Transcript Document

Identifying Disadvantaged Children:
Comparing Alternative Approaches
Melissa Wong and Peter Saunders
Social Policy Research Centre
University of New South Wales
Presented to the 2nd International Conference of the International Society for Child Indicators
University of Western Sydney, 4-5 November 2009
Dimensions of Social Disadvantage

Poverty – people are living in poverty if their incomes are so
inadequate as to preclude them from having an acceptable
standard of living (Irish Combat Poverty Agency)

Deprivation – people are deprived when they face an enforced
lack of socially perceived necessities (Mack and Lansley, Poor
Britain)

Social exclusion – ‘An individual is socially excluded if he or she
does not [have the opportunity to] participate in key activities in
the society in which he or she lives’ (Burchardt, Le Grand and
Piachaud, Understanding Social Exclusion)

Consistent poverty – income below 60% of the median and also
experiencing enforced deprivation (Irish Combat Poverty
Agency)
The UNICEF Child Well-being Framework

Dimensions of well-being:
1.
Material well-being (poverty, deprivation, work)
2.
Health and safety (mortality and morbidity)
3.
Educational well-being (literacy, numeracy and enrolments)
4.
Family and peer relationships (sole parent and step families)
5.
Behaviours and risks (smoking, violence and physical activity)
6.
Subjective well-being (perceptions of belonging and loneliness)
The ARACY Report Card of Wellbeing for
Australian Children and Youth

Dimensions of well-being:
1.
Material well-being (poverty, deprivation and joblessness)
2.
Health and safety (health, immunisation, accidents/injury)
3.
Educational well-being (school achievement and work transition)
4.
Relationships (social capital, family relationships, belonging)
5.
Behaviours and risks (obesity, smoking, alcohol, drug use, crime)
6.
Subjective well-being (self-reported health, personal wellbeing)
7.
Participation (community participation, political interest)
8.
Environment (climate change, resource use and biodiversity)
Comparing the Three Approaches

(Income) poverty focuses on what people do not have (in terms
of income)

Deprivation focuses on what people cannot afford (in terms of
acquiring the essentials of life)

Social exclusion focuses on what people do not do (among
customary or common activities)
→ Deprivation and exclusion focus more directly on the
absence of items regarded as essential (“necessities”)
Identifying Deprivation and Exclusion
Is it essential for
everyone?
Yes
No
Do you have it?
Yes
No
SOCIAL EXCLUSION
Is it because you
cannot afford it?
THE ESSENTIALS OF
LIFE
Yes
DEPRIVATION
No
Community Understanding of Poverty and Social
Exclusion Survey (CUPSE) 2006
(n=2,704)
Benchmark 61 essential items; 47 considered to be
essential by 50% of sample
26 Deprivation items
27 Social exclusion items
Child-related items:
•Hobby/leisure activities for
children
•Children able to participate in
school activities
•Annual dental check-up for
children
•New school books/clothes
•Separate bed per child
•Separate bedroom per child >10
years
Disengagement
Service
exclusion
Economic
Exclusion
-lack of community
participation
-lack of adequate access
to key services
-restricted access to
economic resources and
low economic capacity
Essential items
(without child-related items)
100
90
80
70
60
No child
present
%
50
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
Child present
60
70
80
90
100
Essential items
(with 6 child-related items)
100
Hobby for
children
90
Bed per child
80
70
Bedroom per
child >10
years
60
No child
present
%
50
New school
books/clothes
School
activities
Annual
dental
check-up
for
children
40
30
20
10
0
0
10
20
30
40
50
%
Child present
60
70
80
90
100
Comparing Disadvantage by Family Types

3 family types: couples without children, couples with dependent
children and sole parent with dependent children

Age of dependent child <18 years and age of parent restricted to
≤50 years

3 indicators of disadvantage – poverty, deprivation and social
exclusion

Subjective wellbeing indicators
Income Poverty Rates by Family Type
%
Deprivation of 25 essential items
by Family Type
%
Deprivation of 6 child-related items
by Family Type
%
Social Exclusion by Family Type
%
Disengagement
Service exclusion
Economic exclusion
Consistent Poverty
(60% median disposable income & dep ≥ 2)
%
Subjective Wellbeing by Family Type
%
Conclusions

Examine nature of disadvantaged couple and sole parent
families in Australia using poverty, deprivation and social
exclusion indicators as well as subjective well-being indicators

Sole parent families are most disadvantaged in terms of all the
indicators as well as subjective well-being

Couples with dependent children are worse off than couples with
no children

Indicators are based on information provided by parents and not
children themselves

There is a need for more research on children's experiences and
attitudes [SPRC’s Making a Difference Project]
Dr Melissa Wong | Social Policy Research Centre | [email protected]
Professor Peter Saunders | Social Policy Research Centre | [email protected]