June 4, 2009
The cost of child maltreatment is staggering, yet our willingness to live with the consequences suggests that we remain in a state of denial. The consequences of child maltreatment include:
- Human costs to victims: child fatalities, child abuse related suicide, medical costs, lower educational achievement, pain and suffering.
- Long term human and social costs: medical costs, chronic health problems, lost productivity, juvenile delinquency, adult criminality, homelessness, substance abuse, and intergenerational transmission of abuse.
- Costs of public intervention: child protection services, out-of-home care, child abuse prevention programmes, assessment and treatment of abused children, law enforcement, judicial system, incarceration of abuse offenders, treatment of perpetrators, and victim support.
- Costs of community contributions by volunteers and non-government organisations.
Translating overseas estimates of the costs of child abuse and neglect to the New Zealand context suggests that it imposes long term costs in the vicinity of $2 bn per year, ie in excess of 1% of GDP every year. Roughly one third of this cost relates to dealing with immediate consequences (eg health care, child welfare service, and justice system costs). Another third relates to ongoing health, education, and criminal consequences for child abuse victims in later life. The final third results from a decline in productivity as victims fail to meet their potential.
Reducing the incidence of child maltreatment would not only have a profound impact on the quality of life for potential victims but, by reducing our need to support victims, it will also materially improve the wellbeing of the rest of society.
Prevention is more effective than correction. The main reason for this is that maltreatment has lifelong impacts on the victims. The trauma of maltreatment can inhibit brain development in ways that mars intellectual, communication, social, and emotional abilities. Victims of child abuse face a greater risk of failing at school and of being emotionally alienated from society. That so many victims of maltreatment go on to lead essentially normal productive lives is a testament to the general resilience of human nature. But these victims have done it tough. Life could have been so much better and productive if their formative years had been less stressful. And then there are the walking disaster areas who go on to impose huge costs on themselves and the rest of society.
Abusive behaviour is not constrained by socio-economic status, but research has identified a number of risk factors that increase the potential for child abuse. Key markers of child maltreatment include:
- Parental age and education, eg young or uneducated parents might not be naturally as well equipped to deal with the stresses of parenthood.
- Parental mental health problems such as depression.
- Social deprivation, in particular a lack of wider family support.
- Alcohol or other drug dependency issues.
- Past exposure of parents to interpersonal violence or abuse.
Poverty might exacerbate these pressures, but it is not clear that it is a root cause.
In New Zealand, agencies such as Barnardos, Plunket, Preventing Violence in the Home and many others play a critical role in supporting families to do their best for children.
Also the government’s commitment to preventing child maltreatment has increased considerably in recent years. Child, Youth and Family’s appropriation for education and preventative services for children increased from $16m in the 2004 Budget to $166m in the 2008 Budget. This increased spending has the potential to reduce the incidence and therefore the future cost of child maltreatment. But is it sufficient? Will services provided be effective? And what guarantee have we that the current commitment will be maintained?
A common problem with government sponsored programmes is their top-down, planned design. Large-scale programmes may miss the factors that made small-scale programmes a success or have difficulty obtaining success in different environments. Large programmes also have a propensity for diverting resources away from children and their families into running the bureaucracy and creating an overarching infrastructure.
Large-scale programmes can succeed if they have the following three features:
- The programmes focus on at-risk children and encourage direct parent involvement.
- There is a long term commitment to reducing the incidence of child maltreatment, including changing attitudes about physical punishment.
- The programmes reward successful outcomes in order to encourage high quality and innovative practices.
A way of maintaining commitment would be to create a public endowment that would fund the provision of child and parent support services. A fund would clearly signal an ongoing commitment to reducing the incidence of child maltreatment, a focus on service rather than bureaucracy, a reassurance to service providers that there will be consistent demand for their services, and a willingness to fund effective, specialised and innovative services.
David Grimmond, Senior Economist, Infometrics Ltd
June 4, 2009
Dianne DeSantis asks in The Examiner,
If a child does not know how to behave, how did they learn that behavior? Should a parent be allowed to hit a child because of the way he or she behaves?
Think about these questions. Would you be motivated to change your behavior because someone hit you? Why or why not? Would you feel violated? What makes hitting a child different than hitting an adult? What is being taught by hitting, spanking, or threatening?
The short term effect from spanking is that children will learn to avoid the behavior, avoid the parent, or how to be sure the parent does not see or learn about undesirable behaviors, but not to reason, think for themselves, or make better decisions.
The long term effects are embedded memories of either mild discomfort to pain, violent behavior, an unpleasant experience, confusion, stress, animosity among family members, unhappiness, sadness, fear, emotional reactivity, dislike for the facilitator, low self esteem, learned avoidant behaviors, and the most profound emotion attached to spanking or physical harm is anger. Many people who are taught to behave appropriately by way of spanking, threats, or physical harm become angry adults.
The whole article poses important questions about the effectiveness of physical punishment on children, and is well worth a read.
June 3, 2009
The repeal of Section 59 from the Crimes Act in New Zealand has only 20% of New Zealanders opposing it. The often dubbed “anti-smacking law” removed the right for adults to use “reasonable force” to discipline their children.
43% of thosse surveyed by UMR on behalf of the Office of the Children’s Commissioner responded positively to the anti-smacking law, 28% opposed; the rest were neutral. However, when asked the question, “Should children be entitled to the same protection from assault as adults?”, 80% said that they should. Lobby group Family First NZ is dismayed at this figure. National Director Bob McCoskrie said, “This figure should be 100%. But the Children’s Commissioner has simply caused confusion by misrepresenting the effect of the law and the difference between assault and a light smack.”
The Crimes (Substituted Section 59) Amendment Act 2007 is fairly well known by the public, but specifics weren’t as well publicised. Perhaps this is why there has been a citizens’ initiated referendum (well over 200,000 eligible voters signed a petition supporting smacking). Children’s Commissioner Dr Cindy Kiro said, “Many parents are ready to move on and find positive ways of parenting that involve discipline without violence, so there needs to be support for that with information and education.”
In 1993 a survey was conducted around the theme, “is it alright to use physical punishment with children” which resulted in 87% agreeing. In 2008, it was at a recorded 58%.
The referendum is open to all eligible New Zealand voters will be held in August via postal vote.
—
Gabriel Pollard is a Journalism student in Christchurch who writes for Wikinews and blogs at Bird’s Eye News.
June 3, 2009
Waitakere Community Gathering re Referendum Section 59
When: 10th June 2009 from 1pm to 3pm
Venue: Waitakere Community Resource Centre, 8 Ratanui Street, Henderson
RSVP: By 8th June 09, to mandy@communitywaitakere.org.nz or phone (09) 838-7903
Speakers: Beth Wood, Ian Hassall & David Kenkel
Beth Wood and Ian Hassall are two of New Zealand’s greatest child advocates.
Over many years they have fought for the rights and well being of our children. They were leaders of the recent successful campaign to repeal section 59 of the crimes act. Now their work and the work of so many others is threatened by the upcoming referendum.
Community Waitakere has the privilege of hosting an open meeting on 10th June 2009 at Waitakere Community Resource Centre where community organisations and individuals can hear Beth and Ian’s perspectives on the coming referendum. This is an opportunity not to be missed.
Please join us for this important discussion.
June 3, 2009
Once again the public are being subjected to misleading and expensive Family First advertisements in the Sunday papers. Politicians are being lobbied by Family First who are undermining a law that is working well and want to turn the clock back so that parents can assault children within the law.
In 2007 New Zealand’s law changed to give children the same protection under assault law as other citizens in New Zealand. A provision in the 2007 law reminding parents that police have discretion about prosecution in cases of inconsequential assaults means that very few, if any, cases at the lower end of the smacking/hitting spectrum are being prosecuted.
The law change reflects efforts to end the social acceptability of anyone’s right to hit anyone else. Over time, this will lead to better outcomes for children as fewer children will be exposed to violence.
In their most recent attempt to illustrate that “good” parents are being criminalised Family First cited four cases:
In one case investigations were undertaken and no charges laid. In another the parent was charged and then chose to plead guilty. The sentence is not mentioned. In the third the parent was convicted and discharged without penalty.
In two cases the parents concerned were not convicted (and therefore not criminalised). In the second case the parent pleaded guilty himself. And in the other case a discharge without penalty outcome was a compassionate one that sent a message to the parent and society about non-violence, It did not inflict punishment that could cause hardship to the family involved.
Family First seem to be suggesting that Police and CYF should ignore allegations of assault on children. All reports of assault on children should be investigated – there is good evidence that use of physical punishment is a risk factor for child abuse and although not all physical punishment is child abuse. It is appropriate, that if someone is concerned enough to make a report, that the safety of the child or children involved is investigated. Very few, if any cases, of minor assault are leading to prosecution.
Family First need to clearly state their views on what level of assault on children they find acceptable – does it include blows to the head and face for example or striking a child too young too understand how they should be behaving? Do they regard out of control, bad tempered striking out as appropriate parental correction?
We note that Family First are no longer citing the Jimmy Mason “face-punch” case as evidence that the law is not working, as it has in previous ads, and noted in their own press statement that the conviction was “appropriate”.
Family First are clear that they do not approve of child abuse and urge action to address the real causes of child abuse. But belief in parents’ rights to use physical punishment and belief in its legitimacy as part of child discipline are a real contributing factor to the existence of child abuse. Many children are still beaten because of such beliefs. But Family First do not seem to understand that by sanctioning use of physical discipline they are undermining efforts to reduce abuse.
June 2, 2009
The appointment of Christine Rankin to the Board of the Families Commission has put the spotlight on the work of The Families Commission, particularly our support for the new child discipline law.
The renewed debate on physical punishment shows how poorly the intent and purpose of the new law has been communicated to the public. I was surprised last week to hear a prominent lawyer (among others) say that the new child discipline law had not stopped child abuse. Simply making it illegal to break and enter a home doesn’t stop burglaries and no one expects it to. So it’s puzzling that there is an expectation that one law, on its own, will stop child abuse.
The repeal of Section 59 is part of a whole-of-society effort that is underway to reduce and prevent family violence. A lot of this is focused on building understanding about family violence and changing attitudes so people are less tolerant and more likely to seek help, or report incidents of violence. Some of this is being done through the It’s Not OK campaign, which was developed with the Families Commission leadership, funding and research in partnership with community organisations and other government agencies. The White Ribbon Day campaign is another of the Commission’s projects which is helping to change attitudes toward violence in families.
In an act of courage and leadership Parliament made sure our assault law was consistent with this work and gave children the same protection that was given to their parents. Now, when a parent is charged with assault, there is no longer a legal defence that the parent was using ‘reasonable force’ to discipline the child.
It’s a law that is working well in combination with the other work that is being done. Last week, a Christchurch father who punched his four year old son in the face and flicked his ear was found guilty of assault. The father’s lawyer told the court he was using reasonable force to discipline his son, but this is no longer a defence. The man’s yelling and abusive behaviour had caught the attention of passers by who were concerned enough to report the incident. Their willingness to step forward on behalf of the child is part of a new trend resulting from the It’s Not OK campaign. Research shows that one in five people who have seen the television advertisements have taken some sort of action because they were concerned about their behaviour or the behaviour of someone else. Our belief is that as intolerance grows, more and more people will speak up when they see or hear violent and abusive behaviour within families. It is this sort of action that will make it less likely that another Nia Glassie will die.
Last week, a Christchurch Press columnist criticised the research done by the Commission. He used our recent report on the difficulties shift-working parents have in managing childcare to illustrate his point of view. He felt that the information from these families was simply a statement of what the public already knew. Far from it. This was a small study done within the context of a much bigger project that looks at just what it is that families need in the way of child care services. By drilling down and doing intensive interviews with a range of families we are able to determine patterns of need, whether people’s arrangements work and what would they prefer in the way of support. The resulting information, along with our analysis, is now being made available to government and service providers and should, in time, result in services and support being much more targeted. This in turn should lead to more efficient use and delivery of resources. That’s the thing about research. It provides facts on which to base decisions and services, rather than opinion and anecdotes.
One of the other common statements made about the Commission is that its work could be done by some other government agency. That may be partly true of some of our research so we are careful to make sure we don’t duplicate the work of others. But the Comission is unique in that it was specifically set up to advocate for families and to provide independent and impartial advice to government and to other organisations. We are also tasked with taking the resilience and strengths of families into account in our work rather than focusing on their deficits.
We acknowledge that The Christchurch Press’s columnist is probably not alone in knowing little about the Commission. Our work is often done behind the scenes, in partnership with many other agencies, community organisations and government departments. However I believe a street poll would reveal that the public knows just as little about the work of Internal Affairs or the Ministry of Social Development as it does about the Commission.
But ask any large community agency that works with families who we are and what we do and I am confident you will find they support and value the contribution we are making through our research, information, advice and support.
—
Jan Pryor is the Chief Commissioner at The Families Commission
June 1, 2009
I was recently told by a parent “you wouldn’t understand you’re not a parent and you’ve got no idea what it’s like”. This comment is something I typically hear as a young advocate for anti-violence and a strong supporter of the 2007 Child Discipline Law.
Luckily I have made my mind up and I won’t stop campaigning and making my voice heard in the community. For other youth they’re not so confident, when it’s an issue as crucial as Section 59 they hold back and tend to not speak their voices to others. I think this is a real shame because as young people we have a very good idea of what we want, I have spoken to many youth about this issue and they too believe that children need to be protected.
I have a vision that the Section 59 referendum will bring together youth who want to make a difference. I am the co-founder of a group called Students Against Violence and the general feeling amongst our group is disgust, disgust that over 300,000 people could sign a petition that really justifies hitting a child.
We want to raise youth voices on this issue and ultimately make sure children are protected by the law. In an issue about children that will directly affect children it is a shame we have no democratic say in the issue.
Another issue that we are having as youth campaign for the Child Discipline Law is the negativity we receive from the public. The feeling we get is that people can’t handle youth having their say and that people have a belief that we aren’t justified to speak our voices on an issue that directly affects us.
Our message to New Zealand is that as youth we need a say on this issue and it is clear there is strong opposition to us speaking out. We do not understand why people want to justify hitting a child and why people want to have a law that says its okay to do so.
May 31, 2009
Google’s PageRanks were updated last week, and we’ve achieved an astounding PageRank of five after being live for under two months! We’ve never seen that happen to a site quite so quickly before, and we’re pleased to be part of a movement that’s able to generate so much traction so quickly. PageRank is Google’s measure of how important and authoritative a web page is; the higher the pagerank, the higher up the search results lists your site is when people search for topics related to your site.
We’ve served tens of thousands of pages to thousands of visitors.
We’ve also received excellent coverage online in places like Hard News, The Hand Mirror, No Right Turn, The Standard, and Frogblog.
The YES in ’09 Facebook Group has 273 members and is still growing stronger every day.
For a study of how attitude affects outcomes in the Twitterverse, compare a search on @theyesvote to a search on @vote_no to see what people really think.
We are committed to retaining a tone that is positive, constructive and evidence-based. This referendum isn’t about personalities, it’s about the issues. It isn’t about religion, it’s about best practice. It isn’t about sound bites, it’s about the whole complex story. And it isn’t about protecting parents, it’s about protecting children.
But the real contest isn’t in cyberspace, it’s in the real world. It’s great to get the word out and build our online following, but to win the real game we need to convince our friends, families, colleages and contacts that a Yes Vote in the August referendum is the only way to send a clear message to our politicians to protect our children by retaining a Child Discipline Law that is working well.
While we seem to be winning the cyberspace contest for now, we won’t be smug or complacent. We need to be out there taking action, and engaging in conversation with everyone who is willing to listen about why a Yes Vote in this referendum is so important to the future of our country.
So let’s seize the initiative, and get out there and raise awareness with as many people as possible.
Technorati Profile
Tags: anti-smacking referendum, cyberspace, facebook, frogblog, google, hard news, no right turn, pagerank, the hand mirror, the standard, vote no, voteno.org.nz
May 29, 2009
Take steps to control your own rage:
- Don’t stew over things, distract yourself if you’re feeling mad
- Practise self-control
- Learn how to connect with people in a safe and respectful way
- Find positive male and female role models
- Care for yourself by connecting to things that are meaningful to you like nature, meditation or art
Thanks to Cynthia Morton of the Emotional Fitness Foundatation for today’s tip (and HT to Stuff)
Do you have a tip you’d like to share? Please let us know below.
[contact-form]
May 28, 2009
We’re pleased to release our second free poster today. Feel free to download it, print copies, and post them in appropriate places.
Hitting kids teaches kids it’s OK to hit
You can download more posters on our free stuff page.
Please note: if you plan on distributing significant numbers of copies of any items from this site, please let us know so that we can include these items in our electoral return of expenses. See the notes under “Legislative requirements” in our Legal Disclaimer for more info.
Unfortunately, we don’t have the resources to post these items out to people, but you are free to download them, print them, and use them in whatever responsible way you see fit. Depending on stock levels, you may be able to get these items from your local Barnardos office.
[contact-form]
