CHILD WELFARE BRANCH

Southland Times, Issue 25482, 30 September 1944, Page 7

CHILD WELFARE BRANCH

WAR BRINGS EXTRA PROBLEMS “The war has certainly brought us additional problems with the young people, but the fact that these are largely due to war conditions must not be overlooked,” states the annual report of the Child Welfare Branch. The reports adds that during the year ended March 31 last there was an increase of only five in the total number of children who appeared before the courts—3,o76 as compared with 3,071 in the previous year. This total included children brought up on all counts, including indigence, neglect, living in detrimental environment or not under proper: control, as well as for offences. PRINCIPAL OFFENCE All those who appeared on account of specific charges for offences were grouped together, states the report, and there was an increase of 47 in this group—2,493 as against 2,446 in the previous year. The principal offence still continued to be theft. Of the total number of children appearing for offences, 368 had appeared at some time previously for offences. The increase in the number appearing for offences did not indicate an upward trend in delinquency generally, but accorded fairly closely with the increased population in the age groups concerned. This increase was largely accounted for by one class of offence—the breaking of telegraph insulators—which showed a rise from 86 to 122.

An analysis of the figures for theft and wilful damage disclosed that these offences were more prevalent among boys than among girls, and among Maoris than among whites. THE IMPORTANT YEARS The trend in all groups with theft offences indicated that the important years were 14 to 16, with the peak at 15. The rates for wilful damage and mischief showed a tendency to increase in the 12-to-14 age group. In comparison with most other countries, New Zealand had been fortunate in having such a small increase in juvenile delinquency during the war period. The report states that occasional newspaper reports that certain juvenile delinquents were State wards should not lead the public to assume that all State wards as such were given to delinquency. There was a tendency to associate the two ideas without real warrant, for the majority of the State wards were committed to’ the care of the State through no fault of their own and were not and probably never would be delinquent.