Quick-fixes sell our kids short

By EMMA DAVIES*

Children are useful when we want to sell our products. Politicians and advertising companies often use cute images of children to sell their wares. Sadly, the state of children's health or the material deprivation of households with children do not feature as highly in election campaigns.

Violence against children periodically hits the media with graphic descriptions of brutality, arousing fear over the level of violence in our society and sympathy for the innocent victims. If they grow up to commit serious violence, our sympathy understandably disappears.

Rarely is there any informed discussion on how we as a nation are going to prevent this cycle of violence and improve the economic and social well-being of our children.

The time has come to move beyond simplistic discussions about smacking and the rights of parents. No single initiative can possibly work alone. While there is a wide range of positive prevention programmes, there are no quick-fix solutions to the complex issues involved.

Violence pervades our society and many of its institutions, and passes from generation to generation. What is required in response is a long-term, whole-of-society approach to preventing violence across all sectors and at all stages of the cycle.

At forums organised by Unicef and the Institute of Public Policy at the Auckland University of Technology, 200 invited participants reviewed initiatives to reduce violence affecting children.

The plight of our children is well recognised. The focus of each forum was to advance positive action. That requires informed debate on what works for children, and to learn from each other and from countries which are making more progress in the care, protection and development of their children.

For example, the British Government has embarked on an ambitious programme, Sure Start, to improve the prospects of preschool children by reducing the intergenerational transmission of poverty and deprivation.

This programme targets whole communities rather than individuals. It builds on existing services, operating as a partnership between parents, community organisations and statutory agencies. It is based on research findings on what is most likely to work.

The British Government has chosen to invest money in this co-ordinated programme in 500 neighbourhoods. The programmes start before birth and are designed to empower parents by offering support before difficulties become insurmountable. They are not stigmatising because they are available to everyone in the neighbourhood. The services are community-based, involving parents in both design and delivery.

Sure Start's five core services are: Outreach and home visiting; support to families and parents; services that support good-quality play, learning and childcare experiences; primary and community health and social care; and help to get access to specialised services.

While we have bits of this operating in some parts of New Zealand, we do not have a properly funded, co-ordinated approach that meets the needs of children.

We do have promising initiatives in different parts of the country aimed at building violence-free communities. The forum reviewed several similar community-building initiatives: Child Youth and Family's Everyday Communities programme that has been tested in Whakatane; the Rise Above It programme in South Wairarapa; and the initiative in Waitara.

These programmes are heightening community awareness about keeping children safe and all kinds of positive spin-offs are likely. Let's learn what works and what does not. Let's learn how to be more effective in reducing the violence to which the next generation is exposed.

The need for an overall prevention plan has been recognised by the Government. The family violence strategy, Te Rito, is a good example of a unified strategy of practical programmes.

The Government's Agenda for Children is necessary because it emphasises children's needs across all policy areas. It has yet to be translated into action. Both strategies risk becoming empty rhetoric if funding is not allocated to them.

We know there is a relationship between poverty and violence. We know that family income has a substantial impact on the wellbeing of children, and that children who experience ongoing poverty suffer the worst outcomes.

Being dependent on others, children enter or avoid poverty by virtue of their families' economic circumstances, and these circumstances are particularly relevant during the preschool years when poverty exerts its greatest impact.

The next government must establish specific targets to end child poverty. If for no other reasons, it is these children we will be relying on as future parents, carers of older citizens and custodians of society.

We live in a society that has accepted high levels of violence in our homes and on our screens. Yet society does not accept high enough levels of responsibility to provide sufficient resources and support for the childhood victims.

If we continue inadequately to finance effective long-term prevention initiatives and help for abused and neglected children, the long-term costs will be greater.

Many abused and neglected children who do not receive appropriate support fill our prisons and psychiatric hospitals. Some will not even reach adulthood. Some will end the lives of others.

Election time is an appropriate time to remind ourselves that government and the institutions we have established (including the economy) are human organisations that are subject to our influence. We could decide to prioritise children.

During campaigning, we have heard more about rising rates of crime, with more quick-fix solutions. These will not work. The sound-bites are short-term, the answers are not. If we are serious about reducing crime rates, we must decide to invest in children early. By doing so we will also save on later costs in areas such as health and unemployment.

We might even decide to base our choice of politicians on the likelihood that they will spend money on children. It is our money. They are our children.

* Dr Emma Davies is a programme leader in the AUT's Institute of Public Policy.