poverty inquiry - sa parliament

Poverty Inquiry

Seventeenth Report of the

Social Development Committee

Laid on the Table of the Legislative Council and ordered to be printed 13 May 2003

SECOND SESSION FIFTIETH PARLIAMENT

Parliament of South Australia

[PP207

TABLE OF CONTENTS ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE......................i

FUNCTIONS OF THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE.......................................................................iii

TERMS OF REFERENCE............................................................................................................................................v

CHAPTER ONE.............................................................................................................................................................1 RECOMMENDATIONS AND OVERVIEW ...........................................................................................................................1

Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Rationale For Terms Of Reference.......................................................................................................................................... 21 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................................................... 21 Definitions............................................................................................................................................................................... 22

CHAPTER 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 27 BACKGROUND TO THE INQUIRY .................................................................................................................................. 27

Australian Poverty Trends ....................................................................................................................................................... 27 Poverty In South Australia ...................................................................................................................................................... 29 The Increasing Socio-Economic Gap ...................................................................................................................................... 31 Unemployment ........................................................................................................................................................................ 34

CHAPTER 3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 37 ADELAIDE’S DISADVANTAGED AREAS....................................................................................................................... 37

Poverty Indicators.................................................................................................................................................................... 37 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................. 55

CHAPTER 4 ................................................................................................................................................................. 57 INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY- INCIDENCE AND RISK............................................................................................. 57

The Incidence Of Intergenerational Poverty............................................................................................................................ 57 The Risk Of Intergenerational Poverty .................................................................................................................................... 59 Summary ................................................................................................................................................................................. 67

CHAPTER 5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 69 LOCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE.................................................................................................................................... 69

Structural Causes Of Locational Disadvantage ....................................................................................................................... 74 CHAPTER 6 ................................................................................................................................................................. 79

EDUCATION AND TRAINING ....................................................................................................................................... 79 Key Educational Issues For Disadvantaged Communities ...................................................................................................... 83

CHAPTER 7 ................................................................................................................................................................. 99 HOUSING .................................................................................................................................................................... 99

Housing And The Poverty Cycle ............................................................................................................................................. 99 South Australian Housing Industry Trends............................................................................................................................ 100

CHAPTER 8 ............................................................................................................................................................... 107 FAMILY BREAKDOWN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ................................................................................................... 107

Child Abuse And Neglect...................................................................................................................................................... 108 CHAPTER 9 ............................................................................................................................................................... 111

OTHER KEY POVERTY ISSUES .................................................................................................................................. 111 Health Issues.......................................................................................................................................................................... 112 Mental Illness ........................................................................................................................................................................ 114 Disability and Caring............................................................................................................................................................. 116 Substance Abuse.................................................................................................................................................................... 121 Gambling............................................................................................................................................................................... 122 Electricity Costs .................................................................................................................................................................... 124 Financial Services.................................................................................................................................................................. 127

The Social Security System................................................................................................................................................... 129 Lack of Information............................................................................................................................................................... 136 Transport ............................................................................................................................................................................... 137 Vulnerability to Crime........................................................................................................................................................... 137 Age Discrimination ............................................................................................................................................................... 138

CHAPTER 10............................................................................................................................................................. 139 GROUPS EXPERIENCING HIGH LEVELS OF POVERTY ............................................................................................... 139

Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people......................................................................................................................... 139 People from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds................................................................................................................. 154 The Working Poor ................................................................................................................................................................. 157

CHAPTER 11............................................................................................................................................................. 161 KEY STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES.................................................................................................................................... 161

The Importance of Early Childhood Intervention.................................................................................................................. 161 The Need for Long-Term, Holistic and Preventative Approaches......................................................................................... 167 The Need to Address Structural Factors ................................................................................................................................ 167 A Focus on Social Inclusion and Community Capacity Building ......................................................................................... 168 The Need for Multi-Agency and Multi-Sector Collaboration................................................................................................ 170 The Need for Service and Program Continuity, Longevity and Evaluation........................................................................... 171

LIST OF WITNESSES.............................................................................................................................................. 173

LIST OF SUBMISSIONS.......................................................................................................................................... 177

APPENDIX 1.............................................................................................................................................................. 179

APPENDIX 2............................................................................................................................................................. 183

APPENDIX 3.............................................................................................................................................................. 187

APPENDIX 4.............................................................................................................................................................. 191

APPENDIX 5.............................................................................................................................................................. 195

APPENDIX 6.............................................................................................................................................................. 201

APPENDIX 7.............................................................................................................................................................. 241

BIBLIOGRAPHY...................................................................................................................................................... 245

LIST OF CHARTS Chart 1 ............................................................................................................................................. 31 SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage-capital cities

Chart 2 ............................................................................................................................................. 39 Index of Relative Socio-economic Disadvantage – Suburbs with SEIFA value up to 920

Chart 3 ............................................................................................................................................. 41 Postcode areas with Unemployment Rate above average for 1986, 1996 & 2001

Chart 4 ............................................................................................................................................. 43 Postcode areas with higher than average proportions of low income families in years 1986, 1996 & 2001

Chart 5 ............................................................................................................................................. 45 Postcode areas with high Standardised Paticipation Ratio

Chart 6 ............................................................................................................................................. 47 Dependent children under the age of 16 years of selectioned pensioners & beneficiaries, Adelaide (1989-2001)

Chart 7 ............................................................................................................................................. 50 SAHT dwellings as % of all dwellings – postcode areas >15%SAHT dwellings

Chart 8 ............................................................................................................................................. 54 DECS Index of Educational Disadvantage by District – Metro and Hills schools only

Chart 9 ............................................................................................................................................. 61 Unemployment rate of young people aged 15-24 living with parent(s) by parental labour force status

Chart 10 ........................................................................................................................................... 65 Total Fertility Rate by Quintile, Adelaide 1996-1999

Chart 11 ........................................................................................................................................... 92 Absence Rates by District, State Schools, 2000 & 1999

Chart 12 ......................................................................................................................................... 102 Actual & Projected Funding of Commonwealth State Housing Agreement 1993 - 2008

Chart 13 ......................................................................................................................................... 115 Proportion of people with a Mental Health Disorder by Labour Force status, 1997

Chart 14 ......................................................................................................................................... 117 Labour Force Participation and Unemployment Rate, People with Disabilities, 2001

Chart 15 ......................................................................................................................................... 125 Impact of 30% rise in electricity prices on % of households – low income

Chart 16 ......................................................................................................................................... 126 Impact of 30% rise in electricity prices on % of households – high income

List of Tables Table 1 .............................................................................................................................................29 Estimates of Before Housing Poverty in South Australia & Australia

Table 2 Percentage of children (under 16 years) in families receiving selected benefits for both 1996 & 2001 in areas with more than 50% of children in such families................................................................................. 48

List of Maps Map 1 ...............................................................................................................................................38 ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, 1996 Map 2 ...............................................................................................................................................52 Socio-Economic Cluster Analysis, 1996

Map 3 ...............................................................................................................................................53 Socio-Economic Cluster Analysis, 1996

i

ESTABLISHMENT AND COMPOSITION OF THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The Social Development Committee was established pursuant to sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 proclaimed on 11 February 1992. Membership of the Committee Hon Gail Gago MLC (Presiding Member)

Hon Terry Cameron MLC

Hon David Ridgway MLC

Ms Frances Bedford MP

Mr Joe Scalzi MP

Mr Jack Snelling MP

Secretary to the Committee Ms Robyn Schutte Research Officer Ms Susie Dunlop Administrative Officer Ms Cynthia Gray Contact details C/- Parliament House North Terrace Adelaide Ph: 8237-9416 Fax: 8231-9630 E-mail [email protected]

iii

FUNCTIONS OF THE SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE The functions of the Social Development Committee are laid out in section 15 of the Parliamentary Committees Act 1991 and charge the Committee

(a) to inquire into, consider and report on such of the following matters as are referred to it under this Act:

(i) any matter concerned with the health, welfare or education of the people of the

State;

(ii) any matter concerned with occupational safety or industrial relations;

(iii) any matter concerned with the arts, recreation or sport or the cultural or physical development of the people of the State;

(iv) any matter concerned with the quality of life of communities, families or individuals in the State or how that quality of life might be improved

(b) to perform such other functions as are imposed on the Committee under this or any

other Act or by resolution of both Houses.

v

TERMS OF REFERENCE Moved on a motion of Mr Jack Snelling MP, carried on Wednesday 5 June 2002. That the Social Development Committee – Investigate and report on the issue of poverty and its causes in Adelaide’s disadvantaged regions, and in particular – • Intergenerational poverty and unemployment; and • Education and training opportunities in these regions.

The Social Development Committee of the South Australian Parliament

1

CHAPTER ONE RECOMMENDATIONS AND OVERVIEW

RECOMMENDATIONS

The Committee received evidence about a wide range of programs, services and proposals aimed at reducing poverty and its impact on younger generations. It is clear, however, that poverty and the risk of intergenerational poverty remain significant issues in some sectors of Adelaide’s community. Furthermore, many strategies tend to be reactive rather than preventative. The Social Development Committee proposes that there must be a major shift in emphasis towards early childhood intervention and prevention in the approach to poverty. Early childhood intervention initiatives have been shown to reap significant benefits as well as economic savings in the long term. Furthermore, evidence suggests that intergenerational poverty can be cyclic and self-perpetuating. While there continues to be the need for some services to be targeted towards crisis intervention and interventions to remedy existing problems, future strategies should focus on the phase of the cycle that will efficiently and effectively reap the greatest benefits. Evidence clearly suggests that greater focus should be placed on early childhood intervention and prevention and on improving parenting skills. Furthermore, to address poverty in the long term there must be commitment by all stakeholders and political parties to ensure that goals and strategies are not limited to the agenda or life of only one Government or party. All recommendations should be read in conjunction with the underlying principles emerging from the evidence as outlined in Chapter 11. These are: • The importance of early childhood intervention;

• The need for long-term, holistic and preventative approaches;

• The need to address ‘structural’ factors;

• A focus on social inclusion and ‘community capacity building’;

• The need for multi-agency and multi-sector collaboration, especially between the education, health and welfare sectors; and

• The importance of service continuity, longevity and evaluation.

A number of detailed investigations by Government departments have recently or are currently being undertaken on a range of issues relevant to the poverty debate. Where relevant, this Inquiry will refer to those investigations rather than attempt to duplicate.


2

1. State Anti-Poverty Strategy South Australia lacks a coordinated approach to poverty and has no overarching State Policy or Strategy to reduce poverty in the long-term. Other countries, for example, Ireland, have achieved success through implementation of overarching policies and strategies. In Ireland, the implementation of a “Combat Poverty Agency”, with responsibility for implementing their National Anti-Poverty Strategy, has led to a reduction in poverty by nearly two thirds from 1994 to 2000. Recommendation 1.1 The Government considers development and implementation of a long-term State

Anti-Poverty Strategy. Elements of the Strategy could include the development and implementation of:

1.1.1 A target for reduction of poverty;

1.1.2 A set of contracted outcomes for key agencies in the education, health, welfare, justice and other relevant sectors;

1.1.3 A multi-agency Government policy framework that combines social, economic and environmental responses to poverty with a view to producing collaborative responses and promotes early childhood intervention as a key strategy;

1.1.4 A cost/benefit analysis to identify areas in which investment to reduce poverty can produce long-term reductions in Government expenditure, savings from which could then be reinvested in anti-poverty programs;

1.1.5 Promotion and funding for preventative projects, especially early intervention and community-driven initiatives, and evaluation of projects which will deliver evidence for successful long-term responses to poverty (eg. through a community participation or social inclusion fund); and

1.1.6 A central process/body for provision of policy advice, project support, research, public education and innovation. This would include coordinated and readily available information about evidence-based models, including for schools.

It is proposed that the Strategy should build upon and facilitate coordination between existing related initiatives eg. Social Inclusion Unit and Economic Development Board.

2. Intergenerational Poverty There is a range of anecdotal evidence of intergenerational poverty in Adelaide and abundant research from developed nations, including Australia, that supports heightened poverty risk amongst children growing up in poverty. However, there is clearly a lack of data to quantify the contribution of intergenerational poverty to overall poverty rates in this State.


3

Recommendation 2.1 That the Government negotiates with the Commonwealth Government for national

and South Australian research to collect appropriate data for measuring the extent of intergenerational poverty and welfare dependence.

3. Early Childhood Intervention and Parenting It is clear that resources have been disproportionately focussed on crisis management, where the cost of significant outcomes in terms of poverty reduction is relatively high. In view of strong evidence about the cost and other benefits of early intervention, a range of recommendations relating to parenting and early intervention/prevention are put forward, in addition to the proposed State Anti Poverty Strategy’s key focus on this area. Furthermore, evidence clearly showed that the cycle of poverty is often inter-connected with early and sole parenthood. It appears, however, that there is a distinct lack of supports for young sole mothers, especially to assist them to continue with education to improve their long-term employment prospects. In view of these issues, there should be a particular focus on young and sole parents, as well as Indigenous parents. Recommendations 3.1 That the Government develops and increases strategies to enhance early childhood

intervention and prevention. Strategies should: 3.1.1 Use existing and accessible services as access points (eg. post natal checks) to link

people with a range of other services and programs;

3.1.2 Consider, as a priority, early intervention initiatives within existing and accessible structures including pre and junior primary schools, community health centres and neighbourhood houses;

3.1.3 Include expansion of programs that support the parenting role of young parents, including ongoing parenting skills programs and parenting groups; and

3.1.4 Include services that are accessible to all families, independent of or prior to development of specific deficits eg. learning disability.

3.2 That the Ministers for Education and Children’s Services and Employment, Training and Further Education develop and implement improved supports to assist young parents to continue with education.


4

4. Employment Evidence highlighted the need to link education and training strategies with sustainable employment. The overall message was that education and training strategies will struggle to achieve significant outcomes in the population as a whole unless economic policies and strategies stimulate jobs growth, including within local areas experiencing disadvantage. Furthermore, while it is imperative that all schools provide a full range of equitable opportunities for students, there is also a clear need for better communication between industry and schools to ensure that future job vacancies can be accessed by local communities. Local industries should be able to provide opportunities for local school leavers who do not wish to pursue higher education. Recommendations 4.1 That the Government develops an Industry Plan for the state, which would, amongst

other things, be used to assist in the development of labour market strategies. This plan would include measures to improve industry forecasting and planning associated labour-force needs, particularly in those areas which have the greatest potential for industry growth.

4.2 That the Minister for Industrial Relations identifies strategies to reduce unpaid

overtime in order to improve the distribution of employment opportunities. 4.3 That the Premier as Minister for Economic Development and Ministers for

Education and Children’s Services and Employment, Training and Further Education encourage better communication between schools and industries. This could include initiatives to provide training linked to direct real job opportunities in socio-economically disadvantaged areas eg. Northern Adelaide Development Board Training and Employment Development Centre, Smithfield Plains Printing and Graphic Arts Training Centre.

4.4 That the Government evaluates the effectiveness of the State Government Youth

Training and Recruitment Scheme in reducing youth unemployment and reviews the scheme placement numbers in accordance with the evaluation findings.

5. Social Security The level of income available to people who are unable to work or unable to find work is clearly inadequate given increasing living costs, including recent electricity price increases. Furthermore, implementation of additional subsidies and concessions for specific purposes entails high administrative costs and is questionable in terms of long-term benefits. It is therefore proposed that the thrust of recommendations of this Inquiry centres around urging the Commonwealth to review income support payments, and therefore also promoting individual responsibility and empowerment, rather than a focus on a complex array of subsidies and concessions for specific purposes.


5

Furthermore, it is clear that the administration of Commonwealth policy in relation to “breaching” is ‘a major and preventable factor in pushing people who are battling, but managing, on low incomes into real hardship’1 and exerting additional demands on State funded services as a result. In relation to the issue of “breaching”, this report refers to the Commonwealth Ombudsman’s report of October 2002 regarding the administration of social security breach penalties. In relation to the effectiveness of job training and placement schemes that are attached to welfare payments, this report refers to relevant recommendations from the McClure report on Welfare reform in relation to adequacy of payments and suitable job placement schemes. Recommendations 5.1 That the Government negotiates with the Commonwealth for a review of all

Centrelink payments to reflect real increases in living costs.

The Commonwealth should seek advice through appropriate consultation with community, advocacy and other relevant groups in determining suitable payment levels.

Such a review should consider the additional needs of people with ongoing medical conditions, carers and people with disabilities who have significant additional costs of living.

5.2 That the Government negotiates with the Commonwealth to improve the focus of

existing Commonwealth employment programs that are linked to Centrelink payments, with the aim of providing real long-term job opportunities.

6. Education- General The Committee received overwhelming evidence that educational attainment is the key contributory factor linking the socio-economic and employment outcomes of generations of the same family. A range of educational issues and barriers to education for communities, families and individuals experiencing poverty were identified which must be addressed in order to break the cycle of poverty. There is a need to improve the opportunities for young people and adults in poverty, though this is not intended to detract from the key focus of recommendations which is on early childhood intervention as the central long term response. Furthermore, evidence clearly suggests that improving opportunities for parents is likely to have an influence on the educational and employment outcomes for children. Some of the findings and recommendations of this Inquiry in relation to school education may relate to the outcomes of the Department of Premier and Cabinet’s Social Inclusion Unit School Retention Initiative.

1 Department of Human Services, written submission, p11


6

Recommendations 6.1 That the Government reviews the Education Act 1972 and all other relevant

legislation to include adequate emphasis on early childhood intervention. 6.2 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services improves the flexibility of

curricula within schools to enable vocational as well as academic options, traineeships and school-based apprenticeships, based on evaluated successful models and research.

6.3 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services encourages cluster models

for alternative education programs, that is pooling of students and staff from different schools, where needed to ensure a critical mass of students.

6.4 That the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education develops

strategies in collaboration with industry and industry groups to increase trade apprenticeships in sustainable industries.

6.5 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services provides greater support

for expansion of programs in schools that have proven successful in improving retention and academic results and in achieving culture change in schools identified by DECS as disadvantaged, particularly for students in the middle high school years.

6.6 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services explores optimal class sizes

for different educational levels and settings. 6.7 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services works with the other states

to negotiate with the Commonwealth Government for more affordable child care, particularly for low income people.

7. Financial Resources for Education It was clear in evidence that the cycle of poverty and unemployment is intensified by the direct and ancillary costs of education. Education is a key to breaking the cycle of poverty and yet the costs of education are often prohibitive for people who are struggling or failing to meet the costs of a basic standard of living. Recommendations 7.1 That the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education implements

greater assistance for low income students to pay for TAFE and community based education fees, including more flexible payment options eg. HECS and instalment schemes.


7

7.2 That the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education reviews TAFE fees with a view to improving affordability and accessibility.

7.3 That the Government opposes any Commonwealth moves to increase HECS

obligations and rates and opposes any further moves towards up-front fees. 7.4 That the Ministers for Education and Children’s Services and Employment,

Training and Further Education develop initiatives to increase non-government and private sector scholarship schemes for socio-economically disadvantaged students eg. Smith Family Learning for Life, including for infrastructure components of those schemes.

7.5 That the Ministers for Education and Children’s Services and Employment,

Training and Further Education increase support for programs that offer practical educational supports to socio-economically disadvantaged families and individuals, making best use of existing resources eg. use of school computers/ libraries after-hours.

7.6 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services implements evaluation of

DECS funding according to the Index of Disadvantage in terms of learning outcomes, eg. Basic Skills Test (BST), literacy etc. Currently, planned evaluation relates to the validity of variables used to calculate the Index, rather than any academic or other student outcomes.

8. Student Absence and Transience High levels of student absence and transience are significant issues in low socio-economic communities. These issues have a significant effect on student achievements. There are usually multiple reasons for student absence and transience, but housing appears to be a central issue. This Committee’s Inquiry refers to the 1998 publication by DETE, ‘Student Transience - moving frequently between schools in South Australia’ which is intended as a resource for schools. Furthermore, the Committee acknowledges the outcomes of the 2002 ministerial taskforce on Absenteeism, including the development of an Attendance Improvement Package, additional attendance counsellor/retention positions, a mentoring program, and some additional funding. Recommendation 8.1 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services updates and ensures

widespread adoption of current resources to assist schools to integrate transient students.

See also recommendations under Housing.


8

9. Staffing Teachers It is clear that, while there are many cases of excellent and dedicated teachers in all schools, a lack of consistency and suitability of staffing in schools in low socio-economic areas is significantly reducing the ability of schools to intervene positively in relation to students at risk of low achievement and future unemployment. Evidence clearly identified that one strategy for remedying this situation is the reinvigoration of the teaching profession and strategies to improve the profile and value placed on teachers in schools with high proportions of students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds. Recommendations 9.1 That the Ministers for Education and Children’s Services and Industrial Relations

explore options for applicant interviews in schools identified as ‘disadvantaged’ by the DECS Index of Disadvantage, to assist with appropriate teacher selection.

9.2 That the Ministers for Education and Children’s Services and Industrial Relations

explore initiatives to implement incentives for increased staffing in schools identified as ‘disadvantaged’ by the DECS Index of Disadvantage.

9.3 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services increases the number of

permanent teachers in schools identified as ‘disadvantaged’ by the DECS Index of Disadvantage.


Training and Further Education improve pre-service training to assist teachers to deal better with issues of disadvantage.

9.5 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services implements better supports

for teachers in schools identified as ‘disadvantaged’ by the DECS Index of Disadvantage.

9.6 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services expands and improves

professional development opportunities for teachers in schools identified as ‘disadvantaged’ by the DECS Index of Disadvantage, including through collaborative professional development across sectors.

10. Other Roles within Schools Pressure on teachers to perform duties outside their teaching role, and a lack of resources to do so, were clear themes in evidence relating to primary and high schools in low socio-economic areas. Clearly, many such schools are characterised by students with a number of family, social, health and other problems and the school provides a unique opportunity to identify issues and assist students and families to access required services. Consistent with the principle that responses are most effective when driven from within the community that they seek to assist, there was a strong focus on the need for schools to have


9

flexibility within funding to implement programs and purchase services that are needed within their school community. Partnerships 21 goes some way to addressing this issue, though it was clear in evidence that resources are often insufficient. Recommendations 10.1 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services expands the provision of

professional careers information and counselling in schools identified as ‘disadvantaged’ by the DECS Index of Disadvantage.

10.2 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services encourages schools

identified as ‘disadvantaged’ by the DECS Index of Disadvantage to develop innovative models to facilitate:

10.2.1 Provision of general support and personal advice and assistance to students;

10.2.2 Parental involvement in the school community;

10.2.3 Better relations between students and staff and between students; and

10.2.4 A sense of value and belonging.

Examples include the Salisbury High School Care Management Program and “Youth Opportunities”. Refer to Appendix 1 for an outline of the Salisbury High School Care Management Program.

10.3 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services encourages programs that

enable better access to successful work and educational role models in schools with high proportions of socio-economically disadvantaged students (eg. school trips to tertiary education facilities, links with previous schools students who have been successful) to reinforce a culture of educational and career achievement.


Training and Further Education promote informed choice about future education and employment options in schools with high proportions of socio-economically disadvantaged students.


10

11. Continuing Education Adult or continuing education is relevant to intergenerational poverty for a number of reasons. Clearly, education can assist with adults’ self esteem and their practical ability to find employment. Furthermore, parental education levels have been demonstrated to have a significant impact on children’s achievements. Many barriers to adult re-education were identified in evidence, especially for sole parents. Recommendations 11.1 That the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education implements

strategies to improve access to education for adults in poverty, including parents, people who have been made redundant and carers. Strategies should include:

11.1.1 Better transport support for adults travelling long distances to educational

facilities;

11.1.2 Expansion of low cost quality child care, especially for young and sole parents;

11.1.3 Support for alternative community child care initiatives; and

11.1.4 Increased support for community based adult education programs that are financially accessible and develop basic skills to assist return to more formal education and training programs.

11.2 That the State Government negotiates with the Commonwealth for greater

flexibility for students with disabilities or periodic ill health, or other justifiable reasons, from the ‘Statute of Limitations’ which currently prevents students from withdrawing without fail after a certain date in a semester.

12. Housing and Urban Planning Housing is central to the issue of poverty, not in the least due to the effects of unstable housing on the education of children and young people. Concentrated public housing is one key cause of entrenched locational disadvantage. Furthermore, lack of stable and adequate housing significantly reduces the ability of people to make improvements to their financial and social situation. There is also a range of evidence pointing to reduced levels of public housing and increased pressure and competition in the private rental market in Adelaide which is of concern. The Government has a central role in ensuring access to housing for people for whom the market does not provide. The Committee recognises: • the central role that Planning SA, the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) and other

Housing authorities such as the Aboriginal Housing Authority (AHA) and South Australian Community Housing Authority (SACHA) can play in creating new infrastructure and altering existing infrastructure in a way that is conducive to reduced levels of social disadvantage;


11

• the central role of the State Planning Strategy, State Housing Plan, State Transport Plan, Natural Resource Management and Urban Growth Management, and Economic Strategic Plan; and

• the role of State Housing bodies in reducing poverty levels and addressing homelessness.

Recommendations Housing Affordability 12.1 That the State Minister for Housing urges the Commonwealth to maintain the

current accepted Commonwealth definition of housing affordability as a benchmark.2

Private Rental

12.2 That, when selling properties, the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) continues to sell as a preference to existing tenants.

12.3 That the Minister for Consumer Affairs ensures minimum housing standards as

part of the Residential Tenancies Act Review. 12.4 That the Minister for Housing expands services to assist disadvantaged groups to

obtain appropriate private rental accommodation housing within the marketplace (currently, programs are limited to a few specific groups eg. youth and the aged). This should include people exiting prisons and services such as mental health care facilities.

Urban Planning/ Development 12.5 That all future urban planning and development recognises existing plans and

strategies and adopts a whole of Government approach. 12.6 That the Minister for Urban Development and Planning maintains current

strategies to promote better social and tenure mix. 12.7 That the Minister for Urban Development and Planning develops and implements

greater incentives to ensure increased proportions of low cost housing in new developments and examines the feasibility of legislating to this effect.

12.8 That the Minister for Urban Development and Planning encourages equitable

geographical distribution of housing developments that include low cost housing across the metropolitan area.

2 The National Housing Strategy in 1992 established an affordability benchmark on the basis that housing is affordable if households in the lowest 40% of income units spend no more than 30% of their income on home purchase or 25% on rental housing costs.


12

12.9 That the Minister for Urban Development and Planning reviews planning/zoning regulations and interpretations with a view to encouraging diversity, choice and affordability in housing supply.

12.10 That the Minister for Urban Development and Planning increases land supply for

housing through collaborative ventures between industry, State and Local Governments to better utilise surplus Government land holdings and redevelop older public housing areas eg. Westwood.

12.11 That the Minister for Urban Development and Planning encourages adoption of

Planning SA’s 'Good Residential Design SA' in local government planning regulations.

12.12 That the relevant Ministers ensure that urban renewal projects include, where

possible, opportunities for employment and training of residents, such as achieved by the SAHT in the Hawkesbury Park redevelopment (Salisbury North) and Westwood redevelopment.

12.13 That appropriate administrative structures be created to assist urban development

to be focussed on areas of social disadvantage and to be linked to initiatives to address social inclusion.

12.14 That further assessment of urban design development frameworks, as applied in

parts of the United Kingdom, France and Germany, be considered for application in a South Australian context as a means of extracting broad based social, economic and environmental outcomes.

Home Ownership 12.15 That the Treasurer undertakes a review of stamp duty exemptions for first home

buyers and explores the possibility of increasing thresholds for exemption to reflect growth in house prices.

12.16 That the Minister for Housing expands the Aboriginal Housing Authority/

Homestart scheme whereby AHA tenants can purchase their current dwelling. 12.17 That the Minister for Housing explores the viability of extending the role of

HomeStart. Other Housing Supports 12.18 That the Minister for Housing encourages and expands Government and non-

government programs that assist people at risk of eviction in both public and private rental with causal issues eg. budgeting, relationships with neighbours, family violence etc.

12.19 That the Minister for Housing assesses unmet need for short-term housing (eg.

hostels) where it is a genuine housing choice.


13

12.20 That the Minister for Housing expands assistance for households requiring home modifications for people with disabilities and the aged.

12.21 That the Government completes and releases the Homelessness Strategy being

developed by the Social Inclusion Unit as a matter of urgency. 13. Family Breakdown and Child Abuse/Neglect Family breakdown, child abuse and neglect were identified as issues closely related to poverty. A number of recommendations have already been made in relation to greater supports for sole parents. In relation to child abuse and neglect, the current Inquiry refers to the Review of Child Protection in South Australia, conducted by the Department of Human Services. The plan to improve child protection in South Australia was handed to the Government on the 31st December 2002. The Review was chaired by Ms Robyn Layton QC and was a whole of Government review involving all relevant Government Departments and agencies. Recommendation 13.1 That the Minister for Social Justice expands services to all families suffering

domestic violence and in particular to indigenous and migrant families. 14. Health, Mental Health and Disability Reduced employment opportunities and increased living costs associated with physical and mental illness and disability can be significant causes of poverty. Furthermore, poverty exacerbates both physical and mental illness for a number of reasons. There is also a range of evidence that physical and mental health and disability within families is having a detrimental impact on intergenerational educational and employment outcomes. The Committee supports the aims of the Generational Health Review, in particular: • greater community participation in health;

• strengthening and reorienting services towards prevention and primary health care; and

• whole of Government approaches to advance and improve health status.

The Generational Health Review Committee report is due for public release in May 2003.


14

Recommendations 14.1 That the Government works with industry to implement strategies to improve

employment outcomes for people with disabilities and mental health issues, including within the State Government.

14.2 That the Government negotiates with the Commonwealth for tax deductions on all

products required:

14.2.1 by carers for caring purposes, in recognition of their valuable work and additional expenses; and

14.2.2 for people with disabilities to attend employment, to reduce financial disincentives to work.

15. Substance Abuse Abuse of legal and illicit drugs was frequently cited in evidence as a major concern in communities with high levels of poverty and is clearly an issue that exacerbates poverty. Evidence received indicated general support for the recommendations of the Drug Summit, held from 24 June to 28 June 2002, the outcomes of which are being managed in a project by the Social Inclusion Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet. The Government’s initial response to the recommendations of the drug summit was released in December 2002. 16. Gambling The impact of gambling on poverty was frequently raised in evidence, again as both a cause of poverty in some cases and an exacerbating factor in many. The Social Development Committee has previously undertaken an Inquiry into Gambling, the report on which was tabled in August 1998. Furthermore, in October 2001, the former South Australian Gaming Supervisory Authority was re-established as the Independent Gambling Authority (IGA). The Authority has overall responsibility for licensed gambling providers in South Australia. As part of the gambling policy reform package implemented by the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Act 2001, the Authority has been given new functions dealing with the impact on the community of the licensed gambling products it regulates.


15

17. Electricity Costs The introduction of electricity retail competition in South Australia began on the 1st January 2003 and is expected to increase household electricity costs by an average of 23.7%. This was repeatedly raised in evidence as a major and immediate concern for unemployed and other low income households who are currently struggling to meet the costs of living. As mentioned previously, the thrust of recommendations of this Inquiry centres around urging the Commonwealth to review income support payments, rather than on a complex array of subsidies and concessions for specific purposes. Recommendations 17.1 That the Minister for Energy examines the feasibility of a state domestic energy

management strategy. The strategy would include:

17.1.1 Education/information to help households reduce electricity consumption;

17.1.2 low cost or free energy audits for low income households;

17.1.3 free energy audits for all SAHT tenants in older housing stock; and

17.1.4 low interest loans for items to assist in reduction of energy use.

17.2 That the Ministers for Energy and Urban Development and Planning develop

strategies to promote energy efficiency in urban developments that include low cost housing. This should include analysis of the long term economic impact of energy efficient design.

18. Financial Services Evidence indicated that people on low incomes are clearly most vulnerable to credit and financial services traps, which exacerbates financial stress and further reduces their ability to escape the poverty cycle. Recommendations 18.1 That the State Government investigates possible further assistance eg. low/no

interest loans, to low income earners for some larger essential household items eg. fridge

18.2 That the State Government implements improved education in relation to consumer

credit traps. 18.3 That the State Government acts to bring payday lenders under Consumer Credit

Code legislation 18.4 That the State Government expands access to financial planning and budgeting

services.


16

18.5 That the State Government expands programs that build on the ability of low-

income people to successfully manage their budgets. 19. Transport Adequate transport is necessary to enable people to participate in social, educational and work activities. Public transport in particular is, therefore, crucial for ensuring that people experiencing social and economic disadvantage can access employment, education and training, health and recreation services. It was identified in evidence that public transport is lacking in many areas of metropolitan Adelaide, particularly in the outer Northern and Southern suburbs where there is a relatively high degree of social disadvantage. Social inclusion outcomes can be achieved through delivery of increased public transport services which enable increased mobility within the community. Recommendations 19.1 That the Government makes better use of planning, which should include principles

of social inclusion and urban regeneration, to facilitate provision of appropriate public transport services. The Government should ensure adequate provision from both a resource and design perspective.

19.2 That the Government assigns priority to the improvement of public transport access

to those areas identified as the most disadvantaged, in particular the outer northern and outer southern metropolitan areas. Consideration should also be given to the findings of review/audits currently undertaken by the Passenger Transport Board and relevant local councils.

19.3 That the Government continues to meet its obligations under the Disability

Discrimination Act 1992 in relation to accessible public transport. 19.4 That the Government assesses its new contract for Access Cab services at the end of

the first 12 months and, pending that assessment, considers a review of service delivery options for people with disabilities.

20. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, nationally and in South Australia, continue to experience very high levels of intergenerational poverty and social disadvantage. Many of the issues for people living in poverty that have been identified for the general population also exist for Aboriginal people, in many cases at augmented levels. Furthermore, there are a number of additional factors that impact on poverty within Aboriginal communities. While indigenous poverty is often perceived as solely a rural or remote issue, it is a serious issue within metropolitan Adelaide.


17

Presented here are any recommendations that are in addition to those presented previously which would also benefit indigenous people. Recommendations General 20.1 That there be indigenous involvement in the development and planning of anti-

poverty policies and strategies. 20.2 That the relevant Ministers implement the recommendations of previous studies and

inquiries relating to Indigenous disadvantage in South Australia. In particular:

20.2.1 Recommendations of the Royal Commission Into Aboriginal Deaths In Custody (RCIADIC);

20.2.2 Recommendations of the House of Representatives’ We Can Do It! report (2001) relating to SAAP services;

20.2.3 Strategy for Services to Aboriginal people across the Central Business District of Adelaide - for vulnerable adults and young people (Department of Human Services)

20.2.4 The South Australian Police Department’s:

- Community Policing policies;

- Strategies on relations with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities to which the Department is committed through the Criminal Justice Strategic Framework;

- Annual reporting by Local Service Areas on progress of these strategies

20.2.5 Coronial Inquest into Petrol Sniffing Deaths, 2002. 20.3 That ATSIC’s Partnering Agreement with the State Government, December 2001,

be supported. 20.4 That all Ministers implement policies to ensure that indigenous people are treated

equally and provided with equal services, even where Aboriginal specific services exist, within ‘mainstream’ agencies.

Education and Training 20.5 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services reports to Parliament at

the end of 2003 on the student achievement outcomes of the Plan for Aboriginal Education in Early Childhood and Schooling 1999 to 2003.

20.6 That the Minister for Education and Children’s Services ensures that school based

strategies acknowledge the tendency for earlier drop out of ATSI students.


18

20.7 That the Minister for Employment, Training and Further Education identifies impediments to the taking up of ‘Vocational Education Training (VET) in Schools’ courses by Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander secondary students and implements strategies to overcome these.

Housing 20.8 That the Minister for Housing examines the feasibility of increasing public and

community housing stock for indigenous people. 20.9 That the Aboriginal Housing Authority reforms waiting list protocols, to ensure that

confirmation of Aboriginality is settled quickly. 20.10 That the Minister for Housing deems indigenous sole-parent families and indigenous

homeless families to be high priority groups for access to public and community housing.

Parenting and Child Protection 20.11 That the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation facilitates, through

consultation, the coordination of service delivery between existing statewide Aboriginal family-support services.

Disability 20.12 That the Minister for Social Justice supports the use of the Indigenous Disability

Network by all SA Government agencies in development and planning of policy and programs affecting disabled Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people.

21. People from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds While non-English speaking migrants generally experience relatively high poverty levels, there is a range of evidence to suggest that the risk of intergenerational poverty is quite low, especially once a migrant community becomes established. There is, however, considerable difference between national groups in this regard and no basis for predicting intergenerational outcomes for newly arrived, especially refugee, groups. Many newly arrived groups are currently experiencing considerable disadvantage. Recommendations 21.1 That the Minister for Multicultural Affairs implements a review of national and

state laws in relation to the recognition of overseas qualifications. 21.2 That the Ministers for Education and Children’s Services and Employment,

Training and Further Education provide greater support for additional tutoring for children from newly arrived non-English speaking migrant families.


19

21.3 That the Minister for Multicultural Affairs expands interpreting services, including for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, to assist with access to services.

21.4 That all Ministers encourage generic service agencies to implement strategies that

specifically target new settlers and small migrant communities, through multicultural, rather than ethno-specific, programs.

21.5 That the State Government enables access by migrants and refugees to State

Government services and programs available to all other South Australians, following the initial period of Commonwealth support.

21.6 That the Minister for Multicultural Affairs improves supports for new arrivals to

include a State settlement program, English language education and access to job search information. Community based agencies should also be encouraged to assist refugees and TVP holders.

21.7 That the Minister for Multicultural Affairs negotiates with the Commonwealth for

an increase in settlement support for Household Formation, provided through the Commonwealth Department of Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS) for new arrivals.

21.8 That the Minister for Multicultural Affairs pursues the commonwealth for

reasonable recompense for the additional social service support required for refugees leaving detention centres within South Australia, including significant increases in Commonwealth emergency relief allocations, more funding for housing of refugees and further support in terms of free translation services for Government and non-government organisations when acting on behalf of refugees.


20


21

RATIONALE FOR TERMS OF REFERENCE Scope of Inquiry The Inquiry identified and focused on poverty within the Adelaide metropolitan region and on particular disadvantaged regions. It had a specific focus on the causes and risk factors associated with the cycle of intergenerational poverty, rather than all issues relating to poverty. Rationale for Metropolitan Focus Rural Poverty Inquiry, 1995

The Committee undertook an Inquiry into Rural Poverty, tabled in November 1995. This Inquiry focused predominantly on factors relating to poverty and disadvantage in farming communities. Issues included geographical isolation from services, rural economic decline, lack of educational and employment opportunities, inappropriateness of social security criteria to farming circumstances and reluctance to access services due to a culture of self-sufficiency. The Committee considers that rural poverty in isolated and farming communities is a topic in its own right, having a number of rural-specific issues that were addressed in the 1995 Inquiry.

Data on Poverty in South Australia

Various measures3 of poverty and disadvantage were examined for different areas within the State in the preliminary phase of the current Inquiry. Areas consistently identified as disadvantaged were the outer suburbs of Adelaide and towns of populations between 10,000 and 40,000 people.4 The Rural Poverty Inquiry did not, however, focus on populations experiencing the cycle of intergenerational poverty and welfare dependence in larger regional centres. While many of the issues in larger regional communities may be similar to those for communities experiencing or at risk of intergenerational poverty in urban areas, disadvantage is probably exacerbated by higher levels of unemployment and lower educational opportunities.

The focus on metropolitan Adelaide in the current Inquiry enables the issues of intergenerational poverty and disadvantage to be isolated from issues of poverty that are strongly influenced by geographic or rural factors.

METHODOLOGY

The Inquiry consisted of: Literature Review

A broad review of Australian and international literature on intergenerational poverty, its causes, associated factors and strategies to address the issue was undertaken. 3 Measures examined were unemployment rate, proportion of couples with children where neither partner is in employment, proportion of sole parents that are not in employment and Index of Relative Socio-Economic disadvantage. 4 Bray 2001, Social indicators for regional Australia, p.30, cited in Neville A (2002). State of the Family 2002, Anglicare Australia, Melbourne. p24


22

It should be noted that there is an immense range of literature on poverty, social mobility, long term unemployment and underemployment, welfare dependence and anti-poverty strategies available from English-speaking countries alone. Therefore, due to the time constraints of the current Inquiry, the literature review was selective and concentrated on Australian and South Australian literature wherever possible. The advice of key witnesses was used to direct the Inquiry and ensure that key literature was consulted. Data collection and analysis

A range of data was collected and analysed from various publications and organisations, such as the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), Public Health Information Development Unit, Adelaide University, Centrelink and the South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT). Evidence

Advertisements calling for written and oral submissions to the Inquiry were advertised in the following publications:

- The Advertiser (26/9/2002); - Messenger Press newspapers;

- Weekly Times; - Portside; - News Review; and - The Southern Times.

The Terms of Reference were translated into Arabic, Bosnian, Chinese, Khmer, Persian and Vietnamese and provided, along with an English version, to the Migrant Resource Centre for distribution to non-English speaking background communities. A number of agencies were also contacted to notify them of the Inquiry. These were mainly in the post-school and adult re-entry education, early intervention, Non-English speaking background and local council sectors due to an initially low level of response from these sectors. Agencies were also asked to spread word of the Inquiry within their sector. Key agency representatives and individuals appeared as witnesses before the Committee. Witnesses represented a broad cross-section of sectors dealing with issues of intergenerational poverty and disadvantaged areas within Adelaide. The Committee heard oral evidence from 64 people, representing 29 agencies and organisations and 4 individuals. Twenty eight written submissions were received. Many submissions included stories, case studies and results of surveys and interviews from people with first hand experience of poverty.

DEFINITIONS

There is a vast amount of literature relating to definitions of poverty and corresponding measures. The definition of ‘intergenerational poverty’, however, does not appear to be the subject of much


23

explicit debate in literature. The concept is, nevertheless, the subject of a number of studies within which definitions are implied. Poverty:

There is no universally accepted definition or measure of poverty. However, it has been generally accepted amongst researchers and governments in western countries for a number of years that relative, rather than absolute, poverty is the most useful concept for study and that poverty is constituted by a number of variables in addition to income. Nevertheless, income remains a key variable within studies of relative poverty and many recent studies use income-based poverty lines, such as the Henderson poverty line, to quantify and compare poverty levels between regions, as part of a broader concept of poverty. Many researchers have put forward arguments for a definition of poverty that is broader than income based, including: • Income provides only one perspective on poverty, yet people on similar incomes may be quite

different in other ways eg. higher cost of living due to health reasons or caring;

• Income does not account for other resources, such as government services and non-cash benefits such as concessions; and

• Income fluctuates over a lifetime, and does not take account of savings and assets built up during times of prosperity.5

The broader concept of social exclusion is also increasingly discussed alongside discussions of poverty in recent literature, especially from the United Kingdom. Most literature on poverty definitions concludes that it is a complex concept and that all methods will have limitations. As John Spoehr, Director, Centre for Labour Research, Adelaide University commented; ‘Whatever method you choose, it is bound to be imperfect given the complex and value-laden choices involved in defining a meaningful poverty line.’’6 A number of current definitions were presented to the Committee, including: • The previous Inquiry into Rural Poverty by the Social Development Committee defined

poverty to mean that ‘an individual or community is disadvantaged in some way, in that they lack access to goods or services that are readily available to the wider population, either through lack of money to purchase goods and services, or lack of availability…7;

• The Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) for the Commonwealth Commission of Inquiry into Poverty (1976) defined poverty as a life condition created by a constellation of deprivation factors which together result in a standard of living significantly below that acceptable for and by the community;

5 Travers and Richardson (1993), cited in Social Development Committee (November 1995) Rural Poverty in South Australia, Eighth Report of the Social Development Committee, Parliament of South Australia. p4 6 Spoehr, J. Poverty line leaves agencies in circles. Advertiser, Sat 19 Jan 2002. p28 7 Social Development Committee (November 1995). Rural Poverty in South Australia, op cit. p4.


24

• The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), in its review of evidence on the extent, meaning and measurement of poverty in Australia in 1996, International Year for the Eradication of Poverty reported that ‘The World Bank has defined poverty as an inability to attain a minimal standard of living (World Bank, 1990, p.26). This is a general definition which can be applied to different national situations according to the specific meaning given to the concept of a standard of living and how the minimal level is determined’ 8; and

• Anglicare, in its State of Family report for 2002 states that ‘Being in poverty means not having enough money to pay the bills, feed your family, buy medicine when a member of the family falls ill, provide educational opportunities or even fun times for the children.’ 9

It was agreed by the Committee that the above definitions of poverty are acceptable working definitions and that the definition used in the Inquiry should also allow for the use of quantitative measures of poverty (ie. poverty lines) where appropriate, for example, to enable examination of trends. Intergenerational Poverty

It appears that there has not been a lengthy debate about a definition of ‘intergenerational poverty’ as there has been about ‘poverty’. While there is little or no literature discussing definitions of ‘intergenerational poverty’, there are a number of studies indicating that ‘intergenerational poverty’ is an accepted concept amongst social researchers and policy-makers. For example, a study by the Australian Institute of Family Studies identified a range of literature on the topic of trans-generational income support dependency and its causes. Furthermore, while there has been increasing interest in the issue in recent years, intergenerational poverty is not a modern phenomenon. For example, one British historical study describes ‘the intergenerational transmission of poverty through the effects of shocks to family income on children’s general education and health and subsequently on their capacity to work and earn as adults’‘10 in Nineteenth-Century England. Studies refer to ‘intergenerational’, ‘transgenerational’ and ‘cumulative’ poverty and have a number of common themes, from which an implied definition can be gained. In summary, it appears from a review of selected literature on ‘intergenerational poverty’ that: • ‘Intergenerational poverty’ is a widely accepted phenomenon;

• Literature on intergenerational poverty is family-focussed but does not focus on defining a certain number of generations;

• ‘Intergenerational poverty’ refers to the state of poverty continuing amongst offspring of people experiencing poverty, across any number of generations;

8 Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Income and Welfare, Special Article - Poverty and Deprivation in Australia (Year Book Australia, 1996) p1 9 TasCOSS 2001, Dead Man’s Shoes: Unemployment in Tasmania and the stories of jobseekers looking for work, Tasmanian Council of Social Service, Hobart cited in Neville A (2002). op cit. p8 10 Horrell, S. Humphries, J. and Voth, H-J. Intergenerational Poverty in Nineteenth-Century England. Explorations in Economic History, July 2001 v38 i3 p339(27). Abstract.


25

• It incorporates a causal link between aspects and effects of poverty in the childhood environment and perpetuation of those factors in offspring when adult; and

• Literature on the topic centres on the range of effects of poverty which serve as causes of continued poverty in the next generation of the same family and which have a social and economic cost to the individual and community.

The Committee’s agreed working definition of ‘intergenerational poverty’ is as follows:

Intergenerational poverty is the state of persistent poverty continuing into the adulthood of different generations of the same family unit and which is substantially due to the effects of poverty in childhood.

Introductory Note A vast range of information was presented to the Committee in the Inquiry, including many examples of programs and strategies that are believed to be working positively to remedy many aspects of intergenerational poverty. Some programs have been independently evaluated and shown to be successful. However, a clear finding of the Inquiry is that poverty, its associated problems and the risk of intergenerational poverty remain significant issues and that existing programs, while numerous, have not yet ‘solved’ the problem. Furthermore, many respondents to the Inquiry outlined deficiencies in processes and funding which are hindering their ability to implement more widespread solutions. This report cannot discuss in detail every program that has been shown or is perceived to have had some success in remedying aspects of intergenerational poverty. It will therefore focus on broad themes, including deficiencies in responses to poverty and suggested strategies given in evidence, to address issues of intergenerational poverty. The Committee acknowledges that there are many processes and programs already in place to respond to issues associated with intergenerational poverty.


26


27

CHAPTER 2 BACKGROUND TO THE INQUIRY The current Inquiry was moved in the House of Assembly on a motion of Mr Jack Snelling MP, Member for Playford, due to concern about the social and economic costs of intergenerational poverty and unemployment concentrated within particular areas of metropolitan Adelaide. A major area of concern included increasing evidence that a section of the community is being “left behind” and denied opportunities afforded to other members of the community. Mr Snelling described intergenerational poverty as ‘… families consisting of at least two generations and perhaps three generations who have all been dependent upon public welfare—the parents are unemployed and dependent upon social welfare, the children perhaps leave school early and become dependent upon public welfare and then perhaps their children, as well, go on to become dependent upon public welfare.’11 He recommended a focus on education and training as the key to breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. The motion to refer the matter to the Social Development Committee was carried on 5th June 2002. There has been growing interest in the topic of intergenerational poverty, unemployment and welfare dependence in recent years amongst researchers and in the media. Key themes include an increasing gap between wealthy and poor in Australian and other western societies and an emerging ‘underclass’ of unemployed people. While media attention to the issue has taken on a variety of perspectives, central to much of the literature is a concern over the lack of opportunities afforded to children growing up in families experiencing poverty. In addition, there has been general concern about the consequences of a society that is increasingly divided between the ‘haves’ and ‘have nots’.

AUSTRALIAN POVERTY TRENDS There is an abundance of literature on recent Australian poverty trends, which was reflected in much of the evidence received by the Committee. Some key issues that emerge from recent literature include the following: Note: Poverty measures used in the following statistics are based on ‘before housing’ income, that is income before housing costs are taken into consideration, unless otherwise stated. • Approximately 14.9% of children and 12.3% of adults in Australia currently live in poverty,

based on an updated Henderson poverty line measure.12 Refer to Appendix 2 for recent poverty Henderson poverty line income thresholds;

• Evidence received from SACOSS indicates that, using the Henderson methodology, there have been significant increases in the level of poverty since the early 1980s. Since 1981-82 the rate

11 Snelling, J. HOA (Hansard), Wednesday June 5 2002. 12 Harding A., Lloyd, R. and Greenwell, H. Financial disadvantage in Australia 1990 to 2000: The Persistence of poverty in a decade of growth. The Smith Family and National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), 2001. pvii


28

of household poverty in South Australia has more than doubled, rising from 10% to 23.3% in 1997-98.13

• The most recent data on poverty rates in OECD countries indicates that estimated poverty rates vary from around 4% in Belgium and the Netherlands to almost 19% in the United States, with an average value across all thirteen countries of just below 9%, with Australia's poverty rate being 12.9%, the second highest after the United States, similar in magnitude to that existing in Canada, Ireland and Italy;14

• A study by Bradbury and Jantii comparing rates of child poverty in 25 industrialised countries found that, in 2001, Australia had the fifth highest child poverty rate (17.1%) behind Russia, the USA, the UK and Italy.15 Similarly, Anglicare’s State of the Family report for 2002 reports that while Nordic countries have adopted strategies to reduce child poverty to a consistent 5% for almost two decades, Australia’s child poverty rate is around 12% using the same measures16;

• While accurate trends are difficult to ascertain due to changes in ABS definitions, long term unemployment in Australia has been on the increase for a number of years, with the number of long-term unemployed being around 77,000 in 1979, compared to around 193,000 in 1999 17

Furthermore, while many unemployed people have had substantial proportions of income from paid work at different times, it is clear that an increasing proportion of Australian children spend at least part of their childhood in families with low income;18

• Poverty amongst adults has steadily increased since 1990.19 Poverty amongst adults aged 25 to 44, measured using after-housing income, has become more serious, with one fifth in after-housing20 poverty;21

• While still relatively high, sole parent poverty levels decreased significantly in the 1990s22

while poverty levels amongst couples, both with and without children, are on the increase.23

There was a significant increase in poverty levels amongst families with three children in South Australia in the 1990s, with 23.7% currently living in poverty compared to 12.5% in 1981-82;24

• National Investment for the Early Years (NIFTeY) reported that the number of children aged 0 to 14 years in Adelaide living in sole-parent families has increased over the last decade. Latest

13 Carson and Martin cited in SACOSS, written submission, p6. 14 Forster 1993, cited in Australian Bureau of Statistics. Poverty and deprivation in Australia. In: Year book Australia 1996. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996. p12 15 Bradbury & Jantti, 2001 cited in Neville A (2002), State of the Family Report, 2002, Anglicare Australia p8. 16 Neville A (2002).op cit. p2 17 Johnson, P and King, A. Inter-generational Effects of Long Term Unemployment: A Scoping Study. National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), University of Canberra. Research Report prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, February 2000. p10-11 18 Pech, J. and McCoull, F. Intergenerational poverty and welfare dependence: is there an Australian problem? Strategic Projects Section, Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. Paper presented at the 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, November, 1998. p2 19 Harding A., Lloyd, R. and Greenwell, H. op cit. pvii 20 ‘After-housing’ poverty is a measure of poverty based on income after housing costs are accounted for 21 Harding A., Lloyd, R. and Greenwell, H. op cit. pvii 22 ibid. pvii. 23 Carson, E. and Martin, S. Social Disadvantage in South Australia. A joint project of the Social Policy Research Group, University of SA and the South Australian Council of Social Service. Inc. April 2001.p1 24 Carson, E. cited in O'Brien, S. Poverty in SA Soars to worst in nation. Advertiser (Newspaper) Mon 23 Apr 2001. p5


29

figures indicate that around 21.2% of children live in sole parent families, and that 69% of these families in metropolitan Adelaide have incomes of below $20,000 per annum;25

• There are now less Australian women than men living in poverty due to sharp falls in single mother poverty and the comparatively harsher impact of changes to industry structure and labour market conditions on men26; and

• A key change over the last two decades has been an increase in poverty amongst the aged. This is reflected in South Australia where currently 56% of single people over 65 now live in poverty, compared to 5.3 % in 1981-82.27

POVERTY IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA

Data on poverty levels consistently indicate high levels of income poverty in South Australia compared with the national rate and rates for most other states, with 23.3% of households below the poverty line, compared to 17.9% nationally, according to a study by SACOSS and the University of South Australia.28 It should be noted that studies using different poverty or hardship measures have produced different results, as illustrated in Table 1 below.

Table 1. Estimates of Poverty in South Australia and Australia Estimates are before-housing poverty unless otherwise stated Report South Australia Australia NATSEM (a) 15.9% 13.3% Bray (b) 3.6% (Multiple Hardship) 3.1% (Multiple Hardship) SACOSS/Unisa(c) 23.3% 17.9% Smith Family(d) 12.4% 13%

Sources: (a) Data provided by National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling 1999

(b) Bray 2001 (c) Carson & Martin 2001 (d) Harding & Szukalska 2000

cited in Department of Human Services, written submission, p4 Notably, Bray’s study, using ‘outcomes based’ measurement (the extent to which families and individuals are ‘constrained in their activities’ by a lack of income) found that only 9.5% of households in South Australia experience some hardship and 3.6% experience multiple hardship, equating to around 222,700 households and 600,000 individuals in ‘hardship’ as defined in the study.29

Nevertheless, South Australia and metropolitan Adelaide perform relatively poorly in terms of a number of other indicators of socio-economic disadvantage. In 2001 South Australia had the highest jobless rate of all mainland states and territories (7.3%), the lowest participation rate (61%) and the highest level of long-term unemployment (35.9%).30 Recent announcements indicate that 25 Ambagtsheer and Glover, 1998 cited in NIFTEY, written submission, p6 26 Harding A., Lloyd, R. and Greenwell, H. op cit, pvii 27 Carson, E. cited in O'Brien, S. op cit. p5 28 Poverty estimates in Carson, E. and Martin, S. op cit are calculated using the simplified Henderson methodology. 29 Bray, J, 2001 cited in Department of Human Services, written submission, p5. 30 Carson, E. cited in Altmann, C. The state of poverty for 1 in 4. Australian (Newspaper), Mon 23 Apr 2001. p6


30

situation has improved, with the lowest unemployment rate since 1978 (5.6%) being announced in January 2003. The rate is also lower than for other states and the national rate (6.2%) for the first time in 25 years.31 Currently, the total number of South Australians officially employed is 700,100 and unemployed, 41,800.32 It is important to note, however, that employment and unemployment rates do not equate directly to levels of poverty. The distribution of employment across the population and levels of full-time, versus part-time and casual jobs, all have a significant effect on poverty levels. Of people currently employed in South Australia, 29.8% are employed in part-time and casual jobs.33 Furthermore, Spoehr notes in his State of Working, South Australia 2001 report that:

‘South Australia is vulnerable to rapidly increasing unemployment. This is because much of the recent employment growth in the state has been part-time and often contract or casual in nature. Such employment is more likely to be rapidly lost in the context of an economic downturn, fuelling higher rates of unemployment.’34

Furthermore, the youth unemployment rate in South Australia remains among the highest in the country and is endemic in pockets of Adelaide.35 South Australia’s youth unemployment rate was 20.4% in December 2002, though down from 27.2% in December 2001.36 In the year 2001, the youth unemployment rate for people aged between 15 and 19 years was 18.2% compared to 16.3% nationally, though the unemployment rate for people aged between 20 and 24 years was 8.2%, very similar to the national rate of 8.5%.37 Consistent with this, households experiencing the most pronounced poverty in South Australia are single people aged 21-24 who report an average difference between their incomes and the poverty line of 12%.38 The labour force participation rate for South Australians has been below the national average for the past twenty years and recent trends indicate a significant divergence between the SA and the Australian rate.39 As stated in evidence provided by SACOSS, there is considerable ‘hidden unemployment’ in South Australia. It is believed that there are significant numbers of people that have given up looking for work and are therefore recorded as outside the labour market, rather than ‘unemployed’ in official statistics.40 This is supported in Spoehr’s study of the South Australian labour market which suggests that, in 2000, the true unemployment rate was around 13%, rather than 8% as officially recorded.41 In view of the fact that unemployment and employment rates are not the only consideration when estimating levels of poverty, the ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage for Australian capital cities is presented in Chart 1 below. The Index is a key indicator of the socio-economic status of localities that is derived from a wide range of social and economic variables (Refer to Appendix 3 for detailed explanation of the Index). A value of 1000 indicates the average 31 Jobs Jobs Jobs Unemployment rate falls to 25-year low, Advertiser (newspaper) Friday Jan 17 2003, p1 32 ibid, p1-4 33 ibid, p1-4 34 Spoehr, J. Executive Director, Centre for Labour Research. The State of Working South Australia. Commissioned by the Public Service Association of SA, Adelaide University, May 2001. p3 35 Carson E., cited in James, C. Social Policy Challenge: Poverty a Growth Sector. Advertiser (newspaper) Sat 2 Feb 2002. p67 36 Jobs Jobs Jobs Unemployment rate falls to 25-year low, op cit, p4 37 Carson, E. and Martin, S. op cit. p12 38 Carson, E. and Martin, cited in SACOSS, written submission. p8 39 Spoehr, J. op cit. p 6 40 Carson, oral evidence, Hansard, p77 41 Spoehr, J. op cit. p6


31

in terms of levels of disadvantage. Values below 1000 indicate relative disadvantage and values above 1000 indicate relative advantage. The lower the value, the greater the level of disadvantage in the specified area. Chart 1 indicates that metropolitan Adelaide is comparatively weak in terms of the ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage. Furthermore, it indicates that Adelaide alone has experienced consistent decline since 1986 and, in 1996, was the only Australian capital city with an Index value below 1000.

Chart 1

SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage-capital cities

11001050

1000

950

900

850

800

1986 1991 1996

Sydney Melbourne Brisbane Adelaide Perth Hobart Darwin Canberra Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, the University of Adelaide Overall, while there is promising evidence of recent improvements to employment rates, evidence received by the Committee confirmed the need for attention to issues of poverty in South Australia, including Adelaide, in view of relatively high poverty levels.

THE INCREASING SOCIO-ECONOMIC GAP

It is well documented that while the 1990s was a period of general economic growth and decreased unemployment both in South Australia and nationally, the increases in wealth and employment were not equally distributed throughout the population. Employment increases mainly benefited families in which there was already an employed adult and the major increases in poverty risk have fallen on those who are unemployed or not in the workforce.42 As a result, while the number of Australian families with both parents in employment increased, there was also an increase in the number of jobless families and the proportion of families living in poverty.43 This directly supports the widespread perception, clearly reflected in evidence received by the Committee in relation to South Australia, that the gap between rich and poor Australian families is widening. As Mr. Simon Schrapel, Executive Manager of Anglicare SA, commented:

’We are having this increasing polarisation effect in terms of some families getting benefits of that economic and employment growth in our society but, on the other hand, an increasing number who are not able to benefit from that growth at all.’44

42Gregory, 1999, cited in Neville A (2002). op cit. p6 43 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2001 cited in Neville A (2002). op cit. p6. 44 Schrapel, oral evidence, Hansard, p19.


32

Literature on poverty and socio-economic trends indicates that this trend is increasingly evident in most industrialised nations. Indicative of this international trend is that common concerns identified by Ministers of OECD nations at a recent meeting of the Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Committee (ELSAC) on Social Policy in June 1998 included persistent unemployment, increased welfare dependency, growing income inequality and increased polarisation of households into work-rich and work-poor.45 Furthermore, a study of International Comparisons and the International Experience with Welfare Reform by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services suggests that in most countries, recent improvements in overall employment rates have not equated to reduced poverty levels. Recent US evidence from the President's Council of Economic Advisers, for example, suggests that the excellent labour market performance in the US has been responsible for only 20% of the reduction in welfare caseload over the last four years. Furthermore, Denmark and the Netherlands have both had significant reduction in their unemployment rates, but still have a major problem of welfare dependency. 46 The report concludes:

‘A buoyant labour market and economy and low unemployment is a necessary but not sufficient condition for achieving reductions in welfare dependency.’ 47

Similarly, the McClure report on Welfare reform in Australia states: ‘Australia is in its eighth year of strong economic growth, yet joblessness, underemployment and reliance on income support remain unacceptably high. Disadvantage is also concentrated increasingly in particular segments of the population and in particular localities. These are not problems being faced by Australia alone; they are being experienced in many comparable countries. Over recent decades a variety of economic and demographic factors have combined to create the new and disturbing phenomena of 'jobless families' and 'job poor communities'. These unequal outcomes have generated the unacceptable prospect that significant concentrations of economic and social disadvantage might become entrenched.’48

The following points represent selected evidence from recent literature of increasing socio-economic polarisation in Australian society. • The proportion of Australian families with children under the age of 15 who had no parent in

work increased from 14.5% in 1986 to around 18.3% in 1997.49 In July 2000, there were 860,000 children living in jobless families nationally, including around 7.5% of children in couple families.50 That number has, however, fallen to around 650,000 in 2002;51

• The proportion of all Australian children living in income support recipient families increased from 11.5% in 1978 to 23% in 1997, equating to approximately 1.2 million children. 52 Sixty per cent of these lived in sole parent families.53 About three-quarters of parents in these

45 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. International Comparisons and the International Experience with Welfare Reform. Commonwealth of Australia, 2002. Last modified 6 September 2002. http://www.facs.gov.au. Page number unavailable on website. 46 Ibid, page numbers unavailable. 47 Ibid, page numbers unavailable. 48 McClure, Patrick (Chairperson). Participation support for a more equitable society - Welfare Reform Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia, 2001. www.facs.gov.au. Page numbers not cited on website 49 ABS 1997, cited in Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit. p2 50 Neville A (2002). op cit. p6 51 ibid. p2 52 Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit.p2 53 ibid.p2


33

families were not in the labour force and among the quarter who were unemployed, around 40% had been unemployed for more than one year54;

• Between 1979 and 1998, the employment-population ratio for women in couple families increased from 42 to 60%. However, only 5% of female employment growth occurred in families where the male did not have a paid job. At June 1998, only 24% of women with unemployed partners were employed, compared with 65% of women with employed partners;55

• The top 10% of wealth holders in Australia currently own 45% of the wealth while the bottom 50% own only 7%;56 and

• The income gap between the top 20% and the bottom 20% of Australian weekly incomes has gradually increased. Between 1994/5 to 1999/2000, the mean weekly income of the bottom 20% of Australians increased from $96 to $136, an increase of $40 over 5 years. During the same 5 year period, the mean income of the top 20% of Australian rose from $1407 to $1765, an increase of $359.57

There is some evidence that there is slightly less income inequality in South Australia than in other states, mainly due to relatively high numbers of low income earners and relatively few high income earners. Inequality in South Australia has, nevertheless, increased over the last two decades.58 As Carson and Martin state in their report, Social Disadvantage in South Australia:

‘Poverty and inequality in South Australia have increased over the last two decades in line with the rest of the nation… [and]… the depth of poverty has increased for most poor households in the State during that period.’59

A further consistent theme in evidence received by the Committee was that there are a number of serious implications for social cohesion and the wellbeing of the community as a whole resulting from the widening socio-economic gap, in addition to simply meaning that more people live in poverty. As the submission provided by the St Vincent de Paul Society stated:

‘…increasing inequality between the ‘haves’ and the ‘have-nots’ in our society not only disadvantages those who live with poverty but also exerts a damaging effect on our society as a whole in terms of increased crime, violence, drug use and general disharmony.’60

Evidence from National Investment for the Early Years (NIFTeY), furthermore, stated that:

'Today, many families with children live in ‘a socially toxic environment’, characterised by social isolation, increasing inequality, growing violence, loss of social cohesion, loss of hope and a sense of powerlessness, especially among those who are socio-economically disadvantaged.'61

54 ibid.p2 55 Gregory and Wilson, cited in Neville A (2002). op cit. p7 56 Information Fact Sheet: Income Support and Poverty. Brotherhood of St Laurence, July 2002, www.bsi.org.au cited in St Vincent de Paul, written submission, p8 57 ABS Income Distribution 6523.0, 1995/5, 1999/2000 Tables 1 and 27 cited in St Vincent de Paul, written submission, p8 58 Carson, E. and Martin, S. op cit p2 59Carson, E. and Martin, S. op cit, p1 60 St Vincent de Paul, written submission. p4 61 Garbarino 1995 cited in NIFTEY, written submission. p3


34

UNEMPLOYMENT

Unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, remains the key cause of poverty in Australia and South Australia. The synonymity of poverty and unemployment was either stated or implicit in the majority of evidence received by the Committee. It should be noted, however, that while this is generally the case on a micro level, aggregate unemployment levels are not synonymous with poverty levels as poverty levels depend strongly on the distribution. Thus, there was a general consensus that, ultimately, employment at adequate levels and that is well-distributed across the population is the solution to poverty. As the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community services concluded in its international comparison of welfare reform:

‘Work is the best route out of poverty …similarly, having dual earners in a household provides the best insurance against the risk of poverty.’ 62

It is clear from the evidence, however, that there are many structural, policy, economic, family and individual issues that significantly hinder the achievement of this ideal solution. Furthermore, the majority of the literature on poverty focuses on issues of unemployment and the myriad of barriers to employment for some sectors of the community, particularly the long term unemployed. Indeed, Government benefits are now the main family income source for nearly 60% of people living in poverty63 and child poverty has been demonstrated in research to be strongly associated with joblessness.64 As stated in a submission from the St Vincent de Paul Society:

‘…Being dependent upon Government cash benefits is still the single key characteristic shared by those in poverty.’ 65

Between 1966 and 1998 the proportion of the adult population (aged 15 years and over) that receives social security income support has increased from under 11% (around 900,000 people) to 27% (nearly 4.8 million people), with factors influencing these trends varying across social security payment types.66 Interestingly, a number of recent studies also provide evidence that the effects of poverty are more profound for children in jobless families than for those in low income families where one or both parents are engaged in some employment, even where income levels are similar.67 As unemployment and underemployment are the primary causes of poverty, much of the evidence presented in subsequent chapters of the report relates either directly or indirectly to barriers to employment experienced by people living in poverty, including: • lack of educational qualifications;

• lack of information about opportunities;

• transport issues; 62 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. http://www.facs.gov.au. op cit. 63 Harding A., Lloyd, R. and Greenwell, H. op cit, pvii 64 Neville A (2002). op cit. p12-13 65 Harding and Szukalska 2000 cited in Brotherhood of St Laurence, Information Fact Sheet: Income Support and Poverty, July 2002. p1. Found at http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/income_support_and_poverty.pdf 66 Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Income and Welfare, Special Article- Income Support Payments in Australia (Year Book Australia, 2000). p1 67 Neville A (2002). op cit. p30


35

• lack of material resources to enable effective job seeking (telephones, clothing, stationary);

• the precedence of more pressing social and family issues such as domestic violence and family breakdown;

• disability;

• illness;

• substance abuse;

• discrimination (age, racial and other discrimination); and

• lack of child care supports.

Another commonly cited barrier to employment is the loss of self esteem and motivation associated with unemployment, particularly long term unemployment. Continual rejection when job-seeking as a significant challenge to self-esteem was a consistent theme throughout evidence, as was the stigma associated with unemployment. As one study of unemployed adults in Adelaide found, length of unemployment is linked to loss of motivation and a resultant declining state of physical fitness.68 Many witnesses commented that it is crucial, yet difficult, for unemployed people to maintain motivation and morale.

68 Nicolas, J. Being unemployed: a consultation with unemployed adults in Adelaide. Health Promotion Unit, Public and Environmental Health Service, South Australian Health Commission, 1995. p8


36


37

CHAPTER 3 ADELAIDE’S DISADVANTAGED AREAS

The Committee received evidence of pockets of poverty in a number of areas throughout metropolitan Adelaide. The majority of evidence, however, related to some key areas of entrenched disadvantage in the outer northern, outer southern and middle western suburbs of Adelaide. The single biggest focus in evidence related to the outer northern suburbs, particularly the ‘Peachey Belt’ area comprising Davoren Park and Smithfield Plains, which has been described as the one of the ‘most disconnected’69 communities nationally. Refer to Appendix 4 for a map indicating the area referred to as the ‘Peachey Belt’. The University of SA and SACOSS report, Social Disadvantage in South Australia, also identified Enfield and Elizabeth as two of the most disadvantaged locations in metropolitan Adelaide.70 There was also significant attention to some outer Southern suburbs, and inner-north western areas around ‘the Parks’ and the Blair Athol/ Kilburn area. Evidence received from a number of witnesses from southern areas referred to considerable socio-economic diversity in the City of Onkaparinga but that, nevertheless, there are pockets of significant entrenched poverty in Christies Downs, Hackham West, Morphett Vale and Noarlunga in particular. In relation to the western suburbs, Ferryden Park was recently identified as the poorest suburb nationally, with 28.7% of residents living in homes where the head of the household was unemployed and 27.2% of adults and 36.9% of children living below the poverty line.71 This chapter provides a brief overview of the demography of the Adelaide metropolitan area in relation to some key poverty indicators.

POVERTY INDICATORS

Many social and economic indicators can be used to demonstrate the relative disadvantage of geographical areas. Key indicators that were recommended by the Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, to give a comprehensive representation of Adelaide’s disadvantaged areas are: • The Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage;

• Unemployment rates;

• Proportions of low income families;

• Proportions of early school leavers;

• Proportions of dependent Children of Selected Pensioners & Beneficiaries;

69 Davids, oral evidence, Hansard, p61 70 O'Brien, S. Poverty in SA Soars to worst in nation. Advertiser (newspaper) Mon 23 Apr 2001. p5 71 Lloyd, R., Harding, A. and Greenwell, H. Worlds Apart: Postcodes with Highest and Lowest Poverty Rates in Todays' Australia. Presented to the National Social Policy Conference, Sydney 2001. National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, University of Canberra. p12


38

• Proportions of public housing; and

• Socio-economic cluster analyses.

The Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) Index of Educational Disadvantage is also included. ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage

The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage is one of a number of Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) produced by the ABS. Relatively advantaged areas have high index values (above 1000) and relatively disadvantaged areas have low index numbers (below 1000). The Index is strongly correlated with levels of educational attainment, income and unemployment and is considered to be suitable for analysis of the Adelaide metropolitan area. The SEIFA values from the 2001 Census will not be produced within the timeframe of the current Inquiry. The Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide advised that major shifts are not expected in SEIFA values by suburb for 2001 compared with those for 1996. Map 1 provides a spatial illustration of Adelaide in terms of the Index and indicates that large areas of northern metropolitan Adelaide have low index values, as do many inner-north-western and outer southern areas.

Map 1

ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, 1996

ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage, 1996

Index of Relative Socio-EconomicDisadvantage

Below 900 most disadvantaged

900 to 949

950 to 999

1000 to 1049

1050 and above

not mapped

Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, derived from ABS 1996 Census data


39

Chart 2 below shows the post-code areas with the lowest Index values (below 920) in 1996. The x-axis is labelled using a key suburb within the post-code area, but each post-code consists of a number of suburbs.

Chart 2

Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage - Suburbs with SEIFA value up to 920

654

752 768808 811 832 838 838 865 869 879 881 893 899 900 901 903 906 907 910 915 919 920

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Ferry

den

Park

Woo

dville

Nor

th

Eliz

abet

h N

orth

Osb

orne

Blai

r Ath

ol

Ros

ewat

er E

ast

Eliz

abet

h

Chr

istie

Dow

ns

Old

Noa

rlung

a

Mun

no P

ara

Port

Adel

aide

Enfie

ld

Salis

bury

Para

field

Gar

dent

s

O'su

llivan

Bea

ch

Chr

istie

s Be

ach

Seat

on

Cro

ydon

Albe

rton

Gre

enac

res

Park

holm

e

Burto

n

Hac

kham

Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, derived from ABS 1996 Census

Chart 1 indicates that the most disadvantaged areas72 in the Adelaide metropolitan area (grouped by general area) are: • The inner western post-code area comprising Croydon, Croydon Park, West Croydon,

Croydon Park South, Dudley Park, Devon Park, Renown Park and Ridleyton;

• The middle western post-code areas comprising Ferryden Park, Angle Park, Regency Park, Woodville North, Woodville Gardens, Athol Park and Mansfield Park, Seaton, Seaton North and Findon, Alberton, Albert Park, Hendon, Royal Park, Queenstown and Cheltenham;

• The outer western post-code areas comprising Osborne and Taperoo, Rosewater, Rosewater East, Ottoway, Gillmann, Pennington and Wingfield, Port Adelaide, Birkenhead, Ethelton and Glanville;

72 Arbitrarily defined as <920


40

• The mid northern post-code areas comprising Blair Athol, Blair Athol West, Kilburn and Kilburn North, Enfield, Northfield, Northgate and Clearview;

• The outer northern post-code areas comprising Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth Field, Elizabeth Park, Elizabeth West, Davoren Park, Davoren Park North and Davoren Park South, Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth South, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth Heights , Elizabeth Vale and Hillbank, Munno Para, Munno Para west , Munno Para Downs and Kudla, Salisbury, Salisbury North and Salisbury Downs, Paralowie, Parafield Gardens and Green Fields, Greenacres, Gilles Plains, Hampstead Gardens, Hillcrest, Manningham and Oakden, Burton, Burton, Bolivar, Direk, Waterloo Corner and St Kilda;

• The mid southern post-code areas comprising Parkholme, Ascot Park, Marion, Mitchell Park and Morphettville; and

• The outer southern post-code areas comprising Christies Downs, Noarlunga, Old Noarlunga and Noarlunga Downs, O’Sullivan Beach, Christies Beach and Christies Beach North, Hackham, Hackham west, Huntfield Heights and Onkaparinga Hills. Appendix 5 lists the Index value for each post-code area in the Adelaide metropolitan area.

Indicators of Entrenched Disadvantage

The following sections aim to demonstrate entrenched disadvantage in relation to a number of indicators by identifying metropolitan regions that have demonstrated high levels of disadvantage for both 1996 and 2001, and in some cases also 1986. It should be noted that some post-code areas were combined differently for different Census periods and therefore comparisons are indicative only. Nevertheless, a clear pattern of disadvantage emerges when a number of indicators are examined. Unemployment Rate

Chart 3 below shows the post-code areas of Adelaide in which there have been higher unemployment rates than the average for all metropolitan postcodes for each of the years 1986, 1996 and 2001.


41

Chart 3

Post code areas with Unemployment Rate above average (for all post code areas) for 1986, 1996 and 2001

1.5%

4.9%

3.2%2.8%

11.9%

9.0%

6.4%

2.3%

4.3%4.3%

0.8%1.0%

3.9%

2.4%

5.7%

2.4%1.8%

0.7%

2.0%2.5%

4.6%

8.5%

1.6%

2.7%2.1%

1.6%

2.8%2.9%2.5%

0.9%1.0%1.6%

4.2%

0.0%

2.0%

4.0%

6.0%

8.0%

10.0%

12.0%

14.0%

5000

5007

5008

5009

5010

5012

5013

5014

5015

5017

5019

5023

5031

5033

5084

5085

5086

5087

5107

5108

5112

5113

5114

5115

5120

5163

5164 &

5168

5165

5166

5167

5169

5170

5173

& 5174%

abo

ve a

vera

ge u

nem

ploy

men

t rat

e av

erag

ed fo

r 198

6, 1

996

and

2001

Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, derived from ABS Census data 1986, 1996 and 2001 Chart 3 indicates that areas demonstrating entrenched unemployment rates, averaging over 5% above the average for all post code areas for each of the 3 years, in decreasing order, are:

• 5010

Angle Park, Ferryden Park, Regency Park

• 5012

Athol Park, Mansfield Park, Woodville Gardens, Woodville North

• 5113 Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park South, Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth Field, Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Park, Elizabeth West, Elizabeth West Delivery Centre

• 5013 Gillman, Ottoway, [Pennington, Rosewater (and East), Wingfield

• 5084 Blair Athol, Blair Athol West, Kilburn, Kilburn North

• 5007 Bowden, Brompton, Welland, Hindmarsh (and West)

• 5112 Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth Heights, Elizabeth South, Elizabeth Vale, Hillbank


42

• 5017 Osborne, Taperoo

• 5015 Birkenhead, Ethelton, Glanville, Port Adelaide

• 5173 &

5174 Aldinga, Port Willunga, Silver Sands, Sellicks, Sellicks Beach, Sellicks Hill

Low Income Families

Chart 4 shows the post-code areas of Adelaide in which there have been higher than average proportions of low income families for each of the years 1986, 1996 and 2001. For the purposes of comparison, low income families are defined as having a weekly income of below $400. Currently, the ABS considers families with a weekly income of below $500 to be low income families, therefore the data presented for 2001 are likely to underestimate proportions of low income families.


43

Chart 4

Post codes areas with higher than average proportions of low income families (weekly income

<$400) in all of the years 1986, 1996 and 2001

14.2%

12.7%

12.2%

10.2%

8.9%

8.6%

8.3%

7.4%

7.0%

6.7%

6.6%

6.2%

6.1%

5.9%

5.8%

5.7%

5.2%

5.1%

5.1%

5.1%

4.8%

4.2%

4.1%

4.1%

3.5%

3.5%

3.2%

3.2%

3.0%

2.7%

2.2%

2.1%

2.0%

1.9%

1.7%

1.7%

1.6%

1.6%

1.2%

0.9%

0.0% 2.0% 4.0% 6.0% 8.0% 10.0% 12.0% 14.0% 16.0%

5010

5012

5084

5113

5013

5017

5015

5173 & 5174

5165

5112

5008

5085

5023

5007

5033

5014

5031

5086

5043

5164 & 5168

5009

5019

5039

5120

5011

5115

5166

5038

5167

5087

5163

5070

5016

5108

5074

5046

5037

5116 & 5118

5083

5032Po

st c

ode

Approx. average % above average for all postcodes over 3 years

Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, derived from ABS Census data 1986, 1996 and 2001


44

Chart 4 indicates that areas demonstrating entrenched high proportions of low-income families, averaging over 5% above average for the 3 years, in decreasing order, are: • 5010 Angle Park, Ferryden Park, Regency Park

• 5012 Athol Park, Mansfield Park, Woodville Gardens, Woodville North


• 5113 Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park South, ElizabethDowns, Elizabeth Field, Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Park, ElizabethWest




• 5173 & 5174 Aldinga, Port Willunga, Silver Sands, Sellicks, Sellicks Beach,Sellicks Hill

• 5165 Christies Beach, Christies Beach North

• 5112 Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth Heights,Elizabeth South, Elizabeth Vale, Hillbank

• 5008 Croydon, Croydon Park, West Croydon, Ridleyton, Devon Park,Dudley Park, Renown Park

• 5085 Clearview, Enfield, Northfield, Northgate

• 5023 Findon, Seaton, Seaton North

• 5007 Bowden, Brompton, Welland, Hindmarsh (and West)

• 5033 Cowandilla, Hilton, Marleston, Richmond (and West)

• 5014 Albert Park Alberton, Cheltenham, Hendon, Queenstown, RoyalPark

• 5031 Mile End, Thebarton, Torrensville

• 5086 Gilles Plains, Greenacres, Hampstead Gardens, Hillcrest,Manningham, Oakden

• 5043 Ascot Park, Marion, Mitchell Park, Morphettville, Park Holme

• 5164 & 5168 Christie Downs, Noarlunga, Noarlunga Centre, Noarlunga Downs,Old Noarlunga


45

Early school leavers

Evidence received by the Committee from the Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, indicated that geographical patterns in relation to school retention rates in Adelaide are similar to those in the 1980s, indicating entrenched educational disadvantage in some areas. Chart 5 below indicates those areas that have had a high Standardised Participation Ratio (SPR) in both 1986 and 1996. Standardised Participation Ratio refers to the ratio of the number of cases of individuals leaving school aged 15 years or younger in a study population to the number of expected cases. Data have been adjusted to account for higher rates amongst older people, who would have been more likely to leave school at an early age.73 Chart 5 below shows those post code areas where the SPR was greater than 100 for both 1986 and 1996 and gives the average amount above 100 for those two periods.

Chart 5 Post code areas with high Standardised Participation Ratio (SPR)

Average difference from 100 for each of the years 1986 and 1996 is greater than 10

37.3

21.4 21.6

18.5

34.4

16.915.6

23.9

15.413.8

21.6

31.5 30.4

17.8

27.1

41.1

35.733.1

10.7

38.5

14.1

24.7

36.0

27.3

18.6

13.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

5010

5012

5013

5015

5017

5084

5085

5094

5095

5096

5098

5107

5108

5109

5112

5113

5114

5115

5116

& 5118 51

2051

6251

63

5164

& 5168 51

6651

6951

70

Ave

rage

SPR

>10

0 fo

r 198

6 an

d 19

99

Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, derived from ABS Census data 1986 and 1996

The Chart indicates that areas demonstrating high rates of early school leaving are: • 5113 Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park South, Elizabeth

Downs, Elizabeth Field, Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Park, Elizabeth West,

73 Data on early school leavers (people who left school at 15 years or earlier) were not collected in the 2001 Census. The only variable that was collected is 'Highest Level of Schooling Completed’, which is not comparable to the data for 1996.


46

Elizabeth West Delivery Centre

• 5120 Buckland Park, Virginia

• 5010 Angle Park, Ferryden Park, Regency Park

• 5164 & 5168 Christie Downs, Noarlunga, Noarlunga Centre, Noarlunga Downs, Old Noarlunga

• 5114 Andrew’s Farm, Blakeview, Craigmore, Gould Creek, Humbug Scrub, One Tree Hill, Sampson Flat, Smithfield (and Plains and West), Uleybury, Yattalunga


• 5115 Kudla, Munno Para, Munno Para Downs, Munno Para West

• 5107 Green Fields, Parafield Gardens

• 5108 Paralowie, Salisbury (and Downs and North)

• 5166 O’Sullivan Beach

• 5112 Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth Heights, Elizabeth South, Elizabeth Vale, Hillbank

• 5163 Hackham, Hackham West, Huntfield Heights, Onkaparinga Hills

• 5094 Cavan, Dry Creek, Gepps Cross

• 5098 Ingle Farm, Walkly Heights


• 5012 Athol Park, Mansfield Park, Woodville Gardens, Woodville North

• 5169 Moana and Mona Beach, Seaford (and Heights, Meadows, Rise)


• 5109 Brahma Lodge, Salisbury East, Heights, Park, Plain


• 5085 Clearview, Enfield, Northfield, Northgate

• 5095 Mawson Lakes, Pooraka

• 5162 Morphett Vale, Mt Hurtle, Woodcroft

• 5096 Gulfview Heights, Para Hills (and West)


47

• 5170 Landcross Farm, Maslin Beach

• 5116 & 5118 Evanston (Gardens, Heights, Park and South), HillierBibaringa, Buchfelde, Concordia, Gawler ( And Belt, East, River, South, West), Hewett, Kalbeeba, Kangaroo Flat, Kingsford, Ward Belt, Willaston.

Dependent Children of Selected Pensioners & Beneficiaries

Evidence received by the Committee indicated that, in 2002, 52.9% of all children aged under 16 in Adelaide lived in families receiving one of the Family and Community Services Government welfare benefits for low income families. This compares to a national average of 39.2%.74 Chart 6 below indicates that both the number and proportion of children in Adelaide living in such families is steadily increasing.

Chart 6

Dependent children under the age of 16 years of selected pensioners andbeneficiaries, Adelaide (1989 to 2001)

64.24

84.48

99.88

114.36

28.8

37.6

45.652.9

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1989 1992 1996 2001Year

Number ('000) PercentSour

ce: Calculated from DfaCS data, Glover & Tennant, in press, cited in NIFTEY submission, p6 Table 2 below indicates the post-code areas in which proportions of children in families receiving income support payments for low income families exceeds 50% for both 1996 and 2001. The pensioners and beneficiaries include those children (under 16 years) living in families receiving the DFACS Age, Disability Support and Sole Parent Pensions, Youth Training or Newstart Allowances, sickness and special benefits and the family allowance payment. In some postcode areas in Adelaide, the rate is above 80%.

74 Glover & Tennant, in press cited in NIFTEY submission. p6


48

Table 2

Percentage of children (under 16 years) in families receiving selected benefits for both 1996 and 2001 in areas with more than 50% of children in such families Post code Suburbs 1996 2001

5007 Bowden, Brompton, Welland, Hindmarsh (and West) 57.3% 62.9%

5008

Croydon, Croydon Park, West Croydon, Ridleyton, Devon Park, Dudley Park, Renown Park 64.5% 64.4%

5009 Allenby Gardens, Beverly, Kilkenny 57.4% 55.6%

5010 Angle Park, Ferryden Park, Regency Park, Regency Park Delivery Centre 71.8% 92.4%

5011 Woodville, Woodville Park, Woodville South, Woodville West 50.8% 51.5%

5012 Athol Park, Mansfield Park, Woodville Gardens, Woodville North 90.6% 91.3%

5013 Gillman, Ottoway, Pennington, Rosewater, Rosewater East, Wingfield 76.9% 77.7%

5014 Albert Park, Alberton, Cheltenham, Hendon, Queenstown, Royal Park 57.2% 62.6%

5015 Birkenhead, Ethelton, Glanville, Port Adelaide, Port Adelaide Delivery Centre 59.1% 67.3%

5017 Osborne, Taperoo 69.1% 72.0%

5019 Exeter, Semaphore, Semaphore Park, Semaphore South 52.4% 54.4%

5023 Findon, Seaton, Seaton North 63.4% 66.4%

5031 Mile End, Mile End south, Thebarton, Torrensville, Torrensville Plaza 58.1% 56.7%

5033

Cowandilla, Hilton, Marleston, Marleston Delivery Centre, Richmond, Richmond West, West Richmond 61.5% 63.5%

5042 Bedford Park, Clovelly Park, Flinders University, Pasadena, St Marys 53.7% 55.7%

5043 Ascot Park, Marion, Mitchell Park, Morphettville, Park Holme 58.8% 65.1%

5047 Darlington, Seacombe Gardens, Seacombe Heights, Sturt 60.0% 67.8%

5073 Hectorville, Rostrevor, Tranmere, Tranmere North 52.4% 51.5% 5074 Campbelltown, Newton, Newton Delivery Centre 56.3% 63.5%

5084 Blair Athol, Blair Athol West, Kilburn, Kilburn North 79.1% 80.9%

5085 Clearview, Enfield, Northfield, Northgate 67.0% 63.8%

5086 Gilles Plains, Greenacres, Hampstead Gardens, Hillcrest, Manningham, Oakden 64.3% 62.8%

5087 Klemzig, Windsor Gardens 58.2% 65.8% 5088 Holden Hill 51.7% 70.3% 5093 Para Vista, Valley View 55.2% 58.9% 5094 Cavan, Dry Creek, Gepps Cross 107.5% 88.2%


49

5095 Mawson Lakes, Pooraka, The Levels 58.4% 58.2% 5096 Gulfview Heights, Para Hills, Para Hills West 56.3% 61.6% 5098 Ingle Farm, Walkley Heights 63.5% 70.8% 5107 Green Fields, Parafield Gardens 74.1% 74.4%

5108 Paralowie, Salisbury, Salisbury Downs, Salisbury North, Salisbury North Whites Road 63.7% 74.0%

5109 Brahma Lodge, Salisbury East, Salisbury Heights, Salisbury Park, Salisbury Plain 52.3% 56.2%

5110 Bolivar, Burton, Direk, Globe Derby Park, St Kilda, Waterloo Corner 61.6% 76.3%

5112

Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth Heights, Elizabeth South, Elizabeth Vale, Hillbank 69.9% 75.4%

5113

Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park South, Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth Field, Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Park, Elizabeth West, Elizabeth West Delivery Centre 87.5% 92.2%

5114

Andrews Farm, Blakeview, Craigmore, Gould Creek, Humbug Scrub, One Tree Hill, Sampson Flat, Smithfield, Smithfield Plains, Smithfield West, Uleybury, Yattalunga 62.4% 62.7%

5115 Kudla, Munno Para, Munno Para Downs, Munno Para West 62.5% 72.8%

5116 Evanston, Evanston Gardens, Evanston Heights, Evanston Park, Evanston South, Hillier 60.5% 54.5%

5118

Bibaringa, Buchfelde, Concordia, Gawler, Gawler Belt, Gawler East, Gawler River, Gawler South, Gawler West, Hewett, Kalbeeba, Kangaroo Flat, Kingsford, Ward Belt, Willaston 51.3% 52.5%

5120 Buckland Park, Virginia 86.1% 88.1%

5161 Old Reynella, Reynella, Reynella East, Reynella South 50.2% 62.7%

5162 Morphett Vale, Mt Hurtle, Woodcroft 57.8% 60.5%

5163 Hackham, Hackham West, Huntfield Heights, Onkaparinga Hills 64.9% 72.7%

5164 Christie Downs 73.8% 86.9% 5165 Christies Beach, Christies Beach North 74.5% 82.4% 5166 O’Sullivan Beach 78.2% 78.6% 5167 Port Noarlunga, Port Noarlunga South 53.8% 60.7%

5168 Noarlunga, Noarlunga Centre, Noarlunga Downs, Old Noarlunga 88.1% 80.1%

5169 Moana, Moana Beach, Seaford, Seaford Heights, Seaford Meadows, Seaford Rise 64.6% 65.0%

5173 Aldinga, Aldinga Beach, Port Willunga, Silver Sands 62.4% 70.3%

5174 Sellicks, Sellicks Beach, Sellicks Hill 74.0% 84.7% Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, derived from ABS Census data 1996 and 2001


50

Explanatory Note In some instances, data indicate that the number of people in receipt of a pension or benefit in a postcode exceeds the population in that postcode. This is the case even when the pensioner/beneficiary data are compared with the population data. As a result, the calculation of the proportion of the population in receipt of a particular pension or benefit type can produce percentages of greater than 100%. Other percentages of less than 100% may also be overstated. The reason for this is not clear. It is unlikely to be the result of people claiming both a DFACS Age and a DVA Service Pension (Age), as checks are made each year to ensure that such events do not occur. It is likely in part to be a result of faults in the processing of data when allocating pensions.75 Concentrated Public Housing

A maximum of 20% public housing in any area was commonly cited in evidence as appropriate to enable good social mix and avoid issues associated with concentrated locational disadvantage, discussed further in Chapter 5. Chart 7 below illustrates, however, that there are a number of post-code areas within metropolitan Adelaide in which public housing constitutes more than 20% of all dwellings.

Chart 7

SAHT Dwellings as a % of all dwellings- post-code areas with >15% SAHT dwellings

20.5% 21.0% 21.1%24.8% 25.4%

30.2% 32.5% 33.6% 34.3% 35.6%38.3% 38.6%

70.7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

5085

5086

5115

5040

5043

5164

5112

5113

5168

5084

5017

5012

5010

Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, derived from ABS Census data 1996

75 Explanatory note received from Sarah Tennant, Public Health Information Development Unit via email, 13 January 2003.


51

These post-code areas correspond to suburbs as follows: Post-code Suburbs • 5010 Angle Park, Ferryden Park, Regency Park • 5012 Athol Park, Mansfield Park, Woodville Gardens, Woodville North • 5017 Osborne, Taperoo • 5040 Novar Gardens • 5043 Ascot Park, Marion, Mitchell Park, Morphettville, Park Holme • 5084 Blair Athol, Blair Athol West, Kilburn, Kilburn North • 5085 Clearview, Enfield, Northfield, Northgate • 5086 Gilles Plains, Greenacres, Hampstead Gardens, Hillcrest,

Manningham, Oakden • 5112 Elizabeth, Elizabeth East, Elizabeth Grove, Elizabeth Heights,

Elizabeth South, Elizabeth Vale, Hillbank • 5113 Davoren Park, Davoren Park North, Davoren Park South,

Elizabeth Downs, Elizabeth Field, Elizabeth North, Elizabeth Park, Elizabeth West, Elizabeth West Delivery Centre

• 5115 Kudla, Munno Para, Munno Para Downs, Munno Para West • 5164 Christie Downs • 5168 Noarlunga, Noarlunga Centre, Noarlunga Downs, Old

Noarlunga It should be noted that some individual suburbs within these post-code areas may have higher concentrations than the post-code area as a whole. Socio-Economic Cluster Analyses The following maps illustrate the results of cluster analyses for 1986 and 1996 using a range of measures of disadvantage, again including low-income families, sole parent families and high rates of unemployment. They confirm that disadvantage is entrenched in certain areas of metropolitan Adelaide as the patterns are similar for both 1986 and 1996, with areas of low socio-economic status clustered in the outer northern, outer southern, and western suburbs.


52

Map 2 Socio-Economic Cluster Analysis, 1986

Social status cluster analysis, 1986

Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide

.

Socioeconomic status clustersSocioeconomic status clustersLow Medium High Not mapped


53

Map 3: Socio-Economic Cluster Analysis, 1996

Source: Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide.

Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) Index of Educational Disadvantage

The Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) Index of Educational Disadvantage was developed in 2000. It is used for the allocation of resources to assist schools to address the educational needs of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and the complexities experienced by schools with high proportions of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Weighted averages of the following components are used to calculate the Index, based on the collection district from which a school draws it students: • Parental income;

• Parental education and occupation;

• Aboriginality; and

• Student mobility.

Schools in Index categories 1 to 5 are generally considered to be disadvantaged, with lower value categories indicating greater disadvantage. Chart 8 below illustrates the DECS Index of

Socioeconomic status cluster analysis, 1996

Socioeconomic status clusters Low Medium High not mapped


54

Educational Disadvantage values by DECS educational district for primary and secondary schools.76

Chart 8

DECS Index of Educational Disadvantage by District- Metro and Hills Schools only (1)

(2)

2.72.0

3.5 3.34.0 4.3

5.5 5.5 5.56.2

5.76.3 6.3

2.43.1 3.2

4.34.8 4.9 4.8

5.45.7

6.36.8

6.26.5

Eliz

abet

h/M

unno

Para

Cen

tral N

orth

-W

est

Cen

tral N

orth

-Ea

st

Salis

bury

Pla

ins

Baro

ssa/

Gaw

ler

Cen

tral W

est

Sout

hern

Val

es

Cen

tral S

outh

-W

est

Sout

hern

Ran

ges

Cen

tral E

ast

Cen

tral S

outh

Tea

Tree

Gul

ly

Hills

High School Primary School

(1) An Index value of 1 indicates greatest disadvantage, and 7 indicated greatest advantage (2) Other schools, including special schools and R-12 schools are not included (3) Only metropolitan schools in the Gawler/ Barossa district are included

Source: Department of Education and Children’s Services Consistent with trends in relation to other socio-economic indicators, the areas with the lowest average Index category values were:

• Elizabeth/Munno Para;

• Central North-West;

• Central North-East;

• Salisbury Plains;

• Barossa/Gawler; and

• Central West.

76 Note: Individual values for schools are not reported for confidentiality reasons.

(3)


55

Poverty In Other Areas

While most evidence received by the Committee related to Adelaide’s ‘disadvantaged’ regions as identified in this Chapter, some evidence was received about poverty in areas that are not generally identified as disadvantaged. Clearly, the experience of poverty is not limited to families and individuals in the outer northern, outer southern and western suburbs of Adelaide and a number of examples of intergenerational poverty in families in other areas were provided. Evidence received from the Tea Tree Gully Community Services forum also identified that people living in poverty in areas that are perceived to be ‘middle class’, such as Tea Tree Gully, can be disadvantaged in relation to attracting funding for services. 77 The Forum provided an example in relation to the Department of Employment, Training and Education’s Adult and Community Education (ACE) funding. The forum claimed that the Department recently rejected all funding applications for existing programs targeted towards the disadvantaged at council-owned community centres in the City of Tea Tree Gully and that the funding was diverted to increase funding for programs in community centres in areas perceived to be of ‘greater need’ such as Montague Farm, Ingle Farm, Salisbury and Elizabeth.78

SUMMARY

Consistent with anecdotal evidence received by the Committee, the areas of Adelaide consistently identified on a range of indicators as having high levels of entrenched socio-economic disadvantage are the outer Northern suburbs, especially the ‘Peachey Belt’ area comprising Elizabeth, Davoren Park and Munno Para, ‘the Parks’, the outer western suburbs of Osborne and Taperoo, Blair Athol and Kilburn, some outer southern areas including Noarlunga and Christies Downs, and northern suburbs closer to the city around Enfield and Gilles Plains. It was also apparent in evidence received by the Committee, however, that there are some people experiencing poverty in other areas.

77 Tea Tree Gully Community Services forum, written submission, p4 78 Tea Tree Gully Community Services forum, written submission, p4


56


57

CHAPTER 4 INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY- INCIDENCE AND RISK

THE INCIDENCE OF INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY

A large amount of anecdotal evidence was received by the Committee in support of the existence and increasing impact of intergenerational poverty, including in South Australia. Anecdotal evidence confirmed that some families in Adelaide consist of two or three generations of unemployed people. There was also a range of evidence from individuals experiencing poverty who largely attributed their current situation to a range of family influences during their childhood. British and American literature also cites anecdotal evidence of the existence of families experiencing two, three and sometimes four generations of poverty and unemployment in those countries. Common drivers for welfare reform among OECD79 countries at the meeting of the Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Committee (ELSAC) in June 1998 included: • persistent unemployment, especially long-term unemployment, despite economic growth;

• increased welfare dependency among the working-age population; and

• the growth of intergenerational welfare dependency.80

Australian studies on the topic of intergenerational poverty and disadvantage agree, however, that there is a distinct lack of longitudinal quantitative data showing the links between generations of the same family in terms of poverty indicators. Census data, for example, enable cross-tabulation of the employment status of a parent and child only within the same household, which reflects only one point in time and does not enable cross-tabulation of details for the many parents and 'children' that live in separate households. So while entrenched poverty and disadvantage can be illustrated for a number of geographical areas within metropolitan Adelaide, and some evidence received by the Committee suggested that this is in part due to intergenerational poverty within families, neither longitudinal data on families, nor mobility data on areas, are available to enable measurement of the incidence of intergenerational poverty in metropolitan Adelaide or other Australian localities. Research suggests that, to date, intergenerational poverty and unemployment has not been the dominant experience of people living in poverty in Australia. Illustrating this, one comparative study of young adults by Pech and McCoull found that most young people from disadvantaged backgrounds do not spend long periods of time on income support. Almost half of those whose parents were on income support did not receive any income support payments over the three year period of the study.81 Furthermore, while some families experience persistent poverty, most experience considerable movement into and out of poverty due to a range of circumstances.82 Patricia Thomson, Associate Professor Education, University of Adelaide, questioned popular 79 Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development 80 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. http://www.facs.gov.au. op cit. page numbers unavailable on website 81 Neville, A. (2002). op cit. p14 82 Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit. p3


58

opinion and media portrayals of a large number of families in which three generations were predominantly unemployed:

‘….while it may be the case that there are three generations unemployed now, that may not always be the case and have always been the case. It might also be the case that, as some American research suggests, in extended family networks, there are combinations of people who are employed, under employed and unemployed...’83

Consistent with a range of evidence about shifts in labour market trends, Ms Thomson further commented that many parents and grandparents who had blue collar jobs, and low levels of formal education wanted their children to get a trade but that those jobs have disappeared. Furthermore, the Department of Human Services’ submission made a strong point that most people on low incomes meet most of their needs the majority of the time and that poverty usually results from specific, predictable and therefore preventable events. These could include illness, birth of a child or marriage break-up.84

‘Most of the events that push people into poverty are predictable and potentially are preventable…[and]…most of the events that push people into poverty can be influenced by state governments and in particular human service agencies.’85

In addition, a National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) study on the Intergenerational Effects of Long Term Unemployment concluded that ‘….[the] common perception that there is an ‘emerging underclass’ of people who have never worked and whose parents, and in some cases grandparents, have never worked either… has been the subject of very little empirical investigation in Australia...’86 So while anecdotal evidence received by the Committee often confirmed the existence of intergenerational poverty, due to the lack of empirical longitudinal studies on the topic, evidence did not generally address whether or not people experiencing intergenerational poverty constitute a large proportion of all people living in poverty. Some evidence was received from agencies, particularly emergency relief services, quoting high proportions of clients that they believe are experiencing intergenerational poverty. Lutheran Community Care, for example estimated that around 70% of their clients accessing emergency relief report that their parents are unable to assist them as they too are in financial difficulty, many receiving Centrelink payments as the main source of income. In addition, they advised that around 20-30% of clients reported problems with young adult children being out of school and unemployed.87 However, it is unlikely that this represents the true magnitude of intergenerational poverty amongst all people experiencing episodes of poverty, as these service providers target the most disadvantaged sectors of the community, which may be expected to include greater than representative proportions of people experiencing entrenched and persistent poverty.

83 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p67-68 84 DHS written submission, p2 and p6 85 DHS written submission, p10 86 Johnson, P and King, A. op cit. p12 87 Lutheran Community Care, written submission, p2


59

THE RISK OF INTERGENERATIONAL POVERTY The Literature

A broad scan of literature reveals that there has been a significant amount research undertaken overseas on the topic of intergenerational poverty and unemployment. Unlike Australian studies, US and UK research has had the benefit of longitudinal datasets on a range of indicators associated with poverty. Australian literature, on the other hand, due to the lack of longitudinal data, has tended to treat intergenerational issues incidentally, rather than as a central focus of study.88 It has generally been limited to analysis of cross-sectional data and the extent to which overseas research can be applied to the Australian context. 89 Other than in relation some specific economic and racial variables, Australian studies have generally produced evidence of similar patterns of intergenerational correlations to those found in the UK and US.90 Australian literature on the topic includes two literature reviews that aim to draw conclusions about intergenerational poverty in Australia from a wide range of related sources. One was conducted by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), University of Canberra, and the other by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) on behalf of the Department of Family and Community Services. The NATSEM study sought to determine the extent to which long-term unemployment falls on particular families and the consequences for those families, by exploring the correlation between parental long-term unemployment and children’s educational attainment. The AIFS project was established in response to growing media and community attention and opposing community views on the topic to determine if the children of income support recipients are more likely than others to experience unemployment, lone parenthood and other hardships in later life, and if so, to identify the factors that might reduce these risks. Findings from the Literature

Despite the lack of empirical evidence of intergenerational poverty in Australia per se, international and Australian literature provides strong evidence of a number of significant familial, particularly parent-child, correlations with regard to poverty, education, employment and general wellbeing variables. Overwhelmingly, research identifies strong connections between family members on variables associated with socio-economic status, pointing to increased poverty risks amongst people from disadvantaged backgrounds. Most research reveals strong correlations between poor educational attainment, poor labour force attachment and receipt of welfare payment of parents and their children.91 The following are some selected research findings cited in Australian literature that demonstrate these correlations. • An analysis of ABS data by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community

Services found that lowest labour force participation rates and high unemployment exist among young people from families with no parental employment, with the exception of young

88 Johnson, P and King, A. op cit. p2 89 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) cited in Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit. p4 90 ibid. p4 91 Wilson. K, Pech, J. and Bates, K.,1999 cited in Neville, A. (2002) op cit. p14


60

people whose parents are both outside the labour force.92 Young people without a parent in work are one and a half to two times more likely to be unemployed than young people with at least one parent in work.93

• Similarly, Bradbury et al’s study of youth unemployment and intergenerational immobility

found teenagers from low income families to have relatively high unemployment rates, ‘…reflect[ing] intergenerational rigidities with respect to labour market status.’94

• Gottschalk’s study of the intergenerational transmission of welfare participation found that daughters of welfare recipients are more than twice as likely to receive welfare than the daughters of non-recipients and that for females, ‘mothers’ [labour force] participation is significantly correlated with both early births and daughter’s [labour force] participation.’95

• Pech and McCoull undertook a comparative analysis of a longitudinal dataset constructed from FaCS administrative data of young people and their parents96 compared to young people in the ANU’s ‘Negotiating the Life Course’ Survey.97 While results were somewhat limited by the size and nature of datasets, they were able to support their hypotheses that:

- Young people whose parents receive income support will be more likely to experience during their teenage years a number of life events that lead to them also receiving income support. These include leaving school early, becoming unemployed, becoming homeless and/or having children before the age of 21; and

- The probability of these outcomes will increase as the degree of parental disadvantages and

income support dependence increases. 98

• The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Employment Education and Workplace Relations in its report on youth unemployment found that family social and economic background factors were the most significant factors influencing the employment outcomes of young people.99

• Chart 9, based on the 1994 ABS Survey of Employment and Unemployment Patterns (SEUP), demonstrates the trend of relatively high levels of unemployment amongst young people from jobless families. It shows that unemployment rates are highest amongst young people from sole parent families where the parent was not in the labour force (42.9%), followed by those with couple parents with one unemployed and one not in the labour force (41.2%), those from sole parent unemployed families (33.5%) and families where 2 parents were unemployed (32.4%).

92 ABS, 1994 cited in Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit.p4

93 ibid. p4

94 Bradbury, B., Garde, P and Vipond, J.,1986 cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. (compilers) (1998), A Literature Review: Transgenerational Income Support Dependence. A Project Conducted by AIFS on behalf of the Department of Family and Community Services, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne. p4 95 Gottschalk, P, 1992, cited in Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit. p3 96 n= 53 000 young people and their 92 000 parents 97 n=300 98 Johnson, P and King, A. op cit.p25-26 99 ibid. p15


61

Chart 9 Unemployment rate of young people aged 15-24 living with parent(s) by parental

labour force status

17.720.3 20.2

30.6 32.4

41.2

20.1

28.2

33.5

42.9

32.7

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

Both

par

ents

empl

oyed

One

empl

oyed

,on

eun

empl

oyed

One

empl

oyed

,on

e no

t in

the

labo

urBo

th p

aren

tsno

t in

the

labo

ur fo

rce

Both

par

ents

unem

ploy

ed

One

unem

ploy

ed,

one

not i

nth

e la

bour

All y

oung

peop

le in

coup

lefa

milie

s

Pare

ntem

ploy

ed

Pare

ntun

empl

oyed

Pare

nt n

ot in

the

labo

urfo

rce

All y

oung

peop

le in

one

pare

ntfa

milie

s

Couple families One parent families

Une

mpl

oym

ent r

ate

(%)

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics Focus on Families: Education and Employment, Cat No 4421.0, ABS, Canberra, 1994 cited in Pech, J. and McCoull, F. Intergenerational poverty and welfare dependence: is there an Australian problem? Strategic Projects Section, Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. Paper presented at the 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, November, 1998.p5

Explanatory Note In the absence of longitudinal datasets, the data upon which the Chart is based are limited to parents and children co-residing and responses within the time-frame of the survey. These research findings are a sample of those that support the increased risk of poverty and unemployment amongst people who grow up in disadvantaged families and, therefore, that there is a considerable risk of intergenerational poverty. Furthermore, the NATSEM scoping study on the intergenerational effects of long term unemployment found that the majority of research findings concur that there is a higher likelihood of unemployment for young people from low income and unemployed families.100 It is important to note, however, that increased risk does not mean that people experiencing poverty are necessarily the product of intergenerational poverty or that children from low income and unemployed families will necessarily experience ongoing poverty in adulthood. As one quantitative study of South Australians found, background characteristics are important predictors of career outcomes, but there is also a 'high degree of upward mobility'.101

100 Johnson, P and King, A. op cit. p2 101VandenHeuvel, A, Robertson, F and Doube, L., 1994 cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p4


62

Key Intergenerational/ Family Correlates

There is an abundance of research demonstrating that there are many complex and inter-connected issues and circumstances associated with poverty. In many cases, causes and effects become blurred as a cycle of poverty develops. Research relating specifically to intergenerational aspects of poverty reveals that the intergenerational dynamic of poverty in some families is also the product of a multitude of inter-connected and compounding factors that serve to decrease the opportunities and outlook of young people and increase their risk of poverty later in life. As stated in the NATSEM scoping study of the intergenerational effects of long term unemployment:

‘…. understanding the intergenerational transmission mechanisms requires information on a wide set of attributes of parents and children, ranging from economic to attitudinal, and at the micro and macro levels.’102

Examination of a range of overseas and Australian literature reveals that there are a number of distinct factors, however, that are most strongly associated with the transmission of poverty, unemployment and welfare dependence from one generation to another. Not surprisingly, the majority are related to family characteristics and background, with a significant focus also on regional or locational factors. As Miller, in his study of the influences of family on youth unemployment concluded 'family and regional circumstances are more important in determining unemployment outcomes than personal characteristics'.103 Following is a discussion of the key factors. Parental Education and Employment Experiences

Research consistently shows that parental education levels and employment experiences, particularly parental long-term unemployment, are strongly associated with the education and employment outcomes of children. Research findings from a range of studies include that children whose parents have completed secondary school are more likely to complete secondary school themselves; young people whose parents did not complete secondary school are more likely to be on income support than those whose parents completed secondary school; and parents of income support recipients tend to have lower occupational skill levels than the parents of non-recipients.104 Furthermore, as the submission received from the Smith Family highlighted, social factors in the family background, such as parents’ educational attainments, have generally been found to be more significant than economic factors in explaining different educational outcomes for children.105 Indeed, the Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) has identified parental education and parental occupation as key variables in the calculation of the Index of Disadvantage for South Australian schools.(Appendix 7)106 A number of studies also examine the role of intergenerational transmission of values and attitudes to employment and education in perpetuating poverty within certain families. Many such studies are in response to increasingly popular rhetoric, particularly in the media, about attitudes and values constituting a ‘culture’ of welfare dependence. Studies have mixed conclusions but, overall,

102 Johnson, P and King, A. op cit. p14 103 Miller, P.W, 1998 cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p9 104 Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit. p6 105 Williams, T., 1987 and Williams, T., J. Clancy, M. Batten & S. Girling-Butcher, 1980 cited in The Smith Family, written submission, p9. 106 Kimber, oral evidence, Hansard, p89


63

it appears that most research supports the existence of a culture of unemployment and welfare dependence insofar as knowledge, experiences and outlook are often shared within families and that intentional ‘bad’ attitudes to education, work and welfare rights are a minority ‘culture’. Miller and Nedlands, for example, propose that in families where there are multiple family members unemployed or no member employed there are ‘major implications where knowledge of employment opportunities is obtained primarily through family contacts.’107 Anglicare’s State of the Family report for 2002, furthermore, reports that children growing up in households where their parents’ educational experiences are limited or unfavourable have limited concepts about what can be achieved through education or employment.108 Such findings are consistent with research that highlights the importance of parental education and employment experiences and with evidence received by the Committee, which tended to highlight the limited knowledge and outlook of young people growing up in families and communities where poverty, unemployment or sporadic employment is the norm. As Helen Sheppard, Manager, Anglicare Playford, commented:

‘They believe that their choices are limited ... They do not see people around them engaging in the labour market or, if they do, they are engaged in a very tenuous manner for a short time. They do not see people around them achieving goals that they want to see in their life. They see people having babies when they are teenagers; starting to be involved in relationships when they are very young; starting to experiment with drug use and leaving school early. If those are their life experiences, they are far less likely to break out...’109

Family structure

A salient theme in literature is that poverty may have different effects on social mobility depending on family structure. While the direct influence of family structure has been found to be only weakly associated with educational attainment in children110, the long-term negative effects of childhood poverty are found to be most marked in children whose mothers were very young (namely teenagers) when they were born, children from sole parent families, with most intense effects in father-headed sole parent families, children of divorced parents and ‘step’ families and children from large families.111 Most studies find that it is the factors associated with particular family structures, rather than family structure per se, that increases the likelihood of intergenerational poverty. For example single mother families tend to have very low family incomes, limited employment opportunities and fewer supports112 and teen or young parents tend to have lower education levels, be economically inactive and are more likely to be sole parents.113 Many service providers gave anecdotal evidence that, while the vast majority of sole parents are still women, there has been a rise in incidence of the father-headed sole parent families, who often lack parenting skills and information about and access to support services to an even greater extent than many single mothers. 107 Miller, P W N., 1997 cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p4 108 Neville A (2002). op cit. p14 109 Sheppard, oral evidence, Hansard, p21 110 The Smith Family, written submission p9. 111 Johnson, P and King, A. op cit. p2 112 Haveman, R, Wolfe, B and Peterson, E. cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p 6. 113 ibid. p 6.


64

Consistent with the importance of family structure, a clear concern emerging from evidence received by the Committee was the relatively high rate of poverty amongst sole parent families. Sole parents currently have higher than average rates of poverty, at around 20%, though poverty levels did decrease significantly in Australia in the 1990s.114 The most prominent issue emerging from evidence in relation to sole parent families was the intensified effect on parents and children of low income resulting from a lack of informal support networks. A clear picture emerged of a persistent lack of educational and employment opportunities for sole parents due to family responsibilities, which often started at an early age. Kay Weinart, a single parent of three children from Elizabeth North, for example, describes in detail the lack of supports in the areas of child care and household chores which, in addition to financial hardship, detract from her ability to educate herself to improve her family’s circumstances or assist with the educational needs of her children:

‘When you have a partner to share household and childcare chores with, it is far easier to find the time to study… far more time to direct towards undertaking further training and education, achieving better grades and escaping intergenerational poverty.’115

Early Parenthood

Evidence received by the Committee and previous research reveals that many families that have experienced generations of unemployment tend to see child rearing as a primary goal in life and people from these families are more likely to have children at an early age (in their teens). Indeed, the Public Health Information Unit, Adelaide University, reported that a recent study on fertility rates showed that the poorest women in Adelaide have the most babies and total fertility rates are consistently highest in the poorest areas of Adelaide.116 There is also some evidence to suggest that daughters of sole parents are more likely to become parents at a young age and to receive income support as a result.117 Chart 10 indicates the Total Fertility Rate (TFR)118 by quintile for Adelaide for the years 1996-99. The Chart indicates that the Total Fertility Rate for Quintile 5 (most disadvantaged) is 24%119 greater than that for Quintile 1 (least disadvantaged).

114 Harding A., Lloyd, R. and Greenwell, H. op cit, pvii 115 Weinart, written submission, p16 116 Glover, oral evidence, Hansard, p9 117 Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit. p7 118 The Total Fertility Rate represents the mean number of children that females living right through their child-bearing period will

(on average) bear, if they are subject to the fertility conditions of a particular area over the given period. 119 TFR =1.24 121 Data provided by Diana Hetzel Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU), University of Adelaide via email, 19 December 2002


65

Chart 10

Total Fertility Rate by Quintile, Adelaide 1996-1999

0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5

Quntile of Socio-Economic Disadvantage of Area

TFR

Source: Data provided by Diana Hetzel Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU), University of Adelaide via email, 19 December 2002 Furthermore, available data indicate that female residents of Norton Summit, Virginia, Elizabeth North, Summertown, Parafield Gardens, Ferryden Park, Smithfield, Old Noarlunga, Angle Vale, Woodville North, Elizabeth, Christie Downs, Salisbury, Moana and Osborne had the highest TFRs. Postcode areas located in the inner city suburbs generally had the lowest TFRs.121 Consistent with this, the National Investment for the Early Years (NIFTeY) reported that of the estimated 66,906 children aged 0 to 4 years in Adelaide122 in 1998, the highest proportions lived in the outer postcode areas at the northern and southern metropolitan fringes.123 Coincidently, these areas had the highest unemployment rates, proportions of public housing, low income households, sole parent families and people without post-school qualifications.124 Evidence received from the Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU), University of Adelaide also reported a correlation of meaningful significance between high TFR and people who left school at age 15 years or earlier (0.54).125 There were 52,218 births to mothers aged from 15 to 19 years over the four years from 1996 to 1999, with the largest numbers being in Salisbury (2,649 births), Morphett Vale (2,097), Happy Valley (1,720), Smithfield (1,477), Elizabeth North (1,344), Salisbury East (1,204), Elizabeth (1,166) and O’Halloran Hill (1,121).126

122 6.1% of the population 123 NIFTEY, written submission, p5 124 ABS, 1996 cited in NIFTEY, written submission, p5 125 Data provided by Diana Hetzel Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU), University of Adelaide via email, 19 December 2002 126 ibid


66

Aboriginal women also tend to have more children, starting at a younger age. The TFR for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander women in Adelaide from 1996 to 1999 was almost double that for non-Indigenous women, 3.16 compared to 1.61.127 From 1996 to 1998 in South Australia, 23% of Indigenous mothers were under 20 years of age, compared to only 5% of non-Indigenous mothers.128 In general, evidence received by the Committee suggested that the issue was not one of lack of knowledge and information about contraception but rather a lack of motivation to ‘protect’ oneself against early parenthood due to a lack of other opportunities and ambitions. As Ms. Terra Lea Ranson, Manager, Onkaparinga Youth Services commented:

‘…the reason that young women end up pregnant, generally, is not because of a lack of knowledge. It is generally a lack of feeling empowered and important and poor self-esteem. Simply doing more sex education is not going to cut it. .. For example, having a picture of the future ahead and having other plans for their life, not seeing it [parenthood] as the only way to success.’129

Many people interviewed by Anglicare for the Inquiry attributed their experience of poverty to having children at a very early age (between 15 and 17 years), which resulted in missing out on educational and employment opportunities. One interviewee commented:

‘Having kids took the focus off me, my needs, my dreams, my desires and placed them on the kid … I became the provider, family support person, the ‘struggler’.'130

Many also reported having few financial resources when they became parents, a lack of family supports and a lack of assistance to develop parenting skills. Though not exclusive to families where members become parents at an early age, a number of respondents commented on the emerging trend of grandparents taking on financial and other responsibilities of grandchildren where parents, for a range of reasons, are unable to provide adequate care. The issue of early parenthood is of particular importance in the current Inquiry given that, as discussed above, early parenthood has been shown to significantly increase the likelihood of low educational attainment, minimal employment experiences and sole parenthood 131, which are the key correlates of poverty between generations. While it should be acknowledged that many young parents provide excellent opportunities for the development of their children, evidence generally pointed to a lack of skills amongst young parents who have grown up in situations of poverty themselves. One case study provided by Mr. Dale West, Director, Centacare Catholic Family Services, illustrates this point:

’This particular case study involves a young woman client of 15 years with a child of six months, and she claims to be transient all her life. She claims to have attended five primary schools and three high schools in completing up to year 8... the mother of this client is currently in a family supported accommodation assistance program service... has never been employed and was 15 herself when this client was born. … the fathers of both children are unknown, as is the father of

127 Data provided by by Diana Hetzel Public Health Information Development Unit (PHIDU), University of Adelaide via email, 19 December 2002 128 ABS and Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2001 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p52. 129 Ranson, oral evidence, Hansard, p227 130 Anglicare, written submission, p14 131 Haveman, R, Wolfe, B and Peterson, E., 1995 cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p6


67

the client's child. The client has poor knowledge of nutrition and on pension days will feed her six-month old baby hot chips and chocolate milk for breakfast. That is not an uncommon thing for very young mothers, even older mothers, of young children to do, because she states that that is what her mum did and she is fine, so why is there a problem? It is also important to point out that in this example there is no evidence of drug or alcohol abuse or gambling, so we can't sideline this person and say that they are involved in drugs or other things. It is actually someone doing their best from their experience... The client also has a lack of knowledge of child development. For example, when the child grabbed the client's hair, she was told to let go or she would be smacked and sent to her room. This is a baby of six-months old. I am not sure how the baby would get itself to the room…’132

SUMMARY

In view of the well documented risk factors for children growing up in poverty and strong socio-economic correlations between family members, the growth of jobless families, the increasing gap between wealthy and poor families and entrenched locational disadvantage within Adelaide, it is reasonable to conclude that there is considerable risk of the growth of intergenerational poverty in Adelaide. There was a general consensus in evidence received by the Committee that, indeed, there are a number of communities in Adelaide in which intergenerational poverty is a considerable concern.

132 West, oral evidence, Hansard, p254


68


69

CHAPTER 5 LOCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE

‘Just as with jobless families, the problems facing job poor communities can be self-reinforcing. The most disadvantaged regions have poorer educational, social and transport infrastructure as well as reduced employment opportunities. Without intervention, the cycle of decline in disadvantaged areas may continue despite employment gains in the economy overall.’133

Much of the evidence received by the Committee did not clearly distinguish between intergenerational poverty within families (according to the Committee’s definition) and persistent disadvantage within localities, that is locational disadvantage. Evidence heard related to poverty within communities or locations over the time-span of a number of generations at least as often as it related to poverty within generations of the same families. Some evidence received by the Committee suggested that locational disadvantage is in part due to intergenerational poverty within families who have remained in particular localities. As Mr. Simon Schrapel, Executive Manager of Anglicare SA, highlighted:

‘…if you talk and work with some of the families who live in places like Smithfield Plains, you find that many of them have not moved out of the area in two or three generations. The experiences they are having today are similar to the experiences that their grandparents were having one or two generations ago.’134

As discussed in Chapter 4, however, there are no available data that enable the magnitude of intergenerational poverty to be determined for areas of entrenched disadvantage in Adelaide. Furthermore, the main body of evidence suggests that locational disadvantage can be reproduced over the time span of several generations for a number of reasons related to community and locational, in addition to family, circumstances. The extent to which residents in disadvantaged regions of Adelaide are new arrivals seeking cheap housing, or members of families who have resided in those areas for some time and suffered due to unfavourable labour market trends, for example, cannot be ascertained. It was, however, clear from evidence received by the Committee that it is the nexus of family and community or locational factors that is responsible for entrenched and concentrated disadvantage in some areas of Adelaide. As the Anglicare State of the Family report for 2000 states:

‘Disadvantage in Australia is becoming increasingly localised. The clustering of families who live in poverty in particular geographic areas increases the probability of poverty being passed on from one generation to the next….’135

There is a consistent theme of the importance of locational factors in determining opportunities and socio-economic outcomes for individuals in both rural and metropolitan areas in literature on poverty. For example, Hunter, in a study of the existence of an Australian ‘underclass’, found that 133 McClure, P. op cit. page numbers unavailable on website 134 Schrapel, oral evidence, Hansard, p23 135 Neville A. State of the Family 2000, Anglicare Australia, Melbourne. p4 137 Hunter, B., 1995: 14-21 cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p14


70

‘…the group of people who are most at risk of becoming permanently alienated from the economic system are the people who live in neighbourhoods with low socioeconomic status'.137

The Association of Major Charitable Organisations (AMCO), furthermore, observed that communities in lower income areas are more likely than other communities to define themselves geographically.138 Consistent with previous research findings, the main issues contributing significantly to growing community cultures of hopelessness and ‘disconnection’ in several regions of Adelaide were: • strain on services and resources, including schools;

• lack of community role models in relation to education and employment;

• the negative effects of repeated labelling of areas as ‘disadvantaged’ in the media and popular rhetoric; and

• low community morale.

Demand for Services and Resources

The University of SA and SACOSS publication, Social Disadvantage in South Australia, states that all community sector workers interviewed in the study reported increasing demand for services over the last five years and expressed concern over inability to meet genuine demand.139

Evidence received by the Committee from community and welfare sector agencies confirmed this trend, particularly in relation to disadvantaged areas of Adelaide. For example, in relation to educational resources, Heather Parkes, Director of the Social Inclusion Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet, reported greater wear and tear in schools in disadvantaged areas.140 Patricia Thomson, Associate Professor of Education, University of Adelaide, also commented on significant stress on teachers in the ‘hard schools’, especially amongst inexperienced teachers.141 Furthermore, a number of contributors commented on the impact of public policies that have resulted in cuts to public and community services funding, causing a number of services to struggle. SACOSS and Shelter SA argue that insufficient affordable housing supply policies, for example, are resulting in increased homelessness and demands on emergency accommodation.142

On the other hand, while demand was reported to exceed capacity, many contributors also commented on large numbers of people in disadvantaged areas that have lost connection with services that may assist them. A strong theme in evidence was that physically accessing services, as well as complying with eligibility criteria and bureaucratic processes is a confusing maze for many people, especially for people with low levels of education and self esteem.

138 AMCO, written submission, p19 139 Carson, E. and Martin, S. op cit p2 140 Parkes, oral evidence, Hansard, p42 141 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p65 142 South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) and Shelter SA. Housing creates (w)health and wellbeing. South Australia, 2001. p27


71

It was also consistently reported that there are services within lower socio-economic areas that experience greater strain than others. For example, it was mentioned that schools located close to women’s shelters and hospitals have relatively high proportions of students with health, welfare and family problems as the SAHT co-locates families with essential services where possible. A further theme in evidence was that there has been an unequal distribution of essential services throughout Adelaide for some time, with the outer northern suburbs being most lacking in this respect. For example, the Public Health Information Development Unit, Adelaide University, reported that north of Grand Junction Road, there is approximately half the number of doctors than in the eastern suburbs, but much higher use of doctor and hospital services. 143 An additional issue in relation to services was a general preference for non-government services over Government services in the community. Community Role Models

The lack of role models in disadvantaged communities and families, in relation to work and educational success was a strong theme in evidence received by the Committee. There was some evidence that this problem is perpetuated as many ‘work-successful’ people, though not all, move away from areas such as the ‘Peachey Belt’ and are replaced by families in crisis seeking public or low cost private rental housing. As Peter Sandeman, Director, Playford Partnerships, commented:

‘…as soon as people get on their feet, they tend to move out and they are replaced by families in crisis. So there is an engine of disadvantage that keeps churning ….we are constantly getting families who are getting their act together being replaced by families who do not have their act together, so the overall disadvantage in the area rises. From the family's point of view it is great; from the community's point of view it is a problem, because they are starting to lose community leaders.’144

Similarly, the lack of ambitious students to act as role models in schools was frequently raised. As Mr Norman Ashton, General Manager of the Smith Family commented:

‘…my great fear is that poorer kids … are essentially mixing only with other poorer kids, so how will they develop not only the network but also the concept that you can look to be doing something better; or, just because no-one in your family ever went past year 11 or year 12, it does not mean you cannot, either. I think it is about perception… how do you open up the possibilities and how do you introduce those kids, especially around 16 or 17 years of age, to people who can tell them there is a lot more to life than this and maybe you can do it?’145

It was reported that a vicious cycle is created as parents with high educational aspirations for their children and the means to do so will avoid schools with reputations for failure. The St Vincent de Paul Society reported encountering a number of parents who are living beyond their very limited resources in order to live in a ‘more successful’ school zone.146 It was also reported that, even in quite disadvantaged areas, some parents will send their children to private schools if possible and, indeed, there is a large amount of research to support the higher retention and results of children in

143 Glover, oral evidence, Hansard, p6. 144 Sandeman, oral evidence, Hansard, p85 145 Ashton, oral evidence, Hansard, p296 146 St Vincent de Paul, written submission, p7


72

private schools. Associate Professor of Education Patricia Thomson reported her recent research, which indicates a significant crisis of confidence in public education in Adelaide, especially as parents fear future job insecurity for their children. As a result, what is increasingly emerging is what British researchers have termed ‘residualisation’, whereby aspiring children are removed from some schools and:

‘…where you get disadvantaged schools catering only for unaspiring, working class kids who are badly behaved—the kind of British comprehensive school you see on the television.’147

Staff from Smithfield Plains High School certainly reported that the level of concentrated disadvantage amongst their school population is at least partly due to the 'residualisation' effect of having several private schools with relatively low fees nearby.

‘Over the years… we have certainly become more marginalised in what I would say is a residual high school.. I do not want to be deficit, because we are working so hard to be positive, but on our doorstep we have several private schools with ‘cheaper’ fees … In terms of the private school impact, we have a layer of the community which goes in that direction. The next layer then chooses other options, maybe Gepps Cross Girls, over the road to Craigmore High School, or Freemont-Elizabeth City High. Some catch the train to Gawler because their brothers and sisters went there …

Residual sounds deficit at this time but that is what we are dealing with. We are not blaming anyone. Our community is poorer and there is a constant churning of families….’148

The ‘Disadvantaged’ Label Another key finding in relation to locational disadvantage was that the frequent public and media labelling of ‘disadvantaged’ areas serves to compound social and economic disadvantage. It was reported a number of times, for example, that there are some employers in the outer northern suburbs that have an unofficial policy of not employing local people. A recent survey of local employers in the ‘Peachey Belt’ found that they were half as likely as employers in the south (City of Onkaparinga) to employ a young person from the local area in similar circumstances.149 While there are legitimate issues of skill mismatch in some cases, which will be discussed in detail in Chapter 6, the main reason provided by employers was ‘We don't employ ferals.'150 Ms. Janette Young, in her study of 28 young university graduates from Elizabeth, also found that it was commonplace for respondents to conceal their address when applying for professional jobs due to fear of discrimination. Centacare Employment Services also confirmed that it is well known by service providers that major employers in the northern region of Adelaide have an un-official policy of not recruiting from the local population.151 It was also raised that resistance in some communities to the ‘disadvantaged’ label, for reasons of dignity and concern about discrimination, can reduce the ability for that community to attract resources. This is because many funding application processes require applicants to put forward

147 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p70 148 Taylor, oral evidence, Hansard, p300-301 149 Sandeman, oral evidence, Hansard, p78 150 Sandeman, oral evidence, Hansard, p78-79 151 Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p5


73

their case by demonstrating and focussing on depth of disadvantage. Associate Professor of Education Pat Thomson, in her book, Schooling the Rustbelt Kids, provides an example from the lead-up to the last federal election, in which representatives from wealthier schools were able to mobilise the notion that they would be disadvantaged if they did not have more public funding. Simultaneously, the Elizabeth city council was arguing against a report from AHURRI (Australian Housing Urban and Regional Research Institute) which labelled it the 'most vulnerable location in the nation',152 viewing the label as damaging to the psyche of the community. A study by Bigum, Fitzclarence and Green, demonstrating the psychological damage that can be caused by continual negative labelling, also concluded that the mismatch between media portrayal of young people in disadvantaged areas, portraying them as a ‘lost generation’, and official educational policies which promote educational achievement and employment, leads to confusion, apathy and cynicism amongst young people.153 Low Community Morale

There was a clear theme of a harmful low community morale or ‘self-esteem’ in disadvantaged communities in evidence received by the Committee, especially in relation to the ‘Peachey Belt area, where the community was frequently described as ‘disconnected’ and suffering from ‘hopelessness’ and ‘hysteresis’.154 Indicative of this low sense of worth, one respondent to the Inquiry commented:

‘… I couldn’t go to uni; that was for smart, confident, rich people and I wasn’t one of them. I was only a sole parent from Elizabeth who could not even manage to maintain a stable relationship...’155

Furthermore, there was some evidence of a lower collective ‘self-esteem’ in northern disadvantaged areas than in similar areas in the south. Mr. John Glover, Director of the Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, for example, commented:

‘For people who work in the north and have then worked in the south or vice versa, they talk about a different feeling and a different community spirit ... It seems like the north just feels like it is a lot harder to live in, to work in and to be in. It could be the depth of poverty…’156

Southern Junction Youth Services, while reporting significant pockets of poverty and social problems in the southern region, confirmed that there is some sense of community and connection to the south, reporting that people are reluctant to move out of the southern community to seek work.157

152 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p61 153 Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p11 154 Dictionary definition of ‘hysterisis’ is ‘the extent to which the strain in a material reflects the stress to which it has been subjected in the past as well as its present stress…’ (The Macquarie Dictionary, 2nd edition, 1992. 155 Weinart, written submission, p3 156 Glover, oral evidence, Hansard, p8 157 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p122


74

STRUCTURAL CAUSES OF LOCATIONAL DISADVANTAGE

Evidence received by the Committee and a broad scan of relevant literature revealed two key structural causes of concentrated locational disadvantage in areas of Adelaide identified as 'disadvantaged' in Chapter 2. These were: • The creation of areas of high concentrations of public housing, originally intended to house

workers, but which, as a result of reforms to public housing policies, are now predominantly ‘welfare housing’ for the most disadvantaged; and

• The demise of industry in these areas as well as more general labour market trends that have led to high levels of unemployment for unskilled and semi-skilled workers who traditionally reside in these areas.

Concentrated Public Housing

The areas consistently cited as experiencing locational disadvantage are certainly areas of high concentrations of public housing, as outlined in Chapter 2. As discussed, a maximum of 20% public housing in any area was generally considered to be appropriate. Evidence received from the SAHT, while concordant with the general principle, did not stipulate a figure for concentrations of public housing. Ms Helen Fulcher, Acting General Manager, commented that:

‘In the Westwood project we are going from 60 per cent to 25 per cent and our feel is that it is about right. In our Windsor Gardens project area, our newest redevelopment, we are thinking about 30 per cent. We are reluctant to say that there is a correct percentage because it relates very much to the individual community situation.’158

A large amount of evidence received by the Committee also related to the impact of recent South Australian Housing Trust (SAHT) policy reforms which were commonly believed to have intensified locational disadvantage in areas of high proportions of public housing. The main feature of the reforms, introduced in March 2000, was the introduction of a targeted waiting list system consisting of three categories of applicant and involving income, assets and needs tests. Prior to reform, all persons who did not own a home were eligible for SAHT housing and the waiting list was a “wait-turn” system. Effectively, the reforms signified a change of policy from public housing to provision of crisis or welfare housing for the most disadvantaged. As Peter Sandeman, Playford Partnerships, commented in relation to the ‘Peachey Belt’:

‘….to get a trust house these days people have to be in very difficult circumstances. And an awful lot of those houses are available in the north, in particular pockets. That has created systemically an area of high disadvantage.’159

Refer to Appendix 6 for SAHT Eligibility Policy and Guidelines. Furthermore, evidence presented by a number of contributors to the Inquiry suggested that attempts to dilute public housing by selling public housing stock have resulted in a large

158 Fulcher, oral evidence, Hansard, p385 159 Sandeman, oral evidence, Hansard, p86


75

proportion of absentee landlords, which has not alleviated the problem of concentrated disadvantage and in many cases has simply increased housing costs and decreased housing quality for many low income people in these areas. Labour Market/ Industry Trends

There was a strong theme in evidence that, while a minority of families may have adopted a culture of welfare dependence, the main causes of entrenched long-term poverty lie in structural economic issues. As Lutheran Community Care stated:

‘…intergenerational poverty is both undesirable and not intrinsically maintained through cultural patterns of those at the lower ends of the socio-economic scale but rather a phenomenon held in place by economic paradigms and policies.’160

A number of studies refute the over-riding importance of cultural and behavioural factors in influencing intergenerational poverty in favour of the dominant importance of economic structural causes, namely occupational restructuring, increased casualisation of the workforce and the reduction in employment opportunities for young people and unskilled workers. A study by Spoehr, Adelaide University Centre for Labour Research, in 2001, entitled The State of Working South Australia, confirms that the South Australian labour market is experiencing structural deterioration. Unique to South Australia, there has been a trend of decreasing full-time jobs (a decrease of 14,000 jobs in this period) since the end of economic recovery in 1990.161 Furthermore, from 1993 to 2000, Adelaide’s employment growth was only 2.6%, compared to 22.6% in Sydney, 21.2% in Melbourne and 10.3% in Brisbane.162 In February 2001 there was around one vacancy for every forty two unemployed persons in South Australia, significantly worse than at the end of national economic recovery in April 1990 when there was a vacancy for every 38 unemployed in South Australia. 163 While part-time employment growth in South Australia has been strong, it has not matched the rate of growth in other states and does not compensate for the loss of full-time jobs over the last 10 years. Spoehr states that part-time and casual employment is more likely to be lost during an economic downturn, fuelling higher rates of unemployment among those reliant on such work.164 Thus, improvements in the unemployment rate are less likely to be sustainable if largely based on increases in part-time employment.165 A number of agencies that provided evidence to the Committee reported that many people experiencing poverty, especially young people, are indeed reliant on sporadic, insecure, casual employment. For example, Southern Junction Youth Services reported that a lack of industrial growth in the outer southern suburbs has resulted in dependence on casual, insecure work, mainly in the fast food industry, for many young people without qualifications or the means or confidence to seek employment beyond their local area.166 160 Lutheran Community Care, written submission, p2 161 Spoehr, J. op cit. p3 162 Burgess and Mitchell 2001 cited in St Vincent de Paul, written submission, p9 163 Spoehr, J. op cit. p8 164 ibid. p3 165 ibid. p8 166 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p126


76

It was also consistently cited that there has been a steady reduction in unskilled and semi-skilled jobs, the type of blue collar jobs that, previously, large proportions of people living in areas of concentrated public housing held. As one study by Watson of long-term youth and intergenerational unemployment argues, the long-term unemployed are ‘overwhelmingly traditional wage earning people whose behavioural characteristics are no different to the rest of the working class population’ and that ‘Australian occupational restructuring [has had] … profound consequences for social inequality.’167 Furthermore, as Anglicare’s State of the Family report for 2002 highlights, these changes have reduced employment opportunities for people from families that have a tradition of low skilled work, particularly low skilled migrants from non-English speaking backgrounds.168 A review of literature on youth employment in Adelaide by Seabrook and Spierings concludes that the industrial system, that has increasingly focussed on saving of labour and labour costs at the expense of employment for some workers, has created a society in which increasing numbers of young people have no meaningful job or function.169 Also, as SACOSS highlight in their submission, tariff reductions in manufacturing industries have produced net economic benefits for Australia but at the cost of employment for blue-collar workers in these industries. According to the Productivity Commission, South Australia is the worst affected state in Australia.170 A study by the National Institute of Economic and Industry Research for the Cities of Playford and Salisbury conducted in June 2002 outlined that for these northern areas import competition in the areas of paper products, metals, transport equipment and industrial machinery from a number of Asian countries has had an adverse effect on job opportunities in those areas.171 The report outlines that 63% of total gross output from the City of Playford is from industries which are vulnerable, compared to 11% for the City of Salisbury and 14% for the rest of the State. 172 Macroeconomic indicators show that total industry employment for the City of Playford is expected to decline by 1000 jobs between 1996 and 2004 (from 17,000 to 16,000).173 For Salisbury, however, employment is expected to increase from 29,600 to 30,1000.174 Furthermore, a comparison of these two areas with comparable areas in Melbourne and Sydney with economies based on non-resource based manufacturing technologies in the 1960s and 70s, show that Playford and Salisbury are considerably inferior in terms of current levels of household employment, professional experience and income.175 Mr Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission also attributed some loss of employment opportunities to outsourcing, for example of state-run utility providers such as ETSA.176 A further key issue, raised a number of times in evidence, including by SACOSS and the Northern Adelaide Development Board, is the unequal distribution of work in many industries, with some people working overtime while others are unemployed. According to the Unemployed People’s Movement Against Poverty Inc., there would be enough employment 167 Watson, I, 1993 cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p15 168 Neville A (2002). op cit. p20 169 Seabrook, J. In: Spierings, J, 1996 cited in cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p27 170 SACOSS, written submission, p28 171 National Institute of Economic and Industry Research trading as National Economics. Economic profile: The Cities of Playford and Salisbury in South Australia. A report for the Cities of Playford and Salisbury, June 1999. p4 172ibid. p5-6 173 ibid. p5-6 174 ibid. p5-6 175 ibid. p12 176 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p129


77

for all South Australians if existing employees did not work unpaid overtime. 177 According to the Brisbane Institute the hours of unpaid overtime in the year 2000/2001 were higher than the hours all unemployed people would have been available to work.178 The Northern Adelaide Development Board (NADB) has a key role in economic development wealth creation and change management in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. The NADB manages State Government training, employment and strategic development programs on behalf of the State Government. The aim of the program is primarily to create full-time employment.179

177 Un(der)employed People's Movement against Poverty Inc., written submission, p3. 178 ibid, p3. 179 Davids, oral evidence, Hansard, p65-66


78


79

CHAPTER 6 EDUCATION AND TRAINING The Committee received overwhelming evidence that educational attainment is the key, though not sole, contributory factor linking the socio-economic and employment outcomes of generations of the same family. This is consistent with the majority of research findings discussed in Chapter 4, including the finding that one of the key correlates of low socio-economic status between generations is the level of parental educational attainment. While that chapter focussed predominantly on causes of similar socio-economic and employment outcomes within families, it was impossible to avoid references to the effects of family factors on children’s educational attainment. Implicit in this is that low levels of educational attainment tend to lead to poorer employment and socio-economic outcomes. It was clearly identified in evidence and literature that low educational achievement is both a key cause and a key effect of poverty and unemployment, particularly long-term unemployment, and that levels of educational attainment are often similar within families. As Guo in a study of influences of cumulative poverty on children's cognitive abilities and achievements stated:

‘…the connection between poverty and lower educational attainment among children…….is well established. So is the connection between lower educational attainment and lower earnings, unemployment, poverty, and welfare receipt.’180

Low Educational Attainment as a Cause of Poverty

Selected information from Australian studies that strongly supports the link between educational attainment of children and teenagers and their future risk of unemployment and poverty is as follows: • In October 2001, the Australian unemployment rate was 19.1% for 15-24 year olds who left

school before completing Year 12, compared to 10.4 % for those who completed Year 12, and 8.2% for 15-24 year olds with post-school qualifications.181

• The Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services’ study of respondents aged 18 to 24 from the ANU’s Negotiating the Life Course survey, found that almost one in three respondents who had not completed high school were on income support, compared with about one in twelve of those who had.182

• ABS data indicate that duration of unemployment is also affected by level of education. In 2000, 53.1% of 15-64 years olds who had been unemployed for two years or more had not finished Year 12, compared to only 6.1% of those with post-graduate qualifications183

• A study by Reynolds et al using data from the 1987-1988 National Survey of Families and Households and the 1995 Ageing, Status, and the Sense of Control Survey, found level of

180 Guo, Gaung. The timing of the influences of cumulative poverty on children's cognitive ability and achievement. Social Forces, Sept 1998 v77 n1 p257(31). Full text from database, no page numbers available. 181 ABS, 2001 cited in Neville, A.(2002), op cit. p19 182 Pech, J. and McCoull, F. op cit. p6 183 ABS, 2000b cited in Neville, A. (2002) , op cit. p19


80

education to be one of the strongest predictors of both physical and psychological well-being, even when accounting for socioeconomic status.184

It clearly emerged from all evidence that, given that educational attainment is a strong predictor of future socio-economic status, education is the most important instrument for breaking the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Indeed, there is a large amount of evidence to suggest that education is a key mediating factor for children with a range of other family and external factors placing them at risk of future poverty. As Reynolds et al’s study of the effects of parental attributes found:

‘… [the effects of] parental education… and childhood poverty on adult well-being are largely mediated by respondent's education and its consequences for work and economic resources...’ 185

A recent study by Howard and Johnson on the resilience of ‘at risk’ students identified a number of factors that protect some children from negative influences to a greater extent than others. Amongst the study's conclusions was that the school is an ‘….important microsystem setting that affords many possibilities and resources for assisting young people to develop resilience-promoting skills and attributes.’186 Education as a defence against poverty is of particular significance in view of recent employment and industry trends which, over the last 25 years, have seen a move away from full-time jobs in manufacturing and construction towards employment growth in sectors such as finance, property, business, community or education services which require more highly qualified workers. As Mr Norman Ashton, General Manager of the Smith Family commented:

‘There are many community service or charitable organisations, as you know, who attempt to help people who have suddenly hit the wall economically. We believe that, with whatever funds are available to us, we are better to put the vast majority of those funds and our human resources into providing more equal and equitable educational opportunities for socially disadvantaged children… the best chance for a child in a low socioeconomic status family being able to break out of that definition of low socioeconomic status is increased educational opportunity.'187

Low Educational Attainment as a Result of Poverty

In no other area is the example of poverty as a vicious cycle for some families better demonstrated than in the field of education. Low educational attainment is not only a key cause of poverty, but evidence received by the Committee made a strong point that there are also a number of significant barriers to educational achievement for children, teenagers and adults living in poverty, including a number of issues that make education more difficult for educators to deliver in disadvantaged communities. As NATSEM’s scoping study of the intergenerational effects of long term unemployment found:

184 Reynolds, J R. and Ross, C E, 1998 in Kelleher, J and Jean, C. op cit. p17 185 ibid. p17 186 Howard, S. and Johnson, B. Young Adolescents Displaying Resilient and Non-Resilient Behaviour: Insights from a Qualitative Study- Can Schools Make a Difference. University of South Australia. At http://www.aare.edu.au/00pap/how00387.htm (29/8/2002), p10 187 Ashton, oral evidence, Hansard, p291.


81

‘… in Australia, there is a body of research that supports the view… also verified by US/UK[research]… that there is a link ….between parents’ long-term unemployment and children’s education attainment.’188

Similarly, the Smith Family expressed concern about:

‘… the way in which … factors associated with socioeconomic status of students can operate to inhibit equality of opportunity and of outcomes, thus undermining the capacity of the education system to achieve desired outcomes…’ 189

A vast range of research confirms that children from low socio-economic backgrounds are more likely than children from more advantaged backgrounds to display behaviours that are adverse to educational success and lead to poor academic performance. For example, the Smith Family and NATSEM study, Social Disadvantage in Australia, found consistent evidence in research that children from low ‘SES’ (socio-economic status) families are more likely to exhibit the following educational characteristics in comparison with children from higher ‘SES’ groups, regardless of how SES is measured: • lower levels of literacy, numeracy and comprehension;

• lower retention rates;

• lower participation rates (ie in voluntary components, e.g. university);

• higher levels of problematic school behaviour (e.g. truancy);

• greater likelihood of having difficulties with their studies and displaying negative attitudes;

• less successful school-to-labour market transitions.190

Consistent with evidence previously presented about family structure, there is also a range of research to suggest that the detrimental effects of poverty on educational attainment are more marked in children of divorced parents and sole parent families.191

'…divorce is seen as having a significant effect on the educational attainment of children and therefore affecting their earning potential'192

Indeed, SPARK Resource Centre, a group providing support services to sole parent families, expressed concern about what they described as ‘profound educational struggles’193 for children of sole parents after junior primary school, manifesting in well below average literacy and numeracy results by grade five.194 SPARK also raised the significant effects that poor academic results and attitudes amongst older siblings can have on younger siblings, though this is not unique to sole parent families.

188 Johnson, P and King, A. op cit. p6 189 The Smith Family, written submission, p12 190 The Smith Family, written submission, p9 191 Kelleher, J and Jean, C. op cit. p11 192 Couch and Lillard, 1997 cited in Kelleher, J and Jean, C. op cit. p11 193 SPARK Resource Centre, written submission, p1 194 SPARK Resource Centre, written submission, p1


82

There is also a growing body of evidence that boys tend to suffer greater levels of educational disadvantage than girls, especially in terms of performance in literacy.195 This is reflected in the recent response by federal Education Minister Brendan Nelson to the ‘Boys: Getting it Right’ parliamentary report, calling for a $4 million boost to boys’ education.196 Staff from Salisbury High School also reported that the school has implemented a program aimed at improving boys’ academic performance in response to an emerging trend of significant deficits compared to girls’ achievements overall.197 The importance of educational attainment in breaking the cycle of social disadvantage and poverty is confirmed by the recent implementation of the School Retention project by the Social Inclusion Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet. Consistent with evidence already presented about the links between educational attainment and future socio-economic status, there is a wealth of evidence in the literature and evidence received by the Committee showing that the completion of year 12 offers significant opportunities to young people and protection from future poverty. The Social Inclusion Unit also provided evidence to the Committee that the cost to the community of young people leaving school when they pass the previous compulsory school age is approximately $74,000 per student, based on research from the Dusseldorf Foundation on loss of earning capacity, loss of tax and welfare payments.198 Indeed, the school leaving age in South Australia has been raised from 15 to 16 years as of 1st January 2003. The Unit aims to examine, report and recommend a plan of action for Cabinet and the wider community to increase full time equivalent school retention. The project aims include to: • describe the common features of existing successful school-based approaches;

• identify the schools in most need of improvement;

• build support for change, especially through gaining commitment for system-wide change amongst stakeholders;

• work with stakeholders to develop a plan of action to implement change across disadvantaged schools; and

• Develop the concept of a joined-up package of integrated and coordinated youth transition services.

While clearly identifying the importance of school retention, the current Inquiry deliberately did not overlap with the Social Inclusion Unit's initiative. The Social Inclusion Board will advise Government on strategies to achieve an increase in numbers of young people successfully completing 12 years of education in the first half of 2003.

195 Teese, R., Davies, M., Charlton, M., & Polesel, J., 1995 cited in The Smith Family, written submission, p10 196 Douez, S. Boys the target of $4m education plan. The Age (newspaper), November 28 2002 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/27/1038386201456.html) 197 Jarrad, oral evidence, Hansard, p341 198 Parkes, oral evidence, Hansard, p39


83

KEY EDUCATIONAL ISSUES FOR DISADVANTAGED COMMUNITIES

Given the centrality of educational attainment in the cycle of intergenerational poverty and the importance of education as an instrument for breaking the poverty cycle, it is necessary to discuss the range of educational issues and barriers to education for communities, families and individuals experiencing poverty. Evidence received by the Committee showed that these were: • Mismatch between skills/ education of residents in ‘disadvantaged’ areas and industry,

particularly local industry, requirements;

• Mismatch between home and school cultures’;

• Lack of family supports and encouragement;

• Lack of educational traditions and role models in the community;

• Lack of financial resources to support education;

• High levels of student absences and transience;

• Staff instability; and

• Geographical distribution of post-school educational facilities and a number of other barriers to adult re-education;

Skill Mismatch

A key issue emerging from evidence was the lack of ‘work-readiness’ or relevant employment skills of many school-leavers, especially in disadvantaged areas such as the ‘Peachey Belt’. A range of evidence related not only to the lack of formal literacy and numeracy skills, but to other, more general, ‘work readiness’ attributes such as timeliness, professional communication, presentation and work ethic. Mr Max Davids, Manager, Northern Adelaide Development Board (NADB) stated that the lack of these skills and attributes is a major reason for the inability of local people to bid for local jobs in the northern suburbs. He reported that job vacancies in the outer northern suburbs were being filled from outside the area at a rate of around 30 to 40% in general, and around 80% for high income positions.199 Also, many local jobs were filled by mature age workers with experience, rather than local young people. Mr. Davids quoted an imminent vacancy rate of 700 jobs in the outer northern area in the automotive industry, horticulture, aged care, building and construction, retail and viticulture that, given appropriate training, could boost local employment rates in the area.200 In evidence, key reasons given for the lack of employability of local people in ‘disadvantaged’ areas were:

199 Davids, oral evidence, Hansard, p62. 200 Davids, oral evidence, Hansard, p61.


84

• The lack of communication of skill requirements between employers/industry and schools, mostly due to industry failure to communicate required entry level skills;

• The lack of adequate and appropriately skilled career counselling in schools; and

• The lack of forecasting for industry needs in South Australia. For example, the Northern Adelaide Development Board reported that British Aerospace, in Edinburgh, recently required 400 workers but had to substantially recruit from outside Australia due to lack of candidates with appropriate skills.

‘Cultural Capital’ and Family Encouragement

A key theme in evidence received by the Committee was the important role of ‘cultural capital’ or ‘social capital’ that children gain from their home environment. This was described as including: • Knowledge and skills learnt in the family environment;

• Attitudes to education gained from the family, namely the extent of belief in the worth of education; and

• The level of support and encouragement provided by parents and other family members in relation to children’s education.

Knowledge and Skills

The importance of knowledge and skills learnt in the family environment, constituting somewhat of an informal family ‘education’, was summarised in evidence received from Patricia Thomson, Associate Professor of Education, University of Adelaide, who said:

‘… formal education is not all that counts. Families have different kinds of resources available to them… Being of that generation that made the kind of sudden leap into social mobility through schooling in the post war period… I and most others like me were able to do that because there were resources in my family, often related to literacy, libraries, general interest in current affairs, self-educated people who gave me the resources to allow me to take advantage of that. It is not just to do with … income. It is to do with the kind of level of what I call cultural capital, as well as economic capital that people have available to them.201

Evidence frequently cited that different types of knowledge and skills are valued and promoted in different families and that, often, what is promoted in families with low levels of formal education is very different to what is promoted in schools. Children from some families, therefore, do not have a strong basis for taking best advantage of formal schooling in the sense that Professor Thomson described. For example, there is a range of evidence that suggests that lower ‘SES’ families tend to value literacy less and read to their children less frequently than many higher ‘SES’ parents.

201 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p68


85

Furthermore, practical knowledge of existing educational opportunities and the benefits of education was also raised a number of times. As Ms Janette Young highlighted:

‘In terms of barriers and what stops people getting to university, there are few professional role models within the lived experience of graduates [in her study], the everyday experience, the people your parents are friends with and so on—few professional role models to provide information about how university could be beneficial to them. .. The most extreme comment I had was from a woman my age who had gone back to university and done nursing. She said, `When I was at school in the mid-1980s, I knew there was such a thing as university, but I did not know there was one in Adelaide.' That is the level of information. It is not part of their world: why would they know?’202

Some evidence also suggested that the education system does not always recognise or best utilise the ‘cultural capital’, skills and knowledge that children from families with low levels of formal education, as well as children from non-English speaking backgrounds, bring with them to the school environment. DECS indicated that the Department is aware of this issue and has attempted in some schools to align classroom literacy tasks with literature that is familiar to children, such as advertising material.203

Family Support and Encouragement

Respondents to the Inquiry and researchers overwhelmingly agree that family encouragement of children in education has a major impact on learning achievements and levels of educational attainment. NATSEM’S scoping study on the intergenerational effects of long term unemployment, for example, found that studies of factors that influence young people’s educational aspirations conclude that parental encouragement is the single most important factor in young people’s decision to undertake further education.204 Furthermore, a number of studies have found that young people from low income families tend to receive less parental encouragement to undertake post compulsory education than do other young people.205 Certainly, evidence frequently included that many families in lower socio-economic groups, who do not have a history of formal education, do not provide the encouragement or educational role models that assist their children to succeed in education. As Ms Sharon Zivkovic, Senior Community Development Coordinator, the Parks Community Centre, commented:

‘If young people live in a home in which the parents are unaware of the world of work as it is today, then those parents will be the number one influence on those young people… those young people will go home and say, 'We are learning this at school' and, if the parents do not believe in the worth of what their children are learning in school, it will have such a heavy influence on those young people with regard to who they will be listening [to]… [and their attitude to] what they are hearing from career advisers, employers and so on.’206

Similarly, Jan Webber, Principal of Munno Para Primary School, commented:

‘Perhaps the most significant impact on children's learning is the attitudes created by intergenerational poverty. The children sometimes see little relevance in education programs, have

202 Young, oral evidence, Hansard, p180 203 DECS, oral evidence, Hansard, p87 204 Johnson, P and King, A. op cit. p16 205 ibid, p16 206 Zivkovic, oral evidence, Hansard, p79


86

not learnt good organisational skills or developed the ability or desire to persist, and they lack optimism about their future, which handicaps their desire to engage. Role models are often unemployed and have negative attitudes to schools or government institutions. The children do not perceive education as being significant, so some of them do not engage with their education programs. If they don't engage in junior primary and primary schools, they will not engage in high schools, or we don't believe they will, not easily.’207

Another respondent’s comment in relation to educational motivators came from her personal experience of intergenerational poverty. Ms Kay Weinart wrote:

‘Familial connections are strong and hard to break away from. Many people will unconsciously choose to remain connected to their family (or peers and acquaintances that they feel accepted by) rather than considering options that would make them appear different to the rest of that family.’208

On a more positive note, the Smith Family highlighted the importance of parental encouragement by reporting that the effect of parental socio-economic status on children’s educational outcomes can be off-set by high levels of encouragement in cases where parents have high educational aspirations for their children, despite their own poverty.209 A further emerging issue relating to family supports was that some parents, even if they have high aspirations for children, may lack the skills to assist children with homework as a result of their own low levels of literacy and numeracy. This points to the importance of adult re-education and training, not only as a means for improved employment prospects and self-esteem for adults, but also in influencing the outlook and decisions of children and parents’ ability to assist in their education. Low levels of literacy and the need for tutors were also raised in evidence by the Migrant Resource Centre and the Ethiopian Community Association Inc. in SA in relation to non-English speaking migrant groups.210 Community Influences

As Chapter 5 describes, a lack of educational role models in some schools and communities, the labelling of schools as ‘unsuccessful’, and the subsequent avoidance of these schools by some parents with high expectations of their children, have all been identified as factors contributing to the perpetuation of low educational achievement amongst children from low socio-economic backgrounds. Another issue that was clear in evidence was the influence of community norms on educational decisions. Evidence from the Smith Family, for example, cited a recent Australian study of year 12 students from ten state schools211, which found that neighbourhood effects ‘were an important influence on students’ educational plans…’212 Another interesting point relating to community influences in disadvantaged areas was raised by Ms. Janette Young, in her study of 28 young university graduates from Elizabeth. She noted a process of ‘invisibility’ that occurred with these students, both at university where they sought to 207 Webber, oral evidence, Hansard, p232 208 Weinart, written submission, p3 209 Smith Family, written submission, p9 210 Migrant Resource Centre, written submission, p1 and Ethiopian Community Association Inc. in SA, written submission, received via email 6 September 2002 211 n= 171 212 Jensen, Ben & Andrew Seltzer (2000) cited in The Smith Family, written submission, p11


87

hide where they were from due to discrimination, but also in their local community, where they often hid or downplayed the fact that they were studying at university for a range of reasons, mostly related to feeling alienated from their community. She also added that this process of ‘invisibility’ contributes to strengthening wider community myth that ‘nobody from Elizabeth goes to university…’ 213when small numbers do. A further common theme in evidence and research is the important role that can be played by mentors, either formal or informal, in mediating the effects of a lack of family and community encouragement and role models. 'Mentors' can include counsellors, teachers, other students or relatives outside the immediate family. The Smith Family reported that their university level Learning for Life program, for example, involves identification of a student nearing the end of a degree who agrees to be a mentor, working with both the Learning for Life scholarship recipient and a Smith Family education support worker. They report that this has worked very well and is due to be introduced at upper secondary level.214 Financial Resources

Educational disadvantage is exacerbated not only by family and community attitudes and ‘cultural’ resources, but also by a lack of financial resources in three main areas: • Direct costs of education;

• Essential financial resources for basic living needs; and

• School resources.

Costs of Education

A key issue identified throughout evidence was the difficulty for many low income people in meeting added costs associated with education, including for adults wishing to return to study or training and families in poverty attempting to meet education costs for school-age children. For families with school-age children, the main issues were the lack of money for direct educational resources such as fees and books, but also money for other requirements such as school lunches, school uniforms or excursions. Anglicare’s State of the Family report for 2002 also noted that:

‘Not having enough money for school lunches, school uniforms or excursions can… limit regular school attendance and can make children feel “different” or “excluded”.215

Evidence from the South Australian Primary Principals' Association and other school staff also reported social problems for students who do not have the means to maintain proper hygiene. There are some programs in existence that are aimed at assisting low income families with the costs of education, such as equipment and excursions. For example the Smith Family Learning for 213 Young, oral evidence, Hansard, p181 214 Ashton, oral evidence, Hansard, p290 215 Neville A (2002). op cit. p15


88

Life Scholarships program. However, it was clear that such programs are only able to offer basic levels of assistance to the most disadvantaged people there remains considerable unmet need. For example, the Smith Family in South Australia is currently only able to provide scholarships to 1,832 students, at rates of $204 per person per annum for a junior primary school child, up to $2000 at university level.216 A number of significant financial barriers to adult education were also raised, again for direct costs of education, as well as ancillary costs such as transport and computer and internet access, which was frequently mentioned as an increasingly necessary expense. A recurring issue in evidence was that TAFE fees pose a major barrier to adult education. Many contributors reported that that TAFE fees, which can be as high as $1,600 per year with often short payment periods, are prohibitive for many people, even with the various TAFE instalment schemes and concessions. Recent research into the impact of regulated fees on TAFE training participation in South Australia, commissioned by Regency Institute of TAFE, found that, indeed many students in South Australia are experiencing financial difficulties in supporting their TAFE training. The research also found that TAFE fees are inhibiting enrolments from certain groups of potential students, particularly unemployed people. The study could not, however, directly conclude that the introduction of the regulated fee has directly led to declining student numbers and enrolments as there have been a number of other systemic changes that have influenced enrolments.217 Further issues relating to adult education raised in evidence included that the Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) is a deterrent for many unemployed and other low income people. The Un(der)employed People's Movement against Poverty Inc. also reported in their submission that even relatively cheap adult education programs such as in neighbourhood houses218 and the WEA are also inaccessible for long term unemployed people on social security incomes.219

Consistent with this, Anglicare’s submission quoted one interviewee as saying:

‘Finding the money for additional study on the pension is a joke … even with the allowance it’s barely enough to put petrol in the car.’220

Finally, the cost of child-care was also cited as a major barrier to education, as well as employment, especially for parents lacking informal support networks. Lack of essential financial resources

Another key issue in evidence received by the Committee was that for people above compulsory school-leaving age, education is often a very low priority, or not a priority at all, if the costs of 216 Ashton, oral evidence, Hansard, p292 217 Misko, J., Schueler, J., Saunders, J. and Brown, J. The impact of regulated fees on TAFE training participation in South Australia, Volume 1: Report. NCVER. August 2002. p8 218 Neighbourhood Houses are organisations that provide a range social, educational and recreational activities for their local communities at no or low cost to participants. They are generally managed by volunteer committees and paid staff. They are also sometimes called Community Houses or Learning Centres. 219 Un(der)employed People's Movement against Poverty Inc., written submission, p4 220 Anglicare, written submission, p22


89

maintaining a basic quality of life and a basic level of stability cannot be met. For example, a key theme in responses by people interviewed by Anglicare was that, while education was recognised as the key long term solution, it was a low priority when there were more pressing concerns such as abusive relationships, child-care, lack of stable housing and even lack of food. One respondent to the Inquiry commented from her personal experience of poverty:

‘… it appears that the benefits of an education are only available to those individuals with their own financial resources, or with parents who can afford to support them by providing those resources. If you are the unemployed child of an unemployed or disadvantaged parent, then you might as well give up now because there are no incentives to keep you studying, when studying means that your stomach is hungry or you will lose your home...’221

Also, it was raised a number of times that young people from families in poverty see the immediate need to earn money as more important than education and training, which impacts on their long term earning capacity. An interesting point was raised by Trish Hogan, Manager of the Vocational Education and Training regional coordinating body, Northern Futures, in relation to the low training wage offered in apprenticeship programs. She commented that this is a deterrent for young people, especially those with existing financial commitments such as loan repayments, who are already earning higher casual wages, but in jobs that do not provide the training and future offered by apprenticeships.222 She further reported that there is anecdotal evidence of people in their early twenties who are no longer cheap to employ in casual positions seeking to take up apprenticeships but that many employers are not interested in older apprenticeships. 223 School Resources

The inadequacy of existing financial supplement schemes, the lack of additional financial resources from fees and fundraising and the greater demands on school resources for schools serving disadvantaged communities were frequently raised in evidence. The Department of Education and Children's Services allocates additional funding to schools with high proportions of students from low socio-economic backgrounds according to the DECS Index of Educational Disadvantage. Refer to Appendix 7 for further information about the Index. In addition, the DECS School Card payment scheme provides funding to schools for students from low income families, based on income thresholds. For example, in 2002, if a family with one dependant child had an income less than $25,470 they would qualify for the School Card payment scheme. The system is specifically designed to pay for school fees and the money goes to the school. School card funding for primary students is $110 per student per annum and $170 for secondary students.224 School card payments are in addition to funding allocated according to the Index of Educational Disadvantage. Consultations with primary school Principals and Project Coordinators undertaken by the South Australian Primary Principals’ Association (SAPPA) for the current Inquiry found that there was a general consensus that the income cut off above which people are ineligible for School Card is too low and that there were significant numbers of families experiencing ‘hidden poverty’, struggling on

221 Weinart, written submission, p9 222 Hogan, oral evidence, Hansard, p206 223 Hogan, oral evidence, Hansard, p206 224 Kimber, oral evidence, Hansard, p88


90

low incomes but ineligible for School Card. It was reported that, often, these were sole parent working families.225 Similarly, DECS reported a 10% decline in School Card numbers from 1995 (45.4%) to 2001 (34.8%), which they attribute largely to changes in eligibility criteria.226 Some administrative problems with the School Card system were also raised, including that there has been a delay in school card payments to schools in the 2002-03 financial year and that the School Card application and appeals processes are difficult and inconvenient. 227 A further issue in relation to school resources included the lack of fundraising dollars available from school communities in disadvantaged areas. As Associate Professor of Education, Patricia Thomson, commented:

‘Disadvantaged schools, by and large, still really do not have enough funding. They are unable to raise fees from parents; they are unable to raise fees from fundraising.228

The Smith Family’s research into the costs of public education also reported that the levying of voluntary contributions is undermining equality of opportunities, creating a situation in which levels of resourcing of schools and student educational experiences vary on the basis of the capacity of parents to make such contributions. It could be argued that the additional Government allowances provided to 'disadvantaged' schools offset, to some extent, the effects of lack of fundraising money. However, it was consistently reported in evidence that, due to the lack of financial resources available to some families, schools and other training facilities with high proportions of disadvantaged students have greatly augmented demands on their resources which exceed additional allowances. For example, the Southern Vocational College reported that writing off student fees to enable participation is common. There were also reports of schools paying for breakfasts, lunches, excursions and even at times toiletries for students. The principal of one high school commented:

‘… we subsidise a lot, which has a huge impact on our budget. We feed and clothe, run breakfast programs and all those things. The transience of students means that we basically supply more books, stationery and equipment than we are actually funded for. Every time a student enrols they use books and equipment, then they leave to go somewhere else and the next one comes and out go more books and equipment. We would spend something like 600 students229 worth of money on books and equipment with that constant churning.’230

Furthermore, staff at Smithfield Plains High School raised the more intensive use of staffing resources per student in disadvantaged schools where few students remain into the senior years and schools are required to provide a suitable range of subjects for those remaining. For example, they reported having only one student undertaking Year 12 publicly examined (PES) English.231 Similarly, Ms Mignon Souter, from the South Australian Primary Principals Association and Principal of Richmond Primary School reported that: 225 SAPPA, written submission, p1 226 Kimber, oral evidence, Hansard, p89 227 SAPPA, written submission, p1 228 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p64 229 current school population cited as 400 students. 230 Identity withheld 231 Taylor, oral evidence, Hansard, p302.


91

‘Goodwill on the part of school staff enables students in both obvious poverty and hidden poverty to maintain a sense of dignity. It is not uncommon for staff to supplement lunches, provide gifts when it is a child's birthday or bring along a cake, those sorts of things, to minimise some of the impact of poverty.

The core business of our schools is about improving learning outcomes for students but until some of the bigger things that we have identified … are met more appropriately and systematically schools will have to continue to divert valuable resources to do this.’232

Student Absence and Transience

A significant theme in the evidence received by the Committee, supported in the literature, was the high level of truancy and transience amongst students from low socio-economic backgrounds, which has significant effects on educational attainment and educators’ ability to deliver effective education. Absence

Truancy and unexplained absence, even occasional, has been consistently demonstrated in research to be strongly related to poor educational performance, poorer early adult outcomes in the labour market and poorer adult health relative to non-truants.233 The Committee heard that truancy and unexplained absences are significant issues in schools where high proportions of students come from low socio-economic backgrounds. According to DECS data for 2000, overall absence rates were highest for Aboriginal students (17%) and school card holding students (9.4%), compared to an average absence rate of 7.9% for all state school students.234 Chart 11 below shows absence rates for school districts for 1999 and 2000. It indicates that absence rates are above average for both years in the Central North West district, Elizabeth/Munno Para and Central North East district, and also marginally above average in the Salisbury Plains and Southern Vales districts for 1999. This is generally consistent with other regional data on poverty and educational attainment.

232 Souter, oral evidence, Hansard, p234 233 The Smith Family, written submission, p10. 234 not including Anangu schools


92

Chart 11

Absence Rates by District, State Schools, 2000 and 1999

5.6%6.4%

8.9%9.3%

6.3%

7.6%6.9%

9.3%

6.9%7.7%

6.9%

8.4%

5.9%

7.4%7.0% 7.1%

9.9% 10.0%

7.2% 7.5%8.0%

9.6%

7.4%8.1%

7.2%7.8%

6.4%

7.9%

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

Baro

ssa/

Gaw

ler

Cen

tral E

ast

Cen

tral N

orth

-Ea

st

Cen

tral N

orth

-W

est

Cen

tral S

outh

Cen

tral S

outh

-W

est

Cen

tral W

est

Eliz

abet

h/M

unno

Para

Hills

Salis

bury

Pla

ins

Sout

hern

Ran

ges

Sout

hern

Val

es

Tea

Tree

Gul

ly

All S

tude

nts

Abs

ence

rate

1999 2000

Source: Department of Education, Training and Employment. Student Non-Attendance in SA Government Schools Term 2 2000. Statistics and Demography Unit, Strategic Planning and Information. A number of reasons were provided in evidence for relatively high absence rates among students from low socio-economic backgrounds. These include that school attendance is not a high priority in some families, there is a lack of supervision of children’s attendance and, in some cases, children are required to remain at home to care for younger siblings and sometimes parents with a serious illness or disability. The principal of one school commented:

‘Many of our students do not see their families go to work. In some families there is not a work ethic, and I believe that has a huge impact on our attendance rate, because it is pretty hard when you are the only person in the house who is a school child and who has to get up in the morning to go to school and mum, dad, brothers and sisters are all still in bed… So, our students sometimes see that they have a right not to have to come to school every day.’235

Transience

A wealth of evidence was also received on the high levels of transience amongst families in poverty, and the major effects that this has on children’s education. Within DECS, the term transient is used to describe:

235 identity withheld


93

‘a student who has enrolled in a school three or more times in the previous two calendar years (excluding structured transitions at years CPC to R, 2-3, 7-8 (or 6-7), and 10-11).’236

Though precise data on levels of transience are unavailable, anecdotal evidence received by the Committee included that some schools in the most disadvantaged areas of northern suburbs have as high as 70% student turnover in a year, with 30-40% turnover being relatively common.

There has not been a great deal of research on the factors associated with transience, however key causes identified in evidence were a combination of insecure tenures, high cost private rental, family breakdown and social problems that prevent people from maintaining housing in a competitive housing market, for example, mental health issues. As would be expected, student transience has a significant effect on school attendance. Data collected by DETE indicate that for the majority of students, an average of fourteen days elapses between leaving one school and enrolling at another. 237 In some cases absences can be far longer. For example, data collected by the Aboriginal Education Resource Teacher at Ceduna Area School show a number of cases in which children were absent for 61 to 144 days between schools, though these cases can be considered as quite extreme.238

Transience was also cited as a major inhibitor to continuity in education and the engagement of students in school, which also further reduces attendance. As Peter Sandeman, Director, Playford Partnerships, commented in relation to the ‘Peachey Belt’ area:

‘If students go from school to school, their connection to school tends to lessen, the absenteeism rate increases … and the retention rate also decreases. So, you get the drop out after 15, which is very marked in that area. The theory is that, if we can keep the children in the same primary school for longer, they are more likely to attach. Then you have the difficulty of the succession from primary school to high school, which is also a very difficult transition.’239

In recognition of this issue, in 1998 the then Department of Education Training and Employment released a report named ‘Student Transience -moving frequently between schools in South Australia’ which was intended as a resource for schools to assist them to better integrate transient students and deal with issues of student transience. School Staffing Issues

Evidence received by the Committee clearly identified that, while there are many cases of excellent and dedicated teachers in 'disadvantaged' schools, high staff turnover, large numbers of contract staff and high proportions of inexperienced and reluctant staff are significant problems. Patricia Thomson, Associate Professor of Education, University of Adelaide, gave examples of schools in the north that lose 15 staff at least twice a year and concluded in her study of schooling in the outer northern suburbs that staffing is the single most significant issue in relation to the

236 Bastian, A. (ed.), Department of Education Training and Employment. Student Transience - moving frequently between schools in South Australia. 1998. p1 237 ibid. p11 238 ibid. p11 239 Sandeman, oral evidence, Hansard. p86


94

provision of education in Adelaide's ‘disadvantaged’ schools.240 High staff turnover, like student transience, impedes the development of strong connections between teachers and students and the stability required to deliver education. It was also raised in evidence that high staff turnover diminishes trust between families and schools, which can influence children’s attitudes to school and learning. A further staffing issue that was frequently raised was that some teachers in ‘disadvantaged schools’ hold low expectations of their students.241 SPARK Resource centre for sole parents, for example, commented in their submission that schools are often too quick to label children as slow learners, which is often detrimental to those children’s self-esteem and learning.242 A number of issues make it harder for schools in ‘disadvantaged’ areas to attract long term, experienced and dedicated staff. Some of these issues are due to perceptions. As Patricia Thomson reported, that there is a ‘joke’ in the education system that there is an imaginary line across Grand Junction road, beyond which no teacher wants to go. Others reasons are practical. For example, it was reported that few teachers live in the disadvantaged areas of Adelaide and most want to work close to home. The main reason, however, was the reality that working in schools with high proportions of children from low socio-economic backgrounds is harder and that teachers in these schools experience high levels of stress and ‘burn out’. Evidence included that there are high levels of disruptive behaviour and higher than normal levels of bullying and harassment in disadvantaged schools. This is confirmed in literature. It was also reported that teachers in disadvantaged schools are often faced with additional responsibilities, such as caring for a sick child whose parents cannot risk losing a job by staying home, providing material help such as school lunches and counselling. As the principal of one school commented:

‘As a disadvantaged school, we are characterised by trouble. Student discipline will always be an issue at the school and a high percentage of our time is spent in managing this. Many of our students have significant family issues, mental health issues, physical and nutritional health issues.’243

Furthermore, as discussed previously, student achievements are generally lower in disadvantaged schools and other problems often detract from the core educational role of teachers, which can diminish the morale of teachers. As Patricia Thomson commented:

‘Not only is it hard physical and emotional work but also it is hard intellectual yakka trying to work out where all the kids are and what their strengths, interests, knowledge and literacy are and how to use that to connect them with the stuff that counts at the same time as managing social order, health and welfare, counselling and discipline issues in your class...’244

She added:

‘What is needed is a new kind of approach which gives back… to teachers and disadvantaged schools the sense that they are doing important work as opposed to being failures because the kids are struggling on tests.’245

240 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p64 241 Ruge, J. 1998 cited in the Smith Family, written submission, p10 242 SPARK Resource Centre, written submission, p1 243 identity withheld 244 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p65 245 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p65


95

Another issue raised was that DECS recruitment policies and processes are not conducive to attracting appropriate staff to 'disadvantaged' schools. Where schools in the ‘Peachey Belt’ were once able to advertise, they now have to compete in the general pool.246 Smithfield Plains High School staff reported that they are required to determine the suitability of applicants based only on the assessment of written applications according to set criteria. Also, the submission received from SAPPA put forward that:

‘DECS needs to look at staffing. They need to look at the open school choice selection, not the placement process. Every year now I’ve had staff appointed to the school that have refused to come. All we want is people who want to be there.’247

Ms Cate Taylor, Principal of Smithfield Plains High School commented on the importance of being able to personally interview applicants, commenting that:

‘… you have to have the right sort of personality to engage with our students… If teachers come here and put the students down or call them losers or whatever, that sort of language, then they are not going to do very well here. They have to be positive. They have to have the right sort of personality….’248

The need for greater provision of counselling and other support services in 'disadvantaged' schools was also raised a number of times. Current out-of-school support staff, in addition to teaching staff, provided by DECS consists of a total of approximately 500-600 personnel, including advisers in behaviour management, guidance officers who are educational psychologists, speech pathologists, social workers and school counsellors.249 The number of school counsellors allocated to a school depends on the DECS Index of Educational Disadvantage. For example, Smithfield Plains High School which has a DECS Index of Educational Disadvantage value of 2 is eligible for 1.5FTE school counsellors. DECS support services also include interagency work, although witnesses from DECS commented that they believe this is currently insufficient,250 a view that was supported by other contributors, including SAPPA. Evidence provided by SAPPA endorsed the need for a general support and advocacy role for students and families within schools. Ms Mignon Souter, Principal of Richmond Primary School commented that the previous school nurses had fulfilled this much needed role to a large extent:

‘We used to have a community health nurse. Sometimes somebody outside the system can build up a rapport with our families and staff and we are able to liaise with families and build up trust. People would know the health nurse was coming in and all sorts of issues would be revealed in that conversation. People felt secure because that person had certain skills and abilities. All schools cried when that service was cut.’251

246 Taylor, oral evidence, Hansard, p301 247 SAPPA, written submission, p6 248 Taylor, oral evidence, Hansard, p301 249 Page, oral evidence, Hansard, p94 250 Page, oral evidence, Hansard, p94 251 Souter, oral evidence, Hansard, p239


96

Geographical Distribution of Post-school Educational Facilities

As discussed in Chapter 5, there is an unequal distribution of essential services throughout Adelaide. It was frequently raised that this is also the case for post-school educational facilities. A common theme in evidence was that students from the northern suburbs have no university facilities close by and a lack of convenient transport, despite some improvements over recent years to public transport. Centacare Employment Services noted a consolidation and centralisation of Further Education courses and campuses away from the northern region in the past few years, with the closure of the University of SA Salisbury campus, and the withdrawal of studies such as carpentry, music, motor vehicle related trades and computing from northern TAFES.252 Lutheran Community Care in the inner north-west also reported that for residents of Blair Athol and Kilburn, the only adult entry program is at Marden College, which is difficult to reach for many people.253 As Centacare Employment Services stated in their submission:

‘Extensive travel may not be a major issue for young confident people, but single parents who need to meet children’s schedules as well as their own, can easily be overwhelmed by two hours of travel per day…’254

It was also raised a number of times that many people from the northern suburbs, who may already be reluctant to challenge family and community norms, feel culturally alienated in learning institutions away from their localities, which can be a significant deterrent. Other Barriers to Adult Re-education

Numerous examples of post-school courses and programs throughout Adelaide and scholarships from welfare and charity agencies, such as the Smith Family and St Vincent de Paul, for higher education were highlighted in evidence to the Committee. Despite this, it was clear in evidence that there are a number of remaining barriers for people living in poverty, in addition to financial and transport issues already reported. The main additional concerns were in relation to: • Parenting and child care

In addition to the costs of child-care where unpaid informal support is unavailable, evidence cited the difficultly for sole parents to pursue education and training due to the required time away from parenting responsibilities. As one respondent to interviews conducted by Anglicare commented:

‘I have tried several times to return to education (TAFE) but on each occasion, home duties and motherhood have had to take priority.’255

• Literacy, numeracy and computer skills

A consistent theme in evidence and literature was that many adults who did not complete school feel they lack the basic literacy and numeracy skills, and in many cases computer

252 Centacare employment services, written submission, p8 253 Lutheran Community Care, written submission, p7 254 Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p8 255 Anglicare, written submission, p22


97

skills, required to return to education and training and that this is a significant confidence issue.

These issues are particularly significant in view of the importance of parental educational levels and encouragement in influencing the education of children and teenagers.


98


99

CHAPTER 7 HOUSING Housing emerged in evidence as an equally strong issue to that of education, not in the least due to the effects of unstable housing on the education of children and young people. Concentrated public housing as a key cause of entrenched locational disadvantage has been discussed in Chapter 5. This chapter will examine the influence of stable and adequate housing on the poverty cycle and the impact of recent housing industry trends in Adelaide for people on low incomes.

HOUSING AND THE POVERTY CYCLE

The University of SA and South Australian Council of Social Services (SACOSS) report, Social Disadvantage in South Australia, outlines that relatively low housing prices in South Australia have brought otherwise higher rates of ‘before-housing’ poverty compared to other states down to 11.8%, very close to the national average of 12%.256 This highlights that, even using a simple income-based measure of poverty, housing costs are an important factor in mediating poverty levels. As Professor Ed Carson, elected member of the SACOSS Policy Council, Director of the Social Policy Council and Director of the Social Policy Research Group, UniSA, commented:

‘…South Australia could be said to have been rescued from poverty by low housing costs….testament to housing policy in the last 20-odd years.’257

Overwhelming evidence was received by the Committee that stable and appropriate housing is an essential basis for breaking the poverty cycle. Christine Halsey, Manager of Southern Junction Youth Services, for example, highlighted the importance of stable housing as a baseline for making further improvements in the lives of young people in poverty, stating:

‘There is the capacity for change. The first thing that happens is that they have some stability, they have an address so that they are not continually getting their youth allowance breached … A stable place of residence is an important factor in giving them and other services the opportunity to start to address some of the disadvantage that they are enduring. The flip side of that is that the lack of housing produces transience; a lack of capacity to continue education, so they are often early drop-outs, early school leavers; and a lack of the capacity to access employment because they are always looking for the next place ...’ 258

Inadequate and insecure housing has a range of serious exacerbating effects in relation to poverty. Among those frequently cited in evidence were: • Difficulties in seeking and maintaining employment and training;

256 Using current Henderson poverty lines as the measure of poverty 257 Carson, oral evidence, Hansard, p76 258 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p123


100

• Transience, which has detrimental effects on children and teenagers’ education, as discussed in Chapter 6. Lack of affordable housing with secure tenure was the most frequently cited cause of transience for low income families in evidence received by the Committee. The Social Inclusion Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet, reported successful outcomes in a case in which the SAHT worked intensively with two families to stabilise their accommodation requirements, including that the children attended school much more regularly and the young mothers began using community health services.259 For families and individuals who have been evicted, it was reported that it can become increasingly difficult to compete for long-term housing, creating a cycle of transience;260

• Increased levels of Centrelink ‘breaching’, that is non-compliance with Centrelink requirements, usually resulting in temporary withdrawal of payments (discussed further in Chapter 9);

• Difficulties in accessing, and reduced continuity of, services, such as human services. It was reported that services have difficulty tracking transient people and that these people tend not to maintain contact. Also, in the case of the Drug Court program at least, eligibility depends on stable accommodation;

• Lack of capacity to develop informal social and support networks, the importance of which was emphasised repeatedly in evidence received by the Committee;

• Exacerbated financial difficulties due to costs associated with moving, for example utilities connection fees; and

• Exacerbation of health and other issues associated with poverty. As one witness commented:

‘The constant struggle to find and maintain housing puts pressure on families. It leads to family breakdown, and sole parent families, in particular, are at great risk. It leads to the lack of education and employment opportunities and also exacerbates mental health issues.’261

SOUTH AUSTRALIAN HOUSING INDUSTRY TRENDS

Another key theme in evidence was that the level of protection against poverty that was once offered by Adelaide’s low housing costs and public housing system is rapidly declining. Increasing numbers of low income people are finding it difficult to obtain affordable and stable housing due to a number of emerging trends in the public and private rental housing sectors. Currently, 16.6% of South Australian households spend more than 25% of income on housing with 10.5% of households spending more than 30%. The national figures are 19.6% and 14.3% respectively.262

259 Parkes, oral evidence, Hansard, p42 260 Schrapel, oral evidence, Hansard, p25 261 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p125 262 South Australian Housing Trust data cited in Department of Human Services, written submission, p13


101

Public Housing

A substantial reduction in public housing availability resulting from tightened eligibility criteria and decreasing stock was consistently raised as a major issue affecting housing affordability and poverty levels in Adelaide. The SAHT, as well as other social housing authorities such as the Aboriginal Housing Authority (AHA) and the South Australia Community Housing Authority (SACHA) offer significant protection against the costs of market rents for low income people. The maximum rent paid by any SAHT tenant, for example, is 25% of their total income. A proportion of income paid in rent that is greater than 25% is generally considered by the welfare sector as placing individuals and families at significantly increased poverty risk. The average percentage of income paid by SAHT tenants is estimated to be around 22% as many Centrelink payments, such as those associated with children, are treated at concessional percentage rates.263 Due to changes to assessment of rent rebates, announced in the 2002 State Budget, however, it is expected that by April 2003, most tenants who currently pay a rebated rent will pay rent at a rate of 25% of their income.264 In addition to eligibility reforms that have restricted access to public housing largely to people experiencing severe poverty and social disadvantage, there has been a 19% (11,763 properties) decrease in SAHT rental stock since 1993.265 Some of the loss has been due to transfers to other community housing schemes such as the South Australian Community Housing Authority (SACHA) and Aboriginal Housing Authority (AHA). Sales and transfers to both schemes constituted 17.1% of all sales and transfers from 1997-2002. Also, 35.1% of sales were to tenants. However, nearly half of all sales and transfers from 1997-2002 (47.8%) have been non-tenant sales.266 Properties are generally only demolished if in poor condition and prior to urban regeneration. Much of the downsizing of public housing in this State has been in response to a significant reduction in funding through the Commonwealth State Housing Agreement as illustrated in Chart 12 below. Funding received through tenant rents is only sufficient for basic administration and maintenance.267

263 Data provided by Melissa Thomson, SAHT, via email, 14 August 2002 264 The scales for bed-sitters will be 17%; for cottage flats 19%; and for those on incomes below the adult Newstart rates (currently below $180 a week) 19.5% of their income. 265 Data derived from South Australian Housing Trust, Trust in Focus 1993 through to 2001 266 Data provided by South Australian Housing Trust via email from Melissa Thompson, 14 August 2002 267 Fulcher, oral evidence, Hansard, p374


102

Chart 12 Actual & Projected Funding of Commonwealth State Housing Agreement

1993 - 2008

020406080

100120140160

$M (r

eal)

1993 1996 1999 2002 2005 2008

State MatchingCommonwealth

The SAHT estimates that if the downward trend of funding continues there will be only 20,000 to 25,000 SAHT properties remaining in about 20 years, compared to 49,000 currently.268 Reflecting reduced availability, per annum new allocations of homes by the SAHT decreased by 23.5% over the 1997-2002 period. The waiting list has fluctuated, reflecting changes to eligibility. It currently consists of 26,000 applicants, equating to a waiting time of six to 12 months for urgent applications269 and approximately 8 years for non urgent applications.270 While waiting times have risen slightly over the last three years, the proportion of new tenants who were housed within a one-year timeframe has increased significantly since the introduction of the housing reforms. In 1993-94 only 38.1% were housed within a year compared to 80.5% in 2000-01.271 A number of welfare agencies providing evidence to the Inquiry argued that reduced availability of public housing is creating a housing affordability crisis for many low income families who are increasingly reliant on the private rental market. In addition, there are a number of problems for SAHT tenants and potential tenants, including ageing and inappropriate stock, especially a lack of larger homes for families with more than one or two children and Aboriginal families, which often include extended family within households. Evidence received from ATSIC indicates that Indigenous families are, on average, larger than non-Indigenous families and elderly Indigenous people have a strong preference for receiving aged care at home.272 Evidence of a dearth of public housing was also received from a number of welfare agencies that provide supported accommodation in housing provided by the SAHT, such as Centacare273 and 268 Fulcher, oral evidence, Hansard, p374 269 Fulcher, oral evidence, Hansard, p376 270 Data provided by South Australian Housing Trust via email from Melissa Thompson, 14 August 2002 271 Data received by SAHT via email 28th March 2003. 272 ATSIC, written submission, p40. 273 Centacare reported having 60 Housing Trust properties available for supported accommodation and is one of the biggest supported accommodation providers in SA.


103

Southern Junction Youth Services. Southern Junction Youth Services’ Manager, Ms Christine Halsey, reported a lack of public housing for their SAAP funded supported accommodation scheme for young people at risk of homelessness. For example, she reported that in the Noarlunga region there is an average weekly vacancy rate of Housing Trust dwellings of about five a week, and their waiting list for people in the top priority category (Category 1) is around 110 to 120 for those five properties. She also commented on the lack of appropriate housing for young single people, as many properties in that region are 3 bedroomed houses with large backyards.274 Private Rental Housing

Availability

The reduction in public housing has led to increased demand for affordable housing in the private rental sector, a sector which, as SACOSS and Shelter SA describe, is‘… characterised by a lack of security, affordability, and consumer protection.’275 Furthermore, as frequently reported in evidence, home ownership in South Australia is declining, further increasing competition for private rental housing. 276 As SACOSS stated in their submission, the recent low interest rates and the introduction of the first homeowners grant have fuelled price inflation.277 They report that the median price of a house in the Adelaide metropolitan area in 2001 (average of all quarters) was $150,300, which has since increased to $169,000 in 2002, and increase of 12.4%.278 Furthermore, the SAHT reported that the first home owner’s grant scheme has had the effect of ‘drying up’ the pool of private rental properties as many are bought by first home buyers.279 Of the 94,000 households currently renting privately in South Australia, approximately half are low income households and just under 50% are middle to high income households.280 In view of low private rental vacancy rates (around 1-2% in recent years281) and competition for accommodation from middle and high income earners, low income households are finding it increasingly difficult to find good quality, well-located and low cost housing.282 SACOSS witnesses cited a 28% decline in private rental stock at the cheaper end of the market, adding also that most private rental developments are aimed at middle and higher income households, such as developments in Port Adelaide and in the city.283 As the SACOSS and ShelterSA report on housing, health and wellbeing summarises:

‘The market is squeezing out low income households as they are competing with higher or dual income households who have the bargaining power to win well located and affordable stock…these households, because of their relative income wealth, are able to exploit the flexibility and mobility the tenure offers, entering and exiting at will. This leaves low income households with what is left

274 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p132 275 SACOSS and Shelter SA. op cit. p15 276 ibid, p15 277 SACOSS, written submission, p21 278 Real Estate Institute of Australia 2001 cited in SACOSS, written submission, p21 279 Fulcher, oral evidence, Hansard, p372 280 SACOSS and Shelter SA. op cit. p15 281Real Estate Institute of Australia, Market Facts A Quarterly Review of Major Residential Properties in Australia, December Quarters 1997- 2001 282 SACOSS and Shelter SA. op cit. p16 283 Wishart, oral evidence, Hansard, p79


104

over – higher rental costs, inappropriate size and location away from facilities, education and employment.’284

It was reported a number of times in evidence that families who have been evicted are the least able to compete in the private rental market and are therefore the most vulnerable to these trends. It should be noted that the Statutory Authorities Review Committee of the Legislative Council, Parliament of SA is currently conducting an Inquiry into the South Australian Housing Trust with respect to issues around difficult and disruptive tenants. It was also reported that the “100 points” system, recently introduced by some real estate agents acting for landlords in the private rental market, further discriminates against low income and disadvantaged people, especially young people who often do not have the required proof to submit an application.285 Furthermore, Southern Junction Youth Services reported that some land agents and landlords demand cash bonds, in some cases double cash bonds, and will not accept Housing Trust bond guarantees. Concerns that an ever more competitive environment is leading to increasing emergence of `slum' landlords, particularly in the northern suburbs of Adelaide, were also frequently expressed in evidence. Ms Helen Fulcher, Acting General Manager of the SAHT, however, reported that while there are such instances in some areas, the issue may be somewhat exaggerated. The SAHT has had a number of strategies aimed at addressing this issue. For example, at one stage, houses were only sold to larger investors who were required to renovate to a certain standard before they would be sold further properties. It was reported, however, that this is quite a difficult mechanism to administer.286 Furthermore, the Housing Improvement Branch within the SAHT, consisting of a small group of inspectors, has responsibility under legislation for responding to tenant concerns about poor condition of properties and over-charging. However, while the SAHT can instigate a Housing Improvement Order to reduce the rent, this can in reality lead to tenants losing tenancy.287 Cost

Private rental housing is significantly more expensive that public housing, and rents are expected to increase with demand. The ABS reported in 2002 that for South Australia the mean weekly private rent was 93% greater than the mean weekly public rent ($71, compared to $137 respectively).288 SACOSS and Shelter SA estimate that approximately half of low income households renting privately pay between 31% and 50% of their income on housing even with Commonwealth rental assistance.289 This was reflected in evidence from a number of witnesses. For example, the St Vincent de Paul Society reported that, over the past 4 years, the majority of their clients paid around 30% of their income in rent. Reflecting increasing difficulties in meeting housing costs, the Society reported a rise in requests for assistance with the payment of rental arrears. The amount spent by the Society in assisting clients with rental arrears was $683 in total 284 SACOSS and Shelter SA. op cit. p16 285 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p124 286 Fulcher, oral evidence, Hansard, p383 287 Fulcher, oral evidence, Hansard, p383 288Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends 2002: Housing - State summary tables. Found at http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/ae6fb2f5c04840dfca256bcd0082730f!OpenDocument 289 SACOSS and Shelter SA. op cit. p15


105

in 1998/99 and $2981 in 2001/02.290 Furthermore, some anecdotal evidence was received that there are some landlords who are increasing rent in the knowledge that people are receiving Commonwealth rent assistance.291 Data on median rents by Statistical Local Areas in the Adelaide metropolitan area indicate that some traditionally lower socio-economic areas have experienced dramatic increases in private rent costs over the last 5 years. For example, median rents for 3-bedroom houses have increased significantly in the western areas of Adelaide, including Port Adelaide (22.8%), Prospect (16.5%), Hindmarsh (15.8%), Woodville (11.5%) and Enfield- Pt B (10.7%) and somewhat in Onkaparinga (4.2%), Enfield-Pt A (2.4%) and Noarlunga (2.1%).292 However, median rents have decreased over the last 7 years in Elizabeth (-7.1%) and Munno Para (-6.5%). Similarly, the median rents for 2 bedroom flats/units have increased significantly in the west, including Port Adelaide (26.9%), Hindmarsh (23.8%), Prospect (22.9%) and Woodville (13.5%) and have decreased in Munno Para (-31.8%), Onkaparinga (-21.7%), Elizabeth (-9.4%), Noarlunga (-4.2%) and Salisbury (-3.8%).293

It is clear from these data that there is a trend towards increasing concentrations of disadvantage in the outer northern suburbs of Adelaide, where there is relatively affordable private rental housing as well as high concentrations of public housing, while traditionally working-class areas that are closer to the city are becoming increasingly gentrified. Private Rental Assistance

SACOSS and Shelter SA argue that the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement (CSHA) as the mechanism for meeting housing need has been wound back in favour of income support payments for private rental tenants. Indeed, between 1985 and 1995 the per capita levels of spending through the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement for housing assistance decreased by 25%294 and capital payments to state housing authorities declined by $200 million.295 At the same time, Commonwealth subsidies have increased by more than three times since the mid 1980s, with Commonwealth Rent Assistance increasing by $0.64 billion nationally from 1992 to 1998.296 SACOSS and Shelter SA argue, however, that this is failing to deliver housing affordability and security in the same way that public housing has done in the past.297 This was an opinion that pervaded evidence received by the Committee. The St Vincent de Paul Society also reported that Rent Assistance has not kept pace with surges in rental prices and CPI increases.298 In addition, the previous State Rent Relief program, administered through the SAHT, which provided additional support for Commonwealth Rent Assistance recipients ceased accepting new applicants after May 2000. 290 St Vincent de Paul, written submission, p4 291 Schrapel, oral evidence, Hansard, p28 292 Residential Tenancies Branch of the Office of Business and Consumer Affairs, Rental Bond dataset provided via email by Gascoigne, Chris (DHS) 24 July 2002 293 Explanatory Notes

• Unknown rents are excluded and only 2 bedroom flats and houses with 3 or more bedrooms are included in the calculations.

• Rents are inflated to 4th quarter calendar year 2001 using quarterly CPI figures. Years are calendar years. 294 Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) cited by Wishart, oral evidence, Hansard, p78 295 SACOSS and Shelter SA. op cit. p22 296 SACOSS and Shelter SA. op cit. p22 297 ibid. p6 298 Two Australias: Addressing Inequality and Poverty cited in St Vincent de Paul, written submission, p5


106

Homelessness

The Committee received evidence of increasing levels of homelessness and reliance on the supported and transitional accommodation sectors. For example, Anglicare witnesses highlighted a trend of longer periods of dependence by families on their Supported Accommodation Program, reducing availability for others.299 At any one time approximately 7000 South Australians are homeless and, in the 2001 census, 1,300 of these people were counted as being without shelter or sleeping in squats, cars and other makeshift shelters.300 The Anglicare State of the Family report for 2002 indicates that families with children are the fastest growing group in the homeless population, the majority of which (54%) are sole parent families, with a further 38% being couple families.301 In addition to reduced housing affordability generally, a number of causes of homelessness were identified in evidence, including family breakdown, domestic violence, mental illness, alcohol and drug addiction. Usually, there are multiple and interrelated factors leading to homelessness. Another contributing factor that was commonly cited in evidence was changes to health policies, namely deinstitutionalisation. Numerous contributors expressed concern over unacceptably high levels of homelessness for young people and people with a mental illness. Southern Junction Youth Services reported that some of their clients come from families of two or three generations that are homeless or reliant on emergency housing. Overwhelmingly, family and relationship breakdown, including physical and sexual abuse and domestic violence, and mental illness were cited as the key causes. Interestingly, Lutheran Community Care also provided anecdotal evidence that single men with custody of children are a group experiencing increasing levels of homelessness and that children of single fathers are often unduly disadvantaged due to a lack of housing and other assistance.302 The Social Inclusion Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet, is currently conducting a project on homelessness and will report to the Government in the first half of 2003 on strategies to reduce homelessness by 50% during the life of the Government.

299 Sheppard, oral evidence, Hansard, p26 300 Department of Premier and Cabinet, Social Inclusion Unit website. http://www.premcab.sa.gov.au/html/socialinclusion.html 301 Neville, A. (2002). op cit. p43 302 Lutheran Community Care, written submission, p4


107

CHAPTER 8 FAMILY BREAKDOWN AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE An important theme in evidence was that family breakdown and violence is both a key cause and outcome of poverty in many cases. It is clear from evidence previously presented on the relatively high incidence of poverty amongst sole parent families that family breakdown can be a cause of poverty, leaving families with reduced income and supports. Another theme in evidence received by the Committee was that family crises and violence tend to ‘take over’ people’s lives, making it almost impossible to move beyond immediate needs and concerns to seek long-term improvements through employment and education. An example of the impact of family conflict and violence was provided by a school teacher who commented of one student:

‘.. she is a good example of how some of the community issues impact on her schooling. There is some family violence involved with the girl… The mother is the perpetrator of the family violence and there are issues about mum's alcohol use…

Mandatory notifications have been made in relation to the student and there has been some level of FAYS [Family and Youth Services] involvement with the family, too… She has run away from home, so, at times, she is homeless. She spent probably the first four weeks of this term out of home and was living in a situation which was probably worse than being at home in regard to substance abuse of the people with whom she was living—they were involved with heroin. She had gone from one unsafe situation to another...’303

Evidence received by the Committee also consistently confirmed that poverty causes stress and conflict, straining family relationships. Poorer physical, mental health and low self esteem resulting from unemployment also affect parenting, impacting upon the wellbeing and future opportunities of children.304 Evidence received from National Investment for the Early Years (NIFTeY) stated that:

‘The effect of poverty supersedes all others… Without adequate income, the likelihood of having good health, housing, education or any other opportunities diminishes substantially .. The resulting tension increases the likelihood of instability and stress in relationships among family members, further decreasing a family’s ability to maintain a supportive environment for the development of children.’305

Strong evidence was also received that poor family relations can be perpetuated intergenerationally. As one contributor commented, from personal experience of the intergenerational effects of family breakdown:

‘…When I was younger, I wanted to meet a man, marry, have kids and stay together until one of us died. Never did I think that I would end up raising three children on my own. Although considering my inherited lack of knowledge of what a good relationship was, perhaps it is not surprising…’306

303 identity withheld. 304 Neville A (2002). op cit. p12 305 NIFTEY, written submission, p12. 306 Weinart, written submission, p9-10


108

Clearly, serious family dysfunction has an enormous impact on educational and wellbeing outcomes for children, due to both the emotional and material consequences. As discussed in Chapter 6, previous research has suggested that children from divorced and sole parent families suffer heightened educational disadvantage compared to other children from low socio-economic groups.307 Some studies have found that this may be directly due to the physical and emotional instability resulting from family breakdown. Anglicare's submission to the Inquiry also noted that the majority of interviewees recalled that, with their parents’ separation or divorce, came a high level of responsibility for household and siblings and that this responsibility often contributed to poor educational attainment. They saw this as a major contributing factor to their reduced school attendance, motivation and early withdrawal from school to take up employment.308 Another closely related issue prominent in evidence was that domestic violence is one of the key causes of severe poverty and homelessness for women and children. At least two witnesses, Dr Deborah McCulloch and Mr Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission, considered domestic violence to be the most important, and often hidden, cause of poverty. Many others confirmed its significance. Indeed, the Supported Accommodation Assistance Program (SAAP) Annual Report for 2001-02 identified that the single main reason in South Australia for seeking assistance was domestic violence (30.2%). When considering other issues such as relationship breakdown (10.5%), physical/emotional abuse (3.8%), interpersonal conflict (3.0%) and sexual abuse (1.5%),309 violence or abuse of some description in the home was responsible for over 45% of homelessness. A lack of resources for accommodation and transport for victims of domestic violence was a fairly clear theme throughout evidence. FAYS reported that some people are being placed in motels, at relatively high cost, due to lack of emergency accommodation, and that this is also not always near required support services.311 A lack of after hours crisis services resulting from rising demands, such as the Crisis Response and Child Abuse Service (C.R.A.C.A.S) was also raised by FAYS. 312

CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT

A number of studies have established a causal link between economic stress and child abuse and neglect.313 There has been a significant increase in the number of mandatory notifications of abuse of children in South Australia in recent years, from around 10,000 in 1996-97 to 16,300 in 2000-01.314 Furthermore, sole parent families are over-represented in substantiated cases of child abuse or neglect.315 Evidence received from NIFTeY included that:

307 Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p12 308 Anglicare, written submission, p9-10 309 SAAP NDC Annual Report 2001-02, Homeless People in SAAP, South Australia, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare,

Canberra, 2002. p19 311 Family and Youth Services, written submission, p6 312 Family and Youth Services, written submission, p6 313 Weatherburn and Lind, 1997 cited in Neville A (2002). op cit. p11 314 Department of Human Services, media release, Child protection overhaul to be headed up by QC , 25/03/02. www.dhs.sa.gov.au 315 Neville A (2002). op cit. p11


109

‘…in general, the distribution of substantiated reports of physical child abuse and neglect across Adelaide follows the pattern of socioeconomic disadvantage displayed in other areas such as housing, education, employment and income.’316

They reported that the areas immediately northwest of Adelaide, the outer northern and outer southern suburbs have the highest rates for children aged 0 to 14 years.317 Anglicare witnesses stated in their evidence to the Committee that they believe increasing numbers of child protection notifications in South Australia are directly linked to the increase in levels of poverty.318 It is important to note that it was also emphasised in evidence that the higher incidence of abuse and neglect in poorer families is not due to low income people and sole parents being intrinsically worse parents. As Anglicare points out, the higher rates are ‘…because they are having to parent under greater pressures of survival…’319 Clearly, child abuse, including sexual abuse, has a range of serious physical, emotional and psychological consequences for victims. A number of Anglicare interviewees, for example, identified being abused as a child as affecting everything they do, including ‘spiralling into a poverty cycle.’320 Also, evidence from SPARK Resource Centre for Sole Parents identified that many of their clients that are experiencing problems at school have profound emotional problems, often stemming from domestic violence and abuse. Furthermore, a number of agencies identified in evidence that abuse is the main reason for homelessness amongst young people, homelessness often being the start of a cycle of long term poverty. As Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission, commented:

‘…we can say with certainty that at least 50 per cent of young people who are homeless or at risk of homelessness have experienced sexual abuse. We cannot get past the fact that domestic violence and child abuse, that is, violence in intimate relationships, is a major cause of poverty...’321

Evidence received from the Department of Human Services included the most recent figures on the economic cost of child abuse and neglect in South Australia. In 1995-96 this amounted to $355 million, including: • $42 million by welfare, health, education and justice agencies on reported cases;

• $10 million in responding to child abuse and neglect that was not reported to child protection authorities; and

• $303 million in further costs including disability, injury, impairment, and the subsequent effects on the future parenting ability of the child. 322

A Review of Child Protection in South Australia has been conducted by the Department of Human Services and the plan to improve child protection in South Australia was handed to the 316 NIFTeY, written submission, p9 317 NIFTeY, written submission, p9 318 Schrapel, oral evidence, Hansard, p20 319 Schrapel, oral evidence, Hansard, p20 320 Anglicare, written submission, p11 321 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p128. 322 McGurk, H & Hazel, V 1998 cited in Department of Human Services, written submission, p16-17


110

Government on the 31st December 2002. The Review was chaired by Ms Robyn Layton QC and was a whole of Government review involving all relevant Government Departments and agencies.


111

CHAPTER 9 OTHER KEY POVERTY ISSUES Locational issues, education, housing, family breakdown, violence and abuse were identified as issues central not only to poverty and unemployment but also to poorer wellbeing and economic outcomes in the futures of children. They are, therefore, central to the issue of intergenerational poverty. A number of other issues, while not underpinning the intergenerational aspect of poverty, persistently emerged in evidence as salient issues for many people living in poverty. These were: • Health issues;

• Mental Health Issues;

• Disability and Caring;

• Substance Abuse;

• Gambling;

• Electricity Costs;

• Financial Services;

• Aspects of the Social Security System;

• Lack of Information;

• Transport;

• Vulnerability to Crime; and

• Age Discrimination in Employment.

Indicative of the self-perpetuating nature of poverty, most of these issues are causes of poverty in some cases and are also exacerbated by poverty. All compound the effects of poverty and decrease the ability of families and individuals to improve their situation. In view of the strong correlations between children’s educational attainment, wellbeing and future socio-economic status and poverty experienced in childhood, these issues are relevant to the current Inquiry. Recommendations will not be made in relation to all of these issues as they are not central to the topic. Where larger bodies of work have been conducted recently, these will be acknowledged for further reference.


112

HEALTH ISSUES

It is well documented that the reduced employment opportunities and increased living costs associated with physical illness and medical conditions can be significant causes of poverty. One example came from a submission received from the AIDS Council of South Australia, outlining some key findings of the ‘Futures III’ survey of HIV positive people in SA. The survey revealed higher levels of poverty in the HIV positive community compared with the general population and higher poverty levels for the South Australian HIV positive community (over 50%) than nationally (31%).323 Similar to other groups with medical conditions, carers and people with disabilities, decreased earning capacity coupled with increased living costs due to medical needs are the key causes of higher poverty levels. For example, the AIDS Council submission reported that there are significant additional expenses for living with a chronic or intermittently debilitating illness that they believe are not adequately covered by the health system.324 They also highlighted a number of barriers to training and employment, including extended absence from the workforce leaving many deskilled, confronting issues of managing HIV disclosure in the workplace, intermittent effects of illness, the need for flexibility around taking time off, fatigue and social discrimination.325

In addition to health problems contributing to poverty, it is also well documented that poverty exacerbates both physical and mental illness for a number of reasons. As the Anglicare State of the Family publication for 2002 reports:

‘… it is clear that unemployment is an independent case of ill health in both adults and children….’326

Selected research findings in relation to the interface between poverty and poorer health include that: • Children of low income families are more likely to have a major long-term illness like asthma,

bronchitis and deafness than children of wealthier families;327

• Premature death rates are highest in the most disadvantaged areas. Within the Adelaide metropolitan area, the death rate differential between the most advantaged and the most disadvantaged areas has remained at around 55% since the 1980s, despite an overall improvement. The differential with respect to lung cancer has worsened;328

• Unemployed people are more likely to suffer serious illness and low income earners visit the doctor more frequently. Rates of hospital admissions, to both public and private hospitals, are lower in more advantaged groups than in disadvantaged areas. More people from the poorer areas go to hospital and they go more frequently, though differences vary between procedures;329

323 Based on the Henderson poverty line. Cited in AIDS Council of South Australia, written submission, p2 324 AIDS Council of South Australia, written submission, p4 325 AIDS Council of South Australia, written submission, p4 326 Neville, A. (2002), op cit. p29 327 Hannon, K. Widening Health gap between rich and poor. Advertiser (Newspaper) Thu 11 Jan 2001. p11 328 Correspondence (slides) provided by Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide 329 Correspondence (slides) provided by Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide


113

• Low income families are less likely to use preventative or early intervention programs such as pap smear, mammography screening or rubella immunisation;330

• Studies of health outcomes identify that young people (15-24 year olds) who are neither working nor studying have very high rates of nervous system disorder, drug dependence, cancer, homicide and suicide;331

• A study of unemployed adults in Adelaide noted the following consistent physical health effects of unemployment across studies:

• A higher mortality rate in unemployed males, 17% higher than employed males in Australia;

• Unemployed men and women are more likely than employed men and women to suffer from hypertension (70% for men, women unspecified).

• Unemployed men and women have more back problems than employed men and women (in an Australian study, 28% higher for men, 49% higher for women).

• Unemployed men and women are more likely than employed men and women to suffer from arthritis (64% for men, 33% for women).332

Furthermore, research indicates that health outcomes of children living in jobless families are generally worse than the health outcomes of children living in families with similar income levels, but where at least one parent has a job. The stresses associated with unemployment may be one reason for this effect.333 Consistent with these trends, the South Australian Primary Principals' Association (SAPPA) reported that children from low socio-economic backgrounds appear to suffer health problems, such as ear infections, colds, tiredness and general poor health, to a greater degree than other children, which affects attendance and ability to engage in school. SAPPA also reported that in some cases hearing and vision problems are not detected until children get to school, which can have a profound impact on early learning.334 A key health issue raised in evidence was that people living in poverty have reduced access to health services, for a range of structural as well as personal reasons. Lutheran Community Care reported that increasing medical costs of local General Practitioners and lack of access to some medications through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme (PBS) affects low income people’s ability to receive adequate health assistance. They reported that many GPs’ offices now are taking a far harder line on debt recovery which includes discounts for upfront payments of bills, less bulk billing options and no service for clients who have an outstanding bill.335 Southern Junction Youth services also reported that many of their young clients do not have a regular GP and avoid doctors as much as possible because they usually cannot afford medication. They reported this alongside observations that there are increasing numbers of young people who, because they are smoking, taking drugs and

330 Neville A (2002). op cit. p29-32 331 Neville A (2002). op cit. p29-32 332 Nicolas, J. op cit. pix 333 Neville A (2002). op cit. p29-32 334 Webber, oral evidence, Hansard, p231 335 Lutheran Community Care, written submission, p5


114

not eating adequately, are developing many more serious illnesses, such as asthma, diabetes and depression.336 Furthermore, evidence received from Adelaide Central Mission highlighted a lack of dental care for low income and unemployed people since the demise of the Commonwealth/State Dental Health program. They reported waiting times of 3-5 years for non-urgent dental care, resulting in many cases in enduring pain and discomfort, reliance on pain killers, and inappropriate treatments, such as removing teeth due to cavities.337 It was also reported that there is an unequal distribution of health services throughout Adelaide and that General Practices in the northern suburbs in particular have difficulty recruiting staff. As Mr. John Glover, Director of the Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, reported, private hospitals are clustered in more affluent areas and specialist services tend to be established either in the inner metropolitan area or where the population is likely to afford the costs.338 The Unit reported that north of Grand Junction Road, for example, there is approximately half the number of doctors than in the eastern suburbs, despite higher use.339 Mr. Glover also commented that health services have greater difficulty in service delivery where education, housing, diet, work, and other key quality of life factors are lacking.340

MENTAL ILLNESS

The increased prevalence of mental illness as a core issue in many families living in poverty was highlighted throughout evidence and there is a range of research to support that mental illness, especially depression, is more prevalent in lower socio-economic groups. It was clear that mental illness can be a significant cause of poverty, seriously reducing the capacity to take up education and employment, and also that unemployment and poverty can have a serious impact on mental health. As one study of unemployed adults in Adelaide confirmed:

‘The evidence that unemployment affects the mental health of the individual is widespread, well documented, and consistent. It appears to be the health issue of immediate concern in the field of unemployment and health…’341

In 1997, 2.4 million people in Australia aged 18 years and over (18% of all adults) had experienced a mental disorder during the last 12 months.342 After adjusting for age, the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reports that rates of mental illness are highest for men and women who are unemployed or not in the labour force.343 Chart 13 on the following page indicates low labour force participation rates for people who have experienced mental illness.

336 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p126 337 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p130 338 Glover, oral evidence, Hansard, p6 339 Glover, oral evidence, Hansard, p6. 340 Glover, oral evidence, Hansard, p9 341 Nicolas, J. op cit. px 342 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends 1999: Heath- Health Status: Mental Health. p1 343 ibid. p6


115

Chart 13

Proportion of People with a Mental Health Disorder (a) by Labour Force Status, 1997

15.1%

22.4%

26.9% 26.4%

14.7%16.3%

26.4%

21.7%

Employed full time Employed part time Unemployed Not in the labour force

Men Women

(a) Mental disorders from the major groups (anxiety, affective and substance abuse disorders) Source: Mental Health and Wellbeing Profile of Adults, Australia 1997 (Cat. No. 4326.0) cited in Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends 1999: Health- Health Status: Mental Health . The Committee received overwhelming evidence that mental illness is a growing issue in the community, with many agencies reporting increases in people with a mental illness, both diagnosed and evident but undiagnosed, presenting for financial and other assistance. For example, Southern Junction Youth Services reported that in the last financial year, about 40% of their clients had mental health issues. The service also reported that mental illness appears to be increasingly emerging as a key issue for young people with children, with intergenerational mental health issues increasingly evident. They reported working with young people in primary schools to assist them to understand their parents' and siblings' mental illness.344 SAPPA also reported that a recent survey of 190 primary schools in South Australia, part of a federal survey by the Australian Primary Principals Association into the effects of mental health in primary schools, found that mental health issues are quite clearly having an increased effect on teachers and schools generally.345 The Committee heard that there is a lack of infrastructure to respond to the needs of increased numbers of people with a mental illness now living in the community as a result of progressive devolution of mental health services. Key issues included: • A lack of crisis intervention services, in particular the very limited capacity of Acute Crisis

Intervention Services (ACIS);

• A lack of allied health services, such as Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services (CAMHS). Mr. Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central

344 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p125 345 Webber, oral evidence, Hansard, p232


116

Mission reported growing numbers of complaints about substantial waiting times for allied health services. He said:

’We are talking about substantial waiting periods. If you are a parent dealing with a young person with mental health problems and you have to wait three, four or five months to get into CAMHS it is worrying. It is obscene that a suicidal person must wait four months to see someone at CAMHS.’346

• The increasing impact of complex and sometimes violent cases on community welfare organisations. Lutheran Community Care, for example, commented that they are dealing with increasing numbers of clients with complex needs, as well as violent situations that they feel community welfare organisations such as themselves are ill-equipped to handle;347

• A general lack of counselling and preventative services; and

• Reliance on drugs and medication available through the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme as the only affordable options for many people. One respondent to the Inquiry who provided evidence from her personal experience commented that as a result of being unable to afford psychologists’ fees, her daughter’s depression was being treated solely through medication, which she believes to be inappropriate.348

Like many other issues raised in evidence, mental illness also significantly reduces the ability of individuals and families to seek improvements to their situation, including through employment and education. As Ms. Christine Halsey, Manager, Southern Junction Youth Services commented:

‘… [Mental illness]… means that their capacity to manage their life is seriously reduced. The capacity to pay for medication is almost nil; the capacity to make contact with a doctor is usually non-existent; and there are a whole range of issues that go with that.’349

She added:

‘Mental illness isolates family members, and young people are especially disadvantaged if they do not have the money or the skills to cope. If in addition they have nowhere to live, they are almost doomed to a life of transience and severe disadvantages, and sometimes death. This is a bleak picture but, unfortunately, it is fact, and a poor reflection on us as a society.’350

DISABILITY AND CARING

People with Disabilities

Like people with serious medical conditions and mental health issues, people with disabilities face a relatively high risk of poverty due to decreased earning capacity coupled with increased living costs, such as medical and equipment costs. A number of studies indicate a strong association

346 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p131 347 Lutheran Community Care, written submission, p5 348 identity withheld 349 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p123 350 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p125


117

between disability and low income. The Anglicare State of the Family report for 2002, which includes a review of many previous studies, states that:

‘..whichever direction causality runs, it is clear that disability… can combine with other factors (such as a history of physical abuse, minimal social skills, violent behaviour etc.) to compound disadvantage, making it difficult for such individuals to progress through school and get a job without substantial assistance.’351

In 1998, the labour force participation rate for people with disabilities was 53%, compared to 76% for the population as a whole and the unemployment rate for people with a disability was 12% compared to 8% for the general population.352 Individuals with an intellectual or psychological disability or head injury are at greatest risk of unemployment as illustrated by Chart 14.

Chart 14

Labour Force Participation and Unemployment Rate People with Disabilities, 2001

55.7%

38.2%

49.1%

28.8%

36.5%

53.2%

8.4%

21.6%24.9%

18.0%

11.5%12.2%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Sensory andspeech

Intellectual Physical Psychological Head injury,stroke or brain

injury

All persons witha disability

Participation rate % Unemployment rate % Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends, 2001 (ABS Cat. No. 4102.0), p. 77. The South Australian Intellectual Disability Services’ Council 1998 review of family support services also revealed that the median household income of the 100 families interviewed was significantly lower than the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) reported median.353 Furthermore, as Bradbury et al point out, employment is no guarantee against poverty, as people with a disability are more likely to work in part-time jobs without award conditions.354 Also, there are often higher costs to maintain employment, such as equipment costs. A study by the Australian Quadriplegic Association and the Department of Family and Community Services of 200 people with spinal cord injury found that, while there is a wide variation in the additional costs of living due to disability, they can amount to up to 50% of income. Overall, the study concluded that

351 Neville, A. (2002). op cit. p33 352 Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Social Trends, 2001 (ABS Cat. No. 4102.0), p. 77 353 NIFTeY, written submission, p9 354 Bradbury & Norris & Abello, 2001 cited in Neville, A (2002), op cit, p33


118

‘Most people with significant disabilities are pushed into poverty by a combination of low workforce participation, low incomes and high living costs – as a result of disability.’355

A number of specific barriers to education and employment for people with disabilities, in addition to those previously reported for unemployed and low income people in general, were highlighted in evidence. Many were cited by Disability Action Inc from their previous submission to the Federal Inquiry into the Education of Students with a Disability. Key issues were: • Access to TAFEs and private vocational education providers is more difficult for students with

disabilities due to the higher costs incurred by those institutions for students with disabilities. Most adult vocational funding does not include extra funds to cover the costs of alternative materials and methods of delivery and there is no funding to include people with disabilities in adult literacy programs.356

Furthermore, specifically directed courses for people with disabilities at TAFE merely aim to bring people with a disability up to a certain educational standard and are therefore not inclusive as such.357 TAFE also does not make appropriate allowances for people with mental health problems, for example, there is no option to periodically miss sessions or enable people to fulfil course requirements at their own pace;

• Disability Action Inc. reported that some students with disabilities in universities have been denied essential learning tools, due to inadequacy or mismanagement of funding for support services;

• The attitudes of teaching staff were reported to be inappropriate at times, highlighting the need for greater resources into providing training to principals and teaching staff on disability awareness and inclusive education;

• Some government policies make it harder for people with disabilities to participate in education. For example, the ‘Statute of Limitations’ prevents students with periodic ill health from withdrawing without fail after a certain date in a semester. This can result in exclusion from a course due to a ‘fail’, and having to repay AUSTUDY;

• Parents consistently report a lack of School Support Officer (SSO) hours available to children with disabilities in mainstream schools. Furthermore, there is a range of evidence to suggest that parents from a higher socio-economic background are more likely to consider mainstream education a viable option for their children and are more likely to be aware of their rights and engage advocacy support;

• Disability Action Inc. raised concern about State Government exemptions from the Disability Discrimination Act, granted in 1999. These exemptions allow the Minister for Education in South Australia to direct a child with a disability to a special school. Disability Action Inc. believes this exemption makes children with disabilities vulnerable to decisions that are based on resources, or lack thereof in mainstream schools, rather than their best interests; and

355 Frisch cited in Disability Action Inc., written submission, p6 356 Disability Action Inc., written submission, p16 357 ibid, p16


119

• There is a lack of transitional support from school to work and from welfare to work for people with disabilities. Also, a lack of inclusion of young people with disabilities in ‘mainstream’ trials and projects related to these transitions.358

There are a number of disability-related issues that may increase the risk of poverty transmission between generations. These include depth of poverty and survival pressures, difficulties in parenting, particularly for people with intellectual and psychological disabilities, and the impact on children and teenagers who are carers for parents and siblings with disabilities, discussed further in the subsequent subsection on carers. Parent Advocacy Inc. also raised the greater likelihood that couples who have a child with a disability are more likely to separate or divorce, therefore leaving one parent (usually the mother) to care for the child.359 Sole parents have been demonstrated to be at higher risk of poverty generally. Disability Action Inc. also commented that children with parents with disabilities are likely to take up work at an early age, which is detrimental to their education. However, they reported that such children are usually far from possessing a ‘welfare dependent attitude' and are likely to be highly resourceful.360 Carers

The ABS provides a range of statistics outlining the low socio-economic status of carers in Australia. These include that: • The proportion of primary carers who are neither working nor looking for work is almost

double that of non-carers (59% compared with 32%);361

• Employment rates for primary carers are 36% compared to 62% for non-carers;362

• The majority (56%) of primary carers report a pension or allowance as their principal source of income.363 The Carer Payment provided by Centrelink is equivalent to a pension for other non-working persons. Most carers are also eligible for the Carer Allowance, an income supplement of $85.30 per fortnight per care recipient (non-taxable)364; and

• There are greater proportions of carers in the lowest quintile groups (1st and 2nd) (44.3% for primary carers and 38.1% for all carers) than non-carers (33.4%) and lower proportions of carers in the most advantaged quintile (5th) (10.0% for primary carers compared to 19.9% for non-carers).365

Again, the main causes for higher poverty levels amongst carers are decreased earning capacity coupled with increased living costs such as medical and equipment costs for the care recipient. For example, continence aids, which can cost up to $1,000 a year, added utility costs due to special 358 ibid. p16-17 359 ibid. p8 360 Disability Action Inc., written submission, p4 361 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Income and Welfare, Special Article -Caring in Australia, 1998. Found at http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/0/E4CB97884898EC4BCA2569DE00221C84?Open. Page numbers unavailable on website 362 ibid. Page numbers unavailable on website 363 ibid. Page numbers unavailable on website 364 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services website. http://www.facs.gov.au/guide/ssguide/5.htm. updated:

19 October 1998 365 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Caring in the Community (Cat. No 4436.0), 1998. p2


120

needs of the care recipient and due to working at home, and medical costs due to injury and illness as a result of caring. The Carers’ Association of Australia and the Social Welfare Council estimate that the contribution of carers is $16 billion per annum nationally366 and the Carers’ Association of SA estimates that it is approximately $2 billion per annum in South Australia. This is based on the estimated cost to the public health system to provide that care in their absence.367 The Association states:

‘Conservative estimates show Australia’s 2.3 million carers who provide care at home save our economy $16 billion annually, yet carers include some of the poorest and most disadvantaged people in the community. Welfare Reform has ignored the needs of carers, many of whom barely subsist and report difficulties with meeting basic living costs such as utilities, home maintenance and transport…

Most carers (78%) who provide the main source of unpaid informal support are of workforce age. Many wish to combine their caring responsibilities with employment and education, but are excluded through lack of support services, inflexible work practices and loss of assistance entitlements.

Many carers experience significant health problems directly attributable to lack of support with their caring responsibilities; but they often have no or limited access to respite care, in-home support services, counselling and practical advice and education for their day-to-day caring responsibilities. Without such support, carers are at risk of their caring role becoming unsustainable, an outcome that forces them to resort to institutional care.' 368

According to the Carers’ Association of SA, programs such as the Home and Community Care (HACC) program, aimed at providing funding to assist the frail aged and people with disabilities to remain in the community, meets only approximately 9% of need.369 Of particular relevance to the current Inquiry is that there are an estimated 181,000 young carers under the age of 18 in Australia, and 13,300 in South Australia.370 The Carers’ Association of SA’s Overview of Literature and Projects on Children as Carers reports that, in addition to household poverty, caring often leads to significant interruptions to education, causing lower achievement and restricted future employment opportunities.371 As Rosemary Warmington, Executive Director of the Carers’ Association of SA, commented:

‘…research in this country as well as overseas shows that they are behind in their schooling activities, they have poor social relationships and friendships, and they are often bullied at school.

366 Carers Australia, Federal Election – 2001. A Fair Go for Australia’s Carers. Found at http://www.carersaustralia.com.au/election.html 367 Warmington, oral evidence, Hansard, p46 368 Carers Australia, Federal Election – 2001. A Fair Go for Australia’s Carers. Found at http://www.carersaustralia.com.au/election.html 369 Warmington, oral evidence, Hansard, p51 370 Carers' Association of South Australia Inc. Children as Carers- An overview of Literature and Projects on Children as Carers. Carers' Association of SA Inc. 2001. p5 371 ibid. p8


121

They take time off from school and, of course, their transition from a caring role to working is also quite complex and difficult…’372

The research also found that young carers often experience poor physical and mental health, impaired psychosocial development, difficulty and delay in gaining independence and economic and social marginalisation.373 The role that children play as carers can, therefore, be seen as a factor that increases the risk of poverty in the adult lives of child carers. Carers of a different sort were also raised a number of times in evidence - that is grandparents as long-term carers of grandchildren. As the Anglicare State of the Family report for 2001 noted, grandparents are increasingly assuming parental responsibilities without the same supports that are available to parents.374 Life savings for retirement can also lead to ineligibility for Centrelink benefits, Health Care Card and other concessions.375 Grandparents may also be struggling with their own health issues. Evidence included that this is of particular concern in Aboriginal families, in which grandparents traditionally have an important role that is quite different to that of parents, including the passing on of cultural traditions. As Ngankiburka Georgina Williams, a senior woman of the surviving Kaurna people commented:

‘The job falls on the grandmother when troubles occur and, for financial aid to be available; the grandmother must become a foster parent and then is controlled by the state. She has to relinquish her traditional role of grandmother in order to care for the children. I am one of the many Aboriginal people who find themselves in this situation. Hopelessness and despair set in. Many try to help their children and grandchildren and extended families under their traditional obligations but are unable to do so because most of us are in poverty.’ 376

Also, school-age children as carers for younger siblings was raised a number of times as a significant issue in some families living in poverty.

SUBSTANCE ABUSE

Abuse of legal and illicit drugs was frequently cited in evidence as a major concern in communities with high levels of poverty and is clearly an issue that exacerbates poverty. For example, many Anglicare interviewees identified mild to severe substance abuse as a significant contributing factor to their experience of poverty. Interviewees reported that substance abuse started off as a ‘lifestyle enhancer’ but soon progressed into a serious and destructive factor.377 The lack of counselling and preventative services in relation to drug abuse, especially in the northern and western suburbs, was raised as a key issue in evidence. The Drug and Alcohol Services Council reported in 2002 that, with the exception of cocaine, the prevalence of lifetime and recent use (within the last 12 months) of all illicit drugs increased between 1995 and 1998.378 372 Warmington, oral evidence, Hansard, p45 373 Carers' Association of South Australia Inc. op cit. p8 374 Neville, A. (2001). op cit. p45 375 ibid. p45 376 Williams, oral evidence, Hansard, p286. 377 Anglicare, written submission, p11 378 Drug and Alcohol Services Council, Illicit Drug Use in South Australia 2002, A Statistical Overview, 2nd edition, South Australia, May 2002. p1


122

Cannabis remains the most commonly used illicit drug in South Australia. The lifetime use of cannabis among South Australians increased from 32.8% in 1995 to 39.3% (476,000 South Australians) in 1998. Seventy-six thousand (6.3%) South Australians had used cannabis in the past week.379 The proportion of South Australians who reported ever using other illicit drugs was much lower. In 1998, lifetime use of methamphetamine/amphetamine was 8.2% (up from 4.9% in 1995), hallucinogens 9% (up from 6.9%), ecstasy 2.8% (1.4%), cocaine 2.3% (unchanged) and heroin 1.8%.380 There has been an increase in the use of methamphetamine / amphetamine among injecting drug users, replacing heroin as the drug most often injected in the previous 6 months. However, heroin continues to be the main drug of choice among injecting drug users and there are an estimated 4700 dependent opioid users in South Australia.381 Due to difficulties in gaining data about illicit drug use in the community and the individual nature of drug use patterns, there are limited data indicating the cost to individuals to maintain a drug habit. Most research tends to report more broadly on costs to the community. Illicit drug use is of significantly less cost to the South Australian community than either alcohol or tobacco consumption (an estimated $140 million in 1992 compared with $375 million for alcohol and over $1,000 million for tobacco).382 Tangible costs due to illicit drug use in South Australia in 1992 can be estimated at $104 million. The remaining $36.2 million can be attributed to ’intangible’ costs such as loss of life and human suffering.383 Dr Deborah McCulloch gave an account of her experience of the effects of drug and alcohol abuse on single men living in poverty. She commented:

‘I spent about two years hanging out with poor men and they were all growing dope, of course, because that was their only source of money, their only hope of money, and they were all either stoned or drunk all day. They live in squalor. I have never seen anything like it. .. I tell you, a poor man who has no household skills, or if he has, chooses not to use them and who lives stoned or drunk all day, is an incredible waste of resources…’384

There was general support in evidence for the outcomes of the Drug Summit, held in June 2002. The outcomes are being managed by the Social Inclusion Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet.

GAMBLING

The impact of gambling on poverty was also frequently raised in evidence, again as both a cause of poverty in some cases and an exacerbating factor in many. Mr. Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission reported that low income people lost over $600 million to poker machines last year, and there has been a 300% increase in gambling

379 ibid, p1 380 ibid, p1 381 ibid, p2 382 ibid, p2 383 Drug and Alcohol Services Council, op cit, p76 384 McCulloch, oral evidence, Hansard, p119


123

turnover in South Australia since the advent of poker machines, from approximately $1.58 billion per year to over $6 billion per year. Services to deal with people with gambling problems have been increased by less than 50%.385 Furthermore, it was frequently cited that problem gambling is more prevalent amongst people in low income than middle or high income brackets. The submission received from AMCO reported that for the 2001-02 financial year, aggregate net gambling revenue for Onkaparinga Council was $55.73m, for Port Adelaide Enfield, $54.82m and for Salisbury, $53.14m.386 Furthermore, the Productivity Commission found that 42% of gaming machine revenue in South Australia came from problem gamblers.387 Mr. Mark Henley reported that around 20% of Adelaide Central Mission clients have major gambling problems.388 The submission received from the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) also cited that financial counsellors at Adelaide’s only Indigenous ‘Low Income Support Program’ estimate that gaming machines are the ‘underlying cause’ of 12% of the specific financial problems which clients raise. 389 Nunkuwarrin Yunti Aboriginal Health service staff also noted that young ‘problem gamblers’ aged between 16 and 25 years are entering a negative pattern at a crucial time for forming adult relationships, building careers, and laying the basis for future employment. They believe that for their clients at least, this pattern is likely to last about seven years, and is often part of a destructive lifestyle involving high levels of alcohol use, depression and consequent high suicide risk.390 The Australian Institute of Gambling Research reports that among the negative outcomes of problem gambling for individuals and families are: • Inability to meet essential expenses such as food, rent, utilities, clothing, medicines and

transport;

• Creating a financial burden for other family and community members;

• Increased alcohol use caused by co-location of gambling facilities with licensed premises; and

• Absenteeism from work, poor work performance and job loss.391

In August 1998, the Social Development Committee tabled a report on the Inquiry into Gambling. This Inquiry found that on average between one and two percent of the adult population is likely to experience problems with gambling, but concluded that this figure is more realistically in the range of 1 to 1.5%. However, a number of experts informed the Committee that as many as eight to 10 other people, who include family, friends and work colleagues, were affected by the behaviour of a problem gambler. Key recommendations of the Social Development Committee Gambling Inquiry are presented in Chapter 11.

385 Australian Gambling Statistics, 1974-75 to 2000-01, Tasmanian Gambling Commission cited by Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p131 386 AMCO, written submission, p13 387 AMCO, written submission, p13 388 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p131 389 ATSIC, written submission, p10 390 Nunkuwarrin Yunti (Aboriginal health service),1998 submission to the Productivity Commission Inquiry into Australian gambling industries, cited in ATSIC, written submission, p66 391 The Australian Institute of Gambling Research 1995: 5, cited in ATSIC, written submission, p67


124

In October 2001, the former South Australian Gaming Supervisory Authority was re-established as the Independent Gambling Authority (IGA). The Authority has overall responsibility for licensed gambling providers in South Australia, both with respect to the integrity of the gambling products and their impact on the community. As part of the gambling policy reform package implemented by the Statutes Amendment (Gambling Regulation) Act 2001, the Authority has been given new functions dealing with the impact on the community of the licensed gambling products it regulates.392

ELECTRICITY COSTS

The introduction of electricity retail competition in South Australia began on the 1st January 2003 and is expected to increase household electricity costs by an average of 23.7%.393 This was repeatedly raised in evidence as a major and immediate concern for unemployed and other low income households who are currently struggling to meet the costs of living. SACOSS recently released a report entitled ‘Electricity- It’s Just Essential. Low Income Electricity Consumers Project Final Report’ (August 2002), which presents results from SACOSS and the Council on the Ageing (COTA)’s low income electricity consumers project, which included statewide focus groups. Consistent with evidence received by the Committee from emergency relief agencies, the report highlights that agencies are reporting that energy bills have become a major source of household financial stress for growing numbers of low income households, and a growing reason for seeking assistance.394 Ms. Rhonda Turley, Low Income Support Project Officer, SACOSS also stated that all three member groups of the Emergency Relief State Advisory Committee in SA, SACOSS, Centrelink and FAYS, agreed that the cost of utilities is currently the biggest issue, the first time in four years all have agreed on the same key issue.395 SACOSS reported that there are 650,000 grid-connected households in South Australia of which approximately 76,700 are on or below the poverty line.396 Those most at risk of poverty as a result of electricity price increases include single people aged 21-24 years, couples with dependent children, sole parents with two or more children and older people living in private rental accommodation.397 Furthermore, there is also a vulnerable group of consumers who could fall into that poverty category if electricity prices increase without commensurate assistance for low income people. As Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission, outlined:

‘… for every person who comes to a service in crisis, 10 or 15 more households are getting by and budgeting to the nearest dollar ... A shock such as an increase in utility charges will have a substantial impact and families … are already saying to us, 'We just do not know where the money will come from. We are careful with our power usage. We just cannot afford that increase…'’398

392 Independent Gambling Authority website http://www.iga.sa.gov.au/ 393 Advertiser (newspaper). Power Shock. Wed 01 Jan 2003, p9. 394 Lawrence, J. Electricity- It’s Just Essential. Low Income Electricity Consumers Project Final Report. South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) and Council on the Ageing (SA), August 2002. p1 395 Turley, oral evidence, Hansard, p80 396 Henderson poverty line. 397 Lawrence, J. op cit. p9 398 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p129-130


125

The following charts, developed from data from National Institute of Labour Studies report Fuel Poverty: A Concept with Power in South Australia?, show that the impact of a 30% price rise will be much greater for low income than high income households. For example, the proportion of low income households spending 10% or more of their income on electricity will rise from 4.4% to 8.9%, whereas for high income brackets, this proportion will remain below 1%.

Chart 15

Impact of 30% Rise in Electricity Prices on Percentage of Household Disposable Income Spent on Fuel by Lower Income Households (10-

50%): Simulation Based on 1993/4 Data,South Australia

10

13.3

7.4

11.4

4.4

8.9

02468

101214

Current With 30% price rise% o

f low

inco

me

hous

ehol

ds

8% or more 9% or more 10% or more

Source: Richardson, S. and Travers, P. Fuel Poverty: A Concept With Power in South Australia? NLS National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. October 2002.


126

Chart 16

Impact of 30% Rise in Electricity Prices on Percentage of Household Disposable Income Spent on Fuel by Higher Income Households:

Simulation Based on 1993/4 Data,South Australia

02468

101214

SA SA+30%% o

f hig

h in

com

e ho

useh

olds

8% or more 9% or more 10% or more

Source: Richardson, S. and Travers, P. Fuel Poverty: A Concept With Power in South Australia? NLS National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. October 2002. While the above charts may overestimate the impact as households will probably attempt to reduce their electricity consumption in response to price rise, there is little basis for estimating by how much. It is known from previous research, however, that levels of spending on electricity are not very sensitive to income. 399 Furthermore, the data represent households in the 2nd to 4th deciles of the overall income distribution. If data were available for the 10-20% of genuine lowest incomes, the researchers are certain that proportion that face high fuel costs as a fraction of income would be considerably larger.400 The inadequacy of current concessions for power was also highlighted as a key issue in evidence. Concessions are currently offered to over 178,000 South Australian households and consist of up to $77 per annum for electricity and $6.60 per annum for gas.401 Eligibility criteria exclude a number of vulnerable low income groups, including NewStart, Youth Allowance and Austudy recipients without dependents.402 Furthermore, an increase has not been granted for many years.403 It was also frequently reported that various concessions, for utilities as well as other essentials, have been introduced at different times and by different governments, resulting in incoherent and confusing requirements. As Ms. Margaret Mealor, Senior Project Officer, Family and Youth Services Metro North, commented:

‘Concessions are introduced at different periods in time by different governments and they bring with them different eligibility criteria and different proof, and it is a minefield trying to sort it out.’404

399 Richardson, S. and Travers, P. Fuel Poverty: A Concept With Power in South Australia? NLS National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. October 2002. p35 400 ibid, p35 401 Lawrence, J. op cit, p28 402 Lawrence, J. op cit, p28 403 Lawrence, J. op cit, p28 404 Mealor, oral evidence, Hansard, p189


127

A further issue in evidence was the impact of recent increased application of charges, such as late fees, disconnection and reconnection fees, as well as associated debt collection fees. This is of particular relevance to people who are transient, who incur frequent power and gas connection fees. A number of contributors to the Inquiry cited the growing incidence of debt as a result of such charges. Southern Junction Youth Services, for example, reported that there has been a marked increase in cases in which their clients are issued with AGL and Origin bills of between $1000 and $2000 once accommodation is secured.405 Further issues in relation to electricity costs were that power costs are a particularly critical issue for households in which one or more persons has a disability or illness necessitating greater use of power for heating and cooling, appliances or equipment, in order to maintain a basic quality of life or, in some cases, survive. This was also identified in the National Institute of Labour Studies’ Fuel Poverty study. Information from welfare agencies, furthermore, indicates that many low-income households live in inferior building stock, which is relatively expensive to heat and cool. Also, the SAHT, who once provided heaters, no longer does so and many tenants use cheap to buy, but fuel-inefficient, heaters. The Fuel Poverty report also stated that people living in rental housing have quite limited opportunities to improve the efficiency of their fuel consumption, especially if they are already attempting to minimise their use.406

FINANCIAL SERVICES

A range of evidence was received in relation to the impact of fees and debt ‘traps’ created by financial lending institutions to which low income people are particularly vulnerable. The submission received from AMCO reported that the two main risk groups are young singles seeking to maintain a lifestyle beyond their earning capacity and young families, particularly those on a single income, attempting to keep up with constantly increasing living costs.407 Those experiencing changes in family circumstances and people suffering ill health are also notably at risk of developing credit problems.408 Issues raised included: • Low income and unemployed people are often forced to access high interest loan schemes

from lending agencies when expensive items, such as white goods, break down. Mr. Mark Henley, Manager, Adelaide Central Mission, commented:

‘We have real concerns about credit and finance institutions. We have recently seen the merge of GE [General Electric] and AGC [Australian Guarantee Corporation], the two major providers of customer credit… We have seen the rapid growth of pay-day lending and other financial institutions charging very high interest rates. We are also seeing many interest-free loan strategies being promoted very heavily, particularly to lower-income people who are desperate for money, household goods and a range of other things.

405 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p123 406 Richardson, S. and Travers, P. op cit. p35 407 AMCO, written submission, p13 408 AMCO, written submission, p14


128

They see interest-free loans, unsolicited credit, as good financial opportunities. They do not read the fine print and they get hit for six with excessive repayments. We are talking interest rates—AGC-type credit—at around 27, 28 per cent at the moment…’409

The submission received from AMCO, furthermore, reported that payday lenders are currently not regulated by the Consumer Credit Code, meaning they are not obliged to reveal all loan fees, charges and amounts payable by borrowers.410 Research by Choice magazine revealed that payday lenders have been charging interest rates of 500-1500 % per annum.411

• Credit cards are problematic for unemployed people. AMCO reported that credit cards have been associated with a 5-8% increase in personal debt over the last decade in Australia.412 Furthermore, there are around 5,000 people annually who default on credit payments in South Australia and around 3,750 who make only the minimum payment on their card(s) six or more times a year.413 The submission received from FAYS cited an alarming calculation drawn from research:

‘If you owe $3000 on a credit card, never make another purchase and make only the minimum payment each time, it will take you 39 years to pay it off.’414

• The requirement for people to have separate bank accounts for different Government payments, such as Centrelink and Child Support payments, can incur additional bank fees;

• Some local councils do not use Centrelink’s centrepay system eg. Playford council which makes it easier for low income people to pay council rates in instalments; and

• Mobile phone plans with very low or no up-front costs were also raised as problematic a number of times.

In addition, the time spent by people on low incomes in juggling finances and attempting to avoid fines and penalties, including late fees for bills, was raised in evidence. This poses yet another obstacle for people attempting to move out of poverty through education, training and employment. One respondent to the Inquiry commented from her personal experience:

‘…the poorest people are those who are paying the most in fees and fines and therefore they are even more unable to break out of the poverty cycle, or to be in a position where they are able to assist their children to break out of the poverty cycle…because I have no family that I can borrow money from when things go wrong and because I am attempting to lift my children and myself out of the poverty and disadvantage cycle, I am forced to pay large amounts of interest on everything we purchase.’415

She added:

‘… it is far easier to find the time to study… when you are not: spending hours on the phone attempting to avoid having to pay late fees on bills, juggling money so there is enough in an

409 Henley oral evidence, Hansard, p129 410 AMCO, written submission, p15 411 Choice, accessed: 17/09/01 cited in AMCO, written submission, p15 412 KPMG, 2001cited in AMCO, written submission, p14 413 AMCO, written submission, p14 (calculations based on Breusch, 11/07/01 and KPMG, 2001) 414 Matiasz, S 2002 cited in Family and Youth Services, written submission, Poverty Is it a word or a sentence?, p11 415 Weinart, written submission, p14


129

account to avoid the dishonour fees that are charged when you have insufficient funds to cover the direct debit because the bank has taken out their monthly fees first, making weekly instalments on bills because you cannot afford to pay them all at once…’416

THE SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

A number of problems with the Commonwealth Centrelink system were raised in evidence. Key issues were: • The inadequacy of payments;

• “Breach” penalties, that is withdrawal or reduction of payments for a fixed period due to failure to meet Centrelink requirements for payment; and

• That the training and work placement assistance provided as part of Centrelink’s services is misguided.

Many of the opinions expressed in evidence were consistent with the findings of the McClure Review of the Australian welfare system commissioned in 1999 by the Minister for Family and Community Services. The Review found that the current social support system is no longer appropriate, having its origins ‘…in a fundamentally different economic and social environment when unemployment was low and generally short term and the most common family type was a couple with children and a principal male breadwinner.’417 The four key shortcomings identified by the Review were that: • Service delivery arrangements are fragmented and not adequately focussed on participation

goals for all people of workforce age;

• There is an overly complex and rigid categorical array of pensions and allowances for people of workforce age;

• There are inadequate incentives for some forms of participation and inadequate rewards for some forms of work; and

• The system does not provide enough recognition of participation. 418

Centrelink Payments

There was an overwhelming theme in evidence that Centrelink payments to unemployed people are inadequate. Living costs are increasing at a much higher rate than Centrelink payments, not in the least due to the impact of the GST, and most income support provided by Centrelink is currently significantly below the Henderson Poverty Line by amounts ranging from $60 to $150 per week. Refer to Appendix 2 for recent poverty Henderson poverty line income thresholds. Data analyses by the Australian Council of Social Service reveal that:

416 Weinart, written submission, p16 417 McClure, Patrick (Chairperson). Participation support for a more equitable society - Welfare Reform Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia, 2001. p3 418 McClure, Patrick. op cit. p3


130

• Single adult Australians receiving Newstart allowance are receiving an income that is 23%

below the Henderson poverty line;

• Youth Allowance for single independent unemployed persons aged under 21 is 35% below the poverty line; and

• Youth Allowance for full-time students, independent, aged under 25 is 20% below the poverty line.419

A study of international comparisons of welfare systems by the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services found that while Australian income support payments may appear quite generous in comparison to those provided in the United States, where benefits for the unemployed are also time-limited, they are nowhere near as generous for most people as some European countries, such as the Netherlands, where unemployment benefit is 70% of previous income.420 The study also indicates that spending on social security in Australia is about 64% of the average for OECD (Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries. 421 A number of agencies reported increasing provision of basic essential services due to the inadequacy of Centrelink payments. For example, Southern Junction Youth Services provides a free meal once a week and food vouchers on a regular basis, paid out of a budget that was previously for ‘extras’, such as birthday presents, Christmas gifts and shoes. That service also reported that many young people are forced to move out of home as their parents cannot afford to support them at home and moving out is the only way for people aged under 16 years to get the independent rate of youth allowance. In other cases there are a range of other reasons why it is not appropriate for young people to remain at home with parents.422 Currently, a person must be at least 15 and independent according to Centrelink’s definition to be eligible for Youth Allowance.423 Several cases of children under the age of 15 living away from home for legitimate reasons related to their safety and wellbeing were also cited in evidence. Lutheran Community Care also stated that a reduction in Youth Allowance accessibility has had a significant impact on poverty levels.424. As Ken Vincent, Acting Regional Director, Metro North, Family and Youth Services (FAYS), commented:

‘There was always a lot of comment about the system and about whether it works or not. It might even be shown how it is possible for a single mother to successfully raise three children on Centrelink payments, complete her HSC and then start studying for law degree, achieving high distinctions in every subject. These people exist, and the apologists for the system will cite examples chapter and verse. Unfortunately, these people are quite rare. Unfortunately, FAYS sees those people for whom the system will never work, who do not have the skill, the education and the experience to live successfully on income support or to move away from it. We see those who contribute to their own poverty through some form of addiction or through poor decision making.

419 ACOSS cited in ATSIC, written submission, p34 420 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, op cit. Found at http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/whatsnew/interwelfare.htm. page numbers unavailable on website. 421 ibid. page numbers unavailable on website. 422 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p133-134 423 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services website. http://www.facs.gov.au/guide/ssguide/32.htm. Updates 19 October 1998 424 Lutheran Community Care, written submission, p2


131

We see those whose physical or mental health is a significant contributing factor to their poverty. We also recognise that there is a new form of welfare trap, which has its roots in intergenerational poverty. There are an increasing number of families in our community who have no experience of having a working adult within that family. Hence, there are children who do not understand the concept of a pay packet.’425

Evidence received from the Tea Tree Gully Community Services Forum Inc. included a case study from a non-government Financial Counsellor based at Tea Tree Gully Community Health Centre of the impact of unemployment on a family. The evidence states:

‘For this particular family unemployment meant they were unable to meet their financial obligations due to their reduced income. They found it impossible to manage financially and in an effort to survive sold their family home. They still had a residue debt with the bank and as a result not only were they paying rent in the private rental market they still had to pay off a bank loan (previously the mortgage) Other debts for this family included school fees, other personal loans/credit cards, store accounts, transport costs, car registration, fuel, car repairs, costs relating to two children, medical fees, plus utility debts, i.e., electricity, gas, telephone and mobile telephone.

Any money that was left over was spent on food and often they needed to supplement their income by requesting assistance from Emergency Relief Agencies for financial assistance or food vouchers. There was no money available for personal needs, clothing or entertainment…

This story is typical of the type of client we see who because of extended unemployment finds it impossible to manage financially on a reduced income. When families are in financial crisis payments towards medical insurance, car insurance and general household insurance policies are not kept up. Eventually families also stop making regular payments to creditors and suffer the consequence ...’426

Some examples of budgets for people whose main income consists of Centrelink payments were also provided in evidence. Two examples are presented below to illustrate the inadequacy of payments. 1. Young person on Youth Allowance The following was provided as an example of a budget that Southern Junction Youth Services would develop for a young person on Youth Allowance, which is $150 per week.

425 Vincent, oral evidence, Hansard, p187-188 426 Tea Tree Gully Community Services Forum submission, Poverty In the North Eastern Region, p3-4


132

Item Cost Rent $50

(if they are lucky) Power $20 Food $40 Cigarettes and Alcohol $20

(in many cases more) Telephone $5-10 Multitrip ticket $10

Total $150 It was reported that rent, telephone, cigarettes and alcohol (realistically) were the most likely areas where the budget would blow out and that food was usually the area that was sacrificed by young people. There is no allowance in such a budget for any medication, clothing, education costs or other additional needs. 2. Family with a member with a disability The following budget was provided by Disability Action Inc. from a family that consists of a father who is a quadriplegic, unable to work and in need of constant care, a mother who is his primary carer and two children, aged 16 and 9 years. Income per fortnight

Disability Support Pension full rate

Rent Allowance

Carer Allowance

Family Tax Benefit A

FTB A

FTB B

Parenting Payment

$358.40

$107.94

89.60

$40.74

$126.70

$151.76

$338.10

Total $1213.24


133

Expenses per fortnight

Rent

Utility bills, gas, phone, electricity

School fees, pocket money, outings

Food, household items

Household repairs and lease of equipment

Personal hygiene, cosmetics, vitamins

Car registration, petrol, repairs

Bus fares

$420

$150

$100

$240

$50

$40

$150

$25

Total $1145

This budget has around $68 left over per fortnight for clothing or any entertainment for a family of four. It contains no allowances for educational “extras” (eg. music lessons) or any supports to assist the father to become more mobile or independent and therefore ease the pressure on his wife, the carer. As this financial situation is not likely to change, there is no spare money to put aside for the children’s future study, driver’s licenses, presents and holidays. It also illustrates that the additional costs of the father’s disability are not adequately covered. The costs would be much higher to equip himself with technologies to enable him to develop new skills, become more independent, and possibly gain employment. Disability Action Inc. argues that current income support and concessions do not cover the real cost of disability or adequately remunerate the contributions of carers. Their submission reports that the Disability Support Pension is the same as the Mature Age Pension, which is paid to people at their end of their lives, when the need for social contacts and employment search is reduced. An additional issue, raised by AMCO, was the need to ensure that payments intended for the benefit of people with disabilities and mental illness are reaching those people. Charitable organisations are witnessing some cases in which people with disabilities and mental illness are being preyed upon by family members and other associates. AMCO provided two examples:

‘ …[a] young man in his early twenties, with mental health needs, is forced by his sister, every fortnight, to sign the forms to withdraw cash from his account. He never sees the money and lives hand to mouth with food parcels. Yet officially he is cared for by his family.’427

‘A young woman with a history of substance abuse, 15 years of age, regularly turns up to various agencies always with a person who is significantly older who claims to be her ‘carer’. He is always

427 AMCO, written submission, p3


134

the one who speaks, seeking vouchers, cash and food. The ‘carer’ relationship is ratified by FAYS.’428

“Breaching”

A predominant theme in evidence was that the imposition of breach penalties by Centrelink is increasingly frequent and that these penalties place unreasonable additional pressures on people who are already struggling. This, in turn, increases pressure on charities and community services. Furthermore, as SACOSS stated in their submission:

‘The penalty system is counter-productive because if people can’t pay their rent or put food on the table, they certainly can’t present decently for job interviews.’429

In SA, 25,592 people were breached in 1999-2000.430 SACOSS reported that in 2001-02, $14.6 million in penalties were taken from South Australians.431 The transience of many unemployed people, especially young unemployed, is a related issue, with numerous reports from agencies about Centrelink ‘breaches’ that are due to people not receiving letters to attend meetings. In October 2002, the Acting Commonwealth Ombudsman, Mr Oliver Winder, released a report concerning the administration of social security breach penalties, focussing on the extent to which administrative practices satisfy the requirements of social security law and reasonable standards of procedural fairness. This was in response to the significant rise in the incidence of breach penalties from the latter half of 1998 through to 2001 and a 140% increase in complaints to his office about breach penalties over recent years.432 Mr Winder noted that the penalties have a significant impact on the individuals involved and can lead to significant hardship and disruption. He concluded that it is important that such penalties are only imposed after adequate investigation of the circumstances surrounding the breach.433 Some key findings of the review were that: • There were some deficiencies in Centrelink procedures and practice in the cases examined

(where a complaint had been made) but that these constituted a small proportion of all breach cases;

• A substantial proportion of breach penalties are imposed due to the unemployed person failing to attend at either a Centrelink office or a job network provider when required to do so. The penalties for such breaches were, however, generally less severe than for activity test breaches; and

• There was some evidence in breach cases that Centrelink had been unsuccessful in trying to contact some job seekers by telephone, and that some job seekers had not responded to Centrelink’s efforts to contact them in writing. The review concluded, however, that this problem may be considerably overstated.

428 AMCO, written submission, p3 429 SACOSS, written submission, p18 430 Michael, P. 25,000 join poverty blacklist: Centrelink cuts swamp our charities. Sunday Mail (newspaper) Sun 5 Nov 2000. p2 431 SACOSS, written submission, p2 432 Commonwealth Ombudsman. Social Security Breach Penalties - Issues of Administration. Report under section 15 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 of an investigation into the administration of social security breach penalties. p1 433 Commonwealth Ombudsman, Media Release, Ombudsman reports on social security penalties, 4 October 2002


135

The report makes 29 recommendations aimed at improving the administration of social security penalty provisions. Centrelink and other relevant departments have indicated agreement with 19 of those recommendations and have given a commitment to further consider another eight. The Ombudsman has asked that urgent attention be given to recommendations aimed at improving the new processes for contacting unemployed people about possible breaches and establishing mechanisms to measure and monitor the quality of breach decision making. He will be monitoring the implementation of the recommendations and reporting progress to the Parliament in his next annual report. Centrelink Training and Employment Assistance

While the concept of mutual obligation and the importance of re-employment were not generally questioned in evidence received by the Committee, several contributors to the Inquiry commented on the failure of employment schemes linked to Centrelink payments to provide real and lasting solutions. For example, Mr. Max Davids, Manager of the Northern Adelaide Development Board commented that the Job Network only works partially as, because of profit motivation, people are placed only temporarily and are rarely suited or likely to stay in the temporary employment area.434 As Centacare Employment Services stated in their submission, funding for employment service providers, such as Job Network, is contingent on the service provider’s ability to ‘shuffle people around for regular 13-week employment outcomes, rather than training or study’.435 The service also stated that the current system creates a false picture of the true level of unemployment.436 Lutheran Community Care commented that Job Network requirements, in addition to breaching regulations, often leave people distressed, confused and less likely to take up training and education options. 437 Evidence provided by SACOSS also attests that schemes like Work for the Dole, whilst they can provide experience, have been fairly questionable in terms of being able to provide successful transitions into full-time employment.438 Consistent with this, the Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services’ study of international welfare experiences found that, while participation in appropriate active labour market programmes can improve the employment prospects of individuals, it generally has modest overall impacts on unemployment due to the churning of employment opportunities between individuals.439 In contrast to the Commonwealth’s Work for the Dole program which has a success rate of 33% in terms of sustained employment, SACOSS reported that evidence from overseas shows high success rates from programs in which waged work is created in needed community services and neighbourhood regeneration, underwritten by Government. The success rates are over 60%.440 Another issue raised by Centacare Employment Services was that the increasingly strict accountability requirements of Centrelink allow for little creativity in service delivery. Service

434 Davids, oral evidence , Hansard. p64 435 Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p4 436 Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p4 437 Lutheran Community Care, written submission, p8 438 Schrapel, oral evidence, Hansard, p83 439 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services, op cit. Found at http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/whatsnew/interwelfare.htm. page numbers unavailable on website. 440 SACOSS, written submission, p29


136

providers are required to spend much of their time “processing” clients and entering data.441 This service also reported anecdotal evidence of unethical practices by employers whereby they replace employees every 3 months to maximise the subsidies they can collect.442 The long term ineffectiveness of programs that push people into quick, short–term employment was supported in evidence provided by Ms Sharon Zivkovic, Senior Community Development Coordinator, Parks Community Centre in relation to the ‘How to be Enterprising in the New World of Work’ course, run as part of the Salisbury North Urban Improvement Project (City of Salisbury). She highlighted that part of the process of people getting back into the workforce long-term is the reassessment of goals and strategies. Course coordinators found that people initially stopped looking for work as they went through the process of reassessing their barriers. The course resulted in better long term employment and training prospects for these people, with every participant in the first course signing up for a further education and training opportunity.443

LACK OF INFORMATION

Family and community knowledge about education and training opportunities was identified in Chapter 6 as a significant factor in relation to the educational attainment and employment prospects of young people. A range of evidence also revealed that a general lack of information about entitlements and services, such as counselling and other support and welfare services, is also a key issue for many people living in poverty. Anglicare’s submission, based on interviews with 20 people with experiences of poverty, revealed that a key theme was that their life choices were often based on little or no information about services, opportunities or resources that would have informed their decision making. They reported that informal information was often not accurate and that, when information was received, it was often not in a form that they could easily understand. Some examples of responses were:

‘Realising that I had options, for example housing options, child care options, I may have returned to education earlier in life. I was not aware of the options that were available.’444

‘You can’t just be given paper to read … I can hardly read stuff as it is … you need to be told and explained what is going on … support workers are great for that.’445

Another individual who provided evidence to the Committee complained of the time spent ‘contacting Centrelink to try to understand what the latest letter means in a language that you can follow.’446

441 Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p4 442 Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p4 443 Zivkovic, oral evidence, Hansard, p80 444 Anglicare, written submission, p15 445 Anglicare, written submission, p15 446 Weinart, written submission, p16


137

A related issue in evidence was that services can be daunting for some people, especially where staff and information appear intimidating. As the Anglicare SA Family Support Team reported, many people who have been unemployed for a long period have poor self-esteem and confidence and report that this attitude is reinforced by the human services systems they are required to access.447

TRANSPORT

Transport issues did not emerge as strongly as other issues, such as housing and education, as a contributor to the cycle of poverty. Nevertheless, it was clear in evidence that adequate transport is necessary to enable people to access education, training and employment opportunities. Lack of adequate public transport, and the costs of running a car were frequently cited as barriers to employment and education, especially adult re-education, as discussed in Chapter 6. A number of additional points were made in relation to the importance of transport. These included: • Despite some reports of improvements over recent years to public transport, it was clear that

some people, particularly in outer northern suburbs, still experience difficulties in accessing education, training employment, especially universities;

• Some employers require that people have their own vehicle, which can be prohibitively expensive. It was frequently reported that even for low income people who can afford a cheaper car, they are unlikely to be able to afford inevitable repairs; and

• Transport to Adelaide for health care and specialist appointments can be problematic for residents in outer suburbs and there has been a negative impact of recent fuel cost increases.448

Furthermore, as Mr Neil Savery, Executive Director, Planning SA, Department of Transport and Urban Planning pointed out, these issues are particularly relevant for people living in outlying suburbs. He commented:

‘…Single mothers, aged people, families who have low incomes, find that they are isolated in these suburbs and they often do not have access to a car, and it is also very difficult for governments to provide public transport services, not only because the population densities are low, which makes it very difficult to provide a viable public transport system, but because the design of the suburbs is such that it is difficult to penetrate them.’449

VULNERABILITY TO CRIME

Issues of family violence have been discussed in Chapter 8. The Committee also received some evidence that people living in poverty are vulnerable to becoming victims of other sorts of crime. As the submission received from AMCO stated:

‘Poor people are often victims of crime and abuse… particularly of theft and violence..’450

447 Neville, A. (2002). op cit. p16 448 Carson, E. and Martin, S. op cit. p48-49 449 Savery, oral evidence, Hansard, p354 450 AMCO, written submission, p4


138

A number of examples of poverty being exacerbated by theft of personal belongings were provided in evidence. For example, one individual described the consequences of having their car stolen:

‘…I now owe $4,000 on a car that is still experiencing problems … from the thrashing it was given by a thief. A thief who, despite bragging publicly about the theft at school … has never felt any consequences from his actions. Unlike myself and my children!! I recently contacted an insurance company to enquire about motorcycle insurance and was told that they would not insure me because I have had a vehicle stolen from my current address within the last 5 years.

When I contacted the police about the theft, I was told that this matter was not important. They were not concerned about my ‘cheap’ car…’451

AMCO, furthermore, reported that charitable organisations are aware many cases in which people, particularly those who have spent some time away, for example in hospital or prison, return home to find all or most of their possessions stolen.452 Mr Neil Savery, Executive Director, Planning SA, also commented that the level of community fear of crime tends to be greatest amongst lowest socio-economic groups.453

‘The perception is as important as the reality because when people perceive crime they retreat into their houses, put up two metre high fences and put locks on their doors. So, when fires occur, inevitably there is a greater degree of injury to people in the outlying suburbs, often because they have put deadlocks on their doors and cannot escape or have not put in a fire alarm and it is this perpetuation and self-reinforcement of poor design leading to injury, fear of injury or disconnection and it invariably affects the lower socioeconomic groups.’454

AGE DISCRIMINATION

While not a key theme, there were still a number of references in evidence to age discrimination as a barrier to employment and contributor to the cycle of poverty. The ABS Job search experience, July 2000 article reports that the majority of unemployed people seeking employment stated that the main difficulty they experienced was being considered 'too old or too young'.455 Centacare Employment Services cited this as one reason for the same people appearing in their programmes at regular intervals.456 It is also well documented that young people face the highest risk of becoming unemployed.457

451 Kay Weinart, written submission, p6-7 452 AMCO, written submission, p3-4 453 Savery, oral evidence, Hansard, p356 454 Savery, oral evidence, Hansard, p356 455 ABS, July 2000, Job Search Experience cited in Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p5 456Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p5 457 Neville, A. (2002). op cit. p19


139

CHAPTER 10 GROUPS EXPERIENCING HIGH LEVELS OF POVERTY Evidence received by the Committee confirmed the relative disadvantage of a number of groups in the community, including indigenous people, carers, people with disabilities, including psychiatric disabilities, people with chronic medical conditions, people from non-English speaking backgrounds and single parents. Many of the issues associated with these groups have been substantially addressed in previous Chapters. This chapter provides a brief outline of poverty amongst those groups that have not been substantially acknowledged to this point. These are: • Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people;

• People from Non-English Speaking Backgrounds; and

• The Working poor.

While many of the issues reported in earlier Chapters also apply to these groups, the focus of this Chapter will be on additional issues, in particular, characteristic issues that inhibit, or in the case of some migrant groups, promote, the educational attainment and future socio-economic status of children.

ABORIGINAL AND TORRES STRAIT ISLANDER PEOPLE

It is well documented that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities, nationally and in South Australia, continue to experience very high levels of intergenerational poverty and social disadvantage. It was clear from evidence received by the Committee that many of the issues for people living in poverty that have been identified for the general population also exist for Aboriginal people, in many cases at augmented levels. Furthermore, there are a number of additional factors that impact on poverty within Aboriginal communities. It was clear from evidence that, while indigenous poverty is often perceived as solely a rural or remote issue, it is a serious issue within metropolitan Adelaide. This Inquiry does not claim to comprehensively address all the issues and complexities of intergenerational poverty within the indigenous population of metropolitan Adelaide. Due to the importance of cultural issues, issues of dispossession and racism, poverty in the Aboriginal community is a topic for Inquiry in its own right. Furthermore, the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission (ATSIC) in South Australia reported that there have been a number of reports and inquiries that have been able to address issues of Aboriginal poverty and wellbeing more comprehensively, though in many cases recommendations have not been adequately implemented. Some examples include: • A strategy for services to Aboriginal people across the Adelaide, in two parts, relating to

vulnerable adults and young people, conducted by the Department of Human Services in 1999;


140

• The House of Representatives Standing Committee on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Affairs report on the needs of urban dwelling Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Canberra 2000;

• The national strategy to overcome disadvantage: roadmap to reconciliation, Council for Aboriginal Reconciliation, 2000;

• Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission report of the national inquiry into the separation of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children from their families, Canberra 1998; and

• The National report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal deaths in custody, 1991.

This report will, therefore: • Provide a brief overview of poverty and social disadvantage amongst Aboriginal people in

South Australia, particularly metropolitan Adelaide;

• Report on evidence of issues in the indigenous community (related to intergenerational poverty) that are in addition to issues already reported for the general population of Adelaide;

• Report on issues that are common to many people in poverty, but that are present at augmented levels within the Aboriginal population; and

• Make some recommendations relating to the implementation of recommendations of previous studies. (Chapter 12)

The review of literature and data from a range of sources, provided in the submission from ATSIC, forms the basis of the majority of data presented in this section. Overview of Indigenous Population and Social Disadvantage in Adelaide

In 2001, there were approximately 11,047 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in the Adelaide metropolitan area, representing 1% of the population.458 ATSIC reported that at least a third experience severe poverty relative to Australian average standards of living, many lacking sufficient resources for minimum levels of food, clothing and shelter and that most experience at least periods of poverty.459 Presented below are selected statistics derived from the 2001 ABS Census (unless otherwise stated) that highlight the issue of poverty for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in metropolitan Adelaide:

458 ATSIC, written submission, p25 459 ATSIC, written submission, p14


141

• The indigenous unemployment rate for the Adelaide metropolitan area is 22.2%, compared with 7.4% for the non-indigenous population;460

• The labour force participation rate for indigenous people is 48.7% in metropolitan Adelaide, compared to 60.3% for non-indigenous people;461

• 40.5% of indigenous people aged 15 years and over in Adelaide report earning less than $200.00 per week;462

• The median weekly income for indigenous people was $262.00, compared to $361.00 for non-indigenous people;463 and

• The majority (55%) of indigenous people live in Salisbury, Playford Elizabeth, Enfield East, Woodville, Port Adelaide, and Northern Adelaide.464 The unemployment rate for indigenous people in the ABS area Enfield Inner is 54.9%465 and the indigenous labour force participation rate for the ABS statistical areas of Adelaide city, Prospect, Enfield east, Enfield inner and Playford/Elizabeth are all below 40%.466 ATSIC noted that while the majority of Adelaide’s indigenous population lives in these neighbourhoods, there are others throughout the metropolitan area who are in poverty. Furthermore, family networks, and therefore distribution of family resources, generally extend beyond one location;467

Additional Issues of Intergenerational Poverty

Evidence received by the Committee highlighted a number of distinctive issues that influence levels of poverty among indigenous people in Adelaide. The main points in evidence related to: • Issues of culture and identity, racial discrimination and the legacy of historical injustice;

• Indigenous family structure and responsibilities;

• The relatively young age profile of Adelaide's indigenous community; and

• The relationship with 'mainstream' services.

Issues of culture and identity, racial discrimination and the legacy of historical injustice

It was frequently raised in evidence that the systematic racism and disenfranchisement of Aboriginal people in our history continues to seriously affect the wellbeing and wealth of Aboriginal people, including in Adelaide. Evidence cited that the consequences for indigenous people include the loss of traditional culture and spirituality, as well as survival skills and abilities,

460 ATSIC, written submission, p9 461 ATSIC, written submission p9 462 ATSIC, written submission, p9 463 ATSIC, written submission, p9 464 ATSIC, written submission, p9 465 ATSIC, written submission, p9 466 ATSIC, written submission, p9 467 ATSIC, written submission, p9


142

the loss of family and identity, discrimination and the loss of land from which to build wealth. As Ngankiburka Georgina Williams, a senior female person of the Kaurna people, stated:

‘Our poverty is a poverty created by systematic racism entrenched in law. It still affects the people today as it did yesterday. We still cannot own anything as individuals. We still do not have an inheritance from which to capitalise; for example, all the Aboriginal people living in public housing, and the Kaurna people are no different… The Kaurna people, as Aboriginal people in the city, are living on our homelands without any claim to our own land…’468

Furthermore, ATSIC Commissioner for South Australia, Mr. Brian Butler commented:

‘… Family and identity are possibly the two most important foundations in any person’s life. Yet three generations of Indigenous people were denied these essentials...’ 469

Indigenous family structure and responsibilities

A consistent theme in evidence was that, due to a tradition and culture of sharing resources throughout the extended family, and sometimes beyond, in indigenous families, the lack of resources is often borne by the entire community to a larger extent than in other communities. As Ngankiburka Georgina Williams stated:

'…black money was always shared from the eldest down or from the self out to other members of the family.’470

Furthermore, indigenous households tend to be larger than non-indigenous households, resulting in greater strain on the individual household. The average indigenous household contains 3.0 occupants, plus extended family short/long term visitors, compared to the average non-indigenous household of 2.4 occupants. 471 It was also raised in evidence that the mainstream monetary and benefits systems do not recognise or make any allowances for the distribution of money throughout the extended family in Aboriginal communities. Ngankiburka Georgina Williams reported that traditional family obligations are not recognised, for example, in the tax system, which provides no tax deductions for funds for the support of extended family, or the public housing system, which charges rent according to the number of adult occupants. There was also a clear theme in evidence of responsibility in indigenous families for caring for extended family with health problems and disabilities, entailing many of the problems for carers discussed in Chapter 9. In 1999, the Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia released the findings of a two-year qualitative study of the experiences of disabled Aboriginal people and their carers in South Australia. The report stated that:

468 Williams, oral evidence, Hansard, p284 469 ATSIC Commissioner Brian Butler, on the occasion of the release of the restoring identity report by the Public Interest Advocacy Centre (September 2002) cited in ATSIC, written submission, p22 470 Williams, oral evidence, Hansard, p284 471 ATSIC written submission, p9


143

'The burden of care is a deeply but generally unspoken and unacknowledged issue in Aboriginal communities. The contexts within which Aboriginal carers (generally family members) function are characterised by: poor health status, unemployment, poverty, isolation, loss and dispossession, grief and very real pressures on traditional cultural and social structures.'472

Furthermore, while family caring responsibilities often extend beyond the immediate family and household in Aboriginal families, the Carer Payment is only available where carer and care recipient permanently co-reside. As discussed in Chapter 9, grandparents are also increasingly assuming parenting roles at the expense of their traditional cultural role. The relatively young age profile of Adelaide's indigenous community

The Aboriginal population has a much younger age profile than the general population, with 58.3% of the indigenous population of Adelaide being under 25 years of age, compared with 32.5% of the non-indigenous population, and much lower proportions of people aged over 65.473 ATSIC pointed out that the high levels of poverty in the indigenous community have the potential to worsen due to this relatively young age profile and the high indigenous population growth rate (double that of non-indigenous Australians), meaning that there will be a need for more jobs even to maintain existing employment rates.474 The relationship with 'mainstream' services

Evidence received by the Committee revealed that many services are still alienating Aboriginal people who could benefit from them. For example, the Commonwealth Grants Commission report on Indigenous funding 2001 reported that indigenous people in all regions of Australia access mainstream services at much lower rates than non-indigenous people.475 NIFTeY also reported that indigenous children are much less likely to participate in formal early childhood services.476 Evidence received from ATSIC stated that Government services and funders often assume that Aboriginal people living in urban areas are disconnected from Aboriginal traditions and, as a result, that they will fit into 'mainstream' services. However, the vast majority of Aboriginal people in cities are associated with family and language-group networks which are both urban and ‘rural’.477 Evidence provided by ATSIC included two quotes from Aboriginal services workers which are indicative of the feelings of many Aboriginal people about services:

'Because of past welfare ‘policing’ and the Stolen Generations, most Aboriginal people see all government services as ‘welfare’ and as a probable threat.'478

472 Rees & Brown 1999, p1 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p64 473 ATSIC, written submission, p9 474 ATSIC, written submission, p32 475 Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001, p85-86 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p70 476 MCEETYA 2001 cited in NIFTeY, written submission, p21 477 ATSIC, written submission, p23 478 Worker at an Aboriginal family support service cited in ATSIC, written submission, p70


144

'Mainstream services don’t understand Aboriginal interaction and colloquial language. This often results in the client’s situation not being properly understood, or the client becoming confused or offended. The mainstream services impose their values on us, whereas Aboriginal people’s values are not recognised by them.'479

Some examples were also provided in evidence of total disconnection from services among Aboriginal people in Adelaide. For example, Trish Hogan, Manager, Northern Futures commented on one program run with the indigenous community in which they located a group of indigenous young men who had become completely disconnected from every agency, including Centrelink. They had no income, no bank account, and they were not attending school:

‘…they were in the community with no money, no support, nothing. So, it was a quite intensive process of having to reconnect them back in before we could even begin some of the basics.’480

Numerous barriers to accessing services for Aboriginal people were presented from a wide range of sources in ATSIC's submission. In summary, the key issues appear to be:

• Lack of knowledge amongst indigenous people about services. The lack of coordination between agencies can be particularly confusing and difficult for Aboriginal people;

• Difficulty negotiating assistance;

• Lack of transport to access services;

• Lack of confidence and shame in asking for assistance;

• Fear of coming to the attention of ‘social services’; and

• Lack of culturally appropriate services, especially for young indigenous people.

ATSIC consultations conducted in September 2002 with Aboriginal service organisations and their clients in metropolitan Adelaide, found that there has been little improvement amongst ‘mainstream’ services in terms of addressing the needs of Aboriginal people over the last three years.481 ATSIC’s submission stresses the primary responsibility of 'mainstream' agencies to provide equitable access and services for indigenous people, as well as the importance of indigenous-run agencies and partnership between 'mainstream' and indigenous services. Currently, however, there is greater demand on indigenous-run, indigenous-specific services than they were designed to handle due to the inadequate inclusion of Aboriginal people in 'mainstream' services.482 ATSIC reported that, in some cases, the perception in ‘mainstream’ agencies is that responsibility to provide equally for indigenous people is lessened due to the existence of an Aboriginal-specific service. An example provided in oral evidence from Ms. Tanya Hosch, Executive Policy Adviser, ATSIC, was that Aboriginal clients find it difficult to access public housing directly through the SAHT, as they are often diverted to the Aboriginal Housing 479 Worker at an Aboriginal service, cited in ATSIC, written submission, p70 480 Hogan, oral evidence, Hansard, p205 481 ATSIC, written submission, p72 482 ATSIC, written submission, p72


145

Authority. 483 The SAHT expressed concern about this issue, commenting that such practices are not supported by the policies and practices of the organisation.484 It was also reported in evidence that fear of lack of confidentiality and nepotism can be a barrier to accessing indigenous-run services, supporting the importance of access for Aboriginal people to 'mainstream' services.485 ATSIC provided the following case study from an Aboriginal support service in metropolitan Adelaide, which demonstrates some of the reasons why Aboriginal people may not access services.

Sharon's Story

A woman (let’s call her Sharon) came down to Adelaide from Tennant Creek. Originally she came down to be with her partner, bringing her five young children. Upon arrival in Adelaide, Sharon was subjected to repeated episodes of domestic violence, and eventually managed to

become independent of him.

At this point, she was alone in an unknown city, with five children, no prospect of employment, and no means of support. She was without family and friends in the city, and had no support

network.

When she contacted Government agencies for emergency assistance, Sharon was told that she would have to come in and fill out forms. This was not an option for her, as she had no money for public transport, it was impossible to take all the children with her to the city, and she had no-one

to look after the children while she was out.

Her youngest child was aged one year, and the oldest 13. In addition to Sharon’s concerns about how to provide for her family, the oldest child had now fallen in with the wrong crowd and was

playing up. Sharon was very concerned that he would come to the attention of the police.

A number of her family members had died in recent times and she was struggling to cope with her own grief and loss. She was depressed and suicidal, and felt ashamed of the situation that she

was in. This made it even more difficult for her to face strange people at relief agencies.

Issues of Greater Intensity within the Indigenous Population

Evidence included a number of issues that, while they are documented previously in the report, are present at augmented levels within the indigenous population. The main issues highlighted in evidence relate to: • Early and Sole Parenthood;

• Education and Training;

• Housing;

• Child Abuse and Neglect; 483 Hosch, oral evidence, Hansard p266 484 Fulcher, oral evidence, Hansard, p388 485 ATSIC, written submission, p57


146

• Health Issues;

• Disability and Mental Health Issues;

• Substance Abuse; and

• Involvement in the Criminal Justice System.

Early and Sole Parenthood

As referenced in earlier Chapters, early and sole parenthood generates considerably increased risk of intergenerational poverty. This issue is of particular relevance to Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people in view of their relatively high fertility rate and the tendency for Aboriginal women to have children at an earlier age than non-indigenous women, as cited in Chapter 4. In addition, there are high proportions of sole parents in Adelaide's indigenous population, with 31.2% of indigenous households in metro Adelaide being one-parent families with dependent children, compared with 11.3% of other households.486 Consistent with this, Centrelink data for the June Quarter of 2002 show that 30% of indigenous recipients of Centrelink payments in metropolitan Adelaide are sole parents, and that in some suburban regions with substantial numbers of single Parenting payment recipients, the percentage greater, notably Centrelink’s Port Adelaide region (35%), Enfield region (34%), Elizabeth region (33%), Noarlunga region (35%), Modbury region (41%), and Kilkenny region (33%).487 National figures also indicate that 46% of indigenous females discouraged from labour force participation report child care and other family responsibilities as the major reason for not looking for work.488 A related matter presented by ATSIC for which they have at least anecdotal evidence is that there is a visible proportion of young Aboriginal women caught up in the criminal justice system that are becoming young mothers.

‘Often, these young mothers have not experienced positive parenting themselves and so have little experience of, and few models for, skilled parenting, budgeting, housekeeping and maintaining hygiene. This exacerbates the ‘cycle of poverty’ and intergenerational transfer of some factors that contribute to poverty.’489

Also, ATSIC reported that there is anecdotal evidence that because Centrelink’s sole parent entitlements are greater than unemployment benefits, some fathers are forced to leave the shared home so that mothers can claim sole parent payment.490 Education and Training

Far more Aboriginal people than non-Aboriginal have never attended school, and the proportion of Aboriginal people in South Australia who have achieved post-secondary qualifications is less than

486 ATSIC, written submission, p9 487 ATSIC, written submission, p52 488 ATSIC, written submission, p9 489 ATSIC, written submission, p53 490 ATSIC, written submission, p53


147

a quarter of the proportion of the non-indigenous population.491 Ngankebuirka Georgina Williams referred to the legacy of the lack of education offered to Aboriginal people in her lifetime, commenting:

'I earned my own money for 18 years as a nurse. During that time I had three children and worked in various places…I could work only as a nurse’s aid because of my lack of education due to my mission life. Seeking further education brought me no end of misery. In the pursuit of knowledge in the higher education, which was being offered for Aboriginal people, my family life was affected drastically. I wished to have skills but the system said that I had to gain only the skills that were available through the system.' 492

The Taskforce on Indigenous Education’s report to the Ministerial Council on Education, Employment, Training and Youth Affairs on 31 March 2000 identified a number of issues that are impeding the achievement of educational equality for indigenous Australians. These issues include: • Perceptions in some quarters of the Australian community that the gap in educational

outcomes between indigenous and non-indigenous Australian students is ‘normal’;

• A lack of optimism and belief in educational success for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander students;

• Education of indigenous students is often not regarded as an area of core business in education systems;

• Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander teachers and education workers are often denied access to facilities and services that other teachers and education workers take for granted and which are covered by legislation; and

• Initiatives that develop more effective models of education which build on, replicate and sustain progress in the achievement of equitable educational outcomes for indigenous students often fail to be implemented systemically and/or at the local level.493

Currently, the proportion of indigenous people attending tertiary or TAFE institutions is the same as for non-indigenous people (7.7 % for indigenous and 7.0% for non-indigenous people).494 However, the level of attainment of qualifications is below that of non-indigenous participants and employment outcomes are poor.495 Furthermore, the Vocational Education Training (VET) qualifications attained by indigenous students have generally been found to be 'of limited use in securing a competitive advantage in the job market’.496

491 ATSIC, written submission, p75 492 Williams, oral evidence, Hansard, p285 493 MCEETYA 2001, cited in NIFTeY, written submission, p22 494 Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p77 495 Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001, xxiii cited in ATSIC submission, p77 496 Commonwealth Grants Commission 2001 p234, cited in ATSIC submission. p77


148

ATSIC witnesses also indicated a lack of confidence in the current TAFE system to deliver education that leads to jobs for Aboriginal people. As Mr. Brian Butler, ATSIC Commissioner for South Australia, commented:

‘We know that it is difficult not just for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders entering the work force: it is difficult for all young people these days. But there was a reliance on the institution known as TAFE. We all thought that we would get some sort of support, particularly for a young person who showed initiative, to find a job and get into some establishment, and advance. But, too often, particularly Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people were expected to place a lot of hope in the TAFE program. But, today, we are told that they are not a very good model … TAFE has … continued in the past to run programs that have been inappropriate for our people and inappropriate for other people as well...497

ATSIC put forward the State Government Youth Training and Recruitment Scheme as an example of one scheme that has been successful in providing training for employment for young indigenous people, as well as other young people. Since 1994 this Scheme has employed over 8,000 South Australians aged between 17 and 24 years as trainees in the public sector. The Scheme provides an accredited National Training Wage Traineeship placement for twelve months, combining formal vocational training with practical work experience in order to build skill levels and employment prospects for young unemployed people. Over 70% of participants go on to secure public or private sector employment or further tertiary level training as an outcome of participation. Although there is no specific target for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander young people, in 2001/02 approximately 11% of the 613 total participants were indigenous. The scheme has, however, been reduced from 1,500 places in 1996 to 500 in 2002.498 It was clear in evidence received by the Committee that many of the educational issues cited previously in Chapter 6 are also issues for Aboriginal people in poverty. These include the costs of education, health problems, transience and overcrowding and a shortage of role models, which may be even more relevant in Aboriginal communities given the low rates of post-secondary qualifications. An additional barrier to education for Aboriginal people raised in evidence was the lack of recognition of Aboriginal languages and culture in schools, which can be alienating for many Aboriginal children.499 Housing

As demonstrated in Chapter 7, housing is an issue that is central to poverty and the cycle of intergenerational poverty. Like many other causes and effects of poverty, the problems associated with housing are more intense for Aboriginal people than non-indigenous people in general. Statistics that demonstrate this are: • The cost of housing is one of the main causes of poverty for Aboriginal people in urban

areas.500 Twelve per cent of indigenous households in urban areas are in poverty before housing costs are taken into account, but that this figure rises to 30% after housing costs are

497 Butler, oral evidence, Hansard, p268 498 ATSIC, written evidence, provided via email, Wallace McKitrick, 23rd December 2002 499 Butler, oral evidence, Hansard, p269 500 ATSIC, written submission, p40


149

factored in.501 Housing costs include rent, water rates and any repairs or maintenance provided by the tenant;502

• Only 31% of indigenous Australians own or are buying their own home, less than half the rate of the wider Australian community;503

• A conservative estimate from the SAHT and Aboriginal Housing Authority indicates that at least 50% of Aboriginal families in metropolitan Adelaide live in public housing.504 Indicative of the impact of concentrated public housing on Aboriginal families, Ngankebuirka Georgina Williams recounted moving from a rural to a metropolitan public housing area, commenting:

'… the kids were affected by that. They were used to open space, and we had to move into the city, moving into a public housing area. Then they mixed with other Aboriginal kids and street kids who were not around before. By putting Aboriginal people in public housing you put them with the poorest and the most criminal people of the white culture.’505

• Aboriginal people in South Australia also have higher rates of dependence on private tenancy than the non-indigenous population, with 31% of indigenous South Australians in the private rental market, compared to 15% of the population as a whole;506

• South Australian figures for 2000-01 indicate considerable over-representation of Aboriginal people in South Australian Supported Accommodation (SAAP) services, with 13.9% (1000 persons) of all clients being indigenous;507 and

• Aboriginal people in South Australia have higher rates of homelessness than the non-indigenous population. In the year to June 2002, Centrelink Community Unit staff reported that 6.75% of homeless clients were indigenous.508

Furthermore, SACOSS and Shelter SA reported that while Aboriginal rental housing stock was increased by 18% between 1990 and 2000, to comprise 1,786 dwellings, the waiting list at the end of the decade was still just over 13,000 applicants.509 In September 2002, the Aboriginal Housing Authority (AHA) had 1075 metropolitan tenancies, representing 2958 regular occupants. The waiting period for applicants at the top of the list is at least a year, and 1,700 applicants are on the list. More than 10% of these are regarded as ‘officially homeless’.510 ATSIC reported that most people who are waiting for housing generally stay with relatives. This often results in over-crowding and can push the host family into poverty as a result of larger utility bills and increased household maintenance and repair costs. It can also result in the host family losing tenancy of the home. Other effects are often increased family conflict, and disruptions to children’s schooling.511 Another issue that was raised by ATSIC witnesses was discrimination

501 House of Representatives Standing Committee report 2001, We Can Do It! cited in ATSIC, written submission, p9 502 ATSIC, written submission, p40 503 Neville, A. (2001). op cit. p23 504 ATSIC, written submission, p10 505 Williams, oral evidence, Hansard, p285 506 Wishart, oral evidence, Hansard, p85 507 ATSIC, written submission, p45 508 ATSIC, written submission, p10 509 SACOSS and Shelter SA. op cit. p13 510 ATSIC, written submission, p40 511 ATSIC, written submission, p41


150

amongst private landlords and land agents, an issue which is difficult to tackle. As Commissioner Butler commented:

‘We understand that it is extremely difficult for this to be policed. When Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are confronted by racist or discriminatory practices by landlords, it is very rare that those complaints are taken up by the appropriate authority. On the odd occasion when an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person takes their complaint to the appropriate authority, they find it very difficult to have it resolved in favour of the Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander person for a whole range of reasons...’512

Child Abuse and Neglect

ATSIC reported that, nationally, the rates of indigenous children in out-of-home care are nine times higher than rates for other Australian children.513 The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare's (AIHW) Child Protection Report 1998/99 states that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children are six times more likely to be removed from their families than other Australian children.514 The Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care reports conclusively that the major contributor to the over representation of indigenous Australian children in the child welfare system and out of home care is child neglect, rather than abuse.515 The AIHW found that the key causal factors include: • Higher rates of poverty;

• Inadequate housing and living conditions;

• Intergenerational effects of previous separations from family and culture;

• Cultural differences in child rearing practices; and

• Lack of access to support services.516

ATSIC reported that the high rate of single parenthood is also likely to be a relevant factor, in view of the added stresses on single parents. ATSIC's submission also states that:

‘Other factors that have been associated with involvement in the child protection system include residential instability, crowded dwellings, domestic violence, alcohol and substance abuse, and psychiatric disability.’517

512 Butler, oral evidence, Hansard, p265 513 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) 2001a, p177 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p53 514 AIHW cat no CWS 11, in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission 2002a, p2 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p55 515 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission 2002a, p2 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p55 516 AIHW no CWS 11, in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission 2002a, p2 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p55 517 AIHW 2001a, p177 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p53


151

Health Issues

Consistent with information presented in Chapter 9 which demonstrated that poor health is related to poverty, indigenous Australians suffer from a greater burden of ill health than other Australians. The high rates of illness are reflected in higher death rates, with the estimated life expectancy at birth for Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males and females being 19-20 years lower than for other Australians.518 Indigenous people are also more likely to suffer multiple illnesses.519

Furthermore, in South Australia between 1991 and 1996, the infant mortality rate among indigenous babies remained over three times higher than the rate for non-indigenous infants.520 Augmented costs of living, reduced earning capacity and issues for carers, discussed in Chapter 9 are, therefore, all highly relevant to Aboriginal people. Disability

In 1999, the Aboriginal Health Council of South Australia released the findings of a two-year qualitative study of the experiences of disabled Aboriginal people and their carers in South Australia. As mentioned previously, the study reported that the burden of care is significant, yet unacknowledged in Aboriginal communities. Furthermore, ATSIC reported that poverty issues for Aboriginal people with disabilities and Aboriginal carers are intensified by problems in accessing appropriate services.

‘…Aboriginal communities have a long, problematic and dependent relationship with mainstream services. Many Aboriginal people with disabilities and their carers experience difficulties in accessing mainstream / generic services and in being active participants in those services.'521

In August 2002, the South Australian Department of Human Services held a State conference, ‘Gathering People, Linking Voices - A State Conference for Aboriginal people with disabilities and their family carers’. An outcome of the conference was the issuing of a declaration about how services could better support them with action to: • Overcome isolation, eg. appropriate transport options, services at local level;

• Provide a ‘one-stop shop’ service through sharing resources and information between agencies and families;

• Provide respite in a flexible way that meets individual needs;

• Provide equitable access to services, both Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal run service organisations;

The indigenous participants at the conference formed an Interim State Indigenous Disability Network with the aim to provide a united voice to Government on issues affecting disabled indigenous people and their carers.522

518 ATSIC, written submission, p9 519 AIHW 2001a, P 67, 95-98 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p50 520 ABS, 1997 cited in NIFTeY, written submission, p8 521 Rees & Brown 1999, p1 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p64 522 ATSIC, written submission, p65


152

In relation to mental health, an additional contributor to mental illness for Aboriginal people was raised in evidence by Ngankiburka Georgina Williams, who stated that the emotional dislocation, loss of identity, spirituality and identity are all contributing factors. Substance Abuse

Financial counsellors at Adelaide’s only Indigenous ‘Low Income Support Program’ estimate that drug and alcohol problems are the underlying cause of 21% of the specific financial problems which clients raise.523 Statistics that illustrate the nature of substance abuse amongst Aboriginal people are: • While indigenous Australians are less likely than non-indigenous Australians to drink alcohol

at all, those who do so are more likely to consume it at hazardous levels. This is particularly so for indigenous male drinkers, over 20% of whom are in the high risk category for alcohol consumption (non-indigenous 8%);524

• Cigarette smoking is about twice as prevalent among indigenous as among non-indigenous Australians, which, in addition to the health consequences, is costly;

• ATSIC reports that some research has indicated that, nationally, about 10% of clients using treatment services for drug and alcohol problems are indigenous. These clients have been:

- More likely than non-indigenous clients to be receiving treatment for problems related to cannabis, solvents or alcohol;

- Less likely to be receiving treatment for opiates, amphetamines or benzodiazepines; and

- Less likely to report injection of drugs.525

Of the problem of drug abuse in the Aboriginal community of Adelaide, Ngankebuirka Georgina Williams commented:

‘Drug addiction and suicide are common. Young children and babies are suffering and being profoundly affected by young parents in poverty who are unskilled and affected by drugs and alcoholism, which is also generational. Aboriginal people live short lives. The children are deprived of their parents all too often and become the responsibility of a generation suffering from dislocation, dispossession and their ongoing effects. ‘526

Involvement in the Criminal Justice System

It is well documented that Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people are vastly over-represented within the criminal justice system. Selected data that indicate augmented levels of involvement are as follows:

523 ATSIC, written submission, p68 524AIHW 2001, p70 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p68 525 ABS and AIHW 2001, p72 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p68 526 Williams, oral evidence, Hansard, p286


153

• Nationally in 2001, indigenous people were imprisoned at a rate 14.9 times the non-indigenous

rate. Indigenous juveniles were in juvenile corrections at a rate 15 times the non-indigenous rate;527

• Aboriginal juveniles made up 12% of all juveniles apprehended by police in SA in 2000;528

• In 2000, a quarter of all ‘prison receptions’ in South Australia, for remand, fine default or after sentencing, were Aboriginal (self-identified). Of these, 87.5% were male and the majority were aged between 20 and 34 years;529

• An analysis of 1998 South Australian Magistrates Court data indicates that 11.4% of finalised cases were Aboriginal, 10.9 times higher than would be expected on a per capita basis, given that Aboriginal people accounted for only 1.05% of the State’s adult population;530 and

• Of nearly 8000 community-based correction orders made in year 2000, nearly 11% concerned Aboriginal offenders.531

As ATSIC stated in their evidence:

‘The picture emerging from this data is of an Aboriginal community constantly being disrupted by the apprehension and imprisonment of a large minority of its adult members. This level of adult involvement in the criminal justice system (including getting legal advice, preparing for and appearing in court, planning for the family impact of negative court decisions) frequently or continuously impairs the capacity of families to run smoothly.’532

Of particular relevance to the current Inquiry are the major effects that involvement in the criminal justice system has on poverty levels and family cohesion in Aboriginal communities, continually impairing the capacity of families to run smoothly and 'get ahead'.533

‘[The] level of involvement of Aboriginal young people in the criminal justice system, added to the level already noted of Aboriginal adult involvement, signifies that many – perhaps most – families are experiencing chronic distress, chronic disruption of income sources, and further chronic financial burdens associated with this problem alone – that is, quite apart from other factors pushing them toward poverty.’534

ATSIC also raised the issue of prisoners who are parents, creating an additional set of problems in relation to the well-being of children. For example: • Pressures of being a primary carer can lead to breaches of conditional orders such as home

detention, parole or sentencing orders;

• Loss of privileges can include refusal of child visits; 527 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 2001, p1-2 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p61 528 Office of Crime Statistics cited in ATSIC, written submission, p10 529 Office of Crime Statistics cited in ATSIC, written submission, p10 530 Pointer 2000, p2-3 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p61 531 Office of Crime Statistics cited in ATSIC, written submission, p62 532 ATSIC, written submission, p62 533 ATSIC, written submission, p62 534 ATSIC, written submission, p63


154

• Transport difficulties curtail the number of children who are able to make visits;

• Pressures on family members who become carers of prisoners’ children; and

• Children can be in prison with their mother up to the age of four, and can become ‘institutionalised’. 535

Research also shows that a significant proportion of children of women serving extended prison sentences end up in prison themselves in their youth or adulthood.536 Furthermore, in the ten years since the final report of the Royal Commission into Aboriginal Deaths in Custody (RCIADIC), the level of over-representation of indigenous people in criminal justice processes has increased, both nationally and in South Australia.537 In the decade to 2000, 18% of all people who died in custody were indigenous.538 ATSIC put forward that inadequate implementation of the RCIADIC recommendations by all governments has contributed to this lack of progress.539

PEOPLE FROM NON-ENGLISH SPEAKING BACKGROUNDS

Intergenerational Poverty in Non-English speaking communities Research commonly cites that poverty levels tend to be relatively high among immigrants from non-English-speaking countries due to a range of factors including lack of supports, low levels of English language ability, prejudice, lack of knowledge of services and resources and, in relation to refugees, the legacy of trauma. Educational qualifications, age, years of residence and language of the country of origin have been shown to be major factors associated with immigrant poverty,540 with unemployment rates generally decreasing with the length of time in Australia.541 While there is considerable literature on poverty in general among non-English speaking migrant groups nationally and in South Australia, there has been scant longitudinal research on the incidence of intergenerational poverty in these groups. Of course, for recently arriving groups, such research has not been possible. What research is available, however, puts forward two predominant themes: • That there is a considerable level of upward social mobility amongst children from a number

of non-English speaking migrant groups; and

• That there are significant differences between different national groups in terms of the risk of intergenerational poverty.

535 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission 2002a, p8 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p56 536 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Commission 2002a, p8 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p56 537 Aboriginal & Torres Strait Islander Social Justice Commissioner 2001, p1-2 cited in ATSIC, written submission, p61 538 ibid, cited in ATSIC, written submission, p61 539 ATSIC, written submission, p61 540 Johnson, D.T. The Measurement and Extent of Poverty amongst Immigrants. Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne and the Bureau of Immigration Research, Canberra, Australia, 1991. pviii 541 Cobb-Clark & Connolly, 2001 cited in Neville, A. (2002). op cit. p21


155

It is well documented in international literature that socio-economic outcomes for children of migrants differ considerably between different national groups. For example, an American study by Portes and McLeod found that some first-generation immigrant parents, such as Cubans and Vietnamese, see education as a key means of upward mobility for their children, despite their own low levels of education and income and that their children tend to achieve highly. However, for other groups, such as Mexicans and Haitians, the negative effects of socio-economic factors are not generally ameliorated by such attitudes.542 Similar findings have emerged from Australian studies. A series of studies based on Census data suggest that the second generation of some Europeans, Indians and Chinese have achieved substantial educational mobility compared to those from British, German, Dutch and Australian origins.543 Other studies have revealed that higher percentages of children from non-English speaking background (NESB) achieve tertiary qualifications compared to those from English-speaking backgrounds (ESB). People from Vietnamese, Chinese, eastern European and Korean backgrounds are the most likely to participate in higher education. Those whose language group is Arabic, Khmer and Turkish, however, are half as likely as people from English speaking backgrounds to be in higher education.544 Research indicates that there are a number of additional factors in existence in some non-English speaking migrant groups that may offset some of the effects of economic disadvantage and impact positively on future socio-economic outcomes of children. A study of the assets and aspirations of ethnic youth by Cahill et al highlights that important assets of ethnic youth which increase their opportunities include that they are generally bilingual and bicultural, skills which are advantageous in education and employment, and are oriented towards adaptability and change.545 Other factors, mentioned previously, are parental attitudes to education and high aspirations for children that are prevalent in some communities. In addition, research consistently finds that children of migrants tend to differ significantly from their parents in terms of life experiences, attitudes, values and behaviours,546 in contrast with generic research findings in relation to parent-child correlates. Evidence received from the Smith Family also identified that, while children of immigrants were seen to be educationally disadvantaged up until the-mid 1970s, the gradual introduction of multicultural policies in the classroom may have also contributed to improvements, at least for some groups.547 A range of anecdotal evidence was received by the Committee, consistent with research findings, that the children of many immigrant communities often have high levels of academic achievement and achieve significant social mobility. Mr. Phil Kimber, Project Officer Educational Disadvantage and Service Provision, Student and Professional Services (DECS), for example, commented that:

542 Portes and McLeod cited in Smith Family, written submission, p10 543 Birrell, R & Khoo, S. 1995 cited in Smith Family, written submission, p11 544 Dobson et al 1996; Cahill 1996 cited in Smith Family, written submission, p11 545 Cahill, D and Ewen, J, 1987 cited in Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. op cit. p21 546 ibid, p21 547 Cahill 1996 cited in Smith Family, written submission, p11


156

‘ … the student achievement data … show that, as a group—and no group is homogenous—students from non-English speaking backgrounds do as well if not better than the rest of the population…’548

Similarly, the Migrant Resource Centre commented that many of South Australia’s more established non-English speaking communities have achieved a prosperity that has been largely driven by a strong work ethic and a strong desire for their children to succeed.549 Also consistent with overall research findings that emphasise the social mobility of children of non-English speaking backgrounds, it was frequently reported in evidence that the disadvantaged areas of metropolitan Adelaide that formed the greatest focus in evidence, the outer Northern and outer Southern suburbs of Adelaide, have proportions of people from non-English speaking backgrounds that are well below average. Most communities of concern consist predominantly of people of Anglo-Celtic descent. It should be noted that this does not signify a major poverty issue amongst Anglo-Celtic immigrants, who actually have lower poverty levels than even the native-born Australian population.550 Poverty in newly arrived migrant communities Despite the relatively low risk of intergenerational poverty amongst non-English speaking migrant groups who began settling in South Australia in previous generations, a number of poverty issues and risk factors amongst immigrant groups, particularly recent arrivals, were raised in evidence. The SACOSS Low Income Support Program (LISP), identified people from non-English speaking backgrounds, especially refugees, as a key target group and the Migrant Resource Centre identified newly arrived refugee groups and their emerging small communities, and those arriving as part of the Family Reunion Program, as particularly vulnerable to economic hardship.551 The Centre reported that many newly arrived groups have difficulty in meeting essential basic living costs. Longitudinal research undertaken by the Centre found that 20 months after arrival, approximately 75% of migrant families had no one in employment. The average weekly income of families, averaging 5 members, was $300 per week, derived mainly from Centrelink payments.552 Furthermore, the survey found that there is a high level of transience amongst new arrival groups, with many relocating three times in their first two years of settlement. The lack of available public housing for new arrivals contributes to high levels of transience. Availability has become tighter in recent times, with refugees now being ‘Priority 2’, rather than ‘Priority 1’ for the first time. 553 Furthermore, AMCO reported that holders of Temporary Protection Visa’s (TVPs) have only restricted access to most Federal Government settlement services, qualify only the most basic employment assistance programs, and are denied family reunion rights and access to Commonwealth funded English language training. Most also wait up to six months for access to Medicare.554

548 Kimber, oral evidence, Hansard, p91 549 Migrant Resource Centre, written submission, p1 550 Johnson, D.T. op cit. pviii 551 Migrant Resource Centre, written submission, p2 552 Migrant Resource Centre of South Australia Longitudinal Study Report 2001/2002 on the Ongoing Settlement of New Arrivals to South Australia Post the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy Initial Information Orientation and accommodation Program, July 2002 cited in Migrant Resource Centre, written submission, p2 553 Migrant Resource Centre, written submission, p2 554 AMCO, written submission, p17


157

The Migrant Resource Centre further stated that, due to the lack of critical mass and developed infrastructure to apply for funding, funding provided for programs for migrant and refugee groups has generally been limited and short-term, for example, through Community Benefit SA.555 Further issues raised in evidence, some by representatives of ethnic groups, were: • The inability of some non-English speaking parents to support their children's study due to

their own limited education, limited English language abilities and inability to afford tutors. The lack of volunteer educational support, including in the home, was also raised; 556

• A lack of culturally sensitive training opportunities, especially for older people of Non-English speaking background;

• Some adolescents coming from refugee backgrounds are being put in classes according to their age rather than ability which can lead to reduced retention;557 and

• A lack of recognition of the overseas qualifications of some immigrant groups, which was reported to be a serious issue leading to heightened poverty levels in these communities. Ms Deborah McCulloch reported on work by the Women’s Subcommittee of the Multicultural Communities Council, looking at the failure to recognise overseas qualifications in teaching and nursing. She reported that there is a shortage of nurses and yet she is aware of many experienced migrant nurses unable to practice as more than Enrolled Nurses.558

THE WORKING POOR

The pervasive theme throughout evidence received by the Committee was that unemployment is the key cause of poverty and that unemployment is linked to poorer intergenerational outcomes to a greater extent than poverty in working families. Furthermore, the Smith Family report, Financial disadvantage in Australia 1990 to 2000, indicates that there has been little change in poverty risk for working families in the last decade, with the figure remaining at around 15% for families with the majority of income from wages and salaries559 Nevertheless, a large amount of evidence received by the Committee related to a perceived increase in numbers of working people who are experiencing, or are at risk of, poverty. This was mainly attributed to under-employment as a result of decreased availability of secure, full-time employment in favour of casual and part-time work. Spoehr’s The State of Working in South Australia, 2001 report highlights that South Australia demonstrates consistently high rates of under-employment, with around 14% of part-time employed females and around 23% of males preferring to have worked more hours in 2000.560 Furthermore, the Advertiser newspaper in 2001 cited an unpublished Australian Bureau of Statistics survey of Australia's 800,000 low-paid working households, which found that 30,000 went without meals, 30,000 could not afford to heat

555Migrant Resource Centre, written submission, p3 556 Ethiopian Community Association Inc in SA, written submission, received on email 6 September 2002 557 Ethiopian Community Association Inc in SA, written submission, received on email 6 September 2002 558 McCulloch, oral evidence, Hansard. p118 559 Harding A., Lloyd, R. and Greenwell, H. op cit. pvii 560 Spoehr, J. op cit, p 8


158

their homes, 41,000 households sold or pawned something due to money shortages and 284,800 could not afford a holiday.561 The issue of poverty amongst working people was mentioned in evidence provided by nearly all contributors. The Tea Tree Gully Community Services Forum, for example, identified poverty amongst working people as a major issue in their community. Their submission reported that, due to the increase in contractual, casual and part time work, working people are finding it increasingly difficult to keep up with essential living costs, exacerbated by recent increases in living costs, such as the costs of health care, increasing costs of insurance policies, child care costs for working parents and lack of concessions for working low income people.562 Similarly, Lutheran Community Care cited declining real wages for young people as a key concern. Adelaide Central Mission Manager, Mark Henley, furthermore, commented:

‘We now have 10 years' experience of young people who have entered the labour market being predominantly in a casualised labour market. So, it is casual, uncertain and insecure.’563

He added that it is a substantial cohort that is finding it difficult to ‘get ahead’ by purchasing property or engaging in other wealth creating pursuits. 564 A small number of respondents to interviews conducted by Anglicare were also experiencing financial hardship despite themselves or their partner being in paid employment. They noted the loss of some crucial benefits resulting from employment, which made it hard to make ends meet.565 SAPPA also raised the impact of poverty in working families on children's education. As Mignon Souter, Principal of Richmond Primary School commented:

‘The effort to maintain employment, manage financially and be a parent can have a significant impact on the psychological health of both parents and children. We have many children in our system (from five years of age) who are in care from 7.20 a.m. until 6 p.m. when their parents pick them up, and they are also in care during school holidays so that their parents can maintain their employment.

Managing means working to a tight calendar. In some families organisational skills are non-existent [but] In the families to which I refer they have to be so tightly organised to manage their life that there are no opportunities to do some of the other things that crop up. Attending school functions and sports days, etc. often cannot be factored into the life of the child at school.’566

While the many respondents that raised ‘working poverty’ as an important and escalating issue did not directly address the intergenerational risks, and there is evidence to suggest that these risks are lower than in jobless families, working poverty is of particular concern in view of the need to provide real incentives for employment. The Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services’ study on international comparisons of welfare reform indicates that, not surprisingly, financial incentives have an important influence on labour market behaviour.567 Furthermore, a common driver for welfare reform among OECD countries has been a lack of 561 Working poor go without food, heat. Advertiser (newspaper) Sat 3 Feb 2001. 562 Tea Tree Gully Community Services Forum Inc., written submission, p5 563 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard. p128 564 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard. p128 565 Anglicare, written submission, p10 566 Souter, oral evidence, Hansard. p234 567 Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. http://www.facs.gov.au. op cit. page numbers not available on website


159

financial incentives to work, especially among married people and people with children.568 The study found that in most cases, countries have chosen to increase the financial return from working rather than reduce benefit rates and where benefits have been reduced, it is often from a high base, for example, in the Netherlands where the unemployment benefit was reduced from 80% of previous income to 70%.569 Furthermore, the US and Canadian evaluation literature suggests that improved financial incentives combined with appropriate labour market interventions are likely to produce the best results. For example, major changes to family assistance in the Government's tax package ensured that more low and middle income earner families were better off working than receiving unemployment payments.570

568 ibid. 569 ibid. 570 ibid. Note: source did not specify whether referring to US or Canada


160


161

CHAPTER 11 KEY STRATEGIC PRINCIPLES The Committee received evidence about a vast range of programs, services and proposals aimed at reducing poverty and its impact on younger generations in relation to most of the areas of concern dealt with in this report. It is clear, however, that despite the range of programs and services, poverty and the risk of intergenerational poverty in some sectors of the community remains a significant issue in the Adelaide metropolitan area. A number of key common principles for addressing the range of issues associated with intergenerational poverty are discussed in this Chapter. The overarching principles that emerged clearly from evidence received by the Committee were: • The importance of early childhood intervention;

• The need for long-term, holistic and preventative approaches;

• The need to address ‘structural’ factors;

• A focus on social inclusion and ‘community capacity building’;

• The need for multi-agency and multi-sector collaboration; and

• The importance of service continuity, longevity and evaluation.

These should be considered as the underlying principles within the recommendations presented in Chapter 12.

THE IMPORTANCE OF EARLY CHILDHOOD INTERVENTION

Decisive evidence was received by the Committee that investment in early childhood intervention reaps significant long-term benefits and economic savings in relation to disrupting the cycle of poverty, unemployment and low educational achievement. In view of this emerging theme, key evidence was sought and received from the South Australian branch of National Investment for the Early Years (NIFTeY). NIFTeY is an incorporated body with Board members from nine key organisations associated with child development and wellbeing and a consultative committee of representatives from over 20 agencies. NIFTeY defined early intervention as:

‘…intervening either early in the life of a child and family, or early in a pathway to disadvantage, in order to promote better quality of life. In general, early intervention is broadly understood to include health, disability, development, education and social services, and specific interventions may encompass all of these domains, crossing disciplines and areas of bureaucratic responsibility.’571

571 Karoly et al. 1998 cited in NIFTeY, written submission, p16-17


162

NIFTeY provided evidence from a range of literature confirming that the period from conception through to at least the age of six years is a critical period for human neurological, social and emotional development and for creating the basis for children to become productive, contributing members of the community.572 Research over the past two decades has resulted in a better understanding of: • the importance of early life experiences, including the influences of genetics and environment

on the development of the brain and the consequences for human behaviour;

• the central influence of early relationships on young children;

• the capabilities, complex emotions and essential social skills that children develop through the earliest years of life; and

• The effects of stress on young children as a result of serious family problems.573

Furthermore, research by the RAND Corporation in the US indicates that for every dollar spent in the early years on early intervention a $7 benefit is reaped in adult life.574 The Department of Human Services also cited other examples of the economic benefits of early intervention, including that Australian Family preservation programs cost around $3000 per annum per family for intensive counselling, respite care and other in-home services which is significantly less than $5500 per annum per family for foster care or $31,000 per annum for group home placement.575 Early Intervention in South Australia

NIFTeY reported that there are many examples of early intervention efforts in South Australia. These include: • Public health programs such as antenatal care and immunisation, and health promotion

activities that seek to prevent accidents and injury or encourage breast-feeding and good nutrition;

• Childcare programs that regulate the quality of care, or provide subsidies to families to obtain childcare or to agencies for the provision of care;

• Income or in-kind support programs, including welfare, non-government family support and housing subsidy schemes;

• Programs intended to promote early childhood development such as home visiting programs, parenting education activities, preschool and playgroups, and specific programs to work with young children with developmental delay or disability; and

• Integrated children’s services centres, with a range of child and parent programmes, attached to the SA Department of Education and Children’s Services (DECS) facilities.576

572 NIFTeY, written submission, p10 573 NIFTeY, written submission, p10 574 Hetzel, oral evidence, Hansard, p246 575 Department of Human Services, written submission, p23 576 NIFTeY, written submission, p17


163

Evidence from other agencies also indicated an awareness of the importance of early intervention initiatives. For example, the Smith Family's next major ambition in promoting educational equality is to extend their support services to the early childhood area.577 However, it was clear that Australia, including South Australia, has not pursued early childhood intervention initiatives as forcefully as many other western countries. While acknowledging some significant improvements in the wellbeing of young children in the population as a whole, such as a rapid decrease in the infant mortality rate, NIFTeY stated that Australia has:

‘… not capitalised sufficiently on the knowledge that has been gained from public investment in research about children and the damaging effects of disadvantage.’ 578

For example, SACOSS outlined that in 1998, Australia spent 0.1% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on pre-school education compared to the OECD average of 0.4%. Australia also has a low pre-school participation rate, 33.8% which is half that of the OECD average of 60%.579 Evidence received from Diana Hetzel, Senior Researcher, Public Health Information Development Unit indicated that growing socio-economic inequality and a number of other general trends also may have constrained the application of new knowledge about early childhood intervention. She stated:

‘… our ability to use this exciting new knowledge has been constrained by rapid changes in the social and economic circumstances under which children and families live - dramatic alterations in the nature and amount of parental employment; major challenges for families in getting the work and family balance right; changes in activities of children; a rise in economic hardship; and we are also witnessing significant disparities in health, education and developmental outcomes when we look across the population.’580

However, as previous Chapters have discussed, these are general trends that are being witnessed across most developed nations. Early Intervention Internationally

A range of effective early intervention initiatives from overseas was cited in evidence. Initiatives included: • Sure Start, UK

The aim of Sure Start is to work with parents, parents-to-be and children to promote the physical, intellectual and social development of pre-school children, particularly those who are disadvantaged, to ensure they are ready to flourish when they get to school. Sure Start is an overarching Government program that sets up local programmes to improve services for families with children under four based on good practice learned from other local programmes.

The core services provided by local Sure Start programmes are:

577 Ashton, oral evidence, Hansard, p298 578 NIFTeY, written submission, p29 579 SACOSS, written submission, p31 580 Hetzel, oral evidence, Hansard, p245-246


164

outreach and home visiting;

support for families and parents;

support for good quality play, learning and childcare experiences for children;

primary and community health care, including advice about family health and child health and development; and

support for children and parents with special needs, including help getting access to specialised services.

The British Government recently reviewed the program and now aims to establish 500 Sure Start programmes by 2004. 430 programmes will be running by March 2003. The investment in the two first years (1999-2000 to 2001-2002) was £452 million, to be increased by a further £580 million over the subsequent two years.

The Review of this program concluded that the ideal set of effective early interventions should:

Involve two generations (parents and children);

Avoid labelling “problem families”;

Be multifaceted, targeting a number of factors not just, for example, education or health or “parenting”;

Be persistent, that is last long enough to make a real difference;

Be locally driven, based on consultation and involvement of parents and local communities; and

Be culturally appropriate and sensitive to the needs of children and parents.581

• Early Child Development (ECD) and Parenting Programs and Early Years Centres - Ontario,

Canada

The Ontario government created Early Years Centres to be a place where parents and caregivers can access information about programs and services that are available for young children and talk to early years professionals and other parents and caregivers. Free services offered by the centres to all parents and caregivers of young children are:

Early learning and literacy programs for parents and their children;

Programs to support parents and caregivers in all aspects of early child development;

Programs on pregnancy and parenting; and

Links to other early years programs in the community.

The centres are based on the recommendations of the Early Years Study by Mustard & McCain, 1999, which called for community-based Early Childhood Development and parenting centres available for all young children and their families within five years. The

581 NIFTEY, written submission, p26


165

Study proposed that existing programs (for example, nursery schools, child care centres, kindergarten, parenting centres and playgroups) could be incorporated into integrated community-based ECD and parenting centres. The report strongly recommended that these centres be based as much as possible in schools.

Currently, there are 42 Ontario Early Years Centres and 61 more Centres are due to be opened in the spring of 2003.

One reported problem with the Early Years Centres in Ontario, however, was that they were more centrally accountable to the government public service than to their communities.

Many other examples of early childhood intervention programs internationally were provided, including Head Start and Early Head Start (USA); the Zero to Three project (USA); California Proposition 10 (USA). As evidence from NIFTeY stated in relation to the high priority of early childhood intervention initiatives in a number of countries:

‘Significant investments are being made to this end in the United Kingdom, Canada, Europe, the United States of America and elsewhere. Within Australian jurisdictions, there is a need for an overall policy framework that clearly articulates the importance of intervening early, identifies key principles for service delivery and the characteristics of programs that are known to be effective, recognises an ongoing agenda for research and evaluation, and cites a firm commitment to the health and wellbeing of young children and their families.’582

Key Principles of Early Intervention Early childhood intervention is a complex area of study about which there has been a great deal of research. A brief summary of the key principles of early childhood intervention that emerged from evidence in relation to the current Inquiry appear to be that: • There is a need for collaboration between sectors and agencies in early intervention initiatives;

• The most successful programs are those that offer a broad range of services, depending on the needs of individual children and families, from within a universally available service model;

• There is a need for early intervention initiatives to link with the many environments within which children live, the family in particular but also neighbourhood, workplace, institutions, government and wider community. All areas need to be supportive to ensure optimal child wellbeing and development;

• Programs need to be evaluated and made long-term where outcomes are proven;

• Adequate basic material resources such as income, housing, education, recreation, legal protection and healthcare must exist for early intervention initiatives to have optimal impact on child development; and

582 NIFTeY, written submission, p24


166

• Preschool, high quality childcare services and home visiting programs that take a holistic approach to clients’ lives are very beneficial for children from families experiencing social disadvantage.

A literature review of evidence for the effectiveness of parenting strategies, prepared for Child and Youth Health in June 2001 found that home visiting by professionals, parent education groups, antenatal support and early childhood and parenting centres, where evaluated, appear to have the greatest potential to have positive outcomes for children. However, programs such as home visiting, alone, are not as likely to be successful as interventions which include a range of approaches and resources for families.583 The recently evaluated ‘Parenting Network’, a joint initiative between Child and Youth Health, Women's and Children Hospital and Queen Elizabeth Hospital is one example of a home-based support program using paraprofessional people. In this program, paraprofessionals are trained to support very vulnerable families in the western suburbs for a period of 3 years. The cost is just under $2,500 per family of 3.2 people per year, approximately equivalent to the combined cost of one accident and emergency visit, one admission and one outpatient visit at the Women's and Children's Hospital.584 The external evaluation by the University of South Australia of the Parenting Network pilot, 1998-2000 found significant effects on a wide range of maternal and child outcomes; • Community-based group education programs for parents; and Parenting skills programs for

parents of young children.

• Parenting programs have also been found to have more cost benefits for the community when used with parents who have more risk factors than for the general community.585

One example of a parenting program for people experiencing quite severe disadvantage was provided by Centacare witnesses. The Homeless and Parenting Program Initiative (HAPPI) is a program for families who are homeless or at risk of homelessness. It focuses on child development and parental roles. The program provides one-to-one support and advice, including counselling support, referrals and direct parenting information.586 Finally, with these principles and the wealth of research on the topic in mind, Elizabeth Puddy, Chair of NIFTeY for South Australia stated:

‘As far as services are concerned, in South Australia we have the opportunities from different sectors and everybody is highly motivated to do something about [early childhood intervention]. We need a high level cross government task force to look into it and see what is going on, what is required and what would be better to make it so. We are the size state that could do something and it is crucial that we do.587

583 Linke, P. What Works? A Literature Review of the Evidence for the Effectiveness of Parenting Strategies. Prepared for Child and Youth Health, June 2001. p4 584 Hetzel, oral evidence, Hansard, p250 585 Linke, P. op cit. p4 586 Belperio, oral evidence, Hansard, p148 587 Puddy, oral evidence, Hansard, p252


167

THE NEED FOR LONG-TERM, HOLISTIC AND PREVENTATIVE APPROACHES

While the importance of maintaining emergency relief services, concessions and income supports was emphasised throughout evidence, many service providers expressed frustration at the crisis or ‘bandaid’ response to poverty that predominates in current services. This was attributed mainly to a lack of resources to address more than immediate needs in most cases. As stated in the submission received from the St Vincent de Paul Society:

‘A simple request for assistance with food usually masks a range of entrenched financial and other problems, and the food parcel or voucher becomes a ‘bandaid’ (albeit a much needed one) that can do little to resolve the longer-term problems.’ 588

Furthermore, many contributors cited services that treat individual symptoms and causes of poverty, such as substance abuse, in isolation from the range of other issues that inevitably exist in individuals and families experiencing poverty. This was not considered to be an effective long-term response. For example, a clear theme amongst people interviewed by Anglicare was frustration that it was not until their experience of poverty spiralled into crisis that they started to receive the support and services they needed. Many noted that ‘much earlier intervention’, accurate information and options, may have lessened the impact of poverty.589

THE NEED TO ADDRESS STRUCTURAL FACTORS

Discussion in previous chapters has highlighted that the underlying causes of poverty are not simply or predominantly behavioural and personal, but include structural and policy issues such as employment levels and concentrations of public housing. The need to acknowledge and address structural issues, alongside strategies which address individual disadvantage, was clear throughout evidence, particularly in relation to the need to link education and training strategies with sustainable job creation. The overall message was that education and training strategies will struggle to achieve significant outcomes in the population as a whole unless economic policies and strategies stimulate jobs growth, including within local areas experiencing disadvantage. As Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission summarised:

‘… it is … really important that state economic development strategies [and] Social Inclusion Unit strategies are brought together so that we are actually looking at genuine economic growth opportunities, and strategies that equip under-employed people and low income people with the skills to gain sustainable, adequately paying jobs.’590

Similarly, evidence from the Un(der) Employed People’s Movement against Poverty stated:

‘Access to training and vocational and other education play a pivotal role in developing the confidence and the network to find employment, however, there is no point in broadening educational opportunities if not more jobs are created.’591

588 St Vincent de Paul, written submission, p2 589 Anglicare, written submission, p15 590 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p132 591 Un(der)employed People's Movement against Poverty Inc., written submission, p4


168

In addition to job creation, there was strong support in evidence for improving the distribution of work hours by restriction of unpaid overtime and better forecasting in relation to future job vacancies. As Mr Max Davids, Manager, Northern Adelaide Development Board reported:

‘… Two years ago, British Aerospace were looking at contracts from overseas where they could employ 400 people, but they were post trade qualification and they said they were not going to consider Australia and South Australia because the people are not there. Our job is to get in ahead of this and understand what are their forecast needs so that we can then upgrade the skills of existing workers, move them to British Aerospace and then back-fill with young people coming through the apprenticeship program. We are arguing all along that we need to change our approach because, whatever it is, we have not done it well...’592

Furthermore, an overwhelming theme in evidence was also that adequate housing, transport and community services infrastructure must underpin anti-poverty strategies and policies. As documented in Chapter 7, housing was seen as particularly crucial.

A FOCUS ON SOCIAL INCLUSION AND COMMUNITY CAPACITY BUILDING

Evidence consistently emphasised the need to move away from traditional service provision and towards solutions that are driven by, and harness, the capacity of the communities they seek to serve. It was put forward that community driven solutions are more likely to engender ownership and community support, assist in the development of informal social networks which were consistently cited as central to ameliorating the effects of poverty, and are more appropriate for combating the broader issues of social exclusion, disconnection and hopelessness. As Mr Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission commented:

‘…social enterprise and community development are important ways of shaping some of the failing paradigms which we are currently applying and which indicate for us a need to move beyond just providing services to those most in need to strategies which are going to do much more to build resilient communities, which are able to help individuals and which are able to provide for cohesive societies.’593

Furthermore, Ms Trish Hogan, Manager, Northern Futures commented:

‘… there have been quite a lot of programs that have come out and become involved in the community with the view of taking an interventionist approach, but have not left behind any community capacity building, so there is a bit of .. the view that, “if we sit here and wait long enough, someone will come along and do something for us”. We are having to work against that in some respects to actually get people to take responsibility for their own training and for planning their own futures, and for seeking out some of the information that they need.’594

Ms Philomena Taylor, Acting Manager, Community, City of Onkaparinga commented of initiatives in her local area saying:

‘... the community development approach builds up community capacity and individual capacity through education and training. In that way low self-esteem and ability is built up. So they are more

592 Davids, oral evidence, Hansard, p67-68 593 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p127-128 594 Hogan, oral evidence, Hansard, p205


169

willing and able to look at other options rather than just staying on the dole, because they feel they have more to offer and are acknowledged for their strengths, rather than being seen as a problem or a weakness the whole time. They are now engaging in things such as the community cafe and The Shed project…’595

A number of examples of attempts to develop community capacity building approaches to problems in disadvantaged communities were cited in evidence. Furthermore, community centres such as schools, church groups, sporting and community groups were put forward as centres for developing community capacity that should be supported in any approach to addressing poverty. The Adelaide Central Community Health Service commented on the need to maintain existing centres of community activity and cohesion, reporting that the urban regeneration project being undertaken in the Parks area and the closure of the Parks High School has created significant community dislocation.596 Furthermore, as evidence received from the Department of Human Services stated:

‘A community with strong social capital can lobby for improvements to services, organise foodbanks, share childcare and create other initiatives that make life easier for people on low incomes.’597

What was also clear in evidence, however, was that community capacity and motivation are often difficult to engage in the areas that are most in need. Mr Simon Schrapel, then Executive Manager of Anglicare SA, for example, commented:

‘…There are inherent strengths in the communities we are working with out in the northern suburbs, but there are very real pressures just to survive. That often negates the informal social support networks prevalent in communities that are not experiencing high levels of poverty.’598

On the other hand, Professor Patricia Thomson commented that many of the most disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Adelaide have histories of self-reliance which has eroded in recent years and needs to be revived.599 One example of a program that harnesses community strengths was provided by Mr Max Davids, Manager of the Northern Adelaide Development Board, in relation to the Lyell McEwin Hospital’s ‘Mothercare’ program. In this program, single mothers are trained to mentor other post-natal women in the first week after birth. Mr Davids commented that:

‘The wonderful thing there is the talent of the single mothers, who are supposed to be regarded as sort of disconnected. These people have capabilities.’’600

Another strength of community driven approaches is that they are more likely to ensure solutions that are appropriate for the communities they are designed to serve. The needs of different communities can be quite specific even if they are geographically close. As Associate Professor of Education, Patricia Thomson outlined, this is not always recognised in current service systems. She provided the example of Salisbury North West and Salisbury North communities as examples of

595 Taylor, oral evidence, Hansard, p227 596 Adelaide Central Community Health Service, written submission, p2 597 Department of Human Services, written submission, p13. 598 Schrapel, oral evidence, Hansard, p20 599 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p62 600 Davids, oral evidence, Hansard, p64


170

geographically close communities that differ quite markedly in terms of population transience, levels of emergency housing and indigenous populations.601 Another related issue raised in evidence was the need for program funding criteria to move away from a ‘proof of disadvantage’ approach which was seen to force communities to focus on their problems instead of their abilities and strengths. The Blair (UK) government’s Social Exclusion Fund was cited a number of times in evidence and literature as a good model for enabling local communities to have access to funds for a wide range of community development purposes. Mr Mark Henley, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission commented:

‘We see that that sort of fund has considerable merit for South Australia, not only just because of the community development benefit it will bring but because, in fact, that sort of fund has the capacity to help communities become more resilient, to help communities generate a sense of hope and optimism within their own communities, because hope and optimism are also crucial parts of overcoming poverty, along with some of the more specific financial and service measures …’602

THE NEED FOR MULTI-AGENCY AND MULTI-SECTOR COLLABORATION

Consistent with the multi-faceted nature of poverty, evidence overwhelmingly called for a multi-agency and multi-sector response to intergenerational poverty. As the Anglicare State of the Family report for 2002 states:

‘…the problems generated by poverty are complex and solutions will need to be multi-faceted, requiring co-operation across all levels of government as well as across a range of government portfolios.’603

Overwhelmingly, contributors to the Inquiry also called for collaboration between Government and non-government service providers, communities and families and a range of sectors, most importantly housing, employment, income support, health, urban planning, community services, welfare and education and training. The main merits of a multi-sectoral approach were seen to be to:

• Provide a more resource-efficient response;

• Provide a more holistic response with greater potential for long term benefit; and

• Reduce confusion and burden on clients who currently access a range of services, at a range of locations.

It was also widely acknowledged that ‘gate-keeping’ and territorial responses between agencies are predominantly symptoms of a lack of resources and a lack of processes to enable coordinated work in relation to clients and communities in common. Nearly all agencies that provided

601 Thomson, oral evidence, Hansard, p61 602 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p132 603 Neville A (2002). op cit. p5


171

evidence did, however, provide encouraging evidence of attempts to work across agencies in a variety of initiatives. As Anglicare, in their State of the Family report for 2000, state:

‘An integrated model of service delivery has significant implications for the funding of services. Government fund specific services which are designed to deal with a specific “problem”. Integrated service delivery requires flexibility in funding and contract specification so that agencies are able to provide an individualised package of services, the cost of which may vary from client to client.’604

While the majority of evidence called for a whole-of-Government approach to poverty, there was also recognition of the limitations imposed by jurisdictional boundaries between federal, state and local governments. It was frequently stated, however, that, in view of the rigidity of Commonwealth policies and funding, the State Government should take a more active role in remedying inadequacies for the benefit of the South Australian community. For example, Ms Christine Halsey, Southern Junction Youth Services, commented in relation to housing:

‘… we cannot keep relying on the Commonwealth-State Housing Agreement to inject commonwealth funds. At some level sometime in the near future the state is going to have to bite the bullet and look at whether it can put in some additional funding…’605

Also, Centacare Employment Services stated in their submission:

‘Most of the agents or causes of intergenerational poverty… could be attributed to faulty Federal government decisions… However, state governments are funded to service local structures and therefore should have a stronger sense of responsibility and accountability in addressing them.’606

THE NEED FOR SERVICE AND PROGRAM CONTINUITY, LONGEVITY AND EVALUATION

A key theme in evidence was the need for services to be adequately funded to enable them to be ongoing where needed. For example, Southern Junction Youth Services reported that their national data for the SAAP program clearly show that longer support periods produce better long-term outcomes for clients.607 Another important point was that there is a need for longevity of services in order to develop trust between agencies and clients, cited a number of times as being crucial for effective outcomes. Mr Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication, Adelaide Central Mission reported on client complaints about short-term contracts, saying:

’They [the clients] are forever told that a new program is being trialled or that a pilot scheme is in place. They say that they have just had enough. They want some certainty. They say, 'Let us have some services that we know exist and staff we know will be there next week or next year from whom we can get some service and assistance.' There is certainly a need to stabilise the range of services, and I am talking at a non-government level as well as a government level. The issue is about certainty in funding, which has not existed for some years in terms of state government funding to community organisations.’608

Ms Christine Halsey, Manager, Southern Junction Youth Services also commented: 604 Neville A. State of the Family 2000, Anglicare Australia, Melbourne. p5 605 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p133 606 Centacare Employment Services, written submission, p9 607 Halsey, oral evidence, Hansard, p137 608 Henley, oral evidence, Hansard, p130


172

‘…most service agreements are for 2-3 years. I have four Service Agreements that expire on June 30th 2003 - SAAP, Drug Court Program, and 2 Family and Community Development counselling programs. There is always some uncertainty about the future of these programs, especially when we get no feedback from the funding body about the level of satisfaction (or not) with the service being delivered. This also affects arrangements that have to be made such as leases on office space, etc. With a change of government there is even more uncertainty regarding the future …’609

A closely related theme in evidence was the need for adequate evaluation of services to ensure that they are achieving desired outcomes in a cost-efficient manner. It appears that in some cases evaluation is lacking and, in others, evaluation would be inconsequential as funding and program guidelines restrict the ability for programs to continue even where positive outcomes are demonstrated. As Diana Hetzel, Senior Researcher, Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide reported:

‘…Whilst often we do things with the best of intentions, we don't always have the evaluated evidence to say that, actually, that is what made the difference. That is then difficult when funders come to look at where we should be putting money because you want to say, 'Well, we have demonstrated that what we are doing did make a difference.' …but if we can't demonstrate that the benefits are there, maybe we should rethink what we are doing.’610

Hon Gail Gago MLC Presiding Member 28 April, 2003

609 Halsey, written evidence via email 4th October, 2002 610 Hetzel, oral evidence, Hansard, p255-256


173

LIST OF WITNESSES The following organisations and individuals provided oral submissions: 3 July 2002 Australian Bureau of Statistics

Mr Barry Haydon, Director, Client Services Mr Geoff Colton, Client Liaison Officer

Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide

Mr John Glover, Director Ms Sarah Tennant, Research Officer

8 July 2002 Anglicare

Mr Simon Schrapel, Executive Manager, Family & Community Development Ms Helen Sheppard, Manager, Playford

15 July 2002 Social Inclusion Unit, Department of Premier and Cabinet

Ms Heather Parkes, Director Mr Daniel Craker, Graduate Officer

24 July 2002 Carers Association of SA Inc Ms Rosemary Warmington, Executive Director Mr Phil Saunders, Policy Project Officer, Christine, Board Member & carer 19 August 2002 Northern Adelaide Development Board Mr Max David, Manager Mr Jim Montgomery, Assistant Manager


174

Department of Human Services, Metropolitan Division Ms Chris Dayman, Manager, Community Development Parks Community Centre Ms Sharon Zivkovic, Senior Community Development Coordinator Playford Partnerships Mr Peter Sandeman, Director 26 August 2002 Dr Pat Thomson, Associate Professor of Education, University of South Australia South Australian Council of Social Services (SACOSS) Mr Simon Schrapel, Chair Mr Ed Carson, elected member & Director Social Policy Council & Social Policy Research Group,

UniSA Mr John Wishart, Senior Policy Officer Ms Rhonda Turley, Low Income Support Project Officer 11 September 2002 Department of Education & Children’s Services – Curriculum Policy Directorate Ms Maureen Cochram, Superintendent, Curriculum Policy – Equity Mr Ken Lountain, Manager, Commonwealth Equity Programs Department of Education & Children’s Services – Student and Professional Services Ms Stephanie Page, Executive Director Mr Phil Kimber, Project Officer, Educational Disadvantage and Service Provision 1 October 2002 Dr Deborah McCulloch Southern Junction Youth Services Ms Chris Halsey, Manager Adelaide Central Mission Mr Mark Henley, Manager, Advocacy and Communication

14 October 2002 Youth Opportunities Association (SA) Inc Mr Peter Marshman, Chairman Ms Karen Marshman, Manager


175

Centa-Care Ms Dorothy Belperio, Manager Community Services Department Ms Jan Bates, Coordinator, Intervention Programs

21 October 2002

Ms Janette Young Salisbury Council Mr Michael White, Manager, Community Development Division 13 November 2002 Family and Youth Services Mr Ken Vincent, A/Regional Manager Metro North Ms Margaret Mealor, Senior Project Officer Southern Futures Inc, Mr Robin Thompson, Manager Northern Futures, Workplace Learning Centre Ms Tricia Hogan, Manager 18 November 2002 City of Onkaparinga Ms Philomena Taylor, A/Manager, Community Onkaparinga Youth Services Ms Terra Lea Ranson, Manager The Parks, Family Services Mr Daniel Clements, Manager SA Primary Principals Association Ms Mignon Souter, Principal, Richmond Primary School Ms Jan Webber, Principal, Munno Para Primary School 25 November 2002 National Investment for the Early Years Dr Elizabeth Puddy, Chair Dr Dianna Hetzel, Senior Researcher, Public Health Information Development Unit U of A Mr Dale West, Director, Centa-care Catholic Family Services Ms Judy Underdown, Senior Adviser, Early Intervention Project Attorney General’s Dept


176

Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission Mr Brian Butler, Commissioner Mr John Patterson, Manager, State Policy Centre Mr Klynton Wanganeen, Chair, Regional Council Ms Tanya Hosch, Executive Policy Adviser Mr Wallace McKitrick, Senior Project Officer 2 December 2002 Ngankiburka Georgina Williams The Smith Family Dr Norman Ashton, General Manager 9 December 2002 Smithfield Plains High School (site visit) Ms Cate Taylor, Principal Mr Graham Jennings, Deputy Principal Mr Bill Nicholls, Assistant Principal Ms Annette Ryan, Student Counsellor Salisbury High School (site visit) Ms Helen Paphitis, Principal Ms Ann Prime, Deputy Principal Ms Karen Fitzpatrick, Assistant Principal, Training & Development Mr Scott Wagenfeller, student Ms Amber Curnow, student Ms Belinda Alm, student Ms Jodie Moss, student Mr Matthew Reid, student Ms Alice George, Assistant Principal, Senior School Mr Terry Jarrad, School Counsellor 17 February 2003 Planning SA

Mr Neil Savery, Executive Director 26 February 2003 South Australian Housing Trust

Ms Helen Fulcher, A/General Manager Ms Mary Crearie, Director, Regional Services, Metro


177

LIST OF SUBMISSIONS Written submissions were received from the following organisations and individuals: Aboriginal and Torres Straight Islander Commission (ATSIC)

Adelaide Central Community Health Service

Adelaide Institute of TAFE

AIDS Council of South Australia

Anglicare SA

Association of Major Charitable Organisations

Baptist Community Services (SA) Inc

Carers Association of SA Inc

Centacare Catholic Family Services

Community Services Department

Centacare Employment Services

Department of Human Services

Disability Action Inc

Ethiopian Community Association Inc in SA

Family and Youth Services

Lutheran Community Care

Dr Deborah McCulloch

Migrant Resource Centre SA Inc

National Investment for the Early Years (NIFTeY SA)

South Australian Council of Social Services Inc


178

South Australian Primary Principals’ Association

SPARK Resource Centre Inc

St Vincent de Paul Society, South Australia

Tea Tree Gully Community Services Forum Inc

The Smith Family

Un(der)employed People’s Movement against Poverty Inc

Ngankiburka Georgina Williams

Ms Kay Weinert

Ms Janette Young

Youth Opportunities Association (SA) Inc


179

APPENDIX 1

Salisbury High School Care Program


180


181

Salisbury High School Care Management Program

The Salisbury High School Care Management system aims to encourage positive, lasting relationships between students, care teachers and parents/caregivers Feature of the support program are: • Every teacher, coordinator and executive member has a care group of 15 students. • There are 2 x 10 minute care periods per day. Students meet with their Care Teacher both at

the start of the day and start of the afternoon for roll call, student notices and brief follow up on absences, discipline referrals etc.

• A 100 minute session per week in which pastoral care, work education and enterprise

activities are conducted in care groups with Care Teachers. Students are supported with organisational and time management skills.

• Due to the small size of care groups, contact with parents on individual matters is made easy.

Care Teachers make decisions though interaction with parents and the Care Teacher is the generally the first point of contact for parents.

• Every effort is made to ensure that students remain in the same care group throughout years at

Salisbury High School.


182


183

APPENDIX 2

Henderson Income Poverty Lines


184


185

The following table indicates the various poverty lines for the December quarter of 2001, devised by the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, based on an appropriate inflation of the benchmark income identified by the Henderson poverty inquiry.

Poverty Lines: Australia, December quarter 2001a,b

Income Unit Including Housing

$ per week

Other than Housing

$ per week Head in workforce Couple 392.28 286.91 Couple plus 1 471.54 356.64 Couple plus 2 550.8 426.37 Couple plus 3 630.05 496.1 Couple plus 4 709.31 565.06 Single person 293.24 197.35 Single person plus 1 376.47 271.05 Single person plus 2 455.67 340.78 Single person plus 3 534.93 410.51 Single person plus 4 614.19 480.24 Head not in workforce Couple 336.81 231.39 Couple plus 1 416.07 301.17 Couple plus 2 495.33 370.91 Couple plus 3 574.59 440.64 Couple plus 4 653.85 509.6 Single person 237.78 141.88 Single person plus 1 320.95 215.58 Single person plus 2 400.21 285.31 Single person plus 3 479.47 355.04 Single person plus 4 558.73 424.77 Notes: (a) Based on Seasonally adjusted household disposable income per head per week for the December quarter 2001 of $431.61. (b) All figures refer to income after tax


186


187

APPENDIX 3

Derivation of ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage


188


189

Derivation of ABS Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage Component Variables The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage is determined for a geographical area and includes the following variables:

Weight between 0.2 and 0.3 (higher weighting) Persons aged 15 and over with no qualifications (%) Families with income less than $15,600 (%) Families with offspring having parental income less than $15,600 (%) Females (in labour force) unemployed (%) Males (in labour force) unemployed (%) Employed Females classified as ‘Labourer & Related Workers’ (%) Employed Males classified as ‘Labourer & Related Workers’ (%) Employed Males classified as ‘Intermediate Production and Transport Workers’ (%) Persons aged 15 and over who left school at or under 15 years of age (%) One parent families with dependent offspring only (%) Households renting (government authority) (%)

Weight between 0.1 and 0.2

Persons aged 15 and over separated or divorced (%) Dwellings with no motor cars at dwelling (%) Employed Females classified as ‘Intermediate Production & Transport Workers’ (%) Employed Females classified as ‘Elementary Clerical, Sales & Service Workers’ (%) Employed Males classified as ‘Tradespersons’ (%) Persons aged 15 and over who did not go to school (%) Aboriginals or Torres Strait Islanders (%) Occupied private dwellings with two or more families (%) Lacking fluency in English (%)

Dropped initial variables

Dwellings with 1 or no bedrooms (%) Employed Females classified as ‘Tradespersons’ (%) Employed Persons classified as ‘Tradespersons’ (%) Employed Females classified as ‘Intermediate Clerical, Sales & Service Workers’ (%) Employed Persons classified as ‘Intermediate Clerical, Sales & Service Workers’ (%) Employed Males classified as ‘Elementary Clerical, Sales & Service Workers’ (%) Employed Persons classified as ‘Elementary Clerical, Sales & Service Workers’ (%) Employed Persons classified as ‘Labourers & Related Workers’ (%) Employed Persons classified as ‘Intermediate Production, Transport Workers’ (%) Households in improvised dwellings (%) Households renting (non-government authority) (%) Recent migrants from non-English speaking countries (%)


190

Method of Derivation • The Index is derived using ‘Principal Component Analysis’, a technique used to summarise a

large number of related variables. This technique creates a ‘raw index score’ for each CD for the index, assigns a ‘weight’ to the raw score of each variable and eliminates variables with a low correlation with the index.

• Variables are finally decided upon based on wide consultation with academics and research

institutions around Australia and correlation analysis to ensure that particular socio-economic aspects are not over-represented.

Other Indexes of Interest The ABS produces five indexes relating to different aspects of the socio-economic condition of geographic areas. The five indexes are:

• Urban Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage An indicator of well-being, containing items such as high income, tertiary education, home ownership and skilled occupations.

• Rural Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage makes the distinction between being advantaged in the city and being advantaged in the country, looking at characteristics related specifically to rural areas.

• Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage

focuses on low income earners, relatively lower educational attainment, high unemployment, rented dwellings and people lacking fluency in English.

• Index of Economic Resources highlights what could be called disposable income, focusing on economic resources of a household including family income, housing status and car ownership.

• Index of Education and Occupation provides specific rankings based on educational background and type of occupation.

Interpretation of Index Values All indexes have been constructed so that relatively advantaged areas have high index values. For the Index of Relative Disadvantage this means that relatively disadvantaged areas have relatively low index numbers.


191

APPENDIX 4

THE ‘PEACHEY BELT’


192


193

Peachey


194


195

APPENDIX 5

Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage in Adelaide by Post Code


196


197

Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage,1996 – All Post-codes Adelaide Metro, in order of increasing Index value Lower values indicate greater disadvantage Postal Area Name of Key Suburb Value Population 5010 Ferryden Park 654 4,790 5012 Woodville North 752 8,900 5113 Elizabeth North 768 18,621 5017 Osborne 808 5,291 5084 Blair Athol 811 9,046 5013 Rosewater East 832 9,411 5112 Elizabeth 838 18,581 5164 Christie Downs 838 5,247 5168 Old Noarlunga 865 3,607 5115 Munno Para 869 2,953 5015 Port Adelaide 879 4,387 5085 Enfield 881 10,177 5108 Salisbury 893 35,446 5107 Parafield Gardens 899 14,030 5166 O'sullivan Beach 900 2,023 5165 Christies Beach 901 4,653 5023 Seaton 903 14,694 5008 Croydon 906 12,164 5014 Alberton 907 11,209 5086 Greenacres 910 10,777 5043 Parkholme 915 15,893 5110 Burton 919 4,868 5163 Hackham 920 13,882 5116 Evanston 921 4,603 5174 Sellicks Beach 924 1,239 5007 Hindmarsh 926 5,053 5033 Cowandilla 927 7,101 5114 Smithfield 932 18,374 5173 Aldinga 932 5,805 5031 Thebarton 939 8,863 5009 Kilkenny 941 4,267 5087 Klemzig 942 9,548 5094 Gepps Cross 943 866 5047 Darlington 945 6,524 5088 Holden Hill 945 4,768 5098 Ingle Farm 951 9,095 5019 Semaphore 952 9,311 5095 Pooraka 952 6,975 5120 Virginia 953 1,735 5074 Campbelltown 956 11,267 5039 Edwardstown 962 7,964 5011 Woodville 964 9,446 5170 Maslin Beach 967 957 5038 Plympton 970 12,609 5169 Moana 971 8,672 5096 Para Hills 971 11,646 5016 Largs Bay 973 7,978 5162 Morphett Vale 976 32,334 5167 Port Noarlunga 979 5,083 5121 Macdonald Park 979 1,232 5046 Oaklands Park 982 7,550


198

5042 St Marys 982 9,714 5070 Marden 984 12,786 5037 Netley 987 9,191 5109 Salisbury East 989 22,123 5118 Gawler 995 13,601 5032 Brooklyn Park 998 10,700 5025 Flinders Park 999 7,158 5093 Para Vista 1000 9,145 5073 Rostrevor 1001 12,874 5161 Reynella 1002 10,050 5000 Adelaide (City) (5000) 1009 6,466 5040 Novar Gardens 1012 2,215 5048 Brighton 1019 11,855 5083 Nailsworth 1026 6,293 5035 Keswick 1026 5,604 5090 Hope Valley 1033 5,984 5117 Angle Vale 1034 1,489 5045 Glenelg 1035 13,776 5092 Modbury North 1036 17,020 5022 Henley Beach 1036 13,703 5024 Fulham 1036 12,711 5075 Paradise 1037 9,676 5171 Mclaren Vale 1037 4,300 5082 Prospect 1041 12,691 5097 St Agnes 1043 13,821 5044 Somerton Park 1044 9,201 5125 Golden Grove 1050 11,712 5018 Outer Harbor 1056 5,850 5072 Magill 1056 10,560 5172 Willunga 1058 3,482 5127 Wynn Vale 1062 8,793 5067 Norwood 1063 8,974 5126 Fairview Park 1064 8,093 5091 Tea Tree Gully 1067 7,649 5041 Daw Park 1068 12,770 5049 Seacliff 1072 8,910 5063 Eastwood 1075 11,196 5158 O'Halloran Hill 1079 20,360 5142 Uraidla 1080 440 5021 West Lakes 1081 6,216 5069 St Peters 1083 8,135 5034 Goodwood 1083 9,166 5020 West Lakes Shore 1084 3,138 5153 Stirling Forward 1085 4,920 5138 Basket Range 1085 534 5076 Athelstone 1085 9,019 5155 Bridgewater 1088 3,692 5068 Kensington Park 1089 11,113 5159 Happy Valley 1090 30,174 5089 Highbury 1090 6,047 5151 Piccadilly 1091 565 5157 Blackwood Forward 1102 2,555 5081 Walkerville 1106 8,226 5134 Montacute 1107 598 5144 Carey Gully 1110 298 5141 Summertown 1112 384 5050 Eden Hills 1113 5,353 5006 North Adelaide 1114 7,097


199

5061 Unley 1116 8,974 5062 Kingswood 1122 13,880 5065 Glenside 1124 9,520 5051 Blackwood 1127 11,230 5136 Norton Summit 1128 342 5137 Ashton 1131 451 5064 Glen Osmond 1135 8,994 5156 Upper Sturt 1136 1,160 5152 Stirling 1142 5,779 5066 Burnside 1146 10,029 5052 Belair 1151 6,165 5154 Aldgate 1154 3,258 5140 Greenhill 1158 485


200


201

APPENDIX 6

South Australian Housing Trust

Eligibility - Policy and Guidelines


202


203

Eligibility Policy & GUIDELINES (v7: issued 27-06-2002/status: current)

June 2002


204

POLICY Basic eligibility criteria ........................................................................................ 1 Proof of identity and income upon application .................................................... 2 Application for housing area ............................................................................... 2 Application for housing type ............................................................................... 2 Eligibility Test ..................................................................................................... 2 Further information ............................................................................................. 3 GUIDELINES 1 PURPOSE AND SCOPE 1 2 APPLICATIONS

2.1 Basic eligibility criteria ................................................................... 1 2.2 Non-residents ................................................................................ 3 2.3 Property owners ............................................................................ 3 2.4 Bankruptcy / Outstanding Trust Debt ............................................ 4 2.5 Aged home owners applying for cottage flats................................ 5 2.6 Aboriginal housing......................................................................... 6 2.7 Evictions / Termination of Probationary Leases ............................ 6 2.8 Tenant Transfers ........................................................................... 7 2.9 Proof of identity ............................................................................. 7 2.10 Proof of income ............................................................................. 9 2.11 Subsequent contact by applicants............................................... 10 2.12 Removing a person from a current application ............................ 10

3 ELIGIBILITY TEST

3.1 Eligibility to apply......................................................................... 11 3.2 Requirement to undergo eligibility test ........................................ 11 3.3 Income test.................................................................................. 12 3.4 Asset test..................................................................................... 15 3.5 Housing Needs Assessment (Needs Test).................................. 18 3.6 Eligibility for housing.................................................................... 20


205

4 REGISTRATION ON WAITING LIST

4.1 Structure...................................................................................... 22 4.2 Registration in Category 1........................................................... 22 4.3 Registration in Category 2........................................................... 23 4.4 Registration in Category 3........................................................... 24 4.5 Registration in Category 4........................................................... 25 4.6 Registration List for Low Demand Housing ................................ 25

5 DOCUMENTATION 26

6 REFERENCES 26

Table 1: Homeless / At Risk Needs Table 2: Barriers to accessing private housing Table 3: Auto entry criteria for category Table 4: Tenancy Issues

Schedule 1: Proof of Income


206

It is essential that this policy is read in conjunction with the Eligibility Guidelines which contains further details of the policy statements, definition of any key terms used and instruction on how to apply this policy. Basic eligibility criteria An Application for Housing Assistance may be lodged by an individual irrespective of his/her race or ethnic origin, disability, marital status, religious or political opinion, pregnancy, sex, or sexuality, provided that:

• the applicant is a “resident of South Australia” and;

• the applicant is in receipt of “independent income” and;

• the applicant and any member of his/her household named in the application does not, except in special circumstances, “hold ownership in residential property”.

Note: Please refer to the Eligibility Guidelines for definitions of the key terms and the special circumstances or exemptions.

Individuals with outstanding Trust debts or who are bankrupt and owe money to the Trust are eligible to apply for housing assistance. However, in accordance with the Allocations and Credit Policies, housing will not be offered until the outstanding Trust debts are repaid or the bankruptcy is discharged (applicants who are approved for Category 1 of the Waiting List are exempt from this requirement). Individuals who have a history of, or who have previously been evicted by the Trust for:

• damaging Trust property;

• disruptive or anti-social behaviour or;

• causing a potential risk to the health or safety of surrounding neighbours are eligible to apply for housing. However, in accordance with the Allocations Policy, housing will not be offered without approval from the Regional Manager. In assessing these situations the Regional Manager will have regard to the urgency of the applicant’s housing need.


207

Tenants who have been evicted from Trust premises or had their probationary lease terminated are eligible to re-apply for housing. However, in accordance with the Allocations Policy and/or the Probationary Tenancies Policy, housing will not be offered in the 6 months immediately following an eviction from a Trust premise or termination of a probationary lease unless there are exceptional circumstances as outlined in 2.7 of the Eligibility Guidelines. Proof of identity and income upon application Applicants (and all members of his/her household named in the application who receive their own “independent income”) are required to provide proof of their identity and income when applying for housing. Persons being added to an existing application must also provide proof of their identity and income at the time that they are added to the application. Note:Applications from customers in prison will be accepted and registered without proof of income Application for housing area Applicants who applied for housing prior to 6/3/2000 were able to request housing on either an area or suburb/town basis. From 6/3/2000, applicants may apply for housing on an area basis only. However, applications for housing on a suburb/town basis may be accepted from approved Category 1 or Category 2 applicants where there is a verified and specific need for members of the applicant’s household to be housed in a particular suburb/town or portion of streets within a particular suburb/town. Application for housing type Applicants may apply for the generic housing types listed in the Application for Housing Assistance Form. However, in general, the type and size of housing to be offered to eligible applicants/transfers will be based on the total number of household members (refer to Allocations Policy). Eligibility Test The “principal applicant” must satisfy the basic eligibility criteria in order to lodge an Application for Housing Assistance. Note: ___ Please refer to the Eligibility Guidelines for the definition of “principal applicant”. In addition to meeting the basic eligibility criteria, applications for housing assistance received after 25 February 1998 will be subject to an Eligibility Test. The Eligibility Test comprises the following three components:

• income test (a maximum income limit of 65% of the Average Weekly Earnings for a Male Ordinary Time for South Australia will apply for single households and increases to apply for larger households)


208

• asset test (a maximum asset limit will apply based on the Centrelink Asset Test for non-home owners)

• needs test (an assessment of the applicant’s needs, accommodation history and housing options will be undertaken).

Trust tenants applying for a transfer of housing will only be subject to the Needs Test component of the above Eligibility Test. Depending upon the results of the Eligibility Test and the urgency of housing need, eligible applicants / transfers will be approved for either Category 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the Waiting List. Applicants who do not pass the Eligibility Test but who meet the basic eligibility criteria, may apply for “low demand housing” (refer to the Eligibility Guidelines for further details). Applications for housing assistance received prior to 25 February 1998 will not be subject to the above Eligibility Test. Further information Further information associated with eligibility for housing may be found in the following policies and procedures: Housing Needs, Allocations, Backdating of Applications (Benefits), Domestic Violence and Credit. This policy is endorsed by the undersigned: Signature: ...................................................... Dated: General Manager Signature: ...................................................... Dated: Delegated Responsible Officer


209

It is essential that this policy is read in conjunction with the Eligibility Policy which contains the broad policy statements governing these guidelines.

1 PURPOSE & SCOPE

1.1 The purpose of these guidelines is to clarify who is eligible for Trust housing in South Australia. The guidelines apply to applicants and tenant transfers.

2 APPLICATIONS 2.1 Basic eligibility criteria

2.1.1 An Application for Housing Assistance may be lodged by an individual irrespective of his/her race or ethnic origin, disability, marital status, religious or political opinion, pregnancy, sex, or sexuality, provided that:

• the “principal applicant” is a “resident of South Australia” and;

• the “principal applicant” is in receipt of “independent income” and;

• the “principal applicant” and any member of his/her household named in the application, does not, except in special circumstances, “hold ownership in residential property”.

2.1.2 "Principal applicant" means the person whose name the Application

for Housing Assistance will be in (i.e. the person who will be the tenant).

2.1.3 "Resident of South Australia" means the “principal applicant” must be

living in the State of South Australia at the time of applying. No minimum period of residency must otherwise be satisfied before being eligible to apply for housing.


210

2.1.4 “Independent income" means regular (weekly, fortnightly etc) income from a wage or salary (whether full time, part time or casual) any Centrelink or similar (eg Veterans Affairs) payment, superannuation, investment income or interest.

Note 1: The income must be paid directly to the individual except where a Youth Allowance for an under 18 year old is being paid directly to the parent/guardian.

Note 2: Income earned which is less than the maximum Centrelink payment applicable to the person's age or household circumstances (eg. income which might be derived by a person as pocket money, or in return for duties such as baby-sitting, ironing, Saturday morning work, etc), will not be accepted as “independent income” (even if it is paid directly to the individual on a regular basis). Note 3: Applicants who are receiving Centrelink payments at the “at home” rate will be eligible to apply for housing and accrue waiting time, but will not be offered housing until they have an income which is equal to, or greater than the maximum “independent rate” of their Centrelink payment. However, applicants who can substantiate that their health and/or safety is at serious risk if they continue to live in the parental home, may be offered housing on a short term lease basis, pending the outcome of a Centrelink assessment for payment at the “independent rate”. Note 4: Applications will be accepted from customers in Prison even though they have no source of “independent income”. The customer will be required to confirm income following their release.

2.1.5 “Hold ownership in residential property” means that the “principal

applicant” or any member of his/her household who is named in the application and/or who “normally resides” with the principal applicant, is EITHER:

• recorded on, or holds title of, a residential property (e.g. Torrens Title, Strata Title, Community Title, Moiety Title) OR

• holds a valid form of lease or agreement where a dwelling is sited on a title owned by others (e.g. shacks sited on Crown land, transportable homes or units sited in caravan parks).

Note: other types of property which are used for residential purposes (such as caravans, motor homes etc) will not be considered as residential property.

2.2 Non-residents 2.2.1 Applications from individuals who are not a “resident of South

Australia” will not be accepted or registered EXCEPT where the application:

• is from a member of the Defence Forces or Australian National personnel OR

• satisfies the housing needs criteria for Category 1 OR


211

• is approved by the Regional Manager.

2.2.2 Applications from non-residents that are not accepted will be returned to the applicant with an explanatory letter advising of the residency criteria.

2.3 Property owners 2.3.1 Applications from households where one or more persons “hold

ownership in residential property” (either jointly or individually) will not be accepted, registered or accrue benefit until the property is sold and documentary evidence (including a copy of the settlement statement) is provided to the Trust confirming details of the sale EXCEPT where:

• there has been a marital/relationship breakdown and the applicant has left the jointly owned house and the other partner still occupies and the applicant has an urgent need to be housed (i.e. has Category 1 needs) before property settlement takes place OR

• there are Category 1 needs that require an individual or family to be housed away from their property and the equity in the property is too little to purchase or rent a “reasonable dwelling” in the area in which they need to live. However, the property should be listed for sale before allocation. Note: “Reasonable dwelling” is taken to mean a dwelling which is not substandard, and meets the household's needs in terms of size and location, and is affordable for them). If the applicant is subsequently offered Trust housing before the property is sold, the tenancy will be subject to 6 month probationary lease provisions with any extension or transfer to a Standard Tenancy Agreement being subject to the disposal/sale of their property (refer to Allocations and Probationary Tenancies Policies) OR

• there are medical, social or financial reasons for an individual or family to move temporarily away from their home and wish to eventually move back, e.g. for home dialysis training available only in the city (in such a situation where it is inappropriate for the applicant to sell the property, housing should be on a lease basis with six monthly reviews of eligibility) OR

• one partner in a jointly owned house leaves due to domestic violence and the other partner still occupies and where property settlement will be delayed (Refer to Allocations Policy and Backdating of Applications (Benefits) Policy).


212

2.3.2 Where an applicant is to be offered Trust housing before the property is sold, the applicant will be housed on a probationary lease with the sale of the property listed as a key review criterion for the lease (refer to Probationary Tenancies Policy).

2.4 Bankruptcy or outstanding Trust debt 2.4.1 Individuals who have been declared bankrupt and have a Trust debt

may apply for housing assistance (and will accrue waiting time benefit if eligible), but must be advised that they will not be housed during the period of their bankruptcy. No claim for the repayment of a pre-bankruptcy debt can be made.


213

2.4.2 Individuals with outstanding Trust debt may apply for housing assistance (and will accrue waiting time benefit if eligible) but they will not be housed while any debt remains outstanding. On application, individuals with outstanding Trust debt are to be advised that they will not be offered housing until their debt is paid in full. Individuals are to be encouraged to enter into a suitable repayment arrangement to pay the debt off in instalments if they are unable to pay it off in a lump sum.

2.4.3 Individuals who are approved as Category 1 (i.e. in urgent need of

housing), will be exempt from these provisions and may be housed whilst bankrupt or with an outstanding Trust debt. However, Category 1 applicants with outstanding Trust debt are still expected to enter into, and maintain, an agreed repayment arrangement during their waiting time and when housed until the debt is repaid.

2.5 Aged home owners applying for cottage flats 2.5.1 Aged persons owning their own home who lodged an application

prior to 3 January 1989 will be offered cottage flat accommodation provided their property is listed for sale at the time the Trust accommodation is offered. Occupancy in such cases would be on a 6 month lease basis with any extension or transfer to a standard Tenancy Agreement being subject to review relating to the sale of their property.

2.5.2 Applications from any other aged person owning their own home will

not be accepted until their property is sold (unless they meet Category 1 criteria - see 2.3 above) and they meet all other eligibility requirements set out in this policy and guidelines.


214

2.6 Aboriginal housing 2.6.1 Aboriginal applicants may apply for either General Trust or Aboriginal

Housing with applications being transferable between the two areas without loss of benefit, however, only one application may be classed as current.

2.6.2 Aboriginal applicants accepting an offer of General Trust housing

must be advised that they will not be eligible to apply for, or transfer to, Aboriginal Housing (unless there are exceptional circumstances - refer to the Aboriginal Transfer Policy).

2.7 Eviction / termination of probationary lease 2.7.1 Tenants who have been evicted from Trust premises or have had

their probationary lease terminated may apply for housing assistance but cannot be housed during the six months immediately following an eviction or termination of a probationary lease unless the individual can also substantiate that: • they have been unable to access interim supported

accommodation (eg. shelter) - verifiable documentation required (eg. a letter from relevant support agencies stating why the applicant has not been able to access accommodation)

• they are unable to access private rental accommodation due to factors outside their control (eg. discrimination, disability, etc.). Substantiation may not be required where the individual’s disability is obvious but must be provided verbally or in writing by either relevant support agencies or other reputable third parties in other situations and;


215

• if they are homeless (ie. they cannot obtain safe, secure, accommodation including, but not limited to, shelters or shared accommodation with family or friends etc), their homelessness is not directly the result of the loss of their Trust tenancy through eviction or the termination of their probationary lease (ie. they must be able to demonstrate that they have lived elsewhere after losing their Trust property by providing the Trust with a copy of a lease, letter from a landlord, or similar documentation. If the individual is unable to furnish such documentation, the HA/HSO/SDM may accept verbal advice from a relevant support agency or by the customer, with a suitable notation recorded on Trust information systems).

2.7.2 Housing assistance within six months of an eviction or within six

months of the termination of a probationary lease requires the specific approval of the Regional Manager.

2.8 Tenant transfers

2.8.1 Trust tenants may apply for a transfer where: • they have occupied their present Trust house for a period of three

(3) years or more OR • pass the Needs Test (irrespective of the period that they have

occupied their current Trust housing).

2.9 Proof of identity 2.9.1 All household members named in the application who receive their

own “independent income” are required to provide proof of their identity when applying for housing. Persons being added to an existing application must also provide proof of their identity at the time they are added to the application.

Note 1: Trust tenants applying for a transfer will not be required to provide proof of identity. However, household members who have not previously provided proof of identity to the Trust will be required to provide proof of identity.

Note 2: Customers applying from prison will not be required to provide proof of identity until they are released.

2.9.2 One of the following, is acceptable as proof of identity provided it carries the individual’s photograph and signature: • current Driver’s Licence / Learner’s Permit • current Passport • current Student or Employment ID Card.

2.9.3 Where a person is unable to provide proof of their identity in any of

the above forms, any TWO of the following will be considered acceptable. Where possible, the documents submitted will contain the person’s signature.


216

• Birth Certificate, Birth Extract, Marriage Certificate or Divorce papers

• Australian Citizenship/Immigration papers • apprenticeship papers, tradesperson’s certificate or letter from

employer • school reports or examination certificate • current bank, credit union or building society passbook/access

card, credit card • prison discharge certificate • confirmation letter from an authorised officer from the Department

of Family and Youth Services, a medical/legal practitioner or a Minister of religion

• Centrelink concession/health card • State Government Concession Cards • Life Insurance policies • any other form of identification not listed above but deemed

acceptable by a Trust Officer (provided that the identification contains the customer’s name, address and signature and preferably a photograph of the customer).

Note: Where there is any doubt as to a persons’ identity, the Trust may require additional documentation from the person in support of their claims.


217

2.9.4 A third party who is not a member of the substantive household cannot submit the principal applicant’s identity details.

2.9.5 Photocopied evidence of identity must be retained on the applicant’s

file. Where a credit card is used for ID purposes, photocopy the signature side only, write on the photocopy that the card is valid (ie: within current validity date), state what type of commonly accepted card it is and that it is in the name of the customer. Record your User ID on the photocopy.

2.10 Proof of income 2.10.1 All household members named in the application who receive their

own “independent income” are required to provide proof of their income when applying for housing. Persons being added to an existing application must also provide proof of their income at the time they are added to the application. Refer Schedule 1 Proof of Income for details of the documentary evidence that will be accepted by the Trust as Proof of Income. Note 1: Trust tenants applying for a transfer will not be required to provide proof of income. Note 2: Customers applying from prison will not be required to provide proof of identity until they are released.

2.10.2 Most forms of income are assessable for the purpose of determining

eligibility when applying for housing. Some specific payments and special purpose allowances are excluded (refer to 3.3 below).


218

2.11 Subsequent contact by applicants 2.11.1 Applicants are not required to maintain routine contact and only need

advise the Trust of any changes in their circumstances (eg change in household details, needs or income).

2.11.2 Eligible applicants will remain on the Waiting List until:

• an offer of housing is made (refer to Allocations Policy) OR

• the application is cancelled. 2.11.3 Where there is no response to Trust efforts to contact (eg: offer of

housing, pre offer check, or wait list audit) the application will be deferred. Reinstatement of deferred applications will be in accordance with the Backdating of Applications (Benefit) Policy.

2.11.4 The Trust may conduct audits of the Waiting List from time to time.

Where an applicant does not respond to such an audit, it will be taken to indicate that the applicant no longer requires Trust housing and the application will be deferred. If, after a further 12 months from date of deferral, there has been no contact from the applicant, the application will be cancelled (refer to Backdating of Applications (Benefit) Policy).

2.12 Removing A Person From A Current Application 2.12.1 Any person named on an application can request to be removed from

the principal applicant’s application and lodge an application in their own right.

Note: complete a notation on the Customer Notation System if there are any sensitivities in relation to the principal applicant being informed about the person’s request to be removed from the application (eg: partner may wish to leave applicant, but has not done so yet and may not want the principal applicant to know about their new application).


219

2.12.2 The principal applicant’s application must be reviewed (WLM) including the assessment of category status (eg: Category 2 status may have been granted based on the departing household member’s needs). Notations are entered against the application and a letter is generated to the principal applicant requesting contact with the Trust to update his/her application details.

2.12.3 The new application for the departing household member is then

registered and notations are entered accordingly. 3 ELIGIBILITY TEST

3.1 Basic eligibility 3.1.1 The “principal applicant” must meet the basic eligibility criteria (i.e. be

eligible to apply for housing). Please refer to Section 2 Applications for further details.

3.2 Requirement to undergo Eligibility Test 3.2.1 In addition to meeting the basic eligibility criteria, applications for

housing assistance received after 25 February 1998 will be subject to an Eligibility Test at application comprising three components:

• income test (refer to 3.3)

• asset test (refer to 3.4)

• needs test (refer to 3.5).

3.2.2 Applications for housing assistance received before 25 February 1998 will only be subject to the basic eligibility test.

3.2.3 Individuals who are listed as household members in an application

lodged before 25 February 1998 who remove their names from the application and subsequently lodge their own application will be subject to the basic eligibility test.


220

3.2.4 Trust tenants applying for a transfer will only be subject to the Needs Test component of the Eligibility Test (refer to 3.5).

3.2.5 Applications for Industrial Priorities will not be subject to the Eligibility

Test. The housing of industrial priorities may be approved in non-metropolitan locations where:

• the applicant is clearly identified as 'key personnel' by the industrial, commercial or service organisation making the referral on behalf of the employee

• the required skills, knowledge or expertise is not available locally and the applicant is being recruited from outside of the city or town in which the housing is required; and

• the region is satisfied that private rental accommodation or purchase, either by, or on behalf of the employee, are not viable options.

Note: No industrial priorities will be approved in the greater metropolitan area.

3.3 Income test 3.3.1 Where an application is lodged after 25 February 1998, the gross

income of the “substantive household” (and all members of his/her household named in the application who receive an “independent income”) will be tested against the gross income limits set by the Trust. Note: Refer to 2.1.4 for definition of “independent income”.

3.3.2 “Substantive household” is that part of the household that is

partnered to or dependent on the “principal applicant” (e.g. the principal applicant, partner and two dependent children).

Note 1: children of the “principal applicant” with an “independent income” are not considered to be part of the “substantive household”.

Note 2: in the case of a child of the applicant “independent income” means an income which is equivalent to or more than the maximum “independent” rate of Centrelink payment applicable to the child’s age and circumstances.

3.3.3 For the purpose of the income test ALL INCOME IS ASSESSABLE with the EXCEPTION of special purpose allowances or “one-off” payments:

• Bereavement Allowance

• Bereavement Payments

• Disaster Relief Payment

• Education Entry Payment

• Employment Entry Payment


221

• Fare Allowance

• Farm Family Re-start Scheme

• Maternity Allowance

• Maternity Immunisation Note: Where there exists any doubt about whether a source of income should be considered as assessable, the matter will be referred to the Regional Manager.

3.3.4 The income limits set by the Trust are based upon a percentage of

the Average Weekly Earnings (Male Ordinary Time-Original Series) for South Australia issued by the Australian Bureau of Statistics and vary depending upon the household type. The percentage of AWE set for each household type is as follows:

Single adult households % of AWE Single 65% Single + 1 dependant 85% Single + 2 dependants 95% Single + 3 dependants 105% Single + 4 or more dependants 120%

Couple households % of AWE Couple 85% Couple + 1 dependant 95% Couple + 2 dependants 105% Couple + 3 dependants 120% Couple + 4 or more dependants 135%

3.3.5 The current gross income limits (annual and weekly figures) for each

household type are in a table entitled “Income and Asset Information Sheet” in the Policy directory on R drive.

Note: Income limits are updated quarterly in line with the AWE (Male Ordinary Time-Original Series) for South Australia released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and are rounded up to the next whole dollar.

3.3.6 To pass the income test, the gross income of the “substantive

household” must not exceed the gross income limits set by the Trust. 3.3.7 When testing the income of “multiple households” (e.g. adults sharing

or couples with adult children earning an “independent income”), each unit within the multiple household will be subject to a separate income test.

Example 1: Two single adults sharing. A separate income test will be conducted for each person and the single income limit of 65% of the AWE would apply for each person.


222

Example 2: Couple with an adult child earning an income. An income test will be conducted for the couple and a separate income test will be conducted for the adult child. The income limit for the couple would be 85% of the AWE and the income limit for the adult child would be 65% of the AWE.

3.4 Asset test

3.4.1 Where an application is lodged after 25 February 1998, the “assets” of all members of the applicant(s) household will be tested against the asset limits set by the Trust.

3.4.2 “Asset” means any property or possession owned partly or wholly by

a person. It includes assets held outside Australia and debts owing to the person. Examples of assets include, but are not restricted to:

• cash and money in bank, building society or credit union accounts

• real estate (including residential and commercial property and holiday homes)

• shares, bonds and other investments

• household contents and personal effects

• surrender value of life insurance policies

• motor vehicles, boats, caravans and motor homes.

3.4.3 The “asset value” is how much the asset would be worth if sold on the open market less any debts or encumbrances. Overseas assets are converted into Australian dollars.

Note: People who have claimed or are receiving a pension, allowance or benefit should have details of the net market value of their assessable assets as this forms part of the assessment for a Centrelink benefit or pension.

3.4.4 The asset limits set by the Trust are based upon the Centrelink Asset Test for non-home owners which stipulates the following asset limits: Asset limit * Single person households $228,750

Couple households $285,000 * These limits will be updated by the Trust as Centrelink adjusts its limits.

3.4.5 To pass the asset test, the assets of the “substantive household” must not exceed the asset limits set by the Trust.


223

3.4.6 When testing the assets of multiple households (e.g. adults sharing or couples with adult children earning an income), each unit within the multiple household will be subject to a separate asset test.

Example 1: Two single adults sharing. A separate asset test will be conducted for each person and the single person household asset limit of would apply for each person.

Example 2: Couple with an adult child earning an income. An asset test will be conducted for the couple and a separate asset test will be conducted for the adult child. The couple household asset limit would apply to the couple and the single person household asset limit would apply to the adult child.

3.4.7 Where an applicant has joint assets and their partner is not listed on

the Application for Housing Assistance (i.e. the parties holding the joint assets are not making a joint application), the assets of the applicant will be taken to be half the value of the joint assets unless a formal written agreement regarding the division of assets has been reached between the parties or a court of relevant jurisdiction determines otherwise.

3.4.8 Where an applicant declares assets in excess of 75% of the asset

limit for the household type, a Centrelink Asset Test must be requested. Approval to request a Centrelink Asset Test will rest with the SDM. The Centrelink assessment will be at no cost to the applicant.

Note: Assessments will generally not be requested where the applicant is in receipt of Centrelink income as the applicant will already have been subject to the Centrelink assets test when obtaining that income.

Where an assessment is requested, the applicant will be advised in writing. The letter will inform the applicant that the assessment will be conducted by Centrelink (on the Trust’s behalf) and will require the applicant (and all household members 16 and over who have assets) to complete an authority giving permission for Centrelink to conduct the assessment. The applicant will be required to return the authority and an Asset Assessment Form to the Regional Office who will check the forms and forward them by fax to a central point in Centrelink. The application should be marked as “pending” until a Centrelink assessment is completed. Once the assessment is completed, Centrelink will provide a statement direct to the applicant (not the Trust). The onus will be on the applicant to submit the asset statement to the Trust in order for their application for housing assistance to proceed. If the Trust does not receive the asset statement within 6 weeks of the Trust having submitted the request to Centrelink, the application will be rejected.


224

3.4.9 Where an applicant refuses to provide permission for Centrelink to assess the assets of the applicant and/or other members of the household, the application will be deemed ineligible.

3.4.10 Where the stated value of an applicant’s assets exceeds the eligibility

limits (making the application ineligible), the applicant may request an assessment (through the Trust) if they believe that their initial declaration of assets at application was incorrect.

3.4.11 Where an applicant is ineligible due to their assets exceeding the

eligibility limits and the applicant re-applies for housing, the Trust will initiate a Centrelink assessment (with the applicant’s written authority) where the applicant’s declaration of assets on their most recent application would see them eligible.

3.4.12 Where an applicant declares an interest in commercial property, a

Centrelink assessment must be undertaken (with the applicant’s written authority) to determine eligibility.

3.4.13 Where it is suspected that an applicant has deliberately attempted to

dispose of assets, a Centrelink assessment must be undertaken (with the applicant’s written authority) to determine eligibility.

3.4.14 Where an applicant is dissatisfied with Centrelink’s assessment,

he/she may seek a review of the assessment by an independent Centrelink assessor (who was not involved in the initial assessment). Upon review, where the initial assessment is confirmed, the applicant will have no further appeal rights with Centrelink.

Note: In cases where the applicant remains unhappy with the assessment after a review has occurred, Centrelink will advise the applicant to contact the Trust.

3.5 Housing Needs Assessment (Needs Test) 3.5.1 The purpose of the Needs Test is to ensure that applicants/tenants

who have a specific need for housing/ transfer (including applicants with incomes and assets over the determined limits) are able to access housing. Results from the assessment will be used to determine which category of the waiting list that an eligible applicant/transfer is to be placed (refer to 4.0 Registration on Waiting List).

3.5.2 The Housing Needs Assessment (Needs Test) will comprise of: an

individual needs assessment, an accommodation history assessment and a housing options assessment.


225

3.5.3 Full details on how to conduct a Housing Needs Assessment (Needs Test) are provided in the Housing Needs Policy.

3.5.4 The Housing Needs Assessment may be initiated by external support

agencies by completing the Trust’s Housing Needs Report Form and, where necessary, submitting it with an Application for Housing Assistance.

Note: where the Housing Needs Report is completed by an external support agency, the assessment will be checked and verified by the Trust. Any queries will be raised with the agency and/or applicant as required. The Trust will determine the outcome of the assessment (i.e. which category of the Waiting List that an applicant is assigned to).

3.5.5 Where the Needs Test indicates that Trust housing is likely to require

extensive modification to meet the needs of the applicant, prior to making a determination on the application for housing assistance, the SDM must refer the application to Central Maintenance. Central Maintenance will advise the SDM on the ability of the Trust to provide the likely housing modifications.

3.5.6 Upon completion of the Housing Needs Assessment, one of the

following outcomes will be approved by the Trust depending upon which best describes the applicant’s housing need:

• Category 1 urgent housing need with long term barriers to accessing or maintaining private housing options

• Category 2 not currently in urgent housing need but with long term barriers to accessing or maintaining private housing options

• Category 3 does not have urgent need or long term barriers to other housing options.

3.5.7 In the case of tenant transfers, upon completion of the Housing

Needs Assessment, one of the following outcomes will be approved by the Trust depending upon which best describes the tenant’s housing need:

• Category 1 urgent re-housing need (including Trust initiated transfers)

• Category 2 not currently in urgent need of re-housing but existing housing is unsuitable in the long term

• Category 4


226

does not have an urgent re-housing need.

3.6 Eligibility for housing 3.6.1 Applicants who satisfy the Trust’s basic eligibility criteria will be

eligible for housing if they EITHER:

• pass the Needs Test (irrespective of whether they pass the Income or Assets Tests) OR

• pass the Income and Assets Test but fail the Needs Test. Note: Where a non-substantive household member has a need AND it can be shown that they “normally reside” with the “substantive household”, the need of the non-substantive household member may EITHER: ⇒ qualify the entire household to be eligible for Category 1 or 2

(depending upon the non-substantive household member’s need) where the substantive household would not have passed the Needs Test for Category 1 or 2 OR

⇒ upgrade the entire household to a higher category (depending upon the non-substantive household member’s need) where the substantive household would only have been eligible for a lower category (Refer to Housing Needs Policy for more details).

(

Note: A non substantive household member will be considered to “normally reside” with the substantive household where the non substantive household member:

• has an ongoing history of residency with the substantive household (12 months or more immediately prior to the date that the application was lodged)

• is related to a member of the substantive household • was directed or requested to reside with a member of the

substantive household (eg: bail conditions, carer relationships etc) • can show they are currently registered by Centrelink at the same

address as a member of the substantive household OR • in any other circumstances where the SDM/RM approves.

3.6.2 Applicants who have income and/or assets in excess of the limits and

who do not pass the Needs Test will not be eligible for housing but may apply for “low demand housing” provided that they meet the Trust’s basic eligibility criteria.

Note : “Low demand housing” is any dwelling that cannot be allocated to applicants / transfers in any of the four Waiting List categories.


227

3.6.3 Ineligible applicants will be advised of the reasons for their ineligibility and may be offered the opportunity to be placed on the Registration List for Low Demand Housing provided that they meet the Trust’s basic eligibility criteria.

3.6.4 Trust tenants will be eligible for a transfer if they EITHER:

• have been in their current Trust housing for 3 years or more OR • pass the Needs Test (irrespective of the period that they have

occupied their current Trust housing). Note: Allocation of housing will be subject to the tenant satisfying the provisions for transfer as set out in the Transfer Policy.

3.6.5 Trust tenants who do not pass the Needs Test or the 3 year occupancy criterion are generally ineligible for a transfer unless specified otherwise in the Transfer Policy.


228

4 REGISTRATION ON WAITING LIST 4.1 Structure

4.1.1 The waiting list for housing has been structured into four categories which are based upon the urgency of the applicant’s housing need. A Registration List for Low Demand Housing is also maintained.

4.2 Registration in Category 1 4.2.1 Category 1 is for those applicants who are in urgent need of housing

OR Trust tenants who need to transfer due to urgent reasons or redevelopment. Applicants / transfers are ordered according to the date they were approved as Category 1.

4.2.2 An application will be approved for Category 1 of the Waiting List

where:

• the “principal applicant” satisfies the Trust’s basic eligibility criteria AND

• the “substantive household” meets at least one of the Homeless or At Risk needs criteria (refer Table 1) AND at least one access barrier to private housing (refer Table 2) AND

• the accommodation history and/or housing options assessments indicate that one or more members of the household have a housing need for which private housing is unsuitable in the long term.

Note: Applications that satisfy the above requirements will be eligible for housing irrespective of whether the “substantive household” meets the criteria of the Income and Asset Tests.

4.2.3 A tenant transfer will be approved for Category 1 of the Waiting List where: • the tenant meets at least one of the Homeless or At Risk needs

criteria (refer Table 1) AND

• the accommodation history and/or housing options assessments indicate that one or more members of the tenant’s household have a housing need for which the current housing is unsuitable in the long term.

Note: A detailed assessment of a Trust tenant’s accommodation/ tenancy history or housing options is not required where it is verified that:

⇒ the tenant is homeless due to a natural disaster (e.g fire, flood) ⇒ the Trust has initiated the transfer (e.g. redevelopment).


229

4.3 Registration in Category 2

4.3.1 Category 2 is for those applicants for whom the private rental market or other housing options are not suitable or accessible as a long term option and who are not in urgent need OR Trust tenants who need to transfer because their current housing is unsuitable due to medical or other reasons. Applicants / transfers are ordered according to the date they were approved as Category 2.


where: • the “principal applicant” satisfies the Trust’s basic eligibility

criteria AND • the “substantive household” meets at least one access barrier to

private housing (refer Table 2) AND • the accommodation history and/or housing options assessments

indicate that one or more members of the household have a housing need for which private housing is unsuitable in the long term

• OR meets at least one auto entry criteria for Category 2 (refer to Table 3).

Note 1: Applications that satisfy the above requirements will be eligible for housing irrespective of whether the “substantive household” meets the criteria of the Income and Asset Tests. Note 2: Applicants who meet criteria for auto entry to Category 2 are not required to undergo a Housing Needs Assessment.

4.3.3 A tenant transfer will be approved for Category 2 of the Waiting List where:

• the tenant meets at least one tenancy issue (refer Table 4) AND

• the accommodation history and/or housing options assessments indicate that one or more members of the tenant’s household have a housing need for which the current housing is unsuitable in the long term.

4.4 Registration in Category 3 4.4.1 Category 3 is for those applicants who meet the Income and Assets

Tests but do not pass the Needs Test for entry into Category 1 or 2. Applicants are ordered according to the date of their application or benefit date.


where:


230

• the “principal applicant” satisfies the Trust’s basic eligibility criteria AND

• the “substantive household” passes the Income and Assets Tests BUT does not pass the Needs Test for entry into Category 1 or 2.

4.4.3 If accompanied by a letter from the Prison, an application from a

prisoner who satisfies basic eligibility criteria will be accepted, registered (without proof of income or identity) and approved for Category 3 of the Waiting List. Subject to a Housing Needs Assessment following release, the customer may be approved for a higher category. Note: A tenant who terminates their tenancy due to imprisonment and reapplies within four weeks of their release and is assessed as eligible, will be approved for Category 2 (see 4.5.1 Backdating of Applications (Benefits Policy).

4.5 Registration in Category 4 4.5.1 Category 4 is for Trust tenants who wish to transfer to another Trust

house because of personal preference reasons and who have been tenants for a minimum of 3 years. Applicants are ordered according to the date of their application or benefit date.

4.5.2 A tenant transfer will be approved for Category 4 of the Waiting List

where the tenant:

• has occupied their present Trust house for a period of three (3) years or more AND

• did not pass the Needs Test for Category 1 or 2.

4.6 Registration List for Low Demand Housing 4.6.1 The Registration List for Low Demand Housing is for those applicants

who meet the basic eligibility criteria but fail the Income and/or Assets Tests and do not pass the Needs Tests for Category 1 or 2 and who still wish to be considered for housing in low demand. Applicants are ordered according to the date of their application or benefit date.

Note : “Low demand housing” is any dwelling that cannot be allocated to applicants / transfers in any of the four Waiting List categories.

4.6.2 Applicants will be placed on the Registration List for Low Demand

Housing if:

• the “principal applicant” satisfies the Trust’s basic eligibility criteria BUT


231

• the “principal applicant” and/or any person in the “substantive household” fails the Income and/or Assets Tests AND does not pass the Needs Test for entry into Category 1 or 2 AND

• the applicant wishes to be considered for housing in low demand.

5 DOCUMENTATION

5.1 Application for Housing Assistance Form.

5.2 Housing Needs Report Form.

6 REFERENCES 6.1 Aboriginal Transfer Policy

6.2 Allocations Policy

6.3 Backdating of Applications (Benefits) Policy

6.4 Credit Policy

6.5 Domestic Violence Policy

6.6 Housing Needs Policy

6.7 Transfer Policy


232

TABLE 1 HOMELESS / AT RISK NEEDS

(Applications and Tenant Transfers) CRITERIA EXAMPLES / SOURCES OF

VERIFICATION

• Homeless or inadequately housed

(A person is considered to be “homeless” if the only housing which they have access to:

• damages or is likely to damage their health OR

• threatens their safety OR • marginalises them through

failing to provide access to: ⇒ adequate personal

amenities or ⇒ the economic and social

supports that a home normally affords OR

• has no security of tenure (that is, the person has no legal right to continued occupation of the housing).

Notice to Quit RTT documentation HIA letter or report Shelter or other support agency documentation

• Natural disaster (e.g. fire, flood) Trust Maintenance Co-ordinator Trust Insurance Office SA Police Fire or Emergency Services

• Living in transitional or crisis accommodation

Shelter or other support agency documentation

• Life threatening situation at home

SA Police or other agency

• Persistent harassment (Harassment which damages or is likely to damage a person’s health or threaten their safety).

SA Police or mediation service


233

TABLE 1: HOMELESS / AT RISK NEEDS (continued) (Applications and Tenant Transfers)

CRITERIA EXAMPLES / SOURCES OF VERIFICATION

• Domestic / family violence (Violence occurring between immediate and extended family members or close relatives, defactos, spouses and can be physical, psychological, emotional, sexual, social or economic abuse).

Any reputable third party (as per Domestic Violence Policy)

• Victim of major crime “Victim of major crime” is a term used by the Police to describe very serious crimes such as murder, rape, armed robberies and other incidents which require a dedicated police response. On occasions incidents are declared as “major crimes” and investigated by specialist groups of police. In determining whether a person is a victim of a major crime, verification would be required from the police.

SA Police, Federal Police or other State/Territory Police

Victim support services Trauma counselling services

• Trust initiated transfer (existing Trust tenants only)

Trust Reports re: property condition, redevelopment or disruptive tenancies


234

TABLE 2 BARRIERS TO ACCESSING PRIVATE HOUSING

(Applications Only) BARRIERS EXAMPLES / SOURCES OF

VERIFICATION

• Long term health issues (Long term health issues that would impact upon the applicant’s ability to negotiate or maintain other housing options e.g. chronic fatigue, terminal illnesses)

Medical/health practitioner

• Long term disability issues (Long term disabilities that would impact upon the applicant’s ability to negotiate or maintain other housing options)

Medical/ health practitioner Trauma counselling services Options Co-ordination Domiciliary Care Disability Support Services

• Discrimination in private rental Private rental assistance casenotes Agency contact

• Person is exiting institutional care

Correctional Services Rehabilitation Services Strathmont Centre/Glenside Hospital Julia Farr Centre FAYS Community based organisations (e.g. Minda Inc)

• Lack of financial skills/resources (e.g chronic financial hardship that would impact upon the applicant’s ability to negotiate or maintain other housing options - factors such as the disposable income, level of debt and how the debt has been incurred will be considered)

Financial counsellor PRAP RTT SAAP agency Community agency


235

TABLE 2: BARRIERS TO ACCESSING PRIVATE HOUSING (continued)

(Applications Only)

BARRIERS EXAMPLES / SOURCES OF VERIFICATION

• Cultural or social issues (e.g. characteristics which would constitute a high level of discrimination by property owners/agents in the PRM)

Migrant Resource Centre Cultural Support Agency FAYS SAAP agency Independent Living Community agency

• Lack of social skills PRAP Relevant agency


236

TABLE 3 AUTO ENTRY CRITERIA FOR CATEGORY 2

(Applications Only)

CRITERIA EXAMPLES / SOURCES OF VERIFICATION

• Recipient of Disability Support Pension*

Centrelink

• Recipient of Total and Permanently Incapacitated Pension

Veterans Affairs

• Refugee in Australia for less than 2 years

Department of Immigration Visa (Codes 200, 201, 202 & 204 only) Australian Refugee Association or other refugee support body

• Person exiting Direct Lease who successfully completes their tenancy

Trust records

Note 1: Applicants who were in receipt of a Disability Support Pension immediately prior to being transferred to the Age Pension will remain eligible for automatic entry to Category 2 (verification required – eg: letter from Centrelink). Note 2: In cases where the customer has been approved as being eligible for a Disability Support Pension by Centrelink, but is not receiving the payment (eg: because of a Workcover payment), the application will be eligible for automatic entry to Category 2 (verification of approval for DSP required).


237

TABLE 4 TENANCY ISSUES

(Tenant Transfers Only)

TENANCY ISSUE EXAMPLES / SOURCES OF VERIFICATION

• Unresolvable neighbour dispute (e.g. prolonged neighbourhood disputes which cannot be resolved through agency or Trust intervention)

SA Police Mediation Services Neighbours

• Health reasons (Current housing type/size/location is no longer suitable due to serious long term health issues that require stability of housing to assist in the management of the medical condition e.g. chronic fatigue, terminal illnesses)

Medical/ health practitioner

• Disability reasons (Current housing type/size/location is no longer suitable or appropriate due to long term disability which would require the house to be modified or additional space for equipment)

Medical/ health practitioner Options Co-ordination Domiciliary Care Disability Support Services

• Essential to be closer to family/social supports

Medical/ health practitioner FAYS documentation Independent Living report Community agency report

• Under-occupancy Trust assessment approved by SDM/RM

• Overcrowding Trust assessment approved by SDM/RM


238

When determining or reviewing eligibility for reduced rent, the Trust will accept the following as satisfactory documentary evidence of proof of income:

• in the case of persons who are employed: ⇒ current pay slip showing gross wages (including any regular overtime and year to date

earnings) and any workers compensation income maintenance payments where relevant

⇒ current letter/statement from present employer showing current or average gross weekly income including overtime

⇒ an SAHT Employers Declaration form

• in the case of persons in receipt of pensions/benefits: ⇒ Income Statement for the Housing Trust (or Proof of Income Letter in the case of

Proof of Income Scheduled Reviews) from Centrelink, Department of Veterans Affairs or other Government department confirming current pension/benefit payments, including allowances (eg Family Assistance, etc) and all other income

⇒ a letter from the Department administering Austudy payments verifying the current benefit payable

• in the case of persons who are self-employed:

⇒ the most recent taxation return showing the customer's net business income (ie gross less expenses) divided by 52 to determine an average weekly income (Note: the customer is to be advised to delete their Tax File Number from any documents submitted); OR

⇒ if the business has yet to lodge a taxation return (i.e. it is a new business), a statutory declaration estimating the customer’s net business income (ie gross less expenses) divided by 52 to determine an average weekly income; OR Note: The customer will be required to submit a taxation return when available confirming their actual net business income for the period. The Trust will re-assess the customer’s eligibility for reduced rent and any overclaimed or overpaid benefits will be raised as a debt.

⇒ a letter from a Certified Practicing Accountant or registered tax consultant advising of the tenant's personal gross weekly or annual income. Note: The customer will indemnify the Trust from the cost associated with obtaining a letter from a Certified Practicing Accountant or registered tax consultant.

continued over page


239

• in the case of persons in receipt of interest: ⇒ passbook/statement/letter from bank, building society, credit union or other financial

institution showing the amount and period covered by any interest payment or the balance of the account and interest rate payable

• in the case of persons receiving income from parents: ⇒ Statutory Declaration from applicant's parents, where income is provided by the

parents, stating the weekly/monthly amount of financial and/or the value of any other support provided

• in the case of persons receiving workers compensation income maintenance payments direct from WorkCover:

⇒ statement/letter from WorkCover confirming the current income maintenance payments

Note 1: The Trust is not bound to accept the proof of income stipulated and may require applicants/tenants to provide other evidence or documentation to substantiate their claimed income in order to determine a fair rent. Note 2: "Current" means up to but not more than two weeks old. Note 3: Photocopies of documents (other than passbooks where the original must be sighted and photocopied) are acceptable provided that both sides of all forms are lodged. Note 4: The documents (or photocopies of them) must be retained on the customer's file.


240


241

APPENDIX 7 Department of Education and Children’s

Services (DECS) Index of Disadvantage-

Components and Funding


242


243

Components of the DECS Index of Disadvantage o Parental income o Parental education and occupation o Aboriginality o Student mobility Weighted averages of ABS data for collections districts from which a given schools draws it students are used to calculate the Index. Funding for Disadvantaged Students Excerpt from the DECS 2003 Global Budget

Major Components

Component of Funding 2002 Amount per Student(shaded parts are per School card holder)

2003 Amount per Student(shaded parts are per School card holder)

School Card Holders R-7 $163 $169School Card Holders 8-12+ $119 $123Disadvantaged students R-7 $136 $141Disadvantaged students 8-12+ $96 $99Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 1 R to 2 $543 $564Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 1 3 to 7 $489 $508Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 1 8 to 10 $380 $394Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 1 11 to 12+ $342 $355Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 2 R to 2 $353 $366Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 2 3 to 7 $318 $330Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 2 8 to 10 $248 $257Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 2 11 to 12+ $223 $231Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 3 R to 2 $194 $201Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 3 3 to 7 $175 $181Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 3 8 to 10 $136 $141Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 3 11 to 12+ $122 $126Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 4 R to 2 $87 $90Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 4 3 to 7 $78 $81Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 4 8 to 10 $61 $63Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 4 11 to 12+ $54 $56Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 5 R to 2 $26 $27Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 5 3 to 7 $23 $24Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 5 8 to 10 $17 $18Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 5 11 to 12+ $16 $17

Low socio-economic

background

Index of Educational Disadvantage Cat 6 to 7 $0 $0School Card R-7 $110 $110School Card School Card 8-12+ $170 $170

Disadvantaged Students Payment – R-7 $51 $51Disadvantaged Students Payment – 8-12+ $45 $45

Source: Department of Education and Children’s Services Explanatory Notes


244

• Funding under the Major Component ‘Low socio-economic background’ is targeted at curriculum needs of students from low socio-economic backgrounds. The other Major Components that appear in this excerpt are aimed at supporting all other student needs.

• The Major Components ‘Disadvantaged Students Payment – R-7’ and ‘Disadvantaged

Students Payment – 8-12+’ are intended to pay for the gap between school card payments and recommended school fees.

• Only schools in Index of Educational Disadvantage categories 1-5 receive funding and

amounts differ depending on year levels.


245

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Altmann, C. The Australian (newspaper), Mon 23 Apr 2001. The state of poverty for 1 in 4.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2039. Information Paper: Census of Population and Housing - Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas, W. McLennan, Australian Statistician, Australian Bureau Of Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia 1998.

Australian Bureau of Statistics, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) 1996 Information Paper, ABS Catalogue Number 2039.0.

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Income and Welfare, Special Article - Income Support Payments in Australia (Year Book Australia, 2000).

Australian Bureau of Statistics (1996). Income and Welfare, Special Article - Poverty and Deprivation in Australia (Year Book Australia, 1996).

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends 1997 Housing- Housing Assistance: Government Assistance for Housing, 1997.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends 1999: Heath- Health Status: Mental Health .

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends 2001, Australian Statistician, ABS Catalogue number 4102.0, 2001.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Australian Social Trends 2002: Housing - State summary tables. Found at http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Caring in the Community (Cat. No 4436.0), Australian Bureau of Statistics, Commonwealth of Australia 1998.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Disability, Ageing and Carers, Summary of Findings (4430.0), 1998.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Disability, Ageing and Carers, Summary Tables (4430.4.40.001), South Australia, 1998.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Income and Welfare, Special Article -Caring in Australia, 1998.

Australian Bureau of Statistics. Poverty and deprivation in Australia. In: Year book Australia 1996. Canberra, ACT: Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1996.

Backen, J. and Forgione, D. Program Evaluation- "How to be enterprising in the new world of work" piloted for the Salisbury North Urban Improvement Project on 28th-31st March 2000. Confidential Report

Bastian, A. (ed.). Student Transience - moving frequently between schools in South Australia, Department of Education Training and Employment. 1998.

Biblarz, Timothy J., Bengston, Vern L. and Bucur, Alexander. Social mobility across three generations. Journal of Marriage & the Family v 58 (1) Feb 1996


246

Brotherhood of St Laurence, Information Fact Sheet: Income Support and Poverty, July 2002. Found at www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/income_support_and_poverty.pdf

Carers' Association of Australia.. Warning - caring is a health hazard. Results of the 1999 National Survey of Carer Health and Wellbeing. Carers' Association of Australia, September 2000.

Carer's Association of South Australia Inc. Children as Carers- An overview of Literature and Projects on Children as Carers. Carer's Association of SA Inc. 2001.

Carer's Association of South Australia Inc. Show You Care. The newsletter of the Carer's Association of SA Inc., January 2002.

Carson, E. and Martin, S. Social Disadvantage in South Australia. A joint project of the Social Policy Research Group, University of SA and the South Australian Council of Social Service. Inc. April 2001

Centrelink website, found at http://www.centrelink.gov.au

Comber, B., Badger, L., Barnett, J., Nixon, H. and Pitt, J. Literacy after the early years: a longitudinal study. Australian Journal of Language and Literacy, June 2002 v25 i2, p9(16).

Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. International Comparisons and the International Experience with Welfare Reform. © Commonwealth of Australia, 2002 found at http://www.facs.gov.au

Commonwealth Ombudsman, Media Release, Ombudsman reports on social security penalties, 4 October 2002.

Commonwealth Ombudsman. Social Security Breach Penalties - Issues of Administration. Report under section 15 of the Ombudsman Act 1976 of an investigation into the administration of social security breach penalties

Corak, Miles and Heisz, Andrew . The intergenerational earnings and income mobility of Canadian men: evidence from longitudinal income tax data. Journal of Human Resources, Summer 1999 v34 i3 p504(3).

Cox, Ian, (Retired) Assoc. Professor, Reviewer. Community Management of Learning Centres: A Review of the South Australian Model of Local Governance and Management for Schools and Preschools. Prepared for Hon Trish White MP, Minister for Education and Children’s Services, August 2002.

Crabb, A. The Advertiser (newspaper), 15 Jan 2000. Young jobless well below poverty line.

Daniel, A and Cornwall, J. A lost generation? Australian Youth Foundation. East Sydney, NSW, 1993.

Department of Education, Training and Employment. Student Non-Attendance in SA Government Schools Term 2 2000. Statistics and Demography Unit, Strategic Planning and Information.

Department of Education Training and Employment. New Index of Educational Disadvantage, Partnerships 21. brochure.


247

Department of Human Services, Information on Generational Health Review. Found at www.dhs.sa.gov.au/generational-health-review/

Dickens, J. The Advertiser (newspaper), Fri 6 Jul 2001. More families living below the poverty line that anywhere else: Ferryden Park named our poorest suburb.

Douez, S. The Age (newspaper), November 28 2002 Boys the target of $4m education plan.

Drug and Alcohol Services Council, Illicit Drug Use in South Australia 2002, A Statistical Overview, 2nd edition, South Australia, May 2002.

Fincher, R. and Nieuwenhuysen, J.P. Australian Poverty: then and now, Melbourne University Press,1998.

Fitzpatrick, C. Director, Lutheran Community Care, Blair Athol. The Advertiser (newspaper), Thu 3 Jul 2000. Poverty Cycle.

Förster, Michael F. Measurement of Low Incomes and Poverty In A Perspective of International Comparisons. Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development, Labour Market And Social Policy Occasional Papers No. 14, Paris 1994.

Glover, J. and Tennant, S. A Social Health Atlas of Australia Second edition, Volume 5: South Australia. Public Health Information Development Unit, University of Adelaide, Dec 1999.

Gordon, The British Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey. Economic & Social Research Institute. Proceedings of a Joint Seminar hosted by The Statistics and Research Branch, Department for Social Development and Social Security Research Group, Belfast 2000

Greenwell, H., Lloyd, R. and Harding, A. An Introduction to Poverty Measurement Issues. National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), University of Canberra. Discussion Paper NO. 55, December 2001.

Guo, Gaung. The timing of the influences of cumulative poverty on children's cognitive ability and achievement. Social Forces, Sept 1998 v77 n1 p257(31).

Hannon, K. The Advertiser (newspaper), Thu 11 Jan 2001. Widening Health gap between rich and poor.

Hannon, K. The Advertiser (newspaper), Thu 27 Jul 2000. One-parent family poverty halved.

Harding, A., Lloyd, R., Hellwig, O. and Bailey, G. Building the Profile - Report of the Population Research Phase of the Australian Capital Territory Poverty Project. A report commissioned by the ACT Poverty Task Group, 13 December 2000.

Harding A., Lloyd, R. and Greenwell, H. Financial disadvantage in Australia 1990 to 2000: The Persistence of poverty in a decade of growth. The Smith Family and National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), 2001.

Hobcraft, J. and Kiernan, K. Childhood Poverty, Early Motherhood and Adult Social Exclusion. British Journal of Sociology, 52(3): 495-517, 2001.

Horrell, S., Humphries, J. and Voth, H-J. Intergenerational Poverty in Nineteenth-Century England. Explorations in Economic History, July 2001 v38 i3 p339(27).


248

Howard, S. and Johnson, B. Young Adolescents Displaying Resilient and Non-Resilient Behaviour: Insights from a Qualitative Study- Can Schools Make a Difference. University of South Australia. Found at www.aare.edu.au/00pap

Inner City Administrators Group Poverty Project. Revealing the Hidden City: responding to poverty in central Adelaide. Adelaide, South Australia, November 1999.

James, C. The Advertiser (newspaper), Sat 2 Feb 2002 Social Policy Challenge: Poverty a Growth Sector.

Johnson, D.T. The measurement and Extent of Poverty amongst Immigrants. Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne and the Bureau of Immigration Research, Canberra, Australia, 1991.

Johnson, P and King, A. Inter-generational Effects of Long Term Unemployment: A Scoping Study. National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM), University of Canberra. Research Report prepared for the Department of Education, Training and Youth Affairs, February 2000.

Kelleher, J. and Jean, C. (compilers) (1998), A Literature Review: Transgenerational Income Support Dependence. A Project Conducted by AIFS on Behalf of the Department of Family and Community Services, Australian Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne.

Kelly, G., McLaughlin, E., Tomlinson, M. and Yeates, N. Measuring Social Exclusion and Poverty. Proceedings of a Joint Seminar hosted by the Statistics and Research Branch, Department for Social Development and Social Security Research Group School of Sociology and Social Policy, Queen’s University, Belfast. The Department for Social Development, September 2000. Ed. N Yeates and E McLaughlin.

Kelly, G., McLaughlin, E., Tomlinson, M. and Yeates, N. Measuring Social Exclusion and Poverty The Department for Social Development, September 2000, Castle Buildings Belfast.

Kelton, G. The Advertiser (newspaper), Fri 27 Oct 2000 . Brown laments the gap in wealth.

Latham, M. The Australian (newspaper), Fri 5 Apr 2002 Inequality is a poor target in the war against economic disadvantage.

Lawrence, J. Electricity- It’s Just Essential. Low Income Electricity Consumers Project Final Report. South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) and Council on the Ageing (SA), August 2002.

Linke, P. What Works? A Literature Review of the Evidence for the Effectiveness of Parenting Strategies. Prepared for Child and Youth Health, June 2001.

Lloyd, R., Harding, A. and Greenwell, H. Worlds Apart: Postcodes with Highest and Lowest Poverty Rates in Todays' Australia. Presented to the National Social Policy Conference, Sydney 2001. National Centre for Special and Economic Modelling, University of Canberra.

McClure, Patrick (Chairperson). Participation support for a more equitable society - Welfare Reform Final Report. Commonwealth of Australia, 2001.


249

Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, University of Melbourne.

Poverty Lines: Australia. December Quarter 2001.

Merriman, J. Sunday Mail (newspaper), Sun 9 Jan 2002. We lead fight on poverty.

Michael, P. Sunday Mail (newspaper), Sun 5 Aug 2001. Families high in poverty stakes.

Michael, P. Sunday Mail (newspaper), Sun 5 Nov 2000. 25,000 join poverty blacklist: Centrelink cuts swamp our charities.

Misko, J., Schueler, J., Saunders, J. and Brown, J. The impact of regulated fees on TAFE training participation in South Australia, Volume 1: Report. NCVER. August 2002.

National Institute of Economic and Industry Research trading as National Economics. Economic profile: The Cities of Playford and Salisbury in South Australia. A report for the Cities of Playford and Salisbury, June 1999.

Neville A State of the Family 2002, Anglicare Australia, Melbourne.

Neville A. State of the Family 2001, Anglicare Australia, Melbourne.

Neville A. State of the Family 2000, Anglicare Australia, Melbourne.

Nicolas, J. Being unemployed: a consultation with unemployed adults in Adelaide. Health Promotion Unit, Public and Environmental Health Service, South Australian Health Commission, 1995.

Nolan, B. and Whelan, C.T. Social Class, Social Exclusion and Cumulative Disadvantage: Evidence from the Republic of Ireland. Economic & Social Research Institute. Proceedings of a Joint Seminar hosted by The Statistics and Research Branch, Department for Social Development and Social Security Research Group, Belfast 2000

O'Brien, S. The Advertiser (newspaper), Mon 21 Jan 2002. Anti-poverty strategies top priority.

O'Brien, S. The Advertiser (newspaper), Mon 23 Apr 2001. Poverty in SA Soars to worst in nation.

O'Brien, S. The Advertiser (newspaper), Newspaper article- Mon 23 Apr 2001. Family of five's uphill struggle.

Orr, E. and Taylor, F. Australia's Poverty Challenge: breaking the poverty cycle by addressing the poverty line profile, The Smith Family, 1996.

Pech, J. and McCoull, F. Intergenerational poverty and welfare dependence: is there an Australian problem? Strategic Projects Section, Commonwealth Department of Family and Community Services. Paper presented at the 6th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference, Melbourne, November, 1998.

Pech, J. and McCoull, F. Transgenerational Welfare Dependence: Myth or Reality? Social Policy for the 21st Century: Justice and Responsibility. V 2, SPRC Reports and Proceedings No 142, Social Policy Research Centre, UNSW, Sydney


250

Rank, M.R. and Hirschl. The likelihood of poverty across the American adult life span.

Social Work, May 1999 v44 i3 p201(1)

Real Estate Institute of Australia, Market Facts- A Quarterly Review of Major Residential Properties in Australia, December Quarters 1997- 2001.

Residential Tenancies Branch of the Office of Business and Consumer Affairs, Rental Bond Dataset.

Richardson, S. and Travers, P. Fuel Poverty: A Concept with Power in South Australia? NLS National Institute of Labour Studies, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia. October 2002.

SAAP NDC Annual Report 2001-02, Homeless People in SAAP, South Australia, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra, 2002

Shobe, A. The future in anti-poverty strategies. Journal of Children and Poverty, March 1, 2002 v8 i1 p35(15).

Social Development Committee, Rural Poverty in South Australia, Eighth Report of the Social Development Committee, Parliament of South Australia, November 1995.

South Australian Council of Social Service (SACOSS) and Shelter SA. Housing creates (w)health and wellbeing. South Australia, 2001.

South Australian Housing Trust, Data Analysis Team, Operational Policy and Planning Branch, Regional Rental Stock Report, June 2002.

South Australian Housing Trust, Trust in Focus 2000-2001, September 2001.

Spoehr, J. The Advertiser (newspaper), Sat 19 Jan 2002. Poverty line leaves agencies in circles.

Spoehr, J. Executive Director, Centre for Labour Research. The State of Working South Australia. Commissioned by the Public Service Association of SA, Adelaide University, May 2001.

Sunday Mail (newspaper), Sun 19 Aug 2001. Salary gap widens.

Szukalska, A. and Harding, A. Social Policy Matters: The changing face of poverty in Australia, 1982 to 1997-98. Paper presented at the 7th Australian Institute of Family Studies Conference 26 July 2000, National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling, University of Canberra.

Taylor, J. and MacDonald, H. Children of immigrants: issues of poverty and disadvantage. Brotherhood of St Laurence and the Bureau of Immigration Research, Canberra, Australia, 1992.

Tesoriero, F. and Chung, D. Parenting Network Evaluation Final Report, November 2000, University of South Australia.

The Advertiser (newspaper), Editorial, Thu 12 Apr 2001. Below Poverty Line.


251

The Advertiser (newspaper), Letters to editor, Wed 11 Jul 2001. More poor because of

policies.

The Advertiser (newspaper), Sat 3 Feb 2001. Working poor go without food, heat.

The Advertiser (newspaper), Wed 15 May 2002. 2002 Federal Budget South Australia- The Unemployed- Not enough for the poor.

The Advertiser (newspaper), Wed 26 Jul 2000. Poverty in Children on the Rise.

The Advertiser (newspaper), Wed 26 Sept 2001.The rich get richer.

The Advertiser (newspaper) Friday Jan 17 2003, p1 & 4 Jobs Jobs Jobs Unemployment rate falls to 25-year low

The Advertiser (newspaper). Wed 01 Jan 2003, Power Shock. p9.

The Australian (newspaper), Fri 18 Oct 2002. Bank-funded charity schemes to help poor save. p7

Thomson, P. Schooling the Rustbelt Kids- Making the difference in changing times. Allen and Unwin, Australia, 2002.

Wheatly, K. The Advertiser (newspaper), Mon 18 Dec 2000. Fifth of state's families live in poverty.

Williams, N. The Advertiser (newspaper), Sat 23 Sept 2000. Tide of Change Strands poor families.

Young, J. Becoming Different: Accessing University from a low socio-economic community- Barriers and Motivators. Unpublished dissertation, Tabled 17/2/03.


252

poverty inquiry - sa parliament

Documents