Resources
Oranga Tamariki and FHT 2019 Research project - is our Early Intervention programme successful
Report Archive
What Makes the FHT Home Visiting Programme a Success
What Makes the FHT Home Visiting Programme a Success
Selecting Interventions to reduce family violence and child abuse in New Zealand. ESR September 2014
A report to the Glenn Inquiry: Dr Jeff Foote, Dr Annabel Taylor, Dr Sue Carswell, Graeme Nicholas et al read the full report here. FHT features on pages 5 and 6.
Traumatic Brain Injury Among Mothers Identified as Having a High Risk of Child Maltreatment: A Pilot Study (2014)
Audrey McKinley, Cora van Vliet-Ruissen & Annabel Taylor. Journal of Family Violence: Vol 29: Number 4 read the full report here
Igniting Change: Moving Away from Violence (Jan 2013)
A joint research project conducted by Christchurch Women's Refuge, Family Help Trust and Te Awatea Violence Research Centre (University of Canterbury) Funded by a Lotteries Community Research Grant. Lead Researcher Yvonne Crichton-Hill. Read the full report here
Family help trust child protection policy (updated 2019)
Our child protection policy supports our staff to respond appropriately to potential child protection concerns, including suspected abuse or neglect. It is our organisation’s commitment to protect children from abuse and to recognise the key role all our staff has in protecting children.
The process for responding to a concern about a child is on page 13 of this policy.
The interests of the child will be the paramount consideration when any action is taken in response to suspected abuse or neglect.
Download and read the full report
The process for responding to a concern about a child is on page 13 of this policy.
The interests of the child will be the paramount consideration when any action is taken in response to suspected abuse or neglect.
Download and read the full report
Vulnerable Families - A Two-year Outcome Study by Mark Turner, May 2009
Family Help Trust’s "Monitoring Vulnerable Families" report (2009) provides evidence that the risk of child abuse among the most socially deprived families can be significantly reduced through effective home visitation. In particular, significant outcomes are indicated within the first two years through:
Read the report summary here » (PDF, 550KB)
If you want to obtain the full report, contact Family Help Trust
- enabling mothers to end relationships with abusive partners;
- convincing mothers to stop hitting their children;
- assisting mothers to complete methadone programmes and therefore stop using drugs;
- encouraging positive parental behaviours associated with child rearing; and
- no differences were found in outcomes between Māori and non-Māori in any of the core indicators.
Read the report summary here » (PDF, 550KB)
If you want to obtain the full report, contact Family Help Trust
Best Practice Guidelines for Home Visiting Family Support, December 2007
Family Help Trust and Family Support Services Whanganui Trust, both Jigsaw affiliates, have developed a set of Best Practice Guidelines for Home Visiting Family Support that could be a useful tool for agencies with similar service types.
These processes produced rich data that show that best practice requires more than knowledge and technique. Equally important is the social worker’s ability to:
The guidelines tease out the detail of how the self and the relationship, and social work values, knowledge and skills work together to help families change and the implications for management of providing a service in which the social worker’s self and their relationship with the client are primary tools.
The analysis finds that best practice also requires mastery of:
Download and read the full report
These processes produced rich data that show that best practice requires more than knowledge and technique. Equally important is the social worker’s ability to:
- know and use the self, and
- build and sustain effective social work relationships with clients
The guidelines tease out the detail of how the self and the relationship, and social work values, knowledge and skills work together to help families change and the implications for management of providing a service in which the social worker’s self and their relationship with the client are primary tools.
The analysis finds that best practice also requires mastery of:
- cycles of assessment, planning and review that connect strongly with a family’s own goals and ways of resolving difficulties, and that work to encourage, support and maintain momentum
- values and principles that are well integrated into agency function and individual practice so that the ethical, relationship and safety dilemmas that arise daily can be negotiated with the family in a respectful and effective way
Download and read the full report
Evaluation of Family Help Trust - Twelve-Month Outcomes, October 2006
Prepared by Mark Turner PhD. Edited excerpts below.
If you want a copy of the complete report, please contact Libby Robins.
Executive Summary
This evaluation provides an account of the twelve month outcomes of 55 Family Help Trust families. The design, major outcomes and conclusions of this evaluation are summarised in the report.
Chapter 1 sets the background for the evaluation of the Family Help Trust programme and provides a brief overview of home visiting. Examination of the literature shows that many home visiting services are not effective in preventing child abuse. The key features of successful services include:
Chapter 2 describes the evaluation design and the limitations of this methodology. When using prospective longitudinal research designs without a control group, the results must be treated with caution as it is not possible to say that any improvements wouldn’t have occurred without Family Help Trust input. Nevertheless it is possible, and extremely informative, to examine any changes in this challenging population.
Chapter 3 examines the referral process and provides a descriptive profile of the socio-demographic backgrounds of the families recruited. Comparison with previous cohorts showed Family Help Trust families are socially disadvantaged. The mothers reported a background of adversity in childhood, and there were relatively high levels of criminality, substance use and mental health problems. Of significance, threequarters (78.2%) had prior Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) involvement.
Internationally, many similar programmes specifically exclude those with prior child protection agency involvement.
Chapter 4 provides an examination of changes over the first twelve months on a series of key issues that have previously been associated with poor prognosis for children and low family functioning generally. Fifty-five families (78.6% of those recruited) had twelve month data available. The results of Section 1, which focused on key child-related outcomes are extremely encouraging and point to significant improvements in a number of key areas including parental behaviours associated with child rearing and the health and safety of child(ren) in the household. Section 2 also found indications of significant improvements in social support and family violence. However, there was less evidence of positive changes in lifestyle behaviours (such as parental substance abuse, mental health and family economic circumstances) of the Mothers of Baby (MOB).
Chapter 5 provides an overview and analysis of the results of this evaluation and places these findings in the context of previous studies. Given the difficulties previous research studies have had finding any positive improvements from home visitation services, the results of the present evaluation are extremely encouraging. This is all the more so given that these clients have only been receiving Family Help Trust input for twelve months and many authors report that it is unlikely results can be achieved in this timeframe.
While the lack of a control group does not allow definite conclusions about causality, this evaluation shows that ultra high-risk families can make significant improvements in crucial child abuse prevention areas over twelve months. As such, this research is the first evaluation to show that positive changes can occur in the lives of this ultra high-risk cohort. It provides valuable information that can help guide clinical practice and provide governmental social agencies and policy analysts with an evidence base for improving family functioning and reducing the incidence of child abuse and neglect.
Foreword by Lesley Max, Co-Patron Family Help Trust
This report is of particular interest. Family Help Trust's intervention is revealed as highly unusual if not unique in its targeting only high-risk families and is thus likely to be of interest internationally.
Evaluator Dr Mark Turner is candid about the limitations of the evaluation, noting that it is "indicative of possible trends, not confirmed evidence of programme effectiveness". Evaluation is complicated by the fact that the service "is designed to meet the specific requirements, circumstances and problems of a given high-risk family, rather than imposing a standardized programme on all families".
Programme families represented a substantial challenge in the light of the incidence of head injury or concussion, mental health problems, substance abuse, criminal offending, adversity in childhood and prior CYFS involvement.
Significant decreases were noted in CYFS involvement and in reported violence of mothers toward their child/ren. An extremely encouraging pervasive and consistent trend towards decreasing partner violence and abuse was also found.
In an interesting echo of the "Early Start" evaluation, the Family Help Trust was found to be most effective in assisting mothers to acquire new skills and behaviours in parenting their children but was less effective in addressing long-standing lifestyle issues relating to substance abuse, mental health issues and families' economic circumstances.
The report concludes that "FHT families were successful in improving maternal child-rearing skills and reducing child abuse risks over the first 12 months involvement with the service".
The Family Help Trust has established a rare expertise in one of the most difficult but critically important areas of social service. To my mind it represents social enterprise of a remarkable kind. It is an organization that deals proactively and effectively with a population that would otherwise be unlikely to receive necessary assistance.
This report should be read by all those concerned for New Zealand's children and families, but most particularly by policy analysts and Government decision-makers.
(If you want a copy of the complete report, please contact Libby Robins.)
If you want a copy of the complete report, please contact Libby Robins.
Executive Summary
This evaluation provides an account of the twelve month outcomes of 55 Family Help Trust families. The design, major outcomes and conclusions of this evaluation are summarised in the report.
Chapter 1 sets the background for the evaluation of the Family Help Trust programme and provides a brief overview of home visiting. Examination of the literature shows that many home visiting services are not effective in preventing child abuse. The key features of successful services include:
- A strongly theory-based approach using evidence-based best practice
- The use of professionally-trained staff
- Support from community and governmental stakeholders
- • Emerging evidence and opinions of key researchers suggest that services should be re-tooled to focus on families most at-risk of child abuse.
Chapter 2 describes the evaluation design and the limitations of this methodology. When using prospective longitudinal research designs without a control group, the results must be treated with caution as it is not possible to say that any improvements wouldn’t have occurred without Family Help Trust input. Nevertheless it is possible, and extremely informative, to examine any changes in this challenging population.
Chapter 3 examines the referral process and provides a descriptive profile of the socio-demographic backgrounds of the families recruited. Comparison with previous cohorts showed Family Help Trust families are socially disadvantaged. The mothers reported a background of adversity in childhood, and there were relatively high levels of criminality, substance use and mental health problems. Of significance, threequarters (78.2%) had prior Child, Youth and Family Services (CYFS) involvement.
Internationally, many similar programmes specifically exclude those with prior child protection agency involvement.
Chapter 4 provides an examination of changes over the first twelve months on a series of key issues that have previously been associated with poor prognosis for children and low family functioning generally. Fifty-five families (78.6% of those recruited) had twelve month data available. The results of Section 1, which focused on key child-related outcomes are extremely encouraging and point to significant improvements in a number of key areas including parental behaviours associated with child rearing and the health and safety of child(ren) in the household. Section 2 also found indications of significant improvements in social support and family violence. However, there was less evidence of positive changes in lifestyle behaviours (such as parental substance abuse, mental health and family economic circumstances) of the Mothers of Baby (MOB).
Chapter 5 provides an overview and analysis of the results of this evaluation and places these findings in the context of previous studies. Given the difficulties previous research studies have had finding any positive improvements from home visitation services, the results of the present evaluation are extremely encouraging. This is all the more so given that these clients have only been receiving Family Help Trust input for twelve months and many authors report that it is unlikely results can be achieved in this timeframe.
While the lack of a control group does not allow definite conclusions about causality, this evaluation shows that ultra high-risk families can make significant improvements in crucial child abuse prevention areas over twelve months. As such, this research is the first evaluation to show that positive changes can occur in the lives of this ultra high-risk cohort. It provides valuable information that can help guide clinical practice and provide governmental social agencies and policy analysts with an evidence base for improving family functioning and reducing the incidence of child abuse and neglect.
Foreword by Lesley Max, Co-Patron Family Help Trust
This report is of particular interest. Family Help Trust's intervention is revealed as highly unusual if not unique in its targeting only high-risk families and is thus likely to be of interest internationally.
Evaluator Dr Mark Turner is candid about the limitations of the evaluation, noting that it is "indicative of possible trends, not confirmed evidence of programme effectiveness". Evaluation is complicated by the fact that the service "is designed to meet the specific requirements, circumstances and problems of a given high-risk family, rather than imposing a standardized programme on all families".
Programme families represented a substantial challenge in the light of the incidence of head injury or concussion, mental health problems, substance abuse, criminal offending, adversity in childhood and prior CYFS involvement.
Significant decreases were noted in CYFS involvement and in reported violence of mothers toward their child/ren. An extremely encouraging pervasive and consistent trend towards decreasing partner violence and abuse was also found.
In an interesting echo of the "Early Start" evaluation, the Family Help Trust was found to be most effective in assisting mothers to acquire new skills and behaviours in parenting their children but was less effective in addressing long-standing lifestyle issues relating to substance abuse, mental health issues and families' economic circumstances.
The report concludes that "FHT families were successful in improving maternal child-rearing skills and reducing child abuse risks over the first 12 months involvement with the service".
The Family Help Trust has established a rare expertise in one of the most difficult but critically important areas of social service. To my mind it represents social enterprise of a remarkable kind. It is an organization that deals proactively and effectively with a population that would otherwise be unlikely to receive necessary assistance.
This report should be read by all those concerned for New Zealand's children and families, but most particularly by policy analysts and Government decision-makers.
(If you want a copy of the complete report, please contact Libby Robins.)
2004 Audit Report of the Implementation of the Recommendations of the Canterbury University, 2003
Prepared by Fiona Robertson, consultant.
Overview "In my report I concluded that the progress FHT has made to implement the changes recommended in the 2003 Evaluation deserves top marks ".......(this) resulted in a new Social Work Team with a positive outlook regarding the service as well as ownership of the agency and the documents which they are required to use. They feel safe, encouraged and supported with the present Management Team and Board...........The Social Workers feel that their interventions with families is assisting families with finding the tools, skills and options needed for them to change to enable better and safer lives for their children and themselves". Conclusion: FHT meets all the requirements of a well organised and efficient service. Through its financial reporting it demonstrates an attention to financial detail and responsibility. In providing a service to their difficult client group they are not only making a positive contribution to their clients but also the well-being of the community. The overall report card scores 9 out of 10.
For more information on this report, please contact Libby Robins.
Overview "In my report I concluded that the progress FHT has made to implement the changes recommended in the 2003 Evaluation deserves top marks ".......(this) resulted in a new Social Work Team with a positive outlook regarding the service as well as ownership of the agency and the documents which they are required to use. They feel safe, encouraged and supported with the present Management Team and Board...........The Social Workers feel that their interventions with families is assisting families with finding the tools, skills and options needed for them to change to enable better and safer lives for their children and themselves". Conclusion: FHT meets all the requirements of a well organised and efficient service. Through its financial reporting it demonstrates an attention to financial detail and responsibility. In providing a service to their difficult client group they are not only making a positive contribution to their clients but also the well-being of the community. The overall report card scores 9 out of 10.
For more information on this report, please contact Libby Robins.
Safer Families Evaluation - Summary of Independent External Report, August 2003
The Family Help Trust started the Safer Families service in 2001 after midwifery services identified a gap in services aimed at preventing child abuse in Christchurch. When they identify that a baby is likely to be born into high risk circumstances, the mother is linked up to Safer families before the birth, with the aim of providing long-term, seamless intensive support until the child goes to school.
Safer Families was evaluated in 2003 by the University of Canterbury Social Work Department.
It aimed to evaluate:
The baseline and progress (non-identifiable) documentation of 32 current client families were examined by the researcher, together with client interviews and a mail-out questionnaire to referrers.
Although most clients agreed to be interviewed, only 12 had the ability to keep the arranged appointments.
The results of the evaluation
The results are highly satisfactory, given the limited time involvement with the clients. It found the clients overwhelmingly found the service extremely helpful and valuable. It also gave them the confidence to ask for support.
The referrers' questionaires also came back very positive, with all but one finding the referral devices easy to use. The referrers were happy with the service, would continue making referrals, and most said they had seen change in the families. Several said of the clients they had referred, those who began on the service ante-natally had better outcomes.
Major parental risk factors
These included criminal offending, drug and alcohol use, family violence, unsuitable housing, care and protection issues, and gang involvement.
The evaluation found:
Safer Families was evaluated in 2003 by the University of Canterbury Social Work Department.
It aimed to evaluate:
- the effectiveness of the service
- client satisfaction
- the views of the referral agencies
- which major parental risk factors decreased over time
The baseline and progress (non-identifiable) documentation of 32 current client families were examined by the researcher, together with client interviews and a mail-out questionnaire to referrers.
Although most clients agreed to be interviewed, only 12 had the ability to keep the arranged appointments.
The results of the evaluation
The results are highly satisfactory, given the limited time involvement with the clients. It found the clients overwhelmingly found the service extremely helpful and valuable. It also gave them the confidence to ask for support.
The referrers' questionaires also came back very positive, with all but one finding the referral devices easy to use. The referrers were happy with the service, would continue making referrals, and most said they had seen change in the families. Several said of the clients they had referred, those who began on the service ante-natally had better outcomes.
Major parental risk factors
These included criminal offending, drug and alcohol use, family violence, unsuitable housing, care and protection issues, and gang involvement.
The evaluation found:
- Family violence decreased dramatically and by 12 months, only one family was still experiencing violent behaviours.\
- Criminal behaviour declined immediately after intake, although some confounding variables warrant further examination in this area.
- There was a noticeable decrease in the number of families living in unsuitable accommodation. Once they were rehoused they made their environments much safer for babies/children.
- There was a decline in substance abuse and gang involvement.
Tindall Foundation Report on Preventing Child Abuse, October 2002
This report, "A Role for The Tindall Foundation in Preventing Child Abuse", was prepared by Clinical Psychologist Bob Simcock. It aims to help the Foundation determine its funding strategy for the next five years.
It commends the commitment to early interventions like Family Start but expresses concerns about a lack of skills, focus, and Government agency support within these programs. "The quality is variable and there has not been adequate investment in skills development and evaluation of programs."
The comprehensive report recommends that the Tindall Foundation commits to supporting and funding agencies to deliver effective programs in workforce training, public education, program evaluation, and advocacy. If you are interested in reading the full report, get in touch with us and we can provide a hard copy.
It commends the commitment to early interventions like Family Start but expresses concerns about a lack of skills, focus, and Government agency support within these programs. "The quality is variable and there has not been adequate investment in skills development and evaluation of programs."
The comprehensive report recommends that the Tindall Foundation commits to supporting and funding agencies to deliver effective programs in workforce training, public education, program evaluation, and advocacy. If you are interested in reading the full report, get in touch with us and we can provide a hard copy.
Other Articles
Coroner's Report on the death of the Kahui Twins
2nd July 2012 written by Coroner Garry Evans read full report here
This report details the full findings of the death of the Kahui Twins (Chris and Cru) who died on the 18th June 2006 resulting in an outcry of the New Zealand public.
This report details the full findings of the death of the Kahui Twins (Chris and Cru) who died on the 18th June 2006 resulting in an outcry of the New Zealand public.
What Clients Would Prefer Not to Tell You About: a New Zealand Practice Experience With Marginalised Families
by Libby Robins and Dr Annabel Taylor,
published in Te Awatea Review, Volume 7, Numbers 1 & 2, December 2009, page 17.
This paper reports a project designed to retrospectively re-visit baseline data collection by the agency social workers to establish whether information that had been gathered during the intake and assessment process was accurate at the time.
28 mothers from the original outcome study who were still engaged with the service were re-interviewed by their social workers more than two years after their baseline interview on 16 questions taken from the interview to explore their recollection of their responses at that time. Results showed that a significant proportion of the mothers had provided inconsistent information at baseline in nine of the 16 questions (p = < 0.001; p = < .05).
Mothers were more likely not to disclose information on intimate partner violence and psychological abuse at baseline and possibly after establishment of the social worker/client relationship. Among the implications for agency practice are that information collection methods, will need to be reviewed to create optimum conditions for disclosure of sensitive information.
Continued assessment and support for clients will be necessary to encourage disclosure. Social workers will need to rely on their professional judgement and knowledge of the aetiology of domestic violence whilst using assessment tools as indicative only to assess the presence of IPV. Finally, that there is a need for evaluation research design to incorporate ongoing review of baseline data.
Download the publication, read the full article »
published in Te Awatea Review, Volume 7, Numbers 1 & 2, December 2009, page 17.
This paper reports a project designed to retrospectively re-visit baseline data collection by the agency social workers to establish whether information that had been gathered during the intake and assessment process was accurate at the time.
28 mothers from the original outcome study who were still engaged with the service were re-interviewed by their social workers more than two years after their baseline interview on 16 questions taken from the interview to explore their recollection of their responses at that time. Results showed that a significant proportion of the mothers had provided inconsistent information at baseline in nine of the 16 questions (p = < 0.001; p = < .05).
Mothers were more likely not to disclose information on intimate partner violence and psychological abuse at baseline and possibly after establishment of the social worker/client relationship. Among the implications for agency practice are that information collection methods, will need to be reviewed to create optimum conditions for disclosure of sensitive information.
Continued assessment and support for clients will be necessary to encourage disclosure. Social workers will need to rely on their professional judgement and knowledge of the aetiology of domestic violence whilst using assessment tools as indicative only to assess the presence of IPV. Finally, that there is a need for evaluation research design to incorporate ongoing review of baseline data.
Download the publication, read the full article »
Circuit-breakers - to make a difference in New Zealand "A Parenthood Apprenticeship Programme" and changes in prisoners.
October 2009
by Dr Robyn Hewland. QSM, MB, ChB, DPM, FRC Psych, FRANZCP, MNZAP, Member RANZCP Faculty of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Does our society want healthy citizens? Does it want to reduce the numbers who are negative, aggressive, do not cope with employment, abuse alcohol or drugs, abuse others, and add to our prison numbers? Do we value all children, or just our own? Do we value "good enough" parenting? Do we "care enough"?
Do we understand threats to us all from poor parenting? Do we leave it to "survival of the fittest", as do other animals?
Some people have genetic or early trauma structural brain and/or neurochemical vulnerabilities - to being unable to respond to punishment, to poor anger management, to alcohol dependence, to personality disorders, and to mental disorders.
Some have environmental triggers, and some have both genetic vulnerabilities and triggers (the Dunedin cohort study). They can be diagnosed before school age, and with early intervention, support and treatment, can reduce conduct disorders.
Only then could they have a more appropriate positive childhood development, health, education and wellbeing. Only then could they become more positive citizens, and avoid costly welfare dependence, threats, and prisons.
Do we want to reduce our prison numbers (and taxes for prisons), or build more, so that we can feel revenge and superiority?
Our prisons are overflowing with persons who have low literacy skills, poor impulse control, alcohol and drug problems, mental health and personality problems, as well as those with post traumatic stress disorder and brain changes from early trauma and abuse. They are most often from dysfunctional families and have experienced inadequate, neglectful or abusive parenting.
Research in Britain (brain neuro-imaging, genetics, community mental health surveys, treatment programmes) now refers to another type of disability - "emotional disability" - which needs and can respond to specific rehabilitation.
Why do we continue with "more of the same" - prisoners leaving with no life skills and no new knowledge, only to return. Our prisons repeat and reinforce their inmate's negative early and life experiences and defensive reactions.
Relationships remain defensive, with no hope or motivation to change and no teaching of life skills. They continue to lack treatment for alcohol and drug problems and post traumatic stress responses from childhood traumas.
Inmates are labelled as "bad, if not mad", but many are "sad", from non-psychotic anxiety and depression episodes.
During the 17 years of my experience with such inmates, seeing suicidal prisoners as weekly new referrals, none tried suicide (except when I was on holiday).
Personality disorders research indicates that many have underlying brain neurological connection problems too. The computer-like part of our brains behaves like computers - what comes out is what was put in by the programmers.
Therapists, and some prison staff, can develop positive individual relationships and then motivate participation for change. They can assist an individual to look at what is on their "computer screen", understand why, and teach how to "edit" their feelings and thoughts to make positive behavioural changes. Only then would costly imprisonment benefit all of us later.
When I was a Visiting Prison Psychiatrist (1977-92, Christchurch) I treated some and saw many make positive lasting changes. I told all that I would not accept excuses, but we could look at explanations, and how to make changes to help them and all.
Many kept my Transactional Analysis diagrams, which explained their past, present, and hope for changes to their future. Prison staff started asking for my diagrams, as they said the prisoners "grew up" after seeing me. A few prison officers facilitated changes by their support, hope and information that prisoners had lacked from their fathers.
Before anyone can listen, at home, at school, in treatment programmes, in prison, or as you read this, we need to feel "OK enough" to bother, to feel accepted and supported by those important to us, and to have hope for any changes we attempt.
In the 1980s, after negotiations with many, I started group therapy on Paparua Prison's Protection Wing for sexual offenders. That led to over 50 signing (voluntarily) my letter requesting the establishment of a separate Unit for treatment of Sexual Offenders. Many of those had no convictions for sex offences, but admitted to some, without understanding why, and were scared of more. After many months of networking with all stakeholders, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, then Minister of Justice, met with us. He agreed to establish a treatment unit in the wing being built at Rolleston Prison, later called "Kia Marama".
I said then that prisons could reduce their return rates by establishing more specialist units for circuit-breaking. Alcohol is associated with about one third of all crimes, and about two thirds of prisoners have such problems. In prison, hopefully abstinent from both for over two months, they could then concentrate and respond to treatment.
At the Queen Mary Hospital programme, Dr Robert Crawford noted that time is needed off substances to be able to concentrate, and to develop positive relationships, hope and enough self-esteem before they could tackle their past "baggage" triggers.
In a survey in 1970s, about 70% of females in Welfare Homes, and female prisoners, admitted to being sexually abused. Many start on cannabis or alcohol to "drown" their post-traumatic trauma symptoms ("on edge", defensiveness, depression). A very small percentage of sexual abuse cases (about one third of females) result in charges and convictions of offenders. I heard in Queensland that special PTSD joint therapy groups, with males from the Vietnam war and abused females, helped both. According to research overseas, Personality Disorder Units can teach new coping skills to some dysfunctional residents.
In the Youth Detention Centre in 1970s, a local voluntary parent's group took their babies to talk and show about parenting. The young prisoners responded positively and said they did not want their kids to follow them into crime.
As they enjoyed those visits, that circuit-breaking was stopped by people who said prison was not to be enjoyed. Many of those I saw said that becoming a father was their motivation to learn how to avoid reimprisonment.
I supported the initiative by Libby Robins of Family Help Trust to provide a programme for the children of prisoners. The pilot project was funded by the then Minister of Social welfare, Jenny Shipley, who met with us. It provided supportive people who developed trusting relationships first, and then provided counselling and guidance to the whole family - to the prisoner chosen by staff, due for release after six months, to the mother at home, and to the children. It followed up all for at least six months after the father's release from prison. It saved children going into State care, marital separations, domestic violence and re-imprisonment.
Family Help Trust continues excellent early intervention with dysfunctional distressed families, with research showing circuit-breaking positive outcomes.
Do we value all children in our society, or only our own? Ours will remain at risk from those with dysfunctional childhoods. Are our children our possessions to control, with no outside interference, no help, and no accountability? Are our children our gifts and our responsibility to develop into healthy law abiding and contributing citizens?
Apparently in New Zealand, about half of pregnancies were unplanned, including by those with poor impulse control, and often after alcohol and/or substance abuse. Only some will become loved and positive citizens.
How could we enable dysfunctional parents to learn how to rear healthy children who will not threaten our security later?
My grandfather, a successful farmer, found a sheep in an irrigation stream, so we went upstream to stop more falling in. He quickly removed new weeds in his land, but he said his neighbour left his weeds to grow and blow over the fence between.
I followed too many disturbed children and youth from youth institutions to prison, and later I saw their children. In the 1970s, when there were apprenticeships for most trades, I spoke about the need for similar learning for parenting. I suggested an apprenticeship hourly "wage" for attending at least one local accredited parenting course, eg half-day/week.
The parent would take their child and with a tutor/mentor (paid) develop a non-judgemental supportive relationship. There could be a parent's group there too, and they could develop peer supportive friendships. All would be voluntary. Education could include teaching about relationships, alcohol, drugs, early illness, and parenting for resilience and employment.
When seeing outpatients at The City Mission, I met parents who felt too inferior to ask for help, but who might ask for money. Other mothers often continue their new friendships, such as from Plunket, Karitane, Church groups, Barnardos, on a marae, etc.
I was Consultant with Department of Social Welfare's Matuaa Whangai programme, with the late Jo Karetai, Chief of Ngai Tahu. We wrote a joint
paper for a conference about the result of lost parenting supports when young Maori parents moved to cities.
Professor Fraser Mustard, in Canada, has written that his own research, and that of others worldwide, has shown the sustained benefits of a parent and child attending local centres and courses for half a day a week, from aged before a year or as soon as possible. He noted that a Vice-President of the World Bank said that it was economically worthwhile.
Now, instead of increasing benefits to parents, I recommend payment for voluntary attendance to at least one parenting course. This would also recognise the value of parenting to all in society, and could employ our wise and supportive elders. But this would require the support of community agencies, and of workers who can first develop a positive trusting supportive relationship with shy or defensive parents, as few of us can listen or concentrate while we feel uncomfortable.
Why have we not provided these circuit-breakers many years ago? They make sense. They can work! We could make a difference, and make it happen "the Aotearoa New Zealand way".
Perhaps its time has finally arrived? If not, why not? Who is going to decide to provide these circuit-breakers?
by Dr Robyn Hewland. QSM, MB, ChB, DPM, FRC Psych, FRANZCP, MNZAP, Member RANZCP Faculty of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry.
Does our society want healthy citizens? Does it want to reduce the numbers who are negative, aggressive, do not cope with employment, abuse alcohol or drugs, abuse others, and add to our prison numbers? Do we value all children, or just our own? Do we value "good enough" parenting? Do we "care enough"?
Do we understand threats to us all from poor parenting? Do we leave it to "survival of the fittest", as do other animals?
- "Society gets the children, and adults, it deserves".
- "We all do the best we know how at the time".
- "The sins of one generation are passed onto the next". (Sins could be renamed as inadequacy and dysfunction.)
- "We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly." - Martin Luther King Jr.
- Predisposing: Genetic (illness, personality traits), brain injury, early traumas (physical, psychological abuse).
- Precipitating (triggers): Trauma, stress, overwhelming anxiety, loss (of parent, partner, job, health, finance), hopelessness.
- Perpetuating (triggers continued): Illness, stress, abuse, hopelessness, low self-esteem, defensiveness, poor self-control.
- Protective: Positive supportive relationships, hope, new knowledge, therapy, new coping skills, resilience, faith, medication.
Some people have genetic or early trauma structural brain and/or neurochemical vulnerabilities - to being unable to respond to punishment, to poor anger management, to alcohol dependence, to personality disorders, and to mental disorders.
Some have environmental triggers, and some have both genetic vulnerabilities and triggers (the Dunedin cohort study). They can be diagnosed before school age, and with early intervention, support and treatment, can reduce conduct disorders.
Only then could they have a more appropriate positive childhood development, health, education and wellbeing. Only then could they become more positive citizens, and avoid costly welfare dependence, threats, and prisons.
Do we want to reduce our prison numbers (and taxes for prisons), or build more, so that we can feel revenge and superiority?
Our prisons are overflowing with persons who have low literacy skills, poor impulse control, alcohol and drug problems, mental health and personality problems, as well as those with post traumatic stress disorder and brain changes from early trauma and abuse. They are most often from dysfunctional families and have experienced inadequate, neglectful or abusive parenting.
Research in Britain (brain neuro-imaging, genetics, community mental health surveys, treatment programmes) now refers to another type of disability - "emotional disability" - which needs and can respond to specific rehabilitation.
Why do we continue with "more of the same" - prisoners leaving with no life skills and no new knowledge, only to return. Our prisons repeat and reinforce their inmate's negative early and life experiences and defensive reactions.
Relationships remain defensive, with no hope or motivation to change and no teaching of life skills. They continue to lack treatment for alcohol and drug problems and post traumatic stress responses from childhood traumas.
Inmates are labelled as "bad, if not mad", but many are "sad", from non-psychotic anxiety and depression episodes.
During the 17 years of my experience with such inmates, seeing suicidal prisoners as weekly new referrals, none tried suicide (except when I was on holiday).
Personality disorders research indicates that many have underlying brain neurological connection problems too. The computer-like part of our brains behaves like computers - what comes out is what was put in by the programmers.
Therapists, and some prison staff, can develop positive individual relationships and then motivate participation for change. They can assist an individual to look at what is on their "computer screen", understand why, and teach how to "edit" their feelings and thoughts to make positive behavioural changes. Only then would costly imprisonment benefit all of us later.
When I was a Visiting Prison Psychiatrist (1977-92, Christchurch) I treated some and saw many make positive lasting changes. I told all that I would not accept excuses, but we could look at explanations, and how to make changes to help them and all.
Many kept my Transactional Analysis diagrams, which explained their past, present, and hope for changes to their future. Prison staff started asking for my diagrams, as they said the prisoners "grew up" after seeing me. A few prison officers facilitated changes by their support, hope and information that prisoners had lacked from their fathers.
Before anyone can listen, at home, at school, in treatment programmes, in prison, or as you read this, we need to feel "OK enough" to bother, to feel accepted and supported by those important to us, and to have hope for any changes we attempt.
In the 1980s, after negotiations with many, I started group therapy on Paparua Prison's Protection Wing for sexual offenders. That led to over 50 signing (voluntarily) my letter requesting the establishment of a separate Unit for treatment of Sexual Offenders. Many of those had no convictions for sex offences, but admitted to some, without understanding why, and were scared of more. After many months of networking with all stakeholders, Sir Geoffrey Palmer, then Minister of Justice, met with us. He agreed to establish a treatment unit in the wing being built at Rolleston Prison, later called "Kia Marama".
I said then that prisons could reduce their return rates by establishing more specialist units for circuit-breaking. Alcohol is associated with about one third of all crimes, and about two thirds of prisoners have such problems. In prison, hopefully abstinent from both for over two months, they could then concentrate and respond to treatment.
At the Queen Mary Hospital programme, Dr Robert Crawford noted that time is needed off substances to be able to concentrate, and to develop positive relationships, hope and enough self-esteem before they could tackle their past "baggage" triggers.
In a survey in 1970s, about 70% of females in Welfare Homes, and female prisoners, admitted to being sexually abused. Many start on cannabis or alcohol to "drown" their post-traumatic trauma symptoms ("on edge", defensiveness, depression). A very small percentage of sexual abuse cases (about one third of females) result in charges and convictions of offenders. I heard in Queensland that special PTSD joint therapy groups, with males from the Vietnam war and abused females, helped both. According to research overseas, Personality Disorder Units can teach new coping skills to some dysfunctional residents.
In the Youth Detention Centre in 1970s, a local voluntary parent's group took their babies to talk and show about parenting. The young prisoners responded positively and said they did not want their kids to follow them into crime.
As they enjoyed those visits, that circuit-breaking was stopped by people who said prison was not to be enjoyed. Many of those I saw said that becoming a father was their motivation to learn how to avoid reimprisonment.
I supported the initiative by Libby Robins of Family Help Trust to provide a programme for the children of prisoners. The pilot project was funded by the then Minister of Social welfare, Jenny Shipley, who met with us. It provided supportive people who developed trusting relationships first, and then provided counselling and guidance to the whole family - to the prisoner chosen by staff, due for release after six months, to the mother at home, and to the children. It followed up all for at least six months after the father's release from prison. It saved children going into State care, marital separations, domestic violence and re-imprisonment.
Family Help Trust continues excellent early intervention with dysfunctional distressed families, with research showing circuit-breaking positive outcomes.
Do we value all children in our society, or only our own? Ours will remain at risk from those with dysfunctional childhoods. Are our children our possessions to control, with no outside interference, no help, and no accountability? Are our children our gifts and our responsibility to develop into healthy law abiding and contributing citizens?
Apparently in New Zealand, about half of pregnancies were unplanned, including by those with poor impulse control, and often after alcohol and/or substance abuse. Only some will become loved and positive citizens.
How could we enable dysfunctional parents to learn how to rear healthy children who will not threaten our security later?
My grandfather, a successful farmer, found a sheep in an irrigation stream, so we went upstream to stop more falling in. He quickly removed new weeds in his land, but he said his neighbour left his weeds to grow and blow over the fence between.
I followed too many disturbed children and youth from youth institutions to prison, and later I saw their children. In the 1970s, when there were apprenticeships for most trades, I spoke about the need for similar learning for parenting. I suggested an apprenticeship hourly "wage" for attending at least one local accredited parenting course, eg half-day/week.
The parent would take their child and with a tutor/mentor (paid) develop a non-judgemental supportive relationship. There could be a parent's group there too, and they could develop peer supportive friendships. All would be voluntary. Education could include teaching about relationships, alcohol, drugs, early illness, and parenting for resilience and employment.
When seeing outpatients at The City Mission, I met parents who felt too inferior to ask for help, but who might ask for money. Other mothers often continue their new friendships, such as from Plunket, Karitane, Church groups, Barnardos, on a marae, etc.
I was Consultant with Department of Social Welfare's Matuaa Whangai programme, with the late Jo Karetai, Chief of Ngai Tahu. We wrote a joint
paper for a conference about the result of lost parenting supports when young Maori parents moved to cities.
Professor Fraser Mustard, in Canada, has written that his own research, and that of others worldwide, has shown the sustained benefits of a parent and child attending local centres and courses for half a day a week, from aged before a year or as soon as possible. He noted that a Vice-President of the World Bank said that it was economically worthwhile.
Now, instead of increasing benefits to parents, I recommend payment for voluntary attendance to at least one parenting course. This would also recognise the value of parenting to all in society, and could employ our wise and supportive elders. But this would require the support of community agencies, and of workers who can first develop a positive trusting supportive relationship with shy or defensive parents, as few of us can listen or concentrate while we feel uncomfortable.
Why have we not provided these circuit-breakers many years ago? They make sense. They can work! We could make a difference, and make it happen "the Aotearoa New Zealand way".
Perhaps its time has finally arrived? If not, why not? Who is going to decide to provide these circuit-breakers?
"Breaking the Cycle"
by FHT volunteer David Armstrong,
published in The Press, 1 November 2005, page A11
Family Help Trust Volunteer David Armstrong wrote a feature article that appeared on the Perspective page of The Press, providing a layman's view of what it means to intervene as early as possible in the care of children in the highest-risk environments, and explaining why he got involved in helping the organisation.
Targeting the highest-risk children in their home setting is the most effective way of breaking the cycle of violence, says volunteer helper
DAVID ARMSTRONG.
The 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.
So logic tells me that the most effective way of breaking inter-generational cycles of abuse and criminality is to intervene on behalf of children, as early as possible, in the highest-risk environments.
As an engineer with a social conscience and 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 luck in life's first lucky dip -- who you draw to be your parents.
Three years ago after reading an article in The Press, I decided that the Family Help Trust in Christchurch was one organisation that had their heads - as well as their hearts - in the right place. Since then I've been 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.
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.
The Family Help Trust'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 at birth, four months and annual intervals for approaching 20 years.
The study, led by Associate Professor David Fergusson at the Christchurch School of Medicine (Press News Extra, August 10th, Page 15), 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 the Family Help Trust about $5000. 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.
(I should point out that the Trust receives no money from central government.)
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.
Intervention is based on home visits, and most of the time it's not particularly spectacular or dramatic stuff. The social worker's primary 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.
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.
---------
published in The Press, 1 November 2005, page A11
Family Help Trust Volunteer David Armstrong wrote a feature article that appeared on the Perspective page of The Press, providing a layman's view of what it means to intervene as early as possible in the care of children in the highest-risk environments, and explaining why he got involved in helping the organisation.
Targeting the highest-risk children in their home setting is the most effective way of breaking the cycle of violence, says volunteer helper
DAVID ARMSTRONG.
The 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.
So logic tells me that the most effective way of breaking inter-generational cycles of abuse and criminality is to intervene on behalf of children, as early as possible, in the highest-risk environments.
As an engineer with a social conscience and 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 luck in life's first lucky dip -- who you draw to be your parents.
Three years ago after reading an article in The Press, I decided that the Family Help Trust in Christchurch was one organisation that had their heads - as well as their hearts - in the right place. Since then I've been 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.
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.
The Family Help Trust'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 at birth, four months and annual intervals for approaching 20 years.
The study, led by Associate Professor David Fergusson at the Christchurch School of Medicine (Press News Extra, August 10th, Page 15), 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 the Family Help Trust about $5000. 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.
(I should point out that the Trust receives no money from central government.)
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.
Intervention is based on home visits, and most of the time it's not particularly spectacular or dramatic stuff. The social worker's primary 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.
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.
---------
Bibliography & References
References and short bibliography of Early Intervention Research Studies and reviews over the last decade and a half that have examined the extent to which family risk may be reduced by effective early intervention.
- Schorr Lisbeth, Doubleday (1989); Within Our Reach - Breaking the Cycle of Disadvantage.
- Seitz V, Rosenbaum LK, Apfel NH. (1985); Effects of family support intervention: A ten year follow-up. Child Development, 56: 376-391.
- Johnson Z, Howell F, Molloy B. (1993). Community mother's programme; Randomised controlled trial of non-professional intervention in parenting. British Medical Journal; 306, 1449-1452.
- Hawaii Department of Health. Healthy Start. Report to the 16th Legislature. State of Hawaii. (1992).
- Fergusson DM, Horwood LJ, Lynksey MT, (1994); The childhoods of multiple problem adolescents: A 15 year Longitudinal study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 35 (6): 1123-1140.
- Olds DL, Henderson CR, Chamberlain R, Tatelbaum R. (1986); Preventing child abuse and neglect: A randomised trial of home visitation. Paediatrics, 78: 65-78.
- Olds DL, Kitzman H. (1990).; Can home visitation improve the health of women and children at environmental risk? Paediatrics; 86, 108-116.
- Yoshikawa H. (1994). Prevention as cumulative protection: Effects of early family support and education on chronic delinquency and its risks. Psychological Bulletin; 115: 28-54.
- Farran DC. (1990); Effects of intervention with disadvantaged and disabled children: A decade review. In SJ Meisels & JP Shonkoff (Eds.), Handbook of early intervention (pp. 501-534). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Supportive Government enquiries/document/discussion papers over the last decade for the case of intensive, targeted, comprehensive, long-term home visiting programmes for families with multiple difficulties.
- Child Youth and Family 2003 Baseline Review (February 2004). Carried out by the Treasury, the Ministry of Social Development, and Child, Youth and Family, the review covered the Department’s role and services, and how these services are delivered. It also considered the appropriate level of resources the Department needs to operate effectively.
- PHC Parenting Paper, 1994/1995.
- PHC Prevention of SIDS - 1995.
- Ministry of Health (1994) Youth Mental Health and Suicide Prevention - recommended home visiting for high risk families. Download from this link in our website. These strategies are were originally published by the Ministry of Youth Affairs.
Youth Offending Strategy (Ministries of Justice and Social Development, April 2002). Recommends intervening early. - "About Time" (Department of Corrections report, May 2001). Recommends intervening early. Download it here.
- Agenda for Children, "Making Life Better for Children", June 2002 (Ministry of Social Development). Recommends intervening early. Visit Ministry of Social Development's website. Download it from here
- Te Rito New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy, February 2002 (Ministry of Social Development). Recommends intervening early.
- Early Intervention support and vulnerable families and whanau (Families Commission September 2011). This paper reports on the Families Commission's work on early intervention with a focus on support for vulnerable families and whanau.
Links
Supportive Government enquiries/document/discussion papers over the last decade for the case of intensive, targeted, comprehensive, long-term home visiting programmes for families with multiple difficulties.
- Bonding and Attachment in Maltreated Children: Consequences of Emotional Neglect in Childhood by Bruce D. Perry, M.D., Ph.D. This booklet is one in a series developed by the ChildTrauma Academy to assist parents, caregivers, teachers and various professionals working with maltreated and traumatized children. It is promoted by brainwave.org.nz, which is distributing some very interesting information about the developing infant brain - in particular Dr. Bruce Perry's work.
- The Discipline and Guidance of Children: A Summary of Research published by the Office of the Commissioner for Children in conjunction with the Children's Issues Centre University of Otago (June 2004). This summary of a review of research commissioned by the Office in 2003, and is intended to provide parents and professionals with important information about the effects of physical punishment on children's behaviour and well-being. The report is timely as we debate how to better protect our children, in light of a damaging UNICEF report titled "A League Table of Child Maltreatment Deaths in Rich Nations", which shows that New Zealand fares poorly with high rates of maltreatment of children.
- www.orangatamariki.govt.nz The NZ government ministry charged with the protection of our children
- www.msd.govt.nz The NZ Ministry umbrella for child protection, programmes and funding. Also some other government programmes are found at www.familyservices.govt.nz
- www.corrections.govt.nz The government ministry in charge of offenders, prisons etc.
- www.occ.org,nz Office of the Commissioner for Children
- www.beehive.govt.nz The New Zealand Parliamentary website
- www.nzfamilies.govt.nz Office of the Families Commission
- www.greatpotentials.org.nz HIPPY's home site (Home Interaction for Preschool Youngsters
- www.jigsawwhanganui.org.nz Jigsaw partner and partner with Family Help Trust in a number of collaborative projects