Does parental separation affect children's partnership outcomes?

I don't want to misrepresent this study and the findings so will just cut and paste the extract and you can draw your own conclusions:

Parental separation/divorce in childhood and partnership outcomes at age 30.

Fergusson DM, McLeod GF, John Horwood L.

Source

Department of Psychological Medicine, Christchurch Health and Development Study, University of Otago, Christchurch, New Zealand.

Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Previous research has found that children exposed to separation/divorce may also experience relationship problems in adulthood. The aim of this investigation was to examine this issue in a birth cohort of over 900 New Zealand children studied to age 30.

METHODS:

Data were gathered over the course of the Christchurch Health and Development Study (CHDS). The CHDS is a 30 year longitudinal study of a birth cohort of 1265 children born in Christchurch (NZ) in 1977. The data collected included the following: (a) timing and number of parental separations and divorces from birth to 15 years; (b) partnership outcomes (16-30 years) of the number of cohabiting/marriage partnerships; positive partner relations; negative partner relations; partner adjustment/conduct problems; and interpartner violence victimization and perpetration; and (c) potential covariate factors.

RESULTS:

Study findings showed the presence of significant associations between childhood parental separations/divorces and number of cohabiting/marriage partnerships (16-30 years) (p < .001), negative partner relations (p = .021), extent of partner adjustment/conduct problems (p < .001), and perpetration of interpartner violence (p = .018). Childhood parental separation/divorce explained less than 2.5% of the variance in partnership outcomes. These associations were explained statistically by a series of covariate factors associated with childhood parental separation/divorce including parental history of illicit drug use, childhood sexual abuse, childhood conduct problems (7-9 years), interparental conflict and violence, childhood physical punishment/maltreatment, family socio-economic status at the child's birth, and parental history of criminality. Tests of gender interaction showed that the effect of childhood parental separations/divorces may be the same for males and females. Analysis of the number of childhood parental separations/divorces experienced into three age groups (birth to 5, 5-10 years and 10-15 years) yielded similar results.

CONCLUSIONS:

These findings suggest that the general associations between childhood parental separation/divorce and partner relationships in adulthood reflect the consequences of various contextual factors that are associated with childhood parental separation.
© 2013 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry © 2013 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health.

Labour "delutes" pension policy

It was the word "delutes" that caught my attention. Never totally secure about my own vocabulary I did check to see if this was a real word. It isn't. Labour have 'diluted' their pension policy. Vernon Small reports:

Finance spokesman David Parker, a strong advocate of raising the age, downplayed the significance of the policy platform change.
He said it was a high level document and the party's detailed policy would not be known until closer to the 2014 election.
He said "you will have to wait until we release our manifesto" when asked if a rise to 67, or some other age, would be part of Labour's manifesto.
Yesterday former MP Jenny Kirk said all options should be investigated to maintain the current 65 pension age.
Lifting the age to 67 was "an electoral turnoff".
But Parker argued against holding the age at 65, saying it would make his job harder.
He said Labour was always positioned as a tax and spend party by National and as finance spokesman he would have a much tougher job promoting extra spending on Labour policy in health and education if the state pension age did not rise over time.

Parker has my sympathy. Anything that cuts handouts is an "electoral turnoff". What a gutless position. This was the one policy that made me take Labour seriously.

Update: Headline now corrected.

Tribalism: Blood is thicker than water

There's an interesting thread developing between sharihyder and Jigsaw on my post about the Memorandum of Understanding developed between Tainui and MSD.

I used to be in the Jigsaw camp and was totally opposed to tribalism. But my years of volunteering took me into Maori homes and  the philosophical difference between Pakeha and Maori (not withstanding there is plenty of overlap as well) became more obvious. It doesn't require clever language to describe the difference. Maori are bound to their immediate and extended whanau more strongly than Pakeha. There isn't necessarily a choice operating, though it would be ridiculous to describe the bonds as onerous. But there is obligation to the group over self. For Maori blood is thicker than water.

Pakeha have moved increasingly away from that proverb. We tend to choose our networks. Friendships can outweigh family ties, especially to the extended family. Our immediate family - parents siblings brothers and sisters - are hugely important but we still choose to what degree those ties shape our lives. We are the dominant individualist culture - Maori are the minority collectivist culture.

The intermingling of these cultures has not resulted in a diminishing of tribal feeling. Pakeha marriage and nuclear family living seemed to gain favour post war but now Maori marriage rates have dropped off. It recently dawned on me when reading Surviors of Nga Morehau that Maori adopted formal marriage to qualify for the family benefit. Once they didn't need to be officially married to get welfare the marriage rate plummeted

Which brings me to what IS the problem with tribalism. Pakeha made whanau and tribes weak through welfare. They reduced their strength, their capacity to nurture and provide for their own by reducing the need to work the land, the sea or to find other employment.

My philosophy prioritises individual freedom and responsibility and I doubt I could be assimilated into Maori culture. Such an unhappy prospect, probably shared by many readers, should give pause to those who would impose individualism on Maori.

And I also remind myself to live and let live. So have your tribalism but make it a strong institution that is self-sufficient, that prioritises a positive responsibility to each other - not an exploitative burden on each other.

It's not for me to tell Maori how to live. But neither should I be forced to pay for their preferences. That I have been has only weakened this long-standing Maori institution.

Living wage calculation exposed

Back in March I wrote in a Truth column,

The ‘living wage’  idea poses more questions than it answers.
Apparently the proposed non-compulsory hourly wage of $18.40 is based on the needs of a family with two children, with one full-time and one part-time worker.
But someone with dependent children who is earning less than the living wage will almost certainly be receiving  Working For Families assistance.
As well, someone without children might be receiving an accommodation supplement which helps with rent, board or a mortgage.
Because these are income-tested payments, they reduce as the employee’s salary or wage increases.
Under the living wage scenario then, an employer would pay more, but in many cases the worker’s income would remain the same as he progressively loses other government assistance, especially the accommodation supplement.  Who has gained? Neither of them. The gaining party would be the government.

Kiwiblog has just reported on Treasury analysis of the living wage in a post coincidentally titled:

 Living Wage proposal would mainly help the Government, not low income families

 The data fatally undermines the policies being pushed by Labour and Greens. Only 6% of those who earn below the living wage are in the type of family the calculation is based on. Who would you set wages for 94% based on a situation which doesn’t apply to them?

AGCP and MSD at odds?

This is interesting. MSD has just published a report by the Advisory Group on Conduct Problems (a bunch of academics) at its website. MSD has however taken issue with some of it:

Caveat statement

With regard to Chapter 5, the Ministry of Social Development wishes to comment on the current wording in the Adolescent Report that presents the use of the Family Group Conference (FGC) as a practice that addresses conduct problems.
The FGC is a statutory process for making decisions concerning children and young people. It is a participative approach to child protection and youth offending and involves the child / young person, their parents, members of their extended family/ whānau and professionals coming together to develop solutions to specific situations.
The FGC should be seen as a process that enables decision-making on subsequent approaches to respond to the broader needs of a child or young person (including conduct problems).
It is these subsequent approaches that need to be evaluated to measure their effectiveness in changing the behaviour of young people.
Furthermore, the report does not acknowledge that Child, Youth and Family have recently partnered with the University of Canterbury to evaluate FGC practices and outcomes.
The evaluation objectives are to (a) identify the effectiveness of the FGC process for facilitating positive outcomes for children and young people and their whānau, (b) to identify best practice for implementing FGCs, including culturally appropriate practices and (c) further develop the theoretical underpinnings of how the FGC process effects change for children and young people and their whānau.
The University of Canterbury has completed a scoping phase which provides the foundation for the next phase of the evaluation.

You would have to assume some discussion preceded the decision to add this caveat. Some discussion/disagreement that could not be resolved.

Naturally I'd like to read the report but the link (at 12:12pm) doesn't work.

(Post note. Link now up.)

'Memorandums of Understanding' with Maori

It'd be interesting to know where these  MoUs fit with whanau ora.

Regardless, that Maori are confronting the CYF-related problem by tribe is probably positive. Collectivism is still a way of thinking and living for many Maori. We can rightfully complain when it imposes a burden on those outside of the collective but that doesn't automatically confer a right to demand Maori adopt individualism. If their child abuse and neglect problems can be eased best through the tribal community, all well and good. That the negotiations have been with a National government rather than Labour gives me more cause for optimism.

Child, Youth and Family and Tainui connect

Thursday, 31 October 2013, 4:51 pm
Press Release: New Zealand Government Hon Paula Bennett
Minister for Social Development
Associate Minister of Housing
31 October 2013 Media Statement
Child, Youth and Family and Tainui connect
An agreement between CYF and Tainui marks a new understanding and connection between the two says Social Development Minister Paula Bennett.
The Memorandum of Understanding was signed in Waikato today.
“This is the third agreement to be signed with iwi and is a significant step forward,” says Mrs Bennett.
“A new working relationship will focus on protecting children, using iwi networks to proactively support whānau in need.”
“Too many Māori children are hurt and abused; by openly acknowledging this and working together with iwi we can support these children and their families earlier, and then this MoU will really mean something.”
Child Youth and Family had a staff member seconded to Waikato Tainui for the last twelve months to help pave the way for the new relationship.
Tainui and Child, Youth and Family will work together to put the interests of vulnerable children first.
There are close to 5,000 children in the care of CYF, 441 of those children are affiliated to Waikato Tainui.
Child, Youth and Family has now signed Memorandums of Understanding with Tainui, Ngapuhi and Ngati Porou.
ENDS

John Campbell Show can never credibly cover 'bullying' as a subject again

The John Campbell Show made a rare appearance on my TV screen tonight. His hectoring, biased style turned me off long since. But trailers during the TV3 News persuaded me to stay tuned. Another chance wasn't warranted though. His protege went stalking John Palino with some "serious questions, SERIOUS QUESTIONS." One actually. Why had he spent so long in the car with Bevan Chuang? Now, I can imagine many plausible answers to this. Some good, some not so good. But Palino maintains he talked about the threatening texts at her request. He engaged with the shouty she-Campbell to the best of his ability referring her back to a comprehensive statement he'd released earlier and continuing to hold that he didn't know about the Chuang/Brown affair. All the time she over-talked, interrupted, and ear-bashed Palino. He did well to stay as calm as he did.

Then we flick back to the studio where Campbell oh so reasonably and humbly insists that the invitation was open to Mr Palino to go on the show and tell his side of the story. Give me a break. He would have been subjected to even worse thuggery than he met in the carpark.

Again, I'm not holding a candle for either side. As such I am  interested in objective reporting. Once again Campbell illustrates why his show isn't the vehicle for that. It has become an enclave for bully-boys and girls shameless in their efforts to take down their targets.

CPAG still not owning their errors

A note has been added at the link to the CPAG report I highlighted a couple days back:

Report 2: Child Abuse: An analysis of Child, Youth & Family data

Please note: Due to feedback CPAG has become aware that there is an error on page 9 of the report. The relevant paragraphs should read: 

"The percent of distinct clients with substantiated abuse or neglect for each site office from 2008-2012 was averaged and divided by the estimated number of 0-17 year olds in each site office (2012 population)  in order to calculate the proportion of children who were victims of substantiated abuse (see Table 3 in the Appendix).

Figure 3 shows the 10 site offices with the highest proportion of children being victims of substantiated abuse. Even within this small group there is considerable variability with Papakura having the highest percentage of substantiated abuse (4%) and the Far North having a rate slightly over half that (2.2%) (a ranked listing of site offices is at in Table 4 the Appendix)."

The error does not affect the results or the substance of the report. A corrected full version of the report will be available shortly.

Let's recall what the original report said:

"The percent of distinct clients with substantiated abuse or neglect for each site office from 2008-

2012 was averaged and divided by the estimated number of 0-17 year olds in each site office (2012

population) in order to calculate the proportion of children who were victims of substantiated abuse

(see Table 3 in the Appendix).

This figure was multiplied by 100 to give an easy-to-read number. It is therefore important to exercise caution when interpreting the numbers. For example the proportion of 0-17 year olds who were victims of abuse in Papakura was not 4.0% but 0.40 of 1% (my emphasis)

 

Figure 3 shows the 10 site offices with the highest proportion of children being victims of substantiated abuse. Even within this small group there is considerable variability with Papakura having the highest rates of substantiated abuse (0.040%) and the Far North having a rate slightly over half that (0.022%) (a ranked listing of site offices is at in Table 4 the Appendix)".

 

Note the middle paragraph was omitted from their correction. That was the section that illustrated their inability to mentally calculate a proportion.

In any case, this correction owns only one of three mistakes I have written to them about.

If the author had acknowledged that the denominator population used to calculate benefit dependence is wrong, then the relationship between the rate of child abuse and benefit dependence - the "substance of the report" -  would change. (I don't have the information yet to show by how much but I'm working on it.)

While CPAG can attempt to minimise their errors in this fashion, they cannot minimise the negative impact on their credibility.

Redundant analysis politically motivated?

The NZ Herald reports:

Children's Commissioner Dr Russell Wills has decided to publish his own annual stocktake of child poverty after the Government spurned his call to publish official measures and targets.
His first annual update will be published in December with analysis by experts at Otago University, edited by a private communications company and totally funded by a $525,000 grant from the philanthropic Wellington-based JR McKenzie Trust.
He said the project would not involve any taxpayers' money and he did not need to get it signed off by Social Development Minister Paula Bennett, who appointed him in 2011 for a five-year term.

There is already lots of data available about children's incomes, living standards, health status etc. There is a constant barrage of stuff from MSD already sifted through by goups like the Salvation Army.

The NZ Child & Youth Epidemiology Service, who will carry out the new analysis, already produce The Children's Social  Health Monitor. There is even the Prime Minister's Ministerial Committee on Poverty.

I'm not sure what the point of spending half a million dollars more on measuring and reporting child poverty is, unless it's political.

Reforms not enough - Minister responds

From time to time Muriel Newman and I collaborate on a theme for her organisation NZCPR. And from time to time the resulting articles make it into the MSM. The NBR has picked up for instance. Last week the Northland Age ran Muriel's piece in which I am also quoted extensively. Together we maintained that the welfare reforms to date still leave a benefit system that incentivises young women to have children and these children are at greater risk of abuse than others.

Excerpt:

“In New Zealand children are casually produced because someone else is made to take responsibility for financially providing for them. Their arrival guarantees an ongoing source of cash. It is hardly surprising that those without the financial wherewithal to raise a child also struggle with the emotional requisites.
“What then is being done to reduce the incentives that encourage ill-equipped entry into parenthood? Not enough. A young female (aged 19 plus) can still have a baby and expect government assistance and a home for five uninterrupted years. When the child goes to school she’ll have to look for a part-time job and take one if it materialises. But if she is in a rural area the chances of that occurring are slim. Just as slim are the chances of a full-time job cropping up when her child turns 14. The DPB replacement is still a promise of unearned, long-term income and housing for young females. And males, some who will pose a known risk to non-biological children, will continue to piggyback on it.”

The Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett responded with a letter:

 Last week’s Northland Age’s column, ‘Incentives need to change,’ by Dr Muriel Newman, provided an interesting perspective on child abuse. But important points were missed about welfare changes which the column dismissed as incentivising abuse.

More

I have replied with the following:

 The Minister for Social Development, Paula Bennett (For the children, October 24) describes welfare reforms that "are helping parents get into work and provide a better life for their children." The Minister deserves accolades for what she has achieved to date. My position remains however that the reforms have not gone far enough.

At 23 percent, benefit dependency in the Far North District is double the national average. At June 2012 the Far North Territorial Local Authority had 7,800 working-age beneficiaries out of  a 18-64 year-old population of 33,370 (latest Statistics NZ estimate.)  While it is well known the district also features the highest unemployment rate in the country, only 18 percent of those on benefits were on the unemployment benefit. 38 percent - the largest group - were on the DPB.

Even with the new work-test regime,  Sole Parent Support (the DPB replacement) guarantees an ongoing income from the state for those with dependent children. The reality is people can continue to live and raise families in areas where jobs are non-existent. Unless the government compels parents to move where the jobs are (which Labour did with unemployment beneficiaries under Jobs Jolt in the mid-2000s) the long-term and inter-generational welfare dependence will continue. These are the conditions that increase the risk of child maltreatment.

Given the extra discretion case managers now have, there may be an informal policy to do this. But such an approach has not been legislated for.

Readers of this blog will know I have praised National repeatedly for the changes they have made to the welfare system. And I understand that a government can only move incrementally if they are to retain the support which is critical to staying in government. But that doesn't prevent me from taking a critical position about the shortcomings of the reforms.

Wth ACT dead in the water there is no vehicle for and very little publicised opinion about National's shortcomings ACCEPT from the left. The Minister generally ignores that and so she should.

Interestingly her letter is basically an advertisement for the reforms. I could use it myself to explain to people who think welfare is an important issue why they should vote National back in.

But when they get their third term let's hope they give it a bigger and better shake.

DPB longevity - a typical case

After the sob stories here's a refreshing change. A Fairfax news story about a woman on the DPB for twenty years who decided to get a job when she heard her daughter saying how she intended to follow in her mother's footsteps. Good for her. Mum that is.

But there's some misinformation reported:

Until six months ago, Judy Wilson was one of about 80,000 sole parents in New Zealand receiving a benefit.

This is incorrect. 80,000 is the number on Sole Parent Support at September 2013. There are many more who have been shifted to the Jobseeker Support, Young Parent Payment, or Supported Living Payment. The data here would indicate around another 17-18,000. And there's maybe 2-3,000 on emergency benefits. A more accurate number might be close to 100,000

... In July, New Zealand's welfare system had a major shakeup and the Government introduced new expectations and obligations for beneficiaries. The changes were slated by advocacy groups as punitive, but they seem to have had the Government's desired effect - for better or worse - in reducing the number of people receiving assistance.

The numbers are coming down. But I think the reporter might be under the impression they are falling more rapidly than is the case. Nevertheless he's done a good job of putting a human face to the new data showing how long sole parents stay on welfare.

CPAG research faulty

Media Release

CPAG RESEARCH FAULTY
Thursday, October 24, 2013

Recent research by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) has been found faulty.

CPAG's analysis of Child Youth and Family child abuse data claimed, "The data suggests there is no correlation between benefit receipt and child maltreatment". This despite earlier Auckland University research finding, "Of all children having a finding of maltreatment by age 5, 83 percent are seen on a benefit before age two".

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell says she asked the Ministry of Social Development for the data supplied to CPAG.

"I was supplied with the number of substantiated cases of child abuse and the 0-17 population for each CYF site office. These show that CPAG's calculations are incorrect. For instance, their report states, '...the proportion of 0-17 year olds who were victims of abuse in Papakura was not 4.0% but 0.40 of 1%.' (p9)"

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

In an attempt to ascertain correlation between child abuse and benefit dependence, the report went on to estimate the number of beneficiaries that lived in each CYF site area.

"At this point CPAG counted all working age beneficiaries whereas the relevant population to use would be those beneficiaries with children in their care - a minority of all beneficiaries," said Mitchell.

The rate of benefit dependency was also incorrectly calculated.  Data at Figure 5 (p11) is labelled "% income-tested beneficiaries estimated in total population". Data at Table 6 (p24) purports to be "rate of benefit receipt in working-age population". Yet the two sets are data are identical.

Using the example of Papakura again, CPAG's estimate for the rate of benefit dependency is 10%. In fact the number of working-age beneficiaries was 6,096; the 18-64 population was approximately 31,302. That results in a benefit dependency rate of 19.5 percent.

Mitchell says, "I have written to CPAG about these errors. They have conceded that their report needs amending and say, 'An amended version of the report will be available on our website as soon as practicable.' Over two weeks later the faulty version is still on-line.

CPAG research is publicly promoted to influence social policy. It's therefore hugely important that policy-makers can trust their work. If CPAG is publishing faulty research that trust would be misplaced."

Why so sad?

A spokesman for the Postal Workers Union (?) has just been on Breakfast TV talking about how "sad" it is that people aren't using snail mail any more. He used the adjective three times.

Why? Why is it sad that there is so much more convenience available to us through technology? Why is it sad that we don't need to write cheques, buy envelopes, buy stamps and go to the post office or post box to send off bill payments? Why is it sad that we can communicate with our friends and family locally and overseas instantly?

It's a reality that slow post has had its day - like the hand-driven loom and the horse and cart.

But like those devices, postal deliveries aren't going to disappear overnight. They will be reduced to half the number in urban areas.

Still Grey Power are terribly upset:

The reductions would severely disadvantage the elderly, especially those who could not afford computers.

Surely they exaggerate. If the highlight of your day is the postman coming, with our without mail, you need to get an interest.

And as people change their habits, in particular, purchasing increasingly from the net, including everyday items like groceries, more delivery opportunities will arise. Posties need to anticipate the changed opportunities more than anybody else and plan their employment around them.

Sick of the sob stories

Simon Collins tells this story:

A solo mother has had her benefit halved, just eight weeks after having a new baby, because she failed to attend an appointment with Work and Income.
Leanne Griffin, 39, went to Work and Income's Albany office one week after giving birth by Caesarean section to tell the agency about her new son, Blair. She was surprised to be told that she had to look for full-time work.

The subsequent child policy was imposed in October 2012. This baby was conceived after that date. Looks like the mother was already on the DPB caring for her 15 year-old daughter. She would have had full-time work obligations as her daughter was 14+. Having a new baby would only give her one year free from those obligations. She may have been told she had to look for full-time work when the baby was one. (That she gave birth via Caesarean section is irrelevant.)

"I was speechless. I didn't know what to say," she said. "I had a week-old baby who I'm feeding."
She had taken her hospital discharge papers to confirm she had had a baby, but said her case manager had refused to look at the papers, saying she needed a birth certificate. Ms Griffin did not receive the birth certificate until last week.

So this incident with WINZ happened 7 weeks ago.

Instead, the case manager asked why she had not attended two previous appointments she'd made with Work and Income when she was looking for a house to rent and needed an advance for the bond.

She cancelled both appointments when she failed to secure the houses and is staying with her baby's paternal grandparents in Torbay until she can find a home. The baby's father has admitted himself to rehabilitation after a long history of drug use.

It appears that failing to keep these appointments (and/or a later one) is the reason for having her benefit cut. The cut isn't due to failure to meet a work-test. Just as a side note, notice the taxpayer is expected to fund her new home but she can and is living with her in-laws currently. What of their responsibility for their absent son and grandchild?

Ms Griffin, who also cares for her 15-year-old daughter and has an 8-year-old son not in her care, said she told the case manager she wanted to finish a degree in social work which she has started at Massey University. But the case manager "didn't really want to know". "She was more interested in getting me into full-time work. She made it clear it was full-time."

WINZ aren't going to fund mature students indefinitely any more.Some of the resource has been channelled into getting younger people educated and capable. That's sensible.

At one stage, she paused, looked at her computer a while, then said: "Pause 30 seconds and resume interview." Ms Griffin said: "I looked around to see who she was talking to. She was just so cold and horrible throughout the meeting."

Sounds like Ms Griffin might also have been quite a 'difficult' client to provoke this response. If not in her behaviour, certainly in the circumstances she presented.

Ms Griffin had to cancel a later appointment made as she'd been disqualified from driving and couldn't get a lift. She didn't hear from the agency again until a letter arrived saying her benefit was being halved for not meeting obligations.
A spokesman said Work and Income staff went "out to their way" to help her but their hands were tied.

I'm getting a bit sick of these hard luck stories. Here's a 39 year-old woman still living in a state of chaos; getting pregnant to a drug addict, with an estranged son, a recent driving disqualifiction (incurred while pregnant?), and who'd have guessed it - wants to be a social worker. I'm no angel, a delayed maturer in the responsibility stakes. But for goodness sake, this woman needs to get her act together.

As a supporter of the welfare reforms, I'm not going to be made to feel somehow guilty for whatever difficulty she now finds herself in.

(NB There isn't enough information in this report to properly ascertain why her benefit was cut.)

CPAG: Paid work "a time-consuming farce"

 The Child Poverty Action Group has just released new data into the benefit sanctions regime which has operated since Labour introduced it and continues under National. Since 2010 however beneficiaries with dependent children can only lose 50% of their benefit which the Minister says has resulted in the number of people having their benefit cut entirely "reducing dramatically". That's not mentioned in the paper.

The use of sanctions to enforce what policymakers assume to be universally shared “social norms”(New Zealand Government, 2012, p. 4) is a new development... CPAG has argued elsewhere (Child Poverty Action Group, 2010) that trying to leverage outcomes in areas such as health and education is an improper use of the welfare system, which should be concerned with income support.

I would suggest that other agencies have found it difficult or impossible to "leverage outcomes" so using the benefit system is the next logical step.

In 2012 CPAG made an Official Information Act request asking what advice the Minister of Social Development had received in respect of the decision to impose obligations on sole parent beneficiaries. 17 According to an aide memoir dated 24 th May 2012, social obligations “reinforce and achieve important social objectives including better outcomes for vulnerable children and maintenance of law and order .” There was no supporting evidence that these “important social objectives” would be achieved, nor any explanation of why “maintenance of law and order” is an appropriate purpose for the welfare system.

Again existing "maintenance of law and order" is, at best, a partially unsuccessful affair. Many law breakers receive taxpayer-funded income support however. So to make that support conditional on behaving lawfully seems sensible and legitimate. "Appropriate" even.

Emphasising the reforms’ focus on achieving social goals rather than income support, the aide memoire notes: “By its nature, the benefit system provides an opportunity to improve social outcomes because it supports, primarily, lower socio-economic groups.” This highly loaded sentence suggests it is appropriate to use the benefit system to pursue better outcomes for “lower socio-economic groups” even though it is not clear who, exactly, is a member of this group or groups.

Anybody on a benefit is by definition a member of  a "lower socio-economic group". If they are'nt they are defrauding the benefit system.

The aide memoire cites a US study showing most welfare sanctions were for work test failures (61%) while only 15% were for obligation failures (such as children not attending school). This suggests that the behaviour of beneficiaries as a whole is not that different from the general population. Indeed, recent reports have highlighted “rich and poor families pulling their youngsters from school for travel” while the principal of a South Auckland school observes “older children sometimes missed school to help babysit or step in for parents who were working long hours” (Jones, 2013a). It is therefore difficult to see why beneficiary parents have been singled out for special treatment.

15% of all sanctions tells us nothing about the actual number or how it relates to the comparative population. Why not look at the data regarding the increased incidence of child abuse and neglect and then try the line, "It is therefore difficult to see why beneficiary parents have been singled out for special treatment." But I forget. CPAG don't accept that difference either.

Of all the benefit sanctions in 2012 (56427) only 15 percent (8286) applied to beneficiaries with children. Only 918 had their benefit suspended or cancelled. CPAG admits,
.

The majority of clients (520) who are sanctioned have sanctions imposed for up to four weeks, while a much smaller number (78) are sanctioned from 4-8 weeks, and a very few (25) are sanctioned for over 8 weeks.While the numbers are relatively small, the question remains as to how families cope with severely restricted incomes, especially over long periods.

CPAG nevertheless want to use this data to advocate that children of sanctioned beneficiary parents are in dire straits. That expectations and obligations upon their parents are highly unreasonable. That work is not the best way out of poverty. In fact, in some circumstances...

...paid work just becomes a time-consuming farce which is cost ineffective and harmful to the long term wellbeing of the children.

Another hypocrisy regarding the Len Brown affair...

...and there has been so many.

In Wellington the centre right Mayoral candidate was smeared for issuing a public invitation to a painted lady to join him in the shower. He was subsequently cast as a misogynist, a "sexist relic".

  “These incidents show the true nature of the man,” says Denise Ritchie. “It’ll be up to Wellington voters to decide if a sexist relic from a bygone era is suited for the role of our capital city’s future mayor.”

Despite being apparently happily married and supported by his wife, a forthright, calls-a-spade-a-spade type, the feminist led campaign against John Morrison possibly/probably cost him the election. He was leading Wade-Brown until the liberal Green/female vote ramped up. Post election Deborah Coddington wrote,

Relax Wellington women, Mayor Celia's back. John Morrison, the man who wanted to shower with a body-painted young girl, won't be the capital's ambassador.
I can't believe so-called sophisticates found it hard to choose between incumbent Celia Wade-Brown and Morrison, the "sexist relic from a bygone age".

Contrast that to Auckland where the centre left Mayoral candidate didn't just eye the object of his lust (what man or woman  hasn't?) No need for me to canvas the rest.

But the absence of feminist outrage against Brown has been stunning. A man who used his power and position to exploit a young woman would ordinarily be a prime target. Yes, Chuang was using the Mayor too and I'm not playing the violin for her. But it is breathtaking how much the left will stomach to keep their man.

Me? I don't care whether he stays or goes. And the right team aren't looking too flash either. What winds me up is the staggering  hypocrisy and moral twistedness political scandals throw up every time.

Free market myths

The latest fashionable wisdom is that the free market doesn't work. The GFC is proof. Power prices are proof. The price of fish is proof. Unaffordable housing is proof. Etc etc.

Except we've never had a free market. One of the major reasons being government intervention. And it appears that people who used to champion the free market are amongst those who now say it doesn't work.

So I was attracted to this short list of myths about the free market.

Falsehood: The free market creates scarcity and higher prices.

• Reality: In any economic system the quantity of a good will typically not be enough to satisfy demand when the price is zero. In a free market, in which people trade their legitimate claims to those resources, prices will tend to rise or fall to the level where the quantity supplied equals the quantity demanded, and in that way prices help us to cope with scarcity.

Falsehood: The free market means the government gives businesses special privileges.

• Reality: The free market is free precisely because it denies special legal privileges to any person or group.

Falsehood: The free market requires that all valuable resources be privately owned and traded on markets.

• Reality: Sometimes the alternatives to individual ownership just work better, such as when we "exchange" favors with family, acquaintances, and sometimes with strangers without the need for formal markets and market prices.

Falsehood: The free market is pro-war.

• Reality: War and the government interventions that inevitably accompany it restrict markets and free association, make it more costly for most people to buy and sell, reduce the purchasing power of households and businesses, and disrupt the peace that is necessary for a thriving free market.

Falsehood: The free market is always efficient.

• Reality: The real world is populated by real people who don't have complete information, who may have bad information and who may just make mistakes. An "ideal" economic system is not one in which no one ever makes a mistake; it is one in which the mistakes that people inevitably make are corrected as effectively as possible.

 Hat tip NCPA

Super crisis averted

NZ hits one million adults with obesity
 
That's what the Daily Blog claims, predictably followed by nagging over the looming costs to the public health system.

Here's the source, the Ministry of Health Annual Report for 2013:

In 2011/12 about 28 percent of adults aged 15 years and over were obese, which is about one million adults (Ministry of Health 2012c). A further 35 percent of adults were overweight but not obese. About 10 percent of children aged 2–14 years were obese in 2011/12, and a further 21 percent were overweight but not obese (Ministry of Health 2012d).

So just over a third of adults aren't overweight.

That's it then. Superannuation crisis averted. That's what John Key knows. That's why the scheme is apparently sustainable. Most of the ageing population will meet a self-inflicted early demise.

Seriously, if people want to eat themselves into an early grave that's their choice. If food equals happiness or satisfaction or comfort then so be it.

What right has the state to decide that quantity of life is the ultimate goal for everybody?

More data transparency and accessibility

More praise from me for the Minister of Social Development's initiatives to improve the accessibility and transparency of benefit data.

The new format benefit factsheets have just been released. This was necessitated by the change in benefit categories. What impresses me however is 1/ the publication of numerous data spreadsheets showing regional, territorial authority, Auckland board etc information. Some of this has been available previously but to gather it into a table required hours of work trawling through individual factsheets. The Ministry has just made my job much easier. And 2/ the new factsheets have estimated back-data which will enable trends to be tracked from 2008. As well the historic data enabling tracking back to 1999 has been retained.

To use a hackneyed sporting term , this government, by setting public service goals and  making the data that measures their success more transparent and accessible, has actually 'backed itself.'

Naturally, I have to end with the observation that they can and must go further (before I get it in the neck from small government individualists.)

Futile attempt

Two years ago...

Pseudoephedrine, a drug commonly found in cold, flu and hayfever medication, will be reclassified from a class C to B2 controlled drug under the Misuse of Drugs Amendment Act (No 2) 2011 on Thursday.
Pharmacies will no longer stock bulk supplies of the drug and people will only be able to buy pseudoephedrine-based products using a prescription from their doctors.

...Today 
 

The amount of methamphetamine seized by Waikato police has quadrupled in the past year, making the haul the second-biggest in the country.
The massive rise in busts of the notorious stimulant pushed the region's tally - $1.99 million - above Bay of Plenty and Counties Manukau police districts, which respectively netted $375,000 and $1.3m of "P", in the year to June 30.
Waitemata was the country's "crystal" capital where police seized 2962.9 grams.
Seizures of the highly addictive psychoactive stimulant are increasing in the Waikato, according to police seizure statistics released to the Waikato Times under the Official Information Act.

So you could equivocate about what the stats mean but making it much harder for innocent users of pseudoephedrine to purchase the product hasn't curtailled the manufacture of methamphetamine.

Complaints about ECE care

In my article Vulnerable Children bill: Will it make a difference? published at NZCPD yesterday, I wrote

Today abuse is split into four categories; emotional, physical, sexual and neglect. In 2012 emotional abuse made up 56 percent of substantiated findings, physical – 15 percent , sexual – 6 percent and neglect, 22 percent. Child, Youth and Family record data about the nature of substantiated findings. Unfortunately information about the relationship between the offender and victim is not available.
Pieces of information about that relationship can be collated though. Almost 85% of emotional abuse findings are associated with family violence situations.2 In terms of child injury mortality and homicide, “… most perpetrators are parents, acting either alone or together. “3  Emotional abuse and neglect tends to be associated with parents who abuse alcohol and drugs and/ or have untreated mental health problems.4 Sexual abuse is the only type of abuse that is commonly associated with offenders outside of the immediate family but even then a third of perpetrators were parent figures and just over a fifth were other relatives according to a sample of childhood sexual abuses cases reported to police.5
Despite this the Vulnerable Children Bill, currently under public consultation, focusses very strongly on vetting people who work with children.

I've written to the Ministry of Social Development asking for information, "Regarding substantiated findings of child abuse during the calender year ending 2012, details of familial relationship between offenders and victims," and am awaiting an answer.

In the meantime another organisation, ChildForum, appears to have pursued similar lines via the Ministry of Education. The information they have received under the OIA is reported rather sensationally in today's NZ Herald.

Bear in mind these are complaints, not substantiated findings:

Litany of tears
The 247 complaints included:
* Teacher bit a child and twisted her hands and arms.
* Parents not told their child had fallen off a slide and had to wait for medical treatment.
* Student on teaching practice saw staff smacking children and dragging them by their arms.
* Child found wandering on the street while centre was unaware he was missing.
* Dogs roaming in play areas.
* Staff not administering prescribed medication to a child.
* Children left alone in vehicles.
* Staff smoking near youngsters.
* Food withheld from pupils.
* Infants' nappies unchanged.

To put 247 into context, in 2012 there were 152,800 reports of concern to CYF.

Only 14 percent of reports to CYF dveloped into substantiated findings. If the rate was similar for ECE complaints that would translate to 35. But any number between 35 and 247 would be a tiny fraction of the 195,000 children attending pre-school.

Ironically, I can envisage these "horror" tales being used to campaign against beneficiary parents being required to send their children to Kindergarten etc from age 3 when statistically speaking  a child is at greatest risk when at home with welfare-dependent caregivers.

Vulnerable Children bill: Will it make a difference?

This week's guest commentary for NZCPD:

A recent Child Poverty Action Group report about child abuse claimed that, ” …the Ministry of Social Development and its predecessors have been researching and writing about child abuse for almost quarter of a century.” Wrong. Investigations extend back much further.

More

Ending child poverty shouldn't rely on paid work

So says the Child Poverty Action Group

CPAG says the most effective way to reduce child poverty is to give children's payments to all low income children on the same basis. They say a policy which relies on paid work is not a solution to child poverty.

Any solution to poverty relies on somebody's paid work. CPAG are simply happy for it to be yours and not the child's parent.

 "Too many of our children are dying from poverty related diseases. Others bear life-long physical, mental and emotional damage, and grow up to endure poverty as adults," says St John. "The evidence is that families are slipping into ever more desperate situations especially with the implementation of recent very harsh and under-scrutinised welfare reform policies."

Asking a sole parent to be available for 12 or more hours work per week after their youngest turns five is "very harsh"? Asking them to ensure their child is enrolled with a GP and attending school in return for state support is "very harsh"?

The short term solution to child poverty is working parents with increased prospects of growing their income and re-partnering, and reduced prospects of rasing a child to become a beneficiary in turn.

The long term solution is people having children when they are in a position to look after them independently, provide security and stability.

A majority of the children CPAG identify as being in poverty were on a benefit at birth or shortly after. CPAG's solution - pay beneficiary parents more - will increase the size of this group. Even Labour, under Clark and Cullen, recognised that reality.

The question is, does Cunliffe? And even if he does, is their solution a price worth paying for a prime ministership?

A defence of income inequality

This is a brief must-read from Aurthur Brooks because it equips us with a basic but just defence of income inequality:

In America we stand for equality. But for the large majority of us, this means equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome.
If you are like most Americans, you believe we all should start at more or less the same place with more or less the same opportunities to succeed in life. But you also believe that, within reason, it's perfectly all right if we end up in different places.

More

Go ahead and smack your kids

That's what Michael Laws is advising:

Despite claims to the contrary, no parent has ever been convicted for lightly smacking their child, or had their child removed by CYF. Indeed, CYF has guidelines on what a light smack is: "an open palm, sharp slap leaving no enduring mark or injury to the child." By itself "this is most unlikely to constitute physical abuse . . . and there is unlikely to be any basis for further action".
So read the guidelines for social workers - published by CYF in December 2009 - as part of the prime ministerial review of how section 59 was working. It was authored by the chief of police, the head of CYF, and prominent child psychologist Nigel Latta.
And it's the reason why - despite all the clamour - neither Prime Minister John Key nor Parliament shows any appetite for revisiting the smacking issue. Indeed, recent court judgments - one involving the Court of Appeal - have emphasised CYF's operating instructions. The courts have got involved only when other elements of alleged abuse are at play, or there are demonstrable injuries.
So what does this mean - in practical terms - these school holidays? First, the anti-smacking legislation - or the section 59 amendment as it is more technically known - is, effectively, a non-issue. Beat your child, and you are rightly in trouble. Lightly smack them, and you're fine. Never use a belt, stick or similar - only an open palm is OK.

I don't share Laws' confidence in the ability of CYF to discern. And there are certainly many cases of families having children removed once they come to the attention of the agency. Families who feel badly aggrieved. Families dragged through the court system.  I sat through the court case of one such father preosecuted for 'shoving' his son.

  It's your child, your circumstance, your choice.

It's easy for Laws to blithely counsel action you feel is your right. He used to do the same when he had his talkback show. Somehow though I don't think "Michael Laws said it was OK" will have any legal standing as a defence.

Green spokesperson shows unfamiliarity with portfolio

A couple of weeks ago CYF chief social worker, Paul Nixon, had an opinion piece published in the DomPost. It wasn't on-line when I checked so I clipped and filed it in my 'child abuse' folder because it contained useful information. It is however available here.

The Greens are complaining about crime statistics not containing family violence statistics here.

The Government must ensure crime statistics next week show the true extent of domestic violence crime as CYF’s chief social worker confirmed today it is a key driver of child abuse, the Green Party said today.
Women’s Refuge, the Pacific Islands Safety & Prevention Project Inc. and the Shakti Community Council Inc. tonight criticised the police crime statistics for hiding the true incidence of domestic violence by lumping it in with all assaults that occur in the home.

The groups also claim to have noticed a trend of fewer prosecutions, more diversions for serious domestic violence offences, and a trend towards not charging offenders and relying more often on the victim being the evidence provider.

“This comes the same day that CYFS chief social worker Paul Norris wrote of the ‘toxic trio’ of domestic violence, parental substance abuse and untreated mental illness, that has led to a “dramatic rise in notifications of abuse and neglect of children,” Green Party women’s spokesperson Jan Logie said.

People make mistakes. But if you're an MP and make it your business to know the agencies that relate to your portfolio you could fairly be expected to know the key people and their names.

Just checked with the press releases at their website and no-one has picked up or corrected the error.

A "terrifying" prospect?

A spokesman for the Wellington City Coucil commenting on a rehash of burial laws:

"There has to be strict controls in place," a spokesman said. "There's a terrifying possibility of people just being able to ... dig a hole and put granny in it and put some flowers in it. It raises all sorts of obvious questions about procedure."

Terrifying? Like when a beloved pet expires and is buried in the garden? It'd be a whole lot cheaper than current procedures, good for the earth and a more peaceful ending than cremation. With the way families are these days, distributed all over the world, frequently remarried with complicated family relationships, cemeteries aren't as user-friendly.

Charter schools not an unpopular idea

Nearly 45 per cent of respondents supported charter schools because they felt they would provide a different approach to education.

A finding from a recent Herald Digi-poll.

I was having a conversation with an ex ACT staffer about the charter school policy just the other day. He said he was surprised that Labour didn't constantly refer to the charter schools as "ACT's" charter schools thus demonising them in the public eye. I said I thought the policy was actually reasonably popular going on what I'd seen and heard. Then he speculated that's what Labour's polling might be telling them and to tag them ACT's schools would actually accrue credit to the party. It's a possibility given the above result.

I'm in favour of a different appproach as well. But my gut feeling is the upbringing and home environment is the bigger factor in educational failure.

We frequently hear about the 20 percent that come out of the education system without qualifications. And I constantly talk about the 20 percent of children who go onto a benefit at birth or shortly after. The proportion has fluctuated between 18 - 25 percent over the last couple of decades. What's the correlation or overlap?

As a research project it's doable but not by me. A team would need to identify a group and examine their benefit histories, so privacy issues would come into play. I was thinking about any existing research. Perhaps the Christchurch Health and Development Study. But that followed a 1973 birth cohort. Growing up on welfare was far less common in the seventies. In 2028 or thereabouts, the Growing Up In New Zealand Study would have the data but that's a long time to wait. And as I've observed before, the study already has considerable drop-out and those children are most likely to be on welfare and transient.

Of course, any results would be discounted by the opposition as down to poverty and not welfare dependence ... but my, it would be fascinating to know what the overlap is.

(There is a review here -p57- of various studies into the effect of income from welfare on child outcomes. I don't have time now to quote from it. Mixed results anyway.)

Benefit cancellations

This is a table for Bill at the Standard.

Graph of the day

This was published in a report released yesterday about older New Zealanders. The graph is headed with "Opportunities created by our ageing population".  They are mostly 'broken window' opportunities though. That is, most of the opportunities identified require resource taken from somewhere else to fulfil them. It all smacks of too much government and as one of the people who will be part of these statistics, makes me feel slightly nauseous. We need to decrease the burden the aged will impose, not increase it. That or open our doors to young immigrants which ironically enough is generally resisted by the elderly, Winston's mob in particular.


Opportunities created by our ageing population
This changing demographic and social landscape provides New Zealand with opportunities to:
•    develop innovative approaches to the provision of healthcare, transport, housing,
social and other services
•    develop and grow businesses targeting older consumers from a range of cultural
backgrounds
•    establish long-term, affordable and accessible rental housing for older people
and ensure social and supported housing is available for those who need it
•    retain experienced and skilled employees to contribute to productivity growth and
to mentor young employees
•    deliver Better Public Services, including greater creativity in connecting New
Zealanders with government information employment and further education (results
five and six) 3 
•    increase co-operation and partnership across government agencies, communities
and businesses to develop and enhance services, economic opportunities and living options.

2,000 benefits a week cancelled!

The Standard is hysterical  over 2,000 benefits a week being cancelled. It's "warfare of welfare" they say. The NZ Herald today reported Paula Bennett saying:

"On average 1500 benefits are cancelled every week because people get work, with another 2000 cancelled weekly for a variety of other reasons."

The Standard says:

That’s 2000 people every week who do not have jobs having their benefit cancelled.That’s 2000 people, bashed and vilified at the best of times, having the safety net pulled out from under them every week and left without rent money or food money or any obvious means of support.

In the April to June quarter 2013,  69, 043 people had their benefit cancelled.

213 people a week had their benefit cancelled due to a change in marital status; 74 because they went to prison; 266 because they became a full-time student; 49 because they passed away; 180 because they left the country; 76 because they had excess income or assets; 751 because they didn't renew, or contest a non-payment; and 34 because a child in their care was no longer dependent.

Only 136 had their benefit cancelled because they didn't meet work obligations.

I wonder how many benefits were cancelled under Labour?

Go back to 2003/04 when there was a similar number of main benefits in place (320,000-ish)

That year 277,000 benefits were cancelled. 34 percent because people obtained work. 37 percent for 'other reasons'. 26 percent were transferred to other benefits. (The remaining 3 percent are 16-17 year-olds with no cancellation reason given but they are most likely transfers to other benefits.)

Shock horror.

Under Labour 1,956 a week people a week had their benefit cancelled with no job to go to.

UK ending the "something-for-nothing culture"

The Scotsman is reporting:

THE long-term unemployed are to be put into community service, made to look for work every day or be put on a programme to tackle their underlying problems in a dramatic toughening up of the welfare system, Chancellor George Osborne will announce today.
In his address to the Conservative Party conference in Manchester, Mr Osborne will say that the option of simply signing on to receive unemployment benefits will end within months.
The Chancellor will promise an end to “the something-for-nothing culture”, in a move that is expected to go down well with Tory members.
The £300 million “Help to Work” package will see 200,000 people who have been unemployed for at least two years, including more than 20,000 Scots, being forced to work for their benefits or attend intensive programmes aimed at getting them a job. The programme is set to be rolled out in six months, and Mr Osborne will tell Tory members that it is part of his strategy to make the economic recovery last.
In a conference where the Tories are pitching themselves as the party “for hardworking people”, the Chancellor will explain that he is an “economic optimist”, but tell delegates he is offering an “economic plan, not a quick fix”.
And in a direct rebuff to Labour’s attacks on falling living standards, he will warn that “without an economic plan, you do not have living standards”.
The unemployment initiative was last night condemned by Labour as a return to the spirit of the workhouse, as strict new rules will see people lose their benefits if they do not follow the programme.
From April next year, people claiming Jobseekers Allowance will have to either do full-time community work, attend the jobcentre and search for work every day, or be placed on the new Mandatory Intensive Regime – a tough programme which will see claimants with problems such as drug addiction or mental health issues attend jobcentres regularly to tackle the difficulties which stop them working. They will regularly meet specialist advisers to deal with their individual problems.
If they fail to do one of the three options they will lose their benefits, at present worth up to £71.70 a week.
Mr Osborne will boast that the scheme is the first across the UK which will see people forced to work or lose their benefits.
The Chancellor will argue that under Labour, people were left “trapped on benefits”, with 1.4 million people in 2010 having spent nine out of the previous ten years on benefits.
Complaining about a “lost generation”, Mr Osborne will also point out that the number of workless households in the UK almost doubled under Labour, from 136,000 in 1997 to 269,000 in 2010. He will say: “By the time Labour left office, five million people were on out-of-work benefits. What a waste of life and talent. A generation of people recycled through the jobcentre, collecting their dole cheques year in, year out, and no-one seemed to notice.”
Recent statistics from the Office for National Statistics reveal that Glasgow has a higher proportion of workless households than any other part of the UK, with 30.2 per cent of homes in the city being workless. The figures showed huge disparity across Scotland. Only 12 per cent of households are out of work in Aberdeen and Moray, in contrast to many parts of west-central Scotland, such as North Ayrshire, where 28 per cent of homes had no-one working, and Inverclyde, where the figure was 25 per cent.
Mr Osborne will blame the “open door immigration policy” under Labour for keeping UK citizens out of the low-skilled labour market. Highlighting government achievements so far he will say: “Well, never again. We’ve capped benefits and our work programme is getting people into jobs. Immigration down by a third.”

What amused me about the last sentence is what he says later:

And in a bid to give an upbeat message he will add: “I’m an optimist about the world. “I am a believer in freedom and free markets. I see the global economy growing. I see hundreds of millions of people in places like India and China leaving grinding poverty to join it. That’s something to celebrate.”

Maybe I am mistaken but I always thought that "freedom and free markets" stood alongside open immigration. Call it pragmatism if you like but politicians only ever sing from the right song sheet to the extent that it aligns with popular beliefs - and getting re-elected.

 

Children's Commissioner gets it wrong

An article from Stuff at the weekend described research into the increase in babies dying from head injuries.

The number of babies dying from deliberately inflicted head injuries increased almost four-fold since 1991, with damage seen akin to that suffered in car accidents, a new study says. In the first study of its kind in New Zealand, researchers examined data from Auckland's Starship Hospital and the Auckland city forensic pathology department, examined clinical records, autopsies, and police reports from 1991 to 2010.

At the end the Children's Commissioner comments.

Wills said over the 20 years studied, several factors could have led to the dramatic increase in inflicted injuries, including a sharp increase in teenage pregnancies, sole parenthood, and most likely an increase in domestic violence.

There was no sharp increase in teenage pregnancy or sole parenthood over 1991 to 2010

I'm not denying that teenage births and sole parenting are factors in child abuse, but it's the dysfunctional welfare lifestyle that often accompanies these circumstances that's the problem. There were more teen pregnancies and births before the DPB but back then society dealt with them in a way that improved the outlook for the babies. Not the opposite. The genie got out of the bottle in the seventies. The last twenty years have seen something of a stabilisation in numbers but intergenerational dependency has continued to increase.