1. Detecting Disadvantage in the ACT
Gemma Wood –
Australian Social Policy Conference – UNSW
18 September 2013

2. 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?

3. 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

4. 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’

5. 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.

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

9. 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:

10. 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%

11. 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 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

12. Group 1 in the ACT Group 1 = most disadvantaged:
28,639 individuals aged (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

13. 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

14. 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 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

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

16. Limitations of SEIFI
Are we using the best indicators to measure individual disadvantage?
Currently restricted to 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

17. 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

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