The evidence that persuaded the govt to raise benefits

Before the budget I seem to remember the PM  referring to 60,000 children in real poverty (haven't time now to chase down source). I wondered what definition he was using. Looks like the table below which measures items of deprivation. So 60,000 children have 11+ deprivations:

Table D.4

Cumulative distribution for higher DEP-17 scores (% individuals), LSS 2008

DEP-17 score	6+	7+	8+	9+	10+	11+
ALL (%)	14	11	8	6	4	3
0-17 yrs (%)	21	17	13	10	8	6
# of children	220k	180k	140k	100k	80k	60k
# of households with children	110k	90k	70k	50k	40k	30k

Here is the table of items .

Table D.5

18 child-specific items used for calibrating DEP-17 for school-aged children (aged 6-17 yrs)

Enforced lack of essentials		Economised, cut back or delayed purchases ‘a lot’ because money was needed for other essentials (not just to be thrifty or to save for a trip or other non-essential)
	Two pairs of shoes in a good condition that are suitable for daily activities (for each child)	Child(ren) continued wearing shoes or clothes that were worn out or the wrong size
	Two sets of warm winter clothes for each child	Postponed child’s visit to the dentist
	A waterproof coat for each child	Postponed child’s visit to the doctor
	Fresh fruit and vegetables daily	Did not pick up child’s prescription
	A meal with meat, fish or chicken (or vegetarian equivalent) each day	Unable to pay for a child to go on a school trip or other school event
	A separate bed for each child	Child(ren) went without music, dance, kapa haka, art, swimming or other special interest lessons
	Enough bedrooms so that children aged over 10 of the opposite sex are not sharing a room	Had to limit your child(ren)’s involvement in sport
	Have children’s friends around to play and eat from time to time	Made do with very limited space for children to study or play
	Have children’s friends to a birthday party
	All the school uniform required by the school(s) for each child

This is a much better way of measuring hardship than simply measuring household income.


Then,

Main income source for parents

·         Beneficiary families have higher hardship rates than working families, with those who move between benefit and work having rates somewhere in between.

·         Nevertheless, at the less severe hardship levels (eg 7+) children in hardship are split evenly between beneficiary and working families. This reflects the fact that there are many more working families than beneficiary families.

·         Beneficiary families are more likely than working families to be in more severe hardship, though around a third of children in more severe hardship are from working families (families that have no core benefit income at all).

 


 Response - raise beneficiary income.

This data was from 2008. What will be most interesting is when, or if, the exercise is repeated, will the deprivation have eased. What would you expect?

(Sorry will have to sort the presentation later - but the link to the tables is above)

MSD releases "... advice for the Budget 2015 child hardship package"

MSD has just  released:

Measuring and monitoring material hardship for New Zealand children:

MSD research and analysis used in advice for the Budget 2015 child hardship package

Just  a heads-up. Haven't had time to absorb it yet.

Hardship is about what a child actually lacks that can be reported in a survey. It isn't income poverty, despite the government's response being an income boost.

At a quick read the 2015 budget was advised from 2008 data....seven budgets ago.

Refugees and benefit dependence

Source

"Refugees in New Zealand often avail themselves of these benefits. The 2004 study asked about the primary source of income in the last two weeks for “established refugees”, who had been in the country for about five years. Seventy-eight percent of respondents declared benefits were the primary income support, while only 19 percent pointed to wages and one percent to self-employment."

Unfortunately I cannot find more recent data.

The last edition of Benefit Receipt of Recent Migrants to NZ was issued in 2008. At that time overall dependence was falling due to the strong economy but refugee reliance on the sickness benefit and DPB was growing.

I am not against raising the quota but NZ does refugees no favours with easy access to ongoing benefits (hence the contrast with the US as per graph above).

First poll response to the budget (updated)

TV One News says  the budget failed to please voters, with the latest Colmar Brunton poll showing National slipping one point.

The Government's 'benefit budget' appears to have had little impact, with just 4 per cent of people saying they are now better off, according to the latest ONE News opinion poll...The Colmar Brunton poll saw National slip one percentage point to 48 per cent

I predicted it would fail to please voters  by expanding welfare.

I also promised I'd say so if I was wrong.

Who knows.

Update: A second poll shows National down 3.4 points and the PM  "dipping below 40 per cent for the first time since early 2014." So my prediction wasn't wrong, at least in regard to the Reid Research Poll. Increasing welfare is not electorally popular amongst National voters. As I have tried to point out, in a series of posts, the reasons for doing so are quite spurious.

Annette King attacks social bonds

Annette King is attacking the government's intention of using social bonds to improve social and health outcomes. NewstalkZB reports,

Government plans to issue social service bonds have come under fire from Labour's health spokesperson.
The state wants to contract out work and put in place measurable performance outcomes.
Contractors would fund that work by selling bonds to investors - if performance outcomes are met, the Government would pay back the bonds plus a percentage return.
Annette King said the Department of Internal Affairs has warned against the idea.
"Their own officials said there are very real difficulties in assessing what projects have potential to deliver net benefits for the government, and even greater difficulty in evaluating if they've been successful."
She asked why the Government would pay a profit to private investors, for the provision of core public services paid for by the taxpayer.

Here is a succinct explanation of what a social bond is. It comes from the UK where they are already used:
 

              A SIB is a financial mechanism in which investors pay for a set of interventions to improve a social outcome that is of social and/or financial interest to a government commissioner.

If the social outcome improves, the government commissioner repays the investors for their initial investment plus a return for the financial risks they took. If the social outcomes are not achieved, the investors stand to lose their investment.

The answer to Annette's question is because the private investor,  who is far better placed to assess risk  than the taxpayer, bears any loss.

If an intervention is so risky a private investor can't be persuaded it will achieve desired outcomes, why should the taxpayer fund it?

Social Impact Bonds

A SIB is a financial mechanism in which investors pay for a set of interventions to improve a social outcome that is of social and/or financial interest to a government commissioner.

If the social outcome improves, the government commissioner repays the investors for their initial investment plus a return for the financial risks they took. If the social outcomes are not achieved, the investors stand to lose their investment.
- See more at: http://www.socialfinance.org.uk/services/social-impact-bonds/#sthash.sukNL6NV.dpuf

Vetting potential jurors goes digital

NewstalkZB reports:

People called up for jury duty could soon see their private lives put under the microscope.
A new company is offering to vet potential jurors social media profiles, on sites including Facebook and Twitter.
Jury Selection Services is offering defence lawyers access to a person's digital footprint.
It includes all publicly available information such as financial status, personal relationships, debts and even religious affiliation.
Auckland law professor Bill Hodge says it could deter people from turning up for jury duty.

That'll do for my chances of ever making a jury.

How far in advance do lawyers (and I'm guessing the information will be available to prosecuting lawyers also) know potential juror names? I had assumed it wasn't until they entered the court room and were available for challenge. Everybody over 18 (and on the electoral roll) is eligible for jury service, so does that mean the "new company" would have to possess the digital footprint of everyone that has one? That's a massive amount of information. To make the collection of it comercially viable, wouldn't the data be offered further afield than to just lawyers? Indeed, does the "new company" already exist under another guise?

Most importantly, would this ability to quickly access a digital footprint produce a panel better able to deliver a just decision? If the service is very expensive the course of justice could be perverted.