Dr Russell WillsCommissioner for ChildrenHastings

Child Protection update

Dr Russell Wills FRACP, MPHChildren’s Commissioner

GPCMEDunedin

16th August 2013

This talk25 min•Brief epidemiology of child abuse and neglect in NZ•Key aspects of the White Paper on Vulnerable Children•Implications for general practice •Opportunities and risks•What will make the implementation of the WP succeed or fail

20 min discussion

This afternoon at 2 and 3pm workshop •Child Abuse for the GP

Hospital Admissions (2006–2010) and Deaths (2004–2008) due to Injuries Arising from the Assault, Neglect or Maltreatment of New Zealand Children by Age and Gender

Source: Numerator Admissions: National Minimum Dataset, Numerator Mortality: National Mortality Collection; Denominator: Statistics NZ Estimated Resident Population

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Mor

talit

y pe

r 100

,000

Adm

issi

ons

per 1

00,0

00

Age (Years)

Female Assault MortalityMale Assault MortalityFemale Assault AdmissionsMale Assault Admissions

Hospital Admissions for Injuries Arising from the Assault, Neglect or Maltreatment of Children 0–14 Years by NZ Deprivation Index Decile, New Zealand 2006–2010

Source: Numerator: National Minimum Dataset; Denominator: Statistics NZ Estimated Resident Population

4.2

7.0 6.6

9.412.4

16.8 16.6

22.2

33.2

42.2

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

NZ Deprivation Index Decile

Rat

e pe

r 100

,000

Num

ber

Number: Annual Average

Rate per 100,000

Hospital Admissions for Injuries Arising from the Assault, Neglect or Maltreatment of Children 0–14 Years by Ethnicity, New Zealand 2000–2010

Source: Numerator: National Minimum Dataset; Denominator: Statistics NZ Estimated Resident Population.Note: Ethnicity is Level 1 Prioritised.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2000–01 2002–03 2004–05 2006–07 2008–09 2010

Adm

issi

ons

per 1

00,0

00 0–14

Yea

rs

Year

Māori Assault AdmissionsPacif ic Assault AdmissionsEuropean Assault AdmissionsAsian Assault Admissions

Notifications, further action req’d and substantiations

Insert table here

Notifications to CYF 2008-20122008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Care & Protection Notifications

89,461 110,797 124,921 93,594 90,122

Police Family Violence Notifications

57,153 62,678

Sub Total 89,461 110,797 124,921 150,747 152,800

Distinct clients 61,403 74,340 80,218 94,478 95,532

Findings 2005-2010

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

Findings

Num

ber 2005/2006

2006/2007

2007/2008

2008/2009

2009/2010

Serious behaviour difficulties• Population surveys (psychiatry) Boys 6-16%, Girls 2-9% • NZ “serious behaviour difficulties” (%) Church (1996),

Bretherton (1997, 2000)• Canterbury survey 1996 N=173 schools

– Decile 1 10.8% SBP -> Decile 10 1.3%Year Canterbury

1996Otago 1997

Otago 1999

1 2.8 4.5 2.74 4.4 7.5 6.07 4.5 4.5 5.7N 37,745 16,741 16,925

Chch Multidisciplinary Child Development Study: Outcomes at age 18 - Education

Extent of Conduct Problems

Outcome (17-18)

Low 1

2

3

4

High 5

% Reading delay 4.8 11.0 13.0 11.4 29.0 % Leaving school without quals

10.4

16.8

32.8

60.0

50.0

Mean number of SC “passes”

3.9

3.2

2.3

1.4

1.5

Christchurch study – outcomes at age 25 Education & employment

Extent of Early ConductProblems

Outcome 21-25Low

1 2 3High

4% No qualifications 5.8 14.4 22.2 52.1% Unemployed 12months or longer 6.8 8.5 15.0 17.4% Welfaredependent 8.5 12.0 14.3 32.6

Christchurch study: crime at 25

Conduct Problems

OutcomeLow

1 2 3High

4% Violent offending 3.2 6.4 11.6 34.8% Arrested 3.0 6.5 15.0 32.6% Imprisonment 0.2 1.0 5.7 14.3

Christchurch study: mental health at 25

Extent of Early ConductProblems

Outcome 21-25Low

1 2 3High

4Anxiety/depression 24.4 36.8 38.1 32.6Antisocialpersonality 1.0 3.2 5.4 17.4Suicide attempt 4.4 10.3 14.8 18.4

Christchurch study: sexual and partner relationships at 25 Extent of Early Conduct

Problems Outcome 21-25

Low 1

2

3

High 4

% Multiple (10+) sexual partners

12.3

17.1

19.7

24.4

% Pregnant/partner pregnant

11.7

17.6

25.5

36.7

% Became parent <20 4.4 8.1 14.3 19.6 % Interpartner violence 5.2 8.8 15.0 23.9

Summary: abuse & severe behaviour

• Common and overlap• Sharp SE gradient but not unique to low SE• Devastating long-term consequences for health,

relationships, education, productivity, criminality, welfare dependence

• Current systems have strengths, e.g., improved identification of children at risk

• Weaknesses– Variability across regions– Not joined up -> multiple cars in the driveway– Information sharing difficult– Lack of data on outcomes– Skills gaps– Too hard to access support– Very poor outcomes for children in care– Resource not directed to most vulnerable– Fragmented systems, providers & purchasing– Unclear responsibilities – no-ones job.

Wicked Problems• Multiple causes• Multiple players• High stakes• Constant change• Uncertain funding• Evidence unclear or

conflicting• Values-laden• Competing interests

Wicked Problems Have Solutions

Children’s Action Plan

New Funding Model

What does this mean for GPs?• Training in CAN, DV… (FV is our job)• Services to refer to for children and our adult

patients who are parents• Children’s Teams• Child Protect Line• Parenting programmes, support for

caregivers• Children in care (Gateway) and leaving care

• Easier information sharing• By phone, face to face• IT connectivity

• Regional Children’s Director – local purchasing of health, education and social services

What does this mean for GPs?• In Whangarei & Rotorua (& next demonstration

sites)– Will be consulted & included

• in planning for Children’s Teams• in planning for Regional Children’s Directors’

work

• Everywhere - Vulnerable Children’s Bill• Mandatory policies & training• Vetting & screening – identity, referee & police

checks• Collaboration• Focus on the

– most vulnerable– outcomes (vs inputs/ outputs)

Opportunities and RisksOpportunities

• Improved outcomes for children at risk

• Easier information sharing & identification of children at risk– Face to face– Electronically

• Standards for C&P training and policies– Up to each discipline

• Expectation of local collaboration• Local leadership including

purchasing of MSD-funded services for children

• Improves services for children in care and leaving care

• Increase in registered SW

Risks• First and last chance in a

generation• 9/11 – VKIS overwhelm with

data?• Privacy• C&P seen as specialist/non-core• Overwhelm local services• Overwhelm local leaders• Local variation in collaboration &

leadership capacity -> inevitable national variation

• Performance funding -> services avoid complex families

• Some SW will struggle to achieve registration standard

What’s needed next?The White Paper will achieve the intended goals where there is

• Existing local collaboration with clear communication, trust and mutual respect

• Vision maintained of helping complex families

• Power sharing• Local leadership that recognises

and values these things• Active participation of practitioners

in WF dvpt• Clarity – what is determined

centrally vs local flexibility• Patience, figure out together• A change in community attitudes

“communitarian” (Judge Mick Brown)– Violence to women & children– Don’t get involved in private

matters

The White Paper will not achieve the intended goals where there is• Poor local collaboration, weak

communication, limited trust• Jealous guarding of power• Competition/ conflict for $• Service avoidance of complex

families• Poor or limited local leadership• No change in community attitudes

Discussion