1. Addressing Child Poverty: Reflections on the Australian Experience
Peter Saunders
Social Policy Research Centre
University of New South Wales
Presented to the Workshops on Solutions to Child Poverty, Wellington, 19 September and Auckland, 21 September 2012

2. Outline of Presentation
Some international evidence
Overview of the Australian experience
Recent research on child poverty and deprivation
The need for a child-focused approach
Reflections and implications (?) for New Zealand

3. Child Poverty and Overall Poverty in OECD Countries

4. Child Poverty among Couple and Sole Parent Households in OECD Countries, 2008

5. Recent “Success Stories”
Only 5 OECD countries reduced their child poverty rate by more than one percentage point between the mid-1990s and 2008
They were: the UK (-4.9), Chile (-3.8), Italy (-3.6), Hungary (-3.1) and Ireland (-2.0)
Three of these countries started with child poverty rates well above the OECD average (UK, 13.6%, Ireland, 18.3% and Italy, 13.7%)
All of the other (4) countries where child poverty declined started of with above-average rates, i.e. no country with a below-average rate managed to reduce it
Although it has not reached all of its interim targets, the UK child poverty strategy is a good example of what can be achieved

6. The (OECD) Bottom Line
‘To generalise, all countries with very low levels of child poverty (under 5%) also have relatively low levels of joblessness … and relatively low market income poverty, together with tax and transfer systems that are very effective at further reducing child poverty, usually through high levels of spending rather than through targeting … Countries that have high levels of child poverty appear mainly to have very high levels of poverty among working families, and tax and transfer benefit systems that are not effective in reducing it.’ (Whiteford and Adema, 2007)

7. Australia’s Child Poverty Pledge
The pledge that: ‘By 1990, no Australia child would need to live in poverty’ was (unexpectedly) announced in the run-up to the federal election
It was followed by substantial (targeted) increases in family payments (and intense debate about the poverty line)
The child poverty rate fell (and the poverty gap even more) but poverty was still well above zero (or even 5%) by 1990
The government was heavily criticised, despite making in-roads into child poverty that were major when judged against historical and international (OECD) experience
The UK child poverty targets were more realistic and the overall strategy was more comprehensive and considered: targets can work

8. ‘Current’ (and ‘Recent’) Changes
The Melbourne Institute estimates that the child poverty rate in was 13.2% (based on 50% of median income, before housing)
Was virtually the same as in 2001, although it declined to 11.9% in 2006 before rising to 14% in 2008
Between 2001 and 2009, two-thirds of all children under 11 were not in poverty in any year, just under a quarter (22%) were poor for 1-2 years, and in-seven (13.3%) were poor for 3-9 years
The longitudinal (HILDA) data has generated important new information on the dynamics of poverty
Data release delays are an issue for researchers (and policy makers

9. Long-term Trends in Child Poverty in Australia

10. Changes in Real Median Income

11. Spending on Family Allowances and All Family Benefits (% of GDP)

12. Australian Spending on Family Allowances (ratio of OECD-22 average)

13. The Deprivation Approach
Does not depend on reported income or the use of an equivalence scale
Provides a better (more credible?) way of identifying who lacks the resources needed to achieve an acceptable standard of living
Identifies poverty as those who lack ‘the living conditions and amenities which are customary, or at least widely encouraged or approved’ – an ‘enforced lack of socially perceived necessities’
By identifying specific dimensions of living standards, the approach can be applied specifically to children (and other household members)
BUT
The approach is subject to conceptual and measurement controversy
Generally uses the views of adults to identify deprivation among children

14. Identifying Deprivation

15. The SPRC Deprivation and Exclusion Surveys
Interviews with low-income and disadvantaged Australians (2005) – to identify essential items
The Community Understanding of Poverty and Social Exclusion (CUPSE) Survey
- conducted in 2006, n = 2,704, response rate = 46.9%
The Poverty and Exclusion in Modern Australia (PEMA) Survey
- conducted in 2010, n = 2,645, response rate = 46.1%
PEMA follow-up survey (n = 533, response rate = 60.2%)
Surveys of selected welfare service clients conducted in 2006 and 2008

16. Are Identified Essentials Robust? (unweighted percentages)

17. Are Children’s Needs Universal? (unweighted percentages)

18. Identifying Child Deprivation
Two Important Issues:
Important to distinguish between children living in deprived households and child deprivation – these may overlap but are not the same
Should ideally be based on children’s/young people’s own views on which items are essential, and whether or not they have them
The latter requires a child-focused approach, involving both qualitative and quantitative studies

19. Overall Changes in Deprivation, 2006 to 2010 (weighted percentages)
Essential items
2006
2010
Warm clothes and bedding, if it's cold
0.3
0.4
Medical treatment if needed
2.1
1.7
Able to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor
4.5
3.5
A substantial meal at least once a day
1.2
0.9
Dental treatment if needed
14.5
13.1
A decent and secure home
7.1
6.7
Children can participate in school activities and outings
4.9
4.3
A yearly dental check-up for children
13.2
11.0
A hobby or leisure activity for children
7.8
6.8
Up to date schoolbooks and new school clothes for school-age children
5.9
4.7
A roof and gutters that do not leak
4.8
7.4
Secure locks on doors and windows
5.0
5.8
Regular social contact with other people
6.2
Furniture in reasonable condition
2.8
2.2
Heating in at least one room of the house
2.5
Up to $500 in savings for an emergency
19.6
17.8
A separate bed for each child
A washing machine
1.1
1.0
Home contents insurance
11.1
9.5
Presents for family or friends at least once a year
5.5
Computer skills
4.6
2.9
Comprehensive motor vehicle insurance
9.8
9.1
A telephone
1.9
3.8
A week's holiday away from home each year
23.6
19.8
Average deprivation rate

20. Changes in Child Deprivation Rates (weighted percentages)
Item
Couples with children
Sole parent families
2006
2010
Medical treatment if needed
1.5
1.3
7.0
6.0
A substantial daily meal
0.6
2.1
2.8
A decent and secure home
4.8
5.5
23.0
10.2
School outings & activities
3.7
3.2
12.1
9.8
Dental check-up
10.0
9.9
23.1
19.7
Hobby/leisure activity
5.2
5.8
21.7
12.0
Schoolbooks/school clothes
4.1
3.4
14.7
15.3
Separate bed for each child
1.9
2.2
4.7
Presents for family friends
5.3
4.4
17.8
9.2
Week’s holiday away
22.0
21.2
52.0
38.6
At least 2 out of 10 items
13.6
13.2
40.1
28.9
At least 2 out of 5 child items
5.1
6.2
15.9
18.1

21. Overlap Analysis (weighted percentages)
Poverty
(60% median)
Deprived
(D≥2)
Consistent
poverty – poor and deprived
Poverty (50% median)
Excluded
(E≥7)
Poor
and excluded
WORKING-AGE ADULTS
Single
14.0
13.6
18.1
14.2
15.0
21.0
Couples, no children
19.9
21.5
13.0
20.6
16.1
OLDER ADULTS
2.5
5.9
0.9
1.4
5.3
0.0
Couples
8.5
7.0
6.0
9.9
6.6
4.8
HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN
39.4
42.1
47.4
38.3
39.9
40.3
Sole parents
15.7
14.7
15.6
12.6
17.7
All households
100.0

22. Children’s Input is Crucial
‘In the UK, there is very little research into the material items and experiences that children think are necessary for a ‘normal kind of life’. We know what adults think children need, but not what children themselves see as necessary. As a corollary, we know little about how lacking these items and experiences affects children’s wellbeing ... Measures of family circumstances face an important shortcoming in classifying children as poor only if they live in income-poor households’ (Main and Pople, The Children’s Society, 2011)

23. The Making a Difference Study
Conceptual Frameworks:
A multi-dimensional, living standards approach to poverty
The ‘new sociology of childhood’
Key Research Questions:
How do young people (aged years) experience economic and other forms of adversity?
What changes do they think would make a difference to their lives?
Methods:
Qualitative study conducted in 8 metropolitan data collection sites
Interviews with 96 young people (accessed through services), 13 parents and 24 service providers
Extensive pre-interview ‘familiarisation’ visits to build trust and gather background/contextual information
Area profiles based on official (ABS) and local administrative data

24. Young People’s Perspectives
School Costs; teaching and learning; (lost) opportunities and barriers; relationships with teachers; parent relationships with school; relationships with peers Neighbourhood Activities they knew about and those they did not; lack of facilities and places to ‘hang out’; costs; peer communities; urban decay; safety and violence Family Relationships; money; resources; space; dynamics Aspirations Immediate and later for self and for own children

25. Households are Complex!

26. Location Matters!
Areas of concentrated disadvantage with limited opportunity structures
High levels of stigma
Stigma associated with place, not with person
Sense of belonging
Narrow knowledge and horizons
Areas of socio-economic mix with availability of opportunity structures
High levels of stigma
Stigma is experienced personally
Sense of isolation
Broader knowledge of possibilities - but are they seen as achievable?

27. Policy Has Made a Difference
Large increases in family payments to low and middle income families
The child support scheme increased the incomes of many sole parents
Strong and sustained employment growth been important (although the jobless rate is still too high)
Affordable child care is still a problem for many parents
The one-off payments introduced in 2009 as part of the fiscal stimulus response to the GFC
Improvements in dental health services for low-income groups
Widespread spending on school improvement projects in

28. Conclusions and Implications
The OECD child poverty experience is very diverse
Child poverty is the result of many factors – hence the need for solutions
To be successful, policy must address the big issues (e.g. Inequality and joblessness) as well as the specifics (e.g. benefit levels, targeting and work incentives)
Child poverty targets provide an important focus – for policy makers and the community
They must be realistic and sustained (and be politically acceptable)
Research has an important role to play in debating concepts, documenting the situation and monitoring change and impact – measurement matters!
Poverty line studies must be supplemented by living standards approaches
Children’s views must be reflected in the instruments used to measure child poverty and assess the impact of policy