This annual report - Taranaki District Health Board

Child Poverty Trends by Household TypeIn New Zealand, child poverty rates for children in both sole-parent and two-parenthouseholds increased rapidly between 1988 and 1992. In absolute terms however, ratesrose most rapidly for children in sole-parent households (rates peaked at 77% for soleparenthouseholds in 1996 and at 29% for two-parent households in 1994). While rates forboth household types declined between 2001 and 2007, during 2007 rates for those insole-parent households remained higher than their 1980s levels, while rates for two-parenthouseholds were similar (Figure 8). (Perry notes that one in three sole parent families livein wider households with other adults, and that children living in these “other” householdshave significantly lower poverty rates than those living in sole parent households, becauseof the greater household resources available [8]).Child Poverty Trends by Work Status of Adults in HouseholdIn New Zealand, child poverty rates for children in workless households, or where noadults worked full-time, increased rapidly during 1988–1992. Poverty rates for children inthese households remained elevated during the 1990s (range 66%–78%), before decliningduring 2001–2007. Even at their nadir in 2007, poverty rates for children in thesehouseholds remained much higher than 1980s levels. In contrast, increases in childpoverty for households where an adult worked full-time, or was self-employed, were muchless marked, with rates in 2007–2009 being similar to those in the 1980s (Figure 9). (Perrynotes that during the 1980s, children in workless households were around twice as likely tobe in poor households; during 1992–2004 four times more likely; and during 2007–2011six to seven times more likely [8]).Families with Reduced Living StandardsThe Ministry of Social Development has undertaken three national Living StandardsSurveys, in 2000, 2004 and 2008. The 2008 Survey collected information from 5000households on their material circumstances, including ownership and quality of householddurables, their ability to keep the house warm, pay the bills, have broken down appliancesrepaired, and pursue hobbies and other interests [14]. The following section briefly reviewsthe living standards of children aged 0–17 years, using the 2008 Living Standards Survey’scomposite index of deprivation.Data Source and MethodsDefinitionProportion of Children Aged 0–17 Years with Deprivation Scores of Four or MoreData SourceThe Ministry of Social Development’s 2008 Living Standards Survey [14].In the 2008 Living Standards Survey, respondents provided information about themselves and others in theirEconomic Family Unit (EFU). A respondent’s EFU comprised the respondent and partner (if any), together withtheir dependent children in the household (if any). This was a narrower concept than the census family unitwhich includes other family members such as adult children and parents of adult children.In the survey, total response ethnicity was used, meaning that categories were not mutually exclusive, as oneperson could be in two or more categories depending on their response. When the analysis was repeatedusing prioritised ethnicity however, the change in classification had minimal impact on the results.Deprivation Index Used in 2008 Living Standards SurveyIn the 2008 Living Standards Survey, a 14 item material deprivation index was used to compare the relativepositions of different population groups. Each item in the index assessed an ‘enforced lack’, with items beingdivided into two categories: ownership/participation, where an item was wanted but not possessed because ofcost; and economising items, which focused on cutting back or going without in order to pay for other basicneeds. The deprivation score for each respondent was the sum of all enforced lacks, with a cut off of 4+ beingused as a measure of material hardship, as it represented the 15% of the population experiencing the mosthardship (and was thus seen as being equivalent to the MSD’s income poverty measures).Child Poverty and Living Standards - 59