Sunday, November 24, 2013

CPAG make me choke

I am "stunned" by the audacity of the Child Poverty Action Group in their comments about the error in CYF data collection and reporting.

Child Poverty Action Group researcher Donna Wynd said she was "stunned" to learn of the massive under-reporting.
Wynd has recently  (inadvertently?) been involved in her own case of massive under-reporting.

In their latest analysis of CYF abuse data, the percentage of children with a substantiated finding of abuse living in each site office area was under calculated by 10 times.

Originally their report stated, '...the proportion of 0-17 year olds who were victims of abuse in Papakura was not 4.0% but 0.40 of 1%.' "

In fact the proportion was 4 percent (608 distinct cases in an estimated 0-17 population of 14,413). The flawed methodology was repeated for every CYF site office recorded.

Then they calculated the rate of benefit dependence using the total population rather than the relevant 18-64 population resulting in another "massive under-report".

Ministry chief executive Brendan Boyle said data from 2011 onwards was affected. "The initial review of data shows a margin of error mainly around 2 to 3 per cent, up to 8 per cent."
Donna Wynd of Child Poverty Action said: "All they're doing is keeping a tally. How you can make such a simple error?"

Goodness Donna. So much charity.

Finally, even the Herald on Sunday account is ironically a "massive under-report",

Child, Youth and Family is to reveal this week the true extent of abuse, after finding it has been under-reporting notifications by as much as 8 per cent. The number in the past year is believed to be between 1,000 and 4,000 more than the 49,398 reported.
From memory (the data is currently off-line) there were 121,000 notifications in the last year available. 49,398 will refer to those requiring follow-up I imagine. The actual number of substantiated findings in 2011/12 was 21,526.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

But if they admitted the data was wrong, it logically follows that their policies are wrong, and they would have to accept (indeed support) the only economically and mathematically coherent welfare policy:

abolishing all welfare and benefits