Download
1 / 20
200 likes | 327 Vues
Multi-dimensional Indicators of Childhood Disadvantage. Peter Saunders Social Policy Research Centre University of New South Wales Sydney 2052, AUSTRALIA Presented to the ACWA08 Strong, Safe and Sustainable Conference, Sydney, 18-20 August 2008. Outline of Presentation. AIM:
E N D
Multi-dimensional Indicators of Childhood Disadvantage Peter Saunders Social Policy Research Centre University of New South Wales Sydney 2052, AUSTRALIA Presented to the ACWA08 Strong, Safe and Sustainable Conference, Sydney, 18-20 August 2008
Outline of Presentation AIM: To examine what the concepts of poverty, deprivation, social exclusion and subjective well-being imply about the relative well-being of Australian families, by comparing the circumstances of: - families with and without dependent children - couples and sole parents with children APPROACH: • Use of survey data (CUPSE) to derive a variety of multi-dimensional indicators of disadvantage • Explore the association between these indicators and subjective well-being (SWB)
Defining Poverty, Deprivation and Social Exclusion • Poverty exists when income is inadequate to support an acceptable standard of living - objective measure, based on 50% of median income • Deprivation exists when people face ‘an enforced lack of socially perceived necessities’ • Social Exclusion ‘An individual is socially excluded if he or she does not participate in key activities in the society in which he or she lives’ Poverty reflects what people do not have, deprivation reflects what people cannot afford, exclusion relates to what people do not do
Data and Approach • The CUPSE survey produced 2,704 adult responses, and a response rate of 47%. We focus on working-age respondents (aged 18-64). This reduces the sample size to 2,056 • Dependent children defined as those aged 17 and under • Within the working-age sample, we compare: - couples without children (n = 510) - couples with dependent children (n = 685) - sole parent families (n = 109) • Two stage analysis - Stage I: compare disadvantage indicators, by family type - Stage II: compare SWB indicators between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged families
Defining the Indicators of Disadvantage Poverty • Objective measure (income is below 50% of median disposable income; OECD equivalence scale) The Essentials of Life • Regarded as essential by at least 50% of those surveyed Deprivation • Mean index score (minimum D = 0, maximum D = 26) • Incidence rates: D= 0; D≥1; D ≥2 Social Exclusion • No community participation: Did not participate in a range of community/social activities in the last 12 months • No social life: “How would you describe your current level of participation in social and community activities?” – I do not have a social life • Does not have enough to get by on • Lives in a jobless household
Indicators of Subjective Well-Being • Focus on two indicators: • Subjective poverty status: “Would you describe you/your family as poor?”(Yes/No) • Control: “How much choice and control do you believe you have over your own life and the things that happen to you?” (10-point scale from 1 (none at all) to 10 (a great deal)) –related to the concepts of agency and autonomy • N.B. Patterns are similar when other SWB indicators (based on satisfaction and happiness) are used • RATIONALE: Allows the felt experience of disadvantage to be compared with its statistical identification – important role in identifying if social exclusion is “imposed”/external or “chosen”/internal
Patterns of Deprivation II (number of deprivations: percentages)
Patterns of Disadvantage – Main Findings • Poverty The highest poverty rates are experienced by sole parents, followed by couples with children, with poverty lowest among couples without children • Deprivation The patterns are similar to those for poverty, particularly the mean deprivation scores and the incidence ofD ≥2 Using this latter measure, the incidence of deprivation is around three times higher than the incidence of poverty (e.g. 55% for sole parents, compared with around 21%) • Social Exclusion Patterns vary greatly by indicator Greatest variability among the two social indicators for ‘No social life’
SWB Conclusions - I • The relationship between subjective poverty and disadvantage is stronger for deprivation (D ≥1) and exclusion than for poverty measured objectively (against median income) - suggests that poverty is about more than just a lack of income • Sole parents feel poor whether or not they are below the poverty line (or poverty among sole parents is under-estimated?) • The relationship between subjective and objective poverty is most pronounced for couples with children – implications for equivalence scale? • Strong relationship between subjective poverty and no social life for all three family types
SWB Conclusions - II • The experience of disadvantage does not markedly reduce the degree of control/autonomy exercised by those affected (although scale effects may be important) • Differences within family types are again more pronounced for deprivation and exclusion than for poverty • The largest effects show up for the DEP ≥2 measure • Differences between family types are very similar across all three disadvantage indicators • The relatively small differences in control suggest that those with no social life do not feel excluded, but have chosen not to participate - their exclusion may be passive rather than active
Overall Conclusions • The indicators of deprivation and social exclusionprovide a different perspective on the extent and nature of social disadvantage to those based on poverty, defined in terms of low-income • Sole parents are shown to be most disadvantaged using all three indicators • The different forms of exclusion show very different patterns, in aggregate and between family types • Subjective poverty status varies greatly by family type, and by the deprivation and exclusion measures of disadvantage • Lack of control shows little variation between family types and, within families, by whether or not they are poor or excluded • The SWB indicators and objective measures provide different perspectives on social disadvantage
