1. Peter Saunders Social Policy Research Centre University of New South Wales Sydney 2052, AUSTRALIA Presented to the ACWA08 Strong, Safe and Sustainable Conference, Sydney, 18-20 August 2008 Multi-dimensional Indicators of Childhood Disadvantage

2. Outline of Presentation AIM: To examine what the concepts of poverty, deprivation, social exclusion and subjective well-being imply about the relative well-being of Australian families, by comparing the circumstances of: - families with and without dependent children - couples and sole parents with children APPROACH: 1.Use of survey data (CUPSE) to derive a variety of multi- dimensional indicators of disadvantage 2.Explore the association between these indicators and subjective well-being (SWB)

3. Defining Poverty, Deprivation and Social Exclusion u Poverty exists when income is inadequate to support an acceptable standard of living - objective measure, based on 50% of median income u Deprivation exists when people face ‘an enforced lack of socially perceived necessities’ u Social Exclusion ‘An individual is socially excluded if he or she does not participate in key activities in the society in which he or she lives’ Poverty reflects what people do not have, deprivation reflects what people cannot afford,exclusion relates to what people do not do

4. Data and Approach uThe CUPSE survey produced 2,704 adult responses, and a response rate of 47%. We focus on working-age respondents (aged 18-64). This reduces the sample size to 2,056 uDependent children defined as those aged 17 and under uWithin the working-age sample, we compare: - couples without children (n = 510) - couples with dependent children (n = 685) - sole parent families (n = 109) uTwo stage analysis - Stage I: compare disadvantage indicators, by family type - Stage II: compare SWB indicators between disadvantaged and non-disadvantaged families

5. Defining the Indicators of Disadvantage Poverty u Objective measure (income is below 50% of median disposable income; OECD equivalence scale) The Essentials of Life uRegarded as essential by at least 50% of those surveyed Deprivation uMean index score (minimum D = 0, maximum D = 26) uIncidence rates: D = 0; D ≥ 1; D ≥ 2 Social Exclusion uNo community participation: Did not participate in a range of community/social activities in the last 12 months uNo social life: “How would you describe your current level of participation in social and community activities?” – I do not have a social life uDoes not have enough to get by on uLives in a jobless household

6. Indicators of Subjective Well-Being uFocus on two indicators: vSubjective poverty status: “Would you describe you/your family as poor?” (Yes/No) vControl: “How much choice and control do you believe you have over your own life and the things that happen to you?” (10-point scale from 1 (none at all) to 10 (a great deal)) –related to the concepts of agency and autonomy vN.B. Patterns are similar when other SWB indicators (based on satisfaction and happiness) are used uRATIONALE: Allows the felt experience of disadvantage to be compared with its statistical identification – important role in identifying if social exclusion is “imposed”/external or “chosen”/internal

7. Patterns of Poverty

8. Patterns of Deprivation I (mean deprivation scores)

9. Patterns of Deprivation II (number of deprivations: percentages)

10. Selected Indicators of Social Exclusion, by Family Type

11. Patterns of Disadvantage – Main Findings uPoverty The highest poverty rates are experienced by sole parents, followed by couples with children, with poverty lowest among couples without children uDeprivation The patterns are similar to those for poverty, particularly the mean deprivation scores and the incidence of D ≥2 Using this latter measure, the incidence of deprivation is around three times higher than the incidence of poverty (e.g. 55% for sole parents, compared with around 21%) uSocial Exclusion Patterns vary greatly by indicator Greatest variability among the two social indicators for ‘No social life’

12. Subjective Poverty Status (%) by Objective Poverty Status

13. Subjective Poverty Status (%) by Degree of Deprivation

14. Subjective Poverty Status (%) by Social Life

15. SWB Conclusions - I uThe relationship between subjective poverty and disadvantage is stronger for deprivation (D ≥1) and exclusion than for poverty measured objectively (against median income) - suggests that poverty is about more than just a lack of income uSole parents feel poor whether or not they are below the poverty line (or poverty among sole parents is under-estimated?) uThe relationship between subjective and objective poverty is most pronounced for couples with children – implications for equivalence scale? uStrong relationship between subjective poverty and no social life for all three family types

16. Control (1-10) by Objective Poverty Status

17. Control (1-10) by Degree of Deprivation

18. Control (1-10) by Social Life

19. SWB Conclusions - II uThe experience of disadvantage does not markedly reduce the degree of control/autonomy exercised by those affected (although scale effects may be important) uDifferences within family types are again more pronounced for deprivation and exclusion than for poverty uThe largest effects show up for the DEP ≥2 measure uDifferences between family types are very similar across all three disadvantage indicators uThe relatively small differences in control suggest that those with no social life do not feel excluded, but have chosen not to participate - their exclusion may be passive rather than active

20. Overall Conclusions uThe indicators of deprivation and social exclusion provide a different perspective on the extent and nature of social disadvantage to those based on poverty, defined in terms of low-income uSole parents are shown to be most disadvantaged using all three indicators uThe different forms of exclusion show very different patterns, in aggregate and between family types uSubjective poverty status varies greatly by family type, and by the deprivation and exclusion measures of disadvantage uLack of control shows little variation between family types and, within families, by whether or not they are poor or excluded uThe SWB indicators and objective measures provide different perspectives on social disadvantage