Children included in a benefit at birth or soon after

This post is for the benefit of a commentor on the Daily Blog who says I am talking "nonsense".

The following is a table supplied to be by MSD under the OIA.

 

See also MSD publication Children in Families Supported by Main Benefits:

The proportion included in a benefit at birth or very soon after fell from around 25% of children born in the 1990s to 20% of children born in 2005 and 2006 and 18% of children born in 2007. Although contact with the benefit system fell, as many as one in five children turning 15 in 2008 are estimated to have been supported by a main benefit for a total of seven or more of their first 14 years of life. An estimated one in ten spent a total of 11 or more of their first 14 years supported by a main benefit.

So in the year when NZ had the lowest unemployment rate in the OECD, 18 percent of children born that year were dependent on welfare by December 31.

And regarding increasing benefit levels being a disincentive to work:

 “…every 1 percentage point increase in the level of poverty reduction achieved by the welfare state is associated with an increase in the number of jobless families by 0.63 percentage points. Among the English-speaking countries, the correlation is even stronger (about 0.92), so that Australia and the United Kingdom reduce child poverty very significantly and have very high levels of joblessness among families; while Canada and the United States reduce poverty much less, but have much lower levels of joblessness.”

 Whiteford, P. and W.Adema (2007), “What Works Best in Reducing Child Poverty: A Benefit or Work Strategy?”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No.51, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/233310267230

Update:

Table not enough. Here is the full OIA as requested.

 

Good news on physical child abuse statistics?

I was prompted to check the latest physical child abuse statistics when I heard Deborah Coddington (standing in for John Tamihere on Radio Live) say that the anti-smacking legislation is working. No disrespect to Deborah but I immediately wondered what she bases that on.

At best it could be claimed that the anti-smacking legislation has lowered the projection, but the trend it is still upward.

Pensions: What the UK and US save, NZ will pay for

The DomPost today reports on the Ministry of Social Development's push to get more retirees to claim pensions from their birth country to offset what New Zealand has to pay out. Fair enough. NZ has long held reciprocal pension arrangements with a number of countries.

But it raises another issue.

With many of those countries (particularly the United Kingdom, where so many NZ residents were born) lifting their retirement ages, what they save, NZ will have to pay out. Foreign-born new retirees will be eligible for NZ Super at 65 but there will be no immediate offsetting equivalent from their birth country.

Here's what is happening in the UK.

And this is what the US is doing.

It makes sense for NZ to broadly align itself with those countries is has social security arrangements with. This anomaly is yet another reason why John Key should have thought before pledging to hold the Super qualifying age down.

(Of course it would make more sense if people had their own individual pension plans but that's not the current debate. Raising the age of Super entitlement is.)

Welfare reduction target misreported

The NZ Herald reports on the release of progress on achieving the Better Public Service targets yesterday.

Welfare
1. Cut the number of people who have been on a working age benefit for more than 12 months by 30 per cent
In the past year, the number of long-term beneficiaries fell from 78,212 to 75,366 - a drop of 3.6 per cent.

The DomPost also reports on page 2, "The number of  people on a working age benefit for more than 12 months has dropped by 3,000, to 75,300."

They are both wrong.

The number of working age people on benefits for more than  12 months is far higher than 78, 212. The actual number is over 230,000.

The 78,212 refers to working age people who have employment obligations.These are the people who will be moved onto the new Job Seeker benefit next week (if the reforms are running to schedule). It ignores women with children younger than 14, most on the invalid benefit and some on the sickness benefit. They will move to either Sole Parent Support or Supported Living Payment.

The welfare target is better explained here.

As I've commented before, it's a very soft target.

(Progress on each of the 10 social targets is graphically depicted here.)

Get lost Grey Power

I have no regard for Grey Power. Do all of the grandparents who belong to this organisation agree that their grandsons (and grand daughters?) should be subject to compulsory military training because some scumbags commit crimes against the elderly and others? It's just one of those knee jerk responses that makes me groan. Why blame the vast majority of young people who live lawful and productive lives?

I suppose they'll be calling for Winston First to adopt this dictatorial, authoritarian measure as policy.  The worst of it is, if successful, Winston First will probably go up in the polls.

Oh, and don't demand my respect based on age. Your collectivist, statist, unthinking notions preclude it. I was going to say that young fools, middle-aged fools, old fools are all the same. But the old fool is actually worse. One might have expected some modicum of wisdom and tolerance to have developed by now.

The Owen Glenn Inquiry looks dead in the water

The Owen Glenn Inquiry is a mess. It appears to have been dogged firstly by internal conflict, which didn't surprise, and then by the revelations of a "physical abuse" charge against a woman (in another country, 11 years ago), which Glenn denies.

But it strikes me that regardless of whether the charge was based on a genuine incident or not, there have been numerous men involved in the White Ribbon campaign who admitted to violence in their past. And media have actually put these characters on a pedestal. They call them role models and agents of change. So if there were any truth to the charge it shouldn't exempt Glenn from proceeding. If there is no truth, he needs to provide a full explanation of what occurred. That's the downside of courting widespread public approval.

Calls for the name of the inquiry to be changed are little more than clutching at straws. If the media is as hostile to Glenn as he believes, whenever they write about the inquiry they will simply add,  "formerly known as the Owen Glenn inquiry".

In hindsight, though it should have been obvious from the outset, it would have been better if Mr Glenn hadn't launched his inquiry with such fanfare, but had set up a low key behind-the-scenes operation. Even then, my response to commissions of inquiry irrespective of who funds them is the same. They are superfluous. The causes of abuse, particularly against children, are already known.

I wasn't excited about the establishment of this inquiry and I'm not excited about the prospect of its demise. In a fascinating way this debacle appears to have been driven by some of the same aspects of human nature that feature in domestic abuse. Desire for control, ego, and revenge.

Radical feminists push for Labour Party quotas

Just posted at Breaking Views, Radical feminists push for Labour Party quotas.

(An expansion on my earlier post in light of Shearer's response.)

Fifty percent of F... all

I blogged about Labour's daft quota plans when they were first mooted. (A radio news clip featuring a male conference attendee mildly questioning the merits of electoral quotas being jeered by others in the crowd has fixed itself in my memory. Labour women aren't victims, they are bullies.)

From the NZ Herald:

It is part of a bid to lift the proportion of women in caucus to 45 per cent by next year and 50 per cent by 2017.

50 percent of f... all is what they'll end up with if they keep going down this track.

Just another cause for internal conflict, and another reason for non-PC voters to look elsewhere.

Unfortunately, one of the main benefactors will be Winston Peters.

Not a disappointed horse

Below is a stud horse recently imported from the US. He won a couple of races I believe and has already produced winning progeny. When I took photos of him (he belongs to a friend) I wanted to capture his powerful physique and the hot, bright, Manawatu day during the drought. It was a painting for no-one but me. If it worked I'd hang it above our fireplace because I've long wanted something there that'd exude light. (I tried a mirror once but it didn't work.)

So I indulged myself and bought an enormous canvas (which subsequently wouldn't fit into the car and had to be delivered). Initially the painting was in my usual style. Realist and quite thinly painted. But it was very dissatisfying. Lifeless and boring. I began thinking of it as only an under-painting. Just a sketch. It was problematic trying to work on it in my small studio because I couldn't get well back from it to gauge the effect.

Then we had a mini disaster. A rat's nest in the living area ceiling became apparent when the rats chewed through internal piping and water started to run down the wall behind the fireplace.The result is the wall and ceiling had to be hacked into and currently they still await re-plastering and re-painting. But this presented a perfect opportunity. I could proceed with my horse hanging on the living room wall. But it wasn't going to be with a brush and turps. Smelly business. If I used a palette knife I could just wipe it clean with a rag.

This is a big departure for me but I have been increasingly drawn to richer, more strongly contrasting colour and lots of it. So I set up the palette and stool and began. I'm a careful and tidy worker and there were no mishaps until ... Daisy walked through through palette and spread red and blue paw marks everywhere. What fun trying to catch her and clean her muzzle and paws up. Not.

It's still a work in progress but, I don't know, I think it's just the colours as much as anything else, it makes me happy. It hangs there and every so often I pick up the knife and move a bit of paint around. There are no fences yet and the tail and mane are discordant. But it's a very nice way to work. Just to contemplate day to day, and shape slowly.

(There's a very funny skit from Little Britain where a man goes into a antique shop and asks if they have "a painting of a disappointed horse. " For some reason the kids and I crack up over it every time we watch it. We still have no idea what a disappointed horse looks like, but this isn't it. What stud horse could ever be disappointed with his lot?)

(Left click on image to enlarge).

For fear of offending

Was it the intention of politicians to segregate us into groups that won't complain for fear of offending each other? Thus allowing them to buy, and continue to buy, our votes accordingly?

For example,  students have to pay to use public transport (in Wellington at least) and Superannuitants do not. But which group has an income? Students are reticent about complaining, though I note a new group has formed. Without researching them, I'm willing to bet they are calling for free or subsidised fares. Not for 65 plus to pay their way.

The pollies have got us right where they want us. It vexed me greatly when standing for ACT, that the idea of not dispensing privilege was so misunderstood and consequently, unpopular. The state has us pitted against one another in the never-ending scramble for a free lunch. And levering off this set of circumstances (which we call 'democracy') are armies of people researching and justifying those free lunches.

Compounding the reluctance of people to speak out is the fluidity between groups.  We will all be in one of the groups age-wise before we kick the bucket. Perhaps people in their 50s have less interest in stating that the age of Super needs to rise. But they bloody well should knowing, as it stands, the tax burden on their children will be greater than it was on them.

Youth have trouble speaking against privilege for the 'golden oldies' because they've got grandparents  affected. Do over 65s show concern or empathy for youth who are expected to incur debt to a degree that would have horrified them? I don't hear them.

Those same people though look at their grown-up children demanding Working For Families and Paid Parental Leave and wonder why they've become so self-righteously expectant of state largesse.

Unfortunately, to give voice to such sentiments isn't going to make for a conducive family get-together. Those are times for appreciating and enjoying each other.

So voters put up and shut up. Be it from self-interest or fear of offending.

We are divided and conquered. The systematic auction of goodies called 'elections' can persist unchallenged...

Will I need a booster seat to drive my car?

Isn't it always the way. As soon as public safety campaigners get their 'inch', they want a 'mile'.

The law is about to be changed to require 7 year-olds to be in car booster seats.

But now there are calls for the age to be raised to 11.

Gulp. Many, maybe even a majority, of 11 year-olds are bigger than me.

(And save me from kids riding backwards pulling faces and making gestures. They may be safer but the driver behind, the one they are irritating and distracting the hell out of, isn't.)

(Emotionally driven) Shearer goes up a notch...

Just saw a news brief during the ad break (watching X Factor) showing David Shearer hugging the Ikaroa Rawhiti winning candidate.

It was such a genuine, communicating, heartfelt hug. Can't ever remember anything like it from Helen, who even in victory seemed to have her emotions self-censored.

Shearer went up in my estimation. (It was like seeing the Queen unselfconsciously BEAM when she's watching her horses. Delightful.)

Cynics will say, no wonder - he's so grateful.

But there it was, fleetingly, a glimpse of who Shearer is. And perhaps it explains why he has been so undermined as leader.

Declining interest in by-elections

Why? You tell me.

Thinking about adoption statistics

It's common knowledge that adoptions have declined steeply. This source of statistics is new to me. It shows adoptions peaked at 3,967 in 1971. By 2008 the number was 259. Another table shows adoptions falling to 100 in the 2011/12 financial year.

It's interesting that the first set of data  frames the rise in adoptions as an aberration, and the decline as a return to normal (my words). But it ignores that pre-adoption many children were placed in orphan asylums. At December 31, 1928 (randomly chosen) there were 2,906 children in orphanages and a majority had living parents. Was that state of affairs 'normal'?

Societal values are constantly changing. It may be in  the future the practice of adoption grows again as we begin to accept that some children are not better off with their birth parent.

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.