Identifying Disadvantaged Children: Comparing Alternative Approaches

Melissa Wong and Peter SaundersSocial Policy Research CentreUniversity 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?

Do you have it?

SOCIAL EXCLUSIONYes No Yes No

THE ESSENTIALS OF LIFE

Is it because you cannot afford it?

Yes No

DEPRIVATION

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

Economic Exclusion

-restricted access to economic resources and low economic capacity

Service exclusion

-lack of adequate access to key services

Disengagement

-lack of community participation

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

No child present

Child present

%

%

Essential items (without child-related items)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

No child present

Child present%

%

Essential items (with 6 child-related items)

Bedroom per child >10 years

New school books/clothes

Annual dental check-upfor children

School activities

Hobby for children

Bed per child

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 itemsby 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 | melissa.wong@unsw.edu.au

Professor Peter Saunders | Social Policy Research Centre | p.saunders@unsw.edu.au