Money matters…but so do people: Children's views and experiences of living in a ‘disadvantaged’ community

Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Children and Youth Services Review journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/childyouth

Money matters…but so do people: Children's views and experiences of living in a ‘disadvantaged’ community Sharon Bessell The Australian National University, Australia

A B S T R A C T In recent years there has been increased interest among scholars and policy makers in the ways in which communities support or fail children. There has also been interest, particularly among policy makers and practitioners, in how disadvantaged communities can be strengthened to better support children. This paper draws on qualitative research, conducted with 108 children aged between eight and twelve years, in six communities across eastern Australia. Using a rights-based methodology and drawing on participatory methods, the research sought to understand, from the perspective of children, what makes a strong and supportive community. The paper presents two key themes that arose from the research. First, it explores the ways in which financial disadvantage and inadequate public infrastructure and services diminish children's experience of community. Second, it highlights the centrality of inter-personal and inter-generational relations to children's perceptions of whether their community is strong and supportive. It argues that while family finances and public services are central in shaping children's experience of community, strong and supportive relationships are of equal importance.

1. Introduction The role that communities can play in overcoming disadvantage and social exclusion has been a focus of policies and interventions in several OECD countries since the 1990s, with increasing interest in the ways communities support or fail children. Johnson, Headey, and Jensen (2005) argue that concern about ‘community’ intensifies during times of profound social change, suggesting that the early twenty-first century, characterised by globalisation and rapid technological change, is such a period. They argue ‘at such times, it is claimed that the main institutions supposed to promote human welfare cannot cope, or are not doing a good job. Presently, there are claims that families, markets and states are letting many people down.’ (Johnson et al., 2005: 5). Johnson and his colleagues observe that as faith in these institutions is shaken, communities are identified as a possible remedy to social exclusion. In Australia, a range of place-based initiatives emerged from the late 1990s, designed in particular to support children by fostering stronger communities (see Muir et al., 2010). While communities are considered important to children's wellbeing and development, in Australia and elsewhere, relatively few studies have sought to understand from the views, priorities and experiences of children in middle childhood. This article seeks to contribute to filling that lacuna. It draws on research with children aged between eight and twelve years that aimed to understand what they

consider important in making communities strong and supportive for children and people of all ages. Two findings from that research are presented here. First, that both private resources (family income and financial security) and public resources (infrastructure and services) structure children's experience of community. Family poverty, poor public infrastructure and inadequate levels of services diminish children's experience of community and create a sense of vulnerability. Second, while resources matter greatly, so too do relationships. Children described the ways in which strong, supportive and respectful relationships with people across generations creates a sense of inclusion, belonging and safety. While strong relationships do not counteract the impacts of inadequate recourses, the can mitigate the negative impacts on children. Thus, this article focuses on the ways in which resources and relationships intersect in contexts of disadvantage to structure children's experiences of community, arguing that while family finances and public services are central, strong and supportive relationships are of equal – and sometimes greater – importance to children. 2. Method This article is based on qualitative research with 108 children (43 boys and 65 girls) aged between eight and twelve years of age. The research was carried out in six urban sites in eastern Australia, between

E-mail address: [email protected]. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.010 Received 22 May 2017; Accepted 4 June 2017 0190-7409/ © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Please cite this article as: Bessell, S., Children and Youth Services Review (2017), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.06.010

Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Bessell

needs to change or happen if communities are to be genuinely inclusive of both children and adults. The workshops involved between two and four researchers. Children divided into smaller groups, usually of around four to five people, and worked intensively with one researcher. Children were free to choose or swap their groups and to move between researchers to determine with whom they felt most comfortable talking. Children also had the opportunity to have a ‘private chat’ with a researcher of their choice, if there were issues they preferred not to raise in the group situation. Workshops were audio recorded. Each researcher had a recorder, and children were able to (and did) request that the recorder be turned on or off at any time. Children were able to use the recorder if they wished, to ensure a particular message or thought was recorded. Researchers also took brief notes during the workshops and completed standard observation sheets immediately following each session with children (see Bessell, 2013). The standard observation sheets where then discussed within the team, providing for reflection and the first level of analysis. The aim of the child-centred research workshops was not to produce false consensus, but to explore in depth the factors that children consider essential to a safe and supportive community. A range of methods were offered to children, with the aim of providing the opportunity for them to engage in ways that suited their own style of communication and with which they felt most comfortable. Based on the idea of ‘tool kit’, methods were selected or designed to respond to specific research questions. This meant that not all children were ‘required’ to engage in all methods, but had a degree of choice. During the analysis, data from several methods were used to answer specific questions, while different methods provided for triangulation of data. Discussion-based methods included small group discussions around particular aspects of community. Initially, researchers identified the topic of discussion, but as the research progressed children identified the topics on which they wanted to focus. Children were also offered the opportunity to engage in one-on-one or very small group interviews with an interviewer of their choice. In one instance, a group of four boys approached me and asked said they had something to say, but were not sure about discussing it within the more public research setting. I responded that I was happy to talk at any time they wanted. Some time later, the boys said they would like to talk, but wanted the tape recorder turned off. They then explained that they wished to discuss safety issues in their community and to share their feelings following a fatal shooting that had occurred in a public space in their community. The boys had been in the vicinity at the time of the shooting. After explaining the context and how they felt, the boys said they would like to talk about what the event meant for the research, and turned the recorder back on. As we talked through the situation it became clear that the boys had wanted to check my reaction before engaging in a ‘formal’ interview about safety in their community. Two issues were important to them. First, they wanted to ensure that they could effectively convey a balanced view, emphasising that their community was dangerous in some ways but supportive in others. The shooting had upset them greatly and made them feel very unsafe, but it did not represent the entirety of their experience of their community. Second, they wanted to check – off the record – whether I would be too upset by the idea of someone being killed for a discussion to take place. The ‘child-centred workshop’ approach provided space within which the boys could take control of the situation, testing whether they were comfortable with my reaction to their experiences before progressing and determining the terms of which the interview would take place. This is difficult to achieve in a traditional interview setting, where children may have the option not to answer (or to limit their responses), but not to be able to initiate the interview or determine the conditions on which it takes place. Alongside discussion-based methods, visual methods were also included in the tool-kit. Community mapping, drawings and postermaking were options open to children. The aim here was not for the adult researchers to seek to interpret (or potentially misinterpret)

late 2010 and late 2013, and involved partnership between the university researchers and two not for profit organisations. The original research design involved only four sites, all of which are identified as disadvantaged on key socio-economic indicators used by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, including average income, adult education levels, unemployment rates, and housing security/mobility. A major consideration in selecting these sites was that our partner organisations had or were initiating programs in each, meaning that the findings had the potential to be of practical value in informing their work. After the first round of research with children in the ‘disadvantaged’ communities, it became clear that while some of the issues they identified as problematic were not necessarily a result of disadvantage, but may be connected to cultural patterns of behaviour – such as high levels of alcohol use, or child-adult relationships. To explore the extent to which these issues were shaped by socio-economic disadvantage, the decision was taken to include two additional sites, one that classified as advantaged on the indicators mentioned above and one classified as mid-range. Each site was given a pseudonym to protect the confidentiality of the children who participated and to avoid stigmatisation of any community. The epistemological approach underpinning this research situates children as producers and reproducers of social knowledge. Our aim was to recognise and respect children as members of their communities with their own experiences, priorities and life projects (Alanen, 1994) and to understand how they actively engage with, interpret and influence their social contexts (see Bessell, 2010; Corsaro, 2009; James, 2009; Mason & Falloon, 2001). Within our position, research is as a constructionist enterprise, whereby researchers and participants jointly engage in the co-construction of meaning (Fattore, Mason, & Watson, 2009: 59). Through this research we sought to develop insights into community from children's standpoint. In designing this research, we were cognisant of the distinction between methodology and methods, which is particularly important in undertaking research with children (Bessell, 2009). There exists a vast array of innovative and creative methods available to researchers working with children, several of which we used during this project: for example, community mapping, drawings, key messages presented as posters, and participant interviews with the researcher (Bessell, 2013). Yet it is methodology that is key in ensuring research is not only rigorous and robust, but also a positive and supportive experience for children, during which they are able to freely share their experiences and perspectives in a safe and respectful environment. This research was guided by participatory principles whereby we sought to illuminate and dislodge power hierarchies in order to give children control over the research process, the ways in which they engaged, and the methods used (see Cornwall & Jewkes, 1995; Thomas & O'Kane, 1998). The research was not fully participatory as children were not involved in determining the research questions and aims, but we sought to incorporate participatory principles from the early stages of design, during the research with children, and into the analysis. Central to this was returning to children to discuss the findings emerging from the analysis and to ensure that we were not misinterpreting, misunderstanding or misrepresenting what they had said. The methodology was also informed by a rights-based approach whereby the human rights and dignity of children were prioritised throughout the research process, seeking to ensure that children are at all times treated with respect (Bessell, 2015). Our approach to undertaking the research with children was based on the concept of child-centred workshops, which involve group activities that provide space for children to share their individual perspectives and to engage interactively with other children and with researchers as ideas are shared and discussed (see Bessell, 2013). Each of the child-centred research workshops for this project brought together approximately twenty children, to work both collectively and individually, to explore the meaning(s) of community, consider what makes a strong supportive community, and identify what (if anything) 2

Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Bessell

different ‘types’ of social capital. Bonding social capital exists through intra-community links and often excludes ‘outsiders’. Bonding social capital is built on the thick trust of well-established, personal relations that Putnam describes, and is often important in providing the kinds of support that enable ‘insiders’ to ‘get by’ (Putnam, 2000: 136). Bonding social capital may, however, be harmful to individuals' prospects of ‘doing better’ or ‘moving up’, as it limits social networks to those within a given community (see Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). Bridging social capital by contrast, is inter-community in nature and provides individuals with networks beyond their own immediate community or social group. It is bridging capital that enables people to ‘get ahead’ in life (Woolcock & Narayan, 2000). While the different ‘types’ of social capital have been accorded considerable attention in the general social capital literature, relatively little attention has been paid to how they impact on children's social networks and experiences of community. Indeed, theories of social capital have paid very little attention to children generally. The leading theories posit the main function of social capital as enhancing life chances in adulthood. The result has been futurisation, whereby the analytic and empirical focus is on children's future outcomes, rather than the current experiences. Moreover, children's social capital is conceptualised largely as a by-product of their parents' social networks. Leonard has observed that social capital is generally ‘regarded as an asset that children can draw on and benefit from in their future lives rather than in their lives in the present.’ (Leonard, 2005: 607). This failure to recognise the role that key components of social capital, such as networks, reciprocity and trust play out in children's lives and experiences of their communities exemplifies the ‘pseudo-inclusion’ of children in sociological research (Alanen, 2003: 31). Alanen's observation that children often appear to be of genuine concern, but ‘in the end they disappear from view’ is a critique that can be made of much theoretical and empirical work around social capital, and of public policies drawing on the concept. The research on which this article is based sought to illuminate what how children value concepts such as social networks, reciprocity and trust, and how those concepts shape children's experience within their communities. In particular, we sought to understand the ways in which social capital plays out in contexts of disadvantage. Multi-dimensional conceptualisations of poverty recognise the relationship between poverty and social exclusion (see Nevile, 2006). Peter Townsend's (1979: 31) influential definition of poverty demonstrates the intersection between material deprivation and social disconnectedness:

children's graphic representations, but to provide children with multiple ways of expressing their ideas and inviting them to share and explain their maps or drawings to the researchers. A simple written method was also used, whereby children were invited to complete activity diaries, which set out the activities in which they engaged each day. No child was forced to engage in a method he or she felt uncomfortable with, and the availability of different methods ensured that children could make their own choices in an environment that did not simply allow but supported and respected those choices. All research sessions began with ‘getting to know you’ or ‘ice-breaker’ activities (Morrow, 1999) and ended with games and wrap-up activities designed to finish the research with a positive experience (Beazley, Bessell, Ennew, & Waterson, 2006). Children were recruited through primary schools. Children who indicated interest in participating in the research were invited to take home to their parents or carers an information sheet and consent form. Researchers then discussed the research again and in detail with children whose parents had given consent, and children were able to opt in or opt out. The research was approved by the ANU Human Research Ethics Committee on 28 May 2010 (protocol number 2010/161) and was subsequently approved by the University of Western Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (UWS protocol number H8290). Approval was provided by departments of education in each of the states where the research occurred, the first in late 2010, the second in early 2011 and the third in late 2012. 3. Theoretical lenses Two broad and overarching concepts underpin the research discussed here: social capital and poverty. While each of these is the subject of a vast theoretical literature and of considerable debate, the focus of our research, and this article, is to examine key aspects of the interplay between social capital and disadvantage from the standpoint of children. Social capital has been theorised in diverse, indeed opposing, ways. Pierre Bourdieu (1986) sees social capital as a means by which elite privilege and networks of self-interest and advantage can be maintained, reinforced and extended. Bourdieu's conceptualisation provides a powerful lens through which to analyse social stratification and the ways in which social capital can be accumulated. Robert Putnam's (1995) work, which popularised the concept, presents social capital as forms of connectedness based in social networks of trust and reciprocity. Putnam's work has been highly influential in policy circles, including in Australia. Throughout the first decade of the 2000s, both state and Commonwealth governments paid increasing attention to the roles that communities can play in supporting child development and positive outcomes. Policies designed to foster strong communities have drawn on Putnam's ideas civic engagement, defined as ‘people's connections with the life of their communities’ (Putnam, 1995: 665). Trust, reciprocity and networks underpin Putnam's conceptualisation of social capital. Putnam identified two forms of trust, each of which is essential to social capital. Thick trust is ‘embedded in personal relations that are strong, frequent and nested in wider networks’ (Putnam, 2000: 136). This is the form of trust that exists between individuals who know they can rely on one another as a result of long-standing, shared personal experience. A second form of trust is described as ‘thin trust’. This is social or generalised trust that extends beyond one's immediate and personal connections to one's fellow citizens with whom there is not a direct relationship. It is thin trust that Putnam identifies as strongly associated with civic engagement and social capital. In discussing the notion of trust, he draws an important distinction between trust and trustworthiness: ‘Social trust is a valuable community asset if – and only if – it is warranted … Generalized reciprocity is a community asset, but generalized gullibility is not.’ (Putnam, 2000: 135–6). Putnam and others also distinguish between the nature and role of

Individuals, families and groups in the population can be said to be in poverty when they lack the resources to obtain the types of diet, participate in activities, and have to living conditions and amenities which are customary….in the societies to which they belong. Their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are…excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities. Gaining a better understanding of the social implications of poverty and disadvantage for children, from their own standpoints, is at the heart of this research. We aimed to understand how children conceptualise resources within their own lives and their communities, and how resources might structure not only consumption (i.e.: goods and services), as is the focus of much of the literature around childhood poverty, but also social integration (interaction with family, friends, and community) (Burchardt, Le Grand and Piachaud (2002: 31)). 4. Results In keeping with our commitment to co-constructing knowledge with children, we did not begin with a definition of community. Rather, the research sought to develop a definition based on children's understandings and experiences. Child-led group discussions and one-on-one 3

Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Bessell

problem of particular significance. First, high levels of mobility impacted on children's sense of connectedness to their local community, as they had limited scope to develop long-term relationships or a sense of familiarity with local places. Some children who had moved frequently also described the sense of powerlessness they felt when moves occurred without consultation with them, and sometimes without any advance warning. Second, for some children the high cost of housing resulted in extended families and (less often) family friends sharing houses, usually temporarily during times of crisis, but sometimes on a longer term basis. Children from Pacific Islander backgrounds were most likely to talk about having a large number of people living in one house, reflecting cultural values and traditions of reciprocity and obligation. It also reflects the challenges of unemployment and lack of affordable housing facing Pacific Islander families who have relocated to Australia. In some cases, the living arrangements among extended families exemplified a form of bonding social capital, which allows people to get by on a day-to-day basis. However, the need to turn to extended family and friends for emergency accommodation in contemporary Australian society may also indicate exclusion from broader society and an absence of bridging capital that supports individuals – and families – to engage in broader society to gain employment and secure permanent accommodation. For many children, shared housing provided both a support network and a readily accessible group of playmates. While sharing accommodation had positive consequences, it also presented serious challenges. For some of the older girls, it brought additional household chores and responsibility for child-care. In some instances, children felt both crowded and unsafe, having no control over their immediate environment and no say over who stayed in their homes or for how long. While children identified the cost of housing as a particular point of financial stress in low income families, the cost of living more generally was a concern for many. A significant minority of children in the midranked community also spoke of the financial pressures facing their families. Children in each of the disadvantaged communities were aware of the pressures created by a range of ‘bills’ that their families were unable to pay. Children in each of the disadvantaged communities described either experiencing food shortages in their own families or knowing people (adults and children) who on occasion experienced insufficient food for short periods. In three of the disadvantaged communities the primary school ran regular breakfast programs in response to children arriving at school without breakfast. In two schools, teachers described informally providing food to children they knew arrived at school hungry or had no lunch. Children from low-income families described the ways in which a lack of money impacted on their everyday lives. Ellie (aged 11) said that she enjoyed the cinema but was rarely able to go. When asked why not, she replied.

discussions with individual children produced a set of characteristics that children across the sites considered important to community. Not surprisingly, children conceptualised community differently. Some were not in full agreement with the common definition developed through the research, while others placed emphasis or priority on different issues. Nevertheless, it was possible to develop a definition that was widely shared and agreed on by the majority of children. That definition highlights the importance of human relationships and sees communities as sites of support in times of hardship: Community is a social space within which people are personally connected and known to one another. Within this social space, people provide friendship and support to one another and work towards common goals. Respect and kindness are very important. In times of severe difficulty or crisis, communities need to be supported by helping professionals, such as police and ambulance services. The people who make up a community can be diverse. This definition reflects the centrality of relationships to children's conceptualisation of a supportive community. Our analysis revealed clearly that across all sites, people are at the very heart of children's conceptualisation of community. Strong and supportive relationships result in strong and supportive communities, while the absence of positive relationships or the existence of negative relationships erodes children's sense of community. Significantly, when children speak of good relationships, they emphasise inter-generational relationships as important. Children's definition of community demonstrates the relevance of social networks, trust and reciprocity to children's lives, particularly in contexts of disadvantage. Resources are also identified by children as central to the ways in which they experience community. The findings suggest that children interpret resources in two ways: in the personal or familial sense of income and secure assets and in the sense of public services. The description of ‘resources’ constructed by the children who participated in their research is closely related to multidimensional poverty, recognising the structural nature of disadvantage. This research revealed the ways in which resources and relationships structure children's lives. Three findings clearly emerged from this research. First, low incomes and financial insecurity create significant barriers to the ways in which children are able to engage in their communities. In particular, housing insecurity is likely to result in high levels of mobility, resulting in children having few opportunities to build relationships or a sense of familiarity with any one community. Second, children living in disadvantaged communities identify inadequate and poorly maintained public infrastructure and services as a serious problem. Third, relationships are essential to community from children's perspective. Strong, supportive and positive relationships among people of different ages have some potential to mitigate the negative effects of inadequate resources. Strong and supportive relationships result in children feeling more connected to and safer within their communities. Each of these findings is discussed in detail below.

‘We don't go a lot because we have to pay debts and taxes and all that.’

5. Discussion

The cost of engaging in activities that cost money was shared by the majority of children in the disadvantaged sites, with the cost of cinema tickets and entry fees to the local swimming pools raised most frequently. Children observed that the affordability of entertainment was often determined by the number of bills that arrived in any given week. Aiden (aged 10) explained.

5.1. Resources: Coping with low incomes and financial insecurity As Tess Ridge (2007: 166) observes, children are not independent financial actors and their ‘financial status is intimately bound up with their dependent status within their families.’ In our research, the majority of children living in the disadvantaged communities described experiencing financial hardship in ways that impacted on the whole family. The cost of living, and particularly the cost of housing, was a source of concern for many children. Children described the ways in which the lack of affordable housing created housing insecurity, and often resulted in frequent moves and sometimes an associated change of schools. In three of the four disadvantaged communities, the high cost of housing was a major concern for children, with two aspects of this

‘Sometimes mum says yeah, here's the money, let's go and have fun. But sometimes there's bills and stuff and there's no money.’ It was common for children across the disadvantaged sites to use strategies to relieve financial pressure from their parents, most often by refraining from asking for money when they knew it was in short supply. Several children said they decided, without consulting their parents, not to engage in sport or hobbies because of the cost. A smaller number said they decided not to take home school excursion forms 4

Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Bessell

seemingly their parents) as essential childhood items. A significant proportion of children in three of the four disadvantaged communities described spending considerable amounts of time at home alone. Two factors contributed to this. First, parents work demands often resulted in children being alone for several hours after school and sometimes in the evenings. In low income families, the cost of after-school-care (like other structured activities) was prohibitive and children instead entertained themselves, often under the supervision of an older sibling or (for older girls particularly) while supervising younger siblings. The second reason for children being home alone was parents' socialising patterns, which often involved going out with other adults to places that exclude children and engaging in alcohol use. While children described their parents socialising without them across communities, children in low-income families were more likely to be left alone because of the cost of child-care/baby-sitters. Technology-based forms of entertainment, such games and DVDs, were particularly important items for children who described being at home alone regularly, due either to parents work demands or socialising patterns.

because they knew the cost would be a burden on their parents. In these ways, children themselves selected cost-saving strategies that they knew would benefit their families and, importantly, relieve their parents of additional financial pressure. These cost-saving strategies often limited children's engagement in structured activities within their school or broader community. Inability to engage in structured out-of-school activities presented a significant point of difference between children in low- and high-income families. This difference was striking across communities, with children in the most advantaged community participating in the highest number of structured activities, in many cases at least one activity each day. Significantly, however, there were differences within communities. In the communities identified as disadvantaged, children who described the greatest financial pressures in their families were also least likely to participate in structured activities. This finding is not particularly surprising. What is important, is the extent to which the inability to engage in activities signalled to children their unequal position within their community, and broader society. Engagement in structured activities, particularly sport, but also activities such as dance and music, has increasingly come to characterise contemporary Australian childhoods – something that the children who participated in this research were well aware of. Inability to engage in such activities because of the cost involved limits children's social networks and creates the beginnings of a sense of exclusion. Moreover, structured activities are one of the few ways in which children are able to develop bridging capital with both adults and children beyond their immediate social group. Children who engaged in structured activities were also more likely to describe a sense of thin trust, based on positive interactions with a range of people. This is not to uncritically suggest that structured activities are necessarily ‘good’ for children. Indeed, children with very busy structured schedules described being tired and having no free time to simply relax or play. It is to suggest that when structured activities come to shape childhood, as they have for many Australian children, exclusion from those activities seems to have potentially negative implications for children's social capital (as defined in Putnam's terms). This is particularly the case when children's lives and movement are restricted, and their ability to connect informally with people across age groups is limited, often as a result of adult concerns about safety. While children from low income families tended to limit their engagement in activities that incur a cost, older boys (generally those aged 10 to 12 years) often used skate parks as a substitute for structured activities, and as a means of having fun and connecting with others. Very few girls used skate parks, and the majority of girls (particularly those aged 10 to 12) observed that there were no cost-free activities or places for them. Boys who did not enjoy skate-boarding, or did not like the skate park environment, also described having no cost free alternatives. Both girls and boys in the 10 to 12 age group indicated that playgrounds were designed for younger children. In the disadvantaged communities especially, equipment was often broken and playgrounds run down and littered with rubbish (often alcohol bottles, cigarettes and dog faeces), making playgrounds unattractive place to play or hang out. Children also explained that they had few opportunities to move freely around their communities because of their own or their parents' concerns about safety. Ellie (aged 11) explained that her mum was very protective (Ellie's word) and would not let her play outside the yard. Ellie found this annoying, but understood her mother's reasoning:

5.2. Resources: Living in a disadvantaged community While children spoke of resources in terms of income and financial security within families, they also spoke of resources in terms of public services and facilities. Children across all sites highlighted shortfalls in public services, particularly hospitals. Many children had experienced, or knew of, long waiting times in hospital emergency rooms and were concerned that sick or injured people had to wait too long. Children spoke of hospitals in terms of the individual and public good arising from access to health services, particularly in times of need. The problem of homelessness was also raised across all sites as a social problem that required a response from government. While these issues speak to children's concerns about resources at the social level, children in disadvantaged communities also described the ways in which inadequate public investment play out. Children in disadvantaged communities highlighted the problems associated with littered and poorly maintained playgrounds. In disadvantaged communities, unlike the other two sites, issues of safety intersected powerfully with disadvantage and what children described as inadequate public expenditure. Interestingly, while two key informant interviews with adults, undertaken as part of the research, indicated that children from disadvantaged or marginalised backgrounds view the police with suspicion or hostility, the majority of children from disadvantaged communities in this study considered the police to be important in keeping their communities safe. In each disadvantaged site, children identified the police as providing a vital public service, with a significant number of children saying they would like to see more police. Those children who argued for both an increase in police numbers and greater visibility of police did so because they considered police necessary to make their communities safer. Kyle (aged 10 years) said there was a need for more security guards and more police so ‘everyone can feel safe’. Kyle's concerns, like those of many children, were closely related to drunken and violent behaviour in public places, which children in disadvantaged communities reported witnessing regularly. Children in all sites identified the over consumption of alcohol and alcohol related violence as significant problems in Australia, and in their own communities. Significantly, however, children in more advantaged sites were more likely to be shielded from direct experience of public drunkenness or violence. Children in disadvantaged communities were more likely, in this study, to live closer to pubs, clubs and bottle shops, where large amounts of alcohol are sold and consumed.1 Ten-year old Rhiannon's

‘She's just keeping me safe from people who are really mean. The bad peoples.’ While children from low income families spoke of limiting their involvement in activities that cost money, they also spoke of receiving a range of consumer items from their parents. X-boxes and play stations, in particular, were common items, including among children who described considerable financial hardship within their families. Children explained that their parents went to considerable lengths to buy such items for them, which were considered by many children (and

1 It is important to note that this study did not include an advantaged community in a high-density inner city area, where clubs and pubs are likely to be co-located with

5

Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Bessell

description of her experiences was not uncommon: ‘I live near a club unfortunately. I want to move but I don't want to move schools. And I don't want to leave my house, I love that. And I love the neighbours. But I hate that club.’ Having more police on the streets was considered one means of dealing with public drunkenness and public violence. In one disadvantaged community, children explained that public violence was associated not with alcohol but drugs, and particularly with drug-related gang wars and shootings. Pete (aged 10) explained.

5.3. Relationships: People matter Relationships, sometimes described as ‘networks’, are a common, and central, feature of different conceptualisations of social capital. McGonigal et al. (2007: 80) argue that interpersonal and social relationships are ‘the oxygen of social capital, providing either a potentially rich environment for growth and change, or a limiting context.’ While theories of social capital generally pay little attention to children's own networks, children in this research described the centrality of relationships to both their definitions and experiences of community. While children's interpersonal and social relationships were sometimes intertwined with those of their parents, children also described the importance of relationships – with both children and adults – that are independent of their parents. Importantly, in disadvantaged communities, strong and supportive interpersonal and social relationships had the potential to create a sense of inclusion and safety among children, and to broaden the coping strategies of children and their families. Conversely, an absence of positive interpersonal and social relationships contributed to children feeling isolated and unsafe in their communities. When children, across all sites, described community, they generally began with their families. The dominant literature around both social capital and poverty generally subsumes children within the family. Policy responses to community-building and poverty have similarly positioned children almost exclusively within their families, or within the other institution of childhood: school. Edwards (2004: 4) has described this as the ‘familialisation’ of children, whereby the ‘emphasis on them being the responsibility of their parents, and on their upbringing and home lives as shaping their behaviour and attitudes.’ Edwards goes on to argue that children are ‘located as supervised sons and daughters in the home, and conceptualised in terms of their familial dependency.’ Such a representation of children's lives leaves little space to consider the ways in which children engage with people beyond their homes. It also neglects the ways in which children contribute to their families, particularly in contexts of hardship. This research suggests that families are fundamentally important to children and shape their experiences of community and of disadvantage. However, families are not the sum of children's social experiences. In each of the disadvantaged sites, a significant minority of children described the ways in which neighbours supported one another. Exchanges of food were important to children's experience of positive neighbourly interactions: ranging from sharing the produce of a vegetable garden to an elderly neighbour who regularly baked muffins for the children next door (one of whom participated in the research). In times of hardship, provision of food – for a minority of children – was more than a symbolic display of social connectedness, but also a necessity as neighbours provided meals when money was very short. Children also described their neighbours helping one another in a range of ways: from walking dogs to baby-sitting to repairing cars and moving furniture. Such tangible signs of support were described as important by children, and children were often central to neighbourly transactions (for example, by walking or feeding dogs/pets or delivering food). Equally, and perhaps more, important for children were less tangible signs of inclusion and support. Personal safety was a major concern for children living in disadvantaged communities, and the majority described feeling unsafe. As children described issues of safety, the degree of connectedness with people in their local communities emerged as the most significant factor in either enhancing or diminishing children's sense of being safe. In two of the four disadvantaged sites, the majority of children described not knowing their neighbours; in a third disadvantaged site approximately half the children did not know their neighbours. These children were far more likely to feel unsafe and to view people around them with suspicion. Many children living in disadvantaged communities described an absence of what Putnam (2000) refers to as thin trust. Thin trust was diminished when children did not know – and were suspicious of –

‘Well my community didn't used to be safe, but now because we have got a police station near us it's been more safer.’ In addition to dealing with public drunkenness, drugs and violence, children also said they would like to see more police on the streets to enforce road laws. In two of the disadvantaged communities in particular, children identified car-related aggression and violence (speeding, burn-outs, and street racing) as a major problem, and one that made it unsafe for them to play, ride bikes or walk on their local streets. Skattebol (2011: 528) has observed the ‘tendency of Australian social policy to render the underlying conditions of disadvantage invisible,’ emphasising instead the responsibility of the disadvantaged individual. Rather than seeking to dismiss the factors that create conditions of disadvantage, children were often acutely conscious of them, as demonstrated by the example of housing affordability. As discussed above in Section 5.1, children in each of the disadvantaged communities raised the high cost of housing. In one group discussion, children began (unprompted) to discuss what should be done to deal with housing affordability and related insecurity. Ellie (aged 11) raised the concern that the cost of housing is too high and leaves families without enough money for other necessities. The group of eight children aged between eight and eleven years, discussed in detail the problem of not having enough money within a family and debated possible solutions. All children in the group described dealing regularly with insufficient money to meet the collective needs of their family, and discussed the resulting difficulties. After 5 or 6 min, Ellie brought the discussion back to the cost of housing. This time, she said that both rents and mortgages are too expensive and argued that both should be capped, so people only have to spend a certain amount of their income on housing. This suggestion triggered considerable debate. Hollie (11 years) said the idea would not work because builders' wages might go down if the prices of houses go down. Mish agreed with Hollie's concern and said that if builders earned low wages they might look for other jobs, causing a shortage of builders. Ellie continued to argue her case, and both Dani (aged 8) and Fern (aged 11) agreed with her that high housing costs are a social problem that should be addressed by government. Fern observed that costs had been increasing in recent times. Ellie shared with the group that in her family the high cost of rent was a serious problem and at times her mother was unable to afford food. The children were unable to reach a consensus on Ellie's claim that the government should intervene to cap rents and mortgages, but all agreed that the cost of housing is a serious problem that should be addressed collectively (by society or government) rather than individually (by a poor person or family). Children living in contexts of disadvantage described in powerful detail the individual consequences of inadequate financial and other resources. Yet children also contextualised experiences of disadvantage, highlighting the broader social and economic factors that structured their own experiences and the nature of their communities. In their accounts of community and disadvantage, children also highlighted the intersection between resources and relationships. The following section expands on a fundamental and consistent message from the children who participated in this research: people matter.

(footnote continued) expensive housing.

6

Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Bessell

6. Conclusions

people within their communities. The lack of thin trust was often exacerbated by children's interactions with adults who lived and worked in their community but were not well known to them. Children living in disadvantaged communities, particularly those in the older group (10–12 years) who were more likely to be moving about their communities independently, described a range of negative interactions with adults: ranging from bus drivers being rude to security guards moving them on in shopping centres. A particularly common experience for many children being yelled at by adults to get off their lawns, to get off the road when riding their bikes, or to get off the footpath when riding scooters. Indeed, children's accounts suggested that there were few public spaces where children were welcome. Santo (aged 11) observed that people often yelled at him and his friends to get off the road, even when they are riding their bikes in the bike lane. His analysis was telling: ‘They do it to us because we are young. They won't do it to teenagers. Teenagers are likely to have a go back.’ Amy (aged 11) agreed. ‘If they're like, an adult, or someone on like a proper bike, or a teenager or something, then they'll all be like “yeah, okay, that's okay.” But if you're like younger like us, they'll be like “oh get off the road, you stupid little beep”.’ While not all children had directly experienced negative experiences, all were aware that some adults are ‘grumpy’ and ‘mean’ – and often unpredictable. In such an environment, from children's perspectives, generalised trust would indeed be generalised gullibility (Putnam, 2000: 135–6). While thin trust was absent from the lives of many children in the disadvantaged communities, thick trust served as a potentially important counter to the kinds of encounters described above. While there was a general theme of children feeling excluded and badly treated by adults in their communities, children also described the positive impact – with attendant benefits for thin trust – of kind and caring people. Children who experienced frequent positive interactions with people in their communities were more likely to feel safe and included. While familiar people, such as friends, neighbours and extended family who behaved in caring, supportive and friendly ways, were important in creating children's sense of safety, friendly people known only to children by sight were also important in creating an environment in which children felt safe and secure. When children experienced – or feared experiencing – negative interactions, their sense of safety was greatly undermined. While more investigation of this issue is warranted, this research suggests that children in disadvantaged areas are more likely to experience more frequent negative interactions both with people living in their communities and known to them, as well as with strangers. While this article has focused on the implications of the findings of this research for children living in disadvantaged communities, it is important to make brief mention of the poverty of relationships that existed for a significant proportion of children living in the most advantaged community. For these children, time was highly structured and most activities occurred within institutional settings. Children identified having little time with parents and few intergenerational relationships within their geographic communities. While these children were advantaged in terms of resources – and are unlikely to be the target of community-strengthening initiatives – they did not describe experiencing high levels of trust or reciprocity within their communities. These children benefited from what Bourdieu (1986) might describe as their parent's social and cultural capital, an important byproduct of which was a degree of protection from the kinds of negative interactions with unfamiliar people that children in less advantaged communities described. Yet children in the most advantaged site did not experience connectedness to community. While further exploration of this issue is beyond the scope of this article, it is important to note that high levels of financial resources do not necessarily translate into children's experiencing strong and supportive interpersonal relations.

This research suggests that both resources and relationships are essential to children's experiences of living in low-income families and/ or in disadvantaged communities. Resources matter greatly, structuring children's experiences of their communities and often limiting their ability to undertake a range of activities and to form interpersonal and social relationships. Relationships are at the heart of children's conceptualisation of – and positive vision for – community. For the children who participated in this research, strong and supportive intergenerational relations, based on inclusion and mutual respect are essential to a ‘good’ community. When relationships are poor or non-existent, children feel both excluded and unsafe. When children have few interpersonal connections with adults, or when adults in their communities behave in disrespectful or exclusionary ways, children's distrust is heightened – all adults become strangers and all present potential dangers. Conversely, children who knew the people living around them and experienced positive encounters with unfamiliar adults (such as bus drivers or shop keepers) were more likely to describe their communities positively, even when resources were extremely limited. From the standpoint of children participating in this study, poverty is multi-dimensional, involving material resources, access to public services, and social integration. Policy interventions and scholarly literature around childhood poverty have often sought to focus on material deprivation, particularly as it impacts on children's long term development. Material deprivation is important, in children's lives in the present well as in their future lives. However, there is a need for greater attention to be given to the nexus between material and social deprivation, and to the ways in which social exclusion reinforces children's experiences of poverty and marginalisation. Importantly, we need to recognise – and better understand – the ways in which disadvantage and status as ‘child’ intersect to structure children's lives. Resources matter in responding to children's poverty, but so too do people. Building better interpersonal and social supports for children requires us to directly challenge the nature of inter-generational relations and to understand disadvantage as material, structural and social. Acknowledgements This research project was funded by an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant LP LP0991064, ‘Children, Communities and Social Capital in Australia’. The research was led by the Sharon Bessell at Australian National University in collaboration with Emeritus Professor Jan Mason at the University of Western Sydney and in partnership with The Benevolent Society and NAPCAN. My thanks the team who assisted with the research with children: Hannah McInnes, Tahira Jabeen and Yu Wei Neo. My deep gratitude goes to the children who participated in the research and shared their experiences, knowledge and insights so generously and enthusiastically; and to the schools that supported the process. References Alanen, L. (2003). Childhoods: The generational ordering of social relations. In B. Mayall, & H. Zeiher (Eds.), Childhood in generational perspective. London: University of London, Institute of Education. Alanen, L. (1994). Gender and generation: feminism and 'the child question'. In J. Qvortrup, (Ed.), Childhood matters. Social theory, practice and politics. Aldershot: Avebury. Beazley, H., Bessell, S., Ennew, J., & Waterson, R. (2006). What children say: results of comparative research on physical and emotional punishment of children in Southeast Asia and the Pacific. Bangkok: Save the Children Sweden. Bessell, S. (2015). 'Rights-based research with children: Principles and practice' (forthcoming) in Ruth Evans and Louise Holt (eds.) Methodological approaches and methods in practice, volume 2 (editor-in-chief)In T. Skelton (Ed.), Geographies of Children and Young People. Singapore: Springer. Bessell, S. (2013). Child-Centred research workshops: A model for participatory, rightsbased engagement with children. Developing Practice, 37 Number. Bessell, S. (2010). Do rights make a difference? The evolution of policy for children in out-

7

Children and Youth Services Review xxx (xxxx) xxx–xxx

S. Bessell

Mason, J., & Falloon, J. (2001). Some Sydney children define abuse. Routledge Falmer: Conceptualising Child-Adult Relations. Skattebol, J. (2011). “When the money's low”: Economic participation among disadvantaged young Australians. Children and Youth Services Review, 33(4), 528–533. Morrow, V. (1999). If you were a teacher it would be harder to talk to you: Reflections on qualitative research with children in school. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 1(4). Muir, K., Katz, I., Edwards, B., Gray, M., Wise, S., Hayes, A., & The Stronger Families and Communities Strategy Evaluation Team (2010). The national evaluation of the communities for children initiative. Family Matters, 84, 35–42. Nevile, A. (2006). Is social exclusion a useful concept for policy-makers in Australia? Public Policy, 1(2), 83–91. Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon and Schuster. Putnam, R. (1995). Bowling along: America's declining social capital. Journal of Democracy, 6(1), 65–78. Ridge, Tess (2007), ‘Negotiating child poverty: Children's subjective experiences of life on a low income’ in Childhood, generational order and the welfare state: Exploring children's social and economic welfare, Vol. 1 of COST A19: Children's Welfare, Odense Denmark: University Press of Southern Denmark. Thomas, N., & O'Kane, C. (1998). The ethics of participatory research with children. Children and Society, 12(5), 336–348. Townsend, P. (1979). Poverty in the United Kingdom: A survey of household resources and standards of living. London: Penguin. Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2000). Social capital: Implications for development theory, research and policy. World Bank Research Observer, 15(2).

of-home Care in Australia. In A. Nevile (Ed.), Human rights and social policy, Edward Elgar. Bessell, S. (2009). Research with children: Thinking about method and methodology. Involving Children in Research. Sydney: ARACY and the NSW Commission for Children. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. E. Richardson (Ed.), The Handbook of Theory of Reseach for the Sociology of Education. Greenwood Press. Burchardt, T., Le Grand, J., & Piachaud, D. (2002). Degrees of excluions: Developing a dynamic, multidimensional measure. In J. Hills, J. Le Grand, & D. Piachaud (Eds.), Understanding social exclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Cornwall, A., & Jewkes, R. (1995). What is participatory research? Social Science and Medicine, 14(12), 1667–1676. Corsaro, W. (2009). The Sociology of childhood. Thousand Oaks: Sage. Edwards, R. (2004). ‘Present and absent in troubling ways: families and social capital debates’. The Sociological Review, 52(1), 1–21. Fattore, T., Mason, J., & Watson, E. (2009). When children are asked about their wellbeing: Towards a framework for guiding policy. Child Indicators Research, 2, 57–77. James, A. (2009). Agency. In J. Qvortrup, G. Valentine, W. Corsaro, & M. Honig (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of childhood studies (pp. 34–45). Basingstoke: Palgrave. Johnson, D., Headey, B., & Jensen, B. (2005). Communities, social capital and public policy: Literature review. Policy Research Paper Number 29. Canberra: Department of Family and Community Services. Leonard, M. (2005). Children, childhood and social capital: Exploring the links. Sociology, 39(4), 605–622. McGonigal, J., Doherty, R., Allan, J., Mills, S., Catts, R., Redford, M., ... Buckley, C. (2007). Social capital, social inclusion and changing school contexts: A Scottish perspective. British Journal of Educational Studies, 55(1), 77–94.

8