What's happening to at-risk children?

Police recorded 175,573 family harm investigations in the June year 2021/22 – a 47% increase from 2017.  That’s just under 500 a day. Children are present at around half. 

According to the latest NZ Police Annual report, "Assault on a person in a family relationship now represents around 66% of reported serious assaults and family harm calls for service are increasing at greater rates than others."

Police manuals repeatedly stress the critical importance of ensuring the safety of children present at a family harm incident. 

This all creates an expectation that reports to Oranga Tamariki (formerly CYF) would follow suit. They don’t. In fact, Reports of Concern (ROC) from ‘Police-Family Violence’ fell between 2017/18 and 2021/22 from 7,455 to 1,013. Unsurprisingly entries into care (whereby a child’s situation is deemed dangerous enough to place him or her under the guardianship of the state) follow the same trend:

When asked why reports from Police-Family Violence to Oranga Tamariki had fallen so sharply OT responded:

“A number of new cross-agency collaborations have been set up to triage and respond to episodes of family harm, such as Integrated Safety Response in Canterbury and the Waikato, and the Multi-Disciplinary Cross-Agency Team in South Auckland. This has been coupled with evolving practices within existing family violence inter-agency response models. These initiatives and changes are likely to have contributed to the decrease in Police family harm reports of concern since 2017/2018 by ensuring the response is directed to the right agency or NGO quickly, which in many cases negates the need for a report of concern to Oranga Tamariki.”   

Oranga Tamariki suggested that I might, “also wish to enquire with the Police, who may be able to provide additional insights into the reduction in family harm related reports of concern."

The response from Police was similar in that “procedural changes” were primarily offered as reasons for the statistical drop. It would appear that “safety triage” meetings now occur before a report of concern is made, if at all. Oranga Tamariki might or might not attend these meetings. The next reason was rather more definitive though.

“Police previously had the ability to generate a ROC either on a Police desktop, or a button function within the 5F application for reporting Family Harm on Police mobile phones. The button within the 5F application was removed in 2019 for several reasons, mainly the procedural shift mentioned above.”

This rather begs the question, why was it there in the first place? To assist and ensure quick and certain action on the part of Police? Is it better to over-report than under-report?

Questions aside, on their own, changed procedures tell us nothing about what’s actually happening to at-risk children's outcomes.

Then earlier this week Oranga Tamariki published a chart at their website showing that the number of children and young people subjected to acts intended to cause injury have increased over recent years.

Once again flags are raised.

I’m not alone in asking questions of Oranga Tamariki. A Stuff reporter was dismayed that even OT's chief social worker could not tell him how many children have died from abuse or neglect since 2019. He describes Stuff’s coverage of “three child homicide trials in the past few months – in the Auckland courts alone.”

In fact, the best source of statistics for child deaths from abuse or neglect is the Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) – not Oranga Tamariki. But their data dissemination also leaves a lot to be desired. Deaths from 2021 will not be available until December 2023 and then the data must be requested. In the introduction to their Seventh Report the chair of the committee acknowledges a "continued move away from reporting statistics". When I queried this and asked for an alternative source, the following answer returned:

"The FVDRC decided to move away from data reports as there were a number of tables with empty cells, limiting the conclusions which could be drawn."

I find this very disconcerting. Data can always be released with caveats and cautions.

And like Oranga Tamariki, the Health Safety and Quality Commission (which oversees FVDRC) suggested I refer to police data. No surprises to find that extends only to 2020. Around in circles we go again.

New Zealanders want to have trust in the Police, Oranga Tamariki and associated entities, but when sets of data seem so glaringly at odds – or hidden from view - it is difficult to maintain confidence in any of the institutions.

There is ample evidence – including from the Police themselves – that family violence is increasing. Consider that the National Gang List, “increased from 4,361 in February 2016 to 7,722 in April 2022 with the majority Māori. Figures increased in all Police Districts except for Northland.”The Ministry of Social Development has previously revealed that, “Almost half of the serious offences committed by gang members are family violence-related. A high proportion of gang members’ children experience multiple incidents of abuse or neglect.”

Yet when I asked Oranga Tamariki to provide “any documents” that relate to referenced parliamentary research papers detailing increasing gang membership the answer came back:

“Oranga Tamariki does not hold any information within scope of this part of your request, therefore this part of your request is refused under section 18(e) of the Act.”

That New Zealand’s primary child protection agency is paying no attention to the growth in gangs is also surprising and disturbing.

The dwindling number of children being notified to and put under the oversight of Oranga Tamariki worryingly resembles the falling prison population which looks good on paper but comes with consequences, some of them, as we have witnessed, quite appalling. The Auckland murders of two construction site workers couldn’t have happened if the perpetrator’s sentence had not been discounted away from one served in prison to a stint on home detention.

One final question. Is it a coincidence that ‘Corrections’ and ‘Children’ share the same Minister?

Chris Hipkins out of his depth on unemployment

 The following exchange took place in parliament on Tuesday August 22nd:

_____________________________________________________________

Christopher Luxon: Given, and by his account, the economy is doing great, why are there 55,000 more people on the jobseeker benefit than when Labour took office, including 8,000 more in just the last four months?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: There are more people in New Zealand—that is absolutely correct. The New Zealand economy's fundamental indicators are looking more positive. Inflation is trending down, GDP growth is returning, and we continue to have record low unemployment. On this side of the House, we are unapologetic about our commitment to keep Kiwis in jobs. I note that's quite a contrast to members on the other side of the House, who are being quite open in their intention to increase unemployment.

Christopher Luxon: Why, then, if everything is so swimmingly great, are there 55,000 more people on jobseeker benefits?

Rt Hon CHRIS HIPKINS: As I've indicated, the population is, of course, larger, but we should also note that there are more people in the labour market.

______________________________________________________________

The following are the Jobseeker totals just prior to Labour assuming government, and the most recently available.

September 30, 2017 120,726

August 11, 2023 177,138

Jobseeker numbers are indeed up by at least the amount Luxon claimed. But Hipkins explanation, “the population is, of course, larger …” does not justify the difference.

A chart from MSD illustrates that in June 2018 4.1 percent of the working-age population was on a Jobseeker benefit. In June 2023 it was 5.5 percent. It will be slightly higher now. Yes, the population is larger, but so is the share that is on a Jobseeker benefit.

As well Hipkins said, “…we continue to have record low unemployment.”

Also not correct. From StatsNZ:

(Right click on image to enlarge)

Unemployment has been creeping up since March 2022.

Looking at the chart you may start to scratch your head. Why were there far fewer people on Jobseeker benefits in September 2017 when the unemployment rate was bigger at 4.7%?

That is a highly technical question which StatsNZ deals with here. A diagram from their paper illustrates the two distinct groups: that from which the HLFS data is drawn, and beneficiaries. It’s the HLFS which provides the official unemployment rate. The potential for the two measures to get out of sync and even trend in different directions is obvious. For instance, if someone on a Jobseeker benefit is not required to look for work, they will not appear as unemployed in the HLFS.

The reality is the Labour government made it easier to get on a benefit and to stay on a benefit. The result is evident.

And the Prime Minister cannot bat it away with incorrect claims and excuses.

Cultural fixation is a crock

The public service’s dogged determination to impose Te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations across the sector results in the absurd and incongruous.

According to Oranga Tamariki, formerly Child, Youth and Family:

Oranga Tamariki is currently introducing a new practice approach (completion 2024) that is framed by Te Tiriti o Waitangi, based on a mana enhancing paradigm for practice, and draws on Te Ao Māori Principles of oranga and transpires into a practice that is relational, inclusive, and restorative which is good for all tamariki, children, whānau, and families.[i]

It sounds rather like the ‘Maori way or the highway.’ In 2021 Te Pati Maori, supported by Children’s Minister Kelvin Davis, insisted that OT adopt a ‘by Maori, for Maori’ approach.

Children in OT care are now put into “four high-level categories”: Maori, Pacific, Maori/Pacific, and lastly, as an after-thought almost, NZ European and other.

But the definitions have become even more indistinct.

Just published, a survey of children and young people in state care contains the following table which illustrates my point:

(Left click on image to enlarge)

Children in the care of OT are now categorised as either Maori, Pacific, Maori and Pacific or non-etc.

Cultural identity is ‘paramount’ apparently ... but if you are Asian or Indian or NZ European ... yeah ... nah. You are just non-Maori or non-Pacific. The details of your lineage are of no account. In truth the only cultural identity of interest is Polynesian and OT struggles to disguise this.

How does the “bi-cultural practice” advocated in OT’s ‘Maori Cultural Framework’ serve, for example, a refugee child? When I asked OT which two cultures the framework catered to, the answer was inconclusive:

Under the Oranga Tamariki Act 1989, the Chief Executive of Oranga Tamariki must ensure, wherever possible, that all policies adopted by the department, and all services provided by the department, recognise the social, economic, and cultural values of all cultural and ethnic groups; and have particular regard for the values, culture, and beliefs of Māori.

I can only interpret that as Maori and other. Whatever happened to multi-culturalism?

Oddly though, in this ‘by Maori, for Maori’ organisation, in April 2023 only 28 percent of staff were Maori. Nearly three quarters weren’t.

And here’s another irony. Of those who answered all the questions in the survey referred to, “99% answered in English only, none answered in Māori only, and less than 1% answered in both English and Māori.”

Staff are predominantly NZ European, and the language used by staff and their clients is predominantly English.

Oranga Tamariki’s crucial role is to ensure the safety and security of children. All and any at-risk children. Yet the survey itself showed “little overall improvement in tamariki and rangatahi experiences.”

Their fixation with culture is a crock.

[i] OIA response to L Mitchell 21 June 2023

Recession starts to bite

 In just one month the number of people receiving a main benefit has risen by almost 3,000.

Data released today shows that the percentage of the working-age population dependent on a main benefit rose from 11.2% at the end of June 2023 to 11.3% at the end of July 2023.

Over the same period in 2022 the increase was just 1,100 claimants meaning the proportion of the working age population stayed at 11%

Most of last month’s increase was due to a rise in Jobseeker numbers with approximately 1,800 more on Jobseeker Work Ready and a 900 increase in Jobseeker Health Condition/Disability claimants. The first reflects a weakening labour market while the second reflects an unresponsive and ineffective health system.

MSD acknowledges that, “The work exit rate for main benefits in July 2023 was relatively low compared with July months in prior years. In recent months, we have seen a reduced demand for labour, as indicated by the decline in online job advertisements in the June 2023 quarter.” They offer no rationale however for why numbers unable to work due to a health problem are over and above forecasts.

Māori made up the majority of the increase with 1,400 more main benefit clients; NZ European accounted for 800; Pacific people 400 and Asians 200 (almost 400 people did not specify an ethnicity, and some specified more than one ethnicity.)

Three years post the initial Covid lock-down key statistics continue to head in the wrong direction:

Source: https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/statistics/monthly-reporting/

NB: The Monthly Benefit data series began during the first Covid lockdown and only dates back to April 2019.

Working at the fisheries

@lulusuapopo

♬ original sound - Lulu Suapopo

Source: https://www.msd.govt.nz/documents/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/benefit-system/total-incomes-annual-report-2023.pdf

Children on Welfare: Highest in Labour's Term

The number of children reliant on a benefit is at its highest point since Labour became government in 2017.

The number - 211,617 - even surpasses the total at the end of 2020 after the chaos of Covid. The number is 26% higher than in March 2018, the end of labour’s first full quarter. Over 43,000 more children are now dependent on welfare. Was that the price former Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern was willing to pay in her naive pursuit of poverty reduction? It was a massive risk to keep increasing benefit rates and tax credits for children. This is the result.

The majority of children on welfare are attached to single parents. Those with Māori ethnicity[i] make up the largest and fastest growing group of sole parents on welfare. This is not a win for the country or Māori.

The degree of dependency is worsening:

Long-term dependency on welfare translates into more child abuse and neglect, truancy, youth and eventually adult crime.

And there is another huge concern.

11.2 percent of the working age population is now reliant on a main benefit – up from 11 percent a year ago.

Over 7,000 more people can't support themselves through work. Yet the most recent unemployment rate available is low, at 3.4 percent in March this year. The continuing story still seems to be one of employers crying out for staff. 

But a fair chunk of the increase is sickness related with 3,000 more people on the Supported Living Payment (which used to be called the Invalid's benefit) and 3,000 more on the Job Seeker/Health Condition or Disability (formerly the Sickness benefit). The largest and most rapidly growing incapacity is psychological or psychiatric. 

Mental health - or more accurately, mental ill-health - is an epidemic. 

When Labour said they would put $2 billion more into mental health we didn't think they meant benefits. 

Anyone with personal experience, first-hand or through friends or family members, knows there is next to no help available beyond anti-depressants. It's a dire situation. 

This quarterly data is the last we will see before the election in October. 

Make your own mind up. But by no stretch of the imagination can Labour claim to have made a positive difference to dependence on welfare during their two terms in government.

 

 

---

[i] During Labour’s term the way ethnicity is recorded by the Ministry of Social Development was changed from the ‘priority’ to ‘total’ method. A beneficiary with more than one ethnicity will be counted in each group meaning that total claimants sum to more than 100 percent.