Primary carers <strong>of</strong> children who did not live in the samehousehold with one or both <strong>of</strong> their parents were alsoasked their opinion about how involved the mother orthe father living elsewhere should be in the child’s life.The answers are summarised in Figure 13 below, brokendown by whether the mother or the father <strong>of</strong> the childwas living somewhere else. While some primary carers didnot think that the parent living elsewhere should be at allinvolved in the child’s life—this is true for 17.2 per cent <strong>of</strong>cases where the mother <strong>of</strong> the child was living elsewhereand 12.8 per cent <strong>of</strong> cases where the father was livingelsewhere—more than half <strong>of</strong> primary carers would havepreferred the parent to be more involved in the child’s life.The information on the actual and desired involvement <strong>of</strong>parents living away from their children can be comparedto see whether there was a generally agreed upon ’right’level <strong>of</strong> parental involvement. In the case <strong>of</strong> fathers livingelsewhere 11 , where a father had contact with the child atleast twice a week, most primary carers (62.5 per cent)indicated that the level <strong>of</strong> the father’s involvement wasabout right, but a further one-third <strong>of</strong> primary carersdesired more involvement from the father (Table 20).Where the father living elsewhere saw the child less <strong>of</strong>ten,the majority <strong>of</strong> primary carers desired more involvement.Interestingly, in the cases where the father was not at all incontact with the child, the primary carers’ responses werealmost evenly split between wishing for more involvementfrom the father (47.5 per cent) and wishing for noinvolvement at all (49.2 per cent).Figure 13: Primary carer’s attitude regarding involvement <strong>of</strong> the parent living elsewhere: ‘How involved should the parentbe in the child’s life?’Table 20: Comparison <strong>of</strong> actual and desired contact with the child’s father living elsewhere, per centFrequency <strong>of</strong> father’scontact with the childEvery day to two timesper week (n=96)Once per week to oncea fortnight (n=66)Once a month to oncea year (n=74)Primary carer’s desired level <strong>of</strong> the father’s involvementMore About right Less Not at all Total33.3 62.5 3.1 1.0 100.066.7 28.8 4.5 0.0 100.073.0 12.2 5.4 9.5 100.0Not at all (n=61) 47.5 3.3 0.0 49.2 100.011 The sample numbers were too small to conduct this analysis for mothers living elsewhere.32 Footprints in Time: The Longitudinal Study <strong>of</strong> Indigenous Children | Key <strong>Summary</strong> <strong>Report</strong> from Wave 3
<strong>Housing</strong><strong>Housing</strong> affects children’s lives and development in manyways. Children living in inadequate or overcrowdedhousing are more likely to contract infectious diseases suchas meningitis and respiratory conditions (Harker 2006) orsuffer ill effects from toxicants that may continue well intoadulthood (Dockery et al. 2010). Cramped or substandardliving conditions can also affect mental health, createdomestic tensions and increase the incidence <strong>of</strong> familyviolence. A lack <strong>of</strong> sufficient space for learning, relaxationand sleep and a lack <strong>of</strong> opportunities for outdoorplay may negatively impact on the child’s physicaldevelopment and education. Finally, frequent residentialmoves and especially homelessness can contribute toworse health and educational outcomes, decreasedsocial connectedness and stress for children and theirfamilies (Dockery et al., 2010).The housing conditions <strong>of</strong> many Aboriginal and TorresStrait Islander people, although improving, are still belowthe standard <strong>of</strong> those enjoyed by most people in non-Indigenous communities (ABS 2008). In 2008, 31 per cent<strong>of</strong> Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children and youthlived in overcrowded housing and, in remote areas thisproportion was even higher, at 58 per cent (ABS 2011c).In 2008, Indigenous people were almost five times aslikely as non-Indigenous people to live in overcrowdedhousing (SCRGSP 2011). Moreover, many <strong>of</strong> those wholived in a permanent dwelling experienced problemswith the condition <strong>of</strong> their home: one-third <strong>of</strong> dwellingsmanaged by Indigenous housing organisations in remotecommunities needed either major repairs (24 per cent) orreplacement (9 per cent) (ABS 2008).While the association between housing conditions andchild outcomes has not been investigated directly in thisreport, this could be done with further analysis <strong>of</strong> the data.Also, as future waves <strong>of</strong> data become available, they willcontribute to fuller understanding <strong>of</strong> the role housing playsin children’s outcomes, that is, whether poor conditions inearly or late childhood, or only if prolonged, affect a child’sphysical and/or educational development.Most <strong>of</strong> the Footprints in Time children (around 90 per centin wave 3) lived in free-standing houses. The remaining10 per cent were divided almost equally between semidetachedhouses and apartments or flats. However, thetype <strong>of</strong> the dwelling was related to relative isolation:97.0 per cent <strong>of</strong> children in highly or extremely isolatedareas lived in free-standing houses, as opposed to87.3 per cent in areas <strong>of</strong> no isolation.Most children (61.0 per cent) lived in three-bedroomhomes a further 24.0 percent in four-bedroom homes. Theproportion <strong>of</strong> children living in one or two-bedroom homestended to increase with relative isolation: 19.2 per cent <strong>of</strong>respondents in highly or extremely remote areas lived insuch homes compared to only 8.3 per cent <strong>of</strong> respondentsin non-isolated areas.Any home can be viewed as big or small, dependingon the size <strong>of</strong> the family living there. Table 21 reportsthe numbers <strong>of</strong> people per bedroom living in thehouse, broken down by LORI. Although more than half<strong>of</strong> respondents lived in houses with one or two peopleper bedroom, the situations where more than two ormore than three people shared a bedroom were morecommon in areas with higher relative isolation. Accordingto the Canadian National Occupancy Standard, aninternationally accepted tool used by the ABS to measurethe need for additional bedrooms in order to adequatelyhouse the occupants, room-sharing by more than twopeople is considered a sign <strong>of</strong> overcrowding 12 .Table 21: Number <strong>of</strong> people per bedroom by LORI, per centLORIPeople per bedroomNone (urban) Low Moderate High/extreme All locations1 or fewer 26.2 23.5 17.7 9.9 22.1> 1 to 2 68.2 63.1 55.9 47.5 61.9> 2 to 3 4.8 11.8 21.0 29.8 13.0> 3 0.8 1.6 5.4 12.8 3.0Total respondents 374 694 186 141 1,39512 It is not possible to fully apply the standard to the Footprints in Time data, since it requires data on the marital status <strong>of</strong> all adult occupants <strong>of</strong> thedwelling which is currently available for the primary carer only.Footprints in Time: The Longitudinal Study <strong>of</strong> Indigenous Children | Key <strong>Summary</strong> <strong>Report</strong> from Wave 333