Acknowledgements - Family and Community Services

Document Sample
Acknowledgements - Family and Community Services Powered By Docstoc
					Tasman District
Community Report 2007




               LOCAL SERVICES MAPPING
                   www.familyservices.govt.nz
Acknowledgements
This profile on services available to families/whanau in Tasman District was facilitated by the Ministry of Social Development’s
Family and Community Services, in conjunction with the Tasman District Local Services Mapping (LSM) Steering Group.
The steering group would like to thank the following people and organisations for their time, effort and commitment to this
project:
   Tasman District Council and council staff members
   The questionnaire respondents – community providers across the district
   Those who took part in consultation meetings
   Participating government agencies, including Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Education, New Zealand Police,
    Statistics New Zealand, Housing New Zealand Corporation, and the Department of Internal Affairs
   Poumanawa Oranga for their report on behalf of iwi/Maori.
This profile is based on the information made available during this project. Although efforts have been made to ensure accuracy,
Family and Community Services cannot guarantee there are no errors or that information has not become outdated since
publication.
Foreword
Tena Koutou Katoa, greetings to all.


On behalf of the Tasman District Steering Group and as Mayor of Tasman District Council, I am pleased to present this
community profile to the community, service providers and funders of services to local families and whanau.
I would like to thank the community for their co-operation in providing the information which has been vital to the development
of this profile. It is the first step in a three-phase process designed to map services within the district, identify critical issues for
local families and whanau, and develop strategies and solutions to effect positive change within our community.
Information has been gathered from a range of sources to help build a clear picture of the current strengths and gaps in service
delivery, and of the results we would like to achieve to improve the wellbeing of families and whanau.
We hope that by working in a collaborative way that all our combined efforts will assist in achieving the goals identified in this
profile.
The Local Services Mapping project is seen as a part of the Tasman District Council’s Community Outcomes work and sits
alongside central government’s key social policy priorities.
The next stage of this project will focus on a community response plan, which will help provider and funder organisations
improve the quality and effectiveness of their services. The third stage will ensure this plan is implemented.
By continuing to work in a collaborative and co-operative way, agencies increase the effectiveness of their service delivery and
their ability to support the family and whanau outcomes identified by the community.
The Tasman District Council will continue to support this collaborative approach to working in our community.




John Hurley,
M AY O R
Tasman District Council
Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY                                                                                                                                                                               6
 PROCESS AND METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................................ 6
 TASMAN DISTRICT STEERING GROUP ...................................................................................................................................... 6
 PRIORITY AREAS FOR ACTION................................................................................................................................................... 6
 NEXT STEPS ................................................................................................................................................................................. 7


TASMAN DISTRICT                                                                                                                                                                                 8
 POPULATION................................................................................................................................................................................. 8
 GEOGRAPHY................................................................................................................................................................................. 9
 HISTORY ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 9
 ECONOMY ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
 LIFESTYLE ................................................................................................................................................................................... 10
 ATTRACTIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 10
 MANA WHENUA PROFILE .......................................................................................................................................................... 11


LSM PROCESS IN CONTEXT                                                                                                                                                                       13
 STAKEHOLDER CONNECTEDNESS.......................................................................................................................................... 15
 LINKS TO THE TASMAN DISTRICT COUNCIL COMMUNITY PLAN AND OUTCOMES ........................................................... 14
 LINKS TO CENTRAL GOVERNMENT’S SOCIAL PRIORITIES: FAMILIES – YOUNG AND OLD .............................................. 15


PRIORITY AREA FOR ACTION:                                                                                                                                                                    16
 Families are living with manageable levels of debt.................................................................................. 16


PRIORITY AREA FOR ACTION:                                                                                                                                                                    18
 Families have children who have attained educational qualifications ...................................................... 18


PRIORITY AREA FOR ACTION:                                                                                                                                                                    21
 Families have achieved economic sufficiency ......................................................................................... 21


PRIORITY AREA FOR ACTION:                                                                                                                                                                    23
 Families are living in violence-free households ....................................................................................... 23


PRIORITY AREA FOR ACTION:                                                                                                                                                                    26
 Sole-parent families are participating economically and socially within their communities....................... 26


APPENDIX 1:                                                                                                                                                                                  27
 Background to Tasman District Local Services Mapping......................................................................... 27


APPENDIX 2:                                                                                                                                                                                  30
 Statistical Overview of Tasman District ................................................................................................... 30


APPENDIX 3:                                                                                                                                        49
 Community Providers who Responded to Written Questionnaire ............................................................ 49


APPENDIX 4:                                                                                                                                        51
 Sources of Information ............................................................................................................................ 51


BIBLIOGRAPHY                                                                                                                                       54
Executive Summary
The aim of the Tasman District Community Profile is to provide a solid foundation from
which to develop a community response plan to respond to the priority issues and to effect
positive change through a specified implementation process. Critically, it is intended to
achieve this through a collaborative partnership involving the community, providers, central
government and local government.
This profile identifies priority areas of focus for the wellbeing of the residents of Tasman District. It also provides a framework for
co-operative community response planning by:
    identifying some of the challenges families face
    identifying vulnerabilities to which some families are exposed
    providing a list of questions to explore further aspects of the priority areas.
There are many examples in Tasman District where agencies collaborate successfully to achieve improved outcomes for families.
This profile identifies opportunities to build on these existing strengths.
Participants in the district’s Local Services Mapping (LSM) process believe that, by working collaboratively with families and
with each other, solutions can be identified that will enable families to reach their full potential and allow them to participate more
fully in a healthy and diverse community.


PROCESS AN D METHODOL OGY


Information in this profile has been gathered from a range of sources, including a service provider questionnaire, semi-structured
interviews with organisations, discussions with service providers and funders, national and local research, and an analysis of
relevant local social and economic statistics.
The work for this profile was done as a collaborative exercise between Family and Community Services, which is part of the
Ministry of Social Development, and a local steering group set up to guide the LSM process in the district.


TASM AN DISTRICT STEE RING GROUP


The steering group was made up of representatives from community providers and agencies, including those from:
    Strengthening Families Local Management Group, Motueka
    Strengthening Families Local Management Group, Golden Bay
    Tasman District Council staff.
To make the project achievable, it was agreed that the focus would be determined at the outset by the informed judgement of the
steering group and by the results of a customised community provider questionnaire. Refer to Appendix 3 for a list of community
providers who responded to the questionnaire.


PRIORITY ARE AS FOR ACTION


The Tasman District Community Profile presents information about five priority areas for action for service providers in the
district:
1.   Families living with manageable levels of debt.
2.   Families with children who have attained educational qualifications.
3.   Families who have achieved economic sufficiency.
4.   Families living in violence-free households.
5.   Families with sole parents participating economically and socially within their communities.
There is some overlap among these priorities, so strategies and plans to address one area will impact on others. This will be taken
into account during the community response planning stage to ensure a co-ordinated planning process. In addition, other priorities
may emerge during the community response planning phase that will need to be included in these five priorities.
The five priority areas for action share several underlying themes:
1.   The existing networks of community groups, agencies and service providers that meet to share ideas, discuss concerns and
     co-operate to work with families will be critical to the community response planning phase.
2.   While statistics about families in Tasman District compare favourably to similar statistics in other parts of New Zealand, the
     priority areas for action that have been identified to support and improve the lives of people are valid and appropriate for the
     district to address.
3.   There is overall concern about educational attainment for young people in the district. This has implications for the economic
     sufficiency of future generations.
4.   There is concern about the level of debt being incurred by people in the district. This issue needs to be explored further to
     assist understanding of the background to this trend and to identify ways to address the situation.
5.   There is general concern about the need to improve the flexibility of service contracts, and for these contracts to have an out-
     comes focus. Many service providers work above and beyond their contractual requirements to ensure needs are met, and this ef-
     fort should be acknowledged through the provision of additional resources.
6.   Tasman District has numerous examples of how the needs of families can be met successfully by agencies and services (both
     government and non-government) working collaboratively. There is agreement that this type of approach should be adopted
     more widely to ensure improved co-ordination and service delivery. This positive view will assist greatly in the community
     response planning and implementation phases.
For each priority area, the population has been identified and evidence collated to gain a better understanding about the prevalence
of the particular issue. Key indicators, if available, have been included to show long-term trends.
In addition to using available local statistics and information, national data and research have been used to provide a more
complete picture of the situation.
All of the priority areas have gaps in data and research. As a result, a list of questions has been included as possible areas for
future exploration in the second (community response planning) and third (implementation) phases of the LSM process.


NEXT STEPS


This profile has identified goals the community would like to achieve, and this will assist in identifying key partners to achieve these
goals. The next phases of the LSM process will provide exciting opportunities for many cross-sector groups to work together to
achieve both separate and shared goals for Tasman District.
The time taken to finalise this community profile is one of its limitations. It is acknowledged that new issues may be identified
and/or some priorities may change subsequent to the profile’s publication. It is hoped that any new issues or concerns will be
identified and addressed in the second and third phases of the LSM process.
The next step will be to develop a community response plan (Phase 2), which will be a collaborative effort involving all agencies
and services that are able to contribute to achieving the desired outcomes. During the response planning phase, other outcomes
may be identified, and these may also be addressed as part of the implementation phase (Phase 3).
Tasman District
Tasman District is in the northwest corner of the South Island. It’s one of the most generously
endowed regions of the world when it comes to natural beauty and lifestyle choices.

To the west, the Tasman Sea thunders onto wild desolate beaches. To the north, beautiful
Golden Bay is a treasure chest of sun, beach and bush. To the south, the rugged country of
Murchison and the Lakes District, with forest and mountain ranges, is a haven for hunters,
fishermen and trampers. To the east, the city of Nelson and the Marlborough Sounds. In
between are rivers, lakes, beaches, snow-capped mountains, forests, and three national parks.


POPULATION


Tasman is a fast growing district, with a population of 44,630 at the 2006 census. Between 2001 and 2006, the population
increased by 7.9%, compared to a growth rate of 8.9% over the previous five years.
Growth is not spread evenly throughout the district. Generally, coastal areas and towns have much higher growth rates than the
interior. The district is experiencing a high rate of inward migration from other parts of New Zealand.
Population growth in the Nelson region centres around the flatter area of Tasman Bay and the coastal hills around Motueka.
Although district growth has been strong, statistics show that the region itself has a low population density of just 4.5 people per
square kilometre. This is mainly due to the lack of large urban areas and because 58% of the district is in a national park.
See Appendix 2 for additional information on Tasman District.
GEOGR APH Y


If New Zealand is a land of contrasts, then Tasman District is the mini-version of this landscape. From its highest point of 1,875m
on Mount Owen in Kahurangi National Park, the district stretches to the coastal waters of Tasman and Golden Bays. Bush,
farmland and forestry meet rushing rivers and quiet lakes. Heading seaward, the land tumbles over fertile river plains and rolling
clay soils to beaches that extend westward to Farewell Spit.
Tasman District covers 9,786 square kilometres and is home to three national parks. Abel Tasman, at 22,541 hectares, is New
Zealand’s smallest but one of its most popular parks; Nelson Lakes is 101,753 hectares of alpine splendour; and the newest park,
Kahurangi, covers a massive 452,000 hectares from Murchison to the West Coast. Dotted throughout the district are many parks,
reserves and gardens that are managed and maintained by Tasman District Council for the benefit of the community.


HISTORY


After the establishment of the Nelson province in the 1850s, agriculture and pastoral farming developed and villages on the
Waimea Plains and Motueka became established. Gold provided a brief boom in the late 1850s, but agriculture proved the source
of the region’s continuing prosperity.
In 1859, Marlborough became a separate province. The two provinces had developed quite separate characteristics with large-
scale sheep farming predominating in the drier Marlborough climate and smaller agricultural and horticultural farms flourishing in
the Nelson area.


ECONOMY


Until the 1970s, tobacco was an important cash crop, but international competition and the removal of tariff protection has made it
uneconomic. Today, pastoral farming and horticulture lead the district’s economic growth, despite significant changes in land use
in recent years. Together, these two rural industries account for around $220 million per year.
Pastoral production is the largest contributor to the local economy, ahead of horticulture, seafood, tourism, and forestry. The
pastoral sector makes up around 15% of total employment in the region.
Forestry and wood processing contributes around 10% of Gross Domestic Product (the total market value of goods and services
produced, minus the cost of goods utilised in the production process), seafood industries contribute 9% and horticulture (mainly
pip fruit) contributes 8%. These three sectors have been experiencing tight economic conditions in recent years.
A combination of reduced quotas, high oil prices, and a vulnerable New Zealand dollar has affected the viability of Tasman’s
export industries. Horticulture and forestry are also experiencing the negative effects of a vulnerable New Zealand dollar. The rise
of our currency against those of our trading partners has reduced returns to producers.
A number of other regional economic drivers are now emerging, including:
   science-based enterprises
   engineering
   natural medicines and products
   information and communications technology
   retail business
   small business/self-employment
   viticulture.
Tourism is the industry that will likely drive future economic growth in the district. The challenge will be to plan proactively to
manage the tourism sector so that the region benefits from increased tourism activity while ensuring minimal negative social and
environmental impact.


LIFESTYLE


Climate and lifestyle are major reasons why people choose to live, work and retire in Tasman District. Most people work in
agriculture, forestry or fishing, but the district also has many artists and craftspeople who work from their country galleries. The
district boasts one of the highest counts of working artists of any region in the country.
The pleasant year-round climate and easy access to skiing, swimming, tramping and boating attracts many to the region. It is also
a popular place to retire, with the majority of retirees choosing to live in the more populated areas of Richmond, Waimea,
Motueka and Golden Bay.
Community spirit plays a big part in the district’s style of living, and a high proportion of people are involved in voluntary work.


ATTR ACTIONS


Tasman District is a mecca for outdoor pursuits – from alpine tramping to coastal walks. The safe and scenic beaches and the cool
rivers provide a focus for summer activities, while Nelson Lakes continues its skiing tradition at Rainbow Ski Area.
The outdoor lifestyle is a major attraction. The district has a strong sporting tradition, everything from rugby to outdoor bowls,
harness racing to sailing, drag racing to motocross, pony clubs to mountain biking, and white water rafting to sea kayaking.
Most towns have a skate park and tennis court, and the local council continues to develop community facilities throughout the
district. Rough Island, a few kilometres from Richmond, is home to an international-standard equestrian park that is open to the
public. Council has also funded the development of a mountain biking course on nearby Rabbit Island. The network of walkways,
cycle-ways and bridle-paths continues to grow.
In October 2004, the ASB Bank Aquatic Centre opened in Richmond. It is the largest community project ever undertaken by the
district council. The centre has proved a success, with more than 250,000 people passing through its doors in the first 18 months
of operation.

                                                         1
M AN A WHENU A PROFILE



CU LT UR A L ID E NT IT Y



As early as the sixteenth century, shifts of tribal location and dominance from the North Island into and around Te Tau Ihu
became more prominent. There had been a number of other tribes/iwi living here prior to the established iwi of today. It was not
until the mid-1830s that a solid foundation was laid in occupation of the areas that they themselves helped conquer.
Over the following years, adjustments were made to land and sea boundaries as iwi traded and swapped among themselves, with
the exception of small localised areas assigned to a few chiefs. Some iwi, such as Ngati Tama, relinquished interest in certain
areas – such as Tai Tapu – to Ngati Rarua; in turn, Ngati Rarua gave up interest in Wakapuaka to Ngati Tama.
However, there has not always been agreement about the boundaries between iwi, the degree to which iwi might share certain
districts and the rights of individuals to share in their iwi land assets. The defeated iwi of the 1820 invasions survived in isolated
pockets throughout and soon lived with a measurable amount of freedom alongside the newcomers, who gained in time the status
of Mana Whenua.
This right remained until the rights of the Kurahaupo (descendants of the Kurahaupo Waka) tribes were recognised and restored
during the colonial era.2 Many of the areas first occupied by Maori are, in some cases, still occupied, although not in large
numbers. The disagreement of boundaries still remains today. All iwi have lodged claims to the crown.

IW I



Today in the Tasman, Nelson and Marlborough regions, there are eight iwi within what is known and called Te Tau Ihu o Te
Waka a Maui. Because of their tenure of occupancy, these iwi now have Mana Whenua status. These iwi, in alphabetical order,
are: Ngati Apa, Ngati Koata, Ngati Kuia, Ngati Rarua, Ngati Tama, Ngati Toa Rangatira, Rangitane, and Te Atiawa. At the 2006
census, around 720 Tasman residents of Maori descent stated an affiliation to one or more of these iwi.
Other groups of Maori who live in this area, but do not have Mana Whenua status, are known as Mata Waka. 3 At the 2006 census,
Mata Waka affiliations in Tasman District were almost five times larger than Mana Whenua iwi affiliations.4 The largest Mata
Waka groups were Ngai Tahu (21% of all those in the district who specified an iwi), Ngapuhi (17%) and Ngati Porou (10%).
At the 2006 census, 23% of Tasman residents who identified as Maori did not know their iwi (17% nationally).

M AR A E



Seven marae are currently located in and around Te Tau Ihu. Marae are an important part of iwi identity, allowing protocols
(tikanga) to be exercised. They also provide a place for ceremonies, such as hui and tangihanga, and the opportunity to speak Te
Reo Maori and to participate in wananga.


1   The Mana Whenua profile was provided by Ko Te Poumanawa Oranga o Te Tau Ihu o Te Waka a Maui. Census information was provided by Statistics New
    Zealand (2006 Census of Population and Dwellings).

2   Mitchell, Hilary & John. Te Tau Ihu (2004), Wellington, pg 139.

3   Clark, Miriam. Health Status of Mäori in Te Tau Ihu, October 2002.

4   Individuals could identify with more than one iwi and all affiliations were counted.
M AO R I L AN G U AG E



Te Reo Maori is one form of recognition of cultural identity. Between 1996 and 2006, there was a 2% increase across the country
in the number of people who spoke Te Reo. In Tasman District, the number of Te Reo speakers grew by 16% over that time to
around 710 individuals – 64% identified as belonging to the Maori ethnic group, while 36% were non-Maori.
The 2006 census showed that 15% of Maori people in the district spoke Te Reo (24% nationally). Both locally and nationwide,
the largest numbers of Te Reo speakers were aged 10-19. In Tasman District, this was around 110 people (25% of all Te Reo
speakers in the district versus 21% nationally).
LSM Process in Context
LINKS TO THE TASM AN DISTRICT COUNCIL COMMUNITY PL AN AND
OUTCOMES


In developing this profile, the work undertaken by district council has been taken into account and information from this work has
been used to inform the LSM priority areas for action.
All of the council’s community plan and outcomes are relevant in terms of contributing to safe and health communities that
improve the wellbeing of families and whanau in the district. However, the following desired outcomes intersect most closely with
both the LSM priority concerns and government’s social policy issues (Families – Young and Old).

OUTCOME 4: OUR VIBRANT COMMUNITY IS SAFE, W ELL, ENJOYS AN EXCELLENT QUALITY OF
LIFE AND SUPPORTS TH OSE W ITH SPECIAL NEEDS:
   It’s the lifestyle that counts.
   We enjoy a personal sense of ‘belonging’ to life in this area.
   We enjoy health lifestyles, work and living spaces.
   We have access to the healthcare facilities that we need.
   Our community has access to social and support services to keep them healthy and active.
   We have access to a range of adequate and quality housing.

OUTCOME 5: OUR COMMU NITY UNDERSTANDS REG IONAL HISTORY, HERITAGE AND CULTURE:
   We celebrate our heritage.
   The special place of Maori in our community is recognised and respected.
   We are a forward-thinking and tolerant society where cultural diversity is embraced.
   We understand that caring for others and the environment creates a strong sense of community spirit.
   Supporting our dynamic arts sector promotes creative thinking in all aspects of community life.

OUTCOME 6: OUR DIVER SE COMMUNITY ENJOYS ACCESS TO A RANGE OF SPIRITUAL,
CULTURAL, SOCIAL, ED UCATIONAL AND RECREA TIONAL SERVICES:
   Our community lives in faith, hope and love.
   Our leisure and recreation facilities provide a range of options for social interaction and encourage people to be active and
    involved.
   Members of our community explore the potential and plan for new facilities and services together.
   The provision of education and training opportunities enhances our lives.
   Our youth are engaged in thinking about and creating our future.
   Our easy-to-access beaches, parks and reserves creates an active and vibrant society.
   We encourage the celebration of festivals and events important in family life.

OUTCOME 7: OUR PARTICIPATORY COMMUNITY C ONTRIBUTES TO DISTRICT DECISION-
MAKING AND DEVELOPMENT:
   Our community leaders exercise wisdom and common sense in decision-making for the future and work to build strong
    healthy communities.
   We think, discuss and plan ahead to ensure our population is balanced and resourced.
   Our governance model allows all communities and their views to be adequately represented.
   We have taken responsibility for our future.
   We actively work together to make the best locally supported decisions.
   Our planning is proactive, thorough, realistic and anchored by a shared vision, a big picture against which we reference our choices.

OUTCOME 8: OUR GROW I NG AND SUSTAINABLE E CONOMY PROVIDES OPPO RTUNITIES FOR
US ALL:
   Our ‘can do’ attitude is the foundation of Tasman District’s economic success.
   Our business-friendly processes assist businesses to set up in Tasman District.
   We welcome visitors and newcomers and share our distinctive lifestyle with them.
   We encourage businesses which complement the clear, green character of our area.
   The community continues to value the contribution of primary industry to our district.
   Our district’s speciality industries are managed in a responsible and sustainable way.
   There are stable jobs across diverse industries.


LINKS TO CENTR AL GOV ERNME NT’S SOCI AL PR I ORITIES: F AMILIES –
YOUNG AND OLD


The central government has adopted three priority themes for the next decade: Economic Transformation; Families – Young and
Old; and National Identity.
Families – Young and Old focuses on social policy, and its priorities are related to those identified by the district’s LSM process:
   Strong families – All families and whanau have the support and choices they need to be secure and support each other to reach
    their full potential. People will also be supported if care and support from within the family is not available.
   Healthy, confident kids – All children participate in a range of life-contexts and are equipped to contribute to the future of
    New Zealand socially, culturally, economically, and environmentally.
   Better health for all – New Zealanders are able to promote and protect their health and participate in their communities.
   Strong and safe communities – People are able to participate in their community and their rights and interests are protected and
    promoted.
   Positive aging – Older New Zealanders are able to live healthy, productive lives.
Priority Area for Action:
Families are living with manageable levels of debt
Debt problems (over-indebtedness) in the Tasman District are difficult to quantify.
However, recent studies along with local data and anecdotal reports, provide an indication
as to whether debt-related problems are sufficiently significant to impact on the health and
wellbeing of a considerable number of families and individuals.
Debt is a multi-faceted subject that includes borrowing money for mortgages. For this profile, however, the focus is on gaining a
better understanding about over-indebtedness for families and individuals in Tasman, crisis debt and financial exclusion, and the
relationship to disposable income.
Budget Advice Service Nelson, which provides services to residents of both Nelson and Tasman, has seen an increasing number
of clients in recent years. In 2001-2003, the service saw 347 clients; in 2005-2006, it saw 440 clients.



 TYPE AND AMOUNT OF DEBT, 1 JULY
 2006 TO 1 JUNE 2007

 Description of Debt                      Amount

 Credit Cards                           $808,604.00
 Bank Loans                             $596,950.00
 Overdrafts                              $15,900.00
 Hire Purchase                          $553,980.00
 Personal Loans                         $731,800.00
 Collection Agency                      $486,694.00
 Student Loans                          $249,400.00
 Store Cards                             $13,660.00
 Other                                   $45,000.00
 Family                                  $16,200.00
 Court                                   $85,800.00
 IRD                                     $77,200.00
 Work and Income                        $112,400.00
 Local Debt                              $89,725.00
 Total                                 $3,883,313.00
Source: Budget Advice Service Nelson

Budget Advice Service Nelson also reports an increasing number of bankruptcies by families and individuals.
Budget Advice Service in Takaka reports an increase in the number of clients, most of whom are struggling with food and power prices.
Budget Advice Service in Motueka gives a similar story.
Between 1 January 2006 and 30 April 2007, the Motueka and Richmond Work and Income service centres advanced almost
$971,000 to clients in need. Over that 16-month period, an average of around 220 advances were given each month, with the
highest number of around 290 made in May and June 2006. The average advance over the 16-month period was $280.
The largest amounts advanced by the Motueka and Richmond service centres were for: bonds and tenancy issues; dentures, glasses
and hearing aids; accommodation costs; and car repairs.
W HY O V ER - I ND E BT E DN E S S M AT T ER S



Research points to four broad impacts of debt: financial hardship; poor health (physical and mental); family stress, stigma and
social exclusion; and barriers to employment.
Over-indebtedness can also have negative impacts on (especially mental) health, and may possibly be linked to suicide. For some
it is a ’dark cloud‘ that blights their lives and can have a major impact on family relationships, although others seem to cope with
their situations far better. Being indebted can also lower the financial advantages of returning to work. In particular, it may be
acting as a barrier to sustainable employment.
Research also points out the harm from gambling, including:
    Harm to health: problem gamblers pose serious risks to their own health, through alcohol or drug abuse associated with their
     gambling, depression and even suicide.
    Crime: Problem gamblers frequently commit crimes to support their gambling habits. These crimes, ranging from theft to
     murder, harm other members of the community, and impose costs on the community in terms of police, prosecution and cor-
     rection.
    Social disruption: Excessive gambling leads to reduced social functioning at home, with dysfunctional behaviour affecting the
     behaviour of other family members at school, at work, and in the community generally.

SU M M AR Y



There is evidence to show that over-indebtedness, whether it comes from borrowing or gambling, has significant negative effects
on health and wellbeing of families. Apart from the social disruption, crime and stress, over-indebtedness can impact on a family’s
ability to provide for their children.
The level of over-indebtedness in Tasman District is not quantifiable. However, national statistics and information from local
budget advice services and Work and Income data demonstrate that this priority area, at the very least, warrants further
investigation and a co-ordinated approach to seeking solutions.

SU G G E ST ED Q U E ST I O N S FO R T H E CO M M UN IT Y R E SP O N S E P L AN NI NG PH A S E


1.   What are the key socio-economic conditions that are contributing to the increase in over-indebtedness in Tasman?
2.   What are the life circumstances of those residents who are over-indebted?
3.   What are the main pathways into and out of over-indebtedness?
4.   What are the long-term economic, social and psychological consequences for families?
5.   What programmes currently exist that are able to demonstrate effective debt reduction and reduced over-indebtedness both
     nationally and internationally?
6.   What sectors of the community are best placed to work with service providers to reduce the prevalence and incidence of
     over-indebtedness?
7.   What is the relationship between gambling and over-indebtedness?
8.   How can the prevalence and incidence of over-indebtedness in the district be better understood and measured?
The community response phase of the LSM process should also consider which partner agencies and services to engage in that
and the implementation phases.
Priority Area for Action:
Families have children who have attained educational
qualifications
Ministry of Education statistics show that the proportion of students leaving schools in
Tasman District without qualifications has generally been increasing over the last decade
or so. In 2006, 90 students (or 18% of district school leavers) left school with no
qualification.
In the early and mid-1990s, the proportion of Tasman District students leaving school with no formal qualifications was
considerably lower than the national average. However, it overtook the national average in 1998, and has remained there. From 2001,
the district’s proportion has exceeded the national average by a considerable margin.
While some students leaving school at age 16 and 17 have attained some qualifications, the proportion of Tasman District students
leaving school in 2006 with few or no qualifications is markedly higher than in neighbouring Nelson region (18% versus 8%).
The Able Tasman Educational Trust (ATET), a registered training organisation based in Riwaka that provides services to young
people who have left school before gaining qualifications, reports that some people as young as 13 have left school following a
suspension and have not returned. Others left school at 15 with an exemption because they were able to gain further training. In
some cases this training was not sustainable, but they have not returned to school.
ATET has identified some common descriptors of young people who leave school without formal qualifications:
   They more likely came to the district from other parts of New Zealand in recent years and have limited social networks.
   They come from families who have sought employment in the district undertaking seasonal work in the agricultural sector.
   They have been excluded from or left school for behavioural reasons.
   They come from single parent families who are receiving low incomes and have difficulty accessing affordable housing.
   They often appear to have high levels of stress.
Ministry of Education statistics for 2005 indicate percentages of all Tasman District school leavers with little or no attainment:
female (25.2%); male (21.6%); Maori (25.5 %); and European (22.9%).

W HY AC HI E V ING AT SC H O O L M AT T ER S



Research indicates that people with no qualifications have much higher unemployment rates that those with qualifications. In New
Zealand in 2004 (average over first three-quarters of the year), people with no qualifications had an unemployment rate that was
more than 60% higher than those whose highest qualification was a sixth form school qualification or above.
Educational qualifications are also linked to labour force status and incomes. For example, wage and salary earners with a
bachelor degree or higher earn 80% more per hour on average than those with no qualification across developed countries.
Average earnings are 29% higher for those with a tertiary education compared to those with only an upper secondary education.
In addition to lower incomes and workforce status, young people who leave school without qualifications may find themselves
unemployed and inactive. Young people living in these circumstances are exposed to a range of vulnerabilities, particularly if this
is for an extended period of time.
The consequences of unemployment and inactivity include:
   fewer employment opportunities
   lower earnings
   greater reliance on social assistance
   higher involvement in crime
   early pregnancy
   poorer mental health
   alcohol and drug abuse
   greater suicide risk
   greater risk of homelessness
   intergenerational inactivity.
Children and young people in the district contribute a larger proportion of the district’s apprehensions than average. In 2006, they
accounted for three apprehensions in every 10 – one-and-a-half times the national proportion. Children under the age of 14 made
up 7% of apprehensions (4% nationally), and those aged 14-16 accounted for 22% (15% nationally).
In 2006, most apprehensions in the district of those under the age of 17 related to dishonesty offences (41%) or property damage
(20%).

SU M M AR Y



Educational attainment is an indicator of a range of interrelated social factors that contribute to young people failing to attain
educational qualifications. Solutions around this priority area probably need to be focused on the social conditions that lead to low
educational attainment as well as working intensively with those young people who have left the education environment.
At this stage, a co-ordinated strategy for working at the early intervention and prevention part of the education participation
continuum has not been developed to the point where there is a significant decline in this adverse trend.
However, a number of initiatives are underway to address this result goal:
1. A cross-sector steering group comprising the Tasman District and Nelson City councils, Work and Income, and many other
   government agencies was established to develop the ‘Connections’ programme. This is designed to be part of the umbrella
   organisation, Mayors Taskforce for Jobs.
    The Connections strategy aims to ensure that all young people are in employment, or undertaking training or activities which
    contribute to their wellbeing. Connections works to ensure that young school leavers are being tracked and referred to support
    agencies where appropriate.
    The Connections strategy focuses on:
   developing an integrated, accessible and collaborative set of services for young people
   establishing a mechanism to co-ordinate assessment of and response for young people
   improving central and local government funding arrangements with providers that deliver a range of services for youth in
    Nelson and Tasman.
    All secondary schools in the district are now referring school leavers to Connections. This provides a protective factor for
    young people and their families, and will contribute to better knowledge about what happens for young people as the next
    phases of the LSM process are undertaken.
2. Work and Income has initiated programmes to link youth with education and training opportunities. Partnerships with training
   institutions and contracted youth transition services are assisting youth successfully to link to training and employment
   opportunities.
3. School-linked services include Job Track at Waimea College in Richmond, Youth Link at ATET in Motueka, and a Youth
   Transition Worker based at the Work Centre Trust in Golden Bay. When tertiary education is not an option, these services help
   school leavers learn the stepping stones from the school classroom to the work environment.
4. Work and Income’s Working for Families programme supports low to middle-income families. Support includes
   accommodation and childcare subsidies.
5. Child, Youth and Family and the Ministry of Justice have established a Youth Offending Strategy to prevent and reduce
   offending and re-offending by children and young people. The strategy guides government on where to focus its efforts in
   youth justice policy, and it helps co-ordinate the local delivery of youth justice services. Locally, the formation of the Youth
     Offending Teams – involving Child, Youth and Family, New Zealand Police, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Education –
     is an example of this strategy in action.

SU G G E ST ED Q U E ST I O N S FO R T H E CO M M UN IT Y R E SP O N S E P L AN NI NG PH A S E


1.   What are the social, economic and psychological barriers to effective learning that results in youth ‘dropping out’?
2.   What are the life expectations of youth who ‘drop out’ and who are still engaged in the education system?
3.   What is the nature and extent of existing service delivery efforts that seek to reconnect youth in the education system?
4.   What programmes, both nationally and internationally, have proved to be effective in both engaging and recovering youth in
     the education system?
5.   How can the community and the education system work more effectively together to improve student retention and academic
     success?
6.   What assets and resources exist in the district to improve student retention and academic success? What other assets and re-
     sources are required?
The community response phase of the LSM process should also consider which partner agencies and services to engage in that
and the implementation phases.
Priority Area for Action:
Families have achieved economic sufficiency
The main measure of low income is a household income that is 60% or less of the median
household income.5 Across New Zealand, the median household income at the time of the
2006 census was $51,400 gross per year. That equates to a gross weekly income of
around $988. Therefore, households assessed as ‘low-income’ would be receiving a
maximum of $593 per week before tax.
In Tasman District, the percentage of low-income households in 2006 was 20.3%, down from 24% in 2001.                            5




The Ministry of Social Development’s 2005 Social Report states: “family units most likely to be living with low incomes are
families who rely on income-tested benefits, sole-parent families, families with at least one adult belonging to an ethnic group other
than European, families in rented dwellings and families with three or more dependent children.”
The Social Report uses equalised disposable income measures to show that while middle and high-income earners nationally have
attained higher income levels over recent years, the bottom 20% of the population have not.
Insufficient economic resources limit the ability of poorer households and families in New Zealand to participate and have a sense
of belonging to their community and wider society. It also restricts their quality of life.
Furthermore, research indicates that low family income in childhood, if it is long-lasting, is associated with negative outcomes,
such as lower educational attainment and poor health.

W HY LOW INCO M E S M AT T ER



There is a well-established relationship between health and wellbeing and levels of income. Numerous studies show that low
income leads to poor health and that poor health leads to low incomes.
For Tasman District families living on less than $15,000-$20,000 per year, securing the basic items for living can be very
challenging, particularly if they are: unemployed or under-employed; Maori; renting; have unmanageable debt; have children;
and/or are a single parent.

SU M M AR Y



Tasman District families on low incomes face considerable challenges, particularly if they are raising young children. Children are
the most vulnerable people in the community, and they face the highest level of disadvantage, both in the present and in the future,
if they come from a low-income family. The disadvantage experienced by young children also has consequences for society well
into the future.
There is sufficient evidence to show that some families in Tasman District lack necessary resources and assets. Some families,
particularly sole parents who are beneficiaries, are more ‘at risk’ than others, as housing and transport costs are relatively high in
some areas. This affects their ability to participate in the community and provide their children with the necessary prerequisites for
a healthy and fulfilling life.
Solutions around improving incomes for low-income families require a co-ordinated approach at the national, local and
neighbourhood/community, and individual levels.



5   Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income
    below that amount.
This is a complex issue which, even if there is an intensive effort, will probably take a considerable amount of time before
indictors are clearly able to demonstrate that economic sufficiency has been achieved for a much greater percentage of the
district’s population.

SU G G E ST ED Q U E ST I O N S FO R T H E CO M M UN I T Y R E SP O N S E P L AN NI NG PH A S E


1.   What are the life circumstances of residents who live on low incomes?
2.   What are the short and long-term consequences for children who come from low-income families?
3.   What is the spread of incomes of the residents of Tasman?
4.   Where do low-income families live in Tasman?
5.   What is the relationship between low income and families living transient life styles?
6.   What is the family status of low-income families?
7.   What services and programmes currently exist locally and nationally that can play a part in raising income levels?
8.   What instruments might be effective and efficient in helping low-paid workers improve not only their take home pay, but also
     their access to non-wage benefits and opportunities to enhance their skill levels?
9.   What programmes currently exist both nationally and internationally that have proven effective in raising incomes at the local
     level?
10. What is the take-up and impact of the Working for Families package?

The community response phase of the LSM process should also consider which partner agencies and services to engage in that
and the implementation phases.
Priority Area for Action:
Families are living in violence-free households
Family violence encompasses a broad range of controlling behaviours, commonly of a
physical, sexual and/or psychological nature that typically involve fear, intimidation and
emotional deprivation.
Family violence includes child abuse, elder abuse, parental abuse, sibling abuse and intimate partner abuse. Neglect is also a form of
abuse.
The New Zealand Family Violence Clearing House (www.nzfvc.org.nz) provides the following summary of the impacts of family
violence:
   Family violence is physically, emotionally, mentally and socially damaging.
   Being a victim of family violence is associated with increased physical and mental health problems, and increased use of
    healthcare services.
   Children are harmed by seeing, hearing, or living with violence at home.
   The physical punishment of children is associated with long-term negative effects for children.
   Family violence occurs irrespective of age, social status, or ethnic group, and affects a significant number of people in the
    community.
   The consequences of abuse can be especially serious for older people as they are physically weaker and more vulnerable than
    younger adults.
   Family violence impacts on, and increases costs for, the business and corporate sector through absenteeism, loss of productivi-
    ty, and staff turnover.

FA MI L Y V IO L EN C E



New Zealand Police now provides statistics on the number of recorded offences that involve some degree of family violence, 6 as
determined by the attending officer. From 2002 to 2006, the Motueka, Murchison, Richmond, Takaka and Wakefield police
stations together recorded around 960 family violence offences, an average of 192 per year.
From 2002 to 2006, family violence offences recorded within Tasman police station boundaries totalled around 960, an average of
192 per year. The number increased during the five-year period, from just under 100 family violence offences recorded in 2002 to
around 230 in 2004 and 250 in 2006.
It should be noted that this increase may not reflect just a rise in incidence but may, to some extent, reflect an increasing
propensity by police to classify and record an offence as family violence.
As was the case across the country, serious assaults were the most common form of family violence recorded in the district from
2002 to 2006 (32% versus 30% nationally).
Over the five years, minor assaults were the second most commonly recorded family violence offence (15% versus 12%
nationally). Breaches of the Domestic Violence Act 1995 accounted for 14% both locally and nationally, followed by destruction
of property (9% versus 10% nationally), and intimidation and threats (8% versus 9% nationally).
Despite the increase in the number of family violence offences recorded in Tasman District from 2002 to 2006, the recorded
offence rate was below the national rate in each of those years. Most recently, in 2006, the district’s rate was 5 family violence
offences recorded per 1,000 population (8 per 1,000 nationally).


6   The term ‘family violence’ includes violence that is physical, emotional or psychological, plus sexual abuse, and it includes intimidation or threats of violence.
    The term ‘family’ includes such people as parents, children, extended family members and whänau, or any other people involved in relationships.This
    definition applies irrespective of the type of offence that occurred.
Source: New Zealand Police


According to the Ministry of Justice, the number of protection orders granted and the number of court-ordered referrals to
domestic violence programmes in the Nelson/Tasman area have increased in recent years.

PR O T ECT IO N O RD E R S G R A NT ED



                     2004-2005   2005-2006   2006-May
                                               2007


 Nelson                  45         56          54
 /Tasman




CO U RT - O RD E R ED R E FE RR A L S T O DO ME S T IC VIO L EN C E P R O G RA M M E S



                                             2006-June
                     2004-2005   2005-2006
                                               2007



 Nelson                  73         81          92
 /Tasman


Source: Ministry of Justice
SU M M AR Y



Research findings at a national level, along with local data, are unable to provide a quantifiable picture about the prevalence of
family violence in Tasman. However, there are sufficient proxy indicators to show that families living with family violence are ‘at
risk’ of significant negative health and wellbeing outcomes. The social environment that many families live in contributes to this
risk and exposes family members to vulnerabilities.
Central government’s Te Rito Family Violence Prevention Strategy provides a broad plan of action for addressing family
violence. In addition, a number of initiatives in the district are focused at the crisis end of the family violence continuum. These
initiatives involve Child, Youth and Family, New Zealand Police, Ministry of Justice, the courts, women’s refuges, and stopping
violence services.
Until recently, there has been a limited co-ordinated response in the area of family violence. This has led to the re-launch of the
Family Violence Network in Tasman District. The network now includes a broader range of agencies that are not necessarily
working specifically in family violence services, but are working with families who are affected by family violence (eg social
service agencies).
This broader approach to looking at family violence will ensure that the focus will shift to a preventative one, while retaining a
strong emphasis on the crisis intervention work and collaboration.
In response to the Te Rito strategy, central government has become more involved in addressing family violence. New Zealand
Police has established dedicated family violence co-ordinators, as have district health boards; and the Ministry of Social
Development has placed family violence response co-ordinators in Work and Income sites, providing case managers with training
and support to identify and work with families where violence has been identified.
Government bodies are now working with the non-government sector and community services to collaborate and share expertise
between the sectors.

SU G G E ST ED Q U E ST I O N S FO R T H E CO M M UN IT Y R E SP O N S E P L AN NI NG PH A S E


1.   How can the prevalence and incidence of family violence in Tasman District be better understood so that surveillance systems
     can be developed to measure increases and decreases?
2.   What are the pathways in and out of family violence?
3.   What are the institutional, community and societal factors that influence family violence?
4.   What are the social costs of family violence?
5.   What national and international preventive programmes exist that demonstrate effective prevention?
6.   What sectors of the district’s community are best placed to contribute to preventative solutions?
7.   How can resources, local policy and public discourse be better focused on early intervention and prevention?
The community response phase of the LSM process should also consider which partner agencies and services to engage in that
and the implementation phases.
Priority Area for Action:
Sole-parent families are participating economically and socially
within their communities
Sole parents and their children are a group that faces a range of risks, including low
incomes, sub-standard housing, fewer educational opportunities and social isolation.
The 2006 census showed that one-parent families numbered 1,650 in Tasman, 13% of all families in the district. That number had
grown around 4% between 2001 and 2006, a considerably smaller growth rate than for other family types.
One of the clear vulnerabilities of being a sole parent is living on a low income. The Working for Families package will increase one-
parent incomes, if those parents are able to work at least 20 hours per week. However, at the time of writing this profile, insufficient data
and information are available to identify what impact Working for Families will have on one-parent incomes.

SU M M AR Y



Some sole parents face significant challenges in terms of raising children, achieving economic sufficiency, accessing services and
connecting to their communities. Young sole parents are a particularly vulnerable group, as they often deal with the stressful
realities of parenting young children while struggling financially, sometimes in isolation.
Children from one-parent households can face increased levels of disadvantage during their developmental years. If this affects
their health and education, the consequences for these children may be felt into adulthood.
As with the other priority areas in this report, solutions that improve the health and wellbeing for this group require a long term
co-ordinated approach.

SU G G E ST ED Q U E ST I O N S FO R T H E CO M M UN IT Y R E SP O N S E P L AN NI NG PH A S E


1.   How many one-parent families live in the district?
2.   What are to socio-economic and demographic characteristics that distinguish one-parent families?
3.   How can the incidence of teen pregnancies be reduced?
4.   Are there consequences of single parenting that are specific to teen mothers and their families?
5.   What are the characteristics of programmes that are considered effective in supporting one-parent families educationally,
     economically and socially?
6.   What are the extra challenges faced by young sole parents and how can these be addressed?
The community response phase of the LSM process should also consider which partner agencies and services to engage in that
and the implementation phases.
Appendix 1:
Background to Tasman District Local Services Mapping

The Tasman District Community Profile is the first phase of Local Services Mapping (LSM), a community-owned, cross-sectoral
process focused on improving the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of service delivery to families in communities.
The second phase of the LSM process will be the production of a community response plan, which will help provider and funder
organisations in Tasman District improve, both separately and collectively, the quality and effectiveness of services for families.
The community response planning builds on the priorities that are identified in this community profile.
The third phase of the LSM process will see the community response plan put into operation.
LSM was born out of a commitment by central government to build viable partnerships with local communities, non-government
and volunteer organisations, and iwi/Maori.
With a strong focus on community outcomes, LSM has become a vehicle for this partnership to flourish. LSM is a collaborative
process, one that is ‘owned’ by local communities and facilitated by the Ministry of Social Development’s Family and
Community Services.
The purpose of LSM is to improve the development, planning, delivery and funding of social services to families in communities.
In ‘mapping’ services available in communities, building strong links between these services and between community and
government, the LSM process strengthens the entire framework of each community, and lays a solid foundation for the future
health and social wellbeing of the country as a whole.

BENEFITS OF LSM


The following outcomes are being realised by communities that have engaged in the LSM process:
   Communities, services and agencies provide coherent, integrated family-centred responses to families’ needs.
   Communities build strong relationships within themselves and can help connect families to supportive networks and services.
   Communities understand their social issues and patterns of disparities of family outcomes, and they have the knowledge and
    tools to develop effective local responses.
   Local services and agencies operate in a collaborative environment that fosters a network of strong, well-coordinated and re-
    sponsive services.
   Local communities, services and agencies learn from each other’s experience.
LSM PROCESS STEPS IN T ASM AN DISTRICT

The process steps that Tasman District has undertaken to develop this community profile included:
1. Engagement with key stakeholders.
2. Collection of data and information.
3. Collation and preliminary analysis.
4. Identification of circumstances or situations of ‘risk’.
5. A stocktake of local services that support families.
6. Identification of ideas for community response planning that will improve service delivery.
Information that identifies service delivery priority areas was gathered from a variety of sources, including:
   A service provider questionnaire was sent in June 2005 to service providers in Tasman District that were listed on the Family
    and Community Services National Directory website (www.familyservices.govt.nz/directory); 35 questionnaires were re-
    turned.
   Statistics from a range of government agencies (including 2006 census data) were gathered to inform the Statistical Overview
    of Tasman District (see Appendix 2). The statistics were analysed for indicators that informed discussion on possible areas of
    risk.
   Semi-structured interviews were then held with a range of government and non-government organisations. These conversa-
    tions focused on what life was like for families in the district.
   Existing research and reports were collected to provide a range of sources to validate the areas of focus.
From this information, five areas of focus were identified and evidence was sought to test whether those issues were the prevalent
areas of risk.
Copies of the draft profile were sent to key contributors for consultation, and their feedback is incorporated into this final profile.

EXISTING T ASM AN DIST RICT RE PORTS

Tasman District has a number of reports that provide useful clusters of statistical indicators and information about current service
delivery needs and community aspirations. This information identifies a range of health and wellbeing aspects of the district’s
population. Relevant information about the priority areas of focus has been integrated into this community profile.
These reports are:
   An Assessment of Health Needs in the Nelson Marlborough District Health Board Region (Marlborough District Health Board,
    October 2001).
   The Health Status of Children and Young People in Nelson Marlborough (Nelson Marlborough District Health Board, No-
    vember 2005).
   Golden Bay Social Report (Golden Bay Workcentre Trust, September 2005).
   Golden Bay in 2022 (Golden Bay Workcentre Trust, 2002).
   Tasman Youth. A Profile of Their Health and Wellbeing (University of Auckland Adolescent Health Research Group, June
    2003).
   Social Report Regional Indicators (Ministry of Social Development, November 2005).
   Tasman Youth: A Profile of Their Health and Wellbeing (Tasman District Council, September 2005).
   Young Parents Needs in the Motueka Area (Berhardt J, Pitman-Burnett, A, Freer, N, Motueka Family Service Centre, Decem-
    ber 2005).
Appendix 2:
Statistical Overview of Tasman District
GENERAL

Tasman District is situated in the northwest corner of the South Island. With its northerly border consisting of coastline, the
district has four territorial authority neighbours: Nelson City and Marlborough District to the east, Hurunui District to the south,
and Buller District to the west.

POPULATION


At the time of the 2006 census, Tasman District was home to 44,620 people. This was an 8% increase on the 2001 usually-
resident total, the same growth as nationally. It followed a 9% increase between 1996 and 2001. In 2006, females made up just
over 50% of the district’s population, outnumbering males by around 320.

 USUALLY-RESIDENT POPULATION OF TASMAN DISTRICT
 BY AREA UNIT, 1996, 2001 AND 2006


 Area Unit                            1996                  2001                  2006

 Richmond West                        4,785                 5,523                  5,985

 Richmond East                        4,107                 5,052                  5,727

 Wai-Iti                              4,206                 4,365                  4,887

 Motueka Outer                        3,543                 3,579                  3,813

 Motueka East                         3,279                 3,453                  3,708

 Golden Bay                           3,474                 3,603                  3,678

 Motueka West                         3,315                 3,429                  3,414

 Mapua                                1,269                 1,617                  1,878

 Wakefield                            1,419                 1,497                  1,875

 Brightwater                          1,239                 1,425                  1,791

 Hope                                 1,062                 1,113                  1,191

 Takaka                               1,224                 1,188                  1,152

 Golden Downs                           738                   885                   912

 Riwaka                                 858                   876                   849

 Kaiteriteri                            609                   870                   735

 Ranzau                                 678                   696                   729

 Aniseed Hill                           357                   435                   624

 Lake Rotoroa                           582                   621                   603

 Murchison                              585                   555                   501

 Tapawera                               408                   384                   405

 Best Island                            117                    87                     87

 Richmond Hill                           75                    69                     57

 Rabbit Island                            9                    12                      6

 Waimea Inlet West                       12                     6                      6

 Jackett Island                          18                    12                      3
    Total                                     37,971                     41,352                 44,625

Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006

In 2006, Richmond West maintained its status as the district’s most populous area unit, however, the largest growth between the 2001
and 2006 censuses occurred in other areas. Richmond East grew by almost 680 people and Wai-Iti added around 520. Other areas to
record increases of 200 or more included Richmond West (460), Wakefield (380), Brightwater (370), Mapua and Motueka East (260
each), and Motueka Outer (230). Aniseed Hill had the largest percentage increase in population (43%), with Brightwater and
Wakefield increasing by 26% and 25% respectively.
Statistics New Zealand projects that Tasman District’s population will climb to 52,500 by 2016, and to 55,100 by 2026. 7

AG E G RO U P S



The age distribution of Tasman’s population differs from the country as a whole, with young adults under-represented in the
district and older people over-represented. At the 2006 census, children under age 15 made up 22% of the district’s residents – the
same proportion as nationally.
People aged 15-29 accounted for just 15% of the population (20% nationally). Those aged 30-44 accounted for 22%, the same as
nationally.
The 2006 census recorded around 9,610 children under the age of 15 living in Tasman District:
1. 2,900 children under age 5
2. 3,210 aged 5-9
3. 3,500 aged 10-14.




Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006

The districts Maori population has a young age profile, with 37% aged 0-14 and 17% aged 15-24. Only 3% was aged 65 and over
(14% of the non-maori population).




Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006


7
      These population projections assume medium rates of fertility, mortality and migration.
ET HN IC D I V ER SIT Y



Tasman District is less ethnically diverse than the country as a whole. At the 2006 census, 83% of the district’s population
identified as ‘European’ (68% nationally). In addition, almost 15% of the district’s residents specified ‘New Zealander’ as their
ethnic group (11% nationally).
Maori were under-represented in Tasman, with just 7% of residents identifying as Maori (15% nationally). Other ethnic groups
were also substantially under-represented – just over 1% of the district’s population specified an Asian ethnic group as their
ethnicity (9% nationally), and less than 1% identified with a Pacific ethnic group (7% nationally). Other smaller ethnic groups
were practically non-existent in Tasman (1% nationally). 8

O V E RS E A S BO R N



In 2006, 16% of Tasman residents were born overseas (23% nationally). As might be expected from the ethnic make-up of the
population, the Pacific Islands and Asia were the most under-represented overseas birthplaces, at less than 0.5% (almost 4%
nationally) and 1% (almost 7% nationally) respectively. New Zealand’s most common overseas birthplace – the UK and Ireland –
accounted for 8% of Tasman residents (7% nationally).

S EX



At the 2006 census, Tasman males outnumbered females in all age groups between 5 and 24 years. However, the reverse was true
in most age groups from age 25 on. The gap was largest among the over-80s (390 more women than men), but large differences
were also evident among those 30-44. Women in their 30s outnumbered their male counterparts by around 320, and women in
their early 40s exceeded men of the same age by around 140.

FA MI L I ES



In 2006, Tasman District was home to 12,580 families. 9 Unlike the country as a whole, the most numerous family type was
couples without children. Numbering almost 5,680, they made up 45% of the district’s families (40% nationally). Couples with
children numbered 5,250 – 42% of all families in the district, the same proportion as nationally.
One-parent families are under-represented in Tasman. At the time of the 2006 census, the district had 1,650 families consisting of
one parent and children – 13% of all families in the district (18% nationally).
Statistics New Zealand projects the number of couples without children will increase to 7,200 by 2011; and by 2021, childless
couples are projected to number 8,900 – an estimated 58% of the district’s families. Two-parent families are projected to number
4,900 in 2011, and then fall to 4,300 by 2021. One-parent families are likely to number 2,000 by 2011, and then increase only
slightly to 2,100 by 2021.




8
    Percentages total more than 100 because an individual can identify with more than one ethnic group and all are counted.
9
    In the census, a family is defined by the presence, in one household, of a ‘family nucleus’ (a couple, or parent(s) and child(ren)). Child dependency is not a
    component of the definition. This means that a 90-year-old woman living with her 60-year-old daughter, who does not have children of her own in the same
    household, would be classified as ‘one parent with children’.
Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006


HO U S E HO L D CO M PO SIT IO N



In 2006, there were 16,800 households in Tasman District. Of this number, one-family households, with or without other people,
accounted for 73% (69% nationally); one-person households were 23% (same as nationally); other multi-person households, the
majority of which would be flats containing unrelated people, made up 3% of households (5% nationally); and two-family
households accounted for 2% (3% nationally).


ECONOMIC SITUATION


SO CIO - E CO N O M IC D E PR I V AT IO N



The NZDep2006 index of deprivation10 shows that Tasman District is less socio-economically deprived than New Zealand as a
whole. The scale of deprivation from 1 to 10 divides New Zealand into tenths. This means that an area with a value of 10 is in the
most deprived 10% of areas in the country.
Although the process of averaging can mask some substantial variation in deprivation among small areas, it can be useful to look
at average deprivation statistics for census area units.
In 2006, 14 of Tasman District’s 21 occupied area units had average deprivation scores between 1 and 5, indicating they were in
the 50% least deprived areas of New Zealand. Two area units – Aniseed Hill and Richmond Hill – had average deprivation scores
of 1, identifying them as being among the 10% least deprived areas in the country. Brightwater and Wai-Iti were ranked as decile
2, and Hope, Ranzau, Wakefield and Mapua were in decile 3. The most deprived area unit in the district was Tapawera (decile 9),
followed by Motueka West (decile 8).




10
     The NZDep2006 index of deprivation was created from data from the 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings. The index describes the deprivation
     experienced by groups of people in small areas. Nine deprivation variables were used in the construction of the index, reflecting eight dimensions of
     deprivation. The variables used were the proportions of people: aged 18-64 receiving a means-tested benefit; living in households with income below an
     income threshold (adjusted for household size); not living in own home; aged less than 65 living in a single-parent family; aged 18-64 unemployed; aged 18-
     64 without any qualifications; living in households below a bedroom occupancy threshold (adjusted for household size); with no access to a telephone; and
     with no access to a car.
Source: NZDep2006 Index of Deprivation


P ER SO N A L IN CO M E



At the 2006 census, Tasman District adults had a lower median11 personal income than the country as a whole ($21,600 versus
$24,400). This resulted from a higher-than-average proportion of the district’s adults having personal incomes of $30,000 or less.
The proportion of people in the lowest income band of $10,000 or less was similar to the national figure (21%). However, in
income bands up to $30,000, adults in the district were over-represented – just 26% had incomes between $10,001 and $20,000
(22% nationally), and almost 18% had incomes between $20,001 and $30,000 (15% nationally).
The proportion of adults with incomes between $30,001 and $40,000 was the same as nationally (14%); however, slightly smaller-
than-average proportions of adults in the district were in each income band above $40,000. In total, 21% of the district’s adults
received more than $40,000 in personal income (27% nationally).




Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006


HO U S E HO L D IN CO M E



In 2006, Tasman District households had a median income of $43,000, considerably less than the national median of $51,400.
This resulted from the district having a different distribution of household incomes from nationally. Larger-than-average
proportions of Tasman households received incomes of $70,000 or under, and correspondingly smaller proportions received

11    Median income is the amount which divides the income distribution into two equal groups, half having income above that amount, and half having income
     below that amount.
incomes above that sum.
The lowest household incomes of $20,000 and under were reported by 18% of the district’s households in 2006 (16% nationally);
another 16% received incomes between $20,001 and $30,000 (13% nationally); and 23% reported incomes between $30,001 and
$50,000 (20% nationally). The district’s households were also over-represented in the next income band, with 18% receiving
between $50,001 and $70,000 (16% nationally). Tasman District households were under-represented in higher income bands, with
the largest differences occurring at the top end of the income scale. Around 14% reported incomes between $70,001 and $100,000
(16% nationally), while just 11% received more than $100,000 (19% nationally).




Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006


IN CO M E SU P PO RT



People aged 65 and over
At the end of August 2007, 6,040 Tasman District residents 12 aged 65 and over were in receipt of New Zealand Superannuation. 13
This number was around 280 higher than in August 2006 and around 590 higher than in 2005. Of those New Zealand
Superannuitants in 2007, around 1,640 were also receiving a Disability Allowance and around 230 were receiving an
Accommodation Supplement.

People aged 20 to 64
At the end of August 2007, around 3,240 district residents aged 20-64 were receiving some form of income support. The largest
client groups were:
    Invalid’s Beneficiaries – 825 recipients, an increase of around 50 from August 2006. This growth over the 12-month period
     pushed the Invalid’s Benefit from second place to the most commonly received benefit in the district.
    Domestic Purposes Benefit (DPB) Sole Parent14 recipients – almost 770, a drop of just over 40 from 2006, when they had been the
     district’s largest group of beneficiaries.
    Non-Beneficiaries15 – around 680, growth of almost 200 over the preceding two years. Some of this increase is likely due to
     the expansion of eligibility for supplementary benefits arising from the Working for Families package. However, the district’s
     population growth also likely played a part.



12
     The statistics included in this section have been produced by the geocoding of Ministry of Social Development client addresses. The figures represent all
     clients who lived within Tasman District boundaries at the end of August 2005, 2006 or 2007. This method of assigning a geographic location to a client based
     on their address is different from the method used to produce figures for many of the other LSM reports. These earlier reports relied on identifying service
     centres within territorial authority boundaries and assigning a geographic location to clients with claims managed in those relevant service centres.
13
     New Zealand Superannuation is not income tested for recipients aged 65 and over. Supplementary benefits (eg Accommodation Supplement, Disability
     Allowance) are, however, subject to an income test, so their receipt indicates clients with low incomes.
14
     Includes DPB Sole Parent and Emergency Maintenance Allowance.
15
     Non-Beneficiaries are low-income people who are not receiving a main benefit or pension from Work and Income, but who do receive a Work and Income
     supplementary benefit (eg an Accommodation Supplement, a Childcare Subsidy).
    Sickness Beneficiaries16 – almost 440, the same number as in 2006 but an increase of almost 60 on the August 2005 number.
    New Zealand Superannuitants17 – around 220, just over 50 fewer than two years earlier.
    Unemployment Benefit18 recipients – around 110, a 73% fall on the number in 2005, reflecting the drop in unemployment
     across New Zealand.
At the end of August 2007, Tasman District income support recipients aged 20-64 were responsible for around 2,600 children, of
whom almost 1,280 were in the families of DPB Sole Parent19 recipients. Of those DPB recipients with children:
    36% had youngest children under age 5
    34% had youngest children aged 5-9
    16% had youngest children aged 10-13
    14% had youngest children aged 14 and over.




Source: Ministry of Social Development


People under age 20
At the end of August 2007, 115 Tasman District teenagers were receiving some form of income support, including supplementary
benefits. This was 20 fewer than one year earlier and 10 fewer than in 2005. In 2007, the Invalid’s Benefit was the most common
form of income support among this age group, with 35 teenagers being Invalid’s Beneficiaries – a slight increase on both the
previous two years. Another 26 Tasman teenagers were receiving the DPB Sole Parent, 20 a similar number to 2006. There were 19
Non-Beneficiaries, 14 Sickness Beneficiaries21 and 12 Independent Youth Beneficiaries. In total, Tasman District’s teenage
income support recipients had 40 children in August 2007, of whom 28 lived in the families of DPB Sole Parent recipients.

ED UC AT IO N AL Q UA L I FIC AT IO NS



The distribution of educational qualifications across the district’s population differs slightly from the national picture. In 2006,
27% of district residents aged 15 or over had no formal educational qualification (25% nationally); and 34% had school
qualifications as their highest educational attainment (35% nationally). While a slightly higher proportion than nationally had
post-school certificates or diplomas as their highest qualification (28% versus 24% nationally), smaller proportions than nationally
had degrees or higher qualifications. Just under 8% of adults had a bachelor’s degree or other level 7 qualification (11%
nationally), and 3% had post-graduate qualifications (almost 5% nationally).

16
     Includes Sickness Benefit and Sickness Benefit Hardship.
17
     Individuals under the age of 65 whose spouse qualifies for New Zealand Superannuation by meeting the age and residency criteria may be eligible to receive
     New Zealand Superannuation as a ‘non-qualified spouse’.
18
     Includes Unemployment Benefit and Unemployment Benefit Hardship.
19
     Includes DPB Sole Parent and Emergency Maintenance Allowance.
20
     Includes DPB Sole Parent and Emergency Maintenance Allowance.
21
     Includes Sickness Benefit and Sickness Benefit Hardship.
Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006


E M PLO YM E NT



At the time of the 2006 census, around 23,310 district residents were employed. This was 68% of the population aged 15 and over
(65% nationally). Approximately 74% of employed residents worked full time (77% nationally).
The 2006 census recorded just 2.5% of the district’s labour force as unemployed – half the 5.1% national proportion at the time. In
March 2006, this equated to 590 unemployed people in the district.
Tasman District young adults had a higher employment rate than their counterparts across the country. This was particularly true of those
aged 15-19, 62% of whom were employed at the time of the 2006 census. Approximately 31% were working full time (21% nationally),
and 31% were working part time (26% nationally). A little over 5% of people in that age group were unemployed (10% nationally).
Among those aged 20-24 in the district, 82% were employed at the time of the last census, including 71% working full time (53%
nationally) and a smaller-than-average 10% employed part time (16% nationally). Just 3% were unemployed (7% nationally).

O CC U P AT IO N



At the 2006 census, labourers was the largest occupation group among the district’s population, accounting for 21% of the
workforce (12% nationally). Managers made up 20% of the district’s employed (18% nationally); professionals 14% (20%
nationally); technicians and trades workers 13%, both locally and nationally; clerical and administrative workers 10% (13%
nationally); sales workers 8% (10% nationally); and community and personal service workers 8%, the same proportion as
nationally. The smallest occupation group, machinery operators and drivers, accounted for 6%, both locally and nationally.
Like their older counterparts, Tasman District’s young workers are over-represented in unskilled and low-skilled occupations. In 2006,
labouring was the most common occupation for those aged 15-19 (38% versus 26% nationally) and those aged 20-24 (30% versus 14%
nationally). Those higher-than-average proportions meant that employment in almost all other occupations was less likely than nationally.
The largest difference occurred among those aged 20-24, who were half as likely as their counterparts around the country to work in
professional occupations (7% versus 14% nationally).
Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006


HOUSING


T ENU R E



In 2006, Tasman District households had a higher rate of home ownership than households across New Zealand. Around 63% of
the district’s households owned their dwelling (55% nationally), and another 13% held their homes in a family trust (12%
nationally). Approximately 24% of households did not own the dwelling in which they lived (33% nationally).




Source: Census of Population and Dwellings, 2006


ST AT E HO U SI NG



At the end of 2006, Housing New Zealand Corporation managed 162 dwellings in Tasman District. Motueka East contained half
of those properties, followed by Richmond North (21%), Motueka West (17%), and Richmond South (9%). Two-bedroom
dwellings were the most common type of property, making up 52% of state housing stock in the district. Three-bedroom
properties accounted for 40%.

RE NT S



Rents in the district are generally lower than nationally. The 2006 census recorded a average weekly rent in the district of $189
($225 nationally).
Tenancy Services data for the six months ending August 2007 shows the variation in rents around the district. Three-bedroom
houses are the most popular rental properties in Tasman. In Golden Bay/Motueka, they averaged $268 per week, while in
Richmond/Murchison the average was $309 ($308 nationally).

AC CO M MO D AT IO N S UP P L E M ENT



At the end of August 2007, around 2,440 Tasman District residents 22 were being paid an Accommodation Supplement – a slightly
smaller number than one year earlier but an increase of 145 on the number in 2005. In 2007 the largest groups in receipt of the
Accommodation Supplement were:
    Around 670 DPB Sole Parent23 recipients, a similar number to the previous two years.
    Around 610 Non-Beneficiaries, just over 80 more than in 2006 and around 170 more than in 2005. At least part of this increase
     is likely due to the expansion of eligibility criteria arising from the Working for Families package.
    440 Invalid’s Beneficiaries, an increase of 75 over the number two years earlier.
    Around 320 Sickness Beneficiaries,24 an increase of just over 50 since August 2005.
    Around 230 New Zealand Superannuitants – an increase of 25 since 2005.
In August 2007, just 4% of the Accommodation Supplement recipients in the district were under the age of 20, 87% were 20-64,
and 10% were 65 or over. The majority (61%) were in rented accommodation, 28% owned their own home, and 11% were
boarding.

HEALTH


BI RT H S



From 2001 to 2006, around 3,170 live births were registered to women living in Tasman District – an average of 527 per year. In
terms of maternal age, the district exhibits a different pattern of childbearing from the country as a whole.
Over the six years from 2001 to 2006, women under the age of 30 produced 44% of the babies registered in the district (49%
nationally). Age 30-34 was the most popular for women to give birth, both locally and nationally (34% of district newborns, 31%
nationally).
In each of the years from 2001 to 2006, teenagers accounted for a smaller-than-average proportion of live births registered to mothers
living in the district. Over the six-year period, just 4% of the district’s babies were born to teenage mothers (7% nationally). Not one
birth was registered in that time to a Tasman girl under the age of 15.




22
     The statistics included in this section have been produced by the geocoding of Ministry of Social Development client addresses. The figures represent all clients
     who lived within Tasman District boundaries at the end of August 2005, 2006 or 2007. This method of assigning a geographic location to a client based on their
     address is different from the method used to produce figures for many of the other LSM reports. These earlier reports relied on identifying service centres within
     territorial authority boundaries and assigning a geographic location to clients with claims managed in those relevant service centres.
23
     Includes DPB Sole Parent and Emergency Maintenance Allowance.
24
     Includes Sickness Benefit and Sickness Benefit Hardship.
Source: Statistics New Zealand


P LU N KET INF O R M AT I O N



The Royal New Zealand Plunket Society estimates that it provides Well Child services to around 92% of the country’s newborns.
In 2005, the society reported just over 420 ‘new baby’ cases in Tasman District (82% of the total live births registered in the
district that year). Just over 50 (12%) of the Plunket babies were Maori.
Plunket records showed that in 2005, fewer than five (1%) of the district’s newborns were living in a NZDep decile 10 area (the
10% most socio-economically deprived in the country). Only around 8% were living in decile 8 or 9 areas.
In 2005, Plunket made just under 300 referrals in Tasman District. The most common reasons for referral were parenting practice
(38%), social needs (11%), nutrition (10%), and vision (6%). Just over half (52%) of the referrals were to Community Karitane,
with another 9% to each of medical specialists and other health professionals, 8% within Plunket, and 7% to general practice
teams.

IM M UN IS AT IO N



Based on reports from parents, Plunket assessed that a lower-than-average proportion of children in its client families were fully
immunised in 2005 (73% versus 82% nationally).

CIG A R ET T E S MO K IN G



The 2006 census asked people aged 15 and over about their cigarette smoking habits. Tasman District residents were shown to be:
   less likely than average to be regular smokers (18% versus 21% nationally)
   more likely than other New Zealand adults to be ex-smokers (26% versus 22% nationally)
   slightly less likely to have never smoked (55% versus 57% nationally).
Those aged 15-19 were less likely to be smokers than their peers around the country (17% versus 19% nationally); however, those
aged 20-24 were more likely to smoke (35% versus 30% nationally).

RO AD AC CI DE NT S



Over the five years from 2002 to 2006, around 870 drivers were involved in road accidents in the district. As was the situation
across the country, young people were over-represented in this group – drivers aged 15-19 made up 17% of those involved in
accidents in the district and those aged 20-24 made up 12%.
Assuming the majority of drivers involved in crashes in the district are residents, young people are less likely than average to be
killed or injured in road crashes. Over the five-year period ending in 2006, the two age groups (15-19 and 20-24) accounted for
12% of the district’s driver fatalities (26% nationally) and 25% of seriously injured drivers (30% nationally). However, they made
up a larger proportion of the drivers with minor injuries (40% versus 32% nationally).

PU B L IC HO S P IT AL D I SC H AR G E S



In the financial year ending 30 June 2004, there were around 7,790 public hospital discharges of Tasman District residents. 25
Using Statistics New Zealand’s 2004 population estimates to calculate an approximate hospital discharge-to-people ratio, the
district’s population had a rate of hospitalisation considerably below the national average (170 discharges per 1,000 people versus
209 per 1,000 nationally).

M ENT A L H E A LT H



In 2004, around 1,010 district residents commenced mental health treatment within the public health system. Males made up 53%
of the total that year (51% nationally). Around 10% of the new clients in Tasman were Maori.
Two age groups made up higher-than-average proportions of new clients in the district. Children under the age of 15 accounted for
16% (10% nationally), while those aged 15-29 were closer to their national proportion (29% versus 28% nationally).
All other age groups accounted for smaller proportions of the new mental health clients in the district than nationally. The most
marked differences occurred among older people aged 75 and over (less than 1% of all new clients versus 5% nationally).
Mental health teams had around 1,200 Tasman District clients begin treatment during 2004. 26 The district’s use of mental health
teams differed from the national pattern, although the order of the four main teams was the same locally and nationally. The
district’s Community Team27 saw 35% of clients who began treatment (42% nationally); the Alcohol and Drug Team saw 31%
(14% nationally); the Child, Adolescent and Family Team28 saw 20% (12% nationally); and the In-patient Team saw 7%, the
same as nationally.




Source: New Zealand Health Information Service




25
     These statistics count all discharge events rather than individuals, so if a person was discharged from hospital several times during the reference year they will
     count more than once in the statistics.
26
     One person can be seen by more than one team so the number of clients seen by teams will be larger than the number of individual clients from a territorial
     authority.
27
     Community teams provide non-residential assessment and treatment services, including outpatient services.
28
     Child, adolescent and family teams provide assessment and treatment services to people aged 0-19 inclusive. Includes in-patient, residential or community-
     based child, adolescent and family teams.
DE AT H S



Statistics New Zealand estimates life expectancy in Tasman District to be slightly longer than average. A newborn boy can expect
to live 77.2 years (0.7 years longer than the national average), while a newborn girl can expect to live 82 years (0.6 years longer
than the national average).
During the period 1998 to 2004, the main causes of death for Tasman District residents were the same as those experienced across
the country: diseases of the circulatory system were the main cause, accounting for 43% of deaths in the district (41% nationally);
neoplasms (cancers) caused 30% of deaths (29% nationally); and diseases of the respiratory system caused 8% (9% nationally).

CRIME


RE CO RD E D CR IM IN A L O F F EN C E S



Tasman District is served by five police stations: Motueka, Murchison, Richmond, Takaka and Wakefield29. From 2002 to 2006, the
areas served by these stations were estimated to have contained an average of 45,558 residents (around 1.1% of New Zealand’s average
estimated population). Over those five years, the five police stations recorded an average of 3,554 criminal offences30 each year (0.8% of
the country’s total).
The number of offences recorded by Tasman District police stations has increased in most of the last five years. In 2002, 2,950 offences
were recorded, increasing slightly to 3,040 in 2003, to 3,770 in 2004, and to 4,100 in 2005. The 2006 total was slightly lower, at around
3,910. That made the district’s 2006 total 33% higher than in 2002. Nationally over the same five-year period the number of recorded
offences fell by just under 4%.
Despite the increase in the number of recorded offences, the district’s recorded offence rate was lower than the national rate in
each of the years from 2002 to 2006. However, the difference has been reducing. In 2002, there was a substantial gap between the
two rates (678 offences recorded per 10,000 people in the district versus 1,117 per 10,000 nationally). By 2006, the difference had
more than halved (828 offences per 10,000 people versus 1,025 per 10,000 nationally).




Source: New Zealand Police

Over the five years from 2002 to 2006, dishonesty offences were the most commonly recorded offences in the district (50% of the
total), just as they were throughout New Zealand (57%). Within the dishonesty category, theft was the most commonly recorded
offence type (with an average 1,101 offences each year), followed by burglary (339), car conversion (232) and fraud (97).
Property damage (16%) was the second most commonly recorded category of crime during this five-year period (10% nationally).
Almost all offences in this category consisted of destruction of property (an average of around 568 offences per year).



29
     Police administrative boundaries do not necessarily match to territorial authority boundaries. The statistics in this section are from Motueka, Murchison,
     Richmond, Takaka and Wakefield police stations. These have been used as the ‘scene stations’ (ie the police stations within whose boundaries criminal
     offences were recorded by police). This area may not correspond exactly to Tasman District but it is the best fit available.
30
     It is possible that multiple offences will be recorded in association with a single incident. For example, where an occupant is assaulted during a burglary, offences
     of burglary and assault will both be recorded.
Drugs and anti-social offences made up 15% of recorded offences during this fire-year period (13% nationally). Within this
category, cannabis offences were the most numerous (with an average of 275 recorded each year), followed by disorder offences
(144) and breaches of the Sale of Liquor Act (51).
Violent crime made up 10% of offences over the five years (11% nationally). These offences included an average of 128 minor
assaults each year, 110 serious assaults, 75 offences of intimidation/threats and 21 grievous assaults.
Property abuses accounted for 6% of recorded offences (5% nationally). These included an average of 95 trespass offences each year.
Administrative offences accounted for 2% of recorded offences during the five-year period (3% nationally), and sexual offences
made up the final 1%.




Source: New Zealand Police


A P PR E H EN S IO N S



In 2006, the police stations in Tasman District were responsible for around 2,280 apprehensions 31 (1.1% of the country’s total).
Children and young people contributed a much larger-than-average proportion that year, accounting for three in every 10 of the
district’s apprehensions. Children under the age of 14 made up 7% (4% nationally), while those aged 14-16 accounted for 22%
(15% nationally).
The contribution of those aged 17-20 was also larger than nationally (27% versus 24% nationally). As a result, most age groups
above age 20 contributed a smaller-than-average share in 2006. People aged 21-30 showed the most marked difference (19% of
the district’s apprehensions versus 27% nationally). Those aged 31-50 accounted for 22% (26% nationally), while adults aged 51
and over accounted for 3% (slightly more than nationally).




Source: New Zealand Police

Both in Tasman District and across New Zealand, the largest proportion of apprehensions in 2006 related to dishonesty offences

31
     The number of apprehensions is not the same as 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 police in some manner to resolve
     an offence.
(34% versus 31% nationally). Drugs and anti-social offences were behind 25% of apprehensions in Tasman, violence 17%,
property damage 11% and property abuse 10%.
This pattern of offences was reflected in adult apprehensions but not in those of children and youths. In 2006, the main reasons for
the apprehension of adults in Tasman District were dishonesty (31%), drugs and anti-social offences (29%), and violence (19%).
Both locally and nationally, those under the age of 17 were most likely to be apprehended for dishonesty, followed by property
damage, violence and drugs and anti-social offences. The comparative importance of each differed between the district and the
country as a whole, with dishonesty accounting for a smaller proportion of the district’s apprehensions of those under age 17, and
property damage and drugs and anti-social offences accounting for higher proportions.




Source: New Zealand Police


RE S O L UT IO N O F A P P RE H EN S IO N S



In 2006, there were around 1,600 apprehensions of adults (aged 17 and over) in Tasman District. In that year, 65% resulted in
prosecution (80% nationally); warning or cautioning resolved 26% (13% nationally); ‘other’ means32 resolved 6% (5%
nationally); and diversion resolved 2%, the same as nationally.
In 2006, Tasman District saw around 670 apprehensions of children and youths under the age of 17. Referral to Youth Aid was far
more common in the district than around the country, resolving 67% of these apprehensions (41% nationally), and warning
resolved 26% (28% nationally). In 2006, those under age 17 were far less likely than average to be prosecuted – just 4% resulted
in prosecution (23% nationally). ‘Other’ means accounted for 2% (3% nationally), while Family Group Conferences Youth Justice
accounted for 1% (6% nationally).




32
     These means include all the ways police may deal with an apprehension other than the formal categories. For example, they may find that the offender has a
     mental condition, is already in custody or has died. In those cases, no further action is taken other than to document the offence.
Source: New Zealand Police


EDUC ATION


E AR L Y CH I LD HO O D E DU C AT IO N



At 1 July 2006, 1,730 children were on the regular rolls of licensed early childhood education service providers in Tasman
District.33 Excluding the small number of enrolments of 5-year-olds, this was 58% of the estimated number of children aged 0-4,
the same proportion as nationally.
As was the case nationwide, 4-year-olds made up the largest proportion of early childhood enrolments in Tasman District in mid-2006
(35%), with 3-year-olds accounting for 31%. These enrolments equated to 90% of the estimated number of 3-year-olds in the district at
that time, and more than the number of 4-year-olds, which indicates some children may have been registered with more than one
provider.




Source: Ministry of Education

In mid-2006, early childhood education in Tasman District was dominated by three types of provider: education and care centres34
were the largest, with 15 centres accounting for 49% of the district’s regular enrolments (52% nationally); the district’s six free
kindergartens had 25% of regular enrolments (27% nationally); and the 10 playcentres had 25% (9% nationally). A single
kohanga reo accounted for 1% (6% nationally).




Source: Ministry of Education




33
     Early childhood education statistics count enrolments and not children. It is possible for one child to be enrolled in two services at the same time and be
     counted twice.
34
     Education and care centres provide either sessional, all-day, or flexible hour programmes for children from birth to school age. They can be privately owned, non-
     profit making, or operated as an adjunct to the main purpose of a business or organisation.
DI ST RI CT S CH O O L S



Tasman District has 17 full primary schools, 10 contributing schools (offering education up to intermediate school), one
intermediate school, four composite schools (combining primary, intermediate and secondary education), one special school, and
three secondary schools offering education up to Year 15.


     NUMBER AND TYPE OF SCHOOLS IN TASMAN DIS TRICT, W ITH
     ROLLS: JULY 2006


     School Type                   Number of Schools                        Years                  Rolls

     Full primary                  17                                       1–8                    1,918


     Contributing                  10                                       1–6                    2,099


     Intermediate                  1                                        7–8                    608


     Composite                     4                                        1 – 13                 510


     Special                       1                                                               79


     Secondary                     3                                         7 or 9 – 15           2,216


                                                                                                   7,430

Source: Ministry of Education

For funding purposes, the Ministry of Education attaches a decile rating to each school.35 This indicates the extent to which a school
draws its students from low socio-economic communities. These ratings differ from those used for the NZDep2006 index of
deprivation. Decile 1 schools are the 10% of schools with the highest proportion of students from low socio-economic communities,
whereas decile 10 schools are the 10% of schools with the lowest proportion of these students.
In July 2006, no school in Tasman District was in decile 1. Just one school was in decile 2, another was in decile 3, and six were
in decile 4. Those eight schools – judged to be among the 40% of New Zealand schools with the highest proportions of students
from low socio-economic communities – were responsible for just 19% of the district’s students. At the other end of the scale, one
school was in
decile 10, three were judged to be in decile 9, and six schools were decile 8. Those 10 schools – assessed as being among the 30%
of New Zealand schools with the lowest proportions of students from low socio-economic communities – had 39% of the district’s
students on their rolls.

T RUA NC Y



In August 2006, the Ministry of Education surveyed all state and state integrated schools to capture student attendance and
absence over one week.36 The survey showed that the district had a truancy rate considerably below the national average.
All types of school recorded lower truancy rates than nationally. In primary schools, the truancy rate was just below the national rate;
contributing schools recorded less than half the national rate; intermediate schools had a 1.2% rate (2.2% nationally); composite schools
had a rate of 1.1% (less than one-third the national rate), and both types of secondary schools had rates 4 percentage points lower than the


35
       Since 1 January 2005, five factors have been used in determining a school’s socio-economic indicator on which deciles are calculated. These factors are:
       household income, parents’ occupations, household crowding, parents’ educational qualifications, and parents receiving income support. They are based on
       families with school-age children within the catchment area of the school.
36
       The survey achieved a 91% response rate among schools, representing 92% of the student population in all state and state integrated schools. During the week
       under study, schools classified absences into justified, unjustified and intermittent unjustified. Truancy was defined as the sum of the last two categories, and a
       truancy rate was calculated as the average (mean) daily unjustified absence for the week per 100 students.
country as a whole. These results gave the district an overall average truancy rate of 2.2% (4.1% nationally).

ST A ND DOW NS A ND SU S P E N SIO N S



Schools have a variety of methods available to deal with student behaviour – stand downs and suspensions are just two of the
choices available. Both are seen as a last resort when other options have proved unsuccessful, and only a small number of schools in
any territorial authority stand down or suspend students in any one year.
From 2000 to 2006, the annual number of stand down cases in Tasman District schools fluctuated between 140 in 2006 and
around 180 in 2000 and 2005. The high number in 2000 produced a stand down rate of 24 per 1,000 students (the same as
nationally), but in the six other years the Tasman stand down rate was lower than the national average. In 2006, the district
averaged 20 stand downs per 1,000 students versus 31 per 1,000 nationally. Over the seven-year period, the most common reasons
for stand downs in the district, as well as nationally, were: continual disobedience; physical assault on other students; and verbal
assault on staff.
The number of suspension cases is far lower than stand downs. From 2000 to 2006, suspension cases in district schools ranged
from around 40 to almost 70 each year. These produced suspension rates of between 5 and 9 per 1,000 students (7 per 1,000
nationally). Most recently, in 2006, suspension cases numbered almost 60, again pushing the district’s rate above the national rate
(8 per 1,000 students versus 7 per 1,000 nationally). In Tasman District schools, continual disobedience and drugs were the main
reasons for suspension (32% and 24% respectively). Nationally, the two main causes were in reverse order.

EX C L US IO N S A ND EX PU L S IO N S



Following a suspension, a school’s board of trustees can lift the suspension (with or without conditions), extend the suspension
(with conditions), or terminate the student’s enrolment at the school. If the student is under the age of 16, the board may decide to
exclude him or her from the school, with the requirement that the student enrol elsewhere. If the student is 16 or over, the board
may decide to expel him or her, and the student may enrol at another school.
In the six years from 2000 to 2006, the annual number of exclusions from Tasman District schools ranged from 11 to 22. In both
2005 and 2006, there were 15. Over the seven years, continual disobedience was the main reason for students to be excluded,
followed by physical and verbal assaults on other students or staff, and drugs. In 2006, drugs (including substance abuse) were the
single largest cause of exclusions, accounting for two-fifths of the total.

E AR L Y L E A VI NG EX E M PT IO N S



In each of the years from 2000 to 2006, the number of students granted early leaving exemptions from schools in Tasman District
ranged between 35 and just over 60. Over those seven years, around 50% of early leaving exemptions were granted so the students
could enrol in a training provider course, 33% were for full-time employment, and around 20% were for enrolment in polytechnic
courses. A handful of exemptions were granted for university enrolment or other reasons.

SC HO O L L E A V ER S W IT H NO Q U AL IFI C AT I O N S



In the early and mid-1990s, the proportion of district students leaving school with no formal qualifications was considerably lower
than nationally. However, in 1998, it overtook the national proportion and it has remained higher ever since. From 2001, the
district’s proportion has exceeded the national proportion by a considerable margin. The greatest difference occurred in 2002, with
an almost 13 percentage point gap. In 2006, 18% of Tasman District school leavers left with no formal qualification (11%
nationally).
Source: Ministry of Education

T ERT IA R Y D E ST IN AT I O N S



The proportion of students leaving district’s secondary schools to enrol in tertiary education or training the following year is
considerably lower than the national average. In the years from 2001 to 2006, between 27% and 34% of the students leaving a
Tasman District school the year before had gone straight on to enrol in tertiary education or training (between 41% and 46%
nationally).
District students who leave school for tertiary education tend to make different choices from students nationwide. Nationally,
between 2001 and 2006, the largest proportion of first-year tertiary enrolments by people who left school the year before were at
universities (45%), followed by polytechnics (32%) and private training establishments (19%). However, the first-year tertiary
enrolments of Tasman District school leavers reflected a different pattern, with 42% at polytechnics, 35% at universities, and 18%
at private training establishments. Colleges of education attracted almost 5% of enrolments – more than three times the national
proportion. Over the six years, only a handful of the district school leavers going on to tertiary education enrolled at wananga (2%
nationally).
Particular institutions stood out as attracting the district’s students. Of the almost 420 first-year polytechnic enrolments by young
people who left a district school between 2000 and 2005, 58% were at the Nelson Marlborough Institute of Technology. Of the
almost 340 first-year university enrolments by district school leavers, 49% were at the University of Canterbury and 31% were at
the University of Otago.
Appendix 3:
Community Providers who Responded to Written Questionnaire
o   Adoption Counselling

o   Adult Learning Support (Motueka)

o   Alcoholics Anonymous

o   Big Brothers Big Sisters of Nelson

o   Bone Marrow Cancer Trust

o   Child Cancer Foundation

o   Community Health Group (Golden Bay)

o   Cystic Fibrosis Association (Nelson)

o   Diabetes Youth New Zealand

o   Endometriosis Nelson Support Group

o   Golden Bay Budget Advisory Service

o   Golden Bay Community Workers

o   Golden Bay District Toy Library

o   Golden Bay Work Centre Trust

o   Heartland Services

o   House 44 of SE Stoke

o   Intellectual Disability Support Services

o   Motu Weka Neighbourhood Centre Inc

o   Motueka Budget Advisory Services

o   Motueka Family Service Centre

o   Motueka Night Shelter

o   Motueka Women’s Support Link

o   Nelson Bays Community Law Service Inc

o   Nelson HIV/AIDS Support Network

o   Nelson Marlborough Alcohol and Drug Service

o   Nelson Ostomy Society Inc

o   Nelson Rape Crisis (Rape & Sexual Abuse Network)

o   Nelson Refugee Assistance Inc

o   New Zealand Police Youth and Families Section

o   Pregnancy Help (Nelson)

o   Presbyterian Support (Upper South Island)

o   Presbyterian Support Counselling & Education

o   Problem Gambling Foundation of New Zealand
o   Restless Legs Syndrome Support Group

o   Rural Mental Health

o   Salvation Army Community & Family Services (Motueka)

o   Senior Citizens Association (Golden Bay)

o   SeniorNet Motueka

o   Takaka Arthritis Group

o   Tapawera and Districts Community Church Foodbank

o   Te Korowai Trust

o   Victim Support Group (Motueka)

o   Whakatu Marae

o   Workbridge Inc

o   Youth Nelson
Appendix 4:
Sources of Information
Statistical data provides background contextual information to the stocktake of services in Tasman District. The statistical data
used in this profile is intended to give a ‘feel’ for the area under study and for the environment in which families seek and receive
services.
This section identifies sources for the data cited in this community profile.
CE N SU S O F PO PU L A T IO N AN D DW ELLING S, 20 0 6


Where available, Statistics New Zealand 2006 census data has been used throughout this profile. The census remains the single
most important source of data on patterns of residence across the country. Census information was used to provide a picture of
population growth, population size, ethnic diversity, age groups, families, household size, household composition, income,
household facilities, employment, place of work, travel to work, industry and housing tenure.
PO P UL AT IO N E ST IM A T ES A N D PR O J ECT IO NS


Statistics New Zealand population estimates as at 30 June 2006 were used to estimate the number of children at each year of age
up to five, so that early childhood enrolments as at 1 July 2006 could be seen in the context of all children of the relevant age.
Official population projections were used to look ahead to 2016 and 2026 in terms of population size and the number of families
by type.
NU M B ER O F B IRT H S RE G I ST E R ED


Statistics New Zealand used its vitals collection to produce figures on the number of live births registered between 2001 and 2006,
by age of mother. These figures were used in the health section, primarily focusing on the number of teenage mothers.

INFO R M AT IO N A N A L YSI S PL AT FO RM ( I A P)


The Ministry of Social Development’s IAP was used to produce August 2005, 2006 and 2007 data on the number of income
support clients living in each territorial authority. Benefits were listed by type, along with the age of income support recipients,
and the number and ages of their children.
CH IL D, YO UT H A N D F A M I L Y ( C YF)


CYF used centralised data to provide statistical information on the department’s activities in the year ending 30 June 2004. Local
site data has been collected to provide updated notification and family group conference information. This included the number
and type of referrals and notifications, Youth Justice clients in placement or detention, the number and type of plans and orders
completed, the number of clients entering and exiting care, and the number of family group conferences and informal conferences
held during the fiscal year.

HO U S ING N EW ZEAL AN D CO R PO R AT IO N ( HNZ C)



HNZC staff used their database to extract information on the number of HNZC-managed properties in each territorial authority, as at
31 December 2006, and waiting list information by ‘neighbourhood unit’.
T EN AN C Y S ER V IC E S DAT A BA S E



Tenancy Services data, available on the Department of Building and Housing website and updated monthly, provided an
indication of the weekly rent charged in areas throughout New Zealand from information taken from bonds received over the
preceding six months.

E AR L Y CH I LD HO O D E NRO L M ENT S



The Ministry of Education provided a customised statistical table on the number of early childhood enrolments on the regular rolls
of early childhood education providers in each territorial authority as at 1 July 2006.

SC HO O L S D AT A B A S E A ND SC HO O L D EC I L E



The Ministry of Education provided information on the name, type, roll and decile of each school in every local authority.

AT T END A NC E AN D A B S EN C E IN N EW ZEA L AN D S C HO O L S I N 2 00 6



The Ministry of Education provided a customised statistical table on truancy rates for different types of schools in each territorial
authority. The ministry also provided tables on the number of stand downs, suspensions, exclusions and early leaving exemptions in
each territorial authority by reason, for the years 2000 to 2006 inclusive.

Q U AL IF IC AT IO N S O F SC HO O L L E A V ER S



The Ministry of Education provided information on the number of school leavers and their highest attainment level in the years
1993 to 2006 inclusive.

FIR ST - YE A R T E RT I A R Y ST UD E N T S



The Ministry of Education provided a table on the number of first-year tertiary students in the years 2001 to 2005 who were
previously at secondary school, by the tertiary institution in which they enrolled and the territorial authority of their last secondary
school. The table covered students who left school in any of the years from 2000 to 2004.

P LU N KET CL I ENT INF O R M AT IO N S YST E M



Because the Royal New Zealand Plunket Society is the largest provider of Well Child services to New Zealand’s newborns, data
was obtained from Plunket to ‘profile’ their clients in each territorial authority. The information consisted of the number of clients
served in the 2005 calendar year, their ethnicity and the deprivation decile rating of the area in which they lived. Information was also
provided on immunisation rates, and the number of and reason for referrals to other agencies.

PU B L IC L Y F UN D ED H O S P IT AL D I SC H ARG E D AT A



New Zealand Health Information Service (NZHIS) provided a table on all public hospital discharge events from 1 July 2003 to 30
June 2004, grouped by broad clinical codes (International Classification of Diseases chapter headings). The data was provided by
territorial authority, resulting from coding the home address of each patient to their territorial authority of residence.
M ENT A L H E A LT H D AT A W AREHO U S E



NZHIS provided a table on all mental health clients who commenced mental health treatment during the 2004 calendar year. Data
was produced by territorial authority, and included the sex, age and ethnicity of clients. Information was also supplied on the
number of clients seen by different mental health teams.

J UST I C E S ECT O R LA W E NFO RC E M ENT S Y ST E M



New Zealand Police provided statistics on the offences recorded by each police station in the years 2002 to 2006. This included
data on family violence offences (ie the number of offences recorded where some degree of family violence was present, as
defined by the attending officer).
Bibliography
Aged Concern New Zealand. Annual reports.

Berhardt J, Pitman-Burnett, A, Freer N, Motueka Family Service Centr e. (2005). Young Parents Needs in the
Motueka Area.

Golden Bay Workcentre Trust. Golden Bay in 2022.

Golden Bay Workcentre Trust. (2005). Golden Bay Social Report.

Ministry of Social Development. (2004). Opportunity for All New Zealanders.

Ministry of Social Development. (2005). Statement of Intent.

Ministry of Social Development. (2005). The Social Report 2005 Regional Indicators.

Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. (2001). An Assessment of Health Needs in the Nelson Marlborough District
Health Board Region.

Nelson Marlborough District Health Board. (2005). The Health Status of Children and Young People in Nelson
Marlborough.

Salmond C, Crampton P, Atkinson J. (2007). NZDep2006 Index of Deprivation. Wellington: Department of Public Health,
University of Otago, Wellington.

Statistics New Zealand. 2006 Census of Population and Dwellings.

Tasman District Council Long Term Council Community Plan (2006).

Tasman District Council. (2005). Tasman’s Future Discussion Paper; Tasman’s Future Focus Group Discussion Report.

University of Auckland Adolescent Health Research Group. (2003). Tasman Youth: A Profile of Their Health and
Wellbeing.

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:1
posted:4/12/2013
language:English
pages:54