• Full Story

Children hardest hit by recession - Sallies

Print

Fri, 12 Feb 2010 5:29a.m.

A new report by the Salvation Army says children have been hardest hit by the recession (file pic)

A new report by the Salvation Army says children have been hardest hit by the recession (file pic)

New Zealand may be out of a recession but damage has already been done to the welfare of children and teenagers, a new report by the Salvation Army says.

The worst of the recession may be over in financial terms, but social benefits of a decade of economic growth had been erased in less than two years, Salvation Army social policy director Major Campbell Roberts said.

A jobless economic recovery threatened to further erode gains made in alleviating childhood poverty.

"It is important that we see any economic recovery in people terms rather than just as business confidence indicators and GDP figures."

The Salvation Army's 2010 State of the Nation report, A Road to Recovery, released today estimated the number of children living in benefit dependent households had increased by 12 percent during 2009 to 21 percent of children - more than 231,000.

Mr Roberts said nearly 30,000 more children were living in jobless households than two years ago.

"It's becoming apparent that with the downturn of employment there is a real danger of a growing underclass of children living in material hardship.

"There is now an urgent need to consider some form of universal income entitlement for children."

It was also concerning that the number of solo parent households receiving the domestic purposes benefit had nearly risen back to levels of 10 years ago, Mr Roberts said.

In December 1999, 110,300 households received the DPB, which fell to just over 96,000 by mid 2007, but had risen to 109,300 by December 2009.

Young workers had been severely hit by the recession with 45,000 fewer teenagers aged 15-19 employed than in late 2007, Mr Roberts said.

In the December quarter unemployment for that age group hit 26 percent.

"While the Government's employment initiatives targeting youth unemployment are most welcome, it is clear they are not of sufficient scale to put even a dent in the problem.

"Failing to address youth unemployment means we are faced with the potential time bomb of resentment and disaffection which will show up in rising youth crime, youth suicides and anti-social behaviour."

The report, the army's third of its kind, tracked social progress across five areas: children, work and incomes, crime and punishment, social hazards, and housing.

NZPA

Become a fan of 3 News on Facebook and on Twitter.

Post a Comment

Before commenting, please take the time to read our moderation guide


(Won't be published)



Comments

19 Feb 2010 11:36p.m.

Solo mothers lose jobs too. wrote:

Hmmm.
Maybe just like my friend, who is a solo parent who recently went on the DPB, the increase in DPB recepents is because Solo parents in the workforce are losing their jobs too?

If a solo parent looses their job they go on the DPB not the unemployment benefit due to having extra mouths to feed.

Think about what you are saying instead of just spouting off that all DPB are scum of the earth. Just because they are currently on the benefit because of downturn at the moment, doesn't mean they are all lazy and bludgers.

Just a thought.

14 Feb 2010 11:43p.m.

@lightseed wrote:

Lightseed, your a moron not matter where I find you.

Little bit of an alien arent you, have you any idea how much government assistance doesnt pay for, while DPB mums are actually the highest paid beneficiary and the costliest.

However not all beneficiaries smoke and drink, and neither do us middle income earners.

you have a hatred of beneficiaries that belittle's these kids and the sufferinf that they have had to endure with having their parents on a state benefit.

Many beneficiaries are struggling, a slightly higher proportion of them smoke and drink.

But as with middle income New Zealand, not all of them do.

You need to grow up a little, your bigotry and overgeneralizations are just callous and nasty, grow up child.

12 Feb 2010 02:56p.m.

Mark wrote:

"While the Government's employment initiatives targeting youth unemployment are most welcome, it is clear they are not of sufficient scale to put even a dent in the problem." - You don't think it has anything to do with Sue Bradford's law raising youth rates from $7.60 in 2006 to $11.75 in 2007 - right at the start of a recession. 16 - 17 year olds are simply too expensive to employ and are not as productive as thier more mature counterparts.

12 Feb 2010 11:10a.m.

Lightseed wrote:

but i bet the parents still go out and buy their alcohol and smokes.