Addressing Child Maltreatment in New Zealand: Is Poverty Reduction Enough?

Abstract

Jonathan Boston provides an insightful analysis of the emergence and persistence of child poverty in New Zealand (Boston, 2014, Educational Philosophy and Theory). His remarks on why child poverty matters are brief but, as he reports, “[t]here is a large and robust body of research on the harmful consequences of child poverty” (Boston 2014, pp. 10–11). One cost he does not explicitly mention is the increased risk of maltreatment faced by children living in poverty. Given the clear correlation between risk of abuse and poverty, Boston’s recommendations might be expected to go some way to addressing New Zealand’s appalling child maltreatment statistics. However, Boston himself identifies both fiscal and political barriers to the implementation of his proposed strategy. “Fundamentally”, he observes, “without adequate multi-party agreement, it will be hard to reduce child poverty on a durable basis” and “[c]urrently, such agreement is lacking” (Boston, 2014, p. 21). Even if we accept Boston’s strategies for child-poverty reduction, then, it is prudent to consider other responses to the consequences of child poverty. Significant and controversial aspects of New Zealand’s 2013 White Paper for Vulnerable Children can be read in this light, and one of them – the proposal to use predictive risk modeling (PRM) to identify children at risk of maltreatment – is the focus of this commentary.

Keywords:

• predictive risk modeling
• child maltreatment
• ethics

Notes

1. The Area Under the Curve (AUC) indicates the accuracy of a model. The AUC for the Vulnerable Children PRM is approximately 76%, which is technically regarded as fair, approaching good, and is similar to the accuracy of a mammogram conducted without prior risk indication of cancer.

2. In subsequent development the MSD has tended toward interventions focused in those identified as at ‘high risk’, rather than those falling within specific and sharp edged risk deciles.

3. This figure is derived from the US Nurse Family Partnership Programme, used in Vaithianathan et al., 2012 as an illustration of possible intervention models. See Olds et al., 1997.