1. Measurement and Change in Deprivation and Exclusion in Australia Peter Saunders and Melissa Wong Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW Presented to the Second Townsend Memorial Conference, University of Bristol, 22-23 January 2011

2. 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

3. 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)

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage Project 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

7. Towards New Indicators of Disadvantage Project 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

8. Identifying the Essentials of Life and Deprivation

9. Support for Items being Essential: 2006 and 2010

10. The 24 Essential Items 1)Warm clothes and bedding, if it’s cold 2)Medical treatment if needed 3)Able to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor 4)A substantial meal at least once a day 5)Dental treatment if needed 6)A decent and secure home 7)Children can participate in school activities and outings 8)A yearly dental check-up for children 9)A hobby or leisure activity for children 10)Up to date schoolbooks and new school clothes 11)A roof and gutters that do not leak 12)Secure locks on doors and windows 13)Regular social contact with other people 14)Furniture in reasonable condition 15) Heating in at least one room of the house 16)Up to $500 in savings for an emergency 17)A separate bed for each child 18)A washing machine 19)Home contents insurance 20)Presents for family or friends at least once a year 21)Computer skills 22)Comprehensive motor vehicle insurance 23)A telephone 24)A week’s holiday away from home each year

11. Deprivation Rates in 2006 and 2010

12. Social Exclusion Domains Disengagement (9 indicators) Service Exclusion (10 indicators) Economic Exclusion (8 indicators) No regular social contact with other peopleNo medical treatment if needed Does 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 hospital Had to pawn or sell something, or borrow money in the last 12 months Does not have a social lifeNo access to dental treatment if neededCould not raise $2,000 in a week No annual week’s holiday away from homeNo access to a bulk-billing doctor Does 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 services Has 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 neededLives 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

13. Social Exclusion Indicators

14. 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

15. Overlaps between Poverty, Deprivation and Social Exclusion Community Sample 2006

16. Overlaps between Poverty, Deprivation and Social Exclusion Client Sample 2006

17. 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

18. Age Composition Comparisons

19. Deprivation Rates by the Presence of Children

20. 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 cold0.40.30.4 Medical treatment if needed3.11.53.1 Able to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor4.12.93.9 A substantial meal at least once a day1.40.81.2 Children can participate in school activities and outings28.4 (3.6)2.6 (1.3)26.1 (3.4) A yearly dental check-up for children25.0 (5.4)7.0 (3.3)21.9 (5.0) A hobby or leisure activity for children25.3 (3.9)4.6 (2.1)21.3 (3.3) A roof and gutters that do not leak9.24.77.0 Secure locks on doors and windows11.44.38.0 Regular social contact with other people13.04.710.5 Furniture in reasonable condition2.32.11.7 Heating in at least one room of the house7.72.12.7 A week's holiday away from home each year39.218.516.9 Note: (a) Figures in brackets assume that households without children do not lack, or are deprived of, child items.