Family violence funding

July 27th, 2014 at 2:00 pm by David Farrar

The Herald reports:

The former director of Sir Owen Glenn’s family violence inquiry has produced her own solution without waiting for the inquiry to finish its work.

Ruth Herbert, whose resignation last year almost destroyed Sir Owen’s $2 million inquiry, has written her own 155-page report advocating an integrated “one door, right door” system to replace an approach she sees as “broken, fragmented and inconsistent”.

She and her co-author, former Auckland regional family violence network co-ordinator Deborah Mackenzie, say their integrated system would add $22 million to the $70 million the state already spends on 774 separate family violence services.

But they believe it would save many times that amount in social and economic costs by reducing family violence.

First of all a better integrated network of family violence service providers seems a very sensible thing, and the cost doesn’t seem prohibitive. I’ve not yet read the report, but Ruth Herbert has a solid background of expertise in this area.

I would caution though that it does seem to be focused a bit on helping victims after violence has occurred, and the far tougher challenge is to try and never have family violence occur in the first place.

Tags:

22 Responses to “Family violence funding”

  1. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Is this the same report that Herbert did in 2008 or is it a new one? I think the 2008 one was called Learning our way forward?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Harriet (4,972 comments) says:

    “…..the state already spends on 774 separate family violence services…..”

    Clearly there is a huge problem somewhere amongst those services if ‘family violence’ is still of huge concern.

    774 services should be making huge inroads into violence in a rich, political, religious, ethnic stable society such as NZ.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Gulag1917 (916 comments) says:

    Remove drugs, alcohol and gangs from the family environment and family violence would be reduced by 90%.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Found it, it is a different report, with some similar components.

    I would caution though that it does seem to be focused a bit on helping victims after violence has occurred, and the far tougher challenge is to try and never have family violence occur in the first place.

    From a quick look at the summaries, I would agree – more ambulance at the bottom of the cliff stuff. We need to understand what contributes to the behaviour in the first place, and fix that.

    I still believe our welfare system is at least, in part, responsible. We have and always will have some violence in society, however, with the knowledge we have today, the levels should not be as high as they are. A welfare system that removes the individuals duty of care to provide for themselves, and therefore indirectly to their children/family – devalues not just the individual but also their relationship with others – this goes beyond financial aspects into the way in which people regard their own sense of worthiness, and the worthiness of others.

    Unless a person is active in the production of their own survival, either through working for money, or producing their own food etc, then the narcissist self takes over – they become the focus of their own existence and everyone else is there either to support them (welfare) or as an annoyance by putting demands on their ‘important’ self. The sense of entitlement extends not just for the money/welfare, but into their self need for peace, quiet, the tv channel, the car, the shop owners goods, and so on.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. dad4justice (8,222 comments) says:

    ” in a rich, political, religious, ethnic stable society such as NZ.”

    Surely you were being sarcastic Harriet? How do you explain the following sad fact?

    “Kiwi teens are more likely to die young in car crashes or by suicide than in almost every other developed, high-income country, with New Zealand’s overall adolescent death rate second only to the United States.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    So we are to believe that an extra $22 million into the trough will be the “magic bullet”?

    I say “bullshit”. No amount of money will solve the problem.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Colville (2,268 comments) says:

    Stop breeding for $$ and you will make a serious impact on family violence.
    Unemployed, single and pregnant?, give up the kid to someone capable of providing for that child.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. mudrunner (91 comments) says:

    I have had a quick read.
    While it does look at dealing with the people and not root causes, Judith has shown what is probably a significant part of the problem, “I still believe our welfare system is at least, in part, responsible. We have and always will have some violence in society”
    The cost of the proposal makes no effort to look at better expenditure within the many agencies and NGOs. The benefits are soft.
    I would really like to see what money is going where, for how many clients and cost of management, boards and case workers.
    Each is fiercely independent of their patch and resist scrutiny by shouting about their individual special knowledge and their regional differences.
    I am quite sure that many say they are there for the client, but in fact are there far more for there own benefit. Those that are genuine on the other hand, really get an unfair overload.
    I don’t think this proposal is the solution.
    Better coordination is only part of the solution.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Andrei (2,652 comments) says:

    A new BIG GOVERNMENT industry is born – family violence.

    As is always the case once GOVERNMENT MONEY (ie that extracted from the long suffering taxpayer under duress) becomes available the problem doesn’t go away it gets worse because those who benefit from this GOVERNMENT MONEY now have a vested interest in this problem persisting and increasing in order to get more dosh.

    And this is what happens

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. anticorruptionnz (215 comments) says:

    The real issue is that the court is used for Bullying. It is not a women’s issue it not a men’s issue it is a justice Issue

    Lawyers milk the system, pour oil on the relationships and wait for the money to flow out.

    Kids are pawns and fear is the tool used to silence and mobilize the weakest.

    few realize that the right that the criminals have to a fair hearing by an impartial judge does not extend into the civil jurisdiction .

    Two reasonable people seldom end up in court . People end up in court when one party is greedy, one party is violent or when one of them gets the wrong lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. thor42 (971 comments) says:

    I agree with Colville.

    I don’t believe more money is the answer in any way.

    *Less* money, on the other hand (and much tougher welfare policies) *would* make a big dent in the figures. The ferals who are the overwhelming problem aren’t totally stupid. They are doing exactly what the financial incentives in the welfare system suggest that they should do. Have as many babies as possible. More babies, more dollars.

    I say “axe the Sole Parent Support” as of date “x” (no more applications for it to be accepted).
    If a couple decides to have a child, *they* need to be sure they can afford it. It should *not* be up to taxpayers to support their breeding habits.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. wreck1080 (3,917 comments) says:

    Lack of hope.

    That’s the root cause.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. marleybob (9 comments) says:

    “…..the state already spends on 774 separate family violence services…..”
    Now that’s a great gravy train, almost as good as the Treaty crap.
    Why would there be 774 services, friggen obvious that none are doing the intended job. Go back to scratch and start again and be rid of troughers.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Meatloaf (196 comments) says:

    I think less money is the answer. In 1938, welfare was created. But all welfare happened through a social security account. This means when you paid income tax, some if not all of the income tax went into your social security account. Whenever you needed a handout, the amount you received was recorded from your social security account. During those days people understood the harder they worked, the less they asked for, the more they would have in their pension.

    I read about this in the World book encyclopedia in 1991. It said they abolished the social security account in the 1960s. The result being, the road was paved for DPB on the back of taxpayers. I say abolish the universal pension. Let those who’ve contributed the most, get a fantastic pension. And let those who haven’t contributed that much, and been on the DPB for as long as possible, not get as much, as those who’ve worked their asses off.

    If someone can just get the DPB, by hitting their head against the wall, and two minutes before their husband arrives call the police, so that when they do arrive their husband is guilty, like Kimberly Shaw did in Melrose Place and say he’s violent, then the DPB will be abused. But, if the DPB affects people’s pension, then they will think twice. If I ram my car into your car, and have insurance, I still have to pay the first $500, and my premiums go up. That’s how they stop me crashing on purpose, to make my mechanic friend rich. I guarantee you if we were to do this, only legitimate complaints would be filed.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Meatloaf (196 comments) says:

    Hi, if you want to do something about it, I have created a petition, which is headed in that direction. I was only given 200 characters for my petition, as in the link below:

    http://www.change.org/petitions/marriage-partnership-fairness-genuiness-in-complaints-bill?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_week_one

    If your happy with it, please sign, and feel free, to pass it on, Simon O’Connor is my local MP.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. lolitasbrother (692 comments) says:

    another day , another fuckfist feminist, drongo girls

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Meatloaf (196 comments) says:

    To me the way to fix the issue, is to make any split cost both people. If the man loses the house, pays alimony, loses the children, and the mother gets all of those things plus the DPB, to look after the children, their’s every incentive to say nasty things about the man. They closed the DPB off, with the exception, that you have a violent partner. So their you have it, a moral hazard, an incentive, to make men look violent for money.

    Only when it costs both people, will the problem be fixed. The love of money is the root of all evil.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. burt (8,269 comments) says:

    Colville

    Stop breeding for $$ and you will make a serious impact on family violence.
    Unemployed, single and pregnant?, give up the kid to someone capable of providing for that child.

    There is a lot of truth in this statement.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. lolitasbrother (692 comments) says:

    I once met a feminist lawyer who said … ” any man who refuses domestic arrangements feminist is by nature violent”
    this was 1984,
    I leaned against her body, said want a fuck

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. Meatloaf (196 comments) says:

    Actually, that sorta makes sense. ‘All is fair in love and war’, and ‘Hell hath no fury like a women scorned’. If the man the woman is in love with, rejects her, this is far worse than being beaten up. I know this, cause that’s what some of these girls I broke up with said “This is far worse than a heiding”. If they’re not happy with you, they won’t say I feel rejected, they’ll make up nasty rumours about you.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. lolitasbrother (692 comments) says:

    My Lawyer came in to my clinic, he said you can be a happy man:
    last year you dirty wife said you were a drunkard,
    this year them bitch feminine you fuck little children,
    I said ‘ jesus ,’ is this the law well fuck me dead”
    he said yes ,you can go to thailand find a dear lovely wife, and i did that

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Meatloaf (196 comments) says:

    Is it really that bad? So it looks like what I’ve been predicting as in the worst case scenario, is for real, actually happening. And yes, I’ve clicked on your blog name, and you have been to Thailand. You know, maybe I should get a Filipino wife (Phillipines), that’s what my dad recommends.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote