Melbourne Institute News March 2014 ISSN 1442-9500 (print)
ISSN 1442-9519 (online)
Print Post Approved PP381667/01204
Issue 43
Journey to Social Inclusion The Journey to Social Inclusion (J2SI) pilot program was designed to break the cycle of long-term homelessness. It provided intensive support for three years to assist people who were long-term homeless receive the range of services they needed. Journey to Social Inclusion Page 1
MABEL Research Forum Page 2
Westpac – Melbourne Institute Small Business Index Page 3
Australia Has One of the Lowest Levels of Government Support for R&D Page 4
Workshop on Homelessness and Housing Insecurity Page 4
ASTRA Feasibility Study Page 5
Majority of Australians Are Not Saving Enough for Retirement Page 6
Homosexuals and Life Satisfaction Page 7
ARC Centre of Excellence Page 8
This article presents the social and economic outcomes after the completion of the pilot. The evaluation used a randomised controlled trial to track and compare the outcomes of the J2SI participants (Group J) with those of an equivalent group of chronically homeless people (Group E) who were supported by existing services. The evidence suggests that J2SI had a significant impact on the lives of most participants. After three years 85 per cent of J2SI participants were housed compared to 41 per cent of those who were receiving existing services. Over the course of the trial J2SI participants were housed for 67 per cent of the time, or nearly twice as long as those in the control group. The evidence confirms that, given the right level of support, people who have experienced longterm homelessness can maintain their housing. The outcomes data reveal ongoing improvements in other areas as well. The emotional health of the J2SI participants improved and they reported lower levels of stress, anxiety and depression after three years compared to their position at the start of the trial, and also compared to Group E. The physical health of Group J improved, with the proportion reporting no bodily pain increasing from 27 to 41 per cent over the three-year period. Although there is some variation in the use of health services, with both groups showing greater improvements in some areas relative to the other group, the most
www.melbourneinstitute.com Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 1
Journey to Social Inclusion (continued)
important empirical finding is that Group J’s average use of emergency psychiatric services and their average number of days hospitalised in a general hospital declined both over time and relative to Group E. Group J’s need for emergency hospital treatment declined over time but less than Group E’s. This suggests that an intervention comprising of stable housing and intensive case management can reduce the public burden associated with the over-utilisation of health services. While few people in either group were employed, twice as many people in Group J were looking for work compared to Group E. Group J also showed improvements over time and relative to Group E in the use of welfare and homelessness services, and the amount of time incarcerated. There are a number of areas where there was little change. Most notably we found little change at any stage in the trial in the substance use behaviour of the participants. Similarly, the extent to which the participants felt connected to and supported by the community did not change a great deal over the three years. The evidence shows that breaking the cycle of chronic homelessness is possible and that intensive support coupled with stable housing can reduce demand on expensive health, justice and welfare services. However, the deep effects of social exclusion are much harder to address. Having a
home does not necessarily lead to social acceptance and social inclusion. With limited employment options, few social networks outside the homeless population and few alternative social activities, the opportunities for social inclusion are limited. Programs designed to permanently end long-term homelessness such as J2SI need to temper their expectations and accept that years immersed in homelessness not only have physical and emotional effects, but also long-term social and economic effects. When the long-term social impact of homelessness is understood by policy-makers they will be in a better position to confront the fact that what constitutes social inclusion is a much thornier issue for the long-term homeless than is generally understood. J2SI has clearly made a difference in the lives of many of the participants. However, the true test of the J2SI pilot will be whether the improvements reported here are sustained over the longer term. In a year’s time we will report on how the trial participants are travelling 12 months after the program ended. Only then will we be in the position to say whether the J2SI approach provides lasting solutions to long-term homelessness and whether the benefits justify the costs. The report, ‘Resolving Long-Term Homelessness’, can be downloaded from the J2SI website at <www.sacredheartmission. org/Page.aspx?ID=77>.
MABEL Research Forum Our recent Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) Research Forum showcased research by the Centre for Research Excellence in Medical Workforce Dynamics and the more than 100 external users of the MABEL data. The forum was attended by more than 70 people from medical training colleges and other organisations, universities, and state and federal governments. Policy issues and research relating to MABEL’s three research themes (rural workforce supply and distribution, workforce participation and career transitions) as well as cross-cutting themes were discussed.
Career Transitions Panel members (from left): Associate Professor Terry Brown (Chair, Confederation of Postgraduate Medical Education Councils), Kunal Luthra (Vice President, Australian Medical Students’ Association), Robyn Burley (Director of Workforce Planning & Development, NSW Ministry of Health), Dr James Churchill (Australian Medical Association Council of Doctors in Training), Associate Professor Catherine Joyce (Monash University), Professor Richard Doherty (Dean, Royal Australasian College of Physicians), Maureen McCarty (Health Workforce Australia)
Associate Professors Jan Coles and Deborah Coleville from the Australian Federation of Medical Women gave an excellent overview of some key inflexibilities and attitudes disadvantaging medical women throughout their training and careers. This is particularly relevant as the proportion of women in medicine continues to increase. Other presentations related to the impact of earnings on hours worked in the public and private sectors; factors associated with doctors’ health status; the role of locus-of-control and personality in job satisfaction; the extent of specialist outreach services in rural and remote Australia; and determinants of doctors’ mobility across areas of low, medium and high socioeconomic status. The session on career transitions included a special panel discussion on ‘Competition in Medical Careers’ (see photo for members of the panel). We extend our thanks to all session chairs, presenters and participants for their Page 2 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research contributions to another successful forum.
Westpac – Melbourne Institute Small Business Index The Westpac – Melbourne Institute Small Business Index was released in February. Some highlights of this report are outlined here. Performance: The Westpac – Melbourne Institute Small Business Index was 119.4 in February, suggesting overall good performance among small businesses in Australia (subject to the caveat that the survey was conducted over the holiday season when optimism tends to be higher). The readings of the sub-Indexes showed evidence that the majority of small businesses thought they were performing better than they were 3 months ago, but they also thought that the performance of their industries worsened over the same period. Across the nation, small businesses in New South Wales, Victoria and Western Australia fared better than those in Queensland and South Australia. Positive and negative factors: ‘Customers’ (which includes customer relationships and sales) was the top positive factor (nominated by 42.0 per cent) while the ‘economy’ was the top negative factor (nominated by 35.1 per cent) affecting the performance of small businesses in Australia. Specifically, businesses in ‘Wholesale and Retail Trade’ nominated ‘customers’ as their top positive factor (57.4 per cent) and at the same time nominated the ‘economy’ as their top negative factor (50.0 per cent). This possibly reflects the adverse effects of recent moderate growth and relatively low consumer sentiment on their
economic environment, as well as the beneficial effects on sales due to well-nurtured customer relationships. Revenue and costs: The major source of revenue for small businesses in Australia was from local sales (84.9 per cent of total revenue). Among the states, businesses in Queensland reported more interstate revenue (15.4 per cent compared to the national average of 12.3 per cent) while businesses in Western Australia reported more international revenue (albeit small at 5.0 per cent). Expenses associated with overheads was nominated by 74.7 per cent of small businesses in Australia as the main contributor to costs, followed by payments to staff (59.7 per cent) then costs associated with administration (30.5 per cent). More businesses in Queensland, compared to the national average, nominated ‘regulation’ as a negative factor and administration as a major contributor to costs (specifically about 10 percentage points higher). Expectations and plans: 42.9 per cent of small businesses in Australia expected business activity to increase over the next 3 months while 16.0 per cent expected it to decrease. Small businesses with a turnover between $500,000 and $1 million, which were relatively optimistic about future activity (56.2 per cent suggested an increase), had the highest hiring and investment intentions (42.1 per cent planned to increase employment and 55.9 per cent planned to invest in the next 3 months). About 1 in 10 also expected to seek credit in the next 3 months.
Table 1: Small Business Performance Indexes Current Performance Index
Past Performance Index
Future Performance Index
Industry Performance Index
Small Business Index
State New South Wales 156.0 116.4 138.0 111.3 130.5 Victoria 141.0 141.5 137.4 77.9 124.4 Queensland 99.7 102.8 127.6 96.2 106.6 South Australia 137.2 98.5 110.0 94.0 109.9 Western Australia 126.1 122.5 133.8 102.4 121.2 146.6 73.3 132.7 110.0 115.7 Tasmania, ACT, NTa Industry goupb Agriculture, Forestry and Fishing 109.1 104.5 109.1 81.8 101.1 Manufacturing 130.3 127.3 127.3 66.7 112.9 Construction 150.0 120.6 135.3 88.2 123.5 Wholesale and Retail Trade 127.8 106.5 138.0 88.9 115.3 Hospitality and Recreational Services 150.0 129.4 128.9 88.8 124.3 All Professional Services 129.6 124.2 126.9 118.9 124.9 Financial and Real Estate Services 133.4 109.6 133.7 88.4 116.3 Health Care Services 152.2 113.0 165.2 130.4 140.2 All Others 126.0 111.5 140.7 80.0 114.6 Australia 132.9 116.7 131.5 96.6 119.4 Notes: (a) The results for this category should be interpreted with care given the small number of respondents. (b) Hospitality and Recreational Services includes ‘Accommodation and Food Services’ and ‘Arts and Recreational Services’; All Professional Services includes ‘Professional, Scientific and Technical Services’, ‘Information Media and Telecommunications’, ‘Administrative and Support Services’ and ‘Education and Training’; Financial and Real Estate Services includes ‘Financial and Insurance Services’ and ‘Rental, Hiring and Real Estate Services’; All Others includes ‘Mining’, ‘Electricity, Gas, Water and Waste’, ‘Transport, Postal and Warehousing’, ‘Public Administration and Safety’ and ‘Others’. Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 3
Australia Has One of the Lowest Levels of Government Support for R&D The loss of car manufacturing underlines the need for industry to take the lead in research and development (R&D).
business sector innovation is low. Although R&D is only one part of total innovation spending, it represents the most consistent and universal data we have on innovation activities,” Professor Webster says.
Australia has one of the lowest levels of government support for R&D and innovation development in the world and business must build industry-specific R&D corporations if Australia is to compete in the global economy, a recent Melbourne Institute Policy Brief shows.
The Policy Brief also states that business must take the lead and build industry-specific R&D corporations if Australia is to compete in the global economy.
The study highlights that in 2011 the US Government committed over 0.22 per cent of GDP to business R&D and the UK Government 0.14 per cent, while the Australian Government committed 0.09 per cent. The report’s author, Professor Beth Webster, says that public debate often erroneously suggests Australian governments are generous in this area.
“Improving the diffusion and transmission of knowledge around and within industry is a matter that should be led by industry. There is only so much governments and their public servants can do directly.” Professor Webster says the loss of car manufacturers Holden, Ford and Toyota underlines the pertinence for industry to map out its future without waiting for federal or state governments to take a lead. Industry-led R&D corporations can give Australia the decisive edge in the global economy.
“The alarm bells should be ringing about the rate at which our secondary and service sector industries are slipping behind not just other high-income countries but increasingly middle-income countries such as Malaysia, South Korea and the Czech Republic,” Professor Webster states.
Industry-owned corporations would fund R&D for the benefit of the members, with funding coming from a mix of industry levies, membership fees and government funds. Strategic priorities are identified by the industry through a range of consultative activities and the research is targeted at specific industry needs.
In 2012, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) ranked Australia as 20th out of 26 countries on its patent quality index; the United Nations (UN) ranked Australia 23rd behind almost all other OCED countries on its Global Innovation Index. The UN ranked Australia 13th on the calibre of its innovation inputs (institutions, infrastructure, and knowledge workers), while Australia’s innovation output was considered so low that its innovation efficiency was ranked 107th in the world.
“The advantage of the R&D corporation model is its comparative permanence. A program that is established under an act of parliament is less prone to annual budget cuts. Confidence in the longevity of a program gives the industry, and the research community that services it, the reassurance it needs to establish the architecture to support it,” according to Professor Webster.
“The data are clear: compared with other developed Western nations, Australian governments’ support for
Policy Brief No. 1/14, ‘A Proposal for Industry-Led Innovation Consortia’ can be downloaded from the Melbourne Institute website. The Melbourne Institute Policy Brief Series is a collection of research publications that examines current policy issues and provides an independent platform to examine pertinent issues in public debate.
Workshop on Homelessness and Housing Insecurity A workshop on Homelessness and Housing Insecurity was held by the Melbourne Institute in March that involved leading international researchers discussing and addressing both the determinants and consequences of housing vulnerability and, importantly, what can be learnt from international approaches to prevent homelessness. Professor Brendan O’Flaherty from the Department of Economics at Columbia University presented on what can be learnt from homelessness in the United States. Melbourne Institute researchers also presented papers on the duration of homelessness, utilising longitudinal data collected during the Journeys Home study. The workshop is the first stage in launching a major research agenda around these topics at the Melbourne Institute. Page 4 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
ASTRA Feasibility Study A new data-driven approach to investigating the effects of Australian research investments has been explored at the Melbourne Institute. In 2011–12 Australia invested almost $10 billion in science, innovation and research. Yet, as has become increasingly apparent, there is little scientific basis for the way in which these investment decisions are being made or the ex post evaluation of investments once made. To make these sorts of decisions in a rigorous, analytical way requires a deeper understanding of the direct (and indirect) effects of research investments on all aspects of Australian (and global) society. The need for evidence is common in all policy domains, and most policy fields have settled on well-known indicators to inform policy. For example, labour policy relies heavily on the unemployment rate as a labour market indicator; economic policy utilises GDP growth rates; and education policy-makers use the PISA test. These measures, while often imperfect, are widely used and the underlying theoretical justifications for their use are well known among policy-makers. This, however, is not the case in science or research policy. There is a proliferation of metrics, often without a clear rationale for their choice other than that the data exist and metrics can be generated from them. In 2013 a team of researchers—led by Professors Paul Jensen and Julia Lane—was commissioned by the then Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education to undertake a study to investigate novel ways to systematically capture indicators of research activity in Australian universities. The project was known as the Australian Science, Technology and Research Assessment (ASTRA) Feasibility Study. The emerging scientific approach—which is referred to as the ‘science of science and innovation policy’— recognises that research is fundamentally about the creation, transmission and adoption of ideas, not about counting documents. Too often the data that are collected on university activities are simply data-counting exercises without a suitable framework for understanding or interpreting them. In terms of advocacy, the stakeholders
for whom the data are generated do not understand what they mean, or what they are intended to convey. In terms of management, the existing metrics distort science: getting the right conceptual and empirical framework matters, lest resources and people get squandered because the incentives are wrong. The ASTRA Feasibility Study assessed how to build, within Australia, a consistent empirical framework and a community of practice that can work with the emerging international approach. This would enable policy-makers to both better advocate for and manage research by: • using a consistent, internationally recognised, evidence-based platform to assess the results of research investments; • building a theoretical and empirically based understanding of the dynamic interaction between science, research and innovation; and • developing a framework to describe the potential future outcomes of investments in research. The ASTRA Feasibility Study closely followed the tools and methods used to develop the STAR METRICS (Science and Technology for America’s Reinvestment: Measuring the Effect of Research on Innovation Competitiveness and Science) data platform in the United States. Leveraging off the substantial investments made in STAR METRICS has greatly enhanced the Feasibility Study. The ASTRA Feasibility Study demonstrated that data on individual researchers at two universities (The Australian National University and The University of Melbourne) can be linked to other existing data on their activities such as their research output. Given this, it is possible to link the researcher-output information back to researcher grants provided by the Australian Research Council and the National Health & Medical Research Council. The data infrastructure at the heart of ASTRA is an important part of the toolkit required to undertake systematic, rigorous evaluation of research policy in Australia. This evidence-based approach to policy-making is common in other areas of the public policy space, but is new to the domain of research policy. This systematic evidence will perfectly complement the case-study evidence provided by the recent Excellence in Innovation for Australia trial conducted by the ATN-Go8. The report ‘Australian Science, Technology and Research Assessment (ASTRA) Feasibility Study’ can be downloaded from the Melbourne Institute website at <melbourneinstitute.com/ miaesr/publications/reports/default.html>.
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 5
Majority of Australians Are Not Saving Enough for Retirement A study of the adequacy of retirement savings by researchers at the University of Melbourne and Towers Watson has found that a significant number of Australians are not likely to achieve adequate retirement incomes, even when all sources of savings are considered.
The research sought to address the considerable uncertainty among policy-makers and the broader community about the extent and nature of retirement savings deficiencies in Australia. To do so, the researchers developed a set of metrics indicating the adequacy of retirement savings and applied those metrics to a large representative sample of the Australian population. The clear finding is that most Australians are still not on track towards reaching a comfortable income during retirement, and will continue to draw a large part of retirement income from the age pension. The implication is that, despite superannuation reforms dating back over 20 years, the problem of inadequate retirement savings remains a significant public policy issue for Australia. An important innovation of the study is that the metrics developed by the researchers take into account not only superannuation holdings (and projected growth in superannuation holdings through investment returns and future contributions) and the projected age pension entitlement, but also a variety of other household assets that could be used to fund retirement, including various financial assets and property. Using this information, it is possible to forecast a person’s expected income throughout retirement. This income is then compared to a ‘target’ income, which is provided by the Association of Superannuation Funds in Australia (ASFA) Retirement Standard for a ‘comfortable’ lifestyle. The ASFA standard is a widely used benchmark, and specifies a minimum income of A$57,665 for couples and A$42,158 for single people. The ASFA benchmarks are very close to both current average income levels of retirees in Australia and the
income levels that pre-retirement Australians on average believe they will need for a satisfactory lifestyle in retirement. While this concordance may seem reassuring, the findings for the projected retirement incomes of preretirement Australians were not. The researchers used the HILDA Survey to project retirement income levels for Australians aged 40 to 64 and compared their projections to the income required to sustain a comfortable lifestyle. They found that only 53 per cent of couples and 22 per cent of singles are on track to achieve a comfortable level of retirement income. The study also shows the relative importance of different sources of retirement income. If all sources of retirement income other than superannuation are ignored, only 15 per cent of couples and 5 per cent of singles are projected to achieve the target. Indeed, applying the OECD poverty benchmark of half median income, most retirees would be living in poverty. Factoring in the age pension improves projected retirement incomes for many people, but still only 32 per cent of couples and 11 per cent of singles are on track to have a comfortable retirement income. The calculations have several implications. First, they show that, for most people, superannuation is not sufficient to fund a comfortable retirement, even if they have contributed to superannuation for most of their working lives. Second, it is important to take into account all potential sources of retirement income, including non-superannuation assets, when computing the adequacy of retirement savings. Omitting any of these sources will likely lead to substantial underestimation of adequacy. Third, single people are particularly under-prepared for retirement, being three times more likely than couples to have severely inadequate projected retirement incomes. Finally, there is a gap between expectations about the importance of the different sources of retirement income and the likely reality. Data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics show that over half of men and two-fifths of women expect superannuation to be the main source of retirement income. However, the projections show that the age pension will provide 61 per cent of the retirement income of single people, and 39 per cent of the retirement income of couples. Moreover, 96 per cent of single people and 89 per cent of couples aged 40 to 64 today are expected to receive at least a partial age pension at some stage during retirement. Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 5/14, ‘Measuring Adequacy of Retirement Savings’, by John Burnett and Nicholas Wilkinson of Towers Watson and Professor Kevin Davis, Dr Carsten Murawski and Associate Professor Roger Wilkins of the University of Melbourne, can be downloaded from our website.
Page 6 - Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research
Homosexuals and Life Satisfaction Homosexuals in Australia are less satisfied with their lives than their heterosexual counterparts, but the gap may have narrowed, according to recent research from the Melbourne Institute. It is widely accepted that homosexuals and other sexual minorities have long been the victims of various forms of discrimination and stigmatisation. Recent decades, however, have seen a marked change in most Western countries with laws being introduced to both prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual identity and to ensure that persons in same-sex relationships are entitled to the same rights and responsibilities as married persons. At the same time, public opinion surveys suggest that there has been a gradual, but marked, change in public attitudes towards sexual minorities. Nevertheless, the evidence suggests that sexual minorities continue to be disadvantaged in all sorts of ways. The continued prohibition of marriage between persons of the same sex remains a major issue of public debate in Australia, but much more important are likely to be the disadvantages that sexual minorities face in the workplace and in the wider community. Research undertaken in the United States and Europe, for example, has shown that lesbian, gay and bisexual populations are much more likely to suffer from anxiety, depression and other mental health disorders; be the victims of violence and other forms of abuse and aggression; and, among men at least, to receive a wage penalty in the workplace. In new research undertaken at the Melbourne Institute, Professors Nick Powdthavee and Mark Wooden examine this issue from the perspective of life satisfaction. They exploit new population survey data on sexual identity, collected in 2012 in both Australia and the United Kingdom, and examine whether members of sexual minorities are less satisfied with their lives than the heterosexual majority. Further, they also examine the avenues through which this effect might work. Is it the result, for example, of lower partnering rates, poorer health, or lesser household income? Analysis of the Australian data, which are drawn from wave 12 of the HILDA Survey (released last year),
shows that gay men and lesbian women are significantly less satisfied with their lives than their heterosexual counterparts, but the gap is relatively modest. The modest differential possibly reflects relative improvements in the quality of life of the gay and lesbian population. According to Professor Wooden, “while we have not analysed change over time in this study, there are good reasons to expect that the relative disadvantage faced by gays and lesbians in Australia has declined markedly in recent decades”. Persons reporting being bisexual, however, are far less content with their lives. In part this is driven by fewer children and smaller friendship networks, which in the HILDA Survey data both contribute positively to life satisfaction. Professor Wooden also claims that the continued stigmatisation of sexual minorities is reflected directly in the extent to which people are prepared to report their sexual identity. The survey question used explicitly provided respondents with the option not to disclose their sexual identity, and 2 per cent of the sample analysed chose this option. This compares with 3.1 per cent of respondents who reported being gay, lesbian or bisexual. “We obviously know nothing about the sexual preferences of this group who preferred not to answer, but we do know that on average these respondents are relatively dissatisfied with their lives. Our suspicion is that many of these people prefer to disguise their sexuality because of the fear of persecution.” Melbourne Institute Working Paper No. 9/14, ‘What Can Life Satisfaction Data Tell Us about Discrimination against Sexual Minorities? A Structural Equation Model for Australia and the United Kingdom’, by Professors Nattavudh Powdthavee and Mark Wooden, can be downloaded from our website.
Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research - Page 7
Recent Melbourne Institute Working Papers 1/14 Please contact the corresponding author, Jinhu Li <jinhu.li@unimelb.edu.au> 2/14 ‘Recent Trends in Income Redistribution in Australia: Can Changes in the Tax-Transfer System Account for the Decline in Redistribution?’ Nicolas Herault and Francisco Azpitarte 3/14 ‘Identifying Tax Implicit Equivalence Scales’ Justin van de Ven, Nicolas Herault and Francisco Azpitarte 4/14 ‘Multidimensionality of Longitudinal Data: Unlocking the Age-Happiness Puzzle’ Ning Li 5/14 ‘Measuring Adequacy of Retirement Savings’ John Burnett, Kevin Davis, Carsten Murawski, Roger Wilkins and Nicholas Wilkinson 6/14 ‘Outcomes for Teenage Mothers in the First Years after Birth’ Guyonne Kalb, Trinh Le and Felix Leung 7/14 ‘Income Inequality, Trade and Financial Openness’ G. C. Lim and Paul D. McNelis 8/14 ‘An Introduction to the Patstat Database with Example Queries’ Gaétan de Rassenfosse, Hélène Dernis and Geert Boedt 9/14 ‘What Can Life Satisfaction Data Tell Us about Discrimination against Sexual Minorities? A Structural Equation Model for Australia and the United Kingdom’ Nattavudh Powdthavee and Mark Wooden 10/14 ‘Late Start with Extra Schooling: The Effect of School Entry-Age Increase and the Introduction of Preparatory Year’ Nikhil Jha
Recent Melbourne Institute Policy Brief 1/14 ‘A Proposal for Industry-Led Innovation Consortia’ Elizabeth Webster Working Papers and Policy Briefs can be downloaded for free from <www.melbourneinstitute.com/miaesr/publications/default.html>. If you would like to receive an email notification when new issues become available, contact the Melbourne Institute at <melb-inst@unimelb.edu.au>.
ARC Centre of Excellence The University of Queensland will lead a new, multi-million dollar Centre of Excellence aiming to break the cycle of social disadvantage felt across generations within families. Melbourne Institute Director Professor Deborah CobbClark is a co-investigator in the Centre and Melbourne Institute researchers Professor Guyonne Kalb and Associate Professor Chris Ryan are associate investigators. The Australian Research Council (ARC) awarded $20 million in funding to the Centre of Excellence for Children and Families over the Life Course (Life Course Centre), which represents only the second centre in the social sciences awarded by the ARC. The funding has been awarded over seven years. The Life Course Centre will tackle the problem of deep and persistent disadvantage, which is characterised by the spread of social and economic poverty within families and across generations despite overall improvements in the broader society.
Research @ the University The University of Melbourne has launched a new website that showcases research from across the university. The Melbourne Institute’s Director is one of the staff highlighted Professor Deborah Cobb-Clark at <pursuit.unimelb.edu.au/profiles/professor-deborah-cobb-clark/>.
Melbourne Institute News Views expressed by the contributors to Melbourne Institute News are not necessarily endorsed or approved by the Melbourne Institute. Neither the Melbourne Institute nor the Editor of Melbourne Institute News accepts any responsibility for the content or accuracy of information contained in this publication. Editor: Rachel Derham tel: (03) 8344 2158, fax: (03) 8344 2111, email: r.derham@unimelb.edu.au. Sub-Editor: Nellie Lentini. Contributors: Eoin Hahessy, Professor Paul Jensen, Professor Guay Lim, Dr Carsten Murawski, Dr Viet Nguyen, Professor Tony Scott, Dr Rosanna Scutella, Dr Yi-Ping Tseng, Professor Beth Webster, Associate Professor Roger Wilkins, Professor Mark Wooden. Photos by: page 1 <www.istockphoto.com/sartriano>; page 2 Les O’Rourke Photography; page 4 <www.istockphoto.com/incposterco>; page 5 <www.istockphoto.com/RTimages>; page 6 <www.istockphoto.com/sculpies>; page 7 <www.istockphoto.com/schulzie>, <www.istockphoto.com/ daboost>; page 8 Tina Smigielski.
Level 5, Faculty of Business and Economics Building, The University of Melbourne T: +61 3 8344 2100 F: +61 3 8344 2111 www.melbourneinstitute.com