PUTTING SOCIO‑ECONOMIC STATUS ON THE D&I RADAR

by Danielle Rosenfield-Lovell , Security Consultant at CyberCX

I feel remarkably fortunate to have grown up in Australia, a country exceedingly well resourced and wealthy. However, this wealth is not equitably distributed.

I grew up mostly in what was, by Australian standards, a low income household and I recall how tight money could be, even before a cost of living crisis engulfed us. What I remember most vividly was how central conversations about money were in our home, and how our lack of income created chronic stress for the entire family. I also remember the shame and stigma that came with being thought of as poor by our peers.

Growing up in a low income household was one of the most defining experiences of my life: it left me with many dragons to vanquish, but also oodles of compassion for those treading similar paths. Yet, household income, and socio economic status (SES) more broadly, are not yet baked into the diversity and inclusion discussions taking place in many organisations in the cybersecurity industry. To be truly representative of the make up of our communities we should be ready to put SES on the radar as one of many facets of a person that contribute to the diversity of thought they can bring to the table.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC CHALLENGES

However, this aspiration is not without its own set of challenges. Creating welcoming recruitment and employment experiences for people from low SES backgrounds requires an understanding of some of the challenges faced by this group. People’s experiences vary widely. Here are just some of barriers they might face.

• Reduced access to tertiary education such as university, TAFE, and bootcamps. In Australia course fees are often not the primary challenge, but the cost of taking time out of the workforce to study can be prohibitive.

• Having less time to dedicate to self-study, passion projects, and lengthy recruitment processes. For students and career changers from low income backgrounds, paid work frequently needs to take priority over professional development or unpaid internships. This might place some people at a substantial disadvantage compared to others who can commit to a lengthy technical challenge required for a hiring process.

• Implicit bias around markers of class like accent or straight teeth can be a factor in recruitment and career progression. For example, people may assume that someone with a ‘bogan’ accent lacks intelligence.

• A lack of knowledge regarding career options. Someone may not have a network of professionals to gather ideas from in their social and family circles. This can be a particular issue for students who are ‘first in the family’ to go to university.

• Poor availability of quality, local tuition in certain subjects such as mathematics and computer science. This might be especially pronounced in some regional/remote locations.

• Being stigmatised for welfare dependence, such as living in housing commission properties. This might present as comments about ‘dole bludgers’ which fail to account for the nuances of personal circumstances.

• The broader impacts of chronic stress and anxiety due to precarious access to housing and other life essentials.

• An inability resulting from financial constraints to participate in activities that might help to build cultural capital, such as music lessons or some types of sports.

Some Solutions

Of course, it is in our power to recruit and support people who come from low income or low SES backgrounds. We can discuss socio-economic status as an explicit aspect of developing diverse and inclusive workplaces. We also need to understand the lived experience of people from low income households and address some of the stigma around relative poverty. Where possible, we can hire on cultural fit and pay people a living wage while they train. This will make it more likely that people from low income backgrounds can commit fully to being active members of the cyber workforce. We can avoid imposing time intensive recruitment processes on candidates to limit the risk of introducing unintentional bias in the recruiting process. Finally, we can consider outreach programs to teach job seekers and young people about opportunities in cybersecurity.

REFERENCES:

• Living in a basement with no windows. Life in a 12-person share house during Australia’s rental crisis

• Poverty in Australia 2022: A snapshot

Some Comments On The State Of Poverty In Australia

A 2022 report published by the Australian Council Of Social Services (ACOSS) and the University of New South Wales determined that as many as 3.3 million people live on, or less than, 50 percent of the Australian median income. This includes approximately one in six children. That means less than $489 for a single person and $1027 for a family of two adults and two children. A single adult living on this income might pay between 40 percent and 70 percent of their pre-tax income on rent, depending on locality.

This illustrates a relative poverty scenario, where income is markedly lower than some normative value (i.e. the national median income in the above instance). Relative poverty differs from absolute poverty which is defined by the World Bank as applying to those living on a daily income of less than US$1.90 and is associated with extreme deprivation. While there is plenty to be done to alleviate absolute poverty, relative poverty, as addressed in this article, is nonetheless harmful. Relative poverty imposes conditions that prevent people from engaging in activities that are a normal part of life in their communities and in society more broadly. Poverty of any kind negatively impacts human health, productivity and childhood development.

www.linkedin.com/in/danielle-rosenfeld-lovell