SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 1

There’s nothing laid down instatutes that [says] you can’tjoin in. No one can discriminateon race or language in sport.If somebody wants to play, theycan play (NSO3).

This quote, from an interviewee ina national sporting organisation,reflects a view common in Australia,that sport is a level playing field,accessible to all. Yet patterns ofparticipation in this sphere of socialand cultural life are far from equal.

In Australia, women are lesslikely than men to participate inorganised sport. Women are lesslikely to participate in eitherorganised or non-organised sport orrecreation activities if they are bornoutside the main English-speakingcountries, especially if they are notproficient in spoken English (ABS,2006). In 2002, less than one in five

NewsletterNo 96 May 2007

◆ Registered by Australia Post ◆ Publication No. NBP4766 ◆ ISSN 1324 4639 ◆

Culturally diversewomen and sportBy Natasha Cortis

women born in North Africa or theMiddle East participated in sport orrecreation, compared with overthree in five women born inAustralia (see Table 1).

The SPRC is looking behindthese trends, in researchcommissioned by the AustralianGovernment Office for Women(Department of Families,Community Services andIndigenous Affairs). The project isexamining how women fromculturally and linguistically diverse(CALD) backgrounds participate insport and recreation, and thebarriers they may experience. Theresearch is designed to inform thedevelopment of strategies toeffectively support CALD women’sparticipation. The project team iscurrently analysing findings fromthe third and final stage of the

research (focus groups with CALDwomen). In the meantime, findingsfrom the first two reports (aliterature and data review, seeCortis et al, 2007, and a stakeholderconsultation report, see Cortis andMuir, 2007) shed light on some ofthe factors behind CALD women’slow rates of participation in sport.

Conceptualisingsport as socialinclusion

The project is premised on anunderstanding of sport andrecreation as an opportunity topromote social inclusion andexpress cultural diversity. On theone hand, sport and recreation areopportunities to build communitynetworks; promote, celebrate andaffirm difference; challenge

EditorS ◆ Duncan Aldridge, Christiane Purcal and Cathy Thomson

Continued on page 4

Contents

Women and Sport ..........................................1

Staff and Visitors ................................................2

From the Director ............................................3

New Projects ......................................................6

SPRC Seminar Program ................................6

Lead Article: Natasha Cortisdiscusses theparticipation ofculturally andlinguistically diversewomen in sport.

Indicators of Disadvantage Project..........7

PhD News ..........................................................11

Chinese Disability Policy ..........................12

Australian Social Policy Conference ..14

Research Method Workshop..................16

Natasha Cortis

2 ◆ No 96 ◆ MAY 2007

Staff and Visitor Update

STAFFActing and Deputy DirectorProfessor Ilan KatzDirector, Australian ProfessorialFellow and Scientia ProfessorProfessor Peter SaundersProfessorial FellowProfessor Bettina CassSenior Research FellowsDr Bruce BradburyDr Tony EardleyDr Karen FisherDr Xiaoyuan ShangDr Catherine SpoonerResearch FellowsDr Lyn CraigDr Trish HillDr Kristy MuirGerry RedmondCathy ThomsonDr kylie valentineResearch AssociatesDr Natasha CortisDr Ann DadichYuvisthi NaidooDr Christiane PurcalDr Pooja SawrikarCiara SmythResearch OfficersDavid AbellóSharni ChanSaul FlaxmanMegan GriffithsTom LongdenBelinda NewtonDr Sarah ParkerDr Denise ThompsonJacqueline TudballBusiness ManagerMelissa Roughley

Research Support ManagerRoxanne LawsonOffice ManagerCarol SullivanLibrarianKatherine CummingsEvents and Publications OfficerDuncan AldridgeProfessorial Visiting FellowsProfessor Michael BittmanEmeritus Professor Sol EncelEmeritus Professor Sheila ShaverSenior Visiting FellowsAssoc Prof Judy CashmoreVisiting FellowsDr Robyn DolbyDr Sara GrahamResearch ScholarsScott BurrowsSherman ChanBob DavidsonMarilyn McHughChristie RobertsonPeter SiminskiVisitorsPriyatharsheni BalachandranHanna-leena MyllarinenHeidi Norman

Social Policy Research CentreBuilding G2 Western GroundsUniversity of New South WalesSydney NSW 2052, AustraliaPhone: +61 (2) 9385 7800Fax: +61 (2) 9385 7838Email: sprc@unsw.edu.auhttp://www.sprc.unsw.edu.au

The Social Policy Research Centre

The Social Policy Research Centre is located in the Faculty ofArts and Social Sciences at the University of New SouthWales. Under its original name, the Social Welfare ResearchCentre was established in January 1980, changing its name tothe Social Policy Research Centre in 1990. The SPRCconducts research and fosters discussion on all aspects of socialpolicy in Australia, as well as supporting PhD study in theseareas. The Centre’s research is funded by governments at bothCommonwealth and State levels, by academic grant bodiesand by non-governmental agencies. Our main topics ofinquiry are: economic and social inequality; poverty, socialexclusion and income support; employment, unemploymentand labour market policies and programs; families, children,people with disabilities and older people; community needs,problems and services; evaluation of health and communityservice policies and programs; and comparative social policyand welfare state studies.

The views expressed in this Newsletter, as in any of the Centre’s publications, donot represent any official position of the Centre. The SPRC Newsletter and allother SPRC publications present the views and research findings of theindividual authors, with the aim of promoting the development of ideas anddiscussion about major concerns in social policy and social welfare.

The Social Policy Research Centre is located at G2 on the Western Sideof Anzac Parade, Kensington Campus, enter via Day Avenue.

ARRIVALS:PRIYATHARSHENI BALACHANDRAN (Priya), a Bachelor ofEconomics and Social Sciences (Combined) student at UNSW,has started an internship at the Centre.

DEPARTURES:OFIR THALER completed his internship at SPRC.

ANNOUNCEMENTS: DR KAREN FISHER and DR SARAH PARKER have been awardedtheir PhDs.

TRISH HILL has received a two-month British Academy VisitingFellowship for 2007. She will be working with Professor SusanHimmelweit, Economics Discipline, Faculty of Social Sciences, TheOpen University.

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 3

From theDirectorThe impending implementation ofthe Research Quality Framework(RQF) in Australia is looming. Weare waiting in trepidation tounderstand the implications foracademia generally and socialpolicy in particular. Some things aremore or less certain – that the RQFwill bring with it unprecedentedlevels of bureaucracy, paperworkand endless meetings, efforts byuniversities to ‘poach’ staff fromeach other and create ‘short cuts’ toget around the system, and that allthis effort is unlikely to justifywhatever outcome transpires.

On the other hand, the RQF hasalready engendered some interestingand important debates, for exampleon how to classify social policy and,more significantly, on the questionof impact in research.

The question of classification isinteresting in that social policy isnot a single discipline like historyor chemistry. The SPRC staff are,for example, drawn from a widerange of disciplines and publish injournals representing the wholespectrum of the social sciences.Interestingly, social policy isrepresented in at least threedifferent Research Fields, Coursesand Disciplines (RFCD) codes.This is generally considered astrength, and social policy hasalways practised inter-disciplinaryresearch – now a sine qua non ofsuccessful large scale research. Butthe RFQ seems to be pushingacademics back into their coredisciplines rather than recognisingthe inter-disciplinary nature ofmuch contemporary scholarship.

However, the more interestingissue raised by the RQF is that ofresearch impact. Here social policyresearch should, by definition, dovery well, being probably the most‘applied’ discipline in the socialsciences. Social policy research hasalways been based on the premisethat policies will benefit societymore if they are based on rigorousresearch evidence. Much of the

research we undertake iscommissioned by governments orother agencies such as the OECDwith the specific purpose ofinfluencing future policy. Moreover,it may be good for social researchersto begin to think about researchimpact. After all, our research islargely funded by the taxpayer, whohas a right to know that money iswisely spent and that there isaccountability and utility in socialresearch.

At the same time, some features ofthe RQF cause concern to all socialscientists. The original proposals formeasuring impact are very concrete– money made for Australia, livessaved etc. Social policy can’t competewith engineering or chemistry in thisrespect. Although social policyresearch should have influence, itseldom has a direct or easilymeasurable impact. There are alsovery difficult technical issues – forexample how to measure impactand over what period it should bemeasured.

There are even more fundamentalconcerns relating to impact. Theimpact of a specific piece of researchon government policy often dependson such extraneous factors as timing.Often governments will pick up ona particular piece of researchbecause the findings fit into theirpolitical program, whereas otherresearch (which may well be morerigorous or of higher quality) isignored because it is inconvenientor unattractive to government atthe time. In Australia the recent IRpolicies and policy in relation toclimate change are examples whereresearch has been ignored. (In thisvein it could be argued that themost influential research projectsare opinion polls, not academicresearch at all!) Theimplementation of social policyresearch is especially dependent onthe vagaries of political discourse,media attention and public opinion.Much of our research is specificallyaimed at giving voice to

marginalised sectors of thepopulation who are not able toinfluence policy directly through thenormal political process.

Furthermore some social researchhas an impact for the wrong reasons.A researcher who challenges theaccepted – i.e. progressive –orthodoxy of most social policyresearch (especially from the right) islikely to garner media attention andeven a sympathetic mention by aminister or two, irrespective of thequality of the research on which theclaims are based.

This raises another interestingquestion. The term ‘impact’ is itselfvalue free, and the assumption is thatthe more impact research has, thebetter. However, it is perfectlypossible for research (like any othersocial phenomenon) to have anegative as well as a positive impact.Should this research score equally onthe RQF impact statement?

Finally, the most fundamentalquestion of all is the basicassumption of the RQF (and indeedof the ARC and most researchfunders nowadays) that academicresearch should act as the R&Ddepartment for ‘Australia Inc’, andtherefore that research is onlyvaluable to the extent that it furthersthe ‘national interest’ in some way.This is certainly an importantconsideration – but there are otherequally important ways in whichresearch may be of value.

These are just some of the issuesthat researchers will have to confrontover the next couple of years as theRQF takes shape. It would be easy,but wrong, to dismiss the concept ofresearch impact, and it wouldsimilarly be wrong to insist thatresearchers should become ever moreaccountable for the immediatepractical consequences of theirresearch. In my view, the task ofsocial policy researchers is to put intothe public domain the highest qualityanalyses of their data. The questionof impact depends to a large extenton others outside of the academy.

By Ilan Katz

Ilan Katz

4 ◆ No 96 ◆ MAY 2007

stereotypes; and enhanceintercultural relations (Hanlon andColeman, 2006). Sport can buildsocial inclusion if social justicenorms and values are transmittedfrom multicultural sportingcontexts into the rest of society,and if experiences in other areas ofsociety improve as a result of beinginvolved (Walseth and Fasting,2004). On the other hand, sport andrecreation activities may (ofteninadvertently) suppress differenceand exacerbate exclusion, ifindividuals must conform todominant cultural norms in order toparticipate (Taylor, 2004).

Understandingbarriers toparticipation

Sport and leisure researchershave identified six main factors thatmay dampen the desire toparticipate, and prevent or reduceparticipation for CALD populations(Tsai and Coleman, 1999):

1. Socio-cultural barriers arisefrom requirements to follow codesor traditions in sport that areincompatible with cultural practicesor beliefs.

2. Access constraints include alack of culturally appropriatefacilities, transport and child care.

3. Affective constraints relate tothe appeal and meaningfulness ofactivities. Interest in sportingactivities is culturally mediated,and a lack of awareness ofopportunities has been identified asa contributing factor to low rates ofparticipation amongst CALDpopulations.

4. Physiological constraints relateto poor health and old age. Whilethese are not unique to CALDwomen, health barriers may varybetween cultural groups.

5. Resource barriers include alack of time and money toparticipate in sport. These are oftenunderpinned by women’s careresponsibilities, which constrain bothdisposable income and leisure time.

6. Interpersonal factors, such as

not knowing anyone to participatewith, also present barriers to CALDwomen’s participation. Family,friends and community-basednetworks have been identified asimportant to women’s decisions toparticipate (Taylor, 2002).

Stakeholders’perspectives

How these barriers andconstraints might affect CALDwomen in Australia was explored ininterviews with stakeholders insporting, cultural and women’sorganisations. Six of the 15interviewees were from NationalSporting Organisations (NSOs) (seeTable 2). The interview questionsexplored stakeholders’ perceptionsof the barriers to CALD women’sparticipation, how theirorganisations address these barriers(if any), and their views about whatstrategies (if any) might be requiredto better support CALD women.

Stakeholders’perceptions ofbarriers

Overall, the interviews showhow the idea of sport as a ‘levelplaying field’ remains pervasive,and that supporting culturaldiversity is not considered a highpriority amongst National SportingOrganisations. Indeed, someinterviewees did not perceive sportitself to present particular barriersfor CALD women, with oneinterviewee arguing ‘The waysports operate, I don’t see anyissues at all. I don’t seeimpediments’, but rather ‘It’s thecultures that cause barriers, not thesport itself’ (NSO6).

However, all interviewees dididentify some barriers that maydecrease CALD women’s desire toparticipate; prevent participation; orhinder women from participating to

Culturally diversewomen and sport continued

from Page 1

Males (%) Females (%) All (%)

North-West Europe 69.8 64.7 67.4 Australia 68.5 63.6 66.0 Oceania 69.1 63.6 66.3 Sub-Saharan Africa 72.0 60.0 50.8 Americas 67.5 56.0 52.6 North-East Asia 68.8 53.5 61.9 South-East Asia 61.1 52.3 56.2 Southern and Central Asia 63.0 43.6 74.2 Southern and Eastern Europe 44.1 40.7 42.5 North Africa and the Middle East 42.7 19.5 31.2

Table 1: Participation in sport and physical activity by sex andregion of birth, Australia, 2002

Source: Migrants and Participation in Sport and Physical Activity (ABS 2006: 10)

No. Interviews

National sporting organisations (NSO) 6

State and community sporting organisations (SCSO) 2

Industry organisations (IO) 1

State government organisations (SGO) 2

Cultural organisations (CO) 2

Women’s organisations (WO) 2

Table 2: Interview participants by organisation type

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 5

their desired levels. Theseincluded racism, dress codes, a lackof culturally appropriate facilities,and insular organisational culturesin sport (for more detail, see Cortisand Muir, 2007).

Some interviewees had seenracism affect CALD women:

When you’re dealing with clubadministrators who are notexperienced or who haven’tpreviously had multiculturalpeople in their club, you get racistattitudes. It’s about a lack ofunderstanding and ignorance, Ithink. I believe it can also happenbetween the players themselves. …It may not be overt, [but] it maybe exclusionary (SGO2). Most of the barriers identified

were indirect. Dress was seen as aparticular barrier for Muslimwomen who may need to complywith culturally sanctioned standardsof modesty whilst participating.Interviewees from state andcommunity based organisationsdescribed difficulty in negotiatingaccess to sporting facilities withculturally appropriate levels ofprivacy in exercise spaces andchange room areas. Althoughinterviewees cited examples ofswimming pools or gyms offeringwomen-only spaces for a couple ofhours a week in some areas, thiswas perceived as largely inadequateto meet demand.

Family expectations andresponsibilities were also seen asbarriers to CALD women’sinvolvement. Although thesebarriers are shared with otherwomen, they were seen to have acultural dimension, with someyoung CALD women taking ongreater household responsibilities,especially where migration hasbroken extended family carerelationships. Finally, sportingorganisations and clubs wereidentified as presenting barriers toCALD women’s participation,where they had strong established

or insular cultures. As one NSOinterviewee explained:

The nature of a club is, it’s acommunity already; it’s anestablished group that do things acertain way. So for someone tocome in cold not knowing anybody[it could be difficult], we’re notgoing to attract many CALDwomen at all to sport. I think it’sintimidating to come into a setculture… Some clubs, the membertype clubs, would be very muchlike that – a stuffy, traditional,conservative type environment(NSO4).

Strategies tosupport CALDwomen’sparticipation insport

Strategies identified to overcomethe barriers CALD women faceincluded providing informationabout sport in Australia, providingprograms through partnershipsbetween sporting and culturalorganisations, affiliating ethnicsporting groups to state or regionalsporting structures, and involvingCALD women in developing andpromoting opportunities. Cross-cultural training for staff in sportingorganisations, and recruiting femaleand culturally diverse coaches andreferees were also suggested.

Interestingly, in the discussionsno NSO interviewee identified thattheir organisation had a culturaldiversity policy. Although suchstandards or frameworks do exist,NSO interviewees did not identifythat they shape their organisations,suggesting that high-level diversitypolicies or frameworks may bepoorly implemented, if at all. Afinal point is that interviewees werelargely unfamiliar with what otherorganisations were doing topromote the participation of CALDwomen in sport, and programs thatdid exist tended not to beevaluated. Evaluating strategiesand disseminating findings would

help build knowledge about bestpractice in engaging CALD womenin sport and recreation andovercoming barriers for differentgroups.

The final stage of the study,twelve focus groups with ninety-four CALD women (completed inearly 2007), was informed by thesefindings. We hope to present thefocus group findings at theAustralian Social Policy Conferencein July.

References

Australian Bureau of Statistics(2006), Migrants and Participation inSport and Physical Activity, NationalCentre for Culture and RecreationStatistics, ABS, Canberra.

Cortis, N. and K. Muir (2007),Participation in Sport and Recreationby Culturally and LinguisticallyDiverse Women – StakeholderConsultation Report, SPRC Report5/07, University of New SouthWales, Sydney.

Cortis, N., P. Sawrikar, and K.Muir (2007), Participation in Sportand Recreation by Culturally andLinguistically Diverse Women –Discussion Paper, SPRC Report 4/07,University of New South Wales,Sydney.

Hanlon, C. and D. Coleman(2006), ‘Recruitment and retentionof culturally diverse people bysport and active recreation clubs’,Managing Leisure, 11(1), 77-95.

Taylor, T. (2004), ‘The rhetoricof cultural diversity in Australiannetball’, Journal of Sport and SocialIssues, 28(4), 453-76.

Taylor, T. (2002), ‘Culturaldiversity and leisure: experiences ofwomen in Australia’, Society andLeisure, 24(2), 535-55.

Tsai, E. and D. Coleman (1999),‘Leisure constraints of Chineseimmigrants: an exploratory study’,Society and Leisure, 22(1), 243-64.

Walseth, K. and K. Fasting(2004), ‘Sport as a means ofintegrating minority women’, Sportin Society, 7(1), 109-29.

6 ◆ No 96 ◆ MAY 2007

Young carers: Socialpolicy impacts ofthe caringresponsibilities ofchildren andyoung adultsAustralian Research CouncilLinkage Grant

Bettina Cass (SPRC), DeborahBrennan (University of Sydney), IlanKatz and Cathy Thomson (SPRC)and Deborah Mitchell (ANU), withPartner Organisations in NSW:Department of Ageing, Disabilityand Home Care; Department ofHealth; Commission for Childrenand Young People; Carers NSW; inSouth Australia: Social InclusionUnit, Department of the Premierand Cabinet; Department ofEducation and Children’s Services;Children Youth and Women’sHealth Service; Department ofFurther Education, Employment,Science and Technology;Department for Families andCommunities; Carers SA.

In Australia, 348 600 children andyoung people aged up to 24 providecare for family members with along-term illness or disability. Thisproject will investigate thecircumstances, experiences andneeds of these young carers and theircare recipients. The study consistsof six integrated research strands:review of the theoretical, empirical

and practitioner literature on youngcarers and their families in Australia,UK and USA; analysis of nationaldata sets; focus groups withgovernment and welfare sectorpolicy makers and service providers;interviews with young carers andcare recipients; audit of federal andstate policies and programs for youngpeople with caring responsibilitiesand care recipients; and thedevelopment of a cost-benefitanalysis of the work of young carers.

The project will identify the coststo young carers of their careprovision, with respect to theirparticipation in education, training,employment and social activities;and impacts on their health andwell-being. It will also focus on thebenefits of the care relationship tothe young people, their families,communities and governmentthrough savings on formal services;and the social policy frameworks inwhich the care-giving relationshipsare embedded. It will provide acomprehensive audit of policiesand services for young carers andcare recipients, and identify gapsfor future policy development andservice provision.

The expected outcomes arecontributions to theories of care-giving which have, to date, notfocused sufficiently on age;evidence about the diverse socio-economic and demographiccharacteristics of young carers andcare recipients and their diverse

experiences; and options for thedevelopment of appropriate,affordable and supportive policiesand services.

Service Needs ofResidents in PrivateResidential ServicesDisability Services Queensland

Karen Fisher, Gerry Redmond andJacqueline Tudball (SPRC); SallyRobinson (Disability Studies andResearch Institute); Lesley Chenoweth(Griffith University)

The project is examining the natureand volume of need for governmentand non-government support servicesamong residents of private residentialservices in Queensland. It is profilingpeople living in private residentialservices across regions in the state todetermine the scope and frequencyof service support access, to identifygaps in services and supports, and toidentify what services need to bedeveloped. It is examining whichservices are being accessed and howoften; which services are needed butnot accessed; the barriers to serviceaccess; and what services are requiredbut not provided by government ornon-government agencies. Theresearch findings will inform futurefunding and service developmentstrategies to improve access to andsupport from mainstream services forpeople living in private residentialservices.

New Projects

SPRC Seminar Program May to June 2007Tuesday 29th MayHeidi Norman (Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning (UTS) and Visiting Fellow, Social PolicyResearch Centre)Aboriginal Land Rights in NSW - from assimilation to self-determination

Tuesday 12th JuneDr Tony Eardley, Professor Bettina Cass, Dr Denise Thompson and Dr Ann Dadich (Social PolicyResearch Centre)Measuring ‘Self-reliance’ Amongst Users of Homelessness Services: Conceptual and methodological Challenges

Wednesday 27th JuneProfessor Ian Walker (University of Warwicks, Visiting Professor Centre for Health Economics Research andEvaluation (UTS) and School of Economics (UNSW))Ostensible Hypothecation: The effect of cash transfers to the elderly for fuel on their fuel expenditure

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 7

IntroductionAn article in an earlier issue of theSPRC Newsletter described theLeft Out and Missing Out (LOMO):Towards New Indicators ofDisadvantage project and presentedresults on the essentials of life. Theproject is funded by the AustralianResearch Council Linkage GrantScheme and is based on acollaboration between the SPRCand our Industry Partners MissionAustralia, the Brotherhood of StLaurence, ACOSS and Anglicare,Diocese of Sydney. The researchhas generated new nationwide datathat is being used to identify who isdeprived (‘missing out’) andexcluded (‘left out’) from thebenefits associated with Australia’scurrent period of extendedeconomic growth and rising incomes.

The data has been produced bytwo surveys conducted in 2006.The first was a national postalsurvey of 6 000 adult Australiansdrawn at random from the electoralrolls. This was supplemented by asecond survey targeted at thosewho used selected welfare servicesprovided by the Industry Partneragencies. Both surveys wereconducted over a three-monthperiod in mid-2006. Welfare serviceclients were asked to complete ashortened version of the mainsurvey when they accessed services- almost none of those approachedrefused to participate. The first(postal sample) was designed tobuild, for the first time, acomprehensive national picture ofthe extent and nature ofdeprivation and social exclusion inAustralia. The second (clientsample) is significant because themost vulnerable people aregenerally under-represented inpostal surveys, and also because wewanted to find out more about thekinds of problems faced by welfareservice clients, who are bydefinition doing it tough.

As explained in the earlierarticle, 2 704 people responded tothe postal survey (a response rate ofabout 48 per cent), while 673

completed the shorter clientsurvey. Further analysis indicatesthat the postal sample is reasonablyrepresentative of the generalpopulation, although it containsmore people over 50 than thepopulation, whereas the clientsample is dominated by youngerpeople (under 30), because theseare the age groups at which theservices that were included aretargeted. Together, the twosurveys provide a very rich sourceof new data that are being analysedto gain a better understanding ofthe kinds of problems faced bythose who have been left out andare missing out - those that thebenefits of economic progress havethus far, failed to reach.

The Essentialsof Life

Both surveys included a series ofquestions asking which among a listof items are essential in Australiatoday - things that no-one shouldhave to go without. Participantswere asked to indicate for eachitem:

1. Whether or not they thoughtthat the item was essential for allAustralians;

2. Whether or not theythemselves had the item; and

3. If they did not have the item,whether this was because theycould not afford it, or because theydid not want it.

The last question was onlyasked of those items thatindividuals themselves could buy;it was not asked of items like accessto a public telephone, or to a bulk-billing doctor under Medicare thatcannot be bought by individualsbut are provided collectively bygovernment.

The ‘essentials of life’ questionscovered a broad range of items,activities, opportunities and othercharacteristics that previousresearch has shown to be associatedwith deprivation and socialexclusion. The list of potentialitems included basic items (forexample, a substantial meal at least

once a day; heating in at least oneroom of the house), items thatreflect or influence people’sconnections with community life(to be treated with respect by otherpeople; a night out once afortnight), items that people needat particular times in their lives(dental treatment; child care forworking parents), and the ability tomake use of key facilities andservices (good public transport; andstreets that are safe to walk in atnight). Several of the items relatedspecifically to the needs ofchildren, including a separate bedfor each child, a local park or playarea for children, and up to dateschoolbooks and new school clothes.

From Essentials toDeprivation

The definition of deprivationthat has evolved from threedecades of international (mainlyBritish) research is an enforced lackof socially perceived necessities (oressentials). The first stage inidentifying the profile ofdeprivation involves identifying thelist of socially perceived essentialitems. As indicated in the earlierarticle, responses to the ‘Is itessential?’ question were used toidentify which items are regardedas essential by a majority of thepopulation. This benchmark wastaken as indicative of items aboutwhich there is a communityconsensus that they are essential.Only the postal sample was used inthis stage, because we wereinterested in what the community asa whole regards as essential inmodern-day Australia. Of the 61items included in the postal survey,48 passed the ‘majority rule’criterion. However, a number ofthese items could not be bought byindividuals and were thus not usedto identify deprivation, whichfocuses on an enforced lack of eachitem that results from not beingable to afford it.

The earlier article indicated thattwo items - a car and a separatebedroom for each child aged over

Towards New Indicatorsof Disadvantage ProjectBULLETIN NO. 2: DEPRIVATION IN AUSTRALIA

By Peter Saunders

8 ◆ No 96 ◆ MAY 2007

10 – were very close to the 50 percent cut-off. Further analysisrevealed substantial differences inthe views of different age groupsabout these two items (particularlyabout the car) and after adjustingfor the over-representation of olderpeople in the postal sample,support for the car being essentialfell just below the threshold. It wastherefore excluded from the finallist, which contained the 26 itemsshown on the left hand side ofFigure 1. The list includes basicneeds items, such as a decent andsecure home and a substantial dailymeal, consumer durables like awashing machine and a television,access to medical and dentalservices and to prescribedmedications, social participationactivities such as regular socialcontact with others and an annualholiday, and risk-protection itemslike secure locks at home,insurance coverage and savings foran emergency.

Figure 1 shows the percentagesof the two samples that aredeprived in relation to each of the26 items. For the postal survey, theincidence of deprivation is very lowin the case of items like a

substantial daily meal, warmclothes and bedding, a telephone, atelevision and a separate bed foreach child. Those items wheredeprivation is most severe are aweek’s holiday away from homeeach year (22.4 per cent), $500 insavings for use in an emergency(17.6 per cent), dental treatmentwhen needed (13.9 per cent), homecontents insurance (9.5 per cent),an annual dental check-up forchildren (9.0 per cent), andcomprehensive motor vehicleinsurance (8.6 per cent). Thesepatterns are unaffected when thepostal sample is weighted to reflectthe age structure of the populationas a whole.

All but one of the items wheredeprivation is highest relate tosteps that people need to take toprotect their longer-term security:an adequate level of savings for usein an emergency, appropriateinsurance coverage and access todental care. The absence of theseitems among large sections of thepopulation highlights the fact thatmany Australians may be managing,but are only a minor mishap (ascrape in the car, a toothache, or abroken refrigerator) away from

being unable to make ends meetfinancially. The other item wherethe incidence of deprivation is high– a week’s holiday away from home– might be seen by some as a‘luxury’ that has little to do withbeing deprived or disadvantaged.However, this item only enters thelist because a majority of thepopulation (around 53 per cent)regard it as essential: it is what thecommunity thinks is essential thatdetermines what is included inFigure 1, not what we asresearchers think. This variable alsohas an insurance element,reflecting the need for families tohave a break together and relax andre-group, away from the pressuresof everyday (working) life.

The findings for the clientsample paint a far bleaker pictureof the extent of deprivation thanthose for the postal sample. At onelevel, this is hardly surprising sincethe client sample has beendeliberately chosen to representthose who, having been forced toseek assistance from a welfareservice, are likely to be mostdisadvantaged. Even so, it is stillimportant to establish just howdeprived those who use welfare

Figure 1: The Incidence of Deprivation among the Postal (Blue) and Client (Red) Samples (percentages)

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 9

services actually are. The averageincidence of deprivation across all26 items among the client sample is22.2 per cent, four times higherthan that for the postal sample (5.7per cent). The difference is hardlyaffected by adjusting for thedifferences in the age compositionof the two samples.

Among those in the clientsample (re-weighted so that it hasthe same age composition as thepostal sample), the incidence ofdeprivation is highest in relation toa week’s holiday away (51.7 percent), not having $500 in savingsfor use in an emergency (51.6 percent), home contents insurance anddental treatment (both 44.7 percent), and comprehensive motorvehicle insurance (39.7 per cent).The deprivation rate exceeds one-quarter in relation to 8 items(whereas it never exceeds thisfigure in the postal sample).Around one-in eight of those in theclient sample report not being ableto afford a substantial meal once aday, to heat at least one room in thehouse, to have a washing machine,a separate bed for each child, haveregular social contact with otherpeople, or can afford to let theirchildren participate in schooloutings or activities.

The evidence on deprivationamong those who use welfareservices illustrates the enormity ofthe challenges facing those who areworking at the coalface of servicedelivery in these agencies. Withtightly constrained budgets, theseservice delivery agencies can dolittle more than act as a palliativeagainst the worst extremes ofdeprivation. The fact that thoseusing welfare services face suchhigh levels of deprivation suggeststhat the limited resources availableto the services are being targetedeffectively, but it also raisesquestions about the adequacy ofthe resources they have at theirdisposal. These are issues thatshould be of concern not just tothose working in the services, butto all genuine ‘fair go’ Australians.

MultipleDeprivation

Previous studies have shownthat many of those who experiencedeprivation in one area also face itin several others, compoundingtheir problems and adding to the

complexity of solutions. Table 1compares the severity ofdeprivation in the postal and clientsamples. Almost two-fifths of thepostal sample experience at leastone form of deprivation and morethan one-quarter (26.4 per cent) aredeprived in two or more areas.One-in-nine (11.1 per cent) aremissing out on at least five essentialitems simultaneously. Althoughsome will be reassured by thefinding that over two-thirdsexperience no deprivation, the highnumbers that are missing out infive or more areas will concernmany others.

The extent of deprivation in theclient sample is far higher than inthe postal sample, and the findingsagain reveal the severity of theproblems facing this group. Thus,almost two-thirds (64.7 per cent)experience two or more forms ofdeprivation, while close to half(45.5 per cent) are missing out onfive or more items. The magnitudeof the difference between the twosamples is illustrated by the factthat the percentage of the postalsample that are deprived in two ormore areas is the same as thepercentage of the client sample thatare deprived in eight or more areas.(The estimated multipledeprivation rates for the clientsample increase by between twoand four percentage points if theadjustment made to bring its agecomposition in line with that of thepostal sample is removed).

The multiple deprivation ratedifferential between the postal andclient samples cannot be assumedto imply that the latter groupexperience four times as muchdeprivation as the former, since therelationship between the numberof essential items lacking and the

extent of deprivation may not belinear. Even so, it is difficult todeny that those who use welfareservices are ‘doing it tough’,missing out on many of the itemsseen as essential by a majority ofthe population.

Deprivation ScoresIn light of the extent of multiple

deprivation shown in Table 1, it isclear that the incidence rates shownin Figure 1 do not reveal the fullstory about the severity ofdeprivation faced by differentgroups. In order to explore thisissue more fully, a deprivationindex has been derived by addingup the total number of items forwhich each individual is deprived.The average value of this index (orscore) can then be calculated forgroups in the population and usedto compare the extent ofdeprivation experienced bydifferent socio-economic categories.There are grounds for applyingdifferent weights to each of theitems included in the index. Thus,an item could be counted moreheavily if it is regarded as essentialby a higher percentage of thepopulation (attitudinal weighting),or each item could be weighted bythe proportion of the populationthat actually possesses it(prevalence weighting). Neitherapproach has been used here,although future research is examiningthe robustness of the findings todifferent weighting patterns.

Table 2 shows how thedeprivation index varies acrosssocio-economic groups defined onthe basis of their age, family type,employment status andIndigeneity. It reveals that there isa clear downward-sloping agegradient to deprivation among the

Table 1: The Incidence of Multiple Deprivation (percentages)

Number of items lacking Postal Clientbecause they cannot be afforded sample sample

0 61.5 25.2

1 or more 38.5 74.8

2 or more 26.4 64.7

3 or more 18.8 59.0

4 or more 14.2 52.7

5 or more 11.1 45.5

6 or more 8.1 39.9

10 ◆ No 96 ◆ MAY 2007

postal sample, although thegradient is somewhat lesspronounced among those in theclient sample. The pattern ofdeprivation across family typesshows that deprivation is higheramong single people than amongcouples (at all ages), increases forcouples with children and increasesagain sharply for sole parentfamilies. The level of deprivationexperienced by IndigenousAustralians is very high - thehighest among any single categoryidentified in this analysis - andexceeds that of the non-Indigenouspopulation by a factor of more thanfour-to-one.

It is interesting to note thatmany of the between-groupdifferences revealed in the clientsample are smaller in relative termsthen the corresponding relativitiescontained in the postal sample.Thus, the 4.2-to-one differentialassociated with Indigenous statusin the postal sample is only 1.5-to-one in the client sample, while the3-to-one employment tounemployment relativity in thepostal sample falls to two-to-one inthe client sample. To some extent,this reflects the fact that the postalsample is more diverse than theclient sample, which isconcentrated on those in greatestneed. However, it is also strikingthat large differences in deprivationbetween the postal and clientsamples remain even whencomparing within activity categories:thus, the deprivation score amongthose in the client sample who areunemployed is considerably higherthan among the unemployed in thepostal sample, while those in theclient sample who are employedexperience only slightly lessdeprivation than those in the postalsample who are unemployed.These comparisons suggest anumber of factors are driving theresults and that further analysis iswarranted before any firmconclusions about the determinantsof deprivation can be identifiedwith certainty.

In ConclusionThis article has examined the

deprivation profile of the Australianpopulation, as reflected in thepostal sample, and drawn a series of

comparisons with deprivationamong the smaller sample ofwelfare service clients. Theestimates show that there is greatvariety between the two samplesboth in terms of the incidence ofeach deprivation indicator, in theextent of multiple deprivation andin the overall severity ofdeprivation (as captured in a simpleunweighted deprivation score, orindex).

More detailed analysis revealssubstantial differences in theseverity of deprivation acrossdifferent sub-groups in thepopulation, defined on the basis ofa broad range of socio-economiccharacteristics. Although thebetween-group differences havebeen considered in isolation, manyof them overlap and thus reinforcethe combined impact ondeprivation. IndigenousAustralians, for example, tend tohave low levels of education, to bemore likely to be unemployedand/or reliant on social security fortheir income and to be renting theirhome, all of which are associatedwith a higher level of deprivation.These complex, deep-seated andoften mutually reinforcing effectssuggest that a coordinated plan ofaction is needed to address thedifferent forms of deprivation

experienced by those who aremissing out.

It is clear that the deprivationapproach provides a valuable newinsight into the nature and extentof disadvantage in contemporaryAustralia. It seems irrefutable thatsome in the general population andmany in the sample of welfareservice clients are missing out onthe essentials of life and are thusdeprived - often in many areas. Ifwe are serious about addressingdisadvantage, the patterns revealedin this research suggest that actionis urgently needed to combat themany forms of deprivation thatcurrently exist.

ReferencesPantazis, C., Gordon, D. and

Levitas, R. (eds.) (2006), Povertyand Social Exclusion in Britain: TheMillennium Survey, The PolicyPress, Bristol.

Saunders, P. (2006), ‘Towardsnew indicators of disadvantageproject. identifying the essentials oflife’, SPRC Newsletter, No. 94,November, 9-12.

Willetts, M. (2006), ‘Measuringchild poverty using materialdeprivation: possible approaches’,Department for Work and PensionsWorking Paper No. 28, CorporateDocument Services, Leeds.

Table 2: Mean Deprivation Scores by Selected Socio-economicCharacteristics

Characteristic Postal sample Client sample

Age:

Under 30 1.97 5.5530-64 1.43 5.6265 and over 0.87 2.61Family type:

Single, working-age (WA) 2.14 5.14Single, older person (65+) 1.33 3.16WA couple, no children 0.84 4.14Older couple (65+) 0.55 2.67WA couple, with children 1.29 4.59Sole parent 3.48 7.14Main activity:

Employed 1.15 2.92Unemployed 3.66 5.85Indigenous (ATSI):

Yes 5.60 7.25No 1.33 4.82

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 11

PhD News

The celebrations continue at theCentre with more great news.Warmest congratulations go to DrSarah Parker, whose PhD wasawarded by the University ofSydney, Faculty of Arts, in April.Sarah, Research Officer at theSPRC, is currently working on theEvaluation of the Early InterventionProgram for the NSW Departmentof Community Services andresearching the Effectiveness ofSupported Living in Relation toShared Accommodation for theAustralian Government Departmentof Families, Community Servicesand Indigenous Affairs. Sarah isalso co-ordinating the Centre’sinternship program for studentscompleting their undergraduateand masters degrees (as reported inthe previous newsletter).

We are also pleased to reportthat Roger Patulny has achievedan important milestone in hisresearch career with the acceptanceof his PhD at UNSW in January

2007. Roger, who worked at theSPRC for some years, has recentlyreturned from the University ofSurrey, Department of Sociology,where he worked as a ResearchFellow on the Economic and SocialResearch Council-funded studySocial and Political Trust (SAPT).Roger has taken up a position atthe Office of Ageing, NSWDepartment of Ageing, Disabilityand Home Care, looking at aspectsof community care and ageing inplace. He hopes at some stage toundertake further research intoaspects of community, trust andsocial capital.

children also exist in the present:school-age children are, in general,reflexive individuals who respondto and in turn influence their livedenvironment. How well dodifferent measures of poverty anddeprivation capture children’scurrent well-being and integrationinto society, and how can children’sown perspectives inform on therelevance of different measures ofpoverty and exclusion? Thesequestions will be examined usingAustralian panel survey data,supplemented by qualitative dataon children’s own perspectives oneconomic disadvantage.

Jacqueline Tudball, ResearchOfficer, is nearing completion ofher PhD thesis at the Centre forHealth Equity, Training, Researchand Evaluation (CHETRE),UNSW. Her research examineschildren’s asthma self-management.The thesis uses a groundedtheoretical, mixed-method design,including face-to-face interviewswith children 5-12 years of age andtheir parents and an analysis of theNSW Child Health Survey 2001.Rather than exploring the extent towhich children’s self-managementpractices adhere to clinicalguidelines, Jacqueline isinvestigating the tools, strategiesand processes that children use tomanage their asthma; how childrencollaborate with their parents in theuse of these; and the implicationsof self-management for childrenand their families in New SouthWales.

Dr Sarah Parker

Roger PatulnyJacqueline Tudball

Gerry Redmond, ResearchFellow, is undertaking a PhD studyon ‘Understanding the Impact ofPoverty on Children’s Outcomes’. Thethesis sets out to explore therelationship between resources andoutcomes for school-age children inAustralia. It addresses twoquestions. First, what is therelationship between familycharacteristics, including incomelevel, and children’s outcomes inkey areas of health, education andparticipation in community andother activities? Can theseoutcomes be ‘predicted’ frompermanent characteristics of theirparents, such as education, or dochanges in income, familyformation and other events overtime also matter? Second, existingliterature focuses mostly onoutcomes that relate to children’sjourneys towards adulthood. But

Gerry Redmond

12 ◆ No 96 ◆ MAY 2007

Karen Fisher

Chinese disabilityaccommodation policy

This article describes researchundertaken in 2006 in China onChinese disability policy. Itsummarises the research process,findings and implications for SPRCparticipation in Chinese disabilitypolicy research.

ResearchingChinese disabilitypolicy

The newly signed UNConvention on the Rights of Personswith Disabilities defines housing andaccommodation support to meanshelter, physical access, supportand skill development to liveindependently. A place to live, andsupport to live in it, is a basic needand, in many cases, a preconditionto exercising other rights. However,it can be costly for governments tosupport. Consequently, developingnew responses to disabilityaccommodation support needs are aresearch priority for Australiangovernments.

As yet, few researchers haveexplored the lived experience ofpeople with disabilities in Chinaand its social policy implications.To address this gap, I conductedresearch in Beijing with theassistance of Li Jing and Yan Mingfrom the Institute of Sociology,Chinese Academy of Social Sciences.

As a first step in researchingdisability policy in China, wesought to understand disabilityexperiences of accommodationsupport policies in Beijing. Theresearch, conducted betweenNovember 2005 and January 2006in Beijing, included interviews andmeetings with policy participants,including people with disabilities,and observations of social servicesand governance processes. Thefindings presented here describehow people who need support withtheir accommodation meet theseneeds through informal and formalsupport. This does not include

people with disabilities withoutaccommodation support needs wholive independently.

Formal policyresponses

As with most Chinese socialpolicy, disability support isprimarily the responsibility of theperson and their family. Onlywhere a person has no family tosupport them does the stateintervene. The China DisabledPersons Federation (CDPF), aquasi-government organisation, isresponsible for disability policy.Other government agencies providesupport and services depending onthe person’s circumstances andsupport needs (Ministry of CivilAffairs, Education, Public Health,Labour and Social Security andConstruction). Policyimplementation is theresponsibility of provincial andlocal governments, and it variesaccording to the resources andpriorities of the localadministration. Housing andaccommodation support are notincluded in the primary disabilitypolicy, the Law of the People’sRepublic of China on theProtection of Disabled Persons1990.

Some people with disabilitieslive in households eligible forminimum income allowance,depending on the resources of theadministering local government. Inmost cases, the allowance does notinclude assistance with housing,medical services or education.

A place to liveMost people with disabilities

live independently or with familymembers in the community, relyingon informal support from family,friends or their ResidentsCommittee - the smallest unit oflocal government. We also foundrare cases of fee-based private

services or non-governmentsupport. We did not find examplesor policy to support self-organised,independent living or family-ledaccommodation initiatives.

Although officially families ofpeople with disabilities are eligiblefor cheaper public housing, inpractice public housing is rarelyavailable. For example, the priorityin one district is to reallocate publichousing to people with disabilitieswhen former residents move toprivate housing, but only one housebecame available in 2005.

Housing options for people withdisabilities without family supportare stark. The government hasseveral institutional options:institutional aged care; homelessshelters; psychiatric care in hospitalor public security facilities; andother welfare institutions. We alsofound a small number of privatecharitable institutions. The BeijingDisabled Persons Federation doesnot fund any community-basedaccommodation. As a consequenceof the limited accommodationsupport options, a disproportionatenumber of people who arehomeless are disabled.

Reflecting internationalexperience, most disabled childrenlive with their family. In the innercity community we visited, allchildren lived with their family andpeople did not know of any pastexceptions. We did not findevidence of formal support forfamilies of children withdisabilities, such as home-based orpersonal care or skill development,except informal care fromvolunteers organised by localgovernment. Children withdisabilities are disproportionatelyrepresented in out of home care.We found four examples of non-government housing for childrenand young people. Governmentrarely supports these services,which rely on fees paid by families,donations and international aid.

By Karen Fisher

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 13

Accommodationsupport

In addition to housing, someaccommodation support is availablethrough social services to assistpeople to live independently in thecommunity. Support was evident incommunity centres, such ascommunity health centres;Residents Committees initiatives;day activity services; and aCommunity Rehabilitation Servicespilot. The services we observedwere medical, technical andtherapeutic, rather than home-based or personal care services. Anexception was the variety ofservices supported by theResidents Committees.

In addition, we found a smallnumber of other services such ashome-based care and personal careservices; equipment and homemodifications; and special schools.These examples were far fromuniversal, but reflect emergingpolicies that support communityparticipation. Local governmentofficials referred to organisingvolunteers to support families oroffering paid workers for a shortperiod to assist people or families incrisis.

Implications ofthe policyexperience

The research has implicationsfor disability rights and policychange. Current disabilityaccommodation support policyrelies on government support as asafety net for people withdisabilities without families. Therationales for this policy positionare first, that Chinese cultureassumes primary familyresponsibility; and second,government officials claim theycannot afford the cost of analternative service system for allpeople with disabilities whenChina has such a vast populationand disability services are not apriority compared to other pressingsocial problems. These rationalesdo not engage with disability rights.

Despite the 1990 law protectingdisability rights, people withdisabilities are prevented fromparticipating in Chinese society andaccessing services other citizens canexpect. The research revealedexamples such as institutional careas the only option for people withdisabilities who need support buthave no family; and limitedopportunities for education,employment and communityparticipation. Poverty and cost ofservices also preclude access tobasic care and socially inclusiveactivities.

Urban Chinese people withdisabilities are gradually benefitingfrom other social policy initiatives,including the minimum incomeallowance. The ChineseGovernment has yet to prioritisepolicy to support people withdisabilities to live independently,support families caring for relativeswith disabilities, facilitatecommunity housing or buildaccessible housing. A critical gap incurrent policy is an absence ofcommunity support services tosubstitute for family support forpeople with disabilities withpersonal care needs. Undoubtedly,these policy options require

resources. More significantly, theyalso require a commitment topromote the rights of the diversemembers of the community, notjust the majority.

Furtherresearch andcollaboration

The research identified severalinnovative approaches toaccommodation support that, whenfurther researched, could informsystemic policy change. Theseapproaches were initiated throughself-advocacy, communitymembers, non-government andlocal and central government.Research conducted incollaboration with people withdisabilities and Chinese disabilityresearchers would contribute to areflective understanding of thepolicy context. Initially, we arebuilding on Dr Shang Xiaoyuan’sresearch partnerships with Chinesegovernment and non-governmentagencies to research the policyimplications of the experiences offamilies of children withdisabilities.

Thank you to the researchparticipants and the EndeavourAustralia Cheung Kong Award.

Disability policy research in inner city Beijing 2006: Karen Fisher (3rd from left)talks to a man with elderly parents, both with a disability, whose home has beendemolished. On the right, a woman on a tricycle provides mobility support to herhusband. (Photo: private)

14 ◆ No 96 ◆ MAY 2007

Registrations are now open. To register online go to www.hotelnetwork.com.au/conference.phpor contact the Hotel Network on (02) 9411 4666 or email aspc@hotelnetwork.com.au.

Keynote Speakers

Australian Social Policy

Families and policies matter: how to enhance the well-being ofchildren in povertyProfessor Jeanne Brooks-GunnVirginia and Leonard Marx Professor in Child Development andEducation, Columbia University. Founder and Co-director of theNational Center for Children and Families, Columbia University

Shifting child-care policies and practices in Western Europe: isthere a case for developing a global ethic of care?Professor Fiona WilliamsProfessor of Social Policy, School of Sociology and Social Policy,University of Leeds. Past Director of the ESRC Research Group for theStudy of Care, Values and the Future of Welfare, University of Leeds

Governing work life intersections in Australia over the life course:policy and prospectsProfessor Barbara PocockDirector of the Centre for Work+Life, University of South Australia

SOCIAL POLICY THROUGHTHE LIFE COURSE:Building CommunityCapacity and SocialResilience

SPRC NEWSLETTER ◆ 15

FORUMS

Contributed Papers

Conference Dinner

Conference 11-13 July 2007

Forum sessions are listed below, along with provisional speaker details. Further information on speakerswill be made available on the conference website once confirmed.Advocacy and consumer participation

• Elena Katrakis, Chief Executive Officer, Carers NSW• Annette Michaux, Director, Executive Strategy Unit, Benevolent Society• Michael Raper, Director, Welfare Rights Centre NSW; President, National Welfare Rights Network Australia

Building family and community capacities: policies that make a difference for children and families facing economic adversity• Robyn McKay, Deputy Secretary, Australian Government Department of Families, Community

Services and Indigenous Affairs • Professor Ross Homel, Director, Key Centre for Ethics, Law, Justice and Governance • Adjunct Professor Don Weatherburn, Director, NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research

Rethinking Indigenous policies and programs: building community strengths and social resilience• Dr Tim Rowse, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University• Colleen Murray, Executive Officer, Tirkandi Inaburra Cultural and Development Centre• Heidi Norman, Jumbunna Indigenous House of Learning, UTS

Australia’s demographic challenges• Phil Gallagher, Senior Executive Manager, Retirement and Income Modelling Unit,

Commonwealth Treasury• Professor Peter McDonald, Director, Australian Demographic & Social Research Institute,

Australian National University• Professor Julian Disney, Director, Social Justice Project, University of New South Wales

As in previous conferences, discussion will be organised around thematic strands. Strands will beselected from the following topic areas

The conference dinner will be held at the Crown Plaza, Coogee Beach, on Thursday 12 July andtickets are $85 per person. Entertainment will include an after-dinner talk from Ross Gittins,Sydney Morning Herald economics columnist and author of ‘Gittinomics’.

• Labour market participation and welfarereform

• Income distribution and social inequalities• Retirement and ageing• Children, young people and families• Identity and diversity

• Community and place• Organisation and delivery of human services• Citizenship and participation• An open strand will also exist for papers on

other subjects of interest and importanceoutside the main themes.

Further Information

Further information is available from the conference website atwww.sprc.unsw.edu.au/ASPC2007/index.htm. This will be updated as details are finalised. Forqueries about papers or the conference in general, phone (02) 9385 7802 or emailaspc2007@unsw.edu.au.

There will also be a special networking session on researching the impact of welfare to work reforms.

16 ◆ No 96 ◆ MAY 2007

Publications and Mailing listsMailing Lists (free) SPRC Email Notices You will receive email updates about events at SPRC

SPRC Newsletter Mailing List You will receive Newsletters regularly

SPRC Annual Report Mailing List You will receive Annual Reports

mailing addressName

Organisation

Address

Phone Fax

Email

change of addressI wish to change my current mailing address

Please fill in your NEW address in the mailing addressbox on the left

Post Code Publications, Social Policy Research Centre

University of New South Wales, SYDNEY NSW 2052OR Fax: +61 (2) 9385 7838 Phone: +61 (2) 9385 7802Email : sprc@unsw.edu.au

Two world-renowned experts on the Biographic-Narrative Interpretive Method of research, Tom Wengrafand Prue Chamberlayne, will be visiting Sydney to present this research method. There will be a one-dayworkshop on Monday, 17 September, and a five-day workshop from 10-14 September. The one-dayintroductory workshop is limited to 20 participants, with tuition fees of $200 each. The five-day coursecosts $1000 and is limited to 12 participants.

Both courses will be held at the Social Policy Research Centre, Western Campus, University of NewSouth Wales.

Please contact Duncan Aldridge (d.aldridge@unsw.edu.au) to register or for further information.

Please be advised that we require a minimum number of participants for the workshops to proceed.

Tom Wengraf London East Research Institute, University of East London, UKwith Prue Chamberlayne Open University, UK

The Biographic-Narrative Interpretive Method:Interviewing for life histories, lived situations andpersonal experience

Research method workshop

SPRC Newsletter Review

The SPRC is currently reviewing the content and layout of this newsletter. If you have any comments or suggestions,please e-mail Duncan Aldridge on d.aldridge@unsw.edu.au.

Fisher, K.R and S. Parker, Effectiveness of supported living in relation to shared accommodation, Summary of the research plan’,

SPRC Report 6/07, December 2006.