"Nanny state in danger of being replaced by the bully state"

I have touched earlier this week on the series that the Taranki Daily News has been running on child poverty. Someone (thank you) sent me this link to today's paper. The article describes how beneficiary parents are turning up at budgeting advice simply to get the tick they need to stay eligible for their benefit. You can take a horse to water etc. But while I was looking at that I also noticed this editorial by Gordon Brown (ironic name) which really hits the nail on the head.

Worth reproducing in full:

What a chord Saturday's stories about Waitara Central school principal Sharren Read struck. It was all about the "poverty" that exists among those who go to her school and how she and other committed staff members deal with it. She told it pretty much as it is, which was refreshing in itself, but what a desperately sad story it was as she drew a picture of what was going on.

"Kids come to school simply to be fed. With help from Fonterra and Sanitarium for two days a week, which means the school fundraises to pay for the rest, children are given a free breakfast every morning. Lunch is also available to the neediest ones. "Some probably slept for a few hours amid the noise of partying, boozing and drugs. "They fight for a space to curl up on the mattress they are sharing with four siblings, sharing one urine-soiled blanket. They might get to school on a Monday because a teacher picked them up. Mum was still drunk from the Sunday night binge session."

There was more, much more sordid detail, but that's enough to go on with. You get the picture. Ms Read and other like-minded colleagues do their best to make a difference and they should be congratulated for what they do. Some of Ms Read's quotes are worth further examination. "We have one child that often won't be at school on a Monday and we're now aware it's because mum is coming down from the weekend and needs the kid to be home to help out," she said. It was revealed, which will be startling to many, that some families receive a benefit of about $750 a week. "The problem is the mismanagement of those funds." Let's start with that first quote.

Mum (no mention of a dad, of course) is presumably coming down from partying during the weekend. Booze, drugs and who knows what else is cited as part of the lifestyle. Therefore, the child has to stay home from school to "help out". That is a form of child abuse, nothing less. I wonder when mum was last prosecuted under the truancy laws. Anyone disagree with the answer: never? On to the second, and perhaps most revealing, quote in the article.

Ms Read courageously points the finger exactly where it belongs, at those self-indulgent, greedy parents who shamelessly squander money on themselves, rather than their children. It amounts to theft. Taxpayers gave that money to them to look after the children. As always, it is important to point out that not every recipient of government benefits does that. Some do a fine job under difficult circumstances and work hard to better themselves. The accurate, but unpalatable, message from Ms Read that some parents not only contribute to the "poverty" the children exist in, but are also the main reason for it, will have the apologists and do- gooders scrambling to attack the very notion that the noble oppressed classes could actually be the problem.

But Ms Read and deputy principal Emma Burleigh are the heroes in this debate, so rather than attack them and risk the wrath of right-minded people, no doubt those who know best will abuse columnists such as myself for merely having the temerity to agree with the sentiments expressed. As usual there will be personal observations, insults and much claiming of some self-created moral high ground from which their missives will be fired. The only thing missing will be facts and a willingness to debate the specific issues. Often the outraged letter writers will have a vested interest in prolonging the "poverty" state, but invariably that is never mentioned.

The nanny state is in danger of being replaced by the bully state, where those who don't toe the party line that everything is the state's fault and beneficiaries are victims, quickly become targeted with just one aim - to shut the dissenting voice down. One thing Ms Read said does require a rebuttal is "that shops that allow families with little to take on debt through hire- purchase are making the problem worse". It is not the shops' fault, it is the people who buy the big television sets when they can't afford them that are the problem. It is the same as the shoplifters and their apologists blaming retailers for displaying their goods in such an attractive manner that theft was inevitable. Wrong. For every action, there is a consequence and every one of us makes our decisions and are accountable for them. Simple as that.

Rift over reform

I see Trevor Mallard is now getting it in the neck from The Standard over his allusion to UK Labour taking up the welfare reform cause.

The welfare system isn’t broken – unless you count the 40% of 65 and 66 year olds who are getting a pension while being employed.  The point of the welfare system is to do what any civilised society ought to do: provide some basic support to those who are unable to work due to sickness or injury and to those who want to work but find none is available. It does that at a cost of $5 per day each.
The system works because when there are jobs to be had people go off the dole and into work. Employment growth under Labour dramatically reduced the number on the dole to just 17,000. Long-term unemployment recipients numbered a couple of thousand. The numbers on other benefits only rose in line with population and demographics. Overall, Labour got 100,000 people off benefits. Now, its gone up 60,000 under National. Why? Not because anything’s changed about benefits. Because there’s no fucken jobs.

The problem with these observations is the assumption that the high number of people on other benefits when Labour took over was OK.  It wasn't. The phenomenal rise in dependency - DPB and SB and IB - occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. That has to be reversed.

Decisions, decisions

A new year. Back to work today. I have three commissions to complete. Did a stock-take on business done since opening last November. Have completed 57 commissions and sold 7 paintings off the wall. Portraits of people unknown to the viewer are not easy to sell but I have proved there is a good market for commissions of pets and grandchildren. Problem. I am not charging enough to make a profit. Because I have overheads to meet I am very reluctant to raise my prices. If I price my work at a level where it will return a viable profit I honestly don't think I will get the same number of commissions. So I have options. Return to working from home with only marketing overheads but no shop window. Go into an arrangement with a nearby gallery to preserve my presence and work from there part-time. Or stay put and charge more. I am pretty certain what I will do. But at the same time prevaricating.....I'll pay another months rent and then make my mind up....

Here's a painting from earlier last year. It is a composite. That is, made up from three different photographs.

Tackling disability dependence is one of the most difficult tasks facing govts

News out of Britain is Boris Johnson has attacked Conservative plans to reform disability payments. This blog links to media coverage about how the Mayor of London made a critical submission on a forthcoming reform bill which was only uncovered under the Freedom of Information Act. Naturally some very vulnerable people are afraid of what 'cuts' may mean for them and they have my sympathy. But what can governments do about the disproportionate rise of the numbers of people on incapacity benefits? Simply let the dependency rate continue to rise? It's a phenomenon that has occurred across many developed countries.

The following graphs depict NZ's growth in Invalid and Sickness benefits from 1973 to the present. Unfortunately the first is absolute numbers whereas the second two are as a percentage of the working age population.

The growth prompted commissioned research published in 2005 by MSD. Here are the concluding remarks:

Our findings answer many important questions about the growth in IB and SB and the people who receive these benefits.

We find no simple, single explanation for the growth that occurred over the decade to 2002 in numbers receiving IB and SB. The dynamics of growth were different for the two benefits, and varied over time and between subgroups.

Growth in inflows has been an important driver of growth for both benefits. While much of the growth in inflows was inevitable given changes in the size and structure of the population and the increase in the age of eligibility for NZS, more than half cannot be explained by these factors and reflects an increase in the proportion of the population aged 15–59 coming on to the benefits. For SB, most of this growth was due to an increase in entries from outside the benefit system (but when we examine the recent growth between 1999 and 2002, increased transfers from within the benefit system account for 28% of the increase). For IB, entries from outside the benefit system and transfers from inside the benefit system both contributed to the growth. Growth in transfers accounted for 60% of the 1993–2002 increase in the proportion of the population aged 15–59 coming on to that benefit.

The long stays of IB entrants converted sustained growth in inflows into rapid growth in numbers in receipt.  Even though the duration of stays on IB did not increase between the beginning and the end of the decade, duration played a key role in generating the growth that occurred. 

1.1        Possible causal processes

Why did SB and IB inflows grow in the context of a general improvement in economic conditions?

Some of the possible explanations relate to changes in policy and administration, which appear to have shifted people with incapacities on to IB and SB from other parts of the benefit system.

Other possible explanations relate to changes in the structure and intensity of employment which may have caused employment opportunities for people with ill-health and disabilities to worsen in spite of the improvement in overall employment conditions. Analysis of the New Zealand Disability Survey suggests that the presence of a disability reduces an individual’s probability of full-time employment to less than half that for a non-disabled individual with similar demographic characteristics, and that employment disadvantage is particularly notable for those experiencing psychological or psychiatric disabilities (Jensen et al 2005).   

Yet another set of possible explanations relate to changes in the way that qualifying incapacities were interpreted or administered. Determining whether an individual is sufficiently incapacitated to qualify for IB or SB is not straightforward (Lennan 2000). The eligibility criteria are subject to interpretation and a range of factors other than medical eligibility may influence the decisions of assessing doctors (White 2000). Given this, changes in the way in which doctors interpreted the medical criteria for entry could have increased the proportion of the population viewed as having qualifying incapacities.

A final set of possible explanations relate to changes in the prevalence of incapacity.

Growing numbers of people were coming on to SB and IB with a mental illness. The increase is consistent with trends in other developed countries. Comparisons of the prevalence of mental illnesses over time are difficult to make but rates may have been rising.  Possible contributors include an increasing prevalence of stressors such as financial hardship and social isolation. New Zealand drug surveys also indicate a significant increase in the use of amphetamine and methamphetamine between 1998 and 2001. This can lead to a range of psychological disorders, including deep depression and symptoms that may be indistinguishable from schizophrenia, as well as physical disorders such as stroke and respiratory problems (EACD 2002).

We observe patterns of growth that are consistent with the likely effects of the current rise in the prevalence of diabetes. The associated growth in obesity may also be contributing to the growth in numbers of people coming on to SB and IB with musculoskeletal conditions.

Some of the growth in IB and SB might be due to the effects on health of long-term unemployment.

Growth in IB inflow rates was more rapid for those aged 30–39 and 40–49 than for those aged 15–19 and 20–29. There is something different about the cohorts that experienced the economic restructuring of the 1980s and early 1990s in their early to middle years compared to those that entered the labour market either during or after the restructuring.

Our findings show disparities in mortality across ethnic subgroups that are consistent with those found in the New Zealand Census Mortality Study (Ajwani et al 2003). This study found that while life expectancy improved dramatically for Europeans over the two decades to 1999 it was static for Māori and Pacific peoples, the ethnic groups most affected by economic restructuring. The main driver of the divergent trends was higher chronic disease mortality in middle and older ages for Māori and Pacific peoples.

The 1998 National Heath Committee report on the determinants of health in New Zealand suggested that, despite an overall improvement in population health status, socio-economic inequalities in health had not decreased over the preceding two decades and may even have been increasing (National Advisory Committee on Health and Disability 1998). SB and IB trends over the decade to 2002 may partly reflect worsening health status for some groups in New Zealand society.

Principals on hungry children

For some time it has seemed to me that the general public has stopped buying into the idea that poor, hungry children simply need more money given to them by the government. The parties promoting this during the election did not find favour. OK, it could be argued that the Green vote increased but I don't think it was due to their policy to increase benefits. I recently talked to the previous local Green candidate - the one I campaigned alongside in 2005 and 2008 - and even she felt it was a weak policy. Coincidently she was a teacher.

The Taranaki Daily News has spoken to a few principals at low decile schools and heard the following:

Waitara Central principal Sharren Read says mismanagement of income and unaffordable debt mean basic needs like housing suffer. 

Devon Intermediate principal Fiona Parkinson says her students come from all walks of life and there are families attending the school bordering on poverty.
"It comes back to the Government and their priorities for spending. The issue is a societal one – not just a school one – and it needs to be addressed at a high level. It's to do with the support given to families and isn't just a case of throwing money at them," she says.

Good. Some sense at least.

High incomes funded through forcible removal of OPI

This guy Marryatt has little judgement or empathy. I don't usually find myself amongst those dragging down people who earn high incomes, but when it comes to incomes funded through forcible removal of other people's incomes, I get very toey. I sent this to the DomPost:

Christchurch Council's chief executive, Tony Marryatt, says his salary is based on market rates. This defence ignores that local and central government jobs are funded from compulsory taxes or rates. Christchurch citizens have no recourse should they object to Mr Marryatt's salary or increase. To be fair, in monopolistic circumstances the customer may also lack a voice but generally, in the market, an aggrieved customer or shareholder  expresses it through withdrawal of purchases or investment.

Marryatt says after February he didn't have a  weekend off in 9 weeks. At least he had paid employment. Some would be eternally grateful for a job paying the total of the chief executive's  $68,000 increase alone.

He insists he is not refusing the 14.4 percent pay increase or giving it to charity. I think he has lost sight of who his real employer is. For a so-called public servant Tony Marryatt shows little public-spiritedness.

What Americans think about open-ended unemployment benefits

US unemployment has dropped to 8.6 percent. Most US States provide 6 months unemployment benefits but the rules can change according to unemployment levels. The benefits are funded through payroll taxes and are not means-tested. In NZ on the other hand unemployment benefits are means-tested but open-ended. Many Americans however believe that lengthening the availability of unemployment benefits encourages unemployment. Studies have supported this idea. A Reason Poll asked 1,200 people how long they thought benefits should be available for when someone loses their job?

60 percent think a year or less is enough.

What did Michael Joseph Savage expect?

Just reflecting on what Michael Joseph Savage expected from social security bearing in mind the new benefits were created only 30 years after the first old age pension which was strictly administrated to exclude people who were not 'of good moral character'.

Do you think he expected  benefits to support around a quarter of all children because their fathers couldn't or wouldn't?

That benefits would support criminals caught in the revolving door between prison and the community?

That benefits would support people who believe paid work and consumerism are capitalist concepts to be avoided?

That benefits would supports thousands of people who had caused their own incapacity to work through drug and alcohol abuse?

I can answer the last definitively. No. There were rules to prevent people in this category from qualifying.

So when Labour's shadow minister for Work and Pensions says that a new vision is needed over the one William Beveridge  (UK equivalent to MJS) had how can anyone, including Labour supporters, disagree?

Which will be the party of reform?

At Red Alert Trevor Mallard links to a report about UK Labour re-thinking welfare. But he makes no comment of his own. Mine is still in moderation (while the considerably more caustic Cactus has carte blanche. Can never figure this particular censorship rule. Must be Trev's titillation thermometer.)

It has always been my view that based on history, Labour would be the party to make meaningful welfare reforms in this country. And I haven't abandoned it entirely. National is doing stuff but mainly mimicking what has already occurred in the UK and  Australia.

But hell. Time marches on. National evolves, Labour evolves. There is no ACT to speak of. The Greens remained wedded to 'social justice' - code for communistic compulsory wealth 'sharing'. And Maori politics continues to be schizophrenic. Independence and identity is idealised but impossible without economic input from non-Maori. Their craved population boom presently relies heavily on the continuance of the DPB. (Ironically Maori politicians could boost their population  more by enticing whanau back from Australia but that won't happen until they wean themselves off the victimhood politics and pleading that alienates the ex-pats).

So which party in the next 30 years (my average life expectancy remainder) will make the difference? Remember 30 years ago was only 1982 which saw the beginnings of major economic reform under Labour.

Stupidity

You would think that blaming 'stupidity' for the high holiday road toll was somehow sensational. The reporter who sought a comment from the new Police Minister, Anne Tolley has used it for his headline. That or the editor has.

Tolley is on the button. I hope to see more headlines blaming social calamities on 'stupidity'. Let's stop pussy-footing around the issue of blame and start stigmatising stupidity. Too many people make stupid decisions and stupid choices. I did it myself in younger days. I survived through the ability to learn from them. Some people seem incapable. At an enormous cost to everyone else.

Instead of agonising analysis (eg government commissions) over why NZ figures so prominently in too many negative social indicators, let's start saying it's because NZ has more than its fair share of stupid people.

Second chances are a good thing. A degree of tolerance for the young is a good thing. But it doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade and say stupid is as stupid does. Grow up for gods sakes. Because if you refuse to mentally, you might never get the chance to in reality.

The Iron Lady

There were moments in this movie when I felt like cheering out loud. Not necessarily political moments but there is one scene, for instance, when Thatcher is being gently grilled by her doctor. "How are you feeling Margaret?". "Feeling?" she replies. "Feeling? That's the trouble these days. Everybody talks about feelings. Nobody talks about thinking. Never thoughts. Or ideas. That's what I'm interested in. What people are thinking." Or to that effect.

There is a moment where the ageing Thatcher is bailed up by a young woman who heard her speak at a conference. She thanks Thatcher for paving the way for other women "to be something." Thatcher ponders, "In my day it was about doing something. Today it's all about being something."

It's a very intense picture necessarily so through the depiction of Thatcher's intensity. By the time it ended I was ready to get out of there. I had been led to believe it showed a lighter side of Thatcher. I couldn't find it.

You saw a woman who appeared to establish her principles very young and never waver. No compromise, no conciliation. Her husband is painted in a kind light. If there was any confusion about Thatcher at all it is whether she depended on him heavily, or drew all her strength inwardly. The ending doesn't resolve that.

The earlier times when a sharper division was drawn between socialism and conservatism described Thatcher's values simply. Heavily influenced by her father who claims in a speech, "Everybody isn't equal. That's a nonsense. Never have been and never will be. But they all need to chance to achieve..." (Again to that effect). His ideas are echoed in Margaret later fiercely arguing for the poll tax with her cabinet. "Everybody must pay some tax. Everybody must have some stake in their community. Even the poorest must have some ownership or do they live in graffiti covered, litter strewn landscapes?"

It is a movie I highly recommend (especially to John Key). Will you enjoy it? That is the wrong adjective to describe the experience. I didn't shed a tear. Strangely enough it will made me think rather than feel.

Biggest drop in 'road deaths' among pedestrians

The NZ Herald has a piece about this year's road toll being the lowest since 1951.

 The toll peaked at 843 deaths in 1973, leading to the first drink-drive blitzes followed by anti-speeding and pro-seatbelt campaigns.

In 1973 the toll comprised 273 driver deaths, 250 passenger deaths, 130 motorcyclist and pillion passenger deaths, 30 pedal cyclist deaths and 157 pedestrian deaths (other = 3).

In 2010 the respective figures were; driver - 180, passenger - 98, motorcyclist/passenger - 50, pedal cyclist -10, pedestrian - 35

The largest drop percentage-wise was among pedestrians.

In 2010 40 percent of pedestrian deaths were amongst people aged 19 or younger.

The share of the population that is young today is far lower than in 1973. So demographics are making a contribution to the lower number.

But I wonder how much children not walking to school has helped lower the toll?

Funding Social Security

While I am on the subject of economies struggling to meet welfare needs yesterday I received this release from the US Social Security administration:

Tax Rates (percent)
Social Security (Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance)
Employers	6.20
Employees a,b (through February 29, 2012)	4.20
(beginning March 1, 2012)	6.20

The employee share of payroll taxes to fund social security is to rise from 4.2 (cents in the dollar) to 6.2 in March next year. Apparently the lower employee rate was a temporary measure which cannot be sustained. From Forbes earlier this year:

 Meanwhile, if you’re a worker, start tightening your belt: The Social Security taxes taken out of your paycheck could rise to $6,826.82 next year, from $4485.60 this year—a significant $2341.22 hike. The increase is due to two factors. First, as the SSA announced today, the maximum salary subject to Social Security tax is rising from $106,800 in 2011 to $110,100 in 2012 as part of the just announced inflation adjustments. That increase affects about 10 million wage earners. Second, a temporary 2011 rate cut in the employee’s part of the Social Security tax—from 6.2% to 4.2% of pay–is scheduled to expire.  As  part of his proposed jobs package, President Barack Obama wants to cut the employees’ Social Security tax to just 3.1% for 2012. But Republicans have so far shown no inclination to pass the provision, which would cost $175 billion and seem ready to let the 2011 rate cut lapse, leading to a tax hike on all workers.

(Unemployment insurance is additional to these rates.)

Children abandoned

Large families no longer able to feed their children, dwindling welfare and unemployment.

Actually I am talking about Greece. But it doesn't require a great stretch of the imagination to picture New Zealand in 5 or 10 years time if people continue to depend heavily on the state to support children they can't afford to raise and this country is forced into severe cutbacks.

The mindset that welfare (including Working For Families) is a permanent and legitimate alternative to self-sufficiency must be changed.

Dare I say it, for the sake of the children.

Using the term 'Maori child abuse'

Joris de Bres has entered the argument began by Paul Moon who objects to the term 'Maori child abuse'  because it stigmatises all Maori parents.

Professor Moon said the phrase was often used with good intentions, but he asked media and government agencies to stop employing it.

I would be surprised if government agencies were employing it. I did a search of the Ministry of Social Development website and couldn't find one example. Then I tried CYF but turned up nothing. Police? No. I am assuming if the term was employed it would appear at the top of a search list of course.


If I do a general search the initial results are dominated by Mr Moon's coverage. It's the classic case of bringing attention to something you are complaining too much attention is already brought to. And picking a low news time almost guarantees that attention.

There are media examples such as this which use the term in the headline which describes the following content:

Maori make up more than half of the 21,000 children harmed in the last year, and the number abused over the last five years has also more than doubled to 11,000 in 2010.

I have some sympathy for Paul Moon's point. A male Maori friend of mine once told me that when he had his nieces or nephews in his care people would look sideways at him if they played up. He felt very constrained in any action he could take because of what he felt about people's expectations.

I suppose there is a legitimate case to use the descriptor if Maori child abuse was particularly different from other child abuse in nature. And it may be. In my limited experience I observe more 'neglect' by Maori parents but I refer to neglect as measured against over-protective middle-class standards. Maori child abuse may also have its aetiology in adolescent and teenage childbirth setting it apart from child abuse by other ethnicities.

In the final analysis Maori children suffer disproportionately from abuse and neglect and if that stigmatises all Maori parents it is unfortunate. Only a dimwit would assume every Maori parent ill-treated their children when statistics show a very large majority do not.

Sound summations on welfare today

During the holidays I find time to review some of the best books I have read about welfare. An extra incentive came from an outfit in the US that wants a contribution from me for an upcoming anthology. After a year of mostly fulfilling painting commissions I am a bit rusty.

My favourite book is Overcoming Welfare by James L. Payne, an American.

This post comprises some passages as I re-read the introduction. He is economical and highly effective in his writing.

"As government established a massive presence in the welfare business, especially with the advent of the New Deal, it began to create constituencies and vested interests that reinforced the hand-out orientation. Making up one of these groups is social workers. As volunteers or employees of local, private charities, nineteenth century social workers had a position of independence from which they could observe, and comment on, the danger of handouts. The country thus gained a bastion of poverty experts who firmly and eloquently denounced sympathetic [something-for-nothing] giving. As government took over welfare activities, social workers became predominantly employees of government giveaway programs, and they had to align their thinking with these programs or leave the field."

Bill Lock, a Black church leader says about the war on poverty;

"In fighting this war we have created an industry that feeds on itself like a mad general who has lost thousands of soldiers but continues to say, ' I can still win if you send me more troops'. This is what our government's effort to fight poverty is like today. It is an endless cycle of programs, projects, and personnel, often supported by people with strong motives, but without a clear and sensible vision of what needs to be done.

My community has not been untouched in this war. I live in central Milwaukee and my zip code has a large population of the shell-shocked. This is the result of being bombarded by programs that have reduced survival skills and the spirit of individual initiative."

And lastly, because you won't want to be overburdened too much over the break:

"Ideology also pushes welfare programs into the handout mode. For generations, many philosophers and reformers have embraced the doctrine of income redistribution, believing that government should take from the rich and give to the poor. A handout policy follows almost automatically from this approach. If the poor are mortally 'entitled' to government payments, it is wrong to demand that they do anything in return for them. Thus the policy of income redistribution has seriously harmed the cause of sound assistance policy."

Government spending at a glance

Core Crown;

Expenses



Revenue

Some figures to chew on

There are only so many blog Xmas Greetings you can take. Surely.

So something to tuck away for post your eat/drink/be merry festival.

In 1972 2.2 percent of government spending was on law and order; 16 percent on health and 23 percent on social welfare.

In 2011 4.8 percent went on law and order; 20 percent on health and 31 percent on social welfare. Education spending dropped slightly from 17.6 percent in 1972 to 16.5 in 2011.

A crude interpretation might be that we have more crime, worse health and more 'need' to be met with welfare payments. I emphasise crude because there are of course many, many interpretations one could put on the figures.

Now, first present to deliver - a walk for the dog.

Have a wonderful day.

Sharing information and sharing information

This put a smile on my face.

Some WINZ staff have been sacked for selling client information to debt collectors.

The official response from WINZ goes:

''Work and Income has zero tolerance for staff who breach the privacy of clients. Our Integrity Unit regularly conducts random checks of our systems, to detect such breaches.''

Properly righteous and indignant.

But WINZ is also seeking to share as much client information with other government departments as possible under the Privacy (Information Sharing) Bill. As long as the sharing is kept amongst state agencies it is OK.

No, it is not acceptable for staff to sell information to private agencies. But shouldn't there be provision for those agencies to access information on people who have run up debts or committed fraud? Afterall it's alright for the IRD to do it.

UK embraces adoption

New Zealand isn't alone with its seemingly high level of child abuse and neglect. (I say seemingly because we cannot objectively know what the levels were in earlier times when families - particularly rural families - came under far less scrutiny). Many English-speaking countries struggle with the same problem , including the UK.

I blogged earlier about CYF's attitude to adoption and the resulting very low rate of adoption. I believe this is a bad thing. Yes, adoption can have its drawbacks but it is clearly preferable in some situations. Those situations outnumber the current rate of adoptions.

So it is encouraging to see the UK moving to free up the process of adoption. This is from the Children's Minister, Tim Loughton:

The assessment process for people wanting to adopt is painfully slow, repetitive and ineffective. Dedicated social workers are spending too long filling out forms instead of making sound, common-sense judgements about someone's suitability to adopt. Children are waiting too long because we are losing many potentially suitable adoptive parents to a system which doesn't welcome them and often turns them away at the door.

I am determined to change this. I have this week set up a new expert group to look at radical reform of the assessment process. I want it to be quicker and more effective at approving adoptive parents and matching them with children. We cannot afford to sit back and lose potential adoptive parents when there are children who could benefit hugely from the loving home they can provide.

In October the UK had a National Adoption month and they are running this campaign, Give a Child a Home. And the government is also publishing performance tables to show the progress of local authorities in achieving better results in placement and adoption.

I note too that Coro St is running a story on two couples wanting to adopt. When aspects of social life change they are reflected in the story lines. These fictional stories are very powerful in getting ideas into the public consciousness.

So the unfashionableness (new word) of adoption has gone in the UK.

Hopefully it will go from New Zealand as well.

CYF ethos must change

Well done to the government for releasing the Smith Report into the abuse of Baby M. The praise stops there.

CYF was involved with the child, born in 2000, from the outset.

The most striking thing revealed and not covered in the media (yet) is the baby spent almost four years, early years, with a non-whanau caregiver who provided, by all accounts good quality care. This was the most "stable" period of the child's life. The caregiver wanted to take the child to Australia but the mother opposed this move. Counsel for the child wanted the child to remain with the caregiver. CYF "professionals", bless them, thought that the child should be with whanau for "cultural and identity" purposes.

The report is heavily critical of CYF. Its relationship with medical professionals (distrustful) and schools (poor communication). There is too much haste in placing children back with family or whanau members, who are not thoroughly "investigated" or "supervised" after a placement. Mel Smith believes that the "pendulum" has swung too far into the corner of the family instead of the child, and adult interests override those of children.

Of course children as meal-tickets - my constant refrain - isn't mentioned but falls under that very theme. And the mother was most surely on welfare throughout. After baby M she had three more. There is mention at one point that when the mother had illegally uplifted a sibling from care CYF filed a missing persons report with the police. Her benefit was suspended so she came forward. Of course she would. Children aren't much value when they don't elicit money from the system.

I would urge you to read the report to get an idea of how bureaucratic the child protection system is; the extent of agency involvement and the manipulation of those agencies by people who play the game. Their income relies on it. The mother is reported as gambling the money, living in filth leading to children with sores and infections. The mother evaded inspections of her children's bedrooms by claiming they were "tapu". The baby M became highly dysfunctional herself as an older child, reported to have poisoned the family food and put dishwasher liquid in a babies bottle. She also made false claims of sexual assault against a male caregiver (Don't you tire of this ridiculous misnomer - caregiver?)

But let's return to the beginning. She should never have been returned to the mother who had herself been involved with CYF from her teenage years. CYF ethos and practice needs to come under heavy scrutiny.

Looking at NEET youth in NZ

The following graphs are from a report released last week by Statistics NZ.

NEET stands for Not in Employment, Education or Training. Youths are classified as 15-24 years of age.

First, the rate is dropping.




Second, NZ is just above the OECD average.



Third, and this is the most interesting graph to me, there is a sizeable chunk of female NEETs that are not in education, employment or training but involved in caregiving. This is due to NZ's high teenage birthrate and the associated availability of benefits. Go back up and note that countries with much lower rates of teenage birth and social assistance have much lower NEET rates.



This aspect of the NEET rate is rarely canvassed. The arguments tend to focus on the failure of schools, lack of employment and youth pay rates (all of which I accept can also be associated with teenage births).

Finally the report notes that Maori have the highest NEET rates, Asians the lowest. Again the correlation between female youth fertility rate and NEET rate is consistent. As a Counties Manakau (DHB) points out:

Asian women had the lowest fertility rates for teenage women aged 15-19 years in Counties Manukau between 1999 and 2003. The Asian fertility rate in Counties Manukau was higher than for all NZ Asians.

Six today

Whoa. That nearly passed me by. My blog is six years old today. Which reminds me about Kiwi accents. Please say SIX. Because saying SEX SUX. My blog is not SEX today. It is SIX.

S I X :-)

"Why Obama’s ‘new math’ is a jobs killer"

Here's an editorial from the Washington Times. It's about Obama's claim to have created 3 million jobs but it could be about any politician making similar assertions. Governments claiming to have created jobs certainly has a familiar ring to it. Twinned with those claims are the press releases heralding so many people leaving a benefit but failing to tell us how many people went onto one.

WAYNE ROOT: Why Obama’s ‘new math’ is a jobs killer

President Obama’s math skills leave something to be desired. As a matter of fact, based on Mr. Obama’s recent interview on “60 Minutes,” the president deserves a grade of F in math. When confronted by the reporter with the reality that his economic stimulus package failed, he decided to lie to the American people. He said his stimulus had indeed worked just fine. As a matter of fact, according to Mr. Obama, it created 3 million jobs.

Let’s ignore the fact that this is a lie that would make Pinocchio blush. Let’s ignore the fact that Mr. Obama’s job-creation experience before he took residence in the White House wouldn’t qualify him to run a bodega. Let’s ignore the fact that “I created 3 million jobs” is the new version of the famous presidential lie “I did not have sexual relations with that woman.” Let’s actually give the president the benefit of the doubt.

First, we know that since Mr. Obama’s stimulus started, America has lost about 2 million jobs. So for Mr. Obama to tell the “technical” truth, it must be accurate that 3 million new jobs were created while 5 million jobs were lost, for a net loss of 2 million jobs. Technically, Mr. Obama could be telling the truth - the kind of truth only told by lawyers. Interestingly, he mentioned the 3 million jobs created but failed to mention the 5 million lost. I guess that, like former Democratic President Bill Clinton, this president (also a lawyer) isn’t quite sure of the meaning of the word “is.”

Second, this awful math sounds remarkably similar to the math of leftist environmentalist politicians in Spain. Millions of “green jobs” have been created in Spain, the environmentalists claim. Yet unemployment in Spain is above 20 percent. A recent study unearthed the reason for this disparity. It proved that for every green job created, three regular jobs in the traditional economy were lost. You gotta love the “new math” devised by Kool-Aid-drinking liberals the world over, huh?

Third, let’s assume Mr. Obama is 100 percent correct in his belief that his masterful economic plan created 3 million jobs. We know that his stimulus package spent about $750 billion of taxpayer money. Let’s do the simple math. Three million jobs divided into $750 billion equals a cost of about $250,000 per job. While Franklin D. Roosevelt created the New Deal, Mr. Obama has created a really Bad Deal. Spending $250,000 per job is the worst deal in taxpayer history. And that’s only if you believe 3 million jobs were actually created. They weren’t.

Here are some more common-sense questions. Wouldn’t Mr. Obama have been better off directly handing out $100,000 cash to 7.5 million Americans? That adds up to the same $750 billion. How about $50,000 cash handed directly to 15 million Americans? Or $25,000 cash handed directly to 30 million Americans? Or how about handing out $10,000 each to 75 million Americans? Wouldn’t handing out checks directly to American families have pumped up the economy far faster and far more efficiently than a $750 billion stimulus?

One thing is for sure: We couldn’t have done worse.

Or better yet, how about if Mr. Obama had never spent the $750 billion in the first place but instead had paid down our $1.5 trillion deficit and $100 trillion national debt (including unfunded liabilities). Wouldn’t that have been a wonderful Christmas gift for our children and grandchildren?

Instead, we wasted $750 billion on nothing - and added almost $1 trillion in debt to the tab for future generations. And as a “reward” for all that waste, we lost almost 2 million jobs.

No wonder our public education system is such a mess. No wonder our children are failing so badly. This new math that Mr. Obama practices is a killer - a jobs killer.

Public versus private facilitation of adoption

One aspect of NZ life, adoption, has changed a lot in fifty years. There are far fewer of them and they are now 'open' - the adopted child is aware of their birth parents who often remain in contact with the child. But NZ differs from some other jurisdictions in that - apart from whangai (Maori adoption) - the state monopolises the process. CYF has jurisdiction over adoption and tends to work against the prospects of it occurring. For instance they advise young women to go on a benefit and they make the child stay with the mother for a minimum of ten days after the birth - an enforced 'cooling off ' period. I think that is a cruel requirement on all parties. There is a group of women who are actively pro-adoption, have each experienced adopting out a baby and have an interesting website here.

It's a subject I want to learn more about in respect of those other jurisdictions, particularly the US, so accepted the following guest column from Elaine Hirsch. I will accept columns that are obviously leveraging for other pruposes if I think they offer new and sound information on a subject that interests me and hopefully readers.

Public versus private facilitation of adoption

The adoption process remains one of the most mind-numbing aspects of would-be parents. Adoptive parents must first choose between foreign or domestic adoption and then decide between state agencies, charitable organizations or private adoptions. Costs vary tremendously and so do the areas from where children are available. To decide whether utilizing a public agency such as a state organization, going through an overseas organization or arranging a private adoption through a lawyer, adoptive parents must understand the benefits and risks of each.

International adoptions were for many years one of the fastest routes to adoptive parenthood, with children of various genders and ethnicities up for adoption. Unfortunately, foreign adoptions have decreased in recent years, dropping to just over 11,000 in 2010 compared to nearly 23,000 in 2004. This decrease is worrying masters degree candidates in demographic studies as it marks inefficiencies in the adoption market. Increases in the cost of foreign adoption, uncertainty about adoptions in countries once well-known for foreign adoptions, such as Guatemala, and bad press, such as the case of the American family that returned a 7-year-old Russian boy back to Russia, have adversely impacted foreign adoptions.

Both private and state-run orphanage adoptions are possible in some foreign countries. Going through a well-established charity such as Holt International is the safest way to pursue a foreign adoption. Using a private lawyer in a foreign country to facilitate adoption can increase the risk of not ending up with a child and losing large sums of money to unscrupulous foreign lawyers. Some adoptive parents prefer pursuing a foreign adoption because of the distance it creates between the natural parents and the child, which decreases the risk of the parents reclaiming the child at a later date.

Domestic adoptions run the gamut from private adoption of a newborn through adoption lawyers to adoption of older children through the state foster care system. Although 491,000 children were in the foster care system in the United States in 2007, not all were available for adoption. Many of those available for adoption were older children or those of minority race. While transracial adoptions do take place, most caseworkers prefer to place children with parents of the own race, when possible.

Private adoptions have the advantage of allowing the adoption of a newborn, something no foreign adoption and few public adoption agencies can provide, due to the amount of red tape that must unravel before a child be adopted through these agencies. The disadvantage is the higher cost of private adoption through a lawyer. Well-publicized court cases where natural parents have later petitioned for the return of their child and won the case may also give some adoptive parents pause.

Adopting through state organizations is usually inexpensive. In some cases, adoptive parents receive subsidies to adopt hard-to-place children. The disadvantages to this type of adoption is that many of the children available come from traumatic backgrounds and are older, making them more difficult to parent, especially for inexperienced parents.

Adoptive parents must weigh the pluses and minuses of each type of adoption, as well as their own strengths and weaknesses. Privatized adoption systems certainly have their advantages; efficiently-ran facilities and streamlined systems provide for better adoption experiences. Regardless, publicly-run adoption centers still provide value through facilitating a huge amount of adoptions every year.

I'd work at McDonalds over a benefit

Living the Labour ethos of decrying work former MP Georgina Beyer, now on an unemployment benefit says,

"I do draw the line at being a crew member at McDonald's. I'm a little bit past that sort of thing." Ms Beyer admits she has been told to "lower her sights", but says some jobs are off the agenda.

What happened to Georgina the inspirational role model? What sort of message is she now sending to young people?

Me, I'd be taking whatever there was instead of behaving like a sad sack.

And if I was a prospective employer I would be more likely to hire the person who was supporting themselves by any means possible than one who was turning down jobs beneath them to live off a benefit.

Poverty committee and more on work-testing sole parents

I am heartened. Audrey Young writes about how Finance Minister Bill English views the role of the new poverty committee, a concession to the Maori Party:

Asked what measure the committee would adopt for poverty, Mr English said measuring poverty was not a big issue.

"We are not looking at the possibility of large-scale cash injections that are going to move whole groups of people over some measure. That's not the recipe because we don't have the cash to do that."

He believed the public would not tolerate handing more money to low-income families and beneficiaries - or at least not until everything else had been tried.

Good for him.

That's what voters expect from a National government. The opposite of what Labour and the Greens would do. His statement is also a firm rejection of the Maori Party policy of giving the IWTC to beneficiary parents.

Earlier this week I questioned why National wasn't moving people off the DPB and onto the Unemployment Benefit when their youngest child turns 8 - as is the case in Australia. Yesterday the UK's Department of Work and Pensions released a report into how their new regime is working - moving lone parents onto the Jobseeker Allowance when the youngest child turns 7 - and it is fairly positive. A should at least make a submission pointing out this anomaly with the two countries NZ tends to policy-shadow the most.

UK unemployment

There is an excellent 'interactive' graph here that shows UK unemployment trends from the late 1980s to today.

What stands out is that the recession of the early 90s was a peaked mountain whereas the recession of today is more of a tabletop stretching over two years thus far.

What happened in the 1990s that isn't happening this time?

Paul Blair - this time in court, he loses

Paul Blair, Rotorua beneficiary advocate who has a record of forcing the state to pay more money to beneficiaries and getting funding for himself for 'research', has been given 4 months home detention and 200 hours community service for possessing and selling cannabis.

The sentencing judge said...

... Blair's work over many years as an advocate and spokesman for disadvantaged people in the community and voluntary work at the Community Law Centre was highly commendable.

Highly commendable?

Some excerpts from past posts:

Three Rotorua beneficiaries have forced a law change for single parents with split custody of their children through an out-of-court settlement with the Social Development Ministry.

On October 1, 1991, a law was introduced to stop two parents living apart, but who had split custody of their children, from both getting the Domestic Purposes Benefit.

One was eligible for the sole-parent benefit and all the benefits that went with it, while the other was entitled to the unemployment benefit.

Rotorua beneficiaries advocate and sole parent Paul Blair argued that this was not fair as the parent receiving the DPB was entitled to earn more when working than the parent on the dole.

Parents on the DPB were also entitled to childcare subsidies, a non-recoverable training incentive allowance if attending a course, and did not have to be work-tested.

Rotorua sole parents Leon Broughton, Richard Amoroa and Mr Blair started legal proceedings in the High Court at Rotorua against the chief executive of the ministry more than a year ago.

In the out-of-court settlement, the ministry agreed the second parent in split-custody cases would be entitled to the emergency maintenance allowance, paid at the same rate as the DPB and with similar advantages.

Justice Alan McKenzie ordered the ministry to review the plaintiffs' benefits, pay any arrears, treat all similar cases in the same way and review cases as far back as December 12, 2000.

That was January 2005.

In the interim he applied for Families Commission research funding. It was granted and he went on to produce a report, 'Improving Work Life Balance for Domestic Purposes Beneficiaries Sole Parent Families'.

Anyway the report was signed off (according to Sue Bradford), peer-reviewed, ready for publication and PAID FOR when Mr Blair used an excerpt in a submission (no doubt opposing) the government's (then Labour)social security amendment bill.

Minister David Benson Pope was understandably most unhappy and suddenly the report was returned to the author as a 'final draft' for 'editing'. The report findings?

"It was felt that Work and Income was not forthcoming enough with extra assistance that might alleviate poverty and facilitate genuine personal and family development," the report said.

"On the whole, sole-parent DPB recipients felt that an emphasis on paid employment as the ultimate outcome ignored and devalued the work they were currently engaged in (as parents)."

And just last year I blogged:

Yesterday beneficiary advocate Paul Blair was back in the news claiming the Ministry of Social Development is acting illegally. He is trying to get people who have been relegated from an invalid's benefit to a sickness benefit to come forward and form a body that will take the department to court.

Blair has been happy to use the legal system to his own ends. Ironically this time the state used the legal system for theirs.

I do not relish anybody's prosecution for cannabis dealing but I am not sorry to see his ability to 'advocate' for more welfare somewhat limited in the near future. I suppose though he will be pulling another benefit while confined to home. He thinks the 'system' is against him. I think it is against us. Any which way the contributors lose.

National's welfare reforms in relation to sole parent work-testing

Now the onslaught of election policy from all parties has died down there is time to look at little more closely at what National is doing with welfare. A couple of things have caught my attention. For instance, parents with a youngest child 14 or older will be moved onto Jobseeker Support (previously Unemployment Benefit) and full-time work-tested. In Australia this happens when the youngest child turns 8. New Zealand has apparently chosen 14 because "children over 14 can be left without parental supervision. "

This poses a problem. Remember the rule for people who add a child to their benefit:

If a person has an additional child while on Sole Parent Support, they will be given an exemption from work testing for 12 months. This aligns with parental leave provisions.

After 12 months work obligations will be reset based on the age of their youngest child when they came on to benefit. For example, a beneficiary with a seven year old, who has another child, will be part-time work tested when their child turns one. A sole parent of a 14 year old who has another child will return to a full-time work expectation after one year.

So the additional child can be left without parental supervision whereas earlier children could not? Yes there may be older siblings available for supervising but that could have been said about any parent with more than one child who will continue to escape fulltime worktesting until the youngest turns 14.

The parental supervision law is an ass anyway ignored by most parents I am sure. But this anomoly will produce a challenge from anti-reformers.

Here is another stat I missed.

There are currently 19,100 people on DPB or Widow's Benefit with children aged 14 or over, or no children. The cost of supporting these people is around $400 million annually.

Not exactly pin money.

CPAG - sloppy finger-pointing as usual

Last week I linked to Karl du Fresne's column about Bryan Bruce's child poverty documentary. The column brought in some responses by way of letters-to-the-editor. Here is one.

OPINION: It wouldn't be possible to write a more inaccurate and polemic piece about child poverty if columnist Karl du Fresne tried. He is wrong on all scores; like the Welfare Working Group, he uses figures falsely and inaccurately, ignores the evidence in the documentary from Sweden because it doesn't suit his argument (a pity when facts get in the way of a story) and displays ignorance and prejudice in big doses.

There's a simple solution for him - he could read the evidence from New Zealand and internationally. But perhaps that is asking too much.

MIKE O'BRIEN

Co-convener, Child Poverty Action Group, Auckland

O'Brien gives no example of how Karl du Fresne or the WGG used figures "falsely and inaccurately".

In fact the only figures in the du Fresne column were these:

New Zealand in 1972 had 26 working people for every beneficiary. Today that ratio is down to 7 to 1 (in fact 3 to 1, if you include superannuitants).

The figures are neither false nor inaccurate.

52 percent of DPB recipients started there as teenagers?

That according to David Farrar in his most recent NZ Herald column.

The latest research shows that 52% of those currently on the DPB went onto it when they were a teenager.

Now I find this fascinating because I have tried to tease out this number for years. The Ministry has always maintained their records do not allow a definitive answer given they don't track back further than 1996. Then MSD researchers tried matching dependent children's birth dates against the age and benefit status of their mothers but even this wasn't satisfactory because some older children were no longer dependent and the data was still confined to a ten year period. So their best estimate was at least a third. My best estimate is higher. Probably a half. And just the other day I came across this fact from Michael Tanner's, The End Of Welfare;

“…nearly 55 percent of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), Medicaid and food stamp expenditures are attributable to families begun by a teen birth.”

As New Zealand has the second highest teen birth rate only to the US (of developed countries) it stands to reason that a similar figure might apply here.

I've asked David twice for the source of his quote but haven't recived a reply. I note someone in the comments section of his column has also asked, "What research?"

Maybe he has pre-empted the release of new research. I hope so. It was always possible for the Ministry to put together a sampling survey that would provide a fairly accurate answer.

It is anyway a powerful piece of evidence that highlights exactly why welfare reform efforts need to be targeted at the young. Stop incentivising them to become mothers and see where that takes us.

Bennett losing Waitakere - wear it as a badge of honour Paula

Sue Bradford stood for Mana in Waitakere to play up welfare hysteria. Carmel Sepuloni was the feasible Labour candidate able to represent the anxieties Bradford stirred. Labour also did some shitty things to stir up fear and paranoia among beneficiaries. In the face of these two influences it is hardly surprising that a welfare-reforming Minister half serious about the job would lose electorate votes.

Sepuloni and Bennett were both single mothers on a benefit when they were younger.

Sepuloni fights in the left corner that tends to idealise DPB rcipients, their needs and motivations. She wants higher benefit payments, greater state assistance for training and education while on the DPB, and no work-testing. Hers is the social development vision that sees single parents as an inevitable part of the social fabric in need of state help to lead succesful lives.

Bennett fights in the right corner that has cognisance of all groups on the DPB but focuses on the young, vulnerable and lifestyle recipients. Bennett wants welfare to be the safety net it once was rather than the career (too respectable a word) choice it has become. She has no blinkers on and has managed to stay staunch (unlike Katherine Rich), while retaining her humanity.

Surely she will retain the portfolio. She deserves to.

Newspaper or junkmail?

Is it any wonder newspaper circulation is declining when they resemble junkmail more and more? Who wants to pay for what often gets thrown in the bin before it ever crosses the doorstep anyway?

In the first ten pages of today's DomPost page 4 is 100 percent ads; page 5 is 50 percent; 6 is 80 percent as is 7; 8 is 100 percent; 9 is 80 percent; 10 100 percent.

Throw in the ads on the first three pages and the total advertising space is over two thirds.

"Disgracefully simplistic, emotionally manipulative"

Karl du Fresne rips into Bryan Bruce's child poverty documentary describing it as "a disgracefully simplistic, emotionally manipulative programme." His column was published in the DomPost on Monday.

Only Greens can now do hysteria over "privatisation"

On the back of ACT's Confidence and Supply Agreement the Greens have been crying foul.

Privatising welfare not the answer: National and ACT’s moves to corporatise welfare will cost New Zealand more money for worse outcomes, the Green Party said today.

Labour cannot take this line of attack because during their term the Ministry of Social Development was contracting out services left, right and centre.

Radio Rhema asked me to do an interview on the subject with Aaron Ironside and have subsequently used a soundbite in their Shine TV Headlines (starts 00:34).

As I said in a previous post the Ministry already contracts to 150 employment services providers.

Hone 'Mana' Harawira on Whanau Ora and "shackin' up with the Devil"

Harawira puts the boot in:

The Maori Party is on the road - asking their members to let them go back into coalition with National because both Tariana Turia and Pita Sharples are desperate to not leave Parliament with the dodgy record that they have at the moment (Pete also said that he needs his ministerial salary to pay the mortgage on his new house).

Turia’s flagship was Whanau Ora. Launched after a big build-up by the Prime Minister himself, Whanau Ora got maximum publicity and became a new phrase in the public domain but in fact got very little.

Originally proposed as a $1 billion Maori welfare restoration programme, jealous Government Ministers forced Turia to turn it into a programme for all New Zealanders immediately reducing its effectiveness.

And then the budget got slashed to $134 million forcing Turia to have discretionary funding pulled from Maori providers around the country to prop up Whanau Ora, leading many to cut staff and at least one major provider, Amokura, to shut up shop all together. Before Whanau Ora came along, Amokura was one of Tura’s favourite Maori providers. After Whanau Ora it was dead.

Whanau Ora will limp on because Tariana is tough, but with limited funding it has become one of those programmes that Maori say is ‘designed to fail’.

More


Watch for the Maori Party comeback. They are donkey-deep in a 'damned if they do and damned if they don't' position.

ACT's C & S welfare concessions

As part of the confidence and supply agreement ACT has secured the following:

The implementation in this parliamentary term of the Welfare Working Group recommendations 27: Parenting obligations, 28: Support for at-risk families, 30: Income management and budgeting support, and 34: Employment services.

What are they?

Recommendation 27: Parenting obligations

a) The Welfare Working Group recommends that every recipient receiving a welfare payment who is caring for children be required to meet the following expectations:
i. ensure their children are attending school when they are legally required to;
ii. ensure their children participate in approved early childhood education once their child reaches three years of age; and
iii. ensure their children complete the 12 free Wellchild/Tamariki Ora health checks, which include completion of the immunisation schedule, unless they make an informed choice not to;
and that failure to meet these expectations after efforts to address reasons for non-compliance would result in the recipient’s income being managed by a third-party or some other means, such as a payment card; and
b) The Welfare Working Group recommends that systems be put in place to measure and monitor the compliance with the expectations set out in a) above.

Recommendation 28: Support for at-risk families
The Welfare Working Group recommends that:
a) all teenage parents under the age of 18 and other parents of at-risk families be required to participate in an approved budgeting and parenting programme and that access be provided to these programmes free of charge;
b) an assessment of risk to the well-being of children should form part of a more systematic assessment of long-term risk of welfare dependency and provide a basis for intervention through participation in intensive parenting support;
c) at-risk families and whānau with complex needs be provided with wrap-around services, preferably by single, integrated providers which address family and whānau needs as a whole. These programmes need to be responsive to Māori through culturally appropriate, holistic, and whānau-centred solutions. In addition, they need to meet the needs of other parts of the community, such as Pacific, migrant and refugee communities; and
d) at-risk families participating in an intensive early intervention parenting programme have access to quality early childhood education and childcare services from 18 months of age, as currently provided through Family Start.

Recommendation 30: Income management and budgeting support
The Welfare Working Group recommends that in situations where a parent receiving welfare has shown they have a clear need for budgeting support due to repeated difficulties in managing their budget, such that their child or children’s well-being is put at risk:
a) the person be given access to budgeting support services;
b) Government consider using a third party to manage the person’s income, on the understanding that that this income management would cease once the person has demonstrated their capacity to manage their assistance; and/or
c) this may entail provision of a ‘payment card’ programmed for use only on essential items, to ensure that children’s needs are properly met.

Recommendation 34: Employment services
The Welfare Working Group recommends that:
a) employment services be based on contestable, outcome based contracts; and
b) contract referral processes and contract payment structures be designed to financially incentivise contractors to achieve positive outcomes for those with greatest risk of long-term dependency.

A lot of this is already in place.

Private contracted employment services that work with the hardest to place. At August 2011 150 service providers were contracted to assist around 15,000 clients to find employment.

Contracted budgeting services. In 2009 83 members of the NZ Federation of family Budgeting were contracted to MSD to provide budgeting services.

Payment cards is National's policy for young beneficiaries. Once they are available I have no doubt they will be extended to other beneficiaries as per the Australian operation.

Beneficiaires are already sent to parenting programmes. I had a client who went on one (which seemed of dubious quality.)

Analysis of the Family Start programme based in Christchurch showed some gain for children of beneficiaries but not for parents. As I blogged a couple of days ago intervention that is not wanted (compulsory) can further entrench parents in a siege mentality which may put their children at greater risk. So I am very dubious about complusion. I concluded that post with the following:

But I keep coming back to two broad propositions for the state, which will continue to monopolise the problem for some time yet. It has got to stop incentivising childbirth and start incentivising prevention. Stop paying people to have children and start paying them not to. And it has got to stop counselling against adoption and get more children into stable and loving homes from the outset.

The massive escalating intervention - private, public or a mix - is usually too much, too late.

The concessions extracted by ACT represent more intervention and more paternalism which it can be argued are necessary on the back of an extensive benefit system that pays young women to become mothers.

They do not represent a reduction of the benefit system itself.

National's policy of worktesting mothers when their youngest child is 5 (or 1 if the child has been added to the benefit) better represents a reduction in the availability of benefits. ACT should have (and may have) pushed for the age to be lower, afterall they have extracted the promise that parents on benefits must ensure their children participate in approved early childhood education once their child reaches three years of age. Or time limits which was always part of their policy in the past.

Between them there is still no resolve to actually stop the welfare incentives that give New Zealand the second highest teen birthrate in the developed world.

More half-truths from Labour

In response to John Banks getting the Associate Education Ministership Labour's Education spokesperson Sue Moroney says:

John Key has used a bogus agreement with ACT to bring in education policies promoting bulk funding and privatisation that National were working on before the election, but did not tell voters about, Labour’s Education spokesperson Sue Moroney says.

“News today that the confidence and supply agreement between ACT and National includes plans to push on with a trial charter school system will come as a shock to most Kiwi parents.

“The ‘charter school’ proposal is bulk funding in drag. It is a model that has been blamed for the decline in educational achievement in Sweden.

An overview of trends in government in Sweden 2011 contains the following:

In Sweden, the proportion of pupils at compulsory school attaining the set knowledge targets, i.e. passing in all subjects, is rising.

On the other hand, surveys carried out in the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows that the proportion of 15-year-olds with poor reading ability increased from 12.6% to 17.4%, while the pupils' results in mathematics and science deteriorated, between the 2003 and 2009 surveys.

The proportion of pupils eligible for the national study programmes at upper secondary school decreased, mainly among pupils whose parents'education ended before upper secondary school.

The proportion of young people aged 20–24 who have completed upper secondary school in Sweden rose from 86% in 2000 to 88% in 2008. The corresponding EU averages were 77% and 78%. The proportion of Swedish pupils leaving upper secondary school with basic eligibility for higher education rose from 85% to 91% during the same period.

The number of students attaining first and higher degrees and diplomas in higher education, as well as PhDs, in the period 2000–09, increased. At the same time, the level of achievement in basic higher education fell slightly.

A mixed picture but hardly an all-out decline.

Child victims - no cut and dry answers

Three stories drew my attention today. Child death and child neglect and child neglect.

For ten years I have racked my brain over what can be done to either improve the lot of children who are born into circumstances of material and spiritual impoverishment, or reduce the likelihood of it happening in the first place. Initially I looked at the problem theoretically and philosophically, then I got involved at a political level, then a practical level for a number of years. And still I find myself without a single hard and fast answer.

I was prompted to reflect on this after a conversation yesterday with someone who continues to work for the community organisation I was a volunteer for. She told me that it has expanded significantly but wasn't necessarily more effective. Government funding was good but they were now getting compulsory referrals from CYF making the job different and difficult. In the past referrals came in on a voluntary basis which meant clients were amenable - well, initially at least. So the need is growing but the private/public mix isn't the silver bullet.

Scene-set. The CYF caseworker refers dysfunctional families to a community organisation that can provide volunteer mentoring. The government saves taxpayer money by harnessing an unpaid workforce. But to the dysfunctional family this new intrusion presents just another hurdle they have to jump over to continue to receive a benefit (or perhaps keep custody of a child). That's my take on it anyway. Every client I ever had in 5 years was on a benefit.

The idea that people need to meet criteria to receive state support is inherently a conservative one. What pains me about it is it legitimises state support where it shouldn't. But even worse it pushes already damaged people further into a 'them and us' mindset, a feeling of sullen resentment and alienation which drives an instinct to rebel and reject. That manifests in the way they treat their children.

So not only are we back to square one but possibly minus square one. The children are probably even more vulnerable than they were before extra pressure was brought to bear on (usually) the single mother.

Time pressure doesn't allow me to return to my volunteering and on the basis of what was described to me, I wouldn't want to.

But I keep coming back to two broad propositions for the state, which will continue to monopolise the problem for some time yet. It has got to stop incentivising childbirth and start incentivising prevention. Stop paying people to have children and start paying them not to. And it has got to stop counselling against adoption and get more children into stable and loving homes from the outset.

The massive escalating intervention - private, public or a mix - is usually too much, too late.