understanding severe
child poverty through
statistics
overview of presentation
•
•
•
•
•
About Save the Children
Measuring child poverty – quick overview
Severe child poverty – the first challenge
The second challenge
The third challenge
• The need to use statistics outside of academia.
Save the children’s UK PROGRAMME
•
-
Programmes:
FAST
Eat, Sleep, Learn & Play
Young Leaders
•
-
Advocacy & Campaigns:
Welfare Reform
Childcare
Decent jobs
Early Intervention
• 120 Shops
• Volunteers & Local branches
measuring child poverty
• The standard definition of income poverty is living in a household with
an equivalised household income that is below 60% of the median
household income.
• There are 3.5million children living in poverty in the UK after
housing costs. This means that more than one in four children
(27%) are living in poverty in the UK.
• There are 2.5million children living in poverty before housing
costs. Almost one in five children (19%) are living in poverty
before housing costs in the UK.
Child poverty data is reported in the Government’s Households Below
Average Incomes (HBAI) report based on data from the Family
Resources Survey. However, the figures above come from: Institute for
Fiscal Studies (2011) Child and Working-Age Poverty from 2010 to 2020.
The HBAI report tends to be around 18 months out of data so the most
recent child poverty figures we have are for 2009/10. The IFS has
calculated child poverty figures up to 2020 based on government policies
to date.
the challenge
• Child poverty fell considerably between 1999 and 2004 (from
4.4 million in 1998/99 to 3.6 million in 2004/05 after housing
costs and 3.4 million to 2.7 million before housing costs over
the same period).
• But what was happening to the number of children living in
‘deep poverty’?
• Robustness of existing data – HBAI. Why not just look at those
below 40% and 50% medians?
the challenge continued
“Despite the considerable recent decline in child poverty in the UK that has, at least in part,
been attributed to government reforms, separate independent research has suggested that
children from the very poorest families remain a legitimate concern. Indeed, Sutherland
(2001) noted that the income situation of the poorest children may have worsened following
the government’s early reforms. Recent evidence from the British Household Panel Survey
(BHPS) showed that whereas the proportion of children in non-severe poverty declined
significantly after 1997, there has been no evidence of a corresponding decline in the
proportion of children in severe poverty (Magadi and Middleton, 2005).
This was consistent with findings from a separate study based on the Family Resources
Survey (FRS), which observed that the decline in child poverty between 1997/98 and 2003/04
was lower for more severe poverty (below 50 per cent of median income) compared to the
proportion below 60 per cent of median income (Brewer et al, 2005).”
Severe Child Poverty in the UK - Monica Magadi and Sue Middleton (Save the Children, 2007)
definition
Children are living in severe poverty if they live in…
“… a household with an income of below 50
per cent of the median (after housing costs),
and where both adults and children lack at
least one basic necessity, and either adults or
children or both groups lack at least two basic
necessities.”
the material deprivation
element
• Our severe child poverty measure combines income
with material deprivation using information collected
in the Government’s Family Resources Survey.
• The survey includes 19 items (9 for children, 10 for
adults) that are considered every day essentials,
ranging from food to clothing and fees for swimming
lessons.
to summarise: why measure
severe child poverty?
• Figures in the first half of the last decade suggested
little change in the number of families living on the
lowest incomes.
• Government wasn’t doing it.
• 60% median measure draws policy makers to
solutions that lift people just below the poverty line
above it.
• Lack of evidence about what is happening to those
suffering the worst effects of poverty.
initial findings
• 1.4 million children living in poverty in 2005.
• 62% are in households not connected to the labour market,
highlighting the low level of out of work benefits and the need to
support parents much further to get in and remain in the labour
market
• 42% are in households receiving the child tax credit, indicating
the significant impact of families not taking up their full
entitlements
• 44% have mothers with no educational qualifications compared
to 10% of non-poor children, highlighting that any long term
assault on child poverty must prioritise the education of those
currently being failed by the system
• The region with by far the highest levels of severe poverty is
London where more than 1 in 6 children are in severe poverty.
Source: M Magadi and S Middleton, Severe Child Poverty in the UK,
Save the Children, 2007
at risk of severe poverty
•
•
•
•
•
•
Children living in families with no workers
Children living in single parent families
Children living in a household where there is a disability
Children living in large families
Children where parents have no educational attainment
Many living in rented accommodation and surviving on
benefits
the second challenge:
updating the figures
• Only one year’s set of figures.
• No reaction from policy makers.
• What was happening to severe child poverty during the
‘boom years’ prior to 2008?
Findings in 2010 – 2005 to 2008
• 1.7 million children in severe poverty.
• UK severe child poverty rose from 11% to 13% (increase of
260,000 children)
• Severe child poverty in England was 1.5 million in 2007/8 (1.4
based on the three year rolling average)
• London – 19% of children in severe poverty
• North West – 14%
• Yorkshire and the Humber – 12%
• 07/08 figures a good estimate for 2009 – recession
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8480090.stm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JfsBRdX0k8
the third challenge: At the
local level
• HBAI data doesn’t tell us about child poverty at a local level.
But we know that there is a strong spatial element to child
poverty in the UK.
• The End Child Poverty Sector has used tax credit data to tell
us about local levels of child poverty (based on the 60% media
measure)
• But what about local levels of severe child poverty?
Methodology
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
In HBAI, calculate the number of children living in severe poverty in each region of
the UK.
Further split these numbers down by the household work status – all adults
working, no adults working, some adults working.
Break down the number of children in each local authority by the same types of
household work status using the Annual Population Survey (APS).
Calculate each of these numbers as a proportion of all children in each region who
are in each type of household.
Apply these proportions to the numbers of children in severe poverty by each
household work status in each region.
For both datasets, we use an average of three years of data to make the estimates
more robust. Some of the APS data in particular can change significantly from year
to year. For this reason we present the analysis for upper tiers, rather than district
local authorities.
Note that we use household work status, not family work status, as the APS
figures are only available for households. The family work status would be based
solely on the work status of the child’s parents. The household work status
considers any other adults living with the child including, for instance, older siblings
who are no longer classed as dependents.
Limitations of the approach
• In taking the approach we have, we recognise there are some limitations.
Broadly they fall into two categories. Firstly, the datasets do not match
perfectly. The definition of child poverty in HBAI includes all dependent
children under the age of 19. The definition of children in the APS only
includes children aged 16 or under. This only makes a difference inasmuch
as the distribution of under 19s by household work status may be
different to that of under 16s from one local authority to another.
• Also, the datasets cover slightly different time periods. In our estimates,
HBAI covers 2006/07 to 2008/09. APS covers 2007 to 2009. This is a
second order effect, though, which is mitigated by averaging over three
years in both cases.
• The second limitation is that we assume that, for a given work status, the
risks of severe child poverty are the same for all local authorities in a given
region. This would have the greatest impact in regions where housing
costs or wages varied substantially from one local authority to another.
• Given these limitations, it is important that the figures in this report are
referred to as estimates in any external communications.
Findings in 2011
•
•
•
•
•
The local authorities with the highest estimated level of severe child poverty are Manchester
(27%), Tower Hamlets (27%), Newham (25%), Leicester (24%) and Westminster (24%).
There are twenty nine local authorities in Great Britain where over one in five children live
in severe poverty.
Blaenau Gwent (20%), Torfaen (18%), Swansea (18%), Caerphilly (18%) and Newport (18%)
have the highest levels in Wales. In each, at least one in six children live in severe poverty.
In Scotland, Glasgow (18%) stands out as having a much higher rate than elsewhere. It
accounts for around one in five children in severe poverty in Scotland.
Fourteen of the authorities in the twenty five with the highest rates of severe poverty are in
London – high housing costs.
Source: New Policy Institute Severe Child Poverty: An update February 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12549523
GOVERNMENT CHILD POVERTY STRATEGY (published March 2011) COMMITTED TO A
FOCUS ON SEVERE CHILD POVERTY
Using statistics outside of academia
• Statistics are impactful
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrhEDlaYGDU&feature=relmfu
• They get attention
• Create a public debate
• Focus the minds of policy makers
• Increase the profile of the organisation
• But how up-to-date are they?
• How to tell a ‘new story’ whilst continuing to be robust?
• How to convey complex statistics to the media and general public?
• Time pressures
• Having the required expertise (both internal and external)
• What statistics tell us and what they don’t !