Measurement and Change in Deprivation and Exclusion in Australia

Peter Saunders and Melissa WongSocial Policy Research Centre, UNSW

Presented to the Second Townsend Memorial Conference, University of Bristol, 22-23 January 2011

Outline of Presentation

Limitations of poverty research in Australia

Deprivation and social exclusion

Towards new indicators of disadvantage: Project background and aims

Measuring deprivation and social exclusion

Some results from the 2006 and 2010 surveys

Conclusions

Poverty: Why We Need a New Approach

No agreement about where to set the poverty line

Poverty line sensitive to shifts (Saunders and Hill, 2008)

Household income data not reliable

‘…household income is not a good indicator of the total economic resources available to many people with very low recorded incomes...’ (ABS, 2006)

Poverty is more than just a lack of income - it is often multi-dimensional in terms of causes and consequences

The failure to provide such foundations in poverty line studies has exposed them for being out of touch with the lived realities of poverty (Lister, 2004)

Failure to indicate that the actual living conditions of those identified as poor are synonymous with poverty (Whiteford, 1997)

Poverty and Deprivation

‘Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in activities, and have the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved, in the societies to which they belong. Their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns and activities’ (Townsend, 1979)

‘…an enforced lack of socially perceived necessities (or essentials)’ (Mack and Lansley, 1985)

Poverty and Social Exclusion

‘Social exclusion is a complex and multi-dimensional process. It involves the lack of denial of resources, rights, good and services, and the inability to participate in the normal relationships and activities, available to the majority of the people in society, whether in economic, social, cultural, or political arenas. It affects both the quality of life of individuals and the equity and cohesion of society as a whole’ (Levitas, 2007).

‘An individual who is socially excluded if he or she does not participate in key activities in the society in which he or she lives’ (Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud, 2002)

Towards New Indicators of DisadvantageProject background and aims: 2006 2006 Left Out and Missing Out Study

Two year study grant funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant Industry partners: ACOSS, Mission Australia, Brotherhood of St Laurence and Anglicare

Sydney Main goal: To identify what constitutes the main elements of a minimally decent lifestyle

in contemporary Australia and assess who is ‘missing out’ and ‘left out’ First of its kind to apply a deprivation approach in Australia and the first to present a

comprehensive national picture of social exclusion Stage 1 (mid-2005): focus group discussions with community sector agency clients and

staff Stage 2 (early-2006): The Community Understanding of Poverty and Social Exclusion

(CUPSE) survey sent out to 6,000 adult (18+) Australians – n = 2,704; response rate = 46.9% Two welfare service client surveys in 2006 (n=673) and 2008 (n=1,237); based on a

truncated version of CUPSE

Towards New Indicators of DisadvantageProject background and aims: 2010 2010 Social Disadvantage and Economic Recession – Promoting Inclusion and

Combating Deprivation Two year study grant funded by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant Industry partners: Anglicare Australia, ACOSS, The Benevolent Society, Mission Australia,

Social Inclusion Unit (Australia, South Australia and Tasmania), St Vincent de Paul Society Main focus: to examine the impact of global financial crisis on Australia and to examine the

robustness of the methodologies involved First study in Australia to explore the dynamics of social disadvantage The Poverty and Exclusion in Modern Australia (PEMA) survey :

- same sampling frame as CUPSE; n= 2,644; response rate = 46.1% The PEMA follow-up survey:

- re-surveying of 1,000 CUPSE respondents; n=533; response rate = 60.2%

PLEASE NOTE: PEMA data are (very) new and results are preliminary

THE ESSENTIALS OF LIFE

DEPRIVATION

Yes

Is it essential?

No Yes

Do you have it?

No

Yes

Is this because you cannot afford it?

NoTHE ESSENTIALS OF LIFE

DEPRIVATION

Yes

Is it essential?

No Yes

Do you have it?

No

Yes

Is this because you cannot afford it?

No

Identifying the Essentials of Life and Deprivation

Support for Items being Essential: 2006 and 2010

The 24 Essential Items

1) Warm clothes and bedding, if it’s cold 2) Medical treatment if needed3) Able to buy medicines prescribed by a

doctor4) A substantial meal at least once a day5) Dental treatment if needed6) A decent and secure home7) Children can participate in school

activities and outings8) A yearly dental check-up for children9) A hobby or leisure activity for children10) Up to date schoolbooks and new school

clothes11) A roof and gutters that do not leak12) Secure locks on doors and windows

13) Regular social contact with other people 14) Furniture in reasonable condition15) Heating in at least one room of the house16) Up to $500 in savings for an emergency17) A separate bed for each child18) A washing machine19) Home contents insurance20) Presents for family or friends at least once

a year21) Computer skills22) Comprehensive motor vehicle insurance23) A telephone24) A week’s holiday away from home each

year

Deprivation Rates in 2006 and 2010

Social Exclusion Domains

Disengagement(9 indicators)

Service Exclusion(10 indicators)

Economic Exclusion(8 indicators)

No regular social contact with other people No medical treatment if neededDoes not have $500 in savings for use in an emergency

Did not participate in any community activities in last 12 months

No access to a local doctor or hospitalHad to pawn or sell something, or borrow money in the last 12 months

Does not have a social life No access to dental treatment if needed Could not raise $2,000 in a week

No annual week’s holiday away from home No access to a bulk-billing doctorDoes not have more than $50,000 worth of assets

Children do not participate in school outings or activities [those with school-age children only]

No access to mental health servicesHas not spent $100 on a ‘special treat’ for myself in last 12 months

No hobby or leisure activity for children [those with children only]

No child care for working parents [working-age parents only]

Does not have enough to get by on

Couldn’t get to an important event because of lack of transport in last 12 months

No aged care for frail older people [people aged 70+ only]

Is currently unemployed or looking for work

Could not go out with friends and pay my way in last 12 months

No disability support services when needed Lives in a jobless household

Unable to attend wedding or funeral in last 12 months

No access to a bank or building society

Couldn’t keep up with payments for water, electricity, gas or telephone in last 12 months

Social Exclusion Indicators

Overlaps between Poverty, Deprivation and Social Exclusion

Poverty rate – 50 % median equivalised househould income

Deprivation – 3 or more conditions of deprivation

Social exclusion – 7 or more exclusion indicators

Overlaps between Poverty, Deprivation and Social Exclusion

Community Sample 2006

Overlaps between Poverty, Deprivation and Social Exclusion

Client Sample 2006

In Conclusion

New series of indicators of disadvantage for the Australian context

Deprivation method is capable of generating robust and plausible results

Following the global financial crisis, there has been a fall in deprivation and social exclusion rates in Australia

However, there is still a problem concerning deep exclusion that requires greater attention

Overlaps between poverty, deprivation and social exclusion greater for welfare service clients

Age Composition Comparisons

Deprivation Rates by the Presence of Children

Sensitivity analysis: Inferred Deprivation

Essential items

Inverse ownership

rate - does not have

Deprivation rate - does not have and cannot afford

Inferred deprivation rate - does not have but regards as

essential

Warm clothes and bedding, if it's cold 0.4 0.3 0.4

Medical treatment if needed 3.1 1.5 3.1

Able to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor 4.1 2.9 3.9

A substantial meal at least once a day 1.4 0.8 1.2

Children can participate in school activities and outings 28.4 (3.6) 2.6 (1.3) 26.1 (3.4)

A yearly dental check-up for children 25.0 (5.4) 7.0 (3.3) 21.9 (5.0)

A hobby or leisure activity for children 25.3 (3.9) 4.6 (2.1) 21.3 (3.3)

A roof and gutters that do not leak 9.2 4.7 7.0

Secure locks on doors and windows 11.4 4.3 8.0

Regular social contact with other people 13.0 4.7 10.5

Furniture in reasonable condition 2.3 2.1 1.7

Heating in at least one room of the house 7.7 2.1 2.7A week's holiday away from home each year 39.2 18.5 16.9Note: (a) Figures in brackets assume that households without children do not lack, or are deprived of, child items.