It should be noted that when a child's name was not matched on the SWIFTT child index, this did not guarantee that the caregiver was not in receipt of a current benefit. A failure to match may have arisen where a child had alternative names or where there was a variation in spelling. As Table 1 shows, the young person's name and details were matched on SWIFTT in 82% of the care and protection (notifications).
In my experience it is not at all uncommon for children of beneficiaries to have different surnames from their caregiver. DPB children carry a departed father's name. So the match could easily go considerably higher than 82%.
Having said that, not all those caregivers were currently on a benefit and could conceivably have never been on a benefit but receiving supplementary assistance only. But key here is that 'clients' of CYFS are nearly always 'clients' of Work and Income.
Which brings me back to Bradford's bill. If she is really so hellbent on stopping child abuse why isn't she focusing on the known culprits? I think we all know the answer to that. Beneficiaries are her constituency. She can't say beneficiary parents are mainly to blame so she has to say all parents are to blame. (I should break here to wash my mouth out with soap for use of that blasphemous word 'blame').
If a teacher decides to punish an entire class for the misdemeanors of one culprit, should the innocent pupils feel angry at the teacher or the offender? Because that scenario is an analogy for what is going on in this country - time and time again. We are all persecuted for the sins of a small minority. And I am very bloody angry at both...not to mention the mottley band of masochists egging the teacher on.
5 comments:
Great post again, Lindsay, and a point perfectly illustrated.
You've done some beauties this week.
Thank you PC. I honestly feel like I am hitting my head against the proverbial brickwall with this one. The longer I hit it, the harder I hit it. Being, unusually, of the majority opinion just makes it worse.
I think that a law against smacking kids is a great thing when it is done for its own sake - for protecting kids. What you are showing however, seems to indicate that it is done to gloss over another problem, the problem of welfare abuse. While I still think that an anti-smacking bill is a good idea, it seems to be passed for the wrong reasons here. Very interesting post!
Lindsay,
aren't you making exactly the same kind of error in your reasoning?
"If a teacher decides to punish an entire class for the misdemeanors of one culprit, should the innocent pupils feel angry at the teacher or the offender? Because that scenario is an analogy for what is going on in this country - time and time again."
Now, your evidence shows that the probability that a child has a SWN given that the child is abused is high. Thus:
P(SWN) given (abused)= .8
To conclude from this that the reverse relationship also holds is to fall into what is known as the "prosecutor's fallacy"; in this case:
P(abused) given (SWN) = .8
which is simply false.
Are you not trying to punish an entire class (beneficiaries) for the misdemeanors of (a group of) culprits??
Who said anything about punishing all beneficiaries? What I am saying is that research has been conducted at various times which shows where most of the problems lie. This piece is merely corroborative to others I have presented. Within the broad group of beneficiaries there is a subgroup more likely to present. Very young, single mothers, with little education, often Maori. The abuse or neglect may not come from the primary caregiver but a 'step-father'.
ALL beneficiaries, a majority, are not child abusers. Most (known) child abusers are, however, beneficiaries, usually a particular profile of beneficiary. That's where I want Bradford to focus her attentions.
Post a Comment