Insights on advantaged and disadvantaged households with children

• In 2021, about 2.3 million Australian households accounted for the lowest 25% of IHAD scores. About 42% of these households also lived in relatively disadvantaged areas and 13% in relatively advantaged areas.
• Among relatively disadvantaged households, the Australian Capital Territory had the highest proportion living in relatively advantaged areas (6.3% or about 10,500 households), Tasmania had the lowest proportion (1% or around 2,200 households).
• About 311,000 households with children were relatively disadvantaged (13%). Around 19,000 (6.1%) of these were living in relatively advantaged areas. According to IHAD, households with children were more likely to be advantaged overall (48%, compared with 16% for households without children).
• Lone parent family households were more likely to be disadvantaged (42% or almost 180,000 households), compared to couple family households (6.5% or about 131,000 households).
• Households with a parent or child who had a long‑term health condition were more likely to be relatively disadvantaged (16% and 18% respectively) compared with households where no parent or no child had a long-term health condition (11% for both).

This article presents information about relative household advantage and disadvantage for Australian households. It is based on data collected in the 2021 Census of Population and Housing. We also explore relative advantage and disadvantage for households with and without children, noting that understanding and improving outcomes for children is a key focus for policy aimed at targeting entrenched or intergenerational disadvantage.

The article uses the Index of Household Advantage and Disadvantage (IHAD) alongside the Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Index of Relative Socio-Economic Advantage and Disadvantage (IRSAD). It also uses other Census variables such as long-term health conditions and family composition to provide more context on households with children.

IHAD is a measure of a household’s relative advantage and disadvantage compared with other households in Australia. It uses Census information about dwellings and the people living in them to summarise relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. ABS produced the first IHAD as an experimental index in 2018, based on 2016 Census data. 

The Australian Government Department of Education funded the 2021 IHAD, which was released in February 2025 and updated with additional geospatial outputs in August 2025. One of the purposes of this article is to showcase the value of IHAD when analysing relative advantage and disadvantage for populations of interest, particularly when used in combination with SEIFA IRSAD.

SEIFA IRSAD is a measure of an area’s relative advantage and disadvantage, compared with other areas in Australia. It uses Census information about areas, dwellings and people to summarise relative socio-economic advantage and disadvantage. 

A relatively advantaged area is likely to have a high proportion of relatively advantaged households and people. However, these advantaged areas are also likely to have households and people who are relatively disadvantaged. 

A household inherits an IRSAD value from the area in which it is located. All households in that area get the same IRSAD value. Since each household also has an IHAD value, we can cross-classify both of these for all households to examine the relationship between household and area level advantage and disadvantage. This analysis reveals how IHAD more clearly indicates the diversity of relatively advantaged and disadvantaged households in an area, adding value to the use of SEIFA for research and planning.

This article presents IHAD as proportions of households split across four quartiles at the national level. Each includes about 25% of all in-scope households. Quartile 1 refers to the “Disadvantaged households” in this article – it has the households with the lowest IHAD scores. SEIFA IRSAD uses a similar set of quartiles, where quartile 1 has the “Disadvantaged areas” for Statistical Areas Level 1 (SA1). More information on quartiles can be found in the IHAD and SEIFA methodology. 

In 2021, about 2.3 million households accounted for the lowest 25% of IHAD scores. These households were the most disadvantaged when compared to other households. According to SEIFA IRSAD, 42% of these households were also in disadvantaged areas.

More than 300,000 households (around 3.3% of all IHAD households) were relatively disadvantaged, despite living in relatively advantaged areas. When we examined disadvantaged or moderated disadvantaged households living in advantaged or moderately advantaged areas, this number increased to over 1.7 million households (19%).

Where a state or territory had a high proportion of households in relatively disadvantaged areas, it usually had a low proportion of relatively disadvantaged households living in advantaged areas. For example, in Tasmania, 43% of households were in disadvantaged areas, while only 1% of disadvantaged households were in advantaged areas (around 2,200 households).

In contrast, states and territories with more households (proportionally) in relatively advantaged areas also tended to have more relatively disadvantaged households living in those advantaged areas. For example, the Australian Capital Territory had the highest proportion of households in advantaged areas (62%) and also the highest proportion of disadvantaged households in those areas (6.3%, or just over 10,500 households).

These results show that using IHAD together with SEIFA IRSAD provides a clearer picture of disadvantage, helping identify households that may be overlooked when relying on area‑based measures alone.

Households with children (about 2.5 million households or 27% of all IHAD households in 2021) were more likely to be relatively advantaged and less likely to be relatively disadvantaged, compared to households without children. 

According to IHAD, in 2021 almost half of the households with children were advantaged (48% or about 1.2 million households) while around 311,000 households with children (13%) were disadvantaged.

In 2021, for households without children, almost twice as many were relatively disadvantaged as advantaged (about 2 million households). Households without children made up most of the disadvantaged group (87%), partly because they accounted for almost three-quarters of all IHAD households (73%).

According to IHAD, in 2021 around 19,000 relatively disadvantaged households with children lived in relatively advantaged areas (6.1%). When we examined both relatively disadvantaged and moderately disadvantaged households living in advantaged or moderately advantaged areas, this increased to about 201,000 households with children (28%).

For households without children, about 287,000 disadvantaged households (14%) lived in advantaged areas. Including moderately disadvantaged households and moderately advantaged areas increased this figure to just over 1.5 million households without children (40%).

This further shows the value of using IHAD and SEIFA together to understand the geographic distribution of household level disadvantage among different household types in Australia. 

When comparing households with and without children, we can better understand results by examining the indicators of advantage and disadvantage used to calculate the IHAD. 

Overall, households with children were more likely to have results that suggested relative advantage on the IHAD indicators than households without children. For example, in 2021, households with children were more likely to live in larger dwellings with 4 or more bedrooms (52% compared with 29% for households without children). Other household characteristics with similar patterns included dwellings with a high mortgage payment and dwellings where occupants had high educational attainment and/or high skill occupations. 

In contrast, households without children more commonly had results that suggested relative disadvantage for the IHAD indicators.  For example, in 2021, households without children were more likely to live in dwellings with one or less bedrooms (7.6% compared with 0.7% for households with children). Other household characteristics with similar patterns included low income and low rent dwellings, dwellings with no vehicles, and dwellings where occupants all had low educational attainment.  

In 2021, most households with children (83%) had two parents (a couple family). The remainder were lone parent family households. The distribution of households across the four IHAD advantage and disadvantaged groups differed significantly between couple family and lone parent family households. 

Lone parent family households were more likely to be relatively disadvantaged (42% or almost 180,000 households), compared to couple parent family households (6.5% or about 131,000 households), and less likely to be relatively advantaged (18% compared to 55% for couple parent family households). 

Most lone parent households had a female parent (86%). These households were more likely to be disadvantaged (43%) than households with a male lone parent (33%). Conversely, households with a male lone parent were more likely to be advantaged or moderately advantaged (19% and 22% compared to 17% and 15% for households with a female lone parent).

Among households with children, 34% had a parent with a long‑term health condition in 2021. These households were more likely to be relatively disadvantaged (15%, compared with 11% for other households with children). 

Households where no parent had a long‑term health condition were more likely to be relatively advantaged (50%, compared with 45% for other households with children).

Among households with children, 12% had at least one child with a long‑term health condition in 2021. These households were more likely to be relatively disadvantaged (18%, or about 56,000 households) compared with households where no child had a long‑term condition (11%). The likelihood of disadvantage was even higher when two or more children had at least one long‑term condition (25%). 

Among households with children where no child had a long‑term health condition, half were relatively advantaged, compared with 43% for households with one child affected and 35% for those with two or more children affected.

IHAD relies on characteristics collected in the Census and is not designed to measure disadvantage for children and young people between 0-14 years. IHAD indicators are relevant to the population of Australia. Households with children are a subset of this and not all the indicators are as relevant to them. For example, the prevalence of some indicators is higher for older age groups at a given point in time. 

The analysis in this article classifies households with children 0-14 years into one group, regardless of the number of children living in the household. Advantage and disadvantage for households with two, three, or more children may differ from advantage and disadvantage for households with one child. 

While the Census is only collected 5-yearly, it is reasonable to expect that relative disadvantage and advantage will change more frequently. Other aspects of advantage and disadvantage, such as connections outside the home or access to services, may also influence the experience of household advantage and disadvantage.

1. Index of Household Advantage and Disadvantage (IHAD): Technical Paper
2. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA): Technical Paper