Association of material hardship with maternal and child outcomes

This report provides a better understanding of the extent to which poverty (material hardship) is associated with child and maternal outcomes and the potential pathways of its influence.

Although poverty is associated with an increased likelihood of negative outcomes, little is known about the magnitude of the association between specific outcomes and which developmental and life-course pathways are most influences by poverty.

The majority of studies in this area use low income as the measure of poverty while this study uses material hardship, reflecting how families are actually living.

Results show a strong association between material hardship and poor child and maternal outcomes. Up to 14 percent of New Zealand children are exposed to material hardship.

Maternal mental health, child socio-emotional development indicators, living in poor housing conditions, and the number of child respiratory illnesses are all associated with material hardship. These results are in line with international research.

Key Findings

• Children experiencing high levels of material hardship were around 3 times more likely to have a high level of negative emotional reactions and twice as likely to have high levels of respiratory conditions/ear infections compared with children not in material hardship. As the level of material hardship increased, children were more likely to experience higher levels of negative emotional reactions.
• Mothers experiencing high levels of material hardship were around 5 times more likely to have moderate to severe anxiety compared with mothers with no material hardship.
• Similarly, mothers experiencing high levels of material hardship were 4 times more likely to have a moderate/high probability of depression compared with mothers with no material hardship. As the level of material hardship increased, the likelihood of poor maternal mental health increased significantly.
• Mothers and children experiencing high levels of material hardship were approximately 3 times more likely to be living in a damp house and twice as likely to be living in a crowded household compared with mothers and children with no material hardship. As the level of material hardship increased, the likelihood of living in damp housing increased significantly.

This study is a first step in developing a better understanding of how material hardship influences child and maternal outcomes. It also provides a baseline and framework for future analyses.

The research used data from the Growing Up in New Zealand longitudinal study. Crown funding for the study is managed by the Ministry of Social Development.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can you take me through the findings in more detail?

Results show a strong association between material hardship and poor child and maternal outcomes. Maternal mental health, child socio-economic development indicators, living in poor housing conditions and the number of respiratory illnesses are all associated with material hardship.

For several outcomes, whatever the level of hardship, results show an increased likelihood of negative outcomes for those assessed as in material hardship compared with those who were not. In addition, for some outcomes, as the level of material hardship increased the likelihood of a negative outcome also increased significantly:

• Mothers experiencing high levels of material hardship were around 5 times more likely to have moderate to severe anxiety compared with mothers with no material hardship. Similarly, mothers experiencing high levels of material hardship were 4 times more likely to have a moderate/high probability of depression compared with mothers with no material hardship. As the level of material hardship increased, the likelihood of poor maternal mental health increased significantly.
• Children experiencing high levels of material hardship were around 3 times more likely to have a high level of negative emotional reactions and twice as likely to have high levels of respiratory conditions/ear infections compared with children not in material hardship. As the level of material hardship increased, children were more likely to experience higher levels of negative emotional reactions.
• Mothers and children experiencing high levels of material hardship were approximately 3 times more likely to be living in a damp house and twice as likely to be living in a crowded household compared with mothers and children with no material hardship. As the level of material hardship increased, the likelihood of living in damp housing increased significantly.

Up to 14 percent of New Zealand children are exposed to material hardship (depending on the definition used) indicating there is potential to reduce a range of negative outcomes for children.

What’s the difference between poverty and material hardship?

Material hardship is a non-income measure of poverty. Non-income measures of poverty focus on the actual day-to-day living conditions of households in terms of the basics such as food, clothing, heating and transport and, more widely, someone’s ability to maintain or replace broken household appliances, purchase desirable non-essentials, cope with unexpected demands on the household budget and so on. This research developed a measure of material hardship from the questions that were included in the Growing Up in New Zealand questionnaire.

Did you look at housing issues?

The study looked at the association of material hardship with the likelihood of living in a damp house and the likelihood of living in a crowded household. In some measures of material hardship, housing quality is seen as an aspect of material hardship. In this study, housing quality was kept separate so we could look at the independent impact of material hardship on housing quality and on child respiratory conditions.

What do you mean by ‘the magnitude of the association’?

Magnitude refers to the size of the association between material hardship and an outcome. In this study, the size of the association was measured using odds ratios. These have been converted to risk ratios for ease of interpretation. A risk ratio of ‘2’ indicates that the risk of the outcome in the group with material hardship is two times the risk of the outcome in the group who do not have material hardship.

What are the results for Māori and Pacific families?

The study was investigating the size of the association between material hardship and a range of maternal and child outcomes. The analysis took into account the ethnicity of participants as well as a range of other demographic and personal factors but did not specifically address differences by ethnic groups as this would have required a different analytic and modelling approach. The proposed longitudinal analysis will potentially try to assess differences by ethnicity.

Why did you use data from GUiNZ?

The Growing Up in New Zealand study data set has a rich set of information on a contemporary and diverse cohort of children and their families. It includes factors not currently available within administrative data sets.

How many people were included in the research?

Anonymised data from 6,371 children and their mothers from the Growing Up in New Zealand study were included in the analysis. The information was anonymised before analysis so specific people can’t be identified.

What are the implications of this research?

This study confirms the importance of understanding the size and influences of poverty in New Zealand. It reinforces the need to address poverty to prevent or mitigate its negative influences on children.

What are the next steps?

Now we have established the association and a methodology using cross-sectional data, we are investigating the feasibility of conducting longitudinal research to learn the magnitude of poverty’s influence on maternal and child outcomes over time and the pathways of its influence. Both income-related and material hardship measures of poverty need to be included in a longitudinal study due to the availability of variables across Growing Up in New Zealand data collection waves.

Why does the report just look at mothers? What about fathers?

Fewer fathers than mothers participate in the Growing Up in New Zealand surveys. To ensure that data about most of the children participating in the study were able to be included in the analysis, only the data obtained from the mothers was analysed. In the modelling, missing data leads to observations being excluded from analysis, thereby reducing the diversity and representativeness of the study.

Why did you only look at children up to the age of nine months?

At the time this research started, data was only available up to the nine-month interviews. If the longitudinal analysis proceeds, all available data waves will be used.

Hasn’t research already been done on poverty and material hardship?

Research has been conducted nationally and internationally, but New Zealand analysis about a contemporary New Zealand cohort is limited particularly in relation to the size of causal effects. The analysis was the first step in understanding the size of the effect of poverty by untangling the effects of ‘confounding’ and ‘mediating’factors.