Children's distance to services​, 2021

Insights into children's median road distance to health and education services in Australia in 2021

Cite
Print
Released
27/02/2026
Released
27/02/2026 11:30am AEDT

What do we mean when we talk about children’s median road distance to services?

The median road distance for an area is calculated using the road distance from each dwelling to its closest service. After arranging these distances from shortest to longest, the median is the value at which half of the dwellings in an area are closer to the service and half are farther away. Medians are calculated at the 2021 Statistical Area 1 (SA1) level and are then classified into distance ranges. 

SA1 level results are subsequently aggregated into higher level geographies, including Remoteness Areas and Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (GCCSAs). For analysis, the number of children living in each SA1 is based on population counts from the 2021 Census of Population and Housing. 

Key statistics

  • 2.3 million (49.3%) children aged 0-14 years lived in an area where the median road distance to all services (childcare or Outside School Hours Care, schools, hospitals and general practices) was less than 5 km.
  • 78.0% of children aged 5-12 years (2.0 million) lived in areas where the median road distance to any primary school was less than 2 km.
  • More children lived within a shorter median road distance to a government primary school (46.5%, 1.2 million) compared to those closer to a non-government school (12.6%, 319,805). While 40.8% (1.0 million) lived in areas with the same distance to both.
  • 37.1% (39,029) of children aged 0-14 years who had a median road distance of 20 km or more to a GP lived in the most disadvantaged areas, while 3.5% (2,866) lived in the most advantaged areas.

Why geographic access to services matters

Geographic distance is a factor affecting how easily people can access services. Understanding how far individuals need to travel provides valuable evidence for policy and planning. Other factors impacting service access, but outside the scope of this article, may include cost, availability, and whether the service meets people’s needs.

Geographic distance can be measured in different ways. This article draws on data showing how far children need to travel by road to reach selected services, using Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1) median road distances sourced from the Centre for Australian Research into Access (CARA). The 2021 CARA dataset reports road distance and drive time to key services across Australia, including General Practices (GPs), hospitals, childcare or Outside School Hours Care (OSHC), and primary and secondary schools. Road distance was used rather than straight‑line distance because it better represents real travel patterns, even though it may not capture individual circumstances.

Both this article and the new Service Accessibility Explorer application form part of the pilot ABS Life Course Data Initiative (LCDI), which aims to build an evidence base to support policy responses that address disadvantage, particularly for children and their families.

Explore service access in your area

Use the Service Accessibility Explorer interactive map and dashboard to explore distance and drive time access to 2021 services across Australia at the small area level. Services include childcare or OSHC, schools (primary and secondary, government and private), GPs and hospitals. 

You can also see contextual data from the 2021 Census of Population and Housing (Census), the Index of Household Advantage and Disadvantage (IHAD), and the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) to better understand the socio-economic context of your area. 

The application is desktop, tablet and mobile friendly.

This image is the application tile image for the Service Accessibility Explorer and an example screenshot of the map view.

This image is the application tile image for the Service Accessibility Explorer and an example screenshot of the map view, including median road distance to services and population data. For more information about the Service Accessibility Explorer, please refer to the Service Accessibility Explorer Application (App). 

Where children live in Australia

In 2021, the Census recorded 4.6 million children aged 0-14 years, representing 18.2% of the total population of Australia. Most children (72.4%, 3.4 million) lived in Major Cities, while 17.4% (808,438) lived in Inner Regional areas and 8.0% (369,024) in Outer Regional areas. Remote and Very Remote Areas accounted for 2.1% (97,417) of children. The remaining 0.1% (5,646) had no usual address and were not assigned a geographic location.

This image is a donut chart of where children live in Australia by Remoteness Areas. Full description can be found in the 'Description' tab above the image.

This image is a donut chart of where children live in Australia by Remoteness Areas. 72.4% of children live in Major Cities, 17.4% live in Inner Regional areas, 8.0% live in Outer Regional areas and 2.1% of children live in Remote or Very Remote areas of Australia.

The Greater Capital City Statistical Area (GCCSA) of Greater Sydney had the largest child population (aged 0-14 years) of 963,229 and the Rest of Northern Territory (areas outside Greater Darwin) had the smallest at 20,174.

  1. Results do not include Other Territories or children with no usual address.

Children’s median road distance to all services

All services is a grouping of many essential services and includes childcare (centre-based, family day care and Outside School Hours Care), general practices (GPs), hospitals, primary and secondary schools. The analysis of median road distance to all services was based on all children aged 0-14 years.

Median road distance to all services for children aged 0-14 years, 2021*
Median road distance of SA1Count of children 0-14 years% of children 0-14 years
Less than 2 km 520,13311.2
Less than 5 km 2.1 million 44.5
Less than 20 km4.3 million 93.2
Less than 60 km4.6 million 99.1
60 km or more1,717 0.04

*Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

Children’s median road distance to a general practice

Overall, most children aged 0-14 years (73.6%, 3.4 million of a total of 4.6 million children) lived in areas where the median road distance to a GP was less than 2 km. In terms of greater distances, 1.8% of children (81,364) lived in areas where the median road distance was 20 km or more and 0.3% (12,002) lived in areas where the median road distance was 60 km or more from a GP.

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

Most children aged 0-14 years (83.6%, 2.8 million) in Major Cities lived in areas where the median road distance to a GP was less than 2 km. In other remoteness areas, access to a GP was more distributed across the distance categories.

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

The median road distance to GPs by 2021 GCCSAs showed clear differences between the different capital cities and the rest of state areas. In Greater Sydney, 89.1% (858,209) of children aged 0-14 years lived in areas where the median road distance to a GP was less than 2 km, compared to 56.5% (23,502) in Greater Hobart. Generally, children who lived in capital city GCCSAs were closer to GP services than those in the rest of state areas. 

  1. For data exclusions please refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Results do not include Other Territories.

Comparing children's median road distance to a GP and area level socio-economic quartile, measured by the SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD), revealed that 37.1% (39,029) of children who had a median road distance of 20 km or more to a GP lived in the most disadvantaged areas (quartile 1), while 3.5% (2,866) lived in the most advantaged areas (quartile 4).

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Socio Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD), 2021.

Children’s median road distance to hospitals

Fewer children aged 0-14 years lived as close to a hospital as they did to a GP, because there were fewer hospitals. As shown in the graph below, most children aged 0-14 years (93.6%, 4.3 million of a total of 4.6 million) lived in areas where the median road distance to a hospital was less than 20 km. There were 0.5% (23,627) of children in areas where the median road distance was 60 km or more. 

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

Most children across each remoteness area lived in locations where the median road distance to a hospital was 20 km or less. The graph below shows that as remoteness increases, the proportion of children who lived in areas where the median road distance was 20 km or more also increases. At the same time, the proportion of children who lived close to a hospital (median road distance of less than 2 km) also rises with increasing remoteness. This indicates that increasing remoteness brings greater variation in median road distance to services, with some children in remote and very remote areas clustered relatively close to hospitals and some far away.

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

Analysis of hospital access by GCCSAs, shows that across most capital city and rest of state areas, most children aged 0-14 years lived in areas where the median road distance to a hospital was less than 20 km. The exception was Rest of Northern Territory (NT), where the proportion was 45.3% of children (9,136).

  1. For data exclusions please refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Results do not include Other Territories.

Children who lived in areas with a median road distance of 20 km or more to a hospital were disproportionately concentrated in socio‑economically disadvantaged areas. Of these children, 30.4% (86,092) lived in the most disadvantaged IRSAD quartile (quartile 1), compared with 6.9% (19,574) who lived in the most advantaged areas (quartile 4). In contrast, for children who lived within 2 km of a hospital, a slightly larger percentage of children lived in the most advantaged areas 34.6% (236,872) than the most disadvantaged areas 29.2% (199,584). 

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Socio Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD), 2021.

Children’s median road distance to a childcare or Outside School Hours Care (OSHC)

In analysing childcare and Outside School Hours Care, the age group used was 0–12 years to ensure that distance measures reflect the population that is typically eligible for these services.

Over 85.9% of children 0-12 years (3.4 million of a total of 4.0 million) lived in areas where the median road distance to a childcare or OSHC service was less than 2 km.

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

When analysed by Remoteness Areas, the median road distance to childcare services within Major Cities was less than 2 km for 94.8% of children aged 0-12 years (2.8 million). Generally, as remoteness increased the proportion of children who lived in areas with larger median road distances also increased. In terms of greater median road distances, 0.3% of all children 0-12 years (10,142 children) lived in areas where the median road distance to a childcare service was 60 km or more this was split across Outer Regional (857), Remote (1,618) and Very Remote areas (7,667).

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

Within GCCSAs most children lived in areas where the median road distance to a childcare or OSHC service was less than 2 km. The Rest of NT had the largest proportion of children who lived in areas where the median road distance to a childcare or OSHC service was 60 km or more. 

  1. For data exclusions please refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Results do not include Other Territories.

Children aged 0-12 years who lived in areas with a median road distance 20 km or more from a childcare or OSHC service were disproportionately concentrated in more socio‑economically disadvantaged areas (measured by the IRSAD). 35.5% (19,879) of these children lived in areas in the most disadvantaged IRSAD quartile (quartile 1), compared with 3.1% (1,760) in the most advantaged quartile (quartile 4). 

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Socio Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD), 2021.

Children’s median road distance to primary schools

Most children aged 5-12 years (78.0%, 2.0 million of a total of 2.5 million) lived in areas where the median road distance to any primary school was less than 2 km. Analysing this by school type, 73.0% (1.9 million) of children lived in areas with a median road distance of less than 2 km to government schools compared to 49.0% (1.2 million) who had the median road distance of less than 2 km to non-government schools. The graph below shows the contrasting patterns of access for government and non-government schools, with road distance to non-government schools typically being larger. In terms of greater distances, 0.04% of children aged 5-12 years (1,126) lived in areas where the median road distance to any primary school was 60 km or more. These children were all in Outer Regional (18), Remote (115) and Very Remote areas (993).

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

The graph below shows primary school access by Remoteness Areas. Within the Very Remote category 63.1% (13,610) of children lived in areas where the median road distance to a primary school was less than 2 km. In comparison, in Outer Regional areas a smaller proportion of children (55.3%, 113,048) lived in an area where the median road distance was less than 2 km. The higher proportion of those with a median road distance of less than 2 km in Very Remote compared to Remote may be due to how populations cluster in Very Remote areas in small communities that often include a primary school. 

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

Across all GCCSAs regions most children aged 5-12 years lived in areas where the median road distance to a primary school was less than 2 km. The Rest of NT had the highest proportion of children who lived in areas where the median road distance to a primary school was 0.1-0.9 km (52.1%, 5,797) and conversely also had the largest proportion of children who lived in areas where the median was 60 km or more (2.3%, 257).

  1. For data exclusions please refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Results do not include Other Territories.

Children aged 5-12 years that lived in the more advantaged areas (quartile 4) were less likely to have a median road distance of 20 km or more to a primary school than those that lived in more disadvantaged areas. For children who lived in areas with a median road distance of less than 2 km to a primary school, the proportion of children is more evenly spread across each of the IRSAD quartiles, with only a slightly larger proportion of children who lived in more advantaged areas (quartile 4) (27.2%, 538,364) than the other quartiles.

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Socio Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD), 2021.

Children’s median road distance to secondary schools

Most children and youth aged 13-18 years (85.2% or 1.5 million out of a total of 1.8 million) lived in areas where the median road distance to a secondary school was less than 5 km. Similar to primary schools, a greater proportion of children and youth would need to travel further to reach a non-government secondary school than a government one. In terms of greater distances, 0.15% (2,664) of children and youth lived in areas where the median road distance to a secondary school was 60 km or more. These children lived in Outer Regional (380), Remote (526) and Very Remote (1,758) areas.

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

When analysed by Remoteness Areas, 94.8% (1.2 million out of a total of 1.3 million) of children and youth aged 13-18 years in Major Cities, lived in areas with a median road distance to a secondary school that was less than 5 km. In comparison, in both Inner and Outer Regional areas more than 30% of children lived in areas where the median road distance to a secondary school was 5 km or more. Within Very Remote areas 35.7% (4,705) of children and youth aged 13-18 years lived in areas where the median road distance was less than 1 km to a secondary school and 13.4% (1,758) in areas where the median road distance was 60 km or more.

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.

Analysis of the median road distance to a secondary school by GCCSAs found that in each capital city and rest of state region, over 80% of children and youth aged 13 -18 years lived in areas where the median road distance was less than 20 km. Similar to the results for primary schools, the Rest of NT had the largest proportion of children and youth aged 13-18 years who lived in areas where the median road distance to a secondary school was less than 1 km.

  1. For data exclusions please refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Results do not include Other Territories.

Children and youth aged 13-18 years who lived in areas with a median road distance of 20 km or more to a secondary school, were in areas that were more socio‑economically disadvantaged. 33.7% (15,625) of children and youth who lived in areas with a median road distance of 20 km or more to a secondary school lived in the most disadvantaged IRSAD areas (quartile 1), while 5.6% (2,591) lived the most advantaged quartile (quartile 4). In contrast, for children and youth who lived within 2 km of a secondary school, the distribution across the socio-economic quartiles was more even, the largest proportion of children (30.0%, 266,954) resided in more advantaged areas (quartile 4).  

  1. Components may not sum to 100%. For more information refer to Summing components and data exclusions.
  2. Socio Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD), 2021.

Methodology

This article explores relationships and patterns in children’s access to services for 2021 integrating Statistical Area 1 (SA1) level median road distance access measures with SA1 level population and socio-economic data. 

The median road distance to services data

The median road distance data have been provided by the Centre for Australian Research into Access (CARA) at Deakin University. Measures of road distance and drive time from all private dwellings to the nearest service of a particular type were calculated. The resulting data, summarised by SA1 using the median road distance value, has been used in this analysis. While this article has exclusively used the median road distance metrics, both road distance and drive time data for SA1s can be accessed through the Service Accessibility Explorer interactive map and dashboard or the geospatial webservice that in addition provides a more detailed description of the data.

Population data

Child population counts for SA1s, based on usual residence, were from the 2021 Census of Population and Housing. Individuals with no usual address could not be assigned a geographic location and therefore are not included in summary results by area. For children aged 0-14 years, 0.1% (5,646) children had no usual address in 2021.

Child age groupings were defined to correspond to each service type. The table below outlines the age ranges used for each service type.

Age groupService type
0-14 yearsHospitals
0-14 yearsGeneral practice (GPs)
0-12 yearsChildcare or Outside School Hours Care (OSHC) services 
5-12 yearsPrimary schools
13-18 yearsSecondary schools

Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA), Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD)

The Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) rank areas according to their relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage using 2021 Census data. 

The Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD) is one of the four SEIFA indexes. IRSAD is a general socio-economic index that summarises a range of information about the economic and social conditions of people and households in an area. IRSAD includes both relative advantage and disadvantage measures. For information on variables used in this index, see IRSAD Indicators. 

This dataset presents IRSAD data in quartiles, created from SA1 level IRSAD scores. A low score (quartile 1) indicates relatively greater disadvantage and a lack of advantage in general. A high score (quartile 4) indicates a relative lack of disadvantage and greater advantage in general. 

For more information about SEIFA and IRSAD please refer to the SEIFA Technical Paper.

Geography

The article includes data summaries by different statistical areas, including Remoteness Areas (RA) and Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (GCCSAs). Each of these statistical areas and the primary data SA1s are defined by the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) Edition 3.

Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1)

Remoteness Areas (RAs)

Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (GCCSAs)

Summing components and data exclusions

  1. Some children have no usual address and are not assigned a geographic location.
  2. Distance to service information is unavailable for all locations, including island locations without services. For more information please refer to CARA ASGS Ed 3 SA1 2021 Access to services 2021 - Overview.
  3. Perturbation has been used to preserve the confidentiality of the population data. As a result of this process there may be small differences in the population totals reported in this article when compared to other published sources. For more information please refer to Introduced random error/perturbation.

Acknowledgement

The ABS would like to acknowledge the Centre for Australian Research into Access (CARA) at Deakin University (in partnership with Grampians Health) for the provision of distance and time to services data that enabled the ABS to produce these statistics.