standards, especially for ‘ageing in place’. In 2018, Juniper continued to operate Mertome and Tranby while details of the future arrangement were worked through.727

Juniper, Annual Report, 2016, p.3 Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (online), 1974, 1977, 2017 Myers, Roley, notes, 2018 UCH, Annual Report, 2006, p.8, 15 and 2008, p.11, 15 List of subsidised homes, 1977, MN659 Acc4471A/148; Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (online), 1965, 1974, 1977, 1981, 1983, 1985, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2017; Google maps (online) accessed 15 November 2017; SLWA online catalogue listing for Russell, Jack, History of Mertome Village: The First Ten Years, Baskerville & Pratt, Dianella, 1983 Parker, David, Executive Officer, Juniper, email to Clare Menck, 15 November 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.4, 10 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.10 City of Bayswater (website), ‘Mertome - Redevelopment’, accessed 15 November 2017; City of Bayswater, Business Plan: Major Land Transaction, Lot 16 (30) Winifred Road Bayswater, 2016

127

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

CARRAMAR, SALISBURY RETREAT, NORANDA VILLAGE & CITY OF BAYSWATER HOSTEL Carramar Hostel was constructed in the late 1980s/early 1990s. This was followed by the Independent Living Units at Salisbury Retreat, Bedford, constructed in 1995-1996, and Noranda Village, constructed in 2001. Finally, the City of Bayswater Hostel in Embleton was established in 2006, completing the City’s ventures into aged care accommodation.728

4.5.6 Elimatta, Mount Lawley In one weekend in March 1957, deliberately lit fires destroyed the State Forests Department’s metropolitan pine plantations at Bentley (Collier) and Mount Lawley (Scaddan). Up to 300,000 trees were lost across the two sites. Rather than replant, the government made the land available for various community purposes, including large areas set aside to house older people.729 Within 20 years, seven not-for-profit aged care providers were established on the former Scaddan plantation land.730 The Congregational Church acquired the southernmost portion of the land and from 1963 began slow works to establish a ‘colony for senior citizens’.731 Rev John Bryant, of Trinity Congregational Church in Perth, was instrumental in ensuring the project proceeded.732 Elimatta finally opened in April 1968 with 22 cottages, although it appears individual cottages may have been occupied as they were completed from as early as 1964. A hostel opened later the same year.733

Around the same time, RSL Care also began building Homes on an adjacent site to the north along Alexander Road, followed soon after by the Churches of Christ (later Bethanie). Within 10 years, a substantial community of residential aged care and many independent living units was established, of which the RSL was the largest portion.734 By 1977, the RSL, War Widows Guild, Anglican Church, Churches of Christ, Freemasons, Scottish Masonic Homes and Congregational Church accommodated approximately 1,000 people at the site, of which Elimatta contributed 88 units and 33 hostel beds.735 These agencies operated quite separately, although without conflict. More recently, as almost all have undergone redevelopment, there have been discussions on how to work more closely together, including possibilities for shared perimeter fencing and removal of internal barriers.736 Elimatta was one of 10 aged care agencies to join the Uniting Church when it formed in 1977. Two years later, its management committee merged with Pilgrim House in East Fremantle, also established by the Congregational Church.737 From 1987, the 34-bed hostel was converted to a 40-bed hostel where all rooms had ensuites, with works undertaken by McAlister & McAlister.738 In response to government requirements, the upgrades allowed for higher levels of care, and were completed the following year.739 In 1994, a recreation centre was added for use by the independent living residents.740

728 Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (online), 1985, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2017 729 The Age, 18 March 1957, p.1; State Records Office, search results ‘scaddan AND plantation’ (online database) accessed 19 October 2017 730 List of subsidised homes, 1977, MN659 Acc4471A/148 731 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, p.8-9 732 notes (unattributed), Juniper file 12/05 UCH History; UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, pp.8-9 733 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 734 Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (online), 1965, 1974, 1977; Google maps (online), accessed 18 October 2017 735 List of subsidised homes, 1977, MN659 Acc4471A/148 736 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 737 Correspondence, 1977-1979, MN659 Acc6314A/10 738 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1987, pp.65-68 739 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110 740 UCA, Annual Report, 1994, p.16

128

4. Appendices

Three years later, the kitchen was upgraded and a further two places were added to the residential facility. These works included creating a 15-place secure unit, the Elimatta Special Care Centre, one of the earliest efforts by UCH to cater specifically to the increasing prevalence of dementia among residents.741 Although by later standards it had many problems, at the time many other services offered no specialist care for dementia at all.742 Plans for a major redevelopment of Elimatta were submitted to the City of Stirling in 2011. In four stages, 146 villas and multistorey apartments were planned. In keeping with changes in aged care policy, these were designed as Apartments for Life, with the intention that residents should not have to move into higher care as they aged.743 Site works commenced in August 2013.744 The first stage, comprising 17 villas and a clubhouse, opened in April 2015.745 Further units were completed in 2016.746 Works are ongoing in 2018, with 40 units under construction intended for completion by mid-year. Elimatta is an Aboriginal word believed to mean ‘our home’. It is not known which Aboriginal language the word is derived from, although it is used in New South Wales.747

4.5.7 Ella Williams, Noranda Ella Williams opened in November 2000 at Noranda as a 60-place residential facility. Thirty of its original residents transferred from St David’s Nursing Home in Mount Lawley, which could no longer keep up with modern standards and was subsequently demolished. Half of the facility opened as a secure dementia unit, responding to the growing need for dementia services.748 Six more rooms were completed in November 2009, with alterations creating a secure wing.749 The aged care facility was located alongside Noranda Uniting Church. In its early years, the parish was significantly involved in pastoral care at Ella Williams, which at the time was relatively novel for a UCH service.750 The facility was named for Sister Ella Cavell Williams (19151999). She was the daughter of Edith Jane and Walter Williams, grocer, and was born in Fremantle. As a young woman she worked at Joyce Brothers for 16 years before becoming a Methodist ‘Sister of the People’ at Fremantle Central Mission. Later, she also served with Perth Central Mission. In retirement, Ella Williams went to work with Mother Teresa in Calcutta. She dedicated her whole life to the service of God through helping those in need.751

741 UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.11; ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 742 Patterson, Deb, interview, 2016 743 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.10 744 Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.14 745 Juniper, Annual Report, 2015, p.1 746 Juniper, Annual Report, 2016, p.3 747 Aboriginal House Names (website), http://www.housenameheritage.com/hnh_wsc_aboriginal.asp; Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate – Planning (ACT), ‘Search for street and suburb names’ – Elimatta, http://www.planning.act.gov.au/tools_resources/place_search; accessed 10 November 2017; Townsend, Lorraine, Heaven’s Special Mum, Lulu Press, 2014, p.199 748 UCH, Annual Report, 2001 749 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.9 750 UCH, Annual Report, 2001 751 Juniper, Juniper Ella Williams: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2017, p.2

129

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

4.5.8 Euroka, Waterman Euroka began as a mission outreach of the Waterman Methodist Church. In the early 1970s, there were only about 15 to 20 people regularly attending the church, but with the support of the Scarborough parish they committed to establishing housing for older people in the area.752 Enthusiasm was not matched with experience. The planning committee did not liaise properly with the Department of Social Security and as a result ended up $400,000 in debt without approvals to continue the project. Fortunately, a change in government brought funds and changed policy and the project went ahead.753 Architect Jeffrey Brown was commissioned to design the buildings. 754 Euroka opened in March 1976 with 29 self-contained units.755 The following year, the management committee was one of 10 to come under the auspices of the Aged Persons Homes Board on the formation of the Uniting Church. In 1981, Euroka management committee merged with Chrystal Halliday, another Uniting Church aged care facility, which had been established by the Presbyterian Church in nearby Karrinyup in 1971.756 A workroom for residents was added in 1982,757 but the buildings are otherwise largely as constructed in the 1970s.

Euroka is an Aboriginal word believed to mean ‘sun’, ‘warmth’ or ‘sunlit corner’. It is not known which Aboriginal language the word is derived from, although it is used in New South Wales.758

4.5.9 Fraser House, South Perth In the early 1970s, a 10-storey building was constructed in South Perth as potential motel and office accommodation. Named Mill Point Centre, it was never occupied. Finally, the Presbyterian Church purchased the building for $1,000,000, assisted by a Commonwealth grant for independent living accommodation.759 In September 1975, Rev Des Cousins officially opened the building as Presbyterian independent living units.760 When the Uniting Church formed in 1977, Fraser House was one of 10 aged care agencies that came under the auspices of the UCA (WA) Aged Persons Homes Board. At that time it had 74 residents in 65 self-contained units.761 From 1978, the Aged Persons Homes Board had its office at Fraser House, although mostly this was only Director Warwick Donovan, with a few hours of secretarial support. Although the Board was relocated to UCA’s central city offices from 1984, by the end of 1986 it was back at Fraser House.762 After the creation of Uniting Church Homes, more administrative

752 Hanna, Tom & Mavis, ‘Reflections on the beginning of Euroka Retirement Village’, notes, 1996, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 753 Hanna, Tom & Mavis, ‘Reflections ….’, 1996 754 Hanna, Tom & Mavis, ‘Reflections ….’, 1996 755 List of subsidised homes, 1977, MN659 Acc4471A/148 Note: UCA Synod in 1977 was informed that 56 residents lived at Euroka, but other records indicate there were 25 single and four double units at that time. 756 Correspondence, 1982, MN659 Acc6314A/14 757 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1982, p.106 758 Aboriginal House Names (website); Blue Mountains Australia (website), ‘Glenbrook’; Office of Environment & Heritage (NSW), ‘Euroka Clearing “Nye Gnoring”’ (website); accessed 10 November 2017 759 UCH, Viva Voce, No.1/03, Oct 2003, pp.1-2 760 UCH, Viva Voce, No.1/03, Oct 2003, pp.1-2 761 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, pp.37-39 762 Correspondence, 1981-1987, MN659 Acc4471A/26 and Acc4471A/27

130

4. Appendices

staff were required, and the agency outgrew the office space at Fraser House. In 1994, UCH head office relocated to Richardson Street, nearby.763 Fraser House had a strong relationship with Rowethorpe, which acted as its extended care facility and had a representative on the Fraser House management committee.764 However, the South Perth accommodation was increasingly considered unsuitable for residents as they became frail, and there was no capacity on site to provide extended care. Residents were transferred to other UCH sites in 2002, or assisted to find housing in South Perth.765 A formal closing ceremony in September 2003 was led by the same Rev Cousins who had opened the place 28 years earlier. 766 Fraser House was eventually sold, after long negotiations, in May 2005.767 It was subsequently demolished.

4.5.10 Hardey Lodge, Mount Lawley Sarah Hardey in 1915 donated £750 to the Central Methodist Mission to purchase a Mount Lawley residence for use as a refuge for young women in crisis, especially single mothers.768 The Central Methodist Mission Home for Girls opened in 1917.769 Sarah Hardey (1837-1920) was the fifth of six daughters born to early Western Australian colonists Joseph and Ann Hardey (arrived 1830). Joseph was reportedly very strict with his daughters, possibly influencing Sarah’s long-standing concern

for women. She was involved from a young age with welfare work, especially the education of Methodist children. 770 As Sarah Hardey lived only a mile away771 and was known for her dedication to voluntary church work, it is likely she was actively involved in the life of the Home she founded. After World War Two, serious housing shortages were experienced across the community and older people particularly suffered. The Central Methodist Mission in 1946 determined to meet the urgent accommodation needs of older women by fundraising towards a Home for Aged Women.772 The Home for Girls was refurbished for the purpose and opened in November 1949 as Hardey Lodge. It provided 12 residential beds, under the supervision of Matron Rickards.773 Hardey Lodge was the first aged care facility opened by the Presbyterian, Methodist or Congregational Churches and as such 1949 has been celebrated as the birth of Juniper. Central Methodist Mission felt keenly how small an impact 12 places made in the widespread need of the period. The facility was extended to accommodate 41 residents, in both low and high care sections, with the new premises opening in 1959.774 The existing 12 residents lived in hospital quarters while the new dining room and 30 individual bedrooms were added.775 Hardey Lodge came under the auspices of the new Uniting Church in 1977, as part of the operations of Central Methodist Mission (CMM) Homes.

763 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, p.11 764 Second Interim Report…, p.12, MN659 Acc4933A/9 765 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 766 UCH, Viva Voce, No.1/03, Oct 2003, pp.1-2 767 UCH, Annual Report, 2005 768 Central Methodist Mission (Mission Committee), ‘Minutes of Quarterly Meeting’, 8 July 1915 and 30 September 1915, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 769 Lutton, The Wesley Story, 1970, p.14 770 Juniper, Juniper Sarah Hardey: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014, pp.2-3 771 Wises Post Office Directories, 1914-1920 772 Green, Joseph, CMM Superintendent, 1946, quoted in Lutton, The Wesley Story, 1970, p.16 773 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, p.6, 10-11 774 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, p.6, 10-11 775 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, introduction

131

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

In 1996, the facility was renamed Sarah Hardey Lodge to give greater prominence to the origins of the Home.776 It remained a women’s-only Home, the only one under UCH management. This was partly due to its origins as a women’s Home, and partly due to its design, which could not provide suitable privacy for mixed gender housing. Long-standing staff members were also not particularly interested in adapting to care for men.777 As government regulations and community expectations increased, Sarah Hardey Lodge was unable to be upgraded to meet modern standards. In December 2001 it closed, having been replaced by a new Sarah Hardey Lodge at Kelmscott.778 Sarah Hardey Lodge in Mount Lawley was sold in 2003, with profits shared between UCH and Wesley Mission, Perth.779

4.5.11 Hillcrest, Geraldton

776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 784 785 786 787 788

132

The new facility was designed by architect Lewis Eves and constructed by Geraldton Building Company. The builders undertook the project with little or no profit margin, as they considered it their contribution to the community. At opening in October 1986, the Hillcrest Lodge Committee called the place an ‘interdenominational hostel’.782 The facility had 40 low care places. It was operated by its own management committee under the umbrella of the UCA’s Aged Persons Homes Board.783 Upgrades followed in subsequent years. Lewis Eves designed an activities area and lounge extension, completed in 1996.784 The laundry was upgraded in 1998,785 followed by general expansions and upgrades in 2006.786 In 2010, an additional 20-room wing was opened. This was a ‘secure’ wing. The $9 million project also included refurbishment of earlier buildings, and culminated with the opening of the Collyer Wing in November 2010.787 A $300,000 Lotterywest grant was also used in 2010 for landscaping and improving resident comfort.788 Although the 2010 extensions included designs for a second 20-place wing, the government in 2011 declined to finance the project. However, funding became available through Royalties

UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.16 (Viva Voce was using ‘Sarah Hardey Lodge’ in September 1996) Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History ‘Hillcrest Lodge, Geraldton’, notes, 1986, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110 ‘Hillcrest Lodge, Geraldton’, notes, 1986, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1986, pp.123-126 ‘Hillcrest Lodge: Dedication of Activities Room and Lounge Area’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.16 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.10 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.9 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.6

Planning and fundraising towards an aged persons Home in Geraldton began in the mid-1960s through shared efforts of the Methodist and Presbyterian churches. Noel Mellows was key in the early stages through the 1970s, before Harry Weir took on the project in 1985. Rapid fundraising was required in that year to raise $200,000 locally so as not to lose a Commonwealth grant. Many local individuals and groups contributed. Geraldton Rotary assisted by the building of house with (mostly) donated materials and labour, which was auctioned and the profits donated. There was also a significant donation from the Anglican Church. Within

a year, the Geraldton community had raised $230,000.780 CMM Homes also provided a substantial loan, which was repaid by 1988.781

4. Appendices

for Regions789 and in September 2013 the Abrolhos Wing high care facility opened, bringing the total capacity of Hillcrest to 80 places.790

4.5.12 John Bryant, Marangaroo John Bryant Hostel was officially opened on 29 June 1996. The first residents moved in on 1 July. It was the first new facility opened after the formation of UCH as a centralised agency in 1992. Planning for the facility involved consulting with residents and staff throughout, from briefing the architects to the final opening.791 The facility initially comprised 42 low care units, of which 14 were a designated dementia wing.792 Forty were permanent places and the other two set aside for respite care (one in the dementia wing). 793 By the mid-1990s, it was becoming recognised that as older people increasingly received support to stay in their own homes, their carers (usually spouses or other family members) needed support through greater provision of respite care places. In 2004, all 42 places were converted to a dementia-specific facility. What had initially been two houses were separated into three â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;secureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; houses. Respite places were replaced with permanent residents. 794

789 790 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799

Rev John Bryant was a minister of Trinity Congregational Church in Perth. He began services in aged care in the 1950s. He was instrumental in establishing both Pilgrim House and Elimatta.795

4.5.13 Kimberley Services Over the past decade, Juniper has responded to what it felt was a moral obligation to support the continuation of aged care services in the Kimberley, which had earlier been run under the auspices of the National Assembly of the Uniting Church.796 From 2009, Juniper provided assistance to Frontier Services (formerly Australian Inland Mission) in their aged care operations in the Kimberley.797 In July 2014, Juniper took on full responsibility for these services, bringing Kununurra Community Care, Ngamang Bawoona Derby, Numbala Nunga Derby and Marlgu Village Wyndham into the Juniper family. The following year, Juniper acquired Guwardi Ngadu flexible care service at Fitzroy Crossing, and entered into an agreement with Halls Creek Peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Church to manage their 28-bed residential facility, Halls Creek Frail Aged Hostel.798 When Juniper rebranded its facilities with a Juniper prefix, it was determined to be culturally inappropriate to do this with some Aboriginal place names, and the policy was not universally applied in the Kimberley.799

UCH, Annual Report, 2012, p.11 Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.13 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, p.15, 19, 20 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.16 Juniper, Juniper John Bryant: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2017, p.2 UCH, Annual Report, 2005 notes (unattributed), Juniper file 12/05, UCH History; UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, pp.8-9 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.10 Juniper, Viva Voce, Summer 2016, p.3 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017

133

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Juniper is now looking at developing creative alternative approaches to services for the Kimberley, seeking to create social spaces where cross-generational interaction can take place.800 Work began in April 2017 on an Aged Care Services Hub in Kununurra.801 The Hub is intended to co-locate a 30-bed residential facility with home care and day centre services.802 DERBY The Presbyterian Church’s Australian Inland Mission opened Numbala Nunga nursing home in Derby in May 1969, catering particularly but not exclusively for Aboriginal residents. It reused the site of a former Aboriginal hospital, also in earlier days a leprosarium and lock hospital.803 At Union, the inland missions of the three denominations came together to form Frontier Services.804 As a national initiative, Frontier Services operated under the auspices of the National UCA Assembly805 and thus Numbala Nunga was not included in the establishment of Western Australian synodical aged care oversight. Frontier Services built a low care facility adjacent to Numbala Nunga, operating as Ngamang Bawoona. By 2014, it had 17 permanent and one respite place.806 A substantial extension to Ngamang Bawoona, more than doubling its size and filling the area between that and Numbala

800 801 802 803 804 805 806 807 808 809 810 811 812

134

Nunga, was added around 2010.807 New staff accommodation is planned for completion by Spring 2018.808 WYNDHAM Wyndham Aged & Disabled Services (WA&DS) received a Commonwealth grant for construction of an AIP hostel at Wyndham, which opened in mid-1991 with six Commonwealth supported places.809 WA&DS was a local community service. When its committee could no longer operate it, Frontier Services agreed to sponsor the service.810 It seems this is when it was named Marlgu. Originally, Wyndham Home and Community Care operated from a house on Great Northern Highway, run by WA&DS. From 1998, the home care program moved to co-locate with Frontier Services’ Marlgu Hostel. It continued to be a WA&DS service, but was supported by Frontier and shared services, clients and activities with Marlgu.811 KUNUNURRA Frontier Services began operating a Home and Community Care program at Kununurra in 1992, including mental health respite, day respite and overnight cottage respite. The facility had the capacity for 20 day residents and four overnight beds. Ninety per cent of the clients were Aboriginal people.812

Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, Viva Voce, Winter 2017, p.15 Juniper, Annual Report, 2017, p.3 Menck, ‘Numbala Nunga’, June 2015 National Library of Australia, ‘Australian Inland Mission’, https://www.nla.gov.au/selected-library-collections/australian-inland-mission ; Frontier Services, ‘Our History’, https://www.frontierservices.org/about-us/our-history , accessed 1 September 2017 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Frontier Services website, 2014, archived text held by Roley Myers, Juniper Google maps (online), Streetview February 2010; Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (online), 2001, 2007, 2012 Myers, Roley, notes, 2018 Funding agreements between Wyndham Aged & Disabled Services and the Commonwealth, 1990 and 1991, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History Frontier Services website, 2014 Frontier Services website, 2014 Frontier Services website, 2014

4. Appendices

In 2011, Frontier Services moved its HACC program from a large renovated house to purpose-built facilities near other health services.813

4.5.14 Mayflower, Subiaco In May 1976, Subiaco Congregational Homes opened at the corner of Bagot Road and Robinson Street. Within a year, 16 residents lived in 11 self-contained units, while another five received hostel care.814 Funding for the Homes came through the sale of the Leederville Congregational church and manse. The project used the site of Subiaco Congregational church815, which was demolished just prior to the development of the Homes.816 When the Uniting Church was formed in 1977, Subiaco Congregational Homes was one of 10 aged care agencies that came under the auspices of the Aged Persons Homes Board. At the request of Subiaco Council, a ‘unique’ wing of five rooms was set aside in 1982 as a ‘well-aged hostel’ for men.817 Up to this time, housing for older women had been seen as a greater priority than housing for men, mostly because there were simply higher numbers of single older women than single older men in the community. The two UCA aged care agencies in Subiaco came together in 1984 under one management committee as Subiaco

Homes. By this time, the former Congregational Homes in Bagot Road had been renamed Mayflower.818 The committee hoped to establish a hostel to supplement its independent living and high care facilities, but government policy did not permit this.819 By the 2000s it was clear that Mayflower could not be upgraded to meet community expectations. There was no capacity on site to provide extended care and residences were not suitable for assisting older people to remain in their homes as they became frail. In 2002, existing residents were offered transfers to other UCH facilities or assistance to find alternate housing around Subiaco.820 In June 2003, the vacated buildings were sold to the Department of Housing and Works for $1.25 million.821 In 2017, the buildings remained and appeared to be used as private residences.822

4.5.15 Northam Cottage Homes, Northam In the mid-1970s, the Glass family donated over four hectares (approx. 10 acres) of farming land to the Northam Cottage Homes Project. A volunteer management committee subsequently oversaw the construction of eight units, supported by a Commonwealth grant. Sometime after the State Government launched its Joint Venture Scheme for lowincome housing in 1982, a further four units were added to the site as a joint venture with Homeswest.823

813 Frontier Services website, 2014 814 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, pp.37-39, 126 Note: For some agencies, the number of independent living units is not provided, only the number of residents in these units. 815 Western Impact (Supplement), October 1982, clipping, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 816 Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (online), 1965, 1974, 1977 817 Correspondence, 1982, MN659 Acc6314A/14; Western Impact (Supplement), October 1982 818 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 819 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1987, pp.65-68 820 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 821 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 822 Google maps (online), Streetview, March 2017 823 Parker, David, email, 14 November 2017; Government of Western Australia, ‘Completion of new units for Albany seniors’, media statement, 19 March 1995 Note: Aged care listings in 1977 show no residences yet built at Northam. Aerial photographs indicate all 12 units were in place by 2000.

135

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

By 2005, all members of the volunteer management committee for Northam Cottage Homes were in their eighties, including Chair Vern Ottaway (aged 83). They were unable to recruit younger members to take on the work and approached UCH to intervene.824 Uniting Church Homes acquired Northam Cottage Homes in the financial year 2007-08. The series of three quadruplexes on the southern edge of the town added 12 one-bedroom independent living units to Juniper’s presence in Northam, complementing the residential care available at The Residency and Bethavon.825

4.5.16 Pilgrim House, East Fremantle The Congregational Church began exploring options for aged care in the 1950s, under the guidance of Rev John Bryant of Trinity Church in Perth. An option became available to purchase Lockerley, a large gold-boom era residence in East Fremantle. Rev Bryant personally approached many potential donors, especially amongst farming communities, to raise the money needed to acquire the house.826 Lockerley had been built in the late 1890s to house the manager of prominent Fremantle merchants and shipping agents Dalgety & Co. After nearly 20 years as home to Dalgety’s manager Arthur G Leeds, in 1917 the residence was purchased by John William Bateman, a member of one of Fremantle’s most prominent families. John Bateman remained the owner

824 825 826 827 828 829 830

until he sold the place to the Congregational Church in 1956.827 As a result of Rev Bryant’s dedicated fundraising, the refurbished Home opened free of debt as Pilgrim House in October 1956.828 It initially housed 18 residents.829 It was the Congregational Church in Western Australia’s first endeavour to provide accommodation for older people. In 1975, Lockerley was demolished to allow for redevelopment of the site. A complex of 10 flats and a 38-bed hostel was completed in June 1977. The following year, two of Arthur & Margrett Leeds’ sons, John and Clem Leeds, returned to live at Pilgrim House, built on the site of their childhood home.830 As some of the flats housed couples, there were 51 residents at this time.831 Pilgrim House was one of 10 aged care agencies to join the Uniting Church when it formed in 1977. Two years later, its management committee merged with Elimatta in Mount Lawley, also established by the Congregational Church.832 In 1997, residents were temporarily moved to Hilltop Hostel at Rowethorpe to allow for works on site. Every room at Pilgrim was provided with an ensuite bathroom, and a section of the facility was upgraded to create a 15-place dementia wing.833 Further expansions and upgrades were completed in 2006.834

4.5.17 Riverslea Lodge, Mount Lawley Riverslea was the first new Uniting Church aged care facility to be completed under the auspices of the Aged Persons Homes Board. It opened in May 1982 as a joint venture between the

Parker, David, email, 14 November 2017 UCH, Annual Report, 2008, p.11 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years¸2009, pp.8-9 Wises Post Office Directories, 1890s-1949; Fremantle Local Studies Collection (website), captions on images 1277 & 3977, accessed 26 October 2017 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, pp.8-9 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History Fremantle Local Studies Collection (website), captions on images 1277 & 3977; Department of Justice, ‘Births, Deaths and Marriages’ (website), search: Clem Leeds, accessed 13 November 2017 831 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, pp.37-39 832 Correspondence, 1977-1979, MN659 Acc6314A/10 833 UCH, Annual Report, 1997, p.11; 1998, p.19 834 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.10

136

4. Appendices

City of Stirling and the management committee of St David’s. Initially it housed 45 low care residents.835

had no further financial interest or management oversight at Rose Mount Joondanna.840

The kitchen and dining room were substantially upgraded in 1999, including construction of a new ‘satellite dining room’.836

4.5.19 Rowethorpe, Bentley

The name Riverslea was chosen to reflect the Guildford Road land’s close proximity to the Swan River, as the rear of the site backs onto riverside parklands, and reflects the nearby Riverslea Ave.

Rowethorpe was established by the Central Methodist Mission, with its first 28 cottages opening in October 1961.841 It arose out of the passion and energy of Rev Ralph Sutton, Superintendent of the Central Methodist Mission from 1953, who had already overseen the extension of Hardey Lodge. His wife Dorothy Sutton was also heavily involved. Rev Sutton remained integrally involved at Rowethorpe until his death in 1967, and Dorothy lived there into her last years.842

4.5.18 Rose Mount, Dianella/ Joondanna Rose Mount began with eight self-contained units at 120 Powell Street Joondanna, built in 1990. 837 The community was formally opened as a Uniting Church facility in June 1991.838 At the same time, construction began at the Dianella site, initially referred to as Rose Mount Central. Rose Mount Dianella was officially opened by Captain Geoffrey Monks, Moderator of the UCA (WA) Synod, in May 1993, but residents had been moving in gradually as units were completed over the preceding two years. It comprised 69 self-contained units.839 The Joondanna site was soon found to be too far from core facilities at Dianella. In 1995, occupants took up an offer for UCH to sell the units to them outright, on strata title. One unit remained in a shared-equity arrangement between UCH and the resident, but UCH signalled its intention to sell the place when that occupant moved. Once the final unit was sold, UCH

The Government provided land for the project, charging only service costs and granting the land for free. The name Rowethorpe was selected to honour Rev G.E. Rowe, minister of Wesley Church at the turn of the 20th century,843 first president of the WA Methodist Conference.844 The land was a section of former Collier pine plantation, which lay desolate845 following devastating fires in March 1957 both here and at Scaddan plantation (future site of Elimatta).846 Early residences looked out on the fire-ravaged landscape and the creation of a gardened community in this context became significant to the early memories of the place.847

835 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1982, p.106 836 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.16 837 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1990, pp.189-192 838 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 839 UCH, Annual Report, 1993, p.20 840 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.13 841 Wells, H.A., ‘The Story of Rowethorpe’, 1976, p.4, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 842 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, introduction, pp.1-3, 28 843 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, introduction, pp.1-3 844 Lutton, The Wesley Story, 1970, p.17 845 Wells, ‘The Story of Rowethorpe’, 1976, p.2 846 The Age, 18 March 1957, p.1; State Records Office, search results ‘scaddan AND plantation’ (online database) accessed 19 October 2017 847 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000; Wells, ‘The Story of Rowethorpe’, 1976, p.4; UCH, ‘The Rowethorpe Commemorative: Rowethorpe celebrates 50th Anniversary’, 2011

137

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Adjacent land, also former pine plantation, was granted to Swan Cottage Homes, which opened four months earlier (mid1961). From the outset residents shared some joint social activities.848 However, the founders of both Swan Cottage Homes and Rowethorpe were ‘fairly large personalities’ and there were many years of tension between the two facilities. A long-running dispute over a fence between the two epitomised the clash of ideals between the two strong leadership teams as they implemented different philosophies either side of the divide. As the founders moved on and new management structures were implemented towards the end of the century, the old tensions largely faded away.849

In 1977, CMM Homes was one of 10 aged care agencies that came under the auspices of the Aged Persons Homes Board following the establishment of the Uniting Church. It was by far the largest aged care agency to join the UCA. It accounted for nearly half of the UCA’s aged care places, with 567 residents at Rowethorpe at the time (314 in self-contained units, 111 hostel and 142 nursing home residents) along with those at Hardey Lodge.854 Although under UCA oversight, CMM Homes continued to operate largely independently up until the merger into Uniting Church Homes in 1992. After this, Rowethorpe was the administrative base of UCH’s South Region. Until 1994, it also housed the centralised accounting services for UCH.855

Perth architects Forbes & Fitzhardinge designed the original buildings, and continued to guide development of buildings on site until the early 1990s.850

Through the 1980s, Rowethorpe also lent support to smaller aged care providers under the UCA umbrella. It had a close relationship with Fraser House, and gave both advice and financial support to management committees establishing facilities at Geraldton and Northam.856

Hostel residents, on site from 1962, paid no entry fee. If they met a means test, they were admitted free and then paid most of their weekly pension to receive full board.851 From 1969, hostel or independent living residents who fell ill were admitted to the nursing home for respite care. Rowethorpe was an early proponent of this approach, which reportedly initially upset Commonwealth funding bodies, but eventually became standard practice.852 From the initial cottages, Rowethorpe steadily expanded. In 1976, the Chair of CMM Homes Board described the site as ‘almost complete’, as nearly all available land had been developed. 853 Much of what was ‘complete’ in 1976 has since been removed to allow for ongoing modern developments.

From the mid-1990s, Rowethorpe began offering Home and Community Care services. It also began offering ‘serviced units’, where staff provided additional in-house assistance such as laundry, housework and supervision of medicines on a fee-for-service basis.857 From 1998, Rowethorpe also offered ‘Extended Aged Care at Home’, providing high care services to people in their homes, both within the independent living units and in the wider community.858

848 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.9 849 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 850 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.12, 69, 110-112 851 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.11 852 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.38 853 Wells, ‘The Story of Rowethorpe’, 1976, p.1 854 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, pp.37-39 855 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, pp.7-10 856 Second Interim Report…, p.12, MN659 Acc4933A/9; UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, p.106-110 857 UCH, Annual Report, 1996, pp.20-21 858 UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.17

138

4. Appendices

With a firm eye on ensuring Rowethorpe would continue to meet standards and provide excellent care into the 21st century, a redevelopment masterplan for the precinct was launched in 2005.859 A ‘turning the sod’ ceremony to launch this major series of works was held on 24 June 2005, with Premier (also local MLA) Geoff Gallop, the UCH Board Chair and the Mayor of Town of Victoria Park participating.860 Although initially anticipated to take approximately five years to complete, it was a decade before effective completion of the 2005 Masterplan. Subsequently, a Second Masterplan was prepared.861 In December 2017, the new Masterplan was released for public comment, emphasising social sustainability, liveability and training links with partner organisations. Over the next decade, an additional 345 independent living units (more than doubling the current available housing) and 27 residential care places are planned for the precinct.862

yy Claudia Hicks Lodge, part hostel and part hospital, was opened in March 1962.865 It was named for the wife of Rev Norman Hicks, who donated money to Rowethorpe at Claudia’s death.866 The building was demolished in 2005 to facilitate the Redevelopment Masterplan for Rowethorpe. yy North and South Court Units, blocks of single-bedroom flats, opened in June 1963.867 The Court Units were demolished from 2005. yy Two-storey North and South Terraces (four-room units) opened in February 1965.868 yy Hilltop Lodge, offering both hostel and nursing home care, opened February 1965.869 yy Ten more cottages opened in 1966. 870

As the site is very complex, individual facilities are listed below in chronological order. yy First cottages were completed and occupied in October 1961.863 Some of the original cottages were demolished for the construction of Cygnet Lodge in 1992.864 Others were removed over subsequent years to accommodate other new developments.

859 860 861 862 863 864 865 866 867 868 869 870

UCH, Annual Report, 2005 ‘Programme: Turning the Sod’, 2005, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History Juniper, Viva Voce, Autumn 2016, p.3 Juniper, ‘Masterplan for Juniper Rowethorpe released’, 22 December 2017 Wells, ‘The Story of Rowethorpe’, 1976, p.6 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, pp.110-112 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.10 Wells, ‘The Story of Rowethorpe’, 1976, p.7 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.14 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.17 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.19 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History

139

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

yy An administration block was constructed 1966. It was extended in 1971 with the addition of Sutton Community Hall.871 From 1994, parts of the building were used for a Staff Development Centre, as part of ensuring staff across the recently-formed UCH could provide a consistent level and style of service.872 In February 2010, works were completed to refurbish and extend the whole complex, including the Sutton Centre, Administration, Medical Centre and Pharmacy.873 The following June, Rowethorpe Medical Centre was fully accredited, with UCH as the Practice Manager. Previously services had been provided at Rowethorpe by medical practitioners from Victoria Park Medical Centre.874 yy Charles Jenkins Hospital opened in 1967, receiving patients transferred from Claudia Hicks and Hilltop lodges, which subsequently offered only low care services.875 Charles Jenkins was later described as ‘a very old-style aged care facility built on a hospital with long corridors and shared rooms … it was awful’876 but it met a need for higher care at the time. The place was named for Rev Charles A. Jenkins, minister of Wesley Church 1929 to 1938.877 The building ceased to accommodate permanent residents from July 2002, as it could no longer be upgraded to meet certification standards, especially with regard to resident dignity

871 872 873 874 875 876 877 878 879 880 881 882 883 884 885

140

and privacy, fire and safety. It was subsequently used for non-residential purposes.878 In August 2017, it reopened as 60-bed transition care facility. The $5 million project was supported by a $480,000 WA Health Department grant. It is intended to serve tertiary hospitals in the East Metropolitan Health Network (Bentley, Royal Perth, Armadale-Kelmscott, Midland).879 yy Rowethorpe library opened in 1968, provided and run by volunteers.880 yy Rivergum Units were added in 1969. Unlike the earlier two-storey units, these had only steps for access, not ramps, as ramps were felt to be too much of a financial extravagance.881 yy Centenary Units were opened in 1970.882 In 2007-08, 16 single-bed units were converted into eight three-bed units.883 Twelve more received the same conversion the following year,884 and works to adapt another 12 commenced in 2010.885 yy John Wesley Lodge opened in 1974, increasing nursing home beds. It also brought an administrative restructure to bring all nursing care together as Rowethorpe Nursing Centre, with John Wesley and Charles Jenkins wings. All other nursing care transferred into these buildings. John Wesley Lodge included a 32-bed wing

Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.21 UCH, Annual Report, 1994, pp.7-10 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.9 UCH, Annual Report, 2011, p.8 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.29; Western Methodist, July 1967, quoted in UCH, Viva Voce, No.2, Feb 1996, p.4 Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 Wells, ‘The Story of Rowethorpe’, 1976, p.9 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 Juniper, Viva Voce, Spring 2017, pp.4-5 Gallop, Dora, ‘How I Became a Volunteer at Rowethorpe’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.47 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, p.51 UCH, Annual Report, 2008, p.10 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.10 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.9

4. Appendices

specially designated for dementia patients, at that time referred to as ‘permanently confused residents’. This was an early instance of dementia-specific aged care facilities.886 John Wesley Lodge was extended by 18 beds in 1982.887 It was vacated in 2007 when new development replaced its services. The building was demolished in 2008, and the site used to construct new villas.888 yy Tranby Units opened 1975.889 yy Trinity Lodge opened in 1982 as a 50-place hostel.890 A Commonwealth government grant assisted with construction. The place was named Trinity for its three wings, and as a reminder of the three churches that formed the UCA.891 yy The Chapel was completed in 1989.892 Rowethorpe staff contributed to the construction of the octagonal structure.893

886 887 888 889 890 891 892 893 894 895 896 897 898 899 900 901 902

yy Hakea Place units opened 1989, designed for couples where one partner had dementia. This was an innovation in dementia care at the time.894 In 2006, as other dementia-specific services were opened on site, Hakea Place was converted into Hakea House Respite Centre, with funding from the National Respite for Carers Program.895 yy The bowling green opened in 1989.896 yy Cygnet Lodge opened in November 1992. It saw the first demolition of earlier buildings, with some of the 1961 cottages removed to allow its construction.897 The hostel was designed by Geoffrey Brown, the first building on site not overseen by Forbes & Fitzhardinge.898 It was named for a ship that brought Methodists to the colony in 1833. 899 In 2006, Cygnet Lodge was converted to a dementia-only facility.900 yy Jacaranda Ridge opened in January 2007 with 11 threebedroom villas. Twelve more were completed later in the year901 and eight others upgraded.902

Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, pp.63-66, quote p.66 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1982, p.106 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.10 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, pp.69-70 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1982, p.106 Juniper, Juniper Trinity: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2015, p.2 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, pp.94-95 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1989, pp.107-111 UCH, Annual Report, 2006, p.8 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.20 Powell, The Rowethorpe Story, 2000, pp.110-112 Juniper, Juniper Cygnet: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, undated, p.2 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.10 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.10 UCH, Annual Report, 2008, p.10

141

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

yy Annesley opened in October 2007. The 104-place integrated high and low care facility replaced the 92-place John Wesley complex.903 Some cottages were also demolished to construct Annesley. The facility was named for the mother of John and Charles Wesley, Susanna Annesley.904 Annesley became an accredited teaching facility in 2011, the first successful teaching nursing home in Western Australia.905 yy Terrace Café was completed in 2008-09.906 yy A new commercial kitchen to serve Rowethorpe opened in 2010, allowing catering to remain on site.907 yy Wesley Units were completed in August 2010, comprising 16 villas, each with two bedrooms and a study. The units were constructed to a minimum sixstar energy rating, reflecting the growing awareness of environmental issues in Australian building design in this period.908 yy Ron Wilson House opened in February 2014. It was a three-storey building comprising offices, training rooms and 16 apartments for over-55 year olds. The residences were designed to be affordable rental housing, and were intended to be suitable for ‘ageing in place’. The office accommodation housed Uniting Community Care. The place was named to acknowledge Sir Ronald

903 904 905 906 907 908 909 910 911 912 913 914 915 916 917

142

Darling Wilson, former high court judge, human rights campaigner and Uniting Church moderator.909 In June 2014, the Simulation Centre opened within the building. It was an education and training centre, including video and audio recording and immediate playback,910 and subsequently won several awards recognising its innovation and excellence.911 yy Four new villas were completed in 2015.912

4.5.20 Sarah Hardey, Kelmscott Sarah Hardey House opened in November 2001.913 The 64-place intermixed high and low care residential facility was designed by Edgar Idle & Wade.914 It included 32 places for secure dementia care.915 The Armadale Uniting Church parish began volunteer involvement at the new facility.916 Sarah Hardey House replaced the original 1949 Sarah Hardey Lodge at Mount Lawley, which was no longer suitable for modern aged care. Sarah Hardey (1837-1920) donated funds in 1917 to purchase the residence later remodelled for aged care in 1949. She was a devout Methodist, daughter of a founding WA Methodist family, involved in welfare work, particularly education and services for women. 917

UCH, Annual Report, 2008, p.10 Juniper, Juniper Annesley: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2017, p.2 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017; Juniper, Strategic Plan 2013-2023, March 2017, p.6 UCH, Annual Report, 2009, p.10 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.9 UCH, Annual Report, 2010, p.9 Juniper, Annual Report, 2013, p.12; 2014, p.21 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.29 Juniper, Annual Report, 2014, p.25, 26, 31; 2015, pp.2-3 Juniper, Annual Report, 2015, p.5 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 UCH, Viva Voce, No.7/99, Nov 1999, p.3 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 UCH, Annual Report, 2002 Juniper, Juniper Sarah Hardey, 2014, pp.2-3

4. Appendices

4.5.21 St Andrew’s, Balcatta St Andrew’s residential facility opened in February 1999. The facility comprised 75 units designed for integrated care. It was co-located with a new State office for UCH, Juniper Central, which opened in August 1998.918 The overall project was funded by UCH, the Federal Government and Lotterywest.919 St Andrew’s replaced Subiaco Nursing Home, which had been founded in 1965 but could no longer be upgraded to meet modern standards. Thirty-one residents transferred from Subiaco to St Andrew’s at its opening.920 St Andrew’s was the first UCH facility to operate under the 1997 government reforms to create ‘intermixed’ services with both high and low care residents.921 It was designed with Mediterranean styling to reflect the demographic profile of its local area.922 The five buildings were named for five Western Australians significant to UCA history: 923 Rev Alfred Charles Canning (1916-1982), a Methodist minister who was instrumental in establishing Subiaco Nursing Home in 1965. Jane Anne Deakin (1917-1981), a Methodist ‘Sister of the People’ working in Subiaco from the 1960s as a social worker, who together with Rev Canning founded Subiaco Nursing Home (from 1976, Jane Beck).

918 919 920 921 922 923 924 925 926

Alfred Peach Hensman (1834-1902), attorney-general to WA from 1884, who practised as a barrister and from 1892 Supreme Court Judge and is remembered for his progressive views. Subiaco Nursing Home was located on Hensman Street (cnr. Heytesbury Road), named in his honour. Rev Donald McCaskill (1917-1989), Methodist minister and army chaplain, who served in retirement as a chaplain at Rowethorpe. Agnes Robertson (1882-2968), Presbyterian lay preacher with extensive volunteer contributions, who served as Senator for Western Australia 1950-1962. Senator Robertson was a former member of Council for Presbyterian Homes for the Aged. In 1998, St Andrew’s became the first UCH facility to operate Community Care Packages, as government funding moved towards supporting more older people to remain in their own homes. Initially, UCH had funding for only 20 CCPs, all of which were offered from St Andrew’s, but this increased to 92 packages within only three years, with service spread across St Andrew’s, St David’s, Rowethorpe and Chrystal Halliday.924 The State office was expanded and upgraded in 2006, and again in 2012.925 A community garden at the facility opened in December 2015 as Juniper Gardens.926

UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.12; UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.15 Juniper, Juniper St Andrew’s: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014, p.2 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.31 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.15, 22, 31 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper file 12/05, UCH History UCH, Annual Report, 1998, p.17; 2000, p.9; 2001, (no page numbers) Juniper, Annual Report, 2006, p.8, 2013; 2012, p.11; 2013, p.13 Juniper, Annual Report, 2016, p.2

143

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

4.5.22 St David’s, Mount Lawley From the mid-1940s, Rev James Guthrie Thrum led the Presbyterian Church’s entry into aged care. In 1952, he oversaw the establishment of Braemar in East Fremantle. His attentions then turned to Mount Lawley.927

replaced by Norman Lushey, who went on to serve in a voluntary capacity until 1985 and then as Administrator until his retirement in 1992. Norm Lushey also served over 10 years on the Aged Persons Homes Board and was a key voice advocating greater centralisation of Uniting Church aged care services in the 1980s.934

A large residence that had been constructed in 1915 for Lewis Cockram was identified as suitable for residential aged care. It had been converted to a private hospital in 1936, originally Lister Hospital (under Sister Levitzki) and from 1939 St David’s Private Hospital, under Sister E.J. Thompson.928 It is believed the hospital was a maternity home.929 Interestingly, Cockram’s immediate neighbour in 1915, in a house built only a year or two earlier, had been Sarah Hardey, the Methodist whose patronage established Hardey Lodge. She lived next door to the future St David’s until her death in 1920.930

Between 1962 and 1965, 26 cottages were constructed on site, with the first double cottage occupied in 1962.935 By 1965, approximately 70 people lived on site.936 In 1970, extensions added 12 places to the hostel.937

Thrumm’s committee converted the residence and opened it as a 26-bed aged care Home in 1955.931 The first residents were 16 women and three men.932 In 1960, the dining room and kitchen were extended.933

St David’s was one of 10 aged care agencies that came under the auspices of the Aged Persons Homes Board after the formation of the Uniting Church in 1977. Its former partner facility, Braemar, elected to remain with the Continuing Presbyterian Church instead.

Oversight of Braemar and St David’s was separated into two management committees in 1961. Rev Thrum continued as Chair of the St David’s committee until 1966. He was

The 1915 residence was demolished in 1975938 to make way for the 10-storey Thrum House and St David’s Nursing Home, designed by Bollig Abbot & Partners. Thrum House comprised 106 independent living units, while the nursing home had capacity for 42 residents. Both opened in March 1976. 939

A 45-bed hostel was added at St David’s in 1986,940 followed by upgrades to Thrum House from 1988,941 and again from

927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 936 937 938 939 940 941

144

‘Brief synopsis of the Beginnings of Presbyterian Homes for the Aged’, undated (c.1967), Juniper file 12/05, UCH History Wises Post Office Directories, 1914-1949 Juniper, Juniper St David’s: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2017, p.2 Wises Post Office Directories, 1914-1921 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, 2009, pp.8-9 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History ‘Brief synopsis…’, c.1967, Juniper file 12/05 ‘UCH History’; ‘Norman C. Lushey’, notes 1994, Juniper file 12/05 ‘UCH History’; Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History Juniper, Juniper St David’s, 2017, p.2 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (online), 1974, 1977 ‘Residents of St David’s March 1976’, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History; ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History; ‘Thrum House: a new concept for retirement’, c.1975 promotional brochure, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1986, pp.123-126 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110

4. Appendices

1993.942 By this stage, St David’s catered for 87 high and low care residents in addition to managing 98 independent living units.943 Its management committee was also responsible for the establishment of Riverslea at a separate site in 1982, and worked towards constructing the independent living communities of Rose Mount at Joondanna and Dianella, which opened in the early 1990s.

All 10 floors of Thrum House were refurbished from 2000 into 2001.950 The works were timed to coincide with the 25th anniversary of the building, and a commissioning service for the ‘new’ Thrum House was held in September 2001.951

After the formation of UCH in 1992, St David’s was the administrative centre for the ‘Central’ Region, and from 1994 the ‘North’ region, as it was one of the three largest UCH facilities.944

4.5.23 Subiaco Nursing Home, Subiaco

In 1998, 16 units at St David’s were converted into serviced units, with a common lounge room.945 Soon after, a cross-over bridge was added at the second floor linking Thrum House to the hostel.946 In November 2000, St David’s Nursing Home closed, as it could no longer be upgraded to meet modern standards. Remaining residents were transferred to the new Ella Williams residential facility in Noranda.947 The 1976 nursing home building was subsequently demolished.948 Also at this time, St David’s began offering Community Care Packages, its first foray into providing home care services.949

Further major upgrading and expansion took place in 2006-07.952

In the early 1960s, Rev Alfred Canning and Methodist Sister Jane Deakin presented to the Subiaco Methodist Circuit Trust the need for nursing home accommodation in Subiaco, especially for the underprivileged. A house owned by Dr Eric Smith was subsequently purchased for $28,000. It was remodelled and extended to house 23 beds.953 The residence, on the corner of Heytesbury Road and Hensman Street, had been Dr Smith’s home and surgery for over 30 years.954 The Subiaco parish in June 1965 expressed their hope that the hospital it was creating would be ‘a place of quiet, homely beauty, where frail ladies will live in peace and security’.955 Fit-out of the hospital was undertaken by Ladies Auxiliary, all as volunteers, while men of the parish took responsibility for labouring and grounds works.956

942 UCH, Annual Report, 1993, p.21 943 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1988, pp.106-110 944 UCH, Annual Report, November 1993, p.v, vi, 1 and 1994, p.11 & inside cover; Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, interview, 2016 945 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.16 946 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History 947 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History 948 Juniper, Juniper St David’s, 2017, p.2 949 UCH, Annual Report, 2001 950 UCH, Annual Report, 2000, p.9 951 ‘Significant dates…’, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History; Invitation to commissioning, September 1991, Juniper file 12/05 UCH History 952 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.10 953 McCallum, ‘A History…’, 1985, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 954 Wises Post Office Directories, 1925-1949 955 Western Methodist, July 1965, quoted in McCallum, ‘A History…’, 1985, p.2, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 956 McCallum, ‘A History…’, 1985, p.2, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History

145

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Subiaco Memorial Hospital was opened in November 1965 by Deputy Premier, and prominent Methodist, Crawford Nalder MLA. The first matron was Enid Nichols, who served until 1974 and was remembered well by all.957 Although a local Subiaco initiative, the hospital was supported by Methodist congregations further afield. Meckering Methodist Ladies Guild began involvement with the hospital in the mid-1970s, becoming members of the Subiaco Ladies Auxiliary. The country women assisted with fundraising and also provided preserves and eggs for the annual fete. Norma Pearce even travelled from Meckering to attend quarterly meetings at Subiaco as a member of the Ladies Auxiliary.958 In 1977, Subiaco Memorial Hospital was one of 10 aged care agencies that came under the auspices of the Aged Persons Homes Board following the formation of the Uniting Church. At the time, it had 43 beds.959 The management committee had taken out a loan in the early 1970s for extensions to add a new lounge. However, spiralling inflation rates of period saw the debt escalate quickly. The Home was part of a Commonwealth Government ‘Deficit Funding Scheme’ through the 1970s but this allowed no money for maintenance or improvements.960 Towards the end of the decade, the newly formed Aged Persons Homes Board intervened to resolve the financial problems, including moving the Home to a different Commonwealth funding arrangement. By 1980, the hospital was on a sound financial footing again.961

The two UCA aged care agencies in Subiaco came together in 1984 under one management committee as Subiaco Homes. By this time, the former Congregational Homes in Bagot Road had been renamed Mayflower and the former Methodist facility was Subiaco Uniting Church Hospital, later Subiaco Nursing Home.962 The committee hoped to establish a hostel to supplement its independent living and high care facilities, but government policy did not permit this.963 Government regulations demanded increasingly high standards and by the 1990s, older nursing homes were struggling to upgrade. Subiaco Nursing Home underwent renovations in 1994,964 but the following year the local Council refused approval for upgrades to the buildings. Without upgrades, it was foreseen that the Home would soon lose its accreditation.965 Land was purchased at Balcatta and St Andrew’s was constructed to replace the Subiaco facility. In February 1999, the last 31 residents transferred to St Andrew’s, along with Subiaco staff, and Subiaco Nursing Home closed. The site was subsequently cleared.966 It was sold at auction in May 1999 for a total of $1,339,000 as four residential lots.967

957 ‘Subiaco Uniting Church Hospital’, notes from 1982 and 1996, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History; McCallum, ‘A History…’, 1985, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 958 McCallum, ‘A History…’, 1985, p.2, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 959 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1977, pp.37-39 960 ‘Subiaco Uniting Church Hospital’, notes from 1982 and 1996, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History 961 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1980, pp.82-84 962 Correspondence, 1983-1984, MN659 Acc4933A/3 963 UCA WA, Reports of Synod, 1987, pp.65-68 964 UCA, Annual Report, 1994, p.20 965 UCH, Annual Report, 1995, p.13 966 UCH, Annual Report, 1999, p.31 967 Juniper file 12/05, UCH History

146

4. Appendices

4.5.24 The Residency, Northam The Residency was acquired by UCH in August 2005.968 It was purchased from Avon Valley Development Corporation. The Corporation approached UCH, as the only other residential aged care provider in Northam, to take over the facility.969 Avon Community Development Foundation (later Corporation) was a community group with a board elected members from the general public.970 ACDF sponsored many different projects to boost employment, education and health in the region, and The Residency was one of its first initiatives. The Avon Valley shire council provided seed funding to the ACDF around 1990 to enable the project, a 50-place residential aged care facility.971 ACDF intended to provide accommodation across all levels of care, so that older people would not have to leave the region.972

4.5.25 Planned works not yet completed yy Works began in mid-2017 on a 100-place residential care facility in Martin (City of Gosnells), scheduled for completion in Spring 2018.975 The new facility has been designed to reflect the site’s historic use for horse agistment.976 yy Work began in 2017 on a 30-place residential care facility in Kununurra, a first for the town, scheduled for completion by mid-2018.977 yy Plans are underway for a 100-place residential facility at Ridgewood (City of Wanneroo), anticipated to be built in 2020.

The Residency opened in January 1995. Avon Community Development Foundation appointed EmCare Aged Care to manage the facility. In 2003, the contract was transferred to Southern Cross Care (WA), then in 2004 to UCH. Six months later, UCH purchased the facility.973 Soon after taking on the facility, UCH undertook expansion and upgrading works, which were completed in 2006.974

968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 976 977

UCH, Annual Report, 2005 Harding, Vaughan, interview, 2017 Juniper, Juniper The Residency: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014, p.2 Wheatbelt Development Commission, ‘Faces of the Wheatbelt – ACDF’, 5 April 2017; UCH, Annual Report, 2005 Juniper, Juniper The Residency, 2014, p.2 Juniper, Juniper The Residency, 2014, p.2 UCH, Annual Report, 2007, p.10 Juniper, Viva Voce, Winter 2017, p.4; Myers, Roley, notes, 2018 Juniper (media release), ‘Vision for aged care in Perth’s south revealed’, 2 May 2017 Myers, Roley, notes, 2018

147

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

4.6 Glossary ACAT

Capital Share Lease

An Aged Care Assessment Team (ACAT) helps older people, their carers and family members determine what care best meet their needs. ACAT teams are found in major metropolitan and regional hospitals and health services. Individuals can get a referral to an ACAT team from their GP.

Applies to newly constructed or extensively refurbished units in Retirement Villages. This is regulated by the Retirement Villages Act (where the Entry Contribution is large enough to warrant). This allows the resident to share in any appreciation in the value of the Unit during their term of occupancy.

Aged Care

Care Plan

Aged Care is a general term that is most identifiable with Nursing Homes, Hostel and Home Care.

Juniper consults with older people or their representatives and family members to develop an Aged Care Plan. This guides the care and services they require, to lead a good life. A Care Plan outlines the clientâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s needs, as well as aged care, services and activities they want to meet their needs.

Aged Persons Homes Board The Uniting Church body, accountable to WA Synod, that oversaw separate aged care management committees from 1977 until the creation of Uniting Church Homes in 1992.

Ageing in Place Suite of Commonwealth government funding and policy changes for aged care, introduced in 1997, which caused significant restructure across the industry.

CACPs Community Aged Care Packages (in some periods also CCPs). Introduced following the 1997 Aged Care Act, CACPs were funding packages to provide care services for older people in their own homes.

148

CMM Homes Central Methodist Mission Homes, the volunteer-based organisation that oversaw aged care for the Perth City Methodist Mission at Wesley Church from the 1940s to the formation of Uniting Church Homes in 1992. CMM Homes was the largest aged care provider to join the Uniting Church, with its Rowethorpe precinct in particular significantly larger than any other Uniting Church facility.

Consumer Directed Care (CDC) CDC is a new way care and services are delivered in the home. This gives older people the ability to have choice and flexibility in the types of care and services they can access, as well as how the service is delivered and who delivers it.

4. Appendices

Cottage Home

Dementia

Independent Living Units were previously referred to as ‘cottage homes’, sometimes collectively described as ‘retirement villages’.

Dementia encompasses a group of symptoms that are caused by disorders affecting the brain. There are many different forms of dementia. While it can affect anyone, it is more common in people over the age of 65. Not all elderly people have dementia and it should not be considered a normal part of ageing.

Daily Fees A basic daily fee is used to contribute towards residents’ daily living costs in an aged care facility. This includes meals, cleaning, laundry, heating and cooling. Everyone entering a facility will be asked to pay this fee. For some people this may be the only fee they are required to pay.

Daily Accommodation Payment (DAP) The DAP is the daily payment for accommodation costs in an Australian Government subsidised aged care facility. The payment is made periodically, and is not refundable. The Australian Government assesses residents’ income and assets. It will then advise them, and the aged care facility, if they can be asked to pay towards their accommodation costs, and how much.

Day Therapy Centre (DTC) Day Therapy Centres provide a range of Allied Health/Therapy Services to maintain physical and psychological well-being and independence. Services can include Physiotherapy, Occupational Therapy, Community Nursing and Medical Services.

EACH Extended Aged Care at Home (in some periods REACH, as the program was initially based at Rowethorpe) was a program implemented from the latter 1990s to provide high care in older people’s homes.

Entry Contribution This is the agreed amount of money a person pays to live in a Retirement Housing Community or Village.

HACC Home and Community Care Program, initiated by the 1985 Home and Community Care Act 1985, which underpinned Commonwealth funding for home care services for the next three decades.

149

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

High Care

Hotel Services

Previously, residential aged care was provided in two tiers. Residents with more complex needs or requiring extensive support were assessed as ‘high care’, a term introduced in the 1990s when it was recognised that not all ‘high care’ residents were in nursing homes. High and low care residents were supported by different funding models. The distinction between High Care and Low Care in Residential Aged Care was removed in July 2014. This enabled more flexible, simplified aged care approvals and service provision.

Also known as ‘accommodation services’, this applies to certain types of services offered within an aged care facility. These include administration, maintenance of grounds and buildings, utilities, furnishings, bedding, cleaning, waste disposal, laundry, basic toiletry goods and meals, as well as social activities and assistance in emergencies.

Home Individual residential aged care facilities were formerly described as ‘Homes’, especially in the period prior to the formation of Uniting Church Homes in 1992 when they were operated by volunteer management committees.

Home Care This service is for people who wish to remain in their own home but need assistance with everyday living tasks and activities. Packages of services can include assistance with domestic tasks, social activities, personal care, nursing, transport and Allied Health Services. Juniper’s Home Care Packages can be tailored to suit individual needs.

Hostel A term formerly used for aged care facilities providing less complex care (later referred to as ‘low care’).

150

ILU (Independent Living Unit) An Independent Living Unit is often referred to as an ILU or villa. It is an aged care accommodation unit designed for the independent, active retiree (one who requires little or no assistance with daily living).

Lease for Life The main form of occupancy in Retirement Villages with Juniper is a licence to occupy through a part-refundable entry contribution. Residents pay a contractual amount upon entry. This amount is refunded in part upon departure. Residents pay all of the costs associated with operating the Retirement Village through an additional fortnightly ‘Operating Services Fee’, otherwise called ‘fortnightly fees’ or ‘operating rent’.

Low Care Previously known as ‘hostel care’. Low Care services in residential aged care involve personal and domestic care such as washing, cleaning and laundry services. The distinction between High Care and Low Care in residential aged care was removed in July 2014. This enables more flexible, simplified aged care approvals and service provision.

4. Appendices

Management Committee

Palliative Care

Each residential facility of the Uniting Church was operated by a volunteer management committee prior to the formation of Uniting Church Homes in 1992.

Palliative Care is provided to those who have an advanced illness, with little or no prospect of cure. Palliative Care aims to achieve the best possible quality of life for the person, their family and carers.

Not-for-profit Juniper operates as a not-for-profit. This means its profits must be used to advance its express charitable purposes. Although not all not-for-profits are charities, Juniper is registered as a charity with the Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission.

Nursing Home Residential aged care facility in which residents had higher care requirements (compared with hostels) were formerly known as nursing homes. In earlier periods, they were also called ‘C-class hospitals’. Both terms were phased out in the 1990s.

Outreach and Wellness Juniper’s Outreach and Wellness program offers a range of aged care services. These include Wellness Seminars and Telehealth, as well as Podiatry sessions for people over 60 throughout Perth’s metropolitan area.

Package, Packaged Care This term applies to Home Care. A customised package of aged care services is created to suit a client’s specific and individual needs. Juniper’s Home Care Packages enable older people to live in their homes for longer. They give choice and flexibility so clients can decide the type of care that works best for them.

Personal Care Personal Care includes assistance with dressing, feeding, washing and toileting.

RAD A Refundable Accommodation Deposit (RAD) is a lumpsum payment for accommodation costs in an Australian Government-subsidised Aged Care Home. This lump sum will be refunded, minus the agreed deductions, when a resident leaves the aged care facility.

Rental Agreement Rental agreements often suit people seeking more affordable accommodation. These include rental sites with Juniper such as units in Chrystal Halliday, Euroka, Northam Cottage Homes, Pilgrim, Rowethorpe and St David’s.

Respite Respite care is a short-term care arrangement for a care recipient. This allows the carer to have a break and attend to other everyday activities. It also gives the care recipient a break from their normal routine. Respite care can be provided in the home, within a day centre or in an aged care facility.

151

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

RAS

Synod

The Regional Assessment Service (RAS) conducts a home assessment when a person requests Home and Community Care (HACC) services to identify aged care needs and suitable options.

Synod is the highest governing body of the Uniting Church in Western Australia, run on democratic lines with decisions made at an annual series of meetings. Both the group of elected representatives conducting business between meetings and the annual gathering itself are referred to as Synod. The UCA has a national Assembly overseeing Synods at State level. In this book, Synod refers to the Western Australian body.

Residential Aged Care Facility Residential aged care facilities are purpose-built to provide specialised accommodation, care and support to aged residents with a variety of care needs. They were formerly known as nursing homes or aged care hostels. All Juniper residential aged care facilities are certified by the Commonwealth Government through the Aged Care Quality Agency.

Serviced Unit These are leased units where residents can choose to receive extra support. Services include meals and refreshments; laundry services, both personal and â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;heavyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; laundry; and cleaning services. It also includes medication management and onsite assistance in case of emergency.

152

UCA Uniting Church in Australia, formed in 1977 through the union of Presbyterian, Congregational and Methodist churches.

UCH Abbreviation for Uniting Church Homes, the name of the agency from 1992 until its rebranding as Juniper in 2012.

4. Appendices

4.7 Bibliography Abbreviations: APHB – Aged Persons Homes Board ABS – Australian Bureau of Statistics SLWA – State Library of Western Australia UCA – Uniting Church in Australia UCH – Uniting Church Homes UP – University Press

Aged Care Sector Committee, ‘Red Tape Reduction Action Plan’, 2015, https://agedcare.health.gov.au/aged-carereform/aged-care-sector-committee/red-tape-reductionaction-plan Australian Institute of Health & Welfare (Gibson, Rowland, Braun & Angus), Ageing in place: before and after the 1997 aged care reforms, June 2002, AIHW Cat. No. AUS 26 http://www.aihw.gov.au/publication-detail/?id=6442467355 Barnes, Anita Joan, ‘Mount Henry Home (later known as Mt Henry Hospital)’, unpublished article, c.1999, http://purl.slwa.wa.gov.au/slwa_b3120164_1

4.7.1 Books, Articles, Reports, Brochures, Media Releases

Barnett, Kate; Abbey, Jennifer & Eyre, Jonquil, Bridging Education, Research and Clinical Care – the Teaching Nursing Home: Discussion Paper, Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide, 2011

ABS, ‘An Ageing Australia’, Year Book Australia, 2003, http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/0/ f6193189c8ad3007ca256cae0005a250?OpenDocument

Barnett, Kate; Abbey, Jennifer & Eyre, Jonquil, Implementing the Teaching Nursing Homes Initiative: Scoping Study, Australian Institute for Social Research, University of Adelaide, 2011

ABS, ‘Drug induces deaths at highest rate since late 90s’ (media release), 27 September 2017, http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/by%20 Subject/3303.0~2016~Media%20Release~Drug%20 Induced%20Deaths%20Increase%20in%202016%20 (Media%20Release)~9

Beresford, Marilyn, Uniting in Mission: The story of the merger and creation of UnitingCare West, UnitingCare West, Perth, 2011

ABS, Census 86 – Australia in Brief, Commonwealth of Australia, 1987, http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/ free.nsf/0/5BA81C2FEEF1C4A7CA25757C0011D47B/$ File/25010_1986_Aust_In_Brief.pdf

Carnell, Kate & Paterson, Ron, Review of National Aged Care Quality Regulatory Processes, presented to the Minister for Ageing, 3 October 2017, https://agedcare.health.gov.au/ quality/review-of-national-aged-care-qualityregulatory-processes

Aged Care Sector Committee, Aged Care Roadmap, March 2016, https://agedcare.health.gov.au/aged-care-reform/ aged-care-roadmap

Butler, Mark, Advanced Australia: The Politics of Ageing, Melbourne UP, Carlton Victoria, 2015

City of Bayswater, Business Plan: Major Land Transaction, Lot 16 (30) Winifred Road Bayswater, 2016 http://www.bayswater. wa.gov.au/cproot/7357/2/Mertome-Village-Business-Plan.pdf

153

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Close the Gap Campaign Steering Committee for Indigenous Health Equality, Progress and priorities report 2017, Oxfam, 2017 Cotton, Daphne, ‘Confidential Report of the Aged Person’s Homes Board Review’, January 1989, in Review of the Structure and Operations of APHB, 1988-1989, MN659 Acc4540A/16 de Boer, Rebecca, ‘Aged care policy in Australia: 1993-2015’, unpublished paper, prepared for Parliamentary Library, Canberra, 2015 Department of Health, ‘Aged Care Service List – Western Australia’, 30 June 2016, https://agedcare.health.gov.au/agedcare-service-list-western-australia-as-at-30-june-2016 Department of Health, ‘Aged Care Service List – Western Australia’, 30 June 2017, https://gen-agedcaredata.gov.au/ Resources/Access-data/2017/October/2017_Aged_Care_ Services_List

Donnellan, Angelique, ‘Nursing homes to be audited without warning, Government announces’, ABC News (online), 25 October 2017, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-25/ nursing-homes-to-be-audited-without-warning-governmentsays/9083960 , accessed 26 October 2017 Fraser, M, Superintendent of Census, Seventh Census of Western Australia, Taken for the night of 31st March 1901, Government Printer, 1903, http://hccda.ada.edu.au/pages/ WA-1901-census_02-05_5 Government of Western Australia, ‘Completion of new units for Albany seniors’, media statement, 19 March 1995, https:// www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Court/1995/03/ Completion-of-new-units-for-Albany-seniors.aspx , accessed 15 November 2017 Henderson, Ronald F., Commission of Inquiry into Poverty: Poverty in Australia: First Main Report, Volume 1, Australian Government Publishing service, Canberra, 1975

Department of Health, Home Care Packages Program: Data Report: 27 February – 30 June 2017, September 2017, https://gen-agedcaredata.gov.au/Resources/Reports-andpublications/2017/September/Home_Care_Packages_ Program_Data_Report_2017

Hugo, Graeme, ‘The Demographic Facts of Ageing in Australia’, Aged Care Financing Authority Second Annual Report, Appendix Q, July 2014, https://agedcare.health.gov.au/ageing-and-agedcare-aged-care-reform-aged-care-financing-authority/thedemographic-facts-of-ageing-in-australia

Department of Health, ‘Stocktake of Australian Government Subsidised Aged Care Places’, 30 June 2017, https://genagedcaredata.gov.au/Resources/Access-data/2017/October/ Stocktake_data_30_June_2017

Hunter, Fergus & Gordon, Michael, ‘Closing the Gap: Six of seven targets “not on track”, life expectancy gap unchanged’, Sydney Morning Herald (online), 14 February 2017, http://www. smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/closing-the-gap-sixof-seven-targets-not-on-track-life-expectancy-gap-unchanged20170213-guc7ir.html , accessed 27 October 2017

Department of Social Services, 2013-14 Concise Facts & Figures in Aged Care, October 2014 https://agedcare.health. gov.au/tools-and-resources/ageing-and-aged-care-researchand-statistics/general-ageing-and-aged-care/2013-14concise-facts-figures-in-aged-care

154

Jacobs, Albert (MLA), ‘Lotterywest grants to preserve WA’s heritage’, media statement, 4 September 2014, https:// www.mediastatements.wa.gov.au/Pages/Barnett/2014/09/ Lotterywest-grants-to-preserve-WA%E2%80%99s-heritage. aspx , accessed 9 November 2017

4. Appendices

Jalland, Pat, Old Age in Australia: A History, Melbourne UP, Melbourne Vic, 2015

Juniper, Juniper Trinity: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2015

Juniper, Annual Reports, 2013-2017

Juniper, ‘Masterplan for Juniper Rowethorpe released’, 22 December 2017, https://www.juniper.org.au/newspublications/news/masterplan-for-juniper-rowethorpereleased , accessed 1 February 2018

Juniper, Annual Report to the Synod of Western Australia 2016, http://unitingchurchwa.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/ D4-Juniper-Synod-Report1.pdf Juniper, ‘Doors open on major new service hub for Albany community’, 25 October 2017, https://www.juniper.org.au/ news-publications/news/new-albany-centre , accessed 30 October 2017 Juniper, Juniper Annesley: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2017 Juniper, Juniper Bethavon: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014 Juniper, Juniper Bethshan: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014

Juniper, ‘Vision for aged care in Perth’s south revealed’, 2 May 2017, https://www.juniper.org.au/news-publications/news/ vision-for-aged-care-in-perths-south-revealed , accessed 21 December 2017 Juniper, Viva Voce, 2013-2017 Juniper, ‘Work starts on new aged care facility in Albany’, 12 December 2017, https://www.juniper.org.au/newspublications/news/work-starts-on-new-aged-care-facility-inalbany , accessed 1 February 2018

Juniper, Juniper Cygnet: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, undated

Legislative Research Service, Department of the Parliamentary Library, Nursing Homes and Hostels Legislation Amendment Bill 1986: Digest of Bill, 86/147, November 1986 http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/ bd/1986/1986bd147.pdf

Juniper, Juniper Ella Williams: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2017

Lutton, Wesley, The Wesley Story: Centenary of the Wesley Church, Perth, Central Methodist Mission, Perth, 1970

Juniper, Juniper John Bryant: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2017

Massam, Katharine, ‘Hope is of God: The Inauguration of the Uniting Church in Australia’, in Mostert, Christiaan (ed), Hope: Challenging the Culture of Despair, ATF Press, Adelaide, 2004, pp.151-167

Juniper, Juniper Sarah Hardey: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014

Juniper, Juniper St David’s: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2017

Maytom, Darryl, ‘Final Report of the Consultancy into the Management Structure and Accountability Frameworks of Uniting Church Homes (WA)’, April 1992, in Review of the Structure and Operations of the APHB, 1990-1992 (file), MN659 Acc4540A/17

Juniper, Juniper The Residency: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014

McCallum, E., ‘A History of the Subiaco Church Hospital Ladies Auxiliary’, 1985, Juniper file 12/05, UCH History

Juniper, Juniper St Andrew’s: Information Booklet for Residents, Relatives and Friends, 2014

155

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

McIntosh, Greg & Phillips, Janet, ‘Caring for the Elderly – an Overview of Aged Care Support Services in Australia’, e-brief for Parliament of Australia website, updated 30 April 2003 http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/ Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/ Publications_Archive/archive/agedcare Menck, Clare, A Thematic History of Government Housing in Western Australia, prepared for the Department of Housing, November 2014 Menck, Clare, research for ‘Numbala Nunga’ heritage assessment, completed for State Heritage Office, June 2015 Menck, Clare, Thematic History of Western Australia (working draft), prepared for State Heritage Office, June 2017 Juniper, Strategic Plan 2013-2023, March 2017 Powell, Myee, The Rowethorpe Story, Access Press, Bassendean, 2000 Productivity Commission, Caring for Older Australians, August 2011, http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/ aged-care/report

Smith, K, Grundy, JJ & Nelson, HJ, ‘Culture at the centre of community based aged care in a remote Australian Indigenous setting: a case study of the development of Yuendumu Old People’s Programme’, Rural and Remote Health, 10/ 1422 (online), 2010 http://www.rrh.org.au/ publishedarticles/article_print_1422.pdf

156

Townsend, Lorraine, Heaven’s Special Mum, Lulu Press, 2014 Tune, David, Legislated Review of Aged Care, 2017, Department of Health, Canberra, July 2017 Tyrrell, Claire, ‘Northam Hospital demolished to make way for supermarket’, The West Australian (online), 4 August 2016, https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/video-northam-hospitaldemolished-to-make-way-for-supermarket-ng-ya-281132 , accessed 9 November 2017 UCH, Annual Reports, 1993-2012 UCH, Celebrating Sixty Years, UCH, Balcatta, 2009 UCH, The Rowethorpe Commemorative: Rowethorpe celebrates its 50th anniversary, 1961-2011, printed by UCH, 2011 UCH, Viva Voce, 1995-2004 Wells, H.A., ‘The Story of Rowethorpe’, 1976, in Juniper file 12/05, UCH History Wheatbelt Development Commission, ‘Faces of the Wheatbelt – ACDF’, 5 April 2017, http://www.wheatbelt. wa.gov.au/news/faces-wheatbelt1/ , accessed 17 Aug 2017 Wises Post Office Directories, (various years 1890s-1949) http://www.slwa.wa.gov.au/explore-discover/wa-heritage/ post-office-directories Wyatt, Ken, ‘Quality review released: Aged care assessment visits to be unannounced’, media release, 25 October 2017, http://www.health.gov.au/internet/ministers/publishing.nsf/ Content/health-mediarel-yr2017-wyatt107.htm , accessed 26 October 2017

Property Council of Australia, ‘Raising Standards in Retirement Villages: Industry commits to an 8-point improvement plan’, 3 August 2017, https://www. propertycouncil.com.au/Web/News/Articles/News_listing/ Web/Content/Media_Release/National/2017/Raising_ standards_in_retirement_villages__industry_commits_to_8point_improvement_plan.aspx , accessed 6 September 2017

The Age, ‘£1 Million Bushfires Hit WA’, 18 March 1957, p.1 https://www.newspapers.com/newspage/122022954/

4. Appendices

4.7.2 Websites Aboriginal House Names, http://www.housenameheritage. com/hnh_wsc_aboriginal.asp , accessed 10 November 2017 ABS, census data, 1991 and 2016, http://www. abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/Home/ Census?OpenDocument&ref=topBar and http://www. censusdata.abs.gov.au/census_services/getproduct/ census/2016/quickstat/5?opendocument , accessed August - October 2017 Amana Living, ‘Our Anglican Essence’, http://www. amanaliving.com.au/about/anglican-essence , accessed 13 July 2017 Australian Native Plants Society, ‘The Boronia Family’, http:// anpsa.org.au/boronia.html , accessed 10 November 2017 Baptistcare, ‘A Brief History of Baptistcare’, https://www. baptistcare.com.au/about-baptistcare/history/ , accessed 13 July 2017 Bethanie, ‘Our History’, http://www.bethanie.com.au/aboutus/history/ , accessed 13 July 2017 Blue Mountains Australia (website), ‘Glenbrook’, https://www. bluemts.com.au/info/towns/glenbrook/ , accessed 10 November 2017 Braemar Presbyterian Care, http://www.braemar.org.au/ about/our-story , accessed 13 July 2017 Brightwater, ‘Our History’, https://www.brightwatergroup. com/about-brightwater/our-history, accessed 9 August, 26 October 2017 Catholic Homes, ‘About Catholic Homes’, http://www. catholichomes.com/about/ , accessed 13 July 2017

City of Bayswater, ‘Mertome - Redevelopment’, http:// www.bayswater.wa.gov.au/about-bayswater/mertomeredevelopment , accessed 15 November 2017 Department of Health, ‘Aged care reform’, https://agedcare. health.gov.au/aged-care-reform , accessed 13 July 2017 Department of Justice, ‘Births, Deaths and Marriages’, search: Clem Leeds, http://www.bdm.dotag.wa.gov.au/_apps/ pioneersindex/default.aspx , accessed 13 November 2017 Department of Premier and Cabinet, ‘Australian Honours Search Facility’, http://itsanhonour.ase-ws-pmc.p.azurewebsites.net/ , accessed 21 August 2017 Encyclopaedia Britannica, ‘Juniper (Plant)’, https://www. britannica.com/plant/juniper , accessed 20 October 2017 Environment, Planning and Sustainable Development Directorate – Planning (ACT), ‘Search for street and suburb names’ – Elimatta, http://www.planning.act.gov.au/tools_ resources/place_search , accessed 10 November 2017 Fremantle Local Studies Collection, captions on images 1277, 2819 & 3977, http://cdm16702.contentdm.oclc.org/ cdm/search/searchterm/lockerley/order/nosort and http:// cdm16702.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/singleitem/collection/ myfirst/id/3155/rec/40 , accessed 26 October 2017 Frontier Services, ‘Our History’, https://www.frontierservices. org/about-us/our-history , accessed 1 September 2017 Gale Encyclopedia of Alternative Medicine, ‘Juniper’, http:// www.encyclopedia.com/plants-and-animals/plants/plants/ juniper#1G23435100443 , accessed 20 October 2017 Gardening Australia, ‘Plant Profile: Juniperus’, http://www.abc. net.au/gardening/stories/s1866629.htm , accessed 20 October 2017

157

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Google maps https://www.google.com.au/maps/ , accessed 18 October, 15 November 2017 Google maps, Streetview February 2010, March 2017, https://www.google.com.au/maps Heritage Council WA, P04640 Home of Peace, database entry, http://inherit.stateheritage.wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/ Details/5adbdcb3-3999-4624-97a4-580fd9b9d19c , accessed 9 August 2017 Heritage Council WA, P07072 Bethshan Lodge including original Mitchell Cottage, database entry, http://inherit.stateheritage. wa.gov.au/Public/Inventory/Details/3a0ac694-408c-4669b5a2-a155b038ad76 , accessed 10 November 2017 Juniper Group, http://juniper.com.au/index.htm , accessed 20 October 2017 Juniper, https://www.juniper.org.au/ , accessed 18 August & 20 October 2017 Little Sisters of the Poor Oceania, http://www. littlesistersofthepoor.org.au/perth1.html , accessed 13 Jul 2017 Manoah Homes, ‘Our Journey’, http://www.manoah.org.au/ history/our-journey/ , accessed 13 July 2017 MercyCare, ‘Our History’, https://www.mercycare.com.au/ about/history/ , accessed 13 July 2017 Metropolitan Cemeteries Board, record for Barry Styles, http://www2.mcb.wa.gov.au/NameSearch/details. php?id=KC00132038 , accessed 16 August 2017

158

Metropolitan Cemeteries Board, record for Beryl Grant, http://www2.mcb.wa.gov.au/NameSearch/details. php?id=KC00207574 , accessed October 2017 National Library of Australia, ‘Australian Inland Mission’, https://www.nla.gov.au/selected-library-collections/ australian-inland-mission , accessed 1 September 2017 Office of Environment & Heritage (NSW), ‘Euroka Clearing “Nye Gnoring”’, http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/heritageapp/ ViewHeritageItemDetails.aspx?id=5063234 , accessed 10 November 2017 Sisters of Nazareth, http://www.sistersofnazareth.com/ geraldton-box-2 , accessed 13 Jul 2017 SLWA catalogue listing for Russell, Jack, History of Mertome Village: The First Ten Years, Baskerville & Pratt, Dianella, 1983, http://henrietta.liswa.wa.gov.au/record=b1015304~S2 , accessed 15 November 2017 Southern Cross Care (WA) Inc, http://www.scrosswa.org.au/ about-us/an-overview/ , accessed 13 July 2017 State Records Office, search results ‘scaddan AND plantation’ https://archive.sro.wa.gov.au/index.php/search/ advanced?f=&so0=and&sq0=scaddan+AND+plantation&sf0 , accessed 19 October 2017 WA Government (Consumer Protection), ‘Retirement Villages legislation review’, https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/ consumer-protection/retirement-villages-legislation-review , accessed 6 Sept 2017

4. Appendices

4.7.3 Archival Material ABS, Census of the Commonwealth of Australia, 30 June 1947, http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/ DetailsPage/2109.01947?OpenDocument Correspondence, 1977-1979, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc6314A/10 Correspondence, 1980, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc6314A/11 Correspondence, 1980, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc6314A/12 Correspondence, 1981, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc6314A/13 Correspondence, 1981-1985, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/26 Correspondence, 1982, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc6314A/14 Correspondence, 1983-1984, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/28 Correspondence, 1983-1984, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4933A/3 Correspondence, 1984, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/29 Correspondence, 1984-1986, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/30 Correspondence, 1986-1987, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/27 Correspondence, 1988, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/31

Correspondence, 1988-1989, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/3 Correspondence, 1990-1993, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/4 Domiciliary and Home Help Services Sub-Committee, Minutes, 1985, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/97 Executive Directors Reports to the Board, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/121 Frontier Services website, 2014, archived text held by Roley Myers, Juniper Juniper file, PR & Marketing - General Juniper file 12/05, UCH History Juniper file 1301, Communications Juniper file 87330, Synod Reports 1987-1992 Landgate Mapviewer, Historical aerial photographs (Metropolitan Area), 1954, 1961, 1965, 1974, 1977, 1983, 1985, 1995, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2006, 2007, 2017, https:// maps.landgate.wa.gov.au/maps-landgate/registered/ List of subsidised homes, 1 November 1977, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4471A/148 Miscellaneous Workers Union protest leaflet, 1 March 1994, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4911A/1 Review of the Structure and Operations of the Aged Persons Homes Board, 1988-1989 (file), UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/16

159

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Review of the Structure and Operations of the Aged Persons Homes Board, 1990-1992 (file), UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/17 Second Interim Report of the Working Party reviewing the APHB, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4933A/9 UCA Synod of Western Australia, Reports and Proceedings of Synod, 1977-1993 UCA WA Newsletter & Notes, March 1989, UCA (WA) records, SLWA private archives MN659 Acc4540A/84 Uniting Church Homes Board, Synod Report, 1991

4.7.4 Oral History and Personal Communications Grant, Beryl, transcript of interview with Natalie McNee, 24 May 2016 Harding, Vaughan, interview with Clare Menck, 18 October 2017 Harding, Vaughan, notes to Clare Menck, December 2017

Myers, Roley, (Juniper), biographical notes on Vaughan Harding, 12 July 2017 Myers, Roley, (Juniper), emails to Clare Menck, 2017-2018 Myers, Roley, (Juniper), notes on current and planned projects, 30 January 2018

160

Parker, David, (Juniper), email to Roley Myers and Clare Menck, 14 November 2017 Parker, David, (Juniper), Juniper Board Members list (1987-2017), provided to Clare Menck, 2 February 2018 Patterson, Deb, transcript of interview with Natalie McNee, 5 June 2016 Robinson, Lynne, transcript of interview with Natalie McNee, 13 June 2016 Russell-Taylor, Diane, response to written interview questions from Natalie McNee, June 2016 Smith, John H., emailed comments on draft manuscript for this book, 30 January 2018 Whitaker, Chris, emailed comments on draft manuscript for this book, 28 January 2018 Wolfe, Lindsay, emailed comments on draft manuscript for this book, 25 January 2018

Lipari, Cheryl & Green (Bonham), Kerry, transcript of interview with Natalie McNee, 23 May 2016

Parker, David, (Juniper), email to Clare Menck, 15 November 2017

4. Appendices

4.8 Index Note: Appendix listings of individual Board members and 1992 management committee members have not been included in the index. They are alphabetically listed in the relevant appendices.

A Aboriginal people ��7, 12, 16, 26, 90, 92, 93, 133, 134 accountability. . . . . . . . 19, 21, 22, 30, 36, 37, 40, 43, 45, 58, 66 accounting ��18, 31, 46, 51, 52, 138 accreditation. . . . . . . . . 49, 62, 64, 65, 70, 76, 94, 112, 113, 146 active ageing ��67 advocacy . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 11, 35, 39, 42, 43, 50, 61, 62, 73, 80, 82, 83, 95, 100, See advocacy affordable housing �� 8, 91, 125, 135, 142 Aged and Community Services Australia ��83, 104 Aged and Community Services WA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 115 Aged Care Act, 1997 ��61, 65, 112, 113 Aged Care Australia ��56, 61, 62 Aged Care Development Fund ��22 aged care industry. . . . 24, 25, 38, 42, 49, 50, 59, 60, 61, 64, 65, 66, 70, 73, 75, 77, 78, 81, 94, 95, 101, 102, 106, 115

Aged Care WA �� 52, 61 Aged Persons Homes Act, 1954 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 17, 108 Aged Persons Homes Board. . . . . . 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 26, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 55, 109, 110, 117, 130, 144 ageing in place �� 72, 127, 129, 142 ageism ��69 Albany . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11, 76, 93, 104, 114, 116, 125 Albany Cottage Homes �� See Boronia Alzheimer’s disease ��26, 76, See dementia Amana Living �� 74, 86, 128 Anglican Church �� 12, 17, 86, 128, 132 Annesley, Susanna �� 142 apartments for life ��See ageing in place Apostolic Church ��17 asbestos ��72 Assembly (UCA) �� 16, 28, 92, 133, 134

Aged Care Pricing Commission ��82

asylums �� 6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 39

Aged Care Sector Committee ��95, 101

Australian Affiliation of Voluntary Care Associations. . . . . . . 43

Aged Care Services Hub, Kununurra ��116, 134

Australian Aged Care Quality Agency. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82

161

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission. . . . . . 82

Board (UCH/ Juniper). . . . . . . 45, 50, 53, 56, 61, 65, 71, 74, 84, 86, 98, 111, 112, 115, 117

Australian Inland Mission. . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 65, 109, 126, 134, See also Frontier Services

boarding houses �� 14, 40

Avon Community Development Foundation �� 76, 113, 147

bond �� 62, 82

awards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36, 65, 73, 74, 104, 111, 115, 116

Boronia ��76, 93, 114, 125 Boshart, Fred ��84, 115

Braemar �� 8, 16, 108, 109, 144

baby boomers . . . . . . . . . . 67, 81, 84, 85, 90, 98, 105, 106, 114

Brightwater. . . . . . . . . . . . . 72, 74, 86, See also Home of Peace

Baptist Church ��12, 17, 86

Bryant, Rev John ��128, 133, 136

Baptistcare ��86

Bunbury ��11

Basis of Union �� 15, 16

Busselton ��11

Bateman, John William �� 136

bylaws . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 19, 21, 32, 33, 43, 55, 111

Bayswater, City of �� 76, 113, 114, 127 bed licences . . . . . . . . . . 24, 34, 61, 71, 77, 79, 81, 91, 103, 110 Bertram, Kevin ��53 Beryl Grant Community Centre �� 93, 116, 125 Bethanie ��86, 128 Bethavon. . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 27, 29, 43, 44, 110, 114, 116, 121, 123, 136, 138 Bethshan. . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 17, 23, 27, 33, 37, 40, 43, 44, 51, 108, 110, 111, 112, 116, 117, 121, 124 Birks, Russel ��33 Blackwell, Dr John �� 22, 26, 110

162

C Cain, Rev James ��48 Canning, Rev Alfred Charles. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143, 145 care awaiting placement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See transition care Caring for Older Australians (2011). . See Productivity Commission Carinya �� 7 Carramar �� 76, 114, 127, 128 catering . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45, 46, 52, 87, 92, 95, 113, 124, 125, 129, 137, 142, 144

4. Appendices

Catholic Church ��7, 8, 12, 17 Little Sisters of the Poor �� 7 Sisters of Mercy ��86 Sisters of Nazareth �� 7 C-class hospitals �� See nursing homes, high care CCPs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See Community Aged Care Packages Central Methodist Mission. . . . . . See CMM Homes, Methodist Church – Perth Wesley Mission centralisation . . . . . . . . 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 29, 30, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 44, 45, 46, 48, 50, 54, 55, 57, 64, 69, 73, 76, 80, 86, 89, 110, 111, 144 chaplaincy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22, 31, 34, 56, 98, 99, 110, 143 charities. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 66, 80, 82, 83, 94, 95, 128 Christian faith. . . . . . . . 7, 8, 10, 15, 23, 28, 38, 39, 42, 55, 56, 58, 62, 69, 89, 98, 100 Chrystal Halliday. . . . . . 14, 17, 20, 21, 24, 25, 27, 37, 42, 43, 44, 54, 63, 109, 110, 111, 113, 119, 120, 121, 126, 130, 143

Collie ��11 Collier pine plantation �� 18, 128, 137 commercial aged care operators . . . . . . . . 12, 13, 15, 39, 66, 95, 101, 106 Communicare ��25 Community Aged Care Packages . . . 54, 63, 77, 78, 79, 91, 97, 112, 143, 145 conditions (aged care). . . . . 6, 8, 9, 12, 13, 14, 24, 26, 47, 49, 50, 52, 64, 72, 76, 92, 94, 95, 132, 140 Congregational Church. . . . 10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 45, 106, 108, 109, 128, 131, 133, 135, 136 Consumer Directed Care (CDC) ��96 consumer-directed aged care. . . . . . . 81, 82, 90, 95, 97, 101, 102, 115 convicts ��6, 7

nursing home ��14, 17, 24, 109, 116, 126, 127

cottage homes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 10, 13, 76, 108, 111, 113, 125, 127, 128, 135, 137, 138, 139, 141, 144, See also independent living units

Churches of Christ �� 8, 17, 86, 128

Cotton review, 1988-1989 �� 30, 32, 34, 110

City of Bayswater Hostel �� 76, 114, 127, 128

Cotton, Daphne �� 30, 32, 110

CMM Homes. . . . . . . . . 16, 18, 19, 23, 29, 30, 32, 33, 36, 37, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 47, 48, 108, 111, 117, 119, 121, 131, 132, 137, 138

Cousins, Rev Des ��130, 131 Crossroads �� 25, 77

Cockram, Lewis �� 144

Curtin University �� 49, 65, 72, 105

code of conduct �� 35, 60

customer satisfaction survey ��49

Chrystal Gardens �� 21, 27, 44, 110, 126

163

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

day services. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 19, 25, 26, 54, 78, 126, 134

Fairclough, Elaine ��23

Deakin, Jane Anne ��143, 145

family care. . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 12, 13, 14, 61, 81, 93, 97, 104, 133, See also home care

death . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 10, 12, 49, 59, 63, 67, 76, 92, 95, 139 dementia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 50, 71, 76, 78, 80, 81, 82, 91, 92, 97, 98, 101, 109, 111, 112, 113, 114, 123, 129, 133, 136, 141, 142 Derby. . . . . . . . . . . 11, 16, 76, 92, 109, 114, 115, 116, 133, 134 disabilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 17, 25, 33, 35, 43, 56, 81, 111, 134

fees

12, 20, 25, 28, 45, 52, 54, 61, 62, 81, 91, 102, 103, 138

finance. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 30, 32, 34, 36, 37, 38, 41, 43, 45, 46, 51, 55, 61, 70, 71, 78, 79, 80, 84, 92, 96, 138, 146 Fitzroy Crossing �� 92, 115, 133

Division of Mission & Nurture. . . 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 30, 32, 120

Fraser House . . . . . . . . 14, 17, 20, 21, 22, 27, 33, 43, 44, 47, 51, 72, 73, 109, 110, 113, 117, 121, 130, 138

Do Care ��78

Freemasons �� 128

domiciliary services �� See home care

Frontier Services . . . . . . 16, 76, 92, 114, 115, 133, 134, 135, See also Australian Inland Mission

Donovan, Warwick. . . . . . . 20, 22, 23, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 109, 111, 117, 130

G E

Geraldton . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 27, 31, 43, 80, 110, 132, 138

EACH (Extended Aged Care at Home) . . 63, 71, 77, 78, 97, 138

geriatric assessment ��25

Elimatta . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 17, 18, 21, 27, 43, 44, 45, 94, 108, 109, 110, 112, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 121, 128, 133, 136, 137

geriatric medicine ��11, 12, 83, 91, 92

Ella Williams ��71, 77, 113, 129, 145

Good Samaritan Industries ��40, 65, 77

EmCare �� 147

Gordon, Dr Douglas ��48

environmental sustainability ��100, 142

governance. . . . . . . . . . 19, 28, 29, 30, 32, 34, 37, 39, 40, 41, 43, 45, 54, 59, 64, 71, 77, 84, 92, 98, 111

Euroka . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 17, 21, 27, 43, 44, 109, 110, 119, 120, 121, 126, 130

164

Glass family �� 135

4. Appendices

government aged care policy. . . . . . 8, 10, 11, 13, 15, 23, 24, 25, 35, 43, 44, 49, 50, 54, 61, 62, 66, 71, 77, 80, 81, 83, 90, 94, 95, 96, 101, 102, 108, 111, 112, 113, 115, 130, 135, 143, 146

Harding, Vaughan . . . . . . . . . . . . 33, 35, 38, 41, 46, 50, 52, 61, 66, 71, 73, 81, 83, 85, 86, 90, 95, 96, 101, 104, 105, 107, 111, 116, 117 head office ��52

government funding. . . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 20, 23, 24, 25, 26, 43, 49, 51, 52, 54, 61, 62, 66, 70, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 96, 97, 101, 102, 103, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 114, 115, 123, 125, 127, 130, 132, 134, 135, 138, 141, 143, 146

Health Department �� 11, 51, 52, 78, 84, 124, 127, 140

government housing �� 7, 8, 10, 11, 93, 125, 126, 135

Henderson Report (1975) ��14

Grant, Beryl. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53, 57, 58, 65, 104, 112, 125

Hensman, Alfred Peach. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143

grey nomads ��67

Hicks, Rev Norman �� 139

GST. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

high care. . . . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 13, 24, 25, 47, 49, 51, 61, 63, 70, 71, 72, 76, 80, 82, 91, 98, 108, 112, 113, 128, 131, 133, 135, 138, 140, 142, 143, 145, 146

Guwardi Ngadu �� 92, 115, 133

H Hale, Rev B.D.N. ��22 Halliday, Chrystal �� 126 Halliday, Nesta �� 126

Fraser House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20, 22, 51, 73, 109, 110 Juniper Central, Balcatta. . . . . . . . 63, 95, 112, 114, 115, 143 Richardson Street, South Perth �� 51, 112, 131

Hillcrest . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 27, 29, 40, 43, 44, 110, 114, 115, 121, 132, 138 Hogan Review (2004) ��77, 113 Home and Community Care Act, 1985 ��25, 110 Home and Community Care Program (HACC) . . . . . 25, 54, 61, 77, 78, 94, 134, 135, 138

Halls Creek Frail Aged Hostel �� 92, 115, 133

home care. . . . . . . . 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, 24, 25, 26, 54, 56, 61, 70, 77, 79, 81, 82, 90, 91, 92, 95, 96, 97, 98, 102, 103, 104, 106, 109, 110, 112, 113, 126, 134, 138, 143, 145

Halls Creek People’s Church �� 92, 115, 133

Home of Peace, Subiaco ��7, 86, See also Brightwater

Hardey Lodge, Mount Lawley . . . . 8, 10, 14, 16, 27, 43, 44, 71, 80, 108, 109, 112, 113, 131, 137, 138, 142, 144

homelessness �� See housing crisis

Halls Creek �� 92, 115, 133

Hardey, Sarah ��71, 108, 131, 142, 144

Homes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . See management committees, individual facility listings

165

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

hospitals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 14, 21, 25, 26, 49, 51, 52, 54, 63, 70, 78, 108, 114, 123, 124, 127, 131, 134, 139, 140, 144

juniper (plant) ��86

Hostel Options ��54

Juniper Access ��95, 115

hostels. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 20, 22, 23, 25, 27, 35, 43, 50, 52, 54, 61, 109, 133, 134, 136, 138, See also low care

Juniper Central ��See head office

housing crisis ��7, 8, 10, 90, 93, 131 Hutchinson, Rev Jack �� 124

I incorporation �� 65, 80, 86, 113 independent living units. . . . . . . . . 13, 14, 17, 21, 22, 24, 26, 27, 35, 50, 54, 72, 80, 91, 93, 94, 95, 96, 104, 106, 108, 110, 112, 115, 125, 126, 127, 128, 130, 136, 138, 139, 144, 145, 146 industrial relations ��23, 35, 46, 52, 63, 79, 98 information technology. . . . . 34, 38, 41, 52, 54, 63, 65, 69, 76, 77, 82, 83, 106, 111, 112 institutional care �� 6, 8, 9, 13, 34, 39, 49, 85, 111 International Year of Older Persons (1999) ��66 investors (aged care) �� 12, 96, 106

Johnstone, Wendy ��33

Juniper Group (Queensland) ��87 Juniper, Robert ��87

K Kalgoorlie ��11 Katanning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17, 27, 43, 51, 80, 108, 124 Kimberley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 90, 92, 93, 104, 115, 133, See also Derby, Fitzroy Crossing, Halls Creek, Kununurra, Wyndham Kununurra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92, 115, 116, 133, 134, 147 Kununurra Community Care �� 92, 115, 133

L Leederville Homes �� See Mayflower Leeds family �� 136

Lefroy, Dr Dick ��11

Jenkins, Rev Charles A. �� 140

Levitzki, Sister �� 144

Jewish aged care ��17

LGBTI+ �� 100

John Bryant ��52, 76, 112, 113, 133

life expectancy. . . . . . . . . . . 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 26, 37, 67, 70, 81, 92

166

4. Appendices

Lister Hospital �� 144

Marlgu ��92, 111, 115, 133, 134

Litfin, Lynette ��19

Marsh, Dr Mike ��34, 110

Living Longer, Living Better �� 81, 82, 84, 96, 97, 102, 115

Martin (residential facility) ��116, 147

lobbying �� See advocacy

Mayflower. . . 14, 17, 21, 24, 43, 44, 72, 109, 110, 113, 135, 146

local communities. . . . 19, 28, 36, 37, 51, 80, 89, 108, 112, 116, 123, 124, 132, 134, 143, 147

Maytom, Daryl �� 41, 42, 111

local government. . . . . 95, 110, 112, 113, 114, 125, 127, 129, 135, 137, 146, 147

McCaskill, Rev Donald �� 143 McDougall, Kerry ��54

Lockerley �� 136

McKeown, Annie Bryson �� 125

Lockyer ��93, 125

McNess Housing Scheme �� 8

Lotteries Commission ��9, 45, 79, 123, 132, 143

McPherson, Win ��50

low care. . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 15, 24, 51, 61, 63, 71, 72, 78, 80, 82, 91, 112, 113, 114, 123, 124, 127, 131, 132, 133, 134, 137, 140, 142, 143, 145

Meckering �� 146

low-income older people. . . . 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 23, 24, 26, 36, 61, 80, 81, 90, 91, 92, 102, 106, 145 lunatic asylum. . . . . . . . . . . See Fremantle Old Women’s Home Lushey, Norman C. ��31, 144 Lutton, Wesley ��48

M management committees (Homes) . . . . 16, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 37, 39, 40, 42, 43, 45, 47, 48, 108, 110, 111, 117, 123, 124, 125, 126, 128, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 137, 144, 145, 146 market. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79, 81, 84, 90, 95, 97, 98, 101, 106, 126

media ��34, 64, 89, 94, 96 Mellows, Noel �� 132 men . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 26, 67, 69, 95, 110, 132, 135, 145 MercyCare ��86, 103 merger (UCH). . . See centralisation, restructure, regionalisation Mertome ��76, 78, 114, 127 Methodist Church . . . . 7, 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 18, 21, 23, 80, 106, 108, 109, 117, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 141, 142, 143, See also CMM Homes Fremantle Mission �� 7, 129 Methodist Sisters. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 10, 129, 143, 145 missions (general) ��40 Perth Wesley Mission. . . . . . . . . . 8, 10, 16, 18, 40, 44, 78, 108, 131, 132, 137, 140

167

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Middleton, Keith �� 36, 108, 111

not-for-profit �� See charities

migrants �� 6, 63, 83

nursing homes. . . . . . . 11, 12, 13, 14, 16, 17, 21, 24, 25, 27, 34, 35, 44, 49, 50, 51, 61, 71, 72, 95, 108, 110, 112, 124, 126, 134, 138, 139, 140, 145, 146, See also high care

Mill Point Centre �� 130 mission statement ��43, 56, 58, 59, 60, 98, 101, 111 Mofflyn ��43

Monks, Geoffrey �� 137

Oakden �� 94, 95

Mount Eliza Old Men’s Home �� 7

occupational health and safety. . 35, 49, 53, 75, 104, 113, 115

Mount Henry Home for the Aged �� 7, 9, 11, 13, 52

Ottaway, Vern ��123, 136

My Aged Care �� 82, 95, 102

P N National Association for Senior Adult Care ��51 New Norcia ��56 New South Wales �� 8, 12, 51 Ngamang Bawoona �� 92, 115, 133, 134 Nichols, Enid �� 146 Noonan, Sr Anne ��56 Noranda Village �� 76, 114, 127, 128 Northam . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 27, 31, 43, 76, 80, 110, 113, 114, 123, 135, 138, 147 Northam Cottage Homes �� 76, 114, 135 Numbala Nunga ��11, 16, 92, 109, 115, 133, 134

168

parishes. . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 19, 25, 26, 28, 35, 40, 42, 46, 57, 71, 74, 89, 108, 126, 128, 129, 130, 133, 136, 142, 145, 146 Parkside �� See Bethshan Parrick, Brian ��46 Pastoral and Spiritual Care Services ��See chaplaincy Patterson, Deb ��74, 104 Pearce, Norma �� 146 pensions �� 7, 8, 10, 61, 102, 138 Perth Poorhouse �� 7 Pilgrim House. . . . . . . . 10, 17, 21, 27, 43, 44, 45, 108, 109, 112, 114, 117, 119, 120, 128, 133, 136 poverty. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 20, 23, 24, 92, 93, 125, 145

4. Appendices

Preece, Barry �� 117

regions (UCH). . . . . . . . . . . 44, 94, 111, 112, 113, 126, 138, 145

Presbyterian Church. . . . 8, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 21, 23, 26, 31, 106, 108, 109, 124, 126, 130, 131, 132, 134, 143, 144

regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 15, 16, 24, 25, 35, 37, 44, 51, 52, 62, 64, 70, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 94, 101, 110, 115, 132, 146

Prestage Sullivan Foundation ��22

rehabilitation �� 11, 12, 14, 49, 56, 78, 92, 123

Productivity Commission report (2011) ��81, 82, 102, 115 professionalisation. . . . . 28, 32, 36, 37, 39, 60, 66, 71, 80, 111 property ownership. . . 36, 37, 43, 65, 124, 126, 127, 130, 131, 132, 135, 136, 137, 145, 146 Property Trust �� 19, 36, 43, 65 public image. . . . . . . . . 20, 21, 34, 42, 50, 64, 79, 85, 86, 90, 95, 99, 101 publications �� 34, 57

Q Queensland ��51, 80, 87 quotas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34, 61, 71, 77, 79, 81, 98, 102, 103, 110

Residency, Northam ��76, 113, 114, 136, 147 resident contributions �� See fees residential facilities . . . . . . 7, 12, 13, 17, 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 31, 34, 38, 50, 52, 54, 60, 63, 64, 70, 71, 73, 77, 78, 79, 80, 82, 85, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 98, 102, 103, 104, 108, 110, 111, 113, 116, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 133, 134, 139, 142, 143, 144, 147, See also nursing homes, hostels, low care, high care residents. . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 9, 14, 20, 23, 25, 26, 28, 35, 39, 43, 45, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 56, 59, 61, 72, 73, 80, 90, 91, 94, 96, 98, 106, 124, 129, 133, 135, 138, 145 Residents Delegates Forum ��50 residents’ rights �� 35, 49, 96, 111, 115 respite care �� 106

R REACH ��See EACH rebranding �� 60, 84, 85, 115 red tape ��22, 35, 82, 94, 95 Reformed churches ��12 regionalisation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28, 29, 42, 44, 110, 111, 112, See also centralisation, working party

restructure . . . . . . . . . . 25, 28, 34, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 81, 84, 91, 110, 111, 112, 140 retirement villages �� See independent living units Retirement Villages Act �� 50, 95 Reynolds, Lynne ��53 Rickards, Matron �� 131 Ridgewood (residential facility) ��116, 147

169

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Riverslea. . . . . . . . . . . . 21, 27, 43, 44, 46, 52, 110, 113, 118, 119, 136, 137, 145

North Terrace. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 139

Roberts, Terry �� 22, 34

Rivergum Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109, 140

pharmacy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 Ron Wilson House. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93, 115, 142

Robertson, Agnes �� 143

Rowethorpe Nursing Centre �� 109 Simulation Centre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104, 115, 142

robotics �� 106

South Court Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 113, 139

Ronalds Report (1989) �� 34, 35, 111

South Terrace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 139 Sutton Centre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109, 114, 140

Rose Mount ��44, 111, 112, 137, 145

Terrace Café �� 142

Rotary �� 132

Tranby Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 109, 141 Trinity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110, 141

Rowe, Rev G.E. �� 137 Rowethorpe . . . . . . . . . 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 36, 42, 43, 44, 46, 47, 48, 50, 51, 53, 54, 63, 71, 72, 76, 83, 90, 93, 104, 108, 109, 110, 112, 113, 115, 116, 131, 137, 143, See also CMM Homes

Wesley Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114, 142 RSL Care �� 128 Ryan, Terry ��34

administration block. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72, 109, 114, 140 Annesley. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72, 90, 114, 115, 142 bowling green �� 141 Centenary Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 109, 114, 140

Chapel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111, 141

Salisbury Retreat �� 76, 114, 127, 128

Charles Jenkins. . . . . . . . 11, 71, 72, 109, 113, 114, 116, 140

Salvation Army ��17

Claudia Hicks. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 109, 113, 139, 140 commercial kitchen �� 142 cottages. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137, 139, 141, 142 Cygnet Lodge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76, 111, 139, 141 Hakea Place. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26, 111, 141 Hilltop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90, 108, 109, 136, 139, 140 Jacaranda Ridge ��114, 141 John Wesley . . . . . . . . . . 14, 72, 109, 110, 114, 140, 141, 142 library . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140 medical centre. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83, 114, 115, 140 North Court Units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108, 113, 139

170

Sarah Hardey Lodge, Mount Lawley �� See Hardey Lodge Sarah Hardey, Kelmscott �� 113 Scaddan pine plantation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 128, 137 scandal �� 34, 94, 111 Scottish Masonic Homes �� 128 serviced units. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54, 80, 112, 113, 126, 138, 145 Seventh Day Adventist Church ��17, 103

4. Appendices

Shallcross, Rev Allan ��22

Styles, Barry ��63

Silver Chain �� 124

Styles, Tom �� 74, 112, 113

sixtieth anniversary (2009) ��80, 114

Subiaco Congregational Homes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . See Mayflower

smaller service providers. . . . . 12, 18, 35, 64, 75, 80, 104, 138

Subiaco Homes . . . . . . 21, 24, 33, 43, 110, 117, 121, 135, 146, See also Subiaco Nursing Home, Mayflower

Smith, Dr Eric �� 145 social work ��11

Subiaco Nursing Home. . . . . . 11, 17, 20, 21, 24, 43, 44, 62, 63, 108, 110, 112, 113, 135, 143, 145

South Australia ��94

subsidies ��See government funding

Southern Cross Care �� 147

Sunset Hospital ��7, 11, 13, 52

St Andrew’s. . . . . . . . 58, 63, 71, 77, 89, 112, 113, 115, 143, 146

Sutton, Dorothy ��48, 137

Juniper Gardens ��115, 143

Sutton, Rev Ralph �� 48, 109, 137

St David’s. . . . . . . . 10, 14, 17, 21, 23, 27, 30, 31, 42, 43, 44, 51, 64, 108, 109, 110, 114, 118, 119, 121, 126, 137, 143, 144

Swan Care �� 18, 94, 138

nursing home. . . . . . 14, 17, 62, 71, 109, 113, 129, 144, 145

Swan Cottage Homes ��See Swan Care

Thrum House ��14, 108, 109, 112, 144, 145 St David’s Private Hospital �� 144 St Ives ��72 staff. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12, 15, 17, 21, 23, 31, 32, 34, 35, 36, 37, 41, 43, 45, 46, 47, 49, 50, 52, 54, 56, 57, 58, 60, 62, 63, 64, 70, 73, 74, 76, 78, 79, 80, 81, 83, 85, 86, 89, 98, 105, 113, 132, 133, 141 staff shortages. . . . . 35, 52, 70, 73, 78, 79, 80, 81, 85, 98, 106 standardisation . . . . . . . . . . . 18, 22, 31, 34, 46, 64, 83, 89, 140 standards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 24, 26, 41, 46, 49, 60, 72, 96 strategic planning. . . . . 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 41, 43, 46, 55, 59, 64, 65, 66, 69, 71, 81, 83, 90, 92, 94, 97, 98, 106, 111, 115 study tours �� 66, 83

Synod. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16, 17, 18, 19, 21, 22, 28, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 46, 48, 60, 63, 65, 77, 79, 101, 111, 113, 137

T teaching nursing homes ��72, 104, 106, 115, 142 tension. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7, 11, 22, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 47, 48, 64, 85, 86, 94, 128, 138 The Pines �� 124 Thompson, Alex MP �� 124 Thompson, Sister E.J. �� 144 Thrum, Rev James Guthrie �� 31, 108, 144

171

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

Tietzel, Rev Deane ��22

training. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41, 46, 53, 57, 63, 65, 70, 72, 73, 79, 83, 98, 100, 102, 104, 106, 116, 123, 140

war. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5, 8, 12, 67, 69, 131

Tranby �� 78, 114, 127 transition care ��116, 127, 140

Weir, Harry �� 132 Wesleycare ��25 Whitaker, Dr Chris ��34, 35, 38, 53, 111, 112

U Uniting Church. . . . . . . 15, 16, 17, 22, 28, 31, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40, 43, 51, 54, 55, 62, 65, 71, 74, 77, 79, 80, 85, 86, 89, 90, 98, 99, 100, 101, 109, 123, 124, 126, 128, 130, 131, 133, 135, 136, 138, 142, 144, 146

Williams, Sr Ella Cavell �� 129 Wilson, Sir Ronald ��93, 142 Wolfe, Lindsay ��74, 84, 113, 115 women. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 26, 67, 69, 71, 76, 93, 95, 108, 129, 131, 132, 135, 142, 145, 146 Woodbridge House ��7, 9

Uniting Community Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78, 79, 80, 114, 142

workers compensation ��74

Uniting Community Services Australia ��61

working party (1983-1985, re APHB role) �� 28, 29, 110

UnitingCare ��77, 80, 81, 82, 113

Wyatt, Ken ��94

UnitingCare West �� 42, 77, 93, 114, 125

Wyndham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92, 104, 111, 115, 133, 134

user-pays aged care �� 61, 66, 112

Wyndham Aged & Disabled Services. . . . . . . . 134, See Marlgu

V values. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23, 36, 39, 40, 41, 43, 55, 63, 74, 79, 89, 95, 98, 101, 112, 114 Victoria ��10 volunteers. . . . . . . . . . . 16, 20, 23, 25, 28, 30, 32, 36, 37, 39, 41, 42, 45, 48, 51, 53, 57, 65, 71, 75, 78, 79, 80, 89, 99, 124, 125, 126, 131, 135, 136, 140, 142, 143, 144, 145

172

Uniting Church Homes Board (1989-1992). . 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 29, 31, 40, 82, 86

ON MISSION - A history of the development of Juniper - a Uniting Church Community

JUNIPER, formerly Uniting Church Homes, began as independent aged care services, the first of which opened in 1949.

A HISTORY OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF JUNIPER A UNITING CHURCH COMMUNITY