Findings
Dropping off the Edge 2021 shows that disadvantage is concentrated in a small and disproportionate number of communities in each state and territory. For example, in New South Wales, 13% of locations accounted for 55% of the most disadvantaged positions across all indicators. This concentration was evident in other jurisdictions too. In Queensland, 9% of locations accounted for 41% of disadvantage, and in Western Australia, 10% of locations accounted for 56% of the most disadvantaged positions. In Victoria, 5% of locationsaccounted for 29% of the most disadvantaged positions across all indicators.
The indexes created in 2015 and 2021 are not directly comparable due to the addition of new indicators and the introduction of domains. However the consistent identification of many of the same locations as disadvantaged in multiple reports, notwithstanding these changes, shows that disadvantage is persistent.
For example, all of the top ten most disadvantaged Victorian locations in 2021, and nine of the top ten in New South Wales, were also highly disadvantaged in 2015. Eight of the top ten in Queensland and 19 of the top 20 in South Australia were also highly disadvantaged in 2015.
When looking at where disadvantaged communities are located in each state or territory, it becomes evident that, in general, disadvantage is experienced in regional and remote areas. All of the top ten most disadvantaged locations in the Northern Territory were outside Darwin despite only one-third of the SA2 locations (community level areas) being outside the Darwin area.
This trend was repeated to varying degrees in each state and territory with only Victoria and South Australia having a proportionate number of locations classed as highly disadvantaged in their capital cities.
There were some similarities in the indicators most strongly associated with general levels of disadvantage across each jurisdiction, with low income, crime, family violence, poor air quality, early school leaving, a lack of post-school qualifications and no internet access having a strong influence on index results in each state and territory.
Looking at the results for each indicator in every location, the research shows many of the most disadvantaged locations are severely disadvantaged (top 5% most disadvantaged across the jurisdiction) on multiple indicators. This shows that disadvantage is often multilayered and deep. The research provides valuable insights into the particular forms of disadvantage that are prevalent in a location. These insights can be used to tailor responses that will have the greatest prospects of improving outcomes in these communities.
The research considered which indicators were over-represented at the extreme end of disadvantage, focusing on the most highly disadvantaged 3% of locations in Victoria, New South Wales and Queensland (around 15 communities in each state). Some indicators were present at three or more times the rate in these locations as in the rest of the state. Commonly overrepresented indicators of disadvantage in these locations included prison admissions juvenile convictions, long term unemployment, households with no parent in paid work, and public housing.
It is to be expected that public housing is more common in areas of disadvantage – availability of public housing is an important support for those experiencing disadvantage. However, given that public housing often accommodates people with complex problems, a high representation against this indicator provides useful information to policy makers and community service organisations in seeking to address problems in a location.
Dropping off the Edge 2021 shows us that people in communities with high levels of public housing likely experience concurrent issues such as long-term unemployment, family violence and contact with the criminal justice system – demonstrating a complicated picture of multiple disadvantage.
The 2021 report saw the introduction of two new domains of indicators: intergenerational and environmental data. The new indicators in these domains were teen pregnancy, children in households with no parent in paid work, particulate matter (poor air quality), green canopy coverage, declared nature reserves and heat vulnerability.
These and other changes increased the number of indicators from 22 to 37, and such extensive additions might have resulted in a significant shift in the locations ranked as highly disadvantaged in each state and territory. However, we continued to see consistent results in relation to where disadvantage is located across the country. This suggests that as we expand our definition of disadvantage, we also deepen our understanding of its complex and intersecting nature.
This research allows us to make significant high-level statements about where disadvantage is located and which indicators are influencing the index. However, the outstanding power of Dropping off the Edge is the capacity it gives us to closely consider any of the 2,292 community level locations around the country and see a detailed picture of how they are faring against each of the 37 indicators.
This gives a much more nuanced picture of the particular make up of disadvantage in any location and a starting point first to understand the nature of disadvantage in the community and then to identify ways to address local challenges in order for people to thrive.
To understand and address disadvantage it is essential to engage with and listen to community members. For the first time, the 2021 report included focus groups and interviews in eight communities in six different states and territories.
This qualitative data is not representative of the entire community, nor indeed of other disadvantaged communities across the country, nevertheless a number of lessons can be learned from hearing those community experiences and insights.
Clear themes emerged from this qualitative research including that community members saw significant strength but also challenges in their local communities related to leadership, social cohesion and effective service delivery.
Community members stressed the need for good community infrastructure, clear communication and coordination of resources, a diversity of providers and accessibility to those resources.
Many of the remote or regional communities raised issues regarding the quality of services, their accessibility and whether they paid adequate heed to cultural aspects and needs of a community. Education, employment and health were particular areas of concern, due to some services being available only in a limited way, or being hard to access due to distance.
A clear message from discussions with community members is that significant strengths are always present within communities, as is a desire to see their communities flourish. These strengths offer opportunities to tailor responses to address disadvantage that empower and enable community members and local leaders to support their communities to thrive.
