Disadvantage in the Mornington Peninsula and a Place-based
response to address disadvantage: An overview
Janet Stanley - February 2014
Community disadvantage
Child wellbeing depends on the satisfaction of material, physical, affective and
psychological needs. Achievement in these areas is reached through strong and healthy
attachments and age-appropriate competencies which develop through a complex and
dynamic interaction between the child and significant others in his or her life. This is
illustrated in Appendix A: Figure 1, but can be summarized as below:
A person’s wellbeing and health is influenced by:
1. The family/household
2. The kinship and informal networks (schools, friends)
3. The local community, and formal services (child care, scouts, entertainment)
4. The broader economic, political, environmental and social setting.
Particularly for a child, the first of these three interactions sit within, or relate to, the
local geographical area where a child lives. The importance of the broader circle of
people increases as the child ages and youth become less dependent on the home
environment and interact more with peers within the local community.
Social exclusion – i.e. where people are excluded from participating in mainstream
opportunities, is experienced at a concerning level by about 14% of Australians and at a
very concerning level by about 6% of Australians. Social exclusion is both a cause and
an outcome of disadvantage.
People at risk of social exclusion may have restricted access to many resources
fundamental for wellbeing. These include personal financial resources, education,
transport opportunities and health services. These multiple barriers compound adverse
impacts such as isolation and disadvantage. Where social exclusion is present, these
barriers are often present in the first three levels of interaction, referred to above.
Thus, adversity (barriers) limits personal parental resources and makes it more difficult
to provide emotionally responsive parenting. For example, it is hard to give positive
time to a child if you are at risk of eviction because you don’t have the rent money.
Adversity (barriers) in relation to extended family and peers makes it more difficult for
a child/youth to have positive/good developmental experiences. A disadvantaged
community setting (poor resources in the school and local environment) restricts
positive experiences for a child/youth.
There are a number of locations in Greater Melbourne where the Government has failed
to put in place adequate infrastructure (services/transport). These places tend to be on
the fringe of the city. Because they lack the infrastructure, the land price/housing is
1
cheaper than elsewhere in Melbourne. As people give a priority to putting a roof over
their head, those with low financial resources move to these locations. The poor local
infrastructure and community resources then compound the problem of low financial
resources and other problems occur, such as few local job opportunities, the need to
own one or two cars etc.
Pockets of the Mornington Peninsula (MP) have multiple disadvantages, such as poor
quality housing, under-resourced schools, and high levels of unemployment., as
discussed further, below. Such an environment adversely impacts on the developing
child. There are less opportunities, less positive role models and generally less positive
experiences to support child development. These stressors can lead to a higher risk of
maladaptive behaviour such as child abuse and neglect, disengaged youth (not in work
or employment), family violence, and anti-social behaviour, behaviours less common in
other Melbourne communities that are better resourced.
Unfortunately disadvantage becomes entrenched and self-perpetuating. Some
communities remain trapped in a spiral of low school attainment, high unemployment,
poor health, high imprisonment rates and child abuse. This in turn leads to low
educational attainment and intergenerational poverty that compounds disadvantage.
Changing disadvantage
Local services struggle to respond effectively to these complex problems and bring
about longer-term change. Understandably, they tend to respond to the immediate
individual need knocking on their front door (e.g. an impending eviction). As illustrated
in Figure 2, agency’s circle of concern risks becoming very narrow. To change broad
levels of disadvantage, activities need to move from quadrant 1 (urgent and important)
to quadrant 2 (not urgent and important).
This is easy to say when you are not in the position of daily facing individuals with high
needs! However, the outcome of concentrating on quadrant 1 is:
• working on one emergency after another
• pursuing many small projects that have little collective impact on change
outcomes
• focusing resources on a single siloed outcome
• overlooking the local area disadvantages which act against change
An analogy: The brakes have failed on a car and need repair. This is done, but this will
not prevent an accident if the tires are bald, the headlights and turning indicators that
don’t work, and the driver is under the influence of alcohol.
2
Figure 2: Time management matrix
Source: Covey (1998)
While cumulative disadvantage can lead to a compounding downward spiral, the good
news is that providing resources to families and communities that address
disadvantage on a number of fronts at the same time, can also produce a compounding
impact in a positive direction. Thus, good outcomes create more good outcomes.
Disadvantage on the Mornington Peninsula (MP)
If measures, such as income levels, are averaged, the MP sits about average for
Melbourne. This hides the presence of high levels of inequality on the MP where there
are pockets of both significant wealth and severe disadvantage. This section gives a
snapshot of some aspects of those experiencing disadvantage on the MP, particularly as
it relates to children and youth.
Early school leavers and post-school qualifications
The MP generally has lower education standards than the Melbourne average. 19% of
residents aged 15 years and over left school at Year 10 or below, compared to the
average for Greater Melbourne of 13% (2011 census). Similarly, 42% of residents aged
15 years and over completed year 12, compared to a 55% average for Greater
Melbourne. This trend is followed through with post-school qualifications. A larger
percentage of people in MP have Vocational qualifications compared to Greater
Melbourne (21% compared to 15%). A smaller percentage of people have Bachelor or
higher degrees compared to Greater Melbourne (15% compared to 24%). The lower
education standards tend to be clustered in pockets on the MP.
3
Unemployment
Vulnerability to unemployment is increased for those who have lower skill levels and
thus less flexibility in job options. While the average unemployment levels on the MP
reflect the average for Greater Melbourne, there are pockets with high unemployment
levels, as shown in Figure 31.
Figure 3: Unemployed men aged 25 to 64 years (2006)
There are particularly high levels of youth unemployment on the MP, with 12.8% of
youth (15 to 24 years of age) registered as unemployed (February 2014). This does not
While the maps are now dated (2006 Census), the information, apart from $ levels,
will not have changed much. The maps give an idea of the location of disadvantage.
They can be greatly expanded by clicking on the map and pulling out the side. The red
and pink indicates above Greater Melbourne average, the shades of blue, below Greater
Melbourne average.
1
4
include those youth who are under-employed (working part-time but would prefer to
be full time) and those disengaged from both education and looking for work. These
additional factors suggest that the true rate of under-activity for youth may sit close to
30%. Unemployment is much higher for the younger age group, with 26.2% of youth
aged 15 to 19 years registered as unemployed (July 2012).
Lone parent families
Consistent with the low level of economic resources of many lone parent households, it
is common for them to have difficulties due to a shortage of money. For example, a
survey found that 51% of lone parents could not pay electricity/gas bills on time,
compared with 20% of couples. In Australia, those receiving lone parent benefits are
likely to remain with this dependence for at least 12 years, a period of time that relates
to the important child rearing years. Greater Melbourne has 28% of lone parent families
with children 15 years and under, with a gross income less than $1,000 per week.
Figure 4 reveals clusters of lone parents on the MP, with many places having over 30%
of lone parent families below this income threshold.
Figure 4: Proportion of lone parent families with a gross weekly income below
$1,000
5
Households in the private rental market
Another high need group are low income households in private rental housing who
experience financial stress, particularly in a market with rising rental charges in a tight
housing market. Low-income households also often live in low-quality or substandard
housing, issues common in the private rental market. Figure 5 shows the location of
private rentals on the MP.
Figure 5: Private rental dwellings
Transport
Those who have low levels of mobility, that is, who find it difficult to travel to essential
services, jobs and recreation, have the high levels of social exclusion and lower levels of
wellbeing. Figure 6 illustrates the transport gaps identified in Metropolitan Melbourne.
These findings take into account social need (income), the availability of walk access to
shops, and access to buses, trains and trams. Areas of MP are identified as having both
poor active and public transport options and high needs.
6
Figure 6: Areas in Greater Melbourne with poor public and active transport and
high needs
.
Source: Currie (2009)
7
Conclusions on disadvantage on the MP
A quick overview of disadvantage on the MP shows that there are a number of locations
with multiple disadvantages. Figure 7 shows a summary of these areas.
Figure 7: SEIFA Index 2006
Source: Environmental Scan 2013
The highest concentrations of disadvantage are shown in pink, being Hastings, Rosebud
and Rosebud West. The next highest in dark blue are Baxter, Rye and Crib Point.
Thus, using a place-based approach, as discussed above, it is suggested that the GHF
concentrate their activities either at Hastings or the Rosebud/Rosebud West area – or
tackle both of these areas. Such an approach would build capacity in the area/s, rather
than offer a scattergun approach that tends to comprise urgent responses to individuals
and is too limited to offer comprehensive change. It would entail the development of a
vision and longer term outcome planning. An issue to be discussed by GHF is whether it
wishes to also highlight the infrastructure shortfalls where they are present in the
pockets of high disadvantage. This would entail encouraging the government to
increase resources to schools, improve public transport, offer wider education choices
(TAFE), increase local jobs etc.
8
References
Bronfenbrenner, U, 1979, The Ecology of Human Development, Cambridge, MA, Harvard
Uni Press.
Covey, S. 1998, 7 Habits Of Highly Effective People, Simon and Schuster, New York.
Currie, G 2009, Investigating Links Between Transport Disadvantage, Social Exclusion
And Well Being In Melbourne – An Update Of Results, 11th International Conference on
Competition & Ownership in Land Passenger Transport (Thredbo 11), September, Delft,
The Netherlands
Source of ABS maps: Stanley, J. 2010, Promoting Social Inclusion in Adaptation to Climate
Change: Discussion Paper, Monash Sustainability Institute, Monash University.
Appendix A
Figure 1: Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory
9