Arts Design & Architecture

Publication Search Results

Now showing 1 - 10 of 22
  • (1992) Martin, Julia
    Working Paper

  • (1992) Martin, Julia
    Working Paper

  • (1992) Martin, Julia
    Working Paper

  • (1992) Comer, Jacklyn
    Working Paper

  • (1992) Fine, Michael; Graham, Sara; Paxman, Marina
    Report
    This Report is the result of research undertaken by the Social Policy Research Centre on behalf of the University of New South Wales. As well as being institutions of teaching and research, universities are large employers. It is most appropriate, then, for a university to use the tools of disciplined enquiry in the review of its own performance as an employer. Working to a brief supplied by the University's Advisory Committee on Equal Employment Opportunities, SPRC researchers were asked to conduct a study of the employment conditions of those staff employed to teach and do research in the University on a casual basis. The findings of that inquiry are presented here. The findings address a significant gap in the information available about university staffing and employment. Though limited to one university at one point in time, this Report is expected to be of interest beyond the University of New South Wales.

  • (1992) Raskall, Phil; Saunders, Peter
    Working Paper
    The idea that a Study of Social and Economic Inequalities (SSEI) should be undertaken in Australia was first proposed in 1988 by the then Minister for Social Security, Brian Howe. The main focus of the Study is to shed new light on various dimensions of inequality in Australia - both economic and social - and to investigate the factors causing them. The research involves the analysis of existing data rather than the collection of new data, a task which has been facilitated by the public availability of unit record and other data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. By adopting an empirical approach, the study will inform the development of government policies directed at alleviating those forms of inequality requiring policy action. Some of the work is being conducted in an international comparative context, thus providing a framework in which we in Australia can learn from experience in other countries where appropriate. The five main themes of the Study are: Money Income Inequality, Poverty and Living Standards in Australia; Non-Monetary Benefits and Income Inequality; Factors Contributing to Inequalities in Monetary Income; Economic Inequality over the Family Life Cycle; and International Dimensions of Inequality and Redistribution. As Directors of the Study, one of our first tasks was to bring together researchers associated with the Study and with other organisations in Australia in order to review what is currently known about inequality in Australia. To this end, a two day Conference was held at the University of New South Wales in July 1991. This report contains some of the papers presented at that Conference, organised under the theme: ‘Some Factors Causing Inequality’. The other main theme ‘Government and Redistribution', is covered in SSEI Monograph No. 1. Together these reports represent an overview of the current state of knowledge and point to areas where further research is required. Some of that research will be conducted as part of the Study and will be reported on in due course.

  • (1992) Raskall, Phil; Saunders, Peter
    Working Paper
    The idea that a Study of Social and Economic Inequalities (SSEI) should be undertaken in Australia was first proposed in 1988 by the then Minister for Social Security, Brian Howe. The main focus of the Study is to shed new light on various dimensions of inequality in Australia - both economic and social - and to investigate the factors causing them. The research involves the analysis of existing data rather than the collection of new data, a task which has been facilitated by the public availability of unit record and other data collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. By adopting an empirical approach, the study will inform the development of government policies directed at alleviating those forms of inequality requiring policy action. Some of the work is being conducted in an international comparative context, thus providing a framework in which we in Australia can learn from experience in other countries where appropriate. The five main themes of the Study are: Money Income Inequality, Poverty and Living Standards in Australia; Non-Monetary Benefits and Income Inequality; Factors Contributing to Inequalities in Monetary Income; Economic Inequality over the Family Life Cycle; and International Dimensions of Inequality and Redistribution. As Directors of the Study, one of our first tasks was to bring together researchers associated with the Study and with other organisations in Australia in order to review what is currently known about inequality in Australia. To this end, a two day Conference was held at the University of New South Wales in July 1991. This report contains some of the papers presented at that Conference, organised under the theme: ‘Government and Redistribution’. The other main theme ‘Some Factors Causing Inequality', is covered in SSEI Monograph No. 2. Together these reports represent an overview of the current state of knowledge and point to areas where further research is required. Some of that research will be conducted as part of the Study and will be reported on in due course.

  • (1992) Fine, Michael
    Working Paper
    There are three main questions underlying this study. The first concerns the needs for assistance at home by people identified as suitable for a community support program. What are the needs of people who remain at home, and to what extent are these currently being met? This question is concerned with identifying the population most directly affected by community support policies as well as with developing an understanding of the extent of their need for assistance and the consequences or outcomes of their attempts to remain at home. The second question is about their means of support. Who provides assistance of different types in the home, and how do the different sources of support interact together? Specifically, the study set out to determine the relative significance of formal and informal support. Because community support has the potential to be a program which relies on the unpaid efforts of informal caregivers, especially women, this question addresses issues which are often at the heart of the debate about community care. The third question concerns the relationship between community support and other provisions. Is community support an alternative to long term care provided in residential facilities such as nursing homes and hostels?

  • (1992) Shaver, Sheila; Paxman, Marina
    Working Paper
    The research presented in this Report is the result of a study commissioned by the Commonwealth Department of Social Security in which the Centre was asked to examine the changing balance and fit between Commonwealth and State programs in meeting the needs of homeless young people and in particular as they affect wards of state. The Report reviews changing policies and practices of State welfare departments in the use of orders for care, protection and control, and Commonwealth policies and services supporting young people in and leaving care. Case studies of services to young people in care in Queensland and South Australia examine these issues in more depth. The Report finds there is a longstanding trend to reduced use of legal orders for wardship across all States. The case studies suggest that this reduction reflects the conjunction of changing legal philosophies of care with fiscal constraints on the resources available to State welfare departments. New or extended Commonwealth measures designed to assist young people lacking parental support are particularly problematic in the case of wards under 16 years of age, for whom the Commonwealth considers the States responsible. In the result young people find themselves negotiating changing and sometimes contested boundaries between Commonwealth and State.

  • (1992) Bradbury, Bruce; Doyle, Jennifer
    Working Paper
    Central to this report is the microsimulation model which has been developed at the SPRC over the last three to four years. This model builds on detailed income data released by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) by estimating how economic, demographic and tax-transfer policy changes have impacted upon family incomes. It is possible to use the basic method to construct counterfactual outcomes, i.e. outcomes which would have been observed if economic or policy changes had been different from those which actually took place. By comparing observable outcomes with these counterfactual simulations, it is possible to estimate, for example, the impact of changing levels of unemployment on poverty and income inequality. This Report documents the underlying microsimulation techniques, as they exist in 1992. It is a feature of this research that the methods themselves are constantly being improved as new data and techniques become available. Having explained the methods, the Report analyses changes in income distribution and poverty in Australia in the 1980s and highlights some of the factors contributing to those changes. It is important research and its results are fundamental to an understanding of how Australian families have fared during a time of rapid economic and social change.