A.1 Parental income
the first measure of financial wellbeing referred to is that of parental income—that is, total gross parental income. the following points are worth noting about this measure:
w Parental income is the sum of the gross weekly income of the resident mother and the father, or the gross
weekly income of the single parent where there is only one parent. where this income was missing for either or both parents, the total parental income was captured in ranges, and these data were used to replace missing parental data where necessary.24
w Parental income is not a measure of total family or household income, as details were not collected at each
wave that enabled the summation of income data from all family members. analysing this parental income is similar to treating the immediate family as an income unit, one of the usual approaches to poverty research (department of family and Community services 2003).
w it is a measure of income from all sources, since income was not disaggregated by source.
w the child’s primary carer (usually the mother) was asked for details of her partner’s income, if she had one, as
well as her own. it is not possible to determine whether this resulted in some inaccuracy in the collection of income data.
w in waves 2 and beyond, the income questions differed to those of wave 1. Parents were prompted about
different possible sources of income. the total income from all sources was then collected for each parent. however, unlike in wave 1, there was no additional question to capture total parental income for those who did not provide these details. this resulted in more missing income data than in wave 1.
when comparing incomes across different population groups to assess living standards, it is necessary to adjust household income for household size and composition in order to take into account differences in the costs of living. this is generally done using equivalence scales. a number of equivalence scales are used. a widely used scale is the modified OeCd equivalence scale.25 this equivalence scale gives a weight of one to
the first adult, 0.5 to the second and subsequent adults, and 0.3 to all dependent children. for analyses of parental income, children aged 15 years and over were considered to be dependent on the parental income, and were represented as additional adults in the equivalence scale.26 Children, then, were those aged under 15 years. it was assumed that other adults living in the household had separate financial arrangements and were not dependent on, or did not contribute significantly to, the finances of the study child’s parents. each household’s parental income was converted to an equivalised income by dividing total parental income by the value of the scale for that household.
Table A1: Weekly income in LSAC families
B cohort K cohort
0–1
year years2–3 years4–5 years6–7 years4–5 years6–7 years8–9 10–11 years $2004
Mean parental income 1,207 1,371 1,516 1,537 1,273 1,425 1,546 1,557 Mean household income(a) 1,207 1,412 1,550 1,574 1,273 1,468 1,591 1,604 Mean equivalised parental
income
584 640 687 694 579 639 687 696 Mean equivalised household
income(a)
584 652 695 701 579 651 696 705 sample size 4,830 4,355 4,085 3,559 4,634 4,168 3,924 3,4437
(a) in wave 1 this is set to be equal to parental income. excludes those with missing income data. note: OeCd equivalence scale used. incomes have been converted to 2004 dollars using the CPi.
APPENDIX A
as a robustness check of these parental income data, additional analyses made use of the household income, which had been collected since wave 2. this household income includes the incomes of all household members aged 15 and over. these data were also equivalised, as described above, except that in calculating the
household’s equivalence scale, any additional adults in the household were included.27
as we have income data for a number of different time points, these data were converted to 2004 dollars by adjusting income in 2006, 2008 and 2010 by the CPi.28
A.2 Sociodemographic variables
health status was collected using the self-completion questionnaire in waves 2 and 3, resulting in some non-response. if this variable was missing in wave 2 or 3, its value was imputed as the average of the value at the previous and subsequent wave. this imputation only works when there is a non-missing value at the previous and subsequent wave, so for some respondents the variable will remain missing. no imputation was done for missing values at wave 1 or wave 4. after imputation, there was missing data for 11 per cent of respondents. respondents with missing values on these variables were retained in the analyses by using a variable that indicates that this variable is missing. Parental ratings of neighbourhood safety and services were collected in the self-completion questionnaire in wave 2 and, if missing at this wave, if possible, the mean of the wave 1 and wave 3 response was used to impute a value for those cases affected. a missing value indicator for these items was also included in the analyses.
Table A2: Socioeconomic, demographic and local area characteristics, B and K cohorts, Waves 1–4
B cohort K cohort 0–1 year 2–3 years 4–5 years 6–7 years 4–5 years 6–7 years 8–9 years 10–11 years % highest parental education < secondary 9.9 10.4 9.2 8.8 12.5 13.3 11.8 10.8 Owns/buying home 62.4 65.4 67.0 68.6 68.4 71.2 71.5 71.0 lives with other adult 4.5 6.3 6.1 8.1 5.0 7.2 8.9 11.4 indigenous parent 4.5 4.6 4.2 4.4 3.5 3.1 3.0 3.2 non–english speaking
parents 12.5 11.2 11.9 14.1 14.1 14.7 14.0 15.6 Parent with poor health 13.4 10.8 12.9 11.7 14.9 12.4 13.7 14.8 Missing poor health data 15.7 16.2 10.3 1.4 15.2 14.9 9.4 1.7 Metropolitan area 66.6 62.7 65.0 63.6 63.8 66.1 63.2 62.8
Mean
local area
unemployment rate (%) 5.59 5.30 4.45 5.63 5.54 5.24 4.43 5.57 age of youngest child
(years) 0.16 1.70 2.92 4.46 2.94 4.51 6.07 7.77 number of children 1.99 2.30 2.52 2.62 2.52 2.62 2.69 2.70 age of youngest parent
(years) 30.39 32.46 34.49 36.53 34.03 36.20 38.17 40.21 low rating of
neighbourhood safety (scale 1–4)
1.81 1.78 1.72 1.66 1.79 1.76 1.71 1.68 low rating of access to
A.3 Measures of social capital
Neighbourhood belonging
the neighbourhood belonging scale captures parents’ trust of neighbours, their sense of identity with the neighbourhood, how well informed they are about local affairs, and their knowledge of where to find information about local services. the scale has a range of 1 to 5, with 5 indicating lower levels of perceived belonging in the neighbourhood. this was reported by the primary carer at each wave for both cohorts. in waves 1 and 2, this was collected through self-completion questionnaires and was missing for 16 per cent of the wave 1 sample and 27 per cent of the wave 2 sample. in later waves, it was collected in the interview, which resulted in much lower levels of non-response (≤ 1 per cent in waves 3 and 4).
Contact with friends and family
the data item used here is an indicator of primary carers’ reports of having or not having at least weekly contact with friends and family. this is derived from information on the frequency of contact with friends and the frequency of contact with family. those who said they had no friends or family were included in those without at least weekly contact with friends or family. these items were collected in the self-completion questionnaires in waves 1, 2 and 3 but by interview in wave 4, so the non-response is greater for the first three waves.
non-response in the first three waves was 16 per cent (wave 1), 26 per cent (wave 2) and 15 per cent (wave 3).
Needing support or help
this indicator is derived from primary carers’ answer to the question: ‘how often do you feel that you need support or help but can’t get it from anyone?’ Parents were classified as ‘often having an unmet need for support or help’ (those who answered ‘very often’ or ‘often’) or ‘less often having an unmet need for support or help’ (those who answered ‘sometimes’, ‘never’ or ‘i don’t need it’). those who in a previous question had said they did not need any help were coded as not having an unmet demand for support or help, and these people were not asked about their unmet demand for support or help. this only applied in wave 1. these items were collected in the self-completion questionnaires in waves 1, 2 and 3, but by interview in wave 4; therefore, the non-response is greater for the first three waves. non-response in the first three waves was 19 per cent (wave 1), 26 per cent (wave 2) and 30 per cent (wave 3). in wave 4 non-response to this item was 2 per cent.
Participation in community or volunteer groups
the question used to derive this item varied across waves/cohorts. in B cohort, waves 1 and 2, parents were asked, ‘are you involved with any of these types of groups or organisations in a voluntary (unpaid) capacity? (this can be as a participant or voluntary worker/office bearer)’. a list of 14 groups and organisations was provided. in B cohort, waves 3 and 4, and in K cohort, waves 1 to 4, parents were asked ‘do you participate in any ongoing community service activity (e.g., volunteering at a school, coaching a sports team or working with a church or neighbourhood association)?’ the result is a binary variable indicating ‘yes’ or ‘no’ for involvement in community or volunteer groups. in waves 1 and 2, this was collected through self-completion questionnaires, and was missing for 19 per cent of the wave 1 sample and 27 per cent of the wave 2 sample. in later waves, it was collected by interview, which resulted in much lower levels of non-response (≤ 2 per cent in wave 3 and 4).
APPENDIX A
Table A3: Social capital measures (primary carers’ reports)
B cohort K cohort
0–1
year years2–3 years4–5 years6–7 years4–5 years6–7 years8–9 years10–11
low neighbourhood belonging (score of 3–5 on 1–5 scale, %)
23.9 18.6 12.7 10.7 19.2 15.3 11.0 12.3 sample size 4,295 3,491 4,322 4,155 4,157 3,421 4,205 4,012 no weekly contact with friends/
family (%)
25.0 18.7 16.8 16.0 20.8 16.3 15.6 18.3 sample size 4,298 3,497 3,773 4,145 4,151 3,432 3,683 3,999 Unmet need for support/help (%) 9.0 16.1 11.5 9.6 9.2 15.6 12.6 11.2 sample size 4,205 3,503 3,268 4,155 4,000 3,441 2,952 4,008 no involvement in community
groups (%)
45.2 66.0 62.8 52.7 31.0 39.2 54.3 49.8 sample size 4,165 3,482 4,328 4,157 4,068 3,407 4,209 4,012
source: lsaC waves 1–4, B and K cohorts.
A.4 Parental mental health and parenting
Table A4: Primary carers’ mental health and parenting measures
B cohort K cohort 0–1 year 2–3 years 4–5 years 6–7 years 4–5 years 6–7 years 8–9 years 10–11 years Kessler, K6 Mean 4.41 4.48 4.44 4.43 4.30 4.44 4.39 4.39 sd 0.59 0.58 0.59 0.64 0.64 0.62 0.64 0.67 sample size 4,296 4,474 3,769 4,156 4,163 4,301 3,693 4,007 warm parenting Mean 4.56 4.60 4.51 4.53 4.44 4.45 4.33 4.27 sd 0.41 0.43 0.48 0.53 0.46 0.49 0.56 0.61 sample size 5,075 4,476 3,771 4,162 4,927 4,301 3,702 4,015 Consistent parenting Mean – – 4.14 4.19 4.02 4.11 4.14 4.11 sd 0.63 0.63 0.69 0.64 0.63 0.67 sample size 3,764 4,161 4,924 4,299 3,698 4,015 angry parenting Mean – – 2.15 2.15 2.19 2.18 2.15 2.16 sd 0.59 0.61 0.59 0.59 0.61 0.66 sample size 3,768 4,161 4,926 4,300 3,698 4,015
note: each of these scales has a range of 1 to 5, with a higher number indicating better mental health and more warm, consistent or angry parenting. Consistent parenting and angry parenting were not available for 0–1 year olds or 2–3 year olds. ‘–’ = not applicable.
A.5 Child outcomes
Table A5: Child outcome measures
B cohort K cohort
4–5 years 6–7 years 4–5 years 6–7 years 8–9 years 10–11 years
PPVt Mean 64.6 73.9 63.9 73.5 77.9 – sd 6.4 5.2 6.3 5.1 4.9 sample size 4211 4140 4366 4267 4152 Matrix reasoning Mean – 10.6 – 10.2 10.5 10.5 sd 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0 sample size 4,135 4,362 4,149 3,989 sdQ total difficulties Mean 8.5 8.5 9.6 8.2 7.8 8.4 sd 4.8 5.3 5.3 5.1 5.4 5.7 sample size 3,771 4,166 4,918 4,288 3,699 4,009 sdQ prosocial behaviour Mean 7.7 8.3 7.7 8.2 8.2 8.5 sd 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7 1.7 1.7 sample size 3,778 4,166 4,919 4,293 3,702 4,009
notes: in the sample used in these analyses (across the cohorts and waves) PPVt has a range of 28 to 101, matrix reasoning has a range of 1 to 19, sdQ total difficulties has a range of 0 to 35 and sdQ prosocial behaviour has a range of 0 to 10. ‘–’ = not applicable.
APPENDIX B