Towards Freedom from Violence
New Zealand Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by Ethnicity
Judy Paulin & Nicolette Ed...
Published in 2013 by the Office of Ethnic Affairs
46 Waring Taylor Street
Wellington
New Zealand
All rights reserved. For ...
In a perfect world, “family” and “violence” are two words that would never
be in the same sentence, but we live in the rea...
Contents
Executive Summary ..................................................................................................
Executive Summary
The Office of Ethnic Affairs is a member of the cross-agency Taskforce for Action on Violence within
Fam...
•	 There are some disparities in the findings between different data sources. For example, Asians
had a very slightly elev...
6
Introduction
Family violence is a major issue that affects the health and wellbeing of many New Zealanders. It creates
s...
7
New Zealand’s ethnic composition
According to the 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings results, New Zealand’s ethnic ...
8
Issues or challenges associated with the collection of ethnicity data in this country include:
•	 A person may identify ...
9
The first section presents some statistics on fatalities that are family-violence related. The remaining
sections presen...
10
Family Violence Deaths
Homicide is the most extreme, destructive and disturbing form of violence that can occur within ...
11
Findings from the Learning from Tragedy report (Figure 1.1) include:
•	 The average annual mortality rate from family v...
12
Table 1.1	 Ethnicity of victims of family violence deaths in New Zealand, 2002 to 2008
inclusive (N=186)
total NZ Euro ...
13
Table 1.3	 Ethnic-specific rates per 100,000 people per year of family violence deaths in New
Zealand, 2009-10
Total vi...
14
Child, Youth and Family Data
This section presents some annual national level information provided by Child, Youth and ...
15
In 2011/12 CYF received 153,407 reports of concern about children and young people.
Some observations about the tables ...
16
Table 2.1	 Notifications to CYF that required further action by ethnicity and year
NZ/
Pākehā
NZ Māori Pacific
Islands
...
17
Table 2.5	 Clients with substantiated abuse findings in 2011/12 by ethnicity
NZ/
Pākehā
NZ Māori Pacific
Islands
Asian ...
18
One of the Government’s 10 ‘stretch’ targets set for the public sector to achieve by 2017 is to halt the
rise in childr...
19
Figure 2.1	 Notifications evaluated as requiring further action by ethnicity, 2011/12
Child, Youth & Family
The number ...
20
Figure 2.3	 Distinct clients with one or more substantiated abuse findings and clients with one
or more substantiated p...
21
Figure 2.5	 For each ethnic group, the age distribution of distinct clients with one or more
substantiated abuse findin...
22
Figure 2.7	 For each ethnic group, the age distribution of clients with one or more substantiated
physical abuse findin...
23
Some observations about the tables and figures that follow are that:
•	 In 2011/12, four in ten distinct perpetrators o...
24
Table 2.12	 Perpetrators of substantiated abuse findings in 2011/12 by ethnicity
NZ/
Pākehā
NZ Māori Pacific
Islands
As...
25
Figure 2.8	 Numbers of distinct perpetrators with one or more substantiated abuse findings
and perpetrators with one or...
26
Figure 2.10	 For each ethnic group, the age distribution of distinct perpetrators with one or more
substantiated abuse ...
27
Police Offender Data
The apprehension statistics in this section present the number of offender apprehensions for three...
28
•	 The apprehension figures are dependent on reporting1
and recording practices and cannot be
used as indicators of the...
29
Table 3.1	 Offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female by recorded ethnicity, 2010
Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian A...
30
Table 3.3	 Offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female by recorded ethnicity, 2012
Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian A...
31
Figure 3.1	 Offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female by ethnicity, 2012
Data extracted from NZ.Stat
(http://nzdo...
32
Figure 3.3	 For each ethnic group, proportion of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults
Female of the ‘physical injur...
33
Assault on a child
The offence of assault on a child under the age of 14 years carries a maximum penalty of two years
i...
34
Table 3.6	 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity, 2011
Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Oth...
35
Table 3.8	 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity & gender, 2012
Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian As...
36
Figure 3.5	 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity, 2012
Data extracted from NZ.Stat
(http://nzdot...
37
Figure 3.7	 For each ethnic group, age distribution of offender apprehensions for assaults on
a child, 2012
Data extrac...
38
Breach of a Protection Order
A person who wants protection from domestic violence can apply for a protection order thro...
39
Table 3.10	 Offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order by ethnicity, 2010
Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian A...
40
Table 3.12	 Offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order by ethnicity, 2012
Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian A...
41
Figure 3.9	 Offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order by ethnicity, 2012
Data extracted from NZ.Stat
(htt...
42
Figure 3.11	 For each ethnic group, age distribution of offender apprehensions for Breach of a
Protection Order, 2012
D...
43
Breach of Safety Orders
New Zealand Police have been able to issue Police Safety Orders (PSOs) since 1 July 2010. The o...
44
Ministry of Justice Data
This section presents some national-level information provided by the Ministry of Justice from...
45
Ethnicity and age data is known to be incomplete.1
•	 The annual number of applications for protection orders has been ...
46
Figure 4.1	 Protection order applications by ethnicity of applicant, 2011
Ministry of Justice
Figure 4.2	 For each ethn...
47
Data from some earlier years – 2005 to 2010 – showed that about nine in ten applications were made by
female applicants...
48
When a protection order is made, in most cases the person who has been violent (the respondent) will be
directed by the...
49
Information from the Criminal Courts
The Ministry of Justice uses the ethnicity data collected by the NZ Police (and th...
50
Table 4.5	 For each ethnic group, sentence distribution of people convicted for Breach of a
Protection Order, 2011
most...
51
Table 4.7	 For each ethnic group, sentence distribution of people convicted of Male Assaults
Female, 2011
most serious ...
52
Assault on a Child
Assault on a Child aged 14 years or younger also carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment...
53
Ministry of Health Data
The information in this section comes from the Ministry of Health’s database of publicly funded...
54
New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey Findings
The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS) is a comprehensive househ...
55
Survey findings (Table 6.1) include:
•	 The overall incidence rate for confrontational offences by partners declined si...
56
Youth’07 Health and Wellbeing Survey Findings
Young people can be significantly affected by family violence in the home...
57
Among Pākehā/NZ European students, females are more likely than males to report witnessing someone
being hit in their h...
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2

928 views

Published on

This report is a compilation of the current statistics on family violence which, where possible, have been broken down by ethnicity. The tables show family violence occurs in all ethnic communities.

Published in: Health & Medicine
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
928
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
7
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Towards Freedom from Violence NZ Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by ethnicity - Office of Ethnic affairs 2013 V2

  1. 1. Towards Freedom from Violence New Zealand Family Violence Statistics Disaggregated by Ethnicity Judy Paulin & Nicolette Edgar
  2. 2. Published in 2013 by the Office of Ethnic Affairs 46 Waring Taylor Street Wellington New Zealand All rights reserved. For all enquiries contact the publisher. Copyright The Office of Ethnic Affairs 2013 ISBN 978-0-478-355-76-5 Phone: +64 4 494 0546 Email: ethnic.affairs@dia.govt.nz Website: www.ethnicaffairs.govt.nz
  3. 3. In a perfect world, “family” and “violence” are two words that would never be in the same sentence, but we live in the real world and unfortunately violence within our families is happening too often. In order to address family violence we must first acknowledge the problem exists to better understand the scale of it. Ignoring violence within families and hoping the violence will go away is not the way to address the problem. We must take a good look at what is really happening. This report is a compilation of the current statistics on family violence which, where possible, have been broken down by ethnicity. The tables show family violence occurs in all ethnic communities. I hope members of each community will see the need to work together to reach out and help to address this problem. Let no one say, “We don’t have this problem”. While there are significant gaps and limitations in the statistics relating to family violence in New Zealand, there is sufficient data to show family violence is one of our most pressing social problems. This report brings together data from a range of sources. I hope it will be a useful tool to help reduce violence in our families. Let’s never lose sight of the children, women and men who are the victims of the violence shown by the statistics, tables and graphs in the report. I acknowledge and thank the various agencies that have contributed to this important report, in particular the Ministry of Justice. Hon Judith Collins Foreword 2
  4. 4. Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................4 Introduction ..................................................................................................................6 Definition of family violence .....................................................................................6 New Zealand’s ethnic composition ..........................................................................7 Statistical Standard for Ethnicity 2005 .....................................................................7 Sources of data about family violence .....................................................................8 Family Violence Deaths .............................................................................................10 Child, Youth and Family Data ....................................................................................14 Police Offender Data .................................................................................................27 Male Assaults Female.............................................................................................28 Assault on a child ...................................................................................................33 Breach of a Protection Order .................................................................................38 Breach of Safety Orders ........................................................................................43 Ministry of Justice Data .............................................................................................44 Information on protection orders from the Family Court ........................................44 Information from the Criminal Courts .....................................................................49 Breach of a Protection Order .............................................................................49 Male Assaults Female ........................................................................................50 Assault on a Child ..............................................................................................52 Ministry of Health Data ..............................................................................................53 New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey Findings ......................................................54 Youth ‘07 Health and Wellbeing Survey Findings ......................................................56 National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges Inc. Data ..............................58 Shakti Community Council Incorporated Data ..........................................................59 Royal New Zealand Plunket Society Data .................................................................60 Age Concern New Zealand Data ...............................................................................63 References ................................................................................................................64 4
  5. 5. Executive Summary The Office of Ethnic Affairs is a member of the cross-agency Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families, whose vision is that all families and whānau have healthy, respectful, stable relationships, free from violence. Family violence is a major issue that affects the health and wellbeing of many New Zealanders. It occurs between family members in families of all cultures, classes, backgrounds and socio-economic circumstances. Ethnic groups which are the key focus of the Office of Ethnic Affairs are migrants, refugees, long- term settlers and people born in New Zealand who identify their ethnic heritage as Asian, Continental European, Middle Eastern, Latin American or African. This report collates and presents data on family violence from a range of sources disaggregated by ethnic group. Sources are: • Government agencies - Child, Youth and Family (part of the Ministry of Social Development); New Zealand Police; Ministry of Justice; and the Ministry of Health. • Non-government organisations - the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges; Shakti Community Council Incorporated; the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society; and Age Concern New Zealand. • National surveys - New Zealand Crime and Safety Surveys and the Youth’07 Health and Wellbeing Survey. The data are presented section by section. Each section begins with an introduction to the data source and any caveats related to the interpretation of the data that follow in tabular and graphical form. Some observations are made of the data. Where data for more than one year are presented within a section, the observations mostly pertain to the most recent data available. The ethnicity groupings were unable to be presented in a consistent way throughout the report due to differences in the ways ethnicity data are reported and recorded across various agencies. The way ethnicity data are recorded in administrative collections currently limit the way the data can be analysed. Unfortunately not much relevant information is available for the ethnic groups which are the key focus of the Office of Ethnic Affairs. Some data sources combine those people in New Zealand who identify their ethnic heritage as Asian, Continental European, Middle Eastern, Latin American or African with those who identify as New Zealand European into an ‘Other’ ethnic group. The little information there is, that is currently disaggregated in a way that can be used by the Office of Ethnic Affairs, relates mostly to people in New Zealand who belong to the Asian ethnic group. As the report is intended as a reference document the key findings have not been brought together in the Executive Summary. However, among the findings are the following: • The report confirms that while there are significant gaps and limitations in the statistics relating to family violence in New Zealand, there is sufficient data to be certain that it remains one of our most pressing social problems, with a high prevalence in the population as a whole. Family violence is likely to be a problem within the ethnic groups of interest to the Office of Ethnic Affairs, as it is with all other population groups in New Zealand. 4
  6. 6. • There are some disparities in the findings between different data sources. For example, Asians had a very slightly elevated risk of mortality from family violence compared with the average total New Zealand population in 2002-2006, but less than half that for Māori. Yet according to figures from the Youth’07 Survey the percentage of Asian youth who reported witnessing an adult hitting or physically hurting a child or another adult approaches the levels reported by Māori youth (and about twice the levels for New Zealand European youth). • Twenty percent of Chinese and Indian youth in the Youth’07 Survey reported witnessing an adult hitting or hurting a child over the past year. This is higher than for all ethnicities combined at 17 percent and European youth at 11 percent, but slightly lower than for Māori youth at 23 percent and lower than for Pacific youth at 35 percent. • Fourteen percent of Chinese and Indian youth in the Youth’07 Survey reported witnessing an adult hitting or hurting another adult over the past year. This is slightly higher than for all ethnicities combined at 10 percent, and European at seven percent, about the same as that for Māori at 15 percent but lower than that for Pacific at 21 percent. The Office of Ethnic Affairs encourages agencies to use the Statistics New Zealand Statistical Standard for Ethnicity 2005 (see p. 9 of this report for more information about this). Consistent data collection would contribute significantly to our knowledge about patterns of family violence in New Zealand. 5
  7. 7. 6 Introduction Family violence is a major issue that affects the health and wellbeing of many New Zealanders. It creates significant social and economic costs across the wider society. The economic cost of family violence to New Zealand society was estimated in 1994 to be up to $5.3 billion every year.1 This was based upon Government health, welfare and policing costs, as well as costs to employers through loss of working days. This has been equated to $8 billion annually in today’s terms.2 More recently, a 2006 Treasury working paper3 estimated that: • The average cost of homicide in New Zealand is nearly $4 million per incident. • The average cost of sexual violence in New Zealand is $72,130 per incident.4 The Office of Ethnic Affairs (the Office) is a member of the cross-agency Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families (the Taskforce) whose vision is that all families and whānau have healthy, respectful, stable relationships, free from violence. Ethnic groups which are the key focus of the Office are migrants, refugees, long-term settlers and people born in New Zealand who identify their ethnic heritage as Asian, Continental European, Middle Eastern, Latin American or African. Definition of family violence The Taskforce uses a broad definition of family violence:5 ‘a broad range of controlling behaviours, commonly of a physical, sexual and/or psychological nature which typically involve fear, intimidation and emotional deprivation. It occurs within a variety of close interpersonal relationships, such as between partners, parents and children, siblings, and in other relationships where significant others are not part of the physical household but are part of the family and/or are fulfilling the function of family. Common forms of violence in families/whānau include: • spouse/partner abuse (violence among adult partners); • child abuse/neglect (abuse/neglect of children by an adult); • elder abuse/neglect (abuse/neglect of older people aged approximately 65 years and over, by a person with whom they have a relationship of trust); • parental abuse (violence perpetrated by a child against their parent); and • sibling abuse (violence among siblings).’6 The wording of the definition is slightly different from but consistent with the definition of ‘violence’ in the Domestic Violence Act 1995. Family violence occurs between family members in families of all cultures, classes, backgrounds and socio-economic circumstances. 1 Snively S.(1995) The New Zealand Economic Cost of Family Violence. Social Policy Journal 1995, Issue 4. Access at:http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/ spj04/04-the-new-zealand-economic-cost-of-family-violence.html The estimate is based on a prevalence of family violence in New Zealand of 1-in-4. 2 Access at http://www.areyouok.org.nz/files/news/UpdatedStatsFinal.pdf 3 Roper T & Thompson A. (2006) Estimating the costs of crime in New Zealand in 2003/04, New Zealand Treasury. 4 Sexual violence costs the New Zealand economy $1.2 billion per year. 5 See, for example, Taskforce for Action on Violence within Families. Background to family violence indicators. Access at: http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/work-programmes/initiatives/action-family-violence/family-violence- indicators.html 6 Ministry of Social Development (2002) Te Rito. New Zealand Family Violence Prevention Strategy. ISBN 0-478-25120-3. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development.
  8. 8. 7 New Zealand’s ethnic composition According to the 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings results, New Zealand’s ethnic composition is continuing to change.1 Of the major ethnic groups, the Asian ethnic group grew the fastest between 2001 and 2006, increasing by almost 50 percent to reach 354,552 people (9.2 percent) in 2006. Within the Asian grouping, the largest ethnic groups were Chinese (147,570), Indian (104,583), Korean (30,792) and Filipino (16,938). Among the Asian ethnic group, the Indian ethnic group grew the most (68% between 2001 and 2006). The Middle Eastern, Latin American and African (MELAA) grouping with 34,743 people totalled 0.9 percent of the New Zealand’s usually resident population in 2006. Within the MELAA grouping, there were 17,514 people who identified with Middle Eastern ethnic groups, 6,657 people with Latin American groups, and 10,647 with African groups. European remained the largest of the major ethnic groups, with 2,609,592 people (67.6 percent of the population) in 2006. The Māori ethnic group is the second largest, with 565,329 people (or 14.6 percent). The Pacific peoples ethnic group had 265,974 people (or 6.9 percent) in 2006. Statistical Standard for Ethnicity 2005 Statistics New Zealand has developed a statistical standard for ethnicity.2 It was hoped that the standard would lead to ethnicity data being collected consistently in surveys and administrative collections and being analysed at one of four classification levels. Statistics New Zealand defines ethnicity this way: ‘Ethnicity is the ethnic group or groups that people identify with or feel they belong to. Ethnicity is a measure of cultural affiliation, as opposed to race, ancestry, nationality or citizenship. Ethnicity is self perceived and people can belong to more than one ethnic groups. An ethnic group is made up of people who have some or all of the following characteristics: • a common proper name • one or more elements of common culture which need not be specified, but may include religion, customs, or language • unique community of interests, feelings or actions • a shared sense of common origins or ancestry, and a common geographic origin.’ Statistics New Zealand encourages the use of the following Census ethnicity question (modified depending on administration mode) in which a person is able to self-identify with one or more ethnicities. The question follows: Which ethnic group do you belong to? Mark the space or spaces which apply to you. o New Zealand European o Māori o Samoan o Cook Island Māori o Tongan o Niuean o Chinese o Indian o other (such as Dutch, Japanese, Tokelauan). Please state: 1 Statistics New Zealand. QuickStats About Culture and Identity. 2006 Census. Accessed at http://www.stats.govt.nz/Cen sus/2006CensusHomePage/QuickStats/quickstats-about-a-subject/culture-and-identity.aspx The 2013 Census results – expected in late 2013 – are likely to show even greater changes in NZ’s ethnic composition. 2 Statistics New Zealand. Statistical Standard for Ethnicity 2005. Accessed at http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/external/ web/carsweb.nsf/55d63ae38ba3a25e4c2567e6007f6686/35d9b7e17a1d6151cc25701100031353
  9. 9. 8 Issues or challenges associated with the collection of ethnicity data in this country include: • A person may identify with more than one ethnic group. • Ethnicity data cannot always be self-identified. There are some circumstances in which another person will need to provide the person’s ethnicity by proxy (for example, in the case of a child, a deceased person etc). • The ethnic group (or groups) that a person identifies with may change over time. • A person may give a different response to the ethnicity question depending on the context. In terms of the analysis of ethnicity data collected, Statistics New Zealand has developed a four-level classification system. Level one of the classification has seven categories, including one residual category. 1 European 2 Māori 3 Pacific Peoples 4 Asian 5 Middle Eastern/Latin American/African 6 Other Ethnicity 7 Not Elsewhere Included.1 The Statistics New Zealand standard discourages the use of prioritising ethnic group responses to one per individual. Therefore, people who report more than one ethnic group are counted more than once in each group reported. This means that the total number of responses for all ethnic groups is likely to be greater than the total number of people who state their ethnicities. As we shall see, when it comes to the collection and analysis of family violence data, the use of the Statistics New Zealand ethnicity standard varies across data sources. The report presents data broken down by ethnic groups in whichever form they were available. Sources of data about family violence There is no single data source that provides an estimate of family violence for all New Zealanders let alone for specific ethnic groups. Rather, New Zealand has several available data sources – each with their strengths and limitations - which together provide some information about one or more types of violence in families/whānau.2-3 This report draws together what is known about the nature and extent of family violence according to ethnic groups from the following sources: • Government agencies – Child, Youth and Family; New Zealand Police; Ministry of Justice; and the Ministry of Health. • Non-government organisations - the National Collective of Independent Women’s Refuges and associate refuge Shakti; the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society; and Age Concern New Zealand. • National surveys – New Zealand Crime and Safety Surveys; and the Youth’07 Health and Wellbeing Surveys. 1 Level two of the classfication has 27 categories, including Asian not further defined, Southeast Asian, Chinese, Indian and Other Asian. 2 Lievore D & Mayhew P. (2007) The scale and nature of family violence in New Zealand: A review and evaluation of knowledge. ISBN 978-0-478-29304-3. 3 Gulliver P & Fanslow J. (2012) Measurement of family violence at a population level: What might be needed to develop reliable and valid family violence indicators? Auckland, New Zealand: New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, The University of Auckland.
  10. 10. 9 The first section presents some statistics on fatalities that are family-violence related. The remaining sections present some statistics related to non-fatal injuries and harm that are family-violence related and/or prevalence and incidence figures related to family violence. Each section begins with an introduction to the data source (including how the ethnicity data was collected and analysed) and any caveats related to the interpretation of the data that follow in tabular and graphical form. Some observations are made of the data. Where data for more than one year are presented within a section, the observations mostly pertain to the most recent data available. Given the often hidden nature of family violence, it is important to remember that available figures are likely to be under-estimates because: • Victims may be reluctant to divulge what has happened, especially to unknown interviewers. • Offenders asked about their wrong-doing may also be reluctant to report honestly. • Administrative data will clearly undercount family violence because it only captures incidents drawn to official attention.1 1 Lievore D & Mayhew P. (2007) The scale and nature of family violence in New Zealand: A review and evaluation of knowledge. ISBN 978-0-478-29304-3.
  11. 11. 10 Family Violence Deaths Homicide is the most extreme, destructive and disturbing form of violence that can occur within families. According to information provided by NZ Police, about 60 people on average have died each year from homicide in recent times in New Zealand.1 Almost one-half of these homicides have been committed by a family member, intimate partner or ex-partner of the victim. A death certificate contains information about a person’s death as well as some other information, including ethnicity. Next of kin is asked to provide a proxy response regarding the deceased person’s ethnicity using the standard Statistics New Zealand ethnicity question (which has remained unchanged since 2001.)2 The information is stored in the national mortality collection (MORT) which is the Ministry of Health’s responsibility. Established in 2008, the Family Violence Death Review Committee (FVDRC) is an independent committee whose main purpose is to help prevent family violence and family violence deaths in New Zealand. The FVDRC’s terms of reference define a family violence death as: “The unnatural death of a person (adult or child) where the suspected perpetrator is a family or extended family member, caregiver, intimate partner, previous partner of the victim, or previous partner of the victim’s current partner.” Suicides and assisted suicides, deaths from chronic illness resulting from sustained violence, and accidental deaths related to family violence incidents are excluded from this definition. The following statistics on family violence deaths have been extracted from Learning from Tragedy: Homicide within Families in New Zealand 2002-2006,3 and the FVDRC’s Second Report4 and Third Annual Report.5 The term ‘perpetrator’ is used to refer to the person or persons who committed the homicide, rather than the person who may have been the primary aggressor in any family violence that took place in the relationship prior to the killing. The term includes those who have been convicted of homicide as well as those who have been found not guilty by reason of insanity or acquitted on the basis of self-defence. Occasionally, a person who has been through a criminal trial and has been found not guilty because the Crown has not been able to discharge the high standard of proof that must be met in criminal proceedings might still be included in the data as the perpetrator. This will happen when there is strong evidence suggesting that they committed the crime, there is no other person who is suspected of having committed the homicide and experts in the case believe that they are the perpetrator. 1 New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse (2007) Fact Sheet – Overview of Family Violence. New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse, Christchurch. Accessed at http://www.nzfvc.org.nz/sites/nzfvc.org.nz/files/factsheet-overview-1. pdf 2 Ministry of Health (2004) Ethnicity Data Protocols for the Health and Disability Sector. Wellington: Ministry of Health. ISBN 0-478-25846-1 (Internet). Also, 2004 Ethnicity Data Protocols Supplementary Notes. http://www.health.govt.nz/ publication/ethnicity-data-protocols-health-and-disability-sector. 3 Martin J & Pritchard R. (2010) Learning from Tragedy: Homicide within Families in New Zealand 2002-2006. Working Paper April 2010. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. ISBN 978-0-478-32364-1 (online).http://www.msd.govt.nz/ about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/learning-from-tragedy/. 4 Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2011. Second Report: October 2009 to November 2011. Inaugural Report to the Health Quality & Safety Commission. Wellington: Family Violence Death Review Committee. http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/ our-programmes/mrc/fvdrc/publications-and-resources/. 5 Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2013. Third Annual Report: December 2011 to December 2012. Wellington: Health Quality & Safety Commission.http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/our-programmes/mrc/fvdrc/publications-and-resources/.
  12. 12. 11 Findings from the Learning from Tragedy report (Figure 1.1) include: • The average annual mortality rate from family violence for Māori was nearly three times that for the average total NZ population. • The average annual mortality rate from family violence for Pacific peoples was over twice that for the average total NZ population. • Asians had a very slightly elevated risk of family violence compared with the average total NZ population. Asian victims tended to be younger, new to New Zealand, and more at risk from a couple-related homicide (Learning from Tragedy, page 22). • Average annual mortality rates from family violence were not calculated for any ‘Other’ ethnic populations. Figure 1.1 Average annual mortality rates from family violence per 100,000 in New Zealand, 2002-2006 Martin J & Pritchard R. (2010) Learning from Tragedy: Homicide within Families in New Zealand 2002-2006. Working Paper April 2010. Wellington: Ministry of Social Development. ISBN 978-0-478-32364-1 (online). http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/publications-resources/research/learning-from-tragedy/ Findings from the FVDRC’s Second Report (Table 1.1) include: • Nearly four in ten (39%) victims of family violence deaths between 2002 and 2008 were Māori, about one third (34%) were NZ European, and about one in ten were either Pacific (11%) or Asian (11%). Only one victim was of an ‘Other’ ethnicity. The ethnicity of nine victims was unknown. • Māori victims of family violence deaths over the seven year period were slightly more likely to be child victims (47%) or have died at the hand of another family member - not a partner (46%). Euro Māori Pacific Asian Total NZ 0.37 2.05 1.5 0.88 0.7 Averageannualmortalityratesfrom familyviolenceper100,000 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0
  13. 13. 12 Table 1.1 Ethnicity of victims of family violence deaths in New Zealand, 2002 to 2008 inclusive (N=186) total NZ Euro Māori Pacific Asian Other Unknown N n % n % n % n % n % n % intimate partner 100 35 35 32 32 10 10 16 16 0 0 7 7 child under 15 years 49 17 35 23 47 5 10 3 6 0 0 1 2 other family member 37 11 30 17 46 5 14 2 5 1 3 1 3 total family violence 186 63 34 72 39 20 11 21 11 1 1 9 5 Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2011. Second Report: October 2009 to November 2011. Inaugural Report to the Health Quality & Safety Commission. Wellington: Family Violence Death Review Committee. Table 4, page 15. http://www. hqsc.govt.nz/our-programmes/mrc/fvdrc/publications-and-resources/ Ethnicity information for perpetrators of family violence deaths came from the Police National Homicide database and some other sources, including coronial archive files. It could not be obtained for 31 perpetrators who killed between 2002 and 2008. Findings from the FVDRC’s Second Report (Table 1.2) include: • About one third (34%) of the perpetrators who killed an intimate partner or family member over the seven year period were Māori, three in ten (30%) were NZ European, about one in ten (11%) were Asian and eight percent were Pacific. Four were of an ‘Other’ ethnicity. Table 1.2 Ethnicity of perpetrators of family violence deaths in New Zealand, 2002 to 2008 inclusive (N=209) total NZ Euro Māori Pacific Asian Other Unknown N n % n % n % n % n % n % intimate partner 102 34 33 25 25 12 12 11 11 1 1 19 19 child under 15 years 58 19 33 23 40 2 3 6 10 2 3 6 10 other family member 49 10 20 24 49 3 6 5 10 1 2 6 12 total family violence 209 63 30 72 34 17 8 22 11 4 2 31 15 Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2011. Second Report: October 2009 to November 2011. Inaugural Report to the Health Quality & Safety Commission. Wellington: Family Violence Death Review Committee. Table 5, page 16. http://www.hqsc. govt.nz/our-programmes/mrc/fvdrc/publications-and-resources/ Findings from the FVDRC’s Third Annual Report (Tables 1.3 and 1.4) include: • The 72 family violence deaths that occurred during 2009 and 2010, and fell within the FVDRC terms of reference, were deaths in which the victim was killed by an intimate partner, previous partner, a partner’s partner (current or past), parent, step parent, caregiver or other family member. • The rates per year of Māori victims and perpetrators of family violence deaths were significantly higher than for those of non-Māori and non-Pacific peoples. The higher rates for Māori as victims and perpetrators are apparent across all groups of family violence deaths although it is not statistically significant for intimate partner violence.
  14. 14. 13 Table 1.3 Ethnic-specific rates per 100,000 people per year of family violence deaths in New Zealand, 2009-10 Total victims (N=72) Victims of CAN (n=20) Victims of IPV (n=35) Victims of other family violence (n=17) ethnicity n rate n rate n rate n rate NZ Māori 29 2.20 10 0.76 11 0.84 8 0.61 Pacific 4 0.72 s s s Other 36 0.53 8 0.12 21 0.31 7 0.10 Unknown 3 s s s Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2013. Third Annual Report: December 2011 to December 2012. Wellington: Health Quality & Safety Commission. ISBN 978-0-478 38544-1 (online). Accessed via http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/our- programmes/mrc/fvdrc/ S = small numbers; CAN = child abuse and neglect; IPV = intimate partner violence Other includes New Zealand European, Other European, Middle Eastern, LatinAmerican orAfrican, EastAsian, Southeast Asian or Indian. Source numerator: New Zealand Health Information Service [NZHIS] from NHI data. Source denominator: Statistics New Zealand. Table 1.4 Ethnic-specific rates per 100,000 for perpetrators of family violence deaths in New Zealand, 2009-10 Total perpetrators (N=71) Perpetrators of CAN (n=18) Perpetrators of IPV (n=37) Perpetrators of other family violence (n=16) ethnicity n rate n rate n rate n rate NZ Māori 28 2.13 8 0.61 11 0.84 7 0.53 Pacific 6 1.09 s 4 0.72 s Other 34 0.50 7 0.10 21 0.31 7 0.10 Unknown 3 s 1 s Family Violence Death Review Committee. 2013. Third Annual Report: December 2011 to December 2012. Wellington: Health Quality & Safety Commission. ISBN 978-0-478 38544-1 (online). Accessed via http://www.hqsc.govt.nz/our- programmes/mrc/fvdrc/ S = small numbers; CAN = child abuse and neglect; IPV = intimate partner violence Other includes New Zealand European, Other European, Middle Eastern, LatinAmerican orAfrican, EastAsian, Southeast Asian or Indian. Source numerator: New Zealand Health Information Service [NZHIS] from NHI data. Source denominator: Statistics New Zealand.
  15. 15. 14 Child, Youth and Family Data This section presents some annual national level information provided by Child, Youth and Family (CYF), Ministry of Social Development. Included is information on notifications made about children and young people that have been evaluated by CYF as requiring further action, and information on substantiated findings of abuse and neglect among these children and young people. When a report of concern (or notification) is made about a child or young person, CYF evaluates the report and makes a decision about whether further action is required. CYF then use guidelines to establish whether any claims of emotional, physical or sexual abuse, or neglect can be substantiated. A social worker usually asks an adult family member to identify a child’s ethnic group, including the child’s primary ethnic group. All ethnic groups the adult family member identifies on the child’s behalf are recorded in CYF’s administrative information system, Care and Protection, Youth Justice, Residences and Adoption Services (or CYRAS), from a drop down list of 36 ethnicity options. CYF refers to the child or young person concerned as the client. Only the client’s primary ethnic group is used for reporting purposes. The six primary ethnic groups CYF uses are: • New Zealand/Pākehā • New Zealand Māori • Pacific Islands • Asian • European • Other. Where no primary ethnic group has been recorded, CYF reports this category as ‘mulitple or unknown.’ It is important to note that the information on notifications requiring further action and substantiated findings of abuse and neglect are for all children and young people, irrespective of whether or not the alleged abuser was a family member. Thus the figures represent not only family violence but other forms of violence as well. The figures relating to the people who abuse and neglect children and young people are also for all people who abuse and neglect children and young people. Other notes and caveats to be aware of are that: • A client (ie a child or young person) can be found to have more than one type of abuse for a given investigation. • A client who has been found to have more than one finding of the same type of abuse will only be counted once within that abuse type. • If a client has more than one investigation where abuse is found and the investigations are spread over more than one year, the client is counted once in each year. • Clients who are found to have experienced more than one type of abuse in a particular year are counted in the multiple abuse types columns as well as within the individual abuse types that make up their multiple abuse. • Distinct clients are counted only once, regardless of the number or types of abuse they are found to have experienced.
  16. 16. 15 In 2011/12 CYF received 153,407 reports of concern about children and young people. Some observations about the tables (Tables 2.1 to 2.9) and figures (Figures 2.1 to 2.7) that follow are that: • Of the 60,330 notifications in 2011/12 evaluated as requiring further action by CYF, nearly half (47%) were for New Zealand Māori, about one third (32%) were for New Zealand/Pākehā, and about one in ten (11%) were for Pacific young people (Table 2.1). About two percent of notifications that year evaluated as requiring further action by CYF were for Asian young people, two percent were for ‘Other’ young people and one percent were for European young people. • The total numbers of distinct clients with substantiated abuse findings rose each year from 2007/08 to 2011/2012, although the increase from 2010/11 to 2011/2012 was marginal. This pattern was reflected among distinct clients who were New Zealand/Pākehā or New Zealand Māori. The total annual numbers of distinct Asian clients with substantiated abuse findings increased year on year throughout the five year period from 2007/08 to 2011/12. • In 2011/12, just over one half (51%) of distinct clients with at least one substantiated abuse finding were New Zealand Māori, over one quarter were New Zealand/Pākehā (27%) and more than one in ten (13%) were Pacific young people (Table 2.5). The comparable percentages for Asian, Other and European young people were two percent, two percent and one percent respectively. • Emotional abuse was the most common type of substantiated abuse finding across clients of all ethnic groups in each of the three years 2009/10, 2010/11, and 2011/12 (Tables 2.3 – 2.5). • In 2011/12, the percentages of New Zealand Māori, New Zealand/Pākehā, and Pacific distinct clients with at least one substantiated physical abuse finding were 45 percent, 27 percent and 18 percent respectively (Table 2.5). The comparable percentages for Asian, Other and European young people were three percent, three percent and one percent respectively. • In 2011/12, half of total distinct clients with any substantiated abuse finding were girls (Table 2.6). This pattern was consistent across all ethnic groups, except for Pacific clients where boys outnumbered girls (1189 compared with 1176). • In 2011/12, just over one half of total distinct clients with a substantiated physical abuse finding were boys (Table 2.8). For all ethnic groups the number of boys with a substantiated physical abuse finding was greater than or equal to the number of girls, except for Asian clients where girls outnumbered boys. • In 2011/12, just under half distinct clients with at least one substantiated abuse finding were aged five years or younger (Table 2.7) and about one in five distinct clients with a substantiated physical abuse finding were aged five years or younger (Table 2.9).
  17. 17. 16 Table 2.1 Notifications to CYF that required further action by ethnicity and year NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total 2010/11 18863 27312 6819 1123 502 919 2245 57783 2011/12 19529 28263 6660 1218 583 1048 3029 60330 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.2 Distinct clients with substantiated abuse findings by ethnicity and year NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total 2007/08 3965 6496 2074 326 87 206 95 13249 2008/09 4456 8136 2229 363 92 193 174 15643 2009/10 4572 8891 2503 382 129 191 277 16945 2010/11 5042 9489 2431 400 127 289 389 18167 2011/12 4997 9408 2404 414 151 288 615 18277 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.3 Clients with substantiated abuse findings in 2009/10 by ethnicity NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total sexual 459 478 135 27 15 13 44 1171 physical 776 1266 563 72 30 42 20 2769 neglect 1292 2128 496 57 28 32 26 4059 emotional 2686 6324 1635 249 74 129 193 11290 multiple 598 1189 294 23 16 23 6 2149 distinct clients 4572 8891 2503 382 129 191 277 16945 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.4 Clients with substantiated abuse findings in 2010/11 by ethnicity NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total sexual 679 517 151 36 14 18 51 1466 physical 777 1505 576 90 29 72 61 3110 neglect 1347 2402 498 52 20 51 57 4427 emotional 2793 6327 1431 252 78 188 236 11305 multiple 522 1167 214 29 11 36 16 1995 distinct clients 5042 9489 2431 400 127 289 389 18167 Child, Youth & Family
  18. 18. 17 Table 2.5 Clients with substantiated abuse findings in 2011/12 by ethnicity NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total sexual 571 499 158 25 20 32 75 1380 physical 870 1444 570 104 29 80 98 3195 neglect 1327 2527 488 66 35 41 130 4614 emotional 2798 6112 1431 258 72 159 335 11165 multiple 519 1064 216 36 5 21 23 1884 distinct clients 4997 9408 2404 414 151 288 615 18277 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.6 Distinct clients with a substantiated abuse finding in 2011/12 by ethnicity and gender NZ / Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total boys 2402 4613 1189 181 55 126 273 8839 girls 2551 4667 1176 220 96 160 274 9144 unknown 44 128 39 13 2 68 294 total 4997 9408 2404 414 151 288 615 18277 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.7 Distinct clients with a substantiated abuse finding in 2011/12 by ethnicity and age group NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other Unknown total ≤5 y 2128 4578 994 174 55 128 334 8391 6-9 y 1142 1983 544 90 34 56 93 3942 10-13 y 1022 1778 504 83 41 60 109 3597 14+ y 700 1049 356 66 20 44 63 2298 unknown 5 20 6 1 1 0 16 49 total 4997 9408 2404 414 151 288 615 18277 Child, Youth & Family
  19. 19. 18 One of the Government’s 10 ‘stretch’ targets set for the public sector to achieve by 2017 is to halt the rise in children experiencing physical abuse and reduce current (2012) numbers by five percent. Table 2.8 Distinct clients with a substantiated physical abuse finding in 2011/12 by ethnicity & gender NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total boys 492 743 281 37 15 49 56 1673 girls 372 695 286 65 14 31 36 1499 unknown 6 6 3 2 0 0 6 23 total 870 1444 570 104 29 80 98 3195 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.9 Distinct clients with a substantiated physical abuse finding in 2011/12 by ethnicity & age group NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total ≤5 y 177 313 116 21 3 10 26 666 6-9 y 248 328 136 24 2 22 25 785 10-13 y 269 481 182 33 15 31 25 1036 14+ y 176 322 136 26 9 17 19 705 unknown 0 0 0 0 0   0 3 3 total 870 1444 570 104 29 80 98 3195 Child, Youth & Family
  20. 20. 19 Figure 2.1 Notifications evaluated as requiring further action by ethnicity, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The number for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity is not shown. Figure 2.2 Distinct clients with one or more substantiated abuse findings by ethnicity and year Child, Youth & Family The number for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity is not shown. notificationsevaluatedasrequiring furtheraction NZ/Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other 30000 25000 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 19703 28488 6677 1232 573 1044 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 numberofdistinctclients 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 NZ Pākehā Asian NZ Māori European Pacific Other
  21. 21. 20 Figure 2.3 Distinct clients with one or more substantiated abuse findings and clients with one or more substantiated physical abuse finding by ethnicity, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The numbers for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity are not shown. Figure 2.4 For each ethnic group, the gender proportions of distinct clients with one or more substantiated abuse findings, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The proportions for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity are not shown. 10000 9000 8000 7000 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 NZ/Pakeha NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other 4839 9107 2337 406 146 283 842 1403 551 103 30 77 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 48 49 49 44 37 45 51 49 49 53 62 54 1 2 2 3 1 1 NZ/Pakeha NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other any abuse physical abuse boys girls unknown
  22. 22. 21 Figure 2.5 For each ethnic group, the age distribution of distinct clients with one or more substantiated abuse findings, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The age distribution for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity is not shown. Figure 2.6 Foreachethnicgroup,thegenderproportionsofclientswithoneormoresubstantiated physical abuse finding, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The gender proportions for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity are not shown. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 42 48 41 42 36 45 23 21 23 22 23 20 20 19 21 20 28 20 14 11 15 16 13 16 0 0 0 0 1 0 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 57 51 50 36 50 62 42 48 50 62 50 38 1 1 1 2 0 0 NZ/Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other NZ/Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other < 5y 6-9y 10-13y 14+y unknown boys girls unknown
  23. 23. 22 Figure 2.7 For each ethnic group, the age distribution of clients with one or more substantiated physical abuse finding, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The age distribution for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity is not shown. The next set of tables (Tables 2.10 to 2.14) and figures (Figures 2.8 to 2.10) are for the perpetrators of the abuse and neglect. Other notes and caveats are that: • A distinct perpetrator can be involved in more than one type of abuse. • Each table cell gives the number of distinct perpetrators in that category. • Perpetrators cannot be referred to as ‘confirmed’ abusers. • Some recorded findings do not indicate the perpetrator involved in the abuse, so gender/ethnic/ age/role-type information will be provided only using abuse findings where the information on the perpetrator involved is recorded. • Perpetrators with multiple findings of the same type of abuse will only be counted once within that abuse category - e.g. a perpetrator with two findings of physical abuse will be counted just once in the ‘Physical Abuse’ column. • If a perpetrator has been implicated in abuse findings in more than one year, they are counted in each of those years. • The number of perpetrators who have had more than one type of abuse in the reported year are shown in the ‘Multiple Abuse Types’ column, as well as within the individual abuse type columns. For example, if a perpetrator was involved in sexual and physical abuse, they would show up once in each of the following columns – ‘Sexual Abuse’, ‘Physical Abuse’ and ‘Multiple Abuse Types’. • Distinct Perpetrators - shows the total number of distinct perpetrators who have been involved in any abuse finding in the year. Each perpetrator is counted only once, regardless of the number or types of abuse findings. 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 NZ/Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other 21 21 20 20 10 14 30 33 32 31 53 36 29 23 24 23 29 7 21 23 24 25 30 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 < 5y 6-9y 10-13y 14+y unknown
  24. 24. 23 Some observations about the tables and figures that follow are that: • In 2011/12, four in ten distinct perpetrators of one or more substantiated abuse findings were New Zealand Māori, one quarter (25%) were New Zealand/Pākehā and 11 percent were Pacific Islands (Table 2.12). About two percent of distinct perpetrators were Asian, about two percent were ‘Other’ and about one percent were European. The ethnicity of nearly one in five (19%) distinct perpetrators was unknown. • In 2011/12, distinct perpetrators of Other, Pacific, or Asian ethnic groups were slightly more likely to be male (59%, 57% and 57% males respectively) (Table 2.13). • In 2011/12, distinct perpetrators of European and Asian ethnic groups had slightly higher proportions of older distinct perpetrators (68% of Europeans and 65% of Asians were aged 30 years or older). Comparison figures for New Zealand Māori, Other, New Zealand/Pākehā and Pacific were 51% aged 30 years or older, 51%, 53% and 54% respectively (Table 2.14). Table 2.10 Perpetrators of substantiated abuse findings in 2009/10 by ethnicity NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total sexual 214 154 69 11 7 13 255 723 physical 454 755 389 45 20 39 473 2175 neglect 862 1227 277 37 29 46 327 2805 emotional 1985 3655 1032 176 49 178 1119 8194 multiple 366 661 208 14 14 35 228 1526 distinct perpetrators 3135 5080 1539 255 90 240 1928 12267 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.11 Perpetrators of substantiated abuse findings in 2010/11 by ethnicity NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total sexual 278 207 67 13 12 18 370 965 physical 454 887 351 63 26 56 631 2468 neglect 895 1305 256 35 40 59 434 3024 emotional 1895 3634 886 180 85 194 1302 8176 multiple 291 616 147 21 13 36 229 1353 distinct perpetrators 3219 5370 1403 270 148 287 2497 13194 Child, Youth & Family
  25. 25. 24 Table 2.12 Perpetrators of substantiated abuse findings in 2011/12 by ethnicity NZ/ Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total sexual 267 183 56 6 11 9 369 901 physical 517 824 342 63 24 56 636 2462 neglect 892 1332 248 33 29 60 468 3062 emotional 1877 3522 872 182 80 182 1272 7987 multiple 318 570 133 26 9 22 248 1326 distinct perpetrators 3214 5242 1374 258 134 283 2482 12987 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.13 Distinct perpetrators of substantiated abuse findings in 2011/12 by ethnicity & gender NZ / Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total men 1575 2431 784 146 67 166 1568 6737 women 1624 2805 579 107 67 115 800 6097 unknown 15 6 11 5   2 114 153 total 3214 5242 1374 258 134 283 2482 12987 Child, Youth & Family Table 2.14 Distinct perpetrators of substantiated abuse findings in 2011/12 by ethnicity & age group NZ / Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Islands Asian European Other Multiple/ Unknown total <15 124 130 30 1 7 6 18 316 15-19 258 434 87 6 6 11 85 887 20-29 1062 1937 448 47 24 98 508 4124 30-39 929 1698 425 98 34 86 639 3909 40-49 583 789 241 62 45 38 494 2252 50-59 151 169 61 7 11 15 192 606 60-69 25 30 14 1 1 3 50 124 70+ 1 5       1 17 24 unknown 81 50 68 36 6 25 479 745 total 3214 5242 1374 258 134 283 2482 12987 Child, Youth & Family
  26. 26. 25 Figure 2.8 Numbers of distinct perpetrators with one or more substantiated abuse findings and perpetrators with one or more substantiated physical abuse finding by ethnicity, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The numbers for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity are not shown. Figure 2.9 For each ethnic group, the gender proportions of distinct perpetrators with one or more substantiated abuse findings, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The gender proportions for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity are not shown. 6000 5000 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 NZ/Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other 3214 5242 1374 258 134 283 517 824 342 63 24 56 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 NZ/Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other 49 46 57 57 50 59 51 54 42 41 50 41 0 0 1 2 0 1 men women unknown distinct perpetrators physical abuse
  27. 27. 26 Figure 2.10 For each ethnic group, the age distribution of distinct perpetrators with one or more substantiated abuse findings, 2011/12 Child, Youth & Family The age distribution for ‘multiple or unknown’ ethnicity is not shown. NZ/Pākehā NZ Māori Pacific Asian European Other 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 3 6 18 29 33 12 1 4 15 32 37 11 5 5 18 31 33 9 14 3 24 38 18 3 4 9 34 25 18 10 9 7 13 30 35 6 < 20 20-29 30-39 40-49 50+ unknown
  28. 28. 27 Police Offender Data The apprehension statistics in this section present the number of offender apprehensions for three offences – Male Assaults Female, Assault on a Child, and Breach of a Protection Order – for three calendar years – 2010, 2011 and 2012 - and indicate how such apprehensions were resolved. The figures are disaggregated by ethnicity. NZ Police data on the ethnicity of the offending population is in principle based on self-reported ethnicity, but in practice the police may record ethnicity based on police impressions for the following reasons: • An offender who has been arrested may be in conflict with the police. • The offender may be intoxicated, drugged, or may not understand the term ‘ethnicity’. • Asking for an offender’s ethnicity may provoke perceptions of police racism. The extent to which offender ethnicity is self-reported or based on police impressions is unknown.1 The ethnic classification system the NZ Police uses to collect ethnicity data is not based on the New Zealand Statistical Standard for Ethnicity 2005.2 Only a single ethnicity is collected using options that include Caucasian, Māori, Pacific, Indian, Asiatic etc. Police forms and IT systems need to be modified to enable the collection of multiple ethnicities and the use of standard categories as required by the New Zealand Statistical Standard for Ethnicity 2005. The statistics in the Apprehension Tables are derived from the NZ Police National Intelligence Application (NIA) and were accessed via the Statistics New Zealand website at http://www.stats.govt.nz/tools_and_services/tools/TableBuilder/recorded-crime-statistics/ASOC- apprehension-calendar-year-statistics.aspx. The statistics were downloaded from that website for the following ethnicities – Caucasian, Māori, Pacific, Indian, Asiatic, Other and Unknown. Notes and caveats about the data include:3 • The figures represent the numbers of apprehensions but not the number of offenders. Apprehensions do not count distinct individuals, as a person apprehended for multiple offences will be counted multiple times in the data. • An apprehension means that a person has been dealt with by the police in some manner to resolve the offence (eg a prosecution, a warning, referral to a youth justice family group conference). • In some cases dealt with by the police may mean that the offender has been found to have a mental health issue or is in custody, so no further action is taken other than to document the offence. 1 Statistics New Zealand (2009) Review of crime and criminal justice statistics report 2009. Wellington: Statistics New Zealand. ISBN 978-0-478-31582-0 (online). http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/people_and_communities/crime_ and_justice/review-of-crime-and-criminal-justice-statistics.aspx 2 NZ Police does not publish crime rates by ethnic group for this reason. To calculate a rate the numerator and the denominator need to refer to a common population measured in a consistent way. 3 Taken from New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse (2012) Data Summary: Violence Against Women. Data Summary 2, May 2012.
  29. 29. 28 • The apprehension figures are dependent on reporting1 and recording practices and cannot be used as indicators of the incidence of family violence in populations, nor to make inferences about trends in the incidence of family violence over time. Changes in public education and awareness about family violence may change people’s inclination to report offences. Male Assaults Female Male Assaults Female is a crime under section 194(b) of the Crimes Act 1961, the maximum penalty for which is two years imprisonment. Not all Male Assaults Female offences are family violence, but most are.2 Some observations about the offender apprehension figures for Male Assaults Female (Tables 3.1 to 3.4 and Figures 3.1 to 3.4) are that: • The total number of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female has fallen over the three year period by approximately one fifth from 8134 in 2010 to 6648 in 2012 (Tables 3.1 to 3.3).3 • About three in ten (31%) of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female in 2012 were recorded as being of Causasian men, about half (49%) of Māori men, and just over one in eight (13%) of Pacific men. Of the remaining seven percent, four percent were recorded as being of Indian men, two percent of Asiatic men and one percent of ‘Other’ men. The ethnicity associated with 19 offender apprehensions was recorded as unknown (Table 3.3). • The proportion of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female involving younger men in 2012 were highest among those recorded as being of ‘Other’ (18% aged 20y or younger) or Māori (17% aged 20y or younger) men. (Table 3.4, Figure 3.2) • The proportion of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female in 2012 that involved physical injury varied from 42% for ‘Other’ men to 56% for Māori men. (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.3) • The proportion of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female in 2012 that were resolved by way of a caution or warning was slightly higher for those men recorded as being of ‘Other’ (10%), Indian or Asiatic (both 9%) ethnicity. (Table 3.3 and Figure 3.4) 1 Thirty one percent of confrontational crimes by men against female partners were reported to the Police, compared with 16 percent of such crimes against male partners. Confrontational crime report page 5. 2 New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse (2012) Data Summary: Violence Against Women. Data Summary 2, May 2012. page 4. 3 Over the same period total recorded crime fell from 426,345 offences in 2010 to 376,013 offences in 2012.
  30. 30. 29 Table 3.1 Offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female by recorded ethnicity, 2010 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 2524 3910 1128 293 152 96 31 8134 Physical injury 1351 2239 604 163 90 53 12 4512 % of total apprehensions 54% 57% 54% 56% 59% 55% 39% 55% Apprehensions that were prosecuted 2229 3549 997 259 131 79 22 7266 % of total apprehensions 88% 91% 88% 88% 86% 82% 71% 89% Apprehensions that were warned/cautioned 130 163 63 13 6 5 4 384 % of total apprehensions 5% 4% 6% 4% 4% 5% 13% 5% Apprehensions resulting in other 165 198 68 21 15 12 5 484 % of total apprehensions 7% 5% 6% 7% 10% 13% 16% 6% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Table 3.2 Offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female by recorded ethnicity, 2011 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 2205 3511 945 255 126 98 29 7169 Physical injury 1222 1979 541 113 74 60 14 4003 % of total apprehensions 55% 56% 57% 44% 59% 61% 48% 56% Apprehensions that were prosecuted 1930 3140 830 214 114 76 17 6321 % of total apprehensions 88% 89% 88% 84% 90% 78% 59% 88% Apprehensions that were warned/cautioned 113 143 44 22 2 7 3 334 % of total apprehensions 5% 4% 5% 9% 2% 7% 10% 5% Apprehensions resulting in other 162 228 71 19 10 15 9 514 % of total apprehensions 7% 6% 8% 7% 8% 15% 31% 7% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407)
  31. 31. 30 Table 3.3 Offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female by recorded ethnicity, 2012 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 2078 3248 879 243 98 83 19 6648 Physical injury 1131 1821 438 127 53 35 9 3614 % of total apprehensions 54% 56% 50% 52% 54% 42% 47% 54% Apprehensions that were prosecuted 1834 2923 793 212 85 71 17 5935 % of total apprehensions 88% 90% 90% 87% 87% 86% 89% 89% Apprehensions that were warned/cautioned 130 158 44 21 9 8 1 371 % of total apprehensions 6% 5% 5% 9% 9% 10% 5% 6% Apprehensions resulting in other 114 167 42 10 4 4 1 342 % of total apprehensions 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Table 3.4 Offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female by recorded ethnicity and age group, 2012 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 2078 3248 879 243 98 83 19 6648 aged 16 & under 34 93 12 1 1 2 1 144 % aged 16 & under 2% 3% 1% 0% 1% 2% 5% 2% aged 17-20 199 440 103 15 14 13 3 787 % aged 17-20 10% 14% 12% 6% 14% 16% 16% 12% aged 21-30 753 1241 357 94 39 27 10 2521 % aged 21-30 36% 38% 41% 39% 40% 33% 53% 38% aged 31-50 873 1346 360 116 36 36 4 2771 % aged 31-50 42% 41% 41% 48% 37% 43% 21% 42% aged 51+ 219 128 47 17 8 5 1 425 % aged 51+ 11% 4% 5% 7% 8% 6% 5% 6% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407)
  32. 32. 31 Figure 3.1 Offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female by ethnicity, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Figure 3.2 For each ethnic group, age distribution of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 2078 3248 879 243 98 83 Numberofoffendorapprehensions%ofoffendorapprehensions 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 36 38 41 39 40 33 53 45 46 55 45 49 12 17 13 6 15 18 < 20y 21 - 30y 31 +y
  33. 33. 32 Figure 3.3 For each ethnic group, proportion of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female of the ‘physical injury’ type, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Figure 3.4 For each ethnic group, resolution distribution of offender apprehensions for Male Assaults Female, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other 88 90 90 87 87 86 6 5 5 9 9 10 5 5 5 4 4 5 54 52 54 prosecuted warned/cautioned other %ofoffenderapprehensionsforMAF (physicalinjury) 42 56 50
  34. 34. 33 Assault on a child The offence of assault on a child under the age of 14 years carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment (Crimes Act 1961 section 194(a)). It is important to note that not all offender apprehensions for assault on a child are family violence related. Some observations about the offender apprehension figures for Assault on a Child (Tables 3.5 to 3.9 and Figures 3.5 to 3.8) are that: • The total annual number of offender apprehensions for Assault on a Child was 1351, 1770 and 1690 in 2010, 2011 and 2012 respectively (Tables 3.5 to 3.7). • About three in ten (31%) of offender apprehensions for Assault on a Child in 2012 were recorded as Caucasian, 44 percent of Māori, and 17 percent of Pacific peoples. Of the remaining eight percent of offender apprehensions, three percent were recorded as being of Indians, two percent of Asiatic and one percent of ‘Other’ ethnicity. The ethnicity related to 16 offender apprehensions was recorded as unknown (Table 3.7). • Over six in ten of offender apprehensions for Assault on a Child were of men, regardless of ethnicity (except ‘Other’). (Table 3.8, Figure 3.6) • The proportion of offender apprehensions for Assault on a Child in 2012 that were resolved by way of a caution or warning was highest for those recorded as being of Asiatic (61%) or Pacific (51%) ethnicity. (Table 3.7, Figure 3.8). Table 3.5 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity, 2010 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 423 582 240 37 29 24 16 1351 Result in physical injury 165 277 108 13 10 10 3 586 % result in physical injury 39% 48% 45% 35% 34% 42% 19% 43% Prosecuted 189 402 152 25 14 14 2 798 % prosecuted 45% 69% 63% 68% 48% 58% 13% 59% Warned/cautioned 175 132 69 12 12 9 11 420 % warned/cautioned 41% 23% 29% 32% 41% 38% 69% 31% Apprehensions resulting in other 59 48 19 0 3 1 3 133 % resulting in other 14% 8% 8% 0% 10% 4% 19% 10% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407)
  35. 35. 34 Table 3.6 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity, 2011 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 529 773 340 50 35 29 14 1770 Result in physical injury 184 347 169 17 12 11 4 744 % result in physical injury 35% 45% 50% 34% 34% 38% 29% 42% Prosecuted 228 485 189 24 12 17 3 958 % prosecuted 43% 63% 56% 48% 34% 59% 21% 54% Warned/cautioned 246 203 108 19 16 9 5 606 % warned/cautioned 47% 26% 32% 38% 46% 31% 36% 34% Apprehensions resulting in other 55 85 43 7 7 3 6 206 % resulting in other 10% 11% 13% 14% 20% 10% 43% 12% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Table 3.7 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity, 2012 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 531 749 285 58 33 19 15 1690 Result in physical injury 190 360 114 17 11 12 2 706 % result in physical injury 36% 48% 40% 29% 33% 63% 13% 42% Prosecuted 242 470 123 31 11 9 9 895 % prosecuted 46% 63% 43% 53% 33% 47% 60% 53% Warned/cautioned 233 238 146 26 20 6 6 675 % warned/cautioned 44% 32% 51% 45% 61% 32% 40% 40% Apprehensions resulting in other 56 41 16 1 2 4 0 120 % resulting in other 11% 5% 6% 2% 6% 21% 0% 7% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407)
  36. 36. 35 Table 3.8 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity & gender, 2012 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Male offender apprehensions 349 451 191 37 17 9 8 1062 Result in physical injury 129 223 76 12 9 2 1 452 % result in physical injury 37% 49% 40% 32% 53% 22% 13% 43% Prosecuted 170 317 100 27 6 2 6 628 % prosecuted 49% 70% 52% 73% 35% 22% 75% 59% Warned/cautioned 143 109 77 9 10 4 2 354 % warned/cautioned 41% 24% 40% 24% 59% 44% 25% 33% Apprehensions resulting in other 36 25 14 1 1 3 0 80 % resulting in other 10% 6% 7% 3% 6% 33% 0% 8% Female offender apprehensions 182 297 94 21 16 10 7 627 Result in physical injury 61 137 38 5 2 10 1 254 % result in physical injury 34% 46% 40% 24% 13% 100% 14% 41% Prosecuted 72 152 23 4 5 7 3 266 % prosecuted 40% 51% 24% 19% 31% 70% 43% 42% Warned/cautioned 90 129 69 17 10 2 4 321 % warned/cautioned 49% 43% 73% 81% 63% 20% 57% 51% Apprehensions resulting in other 20 16 2 0 1 1 0 40 % resulting in other 11% 5% 2% 0% 6% 10% 0% 6% Note: one case where gender was unknown and not included in this table. Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Table 3.9 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity & age group, 2012 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 531 749 285 58 33 19 15 1690 age 16 and under 8 9 5 1 0 1 0 24 % aged 0-16 2% 1% 2% 2% 0% 5% 0% 1% age 17-20 10 46 23 2 0 1 0 82 % aged 17-20 2% 6% 8% 3% 0% 5% 0% 5% age 21-30 125 214 64 3 4 2 4 416 % aged 21-30 24% 29% 22% 5% 12% 11% 27% 25% age 31-50 325 409 176 48 21 14 10 1003 % aged 31-50 61% 55% 62% 83% 64% 74% 67% 59% age 51+ 63 71 17 4 8 1 1 165 % aged 51+ 12% 9% 6% 7% 24% 5% 7% 10% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407)
  37. 37. 36 Figure 3.5 Offender apprehensions for assaults on a child by ethnicity, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Figure 3.6 For each ethnic group, gender proportions of offender apprehensions for assaults on a child, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 34 40 33 36 48 53 66 60 67 64 52 47 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other men women 531 749 285 58 33 19
  38. 38. 37 Figure 3.7 For each ethnic group, age distribution of offender apprehensions for assaults on a child, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Figure 3.8 For each ethnic group, resolution distribution of offender apprehensions for assaults on a child, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other 73 64 68 90 88 79 4 7 10 5 10 24 29 22 11 5 12 0 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other 44 32 51 45 61 32 46 63 43 53 33 47 5 6 6 2 prosecuted warned/cautioned other 11 21 < 20 21-30 31+
  39. 39. 38 Breach of a Protection Order A person who wants protection from domestic violence can apply for a protection order through the Family Court. The protection order will establish conditions that the respondent must not breach. If the respondent does, s/he can be arrested and charged by Police with an offence – usually a Breach of a Protection Order under section 49(1) of the Domestic Violence Act 1995. The offence carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment (section 49(3)). Some observations about the offender apprehension figures for a Breach of a Protection Order (Tables 3.10 to 3.13 and Figures 3.9 to 3.12) are that: • The total number of offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order was similar in 2010 (4499) and 2011 (4494), then fell by over 500 to 3979 in 2012 (Tables 3.10 to 3.12). • About four in ten (40%) of offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order in 2012 were recorded as being Caucasian, just under half (47%) of Māori, and almost one in ten (9%) of Pacific peoples. Of the remaining four percent of offender apprehensions, two percent were recorded as being of Indians, and less than one percent of Asiatic or ‘Other’ ethnicity. The ethnicity related to 16 offender apprehensions was recorded as unknown (Table 3.12). • The vast majority of offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order were of men, regardless of ethnicity. Of 73 offender apprehensions recorded against Indians in 2012, 72 (or 99%) were recorded against Indian men. (Table 3.13, Figure 3.10) • The proportion of offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order in 2012 was highest among those aged in their 30s and 40s. The proportion of apprehensions recorded against Indians, Asiatics and ‘Others’ aged 31-50 years in 2012 were 79%, 59% and 48% respectively. (Table 3.13, Figure 3.11) • The proportion of offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order in 2012 that were resolved by way of a caution or warning was highest for those recorded as being of Asiatic (50%), ‘Other’ (39%), or Indian (26%) ethnicity. (Table 3.12, Figure 3.12)
  40. 40. 39 Table 3.10 Offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order by ethnicity, 2010 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 1882 2135 345 68 26 28 15 4499 Apprehensions that were prosecuted 1387 1808 283 43 20 16 9 3566 % of total apprehensions 74% 85% 82% 63% 77% 57% 60% 79% Apprehensions that were warned/cautioned 358 184 39 17 5 7 2 612 % of total apprehensions 19% 9% 11% 25% 19% 25% 13% 14% Apprehensions resulting in other 137 143 23 8 1 5 4 321 % of total apprehensions 7% 7% 7% 12% 4% 18% 27% 7% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Table 3.11 Offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order by ethnicity, 2011 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 1799 2139 392 90 24 37 13 4494 Apprehensions that were prosecuted 1313 1800 313 68 16 24 9 3543 % of total apprehensions 73% 84% 80% 76% 67% 65% 69% 79% Apprehensions that were warned/cautioned 360 184 38 13 3 7 1 606 % of total apprehensions 20% 9% 10% 14% 13% 19% 8% 13% Apprehensions resulting in other 126 155 41 9 5 6 3 345 % of total apprehensions 7% 7% 10% 10% 21% 16% 23% 8% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407)
  41. 41. 40 Table 3.12 Offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order by ethnicity, 2012 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 1599 1875 359 73 34 23 16 3979 Apprehensions that were prosecuted 1183 1574 289 51 16 13 9 3135 % of total apprehensions 74% 84% 81% 70% 47% 57% 56% 79% Apprehensions that were warned/cautioned 341 223 50 19 17 9 6 665 % of total apprehensions 21% 12% 14% 26% 50% 39% 38% 17% Apprehensions resulting in other 75 78 20 3 1 1 1 179 % of total apprehensions 5% 4% 6% 4% 3% 4% 6% 4% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Table 3.13 For each ethnic group, gender and age distributions for offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order, 2012 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Unknown Total Total apprehensions 1599 1875 359 73 34 23 16 3979 Men 1537 1825 348 72 31 22 14 3849 % men 96% 97% 97% 99% 91% 96% 88% 97% Women 62 50 11 1 3 1 2 130 % women 4% 3% 3% 1% 9% 4% 13% 3% age 14-20 53 90 7 0 3 1 0 154 % aged up to 20 3% 5% 2% 0% 9% 4% 0% 4% age 21-30 386 551 134 9 9 9 3 1101 % aged 21-30 24% 29% 37% 12% 26% 39% 19% 28% age 31-50 964 1134 195 58 20 11 11 2393 % aged 31-50 60% 60% 54% 79% 59% 48% 69% 60% age 51+ 196 100 23 6 2 2 2 331 % aged 51+ 12% 5% 6% 8% 6% 9% 13% 8% Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407)
  42. 42. 41 Figure 3.9 Offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order by ethnicity, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Figure 3.10 For each ethnic group, gender proportions of offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other Numberofoffenderapprehensions 1599 1875 359 73 34 23 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other 96 97 97 99 91 96 4 3 3 1 9 4 men women
  43. 43. 42 Figure 3.11 For each ethnic group, age distribution of offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) Figure 3.12 For each ethnic group, resolution distribution of offender apprehensions for Breach of a Protection Order, 2012 Data extracted from NZ.Stat (http://nzdotstat.stats.govt.nz/wbos/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=TABLECODE7407) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 %ofoffenderapprehensions Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other 3 5 2 0 9 4 24 29 37 26 39 60 60 54 79 59 48 12 5 6 8 6 9 12 %ofoffenderapprehensions 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 Caucasian Māori Pacific Indian Asiatic Other 74 84 81 70 47 57 21 12 14 26 50 39 5 4 6 4 3 4 < 20y 21-30 31-50 51+ prosecuted warned/cautioned other
  44. 44. 43 Breach of Safety Orders New Zealand Police have been able to issue Police Safety Orders (PSOs) since 1 July 2010. The orders are a new option for Police attending family violence incidents where there is insufficient evidence of an offence (such as a breach of a protection order) but action is necessary to ensure the safety of the people at the address (referred to as ‘person(s) at risk’). The Police do not need the consent of the person(s) at risk to issue the order. However, it must be authorised by a police sergeant. Police are able to order a person out of the premises, effective immediately, for a period of up to five days. This person is not an offender, but is referred to as the ‘bound’ person. Figures extracted from an evaluation conducted by Kingi, Roguski and Mossman (2012)1 include: • Police issued a total of 5242 Police Safety Orders in the first year (1 July 2010 to 30 June 2011). • Forty two percent of persons at risk were Māori, 40 percent European, nine percent Pacific and two percent Asian. The majority across all ethnic groups were female (86%). • Forty four percent of bound persons were Māori, 36 percent European, 11 percent Pacific, and two percent Asian. The majority across all ethnic groups were male (89%). 1 Kingi V, Roguski M, Mossman E. (2012) Police Safety Orders Formative Evaluation. Summary Report. Wellington: New Zea- land Police. ISBN 978-0-477-10370-1. http://www.police.govt.nz/sites/default/files/resources/evaluation/police-safety-orders- formative-evaluation-2011.pdf
  45. 45. 44 Ministry of Justice Data This section presents some national-level information provided by the Ministry of Justice from the Family and Criminal Courts. It includes annual numbers relating to: • Applicants and respondents to protection orders, and includes some information on numbers completing programmes provided for under the Domestic Violence Act (1995). • Offenders charged, convicted and sentenced for breach of a protection order, male assaults female and assault on a child. Information on protection orders from the Family Court A person who wants protection from domestic violence can apply for a protection order through the Family Court. The Family Court can make a temporary protection order, usually on the same day, if the situation is urgent. An applicant needs to be in a domestic relationship with the person being violent (the respondent). ‘Domestic relationships’ within the meaning of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 include: • Married couples • De facto couples • Gay and lesbian couples • Couples in civil unions • Parents and children • Members of the same family or whānau • Flatmates or other people who live in the same house or flat • People in a close personal relationship, whether or not they live together.1 A person applying for a protection order (the applicant) needs to fill out an information sheet (Form G 7) which seeks to capture some demographic information about the applicant and the other party (known as the respondent). The questions seeking information on the applicant’s and respondent’s ethnicity uses the New Zealand Census standard 2001/2006 ethnicity question. The extent to which an applicant’s ethnicity is self-reported or based on a support person’s or lawyer’s understanding of that person’s ethnicity is unknown. The information sheet may be filled out by the applicant, but often it is filled out by a support person or lawyer on the applicant’s behalf.2 1 http://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/family-court/what-family-court-does/domestic-violence 2 Personal communication with Ministry of Justice official, 24 May 2013.
  46. 46. 45 Ethnicity and age data is known to be incomplete.1 • The annual number of applications for protection orders has been declining since the late 1990s. So, too, has the proportion of applications resulting in a final protection order being granted.2 • Of the 4043 protection order applications made in 2011, just under a half (47%) were made by NZ Europeans/Pākehā, just under one quarter (23%) were made by Māori, and one in twenty (5%) were made by Asian applicants. Applications pertaining to applicants of ‘Other’ ethnicities numbered only 25 that year, while nearly one fifth (19%) did not include the applicant’s ethnicity. (Table 4.1, Figure 4.1) • In 2011, applications made by Asian applicants were the least likely of the ethnic groups to have resulted in a final protection order being granted (38%), and most likely to have resulted in applications and/or temporary protection orders having lapsed, been withdrawn or discontinued (39%). (Table 4.1, Figure 4.2) Table 4.1 Protection order applications and outcomes by ethnicity of applicant, 2011 outcome NZ European/ Pākehā Māori Pacific Asian Other Unknown total final protection order granted 948 595 95 79 17 389 2123 lapsed, withdrawn, discontinued – temporary protection order granted 237 94 28 41 3 105 508 lapsed, withdrawn, discontinued - no temporary protection order 347 104 26 40 1 127 645 dismissed, struck out 217 74 22 29 2 95 439 still active 137 80 24 18 2 67 328 total 1886 947 195 207 25 783 4043 Ministry of Justice 1 In practice, the only fields that are required to be completed on the information sheet are the applicant’s name and address. 2 Towns A (2009) Police-initiated Protection Orders (Safety Orders) and Their Potential Impact on Women: A Discussion Document. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand Issue 34: 40-61. http://www.msd.govt.nz/about-msd-and-our-work/ publications-resources/journals-and-magazines/social-policy-journal/spj34/34-police-protection-orders.html
  47. 47. 46 Figure 4.1 Protection order applications by ethnicity of applicant, 2011 Ministry of Justice Figure 4.2 For each ethnic group, protection order applications by distribution of outcomes, 2011 Ministry of Justice NZ Euro Māori Pacific Asian Other Unknown 2000 1800 1600 1400 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 1886 947 195 207 25 783 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0 NZ Euro Māori Pacific Asian Other Unknown 50 63 49 38 68 50 31 21 27 39 16 29 12 8 11 14 8 12 7 8 12 9 8 9 granted lapsed, withdrawn, discontinued dismissed still active
  48. 48. 47 Data from some earlier years – 2005 to 2010 – showed that about nine in ten applications were made by female applicants against male respondents.1 In 2010, over four in ten (43%) applications were against European/Pākehā respondents, one quarter (25%) against Māori, seven percent against Pacific, five percent against Asian and one percent against ‘Other’ respondents. The respondent’s ethnicity was unknown for about one in five (20%) applications. 2 The adult(s) and children named in a protection order are referred to as ‘protected persons.’ Protected persons may access domestic violence education and support programmes from the Family Court. The programmes are free and confidential. As already mentioned the ethnicity (and gender) data is incomplete. Of the 204 adult protected persons who completed education and support programmes in 2011, over half (53%) were European and just under a quarter (24%) were Māori (Table 4.2). Almost all were women – including the small numbers of Pacific, Asian and MELAA (Middle Eastern, Latin American and African) protected persons who completed programmes that year. Ethnicity was unknown for 38. The ethnicity for half of the 216 protected children who completed programmes in 2011 was unknown. European children numbered 77, Māori numbered 20, Pacific numbered eight, and Asian children numbered three. Table 4.2 Numbers of protected persons who completed programmes provided for under the Domestic Violence Act 1995 by ethnicity, 2011 Euro Māori Pacific Asian MELAA Unknown total Adult protected persons (incl specified persons) 109 48 5 3 1 38 204 - Males 1 3 0 0 0 1 5 - Females 108 45 5 3 1 35 197 - Unknown 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 Children 77 20 8 3 0 108 216 - Boys 35 6 4 2 0 44 91 - Girls 40 14 4 1 0 50 109 - Unknown 2 0 0 0 0 14 16 Ministry of Justice 1 New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse (2012) Data Summary: Violence Against Women. Data Summary 2. May 2012. 2 New Zealand Family Violence Clearinghouse (2012) Data Summary: Violence Against Women. Data Summary 2. May 2012.
  49. 49. 48 When a protection order is made, in most cases the person who has been violent (the respondent) will be directed by the court to attend a Stopping Violence programme. The ethnicity and gender data on programme completion by respondents is incomplete. Of the 393 respondents who completed Stopping Violence programmes in 2011, nearly four in ten (38%) were European and nearly three in ten (28%) were Māori (Table 4.3). Across all ethnic groups, the numbers of male respondents who completed programmes far exceeded the numbers of female respondents. Table 4.3 Numbers of respondents who completed Stopping Violence programmes by ethnicity, 2011 Euro Māori Pacific Asian MELAA Unknown total Respondents (direct and associated) 149 110 14 22 4 94 393 - Males 139 105 12 20 3 85 364 - Females 10 5 2 1 1 1 20 - Unknown 0 0 0 1 0 8 9 Ministry of Justice
  50. 50. 49 Information from the Criminal Courts The Ministry of Justice uses the ethnicity data collected by the NZ Police (and the same caveats apply to its use, see section 3). This section includes information relating to charges, convictions and sentencing outcomes for those charged with breach of a protection order, male assaults female, and assault on a child. Breach of a protection order A breach of a protection order carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment (Domestic Violence Act 1995 section 49(3)). Some observations relating to the following tables (Tables 4.4 to 4.5) are: • Of those people charged with breach of a protection order in 2011, just over half (52%) were Māori, over a third (35%) were European, just under one in ten (9%) were Pacific peoples, and three percent were of Other ethnicity. (The ethnicity of 21 people charged with the offence was unknown. • In 2011, the proportion of people charged who were convicted of the offence ranged across ethnic groups - from 66 percent for those of ‘Other’ ethnicity to 83 percent for Māori. • In 2011, just over three in ten (31%) of people convicted of the offence were sentenced to prison (including home detention, other custodial). The proportion of people convicted who were sentenced to imprisonment ranged across ethnic groups – from 15 percent for those of ‘Other’ ethnicity to 37 percent for Māori.1 Table 4.4 People charged, convicted and imprisoned for Breach of a Protection Order by ethnicity, 2011 Euro Māori Pacific Other Unknown total People charged 851 1243 222 71 21 2408 People convicted 682 1036 173 47 12 1950 People whose most serious sentence was prison (incl home detention, other custodial) 169 386 38 7 1 601 % of people charged who were convicted 80% 83% 78% 66% 57% 81% % of people convicted who were imprisoned 25% 37% 22% 15% 8% 31% Ministry of Justice 1 These people may have been facing other charges/been sentenced for them on the same day as for the breach of a protec- tion order charge (to which the imprisonment sentences also apply).
  51. 51. 50 Table 4.5 For each ethnic group, sentence distribution of people convicted for Breach of a Protection Order, 2011 most serious sentence Euro Māori Pacific Other Unknown total imprisonment 154 349 33 6 1 543 home detention, other custodial 15 37 5 1 0 58 community detention 37 47 15 2 0 101 intensive supervision 28 60 15 1 1 105 community work 169 268 37 11 2 487 supervision 48 67 23 3 0 141 monetary 37 28 1 3 1 70 deferment 120 104 33 14 2 273 other 0 0 1 0 0 1 discharge 74 76 10 6 5 171 Total convicted 682 1036 173 47 12 1950 Ministry of Justice Male Assaults Female Male Assaults Female carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. Some observations relating to the following tables (Tables 4.6 and 4.7) are: • Of those people charged with Male Assaults Female in 2011, just under half (49%) were Māori, about three in ten (31%) were European, 13 percent were Pacific peoples, and six percent were of Other ethnicity. (The ethnicity of 67 people charged with the offence was unknown.) • In 2011, the proportion of people charged who were convicted of Male Assaults Female ranged across ethnic groups - from 52 percent for those of ‘Other’ ethnicity to 74 percent for Māori. • In 2011, the proportion of people convicted of Male Assaults Female who were sentenced to imprisonment (including home detention and other custodial) varied across ethnic groups – from 10 percent for ‘Other’ to 33 percent for Māori.1 Table 4.6 People charged, convicted and imprisoned for Male Assaults Female by ethnicity, 2011 Euro Māori Pacific Other Unknown total People charged 1633 2611 677 314 67 5302 People convicted 1079 1944 463 163 43 3692 People whose most serious sentence was prison (incl home detention, other custodial) 244 644 77 16 17 998 % of people charged who were convicted 66% 74% 68% 52% 64% 70% % of people convicted who were sentenced to imprisonment 23% 33% 17% 10% 40% 27% Ministry of Justice 1 These people may have been facing other charges/been sentenced for them on the same day as for the male assaults fe- male charge (to which the imprisonment sentences also apply).
  52. 52. 51 Table 4.7 For each ethnic group, sentence distribution of people convicted of Male Assaults Female, 2011 most serious sentence Euro Māori Pacific Other Unknown total imprisonment 207 572 59 12 13 863 home detention, other custodial 37 72 18 4 4 135 community detention 68 109 23 7 0 207 intensive supervision 78 140 25 5 1 249 community work 298 613 136 41 12 1100 supervision 153 250 86 19 5 513 monetary 81 47 9 10 3 150 deferment 105 97 76 40 2 320 other 1 1 0 1 0 3 discharge 51 43 31 24 3 152 Total convicted 1079 1944 463 163 43 3692 % of people convicted who were sentenced to prison 23% 33% 17% 10% 40% 27% Ministry of Justice
  53. 53. 52 Assault on a Child Assault on a Child aged 14 years or younger also carries a maximum penalty of two years imprisonment. Not all assaults on a child are family violence related. Some observations relating to the following tables (Tables 4.8 and 4.9) are: • Of those people charged with Assault on a Child in 2011, half (50%) were Māori, one quarter (25%) were European, 18 percent were Pacific peoples, and five percent were of Other ethnicity. (The ethnicity of 22 people charged with Assault on a Child was unknown.) • In 2011, the proportion of people charged who were convicted of Assault on a Child ranged across ethnic groups - from 37 percent for those of ‘Other’ ethnicity to 67 percent for Māori. • In 2011, the proportion of people convicted of Assault on a Child who were imprisoned (including home detention, other custodial) also varied across ethnic groups – from seven percent for those of ‘Other’ ethnicity to 28 percent for Māori.1 Table 4.8 People charged, convicted and imprisoned for Assault on a Child by ethnicity, 2011 charge outcome Euro Māori Pacific Other Unknown total People charged 207 410 146 38 22 823 People convicted 116 275 79 14 10 494 People whose most serious sentence was prison (inc home detention, other custodial) 23 77 13 1 4 118 % of people charged who were convicted 56% 67% 54% 37% 45% 60% % of people convicted who were sentenced to imprisonment 20% 28% 16% 7% 40% 24% Ministry of Justice Table 4.9 For each ethnic group, sentence distribution of people convicted of Assault on a Child, 2011 most serious sentence Euro Māori Pacific Other Unknown total imprisonment 18 60 9 1 2 90 home detention, other custodial 5 17 4 0 2 28 community detention 8 12 4 1 1 26 intensive supervision 8 20 4 0 1 33 community work 26 76 18 5 1 126 supervision 22 43 14 1 3 83 monetary 5 6 2 0 0 13 deferment 14 26 13 4 0 57 other 1 0 0 0 0 1 discharge 9 15 11 2 0 37 total 116 275 79 14 10 494 Ministry of Justice 1 These people may have been facing other charges/been sentenced for them on the same day as for the assault on a child charge (to which the imprisonment sentences also apply).
  54. 54. 53 Ministry of Health Data The information in this section comes from the Ministry of Health’s database of publicly funded hospitalisations. It should be noted that for about 46 percent of assault hospitalisations in 2011/2012 the identity of the perpetrator was either not known to the health system or not recorded. There were 588 assault hospitalisations with a perpetrator indicating ‘family’ in 2011/2012 (Table 5.1). Of these, 220 (or 37%) were of Europeans, 186 (or 48%) were of Māori, 66 (or 11%) were of Pacific peoples, 11 (or 2%) were of Asians, and eight (or 1%) were of Middle Eastern, Latin American or African (MELAA) ethnicity. The ethnicity of three of those hospitalised was not stated. Nearly two thirds (65%) of these assault hospitalisations were of women. About two-thirds of assault hospitalisations of women indicated that the perpetrator was a spouse/domestic partner, about 14 percent that the perpetrator was a parent, and about 19 percent that the perpetrator was another family member. About 21 percent of assault hospitalisations of men indicated that the perpetrator was a spouse/domestic partner, about 26 percent that the perpetrator was a parent, and about 54 percent that the perpetrator was another family member. Table 5.1 Number of assault hospitalisations with a perpetrator indicating ‘family’, 2011/2012 Euro Māori Pacific Asian MELAA Other Not stated total Total 220 280 66 11 8 0 3 588 Of men 76 94 30 1 2 0 0 203 Of women 144 186 36 10 6 0 3 385 37% 48% 9% 2% 1% 0% 1% Ministry of Health Numbers are for any reported assault code indicating that the perpetrator was a family member – spouse/domestic partner, parent, or other family member. Numbers exclude short stay ED (emergency department) events. People with multiple hospitalisations (readmissions, transfers, multiple incidents) in the year are counted each time they are hospitalised.
  55. 55. 54 New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey Findings The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey (NZCASS) is a comprehensive household survey that explores the experience of crime victimisation of more than 5,000 randomly selected New Zealand residents aged 15 and over. The survey includes crimes not reported to the Police, so it is an important complement to Police records. Two of these surveys were conducted in 2006 and 2009 using a very similar methodology. The surveys asked people directly about the crimes they had experienced, including whether they had been a victim of a confrontational offence committed by their partner.1 For the purposes of the surveys, confrontational crime was defined as assaults and threats to an individual or their personal property. This definition sets the threshold relatively low, and means it includes a range of offences from serious assaults to petty thefts. Excluded from the definition are psychological and economic abuse (such as insults or withholding household money). Annual incidence and prevalence rates were calculated for 2005 and 2008 (ie for the year prior to the administration of each survey). Incidence rates describe the number of partner confrontational offences per 100 people. Prevalence rates describe the percentage of people in a relationship who experienced a confrontational offence by their partner. Ethnicity information was gathered from survey participants face-to-face using the Statistics New Zealand recommended Census question. The survey findings reported for ethnic groups were for non-prioritised total ethnic groups. This means that those who identified with two or more ethnic groups were counted for each ethnic group they identified with. ‘Europeans’ comprised those who said they were NZ European, Other European, European (not further defined), New Zealander or Kiwi. ‘Other’ ethnicity included Other, Don’t know and Refused (2006 survey). 1 The questions refer to people who were their partner at the time of the offence. Offences by ex-partners are asked about in a separate section on ‘offenders well known to the victim’, meaning that specific statistics for offences by ex-partners are not available.
  56. 56. 55 Survey findings (Table 6.1) include: • The overall incidence rate for confrontational offences by partners declined significantly from 2005 (22%) to 2008 (14%). • The overall prevalence rate for confrontational offences by partners also declined significantly from 2005 (6%) to 2008 (4%)1 . • Māori were at above-average risk of confrontational offences committed by partners in 2005 and in 2008. • Māori women were especially vulnerable to confrontational offences committed by partners in 2005, with their risks approaching four times the average. • The prevalence rate of confrontational crime by partners for Māori decreased between the two surveys (14% in 2005 to 11% in 2008). • The risk rates for Pacific,Asian and Other ethnic groups are shown but are considered too unreliable for general use. Table 6.1 Risk rates for confrontational offences committed by adult partners in 2005 and 2008 2005 2008 group n Incidence rate per 100 adults Prevalence rate per 100 adults n Incidence rate per 100 adults Prevalence rate per 100 adults Total 5416 22 6 6106 14 4 European 3897 21 6 4507 - 3.5 Māori 1698 55 14 1840 - 11.3 Pacific peoples 220 (13) (7) 243 - (13.1) Asian 276 (10) (5) 451 - (2.1) Other ethnic groups 70 - - 66 - (0.3) European men 1615 20 6 - - - Māori men 616 19 8 - - - Other men1 239 (9) (6) - - - European women 2282 21 6 - - - Māori women 1082 86 18 - - - Other women1 320 (18) (5) - - - Sources: Mayhew P & Reilly J (2007) The New Zealand Crime & Safety Survey: 2006, Main Findings Report. ISBN 0-478-29028-4. Wellington: Ministry of Justice. From Table C6, page 109 and Table C1, page 104.. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global-publications/n/nz-crime- safety-survey-2006-key-findings Morrison B, Smith M, Gregg L (2010) The New Zealand Crime and Safety Survey: 2009, Main Findings Report. ISBN 978-0-478-29090- X. Wellington: Ministry of Justice. From Table B11, page 144 and Table C1, page 163. http://www.justice.govt.nz/publications/global- publications/c/NZCASS-2009 Notes Rates in brackets means they are too unreliable for general use. 1: ‘Other’ includes Pacific peoples, Asians, Other, don’t know and refused. 1 These decreases in the incidence and prevalence rates of confrontational offences by partners may indicate that advertising campaigns aimed at reducing domestic violence are having a positive impact.
  57. 57. 56 Youth’07 Health and Wellbeing Survey Findings Young people can be significantly affected by family violence in the home, even if they are not physically hurt. The effects may include psychological, emotional, physical and cognitive function problems that can result in sleeping disorders, physical pain, regressive, disruptive or violent behaviour, anxiety attacks, truancy or poor educational outcomes. Older children can also develop drug and alcohol problems and there is a strong link to youth suicide.1 Youth’07 is a cross-sectional survey of a representative sample of 9,107 randomly selected New Zealand secondary school students conducted in 2007. It is the second survey in a series - the first was conducted in 2001 and the third in 2012.2 The surveys are part of Youth2000, run by the Adolescent Health Research Group from The University of Auckland. The overall aim of Youth’07 is to provide information on health and wellbeing issues among secondary school students - information that is current, accurate and representative of young people growing up in New Zealand. The survey took the form of a self-report questionnaire administered using internet tablets. The survey questions were displayed on the internet tablet’s screen and also read out through headphones. (Further details on the methodology can be found at the study website www.youth2000.ac.nz.) In the Youth’07 questionnaire students were asked ‘Which ethnic group do you belong to?’ based on the New Zealand Census standard 2001/2006 ethnicity question. Students were able to choose more than one response from a list of 23 options derived from level two groupings of ethnicity (Statistics New Zealand, 2005).3 Forty percent of the students identified with more than one ethnic group. The main ethnic groups students belonged to were: European (76%), Māori (19%), Asian (14%) and Pacific (13%).4 Exact wording of two questions regarding family violence were as follows: “ In the last 12 months how many times have you seen adults in your home... • hitting or physically hurting a child (other than yourself)? • hitting or physically hurting each other?” Findings from Youth’07 included: Students reported witnessing various forms of violence in the previous 12 months in their homes including: • 17 percent had witnessed an adult hitting or physically hurting another child in the previous 12 months in their home (Table 7.1) • 10 percent had witnessed adults hitting or physically hurting each other in the previous 12 months in their home. (Table 7.2) Higher proportions of Māori, Pacific and Asian students than NZ European students reported witnessing an adult hitting or physically hurting a child (p <0.0001) and hitting or physically hurting another adult (p<0.0001). 1 Wording extracted from brochure at http://www.familyservices.govt.nz/documents/working-with-us/programmes-services/ preventing-family-violence/child-advocates-brochure.pdf 2 Survey findings based on the 2012 data are expected to be available in mid 2013. 3 Statistics New Zealand. (2005). Statistical Standard for Ethnicity 2005. Accessed at http://www2.stats.govt.nz/domino/exter- nal/web/carsweb.nsf/55d63ae38ba3a25e4c2567e6007f6686/35d9b7e17a1d6151cc25701100031353 4 Adolescent Health Research Group, (2008). Youth’07: The Health and Wellbeing of Secondary School Students in New Zealand. Initial Findings. Auckland: The University of Auckland.
  58. 58. 57 Among Pākehā/NZ European students, females are more likely than males to report witnessing someone being hit in their home (p=0.002), but among Māori there is no difference between males and females. Table 7.1 Youth who reported witnessing an adult hitting or physically hurting a child in their home in past 12 months ethnicity percent All ethnicities 17% NZ Māori 23% NZ European 11%1 Pacific 35%2 Chinese 20% Indian 20% Total Asian (Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Cambodian, Other Asian) 19% Youth‘07 Survey (http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/faculty/ahrg/publications.aspx) Table 7.2 Youth who reported witnessing an adult hitting or physically hurting another adult in the home in past 12 months ethnicity percent All ethnicities 10% NZ Māori 15% NZ European 7% Pacific 21%3 Chinese 14% Indian 14% Total Asian (Chinese, Indian, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Cambodian, Other Asian) 13% Youth’07 Survey (http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/faculty/ahrg/publications.aspx)

×