MSD downplays link between welfare status and child abuse

(A number of people privately and on the blog have said this matter needs a wider hearing hence the release below)

Media Release

MSD DOWNPLAYS LINK BETWEEN WELFARE STATUS AND CHILD ABUSE

Friday, 30 August, 2013

The Ministry of Social Development (MSD) has released statistical information that details the overlap between children's contact with the benefit system, and care and protection or youth justice services.

Welfare commentator Lindsay Mitchell is welcoming this overdue research. "The last time MSD conducted a similar exercise was 1996 so an update was well overdue. This time the Ministry has followed the 1993 birth cohort to age 17 to explore levels of contact.

Unfortunately, the data is presented in a way that downplays the risks. The benefit cohort is only ever compared to the overall cohort as opposed to the non-benefit  cohort. This produces a finding  that the benefit cohort had a likelihood of contact with CYF that was,  '1.5 times that for the overall cohort.'  However, if the non-benefit cohort was the comparison group, the likelihood would rise to 3.4 times.

When MSD examines children on a benefit for 9 or more years who have experienced a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect, they describe the risk as only three times greater than the total population cohort. Again, if this benefit cohort was compared to the non benefit group the increased likelihood rises to nearly 13 times greater."

Mitchell goes on to express her disappointment that MSD then claims the association is about low income, not benefit status. "This makes a mockery of analysing the overlap data. Essentially MSD has written off the correlation between benefit status and increased risk of abuse to low income."

"What MSD needs to do is compare similar groups of low income children with differing sources of income ie from work or a benefit, and their respective contact with CYF.

In the mean time these findings show why welfare reforms aimed at reducing long-term benefit dependency are so important for the safety and well-being of children."

CPAG loses again

Just released:

Judgment: CPAG v Attorney-General

Friday, 30 August 2013, 1:10 pm
Press Release: NZ Court of Appeal COURT OF APPEAL OF NEW ZEALAND
MEDIA RELEASE
CHILD POVERTY ACTION GROUP INCORPORATED (CPAG) v THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL
(CA457/2012) [2013] NZCA 402
PRESS SUMMARY
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It does not comprise part of the reasons for that judgment. The full judgment with reasons is the only authoritative document. The full text of the judgment and reasons can be found at www.courtsofnz.govt.nz.
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal by the Child Poverty Action Group (CPAG) challenging part of the Working for Families package introduced in 2004.
CPAG alleged that the in-work tax credit (forming part of the package) discriminated against people who receive an income-tested benefit. That was because the in-work tax credit was available only for those in full-time employment who were not receiving an income-tested benefit. This is known as the “off-benefit rule”. CPAG alleged this breached the Human Rights Act 1993 and the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of employment status (which includes persons in receipt of a benefit).
The Human Rights Review Tribunal and the High Court each ruled against CPAG’s challenge to the off-benefit rule. Those decisions have been upheld by the Court of Appeal.
The Court of Appeal disagreed with the High Court on one aspect of the appeal but this did not affect the final outcome. The Court of Appeal found that the off-benefit rule, on its face, subjected beneficiaries to differential treatment which amounted to a material disadvantage.
But, in agreement with the Human Rights Review Tribunal and the High Court, the Court of Appeal has found that the off-benefit rule is a justified limit under s 5 of the Bill of Rights on the right to be free from discrimination by reason of employment status and does not therefore breach the Bill of Rights.
This is because the in-work tax credit deliberately created an earnings gap between people on a benefit and people who are working. The objective was to incentivise people into work and improve incomes for families with children. CPAG accepted this objective was important enough to justify limiting the right to freedom from discrimination but argued that the off-benefit rule was disproportionate to the objectives to be achieved.
The Court of Appeal has held that the discriminatory impact of the off-benefit rule is not out of proportion to the goal of incentivising people into work, and the evidence established that it only impairs the right to be free from discrimination to the minimum extent necessary to achieve the objective.
CPAG’s appeal has been dismissed accordingly but with no order for costs against it

Child abuse rates in beneficiary population: MSD cover-up by omission

Warning: laborious statistical workings below

I've hesitated to label a new Ministry of Social Development factsheet a "cover-up" but having chewed over it for a few days I've decided that's exactly what it is.

For the first time MSD has examined a "birth cohort ever present in New Zealand" and the overlapping contact with the benefit system, care and protection or youth justice services in the years to age 17. They used 1993.

The opening summary states:

"While most supported by the benefit system in childhood had no contact with care and protection services, as a population group their likelihood of contact was 1.5 times that for the cohort overall."

If you think that seems low there's a reason. Throughout the factsheet the benefit group is compared to  the total cohort (which includes the benefit group). Why not compare the benefit group to the non-benefit group?

Maybe because the result doesn't look so good.

Let me demonstrate:

 Here's MSD calculations:

Of 41,000 benefit cohort 12,000 (80% of all known) had contact with C&P =.293
Of 76,000 total cohort 15,000 (100% of all known) had contact with C&P = .197

.293 is 1.5 times .197

But let's look at the non-benefit cohort

Of 35,000 non-benefit cohort 3,000 (20% of all known) had contact with C&P = .086

.293 is 3.4 times .086

Children who appeared in the benefit system were 3.4 times more likely to have contact with C&P than non-beneficiary children. Nowhere in the factsheet does this likelihood appear.

Being known to C&P doesn't necessarily mean a child has been abused or neglected. There is however also data available on the incidence of substantiated findings.

The paper says "looking at the estimated 18 percent of the cohort who spent at least nine years of their first 17 years supported by the benefit system...27 percent had substantiated findings of abuse or neglect (a rate more than three times that for the overall cohort...)"

Again the authors make the comparison to the overall cohort and not the non-benefit cohort. Let's do that with the data available in the next table:

We know from the previous table that 27 percent of the 9+ years benefit group had at least one substantiated finding of  abuse or neglect. The 9+ group represents 18 percent (table above) of the total cohort of 76,000 or 13,680.  So 3,694 of them had a finding.


3,694 is 60 percent of the total children with a finding. Total children with a finding must therefore be 6,157.

3,694 findings (60%) amongst 13,680 (9+ benefit group) = .27
739 findings (12%) amongst 35,000 (non-benefit group) = .021

.27 is 12.9 times .021

Children who spend 9 or more years in the benefit system are almost 13 times more likely to experience a substantiated finding of abuse or neglect than children never on a benefit. That's more meaningful than a likelihood, "more than 3 times that for the overall cohort."



Yet turning to the "discussion" section of the factsheet, MSD says:

"The findings are consistent with associations between low income and measures of child maltreatment found both across and within countries. They do not however establish that being supported by the benefit system causes a child to be more at risk of these outcomes."

Right out of the CPAG handbook. It's a pretty pointless exercise then, analysing benefit and CYF overlap only to write the association off to "low income".

Graph of the day

The graph below shows how many of the 1993 birth cohort who spent time on a benefit (41,000) became known to CYF and later to youth justice by age 17.

For context the total birth cohort for 1993 was 76,000.

Cunliffe crying crocodile tears

I'm listening to David Cunliffe's slightly hysterical state of the nation speech as he declares his bid for the Labour leadership.

In amongst the many pleas to the inferior state of affairs under National he says he's tired of
" ...watching hope die in the eyes of our young..."

Let's briefly hold that up to statistical scrutiny.

Teenage birthrate going down since 2007.

Youth suicide rate is dropping, albeit a very recent trend.

The youth Not in Employment, Education or Training (NEET) rate down.

Youth prosecuted offending is down.

Youth unemployment dropping slightly.

Child abuse substantiations are up and that can be for a myriad of reasons; more reporting, different processing, or simply more abuse.

No flag bearer for National, I am interested in research and reality (and the line between those is often murky).
But match the following to Mr Cunliffe's 'hope dying in our young' speech:

 “Researchers from The University of Auckland suggest that the findings show broad overall improvement in the health and wellbeing of young people."

New Zealand youth engaging in less risky pursuits

2 August 2013

Drinking, drugs and other risky behaviours are on the decline according to a nationwide report on New Zealand youth launched at Parliament recently.
“The Health and Wellbeing of New Zealand Secondary School Students” report published by The University of Auckland and Auckland UniServices Ltd is the third in the Youth 2000 Survey Series which provides insights into trends of adolescent experience from 2001.
The 2012 survey was completed by 8,500 secondary school students and provides the country’s most comprehensive data on current adolescent concerns and behaviour.
Researchers from The University of Auckland suggest that the findings show broad overall improvement in the health and wellbeing of young people.
In particular, the report shows a marked reduction in tobacco, alcohol consumption, binge drinking and illegal drug use as well as lower rates of dangerous driving and small positive shifts in school life.
 Primary investigator from the University, Dr Terryann Clark, says that the significant overall reduction in risk-taking behaviours among adolescents is exciting and is cause for optimism.
“The report indicates some strong positive emerging trends which represent huge gains for the future of New Zealand,” she says.
Other results indicate negative changes in young people’s lives. For example, youth from across the social spectrum are increasingly aware of parental concerns around not having enough money for food, and increasing numbers of young people are unable to secure part-time work or access healthcare when needed.
Divisions continue between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’ particularly in healthcare and nutrition, and in outlook for future education and training.
 In general, the rates of young New Zealanders who are emotionally distressed, bullied, using contraception inconsistently, and/or are overweight remain static.
 “The report series builds a rich and compelling picture of the health and development of young New Zealanders and elucidates the key areas of importance that we as a society needs to invest in order to nurture positive, healthy and vibrant generations of New Zealanders,” says the Instigator of the Youth 2000 Survey Series and Clinical Director Mental Health Services at Counties Manukau DHB, Peter Watson. “The findings will be enormously valuable to policymakers, schools, parents and caregivers.”
The full report findings are now publically available at The University of Auckland Youth 12 site. Separate reports including findings for Maori adolescents using the same survey data will be released from October 2013.

Lovers aren't the only ones who give second chances

Michael Laws writes about the car-boot victim who has forgiven the car-boot offender.

Three months ago she was placed in the boot of her new car by her deranged, drugged boyfriend - fell out - and was then dragged 1.7 kilometres behind the car as he zoomed off...she turned up in court last week to support him as he battles lawyers and the justice system to be there for her...Yeah, but he was on drugs, Ana excuses. He'd just come out of prison and was on a bit of a booze-drugs binge. Perfectly understandable. Not his fault - it was the drugs. Give him another chance: chur, bro.

When this story broke earlier this week I wasn't surprised. He'll have her tied around his little finger. He'll be laying on the deeply contrite pathos. She'll be confusing pity with love.

But she is only as malleable as parole board members. They must be constantly lulled into the same sense of self-certainty about an offender's true remorse and intention to never ever re-offend. Well, maybe not self-certainty but at least somewhat confident that another  chance is merited.

Unfortunately the trust is too often misplaced and even as young as 26, you can bet your bottom dollar on it this guy has already had more than his fair share of second and subsequent chances.

Regarding Labour's US-style 'primary'

Over the years, more than once, the suggestion has been made that ACT's US-style 'primary' of 2004 destroyed it, albeit the subsequent death was protracted and the party still clings to life by a thread. Even as a mere spectator with a vote I found the process unsettling with torn loyalties and developing rifts. Public Address reported at the time:

 The lid seems finally to be coming off the Act party’s leadership “primary” election, with Stephen Franks use of his Unfranked email newsletter to issue an “urgent appeal for help in defeating the frontrunner, Rodney Hide.

Nobody has ever expressed a positive opinion about the process that I'm aware of. And though I'm only surmising, the ill-feelings and neuroses engendered by the battle festered thereafter. Hide and Franks were both worthy contenders, but my sense is they didn't trust each other and their politics were not necessarily aligned. The vote was probably split along similar lines: the social liberal vs the social conservative - loosely. Members who wanted Franks were bound to be bitterly disappointed and vice versa (though I could have lived with Franks as leader.)

That's all in the past but it's worth remembering as we watch Labour embark on its own primary. Three weeks gives too much time for divisions to form, for expectations to lift, for hopes to rise  and ensuing disappointments to cause lasting fall-out.

The jungle drummers have been trying to beat a tune out this week that Key must be very afraid. That he knew what he had with Shearer as contender next year. Cunliffe or even Robertson could be a whole different kettle of fish.

Personally I doubt he's overly bothered. This match is just another public display of the instability within the Labour ranks which highlights how strong his own team management has been.

In a vague way the celebratory mood and behaviour amongst Labour members currently, as they drop Shearer and look for another messiah,  reminds me of the Egyptians wildly celebrating the overthrow of President Mohhamed Morsi a few weeks back. Look what's happened since.

More battles being won to the end to the war on drugs

This article  contains good news and is well worth the read for those against the war on drugs:

Is it the thin end of the wedge for a policy shift in America's war on drugs? The announcement last week by Attorney General Eric Holder that his office will abandon mandatory minimum sentences for some low-level drug offenders signals not only a rethink towards "unsustainable" incarceration policies but a wider reappraisal of entrenched drug policy.
"We must face the reality that, as it stands, our system is, in too many ways, broken," Holder said. "And with an outsized, unnecessarily large prison population, we need to ensure that incarceration is used to punish, to deter and to rehabilitate - not merely to warehouse and to forget."

Two murders

Jackson St, Petone has become increasingly gentrified with many more apartments and boutique shops.

But down the east end isn't a particularly pleasant place. That's probably where last night's murder occurred - the second this year. Pure speculation on my part mind you.

Murders don't make headlines any more. And I think it's because many people think the victim is probably as bad as the offender.  In fact if one gang member kills another some say "good job".

At this point I'd like to say something humane. Human life is human life. The victim was once an innocent child. The victim is possibly still innocent. Something to that effect.

But what I am actually thinking is, if you lie down with dogs...

I abhor violence. But it excites many. These are the inevitable results.

Unintended consequences and crystal balls

In NZ the de-institutionalisation of mentally ill people happened through the late 1980s and into the 1990s. I'm certain that the thinking behind this development was well-intended and not purely economic. There was a conviction that being out in the community was kinder and better for them. And it may be for some. But not all.

Imagine if the powers-that-be could look into a crystal ball and see the consequences  of their good ideas.

The following is a UK initiative but I have no doubt a similar programme would be warranted here: mental health nurses routinely accompanying  police to attend to emergencies.

It's an eminently sensible idea but it's sad to see mentally unwell people reach the point where they come to the attention of the police. That they become a danger to themselves and others. The incidence is obviously reasonably common in the UK and statistics relating to the mental health of our prison population would suggest similarities with British society.

It seems that some at-risk people are left in or to the community until they reach the point where they end up in a far worse institution than hospital or residential care home.

As part of the scheme, mental health nurses will:

• Support police officers while they are out on patrol
  
• Assist officers when they are responding to emergency calls
  
• Give advice to staff in police control rooms
  

The five new police forces that the Department of Health will be working with are:

• Metropolitan Police
  
• British Transport Police
  
• West Yorkshire Police
  
• West Midlands Police
  
• Thames Valley Police
  

In launching these new pilot sites, Care and Support Minister Norman Lamb said:

Making sure people with mental health problems get the right assessment, care and treatment they need as quickly as possible is really important, especially in emergency situations.
We know that some police forces are already doing an extremely good job of handling circumstances involving mentally ill people but we want this to be the reality everywhere. By providing police forces with the support of health professionals we can give officers the skills they need to treat vulnerable people appropriately in times of crisis.

Child safety takes precedence over whanau-first

It doesn't always make sense to me how Ministers manage news releases. Here's the latest from Paula Bennett. It kicks off with another innovative idea:

KiwiSaver for kids in care

Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has announced measures to better support children as they move out of State care and into independence.
“While on my U.S Eisenhower fellowship, I was impressed with savings accounts set up for children in care and saw an opportunity with KiwiSaver.”
“New Zealand children in care generally don’t have family who can sign them up to Kiwisaver, but being enrolled will help them later in life and send a message that their future matters,” says Mrs Bennett.



But the most important message appears at the end of the press release:

The Children, Young Persons and Their Families Act will be amended to clarify the intended prominence of section 13(a) that children must be protected from harm, their rights upheld and their welfare promoted.
In his 2010 report into the serious abuse of a nine year old girl, Mel Smith noted section 5 of the CYPF Act (which says where possible the relationship to family should be maintained) often takes precedence over section 13.
“Mel Smith said this is possibly to the detriment of the safety, welfare and interests of the child, so I think we need to strengthen the core purpose of the Act which is to put the needs of the child first,” says Mrs Bennett.

Let me put it simply.

Child safety takes precedence over whanau-first.

Welfare in the US today - two views

A just-released report from Cato, who have been responsible for much of the welfare analysis that led to the eventual 1996 reforms finds:

The current welfare system provides such a high level of benefits that it acts as a disincentive for work. Welfare currently pays more than a minimum-wage job in 35 states, even after accounting for the Earned Income Tax Credit, and in 13 states it pays more than $15 per hour. If Congress and state legislatures are serious about reducing welfare dependence and rewarding work, they should consider strengthening welfare work requirements, removing exemptions, and narrowing the definition of work. Moreover, states should consider ways to shrink the gap between the value of welfare and work by reducing current benefit levels and tightening eligibility requirements.

Then the World Socialist Website talks to an associate Professor from University of Michigan about the extreme poverty amongst those with the lowest incomes:

Really, I think our interests stemmed at the start from the 1996 Welfare Reform that got rid of this cash assistance entitlement program which, for all of its faults, was an entitlement program that if you fell below a certain income, you could rely on it. They replaced it with this program, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), which has all these restrictions. It requires work, and as a result of that, our cash assistance caseloads plummeted in the US to the extent to which there’s only about 1.5 percent of the entire US that gets a cash check for being poor, which is I think far less than a lot of people think.
Now, we’ve actually expanded a lot of other benefits. We have the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which is much larger than our cash assistance program ever was. We spend about $60 billion on it, but those benefits are actually targeted towards families who are working. So if you are just above the poverty line and have a minimum wage job, the federal government supplements your income to a greater extent than it ever did before. But if you are on really hard times, have ever been in a long period of unemployment, or you have multiple barriers to work like substance abuse problems or some sort of mental health problems, if you’re at the very bottom, the federal government actually does less for you in terms of cash support than ever before.

The two views aren't mutually exclusive.

The US (in general) is spending more on welfare, but handing out less cash.


That's what our government is doing with the Youth package. Youth and young parents get the same basic benefit, less cash in the hand but can earn more. I expect the government will extend the income management process to other beneficiaries progressively.

(And our In Work Tax Credit is similar to the US Earned Income Tax Credit.)

Welfare versus tax debt

Victoria University last week published research which compared tax debt to welfare debt and concluded that,

“The more punitive approach to managing the debts of welfare recipients appears to reflect the underlying view of those on welfare as less deserving, while taxpayers—even those who do not pay their taxes—are viewed as providing a greater contribution to society and therefore worthy of preferential treatment.”

To compare the two things is silly.

Officially,

People owe money to the Ministry primarily as a result of overpayments or payments of recoverable assistance loans. (OIA correspondence 2008)

Last time I asked the question, just over half of all beneficiaries were in debt to the Ministry so it's fairly common.

If I get a loan from the bank I expect they will want it back. If the bank makes an error in my favour I expect when they pick it up they will want to recover the money. Perhaps a better comparison to welfare debt would have been debt to another public enterprise - Kiwibank. Would Associate Professor Marriot describe efficient management of that debt as 'punitive'?

Tax debt is the result of unpaid taxes as determined by the IRD. It is not primarily the result of borrowing or the IRD having given you too big a refund and asking for it back. 
Additionally the size of it can be substantially inflated by interest and penalties, which isn't going to happen with welfare debt.

It might be argued that as welfare debt or recoverable assistance does not incur interest it's the beneficiary who is receiving preferential treatment.

Over-reacting to earthquakes

When did this culture of over-reacting to earthquakes start?

Wellington city went crazy yesterday with people pouring out post-quake despite there being no substantial damage. At the other extreme, the school my teenage daughter attends in the city wouldn't let her leave unless a parent collected her, despite the buses running as normal. At least they were until people started driving into the city to collect those stranded by the cancellation of all train services  (there was no damage to tracks either which surely could have been ascertained fairly quickly).

I left home at 3.20 and eventually met her at Dixon St at 5pm. The roads were grid-locked. It took me back to sitting at lights through many change-phases unable to go anywhere having driven in inner London for 5 years. Streets were awash with people going nowhere, along with the traffic.

Some precaution is reasonable but this over-reaction was nonsensical. The quickest way to get out of a city, if indeed the action is warranted, is not to force thousands to pour in to collect friends and family.

It wouldn't have happened in the past.

(And I see Trentham races have been cancelled today purely as a 'precautionary' measure and wonder about the economic cost.)

To work or not to work - what is the government trying to incentivise?

This is intriguing.

Below are the rates for the Youth Parent Payment:

Category		Net	Gross
Sole parent, 16 to 17 years, living with or supported by parents who earn less than the Family Tax Credit threshold		$137.47	$153.60
Married, civil union or de facto couple (with children)	Total	$343.68	$384.00
	Each	$171.84	$192.00
Sole parent		$295.37	$335.18
Hospital rate		$42.64	$47.64

$295.37 is exactly the same as Sole Parent Support.

Regarding the YPP, the Minister asked for an abatement free threshold of $203.15 per week (before tax) here. That was implemented according to the Youth Service website.

But someone on the Sole Parent Support benefit has an abatement free threshold of only $100. According to WINZ:

 You can get up to $5,200 a year (before tax) in additional money (for example from working) before your benefit payment is affected, and $20 more a week if you have childcare costs.

This puts the YPP beneficiary at a distinct financial advantage and I am trying to understand the thinking behind it. Back to the cabinet paper:

I'm just not getting this.

The party you want to work less you allow to earn more and vice versa?

The more I learn about this new benefit, the more it baffles me. The Minister has aligned the abatement threshold with the student allowance. But the threshold applies whether or not the recipient is a student. With only a small in-hand allowance the parent is going to be incentivised to earn. That's good. Let's face it. A lot of these young people aren't interested in tertiary education.

But what happens when they turn 19 or 20? They start losing their benefit. Back to the old problem of 'it's not worth working.' Most will still have children young enough that they won't have to either.

Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the wall during some of the discussions surrounding these reforms?

Once governments begin intervening there is no end to it. And the more they intervene, the more contradictions and inconsistencies abound.

90 percent of teenage parents on welfare haven't met obligations

From August 20, 2012 teenage parents requiring financial assistance were put on the Young Parent Payment (YPP).

At the end of March 2013 there were 1,346 YPP recipients.

56 percent were Maori.

6 percent were male.

87 percent were living in the North Island.

Each YPP recipient has a Youth Service provider who manages their benefit. Up to $50 a week is paid as a personal allowance.  This is a relatively small amount of cash compared to the previous system whereby the beneficiary would receive all of their benefit in cash.

The parent can earn up to $200 weekly without it affecting their benefit however.

As well, they can earn incentive payments to increase their weekly benefit.

For the sake of clarity the following is the OIA information MSD provided:

Parenting incentive payment

A young person can earn the parenting incentive payment after three months of engaging with a service provider if:

- they are receiving the Young Parent Payment
- they have participated in and completed a parenting education programme
- their dependent child/ren are enrolled with a primary health organisation
- their dependent child/ren aged 5 years or under are up-to-date with their Well Child/Tamariki Ora checks
- their child/ren under 5 years attends an approved early childhood education programme or is placed in other suitable childcare while the young person is in education, training, work-based learning or part-time work.

This poses the question, do they need to meet all these requirements to get the incentive payment? Here's the information provided at the youth service website:

Incentives

You can get a further $10 a week if you meet all your parenting requirements and have regular talks with your Youth Service provider for three months. Once you are getting the extra payments you need to keep up the good work. You will lose the incentive payments if you don’t.

So all requirements must be met. (There are two other distinct incentives as well - Education and Budgeting.)

At the end of March only 139 people on the YPP were receiving incentive payments. One in ten.

Interpreted another way, 90 percent of teenage parents receiving YPP are not meeting basic parenting obligations.

Additionally, I understood these obligations had to be met to avoid sanctions. Here's the youth service advice:

Parenting

To help you as a parent, you have to complete a parenting course. Your Youth Service provider will find a suitable course for you.
It is important that your child can get medical care when they need it so you have to enrol them at a Primary Health Organisation medical centre or doctor.
You also have to register your child (or children) under five with a Well Child provider, like Plunket, and make sure they have regular check-ups with this provider until they are five years old.
While you are in education, training or doing part time work your child has to go to an early childhood education programme or be in suitable childcare.

 

What happens if you don’t meet your obligations?

The first and second time you don’t meet your obligations your weekly allowance will be suspended and any extra incentive payments you have earned will be stopped. You have four weeks to put it right. If you still have not done what is required your ongoing access to the Young Parent Payment will be looked at.

Which leads to a further question (as my OIA requests inevitably do). How many people on YPP have been sanctioned?

(If you are wondering why my data is months old, I requested it on 26 April 2013 and finally received a reply on 12 August, 2013).

DPB and child conduct disorder

MSD has just released research findings into the Incredible Years pilot programme which works with the parents of children with  conduct problems.


The recruited population was not large (166) but it's interesting to note that in regard to parental income, 34 pecrent of the parents/caregivers relied on the domestic purposes benefit.

How does that compare to the general population of parents with dependent children?

The NZ Income Survey showed that in June 2012 there were 585,500 households with dependent children. At the same time, around 100,000 people received income from the DPB. I accept in some cases two recipients could share a household, but roughly speaking 17 percent of parents with dependent children rely on the DPB. Yet of the children with conduct disorder, 34 percent had a parent on the DPB.

Being utterly unscientific one might conclude that children on the DPB are twice as likely to have conduct problems. Doesn't sound unreasonable.

Anyway the good news is the programme made a positive difference for both Maori and non-Maori parents and children.

Turei and Turia on the removal of Maori children by the state

According to the NZ Herald today Metiria Turei and Tariana Turia are back on the old issue of Maori children and Maori responsibility. They want whanau, iwi and hapu to have more input into the decision to remove a child from its home. My instinctive response is whanau, iwi and hapu should have had more input before the removal of the child.

Extra iwi oversight is needed over new, permanent out-of-family placements for Maori children who are three times as likely to be removed from their families as non-Maori, the Green Party says.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett yesterday unveiled new laws that would prevent some parents from having access to any future children and would see more children permanently taken away from their families.
Green Party co-leader Metiria Turei said extra care is needed to ensure Maori children are genuinely better off in the state's care.
Ms Turei's comments echo those of Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, that the State was too quick to take Maori children away from their families and extended communities.
Ministry of Social Development statistics show about 4000 children - about half of whom are Maori - are in out-of-home placements.
Maori children make up about 25 per cent of the child population in New Zealand, so are three times as likely as non-Maori to be in out of home care, Ms Turei said.

Maori children make-up 21 percent  of the child population actually but in any event the size of the population has nothing to do with the greater likelihood they will be put into out of home care. The reason they are more likely to be removed by the state is that Maori children are more likely to be abused or neglected. There's no other way to cut it.

"Of course, Child Youth and Family must act to protect Maori children, and all Kiwi kids, when they are in danger.
"But given the huge over-representation of Maori children in the state's care, whanau, iwi and hapu must have additional guarantees they'll be involved in any decision to remove a child from their home.
"The prospect of more Maori children being raised in strangers' homes is hugely concerning," she said.

The alternative is perhaps worse?

Ms Turia said she'd recently returned from Australia where politicians there are strongly promoting the adoption of Aboriginal children, resulting in more being removed from their homes.

Frankly I hope we get to that option in this country. Adoption is no cure-all and brings with it a new set of possible problems. But it's still a better idea than leaving a child in a situation of serious risk, or moving them around from placement to placement.

"All the experts here say that by addressing poverty, we'd remove a huge stressor on families that is connected to increased rates of child maltreatment and neglect."

Always back to the collective, political, failed solution.

New political party

Under Public Notices in today's DomPost the Electoral Commission advised the application  for approval of the logo representing a new political party called THRIVE.

I've just googled them. A techno-based party which, as yet, stands for nothing.

John Minto on child abuse

John Minto says that Labour needs "a kick up the backside" for not pushing the message that poverty is the "key factor" behind child abuse.

He says there are NEVER any excuses for child abuse but there are REASONS behind it.

Unfortunately reasons becomes excuses very easily.

Can I take you back to just a couple of things that people like John Minto ignore.

Child abuse rates are not high amongst all groups with high poverty rates. In fact they are lower amongst poor Asians.

Household incomes of Maori and Pacific families are growing faster than the median, yet the rate of Maori child abuse is not declining.

And there's another thing that leftists frequently claim. That abuse happens right across society. It isn't just the poor. That's another inconsistency then.

But Minto is angry with Labour for understanding the issue better than he does. He writes:

But the most pathetic aspect of the announcement was the reaction of the Labour Party.

Fresh from the 1980s Labour’s Social Development spokesperson Annette King never mentioned poverty or the causes of child abuse. Here’s how she was report by Fairfax:

'Labour’s acting Social Development spokesperson Annette King said all New Zealanders wanted to see child abuse stopped and National’s proposals provided the opportunity to look at the best ways to do that. “Let’s look at the evidence, hear the experts who work in the field, and let the public have their say. We need to hear the evidence and be assured the proposals will work.”

A number of the proposals were “worthwhile”, including legislating to make Government departments accountable for protecting children as well as screening and vetting processes for Government employees working with children.'

Whether or not I agree with Annette it was refreshing to hear a Labour spokesperson not opposing for the sake of it. If Jacinda Ardern had been available she'd have taken Minto's line no doubt. (And where is she by the way? Sidelined on this issue or out of the country?)