The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

Life In Low Income Families In Scotland: Research Report

SUMMARY

CONTEXT

Child poverty is at the heart of the UK and Scottish Governments' agendas (Bradshaw 2001; Department of Health 1999). In 1999, Prime Minister Blair announced that it was to be the government's mission to eradicate child poverty by 2020, to half it by 2010 and to reduce it by one quarter by 2004. The political context of a devolved Scotland (in which responsibility for some poverty-related matters is devolved), the subtlety of variation in political priorities that results (such as the greater emphasis on social inclusion in Scotland - Scottish Executive 1999; The Scottish Parliament Information Centre 2000) and a quantitatively and qualitatively different experience of poverty in Scotland (Brown et al. 2002), necessitate a Scottish-level analysis of poverty. Nevertheless, it should be acknowledged that responsibility for most of the economic factors which would tackle child poverty are reserved at Westminster.

RESEARCH AIMS

This report is the second stage of a research project which explores the views and experiences of poverty amongst those living within low income households with at least one child under the age of 18. This report and the literature review which preceded it (McKendrick et al. 2003) inform the efforts of the Scottish Executive in working toward the development of effective policy to prevent and eliminate child poverty within a generation. The explicit evaluations by those living in low income family households of government policies and practices also yield policy-relevant insights. Similarly, life experiences and outlook serve as a barometer of the extent to which policies are changing the lives of the least affluent in Scotland.

The research on which this report is based had 3 primary aims - to explore: the views and experiences of people living in poverty (adults, youths and children), perceptions of the causes and effects of poverty and of changing poverty levels, and responses to poverty and approaches to managing poverty.

METHOD

Fieldwork comprised 18 focus group interviews with 99 individuals who, collectively, presented a diverse population in terms of work experience, demographic profile, experience of poverty, minority status, geographical residence, family background and life stage. The research team at the Centre for Research on Families and Relationships (CRFR) used many existing community based contacts to recruit participants into the study. Considerable effort was invested in developing close working relationships with local key contacts prior to each focus group interview. Focus groups comprised, on average, between 5 and 6 people. Discussions were tape-recorded (with consent) and were preceded by a brief summary of the scope of the research and the interview. Two members of the research team were present at all but one focus group, one of whom summarised the key findings to emerge over the course of the interview at the end.

Focus group research provides an ideal tool to explore diversity of opinion and experience amongst different social groups. Focus groups also provide an excellent forum for generating discussion about public issues and policy. However, it is acknowledged that the sampling strategy did not lend itself to involving the most excluded and least well-supported among low income families. Different ethnographic methods such as participant observation would be required for this.

FAMILY LIFE ON A LOW INCOME

Participants report that life is tough on a low income. Although they acknowledge that they have enough on which to survive, a sense of not having enough to participate fully in Scottish society pervades the accounts of life in low income family households. This is not to suggest that people within low income family households are merely passive recipients of their lot. On the contrary, a wide range of strategies are reported to have been deployed to manage resources efficiently, although these strategies are often described as stress-inducing, with personal cost to the parent. Over and above the primary need to provide food and fuel, parents give priority to providing food and fuel and meeting the needs of their children.

UNDERSTANDING THE EXPERIENCES OF LOW INCOME FAMILIES

The common thread of managing on a low income should not disguise the diversity of people who find themselves in this circumstance. Understanding their experiences necessitates discussion with, and learning from, adults and children encountering low income. Many important facets of their lives - both sources of support and constraint - are hidden from public view. Living with debt emerges as a key issue. Neighbourhood dissatisfaction is common, with much criticism being directed toward families who are perceived to be anti-social and to the social institutions which support them. It is acknowledged that government has much to do to address low income. There is mixed opinion over the success of government interventions and those of its agents.

KEY ISSUES FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION RESEARCH

Five issues were identified that require further research.

• The significance of informal provision of support is worthy of further appraisal. However, such support is not always available and, when available, is far from unproblematic.
• The research has highlighted the importance of Christmas, holidays and a social life. These present problems for low income family households and there is scope for more detailed consideration of the wider impact of these on the lives of those living within low income households.
• There is scope for more detailed study of parents' hopes and fears for their children's future.
• Further research would be helpful in assessing how the depth, breadth and meaning of the issues discussed in this report differ between more and less affluent.
• Further qualitative work with a biographical focus (for families and individuals) would yield insight into how life experiences come together to reduce or intensify the nature of low income living for individuals and families.

KEY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SOCIAL INCLUSION POLICY

Nine issues were identified that may be worthy of further consideration by policy makers.

• There is a widely held belief among adults within low income family households that 'work doesn't pay'. This may undermine the government's welfare to work agenda. There is a need to assess the extent to which this problem is perceived (that despite work being financially worthwhile many people on a low income perceive that it is not) or real (that the measures being deployed to make work pay are, as yet, insufficient).
• Significant steps have been taken to improve the availability and quality of childcare for those wanting to move from welfare to work. However, the research suggests that local variations prevail and rural labour markets imply different demands being placed upon childcare services as a result of longer working days and the distances that must often be covered to access work and education.
• There is a need to consider access to formal support services. Support groups were highly valued and were perceived to contribute positively to the well-being of interview participants.
• The Social Fund is recognised by those on a low income as potentially an attractive source of credit, particularly relative to the high-interest options that tend to be available to those within low income family households, although it is reported that the funding that is available does not reflect levels of demand for credit among low income family households.
• Many living within low income family households report problems in their dealings with officials. A continued focus on providing a service which is client-centred, as opposed to service-based should be maintained, which would require consideration of how service providers are being perceived by their (low income) clients.
• The provision of services in those localities in which low income family households live takes on heightened significance when they are the main means for children and adults to be included in wider learning/development/social activities. Service providers must acknowledge the true cost of participation if the potential of local provision to overcome social exclusion is to be realised.
• Debt is reported to be a significant problem. There would be merit in conducting systematic research to ascertain the depth and true extent of debt among low income family households. There is scope for further development and more widespread adoption of alternative financial support services.
• The high-pressure sales techniques and the ease with which low income family households can access high-interest sources of credit are causes for concern. There are grounds for reviewing the operations of credit-providing organisations.
• Current measures of poverty paint an unrealistic picture of the funds that are at the disposal of low income family households to meet their weekly needs and wants. There may be merit in accounting for the level of debt which must be serviced to give a more realistic appraisal of the income that is truly at the disposal of low income households to meet everyday and exceptional needs.

« Previous | Contents | Next »