Child abuse and family structure

Of those children born in 2010 who'd been abused or neglected by age two, 76 percent were born into a single-parent setting. This startling fact comes from government research which received little or no publicity. Why?

Bureaucratic discomfort over the increasing evidence of poorer outcomes for children of single parent, welfare-dependent parents is one reason. A 2006 Ministry of Social Development paper claimed, for example, "It would be inappropriate ... to suggest the risk of fatal child maltreatment is higher on the basis of being a child of a sole parent or a child having a low birth weight."

Yet further government data shows  'step-fathers' - or partners of single parents - are strongly over-represented in child deaths from maltreatment.

Only relatively recently has cross-departmental data been used to analyse which children are at highest risk of maltreatment. Other countries have been cross-analysing their care and protection data for many years revealing the same relationship between the increased risk of child abuse and single/non-biological cohabiting families.

In New Zealand, the over-representation of Maori and Pacific children in maltreatment statistics dates back to the first nationwide survey conducted in 1967. Common reasons given for this over-representation are poverty, unemployment and, in the case of Maori, the effects of colonisation.

Evidence suggests however that the greater occurrence of single parent families - stressed mothers and serial changes of non-related male caregivers - is behind these elevated child abuse statistics. Conversely, Asian children have the lowest rate of abuse and the lowest rate of one parent families.

Of the 2010 cohort referred to earlier, the children whose parent or caregiver had spent more than 80% of the last five years on welfare were 38 times more likely to be abused or neglected by age two than those whose parent(s) had spent no time on welfare. The children born into a single parent setting (based on birth registration or benefit data) were 9 times more likely to suffer maltreatment than those children born into two parent families. Maori children with two parents who did not rely on welfare had very low rates of abuse similar to those of non-Maori children in the same circumstances.

In 1967, when marriage was almost universal among parents and sole-parent welfare dependence virtually non-existent, the rate of physical child abuse was 2.5 substantiated cases per 10,000 children. By 2014 that rate had risen to 29 cases per 10,000. This more than ten-fold increase has been accompanied by a decline in marriage and committed two parent families.

It is likely to be argued that ‘correlation does not equal causation’. While true to a certain extent, the correlations between child abuse and family structure, and child abuse and benefit-dependence, are stronger than the most commonly advanced correlative factor - poverty.  When over three quarters of substantiated abuse findings by age two are from single-parent, benefit-dependent families, the coincidence is too large to dismiss.

It might also be argued the increase resulted from a lower tolerance to child abuse due to changed societal values, public awareness campaigns, and subsequently, more reporting. But using a more objective measure - assault-related hospitalisations of children - the rate is still  four-fold that of the 1960s.

Another important factor ignored for too long: biological fathers generally provide a protective factor against child maltreatment. Furthermore, the chances of the father - and his extended family - remaining in the child's life are significantly increased when the parents are married.

In discussions about the unacceptable level of child abuse and neglect in New Zealand, the breakdown of the nuclear family is the elephant in the room that many would prefer to ignore. Yet to do so is an abrogation of our collective responsibility to children. The committed two parent family provides the safest environment for children. The traditional family model is still fit for purpose. It is just unfashionable, and in some minds, unforgivable to say so.

Child Abuse and Family Structure: What is the evidence telling us? follows on from Child Poverty and Family Structure: What is the evidence telling us? published in May 2016. It is the second report written for Family First by social researcher and commentator Lindsay Mitchell.

Recommended reading

George Smith is a great writer because he makes philosophical ideas accessible. Here he quotes Ayn Rand (who often did go over my head) extensively in her predictions about where collectivism would take America. Even with my short attention span I got through through it and relished some of the passages.

The placement of socialism and fascism at opposite ends of a political spectrum serves a nefarious purpose, according to Rand. It serves to buttress the case that we must avoid “extremism” and choose the sensible middle course of a “mixed economy.” Quoting from “‘Extremism,’ Or The Art of Smearing” (CUI, Chapter 17):

"If it were true that dictatorship is inevitable and that fascism and communism are the two “extremes” at the opposite ends of our course, then what is the safest place to choose? Why, the middle of the road. The safely undefined, indeterminate, mixed-economy, “moderate” middle—with a “moderate” amount of government favors and special privileges to the rich and a “moderate” amount of government handouts to the poor—with a “moderate” respect for rights and a “moderate” degree of brute force—with a “moderate” amount of freedom and a “moderate” amount of slavery—with a “moderate” degree of justice and a “moderate” degree of injustice—with a “moderate” amount of security and a “moderate” amount of terror—and with a moderate degree of tolerance for all, except those “extremists” who uphold principles, consistency, objectivity, morality and who refuse to compromise."

Briefly...

Trump has appointed a charter school advocate as Secretary of Education. She says the status quo in the US education system is "unacceptable." Teacher's unions are apparently not pleased.

Jolly good.

Those dirty filthy one-percenters

Here's an arresting snippet sent to me from the Economist:

Global wealth distribution: Where you fit in
If you had only $2,220 to your name, you might not think yourself terribly fortunate. But you would be wealthier than half the world’s population. With $71,560 or more, you’d be in the top tenth. If you were lucky enough to own over $744,400, as 18m Americans do, you are a member of the global 1% that voters everywhere are rebelling against. Some of those railing against the global elite probably do not know they belong to it

Nanny State marching on

I've blogged about this relentless regression only recently.

In this morning's DomPost, opposite the daily editorial, Mark Reason describes his response to the heavy police presence at Toast Martinborough:

The trouble began in Vynfields. The punters didn't cause the trouble, not a flicker of it, we were just smiling at a world that smiled back.
But then a policeman and two policewomen came in. They inserted themselves into the small dancing crowd in front of the stage. They were literally looking for trouble. It was so sinister, I decided to keep an eye on them.

More 

The arbitrary nature of state calls

According to MSD, regarding quake affected areas:

The employment subsidy will be available for businesses in Kaikoura, Cheviot, Waiau, Rotherham, Mt Lyford and Ward who face a dramatic drop in their turnover as a direct result of the earthquakes and the closure of State Highway One.
It will be paid to businesses with fewer than 20 employees where closure of the state highway and damage to the coastal environment means they cannot operate and they cannot pay staff wages.

Naturally outsiders sympathize with those economically affected by the quake.

But the collective and compulsory way we organise and protect ourselves means that arbitrary lines will be drawn by bureaucrats who are necessarily disconnected. Kaikoura business Whale Watch, for example, won't qualify. The assumption that they are bigger, stronger and more resilient  ignores that they have greater outgoings.

I don't know if there is a better way.

But  if people had voluntary and enhanced choice about protecting themselves and their businesses, outcomes may be less fickle and  jarring.

With 'friends' like these...

This is cruel. But it more than amply highlights that perverse phenomenon whereby people politically aligned can be each other's harshest critics.

The World Socialist Website attacks the record of Helen Kelly:

Kelly’s death at the age of 52 was a personal tragedy, but this fact must not be allowed to obscure an objective appraisal of her record. For more than a year, her protracted struggle with lung cancer was exploited in the media, with countless interviews and articles portraying Kelly as a champion for workers’ rights and as a national icon. In fact, Kelly is being glorified because she was a highly-valued servant of the ruling elite. She led the CTU as it collaborated with major attacks on the jobs and living standards of the working class.

The reality about charter schools

From an evidence based source, none other than Te Ururoa Flavell, Maori party leader:

The Maori Party is putting the hard word on Labour's Maori MPs to oppose one of their own Member's Bill's that abolishes charter schools.
The Bill, belonging to Labour MP Chris Hipkins is due to be debated in Parliament later today.
Maori Party Co-leader Te Ururoa Flavell said Labour's Maori MPs know in their heart of hearts, because they have family members actively involved in charter schools, that the schools are achieving results upwards of 10, 20, and 30 percent of the national average, particularly those in Te Tai Tokerau.

More 

New York Times free for a few days

Normally behind a paywall the New York Times is free for a "few days".

Can't have it both ways

A campaign has been launched by the Lung Foundation to reduce the stigma of lung cancer.

The aim is to reduce stigma surrounding the disease and advocate for better treatments, government funding and symptom awareness.

While all the time other government-funded agencies are hell-bent on demonising smokers at least partially because of the burden they impose on the health system.

Yes, I am aware that tobacco tax already covers smoker's health costs (who apparently make up 80 percent of lung cancer patients) but you can't have it both ways.

An activity cannot be stigmatised and the outcome de-stigmatised.

Nanny state marches on - impervious to reigning party

In retrospect, one could almost feel sheepish about the accusations of Nanny Statism hurled at Clark in her final months. Political commentators would have it that excessive paternalism lost Clark the 2008 election.

National made a song and dance of reviewing silly and burdensome regulations but the neurotic back-saving health and safety stuff marches on. I gave you a perfect example this morning of accelerating meddling madness.

The crusades against alcohol, tobacco and obesity are only gathering momentum. Legislatively this manifested in  lowering the drink/drive alcohol limits (pubs go out of business against a backdrop of a rising road toll) and  ongoing tobacco tax hikes (creating a lucrative source of income for criminals and much danger for legal sellers). No  relenting to sugar tax demands yet but what are the odds?

Bureaucracy is like a fungus. Growing wherever the conditions enable it. Quietly spreading. It is impervious to changes of government. Especially when the so-called political 'masters' are tired.

At this point I am quite disillusioned with National. If that is possible, when no torch was held for them at the outset.

On Gareth Morgan (updated)

Gareth Morgan says he wants to free New Zealand from the grip of "career politicians". That's what is being reported.

Odd.

If Labour was in power, I could understand the sentiment.

But at the moment the most powerful politicians in New Zealand are John Key, Steven Joyce,  Paula Bennett, Anne Tolley,  Chris Finlayson and  Judith Collins. None are career politicians. You may add others. I simply listed those who control portfolios I take an interest in.

I left out Bill English and Nick whats-his-name. They are careerists based on parliamentary longevity.

So is Morgan indicating he would (if successful) support the current government?

Ironically Andrew Little is saying, "Great to see him in our corner."

RNZ has a fairly good piece pointing out the likely direction of Morgan's policies. People should be aware that his Big Kahuna plan - essentially a Universal Basic Income - would make most single parents and Superannuitants poorer.

Laws that run out of control

The government passed the Vulnerable Children Act in 2014.

The new legislation required every person who works with children to be police vetted - the existing workforce and periodically. I and others expressed concerns about this 'sledgehammer to crack a walnut' approach.

This is already causing problems hiring EEC teachers. The vetting process is taking too long requiring 23 staff, due to rise to 28. Now there is legislation afoot to allow the police to charge for the service.

Remember, the Act was intended to protect vulnerable children. But here's the latest piece of madness.

It requires that every person supervising an NCEA exam be police vetted for their safety.

Have there been any problems that would pre-empt this new requirement? Haven't people supervised NCEA and earlier exams for years without incident?

We live in  a country that allows, no, encourages children as meal tickets; that actively discourages responsibility for fertility by picking up the tab; and that actively demotes fathers. This is what leads to the abuse and neglect of children. And occasionally, the deaths of.

Paul Henry

When Paul was a Radio Pacific talk back host in the 1990s I listened avidly. I communicated enthusiastically and regularly by fax. Such old hat technology now. In part, It was Henry's (reflected) despair about the connection between the tragedy of Lilybing and the taxpayer that set me off on a trajectory against welfare.

Now I don't get him.

Oh. Maybe he has moved way beyond what 'normal' people experience so we mustn't judge him within those confines.

I can't stand Lizzie Marvelley. She'll no longer go on his show because he doesn't respect women.

I don't know who I like least based on the Herald interview,

What is this rush to the bottom?

I still tell my 18 and 22 year-olds not to swear. Because it makes them both actually and apparently ignorant. And they get that. Though they still blaspheme more than I do:-)

BUT there are so many more words at our disposal.

When did Henry forget this?

Quote of the Day

In light of the blatantly bogus checkpoint set up by Wellington police which became public knowledge this week, the following quote seemed apt:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.

– John Stuart Mill, On Liberty [1869]

Hat-tip FFF

Quizz

What private or public entity do you think this frippery hails from? (latest annual report):

Answer

Only 69 more years

The latest benefit stats are a mixed bag. That'll be why they haven't made the news. Not a lot to criticise and not a lot to crow about.

For instance, over the year to September 2016, "... the number of recipients of Jobseeker Support increased by 1,383, or 1.1 percent."

The rise is nearly all female; Maori and Pacific.

The drop in sole parents numbers is quite substantial - "....the number of recipients of Sole Parent Support decreased by 3,515, or 5.2 percent."

But (given the nature of the rise in Jobseeker numbers) I suspect that some of this reduction will actually be a transfer of older sole parents onto Jobseeker as their youngest child turns 14.

Regarding the last main benefit, "...the number of recipients of Supported Living Payment remained relatively stable, decreasing by 593, or 0.6 percent."

For many years the numbers on an invalid benefit only grew so  even stability is an improvement.

HOWEVER, the upward trend in people receiving a Supported Living Payment for a psychological or psychiatric condition continues. A further 765 were added over the year.

There was a marked increase in Pacific people becoming dependent on this benefit and the age group with the largest growth was 25-39 years.

Overall, "...the number of main benefit recipients decreased by 3,292, or 1.1 percent."

At this rate (assuming a static population) it will only take around 69 years to get back to a level where only 2 percent of the working age population is reliant on a benefit - the sort of level that was normal until the 1970s!

Longitudinal studies are a luxury

Cutting the funding to the Growing up in New Zealand Study is consistent with this government's focus on the neediest, most vulnerable, children.

The initial cohort for the study was just over 7,000 children. But by 2014 the retention  rate was only 92%. I believe that the drop-outs would largely have been the very families the government is keen to track. I base this on the data collected about benefits. The numbers are too low. The families that have dropped out of the study would probably have been beneficiary families.

Now the funding has been reduced and the study has to cut the cohort to 2,000. This is still a useful sample size when compared to earlier longitudinal studies like the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Study (1037 babies born Dunedin 1972-73 with a current retention rate of 95%) and the Christchurch Health and Development Study (1,265 born 1977) which have produced masses of interesting data and papers.

No doubt this "gutting" is a re-prioritization of public funds.

Graph of the Day

No words needed. From a just-released New Zealand Initiative report summary:

Of particular interest to me, given the report I wrote for Family First earlier in the year which suggested changing family structure is the major factor driving child poverty, the NZ Initiative report finds that around half of the big increase in inequality, that occurred between the mid eighties and mid nineties was due to changing family structure and households.

They referenced Treasury research which found:

 "...the main factors which contributed to the change in inequality were changes in family and household structure (primarily a pronounced drop in the fraction of two parent households and a rise in the fraction of sole parent households), and changes in the socio-demographic attributes of households "

Media etc misuse and abuse of data

Bryan Perry authors the government's (Ministry of Social Development) official report into household incomes in New Zealand.

The latest was published a few weeks ago. It runs to 250 pages. I cannot claim to sit down and read it cover to cover but I have found time to peruse it more closely today.

Perry details five examples of  "common misunderstanding or misleading use" of his statistics.

Here is one that really deserves wider publication: