less…

The panel members

The panel of four presenters—two academic researchers and two public sector policy makers—explored the topic from different perspectives.

• Mr David Hazlehurst, Group Manager of Families Group in FaHCSIA, has had 17 years experience in social policy research, policy development and implementation within several Australian Government agencies.
• Dr Helen Berry, psychiatric epidemiologist from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health, Australian National University (ANU), has also worked in senior positions within the public and non-profit sectors.
• Ms Serena Wilson, First Assistant Secretary of the Social Policy Division in the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, has worked largely in social policy advisory roles for the Australian Government, and was previously the Strategic Policy and Analysis Branch Manager in the former Department of Family and Community Services.
• Professor Bob Gregory, Professor Emeritus, Economics, Research School of Social Sciences, ANU, has been closely involved in Australian economic and social policy development since 1972.

The panel discussed the different viewpoints of policy and research and examined ways to enhance the practical application of research in policy making. Four main themes from the discussion are presented below to assist policy and research staff in framing their thinking about the policy–research nexus.

Challenges in integrating policy making and research

A number of divergences between policy makers and researchers were identified by the panel. These included: conflicting interests about what is important to pursue in relation to a social policy problem; disparate approaches to working on social policy issues; and different reward structures.

Academics produce new knowledge and public servants produce policy proposals. Their perspectives are very different and can lead to challenges in their relationships. Researchers may view the insights of new knowledge as inherently valuable, while policy makers may fail to take adequate account of knowledge that is not directly relevant to current policy priorities. Policy makers may delay the uptake of new knowledge because the timing or the context is not right, leaving researchers disappointed that evidently relevant research findings have not led to immediate policy change.

Policy making involves human and political dynamics; it can be a complex and irrational process in which research evidence is sometimes disregarded or holds minimal or distorted sway in the struggle for influence. But, at times, good research can make the policy argument by substantiating irrefutably the case for policy action.

The importance of using Australian research and data, where possible, was emphasised because it reflects our particular social policy environment and the unique shape of our social security safety net.

What goes wrong?

Panel members agreed that there were fundamental differences between research and policy environments. These were described as a ‘clash of cultures’ and were thought to manifest as unrealistic expectations on both sides, particularly in regard to the following factors.

• Timeframes: research can take years to address complex social policy research questions, while policy makers must often provide policy advice immediately.
• Thinking versus doing: researchers in policy-relevant disciplines think about research problems in terms of multiple, interacting factors and use methods that control for confounders and simplify complexity. This approach can frustrate policy makers who need to take account of multiple factors simultaneously and are not sure how to reassemble the puzzle.
• Outliers: researchers often exclude ‘outliers’ from data analysis because they distort assessment of central tendency. But policy makers may be concerned with these unusual cases, with all their interesting or unusual circumstances, because they need to develop policies that apply to everyone in the target group.
• Conflict between research findings and government policy: researchers working with government may seek to manage this tension by positioning their findings as independent advice, but this is not always satisfactory to the custodians of current policy. An additional consideration is that the credibility of research depends to a substantial degree on its perceived independence, with research viewed as sanitised or merely confirmatory frequently—and perhaps rightly—discounted. Managing this tension requires understanding and tolerance on both sides.
• Limits on research: Researchers are often attracted to research areas of policy interest because they have access to interesting and current data and some latitude to pursue innovative research ideas. Policy makers benefit from the flow of new thinking and new ideas. But restrictions on data access and research topics may frustrate or discourage researchers, who often have alternative research options. This may encourage them to avoid government-sponsored research, ultimately impairing the policy making process.

What can be done to improve outcomes?

The main message from panel members was that better social policy solutions are likely when government invests in data collection and its analysis by establishing long-term relationships with researchers. One panel member suggested that both parties need to develop learning organisations that are willing to take risks and share ideas about the design, conduct and application of findings from research projects. The challenge was that ‘to learn to work together, we need to work together’.

Government agencies in the United Kingdom and the United States were reported to have undertaken the following steps to improve the policy–research dynamic:

• form long-term relationships at an institutional and individual level
• create an environment in which research can occur through investments in datasets and surveys
• support centres of excellence to produce context-strong policy-relevant research
• develop long-term research agendas and implement research plans.

FaHCSIA is already well advanced in these areas. The Departmental Executive directly endorses the research and evaluation plan by approving annual policy and research priorities. We actively engage in long-term relationships with researchers in specific subject areas and manage a number of longitudinal datasets and surveys. We contract three university centres to undertake social policy-applicable research and have a panel of research experts that can be accessed by areas across FaHCSIA for specific projects.

The panel members agreed that ‘there is plenty that everyone can do to create and nurture the linkages between researchers and policy makers’. Mutually beneficial outcomes could be enhanced by both parties ‘thinking globally and acting locally’.

Importance of relationships

A key strength of the research–policy relationship advocated by the panel was the capacity for researchers to intervene if policy makers were likely to ‘jump to policy solutions’ without considering the research evidence. An important contribution to this discussion was the notion that ‘often the first step in developing policy is to debunk a myth’ by thoroughly examining the evidence.

While they are experts at analysing potential causal pathways and relationships among factors pertaining to a policy problem, researchers may need to increase their knowledge about the policy context of their studies. Policy makers need to make a structured effort to help researchers take account of the policy implications of their findings and improve research relevance. Without knowledge of the policy levers and constraints impacting on the political process, panel members warned that there was a risk of research being divorced from the real world and, therefore, less useful for policy makers.

Several examples were given to demonstrate how the effectiveness of a policy response could be improved by using research findings to clarify a policy problem. In some examples, researchers had been consulted during problem definition and again when the policy was being monitored to see whether it had produced the intended impact. For their part, policy makers were urged to use qualitative research findings and ‘policy modelling’ techniques to analyse the actual and potential impacts of a policy change within the community.

One panel member spoke about the interaction between changes to child support arrangements and the welfare to work reforms and pointed out that recent changes to child support were expected to have positive impacts on participation levels for lone parents. Research evidence had been used to justify the changes and research projects were being funded to track the effects of the new policies on separated parents and their children.

Another panel member identified how work on trades skills shortages was informed by research and data. This identified that there was no shortage in commencements of apprentices in traditional trades but that apprentices had very high non-completion rates and further, a significant proportion were no longer working in the trade in which they had qualified within some years of qualification. Survey data highlighted the length of apprenticeships and period of low wages, quality of training (including on-the-job) and working conditions as key issues for apprentices. Data on lifetime earnings identified that unless they were self-employed, people with traditional trades qualifications did not have much of an earnings premium over people without post-school qualification. Other data identified that there were very high numbers of existing workers who did not have the foundation qualifications (for example, Year 12 or equivalent) necessary to support further learning and career progression in the 21st century labour market. Policy development was then able to focus on strategies to shorten apprenticeship durations, improve remuneration for mature age apprentices and upskill the existing workforce, rather than on increasing apprenticeship commencements.

Active relationships between policy makers and researchers were also important because they had inspired members of the panel to make the most of research findings and ‘create a policy agenda’. Panel members suggested several methods to attract media or political attention to a specific policy–research issue. These included publicising research evidence: at a conference; through a media release; in a journal article; as part of a data release; or in a report on stakeholder consultation. FaHCSIA’s information briefs to central agencies were also mentioned as a way to stimulate specific interest in an issue and the panel encouraged staff to focus on the interpretation of research findings in relation to policy. These briefs would be more useful if they helped central agency staff to understand the complexities of a social policy problem. While researchers could do more to clarify the key messages from the research, and policy staff could improve their analysis and discussion of the implications of the evidence for government policy, the biggest advantage would be in both parties engaging more closely with one another in both activities.

Conclusion

The Government’s commitment to a strong evidence base to support policy and program development creates an imperative to integrate research evidence with policy making. FaHCSIA has always had a significant investment in research and evaluation, and built a strong foundation of evidence for future policy work. Incorporating research findings into policy thinking is always challenging and the best policy solutions are obtained by actively continuing to build capacity in the research–policy nexus.

Building strong relationships with the research community will ensure that we are positioned to undertake robust analysis of research evidence about complex social policy issues and develop precise policy solutions.

Policy that is based on sound evidence produced by demonstrably sound research methodologies has credibility, real value and reflects the values of the new government. Such research enables Ministers and the Cabinet to make policy decisions with greater confidence in their likely appropriateness and effectiveness. Long-term, viable relationships between policy makers and researchers will enhance FaHCSIA’s capacity to serve the government in achieving its policy goals and increase the capacity for social policies and programs to improve the lives of all Australian people.

Bibliography

A bibliography of academic papers referred to in the panel discussion is provided for those interested in further reading.

Bridgman, P & Davis, G 2000, Australian Policy Handbook, Allen & Unwin, St Leonards NSW.

Brownson, RC, Royer, C, Ewing, R & McBride, TD 2006, ‘Researchers and policymakers: travelers in parallel universes’, American Journal of Preventive Medicine, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 164–72.

Edwards, M 2004, ‘Social science research and public policy: narrowing the divide’, Occasional Paper 2/2004, Policy Paper No. 2, Academy of the Social Sciences in Australia, Canberra.

Hammond, WR, Whitaker, DJ, Lutzker, JR, Mercy, J & Chin, PM 2006, ‘Setting a violence prevention agenda at the centers for disease control and prevention’, Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 11, no. 2, pp. 112–19.

Heyman, SJ 2000, ‘Health and social policy’, in LF Berkman & I Kawachi (eds), Social Epidemiology, OUP, New York, pp. 368–82.

Lewis, JM 2006, ‘Being around and knowing the players: networks of influence in health policy’, Social Science & Medicine, vol. 62, no. 9, pp. 2125–36.

Miller, RL, Wilford, R & Donoghue, F 1999, ‘Personal dynamics as political participation’, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 52, no. 2, p. 269.

Nathan, SA, Develin, E, Grove, N & Zwi, AB 2005, ‘An Australian childhood obesity summit: the role of data and evidence in “public” policy making’, Australia & New Zealand Health Policy, vol. 2, no. 1, pp. 17–26.

Weiss, CH 1989, ‘Congressional committees as users of analysis’, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, vol. 8, no. 3, pp. 411–31.

less…

The 2007 workshop included the presentation of findings from research projects being conducted under FaHCSIA’s Social Policy Research Services (SPRS) agreements by researchers at the following research centres:

• Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC), University of New South Wales (UNSW)
• Social Policy Evaluation Analysis and Research Centre (SPEAR), Australian National University (ANU)
• Family and Community Health Unit (FCH)—a joint research unit of the Centre for Mental Health Research and the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health (NCEPH), at the ANU.

The workshop also included presentations and discussions from staff from the:

• Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS)
• Ministry of Social Development, New Zealand
• Financial Literacy Foundation, Treasury
• Centre for Aboriginal Economic Policy Research (CAEPR)
• Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute (AHURI)
  • Swinburne—Monash Research Centre
  • Southern Research Centre
• Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet
• Australian Domestic Violence Clearinghouse
• Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault
• Australian Institute of Criminology
• FaHCSIA.

Organised around FaHCSIA’s strategic themes and outcomes, the workshop included sessions on families and children; strong and resilient communities; and seniors, people with disabilities, carers, youth and women; as well as a panel discussion on the policy-research nexus, an interactive workshop on demystifying economic modelling and a policy maker’s workshop on housing careers and housing careers of people with a disability.

The first session, ‘Families and children have choices and opportunities’, started with a panel discussion on ‘Exploring perspectives on families and children’ involving:

• Dr Matthew Gray, Deputy Director, Research, at AIFS, who talked about balancing work and family, especially for new mothers returning to the workforce after the birth of a child.
• Dr Lyn Craig, SPRC, UNSW, who talked about balancing caring responsibilities with participation in the work place. In Australia, women are providing the majority of the care, which has both short and long-term impacts on financial prospects as well as on health. Dr Craig also made some suggestions on how to improve the work–family balance for carers, including making care giving a social obligation.
• Professor Bryan Rodgers, FCH, ANU, who discussed the family law reforms and the short-term and long-term factors affecting the wellbeing of families and children after separation.

After the panel discussion, Dr Bruce Bradbury, SPRC, presented research on outcomes for children of young parents, showing that a mother’s age at birth of her first child is a good predictor of later-life outcomes for both the mother and the child. He also discussed direct effects versus selection effects. Further research will be undertaken with later waves of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) survey and the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC).

Professor Moira Wilson, Principal Analyst in the Centre for Social Research and Evaluation, New Zealand Ministry of Social Development, discussed changes in sole parenthood and in sole parents’ employment in New Zealand. The number of families in New Zealand headed by a sole parent has decreased, and there has been an increase in sole mothers’ employment rates, mainly driven by a rise in sole mothers’ full-time employment rates. This increase was particularly marked among those with young children.

‘Factors influencing fertility goals and patterns in Australia’ was presented by Dr Elliott Fan, from SPEAR at the ANU. The research used HILDA data to compare fertility desires, expectations and actual births. Dr Habte Tesfaghiorghis from FaHCSIA was a discussant for this session.

The second session, ‘Strong and resilient communities’, was opened by Dr Richard Sandlant, Economist with the Financial Literacy Foundation within the Treasury. Dr Sandlant spoke about the main findings from a report titled ‘Financial literacy: Australians understanding money’, which was released in September 2007. The research sampled a broad range of 7,500 Australians aged between 12 and 75 years about their attitudes and beliefs on money management.

Most people were confident in their ability to manage money and most said they had sensible money habits, however, fewer people were confident about more complex financial tasks such as investing and ensuring they have enough money for retirement. Acting Branch Manager of the FaHCSIA Seniors and Means Test Branch, Mr Ian Joyce, explained that nearly two million Australians received the Age Pension in 2006–07 and this number is expected to increase in future years. Financial independence in retirement is a policy priority for government. The government is therefore interested in what drives long-term saving decisions and will use this report to determine what can be done to improve financial literacy, especially among older Australians.

Dr Helen Berry from NCEPH at the ANU presented ‘Twelve types of Australians and their socioeconomic, psychosocial and health profiles’. Dr Berry explained that the aim of the study was to describe patterns of social and economic participation among sociodemographically-based subgroupings of people within the Australian community. Cluster analysis was used and resulted in twelve distinct homogenous groups with different characteristics, strengths and needs. Dr Berry suggested that the typology could be used to derive a checklist of factors to be considered in the development of any policy or program designed to address the needs of one or more of the types.

‘Insights into Indigenous community governance’ is a project being run by Reconciliation Australia and CAEPR, funded by an Australian Research Council grant. Dr Janet Hunt, a Fellow at CAEPR at the ANU, reported the findings to date. These include that leaders play a critical role in governance and that networks are used to mobilise people and resources. Also, leaders are chosen for their cultural legitimacy, community standing, inheritance and intercultural skill.

The discussant, Mr Barry Johnson, Branch Manager of Funding Reform and Support Branch, reinforced the speaker’s points and concluded that Indigenous governance arrangements must reflect contemporary views; one size does not fit all communities; and flexibility is required.

Dr Wendy Stone from the Swinburne–Monash Research Centre, AHURI, explored the relationship between housing and social connectedness. The presentation highlighted some important implications for housing policy arising from research into social connectedness and support networks and neighbourhood ties. Dr Stone also spoke about the need for housing policy to increase opportunities for home ownership; decrease forced mobility through such policies as renewal schemes; and decrease the clustering of disadvantage.

The session on seniors, people with disability, carers, youth and women was opened by Dr Anastasia Sartbayeva from SPEAR at the ANU. Her paper, ‘The relationship between income support history and the characteristics and outcomes of Australian youth’, was based on a project titled ‘The intergenerational transmission of dependence on income support: patterns, causation, and implications for Australian social policy’. The presentation investigated the consequences of growing up in an income support dependent family and the correlation between parents’ and children’s receipt of income support and its causes. Findings indicate that economic (income support) stratification uncovers significant disparities in outcomes for Australian youth, particularly in regard to education outcomes and employment opportunities.

The discussant, Dr Peng Yu from Research and Analysis Branch, FaHCSIA, commented  on the unique and interesting aspects of the study.  Dr Yu indicated that research using the intergenerational data is expected to determine how policies should be targeted to more efficiently and effectively support disadvantaged families. Further information about this project can be found later in this issue.

Dr Andrew Leigh, from SPEAR at the ANU, presented a paper titled ‘Informal care and labour market participation’. The presentation considered the impact of caring on labour market participation, and compared conclusions arising from a cross-sectional analysis to those obtained through a longitudinal analysis of HILDA data collected between 2001–05. In the cross-sectional analysis, the relationships between care giving and labour market participation and care giving and life satisfaction, were found to be statistically insignificant. With the longitudinal analysis Dr Leigh found that 85 per cent of those who had ceased caring were not looking for a job. He presented two possible interpretations—that the impact of care giving on labour market outcomes and life satisfaction takes several years to manifest itself or that the causal effect of care giving on labour market outcomes and life satisfaction is quite small. This study highlighted the importance of using longitudinal data to demonstrate what people actually do as against what they say they will do.

A paper titled ‘Young carers: cost and impact on welfare’ was presented by Professor Bettina Cass from SPRC, UNSW. The presentation identified the diverse experiences and circumstances of young carers. These include the: age of the carers; relationship to care recipient; intensity of care giving responsibilities; length of time providing care; and level of support available to carers. Observations from the study suggest that young carers identify both benefits and costs of being a young carer but that there is evidence of financial strain.

Dr Ben Edwards, Research Fellow at AIFS, presented preliminary findings from a collaborative project between FaHCSIA and AIFS. The project, known as the ‘Families caring for a person with a disability’ study (FCPDS), will document physical, emotional, social, financial, family relationships and employment impacts of this type of caring. Comparison between FCPDS responses and HILDA data for the general population found that carers were more at risk of mental health issues. This risk is associated with family dysfunction, financial stress, level of care burden, feeling the need for more social support, being female, and the highest risk of depression is in the first year of care.

Director of the Southern Research Centre, AHURI, Professor Andrew Beer, presented ‘21st century housing careers of people with a disability’, reporting on the changing housing circumstances of people with different forms of disability. Professor Beer noted that people with a psychiatric disability had the most unstable type of housing career, with potential for movement between homelessness, caravan park rental and public housing. He concluded that inadequate housing can limit the capacity of people with a disability and their carers to find work, therefore contributing to one of the root causes of social inequality.

Ms Gaby Marcus, Director of the Australian Domestic and Family Violence Clearinghouse, gave a presentation on ‘Connecting research, policy and practice’, explaining the services provided by the clearinghouse, which includes undertaking research. Recent studies involve investigating occurrences of exclusion orders for domestic violence (where the perpetrator has to leave the house, not the victim), and exploring whether there are peak periods for domestic violence (such as sporting events and annual holidays).

Co-ordinator of the Australian Centre for the Study of Sexual Assault (ACSSA) at AIFS, Dr Zoë Morrison, gave a presentation on the ripple effects of sexual assault. Dr Morrison explained how the effects of sexual assault extend beyond the individual, to affect family members, partners and friends, and even professionals who help survivors. The ripple effects can also affect wider society, through fear of sexual assault, economic costs (lost productivity, lost quality of life, mental health care) and intergenerational trauma, becoming a factor in overall disadvantage and social exclusion.

‘Sexual assault against women in key communities: improving prevention and criminal justice responses’, was presented by Dr Judy Putt, Research Manager at the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and Dr Natalie Taylor, Senior Research Analyst, AIC and Manager of the AIC's Justice and Crime Analysis Program. The AIC has been undertaking research on sexual violence directed against women; this research specifically looked at both personal barriers and police–criminal justice system barriers for women from culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) backgrounds to reporting incidences of sexual assault. The research showed that there is a need to demonstrate clear benefits for women from CALD backgrounds to report sexual violence and a need for improved criminal justice responses.

Mr Sean Innis closed the workshop, emphasising the importance of the nexus between research and policy, confirming that the production of good policy is an evolutionary process, and that, hopefully, research will provide the genesis for policy development in the future.

Two training sessions were conducted on 21 November. Dr Chris Ryan, Head of SPEAR, at the ANU, held an interactive workshop on demystifying economic modelling. Professor Andrew Beer, from the Southern Research Centre, AHURI, gave a presentation on ‘Housing careers, and housing careers of people with a disability’, followed by a workshop for policy makers.

less…

The aim of the project is to study the consequences of growing up in an income support dependent family and identify patterns of intergenerational transmission of disadvantage. The two main objectives are to examine: the overall correlation between receipt of income support for parents and children; and the causal mechanisms underlying this correlation.

Data for the project come from the Youth in Focus panel surveys of young people and their parents or carers, and Transgenerational Data Sets (TDS) based on income support administrative records from Centrelink. With permission from participants, the information collected through the surveys are linked to the TDS, creating a more complete picture of the impact of income support dependency on outcomes for young people.

Wave 1 of the anticipated three-wave Youth in Focus survey was successfully completed in 2006. Data from Wave 1 of the survey are currently being examined and preliminary results show that children growing up in households with intensive histories of income support receipt have much poorer health, education and employment outcomes than other children. Determining the cause/s of these poorer outcomes requires data that can track these young people through subsequent waves of the survey. Wave 2 of the survey will be undertaken in 2008 and Wave 3 is planned for 2010.

Findings from the research will be presented in a series of reports, initially via a Social Policy Research Services agreement between the Social Policy Evaluation Analysis and Research Centre and FaHCSIA. The project demonstrates the value of an open dialogue between researchers and policy makers, providing an opportunity for the outcomes of the research to play an important role in the development and delivery of successful interventions.

less…

Wave 6 data now available

The Wave 6 datasets were released in February 2008. In addition to the regular data topics around income, employment and family dynamics, Wave 6 provides information about social connectedness, social capital, disability and housing.

Preliminary analysis of Wave 6 data

Preliminary findings on social and economic engagement and health outcomes from the Wave 6 data include:

• People defined as obese reported being less healthy. There also appear to be differences in economic outcomes, with relatively low incomes more common among both underweight and obese people.
• People with higher levels of community participation were more likely to have spent less time unemployed, smoked fewer cigarettes, had a higher satisfaction with their partner and had better levels of mental health.

Also of interest are findings on wealth; the inclusion of a second wealth module in Wave 6 makes HILDA the first Australian survey to measure changes in household wealth over time.

• Although wealth is heavily concentrated among a small proportion of very rich households, preliminary findings from the HILDA Annual Report indicate that this growth is not a case of the rich getting richer.
• Wealth for the median Australian household has been rising rapidly from around $215,000 in 2002 to around $340,000 four years later.
• House price growth has been an important source of growth in average wealth. However, other asset classes have also contributed to the increase. In particular, averaged across all households, superannuation balances increased by 51 per cent to $123,000.

Further information can be found in the 2007 HILDA Annual Report, which will be available for download from the HILDA website.

Statistical Report

Families, Incomes and Jobs: Volume 2, the second HILDA Statistical Report, was released by the Melbourne Institute on 13 December 2007. The report presents articles analysing a range of issues informed by the first four waves of HILDA data. Examples include: the aspirations of young people; changing marital status; changes in smoking behaviour; and private health insurance coverage.

Wave 7 update

The fieldwork for the collection of the Wave 7 data is now complete. The Wave 7 survey instruments are available on the HILDA website. Additional topics for Wave 7 include: retirement and transitions to retirement; literacy; numeracy and financial literacy; work-related training; diet; mental health; smoking; employment contracts; and social support at work.

Wave 8

Work has begun on the development of the content for Wave 8. Fertility questions from Wave 5 will be included in Wave 8. Additionally, questions on the following topics will be tested in the dress rehearsal: method of pay determination; non co-residential relationships; expanded child support questions; and job discrimination.

New arrangements for accessing the HILDA survey data

New licensing arrangements for access to the HILDA survey data are now in place. Information about these new arrangements can be found on the HILDA website.
Researchers wishing to obtain the data can apply by downloading the application form and relevant licence from the HILDA website. FaHCSIA staff wishing to apply for access to HILDA data can obtain the necessary application package, including an IT systems access form, from the FaHCSIA HILDA intranet site.

Enquiries about the HILDA survey should be directed, in the first instance, to the HILDA website, or to Dr Annette Neuendorf (Research and Analysis Branch), tel (02) 6244 7592 or email annette.neuendorf@fahcsia.gov.au

less…

LSAC conference

The inaugural LSAC conference, organised by the Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS), was held in Melbourne on 3–4 December 2007. The conference provided a forum for the discussion of research based on LSAC data and highlighted the research potential of LSAC. Following the conference, a one-day data workshop was held for interested researchers.

The conference was opened by Professor Alan Hayes, Director of AIFS, and Mr Andrew Whitecross, Branch Manager, Research and Analysis Branch, FaHCSIA. In his introduction, Professor Hayes spoke about the success of LSAC in achieving the aims, objectives and aspirations articulated at its inception. Mr Whitecross underlined the important contribution of LSAC to a whole-of-government agenda and as evidence in developing a social policy system responsive to the needs of all Australians.

The conference included papers on a diverse range of research generated by LSAC. Topics included: the interrelationships of parenting and children’s temperaments; gender differences in literacy and mathematical achievement; working families’ use of child care; and risk factors associated with speech and language impairment at 4 to 5 years of age. Other sessions explored computer use, vocabulary development, handedness, injuries, sleep problems and the role of child support.

The conference featured keynote speeches by Dr Lyndall Strazdins from the National Centre for Epidemiology and Population Health at the Australian National University (ANU) and Professor Stephen Zubrick, co-director of the Centre of Developmental Health, Telethon Institute for Child Research and Chair of the LSAC Consortium Advisory Group.

Dr Strazdins’ paper was titled ‘Can we make jobs really family friendly?' This paper discussed the development of an index of job quality, where parents’ work conditions were assessed for their flexibility, security and stability, control, overload, and leave provisions. Dr Strazdins and her co-authors found that parents who reported poor quality jobs, especially mothers working part-time and those on casual contracts, show the poorest mental health. Parents reporting the best quality jobs have optimal mental health, as do their children. Results from both waves of LSAC underlined both the interplay between jobs and parental mental health, and the relationship with child emotional functioning.

Professor Zubrick presented a paper co-authored by Jan Nicholson, Ann Sanson and Grant Smith entitled ‘Parenting quality and the developmental status of young Australian children: contexts and pathways’. The paper discussed the theoretical models of parenting influence and how the LSAC data could contribute to understanding and validating these models. It then examined the quality of LSAC parenting measures, establishing quality estimation and continuity of the measures over time. Finally, the authors explored the relationship of parenting behaviour in Wave 1 to outcomes in Wave 2, finding that Wave 1 parenting did link to child behaviour indicators at Wave 2. The authors also reported that socioeconomic position (SEP) exerted differential influence directly on child conduct but not on prosocial development, and was also associated with parental depression and negative parenting.

Research by FaHCSIA staff:

• Dr Ibolya Losoncz, Research and Analysis Branch
  Factors influencing compliance with child support obligation

Dr Losoncz examined predictors of compliance with child support obligations using Wave 1 and Wave 2 LSAC data. Results supported the earlier findings on the strong and positive association between compliance and scheduled, frequent contact between the child and the non-resident parent. 

Furthermore, parent and child contact was positively related to the quality of relationships between parents, the extent to which parents consult with one another before making decisions about major issues in their child’s life, and the non-resident parent’s socio-emotional commitment to the child.

Research findings support changes in government policy associated with reforms to the family law system, which encourage the continuing involvement of both parents in the upbringing of their children. The second part of this project will explore these associations further, to identify direction and causality paths.

• Dr Tamara Blakemore, Research and Analysis Branch
  Profiling child care arrangements and outcomes over time: analysis of three waves of data from ‘Growing up in Australia’

Dr Blakemore presented a paper discussing the cumulative and changing child care arrangements of children in the 4 to 5 year old cohort of LSAC across Waves 1.0, 1.5 and 2.0. The paper took a unique analytic approach (cluster analysis) to grapple with the complex variations that exist among the type, frequency, duration and stability of child care arrangements. It found that, while distinct clusters of care arrangements and care users exist at each wave, some consistent patterns emerge.

Over time, advantaged families were found to be more likely to use one care arrangement, usually long day care, for relatively long hours. In contrast, disadvantaged families were more likely to use one care arrangement, usually kinship care, for short periods of time. A third group remained the most stable over time—these were families with average socioeconomic circumstances who used multiple, concurrent forms of care. Significant differences existed between the care groups in terms of their reasons for using care, their satisfaction with care, and the sociodemographic and psychosocial characteristics of the families themselves. Of note, families using multiple care arrangements (usually long day care supplemented by kinship care) reported the highest rates of support, greatest parental wellbeing and parent–child engagement, and highest satisfaction with care.

Research sponsored by FaHCSIA:

• Dr Bruce Bradbury, SPRC, UNSW
  Why do children of young mothers have poorer outcomes?

Dr Bradbury’s paper found that children born when their mother was aged under 25 years have poorer outcomes on the learning and social–emotional outcome indices than children born to older mothers. Children born to mothers aged 30 years score about half a standard deviation higher on these indices than children born to mothers aged 18 years, which would have a larger effect for social–emotional outcomes. After controlling for background socioeconomic characteristics and the mother’s age at the birth of her first child, the association with learning outcomes disappeared, but the relationship with social–emotional outcomes persisted.

• Professor Ilan Katz and Mr Gerry Redmond, SPRC, UNSW
  Why do rich children have better outcomes? An analysis of the LSAC ‘K’ cohort

This paper investigated the relationship between household income, parenting and developmental outcomes. Previous research has consistently demonstrated that children born in low-income or low-SEP families have poorer outcomes than those born in more affluent families. Using the LSAC 4 to 5 year-old cohort—the K cohort—the authors explored the relationship between income and outcomes, as measured by the Outcome Index (OI—an aggregate of physical, social–emotional and learning scores). They found a stronger relationship between income and outcomes for children who scored low on the OI (‘vulnerable’) than for children who scored high (‘resilient’). Thus, vulnerable children are more likely to benefit from increases in parental income than resilient children. The presenters suggested this showed that it is not merely the absence of poverty that promotes positive outcomes. They concluded that the nature of the relationship between SEP and child outcomes is a key factor for policies aimed at reducing inequalities and improving overall child outcomes.

Abstracts of papers presented at the conference can be obtained from the AIFS website.

The two-day conference concluded with a panel discussion highlighting future directions for LSAC. Speakers talked about the importance of including experts from policy and research areas across the broad range of domains that affect children’s lives, and the proximal and distal factors influencing children. It was noted that the study will need to evolve to meet the developmental changes of the children. The panel emphasised the need to find ways to accommodate this growth and to ensure flexibility of content and measures in the survey. The panel also considered referencing and maintaining core longitudinal consistency, maintaining the study sample, and continuing to pay rigorous attention to study design and measurement as equally important activities.

Partnerships between government and researchers, in terms of the design and management of the survey and conducting of research, are the key to the success of LSAC to date. Speakers from both sectors emphasised the importance of these relationships to future improvement and relevance of the dataset.

Data access

Data from LSAC Wave 1, Wave 1.5 and the newly released Wave 2 are available to interested researchers. FaHCSIA staff wishing to apply for access to LSAC data can obtain an IT systems access form from the ‘FaHCSIA Longitudinal Study of Australian Children’ intranet site and the Deed of Licence from the ‘Growing up in Australia—The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children’ website.

Researchers not working at FaHCSIA should be aware of the new organisational licensing arrangements described above. The new licensing arrangements also cover access to data from LSAC. Further details will be posted on the AIFS website.

Further information:
FaHCSIA: Dr Helen Rogers (Research and Analysis Branch), tel (02) 6244 7726 or
email helen.rogers@fahcsia.gov.au or lsac@fahcsia.gov.au
web <http://www.aifs.gov.au/growingup/home.html>

less…

Footprints in Time has undergone a few changes since the pilot study commenced twelve months ago. These include: changes to the interview questions, the use of FaHCSIA-employed local Indigenous Research Administration Officers (RAOs) instead of external research interviewers, and the new research design partner Roy Morgan Research.

The pilot phase of LSIC demonstrated the benefit of having local Indigenous people collecting the data. Being a local Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander means the RAOs understand the cultural sensitivities of their communities and are able to overcome some of the reluctance of families to participate in a long-term study.

Karla Thompson is one of the longest-serving RAOs, having taken part in the pilot studies in the Logan area of Brisbane. A young Gurang (Bundaberg region) woman from Queensland, Karla has been using her training as a teacher, and 10 years in ATSIC, to help locate and interview the parents of young children for the study. The children in the infant cohort will be aged between 6 to 18 months and the children in the older cohort will be aged between 3 years, 6 months and 4 years, 6 months. She has also taken an active role in supporting and mentoring her colleagues, helping to develop the team that will work on this study over the next four years.

The RAOs have a big task ahead that will draw on their skills as researchers; their professionalism, work and time management skills as outposted FaHCSIA officers; and their knowledge of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander culture. The Footprints in Time researchers’ first task will be to identify enough children in each age cohort in their area to ensure they get a sample of at least 200 children whose parents are committed to remaining in the study for the four years. While there is some assistance provided through Medicare and Centrelink data, RAOs will have to use their community development skills and local connections to find the families who will participate in the study. Over the survey period, each family will be interviewed twice yearly to collect both quantitative and qualitative data.

The researchers are also 'the face' of Footprints in Time. They will attend community meetings, speak to community elders, discuss the project with health and education representatives, and generally work to ensure that LSIC is understood and supported in their region.

The Footprints in Time methodology is multidisciplinary. RAOs need to acquire skills in interviewing, audio recording, data recording, summarising recorded interviews, and transmitting the data over secure links to Roy Morgan Research and to FaHCSIA’s national office. RAOs are also expected to be mobile—they have an office, but most of their time will be spent on the road while they are interviewing, meeting and promoting the research at community functions in their area.

Karla has found many benefits in working as an outposted officer.

‘It’s good to be out in the community. It’s very liberating to be able to write your own agenda and to be able to attend community events [that]you don’t get to go to in other jobs. I also enjoy the fact that I make my own appointments to fit around things like community events or family circumstances.’

‘I also really enjoy the contact I have with the kids and their parents. As a trained teacher, I love getting involved in any of the activities kids are doing. I’m happy to join them in dancing or other play activities and that means I make a connection with both the carers and the child.’

On the downside, Karla says that outposted staff members often miss out on the behind-the-scenes work of the Footprints in Time team, which means they are not as close to the day-to-day policy and decision making.  But Karla says that is a small concern in the context of the importance of the study.

‘The families and community members I have met, and talked to, have been really supportive of the study. They all want to see better information that can help them plan services and meet the needs of their young people.’

Karla’s other major role in the team is supporting the new RAOs who attended FaHCSIA orientation and training in late 2007.

‘While we can give some advice, I think the most important message we can give the new RAOs is to remember why you were successful in winning this job—you have local knowledge and the skills to do this work. Being able to shift your stance and adjust to local conditions and events is important, so you just need to stay flexible.’

‘I’m sure they’ll all do well. At the training in Canberra, I could see the new RAOs losing their apprehension over the five days and getting enthusiastic about being part of something that is innovative and new.’

Karla says the way Footprints in Time is conducting the study shows that there is real commitment to getting Indigenous people to engage with the research.

‘I’ve read some research on Indigenous issues that showed that a mainstream, independent researcher approach doesn’t get the best results from Indigenous people. You need to tune into the community you’re visiting and have a more open-ended timeframe to get the information.’

Karla says that the cultural sensitivity of the LSIC design is one of the things she really enjoys about being a RAO.

‘We are here to gather information and the best way to do that is to have a yarn. Don’t get me wrong—the job is demanding and there is quite a lot of quantitative data collected. But having a yarn lets us really get to know these families, and they are really keen to tell their stories so that we have better information about what makes their kids strong.’

Further information:
FaHCSIA: Melisah Feeney (Research and Analysis Branch),
tel (02) 6244 7545 or email melisah.feeney@fahcsia.gov.au
web www.fahcsia.gov.au/lsic

less…

In addition, school retention rates have been improved through the initiative. Projects like the Innovative Community Action Networks (ICANs), in which a community joins with a school in helping to keep young people engaged with education or training, have been a great success.

Key factors of the social inclusion approach include: collecting an evidence base; linking social and economic policy; engagement of affected populations; and relationships between service providers. Monsignor Cappo explained that the Social Inclusion Policy Development Model comprises four stages as shown in the figure.

Scoping > Active Listening > Policy development > Action agenda

Social inclusion policy development model

Following the opening session, the Minister for Housing and Minister for the Status of Women, the Hon. Tanya Plibersek, officially launched Australia’s welfare 2007.

Concurrent plenary sessions were held throughout the day. At the start of each session, the head of each corresponding unit in AIHW gave an overview of the relevant chapter in Australia’s welfare 2007.

A number of other speakers presented research corresponding to most of the chapters of the publication:

• Professor Ilan Katz, Director of the Social Policy Research Centre (SPRC), University of New South Wales (UNSW), gave a presentation on resilience and diversity in children and families.
• Dr Owen Donald, former Director of Housing, Victoria, identified the main threats and opportunities associated with the housing system’s failure to support low income people and presented three areas for immediate attention.
• Professor Helen Bartlett, Foundation Director of the Australasian Centre on Ageing, University of Queensland, spoke about integrating a wellness–prevention approach to aged care services.
• Ms Jill Whitehorn, Senior Adviser, Social Inclusion Board, South Australia, talked about the dynamics of 21st century homelessness.
• Dr Ken Baker, Chief Executive Officer, National Disability Services, spoke about five policy issues that could impact on disability services in the future: population ageing, welfare reform, centralism, workforce shortages and individualised funding arrangements.
• Professor Peter Saunders, Australian Professorial Fellow, SPRC, UNSW, talked about rethinking the concepts of resources and disadvantage.

Dr Ken Henry, Secretary to the Treasury, gave the closing keynote speech. He spoke about how policy advisers in his department conceptualise disadvantage and proposed a new approach to overcoming Indigenous disadvantage, which was primarily based on the capability deprivation theory of Amartya Sen. Dr Henry described the first phase of reform, with a focus on childhood education, and listed the following development platforms:

• basic protective security from violence for Indigenous parents and their children
• early childhood development interventions and support for parents
• home environment that is free from overcrowding and allows regular patterns of sleep and study
• primary health care services available and accessible
• welfare system that does not discourage engagement in the labour market
• realistic prospects for educated people to get a job
• government systems that support political freedom for stakeholders to be involved in policy development.

less…

Dr Hewitt examined a range of social characteristics—including: temporal and family background factors; relationship and fertility histories, attitudes and beliefs; and socioeconomic position—that are associated with marriage breakdown. Dr Hewitt indicated that obtaining a better understanding of how these factors are associated with marriage breakdown for men and women may explain why some marriages break down and others remain intact.

Dr Hewitt explored whether there are gender differences in the nature and extent of associations between social characteristics and marriage breakdown. The results of the study indicated that there were few gender differences. However, there were a number of interesting results, which include:

• People from non–English speaking background have lower risk of marriage breakdown. However, while males from English-speaking background had a lower risk of marriage breakdown, females in this category had a greater risk of marriage breakdown.
• Younger age at marriage increases the risk of marriage breakdown for both men and women, but the association is much stronger for women.
• More highly educated men have a lower risk of marriage breakdown, whereas more highly educated women have a higher risk of marriage breakdown.

Dr Hewitt also explored whether there are differences in associations between social characteristics and separations initiated by wives compared to those initiated either by husbands or jointly initiated. She indicated that:

• Wives are more likely to initiate separation than husbands.
• Women who marry younger are more likely to initiate separation than men who marry younger.
• Women who have higher levels of education are more likely to report jointly initiated separation.
• Men who have a higher attachment to religion are less likely to initiate separation.

Dr Hewitt commented on the usefulness of HILDA data for her study and remarked that HILDA is the only national panel study that includes a question about who initiated separation.

less…

Latest Research and Policy Bulletins

AHURI Research and Policy Bulletins succinctly present the key findings and policy implications of completed research projects.

• AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 94: How can demanding behaviour in public housing be managed effectively?

Changes in the profile of public housing tenants in recent decades have seen a growth in the number of tenants with complex needs and demanding behaviours. By adopting practices of systematic and close support of tenants, state housing authorities can assist tenants to change their behaviour and sustain their tenancy.

• AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 93: The impact of housing costs on financial disadvantage: a small area analysis

There are substantial regional differences in the impact of housing costs on financial disadvantage across Australia. The strongest impact of housing costs is found in clusters of outer suburban areas and in key rural and regional areas.

• AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 92: How do housing and housing assistance relate to social cohesion?

Social cohesion has three key dimensions: social connectedness, inequality and cultural environment. Many aspects of housing, including tenure type and location, affect the level of social cohesion within a community.

• AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 91: Patterns and trends in Australian non-metropolitan housing markets

Private renters in large and expanding non-metropolitan population centres experienced high rates of housing stress in 2001, reflecting a low supply of private and public rental accommodation in these places.

• AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 90: Supporting the housing of people with complex needs

People with complex needs encounter additional barriers in accessing and maintaining stable housing. Good local partnerships and collaboration between housing and support providers create much better outcomes for people with complex needs, regardless of their type of disability.

• AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 89: The financial impact of welfare targeting in public housing

Greater targeting of housing and greater access to concessional rents cost public housing authorities around $200 million in 2004–05 compared with the mid-1990s.

• AHURI Research and Policy Bulletin, Issue 88: Where do low-income private renters live?

Low-income private renters are increasingly found in the middle and outer suburbs of Sydney, Melbourne and Adelaide.

Recently released reports

• AHURI Final Report No. 109: The regional impact of housing costs and assistance on financial disadvantage

This study uses spatial microsimulation techniques to estimate—at a small area level—the impact of housing costs on spatial differences in financial disadvantage, and the effect of housing assistance in reducing disadvantage.

• AHURI Final Report No. 108: Public housing: shifting client profiles and public housing revenues

This report documents and quantifies the recent historical impact of changing client profiles in South Australia and Victoria; forecasts public housing recurrent income given existing allocation priorities; assesses the long-term cost to state government housing authorities of pursuing a policy of allocating to those ‘most in need’; identifies the implications of policy changes for future recurrent income; and provides a quantitative modelling tool for housing providers to assess their own circumstances.

• AHURI Final Report No. 107: Trends in Australian non-metropolitan housing markets, 1991–2001

This report quantifies the nature and extent of changes in the decade 1991–2001 within non-metropolitan housing markets in Australia. Integral to achieving this first goal was the construction of the first national non-metropolitan housing market database to hold empirical information on population, housing and labour markets for the census years 1991, 1996 and 2001.

• AHURI Final Report No. 106: Operating deficits and public housing: policy options for reversing the trend, 2005–06 update

This report updates a previous report based on 2000–01 financial year information. It is a useful document because the sector is in need of more current information on operating deficits due to the difficult issues facing public housing in Australia.

• AHURI Final Report No. 105: Housing affordability: a 21st century problem

This report provides a summary of the major findings that have emerged out of the AHURI National Research Venture: housing affordability for lower income Australians. It identifies the major risks and challenges in relation to Australia's housing problem in the 21st century, as well as drawing out policy implications.

• AHURI Final Report No. 104: Supporting the housing of people with complex needs

This report focuses on the issue of providing housing and support to people with complex needs, specifically people with physicaldisability, intellectual disability and mental illness.

• AHURI Final Report No. 103: A sustaining tenancies approach to managing demanding behaviour in public housing: a good practice guide

This guide has been written as a desktop manual to help in the formulation of policy, practice and ideas for sustaining tenancies in public housing. It aims to show how eviction can be avoided through positive measures to provide a supportive environment for tenancies.

• AHURI Final Report No. 102: An audit and review of Australian Indigenous housing research

This report examines the Indigenous housing literature from the 1970s through to the 2000s. The report critically reviews the literature on Indigenous housing in Australia with a view to conceptualising the body of knowledge on the subject in theoretically and practically useful ways. It also identifies gaps and unresolved research issues that have a bearing on the creation and maintenance of housing for Indigenous people.

• AHURI Final Report No. 101: Rent assistance and the spatial concentration of low income households in metropolitan Australia

This report focuses on the position of low-income households in the private rental market, including those in employment—for example, the 'working poor'— to better understand the impact of the current policy framework on the housing opportunities open to them.

• AHURI Positioning Paper No. 100: Risk-assessment practices in the private rental sector: implications for low-income renters

This paper provides the context, sets out the theoretical framework and outlines the research strategy underpinning a study into the factors influencing risk assessment and tenancy allocation practices used by property managers in the private rental market.

• AHURI Positioning Paper No. 99: International practice in planning for affordable housing: lessons for Australia

This paper presents the review of international practice in planning for affordable housing and establishes a methodological framework for the subsequent empirical component of the study.

• AHURI Positioning Paper No. 98: Flexible guidelines for the design of remote Indigenous community housing

This report is a response to the need for a flexible framework of design guidelines—a ‘design system’—for remote Indigenous housing.

• AHURI Research Paper: Older persons in public housing: present and future profile

This research project develops a profile of older public housing tenants; lists the housing policy and management issues associated with older tenants; identifies the issues associated with linkages to support services for older persons; and discusses the implications of these issues and new approaches to older people for the future of public housing and state and territory government housing authorities.

AHURI currently has 40 research projects under management; for information on these and all completed AHURI research projects visit the AHURI website.

Subscribe to the AHURI e-updates to be notified when new AHURI research is released.
web: www.ahuri.edu.au
enquiries: information@ahuri.edu.au

less…

Diversity in health 2008: strengths and sustainable solutions

Diversity Health Institute
10–12 March 2008
Sydney, New South Wales
Further information:
email: dhi@swahs.health.nsw.gov.au
tel: (02) 9840 3800
web: www.dhi.gov.au/conference

Parents, families and carers: our place in the human services, our agenda for change

Centre for Civil Society
17–18 March 2008
Sydney, New South Wales
Further information:
email: vern@civilsociety.org.au
tel: Vern Hughes 0425 722 890
web: www.civilsociety.org.au/PFCNationalConference.htm

1st national Indigenous family and community strengths conference

The Family Action Centre, University of Newcastle and Secretariat of National Aboriginal and Islander Child Care Incorporated (SNAICC)
14–16 April 2008
Newcastle, New South Wales
Further information:
email: family@pco.com.au
tel: (02) 4984 2554
web: www.pco.com.au/family

5th Australian family and community strengths conference

The Family Action Centre, University of Newcastle
16–18 April 2008
Newcastle, New South Wales
Further information:
email: family@pco.com.au
tel: (02) 4984 2554
web: www.pco.com.au/family

Disclaimer: Readers should confirm conference details through the contacts listed. FaHCSIA assumes no responsibility for the accuracy of dates, venues or other information presented in this selection.
To submit details of upcoming seminars or conferences, please email:
publications.research@fahcsia.gov.au

Research and Analysis Branch
Australian Government Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs
Box 7788 Canberra Mail Centre ACT 2610
web: www.fahcsia.gov.au (follow the links ‘publications’ › ‘research’)

Editorial enquiries:
tel: (02) 6244 5458
fax: (02) 6244 6589
email: publications.research@fahcsia.gov.au

FaHCSIA Research News is released quarterly.