The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHILD POVERTY IN SOCIAL INCLUSION PARTNERSHIPS

CHAPTER FOUR CHILD POVERTY IN SOCIAL INCLUSION PARTNERSHIPS

INTRODUCTION

4.1 Area-based Social Inclusion Partnerships are intended to target geographical areas of deprivation and exclusion. The extent to which SIPs specifically attempt to prevent or alleviate child poverty (broadly conceived) is discussed in Chapter Five. The aim of this chapter is to examine whether or not children experiencing income poverty are disproportionately located within area-based SIPs (referred to as 'SIP areas' for short). It also examines whether the characteristics of child income poverty in SIP areas are similar to or different from elsewhere in Scotland. The analysis is based on the Scottish Household Survey for 1999 and 2000.

CHILDREN IN SIPS: HOW DIFFERENT?

4.2 Before examining differences in child income poverty, it makes sense to explore the extent to which children living within the boundaries of area-based SIPs - whether poor or not - were similar to, or different from, children in the rest of Scotland. In fact, there were many significant differences between children living within Social Inclusion Partnership areas and those living elsewhere in Scotland in 1999/2000.

4.3 Table 4.1 summarises selected socio-demographic characteristics of the families of children living within area-based SIPs or elsewhere in Scotland. The figures are arranged in columns and refer to the percentages of children. More detailed statistical information about the families of children living in SIPs and the rest of Scotland are presented in Appendix 2 of the report.

4.4 Children living in SIP areas were more likely than children in other parts of Scotland to be living with householders that were young, female, and lone parents. They were also more likely to be living in families with 3 or more children (Table 4.1).

4.5 Children in SIPs were very much more likely than other children to be living in social rented housing and less likely to be in owner-occupation. They were also much more likely to be living in workless households and more likely to be living with adults that had no educational qualifications (Table 4.1).

4.6 There were other important respects in which children in SIPs differed from those living elsewhere. They were more likely to be living in households where someone had a limiting illness, health problem or disability; or where someone needed regular care or help (see Appendix 2).

4.7 Children living within area-based SIPs were much less likely to be living in households with access to a car, with a bank account, or with savings. Where they did have savings, they were more likely to have only small amounts invested. Children in SIPs were also much less likely than other children to be living in households with access to the internet at home. They were also much less likely to be living in households with home contents insurance (see Appendix 2).

4.8 One important respect in which children in SIPs did not differ from those elsewhere is the ethnic group of the highest income householder. Within area-based SIPs, 1.7 per cent of children were living with highest income householders whose ethnic group was other than white. In the rest of Scotland the figure was 1.6 per cent.

Table 4.1 Composition of families with children in SIPs and elsewhere in Scotland, 1999/2000 (% of children)

The figures are arranged in columns.

Source: SHS 1999/2000 (own analysis)

4.9 Thus, in summary, children living within Social Inclusion Partnership areas had many different characteristics - in terms of the families and households in which they live - from those living in the rest of Scotland. They were also much more likely to be experiencing social and economic disadvantage and exclusion than children living in the rest of Scotland. As the next section shows, SIPs also suffered from a much higher level of child poverty.

THE INCIDENCE OF CHILD POVERTY IN SIPs

4.10 Approximately one child in 6 lived within the geographical boundaries of an area-based Social Inclusion Partnership in 1999/2000. However, child income poverty was very far from being evenly distributed between SIP areas and other parts of Scotland. In fact, the incidence of child poverty was far higher in SIP areas than elsewhere. Indeed, the child poverty rate was about double in SIP areas compared with the rest of Scotland: 51 per cent of children in SIPs, compared to 25 per cent elsewhere, were living in income poverty. As noted in Chapter Three, the figure for Scotland as a whole was 29 per cent (Table 4.2).

Table 4.2 Incidence of child poverty in SIPs and elsewhere in Scotland below thresholds of median income, Scotland 1999/2000

The figures are arranged in rows. They have been adjusted to bring them into line with HBAI.

Source: SHS 1999/2000 (own analysis)

4.11 The fact that child poverty was much higher within area-based SIPs than outwith these areas is not surprising. For although the extent of child poverty was not one of the key criteria for their selection, SIPs were always intended to comprise areas of social and economic deprivation. The data in Table 4.2 therefore confirms that SIPs do indeed represent areas where the incidence of child poverty is very high.

4.12 Table 4.3 shows that SIPs accounted for a disproportionate amount of child income poverty in 1999/2000. Thus, SIPs accounted for 16 per cent of children in Scotland, but for 29 per cent of children in poverty.

Table 4.3: Composition of child poverty by whether resident in a SIP or elsewhere, Scotland 1999/2000 (% of children)

The figures are arranged in columns.

Source: SHS 1999/2000 (own analysis)

THE COMPOSITION OF CHILD POVERTY IN SIPS

4.13 Table 4.4 shows the composition of child poverty in SIPs and elsewhere in Scotland by different family and household characteristics. The figures are arranged in columns and refer to the percentage of children. For example, 12 per cent of children below 60 per cent of median income in SIPs were living in a household where the highest income householder was aged from 16 to 24 years. Meanwhile, 78 per cent were living with highest income householders who were aged from 25 to 44; and the remaining 10 per cent were living with highest income householders aged 45 and over.

4.14 Children experiencing income poverty in SIPs were generally living with younger highest income householders than were those living elsewhere in Scotland. They were also more likely than poor children elsewhere to be living in households where the highest income householder was white (Table 4.4).

4.15 Poor children in SIPs were more likely to be living with highest income householders that were female than were poor children in the rest of Scotland. This difference itself reflects the fact that children experiencing income poverty in SIPs were more likely than those elsewhere to be living with lone parent households - especially single, never married lone parents (Table 4.4).

4.16 There were also significant housing tenure differences between children in income poverty living within area-based SIPS and those living in other parts of Scotland. A much higher percentage of poor children in SIPs were living in social rented housing and, conversely, a much lower percentage were living in owner-occupied housing. Meanwhile, a lower percentage of poor children in SIPs were living in private rental housing than was the case among poor children elsewhere (Table 4.4).

4.17 A much higher percentage of poor children in SIPs compared with elsewhere were living with adults who did not have any educational qualifications. Thus, 5 out of 10 poor children in SIPs were living with adults without educational qualifications, compared with 3 out of 10 poor children in other parts of Scotland (Table 4.4).

4.18 There were significant differences between poor children living in SIPs and those living elsewhere in terms of the economic and work status of their households. Children experiencing poverty within area-based SIPs were about half as likely as poor children elsewhere to be living with highest income householders in paid employment. Within SIPs, children in poverty were more likely than those in other parts of Scotland to be living with householders that were either looking after the home or unemployed and looking for work (Table 4.5).

4.19 However, it is notable that poor children in SIPs were no less likely than those elsewhere to be living with lone parents in paid work. As noted in Chapter Three, the crucial risk fact seems to be lack of employment rather than lone parenthood per se (see also Adelman and Bradshaw, 1998).

Table 4.4 Composition of child poverty in SIPs and elsewhere in Scotland by family and household characteristics, 1999/2000 (% of children)

The figures are arranged in columns.

Source: SHS 1999/2000 (own analysis)

4.20 Children experiencing poverty within area-based SIPs were much less likely than those experiencing poverty elsewhere to be living in households with no savings or investments. Where poor children in SIPs were living in households that had savings, the amounts involved were generally smaller than was the case for poor children living in the rest of Scotland (Table 4.6). This implies that the families of poor children in SIPs had less financial reserves than poor families elsewhere with which to cope with large, one-off expenses or sudden drops in income.

Table 4.5 Composition of child poverty in SIPs and elsewhere in Scotland by economic and work status, 1999/2000 (% of children)

The figures are arranged in columns.

Source: SHS 1999/2000 (own analysis)

Table 4.6 Composition of child poverty in SIPs and elsewhere in Scotland by household savings and investments, 1999/2000

* These percentages include only children living in households that did have savings.

The figures are arranged in columns.

Source: SHS 1999/2000 (own analysis)

4.21 Finally, children experiencing income poverty in SIPs were much less likely than other poor children to be living in households that owned or had access to a range of important assets (Table 4.7). In particular, poor children in SIPs were much less likely than poor children elsewhere in Scotland to be living in households that had:

• A bank or building society account
• Access to a car

• Both a PC and internet access at home

• Home contents insurance

Table 4.7 Composition of child poverty in SIPs and elsewhere in Scotland by access to selected assets, 1999/2000

The figures are arranged in columns.

Source: SHS 1999/2000 (own analysis)

THE ODDS OF CHILDREN BEING POOR IN SIPS

4.22 This final section compares the odds of children in SIPs being in poverty with the odds for children elsewhere in Scotland. The odds were estimated using a logistic regression analysis with the same variables as for the best fitting model for Scotland as a whole, reported in Chapter Three. The aim of the analysis in this section is to examine whether the factors associated with the odds of children in different family circumstances being poor in SIP areas were the same as elsewhere in Scotland.

4.23 The first point to note is that, when included in the national-level logistic regression analysis, the SIP residence variable was not statistically significant. In other words, the odds of children within SIPs being poor were not significantly different from the odds of children living elsewhere in Scotland being poor, when all other factors were held constant.

4.24 Moreover, when children were divided into 2 groups - those in SIPs and those living in other parts of Scotland - and analysed separately, the odds of being in poverty for each type of family or household were broadly similar (see Table 4.8).

Table 4.8 The odds of children being below 60 per cent of median income, in SIP areas and elsewhere in Scotland, 1999/2000

Significance levels: * <0.05; ** <0.01; *** <0.001

Source: SHS 1999/2000 (own analysis)

4.25 However, the odds of children within SIPs being poor did differ from the odds of children elsewhere being poor in respect of the ethnic group of the highest income householder, adults' educational qualifications, and whether the household had access to a car. Thus, within SIPs, the odds of children being poor were unaffected by whether or not the highest income householder was white, whether adults in the household had some educational qualifications, or whether the household had access to a car. By contrast, elsewhere in Scotland, these 3 factors did affect the odds of children being poor. In other words, the factors associated with child poverty in SIPs were not in all respects the same as those affecting child poverty in other parts of the country.

4.26 The most important factor affecting the odds of child poverty, both for children in SIPs and for children elsewhere, was whether or not the household had someone in paid work. Within both parts of Scotland, the odds of children being in poverty (when other factors were held constant) were higher among workless households than among those in employment.

4.27 Although the odds of being in poverty show a similar pattern for both parts of Scotland, they are - with the exception of lone parents in work - much higher within SIPs than elsewhere. It is possible that these differences in the magnitude of the odds of children being poor relate to differences in the availability of employment within SIPs compared with in other parts of the country. Alternatively, they could be due to differences between SIPs and elsewhere in the ability of people with children to take up the employment opportunities that do exist. This is an issue that would merit further research.

CONCLUSIONS

4.28 This chapter has compared and contrasted child poverty in area-based Social Inclusion Partnerships with other parts of Scotland in 1999/2000.

4.29 It was found that there were significant differences in the family and household characteristics of children in these 2 types of area, irrespective of whether they were poor or not. In general, children in SIPs were more likely than those elsewhere to be living in households that had characteristics that were associated with poverty (such as 3 or more children) or were experiencing socio-economic disadvantages (such as lack of a bank account or access to the internet). These results reflect the fact that these areas were designated as SIPs at least in part because they suffered from acute social and economic disadvantage and exclusion.

4.30 Not surprisingly, therefore, the incidence of child poverty was particularly high within SIPs compared with other parts of Scotland. Indeed, the child poverty rate was twice as high in SIPs as elsewhere. As a result, SIPs accounted for a disproportionately large share of Scotland's poor children.

4.31 The research also revealed, however, that there were significant differences in the composition of child poverty between area-based SIPs and the rest of the country. Poor children living in SIPs exhibited more socio-economic deprivation and other indicators of disadvantage than poor children in the remainder of Scotland. To that extent, poor children in Social Inclusion Partnerships were worse placed than were poor children living elsewhere. These results provide some support for concentrating locally-based, anti-child poverty initiatives on SIPs and similarly deprived areas.

« Previous | Contents | Next »