In February 2008 the Salvation Army Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit published a "State of the Nation" report titled What Does It Profit Us?  This 20-page report summarises New Zealand's performance over the past five to six years in the areas of Our Children, Crime and Punishment, Social Hazards (for example alcohol and gambling), Work and Incomes, and Our Housing.

Vision Network's national director Glyn Carpenter commented on this report in the May Daystar magazine:

Measuring the health of a society

It's one thing to gauge the physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual, health of an individual, but what about our society?  As the government seeks ways to encourage ex-pat Kiwis back to our shores, is New Zealand a healthy society for them to return to?

Yes and No.

Yes because New Zealand enjoys blessings which many in the world can only dream of.  These include (in varying degrees) a clean, green environment, safe communities, racial harmony, freedom of speech and religion, an open democracy, and choices and opportunities in work and leisure.

No because of how these blessings are unjustly distributed and key indicators which trend in the wrong direction.

To the extent these issues concern us we might still say New Zealand is a healthy society, but only if we're intentionally engaged in doing something about it.  Jesus said we'll always have the poor with us, but calls us to follow his example in showing compassion for them.

The Salvation Army Social Policy and Parliamentary Unit published a report in February titled What Does It Profit Us?  This 20-page report summarises New Zealand's performance over the past five to six years in the areas of Our Children, Crime and Punishment, Social Hazards (for example alcohol and gambling), Work and Incomes, and Our Housing.

Major Campbell Roberts says these areas are all vital in terms of measuring New Zealand's real progress, and says the outcomes of the past five years are "mixed and in some areas disappointing."

What is most disappointing, he says, is that as a country we've invested hugely in the core areas of social spending over the past five years, but "while this social spending is essential it seems to have contributed little to our social progress."

The report details specific issues in each area.  For Our Children these include rising referrals to CYFS and more children in CYFS care, rising youth offending, climbing teenage pregnancy and abortion rates, and continuing educational inequality.  Poor urban suburbs have only half the number of Early Childhood Education centres as the national average, which sets up a pattern of disadvantage.

The Crime and Punishment section reveals a drop in overall reported crime, but an increase in more serious and violent offences.  Statistics show poorer communities are hit worse by these trends with (for example) the rate of serious crime in Counties Manukau being 1.6 times the national average.  The prison population has increased 37 percent since 2002.

In Social Hazards we read alcohol consumption has risen 6.7 percent (after adjustments for different alcohol content and population growth).  Alcohol is linked to various social problems such as binge drinking and domestic violence.  Gambling losses, on the other hand, lessened by 2 percent between 2006 and 2007.  Even so, the average adult Kiwi lost $656 last year.  There's good news on the pokie front where the number of machines has declined every year since 2003.

Work and Incomes presents a mixed picture. Employment has increased slightly, as have sickness and invalid benefits, but benefits have decreased overall.  The number of employed single parents with dependent children has increased over five years from just over 50 percent to just over 60 percent.

The Housing section shows it now takes 7.7 years on the average wage to buy a median-priced house compared to 4.9 years in 2002.  In Auckland that figure has increased from 7 years in 2002 to 9.8 years.

The report's statistics give us a useful benchmark to measure progress when the analysis is repeated in the future.  What they can't tell us is what we need to do to improve in these areas.  That requires debate and research.

But if we've invested so hugely in these core areas of social spending over the past five years and seen so little progress, shouldn't we ask if the current level of social spending by government is as essential as it seems?

[ENDS]

Add Comment