Family in some form or configuration is a major institution in all societies for carrying out reproductive, physical-biological sustenance, economic maintenance (food, clothing, shelter, health care, for example), and socio-emotional and nurturance functions. The dominant forms of family may differ and families also differ in composition. Families are in interaction with environments as family ecosystems are one part of an interdependent and interacting set of systems that comprise community, societal and global human ecosystems (Bubolz, 1995). Environments do not determine human behaviour but pose limitations and constraints as well as possibilities and opportunities for families. Families cannot be considered apart from their environments. Figure 1 represents a general model of the human ecosystem. Bubolz and Sontag (Bubolz,1995, p.4) conceptualise three analytically distinct but inter-related environments: the natural physical-biological, the human-built, and the socio-cultural. The environments are depicted as embedded in each other. Interaction takes place within and between the family and environments.

Figure 1. A Human Ecosystem (Bubolz and Sontag)

Families have varying degrees of control and freedom with respect to environmental interactions and their access to resources. Collectively, decisions and actions of individual families have an impact on society, culture and the natural and built environments. Events and systems in the larger environment have impacts on families. For example, the presence of children may mean families do interact with environments as government policies related to children will affect family decision-making as they make decisions to creatively adapt and foster human development. Decisions families make will impact on macro environments, for example, if the family separate, government will be required to support the children through social welfare or impose a support mechanism to enable child support payments. Through their decisions and actions, families can help shape their own destiny. Families, through their use of resources, decision-making and consumption patterns and socialisation practices, collectively affect all people. Families can impact the environments in critical ways: by its reproductive decisions through bearing and rearing children; by lifestyle, particularly consumption patterns and resources used and; by socialisation practices. A key question is: What impacts will the knowledge of the cost of children have on decision-making in families?

Attempts have been made to quantify the direct costs of children while recognising that the indirect costs, such as time spent in child care and lost career opportunities, may have an even greater impact on one or both parents. Three main approaches had been taken in arriving at the costs: a budgetary approach, i.e. a ‘basket of goods’ approach; an equivalence scale approach based on surveys of actual expenditure; a ‘public opinion’ approach based on surveys of what should be included as the minimum survival needs of children. Examples of the first two approaches will be discussed below.

Lovering (1984) reported on the work done on the cost of children in response to a request from the Family Law Council and in recognition of the many policy areas that were concerned with and had implications for the cost of children. There had been, previously, little work done in this area in Australia to discover the minimum costs, the adequate, or even the usual costs, of children. Government pensions, benefits, and allowances and maintenance orders appeared to be based only on ‘guesstimates’ of such costs (p.1).

Lovering (1984) used a ‘basket of goods’ approach to her costs for low income families and for middle income families. The Australian Institute of Family Studies regularly publishes the costs that are adjusted to CPI figures. A problem with this approach (as it is for the CPI) is what should be included in the basket of goods. In this estimate food, clothing, fuel, household provisions, costs of schooling (not fees) gifts, pocket money and entertainment is included whilst housing, transport, school fees or uniforms, child care, medical or dental expenses are excluded. The costs excluded are now major costs for most families raising children.

An Expenditure Survey Approach was developed by Lee in 1989 based on the Household Expenditure Survey carried out by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. The costs in this approach include medical and dental costs, education costs and other miscellaneous costs. He also recognised that the costs of children vary according to the number of children in the family, the parents’ incomes and whether one or both parents are working. The Australian Institute of Family Studies publishes regular updates of costs using this approach. Adjustments are made to reflect the Average Weekly Earnings.

The Social Policy Research Centre at the University of New South Wales was commissioned in October, 1995 by the Commonwealth Department of Social Security to develop a set of indicative budget standards for Australia. This had not been attempted before in Australia. A budget standard represents what is required by a specified household, in a particular place at a particular point in time, to achieve a specific standard of living. Development of a budget standard thus involves specifying a typical basket of goods and services and pricing it (Saunders, Chalmers, McHugh, Murray, Bittman, Bradbury, 1998,p. ii). The budget standards of households with different compositions can be used to describe how costs vary with the presence of children. Saunders et. al (1998), for example, show low and modest but adequate budgets for private renter couples compared with modest but adequate budgets for home purchasers. They provide a detailed discussion of the ways the budgets have been arrived at to reflect the costs of children (Chapter 14).

None of the above approaches allows easy comparisons of the costs of children. The basket of goods approach, (based on Lovering, 1983), states that the costs for a 2 year old in a low income family for a year would be $1663.30 but $2502.52 for a two year old in a modest income family (AIFS, 1998). The expenditure survey approach, (based on Lee, 1989), would estimate the cost of a two year old as $8969.48 (AIFS, 1998). Using the indicative budgets approach it may be possible to estimate the costs of children. Estimates of the cost of one child for private renter couples at the low cost standard show that the costs of a three year old would be $4004 compared with $8944 for purchaser couples at the modest but adequate standard (Saunders et al, 1998, pp 593-4). This cost is similar to that estimated by Lee using different criteria. The costs for adolescents are: Lovering (teenager), low income family $4134.62, modest income family $6878.90(AIFS, 1998,p62); Lee (11-13 year old) $13012.48 (AIFS, 1998, p.62) and; Saunders et al (1998, pp 593-4) (boy aged 14) , low cost standard $6552, modest income standard $7654. Many estimates of the costs associated with children gave been published in the popular media in 1998 (for example, Murrill, 1998, p.6; Coffey, 1998,pp 1, 4, 5; Pountney, 1998, p25). The single biggest cost associated with children, that is being increasingly recognised, is that of forgone earnings by women if they move out of the paid workforce to care for children. If they remain in the paid workforce they face the costs of child care.

How might families use cost estimates in their decisions about having Children?

The quality of human life and the prospect of the family’s continued survival within limited environmental settings depends, in large measure, on the decisions made in daily family living. Much of family decision-making is shaped by the environmental settings in which the family functions. Family decisions involve a complex interplay between and among individuals and environments. Families have both the opportunity and responsibility to make decisions that will ensure the continuance of all. Decision-making is based on the family’s image of an ideal state, what it feels it should do, and what in reality it can and does do. Of particular concern when family decisions are being made is the question of self-interest versus family and societal welfare. Discrepancies may exist between individual desires and family interests. Families make choices and take actions — actions that are meant to help members reach goals related to the quality of their lives. But what are the choices and what can families change in order to improve the quality of life? I argue that a family resource management framework may assist researchers and professionals working with families to uncover processes families use in making decisions about children. A family management framework highlights the process of families using resources to achieve goals or using what one has to get what one wants. This framework is based on the ecological systems perspective that recognises the interdependencies of family and environment (Deacon and Firebaugh, 1988; Rice and Tucker, 1986). Decision making is required at each part. See Figure 2 below

Figure 2
Interrelationships in the Family Ecosystem

Source: Bubolz, 1995, p.11

An example :

If one were to look in on a day in the life of a family one would view the dynamics of change in action. A value system has a strong impact on family values such as individualism, independence, familism, tradition. Many Australian families value tradition and familism (although decreasing fertility rates may belie this) as they believe children are a key part of a family. Most Australians believe in socialising children for success in life - access to resources especially money may impact on the ability of families to provide who may have to call on outside environments (governments, schooling , child care) to help them. Short term goals can differ according to family resources. Many will look for and secure further resources, such as working longer hours with subsequent impacts on fathering and mothering; mother in the paid workforce may mean less time for children and increase in family stress and tension; child care provision in the public sector with subsequent costs, family oriented work places may be asked for. Figure 2 provides a conceptual framework to explain the workings of the family eco-system and linkages with the macro environments. It is based on the assumption that all families transform matter-energy and information and engage in adaptation to their environments. Adaptation is carried out through internal family activities, transactions with the external systems and through the use of resources. By understanding this process in relation to decisions families make about children, professionals can help to strengthen families to carry our their functions and activities, create resources and solve perennial everyday problems.

A dilemma is will ends be consciously and carefully chosen as a result of personal reflection and interactions? For example, those who use assisted reproduction have obviously consciously decided that they do want children and have found out the out-of-pocket expenses, incurred after Medicare rebates, for women having fertility treatment. Have they looked beyond these costs, especially the long term costs associated with rearing the child?

Many people may not consciously choose to become pregnant so the consequences may not be worked through. For non-residential parents the impacts of child maintenance may have life long consequences for work, for the quality of life for parents and child, for the ability to re-parent, for health, education and employment, for allowances through social security.

The discussions around the Goods and Services Tax have also involved the costs of children with the recognition that families should be compensated through, for example, an extra $140 a year for each dependent child, an extra $350 a year for single income families with a child under five (Costello, 1998, p.3). If the costs of children increase with age do these levels of compensation reflect the real costs for families?

We should engage in more interaction and reflections about ‘what is the best thing to do?’ How do we involve people in examining their own conditions and beliefs and questioning which ideals are better and for what reasons. What is fair and beneficial? Objective knowledge obtained through empirical research (the economic costs of children) can often cover up significant questions of meaning such as social-emotional issues in decision-making of what and how to spend on children. Some use of qualitative methods may uncover more fully the role of knowing the economic costs may play in decision-making about children. What are the perceptions of quality of life in terms of conditions of life for all living things within an environment. Quality of life is generally considered an output of the family system — the state of well-being of each person, of the family as a whole; and beyond family to material and social conditions in the environment (Engberg, 1996).

Those who work with families will have to bring to the level of awareness some of the problem situations in a real life context. It encourages examining real life situations, dialogue, questioning, listening and reflecting, until a real understanding of decision-making is identified and clarified. Once the web of factors which impact on decision-making are understood by the individuals and or families concerned steps can be taken to bring about a more desirable end.

Australian Institute of Family Studies, (1998) Costs of Children Family Matters No 50, Winter

Bubolz, M. (1995) ‘An Ecological Approach to Building the Smallest Democracy’ in Vaines, E., Badir,D,, Kieren, D. (eds) (1995) People and Practice: International Issues for Home Economists Vol V, No 1

Coffey, M. (1998) Price of Love Herald Sun April 14

Costello, P. (circulated by) (1998)Tax Reform not a new tax a new tax system Commonwealth of Australia, Canberra

Engberg, L. (1996) ‘Critical thinking about Family Resource Management’ in Engberg. L, Varjonen, J., Steinmuller, H. (1996) Family Resource Management Issues Family Resource Management Committee, International Federation for Home Economics, Paris

Lovering, K. (1984) Cost of Children in Australia Working paper no 8, Institute of Family Studies, Melbourne

Murrill, M. (1998) How Melbourne spends The Age November 16

Pountney, M. (1998) Rising cost of raising teenagers Herald Sun September 4

Saunders, P., Chalmers, J., McHugh, M., Murray, C., Bittman, M., Bradbury, B. (1998) Development of Indicative Budget Standards for Australia Research paper No 74, Budget Standards Unit, Social Policy Rsearch Centre, University of New South Wales