Detecting Disadvantage in the ACT Gemma Wood – gemma.wood@act.gov.au Australian Social Policy Conference – UNSW 18 September 2013

Expanding our understanding of disadvantage Common approach – SEIFA Problems with area measures Preparing an alternative – SEIFI Limitations of the individual measure Understanding the differences Where to from here?

SEIFA background Socio-economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) have been produced since the 1986 Census SEIFA measures relative advantage and disadvantage of an area = average of individual attributes of population No measure of availability of social and public resources Used for research, funding, policy, service delivery decisions

What is the problem? Area-based measures like SEIFA mask individual circumstances (if attributed to individuals = ecological fallacy) Problem where areas have a mix of advantaged and disadvantaged households (results in averaging) For example where past policies encouraged dispersed public housing and scattered low cost housing Potential for misclassification A measure to reflect this is ‘diversity’

Why is measuring disadvantage important? Accurate measures of disadvantage inform government policy and planning Better data sets are required to meet needs and inform decision making Identification of how many and where disadvantaged households are to target services Measures that match ‘on-the-ground’ experience are needed This information is particularly useful for targeting services such as mobile clinics, health promotion or emergency relief.

Diversity in areas In the NT and ACT, which have the most diverse areas, SEIFA measures mask the extent of disadvantage because there is advantage in the same areas

Getting a handle on individual diversity ABS produced an experimental person-based or individual level index of relative disadvantage – termed SEIFI IRSD Showed the diversity of disadvantage reflected by area-based measures like SEIFA Produced for all Australian states and territories using individual responses to the 2006 Census Highlighted need to better understand SEIFA and risks of using only that measure Reference: Wise & Matthews 2011, Socio-Economic Indexes For Areas: Getting a Handle on Individual Diversity Within Areas, ABS Cat No 1351.0.55.036

Initial findings for the ACT - SEIFI Of all jurisdictions: ACT has lowest disadvantage and highest least disadvantage ACT has second highest proportion of socio-economically diverse areas (above average % of both most and least disadvantaged) ACT is unique because the proportion of highly disadvantaged individuals becomes greater (rather than smaller) as SEIFA scores increase

Detecting Disadvantage project Objectives: Identify previously hidden disadvantage in the ACT Identify stakeholders to describe the risks of using SEIFA and opportunities of using SEIFI Outcomes: Inform ACT submissions to the Commonwealth Grants Commission and other funding application processes Deepen understanding about existing services and needs in ACT Contribute to inter-agency partnerships and integrated service networks Interpretation of hidden:

Understanding SEIFA and SEIFI scores Lower score = higher relative disadvantage Higher score = lower relative disadvantage Areas are ranked into deciles (1 – 10) SEIFI: individuals are ranked by scores and grouped Group 1: lowest scores, most disadvantaged 20% Group 2: low scores, second most disadvantaged 20% Group 3: middle range scores, second least disadvantaged 30% Group 4: high scores, least disadvantaged 30%

SEIFI analysis in ACT SEIFI Group SEIFA Decile 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Total 944 783 1,074 2,183 1,851 4,052 5,026 5,479 4,115 3,132 28,639 175 197 423 1,108 1,092 2,953 4,184 5,318 5,273 5,277 26,001 483 496 1,052 2,572 2,666 6,640 10,491 14,410 15,196 20,462 74,467 632 835 1,414 3,237 3,259 7,661 12,798 17,764 19,484 31,178 98,262 2,234 2,311 3,962 9,100 8,868 21,306 32,500 42,971 44,068 60,049 227,369 15,868 or 61.0% of ACT residents aged 15-64 in Group 2 of SEIFI, the second most disadvantaged cohort, also live in CDs with SEIFI scores of 8 or higher Table 1: SEIFI IRSD Group against SEIFA IRSD CD-level decile (15-64 year old population) 2Australian Bureau of Statistics, CD-level SEIFI IRSD data for the ACT

Group 1 in the ACT Group 1 = most disadvantaged: 28,639 individuals aged 15-64 (in 2006) Number increases in areas with higher SEIFA IRSD 26,912 (93.9%) in areas with SEIFA of 3 or higher 12,726 (44.4%) in areas with SEIFA of 8 or higher

One example – Red Hill Red Hill –near Parliament House in the inner-south of Canberra had a SEIFA score of 9 (relatively advantaged) Four out of five CDs in Red Hill had SEIFA scores of 8-10 (most advantaged) 1Red Hill CD had 154 Group 1 members (= two-thirds of all Group 1 in Red Hill) Hidden disadvantage: CD level: 730 Suburb level: 945

Bigger Group 2 than first thought Group 2 in ACT Isabella Plains (Tuggeranong) Lowest Group 2 proportion of all Australian jurisdictions (11.4%), less than ACT Group 1 SEIFI suggests geographic clustering: 36.6% of ACT Group 2 population lives in Tuggeranong (9,525 individuals) May experience specific vulnerabilities and have specific service needs akin to individuals in second lowest income quintile Greatest proportion of Group 2 in ACT suburbs with > 350 people 15-64 years SEIFA score of 8 2,122 individuals masked: 453 Group 1 577 Group 2 2Australian Bureau of Statistics, CD-level SEIFI IRSD data for the ACT

SEIFA v SEIFI in the ACT ACT Disadvantage (RED) is much more pronounced under SEIFI (right) than SEIFA (left)

Limitations of SEIFI Are we using the best indicators to measure individual disadvantage? Currently restricted to 15-64 year olds (only 66% of population included Develop an age-specific SEIFI or reduce exclusions Needs to be updated to 2011 Census data and new ASGS

Next Steps Investigate feasibility of developing a suite of measures of disadvantage Eg. A measure of household disadvantage Encourage selection of measure fit for purpose ABS consultation on what users want and need Expand current practices of using SEIFA to include consideration of SEIFI Encourage use of SEIFI in policy development and funding applications – where appropriate Research links between SEIFI and service utilisation Research relevance of SEIFI to ‘on-the-ground’ experience Mapping and overlay with other data such as public housing or therapeutic services Speak to an example of using SEIFI in ACT policy or program development

More information Find the Detecting Disadvantage report on the Chief Minister and Treasury Directorate website: www.cmd.act.gov.au Find the Matthews and Wise paper on the ABS website at: www.abs.gov.au The data we used is available at dataACT: www.data.act.gov.au