Harm, care and babies: An inequalities and policy discourse perspective on recent child protection trends in Aotearoa New Zealand
Keywords:Child protection, Oranga Tamariki, child abuse prevention, inequalities, babies
INTRODUCTION: Examining basic trends in child protection statistics give some insight into the functioning of the system overall.
METHODS: This article uses Official Information Act and publicly available data to examine recent trends of children in contact with the Aotearoa New Zealand child protection system.
It discusses these trends with reference to child protection policy reforms, and an inequalities perspective.
FINDINGS: There has been an increase of children in care despite steady reductions in hospitalisations for physical abuse and possibly child deaths, accepted reports of concern, abuse substantiations and entries to care. The increase is caused by fewer children exiting care, particularly for children under 10 years old. There is a 33% increase in babies removed; this is regionalised and with more use of legal orders on unborn, as opposed to older babies. Disproportionality for Māori is increasing, while other groups remain stable or reduce. The use of kinship care has increased.
IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE OR POLICY: Changes in rates of contact with the child protection system reflect complex interactions between demand and supply of services, social inequalities, the policy context and practice logics. Changing decision-making at intake reflects tightening criteria to focus on only the highest risk families. However, “supply” policies that focus on early removal to permanency and early-intervention discourses may result in an increase
in younger children entering care, and staying longer once they get there. “Demand” policies affecting preventive service provision, social protections and institutionalised bias may also be contributors. More research is needed to fully understand these patterns.
Bécares, L., Cormack, D., & Harris, R. (2013). Ethnic density and area deprivation: Neighbourhood effects on Māori health and racial discrimination in Aotearoa/ New Zealand. Social Science & Medicine, 88, 76–82. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.007
Beddoe, L., & Joy, E. (2017). Questioning the uncritical acceptance of neuroscience in child and family policy and practice: A review of challenges to the current doxa. Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work 29(1), 65 – 76. doi:10.11157/anzswj-vol29iss1id213
Broadhurst, K., Alrouh, B., Mason, C., Ward, H., Holmes, L., Ryan, M., & Bowyer, S. (2018). Born into care: Newborn babies subject to care proceedings in England. London, UK: The Nuffield Family Justice Observatory.
Bywaters, P. (2015). Inequalities in child welfare: Towards a new policy, research and action agenda. British Journal of Social Work, 45(1), 6–23. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bct079
Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Bunting, L., Daniel, B., Featherstone, B., Jones, C., . . . Webb, C. (2018). Inequalities in english child protection practice under austerity: A universal challenge? Child & Family Social Work, 23(1), 1365–2206. doi:10.1111/cfs.12383
Bywaters, P., Brady, G., Sparks, T., Bos, E., Bunting, L., Daniel, B., . . . Scourfield, J. (2015). Exploring inequities in child welfare and child protection services: Explaining the “inverse intervention law”. Children and Youth Services Review, 57, 98–105. doi:http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2015.07.017
Bywaters, P., Scourfield, J., Jones, C., Sparks, T., Elliott, M., Hooper, J., . . . Daniel, B. (2018). Child welfare inequalities in the four nations of the UK. Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1177/1468017318793479
Choate, P. (2015). Termination of parental rights: A commentary on Ben-David. Journal of Family Social Work, 18(4), 243–252. doi:10.1080/10522158.2015. 1083393
Cram, F., Gulliver, P., Ota, R., & Wilson, M. (2015). Understanding overrepresentation of indigenous children in child welfare data: An application of the Drake risk and bias models. Child Maltreatment, 20(3), 170–182. doi:10.1177/1077559515580392
Daro, D. (2009). The history of science and child abuse prevention: A reciprocal relationship. In K. Dodge & D. Coleman (Eds.), Preventing child maltreatment: Community approaches (pp. 9-25). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Doyle, J. J. (2011). Causal effects of foster care: An instrumental-variables approach. Children and Youth Services Review, 35(7), 1143-1151.
Duncanson, M., Oben, G., Wicken, A., Richardson, G., Adams, J., & Pierson, M. (2018). Child poverty monitor 2018: Technical report (national report). Dunedin, NZ: New Zealand Child and Youth Epidemiology Service.
Edwards, R., Gillies, V., & Horsley, N. (2015). Brain science and early years policy: Hopeful ethos or “cruel optimism”? Critical Social Policy, 35(2), 167–187.
Featherstone, B., Gupta, A., Morris, K. M., & Warner, J. (2016). Let’s stop feeding the risk monster: Towards a social model of “child protection”. Families, Relationships and Societies. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1332/20467431 6X14552878034622
Gilbert, N., Parton, N., & Skivenes, M. (2011). Child protection systems: International trends and orientations. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Gillies, V., Edwards, R., & Horsley, N. (2017). Challenging the politics of early intervention. Bristol, UK: Policy Press.
Hood, R., Goldacre, A., Gorin, S., & Bywaters, P. (2019). Screen, ration and churn: Demand management and the crisis in children’s social care. The British Journal of Social Work. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcz035
Humphreys, C., Healey, L., & Mandel, D. (2018). Case reading as a practice and training intervention in domestic violence and child protection, Australian Social Work, 71(3), 277–291.
Hyslop, I. (2017). Child protection in New Zealand: A history of the future. The British Journal of Social Work, 47(6), 1800–1817. doi:10.1093/bjsw/bcx088
Jenkins, M. (2019). Social service system: The funding gap and how to bridge it. Wellington, NZ: Social Service Provider Association.
Keddell, E. (2017a). The Child Youth and Family review: A commentary on prevention. Auckland, NZ: The Policy Observatory, AUT. Retrieved from https://thepolicyobservatory.aut.ac.nz/
Keddell, E. (2017b). Comparing risk-averse and risk-friendly practitioners in child welfare decision-making: A mixed methods study. Journal of Social Work Practice,
Keddell, E. (2017c). Lives at the intersections: multiple ethnicities and child protection. In M. Webber & Z. Rocha (Eds.), Tangata manarua: Mixed heritages, ethnic identity and biculturalism in Aotearoa/New Zealand (pp. 252–278). Oxon, UK: Routledge.
Keddell, E. (2018). The vulnerable child in neoliberal contexts: the construction of children in the Aotearoa New Zealand child protection reforms. Childhood, 25(1), 93–108.
Keddell, E., & Davie, G. (2018). Inequalities and child protection system contact in Aotearoa New Zealand: Developing a conceptual framework and research agenda. Social Sciences, 7, 89–100.
Keddell, E., Davie, G., & Barson, D. (2019). Child protection inequalities in Aotearoa New Zealand: Social gradient and the “inverse intervention law”.
Children and Youth Services Review. Online first at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2019.06.018
Keddell, E., & Hyslop, I. (2019). Ethnic inequalities in child welfare: The role of practitioner risk perceptions. Child & Family Social Work, 1–12. Online first at: doi:10.1111/cfs.12620
Kukutai, T. (2011). Building ethnic boundaries in New Zealand: Representations of Māori identity in the census. In Axelsson, P., & Skold, P., (Eds.), Indigenous Peoples and Demography: The Complex Relation between Identity and Statistics, (pp.33- 54) New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
McLaughlin, M., & Jonson-Reid, M. (2017). The relationship between child welfare financing, screening, and substantiation. Children and Youth Services
Review, 82, 407–412. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j. childyouth.2017.10.013
Ministry of Social Development. (2012). The white paper for vulnerable children (Vol. 1). Wellington, NZ: NZ Government. Retrieved from: https://www.orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/ white-paper-for-vulnerable-children-volume-1.pdf
Ministry of Social Development. (2015). Expert panel final report: Investing in New Zealand’s children and their families. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.
Ministry of Social Development. (2018). Key statistics and information for media. Retrieved from https://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/ publications-resources/statistics/cyf/index.html
Mornington, A.-D., & Guyard-Nedelec, A. (2019). Is poverty eroding parental rights in Britain? The case of child protection in the early twenty-first century. In N. Brando & G. Schweiger (Eds.), Philosophy and child poverty: Reflections on the ethics and politics of poor children and their families (pp. 341–361). Cham, Springer International Publishing.
New Zealand Government. (2019). Mental health inquiry. Retrieved from https://mentalhealth.inquiry.govt.nz/
Office of the Chief Social Worker. (2014). Workload and casework review: Qualitative review of social worker caseload, casework and workload management. Wellington, New Zealand: Child, Youth and Family.
Office of the Children’s Commissioner. (2016). Children’s commissioner says UN report must be taken seriously Retrieved from http://www.occ.org.nz/assets/Uploads/ FINALmediastatementUN.pdf
Oranga Tamariki. (2019). Babies and children entering Oranga Tamariki care. Retrieved from https://orangatamariki.govt.nz/assets/Uploads/OIA- responses/children-in-care/20190628-Babies-and- children-entering-Oranga-Tamariki-care.pdf
Oranga Tamariki (2015a) Official Information Act request, Duff, September 21. Wellington, NZ: Oranga Tamariki.
Oranga Tamariki (2015b) Official Information Act request, Keddell, November 26. Wellington, NZ: Oranga Tamariki.
Oranga Tamariki (2018) Official Information Act request, Keddell, September 14. Wellington, NZ: Oranga Tamariki.
Parton, N. (2016). An “authoritarian neoliberal” approach to child welfare and protection? Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work, 28(2), 7–8.
Raissian, K. M., & Bullinger, L. R. (2017). Money matters: Does the minimum wage affect child maltreatment rates? Children and Youth Services Review, 72, 60–70. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.09.033
Simpson, J., Duncanson, M., Oben, G., Wicken, A., & Gallagher, S. (2016). Child poverty monitor: Technical report 2016 (national report). Dunedin, New Zealand: Child and Youth Epidemiology Service.
Statistics New Zealand. (2019). National Pacific projections. Wellington, New Zealand: Author. Retrieved from http://archive.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/population/ estimates_and_projections/projections-overview/nat- pacific-proj.aspx
St. John, S., & Cartwright, J. (2019, May 1). Get our children out of poverty. Tui Motu Magazine, 10–11.
How to Cite
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
By completing the online submission process, you confirm you accept this agreement. The following is the entire agreement between you and the Aotearoa New Zealand Association of Social Workers (ANZASW) and it may be modified only in writing.
You and any co-authors
If you are completing this agreement on behalf of co-authors, you confirm that you are acting on their behalf with their knowledge.
By submitting the work you are:
- granting the ANZASW the right of first publication of this work;
- confirming that the work is original; and
- confirming that the work has not been published in any other form.
Once published, you are free to use the final, accepted version in any way, as outlined below under Copyright.
You assign copyright in the final, accepted version of your article to the ANZASW. You and any co-authors of the article retain the right to be identified as authors of the work.
The ANZASW will publish the final, accepted manuscript under a Creative Commons Attribution licence (CC BY 4.0). This licence allows anyone – including you – to share, copy, distribute, transmit, adapt and make commercial use of the work without needing additional permission, provided appropriate attribution is made to the original author or source.
A human-readable summary of the licence is available from http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0, which includes a link to the full licence text.
Under this licence you can use the final, published version of the article freely – such as depositing a copy in your institutional research repository, uploading a copy to your profile on an academic networking site or including it in a different publication, such as a collection of articles on a topic or in conference proceedings – provided that original publication in Aotearoa New Zealand Social Work is acknowledged.
This agreement has no effect on any pre-publication versions or elements, which remain entirely yours, and to which we claim no right.
Reviewers hold copyright in their own comments and should not be further copied in any way without their permission.
The copyright of others
If your article includes the copyright material of others (e.g. graphs, diagrams etc.), you confirm that your use either:
- falls within the limits of fair dealing for the purposes of criticism and review or fair use; OR
- that you have gained permission from the rights holder for publication in an open access journal.