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
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
Child Poverty and Overall Poverty in
OECD Countries
30
Mexico
Romania
25
USA
20
Latvia
Child
poverty
rate (%)
Canada
15
Australia
New Zealand
UK
Ireland
Korea
10
Sweden
5
Denmark
0
0
5
10
15
Overall poverty rate (%)
20
25
30
Mexico
Turkey
Estonia
Spain
USA
Italy
Canada
Poland
Greece
Chile
Japan
Luxembourg
OECD average
UK
Australia
Korea
Couple poverty rate
Belgium
Slovak Republic
Switzerland
Ireland
Austria
New Zealand
Slovenia
Netherlands
Hungary
Czech Republic
France
Germany
Sweden
Finland
Norway
Denmark
Child Poverty among Couple and Sole Parent
Households in OECD Countries, 2008
Sole parent poverty rate
60
50
40
% 30
20
10
0
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
Ireland (-2.0)
(-3.1) and
• 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
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)
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 1987
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
‘Current’ (and ‘Recent’) Changes
•
The Melbourne Institute estimates that the child poverty rate in
2009 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
Long-term Trends in Child Poverty in
Australia
50% median
60% median
Below real 1982 50% median
Below real 1982 60% median
25
20
15
%
10
5
0
1982
1986
1990
1994
1995
1996
2000
2002
2003
2005
2007
2009
2009-10
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-00
1997-98
1996-97
1995-96
1994-95
Changes in Real Median Income
45000
40000
35000
$ per
annum
30000
25000
20000
2008-09
2007-08
2006-07
2005-06
2004-05
2003-04
2002-03
2001-02
2000-01
1999-00
1998-99
1997-98
1996-97
1995-96
1994-95
1993-94
1992-93
1991-92
1990-91
1989-90
1988-89
Spending on Family Allowances and All
Family Benefits (% of GDP)
3.0
2.5
2.0
$ per
1.5
annum
All family benefits
1.0
Family allowances
0.5
0.0
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
1993
1992
1991
1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
1985
1984
1983
1982
1981
1980
Australian Spending on Family Allowances
(ratio of OECD-22 average)
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
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
Identifying Deprivation
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
Are Identified Essentials Robust?
(unweighted percentages)
Are Children’s Needs Universal?
(unweighted percentages)
Identifying Child Deprivation
Two Important Issues:
a) Important to distinguish between children living in
deprived households and child deprivation – these may
overlap but are not the same
b) 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
Overall Changes in Deprivation, 2006
to 2010 (weighted percentages)
Essential items
Warm clothes and bedding, if it's cold
Medical treatment if needed
Able to buy medicines prescribed by a doctor
A substantial meal at least once a day
Dental treatment if needed
A decent and secure home
Children can participate in school activities and outings
A yearly dental check-up for children
A hobby or leisure activity for children
Up to date schoolbooks and new school clothes for school-age children
A roof and gutters that do not leak
Secure locks on doors and windows
Regular social contact with other people
Furniture in reasonable condition
Heating in at least one room of the house
Up to $500 in savings for an emergency
A separate bed for each child
A washing machine
Home contents insurance
Presents for family or friends at least once a year
Computer skills
Comprehensive motor vehicle insurance
A telephone
A week's holiday away from home each year
Average deprivation rate
2006
0.3
2.1
4.5
1.2
14.5
7.1
4.9
13.2
7.8
5.9
4.8
5.0
4.7
2.8
2.1
19.6
2.2
1.1
11.1
6.8
4.6
9.8
1.9
23.6
6.7
2010
0.4
1.7
3.5
0.9
13.1
6.7
4.3
11.0
6.8
4.7
7.4
5.8
6.2
2.2
2.5
17.8
2.1
1.0
9.5
5.5
2.9
9.1
3.8
19.8
6.2
Changes in Child Deprivation Rates
(weighted percentages)
Couples with children
Sole parent families
2006
2010
2006
2010
1.5
1.3
7.0
6.0
A substantial daily meal
0.6
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
1.3
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
Item
Medical treatment if needed
Overlap Analysis (weighted percentages)
Consistent
poverty –
poor and
deprived
Poverty
(50%
median)
Excluded
(E≥7)
13.6
18.1
14.2
15.0
21.0
19.9
21.5
13.0
20.6
20.6
16.1
Single
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
Couples
39.4
42.1
47.4
38.3
39.9
40.3
Sole parents
15.7
9.9
14.7
15.6
12.6
17.7
All households
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
100.0
Poverty
(60%
median)
Deprived
(D≥2)
Single
14.0
Couples, no children
Poor
and
excluded
WORKING-AGE ADULTS
OLDER ADULTS
HOUSEHOLDS WITH CHILDREN
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)
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 11-17 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
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
Households are Complex!
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?
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 200910
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