KEY POINTS:
There is no more effective way to improve public safety than to intervene before children start off on a life of crime. Such, quite logically, has been the conclusion of a wealth of local and international research. It should be no shock, therefore, that a new interagency plan marshalled by the Ministry of Social Development takes this tack in proposing that children as young as 3 should be screened for signs of antisocial behaviour which could identify them as future criminals. Perhaps the only surprise is the opposition from the likes of the Council for Civil Liberties.
The council says it is concerned the policy will take the state further into private family matters. "We may be encouraging a climate of fear where the state is looking into the private realm to find problems where there are none," said its chairman, Michael Bott. This observation reflects not so much reasoned consideration of a particular policy as an aping of the sentiment that Government social policy, as illustrated most recently by the anti-smacking legislation, has become too intrusive. It is not an idea of much value, given incidents such as 12-year-old Bailey Junior Kurariki's involvement in the violent death of an Auckland pizza deliverer.
Some five years ago, when an appalled country was coming to grips with that crime, a report commissioned by the Government, entitled About Time, laid out a blueprint broadly similar to that now being advanced. It outlined how disorderly and antisocial behaviour could be identified from the beginning of primary school and through the early schooling years, and how programmes to change behaviour could be implemented. A key conclusion was that earliest possible intervention works best and costs least. The report was uncontroversial because it made sense. Regrettably, its recommendations have been acted upon only in a spasmodic and ill-resourced manner.
The latest policy, likewise, encapsulates the long-held view of many teachers, probation officers and social workers about the best means of stemming the flow of younger and younger offenders. A troubled child's behaviour, including the likes of tantrums and hitting other children, provides strong clues, as do the circumstances of the mother. Many mothers are young or relatively uneducated, and parenting skills courses for them are a core policy component. It is crucial that parents regard these not as punishment but a means of rearing healthy, well-adjusted children and developing themselves.
The Ministry of Social Development's plan is not the stuff of overnight solution. Rolling it out across the country, with the necessary resourcing and interagency co-operation, will take as long as 15 years. It probably holds little appeal to those who think simplistically of getting tough on law and order. But the likes of the Incredible Years programme in the United States, which includes parent, teacher and child-training components, have achieved outstanding results. Success rates of about 80 per cent seem to be the norm if children are reached early enough. There is every reason to believe the money spent on such intervention is far more cost-effective than that spent on trying to rehabilitate recidivist offenders.
Barging in to rescue children from their families is not the essence of the policy. It is about supporting the parents of about 5 per cent of the 57,000 children who start school each year. Now, some people are increasingly suspicious of such intrusiveness. That should be no deterrent, however. Not if the Government wishes to get to the root of a problem that is getting more alarming by the year.
