The impact of ongoing COVID-19 lockdown on the financial and mental health experiences of Australian families

Introduction

The coronavirus SARS-COV-2 (COVID-19) was first identified in Australia in late January 2020. From March, Australian governments at the federal and state levels implemented a range of public health restrictions, including stay-at-home orders (also known as ‘lockdown’). In 2020, Australia’s lockdown response was among the most stringent internationally.(1) By 31 December, the measures successfully contained infection to an overall incidence rate of 111 cases and 3.5 deaths per 100,000 people.(2) In contrast, other high-income countries with more lenient public health restrictions, such as the United States (US) and United Kingdom (UK), recorded rates of 5895 and 3730 cases per 100,000 people, respectively.(2) Studies of previous pandemics and from the first months of COVID-19 showed that quarantine and isolation could have indirect and negative impacts on household finances and mental health.(3-10) This is particularly the case for families with children, where there are mixed views on the balance of harms versus benefits of lockdown.(6, 10-13) Unlike many high-income countries, Australia’s low incidence of COVID-19 in 2020 made it possible to examine the effects of lockdown mostly independent of the compounding disease impacts, which forms the purpose of this paper.

The evolution of Australia’s COVID-19 public health restrictions is presented in Supp Figure 1. From 23 March to 1 June 2020, the national ‘initial’ lockdown included mandatory quarantine for returned travellers; travel bans; self-isolation for suspected/confirmed cases; stay-at-home orders; and closure of schools and ‘non-essential’ businesses.(10, 14, 15) Five weeks after initial lockdown eased, a second wave of infections in the state of Victoria rapidly surpassed active cases in the first wave, with the national peak reaching 721 new cases (2.8 per 100,000) in 24 hours. From 8 July-23 November 2020, Victorian residents entered an ‘ongoing’ and more severe lockdown. The public health measures were strictest for metropolitan areas (in the state’s capital city of Melbourne) compared with regional and rural Victoria. Previous lockdown measures were reinstated, the stay-at-home orders were further restricted, a night-time curfew was added, and early childhood education and care providers closed (see Supp Figure 1). Compliance with Australia’s lockdown measures was driven by state enforcement, through police surveillance and fines.

To protect against the economic fallout of lockdown, the Australian federal government rapidly implemented a suite of short-term financial supports.(16, 17) Shown in Supp Figure 1, they included an unemployment supplement (‘JobSeeker’) which doubled recipients’ social welfare benefits from $550 to $1,100 a fortnight;(16) a wage supplement for eligible businesses to retain their workforce (‘JobKeeper’);(17) allowing early access to superannuation;(18) and free childcare for working families.(19) Banks and creditors also allowed loan repayments to be deferred for up to 10 months. These social policy changes represent some of the largest (albeit temporary) in Australia’s history. Indeed the JobKeeper and JobSeeker supplements were so significant that, by September 2020, levels of poverty and housing stress in Australia were substantially lower than the levels directly preceding COVID-19.(16)

While these social policies buffered Australians from poverty, global data on COVID-19 show that lockdown has substantial and negative indirect impacts on households. In a review of the global mental health evidence from the first year (to April 2021), Aknin et al., reported a peak in adults’ psychological distress in the early months.(20) While many studies reported a decline to pre-pandemic levels by mid-2020,(20) the authors found that mental health inequities were sustained or exacerbated for adults who were younger, female, child-rearing, or with fewer socioeconomic resources.(20, 21) An Australian cross-sectional survey of 1200 adults repeated weekly from March 2020 found similar patterns for self-reported financial stress and material deprivation (unable to afford essential items).(22) The same survey data showed that mental distress tripled for parents from 8% pre-COVID-19 to 24% during the pandemic.(22) While the infection and mortality rates of the original COVID-19 strains were lower in children than adults,(23, 24) children are more developmentally vulnerable to their socioeconomic environment than adults.(25, 26) In Racine and colleagues’ (2021) meta-analysis of 29 studies published in the first year of the pandemic, prevalence estimates for depression and anxiety in children doubled.(27) Previous studies show that the stress and isolation of lockdown can negatively impact children’s mental health for many months,(28) and school closures can compromise children’s educational opportunities for years.(6, 11)

To our knowledge, no studies have investigated the impact of COVID-19 lockdown on both the financial and mental health experiences of families with children, in the relative absence of disease morbidity and mortality. This evidence can inform economic and population health responses to future public health crises. This study uses the natural experiment that occurred in Australia, whereby the state of Victoria experienced ongoing and more severe lockdown, to address this evidence gap. Data are drawn from the Royal Children’s Hospital (RCH) National Child Health Poll, the only nationally representative survey to measure COVID-19 impacts for families with children. The Poll was conducted in June (when the initial lockdown had ended for all Australians) and in September 2020 (when only metropolitan Victorians were in ongoing, stricter lockdown). Data from the neighbouring state of New South Wales (NSW), which experienced only the initial lockdown, provide the comparator. The two states are inherently similar in terms of their population, size, and geographic location.

The specific aims were to (1) describe families’ financial and mental health experiences after the initial lockdown and (2) evaluate the impact of ongoing lockdown on family finances and mental health (a) overall and (b) by caregiver gender, child age, and geographical location. We hypothesised that the ongoing lockdown would be associated with increased financial hardship and worse mental health.

Methods

Results

The impact of ongoing lockdown (Aim 2)

Table 3 presents the Difference-in-Difference analyses testing the impact of ongoing lockdown on families’ finances and mental health, for the cohorts overall and by subgroups. To enable interpretation, Figure 1 graphs the binary variables. Over the June-September 2020 period, relative to their NSW counterparts, Victorians reported an 11% increase in job or income loss (95% CI: 3 to 18%). There was no evidence that ongoing lockdown was related to a change in material deprivation or the proportion of households reporting low income. Ongoing lockdown was associated with a mean 0.83 increase (95% CI: -0.08 to 1.74) in K6 total score and 6% increase (95% CI: -0.3 to 12%) in the binary K6 measure of poor mental health. The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health was also exacerbated by ongoing lockdown, affecting 14% (95% CI: 6 to 23%) more Victorian caregivers and 12% (95% CI: 4 to 20%) more children relative to NSW.

• Download figure
• Open in new tab

Figure 1. Difference-in-Difference estimates (%) of the impact of ongoing lockdown on families’ finances and mental health (all binary), overall and by subgroups, data drawn from Table 3

When considering the subgroups, the evidence for a negative impact of ongoing lockdown on job/income loss and caregiver mental health was strongest for female caregivers, caregivers of elementary-school aged children, and caregivers living in metropolitan areas. Notably, Table 3 (‘NSW September’ column) shows that the differences between initial and ongoing lockdowns in measures of job/income loss and K6 mental health were in part due to worsening outcomes for Victorians as well as improving outcomes for NSW families. The proportion of NSW caregivers reporting job/income loss decreased by 6% (95% CI: 0.2-11%) from June to September. The same reduction was evident in the poor mental health (K6) of female caregivers (mean difference=6%, 95% CI: 0.3 to 12%). There was evidence that ongoing lockdown exacerbated the negative impact of the pandemic on children’s mental health, for all subgroups except for families living in regional/rural areas. There was no evidence of a relationship between ongoing lockdown and whether the caregiver or their children were coping or not, for the cohort overall or by subgroups.

Discussion

This study investigated the impacts of COVID-19 lockdown on family finances and mental health in the context of Australia’s minimal disease burden in the first year of the pandemic. In June 2020, after an initial national lockdown from March-May, a quarter of Australian caregivers of children aged 0-17 years reported job or income loss due to the pandemic. One in three reported material deprivation (being unable to afford essential items such as housing, food, amenities, or healthcare). One in five caregivers reported poor mental health; half said that the first three months of the pandemic had negatively impacted their mental health; and a quarter reported the same negative impact for their children. By September 2020, Victoria’s ongoing lockdown (from July onwards) was associated with increased job and income loss, and negative mental health impacts for caregivers and children. There was no evidence that ongoing lockdown affected families’ experiences of material deprivation or income poverty. While the negative impacts of ongoing lockdown affected families across children’s ages, they were most pronounced for families with children of elementary school compared with preschool or high school ages.

Although the RCH Poll does not have pre-pandemic data for comparison, the financial and mental health impacts reported by the June cohort are consistent with national data. In April, the Australian Bureau of Statistics estimated that 2.7 million Australians (almost 20% of the working population) lost their jobs or hours of work.(35) The Australian Temperament Project survey of 498 families from March-September 2020,(30) and the right@home trial survey of 319 mothers from May-December 2020,(36) reported job/income losses of 24% and 27% respectively, using the same questions as our study. The third of families reporting material deprivation is equivalent to pre-pandemic data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children.(37)

In our study, one in five families reported poor mental health in June 2020 according to the K6. This aligns with the Australian ‘Pulse of the Nation’ survey in which 24% of parents reported mental distress across the first months of lockdown (measured with a single item that highly correlated with the K6).(38) While the RCH Poll lacked pre-pandemic data, substantially more caregivers reported poor mental health on the K6 in the Polls than representative Australian adult data collected pre-pandemic (8% in 2017) or during the first national lockdown (11%).(39) Despite the global differences between countries’ infection rates and governments’ approaches to public health restrictions, there are commonalities in the mental health data emerging from the pandemic.(40-43) The Born in Bradford study found that 19% and 16% of mothers reported clinically-significant levels of depression and anxiety, respectively, during the first lockdown in UK (April-June 2020).(44) In a nationally weighted survey from the US in June, 27% of parents said their mental health had declined during the pandemic.(45)

Given the negative economic and psychosocial impacts of lockdown,(40-45) it follows that ongoing lockdown was associated with increased job and income loss, and poor mental health. Our findings of a larger negative impact on the mental health of female versus male caregivers is consistent with international and Australian data.(20, 22) That families with elementary school-aged children were most affected is likely due to the stress and disruption of home-schooling in July-September. More supervision is required for children in elementary school than high school, and balancing home schooling with usual paid or unpaid work was a substantial challenge for families.(46) Finally, metropolitan Victorians experienced stricter and ongoing lockdown than their regional and rural counterparts. This explains the findings of increased job/income loss and greater negative impacts on caregiver and child mental health for this subgroup, relative to their NSW counterparts.

Our findings for children are like other studies investigating the lockdown experiences of young people.(27, 47, 48) Analysis by the Australian Human Rights Commission in the earliest months of the pandemic found that increased numbers of older children reported first time mental health challenges or concerns of self-harm.(49) The COVID-19 Unmasked Study which surveyed Australian families with young children (aged 1-5 years) also found that Victorian caregivers exposed to ongoing lockdown reported increasing mental health symptoms for themselves and their children.(50) Interestingly, in the Unmasked study, young children living outside of Victoria (exposed to only the initial lockdown) were still experiencing higher than average levels of anxiety symptoms by the time of Victoria’s ongoing lockdown. We found a similar pattern in our study. For the NSW families exposed to initial lockdown only, caregivers reported improved mental health for themselves by September, but this experience was not evident for their children.

This study has several strengths. The large cross-sectional and nationally representative surveys employed strong methodology (piloted and included the validated K6) and achieved good response rates. In other Polls, indicators (frequency/prevalence) across a range of topics are almost universally consistent with more traditionally obtained estimates, providing support for the sample selection and survey administration methods. The Difference-in-Difference modelling is well-established method of analysing policy change (in our case, lockdown law differences). There were also limitations. Ideally, information would be collected from all caregivers and children directly. Some caregivers did not disclose family income, and the sample sizes for preschool-aged children and regional/rural subgroup analyses were small, limiting power for detecting differences. The common trends’ assumption of Difference-in-Difference estimation supposes that the untreated units (NSW in September) provide the appropriate counterfactual of the trend that the treated units would have followed if they had not been treated. However, our results are defensible because the time between the first and second surveys was short (four months), minimizing potential differential trends across NSW and Victoria. We also controlled for all measured, potentially confounding demographic variables in the analyses.

This work extends the evidence base by investigating the indirect impacts of ongoing lockdown in the context of minimal disease burden. We offer three considerations for pandemic response and recovery planning. First, while job and income loss increased with ongoing lockdown, this did not translate to increased material deprivation or income poverty. This finding provides support for the effectiveness of the Australian government’s extraordinary income supplements, introduced early in the pandemic to offset the anticipated economic fallout of lockdown. This interpretation is supported by modelling demonstrating the substantial reductions in Australia’s poverty levels subsequently.(16) Given that the income supplements offered were temporary, financial security must be considered when enacting future lockdowns.

Second, for families who were unexposed to ongoing lockdown, there was some recovery in employment/income and female caregivers’ mental health. While comparable data on financial experiences are limited, the global mental health evidence also shows a recovery for many adults following an initial peak in psychological distress.(20) However, the available systematic reviews are limited by over-representation of data from the early months of the pandemic,(27, 47, 48) and previous pandemics show that negative mental health effects can persist.(51) While the Poll data were limited, they did not suggest a recovery for children. Thus, it is important that children’s experiences and needs are prioritised during response and recovery planning so that any persistent negative impacts are adequately redressed.(52, 53)

Third, the negative financial and mental health impacts of ongoing lockdown were substantial, and disproportionately affected families with elementary school-aged children, and female caregivers. While this study was underpowered to investigate the experience of families living in lower socioeconomic environments, the evidence suggests that inequity is likely to be exacerbated and entrenched by the social and economic disruption of COVID-19.(10, 30, 53, 54) Ongoing follow-up of cohorts is necessary to understand if and how caregivers and children recover from lockdown, and how best to support the population groups who are most adversely affected. Balancing the benefits and harms of lockdown requires planned responses to future outbreaks, and evidence-informed financial and mental health supports.

Supplementary information

Supp Figure 1. Timeline of Australia’s COVID-19 public health restrictions and policy changes from March to November 2020

Supp Figure 2. Respondent flowchart for analytic sample