Their parents, families and houses
Footprints in Time collects detailed information about household size and composition, including the number of people living in a house, their age, sex, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander status, and relationship to the parent.
Mothers provided the primary care for almost all of the Study children (93 per cent). Mothers ranged in age from 16 to 54 years, with an average age of 28 years. Fifteen per cent of mothers were aged 21 years or less, while 3 per cent (47 mothers) of mothers were aged 18 years or less.
Just over half of the parents had a partner living in the household (54 per cent). Equal proportions of each cohort were living in unpartnered households.
Table 4 presents the breakdown of household sizes. The majority of children lived with at least four other people, with households ranging in size from two to 22 people (with an average of 5 people). Just 134 households (8 per cent of the 1,687 families interviewed) consisted of only two people, the parent and the Study child, while 12 per cent of households had eight or more people living in them.
Table 4: Household size
| Number of people in household |
No |
% |
| 2 |
134 |
8 |
| 3 |
298 |
18 |
| 4 |
393 |
23 |
| 5 |
337 |
20 |
| 6 |
212 |
13 |
| 7 |
115 |
7 |
| 8 or more |
198 |
12 |
Note: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.
Many of the Study children lived in families with more than one child. Approximately half the Study children lived in families with one or two other children and about 28 per cent lived with three or more other children. A sizeable minority (23 per cent) were the only child living in the home. Many of these ‘sole’ children (29 per cent) had a full or half sibling living elsewhere.
Parents were also asked if the child had a parent living elsewhere. A total of 476 parents (28 per cent) responded that the child did have a parent living elsewhere. However, 586 parents, or slightly more than one-third of the total number of parents, did not agree to answer questions on this topic. Of these parents, 255 reported that they were unpartnered.
The pathways through which housing circumstances can affect health and social outcomes are myriad, and have been described in relation to Indigenous Australians by various researchers, with a good overview provided by Bailie and Wayte (2006). Home ownership, although not necessarily an aspiration of all Indigenous people, is an important indicator of wealth and saving. As well as providing other benefits, home ownership provides a secure asset base that can contribute to financial stability, and against which people can borrow. Indigenous Australians on average have a much lower income than non-Indigenous Australians and this adds to the difficulties in achieving home ownership (SCRGSP 2009).
The majority of the families of the Study children (81 per cent) lived in a rented property (see Figure 2), generally rented from a government housing authority (42 per cent of renters). This was particularly the case for unpartnered parents, about half of whom lived in government housing, compared with 33 per cent of partnered parents. Only a small proportion of parents (17 per cent) reported that they, or another household member, owned or were paying off their own home. Very few unpartnered parents reported home ownership (8 per cent), relative to their partnered counterparts (25 per cent).
Figure 2: Home tenure
Figure 2 description: This diagram depicts the breakdown of housing tenure of the Footprints in Time Sample.
Renter 81.3% (which includes: Government housing authority 41.7%; Community of cooperative housing 19.6%; Private landlord/real estate 19.6%; Employer 0.4%) Owned with mortgage 14.0%, Owned outright 3.1% ; Other 1.6% .
Notes: Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding.a Does not include 18 cases for which data was missing.
Parents were asked if their home needed any major ‘things fixed’ (such as plumbing, fencing, electrical or gas, flooring or kitchen and appliances). About 40 per cent reported that they did need something fixed. Of these, 74 per cent, when asked if it was easily fixed, answered ‘not always’ or ‘no’.
For most of the Study children, the time since birth had been relatively stable in terms of changes in housing. For the Baby cohort, the majority (66 per cent) had lived in only one house since birth. Not surprisingly, older children were more likely to have lived in multiple houses, although a large number had lived in only one (39 per cent) or two (30 per cent) houses since birth. However, 16 per cent of older cohort children had lived in four or more houses during this time (Figure 3).
Figure 3: Number of houses Study child has lived in since birth
Figure 3 description: This graph depicts housing mobility of Footprints in Time Study children since birth for those in the Child cohort compared with those in the Baby cohort. The horizontal axis depicts the answer categories in terms of numbers of homes lived in since birth and the vertical axis depicts the percentage of Study children in each category.
Baby cohort: 1 home 64.8%, 2 homes 23.8%, 3 homes 6.9%,4 or more homes 3.4%.
Child cohort: 1 home 38.2%, 2 homes 29.6%, 3 homes 16.7%, 4 or more homes 15.6%
Stability in caring was also evident. A total of 1,619 Study children (96 per cent) had lived with the same parent since birth.
Work and finances
Only a small proportion of primary parents were employed, possibly reflecting their current care giving responsibilities. For the Baby cohort, 27 per cent of primary parents were employed. Of those who were employed, 8 per cent were on leave from their job at the time of the interview. Employment figures were higher for parents of older children, even though some of these parents had since given birth to another child. Among parents of older cohort children, 34 per cent of primary parents were employed, with about 2 per cent of these on leave at the time of the interview. Overall, 12 per cent of parents (198 parents) were studying, mostly at a TAFE, technical college or university.
From the P1 interview it was not possible to determine the employment status or work history of the secondary carer (P2). Parents were asked, however, about the main sources of household income. Less than half (40 per cent) listed a wage or salary as a main source of income; however, the majority of those without a wage or salary were unpartnered parents (see Figure 4). Approximately 61 per cent of partnered parents reported a wage or salary as one of their main sources of household income, compared to only 16 per cent of unpartnered parents.
Figure 4: Main sources of income by partnership status
Figure 4 description:This graph depicts the main sources of income for partnered parents compared to unpartnered parents
The horizontal axis compares different sources of income and the vertical axis depicts the percentage of parents in each category.
Partnered parents: Wages/salary 61.2%; CEA/CDEP 8.6%; Government pension/benefit 55.4%; Child support 2.0%
Unpartnered parents: Wages/salary 16.1%; CEA/CDEP 2.6%; Government pension/benefit 85.4%; Child support 5.9%
The family’s financial situation also seemed to be related to the partnership status of the primary parent. Unpartnered parents were not as financially secure as partnered parents. Around 41 per cent of partnered parents reported being able to save a bit or a lot of money, compared to 29 per cent of unpartnered parents. Around 16 per cent of partnered parents and 20 per cent of unpartnered parents reported either running out of money before payday or spending more than they get (see Figure 5). Of the total sample, the majority of parents (82 per cent) reported that they have enough money to live on each week, with 35 per cent reporting that they were able to save either ‘a bit’ or ‘a lot’.
Figure 5: Family financial situation by partnership status
Figure 5 description:This graph depicts the perceived financial situation of partnered parents compared to unpartnered parents.The horizontal axis compares response categories in terms of differing financial situations and the vertical axis depicts the percentage of parents in each category.
Partnered parents: We run out of money before payday 12.0%; We are spending more than we get 3.9%: We have just enough money to get us through 32.9%; There’s some money left over but we just spend it 8.8%; We can save a bit 33.3%; We can save a lot 6.4%
Unpartnered parents: We run out of money before payday 16.0%; We are spending more than we get 3.3%: We have just enough money to get us through 39.1%; There’s some money left over but we just spend it 8.7%; We can save a bit 22.0%; We can save a lot 5.3%
Seven per cent of families were affected by income management or quarantining through Centrelink. These were primarily families in the Northern Territory and Western Australia.
Cultural identification
All of the Footprints in Time Study children were either Aboriginal (88 per cent), Torres Strait Islander (6 per cent) or both (6 per cent). Among parents, 1,256 (76 per cent) identified as Aboriginal, 7 per cent as Torres Strait Islander, 4 per cent as both Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander and 13 per cent as neither Aboriginal nor Torres Strait Islander.
Within these broad classifications, parents identify their children with a wide variety of tribes, language groups, clans and country. Some families have strong links to ethnic groups overseas, especially Pacific Island groups, such as Maori and Tongan. Others mentioned links to European, Asian and African communities.
Many parents named tribal and language groups (see Figure 6) and a number of parents identified physical locations rather than tribal names, such as particular islands, towns and natural landmarks like gorges or rivers. Parents also mentioned particular clan names or animals, particularly those in the Torres Strait and in other remote areas. Only a small number of parents referred to large regional ethnonyms such as ‘Koori’ when describing their child’s cultural identity. It was not uncommon for parents to list several tribal groups or clans. The largest groups represented in Footprints in Time were Wiradjuri, Arrernte, Yorta Yorta and Gamilaraay.
Figure 6: Most common tribal identification of study participants
Figure 6 description:This graph depicts the twenty most common tribes that parents identified the Study children with. These tribes are: Wiradjuri, Arrernte, Yorta Yorta, Gamilaraay, Waanyi, Bardi, Kalkantungu, Ganggalidda, Lardil, Nyulnyul, Bundjalung, Goonlyandi, Larrakia, Djambarrpuyngu, Garrwa, Ngarrindjeri, Yawuru, Pitjantjatjara, Warlpiri, Yuin.
Parents reported doing a number of different activities ‘occasionally’, ‘often’ or ‘very often’ with their children to ensure that they are strong in their culture:
- 67 per cent took their child to an Indigenous cultural event, ceremony or sorry business
- 44 per cent taught their child traditional arts like painting, dance, singing and making ceremonial dress
- 41 per cent taught their child traditional practices like collecting food or hunting.
Parents also reported that Study children eat bush tucker. Of the older cohort children, 48 per cent eat some type of bush tucker. The most common types of bush tucker tended to be meats such as kangaroo, emu, goanna, turtle and dugong.
Language
Parents were asked which languages they speak, and their fluency and literacy in each of those languages. This is important for beginning to understand which languages children are being exposed to prior to starting school, and whether their parents are likely to be able to help them learn to read and write in those languages. Parent responses were categorised using a list of languages drawn from the ABS Australian Standard Classification of Languages. These included English, sign language, foreign language, Kriol, Yumplatok (Torres Strait Creole) and over 160 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander languages.
Approximately 20 per cent of parents speak one or more traditional Indigenous languages; Kriol or Yumplatok are spoken by 14 per cent of parents. A total of 18 per cent of parents reported that they are bilingual and 8 per cent reported that they are multilingual. Most parents (95 per cent) speak English, and of these, 91 per cent are able to read and write it well, only 1 per cent reported they are only able to read and write a few words or not at all. Parents reported that they ‘read and write well’ in 24 per cent of all the traditional Indigenous languages that are spoken, and ‘read and write some’ in a further 17 per cent. Of parents who reported speaking a creole, 40 per cent are able to ‘read and write well’ in this language and a further 20 per cent can ‘read and write some’. 10
Box 3: Indigenous language
Prior to European settlement, it is estimated that Australia had about 300 Indigenous languages, fewer than 20 of which are currently being fully passed on to children (McConvell 2008, p. 238). In the past it was typical for Indigenous people to speak their own language, as well as several others spoken in the region. Multilingualism was stable and enabled communication and marriage between different tribes.
In some remote areas in Australia this is still the case; however, it is unclear to what degree Indigenous children are learning the same languages spoken by their parents and grandparents. There have also been efforts in some areas to revitalise languages that are endangered or lost, which means that some children are learning languages that their parents may be unable to speak.
An additional complexity in understanding language is the use of creoles. Creoles began as ‘pidgin’ languages. In Australia, these were simplified blends of English and Aboriginal or Torres Strait languages, originally used to facilitate communication on missions, outstations, and so on. Eventually these pidgins have creolised, that is, become languages in their own right, they have increased in complexity, become capable of expressing a broad range of concepts and learnt as a mother tongue by some children. The main creoles spoken in Australia today are ‘Kriol’ (spoken in mainland Australia, but with regional characteristics, based on Aboriginal languages) and Yumplatok, which is spoken in the Torres Strait and is primarily based on Torres Strait Islander languages.
Aboriginal English is different to a creole, as it is essentially a dialect of English, and mutually intelligible to other English speakers (much like Scots English, American English, or Australian English, for example). Aboriginal English speakers can be said to speak with an Aboriginal accent, and sometimes use an Aboriginal word, or slightly different grammar when speaking English, from other Australians. Wave 1 of Footprints in Time did not attempt to measure the number of Aboriginal English speakers because understanding of what Aboriginal English is varies widely. Within the Footprints in Time Wave 1 data, Australian English and Aboriginal English speakers are all considered to speak ‘English’.
Parents were also asked about the languages spoken and understood by the Study child. Terms like mother tongue, first language, home language, and so forth, can be difficult to apply in homes where two or more languages are regularly used. It is not always clear whether a ‘mother tongue’ should be defined as a traditional language, or the language most fluently spoken. For this reason, parents of older children were simply asked how well the Study child speaks each language; that is, whether it is the child’s main language, whether they ‘speak it alright’, or whether they speak some words only.
The majority of children (81 per cent) are learning to speak one language, primarily English. Of the remaining 19 per cent, 246 children (15 per cent of the total sample) are learning at least two languages and 75 children (4 per cent) are learning at least three languages.
Children are less likely than parents to speak (or be learning) a traditional Indigenous language. Figure 7 shows that around 11 per cent of Study children speak or are learning to speak a traditional Indigenous language (compared with 20 per cent of parents) and 12 per cent speak or are learning to speak a creole (compared with 14 per cent of parents).
Figure 7: Frequency of traditional Indigenous language or a creole spoken
Figure 7 description: This graph depicts the frequency of children speaking a traditional Indigenous language or a creole compared to their parent. The horizontal axis depicts the answer categories in terms language spoken and the vertical axis depicts the number of parents or children in each category.
Child: 293 spoke a traditional Indigenous language and 207 spoke a creole
Parent: 427 spoke a traditional Indigenous language and 249 spoke a creole
The languages most commonly spoken by Aboriginal children in the study are English, Kriol, Djambarrpuyngu, Ngarrindjeri and Arrernte. Indigenous languages most commonly spoken by Torres Strait Islander children are Yumplatok and Kalaw Lagaw Ya. Thirty-five children are learning a foreign language and eight children are learning sign language. 11