I believe that targeting the highest-risk children in their home setting is the most effective way of breaking the cycle of violence in New Zealand society.
Between 2002 and 2008 I did some voluntary work for a Christchurch agency, Family Help Trust (FHT), that works intensively with what most people would describe as “the lowest of the low” in this city. FHT’s primary focus on the children rather than their criminal parents caught my attention, but it was the sheer logic of the numbers that convinced me.
According to long-term research, those responsible for 80% of New Zealand’s crimes come from the 20% of the population who were raised in abusive, neglectful homes. And 50% of crimes are perpetrated by the worst 5%.
So all ideological and political arguments aside, simple logic tells me that the most effective way to break inter-generational cycles of abuse and criminality is to intervene on behalf of children, as early as possible, in the highest-risk environments.
I’m writing this article now because I’ve just finished proofreading a 120-page document produced by Dr Mark Turner of Clarity Research, commissioned by FHT, to be released this month. Titled “Monitoring Vulnerable Families – A two year outcome study”, it’s the result of two years detailed tracking and professional research of a group of 59 FHT clients (the non-government funded agency takes around 30 new infants a year, though there are 100 that would fit their high risk criteria, which is 2% of children born in Christchurch), aiming to examine “changes over the first two years on a series of key issues that have previously been associated with poor outcomes for children”, including “positive parental behaviours associated with child rearing and the health and safety of children in the household”.
One key conclusion goes like this: “Given the overwhelming expectations engendered from the literature of poor outcomes and certainly no immediate change in the first few years, the results of the present evaluation are extremely encouraging. The reduction in domestic violence, and in particular the removal of abusive partners, is a key outcome of this evaluation. Along with the continuing low rates of criminal offending and substance abuse (including the planned withdrawal from methadone maintenance programs), the indications of trying to establish some semblance of normality in previously destructive and chaotic lives is a remarkable phenomenon. This evaluation suggests that over the first two years, Family Help Trust families are most effective in acquiring new skills and behaviours associated with parenting their children safely, but are less effective in dealing with adverse family economic circumstances.”
Maybe not resounding proof, but at least a good start, and a damn sight more useful (for the agency’s clients and for the rest of society) than just whinging about it over coffee or on Talkback.
So how did I get into this? And even though my involvement is now only as the agency’s voluntary webmaster, why do I think it’s so important?
In 2002, winding down after 40 years in the workforce, I wanted to give some of my increasing free time to improve the lot of people who never had my good fortune in what I like to think as “life’s first lucky dip” — who you draw to be your parents.
After a bit of research, I decided that Family Help Trust in Christchurch was one organisation that had their heads – as well as their hearts – in the right place. I began doing a few hours administrative work a week to support some inspirational social workers who are doing some really hard yards for children who aren’t as lucky as I was. I also built and maintained their website – www.familyhelptrust.org.nz.
The Trust staff are the sort of people derided by many inhabitants of Talkback World, whose stock solution to the problems of neglect and abuse is to blame someone else (usually government agencies) and to punish marginalised offenders even further.
Whether or not they are right on the issue of punishment, this is of no help to the (usually) indirect victims in the situation – the youngsters growing up in these “family” environments where parents spend more time on drugs and crime than on caring for their children.
When seen this way, the need for early intervention becomes so crucial, and so obvious. Punish the parents if you must, but don’t punish their children. And don’t assist them, by doing nothing, into becoming the next generation driving the cycle of violence.
FHT’s policy – home-based early intervention (even before birth) on behalf of the highest risk children — is supported by the highly respected Christchurch Health and Development Study, a study of 1265 children who were born in Christchurch during mid-1977. These children have now been studied for many years.
The study, led by David Fergusson at the Christchurch School of Medicine, has produced a wealth of remarkable results, including solid indications that those responsible for 80% of New Zealand’s crimes come from abusive/neglectful homes.
Put another way, 80% of crime in New Zealand is committed by 20% of the offender population. The hard logic of this, which resonates to my scientific thinking, means that if the worst 20% of dysfunctional family environments are targeted, violent crime could reduced by up to 80%.
Over-simplistic? Police acknowledge the validity of such techniques by running programmes which target small subsets of the worst offenders in various criminal fields in order to get the most substantial results, both short and long-term.
Another way of looking at the numbers is in dollar terms. Providing its intervention service to one family (one child) for one year costs Family Help Trust about $6000. Compare this with the costs to society of hospital admissions averaging $8,400 per child abused and injured; residential care for troubled youth at $80,000 per year; and housing offenders in prison at $30,000-$70,000 per year.
This truly is a good example of the old metaphor about the cliff with a fence at the top and an ambulance at the bottom.
Several other things impress me about the Trust’s policies and procedures. For a start, the number of clients (children) per social worker cannot exceed a maximum number (around 15), avoiding situations where excessive caseloads hamper workers from doing their best with each client.
The client is the child, not the parent, so workers can avoid getting bogged down with entrenched adult behaviour and secondary issues. If the intervention helps the parent also, well and good; but the focus is primarily on the future of the child, as well as helping the primary parent to develop better child-rearing skills.
Intervention is based on home visits, and most of the time it’s not particularly spectacular or dramatic stuff. The social worker’s primary day-to-day goal is to develop a mentoring and advisory relationship with her client families. This often includes home management, child health, budgeting and building self esteem shattered by the parent’s own abusive upbringing.
The parents often say they wish above all else that their children will not go through that familiar pattern – if only they had some help to break the cycle.
FHT social workers often focus on day to day issues that make it so difficult for parents in poor environments to even do simple parenting, such as helping them to get to the GP and ensuring children are safe within the house and have adequate food and hygiene.
With a new client, their first priority often is to address crises in housing, food, finances and acute family relationships problems. When that is brought under some control the social worker can talk with the parent(s) to help them focus on the wider issues that have been making their life so difficult, and how to ensure their child is not sucked into the same chaos and neglect.
Non-acute follow up continues until the client child reaches primary school, by which time we may well have a young person with a chance of living a reasonably normal life. Preliminary findings after several years of service provision so far show encouraging results.
Even if only one-quarter of these high-risk children are removed from the cycle of abuse, in time this will reduce violent crime by perhaps 20% overall. At least, that’s what the logic of the numbers tells me.
Posted by David Armstrong 