MSD annual statistics released

The annual statistical report (available to view on-line) has just been released by MSD. Frustratingly, the data is always a year old by the time it has been compiled. When next year's edition is published it won't even include the new benefits that begin in two weeks. But it is fairly comprehensive.

Domestic violence - what works (or doesn't) in reducing recidivism

Just reading over a 2012 Corrections review of the literature regarding what works in reducing domestic violence recidivism. Some interesting passages include:

Internationally, the domestic violence landscape is dominated by two approaches. The Domestic Abuse Intervention Project programme (DAIP,
commonly known as the Duluth programme) is a feminist psycho-educational programme developed in the early 1980s.  It has arguably been the most influential domestic violence programme and remains a prominent intervention with domestically violent men. [The Duluth Programme is based on a feminist psycho-educational model.  An analysis of violence from this perspective suggests it is a result of socio-political forces that are influenced by patriarchal philosophy.  Programmes focus on teaching clients about power and control elements that cause domestic violence.]  Increasing dissatisfaction with the feminist approach and the inability of the socio-political stance (particularly in relation to patriarchal values) to adequately explain female or same-sex violence, led to growing agreement that the current approaches are limited in their success.

No wonder then:

Overall, the research provides more information on what does not work
rather than on effective ways to stop family violence.

Back to the increasing dissatisfaction with the Duluth programme:

 This, coupled with advances in the “What Works” literature, contributed to a gradual shift towards including cognitive-behavioural treatment (CBT) modalities. These two models are the only ones that have been subjected to replicated empirical testing... CBT is based on the idea that a person’s mood and behaviour can be improved by changing dysfunctional thinking.  CBT interventions are generally structured and short-term, and concentrate on present difficulties. Within CBT, domestic violence is conceptualised as a consequence of problems with the person’s thoughts, assumptions, beliefs and behaviours.  Cognitive behavioural interventions for domestic violence assume that violence is a learned behaviour that can be replaced with taught non-violent behaviours.

So what's happening in NZ?

 In New Zealand, very little information is available on the content or success of domestic violence programmes.  A 2003 publication refers to both Duluth and CBT as having influenced local programming....Domestic violence strategy in New Zealand is guided by the Family Violence Ministerial Team, which is advised by the Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. The current focus of the Taskforce is on allocating resources to interventions with proven impact. As a result, the Ministry of Social Development is moving towards results-based accounting while the Ministry of Justice has reviewed its funded programmes. The Ministry of Justice review was completed in 2010. The associated literature review found no conclusive evidence that programmes are successful, but the authors believed that it was premature to conclude that the programmes cannot work.

So what next?

 ... existing literature supports the importance of developing Kaupapa Māori programmes that address the impact of colonisation and include the whanau and broader community. This is consistent with the Department’s Māori Strategic Plan and the Māori Reference Group’s E Tu Whanau Ora framework, but stands in contrast to current domestic violence approaches.  Interventions for Māori would need to be localised, strengths-based kaupapa Māori programmes that support not only the offender but also the community and risk factors in that community. 

The patriarchal, socio-political, approach doesn't work but the impact of colonisation strategy will?

The paper goes on to examine a number of international studies into existing programmes that show, at best, recidivism reduced by 15 percent.

Babcock, Green and Robie (2004) conducted a meta-analysis of 22 studies published between 1984 and 2003 that evaluated treatment effectiveness for domestically violent males.  Only methodologically rigorous studies were included.  Selection criteria included presence of a comparison group, a follow up period beyond treatment completion and not relying on offenders’ self reports.  

The authors identified no significant difference in the effectiveness of Duluth- type and CBT interventions.  They believed that this might be due at least in part to the two models being almost indistinguishable in many contexts.  Quasi-experimental studies based on partner report produced the largest effect sizes, indicating that treated offenders showed a 15% reduction in recidivism compared to non-treated offenders. More rigorous experimental studies showed that recidivism was 5% less likely by men arrested and referred to an intervention programme than by men arrested and sanctioned without intervention.  The authors cautioned that, while a 5% decrease in violence may appear insignificant, the cost and impact of domestic violence is such that even a small difference would justify intervention.  

But it gets worse:

Feder and Wilson (2005) conducted a meta-analysis of controlled studies that involved randomization of participants and official reports to measure recidivism.  The analysis focused on the effects of post-arrest mandated interventions on reducing intimate partner violence.  Ten North American
studies (four experimental and six quasi-experimental) were included in the
analysis.  All ten used a psycho-educational, feminist oriented and/ or cognitive behavioural approach.  Programme duration ranged from 8 to 32 weeks.  

In contrast to the earlier review (Babcock et al 2004), evidence from the Feder and Wilson (2005) study was mixed.  They found a 7% decrease in recidivism beyond traditional criminal justice interventions, such as probation or community service. When using partner reports as the outcome measure (which is arguably a higher and more accurate estimate of violence recidivism), they found no benefit from domestic violence intervention programmes.  

And even worse:

A number of studies have found increased recidivism in programme non-completers.  

And in conclusion:

The current state of knowledge about domestic violence is not sufficient to
promote any specific treatment modality or programme.   How and why domestically violent offenders desist remain unclear, with the focus of most
studies being on the more general question of whether treatment has resulted in any desistance at all.  Studies on domestic violence programmes are therefore of limited value in guiding future interventions beyond, as noted earlier, to tell us what does not work. 

Well I suppose that's something.

The paper finishes with "Some thoughts on the relative lack of success of domestic violence
programmes," which summarised, question length of intervention, the appropriateness of type of intervention for level of offender and the offender's "idiosyncrasies", the one size fits all inadequacies, lack of whanau support, drop out from programmes, delivery integrity, programmes rolled out too quickly and too extensively, inadequate funding and lack of consequences for non-compliance.

As it stands there is little positive to be said about domestic violence interventions.

Food Stamp foibles

From time to time you hear people proposing food stamps for New Zealand. My position is they'd be better than cash but still come with their own set of problems. The following from NCPA today lay those problems out:

Food Stamps Are Unsuccessful

June 27, 2013
In recent years, enrollment in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) has increased dramatically, rising from 26 million beneficiaries in 2007 (one in twelve Americans) to nearly 47 million in 2012 (one in seven Americans). Costs have increased dramatically as well, rising from $35 billion in 2007 to $80 billion in 2012, making it the second most expensive means-tested federal welfare program. As such, it is vital to understand the serious flaws in current food stamp programs, says Andrew Montgomery of FreedomWorks.

• Ineffective at reducing hunger: A report compiled by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that while SNAP has had some positive results, "The literature is inconclusive regarding whether SNAP alleviates hunger and malnutrition in low-income households."
• Subject to large scale fraud and error: The GAO reports that despite great progress, "The amount of SNAP benefits paid in error is substantial, totaling about $2.2 billion in 2009."
• Lack of transparency: The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) does not disclose product purchases or how many total SNAP dollars are spent on each product, nor does the USDA disclose how much money retailers make off of SNAP.
• Form of corporate welfare: Food stamp programs guarantee large corporations consistent cash flow, creating a powerful corporate lobbying group that seeks to prevent cuts or changes to SNAP.
• Overlap and inefficiencies: A report compiled by the GAO found that, "The 18 food assistance programs show signs of program overlap, which can create unnecessary work and lead to inefficient use of resources." Indeed, administrative costs equal about $5.5 billion per year, or about 10 percent of the value of food stamps distributed.
• Create dependency: The goal of any government welfare program should be to get people back on their feet, not to keep them in poverty and hunger. Current food stamp programs have little work required as a condition of assistance, encouraging the relatively well off to freeload off the system and those in need to remain in poverty.

Source: Andrew Montgomery, "10 Reasons Food Stamps Need to Be Reformed," FreedomWorks, June 13, 2013.

NZ's own Spirit Level

Tomorrow New Zealand's version of The Spirit Level will be released.

 “This book is a timely addition to the work of British Health researchers Wilkinson and Pickett, Sir Michael Marmott, the New Economics Foundation historian Tony Judt, economist Joseph Stiglitz and others, which demonstrates beyond doubt that income inequality is causally related to many of society’s social ills..."

The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact checking the Left's New Theory of Everything can be found here.

A review:

 "If you haven’t read a book that made you laugh out loud on the bus or the Tube in a while, try Christopher Snowdon’s superb release, The Spirit Level Delusion. But the book’s subtle humour is not the reason I am recommending it. The Spirit Level Delusion is, above all, a book that delivers and goes well beyond the promise of its subtitle – 'fact-checking the left’s new theory of everything'... It may well be that the next big battle for a free society will be fought against the new anti-wealth egalitarianism. Christopher Snowdon has provided defenders of freedom with powerful ammunition."
— Kristian Niemietz, Institute of Economic Affairs

Why women earn less

Some research from the US that would merit a similar exercise here if the data were available. Overall women earn less but generally due to the choices they make.

At a recent event celebrating the Equal Pay Act, President Obama once again repeated the myth that women earn 77 cents on a man's dollar, says Diana Furchtgott-Roth, a senior fellow with the Manhattan Institute.
In reality, the 77 percent figure is bogus because it averages all full-time women, no matter what education and profession, with all full-time men.

• Even with such averaging, the latest Labor Department figures show that women working full-time make 81 percent of full-time men's wages.
• For men and women who work 40 hours weekly, the ratio is 88 percent.
• Unmarried childless women's salaries, however, often exceed men's.
• In a comparison of unmarried and childless men and women between the ages of 35 and 43, women earn more -- 108 cents on a man's dollar.
• In 2012, female White House staffers made 87 cents on a man's dollar, according to an analysis of published salaries by the Daily Caller.

Women make less than men because they choose more humanities and fewer science and math majors at college. Then, when they graduate, more enter the non-profit or government sector. In addition, many choose to work fewer hours to better combine work and family. In May, 2013, according to Labor Department data, 23 percent of women worked part-time, compared to 11 percent of men.
To solve the pay gap, the president reiterated his call for passage of the misnamed Paycheck Fairness Act sponsored by Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Senator Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.). The bill has no chance of becoming law in this Congress, as it failed to pass the Democratic-controlled Congress in the first two years of the president's term. If the bill were passed, the threat of litigation about pay differences between men and women and minorities and whites would raise the potential cost of employment, discouraging hiring.
Source: Diana Furchtgott-Roth, "Women and the Unequal Pay Myth," Real Clear Markets, June 18, 2013.

A new DPB trend?

Recently Treasury released a Working Paper which analysed benefit flows in the social security system. A couple of numbers caught my eye.

The aim was to look at flows on/off/between benefits pre- and post- GFC (pinpointed at QMay2008).

The benefit is coded and in the case of the DPB, additional information provided  such as age, whether there were dependent children or other income.

The two lines I queried with the author of the paper were these:

DPB18_nc_no with 363 average entrants pre and 1096 average entrants post GFC
DPB30_nc_no with 504 average entrants pre and 1393 average entrants post GFC

Did he have any knowledge of why people on DPB with no children and no income featured far more entrants post GFC? I had my suspicions, but I never received a reply.

I believe these are people going on to DPB - Care of the sick and infirm. And it occurred to me that as some people were made redundant, they wouldn't be able to pay for care for an ageing, ailing parent.

So I asked MSD some relevant questions.

1/ How  many people were receiving DPB Care of Sick or Infirm at March 31, for each year 2006 through to 2013? Their table:

The numbers on DPB - Care of the Sick and Infirm have doubled since 2006.


4/ Does MSD record the relationship status between the carer and the individual being cared for, and if so, how many carers are providing care for a parent?

Just as they don't record the relationship status between a DPB caregiver and dependent child. That presents a huge gap in their knowledge.


The letter did contain a sentence about the increase: "A reason for this increase is that in 2004 the policy was clarified and confirmed that DPB - Care of sick or infirm can be paid to a parent who is a required to provide full-time care and attention at home to their dependent child who would otherwise need hospital care."


But as the Treasury analysis shows, at least half of the inflow had no dependent children.


4,000 extra DPB Care of the sick and infirm represents about $70 million more per annum.


Given their new actuarial approach to the benefit system, you'd think the Ministry would be a bit more on to what looks like a developing trend.


When you think about it, another consequence of DPB-driven family breakdown could feasibly be an increasing incidence of adult children of single mums, quite probably single daughters, trying to look after both themselves and their ageing parent.

Fix worse than the problem

A small majority of Wellington City Councillors want to ban alcohol off-licence sales after 9 pm to curb drunkenness, particularly among youth. Much of the debate I've heard has gone straight to the matter of whether this is fair on responsible drinkers. Of course it isn't. But the following editorial from today's DomPost puts the often overlooked question: will such an action actually solve the problem?

The eight Wellington city councillors who voted to ban off-licence alcohol sales after 9pm in the hope of curbing the harm from people guzzling booze before they hit the pubs have overlooked one very important point – their targets are not stupid.
The move will not stop the pre-loaders from getting a head start before they go out for the night. If anything, it is likely to see them start drinking excessively earlier in the evening, causing more problems than it will solve while penalising every responsible drinker from one end of the city to the other.

More

Taxpayer funds CPAG court fees

You will know from past posts that the Child Poverty Action Group went back to the court late last month, this time the Court of Appeal, arguing that the In Work Tax Credit should be paid to beneficiary families with children. They want a ruling that the government is unjustifiably discriminating.

What I didn't know was that the Court of Appeal fees were waived on the grounds that the case is of significant public interest and the appellant's own stretched circumstances. The original application for a waiver was refused by the Deputy Register but that decision was subsequently reviewed and overturned by J Wild.

The new judgement says that the taxpayer should pick up the fees as the case is of genuine public interest.

There you go. Just one more item to add to a long list of taxpayer funded activities many not only have no interest in, but disagree with.

Who are the 'persistently deprived'?

Here's an interesting graph from a Treasury briefing paper to the Ministerial Committee on Poverty.

Many people spend some time with low income and/or in hardship (the overlap is only around 50%). The Committee wanted to know about those people who spend a long time experiencing persistent deprivation (can't afford food, clothing, power, medical services etc).

So  Treasury commissioned a paper which, amongst other offerings, analyses the portion of the population that is persistently deprived by age, ethnicity, educational qualification and, finally, family type. The mark above each column represents the group's percentage in the total population. So, if you look at ethnicity, of the total population Maori make up 13-14 percent, but of the deprived population they make up 30 percent. Looking at family type, of the total population sole parents make up 11-12 percent but of the deprived population they make up around 41 percent.

Unsurprisingly the Briefing ends with this comment:

"Solo parents are perhaps the group to be most concerned about."

Perhaps?

(Further analysis showed that there was only a "modest" link between low income and deprivation finding "only a third of those who had seven years of low income had been in deprivation at any point".)

Mothers as breadwinners - rapidly changing times

A piece from the NCPA today may be partially reflective of the NZ situation. The US and NZ share the highest percentages of children living in sole parent families. However the employment rate for sole parents in the US is much higher. Roughly 80 versus 50 percent.

In NZ, the Household Incomes Survey tells us that in 1982, 52% of two parent families had one parent in full-time work and the other was workless. Only 20% were both in full-time work. By 2011, 68% of two parent families were dual-earner families with 43% both full-time.

(Theses statistics are contributing heavily to growing household income inequality by the way).

Modern Views on Mothers as Breadwinners

June 21, 2013

A record 40 percent of all households with children under the age of 18 include mothers who are either the sole or primary source of income for the family, according to a new Pew Research Center analysis of data from the U.S. Census Bureau. The share was just 11 percent in 1960.

More

At Red Roof Gallery

I am now sketching at Red Roof Gallery in Eastbourne, opposite the Four Square, on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Drop in and say hello if you're in the vicinity.

Shades of the Wahine storm, which I am old enough to remember

Sam was singing in a band at a school concert last night so we had to go into the city. The drive in was a bit ropey with very poor visibility but not much more than typical wintery Wellington weather. But the drive home around 9.30 was something else.

Torrential rain driving horizontally from the south wasn't a huge problem until we hit the Petone Esplanade. The driver in front of me turned on his emergency lights and slowed and veered - a manhole lid was up and  and sitting at a 60 degree angle. Drove around that. Next one of the centre island road signs was down. From Waione the street lights were gone and even with full beam it was hard to see any distance ahead. A lampost was down on the road in Seaview. Drove around that. As we started into the Bays we got in behind an emergency road vehicle but he pulled over fairly quickly to clear rocks. The road wasn't shut and I hadn't expected it would be having checked the tides earlier. Living in Eastbourne you are always mindful of being cut off with storms and high tides combining. I drove on at about 20-30km. The power was out everywhere. The visual effect of the southerly gales whipping across the surface water on the road ahead was was dramatic. Sam wished she had a camera. I was literally hunched forward over the wheel trying to pick out any flooding or slips ahead.  There was debris everywhere and stuff flying around. Joking about people who drive around the Bays at that speed on perfectly nice days, actually, I just wanted to get home. Even to a house devoid of heat and light. A fire truck was at the bottom of our road as we turned in. Six massive Norfolk Pines along the street seemed to be shedding substantial branches. We arrived safely though I've yet to check out my beloved car which I suspect was hit by some flying object around York Bay.

Robert was rugged up playing piano. What else do you do when there's no power? We have a gas stove top so can boil water but our gas heater can only be started with electricity. Out came the 4 hot water bottles. Sam opened her laptop and put on music. She was still buoyed up from the concert so we had a lovely couple of hours singing and dancing, clutching our hotties. Sam thought it was a treat staying up late. I figured she wouldn't be going very far today. And I was right. The road is now closed. But we aren't cut off. Your only cut off when you can't get home.

Results from "The Vote"

Rather than try and summarise last night's show I'm simply cutting and pasting their press release:

Is the Big Problem Facing Kiwi Kids Poverty Or Parenting? Kiwis Say Parenting the Key Factor on Tv3’s the Vote


Child poverty has become a major issue for New Zealanders, but are are our kids suffering because of a lack of money or a lack of good parenting?

Tonight Kiwis voted Yes to the moot ‘Our kids: The problem’s not poverty, it’s parenting’ during national debate programme The Vote, which screened tonight on TV3.

Guyon Espiner and the Affirmative team were declared the winners of the debate at the end of the hour-long show with the votes tallied at 63% YES, 37% NO.


The arguments for:
• As a community we have to support families. I think we should be assessing how they’re getting their entitlement they’re entitled to and where is that money going because the problem is, for some families, the money comes straight in, it maybe goes to the relatives in the islands, it maybe goes to the loan shark, it maybe goes to the pokie machines, it maybe goes to whatever, but it’s not been prioritised and I think job description 101 for parents is a roof, shelter for your kids and food for your kids. – Bob McCoskrie
•
• I was raised in a single parent home and proudly to say by a man not a woman. My mother was a runaway mum; she only raised one of her 11 children. I know child abuse, I know lots of things but I had the most amazing father. I did not believe for one minute that I would not be a good mother. I actually think I’m a sensational mother and I’m an amazing grandmother to ten grandchildren. - Hannah Tamaki
•
• [Feeding children a bowl of cornflakes for breakfast costs] something like 37 cents per serve. And you know it is pathetic to say that families can’t do that. If their children are their first priority, they’re going to spend that 37 cents a day and put that food in their belly. – Christine Rankin
•
• I’d like to say that there are so many wonderful parents who have money and there amazing amount of parents who don’t have money. It’s about the love that you put into your children. - Hannah Tamaki
•
• Well why not help families budget? Instead of giving them fish, teach them how to fish. - Bob McCoskrie

The arguments against:
• I’ve worked for a long time in the business, I’ve met some hard, hard women and I’ve met a few women I’d like to put my boot firmly up their jacksie in terms of what they’re not doing. What I’ve never met and I mean, never, I’ve never met a woman who did not want to deliver better to her children than that which she has experienced and the conversation we’re having is belittling those women. - Celia Lashlie
•
• Where I come from I see kids being raised in cars, in vans, and some of my whanau here from Destiny know because they’ve come from those same places. I know this to be true, I see kids coming to school that are angry because other kids have got kai. I know kids who rummage through the rubbish on the way to school to get something to eat. You know this is not what we call a decent society. – Hone Harawira
•
• Look I’m a paediatrician, I work in child protection, I see kids who have got terrible behaviour and there are some parents who really struggle and don’t do a great job but more often, what I see is parents whose income is just too low and their outgoings, particularly on the cost of housing, are just too high. – Russell Wills
•
• What we need to understand, the real issue for us here tonight is that if we keep saying it’s bad parenting, it allows us to sanctimoniously pat ourselves on the back and say that’s nothing to do with us and it’s everything to do with us because they’re our children. - Celia Lashlie
•
• The fact of the matter is, that in stable society where people have jobs, people have homes to live in and children are getting something to eat you don’t get the level of family breakdown. You don’t get the level of family violence that you’re referring to. You’ve got it back to front. Poverty leads to family violence. Not the other way around. - Hone Harawira

Abortion statistics by age and ethnicity

Thought I'd keep up my graph-making skills (very rudimentary) with the abortion statistics released yesterday. The overall rate continues to drop which is good news in anybody's book.  The first graph shows the number of abortions by ethnicity, where the steepest decline (but coming from the highest number) is amongst Europeans:

The next shows the number of abortions by age. There's a stand-out here. The very steep decline is amongst 15-19 year-olds. As I've mentioned before, the teenage birthrate has also been falling over exactly the same period. Taken alongside this information, we know that there are fewer pregnancies occurring (unless there were increased numbers of miscarriages which is doubtful.)

So less (heterosexual) sex, more use of contraception, more effective contraception? I don't know. But it's fantastic to see these trends.

(I didn't include the older age groups as the numbers are very small and wouldn't read on this scale. But the only age group to show a  slight increase is 45+ with 49 abortions in 2002 rising to 61 in 2012).

Inequality is better

Here's an interesting slant on inequality from the Institute of Economic Affairs:

Earlier this year, the Work Foundation published a study of inequality in Britain that threw up some uncomfortable findings for those who believe that income differentials are the root of all evil. The hypothesis put forward in The Spirit Level is that greater income equality fosters health and happiness while inequality is a direct cause of misery and unrest. ‘If you want to live the American dream,’ says Spirit Level co-author Richard Wilkinson, ‘you should move to Finland or Denmark’. But why travel so far? Inequality varies greatly within countries and so, since wealth disparities are most visible at the local level, moving to a more equal city should yield benefits.
The Work Foundation shows us exactly where these pockets of egalitarianism are. The most equal city in Britain turns out to be Sunderland, followed by such places as Bradford, Peterborough and Burnley. The least equal city is London, followed by the likes of Reading, Guildford and Milton Keynes. For the most part, inequality is concentrated in the wealthy south east of England and, as the study notes, ‘cities with high median wages almost always tend to have high inequality.’ The more equal cities, on the other hand, ‘tend not to be very affluent’. This trade-off between wealth and equality will come as no surprise to economists, but it is reassuring to know that the wealth in the less equal places trickles down.

More

Other welfare changes from July 15

I've recently blogged about the forthcoming Jobseeker Support Benefit which from July 15, will support the largest number of beneficiaries.

Some more changes according to cabinet papers - (these may not have survived the legislative passage);

The unemployment benefit was subject to an annual re-application process. So will the Jobseeker Support Benefit, meaning many more beneficiaries than previously will have to reapply every year. This process has seen thousands of unemployment beneficiaries disappearing each year. Between September 2010 and May 2012 almost 16,000 unemployment beneficiaries didn't have their benefit renewed "because of the reapplication process".

Until now (since 2007) pre-benefit activities eg attending a Work For You seminar or job  interview, have been required from people applying for an unemployment benefit. These will now extend to all Jobseeker and Emergency benefit applicants, and partners of applicants for either. The application lapses if the applicant fails to comply (there will be some exemptions if the applicants situation is worsening eg applicant's "health condition worsens".) If the partner isn't cooperative, the compliant primary applicant can continue and if successful receive "half of the couple rate" of the benefit eligible for.

More private contracting-out to work brokers is going to happen. The Minister anticipates that this will "give rise to public concerns." However she believes in "the expertise of third party providers". I have seen impressive data that support this view.

In the past, someone failing to accept an offer of employment earned a 'first sanction'. The Minister has proposed that these people have their benefit cancelled with a 13 week stand down period. (Go you good thing)

To be continued...Going to watch The Vote

More on drug-testing beneficiaries

The following is an example of how drug-testing will operate in practice from a publicly released cabinet paper:

Advice from the Ministry of Health estimates that "up to 5,800 people could face sanctions associated with the new drug testing regime".

Estimate seems light to me. But they don't specify over what period.

Work and Income to start living up to their name

(Here I am in my 50s and yesterday was the first time in my life I involuntarily lost a paying job.  My sympathies to the full-time staff affected by the demise of the 126 year-old newspaper.)

The following was going to be next week's, now defunct Truth column:

In the middle of next month all major welfare benefits will end. Hopefully that's got your attention! It's true. The domestic purposes, invalid, sickness and unemployment benefits will disappear forever. Don't panic though. They will be replaced by Jobseeker Support, Sole Parent Support and Supported Living Payment.  My initial response to this re-labelling exercise was weary cynicism. Why is the government bothering?

The major reason - Work and Income is set to become far more work-focussed than ever before and recategorising more people onto Jobseeker Support means more people will have work obligations. Apparently there will be 132,500 jobseeker beneficiaries, most with full-time work obligations. These will include women with children aged 14 or older who've come from the DPB. The minority with part-time obligations will include people who've come from the sickness benefit. If people suitable for jobs that require drug-free status can't pass a drug-test, they'll lose half of their benefit. If this happens a second time, their benefit (and any other assistance) will be suspended. The government says it's reasonable to expect people on a benefit not to engage in behaviours that limit their ability to find work.

Under the new system, the only beneficiaries who won't be expected to look for work are those on the Supported Living Payment, ex invalid beneficiaries, carers of the sick or infirm; and those on the Sole Parent Support with a child under 5 (though the last group will have planning-for-work obligations). Sole parents with children of school age will need to look for part-time jobs.

There are risks. Cabinet identifies them. One, if the economic revival falters, jobs won't be created and two, if there are IT glitches (think Novopay nightmare) public support for welfare reform and the government will be negatively impacted. For the sake of beneficiaries, and the prospects of a more productive, wealthier and healthier country, let's hope neither of these possibilities become realities.

Remembering Peter Dunne

 (Published in last week's Truth):


Many thoughts have occurred since hearing Peter Dunne's political career is down the toilet. Only a couple of weeks back he was launching a plan to tackle suicide, virtually on the eve of his own political equivalent. I'm not hugely interested in 'why'. He's gone and it doesn't pain me.

Dunne made an art-form out of survival. The master of sticking his finger in the wind and accurately identifying which direction it was blowing from. He supported the Clark government  from 2005 but the relationship was faltering by mid-2007 - coincidentally, just as he sniffed a forthcoming victory for the National Party.  As Clark started smooching up to the Greens, Dunne whinged, "What is the point of being the loyal and dutiful one when the other party is out there playing fast and loose?" Ironically he went on to use the analogy of marriage and warned that the "wandering eye" of one partner could become a "major problem". Prophetic?

In fact, it was Dunne sniffing around for a new partner. In mating with National he saved his own political skin yet again. Having begun his 30-year career in the Labour Party, Dunne has since pimped himself all over the show. That's primarily what I'll remember him for.

There's little else of note. His big 2002 "common-sense" policy plank, the Families Commission, was doomed from the outset, having been neutered by Labour's politically correct refusal to define a family. National should have dumped it in 2008 but needed Dunne as much as he needed them. It's a goner now, much of the funding shifted to more practical initiatives in 2012 (how mad did that make Dunne?)

Will anyone miss his annual scorecard on fellow parliamentarian's behaviour? An eccentric exercise by a pompous man who rated his own behaviour rather highly, his confession that the actions precipitating his ministerial demise were "stupid" at long last displayed some overdue humility. Cathartic hopefully.

The anti-smacking law isn't working

Six years ago the government passed anti-smacking legislation which was supposedly aimed at abusive parents - not good parents. We were told repeatedly, something had to be done about New Zealand's awful rate of child abuse so we'd all have to put up with the state interfering in our families despite there being no problem with the vast majority.

I would have thought 6 years was a reasonable period over which to judge whether the legislation was having the desired effect.

It's looking like the majority of New Zealanders who thought the law would fail were right.

Damning new figures released to ONE News reveal efforts to curb child abuse are failing. Rates of child abuse have risen by 32% in the last five years, with instances happening to children who are already in the care of the state.
A district judge has now spoken out, saying it is time for a new approach.

It's conceivable that the law is actually contributing to the rise as  children become more militant ("you can't touch me") and desperate carers are pushed to other forms of abuse - eg emotional.

So what is next?

She is calling for an independent monitoring organisation which would assign an appointee for each child in state care. This person would develop an on-going relationship with the child to help support them, ensure they're receiving a good education and that their personal care plans are being properly implemented.

Good God. Another layer.

Why not just return to basics? Adoption possibly....

(Hat-tip Bob McCoskrie for the link)

CPAG urges you to vote for "poverty"

Next Wednesday, 8.30pm on TV3, The Vote will debate the following topic:

Our kids - The problem’s not poverty, it’s parenting. Do you agree?

 

Over at The Standard (not a "sewer blog") they have drawn attention to what the Child Poverty Action Group is saying about the programme:

 "....I would urge you to watch the show and vote if you can – it would be good to get some strong voter numbers in support of the “poverty” side because blaming the situation on parents alone simply lets the government off the hook."

So, whoever 'our kids' are, and whatever 'the problem' is, they say it's the government's fault.

I suppose I could agree, in that the government has done too much, over too many decades, to turn parents into immature, unimaginative, emotionally ill-equipped individuals hooked on hand-outs, but I don't think that's what CPAG are implying.

Truth column June 13-19

My Truth column June 13-19:

What would Green Party co-leader Russel Norman remember about Robert Muldoon?
Not only was he living in another country, but born in 1967, he’d have been all of eight when ‘Piggy’ came into office. So characterising Prime Minister John Key as the born-again Muldoon at last week’s party conference was quite weird. I wonder who writes Norman’s speeches. But more to the point, who is the writer trying to appeal to? The Green’s target audience won’t remember Muldoon either. What was “Hey, Clint – are we pleased?” thinking of? It’s a pretty funny strategy though. Because, if any party channels echoes of the Muldoon era, it’s the Greens.

More

(Sorry, the columns are a bit dated by the time they appear here.)

Bias about abuse still abounds

I've been vaguely following the Owen Glenn Inquiry melt-down which the NZ Herald seem particularly pre-occuppied with, providing an almost daily instalment.

What I keep noticing though is the slant on the subject of abuse. For instance in today's Herald editorial:

Like most men, he will be unable to fathom how any self-respecting male can do violence to a woman or child. He knows it should not be happening in his own country. He wants to know why it happens, what the police and social agencies are doing about it, and how it can prevented. So do we all.

Then from another piece by Simon Collins:

 Waikato University psychologist Dr Neville Robertson, who said on Friday that the think-tank hoped to make a collective response by Sunday night, said he told other think-tank members by email yesterday that he used to think it would be possible to end violence against women and children in his lifetime.

This tenor has struck me at other times. Collins describing the recruitment of now resigned head, Ruth Herbert:

Ms Herbert jumped at the chance, and by the time the inquiry was announced in September its focus had broadened from child abuse to include domestic violence - the issue she has campaigned on for much of her life.
"Seventy per cent of the child abuse cases also have domestic violence happening, mostly the father abusing the mother," she explained.

In an earlier editorial not related to the Glenn Inquiry the Herald once again took this position:

 The vast majority of child abuse is perpetrated by men.

In the interests of balance here's a quote from Professor David Fergusson of the long-standing Christchurch Health and Development Study:

 "The proper message is that both gender groups have a capacity for domestic violence [and] women probably perpetrate more assaults on children then men do," Mr Fergusson said.
The ramifications are a public health system that tends to overlook male victims of domestic violence.
One example was White Ribbon Day, which he had been critical of because it focused on female survivors of domestic violence and there was "no comparable day for male victims".
"It is those biases which have been built into our system right the way through it, largely from feminist rhetoric that implies that males are always to blame"

And from Child Matters:

Myth: Most physical abuse is carried out by men, especially fathers.
Reality: Physically abusive acts towards children are just as likely to be carried out by mothers as fathers.

The inquiry is supposed to be officially about All Forms of Child Abuse and Domestic Violence in New Zealand

CPAG - messy associations

Now here's an interesting clash.

Today the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) released a new report about the link between poverty and child abuse (more to say about the content soon).

The report talks more than  once, and negatively, about an Auckland University Study which found 83 percent of children with a substantiated finding of abuse by age five had appeared in the benefit system by age two.

Perhaps more alarmingly, Volume 2 of the While Paper contains a chapter on “identifying children in target populations” (Chapter 4). Despite the difficulties outlined in this review in identifying when and where child maltreatment might happen, this chapter introduces the idea of a ‘predictive risk model’ to assist in identifying ‘vulnerable’ children (Vaithianathan et al., 2012). The model includes 132 variables for inclusion in the core algorithm (Vaithianathan et al., 2012, p. 11), making it arguably of limited use. The researchers used data based on benefit receipt, and found a strong association with benefit receipt and child maltreatment, although it is unclear if the beneficiary was identified as the abuser. This use of data to target subgroups of the population raises very serious questions about marking out and branding families on the basis of factors or circumstances over which they have  no  control.  It  suggests  child  maltreatment  is  a  function  of  membership  of  particular  social groups,  something  for  which  the  evidence  is  very  weak. 13  

Named as one of the project team behind the Auckland University study is Claire Dale, Research Fellow, Department of Economics, Auckland University. She is one of the et al cited above.

Well, that's a surprise. Claire Dale is also a member of CPAG, and Virginia Dale was the CPAG 2012 Student Scholar (supervised by Claire Dale) who produced this highly political piece, Myths and Facts: Sole Parents and the DPB. (See my response to that paper here).

Rodney is 'still in the building'

Just reflecting......

He may have left Parliament but Rodney Hide has not left politics. Not when you consider the amount of writing he produces for the Herald on Sunday and National Business Review; not when you think about the number of times he turns up on Radio Live either as a host or panel member, often the sole espouser of sanity; not when he turns up at the annual conference of the party that abandoned him but whose ideas he still believes in above any others.

He's still driven by a belief in individual freedom and responsibility. It's not something he can just turn off. Rodney was and is the 'real deal'.

On the other hand, whatever happened to Heather Roy? Acquired a chairmanship (note the only member with a photo) which probably affords the two things that she seemed to have developed a taste for; expensive clothes and coiffure, and power over other people.

Over half of all children will spend time on welfare by age 14

Today's graph from the Ministerial Committee on Poverty report shows how many children spend x number of years on a benefit, more focus on the major reason for child poverty.

Again this type of information has long been available, but depicted this way is far more accessible. Immediately we can see that over a 14 year period around 200,000 children will spend between 7 and 14 years reliant on a benefit. Just over half will spend some time on a main benefit (Domestic Purposes, Sickness, Invalid and Unemployment Benefits):

In poverty but not hardship

Thanks to the reader who drew my attention to a recently released Ministerial Committee on Poverty report. It contains information familiar to me but presented in new and revealing ways. For instance the chart below shows that of the 270,000 children 'in poverty' around half are not experiencing hardship. That's because income is arguably less important than outgoings, or budgetary prioritising:

This report is very encouraging in that it identifies children of beneficiaries and particularly sole parent beneficiaries as forming the major share of children at risk of deprivation, but it resists leftist solutions. It finds for more targeting (eg of services), not universalising payments (no child benefit as proposed by the Children's Commissioner), and is clear that getting sole parents into work, or increasing their hours, is the best strategy. It notes that in Nordic economies parents are expected to return to work when their child is 13 months old. It also makes mention of the need not to disincentivise work (or encourage fertility patterns that are not in the nest interests of children) with higher benefit payments.  I will blog more of the graphs later.

OECD GDP per capita - a question

The NZ Initiative featured this graph (courtesy of Capital Economics) in its weekly newsletter today. It poses a question for me. Why is the Australian line so erratic compared to NZ's? A guess: there is more competition/changeability of rankings amongst the richest nations, whereas relativity between the poorer nations (of which NZ is one) is steadier. (The 10 years to 2011 gdp per capita stats are here. Both countries showed steady growth from 2002 flattening over 2008-11 but Australia's gdp per capita grew by 14 percent whereas NZ's grew by 6.)

Ed Miliband proposes "one nation"

UK Labour leader Ed Miliband has given a speech called, "A One Nation Plan for Social Security Reform" in which he repeatedly refers to "one nation". I can't get the echoes of Pauline Hanson out of my head but I don't suppose most poms would have heard of her.

James Bartholomew has summarised and commented on the speech here.

As always it's interesting to note the shared language and ideas between UK Labour and NZ Labour. For instance he talks about David Cameron's "dirty secret" -  a phrase I've heard Jacinda Ardern use against Paula Bennett.

But I don't think NZ Labour will be picking up on this particular term.

Good stuff from Affordable Auckland

I like Stephen Berry and wish him well in his local government candidacy campaign. Here's a cut and paste of his press release today:

‘Not Your Usual Hui’ Patronises Homosexuals

Thursday, 6 June 2013, 5:03 pm
Press Release: Affordable Auckland ‘Not Your Usual Hui’ Patronises Homosexuals
“I would be hard pressed to argue that engagement with Auckland ratepayers and residents is not a core function of Auckland Council. Of course it is. However, the ridiculously politically correct manner in which this Council goes about this interaction is wasteful and ineffective.” Affordable Auckland Waitemata & Gulf candidate Stephen Berry is referring to one example; ‘Not Your Usual Hui’ being held at Auckland University on 7 June 2013.
“Not Your Usual Hui is a forum for the Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Intersex (GLBTI) communities to start the conversation about how we strengthen and build capacity in Auckland to create ongoing, positive social change,” says Auckland Council’s media release on the event.
Mr. Berry, who is openly gay, says, “I find this Council’s PC overbearing foppishness in its desire to be inclusive of everyone highly patronising. Why ‘Not Your Usual Hui?’ Is it an unusual hui because it will be full of homosexuals? Are homosexuals incapable of gathering in a usual manner? Is this a warning that there may be men with sparkles on their cheeks wearing shorts with pockets hanging out of the bottom? Is a meeting of heterosexual Irish seagull hunters considered to be a usual hui?”
“I also question what value is attained by boxing all individuals with varying sex lives into otherwise unrelated collectivist packages and expecting to find one opinion representative of an entire ‘community.’ According to Council logic, men who have sex with men will hold the same opinions as women who have sex with women, individuals who have sex with anyone, people who have had sex changes, people who want a sex change and people who haven’t really made up their minds.”
“Some homosexuals are leftist, some are libertarian, some are even conservative. All are individuals who have varying belief systems and do not live their lives separated in a gated community working gay jobs, driving gay cars and living in gay houses. Holding a forum to obtain a gay view will be as successful as seeking men’s views, women’s views, European’s views, Maori’s views, Pacific Islanders views and Asian’s views. You’ll get the opinion of a few activist self-appointed representatives demanding more public money for their special interest group and little else.”
Stephen Berry says that the Council should engage with those who live in Auckland. “Engage with as many individuals as possible about what happens in this city. Do not patronise them with collective labels in the process!”
ENDS

Find yourselves some volunteers

If "charitable" organisations were truly voluntary they wouldn't be bemoaning the necessity of laying off staff due to government funding cuts.

Five out of eight staff at the Mangere Budgeting Service will lose their jobs at the end of this month because of a funding cut.

The 'cut' was the cessation of temporary funding by the way.

I worked for a charitable organisation for a few years. Some of the volunteers went on budgeting courses and were able to offer that service to the 'client'. All they were ever paid was petrol money to make the home visits.

"We have staff wanting security of jobs. We simply can't offer it."

What you need then is staff with a different motivation. People who have an existing source of income. Perhaps more superannuitants - a growing pool of able and time-rich people. That's your answer.

Libertarians not interested in social order or cohesion?

This is a excerpt from Colin James' latest ODT column (not on-line yet) about politics and inequality:

The social security state and its successor, the welfare state, bedded in not because the liberal-left initially triumphed. It endured because National adopted it in the late 1940s.
National's reason was not kindness. It was a liberal-conservative belief in the intrinsic value of a cohesive society to all its members. Exclusion of some from the community undermines social order and social order is precious to most conservatives. (Libertarians such as ACT and some National ministers are a different breed.)
Some days John Key and at times some other ministers exhibit that instinct, which some call a "communitarian" conservatism, traceable back to Edmund Burke.
So later this decade will that instinct prevail in National if a future different government tries to restore a secure, because less unequal, society?

I can only take from this that James thinks Libertarians (and "some days John Key"?- Edmund Burke was a classical liberal) are not interested in a cohesive society. Is it the leftist  every- man- for- himself characterisation?

Speaking for myself, social cohesion and social order (as opposed to chaos) are hugely important but when sought after through coercion by either government or individuals, won't endure. People can only be forced  to be each other's keeper or to think in certain ways for so long.

Yes, social cohesion (amongst Pakeha society anyway) increased after the introduction of social security. Every worker made a dedicated contribution to ensure that a very tiny minority of needy people had a better standard of living than they would have had pre -1938. It was post war and post depression. To an extent people were in shell-shock (some literally). It was a time when people valued living peaceably and each other. It was a time when personal courage and integrity were valued as people mourned those they had lost and lauded those who had survived. (It was also a time when certain behaviours were heavily stigmatised and thus controlled by individuals backed by government - divorce, unmarried childbirth, non-sobriety, homosexuality).

But, and this isn't a new theme for me I know, values have changed. And intrinsically caught up in that change, both as a cause and an effect, is welfare. It stopped being port of last call and started to develop into support all had a right to call on for whatever reason they chose to promote. The numbers on benefits exploded through the 1980s.

Family life, particularly for Maori, started to break-down. As the units broke down, the larger community lost cohesiveness. Yes, inequality grew (the topic of James' column) as a growing percentage of people received low incomes via benefits, and the middle class increased their incomes through women progressively working and professionalising. Middle class working two parent families are now relatively rich and single parent families are relatively poor; compared to the rest of the developed world NZ is now poorer - the inequality the left don't talk about.

Wages haven't kept up, in part, because the government keeps trying to subsidise low incomes through various methods, letting employers off the hook in the process. We have reached the stage, thanks to social security, where we have more redistribution of wealth going on than at any other time in New Zealand's history (barring perhaps the early 90s) and yet we still have inequality and a less ordered and cohesive society than during the 50s and 60s. More violence, more dysfunction, more child neglect, more mental illness, and more reliance on artificial means to relieve stress.

What's left for a government to force people to do in the name of equality and security?

Gangs committing most of the crime in NZ?

This RNZ reported statement from Corrections Minister Anne Tolley, on the back of the Springhill riots, intrigues me:

She said most crime in New Zealand is committed by gang members.

How does she know?

One would assume that the number of gang members in prison might provide a pointer but I don't believe that has been measured since the Prison Census was discontinued in 2003, at which time patched and associates made up 11.1 percent of the prison population.

Now if the percentage was unchanged (unlikely) and her statement was true, that reflects very badly on those charged with detecting crime and locking up offenders.

There were 376,013 crimes recorded in NZ in 2012.

Yet according to National MP Todd McClay:

 Police estimate there are 3,500 patched gang members in New Zealand.

(Revealing comment at the bottom of that op-ed)

The Sensible Sentencing Trust claims there are 21,882 gang members and affiliates. That's very specific.

Anyway, the numbers don't  stack up.

I've tried to verify that Tolley actually said this, but there's no press release on the matter.

Don't you wish that journalists would be a bit sharper and dig deeper when confronted with quite startling claims?

Jarrod Gilbert, who has researched gangs for a decade says,

"There's a lot of hysteria which is unnecessary for the most part."

So what's the truth of it? Even if she intended 'violent' crime I'm dubious about the accuracy. (And when gangs are committing crime it's often against each other or other gangs though that's not really relevant to the topic of this post.)

Finally, after a bit more searching I've found this from a 2009 paper prepared for Parliament about young people and gangs:

Recorded apprehensions where the offender was recorded as gang affiliated at the time of offence declined from 4,711 in the 2002/03 fiscal year to 3,706 in 2004/05 but then increased to 6,392 in 2005/06. [19]   The Department of Corrections’ Census of Prison Inmates and Home Detainees 2003 found that 62 percent of sentenced gang members were imprisoned for violence or sexual violence. This was slightly higher than for those without gang connections (58 percent). [20]  
As at 16 May 2007 a total of 1,471 prisoners were identified as actively affiliated with gangs. The largest numbers were affiliated with the Mongrel Mob (523) and were Black Power (426). [21]   This compares to a total prison population at 30 June 2007 of 8,083. [22]   In June 2008 the Minister of Police Hon Annette King said Police estimated the total number of patched gang members and associates was between 3,000 and 3,500. [23]   Police Association President Greg O’Connor thought the figure was higher – probably over 3,500. [24]  

I can't find any basis for the Minister's claim. It could come from Victimisation Surveys which capture non-prosecuted crime but....I'm still skeptical. Looks like she was wrong or mis-reported.

Sole mum spoiler

We probably all know someone like this.

A father-son bonding session planned by a North Island primary school was cancelled after a single mother demanded to be included.
Two "Band of Brothers" seminars were arranged by Matakana School to help fathers get more involved in their sons' lives, and as a forum for dads to share their issues. One session was for dads and another was for fathers and sons.
A solo mum wanted to attend but was told she couldn't because her presence would inhibit discussion. She was told a mother and son seminar was planned for later in the year.
"We really just wanted an opportunity for the guys to open up and chat, and they wouldn't particularly want to do if there were females around - which I think is understandable," said principal Darrel Goosen.
The woman's son was welcome at the second seminar and the guest speaker offered a specific session with her and her son but she continued to insist on attending, Goosen said, so the school board decided to cancel the event.

She is probably still defiantly claiming the high ground.

This bothered me though:

Psychologist Sara Chatwin, from MindWorks, said in today's society - where almost 50 per cent of Kiwi households are single-parent households - the session should have been promoted as a parent-child affair.
"I understand where the mother is coming from. The implications are that that child will feel incredibly left out if they are the only child without a dad who is going to a seminar like that."

Since when were half of NZ households single parent? Try 18 percent of all families, or 30 percent of families with dependent children (and possibly declining). When someone can't even get factual information correct I'm disinclined to listen to their personal opinion. And unsurprisingly, what she says next is in fact silly. If there are so many single parents, but the event was open to their children, the child wouldn't feel left out. And nobody was barring the father from attending even if he is estranged from the mother.

This mother sounds like someone with a lot of baggage who unfortunately isn't making life for her child any easier.

Truth column May 24

My Truth column May 23. It's not on-line yet but I thought I'd put it up anyway. Despite being over a week old it seems somewhat topical:


We're told 270,000 children are living in poverty. That's the number of children living in homes below 60 percent of the median household income after housing costs. Some argue that income isn't as indicative as spending. Amongst that 270,000 are children not experiencing hardship because their parents prioritise and budget. In any event, using the 60 percent measure, child poverty actually declined from 2001, and plateaued after the Christchurch earthquakes and global financial crisis. So why do we constantly hear about growing hunger?

Benefits are adjusted annually for inflation to keep up with living costs. Rents are a big consumer of income but the aforementioned improving data is after housing costs. Also, New Zealand's had it tougher before. The early 1990s recession was deeper than the GFC, yet there was no clamour about hungry children then.

There's one consumable with a price that has risen significantly, and is set to rise further. Low-income people, especially Maori women, use a lot of it. Tobacco. Ironically the tobacco tax hikes have been driven by the Maori and Mana Parties, whose leaders are determined to price cigarettes (scheduled to rise to $20 a packet by 2016) out of the reach of Maori and Pacific people. The reality is, though, most don't kick the habit.  Add to tobacco the drought-induced escalating cost of cannabis, also used more by Maori than other ethnicities, and it's entirely reasonable to speculate about the contribution this makes to foregone grocery items.

I'm not denying that children are suffering, often from experiences worse than hunger. But there's too little honesty about why. The hypocrisy of high-earning leaders who deliberately ratchet up costs for their already skint constituents, and then carp about the consequences for the kids, is breathtaking. And to rub salt into the wound, on April 1 this year, the tobacco hike was omitted from the inflation adjustment to benefits. Not a very funny prank.

Where are the offended old codgers?

That cartoon. The thing I noticed about it immediately is that it featured two old codgers also trying to get a free lunch. Old people demanding free this and that, or refusing to entertain giving up privileges other members of society don't enjoy, aren't uncommon. But they don't represent all over-65s. Haven't heard Grey Power complaining yet.

Metiria Turei, on the other hand, is being hysterical - and I don't mean funny. Her reaction is ridiculous. "Does our country really hate us?"

(Comments are "closed" because ... the Greens want an open exchange of ideas??)

Personally I didn't think the cartoon was very clever or funny. It was limp. If you are going to offend people it should at least be witty and worth it.

Budget focus on teen parents

On Monday the government made a formal response to the Children's Commissioner Expert Advisory Group Solutions to Child Poverty which were very extensive and costly. Essentially the government has simply reiterated everything they have already done, but I thought it worthwhile highlighting the section about teen parents who are, to my mind, where much of the available government and non-government resources need to go. Generally teen parents get stuck in the welfare rut for longer than most and contribute to the intergenerational cycle more than most. They are teen parents for a short time but single, benefit-dependent parents for many years thereafter. Their children will almost certainly figure amongst the poorest, most deprived in the country:

Investing in teen parents

Budget  2012  set  aside  $287.5  million  over  four  years  for  the  first  phase  of  the
Government’s  welfare  reforms  to  help  more  New  Zealanders  into  work.   Much  of  this  is earmarked for supporting youth, including $80 million over four years for  early childhood education, childcare and the Guaranteed Childcare Assistance Payment for teen parents. Another $77.6 million was set aside to support the roughly 14,000 disengaged 16 and 17 year olds, to move them into education or training.

A new Youth Service and reciprocal obligations 

The Government has set up a new Youth Service to work with vulnerable young people. 
Community-based providers are funded to deliver wraparound support to teen parents and unemployed or disengaged young people, in order to improve their educational outcomes.  

One  of  the  groups  targeted  by  the  Youth  Service  is  16-18  year  old  parents  who  are receiving  financial  assistance  from  the  Government.    In  return  for  receiving  financial assistance, these Young Parent Payment recipients are supported to complete a range of obligations focused on improving their parenting skills, including: 

    completing a parenting education programme
    enrolling every dependent child with a Primary Health Organisation
    keeping every child under the age of 5 years up to date with WellChild checks, and
    ensuring  their  children’s  attendance  at  an  approved  early  childhood  education
programme or other suitable childcare while they are in education, training, work-based
learning or part time work.

Learning what works for young Māori parents

55% of Young Parent Payment recipients have identified themselves as Māori.  Alongside the  Youth  Service,  the  Government  has  invested  in  a  Supporting  Intergenerational
Success initiative, which provides tailored support for young single Māori mothers to move into meaningful training and employment opportunities.  This initiative is being run by Te Puni Kōkiri for one year.  Its focus is on harvesting information to find out what works and identifying the opportunities and challenges for this group.  

Supporting  Intergenerational  Success  was  designed  to  complement  the  Government's
welfare reforms and other initiatives that focus on young mothers with more complex and
entrenched needs.  Providers are working with single Māori mothers aged 16-20 years old
who are receiving the Emergency Maintenance Allowance or Domestic Purposes Benefit in
South Auckland, Rotorua, Waikato, and Gisborne.

More Teen Parent Units

The  Government  is  funding  the  establishment  of  a  further  5  teen  parent  units  in  2013, which  will  provide  more  educational  options  for  teen  parents  in  these  areas.    Not  every school can have a teen parent unit, however, so the Government is exploring alternative ways to incentivise teen parents to return to or remain in education.
 
Dedicated Intensive Case Workers

In  2010,  the  Government  invested  $7.9  million  in  Teen  Parent  Intensive  Case  Workers. These  Case  Workers  are  working  in  19  high  needs  communities  to  support  the  most vulnerable teen parents and their children.  

Their  aim  is  to  help  teen  parents  stay  in  education,  and  work  with  those  on  benefits  to prepare for future employment.  They link teen parents and children to the services and support  they  need,  such  as  antenatal  care,  services  that  help  prevent  repeat  teen pregnancies, housing, budgeting, and home visiting and parenting services (parents aged under 18 are prioritised for the limited available  places in Family Start).  They also help ensure children of teen parents are participating in Well Child services and early childhood education.  
 
Volunteer Neighbourhood Support

Volunteer  Neighbourhood  Support  initiatives  assist  the  Teen  Parent  Intensive  Case
Workers in nine priority communities.  They provide support for teen parents who are not facing  major  challenges,  but  who  may  be  isolated  and  able  to  benefit  from  greater
connections  with  their  neighbourhoods.    Improved  access  to  parenting  and  mentoring programmes has been a focus of most of these initiatives. 
 
Parenting Support for Teen Fathers

This programme focuses on helping teen fathers to be responsible and nurturing parents.
In  2010,  the  Government  provided  $730,000  for  it.    A  resource  created  for  service
providers  brings  together  what  is  known  from  research  and  good  practice,  and  enables examples  of  effective  parenting  support  to  be  shared.    This  resource  is  being  used  by communities across New Zealand to develop support services for teen fathers.  

The  Government  has  also  funded  support  services  for  teen  fathers  in  nine  high  needs communities.  These services provide teen fathers with information and skills to prepare for the  birth  of  their  child,  parent  their  children  effectively,  and  identify  and  respond  to  their children's health, education and social needs. 

Supported Housing for Teen Parents and their Children

In 2010, the Government invested $6.2 million in Supported Housing for Vulnerable Teen
Parents  and  their  Children.    This  initiative  provides  housing  with  adult  supervision  and support by trained staff 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.  It addresses the needs of the most vulnerable teen parents and their children.  

The houses are for teen parents (ranging in age from 13-19 years) who are unable to be
supported  by  their  parents/caregivers  and  who  lack  the  resources  to  find  a  stable  and suitable place to live.  Teen parents in these homes receive parenting support and social work support, learn budgeting and other life skills, and get help to plan for their futures.

Food in schools - non-culpability creep

The Prime Minister has confirmed that National will be extending food in schools programmes. He knows there is discomfit about this amongst his constituency but, according to the NZ Herald says,

 "...if the child is not fed ... we know they don't learn...In the end they are a victim, they may well be a 6- or 7-year-old victim that can't stand up for themselves so we have some responsibility to do something about that."

Yet a Auckland University study undertaken across 14 low socio-economic schools where children received free school breakfasts organised through Red Cross or the private sector found,

 "A free school breakfast did not have a significant effect on New Zealand children's school attendance, academic achievement, self-reported grades, sense of belonging at school, behaviour or food security. However the programme had significant positive effects on children's short-term hunger ratings. More frequent programme attendance may be required to influence school attendance and academic achievement."

Sounds familiar. The policy isn't working because we aren't doing enough of it. I'm not buying it. And speaking of buying....

.... these are the payment rates for Family Tax Credits received by beneficiaries specifically for the care of their children:

Category	Amount per week
First or only child, 0 - 15 years	$92.73
First or only child, 16 years or older	$101.98
Second or subsequent child, 0 - 12 years	$64.44
Second or subsequent child, 13 - 15 years	$73.50
Second or subsequent child, 16 years or older	$91.25

 
A box of Homebrand Cornflakes costs $2.39

A loaf of Signature range wholemeal toast bread is $2.49

500g Anchor butter $3.89

2L Signature milk $3.79

That's shopping at Countdown, not the cheapest, but should feed one child breakfast easily. That's 13.5% of the 'first and only' child payment.

The minute anyone disagrees with the 'feed the children in schools' policy they are put into the non-caring, greedy corner.

But I won't accept that characterisation.

Every time we cede to non-culpability creep we actually make the overall situation and outlook for children bleaker. If we fail to ask for parental responsibility, we won't get it. And the fall-out from non-responsibility manifests in far worse ways than hungry children and at times when nobody else is available to step in and fill the void.

CPAG return to court - again

The Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) is about to return to court for the third time arguing that the In Work Tax Credit should go to beneficiary families. The group has an opinion piece in today's DomPost:

OPINION: New Zealand continues to grapple with a poor track record for child poverty and particularly the rising inequality affecting our poorest children.

More

My response:

Dear Editor

An opinion piece from the Child Poverty Action Group (Dominion Post, May 28) is prefaced with a statement that the group is back in court this week trying to get Working for Families extended to those getting benefits. Children in beneficiary families do receive Family Tax Credits, part of the WFF package. What they don't get is the In Work Tax Credit (IWTC) specifically for parents who work.

The IWTC was created by the last Labour government which believed the best way out of poverty, including for children, was paid work. It reflected the extra costs of going to work and the often negligible gap between income from low-paid work and income from a benefit.

Research from the OECD (whose experts assisted the government at the last defence of this policy) has shown that reducing child poverty simply by lifting benefit payments increases the number of workless homes. In short, paying the IWTC to children in benefit homes will lift their income in the immediate future but won't eliminate the ongoing source of their poverty - parental unemployment - in the long run. That's why the Human Rights Tribunal ruled,"...the discrimination caused by the exclusion of beneficiaries from the In Work Tax Credit is demonstrably justified."

CPAG refuse to accept this and continue to throw good money after bad fighting the decision. It could probably be better spent on practical measures to reduce hardship amongst poor children.