Socioeconomic Status and Single Parent Families - Case Study Example

SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS AND SINGLE PARENT FAMILIES Student Name: Student Number: Module: Module code: Submission deadline: PREAMBLE Despite numerous research works having documented on the importance of socioeconomic status in relation to its impacts on our daily livelihood, little action is always put in all the recommendations noted. In addition, the likelihood of reporting the collected data from socioeconomic research works in minimal. Mostly, reports end up being piled and chances of follow-ups are slim. Over the recent years, there has been tremendous awareness on the need to collect socioeconomic data (Carlson, 2006). However, the agreement on which measures should be adapted or implemented to steer socioeconomic status of individuals in a sound direction is minimal. One of the negative effects is that, various recommendations of socioeconomic have indeed affected health outcomes. Furthermore, studies add that the measures in the socioeconomic status research are not interchangeable (Luck & Race, 2011). It is vital that the Australian Government Department of Health takes a keen interest in the various outcomes of the socioeconomic status reports. In addition, a strategic evaluation of the potential power within the socioeconomic status reports ought to be implemented. This implementation is eminent before an effective set of optimum resolutions can be created (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007). My positional statement paper seeks to address the impacts of socioeconomic status in relation to single parent families and its effect on individuals within the society. Socioeconomic status is the ability of an individual to access both social and economic resources. It is the combination of an individual’s or a family work experience social and economic experience in relation to others. Primarily, socioeconomic status is based on an individual’s income, occupation and education (Byrne, & Neville, 2009). In our current times, education, income and occupation have a vital role to play on our livelihood. Socioeconomic status defines our coexistence and status within the society we live in (Dowler, & Spencer, 2007). In addition, measures of socioeconomic status provide information about how and the percentage one has in terms of access to both economic and social resources. In most cases, education and occupation form the basis for the measure of the socioeconomic status of an individual. From birth, we are advised to seek education and careers as these will be the source of income when we grow up. As we embark on this advice, we meet various people within our journey. At the end of the journey, as our career life starts so does the income. Depending on our line of work or duty, access to social and economic resources is greatly defined from this point on (Luck & Race, 2011). METHODOLOGY Single parent families primarily entail families that depend on a single parent. The parent is the sole breadwinner and responsible for all decisions the family will take. As discussed above, socioeconomic status is access to economic and social resources. In these current times, financial capabilities play a major role in an individual’s socioeconomic status (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012). Families, those with both parents have the advantage of financial support from the spouses. Despite the marital status and sexual orientation of the partners, as long as they both agree to cost share their financial expenses have the upper hand in today’s world. However, this does not imply that single parent families have no advantage. The limit to social and economic resources from a financial point of view is dependent on the parent(s) income. There are single parents who have enough income to support their families, as opposed to the combined income of the families with two parents (Fritzell & Lundberg, 2007). Data form the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) was used during this research work. The indicators of socioeconomic status in relation to single parent families discussed are based on ABS data in addition to other data (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). This research seeks to address the health implications and issues on the indicators of the socioeconomic status within the society. The major contributor to health issues in our current times is poverty (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012). The lack for basic commodities and needs is a clear indication of poverty. In addition, basic needs are classified in terms of standards. This implies that one can have access to basic needs however; the standards or quality of the basic needs is also in question. During this research, the indicators of socioeconomic status to be investigated are poverty levels, social and economic levels and educational levels of individuals. This research study set to conduct a series of investigations and information gathering to tackle the question at hand. A comprehensive literature review on previous works about socioeconomic status and families and parenting was eminent. In addition, simple questionnaires and interview questions were drafted to aid in information gathering (Raftery, 2006). A group of twenty-five individuals was vetted as potential interviewees for the research study. The criteria for their selection were that they had to be literate, between ages of eighteen to sixty-five, had to have been a citizen in Australia for more than ten years, and they were of sound mind. Series of individual interviews and group interviews were scheduled. ANALYSIS of HEALTH ISSUES This research study found out that there were marked socioeconomic inequalities between families. Families with both and or all parents were at a better socioeconomic status level as opposed to families with single a parent (National Health Performance Committee, 2009). These socioeconomic inequalities were found to exist on a wide range of measures. For the purpose of this research, I will stick to the inequalities that influenced the health of individuals. In the current times, socioeconomic status has a vital and significant role to play in the health inequalities of individuals (De Vaus, 2009). The socioeconomic status varies among individuals. Those who are socioeconomically disadvantaged have poor health than their counterparts who are more advantaged. As discussed in the preamble, the major factors associated with inequalities in socioeconomic status are education, income and occupation of individuals (National Health Performance Committee, 2009). The economic and social status of an individual is closely related to the inequalities in their health status. Health inequalities are because of unequal access to health material resources. Good housing, health food and ample income contribute to an advantaged socioeconomic status. However, these resources largely depend on the income (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010). For single parent families, the income is limited to the breadwinner, assuming the single parent is the breadwinner. If the income of the single parent is low and not substantial enough, access to quality food, health care and good housing is limited. This implies that all the dependents of the single parent will have a disadvantaged or rather a limited socioeconomic status. In addition to poor health, individuals with a disadvantaged socioeconomic status are prone to have poor social and psychological conditions. Ultimately, these conditions have negative effects on one’s health (Carlson, 2006). Demographic variations play a vital role in defining inequalities in health. Individuals’ socioeconomic statuses are closely related to the geographic areas in which they reside. People living in similar environments have access to more or less resources. In places with limited resources and disadvantaged socioeconomic status, it is common to have individuals with similar levels of socioeconomic status. Statistics on the duration of time parents spent with their families has reduced over the years (Riegelman, 2010). Mothers are seen to spend more time with children as opposed to their partners/dads. These statistics portray the changing patterns of socioeconomic status of families. Despite having all parents, mostly mothers are left to care for the children (Joshi, Wiggins, Bartley, Mitchell, Gleave & Lynch, 2007). This statistics is also contributed to the fact that the ratio of families with single parents over families with two parents has increased in recent years. Commonly, women who raise children on their own are more as opposed to previous years. Moreover, inequalities between indigenous and nonindigenous Australians exist. Research shows that aboriginal Australians have a lower life expectancy, as opposed to their nonindigenous counterparts. In addition, women have high life expectancy than men. This statistics implies that at some point in life, the chances of a family losing one parent, male, is high (Graham, 2007). This can bring about a shift in balance on how finances are managed in the family. Financial constraints are the major contributing factors to health inequalities. Financial status plays a vital role in the level of socioeconomic status of individual. Research shows that single parent families are prone to financial problems (Giddens & Griffiths, 2006). As a result, their social and economic life is negatively affected as they put a balance between priorities in their expenses (Llena, 2007). The lack of economic resources pushes individuals to cut short their social life as the try to make ends meet. As for single parent families, their social life with their siblings is reduced. Since low socioeconomic status is directly linked to poor health, poor health in itself negatively affects individuals. Persons of poor health are prone to be disadvantaged at all times hence generating a cycle of individuals being disadvantaged and poor health. In addition, this cycle can persist across generations (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007). RECOMMENDATIONS It is keen to point out that there are some unavoidable health inequalities. Aging is among non-avoidable health inequalities. Nonetheless, in an attempt to curb health inequalities, it is eminent that the following be addressed. By reducing the impact of health on socioeconomic status within our society or nation: Adapting strategies that reduce inequalities on wealth the income of individuals, power and prestige: By employing strategies that minimize the risks of negative impacts in the health inequalities associated with the socioeconomic status of individuals: Lastly, be ensuring that there are minimal health effects of individuals with disadvantaged socioeconomic status. By reducing the inequality in power, income and wealth, we tend to level the socioeconomic gap within a given society. Accesses to social and economic resources are limited to individuals’ ability to access them. This implies that, individuals will access to the social and economic resources within their reach (Cutler, Lleras-Muney & Vogl, 2008). As for well off individuals who have better income, more wealth and power within a society will ultimately have access to better resources, as opposed to their less fortunate counterparts. In an attempt to curb the inequality, adapting strategies that will bring about significant leveling in power, income, wealth and prestige will be a good way forward. Effects of health are also significant aspects of health inequalities and should not be overlooked. It is common in every society that there are individuals who are well off, with ample access to resources and those that are less fortunate. The government can step in and try to provide or rather facilitate access to quality resources for those that are less fortunate. This will greatly reduce the health inequality within the society. In addition, less fortunate individuals can have access to better housing facilities from government initiatives. These initiatives aimed at minimizing the risks of the negative impacts in the health inequalities associated with the socioeconomic status of the less fortunate individuals (De Vaus, 2009). By ensuring that there is quality primary care across all facilities health inequalities can be curbed. Nonetheless, it can be challenging for the government to draw the line between focusing on individuals who are less fortunate as opposed to the individuals of a wider population (Byrne, & Neville, 2009). There might be a group of persons, who form the majority of people in need of health resources through the socioeconomic level. This group might not consist of the individuals that are the less fortunate or bottom in the pecking order. Attempts to determine where best to implement changes to curb the inequalities arise. The majority of the individuals through the spread are commonly to have the greatest impact on health issues. However, the group with the individuals who are the least fortunate though the spread (but not the majority) has the highest risk at the inception. As mentioned above, the recommendations can be customized to maximize their impacts upon implementation (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008). References 1. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2007. Household income and income distribution, Australia, Canberra: ABS. 2. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2008, Australia’s health Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 3. Carlson, M. 2006. Family structure, father involvement, and adolescent behavioral outcomes. Journal of Marriage and Family, Vol. 68. 4. De Vaus, D. 2009. Diversity and change in Australian families: Statistical profiles. Melbourne: Australian Institute of Family Studies. 5. Graham H. 2007. From science to policy: options for reducing health inequalities. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 6. Joshi H, Wiggins R, Bartley M, Mitchell R, Gleave S & Lynch K 2007. Understanding health inequalities. Buckingham, Open University Press. 7. National Health Performance Committee. 2009, National report on health sector performance indicators. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 8. Raftery, J., 2006. Not part of the public: non-indigenous policies and practices and the health of indigenous South Australians : 1836 - 1973. Kent Town, Wakefield Press. 9. Luck, G. W., & Race, D., 2011. Demographic change in Australia's rural landscapes implications for society and the environment. Dordrecht, Springer. 10. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2012. Australia's health 2012: in brief. Canberra, ACT, Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. 11. Cutler, D. M., Lleras-Muney, A., & Vogl, T., 2008. Socioeconomic status and health: dimensions and mechanisms. Cambridge, MA, NBER. 12. Llena N., A., 2007. On the dynamics of health, work and socioeconomic status. Amsterdam, Thela Thesis. 13. Riegelman, R. K., 2010. Public health 101: healthy people--healthy populations. Sudbury, Mass, Jones and Bartlett. 14. Fritzell, J., & Lundberg, O., 2007. Health inequalities and welfare resources: continuity and change in Sweden. Bristol, Policy Press. 15. Dowler, E., & Spencer, N., 2007. Challenging health inequalities: from Acheson to 'Choosing Health'. Bristol, Policy Press. 16. Byrne, G., & Neville, C., 2009. Community mental health for older people. Chatswood, N.S.W., Elsevier Australia. 17. Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2010. Australian economic indicators. Canberra, Australian Bureau of Statistics. 18. Giddens, A., & Griffiths, S. 2006. Sociology. Cambridge, UK, Polity Press. Read More