An independent review of the Phoenix Centre shows there are significant concerns about the effectiveness of the service - not only within the Ministry of Education, but also among some schools, health and social services, and Resource Teachers of Learning and Behaviour.
This week, the ministry announced it would close the centre at the end of term 1, ending a service which has helped up to 40 secondary school pupils with behavioural problems each year for the past decade.
The review, by Psychology Reports Ltd, showed the behaviour modification programme was endorsed by most, but not all, schools.
One school representative said the programme needed to better reflect the interconnection between behaviour and learning, the report said.
"A key concern with a reduced focus on learning was that in the current programme, students would be educationally further disadvantaged by attending the Phoenix Centre programme."
Health, mental health, social service agencies and some school representatives were also concerned the Phoenix Centre did not have the resources to meet the wider needs of pupils with severe behaviour problems.
These pupils were reported by schools as having extremely serious and long-established problems across home, school and community settings.
"Their chaotic home situation and/or their involvement in a deviant peer group outside of the school were identified as factors that were beyond the programme's ability to address."
The higher stand-down and suspension rates among Maori and Pasifika pupils in the Dunedin area were also identified as issues the programme needed to address.
Schools generally agreed the outcomes of the programme were positive.
They provided examples of pupils who had reintegrated successfully into school and had remained at school following the programme.
Pupils who had been less successful were reported by schools as having been maintained for longer in the school system.
However, the reviewer was concerned the centre did not collect long term follow-up data, which meant it could only provide weak evidence of the effectiveness of its interventions.
The outcome information "appeared flawed" because it did not cover stand-downs and suspensions or provide information about the numbers of pupils who had ongoing behavioural difficulties, attended alternative programmes or gone on to change schools after the Phoenix Centre.
"Their attendance at school was based on a wider set of factors and could not therefore simply be attributed to the success of the Phoenix Programme."
The report also raised concerns about the criterion for pupils to begin transition back to their local school.
Pupils were allowed to return to school when they met the individual behavioural and social objectives required for successful reintegration.
This was determined on a case-by-case basis by programme staff and consultation with schools.
The report showed some differences in actual practice, with pupil objectives frequently appearing poorly defined, and unable and unlikely to be systematically assessed.
"The ability for the programme providers, students and schools to determine whether the student has achieved the goals required of them as a base for successful transition appears, under these circumstances, to be seriously compromised," the report said.
