Barns levekår

Summary This report is based on interviews with children and parents in low income families (below 60 percent of median income, the low income sample') and with children and parents from a general sample of families (the control sample'). Data were collected by means of personal interviews, and almost 2000 families participated. The overall response rate was 54.4 percent. The aim of the study was to describe how children in families with low income experience their daily life compared to children in the normal population. In accordance with similar studies from Norway, our results showed that lone parents, workless families and families with ethnic minority backgrounds were overrepresented in the low income sample. Also, these groups were more likely to experience housing deprivation, they more often lacked key items of consumption goods, and they were more likely than other families in the low income sample to report that they had insufficient money to cover their needs. The proportion of families who reported all these three forms of deprivation at once was however low, only four percent in the low income sample. Compared to the families in the control sample, low income families were more likely to report an unstable housing situation, and fewer families owned their own house. Families in the low income sample who lived in public housing were especially exposed to housing problems (overcrowding, low material standards, problems with noise etc). There were no differences between the low income families and the families in the control sample with regard to relationships with friends and family nor satisfaction with family life. The same applied to contact between children and non-resident parents (most often fathers) in cases where children did not live with both biological parents. However, low income families were more likely to report that they refrained from activities such as going on holidays, going to the cinema and eating out. Parents in the low income sample also reported more somatic and mental health problems than parents in the control sample. This was particularly true for groups within the low income sample who experienced deprivation in other areas (housing deprivation, lack of consumer goods, and self-reported financial problems). The differences between children in low-income families and children from the control sample were less evident when the analysis was based on information from the children themselves. A majority of children from the low income sample did not report school related problems, non-participation in leisure activities nor health problems. There were, however, also important differences between the two groups of children. Children from low-income families were more inclined than other children to report that they did not do as well in school as their peers, and they received special education more often than other children. They also reported more teasing and bullying from peers than children in the control sample. On the other hand, there were no differences in teacher-pupil relationships or general well-being in school. Although a majority of the children in low income families participated in organised leisure activities, the proportion who did not participate at all was significantly higher among children in the low income sample than in the control sample. Girls with ethnic minority backgrounds were particularly likely to report little or no participation in organised activities. Children in low income families did not invite friends home or visit friends in their homes as often as other children. Nevertheless, children from low income families were not more inclined to have unstable friendships than other children or to report that they did not confide their problems to a friend. The majority of children in both samples owned material objects that are common among Norwegian children (e.g. bike, cross country skis/snowboard and cd-player). The percentagewho didnot have all these objects was, however, significantly higher among the children in the low income sample than in the control sample. This also applied to the children's own economic resources: While a majority of the children in the low income sample had access to money, the minority who had no money of their own was larger among the low income children than among other children. Children in the low income sample were less likely than their parents to describe the family's financial situation as poor. This finding is in accordance with our interpretation of (the lack of) differences between children from the two samples: Parents in low income families seem to protect their children by prioritising children's needs over their own. In many respects parents can be seen as buffers for children growing up in families with low income. The general welfare level in the Norwegian society is also a factor that can explain why the differences between the two groups of children are moderate. There is however also reason to believe that the families who chose not to participate in the study may be worse off than the families who participated. With regard to policy implications, we argue that universal measures as well as measures directed towards children themselves are important when working to reduce problems associated with life on a low income