The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children
Annual statistical report 2010

8 A longitudinal view of children living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods

Ben Edwards, Australian Institute of Family Studies

In Australia, there has been an increasing interest in area-based initiatives to address locational disadvantage for families and communities (Edwards et al., 2009; Muir et al., 2009). There are several reasons for the interest in area-based initiatives. Firstly, the Australian Government's Social Inclusion Agenda (Australian Government, 2010) has an explicit focus on locational disadvantage. Secondly, there has been an increase in income inequality in neighbourhoods in many developed nations, including Australia (Hunter, 2003). Finally, there are numerous studies, both international (e.g., Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000) and Australian (Edwards, 2005; Edwards & Bromfield, 2009) that have found that neighbourhood socio-economic disadvantage is correlated with worse outcomes for children and youth, even after family factors are taken into account.

There are several possible ways in which neighbourhood socio-economic disadvantage could influence young children's development. The quality of neighbourhood resources and services may be poorer in more disadvantaged areas; for example, parents' ratings of the quality of neighbourhood facilities are lower in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Edwards, 2006). High rates of joblessness and residential mobility also characterise many disadvantaged neighbourhoods, which affect community social capital (Sampson, Morenoff, & Gannon-Rowley, 2002). For instance, lower neighbourhood socio-economic status and higher residential stability in the neighbourhood have been associated with less social interaction and fewer connections between people, lower levels of reciprocity, and lower expectations of shared child control and sense of belonging (Edwards, 2006; Sampson, Morenoff & Earls, 1999). Crime rates are generally higher and ratings of neighbourhood safety are also generally lower in more disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Sampson et al., 1999). In addition, parental concerns about the safety of neighbourhoods can directly affect their mental health, which in turn can impair parenting (Leventhal & Brooks-Gunn, 2000; Orr et al., 2003).

Prolonged as opposed to transitory exposure to living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods may have more detrimental effects on children's development (Sampson, Sharkey, & Raudenbush, 2008; Timberlake, 2007). Changes in the level of neighbourhood disadvantage to which children are exposed may be due to the "gentrification" of the neighbourhoods in which they have lived since birth or to their families' residential mobility. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) 2006 Census of Population and Housing for the whole of Australia (ABS, 2010) suggests that many children and youth moved in the 5 years prior to the Census. More children and youth move to another residence outside their neighbourhood (24% of 5-14 year olds and 28% of 15-24 year olds) than move within the same neighbourhood (14% of 5-14 year olds and 12% of 15-24 year olds).

This chapter uses data from Growing Up in Australia: The Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC) to provide the first examination of Australian national longitudinal data focusing on the experiences of children and their families who live in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. First, the social and demographic characteristics of residents in LSAC neighbourhoods are described. Second, the persistence of neighbourhood disadvantage is examined as well as describing children and their families who transition out of neighbourhood disadvantage. Finally, the chapter examines whether the transitions into and out of neighbourhood disadvantage can be explained by families moving between neighbourhoods or by changes in the socio-economic composition of neighbourhoods over time.

8.1 Neighbourhood socio-demographic characteristics

This section provides a profile of the social and demographic characteristics of residents in the neighbourhoods in which the study children and families live. The profile uses information about the local area linked from the ABS Census of Population and Housing.1 Table 8.1 presents socio-demographic information about the proportion of people who have completed Year 12, employed people, households that have incomes greater than $1,000 per week, and Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people living in the local area. The main indicator of neighbourhood socio-economic status used in this chapter is the Index of Advantage/Disadvantage of the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), which is the weighted average of a composite of 31 variables such as income, unemployment, occupation and education (Trewin, 2004). Areas are ranked and the average area has a score of 1,000, with 70% of areas having scores ranging from 900 to 1,100. Lower scores indicate more disadvantage and less advantage, and higher scores indicate the reverse. Indicators for areas that were in the bottom 25% (scores less than 924) and in the top 25% of the SEIFA distribution (greater than 1,053) were also generated.

Table 8.1 shows that for both LSAC cohorts, the average neighbourhood socio-economic status of local areas improved over the three waves, but only marginally. However, for both cohorts, the proportion of children living in the 25% most disadvantaged areas decreased from 15% to 12-13%, while the proportion of children living in the 25% most advantaged neighbourhoods was fairly stable. Consistent with the view that the socio-economic status of the neighbourhoods in which the study children lived improved over time, the percentage of employed adults increased by about 2% in both cohorts and the percentage of people who had completed Year 12 increased by about 6% in the B cohort and by about 3% in the K cohort. Although inflation increases the cost of living and therefore reduces some of the benefits of higher incomes in later years, by Wave 3 far fewer households were living on incomes that were less than $1,000 per week. For the B cohort, the proportion of households with incomes of less than $1,000 per week reduced from 52% to 32%, while for the K cohort the reduction was still substantial but not as pronounced (42% to 33%).

Table 8.1 Neighbourhood social and demographic variables, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  Wave 1 Wave 2 Wave 3
B Cohort
SEIFA Index of Advantage/Disadvantage 1,004.58 1,004.06 1,007.56
Families living in bottom 25% of SEIFA Index areas 14.6% 12.5% 12.3%
Families living in top 25% of SEIFA Index areas 26.3% 25.6% 26.2%
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people 1.9% 2.4% 2.4%
People who have completed Year 12 40.5% 45.1% 47.2%
Employed adults 59.6% 61.4% 62.5%
Households with incomes of < $1,000 per week 52.4% 38.6% 32.4%
K Cohort
SEIFA Index of Advantage/Disadvantage 1,002.32 1,006.08 1,005.40
Families living in bottom 25% of SEIFA Index areas 14.8% 12.0% 12.6%
Families living in top 25% of SEIFA Index areas 24.2% 25.8% 25.3%
Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander people 2.3% 2.4% 2.5%
People who have completed Year 12 43.7% 45.3% 46.5%
Employed adults 60.6% 61.6% 62.4%
Households with incomes of < $1,000 per week 41.9% 38.3% 32.8%

8.2 Children's experiences over time of living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods

Persistence of living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods

Table 8.2 shows the percentage of children in the B and K cohorts living in advantaged and disadvantaged neighbourhoods over the three LSAC waves. There is substantial mobility into and out of neighbourhood disadvantage across both cohorts. One in five children were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in at least one wave (22% of children in the B cohort and 20% of children in the K cohort). For the B cohort, half of these children (11%) were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in only one wave and about a quarter (6%) were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood for all three waves. For the K cohort, a smaller percentage of children were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood for one wave (8%) than in the B cohort, but a larger proportion lived in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in all three waves (8%).

Table 8.2 Children living in advantaged and disadvantaged neighbourhoods, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort % K cohort %
Never in bottom 25% of SEIFA Index areas 78.5 80.5
Lived in bottom 25% for one wave 10.5 7.7
Lived in bottom 25% for two waves 5.3 4.2
Lived in bottom 25% for three waves 5.7 7.8
Total 100.0 100.0

Notes: Percentages use population survey weights that account for sample attrition and weight to the general population of 0-1 year olds and 4-5 year olds in 2004. Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

Transitioning into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood

This subsection documents the transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood between the main waves of data collection. The term "transition" denotes any change in neighbourhood status, both into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. In this context, a transition could be due to residential mobility or to changes in the socio-economic nature of the neighbourhood due to economic decline or gentrification.

Table 8.3 documents the transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood between Waves 1 and 2. In Wave 1, 15% of children in the B cohort were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood but by Wave 2, 52% of these children (8% of all study children) were no longer living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. Of the 85% of children who were not living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood at Wave 1, 6% of these children (6% of all study children) were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood by Wave 2. By Wave 2, fewer children were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood (13%) than in Wave 1.

Table 8.3 Transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, B cohort, Wave 1 to Wave 2
    Wave 2 Totals for
Wave 1 %
Proportion in row
who changed status %
Not in neighbourhood
disadvantage %
Neighbourhood
disadvantage %
Wave 1 Neighbourhood disadvantage 7.7 7.0 14.7 52.3
Not in neighbourhood disadvantage 79.8 5.5 85.3 6.4
Totals for Wave 2 87.5 12.5 100.0

Note: n = 4,606.

There were fewer transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood between Waves 2 and 3 (Table 8.4) than in Waves 1 and 2 for the B cohort children and their families. There was a far smaller proportion of children (18%; 2% of all study children) and their families who were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 2 who transitioned out of living in neighbourhood disadvantage. Only 3% of children (3% of all study children) and their families transitioned from living in a non-disadvantaged neighbourhood into a disadvantaged neighbourhood.

Table 8.4 Transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, B cohort, Wave 2 to Wave 3
    Wave 3 Totals for
Wave 2 %
Proportion in row
who changed status %
Not in neighbourhood
disadvantage %
Neighbourhood
disadvantage %
Wave 2 Neighbourhood disadvantage 2.1 9.4 11.5 18.3
Not in neighbourhood disadvantage 85.6 2.9 88.5 3.3
Totals for Wave 3 87.7 12.3 100.0

Note: n = 4,386.

Overall, there were fewer children transitioning into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood between Waves 1 and 2 and between Waves 2 and 3 in the K cohort than in the B cohort. Table 8.5 shows that, of the 14% of children living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 1, some 35% (5% of all study children) transitioned out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood at Wave 2. Three per cent of those living in an advantaged neighbourhood (3% of all study children) transitioned into living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood from Wave 1 to Wave 2.

Table 8.5 Transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, K cohort, Wave 1 to Wave 2
    Wave 2 Totals for
Wave 1 %
Proportion in row
who changed status %
Not in neighbourhood
disadvantage %
Neighbourhood
disadvantage %
Wave 1 Neighbourhood disadvantage 5.1 9.3 14.4 35.4
Not in neighbourhood disadvantage 82.9 2.7 85.6 3.1
Totals for Wave 2 88.0 12.0 100.0

Note: n = 4,464.

As seen in Table 8.6, there were very few transitions out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood between Waves 2 and 3 in the K cohort. Less than 2% of the total sample of children who were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 2 transitioned out of disadvantage at Wave 3. However, more than 2% of children who had not been living in neighbourhood disadvantage in Wave 2 transitioned into living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 3. This meant that there was a small net increase in the percentage of children living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood between Waves 2 and 3.

Overall, the findings on the transitions into and out of living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods suggest that there were higher rates of transition out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods for children in the first four years of life (the B cohort) than there were for older children (the K cohort). In the next section, the role of neighbourhood socio-economic change and residential mobility in these transitions are explored.

Table 8.6 Transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, K cohort, Wave 2 to Wave 3
    Wave 3 Totals for
Wave 2 %
Proportion in row
who changed status %
Not in neighbourhood
disadvantage %
Neighbourhood
disadvantage %
Wave 2 Neighbourhood disadvantage 1.5 10.0 11.5 13.0
Not in neighbourhood disadvantage 85.8 2.6 88.5 2.9
Totals for Wave 3 87.4 12.6 100.0

Note: n = 4331.

8.3 Changes in neighbourhood socio-economic status over the waves: Changes in the neighbourhood or residential mobility?

This section examines transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood and the extent to which these transitions are due to residential mobility or to neighbourhood socio-economic change.

Self-reported information in Waves 2 and 3 was used to examine residential mobility. If parents indicated they had moved since the last interview and if their most recent move was not "within this town or suburb", then they were defined as having moved neighbourhoods.

Table 8.7 outlines the neighbourhood mobility of children in the study, and shows the percentages who remained in the same neighbourhood at all three waves ("stayers"), and the percentage who moved between two waves or all waves ("movers"). There are two points to note. Firstly, there were higher rates of neighbourhood mobility among LSAC children than those reported in the Census.2 One in three children and their families moved neighbourhoods over approximately a 4-year period. Second, of those children and their families that did move neighbourhoods, the majority moved between all waves. These data suggest that there are high rates of neighbourhood mobility, which could therefore play a major role in whether children transition into and out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Table 8.7 Mobility out of neighbourhood of residence in the previous wave, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3
  B cohort % K cohort %
In same neighbourhood at all three waves 65.7 58.3
Moved between Waves 1 and 2 only 4.1 4.2
Moved between Waves 2 and 3 only 10.6 6.0
Moved between all waves 19.6 31.6
Total 100.0 100.0

Note: Percentages may not total 100% due to rounding.

This section next examines the extent to which neighbourhood mobility and neighbourhood change were associated with children and their families' transitions into and out of living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. The top panel of Table 8.8 shows that for B cohort children and their families living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 1, a higher proportion of movers (70%) than stayers (49%) were not living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 2. Movers who were not living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Wave 1 were more likely than stayers to live in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 2, but this was a very small proportion of the total number of movers (8%). It did not offset the small net gain (less than 1%) of children moving out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods due to mobility.

A similar pattern was evident for neighbourhood transitions between Waves 2 and 3 for the B cohort (bottom panel of Table 8.8). Again, a greater proportion of movers than stayers living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the previous wave (Wave 2) were not living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in the later wave (Wave 3). While the proportion of movers living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods at Wave 2 who moved out of a disadvantaged neighbourhood at Wave 3 was smaller than for the transition between Waves 1 and 2, the proportion of stayers living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood whose neighbourhood status changed between Waves 2 and 3 was much smaller (8% compared to 5%). Again, movers who were not living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 2 transitioned into a disadvantaged neighbourhood at a higher rate than stayers (5% compared to 2%), but this did not offset the small net gain from mobility out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods (1.6% minus 1.3%).

Table 8.8 Transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood between waves and neighbourhood mobility, B cohort, Waves 1-3
Transitions from Wave 1 to 2 Mobility Wave 2: Not in disadvantaged neighbourhood % Wave 2: Disadvantaged neighbourhood % Totals for Wave 1 % Proportion in row who changed status %
Wave 1 Disadvantaged neighbourhood Stayer 5.4 5.7 11.1 48.6
Mover 2.3 1.0 3.3 69.7
Not in disadvantaged neighbourhood Stayer 61.5 3.3 64.8 5.1
Mover 19.0 1.7 20.7 8.2
Transitions from Wave 2 to 3 Mobility Wave 3: Not in disadvantaged neighbourhood % Wave 3: Disadvantaged neighbourhood % Totals for Wave 2 % Proportion in row who changed status %
Wave 2 Disadvantaged neighbourhood Stayer 0.7 7.9 8.6 8.1
Mover 1.6 2.1 3.7 4.3
Not in disadvantaged neighbourhood Stayer 61.6 1.0 62.6 1.6
Mover 26.1 1.3 27.4 4.7

Although there is evidence that neighbourhood mobility is associated with a greater rate of transitions out of neighbourhood disadvantage, a far higher percentage of the total number of children and their families transitioned out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods between Waves 1 and 2 if they stayed in the same neighbourhood (5% compared to 2%). There were also 3% of children and their families who stayed in the same neighbourhood between Waves 1 and 2 but whose neighbourhood had become disadvantaged at Wave 2. This pattern of results was not evident for the Waves 2 and 3 transitions for the B cohort.

The pattern of results for residential mobility for children and their families in the K cohort was very similar to the B cohort (Table 8.9). A larger proportion of children and families who were originally living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood and then moved between waves were not living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods in the subsequent wave, compared to stayers who were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood. Similarly, the proportion of movers who were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood who moved to a disadvantaged neighbourhood in the subsequent wave was higher than for stayers. Two points are worth noting. Firstly, for the K cohort, the transition from Wave 2 to Wave 3 marks the first time when there was not a greater percentage of families who moved out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods than into disadvantaged neighbourhoods (both 1.2%). Secondly, rates of neighbourhood mobility increase as the children get older (see Figure 8.1), but transitions out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods decrease.

Table 8.9 Transitions into and out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood between waves and neighbourhood mobility, K cohort, Waves 1-3
Transitions from Wave 1 to 2 Mobility Wave 2: Not in disadvantaged neighbourhood % Wave 2: Disadvantaged neighbourhood % Totals for Wave 1 % Proportion in row who changed status %
Wave 1 Disadvantaged neighbourhood Stayer 3.1 5.9 9.0 34.4
Mover 2.0 2.8 4.8 41.6
Not in disadvantaged neighbourhood Stayer 53.0 1.4 54.4 2.6
Mover 30.5 1.3 31.8 4.1
Transitions from Wave 2 to 3 Mobility Wave 3: Not in disadvantaged neighbourhood % Wave 3: Disadvantaged neighbourhood % Totals for Wave 2 % Proportion in row who changed status %
Wave 2 Disadvantaged neighbourhood Stayer 0.5 7.7 8.2 6.1
Mover 1.2 3.2 4.4 27.3
Not in disadvantaged neighbourhood Stayer 57.8 1.0 58.8 1.7
Mover 32.9 1.2 34.1 3.5

Figure 8.1 Between-wave neighbourhood mobility, by neighbourhood disadvantage in the previous wave, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3

Figure 8.1 Between-wave neighbourhood mobility, by neighbourhood disadvantage in the previous wave, B and K cohorts, Waves 1-3 - as described in text

Transitions out of neighbourhood disadvantage due to neighbourhood change were not as common for the K cohort. There were a smaller percentage of children and their families who were living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 1 who stayed in the same neighbourhood but were not living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 2 (3.1%). Moreover, there was little difference between stayers and movers in the percentage of children and their families who were not living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood in Wave 1 but were living in a neighbourhood disadvantage in Wave 2.

8.4 Summary

At each wave of LSAC, fewer than one in ten children were growing up in a disadvantaged neighbourhood, as defined by the bottom 25% of the SEIFA Index of Advantage/Disadvantage. Younger children and their families transitioned out of living in a disadvantaged neighbourhood at higher rates in the first three years of children's lives than when the children were 8-9 years of age. The higher rate of transitions out of neighbourhood disadvantage were associated with residential mobility rather than neighbourhood change early on, but not so much at later waves. Neighbourhood mobility played a larger role for younger children and their families moving out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods early in life, but this gradually declined as children grew older. Even though rates of neighbourhood mobility increased as children grew older, there was still much less mobility out of disadvantaged areas. The role of neighbourhood change in moving children and their families out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods was even more pronounced in the early years of a child's life, but by age 8-9 this played only a small role in changing children's life circumstances. The early years of children's lives being more important for transitions out of neighbourhood was not due to methodological biases, as the weighting scheme in the study accounted for sample attrition.

Further research needs to document the types of families that transition into and out of neighbourhood disadvantage, as there may be particular families or circumstances (such as parental relationship breakdown) in which transitions into a disadvantaged neighbourhood may be more common (South, Crowder, & Trent, 1998). The high rate of neighbourhood mobility is another issue worthy of further investigation, as residential mobility has been found to be associated with poorer developmental outcomes for children (Simpson & Fowler, 1994; Wood, Halfon, Scarlata, Newacheck, & Nessim, 1993).

Although there appear to be fewer opportunities for families to move out of disadvantaged neighbourhoods over time, the number and persistence of children living in disadvantaged neighbourhoods is small by international standards. For example, in the United States, 25% of Caucasian children and 72% of African-American children will remain in a poor neighbourhood for 10 or more consecutive years (Quillian, 2003). In part, this may reflect that the SEIFA indexes are relative rankings of areas, so they do not change much over time, even if a more absolute measure of neighbourhood disadvantage does change substantially (e.g., local unemployment rates). Therefore, further research examining transitions using absolute measures of disadvantage is warranted.3 It is also important to note that the intensification of neighbourhood disadvantage may also be beyond the control of families. For instance, the change in the mix of industries in areas and therefore the availability of work in particular industries in these areas or the availability of jobs in particular areas (sometimes referred to as spatial mismatch) are beyond the control of families but can effect neighbourhood disadvantage (see Hunter, 2006). Therefore, further research on the dynamics of neighbourhood change and children's development is important, particularly for examining whether persistent disadvantage has a deleterious affect on Australian children's development.

8.5 Further reading

  • Edwards, B. (2005). Does it take a village? An investigation of neighbourhood effects on Australian children's development. Family Matters, 72, 36-43.
  • Edwards, B. (2006). Views of the village: Parents' perceptions of their neighbourhoods. Family Matters, 74, 26-33.
  • Edwards, B., & Bromfield, L. (2009). Neighborhood influences on young children's conduct problems and pro-social behavior: Evidence from an Australian national sample. Children and Youth Services Review, 31(3), 317-324.

8.6 References

  • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2010). 2006 Census of Population and Housing. Canberra: ABS.
  • Australian Government. (2010). Social inclusion priorities. Canberra: Australian Government. Retrieved from <www.socialinclusion.gov.au/SIAgenda/Priorities/Pages/default.aspx>.
  • Edwards, B. (2005). Does it take a village? An investigation of neighbourhood effects on Australian children's development. Family Matters, 72, 36-43.
  • Edwards, B. (2006). Views of the village: Parents' perceptions of their neighbourhoods. Family Matters, 74<, 26-33.
  • Edwards, B., & Bromfield, L. M., (2009). Neighborhood influences on young children's conduct problems and pro-social Muir, K., (2009). Stronger Families in Australia study: The impact of Communities for Children (Occasional Paper No. 25). Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
  • Hunter, B. (2003). Trends in neighbourhood inequality of Australian, Canadian and United States of America cities since the 1970s. Australian Economic History Review, 43(1), 22-44.
  • Hunter, B. (2006). The "Peter Pan" of Australian economic policy research. The Economic Record, 82<, 127-137.
  • Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighbourhoods they live in: The effects of neighbourhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126(2), 309-337.
  • Muir, K., Katz, I., Purcal, C., Patulny, R., Flaxman, S., Abello, D. et al. (2009). National evaluation (2004-2008) of the Stronger Families and Communities Strategy 2004-2009 (Occasional Paper No. 24). Canberra: Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs.
  • Orr, L., Feins, J. D., Jacob, R., Beecroft, E., Sanbonmatsu, L., Katz, L. F. et al. (2003). Moving to opportunity: Interim impacts evaluation. Washington, DC: Office of Policy Development and Research, US Department of Housing and Urban Development.
  • Quillian, L. (2003). How long are exposures to poor neighbourhoods? The long-term dynamics of entry and exit from poor neighbourhoods. Population Research and Policy Review, 22<, 221-249.
  • Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64, 633-60.
  • Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D. & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing neighbourhood effects: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28<, 443-478.
  • Sampson, R. J., Sharkey, P., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2008). Durable effects of concentrated disadvantage on verbal ability among African-American children. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 845-853.
  • Simpson, G. A., & Fowler, M. G. (1994). Geographic mobility and children's emotional/behavioral adjustment and school functioning. Pediatrics, 93(2), 303-309.
  • South, S. J., Crowder, K. D., & Trent, K. (1998). Children's residential mobility and neighbourhood environment following parental divorce and remarriage. Social Forces, 77(2), 667-693.
  • Timberlake, J. M. (2007). Racial and ethnic inequality in the duration of children's exposure to neighborhood poverty and affluence. Social Problems, 54, 319-342.
  • Trewin, D. (2004). Census of Population and Housing: Socio-Economic Indexes For Area's (SEIFA) Australia 2001 (Technical Paper Cat. No. 2039.0.55.001). Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  • Wood, D., Halfon, N., Scarlata, D., Newacheck, P., & Nessim, S. (1993). Impact of family relocation on children's growth, development, school function, and behavior. Journal of the American Medical Association, 270(11), 1334-1338.

Footnote(s)

1 Census data are either linked at the Statistical Local Area (SLA) level or, where this isn't available, the study child's postcode. One estimate is provided for each time point representing a linear interpolation of the data at the Censuses either side of the Census collection period. Although SLAs are the size of local government areas, in many instances they are preferable to collection districts (CDs, which more closely approximate a local neighbourhood) because of their stability over time. SLAs are relatively stable between Censuses, and therefore comparisons of Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) values over time are more valid than for CDs or postcodes, where there may be substantial changes in their definition over the same period.

2 Note that the 2006 Census data on residential mobility is only available for children aged 5 years and older.

3 The results in Table 8.1, however, suggest that there has been an overall trend towards advantage, with increased employment rates and fewer households with incomes of less than $1,000 per week.

Top