Is Australia culturally attuned to socialinclusion and mobility?1

A paper presented at the

Brotherhood of St Laurence Seminar Series

23 October 2008

by

Professor Alan HayesDirector, Australian Institute of Family Studies

1 The views expressed in this paper are those of the authorand may not reflect the views of

the Australian Institute of Family Studiesor the Australian Government.

Acknowledgements

This presentation has been greatly enriched by the work of mycolleagues

Dr Matthew GrayMs Diana SmartDr Ben EdwardsMs Nancy Virgona

and the many others at the Australian Institute of Family Studieswith whom I am privileged to work.

Introduction

Background to the development of social inclusionapproaches

Is exclusion synonymous with poverty? Or not?

Exclusion involves limited: Social participation Social integration Social capital Access to opportunity Power and agency

Social exclusion themes

Relativity Relative to the norms and expectations of society at a particular point

in time.

Agency Caused by an act of some individual, group or institution. A person

may exclude themselves by choice or they may be excluded by thedecisions of other people, organisations or institutions.

Prospectivity Not a result simply of current circumstances (e.g. unemployment),

but also requires that the person’s future prospects are limited.

(Atkinson, 1998)

Definitions of social exclusion

A shorthand label for what can happen when individuals or areassuffer from a combination of linked problems such as unemployment,poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime environments, badhealth and family breakdown.

(UK Social Exclusion Unit, 1997)

An individual is socially excluded if he or she does not participate inkey activities in the society in which he or she lives.

(Burchardt, Le Grand, and Piachaud, 2002, p.30)

Definitions of social exclusion (continued)

Social exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process.

It involves the lack or denial of resources, rights, goods andservices, and the inability to participate in the normalrelationships and activities, available to the majority of people insociety, whether in economic, social, cultural, or political arenas.

It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity andcohesion of society as a whole.

(Levitas et al., 2007, p.9)

Definitions of social exclusion (continued)

“Social exclusion” has not featured much in the USdebate

“Social disorganization” has been an influentialconcept

Three forms of exclusion

Wide exclusion refers to the large number of people being excluded on a single or

small number of indicators.

Deep exclusion refers to being excluded on multiple or overlapping dimensions.

Deep exclusion is more entrenched and deep-seated than wideexclusion.

Concentrated exclusion refers to a geographic concentration of problems and to area

exclusion.

(Miliband, 2006)

Dynamic relationship of wide and deepsocial inclusion policies

Relational dimensions of socialexclusion exclusion from social relations:

non-participation in common activities;

the extent and quality of social networks;

support available in normal times and in times of crisis;

disengagement from political and civic activity; and

confinement, resulting from fear of crime, disability or other factors.

(Millennium Survey of Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, 2006)

Australian interest in social inclusion

Australian interest in Social Inclusion is more recent

The McClure Report into welfare reform identified threeoutcomes

reduction in the incidence of jobless families and households; reduction in the proportion of those heavily reliant on income

support; and stronger communities that generate opportunities for

participation

But it did not identify an explicit social inclusion policyagenda.

Other Australian landmarkdevelopments in social inclusion South Australia’s Social Inclusion Commission

References include Aboriginal Health, Disability,Homelessness, Mental Health, School Retention, The Parks(a neighbourhood renewal project), Young Offenders, Drugs,International Youth Leadership and Suicide Prevention.

Other states (e.g. Victoria) have related agendas

Community organisations increasingly focus on socialinclusion.

Australia’s focus

securing a job; accessing services; connecting with others in life through family, friends, work, personal

interests and local community; dealing with personal crises, such as ill health, bereavement or the

loss of a job; and being heard.

(Gillard, 2008)

To be socially included requires opportunitiesfor:

Priority aspects

Locational disadvantage

Jobless families

Homelessness

Child poverty

Intergenerational disadvantage

Employment and people with a disability

Children at risk

Children at risk

“modernity’s paradox” unprecedented capacity for wealth creation coexists

with growing perceptions of increased challenges tothe development, health and wellbeing of children.

(Keating and Hertzman, 1999)

Australia, regrettably, reflects this paradox.(Stanley, Richardson & Prior, 2005)

The pathways to poor outcomes in development,health and wellbeing have also been well established.

Social gradients have been observed in several areasof the development, health and wellbeing of Australianchildren.

Australian research on locationaldisadvantage From 1981 to 1996 the level of neighbourhood income

inequality increased in Australia(Gregory & Hunter, 1995; Hunter & Gregory, 2001)

The growth in neighbourhood income inequality sincethe 1970s in Australia also mirrors what has occurred inthe United States and Canada (Hunter, 2003)

Neighbourhood socio-economic status was associatedwith social/emotional and learning outcomes for 4-year-olds. (Edwards, 2005)

Some tentative conclusionsNeighbourhood inequality is increasing…

Source: Hunter, B. (2003). Australian Economic History Review, 43, 22-44

Neighbourhood effect on continuousoutcome index

Source: LSAC, Wave 1

More disadvantaged neighbourhoods have a greaterimpact on boys’ social/emotional outcomes than girls’

Source: LSAC, Wave 1

Effects of neighbourhood on thewellbeing of residents

poorer learning and behavioural outcomes, and physicalhealth outcomes (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000)

higher rates of infectious diseases, asthma, smoking,depression, nutritional problems and lower self-ratedhealth (Kawachi & Berkman, 2003)

reduced job and educational prospects. (Galster, Marcotte, Mandell, Wolfman and Augustine, 2007; and

Holloway and Multherin, 2004; and Kling, Liebman and Katz, 2007)

Living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, comparedto living in a less disadvantaged neighbourhood, hasbeen found to be associated with:

Child poverty and jobless families

Australia’s child poverty rate is not high by OECDstandards

BUT

Australia has a relatively high rate of joblessfamilies.

Poverty rates for childrenOECD countries, about 2000

Notes: Poverty is defined as living in a household with an equivalised household disposable income of less than 50% of themedian for the whole population and is thus a relative measure. To account for possible scale economies in consumption,household income is equivalised using the square root of household size.Source: Whiteford & Adema (2007, Table 1)

Homelessness

100,000 Australians are homeless, including 10,000children under 12 years of age

Domestic violence is a major factor, as is mentalillness.

International comparisons

How does Australia rate?

Why do the UK and US rate so poorly?

And what might explain the differences?

Child well-being and child povertyr=0.75

(Bradshaw, 2008)

Child well-being and social expenditureas % GDP 2003

(Bradshaw, 2008)

Some countries achieve both high performancestandards and an equitable distribution of learningoutcomes

Source: OECD PISA 2000, www.pisa.oecd.org

Student performance and spending perstudent

Source: OECD PISA 2000, www.pisa.oecd.org

Intergenerational mobility of earningsacross OECD countries

d’Addio (2007)

Intergenerational correlation of educationalattainment across OECD countries

d’Addio (2007)

New data on disadvantage

Insights from the Growing up in Australia: TheLongitudinal Study of Australian Children(LSAC); and

A collaborative project with The Smith Family.

Child outcomes, by parental socio-economic position and age of child

Source: LSAC, Waves 1 & 2

“School Readiness”

Language comprehension

Behaviour

Literacy

Numeracy

Recent interest in early childhood developmentas a foundation for social inclusion

Biological hazards in the pre- and post-natal periodhave major impacts on brain development

The effects of abuse and neglect significantlycompromise neurological development

The efficacy of a range of early interventions to addressthe developmental consequences of disadvantage iswell established

Such interventions are considered cost effective andare the basis for the economics of human capitalinvestment

Cost-benefit analysis

Much of the discussion of the cost-benefit of early childhoodeducation and care conflates generic services with targetedinterventions that are really enriched pre-school experiences

Analyses are based upon evidence from a small set of studies ofearly interventions

Mostly very small scale and localised in severely disadvantagedcommunities

e.g. Perry Preschool Program offered in 1962 to 58 3-4 year old children.

Recent interest in early childhood developmentas a foundation for social inclusion

the provision of a quality, universally availablesystem of early childhood experiences that promotespositive developmental outcomes for children

and early interventions that target children at highrisk.

There is a need to differentiate the policy andpractice implications of

A model of promotion, prevention andearly intervention in early childhood

Use of formal child care, by parentalsocio-economic position and age of child

Source: LSAC, Waves 1 & 2

Childcare use, infants

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lowest

SEP

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Highest

SEP

Parental socio-economic status (deciles)

%

Long day care Family day care Informal care only

Source: LSAC, Waves 1 & 2

Childcare use, 2-3 year olds

Source: LSAC, Waves 1 & 2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Lowest

SEP

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Highest

SEP

Parental socio-economic status (deciles)

%

Long day care Family day care Informal care only

Potential benefits of a social inclusionagenda Broadening the definition of disadvantage from an

exclusive focus on poverty

Emphasising social problems beyond the traditionalconcept of poverty

Focusing the discourse on the most disadvantaged

Bringing greater policy coherence and focus

Emphasising the importance of addressing themultiple barriers disadvantage presents

Underscoring the importance of joined-up services

Potential benefits of a social inclusionagenda (continued)

Highlighting the localised nature of disadvantage, themultiple disadvantages faced by the socially excludedand the process that has led to social exclusion

Identifying the role of social institutions in systematicallyexcluding certain groups or communities.

Potential limitations and risks of a socialinclusion agenda Overlooking the cumulative nature of disadvantage,

including across generations of the same family

Stigmatising groups and communities identified asbeing socially excluded

Distinguishing between the “deserving” and“undeserving” poor

Diffusing responsibility for addressing specific issues

Lacking coordination of multiple services

Potential limitations and risks of a socialinclusion agenda (continued)

Regenerating disadvantaged urban areas that canresult in gentrification and displacement of the poor toneighbourhoods which have less access to servicesand the labour market

Re-labelling existing government programs under thesocial inclusion agenda without reforming or bettercoordinating these, and

Shifting policy attention away from other forms ofinequality, including income inequality.

Building an Australian social inclusionapproach

A very wide range of policies has the potential toassist in reducing social exclusion and increasing thelevel of social inclusion.

In order to reduce social exclusion, both active andpreventive policies are needed to prevent deep socialexclusion

Features of productive approaches tosocial inclusion Addressing multiple disadvantages that the socially

excluded experience

Recognising that the most socially disadvantaged andexcluded often do not access conventional services

Centralising coordination, targets and monitoring

Localising coordination across government and non-government organisations to achieve an integratedapproach to social inclusion

Features of productive approaches tosocial inclusion (continued)

Implementing social inclusion initiatives at multiple points acrosslife cycles, from early childhood onwards and strategies to breakthe intergenerational cycles of disadvantage, deprivation andsocial exclusion

Forming partnerships between government and the non-profitsector

Changing attitudes, values and beliefs of those experiencing socialexclusion and the broader community

Features of productive approaches tosocial inclusion (continued)

Identifying the extent of the problem and theunderlying causes

Re-examining the evidence base to identify newsolutions, and

Developing performance measures and robustevaluations that capture both wide, deep andconcentrated disadvantage to measure outcomesover the long term.

Some tentative conclusions

Social inclusion agendas require webs of services andpackages of policies

Policy integration needs to be both horizontal (acrossareas of policy priority) and vertical (across life andspanning generations)

The three pillars of social inclusion are: Accessible quality lifelong learning opportunities to promote life

capabilities and employment chances Social and economic mobility Family and relationship supports

Some tentative conclusions (continued)

Priorities include:

Reducing social disorganisation Enhancing social and economic mobility Facilitating personal agency and participation Building community capacity and cohesion Facing collective responsibility.

Social Inclusion: Origins, concepts andkey themesThis presentation is, in part, based on the paper

Social Inclusion: Origins, concepts and key themes

ByAlan Hayes, Matthew Gray and Ben Edwards

Prepared forThe Social Inclusion Unit, Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet October2008

which can be found atwww.aifs.gov.auandwww.socialinclusion.gov.au

Is Australia culturally attuned to socialinclusion and mobility?1

A paper presented at the

Brotherhood of St Laurence Seminar Series

23 October 2008

by

Professor Alan HayesDirector, Australian Institute of Family Studies