54
Table 2.3: Selected indicators for each dimension of child deprivation, 2009
Dimension of child poverty
Education Working children
Health Shelter
Sanitation Water
of children deprived per
indicator
68.98 11.31
4.71 1.62
16.59 1.66
0.81 27.86
10.43 7.85
51.64 37.38
of children deprived per
dimension
25.9 6.3
17.2 37.0
51.6 37.38
Selected indicators
Children 3–6 years old not enrolled in ECE institutions Children 7–17 years old not enrolled in primary or secondary school
Children perform economic labour without going to school Children perform economic labour and also go to school
Self-reported workschool disrupted by ill health Self-reported diarrhea
Self-reported asthma Children living in house with a floor area of less than 8m2 per person
Children living in house with an earth floor Children living in house without electric lighting
Children living in house without a proper toilet Children living in house without access to clean water
Note:liveinhousewithtoiletorhaveaccesstocommunaltoilet,whichisatleastasquat-typefacility,andtheroofismade
ofironsheeting;includespipedwater,rainwater,artesiananddugwells,andprotectedwellsandspringsseealsothe definitions in Appendix I.
Source:Estimatedusingdatafromthe2009SUSENASPanel
Table 2.4: Children suffering multiple deprivations, 2009
No
1 2
3 4
5 6
7
Number of dimensions of deprivation
No deprivation Only one deprivation
Two deprivations Three deprivations
Four deprivations Five deprivations
All of any deprivations 18.28
30.65 29.12
18.49 6.56
1.28 0.07
Source:Estimatedusingdatafromthe2009SUSENASPanel
various dimensions Table 2.6. For children under three years old, deprivation in health
was positively and significantly correlated with deprivation of shelter and sanitation but not with
deprivation of access to clean water. Deprivation of shelter is shown to be the indirect factor with
the strongest association with the health of children under three years of age. In addition,
enrolment in formal education prohibited children from performing working children’s
activities working was strongly correlated with education deprivation. The analysis also shows
that children’s participation in the workforce had a small but non-significant negative correlation
with health deprivation, potentially indicating no correlation between children’s participation
in the workforce with their health condition. In contrast, a study using a longitudinal dataset
on Indonesia the Indonesia Family Life Survey, IFLS found strong negative effects for working
children on the growth of both their numeracy and cognitive skills over the a period of seven
years, as well as strong negative effects on their pulmonary function as measured by lung
capacity Sim, Suryadarma and Suryahadi, 2011.
55
Table 2.5: Correlations across dimensions of child poverty deprivation
Age group Under 3 years
Education Working children
Health Shelter
Sanitation Water
3–9 years Education
Working children Health
Shelter Sanitation
Water
10–17 years Education
Working children Health
Shelter Sanitation
Water
All children Education
Working children Health
Shelter Sanitation
Water
Education
na na
na na
na na
1 na
0.0531 0.0453
0.0405 -0.0126
1 0.5950
-0.0207 0.1362
0.1738 -0.0074
1 0.5950
0.1164 0.0798
0.0684 -0.0123
Working children
na na
na na
na
na na
na na
na
1 -0.0096
0.1087 0.1430
0.0063 1
-0.0096 0.1087
0.1430 0.0063
Health
1 0.0463
0.0423 0.0099
1 0.0217
0.0155 0.009
1 0.0254
0.0197 0.0102
1 0.0324
0.0221 0.0068
Shelter
1 0.3302
-0.0155
1 0.3384
-0.0151
1 0.3399
-0.0196
1 0.3379
-0.0187
Sanitation
1 0.0628
1 0.0440
1 0.0323
1 0.0409
Water
1
1
1
1 Source:Estimatedusingdatafromthe2009SUSENASPanel
Note:signiicantatp0.01level
Figure 2.5: Pattern of relationships among the six dimensions of child poverty, 2009
School enrolment
Water Shelter
Sanitation Working
children
Health +
+ +
+
+ +
+ -
- Legend:
Significant correlation Non-significant correlation
+ Positive correlation - Negative correlation
Source:AnalyzedfromTable2.6
56 The analysis on the proportion of children
deprived in each dimension by household income quintiles confirms the link between
monetary and non monetary poverty. Table 2.6 shows that the proportion of children deprived
in any dimension decreases as the household income level increases from children in the
poorest quintiles Q1 to children in the richest quintiles Q5. Furthermore, the proportion of
children who were free from any deprivation increased along the quintiles of households’
income. There were only 4.95 per cent of children in quintile 1 who were free from any
deprivation, while in contrast there were 39.76 per cent of children in quintile five who were free
from any of deprivation.
2.3 Child deprivation in shelter, water and sanitation dimensions
This section will specifically discuss the shelter, sanitation and water dimensions, to provide a
deeper understanding of the related issues and situation. The income dimension of child poverty
has been discussed at length in the previous section; while the health, education and working
children dimensions will be further discussed in chapters 3, 4 and 5, respectively.
Source:EstimatedfromSusenasPanel,2009
Table 2.6: Children deprived in each dimension by household income quintiles, 2009
Dimension of Child Poverty
Education Working children
Health Shelter
Sanitation Water
Q1
35.2 8.0
17.2 60.8
78.0 41.37
Q2
28.6 6.5
17.3 43.2
62.8 40.34
Q3
24.2 6.1
17.3 32.6
49.4 36.14
Q4
20.3 5.0
17.6 23.6
33.9 32.98
Q5
16.6 5.3
16.4 11.4
17.9 33.63
Total
25.9 6.3
17.2 37.0
51.6 37.38
Table 2.7: Children suffering multiple deprivations by household income quintiles, 2009
No
1 2
3 4
5 6
7
Variable
No deprivation at all Only one any deprivation
Two of any deprivations Three of any deprivations
Four of any deprivations Five of any deprivations
All of any deprivations
Q1
4.95 17.78
32.37 29.01
11.82 2.47
0.10 Q2
11.28 27.52
32.77 22.03
7.80 1.47
0.13 Q3
18.53 33.47
29.86 15.74
5.27 0.97
0.02 Q4
28.97 39.05
26.79 11.31
3.00 0.46
0.05 Q5
39.76 44.98
19.74 6.32
1.11 0.22
0.05
Total
18.28 30.65
29.12 18.49
6.56 1.28
0.07 Source:EstimatedfromSusenasPanel,2009
Table 2.7 shows the change between 2003 and 2009 in the deprivation measures for children
that relate to household-level standards and amenities: shelter, sanitation and access to
clean water. In general, deprivation, in terms of shelter and sanitation, has declined mirroring
the declines in monetary child poverty over the same period. However, access to clean water
has worsened. Table 2.7 also shows both the percentage point change in these indicators
and the underlying growth and decline rates. Given the different units of measurement
and the different levels of deprivation at the starting point in 2003, it is most useful to think
of changing deprivation levels in terms of the decline and growth rates rather than absolute
change. ‘Overcrowding’, using a measure of 8 square metres per person per household, was
the most common deprivation; 26 per cent of children were deprived of adequate space in
2003, reducing 8.6 per cent by 2009. Deprivation of electricity for household lighting fell much
more quickly in the same period, by almost 52 per cent, from 15.5 per cent of children
deprived to just 7.5 per cent in 2009. Having an earth floor in the house also fell from 15.1
per cent of children in 2003 to 10.1 per cent in 2009, a decline of almost 29 per cent. Turning
to sanitation, the proportion of children without
57 access to a proper toilet is a very common
deprivation, which affected a majority of children in 2003 53.7 per cent but improved rapidly to 36
per cent in 2009 – a decline of 33.7 per cent in six years for this deprivation.
On the other hand, water deprivations for children have risen during the same period, with
the proportion of children having no access to clean water rising from 29.3 to 35.1 per cent –
a 20 per cent growth in this deprivation. The definition of ‘safe and improved water sources’
in this analysis includes piped water, rain water, artesian and dug wells, and protected wells and
springs; and the water sources must be located further than 10 metres from any septic tank.
11
Data are derived from items in the SUSENAS regarding the main source of drinking water,
which is affected not only by the availability of water sources but also the preference of
household members. An analysis using a different approach that defines ‘access to safe
and clean water’ as consuming mineral water, tap water, or water from water pumps, protected
wells or protected springs
12
has resulted in the opposite trend, with the percentage of children
deprived of access to safe water declining from 30.6 per cent in 2003 to 26.2 per cent in 2009,
a decline of approximately 14 per cent. These differences indicate that more households may
have shifted to the use of mineral and tap water, but no data are available that might explain the
reason behind this shift.
Table 2.8: Children suffering shelter, sanitation and water deprivations, 2003–2009
Dimension of poverty
Shelter Sanitation
Water
Indicators
Area 8m2person Earth floor
No electricity for lighting No proper toilet
No access to protected and clean water sources
Percentage point change
-2.3 -4.3
-8.0 -18.1
5.8
DeclineGrowth
-8.6 -28.7
-51.7 -33.7
19.9
2003
26.2 15.1
15.5 53.7
29.3
2009
23.9 10.8
7.5 35.6
35.1
Children deprived
Source:Estimatedusingdatafromthe2009SUSENASPanel
Provincial disparities in terms of shelter, water and sanitation deprivations are shown
in Figure 2.6 and Figure 2.7. The shelter deprivations shown in Figure 2.6 show that
very high proportions of children in Papua and other eastern provinces live in households
with earth floors, lack of electricity and overcrowding. In general, urban and population-
dense provinces seem to have lower levels of electricity deprivation, but have higher
levels of overcrowding. Children in Jakarta, in particular, suffer more from overcrowding,
but are unlikely to have an earth floor or to lack electricity. Housing structure – reflected
in space per household member and type of floor – is somehow also associated with local
or traditional housing designs. Most traditional houses in East Nusa Tenggara and in Papua, for
example, have earth floors.
Water and sanitation deprivations are shown in Figure 2.7. There is less correspondence at the
provincial level across these two dimensions, with West Sulawesi and Papua having the
highest rates of children living in households without a proper toilet 63.5 and 62.8 per cent,
respectively, but children in West Kalimantan having the highest rates of lack of access to clean
water 85.8 per cent, followed by Papua 78 per cent.
11 This definition is the formal definition used by the Government of Indonesia’s National Development Planning Agency BAPPENAS, BPS – Statistics Indonesia, and Ministry of Public Works Kementerian Pekerjaan Umum for development programmes.
12 This definition is commonly used by the United Nations Development Programme UNDP in Human Development Reports.
58
Figure 2.6: Children deprived of shelter by province, 2009
Papua West Papua
NTT Jakarta
Gorontalo North Sulawesi
Maluku NTB
West Kalimantan South Sumatra
Aceh West Sulawesi
North Sumatra North Maluku
Central Sulawesi West Sumatra
Southeast Sulawesi Central Kalimantan
Bengkulu Riau
East Kalimantan West Java
Riau Islands Bali
South Kalimantan Banten
Bangka Belitung South Sulawesi
Jambi Lampung
East Java Yogyakarta
Central Java 70
60 50
40 30
20 10
of children deprived in shelter dimension Live in house 8m2 per person
Without electricity connection Live in house with earth floor
Source:Estimatedusingdatafrom2009SUSENASPanel Source:Estimatedusingdatafrom2009SUSENASPanel
Figure 2.7: Children deprived of sanitation and water by province, 2009
West Sulawesi Papua
Gorontalo West Papua
Maluku North Maluku
Central Kalimantan NTT
Southeast Sulawesi Aceh
West Sumatra Central Sulawesi
NTB South Sumatra
West Kalimantan South Kalimantan
Lampung Jambi
Riau Islands North Sumatra
East Java Central Java
South Sulawesi Bengkulu
Banten Bangka Belitung
North Sulawesi Riau
West Java East Kalimantan
Yogyakarta Bali
Jakarta 90
80 70
60 50
40 30
20 10
of children deprived in sanitation or water
Live in house without proper toilet
Without the access to safe water