Poverty

<html><body>
EXPERT INSIGHT

Many Australians whose jobs were decimated by the COVID business shutdowns will soon be waking up to new income shocks and the prospect of rental stress. This is because people whose employers can’t afford to keep them on will suddenly lose more than A$300 per week when the <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/general/jobkeeper-payment/">JobKeeper</a> scheme <a href="https://www.ato.gov.au/General/JobKeeper-Payment/JobKeeper-key-dates/">ends on March 28</a>. Worryingly, this income shock will happen just days before the payment to people on the <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/jobseeker-payment">JobSeeker</a> benefit is effectively <a href="https://www.ideas.org.au/blogs/jobkeeper-jobseeker-what-has-changed#:%7E:text=The%20JobSeeker%20Payment%20replaced%20the,This%20was%20announced%20in%20November.">cut by $100 per fortnight</a>.

At that point, all income support recipients – more than 2.6 million people – will be below the poverty line and many will face extreme rental stress.

This income shock has been anticipated for some time, but what does it means for rates of rental stress, particularly in Victoria? Despite <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/victoria-s-economic-recovery-to-outstrip-all-other-states-as-nation-bounces-back-20210115-p56ufo">promising signs of recovery</a>, Victorian jobs lost in the COVID-induced recession, such as in the hard-hit <a href="https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/business-tourism-on-its-knees-as-covid-19-casts-long-shadow-over-events-20210203-p56z2j">business tourism</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2021/feb/22/more-job-losses-ahead-for-australian-live-music-industry-operators-warn">live music industries</a>, have not bounced back at the same rate as others.

What will happen to rental affordability?

To illustrate this point we have modelled housing affordability for single people who were on either the full-time or part-time JobKeeper rate. In this scenario, they could also get JobSeeker payments at a part-rate because of the temporary increase in the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/topics/income-test-jobseeker-payment/29411">income-free threshold to $300</a>. This made them eligible for <a href="https://www.dss.gov.au/housing-support/programmes-services/commonwealth-rent-assistance">Commonwealth Rent Assistance</a> too.

The chart below shows the impacts on income and rental affordability when JobKeeper and <a href="https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink/coronavirus-supplement">Coronavirus Supplement</a> payments end. Their incomes and the amount of rent they can afford are roughly halved.

<img alt="" height="278" src="https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/jobkeeper_poverty.jpg" width="754">

Full-time and part-time single workers were able to afford weekly rent of $265 and $245 respectively before the withdrawal of JobKeeper. Afterwards, affordable rent goes down to $115 per week. That’s about $110 less than the <a href="https://www.dhhs.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/documents/202011/DHHS%20Rental%20Report%20September%20quarter%202020.docx">$450 median rent</a> ($225 per person) for a two-bedroom share house in Melbourne.

Based on <a href="https://theconversation.com/city-share-house-rents-eat-up-most-of-newstart-leaving-less-than-100-a-week-to-live-on-123772">our earlier calculations</a>, this leaves these renters with only $17.57 per day to meet basic costs. They have a lavish $3.57 per day more than they did before the pandemic to pay for food, utilities and job-seeking costs such as mobile phone plans and travel cards (A$4.40 a day in Melbourne).

What is different now than for pre-COVID unemployment was that business shutdowns thrust people who had reliable earnings – and accompanying high rents and mortgages in metropolitan areas – onto JobSeeker and JobKeeper payments.

The chart below shows the change in rental affordability for a number of household types before the pandemic and during the Coronavirus Supplement stages (i.e. payments of $550, then $250, then $150).

<img alt="" height="391" src="https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/www.urban.com.au/s3fs-public/pictures/article-images/jobkeeper_poverty_2.jpg" width="754">

For example, when their income was highest during the $550 stage, two singles sharing could afford rent of $430 per week. Once the supplement ends and is replaced by the <a href="https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/it-breaks-my-heart-jobseekers-hit-back-at-25-a-week-dole-increase-20210225-p575p9">$25-a-week increase in JobSeeker</a> payment, affordable rent declines to only $230 per week or $115 each.

Rental affordability for single-parent households is notable here because the COVID Supplement was payable to one person only. Once the supplement is withdrawn, they will again be disadvantaged relative to other households because they will not be receiving the increase in the JobSeeker payment.

What sort of job losses can we expect?

It is hard to predict exactly how many people will lose their jobs when JobKeeper ends. What we do know is the economic recovery in Victoria has lagged behind the other states. We also know that at the end of December 2020 <a href="https://theconversation.com/victorians-struggle-to-exit-jobkeeper-as-the-schemes-end-looms-155288">1.55 million people</a> were on JobKeeper and a large proportion of them (626,000) were in Victoria.

Economist Jeff Borland <a href="https://drive.google.com/file/d/1kE4f5qxNQwdh5Xp_6l2Cu-HrjiZvfkrB/view">conservatively estimates</a> national job losses could range between 125,000 and 250,000. It is reasonable to expect as many as half of these could be in Victoria.

Our analysis also shows there are worrying signs that the economic recovery celebrated in the January labour force data was not sustained in February. The latest data provided to a <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/COVID-19/COVID19">Senate inquiry</a> into COVID-19 show JobSeeker recipients increased by 7,267 between <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=60c91b42-dde2-415f-9f9b-7d5fd3935cb6">January</a> and <a href="https://www.aph.gov.au/DocumentStore.ashx?id=9c1805cb-fe51-419b-8a7b-61315c64c302">February</a>. The increase in Victoria could be attributed to the temporary Christmas retail boom, but in states like New South Wales and Queensland claims decreased slightly.

While <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-17/jobkeeper-end-will-hit-these-postcodes-hardest/13242400?nw=0">fewer people</a> will lose their jobs in other states than in Victoria when JobKeeper is withdrawn, they are not immune to this income shock. We created the chart below to show the overall scale of the coming problem of rental stress when the fortnightly $150 Coronavirus Supplement disappears and is replaced by the $50 JobSeeker increase.         

Once the supplement reduced to $250 per fortnight, singles and single parents with two children were below the poverty line.  When it was reduced to $150, the number of household types in poverty increased again. From April 1, all income support recipients – covering more than 2.6 million people including children – will be waking up to poverty and the prospect of extreme rental stress.

What can be done to avoid this?

So how can governments prevent people from falling off the rental cliff? It is unlikely to be achieved by introducing <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-03-10/tourism-coronavirus-pandemic-assistance-package-cheap-flights/13235432">cut-price flights</a> to Far North Queensland.

A new range of strategies will be needed. These include options <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Strengthening-Income-Support-Bill-2021.pdf">advocated by ACOSS and others</a> to increase the maximum rate of Commonwealth Rent Assistance by 50%, increase the JobSeeker base rate above the poverty line and introduce rental stress grants targeted at individuals who need help.

Over the longer term, there is also a need to adopt strategic approaches to increase the supply of affordable rental housing such as those <a href="https://www.ahuri.edu.au/housing/policy-analysis/increasing-affordable-rental-supply">recommended by researchers</a> at the Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI).<img alt="The Conversation" height="1" jamjgoj="" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/157244/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" tblrv1n7b="" width="1">

<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/simone-casey-130516">Simone Casey</a>, Research Associate, Future Social Service Institute, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/rmit-university-1063">RMIT University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/liss-ralston-295934">Liss Ralston</a>, Adjunct associate, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/swinburne-university-of-technology-767">Swinburne University of Technology</a>

This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/at-least-2-6-million-people-face-poverty-when-covid-payments-end-and-rental-stress-soars-157244">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Many Australians whose jobs were decimated by the COVID business shutdowns will soon be waking up to new income shocks and the prospect of rental stress

At least 2.6 million people face poverty when COVID payments end and rental stress soars

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
 
As COVID-19 slows in developed countries, the virus’s spread is speeding up in the <a href="https://www.urban.com.au/property-observer">developing world</a>. Three-quarters of new cases detected each day are now in <a href="https://www.economist.com/leaders/2020/06/04/the-pandemic-is-still-gathering-pace-in-most-of-the-world">developing countries</a>. And as the pandemic spreads, governments face juggling the health consequences with economic ones as this shifts to becoming an economic crisis.
Our <a href="https://doi.org/10.35188/UNU-WIDER/2020/834-4">research</a> shows that the poverty impact of the crisis will soon be felt in three key ways. There is likely to be more poverty. It is likely to become more severe. And as a consequence, the location of global poverty will also change.
Having looked at estimates from a range of sources – including the Asian Development Bank, Goldman Sachs, IMF and OECD – we considered <a href="https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Working-paper/PDF/wp2020-77.pdf#page=4">three possible economic scenarios</a> stemming from COVID-19, where global income and consumption contracted by 5%, 10% or 20%. We found that the economic shock of the worst-case scenario could result in up to 1.12 billion people worldwide living in extreme poverty – up from 727 million in 2018.
This confirms our earlier estimates that the coronavirus could push up to 400 million people into extreme poverty, defined by the World Bank as living on less than US$1.90 per day – the average poverty line in low-income developing countries. This number rises to over 500 million if using the World Bank’s higher average poverty lines for lower middle-income (US$3.20) and upper middle-income (US$5.50) developing countries.
The potential increase is driven by millions of people living just above the poverty line. These people are likely to be badly affected because many of them work in the informal sector, where there is often little in the way of social security. Such a rise in extreme poverty would mark the first absolute increase in the global count since 1999 – and the first since 1990 in terms of the proportion of the global population living in poverty.
On the intensity of the poverty, the resources needed to lift the incomes of the poor to above the poverty line could increase by 60%, from US$446m a day in the absence of the crisis to above US$700m a day. For the existing extreme poor and those newly living in extreme poverty, their loss in income could amount to US$500m per day.
In terms of where poverty is located, it is likely to increase dramatically in middle-income developing countries in Asia, such as India, Pakistan, Indonesia and the Philippines. This points to the fact that much of the previously poor population in these countries moved to just above the poverty line. In other words, these countries’ recent economic progress has been relatively fragile. We’ll also likely see new poverty in countries where it has remained relatively high over the last three decades, such as Tanzania, Nigeria, Ethiopia and the DRC.
How to respond to the poverty pandemic
COVID-19 poses a significant threat to developing countries, as their health systems tend to be weaker. More severe cases have also been linked to <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/22/2058/5851436">high blood pressure</a>, <a href="https://theconversation.com/coronavirus-and-diabetes-the-different-risks-for-people-with-type-1-and-type-2-139079">diabetes</a> and <a href="https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200427-how-air-pollution-exacerbates-covid-19">air pollution</a>, all of which are prevalent in developing countries. Meanwhile, there are suggestions that COVID-19 could hinder the treatment of other illnesses <a href="https://www.imperial.ac.uk/news/197257/covid-19-pandemic-could-significantly-increase-hiv/">such as TB, HIV/AIDS and chronic malaria</a>.
But developing countries generally have a lower proportion of people at high risk from COVID-19 in terms of age (&gt;70 years). As such, <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/31eb2686-a982-11ea-a766-7c300513fe47">economic shocks</a> may pose a greater relative risk to their populations. The question emerges as to whether <a href="https://www.wider.unu.edu/publication/africa%E2%80%99s-lockdown-dilemma">lockdowns</a> are the best option to contain the virus in developing countries if they entail severe income losses. Estimates of the share of jobs that can be <a href="https://www.nber.org/papers/w26948">performed at home</a> is less than 25% for many developing countries – much lower than the ~40% recorded in, for example, the USA and Finland. It’s as low as ~5% in countries such as Madagascar and Mozambique.
Consequently, <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/voices/coronavirus-poverty-economic-crisis-imf-world-bank-g7-a9561161">there’s also a clear need</a> for a range of social safety-net policies. These already exist in many developing countries, but their coverage and funding needs to be expanded substantially. <a href="https://www.ugogentilini.net/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/SP-COVID-responses_June-12.pdf">Such policies</a> include cash transfer programmes, universal one-off cash payments, in-kind food/vouchers, school feeding schemes and public works programmes. In middle-income developing countries, these are funded by the national government, whereas in low-income countries these are often co-funded by donors. Any set of policies should also incorporate “pay to stay home” or “pay to get tested” schemes.
The long crisis
Looking further ahead, the poverty impacts beyond 2020 are closely related to if or when an effective vaccine is developed. Even if we take the best-case scenario and a vaccine is discovered later this year, it’s uncertain how long it would take to reach the entire global population. It could take years.
There is no guarantee developing countries would get access to the vaccine at a reasonable cost, or if everyone in developing countries would get the vaccine for free. We could end up living in a new COVID-19 apartheid, with the vaccinated and non-vaccinated residing in separate areas and working in different labour markets. This is a startling but <a href="https://www.independent.co.uk/independentpremium/long-reads/coronavirus-vaccine-latest-cure-covid-19-oxford-university-trump-who-america-a9493966">very real possibility</a> that no one is talking about much yet.
While this might sound far off, there are already some countries – <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-chile/chile-to-push-ahead-with-coronavirus-release-certificates-despite-who-warning-idUSKCN2280NW">such as Chile</a> – issuing “immunity passports”. Such passports might determine what work people can do by determining where they can go. This could leave the poorest without access to earning opportunities or only with lower-income opportunities if their movement is restricted.
The crisis is increasingly looking like a long crisis. If so, it will have repercussions on global poverty for years to come.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/140662/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/andy-sumner-1124293">Andy Sumner</a>, Professor of International Development, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/kings-college-london-1196">King's College London</a>; <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/christopher-hoy-1124330">Christopher Hoy</a>, Research and Policy Fellow, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877">Australian National University</a>, and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/eduardo-ortiz-juarez-1124325">Eduardo Ortiz-Juarez</a>, PhD Student, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/kings-college-london-1196">King's College London</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/global-poverty-coronavirus-could-drive-it-up-for-the-first-time-since-the-1990s-140662">original article</a>.
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

Coronavirus could drive up global poverty for the first time since the 1990s

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVER
Despite a long history of research into poverty, no consensus yet exists on what constitutes being “poor” or “disadvantaged”. Measures of household wealth don’t go far enough in identifying those most at risk of being excluded from society. Nor do such measures explain the level of exclusion they face.
Significant numbers of people are at risk, however. Our research suggests that more than one in two people with a disability or long-term health condition and nearly half of people aged 65 and above experienced social exclusion in 2012.
A better way to measure poverty?
Monitoring changes in the prevalence and characteristics of poverty is crucial to keeping track of whether a society is really successful in tackling this problem. Traditional measurements have too narrowly focused on incomes and whether households can afford a minimum acceptable standard of living.
Broader concepts have emerged more recently. These recognise that socioeconomic disadvantage is much more complex. One more useful method is the concept of “social exclusion”.
The measure, which first emerged in Europe, encompasses not only income and other economic resources, but also dimensions of disadvantage – such as health and education – that determine individuals' ability to participate fully in society.
The <a href="https://www.bsl.org.au/research-and-publications/social-exclusion-monitor/" target="_blank">Social Exclusion Monitor</a>, developed by the Brotherhood of St Laurence and the University of Melbourne, has proven useful in Australia to measure the extent and evolution of a wider notion of poverty and disadvantage.
In contrast with income-based poverty measures, the monitor measures the accumulation of deprivation across seven life domains: material resources, employment, education and skills, health and disability, social connection, community and personal safety.
Considering a total of 29 indicators across these domains, it uses data from the national Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (<a href="https://www.melbourneinstitute.com/hilda/" target="_blank">HILDA</a>) survey. Since 2001, this survey has annually collected detailed socioeconomic data for a nationally representative sample of the population. This allows the monitor to study social exclusion since the beginning of the 21st century.
The latest issue of the Social Exclusion Monitor bulletin provides revealing insights into the nature and characteristics of disadvantage.
For 2012, the most recent wave of HILDA data, around 25% of Australians aged 15 years or above experienced some level of social exclusion: 20% were marginally excluded, 5% deeply excluded and almost 1% very deeply excluded.
This means that about 825,000 Australians experienced deep exclusion and more than 150,000 people were very deeply excluded.
 
<a href="/images/2015/07/23/image-20150721-24261-1kp0r3v.jpeg" target="_blank">Click to enlarge</a>
<img src="/images/2015/07/23/image-20150721-24261-1kp0r3v.jpeg" alt=""> 
Social exclusion worse for some
The monitor also provides valuable insights into trends over time. Overall, the impact of the 2008 global financial crisis was more limited in Australia than in many countries, but it marked a turning point in terms of social exclusion.
From 2001, the prevalence of exclusion steadily declined to reach a low point for the period in 2008. The decline in unemployment and the rate of jobless households, measured by the monitor’s employment domain as well as the fall in the proportion of people with a low level of education, contributed to the reduction in the number of excluded.
However, following the global financial crisis, the prevalence of marginal exclusion started to grow. It has remained above pre-crisis levels since then.
The Social Exclusion Monitor bulletin shows the risk of social exclusion is not the same for everybody. The demographic groups most likely to experience exclusion are people aged 65 and above – almost half experienced it in 2012 – and people with long-term health conditions or a disability – more than half experienced it.
The risk of exclusion also varies with the level of education. The prevalence of social exclusion among those with less than Year 12 is more than 2.5 times higher than among those with more education.
The type of households individuals live in also influences the risk of exclusion. Single parents and people living alone experience exclusion at higher rates than other families. Public housing tenants have higher rates of exclusion than those in other forms of housing.
There is also a gender gap. Women are more excluded than men in all age groups, overall by more than five percentage points. The difference is larger among people aged over 55.
The most prevalent indicators of exclusion are low education, long-term health conditions or disabilities and low wealth – each is experienced by at least 20% of people. These are the key to understanding social exclusion in Australia.
The sources of exclusion do vary over the life cycle, however. Education and employment are the main drivers of exclusion for those under 25, accounting for more than half of the exclusion of this age group. In contrast, economic resources, health and community engagement make the largest contribution to the exclusion of people aged 65 and above.
Unsurprisingly, some socioeconomic groups are more likely to experience persistent social exclusion than others. Analysis of the longitudinal information in the HILDA survey shows that older Australians, people living in highly disadvantaged areas as measured by the Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas, long-term unemployed and households with members who are jobless or have a disability are more likely to experience persistent exclusion.
The reason is twofold. People in these groups are both less likely to move out of poverty and, if they have managed to improve their circumstances, more likely to fall back into it.
This data reveals few surprises. The findings tell a familiar and consistent story about who is and isn’t excluded in Australia. However, the analysis of the sources of exclusion at different points in the life cycle and the findings in relation to persistent exclusion are especially important for developing polices to reduce social exclusion.
These findings underline the need to focus our policies and services on the places and groups where social exclusion is concentrated. We need to redouble our efforts to keep young people in education while also assisting them, and the long-term jobless, to find and retain employment.
We must ensure that older people with chronic health conditions and those with a disability are able to participate in the community while also addressing their health needs.
And if we were really smart we would invest in early intervention among these groups to prevent persistent social exclusion.
 
Francisco Azipitarte is Ronald Henderson research fellow, University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/francisco-azipitarte-92300" target="_blank">here</a>.
Shelley Mallett is professorial fellow at the University of Melbourne and can be contacted <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/shelley-mallett-129018" target="_blank">here</a>.
Both are authors published in The Conversation.
</body></html>

po-LsXgBTHBmX

Who’s on the outer? Uncovering poverty’s many faces

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The poorer you are, the harder it is to participate in and contribute to society. My experience as a practising urban designer and my research in the area have led me to conclude that the way people’s surroundings are designed reflects and amplifies this profound injustice.
Busy and fast roads, for instance, encourage driving while at the same time deterring walking and other forms of street life, isolating people from their neighbours.
Physical activity, interacting with others, setting and meeting challenges, and experiencing nature are all essential to our well-being. But humans aren’t good at prioritising our needs. We often make decisions that deny us these and other essential experiences.
This is particularly the case in poorer communities where shared and public spaces – the settings for many of these essential activities – tend to be poorly maintained, mundane and utilitarian.
Indifference without invitation
In such generic or inappropriately designed places, indifference or avoidance becomes more likely. Faced with the lukewarm appeal of these places, and sometimes active deterrence, people are more likely to be seduced by “easier”, but not needs-fulfilling, ways to spend their time. They may choose to drive rather than walk, or play on screens rather than in the open with others.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234381/original/file-20180831-195307-zh6xqv.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Places like this offer little invitation to walk, play or exercise. Jenny Donovan, Author provided
If these people are to escape the call of the TV and computer, the “heavy lifting” will need to come from personal motivation to fill the gap left by the paucity of invitation from their surroundings.
In such places, if someone does choose to walk, cycle or play or participate in any of the activities that support health and well-being, they are doing so because they are determined to, rather than because their surroundings offer the pulling power to motivate them.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234382/original/file-20180831-195325-hw994i.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Making the same street friendlier makes meeting needs easier and, for some people, possible. Jenny Donovan, Author provided
Many people do somehow overcome even the most difficult circumstances and thrive. But many others find this prohibitively difficult or are unaware of the need to make different choices. Their surroundings lead them to inadequate physical activity, isolate them from others, limit potential to find like-minded people around which community can coalesce, offer little enjoyment of nature and few opportunities to set and meet self-determined challenges.
We can see the effects of these issues through increased rates of obesity, loneliness and many diseases that diminish people’s quality of life.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/234376/original/file-20180831-195328-11vjsbb.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
A conducive environment helps people meet their needs, thrive and fulfil their potential. Jenny Donovan, Author provided
Repeated over a neighbourhood or a city and concentrated in poorer areas, this can create arbitrary barriers that make winners and losers of their inhabitants. Extended over many years, these effects create huge social and health costs and can lock people into disadvantage.
These places deny people the inspiration of the crowd. If you rarely see someone else play on the street, run or cycle, you are less likely to consider it among the choices open to you.
Beyond the suburb
Disadvantaged communities lack the ability to influence the design process, make positive change happen themselves or protect what they value. Research has found people in communities with low socioeconomic status get left out of the decision-making process. When they do receive attention it is not as wholehearted or appropriately applied as it would be for wealthier communities.
We wear our surroundings like a cloak. Poor physical and social conditions often reflect poorly on their inhabitants, contributing to lower expectations of those people. This soft prejudice even means they are less likely to be considered for jobs that don’t match perceptions of what people from that postcode are like.
People with less buying power end up in less supportive environments, priced out of more nurturing places. Poorer people are getting pushed out of former working-class inner-city neighbourhoods that attract people and investment. This leaves less attractive places as the realm of concentrated poverty.
So, what can we do about it?
The obvious answer is to invest in design and the design process. But this is only part of the solution.
We need to reassess what good urban design is. Good design will need to be inexpensive to avoid lumbering communities with debt and ensure it can be spread widely. It needs to be tailored to provide the right invitations to those who most need it. It gives greater weight to designing for the social landscape of the community, and less to the aesthetic values of the designer and client.
Good design enables those who are being designed-for to participate in the design and creation of their surroundings wherever possible. This allows them the experience of developing and realising change, taking responsibility and exercising self-determination.
This takes time. The emotional capital this process demands of the designer and the community are immensely powerful but volatile resources. The designs that arise may not immediately be recognised by many designers as good design.
But if our present approach leaves people isolated and uninspired to do the things they need to do to thrive, we must reassess what good design really is and see it not as a luxury but as a right.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/98561/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Jenny Donovan, Urban Designer and Sessional Lecturer, La Trobe University
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-urban-environment-doesnt-only-reflect-poverty-it-amplifies-it-98561" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Our urban environment doesn’t only reflect poverty, it amplifies it: Jenny Donovan

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
The poorer people are, the <a href="https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/44289/9789241563970_eng.pdf?sequence=1" target="_blank">higher their chances</a> of contending with domestic violence, crime, social conflict, homelessness and unemployment.
All these factors contribute to increased levels of psychological distress, which is associated with common mental disorders such as depression and anxiety.
In <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0004867415615948" target="_blank">our research</a>, of adults who recorded “very high” levels of psychological distress on what’s called the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, more than three times as many (30%) came from the most socioeconomically disadvantaged fifth of Australian areas than from the most affluent fifth (9%).
Along with where you live, personal income is an important influence: among the poorest fifth of Australians, one in four people reported “high” or “very high” psychological distress when compared to about <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00536/full" target="_blank">one in 20 people in the richest fifth</a>.
To begin to tackle this problem, we need to see more equitable distribution of mental health care; that is, delivery of care proportionate to need. As it currently stands, socioeconomically disadvantaged groups very often <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-rates-of-mental-illness-arent-going-down-despite-higher-spending-97534" target="_blank">do not get optimal mental health care</a>.
<hr>
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/282184/original/file-20190702-28321-1bgx6ot.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
<a class="source" href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-rates-of-mental-illness-arent-going-down-despite-higher-spending-97534" target="_blank">This chart first appeared in an article published on The Conversation in 2018.</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
<hr>
The <a href="https://rcvmhs.vic.gov.au" target="_blank">Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System</a> has begun its public hearings this week in Melbourne. Hopefully, it will provoke improved collaboration between state and Commonwealth services, enabling better access to mental health services for those who need it most.
Socioeconomic disadvantage affects mental health from birth
Unintended pregnancy, being younger, experiencing intimate partner violence and having insufficient emotional and practical support <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3302553/pdf/BLT.11.091850.pdf" target="_blank">can lead to mental disorders</a>, including depression, among pregnant women and new mothers.
Babies of depressed mothers are <a href="https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3150769/pdf/BLT.11.088187.pdf" target="_blank">often underweight</a>, a <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/2722846" target="_blank">risk factor for later depression</a>.
One study showed the mental health of four-year-old children is affected by factors including <a href="https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0187974" target="_blank">family income, maternal education and neighbourhood disadvantage</a>. The researchers followed children in this study until the age of 14 to 15 and found the effects persisted.
Children from low socioeconomic backgrounds are also more likely to do poorly in school, and <a href="https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/psychological-medicine/article/relationship-between-exclusion-from-school-and-mental-health-a-secondary-analysis-of-the-british-child-and-adolescent-mental-health-surveys-2004-and-2007/C01898F768A7C47FB9A1F2F894B22A85">are more likely to be suspended or expelled</a>.
Financial difficulties have been highlighted as <a href="https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/74395807.pdf" target="_blank">an important determinant of mental health for university students</a>, too.
Adults with interpersonal, employment or financial stresses experience <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101146" target="_blank">higher levels of psychological distress</a>.
Job loss is associated with mental health problems, and this association becomes more pronounced <a href="https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/full/10.1146/annurev-publhealth-031210-101146" target="_blank">with long-term unemployment</a>.
Those on welfare support have a <a href="https://jech.bmj.com/content/71/12/1198.long" target="_blank">higher risk of mental disorders</a>.
Poor people can’t access the best treatment
People in countries with <a href="https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level" target="_blank">greater socioeconomic inequality</a> are more likely to have poor mental health than people in more equal societies. Australia is a high-income country, but there remains <a href="https://www.acoss.org.au/inequality/" target="_blank">a significant gap</a> between the richest in our society and the poorest.
Many health, educational, transport, housing, welfare and fiscal policy shifts could improve mental health in communities by addressing socioeconomic disadvantage and its impacts across the lifespan.
But while this issue persists, we need to look at what people from disadvantaged groups with mental illness are getting by way of treatment.
Most commonly, people with depression and other mental disorders will be prescribed medications, and/or receive “talking therapies” which might include sessions with a psychologist or other mental health professionals.
Importantly, evidence suggests antidepressants alone are <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/wps.20089" target="_blank">less likely to be effective</a> than a combination of antidepressants and cognitive behavioural therapy. So where antidepressant medication is recommended, <a href="https://www.thelancet.com/commissions/global-mental-health" target="_blank">psychological therapies should be available too</a>.
But as we know, many Australians with common mental disorders such as depression live in areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. Here, despite the greater need, <a href="https://theconversation.com/three-charts-on-why-rates-of-mental-illness-arent-going-down-despite-higher-spending-97534" target="_blank">fewer psychological treatment services are delivered</a>. Location of therapists and out-of-pocket costs can both act as barriers to accessing these services.
Ultimately, while poor people generally need mental health services more, rich people tend to access them at a much higher rate. So poorer people often receive only antidepressants, and alone, these may have only a modest effect, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0004867419857821?url_ver=Z39.88-2003&amp;rfr_id=ori:rid:crossref.org&amp;rfr_dat=cr_pub%3dpubmed" target="_blank">placing them on the back foot in terms of their recovery</a>.
Much of this care provision rests with Commonwealth Medicare-funded services. State services, meanwhile, struggle to respond to needs left unmet.
The Commonwealth and the states must work together
Although spending on mental health has increased in recent years, so too has the system’s complexity and fragmentation. Delivering equitable mental health care for Australians is complicated by the federal structure and divisions of responsibilities.
For private provider services, there is a need for incentive structures that secure the delivery of free or lower-cost services for the people and in the places where there is greatest need.
The Victorian royal commission into mental health is asking about <a href="https://rcvmhs.vic.gov.au/submissions" target="_blank">drivers of poor community mental health</a>, and flagging the importance of community and economic participation in improving mental health.
Within state mental health policy, funding models should ensure that while all communities get a decent level of mental health care, there is more service availability in areas and communities we know have higher rates of mental health problems.
We’d also be well-served by adopting newer strategies to facilitate access. For example, some people in difficult circumstances may nevertheless have broadband internet sufficient for video links. Getting psychological therapies into people’s homes through this route may be one way around other access problems.
The Victorian royal commission should propose making state funding distribution fairer, but cannot fix these problems alone.
In a recent positive step, the Commonwealth and state governments have <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-fifth-national-mental-health-plan" target="_blank">signed up</a> to a <a href="https://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/publishing.nsf/Content/mental-health-intergrated-reg-planning" target="_blank">set of tasks aiming to move towards</a> better integrated mental health care planning.
The challenge for governments now is to cooperate with and support mental health service providers to ensure these services are better connected with each other, and importantly, more fairly and consistently delivered in relation to need.

Graham Meadows, Professor of Adult Psychiatry, Monash University
Anthony Cichello, Clinical Psychologist, Melbourne, and Adjunct Research Fellow, Monash University 
Anton Neville Isaacs, Senior Lecturer, Monash School of Rural Health, Monash University
Frances Shawyer, Research Fellow, Monash University
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/when-its-easier-to-get-meds-than-therapy-how-poverty-makes-it-hard-to-escape-mental-illness-114505" target="_blank">original article</a>.
Submissions for the Royal Commission into Victoria’s Mental Health System <a href="https://rcvmhs.vic.gov.au/submissions" target="_blank">are open</a> until July 5.
If this article has raised issues for you or you’re concerned about someone you know, call Lifeline on 13 11 14.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/114505/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1">
</body></html>

How poverty makes it hard to escape mental illnes

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Young Australians aged 18 to 26 are 1.8 times more likely to receive welfare if their parents ever received welfare. 
Australians like to think we live in a country of the fair go, where anyone with the talent and willingness to work hard can succeed.
But the evidence shows success is still partly inherited. Children with poor parents are more likely to grow up and be poor as adults.
The latest biennial report of the <a href="https://www.aihw.gov.au/reports/australias-welfare/australias-welfare-2019-data-insights/contents/summary" target="_blank">Australian Institute of Health and Welfare</a> highlights the ways in which social and economic position is transmitted between generations.
Research points to several key factors in inherited disadvantage — notably parental disability, family structure and unemployment.
Gender patterns
Understanding the nature and extent of inherited disadvantaged in Australia has been aided by five significant research studies in the past five years. Four of them use data from the comprehensive Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) Survey. The fifth used tax records to estimate the intergenerational mobility of people born between 1978 and 1982.
Among the results to come from these studies are estimates of the degree to which a 10% increase in fathers’ earnings affect their sons’ earnings. The studies offer a range of 1% to 3.5% – with a higher percentage meaning less social mobility.
One study highlights some interesting gender variations. It found a 10% increase in a father’s earnings associated with a 2% increase in sons’ earnings, but only a 0.8% increase in daughters’ earnings. A 10% increase in mothers’ earnings was linked to a 1.6% increase in sons’ earnings and a 1.5% increase in daughters’ earnings. This suggests girls’ earning trajectories are slightly less determined by their parents’ experience.
Other findings, however, point to certain types of disadvantage being most inherited by women. For example, those raised by a single parent receiving parenting payments are 2.2 times more likely to become a single-parent payment recipient themselves – and women make up <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/apr/19/its-soul-destroying-the-stress-and-stigma-of-being-a-single-parent-on-welfare" target="_blank">more than 80%</a> of single-parent payment recipients.
Patterns of transmission
The single-parenthood pattern was among those identified in research <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.iza.org/publications/dp/11070" target="_blank">published in 2017</a> by myself, Sarah Dahmann, Nicolas Salamanc and Anna Zhu. The importance of family structure is underlined by the fact young adults are more likely to receive a range of welfare payments if they grow up in single-parent families.
The following graph shows the results of our research.
Overall, we found young Australians aged 18-26 were 1.8 times more likely to receive welfare if their parents ever received welfare. That is, 58% of young people whose parents ever received welfare were also on welfare, compared with 31.8% of those whose parent were not.
Young people whose parents received unemployment payments while they were growing up were 1.6 times more likely to receive unemployment payments before age 22, and 1.3 times after age 22.
Intergenerational disability
But the strongest relationship in intergenerational disadvantage involves parental disability.
Our results showed young people whose parents received disability support payments were 2.8 times more likely to receive disability support payments.
Young people whose parents received the Disability Support Pension for mental health reasons were almost three times as likely to be receiving the mental health-related disability benefits as other young people. They were also more likely to need other social assistance payments
The intergenerational relationship between youth unemployment and parental disability, for example, and was just as strong as that with parental unemployment.
These findings do not imply that poor children would have been better off had their parents not received social assistance — only that poor children are more likely to need assistance than non-poor children.
Stretching the rungs
Social mobility is higher in Australia than many other developed countries (most notably the United States). But it remains lower than the Scandinavian countries, and is threatened by any increase in inequality.
A growing gap between richest and poorest grows pulls the the rungs of the socioeconomic ladder further apart, making it harder for disadvantaged Australian children to avoid becoming disadvantaged adults.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/123086/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
Deborah Ann Cobb-Clark, Professor of Economics, University of Sydney. 
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/disability-and-single-parenthood-still-loom-large-in-inherited-poverty-123086" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Disability and single parenthood still loom large in inherited poverty: Deborah Cobb-Clark

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
New research on disadvantage in Australia has found the gap between rich and poor is very wide in Sydney, while much of Queensland struggles with educational disadvantage and regional NSW and Victoria are both more disadvantaged when it comes to health.
Previous research on poverty has placed a heavy emphasis on income and economic outcomes at a given point in time. But disadvantage often goes beyond just economic factors. It’s also necessary to analyse the educational, health and social inequities in society to get a more accurate understanding of disadvantage.
At the core of our new research, published in our <a href="https://mappingthepotential.cssa.org.au/index.php/about/" target="_blank">Mapping the Potential report</a>, is the idea that disadvantage in Australia is more varied and complex than many people may think.
How we conducted our research
This research, conducted by the ANU Centre for Social Research and Methods and commissioned by Catholic Social Services Australia, expands on the socioeconomic indexes produced by the Australian Bureau of Statistics by adding more detailed variables across health, education, social and economic domains.
We also incorporated a “persistence” element to disadvantage – in that, disadvantage isn’t tied to a singular point in time, but persists for a longer period.
In our research, disadvantage was data-driven. And to quantify disadvantage, we chose variables that were generally considered relevant for each area. For economic disadvantage, for instance, we looked at low incomes, low-skilled jobs and unemployment. Areas with a large share of people with these characteristics tended to be more disadvantaged.
Health disadvantage was based on various chronic health conditions, such as diabetes, heart and circulatory conditions, and obesity.
Educational disadvantage focused on levels of educational attainment and child educational disadvantage - both cognitive and physical development. We used data from the <a href="https://www.education.gov.au/australian-early-development-census#:%7E:text=The%20Australian%20Early%20Development%20Census,in%20the%20community%2C%20not%20individuals." target="_blank">Australian Educational Development Census</a> to gauge this.
Social disadvantage was less clearly defined. We focused on variables that contribute to <a href="https://www.oecd.org/insights/37966934.pdf" target="_blank">social capital</a>, or the interpersonal networks that help a society function effectively. Regions with social disadvantage, for example, tended to have low rates of volunteering, internet connection and social cohesion.
Geographically, we analysed these variables at the <a href="https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/D3310114.nsf/home/Australian+Statistical+Geography+Standard+(ASGS)" target="_blank">SA2 level</a> (areas comprised roughly of suburbs and towns) across Australia. We then aggregated the results to the federal electorate level to avoid singling out and possibly stigmatising individual suburbs.
For comparison purposes, each index was standardised to an average score of 1,000 across all SA2s. Nearly all SA2s (95%) had a score between 800 (high disadvantaged) and 1,200 (low disadvantage).
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336906/original/file-20200522-102642-2uyeuo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336906/original/file-20200522-102642-2uyeuo.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Conversation, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
To better understand differences between our major populations, we further aggregated our results to nine larger geographic entities: the five major capitals, the regional areas of NSW, Queensland and Victoria and a “catch all” remainder of Australia region. This last grouping was used due to the small number of electorates in some states and territories.
The most disadvantaged parts of Australia
The key finding of the report is there is considerable variation in the types of disadvantage experienced across Australia. Moreover, the types of disadvantage varied between locations, as well.
Australia’s most disadvantaged electorate overall was Hinkler in regional Queensland. Hinkler ranks poorly in three of the disadvantage domains we tracked: health, economic and social.
Australia’s least disadvantaged electorate is North Sydney.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336908/original/file-20200522-102678-4snacf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336908/original/file-20200522-102678-4snacf.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Conversation, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336918/original/file-20200522-57670-1i74ig0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336918/original/file-20200522-57670-1i74ig0.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Conversation, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
When we looked at each type of disadvantage individually, we found that electorates had very different needs.
From an economic perspective, for example, our most disadvantaged electorate is Blaxland in Western Sydney. Our most disadvantaged health electorate is Braddon in regional Tasmania.
The most disadvantaged educationally was Spence in the northern suburbs of Adelaide. Socially, the most disadvantaged electorate was Parkes in regional NSW.
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336919/original/file-20200522-57709-h82zlg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336919/original/file-20200522-57709-h82zlg.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Conversation, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336920/original/file-20200522-57679-1tut9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336920/original/file-20200522-57679-1tut9hj.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Conversation, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336921/original/file-20200522-57679-3fbr7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/336921/original/file-20200522-57679-3fbr7b.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
The Conversation, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-ND</a>
When comparing the larger regions in our report, we found Adelaide faces the most disadvantage overall, while Sydney and Perth have, on average, the least overall disadvantage.
Even the best-performing regions have pockets of high disadvantage. For example, while Sydney has a relatively strong overall result, it also has the most economically disadvantaged electorate in Australia (Blaxland) and several suburbs with scores below 800.
The research also shows the vast disparities between urban and regional areas in Australia. For example, according to our data, nearly the whole of regional NSW is considered disadvantaged. In contrast, the inner suburbs of Sydney are much better-off.
<img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/316985/original/file-20200225-24694-1eticck.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt="">
Differences in disadvantage between regional NSW and greater Sydney.
Most concerning was the deep level of disadvantage found in predominantly Indigenous communities, mostly in the Northern Territory. The electorate of Lingiari, for instance, has a marked split between the relatively advantaged suburbs around Darwin and the deeply disadvantaged areas outside the city.
We also found a number of electorates in coastal NSW, Queensland and Tasmania with significant health disadvantage. This is concerning given the threat of future outbreaks of COVID-19.
Why this data matters
The indexes remind us that despite nearly 30 years of continued economic growth in Australia, prosperity has not come to all parts of the country. Nor is economic advantage necessarily an indication of other facets of well-being, such as educational or health equality.
This data is important because it can help non-profit organisations make better-informed decisions on where and how to allocate future resources and investments.
It will also help governments at all levels gain a deeper understanding of the types of disadvantage that exist within regions and how their programs and other methods of assistance – both financial or non-financial – can be most effective.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/ben-phillips-98866" target="_blank">Ben Phillips</a>, Associate Professor, Centre for Social Research and Methods, Director, Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/australian-national-university-877" target="_blank">Australian National University</a> and <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/brenton-prosser-10876" target="_blank">Brenton Prosser</a>, Professor, <a href="https://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-canberra-865" target="_blank">University of Canberra</a>
This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/where-are-the-most-disadvantaged-parts-of-australia-new-research-shows-its-not-just-income-that-matters-132428" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

Poverty

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Poverty

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News