Identifying Disadvantaged Children: Comparing Alternative Approaches Melissa Wong and Peter Saunders Social Policy Rese

1. 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

2. 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)

3. The UNICEF Child Well-being Framework • Dimensions of well-being: • Material well-being (poverty, deprivation, work) • Health and safety (mortality and morbidity) • Educational well-being (literacy, numeracy and enrolments) • Family and peer relationships (sole parent and step families) • Behaviours and risks (smoking, violence and physical activity) • Subjective well-being (perceptions of belonging and loneliness)

4. The ARACY Report Card of Wellbeing for Australian Children and Youth • Dimensions of well-being: • Material well-being (poverty, deprivation and joblessness) • Health and safety (health, immunisation, accidents/injury) • Educational well-being (school achievement and work transition) • Relationships (social capital, family relationships, belonging) • Behaviours and risks (obesity, smoking, alcohol, drug use, crime) • Subjective well-being (self-reported health, personal wellbeing) • Participation (community participation, political interest) • Environment (climate change, resource use and biodiversity)

5. 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”)

6. Identifying Deprivation and Exclusion Is it essential for everyone? Do you have it? Yes No Yes No SOCIAL EXCLUSION Is it because you cannot afford it? THE ESSENTIALS OF LIFE Yes No DEPRIVATION

7. 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 -lack of community participation Service exclusion -lack of adequate access to key services Economic Exclusion -restricted access to economic resources and low economic capacity

8. Essential items (without child-related items)

9. Essential items (with 6 child-related items) Hobby for children Bed per child Annual dental check-up for children School activities Bedroom per child >10 years New school books/clothes

10. 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

11. Income Poverty Rates by Family Type %

12. Deprivation of 25 essential items by Family Type %

13. Deprivation of 6 child-related items by Family Type %

14. Social Exclusion by Family Type % Disengagement Service exclusion Economic exclusion

15. Consistent Poverty (60% median disposable income & dep ≥ 2) %

16. Subjective Wellbeing by Family Type %

17. 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 | melissa.wong@unsw.edu.au • Professor Peter Saunders | Social Policy Research Centre | p.saunders@unsw.edu.au